Gay Group "Log Cabin" Throws Fit

Discussion in 'Politics' started by HGROKIT, Sep 8, 2004.

  1. HGROKIT
    Offline

    HGROKIT Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Thanks Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Federal Way WA, USA
    Ratings:
    +19
    This group calls themselves Republicans and apparently threw a hissy fit recently.------

    Gay Republicans' 'Big Tent' Act Fails to Hide Real Agenda
    Bob Knight
    Culture and Family Institute


    September 8, 2004

    If there was any doubt about whether the Log Cabin Republicans, or LCR, belong in the GOP's "big tent," it was resolved this week. They don't.

    LCR, which is trying to make the GOP safe for sodomy, first became conflicted when President Bush endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment. They threw what amounted to a hissy fit, announcing that they weren't sure they would back the president in November. Some Log Cabin leaders, such as District of Columbia City Councilman David Catania, even yanked photos of the president off the wall. Take that!

    But the LCR outdid itself when, during the GOP convention, it unveiled a 30-second TV commercial that is right out of a textbook by radical, left-wing homosexual activists.

    The ad begins with a clip of Ronald Reagan saying that he hoped that history would "record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears." Then the ad moves on to images of Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan and Rick Santorum, noting that these kinds of folks would divide "the GOP with an intolerant social agenda based on fear and exclusion."


    Full Story
     
  2. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    You gay bashers need to give up on this anti gay agenda. WHich is more harmful, communism or homos? communism. Let's let these gay people into our party with open arms. Gay marriage will not erode family values. How could it? Someone please explain to me how that erosion occurs? Putting this in the constitution is unnecessary.
     
  3. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    wow, this article certainly isnt partisan at all. :rolleyes:

    I've read about this issue in 4 different articles, I wouldn't call it a 'hissy fit' any more than I'd call John Kerry a top notch swift boat commander. They have an issue with the proposal for amending the constitution and haven't decided whether they are backing bush or not and the pundits crawl out of the woodwork. Pathetic.
     
  4. tim_duncan2000
    Offline

    tim_duncan2000 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Messages:
    694
    Thanks Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +66
    Pat Buchanan? Plenty of Republicans disagree with a lot of his stances. I know I sure disagree with a lot of them.

    I also disagree with a lot of what Falwell says (like his comments after 9/11. Why couldn't he just focus on the asshole terrorists instead of bringing gays and abortion supporters into the picture?)

    However, I'm not ready to call same-sex unions "marriage". For thousands of years this was not called a marriage. Why should it be called that now? What if a majority is against it? I'm not saying that it's the most important issue (it's not one for me; national security and many other issues are more important).
     
  5. HGROKIT
    Offline

    HGROKIT Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Thanks Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Federal Way WA, USA
    Ratings:
    +19
    It was merely a post of something I ran across. Not sure how that consitutes gay bashing or raises insinuations of communism - but oh well - some can spin anything to fit their agenda or make inflammatory remarks. But if the Log fits...
    :mm:
     
  6. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    My point is we're giving power to the socialist libs when we exclude otherwise conservative, capitalistic, pro american gay people from our party with a radical social agenda.
     
  7. HGROKIT
    Offline

    HGROKIT Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Thanks Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Federal Way WA, USA
    Ratings:
    +19
    Then why didn't you JUST make your point for the sake of discussion rather than the inflammatory communistic and gay bashing crap. Becasue you didn't want discourse - you wanted to promote your agenda.
     
  8. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    My agenda?

    Dude. Take a pill. I'm sorry my initial post wasn't as clear as it could have been.
     
  9. KarlMarx
    Offline

    KarlMarx Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Thanks Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    ...
    Ratings:
    +490
    Let's assume that we allow gay marriage. If we allow marriage between two men or two women, what is to stop, the marriage of man to his father or a woman to her daughter? Why stop there? Why not allow marriage between adults and children? After all, the whole premise of gay marriage is that it is a right and that by not allowing two men or two women to marry is a violation of those rights. But then, if marriage is a right, why can't incest be a right? Or pedophilia?

    Secondly, what body made marriage a right? The judiciary. But how were rights granted to people in the past? By amending the Constitution (the right to free speech - 1st amendment, the abolition of slavery - 18th amendment, women's suffrage - 19th amendment). In each case, the Congress must pass the amendment by a 2/3 majority and 2/3 of the states must ratify the amendment within a certain period of years. That is how rights are supposed to granted in our form of government, not by a judges's say so.

    By allowing gay marriage, you not only open the door to a lot of other, socially destructive behaviors, you also short circuit the mechanism that is already in place to grant rights to people. The real problem is a judiciary that thinks it can create laws when it is not given that power under the Constitution.

    How does that erode family values? What is marriage for? To raise children and have families. Gays cannot have children, nor can they form families. In countries where gay marriage is already legal, the divorce rate has continued to rise, that erodes families too. Some studies in the past have suggested that children that are raised by gays are more likely to become gay themselves (10% as opposed to the 1-2% in the general population).

    Is that gay bashing? Call it what you will. But those are the facts and if the facts paint a less than complimentary picture of the gay lifestyle, then that's merely the truth, not bashing.
     
  10. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    I don't buy it. What gay people do has no effect on those who have strong family values. It's just not worth alienating these voters and perhaps sending them to kerry during wartimes.

    Now. If you want to talk about the radical homos who want to teach gayness in school alongside the basics of reproduction oriented sex, that I have a problem with.
     

Share This Page