Palin defends GOProud participation at CPAC

posted at 10:12 am on February 7, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

No great surprise here, really; Palin has quietly backed the end of DADT and expressed support for conservative gays and lesbians in the past. Speaking here with David Brody from the Christian Broadcast Network and excerpted by Breitbart TV, Palin doesn’t endorse GOProud but does defend their attendance at CPAC, and argues that the value of events such as CPAC is to debate the issues and provide as much information as possible to attendees:

Well, I’ve never attended a CPAC conference ever so I was a little taken aback this go around when I couldn’t make it to this one either and then there was a speculation well I either agree or disagree with some of the groups or issues that CPAC is discussing. It really is a matter of time for me. But when it comes to and David, perhaps what it is that you’re suggesting in the question is should the GOP, should conservatives not reach out to others, not participate in events or forums that perhaps are rising within those forums are issues that maybe we don’t personally agree with? And I say no, it’s like you being on a panel shoot, with a bunch of the liberal folks whom you have been on and you provide good information and balance, and you allow for healthy debate, which is needed in order for people to gather information and make up their own minds about issues.

I look at participation in an event like CPAC or any other event, along, or kind of in that same vein as the more information that people have, the better.

I’m not sure we’ve polled on this question at all, so this seems like a good time to do so. Should conservatives welcome GOProud, or should they skip CPAC if GOProud participates?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8 10

So you’re not a ladies’ man, then?

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Mmm. Did I say “gender”?

long_cat on February 7, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Got up this morning and started drinking, once again I chose to be an alcoholic.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 2:17 PM

It’s your life.

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Who gets morally wronged by homosexuality the way adultery does?

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:16 PM

That’s the somewhat convoluted part.
It’s not so much the act of homosex that causes harm, it is the social promotion of a homosexuality-focused (or exclusively homosexual) lifestyle as an alternative to making a family.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Neanderthals (so-called) were in much better shape than we were and had bigger brains…so much for evolution….

…wow.

And yet they left nothing behind for us to marvel at except for cave paintings.

Whale brains are several orders of magnitude larger than human brains.

I’;m not sure what you’re saying here – it appears to be several things that are all equally silly:

1) That a larger brain size necessitates greater intelligence.

2) That neanderthals survived for hundreds of years at a time each (of course, the homo sapiens depicted in the Bible were not actually Neanterthals, natch), and that we’re “de-volving.”

3) That because of #2, there was no need for modern medicine or hygiene or other improvements in food storage, water cleanliness, etc.

Again, wow.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Homosexuality =/= adultery

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Forklifts =/= Cookie Jars

portlandon on February 7, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Mmm. Did I say “gender”?

long_cat on February 7, 2011 at 2:20 PM

I’m pretty sure calling someone a “ladies’ man” isn’t a reference to their gender…it’s a reference to their level of sexual activity.

In fact…that’s a more overt description of one’s sex life than merely stating that one is gay or straight.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Is it immoral to remain single and celibate?

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Who gets morally wronged by homosexuality the way adultery does?

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:16 PM

The question makes no sense. Morality is not based on the idea that someone is wronged but rather that something is wrong.

Rocks on February 7, 2011 at 2:23 PM

OMG I was the 500th Comment on a Palin thread!!! What did I win?

portlandon on February 7, 2011 at 2:23 PM

What about a child’s right to be raised by his biological parents? Children have the right to have a male and female parent.
This group wishes to destroy this right.

PrezHussein on February 7, 2011 at 2:24 PM

We no more choose our sexuality than we choose our height or the symmetry of our face.

Basilsbest on February 7, 2011 at 1:36 PM

The homosexual agenda has put all their eggs in the “but we’re born that way so you have to do what we say” basket.

The enormously politically incorrect thing is – there is no scientific evidence that is the case. In other words, the “born gay” meme, is just as much as a myth as “global warming”, and just as much a religion where facts no longer matter.

Rebar on February 7, 2011 at 2:24 PM

That’s the somewhat convoluted part.
It’s not so much the act of homosex that causes harm, it is the social promotion of a homosexuality-focused (or exclusively homosexual) lifestyle as an alternative to making a family.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:21 PM

But there’s gay couples adopting or having babies.

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Is it immoral to remain single and celibate?

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 2:23 PM

No. Which is the point — it isn’t the action, or even the lifestyle, but the promotion of it (done more by heterosexuals than homosexuals, actually) as a way of reaffirming personal choices and behaviors that is the immoral part.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:28 PM

OMG I was the 500th Comment on a Palin thread!!! What did I win?

portlandon on February 7, 2011 at 2:23 PM

A half-eaten hat from JetBoy.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 2:28 PM

No, it doesn’t. How exactly do you think that addresses the point made in the comment you responded to? The commenter obviously considers both to be morally wrong. They don’t need to be equal for the point made.

