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
Ditto to what you said, Brownsfan!
Do you feel that this statement reflects an organization that is opposed to the 'gay agenda'?
These are people who have been treated like clowns for years, he said. Theyre not relevant, they havent been relevant, and its a disservice to the conservative movement to pretend that their boycott, their non-participation, is somehow symptomatic of a wider split in the conservative movement.
They just don't, and the risk is too great to have them or their friends around in the party structure anywhere.
Their money is fine. Better off in our pockets than that of the Democrats.
The so-called gay agenda is defined by the left through a narrow prism of legislative goals. In contrast to the approach of the left, GOProuds agenda emphasizes conservative and libertarian principles that will improve the daily lives of all Americans, but especially gay and lesbian Americans.
1 TAX REFORM - We support replacing the current tax code with the Fair Tax. Until then, we support death tax repeal; domestic partner tax equity; cuts 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. 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 - The only way to permanent solvency in the Social Security system is through the creation of inheritable personal savings accounts. Personal savings accounts would give gay and lesbian couples the same opportunity to leave their accounts to their spouses as their straight counterparts.
6 FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS Standing strong against radical regimes that refuse to recognize the basic human rights of gays and lesbians, women and religious minorities.
7 DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment. Marriage should be a question for the states. A federal constitutional amendment on marriage would be an unprecedented federal power grab from the states.
8 ENCOURAGING COMMUNITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP Package of free market reforms to encourage and support small businesses and entrepreneurship. Such reforms would create jobs for all Americans including gay Americans.
“of alleged “fiscal conservatives”
And your evidence of this is?
Homosexuals want bigger government. See their legislative agenda in Post 54
I am amazed that we have to continually debate this established fact on every new thread with this topic at FR! It's almost as if Grover Norquist has trolls here.
“Homosexuals want bigger government.”
I would be lying if I said I didn’t find most homosexuals to be bizarre, deviant, detestable fruitcakes.
Some of these people with whom I associate are hold-overs from before I REALLY understood where I stood politically and socially, before I realized that I am a conservative. That they do not push homosexuality on me or those others we associate with, that they oppose programs such as obamacare and are against big government, that they understand and respect that my religious beliefs do not lead to approval of homosexuality, that they believe one of the biggest damaging forces in our country are the “loud and proud” crowd, and that they were not in favor of the repeal of DADT speaks volumes.
These are not people with whom I interact on a daily basis, and they certainly are not primary movers within my life. But I also have no tossed them aside as I have come into my conservative beliefs, because I am of the mind that nobody is without the potential for change and redemption until the day they die. And I am of the mind that it is vital that they have conservative influence, because without a strong conservative voice they will be left only with progressives to guide them.
Even if it only results in keeping them uncertain and prevents political involvement on the side of liberalism, that is worth the while. If it results in even a single one of them voting conservative, all the better.
How do you reach those with whom you do not interact?
Bigger government that they’ll gladly use to bludgeon you with for saying “buggery is a sin.”
Looks pretty conservative to me.
“Bigger government that theyll gladly use to bludgeon you with for saying buggery is a sin.”
Who is “they”?
That's easy — Special protection from society's disapproval.
The whole point of the “gay rights” travesty is to enlist the government in a crusade to make our culture abandon its deep-seated disapproval of homosexual conduct. We can't abandon that disapproval without completely dismantling our traditional sexual morality. For millennia our culture has taken for granted that sexual expression is to be celebrated only when it serves the purpose of creating and sustaining a family in the context of a monogamous marriage. That idea is a large part of what we are and a critical element of our culture's fabulous success.
You don't make government smaller by empowering it to rip that idea out by the roots. You make it larger and more repressive. Government will have to police speech and social relations in highly intrusive ways as it tries to revolutionize the West's mores. That, of course, is the antithesis of limited government.
Nobody who wants the government to revolutionize our culture's morality is a conservative by any definition. You can certainly be gay and conservative, just as you can be a conservative adulterer. But you can't be conservative and still agitate for the government to promote acceptance of homosexuality. The iron law of contradiction forbids it.
100% spot on! Some people seem to think "conservative" can be broken down into "fiscal" and "social". It can't. A fiscal conservative who's also a social liberal is a libertarian, which is an entirely different animal. A libertarian is a half-a**ed conservative.
For the life of me, I don't see why the likes of Andrew Breitbart, Ann Coulter, and the FReepers who've been defending them over the last few days/weeks are willing to sell out such a big plank of the conservative platform in order to win so few votes. Homos make up...what, about one percent of the electorate, tops? Seems to me that the GOP would win more votes from independents like me by taking a strong stand against homosexual "rights", queers in the military, homo marriage and adoption, etc.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
One queer party is enough, the RATS can have them.
You’re thinking is twisted. You make the government smaller by reducing what it does to that which the Constitutions says it may do. period.
The law was that a couple had to be caught in the act of adultery and both brought for judgment. There also had to be witnesses. The punishment for not doing so would be the same as that for the accused. In other words they'd be stoned.
They were trying to set Jesus up but they broke the law. The dude was nowhere to be found and there were no witnesses. They couldn't cast the first stone because they would condemn themselves if they did. The Scripture says that the older ones dropped their stones first. That's because they knew the law and they broke it.
Jesus said to her that "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more." He DID judge her but did not condemn her.
Oh, by the way, I want to say this before it gets brought up for me.
I am NOT one of their “allies,” as described in the above article. That implies that I am workings for their agenda which is absolutely NOT the case.
I oppose homosexual marriage, and don’t even believe there CAN be homosexual marriage. I think that homosexuals already HAVE equal rights in that they have exactly the same rights as everyone else. I do not believe homosexuality is legitimate or even tolerable, and homosexual behavior of any sort is not allowed in my home.
I wanted to make that abundantly clear before my previous explanation of my interaction with homosexuals turns into an argument or rant with the usual flames directed my way.
Would you have trouble with a "pro-welfare-state-conservative" or a "pro-pornography-conservative?"
Ethics have always been a part of what conservatism means--and is what separates us from libertine libertarians. So while strictly speaking "religion" doesn't define conservatism, living in an unethical way denies conservatism.
Active homosexuals, who act by having perverted sex with persons of their own sex, are by definition unethical, and therefore, not conservative. I'd say it is difficult if not impossible to be an "atheist-conservative" too, as atheism has no logical basis of ethics...which is the heart of conservative principles.
Homosexuals or atheists may have conservative ideas about certain areas, and be our allies in many ways, but ultimately they fall in the libertarian camp, and their ideas on family, or religion--are destructive to America.
Thank you! I learned long ago, in high school debate, that the side which sets the terms of the debate has the advantage from the start. By using Leftist-approved terms like "gay", "progressive", "undocumented immigrant" or even "illegal immigrant", we have given our enemies an advantage right out of the gates. We need to call them what they are...Leftists, illegal aliens and homosexuals.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
“If conservatives accept the queer agenda they lose the majority of the voting base.”
You mean the fairtax? (which I am really not a fan of)
Is that the queer agenda? If you are opposed to the fairtax, shout if from the rooftops, and let that merry band of fanatics give you the same treatment you are giving me.
The difference in sinners is repentance. To receive God's grace one has to repent. They don't have repentance parades, they have prideful sin parades.
Name me one so-called social issue that is not also economic. You have businesses today being punished financially through lawsuits for not following the left-wing social agenda of treating perversion as normal, how is that not also an economic issue. There is nothing conservative about GOProud or the homosexual agenda.
It is unbelievable!
The ONLY reason for group identity politics is to push an agenda related to the group. They vote as they please WITHOUT a group.
Social Security for "domestic partners" is Conservative? Healthcare for "domestic partners" is Conservative? Tax perks for "domestic partners" is conservative?
It is not.
Using big government to enforce the homo-nazi agenda not only in the US but on other countries is conservative to you???
I don’t support the fairy tax or the fairy agenda!
All homosexuals who want government to enforce the homo-nazi agenda want bigger government.
And if you think GOProud’s legislative agenda is conservative, you’re on the bandwagon no matter what kind of private life you have.
If you think the GOProud’s legislative agenda is an agenda for smaller government, you’re either a liar or on drugs; can’t seen any third option.
“And if you think GOProuds legislative agenda is conservative, youre on the bandwagon no matter what kind of private life you have.”
Have you read it?
Of course limiting government is about making the government respect its proper limits. That isn't in dispute. It's a tautology. You are arguing for the proposition that the government can, consistently with the principles of classical liberalism (John Locke and all that)destroy the sexual morality that under-girds the most successful culture in human history. Sorry but that's both crazy and utterly inconsistent with limited government. Government big enough to redesign our morality is much too big to respect any limits on its power.
Incidentally, your reference to the dietary laws couldn't be more beside the point. We didn't build a civilization on the principle that eating ham is wrong. We did build a civilization on the principle that sex is a profoundly serious matter of life and death not to be trifled with.
You keep pushing their agenda and Jim is going to Zot you.
“And where does the Constitution say that the government may rearrange society’s fundamental moral commitments by force?”
A smaller government would not do that.
“They don’t WANT smaller government. They WANT to use the force of government to make the 98% of the population that isn’t homosexual accept them. THAT’s bigger government.
You keep pushing their agenda and Jim is going to Zot you. “
Show me where in their platform it says that.
I’ve been a freeper since 1998. If I’m to be zotted, so be it.
Did YOU?! I highlighted the areas where they want special perks because of their sexual behavior. That is NOT Conservative!
How about addressing Post 76!
I’ve read it numerous times since I first saw it many months ago.
Homos in the military?
Same sex marriage?
Special bennies for homos?
Hassling other countries who are mean to homos?
They’ve taken out the repeal of DADT since it already happened, hopefully the Rs in DC will unfund it so it won’t work.
GOProud clearly admits they’re “all gay” and that’s they’re interest. They’ve cleverly re-worded some of the agenda recently so as to have more appeal but it’s the same homo-agenda, just gussied up a bit more.
Should we inform them to not vote for the GOP, even if they agree on lower taxes, and a smaller government of limited and enumerated powers?
“I dont support the fairy tax or the fairy agenda!”
OK, fairtax folks. Have at him.
Who has told ANYONE not to vote Conservative? What we DON'T want is a sexually identified group that force an agenda based solely on sexual practices.
Some so-called conservative Republicans seem willing to accommodate the "gay" political agenda on the premise that gay votes and financial contributions are necessary in order to win in many states such as CA and NY which bring a large electoral vote to the table. But as for myself, I'm not buying for a NY minute the notion that a "practical" strategy that includes supporting the gay agenda is a necessary evil. That way of thinking is not only mistaken, it's utterly repulsive to those of us who make up the "religious right" bloc that the mainstream GOP despises except when our votes are being counted. And if the GOP accepts that kind of immoral filth as a part of a 'big tent" political strategy I won't give my vote or financial support to any candidate who supports that strategy as necessary in order to win an election.
Not that the current GOP appears to care what people like me believe regarding moral issues. Economic issues are the only things that seem to matter now, and I understand that those are also vitally important to the future of the US as a great world power. But at least I won't have to apologize to my kids and grandkids when, not if, in the not too distant future the US becomes equally as depraved as most of present-day western Europe.
Beagle8U isn’t supporting a homosexual identity group pushing an agenda. You are.
So, you’re against personal savings accounts that are one’s own property that one can leave to anyone one wants to?
I think you’re a liberal in here to split the conservative movement. You gotta be. I can’t think of any other reason anyone would try to disunite the conservatives.
Have you ever read the New Testament? (Most Jews I've met have not.) After telling hypocritical religious leaders ready to murder an adulterous woman, "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone" Jesus next statement--to the woman caught in adultery, was "Go and sin no more." (book of John, Ch. 8) Jesus' mercy there, did not abrogate the sin of adultery. Christianity has never allowed or advocated sexual immorality of any kind--even while providing forgiveness after sincere repentance....
And what about all those Old Testement commandments that are no longer valid? Like eating ham? How come that is OK, but buggery is not?
(I will note that even amidst the strictest Orthodox Hasidim today, eating a ham sandwich is not seen as nearly as bad as sexual sin...just to keep things in perspective...)
As for Christians: Read Acts 15, a council of the 1st Apostles (who actually, were all Jewish) and Acts 10, where Kosher laws were suspended--on the basis of a vision from God and, Jesus' principle that "What goes into someones mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them. (Matthew 15:11), all in order to reach out to the Gentiles--with the good news that faith in Jesus saves.
Since the 1st Century Christians have never followed old Jewish ceremonial laws(which we see completed in Jesus...)--of which Kosher is one of them.
However, the 10 Commandments and the basic sexual morality of ancient Judaism, Christians have endeavored to follow for 2,000 years.
That's the whole point of the “gay rights” agenda. GOProud wants us to recognize homosexual liaison's in a variety of ways. For example, it wants government to use public funds, taken from us under threat of force, to pay benefits to domestic partners. It wants laws requiring private employers to use their own funds to do the same, regardless of their views about homosexuality.
Moving money around is just the beginning. Small governments can't tinker with a society's morality. Big cultural changes always involve a lot of coercion — think Sherman's march to the sea. You can't be for both “gay rights” and a small government any more than you can be for comprehensive wage and price controls and a small government. It just doesn't scan.
“However, the 10 Commandments and the basic sexual morality of ancient Judaism, Christians have endeavored to follow for 2,000 years. “
what the heck? Most of us Jews pick and choose, too.
Do you support special government perks for people based on their homosexual practices?
I thought the whole point of private accounts was that one could will them to whomever one wants.
Are we to change estate law to say that one can will one’s property anywhere, except to one that one has buggerred?
The fastest way to do that is to begin qualifying what kind of conservative you are.
Dont you think?