Anti-gay speaker booed off stage at - CPAC?

[werepossum]

http://bigjournalism.com/bcarroll/2...nt-why-cpac-was-a-milestone-weekend-for-gays/

This is a very interesting story both in and of itself and in the reaction it engenders. Conservative politicians have always had a difficult time figuring out how to react to gay people and gay advocate groups. Reagan handled it well - when he received the endorsement of the Log Cabin Republicans, he thanked them and, when attacked, simply said he welcomed the support of everyone who supported the same ideals and goals as did he. Net positive. Other Pubbies have handled it not so well, initially accepting the endorsement and then, when inevitably attacked, rejected the endorsement, thus losing both the presumably small conservative gay vote and the hopefully small rabidly anti-gay vote (for accepting it in the first place - perhaps for being someone who would even be offered such an endorsement.)

Flash forward to 2010. This is the first year an openly gay group, GOProud, has been included in the list of sponsors and speakers. Ryan Sorba followed (not directly) the GOProud speaker and launched into an anti-gay tirade. Surprisingly, he was roundly booed off the stage. This is, to my knowledge at least, the first time a CPAC audience has actively rejected anti-gay sentiments. (I've never attended or watched CPAC so I'm not sure such sentiments have ever been expressed by a speaker, but at least one long-time sponsor, Liberty University, pulled out in protest. Not that GOProud is gay per se, but that they advocate gay marriage and gays serving openly in the military.)

Anyway, I thought it was interesting. Evidently the mood at CPAC is changing from strict evangelical-style social conservatism to a more inclusive focus on freedom and fiscal conservative values. Or perhaps CPAC is simply growing up. You can't focus on freedom and still require that others fit into your preferred lifestyle. Either way, I thought it was interesting. The usual reactions ensued from the progressive media, but even some of them are grudgingly giving CPAC credit.

And for you Palin-haters, she declined an invitation to speak. Supposedly a "close source" attributed the rejection to the emphasis of "pocketbook matters" over social policy. As always, YMMV.

 

[ayabe]

Palin wouldn't go because they wouldn't pay her the cash.

70% of the attendees were "younger", not sure how they break that down, but let's say younger than 50 years old, acceptance of homosexuality is just a lot higher the younger you go down the scale.

So it's not really that surprising.

 

[zsdersw]

Yes, not that surprising. Until the Republican presidential candidate doesn't have to speak out against gay marriage and gay adoption to win the Republican primary, the GOP will never get my vote nationally.

 

[K1052]

The gay issue is increasingly a looser for the Republicans as old folks who are often socially conservative die off. If they can jettison the religious fundies as well they might actually stand a chance against the Dems again.

There is already serious disillusionment among the gays with the Democrats/Obama and the clearly empty promises that were made.

 

[MJinZ]

The gay issue is increasingly a looser for the Republicans as old folks who are often socially conservative die off. If they can jettison the religious fundies as well they might actually stand a chance against the Dems again.

There is already serious disillusionment among the gays with the Democrats/Obama and the clearly empty promises that were made.

Die old bigotted bastards die! ()

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Yes, not that surprising. Until the Republican presidential candidate doesn't have to speak out against gay marriage and gay adoption to win the Republican primary, the GOP will never get my vote nationally.

Your sig vs. your post count and join date are comical. ;-)

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Die old bigotted bastards die! ()

Funny how people will call them biggots for not accepting other people lifestyles nd choice, but the people complaining are unwiling to accept those "biggots" can make their own choices. Basically, people calling someone a biggot is a biggot themself.

 

[MJinZ]

Funny how people will call them biggots for not accepting other people lifestyles nd choice, but the people complaining are unwiling to accept those "biggots" can make their own choices. Basically, people calling someone a biggot is a biggot themself.

The difference is that I leave these Bigots alone, and am not out to denigrate them by way of civil rights, liberties, or equalities.

 

[ayabe]

The difference is that I leave these Bigots alone, and am not out to denigrate them by way of civil rights, liberties, or equalities.

Exactly.

 

[K1052]

Funny how people will call them biggots for not accepting other people lifestyles nd choice, but the people complaining are unwiling to accept those "biggots" can make their own choices. Basically, people calling someone a biggot is a biggot themself.

