Skip to comments.Ann Coulter at CPAC: "Gays are natural conservatives"
Posted on 02/12/2011 1:52:43 PM PST by icwhatudo
"You have culture telling gays to be liberal. The left is trying to coopt gays & I dont think we should let them"
Where is that jump the shark icon?
First, you post an insult and now, an intimation of some sort. I notice you have no response to either of my actual posts. You might notice, however, that I didn't call on the moderators to intervene, because unlike you, I don't believe any government, however small, really can successfully instill the more subtle mores, such as right and wrong.
However, societal pressure does do that rather well, and I post this so you'll understand when I shun your posts again in the future. I hope your remedy your intentional ignorance of the real world before it hurts you somehow. Have a nice life!
Before you go, will you give me a Yes or No to my question? Would that situation be acceptable? Again a simple yes or no.
Just out of curiosity, do you believe that one cannot support a limited Constitutional government without supporting the same moral beliefs that you have? Must a man be moral in the way that you see it in order to see the utility of limited government in the way that you see it?
I don’t feel homosexuality is moral. I don’t support the legalization of homosexual marriage (or, for that matter, any tax or other benefits granted to married folks in general, since I don’t think intervening in family planning in any way is a good role for a state or federal government to take on). But I wouldn’t have any problem with gays voting for a Republican nominee with whom I agreed and for whom I’d voted.
I can’t recall for sure, but I think Rush actually seemed to support Romney last year, too, at least later in the primaries. What do you think of him, now?
No, the homosexual agenda is the enemy, and anyone who practices homosexuality is part of that agenda. Homosexuality is not compatible with conservatism, any more than being anti-gun, pro-open borders, pro-abortion, pro-tax and spend, or weak on national defense is compatible. You could no sooner have a conservative homosexual than you could have a pet cat-dog, or have a tub full of hot-cold water.
And yes, recognizing homosexuality in any form as a legitimate lifestyle choice, be it individually or the whole circle jerk, is surrendering.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Natural Law is not about “morality”. It is about reality.
And, yes, it is more moral to side with reality. (And, good news, when one sides with natural reality one just happens to side with Nature’s God.)
Elton John is Rush’s pal, Rush is on his 4th(5th?) wife, and Rush destroyed his hearing with drug abuse.
He has some good insights on some subjects, but his conservatism is basically only fiscal deep.
I don't think I answered this question in my previous post to you.
In the same way as I believe that getting one's position on life wrong, renders one susceptible to anything; that is, one who has built his house on sand, I also believe that is true of those who get nature's law egregiously wrong.
They are unreliable.
They are Romney.
Reliable in saying the right things prior to being elected, but not reliable enough to withstand the onslaught of power corrupters once in office.
Now the "in the way that you see it" is, of course, either a trap or a condescension. I don't mind being condescended to. So far as setting my own self up for a broadside, let me clearly state that my clarity of sight is not my own but is biblical, taken from Romans 1 & 2.
So, yes, nature's God cannot be avoided.
Wouldn't it be quicker to ask me if I still beat my wife?
Of course it's not acceptable that children be exposed at any age to liquor or prostitutes. Ideally, no one would ever even be affected, negatively or otherwise, by "demon rum" or "loose women." However, what is even less acceptable is the idea that it's a good idea for government that is somehow powerful enough to prevent immorality and so powerful as to even prevent the bare exposure of anyone to the same, which you obviously think is a role for government. Given the proclivities of those in power to eventually define immorality, i.e., evil, as "against our way of thinking," this notion that government should not be limited immensely empowers the liberals to do exactly what they are doing, which is to expand the government to enforce 'civil rights,' i.e., homosexual rights and politically correct thought. So while to your mind there is a simple answer this question, you obviously don't understand the implications of a "no" or a "yes," standing alone.
Hence my earlier response, which you obviously care not to read. I can only assume that thinking and rational, reasonable discussion about conservative political ideology and tactics aren't at all what you have in mind when you come here. Thus, again, there is little point in replying to your posts here. Good day to you, sir or ma'am, and good luck with your liberal outlook on the size of government. I hope it does not some day come back to haunt you.
Outstanding insight, dear Padre!
It is an insight that goes back, 'way back before Christ, courtesy of Socrates, presented in a speech by Alcibiades a handsome, intelligent, though dissolute, rising member of the old Athenian aristocracy in Plato's dialogue Symposium.
In aristocratic Athenian society, homosexuality was hardly an unknown phenomenon. Anyhoot, in his speech, Alcibiades details his unsuccessful attempts to "seduce" Socrates in the amorous sense, that is (or in any other way imaginable, I suppose Socrates being who he was). :^)
But my point is to get to Socrates' view of "love between men." Jacob Needleman sheds valuable light here:
In the Platonic dialogues, the question of love between men serves as a means for distinguishing the two kinds of friendship of which human beings are capable. The one kind of friendship is mutual assistance in the search for truth; the other kind is the mutual support of human weaknesses.The difference, as pithily put by G. I. Gurdjieff, is the difference between "the friendship of men and the friendship of pigs."
As Plato writes about it, love between men is that impulse in human relationships which can be higher (nobler) than normal sexual love, that relationship in which the common aim is the movement toward being [and truth]; or which can be lower than normal sexual love, in which individuals strengthen each other's faults, such as vanity, self-pity, fear, and laziness.I am sure modern-day homosexuals would resist seeing themselves in the light of such a description. But this does not by itself make the description "false." What Plato is finally saying is that they are living at a level unworthy of the full potential and dignity of man.
No wonder gays in general seem to hate Western culture with its roots in classical Athens and the Judeo-Christian tradition so passionately.
