• 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!

Gay Republican Group Prompts Split Among Conservatives

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Early this year, a striking scene emerged from the Conservative Political Action Conference: A speaker was essentially booed offstage when he condemned CPAC for allowing gay Republican group GOProud to participate in the conference.



The incident - which occurred at perhaps the nation's premiere conservative gathering - suggested that, after decades of demonization, gays may have finally found a place in the GOP. Further evidence came when former Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman came out of the closet - and was subsequently widely embraced by establishment Republicans.

That's right, folks. Bigots are no longer welcome in the Republican Party, but that further divides a party already in the midst of a Civil War. Want to know my take on this? There is no place for bigots in the GOP. Let the nutters and birfers have them. If they leave, I believe that the Republican Party will be better off without them, as the moderates are beginning to come home. Big tent, anyone?

Yet opposition remains to homosexuality remain strong among some conservatives. This week, two socially conservative groups, the Family Research Council and Concerned Women of America, announced that they are opting out of next year's CPAC because GOProud had been invited. The Family Research Council's Tom McClusky told far-right news website WorldNetDaily that part of the reason for the decision was CPAC's "movement away from conservative principles," as evidenced by the inclusion of GOProud.

Away from Conservative principles? I call BS on that one. Conservatism is about personal freedom and responsibility, not about the Government having the power to dictate over ANY group. But don't take it from me. Take it from Ronald Reagan who, as he was about to run for President, personally got involved in Florida's Briggs initiative, backed by Anita Bryant, which had overturned an anti discrimination law there. His forceful intervention helped to get rid of the initiative. In the wake of Reagan's intervention, the Log Cabin Republicans were formed, and became part of Reagan's Big Tent.

Here is a link to the web site of the Log Cabin Republicans.

May the Republican Party once again be the party of Ronald Reagan and his big tent, and may the bigots, birfers, and other nutters leave and never come back. They are not needed, nor are they wanted. Let them join the Skinheads, the KKK, or the Neo-Nazi party, which is where they belong.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
May the Republican Party once again be the party of Ronald Reagan and his big tent, and may the bigots, birfers, and other nutters leave and never come back. They are not needed, nor are they wanted. Let them join the Skinheads, the KKK, or the Neo-Nazi party, which is where they belong.

Amen. On the mountain top, tell it you must

YodaBackpack.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yes, I always wondered how:

"Small government!"

became

"Small government!*

*except for homos. government should interfere there."
 
Those who do not support SSM are not bigots.
 
This is really great news for LGBT rights, because if both parties are on board, then there is nothing left to stop equality from happening.
 
Those who do not support SSM are not bigots.

I think it honestly depends on WHY one does not support SSM, not simply that they don't.

I know for you it's about protecting the sanctity of marriage, and the definition of the word, but honestly, nationally, that's not what this is about.

If it was that simple, then why not have a Federal Law permitting civil unions?

And if it should be down to the states, how come the Hawaiian governor vetoed a bill that would have granted civil unions?

Hawaiian governor vetoes civil unions bill | The Upshot Yahoo! News

Honestly, let it go. It's a word, and what marriage means to the Christian church, should not mean what marriage means to a neutral, and secular government.

Whatever ones feelings are around this subject, and I Know for some it can get quite dogmatic, swallow your pride, and lets let our gay brothers and sisters, who mean us no harm at all, become as miserable as the rest of us. Why should members of the same sex, have any less right to marry if they're in love, then a scummy straight couple that married for money?

Ideally speaking of course, religious dogma should not be used to deny people rights, DOMA Is a good example of this. There's no logical reason to deny gay people the right to marry, swallow your pride, and out dated definitions, change comes, don't get left behind.

That's the word, I stick to it.

Jetboogieman.
 
Last edited:
Those who do not support SSM are not bigots.

No, but it also doesn't mean that those who do support it shouldn't have a place in the Republican Party.
 
… Bigots are no longer welcome in the Republican Party, but that further divides a party already in the midst of a Civil War. …

The three major political factions of the conservative coalition, the Libertarians including the Tea Party Movementarians, the social conservatives, and, the pro-business conservatives, are increasingly finding it difficult to get along just as they are on the threshold of power and a major stake in the governance of the land. A charismatic leader like Ronald Reagan could impose peace and unite them for that final push into the limelight but at least for now there isn't any single leader with the standing and appeal to make it happen.
 
The three major political factions of the conservative coalition, the Libertarians including the Tea Party Movementarians, the social conservatives, and, the pro-business conservatives, are increasingly finding it difficult to get along just as they are on the threshold of power and a major stake in the governance of the land. A charismatic leader like Ronald Reagan could impose peace and unite them for that final push into the limelight but at least for now there isn't any single leader with the standing and appeal to make it happen.

and it is not even 2011 yet.;)
 
I think it honestly depends on WHY one does not support SSM, not simply that they don't.

I know for you it's about protecting the sanctity of marriage, and the definition of the word, but honestly, nationally, that's not what this is about.

If it was that simple, then why not have a Federal Law permitting civil unions?

And if it should be down to the states, how come the Hawaiian governor vetoed a bill that would have granted civil unions?

Hawaiian governor vetoes civil unions bill | The Upshot Yahoo! News

Honestly, let it go. It's a word, and what marriage means to the Christian church, should not mean what marriage means to a neutral, and secular government.

Whatever ones feelings are around this subject, and I Know for some it can get quite dogmatic, swallow your pride, and lets let our gay brothers and sisters, who mean us no harm at all, become as miserable as the rest of us. Why should members of the same sex, have any less right to marry if they're in love, then a scummy straight couple that married for money?

Ideally speaking of course, religious dogma should not be used to deny people rights, DOMA Is a good example of this. There's no logical reason to deny gay people the right to marry, swallow your pride, and out dated definitions, change comes, don't get left behind.

That's the word, I stick to it.

Jetboogieman.

excellent post
I never bought into the BS of a persons OPINION on what the definition of the word marriage is, eventhough websters says same sex marriage is a marriage, I just let them think what ever they want

I also never bought in to the "sanctity of marriage" thing either because so many (not all) cry about gay marriage and they are on their 4 marriage themselves or if i went to vegas and got married by a singing Elvis or just went to the magistrate and got married they wouldnt say ONE thing, even though they SHOULD be "offended" by that too

just saying
like you said, these unfair and discriminative practices WILL go to the way side sooner or later, I wouldnt be surprised if it happened with in the decade. We are one people and need to act like it.
 
Last edited:
No, but it also doesn't mean that those who do support it shouldn't have a place in the Republican Party.


Maybe some place in the steerage right?
 
Leftists telling conservatives what they should think is risible. Leftists can't even define the full spectrum of the conservative coalition. How absurd!

If you want DOMA overturned hide your leftism. Put a bag over your collective heads so I don't think I'm cooperating with leftists. Lgbt folks are fine and entitled to full civil rights. But Leftists shouldn't be allowed to vote.
 
Leftists telling conservatives what they should think is risible. Leftists can't even define the full spectrum of the conservative coalition. How absurd!

If you want DOMA overturned hide your leftism. Put a bag over your collective heads so I don't think I'm cooperating with leftists. Lgbt folks are fine and entitled to full civil rights. But Leftists shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Honestly in real life, I read this, sighed heavily and rested my head on the table for a minute.

The sheer ignorance, hyperbole and downright absurdity of this post is positively mind blowing.
 
Honestly in real life, I read this, sighed heavily and rested my head on the table for a minute.

The sheer ignorance, hyperbole and downright absurdity of this post is positively mind blowing.

Jet, meet Albert.
 
I love how people now always refer to anyone who doesn't approve of homosexuality as a bigot. Just shows--'tolerance' means you force everyone possible to agree with you, and shower anyone who refuses with hateful speech to persuade them.

Who really has the hate, I wonder?
Ever heard of gay activist, Robert Schwab, who suggested: “If AIDS research money is not forthcoming at a certain level by a certain date, all gay males should give blood. Whatever action is required to get national attention is valid. If that includes blood terrorism, so be it.”
Or maybe we should talk about how after proposition 8 in California was passed by the voters, how homosexuals threatened to burn down Mormon temples in retaliation--how they threatened terrorism because they didn't like democracy.
 
Last edited:
Honestly in real life, I read this, sighed heavily and rested my head on the table for a minute.

The sheer ignorance, hyperbole and downright absurdity of this post is positively mind blowing.

You don't understand your enemies. If you don't understand your enemies you cannot defeat them. The Art Of War.
 
I love how people now always refer to anyone who doesn't approve of homosexuality a bigot. Just shows--'tolerance' means you force everyone possible to agree with you, and slander anyone who refuses with hate. I see a massive wave of Christophobia spreading, and I think we Christians need to do something about the epidemic of hateful, narrow minded people.

Who really has the hate, I wonder?
Ever heard of gay activist, Robert Schwab, who suggested: “If AIDS research money is not forthcoming at a certain level by a certain date, all gay males should give blood. Whatever action is required to get national attention is valid. If that includes blood terrorism, so be it.”
Or maybe we should talk about how after proposition 8 in California was passed by the voters, how homosexuals threatened to burn down Mormon temples in retaliation--how they threatened terrorism because they didn't like democracy.

Good bit of turnspeak there, but the central issus has to do with the arbitrary nature of the prejudice involved. If there were actually some reason for denying gay people the same rights as everybody else, or viewing them negatively because they violate some sort of basic golden rule, that would be one thing, but there is no real reason for the prejudice other than "it was taught and never questioned".

As far as Christians are concerned, my advice would be to actually follow Jesus' teachings. It might make life much better for all concerned.
 
I love how people now always refer to anyone who doesn't approve of homosexuality a bigot. Just shows--'tolerance' means you force everyone possible to agree with you, and slander anyone who refuses with hate. I see a massive wave of Christophobia spreading, and I think we Christians need to do something about the epidemic of hateful, narrow minded people.

Who really has the hate, I wonder?
Ever heard of gay activist, Robert Schwab, who suggested: “If AIDS research money is not forthcoming at a certain level by a certain date, all gay males should give blood. Whatever action is required to get national attention is valid. If that includes blood terrorism, so be it.”
Or maybe we should talk about how after proposition 8 in California was passed by the voters, how homosexuals threatened to burn down Mormon temples in retaliation--how they threatened terrorism because they didn't like democracy.

LMAO!!!
im not gay but im going to do a gay sterotype "hellooooooo thats some people not allllllll of them, save the drama for your mama"

jeez

if you want tolerance this is how yuou think about it

if gay rights are passed NOTHING is forced on you, everybody gets to marry or not marry
if you (if you are against gay rights) get your way only the people YOU want to get married can get married

so yes the first way it the tolerant way and your is NOT

crazy are on both sides no need to judge them whole by a couple
you seem to be complaining about what you just did?
 
LMAO!!!
im not gay but im going to do a gay sterotype "hellooooooo thats some people not allllllll of them, save the drama for your mama"

jeez

if you want tolerance this is how yuou think about it

if gay rights are passed NOTHING is forced on you, everybody gets to marry or not marry
if you (if you are against gay rights) get your way only the people YOU want to get married can get married

so yes the first way it the tolerant way and your is NOT

crazy are on both sides no need to judge them whole by a couple
you seem to be complaining about what you just did?

I'm sorry... but I'm not sure what you're saying. Grammar would help a ton.
Here, since you can't understand my point, I'll flip places so you can grasp what I'm saying: if a conservative Christian posts something about a gay rights bill, say, in California, if the person has courtesy, they'll say, "As a Chritian, I'm sure pleased that proposition 8 passed."
If they don't have courtesy, they'll say, "This shows the faggots that even the most liberal state in the union still recognizes values and that these mentally disturbed people are not normal. A good step for our nation!"
Do you see the difference?

I keep thinking of that movie "Troy," and that conversation King Priam has with Achilles.
"If I do this, it doesn't change anything. We're still enemies in the morning."
"We're still enemies now... but even enemies can show each other respect."
 
As far as Christians are concerned, my advice would be to actually follow Jesus' teachings. It might make life much better for all concerned.

Jesus also made a whip and chased merchants out of the temple, because they had turned a sacred place into a market.
Not to mention that he says that when he comes back, it will be to dish out judgment against everyone who isn't a Christian. In addition, he advised his disciples to arm themselves.
 
If you have to ask, you are already lost.

And you have made no solid point or contribution to this thread.

So do yourself a favour, stop ducking and dodging when you've been absurd and moronic, and perhaps say something with some substance.
 
I'm sorry... but I'm not sure what you're saying. Grammar would help a ton.
Here, since you can't understand my point, I'll flip places so you can grasp what I'm saying: if a conservative Christian posts something about a gay rights bill, say, in California, if the person has courtesy, they'll say, "As a Chritian, I'm sure pleased that proposition 8 passed."
If they don't have courtesy, they'll say, "This shows the faggots that even the most liberal state in the union still recognizes values and that these mentally disturbed people are not normal. A good step for our nation!"
Do you see the difference?

I keep thinking of that movie "Troy," and that conversation King Priam has with Achilles.
"If I do this, it doesn't change anything. We're still enemies in the morning."
"We're still enemies now... but even enemies can show each other respect."

Still, holding the view that LGBT shouldn't be allowed to marry is being intolerant, you can say that is intolerant of your views but tolerance is about not accepting the intolerance of people. Now if SSM is allowed you lose nothing, and we get equal rights under the law, now if it outlawed you lose nothing, but we lose equal protection under the law. That is where the intolerance is coming from, you lose nothing in either scenario, but you wish to deny people to be able to live their lives as fully as you under the law.
 
Back
Top Bottom