I generally rank the "gay as a choice" people up there with the Young Earth crowd on the intellectual dishonesty scale. The fact that such people actively campaign to use the machinery of our supposedly secular state to marginalize us is probably what sticks in most of our craws.

 

[andy9o]

Yes, not that surprising. Until the Republican presidential candidate doesn't have to speak out against gay marriage and gay adoption to win the Republican primary, the GOP will never get my vote nationally.

This, 1000x this.

 

[zsdersw]

Your sig vs. your post count and join date are comical. ;-)

I never used to participate in this section of Anandtech Forums until only recently, and I've been "out of the closet" since my junior year of high school, approximately 13 years.

 

[zsdersw]

Funny how people will call them biggots for not accepting other people lifestyles nd choice, but the people complaining are unwiling to accept those "biggots" can make their own choices. Basically, people calling someone a biggot is a biggot themself.

So, do you believe it's a choice?

Otherwise, I don't use the term "bigot" (correct spelling, btw) very often, mainly because I think it's over-used. I prefer to look at these things as "prejudices". That term is both more accurate and precise.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Funny how people will call them biggots for not accepting other people lifestyles nd choice, but the people complaining are unwiling to accept those "biggots" can make their own choices. Basically, people calling someone a biggot is a biggot themself.

Intolerance of intolerance does not make a bigot, but your post makes you one and a poor speller too.

 

[VashHT]

Funny how people will call them biggots for not accepting other people lifestyles nd choice, but the people complaining are unwiling to accept those "biggots" can make their own choices. Basically, people calling someone a biggot is a biggot themself.

I seriously doubt they would care if you hate gays or not as long as there wasn't unfair legislation created in an attempt to hinder their lifestyle.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Anti-gay speaker booed off stage at - CPAC?

And this makes CPAC any less nutty ?

Palin/Beck - 2012 ?


LOL





--

 

[Modelworks]

I do not believe that being gay is a choice for most people, there are some I think make the choice for reasons other than biologic reasons.

I do think though that it is a genetic mutation, I don't mean that in a bad way, the same kind of mutation that makes some people talk with a lisp or have depression or ADD . I think as research continues they will eventually discover what DNA sequence causes it. That doesn't mean they will or should 'fix' people. I know many people who have downs syndrome and I wouldn't say they need 'fixing' but I don't think being gay is normal in biologic terms and I don't believe in promoting it as a lifestyle everyone should embrace but more as something that is acknowledged and the individuals treated as fairly as anyone else . We do not discriminate against people with ADD or depression and we should not discriminate against people who are gay.

 

[rudder]

Anyway, I thought it was interesting. Evidently the mood at CPAC is changing from strict evangelical-style social conservatism to a more inclusive focus on freedom and fiscal conservative values. Or perhaps CPAC is simply growing up. You can't focus on freedom and still require that others fit into your preferred lifestyle. Either way, I thought it was interesting. The usual reactions ensued from the progressive media, but even some of them are grudgingly giving CPAC credit.

We will see how it plays out over the next election cycle. I prefer conservatives to stand for fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Somehow religious fundamentalism got thrown in to the mix and the Republicans used that angle to hold on to power.

On the flip side you have obama appointing an education czar who has in the past shown the propensity to have a radical gay agenda.

Somewhere in there is a happy medium.

 

[Moonbeam]

Funny how people will call them biggots for not accepting other people lifestyles nd choice, but the people complaining are unwiling to accept those "biggots" can make their own choices. Basically, people calling someone a biggot is a biggot themself.

A bigot is a person who holds a bias against something based on unconscious negative assumptions about whatever that something is, derived usually from a prejudice inculcated at a young age, and also usually via some supposedly absolutely truthful religious text, absolutely truthful according only to the text itself, and to which the central message of such text, the existence of some sort of Supreme Love, owing to the hate men feel and will not surrender despite that message, use as a place to dump that hate while feeling, not the fact that they are actually worthless slime according to their own religion because they do hate, but actually superior and fit for heaven or some such other delusion they tell themselves they are worthy of.

A person who says that identifying bigots by name is itself bigotry is an idiot.

