Posted on 12/21/2009 12:14:29 PM PST by icwhatudo
The founder of the website "Free Republic", Jim Robinson, has joined a growing boycott of the CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) due to a homosexual activist group sponsoring the event.
GOProud, a group that advocates same-sex "marriage," a repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and "expanding access to domestic partner benefits" for homosexuals, is listed as a sponsor of the event at CPAC's website.
Mr. Robinson has joined a number of conservative activists including Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell, Jr., Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mat Staver, and Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan in their efforts.
On a reply to an article about the boycott, Mr. Robinson stated "I’ll join that boycott. If CPAC is no longer for conservative family values then I want nothing to do with them. They’ll have to change their name to HOMOPAC."
1. Comparing blacks to homosexuals (regarding the word “gay”, it is a good English word meaning happy and carefree which has been hijacked by homosexuals, along with the rainbow) is very offensive to black people.
People are born black (or white, etc) and it is a neutral characteristic that has nothing to do with character or behavior, and cannot be changed.
People who are homosexual can change, are not born that way, and such behavior is far from benign or neutral. “Homosexual” describes behavior and acts, and as such, requires volition.
I have a very good African American friend (she was born in Africa with an African father, is now American) and she finds such comparisons disgustingly offensive.
2. Anyone who advertises their sexual perversion simultaneously with their political affiliation is promoting said sexual perversion as an agenda.
That’s simple, clear, and common sense.
If you don’t think there’s “a” homosexual agenda, you’re either (a) blind, (b) mentally challenged or (c) you like the homosexual agenda.
Oh, please. The liberal game of knee-jerk offendedness won't work here.
I was very clear in comparing the situation of conservative homosexuals and conservative blacks in one specific aspect: both are faced with most organizations and individuals claiming to speak for their identity group being liberal or leftist, creating an expectation that members of the group conform to this or shut up.
I put it to you that this specific comparison is obviously apt and accurate. If anything there is even more of an attempt by the left to "templatize," blacks, if only because their numbers (and potential votes) are greater.
People are born black (or white, etc) and it is a neutral characteristic that has nothing to do with character or behavior, and cannot be changed.
You and I, as conservatives, believe that race and ethnicity are properly neutral wrt to political ideology. Liberals and leftists (and other bigoted extremists) obviously believe no such thing. They believe, and loudly and persistently insist, that blacks should be liberal and left, and vote Democrat, because they are black.
And guess what. Lots of blacks buy that. Indeed most blacks appear to conform to this expectation. As a group, blacks consistently vote overwhelmingly for liberal Democrats, by over 90 percent. (Even though objective polling indicates their views on most issues are more often in line with those of conservative Republicans.)
So you and I, as conservatives, are pleased and encouraging when conservative blacks speak out and openly challenge the template. You and I, as conservatives, consider it important -- given the constant campaign by race hustlers, the MSM and the intelligentsia to "templatize" them -- that at least some conservative blacks do so.
Yet suddenly, when conservative homosexuals do exactly the same, you inconsistently insist that the leftist template is correct. You join help the left in shunning and marginalizing them for their deviancy from political correctness. You can't even bring yourself to say, "hey, I don't agree on the sex thing, but I'm happy to have you on our side politically."
Not so much. "Homosexual" describes sexual orientation. You can be "homosexual" even while being a lifelong celibate. "Behavior and acts" are not required (aside from the non-overt behavior of a sexual arousal response).
Does the sexual arousal response require "volition"? Can you seriously affirm that?
I can only speak as a heterosexual male, but I have never known it to. To the contrary, it requires volition -- and often a great deal of it -- to suppress the response. Likewise it would require volition -- indeed far greater volition than I have ever experienced or can even imagine experiencing -- to reorient my arousal response from females to males.
As to the "born that way" question, although I consider it irrelevant to whether homosexuals and be conservative, and irrelevant to the specific sense in which I compared the circumstance of black and homosexual conservatives (see preceding message) I'll give my views such as they are.
I've only questioned a couple of psychiatrists on this topic, but both answered in conformity with my inexpert expectations. They both said that homosexuality is not a single, simple condition. They said that certainly some individuals are "born" homosexuals, but that some aren't.
I suspect that the large majority of self-identified homosexuals are "born that way". But if I'm off in my guesstimation of percentages, it doesn't bother me. I welcome gays into the conservative movement regardless of how they got gay.
Merry Christmas, Mister Bircher!
Merry Christmas to you to Mr Carter.
lj: Comparing blacks to homosexuals [...] is very offensive to black people.
Oh, please. The liberal game of knee-jerk offendedness won’t work here.
lj: No liberal crap on my part, only on yours. My friend and many other blacks do not like their inherent race which is benign, to be compared to sexual deviancy.
lj: If a homosexual holds conservative viewpoints, he will eschew the homosexual agenda. Black conservatives will also eschew liberalism that is spouted by blacks or people of any other color.
I put it to you that this specific comparison is obviously apt and accurate. If anything there is even more of an attempt by the left to “templatize,” blacks, if only because their numbers (and potential votes) are greater.
lj: Exactly so, leftists love to put people in boxes and give them false or separate identities - divide and conquer!
lj: People are born black (or white, etc) and it is a neutral characteristic that has nothing to do with character or behavior, and cannot be changed.
You and I, as conservatives, believe that race and ethnicity are properly neutral wrt to political ideology. Liberals and leftists (and other bigoted extremists) obviously believe no such thing. They believe, and loudly and persistently insist, that blacks should be liberal and left, and vote Democrat, because they are black.
lj: I am a conservative. I don’t know about you, since you are spouting quite a bit of sexual identity political pro-”gay” agenda nonsense.
And guess what. Lots of blacks buy that. Indeed most blacks appear to conform to this expectation. As a group, blacks consistently vote overwhelmingly for liberal Democrats, by over 90 percent. (Even though objective polling indicates their views on most issues are more often in line with those of conservative Republicans.)
lj: I agree.
So you and I, as conservatives
lj: I am conservative, you are a mixed bag apparently.
, are pleased and encouraging when conservative blacks speak out and openly challenge the template. You and I, as conservatives, consider it important — given the constant campaign by race hustlers, the MSM and the intelligentsia to “templatize” them — that at least some conservative blacks do so.
Yet suddenly, when conservative homosexuals do exactly the same, you inconsistently insist that the leftist template is correct.
lj: Your efforts to paint opposition to the “gay” agenda and homosexual identity as equivalent to race as leftist are not only a stretch so big you’d have to be a Chinese contortionist to succeed, but are also transparently false.
lj: WTH?? I am “shunning and marginalizing” them? Sounds like leftist psycho-manipulation-speak to me! Homosexuals are busy marginalizing themselves right into the sewer!
lj: I say exactly that. If any homosexual is conservative and leaves his pervesion in the bedroom where it belongs, I have no problem with such people voting conservative and espousing conservative ideals and convictions. But as soon as they publicly affirm and promote perversion, they have left conservatism, are promoting the “gay” agenda which is all about domination and fascist control. And by supporting the “gay” agenda, so have you.
lj: People who are homosexual can change, are not born that way, and such behavior is far from benign or neutral. “Homosexual” describes behavior and acts, and as such, requires volition.
Not so much. “Homosexual” describes sexual orientation. You can be “homosexual” even while being a lifelong celibate. “Behavior and acts” are not required (aside from the non-overt behavior of a sexual arousal response).
Does the sexual arousal response require “volition”? Can you seriously affirm that?
lj: I spent several years on FR debating and discussing and informing people as well as learning a tremendous amount about homosexuality and the homosexual agenda. Due to psychological factors which include an absent or distant father, early molestation and seduction, and cultural norms that promote sexual experimentation, people develop same sex attraction, often feeling that they’ve “always been that way”.
It is a deep topic, and one I am tired of. You are a koolaid drinker who believes the homosexual propaganda. So be it.
The proof that homosexuals are not born that way is that there are countless numbers of former homosexuals.
