Skip to comments.CPAC Speaker Condemns CPAC For Allowing Gay Conservative Group (VIDEO)
Posted on 02/19/2010 6:06:35 PM PST by Maelstorm
During a CPAC segment to recognize student conservative activists from across the country, one particular conservative, Ryan Sorba of the California Young Americans for Freedom, denounced CPAC for allowing the gay conservative group GOProud to co-sponsor the event and host a booth. After finishing his short speech against homosexuality as being contrary to the concept of natural rights -- amidst booing from the crowd -- he walked off the stage.
"Just to change the subject for just a second, I'd like to condemn CPAC for bringing GOPride (sic) to this event," said Sorba. The young activist crowd erupted into booing, but Sorbs continued. "Bring it. Bring it. I love it. I love it. I love it.
"Guess what? Guess what? All right, guess what? Civil rights are grounded in natural rights," said Sorba. "Natural rights are grounded in human nature. Human nature is a rational substance in relationship. The intelligible end of the reproductive act is reproduction. Do you understand that? Civil rights, when they conflict with natural rights, are contrary -- hey, you sit down. The lesbians at Smith College protest better than you do. The lesbians at Smith College protest than you do. All right? Bring it."
Here is a link to the video.
Today MARKED THE END OF CPAC AS A FORCE WITHIN THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT.
Good job Ryan.
The tent is not big enough for homos.
I agree. This is going to damage CPAC. It was already damaged in my eyes with the Romney winning the straw poll. It shows that it is a sham. It should be called RPAC.
“Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature...” —Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376
Agreed-we are already into the discussion over here about it:
That's correct, it's not so "conservative" these days. The presence of factions based on their sexual preferences proves that CPAC has been corrupted. They're quickly losing credibility. Whatever influence they have will be disappear next.
If the Democrats and the Republicans want to fight for the Sodomite vote, so be it. There are still plenty of heterosexuals around to form a third party. The West seems intent on committing suicide.
The idea of gay pride is a leftist identity politics creation. It is incompatible with conservatism. Also gays are all about using government to mandate and force acceptance of their lifestyle. Ryan Sorba is right it isn’t about Civil rights. It is about sex and behavior.
Thanks I didn’t see that or I wouldn’t have posted.
We are the majority in the Republican Party. We and enough independents can win without the left whether it be Republican or Democrat flavored.
From what I saw, most the people entering the ballroom during then were people coming to see Ron Paul. Things were moving behind schedule, so the panel was occurring around 4:30 when it was supposed to be at 3:45.
The CPUSA meets at least as much as they do, and one of their members is POTUS.
FLIP SLICK WILLARD RINO ROMNEY AND ANY OF HIS SUPPORTERS AND THAT INCLUDES HANNITY AND COULTER BEST BEWARE.
I am assuming that the BOOS were from the RINOS, gays and “moderates’?
They should just re-name it FUDGEPAC.
I forgot the Ron Paul supporters. Thanks for pointing it out.
Some in the crowd weren’t too crazy about the behavior of the Paul zealots before and during his speech...
Here is what Ryan was referring to.
A clear line still exists between Social Conservatives and Economic/political libertarians (aka Social “Moderates” — really social liberals). It is disheartening that CPAC’s apparent perspective is far more secular and economic and far less socially Conservative than is necessary to be an effective PAC in the current realities.
The straw poll that chose Romney was quite surprising to me. A revelation about where CPAC is at ideologically. While I like many of the speakers at the CPAC, some I have serious doubts and reservations about. And some I downright reject as “Conservatives” at all.
It will be fascinating to see what Glenn Beck’s address will be like — and how it will be received. Hard to know — he could easily get booed out of the room too — or hailed as the next great thing... We’ll see.
That guy was brave to speak in front of this ACT UP convention, or whatever it was.
CPAC = RINOPAC
I notice there wasn't a promiscuity group demanding to be accepted; or a adultery group. Those who favor bestiality and necrophilia don't have a booth at CPAC. Why is that? Why are the homosexuals the only group of sexual deviants (deviating from the norm) who are afforded special rights and considerations? Why are they the only group to be afforded the “alternative” lifestyle status, with political clout? There are actually many sexual “orientations”...it is not very inclusive to leave the other groups out of the tent.
Hey, how about if we leave sexual behaviors out of a meeting on political thought, and leave peoples morals to the church?
Maybe it should be FPAC if the homos etc are allowed in...
And yes, I am just a sinner saved by grace btw
“...he [Glenn Beck] could easily get booed out of the room”
I looking forward to Glenn’s speech tomorrow night at 6:00 EST on FOX NEWS.
If Glenn gets booed out of the room, the GOP is dead.
I watch a bit of Glenn Beck, he makes some good sense from time to time, but I must confess I am not quite sure who`s side he is on.
Its because they have succeeded in getting people to accept what is a lie and a dangerous one at that. Not only is it not logical to associate homosexual behavior with civil rights you are correct in pointing out the clear danger to civil rights such mislabeling of behaviors as civil rights can result in real civil rights being abridges through government mandates and programs forcing acceptance of such behavior by defining opposition as “hate” or “bigoted” when it is no such thing. Suddenly parents don’t have rights to protect their kids from exposure to what they consider inappropriate sexual material. Religious individuals are suddenly excluded from adoption agencies and the social sciences. Liberty is threatened by homosexuals and leftists social causes at every turn because they can not win through fair debate. They must have the government on their side to get their unreasonable demands enforced on a populace who just wants to be left alone.
