A Freeper smacks down the Base over Craig

[kpete]

A Freeper smacks down the Base over Craig
by Pam Spaulding · 9/01/2007


A voice of semi-sanity can occasionally be found on the pages of Free Republic. I make light of the ignorance there because it is seemingly endless, but here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1889601/posts we find some actual truth-telling about the Craig matter, by FR resident nathanbedford that leaves most of the knuckledraggers there with little to say. You may not agree with this Freeper's views in total -- his argument is less support of Craig (or homosexuality) as a moral issue but an acknowledgment that far-right efforts to impose their morality through law-making leads to abuse, such as bathroom busts targeting gay sexual conduct versus straight sexual conduct, the latter which never seems to be the target of vice sting operations. For the underbelly of the far-right, this is a rare major smackdown from one of its own.

What should be the proper conservative perspective on laws concerning homosexuality?

....................private homosexual sex between consenting adults is something that a true conservative who respects individual liberty should have little trouble concluding that is an area not for the Lawgiver but for the Redeemer.

So all of this brings us to the political implications of the Craig scandal. I have posted in another context as recently as a few days ago my concern about Republicans who throw their fellows to the enemy as soon as storm clouds gather. In fact, I make reference to this deplorable tendency in my about page. I do not think it is necessary to consider what to do about Senator Larry Craig, he is a problem in the process of resolving itself and I have no doubt that he will not be the Senator from Idaho on January 2, 2008. His senatorial career is virtually over. But I dodge the issue, what should be done about Senator Larry Craig if he does not go voluntarily? He should be shunned by the party and all support for him should be withdrawn not because he is a homosexual but because he is a damn hypocrite. Craig did not do much of anything legally wrong-he did not frighten the horses-if but he brings disgrace to the party by his flagrant hypocrisy. And the party must rid itself of him because failure to do so would lay it open to the charge of hypocrisy. He represented the party in the United States Senate for the state of Idaho and he lied to us about matters of morality and "family values." It is one thing to have a rot in the body of the party and to remove that rotten apple from the barrel and quite another thing to regularize perversity as the Democrats have done in similar circumstances.

What to do about other homosexuals? Do we welcome them into the party? I should think so, so long as they are open and otherwise comport themselves in sync with conservative values. That is, when they are not hypocrites.

Ironically, the remarks of Barney Frank seemed to me to be the best placed of this controversy. Of course he did not object to Craig's homosexuality and thought he should remain in the Senate. But he did criticize the man's hypocrisy. In this Barney Frank struck home. So long as we as conservatives attack homosexuals for their status as homosexuals rather than for their overt acts which are repugnant to a higher value, we are open to the hypocrisy charge. And every time a Republican homosexual is outed, we will become a laughingstock. We are open to the charge that we are hypocrites when we invoke the criminal law to enforce our predilections about sex because we are the party which says it stands for individual liberty and limited government. The Democrats say we intrude government into the bedroom and in this case they are right. So, when they say the same thing about abortion, we cannot effectively deny the charge even though a much higher value-a baby's life-is at stake.

We fall into this hypocrisy trap when we make the fundamental mistake respecting the nature of homosexuality vis-à-vis society. Democrats accuse us of hypocrisy because closet homosexuals within our ranks preach "family values." Why do we let the Democrats conflate these two issues? Because we have done so ourselves. Homosexual activity in private between consenting adults who are not married constitute no threat to my marriage. Nor do they constitute a threat to the institution of marriage. Adultery poses a threat to the adulterer's marriage whether the adultery is homosexual or heterosexual. The adulterer is not a greater hypocrite because his adultery is homosexual. I submit that no-fault divorce is a far graver threat to the institution of marriage than is the fact of homosexuality in our society.

more at:
http://www.americablog.com/2007/09/freeper-smacks-down-base-over-craig.html

[xchrom]

1. he cannot smaq down the republick party -- because what he is talking about

does not exist in the republick party -- except as creatures serving a libertarian bent.

the republick party is now synonmous with social conservatism.

social conservatism is the problem -- social conservatism breeds teh very things it decries.

that the republick party -- or rather the rank and file republick party person can't see this -- is a matter of education and sophistication.

this is NOT a smaq down.

[bahrbearian]

2. Someone must have spent a lot of time over there to find this bit of Sanity.

[I Have A Dream]

3. A rational voice. I certainly don't agree with everything that he says...

but what he says specifically about homosexuality and the Right's hypocrisy is spot on.

[tridim]

6. ..And so un-Freeper-like that I question his Freeper credentials

I've never seen anything that comes close to rationality on that site. This is the first.

[rucky]

4. who says "homosexual" anymore? n/t

[spindoctor]

5. And that is why conservatives are in the same position as liberals

They make up the "respectable" part of the Republican party but are considered a minority and have little or no influence on policy.

I do not judge people because their ideology is different from mine. If we all thought alike then there would be no need for democracy. Unfortunately rationalists on either side of the fence are in short supply.

[leftofthedial]

7. wow. one of them stopped drooling long enough to say something

either that or it is a LIEberal mole

[XOKCowboy]

8. You really need to read the comments that follows

This guy put out a very lucid and well thought out piece and they basically ignore his points and slam all homosexuality as an abomination or debate all over again just why Craig was arrested. Amazing.

[Nickster]

9. How long until those comments and the poster get zapped?