Rocks on February 7, 2011 at 2:20 PM

No more an acknowledgement on God’s part that we can never be good enough or perfect to work our way to Him.

I’m not hearing disagreement – so in your mind, compulsory scapegoating is OK.

I call this Gods perogative.

God’s perogative = murdering a child because of a father’s sin

Got it.

He commanded the complete annihilation of a whole group of people, he killed Uriah for touching the Ark, He made the Jews wanded around for years in the desert… I do fear God as the Creator and the one who makes the rules. Rules that have very good and perfect reasons for existing.

There’s a good and perfect rule for killing swaths of humanity because they aren’t “favored?” Or killing EVERYONE but 8 people because of, um, “random sins that may or may have not been committed.”

And if more people would fear God we wouldn’t have the mess we have now.

Plenty of people in this day and age – the whole of humanity – fear God in this way. And look at the mess we’re all in.

How much have you thought this through?

Yes that child went straight to Heaven to be with God where we are all trying to go and David suffered that loss and felt that anguish, that his actions denied him the companionship and fellowship of that son.

But that son couldn’t go “straight to Heaven,” because NO MAN comes to the father except through Jesus. Remember?

Square that circle.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:28 PM

The question makes no sense. Morality is not based on the idea that someone is wronged but rather that something is wrong.

Rocks on February 7, 2011 at 2:23 PM

In real life , I try to prioritize. No victim , no crime.

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Children have the right to have a male and female parent.

PrezHussein on February 7, 2011 at 2:24 PM

……………………………….what?

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Ignore that top blockquote. That was for another response.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:29 PM

The average lifespan of a human without modern medicine in those days was not 120 years.

Hate to break this to you.

If you’re going to debate with Christians the least you can do is read the Bible and know what you are debating…Noah lived for over 900 years.

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Children have the right to have a male and female parent.

PrezHussein on February 7, 2011 at 2:24 PM

That doesn’t sound right to me. Children of necessity have a male and a female parent, but no child has a “right” to his parents. It’s more like the parents have the right to the child unless they give that right up. If a couple gives up a baby for adoption, the child can’t come back later and force the birth parents to take her back, that would be untenable.

alwaysfiredup on February 7, 2011 at 2:29 PM

But there’s gay couples adopting or having babies.

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Not the same as a family, as much effort as has been taken to confuse the matter by those who adopt or re-marry.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:30 PM

No. Which is the point — it isn’t the action, or even the lifestyle, but the promotion of it (done more by heterosexuals than homosexuals, actually) as a way of reaffirming personal choices and behaviors that is the immoral part.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Are you saying that it is immoral to promote staying single and celibate?

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 2:30 PM

So God killed infants and innocent children in this mass murder because…others were sinning?

Again, I ask you, this is what you use to discern “morality?”

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Yes and it was their parent’s fault.

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 2:31 PM

If you’re going to debate with Christians the least you can do is read the Bible and know what you are debating…Noah lived for over 900 years.

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 2:29 PM

The Bible CLAIMED that.

That doesn’t make it true.

Tell me this. Have people’s lifespans been getting shorter with the advent of modern medicine or longer?

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:31 PM

In real life , I try to prioritize. No victim , no crime.

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:29 PM

That’s nice. Crime and morality are not the same things.

Rocks on February 7, 2011 at 2:32 PM

I assume we Social Conservatives don’t have those same “rights” you homosexuals claim your behavior entitles you to? No commenting in public for Social Conservatives who don’t tolerate fools easily, right, that’s your point?
Alpha Mike Foxtrot.
Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Aaaaaaaand the victim card gets played!!!

Really, I find it most amusing when people like you, who are on the far end of the spectrum of so cons, whine about supposedly being treated poorly.

The irony is just so delicious. You are arguing for the persecution and permanent second-class citizen status for an entire group / class of people, and actually have the unimaginable hubris to whine when someone actually stands up and disagrees with you.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding between someone trying to force another to shut up (something you’ve argued the “haters” do, so there’s ANOTHER layer of irony) and someone challenging you on your nonsense.

Vyce on February 7, 2011 at 2:32 PM

No. Which is the point — it isn’t the action, or even the lifestyle, but the promotion of it (done more by heterosexuals than homosexuals, actually) as a way of reaffirming personal choices and behaviors that is the immoral part.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:28 PM

You’re worried about a social epidemia where everyone ends up gay , and no one will have babies?
Wont happen.

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:33 PM

We would not even exist as a species if that were the case, on a biological level alone. (Lourdes wrote that, quoted here).

So evolution is right, then. WE HAVE ACHIEVED A BREAKTHROUGH HERE.