Bigots are irrationally disgusted by the object of their bigotry. Normal people are disgusted by the irrationality of bigotry. There is nothing irrational about such disgust. It is the same disgust normal folk feel for Nazis. Bigots are dangerous and a real threat, not an irrational one, to the human race in general. The evidence comes not from some ancient text self purporting to be the absolute truth, but from evidence before ones very eyes visible without any prior prejudice. One day gay people will be accepted but bigots will always earn their own calumny.

 

[Moonbeam]

We will see how it plays out over the next election cycle. I prefer conservatives to stand for fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Somehow religious fundamentalism got thrown in to the mix and the Republicans used that angle to hold on to power.

On the flip side you have obama appointing an education czar who has in the past shown the propensity to have a radical gay agenda.

Somewhere in there is a happy medium.

Millions of Republican bigots on one side of the scale and one Democrat on the other and this blithering idiot is looking for a happy medium.

 

[FaaR]

So, do you believe it's a choice?

The choice-argument is a very curious one, like anyone would actually voluntarily CHOOSE to be ridiculed, bullied, demonized, assaulted or even outright killed.

The choice-argument is perpetuated by the intellectually stunted, and by powerhungry cynics who manipulate the intellectually stunted.

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't see the repubs softening up much on gay rights issues. The political calculus just isn't there for them. Polling suggests that about 20% of gays view themselves as conservative, but only half of conservative gays vote repub because of their stance on gay issues. Picking up a voting block that is maybe 10% of 5% of the population will not offset alienating their evangelical base. And Independent voters who would generally vote in favor of gay rights don't view the issue as that central or important to them.

I can see the repubs softening their rhetoric a bit and distancing themselves from hardcore religious anti-gay attacks to track shifting national sentiment, but I don't see them changing their stance on actual concrete issues.

I think it's time for Obama to push ending the gay military ban. It's looking like a lot of the military brass will support ending the ban, or at least take a relatively neutral attitude toward it, and public opinion is now strongly in favor of it. I think he should push a bill and let the repubs try to fillibuster it. And he should do it this year.

- wolf

 

[zsdersw]

I do think though that it is a genetic mutation, I don't mean that in a bad way, the same kind of mutation that makes some people talk with a lisp or have depression or ADD . I think as research continues they will eventually discover what DNA sequence causes it. That doesn't mean they will or should 'fix' people. I know many people who have downs syndrome and I wouldn't say they need 'fixing' but I don't think being gay is normal in biologic terms and I don't believe in promoting it as a lifestyle everyone should embrace but more as something that is acknowledged and the individuals treated as fairly as anyone else . We do not discriminate against people with ADD or depression and we should not discriminate against people who are gay.

Homosexuality is a natural condition. It exists in many ways outside of the human species, and is perfectly "normal" in "biologic terms". Normal does not necessarily have to mean common.

I have yet to see what people mean when they refer to "promoting" homosexuality.

 

[Moonbeam]

The choice-argument is a very curious one, like anyone would actually voluntarily CHOOSE to be ridiculed, bullied, demonized, assaulted or even outright killed.

The choice-argument is perpetuated by the intellectually stunted, and by powerhungry cynics who manipulate the intellectually stunted.

They are not intellectually stunted. Many are intellectually gifted way way beyond you and me. It just that their mental capacity is devoted to rationalizations because they have a disease. It is unimaginably difficult to root up a disease that is deeply buried in the unconscious and to which the person is profoundly blind. To heal from bigotry one has to become humble and admit how one has been worthless slime. It's a tall order but it happens somewhere every day. Love is the reward for those who die to themselves.

 

[woolfe9999]

They are not intellectually stunted. Many are intellectually gifted way way beyond you and me. It just that their mental capacity is devoted to rationalizations because they have a disease. It is unimaginably difficult to root up a disease that is deeply buried in the unconscious and to which the person is profoundly blind. To heal from bigotry one has to become humble and admit how one has been worthless slime. It's a tall order but it happens somewhere every day. Love is the reward for those who die to themselves.

I think your rather universal points have some validity. I would, however, point out that tolerance of homosexuality lags behind tolerance for other differences because of a certain particularity - that it is bound up with sex and sexuality, which brings up its own set of insecurities and issues.

- wolf