CPAC renamed to LPAC soonI always remember a few years ago Cheerio dropping into the libertarian board to say libertarianism is too complicated and could never succeed because the youth don't care & will never rally around it;Eat me, cheerster!http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2013/03/15/libertarian-i...Of particularly interesting note that a serious schism is being caused by the libertarian tolerance (may I say "embrace") of our gay & lesbian siblings...GRADUALLY... the inkling of a sunrise is appearing on the horizon!Dave
Of particularly interesting note that a serious schism is being caused by the libertarian tolerance (may I say "embrace") of our gay & lesbian siblings...________________________There are just so many conservatives that are not religious conservatives. The Democrats have done a wonderful job of making it seem that was not the case, the majority do not give a fig about the religious aspects, though some of the cultural stuff looks religious if you spin it right. Libertarians and conservatives should be able to find so much common cause it is absolutely a good allianceAs far as gays and lesbians, they need to be shown the love of conservatives too. They need to not just be assured but be shown, that conservatives feel they are as American as anyone, and that no one really cares about who they partner with. They need to know that not being a special group is the best path, other groups have to be brought to know that too. There can be a lot of disagreement, without there being prejudice and there can be a lot of different ideas of moving forward. But moving forward is actually what needs to be common among all these groups. There are a lot of folks that want less government than we have right now. There are even more who want saner priorities than we have right now. Every group has to give, if you do not think libertarians have to give a little to conservatives as well, then you are not going to facilitate anything. That is a recipe for disaster. It is past time though, IMO, to let the fringe argue amongst itself and to let everyone know these core issues that we share are the priority, the others well there are differences and that means nothing will get done on them, is that a bad thing? Do you really like what has been brought to you as positive change and all the divisiveness and hate that it fosters? Let's discuss it first, then find some consensus then legislate, not force things down each others throats
Dave, this follows your pointing out to me how today's young ladies are embracing libertarian. May it become de rigueur.
As far as gays and lesbians, they need to be shown the love of conservatives too. There was a masculine male member of my community who attended our church for a while who was obviously a cross dresser. He grew his hair long, bleached it platinum blonde, wore hose and heels and women's clothing and make-up like it was nothing. His name was Vicky. I sat with him many Sundays. I mean, can you imagine what it must have been like for him to try to make his way in the world looking like that--even though it was his choice?I heard that the pastor told him, "Look, we believe there are roles for men and women to play that include dressing the part, but we love you even though we don't agree with your manner of presenting yourself to the world." I think this was the right stand to take.
Every group has to give, if you do not think libertarians have to give a little to conservatives as well, then you are not going to facilitate anything. That is a recipe for disaster. ---------------I agree. I think the libertarians will definitely have to give on their position on defense. Their version version is too minimalist for most people.arrete
Scenes from CPAC...Dr. Benjamin Carson, the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital who garnered national headlines for his pointed remarks at last month’s National Prayer Breakfast, says that President Obama and his political allies are trying to “destroy the country.” “Let’s say somebody were [in the White House] and they wanted to destroy this nation,” Carson postulated in remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference. “I would create division among the people, encourage a culture of ridicule for basic morality and the principles that made and sustained the country, undermine the financial stability of the nation, and weaken and destroy the military. It appears coincidentally that those are the very things that are happening right now.”Video at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343156/carson-obama-try...
I think the libertarians will definitely have to give on their position on defense.Libertarians should be emphasizing this country's need for a "lean, mean, fighting machine," not the bloated military industrial complex that now exists.
Libertarians should be emphasizing this country's need for a "lean, mean, fighting machine," not the bloated military industrial complex that now exists. ________________________They always have, however, they want a badazzed military that only does US Defense, and gets out of the global cop business. A lot of conservatives do not agree with that, although they do want a leaner fighting machine and more judicious use of forceThere is still a big gap there between the two groups. However, they really should be able to get together and spend the next couple of decades getting rid of neo-cons, getting leaner and then they can duke it out
Of particularly interesting note that a serious schism is being caused by the libertarian tolerance (may I say "embrace") of our gay & lesbian siblings...There's a meeting this month (the 27th I think) for our Boy Scout Council regarding the possibility of dropping the prohibition against homosexual Scouts/leaders. This should be interesting.There are still plenty of people boycotting the BSA because of this stance, while there are plenty who are threatening to boycott the BSA if they reverse their stance. Then there are those of us in the middle, who support the BSA but wish they'd change this.I can understand how some could worry about homosexual leaders taking groups of young boys out camping... on the surface it sounds like a recipe for disaster. However there are procedures in place to both protect the Scouts and to protect the leaders from any false accusations (every leader has to take Youth Security Training every year which covers these procedures in depth), if the procedures are followed then everyone is protected.If they aren't followed... then someone is breaking the rules. However, that's true with the "no gays allowed" rule in place, so that's hardly a rationale to keep it in and of itself.The main concern many seem to have is the moral aspect, the "duty to God" part of the oath. If you see homosexuality as 100% incompatible with God then, yes, that is a quandry. However that's hardly a universal understanding of the situation. Our chartered org is a church that has a rainbow flag on their front door... obviously they welcome homosexuals with open arms as parishioners of God (which I approve of).However, even given all that, I still don't understand their expelling Scouts who come out as gay. There have been boys who have gone all the way through Cub Scouts from Tiger up to Weblos, then into a Troop all the way up to qualifying for their Eagle who were then denied because they came out. That's simply wrong any way you look at it. They earned it through hard work (a LOT of hard work, these are impressive young studious men!) and to be denied for something like that is... yeah, that I can't agree with, at all.What seems likely to me is that the BSA will let each council set their policies in this regard. If so I'd lobby our council to be accepting of homosexuals as both Scouts and leaders. Why? Well, yes, I do know many homosexuals personally, some are wonderful people others aren't. in other words, they're just like EVERYONE ELSE when it comes to moral character. Just because you are straight doesn't mean you won't be a pedophile against boys (see Gacy and Sandusky for some rather graphic examples, both were married to women after all) and just because you're gay doesn't mean you're any more likely to be a pedophile. The Youth Security Training would be no different if gay scouts/leaders were allowed. And I consider my sisters to be moral people, even those who happen to be lesbian. Hell, they're more loyal church members than I am!This really is a paradigm shift that young Conservatives are fine with. We have to be... am I supposed to alienate friends, family and co-workers because someone else has a reading of the Bible that I disagree with? What does that have to do with protecting my right to keep and bear arms, getting government spending under control, teaching people to be personally responsible, etc.? And what good does it do to punish a would-be Eagle Scout for being gay? That's not love, and it isn't moral. I don't think it is what Jesus would do if you want to go that route.
There are just so many conservatives that are not religious conservatives.And even amongst those who are religious conservatives there are plenty who have no problem with homosexuals. Hell, there are some who ARE homosexuals! GOProud isn't chock full of atheists (though they were excluded from CPAC... which they shouldn't have been IMHO).
I can understand how some could worry about homosexual leaders taking groups of young boys out camping... on the surface it sounds like a recipe for disaster. Homosexual doesn't equal pedophilia. That's where the education begins.JLC
And even amongst those who are religious conservatives there are plenty who have no problem with homosexuals. While I don't understand why anyone would want to have sex with someone of their own gender--it's like explaining blue to a blind (wo)man--I think there are far more serious sins with which religious conservatives should be concerned. Think pedophilia. Catholics spent decades ranting about homosexuality while a far far more disgusting sin was occurring in the highest echelons of the Church.
Homosexual doesn't equal pedophilia.What do you call all those male priests with underage boys?
What do you call all those male priests with underage boys? ________________The same thing we call those teachers with underage boys, pedophiliacs.I do not care what your sexuality is, if you are doing it with young children you are totally screwed up. I have gay friends who would do as much damage to one of those slimebags as I would if they were alone in a room with them, and I know none that would remotely condone that behavior. pedophilia by priests had nothing to do with being gay, and it had nothing to do with Catholic beliefs(until the coverups began). It was all about a sick vile being seeing an opportunity and slithering into it. Priests have an opportunity to be in a trusted position with kids, perfect for pedophiliaThe Catholic Church screwed up by hiding the scandal, but the people perpetrating it were just perverts taking advantage of an opportunity where their sickness could be hidden. As far as being gay? Frankly it has to be a lot easier to find a partner of age then it is becoming a priest and finding children. It has nothing to do with being gay, and everything to do with being a truly defective human.
What do you call all those male priests with underage boys? CCYep, you never read accounts of priest molesting young girls.Mike
Yep, you never read accounts of priest molesting young girls.Mike _____________________Girls were rarely alone with priests. Whether it was sports related or alter servers boys were ALWAYS spending one on one time with priests.
pedophilia by priests had nothing to do with being gayThen why don't they pick on underage girls?
Then why don't they pick on underage girls? ___________________Opportunity. Pedophilia is often a crime of opportunity. It is many many times easier for a priest to be alone with a boy, it is quite recent that even alter servers were allowed to be girls. Pedophiliacs also know they are screwed up and work hard to avoid detection. It is far more natural for any man to be among boys than to spend time around a group of young girls, Also what girl in the early teen age bracket would not have their antenna go up if an older guy was paying her too much attention? A boy would typically never give it a second thoughtThe list goes on, but it is just so much easier if your thing is kids to get a boy.
Then why don't they pick on underage girls?___________________Just as a by the byI got a lot of the insights into pedophiles from listening to a set of interviews done with folks who were trying to 'overcome' their problemsI was involved with a few activities with children at my parish, and one of the things you had to do was attend a series of lectures and videos on the topic. It was right when the whole scandal was heating up. So I had far more exposure to these creeps than any person should have to endure.
Homosexual doesn't equal pedophilia.What do you call all those male priests with underage boys?Pedophiles. Sexual orientation isn't really involved. As far as priests go (and I'm not Catholic) I think the reason it is boys it is a crime of opportunity. I rarely hear of an altar girl. JLC
I think the reason it is boys it is a crime of opportunityI knew that different people do things for their own motivations, but what kind of man voluntarily shuns intimate female companionship for a lifetime? Mostly those who, for whatever reason, cannot relate to women. I think that the man-to-boy pedophilia is an outgrowth of that.
So I had far more exposure to these creeps than any person should have to endure.Pedophilia is one human deviant behavior I can stand not to know a lot about. I don't want to know a lot about homosexuality, either. All I know is, I don't get it (homosexuality). Please, conservatives, let that 10% do what they want. They're not hurting anyone.
To me, the issue regarding homosexuals in the Scouts has always been about freedom, meaning the freedom of the Scouts to make their own decision, free of coercion. Part of being a group is having the right to exclude others, and that is a fundamental right (freedom of association; see the First Amendment). Being a gay Scout master isn't a right at all; period. If every group has to admit anyone, then what is a group but a random collection of people?I also believe that people should be able to define marriage, either including or excluding homosexuals, free of coercion from the media. (I realize that 'free of media coercion' is a pipe dream, given that they always have an agenda.) But the point is that rights are not automatic/inalienable unless they are in the Constitution.Funny how libs love to bandy about the so-called 'rights' of people that are nothing more than preferences, yet rights that are enshrined in the Constitution (property rights, the right to bear arms, etc.) are constantly under attack from the left as being out-of-date, mean-spirited, what have you.
Please, conservatives, let that 10% do what they want. They're not hurting anyone. I didn't think anyone was talking about stopping them. Speaking only for myself, the concern has always been about the extent to which the people should decide what rights there are, and who gets them. To the extent that rights are in the Constitution, they're inalienable for all Americans. To the extent they are not, they can be the subject of laws, but need not be. It's up to the people and their elected representatives.Why is it that those on the political right are presumed to be 'anti-gay' rather than 'pro-Constitution' and/or 'pro-freedom'? Answer: the media, with their axe to grind. Freedom doesn't have a well-paid set of lobbyists; lobbying is the act of 'getting yours' at the expense of everyone else. Freedom is about everyone being able to pursue their own version of happiness. Of course, homosexuals are arguing that marriage is part of their version of happiness, but marriage is not a fundamental right.Colovion made a point that there shouldn't be any incentives for marriage. I agree about that from a fiscal/tax perspective, but I don't think you can ignore the associated social/cultural issues. Unless the right is fundamental, being in the minority means that you may not get your way. We all have to deal with that on one level or another.