Few people actually think about “being heterosexual” versus other actions that run contrary to such — it’s a biological imperative on one level, often overlooked by activists to the contrary.(Lourdes wrote that, quoted here)

And yet, there is homosexuality in nature and has been homosexuality throughout human history.

And yet, the human race has survived and thrived throughout.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 1:49 PM

You’re so generalized you’re consistently wrong. Wrong as in “inaccurate” in your generalizations. As generalizations (“homosexuality exists in nature”) alone, they sound somewhat reliable, but scrutinized, examined realistically, they are generalizations that attempt to establish falsehoods.

Used to justify or attempt to justify your own needs to promote strange positions. Strange to the general population. They’re strange because they’re generalized AND UNSTUDIED or rather, belabored elaborations that lack substance, made to “sound good” but ultimately to mislead.

I’ll try to address just a few here but lack time adequate to address all that you made at 1:49.

(1.) “homosexuality exists in nature.”

No, it does not.

Homosexuality is a man made, H.sapien-cultural concept created to address or define certain set of behaviors and cultural affects and effects.

Animals engage in some “same gender” behaviors that some humans define as “homosexual” but in fact, in the scheme of animal behavior, it’s not sexuality, it’s not sex, it’s abnormal dominance display by males upon other males.

It’s driven by a need by some males to dominate other males. It’s not “homosexuality,” it’s male domination. It’s aggression by some males who are attempting to dominate other males who are viewed as subservient to the dominant males and the domination behaviors are for purposes of proving who is more dominant than who.

(2.) the “breakthrough” you think you’ve identified, as to me having written that “we would not even exist as a species on a biological level alone” if homosexual behavior was some “normal” condition among H.sapiens:

I do not disclaim biology nor do I refuse the biological sciences as credible academically. Never have, am likely to not ever do so.

It’s simple biology, that animal species reproduce sexually: two genders sexually interact and produce an offspring. It’s hardly a breakthrough and it’s certainly not discounted or disallowed in the Bible (Old or New Testament) to notice that basic fact about our animal existence (our own species and other animal species — Ole’ Noah took two of each, a male and a female, with him on the Ark among other statements in the Bible).

I’m also Catholic and Pope Benedict has made some excellent, academic statements about the position of the faith as he figures it based upon observation in relationship with the Bible. Among those is the acknowledgement of scientific discovery, which is hardly earth-shattering news.

Even in the Old Testament, man is planting and harvesting crops and raising and harvesting animal species and observing the happenings of the scientific world. It’s a prejudice by the atheists that Christians somehow don’t acknowledge science.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Are you saying that it is immoral to promote staying single and celibate?

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 2:30 PM

To a certain extent. It’s just appeal to an adolescent mindset nearly as much, so isn’t as much of a problem.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:33 PM

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding between someone trying to force another to shut up
Vyce on February 7, 2011 at 2:32 PM

and thats exactly what you fascists in the gay ‘special rights’ movement are doing..

right4life on February 7, 2011 at 2:33 PM

he_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Just about everyone involved.
Suicide, murder, lifespans, disease, pedophilia (more pre-pubescent boys molested than girls).
They also are extremely intolerant of those who won’t accept their behavior.
The book upon which our civilization has been based proclaims their behavior as wrong.
Most of all I PERSONALLY DON”T WANT THEM AROUND MY CHILDREN.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 2:33 PM

The Bible CLAIMED that.

That doesn’t make it true.
Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:31 PM

just like you claim to be intelligent…

right4life on February 7, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Yes and it was their parent’s fault.

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 2:31 PM

So if somebody murders my child, it’s my fault. Not the killer’s. Mine. Because I’m not perfect.

Curious that our laws aren’t structured that way, and that they actually place responsibility with the killer.

How IMMORAL of our system, no?

So let’s review. God is an indiscriminate killer who kills innocents and allows “offenders” to live as “punishment.”

This is what you call a “standard of morality.”

Are you beginning to see why some of your beliefs are questioned and greeted with incredulity in the 21st century?

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Tell me this. Have people’s lifespans been getting shorter with the advent of modern medicine or longer?

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Could be homosexuality that’s killing us off faster these days…

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:35 PM

I’m pretty sure calling someone a “ladies’ man” isn’t a reference to their gender…it’s a reference to their level of sexual activity.

In fact…that’s a more overt description of one’s sex life than merely stating that one is gay or straight.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 2:23 PM

This is why you’re in the “Green Room” with JazzShaw and I’m just a lowly anonymous poster.

long_cat on February 7, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Are you saying that it is immoral to promote staying single and celibate?

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 2:30 PM

If so, doesn’t that make the whole Catholic clergy immoral?

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:35 PM

I can’t support that and I don’t. It’s not a confused or clouded issue and I strongly disagree with Palin if she “supports” THAT (as I’ve described).

If she’s merely said she “supports” “attending” the event — GOProud “attending” CPAC11 — then fine, that’s supportable, but they’ve already exceeded mere atttendance. They’ve been involved in determining who is to be included in the event itself, and who would not be. And THAT is homosexual activism at work there.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 2:09 PM

To tell you the truth I don’t care all that much about CPAC and not many do. I don’t know that much about GOProud the little I know I’ve just leaned from you and a video lansing quaker showed me but I will research the group and look to see what their agenda is…

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Wont happen.

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Might want to check on the birth rate of native Europeans.

Hint – it’s so low that they’ll be extinct in a few more generations.

Rebar on February 7, 2011 at 2:36 PM

You’re worried about a social epidemia where everyone ends up gay , and no one will have babies?
Wont happen.

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:33 PM

No, I’m talking about each individual being tempted and/or coerced into locking themselves into a lifestyle that they self evidently don’t find fulfilling.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:36 PM

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding between someone trying to force another to shut up (something you’ve argued the “haters” do, so there’s ANOTHER layer of irony) and someone challenging you on your nonsense.

Vyce on February 7, 2011 at 2:32 PM

That Crazy Train you’re soliciting left the station a while ago. But I think that Gossip Train might be coming around again. It has “Wambulance” written on it’s front end.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Pretty much, but I take it he’s Protestant.

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 2:37 PM

The Bible CLAIMED that.

That doesn’t make it true.

Tell me this. Have people’s lifespans been getting shorter with the advent of modern medicine or longer?

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Nothing in the Bible is true for people simply because it says it. It’s true for them because they believe it. What difference does it make what recorded lifespans outside of the Bible have to say? If you believe in an all powerful God to begin with the claim of someone living to be 900 kind of becomes irrelevant.

Rocks on February 7, 2011 at 2:37 PM

This is why you’re in the “Green Room” with JazzShaw and I’m just a lowly anonymous poster.

long_cat on February 7, 2011 at 2:35 PM

So you’re basically unable to explain how you think that someone calling themselves gay makes no sense, but that you’ve never displayed the same befuddlement at someone being called a “ladies’ man”?

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Might want to check on the birth rate of native Europeans.

Hint – it’s so low that they’ll be extinct in a few more generations.

Rebar on February 7, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Well, there is that.
Actually, the same birthrate holds true for those of European decent here in the US.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Might want to check on the birth rate of native Europeans.

Hint – it’s so low that they’ll be extinct in a few more generations.

Rebar on February 7, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Worse in russia and japan, it’s not “teh gay menace”.

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Pretty much, but I take it he’s Protestant.

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Atheist.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:39 PM

What difference does it make what recorded lifespans outside of the Bible have to say?

Because that means that things – FACTS in the Bible – are horribly inaccurate.

And if that’s the foundational text for your entire life, then it’s an error-ridden, inaccurate text.

Shouldn’t that give some pause? What else in the Bible isn’t accurate, or is exaggerated, or is incorrect, or paints an inaccurate picture of reality?

That’s why it matters. You can’t pick and choose what you want to believe in the Bible and call yourself a believer.

Can you?

I’ll give CCWRM this – at least he’s an honest and true believer and buys it ALL.

That’s impressive to me.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Worse in russia and japan, it’s not “teh gay menace”.

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Another interesting point.
It isn’t the gays themselves, but rather the heterosexual culture that allies with them in their attempt to make certain related behaviors more acceptable.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:41 PM

No, I’m talking about each individual being tempted and/or coerced into locking themselves into a lifestyle that they self evidently don’t find fulfilling.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:36 PM

So once people are gay , they’re locked in?
They cant “switch back” if they want?

And again some gay couple gets kids or adopts.

And some couples , gay or not shouldn’t have kids.

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Atheist.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Now I’m officially confused. Are you saying that you’re an atheist or that I am? If you’re saying that I am, you would be right. If you’re saying that you are then that sounds really strange.

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Lt, they don’t think that such things are inaccurate. If descriptions and inconsistent with modern observations, then it just means that the rules have changed in the interim.
Frankly, about all you can argue is that the whole thing is terribly unconvincing to someone who doesn’t already assume it’s true.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Now I’m officially confused. Are you saying that you’re an atheist or that I am? If you’re saying that I am, you would be right. If you’re saying that you are then that sounds really strange.

