1 this promises to be an epic thread.

2 this further highlights the need for  the American Conversatives at Ease  Fest,

ACEFest -

<i>What happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas;
What we do in Vegas will Change America
^{_{possibly for the better.}}</i>


ace needs to get himself an event organizer and start lining up sponsors.

3 Why needlessly piss off a large cross section of conservatives by making a SPONSOR a gay advocacy group? 

It makes no sense, unless the conference was arranged by a saboteur like agents of George Soros.

How is this different from having it sponsored by a group that advocates the complete opposite of conservatives on another issue?   Why is it any more ok to enrage conservatives on this gay issue than another?  Makes NO sense to needlessly cause this controversy.

And John Birch Society?  I definitely smell a saboteur.

4 Hey, if the Dems can keep KKK members and 99% of the African American voters in one camp, there is no reason that we can't keep conservative gays and the extremely socially conservatives as well.

5

Another front in the battle between the social cons and the fiscal cons?

Does GOProud have an opinion on gay marriage?

6 November 2010 People. FOCUS!

7 this promises to be an epic thread. Posted by: trailortrash I'm picturing a rusted out, abandoned gas station on Route 66, with coyotes wandering around and a sign banging and creaking in the wind.

8 Gabe -

fwiw, I'm relying on conservative homosexuals to let me know when the Gay Homosexual Peril I've read so much about  plans on coming after my school-age sons.   

The gay guy who goes to church with me agreed to give me a week's notice, once he gets the memo.

9 I also don't understand why the so-cons have so much trouble with "hate the sin, love the sinner". For goodness sakes, by their standards the Dems support murder at will (abortion), while the GOProud crowd disagrees over the nature of a more minor so-called sin. The Dems want to destroy the freedoms of 100% of Conservatives, and too many of us (conservatives) are willing to let them because we would rather bicker over small issues. As an aside, those that sat out the last election because they couldn't hold their noses and vote for McCain : F*ck you. Thanks for the Communist.

10 I agree that GOProud should be allowed to be included. I'm not sure how it is possible to be bigotted against someone who makes poor choices, however (especially someone who is unrepentant about their poor choices).

11

Teapot.

Tempest.

Batteries not included.

Next.

12 Gabe, the continued push against gay marriage is likely to continue to be a wedge issue that excites the Republican base and divides the Democratic core constituencies (urban/academic liberal vs African/Latin American church goers). It is unlikely that this relatively new gay group could change that. If they want to increase their influence they need to be realistic and say "Not Now for Gay Marriage" and take the heat for it from the Left. Also, offer an alternative to Don't Ask, Don't Tell and explain why society needs to change the tax code to reduce incentives for families.

13 Gay Conservatives should feel welcome in the GOP. They shouldn't have to sneak into the tent through the back door.

14 Don't care.

15

Posted by: In Exile at December 17, 2009 09:55 AM (R5wtw)

I agree. I also don't understand so-cons that want to force everyone to live according to their own morality. If you force someone to do something, then it is not of their own accord and their "good decisions" mean nothing because they didn't decide anything. This is what drives me crazy about Huckabee (that and the fact that he coddles criminals and is a socialist).

16 The sponsor isn't an ordinary group of conservatives who happen to be gay.

The organization in question is on the extreme radical left of the gay marriage issue. 

They want to overturn every provision that opposes gay marriage.  Including the national gay marriage act -- which means that when one state recognizes gay marriage, the whole nation has to.

What an insult to conservatives, to have the sponsor of their conference be a radical organization dedicated to forcing gay marriage upon the entire nation.

Who is the sponsor for next year, code pink?  Nambla?

17

>>12 Gabe, the continued push against gay marriage is likely to continue to be a wedge issue that excites the Republican base and divides the Democratic core constituencies (urban/academic liberal vs African/Latin American church goers).<<

Maybe they want to do what the gay movement should have done in the first place: try to rationally persuade people to their side - rather than throw a hissy fit and riot in the streets when they didn't get their way.

18 Matt barber definitely has a way with words...for a brain dead dipshit. And soon CPAC will be as useful as the GOP convention.

19

They want to overturn every provision that opposes gay marriage.

And the chances of that happening are about the same as me being the Super Bowl MVP in February.

P.S.:  I couldn't be more ambivalent aobut the gay marriage question if you shot me with a tranq dart and then tasered my unconcious body.

20

That's what I have been waiting for!

A GOP gay advocacy group assuages all my fears about too small a tent and makes me want to open my wallet wider than GOASTE'S... well you all get the idea.

Just for kicks Gabe, how much of this agenda can we NOT embrace before we are no-longer considered bigots? Just curious where that demarcation exactly is, because it seems to change every year.

21

Next we can go after all the conservatives who believe the War on Drugs is a joke. Wreckers, all of them!

These two groups are two of many sponsors of the event. Not co-sponsors.

"There's nothing conservative about burgling a turd!"

For crying out loud, people. Eye on the ball please?

22

"They shouldn't have to sneak into the tent through the back door."

I see what you did there.

23
I don't give a rat f*ck where anyone puts their junk, just don't expect me to pay for it when they get Hep C and teh AIDs from shooting up, prostituting, or going to the bath houses for sex.

24 I completely agree Gabe. I have long said that the term social con is a misnomer. In order to be a social conservative, first you have to be a conservative. By conservative I mean someone who supports a small government, individual freedom, and adherence to the Constitution as written.
 
That being said I do not believe we need legislation making any more "protected groups".

25 The enemy of my enemy is my friend.  As long as they don't try to get too friendly IYKWIMAITYD.

26 I'd much rather see some Conservative gays than Liberal ones.

Good for CPAC for standing up for GOProud. The John Birch thing though, not sure what to think on that. It's not 1960 anymore so I'd have to see what their views are now.

27 This organization is dedicated to overturning the national defense of marriage act.  Which means that according to the full faith and credit clause of the constitution, when one state recognizes gay marriage, quite likely every other state in the union will be forced to do so.

This is not an organization of conservatives united because they happen to be gay.

This is an organization on the extreme radical left of the gay marriage issue, dedicated to precipitously forcing gay marriage on the entire nation at once.

Together with having the John Birch Society as a sponsor, I conclude this conference could only have been arranged by an agent of someone like George Soros.  Needlessly causing division and upset among conservatives.

Who is the sponsor for next years conference, Code Pink?  Nambla?  Communist party?  Why is it ok to enrage a large cross section of conservatives  (a majority of ordinary Americans who believe in the preservation of marriage)? 

Why is it any more OK to have a sponsor be a group dedicated to forcing gay marriage on the whole nation, than it is to have a sponsor be a group dedicated to national health care, global warming hysteria, or socialist redistribution?   

28 Ghey?  Now THAT, I've heard of!!!

29
I say let them boycott if they're so worried about being in the same room as teh gays.

You are a fucking dunce, Gabriel, and I'll tell you why in one short sentence: Conservatives want nothing to do with identity politics.

You're wrong, CPAC is wrong, and every 'group' sponsoring CPAC that separates itself by some sort of 'identity' or 'community' is wrong. Sorry to be so harsh, I know you're a good bloke, but you never seem to learn what conservatism is all about. You're not alone. A lot self-proclaimed conservatives are also clueless.

As soon as you say "Oh look at me, I'm a conservative and I'm black/gay/asian/whatever..." you miss the entire point of the conservative agenda. Nobody cares. It's not an issue until a homosexual brings it up. GOProud? What a joke.

30 Freedom = the right to live your life the way you desire, without infringing on the rights of others.

Could someone explain to me why there is a huge group of so-cons out there that has forgotten that the only lives they should be concerned about are their own?  The only time they even have a *right* to propose socially conservative legislation is when there is a clear infringement upon the rights of others.

Abortion being one of those arguable cases (I happen to think it's murder).

Unless gays are going around press-ganging people into their ranks (and they aren't), there is no infringement upon the rights of others simply by being gay, and anyone claiming to be conservative but having a problem with GOPride as a CPAC sponsor isn't a conservative at all, but a pompous bigot - basically usurping the judge's role from God.

31 Another front in the battle between the social cons and the fiscal cons?

There is no battle between social cons and fiscal cons because for the most part they are the same people. There's a battle between real conservatives and libertarians though, and the latter vastly overestimate their numbers and influence.

32 The John Birch thing though, not sure what to think on that. It's not 1960 anymore so I'd have to see what their views are now.

If I remember correctly the John Birch thing in the 60's was anti-communism. I recall them coming in and showing a film about the communist backed uprising in Algeria when I was in the 7th grade.

When it got to the point of showing hacked up and dismembered bodies the principle went bananas and told them to shut the thing down and get out.

33 gm, A core Old Testament theme is the devastation wrought by God on the Israelites when they let their society stray from the narrow path, and God's continuing love and forgiveness when they returned. To the religious conservatives, flaunting Biblical teachings on Abortion and Homosexuality are tantamount to destroying our nukes and committing national suicide. The only ground I can see for reconciliation is in the character of the Government's interest; I believe both sides can come to an agreement that the Government should neither be actively pro or anti gay.

34
Also: the italics are officially banned from comments from now on.

I don't need them. I don't want them around. They can go back to where they came from. Yes, I'm an italic-bigot...and I don't care. Lazy good-for-nothing rotten...

35
the John Birch Society must be asked to leave. NOW.
Disgusting.

And if the R's want to win, real conservative values would be inclusive of gays.

36 Don't ask, don't tell. Fags are disgusting.

37

I couldn't give a rat's ass about gays.  But it seems when you bill yourselves as "GAY Conservatives" you obviously have an agenda you intend to pursue.

So what's the hitch?  Is Gay legislation part of the mission statement?

38 Who the fuck is Matt Barber? I'm not exactly clueless about these sorts of things and I'd never heard of him. Anyway, whoever he is, the bigoted mattress-stain can piss off and die.

Of course, I'm not a conservative, so the idea that some people want to rub their squishy bits up against non-traditional squishy bits of other people doesn't faze me. Other people's sexuality is cosmically boring (unless they are statuesque Latina nymphomaniacs with a yen for slightly grizzled British software engineers, in which case, hop aboard, ladies!)

39 Why izzit,

men who get a hard-on looking at naked men, are so obsessed with making sure everyone else hears about it?

I'm with 14

40

I also don't understand so-cons that want to force everyone to live according to their own morality.

This is the one point my gay friend keeps coming back to when we discuss his drooling hatred of the right that I have a hard time countering.  We are constantly talking about less government and more individual liberty, except when it comes to those damn gays.

We don't do ourselves any favors with this sort of glaring hypocrisy being front and center.

41 The only time they even have a *right* to propose socially conservative legislation is when there is a clear infringement upon the rights of others.

However much I agree with your basic point, that's just nonsense on stilts.  People have a right to propose whatever they want, just not to impose without persuasion. 

Convince enough people and you're golden.

42
They're 'traditional conservatives' except when it comes to special rights for people who share a sexual fetish.


Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

43 "Gayness" has nothing to do with political affiliation and everything to do with sexual orientation. Keep the sex shit to yourselves. Disgusting.

44 However much I agree with your basic point, that's just nonsense on stilts.  People have a right to propose whatever they want, just not to impose without persuasion. 

Convince enough people and you're golden.

This isn't true.  Persuasion and a voting majority aren't arbiters of morality.

Yes, you have the right to propose whatever you want.  However, I don't give a damn if you convince 80% of the country to take my guns away, I still have the right to own them.

Unless a gay person or group does something to directly infringe on the rights of others, a true conservative has no business proposing legislation in an attempt to control their behavior.

45

30: amen.

 

Jesus f*cking The Maid In The Linen Closet Christ! We have bigger issues to worry about than this.

46
Good luck winning with all that anti-gay bigotry.  I seems there are homosexuals who would like to serve the principles of conservative economic values. 

47

Together with having the John Birch Society as a sponsor, I conclude this conference could only have been arranged by an agent of someone like George Soros.  Needlessly causing division and upset among conservatives.

When I read that CPAC...CPAC(!!!!!!!!!!!!) is arranged by an agent of George Soros, forgive me if the mental calliope music kicks in.  I hate conspiracy theories and I hate stupid conspriacy theories even more.

Can we get off the taking offense horse here and as spongeworthy says--focus?

Having said that, posted is on to something with the identity group stuff. 

48
Nobody is excluding homosexuals, you dunces.

What's being excluded is a homosexual political group that has no real interest in conservatism. This is Log Cabin Republicans 2.0.

The word for today is dubious. Look it up. Don't fall for this shit.

49 29 after reading your post I must say you are right.

32 Ah thanks. TBH I really have no clue about them. Just knew somehow in the 60's they became radioactive.

So I'm back to thinking who cares if they boycott and my new thoughts on it include what 29 said about conservatives having nothing to do with identity politics. In that case, GOProud should not be a sponser.

50 Who cares?

I mean, seriously -- CPAC? Has CPAC ever done anything except air a good speech from Limbaugh?

51 It is abundantly clear that conservative homosexuals are the greatest threat to the Republic since the British burned Washington and the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Look at what they have done to the institution of marriage since they were able to get married. Divorce rates approach 50%, all because of their deviant sexual practices and their covert conversion of our youth. If we let them into the conservative establishment they will, in their insidious way, subvert the paradigm and destroy all that we hold dear. Imagine a conservative movement that respects private, consensual behavior! Awful!

52

Eh, you're all fooking stupid.  Just go on with state "civil unions" or cohabitation contracts or whatever the fook you want to call them, and put marriage back in the realm of the church/synagogue/mosque.

 

Or is that whole separation of church and state too much of a bitter pill to swallow?  The State should not in the relegating marriage business, that's God's work.

53 "Gayness" has nothing to do with political affiliation and everything to do with sexual orientation.

Tell that to the gays who hounded the Manhunt.com guy after he wrote a check to John McCain.

54

Posted by: wiserbud at December 17, 2009 10:12 AM (IHbof)

I'm not sure what "hypocrisy" exists. 

Look...one of the core tenets of conservatism (if not THE core tenet) is the belief that if change is not necessary, it is necessary not to change.  I'd suggest those "damn gays" are proposing vast redefinitions of society without bothering to consider the ramifications.  Gay marriage is an example.  When, in arguing with your friend, you cede the ground that his idea of "less government and more individual liberty" includes redefining a centuries-old (and workable) institution then you've lost the argument. 

The proper argument is not the "if" gay marriage should be tolerated...but "why."  Saying "just because" isn't persuasive, nor is it conservative.

55
One more thing, I'd want GOProud at CPAC as much as I'd want Michael Steele at CPAC.

Neither entity is conservative, and both are detrimental for the advancement of the conservative agenda. So it's not being gay; I don't give a shit about that. It's about being an antithetical to conservatism.

56

Godwin Excitable Andi's Law of Nazi Homosexual Analogies says that the probability of someone invoking Sully's name in a thread putatively about Homosexuality and Politics, in a manner that does not directly address his "philosophical" beliefs (but rather discusses something like his recent bout of ball-gargling, etc.) will be a certainty, within 100 comments.

Who is going to step up?

57 If you want to be a group of conservatives who happen to be gay, why don't they start with opposition to income tax, a re-invigoration of federalism, and increased personal privacy rights. That would, without resorting to identity politics, deal with most of the gay issues in a conservative context. Want tax equity, we are all equal at zero. Want gay marriage in San Francisco, fine as long as it is meaningless in Utah. Want to enjoy your fetish in private, fine keep it there. If the gay groups stopped asking for special rights, I bet the anti-gay groups would be ignored.

58 While the social agenda is not mainstream conservative, the rest of the agenda is. What is the saying...politics makes strange bedfellows? GOProud agenda: Legislative Priorities GOProud's Conservative Agenda The so-called "gay agenda" is defined by the left through a narrow prism of legislative goals. While hate crimes and employment protections may be worthy goals, there are many other important priorities that receive little attention from the gay community. GOProud's agenda emphasizes conservative and libertarian principles that will improve the daily lives of all Americans, but especially gay and lesbian Americans. 1 - TAX REFORM - Death tax repeal; domestic partner tax equity, and other changes to the tax code that will provide equity for gays and lesbians; cut in the capital gains and corporate tax rates to jump start our economy and create jobs; a fairer, flatter and substantially simpler tax code. 2 - HEALTHCARE REFORM - Free market healthcare reform. Legislation that will allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines - expanding access to domestic partner benefits; emphasizing individual ownership of healthcare insurance - such a shift would prevent discriminatory practices by an employer or the government. 3 - SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM - Bringing basic fairness to the Social Security system through the creation of inheritable personal savings accounts. 4 - DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL REPEAL - Repeal of the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. 5 - HOLDING THE LINE ON SPENDING - Standing up for all tax payers against wasteful and unneccessary spending to protect future generations from the mounting federal debt. 6 - FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS - Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians. 7 - DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION - Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment. 8 - ENCOURAGING COMMUNITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP - Package of free market reforms to encourage and support small businesses and entrepreneurship in the gay community. 9 - REVITALIZING OUR COMMUNITIES - A package of urban related reforms; expanding historic tax preservation credits; support for school choice. 10 - DEFENDING OUR COMMUNITY - Protecting 2nd amendment rights.

59 I think we need more stuff like this to argue about. I mean, it's not as though we're on the brink of economic collapse, WWIII, and complete victory of the Leviathan state or anything.

60 What if it were a prochoice PAC that was named a sponsor? I know that there are a number of prochoice cons but you don't force it on other cons in this manner.

61

 'one man violently cramming his penis into another manÂ’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love.Â’

There goes the title to my autobiography. Thanks a lot.

62 This isn't true.  Persuasion and a voting majority aren't arbiters of morality.

Rights and morality in a pluralistic society mesh poorly if at all.  I believe in representative democracy, limited by a constitution agreed to by the people through their representatives.  If you want to have Sunday Blue Laws and can convince enough people, have at it.  If you want to restrict who can get married, go for it.  Let a thousand flowers bloom, as long as I can move somewhere else.

I am pleased that you grant us the right to propose.  I kind of felt that you were getting carried away with your point.

63 Republicans will have a lot going for them in coming elections of course.

Foremost among them will be the economy, reckless spending, etc.

But the social issues cannot be ignored either.  Speaking from a strategy point of view only, there are two issues that can be presented to great advantage:

1)  Partial-birth abortion.  This angle on the "Life" question is a solid winner.

2)  And so is Gay Marriage.  Proposals in many States have gone down to defeat with clear majorities against.

Again, from a strategy point of view only, the mitigation of the strength of the above two issues would probably lose more votes than gain them.

64
Thanks 58.  Anyone care to click on the link Ace provides above to GOProud?

eeek scary homosexuals with conservative principles.  We must stop them!


Fuck the John Birch Society.  Those assholes will help the Republican party lose.

65 If GOProud is a fake, out them at the meeting. Do it all in the open. Insist that all sponsors provide complete information about themselves. Those that won't are out. Having a food fight about a Venn diagram is what the Democrats do.

66

Though I am not teh gay, I would much rather hang with them than this Barber asshole.  He's prolly chokin the chicken to the best one man blog on the interwebs right now.

67 The difference is that while various conservative groups including GOProud may differ on priorities, or even on some values, the John Birch Society has been essentially defined by and linked to conspiracy theory nonsense.  Back in the day they said Ike was a commie.  Now they're pushing the North American Union garbage.

That's the difference -- it's not just that they might disagree, it's that they're bonkers.

68 >>P.S.:  I couldn't be more ambivalent aobut the gay marriage question if you shot me with a tranq dart and then tasered my unconcious body.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at December 17, 2009 10:02 AM (B+qrE) <<

That's how I felt until they started rioting in the streets. Now I am vehemently opposed.

69
Has it occurred to any of you that GOProud was formed just for this purpose?

You know, just to make the conservatives look bad and to promote in-fighting within the GOP.

Well done, GOProud. Well done. Your bosses at the DNC are proud of you.

70 Crypto-leftist? Really??

It's surprising to see that so few of you read Gaypatriot.org.

Look it up sometime. That's the blog of the guys that helped set up GOProud.

71

We need more specialized niche groups, not less..

72

includes redefining a centuries-old (and workable) institution ...

Yeah, they said the same thing about slavery.  Heeeey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, right?

Please explain, specifically, how two men getting married threatens you or our society as a whole.   And do it in a "individual-liberty-loving conservative" sort of way, if at all possible.

Thanks in advance.

73

Look...one of the core tenets of conservatism (if not THE core tenet) is the belief that if change is not necessary, it is necessary not to change.

Fooking stoopid me, I'd thought it had something to do with a limited government not overstepping the bounds of its authority....

 I'd suggest those "damn gays" are proposing vast redefinitions of society without bothering to consider the ramifications.

That's as may be lad, but the rest of us have a say also, eh?

 Gay marriage is an example.  When, in arguing with your friend, you cede the ground that his idea of "less government and more individual liberty" includes redefining a centuries-old (and workable) institution then you've lost the argument.

So the centuries old arguemnt that the king is ordained by god?  the Mandate of Heaven?  These were centuries old and workable ideas of governance as well.  We dare redefine that the law of man is based on the will of the people (eg Man), and we are in doubt?  Wrong.

74 I would take a gay Glenn Beck over a straight and straight-laced Huckabee any day of the week and twice on Sunday.  Now toss in a tranny Sarah Palin and I would have to think about it for a while...

75 Covering this story for anti-gay "Americans for Truth About Homosexuality", Peter LaBarbera writes: "there is nothing 'conservative' about — as Barber inimitably puts it — 'one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love.’'"

It would be fascinating to see what sorts of images Matt Barber has stored on his computer--for "research purposes only," of course.

The only people who express themselves this way are the ones with an insatiable curiosity about the topic.

76
If this group really believes in all the other stuff they say they do, what's the big deal? I wasn't aware that we had such an overwhelming majority in the country we could start to toss voters overboard.

Just curious but when did social-cons get to blackball certain others who profess to be conservatives? Cause if we all get to knock out certain groups or individuals, I got a list.

77 It's a shame GOProud and Liberty Council can't get married in this gay hating facists white colonialist nation.

78
Okay, I'll bet my right nut that the founder and principles of GOProud voted for Obama in 2008. ...just like all the Log Cabin Republicans did.

79

Posted by: wiserbud at December 17, 2009 10:27 AM (IHbof)

Equating marriage with slavery?  I was going to make fun of the analogy, but it's oddly intriguing. 

As for the burden of proof...it's not on the conservatives but rather those who want to destroy marriage.  What social advantage is gained by demolishing the institution? 

80 If you want to be a group of conservatives who happen to be gay, why don't they start with opposition to income tax, a re-invigoration of federalism, and increased personal privacy rights. That would, without resorting to identity politics, deal with most of the gay issues in a conservative context. Want tax equity, we are all equal at zero.

Posted by: Jean at December 17, 2009 10:22 AM (07n82)

Are you retarded? This is exactly what GOProud is...

81 Posted by: wiserbud at December 17, 2009 10:27 AM (IHbof)

This maybe the wrong thread for this but I love wiserbud (like a Viking, so it's cool and totally hetro).

82

I finally realized in 2008 that gay marriage has zero to do with equality and everything to do with forced social acceptance of a "lifestyle".

No thanks GOProud.

Don't want your help, don't need your help, any more than I would welcome a GOP-NAMBLA.

83

Cause if we all get to knock out certain groups or individuals, I got a list.

Amen.

(Fred Effing Barnes--over the side, 9 a.m., Day One of the Great Purge) 

84

It seems odd to me that we have a great many conservatives who believe gay people should set about selling their stance on marriage to the rest of us rather than mau-mau-ing those who oppose their agenda.

But if a group of gay people who attempt just this want to number themselves among sposors of a meeting, why, some of the same folks think it's just outrageous!

"There's nothing conservative about prison rape!"

85 You idiots sound like General Turgidson babbling about "purity of essence." Anyone who immediately disqualifies someone as a conservative because of his sexual proclivities is stupid beyond measure. Gay marriage is an issue. It is not the holy grail of conservative political thought, which is thankfully a bit more complex than "straight good, fag bad."

Idiots...just fucking idiots.

86

I do not agree with "gay marriage" ... civil unions is fine, but I believe it should be a state issue.  Having said that, I am sick and tired of hearing about "Muslin-Americans" being allowed into our military, and sometimes with bad outcomes (see Ft. Hood) and the fragging early on in the Iraq war), and NOT allowing dedicated andbrave 'gays' into the military to serve and fight for their/our country, under the same rules and restrictions hetero military must abide by, INCLUDING those regarding fraternizing . I don't care who a person 'sleeps' with, so long as that person is a consenting adult in every sense of the term. The defense of this nation and its Constitution domestically and around the world concerns me primarily.

If you follow the link Ace has for this piece you'll see their agenda (this via HotAir):

1 – TAX REFORM – Death tax repeal; domestic partner tax equity, and other changes to the tax code that will provide equity for gays and lesbians; cut in the capital gains and corporate tax rates to jump start our economy and create jobs; a fairer, flatter and substantially simpler tax code.

2 – HEALTHCARE REFORM – Free market healthcare reform. Legislation that will allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines – expanding access to domestic partner benefits; emphasizing individual ownership of healthcare insurance – such a shift would prevent discriminatory practices by an employer or the government.

3 – SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM – Bringing basic fairness to the Social Security system through the creation of inheritable personal savings accounts.

*4 – DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL REPEAL – Repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

5 – HOLDING THE LINE ON SPENDING – Standing up for all tax payers against wasteful and unneccessary spending to protect future generations from the mounting federal debt.

6 – FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS – Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians.

*7 – DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.

8 – ENCOURAGING COMMUNITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP – Package of free market reforms to encourage and support small businesses and entrepreneurship in the gay community.

9 – REVITALIZING OUR COMMUNITIES – A package of urban related reforms; expanding historic tax preservation credits; support for school choice.

10 – DEFENDING OUR COMMUNITY – Protecting 2nd amendment rights.

87

Posted by: flashoverride at December 17, 2009 10:27 AM (EwE2i)

So the centuries old arguemnt that the king is ordained by god?  the Mandate of Heaven?  These were centuries old and workable ideas of governance as well.  We dare redefine that the law of man is based on the will of the people (eg Man), and we are in doubt?  Wrong.

I think the point flew over your head.

There were (and are) valid arguments against those things which have been presented and won the day (at least in our case).  The pro-gay-marriage forces are relying on intellectual bullying and intimidation to get their way, not serious good-faith arguments.  My point is that if you want gay marriage, make the case that doesn't rely on condescending to the masses.  Again, saying "just because" or trying to equate the demolition of marriage to limited government is a non starter and unpersuasive.

 

88

For anyone who thinks that GOProud are some identity poseurs, please go to their website and look for yourselves.  They are coming from the same place as Shelby Steele on black issues - specifically that conservative, free-market principals are better for gays, blacks, Jews and Laplanders than some leftist spoils system.

I'm shocked to hear anyone here criticize that position.

Looking forward to seeing them next year's CPAC.

 

89

It is not the holy grail of conservative political thought, which is thankfully a bit more complex than "straight good, fag bad."

Thread winner.

90 Nice one, Gabe. What's up for tomorrow? Robert E. Lee was a cross-dressing Scandi? Actually, this Airing of Grievances is just the right thing. Happy Festivus!

91 "We are constantly talking about less government and more individual liberty, except when it comes to those damn gays."

Last I heard, no one is proposing barring gays from doing anything limited to themselves.  No one's weeping about the loss of laws prohibiting sodomy.  If they want to shack up and bugger all night, they've got every liberty in the world to do so.

But marriage isn't just about what the gay couple want to do.  It's also about what the rest of society does.  There's a reason that most weddings see every person who knows the couple invited, and where all the guests are asked to -witness- the marriage.  Marriage is about all of society recognizing the couple and effectively treating them as a single unit.

Not one thing about being denied marriage restricts the liberty of gays.  It means they don't have the -right- to approval of society at large - an approval underwritten by government.  When you demand that gays get marriage rights, you're asking the government to step in and enforce their union.  Gay marriage means MORE government, not less.  It amazes me how those who support gay marriage can't grasp this very simple point.

Qwinn

92
So for those of you who are scared of those evil scary homosexuals (who must be fake conservatives paid by the DNC) Do you approve of The John Birch Society?

93 Let me know when Lesbo's against Odumbo are included.

94 13 Gay Conservatives should feel welcome in the GOP.

They shouldn't have to sneak into the tent through the back door.

Posted by: eman at December 17, 2009 09:57 AM (yf/JJ)

I think that a persons sexual preference is none of my damn business. To self-identify by your preference immediately changes the dynamic of how a person might approach you. Why is this necessary? This is the behavior I am usually ranting against when I talk about "gays". Every facet of some of their lives is viewed through the prism of "As a gay man, I feel that x equals y" or whatever. Why is this a necessity? Unless it is being used as an intimidation of a persons' sensibilities. My best friend (deceased) was gay, and it infuriated him to see a gay man constantly telling the world how gay they were.  He felt it brought unnecessary ridicule on them unduly, and turned people who might otherwise be sympathetic to their plight against them, and I agree.

95

>>  There's also nothing conservative about a man violently cramming his dick into a woman's coochie and calling it love.

 

What if I send flowers later?  No?

96

How about this:  FEDERAL SPENDING IS A STATE ISSUE!!!!!!!!

Who you are busy dicking is *NOT* a State issue!!!!

YOUR MARRIAGE IS A CONTRACT BETWEEN YOU, YOUR PARTNER, AND GOD (ALLAH)!

 

What's so hard? Jesus fing Christ on a bicycle.  OTHER PEOPLE MAY HAVE DIFFERENT BELIEFS THAN YOU!  NEWS AT 11!!!! THE GODLESS FAGS!!!

97 The Governments involvement in marriage is due to the Government's interest in a healthy (genetic diversity) and sustainable (replacement ratio) society. The intrusion of Government into that aspect of our private lives is not a benefit, if the gay community feels there is an overwhelming Government Interest in managing their personal relationships then they should define it. It has nothing to do with privacy or equality. The only material issue is the Government's extension of tax advantages to encourage sustainable families - which is primarily an economic interest. If the gays want a similar advantageous provision in the tax law then they are welcome to try and get it, good luck.

98 What social advantage is gained by demolishing the institution?

Married people are a privileged class and treated differently from singles under the law.  Do not fall for the "equality" line--there will still be unequal treatment of individuals under the law if there is gay marriage.

Oh, and when you're married you get to sit at the big table with the adults at Christmas

99 Good on CPAC to see the big picture rather than succumb to blackmail from a bunch of bigoted loons. Not having that bunch of judgemental loons running around sneering at everyone will be an improvement.

100 Prediction:
Most states, including Texas will have some form of same sex marriage within the next 15 years. It may not be called marriage but it will be all the same. And that is fine.

As a former social con, I can tell you my assumption was that gays and lesbians cannot act morally by virtue of their orientation. But having family and friends who are gay, I realized my assumption was woefully wrong. Some of the best examples of tolerance and acceptance that I know have been good Christian people who chose to love first and ask questions later.

If I am a Christian Social Conservative (Christianist?), shouldn't I advocate for policies that encourage people to act morally?

Ultimately, the chief issues motivating the right should be fiscal in nature. Social issues will be moot if we lose the inalienable rights of life, liberty and happiness.

101

I'm with Peter LaBarbera* on this one. I don't want to say something that would be considered bigoted, but it sounds like he's trying to keep the freaks out of the GOP -- y'know, the biological mutants with "lower" intestines, as opposed to us normal people who have large intestines and small intestines.

(Sorry, Gabriel.)

 

* -- idiot.

102

When you demand that gays get marriage rights, you're asking the government to step in and enforce their union.  Gay marriage means MORE government, not less.  It amazes me how those who support gay marriage can't grasp this very simple point.

Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 10:34 AM (SxA2Q)

 

That's an interesting way to look at it, one I hadn't considered fully.  Makes sense in that if you are for limited government, agitating for laws or government actions designed to specifically recognize gay marriage seems at odds with that belief.

 

103 Let's concentrate on driving Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Rahm, Murtha, Barney, and their whole lying criminal gang of shitweasels out of power and into Gitmo.

THEN we can argue about whose dick goes where.

104

Question, i don't follow CPAC as closely as some here, but is this news? aren't their always groups at each others throats at CPAC?

When has conservatism ever been a monolith. Even when Reagan won the primaries in 1980 there was massive infighting between certain groups, specifically Jesse Helm's group and everyone else.

I'm the type of conservative who wants government out of my wallet, my doctors office, my bedroom and the local turkish bathhouse.

105

Good on CPAC for allowing the conservative gays in... though I'd just assume they'd show the Birchers the door (Birchers still exist?)

To me, this- much more than tolerating the Snowe / Collins types- represent the "big tent" philosophy.  An otherwise conservative group with whom mainstream conservatives may disagree on gay marriage, but agree on 90% of everything else?  Bring 'em in.  The Frum / Dreher / Meggie McCain pseudo-Republican non-conervatives?  Screw 'em.  You don't make a bigger tent by cutting down the walls of the one you got.

