By The Right Scoop


Star Parker wrote in 2011 that being gay and conservative is an oxymoron:

The idea of “gay conservative” is an oxymoron.

“Gay” is everything that “conservative” is not.

The foundation of the world view that so-called “gay conservatives” embrace has far more in common with liberalism than with conservatism.

It’s a world view that is man-centered rather than God-centered. It is a world view that rejects eternal truths passed on from the beginning of time. Although the world view that “gay conservatives” choose to invent may diverge from the world view of liberals, their common ground is they make it all up.

And it is here where “gay conservatives” and “liberals” fundamentally depart from conservatives.

Conservatives believe that there are objective and eternal truths, not of the product of any individual human mind, that are transmitted through the generations. Culture is not like HDTV or iPhones where the newest model is the best.

These eternal truths provide the light in the fog that keeps us from crashing on the rocky shores where our base instincts lead us.

“Gay” is liberal, not conservative, regardless of what their stand may be on government spending or taxes.

It’s why, like all liberals, they use language to create reality, rather than appreciate that words have meaning that reflect reality.

So they have re-invented the word “gay,” re-invented the word “marriage”, and now they want to re-invent the word “conservative.”

READ THE FULL ARTICLE…

At least 2 on the Trfiecta team disagree and they tackle the issue of being gay and conservative with quite a bit of passion:

So what do you think?

NOTE: I know we are adult enough to have this debate civilly. Anything that isn’t considered ‘civil’ will be removed and may result in that person being banned.

 

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • Rshill7

    I caught a glimpse of that first post that vanished. It was an accusation that Scoop was Islamophobic as well as homophobic.
    Could someone please look up that suffix “phobia”? What does it mean?
    Does anyone here feel fear for either Islam or Homosexuals? Might they confuse unmitigated disgust for fear? 
    Yes. Not only might they, they’re afraid to say that, yes, they confuse many things with many others.

    • marketcomp

      Rshill7

      Good observation, RShill7! I often believe that it is heterosexuals
      and Christians that the homosexuals and Islamic population is afraid of. I have
      dubbed the homosexual fear as heterophobia because it is the homosexuals who
      want to tare down the institutions of marriage and continually do everything in
      their power to degrade and devalue the sanctity of marriage. I am not afraid of
      them because by nature they are cowards, in my opinion of course.
      By the way I saw that post disappear also. Very interesting!

      • Spathy

        marketcomp Rshill7  
        You know what,can we at least do the few good Muslims and Homosexuals a favor by putting the word Radical if front of the wide brush some are using.

  • marketcomp

    If Conservatism was only about fiscal issues then homosexuals can claim the banner of Conservative. But, I think for most of us  Conservatism  is rooted in the Constitution and the Constitution is based on Biblical principals and Natural law. And because of those foundational principals and that Conservatism is not a lifestyle but an intentional and deliberate ideology that requires understanding and thought then one cannot be a homosexual and Conservative. So much of Conservatism is foundational to Natural Law and nothing about homosexuality is neither historical or natural.

    • pushtheredbutton

      marketcomp Tell that to QPAC!

    • Spathy

      But, I think for most of us  Conservatism  is rooted in the Constitution
      and the Constitution is based on Biblical principals and Natural law marketcomp
      You forgot these last few words.

      As it relates to Governance and the moral basis of Laws. Nothing more nothing less.

  • JeffWRidge

    This is one of the few times I disagree with Star Parker. I have friends who are homosexuals and are conservatives. Just because a person has a specific sexual orientation doesn’t mean that they cannot hold right-wing beliefs. My friends oppose homosexual marriage, opposed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (as well as homosexuals openly serving), favor smaller government, and hold many other conservative views.

    • stage9

      JeffWRidge I disagree. You’re probably defining conservative from the point of view of economics. A true Conservative is conservative on both a fiscal AND social issues.

      • JeffWRidge

        stage9 JeffWRidge As I mentioned, my friends oppose homosexual marriage, DADT and homosexuals serving openly in the military. Those are hardly fiscal issues. In fact, they believe that the government should be kept out of people’s private lives. I agree with them.

        • stage9

          JeffWRidge stage9 I think that’s great, but it still begs the question as to whether that makes them Conservative.
          I mean it’s like Nancy Pelosi claiming to be a Catholic. She defends abortion rights and counterfeit marriage — two things that stand in stark opposition to the Word of God. She can claim the title all she wants, but I’m pretty sure that that doesn’t make her a Catholic.

        • JeffWRidge

          stage9 JeffWRidge The tenets of Catholicism are pretty well laid out in the Bible. Is there such a guide to what qualifies as conservative and what doesn’t? Is there only one type of conservative?

        • T42N24T

          stage9 JeffWRidge  But doesn’t Nancy Pelosi having those view points reflect more on Nancy Pelosi than Catholicism?

      • Spathy

        stage9 JeffWRidge  
        I am Conservative on social issues.

  • 1endtimes2020

    Sure, a person can be sinful and conservative at the same time.  Next question.

    • stage9

      1endtimes2020 I don’t think the one follows the other. One can be sinful and a liberal too.

      • 1endtimes2020

        stage9 1endtimes2020   Of course.  I didn’t think I really had to say that, and it would be taken for granted.  Geez.

  • stage9

    VERY VERY GOOD ARTICLE!
    Yes, I’m yelling, because it’s THAT good!

  • rainmom

    Our country is circling the drain, folks, and it’s not because of gay anything! Now, we can continue to argue all the way down the drain, but that will not save any of us from the true enemy which is a dysfunctional, liberty sucking behemoth of a federal government! Now, we can either work together as fiscal conservatives or we can all suffer the exact same consequences.

    • stage9

      rainmom You can’t argue social issues from the top down. Social issues are not some sort of subjective reality. They affect each and every human being in this country. “Gay anything” is simply a SYMPTOM of the deep moral sewer we’ve created. We’ve rejected our founding Fathers’ warnings on matters of morality and we’ve pushed them to the back of the line thinking that if we can just fix the economy the entire world will be well again.
      This is utterly absurd!

    • sybilll

      Rshill7 Who are you to tell her to shut up?  Perhaps she had other obligations, and wasn’t on stand-by to answer your interrogation.  We are circling the drain. You may want to deny that the Progressives have been successful at re-branding the gay narrative, but your denial does not make it so.

      • sybilll

        Rshill7 I just did.  I guess you didn’t read this part “You may want to deny that the Progressives have been successful at re-branding the gay narrative, but your denial does not make it so.”

      • rainmom

        Rshill7 What do you want?  I made a comment and I stand by it. This country’s problems are not caused by gays in the military or gays wanting to get married. Have you seen how many people are on welfare? Have you noticed how many people are on food stamps? The moral decay goes much deeper than gays existing on the planet. 
        I also saw where you said your marriage was ordained by God; so was mine, 40 years ago. I’m old, I’m tired, it’s hard for me to see because the font is so small, and I think you have better things to do with your time than to tell an old woman to shut up.  
        My main concern is for our grandchildren inheriting this mess, about the educational system in Texas with CSCOPE, with the Common Core program infiltrating our educational system, with Chairman Mao being quoted on an NEA site for children, and Saul Alinskly tactics being used to bring down America.  I love the TEA Party, love Ted Cruz, and I love America. If that’s not good enough for you, show me the door, and I will gladly shut up!  I will not respond again because I cannot keep up and have little stomach for this type of argument.  Thank you for letting me post, and good night!

      • sybilll

        rainmom Rshill7 Thanks rainmom, and well said, once again.

      • Spathy

        rainmom Rshill7  
        Yes well said.

      • JeffWRidge

        rainmom Rshill7 Agreed.

  • pushtheredbutton

    Conservative To-do list for 2016:
    1. Grant illegal immigrants amnesty in order to show how cool and down with dark-skinned people we are. Check
    2. Talk less about the horrors of infanticide (ie abortion)and more about money (ie “fiscal cliff”). Check
    3. Pass gay marriage. Check
    4.  Pretend we’re all libertines now – Sorry libertarians – curtesy of Rand Paul. Check.
    5. Finally, create such a ‘big tent’, thqt the historical and fundamental meaning of what it means to be conservative disapears, eg: pretend as the folks in the above video have done: that there is nothing at all odd or wrong with the notion of homosexuality and that it is not in any way incompatible with the fundamentals of God-ordained governance.

    The video is the most contrived, phony, disingenuous and laughable showing of outrage I have ever seen. Complete folly! Thats why we’re losing America.

  • MacWell

    Back in the 50’s homosexuals wanted to be treated fairly and not be the victims of violence because of their predilection only, toward that end, I agreed, no one should have to be afraid of being who ever they are. Then, in the 60’s when sexual restraint was eliminated their message changed. The homosexual community then wanted acceptance, with this, I disagreed. Now, they demand that their agenda be acceptable to society. The homosexual lobby has spent millions and millions trying to mainstream homosexuality, to no avail. God doesn’t appreciate the gay lifestyle, in fact, He condemns it. He always has, and always will.

    • brazen_infidel

      MacWell What are you talking about? Obviously, homosexuals are always going to be a small minority, but their “agenda,” at least as it applies to equal treatment from government, IS becoming acceptable to mainstream society: Gay marriage is winning popular initiatives. I have a lot of problems with where mainstream society has been going of late, but this about the least of them.

      • Spathy

        brazen_infidel MacWell  
        LOL
        Yes hopefully we remain a minority. Otherwise human kind (population)will dwindle.

    • Spathy

      MacWell And even if God does appreciate or accept homosexuality,we should not force any one else to do the same.

  • http://cfp4us.org/ AmericanborninCanada

    I have to agree with Star Parker on this.  While there may be homosexuals who align themselves with Conservative principles, what she says about this being man-centered instead of God-centered is spot on, and to that effect, there is no real difference between homosexuals on the left or right, even if those on the right believe in smaller government.

    • Rshill7

      There’s a lot more to being conservative than small government. That same small government or big government can decree that your marriage is no more or no less than Jimmy marrying Keith. 
      Don’t know about you, but my marriage isn’t the same as that. My marriage is a God-ordained thing.

      • http://cfp4us.org/ AmericanborninCanada

        Rshill7 I agree myBear.  I was just being basic. I’m not in a long winded mood right now.

        • Rshill7

          Neither am I. That was short-winded.

        • http://cfp4us.org/ AmericanborninCanada

          Rshill7  so was mine. at least I thought it was. lol knock it off.

        • Rshill7

          Ok Pally :-)

        • http://cfp4us.org/ AmericanborninCanada

          Rshill7 :-D

  • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/index dmacleo

    fiscal conservative and social liberal.
    libertarian.
    but since they vote along with gop everyone thinks that means conservative because somehow gop=conservative to the media.

    • TheRedWriter

      dmacleo Libertarians are not socially liberal.  We just realize that the Constitution does not give the federal government the right to legislate morality.  Homosexuality is a vile crime against God, but the Constitution never mentions it.  The federal government has no authority to ban or legalize homosexual unions or hetero marriages, or drug use.  These are all state and local level issues. Abortion should be illegal because killing people violates their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

  • brazen_infidel

    Bill Whittle, as always, is right on the money. You can’t just define a whole class of people out of existence, no matter how much you don’t like them.
    Saying one can’t be a gay conservative is like saying you can’t be an atheist conservative. YOU CAN.
    I grant that it is normal for heterosexual people to be revolted by homosexuality; it is an evolutionary mechanism for maintaining the species. But the conservative vision of the proper role of government, if it means anything at all, is to provide for the common defense and to provide a rule of law and the peaceful adjudication of disputes, not to enforce all cultural and religious norms. That’s what civil society is about.
    Some of the religious right people posting here sound like progressives in their insistence that it is the role of the state to improve humanity. To those who insist that conservatism is not first and foremost about small government, then I’d say THEY are the ones that are not conservatives. And if that’s not what they’re saying, then why are we even talking about this?
    Okay? RELIGIOUS RIGHT CONSERVATIVE IS THE OXYMORON.

  • stage9

    I guess it comes down to this:
    Conservatives believe that all rights come from God, not the state. 
    If God is the highest legal and moral agent, then He writes the rule book regarding what is and is not morally acceptable.
    He has made it perfectly clear that homosexuality (the practice) is an abomination. (When God calls something an abomination, you can guarantee that it is evil)
    A homosexual has two choices…
    1) Disregard God from whence rights and morality come and embrace a secular view of sexuality, or
    2) Embrace God from whence all rights and morality come, repent and embrace God’s monogamous view of sexuality.
    Homosexuals want acceptance and validation to the exclusion of God’s moral law. Out of the gate they’ve already lost.

    • brazen_infidel

      stage9As Paul Ryan put it on the campaign stump, “Our rights come from God and NATURE.”
      There is a basis in NATURE for natural law (“duh!”) without bringing in a mythical creator God or a “good book” written by fallible humans.

      • http://cfp4us.org/ AmericanborninCanada

        brazen_infidel stage9 Don’t start with the mythical part.  You have a right to your opinions, but you don’t need to provoke an argument now.

        • brazen_infidel

          AmericanborninCanada brazen_infidel stage9 Sorry, you are quoting this mythology as justification to violate the rights of other human beings, so it’s fair game.

        • marketcomp

          Rshill7 Yeah, what makes it mythology? I think the fact that humans can only be reproduced by one man and one woman is a dawn good fact!

        • brazen_infidel

          marketcomp Sure, THAT’s a fact. So what? Must EVERYONE reproduce?

        • http://cfp4us.org/ AmericanborninCanada

          brazen_infidel AmericanborninCanada stage9 As I said, you have your right to your opinion, but please respect other people’s rights to their beliefs as well.  That a lot of people here believe in the so called myth.

        • brazen_infidel

          Rshill7Or, I could become a Catholic priest. I’m actually straight, though.

      • stage9

        brazen_infidel stage9  You obviously haven’t the slightest CLUE what the actual phrase means…and neither did Ryan when he said it…
        The founders believed that God’s law was supreme and gave freedom. The phrase “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” referred to the laws that God in his capacity as the Creator of the universe had established for the governance of people, nations and nature. 
        Nature can’t grant RIGHTS! The laws of nature are the LAWS OF CREATION that the CREATOR created.
        Secondly,
        God is not mythical, He’s very much real.
        In fact in order for you to say that there is no God you would have to possess infinite knowledge of the universe. (You would have to know that under every rock, in every valley, atop every mountain in every system in the universe that God doesn’t exist) But in order to have infinite knowledge, you would have to be God. But according to you God does not exist, therefore since you, having made yourself God, do not exist, you have said absolutely nothing! You are simply a figment of my imagination.

        • brazen_infidel

          stage9 brazen_infidel An old religious rhetorical trick: Require disbelievers to prove a negative in order not to have a preposterous alternative rammed down their throats.
          Sorry, I ain’t buying it.
          Second, nature as a whole doesn’t have to be sentient in order to operate predictably. Through reason, we can grasp its “laws.” They do not have to be handed to us on tablets. Paul Ryan knew exactly what he was saying.

    • marketcomp

      stage9 Thank you, stage9 for bringing clarity to this insaness. You know I kinda liked that Bill Whittle guy but his intense attitude towards those of us who don’t care for homosexuality seems to be an intolerance on his part. I can’t wait until we start the Conservative party and we leave Whittle and Portman and all others who are advocates for homosexuals behind. It’s just a matter of time because these democrats and out of control and the liberal wing of the republican party want to be democrats.

      • pushtheredbutton

        marketcomp stage9 Whittle is and always has been a fake. I’ve watched him for some time now, and carefully so. I’m not surprised he’s come out with the opinion bove. 
        Sorry if I’ve spoken too candidly. If anyone requires it, I’ll rephrase: “[In my opinion,] Whittle is and always has been a fake.” There that should make us all happy.

        • marketcomp

          pushtheredbutton marketcomp stage9 No need to apologize here.

        • JimLand

          pushtheredbutton marketcomp stage9 Disagreed completely.  Interestingly enough I actually got into PJTV because I found Zo on youtube.  From there I found Bill Whittle.  Ever since I found myself agreeing more and more with Bill, and less so with Zo.  There have been times I’ve had slight differences of opinion with Bill, but its very rare.