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Me.
I thought you were guessing at what I was.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:46 PM

And I say no, it’s like you being on a panel shoot, with a bunch of the liberal folks…

She said shoot and liberal in the same sentence. I’m so frightened! /Nancy Pelosi

mizflame98 on February 7, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:41 PM

My tact has pretty much become to avoid arguments with religious right types. I simply ask them to explain their positions and they invariably out themselves as ridiculous theocrats with no respect for the intent of our Constitution and national principles.

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 2:46 PM

gender is much more complicated and emotional, and often hormonal as well. For example, there are some people born XXY (an extra chromosome) and there’s little rhyme or reason why some of them identify as male and others identify as female. Gender is more than just our body parts, it’s also social constructs of how women and men are supposed to behave (and sometimes, misbehave). Some people are just misfits. We are not all born the same.

alwaysfiredup on February 7, 2011 at 2:02 PM

This is the lazy person’s argument, there.

Most here or anywhere else are not referring to the small percentage of human beings who are born with abnormal chromosomes or abnormal genitalia.

And “gender” as being “defined by” one’s “choice” is also mentally abnormal. I realize it works well to advise someone suffering such issues that they’re “fine” and “O.K.” and to encourage them to “accept themselves” but it’s palliative for the abnormal.

In other words, that’s not the course of interaction that the average human being experiences nor should they. Few people ever suffer anxiety to a point of self mutilation over “gender issues” as do some who resort to self mutilation as a plastic procedure to “change” their bodies to “accommodate” their “choice” or resolve their anxieties — those are such a small percentage of human beings as to be the definition of what “abnormal” is.

I don’t argue that, say, for example, Cher’s daughter, Chastity Bono, really WANTED or desired to be male but was not. She “felt” she’d be “better” and “normal” if she could only be a male but she wasn’t. So she’s gone to great medical (and artificial) lengths to assume an altered female body by surgeries and ongoing hormonal treatment to “look” or “appear” male rather than the female she was born as and continues to be.

Her body is female. Her chromosomes are female. These will continue to be female for the duration of her life.

However, with prophylatics (counseling — “feel good about yourself” talk therapy, hormones and surgeries), she’s been able to assume an appearance that eases her anxieties about being female and live life with less anxieties as an altered female “looking” more male than female.

These issues are those of mental health, not biology, in most cases. In some cases, very few percentage among humanity, some individuals ARE born with abnormal chromosomes and confused genitalia. I understand that and suggest that medical science do it’s best in those cases to help those persons live happy and successful lives.

But those are NOT the general or run-of-the-mill experiences of most who engage in homosexual behaviors.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Is it immoral to remain single and celibate?

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 2:23 PM

No, Jesus said let those who want to be eunuchs be eunuchs… He didn’t condemn the reasons some wanted to be so and there are many reasons… I think homosexulaity might have been one of those reasons…

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Lt, they don’t think that such things are inaccurate. If descriptions and inconsistent with modern observations, then it just means that the rules have changed in the interim.
Frankly, about all you can argue is that the whole thing is terribly unconvincing to someone who doesn’t already assume it’s true.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:45 PM

My tact has pretty much become to avoid arguments with religious right types. I simply ask them to explain their positions and they invariably out themselves as ridiculous theocrats with no respect for the intent of our Constitution and national principles.

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 2:46 PM

To both:

(resigned, depressed sigh)

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:50 PM

What difference does it make what recorded lifespans outside of the Bible have to say?

Because that means that things – FACTS in the Bible – are horribly inaccurate.

And if that’s the foundational text for your entire life, then it’s an error-ridden, inaccurate text.

Shouldn’t that give some pause? What else in the Bible isn’t accurate, or is exaggerated, or is incorrect, or paints an inaccurate picture of reality?

That’s why it matters. You can’t pick and choose what you want to believe in the Bible and call yourself a believer.

Can you?

I’ll give CCWRM this – at least he’s an honest and true believer and buys it ALL.

That’s impressive to me.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Oh I get it, you think you pointed out an error is that it?

Good Lt: “Let’s see scientifically I can show it is not possible that anyone lived to be 900 yeas old so the Bible is in error.”

God: “I’m ALL powerful. Do you get the concept? If I wanted someone to live to 900 they live to be 900. Science has nothing to do with it. I’m GOD remember?”

Rocks on February 7, 2011 at 2:50 PM

It isn’t the gays themselves, but rather the heterosexual culture that allies with them in their attempt to make certain related behaviors more acceptable.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:41 PM

LOL.

We’re doomed , doooomed.

Or not.

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:51 PM

OMG I was the 500th Comment on a Palin thread!!! What did I win?

Here is your prize!

Emperor Norton on February 7, 2011 at 2:52 PM

No, Jesus said let those who want to be eunuchs be eunuchs… He didn’t condemn the reasons some wanted to be so and there are many reasons… I think homosexulaity might have been one of those reasons…

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 2:49 PM

What if a single person was attracted to members of their own gender but didn’t act on that attraction?

