Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Log Cabin Republicans... Infiltrators with a mission
World Net Daily ^ | 5/2/03 | WND

Posted on 05/03/2003 7:56:12 PM PDT by Paloma_55

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 next last
I am glad to see this "come out". This whole "Log Cabin Republican" scam is unbelieveable. I can't figure out why any Republican Party members allow them in. What do we need 3% of the population for, when they have proven that they are immoral, they are perverted, they will lie, cheat and deceive to obtain their objectives.

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.

1 posted on 05/03/2003 7:56:13 PM PDT by Paloma_55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: Paloma_55
Tho if he was it would totally excuse and explain the "Mary Todd was horribly depressed" story ...
3 posted on 05/03/2003 8:05:47 PM PDT by Temple Drake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55
This perfervid tract seems to indulge in a bit of guilt by association to the extent it is any interest at all. But this bit does interest me:

"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?

4 posted on 05/03/2003 8:07:35 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55
"There is nothing conservative about consorting with vicious anti-Christian bigots," he said, "just like there is nothing conservative about supporting the redefinition of marriage to include two men or two women, or pretending that two male lovers adopting a baby is as healthy for the child as having a mom and a dad."

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.

5 posted on 05/03/2003 8:15:24 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Creel
James Buchanan may have been gay, but he was probably one of the US' most mediocre presidents.

Mediocre? He was downright disasterous. Hell, he did just about everything he could during his administration to provoke the start of the Civil War.

6 posted on 05/03/2003 8:21:25 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: William Creel
James Buchanan may have been gay, but he was probably one of the US' most mediocre presidents...high praise indeed....
7 posted on 05/03/2003 8:31:50 PM PDT by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: Paloma_55
International Healing Foundation

CLICK HERE

9 posted on 05/03/2003 8:40:37 PM PDT by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hank377
Thanks to the seperation of church and state, religous arguements on the basic immorality of homosexuality are worthless.

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.

10 posted on 05/03/2003 8:57:51 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hank377
Thanks to the seperation of church and state, religous arguements on the basic immorality of homosexuality are worthless. So now that we've removed the religous zealot arguements, we can at least have a civil discussion about the issue.

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.

11 posted on 05/03/2003 8:59:25 PM PDT by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hank377
I'm sure that the potential of Lincoln's sexuality drew them to him,

BAAARRRRFFF!

12 posted on 05/03/2003 9:04:25 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55
I thought the Log Cabin folk were just republicans who were gay but when I saw them taking after Santorum I knew that the camel had its nose in the tent. We certainly don't need the person/people written about in the WND article.
13 posted on 05/03/2003 9:05:42 PM PDT by thegreatbeast (Quid lucrum istic mihi est?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hank377
We (gay republicans) have no desire to 'infiltrate' the republican party, because we don't have to. Part of the beauty of this political system is that everyone can affiliate themselves with a party no matter what mentally unstable fellow citizens may think.

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.

14 posted on 05/03/2003 9:26:52 PM PDT by BkBinder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BkBinder
Thanks, you saved me the trouble of having to do exactly what you did in your posting. May I add: That is what a marriage contract is right, a legal agreement between two sentient adults? If you can at least provide a solid arguement that it's not, I'd be interested in reading your response. hank377 The fact is, most state society has defined the contract to be valid between a man and a woman, not a bruce and a brian or a Jill and a Judy. Of course, the facts have never been a hinderance to magic thinking, and this poster appears to be rife with magic thinking.
15 posted on 05/03/2003 9:35:49 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: hank377
I know that there are many, many people that feel that homosexualty is against God, the Bible, etc. The posted comments cement my statement. I do not feel that homosexuality is wrong. I am embarrassed to be a Republican with the comments that have been made on this thread. I know there is absolutely no way that I can ever change the opinions of the posters, as they will never change my opinion either. I feel it is necessary to give my support to gay Republicans. There are a lot of other straight Repubs that feel the same way as I do.

I will not get into a tit-for-tat arguement about why I hold these views, it will fall onto deaf ears. However, I do spell my arguements out to people I meet face to face. I take little steps to bring people to a different way of looking at this situation. I thank you for supporting the Republican party even though people seem to want to push you out. Hang in there! Flame suit on.

16 posted on 05/03/2003 9:57:33 PM PDT by RepublicanChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hank377
Hang in there. Christian bigotry is uncurable, but the security of the country is worth making common cause.
17 posted on 05/03/2003 10:33:48 PM PDT by gcruse (Piety is only skin deep, but hypocrisy goes clear to the soul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hank377
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.

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?

