Bias note: I’m small-g gay, small-c conservative.
On adding this plank to the platform: unnecessary, because the GOP in Texas has much bigger fish to fry (the Reconquista, for starters) than gay reparative therapy. Instead, add a plank supporting keeping GRT as a legal option for those gays who don’t want to be gay anymore.
On gay reparative therapy: I don’t know if it works, but I’d imagine that if it does, it’s only in the cases where the guy or gal actually wants to change (if not orientation, at least behavior. Unlike most my fellow gays, I acknowledge there’s a big difference between the two. Liking vanilla ice cream != eating vanilla ice cream.) Those who are happy in a necessarily sterile set of relationships shouldn’t end up in these place, just as those who aren’t happy with that situation should not be banned from trying GRT.
On “former homosexuals”: for those who do manage to change either orientation or behavior (or both), I say “good for you”. I wrestle with my own situation, and sometimes think that I’d gladly change if I could. But to those on this board trumpeting how great this plank in the TXGOP platform is, how many of you would welcome a former gay as a son-in-law? My guess is that you only support this in theory, yet apply a NIMBY standard to these ex-gays who end up with women.
Between the “Ex-gays: marry any gal but my daughter” Right, and the screeching, vindictive “born this way” Left, it’s no wonder so few gays actively seek out
Europeans can’t even have their own historical native religions, can they? Maimonides has to claim Merlin, too??
October 28, 2013 at 8:11pm
Why would Feidman and Burns lie about it?
August 27, 2013 at 1:32pm
“After being turned away, the veteran called the police who subsequently told Ireland that Glasser has a right to be inside the restaurant with the dog, especially because the canine is assisting the man with a medical issue.”
This is the issue at the crux of the article. Thanks to the CRA and ADA, a business owner’s freedom of association has taken a backseat to another’s “right” to their good/service/hospitality. This is just like the wedding photographer who is now a criminal for not shooting pictures for lesbians.
July 13, 2013 at 11:32am
I’m sure The Blaze will have Ms. Barath write a puff-piece on G-d’s Chosen, and you’ll all forget this emotional, factless outburst of hers.
July 9, 2013 at 3:58pm
Pat is within his rights to make these comments, as are the Blazers who say similar things. From their points-of-view, I’m sure it is disgusting, regardless of religious proscriptions on the practice. Those who have never had this attraction-that-dare-not-speak-its-name (or these days, dare-not-shut-up) have a visceral negative reaction that is rooted as deeply in their sexuality, as gay men’s revulsion for women and their parts.
To the gays reacting by dissing Christians and conservatives en masse for Pat’s comments: shame on you. You’re children flinging sand and pulling pigtails. While risking sounding like Rodney King, I have to ask if we all can’t just get along a little better? Or at least take to ignoring each other’s disagreeable comments?
C’mon, y’all, we’ve got much bigger fish to fry if we’re going to save this country from a hot civil war and collapse. Let’s put aside these differences and focus on what unites the Conserva-Tarians. We can duke it out at the state level once we destroy the Federal Leviathan.
Not every **** supports redefining marriage. I think there should be a separate institution, like a civil union, if a state legislature chooses to create it. And we should also limit divorce to infidelity, barrenness, and abuse.
And these squares are annoying the heck out of me. Too many friends have posted them.