Do they then become sinful?

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:52 PM

God: “I’m ALL powerful. Do you get the concept? If I wanted someone to live to 900 they live to be 900. Science has nothing to do with it. I’m GOD remember?”

Rocks on February 7, 2011 at 2:50 PM

And then he created gays?

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:52 PM

So once people are gay , they’re locked in?
They cant “switch back” if they want?

And again some gay couple gets kids or adopts.

And some couples , gay or not shouldn’t have kids.

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:42 PM

When a person “comes out of the closet” and declares themselves gay, a lot of their pride and/or reputation depends on sticking to that. Once they start, going back leaves them cut off from the gay culture they joined, and doesn’t get repair the old bridges they burned in the first place. And that’s not even getting into the “I told you so” factor.

People adopt. Any particular reason that gay couples shouldn’t be under the same rules as pairs of people that aren’t having sex? Well, other than questions of moral fiber.

It’s not so much that there are people that shouldn’t have kids, its that there are people that need to straiten up enough to be good parents (whether they are having kids or not).

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Me.
I thought you were guessing at what I was.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Thanks for clarifying. That’s interesting in that I don’t find the opinions on morality to be common among atheists in my experience. Please don’t think that I’m doubting you, I was just surprised to hear you say so.

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Good Lt: “Let’s see scientifically I can show it is not possible that anyone lived to be 900 yeas old so the Bible is in error.”

God: “I’m ALL powerful. Do you get the concept? If I wanted someone to live to 900 they live to be 900. Science has nothing to do with it. I’m GOD remember?”

Rocks on February 7, 2011 at 2:50 PM

You can’t ignore facts just because they’re inconvenient for “the story.” As they say, the devil is in the details.

Who are you do discount what’s written in the text of either Testament?

All I’m doing is pointing out how unlikely it is that what is written is factually true given what we know today (which is many orders of magnitude greater than we as humans knew then).

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:56 PM

And then he created gays?

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:52 PM

That was on the 8th day.

And He saw that it was FABULOUSSSS. ;-)

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:56 PM

And then he created gays?

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:52 PM

As I detailed earlier, “born gay” is a myth.

Rebar on February 7, 2011 at 2:56 PM

There’s a good and perfect rule for killing swaths of humanity because they aren’t “favored?” Or killing EVERYONE but 8 people because of, um, “random sins that may or may have not been committed.”

And if more people would fear God we wouldn’t have the mess we have now.
Plenty of people in this day and age – the whole of humanity – fear God in this way. And look at the mess we’re all in.

How much have you thought this through? A lot because I have fought my own demons in my life but the numver of people who fear God is decreasing not increasing…
Yes that child went straight to Heaven to be with God where we are all trying to go and David suffered that loss and felt that anguish, that his actions denied him the companionship and fellowship of that son.
But that son couldn’t go “straight to Heaven,” because NO MAN comes to the father except through Jesus. Remember? In the Old Testament they did…Square that circle.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:28 PM

God is our Creator. He is not in any way looking for our approval on His actions. God is not trying to or interested in winning a popularity contest. I know the Bible. I know that it would be very prudent to try as much as one can to live for Him and that is what I try to do…as hard as it it! And, ignorance of God’s laws do not exempt one from them.

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 2:57 PM

(resigned, depressed sigh)

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:50 PM

If it’s any consolation, you can argue self-consistency. Only Catholics seem to think about it enough to avoid backing themselves into corners.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:59 PM

That Crazy Train you’re soliciting left the station a while ago. But I think that Gossip Train might be coming around again. It has “Wambulance” written on it’s front end.
Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Yay! I’m on the Gossip Train!

Vyce on February 7, 2011 at 2:59 PM

In the Old Testament they did…

Then what is the point of Jesus?

Jesus said “I am the Truth and the Way and the Light. No man comes to the Father except through me.” Right?

You can’t hedge on that. It’s pretty clear - NObody.

So if Jesus is right, then what appears in the OT in that passage can’t be true. Which is it?

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 3:00 PM

God: “I’m ALL powerful. Do you get the concept? If I wanted someone to live to 900 they live to be 900. Science has nothing to do with it. I’m GOD remember?”

Rocks on February 7, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Which is a little less than 20% of the age of the entire universe, right?

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 3:00 PM

The Bible CLAIMED that.

That doesn’t make it true.

Tell me this. Have people’s lifespans been getting shorter with the advent of modern medicine or longer?

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Jeez, you have what God calls a “hard heart”. I believe that the Bible is the unrefutable Word of God. You need to understand that is you want to debate me.