I can only speak as a heterosexual male, but I have never known it to. To the contrary, it requires volition — and often a great deal of it — to suppress the response. Likewise it would require volition — indeed far greater volition than I have ever experienced or can even imagine experiencing — to reorient my arousal response from females to males.
lj: You likely did not have the psychological, familial or behavioral factors that help create homosexuality. You probably were not molested or seduced as a child or adolescent by an older homosexual, as a great number of them have been.
As to the “born that way” question, although I consider it irrelevant to whether homosexuals and be conservative, and irrelevant to the specific sense in which I compared the circumstance of black and homosexual conservatives (see preceding message) I’ll give my views such as they are.
lj: Again putting homosexuals and black people into the same box. There are no former black people. There are plenty of former homosexuals.
I’ve only questioned a couple of psychiatrists on this topic, but both answered in conformity with my inexpert expectations. They both said that homosexuality is not a single, simple condition. They said that certainly some individuals are “born” homosexuals, but that some aren’t.
lj: It’s hard to believe that you know nothing of the historical takeover of the psychiatric profession. They were bullied into removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders, for one thing. And anyone can claim that homosexuals are born that way, but to date, no one has any proof other than their own statements.
I suspect that the large majority of self-identified homosexuals are “born that way”. But if I’m off in my guesstimation of percentages, it doesn’t bother me. I welcome gays into the conservative movement regardless of how they got gay.
I’d welcome them if they never mentioned their sex life, orientation or attractions, and did not start or join organizations loudly announcing the same. And espoused conservative principles, and did not use conservative or Repub. organizations to promote the “gay” agenda.
Which is what GOProud is trying to do, in part with their participation in CPAC. They're rejecting the "homosexual agenda" mapped out by the left, and asserting that conservatism is as good for gays as for anybody else. But most here are protesting against their participation in CPAC.
IOW, they (and you) seem to be saying that gays should not (or for some reason cannot?) eschew the (leftist) homosexual agenda without miraculously developing an attraction to the opposite sex. I.e. they cannot simultaneously be both conservative, or even anti-left, and homosexual.
To me that seems as stupid and irrational as claiming, oh, let me think of a "behaviorial" analogy if that suits you better... O.K. Folk music. I like folk music, and bluegrass, and blues, and even the occasional "hippie jam band". Are most people who like the same kind of music leftoids? Heck yeah. Does that mean that I must suddenly start disliking folk music just because I'm conservative? Obviously not. It means I may not listen to certain songs or performers. I will get upset or roll my eyes at political diatribes delivered from the stage. It means I will reject the leftist "folk music agenda". But it doesn't mean I will (or should) develop an aversion to the music, or suddenly start preferring Pat Boone recordings.
Breifly back to my comparison of the situation of black conservatives and gay conservatives, you now have me confused. From your comments I can't tell if you're still offended, as you seem to be in some places, or if you concede the point as to the limited comparison I actually made, as you seem to agree with it at other points:
Exactly so, leftists love to put people in boxes and give them false or separate identities - divide and conquer!
In any case I'll repeat, even though it should have been obvious initially, that I was not comparing being black to being gay in any general sense. I was comparing a specific circumstance shared by both groups: that leftists and their cultural stooges aggressively promote acquiescence to leftism as normative and necessary to group membership. IOW, blacks are constantly told they should be liberal and left because they're black, and gays are told they should be liberal and left because they're gay.
I think both these assertions are false. You and many other freepers here seem to think only the first is false, but that the other is essentially true. I consider that position inconsistent.
I really don’t have time to debate point by point, and after reading your latest response, have lost interest in doing so. Fair debate is one thing, nonsense is another and is very boring.
You are creating straw men in my stead. I am not saying that homosexuals must be healed of all same sex attraction to qualify as conservatives, and you are smart enough to know that that is not at all what I said or meant.
Now you are comparing musical taste to homosexuality, another pathetic attempt to normalize the pathological condition of homosexuality.
You are misusing your intelligence to push the normalization of homosexuality. There is no point in any further discussion.
I will boil it down to very simple points, that anyone who is not duplicitous can easily grasp.
1. The condition of homosexuality - same sex attraction disorder - is a psychological and sexual aberration and dysfunction, and societal evil, and a moral and character failing.
2. The condition itself is sometimes chosen (I’ve read homosexuals saying this very thing - they chose to be “gay”) and sometimes not, often not.
3. Homosexual acts, OTOH, are voluntary. Anyone could have all kinds of sinful, aberrant, immoral or just plain weird thoughts and desires cross their mind. Actually, everyone has all kinds of thoughts that cross the mind like clouds in the sky. Do we follow every single desire or thought? No. So every homosexual act - just like every sexual act - is chosen. People can tell themselves “go for it” or “no way”.
4. There are countless former homosexuals, thus attesting to the fact that it is not an inborn genetic or other type of inalienable condition.
5. Homosexuals who push the “gay” agenda are not welcome as conservatives since the “gay” agenda and all that it implies are Nazi like leftist agendas meant to destroy the freedoms we enjoy as described in the Bill of Rights; those who do not, are.
The pimps, the leftists and the perverts who object to Jim's very wise position, are the same ones who also object to America and her traditionally moral culture given to us by our forefathers. They simply hate America as a rule.
Insanity; Doing the same thing over and over hoping to get a different result.
No thanks.
A better question is; When did Godless Libertarianism become the arbiter of Conservatism?
Out With Log Cabin, In With GOProud
Posted by GayPatriot at 10:58 am - April 10, 2009.
I am thrilled to help announce the birth of a new
national gay conservative organization, GOProud.
As long-time readers know I have been very
critical of the national Log Cabin Republicans for many years.
“It would be like paranoid schizophrenics lobbying not to take any medicine and that we should accept them as equal and forgive them the occasional murder.”
It would be like paranoid schizophrenics lobbying to be enlisted in the military where sane people have to bunk, fight, shower and often submit to them, for years at a stretch.
It would be like paranoid schizophrenics demanding the right to adopt children or having them turkey baster style, and raising them in their horrifying households.
It would be like paranoid schizophrenics forcing a pro-schizophrenia curriculum on the local schools, teaching children that schizophrenia is perfectly ok, we are all at least a little schizo, and you should not have to take any meds.
I don’t hate paranoid schizophrenics. But I would not ever support any of the above agenda.
At best the homosexuals need serious help. At worst they are tyrannical haters of normalcy and traditional American families and values.
I think there is a difference between them being in the “mall” and being a co-sponsor. I think that difference is what prompted Liberty’s withdrawal.
It is notable that a major communist goal is the abolition of the nuclear family.
“just because their sex drive is differently wired.”
It goes way beyond the sex drive. The longer it’s indulged, the more prominent the effects. It warps the entire soul.
“I don’t think there is any such thing as “the” homosexual agenda. . .”
Here are a few of its recent fruits:
- Catholic Charities in California can no longer place kids for adoption in our state because it is against their beliefs to place kids with homosexual couples. They had operated successfully in California for decades and placed thousands of children.
• A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney’s costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple’s commitment ceremony.
• A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship. Even though she referred the client to a supportive psychologist.
• Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.
• A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.
- We have homosexual sex promoted in our public schools starting in kindergarten.
- Wanda Sykes is regularly lecturing teenage boys on a tv PSA that it is not ok to use “gay” as a perjorative, and that they’d best shut up and submit to the current dogma.
- Big Brothers/Sisters now places at risk kids with same sex homosexual adults. Even though homosexuals molest at a far higher rate than heterosexuals. They will not of course place straight men with minor girls or straight women with minor boys.
- The Sea Scouts have lost their decades old slip for their ship in Berkeley because the Scouts don’t allow homosexual men to be troop leaders. Troop leaders take kids on overnight camps that last as long as two weeks.
"Ronald Reagan would not have been welcome at today's CPAC or a tea party rally, but he would not have wanted to be there, either. Neither do I."
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.