Breitbart.tv

truth hurts i guess… bring it! i love it too!

don’t know much about the guy, but he makes a good, concise, rational argument provided you agree with the premise that human rights stem ultimately from human nature… Personally, I prefer the way it was stated in the declaration of independence – that we are all endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, so ultimately, rights come from God, who I think is a bit more of a reliable source than human nature.

i wonder if he tries to have a baby every time he winds up kissing his wife.

Way to go, Sorba. You’ve made an ass of yourself, turned a legitimate conference (and your valuable 2-minute speaking opportunity) into a circus, and given fodder to left-wing media outlets to paint our conference as a bunch of hateful loons.

I hope your political career goes the way of Jim McGreevey.

What an idiot!

Right on. Finally a man who speaks the ruth and kicks the snot out of the PC windbags who continue to give a pass to the gay crowd as if it’s a normal behavior rather than a perverted and abnormal lifestyle. CPAC should be condemned for that type of butt kissing.

He’s wrong on one point… natural rights are grounded in the law of “Nature’s God” as the founding documents declare. And they meant the God of the Bible.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Romans 1:26-27

that recompence of their error which was meet = PAYMENT that was fit for their ABOMINABLE sin = AIDS

Amen, I dislike gays and I’m a proud conservative. All us conservatives should band together and blah blah blah blah.

I hope your children get aids.

Unfortunately, propagandistically, the Left has the upper hand here. Here comes the Republican implosion–again.

…and the coveted “Most Eye-Rolls” award goes to……

Reproduction is the natural product of a natural relationship.

It’s fact, what’s wrong with fact?

Why is a gay group invited to a conservative event? I’m not getting this. What in the world is happening? The gay community is the minority here…we can’t let the mob rule.

Does conservative even have a backbone to stand with anymore?

God said be fruitful and multiply, and homosexuality is at a huge loss in that department.

Every rational person in there heart knows homosexuality is a perversion of natural order. Morons boo the truth.

STOP STEALING WORDS YA PERVERTED FREAKS!

Webster,

Gay
GAY, a.

Merry; airy; jovial; sportive; frolicksome.

Sodomite
SOD’OMITE, n.

One guilty of sodomy

Sodomy
SOD’OMY, n.

A crime against nature

It seems that some groups are less tolerant than others.
Is free speech dead? Can’t someone express their personal opinion about homosexuality?
Certainly homosexuals express their opinion about Christians all the time, usually quite negatively.
I think we all have to learn to live with it. You cannot force or legislate personal opinion.
When homosexuals can read the bible and understand the Christian viewpoint, then we can start a dialogue. It’s a two-way street.
The speaker was simply stating the obvious – homosexuals exist only because of heterosexuals procreating.
The First Amendment is sacrosanct, and if we don’t tolerate the opinions of others, then we arrive at Fascism and anarchy.

For the spelling police, (Their).

Like J. Edgar Hoover, Eugene McCarthy, Sen. Larry Craig, Rep. Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Rep. Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy,Jr and too many more to list, this guy will be caught wide-stancing in a men’s restroom. Straight men just don’t care that much.

there is no fear, somehow, I don’t see Jesus speaking to the lepers, sinners and the other social outcasts of his day the way you are speaking about and to gays ……

A more loving approach would be in order…..I mean if you are seeking to be more like Christ as called. I mean….he was openly critical of the overly religious and dined with the sinners.

You seem to hang with the brood types….vipers that is

Like J. Edgar Hoover, JOSEPH McCarthy, Sen. Larry Craig, Rep. Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Rep. Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy,Jr and too many more to list, this guy will be caught wide-stancing in a men’s restroom. Straight men just don’t care that much.

Such a pity. Thanks to the entrenched, two-headed political party, we’re left to choose between Stalinesque collectivism and servitude under the Democrat Party; corporatism, interventionism and the type of insane theocracy demonstrated in this video under the Republicans; or having no voice at all in our government by either staying home, or voting for a 3rd party. The Republicans continue to blow one golden opportunity after another to take control from the left and lead this country back to Constitutional principles. I guess it’ll take a successful 3rd party, if it will ever happen at all. These are sad days for our Republic.

I don’t get it ?
So a bunch of girlie boy rump rangers showed up to protest a speaker – what’s new about that ?

seems like the protestors a mad they missed mens figure skating

Freedom of opinion, but in this politically correct asylum, aka the U.S.A., some opinions are freer than others!

rump rangers are so pathetic

The production crew of AC369 thought that was very funny – http://www.CREWCLUB.net

Tea Party and Conservatives should stick to the big four pillars: Constitutional government, Fiscal responsibility, Limited government, National security. That’s a pretty big tent, gays pay lots of taxes too. We need all the help we can get.

It’s a huge mistake to get bogged down in social issues. Save the country first.

.

What the hell is wrong with CPAC booing this guy for telling the truth.

I guess the GOP has a loooooong way to go before they really understand what true conservatism is.

There is no place for us to go.

I thought the dude made himself look like a moron, but he has a right to be an idiot I guess.

I’m a person that says if someone else wants to do something that doesn’t affect me and isn’t harming someone else, so be it. Natural Rights come from God or the God of Nature (if you don’t believe in a God or Deity). We possess all of the rights and we only give up a few (too many) rights to gov’t so as to protect our rights.

I personally don’t understand why two people of the same sex are attracted to themselves, but that’s my belief. I don’t have the right to enforce my beliefs on anyone else and if I do, it’s an act of oppression. If a particular religion or doctrine does not recognize the right of two people of the same sex to be joined, go form your own religion and beliefs and make sure you don’t infringe on my rights and I’ll do likewise.

I believe that folks have the right to determine in their own state or local province the laws they wish to follow that represent their values. If you don’t like or agree with those laws, you have the right to move somewhere else to a place that does reflect your values.

We are a diverse nation with different cultures, values, and customs. Personally I think that’s a good thing and the reason I love liberty.

Nature is the stage and backdrop where God works His work of redemption!

My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Ezekiel 37:27

That is only ONE of the MANY stupid errors your fumbling ‘founders’ made!

Or do tell, where were men’s inalienable rights before the eighteenth century?

Enlightenment (Age of Enlightenment)
http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/enlight-body.html

An intellectual movement which began in England in the seventeenth century, but then spread to have eventual influence over all sections of the world. The term “Enlightenment,” rooted in an intellectual skepticism to traditional beliefs and dogmas, denotes an “illumined” contrast to the supposed dark and superstitious character of the Middle Ages. From its inception, the Enlightenment focused on the power and goodness of human rationality. Some of the more characterisitic doctrines of the Enlightenment are: 1) Reason is the most significant and positive capacity of the human; 2) reason enables one to break free from primitive, dogmatic, and superstitious beliefs holding one in the bonds of irrationality and ignorance; 3) in realizing the liberating potential of reason, one not only learns to think correctly, but to act correctly as well; 4) through philosophical and scientific progress, reason can lead humanity as a whole to a state of earthly perfection; 5) reason makes all humans equal and, therefore, deserving of equal liberty and treatment before the law; 6) beliefs of any sort should be accepted only on the basis of reason, and not on traditional or priestly authority; and 7) all human endeavors should seek to impart and develop knowledge, not feelings or character.

He spoke the truth.

Doing a http://www.LIVESHOT.cc on CNN tonight…just got the call!

“The intelligible end of the reproductive act is reproduction.”

What has this statement to do with the Constitution? What has this statement to do with government?

Why do conservative (and liberal) heterosexuals keep having these homosexual children? If there is a problem with that, it seems to me the heterosexual parents are the cause, no?

T0AD February 19th, 2010 – 6:00 pm
i wonder if he tries to have a baby every time he winds up kissing his wife.

I wonder if you prefer sticking your parts up where the sun don’t shine and you
are only interested in selfish hedonistic pleasure.

Hedonism is often the root of what is called by practitioners something more rosy, such as fairness, equality and freedom.
However, it is almost always accompanied by those same practitioners of the most intolerant and unfair treatment of anyone
that disagrees with them. For example, if you have equal access to a political system, the hedonist will be ok with cheating
the system and cheating their fellow man to obtain what they happily call fairness. If the general public determines that
what is best for children, society and well balanced living is marriage between just one male and one female, hedonists will
use all manner of dirty tricks, cheats, intolerance and often violence to force people to accept their view as the correct view.

And it is invariable as more of what the hedonists want is implemented then they get more bold, and more hard hearted and
start demanding and justifying that s-e-x with children should also be accepted as normal and non-threatening. This has
been the pattern of hedonists since the beginning of recorded history.

Looks like -Will And Grace- has gone mainstream.

“Go-Pride” what is it they are proud of?
And is there any other group there which refers to such things in their name?

While there are no doubt some good conservative Gay folks, as a group their social goals run contrary to most Americans and certainly most on the Right.

They should be allowed in the hall but not as an organized group.

NOQTR4TR8RS February 19th, 2010 – 7:08 pm
“The intelligible end of the reproductive act is reproduction.”

What has this statement to do with the Constitution? What has this statement to do with government?

A thinking person would understand that there is a generally accepted social norm, and that that is what drives and determines
the rightness and wrongness of any law, which law the US Constitution is all about. Laws, as defined and accepted by the US
Constitution are divided up into Federal, State and local community levels. The US constitution is aware of the fact that people
will join together and agree, in their respective divisions, of what law makes the most sense for their given communities.

can’t argue with him. I don’t have anything against gays but why do they have to push their agendas and “marriage” crap down everyone’s throat?! damn homos.

mojo February 19th, 2010 – 6:31 pm
Tea Party and Conservatives should stick to the big four pillars: Constitutional government, Fiscal responsibility, Limited government, National security. That’s a pretty big tent, gays pay lots of taxes too. We need all the help we can get.

It’s a huge mistake to get bogged down in social issues. Save the country first.

I agree with most of your posts but on this issue, part of limited government is to now allow any specialized group to force their views of marriage, abortion, punishment for murder or other lawmakers, not become Federal law, where one size fits all. So it is part of the main pillar of conservatism.

Freedom of opinion? Freedom to be an idiot.

I’m so glad to see that they booed this jackA$$ off stage. Good job fellow conservatives and freedom lovers.

I’m still confused about HOW it is that two men or two women marry, that somehow infringes upon my individual liberties granted to me by our creator?

Amazing… Some of you creeps really need to get with the program. I know I know, poo poo sex is dirty and it freaks you out. Guess what, too bad. It’s not your business.

quote:
why do they have to push their agendas and “marriage” crap down everyone’s throat?!

Because you idiot, Like the gays, we also don’t like the imperial federal government telling us what we can or can not do…

Get with the program!

They want preferential treatment based on what they do with their genitals!

They want rights based on perversions.

The pedophiles will do the same thing as the sodomites and lesbians, will you belive the pedophile when he tells you he’s normal?

@kmichaels,

“A thinking person would understand…”
I consider myself a thinking person, hence the question, so let’s be civil.

‘… that there is a generally accepted social norm, and that that is what drives and determines
the rightness and wrongness of any law, which law the US Constitution is all about.”
So any law that permits any behavior outside the “generally accepted social norm” is wrong? If that is what you’re saying, it seems vague to the point of being unenforceable, and dangerous in the way of precedent. I disagree with the last part of that statement too. The Constitution was created to specifically define what the purpose, scope and purview of the Federal government was to be; and to strictly limit that government to those purposes and those purposes only, lest it become tyrannical. It was then amended, adding a Bill of Rights, without which, it’s ratification was impossible.

“The US constitution is aware of the fact that people will join together and agree, in their respective divisions, of what law makes the most sense for their given communities.”

Not to nitpick, but the Constitution is a document, and is not “aware” of anything, but I get your meaning, and I agree. It’s noteworthy that the guarantee of the states’ sovereignty you describe are contained in the Bill of Rights.

I love to have civil, productive discussion about our Constitution. But all of this doesn’t answer my original question.

What makes an act a sin?
Isn’t it a requisite that you be in full knowledge of what you do, and in with free will to choose to do otherwise? If you do not know you do can’t commit a sin, if you are not free to choose to act differently you can’t commit a sin. Can homosexual people choose not to be what they are? Can Straight people choose to be gay?
Gays are born to be attracted to men, as Straight men are born to be attracted to women.
Both Straight and Gay men are children of God and they both are called to live holy lives according to their nature.
These are hard topics that challenge ones understanding of the Scriptures. But one truth YOU (whether Straight or Gay) should never forget is this: GOD LOVES YOU!

He made a fool out of himself. People like him are the reason that moderate to conservative gays feel like they still need to vote Democrat. He just cost conservatism a number of very useful votes with his sad tirade based on personal issues. It’s ironic too, because he sounded to me as if he had quite a lisp and I couldn’t help but notice how limp his wrists seemed at the end of the clip. Brings Ted Haggard to mind.

Why do people that are supportive or even just tolerant of homosexuals refuse to discuss the actual act of male on male homosexual relations? I have found that while debating with hetrosexuals (that claim to support homosexual rights), if you begin to graphicly describe the act(s) itself, using proper anatomical terms they tend to get really freaked out. If you ask them why that bothers them they say because it is “weird” or “sick”. I always ask them if they feel that way about homosexual sex, why do they support it? I usually win that one!

This is not the time to fight the culture wars. Homosexuals who share other conservative ideals are allies, not enemies.

Jeez, put the Bible DOWN for a few minutes. Look around at the disaster Obama has made out of America. Who cares if they have teh buttsecks!??

who were the eastern douche bags booing this guy? and who is the group he was talking about, is it a conservative group or left wing homosexual group?

there is no freedom without morality. to think otherwise is to be as much a douche liberal as the leftists who have already thrown their morality under the bus to enlarge their “tent.” when truth compromises with a lie the truth always loses.

Again, all he said was fact…aka the truth.

When it’s the truth, we shouldn’t compromise that just to get votes.

No wonder society is decaying. Appeasement for the few destroys the fabric of society for all.

No one here would be posting at all if either one of their parents CHOSE to be gay. Same sex couples can not Procreate because it’s not natural.

Facts are stubborn things…they are what they are.

NOQTR4T8RS

1) So any law that permits any behavior outside the “generally accepted social norm” is wrong?

You asked what it had to do with the US Constitution. I explained that the Constitution acknowledges three general levels of freedoms and control/restrictions (law)
Federal, State, and then smaller.

Marriage laws have historically been in the realm of State rights and is defined different by different states. There is no absolute wrong or right regarding marriage laws, other than the legal issues, acknowledged by both the US constitution and the various states themselves.

The US constitution specifies that any right not mentioned in the US constitution remains with the states and the individuals. Since marriage is a societal recognition of a contractual agreement, states impose what they consider their own state’s societal norms. So they will vary by state. Other categories that reside with the states legally, in addition to marriage laws, is punishment for broken laws, including murder, abortion (until federal definitions were forced upon the states) drivers licenses, drug use, legal and illegal, etc.

The problem with gay rights, as they are discussed, is that one group has one set of values and the majority has another set of values. Legally, as is established by the US constitution states choose what the norms are based on the values of the majority, for the most part, with some checks and balances.

Gays are upset that their norms, as they define them, are not the majority norms, as the majority defines them, so they take various tacts to change things. One approach, contrary to the spirit and wording of the US constitution, is to force their definition at a federal level, similar to abortion. And we have seen how contentious abortion continues to be. The other approach is to change state laws, one by one.

Conservatives are generally upset at the gay community in that they seem to have no respect for the legal rights of others in society (the majority) that disagree with their views. The additional complication is that marriage benefits involve tax money being spent to subsidize various aspects of peoples lives, and the majority has, currently, decided that they don’t want to subsidize certain lifestyles that they see as more damaging for society than helpful.

Personally, if all there was to worry about was can gays call themselves married, then I say sure, why not. Call yourselves cantaloupes and walk only on your hands. I don’t care. However if you call yourself a cantaloupe and require me to pay you money for the privilege of it then that is where most conservatives draw the line.

This is not about marriage or the definition of it. As they say, follow the money. This is about wanting to be subsidized by tax money for your life style. Of course, one can say we subsidize lots of things. And yes, unfortunately we do. These are known as social programs, which should never have been started in the first place since any forced charity is wrong, morally, in my book. But reality dictates that we fight for where tax money goes and some want it to go to subsidize gays choices and the majority does not.

The smartest decision, in my book, is to drop all social benefits and let charity go back to a matter of personal choice and not Federally forced upon us. But since politicians thrive off of pandering to special interests and that Federal income tax had become law, this allows divisions to be exaggerated while different groups fight for more of the taxpayers money.

swimz February 19th, 2010 – 7:39 pm
I know I know, poo poo sex is dirty and it freaks you out. Guess what, too bad. It’s not your business.

HEY STUPID, THAT POO POO SEX CAUSES DISEASES THAT HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES RAISES MY/OUR RATES TO PAY FOR!

THEY DIE YOUNGER, WITH LONG DRAWN OUT ILLNESSES

THAT IS FACT

AND THAT IS WHY IT IS YOUR BUSINESS!

As to the US constitution, historically, George Washington and John Adams commented generally that it was written for a generally moral group of people and without general morality it is simply a worthless piece of paper. Conservatives seem to be more keenly concerned about moral standards than do today’s liberals. So there are many legal battles going on in that regards. Statistically 40% of the USA call themselves conservative while 19% call themselves liberal. This leaves another 40% that go by terms such as independent. Generally speaking, the USA seems to be leaning towards conservatism, but nothing is cut and dried. And we have lots of variables such as what form of reporting and media is considered the most credible. Again, the conservative station Fox gets two or three times the viewership of the liberal stations. That shows to some degree that the majority tends to lean towards conservative norms. However, it will always be an ongoing battle that moves left and right over time. Some say that Rome moved too far left and that is what caused their destruction. Others of course, mostly leftists, will not acknowledge it.

Yea, he’s totally gay.

I don’t know … I’m more worried about Muslims in our military and shooting troops dead and trying to poison their food supply than ‘gay’ republicans.

But I guess that’s just me.

That idiot needs to be removed from my party. No room for bigots like him.

What people do in the privacy of their bedrooms does not interest me. But when people define themselves, solely by the way they use (abuse) their genitalia, and form groups of people who are “proud” of what they do and attempt to spread their lifestyle around, then they are treading on other people.
If they cannot understand that most people for most of the time the world has existed have discouraged and shunned this kind of lifestyle, then they have a problem. In the bedroom does not bother most of us, but in public and to proselytize what they do and to force schools to teach that all lifestyles are equal when they are not is why many people do not like them.

Without heterosexuals, homosexuals would die out. Put a bunch of homosexual men on an island and soon the island becomes unpopulated. It’s that simple and that obvious. Ditto with a bunch of lesbians. They do not reproduce and therefore, even in the atheistic Darwinian sense, they have no real value.
And it’s time for everyone to take back the word, “gay” and make it heterosexual again. The Fred Astaire movie, “The Gay Divorce” was not about homosexuals. When a group co-opts a word, they take control of the debate. It’s time to take the word, “gay” back and “straighten” it out.

@ LoneSurvivor February 19th, 2010 – 9:05 pm

No, it’s not just you!

@ kmichaels,

Now that is an excellent, succinct, well written post! I don’t see a single thing within it on which we disagree.

However, my original question – and it is an open one, not directed at you necessarily – remains unanswered. It is quite specific. And that is:

What has this statement to do with the Constitution? What has this statement to do with government?
“The intelligible end of the reproductive act is reproduction.”

The answer is, it has NOTHING to do with the Constitution whatsoever, and NOTHING to do with the Federal government, nor should it. I also assert that it should have nothing to do with ANY government, because government by it’s very nature, is control. It is force. And no society could ever mandate, or enforce, that sex be strictly for he purpose of reproduction, while calling itself free. I also believe that the statement is factually incorrect, or at the very least, totally subjective.

As Voltaire stated, “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms”. So, if we agree that the operative term in Sorba’s statement for the purpose of our discussion is “intelligible”, and if we further agree that suitable definitions for the operative word are, “able to be understood” and “comprehensible”, then we can reasonably paraphrase his statement thusly:

“The (only) end of the reproductive act that is able to be understood is reproduction.” Or, more clearly stated, “The (only) comprehensible end of the reproductive act is reproduction.” While he may believe that, I assert that most of our society does not. Hence, his view is likely not the “accepted social norm”.

I asked my question because while Sorba, CPAC, the GOP, and conservatives can believe whatever they choose, they do not have the right, in my opinion, morally or legally, to force compliance with that belief using the force of any government – Federal, State, or local, so long as the parties involved are discreet, consenting adults of sound mind, and no one is in any way victimized. And Sorba’s statement leaves little doubt that this type of enforced moral code is exactly what he, and a number of other conservatives support.

Yes, let’s just live and let live. And next year maybe we can have some NMBLA GOPers who also want to be accepted.

Hey, as long as they’re fiscal conservatives, why not? That’s all that really matters, right?

Democrats – the Debauchery Party!

Republicans – Debauchery Light!

Y’all need to learn a new word, Republicans: “Libertarianism.” Otherwise, you’re going to the trashheap of history, right alongside Marxism and the Klan.

One can support limited government, flat taxes and the right to bear arms — and I do — while learning to mind your own business what people do in their personal lives. I’m not gay, but I truly don’t care what freedom loving Americans do in their sex lives as long as they stay out of mine … and that includes religious Nazi-types like the dumb jock in this video.

If I weren’t an atheist, I’d actually look forward to spending eternity in the(non-existent) hell this pinhead thinks I’m headed to: hot chicks, cool music and best of all … NO CHRISTIANS OR MUSLIMS!

* To whom it may concern…

NMBLA = CRIME

What you do in the privacy of your home with consenting adult. = YOUR BUSINESS

gay IS a religion of perverted SEX.

DEMOCRATSCHEAT, if it’s such a crime, why don’t you go tell Obama’s safe school czar, Kevin Jennings who has advocated for such debauchery and is now in a position of authority….placed there by the president himself.

Yesterday’s crimes are today’s virtues! Yippeee for debauchery!

Consenting adults….yeah right! That’s your standard eh? Tell it to your messiah pres.

Here’s some truth.

No one has a right to marriage, period. Marriage itself is a spiritual union between two people recognized by a certain faith or religion. People do have a right to CONTRACT through whatever means that is (save forms of slavery). Personally, the courts, law, and tax code if it wanted to be fair would recognize those who wanted to voluntarily contract. That does not mean that it would force any changes to force religions to do anything since each religion follows it’s own customs, beliefs, and traditions. I am a Catholic and believe that 2 Catholics who want to marry should be a man and a woman. That’s my belief as a Catholic.

For Liberty!

@DebaucheryOnParade,

“…next year maybe we can have some NMBLA GOPers who also want to be accepted.”

Wish I had an ounce of silver for every time I heard this non-sequitur. Homosexuality between consenting adults, (as repulsive as the mechanics of it is to me), does not equal child molestation. The difference is, obviously, the ability to give consent. One is a consensual act, the other a violent crime.

FWIW, I support castration and life imprisonment with no parole for molesters of young children, and for violent rapists on the first offense. For the second offense, I support public hanging by the neck until dead. The recidivism rate would drop considerably I believe. And I believe it is fully Constitutional, despite the what the likes of Justice Ginsberg, et al, decide.

I refuse to be bound by the chains of political correctness. So I fully admit that I have some fun at the pillow biters’ expense at times. It’s all in good fun, and I don’t do it in a way to hurt anyone. I can take what I dish out. But although I find the thought of homosexual acts, especially between men, to be completely repugnant, (ever imagine someone like Barney Frank doin’ the nasty?), it doesn’t constitute a crime with a victim, now matter how you slice it.

So ANDY, if I took my horse down to the court house and asked if I could enter into a contract with my horse, the judge should say ok? I mean, if it in some way benefited me financially for tax purposes why shouldn’t such a marital contract be granted?

Yes sireeee, life is a carnival. Come one, come all. Pick your debauchery and come on down for validation!

NICE! This guy is a hero. Homosexuals (perverts) have infiltrated both parties and the “conservative” cause.

i’m glad everyone booed his dumbass.

Hey,DebaucheryOnParade…

You need to stay out of people’s private lives and their bedrooms…

and as far as I’m concerned, your not allowed in that barn either without supervision.

DEMOCRATSCHEAT, go tell it to your friend Kevin Jennings. And try to show some consistency in your debauched arguments.

That guy, Jennings is not my friend…

and neither are you, by the way.

Nor are you a friend of the conservative movement.

And you’re no friend of any American that wants to rid this country of the likes of Nancy, Harry or Barry!

I’m a Catholic and, like Thomas More, I have no window into any person’s soul; but as a citizen of this great nation I think someone’s private life is none of my business as long as no person is breaking any laws. And it’s noe of you business either.

Brian Sorba is very unprofessional here. If anyone knows talk show radio host Tammy Bruce, she came from the Left and is now a great Conservative speaker. And she always says the treatment by Conservatives toward her “changed her” and she became one. I don’t agree or accept the Gay lifestyle at all, but I DO NOT condemn them. There is more acceptance of Gays by Conservatives than there is by Democrats and I’ve heard it with my own ears. Brian Sorba needs to not attack people. They were invited!

Not being a great supporter of Gay marriage myself, I am a Liberal and don’t really think that a persons sexual preference is any of my business. Nor do I believe that religious people have any right in this country to use the “morality” arguement to justify their dislike for homosexuals. Go back and read some of these posts folks! Alot of them sound like the rantings of some vile Nazis or worse. Come on folks! We have a chance to rid ourselves of a bunch of far Left wing Socialist/Marxists, lets not make the mistake of swinging clear over to the far right to a bunch of intolerant religious zealots!

I told you cpac is a joke. This is something that true conservatives should stay far far away from. Those people that were booing are libs.

Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)

13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Romans 1:24-27
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Great! Just GREAT!!! Thanks for saying what most americans feel….Although – I too believe that Rights were endowed by GOD and GOD alone.

It was legal for a man to own another man at one time… until someone stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and made it his business.

I just don’t get the whole gay thing. I don’t make a point of telling people my sexual preference. When I see protest marches for gay pride on TV, it doesn’t look like people trying to march for “rights.” It looks like people getting together to shoot a porn movie that recreates Sodom and Gomorrah. Are the clips that I see just shown to make the gay movement look bad?

If two, same sex, people want to live together, go do it. But I don’t really see why it then becomes necessary to bring that lifestyle into my elementary school to tell my children how awesome it is. I don’t feel the need to have a program to tell elementary children how wonderful heterosexual families are. Could someone please explain my ignorance to me?

Thank you.

at DemocratsCheat… wake up man…get out of that “church” that has lulled you to sleep.

Jesus preached the truth, he didn’t coddle sinners.

The problem with this homosexual “movement” is that they don’t keep their perversions to themselves…they are trying to indoctrinate and convert our children. They do not tolerate OUR rights to keep OUR children normal so they can procreate. They seek to corrupt that which is good. Sin can not be contained…it spills over into everything. Wake up man…wake the hell up!

You need to stand for something you chicken. Quit trying to be everyone’s friend, except the truth, you coward.

Not the best venue to state his case and not the best way to do it. I agree that homosexuality is not in line with natural law, but this was the wrong time and wrong place to do it. It shows immaturity and bad judgment.

The Unofficial B-Cast Forum
http://bcast.eamped.com/

DemocratsCheat February 19th, 2010 – 10:46 pm

Demo, the difference between Christians and catholics is demonstrated by Joe Ryder, above.

It is a Christians business to tell men the truth, even if it gets them killed!

Jesus Christ told men the truth.

Men HATE the truth.

To take up the cross is NOT to carry a hunk of wood!

It is to take the truth to men!

By the way, do you know that the catholic catechism, endorsed by none other than JP II, teaches that men become God?

Behold, the truth!

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION
——————————————————————————–
PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

CHAPTER TWO
I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST, THE ONLY SON OF GOD

ARTICLE 3
“HE WAS CONCEIVED BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY”

Paragraph 1. The Son of God Became Man

I. WHY DID THE WORD BECOME FLESH?

#460 “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God”

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p1.htm

Looking inside the Catechism:
Introduction from John Paul II

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. …

http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/cat002.html

Mormons are the other cult that teaches that!

Sweet dreams :O)

A return to a Constitutional government means that the government has NO role in making laws about what private people do. It does not use its power to enforce a religious proscription onto the public tht does not protect life, liberty, or property.

That being said, I was actually very impressed with CPAC at this event. First off, they invited a gay conservative group. That was cool. Secondly, they let this dipwad speak, although in all fairness, he did not speak about what the MC suggested he would. Thirdly, the audience their booed his sorry hiney. Finally, the MC stood up and reiterated the one thing that makes conservatives intellectually superior to liberals. She reminded people of the “Freedom of opinion.”

This was a case of a man exercising his freedom to express his opinion, and then having to face the consequences of expressing it. I was impressed with almost everyone there- Except for the dipwad who didn’t want to have gays there. He lived down to what I’ve come to expect from his type.

Hey, wait. People at a gathering, disagreeing with one another without it getting violent.

Turns out there’s a higher degree of pluralism at CPAC than at any liberal-hosted event.

What were they thinking, inviting a goose-stepping YAFer to this event? They’re the same as they’ve always been. It is gratifying that Sorba was roundly booed. Let the gays do what they want, marry, whatever. It’s a freedom thing.

There are going to be gay people, whether one likes it or not. It’s up to us whether they become CONSERVATIVE gay people or liberal gay people. Many of them want liberty, property, and family just as we do. As Conservatives, we WILL welcome them with open arms. Give them a place at the table and put them to work, they want both! They will return the favor many fold and fight along side us. No, I will never ever be gay because it’s against my nature. But the goal here is to destroy tyranny and eradicate socialism, isn’t it?

This is how you drive moderate republicans and independants AWAY, you always go back to your same old hate mongers. Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer, Santorum, JD Hayworth, Tancredo.

Give you folks microphones, and a stage, and you just show Americans why they dumped you out of power in 06 and 08.

I have a question, has anybody here ever been to a queer parade, It is the most disgusting thing ever put forth in a public display.

We are supposed to accept that, I think not.

CPAC is wrong, here is why, they stand for conservatism, which is the core value of this republic, this republic was founded as a Christian nation based on the bible, the bible is the only book without error, written by men from inspiration by the Holy Spirit, the bible says that sodomy is an abomination in the eyes of God.

I dont hate the queers, many have seen their sin and have been born again, but I will not sit and have their agenda shoved down my throat and my children.

good for him to stand against this evil.

Unless I’m mistaken this is a problem that’s been ongoing in California politics between these two groups for some time. I believe that is stems from an internal rivalry that caused a separation in the the Young Republicans many years ago and is still alive today. Like I said, I could be wrong on this one. If it is correct I would suspect that this was a setup from the beginning involving Frazee as an antagonist. Notice the booing that was audible before he even spoke. I’d gather by his comments that there was an altercation of some kind with Frazee just prior to him taking the stage.

It would make sense that those opposed to homosexual behavior on religious grounds would be extremely offended to have a conservative meeting overshadowed by an intentionally named and founded group whose main focus is obviously not conservative ideology rather parading and defining themselves by their sexual preferences. I can hardly imagine a political group referring to themselves as PROUDSTRAIGHT showing up at a conservative conference.

Beyond that, both sides in this went a long way in being very degrading for CPAC and no doubt fodder for the leftist political machine. Having any of these groups on the CPAC stage was without a doubt a bad political decision.

Ok there,
jujubee February 19th, 2010 – 11:41 pm…

I’m not going to get into an ecclesiastical debate with you or any of your religious bigot friends posting here at this moment. But I will tell you that as a Christian Catholic, my faith is perhaps more deep and more Christ-like than yours or any other of the Pharisees posting in this thread. And I do not need to open my eyes any further than they already are to recognize evil or hate when I see it in front of me.

That being said, I will reply on point with respect to the precepts of our Founding Fathers…

Way at the beginning of this thread, “libertarian416″ (February 19th, 2010 – 5:57 pm) put it very well indeed with respect to human rights, stating that he “prefer(s) the way it was stated in the Declaration of Independence – that we are all endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights; so ultimately, rights come from God, who (he) thinks is a bit more of a reliable source than human nature”. This characterizes human rights as our Founding Fathers would see things today as opposed to Ryan Sorba’a apparent vitriol aimed at these people who were invited to this event in the name of inclusiveness.

For the record, I am NOT in favor of marriage between persons of the same sex; but I do stand, as a conservative, vehemently in favor of equal rights being afforded to individuals in domestic partnership arrangements. This too would be as our Founding Fathers would have things today.

I do not favor the sexualization of children in any form whatsoever, and would be willing to engage in civil disobedience to prevent a homosexual “agenda” from being introduced to minors of any age.

Finally, you do not know me, and you dare call me a “coward” because my soul is not filled with the hatred that possesses yours or a few of the others here in this thread.

I will tell you this; that if you were in a trench with bullets flying above and around you, you would want me there to protect your sorry, hate-filled ass as you wet your pants, and if you were out at sea with swells larger than the house you live in, crashing down over the dixie cup you are floating in, you would reach for my hand to save your mean-spirited whimpering self.

You would not be calling me a coward to my face, my friend. Trust me.

NOQTR4TR8RS February 19th, 2010 – 10:09 pm

@DebaucheryOnParade,

“…next year maybe we can have some NMBLA GOPers who also want to be accepted.”

Wish I had an ounce of silver for every time I heard this non-sequitur. Homosexuality between consenting adults, (as repulsive as the mechanics of it is to me), does not equal child molestation. The difference is, obviously, the ability to give consent. One is a consensual act, the other a violent crime.

And I wish I had an ounce of silver for every time idiots like you call this a non-sequitur, and use the “mutual consent” rationale to do it. Look stupid, mutual consent is a bogus. A ten year old can give consent, but for some reason, because he/she is ten, it doesn’t count as consent. “He/she doesn’t understand enough to give consent” you will say. And yet the homo agenda is trying to do just that, bringing homosexuality to our ten year olds in order to help them choose such a wonderful lifestyle…to consent to it. Then when a fifteen year old boy consents to having sex with his teacher, good ol’ Kevin Jennings will give that boy a few pointers on making it better or safer….cuz what’s done in the bedroom behind closed doors is none of our business, right?

Mutual consent, my A$$!

Ah… c’mon!

What does it profit a man if he gains the 2010 election, yet forfeits his soul? The U.S.A. is not worth your soul, it WILL crumble someday, but your eternal soul will not – and like the country, YOU will have to give an account.

A prophet is without honor on his home turf. Good on ya, Sorba. You’re right, the CPAC just made an enemy out all conservatives who don’t support the gay agenda. I guess CPAC is sticking with the Democrat-lite m.o. that worked so well the last election.

Civic laws are codification of moral laws, and “nature” teaches us nothing about morality since plants and planets are a-moral, and animals act on instinct. Appealing to other humans is self-defeating circular reasoning because human morality is the subject. Because the sexual act CAN cause reproduction, that doesn’t mean that is it’s SOLE purpose, therefore if it has another purpose (pleasure) than it is according to the acts purpose for a person to have sex with whomever/whatever they want (if “nature” is the standard).

His argument, is fraught with illogic because appealing to nature is empiricism, and observation can tell you what “IS,” not what “OUGHT.” It can tell you that we are “existing,” but not that we were “created,” it can tell you THAT we exist (though even that’s debatable, or at least ultimately circular), but not WHY we exist.

In sum, without an unchanging moral lawgiver outside of our human context we have no objective basis for morals, and therefore laws are arbitrary. Moreover, without that ultimate standard revealing itself we would not be able to know it, since it is outside of observation (moral laws are invisible and don’t make noise or smell etc.). So pretty much the atheist, and deist have no way of justifying ANY imposition they seek to place upon others through the force of law, because they have nothing higher than themselves to appeal to, and then who cares? It becomes “mob rule” or “morality via majority” or “might makes right.” – i.e. a “democracy.” But America is a REPUBLIC.

In a REPUBLIC, we choose the leaders who will best represent us as moral human beings striving to live by God’s WRITTEN law (the Bible), and they are to make their decisions based on applying the laws of the Bible to our contemporary context. Well, at least that’s how it was supposed to work.

The Bible is the ONLY legitimate source for laws, all other “sources” will logically crumble in the end. Give up the Bible, and you’ve given up your country – period. But the GOP doesn’t want to appear as “holy-rollers” so we are doomed. Net time let’s make the Constitution a little more specific about WHAT “God” and WHERE morality comes from, rather than taking it for granted that it is “self-evident.” Because evidently it’s NOT.

” democrats cheat 8:10″ As a catholic you are more Christ like.

As a catholic you are not even a Christian , who cares about your opinions, the bible is what counts not your catachism.

Inviting a gay organization to CPAC is like the dems inviting Pro-Life folks to one of their functions. Conservatism is about treating people equal and that means not puting TAGS on people like the LIBS do.

@DebaucheryonParade,

“…idiots like you”
“Look stupid,…”

Sorry friend, but I don’t debate angry irrational types like yourself. Your capacity for self-control certainly, and your intelligence level quite possibly, are too diminished for me to waste my time attempting to exchange ideas with you. Despite your unjustified arrogance and childish insults, some of your arguments are not without merit, and it would have been constructive and enjoyable to discuss them with you. However, I am just not interested in conversing with you on a 3rd grade level.

I’m am not ashamed to state what I believe, but I am not opposed to changing my position in the face of superior arguments. I am, however, opposed to conversing with people who use Democrat Party style debate tactics, i.e., straw man arguments, subject changing, non-sequiturs, and schoolyard name-calling. You chose to launch “Keith Olbermann” type insults right out of the chute, for no other reason than that you disagree with my statement. So, that tells me exactly where you are intellectually – right down there with Olbermann. Forgive me for not getting on my knees to join you.

Name-calling is, of course, a tactic used by the weak, which is why leftists so often use it. By calling me “stupid” and “idiot” you attempt to create the illusion, without the support of facts, that your position is the only reasonable one of the two; that mine is “stupid”, idiotic” and absurd on it’s face, because I personally am a stupid idiot. Hence, all of my arguments should be categorically disregarded by everyone here. Honestly, I am surprised that was the best you could come up with. I’m not angry with you as much as I’m disappointed in your weakness.

Discussion of the type kmichaels and I were having is most welcome. Even though we didn’t appear to agree on all points, he argues well, and we kept things civil. You, however, are incapable of constructing and delivering your arguments in a respectful and constructive manner, so I have nothing further to say to you. My previous statements, and this one, can speak for themselves. Think of them what you wish.

DebaucheryOnParade February 20th, 2010 – 8:52 am

The biggest problem in this country was the “Great Minds” that decided that the Constitution was “just fine” as it is! Times DO change! If we would have had a Constitutional Convention every 25 years or so and decided, as a country, how WE were going to deal with the new and changing problems of a free and growing society as they developed we would not have a lot of the political problems we have right now!! You cannot leave the governing of ANY nation to a ruling class and expect it to remain free and fair, with justice to all.

I don’t want to eliminate or water down the Constitution! I want to make it more applicable to our time!! This isn’t 1776!! It will never be 1776 again!! It is the 21st century folks. Let’s define what IS acceptable within a FREE nation in the 21st century and what is not!

HERE ARE THE QUESTIONS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED:

Is sexuality or sexual preference a legal freedom (a Right) under the Constitution of the United State? Yes or No!

If the answer is Yes, then as a nation of free and moral people, where do we draw the line? (homo, les, pedo, beast, auto-erotic, necrophilia, S&M)

If the answer is No, then we are back to whether any nation is (or can be) really free for ALL citizens regardless of personal preferences or beliefs.

What about the attitude some Americans have; “I don’t agree with your choices based on my beliefs, so therefore you are violating my rights?” HOW IS THAT FREEDOM? That doesn’t even make sense!

This is why Liberals and Liberalism will never die!! We question!!
The rule of true Liberalism is a just application of rational thinking separate from influences of religion, failed traditions, governments or temporary social influences. This is a great country and until we apply rational thinking that is not based on the influences that I mentioned above, we are going to continue to be mired down and it could spell our demise! If this can be done fairly, honestly and with all opinions, we can survive as a truly free nation!

Equating all gay people with a debauched “gay parade” is like equating all straight people with what goes on at Mardi Gras or at a porno convention. Get real. There are certain people, straight and gay, who are oversexed and lude. Most people aren’t. Quit generalizing people by the worst elements.

“God” is a dirty word February 20th, 2010 – 10:18 am

If you are gonna plagiarize, please put use quotation marks! We don’t care, just use the dang quotation marks, O.K.? Some of us do read beyond Breitbart. Thanks.

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.