Disagreement on abortion would be a tougher call- depending on your viewpoint, the issue is one of life and death.  Not an easily surmountable hurdle.  Whether to allow a couple of gay dudes to vow spending their life together fighting over interior design choices?  Not quite the same stakes.

Now the Birchers... they might also agree with mainstream conservatives on 90%, but at some point there's got to be a limit to batshit crazy that's tolerated.  Hopefully CPAC made it very freaking clear that they best mimic sane people if they're to participate.

106 Seriously. This is absolutley nuts! I am a hardcore believer (in Christ), and I absolutley think gay conservatives should be embraced. Maybe it's becuase I'm black. I know what it feels like to be ostracized by your so-called "community". We need more conservative gays, just like we need more conservative blacks...identity politics and the race card need to be rendered obsolete.

107
There is a lesbian couple who live in my neighborhood.  They have adopted 3 special needs children and have devoted their lives to their children. (one of the children has severe cerebral palsy)   I'm certain Jesus would not aprrove.
right?

I am a Christian and the religious right really pisses me off.

108 those who want to destroy marriage

I don't get this argument that gay marriage will destroy marriage as an institution.

Shit, I have been legally married for seventeen years,  happily married for ten, there is no way two men getting married will threaten my marriage, or the marriages of my children.

I just don't buy this gay marriage = destruction of marriage as an institution.

Truth is, I would rather the  John Birchers not be included. I know we are trying to be inclusive, but aren't they the mother of all conspiracy theorist organizations? I attended a meeting once and I left thinking the FBI was monitoring the place, it was creepy as fuck.

109 "*7 – DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment."

Um.

Rogue judges are overwriting the constitution with their personal preferences all over the damn place.  -That- is an attack on the Constitution that needs defending.  If the left were instead getting their changes to the Constitution via the legal, constitutional amendment process, no one on the right would be worrying about "defending our constitution".

But this group seems to not care about the constitution being rewritten by judges, no, they care about opposing what would be a perfectly legal, constitutional amendment.

This group's priorities aren't conservative.

Qwinn

110 This has nothing to do with excluding gays.

Goproud is dedicated to forcing gay marriage on the entire nation at once.  They want to overturn the defense of marriage act, which would force all states to recognize gay marriage as soon as one does.

In other words they are on the extreme radical left on the gay marriage issue.  Much further left than Obama. 

Yeah they list a bunch of conservative values on their charter, but how much time and energy do you think this group spends on them?  They list them only as a bogus attempt to get conservative credentials, when they really are dedicated to overturning conservative (and mainstream american) opposition to gay marriage and special rights for gays.

It's like Code Pink forming a conservative splinter group, supposedly dedicated to conservative values but eager to foist national health care on the nation.  Maybe they will be the sponsor next year.

This is a group of Obama voters, a saboteur org set up by Democrat schemers to cause division and diversion at a key conservative conference.  It's working FABULOUSLY!!

111  There's also nothing conservative about a man violently cramming his dick into a woman's coochie and calling it love.

 

What if I send flowers later?  No?

 

No you have to buy her dinner before hand.

112 I want the votes of the furries too.

113 As soon as you say "Oh look at me, I'm a conservative and I'm black/gay/asian/whatever..." you miss the entire point of the conservative agenda. Nobody cares. It's not an issue until a homosexual brings it up. GOProud? What a joke.

Posted by: Posted by at December 17, 2009 10:08 AM (z37MR)

Agreed.  We are just not into identity politics.  And any group that is explicitly formed to fight DoMA is not what CPAC needs.  As far as the Birchers, they were excised by Buckley and I guess we have to do it again.  With communism gone, I'm guessing that all they have left is the anti-Semitism.

This is the one point my gay friend keeps coming back to when we discuss his drooling hatred of the right that I have a hard time countering.  We are constantly talking about less government and more individual liberty, except when it comes to those damn gays.

Here's the thing: Marriage licenses are a subsidy.  The state recognizes marriage in part because of tradition but that tradition arises because of issues of inheritance and child-rearing.  (Most of our wedding traditions are not Christian or Jewish, they're Roman.)  A same-sex couple cannot produce children on their own nor would that union have ever produced children (well, maybe some lawyers, the science isn't settled on that).

There's no ban on gay marriage.  You can have a ceremony, invite friends and family, have anyone preside who's willing, have it at any place that is willing, wear a dress, wear a tux, wear a dress made of a tux, have a flower girl, have a flower shemale, get it catered, have a reception, have an orgy, whatever you want.  You just don't get a license from the state.

And...and this is important...you cannot force a church to perform your ceremony or have your ceremony on its premises.  Let's face it, most of those pushing for same-sex marriage have as their next step to force churches to do it. They are very explicit. It's already been done in Canada.

I guess your friend has to wrestle with the following: Would you rather ally yourself with a party who doesn't like what you do but whose manifestation of that dislike extends to not granting licenses.  (Honestly, why doesn't that make gays happy?  Do you really want your lover to start hectoring you to "settle down"?  Seriously, you're welcome.)  Or would you rather ally yourself with a party who will say they love you and your campaign money but eventually decide that your kind tends to have an expensive disease that is just not worth treating?

114 Big tent.

115

110
"Goproud is dedicated to forcing gay marriage on the entire nation at once."

Really?  got proof?

116 You idiots sound like General Turgidson babbling about "purity of essence."

That was General Ripper, if you want to be pedantic about it.

117 One more thing: Social liberalism always comes with a pricetag.  Always.

Look at the Maine twins.

118 I also feel that 'gay marriage' is merely a ploy to seek affirmation of the gay lifestyle, rather than a real need to have a spouse. You canntot force people to accept what they feel in their hearts is a deviant lifestyle.If you do try to force it, you create only  anger, rather than acceptance. How about leave out the gay stuff, and join a simple conservative group. Nah, cant do that. That wouldnt be an issue to beat people over the head with.

119 By the way Gabriel, I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who calls it "coochie". In Oklahoma, I've heard "coo-noot", "cooter", and "puss-puss". I've also heard many not-so-delicate words for it as well. I personally like to call it my valley-of-bliss

120 Since gays are predominantly urban, and unfortunately preyed upon by the criminal element at a higher rate then others, are these guys intending to push Heller as a gay issue - Gays with Guns. Even I could support that.

121 Married people are a privileged class and treated differently from singles under the law.  Do not fall for the "equality" line--there will still be unequal treatment of individuals under the law if there is gay marriage.

Oh, and when you're married you get to sit at the big table with the adults at Christmas

Posted by: HeatherRadish at December 17, 2009 10:37 AM (NtiET)

 

Given my family I think I'd rather sit with the kids!

I kid, I kid.

On the first point, it's interesting.  I guess my thought is that if a gay man wants the "privileges" of marriage there isn't a law stopping him that isn't stopping me as a straight man.  In other words, we are both equal under the law, aren't we?  To say no would seem to invite the SCOTUS Strict Scrutiny standard, something that has never been applied ever to a gay issue.

122

Yes, I know the Log Cabin Republicans call themselves that because they believe the original party of Lincoln would have accepted them with open arms, or something.

But seriously?  "Log Cabin"?  Sounds like a pretty colorful euphemism for "rectum."

123 115

110
"Goproud is dedicated to forcing gay marriage on the entire nation at once."

Really?  got proof?

Posted by: ethos at December 17, 2009 10:41 AM (0fzsA)

7 – DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.

 

124 Re: The Federal Marriage Amendment

You guys know DICK CHENEY doesn't support it, right?

Are we kicking DICK CHENEY out of the movement over teh gehys?

Really?

125

Fuck the John Birch Society.  Those assholes will help the Republican party lose.

Oh really? So much of what came out of the Soviet archives did in fact vindicate their positions. Not entirely, or course, Ike was *not* a Soviet tool, bad decisions about Dien Bien Phu and the Suez crisis notwithstanding. But Tailgunner Joe, despite his alcoholism, was basically spot on.

While the North American Union sounds bonkers, given the machinations of Mr. Soros and the willingness of the Bushyrovie GOP Establishment to push amnesty on us all even though we clearly *did not* want it, I'm not so sure about that either.

I have read John Birch Society Literature and there used to be a John Bircher with a radio talk show in my area called "One Man's View Of Americanism" ("One Manth View Of Americanithm").  The John Bircher who hosted it had a bit of a lisp, resulting in a radio voice that reminded me of an angry and grumpy version of Sylvester The Cartoon Cat.

All of the the John Birchers I have met have been well-meaning and patriotic people. However, to attribute everything to a seemingly unstoppable conspiracy involving one world order types, the Trilateral Commission, the Council On Foreign Relations, and the Freemasons was tiresome. Too much doom and gloom do not inspire; they paralyze.

But at least these Birchers want to presumably work within the GOP, and not squander efforts on an American Independent / Constitution / US Taxpayers 3rd Party waste.

126

I am a Christian and the religious right really pisses me off.

Well, maybe if the religious middle and left would speak up more often, maybe the religious right would not be the only voice heard from the wilderness, if you will.

 

127 I probably could have saved time by simply saying I am against identity politics of any kind. Leave that shit to the left.

128 Prediction:
Most states, including Texas will have some form of same sex marriage within the next 15 years. It may not be called marriage but it will be all the same. And that is fine.

Really? Because I'm still waiting for one state to popularly ratify it, let alone a majority of states.  Would've figured the whole "inevitability" argument would stop being used after it got rejected in New York.

129 I work with several Birchers, they really are great people. They aren't biggots, they may be traditional, but the only people they hate are those who hate this country.

130
haha, mission accomplished, GOProud!

the attack on social-cons has commenced. Every time we seem to be making headway against the Democrats the Left reaches into their bag of tricks and pull out their old stand-by: pit the Republicans against the social-cons.

And you nincompoops fall for it every time.

131 Posted by: Jim in San Diego at December 17, 2009 10:43 AM (F09Uo)

In your mind, opposing the FMA=Forcing gay marriage on the entire nation at once?

First, you don't quite get the whole 'federalism thing'.

Second,  per my 124, you go tell DICK CHENEY he's out of the movement. Good luck coming back alive.

132

DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.

If lefty judges were not imposing "gay marriage" from on high by judicial tyranny, such an amendment would not be necessary. But they *are*, and so it *is*.

133

My point is that if you want gay marriage, make the case that doesn't rely on condescending to the masses.  Again, saying "just because" or trying to equate the demolition of marriage to limited government is a non starter and unpersuasive.

 As a Muslim, I can say fuck gay marriage.  As an American, I find qualitative difference due to the state inclusion of the term.  I propose removing the term for the StatesÂ’ lexicon.

The pro-gay-marriage forces are relying on intellectual bullying and intimidation to get their way, not serious good-faith arguments.

 

No-one uses good faith arguments.   Try arguing that state-sanctioned marriage according to Muslims should be okay as an intellectual exercise.  IÂ’m sure you canÂ’t.

 

  My point is that if you want gay marriage, make the case that doesn't rely on condescending to the masses.  Again, saying "just because" or trying to equate the demolition of marriage to limited government is a non starter and unpersuasive.

 

I donÂ’t want “gay marriage”, I donÂ’t want “straight marriage” either.  Marriage is godÂ’s work, not the StateÂ’s.  It is the preferred mode of behavior, so there are certainly other methods of encouraging it in it without damaging society.

134

With communism gone, I'm guessing that all they have left is the anti-Semitism.

And nutty and conspiracy-oriented as John Birch Society literature is, I challenge anyone to document any advocacy of anti-Semitism or racial segregation in it.

135
Just ask yourselves this: Who started this? Everything was going fine until when? There wasn't a problem until a gay-rights political group decided it would sponsor CPAC.

136 cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria

137 I say let them boycott if they're so worried about being in the same room as teh gays.

I have a question.  Since teh ghey is contagious, do I get to pick who I rub up against for the transfer process?  Because if not, I must disagree. 

138

let me toss this out there before i start, i'm a democrat, always have been, always will be.  also, i really don't know alot about either group and will do some research later since i haven't had my coffee yet and could give a damn until then.

i don't see the problem with this group at all.  as a true conservative, i believe the government should get the hell out of our private lives.  i feel that gay marriage is wrong but agree with civil unions.  if they are conseratives, bring them onboard.

if they have a valid agruement about gay marriage, lets hear it, doesn't mean we have to go with it.  as long as they don't toss the gaylife style in my face every second like the militant gay groups, its all good.

people are people, who gives a shit what they do in their own bedrooms.

139 In your mind, opposing the FMA=Forcing gay marriage on the entire nation at once?

First, you don't quite get the whole 'federalism thing'.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 17, 2009 10:46 AM (FCWQb)

 

I think the issue is that without some sort of Federal action, a gay marriage in one state will be required to be recognized in all states due to the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution.

140

I also feel that 'gay marriage' is merely a ploy to seek affirmation of the gay lifestyle, rather than a real need to have a spouse. You canntot force people to accept what they feel in their hearts is a deviant lifestyle.If you do try to force it, you create only  anger, rather than acceptance. How about leave out the gay stuff, and join a simple conservative group. Nah, cant do that. That wouldnt be an issue to beat people over the head with.

So they're to be tolerated only if they keep their views to themselves?

Disagreeing with them on gay marriage is fine; one can be a conservative without toeing the party line on every single issue.  Telling an otherwise conservative group that they're not welcome because they're in favor of gay marriage doesn't help the conservative cause.

Which would you rather have?  An otherwise conservative Senator in favor of Obamacare, or one in favor of gay marriage?

141 137  ghostbusters reference  +1

142
What's next, are those pesky bigoted backward religious righties gonna exclude pro-abortion speakers at CPAC who want to talk about the virtues of being pro-choice?

Why not invite a pro-socialized medicine conservative group to CPAC? We needs the big tent!

143 Posted by: JohnTant at December 17, 2009 10:50 AM (tVWQB)

I know the argument and have the same fear.

The thing is, I'm not sure we need to destroy federalism to save it. That's a road that leads to some very dangerous places.

144

It means they don't have the -right- to approval of society at large

This concept right here, my be exactly what gets gay people just get a little angry at the right in general and teh religious right in particular.

Who decides who has the "right to approval?"  Whether you, as a person, approve or not is meaningless.  Basic human and conservative values mean that everyone, including gays, has the right to approval of society. 

Your personal opinion regarding gays, balcks, Mexicans, Jews, Muslims, Scandis, etc. is just that, yours.  To demand that society treat these people as outsiders because you do not personally like them, even going so far as to denying them the same freedoms that  you and I enjoy, is probably about the least conservative thing I can imagine.

 

145 After your post about Sheriff Joe and now this over the top anger because some group does not like homosexual activity, and to even group yourself around a sexual orientation is all about agenda.  I suspect like most Americans I don't stick my nose into your bedroom practices, but woe to you if you push your sexual life in front of my face.  

This is a never ending slide into deviancy.  If it is OK and acceptable to be homosexual, next it will be OK to be a pedophile, or be homosexual parents that adopt a kid, and what sort of personality forming is going to happen to that kid?  I guess for people like you Gabriel we should just all shut up and as long as a behavior is currently fashionable everyone else can be defined as a bigot if they do not accept that behavior.   You are not a conservative, certainly I am not detecting a moral foundation upon which conservatism must be based, so what is your conservatism based upon...it seems like a good idea?  Your dad or mom was conservative?  Two posts now from you that follow the politically correct line, and elitist fashionable thinking.

146 "people are people, who gives a shit what they do in their own bedrooms."

No one does.  But as far as I know, marriages don't take place in bedrooms.

Qwinn

147

Gay marriage is an example.  When, in arguing with your friend, you cede the ground that his idea of "less government and more individual liberty" includes redefining a centuries-old (and workable) institution then you've lost the argument.

This is funny....workable institution? Tell that to 50% of the people who take the vows and then head to divorce court. While I do not support Gay marriage it is on moral grounds, not political grounds. My graduate paper in law school was on gay marriage. I was foerced to take the side looking to make it leagal as an exercise. It took a year of research and what I found was that our INSTITUTION is not so exclusive in the western world over time. (Look at the ten marriage contracts available to the pre-Christian Irish, for istance under Brehon law). Marriage was about property, not love. That being said, I still oppose gay marriage as THIS country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles at a time in history where Christian principles were very strongly mandated......in teh US it was just not madated by the Federal government, but by each state individually. IF gyas want their BUNDLE OF STICKS, then contract for it, but it is not a true marriage in the snese of the word, it is a contract. As far as their political group.....I do not fear them, they deserve to be conservative too. I know many gay conservatives and welcome them to the debate.

148 I want my four wives.  God says I can have them.

149 wiserbud ¢¾ DrewM.

150 dammit. 

151 Posted by: Village Idiot at December 17, 2009 10:40 AM (OKc6n)

How many times are you going to copy and paste your same ridiculous rant?

152 "And you nincompoops fall for it every time."

Bah!

It's because many social-cons come across as insufferably self righteous and arrogant. It makes me want to poke a few of them in the eye with a stick.

The left isn't doing this, many social cons bring this on themselves.

See how arrogant though?  "You all are picking on me now, it must be because you were tricked by the left, no one who is sane would disagree with me unless you were tricked."

153

94  I think that a persons sexual preference is none of my damn business. To self-identify by your preference immediately changes the dynamic of how a person might approach you. Why is this necessary? This is the behavior I am usually ranting against when I talk about "gays". Every facet of some of their lives is viewed through the prism of "As a gay man, I feel that x equals y" or whatever. Why is this a necessity?  Posted by: The Drizzle

AMEN! Just stand beside us and keep the personal shit to yourselves!

95

>>  There's also nothing conservative about a man violently cramming his dick into a woman's coochie and calling it love.  What if I send flowers later?  No?  Posted by: Dave in Texas

 

One needs to define and put into context "violently", then we can discuss what kind of flowers.

154

Just ask yourselves this: Who started this? Everything was going fine until when? There wasn't a problem until a gay-rights political group decided it would sponsor CPAC.

Just ask yourselves this: Who started this? Everything was going fine until when? There wasn't a problem until social cons decided it would be armaggedon if a gay-rights conservative political group co-sponsored CPAC.

155 So we would all be happy if we replaced government "Marriage" licenses with an state issued clearance letter that two people were genetically qualified to have children, pre-screened as prospective adoption or foster parents, and that legally binding PoA and financial trusts were in-place. Those state issued letters, updated annually, would have to be attached to our 1040 return if certain benefits were claimed or tax tables used - with the appropriate worksheet. Religious "Marriage" documents would have the same legal authority as baptismal and confirmation certificates.

156

Your personal opinion regarding gays, blacks, Mexicans, Jews, Muslims, Scandis, etc. is just that, yours. 

Which of these things is not like the other? A behavior is not an immutable characteristic like a race or ethnicity is. (Religion isn't immutable either, but we have a basic secular governmental framework that already addresses that)

157 147  qwinn, consider that line stolen, excellent point

158 @ #129

Tom,
Its a generational shift. As the boomers decline in numbers, younger voters will replace them at the voting booth. Those younger voters generally have no issue with same sex unions.

I think the gay marriage advocates over played their hand in pushing for marriage rather than domestic partnerships. I believe more states would have that option now and marriage would have followed sooner rather than later, once people could see that society would not collapse.

159 Oh, I have a question for all of those you say that gay = must support gay marriage.

Where, precisely, are you coming up with that?  Seriously.  The presumption that queerness comes with a mandatory set of political beliefs is, oh how to put this politely, incredibly stupid.

There's a leap that appears to be taking place imputing GOProud's position to every homocon.  It set the record straight (so to speak), it's not my position.  I do not support gay marriage.  Actually, I don't give a crap about gay marriage but, if forced to do so, I would not support it.  This assumption to the contrary is infuriating.

As far as the identity politics thing, I will stop identifying as a queer conservative once the assumption that queer = Left stops being made.  Until that point, I do find it necessary to defend my very existence.

160

How about leave out the gay stuff, and join a simple conservative group.

How about the idea that groups like GOProud show that you are not ignored by the GOP and that just because you may disagree on some parts of the party platform, there is a place for everyone who believes in conservativism, regardless ofthe yuor sexual preferences.

Naaaaah, lets continue to shun them and give them even more reason to vote Democrat.  That should be a winning strategy.

161

Personally I think, given the times, the Republicans need to become a 100% fical conservative parties. Sure we can cater to some social issues, but america is going broke, we're are losing freedom supposedly protected by the constitution, companies are being nationalized, government is growing at the fastest rate since the Great Society. Honestly, let's focus on the financial future of our country.

We need a Reagan, not a George Bush.  Keep in mind, to all the social cons, did George Bush actually come through on any of the social conservative things he promised? Did he even attempt to push through a Marriage Amendment to the constitution?  Do any of the Social Con presidents ever come through on their promises? Do you think Huckabee will?  I'm not saying it really even matters if we ideologically agree on social issues, because no president has ever really come through on the social issues they promised during the campaigns.

I don't know if you guys remember, but Reagan was Libertarian on gay issues, he  single handedly killed the Briggs Amendment in California that would have prevented gays from being teahers. Hell his son Ron is a flamingly gay.

I think opinions on homosexuality are personal ones. If you are a conservative you want less government, why in the world would you want to get it involved in policy related to sex. I don't want the government involved in marriage at all. It is a religious issue, not a governmental one.

 

162 Not a big issue. I don't really think that sexual orientation should be something that people use to bumpersticker themselves though. But that's only a personal opinion. It really doesn't make that much of a difference if you a gay or irish, as long as you vote the current crop of idiots back to their rightful places in oblivion.  I think social issues are a problem that needs work, but right now we are fighting fascism. That's job one.  Besides, the ghey's are funny, and they don't fight as much as the irish.

163
Is this going to be the only shitty topic we get all day?

164 So nobody wants to challenge my right to 4 wives because God says so?  AWESOME!!!!  I'm subpoenaing all you when the IRS comes calling.

165 Second,  per my 124, you go tell DICK CHENEY he's out of the movement. Good luck coming back alive.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 17, 2009 10:46 AM (FCWQb)

Sure, I have no problem telling him that Drew. So what. Tell me how we go about legalizing marriage in one state and not have it recognized everywhere?

I also don't think I'll catch "teh ghey" from anyone but that doesn't mean I want them sponsoring any event I'm attending either. NAMBLA would be legal too if we would just rewrite out ancient and bigoted laws against child sex.

166 Second,  per my 124, you go tell DICK CHENEY he's out of the movement. Good luck coming back alive.

Is Dick Cheney a capital-C Conservative, or just a Republican? I know he's one, but I'm not sure of his positions on the fundamentals of the other.

167 Left unstated: One man violently cramming his penis into a female, however, is love.

Man, I've been saying that for years . . . .

168 When you demand that gays get marriage rights, you're asking the government to step in and enforce their union. Gay marriage means MORE government, not less. It amazes me how those who support gay marriage can't grasp this very simple point.

Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 10:34 AM (SxA2Q)

That's what I've been saying, and is why civil unions are no different from marriage. It's government endorsement of something I don't endorse.  I don't want the government to interfere in their private behavior, but neither do I want the government endorsing it.

169 I also want the votes of polygamists.

170 107
There is a lesbian couple who live in my neighborhood.  They have adopted 3 special needs children and have devoted their lives to their children. (one of the children has severe cerebral palsy)   I'm certain Jesus would not aprrove.
right?

I am a Christian and the religious right really pisses me off.

Posted by: ethos at December 17, 2009 10:39 AM (0fzsA)

Just to play devil's advocate; Good deeds do NOT assuage the fact that you are violating God's law. That's how the 'hated' religious right probably see it. You can have 100 special needs kids in your care, but the minute you lay with your own sex, God gets pissed.

171 "Who decides who has the "right to approval?"  Whether you, as a person, approve or not is meaningless."

You're confusing approval with tolerance.  If gays want to be gays, go and be gay.  Yay for you.  No one's stopping you.

But society actively -approves- of, not just tolerates but seeks to encourage and affirm, heterosexual marriage.  Why?  Because statistically it is the best platform for creating and raising the next generations of society.  It is about the kids.  Gays have nothing to do with that, and it isn't because if evil right winger policies.  It's simple biology.  And no, turkey basters are not the great equalizer here.

Marriage as currently enacted is an act of government power.  Society agrees on giving government this power because it sees marriage as an overall good for the purpose of creating the next generation of humanity.  There is no equivalent reason for giving government this power when it comes to gays, and in fact, it serves to damage it by effectively redefining marriage as being about "love" rather than about kids.

"Basic human and conservative values mean that everyone, including gays, has the right to approval of society."

Conservatives see people as individuals, not as groups.  You're attempting to extend conservative principles toward the supremacy of the individual, and extending it to a couple, and to a group at large.  Doesn't work.  In fact, it's a pretty damn leftist idea.

Qwinn

172
in b4 the melodrama!

173

 

I think at the very least we should let GOPround be in charge of decorating the CPAC event

174

This whole paradigm of being able to guage the norm by measuring the extremes is bullshit - and I hope it dies with the decade. 

Pollution is bad.  If you can keep from doing it without destroying yourself, you should.  If the climate improves and gaia becomes a virgin again, great!

Dependence is to slavery as independence is to freedom.

Where you stick your schmekle 1) I could care less about 2) Is none of my business 3) Don't throw it in my face and try to make it my business. 4) You need an institution like marriage - make one.  Call it haversack for cripes sake and stop the bullshit baiting!

If it is illegal 1) It shouldn't be done 2) It shouldn't be condoned 3) It shouldn't be excused 4) One shouldn't get amnesty for it  5) It is a bullshit perennial political strawman that allows politicians to avoid taking stands on other things - like not messing up the economy and blaming it on business.

If someone wants an abortion 1) It is none of my business 2) It shouldn't be illegal 3) I shouldn't have to pay for it 4) It shouldn't be promoted by the government 6) It is a bullshit perennial political strawman that allows politicians to avoid taking stands on other things - like earmarks.

I believe that most people in this country aren't extremists and I for sure don't think they are socialists. 

Rich people aren't the problem.  Lazy people are.  And so to are the people who "need"  poor people to condescend to in order to stay in power.

We don't need a new America or a new way of thinking.  We need an old America based on original principals - You know the one.  The one that for more than two hundred years was a beacon to the world.

F--k the socialists and f--k the extremists on every end of the spectrum.

 

175

This is funny....workable institution? Tell that to 50% of the people who take the vows and then head to divorce court.

Posted by: rightzilla at December 17, 2009 10:54 AM (rVJH4)

Making the perfect the enemy of the good isn't really an argument.  It's a logical fallacy.

Using your standard I can say that if 50% of marriages end in divorce then the other 50% of marriages end in death.  Moral:  Marriage never ends well.  Let's totally do away with it! 

Divorce (or more properly, no-fault divorce) is not the ideal.  However, the arguments against no-fault divorce mirrored somewhat the same arguments against gay marriage, in that it trivializes the institution.  When it's trivialized then people don't take it seriously and unwanted things tend to happen to society at large.  For instance, demographics tend to shift because without marriage people tend to have fewer (or no) children, and those children that are raised in a single-parent household tend to have some disadvantages.  Again, not the ideal.  Europe has an interesting demographic experiment going on right now what with the number of immigrants from Middle Eastern countries coming in and building minarets.  Interestingly, marriage rates in Europe are, according to Mark Steyn's research, less than robust.  Coincidence?  Maybe, maybe not...but I'm not willing to chance it.

176
I do find it necessary to defend my very existence.

Too late!

The melodrama beat me.

177

Second,  per my 124, you go tell DICK CHENEY he's out of the movement. Good luck coming back alive.

Is Dick Cheney a capital-C Conservative, or just a Republican? I know he's one, but I'm not sure of his positions on the fundamentals of the other.

Cheney was Ford's Chief of Staff if i am not mistaken.

178

Might make for an interesting panel discussion group at CPAC.  One Bircher, one GOProuder, one teapartier, one family valueser, one almost-RINO .... with EMT's standing ready on the sidelines.

Seriously, folks, I think we've got bigger problems looming on the horizon than a few hundred Birchers and a few hundred GOProuders.  Like Reid, Pelosi's and Obama's plan to sneak through the Amnesty bill in the next few weeks, and voila!  35 million brand new Democrats, union members, and ACORN workers!  (Not that there aren't a few illegal aliens hiding out in ACORN, but ---) 

179 Peter LaBarbera writes: "there is nothing 'conservative' about — as Barber inimitably puts it — 'one man violently cramming his penis into another manÂ’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love.Â’'" Well, sure. There's also nothing conservative about a man violently cramming his dick into a woman's coochie and calling it love. In fact, we often call that "rape." 

Ok, I don't care about the gay marriage thing, seriously, I think the government should be out of the marriage business entirely, but I have to take exception to the above statement. It's just odd.

Rape is not consensual and I don't know too many conservatives that think it's conservative.

180

Good deeds do NOT assuage the fact that you are violating God's law.

 

Good Deeds don't earn you a spot in heaven either. No work can do that, going by Christian beliefs.

181

166  i don't mean to single you out and i saw this elsewhere posted but i hate the ghey leads to child rape meme

i bet there are alot more straight predators thn ghey ones

182
171.  We are all sinners. 
Promiscuous straights are just as guilty.

I find the anti-gay bigotry on the right to be disgusting.  It's anti-Christian, anti-conservative and anti-liberty.

Liberty - look it up.

183

Hey, CPAC is a private organization and can invite whomever they want to their convention. And I can choose whether to spend my money there or not.

And I choose "not," since I don't care to hang with RINOs and Birchers. 

184
Wait.

The Irish were invited to CPAC?

185 Somehow this thread will end up discussing the relative merits of longbows, in heated tones. It is inevitable, like the cycle of the moon.

186 _¹⁴¹

_{^{I also feel that 'gay marriage' is merely a ploy to seek affirmation of the gay lifestyle, rather than a real need to have a spouse. You canntot force people to accept what they feel in their hearts is a deviant lifestyle.If you do try to force it, you create only  anger, rather than acceptance. How about leave out the gay stuff, and join a simple conservative group. Nah, cant do that. That wouldnt be an issue to beat people over the head with.}}

_{^{So they're to be tolerated only if they keep their views to themselves?}}

_{^{Disagreeing with them on gay marriage is fine; one can be a conservative without toeing the party line on every single issue.  Telling an otherwise conservative group that they're not welcome because they're in favor of gay marriage doesn't help the conservative cause.}}

_{^{Which would you rather have?  An otherwise conservative Senator in favor of Obamacare, or one in favor of gay marriage?}}

_{^{Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 17, 2009 10:51 AM (plsiE)}}

Who brought their sexual prefence into it? It sure as hell was'nt CPAC. I love to sodomize my wife, but do I need to include it in my political bullet points? Sexual preference adds nothing but a giant wedge to this whole deal.

187

Somehow this thread will end up discussing the relative merits of longbows, in heated tones. It is inevitable, like the cycle of the moon.

 

We will need our English Longbows to keep the Irish out of CPac

188 A Bircher, a Prouder and a SocCon walk into a bar ...

189
The anti-civil rights John Birch Society will only hurt the Republican party.  I don't care if their pamphlets sound nice. Don't take my word for it. What's next - conservatives are going to embrace the KKK?
Good luck with that.

I really want the Socialist Democrats to lose and lose big, but if the right is going to squander its integrity by embracing bigots and homophones and radical organizations with nasty baggage -again best of luck getting the support of normal non-crazy folks.

190

Which of these things is not like the other?

I guess that depends on whether you think being gay is a choice or not.  Whole 'nother subject, I imagine.

But, just for the sake of argument, let's say it is, like your freedom to choose your religion.  So, we have laws in place to protect people from being discriminated against or denied their rights due to their religion, but we draw the line at offering the same protections to someone's because of their sexual persuasion? Why, becauuse some people find the idea of gay sex to be icky?

Again, maybe it's just me, but I'm not really seeing the "conservative" angle here.

191

I love to sodomize my wife

 

you and the entire offensive line of the New York Giants.

Zing

192 182

166  i don't mean to single you out and i saw this elsewhere posted but i hate the ghey leads to child rape meme

i bet there are alot more straight predators thn ghey ones

Posted by: navycopjoe at December 17, 2009 11:05 AM (okzma)

In numbers yes, in percentages it off the charts the other way. When 2% of your population is responsible for 35%-40% of your child sex-crimes, something is up.

193

Just to play devil's advocate; Good deeds do NOT assuage the fact that you are violating God's law. That's how the 'hated' religious right probably see it. You can have 100 special needs kids in your care, but the minute you lay with your own sex, God gets pissed.

 

 

And luckily the USG had fuckall to do with God's law.

 

194 Folks, one thing I want to point out:

Marriage, in today's society, is not between two people.  It's between two people and everybody else.

The rights around marriage are all rights accorded by other people, whether it's in accommodation, access, finance, insurance, taxation, etc.  Those aren't one person giving to the other person, it's recognition and accommodation given by third parties to the two people in the union.

That's my biggest bone with gay marriage:  Institute it, and we're all bound to acknowledge and accommodate it whether we agree with it or not, or face more government sanction when we're sued for discrimination.

Personally, I think people have the right to discriminate with their own property and services, whether they're right or wrong when they do it.

195

Good Deeds don't earn you a spot in heaven either. No work can do that, going by Christian beliefs.

Posted by: Dick_Nixon at December 17, 2009 11:05 AM (kaOJx)

Erm, so Catholics aren't Christian?  You do realize that was one of the main disputes that led to the schism, yes?

Qwinn

196 Isn't considering yourself a "social-con" or "christian-con" also identity politics? Hell, both come with the same rigid dogma as any other identity driven group.

197 Meh. The GOP needs better grooming and clothes anyway.

198 Don't these people have anything better to do?  How about getting real conservatives elected to office?! My word, I could care less about a person's sexual proclivities just so long as it's between consenting adults (please no animals or children.)

199 Rightwing homos. That always makes me laugh.

200 something is up.

The jig.

201 Can we all at least agree on the fact we need to keep Gypsies out of the movemnet?

202 Liberty - look it up.

If liberty doesn't include the right to bigotry the supernanny's will have won.

203 wiserbud ¢¾ DrewM.

Not sure what that means but it looks like some sort of Scandi writing.

204

NAMBLA would be legal too if we would just rewrite out ancient and bigoted laws against child sex.

The comparison between being gay and a pedohile is idiotic.  What part of "consenting adults" don't you get?

Straight marriage is acceptable.  Does that mean we also accept grown men having sex with 8 year old girls, simply because it's not gay?

205

175  i agree with your points all the way

i think as a conservative my feeling is agrue your point and put it to the voters

i think the voters would for the most part would go against ghey marriage

206

qwinn,

Catholics are Christian. Or, do they not have any faith in Jesus Christ and His Saving Grace? I'm not a Catholic, but I have heard that whole Father, Son, and Holy Ghost thing from a bunch of them, implying some sort of belief in the Divine.

207

Good ol' Gabriel relishing in the moral superiority of screaming "Bigot!"

This is becoming more and more LGF.  How many votes does the gay conservative constituency add?  Should we welcome the polygamists? (spelling?)  Guess we better start reaching out to the muslims too.  Or else Gabriel might call me a "Bigot!"

208

Not sure what that means but it looks like some sort of Scandi writing.

Scandi???  How DARE you!!!

(it was supposed to be a heart.  stupid mu.nu not allowing characters.)

 

 

209 We will need our English Longbows to keep the Irish out of CPac My yew tree may flex, yet remains firm and resilient. If you know what I mean.

210 navycopjoe @ 166 -- be careful with that stat, go talk to your local PDs freak squad -- it;'s not a percapita number and a lot of freaks get drawn into the hedonism of certain gay communities. So while they were freaks to begin with, they are now "gay" too.

211

208

be careful throwing around the LGF slur. That's a pretty big insult

212 "197 Isn't considering yourself a "social-con" or "christian-con" also identity politics? Hell, both come with the same rigid dogma as any other identity driven group."

Okay, this is just downright insane.

So being black comes with a rigid dogma?  Being asian requires a certain set of political beliefs?  As alexthechick eloquently argued against above, you're saying being gay requires a certain set of policy preferences?

Utterly insane.  And bigoted as all hell.

Defining yourself as a "social con" or even "Christian con" is identifying yourself by a set of beliefs.  Shared beliefs is the very basis of political activity.  That's not an "identity group".  Basing your political activism on skin color or sexual preference, which has nothing whatsoever to do with political beliefs -unless you accept leftist political dogma-, is absurd.

Qwinn

213 I also don't think I'll catch "teh ghey" from anyone but that doesn't mean I want them sponsoring any event I'm attending either. NAMBLA would be legal too if we would just rewrite out ancient and bigoted laws against child sex.
Posted by: Jim in San Diego at December 17, 2009 11:00 AM (F09Uo)
This is incredibly stupid.

You do know there are straight child molesters too, right?

Equating NAMBLA with your average gay man or woman is like equating, I don't know, you, with the dirty old man down the street who diddles a little girl.

You think you are scoring points and in reality all you are doing is showing yourself to be a fool.

214 (it was supposed to be a heart.  stupid mu.nu not allowing characters.)

You and I both know damn well that wasn't supposed to be a heart. That was some kinda "queer-bait" code.

215

It is interesteing how those of us who simply oppose gay marriage --and wish that sexual matters are left behind closed doors ---are considered bigots.   But the nastiness conveyed by gay advocates to those who oppose it is just fine, I guess. 

And funny how the majority of those of us who believe gay marriage is morally wrong are usually of the Christian persuasion and part of the "religious right" who, by the way, make up a large chunk of the consevatives in this country.

So Gabriel, and the rest of you who believe in anti-conservative identity politics, you've just called a majority of conservatives bigots.

But nothing to see here....organized gay advocates are NO threat to conservativsm or organized conservative groups....NOT.

And for those of you calling bigots those of us who oppose organized gay groups into CPAC....it is not the fact that gay people are conservative and want to attend the conference....that's fine.  We're a party of many people.  But to condone a group specifically advocating principles and behavior that are anathema to conservatism is the problem.  A person who is gay and keeps it behind closed doors and attends CPAC with an otherwise conservative agenda is just like everyone else there.  But a group advocating for a huge societal change (called gay marriage and acceptance) forced by law upon the very people in the CPAC room, not to mention the entire country, is not conservative AT ALL.

Seems to me that Gabriel and others have sipped of the punch that is political correctness gone mad.

216

  Does that mean we also accept grown men having sex with 8 year old girls, simply because it's not gay?

 

Muslims do.

217

As far as the identity politics thing, I will stop identifying as a queer conservative once the assumption that queer = Left stops being made.  Until that point, I do find it necessary to defend my very existence.

You know, I have to credit alexthechick for this point. As long as the Commiecrat Left is going to play identity politics, I suppose we have to fight back. That said, if 90% of CPAC wants to keep marriage as it always has been, then GOProud is just going to have to understand that and not be disruptive.

I suppose the same will have to be said to the John Birchers if they start going off about the Freemasons and stray from the main points.

218

Good Deeds don't earn you a spot in heaven either. No work can do that, going by Christian beliefs.

 

I know of a place where you can get Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap

219 Have read a few comments. Why is it that som many fail to see that so many of the problems in this country (including most that get bitched about around here) have their roots in the breakdown of the moral and social fabric of this country. Hey, if it's "okay to be gay", even though god says no, then it's okay to use your vote to steal other peoples money, even though god says no to stealing. Oh, wait, I forgot, there is no god. We all just evolved from primordial pond scum.

220
ethos, don't take this too personally, but you're beginning to sound like a bigot.

You're like some of the moonbat trolls we get who come in here and scream we're all a bunch of haters and how the world would be better without so much hate. And then the moonbat goes on to say how much s/he hate us for being so hateful to others.

221 205

NAMBLA would be legal too if we would just rewrite out ancient and bigoted laws against child sex.

The comparison between being gay and a pedohile is idiotic.  What part of "consenting adults" don't you get?

Straight marriage is acceptable.  Does that mean we also accept grown men having sex with 8 year old girls, simply because it's not gay?

Posted by: wiserbud at December 17, 2009 11:12 AM (IHbof)

A mere stroke of the pen. Mexico has an age of consent of 12-years-old. Is that young enough for you?

222 161

How about leave out the gay stuff, and join a simple conservative group.

How about the idea that groups like GOProud show that you are not ignored by the GOP and that just because you may disagree on some parts of the party platform, there is a place for everyone who believes in conservativism, regardless ofthe yuor sexual preferences.

Naaaaah, lets continue to shun them and give them even more reason to vote Democrat.  That should be a winning strategy.

Posted by: wiserbud at December 17, 2009 10:59 AM (wWwJR)

If you will throw away any and all of your conservative principles simply because you're gay and conservative don't celebrate that fact, were you really conservative to begin with? I would argue not.

223 Remove the government privileges surrounding marriage and the problem goes away.

Divorce is handled according to the entity that performed the marriage.  If a church chooses to marry gays, divorce is handled according to the rules of that church, as long as the inalienable rights aren't infringed upon.  As soon as they are, *then* government has the right to get involved.

Joint property is either divided in a reasoned, cooperative fashion, or it's all liquidated and the cash is split evenly.  Child custody is handled cooperatively, but if a state agency has to get involved to protect the rights of minors, that is an acceptable function of government.

As far as the government is concerned, there should be no gay, straight, married, single, divorced, black, while, latino, asian, male, female.  There should be American.  Period.  Any law that differentiates between groups for any reason is wrong.

224

First of all, I'm getting a kick out of being "Zimri" where there is another poster "Jehu". (2 Kings 9:31.)

On a policy standpoint, there is a better argument for restricting the State's approval of the marriages we have now, on the grounds that too many of them don't work, than for expanding it to a population statistically known to be more promiscuous than the average woman (i.e., men).

On to politics, redefining marriage is not a conservative standpoint. It could be a Republican standpoint but if & when that happens, the Republicans cease to be a conservative party.

So if you want to drive conservatives away from the GOP, and make the remainer the equivalent of the Canadian Tories during the 1990s, then by all means go for it. (I'm not exactly a conservative myself, but I think I'm pretty good at guessing how conservatives think, and I don't think they're bluffing on that threat.)

225
Great- change the subject to Muslim pedophilia.
Can you say - Straw man?

226 Social cons prefer Liberal control over Govt to allowing homosexuals in the GOP. Fiscal cons prefer Liberal control over Govt to ceding some ground to social cons.

So, both sides prefer liberalism, and we got liberalism. I don't see any problems. Carry on!

227 Dick Nixon:  Uh, believing that "faith without works is dead", as the Bible states, is not exactly incompatible with belief in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Note that I am agnostic, but I was raised Catholic and have always been greatly interested in theology.  Your statement that "works don't matter, faith is all" is a specifically Protestant, not a Christian, theology.

Qwinn

228

Conservatives see people as individuals, not as groups. 

You're attempting to extend conservative principles toward the supremacy of the individual, and extending it to a couple, and to a group at large.  Doesn't work.  In fact, it's a pretty damn leftist idea.

Yet you want to deny the same basic freedoms you and I enjoy to other people because they are a member of a group called "Gay."  Okay.

And I have yet to see how what two consenting individuals do with each other behind closed doors has any bearing on their political ideology, unless we "normies" make it an issue.

229
221. Nope.  I just don't like anti-gay bigotry.  Please don't lump me in with trolls.
I'm a free agent and I think for myself.

(scary - I know)

230

jean, i know that there is a higher percentage (i'm still working on my first coffee and you are forcing me to type 10 letter words? damn you) but i think all pedophiles should be shot but to say it leads to it is wrong

i have had the honor to bust quite a few pedos in my time and only one was a same sex freak

231 214 I also don't think I'll catch "teh ghey" from anyone but that doesn't mean I want them sponsoring any event I'm attending either. NAMBLA would be legal too if we would just rewrite out ancient and bigoted laws against child sex.
Posted by: Jim in San Diego at December 17, 2009 11:00 AM (F09Uo)
This is incredibly stupid.

You do know there are straight child molesters too, right?

Equating NAMBLA with your average gay man or woman is like equating, I don't know, you, with the dirty old man down the street who diddles a little girl.

You think you are scoring points and in reality all you are doing is showing yourself to be a fool.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 17, 2009 11:15 AM (FCWQb)

Come on, don't you have the balls to call me a bigot?

When it comes to deviant sexual behavior, what makes one worse than the other?

232 Can we all just agree you are all racist anti semites?

233

(it was supposed to be a heart.  stupid mu.nu not allowing characters.)

ding ding whoop whoop

(joke rudely stolen from blazer)

234

Just because I disagree with the gheys agenda on marriage - doesn't mean I won't take their vote against obumblechuck and gang.  I don't agree with libertarians on legalization of drugs either.  I will fight both of those battles later, and win them, using longbows, of course.

235 Bigotry is not liking anything I like.

Bigots!

236

Erm, so Catholics aren't Christian?  You do realize that was one of the main disputes that led to the schism, yes?

It certainly was, and the Catholic Church recently came around to the Lutheran view on this issue, and even issued a formal declaration about it with them:

Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification 

237 Wait, no that's Fascism!

Fascists!

238

The anti-civil rights John Birch Society will only hurt the Republican party.  I don't care if their pamphlets sound nice. Don't take my word for it. What's next - conservatives are going to embrace the KKK?
Good luck with that.

Is it "anti-Civil Rights" to point out how many provisions of the "Voting Rights Act" (sic) have led to fradulent voting ACORN style, to racially gerrymandered districts, to multi-lingual ballots, to the erosion of the election process?

As nutty as the conspiracies espoused often are, once again, I challenge anyone to find anything in The New American magazine or other JBS publications that advocates any kind of white supremacy or segregation.

239 or is it separatism?

Splitters!

240 I have no problem about GOProud being at CPAC.  While I do not condone the homosexual lifestyle in any way, that does not mean that those who choose this lifestyle are unwelcome.  I would like to see the GOProud crowd speak on the Fistgate controversy.  While conservatives are outraged over this, rarely has anyone spoken out from the gay community.  Yes, I know that most gay men are NOT pedophiles or into pedophilia, but this filth will only undermine them, and tar them with the same filthy brush as Kevin Jennings and his ilk.  . 

anyway, GOProud- welcome!!!!!

241

And for those on here touting the "conservative agenda" of the gay group....then why didn't they form the group around the conservative principles?  Why do they identify as a gay group (GOProud)?   Why not just identify as another conservative group and leave the "gay" out of it?

Seems that this group's agenda is 99% gay and 1% conservative.

Why would we welcome 99% of something conservatives don't believe in?

242 focus on the big picture (rolling back statism) and don't get dragged into petty biggoted fights on social issues. conservatives should be tolerant. Gay marriage is an issue, but not THE issue and maybe we'll disagree on that one IF that is even on the agenda of GOProud.

243 Yes Ben GWB did keep his socon promises. Mostly regard to life. He also supported FMA. Just ask Sully. His faith based program was his other major socon issue.

244 Gabe I love ya but did you have to light the fuse on this bomb so early in the morning?

Thanks a lot.

245 Posted by: Jim in San Diego at December 17, 2009 11:19 AM (F09Uo)

Why would I bother calling you a bigot? You're doing a fine job of it with your own words.

If you don't understand the difference between consensual sex between adults and child rape, the problem isn't that  you are a bigot. It's that  you are stupid.

246 Buckley famously took on the John Birchers.  Their beliefs while sometimes meshing well with conservative values-are racist and not inclusive.  We need to kick them out, just like Buckley did decades ago. 

The gay group is okay. 

247 navycopjoe, wasn't your population already policing same-sex guys out? I specifically did not say gay led to pedo, but that the more straight then gay argument is problematic and that pedo can lead to "gay". For the record, I prefer a good prison shanking to shooting them - less paperwork.

248 So Gabriel, and the rest of you who believe in anti-conservative identity politics, you've just called a majority of conservatives bigots.

The hell he did.  The hell I did.  Can you people freaking *read*?  Here is what Gabe said, just now, in this post that we are supposedly discussing "(Yes, I called the Barber-types "bigots." No, I didn't say anything about all social cons, the vast majority of whom disagree with Barber.)"  So.  From that you get that Gabe is calling the majority of conservatives bigots?  Venn called.  He wants his diagrams back.

I have, repeatedly, stated that I do not believe it is bigotry to believe that homosexuality is a sin.  I have, repeatedly, stated that I do not believe that opposition to gay marriage is bigoted.  Yes, there are those who hold those beliefs who may also be bigots but the one does not lead to the other.  And yet, over and over again, I am told that I hold positions that I do not simply because of my sexuality.  Funny, it sure as hell seems like I'm not the one playing identity politics with that.

249
yeah, ethos, I know you're not a troll. But you've got a big problem: you're an over-zealous anti anti-bigotry hunter. You see it everywhere and it somehow makes you feel superior to others when you point it out.

You're not alone, ethos. There are a dozen or so others in this thread who are just like you.

Like I said, this was the whole point for GOProud to sponsor CPAC and Gabe took the bait. And I'm sure Gabriel is reading this thread and enjoying the results, too. This isn't the first time Gabriel has posted a divisive post for the sole purpose of pitting the commenters against each other.

250 Well, sure. There's also nothing conservative about a man violently cramming his dick into a woman's coochie and calling it love. In fact, we often call that "rape." Way to miss the point, bigots. (Yes, I called the Barber-types "bigots." No, I didn't say anything about all social cons, the vast majority of whom disagree with Barber.)

  No, we don't call that rape Gabe, we call that a good hard fuck and women enjoy it immensely.  No,the vast majority of so-cons do not disagree with Barber.  No, he is not a bigot, and no, you do not belong at a conservative blog. 

No, opposing the radical gay agenda does not make one "anti-gay"; for example, over 80% of Americans do not support gay adoption.  You consider them all bigots.

Here's the thing:  let's suppose that Barber hates gays, as is his right.  That means he hates 5% of the population, and that 5% isn't very popular with a lot of people to begin with. 

You hate 80% of the population right off the bat, and if we add race and religious issues into the equation it's probably closer to 95%.  You're the hater, guy.  You literally hate America, or at least 95% of it.  Socons like Barber merely hate the ~5% who want to harm America and who hate most Americans to begin with.

One of the points of GOProud's agenda  if you read it closely is that they think America should invade countries which aren't sufficiently friendly to the radical gay agenda.  They want American soldiers to fight and die in scores of countries which do not embrace their views, views not shared by the vast majority of Americans.  That's not conservative.  At all.

As another commenter mentioned identity politics is anathema to conservatives.  As GOProud if they support the "hate crime" law recently passed which gives gays special status.  Ask them if they support free speech i.e. the right to call a fag a fag.  They don't. 

These guys would have Ace arrested, or at least fined by a human rights commission, for using words like cocksucker and queerbait.  They want one set of laws for gays and another for everyone else.  They favour tax cuts?  Big deal, who doesn't?  It doesn't make them conservative.  There is a metric pantload of data showing that there is no such thing as a social liberal fiscal conservative in congress, that the Barney Franks inevitably are the biggest spendthrifts.

The catty, effette tone of this post (Sqwaaaaaaawk!  The hillbillies are afraid of teh gays!  Hurrrrr.) is fairly typical of gay radicals and part of the reason they are so disliked.  They never make logical, manly arguments, preferring instead to make strawman arguments depicting their opponents as hicks, and constructing logical fallacies, such as deliberately misinterpreting a good hard fuck as rape. 

Besides, what do these guys bring to the table?  They are a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction and not a terribly trustworthy one at that.  Andrew Sullivan is a perfect example; they'll stab you in the back in a hysterical fury over something or other, every time.

The Dalai Lama (and hundreds of millions of Buddhists who've never read the bible) opposes homosexuality and considers it sexual misconduct:  is he a bigot too Gabe?  I want to see you type those words, come on tough guy!  The Sikh think the same thing, so does the vast majority of the "macho" twelve million illegal immigrants that you think are a good idea to have in a country with high unemployment in a budget crisis.  31 out of 31 states have voted down gay marriage:  are they bigots?  Is California bigoted?

A conservative is, I say somewhat tongue in cheek, someone who opposes pretty much any initiative that has been suggested or implemented since 1964, one of which being removing homosexuality from the DSM as a mental illness.  I can't stand my gay co-workers, and it has nothing to do with their sex lives and everything  to do with the way they act.  Yeah, I think they're nuts, and so did the medical community and pretty much everyone else until they got steamrolled by the radical left.

Ace, is Gabe really necessary for you to run your blog?  He's a really, really left wing dude, as this post demonstrates.  He wants to throw you in jail for saying mean things about gays and he's not shy about labelling large swaths of the population and your readership as "bigots".  I don't think I've ever felt the need to call anyone a bigot in my life and conservatives typically don't use this word for people who disagree with them.  America is a big country and surely you can find a more appropriate co-blogger.

251

I look forward to "Conservatives for Cap and Trade", "Conservatives for Fragging Officers", "Conservatives for Public Option", "Conservatives for Ahmadinejad", etc. 

Oops, I forgot.  It's only social conseratives that are treated worse than shit by the GOP for the past twenty years. First Poppy Bush made the party give up advocating for a Human Life Amendment, then W bailed on the Marriage Amendment and didn't lift a finger against the execrable Lawrence v. Texas decision (citing foreign law to prohibit states and localities from enacting and enforcing their own criminal laws), now opposition to a basic conservative belief is given privileged status by the party.  I seriously doubt that this country is worth it anymore.

252

 Your statement that "works don't matter, faith is all" is a specifically Protestant, not a Christian, theology.

Qwinn

In the Book of James it states that works without faith are useless.

253 If conservatives can adhere to principles of individual liberty I don't see why there isn't room for everyone under this tent.

254
I have, repeatedly, stated that I do not believe it is bigotry to believe that homosexuality is a sin.

Why do you think it's bigotry to think homosexuality is a sin? Just curious.

255 I'm beginning to think that being anti-gay makes people incapable of reading...

256 243 focus on the big picture (rolling back statism) and don't get dragged into petty biggoted fights on social issues. conservatives should be tolerant. Gay marriage is an issue, but not THE issue and maybe we'll disagree on that one IF that is even on the agenda of GOProud.

Posted by: Jerry Seinfeld at December 17, 2009 11:23 AM (jx2Td)

I think we should be tolerant of abortion and all forms of welfare on demand statism too. If we would just adopt that platform we would have the biggest tent of all and we could call anyone else that doesn't agree a bigot, or a fascist, or whatever the cool buzz word of derisive exclusion is this week.

257

248  okay, i understand now

still working on coffee, all you mofo's forget it'e early here

258 damn s/p

259 120 Since gays are predominantly urban, and unfortunately preyed upon by the criminal element at a higher rate then others, are these guys intending to push Heller as a gay issue - Gays with Guns. Even I could support that.

Posted by: Jean at December 17, 2009 10:43 AM (5ddCw)

Jean, the guys from GOProud, Jimmy LaSalva, Chris Barron, and the GayPatriot gang all have that argument about guns.  Not only is it better for everyone to have a strong Second Amendment, some groups benefit disproportionately from it, including wimmin and gheys.

136
Just ask yourselves this: Who started this? Everything was going fine until when? There wasn't a problem until a gay-rights political group decided it would sponsor CPAC.

Posted by: Posted by at December 17, 2009 10:48 AM (z37MR)

This is the "blame the victim" strategy.  There wasn't a problem until she walked down the street in that miniskirt. Uh huh.

260

Ok here's the thing:

Several hundred years ago this country was founded on Christian Principals in defense of Religious Freedom. NOT in defense of anyones' right to sexual freedom. Religious Freedom. Prior to that for thousands of years virtually every major religion (Jew, Muslims, Christians, Hindu, Budhist, Druids, ad nauseum....) recognized a Religious Sacrement called Marriage. Then our State made a significant error when it started LICENSING that same religious sacrement. (Now THAT'S an inappropriate violation of Church and State!) So when it comes to the concept of Gay Marriage and equality I have to first recognize any single religious group's right to their sacrement of Marriage. IE: if there's an anti-gay bigoted group....say The Black Southern Baptists Church (I'm just throwing out an example here, I have no idea what they would say)....that object to gay marriage, THEY'VE GOT A RIGHT to that opinion and frankly their religious sacrament trumps the state's right to license the institution. So if you license gay marriage you're essentially guaranteeing another "abortion" issue where different groups have different opinions and each side forces the other to live with the results no matter what their religion says. Do we really need another Liberals v. Conservative issue to divide the country? I don't think so!!!!

An alternative? SIMPLE. Convert the state's license of marriage into a civil contract. If you want to get married you have to have that done by an appropriate religious body. Thus Episcopalians can have gay marriage but Black Southern Baptists can pass on the issue. The state however issues a civil contract underwhich everyone is equal and gays can get the same legal treatment as hetero's no matter the religion. All prior marriages are retro-qualified as automatically licensed under the new Civil Contract Law. Thus Rosie Odonnel can have her "gay marriage" provided she can find someone to take her fat ass in a civil contract and a religious institution that will perform the sacrament ceremony. She's equal under the law and yet it still respects other's right to NOT recognize the religious sacrament of marriage for homosexuals within their religion. Now THAT'S a proposition that 95% of the country can accept and live with!

Last but not least....allowing gay marriage is guaranteed to increase the divorce industry. I've seen gay couples before and they go through more drama than 10 of their heterosexual counterparts. I'd expect a 3 fold increase in divorces within the first 5 years of the enactment of gay marriage. I think gay's have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us. The only remaining question for the courts to decide is if the guy on bottom has all the same rights that women in a hetrosexual marriage have to 1/2 their former partners assets and income. I mean if they really wanna be equal.....

261 Something tells me this thread will not end well.

262

Sharkman 237 is right; I heard the same from our priest when I was attending Catholic services last year.

263

250  Nope.  I have an option on the matter and I'd like to see the Republican party win. 

264

Seems that this group's agenda is 99% gay and 1% conservative.

Why would we welcome 99% of something conservatives don't believe in?

That's a mighty fine strawman you got yourself there.

265

"Yet you want to deny the same basic freedoms you and I enjoy to other people because they are a member of a group called "Gay."  Okay."

Bullshit. 

Marriage isn't a "basic freedom", it is a non-random institution that is -explicitly endorsed- because it provides the statistically best method for creating the next generation of civilization, via the raising of children by their biological parents in a stable monogamous relationship.  Gays exclude -themselves- from the reason why marriage is endorsed and subsidized by the state.

"And I have yet to see how what two consenting individuals do with each other behind closed doors has any bearing on their political ideology, unless we "normies" make it an issue."

This gets so f'ing old.  How many times do we have to answer this?  No one gives a bloody crap what you're doing "behind closed doors".  Marriages don't take place "behind closed doors" or "in the bedroom".  If they are endorsing gay marriage, that's a political statement, and -they- made it the issue via their own political advocay, not us.  If GOProud didn't have "support gay marriage" as part of their platform, I suspect the opposition to their sponsorship would drop 95%.

But let's measure that.  HEY EVERYBODY WHO OPPOSES GOProud's SPONSORHIP!  If GOProud did not support gay marriage, would you still oppose them?  If you are opposed now but would stop being opposed if they dropped the whole "Defending the constitution = supporting gay marriage" shtick, raise your hand.

*raises hand*

Qwinn

266

Lower Taxes

Smaller Government

Personal Responsibility

-- Rush Limbaugh

I don't see anything in there about penises or Birch. As long as a group adheres to these principles and doesn't have anything heinous -cough~NAMBLA~cough- then welcome to the tent.

CPAC can seat barber and GOProud on opposite sides of the room.

267
opinion... that is...

268 Dynamite.  The center right needs to have this debate.  I have major problems with challenges that two men or two women face in trying to construct a solid, monogamous, lasting relationship.  Government should see the greater benefits that healthy couples provide to society.  These are people I want to call my neighbors.  If they're conservative too then that's fabulous.  More please.

269 Nixon 253, reread that book. You have it in the wrong order

270   246 Posted by: Jim in San Diego at December 17, 2009 11:19 AM (F09Uo)

Why would I bother calling you a bigot? You're doing a fine job of it with your own words.

If you don't understand the difference between consensual sex between adults and child rape, the problem isn't that  you are a bigot. It's that  you are stupid.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 17, 2009 11:24 AM (FCWQb)

Fuck off Drew. What I was trying to point out was your magical age of consent is nothing more than an arbitrary point in space too. You can crank that age down to anything you want, but does that make it OK?

271

I completely agree Gabe. I have long said that the term social con is a misnomer. In order to be a social conservative, first you have to be a conservative. By conservative I mean someone who supports a small government, individual freedom, and adherence to the Constitution as written.

The real problem is that good folks who call themselves social cons--because that's what they are; they have socially conservative ideas--get slimed because of the Matt Barbers of the world. (And it also kinda sucks to be pigeonholed into one identity group--social cons. Many social cons are also fiscal cons, but if they feel the social con thing is being attacked, may be less interested in standing with their fiscal con brothers and sisters.)

272
I also wouldn't want GOPChristians or GOPJews to be important part of the conservative movement.

I am an ardent individualist. I hate collectivism in any shape or form.

273 Venn called.  He wants his diagrams back.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 17, 2009 11:25 AM (8WZWv)

I can only hope to run across a situation where I can flat out steal that with no attribution whatsoever.

274 If you don't understand the difference between consensual sex between adults and child rape, the problem isn't that  you are a bigot. It's that  you are stupid.

Yeah, but adulthood is a societal construct itself in the same way marriage is.

275 262 Something tells me this thread will not end well.

Posted by: Barbarian at December 17, 2009 11:29 AM (EL+OC)

Oh no, it's going to end great! Great I tell ya!

276

Venn called.  He wants his diagrams back.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 17, 2009 11:25 AM (8WZWv)

That's a threadwinner.

277 Fuck off Drew. What I was trying to point out was your magical age of consent is nothing more than an arbitrary point in space too. You can crank that age down to anything you want, but does that make it OK?
Posted by: Jim in San Diego at December 17, 2009 11:31 AM (F09Uo)

You can change the argument to anything you want. I'm sticking with the way you are comfortable associating consenting adults in with a bunch of child molesters.

This argument has nothing to do with NAMBLA but you felt free to drop it in because you either think all gays are a heartbeat away from becoming child molesters or you wanted to score what you thought was a scary point.

Either way, bringing NAMBLA up is idiotic. You did it. Own it.

278 I think we should be tolerant of abortion and all forms of welfare on demand statism too. If we would just adopt that platform we would have the biggest tent of all and we could call anyone else that doesn't agree a bigot, or a fascist, or whatever the cool buzz word of derisive exclusion is this week.

The word is going to change after the new year to be "extremist."  These things go in cycles.

279

This is the "blame the victim" strategy.  There wasn't a problem until she walked down the street in that miniskirt. Uh huh.

Oh, I see you graduated from the Ace School of Debate.

280 CPAC can seat barber and GOProud on opposite sides of the room. -- F--- No. Right next to one another. You have to develop a sense of theater to have a good meeting, not just a good projector and decent caterer.

281 Yeah, but adulthood is a societal construct itself in the same way marriage is.
Posted by: Tom in Korea at December 17, 2009 11:33 AM (+gX1+)

True as it is irrelevant to this discussion.

People only bring NAMBLA up when they want to be scary.

This is an argument about the political agenda of a gay and anti-gay conservative groups. WTF does NAMBLA or age of consent have to do with it?

People bring NAMBLA up because they want to smear gays, plain and simple. 

282

What I was trying to point out was your magical age of consent is nothing more than an arbitrary point in space too.

Well played, sir.  Well played, indeed.  "Aisha!  Come here!  I have a 'lolly-pop' for you to suck on."

283 If teh gay thread is going to be a weekly feature, I want the SolitaryVoice™ and AcePuppet™ threads to be weekly as well.

284 People bring NAMBLA up because they want to smear gays, plain and simple. 

Posted by: DrewM. at December 17, 2009 11:38 AM (FCWQb)

North American MAN BOY Love Association.

Oh yeah, you are right Drew, nothing gay to see here. Move along.

285 I'm disappointed by this turn of events. 

Teh gays and the fundies shouldn't be fightin'.  They should be unitin' -- against the common enemy:  The Mormons and their magical underpants.

You know who this benefits, don't you?  Yeah, that's right...  Mitt Romney.

286 The rule is simple.

Anything that infringles on the rights of another is wrong.  Government exists to protect our rights, not to grant them.  The government has a legitimate function to make laws discouraging or punishing that behavior.

The line should always be drawn where rights are infringed.

One of the prior examples:

I also don't think I'll catch "teh ghey" from anyone but that doesn't mean I want them sponsoring any event I'm attending either. NAMBLA would be legal too if we would just rewrite out ancient and bigoted laws against child sex.
Posted by: Jim in San Diego at December 17, 2009 11:00 AM (F09Uo)

Right.  Pop quiz:

Which of the following infringes on another's rights?

a) a 24 year old gay man having a consensual sexual relationship with another 24 year old gay man
b) a 35 year old gay man having a consensual sexual relationship with a 10 year old boy

Once you can answer that question, you know how to draw the line.

287

People bring NAMBLA up because they want to smear gays, plain and simple.

Drew, Gays have the same problem 98% of Muslims have: they don't object to t he 2% loud enough to seperate themselves from the extremist viewpoints and it get's lumped into the collective image. If anygroup wants to define themselves, they have to be VERY  vocal and VERY specific. And they have to be ready to ostracize the extremes when those labels get thrown around.

288 Posted by: Jim in San Diego at December 17, 2009 11:40 AM (F09Uo)

So when given the choice between "stupid" or "bigot" you took both.

