Homosexuality is IMMORAL. It goes against God's law and goes against natural law. Most of these idiot students have been programed in college not to think for themselves. They've been brainwashed since they were in kindergarten that they evolved from animals - a concept that is completely against every piece of scientific evidence ever presented. They've been taught that there is no God and morality is relative. That's why this country is going down.
This has got to be one of the funniest clips I've ever seen. And the elderly people look so confused by all the angry youths. And Sorba is clearly confused, in more ways than one. Ron Paul Revolution, 2012! Liberty for all!
Tantrum politics is one of the many places where Libertarians are indistinguishable from Liberals. This is also true in economics. The Left believes that government controlled economies lead to a Utopia which will inexorably drive all behaviours. If you were to change "government controlled" with "free market" you'll find Libertarians. It's trading one Utopian delusion for another.
Libertarian ideology has limitations. We're seeing it in their so-called moral behavior right now.
Very true. Another mark of Utopianism is that it is not based upon experience but theory. Utopians desire to completely upend whole societies and their traditions in a single day without regard for the unintended consequences of any of it.
The question we need to ask is this 1) when has their ever been a successful socialist society in the long term in which a significant number of the citizens were happy and 2) where has there been a society run on Libertarian principles?
@thomaserossi so what you're saying is conservatives disfavor utopia? are you saying the world is fine like it is? and they call liberal dreamers naive.
The one throwing a tantrum is Ryan Sorba. Calling out people, and saying that that you are their enemy? What do you call that kind of childish behavior?
The Left believes that government controlled economies lead to a Utopia which will inexorably drive all behaviours. If you were to change "government controlled" with "free market" you'll find Libertarians. It's trading one Utopian delusion for another."
Not sure what your point here is. Incentives do affect behaviour.
This is what the Liberals of today don't understand. We've never been any of the things they say we are. The Tea Party has largely been a Libertarian movement. The more you learn about out history and the way this Country was founded the more small Government Libertarian you become.
There are always going to be Conservatives and Republicans who want to legislate morality and it's there right to stand behind their principles.
Its a shame we have to advertise the fact that we don't hate people
@fishblades well i don't see nearly as much racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-poor, anti-religious equality... hell, the republicans seem to be anti-minority of any kind.
and this isn't me trying to paint anyone, the republican leadership speaks for itself. there's a reason you have to advertise that you don't hate people. i know not everyone thinks the same, and if you want to turn that image around then by all means do so.
The reason we have to advertise it is because people like you don't understand the Constitution or Federalism. We have to advertise the fact because somehow we are every bad thing you can think of to call us, but to be honest that first sentence of yours doesn't make much sense so I don't know how to respond to that. How are Republicans anti-religious? I thought that's one of the main thing liberals hate about them. Are you talking about radical muslims? lol
@fishblades no, i'm talking about all muslims. i heard a recent quote from a republican governor (don't remember who) being asked if he would be comfortable with a muslim in his cabinet and he said absolutely not.
combine that with them being anti-gay marriage, anti-choice for abortion, pro-tax cuts for the rich, and the republican party really starts to paint a picture for you.
and first support taking "in god we trust" off the money, then tell me you understand the constitution.
Yeah the guy who said that was Herman Caine... a black man. Damn racist/bigoted Republicans!
We are anti-abortion because it is basically murder. I can't kill my father if he asked me to and signed a latter and everything. So why is it ok to kill babies. Personal responsibility. If you don't want a baby don't get pregnant. There's only one way to get pregnant. Protection.
Conservatives do not support gay marriage but do support civil unions, like Elton John does, go figure.
@fishblades haha, he doesn't get out of being racist just because he's black. i'm black, i should know.
and abortion is a grey issue, i won't argue with you on it, i only mention it because it's just one more instance where republicans come out on the anti-minority side. further showing the pattern.
and on gay marriage/unions, i don't think you speak for all republicans on that one.
obviously some are very compassionate like the kid in the video, but the leadership seems against that.
Pro-Tax cuts for the rich hahaha. I don't believe people should be punished for their success. What morals do you have that makes you think it's ok to take from someone to give to another? I can't justify wealth redistribution or punitive taxes morally. It's just wrong.
oh about the God thing. I'm not a religious person at all but I respect all faiths. Our founders clearly stated our rights come from God. If they came from Government they could be taken away.
Is the man with the pretty eyebrows saying that all sex is strictly for reproduction? Let's pass federal laws banning any sex that's not man-on-woman missionary position, as well as banning all contraceptives, as well as warrantless wiretapping & spying on homes to make sure no married couple screws except right after she has ovulated. I'm sure that would go over with the so-called "christian" Right. This is a christian nation after all, right? I mean let's get serious with sin laws here!
Thanks for posting. Very inspiring! Great to see CPAC going in this direction...gives me hope. I'm straight, and I'm consider myself christian, but I despise "social conservatives". America is not a theocracy! Freedom is for everyone! Ryan Sorba should go stick his head in a bucket of water 3 times and pull it out twice.
@MooseOfReason I thought they were tolerant of all views, this being one of the those views that Most republicans hold: that racism is not the same as the gay issue. And that they don't agree with homosexuality. It shouldn't surprise them at all.
No need for profanity. Students for liberty are welcomed by CPAC! Everyone there supports freedom, liberty, limited govt, and fiscal responsibility. The SFL support that too. There are gays in the conservative movement. Show some tolerance. Conservatives are trying to change the GOP back to a conservative movement, which supports tolerance. Don't believe the liberal hype.
I think Sorba is right. But I also think that gays have a right to be gay as long as they don't 'shove it in my face' (pun intended).... Ron Paul talks about people letting themselves be classified in groups and then allowing themselves to be preyed upon and targeted by special interests. If you would just disorganize and be individuals you would not be targeted by the religious right. I don't think anyone should be shouting out their sexual orientation at all. Not straights or gays.
This is bullshit. As recently as 2003 sodomy was a crime punishable by several years in prison in many American states, even conservative ones where the gay rights movement is barely visible. So was this law targeting individuals, or an entire group? Don't be absurd.
And as recently as the 1970s several states almost successfully made it a felony punishable by a lifetime in jail. Do you think this is in any way compatible with conservative principles of individual freedom?
Sodomy laws were passed by a right wing religious element targeting homosexuals because straights never talked about doing the stinky hole. It was a bogus law because nobody could enforce it unless someone claimed rape. Homosexuals and heterosexuals can practice sodomy anytime they want to, NOBODY is stopping them. The homosexual debate is not about anal sex, it's about same sex attraction. A guy finding another guys hairy fucking ass attractive.
You just proved my point. Was the religious right targeting individual gays, or gays as a whole? So why can't we organize together as a group, given that we are few in number and harassed by the majority?
It was not a bogus law. Raids on homosexual bars, nightclubs, etc. were quite commonplace even after the stonewall riots, and the police could (as they do now) make up bullshit excuses to seach your house late into the night if you were suspected of being a homosexual.
You were targeted as a group dipshit. Bars and nightclubs are not individuals are they now. And when did police ever break into a guys home to see if he was butt fucking his friend? That's bullshit. But we do have new legislation, thanks to that asshole George Bush, in the name of 'terrorism security' to search us against our will and deny us of our privacy. So I am all for letting homosexuals do whatever they want in private with no intervention from the authorities.
Exactly. Bars and nightclubs are not individuals. Bravo! You proved my point. How else do you stop this BS other than organizing as a group?
Uh, you know Lawrence v Texas came about because the police were doing such a thing? I can find other cases for you, if you like, and those are only the people who were rich enough to sue the government.
And yes, George W. Bush is an asshole, one who wholeheartedly praised that gross violation of privacy you speak of.
WE WERE ATTACKED AS A GROUP BEFORE EVEN ORGANIZED AS GROUPS. Homosexuals were publically outed, fired, and put in jail for decades before the origin of the gay rights movement. Have you heard of Alan Turing? The guy who cracked the Nazi enigma code? Google him.
You're also wrong about coming out. A recent poll says 50% of Americans think homosexuality is morally acceptable, compared to less than 5% 50 years ago. It's working. So why should we stop?
I know what I am talking about here. I was born in San Francisco, grew up around gay people, had many gay teachers, fellow gay workers, etc. There was never a problem until the gay agenda started with gay people wanting straight people to accept their behavior as normal. We never accepted your behavior as normal but we got along fine. Now that you want to make an issue about it we resist, simply because you are trying to force it upon us. It will never be accepted.
You liar. I couldn't care less whether you think being gay is normal, and neither do gays. We're talking about government policy here. Should it be a government policy to deny certain rights to gays?
And I just proved to you that not only has it worked, it is working. Just look at western Europe.
In addition, unless you lived before the stonewall riots, you couldn't possibly have known very many open gays. You just said there was no problem until the gay agenda surfaced, which happens to be in 1969. CA alone only decriminalized sodomy in the late 1970s. NOBODY could have a high standard of living and be out at the same time, because it was illegal.
The only people were out were hairdressers, low-paid actors, prostitutes, and other marginalized people. Quit lying.
So here we go with the "I want my rights" bullshit. You chose to be gay and you try and classify yourself as a 'minority' as though it were like your skin color was 'gay'. Just because you had a shitty childhood, was molested, was curious and got trapped into the 'gay scene' or whatever reason you DECIDED to be gay, you are not going to convince the majority that what you do is 'normal'. Same sex attraction is not natural and is very destructive. You quit lying.
