Skip to comments.Log Cabin Republicans... Infiltrators with a mission
Posted on 05/03/2003 7:56:12 PM PDT by Paloma_55
The leader of a Republican homosexual activist group that considers itself a moderate influence in the party is linked to radical "queers" urging the murder of Christian leaders, according to a family advocacy group....
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
The whole concept that they based their name upon, "Lincoln was a homo" is a pile of crap. Even if he was, he was smart enough not to make it a public issue. If I was living then, and he did such a thing, I would have wanted his ass out of office in a heartbeat. As it is, I doubt their claims.
All that aside, I have seen their work within the Republican Party. In California last year, a Log Cabin Republican filled out a pro-homo survey and claimed that it was made by Bill Simon, the conservative Republican running for Governor. The homo sent it to the SanFran Chronicle which then played it like a violin with the objective of alienating the conservative base away from the Republican Candidate. The slease that did this was INSIDE the Republican campaign. He was one of Richard Riordan's guys who joined Simon's campaign when Riordan lost.
This is why the homos are in the Republican Party. To sabotage it, and ultimately disable it from stopping their agenda.
We should kick their sorry asses out.
"a Log Cabin Republican filled out a pro-homo survey and claimed that it was made by Bill Simon,"
Do you have any evidence to that? Didn't Simon sign off on it, and then maybe claim he didn't read it or something? And didn't he say the same thing in some speech or interview with gays before the shit hit the fan? Isn't Simon incompetent and disingenuous?
This is the undeniable truth.
I've never seen any data on it, but I'd reckon that a very, very minute percentage of homos believe in God and/or the Bible.
Mediocre? He was downright disasterous. Hell, he did just about everything he could during his administration to provoke the start of the Civil War.
Well, many of us, (straight Republicans), would point out that there is no such wording in the U.S. Constitution that denotes any separation of Church & State.
And FYI: Mr. Phelps supported Al Gore.
I think the concern is that if you are so twisted in your thinking about sexual behavior you might be equally twisted in your view of other issues as well.
Which citizens do you consider to be unstable? It strikes me that this is simply a blanket condemnation that you have chosen to issue to justify your actions in the face of significant (though perhaps not majority or overwhelming)opposition. Also, the fact that you have selected a political party does not mean that the party should feel an automatic need or obligation to represent you. A case in point, without drawing any moral parallels, would be David Duke declaring for the Republican Party, which rightly rejected him, his policies and campaigned against him.
The only problem with the RNC mission statement is it's blatant exclusion of homosexuals as citizens who deserve to right to pursue life, liberty and happiness in the way that they see fit.
It would be nice if you would give specific examples so that we might debate those. Until the dabate takes place on that level, the discusion is on the level of 2 five year olds, "Did TOO!" "Did NOT!"
Also, the right to seek happiness in any way that they see fit leaves an awful lot of room for awful behavior. I don't think that you meant this seriously.
...how can you prevent me or anyone from entering into a contract with another sentient adult? That is what a marriage contract is right, a legal agreement between two sentient adults?
Actually, the government regulates contracts on a constant, daily basis. You are not free to perform brain surgery on a sentient individual regardless of your contractual status unless you are properly licensed by the state. You may not pactice law and, in some places, may not provide for-hire transportation. As you must acknowledge, this applies to a host of interactions. Society, via the state, has elected to regulate marriage.
Moving on from there and ignoring the religious principles for marriage for now, the state has an intrinsic responsiblity to choose marriage systems that it considers to be most effective in promoting the goals of the society that it represents. Obviously, the first responsibility would be to perpetuate the society. To that end, laws are formulated on many levels to provide encouragement of, and protection for, family organizations that are determined to be most stable. Throughout history, that system has been a traditional two parent family. Throughout history, the two parents have been composed of one male and one female. A very strong case is to be made that this is a result of biologic and genetic hard-wiring and not simply a convention of convenience. The simple fact is that this is the minimum grouping that allows reproduction and it is reasonable to infer the less complicated you build the system, the more likely it is to perform as designed. Two males without a female or the opposite are not a viable procreative family unit.
So now that we've removed the religous zealot arguements, we can at least have a civil discussion about the issue.
Pesonally, I find this obnoxious. The same poisoning of the atmosphere that you imply from others, you have actively injected into your own post. The other thought that struck me is that you seek to frame the arguement in the light that will be most favorable to you. By not recognizing the power of religion in shaping the moral, and hence, legal, regulation of society, you have devalued every tent of that society to worthlessness. Without those tenets, the society will cease to exist, either absorbed by another by force or degeneration to animalistic anarchy.
As far as sexual issues of Lincoln are concerned, I think it is a silly to hold an idol ont he hope that maybe he was gay. I might also note that Lincoln made 2nd clas citizens of non-entities. The distinction might be important to you. Frankly, the whole issue is irrelevant.
So just because you enjoy having anal sex with another man, you feel that the endorsement of this sexual desire warrants special mention in the GOP platform?