Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The American Family Association sent out an "action alert" blasting CPAC for allowing a gay GOP group to have a booth at the event and Ed Morrisey's Hot Air blog for criticizing Ryan Sorba's moronic and gratuitous gay-baiting at the event. The alert was written by Bryan Fischer and it says:
Not only was GOPROUD welcomed at CPAC, an event which is supposed to be the annual showcase for conservative values, the organization was allowed to sponsor the event, giving visibility and recognition to its effort to legitimize sexual deviancy.In other words, for David Keene and the others who run CPAC, natural marriage is not, in their judgment, a fundamental conservative value. This conference, for the sake of truth in advertising, should be relabeled "The Libertarian Political Action Conference." It has forfeited any legitimate claim to the "Conservative" moniker.
And on Hot Air:
A Saturday post, from Republican, takes one of my new heroes, Ryan Sorba of California Young Americans for Freedom, to task for making the common sense statement at CPAC that homosexual sex cannot lead to reproduction. For this obviously correct observation, he was booed off the stage. And "Hot Air," now under Christian management, has made Sorba out to be the bad guy.Sorba showed the courage of his convictions by simply declaring the truth. Said Sorba, "Civil rights are grounded in natural rights, and natural rights are grounded in human nature...and the intelligible end of the reproductive act is reproduction...civil rights, when they conflict with natural rights, are contrary..." At this point, his remarks were drowned out by a chorus of vitriolic, angry boos. (View video of his remarks here.)
Consequently, Sorba said, "I'd like to condemn CPAC for bringing GOPRIDE (he meant "GOPROUD") to this event."
For speaking truth to power, "Hot Air" accused Sorba of "bombthrowing," and said his remarks represented a "gratuitous and public...slam on homosexuals."
The lead blogger of "Hot Air," Ed Morrissey, has apparently experienced a new-found freedom under Salem's Christian leadership to bash proponents of morality grounded in natural law. Said Morrissey, "At some point, Republicans will need to get over their issues with homosexuality."
Of course, Bryan Fischer doesn't think gays should be allowed to attend CPAC at all, or any other conference for that matter. If he had his way, they'd all be arrested and forced to attend reeducation camps. Because that's an example of "family values." Or something.
Politics
Comments
WTF is "natural marriage"? I have never seen evidence for this in any peer reviewed articles.
Posted by: BGT | February 26, 2010 9:42 AM
What the hell do you want with peer reviewed articles when you have the Bible, appropriately interpreted by the correct authorities, you godless commie pinko liberal bastard!
May God bless and keep you,
Valhar
Posted by: Valhar2000 | February 26, 2010 9:54 AM
A Saturday post, from Republican, takes one of my new heroes, Ryan Sorba of California Young Americans for Freedom, to task for making the common sense statement at CPAC that homosexual sex cannot lead to reproduction.
SCARIEST!!! STRAWMAN!!! EVARRRR!!!
Posted by: FBI Regional Bureau Chief GORDON COLE!!! | February 26, 2010 9:59 AM
Biblical marriage= 1 man and as many woman as he can keep. No animals aside from humans get married, so I guess that makes "natural marriage" an oxymoron.
Posted by: Scott D. | February 26, 2010 10:06 AM
"Natural Marriage" is marriage in accordance with Natural Law Ethics. The Reasonable Doubts podcast covered it nicely in a recent episode
Posted by: JHGRedekop | February 26, 2010 10:11 AM
If he had his way, they'd all be arrested and forced to attend reeducation camps.
And he could undoubtedly find legislators willing to attempt it, which would still fall under the AFA's concept of "truth to power," I'm sure.
Posted by: schism | February 26, 2010 10:24 AM
At least Fischer understands that libertarians and conservatives aren't the same thing.
But who really cares that gay sex can't lead to reproduction. As a matter of fact, I can't reproduce anymore--am I supposed to stop having sex, or get divorced from my wife? Am I supposed to put my kids up for adoption to a nice married heterosexual couple who still can reproduce? Or if I divorce my wife and promise not to have any more sex with her, can we still live together and raise our kids without conservatives interfering in our lives?
Posted by: James Hanley | February 26, 2010 10:38 AM
Ahh yes, conservative sex. For conserving the species, and nothing more. I like that someone can stand up and in a single sentence, demonstrate how addled their brain is. The old "gay sex makes no babies, therefore gay is bad" gambit. Infertile couples, old couples, people who just don't want kids -- they can be married. It's such a thin lie to cover for "issues with homosexuality." That's such a nice way to put "deep seated, religiously poisoned, irrational hatred of homosexuals."
But the even bigger lie is with "the intelligible end of the reproductive act is reproduction." Sex, for most people, is about anything but reproduction most of the time. It's about pleasure, intimacy, some companionship -- sex reveals how much of the way we present ourselves to the world is just a facade, and that under it we are animals with physical needs and desires like any other.
That is one of the good things about sex. That is why we have birth control, despite the relentless efforts of conservative christians. Take a look at the history of birth control (say like what is mentioned in Susan Jacoby's Freethinkers, hist of American Secularism) -- churches tried to keep the topic from even being discussed in public.
It is also why strait people need to stand with homosexuals on these issues. It's not just about their poisoned attitude towards gays -- though those are often the worst -- it extends to all sex. They want gays in the closet, they want abortion illegal and dangerous, they want birth control to be only abstinence (condoms prevent conception -- omg abortion OMG murder), divorce illegal. They want premarital sex out.
Not all christians (or even conservative christians, Sorba was booed heavily) have the full dose of christian anti-sex poison. But given the chance, they will drag us all the way back to the fucking dark ages.
Posted by: debaser | February 26, 2010 11:27 AM
I think that's precisely what authoritarians are afraid of. Ironically, for all their prattle about sex being for reproductive ends only, they're terrified of the truly life-affirming aspects of sex, such as genuine love, connection with another human being, chemistry, etc., all of which sometimes--but by no means necessarily--lead to the conception of another human being. For social conservatives/authoritarians, their fear of the most wonderful aspects of sex leads them to value the act strictly for its most utilitarian purposes (and even then, only within the confines of legal marriage). It's sad, really.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 26, 2010 12:02 PM
Agreed. It's interesting how something can make me both sad and bloody furious at the same time.
Posted by: Captain Mike | February 26, 2010 12:04 PM
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting pretty sick and tired of these irrational, unrepentant, priggish, hate-mongering asswipes. These are the YAF types I knew in college who couldn't get laid in a whorehouse with a $100 bill sticking out of their pocket. Mostly self-loathing closet cases i would guess.
Posted by: Budbear | February 26, 2010 12:11 PM
Posted by: asdf | February 26, 2010 12:18 PM
There is a fundamental flaw in reasoning and logic whereby liberals and liberal libertarians will never be able to understand or reach conservatives. It basically breaks down to this:
Conservative: Gay = sex = butt-sex = ewwww!
Liberal/libertarian: Gay = people = consensual relationships = none of my damn business.
----------
Step one of the equation (gay = people) is where the problem lies, that's why even asshats like Dick Cheney can occasionally pull their head out of their ass long enough to recognize that their homosexual daughter is a person in a relationship, but then revert back to gay = sex ... etc., when it comes to other homosexuals.
Posted by: dogmeatib | February 26, 2010 12:33 PM
I'm curious to know what "natural law" he's talking about.
It's an undefined and arbitrary term, and thus can be arbitrarily dismissd.
Posted by: KacyRay | February 26, 2010 1:07 PM
dogmeatib @ 13 - brilliant synopsis
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 26, 2010 1:16 PM
Jon Haidt couldn't have said it better.
Posted by: Dr X | February 26, 2010 1:30 PM
That's the "law" that basically says, "God didn't create it, therefore it's not natural, therefore it's immoral, therefore we must legally stop it." The problem, of course, is that it implies a petty, useless God who is so weak He could not create all the animal life around us. Certainly homosexual animals, which have been observed in about 300 species, cannot be the creation of this "God," nor can human beings who are not male or female - the intersexed.
But if you bring up the natural examples that disprove the theory "gay is not natural," you normally get something like "well, animals sometimes eat their young, do you suggest humans do that too?" - all without a hint of irony.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | February 26, 2010 2:46 PM
dogmeatib,
I wouldn't underestimate how much fundamentalists hate people for being people, too. There's a reason they concentrate on capturing children: they don't (dare yet) demonstrate as much independence as adults do.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | February 26, 2010 3:59 PM
This would be the fundamentalist Conservatives of "C" Street caught with their mistress (or cheating on their second wife) proclaiming that sex outside of marriage and outside of the intent to procreate is contrary to natural and moral law? Do I have that right?
Just asking.
Posted by: Scott | February 26, 2010 4:10 PM
CPT - I agree, and I'd take it a step further. Not only do they not define "natural law", they don't define the term "natural" in this context.
Natural, as opposed to what? Synthetic? Supernatural? Gay sex is neither of those things, therefore it must be natural. If "Natural" is defined as "appearing in nature", then gay sex qualifies still. I have yet to find a definition of "natural" that gay sex does not qualify under.
Of course, we all know that when homophobes say that homosexuality is "unnatural", they mean "not something I feel good about". It's tough to get them to admit that, but not impossible.
Posted by: KacyRay | February 26, 2010 10:23 PM
I thought Natural Law was when you sat in the Lotus position and hopped around on your ass telling yourself you're levitating and that this would create an invincible defence around your host nation replacing negative socioeconomic indicators with positive indicators, and the radiating of positivity and harmony to all other nations.
Or am I the only one who remembers the Natural Law Party?
Posted by: jpf | February 26, 2010 11:05 PM
I do. They were "this close" to achieving world piece, too! I only voted for them because of their pro-military stance:
Posted by: Modusoperandi | February 27, 2010 12:01 AM
@14
He's referencing the work of Thomas Aquinas; which seems to me tantamount to actually admitting that his viewpoint is actually medieval. lol.
Posted by: GBM | February 27, 2010 3:51 AM
I'm reminded of the old saying......
PURITANISM: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, will be happy.
Posted by: KShep | February 27, 2010 9:07 AM
Now hang on a second, wouldn't any action that does not result in reproduction be, by definition, not a reproductive act?
Posted by: 2-D Man | February 27, 2010 6:32 PM
Funny, I took GOPROUD as a sign that a glimmer of sanity might still exist in American conservatism.
Posted by: Merle | March 2, 2010 10:12 AM