Gay Group "Log Cabin" Throws Fit

[HGROKIT]

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

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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.

 

[DKSuddeth]

wow, this article certainly isnt partisan at all.

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.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

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."

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).

 

[HGROKIT]

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.

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...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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...

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.

 

[HGROKIT]

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.

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.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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.

My agenda?

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

 

[KarlMarx]

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.

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.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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.

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.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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.

It is not "gay people" versus those with "strong family values".

The REAL issue is activist judges versus the Constitution.

Left wing liberals are just using the foolish gay lobby to implement their own agenda.

 

[007]

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.

So the people of the conservative party that want to keep marriage what it has been for thousands of years already are now RADICAL?! Why do you insinuate the faggot problem is THEIR doing?

You piss me off bad when you turn this issue around like that. You slap NORMAL, DECENT people in the face with that zealot, political talk of yours IN SUPPORT of faggots and THEIR SICK, RADICAL, PERVERTED LIFESTYLE.

Fuck their vote. The Republican Party doesn't need it.

 

[Avatar4321]

So the people of the conservative party that want to keep marriage what it has been for thousands of years already are now RADICAL?! Why do you insinuate the faggot problem is THEIR doing?

You piss me off bad when you turn this issue around like that. You slap NORMAL, DECENT people in the face with that zealot, political talk of yours IN SUPPORT of faggots and THEIR SICK, RADICAL, PERVERTED LIFESTYLE.

Fuck their vote. The Republican Party doesn't need it.

Your right. we dont need their Vote. All we need is 51% of the votes. and we have them. We dont need to expand the party by compromising on basic values of civilization. If they want to risk being destroy by terrorists just so they can pretend to be like everyone else, thats their choice.

 

[DKSuddeth]

So the people of the conservative party that want to keep marriage what it has been for thousands of years already are now RADICAL?! Why do you insinuate the faggot problem is THEIR doing?

You piss me off bad when you turn this issue around like that. You slap NORMAL, DECENT people in the face with that zealot, political talk of yours IN SUPPORT of faggots and THEIR SICK, RADICAL, PERVERTED LIFESTYLE.

Fuck their vote. The Republican Party doesn't need it.

ah, republicans. the party of inclusion.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So the people of the conservative party that want to keep marriage what it has been for thousands of years already are now RADICAL?! Why do you insinuate the faggot problem is THEIR doing?

You piss me off bad when you turn this issue around like that. You slap NORMAL, DECENT people in the face with that zealot, political talk of yours IN SUPPORT of faggots and THEIR SICK, RADICAL, PERVERTED LIFESTYLE.

Fuck their vote. The Republican Party doesn't need it.

Now is not is not the time to alienate anyone, especially when the possibilty of a Kerry presdency looms on the horizon.

I have a lot of problems with gay activists, don't get me wrong. We need every vote we can get, however.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Your right. we dont need their Vote. All we need is 51% of the votes. and we have them. We dont need to expand the party by compromising on basic values of civilization. If they want to risk being destroy by terrorists just so they can pretend to be like everyone else, thats their choice.

There are plenty of good, decent, pro american, capitalistic gay people. Let's not cause them to hate us.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Your right. we dont need their Vote. All we need is 51% of the votes. and we have them. We dont need to expand the party by compromising on basic values of civilization. If they want to risk being destroy by terrorists just so they can pretend to be like everyone else, thats their choice.

so, as long as their vote isn't needed, you have no use for a special interest group. how........conservative of you.

 

[nakedemperor]

Here's your erosion and desanctification: gay cooties.

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20040905

 

[Avatar4321]

so, as long as their vote isn't needed, you have no use for a special interest group. how........conservative of you.

First rule of politics, There is no reason to compromise your principles to get voters you dont need. If everyone did that, we'd have alot of John Kerry's floating around.

 

[DKSuddeth]

First rule of politics, There is no reason to compromise your principles to get voters you dont need. If everyone did that, we'd have alot of John Kerry's floating around.

which goes back to some earlier posts I made last week......If a person or group has 5 of the 6 beliefs of the party, but that last one is a total opposite, they aren't true conservatives or republicans.