Dumbass, I was NOT molested. 99% of gays are not. You tried lying about "knowing gay people", just like ALL racists claim they have black friends, and I caught your lying ass red-handed. It's not a choice.
Don't even try that "natural rights' BS. Why does homosexuality exist in hundreds of species, including in bonobos, our second closest animal relative? Why are certain species of lizard 100% female (they reproduce asexually through parthenogenesis), and only have sex for pleasure?
You stupid fuck. Liberace was gay and everybody new it. Jim Nabors was gay and everybody knew it. Rock Hudson was gay and everybody knew it. Elton John was gay and everybody knew it. My teachers in the 60's were gay and everybody knew it. You are full of shit.
No, dumbass. You try lying to somebody who knows nothing about LGBT culture. Rock Hudson denied being gay until his very death from AIDS, and people certainly did care, it would have ruined his career. Liberace and Elton John came decades after the stonewall riots. Nobody knows for sure whether Jim Nabors was gay.
You tried pretending you didn't hate gays at all at first, but once you scratch that surface you see a giant morass of hatred and bigotry. Typical lying homophobe. Did you accuse all your "gay friends" of having been molested and being destructive? You lying sack of shit, there's no way you lived in San Francisco and had gay friends before the gay rights amendment, when it was a conservative city full of Catholic immigrants. This is EXACTLY why the gay rights movement is necessary.
The gay animal bullshit has already been proven a hoax. I was born in San Francisco over 50 years ago and I do know and have known MANY gay men and women. You are a typical heterophobe who can't stand it when people like me are willing to call you out on your pretend to be born gay BULLSHIT. Do you want to see what "gay" is all about? Go to google and search this title:
Show me a peer-reviewed scientific paper that says it's a hoax. You know there's a documentary on bonobos on youtube? Search it.
I don't hate straight people. How can I? My parents are heterosexual. :)
Science doesn't know when exactly sexuality is determined, and I never made that claim. Also, zombietime is a supporter of gay rights, dipshit. There are plenty of gays who despise the Folsom Street Fair, and LOTS of straight people are involved in it.
I was actually celibate and a social conservative before I came to accept my own sexuality. If you have a rebuttal, why don't you say something logical and truthful for once, instead of lying about shit that is demonstrably untrue. "Queer reviewed" my arse.
I'm sure you had gay friends in S.F. way back then. Just like my grandfather fought in WWII against Egypt after the Cold War, and my grandmother was president of France during the 19th century. Bigoted L-I-A-R.
Here is an article you should read to help your bad case of ignorance:
The Animal Homosexuality Myth
by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo
If you can disprove the research and claims from this article with facts from non-queer reviewed sources (and not just your opinion) you will earn my respect. Until then I don't have much more to say to you except that I hope you are happy living your life of shameful behavior.
Unfortunately for you, Solimeo is a Catholic fundie and NOT a scientist. I had read that stupid article before you even mentioned it.
What else are you going to lie about? Are you serious about living in SF for until 1982 and not being aware of any gay agenda until the very end? LOL. You said nobody had any problem with us until the gay agenda surfaced. You don't recall Anita Bryant, prop. 6, Harvey Milk? You damn liar.
I had same-sex attraction for as long as I can remember. NEXT.
Hey there sphincter bandit, I didn't realize that people actually read these comments from 4 months ago. Are you bored or something? Do you have any friends? Get a life dude.
@nododon Judging from your comments, you sure seem to care about the subject. I just like screwing with block-head conservatives like yourself. You seem like the one with the thin skin.
Look how hysterical you are, after I exposed your lies. YEAH sure, you know gays in San Francisco during the height of McCarthyism, when homosexuals were being forcibly outed and fired everywhere in the country, when it was against the LAW in California, and when San Francisco was a conservative city. L-I-A-R.
So now you claim you were proudly friends with people you describe as degenerate perverts? I'm sure the leader of the KKK has black friends, as well!
You asshole. I am from San Francisco. I lived there for 25 years before moving in 1982. You are obviously one of these confused younger men who had sex with another guy, probably experimenting, and then had to deal with the guilt of the 'act' you participated in, or the acceptance from the 'gay community' who was conveniently 'there to embrace you'. You were taken in by the mentality of acceptance. You should not have given that friend of yours head. See what it did to you.
You can't "turn gay" through experimentation, dumbass, even if you are straight and really want to be for some reason. The best you can do is turn somebody who's bisexual closer to one side or the other. I was gay for as long as I can remember, and I didn't need to have sex to know it.
Nobody discussed anybody having head or men's hairy assholes until your pervert, closeted mind came up with it. Stick to facts please. I do not give a rat's ass about your perverted imagination.
and "bisexual" is defined as anyone who can develop an attraction to the opposite sex? That's circular reasoning and it's unfalsifiable.
Most deep-seated psychological conditions cannot be upended in a day with a magic bullet, homoeroticism is no exception. The fact that attraction in one direction can be lessened and attraction in another direction can be discovered is significant.
Either way, when homosexuals are discriminated against, it is usually because of their orientation, not what they do in the privacy of their own homes. When gay students are bullied in school, that is always due to their orientation, NOT because they're committing sodomy, because the vast majority aren't.
Romantic love and sex go hand in hand. You can't separate them. We will shove it into your face until the religious nuts stop their BS. Then we'll talk about groupthink.
Students who are gay need to consider the ramifications if they 'come out' in public. I believe it is wrong to bully anyone but sometimes people bring it on themselves. Homosexuals need to come to realization that their behavior is never going to be fully accepted. It is better to just not make waves about being gay. And don't try and make people accept your behavior as being normal. It will never happen. Stop the agenda for acceptance and we will all get along just fine.
I want nothing more than for homosexuality to be treated as something very ordinary , something no more unusual than being left-handed or having curly hair. Then you will see all the gay pride marches, angry protests slowly disappear. You want proof? How many women today call themselves feminists, even though 90% support the old feminist agenda?
P.S. You are stupid if you think only out-of-the-closet gays are bullied. ALL kids perceived as gay are bullied, even if they are straight.
I don't understand why two consenting adults cannot be left alone w/out the government intervening in their personal lives?
Whatever ... the future belongs to enlightenment and understanding, not bigotry and pseudo intellect. It's not the government's job to tell two gay individuals they can't get married. When true believers in liberty wrestle this dinosaur party from it's obstinate hardheadedness, the Republican party will have a chance to transform and have meaningful victory.
Furthermore, if humanity has any hope of surviving, homosexuality must not become the norm. We would simply die out without children over many generations.
Is it possible homosexual behaviour is a natural population control? War does the same as does famine and pestilence, murder and so on. If so, then there is nothing we can do to stop it, but that doesn't mean we should accept it.
"Furthermore, if humanity has any hope of surviving, homosexuality must not become the norm."
True enough, but there are plenty of people who could not eliminate their attraction to the other sex even if they tried.
There have been historical cultures where a huge portion of the population was bisexual. A great many of the men in classical Greece and Macedonia were.
@Goohuman Are you a latent homo-sexual? Only a person who is would make such an obviously ignorant comment. In order for that stupidity to have any validity, the hetero population would have to be aching to turn homo with the only deterrent being that they don't have acceptance from society at large. WOW! you must really hate yourself.
@finerbiner LOL! I was waiting for that one! Latent homosexual! Well at least we are hovering around the subject in the name-calling.
A good conversation can make me feel quite gay inside. I might be overheard humming a show tune. But no, alas, it doesn't seem to translate into having sex with another man.
@Goohuman No, just want to see some equality on this issue. I did grow up in a bigoted household in a racist community though, if your looking for my motivation. Regarding the word "marriage" though, I could care less what two men or women committed to one another is called as long as we give them the same legal rights as any couple.
Lol you learn from experience that these homophobes really are truly closet cases. I'm serious! Get one really drunk and you better watch your crotch!
GoProud is a gay fiscally conservative group. GoProuds list of legislative prioities include Anti - Marraige Bill action, reversal of " Don't Ask " and other gay orientated policy , hardly an example of Traditional Values Conservativism.
Shouldn't ACU(responsible for CPAC ) remove "traditional values" from their about statement: "ACU represents the views of Americans who are concerned with...issues of liberty, personal responsibility, traditional values and national security."
So the gay got up and was too gutless to even talk about gay issues, but he's supposed to be brave?
C'mon skip ahead to why man-on-man anal is a wonderful thing we should create a civil rights movement around. Be straight with us, if you can.
Some queers undoubtedly will agree with rightwingers on tax policy, national defense, abortion that kind of stuff, there just won't be an agreement on your vile sex practices, but that topic doesn't have to come up.
All I want to know is why are we bringing our sex-lives into the political arena? Let the homosexuals do what they want, but don't bow to changing the language or laws to suit them. They must conform to the law like the rest of us. Their sex-lives don't make them special.
@Goohuman I looked at your age, and wasn't shocked to see that you are old. You old people over 40 need to stop proclaiming yourselves as christian because us younger people know the truth: those who proclaim themselves christian rarely, if ever, are. True, we have our losers (like the slut/idiot Miss California) who go around proclaiming how christian they are, yet turn out to be anything but. By and large, those of us under 40 are far more tolerant than you old farts. Get a life, loser!
So rather than address my point, you attack me based on my age. I can only assume that trying to attack my age is your best argument. And you were calling me a loser? Please address the issue and leave the personal stuff at home.
If Ryan Sorba is correct, then homosexuals, like everyone else, are born with a propensity towards something. They are not unable to have heterosexual sex. They prefer not to.
@Goohuman Your age IS an issue - your age group is highly homophobic. Your argument is also idiotic - that means you are attracted to men, but choose not to have homosexual sex. Trust me - u are a loser.
If the law prohibited you from marrying anyone you were attracted to, would you think that asking to be allowed to do that like most other people would be like saying that your sex life makes you special?
That was one of the most convoluted sentences I've ever read. Still, I think I got your meaning.
Let me just say, homosexuality is a perversion of sex. So is beastiality or a dog humping your leg. That doesn't mean it's not natural, it only means that it won't produce a child or continue the family. Do whatever you want, but don't pervert the language to attempt to make homosexuality normal. I will stand up for the family.
So can the state. That doesn't make them a family.
I think what you may be missing is the relationship between men and women. It doesn't take long to figure out that they complement each other in ways that friends of the same sex cannot.
Someone who is strictly homosexual is, obviously, not able to enter a sexually attracted relationship with the other sex.
They compliment each other because of the relationship that they have, which in marriage includes sexual attraction. However, there are many types of possible relationships between partners even in an inter-sex marriage. Couldn't the personalities, body chemistries, skills and talents, and household roles of two homosexuals compliment each other in a similar way?
Similar, not the same. Men and women do not think the same way. This is a generalization, but men are logical and women are empathic by nature. What women often don't get is the logical connection between cause and effect, and men don't seem to get that there are other factors that have nothing to do with science. Without understanding this, men and women naturally help each other overcome their weaknesses.
I agree. I think that men and women do compliment each other because your generalization is correct more than 50% of the time.
However, if you're invoking stereotypes, here's another one: gay men are more likely to have feminine characteristics than straight men. However, there are exceptions. Why not have a "feminine" gay man marry a "masculine" gay man to produce the same complementary relationship?
Indeed. And that is what I've seen often. I have no problem with homosexuals doing their thing. I object, however, when they want to change the venacular to justify it as if it were the norm.
Homosexuals constitute a very small minority in the US. Even in highly concentrated SF, they are about %20 of the population. Why change the meaning of "marriage" when the new definition offends such a massive majority?
"Indeed. And that is what I've seen often. I have no problem with homosexuals doing their thing. I object, however, when they want to change the venacular to justify it as if it were the norm."
Marriage is far more than just a word; it comes with a whole range of legal protections in things like tax law, inheritance law, and child custody law. The willingness of insurance companies to insure couples is greater of they are married.
Marriage is a very important word. I do support using "civil unions" for homosexual couples that want all the same protections and tax loopholes that married couples get. Furthermore, if they can find a religion that will perform a ceremony for them to seal their commitment 'til death, then I support that as well. I would suggest a Buddhist temple or something. Maybe a Unitarian church.
The problem is that "civil unions" provide the same legal protections as marriage under Vermont law only. Federal law, laws of other states to which a civil couple from Vermont might travel, company policies regarding married couples, etc. are not covered. Presently, said unions only provide a fraction of the legal rights accorded to civil marriage. So the difference between a "civil union" and a "marriage" is a practical one that is more than just a word.
Your exclusion is hypothetical. Has there been a case where someone in a civil union was denied something because of these limitations? When that happens, I will gladly support the homosexuals rights to filing jointly or death benefits or whatever has been denied.
This is a free country. A country of laws. When one group is denied a freedom, we all suffer. But the law also protects us. No special interest group may take what is not freely given, like the word "Marriage".
Hypothetical? You can't file a joint federal income tax return if you're in a civil union, and you're legally required to write "single" when writing your legal status.
Interestingly, pretty much every argument I've heard used against same-sex marriage could either be used to argue against allowing post-menopausal women to marry or could have been (and was) used to argue against inter-racial marriage back in the day.
If you can't file jointly, then I would suggest that civil unions be redefined such that homosexuals be allowed to be recognized as life partners. I support you there.
Interracial marriage was objected to by both sides because of cultural differences, not the least of which was that "whites" considered "blacks" inferior. I've never heard racists suggest that such a union shouldn't be called a "marriage" though. That's a new one on me. Older women are still women. Please explain your logic.
Inter-racial marriages were illegal in every "southern" state in the U.S. until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia that a laws banning interracial marriage violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The arguments used by the judge who sentenced the Lovings to prison for marrying each other are nearly identical to the anti same sex marriage arguments today. See "The oppressed become the oppressors" by ProfMTH on Youtube.
So let me see if I understand your logic here. Because a judge wrote that whites and blacks cannot have kids, they should not be allowed to marry, and now they say homosexuals cannot have kids, so they should not be allowed to marry, this is no longer an argument about terminology, but a fundamental human right?
Hmm. First of all, interracial relationships do produce kids so that is false. Second, that isn't even the issue! People that can't have kids still get married! Comon. Please.
You said homosexuals wanted marriage because they want the benefits of it. Fine. We fix civil unions and that problem is solved.
Then you come back with the similarities between my argument about men and women strengthening each others weaknesses in a relationship and the arguments (false) used by judges to support laws against interracial marriage. That is a lame attempt to paint the debate with emotion.
Just tell me why we must change the definition of "Marriage"? That is the issue.
@Goohuman The "definition" of marriage has always been malable. Why did we change it to prohibit plural marriage, outlaw interrecial marriage,set age limits. Because marriage has a tradition of change.
Personally, I believe the state should only grant civil unions, which would be equal legally to any group. Let the churches decide who to "marry".
@finerbiner What?! Age limits? Interracial?! Plural?!!? The one constant in your attempt to make marriage look like its changing is one man and one woman. Marriage isn't changing. In fact, even polygamists marry one man to one woman at a time. They just don't divorce before the marry again.
Marriage is a vital commitment to a healthy society. Perversion will never stop, but the moment we make it the norm, we become perverse as a society.
@Goohuman Such a nice sounding reasonable bigot you are. I like most how you say "marriage is a vital commitment to a healthy society" as if that were true on its own or proof of any thing. I've been married 21 yrs and my wife and I have raised 2 good kids. Obviously that is ideal. Life however, is often not ideal. This is America and we are supposed to be free to pursue happiness.
@finerbiner Besides the name-calling, do you have a point? Did I say anything that you disagree with?? Come on out in the open with your point if you are not afraid that you yourself know its flaws.
@Goohuman I made my point. We are ALL free to pursue happiness. ALL! Let me say it again ALL. Not just people you see as worthy. I'm sorry you can not understand that and need to make up some shit about one man and one woman. That is just your rationalization to justify you bigotry. Yes you are a bigot. That is not name calling just naming your opinion. There is no changing a bigot's mind so I really have no use for you or this conversation.
@finerbiner So we agree. All are free to pursue happiness. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this video. You just can't seem to separate the ideas. If I wanted to change the definition of homosexual to mean moron, and that would make me happy, how do you think it will make all the homosexuals feel? I doubt they would find much happiness in that.
But fortunately I don't have that right. And niether do those that want to change the meaning of marriage.
@finerbiner And btw, if you find my ideas intolerable, then by definition, you are a bigot. Be sure to use logic next time, because names have a nasty habit of backfiring.
@Goohuman I find you to be repugnant. The worst kind of egg head. I want to take zero rights away from you so your point is silly at best. You are not as clever as you think you are. You use history as the template from which to discuss civil rights. Really?
@finerbiner Good. Your insults are victory to me. You have no valid argument left, and you won't acknowledge my validity. You will .. eventually. I am not the enemy. I am simply pointing out the very UNclever truth. The blatant, obvious, 800 lb gorilla in the room. The one you call the ugly past. It will be our ugly future. It won't go away no matter how you rationalize or ignore it.
@finerbiner Do you recognize "repugnant"? I suppose it could be a complement if you consider me repugnant compared to your own world, which is disgusting. Then I guess repugnant is not insulting.
@Goohuman Short definition. Repugnant: Offensive, distasteful. That is what you are going to hang your hat on? I find your bigotry offensive and distasteful, so that is an insult. No, that is a discussion. An insult is if I call you a dog @#$%^, or an A-@^(&*. Finding your offensive and distasteful opinions to be these things is not insulting. I don't even want to take your repugnant opinions away from you. Just to point them out for what they really are. Small minded bigotry. Very poor try!
@finerbiner And I find your insults to be rewarding. You did insult me, not just my ideas. And your bigotted, blind stance keeps you from using reason and logic to fight your battles. I understand that. Let me help you:
Homosexuals want to use the term "marriage" to describe their union. Nasty christian teabaggers won't let them be happy.
@Goohuman You really do have a major problem with understanding the meaning of basic English. Let's try 1 more time
Bigot: a narrow minded intolerant person.
As I stated earlier, I find your position repugnant. Because it is narrow minded and intolerant. I also stated that I have zero interest in restricting your bigotry in any way. How does that fit the definition of bigotry. I believe in life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness for everyone. You want it too. For those that agree with you.
@Goohuman ... The pro-homosexual agenda is to use the coercive power of the state illegitimately to force citizens to accept and give public recognition/support to behavior that is merely degeneracy and a private vice in the view of most people. It's anti-libertarian and anti-conservative.
It's homo-fascism, and the movement's history is ably researched and presented in Lively and Abrahams's 'The Pink Swastika'.
8 years of fiscal irresponsibility, big government anti-gay rights...what exactly does the conservative movement stand for? Let me guess: We don't care what our principles are as long as we are in power, we will make rules as we go even though sometimes those rules contradict each other. Chaos anyone?
"...no you sit down. The lesbians at Smith college protest better than you do."
Like a fuckin 4 year old that can't eat their lollipop. The way these Repubes and Cuntservatives roll, He probably condemns homosexuality yet is boinking some guy on the side.
My friend has a saying. The time to criticize a fat chick is not when she is on her way to the gym. She has her sweats on and she is trying to do something about it. By picking that point to make a comment about her weight, you will only make her depressed and lose motivation. Same criticism here. The time to take shots at conservatives is not when they shout down some bigoted asshole. I was both shocked and encouraged by this video. I dont understand your vitriol.
This is just pitiful, I don't usually pick sides of stuff that don't matter to me, but when there's a clear winner and a loser like this, it's hard not to pick a side. Booed off for a reason, he had nothing to say so he kept saying "bring it" and "you've made an enemy out of me". Ignorance is bliss.
1) Civil Rights are grounded in Natural Rights (Good Start)
2) Natural Rights are grounded in Human Nature (Kind of a tautology)
3) Human Nature is a rational substance in relationship (huh? performative contradiction?)
4) The intelligible end of a reproductive act is reproduction (gay sex isnt a reproductive act because gay people cannot reproduce with each other! I am pretty certain they understand that!)
Do we understand that? No, you probably dont either
I just want to take a moment to say that this is probably one of the best comments I have read on YouTube in the last two years. With only a couple dozen words of your own, you effectively refuted that moron's entire rant.
What the f is a natural right? - We all the have the natural right to die. Big fish eat the little fish, that's the mechanism by which the natural order progresses. Gimme a break. God exists and has revealed his thoughts on the matter or "human" ethics are the definition of arbritrary. period.
conservatives brag about how the majority doesn't want gay marriage, but they don't realize, it's a process. You can't reverse progress. You can only slow it down. Gay marriage rights are simply inevitable, and as so many other examples in history before us have shown, (such as racism), the ignorant fools that prefer blind tradition in favor of growth and education will slowly become the minority.
Real conservatives shouldn't support state regulation of marriage.
Marriage is a private contract between adults... it can be for religious, financial, social, and emotional reasons... any combination of those, or something else entirely. Either way, the state has no business getting involved.
i can actually get behind this, and i am for the most part a complete liberal. the reason i normally hate repubs so much is for the reason show here. some people trying to diversify the republican party gets booed by fools like ryan sorba
oh also, The Born gay hoax? ----- Does anyone else reckon this guy Is trying to blame his shame and disgust in his secret internal homoerotic feelings on the outside world. His sole violent anger and disgust is more reminiscent of a fundamentalist christian homophobic homo rather than the standard heterosexual christian. Maybe he believes someone else caused him to be gay and there is no way he could have been born that way. Just a thought.
Im as far right as they come, although I come to it through an intellectual process not a religious one and I have a lot of gay friends. I laugh every time I hear this kind of bullshit because if you knew anything about gay culture you would know that it is a widely held belief among gay men that any "straight" guy can be seduced or even "turned" gay. A belief every bit as bigoted as the ones you are crying about.
@kieranemk I completely agree. He sounds not that different than the jocks in high school that were in the closet, but were the most vocal in their hatred of "fags" because they had something to prove to themselves. Ah memories. haha
@Sistarovat Can't tell if serious or retarded. Then again there's Poe's Law. Its so hard to tell with religious nuts.
monroethebeast 3 weeks ago
Homosexuality is IMMORAL. It goes against God's law and goes against natural law. Most of these idiot students have been programed in college not to think for themselves. They've been brainwashed since they were in kindergarten that they evolved from animals - a concept that is completely against every piece of scientific evidence ever presented. They've been taught that there is no God and morality is relative. That's why this country is going down.
Sistarovat 3 weeks ago
This has got to be one of the funniest clips I've ever seen. And the elderly people look so confused by all the angry youths. And Sorba is clearly confused, in more ways than one. Ron Paul Revolution, 2012! Liberty for all!
SkullOfYorick 3 months ago
I imagine Sorba thinks that women who do not want to have children or who don't desire a mate are going against natural law as well.
pebblelake1 9 months ago 6
Tantrum politics is one of the many places where Libertarians are indistinguishable from Liberals. This is also true in economics. The Left believes that government controlled economies lead to a Utopia which will inexorably drive all behaviours. If you were to change "government controlled" with "free market" you'll find Libertarians. It's trading one Utopian delusion for another.
Libertarian ideology has limitations. We're seeing it in their so-called moral behavior right now.
thomaserossi 10 months ago
@thomaserossi
Very true. Another mark of Utopianism is that it is not based upon experience but theory. Utopians desire to completely upend whole societies and their traditions in a single day without regard for the unintended consequences of any of it.
The question we need to ask is this 1) when has their ever been a successful socialist society in the long term in which a significant number of the citizens were happy and 2) where has there been a society run on Libertarian principles?
periechontology 10 months ago
@thomaserossi so what you're saying is conservatives disfavor utopia? are you saying the world is fine like it is? and they call liberal dreamers naive.
webmaster2089 10 months ago
@thomaserossi
The one throwing a tantrum is Ryan Sorba. Calling out people, and saying that that you are their enemy? What do you call that kind of childish behavior?
The Left believes that government controlled economies lead to a Utopia which will inexorably drive all behaviours. If you were to change "government controlled" with "free market" you'll find Libertarians. It's trading one Utopian delusion for another."
Not sure what your point here is. Incentives do affect behaviour.
help4343 5 months ago
Bigotry is a tired word that is both overused and misused. Ironically, so it ignorance.
thomaserossi 10 months ago
I love how there's like one guy booing McCobin.
SchindlerHaughton 11 months ago
This is what the Liberals of today don't understand. We've never been any of the things they say we are. The Tea Party has largely been a Libertarian movement. The more you learn about out history and the way this Country was founded the more small Government Libertarian you become.
There are always going to be Conservatives and Republicans who want to legislate morality and it's there right to stand behind their principles.
Its a shame we have to advertise the fact that we don't hate people
fishblades 11 months ago
@fishblades you wouldn't have to advertise if it wasn't so damn hard to see it in your actions.
webmaster2089 10 months ago
@webmaster2089
and what actions would those be?
fishblades 10 months ago
@fishblades well i don't see nearly as much racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-poor, anti-religious equality... hell, the republicans seem to be anti-minority of any kind.
and this isn't me trying to paint anyone, the republican leadership speaks for itself. there's a reason you have to advertise that you don't hate people. i know not everyone thinks the same, and if you want to turn that image around then by all means do so.
webmaster2089 10 months ago
@webmaster2089
The reason we have to advertise it is because people like you don't understand the Constitution or Federalism. We have to advertise the fact because somehow we are every bad thing you can think of to call us, but to be honest that first sentence of yours doesn't make much sense so I don't know how to respond to that. How are Republicans anti-religious? I thought that's one of the main thing liberals hate about them. Are you talking about radical muslims? lol
fishblades 10 months ago
@fishblades no, i'm talking about all muslims. i heard a recent quote from a republican governor (don't remember who) being asked if he would be comfortable with a muslim in his cabinet and he said absolutely not.
combine that with them being anti-gay marriage, anti-choice for abortion, pro-tax cuts for the rich, and the republican party really starts to paint a picture for you.
and first support taking "in god we trust" off the money, then tell me you understand the constitution.
webmaster2089 10 months ago
@webmaster2089
Yeah the guy who said that was Herman Caine... a black man. Damn racist/bigoted Republicans!
We are anti-abortion because it is basically murder. I can't kill my father if he asked me to and signed a latter and everything. So why is it ok to kill babies. Personal responsibility. If you don't want a baby don't get pregnant. There's only one way to get pregnant. Protection.
Conservatives do not support gay marriage but do support civil unions, like Elton John does, go figure.
fishblades 9 months ago
@fishblades haha, he doesn't get out of being racist just because he's black. i'm black, i should know.
and abortion is a grey issue, i won't argue with you on it, i only mention it because it's just one more instance where republicans come out on the anti-minority side. further showing the pattern.
and on gay marriage/unions, i don't think you speak for all republicans on that one.
obviously some are very compassionate like the kid in the video, but the leadership seems against that.
webmaster2089 9 months ago
I wouldnt be surpised if Ryan Sorba is gay,, so gay that when he walks down the road gay people say 'Fag' :P
jwka2001 11 months ago
@jwka2001
Pro-Tax cuts for the rich hahaha. I don't believe people should be punished for their success. What morals do you have that makes you think it's ok to take from someone to give to another? I can't justify wealth redistribution or punitive taxes morally. It's just wrong.
oh about the God thing. I'm not a religious person at all but I respect all faiths. Our founders clearly stated our rights come from God. If they came from Government they could be taken away.
Nice try though.
fishblades 9 months ago
Government should not be a tool used to force other people to live by your religion.
13R1CK4 11 months ago 3
What the hell are natural rights anyways. Some version of inalienable rights except people get to choose when they apply?
Knightmessenger 11 months ago
Is the man with the pretty eyebrows saying that all sex is strictly for reproduction? Let's pass federal laws banning any sex that's not man-on-woman missionary position, as well as banning all contraceptives, as well as warrantless wiretapping & spying on homes to make sure no married couple screws except right after she has ovulated. I'm sure that would go over with the so-called "christian" Right. This is a christian nation after all, right? I mean let's get serious with sin laws here!
TheExRepublican 11 months ago
Ryan Sorba has drag queen eyebrows.
neenerpuss 11 months ago
Thanks for posting. Very inspiring! Great to see CPAC going in this direction...gives me hope. I'm straight, and I'm consider myself christian, but I despise "social conservatives". America is not a theocracy! Freedom is for everyone! Ryan Sorba should go stick his head in a bucket of water 3 times and pull it out twice.
TheExRepublican 11 months ago 2
Got your back Frazee!
redrajani 11 months ago
Sorba is a piece of shit.
vgcq02 1 year ago
Why would you invite liberals to a conservative event? You might as well have invited Planned Parenthood.
CarlosBarrera393 1 year ago
@CarlosBarrera393 They didn't invite liberals.... they invited the gays.
huntjordan 1 year ago
Why are they booing at Sorba?
Creationcreed 1 year ago
@Creationcreed He went on an anti-gay rant.
MooseOfReason 1 year ago
@MooseOfReason I thought they were tolerant of all views, this being one of the those views that Most republicans hold: that racism is not the same as the gay issue. And that they don't agree with homosexuality. It shouldn't surprise them at all.
Creationcreed 1 year ago
@Creationcreed Libertarians are tolerant. That doesn't mean you can't boo or applaud at a speech.
MooseOfReason 1 year ago
@MooseOfReason - So booing is tolerant but voicing your opinion is intolerant? Are you fucking retarded?! Booing is voicing your opinion dipshit.
P.S. I tried to frame that in a way someone as obviously indoctrinated as you could understand.
thomaserossi 10 months ago
I love how there was only 1 or 2 guys trying to boo as loud as they could.
collegeguy183 1 year ago
I hope Ryan Sorba doesn't wear condoms or even masturbate, because otherwise he'd be a hypocrite and that would be a shame. Hah.
Bing05 1 year ago
I don't think Jeff Frazee gives 2 shits what Ryan Sorba thinks about him, and neither do I.
whoo689 1 year ago
Who are those idiots booing?? Fucking bigots and hatemongers
whoo689 1 year ago
Isn't it ironic how the CA (one of the most liberal states in the country) YAF leader condemned homosexuality??? So sadly ironic
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 One day it will be considered shameful by most of society to be anti-gay, just like being racist. That day just can't come fast enough.
whoo689 1 year ago
the lesbians at smith college protest better than you do
RDVoDkA 1 year ago
No need for profanity. Students for liberty are welcomed by CPAC! Everyone there supports freedom, liberty, limited govt, and fiscal responsibility. The SFL support that too. There are gays in the conservative movement. Show some tolerance. Conservatives are trying to change the GOP back to a conservative movement, which supports tolerance. Don't believe the liberal hype.
katyscreations 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
Conservative gays against smoking bans? That's an interesting combination of causes. good luck with that.
verstwo2 1 year ago 2
I think Sorba is right. But I also think that gays have a right to be gay as long as they don't 'shove it in my face' (pun intended).... Ron Paul talks about people letting themselves be classified in groups and then allowing themselves to be preyed upon and targeted by special interests. If you would just disorganize and be individuals you would not be targeted by the religious right. I don't think anyone should be shouting out their sexual orientation at all. Not straights or gays.
nododon 1 year ago
@nododon
This is bullshit. As recently as 2003 sodomy was a crime punishable by several years in prison in many American states, even conservative ones where the gay rights movement is barely visible. So was this law targeting individuals, or an entire group? Don't be absurd.
And as recently as the 1970s several states almost successfully made it a felony punishable by a lifetime in jail. Do you think this is in any way compatible with conservative principles of individual freedom?
MattressGallery 1 year ago
@MattressGallery
Sodomy laws were passed by a right wing religious element targeting homosexuals because straights never talked about doing the stinky hole. It was a bogus law because nobody could enforce it unless someone claimed rape. Homosexuals and heterosexuals can practice sodomy anytime they want to, NOBODY is stopping them. The homosexual debate is not about anal sex, it's about same sex attraction. A guy finding another guys hairy fucking ass attractive.
Big difference there buddy.
nododon 1 year ago
@nododon
You just proved my point. Was the religious right targeting individual gays, or gays as a whole? So why can't we organize together as a group, given that we are few in number and harassed by the majority?
It was not a bogus law. Raids on homosexual bars, nightclubs, etc. were quite commonplace even after the stonewall riots, and the police could (as they do now) make up bullshit excuses to seach your house late into the night if you were suspected of being a homosexual.
MattressGallery 1 year ago
@MattressGallery
You were targeted as a group dipshit. Bars and nightclubs are not individuals are they now. And when did police ever break into a guys home to see if he was butt fucking his friend? That's bullshit. But we do have new legislation, thanks to that asshole George Bush, in the name of 'terrorism security' to search us against our will and deny us of our privacy. So I am all for letting homosexuals do whatever they want in private with no intervention from the authorities.
nododon 1 year ago
@nododon
Exactly. Bars and nightclubs are not individuals. Bravo! You proved my point. How else do you stop this BS other than organizing as a group?
Uh, you know Lawrence v Texas came about because the police were doing such a thing? I can find other cases for you, if you like, and those are only the people who were rich enough to sue the government.
And yes, George W. Bush is an asshole, one who wholeheartedly praised that gross violation of privacy you speak of.
MattressGallery 1 year ago
@MattressGallery
I said originally to be individuals NOT GROUPS because you attacked and manipulated as groups. What about that did you not understand?
nododon 1 year ago
@nododon
WE WERE ATTACKED AS A GROUP BEFORE EVEN ORGANIZED AS GROUPS. Homosexuals were publically outed, fired, and put in jail for decades before the origin of the gay rights movement. Have you heard of Alan Turing? The guy who cracked the Nazi enigma code? Google him.
You're also wrong about coming out. A recent poll says 50% of Americans think homosexuality is morally acceptable, compared to less than 5% 50 years ago. It's working. So why should we stop?
MattressGallery 1 year ago
@MattressGallery
I know what I am talking about here. I was born in San Francisco, grew up around gay people, had many gay teachers, fellow gay workers, etc. There was never a problem until the gay agenda started with gay people wanting straight people to accept their behavior as normal. We never accepted your behavior as normal but we got along fine. Now that you want to make an issue about it we resist, simply because you are trying to force it upon us. It will never be accepted.
nododon 1 year ago
@nododon
You liar. I couldn't care less whether you think being gay is normal, and neither do gays. We're talking about government policy here. Should it be a government policy to deny certain rights to gays?
And I just proved to you that not only has it worked, it is working. Just look at western Europe.
MattressGallery 1 year ago
@nododon
@nododon
In addition, unless you lived before the stonewall riots, you couldn't possibly have known very many open gays. You just said there was no problem until the gay agenda surfaced, which happens to be in 1969. CA alone only decriminalized sodomy in the late 1970s. NOBODY could have a high standard of living and be out at the same time, because it was illegal.
The only people were out were hairdressers, low-paid actors, prostitutes, and other marginalized people. Quit lying.
MattressGallery 1 year ago
@MattressGallery
So here we go with the "I want my rights" bullshit. You chose to be gay and you try and classify yourself as a 'minority' as though it were like your skin color was 'gay'. Just because you had a shitty childhood, was molested, was curious and got trapped into the 'gay scene' or whatever reason you DECIDED to be gay, you are not going to convince the majority that what you do is 'normal'. Same sex attraction is not natural and is very destructive. You quit lying.
nododon 1 year ago
@nododon
Dumbass, I was NOT molested. 99% of gays are not. You tried lying about "knowing gay people", just like ALL racists claim they have black friends, and I caught your lying ass red-handed. It's not a choice.
Don't even try that "natural rights' BS. Why does homosexuality exist in hundreds of species, including in bonobos, our second closest animal relative? Why are certain species of lizard 100% female (they reproduce asexually through parthenogenesis), and only have sex for pleasure?
MattressGallery 1 year ago
@nododon
*gay rights movement, sorry for the typo
MattressGallery 1 year ago
@MattressGallery
You stupid fuck. Liberace was gay and everybody new it. Jim Nabors was gay and everybody knew it. Rock Hudson was gay and everybody knew it. Elton John was gay and everybody knew it. My teachers in the 60's were gay and everybody knew it. You are full of shit.
nododon 1 year ago
@nododon
No, dumbass. You try lying to somebody who knows nothing about LGBT culture. Rock Hudson denied being gay until his very death from AIDS, and people certainly did care, it would have ruined his career. Liberace and Elton John came decades after the stonewall riots. Nobody knows for sure whether Jim Nabors was gay.
MattressGallery 1 year ago
@nododon
You tried pretending you didn't hate gays at all at first, but once you scratch that surface you see a giant morass of hatred and bigotry. Typical lying homophobe. Did you accuse all your "gay friends" of having been molested and being destructive? You lying sack of shit, there's no way you lived in San Francisco and had gay friends before the gay rights amendment, when it was a conservative city full of Catholic immigrants. This is EXACTLY why the gay rights movement is necessary.
MattressGallery 1 year ago
@MattressGallery
The gay animal bullshit has already been proven a hoax. I was born in San Francisco over 50 years ago and I do know and have known MANY gay men and women. You are a typical heterophobe who can't stand it when people like me are willing to call you out on your pretend to be born gay BULLSHIT. Do you want to see what "gay" is all about? Go to google and search this title:
Up Your Alley - 2008 zombietime
Then tell me how 'normal' you feel, OK?
nododon 1 year ago
@nododon
Show me a peer-reviewed scientific paper that says it's a hoax. You know there's a documentary on bonobos on youtube? Search it.
I don't hate straight people. How can I? My parents are heterosexual. :)
Science doesn't know when exactly sexuality is determined, and I never made that claim. Also, zombietime is a supporter of gay rights, dipshit. There are plenty of gays who despise the Folsom Street Fair, and LOTS of straight people are involved in it.
MattressGallery 1 year ago
@MattressGallery
LOL... all your so-called proof is 'queer' reviewed.
nododon 1 year ago
@nododon
I was actually celibate and a social conservative before I came to accept my own sexuality. If you have a rebuttal, why don't you say something logical and truthful for once, instead of lying about shit that is demonstrably untrue. "Queer reviewed" my arse.
I'm sure you had gay friends in S.F. way back then. Just like my grandfather fought in WWII against Egypt after the Cold War, and my grandmother was president of France during the 19th century. Bigoted L-I-A-R.
MattressGallery 1 year ago
@MattressGallery
D-E-N-I-A-L
LMFAO!
nododon 1 year ago
@MattressGallery
Here is an article you should read to help your bad case of ignorance:
The Animal Homosexuality Myth
by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo
If you can disprove the research and claims from this article with facts from non-queer reviewed sources (and not just your opinion) you will earn my respect. Until then I don't have much more to say to you except that I hope you are happy living your life of shameful behavior.
nododon 1 year ago
@nododon
Unfortunately for you, Solimeo is a Catholic fundie and NOT a scientist. I had read that stupid article before you even mentioned it.
What else are you going to lie about? Are you serious about living in SF for until 1982 and not being aware of any gay agenda until the very end? LOL. You said nobody had any problem with us until the gay agenda surfaced. You don't recall Anita Bryant, prop. 6, Harvey Milk? You damn liar.
I had same-sex attraction for as long as I can remember. NEXT.
MattressGallery 1 year ago
@nododon Go back to bed you cranky shit-kicking hick.
aswar87 1 year ago
@asswar87
Hey there sphincter bandit, I didn't realize that people actually read these comments from 4 months ago. Are you bored or something? Do you have any friends? Get a life dude.
nododon 1 year ago
@nododon Judging from your comments, you sure seem to care about the subject. I just like screwing with block-head conservatives like yourself. You seem like the one with the thin skin.
aswar87 1 year ago
@nododon
Look how hysterical you are, after I exposed your lies. YEAH sure, you know gays in San Francisco during the height of McCarthyism, when homosexuals were being forcibly outed and fired everywhere in the country, when it was against the LAW in California, and when San Francisco was a conservative city. L-I-A-R.
So now you claim you were proudly friends with people you describe as degenerate perverts? I'm sure the leader of the KKK has black friends, as well!
MattressGallery 1 year ago
@MattressGallery
You asshole. I am from San Francisco. I lived there for 25 years before moving in 1982. You are obviously one of these confused younger men who had sex with another guy, probably experimenting, and then had to deal with the guilt of the 'act' you participated in, or the acceptance from the 'gay community' who was conveniently 'there to embrace you'. You were taken in by the mentality of acceptance. You should not have given that friend of yours head. See what it did to you.
nododon 1 year ago
@nododon
You can't "turn gay" through experimentation, dumbass, even if you are straight and really want to be for some reason. The best you can do is turn somebody who's bisexual closer to one side or the other. I was gay for as long as I can remember, and I didn't need to have sex to know it.
Nobody discussed anybody having head or men's hairy assholes until your pervert, closeted mind came up with it. Stick to facts please. I do not give a rat's ass about your perverted imagination.
MattressGallery 1 year ago 16
@MattressGallery
and "bisexual" is defined as anyone who can develop an attraction to the opposite sex? That's circular reasoning and it's unfalsifiable.
Most deep-seated psychological conditions cannot be upended in a day with a magic bullet, homoeroticism is no exception. The fact that attraction in one direction can be lessened and attraction in another direction can be discovered is significant.
periechontology 10 months ago
@nododon
Either way, when homosexuals are discriminated against, it is usually because of their orientation, not what they do in the privacy of their own homes. When gay students are bullied in school, that is always due to their orientation, NOT because they're committing sodomy, because the vast majority aren't.
Romantic love and sex go hand in hand. You can't separate them. We will shove it into your face until the religious nuts stop their BS. Then we'll talk about groupthink.
MattressGallery 1 year ago
@MattressGallery
Students who are gay need to consider the ramifications if they 'come out' in public. I believe it is wrong to bully anyone but sometimes people bring it on themselves. Homosexuals need to come to realization that their behavior is never going to be fully accepted. It is better to just not make waves about being gay. And don't try and make people accept your behavior as being normal. It will never happen. Stop the agenda for acceptance and we will all get along just fine.
nododon 1 year ago
@nododon
I want nothing more than for homosexuality to be treated as something very ordinary , something no more unusual than being left-handed or having curly hair. Then you will see all the gay pride marches, angry protests slowly disappear. You want proof? How many women today call themselves feminists, even though 90% support the old feminist agenda?
P.S. You are stupid if you think only out-of-the-closet gays are bullied. ALL kids perceived as gay are bullied, even if they are straight.
MattressGallery 1 year ago
@MattressGallery
All kids who are perceived as 'weak' are bullied. Quit trying to take credit where credit isn't due.
nododon 1 year ago
who the fuck is ryan sorba?! gosh... way to make us all look bad.
JJDarklink 1 year ago
I love how some people are booing the idea that everyone deserves freedom.
olivemike81 1 year ago 34
@finerbiner: What are you talking about?
Deadwind002 1 year ago
I don't understand why two consenting adults cannot be left alone w/out the government intervening in their personal lives?
Whatever ... the future belongs to enlightenment and understanding, not bigotry and pseudo intellect. It's not the government's job to tell two gay individuals they can't get married. When true believers in liberty wrestle this dinosaur party from it's obstinate hardheadedness, the Republican party will have a chance to transform and have meaningful victory.
Deadwind002 1 year ago
Furthermore, if humanity has any hope of surviving, homosexuality must not become the norm. We would simply die out without children over many generations.
Is it possible homosexual behaviour is a natural population control? War does the same as does famine and pestilence, murder and so on. If so, then there is nothing we can do to stop it, but that doesn't mean we should accept it.
Goohuman 1 year ago
"Furthermore, if humanity has any hope of surviving, homosexuality must not become the norm."
True enough, but there are plenty of people who could not eliminate their attraction to the other sex even if they tried.
There have been historical cultures where a huge portion of the population was bisexual. A great many of the men in classical Greece and Macedonia were.
tifforo1 1 year ago
@Goohuman Are you a latent homo-sexual? Only a person who is would make such an obviously ignorant comment. In order for that stupidity to have any validity, the hetero population would have to be aching to turn homo with the only deterrent being that they don't have acceptance from society at large. WOW! you must really hate yourself.
finerbiner 1 year ago
@finerbiner LOL! I was waiting for that one! Latent homosexual! Well at least we are hovering around the subject in the name-calling.
A good conversation can make me feel quite gay inside. I might be overheard humming a show tune. But no, alas, it doesn't seem to translate into having sex with another man.
How about you?
Goohuman 1 year ago
@Goohuman No, just want to see some equality on this issue. I did grow up in a bigoted household in a racist community though, if your looking for my motivation. Regarding the word "marriage" though, I could care less what two men or women committed to one another is called as long as we give them the same legal rights as any couple.
PEACE!
finerbiner 1 year ago
Lol you learn from experience that these homophobes really are truly closet cases. I'm serious! Get one really drunk and you better watch your crotch!
SubtleDemise 1 year ago
Only in America...someone would boo liberty. :'(
SubtleDemise 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tvjustice I agree!
@ CPAC: Replace "Traditional Values" in your statement of principles to, "Show me the Money!"
freereason 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GoProud is a gay fiscally conservative group. GoProuds list of legislative prioities include Anti - Marraige Bill action, reversal of " Don't Ask " and other gay orientated policy , hardly an example of Traditional Values Conservativism.
Shouldn't ACU(responsible for CPAC ) remove "traditional values" from their about statement: "ACU represents the views of Americans who are concerned with...issues of liberty, personal responsibility, traditional values and national security."
freereason 1 year ago
So the gay got up and was too gutless to even talk about gay issues, but he's supposed to be brave?
C'mon skip ahead to why man-on-man anal is a wonderful thing we should create a civil rights movement around. Be straight with us, if you can.
Some queers undoubtedly will agree with rightwingers on tax policy, national defense, abortion that kind of stuff, there just won't be an agreement on your vile sex practices, but that topic doesn't have to come up.
RuflessRecords 1 year ago
Not exactly a defeat of bigotry, but a good fight nonetheless!
PostSurgeOperative 1 year ago
Ryan does have a point there.
All I want to know is why are we bringing our sex-lives into the political arena? Let the homosexuals do what they want, but don't bow to changing the language or laws to suit them. They must conform to the law like the rest of us. Their sex-lives don't make them special.
Tolerance. Not acceptance. For freedom's sake.
Goohuman 1 year ago
@Goohuman I looked at your age, and wasn't shocked to see that you are old. You old people over 40 need to stop proclaiming yourselves as christian because us younger people know the truth: those who proclaim themselves christian rarely, if ever, are. True, we have our losers (like the slut/idiot Miss California) who go around proclaiming how christian they are, yet turn out to be anything but. By and large, those of us under 40 are far more tolerant than you old farts. Get a life, loser!
MidwestN8TV 1 year ago
So rather than address my point, you attack me based on my age. I can only assume that trying to attack my age is your best argument. And you were calling me a loser? Please address the issue and leave the personal stuff at home.
If Ryan Sorba is correct, then homosexuals, like everyone else, are born with a propensity towards something. They are not unable to have heterosexual sex. They prefer not to.
Goohuman 1 year ago
@Goohuman Your age IS an issue - your age group is highly homophobic. Your argument is also idiotic - that means you are attracted to men, but choose not to have homosexual sex. Trust me - u are a loser.
MidwestN8TV 1 year ago
Let me know when you grow up and are ready to have a rational argument.
Goohuman 1 year ago
@Goohuman That would be whenever you get a brain. I won't hold my breath.
MidwestN8TV 1 year ago
If the law prohibited you from marrying anyone you were attracted to, would you think that asking to be allowed to do that like most other people would be like saying that your sex life makes you special?
tifforo1 1 year ago
That was one of the most convoluted sentences I've ever read. Still, I think I got your meaning.
Let me just say, homosexuality is a perversion of sex. So is beastiality or a dog humping your leg. That doesn't mean it's not natural, it only means that it won't produce a child or continue the family. Do whatever you want, but don't pervert the language to attempt to make homosexuality normal. I will stand up for the family.
Goohuman 1 year ago
Homosexual couples can raise children.
tifforo1 1 year ago
So can the state. That doesn't make them a family.
I think what you may be missing is the relationship between men and women. It doesn't take long to figure out that they complement each other in ways that friends of the same sex cannot.
Keep your mind open and listen for the truth.
Goohuman 1 year ago
Someone who is strictly homosexual is, obviously, not able to enter a sexually attracted relationship with the other sex.
They compliment each other because of the relationship that they have, which in marriage includes sexual attraction. However, there are many types of possible relationships between partners even in an inter-sex marriage. Couldn't the personalities, body chemistries, skills and talents, and household roles of two homosexuals compliment each other in a similar way?
tifforo1 1 year ago
Similar, not the same. Men and women do not think the same way. This is a generalization, but men are logical and women are empathic by nature. What women often don't get is the logical connection between cause and effect, and men don't seem to get that there are other factors that have nothing to do with science. Without understanding this, men and women naturally help each other overcome their weaknesses.
Goohuman 1 year ago
I agree. I think that men and women do compliment each other because your generalization is correct more than 50% of the time.
However, if you're invoking stereotypes, here's another one: gay men are more likely to have feminine characteristics than straight men. However, there are exceptions. Why not have a "feminine" gay man marry a "masculine" gay man to produce the same complementary relationship?
tifforo1 1 year ago
Indeed. And that is what I've seen often. I have no problem with homosexuals doing their thing. I object, however, when they want to change the venacular to justify it as if it were the norm.
Homosexuals constitute a very small minority in the US. Even in highly concentrated SF, they are about %20 of the population. Why change the meaning of "marriage" when the new definition offends such a massive majority?
Goohuman 1 year ago
"Indeed. And that is what I've seen often. I have no problem with homosexuals doing their thing. I object, however, when they want to change the venacular to justify it as if it were the norm."
Marriage is far more than just a word; it comes with a whole range of legal protections in things like tax law, inheritance law, and child custody law. The willingness of insurance companies to insure couples is greater of they are married.
Do you support Vermont's "civil unions?"
tifforo1 1 year ago
Marriage is a very important word. I do support using "civil unions" for homosexual couples that want all the same protections and tax loopholes that married couples get. Furthermore, if they can find a religion that will perform a ceremony for them to seal their commitment 'til death, then I support that as well. I would suggest a Buddhist temple or something. Maybe a Unitarian church.
Homosexuals are people too.
Goohuman 1 year ago
The problem is that "civil unions" provide the same legal protections as marriage under Vermont law only. Federal law, laws of other states to which a civil couple from Vermont might travel, company policies regarding married couples, etc. are not covered. Presently, said unions only provide a fraction of the legal rights accorded to civil marriage. So the difference between a "civil union" and a "marriage" is a practical one that is more than just a word.
tifforo1 1 year ago
Your exclusion is hypothetical. Has there been a case where someone in a civil union was denied something because of these limitations? When that happens, I will gladly support the homosexuals rights to filing jointly or death benefits or whatever has been denied.
This is a free country. A country of laws. When one group is denied a freedom, we all suffer. But the law also protects us. No special interest group may take what is not freely given, like the word "Marriage".
Goohuman 1 year ago
Hypothetical? You can't file a joint federal income tax return if you're in a civil union, and you're legally required to write "single" when writing your legal status.
Interestingly, pretty much every argument I've heard used against same-sex marriage could either be used to argue against allowing post-menopausal women to marry or could have been (and was) used to argue against inter-racial marriage back in the day.
tifforo1 1 year ago
If you can't file jointly, then I would suggest that civil unions be redefined such that homosexuals be allowed to be recognized as life partners. I support you there.
Interracial marriage was objected to by both sides because of cultural differences, not the least of which was that "whites" considered "blacks" inferior. I've never heard racists suggest that such a union shouldn't be called a "marriage" though. That's a new one on me. Older women are still women. Please explain your logic.
Goohuman 1 year ago
Inter-racial marriages were illegal in every "southern" state in the U.S. until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia that a laws banning interracial marriage violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The arguments used by the judge who sentenced the Lovings to prison for marrying each other are nearly identical to the anti same sex marriage arguments today. See "The oppressed become the oppressors" by ProfMTH on Youtube.
tifforo1 1 year ago
So let me see if I understand your logic here. Because a judge wrote that whites and blacks cannot have kids, they should not be allowed to marry, and now they say homosexuals cannot have kids, so they should not be allowed to marry, this is no longer an argument about terminology, but a fundamental human right?
Hmm. First of all, interracial relationships do produce kids so that is false. Second, that isn't even the issue! People that can't have kids still get married! Comon. Please.
Goohuman 1 year ago
You said homosexuals wanted marriage because they want the benefits of it. Fine. We fix civil unions and that problem is solved.
Then you come back with the similarities between my argument about men and women strengthening each others weaknesses in a relationship and the arguments (false) used by judges to support laws against interracial marriage. That is a lame attempt to paint the debate with emotion.
Just tell me why we must change the definition of "Marriage"? That is the issue.
Goohuman 1 year ago
Comment removed
tifforo1 1 year ago
@Goohuman The "definition" of marriage has always been malable. Why did we change it to prohibit plural marriage, outlaw interrecial marriage,set age limits. Because marriage has a tradition of change.
Personally, I believe the state should only grant civil unions, which would be equal legally to any group. Let the churches decide who to "marry".
finerbiner 1 year ago
@finerbiner What?! Age limits? Interracial?! Plural?!!? The one constant in your attempt to make marriage look like its changing is one man and one woman. Marriage isn't changing. In fact, even polygamists marry one man to one woman at a time. They just don't divorce before the marry again.
Marriage is a vital commitment to a healthy society. Perversion will never stop, but the moment we make it the norm, we become perverse as a society.
Goohuman 1 year ago
@Goohuman Such a nice sounding reasonable bigot you are. I like most how you say "marriage is a vital commitment to a healthy society" as if that were true on its own or proof of any thing. I've been married 21 yrs and my wife and I have raised 2 good kids. Obviously that is ideal. Life however, is often not ideal. This is America and we are supposed to be free to pursue happiness.
finerbiner 1 year ago
@finerbiner Besides the name-calling, do you have a point? Did I say anything that you disagree with?? Come on out in the open with your point if you are not afraid that you yourself know its flaws.
Goohuman 1 year ago
@Goohuman I made my point. We are ALL free to pursue happiness. ALL! Let me say it again ALL. Not just people you see as worthy. I'm sorry you can not understand that and need to make up some shit about one man and one woman. That is just your rationalization to justify you bigotry. Yes you are a bigot. That is not name calling just naming your opinion. There is no changing a bigot's mind so I really have no use for you or this conversation.
finerbiner 1 year ago
@finerbiner So we agree. All are free to pursue happiness. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this video. You just can't seem to separate the ideas. If I wanted to change the definition of homosexual to mean moron, and that would make me happy, how do you think it will make all the homosexuals feel? I doubt they would find much happiness in that.