Thank you ever so much, dear brother in Christ, for your outstanding insights!
answer this please
wh don’;t yuou libertarians go and join your own sites and make your own conventions, why do you run on the back of the R and then come to our conventions pretending to be conservatives but are socially liberal
you want men to marry men, daughters to marry fathers, women to marry a dog then off you go but you’re not conservative so why join our conventions?
It’s becoming ever more obvious that the moral basis for the Republican Party is gone.
It’s little more now than a collection of pro-choice for states, anti-war libertarians and unprincipled, self-seeking political hacks.
Of course, there are a tiny number of exceptions, and those views don’t reflect the views of the republican rank and file, but at the top? The corruption is almost complete.
A fish rots from the head down, and boy, is the smell getting bad.
see many libertarians have no problem with a crack house and whore house right next to a kid school or have a problem with a woman marrying her dog.
Yes they have said that on here so that to me is why I am against libertarians for the most part
itn all sounds good doesn;t it, keep Govt out of marriage, out of lives etc but when given questions like crack house next to a day care then most libertarians do not want to answer as they know it needs Govt to make a law to stop that and yet if they say no problem then they are classed as a nut , about marriage they are IMHO
Your posts begs the old question, are “they” the RINOs or are the Conservatives the RINOs?
I have no intention of trapping you. I merely realize that there are in the United States many different sets of what constitutes morality, for which we should thank God we live in a country where this dissension is tolerated. Call me a Pharisee, but I certainly wouldn’t want to have the same set of morals as Donald Trump, for example. But he certainly has his own morality.
That said, you return to the notion of a natural law. There are God-given rights. I believe in them so strongly, in fact, that where I disagree with natural law and legal interpretation based upon it is that where God stops and government begins depends on who is deciding what that natural law constitutes. I don’t believe that allowing government to enforce’s God’s law, your perception of it or my own, is a good idea. It is my way of thinking that allowing government to run via God’s law is tantamount to allowing government to run rampant. After all, the question then becomes, who determines God’s law? In England it was the King. And he killed Catholics, Baptists and other “heretics” of all stripes for not agreeing to assent to his own vision of natural law.
I would much rather have to deal with the occasional flaming queer, but be able to run them out of my place of business, not hire them, etc., than have government powerful enough to make them accepted OR unaccepted. The problem is the double-edged sword of government means that it will swing both ways (you’ll have to pardon the wording given the subject). I believe affirmative action and political correctness are only now around because segregation and the Civil Rights Acts made it acceptable for government to discriminate on the basis of what’s right under someone’s view of an unwritten, living and breathing natural law.
Those reading Romans 1 and 2 have different interpretations, too, you know, and some may take the meaning of Paul to be closer to “let God judge” than “make law God’s.” Or worse, they may think you get YOUR position on life wrong, and have enough folks behind them someday to run things. And I don’t want a government to enforce their views on me or you. After all, won’t be long before there are more Mexicans of Catholic religion here than any other group. Would you want a Mexican view of natural law? A Catholic view of natural law? I don’t mean to appeal to your prejudices, but to me, that is the point of wanting limited government based upon the plain language, not some natural law or other penumbras, of the Constitution.
Well, there are republicans, and then there are Republicans.
The difference becomes more apparent every day to anyone with even an ounce of discernment left.
Democrats: Socialists pretending to be moderates.
Republicans: Moderates pretending to be conservatives.
I am outnumbered. Either you people think I am accepting a gay agenda, or you are exactly what I’ve complained about on other threads: completely prejudiced against people who are homosexual, to the point where you wouldn’t want their vote.
In your comments, you said things like you would never want to rent to homosexuals, they are all obscene, they hate G-d, they are perverted, they really don’t exist outside of media pandering, having one in our tent IS pandering to their agenda, recognizing homosexuality is wrong, etc.
Believe what you want to believe. Pretend the sky is green in your world. But what do you think Dick Cheney feels about all this? He watched his precious child, a tomboy, find herself as a teen attracted to girls. He knows that homosexuality exists and that the ORIENTATION is not a choice, and that for someone with a homosexual orientation to force himself to love the opposite sex is VERY DIFFICULT, probably akin to you forcing yourself to love someone of the same sex. I am not saying it can’t be done.
I’d like to see the people of FR condemn gay GROUPS, gay agendas, gay marriage, but have loving G-dly kindness toward people with this affliction. Especially the innocent, very young ones. I bet many FReepers have friends or relatives with children who are homosexual and they know that the child didn’t want it any more than another child wanted Tourette’s.
They’re all unprincipled hacks saying whatever they think they have to say to buy themselves power.
And they’re destroying America.
Free Republic is a site dedicated to the concerns of traditional grassroots conservative activists. We're here to discuss and advance our conservative causes in a more or less liberal-free environment. We're not here to debate liberals. We do not want our pages filled with their arrogant, obnoxious, repugnant bile. Liberals, usurpers, and other assorted malcontents are considered unwelcome trolls on FR and their accounts and or posts will be summarily dismissed at the convenience of the site administrators.
You obstinately and ignorantly cling to the homosexual agenda lie that homosexuals are born that way and cannot change.
You have no clue whatsoever how any of these hateful people you condemn (those of us who do not kowtow to the homosexual agenda) treat actual people who (currently) are identifying as homosexuals in our own lives.
No clue whatsoever. You only make assumptions.
In your narrow little world only those who “celebrate” homosexuality actually love homosexual individuals. That is an outright and vile lie.
And your blindness is based on the disgusting lie that homosexuals are born that way and cannot change.
Ann Coulter’s comments today, Andrew Breitbart and his “gay party”, even Palin and Huck saying GOProud should be at CPAC. To top it off, West had that homo repub (that went after boy interns) at his event.
The national debt I’m concerned about is this nations moral debt.
Killing unborn babies and guys marrying guys is the new norm while Freepers get called out on Free Republic for daring to speak out. There seems to be no safe place left...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.