  • Spathy

    I am Gay and absolutely Conservative.

    • brazen_infidel

      Spathy I am an atheist and absolutely Conservative.

      • Spathy

        brazen_infidel Spathy  
        Good for you.

        • Spathy

          Rshill7  
          Na… I will stick with the just plain ole Conservative thingy.

        • brazen_infidel

          Rshill7 You could start a new party called the Regressive Progressives.

      • Spathy

        So neither of us will tell eachother what to believe and how Gov should make us live,beyond the constraints of the Constitution.. See that wasnt so difficult.

        • brazen_infidel

          Rshill7 State marriage licenses were not common when the country was founded. Marriage was a private matter and common-law marriages were universally recognized. States began to regulate marriage and require licenses in the mid-19th century, largely as a means to invalidate interracial marriages.

  • Spathy

    I am sure Star is referring to groups of Gays when she makes references to “Gays” A broad brush paints over individual beauty.

    • Spathy

      Rshill7 ????
      Ok it still brushes aside any individual beauty.
      Dont get me wrong. I think most of the “Gay” groups out there have nothing in common with my conservative viewpoint. Most of what Star states is dead on. I just want to make clear that it is more than possible to be Gay and completely Conservative.

  • PicklePlants

    Oh, and Steve Green’s final comments are a very good summation of why I am so disgusted with the conservatives that “took their ball” and stayed home the last election.  Every time I hear about “Moo-chelle this” or “Plugs Biden that” It reminds of the stay at home jacka$$e$ that Bill Whittle was talking about.
    We cannot expect every conservative to be “perfect” because there is no such thing.  We must choose the best candidate that most closely matches our values, or pretty soon there won’t be a choice.  And don’t bother telling me there is no choice today.  Obama and Romney were hardly alike.  We would be looking at a totally different situation today if the election had gone the other way.  But for the choice of a few stay at home martyrs.

    • Spathy

      PicklePlants I agree.
      Sit it out? what were they thinking. So “you” didnt have a candidate to vote FOR.
      I havent had a president I voted  FOR since  1980. But I havent missed a single vote.

  • pushtheredbutton

    Nero’s Rome burnt Christians for entertainment, The Greeks worshipped gods whose favourite pasttimes were incest and rape; The Egyptians enslaved God’s chosen people and so on. But not one society, no matter its depravity or notoriety, in 6/10, 000 years of human history do we know of that ever tried to pretend it was normal for a man to ‘marry’ a man. Yet the USA in 2013 and westrn nation after western nation is on the brink of instituting such an abomination. 
    And now the only core of people (conservatives) that have been standing against such an aberration and its likes are to stand down and act as if we’re all good to go for the homo show? Right. No wonder Islam is confident of taking us over. Adams’ quote about the consitution being meant for a moral and religious people is by far the most prescient of all the founding fathers’ in my opinion. We’ve lost our morals folks. And there’s no way our nation can stand without them. I guarantee you 20 years from now, if America still even exists, we’ll be having this same debate, except it’ll be about ‘conservatives’ who have a particular disposition towards their pets rather than towards members of the same sex.

    That’s all.

    • Las1

      pushtheredbutton   I really hate to agree with you on this… I really do.  But I just can not NOT agree.  In other words, I agree.  I hate to even think about the things we’ll be debating in twenty years… hell… even less.
      Example:  Be it resolved, Female Genital Mutilation:  Is it right for your child?

      • patriot077

        Las1 pushtheredbutton 2 or 3 years ago the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed a “modified” FGM in the US. Until the hue and cry killed it dead. I’m sure they will keep trying to get this warped and barbaric practice introduced in the US. I guess they have to take their little girls to Islamic countries to get them “fixed”. Such an inconvenience for a  trifling little operation  that can be done without anesthetia.
        They try to say that male circumcision is equivalent. Yeah, right.

  • https://sites.google.com/site/warpminesblog/ warpmine

    By their reasoning, abortionists should also be welcomed and with that said, there sure is much on the discussion of whether or not to rid the party of the pro-life plank. Conservatives should absolutely refuse to endorse queers as it goes against traditional values however, in the realm of Republicans, who cares, we already know of plenty of them have their own agenda which embraces statist ideology. The very concept of conservatism is tradition and when you can demonstrate our Founding Father’s tradition of homosexuality let me know.

    • Spathy

      warpmine  
      You have the ability in a free Republic to have that opinion.  But there is nothing in the foundation or the Governing principals of our Nation that should make me worried about people of differing beliefs,I think I should be safe to continue being a conservative even if some would not welcome me.

      • Major914

        Spathy warpmine Excellent point of view and attitude! That is certainly what we need more of in our country today.
        It appears that we need quite a bit of repentance from homosexuality as well. I pray that all who have been led astray by homosexual tendencies, or a modernistic worldview that glorifies such tendencies, find true repentance.

      • https://sites.google.com/site/warpminesblog/ warpmine

        Spathy warpmine We do not have a free republic anymore despite what’s in the founding documents, the government has usurped most of our rights. 
        Far from perfect I am but I believe much in the same way the Founders did that we must strive to live the best way we can according to the teachings of Christ. I cannot go into anything deeper on this site without the moderators having a cow. Don’t recall, after rereading my previous post, anything inciting so that is that.
        Perhaps we can discuss it further at another venue but definitely not at this one. Peace!

    • sybilll

      warpmine Pretty big leap ya made there, from realising that gays can be conservative to….abortionists should be welcomed? The twain shall never meet.

  • sybilll

    So, gays shouldn’t care how the government spends their money?  Sorry, I don’t get it.  We have great gay warriors on our side, Tammy Bruce, Bruce Carroll, a great blogger at Ace, Hillbuzz, etc. In my experience (one of my dear friends is a staunch conservative who happens to be gay), they are Conservative first, and gay second.  Not like liberals who are ALWAYS liberals first because BEING liberal is their religion. My friend is SO fiscally conservative that he is opposed to gay marriage because he doesn’t want his gay friends getting suckered into paying the Marriage Tax Penalty, giving the government even more of their hard earned money.  I don’t care about his sexual escapades anymore than he cares about mine.  He just knows our future generations are doomed unless an about face on fiscal policies are not implemented.  I’m sure he’d be glad to come here and let you hear it from the horse’s mouth.  Seriously, when he talks politics, if you didn’t know he was gay, you’d think you were talking to Jim DeMint.  (1/2)

  • sybilll

    (2/2) And yes, I always, always, always put God first. And no, I do not support gay marriage. I hope this doesn’t effect my standing here, but I have a daughter that is a recent college grad, and I know the attitude of the next generation that will be deciding our future. And running the entire gamut from rabid liberal to strict constitutionalists, they all embrace gays because the Progressive re-branding WORKED

    • Spathy

      sybilll I dont support a Gov sanctioned Gay Marriage either. If I want to get Married that is between God and ourselves. In fact I want no part of Gov in my Marriage whatsoever.

      • sybilll

        Spathy sybilll Good for you Spathy.  I do think you deserve civil union status, though. Just not sure how that would/could be quantified. Perhaps if a civil union ceremony has actually been performed? Otherwise your latest partner could lay claim to your assets, etc., even if you had no such intention.

        • Spathy

          sybilll Spathy  
          Thats all fine and whatnot but it is between me and god. And any legal matter is easily overcome with the proper paperwork/hospitals,wills etc…

  • StevenValdez

    So if you are gay, your conservative card is revoked? Just because of one issue? So what about an atheist or an agonist person, their conservative card is revoked also because they don’t believe in God? In America it’s your right to choose your faith or not. And I really didn’t know belief in God was a requirement in order to be a conservative. I believe in Jesus Christ just to clarify but I just don’t agree with Star Parker on this. I like Star Parker but I’m really tired of the conservative police out there. Policy wise it’s smart to pursue fiscal conservative principles, but it’s a losing battle to pursue and force someone to social conservative values. You can’t force anyone to be social conservative, you either are or you are not, and in America you have that right choose and live, then let God sort it out.

    • Rshill7

      Sure you have every right Steven, same as always…but you cannot change the meaning of words while you’re at it, willy nilly. If so, you’ll need a new dictionary written by you or those who agree with you, or simply ignore everyone previous to you. 
      I just think that English words have meanings. I use them from time to time. Words having meanings is a comfort to those who write. if they have no meanings, why write? What language is it?

      • StevenValdez

        Rshill7 if your looking at the definition I can see you saying that but in politics it’s not like that, there’s a reason why there are different conservative subgroups, fiscal conservative, social conservative, neoconservative, compassionate conservative (whatever the eff that means), and whatever type of conservative you can think of.. Words do have meanings but the intent of the word causes more of an impact and importance in our lives.

    • pushtheredbutton

      StevenValdez Exactly! Well sai… oh wait. My bad. Its not really that simple is it?

    • Spathy

      StevenValdez  
      Kinda reminds me how being Conservative automatically revoked my gay card,well and not liking musicals didnt help.

      • brazen_infidel

        Spathy StevenValdez Guys, don’t let the religious right get you down — although they have dragged the Republican Party down for too long. I’m not saying there should be no place for them, but they don’t get to decide who is or isn’t conservative, or Republican. The next few elections must be about liberty, not about the Bible.

    • http://virusx.wordpress.com/about/ VIRUSX

      Homosexuality is not a conservative value. Conservatism is aptly described as a 3 legged stool. There is the political, the social, and the fiscal. Homosexuality, in active practice, is a former social liberality. You’re either Conservative, or you’re not.
      Parker is right in the fact that she is using godly standards to look at this. People like Bill Whittle do not, as he is known as an atheist, or an agnostic, at best. You claim that you want God to sort everything out. God did not put us here to sit on our hands, and do nothing. If you see something that is wrong, do you just pray to God to solve it? Me, I don’t pray to God to do my work, for me, I pray that He gives me the guidance and knowledge so I can do that work, utilizing the talents He gave me to do it.
      No, you can’t force people to be Conservative, but you also don’t have to accept people as being Conservative, just because they say they are, and yet exhibit no Conservatism in the way they live their lives, and conduct themselves.

      • StevenValdez

        VIRUSX Not saying to sit on our hands, I’m saying that you can only live a Godly life the best you can but can’t force anyone to him. You can truly and only be an example. If being Gay was illegal we would have something to stand on but we don’t. There is no way to stop homosexuality in the world and God might be the only way to stop someone who doesn’t want to be gay. I’m saying it’s not my job or my right to stop them.
        “don’t have to accept people as being Conservative, just because they say they are, and yet exhibit no Conservatism in the way they live their lives, and conduct themselves.”
        Just because you are gay doesn’t mean you don’t live in “any” example of conservative values or principles. How much or how little do you need to be a conservative, conservatism is not absolute, varies by the degree on each issue.

      • cabensg

        VIRUSX  very well stated.

    • vorlath

      StevenValdez Yeah, I turned to conservatism from liberalism because I was to understand that conservatism is about individualism. Strong individuals make for a strong society. More independence and freedom to choose our own path. Lately, (and not on this issue as I’m not gay, but) it seems everyone and their dog is telling me what actions are considered conservative. I’ve had enough of that when I was a liberal.
      Gays can be conservative. They may be in conflict with certain religious doctrines, but the freedom to choose their lifestyle and choose their belief system is very much conservative. If I don’t have freedom, then even if it isn’t conservatism, that’s what I want.

  • hbnolikeee

    Very surprised reading many comments here.  First of all, to suggestion that anyone here is the ultimate authority on what it means to be a conservative and then claim that because of someone’s sexual orientation that they are not to be classified as such is in itself horrible bigotry and a sad commentary on those that buy into it.  No wonder that many people think of the conservative as some bible hugging low brow.  This kind of bigotry is poison and will surely kill those that spew it.
    Very sad to hear folks.

    • sybilll

      hbnolikeee  I am a very devoted bible hugger, and I am with you.

      • Rshill7

        Just hug it then sister…don’t read it.

        • sybilll

          Rshill7 Luckily I can handle your dismissive tone and turn the other cheek, because I do in fact routinely read the scripture.

  • Rshill7

    It all comes down to whether or not English words have definitions, meanings, or not. If they have specific meanings, then some of you are wrong. If they have no meanings, then all of you are wrong.
    Good night.

  • livetotell

    I’m with Bill Whittle on this one. Thank goodness Jesus wasn’t as judgmental as Star Parker about those He kept company with. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”  Amen.

    • Gtrjag

      livetotell An then he said to the woman go and sin no more. Jesus is loving and forgiving, but he is also righteous. God will forgive anyone for even the most heinous sin, but there must be repentance.

      • livetotell

        Gtrjag livetotell Yes, and then it is between that person and God, and they will be judged by the merciful Father in the end. In the meantime, it behooves us to “Remove the plank from your own eye before trying to remove the splinter from someone else’s.”

        • Gtrjag

          livetotell Gtrjag We are the light of the world. We are not shining that light, nor are we helping when he pretend that there sins are ok. God is merciful, but he takes sin seriously. If he didn’t, Jesus would not have had to die. Before one receives salvation there must be repentance. Nobody is perfect and no Christian lives a perfect life, but you cannot deny the basic moral laws of God, and come to know Christ.

        • http://cfp4us.org/ AmericanborninCanada

          livetotell Gtrjag  if people who tell the truth are judgmental and everything is permissible because it’s between an individual and God, there would never have been a need for evangelism.  Believe it or not, one can speak out against something as wrong to show the right way, which is through Christ.  It’s all in the way a person judges that they themselves will be judged.  Jesus never told us we weren’t allowed to judge. Just how to do it in a loving way.

  • ChristianConcierge

    This is what is wrong with libertarians.  They talk about virtue but they redefine it.  They are only for money, and personal anarchy.   Virtue is one man one woman marriage.  And Sodomy is not a virtue but a vice..

  • swlausa

    conservative (by definition) – holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

  • 2016

    Let the Dems have all of the gay and atheist vote 
    Two groups who are as liberal as it gets
    They NEED IT and coddle it

  • RayBrown1

    I hope that conservatives do not buy into this stuff.  What is wrong with our country?  We fought a long fight against this stuff and now we are just giving up.  I guess God has judged us so much that HE has caused conservatives to accept the lie and given them reprobate minds.  Sad, just sad.

    • marketcomp

      RayBrown1 Yeap, RayBrown1-So many don’t believe that this behavior can and will lead to the destruction of the human race.

    • swlausa

      RayBrown1 No conservatives have not bought into this stuff.  Conservatives know who conservatives are by definition.

  • Susanb958

    It seems to me that conservatives that are not socially conservative, don’t do well in Presidential elections.

    • swlausa

      Susanb958 either one is a conservative or they are not.  by definition, one cannot be fractional conservative.

  • DallasTexas

    My daughter is gay, very happy and I love her to death. We’re both conservative. She voted for Mitt and got 12 of her friends (some gay) to vote for him as well. She doesn’t believe we need to re-define the word marriage and would be just fine calling it something else and getting all the positives, negatives and angst that comes along with the government getting themselves involved in something they have no business being in.

    • swlausa

      DallasTexas No, you and your daughter are not both conservative … by definition of conservative.

      • DallasTexas

        swlausa you will continue to get your @$$ handed to you in future elections with bigoted minds like that.

        • swlausa

          DallasTexas swlausa I don’t live for elections, I live for GOD.  Believe … obey … serve.

        • swlausa

          DallasTexas  If conservatives can’t when elections, then that just signifies that America has become an immoral nation.  A nation that will be ruled by immoral people.

        • DallasTexas

          swlausa continue to alienate a responsible “conservative” family base that doesn’t completely conform to your beliefs and see where that gets you.

        • swlausa

          DallasTexas  It gets me into heaven.

        • DallasTexas

          swlausa well enjoy. it’s a shame the republican party disposes of quality people with such ease

        • swlausa

          DallasTexas  The Republican Party is defined by a platform.  If you don’t agree with the platform, then you should start your own party.

        • DallasTexas

          swlausa Bob Portman just endorsed gay marriage. What party is he in?

        • swlausa

          DallasTexas  I don’t know who Bob Portman is.  Anyone can join any party they want too.  Just because they join a particular party doesn’t mean they support the party platform.  If they don’t support the party platform, then they are misrepresenting the party.

        • DallasTexas

          swlausa Maybe you know him as Rob Portman not sure but he’s the R Senator from OH. Tell him to find another party. Seriously though, it’s people like you who will continue to hold the conservative movement back. Accept people for who they are. If you don’t want to mingle with them then don’t but THEY have the RIGHT to LIVE THEIR LIFE how THEY want to.

        • swlausa

          DallasTexas  It is not the conservatives that are holding the conservative movement back, it is SIN that is holding the conservative movement back.

        • DallasTexas

          swlausa cuckoo. good night now

        • RayBrown1

          swlausa DallasTexas Amen

        • GiantM

          DallasTexas swlausa 
          The party of the “low information voter”!

        • GiantM

          DallasTexas swlausa 
          You sound just like Portman. A person who speaks and stands on the side of conservatism, but holds strong to liberal beliefs!
          That’s what has happened to Washington.
          Folks like myself and swlausa only speak up for what we believe is to be true. I don’t conform to anything contray to conservative principles. The idea today that we have to bend and comprimise in order to be accepted is the true demise of our nation.
          America was founded by both Democratic & Conservative thinking men, but they all agreed that this nation was to be founded on Godly principles which by default falls into conservative thinking.

        • wodiej

          GiantM DallasTexas swlausa wonder how many so called conservatives you have voted for including GW Jr, if you’ve ever had sex outside of marriage and how many other “sins” you and others denouncing gays have committed.  Got a picture of your angel’s wings? Didn’t think so.

      • http://www.911dj.com glegakis

        swlausa DallasTexas Conservativism isn’t defined by whether you’re homosexual or not.  It’s homosexual behavior that makes the difference.   If they’re living the lifestyle,  then no,  they can’t be Conservative.

        • swlausa

          glegakis   DallasTexasconservative (by definition) – holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion. Homosexual behavior is in conflict with traditional values.  Traditional values are based on the Word of God.  Conservative and conservatism is based on the Word of God.

        • http://www.911dj.com glegakis

          swlausaglegakisDallasTexas
          ” Conservative and conservatism is based on the Word of God.”
          As much as I wish that was true, I’m not sure it is based on most definitions of Conservatism.
          I guess the Devil is in the details.  Who’s definition of Conservatism do we use.  I think it can be defined without necessarily having religion be an integral part of the definition.  Hmm…

      • http://www.911dj.com glegakis

        swlausa DallasTexas  as long as she’s celibate,  she can be a Conservative.   Living or not living the lifestyle is where the schism occurs.

        • DallasTexas

          glegakis swlausa I obviously should have donated my $1,800 to Obama and my hard working daughter should have rallied her friends to vote a straight democratic ticket because the “conservative” “liberty loving” republicans can’t see there way past their own bigoted views.

        • swlausa

          glegakis  DallasTexas I would use the word repent and turn from sin than the word celibate.  Celibate confers “abstaining from”.  Since God knows your heart, it is better that he knows that you have repented and turned away from it than abstaining from it without repenting.

        • swlausa

          DallasTexas  Either you choose to live by the Word or by the world.

        • DallasTexas

          swlausa doesn’t the constitution provide freedom of / from religion? Is the republican party only for hard line Christians? Maybe the equivalent of jihidistas to Islam.

        • swlausa

          DallasTexas  The 1st amendment is referring to Congress.  The Republican Party is for those people who believe in the principles of the Republican Party as defined by its party platform.

        • DallasTexas

          swlausa I bet you’re left out in the cold on this issue and the hard line stance you take is going end up hurting your party. Aside from party you should watch “Lord, save us from your followers”. It’s a shame you can’t see you’re not only turning people off from your party you’re turning them off from your religion.

        • ryanomaniac

          DallasTexas swlausa. You would actually compare the two?? What’s wrong with you??

        • http://www.911dj.com glegakis

          ryanomaniac DallasTexas swlausa Compare what two?  All I’m saying is that you can be a homosexual and have a Conservative political ideology as long as you don’t give in to your lust and live a decadent homosexual lifestyle.  Mean ing have any kind of sex with someone of the same sex.

        • http://www.911dj.com glegakis

          DallasTexasswlausaWhat’s right is what’s right.  I don’t care a whit about political parties.  I may be more closely aligned with the GOP, but as a Christian Constitutional Pro-Life Conservative, I have little use for most Republicans.
          When  I voted for Romney I literally held my nose in the voting booth(probably looked pretty silly if anybody saw me).  And since I live regrettably in NY it wouldn’t have made much difference either way.  And when I voted for McCain I was actually voting for Palin.
          “turning people off to my religion”
          If my religion is truth, than all I can do is share that truth.  It’s up to the individual to embrace it or reject it.  Mark 8:36 “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul.”

        • http://www.911dj.com glegakis

          swlausa DallasTexas How does what you wrote apply to my assertion?  And do you agree with it?

        • http://www.911dj.com glegakis

          DallasTexas swlausa Who said anything about the Republican party???
          The argument was can you be a Conservative and be a homosexual; ideologically speaking?  This has to do with a way of thinking and personal behavior, not necessarily religion and sin.

        • http://www.911dj.com glegakis

          swlausa glegakis DallasTexas Well said and well defined.  I agree.
           Sometimes when I’m slapping the keyboard the words don’t always come.  Plus I may have been trying to frame the argument in more secular terms.
          Nonetheless, you said it they way it should have been said from a more eternal perspective.
           Thanks.

        • http://www.911dj.com glegakis

          DallasTexas glegakis swlausa If you can be bigoted against God’s teachings, why can’t I be bigoted against the homosexual lifestyle?
          Your daughter is a child of God as we all are.  But that doesn’t mean she can sin without retribution.  If your daughter is carrying on with another female (or a male for that matter)  She is living a life of  sin.
          God sanctions “Holy Matrimony” between one man and one woman.  That’s it!
          Besides homosexual sex doesn’t even make sense.  It’s hedonism of the highest order.

  • chuck2013

    Actually you all can talk all you want but the fact is that a person that is conservative is what they do and how they feel. Definitions are rhetorical at best. It is not an oxymoronic statement. I could use a lot of big words but I wont. Let me ask alol who respond. What woulkd you do and how would you feel if your son or daughter told you they were gay? Would you disown them? You all do know that being gay is not just a sexual thing. No I’m not gay and been married for over 42 years to the same woman but still, who are we to judge people on their personal lives? “Least anyone of us without sin cast the first stone” Yes Dallas, and my son told me this last summer that he was gay. I love him as a son and a friend. He is the only member of my family or his mothers family that stated as much. He is my son above all and I would fight to the death for him and Dallas would for his daughter too.

    • MatthewFivethruseven

      chuck2013
      He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD. (Pro 17:15)
      And the LORD said to Samuel, Behold, I will do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle. In that day I will perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concerning his house: when I begin, I will also make an end. For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not.
      (1Sa 3:11-13)

      • StevenValdez

        MatthewFivethruseven Doesn’t Proverbs 17:15 refers to public justice.. Like an authority figure such as a Judge who is jury and executioner . Clearly that is an abomination for a judge to justify the criminal, but condemn the innocent.

        • MatthewFivethruseven

          StevenValdez MatthewFivethruseven not so neighbor.  “wickedness” is defined by God Himself, and is anything contrary to loving Him with all ones being (obeying His commandments), and loving ones neighbor as one self.  All sin is contrary to the love which God requires, because sin is a stumblingblock and an offense.  Jesus said “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!”

    • Major914

      chuck2013 “…the fact is… how they feel.” Exactly wrong. The facts, relevant to conservatism–to what is and is not conservatism–are eternal truths, whether well or poorly understood. It has nothing to do with any particular person or how they feel. That is the entire point to begin with. Conservatism is about that which is above and beyond persons–timeless principles the general conformance to which makes a free and virtuous society possible.
      Star Parker hits the nail on the head on this…

    • GiantM

      chuck2013 
      Chuck, if I were placed in your shoes and found out that any of my children “decided” to be gay I would first and formost ask myself where I failed in teaching my children the abomniation of the gay lifestyle and how it totally contradicts G_D’s word.
      Secondly I would begin to devote my life in prayer for them in an effort to have the Lord intervene and cleanse them of this sin behavior.
      I would not disown my child because the Lord clearly tells us to love the person but hate the sin. And so by “faith” I would trust in the Lord to release my child from such debauchery. But never….NEVER!….would I go on living in acceptance of what they have chosen to be.

      • wodiej

        GiantM chuck2013 your only failure would be that you didn’t accept your child for who and what they are.

  • MatthewFivethruseven

    To say that homosexuals are “marxist” is irrelavent.  Jesus has made the determination concerning all forms of immorality, and He states that homosexuality, along with all others, is an abomination,  Politics cannot solve the sin problem, but it seems that ‘conservatives’ are repeatedly trying to use a false christianity for the sake of political gain.  Conservatives are adamantly opposed to stealing (all forms), but turn a blind eye to equally heinous sins against ones fellow man (adultery, homosexuality, fornication).  Can a thief be a conservative?  A liar?  Where is the list of distinguishing features that makes one a ‘conservative’?

  • WaiGuoGuizi

    Gay people need jobs, too, and they also have to pay taxes. How does being gay make you not care about the $16 trillion deficit? Sexual preference has nothing to do with your views on cutting taxes, cutting spending, and cutting the size of government.

  • JohnBohler

    You can be gay and conservative, and live conservatively.   Just don’t expect my vote if you are a PRACTICING homosexual.   If you are gay but can control yourself and live normally….. we’ll see.

    • hbnolikeee

      JohnBohler That’s the philosophy that will kill conservatism.  If the guy/girl don’t impose their preferences on you, why should you impose on them.  Where did liberty go in your narrow equation?

      • JohnBohler

        hbnolikeee JohnBohler How can you be a practicing Homosexual and reject Gay marriage? Possible, but i’ll never risk it at the voting box.
        But let me put it to you this way…. Would you vote for a self proclaimed adulterer that regularly does “it” with many girls and lets the whole world know about it?

        • hbnolikeee

          JohnBohler hbnolikeee Not all homosexuals are in favor of gay marriage.  I would not vote for an adulterer as that person is by definition a liar.

        • JohnBohler

          hbnolikeee JohnBohler As i said, they can be conservative but those that aren’t in favor are few and far in between.  And even if they claimed to be against it while seeking office i will not support them for the temptation would be strong for them to support it.  
          And it’s good that you at least have some moral standard of those who you’d vote into office, but let me take it a second step further. Would you vote for a guy who is SINGLE and is having an affair with a girl/girls outside the confines of marriage openly?

        • hbnolikeee

          JohnBohler hbnolikeee You ask a loaded question similar to that old chestnut, have you stopped beating your wife?
          If the question is do I have a problem with some guy having sexual relations outside of wedlock with another single single girl, then the answer is simple.  That is none of my business nor is it any of yours.

  • SheerPolitics

    I think certainly anyone *can* be conservative. What I hate is anyone saying they are “fiscally conservative, but socially moderate.” THAT is a true oxymoron. Because to be socially moderate means you are going to promote social causes and that, by definition, means you want to spend taxpayer $$ on them. Which means you are not really a fiscal conservative.

    • http://cfp4us.org/ WolfieUSA

      SheerPolitics True… They are Conservative with their OWN money, but have no problem seeing other people pay for social programs… Again, NOT a Conservative.

  • Gtrjag

    It is absurd to compare being black or being a woman to being a homosexual. If I was a black person or a woman that comparison would insult me greatly. As much as I like Mr. Whittle, his outrage is way over the top. I would say that a homosexual can have some conservative principle, but there is a reason most homosexuals are not conservatives. My philosophy is rooted in in my belief in God. I believe in good and evil. I believe that God created man in his image, that each life is sacred, and that each person should be free to pursue God’s purpose for his life. Most Conservatives have a core set of values from which they draw there philosophy. Liberals don’t . Any person, who would go so far as to reject the basic family unit, to deny basic biology, has no foundation. They simply go with the flow.

  • stage9

    This pretty much sums up the idiocy of the Western skeptic.
    Creed
    Steve Turner
    We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin. We believe everything is OK as long as you don’t hurt anyone, to the best of your definition of hurt, and to the best of your knowledge.
    We believe in sex before during and after marriage. We believe in the therapy of sin. We believe that adultery is fun. We believe that sodomy’s OK. We believe that taboos are taboo.
    We believe that everything’s getting better despite evidence to the contrary. The evidence must be investigated. You can prove anything with evidence.
    We believe there’s something in horoscopes, UFO’s and bent spoons; Jesus was a good man just like Buddha Mohammed and ourselves. He was a good moral teacher although we think his good morals were very bad.
    We believe that all religions are basically the same, at least the one that we read was.They all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God and salvation.
    We believe that after death comes The Nothing because when you ask the dead what happens they say Nothing. If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then it’s compulsory heaven for all excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin and Genghis Khan.
    We believe in Masters and Johnson. What’s selected is average. What’s average is normal. What’s normal is good.
    We believe in total disarmament. We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed. Americans should beat their guns into tractors and the Russians would be sure to follow.
    We believe that man is essentially good. It’s only his behaviour that lets him down. This is the fault of society. Society is the fault of conditions. Conditions are the fault of society.
    We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him. Reality will adapt accordingly. The universe will readjust. History will alter. 
    We believe that there is no absolute truth excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.
    We believe in the rejection of creeds, And the flowering of individual thought.
    Postscript: 
    If chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky and when you hear State of Emergency! Sniper Kills Ten! Troops on Rampage!  Whites go Looting! Bomb Blasts School!
    It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.

  • http://www.911dj.com glegakis

    First we have to define Conservative.   Because you don’t have to be a Christian or religious to be a Conservative. 
    So,  although Bill was over the top with his outrage,  I agree that a homosexual can be Conservative.   And a homosexual can even be a Christian,  but only if  they repent and renounce any previous sexual behavior. And of course,  remain celibate. Anyoneo disagree?

    • wodiej

      glegakis I disagree yes.  Bill has gay friends and I bet you have few if any so have your opinion and that is all it is.  Bill knows reality.  Most gay people are kind, caring, responsible people and many don’t give a whit whether they can legally marry.  Heterosexuals dont’ seem to embrace the values of marriage vows since 50% get divorced.  Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

      • http://www.911dj.com glegakis

        wodiejglegakis I recognize you from C4P but I remember you being a lot more cogent.
         You completely avoided any kind of argument to my assertion.  Read it again and try to respond on point.
        For the  record, I don’t have any homosexual friends, but I suppose I have homosexual acquaintances.  I never said “Most gay people aren’t kind, caring, responsible people. 

        Just reread my post and get back to me.

  • Zalman770

    There is a big difference between social conservative and fiscal conservative. Not being one type of conservative doesint contradict being another type of coservative.

  • cabensg

    It was a little to over the top for me. Gay conservatives do not need to be defended so vigorously as to sound like they are such down trodden victims. My particular take is if they are homosexual and want to vote Republican they can. If they want to say they area fiscal conservative fine. They are not however social conservatives if they agree that Marriage is some kind of right to be bestowed on anyone who demands it. I doubt very much there are so many conservative homosexuals that for some reason we feel an election depends on them and they must be defended and courted like liberals do. If they can’t vote for their country and it’s survival let them vote liberal. One little so called bash (opinion) by one conservative and all of sudden the sky is falling. It’s like fear was emanating from every pour over what the liberal press would say. If there was even one day that went by the the liberal press didn’t accuse conservatives of some made up evil I to would be upset. But there is no day that goes by that the liberal press doesn’t lie and call us homophobes, racist and whatever other popular name of day dictates. I’ll personally consider a homosexual person a conservative when they denounce every evil thing the radical homosexuals are trying to foist on our country.

  • Gtrjag

    I see some people have used this topic as another chance to bash Libertarians. Social Conservative values should not be enforced by Government , particularly the Federal Government. Johan Adams said that our Constitution was created for a moral and religious people. He was right, However that virtue must come from the culture, from the citizens themselves. It cannot be dictated by Government. Abortion should be illegal, not because it is a sin but because it destroys a human being that has the right to life. Gay Marriage should not be legal because gay and marriage are oxymorons, and while the state should not force people to live moral lives, they should not endorse such behavior either. There are two battles that have to be fought, one is political, the other is cultural. They are separate fronts in the same war, and without succeeding on both fronts we cannot win.

    • TheRedWriter

      Gtrjag I couldn’t agree more.  I abhor homosexuality, but the federal government has no business banning or promoting homosexual or straight unions.  It should be up to the churches.  Conservatives are very similar to muslims in that they advocate a theocracy.  It seems to me that Libertarians are the only real constitutionalists.

      • swlausa

        TheRedWriter  theocracy (by definition) – a system of government in which “priests rule” in the name of God or a god.  Well, I am for Godly people in office.

        • TheRedWriter

          swlausa TheRedWriter I’m fine with Godly people as long as they adhere strictly to the constitution.  The federal government does not exist to legislate morality.  Like Gtrjag said,  Morality is a culture problem.

        • swlausa

          TheRedWriter  The federal government was created under the notion that the people would “continue” to elect virtuous people to office.  Unfortunately, the people in office are a reflection of the people that elected them.

        • swlausa

          TheRedWriter  Also, I say that the “morailty of the majority” defines the culture.

        • TheRedWriter

          swlausa TheRedWriter Again, I’m talking about the Constitution and the limits it places on the federal government.  It does not allow for federal legislation of morality.  If you want to vote for behavior control in your local elections, you have every right to do so.

        • swlausa

          TheRedWriter  I agree.

        • DarrellGriffin

          TheRedWriter swlausa 
          On this we are agreed. Your taking a simple truth and opening it up to attack by the analogies and comparisons you are using.
          If people want the government out of their bedrooms, then they need to take the public money out of them first.
          So long as there is public money providing healthcare and infanticide for high risk groups, there will be debate.

        • KenInMontana

          swlausa TheRedWriter England is ,technically, a theocracy as the Monarch is both the Head of State and the Head of the Anglican Church. 
          According to Webster’s;
          Theocracy, noun
          1.A political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided)
          2.The belief in government by divine guidance.
          3.Government of a state by the immediate direction or administration of God; hence, the exercise of political authority by priests as representing the Deity.
          From Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary;
          “Government of a state by the immediate direction of God; or the state thus governed. Of this species the Israelites furnish an illustrious example. The theocracy lasted till the time of Saul.”

      • Gtrjag

        TheRedWriter Gtrjag I agree with most of what you say, but I think comparing Conservatives to Muslims is a bit absurd. Most Conservatives do not wont to ban homosexual behavior. They just don’t want it normalized and equated to  marriage. I believe that is the same position you and I take. I really wish Conservatives and Libertarians could unite instead of fighting against each other. There is not that much difference between us. Most of the issues that separate aught to be state issues anyway. We can agree to disagree on our differences, but the Progressives in both the Democrat and Republican parties must be stopped.

        • DarrellGriffin

          Gtrjag TheRedWriter 
          There is  ONE area that prevents Conservatives and Libertarians from uniting, because they do have much in common. I’ve often said that many Libertarians are young Conservatives who haven’t had much experience in life and are still bound by ideology and theory, rather than cold hard reality.
          Conservatives have a good understanding of history and what an “isolationist” or “noninterventionist” foreign policy always leads to, and “it ain’t good”.  Many Libertarians do not.
          Theory and reality are often two different things. Until most Libertarians get that, they will continue to split their votes in the primaries.

        • TheRedWriter

          Gtrjag TheRedWriter It’s not absurd at all.  Conservatives(religious progressives) want the federal government to be a Christian theocracy.  Muslims, as we all know, advocate an Islamic theocracy.

        • TheRedWriter

          DarrellGriffin Gtrjag TheRedWriter There’s a lot more than one.  I really don’t care what you’ve often said.  I used to be a young Bush loving Republican.  Then, I grew up.  Real Libertarians are bound by the Constitution.  It’s Conservatives(religious progressives) and Liberals(secular progressives) who are bound by ideology.

        • Gtrjag

          TheRedWriter Gtrjag  I will admit that there are some Christians who want to use the Government to accomplish there own agenda. However, I would hesitate to call those people Conservatives, just as I would hesitate to call George W. Bush a Conservative. They are Christian Progressives.

    • ryanomaniac

      Gtrjag. Well, then just take a piss on the forefathers. They would have no room in your house would they? Whens the last time you set up a system that created the greatest country known to man?

      • Gtrjag

        ryanomaniac Gtrjag Huh?

  • TheRedWriter

    One can believe that society should be moral.  One can also live a moral life and attempt to persuade others to do so.  If you believe that the federal government should enforce moral behavior, you are a progressive.  You can use the word conservative if you want, but if you do, you can’t associate conservatism with constitutionalism.  Conservatism is just progressivism with morals.  It’s government control with a Bible.  Liberals are secular progressives and Conservatives are religious progressives.

    • swlausa

      TheRedWriter Conservatism is not progressivism with morals.

    • AlAlekhine

      TheRedWriter Many progressives today believe that property rights are immoral and that theft is just an act of rebellion against an unjust system. Should government withdraw from this moral issue as well?

      • TheRedWriter

        AlAlekhine TheRedWriter The federal government is very limited on where it can stick it’s nose.  Property rights are a state issue.  Theft should be left up to local law enforcement.  Why do you ask questions that you know the answer to?

        • swlausa

          TheRedWriter AlAlekhine Rhetorical . . .

        • AlAlekhine

          So you also believe that sodomy laws should be left to the states as they have been for over 200 years?

        • TheRedWriter

          AlAlekhine What do you not understand?

        • AlAlekhine

          TheRedWriter AlAlekhine You’re a haughty little snot aren’t you?

        • TheRedWriter

          AlAlekhine TheRedWriter  I’m nowhere near haughty; just a little frustrated and confused.  I can’t figure out where you’re coming from.  I’ve already stated that I adhere to the constitution.  I have to assume you’ve read it.  So, I don’t understand the purpose of your questions; and at 6’3” 230lbs, I hardly qualify as a “little snot”.  A”big asshole” would be more appropriate.

        • AlAlekhine

          TheRedWriter AlAlekhine  I can live with that.

        • badbadlibs

          TheRedWriter AlAlekhine 
          No law enforcement., No laws. Either you live by moral codes or not.

        • OneThinDime

          AlAlekhine And sodomy is still illegal in most every state, as it should be.

        • JimLand

          OneThinDime AlAlekhine Sodomy should be illegal?  Why? If you say for morality, should cursing, alcohol, pornography, premarital sex, smoking all be illegal?

    • amyshulk

      TheRedWriter Ah, but that’s the root, right? All law comes from ^someone’s^ idea of morality, does it not? Hence the Constitution and Bill of Rights are what our founders deemed to be the moral {God given} rights of Americans.
      So when gov’t, while attempting to legislate away their idea of immorality, attempts to micromanage our lives, they stray from those natural rights and the problems begin and are compounded.

    • CalCoolidge

      TheRedWriter Progressivism has morals.  Just ask them.

    • DarrellGriffin

      TheRedWriter Having standards of norms, the rule of law, and vehicles to encourage those standards and rules is not progressivism.
      Progressivism is the incremental, constant moving of goal posts  away from those rules and standards to a more permissive and corrupt society. Or “progressively” changing the standards. Where eventually rhere are no standards, no stigmas, no consequences for poor choices.
      Conservatism is the effort to preserve or “conserve” those standards and rules so that members of society will remain productive or be shamed into improving themselves.
      I think you are confusing authoritarianism with libertarianism.

      • TheRedWriter

        DarrellGriffin TheRedWriter Progressivism is the idea that the government knows what’s best for me.  Conservatives(religious progressives), like muslims, seek to impose their religious beliefs on others through legislation at the federal level.  Liberals(secular progressives) seek to impose their immoral tolerance on others through legislation at the federal level.  The Constitution permits neither.

    • badbadlibs

      TheRedWriter 
      Would you please go live in a moral free country, land, society….someplace. Then if you survive freedoms to commit murder and robbery and mayhem in general, would you please come back and report what it was like to live a moral free life without any authorities to ensure your safety?

      • TheRedWriter

        badbadlibs TheRedWriter I don’t want to live in a moral free country, land, society….someplace.  I just want the United States government to follow the law it was given.  The Constitution protects life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Thus, murder is illegal.  Every state has laws against robbery and mayhem.  Please, I beg you, reel it in.

  • AlAlekhine

    What about the documented fact that Marxists and the Frankfort School sought to promote homosexuality and immorality in general as a way to combat bourgeois society? Any thoughts?

    • swlausa

      AlAlekhine My thoughts here is … everyone should watch the documentary “AGENDA:  Grinding America Down” by Curt Bowers.

      • AlAlekhine

        swlausa AlAlekhine I agree.

    • CalCoolidge

      AlAlekhine What difference does that make?

      • OneThinDime

        CalCoolidge AlAlekhine It does if the coffee is purchased at Starbucks.  Starbucks’ CEO, an Obama bootlicker, has informed Christians they are unwelcome.  Little discrimination going on?  You bet.

  • Dr. Strangelove

    As a former street level alcoholic/drug addict and recovering liberal, I can make some parallels here. Both are hedonistic, decadent and nihilistic lifestyles that don’t lend themselves to true conservatism. An alcoholic’s life centers on sucking on the bottle while gays… uh, are centered on sex. Sorry for the crude analogy I almost made there but from my experience as a user and working at a homeless shelter after I got sober the gay life portrayed on shows like Will and Grace and Queer Eye is far from reality. On the other hand, if Rush was addicted to opiates than I guess there are some low tax, small government gays out there, but exceptions rather than the rule.

    • wodiej

      Dr. Strangelove being an alcoholic and drug addict has nothing to do w gays.  How do you know gays are centered on sex? Straight men are centered on sex too.  So they must not be conservative either.  Cripes, give me a break.

    • ernst1776

      Dr. Strangelove Men are centered on sex!!!

      • badbadlibs

        ernst1776 Dr. Strangelove 
        All the more reason to have God in your life, in Truth and Spirit. It won’t work otherwise.

      • americalsgt

        ernst1776 Dr. Strangelove  I don’t care if your gay Ernst.  I believe in God and from that point on, I like to mind my own business.  My problem with gays is their militant element.  Why do they think they should be allowed to flaunt their behavior when then they comprise at or about ( you notice that you can no longer type that symbol that meant at or about) 5 percent of the population.  My issue is the behavior of marching down the street with boys wearing T-shirts that say I like Penises and the girls wear T-shirts that say I Like Vaginas.  You guys and girls shouldn’t do that when I’m walking down the street with my 5 year old grand daughter.  If I walked down the street with a T-shirt with a picture of a cat and a caption of I Love P^&&y I got straight to jail.  You want equal, then you go to jail too.

  • amyshulk

    Each group is viewed by the zebras among them, rather than the boring
    horses, with media picking and choosing which ones to promote {gays,
    women, minorities, etc} and which to denigrate – with conservatives at
    the top of the list. So in that sense, yes, a gay conservative IS an
    oxymoron.

  • wodiej

    Is it possible to be gay and conservative-Yes.  I am disappointed in Starr Parker as well.  I am encouraged by Bill Whittle’s response however.  Intolerance, judgment and self righteousness does not promote Christian values.  Lots of people going to church being anything but Christian.  People don’t have to agree with gays but they don’t have to be hateful about it either.  There’s a lot worse things going on in society than a person being gay and much of it by heterosexuals.

    • PertyMouthParks

      wodiej I agree fully, wodiej! I could care less who’s doing who. You pay taxes, abhor entitlements, and carry your own weight, you are fine by me.

    • badbadlibs

      wodiej You have missed the point. The founding fathers knew only a Godly moral society could prevail.
      What a pity.

  • ernst1776

    First off…. Starr Parker I want my $25 back that I sent you in 2010 for your failed bid for congress.   I am gay, I am conservative and I don’t give a rats behind what people think of me.   I love America, I love Jesus and I try everyday to live in the Glory of the Lord.  I am sickened by the American left and by liberalism in general.  As an American I am gaurenteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  I have no need to be accepted, just let me be!!!!

    • ernst1776

      AlAlekhine And now we’re not!

      • ernst1776

        AlAlekhine ernst1776 And I suppose haters beat their wives, kick their dog , covet their neighbors belongings and are comfortable bearing false witness to make themselves seem better.

      • AlAlekhine

        ernst1776AlAlekhineernst1776 AlAlekhine I suppose systematic dupification has its own special charm for the depraved.

    • CalCoolidge

      AlAlekhine “”As an American I am gaurenteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  No you’re not, ”
      Well, there you go.  People who reject the founding principles are now calling themselves conservatives.

    • freeperjim

      ernst1776 Sorry, but your argument is with God who stated very clearly that engaging in a homosexual lifestyle is wrong, a sin and an abomination. I suggest you get right with God before demanding a refund from Ms. Parker, a true Christian unlike you.

      And please use the proper word “homosexual” as “gay” has been stolen and forever tarnished. But leftwing kooks always relabel – i.e. communist to progressive to liberal and now back to progressive.

    • 57thunderbird

      ernst1776 I will pray that the Lord delivers you from the bondage of homosexuality.

    • badbadlibs

      ernst1776 
      Your sin was paid for on Calvary, do not remain in it. Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery,, go and sin NO MORE. Do not be deceived. When God calls a behavior an abomination He does not change His Mind.

    • LoveLiberty

      @ernst1776 Great post.

  • dBbBucK

    I don’t see any comment’s….What’s up?

  • dBbBucK

    Ok it’s my IE , something has changed and can’t see the comment’s. Can see them in mozilla. I really hate change sometimes.

    • http://cfp4us.org/ WolfieUSA

      dBbBucK Do you have a adblock or popup blocker or ghostery running?

  • Godisright

    I read the article and I fully agree with Star Parker. Lets look to the Word of God and see what he has to say about it rather than man’s justification for acting a certain way. I’d rather not face the ultimate incivility.

  • ryanomaniac

    Lots of people calling themselves Constitutionalists and that’s why they think homosexuality is OK in a society. Wrong. The forefathers were conservatives and DID believe in a moral society. That’s how this whole system works. It wont work without it and that’s what’s happening here. The devil has found the last sliver of holdouts here that still believe as the Founders do.

    • DarrellGriffin

      ryanomaniac Freedom without morality is Anarchy………which is what a lot of these “Freedom and Liberty” types want.
      Not to say this is all libertarians. There are Constitutionalists. There are Libertarians.Then there are the PaulBots and libertarian leftists that belong in the DNC instead of disrupting the GOP.

    • badbadlibs

      ryanomaniac You have got that right.
      I watched this yesterday on utube and thought to myself, these men are as dead in their souls as the rest of the world has become.
      homosexuality has become the norm, even the boy scouts are have given up their morality., I saw a commercial the other day for kindle, in it a man posed as another man’s husband and it all looked so sweet and innocent. Without God there will be no objections to any kind of behavior and the founders knew that.

      • OneThinDime

        badbadlibs ryanomaniac I just might have to break my Kindle.

        • badbadlibs

          OneThinDime badbadlibs ryanomaniac 
          I will never purchase one. It is going to get worse and worse and rapidly. Be prepared, the son of perdiditon will be revealed and it will look as innocent and accepted as one of the most perverse, anti God, behaviors there is on this planet.
          Homosexuality goes against the very God who created us, and it perverts The Wedding Feast as the Groom calls for His bride on that great and glorious day.
          satan knows this all too well and there will be multiple millions who will miss it. Including those you would never have thought.

    • TheRedWriter

      ryanomaniac Homosexuality is not OK in a society, but it’s not a federal issue.  The Constitution does not give the federal government permission to address homo unions.

  • DarrellGriffin

    If people want the government out of their bedrooms, then they need to take the public money out of them first.
    So long as there is public money providing healthcare and other services for high risk groups, there will be debate.
    So long as public money is used for infanticide, there will be debate.

  • PertyMouthParks

    If you are gay, adhere to the Constitution, pay taxes, and are disgusted with entitlements, you are a conservative.

  • Pancake3

    Hnnnnn, those Republicans and Conservatives are a pretty exclusive club, aren’t they?  The reality is it is nobody’s business what one does in the privacy of the one’s bedroom.  Couldn’t care less.

    • badbadlibs

      Pancake3 Are you capable of using all of your brain.
      There are plenty of things that go on in bedrooms that are societies business. Homosexuality being one.

    • PertyMouthParks

      Pancake3 It is nobody’s business. You are correct. I agree! How can people care so much about homosexual going-ons? It’s not the small community of gay individuals mooching 10% of our GDP on entitlements. Stealing peoples hard earned dollars for your own benefit is more of a crime than being gay. Gays don’t destroy society, mooching welfare recipients do.

    • MissMyGuy

      Pancake3 because we aren’t talking about sex, we are talking about the social contract of marriage.  The effects on society, culture and children.

  • 57thunderbird

    Homosexuals comprise a mere 2 to 4% of the population,but to due to the media hype on this subject most Americans believe it to be a full 25% when polled.If they didn’t have to broadcast their lifestyle and try to promote it as normal then nobody would care.

    • notsofastthere

      57thunderbird We have laws against discrimination, but the Gay lobby and others demand ‘special status’ with implementing hate crimes and now overturning the meaning of marriage. People never seem to leave well enough alone. Just like the Feminist movement. They aren’t happy with equality – they want dominance and special status.

      • 57thunderbird

        notsofastthere 57thunderbird Agreed.

      • badbadlibs

        notsofastthere 57thunderbird 
        It won’t be long before churches will be shut down. Pastors will face jail time and great fines for the hate crime of not performing a marriage ceremony between two men or two women.
        Where will all the “conservative supporters” of homosexuality be then? Will they come to our pastor’s defense? Will they do anything to stop my arrest from speaking as I do now?
        But, since these are the last days we can expect people like the pastor who would rather be arrested then break God’s law to become fewer and fewer/

        • 57thunderbird

          badbadlibs notsofastthere 57thunderbird That threat has been hanging over the churches for several years now.My pastor says he may be in jail in the not too distant future because he will not stop preaching homosexuality as a sin.

        • badbadlibs

          57thunderbird badbadlibs notsofastthere I pray the Lord continues to give him the strength to prevail in his beliefs.
          It’s not going to be as easy as we think.

        • 57thunderbird

          badbadlibs 57thunderbird notsofastthere No sin is overcome easily,but with power from on high all things are possible.

        • PertyMouthParks

          badbadlibs notsofastthere 57thunderbird Absolutely, we should come to their defense. It is their choice not to perform those types of marriages.

        • badbadlibs

          PertyMouthParks badbadlibs notsofastthere 57thunderbird Fat chance that will happen.
          Those who dare will also face a “hate crime”. Count on it.

    • OneThinDime

      57thunderbird But they must be front and center and push their behavior on to others, it’s the only way they feel any value.

      • 57thunderbird

        OneThinDime 57thunderbird Exactly!

      • GradySmith

        OneThinDime 57thunderbird  
        You mean like their desire to not be discriminated against?  Or their values of full equality?  Here is a fun activity for you, that will hopefully underscore how morally bankrupt your arguments are.  Go look up some anti Civil rights arguments from the 60s and change references to blacks to gay and then see if you can find people making those arguments today.
        You can,.  I find that people often say special rights when they mean basic human rights that they disagree with.

        • 57thunderbird

          GradySmith OneThinDime 57thunderbird Nonsense.The civil rights movement of the sixties was about people of color being equal under the law to the whites.Sexual orientation is not on the same plain.

        • GradySmith

          57thunderbird GradySmith OneThinDime  
          Plane not plain.  Basic human rights are basic human rights.  The Civil Rights movement going on right now is about homosexuals being equal under the law to straights.

          How is the modern Civil Rights movement or Gay Civil Rights movement different from the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s?

        • OneThinDime

          Failed argument.  The Bible is very clear about the immoral homosexual behavior.  The 1960s “civil rights movement” is what began the turn of this country into the cesspool it has become.  
          And let me remind you, women received the constitutional right to vote 50 years after blacks.  So if you want to have an equality argument, let’s start there. Homosexuals should receive ZERO preference and should have their DNA examined to identify the chemicals ingested by their parents that screwed up their DNA so those chemicals can be deemed illegal.

        • OneThinDime

          Homosexual behavior is immoral not a civil right.  It is and should remain illegal.

        • PertyMouthParks

          OneThinDime Mao, is that you?

        • GradySmith

          OneThinDime The Bible is very clear on not eating shellfish and not working on the sabbath, but I suspect you selectively follow it  

          and by preference, I assume you mean it is okay to discriminate against them and maybe rough them up?   If only to stop their evil immoral behavior?

          Also, that last bit about DNA, wow read a book.  I suppose I should laud you for not assuming that is some sort of whim.

        • Gtrjag

          GradySmith
          OneThinDime 

          Sir, I have seen you use
          the shellfish argument many times. You claim to understand the Bible, but you
          apparently do not. Christians are not bound to the law as laid out in the Old
          Testament. That law was for the Children of Israel. It was part of the Old
          Covenant between God and nation of Israel.
          Christians do not live
          under the law, we live under grace. We have been saved by faith in Jesus Christ
          which is counted to us for Righteousness. This does not mean that we are free
          to sin. But it does mean that we are free from the strict nature of the Mosaic Law.
          We
          are under a new covenant now. Trying to live under the old is unnecessary and
          in my mind it is disrespectful of what Jesus did for us on the cross.

    • LoveLiberty

      57thunderbird They are a small minority but touch the lives of parents, siblings, co-workers, teachers & friends. When gays are I denigrated a larger group is alienated from supporting a political group. The gays I know are law abiding, tax paying, kind people and I don’t want them treated unkindly. I won’t vote democrat but who can I vote with? If Republicans neutralize the issue, agree to disagree and respect that there are different views on social issues – I’ll vote with them.

      • 57thunderbird

        LoveLiberty How are they denegrated?

      • OneThinDime

        LoveLiberty Actually it is the homosexuals that are denigrating those of us that support Christianity and marriage.

        • 57thunderbird

          OneThinDime LoveLiberty Absolutely true.

  • MissMyGuy

    It was Reagan who had the three legs of a stool philosophy? To be conservative meant social, fiscal and national security and you must  have all three or it falls over.  Social issues are largely religious.  But the Constitution states that religion is not mandated. So how do Reagan conservatives balance that?  The social issues must take a backseat to fiscal and national security.

    • badbadlibs

      MissMyGuy The back seat? All societies who put social issues on the back seat collapse. Reagan understood the founding fathers and the principles they founded this country upon.
      That has got so lost now that no matter the moral issues, just put them on the back burner because they smack of “religion”, Nonsense, missmyguy!

      • MissMyGuy

        badbadlibs MissMyGuy Because if you are bankrupt and under attack and cant defend yourself, then who cares if you are gay?  I didn’t say ignore the social issues, that is what families are for. that is what parenting is for.

        • PertyMouthParks

          MissMyGuy badbadlibs Yep! Values are for families to decide, not society to force.

        • GradySmith

          PertyMouthParks MissMyGuy badbadlibs  
          Like murder?  Stealing?  Etc…

        • PertyMouthParks

          GradySmith PertyMouthParks MissMyGuy badbadlibs Or telling someone they cant marry someone else, because it isn’t socially acceptable. Yes, they all infringe on the rights of the individual.

        • GradySmith

          PertyMouthParks GradySmith MissMyGuy badbadlibs  
          sorry, you really think the government should have no laws concerning murder or stealing?
          Maybe I misunderstood your initial point.  I thought you were saying that the government shouldn’t allow homosexuals to marry.  If you are saying that restricting marriage to only straight couples is inconsistent with small government, then I totally agree with you.  
          I was using murder to underline that the government does enforce some values.

        • PertyMouthParks

          GradySmith PertyMouthParks MissMyGuy badbadlibs Absolutely. I agree that murder and stealing should be punished by law. But, I think that our government should allow gays to marry. Allowing that would boost the concept of individualism.

        • badbadlibs

          MissMyGuy badbadlibs 
          That’s the biggest bunch of nonsense yet. You aren’t comparing apples to oranges, you’re comparing raw liver to Godiva Chocolates!
          You want the family undermined, then you say families are for teaching “social issues’. You can’t bring yourself to even say “morals”.
          Your belief system is destroying this nation. Congratulations, you stand with Obama and his ilk.

        • badbadlibs

          PertyMouthParks MissMyGuy badbadlibs Tell that to the guy who robs your home.

        • PertyMouthParks

          badbadlibs PertyMouthParks MissMyGuy I will, after he’s splattered all over my wall.

      • PertyMouthParks

        badbadlibs MissMyGuy All societies that concentrate power in the hands of a few collapse. I’ve never heard of a society collapsing because of homosexuality.

        • badbadlibs

          PertyMouthParks badbadlibs MissMyGuy 
          It’s the legitimizing a homosexual lifestyle. That is the point. It’s further a symptom of a society whose moral values are declining, But, no matter, homosexuals will be able to do what they will at the expense of others, which will collapse this society. See it now?

    • PertyMouthParks

      MissMyGuy 100% correct! De-regulation, low to non-existent taxes, bare minimum welfare spending, and being allowed to pursue your interests without government interference is the Constitution in a nutshell.

  • tshtsh

    The political party
    tents are already quite large and porous, before I begin, is math still absolute,
    or is it a matter of opinion?The
    democrat party probably has a nonverbal personally pro-life member.People used to have litmus test, for example,
    it looks like Ann Coulter’s litmus test this time around will be amnesty.Some people want political power so badly
    they will run in the party that has less competition not necessarily based on
    the party’s “principles”. Party platforms
    used to be bedrock principles on which one could support.Today, it is more of a smorgasbord.One person may have a dab of national
    defense, a gallon of fiscal responsibility, a pint of social justice and skip
    that religious mumbo-jumbo.Just look at
    the three host of Trifecta, they could not be more different politically but
    fortunately decided to play nice together.

  • axslinger

    Well, there are different types of “Conservatives”. First of all, I don’t believe it pigeon-holing people.  Wear aren’t all as simple as a category on Jeopardy. Trying to frame people that way is ludicrous.  You can be a fiscal conservative and be socially liberally. Or vise-versa.  You will find that independent, free thinkers generally have a mixture of beliefs because they refuse to fall in lockstep with some imaginary group they identify themselves with.
    People, the whole Left/Right paradigm is nothing but a psychological game the government plays with the people.  Think of it this way; you’ve seen the good cop/bad cop scenario, right?  The cops try to make the “perp” think they are somehow opposed to one another but in reality, they BOTH HAVE THE SAME AGENDA! The get the perp to comply!  This is the two party system and if you don’t see that, you will be hopelessly locked in this delusional war with “them”.

  • LoveLiberty

    Are we voting on Constitutional issues or religion? If someone starts a fiscally conservative – socially neutral party I’m in. The media is capitalizing on the fact many fiscally conservative people don’t think it’s governments business to tell us how to think on social issues. I can’t be happy voting Republican if they bash my gay friends. I don’t think I’m alone.

    • DarrellGriffin

      LoveLiberty Holding a standard of societal norms, and holding a definition of “marriage” that has a 5000 year history is not “bashing your gay friends”.
      The issue is not whether the “alternate” lifestyle is tolerated and accepted. The issue is whether we normalize and teach it, redefining an institution in order to do so.
      An “alternate” lifestyle can have an alternate definition.

      • brazen_infidel

        DarrellGriffin LoveLiberty Unlike many of you, I’m sure, I’m old enough to remember a time when the police could break into a house in the middle of the night and arrest its occupants for sodomy. Those laws are off the books now (I think!); is that “condoning” sodomy, and would you like to reinstate them?
        I’m likewise old enough to remember when homosexuality was so stigmatized that almost all gays stayed in the “closet” — meaning, pretending to be other than what they were — and many of them would marry members of the opposite sex whom they had no real interest in satisfying, sexually or emotionally. Was that a better arrangement?
        Progressives are always citing their good intentions, but refuse to take responsibility for the consequences of the dictates. Some people here seem to be guilty of the same behavior. The fact is, there has always been a certain amount of sexual deviancy in the human population, and there always will be. Frankly, I’d rather have it out in the open, without deceit, rather than indirectly encourage the abuse of spouses, choir boys and farm animals.
        As it happens, my next door neighbors, Eric and Ken, are getting married today. It’s legal — the people of this state voted for it — and they have been living together for 17 years anyway. Am I supposed to get all lathered up over it? Burn their house down? Say, to hell with it, let’s just surrender to permanent rule by the Democrats? Turn in my guns? That’s what social conservatives seem to want to do if they don’t get their way.
        Bill Whittle had just the right word for them.

    • PertyMouthParks

      LoveLiberty You aren’t alone at all. The only reason I vote for Republicans is that they won’t trample on my rights as quickly as liberals do. We will reach a time where fiscal responsibility and the Bill of Rights is the only guiding light of our candidates. When that time comes, the masses will vote in lock step with us.

  • Stoptheusurper

    Can you be gay and be conservative.  Hell yes, I am always gay, I love life and what it has to offer.  Now if you mean can I be a Sodomite and be Conservative, that would be dependent on whether or not you define “conservative.”  There are Sodomites that are good stewards of their money, that is conservative.  There are Sodomites who are capitalist and believe that capitalism is the crown jewel of the American way.  My question is why we as Conservative/Christians always refer to Sodomites as “gay.”  Is “gay” a Biblical term or have Christians lost their moral moorings and sucked up to that political correct term “gay.”  I believe that would be the case.

    • GradySmith

      Stoptheusurper I think you might want to dust off your bible, if you check out the commonly quoted scripture used to support a prohibition on homosexuality, you will find that sodomite isn’t used.  Also, when it is used it is found in the Old Testament which is problematic for supporting a modern prohibition.  I guess it would be less problematic if you also renounce cotton polyester blends and shellfish.
      Also, you should really engage in some actual Biblical criticism or reading, the people writing the books that became the Bible were writing in a particular time and context.  You are reading those words in a modern context.

      • 57thunderbird

        GradySmith Stoptheusurper Malachi 3;6 For I am the Lor.I do not change.(to fit your modern society)

        • PertyMouthParks

          57thunderbird GradySmith Stoptheusurper The Old to the New Testament is a drastic change in the Lord’s temper, resolve and character.

        • 57thunderbird

          PertyMouthParks 57thunderbird GradySmith Stoptheusurper I disagree.

        • GradySmith

          57thunderbirdGradySmithStoptheusurper 
          Leviticus 11 9-12
           These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and
          scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not
          fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the
          waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an
          abomination unto you: They shall be even an
          abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have
          their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no
          fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. 
          Deuteronomy 14 9-10
          These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and
          scales shall ye eat: whatsoever hath not
          fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.  

          Since the bible doesn’t change and context doesn’t matter, I assume you avoid shellfish?  and by avoid, understand that it is abomination?

        • badbadlibs

          GradySmith Stoptheusurper 
          YES!
          Hebrews 13:8, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever!
          If God changed His Mind, where would we be?

  • livetotell

    In the end, it will come down to God’s judgment and the relationship each person has with God. There are enough nuances and variations in God’s beautiful creation that He – and He alone – will judge as He sees fit.  Love, not rigid judgment and condemnation, lead people to Christ.  I prefer to shine the light of love, not judgment.

    • PertyMouthParks

      livetotell Now that is wisdom!

    • 57thunderbird

      livetotell I don’t judge.If you are gay and want to come to Christ,welcome.I can not however lead you to believe that you can continue to live the homosexual lifestyly,and I can not condone you doing so.

      • GradySmith

        57thunderbird livetotell  
        How is that not a judgment?  
        Reminds me of how people say, let me be honest with you (or some such) and proceed to lie.  You are judging, most definitely, unless you keep all of the laws and prohibitions in the Bible.   We can go over them if you like, I am absolutely certain that you do not keep them all.

        • 57thunderbird

          GradySmith 57thunderbird livetotell I have been a Christian for thirty years and have no need for anybody to confirm my beliefs..Call it what you will.I am not judging.Repent means to turn away from that which is the sin in your life.Without repentance there is no forgiveness.It is abundantly clear to me that you do not understand the Word.If any man could keep the law perfectly there would have been no need of a Savior.I suggest you study a little harder,and ask the Lord for his understanding.

        • GradySmith

          57thunderbird GradySmith livetotell  
          so again, about that shellfish? 
          I also understand the Bible much better than you.  I understand how the canon was formed over a couple hundred years, I understand how various thinkers shaped the theology of the church and what that meant over a thousand plus years.  I understand the formation of Protestant theology and how it changed over hundreds of years.  In short, I am pretty sure I have studied way more than enough to have a casual conversation with someone who has not studied theses things or the Bible in general

        • 57thunderbird

          GradySmith 57thunderbird livetotell Now who is passing judgement.You could not be more wrong.I have read the Biblle from Genesis to Revelations numerous times.I have meditated on the Word each and every time I read it.I have an understanding of God’s word through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.You accusing me of never having done so means nothing.You are speaking of legalism.You missed the point that without repentance there is no forgiveness.Your point is nonsensical.

        • K-Bob

          GradySmith 57thunderbird livetotell Clearly you take your talking points from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1j0FS0Z6ho.

  • Myptofvu

    Kind of like a Mormon calling someone a Jack Mormon.

  • PertyMouthParks

    Just by the amount of comments, you can tell there is definitely a difference in opinion of conservatives. At least we know that we aren’t drones, like liberals.

    • 57thunderbird

      PertyMouthParks That I can agree on.

    • GradySmith

      PertyMouthParks Sorry, I am no longer a conservative.  I was for many years, but as I read and understood more about economics and positive liberty I became a progressive.
      I do believe in freedom and the importance of liberty.  I also love america which according to some is a conservative value.  :)

      • PertyMouthParks

        GradySmith PertyMouthParks This gay marriage thing isn’t a Constitutional issue; it’s a Constitutional Christian issue. I’m a Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek Constitutionalist. My interest is in promoting individual liberty, no matter the societal norm.

        • GradySmith

          PertyMouthParks GradySmith  
          Yeah, I figured that out, eventually, I suspect that you and I are on the same side on most social issues.

        • PertyMouthParks

          GradySmith PertyMouthParks I work too hard pursuing my own interests to focus on the choices others make. I couldn’t believe in the Constitution, the writings and beliefs of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, or Hayek if I judged others morality.

      • K-Bob

        GradySmithPertyMouthParks “understood more about economics and positive liberty I became a progressive”
        Progressivism is a major misunderstanding of math and economics. You cannot possibly move from conservatism to progressivism via that route.  Also your tossing in so many bizarre, a-historical statemsnts pretty much tells me that whatever you may have been before, it certainly wasn’t “conservative.”

    • comoesta3

      PertyMouthParks I know someone who’s gay who is very much against O.  I don’t know how she feels about social issues but she’s a fiscal conservative.  So there are different kinds of conservatives.

      • PertyMouthParks

        comoesta3 PertyMouthParks I know a gay dude that is exactly like the person you described. He’s one of the most down to Earth people I know. I’m proud to call him a conservative.

  • stage9

    I think the difference are clear.
    Conservatism
    Smaller government
    Constitutional government
    Fiscal responsibility
    Lower taxes
    Capitalism
    Opportunity over opportunism
    Religious tolerance
    Gun rights
    Free speech rights
    Religious virtue and morality
    Pro-life
    Pro-(God-ordained) marriage
    Pro-family
    Abstinence
    Parental rights
    End-of-life care
    Judicial limits
    Legal immigration
    Independent media
    Rights come from God
    Pro- Israel
    Character over race or sex
    Pro-America

    Liberalism
    Big government
    Rights come from the state
    Anti-constitutional
    Socialism
    Marxism
    Secularism
    Opportunism over opportunity
    Hostile towards Christianity
    Abortion rights
    Euthanasia
    Homosexuality
    Counterfeit marriage
    Sexual promiscuity
    Contraceptives
    Gun confiscation
    Infringement on privacy
    Higher taxes
    Judicial activism
    Illegal immigration
    Government media
    Hostile towards Israel
    Race & sex over character
    Anti-American

    • GradySmith

      stage9 Yeah, your list is incredibly biased.  antiamerican?  Really?

      • stage9

        GradySmith stage9 Um, yeah. I believe Barack Insane made the comment and I quote: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming America.”

        • GradySmith

          stage9 GradySmith  
          leaving aside whether the quote is real and the context, and the fact that I can certainly dig up similar quotes from republican campaigns.
          He speaks for all liberals?
          Can I go dig up some Phelps comments and say he represents all conservatives?

        • stage9

          GradySmith stage9  You use the word “republican”…I’m unfamiliar with that term. I am a Conservative, not a repugnantcan.

        • GradySmith

          stage9 GradySmith  
          So, the republican party is not conservative enough for you?  If you mean they are intrusive as hell, sure, I absolutely agree with you.  But most self-styled conservatives are okay with that, so long as the intrusion is for national security or for their personal beliefs.

        • GradySmith

          But the democratic president, he speaks for all liberals?

        • stage9

          GradySmith stage9 The Republican party isn’t conservative period! It has a few Conservatives within in it, but to call it Conservative is an insult to my intelligence.
          “Intrusive” in what way? Do you mean liberty without accountability, or do you mean intrusive in regard to big government?

        • PertyMouthParks

          GradySmith stage9 The republican party is the furthest thing from conservatism. Nixon started the EPA. Bush started No Child Left Behind and Medicare D. Reagan pushed Amnesty. We need to slash entitlements, taxes, and open up school choice.

        • GradySmith

          stage9 GradySmith 
          Democratic president, speaks for all libeals?

        • GradySmith

          PertyMouthParks GradySmith stage9  
          I agree with everything in the first part of your post, not so much the second part.  Our tax burden is too low, entitlements are mostly okay and easily fixable, and school choice is a bad idea.

        • stage9

          GradySmith stage9 That would be a new one for me! Do you mean Barack Insane doesn’t speak for all liberals? I would have to admit. That would be the first time I’ve ever heard that.

        • PertyMouthParks

          GradySmith PertyMouthParks stage9 Entitlements eat up 10% of our GDP. Lowering taxes brings in business. Business creates jobs, decreasing entitlements. School choice allows parents to take their children out of drop-out factories, and place them in better performing schools.

        • GradySmith

          stage9 GradySmith  
          President Obama does not in fact speak for me or all liberals and I know of no liberals who would say that he does.  If this is truly a first for you, I can only suggest you try some different news sources.  I read plenty of things that attack Obama from the left.

        • stage9

          GradySmith stage9 Well, I’ve read plenty of criticisms that he doesn’t go FAR ENOUGH…that I HAVE read, but to say that he isn’t a representative of their views is news to me indeed.

        • GradySmith

          PertyMouthParks GradySmith stage9  
          10 percent of GDP is perfectly sustainable.  Lowering taxes does not necessarily bring business.  Demand creates growth.  Cutting taxes for businesses does not actually increase demand.  Cutting taxes to people does, particularly cutting taxes to the lower quintiles who spend a larger percentage of their income.  School choice seems to lead to antiscience private schools, and enabling white flight.

          Being southern, I am leery of the government helping private schools as historically so many of them were formed in response to Brown v Board.

        • stage9

          GradySmith PertyMouthParks stage9 Um, when you raise taxes on businesses by extension raises the costs of goods and services on the consumer.
          A smart business owner makes up any deficiency in profits by passing on the costs to the consumer.

        • PertyMouthParks

          GradySmith stage9 Man, I read CBO reports and stuff like that. I stick with the classics if I want to learn anything. I stay away from all reporting. I would rather get my information from primary sources. I do admit that I like the Drudge Report though.

        • PertyMouthParks

          GradySmith PertyMouthParks stage9 My point is that it is constantly growing, not decreasing. A person’s wealth from his labor and private property is what makes him free.

        • Laurel A

          GradySmith stage9 Actually Phelps is a long time Democrat….so no you can’t even attribute him to Republicans let alone Conservatives unless you wallow in stereotype and substitute it for real thinking. What you classify as Republican and or Conservative just isn’t so. Really although Phelps is a registered Democrat I wouldn’t even classify him as that so let’s stop the mud slinging nonsense.

          As far as the left being anti_American…why yes they are and they are judged by their own words and deeds. Who else screams about imperialism and colonialism? Who else calls the FF’s all racist? Who else has blamed this country for 9/11? Who else proclaims the SW was stolen? I could bring this website to a grinding halt with even more examples.

        • Laurel A

          PertyMouthParks GradySmith stage9 See it’s nonsense posts like that htat are stupid and devoid of reality.

        • cabensg

          GradySmith stage9 Name one.

        • K-Bob

          GradySmith stage9 Phelps isn’t a Republican, and he certainly isn’t Conservative.

        • K-Bob

          GradySmith
          Pretty much the definition of anti-American.  Anti-reality, too, but the totalitarians always have to find that out the hard way.

        • K-Bob

          GradySmith PertyMouthParks stage9 Lowering them may not “bring business”, but raising them KILLS business.  All you have to do is look at what’s happened since 2006.  Also every state that raised taxes.
          Businesses don’t pay taxes, their customers do.
          Your “tends to” is a totally made-up fact, like much of what passes for “science” in government-run schools these days. Besides, who cares what kind of schools it leads to?  You aren’t forced to take you kids there.  And you won’t find many government schools winning awards for science, anyway, compared to the private ones.
          And your “historically” comment is pure nonsense. The history of private schools predates the founding of the nation by many generations.  That’s why there are so many in the Northeast.  Because there were *always* many in the Northeast.
          If you’re going to argue with made up facts like this, there’s not much point in keeping you around.  Step up to reality.

      • Gtrjag

        GradySmith stage9 America is more than a place. It is our Ideals which set us apart from the rest of the world. The left wants to turn us into a Western-style socialist democracy where the Individual will not be valued over the collective, where a man is not entitled to the fruits of his own labor, where the few rights we will have left will be those granted to us by the state not by our creator. Anybody who believes these things is Anti-American because they reject everything America stood for.

      • cabensg

        GradySmith stage9 Yes Anti-American.

    • 57thunderbird

      stage9 Bingo!

    • LoveLiberty

      stage9 if we could add respect for difference of opinions (neutrality) on social issues a whole new generation will join in.

      • stage9

        LoveLiberty stage9 tolerance?

        • LoveLiberty

          stage9 LoveLiberty I don’t see tolerance for gays to join in the rest of your list.

        • stage9

          LoveLiberty stage9 we can tolerate without affirming. Liberals affirm reprobate behaviors. Conservatives tolerate it.

        • GradySmith

          stage9 LoveLiberty  
          I suppose you are right in that I do no think that homosexuals should be punished because they are doing nothing wrong.
          I think you would be hard pressed to actually support the idea that they are doing something wrong.

        • LoveLiberty

          stage9 LoveLiberty I like that. Tolerate without affirming works for me.

        • stage9

          GradySmith stage9 LoveLibertyYou say “I don’t think”…it’s wrong…
          What is your definition of right and wrong?
          Where do you get your framework of ethics?

        • LoveLiberty

          stage9 GradySmith @LoveLibert My framework for ethics came from years in catholic schools and years of living life. I support law abiding tax paying people who have the right to pursue happiness. I want to treat people with kindness, and have respect for different opinions. I respect those who have strong religious beliefs. I also respect those who just want to live their lives in the manner that works for them.

        • stage9

          LoveLiberty stage9 GradySmith I was talking t the other guy — the liberal.

    • NateLenz

      stage9

  • TLaMana

    I think it really depends on what type of “Conservative” you are talking about:
    If you are talking about a Social Conservative Star Parker would be right.
    If you are talking about a Fiscal Conservative being Gay has no baring on the issues.
    If you are talking bout a Constitutional Conservative then you must fight for their rights to be treated like everyone else.

    • stage9

      TLaMana So a liberal who is fiscally conservative.

      • TLaMana

        stage9 TLaMana Social Conservative = You believe in Federal Level Laws on social issues
        Fiscal Conservative = You believe that social issues are to be determined by the states and/or not a primary issue for the Federal Government
        Constitutional Conservative = You believe in the strict interpretation of the Constitution and since social issues are not a part of the Constitution then they are not a purview of the Federal Government.

        • stage9

          TLaMana stage9 I believe in federal level laws on murder,  pedophilia, bestiality and cannibalism too. I believe there should be a fundamental understanding of what is moral and what is not to avoid moral chaos.
          I prefer a society that isn’t being run by criminals, perverts, and third world barbarians, but by civilized human beings who understand, as our founders did that “God governs in the affairs of men” (Benjamin Franklin) and that we had better heed His moral law.
          If the average person understood what has been happening in regard to how homosexual activists have been imposing their will on state governments because they couldn’t impose it on the federal level (that comes last), they’d change their views. In every state where it was voted on BY THE PEOPLE, counterfeit marriage has been voted down.
          But that hasn’t stopped homosexual activists. They avoid laws by repealing them through the courts. This should infuriate all of us who believe in limited government, but it doesn’t. And that confuses me.
          When this sort of judicial activism affects our pocket books, we scream. When it affects our guns, we scream. When it affects the very cornerstone of our civilization — marriage and family — we yield.
          If money and pleasure is all that drives us, we’re in trouble.
          “If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner.” ― Malcolm Muggeridge

        • Gtrjag

          stage9 TLaMana I don’t believe in Federal Laws against murder bestiality etc. The people of individual states, through their Legislatures, are perfectly capable of handling these things. I trust the state Governments much more Federal Government.

        • OliviaHT

          Gtrjag stage9 TLaMana The Incorporation Doctrine transferred much of the power of the states to the Federal Government. So, it’s a little more complicated than your comment would suggest.

        • Gtrjag

          OliviaHT Gtrjag stage9 TLaMana The incorporation doctrine applies to the Bill of rights. I have my own problems with the incorporation doctrine but that is another matter, it does not change the balance of power between the state and Federal Governments. The Federal Government has expanded due to a misinterpretation of the Commerce clause and the Necessary and Proper clause, and I guess now the Tax Clause with John Robert’s Obamacare opinion. The police power  lies in the state. This has been well understood throughout most of our nations history. I am not saying there should be no criminal laws. Some things occur across state lines, involve inter-state commerce, post office, etc. However most things can and should be handled at the state level, especially victimless crimes such as drug offences.

    • 57thunderbird

      TLaMana I disagree with your last statement.

      • stage9

        57thunderbird TLaMana How so?

        • 57thunderbird

          stage9 57thunderbird TLaMana That as a constitutional conservative I should defend gay marriage.I consider myself a Constitutional conservative and believe it should be let up to the states and not the federal  government.However as you stated in another post,every time the issue is placed on a ballot in a state it is overwhelmingly defeated by the citizens only to have it overturned by liberal activist judges.

    • badbadlibs

      TLaMana Nobody that I know of, no matter the “type” of conservative wants to see homosexuals receive anything less then decent treatment.,
      But, be careful…that decent treatment may be construed as “religious”. Do unto others you know…..

    • Laurel A

      TLaMana Not so.
      We don’t fight for the rights of serial murderers to murder and be who they are or any other deviance that undermines civilization.

      • TLaMana

        Laurel A TLaMana Sure you do.  It’s call due process.

        • Laurel A

          TLaMana Laurel A Due process is for the courts but not in regards to public acceptance. You are trying to manipulate with an apples to kumquats comparison.

  • Conservator1

    I’ve been reading comments on this thread with great interest. This is a far more complex issue than Star Parker’s 2011 article appears in my humble opinion and it’s above my pay-grade to answer. When it comes to judging morality from a religious point of view, I will and must allow God and Jesus to be the final arbiters.
    First, if we are to base our opinions solely upon the Bible, we must reach a conclusion why in none of the four gospels,  the Book of Acts, Hebrews, Revelation and in the letters attributed to James, Peter, and John why there is nothing about homosexuality written (with the exception perhaps in Matthew 19:12). Did Jesus discussed homosexuality regarding whether or not it was a sin? That’s the only question that matters to me.
    On the other hand Old Testament passages like Leviticus 18 and 20 do denounce homosexuality. Likewise, so does Saint Paul in Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 (see below):
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:26-27&version=NIV
    26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9-10&version=NIV
    9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-10&version=NIV
    9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:12&version=NIV
    12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
    Finally in addition to the Bible, social conservatives and libertarians must answer the role of government in gay and lesbian marriage/civil unions. Does the Constitution make this a state right’s issue or is this a case when social conservatives are willing to ignore Amendments 1 and 10 and let the federal government make a decision for all 50 states on gay and lesbian marriage/civil unions?

    • badbadlibs

      Conservator1 We compare scripture with scripture.
      If God does not change, we have our answer. The lines have been drawn by those who refute the principles this nation was founded upon. You are on one side, true conservatives are on the other.
      Don’t worry, you will have your way….for a season.

      • Conservator1

        badbadlibs Conservator1 Sorry, but you are mistaken. In a number of other articles on gay marriage I have stated here that I am personally against it. Thus, in your rush to JUDGE me you reach a simplistic conclusion and that’s where we differ friend.
        As I stated above, I will and must allow God and Jesus to be the final arbiters. It’s sad that after a long comment you would judge me so quickly and be wrong as well.

        • badbadlibs

          Conservator1 badbadlibs 
          First, God AND Jesus? They are One and the Same, so that’s a “judgment” I feel 100% at ease with.
          Second, “personally” has nothing to do with anything. Either you are on the side of the Word of the Living God, or you are not,
          IF you are saying that homosexual marriage is an affront to a Just and Holy God and must be opposed for that reason alone, then yes, I have misjudged you and I offer my sincere apologies.

        • Conservator1

          badbadlibs Conservator1 First, let me assure you that I don’t and can not support gay marriage based on my religious views or as you phrase it, it’s an “affront to a Just and Holy God” BTW, I don’t support the death penalty either based on the same reason.
          Regarding Jesus and God, I’m aware that not all Christian denominations believe in the Trinity — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — I do and thus I draw a distinction between God and Jesus.
          The synoptic Gospels and the the baptism of Jesus is often interpreted as the revelation of all three persons of the Trinity (see below). I believe there is only one God who is represented in three persons. Yet each person is God, whole and entire.
          http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%203:16%E2%80%9317;&version=ESV;
          16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him,[a] and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son,[b] with whom I am well pleased.”
          This can also be seen in the writings of Paul the Apostle, the Gospels of Mark, John etc.:
          http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Cor.%2013:14&version=NIV
          14 May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
          http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014%E2%80%9317;&version=ESV;
          14 “Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God;[a] believe also in me. 2 In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?[b] 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. 4 And you know the way to where I am going.”[c] 5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also.[d] From now on you do know him and have seen him.”
          http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013:32&version=ESV
          No One Knows That Day or Hour
          32 “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

        • Conservator1

          badbadlibs Conservator1 I forgot to add in previous reply that I strongly disagree with you when you penned, “Second, “personally” has nothing to do with anything. Either you are on the side of the Word of the Living God, or you are not.”
          IMO, it’s essential for all Christians to have a personal relationship with God. To place yourself in a role of the final arbiter of what is “the Word of the Living God,” is pretentious and unreasonable.
          Only God knows this and it’s a mistake IMO to put yourself as an equal to Him in understanding His Word.

    • LoveLiberty

      @Conservator1 How do you reconcile the fact that God made Gays? Perhaps they weren’t able to give input to the Bible all those years ago.

      • Conservator1

        LoveLiberty I don’t attempt to reconcile anything part of God’s creation. That’s up to Him or as I believe, Jesus on Judgement Day.

      • stage9

        LoveLiberty God didn’t make gays no more than he made pornographers, drug addicts,  alcoholics, or adulterers. Your question is flawed. There is no “gay gene”. This is a myth that has been settled.

        • K-Bob

          stage9 LoveLiberty And that’s a good thing, otherwise leftists would start aborting their babies for having it.

        • NCHokie02

          K-Bob stage9 LoveLiberty zing!! nice one bob.

      • badbadlibs

        LoveLiberty He didn’t make “gays”. They are not “gay”, unless they are extremely happy about something. They are homosexuals and God did not “make” them. Sin entered the world thru the disobedience of Adam and since then all manner of evil has entered the mind of man.

      • OliviaHT

        LoveLiberty God did not “make” homosexuals any more than he “made” gossips, adulterers, or thieves, all of whom are the result of their own sinful choices, the choices of people living in a fallen world, themselves also fallen and given to every evil: “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; indeed, who can know it,” (Jeremiah 17:9)

    • stage9

      Conservator1 Marriage is a moral issue. Rights come from God but so too do moral laws.

      • Conservator1

        stage9 Conservator1 I agree wholeheartedly…

  • livetotell

    Actually, just to set the record straight, : ), I am not gay but have had friends and have worked with people who are.

    • badbadlibs

      livetotell 
      Count yourself among mankind since sin enter the world.

  • Conservator1

    I must go, but before leaving I once again enjoyed reading so many comments on an important issue. I tried to be respectful of everyone’s opinion on this topic. And I know many will disagree with my long initial comment. That’s okay and I certainly understand the criticism.
    Have a great day….

    • stage9

      Conservator1Before you go…
      “First, if we are to base our opinions solely upon the Bible, we must reach a conclusion why in none of the four gospels,  the Book of Acts, Hebrews, Revelation and in the letters attributed to James, Peter, and John why there is nothing about homosexuality written (with the exception perhaps in Matthew 19:12). Did Jesus discussed homosexuality regarding whether or not it was a sin? That’s the only question that matters to me.”
      Because first century Jews.still practiced the law. The law already had prohibitions against homosexuality. Jesus didn’t have to answer it because it was already a settled issue.
      Secondly, although the civil and ceremonial laws no longer applied to Christians, the moral laws did. 
      The Old Testament laws are categorized into three groups: the civil, the priestly, and the moral.  The civil laws must be understood in the context of a theocracy.  Though the Jewish nation in the Old Testament was often headed by a king, it was a theocratic system with the Scriptures as a guide to the nation.  Those laws that fall under this category are not applicable today because we are not under a theocracy.
      The priestly laws dealing with the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods were representative of the future and true High Priest Jesus, who offered Himself as a sacrifice on the cross.  Since Jesus fulfilled the priestly laws, they are no longer necessary to be followed and are not now applicable.
      The moral laws, on the other hand, are not abolished, because the moral laws are based upon the character of God.  Since God’s holy character does not change, the moral laws do not change either.  Therefore, the moral laws are still in effect.
      In the New Testament we do not see a reestablishment of the civil or priestly laws.  But we do see a reestablishment of the moral law.  This is why we see New Testament condemnation of homosexuality as a sin but not with the associated death penalty as found in the OT.

      • 57thunderbird

        stage9 Conservator1 Great post.Very good explanation for those that don’t understand this point.

      • Conservator1

        stage9 Conservator1 You raised many questions that have true and real import, but I must leave now. I will try to answer some of issues you raised when I return. But, I did ‘LIKE’ your post in the meantime.

        • stage9

          Conservator1 stage9 Well, come back anytime….I’ll be around.

      • OliviaHT

        stage9 Conservator1 Your theological understanding, stage9, is spot on. The moral law is for all people, for all time. The ceremonial and civil laws were in place both to foreshadow the Christ and as a means to keep the nation of Israel intact as a people since through them the Messiah would come.

      • Conservator1

        stage9 Conservator1 I agree with you when you write, “Because first century Jews still practiced the law. The law already had prohibitions against homosexuality. Jesus didn’t have to answer it because it was already a settled issue.”
        However, I would simply point out that while these laws where practiced it didn’t stop Jews from sinning and engaging in homosexual acts. Also, Jesus was often accused of living and eating with sinners; from adulteries, prostitutes, tax collectors, murders, Romans, the sick and I’m sure there were some homosexuals as well.
        Of course this doesn’t mean Jesus approved of their sins. Rather, sinners were an important part of His ministry. When He did heal any of them, there was always the provision to Sin No More.
        On your broader point — Jews were still practicing the law and thus there was no need to include it in the Bible  — I generally agree with you.
        Another good example of this is war. Jesus often taught it was a sin to kill another person. But He didn’t speak to the evil inherent in war as so many on the left imply on current events abroad. To them Jesus was a pacifist, but this is pure folly.
        Warfare was part of the life in the Old Testament and the people of God. At times, God himself commanded Israel to go to war:
        http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2020&version=NIV
        10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
        In addition, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Saul, Joshua, David, Joab, etc. where all military leaders who fought wars for God’s chosen people. As you stated, “Jesus didn’t have to answer it because it was already a settled issue.” Thus this is also true about war.

  • Laurel A

    I am sick and tired of this topic framed in the view of elections. there is more to life and death, right and wrong…THAN ELECTIONS!
    I can’t help wonder if we have let creeping incrementation infiltrate our culture and right and wrong all in the name of winning elections. Think about it. Make it an issue and a platform, frame it in the personal, then whip up the masses. Hell look at the complete and total politicization of the Sandy Hook shooting. Everything in this country is made into a political platform. It’s politics American Idol style.

    Quite frankly Trifecta is no more right than Star Parker or Cliff Kincaid. Why is that? Because we have no exact definition of conservative. Also morals have become fluid in our society. It is apparent that Trifecta does not view homosexuality as immoral and Parker and Kincaid do. We can’t even agree on that.

    • stage9

      Laurel A Where does morality come from? God or man? How you answer that question will determine the outcome. Period.
      If it comes from man, anything goes.
      If it comes from God, there are parameters set for our behaviors that we are obligated to adhere to.
      How you choose, will determine the kind of society you will be left with.

      • Laurel A

        stage9 Laurel A God.
         But that wasn’t my point. My point is taking everything and making it a political issue in an effort to manipulate people and change the culture.

        • stage9

          Laurel A stage9 If you mean how liberals exploit something for political gain, then yes, I agree. You couldn’t be more right.
          I thin Star Parker was making a very fundamental point about the nature of what we believe. That what we believe has consequences. Because what we believe will inevitably find its way into public policy.
          I think we live in a very morally confused society. There is a great divide in  what is moral and what is not. With the abandonment of God and His moral law, this confusion has escalated. And it will get worse.
          I’ve said before, that when a man won;t regulate his own behavior, the government will have to step in and do it for him. And that’s when we lose our liberties.

        • Laurel A

          stage9 Laurel A Exactly! I should of clarified that. I was seeing red.
          Sorry.
          Great post. I heartily concur with it.

        • OliviaHT

          stage9 Laurel A Excellent comment, stage9. If a man will not regulate his own behavior In Accordance With God’s Law, natural law, then the resulting societal dysfunctions require a strong-armed government to deal with the chaos which ensues. The government has to come after your money to fix the mess which it created by forcing Christianity out of the public square.

        • OliviaHT

          stage9 Laurel A BTW, this is why libertarians, who pride themselves on their fiscal conservatism and limited government stances, must be forever frustrated in their aims: liberty without order, “ordered liberty” — self-restraint and self-governance –, must always result in societal rot and dysfunction which necessitates BIG government to fix the messes absolute liberty creates.

        • PhillyCon

          OliviaHT stage9 Laurel A I don’t think they get how the two interconnected.  I’ve tried arguing this point before … but they don’t see it.  However, well said on both comments.

        • cabensg

          Laurel A stage9  Liberals ask for it when they tried to force us to believe, talk and act like they believe, talk and act. If they can’t accomplish it through political correctness they force it by law. It’s no longer a believe and let believe world. Every thing is political because they made everything political. I say so be it. Fight them on their own turf.

      • Godisright

        stage9 Laurel A
        Deuteronomy is full of – if you…… Then this will happen. There is no moral fence that we can conveniently straddle. Things are set forth in a black and white manner. Even the most inept among us can understand the basic precepts set forth by the Living God.
        Straddling the fence — obedience or sin???? Something

        • Laurel A

          Godisright stage9 Laurel A I never said there was. I’m not sure where you are coming from.

        • stage9

          Laurel A Godisright stage9 I “think” he’s talking about consequences of making certain choices. At least that’s how I read it…

        • Godisright

          stage9 Laurel A @Godisright
          I am agreeing with you. ;) just preaching to the non-choral members.

        • Laurel A

          stage9 Laurel A Godisright Thanks for the clarification.

    • CalCoolidge

      Laurel A No exact definition of a conservative?  Hmm.  Well, I guess no one is conservative, then.

      • Laurel A

        CalCoolidge Laurel A If you think you are going to play games with me think again. There is no Conservative Party with a platform. Now there are people that are conservative that have a loose affiliation and definition of conservative but that is all. Nothing is definitively defined in that arena.

        You are adding nothing to the discussion with your comment.

  • Laurel A

    Oh and another thing Bill Whittle and Trifecta labeled and took a stance there by making a moral judgment on Parker and Kincaid…there by doing what they condemned them for.
    Disappointing at least and totally ignorant because as they rant rail about not enough conservatives to defend this country and vote…they just alienated a whole bunch more with their ‘jackass’ rant.

    • badbadlibs

      Laurel A 
      Well said!

    • cabensg

      Laurel A I don’t know about Whittle but the other two are Libertarian so anything goes. It’s called no responsibility for anything no matter how morally or socially repugnant, in the name of liberty of course. I’m not fooled by libertarian talk of liberty because liberty  has as a part of it responsibility, it’s how and when and over what issues should the responsibility be exercised that is sometimes difficult.

      • Laurel A

        cabensg Laurel A And yet it was Whittle that got the most heated and angry. You touched on it a little that people don’t seem to get it because the problem is framed emotionally. Liberty does have a responsibility. People tend to forget that as they also forget that with one’s choices go consequences. If one chooses to accept those consequences then so be it but society has devolved so much that we no longer want any consequences at all. I think that video and that topic is reflective of that. Now I know many people will say the same old tired argument put up for everything: “You aren’t ever going to stop it!” They are right…I’m not ever going to stop homosexuality and all sorts of behavior. However I don’t have to help it, subsidize or comfortably co-exist with it either. I don’t have to make easy that which undermines society and civilization. I absolutely refuse to label that which is bad good in the name of money or easy coexistence or political expedience.
        What I hear in that video is the culture dictating morality like the culture seems to dictate everything. Culture dictates education, morality, politics and the true reality is it is because of the culture that all things are a mess. The so called ‘wisdom’ in that video is culture based, not knowledge based by any stretch and what knowledge there was came via the culture.
        I am considering dropping my PJTV membership. I purchased it for intellect, not that dribble.

        • cabensg

          Laurel A cabensg  I agree with what you’ve stated.

          PJTV has bent more towards conservatism over time but it’s always been my perception and admission by some of them to being Libertarians it is Libertarianism they push. I don’t know if you saw the interview with Huckabee by Instapundit and his wife but it was not friendly. They were interviewing him about his then new book. Not that I was a Huckabee fan for president but it was an interview worthy of liberals. The only thing I was ever interested in was Whittle’s show so I only had a membership for a short while. As I said in one of my other comments Whittle was way over the top in his defense of Homo’s but I’m still not sure he’s Libertarian because of his many other shows. He’s certainly not conservative on this issue.

        • Laurel A

          cabensg Laurel A I think they are becoming the ‘can’t we all just get along’ place. Instapundit is a libertarian so while I didn’t see the video I am not surprised. However Alfonzo Rachel is very anti-libertarian and has many videos in that vain. I’m considering dropping the site because I can get the bulk of it on YouTube.
          Most of those guys remind me of H.L. Mencken and others of that age in that they are passing off shock as intellect.
          Whittle needs to be taken to the woodshed over this issue and I will go over to PJTV and see if he has. I don’t really care if he is for gay marriage, what I care about is his hypocrisy. He had fit over people defining conservatism for him while he defined conservatism for everyone. Astounding hypocrisy gay issue aside.

        • Laurel A

          cabensg Laurel A Go over to PJTV and read the response to the video. What a row! Knock down drag out fight over this and oddly enough Stephen Green’s comment were the least intellectual in my view. Others made a better case than he did. there are some absolute great comments though and it is worth the time.

  • cherpers

    Here’s my two cents in an already huge comment feed:
    I think this argument needs to be separated into two categories. Is it possible to be gay and conservative? Is it ideologically consistent to be gay and conservative? 
    Answer to the first question: Yes it is possibly to be gay and conservative. Kinda like its possible to be a lazy bum and conservative. We are all imperfect beings and none of us live out our ideology perfectly. 
    Is it ideologically consistent to be gay and conservative? No it isn’t. It is contradictory to subscribe the the conservative world view and to think homosexuality is perfectly acceptable. All political ideology in the end, as Star Parker wrote, boils down to how one views God. The pure form of conservatism views God as the creator and authority over everything and all evil and sin is measured against his perfect standard. He is the moral compass. Homosexuality is something that very clearly does not meet God’s perfect standard and therefore is wrong. So to accept is as natural or as okay clearly violates God’s standard and therefor contradicts conservatism. 
    Now I do not think this means we ostracize them from the party at all. I think Star Parker did a very poor job in communicating her message. We are all sinners. We all fall short of God’s standard. Obviously if we only let the perfectly righteous be on the Right then there wouldn’t be a Right. So yes we allow homosexuals to be on the right. However, this does not mean we embrace homosexuality or condone it. I don’t think its wise to embrace groups that promote the fact they are gay either as it contradicts our own ideology. That would be like us allowing a group that wants higher taxes to represent conservatism. 
    Gays can be conservative and should be allowed on the Right but the Right should not embrace or condone homosexuality or groups that promote it.

    • stage9

      cherpers What about the Log Cabin Republicans? I’m not sure they’ll like your view very much. That they can be Conservative but have no real input on homosexual policy. They seem to think there is a place for their homosexuality in the republican platform.
      I am very leery of Trojan horses. And I admit that that is a fault, but based on what I know of the homosexual movement, it is not entirely misguided either.

      • cherpers

        stage9 I don’t want to comment on the Republican platform. I’m addressing whether or not there is room for homosexuality in conservatism. Homosexuality is simply not consistent with the conservative ideology. I am aware that gay groups will not like my view. 
        I’m not aware of any gay groups that are “trojan horses.” I think its definitely possible to be gay and hold sincere conservative beliefs in many areas.

        • stage9

          cherpers stage9 Liberals took over the Democrat Party through a Trojan Horse approach. There are no more “blue dog Democrats  left. Don’t be surprised if they do the same thing on the repubnantcan side. We already see the repugnantcans yielding to liberal ideas.

    • Conservative_Hippie

      cherpers I guess it depends on your definition of Conservativism.  To me Conservativism is not a political party it is a foundational set of beiliefs; like a measuring stick, if you will.   So when I say I am  a conservative, there is no “leaning” in the description.  Based on that fact I would say, that Homosexuals are closer to Moderate (leaning left) than Conservative since conservatism hasr a strongly moral code baked into it and homosexual acts are considered immoral.

      • cherpers

        Conservative_Hippie I agree that conservatism comes with a moral code that doesn’t leave a lot of wiggle room. Part of the reason I say its possible to be gay and conservative is because I personally know two separate guys who are struggling with homosexuality and view it as wrong. Both are somewhat political and hold conservative convictions across the board. For those who embrace and accept homosexuality I am still willing to call them conservative with an asterisk. Just because I think if they are closer to conservatism than they are to moderate and they aren’t libertarian then I don’t know what to call them. They certainly dont have a logically consistent world view though.

        • Conservative_Hippie

          cherpers Conservative_Hippie I like the asterick part.  I’d agree with that.  :-)

  • stage9

    We just don’t take moral issues seriously…because we’ve never lived in a society devoid of them.
    Bill Repealing Adultery Officially Signed Into Law
    http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/03/22/bill-to-repeal-of-colorado-adultery-law-signed/

    • badbadlibs

      stage9 satan is dotting all his “I”‘s and crossing all his “t”‘s.
      Since Obama was re-elected the end times have been put on fast forward.

      • stage9

        badbadlibs stage9 
        NBC NEWS HOST: FERTILIZED HUMAN EGG ‘THIS THING’
        http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/03/23/MSNBC-Host-Fertilized-Human-Egg-This-Thing
        “Perry mocked abortion opponents when she broke a part the fertilized egg portion of the model and expressed amazement at how people could view the egg as a person.
        “Oh, no. That might be bad. I seemed to have popped open the fertilized egg. We’ll put that back together. But the very idea that this would constitute a person, right? And that some set of constitutional rights should come to this,” said Perry.”

        • badbadlibs

          stage9 badbadlibs satan dressed as a woman, with long black curly hair.
          Those who would remove morality from the conservative brand are as evil as the above woman (I use the term lightly).
          I am thru with playing nice with the evil among us, I don’t care how they label themselves…conservative, libertarian, whatever….as long as they remove Godly morals from the platform they are on the side of the most vile, evil, dark, disgusting things there are.
          The founding fathers knew once we removed Godly principles all hell would break loose and that is exactly what has happened.
          There has been a line drawn in the sand like never before. God help those who love Him.

        • badbadlibs

          stage9 badbadlibs
          Sometimes I act surprised, why I do not know.
          Fox News contributor and former Bush deputy chief of staff Karl Rove said this morning on “This Week” that he can imagine the next Republican nominee for the White House supporting gay marriage.
          “I could,” Rove said on the “This Week” roundtable.

        • stage9

          badbadlibs stage9 Politics is a whore’s business.

  • kevmed

    the problem is: your truths are not eternal

    • ElaineArias

      kevmed God’s truth is eternal.  God’s truth is quite obviously contrary to the homosexuals’ truth.

    • K-Bob

      kevmed Truth isn’t personal.  A thing is what it is, whether you are there or not.

  • lilium479

    “GAY” is 110% a Politically Correct word. As long as you use the word “gay” you are pushing  Politically Correct speech.

    • cabensg

      lilium479 Your right and I told myself I wasn’t going to use it anymore. But when I’m typing a long comment homosexual is just to damn long to type so I’ve replace it with gay a few times.
      I guess I could just type homo. That should work for my not so nimble fingers and my way of thinking.

      • srcabezadepatata

        cabensg lilium479

  • ChristianConcierge

    Why then in 1856 did the republican party platform say they wanted to  stop the “Barbaric act of polygamy” in the Territories.  This was then applied by the feds and the states by stopping Slavery, polygamy, and bigamy after the civil War. 1863-1890.

  • SparkyVA

    Oh well, gay is a nice term. The conservative movement is made up of several different factions: Fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, libertarians, and neo-conservatives (strong military). Only one of those factions and then only a part of that faction would exclude gays: the social conservative faction. Within that faction is a group of people that fall back on an interpretation of the bible more akin to the Hebrew teachings of Moses than the newer teachings of Jesus. Personally I think of the “gay lifestyle” as a sad thing, searching for meaning and love and not quite finding it. Though the same could be said for many in the other lifestyle as well. Love is children: raising them, nurturing them, and sacrificing for them. Those who understand this I will call my friend regardless of any other things in their life. Conservatives have to first conserve their families and their friends. Responsibility is the true mark of a conservative.

    • wodiej

      SparkyVA another ignorant comment.  Divorce rate for straight marriage is 50%.  “nuff said.

      • SparkyVA

        So you are a smart guy, and I am ignorant. Well my particular group has no where near a 50% divorce rate because we value marriage. Besides the overall divorce rate has nothing to do with my statement. Generalizations are generally wrong – ha. 
        I  notice your picture of an airplane door. Why are airplane entrance doors always on the left side of the airplane for the large carriers Mr super intelligent know it all? The answer is totally archaic. Please be careful of whom you call ignorant.

  • libertifirst

    Do we toss out the constitution and declare a theocracy, or do we just let people live their lives and choose our own path in society? Using force to manipulate groups within society for personal moral reasons is the stuff that makes a totalitarian state. The Muslims know all about it. That isn’t what we are supposed to be all about. Social engineering has never worked, because it destroys liberty, and ultimately a peaceful society. I don’t want to socialize with homosexuals, nor do I want to condone what they do, but if they support my liberty, I have no desire to control their lives. If our government was not involved in social engineering through the tax code, insurance law, etc., we wouldn’t be as divided as a nation, and government would not have the upper hand on us.

    • Conservative_Hippie

      libertifirst I happen to agree with you.  And since you said that you don’t believe in “Using force to manipulate groups within society for personal moral reasons” I assume you would be against using force to manipulate groups in society for personal agenda reasons also?

      • libertifirst

        Conservative_Hippie libertifirst Corporate, personal, whatever their agenda is, it shouldn’t effect my life unless it is an apportioned tax, which the sixteenth amendment got rid of. I believe that business’ should be able to reject gays, blacks, whites………whatever for employment or patronage. If people want to mingle, then they will, if they do not, then they can choose who they do business with, who they hire or work for, and who they socialize with. The only reason government should ever get involved is if there is a violent act or damage done to one’s person or property. Hate crimes legislation should not exist. 
        Government should protect our rights equally, and we should have the right to do as we please short of causing someone harm. There should be no mandates from the federal government whatsoever to buy products such as auto or health insurance. There should be no building codes from the federal government. There should be no food and drug regulation. There should be no federally owned land. There should be no BLM or Forest Service. 
        The federal government should intervene if war is initiated between the states, or they need mediation and constitutional clarification. The feds should protect the borders and deal with foreign governments. They should break up corporate monopolies. 
        Even the states do not have the right to manipulate people the way that the feds do now. They should not be able to tell someone how to build their house, or weather or not they can smoke pot or not. They cannot make baby murder legal. They cannot restrict gun rights, or regulate speech any more than the feds. 
        Most Americans have been conquered and don’t even know it. We live as slaves to a socialist/communist tyranny.

        • Conservative_Hippie

          libertifirst Conservative_Hippie Well I will agree that if we err it should be on the side of less government.

  • Conservative_Hippie

    Like I’ve said before, It’s your own business if you want be gay in the privavcy of your own home, but don’t ask me to support homosexual acts, which would be a violation of my first amendment rights to freedom of religion. 
    As far as gays being conservative, I think the better term would be gays being moderate.  Conservativism is the  right (and correct too) view on the political spectrum, and does not include room for liberal view points.  But yes I think Gays can vote for the conservative in the race.

    • wodiej

      Conservative_Hippie the Bible written centuries ago says a lot of things conservatives don’t even follow.

  • MontanaAnnie

    Ha!  I like the comment policy AFTER listening to Bill Whittle!!  I’m agreeing with Star Parker on this one.

  • http://www.911dj.com glegakis

    Right.  So assuming you believe people can be born with the brain defect of homosexuality, the question is, if they don’t practice the lifestyle could they still have a Conservative ideology?  I argue yes.  
     Do you agree?

    • wodiej

      glegakis homosexuality a brain defect? Good Lord, that’s one of the most ignorant comments I’ve ever read.

      • http://www.911dj.com glegakis

        wodiej glegakis What else could it be?  a chemical imbalance?
        It has to be a mistake otherwise if everyone was homosexual, there would be no human species.  How can’t be anything but  a mistake? Unless you think homosexuality is a choice.  Do you?

  • http://facebook.com/jaspersilvis JasperSilvis

    There are only 2 paths to understanding homosexuality:  (1) You believe it is a state of being, or (2) you believe it is a chosen behavior.
    Liberals tend to believe it is a state of being, which allows them to equate “gay rights” to “civil rights” and believe marriage is a right for same-sex couples.  Since this “state of being” or “born this way” theory is based solely on consensus and not science, it is understandable how the liberal mind can agree with this path (similar to global warming). The genetic markers that scientists have found in mice related to homosexuality have never been found in humans and the research has yet to be confirmed in another lab.  Scientists have; however, found genetic markers in humans for pedophilia, but we’re not supposed to talk about that.
    Conservatives tend to believe it is a chosen behavior, which is similar to sexual perversions like the need to have one-night-stands every weekend or sleeping with multiple partners.  This does not mean that the choice is easy.  That choice can be as difficult as an addict choosing not to drink or use drugs.  This is where the compassion of a Conservative deeply rooted in Christian faith is incredibly misunderstood – even by other conservatives who think liberally on the topic of homosexuality.
    The true Christian Conservative loves his homosexual brothers and sisters as God’s children.  We can EASILY separate the sin from the sinner, since God never granted a single human being with the right to judge a person’s soul.  As Sy Rogers (a converted homosexual) explains, many homosexuals are pushed into this lifestyle by either an abusive or neglective parent, or by peers that mistake a deeply emotional personality with a feminine personality so “they must be gay” and are “lying to themselves if they say they are not gay”.
    This last quote, unfortunately, came from local Philly Conservative talk radio host Dom Giardano on Friday.  I could not believe what I was hearing.  He was talking about the upcoming possible ban on homosexual conversion therapies in NJ.  Hearing Dom state that any person who is gay at any point in their life is always gay was very disappointing to me.
    Family turmoil is also a huge factor in obesity, not just the food you eat (“The Gabriel Method” – Dr. Jon Gabriel).  But back to homosexuality.
    One of the biggest lies in this whole debate is the made-up word, homophobia.  The sole purpose of the creation of this word is to scare people from arguing against homosexuality.  By using the term, homophobia, against someone, they are assuming that we as Conservatives are against the “person” and not just the “behavior”.  It’s like how the word “racist” means we are against Obama as a person even when the only arguments we make are against his “policies”.  The left never wants an equal and honest debate on the merits of homosexuality, so they create the word, homophobia, to shut us up.  I first saw this word on a poster on my RA’s dorm door freshman year at Penn State in 1990.  I asked about it and I was not allowed to say anything bad about gay people, even disagreeing with homosexuality at all.  How’s that for indoctrination by coercion!  And we are supposed to believe that faith-based homosexual conversion therapy is coercive?  Really?
    The true abuse is with the liberal community forcing people who are mentally and emotionally unstable into a lifestyle that is destructive.  Conservatives can help change this by approaching the topic of homosexuality and conversion in a loving way.
    I do not accept the premise that homosexual conversion therapy has a small success rate.  There are so many spam articles out there that it is hard to find actual statistics on the search engines.  But an old video posted by Scoop had Sy Rogers say something to the order of 100,000+ conversions when based on faith and love and not “you’re a sinner!”.  I cannot find that video again (it was removed), but I did find another shorter one about his conversion you may like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gbVgcKZQtg
    “Love you neighbor as yourself.”  Jesus was not just talking about how we should treat other people.  He was also referring to how other people should treat us.  We are not evil and mean for wanting to help homosexuals escape the trap and addiction of homosexuality.  We can love the person and help guide them away from the sin.  That is what my wife does for me with my many sins.

  • StNikao

    NO, a thousand times no.

  • Laurel A

    Ironically this argument, which in reality is an argument for or against gay marriage, reminds me of all the warnings about Obamacare, and prior to that Obama himself.
    So far all of those warnings have come to pass…and yet people still insist on doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

  • Daryl Nuccio

    Star Parker’s ignorance is astounding. The irony here is that SHE sounds like a liberal. Where in the constitution does it say that government should be involved

    in anyone’s bedroom? Every gay Conservative I know happens to be Christian, is patriotic, believes in small/limited government and reveres the constitution.

    Star Parker treats gay conservatives the same way that liberals treat black conservatives. What ever happened to judging people by the content of their character?