GOP leadership opens door to homosexual rep

OneNewsNow.com ^ | 6/30/11 | Fred Jackson

[Antoninus]

Homosexual Republicans are celebrating what they see as a major victory for their cause. According to the Log Cabin Republicans, the Republican National Committee -- which is the central arm of the Republican Party -- has named the homosexual group's executive director to the RNC's Finance Committee. That committee is the fundraising arm of the RNC.

The Log Cabin group says R. Clarke Cooper will play a "critical" role in raising funds for the party's efforts to elect Republicans to the White House and across the country. Cooper says he will be working to elect what he calls "pro-equality Republicans."

Bob Kabel, a former national chairman of the Log Cabin Republicans who now chairs the District of Columbia Republican Committee, lauds Cooper's new role and references the GOP's "winning strategy for 2012, one based upon inclusion and the conviction that with a big tent the GOP can recapture the White House." Social conservatives who normally support the GOP have often expressed concern about the homosexual group gaining greater influence in the party.

[wagglebee]

everything I say is twisted around by the over-focused excitable anti gay lobby here.

Twisted?

Do you forget writing this?:

I don't care if he believes in G-d or who he has sex with.

And yes, I am fine with the atheists and the purely fiscal conservatives here on FR. These people are part of us, and they wish for Constitutional principles like we do.

Yep, these atheistic fiscal-only types are just fine with sodomite marriage and the massacre of nearly 4000 babies EVERY DAY.

I don’t want a Christian nation, I want a Free Republic.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
-- John Adams

I said anyone who believes as we do will be helping us. Not liberals.

No, the subversives who are pushing for an end of social conservatism are a fifth column looking to destroy conservatism.

[JustaDumbBlonde]

"I’m not threatened by gays."

I don't feel personally threatened by homos, but I do feel that our entire society is threatened by the homosexual agenda. In the 70's the queers just wanted to be accepted, in the 80's they wanted to be recognized formally, in the 90's they were far enough out of the closet to start demanding special rights, and this decade they are demanding that their deviant behavior be taught to elementary students as something that is normal.

Of course, the evolution of the homo agenda is a bit more complicated than my brief run-down, but hopefully you see my point.

"Pro-equality votes are votes."

All votes are votes. All people are free to vote as they please. On one hand you may accept a vote from a homo as a citizen, it is all together something different to allow them to promote their personal and societal agenda through politics. That is where this will end up going.

"First, we have to win this next election, and then we can sort it all out."

Once things like this get in, there is no sorting it out later. That would be discrimination and run into every bugaboo in existence, both social and legal. Do you really think republicans would win the elections and then turn around and get all of the pro-deviant behavior out of the power structure?

Just my two cents and I mean you no harm by disagreeing with your comments. :)

[Yaelle]

Should the attacker be punished more severely because of his victim’s choice in sex practices?...[snip]

Hate crime laws by their existence require that the value of one ‘class’ of person must have a greater value than another. So which is it? Are gay black men more valuable in the eyes of the law than a straight white man? Or is a straight white woman held in higher regard than a straight black man? Or any other combination?

Fascinating. I think this argument needs to take place in the public sphere. I hate that we are too politically correct to have something like a prime time Firing Line show with issues like this, seriously debated.

We had a horrendous massacre take place here in our little 'hood some years back on Halloween. It got some national attention. A swarm of young blacks (teens to early 20s) attacked a couple of white female college students walking from a popular Haunted House in a quaint residential neighborhood (upper middle class, but surrounded by lower middle class or worse neighborhoods). 20-40 "youths" piled on to these innocent girls (after first throwing pumpkins, lemons, and insults against whites at them), ripping their earrings out of their skin, beating them, kicking them, stealing their property as an afterthought, and one youth beating them over the head with a skateboard even after the board broke.

Their lives were saved by an older Good Samaritan (who happened to be black, and who himself got beaten for stepping in). One girl was studying photography but she lost so much of her vision she had to give up her dream. The few perps who got caught, got house arrest and very light sentences. they were still able to be on their school's athletic teams. Their parents cried that they were "good kids."

We here in the neighborhood felt that "hate crime" designation was important for fairness only. We knew that if a mob of white youths attempted to murder innocent black girls walking past, this would be national news for months, and the perps would still be behind bars today. This would be a very racist crime.

It's all turned around when the perps are of a protected minority. I agree with you that the facts about the victim should not matter, but they DO, emotionally, and that is the way life is. Why else would murder be dropped to 2nd degree if the murderer killed his cheating wife, or the guy who raped his 13-year-old daughter? Emotion still plays a part in our legal system. We just are not robots. But I like your argument very much.

[JustaDumbBlonde]

"If you throw out all the gay conservatives, then you need to throw out all the conservatives who commit adultery, shack up before marriage, look at porn, eat too much, whip their kids with belts, spoil their kids, don't want kids, have problems with drugs or alcohol..."

If any of those folks define themselves by their behavior, I don't want them in charge of anything either. Most homosexuals are all about what they do with their genitals, first and foremost.

[Yaelle]

You must know that on FR, there are non-Christians, and some atheists. Since there IS a G-d, my feeling is that atheists are struggling with Him in their own way. Who knows where the struggle will end. G-d is omnipotent. So let's let Him sort that out. I welcome all FReepers who are OK with JimRob's platform. Some of the people here might do things in private that we don't like and don't even want to know about!!! There are a lot of us here. They are welcome. That is what I meant by I don't care if he believes in G-d or who he has sex with.

Always remember that if someone doesn't believe in G-d, G-d still believes in that guy. So it's OK. Give G-d a chance.

I said this, too: And yes, I am fine with the atheists and the purely fiscal conservatives here on FR. These people are part of us, and they wish for Constitutional principles like we do.

And no, someone who is a purely fiscal conservative or even a libertarian does NOT necessarily believe that gay marriage or abortion is good. Those do not go together. In fact, I have read some libertarian beliefs on abortion that wish for freedom for everyone conceived. I'm not a libertarian, but I agree with their way of thinking, that has nothing to do with our Biblical commandments. They do not see it as right to impose someone else's wish to stop life for another person.

Mine: I don’t want a Christian nation, I want a Free Republic.

Yours: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
-- John Adams

The two above statements are definitely not mutually exclusive and I agree with them both.

No, the subversives who are pushing for an end of social conservatism are a fifth column looking to destroy conservatism.

This is too complicated to really respond to. Do you mean pushing for an end to social conservatism as a platform for the GOP, when it clicks off so many independent voters? There are plenty of social conservatives who understand that some of this stuff is not decided by the president and should stay "low" on a platform. I don't think anyone could get rid of social conservatism as a philosophy because it EXISTS and always will. And a moral, religious philosophy has, throughout history, saved the rears of the more flighty, superficial, amoral populations. The grasshoppers (liberals) of the world will always need the principled, religious, moral ants to save them! So I can't really speak about that statement.

[Norm Lenhart]

“Emotion still plays a part in our legal system. We just are not robots. But I like your argument very much.”

Thanks.

I agree that emotion does play a part. And yes, we wouldn’t be human if they didn’t. But that emotion also is the opposite of ‘law’ and the source if inequality. Justice must be to the greatest extent possible, blind, or it really is not justice at all.

But that’s an academic argument and never does/will happen in reality.

[Norm Lenhart]

“Emotion still plays a part in our legal system. We just are not robots. But I like your argument very much.”

Thanks.

I agree that emotion does play a part. And yes, we wouldn’t be human if they didn’t. But that emotion also is the opposite of ‘law’ and the source if inequality. Justice must be to the greatest extent possible, blind, or it really is not justice at all.

But that’s an academic argument and never does/will happen in reality.

[Yaelle]

Most homosexuals are all about what they do with their genitals, first and foremost.

Well, by definition the "activists" and those who form these groups sure are. I agree. It's pretty stupid. Who wants to see "Masturbators For Romney" or some such. Keep your privates PRIVATE.

[Yaelle]

But that emotion also is the opposite of ‘law’ and the source if inequality. Justice must be to the greatest extent possible, blind, or it really is not justice at all. But that’s an academic argument and never does/will happen in reality.

I completely agree with you. I'd be OK with keeping all premeditated murder the same. No matter what the victim did. And "hate crime" not existing. I'd be OK with as blind a justice as we could get.

But it wouldn't work. Even JUDGES are driven by emotion. To say nothing of juries swayed by the charismatic attorneys like Cochran or Edwards. Look at the latest Lindsay Lohan judge. "Missy, if you do this ONE MORE TIME, I tell you, we are going to rain down hard on you..."

(Vulcans as judges. We could use Vulcans. If only they were not fictional.) :)

[Norm Lenhart]

Nope. You forgot about the Ponn Farr! (SP?) I’ll stick with Kirk on the bench after a pint of Romulan Ale... far more stable ;)

I hear the Klingons have an interesting take on justice though ;)

[Norm Lenhart]

Like I said. Take the sex away and homosexuals are just REALLY good friends. The sex is what defines everything about the homosexual agenda/lobby. Remove sex and it disintegrates.

Homosexuals are the only group on the world stage that demand special rights, laws and treatment based on sex acts.

[Nowhere Man]

I don't feel personally threatened by homos, but I do feel that our entire society is threatened by the homosexual agenda. In the 70's the queers just wanted to be accepted, in the 80's they wanted to be recognized formally, in the 90's they were far enough out of the closet to start demanding special rights, and this decade they are demanding that their deviant behavior be taught to elementary students as something that is normal.

Personally as long as they keep it private, I don't care who goes to bed with whom. As to some States allowing same sex marriage, it is part of our system to let each State decide for itself on such matters although it should come from within the people of the State, not to be forced upon by judges or legislators with an agenda. It is up to us in each State to let our legislators know where we stand and put the right ones into office.

Still, I don't believe the GOP should have a "gay rep" or any other rep, we know what values they have or should have. Also, they should be kept out of schools, sex ed, if any, should be approved by the parents and should stick to the facts.

I don't see homosexuals as monsters though, at worse, I see them as misguided individuals at worst, as long as they keep it private and so on, I'd leave them alone. If they want to vote GOP, fine, I have no problem with that, but they must understand that a party cannot be all things to all people.

If such an agenda by the radicals of the gay movement prove detrimental to our security and way of life, then yes, we must stand in their way.

[Nowhere Man]

How about the Jury Vac from "The Jetsons?" B-)

[trisham]

Why do you suppose that we have this problem? It’s not because they keep it private. It’s not because they haven’t aggressively promoted their agenda.

Try googling “Folsom Street Fair” to see exactly how private many of these people are, but I warn you that you will be shocked by what you find. You might also read here:

http://www.MassResistance.org/

Too many who post on these threads have no real idea of what we are up against.

[DJ MacWoW]

I don't see homosexuals pedophiles as monsters though, at worse, I see them as misguided individuals

I don't see homosexuals necrophiliacs as monsters though, at worse, I see them as misguided individuals

I don't see homosexuals zoophiliacs as monsters though, at worse, I see them as misguided individuals

I don't see homosexuals masochists and sadists as monsters though, at worse, I see them as misguided individuals

I don't see homosexuals coprophiliacs as monsters though, at worse, I see them as misguided individuals

Do I need to go on?

[little jeremiah]

I was going to write something similar.

Night night, pinging tomorrow.

[Antoninus]

So if, say, Sarah Palin is our nominee, you would like to limit the votes we accept for her to Christian heterosexuals only?

Based on how homosexual staffers have submarined various conservative candidates and politicians, I think you'd be pretty stupid not to, particularly in the upper echelons.

[Antoninus]

So if, say, Sarah Palin is our nominee, you would like to limit the votes we accept for her to Christian heterosexuals only?

Sorry, I misread that. I thought you meant people working for the campaign, not voting for her. As it is, that statement is too obtuse to warrant a response.

[heye2monn]

yep — in particular, the lie and delusion that their lifestyle is normal and safe.

[heye2monn]

Your warning is correct.

Look at Ken Mehlman, the homosexual who was head of the Republican National Committee and then came out of the closet. So what? Well, he was lionized by the left and he recently used his celebrity to push through homosexual marriage in New York state.

Homosexual staffers among the Republicans will inevitably be outed by the left, or out themselves, and become liberal heroes attacking the values of this country.