18 posted on 05/03/2003 10:35:51 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BkBinder
Excellent response to a bigoted and rather stupid post. Tis a shame that some Republicans readily embrace this immoral madness while feeling "embarrassed" that other Republicans aren't jumping on the bandwagon with them. Exactly why does the Republican party need a "big tent" when no one makes the same demands on the DemocRATS?
19 posted on 05/03/2003 10:41:18 PM PDT by Sister_T (Those who preach to others about tolerance RARELY (if ever) practice it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sister_T
Exactly why does the Republican party need a "big tent"

Because a gay vote and a black vote are votes.
20 posted on 05/03/2003 10:44:31 PM PDT by gcruse (Piety is only skin deep, but hypocrisy goes clear to the soul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55
BTTT
21 posted on 05/03/2003 10:50:00 PM PDT by Michael2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hank377
Hank, many Republicans support you and agree with you.

I agree with you, no one (including misguided Christians who hate gay people) has the right to decide who's in or who's out of the republican party.

That having been said, I hope you're ready for the attacks you will receive now that you've admitted being gay.

Trace
22 posted on 05/03/2003 10:55:28 PM PDT by Trace21230 (Ideal MOAB test site: Paris)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RepublicanChick
"There are a lot of other straight Repubs that feel the same way as I do."

Yup, I'm with you.

Incidentally, I also sincerely doubt the "Christian" credentials of many of the posters on here who seem to make a second living attacking homosexuals and fixating on demeaning them.

To me, that kind of denigration is UN-Christian, but I guess I must be just another godless infidel.

Trace
23 posted on 05/03/2003 11:00:39 PM PDT by Trace21230 (Ideal MOAB test site: Paris)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55
The whole concept that they based their name upon, "Lincoln was a homo" is a pile of crap

Wait just a minute ....I've never heard that one before. Those fruits better not mess around with any of the Founders.

24 posted on 05/03/2003 11:04:11 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55
Here here! You are so correct, we should definitely follow the teachings of Jesus and cross to the other side of the road to avoid touching the unclean Samaritan, never dine with tax collectors, and certainly never talk to a woman at the well. < / sarcasm >

As an evangelical, I believe homosexuality is a sin and a dangerous path that can lead to hell. But your ugly diatribe does nothing to persuade someone to leave that life, and in fact feeds the stereotype that conservatives are hateful bigots. One can express disagreement with the homosexual activist political agenda without becoming vitriolic. Do you want to rant, or do you want to persuade and win those with counter views to your side?

As a political matter, I recognize that any winning party must form at least loose coalitions with groups of overlapping interests. If someone who is gay believes and votes predominantly conservative except for some social issues, I would prefer they vote Republican, and we will disagree on the social issues. Not every person who is gay is a militant activist trying to undermine social order. In fact given some of the crude and vitriolic posts here on FR in the supposed name of conservative Christianity, I can see why some in the middle would get the idea that conservatives want an oppressive theocracy. By and large the admitted gay Freepers I have read post in a dignified and reasonable manner. Too bad more don't follow their lead in that regard. Posts like yours make it that much harder to defend good leaders like Santorum and Dobson, that much harder to get people to listen to their actual logic and beliefs. One can defend one's position without compromising and still be civil and respectful.

I'll fight any attempt at legalizing gay marriage, but I will also gladly work with any Log Cabin Republican, or Democrat, or Muslim, on any issues that we share in common.
25 posted on 05/03/2003 11:05:47 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RepublicanChick
Flame suit on.

OK, now you're gonna get it. [Just kidding]. I think homo behavior is disgusting, but if some of them want to vote Republican (ostensibly for economic reasons), I don't want to dissuade them from doing so.

26 posted on 05/03/2003 11:08:11 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Consort; sinkspur
Homo apologist Bump! LOL! Thought you two would feel right at home on this thread.
27 posted on 05/03/2003 11:10:47 PM PDT by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hank377
"We (gay republicans) have no desire to 'infiltrate' the republican party,"

Michael Huffington didn't have to infiltrate? When discovered he was instant neo-com, his wife instant socialist.

David Brock didn't have to infiltrate? The exposer of Anita Hill was himself exposed. Poof, instant neo-com.

I am sure there are plenty more.

yitbos

28 posted on 05/03/2003 11:11:27 PM PDT by bruinbirdman (Buy low, sell high...Flat market for a few more years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hank377
I don't personally approve of the gay lifestyle, however:

I'm too worried about my own salvation to start trying to judge the sins of others.

I can't see anything in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that indicates gays aren't entitled to the same rights and priviledges as I am. "We the people" includes gays.

I don't recon it's any of my business unless it interfers with my rights (ie. I've actively worked at keeping it out of the classroom as I don't believe this is school responsibility).

I don't think anything less of gay people. I do believe they're wrong in their sexuality, but I also believe people who drive certain makes of car are wrong, people who blindly vote any party are wrong, people who....I could go on for a long time.

Then again, not everyone is perfect like me.

29 posted on 05/03/2003 11:15:23 PM PDT by CWOJackson (smoke them out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55
Bump
30 posted on 05/03/2003 11:16:23 PM PDT by Fiddlstix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I got the rope
Get back in the cabin closet Rope-Fag and don't invite any men to your thread anymore.
31 posted on 05/03/2003 11:26:32 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BkBinder
A very reasoned and patient response to an asinine post.

I am neither a Christian nor a devout republican, and yet I am disgusted and repulsed by homosexual activities. I despise the fact that our children are exposed on a daily basis to flagrant homosexuality. I despise the political correctness that surrounds discussion of an unnatural perversion. I have been around enough homosexuals to know that for whatever small percentage that practice a loving monogamous relationship that could in some way be construed as 'normal', the other 95% are jumping from anonymous partner-to-anonymous partner and have a level of promiscuity that is aberrant in the extreme.

For whatever small percentage of people are homosexual (less than 5% probably) this country is turning itself inside out to conform to their hypersensitive emotions, and is compromising its moral principle in even discussing the 'normalization' of their completely abnormal inclinations.
32 posted on 05/03/2003 11:39:13 PM PDT by spodefly (This is my tag line. There are many like it, but this one is mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Consort
My dearest troll,

I suspect that DU is waiting for your report. Many of us real conservative, God fearing folks are already on to you.

33 posted on 05/03/2003 11:42:06 PM PDT by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: I got the rope
My dearest...

I had you figured right. Your boyfriends are waiting for you Rope-guy back at Salon.com.

34 posted on 05/03/2003 11:47:30 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; Tribune7; Pharmboy
Spinning Troll alert!
35 posted on 05/03/2003 11:52:18 PM PDT by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: William Creel
no he was not. This is homo revisionist history. Accorting to homosexuals every person of importance was a homosexual practitioner. This goes with the myth of the geeky homosexual with excellent fashion sense. (not defendants in the courtroom I can tell you)
36 posted on 05/03/2003 11:58:48 PM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: I got the rope
Calling for help coward?
37 posted on 05/03/2003 11:59:42 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: hank377
please spare us from homosexual accusations on the dead. FYI the constitution is most assuridly NOT an amoral document. Morality, without religious reference, IS part of the constitution. (and with reference to the living nature of the document refered in anther thread today its only living by the amendment process not by reinterpritation) Homosexuality is not a viable lifestyle and there is nothing wrong with holding that it is an lifestyle to be discourage and avoided. In fact in Texas its the law that public schools MUST teach that homosexuality is not good and not a benefit to society.
38 posted on 05/04/2003 12:03:06 AM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jla
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.

In addition, this only applies to the federal government.  States are free to designate a state religion if they choose, though the last one that did was Maryland.

39 posted on 05/04/2003 12:05:44 AM PDT by I_dmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55
What do we need 3% of the population for
Considering the closeness of the 2000 election and the current breakdown in Congress, a better question would be "why intentionally discard supporters?". Especially when they only differ from us on a matter that is absolutely none of the government's business anyway.

-Eric

40 posted on 05/04/2003 12:11:06 AM PDT by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jla
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.
This is a requirement for being a Republican now?

-Eric

41 posted on 05/04/2003 12:12:41 AM PDT by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Consort
This thread goes with the recent Homo trolls we have been getting. I would not be surprised if some of the ID's here are aged or hacked ID's of dormant accounts. FR has attracted the attention of university "activists" of the left.
42 posted on 05/04/2003 12:19:06 AM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
You may be right. The Admin Moderator will find them out over time.
43 posted on 05/04/2003 12:22:12 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: I_dmc
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.

In addition, this only applies to the federal government. States are free to designate a state religion if they choose,

Most state constitutions forbid them from doing anything so anti-American, and the Fourteenth Amendment also imposes the restrictions of the Bill of Rights onto all levels of government.

-Eric

44 posted on 05/04/2003 12:23:16 AM PDT by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55
I don't think that people who promote man-boy "love", kindergarden "fisting" classes, and teenage barnyard sex should be allowed any standing in the Republican Party. These kinds of things represent Democrat Party values, and that's where these people should stay. Just my 2 cents.
45 posted on 05/04/2003 12:33:57 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55
...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...

Some homosexuals, perhaps. Those who put a militant gay agenda, before their 'conservatism.' But to kick out someone on the basis of their being gay alone would not only be contemptible prejudice, but also a loss for our side. Alan Jones, a fiercely conservative talk show host here in Australia, is enormously influential. And gay. I can't imagine where we'd be without him.

46 posted on 05/04/2003 12:51:35 AM PDT by Byron_the_Aussie (http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup2.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
This is a requirement for being a Republican now?

Don't believe I ever said it was...although it certainly doesn't hurt.

Here, this one's for you:



47 posted on 05/04/2003 5:09:27 AM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: jla
Ooooh! Can I have one?
48 posted on 05/04/2003 5:24:27 AM PDT by Misterioso
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: jla
Is there a reason you are posting that on a thread about gay Republicans? >:)

-Eric

49 posted on 05/04/2003 6:25:56 AM PDT by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
....go here for one example of a GAY radical in the LCR!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/904046/posts

50 posted on 05/04/2003 6:33:14 AM PDT by GrandMoM ("Vengeance is Mine , I will repay," says the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson