• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Conservative Group Bars Log Cabin Republicans From Event

shrubnose said:
Did you get that idea from The "How to be Intolerant Handbook"? :roll:




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
Click to expand...
You posting that is a perfect example of irony
 
Sherman123 said:
You are exactly what is destroying our party. Mindless, dogmatic, reactionary drivel. The homosexual agenda? Good god.

PS: Their idol Barack Obama? Have you ever met a gay person in real life? Let alone a gay Republican.
Click to expand...

What mindless drivel. If criticizing the statist notions many Republicans embrace is destroying the Republican Party, then it deserves to be destroyed. Some of us do not share the contempt the proponents of the homosexual agenda, to use Justice Scalia's term, have for the Constitution.

The only way there will ever be a constitutional right to same-sex marriage is if Anthony Kennedy and at least four other justices who have signed on to the homosexual agenda decide to concoct one out of thin air, and proclaim it. The Court did just that with abortion forty years ago, in its notoriously arbitrary decision in Roe v. Wade, so I expect it can also cook up a constitutional "right" for homosexuals to marry each other.

As to your question, I do not knowingly associate with homosexuals, nor am I interested in what political party any particular homosexual belongs to.
 
tres borrachos said:
Of course, using what appears to be his logic.

The behavior of the Wall Street protestors can be laid at the feet of the Democratic Party, since most of them vote for Democrats.
Click to expand...
The actions and behaviors and words of the New Black Panthers can be laid at the feet of the Democratic Party, since most of them vote for the Democrats. Hell, let's lay George Zimmerman's behavior at the feet of the Democratic Party since he volunteered for and voted for Barack Obama.
Click to expand...



Or it could be laid at the feet of the GOP, since most of the people that they were protesting against belong to the GOP.

It all depends on how your brain works (Or doesn't work.). :roll:
 
Sherman123 said:
A massive amount of progress has been lost. As much as the establishment has regained control of the party and put a tamp on the radicals it's come at the cost of 'easy' concessions like this. When GOProud was banned from CPAC barely anyone raised a peep. We've come a long way from 2008 when we had a gay rights champion as a potential front runner--and it isn't good.
Click to expand...

I think about 2004, when Bush won like a million gay votes. Thing is, the dems did nothing to earn those votes. Kerry wasn't gonna stop or even discourage the wave of anti gay laws. I think back to 2008 and palin just had to say "i agree" in the debate, about joe biden opposing gay rights.

So i think about 2016, and dems have still done very little to earn those votes, except the repub contenders are so extremely anti gay that all the dems have to do is show some sympathy and that's it, they get the votes.

I mean all the repubs would have to do now is shut up about it. They don't have to like or accept homosexuality, but if they would just *tolerate* it, they'd be in roughly the same position as the dems who up until very recently were guilty of the same intolerance
 
faithful_servant said:
Since this isn't a GOP function, but rather one sponsored by a think tank sponsored by a Christian university, so your argument is pretty much nullified. They made a choice on who they choose to associate themselves with and like it or not, they have the right to make that decision.
Click to expand...

However the implication and the message is: "We don't want to be associated with you. We only want your vote." There's an underlying message as well and that is that "gay people can't be Christians and we do not accept them as equals."

If anything the GOP is the "Christian" Party. Tea Partisans dominate. There is no denying that and there shouldn't be any surprise that Log Cabin would be told "No, not with us."
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
I'm guessing you've never seen this before. Scroll to the bottom for a list of names and their positions. It was an impressive showing.







Kenneth B. Mehlman Et Al
Click to expand...

No, I had not seen it, but I understand the cases and constitutional arguments in it pretty well. Justice Kennedy seems to be leading the charge for the "no rational basis" equal protection argument, which is probably the one the Court will rely on if and when it decrees a constitutional "right" for homosexuals to marry each other. It seems to be part of the basis for the majority opinion he authored in Windsor, and he used variants of it in his opinions in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 and in Romer v. Evans in 1996. It can be traced back to Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986, in which he claimed that the belief of a majority that an act is immoral and unacceptable is not reason enough to make the act illegal.

As Justice Scalia observed in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence, Stevens' idea is radical--at odds with what had been taken for granted in every state in this country for 200 years, and with the norms of every civilized society. I think Scalia was dead right. The belief of a majority in a state that an act--adult incest, bestiality, bigamy, prostitution, adultery, etc.--is immoral and unacceptable IS a rational basis for a law against it, just as it always had been thought to be. Where most of the people in a state believe it is immoral and unacceptable for two persons of the same sex to marry each other, they should be free to exclude such couples from the state's marriage law. And in states where most people do not believe that, they should be free to make same-sex marriages legal. The Court had it right in Bowers, its first "gay" decision, and it got it wrong in Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor.
 
shrubnose said:
Or it could be laid at the feet of the GOP, since most of the people that they were protesting against belong to the GOP.

It all depends on how your brain works (Or doesn't work.). :roll:
Click to expand...

My brain works well enough to be able to follow what's posted.