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 3:00 PM

I’m not arguing about whether or not Newt is wrong, I would NEVER vote for him.
It’s nonsense IMO to equate Newt attending CPAC with a GROUP specifically formed to represent a perverse and abominable behavior. Nonesense.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:29 PM

I agree with your point that there are differences. However, Newt can speak and potentially run for the nomination because culture and the party have recognized that otherwise able leaders sometimes commit adultery and start 2nd families.

dedalus on February 7, 2011 at 3:00 PM

If it’s any consolation, you can argue self-consistency. Only Catholics seem to think about it enough to avoid backing themselves into corners.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:59 PM

Funny. I’m a former Catholic :-) Go figure!

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 3:00 PM

Thanks for clarifying. That’s interesting in that I don’t find the opinions on morality to be common among atheists in my experience. Please don’t think that I’m doubting you, I was just surprised to hear you say so.

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 2:55 PM

I think most other atheists try to avoid using the term “moral” with regards to ethical arguments. Perhaps it sounds too religious.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 3:01 PM

When a person “comes out of the closet” and declares themselves gay, a lot of their pride and/or reputation depends on sticking to that. Once they start, going back leaves them cut off from the gay culture they joined, and doesn’t get repair the old bridges they burned in the first place. And that’s not even getting into the “I told you so” factor.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Only maybe if it would be really polarizing to be gay.
Otherwise it would be a non issue.

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Jeez, you have what God calls a “hard heart”. I believe that the Bible is the unrefutable Word of God. You need to understand that is you want to debate me.

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 3:00 PM

You’re not debating, if that’s what you believe.

You’re just reciting what a 2000+ year-old book says, no matter how much it contradicts itself, no matter how ridiculous it is, no matter what’s inaccurate in it and no matter what it says.

The debate, in your mind, doesn’t actually exist.

Must be nice! :-)

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 3:02 PM

This is the lazy person’s argument, there.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 2:49 PM

And yet I managed to edit out all my ad hominems.

alwaysfiredup on February 7, 2011 at 3:04 PM

Vyce on February 7, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Research what is happening to Christians in Africa, Asia, The Middle East etc… how they are being murdered and their chruches burned and then say that… Go read up on Palins church being burned with people in it who thank God managed to get out. Christians are very much under attack.

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 3:01 PM

It’s not that which threw me. It’s the idea that you think it is immoral to promote a lifestyle that is not centered or concerned with child rearing.

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Lourdes, excellent posts. That JetBoy and others deny the reality that GOProud is nothing more than a Gay Rights group does not change the FACT that they are.

I find it interesting though, that, according to commenters here on just the first two pages of this thread, if I oppose a “Gay Rights” group attending a “Conservative” conference, then I’m a “knuckle-dragger” who wants to “go Taliban on gay people” and “put them in camps.” Way to mischaracterize the arguments against GOProud at CPAC.

I am not “anti-gay.” I am anti “gay rights.” There is a vast difference between the two things. Your opposing viewpoint would carry a lot more weight if you would stop equating the two things and stop implying that I “hate” gays and want to put them in camps, because I oppose giving them special rights and redefining marriage.

I really liked how JetBoy cherry-picked those quotes from GOProud, and ignored all the rest which SPECIFICALLY mention “gay rights.” It is typical of his dishonesty and denial of reality. Why are homosexuals and their advocates so dishonest? The more I see of them mischaracterizing people who disagree with the gay agenda as “haters,” the LESS I pay attention to their point of view.

Back to the REAL TOPIC of the thread, Palin answered this about the only way she could have. I don’t hold it against her in any way.

JannyMae on February 7, 2011 at 3:07 PM

You can’t ignore facts just because they’re inconvenient for “the story.” As they say, the devil is in the details.

Who are you do discount what’s written in the text of either Testament?

All I’m doing is pointing out how unlikely it is that what is written is factually true given what we know today (which is many orders of magnitude greater than we as humans knew then).

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:56 PM

The fact you point out is irrelevant, not inconvenient. Trying to impose physical limits on a being which believers think created physical limits and stating that’s an error when he doesn’t conform is just ridiculous.

Rocks on February 7, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Only maybe if it would be really polarizing to be gay.
Otherwise it would be a non issue.

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 3:01 PM

There is an aspect to that.
What we have is the result of centuries of attempting to marginalize everyone who commits a homosexual act. It created a social taint, and those so tainted created a separate culture of their own that was devoted to exclusive homosexuality. Then that was conflated with Victorian romance and the “sexual revolution”, and here we are.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Even in the Old Testament, man is planting and harvesting crops and raising and harvesting animal species and observing the happenings of the scientific world. It’s a prejudice by the atheists that Christians somehow don’t acknowledge science.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 2:33 PM

There are a series of videos which use science to debunk evolution, one in this series is called Icons of Evolution and it is very good with the use of science to disprove Darwin.