Well played, sir! Well played!

289 Ace, is Gabe really necessary for you to run your blog?  ...

Posted by: Guess Who? at December 17, 2009 11:26 AM (os32M)

Pretty much, as far as I can tell.

It's Ace's blog.  If you don't like Gabe's posts (and I do, even when I disagree) either don't comment on them or go elsewhere.  This is not Sullivan's blog.  Except for that one horrible day, you can see right away when it's a Gabe post and when it isn't.  And if it is, skip it if you want.

It's the marketplace.  If you don't like it -- leave.  Now that's conservative.

290 People only bring NAMBLA up when they want to be scary.

Duh.  Is polygamy a more acceptable allegory for the Levelers-only-want-to-level-down argument?  I've been using that one a lot.

291 True as it is irrelevant to this discussion.

People only bring NAMBLA up when they want to be scary.

This is an argument about the political agenda of a gay and anti-gay conservative groups. WTF does NAMBLA or age of consent have to do with it?

People bring NAMBLA up because they want to smear gays, plain and simple.

Not really irrelevant.  You're calling folks bigoted because they don't adhere to your levels of tolerance.  But others undoubtedly would view you as bigoted for not favoring a lowered age of consent.  Or multiple partners.  Or whatever the cause de'jure may be.

My point is, why insult a group of people that were already on your side simply to curry favor with a group of folks playing identity politics that you want to join you..

292

be careful throwing around the LGF slur. That's a pretty big insult

Posted by: Ben at December 17, 2009 11:14 AM (wuv1c)

Nah, it's been so overused the past four weeks for anyone who steps off the hard-Right reservation. Doesn't really have much impact because, um, nothing has changed here.

293 Can't we all just get along?

294 289 Posted by: Jim in San Diego at December 17, 2009 11:40 AM (F09Uo)

So when given the choice between "stupid" or "bigot" you took both.

Well played, sir! Well played!

Posted by: DrewM. at December 17, 2009 11:42 AM (FCWQb)

When you can get away from stomping your feet and calling names, please tell me why anything I said was stupid or bigoted or even incorrect. If you could, you already would have. Struck a nerve, have I?

295 The issue is more to the fact that the group insists on identifying itself as a "Gay" group. Many people besides conservatives, take issue with the idea that people must acknowledge other people's sexual practices.

A lot of people take the attitude, keep it private, keep it in your bedroom, don't stick it in our faces by talking about what you do in your bedroom.

Suppose there was a GSOP group. (Golden Showers Old Party) Or a GSCTOP group. ( Go Scat old party)

People would be rightly saying "Shut the fuck up!" "Nobody wants to hear about your shit!"

Same thing. As long as a group insists on identifying itself as a particular sexual fetish, it ought not be accepted in an organization championing responsibility and morality.

296 I can only hope to run across a situation where I can flat out steal that with no attribution whatsoever.

Take it with my blessings. 

297 61: Perhaps as an alternate, my favorite line from this thread..."There's nothing conservative about burgling a turd!"

298

Marriage isn't a "basic freedom", it is a non-random institution that is -explicitly endorsed- because it provides the statistically best method for creating the next generation of civilization, via the raising of children by their biological parents in a stable monogamous relationship.  Gays exclude -themselves- from the reason why marriage is endorsed and subsidized by the state.

Would you also be against civil unions then?  Wouldn't that be, as far as the state is concerned, also to the benefit of society and the state?

What I think gets lost is this whole discussion is that while marriage between a man and a woman may considered be the best thing for perpetuatuting the species, it is not the only reason people get married. 

The state gives numerous basic priviledges to married couples that non-married couples are denied, such as inheritance rights and visitation rights.  If society only does this to promote the cultivation of the next generation, should those couples who personally decide to not have children be denied those same rights? 

If GOProud didn't have "support gay marriage" as part of their platform, I suspect the opposition to their sponsorship would drop 95%.

The other 5% being those who compare being gay to being a pedophile, I assume.

 

 

299 Great post, Gabriel.  I agree completely.

300 Duh.  Is polygamy a more acceptable allegory for the Levelers-only-want-to-level-down argument?  I've been using that one a lot.

Sure, let's use polygamy:

Which infringes on someone's rights? (even a third-party's rights count)

a) a consensual sexual relationship (marriage) between an adult male and 3 adult women?
b) a consensual sexual relationship (marriage) between 4 adult males?
c) a consensual sexual relationship (marriage) between an adult woman and 3 adult males?
d) an arranged marriage between an adult male and 3 adult females?
e) all of the above
f) a, b, and c
g) d only

Again, answer that and you know where to draw the line.

301 Everyone driving faster than me is a maniac, everyone driving slower is an idiot.

302

I would like to see the GOProud crowd speak on the Fistgate controversy.  While conservatives are outraged over this, rarely has anyone spoken out from the gay community. 

GayPatriot has had posts on it since it started.

303

I think we should be tolerant of abortion and all forms of welfare on demand statism too. If we would just adopt that platform we would have the biggest tent of all and we could call anyone else that doesn't agree a bigot, or a fascist, or whatever the cool buzz word of derisive exclusion is this week.

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at December 17, 2009 11:28 AM (F09Uo)

Utter nonsense. Yes we do tolerate abortion in the sense that we do not cast aside from the conservative movement anyone who has had an abortion. I want to fight for the rights of individuals and roll back the size and scope of government. I do not feel that we advance this cause one iota by having a social litmus tests.  Is heterosexual anal sex okay in your book, or do we have to cast those folks out as well? Why don't you give us the full list of fetishes which won't be tolerated so that we can round those people up and ask them to step aside in the interest of party purification.

304 I think everyone here would be a lot calmer if they wore a pair of those wicked cool blue slouchslacks.

305 Gronard how about a 17 year old male marrying a 64 year old male?

306 H.  none of the above.

307

Drew, Gays have the same problem 98% of Muslims have: they don't object to t he 2% loud enough to seperate themselves from the extremist viewpoints and it get's lumped into the collective image.

Posted by: Just a Cynic.... at December 17, 2009 11:42 AM (v4UYp)

I think the problem many have is that this brand-new group, while hanging some conservative ornaments, seems to be a tree made 100% of radical agenda.

We'll see what their priorities are: Speaking out against Jennings or agitating for same-sex marriage.  I have my suspicions that it's the latter.

308 Come on, people (GOP), concentrate.  These are not normal times where we have the luxury of batting about social issues.  This truly is about liberty vs.tyranny.  The Dems in DC are true believers, they intend to enshrine socialism in USA at all costs before 2012.  We have one, ONE, election to stop this crap.

309 Hmmm, alright, I gotta change my mind - yes, I would still have a problem with GOProud if they dropped the support for gay marriage - though still, a lot LESS of a problem - simply due to their attempt to play identity politics.

I have to agree with Diogenes and all the rest making this point.  Simply playing the identity politics card, wherever they stand on the actual issues, is problematic.

But the fact that they play identity politics AND stand diametrically opposed to a policy position of the group they're attempting to infiltrate is even worse.

I have no problem at all with -individual- gay conservatives who oppose gay marriage - hell, I would -never- stand between the GOP and alexthechick (unless that might induce her to bring out her stompy boots, in which case, all bets are off).  But when they start to claim their identity group as more important than their politics, bleah, that's when they cross the line to showing their true leftist colors.

Qwinn

310 Not really irrelevant.  You're calling folks bigoted because they don't adhere to your levels of tolerance.
Posted by: Tom in Korea at December 17, 2009 11:43 AM (+gX1+)

No, I'm calling a specific individual a bigot because of this comment:

I also don't think I'll catch "teh ghey" from anyone but that doesn't mean I want them sponsoring any event I'm attending either. NAMBLA would be legal too if we would just rewrite out ancient and bigoted laws against child sex.

This casual equating of GOProud with NAMBLA is nothing more that a slur on gays.

He's free to say it here. Notice no one deleted his comment but that doesn't mean it doesn't get challenged.

311

I'm seeing a lot of names here today I have never seen before. It's almost like a call went out on some twitter feed somewhere with a general call of support, specifically to this thread.

312

One man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love.’? I'll give it a solid B+.

313 Several hundred years ago this country was founded on Christian Principals in defense of Religious Freedom.

I see this written up all the time and it is a myth.  This country was not founded on religious freedom principles at all. Out of the 3 original colonies (MA, VA, & SC) founded by the British only one (MA) was founded based on religion AND it certainly was not founded on religious freedom.

Hell, they had a State sponsored religion up until the mid 1800's and initially there was zero tolerance for other religions. The first person hanged in this country was hanged in MA for the crime of being a Quaker.

SC was founded by the Lord Proprietors for the sole purpose of making a profit!

Note: NY was founded by the Dutch

314

let me toss this bone out

if sarah palin was ghey (i would kill for the video) would she still be a conservative?

315

This isn't the first time Gabriel has posted a divisive post for the sole purpose of pitting the commenters against each other.

Let it be known throughout the land: I have no interest or designs on "pitting the commenters against each other." I just don't. I call 'em like I see 'em.

And that's a pretty fuckin' stupid thing to say, anyway. Tell me, did Ed at Hot Air post about this "for the sole purpose" of pitting his commenters against each other?

316 Great, a stealth liberal group to divide and cause controversy.  According to their web site they are for gay marriage and want open gayness in the military.  Not that there is anything..... yes, actually, there is something wrong with that.  

317

Zimriel, You are correct. However, Faith sure seems to be required in the equation. The New Testament also says that by "Faith alone are ye saved". But, A true Faith will produce good works (Fruit).

Good point. Thanks.

318 Gronard how about a 17 year old male marrying a 64 year old male?

Posted by: polynikes at December 17, 2009 11:49 AM (jgvSm)

Is it infringing on someone's rights? 

We can have a rational discussion about that.  I would argue that it's possible the 17 year old can't consent.  There's a reason we had to drop a line somewhere for contract law.  To enter into a contract (to consent) requires a maturity level capable of understanding the commitment.  It can be argued a 17 year old doesn't have that.

This inevitably leads to the "well, a 17 year old is mature enough to drive" discussion.  Maturity to understand the ramifications of different things happens at different ages (and is different by individual).  However, it's pretty clear that most 17 year olds don't have the maturity to commit to a contract or to a marriage. (many shouldn't drive either, but that's another discussion!)

My point is that a rational discussion should take place centered only around evaluating whether or not rights are being infringed.  If so, the government has a legitimate role.  If not, then it doesn't.

319

I encourage everyone to read the hysterical, hyperbolic, frenetic comment 251. It's a doozy. And as that character that I like once said:

"Everything that guy just said is bullshit!"

320

let me toss this bone out

if sarah palin was ghey (i would kill for the video) would she still be a conservative?

Only if the video was with Dana Pirino.

Heh.  LILF. 

321 H.  none of the above.

Posted by: toby928 at December 17, 2009 11:50 AM (PD1tk)

Nope, the arranged marriage infringes on the rights of those being forced into marriage, wouldn't you say?

322 There's also nothing conservative about a man violently cramming his dick into a woman's coochie and calling it love. In fact, we often call that "rape."

Sorry, you lost me here.  Often? 

There is nothing inherently conservative or liberal about sexual orientation.  The politics come in when someone's sexual orientation leaves the bedroom. 

323 The real problem is that good folks who call themselves social cons--because that's what they are; they have socially conservative ideas--get slimed because of the Matt Barbers of the world. (And it also kinda sucks to be pigeonholed into one identity group--social cons.

Drew, this is why I always speak out when the idea of "social cons" comes up. Mainly it is a meme pushed by the MSM. To them anyone who is anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage is a conservative.

What I think conservatives need to do is separate out the religious overtones from the political overtones. If someone is anti-abortion but believes in socialism (typical Catholic Priest you see on TV)  they should not be lumped in as a conservative.

Conservatives should try to get the word out to refute this MSM meme at every opportunity.  That will reduce the "sliming" of the good folks who are true conservatives.

324 Liberty Counsel is threatening to boycott CPAC

If the "gay thing" is a show stopper for them when we're all faced with the Obama/Pelosi/Reid trifecta, then screw them.

What we have here is a full spectrum threat environment.  Going single issue in that space is to go full weapons grade retard.

325 276 262 Something tells me this thread will not end well.

Posted by: Barbarian at December 17, 2009 11:29 AM (EL+OC)

Oh no, it's going to end great! Great I tell ya!

As we all know, in the end there will only be CHAOS!

(With apologies and much respect to Kratos.)

326

if sarah palin was ghey (i would kill for the video) would she still be a conservative?

Better question  Could she be?  Would she be allowed into the hall?

327

A lot of people here are confusing "conservative" with "libertarian", and confusing both with any given alliance of the Right (like the GOP).

It happens that those positions are in existential conflict on an array of issues. One of them is marriage: conservatives say it is a traditional institution of Western culture, and libertarians say it is a contract.

CPAC claims to be a conservative organisation; but when they allow a pro-contract group in as a sponsor, then they aren't. It is a conflict of interest for an anti-conservative group to sponsor a conservative group.

This site, Ace of Spades, is an alliance of the Right, more or less parallel to the GOP. Like the GOP we have conservatives and libertarians here. We also have some who aren't either one, like myself - but people like us aren't given top posting privileges like Gabriel.

Gabriel's key comment was this: "It seems that a small group of social conservatives led by anti-gay Matt Barber and Liberty Counsel is threatening to boycott CPAC if GOProud isn't kicked off the co-sponsors list. I say let them boycott if they're so worried about being in the same room as teh gays."

Here's the point: Barber may be a jerk and a bigot, but he is still an authentic conservative. GOProud is anti-conservative. To say that CPAC has to kick out conservatives to let in an anti-conservative is to subvert CPAC; inductively, it is to destroy conservative associations as conservative.

Gabriel Malor's post here does not further the alliance of the Right. He is trying to save the village by setting fire to the part of it he doesn't like.

328

"Would you also be against civil unions then?  Wouldn't that be, as far as the state is concerned, also to the benefit of society and the state?"

Um, why?  In what way does the government subsidizing "civil unions" benefit society or the state?  It does nothing to encourage a stable platform for the raising of children by their biological parents.

"What I think gets lost is this whole discussion is that while marriage between a man and a woman may considered be the best thing for perpetuatuting the species, it is not the only reason people get married."

No, but it is the explicit reason the government got involved.  The government has no stake in any of the other reasons.

"The state gives numerous basic priviledges to married couples that non-married couples are denied, such as inheritance rights and visitation rights.  If society only does this to promote the cultivation of the next generation, should those couples who personally decide to not have children be denied those same rights?"

It would require a pretty intrusive government to weed those few people out.  The government would then have to investigate -why- the couple doesn't have children, etc.  Hardly worth it, especially when they're a minority and their refusal to reproduce doesn't redefine the institution in a real, binding sense.  There is no intrusion required in recognizing that gays -categorically- cannot produce or raise their biological children.

But that said, if it's a -forced choice- between redefining marriage to be about something other than the kids, and not allowing those who don't wish to have kids to marry, then I'd go with the latter.  I know, that'd be a dickish move, and I'd feel especially bad for those couples who -couldn't- have kids due to infertility, but you know what?  I'm not the one -forcing- the choice just to prevent gay marriage advocates from beating the slippery slope drum.

Qwinn

329 My point is that a rational discussion should take place centered only around evaluating whether or not rights are being infringed.  If so, the government has a legitimate role.  If not, then it doesn't.

I can't disagree on the need for rational discussion, I just disagree that it leads to a resolution of legitimacy. 

Even an inarticulate viewpoint is a viewpoint nonetheless.  I grant value even to the ick factor argument.  I just don't find it persuasive.  In the end, government, as a representative of the people, ought to represent the people, even if they are, by my standards, wrong.

It's all about persuasion.

330 I am a proud bigot when it comes to the gheyness. Am I now excluded from your reindeer games, Gabriel?

331 This casual equating of GOProud with NAMBLA is nothing more that a slur on gays.

He's free to say it here. Notice no one deleted his comment but that doesn't mean it doesn't get challenged.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 17, 2009 11:51 AM (FCWQb)

It's quite a bot more than casual but instead the highlighting of a group that the greater homosexual community does nothing to separate themselves from. That in itself should be a huge red flag that that type of behaviors is tacitly approved of as it's not actively condemned.

332 Forget the NAMBLA part of Jim in San Deigo's comment and look at this...

I also don't think I'll catch "teh ghey" from anyone but that doesn't mean I want them sponsoring any event I'm attending either.

He doesn't want to attend an event that is sponsored by "them" (a self-proclaimed conservative gay group).

How is not wanting to go to an event simply because it is co-sponsored  by a self identified gay group(1 of like 100 or so such groups) not bigoted?

Maybe I'm nuts but that sounds bigoted to me.

333 One of the points of GOProud's agenda  if you read it closely is that they think America should invade countries which aren't sufficiently friendly to the radical gay agenda.

When you say "closely", it sounds like "close" in your lexicon involves strong hallucinogens and copious amounts of Sterno, right?

334 Nope, the arranged marriage infringes on the rights of those being forced into marriage, wouldn't you say?

Obviously, I would not.  It's an ancient and respected tradition in many cultures.  Especially those where marriage is consumated at a young age.

I'm not totally an individualist btw.

335 Yeah, I read the Infamous Post 251. I don't like that it is anonymous. The language in it, also, was extreme. But other than that 251 presents a sound argument. My #329 basically is a rewriting of it.

336 (With apologies and much respect to Kratos.)

You respect a man who murdered his wife and child?  No comment.

337 "I see this written up all the time and it is a myth.  This country was not founded on religious freedom principles at all. Out of the 3 original colonies (MA, VA, & SC) founded by the British only one (MA) was founded based on religion AND it certainly was not founded on religious freedom.

Hell, they had a State sponsored religion up until the mid 1800's and initially there was zero tolerance for other religions. The first person hanged in this country was hanged in MA for the crime of being a Quaker."

Posted by: Vic at December 17, 2009 11:52 AM (CDUiN)


Very Astute. A lot of people don't know the true story of religion in the United States. The religious freedom clause was never really meant to be so tolerant as it is regarded today. It had to be ratified by (3/4ths of) thirteen states, most of which had Religious requirements for office.

The Ratifying states interpreted it to mean tolerance of the various denominations of Christianity (and possibly Judaism) but tolerances for other religions really wasn't a common understanding in 1789.

338

Here's the point: Barber may be a jerk and a bigot, but he is still an authentic conservative. GOProud is anti-conservative. To say that CPAC has to kick out conservatives to let in an anti-conservative is to subvert CPAC; inductively, it is to destroy conservative associations as conservative.

Those of you who believe that conservative political principles revolve solely around God, Guns and Gays can't call themselves conservatives, as you've no clue what that term even entails.

339

Here's the point: Barber may be a jerk and a bigot, but he is still an authentic conservative. GOProud is anti-conservative. To say that CPAC has to kick out conservatives to let in an anti-conservative is to subvert CPAC; inductively, it is to destroy conservative associations as conservative.

Gabriel Malor's post here does not further the alliance of the Right. He is trying to save the village by setting fire to the part of it he doesn't like.

Reading comprehension, much? I didn't say that CPAC should kick out Barber or Liberty Counsel. I said that if Liberty Counsel chooses not to come that's their business.

340 Here's the point: Barber may be a jerk and a bigot, but he is still an authentic conservative.

By threatening boycott, he's made it quite clear that "anti-gay" trumps whatever otherwise conservative notion he subscribes to, and trumps them pretty hard.

IOW - its probably more important to him to be viewed as anti-gay than to see the likes of Pelosi/Obama/Reid removed by a cooperating coalition.

That's not conservative, that's suicidal.

341

should be a huge red flag that that type of behaviors is tacitly approved of as it's not actively condemned.

Other than the NAMBLA freaks, show me any group of people, either gay or straight. that defends the molestation of children.  Every person I know, both straight and gay, totally condemns child sex.

Your argument is out of place, incoherent, wrong and insulting. 

342 Drew:

"How is not wanting to go to an event simply because it is co-sponsored  by a self identified gay group(1 of like 100 or so such groups) not bigoted?"

Assumes facts not in evidence.  You assume that they would oppose it if that same group didn't hold the -political- position of endorsing gay marriage.  You don't know that.  You're making it about "it's -just- because they're gay" rather than "it's because they support gay marriage", but as far as I  can tell, there's nothing to support that.

Also, you presume they wouldn't oppose -any- group that identified itself as an identity group, in the way the left does.  I hate identity groups.  Period.  I'd be just as turned off by an explicitly -white- identity group trying to join the GOP.  As I'm sure you would.  But I'm sure -there-, you'd understand the problem and why people wouldn't want it.  I make no such arbitrary "it's okay depending on the identity" distinctions.  That's a leftist game.

Qwinn

343 Gognard 17 is the age of consent in some states. That said these relationships infringe on my rights indirectly as a result of financial issues ie; social security, taxes as well as legal issues pertaining to spouses. These will effect the basic structure of our government which will adversly directly effect me. Damn I hate posting from I-phone.

344

 Hardly worth it, especially when they're a minority and their refusal to reproduce doesn't redefine the institution in a real, binding sense. 

Same can be said for gays, in my opinion.

345 NAMBLA and Jennings are relevant until the gay community violently rejects them. A few gay conservatives, like GayPatriot, do not represent the gay community. What prominent gay organization has gone to Pelosi and demanded Jennings' head? When will I see gay bikers trashing a NAMBLA meeting with bats and chains? It is up to them (the gay community) to make NAMBLA slurs irrelevant, and to do so in a very public and searing manner so that the rest of us don't forget, and then periodically reinforce that image. If they want to sit at the big table, then they need to take out the garbage first.

346

Other than the NAMBLA freaks, show me any group of people, either gay or straight. that defends the molestation of children.  Every person I know, both straight and gay, totally condemns child sex.

Your argument is out of place, incoherent, wrong and insulting. 

Um, I guess you have -entirely- missed the entire "Fistinggate" scandal, and the fact that pretty much everyone on the left side of the spectrum seems to be defending it.

Qwinn.

347 Obviously, I would not.  It's an ancient and respected tradition in many cultures.  Especially those where marriage is consumated at a young age.

I'm not totally an individualist btw.

Fair enough.  What you're saying is that tradition supersedes freedom of choice and the "pursuit of happiness."  I happen to disagree.  Traditions are important, but none are more important than freedom.  If the tradition limits freedom, then it's morally wrong.

I also believe you're saying (in a prior post) that the government has to represent the will of the people, regardless of whether or not that will infringes on the liberties of a subset of the people.  I disagree with this as well.  Freedom is an absolute, and cannot be watered down by the arbitrary whims of the people.  Government, as an entity, is supposed to protect our freedoms from precisely this sort of outcome.

348

I'm saying that you, Gabriel Malor, are saying: that CPAC currently sides with an anti-conservative organisation - GOProud - and that the people who should defer to that are the actual conservatives (unsavoury ones to be sure).

I'm also saying that if you think that, then you have a problem with conservatives. Root and branch.

349 I mean, hell, I actually saw a defense of Fistinggate that boiled down to:  "Those evil right wingers are claiming this particular book endorsed fisting among children, when it doesn't at all!  It in fact only encourages children to use dental dams, which help prevent children engaging in oral sex from catching diseases!"

Read that a few times, and see if you can grok that they actually think that exonerates them.

Qwinn

350 Other than the NAMBLA freaks, show me any group of people, either gay or straight. that defends the molestation of children.

That was the point of the GLSEN reading list.  Yes, they would officially deny it, they are not as honest as NAMBLA, but the stories were explicitly meant to normalize relations between children and adults.

351 We have to face the fact that its now the 21st century and the US is a melting pot of various ethnicities and religions. if we start trying to draw lines on those levels the statists have won. I firmly feel that most intelligent responsible people are conservative by nature. we need to draw on that fact.

352 An honest question for those of you who are knocking GOProud not because they are a gay group but because they are practicing identity politics....

Show CPAC also disallow groups that identify themselves as Christian from participating? Isn't playing on one's religion a form of identity poltics?

353 Freedom is an absolute, and cannot be watered down by the arbitrary whims of the people.

Freedom, as an absolute, is an unworkable concept.

I also don't think that morality is a basis for representative government.  It's a good arrow in the quiver of argument but not all in a pluralistic society will agree to your, or my, moral set.

You might could persuade me otherwise ;-)

354 345 Gognard 17 is the age of consent in some states. That said these relationships infringe on my rights indirectly as a result of financial issues ie; social security, taxes as well as legal issues pertaining to spouses. These will effect the basic structure of our government which will adversly directly effect me. Damn I hate posting from I-phone.

I have the same problem with my BlackBerry.

There are a couple of responses to this:

First, if a state establishes an age of consent of 17 (or whatever) then that's their deliberation of the age where maturity allows a compact to be entered.  People can agree or disagree on the precise age while acknowledging that the line has to be somewhere reasonable.

As for infringing on your rights - in the current state of affairs, I agree.  However, had the government followed my philosophy from the beginning, those relationships would have absolutely no impact on your life and would not infringe on your rights in any way.

For example, if there are no special tax status issues for married persons, then whether another person has 1 or 4 spouses becomes irrelevant. 

355 I'm also saying that if you think that, then you have a problem with conservatives. Root and branch.

Using your logic, we would have never provided Lend/Lease assistance to the Soviets in WWII.

356   352 Other than the NAMBLA freaks, show me any group of people, either gay or straight. that defends the molestation of children.

That was the point of the GLSEN reading list.  Yes, they would officially deny it, they are not as honest as NAMBLA, but the stories were explicitly meant to normalize relations between children and adults.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 17, 2009 12:14 PM (7daqv)

None are so blind as those that refuse to see.

357 "Show CPAC also disallow groups that identify themselves as Christian from participating? Isn't playing on one's religion a form of identity poltics?"

I already answered this in post 213 in response to someone else making the same argument.  It starts with "Okay, this is just downright insane."

Qwinn

358 As far as I am concerned, GSLEN is NAMBLA - with a few lesbians beards.

359

DrewM, I know you're not directing that at me (because I was arguing from the standpoint that GOProud an anti-conservative group; I didn't care about the gay or identity part of it), but try this on anyway:

I argue that "conservative" is a political identity. CPAC should allow identity groups which follow conservative principles. Christians are okay. Gay groups are okay if they don't argue for the redefinition of marriage. GOProud, not okay.

360 Show CPAC also disallow groups that identify themselves as Christian from participating? Isn't playing on one's religion a form of identity poltics?

Posted by: DrewM. at December 17, 2009 12:17 PM (FCWQb)

No.  Religion is a philosophy, not a state of being.  In the Western (as opposed to the Muslim) view of religion, an adult chooses or at least can choose to reject any religion under which he was raised.  "Jewish" is a bit more muddled.

Unless you're saying that homosexuality is a religion.

361 354 An honest question for those of you who are knocking GOProud not because they are a gay group but because they are practicing identity politics....

Show CPAC also disallow groups that identify themselves as Christian from participating? Isn't playing on one's religion a form of identity poltics?

Posted by: DrewM. at December 17, 2009 12:17 PM (FCWQb)

You chicken can be roasted on many spits Drew. Are you now saying that sexual orientation is as much of a conscious choice as one's religion?

Be careful of how you answer, lest you go astray of established orthodoxy.

362 A lot of people here are confusing "conservative" with "libertarian", and confusing both with any given alliance of the Right (like the GOP).

Actually it looks like you are one of those who confuses religion with conservatism.

363 Listen, CPAC should include anybody they want but they should be Conservative first and foremost. The argument here is that GOProud is conservative, maybe they are nominally but they are first and foremost a GAY group. The argument is that most of their agenda is conservative and that's BS.
Most of their agenda is Gay. It's at the heart of almost every point of their agenda.

GOProud's Conservative Agenda

The so-called "gay agenda" is defined by the left through a narrow prism of legislative goals. While hate crimes and employment protections may be worthy goals, there are many other important priorities that receive little attention from the gay community. GOProud's agenda emphasizes conservative and libertarian principles that will improve the daily lives of all Americans, but especially gay and lesbian Americans.

Hate crime laws are worthy goals? They are an insult to any idea of freedom of thought. Employment protections? For who? Especially Gays and lesbians.
Christians are pro-life. Are they against abortions especially for Christians?
Conservatives are against especially for anybody. Nobody's special.

1- TAX REFORM - Death tax repeal; domestic partner tax equity, and other changes to the tax code that will provide equity for gays and lesbians; cut in the capital gains and corporate tax rates to jump start our economy and create jobs; a fairer, flatter and substantially simpler tax code

Provide equity for Gays and lesbians. Again, are black conservatives in favor of changing to the tax code to provide equity for blacks? What is conservative about carving out special changes in the tax code for your Especial Group?

2 - HEALTHCARE REFORM - Free market healthcare reform. Legislation that will allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines - expanding access to domestic partner benefits; emphasizing individual ownership of healthcare insurance - such a shift would prevent discriminatory practices by an employer or the government.

Expanding access means telling private companies what the hell they have to do.
Preventing discriminatory practices mean business owners have to pay for the health benefits of domestic partners again telling them what they have to do regardless of how they feel about it. How the hell is this Conservative?

3 - SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM- Bringing basic fairness to the Social Security system through the creation of inheritable personal savings accounts.

4 - DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL REPEAL - Repeal of the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

Is anyone even pretending this is Conservative?

5 - HOLDING THE LINE ON SPENDING - Standing up for all tax payers against wasteful and unnecessary spending to protect future generations from the mounting federal debt.

6 - FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS - Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians.

You have got to be friggin kiddin' me right? American Foreign Policy is supposed to be seriously effected by the idea that Kenyans want a law against homosexuals?

7 - DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION - Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.

It's anti-gay....not pro marriage, get the wording here. It's not codifying how the federal government has always defined marriage it's anti-gay. That's Conservative?

8 - ENCOURAGING COMMUNITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP - Package of free market reforms to encourage and support small businesses and entrepreneurship in the gay community.

In the Gay community. The Especial people. Gee I wonder if they will be for a package which helps out the community of small business owners who want that anti-gay marriage ammendment. I'm thinking that's a big NO.

9 - REVITALIZING OUR COMMUNITIES - A package of urban related reforms; expanding historic tax preservation credits; support for school choice.

Urban reforms? What the hell does the federal government have to do with city government? Tax Preservation Credits? I'm not really seeing much conservative here except for school choice.

10 - DEFENDING OUR COMMUNITY - Protecting 2nd amendment rights.

2nd amendment rights aren't about protecting any damn community. It's an individual right. This sounds like they see the 2nd amendment as a Militia only thing. That isn't Conservative.

364

Well, Purple Avenger just Godwined me, so I know I've beaten him already.

Drew and Gabriel, what have you got left?

365 Freedom, as an absolute, is an unworkable concept.

How's that?  Inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property (pursuit of happiness) are unworkable?

I guess I'm not understanding how you're coming at this.

In my view, everything boils down to these inalienable rights.

366 I gather the point most are making is that it's only 'identity politics' if you are identifying yourself with something immutable like race, sex or sexual orientation.

I'm not sure I agree with that but I was asking honestly as I haven't given it much thought.

It does raise a question...if you are saying sexual orientation is baked in the cake, as it were, then shouldn't we be against any kind of discrimination against them based on that immutable trait?

367 Would Conservative Farmers for Direct Payments to Farmers be an unCPACable group.

If they were for everything we like, strong defense, property rights, low taxes, anti-abortion etc but they wanted cash from the government to preserve farming as a national treasure, would we think they shouldn't be welcome?

I don't agree with their imaginary plank but I can't say its irrational and that they are excludable.

368 Posted by: Jim in San Diego at December 17, 2009 12:23 PM (F09Uo)

Hey Jimmy, got an answer to my point in comment 334?

I'm heading out for a meeting so you'll have plenty of time to come up with something.

369 Drew:

-I- don't think homosexuality is genetic or pre-ordained, but as far as I can tell, GOProud certainly does.

Frankly, I think Rock's post at 365 should end this debate.  It is -very- obvious that GOProud is primarily centered on a gay agenda, not a conservative agenda.

Qwinn

370 DrewM: I'm not against discrimination based on immutable traits. And be honest with yourself - neither are you. I wouldn't hire someone who got a 400 in the Math SAT to maintain a webserver. But maybe he's good at answering phones instead.

371 I'm a social con, but good riddance if the Liberty Counsel wants to boycott. Bigotry likes this makes me ashamed to have gone to an Evangelical school.

372 "I gather the point most are making is that it's only 'identity politics' if you are identifying yourself with something immutable like race, sex or sexual orientation."

It doesn't really have to be "immutable", it just has to have something to do with the purpose of the event, which is politics.  Simply being gay doesn't mean you have to prefer gay marriage or any other political plank.  But, generally, being Christian or conservative -are- defined by a set of beliefs that do relate to and inform political beliefs.

Qwinn

373 How's that?  Inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property (pursuit of happiness) are unworkable?

We take life, liberty and property everyday, perforce.  We have to slice up the rights constantly in the real world.  How we do that is politics and hence, persuasion.

374 371 Drew:

Frankly, I think Rock's post at 365 should end this debate.  It is -very- obvious that GOProud is primarily centered on a gay agenda, not a conservative agenda.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 12:30 PM (SxA2Q)

BINGO!

375 Well, Purple Avenger just Godwined me, so I know I've beaten him already.

Hardly.  I just took your style of reasoning to its logical conclusion -- that being if you disagree with a potential ally on one point even though you agree on others, they must be your enemy.

With guys like you its always "my way or the highway".  You want it all.

Politics is compromise.  There's a term for people who won't compromise to get allies on board to defeat a strong common enemy.  It begins with "L".

So go ahead and hold onto your ideological purity if it gives you comfort.  You'll just be doing it from with a country you won't even recognize as America anymore if Obama/Pelosi get their way.

376 Frankly, I think Rock's post at 365 should end this debate.  It is -very- obvious that GOProud is primarily centered on a gay agenda, not a conservative agenda.
Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 12:30 PM (SxA2Q)

In what way is it obvious?

There are two points which touch on gay issues, one of which (opposition to the FMA) is not exactly something a lot of folks agree on (See: Cheney, Dick; Olson, Ted to name two that come to mind).

What you are saying is that any deviation from being anti-same sex marriage is cause for expulsion from the conservative movement.

Again, nice to know we have the luxury of tossing folks overboard.

(FTR- I think Olson is nuts on Prop 8 but he's an otherwise solid conservative)

377

So, let me see if I've got this straight:

The assumption that being gay is the same as being a pedophile is based on the fact that far left activists and radicals are pushing to sexualize children at a young age.

Wouldn't it make more sense to say that being a far-left radical is more akin to be a pedophile than a gay person woudl be in general?  Especially if you consider yourself tro be a conservative gay person?

As far as GOProud's agenda, they seem to view things from a bit more of a gay-centric POV, but their agenda is not as radical as many are trying to paint it.  For example, I think we all agree that we need sensible health-care reform, as they have defined it in their agenda.  So they have their reasons for agreeing with us, but we don't want them around becuase we disagree with  their reasons.

Gotcha.

378

Post 365 just removed any benefit of the doubt I was willing to extend to GOProud.  Pushing liberalism and special rights agendas under the conservative banner doesn't make them conservative.

379 We take life, liberty and property everyday, perforce.  We have to slice up the rights constantly in the real world.  How we do that is politics and hence, persuasion.

Okay.  I think that gets to the heart of it.

My feeling is that the "real world" would be much simpler and more conducive to freedom if the government would stick actions that protect rights instead of compromising them for political reasons.

Politics may be necessary for debating the best way to protect these rights, but it shouldn't be a factor in deciding whether those rights should be protected at all.

380

Everybody needs to get over the gay issue. Social cons want the government out of all things except when they want the Fed's to enfore their moral views.  Talk about hypocrisy. 

Give me a vote for limited government and I'll proudly stand with teh gays. 

 

 

381 should be "stick to", not "stick" in post 381.  Ugh.

382

Purple Avenger, I see you're not done making own goals. Far be it from me to get in your way.

A "conservative" group is an ideological group. If you don't like it, don't join; above all don't be like Gabriel Malor and tell conservatives good riddance. Join a Republican group instead and make the argument there. Duh.

In your analogy, Roosevelt in fact did think of Stalin as more of an ally than he was; and he made far too many concessions to the international Left, including  allowing several Communists into his government. The result was Stalin and Mao taking over much of the world, the loss of nuclear secrets, and the disaster of the Korean War. Roosevelt would have done better to have kept his distance.

383 "In what way is it obvious?  There are two points which touch on gay issues"

Um, WHAT?

Dude.  Read it again.  Six of them directly frame the points as gay issues.  Explicitly.  The only ones that don't explicitly do so are 3, 5, 9 and 10.  And number 5 is the only one either not painted in a leftist framing or clearly aimed at advancing the gay agenda specifically (or do you really think their point 3 is about anything other than letting gays specifically inherit SS from their partners?).

Your claim that only 2 of those 10 points "touch on gay issues" makes me really start to doubt that you're arguing in good faith.  It's -explicit- in -six- of them.

The -only- point that is unobjectionable in that list is point 5.

Qwinn

384 I'm not so sure its a "special rights" agenda with the tax issues.  It sounds more like an elimination of existing distinctions made in law pertaining with marriage .  The law in theory and practice is replete with these.

I'm uncomfortable with the whole notion of marriage being legally enshrined and have been for many years.  I'd much rather the law/taxes be completely oblivious to marital status leaving that as a social convention implemented in social institutions of non-legal nature.

385 "Everybody needs to get over the gay issue. Social cons want the government out of all things except when they want the Fed's to enfore their moral views.  Talk about hypocrisy. "

And this has been debunked how many times now?  Being for government subsidizing of gay marriage is the -bigger government- position. 

We've said this a thousand times.  The pro-gay-marriage crowd simply doesn't listen to anything.  They've made up their minds about the motives of the anti-gay-marriage crowd, and it's like talking to a wall.

Qwinn

386 See, this is why I don't bother commenting here much anymore:  why bother accusing you of running a crypto-leftist blog Ace when Gabe, Drew, and the Purple guy do such a splendid job of proving my point for me? 

These guys genuinely believe and openly admit that they think people who oppose the inclusion of a radical gay - which is to say explicitly anti-conservative - lobby in a conservative movement...are bigots.  The equation can be shortened to conservative=bigot, that's what they are arguing here.

Oh, I just caught this:

I'm uncomfortable with the whole notion of marriage being legally enshrined and have been for many years.

Is the Purple Avenger more radically Marxist than the Communist Party of Cuba?  Let's roll the tape:

Article 35: The state protects the family, motherhood and matrimony.
The state recognizes the family as the main nucleus of society and attributes to it the important responsibilities and functions in the education and formation of the new generations.

Article 36: Marriage is the voluntarily established union between a man and a woman, who are legally fit to marry, in order to live together. It is based on full equality of rights and duties for the partners, who must see to the support of the home and the integral education of their children through a joint effort compatible with the social activities of both.
The law regulates the formalization, recognition and dissolution of marriage and the rights and obligations deriving from such acts.

Sauce:  the Cuban Constitution

Conclusion:  yes, Purple Guy is significantly more radical than even the constitution of the last remaining Marxist country on the planet.  And people wonder why I call this joint a crypto blog.

387 That was the point of the GLSEN reading list.  Yes, they would officially deny it, they are not as honest as NAMBLA, but the stories were explicitly meant to normalize relations between children and adults.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 17, 2009 12:14 PM (7daqv)

"Even though Tom was older, almost twice Dan’s age (15), Dan felt unthreatened by him. Dan admits Tom was a “troll” in every sense of the word—an older closeted gay man seeking sex with a man much younger. But Dan says he was not intimidated by the discrepancy in their ages. “He kind of had me in a corner in that he knew I didn’t have access to anything I wanted.” says Dan. “But everything was consensual.”"

- exerpt from Passages of Pride (fGLSEN reading list for grades 7-12)

388 A "conservative" group is an ideological group.

Sure, about 10-15% of the population or so might meet your purity tests.  Good luck in attaining your goals.  Sounds like you have an unstoppable majority to me.

389 There are two points which touch on gay issues,

Such a beautiful wooden horse!  What a gift!  We'll look to see if there's anything inside it....In the morning....It's probably full of hard candies and they'll keep overnight.

one of which (opposition to the FMA) is not exactly something a lot of folks agree on (See: Cheney, Dick; Olson, Ted to name two that come to mind).

Actually, I recall that when the whole marriage issue emerged that the view from the right advocating it most strongly and the one most often cited was Andrew Sullivan.  David Frum I seem to recall quoting him very favorably on NRO.

It isn't a matter of dissent on an issue, but it's a matter of sponsorship.  I'm much more concerned with the Birchers.  Those people are odious even though I probably agree with most of what they put in their brochures.  It seems to be that both groups just want to get attention for themselves and their narrow agenda, rather than being a part of a larger coalition.

They are pooping in the punchbowl.

390 "Sure, about 10-15% of the population or so might meet your purity tests.  Good luck in attaining your goals.  Sounds like you have an unstoppable majority to me."

In light of Ace's post about the Tea Party polling advantage, and the way this directly echoes Chris Matthew's shtick that outrages Ace, this is just all kindsa funny.

Qwinn

391

They've made up their minds about the motives of the anti-gay-marriage crowd, and it's like talking to a wall.

First of all, no we haven't.

Second, (and this is not a good argument for or against, I'm just pointing out hypocrisy) because your side hasn't done the same, right? Read on up above there where folks are saying "this isn't really about marriage for gays" etc.

392 These guys genuinely believe and openly admit that they think people who oppose the inclusion of a radical gay - which is to say explicitly anti-conservative - lobby in a conservative movement...are bigots.

Let me be as clear about this as I can: FUCK YOU ASSHOLE.  THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID.  If you can demonstrate otherwise with a quoteback, be my guest.

393

What is conservative about carving out special changes in the tax code for your Especial Group?

This is a very weak plank in your argument. You may be able to make the case that the tax code doesn't discriminate against gay people, and feel free to try, but it does. They're lobbying to have that fixed, as is their right.

394 In light of Ace's post about the Tea Party polling advantage

The tea parties were coalitions of many different interests with a common goal.  I never saw any sexual orientation filters being applied to attendees.

395

I agree with AmishDude. I am much more concerned about the Birchers hijacking the conservative. Some would say they are already fully in charge of the Tea Party movement. I don't care that they too believe in small government and lower taxes. The reason they belive in small government is because they are afraid the federal government is part of the NWO and they are going to send the Army out to round everyone up and put them in FEMA camps.

Screw the Birchers! Screw Ron Paul! Screw Michelle Bachman!

396 The assumption that being gay is the same as being a pedophile
Posted by: wiserbud at December 17, 2009 12:46 PM (wWwJR)

Wow.  Not to bring up show tunes but "If I only had a brain" is going through my head now.

397 You may be able to make the case that the tax code doesn't discriminate against gay people, and feel free to try, but it does.

Does it?  I'm single, BTW.

398 There's also nothing conservative about a man violently cramming his dick into a woman's coochie and calling it love. In fact, we often call that "rape."

Interesting;  this assumes that only 'hetero' rapes and further, assumes rape is about about sex rather than about power.

Might want to re-phrase the analogy.

That said; after I had paid for fund raiser ticket for my (now-former) friend I knew for well over a decade and who is Gay, to help a military mom who lost her son establish a memorial I had to  tolerate  his horrid 'jokes' about how those uptight puritanical blue-hairs don't know how to pole-dance.

At the fcuking table of a fundraiser to raise money for memorial for a woman who lost her son to war and my Gay 'friend' thought is was fcuking hysterically funny to mock the sexual behavior of a woman who lost her son.

So after that night, when he brought up the 'blue-haired' joke again during another dinner party I  then asked my Gay friend the question-What does 'same-sex union between opposite-sex' mean?

My friend of well over a decade responds by calling me a 'homophobe' and at this point I retorted that he is a heterophobe and ended the friendship.

I spent two decades in NYC theater and I have many more experiences just like that.

I end with this: I am fed-up with the Gay and their 'female-facing'. Take your ancestral 'blacking-facing' entertainment and get off the stage.

399

Adriana Lima at December 17, 2009 01:03 PM (Zj5OI)

I've seen people miss the point around here a lot. But this is in an entirely different league. Just ZOOM right over the head.

400 Screw the Birchers! Screw Ron Paul!
Yes.

Screw Michelle Bachman!
Not yet.  I choose to believe that she doesn't appreciate the attendant nuttiness of Paul.  I saw a podcast of her doing a Q&A at David Horowitz' Restoration Weekend.  She isn't in Paul territory.

401 I loathe identity politics. Nothing but a selfish, whiny, attention seeking distraction.

402

Does it?  I'm single, BTW.

Misogynist!

Hey, you could get married and share the oh-so-worth-it tax bennies us enslaved partake of. You could find a woman you love and settle down and raise hobos. Probably some tax breaks for that hobo farm too.

Sadly, the homos cannot. I don't really have a horse in this race but we are talking about some decent coin. Doesn't look fair to me.

403

Purple Avenger, it's not my group. There are several subsubgroups of the Conservative subgroup I can't stand. (You may not be familiar with some of my other flamewars.)

I'm just stating what conservatives are - an ideological group, "vanguard" one might say - and asserting that they have a right to remain that way. They would then take their 10-15% (which is actually more like 35% by my estimate, but hey), go to the Republicans, and do their compromising there.

But inside their own conservative group, no, they don't have to compromise their principles to please existential enemies, and they shouldn't have to.

Gabriel's whole aim was is to call that 10-15%, which again is really 35%, a bunch of assholes that Republicans are better off without. I've been calling him out on it; that he is at war with conservatives, trying to weaken them from within.

404 BTW, the Tea Party is also a right-wing alliance, and not wholly conservative. I saw Libertarians and even Randroids at the one I attended.

405 I'm not so sure its a "special rights" agenda with the tax issues.  It sounds more like an elimination of existing distinctions made in law pertaining with marriage .  The law in theory and practice is replete with these.

I'm uncomfortable with the whole notion of marriage being legally enshrined and have been for many years.  I'd much rather the law/taxes be completely oblivious to marital status leaving that as a social convention implemented in social institutions of non-legal nature.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 17, 2009 12:58 PM (fp8kq)

That's a reasonable argument.  To that I'd suggest that, from a utilitarian standpoint, government efforts to encourage stable male/female relationships which are designed to best bear and raise children offset any potential harm found in excluding those not in the relationships.

406

Hey, you could get married and share the oh-so-worth-it tax bennies us enslaved partake of.

But I don't.  That's discrimination.  I didn't choose to be single.  Who would choose to be single?  You act like it's a choice.  It's not a choice!

You could find a woman you love and settle down and raise hobos.

Can I?  How?  Rohypnol?  What if the woman I love hates me?  Then what?  Maybe she is discriminating against me.  Maybe I can sue, since marrying whomever I want is a right. What if the woman I love is already married?  I'm sure polygamy is just around the corner, but right now our backward society makes it a 1 and 1 deal.

That's discrimination against polygamists.

Sadly, the homos cannot.

Of course they can.  Find a person of the opposite sex you don't particularly care about.  Get married.  Get the same accountant.  Go your separate ways.  That's the way heteros do it.  Eventually.

407

This is a very weak plank in your argument. You may be able to make the case that the tax code doesn't discriminate against gay people, and feel free to try, but it does. They're lobbying to have that fixed, as is their right.

Posted by: spongeworthy at December 17, 2009 01:09 PM (rplL3)

Lobbying is their right. I don't have to make a case that the tax code doesn't discriminate agianst gay people because it doesn't. Spousal benefits in the tax code were not setup as some sort of right. They were put there as carrots to promote marriage and most especially the the federal Government's version of marriage which has always been a man and a woman. That version does not include same-sex unions. Just because some people think it should include those doesn't mean someone is being discriminated against if it doesn't. Any more than the train industry is being discriminated against when the federal government spends 2 billion to build one airport but won't give AMTRAK 2 million for new train cars.

408

400 There's also nothing conservative about a man violently cramming his dick into a woman's coochie and calling it love. In fact, we often call that "rape."

Interesting; this assumes that only 'hetero' rapes and further, assumes rape is about about sex rather than about power.

Might want to re-phrase the analogy.

What the hell? I didn't assume anything at all about who rapes. That's a heckuva fallacy. Just because I said one thing is rape, it does not follow that NOTHING else is. Jebus, bring your A game, man.

409 "there is nothing 'conservative' about — as Barber inimitably puts it — 'one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love.’'"

I lol'd.

How about when I "violently cram my penis into my girlfriend's lower intestine and call her my 'freaky butt slut'" ???

That, my friends, is Love, with a capital-L.

410 People who don't like the John Birch Society are bigots.

411 Gabriel's whole aim was is to call that 10-15%, which again is really 35%, a bunch of assholes that Republicans are better off without.

I don't read it that way.  I read it as why would anyone discard potential allies over a single issue -- an issue which is virtually unrelated to the rest of conservatism (in theory).

I'm a pragmatist.  I see Obama/Pelosi/Reid as the greatest existential threat to the prosperous future of this nation in the past 100 years because this time the enemy is internal rather than external and there are powerful forces (ex. media) aligned against us.

Anyone who takes their eye off that ball for even a microsecond to engage in petty infighting over comparatively trivial bullshit is a damned fool. 

Defeat the common enemy first. 

412

>>  And people wonder why I call this joint a crypto blog.

I think you give yourself too much credit here. I doubt people wonder that at all.

413 "The organization in question is on the extreme radical left of the gay marriage issue. " Substantiate that with some evidence and you'll have a point, there.

414 412 People who don't like the John Birch Society are bigots.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at December 17, 2009 01:36 PM (DrGKS)

Then sign me up.

415 I have no problem with the John Birch Society being invited. Are they conservative? Yes. Are they perhaps a little fringy on some stuff? Probably. Are they a violent, dangerous domestic terrorist hate group? No.

416

hah!

 

I won't sell a fat yeller chicken either.

417 334 Forget the NAMBLA part of Jim in San Deigo's comment and look at this...

I also don't think I'll catch "teh ghey" from anyone but that doesn't mean I want them sponsoring any event I'm attending either.

He doesn't want to attend an event that is sponsored by "them" (a self-proclaimed conservative gay group).

How is not wanting to go to an event simply because it is co-sponsored  by a self identified gay group(1 of like 100 or so such groups) not bigoted?

Maybe I'm nuts but that sounds bigoted to me.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 17, 2009 12:04 PM (FCWQb)

Wow, you are a dope. It's the same reason I wouldn't want to hang around with abortionists or an ACORN's GOP equivalent. Is that bigoted too? Really, you are an easy one to play against. Hey, if you can smear everyone you disagree with the "bigot" epithet, then I guess I can point out your cognitive deficiencies and your general intellectual dishonesty.

Go ahead and lie Drew, you only fool yourself.

418

314 Several hundred years ago this country was founded on Christian Principals in defense of Religious Freedom.

I see this written up all the time and it is a myth.  This country was not founded on religious freedom principles at all. Out of the 3 original colonies (MA, VA, & SC) founded by the British only one (MA) was founded based on religion AND it certainly was not founded on religious freedom.

Hell, they had a State sponsored religion up until the mid 1800's and initially there was zero tolerance for other religions. The first person hanged in this country was hanged in MA for the crime of being a Quaker.

SC was founded by the Lord Proprietors for the sole purpose of making a profit!

Note: NY was founded by the Dutch

Vic: Sorry buddy but it's time for you to go back and study some history printed before the revisionists rewrote it all to be "Politically Correct". For starters I didn't say it was founded on Religious Freedom Principals, I said it was founded on Christian Principals in search of Religious Freedom. Obviously I'm talking about this country and the American Revolution and not the institutions who were sending people here to start with. The Continental Congress and all the major signers of the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution of Congress "risked" the entire "American Experiment" on the basis of men's ability to live by "Christian Principals" as they formed a new and democratic Republic.  There was no State Sponsored Religion (ever) and what you're blathering is basically what the libtards in colleges today use to confuse the issue before they start brainwashing freshman into the "superiority of liberalism". I really hate it when the PC academics try to re-write history to deny our 200+ year heritage of Judao-Christian values. It's about as stupid as the Supreme Court setting under a graphic depiction of Moses and the 10 Commandments issuing rulings that forbid prayer of any kind in American Schools.

419 ProTip: Calling fellow conservatives "bigots" (whether it's arguably true or not) is not helpful to the cause of uniting conservatives against the Marxist scum who are in control of the federal government and the mass media.

420 As for the burden of proof...it's not on the conservatives but rather those who want to destroy marriage.  What social advantage is gained by demolishing the institution?

 
Um, can someone answer this question, because I'm a little confused: Which political party traditionally believes in curbing or suspending individual Liberty as a means of benefiting society?

Furthermore, which political party traditionally believed it was the government's job to provide a reasonable justification when seeking to limit or control the citizenry?

421

Wow.  Not to bring up show tunes but "If I only had a brain" is going through my head now.

Not surprising, if you cannot see the one-to-one "gay = pedophile" comparison being made repeatedly upthread, only to then watch people vainly attempt to walk back from their comments by somehow trying to convince everyone that all gays are part of the radical left wing that is attemtping to sexualize children, despite the fact that most non-radical-left-wing people, gay or straight, do not support child molestation in any way, shape or form.

/run on sentence.

422

And this has been debunked how many times now?  Being for government subsidizing of gay marriage is the -bigger government- position. 

How is Federal DOMA legislation the smaller government position?  Many Republicans and social conservatives are happy that the Federal Government implements legilslation defining marriage.  I am sorry, this is a big government, nanny state, anti-10th amendment states rights position.  It is just that in this case, it suits your world view.

The truly limited government position is that the Government, especially the Federal government, has no business regulating marriage in the first place. 

And while I agree that extending benefits and rights to gay partners will cost more (ie Bigger Government), the solution is to eliminate the benefits provided to everyone.  Not to discriminate against one class of people becuase you want to limit government as it would apply to them.

 

423 417 I have no problem with the John Birch Society being invited.

I do, but they aren't just being invited.  They are a sponsor.  There is a huge difference.

424 the solution is to eliminate the benefits provided to everyone

Precisely.  This was never an area where the Federal government should have ever set foot in the first place. 

/Constructionist

425 How is Federal DOMA legislation the smaller government position?

The full faith and credit clause of the constitution.  A federal judge will declare that every state must recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state, in the same way that one state can have a lower age of consent to marry than others but every state must recognize that marriage regardless.

426

Of course they can.  Find a person of the opposite sex you don't particularly care about.  Get married.  Get the same accountant.  Go your separate ways.  That's the way heteros do it.  Eventually.

Ah yes, the "protect the sanctity and sacredness of the marriage pact" argument.

Very nicely played.

Oh..... wait a minute here...

427

Who would choose to be single?

I think that's what the gheys are getting at. They didn't exactly sign up somewhere to suck dick but that's how they shack up and nothing's gonna change that.

So we can tell them  how little we care what they do in their leisure moments and all, but they don't get to pork their lovers unmercifully and get a tax break for it like I do. Imagine that--I actually get paid for depravity!

Your argument that they can just find someone of the opposite sex and settle down to misery like the rest of us is a good one--the only one--but in my heart and in my head it doesn't ring true. This is a stretch but it's almost like saying, "Hey, if you're ancestors didn't like being slaves maybe they shouldn't have been born black!"

Like I said, a stretch.

 

 

428

Wow.  Not to bring up show tunes but "If I only had a brain" is going through my head now.

Not surprising, if you cannot see the one-to-one "gay = pedophile" comparison being made repeatedly upthread

OK.  Maybe I should be less subtle: Straw.  Man.

429 Ah yes, the "protect the sanctity and sacredness of the marriage pact" argument.

I never argued that.

430 but they don't get to pork their lovers unmercifully and get a tax break for it like I do. Imagine that--I actually get paid for depravity!

No you don't.  In fact, it's just the opposite.

Ask Tiger Woods.

431 I get to make the "your" "you're" typo because I'm writing as a confused bigoted dipshit there.

432 Really, Gabe?  You think your side is listening to the arguments?  Count how many times in this thread people have called us "hypocrites" for being for smaller government but then wanting government -in- the "anti-gay marriage" arena, as if having the government NOT subsidize something is for wanting BIGGER government.

It's utterly retarded.  It's pointed out over and over again how ridiculous it is.  It doesn't even begin to make sense to brand "government shall not subsidize gay marriage" as the bigger government position.  And yet, we point that out over and over and FUCKING over again, and no one -ever- has an actual substantive rebuttal, they just KEEP MAKING THE SAME DUMBASS ARGUMENT.

The fact that other people doubt the real motives behind the gay marriage movement isn't the same.  They're basically saying you're being disingenuous.  This is not the same as constantly repeating an obviously idiotic argument .  No, it's not just "disagreement", it's ABSURD to say that we achieve smaller government by making the government subsidize gay marriage and force people to treat them the same as any other marriage - no matter how often

But we'll hear the same idiotic claim made another dozen times in this thread.  Just watch.

Qwinn

433 How is Federal DOMA legislation the smaller government position?  Many Republicans and social conservatives are happy that the Federal Government implements legilslation defining marriage.  I am sorry, this is a big government, nanny state, anti-10th amendment states rights position.  It is just that in this case, it suits your world view.

It's not the smaller government position. It's not the larger one either. The Federal government has always had a definition of marriage. It simply wasn't codified. The Federal government doesn't have a codified definition of what gold is. If people, and states, suddenly decided copper was gold  and wanted to pay their taxes with copper, insisting  it has the same value as gold, would  the fed's decision they need to codify the definition to prevent that be some big government position?


You want DOMA repealed, fine. But don't give me this BS that the feds are somehow interfering in state's rights when there isn't one thing in DOMA which restricts a state.

434 Gabe,

I think CPAC's "allowing" (or was it "gladly accepting?") their sponsorship shows that some Cons, at least, actually follow the principles of individual liberty.

I know that a huge percentage of gays support "gay marriage," and so the pro-liberty gays expect pushback on that issue.  But it's nice to know that they can let the issue simmer on the back burner while still caucusing with Cons and libertarians and indies to defeat the left.

This is why I caucus with the Cons, even though I have major disagreements with them on several issues.  The left needs to be defeated.  Thoroughly.

The Cons need folks like us to restrain their own statist impulses to control.  It's the Liberty, folks.  Gadsden flag and all.

435 See what I mean?  Post 436 is just another example of the "gay marriage = small government" idiocy.  "Gay marriage = Liberty!"  What a fucking crock.  Marriage isn't a freedom or liberty issue, and having the government install huge new subsidies for gay marriage isn't an example of individual rights.  In fact, there isn't a SINGLE "individual right" that applies to more than, crazy, I know, ONE PERSON.

Qwinn

436

But yeah, Rocks won the argument. Anyone posting to the contrary either hasn't come to terms with what "conservative" means or else is deliberately obfuscating.

Thread-over @365

437 Ya know what the "gay marriage = liberty" issue reminds me of?  The judge who says that ACORN had their rights violated because Congress isn't shoveling money at them anymore.  As if ACORN has a constitutional right to taxpayer funding.  Same thing.  Gays are claiming they have a right to government subsidizing, even though they cannot participate in the purpose for which the original government subsidies for marriage - a stable platform for the raising of children - are indended.

Qwinn

438

 The Federal government has always had a definition of marriage. It simply wasn't codified.

Bullshit. Marriage and family are state issues and have always been state issues. Never prior to DOMA had the national government refused to honor a state government's pronouncement of what is or isn't a lawful marriage.

DOMA changed that. DOMA says that the national government will no longer honor state determination of what is a lawful marriage. DOMA usurped that state role and trenched upon an area of traditional state control.

That's an abrogation of the principle of federalism.

439 " Marriage and family are state issues and have always been state issues. Never prior to DOMA had the national government refused to honor a state government's pronouncement of what is or isn't a lawful marriage."

*cough*  Utah.  Polygamy.  The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862, signed by Abraham Lincoln.  Try again.

Qwinn

440 Marriage isn't a freedom or liberty issue, and having the government install huge new subsidies for gay marriage isn't an example of individual rights.  In fact, there isn't a SINGLE "individual right" that applies to more than, crazy, I know, ONE PERSON.

---

"Government exists, of course, for the defense of the nation, and for the defense of the rights of the individual." -- Ronald Wilson Reagan (...and reason number 436 why Reagan wouldn't get elected to any position in today's Republican Party. Ah, the delicious irony)

Incidentally, how is marriage not a "Liberty" issue?

Where specifically in the Constitution does it state the Government has the absolute power to exercise arbitrary authority over the citizenry's pair bonding practices?   

441 Anyone who's anti-commie is good with me.

442 Oh, and the Edmunds Act in 1882 in which the Federal Congress reiterated that polygamy was a felony.  NATION-WIDE.

Qwinn

443 "Where specifically in the Constitution does it state the Government has the absolute power to exercise arbitrary authority over the citizenry's pair bonding practices?"

It ain't arbitrary.  The government sponsors marriage because it leads to the most stable platform ever devised for the creation of the next generation of children.  (How many more times does this have to be said?)

Government subsidies of marriage are a boon.  A benefit.  An encouragement.  Not a "liberty" or a "right".  The vast majority of these United States have endorsed the government's role in encouraging marriage for that reason - the rearing of children.  Gay couples cannot participate in this, they cannot produce children.  That wasn't some nasty social con's decision, it's simple biology.

And those benefits are generally granted by the states, not the federal government.  The fed gets involved in terms of things like transferring social security payments, but if you want to argue "where in the constitution do they get this right", you'll have to start with where in the constitution it says the federal government can impose Social Security taxation in the first place.

Qwinn

444 ""Government exists, of course, for the defense of the nation, and for the defense of the rights of the individual." -- Ronald Wilson Reagan (...and reason number 436 why Reagan wouldn't get elected to any position in today's Republican Party. Ah, the delicious irony)"

WTF?  This doesn't even make sense.  Talk about missing the point.

The point is that all "individual rights" affect an individual.  As soon as you add a second person - you know, the second person that is required for something called a "marriage" - it isn't an INDIVIDUAL right anymore.  Now you're trying to create a right that applies to -groups- of  people.  In this case, a right of 2 people to have their chosen lifestyle affirmed, endorsed and subsidized by the state.  I'm pretty sure that isn't what Reagan was talking about when he talked about "rights of the individual".

Qwinn

445 What exactly has CPAC accomplished, other than giving Ann Coulter an opportunity to sell more books by saying something that shocks the elites?

446 We need more gay Morons™.

Chicks dig 'em and stuff.

And we need chicks.

I don't know what it is about girls and the gay boys but here in Seattle when I've been to gay bars (we have a few here)  it seems hard to NOT meet pretty girls. Straight ones. All that man-meet around etc, etc...

Now that I'm single again I totally miss my gay friends I haven't seen in a while. Also, my place looks like crap and  could use some design tips.

What were we talking about again?

447 I'm getting weird issues whenever I refresh this page, about half the times I try it stops loading at post 338.

Qwinn

448 Me too. 338.

449

I don't know what it is about girls and the gay boys but here in Seattle when I've been to gay bars (we have a few here)  it seems hard to NOT meet pretty girls. Straight ones. All that man-meet around etc, etc...

I think what is going on is that a good many women *like* "gal pals" only these gal pals happen to be male. Or to be more slangy, the women are "fag hags".

 

450 Dude, I'm not VERY anonymous. I have a link back to my page and stuff.

451   183
171.  We are all sinners. 
Promiscuous straights are just as guilty.

I find the anti-gay bigotry on the right to be disgusting.  It's anti-Christian, anti-conservative and anti-liberty.

Liberty - look it up.

Posted by: ethos at December 17, 2009 11:05 AM (0fzsA)

Yes my friend, we ARE all sinners. I am ashamed of my sins. However, I dont wear them like the red badge of courage, yelling at everyone that they should accept and celebrate me because of them. I find the pro-gay, fuck you if you dont like it, if you disagree you are a bigot, bullshit from the left (and some here, apparently) to be equally disgusting.

452 BTW: My ass=kiss it.

453 192

I love to sodomize my wife

 

you and the entire offensive line of the New York Giants.

Zing

Posted by: Ben at December 17, 2009 11:09 AM (wuv1c)

Pure as the driven snow, she is. Except for the sodomy part.

454 272  The real problem is that good folks who call themselves social cons--because that's what they are; they have socially conservative ideas--get slimed because of the Matt Barbers of the world. (And it also kinda sucks to be pigeonholed into one identity group--social cons. Many social cons are also fiscal cons, but if they feel the social con thing is being attacked, may be less interested in standing with their fiscal con brothers and sisters.)

Gabriel, This is exactly the logic employed by Charles Johnson:  "I must alter my behavior and standing and principles because a radicalized version of ME might make be look guilty via association."  Johnson carried this to the extreme and has turned his blog into KOS lite."

This attitude is essentially the inability to stand upon recognizable principles or a worldview.  If you will not defend your worldview because it may associate you with somebody that is more strident and maybe even in error because you are afraid you will be tarred by the same brush, then you never had those convictions, yours is a synthetic philosophy of life. 

It is actually based on convenience, not MORALS.  If republicanism is not based  on the morality of the people as noted by Alexis de Tocqueville Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith, then you will devolve to a popular democracy or better known to us now as servitude to political correctness. 

I don't think reasonable people would seek to exclude homosexuals from a political organization, however this group makes sure you have to swallow that bitter pill, they are not about a political expression or philosophy, but they are about themselves and the lust for others to declare their behavior the norm. 

I will not be blackmailed to accept behavior, or sanction that behavior whether that person is in agreement with me on other issues or not.  I will still hold myself and others accountable for sin, morality is nothing if it is not an absolute, otherwise how can we ever measure human behaviors?  Today murder is bad, tomorrow not so bad if the earth has too much CO2.

Yesterday an infant in the womb was a baby, today it is but a fetus.

455 It ain't arbitrary.  The government sponsors marriage because it leads to the most stable platform ever devised for the creation of the next generation of children.  (How many more times does this have to be said?)

So I'm to assume you believe any man and woman who marries and makes a conscience decision to not have children should be treated in the same manner as a gay union? What about a man and woman who can't have children? More importantly, since when did "Conservatism" evolve into an institution whereby "social benefits" supersede individual liberty?

Traditionally, that's the purview of Liberalism...(or so I was taught for 25+ years)

----

Government subsidies of marriage are a boon.  A benefit.  An encouragement.  Not a "liberty" or a "right".  The vast majority of these United States have endorsed the government's role in encouraging marriage for that reason - the rearing of children.  Gay couples cannot participate in this, they cannot produce children.  That wasn't some nasty social con's decision, it's simple biology.

Again -- I'm to assume you believe any man and woman who marries and makes a conscience decision to not have children should be treated in the same manner as a gay union? And once more: What about a man and woman who can't have children? Barren couples can't participate in this, they cannot produce children. It's simple biology.

Right?

---

And those benefits are generally granted by the states, not the federal government.  The fed gets involved in terms of things like transferring social security payments, but if you want to argue "where in the constitution do they get this right", you'll have to start with where in the constitution it says the federal government can impose Social Security taxation in the first place.


Social Security shouldn't even exist. Nor should subsidies. Any subsidy. 

The problem is, we have a sinister principle hidden in the Constitution known as the "Equal Protection Clause"; which basically means all laws apply to all citizens equally.

Yes, even filthy homosexuals. They may be filthy homosexuals, but they're still citizens. Sad but true.

Furthermore, we have another sinister principle hidden in the Constitution known as "Due Process".

In my opinion, this is where the argument starts. Due Process is basically two principles: One is "Procedural Due Process" (which doesn't apply to this debate) and the other is "Substantive Due Process" (which very much applies to this debate).

The principle of Substantive Due Process is rather simple -- Should the government be required to provide a reasonable justification for the laws they pass,  or can they pass any law they want for whatever reason (or no reason at all)?  

So which is it?

456 Um, can someone answer this question, because I'm a little confused: Which political party traditionally believes in curbing or suspending individual Liberty as a means of benefiting society?

Furthermore, which political party traditionally believed it was the government's job to provide a reasonable justification when seeking to limit or control the citizenry?

Posted by: TCJester2 at December 17, 2009 01:43 PM (fM1sa)

You're probably confused because you're missing the point of the post.  I think it's starting with the incorrect characterization of Gay Marriage = "Liberty."  As Qwinn pointed out many posts ago...nothing is stopping Gays from having their little ceremonies if they want.

Again..feel free to make a case without resorting to attempted intimidation or condescension.  Bullying is so...statist.

457

Again -- I'm to assume you believe any man and woman who marries and makes a conscience decision to not have children should be treated in the same manner as a gay union? And once more: What about a man and woman who can't have children? Barren couples can't participate in this, they cannot produce children. It's simple biology.

Oh, how the hoary chestnuts return, hopefully to be roasted. To re-quote Qwinn:

It would require a pretty intrusive government to weed those few people out.  The government would then have to investigate -why- the couple doesn't have children, etc.  Hardly worth it, especially when they're a minority and their refusal to reproduce doesn't redefine the institution in a real, binding sense.  There is no intrusion required in recognizing that gays -categorically- cannot produce or raise their biological children.

But that said, if it's a -forced choice- between redefining marriage to be about something other than the kids, and not allowing those who don't wish to have kids to marry, then I'd go with the latter.  I know, that'd be a dickish move, and I'd feel especially bad for those couples who -couldn't- have kids due to infertility, but you know what?  I'm not the one -forcing- the choice just to prevent gay marriage advocates from beating the slippery slope drum.

 

458

Posted by: TCJester2 at December 17, 2009 02:53 PM (fM1sa)

Not to be the Thread Nazi or anything, but a lot of the points you mention have been answered further up.  The hazards of replying to earlier posts...

459 But other than that 251 presents a sound argument. My #329 basically is a rewriting of it. Posted by: Zimriel

Zim, the wonderful commenter Guess Who? updates his position:

"[Today] is the day that Ace Of Spades blog is exposed as the radical left wing blog that it is, they're not even bothering hiding it anymore.  Gabe, Purply, and Drew are merely slightly more butch versions of Sullivan, fronting as conservatives as if supporting a war to impose their radical leftist agenda on nations that don't want it is somehow conservative. "

Are you still throwing your lot with his?

460

Bullshit. Marriage and family are state issues and have always been state issues. Never prior to DOMA had the national government refused to honor a state government's pronouncement of what is or isn't a lawful marriage.

DOMA changed that. DOMA says that the national government will no longer honor state determination of what is a lawful marriage. DOMA usurped that state role and trenched upon an area of traditional state control.

That's an abrogation of the principle of federalism.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 17, 2009 02:15 PM (B2LxR)

As stated Gabe, polygamy laws. Not only did the feds define it as one man/one woman, they did it the very first instance there was a serious attempt to change that definition. You can argue the polygamy laws are as unconstitutional as all get out but it's ridiculous to say the federal government hasn't had a definition of marriage. DOMA wouldn't even have been needed if people weren't sure some judge somewhere would think it's his right to change the definition of a universally defined word.

461

444 Oh, and the Edmunds Act in 1882 in which the Federal Congress reiterated that polygamy was a felony.  NATION-WIDE.

Qwinn

Both the Morill Ant-Bigamy Act and the Edmunds Act were before Utah became a state. Your claim that it overrided the authority of a state government over marriage is false.

462

Both the Morill Ant-Bigamy Act and the Edmunds Act were before Utah became a state. Your claim that it overrided the authority of a state government over marriage is false.

Utah Territory would *never* have become a state unless it changed as a result of these laws. Try again.

That said, I don't mind if a gay GOP group wants to participate, just as long as it understands that they are the tail and the rest of us are the dog, and they aren't going to wag us.

463

This is no crypto-leftist organization.  The board members are:  LaSilvia, Barron, and Carroll.  

 LaSilvia has contributed to John McCain

Barron to Gordon Smith, Mitch McConnell, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain

Bruce Carroll is the head of gaypatriot.org and has contributed to McCain, Joe McLaughlin, Saxby Chambliss, Rudy Giuliani, and Our Country Deserves Better (Tea Party Express!).  

 

And Matt Barber?  Not a penny.

 

464

Zim, the wonderful commenter Guess Who? updates his position...Are you still throwing your lot with his?

Nutty hyperbole does not undermine the basic argument. Like the John Birchers, really.

465

You're probably confused because you're missing the point of the post.  I think it's starting with the incorrect characterization of Gay Marriage = "Liberty."  As Qwinn pointed out many posts ago...nothing is stopping Gays from having their little ceremonies if they want.

Again..feel free to make a case without resorting to attempted intimidation or condescension.  Bullying is so...statist.

That's your definition of "bullying"?

Well....okay. If you say so.

And "Marriage=Liberty" is not an incorrect characterization; gay or otherwise. Loving v. Virginia basically stated the decision to marry or not marry cannot be infringed by the state. Unless the state has a reasonable justification for denying such a union (i.e., marriage between an adult and child, etc).

And again, my position is rooted in not only the Equal Protection Clause, but Substantive Due Process as well. 

If the government seeks to limit or suspend certain rights or privileges (especially if those rights and privileges are enjoyed by others) they should at the very least provide a reasonable justification.

And honestly, I don't think I'm asking too much...

466 Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn

Stutter much?

467

Both the Morill Ant-Bigamy Act and the Edmunds Act were before Utah became a state. Your claim that it overrided the authority of a state government over marriage is false.

If something is a federal felony, doesn't that by definition override state authority?  Also wasn't Edmunds upheld by the SCOTUS?

468 The principle of Substantive Due Process is rather simple -- Should the government be required to provide a reasonable justification for the laws they pass,  or can they pass any law they want for whatever reason (or no reason at all)? 

I hate Substantive Due Process then.  Any time a reasonable justification is demanded I wonder who gets to decide what's reasonable.

In a representative democracy, the the best way to get rid of bad laws is to enforce them vigorously.  Fill the jails and piss off the voters.

469

Posted by: TCJester2 at December 17, 2009 03:11 PM (fM1sa)

I was WAITING for Loving v. Virginia to make an appearance.  needless to say you have the decision wrong.  This is the hazard of getting cut 'n' paste arguments from activist websites instead of actually reading the decision yourself.

You write:

And "Marriage=Liberty" is not an incorrect characterization; gay or otherwise. Loving v. Virginia basically stated the decision to marry or not marry cannot be infringed by the state. Unless the state has a reasonable justification for denying such a union (i.e., marriage between an adult and child, etc).

That's not what Loving said.  The case had to do with a law that forbade interracial marriages.  The defense of the law was that it didn't run afoul of equal protection considerations because it applied equally to blacks as it did to whites.  SCOTUS said that, as has historically been the case, racial issues require the strict scrutiny standard when a Constitutional question is raised, and in Loving the law, even though it applied to everyone, still violated the equal protection clause because it relied on race as a vital component.  You embroidered on that and are attempting to apply it to a gay issue.  But as has been pointed out EARLIER in the thread (again...try to catch up before you waste people's time...), gay issues are not entitled to the strict scrutiny standard, rendering Loving irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage. 

Hell...even GENDER issues don't rise to strict scrutiny.

470

Oh, how the hoary chestnuts return, hopefully to be roasted. To re-quote Qwinn:

It would require a pretty intrusive government to weed those few people out.  The government would then have to investigate -why- the couple doesn't have children, etc.  Hardly worth it, especially when they're a minority and their refusal to reproduce doesn't redefine the institution in a real, binding sense.  There is no intrusion required in recognizing that gays -categorically- cannot produce or raise their biological children.

But that said, if it's a -forced choice- between redefining marriage to be about something other than the kids, and not allowing those who don't wish to have kids to marry, then I'd go with the latter.  I know, that'd be a dickish move, and I'd feel especially bad for those couples who -couldn't- have kids due to infertility, but you know what?  I'm not the one -forcing- the choice just to prevent gay marriage advocates from beating the slippery slope drum.

You're right, I missed this the first time.

And while it's encouraging to know Mr. Qwinn would feel "bad" for those couples who are infertile (and I'm sure they're deeply move by his concerns), it's not only a "dickish move", it's patently unconstitutional. Not to mention completely fucked up.

Exactly how much control are we willing to give over to the government just so homosexuals don't marry? People are willing to completely piss away a fundamental individual right because they wanna control, what, a whopping 3% of the entire country?

You can't tell me that isn't fucked up.

*note: I have no idea what happened to my last post...it's all kinds of screwed up, tho

471 "I'm to assume you believe any man and woman who marries and makes a conscience decision to not have children should be treated in the same manner as a gay union? What about a man and woman who can't have children? More importantly, since when did "Conservatism" evolve into an institution whereby "social benefits" supersede individual liberty? "

This is what I'm talking about you guys not listening.  We already had this argument in the thread, and my response was in post 330.

Qwinn

472 Posted by: Jim in San Diego at December 17, 2009 01:39 PM (F09Uo)

Now you've got me curious.

You won't go to an event like CPAC because they let teh gheys in as a sponsor.

You say that's not bigotry. What exactly is it then?

I ask that in all sincerity.

473 I hate Substantive Due Process then.  Any time a reasonable justification is demanded I wonder who gets to decide what's reasonable.

In a representative democracy, the the best way to get rid of bad laws is to enforce them vigorously.  Fill the jails and piss off the voters.


You're hardly alone. A number of those who claim the title "Real Conservatives" also hate substantive due process. Ironic, considering it's traditionally a Conservative tenet.

Yes, as crazy as it sounds, those filthy traditional Conservatives actually believed the government was required to provide a reason for the laws they passed.

Oh, what will those wacky traditionalists think of next....

474

Both the Morill Ant-Bigamy Act and the Edmunds Act were before Utah became a state. Your claim that it overrided the authority of a state government over marriage is false.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 17, 2009 03:06 PM (B2LxR)

So, if NY legalizes polygamy then their residents are exempt from federal polygamy laws?

475 334 DrewM

How is not wanting to go to an event simply because it is co-sponsored  by a self identified gay group(1 of like 100 or so such groups) not bigoted?

Maybe I'm nuts but that sounds bigoted to me.


You define Jim's behavior as bigoted because he still has the freedom to pick his associations?  Is a church bigoted if it will not marry a gay couple?  You don't get to both define what is a bigot and then label those you disagree with a bigot.  It may be un-tasteful to you but one of the foundations of this country is the right to freely associate with whomever you please. 

The Left is usually the side that employs social scorn and ridicule to make everyone march in lock step.  Seems to me it is this GOProud group that is demanding everyone declare their sexual behavior normal, otherwise they are labeled a bigot and you and Gabe seem to be willing accomplices. 

This only became a problem as CPAC is a political organization with a known philosophy, yet this group wants to attach itself and demands everyone kiss their ass and they explicitly make it about their sexual orientation. 

If they actually cared FIRST about a conservative agenda they would just join CPAC without all the drama queen antics and posturing, and a name that might as well be Conservatives go fuck yourself if you don't like us and accept and even DECLARE our lifestyle NORMAL!  I think most of us can still smell an agenda no matter how much cologne is used to cover the stink of the actual agenda of these individuals.

Tolerance is not defined that I must abandon my principles and deeply held beliefs to embrace yours!  Tolerance is that I will live in this society without attacking others even if I find their behavior abhorrent.  Yet it is you and this side that becomes intolerant if I do not rush to drop my deeply held beliefs and convictions and declare what I believe to be sin, to not be sin.  

If this behavior was not deviant then why such a obsession that all of society declare you normal, ok, worthy of praise?  Why should they or you care what I think?  Live your life as you see fit, just don't break the law, or bring personal behaviors out into the light and then like breathless children await my judgment, then when I do not approve stomp off in disgust and name calling.   I do not treat myself this way, I do not have sin and bad behaviors that I pretend are OK, if my wife just accepts my viewing porn then everything would be groovy.  Sin is sin...we all have this fight, I no more sanction homosexuality than I sanction adultery, it is us as human beings that must hold ourselves up to an objective standard, how could we even derive laws, if there was no standard by which we measure what is a crime?

Do not try to alter the wisdom of thousands of years of human experience and revealed morality by your claims of what is just.  Can you tell me how a great societal national experiment with millions of children raised in homosexual homes will turn out?  Beware that you think you have more wisdom than the history of the human race or morality that is tested and tried by thousands of years.  

Psychologists will tell you if you tamper with the sexual identity of the very young, you are playing with dynamite.  And this acceptance of the gay lifestyle and marriage will ultimately lead to children raised in gay homes.  Don't point to the rare story about a well adjusted child coming out of such a home, we do not have the numbers yet to make any empirical judgment, certainly you do not accept the wisdom of those that have gone before, so society has to then experiment with producing sexually confused people?  I have not met any homosexuals that are naturally happy people, they always have an agenda and a grievance. 

476 Ah, okay, you found my response.

Your response now is predicated on the assumption that marriage is a "fundamental individual right", which as we have argued -many- times (see, you -still- aren't listening), we don't agree that it is.  It's a -boon-, a -benefit-, a -carrot-, an inducement, agreed upon by our legislature and the common will, to encourage that platform.

"Exactly how much control are we willing to give over to the government just so homosexuals don't marry? People are willing to completely piss away a fundamental individual right because they wanna control, what, a whopping 3% of the entire country?   You can't tell me that isn't fucked up."

I'm -not-.  I -don't- want to give the government that kind of control.  It's absurd that we even have to discuss it.  But if YOU are going to use the fact that we're basically compassionate human beings and we don't want to further punish those who are infertile, so that you can use it as a prybar to redefine the entire institution to your liking, then we don't have a choice, do we?  You're being the dicks forcing the issue, not us.  You're basically screaming "Letting infertile people marry is UNFAIR!".  You're being the whining, disingenous asshat because you don't really mind the exception, nor do we, but we have to discuss it anyway cause -you're- being an asshole.

Gays -categorically- cannot have children.  We don't need even a single ounce of government intrusion upon individuals in order to stop it.  Letting the very rare infertile couple marry doesn't redefine marriage (after all, there's -plenty- of medical cases where people who believed they couldn't get pregnant wind up doing so, hell, my ex wife is one of them), but introducing an entire group that -categorically- cannot have kids is an active redefining of the institution.  Who are you kidding that it wouldn't be?

Let's just cut to the chase here:  are you seriously arguing that marriage was NOT given exceptional status as an institution because of its benefits to children?  Or are you quibbling about compassionate exceptions just to be a flaming dick?

Qwinn

477 You're hardly alone.

I know, I just wish we were ascendant as well, but the legalist winds are against us.

478

That's not what Loving said.  The case had to do with a law that forbade interracial marriages.  The defense of the law was that it didn't run afoul of equal protection considerations because it applied equally to blacks as it did to whites.  SCOTUS said that, as has historically been the case, racial issues require the strict scrutiny standard when a Constitutional question is raised, and in Loving the law, even though it applied to everyone, still violated the equal protection clause because it relied on race as a vital component.  You embroidered on that and are attempting to apply it to a gay issue.  But as has been pointed out EARLIER in the thread (again...try to catch up before you waste people's time...), gay issues are not entitled to the strict scrutiny standard, rendering Loving irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage. 

Hell...even GENDER issues don't rise to strict scrutiny.

No, the law was struck down as a violation of both the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process. In fact, the exact wording reads thusly: These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Simply put, according to the principles found in the 14th Amendment, the government had no reason to deny a marriage license to a white man and a black woman. Other than, "that's the way it's always been". Or "I don't like black people". Or "whatever". 

So if you believe the government has a right (or hell, even a duty) to deny a marriage license to two gay men, then what's their reasonable justification?

479 "So if you believe the government has a right (or hell, even a duty) to deny a marriage license to two gay men, then what's their reasonable justification?"

Oh, gee, I dunno, how about THEY CATEGORICALLY CANNOT HAVE CHILDREN, AND THEREFORE ARE CATEGORICALLY DIVORCED FROM THE MAIN PURPOSE FOR WHICH GOVERNMENT ENDORSES AND SUBSIDIZES MARRIAGE.

But yeah, you're all listening, I can tell.

Qwinn

480 You define Jim's behavior as bigoted because he still has the freedom to pick his associations?
jehu,

You're stealing a few bases here.

I never denied he has the right to pick his associations. But if you are simply unwilling to go to an event because one of a hundred or so groups involved in it has teh gheys, yeah, I'd say that's pretty bigoted.

Is a church bigoted if it will not marry a gay couple?

Most of the Churches I know may deny certain sacraments to gays but don't ban them as members. Actually, that's not even the case. As far as I know, most Churches don't care if you are gay or not for their sacraments. They just have a list of qualifications for each. In most Churches, one of the qualifications for the sacrament of marriage is a man and woman. That's there call.

I would have a problem with a religion that had an outright prohibition against gays (Islam springs to mind), Christian denominations (other than the inbred fucks from Westboro) not so much.

This only became a problem as CPAC is a political organization with a known philosophy, yet this group wants to attach itself and demands everyone kiss their ass and they explicitly make it about their sexual orientation. 

Sorry, can you actually show me where they are demanding anything, let alone their asses be kissed? Seems they paid their money like everyone else and now others are demanding they get the hell out.

The only people who are making a big deal out of GOPride is, um, the people who aren't fond of gays.

As for the rest of your rant, have fun. I'm not going to try and argue you out of a position you didn't argue your way into. You believe what you believe and that's your right. I have the right not to want to be associated with someone like you. Since the feeling is likely mutual, there we are.

481

Gays -categorically- cannot have children.  We don't need even a single ounce of government intrusion upon individuals in order to stop it. 

This ridiculous idea keeps going and going. Of course gays can have children, and frequently do. Saying "gays cannot have children" is like saying "single people cannot have children." Uh, no. Completely false. Single people frequently do have children--just not with people they are married to.

You waive that around like it's determinative: two lesbians or two gay dudes  cannot reproduce. Sure. Neither can a sterile man and his wife. That doesn't mean that the sterile man and his wife cannot have children. There are many ways they can and, in fact, do. The same is true for gays.

482 "Today is a great day.  It is the day that Ace Of Spades blog is exposed as the radical left wing blog that it is, they're not even bothering hiding it anymore.  Gabe, Purply, and Drew are merely slightly more butch versions of Sullivan, fronting as conservatives as if supporting a war to impose their radical leftist agenda on nations that don't want it is somehow conservative.  Bootfuck these cocksuckers from the right, send them over to Sully's blog where they belong."

I wouldn't exactly call AoSHQ a "radical left wing blog." That's so hyperbolic that it's frankly silly to suggest such a thing.

I would, however, suggest that it is migrating towards the left on social issues more and more every day. And the banning of your IP for what you wrote in comment 251 is pretty lame. There will probably be registration required for commenting sometime in the near future. Sigh...

483

Posted by: DrewM. at December 17, 2009 03:51 PM (FCWQb)

Yeah Drew you almost had me but then ffft. Where is anyone suggesting groups with gay members shouldn't be sponsors? The definite suggestion here is groups with an agenda primarily based homosexuality, which GOProud clearly is, is not something they want to be involved with. Is anyone here think the NRA should not be allowed to be a sponsor, or they won't attend,  if the NRA elects an openly gay chairman or president or whatever?

484 Your response now is predicated on the assumption that marriage is a "fundamental individual right", which as we have argued -many- times (see, you -still- aren't listening), we don't agree that it is.  It's a -boon-, a -benefit-, a -carrot-, an inducement, agreed upon by our legislature and the common will, to encourage that platform.

Marriage is a fundamental individual right. Unless you can find specific wording in the Constitution which grants the government the authority to dictate who I can and cannot marry without providing a reasonable justification.

And, well, good luck...

----

 

I'm -not-.  I -don't- want to give the government that kind of control.  It's absurd that we even have to discuss it.  But if YOU are going to use the fact that we're basically compassionate human beings and we don't want to further punish those who are infertile, so that you can use it as a prybar to redefine the entire institution to your liking, then we don't have a choice, do we?  You're being the dicks forcing the issue, not us.  You're basically screaming "Letting infertile people marry is UNFAIR!".  You're being the whining, disingenous asshat because you don't really mind the exception, nor do we, but we have to discuss it anyway cause -you're- being an asshole.

When was I basically screaming "Letting infertile people marry is UNFAIR!"?

I'd like to see that one. Really.

Now, if you meant to say "Not Letting infertile people marry is UNFAIR!", then you might have a point. Although you'd still be wrong. Not letting infertile people marry is "unconstituional". As well as "fucked up".

Seriously, think about what you're saying for a minute.

Legal citizens who have done absolutely nothing wrong should be subject to the will of the government and denied any choice to determine the course of their own lives simply due to a biological kink.

You can't tell me that isn't fucked up.

Well, technically, you could, but you'd be wrong. That's fucked up in so many ways it's hard to know where to begin.

In case you haven't noticed, what you're advocating is the very definition of totalitarianism.

---

Gays -categorically- cannot have children.  We don't need even a single ounce of government intrusion upon individuals in order to stop it.  Letting the very rare infertile couple marry doesn't redefine marriage (after all, there's -plenty- of medical cases where people who believed they couldn't get pregnant wind up doing so, hell, my ex wife is one of them), but introducing an entire group that -categorically- cannot have kids is an active redefining of the institution.  Who are you kidding that it wouldn't be?

But here's where you get into trouble with the "Equal Protection Clause".

All laws apply to all citizens equally. If you pass a law denying gay marriage based on a homosexual's inability to reproduce, in theory those laws have to apply to every couple who can't reproduce. As I understand it, that's basically what "equal protection" means.

---

Let's just cut to the chase here:  are you seriously arguing that marriage was NOT given exceptional status as an institution because of its benefits to children?  Or are you quibbling about compassionate exceptions just to be a flaming dick?

Actually, what I'm saying is this: The government has no authority to control the pair bonding activities of any American. Period.*

Put simply -- it's not their fucking business.



*Unless of course they've provided a reasonable justification. i.e., adult/child marriage, adult/dog marriage, etc...

485

So if you believe the government has a right (or hell, even a duty) to deny a marriage license to two gay men, then what's their reasonable justification?

Posted by: TCJester2 at December 17, 2009 03:40 PM (fM1sa) -

How about the protection of the moral and social fabric of the nation. Of course some will wonder what's so important about about that. *cough* Roman Empire *cough*

486

DodoGuru #70 (very late) - I like gaypatriot.org. I've commented over there a few times. But I view them as a patriotic community, and not otherwise a conservative one. They shouldn't have got involved with CPAC other than to attend the thing as individuals.

As for DrewM., he proved himself dishonest with this comment: "because they let teh gheys in as a sponsor". This is so full of straw you can't light up a cigarette within 40 feet of it. The point isn't "teh gheys" but GOProud and its demand for "marriage equality", which is not conservative. Since we've told him that over and over again, but he repeats it at #425 anyway, I'm declaring him to be full of something else brown and flammable. He can hang out with Purple Avenger in the "done with HIM" section.

"Guess Who?" may be crazy, but so far his position has had impressive results. There is, indeed, a slight tang of lizard around here. I'm guessing that fairly shortly Gabriel, Drew, and P.A. are going to chat with Ace for an exciting new direction for this blog.

487 Oh, gee, I dunno, how about THEY CATEGORICALLY CANNOT HAVE CHILDREN, AND THEREFORE ARE CATEGORICALLY DIVORCED FROM THE MAIN PURPOSE FOR WHICH GOVERNMENT ENDORSES AND SUBSIDIZES MARRIAGE.

Why is "endorsing" and "subsidizing" marriage a governmental activity in the first place?

Seriously.

Where specifically in the Constitution does it say it's the government's job to "endorse" and "subsidize" marriage?

And "for the children"? That's why we need governmental intervention?

Are you insinuating that without the knowing support from the Almighty Government  humanity would come to a screeching halt when a confused citizenry (who obviously need the gentle hand of the Almighty Government) forgets how to have sex?

You can't be serious.

488 "Guess Who?" may be crazy, but so far his position has had impressive results. There is, indeed, a slight tang of lizard around here. I'm guessing that fairly shortly Gabriel, Drew, and P.A. are going to chat with Ace for an exciting new direction for this blog.

What's the over/under on how far into the future this conversation takes place?

I got February 2nd, 2010. Because shit like this keeps repeating itself.

489 How about the protection of the moral and social fabric of the nation. Of course some will wonder what's so important about about that. *cough* Roman Empire *cough*

And it could be argued (hell, it has been argued) that "protection of the moral and social fabric of the nation" includes smoking bans, the Fairness Doctrine, bans on trans fats, curbing 2nd Amendment rights, etc....

490 "Legal citizens who have done absolutely nothing wrong should be subject to the will of the government and denied any choice to determine the course of their own lives simply due to a biological kink."

Who's denying them anything?  They want to shack up, let them.  They want to create a "Rainbow Church" and have gay priests and "marry" gay people, they're perfectly entitled.  No one will beat down their doors to stop them.

But it's not the sort of union that got marriage approved by society, and then recognized and subsidized by the state.  By taxpayer funding.  Gays who want to shack up aren't -entitled- to taxpayer funding, nor are they being "subjected" to any will of the government, nor "denied any choice" by not having marriage benefits meant to accrue to normal marriage.  Exactly what choice are they being denied? 

Let's make this point again:  Not getting government goodies is not being denied a "choice", unless you think government is -obligated- to give people goodies, in which case you're not a conservative.

Yes, there is "discrimination" here.  Normal marriage which produces the most stable platform for the raising of biological children is actively preferred, and thus it gets subsidies, because pretty much everyone except extremist social liberals thinks it should.

And I see that you found the single instance in the dozens of times I've repeated the point where I did not actively put the "biological" tag on children.  It is SO FUCKING TIRING that I have to keep putting that qualifier in so that you can't leap on it like, well, like a gay on George Clooney's ass.  You can't have missed that point being made a thousand times, of course, so it's just more general disingenuousness.

Yes, single people can have kids.  This is not the ideal platform for raising children.  Yes, people can adopt.  This is not the ideal platform for raising children.  Yes, people can impregnate themselves with turkey basters and semen from a complete stranger.  This is not the ideal platform for raising children.

Let me anticipate:  "Who are you to say what the 'ideal' platform is!  I can show you an adopted child who is happier than a kid with biological parents, therefore, you have no case!"

Which is just so fucking stupid on so many levels that I can't bring myself to respond to it without being forced to, but if you're -really- so stupid that you need it explained, fine, ask and I'll provide.

Qwinn

491 I'm guessing that fairly shortly Gabriel, Drew, and P.A. are going to chat with Ace for an exciting new direction for this blog.

Egads! You've uncovered the truth!

The three of us have been forcing Ace to write posts where he says, "hey you know, picking on the gays and blacks isn't cool".

He's actually a raging white supremacist/homophobe who deep down really agrees with you but we have the goods on him, so he'll continue to do our bidding.

Suckers!

492 DremM said:  I never denied he has the right to pick his associations. But if you are simply unwilling to go to an event because one of a hundred or so groups involved in it has teh gheys, yeah, I'd say that's pretty bigoted.

Are you going to fall back on exacting literal interpretations of what you said?  You call him a bigot because he does not want to associate with a group, because of their CHOSEN behavior.  Now if you refuse to associate with someone because of their race that is bigotry, they had no choice!  Once again you do not get to define a term and then apply it to others when it carries with it a societal scorn and is weighted with political correctness, that makes you your own moral enforcer does it not?  Except you just made up your own list of sins, peculiarly it will be a list to which you never find yourself doing what is on that list, welcome to religion for the morally relative, or to modern secular humanism.

At most he is choosing to NOT associate with a group whose morals he disagrees with, if that is bigotry then we can no longer hold to any standards, at least not any objective moral standards, it will just be whatever the next moral outrage invented by the Left, and apparently some bloggers here declare as approved behavior. Welcome to San Francisco where they are now so deranged they are arguing that the transgendered can use both men and womens public restrooms.

Most of the Churches I know may deny certain sacraments to gays but don't ban them as members. Actually, that's not even the case. As far as I know, most Churches don't care if you are gay or not for their sacraments. They just have a list of qualifications for each. In most Churches, one of the qualifications for the sacrament of marriage is a man and woman. That's there call.

Any church worth its salt accepts anybody though the door, but they will not condone lifestyles that are in variance to New Testament teaching.  That includes everything from shacking up, to homosexual behaviors, to drunkenness, stealing, being lazy and using others, to even effeminate mannerisms.  If you go to a church that does not confront you sinful state without condemnation, but with the truth, you are wasting your time, that church cares nothing for your eternal welfare, it preaches a social gospel at best, and is just another way-station to hell at worst.  If your preacher does not make you mad from time to time, he is not doing his job, if you are confronted with your sinful nature and do not repent, you are not doing your job.

What both you and Gabe are doing is to use a Leftist tactic of declaring someone a sinner who simply does not agree with you definition of either tolerance or bigotry, thereby obscuring the fact that GOProud is an organization that is diametrically opposed to CPAC on a fundamental level, who is the problem here? 

If they were not testing the tolerance of CPAC members then why the openly GAY name for their organization?  How would this be any different if I tried to join moveon.org with the name Bible-Beliver?   The only difference is that the vitriol against me would make this thread appear like a bunch of chummy-buddies.

To summarize, groups like this have an over-arching agenda, no matter what the initial declared focus, and that is to force others to abandon their morality and principles and accept them as NORMAL, everything else is squid-ink.  They also find proxies to defend their right to make us abandon our principles all they while decrying us as bigots and intolerant.  You have done your jobs well.

493 "He's actually a raging white supremacist/homophobe who deep down really agrees with you"

...and pretty soon we'll hear again about how "Drew never said that people who disagree with him are bigots", or some other bullshit like that.

Qwinn

494

Why is "endorsing" and "subsidizing" marriage a governmental activity in the first place?

Seriously.

For starters, because how the future inhabitants of any nation are raised has important ramifications for a nation. Here is where I part company with the "libertarians"--they don't seem to understand that actions have consequences and people don't live in societal vacuums.

Where specifically in the Constitution does it say it's the government's job to "endorse" and "subsidize" marriage?

In any nation that wants to have a future, that goes without saying.

495 You call him a bigot because he does not want to associate with a group, because of their CHOSEN behavior.

What would call someone who so despises one group that they won't go to an event where they agree with 99% of the other groups there, simply because there's one scary 'gay' group?

Any church worth its salt accepts anybody though the door, but they will not condone lifestyles that are in variance to New Testament teaching. That includes everything from shacking up, to homosexual behaviors, to drunkenness, stealing, being lazy and using others, to even effeminate mannerisms.

This presumes homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, strikes me as the evidence indicates it's not.

BTW-do you know a church where there's a sobriety test for marriage? Is there a Church that won't marry someone because they have a felony robbery conviction in their past?

Your point makes no sense because while a church may not approve of those lifestyle choices, they are definitely choices (no one has to steal).

But that's somewhat irrelevant because we are discussing a political organization (CPAC) not a church.

Remember CPAC is happy to have them. Are you saying CPAC isn't conservative enough?

496

BTW-do you know a church where there's a sobriety test for marriage? Is there a Church that won't marry someone because they have a felony robbery conviction in their past?

Sorry to interrupt your ongoing meltdown, Drew, but I know of several churches which demand premarital counselling, over the course of nine months; and stuff like drunkenness and crime might well come up. One such is the Catholic Church, and last I heard it was a fairly important denomination.

497

BTW, commenter Guess Who? is simply lying about being banned.

I was surprised by his martyr claim because his 251 comment, though ridiculous on its face, didn't break the very, very few rules we have here. So I checked the ban list. His IP from the 251 comment ain't on it.

He's just a lying liar crybaby who's crying out for attention. And I'm disappointed at the few folks who immediately assumed that he must be telling the truth.

Nothing we have ever done here at the HQ should have left you with the idea that someone would be banned for simply disagreeing with us. In fact, we get into fights all the time here (as our regular readers and commenters know).

For future reference, the ban procedure usually goes something like this:
(1) Some fool says something racist or anti-gay or personally attacks a longtime commenter based on sex or race or something.
(2) One of the cobloggers publicly warn them.
3) They do it again. Then we might, might ban. But we often just warn them again, more publicly. (You'd be amazed at the results you can get from a good public shaming.)
(4) They do it again. Then we might ban. And if we do, we put up a comment or put it in their comment that they've been banned.

This whole "stealth ban" thing just isn't something we do here. I understand the recent transplants from elsewhere in the blogosphere might not be used to that.

 

498 I have a question for those who think homosexuality is inborn.

Do you similarly believe that pedophilia is inborn?

If not, if you think homosexuality is inborn and pedophilia isn't, please explain to me what makes one sexual preference different from the other in this respect.  Forget all the stuff about being "consensual", that's not the issue here, the question is, -is it also inborn, or isn't it-?

And if you agree that pedophilia is inborn also, then aren't our laws against it even -more- bigoted and hateful than any problems currently experienced by homosexuals?

Qwinn

499 And that's precisely what we are saying: that CPAC is not conservative "enough"... if the desideratum is "to be considered conservative". Right of centre, allied with conservatives on many issues, pro-liberty... all that, sure. But none of that is to be confused with conservatism as a social / political standpoint. CPAC should change its initials.

500 Qwinn, it's not just the creating of children, it's the rearing of them as well. Up till 1973 Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder, and it was long accepted that people with mental disorders were considered to be non compos mentis, and therefore neither fit to take care of themselves or anyone else.

Much of the legal inertia, and the mindset of the country is still functioning along the lines of these long held ideas. Most people secretly or otherwise, regard homosexuality as an abnormal mental condition, albeit a relatively harmless one. This is self evident by the fact that most people do not and will not engage in this particular sexual fetish, all the while proclaiming that there is nothing wrong with it. (wink wink)

However, while people will put up with others pursuing pleasure in whatever manner they so chose, when you introduce the idea that these people might be having and taking care of children, suddenly the concerns become magnified. This would be the same reaction that people would have to a Heterosexual couple known for Swinging, Sex parties, or perverse sexual fetishes. (Necrophilia, Beastiality, etc.)

The difference is, Heterosexual reprobates do not ordinarily advertise the fact of their peculiar sexual practices, especially when they have or anticipate children.

In any case, the government usually reflects the will of the society it governs, and the philosophical reasons for doing so are irrelevant if it be the will of the people. Yes, people can be inconsistent philosophically. Sometimes people believe in something just because they do.

In the case against public acceptance of Overtly homosexual groups, there is the Inertia of millennia  behind them.

501

I have a question for those who think homosexuality is inborn.

Do you similarly believe that pedophilia is inborn?

Again, what part of "consenting adults" don't you get?

502

BTW, commenter Guess Who? is simply lying about being banned.

Yah, we knew that, and we also knew that he was going off the deep end when he said this blog was now "left wing". But he had a point; is has been better addressed by others like Qwinn here, but it is still valid.

503 I know of several churches which demand premarital counselling, over the course of nine months; and stuff like drunkenness and crime might well come up.

Zimriel,

Yeah, it 'might well come up' but that's not the same as a requirement or disqualification for the sacrament.

Why don't you run along now and find me something that says people with criminal records can't get married in a Catholic Church.

I won't wait, in as much as it's not possible but you run along now.

504 "Homophobia" is a misnomer, by the way.

PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH:

http://tinyurl.com/ya26p42

505

Gabriel, thanks for the heads-up about "Guess Who". (I say this as one non-conservative to another.)

I didn't say or think he'd been banned - I do, however, think the transition of this blog is inevitable. Sooner or later people like him WILL be banned. Much soul-searching and tears will ensue, but eventually, Progress Will Not Be Denied.

506 ooooh.  I am so scary.  I am here to ruin the world and destroy your famliy.  Boooga-booga-booga. 

507

Here we go, and I have always been sooo good at this (making enemies) that it's almost scary. I have always found this to be a blog site run by "pocketbook conservatives". I keep coming back because "the powers that be" do a good job of informing me about things I won't hear anywhere else. I check out nicedeb and MichelleM and weasel sippers etc. also but I can usually find a story here that I won't find there. I also enjoy the many thoughtful commenters who I many times disagree with but also learn much from. Plus many of you are just damn funny and trust me, I need a good laugh every once in a while as often as the next guy or gal. But to me, conservative and constitutionalist mean the same thing (or should).

This is about to head slightly off topic but still deals with labels. Words like kooks, fringe, nutcases, Paulbots, Freepers etc. And I would be willing to bet that 99% of those who toss around those labels have never once taken the time to actually look into, seriously look into, the issues they talk about.

Well, for all of you, it's not about liberty, or freedom, it's all about your stinking pocketbooks. Got half a nut between your legs? Then one of you "big dogs" spend 4 hours, 4 lousy hours watching The Obama Deception and Endgame. Then post a blog that lists everything you saw that was bullshit and why you think it was bullshit. Or read "The Unseen Hand" like I did going on 20 years ago and then, instead of jumping to an immediate opinion, watch what goes on around you for a couple of years through that prism. Maybe it'll will actually dawn on you why W. did some of the things that he did that, even though you thought he was your hero, confused the hell out of you.

As another commenter around here likes to say, jesus christ on a fricking pogo stick. Combine that ((being slaves to a privately owned central bank (the borrower is slave to the lender)) with the moral breakdown of our society and you end up with the mess we have today. Toilet, handle, clockwise rotating whirlpool. 

508 "I have a question for those who think homosexuality is inborn.

Do you similarly believe that pedophilia is inborn?

Again, what part of "consenting adults" don't you get?"

Wow, I actually -said- why consent has nothing to do with it in the very post you quoted, but apparently I have to repeat it.  One has nothing to do with the other.  We're talking about the -preference-.  I even said this explicitly in the post.  Is the -preference- for children inborn in the same way that a man -preferring- men is inborn?  This has nothing to do with the morality of -acting- on it.

Qwinn

509 Who's denying them anything?  They want to shack up, let them.  They want to create a "Rainbow Church" and have gay priests and "marry" gay people, they're perfectly entitled.  No one will beat down their doors to stop them.

But it's not the sort of union that got marriage approved by society, and then recognized and subsidized by the state.  By taxpayer funding.  Gays who want to shack up aren't -entitled- to taxpayer funding, nor are they being "subjected" to any will of the government, nor "denied any choice" by not having marriage benefits meant to accrue to normal marriage.  Exactly what choice are they being denied? 

Let's make this point again:  Not getting government goodies is not being denied a "choice", unless you think government is -obligated- to give people goodies, in which case you're not a conservative.

-----

Do you understand the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause?

Wait, let's back up: First of all, I don't believe anybody should be receiving "government goodies". Legally married or not. But according to the principle of Equal Protection, if you provide "government goodies" to one group, you have to provide those same goodies to all groups. 

Why? Well, according to the Constitution, each person has equal protection under the law.

Unless!

WARNING: Due Process Alert!

Unless the government can provide a reasonable justification for limiting those goodies....the, uh, same goodies NOBODY should be receiving in the first place.

Now, if you're looking to limit those "government goodies" based on an inability to reproduce, you once again fall victim to Equal Protection. Because (unfortunately) each legal citizen in this country is afforded equal protection under the law.

So if I'm reading you right, you're looking to deny homosexuals a marriage license based on their inability to have children, but you're willing to let "infertile couples" skate.

You can't do that.

You can't do that because it's a selective application of the law, not an equal application.  (oh, and for those eager to bring up "hate crime legislation"...well, if you've got a couple of days I'd be more than happy to detail the exact reasons why every hate crime law is blatantly unconstitutional).

----

And I see that you found the single instance in the dozens of times I've repeated the point where I did not actively put the "biological" tag on children.  It is SO FUCKING TIRING that I have to keep putting that qualifier in so that you can't leap on it like, well, like a gay on George Clooney's ass.  You can't have missed that point being made a thousand times, of course, so it's just more general disingenuousness.

I don't know what this means.

I think you're confusing m with someone else.

-----

Yes, single people can have kids.  This is not the ideal platform for raising children.  Yes, people can adopt.  This is not the ideal platform for raising children.  Yes, people can impregnate themselves with turkey basters and semen from a complete stranger.  This is not the ideal platform for raising children.

Let me anticipate:  "Who are you to say what the 'ideal' platform is!  I can show you an adopted child who is happier than a kid with biological parents, therefore, you have no case!"

Which is just so fucking stupid on so many levels that I can't bring myself to respond to it without being forced to, but if you're -really- so stupid that you need it explained, fine, ask and I'll provide.

You should probably stop "anticipating". You suck at it.

What I was gonna ask was this: Does the Almighty Government have a reasonable justification for controlling the procreation habits of the citizenry? 

Ideal platform or not, is it the government's business to tell an adult woman she can't use a turkey baster and semen from a stranger to get pregnant?

Again, how much control over our lives are we willing to relinquish to the government?

510 This thread is annoyingly broken on refreshes.  At 500 posts it doesn't seem overly large or anything.

511 Again, what part of "consenting adults" don't you get?
Posted by: wiserbud at December 17, 2009 04:40 PM (IHbof)

My guess is, all of it.


And if you agree that pedophilia is inborn also, then aren't our laws against it even -more- bigoted and hateful than any problems currently experienced by homosexuals?
Posted by: Qwinn at December 17, 2009 04:36 PM (SxA2Q)

Seriously, this is one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

Even if pedophilia is in born, that doesn't mean they get a free pass on injuring others.

How hard is that of a concept to get?

Look a lot of people think alchoholism is baked into the genetic cake. Does that mean they get a pass on DUIs or Vehicular Manslaughter? Of course not.

512 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 17, 2009 03:54 PM (B2LxR)

I'm pretty sure reproduce was meant when the word "have" was used but thanks for that clarification.

513 "What I was gonna ask was this: Does the Almighty Government have a reasonable justification for controlling the procreation habits of the citizenry?"

"Controlling"?  Who has said anything about "controlling" it?  Is encouragement and subsidizing the same as "controlling"?  I mean, it -can- be via the threat of taking -away- those subsidies, but you seem to be the only person arguing for that.

Have you ever read Mark Steyn, btw?  You -do- know about the population implosion occurring in pretty much every Western country that has been gradually accepting a view of marriage similar to yours, yes?

"Ideal platform or not, is it the government's business to tell an adult woman she can't use a turkey baster and semen from a stranger to get pregnant?"

Who has argued that she can't?

You have raised a veritable army of straw men, you know.

Qwinn

514 The three of us have been forcing Ace to write posts where he says, "hey you know, picking on the gays and blacks isn't cool".

---

That's quite a misrepresentation of what's actually been happening over the last couple weeks.

What's really been happening is that there have been multiple posts, by Ace and others, implying that many of the frequent commenters here are racist, homophobic scum, and that social conservatives need to be tolerant to the extent of embracing homosexuality or else they are bigoted filth.

Then Ace and his co-bloggers continue the divisiveness by engaging in pointless flame-warring in the comments. And now apparently some people are having their IP addresses banned for the crime of...having a cogent point, apparently.

This is not a good trend. Hence the backlash.

515 Why don't you run along now and find me something that says people with criminal records can't get married in a Catholic Church.

I won't wait, in as much as it's not possible but you run along now.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 17, 2009 04:43 PM (FCWQb) -

From you, I expect better than this. A "past criminal record" is not the same as a continuing lifestyle.

516 Drew, that was not the totality of my argument.  I first wanted to know if you'd argue that the source of the preference is somehow different.  You don't appear to be going there.  Good.  Now to the point:

The basis for calling people opposed to homosexuality "bigoted" is that homosexuality is inborn.  It's just like race.  Someone's -born- that way, they can't -help- it, and judging them on that basis is pure bigotry and evil.

But when it comes to someone with a sexual preference for children, where's the compassion? 

Imagine a guy who views child porn (off the internet, so he doesn't even pay for it).  He hasn't had sex with a child.  He hasn't done anything against anyone's consent.  But he is sexually attracted to children, and that's what gets him off, and he views child porn, and he fantasizes about doing his neighbor's 7 year old daughter, but he doesn't act on it.  Pretty much everyone STILL considers this guy to be scum.  Don't you?

The POINT is:  it doesn't matter if homosexuality is "inborn" or not, because just being an "inborn" behavior doesn't render it morally licit.  But your side keeps insisting that it is and does, and that being "bigoted" against gay people is exactly like being bigoted against blacks.  It's a crock.  They're not remotely the same.

That doesn't mean homosexuality is morally illicit - people certainly have differing opinions on that, and my personal views aren't the point.  The point is that it -is- a valid point of contention, and dismissing it as "bigotry" is a freaking crock.

Qwinn

517 Look a lot of people think alchoholism is baked into the genetic cake. Does that mean they get a pass on DUIs or Vehicular Manslaughter? Of course not.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 17, 2009 04:47 PM (FCWQb)

They don't get  honored or subsidized either, the Safe Schools Czar would get canned for promoting "doin' shots" and nobody calls someone a bigot for not wanting to be around the Valu-RitePround group. Also, there is a hell of a lot more evidence for a genetic basis for addiction than there is for homosexuality, which has none.

518 ITT: Facts, logic, and reason that almost no one on the planet would have disagreed with as recently as a generation ago vs. shrill Sullivanesque name-calling and fallacious appeals to emotion.

And it's the people running the site who are doing the latter.

Not a good trend.

519 Hey kids, it's been fun.

At the end of the day (which this is)...some of you not big fans of teh gheys.

Whatever.

Personally, I'm radically indifferent to gays qua gays.

I am however not a fan of folks who think gays have no place in polite society, are equatable to child molesters or are unwelcome in the conservative movement.

On all of this and much, much more, we'll will simply have to disagree.

Good night everyone. Try the veal and tip your waitresses!

520

This has nothing to do with the morality of -acting- on it.

Except that, again, you want to relate pedophilia to homosexuality as a way to assign or deny rights and privileges to another person.

Is the -preference- for children inborn in the same way that a man -preferring- men is inborn?

Exactly how does this matter in the least in this whole discussion?

Would you feel better about discriminating against gays if it were a choice instead of being it being an in-born trait? or vice-versa?

521

Okay, Drew; you're technically right that the Church won't block Bubba, just out of Pen State for aggravated assault and methamphetamine dealing, from marrying Susan Tran of Viet Nam who doesn't quite have her visa yet. Chances are, though, that the Church will be a little wary of the happy couple. I'd say it was unlikely they'd get married at all.

But when two homosexuals show up, the Church will just say "no".

So the Church views homosexual couples, no matter how committed, as less fit for marriage than the sham I provided above. Zero is always less than .0001%. (And no, I am not "picking on" the Viet Namese.)

My point really was that .0001% is still very close to zero.

Does that very close difference make the Catholic Church homophobic? Do they pick on gays? - or is it just that they have a tradition they follow?

Conservatives believe in that sort of thing too, as it happens. They want their culture to last just like Catholics want their own culture to last.

522 For starters, because how the future inhabitants of any nation are raised has important ramifications for a nation. Here is where I part company with the "libertarians"--they don't seem to understand that actions have consequences and people don't live in societal vacuums.

And I must say, the Muslim countries have done a hell of a job raising their future inhabitants....by using draconian restrictions and placing limits on individual liberty, of course.

So why don't we act just like them...?
\
In case you're missing the point (and I guarantee a number of people are), I'll elaborate: People you don't like wanna engage in behavior you don't approve of. Worse, this behavior is (probably) protected by a Constitution.

What can I say. That's the price of living in a free country.


In any nation that wants to have a future, that goes without saying.


In other words, there's nothing in the Constitution which specifically says it's the government's job to "endorse" and "subsidize" marriage.

Yeah, I already knew that...

 

523 "Except that, again, you want to relate pedophilia to homosexuality as a way to assign or deny rights and privileges to another person."

The same argument could be made using Drew's example of alcoholism as an inborn trait.  Is therefore someone who disapproves of alcoholism a "bigot"?

What I am doing is attacking the use of the term "bigot" to silence dissent regarding homosexuality.  It's a crock.  It is nothing like being bigoted against someone's skin melanin content, which is the common understanding of the term.  Having dark skin doesn't dictate a person's -thoughts- at all, being gay or being a pedophile -does-, and an antipathy toward a race is -not- the same as antipathy toward a preference.  Yet you keep grouping the two as if they're exactly equivalent.

You don't like that I'm "relat(ing) pedophilia to homosexuality as a way to assign or deny rights and privileges to another person."?  Then stop relating homosexuality to racism as a way to assign or deny rights and privileges to another person.

Qwinn

524

The POINT is:  it doesn't matter if homosexuality is "inborn" or not, because just being an "inborn" behavior doesn't render it morally licit.  But your side keeps insisting that it is and does,

Total misrepresenattion of the argument that Drew and I have been making.

Pedophilia is wrong because it harms children, who are not able to give consent, at least not with the full understanding if the ramifications.

Two adults can give consent, hence the term "consenting adults."  Whether it is in-born or a lifestyle choice is meaningless.

525 Ok, the danger in making a big exit is when you can't stay away, you look like a fool.

Stipulated.

So the Church views homosexual couples, no matter how committed, as less fit for marriage than the sham I provided above. Zero is always less than .0001%. (And no, I am not "picking on" the Viet Namese.)

My point really was that .0001% is still very close to zero.

Does that very close difference make the Catholic Church homophobic? Do they pick on gays? - or is it just that they have a tradition they follow?

Zimriel.

A couple of things...

Given the divorce rates in this country, I'd say the percentage of the population unfit for marriage is a hell of a lot bigger than .0001%.

If gays get to marry, they won't be the ones who kill the institution...straights did that a long time ago.

All of which doesn't matter...I don't care what requirements Catholics or any Church put on their own sacraments. That's none of the government's business. But not every marriage is a church sanctified one, is it?

More to the point...this is about CPAC not a religious organization.

I'd really like more people to explain why CPAC is now not conservative enough. What group can meet the exacting standards of the purely pure?

526 "Two adults can give consent, hence the term "consenting adults."  Whether it is in-born or a lifestyle choice is meaningless."

It is -extremely- different in terms of whether the term "bigot" is applicable.  And it is you guys using the term.

Qwinn

527 @504

Again, what part of "consenting adults" don't you get?

The adult part of the pedophilic relationship is the consenting one. Was he/she born a pedophile or was it a choice he/she made? 

528

It is nothing like being bigoted against someone's skin melanin content, which is the common understanding of the term.  Having dark skin doesn't dictate a person's -thoughts- at all, being gay or being a pedophile -does-, and an antipathy toward a race is -not- the same as antipathy toward a preference.

So, would you prefer the term "discrimination" to "bigotry?" 

Being a bigot is not specific to race.  You can be bigoted against anyone for anything.  And you are fully within your rights to be a bigot.  No one is telling you that you cannot be discriminating or bigoted.

But when you try to deny the individual rights and liberties of another group of free, consenting adults merely because you do not like them or what they do, you are starting to get away from the basic tenets of conservatism.

and with that, it's drive time. 

 

 

529 Qwinn

So what is it when someone says they won't go to an event like CPAC because a gay group is one of a hundred or so co-sponsors?

It's not just not liking gays but not wanting to go near anything tainted by them.

Add in the casual slurs equating consenting adults and child molesters and you get a pretty clear picture of what a person thinks.

Do you really think that level of animus doesn't rise to the level of bigotry?

530

The adult part of the pedophilic relationship is the consenting one.

Perhaps you may have noticed that the word "adults" was plural.  Both parties mustbe able to give consent.  As a society, I think we all can agree that children to not have that capacity.

Was he/she born a pedophile or was it a choice he/she made?

Who cares?

 

531 "But when you try to deny the individual rights and liberties of another group of free, consenting adults merely because you do not like them or what they do, you are starting to get away from the basic tenets of conservatism."

Absurd on so many levels.  By this logic, the entire criminal justice system is "not conservative".  Yes, it is absolutely perfectly conservative to judge people based on what they do.  It is entirely liberal to try to separate a person's actions from their consequences or from any "judgment".

Qwinn

532

children to not have that capacity.

....."do" not.....

533 The adult part of the pedophilic relationship is the consenting one.
Posted by: trfogey at December 17, 2009 05:21 PM (9zyH6)

Ah, so it's the plural in "consenting adults" that you don't get.

Let me explain...it takes the consent of both/all parties for something to be consensual. Factor in that they both/all have to be adults you get (stay with me, this is where you get lost I gather).....

Consenting Adults

If one of the parties is not an adult...they can't give consent.

Therefore the action is coercive by definition and subject to legal restrictions regardless of any biological element.

Hope that helped.

534

By this logic, the entire criminal justice system is "not conservative".

So, now being gay is a crime? 

Again, why is what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom of any concern to you whatsoever?   

535 "Do you really think that level of animus doesn't rise to the level of bigotry?"

I really don't.  It may be distasteful, but it's not bigotry, because we're not talking about something that doesn't tell you anything about a person's state of mind or behavior.  It -does-.  Being bigoted against someone because they have black skin is intellectually indefensible - nothing about their skin color tells us -anything- about them as a person.  It is completely, utterly immaterial.  There is not one single personality trait or behavior that can be gleaned from just that information.  But knowing that someone is gay, you DO know something about them.

You may say "bigotry is an acceptable term for both".  If you do say that, I say "fuck you".  Don't even pretend it's not a direct attempt to smear those who don't approve of homosexual behavior with racists.

Qwinn

536

okay seriously, I'm out.  I'll catch up later.

Maybe.

537

So I guess that what it comes down to is that the "pro-gays" in this thread don't think good moral values are important to a society. Would some of you please  take the time to read Geo. Washington's farewell address. Especially towards the end where a lot of the newer textbooks like to cut it off.

Or I guess we could all just resort to drugs, drinking to excess, stealing, and whatever immoral perversions we chose to partake in. I mean hell, that's what freedom is all about, right. While we're at it, let's yank prayer out of school, and legitimize the murder of unborn children. Just to show our children that life isn't precious. I mean, it's not like they'll be killing each other over a pair of Reebok's 20 years later or anything like that. Oh,,, wait

Good night, and may god remove the scales from your eyes.

538

But knowing that someone is gay, you DO know something about them.

And what, exactly, do you know, other than the fact that they prefer the company of members of their own sex?

 

 

539 But knowing that someone is gay, you DO know something about them.
Qwinn

Other than who they prefer to have sex with, what it is that you know?

Personally, I don't think that's a very big deal. YMMV.

540 504

I have a question for those who think homosexuality is inborn.

Do you similarly believe that pedophilia is inborn?

Again, what part of "consenting adults" don't you get?

Posted by: wiserbud at December 17, 2009 04:40 PM (IHbof)

I believe the human psych is dynamically reprogrammable within certain limits. I believe people's sexual proclivities are mostly genetic, but subject to the influence of experiences. Some people have foot fetishes, some people have hair fetishes, etc. People can train their brain to find sexual arousal in all sorts of things that have absolutely nothing to do with procreation.

For example. High heeled shoes.  Why are high heeled shoes sexy ? It's because people who are aroused by sexy women have long noted that such women will often wear High Heeled shoes when they are trying to be their sexiest. As a result, men will instantly associate high heeled shoes with being sexy, and as a result become aroused.

The same sort of mental training occurs with other things. Bondage fetishes are probably the result of an mental association between Sex and Domination. (The male urge to Dominate, and the female urge to be dominated.)

There is a strong correlation between the instinct that something is "Bad" and therefore sexual. This is no doubt due to the long persistent occurrence of danger regarding sexual liaisons, and some people expand on the feeling that being "bad" is sexual. Taboo (incest, interracial, or otherwise forbidden) is a very powerful arousal tool. Strippers and Prostitutes often put on a little girl show just to stimulate forbidden arousal.  Women are often attracted to "Bad" boys, even to the point of finding criminality arousing.

To sum up my point, the firmware for certain proclivities is stronger or weaker in each individual, but the subsequent experiences either degrade or reinforce the instinct. 

541 "So, now being gay is a crime? "

I -knew- you'd go there.  It was a point of -principle-.  You argued that judging a person based on what they do was illicit.  That's a crock.  It's self-evidently ridiculous.

"Again, why is what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom of any concern to you whatsoever?   "

As I have stated dozens of times, I don't give a shit what they do in their bedroom.  I've yet to see a wedding take place in a bedroom.  Or social security benefits get transferred in a bedroom.  Or gay pride parades in a bedroom.  Or a group coming to CPAC advocating all of the above as normal and healthy in the bedroom. 

Seriously, the words "in the privacy of their own bedroom" need to be utterly banished from this debate.  You guys spew it every third sentence.  We're not arguing Lawrence vs. Texas, for fuck's sake.

Qwinn

542 This isn't about "denying individual rights and liberties."

It's about redefining an institution - one that is absolutely fundamental to Western Civilization - after thousands of years, against the will of the majority of the people, in order to benefit 5% of the population. A population, incidentally, that was considered to be a bunch of mentally ill sex perverts as recently as the 1970s.

I don't care what consenting homosexual adults do in their bedrooms. (Or their bathrooms. Or wherever.) And I actually support Civil Unions that are the legal equivalent of marriages (which makes me LEFT OF CENTER on the issue, according to public opinion polls).

But I do not, and will not, support redefining marriage after literally millennia for the benefit of a mob of shrieking left-wing homosexual activists.

Not. Going. To. Fucking. Happen.

And by the way, if you believe that "gay marriage," if granted to them, will be their final demand, then you have learned nothing from the last 50 years or so. There will be additional demands; there always are.

Reparation payments for all those years of "oppression" at the hands of the monstrous breeders? "Affirmative Action" for homosexuals? "Hate speech" laws that make reading Leviticus out loud a felony? All that, and likely more.

543 "Controlling"?  Who has said anything about "controlling" it?  Is encouragement and subsidizing the same as "controlling"?  I mean, it -can- be via the threat of taking -away- those subsidies, but you seem to be the only person arguing for that.


Yes, I do seem to be the only one arguing against subsidies.

Why is that?

Have you ever read Mark Steyn, btw?  You -do- know about the population implosion occurring in pretty much every Western country that has been gradually accepting a view of marriage similar to yours, yes?
 
Okay, I get it...

So you are saying a confused citizenry would forget how to have sex without the tender guiding hand of the Almighty Government.

Um, yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree with that. I believe people are more than capable of having sex without the tender guiding hand of the Almighty Government.

Who has argued that she can't?

You have raised a veritable army of straw men, you know.

Well, it helps if you don't completely ignore an entire chunk of comments which tie the whole thing together.

According to principles detailed in the 14th Amendment (Due Process, Equal Protection, etc), the government should not be allowed to limit or suspend the rights and/or privileges of the citizenry without proper justification. 

The government doesn't have the right to tell a woman she can't use a turkey baster/stranger semen to get pregnant, because the government can't provide a reasonable justification. 

As I understand it, that's how laws in this country work. Again, if you're looking to limit or suspend certain rights or privileges, the government needs to provide a reasonable justification.

And really, is that asking too much? Is it really asking too much that our government provide a reason for the laws they pass?

I'm asking in all seriousness, because I'm beginning to suspect a number of people don't believe the government needs to provide a reason for the laws they pass; and in my opinion, that attitude is WAAAAAY more dangerous than two men getting hitched. Two men. I might add, I've never met before. Who have absolutely no influence over my life. 

Now, if you believe the government has more tan ample justification for denying two men a marriage license...well, great, what is it?

I'll give you a minute to stop shrieking "BECAUSE THEY CAN'T HAVE CHILDREN!" before I continue....

It's true. They can't have children. Well, not with each other. But if you're gonna use that as a basis for denying a marriage license, then (as per the Equal Protection Clause) that basis has to apply to everyone.  So if (for example) it turns out I'm sterile, according to your position I should be denied Equal Protection because doing so would inadvertently allow homosexuals to marry.

Well...okay.

What the fuck did I do wrong? The government should be allowed that much control over my life and tell me who I can and cannot marry simply because I'm incapable of having children?

And this argument makes sense to you?  

544 So I guess that what it comes down to is that the "pro-gays" in this thread don't think good moral values are important to a society.

I can't speak for the "pro-gays" since I'm not one (again, I'm radically indifferent) but I don't think gays and good individual or societal values are incongruous.

Here's a radical thought...I think a guy who likes to have sex with other guys can be a moral or immoral person, his consensual sexual habits tell me nothing about that or the value they bring to society.

I think the same about women who like to have sex with other women. The only thing I can add is that two chicks together can be hot.

Furthermore, the fact that a guy likes to nail chicks tells me nothing about his inherent morality or their value to society and ditto for the chicks who like dudes.

545 You're a fucking dunce, Quinn.  You honestly need this spelled out?

There's enough evidence to suggest that sexuality (including pedophilia) is rather more biological than developmental. Nobody has yet been smart enough to really answer that question, but it doesn't matter.

You see, what we do know is that children can't make wise decisions about themselves or their future.  They don't have the mental or physical capacity to defend themselves against predators.  They haven't the means to deal with the consequences of their decisions if they prove disastrous.

Consenting adults have all of those abilities, so your foolish equation is actually an inequality.

You and all the other Chicken Littles screaming about the gays ruining conservatism have all the wit and foresight of an eel fucking a piece of rope. 

Some form of the gay agenda is going to become reality.  If you had the sense you were born with, you'd realize the smart thing to do would be to take the issue away from the liberals.  Control the debate and frame a reasonable bit of legality that everybody can live with.

That's not going to happen though, is it?  You're going to dither and cry and wait for the ACLU and the HRC to ass-rape you with a corncob soaked in turpentine.

546 "Other than who they prefer to have sex with, what it is that you know?"

Let's see:

1)  That they think their sexual practices are so important that they make a political agenda out of it.

2)  In GOProud's case, we know that they make almost every point of their agenda based on homosexuality.  (And, Drew, if you had any response to my debunking your claim that only 2 of the points "touched on gay issues", I missed it.  Are you retracting it?)

3)  In the case of gay men, they engage in behaviors that directly result in their having, on average, a life span shortened by 20 years, due to a tremendously higher risk of disease.

4)  In the case of gay men, they like to stick their penises in another man's lower intestine and call it love.

That's not all.  But I'd say that's enough to make a judgment legitimate.  It is certainly -not- the same as judging someone based on the color of their skin.  Not even close.  Your continuous attempts to group those who disapprove of homosexuality with racism is grossly illegitimate, and I think you know it.

Qwinn

547 "Some form of the gay agenda is going to become reality.  If you had the sense you were born with, you'd realize the smart thing to do would be to take the issue away from the liberals.  Control the debate and frame a reasonable bit of legality that everybody can live with."

Right. Flush principle down the toilet for the sake of political expediency. Awesome.

In the process, of course, we will lose millions of Christian social conservative voters to a third party, or apathy.

But, hey, the homosexuals and the leftists will get a big win, and maybe they'll be kind enough to stop calling us "homophobic hate-mongering bigots" for a week or two...until they begin making additional demands that conflict with basic conservative principles. Such as reparation payments for all those years of "oppression" at the hands of the monstrous breeders, "Affirmative Action" for homosexuals, "hate speech" laws that make reading Leviticus out loud a felony, and likely more.

548 "So you are saying a confused citizenry would forget how to have sex without the tender guiding hand of the Almighty Government.

Um, yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree with that. I believe people are more than capable of having sex without the tender guiding hand of the Almighty Government."

Wow, you are -genius-.  How many more times do I have to say "providing the most stable platform known for the raising of children" before you conclude that it's not just about -making- children?  Marriage isn't about getting people to -screw more-, genius.

You know, if you can be so inutterably stupid as to legitimately miss that obvious point, or conversely if you can be so disingenous as to pretend you missed it, either way, you're not really worth discussing anything with.

Qwinn

549 "Consenting adults have all of those abilities, so your foolish equation is actually an inequality."

See post 519.

Qwinn

550 Wait a minute, okay, I think I get where you're tying my points about marriage to population, re: the population implosion Steyn points out.  What threw me was your ridiculous assertion that it's about the government being needed so that people would be "capable of having sex". *eyeroll*

People will have sex regardless.  But when will they actually -have- the kid, and raise it?  When will they make the conscious decision to stop using contraception and actually -have kids-?  They're far far more likely to when they're in a stable marriage.  Outside of it, they're far more likely to say things like "I'm not ready" and "I want a career first".

I think that's a pretty obvious point, but apparently you can't make the leap from "government sponsoring having sex" and "government sponsoring the conditions that make people want to have children".

Actually, government sponsors -children- having sex (see: Fistinggate).  Government has never sponsored people having sex (throwing around condoms, funding abortion) etc. as it does now.  And the population implosion continues apace.  I cannot imagine that their grasp of reality exceeds yours.

Qwinn

551

Again, why is what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom of any concern to you whatsoever?   

Posted by: wiserbud at December 17, 2009 05:30 PM (tWf3S)

This idea presumes these hypothetical adults are capable of consent. Suppose one is infected with AIDS, but the other adult doesn't know this. The other adult might consent to sex, but can they unknowingly consent to AIDS ? 

It likewise overlooks the idea that Legally for most of this country's existance, Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder, and therefore, Homosexuals were not capable of consent. (In the legal concept.)

So here's a question for you. Do you have a problem with two people transferring AIDS in their bedroom ? Should this be just between them ? Or does society have a vested interest in preventing this ?

552

Qwinn, your list is despicable. You think that being gay means we can tell:

That they think their sexual practices are so important that they make a political agenda out of it.

Bullshit. Many gays are indifferent to the poltics related to their sexuality. Some even oppose gay marriage (e.g. Charles Winecoff over at Big Government). That some particular subset of gays are into politics does not mean that all gays are. That's not a big surprise, after all you also have a political agenda, don't you? That I discuss the gay "political agenda" is similarly unsurprising, since the vast majority of things I blog about are political.

But knowing that I'm gay wouldn't have told you that I make sexual practices a political agenda.

3)  In the case of gay men, they engage in behaviors that directly result in their having, on average, a life span shortened by 20 years, due to a tremendously higher risk of disease.

First of all, I'm not even sure that's even true. Second--assuming that it is true--you've broken the fallacy of averages. Just because the average gay has a characteristic, it does not follow that all do.

4)  In the case of gay men, they like to stick their penises in another man's lower intestine and call it love.

I am hoping that was an attempt at humor. Your reduction of love to the mechanics of sex is, well, gross. It demonstrates logical incoherence. It also demonstrates, particularly in the context of this lengthy discussion, spitefulness and malice. Animus, even.

553 1)  That they think their sexual practices are so important that they make a political agenda out of it.

"They" is pretty broad. You know the political agenda of someone based on their sexual practices.

BTW-you could substitute 'race', 'gender', 'family' or some other terms for 'sexual practices'. What's the point?

2)  In GOProud's case, we know that they make almost every point of their agenda based on homosexuality.  (And, Drew, if you had any response to my debunking your claim that only 2 of the points "touched on gay issues", I missed it.  Are you retracting it?)

Wait, people who are gay are concerned about tax policy and other government policies impact them based on their being gay? Oh noes! I care about tax policy in a general sense and how as a single guy it impacts me compared to say married couples.

This isn't exactly new to gays, so I'm not sure what the point is.

3)  In the case of gay men, they engage in behaviors that directly result in their having, on average, a life span shortened by 20 years, due to a tremendously higher risk of disease.

Yeah, the authors of that study say that's not a valid conclusion to draw from their work.

4)  In the case of gay men, they like to stick their penises in another man's lower intestine and call it love.

Really? Gays don't think there's an emotional component of love. They define it strictly in the physical sense? Me thinks you are getting information from some funny sources.

Seems you think you know a lot about teh gheys but you're not quite as right as you think. But hey don't let facts get in the way of your moral certitude.

Let me ask you a question...do the Phelps and their followers in the Westboro Church qualify as anti-gay bigots?

554 But, hey, the homosexuals and the leftists will get a big win,

Right.  Because things are so much better when the left controls debate and frames legislation.  You pick a hell of a hill to die on.

Should the conservatives win, we could wrangle some protection into the law.

If the liberals win, the ACLU will instantly launch and avalanche of lawsuits against any business, church, or other organization that they think infringes against their utopia with complete Dem support.

You choose . . . poorly.

555 Wow, you are -genius-.  How many more times do I have to say "providing the most stable platform known for the raising of children" before you conclude that it's not just about -making- children?  Marriage isn't about getting people to -screw more-, genius.

You know, if you can be so inutterably stupid as to legitimately miss that obvious point, or conversely if you can be so disingenous as to pretend you missed it, either way, you're not really worth discussing anything with.


And once again you completely glossed over an entire chunk of comments.

I'm beginning to notice a trend.

Anyway...

Read what you wrote again: You -do- know about the population implosion occurring in pretty much every Western country that has been gradually accepting a view of marriage similar to yours, yes?

A "population implosion" occurs when people stop having children. One way to stop have children is to stop having sex, therefore it's a perfectly reasonable assumption to believe you're advocating a tender handed government guide it's "children" through the intricacies of procreation. But more importantly, how exactly does "providing the most stable platform known for the raising of children" spur people into creating more babies?

Call me crazy, but if you're raising children, it's reasonable to assume those children are already born. So how does this in any way solve "population implosion"?

 Yeah, yeah -- I know. I was having fun. Sue me.

To seriously answer your question, in my opinion the best way for the government to provide "the most stable platform known for the raising of children" is this: Leave me the fuck alone. I've seen the kind of "stable platforms" the government provides. I neither want your help nor need it.

556 "You see, what we do know is that children can't make wise decisions about themselves or their future.  They don't have the mental or physical capacity to defend themselves against predators.  They haven't the means to deal with the consequences of their decisions if they prove disastrous.

Consenting adults have all of those abilities, so your foolish equation is actually an inequality."
Posted by: Jewstin at December 17, 2009 05:41 PM (AIhAM)

You give adults far too much credit. Everywhere I look I see an immense number of "adults" making fucked up decisions in their lives, and bemoaning the fucked up consequences of their fucked up previous decisions. (Mostly Democrats, or non-affiliates.)

I see cretinous adults everywhere. Many of them end up working for the Government, mainly because they are too stupid to survive in Private industry.

What *I* see, are a lot of adults with mental decision making (and coping) capacities not as good as some children. What you are left with is a legal argument that some magical age number turns someone into a "mature" adult. While this is the method that the legal system uses, it is like much else in the legal system. Totally fucked up.

Also, if you accept the long standing (till the 70s) legal principal that homosexuality is a mental disorder, and people with mental disorders are unable to give consent, where does that leave this discussion vis a vis the "Consenting adults" argument ?

557 "Bullshit. Many gays are indifferent to the poltics related to their sexuality. Some even oppose gay marriage (e.g. Charles Winecoff over at Big Government). That some particular subset of gays are into politics does not mean that all gays are."

Um, Gabe, the question was in the context of "why would someone refuse to attend CPAC just because of one group out of a hundred other than bigotry?".  The bullet points I listed are entirely congruent with that.  Someone refusing to attend CPAC because of that group -does- know that that group is making a political agenda out of it.

"First of all, I'm not even sure that's even true."

It's true.  I have to wonder, do you still buy the claim that AIDS is "a straight disease" just as much as a gay one?  If so, may I suggest Bernard Goldberg's book "Bias", specifically the chapter "Epidemic of Fear". 

"Second--assuming that it is true--you've broken the fallacy of averages. Just because the average gay has a characteristic, it does not follow that all do."

So you think that the percentage of gays who refuse to engage in sodomy is significant?  The result of the behavior may only occur to a percentage, but the behavior itself is pretty universal in that group, isn't it?

Let's speak frankly:  sodomy, whether gay or straight, is objectively filthy.  It simply is.  It is by far the most efficient possible means of transmitting disease outside of directly injecting your blood into other people.  Is this even remotely controversial?  This isn't about prudery, this is about simple reality.

Qwinn

558 TCJester, I responded to your post 558 in my post 553.

Qwinn

559

It's true.  I have to wonder, do you still buy the claim that AIDS is "a straight disease" just as much as a gay one?  If so, may I suggest Bernard Goldberg's book "Bias", specifically the chapter "Epidemic of Fear". 

To say nothing of Michael Fumento's "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS".

560 Wait a minute, okay, I think I get where you're tying my points about marriage to population, re: the population implosion Steyn points out.  What threw me was your ridiculous assertion that it's about the government being needed so that people would be "capable of having sex". *eyeroll*

People will have sex regardless.  But when will they actually -have- the kid, and raise it?  When will they make the conscious decision to stop using contraception and actually -have kids-?  They're far far more likely to when they're in a stable marriage.  Outside of it, they're far more likely to say things like "I'm not ready" and "I want a career first".

I think that's a pretty obvious point, but apparently you can't make the leap from "government sponsoring having sex" and "government sponsoring the conditions that make people want to have children".

Actually, government sponsors -children- having sex (see: Fistinggate).  Government has never sponsored people having sex (throwing around condoms, funding abortion) etc. as it does now.  And the population implosion continues apace.  I cannot imagine that their grasp of reality exceeds yours.


And you believe the solution to this "population implosion" is to...um, clamp down on gay marriage because, uh, homosexuals are responsible for people not having children?

For the record, calling a homosexual a "fairy" is not a literal definition. They don't actually have magical powers; especially magical powers which (apparently)  render perfectly normal people incapable of producing offspring. 

561

Bullshit. Many gays are indifferent to the poltics related to their sexuality. Some even oppose gay marriage (e.g. Charles Winecoff over at Big Government). That some particular subset of gays are into politics does not mean that all gays are. That's not a big surprise, after all you also have a political agenda, don't you? That I discuss the gay "political agenda" is similarly unsurprising, since the vast majority of things I blog about are political.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 17, 2009 06:11 PM (B2LxR)

I read Charles Winecoff from time to time. He is very astute.

However, the issue with this group is their self identification as a group that advocates a conduct that many people find objectionable. People would have the same reaction to a group like "Tampa Bukkake for GOP".

People would throw a fit if such a group emerged and tried to sponsor an erstwhile conservative group such as CPAC.

562 TCJester, I responded to your post 558 in my post 553.

I saw. But I was in the middle of responding.

BTW, it's time for me to exit as well.

563 "And you believe the solution to this "population implosion" is to...um, clamp down on gay marriage because, uh, homosexuals are responsible for people not having children?"

The problem is because of the -global- perception of marriage and its purpose in life.  It used to be that the vast majority of people considered having lots and lots of healthy kids to be the single biggest identifier of success in life.  It was, effectively, "the meaning of life".  Getting married, -more- than 1.2 kids, all that, wasn't just "the American Dream, it was pretty much a global dream.

Communists saw marriage, children and the traditional family unit as an obstacle to their utopian plans, and have been ranting against it and trying to overturn it ever since anyone heard of Karl Marx.  This is explicitly in the Communist Manifesto.  Most people ignored that for a long time, but they found a means to transmit it into the popular culture via the entire '60's subculture, and a distaste and antipathy towards the family as the central unit of civilization has been hammered into the culture for decades.  I could name hundreds of movies that seek to mock and deride and delegitimize the concept of the nuclear family in the 1950's sense.  Never mind the leftist barrage of encouraging contraception and abortion, or the execrable bullcrap that is Erlich's "Population Bomb" meme.

THAT, the move from thinking of marriage and kids as the meaning of life, and replacing it with soul-crushing leftist dogmas, is what has brought the population implosion about.  We -need- to reverse it.  We need to get back to where marriage and bigger families are considered, well, the point of it all.  It is a step in the -wrong- direction to further divorce marriage from that concept by welcoming an entire category of people into the institution that are incapable of taking part in its primary purpose.

Qwinn

564
Really? Gays don't think there's an emotional component of love. They define it strictly in the physical sense? Me thinks you are getting information from some funny sources.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 17, 2009 06:15 PM (FCWQb)

Years ago I researched homosexuality for a debate I was having. Extreme promiscuity is the norm. Stable monogamous relationships are the exception.

Various accounts relating the numbers of sexual encounters that gay men would have in San Fransisco bathhouses put the numbers at approximately 11 per night. (This was before they closed all the bathhouses due to the onslaught of the AIDS epidemic. )

This is not to say that there are not men who develop a monogamous long term co-dependent relationship, but they are the exception to the rule. Kinda like Ryan White (the child who acquired AIDS through a blood transfusion) was the exception to the rule (but was needed as the hood ornament for the Cure AIDS campaign) as opposed to Homosexual males, interveinous drug users, and nowadays black males. 

565 Tres clever, Drew, but way off point.

Consent, that slim reed that you are so proudly using to beat folks about the head and shoulders, has a specific definition tied to a specific legal framework in a specific time. As does the word adult. As does the word marriage. Now, given that the definitions of each of those words has been changed by some legal jurisdiction at some time or another within the short 50 years of my lifespan, I think that your unspoken assertion that there is some objective definition for any of those three words that we can be assured will be operative 50 years from now is unsupportable to the point of being ludicrous.

When I was a teenager, the idea that two homosexuals could enter into a marriage, as marriage was then defined, was an absolutely ludicrous notion. Yet 35 years later, here we are. The word "adult" was redefined within my lifetime as well, by the 26th Amendment. And, as anyone who's had to observe accusations of sexual harassment or date rape can attest, consent has had its share of transitory definitions for the purpose of temporary legal advantage as well.

Now, given that the linguistic context of this debate seems to be all about the outrage and not so much about the enlightenment, I'd appreciate it if you'd answer the question I asked in the post you snarked back. I mean, I know it's edgy cool to be teh great pro-gay crusader and all, but running off at the mouth like you do when you get a head of steam on just shows which head you really think with. Loosen up your belt, fool -- you're gonna give yourself a stroke.

Personally, I fall in the "get government benefits untied from marriage" camp, not the "stone the queers" camp, but when somebody makes an assertion that deviant sexuality is inborn, I feel like they ought to have show some evidence. And before you go off on another bit of firebreathing, I use the term deviant in an evolutionary biology sense. One thing that homosexuality and prepubescent pedophilia have in common is that, adhered to exclusively, both would result in the mutation being extraordinarily difficult to propagate to the next generation.

566 Bigger threat to society....

Gay's marrying or the breakdown of the traditional family through divorce and single parenthood?

Personally, I think worrying about same sex marriage is like a doctor worrying more about a paper cut on a patient's finger and ignoring the sucking chest wound caused by a shotgun.

567
To seriously answer your question, in my opinion the best way for the government to provide "the most stable platform known for the raising of children" is this: Leave me the fuck alone. I've seen the kind of "stable platforms" the government provides. I neither want your help nor need it.

Posted by: TCJester2 at December 17, 2009 06:15 PM (fM1sa)

I agree with this point. We have the Government to thank (Democrat LBJ specifically ) for the war on poverty, and the associated mass of unwed mothers sucking on the government teat. The government subsidized out of wedlock births, and made the father unnecessary for survival, thus removing the social onus for forcing these men into doing the right thing.

It also removed the social onus for females being sluts. Yeah, that was good for society.

568 "Yeah, the authors of that study say that's not a valid conclusion to draw from their work."

LOL! Yeah, I'm sure there was no political pressure put on them to make a statement "clarifying" their research so that "homophobic groups" can no longer use it to justify "restricting human rights."

Just like there's no political pressure in climate science research, amiright?

569 "Personally, I think worrying about same sex marriage is like a doctor worrying more about a paper cut on a patient's finger and ignoring the sucking chest wound caused by a shotgun."

Read my post 566.  I agree in many ways with the logic of this comment.

BUT, the -proper- analogy is, worrying about -legalizing- same sex marriage is like a doctor deciding that rather than treating the sucking chest wound, let's ignore the chest wound and instead slice his finger open.

Qwinn

570 "And you believe the solution to this "population implosion" is to...um, clamp down on gay marriage because, uh, homosexuals are responsible for people not having children?"

Wow. You can't possibly really be this stupid. Please read his post again.

571 And I totally agree with 571 regarding your link, Drew.  The whole "oh no, 'homophobes' are using the facts in an inconvenity way" routine is in fact indistinguishable from how the global warming fraudsters operate.  Note that they didn't actually retract even a single data point, they just said "you can't use our data that way".  Uh huh.  Why not?  "Sexual preferences can't determine life expectancy"... why the hell not?  Do they explain how higher promiscuity rates and universal sodomy with attendant disease transmission rates -cannot- impact life expectancy?  No.  They just say "you can't use our facts that way".  BS.

Qwinn

572 Posted by: trfogey at December 17, 2009 06:42 PM (9zyH6)

I see a lot of words but no real point.

You seem to be saying that because the age of consent has changed and might again....and that's where I lose you.

What? The fact that an adult wants to molest a kid that means it's legal now? That's too stupid even for someone like you who wrote "The adult part of the pedophilic relationship is the consenting one." (which is as true as it is irrelevant to anything).

I really have no clue what you are talking about. Here's a hint...worry less about consent and more about coherence.



Loosen up your belt, fool -- you're gonna give yourself a stroke.

I love you guys who imagine that I'm about to stroke out arguing with you.

Trust me, arguing with you doesn't even require breaking a sweat (literally or figuratively).

573 "Years ago I researched homosexuality for a debate I was having. Extreme promiscuity is the norm. Stable monogamous relationships are the exception."

Careful. The truth is no defense from being accused of "hate."

574 Qwinn,

You agree with an ass like RJ? I am so shocked.

Tell you what, if you don't like what those guys wrote, why don't you link to the proof you have about the 20 year less life expectancy?

Or should I just take your word for it?

575 "It also removed the social onus for females being sluts. Yeah, that was good for society"

SEXIST MISOGYNIST HATE-MONGERING BIGOT!

/s

576 "Trust me, arguing with you doesn't even require breaking a sweat (literally or figuratively). "

Since you're sticking to the ludicrous claim that only 2 out of the ten points in GOProud's agenda list "touch on gay issues", despite the fact that 6 out of 10 refer to them -explicitly- as gay issues, and even when those points have been bolded for you, I can only believe this must be true.  When you've decided to utterly ignore objective reality, everything must come quite easily.

Qwinn

577 Trust me, arguing with you doesn't even require breaking a sweat (literally or figuratively).

Posted by: DrewM. at December 17, 2009 06:53 PM (FCWQb)

I agree. It's hard to break a sweat when your main form of argument is to scream "bigot".

578 "Tell you what, if you don't like what those guys wrote, why don't you link to the proof you have about the 20 year less life expectancy?"

Your own link suffices.  The authors acknowledge that their conslusions show that gays have a lower life expectancy, they just insist that it's, uh, a coincidence I guess, since their sexual activity simply cannot possibly have any bearing on their life expectancy, because that would be homophobic.

I really can't believe that you actually consider that legitimate.  It's so blindingly, obviously nothing but a surrender to political correctness.

Qwinn

579 On a separate subject, What exactly are the claims against the John Birch Society. I've heard of them since the 60s, but i've also heard that people detest them, but i've never heard why. What have they done, or are doing ?

All i've ever heard is that they are very anti-communist. Is there something else ?

580 The authors acknowledge that their conslusions show that gays have a lower life expectancy, they just insist that it's, uh, a coincidence

No, they argue it was a limited sample and doesn't account for advances in treatments or changes in behavior.

BTW-you never answered my question...Are the Phelps and Westboro crew anti-gay bigots?

581

Um, Gabe, the question was in the context of "why would someone refuse to attend CPAC just because of one group out of a hundred other than bigotry?".  The bullet points I listed are entirely congruent with that. 

No, now you're wiggling. You said you could tell those things about a gay person simply by reason of the fact that he's gay. Now you're getting squirelly, saying you're talking about something else. Typical.

582 What *I* see, are a lot of adults with mental decision making (and coping) capacities not as good as some children. What you are left with is a legal argument that some magical age number turns someone into a "mature" adult. While this is the method that the legal system uses, it is like much else in the legal system. Totally fucked up.

Well, then either outlaw all sex or make people take a test to show that they are capable of making an intelligent decision, in your opinion, prior to being allowed to have sex or even (God forbid!!) procreate.

What a botch this whole "individual liberty" thing is, huh?  Damn those stupid people making their own damn stupid choices.  If only they would listen to those who know what's right for them!

583 "You agree with an ass like RJ? I am so shocked."

Wow, the association fallacy. How adorable.

Got anything else?

584 RJ,

You do realize sometimes a cheap insult is meant as just that..a cheap insult.

Some folks aren't worth more.

585 "No, they argue it was a limited sample"

One look at the CDC's AIDS data - which encompasses the -entire- data set of -all- deaths from AIDS in the US, among the entire population - which reveals that homosexuals are -at least- 100 times more likely than a straight person to contract AIDS - should be enough to dismiss the entire notion that it's flawed due to being a "limited sample".

"and doesn't account for advances in treatments or changes in behavior."

What does this even mean?  How does that change the data of the study?  Our entire point is, yes, the different behavior exhibited by gay men is extremely high-risk and results in early death.  The author's rebuttal is, look, just because these people are gay doesn't mean their sexual behavior is any different, which is patently ridiculous.

Qwinn

586 What exactly are the claims against the John Birch Society. I've heard of them since the 60s, but I've also heard that people detest them, but I've never heard why. What have they done, or are doing?

All I've ever heard is that they are very anti-communist. Is there something else?

I believe they were a tad too anti-Communist - to the point of seeing Communists everywhere (like in Dwight D. Eisenhower, for example). Bill Buckley's National Review basically denounced them and purged them from the conservative movement several decades ago, and they've been considered "fringe" since then.

They also have a penchant for global conspiracy theories, which doesn't much bother me (isn't the whole "Global Warming" scam basically just an excuse to implement international socialism?), but it does concern others.

587

This is not to say that there are not men who develop a monogamous long term co-dependent relationship, but they are the exception to the rule.

Rule of averages again. You say gays are promiscuous (what, no word on college students? Italians?) but that some want monogamous long term relationships. And the conclusion is...gays don't believe in love.

That simply does not follow.

588 Ok, the Rangers are about to get their ass kicked so that's more fun than this (and I'm a Ranger fan).

Here's my bottom line...if you want to hate/fear/loathe teh gehys, that's on you, I can't and don't want to do anything about that.

What I can try to do something about and want to do something about is to make sure you don't define or become the face of conservatives.

589 "You do realize sometimes a cheap insult is meant as just that..a cheap insult."

Yes, but you've been playing that particular card all day long.

Got anything else? You haven't addressed, like, any of my actual points today.

590

So not fully supporting Gay Marriage prevents me from "being the face of conservitives".

Uhhh yeah. Right!

You are utterly delusional Drew.

591 Well, then either outlaw all sex or make people take a test to show that they are capable of making an intelligent decision, in your opinion, prior to being allowed to have sex or even (God forbid!!) procreate.

What a botch this whole "individual liberty" thing is, huh?  Damn those stupid people making their own damn stupid choices.  If only they would listen to those who know what's right for them!

Posted by: wiserbud at December 17, 2009 07:02 PM (EW49d)

Save the snark. God only knows it would be a boon to mankind if people had to meet some minimum level of competence before having children. Unfortunately it is neither practical nor desirable to impose such a thing.

Prior to the modern age, society and custom dampened irresponsible people from irresponsibly making children. It didn't eliminate it, it just made it damned hard, and forced consequences.

My theory has long been that modern society indulges in this idiocy only because we can afford it. In the past when such conduct resulted in sorrowful deaths, society would simply not tolerate it.

As a supporting corollary, When a man's life and livelihood was intimately entwined with owning a horse, the stealing of it would reasonably cost a life.  Nowadays that horses are neither so necessary, and are also in such plentiful quantity, it is no longer such a dire offense  when one is stolen.

592 "Here's my bottom line...if you want to hate/fear/loathe teh gehys, that's on you, I can't and don't want to do anything about that."

If that's all you've taken away from the discussion today, then it's no wonder you haven't broken a sweat: You're probably not even conscious.

593 God only knows it would be a boon to mankind if people had to meet some minimum level of competence before having children.

Why don't we simply eliminate everyone who we consider to be a detriment to society as a whole? Seriously, then we could move closer to that whole "perfect society" even faster!

Unfortunately it is neither practical nor desirable to impose such a thing.

But that shouldn't stop us from trying to control the lives of others though, amiright?  AmIright?

594 I believe they were a tad too anti-Communist - to the point of seeing Communists everywhere (like in Dwight D. Eisenhower, for example). Bill Buckley's National Review basically denounced them and purged them from the conservative movement several decades ago, and they've been considered "fringe" since then.

They also have a penchant for global conspiracy theories, which doesn't much bother me (isn't the whole "Global Warming" scam basically just an excuse to implement international socialism?), but it does concern others. Posted by: RJ at December 17, 2009 07:08 PM (ADbI4)

Global warming hoey is starting to make the conspiracy nuts look sane. While we're on the subject, i'm not so certain that the Birchers might not have been right about all the communists everywhere. That certainly seems to be the case in the current government. Maybe they were just before their time ?

In any case, I don't understand how being vehemently anti-communists makes them detestable. Have you ever spoken with someone who has LIVED in a communist country ? Now THAT's anti-communist !

595 "No, now you're wiggling. You said you could tell those things about a gay person simply by reason of the fact that he's gay. Now you're getting squirelly, saying you're talking about something else. Typical."

Oh, screw you, Gabe.  It's obvious that was the context I was speaking in because what I said makes no sense in the context you're trying to reframe it as.  This -entire conversation- I was having with Drew was in the context of people not willing to go to CPAC because of GOProud.  He's insisting those people are bigots.  And I was arguing that that is bullshit, because they know a lot more about the people they don't want to associate with than the color of their skin or some other attribute that tells you literally nothing, like skin color. And that includes the knowledge that GOProud is, as their name indicates, actively proud of their sexual preferences and quite in-your-face about it.

Personally?  I think the idea of being -proud- of your sexual preference is ludicrous.  I'm not "proud" of being straight.  How the hell can someone be -proud- of a sexual preference?  Necrophiliac pride!  Midget Fetishists RULE! I think right there, the notion of being -proud- of something that is so utterly effortless, is enough to legitimize not wanting anything to do with someone.  And to scream about it through a metaphorical (and sometimes literal) megaphone is just gross and tasteless.  I know that they are, in fact, attention whores.  If you're so adamant that people shouldn't care what you do in "the privacy of your bedroom", then keep it in your freaking bedroom.  But don't constantly, constantly, CONSTANTLY tell me about your sexual activities and then tell me I'm invading your privacy if I don't care about them or think society owes you a special congratulatory cookie and government subsidies for them, FFS.

Qwinn

596 Here, a more concise way to make (one of) my points:

The eternal refrain from the gay marriage crowd is "why do you care what people are doing in their bedroom"?  If it doesn't produce anything substantive like, you know, more human beings, I -don't- care.  Why do -you- insist that all of society recognize, elevate and subsidize what gays are doing in their bedroom?  It's -you- guys that are obsessed with what's going on in bedrooms, not us, we just wish you'd shut the f*ck up about it.

Qwinn

597 "I'm not so certain that the Birchers might not have been right about all the communists everywhere. That certainly seems to be the case in the current government. Maybe they were just before their time ?"

Well, according to Ann Coulter (in her book Treason, I believe), Joe McCarthy was essentially correct, and communist agents had thoroughly infiltrated the FDR and Truman administrations to the point of influencing foreign policy.

598 But don't constantly, constantly, CONSTANTLY tell me about your sexual activities and then tell me I'm invading your privacy if I don't care about them or think society owes you a special congratulatory cookie and government subsidies for them, FFS.

*does Google search on ace.mu.nu for any references by Gabe as to his sexual activities........

599 Hmmmm........  nothing yet....

*tries Bing......

600 Damn.   Still nothing.

Maybe Yahoo.......

brb

601 DAMMIT!

Clusty?

602 "*does Google search on ace.mu.nu for any references by Gabe as to his sexual activities........"

*sigh*  That was a general "you", not Gabe specifically.  Gabe has informed us that he's gay, but it's not the only thing he talks about, and I don't have a problem with it except where it informs his policy decisions.  alexthechick, who doesn't even support gay marriage and for the right reasons, hell, I'd date her if she'd have me.  She's made it clear that it doesn't define her and she doesn't -want- it to define her.

But if I'm going to meet a whole gaggle of people who've joined an organization called "GOProud" that is, by definition, -proud- of something as silly as a sexual preference (man, talk about a low bar for accomplishment), I can expect that that's pretty much all they'll talk about.  They're making sure, before I even meet them, that I know about their sexual preferences.  That's enough for me to say, no, thanks.

Qwinn

603

Rule of averages again. You say gays are promiscuous (what, no word on college students? Italians?) but that some want monogamous long term relationships. And the conclusion is...gays don't believe in love.

That simply does not follow.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 17, 2009 07:09 PM (B2LxR)

Maybe I wasn't clear. Perhaps I should have said they are supercalifragilisticexpealidociously promiscuous. They are promiscuous on a level that's never been obtained by college students or Italians. (well, maybe some rare college girls, or porn stars.)

11 sexual encounters on a single night.  Maybe i'm mistaken, but I don't know ANYONE that can make that claim. I know a Fireman who claimed to have had sex with 7 women in one day, but that was an Olympic event for him, and to hear him tell it, the pinnacle of his life.

On the love thing, I never asserted that Gays don't believe in love. I have no doubt that gays CAN  love someone very much.

I also have little doubt that they don't love their promiscuous sexual encounter partners, and most of them can't love one person sufficiently to the degree required to stop having the promiscuous encounters. 

Do I have a misconception about this ?

604 Wow. You can't possibly really be this stupid. Please read his post again.

Care to wager on that?

I can provide a cadre of dedicated Flame Warriors at Fark who will testify that I am without a doubt the stupidest person who ever walked the Earth. They tell me this every time I step foot into Fark, so it has to be true.

Simply put -- yes, I am that stupid.

Without a doubt.

And being an indisputable idiot, I'll give you the "Idiot Perspective":  In my opinion, Mr. Qwinn was arguing a "hasty generalization".

And I'm being more than fair with that accusation. To wit...

Premise One: A population implosion is occurring in Western countries which are more "gay marriage" friendly.

Premise Two: In the last several years, people have put off having children because they weren't ready or decided to focus on their careers. 

CONCLUSION: The idea of gay marriage is making people who aren't ready to have children yet focus on their careers, thus dooming every man, woman and child to a post-apocalyptic holocaust where regressive hunter/gatherer skills are honed by scouring dilapidated Walmarts for canned dog food and tattered Twinkies.


I'm sorry, did I breech protocol? I didn't know I was suppose to take that nonsense seriously.

I don't debate logical fallacies. I make fun of them, because debating a logical fallacy is a complete waste of time...

605 But if I'm going to meet a whole gaggle of people who've joined an organization called "GOProud" that is, by definition, -proud- of something as silly as a sexual preference (man, talk about a low bar for accomplishment),

Really?  I thought maybe they were proud to be Conservatives.

 I can expect that that's pretty much all they'll talk about.

Really?  I've met Gabe.  He never once, nor did I, discuss our sexuality or preferences.  I know quite a few gay people, in fact, and as surprising as it seems, they do not only talk about sex.  Shocking, I know.

They're making sure, before I even meet them, that I know about their sexual preferences.

And they probably already know yours, considering the percentages.  So?

That's enough for me to say, no, thanks.

Icky, huh?

606 Why don't we simply eliminate everyone who we consider to be a detriment to society as a whole? Seriously, then we could move closer to that whole "perfect society" even faster!

Unfortunately it is neither practical nor desirable to impose such a thing.

But that shouldn't stop us from trying to control the lives of others though, amiright?  AmIright?

Posted by: wiserbud at December 17, 2009 07:20 PM (EW49d)

What is wrong with teaching people to control themselves ? Or are you fond of the Fascist way of doing things ? 

Seriously, without government support for unwed mothers, we would have far fewer bastard children growing up to be criminals.

In any case, look elsewhere for someone to fluff your contentiousness.