You are attempting to tie the GOP to the group that is hosting this convention, because the people hosting this convention more than likely vote Republican. Yet when presented with analogies of people who presumably vote for the Democrats, you for some very odd reason try to tie who these people are protesting into the mix.

I'm smart enough to see right through it. And call you out on it.

Your incessant eye rolling in every one of your posts needs to be directed at yourself if you can't even follow your own failed arguments.
 
matchlight said:
I would not have let them be part of a conservative event either. No conservative, of whatever sexual orientation, would favor having the Supreme Court concoct a constitutional "right" of homosexuals to marry each other.
Click to expand...
Really? Is that the best argument you can concoct to support bigotry? Why not try this for size? How about the Supreme Court striking down laws that neither federal or state government has the authority to enact?

In the same way, every state should be free to exclude same-sex couples from its marriage laws.
Click to expand...
Based on what premise?

The matter does not raise any constitutional question.
Click to expand...
ONly if one does not mind certain people deprived of their freedom.

The proponents of the homosexual agenda are statists
Click to expand...
No, the proponents of the existence of homosexual agenda are ignorant bigots.
 
Really? Is that the best argument you can concoct to support bigotry? Why not try this for size? How about the Supreme Court striking down laws that neither federal or state government has the authority to enact?
Click to expand...

If your arguments were better, you would not need to rely on personally attacking people who disagree with them. And your statement about what the Supreme Court might do is not an argument at all.

Based on what premise?
Click to expand...

No premise in involved--just basic constitutional law. All the powers the states did not either cede to the United States in the Constitution, or deny to themselves, are reserved to the states. The notion that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment ever meant its guarantee of equal protection to apply to homosexual marriage does not even pass the laugh test, but statists do not give a damn about the Constitution. For them it is just a tool for making their experiments in centralized social engineering look legitimate.

ONly if one does not mind certain people deprived of their freedom.
Click to expand...

Let me get out my violin. Everyone in this country is deprived of some freedom by his state's laws every day, without those laws violating anything in the Constitution. Next you'll be trying to tell us the vehicle statute that makes you stop at red lights deprives you of your liberty of movement without due process of law.

prometeus said:
No, the proponents of the existence of homosexual agenda are ignorant bigots.
Click to expand...

The phrase is Justice Scalia's, from Lawrence v. Texas, and it is an accurate description. The fact you would slander him as an "ignorant bigot" shows just how weak your game is.


"Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct."
 
matchlight said:
If your arguments were better, you would not need to rely on personally attacking people who disagree with them. And your statement about what the Supreme Court might do is not an argument at all.



No premise in involved--just basic constitutional law. All the powers the states did not either cede to the United States in the Constitution, or deny to themselves, are reserved to the states. The notion that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment ever meant its guarantee of equal protection to apply to homosexual marriage does not even pass the laugh test, but statists do not give a damn about the Constitution. For them it is just a tool for making their experiments in centralized social engineering look legitimate.



Let me get out my violin. Everyone in this country is deprived of some freedom by his state's laws every day, without those laws violating anything in the Constitution. Next you'll be trying to tell us the vehicle statute that makes you stop at red lights deprives you of your liberty of movement without due process of law.



The phrase is Justice Scalia's, from Lawrence v. Texas, and it is an accurate description. The fact you would slander him as an "ignorant bigot" shows just how weak your game is.


"Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct."
Click to expand...

I always find it interesting that proponents of 'basic' Constitutional Law sweepingly assume that the majority of jurists, opinions, and treatises over the past century (or longer) are an aberrance. Instead it's their reversion to the state of affairs of some point in the 19th Century that is the only true and accurate form of Constitutional interpretation. Their basic reactionary nature conceal's their lack of knowledge of the Constitution, the Amendments, and their interpretations. The Constitution doesn't really mean that much to them. If we passed an amendment guaranteeing SSM tomorrow they'd be the first one's advocating a new secession. They are troglodytes who use Constitutional fidelity as a smoke screen.
 
Risky Thicket said:
However the implication and the message is: "We don't want to be associated with you. We only want your vote." There's an underlying message as well and that is that "gay people can't be Christians and we do not accept them as equals."

If anything the GOP is the "Christian" Party. Tea Partisans dominate. There is no denying that and there shouldn't be any surprise that Log Cabin would be told "No, not with us."
Click to expand...

That's what you read into it because you want to believe it... This is the roots of bigotry
 
Sherman123 said:
I always find it interesting that proponents of 'basic' Constitutional Law sweepingly assume that the majority of jurists, opinions, and treatises over the past century (or longer) are an aberrance.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what specific jurists, opinions, or treatises your sweepingly vague indictment refers to. But none of us who has studied constitutional law would assume anything so nonsensical.

Instead it's their reversion to the state of affairs of some point in the 19th Century that is the only true and accurate form of Constitutional interpretation.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you specify the 19th Century. An originalist interpretation of any provision in the Constitution looks to what the text was generally assumed to mean at the time it became law. That could be as early as 1789 or as recent as the 27th Amendment in 1992.

Their basic reactionary nature
Click to expand...

That sounds a lot like a term Marx might have used--sort of like "bourgeoisie" or "class struggle."

conceal's their lack of knowledge of the Constitution, the Amendments, and their interpretations.
Click to expand...

Yeah--that's why all that constatutional stuff on the bar exam was so confusing for me. If only I'd had your knowledge of those things!

The Constitution doesn't really mean that much to them.
Click to expand...

You must be thinking of the millions of statist dim bulbs who are now taking up space in the U.S., who share their president's contempt for the Constitution and for this country. As a conservative, I understand very well that the Constitution is the foundation of all our personal liberties.

If we passed an amendment guaranteeing SSM tomorrow they'd be the first one's advocating a new secession. They are troglodytes who use Constitutional fidelity as a smoke screen.
Click to expand...

That's at least good for a laugh. The very reason statists try to persuade judges to rewrite the Constitution to authorize their utopian social schemes is that they know full well they could never authorize them in the only legitimate way, which is by constitutional amendment.
 
matchlight said:
If your arguments were better, you would not need to rely on personally attacking people who disagree with them.
Click to expand...
It is not an attack nor is it a disagreement. To state that striking down laws is concocting a right is just plain stupid.

Let me get out my violin.
Click to expand...
Don't bother, there is already enough whining. Instead set aside your prejudices and use some objectivity.

Everyone in this country is deprived of some freedom by his state's laws every day, without those laws violating anything in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Yes, equally applied to all. Can you come up with something relevant?

The phrase is Justice Scalia's, from Lawrence v. Texas, and it is an accurate description. The fact you would slander him as an "ignorant bigot" shows just how weak your game is.
Click to expand...
No the contrary. I believe that there is the word of God and then immediately following is that of Justice Scalia.
 
matchlight said:
Yeah--that's why all that constatutional stuff on the bar exam was so confusing for me.
Click to expand...
Is that how you justify your arguments? By having been able to pass an exam? I have news for you, there are plenty of incompetents in every human endeavor who have passed even more stringent exams. Then there are those professionals who let their "work" peak for them, because they all know that boasting about ones credential on an anonymous internet forum is only worth the as much as a failed argument.

As a conservative, I understand very well that the Constitution is the foundation of all our personal liberties.
Click to expand...
Yet here you are advocating against the very thing.

That's at least good for a laugh. The very reason statists try to persuade judges to rewrite the Constitution to authorize their utopian social schemes is that they know full well they could never authorize them in the only legitimate way, which is by constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...
Right, because the freedom of some and their pursuit of happiness should be subject to mob rule. Thank God that there are still some people who do understand the real meaning of the Constitution.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=3]New Poll Shows Evangelicals Vote Democrat Too | Religion ...[/h]religiondispatches.org/new-poll-shows-evangelicals-v...


Religion Dispatches


Apr 16, 2009 - Contrary to the conventional wisdom that the GOP has a lock on white evangelical voters, 1 in 3 evangelicals voted in the Democratic primary, ...
Click to expand...

Impossible. I read on the internet (well, on this message board) that those nasty bigoted Evangelicals are the GOP base. They all vote for the GOP.
 
faithful_servant said:
That's what you read into it because you want to believe it... This is the roots of bigotry
Click to expand...

Ahhhh, no. Either gay Republicans were welcomed to exhibit at the event or they were not. Why weren't Log Cabin Republicans welcomed to exhibit?
 
Risky Thicket said:
Ahhhh, no. Either gay Republicans were welcomed to exhibit at the event or they were not. Why weren't Log Cabin Republicans welcomed to exhibit?
Click to expand...

Because the Christians running it didn't want them there. They preach same sex marriage and the Christians seem to find that message to be out of sync with what they promote at their event. It's right in the article in the OP.
 
tres borrachos said:
No matter how many times that gets mentioned in this thread, for some reason, it keeps getting ignored.[/QUOTE

Greetings, tres borrachos. :2wave:

:thumbs: I wonder why that is? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
It was not a Republican event.
Click to expand...

Correct. It was a conservative event hosted by a Christian university (I believe, right?).

though it does introduce a very problematic message. The Democrats usually don't have to do that much of demographic shifting. Largely speaking, if one of their candidates is appearing, any supporting group is basically welcome.

It doesn't impact the GOP too much, considering the Log Cabins are relatively small, and Democrats usually despise the Log Cabins because they are seen like Judas's. However, it does present an image problem for Republicans the more LGBT issues gain traction.
 
Fiddytree said:
Correct. It was a conservative event hosted by a Christian university (I believe, right?).

though it does introduce a very problematic message. The Democrats usually don't have to do that much of demographic shifting. Largely speaking, if one of their candidates is appearing, any supporting group is basically welcome.

It doesn't impact the GOP too much, considering the Log Cabins are relatively small, and Democrats usually despise the Log Cabins because they are seen like Judas's. However, it does present an image problem for Republicans the more LGBT issues gain traction.
Click to expand...

This is not a problem for Repubs in the slightest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom