Esh, just came from those sites
- bitter little men eh?

No surprise here. Yet another example that the so-called inclusiveness and tolerance of the liberal-left, secular-progressive movement is a myth. Pure and simple.

I have never seen such bile and hateful vitriol as I have seen from the left. On the right, only far right wing nuts like white supremacist groups can be truly classified as hateful. These groups are rightly ostracized. On the left, however, hateful points of view have been mainstreamed and not even recognized as such by the holders of such viewpoints.

Irony, thy name is modern-day liberalism.

Kate

Fred was on Rob Breckenridge tonight as was Kathy Shaidle. In my mind tonight's show illustrates what big tent conservatism is about...libertarian, small government, personal responsibility, take the consequences, speak your mind individualism.

Rob brought the most out of both interviews and provides his usual reasoned commentary.

Worth a listen.

Syncro

Good on Fred Litwin and the start up of gay Dominion.

I wish them the best of luck and I hope we see many more gay conservatives come out of the political closet.

I have several gay and lesbian friends and while I adore them as my friends and have a good time hanging out and sharing our common interests I try really hard to leave the politics out of the discussions. Almost every one of them appears to suffer from this programming that being gay means you cannot support anything seen as 'conservative.'

Bit of ageism in Montreal Simons comments also: "crabby old Conservative queens." Actually, I think it is pretty apparent that he is about 20 years old -- so I don't take his remarks to heart. Nothing against 20 somethings, but many will think differently in a few years. I'll bet even Mr. Simons may change his tune with a few more years under his belt.

Uncle Fred? Uncle Fred?! I remember him from the late and lamented National Lampoon, where he featured in the hilarious cartoon "A Conversation with Uncle Fred". This consisted of a series of pictures of Fred, with alternating captions of "F*ck no", and "Sh*t yes". Has he been resurrected?

I dunno LindaL, about changing his tune, not if he stays cocooned in Montreal.

...as opposed to tolerant, gay loving conservatives:

‘Let me put it to you this way. There's A's and B's. The A's are guys like me. The B's are homosexual faggots with dirt in their fingernails that transmit diseases.'

Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski, who wasn't spanked by Harper for having said this.

Let me see if I've got this straight....

A partisan blogger encounters another partisan blogger with a different POV so they start insulting and belittling them.

And this is different from the norm how?

Oh, but of course all gay folks are tolerant, non-hateful and peaceful! They're born that way, right?

Oh, but not necessarily.

http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2008/11/homosupremacists-in-terrorist-hoods.html

Excerpts:

According to De Leeuw, "Prayer had just finished when men and women stood up in pockets across the congregation, on the main floor and in the balcony.

"'Jesus was gay,' they shouted among other profanities and blasphemies as they rushed the stage. Some forced their way through rows of women and kids to try to hang a profane banner from the balcony while others began tossing fliers into the air. Two women made their way to the pulpit and began to kiss," he wrote.

(...)

"This screaming and shouting, name-calling and pushing by homosexual activists is not unlike a small child throwing a fit because he doesn't get his way," said Randy Thomasson, chief of the Campaign for Children and Families, a leading California-based pro-family group. "The public is getting a clue that homosexual activists don't like democracy and are willing to trample anyone and anything that gets in their way."

Wonder what would happen if it was in a Mosque, and they screamed, "Mohammed was gay", had a Mohammed cartoon banner and Mohammed cartoon flyers and two uncovered women made out in front of the shocked, violated Muslim worshippers?

To Iberia re - Tom Lukiwski. Bet you can't guess who said this: "Most Canadians view homosexuality as abnormal. They are prepared to tolerate legal sexual activity behind closed doors, but they are not prepared to accept homosexuality as normal." That would be Liberal MP (now retired) Tom Wappel of Scarborough Southwest. He also ventured: "Groups that condone and promote paedophilia associate themselves with homosexual organizations". At least Tom Lukiwski was drunk at the time & eventually apologized; what's Tom Wappel's excuse?
(http://diogenesborealis.blogspot.com/2008/04/sauce-for-gander.html)

Growing up in Saskatchewan I can testify that the most vile, ignorant, racist spouting off in the local curling ring and coffee shop would always put an ORANGE sign in his/her yard every election.

Fortunately we have SDA and other blogs like it so that when Dawg and his fellow revisionists try and tell you otherwise the record can be set straight with actual FACTS. Like the Diefenbaker Tories giving Aboriginal people the right vote in 1960. Or how about the Canadian Tories being one of the first Governments to speak out against apartheid? No, that doesn't meet Dawg's version of history, you know that version? Where T.C. Douglas never actually wrote his vile, hate filled thesis.

As far as gays voting for the CPC, why would they not? The CPC is far more supportive of gay rights than the devote, evangelical Christian, Barack Obama, and most gays worship the ground that man walks on.

Further proof liberals hate it when one of the groups they've "claimed" goes wandering off the reservation.

Memo to gays, women, and racial minorities:

You're not supposed to be conservative. You're not supposed to think, say, or do anything unless a liberal is telling you to think, say, or do it. Remember: liberals have your best interests at heart, so long as you do everything *they* want you to do.

Dare step one toe out of line, and they'll treat you like crap. Now you know how Sarah Palin, Thomas Sowell, and the rest of us feel.

Welcome to conservatism.

Ah but Eric that is different(wappel), Why?
Because Wappel is a liberal & its ok for a liberal to make comments such as that.
Do as i say Not as i Do

BTW: you are exactly right tom was drunk at the time it occured, What 10-15yrs ago when views were different & He apologized for what he said.

Think of it as progress of a sort.

After all, one of the fave diggs at conservative men (or even men of the left who don't toe the party line, like C. Hitchens) -- David Warren, Mark Steyn -- is "they are secretly gay."

So now there's no more "secretly" bit. See? No? OK.

Linda:

Ageism?!? From a young queer dude?? Surely you jest :-)

They are obsessed with aging.

Dear Iberia and fellow retards:

One would think (were one inclined to actually engage the gears of one's tiny little Mickey Mouse watch motor mind and let the clutch out sllllooooowwwwlllly so as not to stall the poor wee thing) that homosexuals would instinctively know that 97% of the population will respond to the idea with at best a politely expressed "ew". At worst, Mr. Homosexual gets hung from a public works crane on a random street corner in Tehran. With a wire rope.

I mean, that's the reality they live in, right? A small shudder and "ew!" in 97 out of 100 men or women. Their continued freedom and actually their very existence depends 100% on other people's willingly given tolerance. Which historically tends not to be very dependable.

So a gay person, once they started to think even a teeny bit, would probably want to support a party that stands for maximum individual freedom and minimum government control. Freedom of speech, association, and most important to the gay minority, freedom to defend property and person from attack. Because being the unloved 3% can get dangerous. Mobs, gay bashers, all that stuff.

Liberals have been getting lots of credit for being "tolerant" because they shudder and say "EEEEWWWWW!!!!!" in private. Behind closed doors, as it were. In public its all about "celebrating diversity" and offering gays and other visible groups a special deal. Gays aren't just free and equal, they get GOODIES! They get a pulpit to preach from and government backing to tweak the straights with gay marriage and stuff like that. Awesome! Smack those meany Christians who don't vote Liberal, baaaad Christians.

But the thinking gay man has to be asking himself, "What are these jerks going to do when they don't need me to prove how wonderful and tolerant they are anymore?"

They're going to have a public health initiative to end the spread of HIV, is what. Possibly involving public works trucks and wire rope, it depends how big a crisis they need to distract attention from. Gays can go from special deal to scapegoat in a single election cycle.

If you think I'm insane for saying that, just do this thought experiment. Take all the regulations the Liberals (AND the pinko PCs, damn them) created to control gun owners and apply them to homosexuals. If y'all will remember, gun owners used to be a protected group back when the government needed them for war and stuff. Now they're a suspect group that needs watched.

Gays subject to warrantless searches? Gays subject to registration in a central database? Gays not allowed to be gay without a license? Hell yeah, you could live to see that. All depends if its convenient for the Liberal Party or not. Ask yourself which kills more people, pistols or HIV? Could a party whip up some public hate over that? Oh yeah.

Liberals are about centralized power, centralized control. Your only hope is to be in a favored group. Groups can go out of fashion. You don't want to be in an unfashionable group in a totalitarian country, kids. Wire rope, y'know.

Less government, less taxes, less oversight, less control, less busybodies with big noses poking into our affairs. Or you get Big Brother. No happy medium my friends.

Engage tiny brain, let out clutch real slow.

I remember in University the lesbians were having a hatefest in the UCC (western's version of the school caf) and this vile "woman" with a buzz-cut and a rats tail and a t-shirt with the word "dyke" on it walked up to me and declared:

"Why do people like you hate..." There was more to it but I didn't get past the "people like you" part. This retard actually said that. No shame. No irony. No self-awareness.

She didn't know my name, who I was, what I stood for. The only thing she knew about me was that I was white and male and that's all she needed to know to spew her hateful vitriolic rant in my direction. Hell, she couldn't even have know if I was straight or not. For all she knew, I could have been gay myself - but all she saw was what she hates and that justified her behaviour in her feeble poisoned mind. If I did to her what she did to me I'd have been expelled. She, with the whole university watching, spewed her hate with impunity.

I could have said that I strongly support equality of all people but she didn't deserve my support. She deserved my scorn. So that's what she got. Equality includes equal culpability, equal standards, equal responsibilities. Lefties of all persuasions are not interested in equality and never have been.

The left (gay, straight or otherwise) are people who demand "tolerance", "respect" and "understanding" apparently as proxies for themselves as they don't seem to be able to show any themselves.

The left are the most hateful, tyrannical, hypocritical bigots anywhere who project their own worst traits onto others. I guess it makes them feel better about their cold, black, hearts...

"As far as gays voting for the CPC, why would they not? The CPC is far more supportive of gay rights than the devote, evangelical Christian, Barack Obama, and most gays worship the ground that man walks on."

Why would women or gays vote for any leftarded party? Our parties on the left have done nothing but stonewall the allied attempts to scourge the earth of those that would enslave the aforementioned groups. Personally I don't think this is about the average woman or gay, but about the interest groups that claim to represent these individuals. They mislead their supporters with rhetoric, all the while working against the interests of women and gays world wide.

Remember, there are no gays in Iran.

Dear Iberia and fellow retards:

One would think (were one inclined to actually engage the gears of one's tiny little Mickey Mouse watch motor mind and let the clutch out sllllooooowwwwlllly so as not to stall the poor wee thing) that homosexuals would instinctively know that 97% of the population will respond to the idea with at best a politely expressed "ew". At worst, Mr. Homosexual gets hung from a public works crane on a random street corner in Tehran. With a wire rope.

I mean, that's the reality they live in, right? A small shudder and "ew!" in 97 out of 100 men or women. Their continued freedom and actually their very existence depends 100% on other people's willingly given tolerance. Which historically tends not to be very dependable.

So a gay person, once they started to think even a teeny bit, would probably want to support a party that stands for maximum individual freedom and minimum government control. Freedom of speech, association, and most important to the gay minority, freedom to defend property and person from attack. Because being the unloved 3% can get dangerous. Mobs, gay bashers, all that stuff.

Liberals have been getting lots of credit for being "tolerant" because they shudder and say "EEEEWWWWW!!!!!" in private. Behind closed doors, as it were. In public its all about "celebrating diversity" and offering gays and other visible groups a special deal. Gays aren't just free and equal, they get GOODIES! They get a pulpit to preach from and government backing to tweak the straights with gay marriage and stuff like that. Awesome! Smack those meany Christians who don't vote Liberal, baaaad Christians.

But the thinking gay man has to be asking himself, "What are these jerks going to do when they don't need me to prove how wonderful and tolerant they are anymore?"

They're going to have a public health initiative to end the spread of HIV, is what. Possibly involving public works trucks and wire rope, it depends how big a crisis they need to distract attention from. Gays can go from special deal to scapegoat in a single election cycle.

If you think I'm insane for saying that, just do this thought experiment. Take all the regulations the Liberals (AND the pinko PCs, damn them) created to control gun owners and apply them to homosexuals. If y'all will remember, gun owners used to be a protected group back when the government needed them for war and stuff. Now they're a suspect group that needs watched.

Gays subject to warrantless searches? Gays subject to registration in a central database? Gays not allowed to be gay without a license? Hell yeah, you could live to see that. All depends if its convenient for the Liberal Party or not. Ask yourself which kills more people, pistols or HIV? Could a party whip up some public hate over that? Oh yeah.

Liberals are about centralized power, centralized control. Your only hope is to be in a favored group. Groups can go out of fashion. You don't want to be in an unfashionable group in a totalitarian country, kids. Wire rope, y'know.

Less government, less taxes, less oversight, less control, less busybodies with big noses poking into our affairs. Or you get Big Brother. No happy medium my friends.

Engage tiny brain, let out clutch real slow.

iberia,

Liberal MP Rosanne Skoke. Learn, feel shame.

Let me add here that the hanging from a wire rope thing is not a danger reserved for gays. The reality of totalitarian rule, even the "soft" Trudeapian version, is that it endangers -everyone-. Everybody ends up looking over their shoulder and living like a frickin' serf, not just the ones that stick out more.

In other words, everybody lives in the closet. You wanna go back to the closet? Keep supporting the Left. That's what they want. The nail that sticks out will be hammered down, aka the closet.

You want to be free to stick the rainbow thingy on your car and not have to worry about it getting keyed in the parking garage? Conservative. That's what we want. Freedom to stick out as far as you want, freedom carry the biggest pistol in the entire world, and when that sorry son of a b1tch with the hammer comes around as he always seems to, the freedom to jam it up his nose and say "push off".

Just don't expect me to buy your ammo. Buy your own, cheapskates.

It's an interesting demonstration of basic projection: Any amount of vitriol and violence is considered justified provided you were the target of some first. Or, perhaps more pointedly, if you perceive yourself to have been the target of it first.

There's no doubt that there are still a good many GLBT people who personally take a lot of very real abuse -- physical and psychological -- for stuff they can't do much about; it also tends to be particularly painful because it usually comes from friends and family first, while they're young. Developing kneejerk reactions against groups, philosophies, ideas and causes you perceive to be the source of such pain is a natural human response. Just because the anger is disproportionate (from our perspective) does not mean it has no reasonable cause at all.

But extrapolating a natural, personal kneejerk reaction into a violent movement directed against individuals who have not hurt you personally, save by perhaps refusing to extend 100% approval to every single choice made in the name of your sexuality or by refusing to redefine an ancestral social institution into something it isn't, is where the GLBT cause, like so many understandably sympathetic causes, falls down.

It becomes even less justifiable for those individuals who haven't been personally hurt for their orientation (or race, or creed, or class), but take the historical maltreatment of a group as an example of personal injury anyway. Being senselessly angry because you've been hurt is one thing; being senselessly angry because somebody like you, somewhere, sometime was hurt is a little less rational.

But yes, the GLBT movement is eventually going to have to come to terms with the contradiction between their demands for unconditional acceptance (which is really what they mean when they ask for "tolerance") and their refusal to extend that same acceptance to any of their own who disagree with some of the movement's basic tenets.

Stephen J

So, because that lesbian attacked me when I was an impressionable young man (I actually wasn't that impressionable - being a natural born cynic) I would be justified in hating all homosexuals?

Not on. Lots of times in the past, people have blamed their plight on others. Scapegoating, hate and death follow.

Leftards are not justified in their hate any more than anyone else is justified in their hate. Period. Their reasons are irrelevant.

Dear Iberia and fellow retards:

One would think (were one inclined to actually engage the gears of one's tiny little Mickey Mouse watch motor mind and let the clutch out sllllooooowwwwlllly so as not to stall the poor wee thing) that homosexuals would instinctively know that 97% of the population will respond to the idea with at best a politely expressed "ew". At worst, Mr. Homosexual gets hung from a public works crane on a random street corner in Tehran. With a wire rope.

I mean, that's the reality they live in, right? A small shudder and "ew!" in 97 out of 100 men or women. Their continued freedom and actually their very existence depends 100% on other people's willingly given tolerance. Which historically tends not to be very dependable.

So a gay person, once they started to think even a teeny bit, would probably want to support a party that stands for maximum individual freedom and minimum government control. Freedom of speech, association, and most important to the gay minority, freedom to defend property and person from attack. Because being the unloved 3% can get dangerous. Mobs, gay bashers, all that stuff.

Liberals have been getting lots of credit for being "tolerant" because they shudder and say "EEEEWWWWW!!!!!" in private. Behind closed doors, as it were. In public its all about "celebrating diversity" and offering gays and other visible groups a special deal. Gays aren't just free and equal, they get GOODIES! They get a pulpit to preach from and government backing to tweak the straights with gay marriage and stuff like that. Awesome! Smack those meany Christians who don't vote Liberal, baaaad Christians.

But the thinking gay man has to be asking himself, "What are these jerks going to do when they don't need me to prove how wonderful and tolerant they are anymore?"

They're going to have a public health initiative to end the spread of HIV, is what. Possibly involving public works trucks and wire rope, it depends how big a crisis they need to distract attention from. Gays can go from special deal to scapegoat in a single election cycle.

If you think I'm insane for saying that, just do this thought experiment. Take all the regulations the Liberals (AND the pinko PCs, damn them) created to control gun owners and apply them to homosexuals. If y'all will remember, gun owners used to be a protected group back when the government needed them for war and stuff. Now they're a suspect group that needs watched.

Gays subject to warrantless searches? Gays subject to registration in a central database? Gays not allowed to be gay without a license? Hell yeah, you could live to see that. All depends if its convenient for the Liberal Party or not. Ask yourself which kills more people, pistols or HIV? Could a party whip up some public hate over that? Oh yeah.

Liberals are about centralized power, centralized control. Your only hope is to be in a favored group. Groups can go out of fashion. You don't want to be in an unfashionable group in a totalitarian country, kids. Wire rope, y'know.

Less government, less taxes, less oversight, less control, less busybodies with big noses poking into our affairs. Or you get Big Brother. No happy medium my friends.

Engage tiny brain, let out clutch real slow.

My gay friends wonder why, as a gay man, I vote for and support conservative parties both federally and provincially (heck, I even sit on the constituency association boards for both groups). One of the main reasons is the closed mindedness of many in the gay community, who want to impose their rules on me - that I should think only in certain ways, vote in certain ways, spend my time only on "approved" pursuits, listen only to the "correct music" etc etc etc. I would far rather spend the time at Ranchman's in Calgary with my straight friends who don't give a rat's whatzit who or what I sleep with at home (besides, being an old country boy, I do real Cowboy better than my city friends).

Does that mean that my conservative friends and collegues have always welcomed me with open arms? - No, there have been challenges, but I have managed to change the view point of a few of them to understand that I'm not some monster out to bed their sons (and eventually, they do give up trying to set me up with their daughters or grand-daughters).

My comment to people is that "Gay" is what I am, not who I am - I am me, not what some insecure and frightened individual wants me to be. I've had my trials and tribulations, but I've used them to grow up and forge my own path in the world.

CRC

"My comment to people is that "Gay" is what I am, not who I am - I am me, not what some insecure and frightened individual wants me to be. I've had my trials and tribulations, but I've used them to grow up and forge my own path in the world."

Great post Alan.

Being the subject of abuse from peers when you're young doesnt mean that you take it with you for the rest of your life, cause it means that you're never really grown up.
Take a look at the case of Reena Virk, its more than just the GLBT kids that suffer from bullying.
I know that it can create some emotional scars, but just because you're different and you're the victim of bullying in your youth doesnt mean that you're allowed to carry those scars into adulthood and become a bully yourself.

"So, because that lesbian attacked me when I was an impressionable young man (I actually wasn't that impressionable - being a natural born cynic) I would be justified in hating all homosexuals?"

Justified? No. But neither would it be totally unreasonable and without any cause, as some of the posters here seem to characterize it. Going too far in making your point is not the same as having no point.

Also, I think it might be a stretch to parallel your experience -- one rant from a random stranger at a rally -- with the experiences of many GLBT youth: a sustained pattern of physical abuse and social contempt from almost everybody you know, as often as not including your own family, for years on end. This does still happen. Not as often or as viciously as it used to, but it still happens, and it's no more excuseable than what we're talking about here.

Where I, like you, think the GLBT movement goes wrong is in taking the experiences of some and using them as justification for disruption and violence from all. But part of breaking that cycle is starving its roots, and we can do at least some of that on our own side of the issue as well.

Sorry Kate, my post wasn't so great that it needed posted twice.

No Stephen,

You don't justify hate because you've been teased or hard-done-by by a few people.

It's no different than saying if a white shop-keeper is robbed by a black druggie they have any reason to hate all black people.

Or if you've had your bad art criticized by a Jew you have a reason to write Mein Kampf.

A Bad reason, an Unreasonable reason is not any different than NO reason. There are no excuses for poor behaviour.

There used to be a defence to minimize jail time for sexual offenders: they were abused themselves. Now that's been rightly taken off the table (for all but husband murdering women that is.)

Extrapolating group traits (or perceived traits) from the bad behaviour (or perceived behaviour) of individuals is the very definition of bigotry. If bigotry is unacceptable, so is the excuses for it.

Sorry, excuses are for losers, bigots and leftards.

Being the subject of abuse from peers when you're young doesnt mean that you take it with you for the rest of your life, cause it means that you're never really grown up.
Take a look at the case of Reena Virk, its more than just the GLBT kids that suffer from bullying.
I know that it can create some emotional scars, but just because you're different and you're the victim of bullying in your youth doesnt mean that you're allowed to carry those scars into adulthood and become a bully yourself.

It's one of the follies of politics to imagine that hatred, or vitriol, or a proneness to be stupid and blind, is exclusively the province of the other side. It's human nature, and it needs to be tamed for anything good to happen.

"Gay" and conservative are not compatible, because a genuine conservatism has to be rooted in the natural law, not in some teenage libertarian fantasy that everyone can make up their own version of the good. Conservatism means the defense of the family. Social conservatism, therefore, is not an inconvenient and embarrassing gaggle of religious nuts on the fringe of the great blue machine (pace Harper), but the very heart and soul of the thing.

You know, the truth of the matter is bigotry doesn't even enter into the equation. There will always be somebody willing to oppress you for being gay, straight, black, white, Scottish, female, male, tall, short or merely for drawing breath. This is a given in human interaction. This is why Mr. Colt invented the revolver. In a free country such things are handled on a one-to-one basis as they occur.

No, the question is will we allow government to oppress some groups and elevate others? The Left's answer to that is yes, when/if they find it convenient to do so.

That's why we distrust the Left.

Phil

Nonsense. The original conservatives were rooted in the feudal system. Not some hacks justification for hating gay people.

Over time (especially in North America) the labels became corrupted. Conservative was distorted to include political religion AND classical liberals. Liberals were taken over by soft socialists (and worse.)

"Natural Law" is a nonsensical term used by the hard left and the religious right to mean their opinion. The religious right rails against gays as "unnatural" and the left speaks of the "natural law" to other people's money.

Now, the only thing you need to know is if you believe in liberty or you don't. Believers in Political Religion don't any more than the socialists.

Warwick:

Who said anything about hating gay people? Who's the hack to whom you refer?

How is natural law nonsensical? If one is to say "life, liberty and happiness are good", is he not appealing to a fundamental moral law? What about "It is wrong to take life unjustly", or, "it is wrong to deprive another of his liberty or property"? If there is no natural law, then there is only will, and power. Under those conditions, those with the power will always screw over those without. If liberty is absolute, then there is no reason why I should not hate gays, mistreat them, steal from them, etc. if I want to, and if I can get away with it. To tell me otherwise would be to deprive me of my "liberty", to impose a kind of "political religion" on me.

Modern socialism and antinomic libertarianism are two sides of the same coin. Both embody the mewling adolescent attitude of "I can do whatever I want, and to hell with anyone else". It's just that one has decided to throw his lot in with the state's coercive power to enforce his will (and I agree that this will return to bite him when his group falls out of favour with the state), while the other insists that his own will is supreme, and prefers to coerce others by his own means. Both are deeply antisocial at their core.

The family is the only thing that can oppose the encroachment of state power legitimately and effectively, because it is built on self-binding and self-mastery, which are the highest acts of human freedom because they imply freedom even from one's own pathologies. The survival of the polity requires not only freedom from coercion but also the kind of stability to allow for the creation and rearing of children. Libertarianism and modern liberalism have no place for children, because they're all about money, sex and power, and not at all about love.

"If there is no natural law, then there is only will, and power. Under those conditions, those with the power will always screw over those without."

Sorry Phil, your whole argument hinges on this statement which is false. You can not prove this statement, it is simply a musing of your own bias and bigotry.

The discussion is should a gay person vote for the Conservatives, not should they be conservative which includes social conservatism, fiscal conservatism and other threads of conservatism. I'm not a social conservative, does that make me a Liberal? To claim that ""Gay" and conservative are not compatible," is saying that a gay person can not budget effectively in his personal life; or, a gay football coach shouldn't run a conservative offence. Once again you over reach your authority with blanket statements that have no basis.

should read like this:

"not *can* they be conservative which includes social conservatism,"

"You don't justify hate because you've been teased or hard-done-by by a few people."

I do draw a distinction between justifying something and explaining it, as I tried to make clear above (evidently insufficiently so). An explanation doesn't make an action less wrong, but it can suggest what approaches might work better than others in preventing recurrence.

And I do have to state again that describing the abuse that all too many GLBT people go through as being "teased or hard-done-by" is simply not fair; the term is simply not adequate to the scope of the abuse endured by many. We continue to parallel what GLBT youth endure with "normal" bullying, as if to suggest that because we shrug off our tormentors they should shrug off theirs, but it is different. Part of defusing hostility is understanding its origin, and it really seems to me that many on this side of the aisle don't adequately grasp why so many GLBT people are so angry. Yes, for many it is a kind of spoiled-brat thwarted entitlement, but for many others it's a chance to strike back in clear conscience against the forces that hurt them, and there are very few people who will willingly forgo such chances when they come along.

(Fair's fair; many GLBT people have no grasp of why defenders of traditional marriage are so up in arms about their goals. But they tend not to be given reasons to want to understand.)

Forgiveness is not about pretending what someone did isn't wrong, but it is about letting go of anger by understanding why someone else is angry, and it wouldn't hurt to have a little bit more understanding.

Good grief, I don't CARE if somebody is gay or not! Stop trying to make me! I don't care what gets you off! I don't want to know...really I don't!

There was some West End gay men's choir performing on the island and I remember thinking to myself: "WTF does being gay have to do with singing?" Unless the songs contain propaganda messages. Otherwise it's like gay plumber...I don't care who you sleep with as long as you fix my sink. I mean I don't advertise myself as a computer tech who likes to bang chicks!

Conservative lesbian weighing in, I've raised a daughter, now 18. She is straight and a really good person.

Family is not the property of the heterosexual.

Having the most personal freedom and the least government intervention is the best case for all families.

It seems everybody has their own idea of what Conservatism is all about. Certainly I do. However, Russell Kirk has given perhaps the best modern summation of Conservatism. His points are unchanging truths, not cobbled-together slogans to meet popular demand.

Kirk wrote in a deliberately antiquated style. It suits the material he wanted to address with the full gravity it deserves. Long after the “popularity” of the sloganeering politicians has faded, these ten principles will remain.

1. The Conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of Conservatives ever since Conservative became a term of politics.

2. The Conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity… Custom enables people to live together peaceably. Convention permits us to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions.

3. Conservatives believe in the principle of prescription. We are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than our ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us. Thus, the emphasis on prescription and on those things established by immemorial usage, by the establishment of precedent, including rights to property.

4. Conservatives value prudence as a principle. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals are imprudent. They dash at their objectives without heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away .

5. Conservatives cherish variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law. All other attempts at leveling lead to social stagnation.

6. Man is imperfect. Thus no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster. In a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. Prudent reform permits us to preserve and improve this tolerable order. If the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.”

7. Conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth. Economic leveling, Conservatives maintain, is not economic progress. Getting and spending are not the chief aims of human existence. A sound economic basis for the person, the family, and the commonwealth is desirable.

8. Conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for their spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. Some of these functions are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations: so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community. But when these functions pass by default or usurpation to centralized authority, then community is in serious danger.

9. The Conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic . When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy.

10. Conservatives understand that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical progress at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The Conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression.

I wonder why they chose the name Gay Dominion and not Gay Dead Animals?

Or Gay Action Dinosaurs?

Isn't it ironic that gays who've been agitating for the "freedom" to do/say/think what they want are so quick to pounce on others' freedom to do/think/act according to their insights?

Are gays the only group entitled and privileged enough to have everything their own way--while the rest of the world grovels in their wake?

They need to tread very much more softly. The Frankenstein's Monster they're creating--the jackboot of political correctness which squashes any and all who DARE to criticize their lifestyle/opinions--could just turn on them. Right now, they're "riding high" which should be all the more reason for them to understand that the "equality" rights that defend their lifestyles should apply equally to others.

If they actually believe in "equal rights"--which, presumably they do, as they've been fighting for them--then these rights need to apply to everyone or they're not "equal rights," are they?

What the gay activists are actually advocating are "supremacy rights"--the right of their group to do/say/think what they like AS LONG AS others--especially those with whom they disagree--don't have the same rights as they do. And not only that, they actively agitate for rights not to be extended to those individuals or groups with whom they disagree and who disagree with them.

They need to be very careful.

Kyla, abso-freakin-lutely right on. Nothing makes my back go up faster than these types who think they can make things better if all us stupid peons would just do what we're told.

Anybody wants to impose "Natural Law" on me is going to get the same reception as the guy who wants to impose Sharia Law: my size ten steel toe upside their head. I may be old but I can still kick high.

What is it about this freedom thing you social nanny types seem to have so much trouble with? Free people are free to do stuff you don't like. They're free to do stuff that's bad for them. They're free to spend all their money on beer and popcorn. They're free to have weird, f-ed up families and do everything completely wrong.

Freedom means you're only allowed to make yourself do it your way. Live with it or accept the fact you're a closet totalitarian at heart.

Freedom means that you're free to screw up and fail, that you're free to be an idiot.

And freedom also means that those who've used their resources wisely and justly don't have to "affirm" your failure and clean up after you.

I completely agree that people should be free to make their own choices and do what's wrong and even harmful if that's what they want to do, with the necessary proviso that they can't do it at others' expense (including the members of the "f-ed up families" that don't get a say in the matter), that they can't assume the state will accord them special recognition as if their choices were equivalent to prosocial ones, that they can't demand that everyone - or anyone - approve of what they do and call people who don't "totalitarian". You can call that "Freedom: the Non-teenager Version".