Ryan Sorba, of California Young Americans for Freedom, is the pleasant gentlemen who “condemned” CPAC for inviting gay conservative group GOProud to the conference. And was summarily booed on stage. (Though we appreciated his “lesbians as Smith College” line.) He is also the guy who, aside from handing out Yes On 8 flyers, was handed a restraining order at age 19 following a domestic abuse charge against a girlfriend.
And just when we were beginning to think he was a stand up kinda guy.
Dasher
There are probably some lesbians at Smith College who could kick Ryan Sorba’s butt.
And they should. It would serve him right for allegedly beating up his girlfriend.
terrwill
C’mon Queerty ENOUGH WITH GIVING THESE SUBHUMAN SCUMBAGS ANY MORE PUBLICITY We get you need to generate hits to generate revenue. You don’t have to be such whores by giving filth like this scumbag and the Phelps family any more publicity……..
Marilyn
The article clearly states it wasn’t a girlfriend. If you’d actually read beyond the headline and first paragraph, you’d have seen that Sorba’s explanation was perfectly reasonable.
But why bother trying to know the truth when it doesn’t suit your desire to trash someone with whom you disagree.
It’s as honest as calling anyone who doesn’t believe homosexual activity is wonderful “hateful” and a “gay-basher”.
My question is this: might Queerty be liable for libel for printing a false (and potentially damaging) headline and blog post like this, when it has no basis in fact?
Jon B
@Marilyn: No, Queerty is not liable for libel. He’s a public figure. Also, he didn’t address who it was, and he didn’t explain anything.
Dasher
@ No. 3 — Marilyn — OK, so it wasn’t his girlfriend he beat up. It was just some babe he got sore at?
I agree with you. Queerty shouldn’t be dredging up irrelevant stories about Ryan Sorba just to prove he is a loose cannon.
Ryan Sorba is perfectly capable of proving that himself. Case in point: his laughable performance at CPAC.
Would Queerty be liable for libel (like the play on words)? No, because Ryan Sorba, who in addition to being, in my opinion, a pompous ass, is also a public figure. He is someone who, in the words of legal scholars, “has thrust himself upon a stage…”
Nice you think he’s got a cause of action, though…
SugNight
Can someone please introduce him to Mann Coulter? Perhaps they would “hit if off”…
The Artist
I vote teeny tiny peepee! 😉
L.Single
What’s with all that crazy natural law crap? I thought that went out in the Enlightenment.
dontblamemeivotedforhillary
At least there were more boos coming from Republicans this time! This guy is completely Sopranos whacko!
Daniel
O.K. Queerty… I am disappointed with you. The reporter who interviewed Sorba had an incredible opportunity to prove Sorba’s argument as clearly irrational. Sorba was articulating an argument that is reflective of ALL the gay haters out there, whether they are conscious of it or not. This was a prime opportunity and it’s lost. Sorba is only stupid to those who think he is stupid. For others, we have to prove to them that Sorba is crazy.
a) Why didn’t the reporter ask Sorba what he thought about straight people who are incapable of conception do to biological reasons?
b) Why didn’t the reporter ask Sorba what he thought about straight couples who choose to not get married and not conceive children?
c) Why didn’t the reporter ask Sorba what he thought about the multitude of children born out of wedlock and born unintentionally with parents incapable of rearing a child effectively?
And on and on… Sorba’s argument was stating that homosexuality is unnatural because two people of the same sex cannot give birth. Well, guess what?! A lot of straight couples can’t give birth either do to biological reasons! A lot of straight people don’t want kids. They want to have sex because they love sex. It feels good. And, they don’t want kids. This happens all the time. Why didn’t the reporter ask these questions. Ughhh! It makes me sick.
D.
Jim
I think a group of guys should start a Facebook page; “I had sex with Ryan Sorba” and see how many fans you can get to sign up on it.
romeo
Christers throw that “natural law” stuff around to show they have no concept of how Nature actually works. Reproduction is not Nature’s goal per se, SURVIVAL is the goal. And in that respect, Nature has no laws, no rules, no regulations and does all kinds of things counter-intuitive to tiny minds like the Christers. Our “Logic” is an artificial, human, construct that Nature couldn’t care less about. She operates on a different level than our tiny minds. As for gay people, anything that’s here is natural, and Nature has her reasons.
Jaroslaw
nature in the Bible, in this case meant YOUR NATURE, what is common and characteristic FOR YOU. Acting in an unnatural way meant if you are normally kind and mellow, instead you would yell and be mean.
munch
Let them scream and yell about the “illogic” of homo ness. It only diminishes their power in the long run. The further one moves into the extreme the farther he/she is away from freedom, integrity, liberty and justice.
Jadis
Everything we do is natural, by definition. “Natural law” has as much credibility as Scientology.
@Marylin: well given how constantly and relentlessly the enemy libels and defames us, I’d say he’s fair game.
nikko
Homosexuality is for pleasure and bonding between the same sex. What’s illogical about that?! It’s not meant for procreation,. So what’s the problem ?
Michael
Too funny… “Natural law”, eh? I guess he doesn’t realize homosexuality has already been documented in over 1,500 species of animal in nature.
Joe
Here is my brief rebuttal to Ryan Sorba:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RhlZVdQfVg
It’s about a minute and a half.
Joe
Jaroslaw
No everything we do is not natural, or at least that is not the point of my post. The concept of natural law the way most Bible Thumpers mean it did not come about for another several hundred years.
Many words have more than one meaning, to say it another way. Fit could be a seizure or it could mean to BE fitted for clothes, or do the clothes fit or a person could have a display of anger.
Lynn
@L.Single
Natural Law was very much a part of the Enlightenment. The idea that there are universal human rights, independent of government or culture, is rooted in the idea that human nature has an inherent dignity.
Now, what exactly natural law entails is open to debate. The very slipperiness of the concept makes it difficult to invoke with any certainty. All too often, natural law is invoked to justify pre-existing attitudes, as with Mr. Sorba’s claim that “reproductive sex” has the natural end of sexual reproduction. Sorba turns a blind eye to non-reproductive sex because it doesn’t suit his aims.
Natural Law can just as easily be invoked to justify granting individuals freedom of sexual choice.
nikko
Thanks, JOE, that was perfect!!!!
Konstantin
Sodomites, I know that you like to say that “everything we do is not natural”.
But your disgusting logic is about as disgusting as your practice. For instance, if being a sodomite is fine (because “everything we do is not natural”), then is chopping heads from sodomites is what? is it natural, or is not natural?
If you pick first, then it is perfectly fine to chop off heads of sodomites (or for that matter pedophiles, or necrophiliacs…)
If you pick second, while chopping of heads from sodomites is not natural, why not do it if “everything we do is not natural”???
Well, dear sodomites, you’re stuck in the corner by your twisted “logic” (which is pretty correlative to your twisted and perverted sexual conduct).
Konstantin
@Michael:
hmm, I guess you dont realize cannibalism has already been documented in many species of animal in nature.
What is your point?
You simply observer animal behavior and imitate it? Sodomites, rational humans do NOT look at animals for example. I wonder if you knew that…. probably not.