Skip to comments.'Gay Conservative' Is an Oxymoron
Posted on 02/14/2011 7:51:47 AM PST by Kaslin
click here to read article
It’s a mistake to overestimate how much the government can do to demoralize a nation. It’s also a mistake to underestimate what it can do. Repealing DADT, for example, won’t make the military gay friendly. NASCAR doesn’t have any rule against gay drivers and the NFL doesn’t have a rule against gay quarterbacks, and yet . . . But the government controls education and much of the nation’s wealth. It can do a great deal to undercut traditional morality. Consider how the Great Society destroyed the Black family in America.
How cool is that! Happy Anniversary! February 14 is easy to remember, even for a man.
Congratulations! That’s wonderful. :)
The answer to the question is easily found by looking at Proposition 8. The conservative view is that the people decide such issues -not government. The free marketplace of ideas premised upon free speech and freedom of religion has debated such issues and assigned value each and every time -it is the moral free market where all but the unalienable is up for debate.
It is when we see government imposed conformity that is premised upon political special interests that we see a divergence from the free market and a divergence from conservatism. Identity politics leads to government tyranny...
Simply put -we are free because of our acknowledgment that no man or government has authority to deny the unalienable endowed by the Creator. The government derives its authority from either the Creator or the people.
The real question to ask is where does the government authority to impose homosexual normalcy upon the people come from if not from the Creator or the people? The answer is self evident and comprises TYRANNY. Government tyranny is NOT conservative. As such, supporting that which promotes government tyranny, homosexual sex identity politics, is NOT conservative.
He sends me cards on Groundhogs Day. He says he knows it’s one of those special days in February. ;-)
That’s funny. :)
I'd disagree with you on this point. A Libertarian is a radical liberal with NO bounds. At least liberals have values, although perverted. Hard-core libertarians, in practice, have none.
I have all but concluded that responding to this homosexual agenda promoting talking point is a fruitless endeavor because premised withing the very question itself are two things that reach out and slap all with even a cursory understanding of Christianity. The first is, whoever asks the question is without a clue regarding Christianity Old versus New Testament and one thing Jesus was all about. The second is, whoever asks the question is a leftist tool parroting leftist talking points.
I smell ozone coming from another "progressive conservative" in the near future...
This year he ordered rose bushes for me and plants that he loves and said I'd have to bury the evidence. That means I get to plant all of it. :-P
Private account, which you could use to set up a trust fund for your dog, if you wanted. Not social insecurity ponzi benefits.
That’s true, I don’t understand Christianity. I’m a Jew.
Without libertarians, you big government conservatives will only have liberals to ally yourselves with, or you’ll be lonely.
They want the same rights as heterosexual marrieds. I don't support that. Do you?
I would to let military leaders advise on the subject of DADT. If they think getting rid of it makes for a less effective military, then keep it. As we’ve been telling the liberals, the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things, it’s not a social program. Whatever makes it more effective at killing people and breaking things of those who would kill me and break my things, is OK with me.
“You haven’t addressed healthcare or government social security or “domestic partner” tax credits...how about federal government “encouraging homosexual owners of small businesses?”
Either a flat tax or a fairtax would get rid of those “tax benefits” I read that they are for the fairtax. The federal government should neither encourage, nor discourage any owners of businesses, large, medium, or small.
Libertarians ARE liberal. SOCIAL liberals.
You are dancing. Do you support married benefits for homosexual “domestic partners”?
OK -then I will provide a quick thumbnail sketch for you regarding homosexual sex not being 'okay' now due to abolishing old laws RE: Old Testament versus New Testament
Some quotes that come to mind...
New Testament: Sacred Scripture on subject of homosexuality:
- Matthew 5:1-48
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
18 Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.
19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
- Matthew 15:1-39
19 For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, blasphemy.
- 1 Timothy 1:1-20
8 We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law,
9 with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers,
10 the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,
11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
- 1 Corinthians 6:1-20
9 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
- Romans 1:1-32
22 While claiming to be wise, they became fools
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.
24 Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies.
25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
25 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
26 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
Let’s cut to the chase here, do you want the government to outlaw sodomy?
What benefits? Government benefits? no, not for anyone, gay straight, or anything in between. Not even for you, unless you are a veteran.
Sounds like a great tagline.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Until the 1970's it was in every state. Even Jefferson thought that it should be.
Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.
That's what a crafter of the Constitution thought the punishment should be. However, Virginia kept the death penalty.
Ah you’re a liberaltarian.
Libertarianism is the kook ultra fringe anarchy wing of the Left.
The military leaders said they didn’t want the repeal of DADT but the homosexual activists and their helpers shoved it down the militarys’ collective throats.
So your answer is yes?
No it isn’t. It’s at the heart of conservatism.
No it isn’t. It’s the heart of conservatism.
Many states did outlaw sodomy until Huge Nanny State SCOTUS forced it on all the states.
How do you like that?
Jefferson was not a crafter of the Constitution, he was in France when it was “crafted”, and he was not in favor of it.
Should the states also outlaw business on Sunday? they all did that too, until the 1970’s, and 1980’s.
Making any and all drugs legal, any and all prostitution legal, homosexual marriage, adoption and any and all “gay” rights legal, and any and all pornography legal Iincluding anywhere, such as on buses) is the “heart of conservatism”?
Those agendas are part of the official Libertarian Party platform.
Talking Federal here, the states can do as their constitutions permit, but where in the Constitution does the Federal goverment get the authority to do any of that?
States? States can outlaw business on Sunday if the people in the State want to. They vote for State legislators and have referenda.
If they want to, why not? You think States should be forbidden from making a law like that?
Again a question that seems falsely premised. How about the government carry out the will of the people? That would be refreshing. Many people would outlaw homosexual sex just as they do now outlaw any number or morally bankrupt activities. The People are where the power comes from NOT the government.
As far as the 'legality' of homosexual sex goes OTHER than the same privacy penumbra that baby killers hide under where exactly does this right to engage in homosexual sex come from? If not from the Creator or from the people THEN WHERE does the government get such authority?
That created a problem of religious freedom, and the First Amendment, but if the states Constitutions permit, they can do it, but that isn’t what I asked. I asked if you think they should.
States or fedgov wasn’t the point. The point is that those agendas are part of the Official Libertarian Party Platform.
Which you state is the “heart of conservatism”.
I asked the opinion of whoever I was replying to, just the opinion.
I really don’t care if they do or not. Doesn’t hurt me either way.
I’m not a member of that party. I’m sure you will find a lot of things that Republicans do that you don’t agree with. Are you a Republican?
Okay, so you don’t agree with the official Libertarian Party Platform? What part or parts that I listed above do you disagree with?
“I really dont care if they do or not. Doesnt hurt me either way.”
then, what’s your point? If you don’t want to ban it, then why are you and your friends screaming about it. Maybe if you don’t care if they ban it, you are encouraging it.
Libertarians are social liberals.
You like libertarianism but don’t like the LP platform?
You should make yourself clear.
Just curious. Which bedrock principles of conservatism?
Are you on drugs?
I was clearly replying to your query about whether State governments could make a law closing businesses on Sundays.
Do you know how to post comments, check replies, and so on?
By 1949, the word 'gay' had already been linked to homosexuals for several decades.
Perhaps my statement was rather presumptuous. I shouldn’t make such claims, as I don’t speak for anyone other than myself.
That said, I was referring to the importance of family values, which I consider to include marriage being between one man and one woman.
While all but one have avoided any vocal support for the concept of homosexual marriage, the very nature of their homosexuality provides a potential opposition to the institution of marriage.
Sorry, I’m at work, and switching back and forth between productive endeavors and posting. I was trying to get a feel for the consensus about how far government should go in enforcing moral behavior.
Liberals go as far as they can in enforcing their own morality - recycling, saving the planet, hate speech, gun control etc. I’m just looking to see if being a conservative means the same thing to the people I’m corresponding with. Does it just depend on whose morality the government is enforcing?