Posted on 02/22/2010 9:06:23 PM PST by DesertRenegade
California Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) chairman Ryan Sorba generated a media controversy when he was shown at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) denouncing the organizers for inviting a homosexual Republican group, GOProud, into the event as an official sponsor. In "controversial" remarks, Sorba said homosexuality was unnatural and that he welcomed more debate and discussion about the subject from his political adversaries.
But what many people don't realize is that Sorba's "outburst" was provoked by a speaker who preceded him, Alexander McCobin of Students For Liberty (SFL).
McCobin went out of his way to use valuable time from the podium to thank the American Conservative Union, the main CPAC organizer, for making the controversial decision to approve GOProud's participation.
David Keene, a lobbyist, is the chairman of the ACU and personally approved GOProud's involvement in CPAC.
Sorba told AIM, "I think CPAC went overboard this year. I don't think he [Keene] should be sitting at the top of CPAC." He noted that CPAC over the last several years has also allowed groups such as the ACLU to have exhibits at the event.
"What's next?," Sorba asked. "Are they going to have Republicans for Obamacare? Republicans for free abortions?"
Incredibly, McCobin of SFL told me that his group "is not a conservative organization" and that "We spent this past weekend reaching out to the left and the right at both the Young Democrats of America's convention and the Conservative Political Action Conference. We are not left or right."
If they are not conservative, Sorba asked, "What are they doing at CPAC?"
No stranger to controversy, Sorba is the author of the book, The Born Gay Hoax (this is a working draft) and was shouted down at Smith College by lesbian activists because of his support for traditional values.
"I decline to answer until you actually read my posts, beginning with #167 which conclusively refutes your assertion. Open Notepad, put all my posts together, and then if you don’t understand, I will try to make sense of them for you."
Now you are rewriting that response and claiming that it only directed me to read A previous post.
I see. You were trying to be ironic.
I said in #167: “Absolutely no government recognition of gay marriage.”
You said: “seems to me that you also want faggot “marriage” on the same level as actual marriage.”
That is a complete disjoint.
I still can’t make out your post, why don’t you try making yourself clear.
Get to the end of the story, tell us what “marriage” would be if you attain your political goals.
Sorry friend.
Thats not the only place he’s King.
Again- take it up with him- if you refuse to talk to him, thats your call.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Well, well, it seems that the flaming culture war has made it to FR bigtime. All kinds of new but also longterm freepers are "coming out of the closet" regarding their support of the homosexual agenda. The specific comment I am replying to is basically saying that the laws should be changed to recognize homosexuals as a special group with special rights. And this is supposedly in line with conservative ideology.
How's that again? So Scum is saying that homosexuals just oppose "government oppression". What does this "opporession" mean? It means one simple thing - they want to make the rules, instead of rules being based on thousands of years of traditional morality.
The fight against the homosexual agenda needs every conservative or right minded person to take a part. The pro-"gay" agenda people are on the rampage.
I can’t really understand your confusion. I am adamantly for civil marriage as recognized today in 44 or 45 states and for federal purposes.
I believe people can establish any common arrangements they want. That is guaranteed by freedom of assembly. (Your confusion may arise from the distinction between civil marriage and common arrangements not recognized by the government.) I believe what competent and consenting people do is nobody’s business but you can’t make anyone else like it, approve it, abet it or ignore it.
But the government that one might want to use to suppress it can just as easily be turned on you. I would deny the government that power so that all are protected from government. I believe that government should promote and protect only that which there are practical and universal reasons for doing so. Gay marriage does not fit in that category. So I would not protect it from private discrimination. (Actually, I oppose “special” rights for any reason.)
Is that helpful?
I think you are coming to the party late and half-cocked.
I oppose almost every element of what is called the “gay agenda”.
the homosexuals have been trying to get inside traditional groups for years.
They went after the scouts.
going after the military
going after now CPAC now.
went after churches by joining them and making them up
They found that groups like the scouts will not accept their perverted agenda so they thought that they will try and close tem down. They have done this with Catholic charities too.
They get to know folks at churches on here, CPAC military etc and then have their new friends repeat the usual crap of well they are nice I know one and he just wants to be left alone.
How many times have we heard that propaganda and yet we still have fools falling for it and even on here there has been a couple saying that every same line.
CPAC is another gorup they are now trying to get inside. They used the group log cabins but they were found to be funded by a liberal homosexual activist so now they change their name like the left always does and pretends they’re a new group who are onservative.
well you cannot be conservative and before the homosexual agenda, no to openly serving homosexuals, no to their sham marriage, no to teaching in schools etc.
Before we hear the other usual crap from the left of well we don’t want Govt in the say on social issues well that doesn’t fly either as we will have all sorts of marriages and perverts in the schools teaching their lifestyle.
so when the homosexual uses the courts and the Govt to pass their agenda then we say no and will not accept it and will use the system as they do to stop them
There is the Values Voters Summit.
CPAC is not conservative when we have those who have signed bills for the homosexuals and ignored abortion.
we need a conservative meet not one where we have those officials who are too afraid to say anything on social issues or think that we should accept the homosexual agenda for this bigger tent crap.
marriage is between a man and a woman full stop. As what has been said we are not a circus trying to get a bigger tent,
We have a platform which is popular with the majority of this country , we just don’t have a person to talk about them that good.
Most do want the homosexual agenda.
Does the liberterian party have a conference like CPAC or is it CPAC and the GOP they meet under?
thanks in advance of the answer
I’m fed up of hearing the usual crap of well Govt has no say in marriage and therefore en if a guy marries his daughter so what or well I know a couple of homosexuals and they are nice they want to be left alone
no they do not, they want to shove their agenda in the schools, in your work etc
This reminds me of the two lesbians my wife and kids and I happened to sit next to in church the other day. It makes you wonder what in the world they are doing there. I'm new to the church so I don't know if the church would let them become members but I certainly hope not. I started to stress about the church being infiltrated by gays. The pastor was preaching about marriage and was not ambiguous at all that marriage is between a man and a woman. So I prayed about the whole situation. In the middle of the message the two lesbians got up and left.
are they saying the usual crap of the Govt has no say in any thing on social issues?
I had one who said that and when I asked him about a man marrying his daughter or a woman having 9 husbands he said yes they should
no wonder this country is going to pot when we have this kind of attack on traditional marriage which has been the backbone of this country
Look at what they have attacked
scouts
military
churches
families
what do they all stand for
morals and tradition, The left and the homosexuals hate tradition as that has been the backbone of this country
GOProud is a BIG problem.
goproud is the off shoot of log cabins aren’t they?
Same groups different name, same agenda, same financial backer and yet we still have fools standing up for them.
I had one poster now banned saying she was a Catholic and a conservative but feels we should accept homosexuals and their agenda.
Now how messed up is that
gorpoud are log cabins aren’t they.
log cabins got found out that they were homosexuals voting Dem financially backed by a liberal homosexual activist.
they change their name but the group is the same.
if they’re for the homosexual agenda then they are not conservative.
Same as this site, those who look to further their homosexual agenda or pro homosexuals views are banned and grproud should have been told to piss off.
homosexuals have a mental problem and are only concerned about getting off sexually.
There is no reason to accept their perverted lifestyle , they have been trying to infiltrate conservative groups, churches, military for years
somehow I doubt Reagan was a fan of a man wanting to stick it up another man
for personal freedom , hell yes let us have 9 wives and a goat, hell my neighbor wants to marry his daughter
personal freedom right
ARF
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.