It’s all about government subsidies for various communist groups, and the gays are all about being one of those.
Very well said.
We’ve gone a long way if we’ve moved from opposing homosexual rights, to opposing homosexual people.
I hope we also throw out anybody who had sex outside of marriage, or ever lied, or stole, or has too many speeding tickets.
Need to be the party of the perfect, I guess. I wonder if divorced and remarried people are still OK?
It was absurd to have a gay pride group as part of the CPAC support team.
Good thing Rubio spoke yesterday, so we can ignore his involvement.
Does the straw poll only work for people at the conference, or do they allow other people to vote?
The tent is big enough for sinners who don’t publicly revel in their sinfulness.
Or J.D. Hayworth or Jim Demint or Phyllis Schlafly or Andrew Breitbart or Judge Andrew Napolitano, who were also around on Thursday according to the agenda...magritte
LOL! It's the beginning of the end of CPAC. It was a good organization at one time. It has now degenerated in forum for RINO blowhards.
I thought that a lot of what he said was very good, but having read some of the comments here, I think his words were misunderstood.
And the fact that CPAC had him, Rubio, the Cheneys, as well as Scott Brown, Mitt Romney, and as well as Glenn Beck, shows that CPAC isn’t an ideologically narrow meeting, but does offer a platform for us to air and discuss many different viewpoints.
We need to be able to have these speeches, and debates, and discussions, and it bothers me that some posters in this thread wish that these opportunities were stifled.
It is also discouraging that some here want to impose a moral litmus test, but only for specific sins that are particularly disgusting to us.
I would prefer that we elect once-married protestant men with solid families and a squeaky-clean private lives. But if everybody only votes for the perfect people, we won’t elect anybody. So I happily cast my vote for Catholics, for single people, for divorced men, for women, if on the issues they are solid, and on philosophy the are committed to limited government constitutional principles.
And if they happened to be gay, but aren’t pushing gay rights, and the alternative is some liberal, I’d vote for a gay person. They are sinners, but so are we all.
Yes. It is wrong to think of CPAC as the epitome of ideological conservatism. But it is also wrong to discard it for political purposes.
Of course, I’m convinced that if Sarah Palin had decided to speak at CPAC, there would be only muted complaints here about them. And of course, if CPAC hadn’t allowed a pro-homosexual-rights group to sponsor them, I don’t think there would be much complaining even though Romney tends to win the straw polls.
Since the straw poll doesn’t seem to have mattered (didn’t Hucakbee win in 2008?) I don’t see it as something to get worked up about.
But I knew that with Sarah Palin publicly denouncing CPAC there would be a considerable force here denouncing it as well.
I was in fact surprised at how muted that criticism was yesterday, but I figured it was because of the strength of the speakers.
This year’s CPAC has the most attendees ever...the speakers are varied and pretty solid, with populist Glenn Beck wrapping it up...like it or not, this is the “team” for the Republicans in 2010 and 2012...magritte
I agree. But they aren't there as people. They are there as part of their 'movement' to force people to accept homosexuality. Presumably there are individual homosexuals at the conference who are not part of this pro-sodomy organization, and that's fine.
To put it another way, I assume there are adulterers and burglars in the crowd at CPAC too. But if CPAC starts accepting organizations devoted to advocating adultery as normal and demanding that people just accept burglary as an alternative lifestyle, then I have a problem with that.
It bothers me that we have groups like “GOProud” on the conservative side. If they have a conservative agenda, why be a “gay” group? If they have a gay agenda, they don’t belong in the conservative fold.
It seems counterproductive. Groups should be defined by the issues that are advocating, not the orientation of their membership. Of course, my opinion is that GOProud IS advocating a gay agenda — after all, they are pushing for an openly gay military.
"ELEVENTH: The religious influence of this School shall not be sectarian, but evangelically Christian."
Sorba is dead-on. It is a disgrace that they invited/allowed GOProud. It isn’t bad enough that CPAC tolerates RINOs, nanny-staters, and ACLU-shills like Bob Barr. Now the gays have taken over the conference as well. Did you see those dozens of men standing up to heckle him? Who are they? Keene is a pathetic tool. The fags have totally infiltrated this once-fine conference. It is just disgusting.
Are adulterers, liars, thieves and speeders demanding that their behavior be held up as morally equivalent? The gays are. They can do as they please, but they have no right to redefine marriage. And who is "they" anyway? This about isn't some "race" needing 14th Amendment protections. What about Sarah MacLachlan, Anne Heche and others, who once lived as homosexual but now have families and children. Are they "lesbians", are they "straight"? What about ex-gays? The very idea that these people who practice changable sexual behaviors constitute a special status worthy of constitutional recognition should be abhorrent to every conservative. To every American.
He's not on the side of Trutherseven within the GOP!
Hey, how about if we leave sexual behaviors out of a meeting on political thought, and leave peoples morals to the church...?"
Because The Church proved that homosexuals corrupt America's male children?