I think you’re argument is a semantic one. However you choose to refer to gays is moot. The issues at hand, and discussed in the podcast, are those with real substance. Not what do you call gay people, but how do they fit within the conservative movement. I wasn’t aware that Ryan had any monopoly on the word homosexual, and I was never aware of it’s use in any derogatory way. How would Jeff Frazee refer to those who engage in same-sex relations?

I see your point. Homosexuals are people just like the rest of us. Our use of the term is simply as a placeholder for one who engages in same-sex relations. The substance of the broadcast lies elsewhere, in many of the interesting points brought out by a civil discussion on a heated subject.

Thanks for your interest and I hope you keep listening to the show.

I look forward to speaking with Ryan and Alex again, taking calls from the audience, and moderating a good debate. I will also express my opinions on the matter on the show, rather than in a comment here on our blog. I hope you continue to listen to our program and contribute to the dialogue!

Your concern about the confrontational approach of Sorba is understandable. However, he has forced the discussion.

Please do not miss the importance behind understanding the nature of rights from a natural law perspective and the dangers that Sorba points out with positivism (not directly mentioned). The decision to include gay rights in the mix of liberty issues out of concern for some greater good is a choice for a different conservatism with a different foundation. So, of course Sorba and many others will likely stop their support of CPAC. Common ground was not gained by including GOPride, it may have been lost.

Thank you for giving Sorba the opportunity to speak and explain himself.