Part of being a group is having the right to exclude others, and that is a fundamental right (freedom of association; see the First Amendment). Being a gay Scout master isn't a right at all; period. If every group has to admit anyone, then what is a group but a random collection of people?SCOTUS agrees with you:While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association#United_S..."Freedom of association" includes the right to include or exclude whomever you want. Otherwise it is not a freedom.If the NAACP is permitted to exclude white people then the BSoA are permitted to exclude gay men.
Colovion made a point that there shouldn't be any incentives for marriage. I agree about that from a fiscal/tax perspective,I would add "legal" to that list of perspectives...but I don't think you can ignore the associated social/cultural issuesThe government should ignore the social/cultural issues around the term "married" by dissociating itself from that term.
The government should ignore the social/cultural issues around the term "married" by dissociating itself from that term. _______________________WIth no disrespect to anyone's lifestyle, the term will soon lose all meaning from a legal perspective, it just is not totally obvious yet. How can we really stop two sisters from marrying or a sister and brother, a father and daughter etc. Were your sibling ill, and you could cover them with your insurance, why wouldn't you? The issues that kept siblings apart are no longer an assumed part of marriage, so.....There really is no partnering that should or can be off limits, as the guide is two people that love each other. Why only two of course will also be problematic. This is a done deal, it is just a matter of the chaos in the meantime. Is this a hot issue due to the ACA? Chaos from as many angles as possible will be important for years to come in shielding Dems from blame on healthcare and all the negatives this will cause in healthcare will make it look like other issues than ACA itself are at fault. To those of you who believe there is not going to be huge financial implication of the gay marriage issue, I think you are crazy.
WIth no disrespect to anyone's lifestyle, the term will soon lose all meaning from a legal perspective, it just is not totally obvious yet. How can we really stop two sisters from marrying or a sister and brother, a father and daughter etc. Were your sibling ill, and you could cover them with your insurance, why wouldn't you? The issues that kept siblings apart are no longer an assumed part of marriage, so.....There really is no partnering that should or can be off limits, as the guide is two people that love each other. Why only two of course will also be problematic. This is a done deal, it is just a matter of the chaos in the meantime.Is this a hot issue due to the ACA? ...".............................Again, with no disrespect, but not limited, LGTB etc. What about the species limitations?
Again, with no disrespect, but not limited, LGTB etc. What about the species limitations?______________________________That one still holds, but I do not see how any coupling between two people is out of bounds, I do guess they can draw a line at two, but it will certainly be challenged after all love is blind. This completely devastates the medical insurance industry which will have to make big changes that are going to be far worse than anyone expects. It is unfortunate, most of the stuff that has evolved with marriage has done so for a reason, though of course lots of folks want to deny that, and two folks shacking up has never been the reason.
The kid(s) has/have forty mommies and dads.BIG Policy.
"As far as gays and lesbians, they need to be shown the love of conservatives too. "Love? Do you mean 'unconditional love', and therefor unconditional inclusion? C'mon! Unconditional love is reserved for your children. While respecting a gay person based on his/her individual personal qualities is one thing, embracing their organized entity that is rabidly hostile to conservatism is quite another.~aj
"As far as gays and lesbians, they need to be shown the love of conservatives too. "_________________________By a vast majority, conservative do not care what they do with their log cabins as long as they do not wave them around in public. I personally am OK with the other side of the gay coin waving whatever they like however. I would truly hope any group would expect nothing other than that. I further hope that any group expecting more than that should be the target of a strong conservative effort to peal off the portion that does only want true equality and not special treatment for some past real or imagined grievance.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |