Posted on 02/10/2011 6:25:57 AM PST by Notary Sojac
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) said Wednesday evening she has no objection to the participation of gay Republicans at this weekend's gathering of conservatives in Washington.
Palin said she didn't see anything wrong with the participation of GOProud, a group of gay Republicans, at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which runs Thursday through Saturday.
"I don't have a problem with different, diverse groups that are involved in political discourse, and having a convention to talk about what the answers are to their problems that face America," Palin said Wednesday on Fox News when asked about GOProud.
Palin isn't participating in the conference, and she's declined previous invitations, despite CPAC's role as a cattle call for possible Republican presidential candidates.
But other prominent conservatives have said they're skipping the conference. The conservative Heritage Foundation and other socially conservative groups withdrew due to the inclusion of GOProud. And with those groups out, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) followed suit. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) also declined participation, though it's unclear if that decision is linked to GOProud.
Aside from DeMint, though, the other Republicans mulling a run for president are slated to speak or participate at the conference, hoping in part to boost their standing in the closely watched straw poll of attendees.
Palin suggested that conservatives had more important issues to worry about than which groups were attending the conference.
"People are losing their jobs; they're losing homes. We're still engaged in a war," she said. "There are so many life-changing, life-and-death issues out there in front of us. You know, we'd better be concentrating on what is really important here and not going kind of tit-for-tat as people are positioning themselves for 2012."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Faggots
Main article: Faggots (novel)
In 1978 Kramer delivered the final of four drafts of a novel that he wrote about the fast lifestyle of gay men of Fire Island and Manhattan. In Faggots, the primary character was modeled on himself, a man who is unable to find love while encountering the drugs and emotionless sex in the trendy bars and discos.[11] He stated his inspiration for the novel: "I wanted to be in love. Almost everybody I knew felt the same way. I think most people, at some level, wanted what I was looking for, whether they pooh-poohed it or said that we can't live like the straight people or whatever excuses they gave."[12] Kramer researched the book, talking to many men, and visiting various establishments. As he interviewed people, he heard a common question: "Are you writing a negative book? Are you going to make it positive? ... I began to think, 'My God, people must really be conflicted about the lives they're leading.' And that was true. I think people were guilty about all the promiscuity and all the partying."[12] The book was called Faggots.
The novel caused an uproar in the community it portrayed; it was taken off the shelves of the Oscar Wilde Memorial Bookstore—New York's only gay bookstore, and Kramer was banned from the grocery store near his home on Fire Island.[1] Reviewers found it difficult to believe that Kramer's accounts of gay relationships were accurate; both the gay and mainstream press panned the book.[13] On the reception of the novel Kramer says, "The straight world thought I was repulsive, and the gay world treated me like a traitor. People would literally turn their back when I walked by. You know what my real crime was? I put the truth in writing. That's what I do: I have told the (expletive deleted)* truth to everyone I have ever met."[1] Faggots, however, became one of the best-selling gay novels of all time.[14]
* deleted by me.
Who died and left you the authority on Morality?
And yet, while you two claim the Fed has no business in the abortion debate, you ignore the fact that is was SCOTUS that put this American Holocaust into place in the first place.
It’s not hard to see through your pro-abortion arguments. You claim this is a 10th Amendment issue. Belongs to the States to decide. You claim its no business of the Fed to involve itself in a moral issue. You in a sense hide behind the Constitution as you ignore the fact that over 50 million lives have been lost due to the tragedy of abortion.
What we need is already in place: Tea parties have made significant progress in overturning liberal ideas. Obama-care is a prime example. If a majority of the States refuse to enact it, guess what? It will fail! Congress will overturn it, our courts will nullify it and Conservatism will grow.
This is the same approach we must take on moral issues like abortion and homosexuality. Overturn these libs at the local, state and federal level.
Wow, SOTC. That just about explains all that is happening here.
Very interesting. Who let these dogs in?
Are you:
a. the owner of FR??
b. one of the moderators??
c. the official arbiter (other than in your own mind) of who is and is not a conservative??
d. none of the above??
I haven’t forgotten moral decline. I totally agree with you.
Post 6 is speaking to the death penalty in Uganda for spreading Aids. It is a bill and not yet law Life imprisonment is the minimum punishment for anyone convicted of having gay sex, under an anti-homosexuality bill currently before Uganda's parliament. If the accused person is HIV positive or a serial offender, or a "person of authority" over the other partner, or if the "victim" is under 18, a conviction will result in the death penalty. Uganda isn't my business.
I read all of them and you wasted my time. Not one poster said to bring back the death penalty in the US for homosexuality. They said it was Scriptural or it used to be the law. NO ONE said it should be reinstated.
You said in post 58: Some of the Freepers who go ballistic about teh faggots and want to bring back the death penalty for sodomy are also among the biggest Palin cheerleaders. and you can't prove it.
Just a FYI.
Instead of
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2593307/posts
post 17 in the above thread.
You can more easily link like this....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2593307/posts?page=17#17
__________________________________________________
And while you’re about looking for FReepers who call for the death penalty for Sodomy... Add me to the list.
As in Sodomy already carries a death penalty. Remember... “The wages of sin is death”.
But relating to our man-made laws... I’ll settle for a return of anti-sodomy (anti-gay) laws like we used to have. Remember them? When America was a great nation?
You are the one who jumped into a conversation and misconstrued what was said. It's your problem.
I wasn’t saying you said that aborters should be jailed. I am a social conservative, I despise the idea of abortion and the attempts to redefine marriage.
But some on these boards want FEDERAL enforcement of their morality. Abortion should be allowed to be made illegal by the states, and doctors who perform the procedure without a state court order (rape or incest) should be jailed. That is killing in my book.
But on the gay issue, are we going to jail gays, castrate them, some posters want gays banned from the face of the earth.
Gay agenda should in no way be able to be promoted in school, gays should not be able to have “marriage” OTOH, gays shouldn’t be economically discriminated for or against. And alot of te GOProud platform is just getting a level playing field when it comes to taxes and transfers of assets. I have no problem with that.
Tax payer paid social programs are designed to "help" those who have been "victims" of this moral decline. It costs $40,000.00 a year for every welfare recipient. That's just the welfare queen. That doesn't include her kids.
That's just one fall out from the liberal agenda. There are entire voting blocks who are "victims" of one immoral behavior or another.
“They also all believed that sodomy was a serious crime and in some cases warranted the death penalty.”
Where does this fall under the protection of life liberty and property?
First of all, she doesn't have the power to allow or not allow this. Second of all, I see nothing wrong with allowing dissenting points of view. We aren't the libs who have to cover their ears and go "lah, lah, lah, I can't hear you!" when someone says something with which they disagree.
So you don’t agree with freedom of speech if the person speaking disagrees with you. Got it.
I hope the Palin haters wise up before it’s too late.
It will be too late if she announces and they drift over to some un-electable candidate because they like them better or they don’t much like her, or they’ve let the MSM spin against her seep into their political pores.
I really don’t want to end up with a squish this time because we can’t unite behind Sarah.
May I freepmail you? No. Not to argue. I have something to share.
“The gay’s obsession with reshaping our culture is scary.”
Excellent repartee.
Thank you.
Your words seem eerily similar to the words that Muslims use to to justify the secret morality police in places like Saudi Arabia.
Until I am completely free of sin, what right do I have to lecture other people about what they do in the privacy of their own homes that does not directly impact the lives and rights of other people? That doesn't mean that I accept gay marriage or the creation of special constitutional rights for gay people or that I believe that govenment run schools should teach our children that gay is the new normal. Although I am not in favor of the homosexual agenda, I am in favor of individual liberty.
Thank you and congrats to your parents. Believe me when I say that gay marriage should never happen and I only posted to you about divorce because of that line. I know that divorce will get very easy if gay marriage is law of the land because there have been a few divorces already and gay marriage in some states only started. It will certainly make a mess of things that is for sure and our moral slide will continue and continue. Some people bash me for my divorce stance because they think it isn’t fair because what about getting beat to a pulp or sex abusing kids or something like that. I am not a total nut but I just think that tightening up the divorce laws would do a lot to get rid of the two week Britney Spears type marriages and those that are just tired of being married.
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.