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 3:08 PM

You’re not debating, if that’s what you believe.

You’re just reciting what a 2000+ year-old book says, no matter how much it contradicts itself, no matter how ridiculous it is, no matter what’s inaccurate in it and no matter what it says.

The debate, in your mind, doesn’t actually exist.

Must be nice! :-)

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Condescending: CHECK
Insulting: CHECK
Ridicule: CHECK
Name Calling: NONE

Well 3 out of 4 on the Religious Bigotry Scale is close enough.

You sir, are a Religious Bigot.

portlandon on February 7, 2011 at 3:09 PM

Which is a little less than 20% of the age of the entire universe, right?

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 3:00 PM

Who knows? Just because some 19th century minister came up with some numbers doesn’t mean he’s defined the age of the universe for all believers.

Rocks on February 7, 2011 at 3:09 PM

All I’m doing is pointing out how unlikely it is that what is written is factually true given what we know today (which is many orders of magnitude greater than we as humans knew then).

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 2:56 PM

My godless liberal education actually taught me that the Bible is for the most part a reasonably accurate historical record, on par with and more-or-less verified by other historical texts of the era.

alwaysfiredup on February 7, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Would letting SocialismProud be part of the conference because they were very socially conservative make us have a bigger tent and better debate?

No it fractures the base and shrinks the tent. The base is socially conservative and fiscally conservative. The tent does not get bigger by letting groups that are self identified by their opposition to the base be part of it.

PrezHussein on February 7, 2011 at 3:11 PM

It’s not that which threw me. It’s the idea that you think it is immoral to promote a lifestyle that is not centered or concerned with child rearing.

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Not quite.
I think it immoral to promote a lifestyle that excludes the normal approach to child rearing.
Once someone invents an artificial womb that is cheaper than being pregnant, all bets are off.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 3:11 PM

Palin and teh gheys a hit-a-palooza about nothing of relevence, this is almost The Seinfeld of Blogs

darwin-t on February 7, 2011 at 3:11 PM

My godless liberal education actually taught me that the Bible is for the most part a reasonably accurate historical record, on par with and more-or-less verified by other historical texts of the era.

alwaysfiredup on February 7, 2011 at 3:10 PM

The only thing in the bible comparable to historical records is Ezra, and not much happens in that book.
Everything else contradicts the historical and archeological record.

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Would letting SocialismProud be part of the conference because they were very socially conservative make us have a bigger tent and better debate?

No it fractures the base and shrinks the tent. The base is socially conservative and fiscally conservative. The tent does not get bigger by letting groups that are self identified by their opposition to the base be part of it.

PrezHussein on February 7, 2011 at 3:11 PM

GOProgresive?
GOProtestant?

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Yay! I’m on the Gossip Train!

Vyce on February 7, 2011 at 2:59 PM

Welome!Bar car to your left,disco to the right.

katy the mean old lady on February 7, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Who knows? Just because some 19th century minister came up with some numbers doesn’t mean he’s defined the age of the universe for all believers.

Rocks on February 7, 2011 at 3:09 PM

How about a rough order of magnitude. Is it in the thousands of years or is it more like the world is 14 billion years old?

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 3:16 PM

as ridiculous theocrats with no respect for the intent of our Constitution and national principles.

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 2:46 PM

says the fascist who wants to eliminate the richt of christians with gay marriage.

right4life on February 7, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Well 3 out of 4 on the Religious Bigotry Scale is close enough.

You sir, are a Religious Bigot.

portlandon on February 7, 2011 at 3:09 PM

He’s accurately describing things from his prospective. That’s bigotry? Seriously?

Count to 10 on February 7, 2011 at 3:16 PM

And then he created gays?

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 2:52 PM

Nobody created gays. Man and woman was created. After that it’s all on us.

Rocks on February 7, 2011 at 3:16 PM

My godless liberal education actually taught me that the Bible is for the most part a reasonably accurate historical record, on par with and more-or-less verified by other historical texts of the era.

alwaysfiredup on February 7, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Does it explain how humans used to live for 900 years?

And what happened to human health between then and now?

I mean, Jesus didn’t live to be 900, or even 100. He was in his 30s when he was killed (according to historical accounts). If he died in 33 AD, then that means that people stopped living for hundreds of years at a time between the time of Noah (or even before) and the birth of Christ.

So what happened to mankind’s longevity? I always found that one kind of…curious.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 3:17 PM

I’ve never really counted myself as a Palin fan, but I think I’m starting to become one. Reading her book really helped me to understand things from her perspective – and the more I learn about her, the more I like her. This just adds to it.

Black Yoshi on February 7, 2011 at 3:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8 10