But fortunately I don't have that right. And niether do those that want to change the meaning of marriage.
Goohuman 1 year ago
@finerbiner And btw, if you find my ideas intolerable, then by definition, you are a bigot. Be sure to use logic next time, because names have a nasty habit of backfiring.
Goohuman 1 year ago
@Goohuman I find you to be repugnant. The worst kind of egg head. I want to take zero rights away from you so your point is silly at best. You are not as clever as you think you are. You use history as the template from which to discuss civil rights. Really?
finerbiner 1 year ago
@finerbiner Good. Your insults are victory to me. You have no valid argument left, and you won't acknowledge my validity. You will .. eventually. I am not the enemy. I am simply pointing out the very UNclever truth. The blatant, obvious, 800 lb gorilla in the room. The one you call the ugly past. It will be our ugly future. It won't go away no matter how you rationalize or ignore it.
Goohuman 1 year ago
@Goohuman What insult? Point it out. Better go and get your dictionary first though. Also, work on cognition.
finerbiner 1 year ago
@finerbiner Do you recognize "repugnant"? I suppose it could be a complement if you consider me repugnant compared to your own world, which is disgusting. Then I guess repugnant is not insulting.
Goohuman 1 year ago
@Goohuman Short definition. Repugnant: Offensive, distasteful. That is what you are going to hang your hat on? I find your bigotry offensive and distasteful, so that is an insult. No, that is a discussion. An insult is if I call you a dog @#$%^, or an A-@^(&*. Finding your offensive and distasteful opinions to be these things is not insulting. I don't even want to take your repugnant opinions away from you. Just to point them out for what they really are. Small minded bigotry. Very poor try!
finerbiner 1 year ago
@finerbiner And I find your insults to be rewarding. You did insult me, not just my ideas. And your bigotted, blind stance keeps you from using reason and logic to fight your battles. I understand that. Let me help you:
Homosexuals want to use the term "marriage" to describe their union. Nasty christian teabaggers won't let them be happy.
Does that sum it up?
Goohuman 1 year ago
@Goohuman You really do have a major problem with understanding the meaning of basic English. Let's try 1 more time
Bigot: a narrow minded intolerant person.
As I stated earlier, I find your position repugnant. Because it is narrow minded and intolerant. I also stated that I have zero interest in restricting your bigotry in any way. How does that fit the definition of bigotry. I believe in life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness for everyone. You want it too. For those that agree with you.
finerbiner 1 year ago
@finerbiner Again with calling me a bigot and then saying something bigotted. I tell you, logic is your friend. Don't fight it.
Then, try to stay on the issue instead of name-calling.
Goohuman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Goohuman ... The pro-homosexual agenda is to use the coercive power of the state illegitimately to force citizens to accept and give public recognition/support to behavior that is merely degeneracy and a private vice in the view of most people. It's anti-libertarian and anti-conservative.
It's homo-fascism, and the movement's history is ably researched and presented in Lively and Abrahams's 'The Pink Swastika'.
ProNorden 1 year ago
8 years of fiscal irresponsibility, big government anti-gay rights...what exactly does the conservative movement stand for? Let me guess: We don't care what our principles are as long as we are in power, we will make rules as we go even though sometimes those rules contradict each other. Chaos anyone?
casan20007 1 year ago
Students for Liberty is a great organization. Excellent speech, Alexander!
ciwhitten 1 year ago
Students for Liberty is the way of the GOP future.
This guy has a presence and knows how to give a good speech.
Lucem2 1 year ago
Wow, when "republicans" get slapped in the face by "Conservatives." I love it.
KalamaZoot 1 year ago
YOU ARE RT RYAN IS GAY
1969BALLER 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Bravo Sorba! A politically correct agenda has no place at CPAC. Sorba is right and I support him 100 percent.
myviews1 1 year ago
"freedom does not come in pieces, it is a single concept that we must defend at all times"
wonderfully said...
EnhancementSmoker 1 year ago 8
We could use more people like McCobin and less Sorbas in this world.
freewngs 1 year ago 11
Human nature is not always rational. I wish it were... or maybe not.
dtaijo174 1 year ago
I convinced myslef he's gay... didn't take much convincing...
luanluan2006 1 year ago
"...no you sit down. The lesbians at Smith college protest better than you do."
Like a fuckin 4 year old that can't eat their lollipop. The way these Repubes and Cuntservatives roll, He probably condemns homosexuality yet is boinking some guy on the side.
bubblinbrownsugar616 1 year ago
My friend has a saying. The time to criticize a fat chick is not when she is on her way to the gym. She has her sweats on and she is trying to do something about it. By picking that point to make a comment about her weight, you will only make her depressed and lose motivation. Same criticism here. The time to take shots at conservatives is not when they shout down some bigoted asshole. I was both shocked and encouraged by this video. I dont understand your vitriol.
walsh1916 1 year ago
That Ryan Sorba guy is Gay himself, so what is he talking about?
dfwtexxaas 1 year ago 2
Well done Mr. McCobin
dmm24 1 year ago
Sorba gives Conservatives a horrible name.
Bballashotfalla 1 year ago 2
Angry sheep are still just sheep. :)
Nickelodeon2002 1 year ago 2
That Sorba jerk is the biggest douche I have seen in a long time...
manny0409 1 year ago 5
the ryan sorba guy looked gay,, who does his eyebrows :P
jwka2001 1 year ago
Hooray! Sodomy for all!!
a5dr3 1 year ago 3
rofl. Well if that's your thing, I don't think the government ought to be stopping you from engaging in it.
stealthswimmer 1 year ago 2
This is just pitiful, I don't usually pick sides of stuff that don't matter to me, but when there's a clear winner and a loser like this, it's hard not to pick a side. Booed off for a reason, he had nothing to say so he kept saying "bring it" and "you've made an enemy out of me". Ignorance is bliss.
armoryrogue 1 year ago
Heres a rundown of this argument:
1) Civil Rights are grounded in Natural Rights (Good Start)
2) Natural Rights are grounded in Human Nature (Kind of a tautology)
3) Human Nature is a rational substance in relationship (huh? performative contradiction?)
4) The intelligible end of a reproductive act is reproduction (gay sex isnt a reproductive act because gay people cannot reproduce with each other! I am pretty certain they understand that!)
Do we understand that? No, you probably dont either
jocam000 1 year ago 5
@jocam000
I just want to take a moment to say that this is probably one of the best comments I have read on YouTube in the last two years. With only a couple dozen words of your own, you effectively refuted that moron's entire rant.
Bravo, and thank you.
geniusiknowit 1 year ago
What the f is a natural right? - We all the have the natural right to die. Big fish eat the little fish, that's the mechanism by which the natural order progresses. Gimme a break. God exists and has revealed his thoughts on the matter or "human" ethics are the definition of arbritrary. period.
a5dr3 1 year ago
Unfortunately, that's probably the "intellectual plateau" of conservatives.
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
sorba, get out of the bronze age, then you can talk again.
MrLawrenceV 1 year ago 2
conservatives brag about how the majority doesn't want gay marriage, but they don't realize, it's a process. You can't reverse progress. You can only slow it down. Gay marriage rights are simply inevitable, and as so many other examples in history before us have shown, (such as racism), the ignorant fools that prefer blind tradition in favor of growth and education will slowly become the minority.
MrBurritoSupreme 1 year ago 4
@MrBurritoSupreme
The issue is bigger than that:
Real conservatives shouldn't support state regulation of marriage.
Marriage is a private contract between adults... it can be for religious, financial, social, and emotional reasons... any combination of those, or something else entirely. Either way, the state has no business getting involved.
geniusiknowit 1 year ago 5
Comment removed
jocam000 1 year ago
i can actually get behind this, and i am for the most part a complete liberal. the reason i normally hate repubs so much is for the reason show here. some people trying to diversify the republican party gets booed by fools like ryan sorba
hossboss96 1 year ago
oh also, The Born gay hoax? ----- Does anyone else reckon this guy Is trying to blame his shame and disgust in his secret internal homoerotic feelings on the outside world. His sole violent anger and disgust is more reminiscent of a fundamentalist christian homophobic homo rather than the standard heterosexual christian. Maybe he believes someone else caused him to be gay and there is no way he could have been born that way. Just a thought.
kieranemk 1 year ago
Im as far right as they come, although I come to it through an intellectual process not a religious one and I have a lot of gay friends. I laugh every time I hear this kind of bullshit because if you knew anything about gay culture you would know that it is a widely held belief among gay men that any "straight" guy can be seduced or even "turned" gay. A belief every bit as bigoted as the ones you are crying about.
wantwit 1 year ago
Comment removed
kieranemk 1 year ago
@kieranemk I completely agree. He sounds not that different than the jocks in high school that were in the closet, but were the most vocal in their hatred of "fags" because they had something to prove to themselves. Ah memories. haha
MrBurritoSupreme 1 year ago 2
Everyone is secretly gay. Hilarious.
wantwit 1 year ago