Posted on 11/05/2014 9:58:55 AM PST by Yashcheritsiy
To begin with, this election was, generally speaking, a rejection of the notion being advanced by many in the establishment wing of the Party that the Republicans needs to move to the Left on social issues like abortion and gay “marriage.” Earlier this year, GOP establishment leaders like Kevin McCarthy and Paul Ryan announced their plan to begin trying to recruit “Young Gun” candidates – socially liberal, and often homosexual, candidates to run under the Republican banner in an effort to “broaden the appeal” of the Party, especially to younger, socially liberal voters. John Boehner backed this effort, throwing money at the candidates who had been recruited to run this year. However, the voters who were supposed to be impressed by the GOP’s lurch to the Left on “individual choice” issues instead reacted with a collective yawn. In the race for the open seat in Massachusetts’ 6th congressional district, “Young Gun” Richard Tisei - a gay Republican who has a 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, who (obviously) supports gay “marriage,” and who is “married” to his “partner” - lost by 15 points to a non-incumbent and relatively unknown Democrat. To give this some perspective, Tisei had ran for the same seat in 2012 against a well-known and long-time incumbent and lost by only a single point. It does not appear that Tisei’s choice to flaunt his peculiar lifestyle choice did him or the GOP any favors this time around...
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
That is libertarian, not conservative.
Conservatism is the political position that seeks to preserve valuable processes and values. So, we do care about things like obesity, sexuality, alcoholism, theft, murder, homosexual marriage, etc.
That's why we bring it up. They all hurt the person, the community, or the culture. We are 'conserving' the values that have been handed down that say these things are harmful.
You are taking a more libertarian than conservative approach. Did you know that?
One cannot separate homosexuals from what they do.
It is their entire identity.
They identify themselves by what they do.
100% of the time they will say one thing in “straight” (conservative) company, and something diametrically opposed among homosexual company.
Look at TheArizona talking out both sides of their mouth.
So yes, homosexuals fall under homosexualism.
Same thing.
You cannot separate the homo from the agenda.
A "witch hunt" involves a situation where a person is accused of something with absolutely nothing to back it up. The accused is then forced to do the impossible by proving their innocence.
Troll hunting on the other hand involves finding a troll who has already engaged in trollish behavior and exposing them as a troll. It's actually not a bad way to spend a slow news day on FR.
Homosexuals have a right to be here as long as they do not promote liberal agendas (including homosexual marriage/hate crimes/ENDA etc).
This is a CONSERVATIVE forum it's not a sex chatroom.
NOBODY ever comes on here and says, "I'm a heterosexual" and then begins to expound upon their sex life, it would not be in keeping with the purpose of FR. When a homosexual comes on here and identifies themselves as that and then uses that to offer a point of view on a subject, they are, by definition, pushing the homosexual agenda
Just being homosexual and saying “I am gay” should not be bannable unless we ban all divorced people, atheist, Mormons, adulterers, Jews, fornicators, divorced etc).
A person's marital, ethnic or religious status IS NOT the same as a deviant sexual orientation.
Being homosexual is an abnormal and abhorrent CHOICE that is often linked with pedophilia.
If YOUR attitude is adopted we'll soon have people coming on here and saying, "I am a necrophiliac and you should be able to ban me for that."
There was already a push for “world bestiality day”.
But we were assured that wouldn’t happen....
I really wish the libertarians would quit pretending that they belong here.
I totally agree. If you want to be a conservative and “gay” then you have to quit being an lgbt activist. We don’t have parades for adulterers and divorces. We don’t have special employment protections for strippers and porn stars. If you make your sexual behavior an issue then you need to bear responsibility for it not try to sue others to suppress their negative opinion of it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1676426/posts
And yes, log cabin republicans ARE zotted here.
He signed up and was zotted on the same day.
Were you under the impression that I was asking for permission to disagree with you?
Me, and we have friends who are gay (and yes my landlord for my office is gay) and they are conservative.
If they believe like you do, they might be libertarians, but they ARE NOT conservative.
And what does you having a gay landlord have to do with anything? I was having lunch with some people at The Palm the other day and I'm pretty sure our waiter was a homosexual, but the food was good so I didn't complain. See, I can play the "I know gay people" card too.
I believe in small government, and that means I don’t care what you eat or sleep with (if both are consenting adults) or smoke.
Conservatism IS NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN and hopefully NEVER WILL BE about "small" government. Conservatism is about LIMITED GOVERNMENT and if you put down the bong you might understand the difference.
I do separate homosexuality from the agenda, just like with atheism.
Homosexual: “I am attracted to members of my sex” - SINNER
Atheist: “I do not believe in God” - SINNER
Homosexual activist: “We need change the Christian view of family to accommodate me” - LIBERAL ACTIVIST (and SINNER)
Atheist activist: “We need to push religion out of the public sphere” - LIBERAL ACTIVIST (and SINNER)
You can be a sinner and a conservative. In fact you cannot not be a sinner. Sinners need to be witnessed to, not chased out.
A lovely thing it was, too.
” You can be a sinner and a conservative. In fact you cannot not be a sinner. Sinners need to be witnessed to, not chased out.”
It is not “love the sin” it is “love the sinner”.
Unfortunately, that also means TELLING them the TRUTH that their actions are WRONG.
One does not show a sinner compassion by condoning and aiding the sin.
Show me where Chrust said “ go and bone some more” to the woman accused of adultery.
Show me where he said, “go and continue doing that.”
No, they don’t.
FR is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family. If you wish to promote some other way of living, please do it elsewhere.
“A person’s marital, ethnic or religious status IS NOT the same as a deviant sexual orientation.”
There is no such thing as a sexual orientation, just sexual sin. Sex before marriage, divorce, homosexuality, adultery are all sexual sins. All will put you in hell. I have no idea where you got ethnic from, but no, being Chinese does not send you to hell. False religion worship absolutely is the same as sexual sin, probably even more serious, atheists, Mormons, and Jews (not the messianic ones) will be in the exact same place as homosexuals.
Again, homosexuality absent any political agenda, is just a sin, like all the other categories mentioned above. I do not understand any criteria by which a homosexual is banned just for saying he is a homosexual, but a fornicator, or divorcee, or atheist, or Jew is not.
Free Republic needs less inquisitors and more Christians.
OK, its your site, I have spoken my mind.
” Free Republic needs less inquisitors and more Christians.”
Show me where Christ told the woman accused of adultery to continue as she was.
Show me where homosexuality is accepted anywhere in scripture.
You're kidding. Being a Republican legislator in Massachusetts doesn't make one respected with the voters (being a Democrat legislator doesn't either, but Democrats outnumber Republicans by a large margin). I'd agree that Tisei could have beat Tierney who had corruption issues, but in a Democratic state a Democrat war veteran is a good bet to beat a Republican state legislator. If you're saying Tisei's homosexual counted against him, it probably did, but it wouldn't have killed his candidacy against a more lackluster opponent.
Nope. The critical difference is that this time around, Tisei was recruited as a candidate specifically because he is gay. That is why they made such a big fuss over him.
I don't remember Tisei's being recruited or anybody making a big fuss over him, but the fact that he almost won last time would have made him appear to be an attractive candidate to a lot of people. "Recruiting" Republican congressional candidates in Massachusetts is a joke in itself. Nine seats and only three of them were contested by the GOP.
Changing the question and the subject.
The owner of the site has put his foot down on your side, its his house and I have to play by his rules.
Suffice to say that Jesus did not accept the woman’s sexual sin, but he also did not have her stoned. One can be merciful without being accepting of sin, as Christ was, and error can happen in both directions.
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.