We Need the Support of the LBGT Community

[freedom-maniac]

Okay, let's talk seriously here. We normally direct our proselytzing efforts towards Tea Party types of old-school conservatives that we think will help us in the primaries and caucuses. Since Huck left, we've also been marketing Dr. Paul to Christian conservatives.

This is all fine and great. But there is a HUGE section of the American population we've been forgetting. I'm talking about the LBGT community. Normally they don't vote Republican because the GOP has been active in persecuting them, but there actually is a group of gay and lesbian GOPers known as the "Log Cabin Republicans"


Log Cabin works to build a stronger, more inclusive Republican Party by promoting the core values of limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets and a strong national defense while advocating for the freedom and equality of gay and lesbian Americans
http://www.logcabin.org/site/c.nsKSL7PMLpF/b.5468127/k.A241/Our_Mission.htm

The Log Cabin is large enough to have influence:

Since 1977, LCR has expanded across the United States and has 43 chapters, representing 26 states and the District of Columbia.[28] Log Cabin has thousands of members nationwide and a staff of registered lobbyists in Washington, D.C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans#Membership

In 2008 they actually aired attack ads against Mitt Romney for his anti-gay stances, and endorsed McCain for being more moderate. One of their video questions was even featured in the CNN YouTube Debate.

This year, there is no "moderate" John McCain. Cain and Pawlenty both are anti-gay marriage. Santorum's trying to be to the right of Huck on social issues. Romney is detested by the LBGT community. Bachmann actually co-authored a constitutional amendment when she was a state senator that would have banned gay marriage in her state. Newt Ginrich is so anti-gay that homosexual activists have taken to pouring boxes of glitter on him at book signings.

Dr. Paul's message of keeping the federal government out of the marriage issue and allowing it to be decided at the state level makes him the most likely candidate to recieve the support of the Log Cabin Republicans this year.

Outside of the GOP, there are many independent LBGT voters who would normally vote in a Democratic primary, but, because Obama's got this all to himself, we could convince to vote for Dr. Paul in a GOP primary/caucus. Nationwide it's estimated possibly as much as 10% of the population is LBGT. This is a demographic we can't ignore.

[libertybrewcity]

Good luck reaching out to the community. My gay/lesbian friends could care less about how RP votes. What matters are his personal views. Remember that people are still stuck in the two party track mindset. It is either you vote to make it illegal or you vote to make it illegal. There are no other options in other people's mind.

[Krugerrand]

I disagree.

From the primary perspective - as you point out - there is little other option out there. Thus, there is little need to reach out to them. Plus, reaching out to the gay community risks alienating the Christian right - which is a far larger and more crucial primary voting block.

From a general election perspective, RP would again risk losing the religious right - which would certainly cost him the election. Plus, most in the gay community like an authoritarian government that tells people what to do - thus pushing for things like hate crime legislation and gay marriage.

[StudentForPaul08]

As a gay person I would like to add my input into this idea. I don't think Ron Paul needs to reach out to the LGBT community - we do. We need to reach out to everyone no matter who or what they are.

[Krugerrand]

As a gay person I would like to add my input into this idea. I don't think Ron Paul needs to reach out to the LGBT community - we do. We need to reach out to everyone no matter who or what they are.

Agreed.

[sailingaway]

I disagree. I agree with student for paul 08 that supporters can convey his views, but the media and neoconservatives (who DO make up a huge chunk of primary voters) are trying to spin Ron as not just 'unconventional' but far beyond that, and the campaign needs to push his attractive points to primary voters. He shouldn't shy away from his views but I don't want to market them as his main platform when the issue of the day is the economy, either. The economy IS his issue. We really need to go with that. That and civil liberties - the itch NO ONE is scratching right now...

[Verrater]

The economy IS his issue.

Yup. Ron needs to focus on how none of them know the real root cause of the problem and how he predicted the 08 housing bubble collapse.

[outspoken]

I think to come out of the closet and pronounce oneself as gay takes a lot of courage. It take strength to look within yourself and figure out who you are and what you believe in apart from what the outside world tells you to believe. It is such a spirit that dwelled in the hearts of all men and women through history, Jesus included, who challenged the authority of their day. I strongly believe that your sexuality is just something you are born with and believe regardless of one's preference we still should value the sacred relationship bound by love between two individuals above all else... you don't need a license to determine who you love (or anything for that matter!) Seeing people prance around in the street professing their sexuality and living a life of promiscuity gay or straight is detrimental to the human race and we all have to be consciously aware of that. My point is that I think we need to embrace this community with open arms and feed off the same strength they as individuals have in the personal lives to challenge authority telling them how to be and what to believe. The power mongering liberals have highjacked the gay community in an effort to usurp power. They will tell anyone anything to achieve their goals of creating a top down authoritative oligarchy controlling every aspect of our lives making us less free and permitting less love in the world to exist. What the world needs now is love more than anything and Ron Paul is leading the freedom to love charge. I say all this a straight married, libertarian minded Christian. In almost all conflicts in this world, it is not another who is the enemy but rather our own ignorance.

[freedom-maniac]

As a gay person I would like to add my input into this idea. I don't think Ron Paul needs to reach out to the LGBT community - we do. We need to reach out to everyone no matter who or what they are.

That's exactly my point. Ron Paul doesn't believe in "people groups" so he would never specifically reach out to such a group, but we can. My point is we've been going after other groups (free-marketiers, Christian conservatives, even anarchists), but ignoring this huge section of the voting population.

You are absolutely right that "we need to reach out to everyone". We need the support of everyone we can get, and there is no need to ignore certain demographics.

[dannno]

Does anybody know why they call themselves Log Cabin Republicans? The only reason I can think of is kind of gross.

I agree that RP already reaches out to them just as he reaches out to everybody with the message of individual liberty. It's our job to reach "groups".

[randolphfuller]

When Dr. Paul voted to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military didn't he kiss goodbye all hope of support from the Christian Right? I agree that the economy can push social issues into the background.

[Dr.3D]

Does anybody know why they call themselves Log Cabin Republicans?
~snip.


The name of the organization is a reference to the first Republican President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, who was born in a log cabin.
http://www.search.com/reference/Log_Cabin_Republicans

[Dreamofunity]

he name of the organization is a reference to the first Republican President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, who was born in a log cabin.

http://images.broadwayworld.com/upload/37223/59.jpg


It appears GW was gay too.

http://mygournal.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/gay-linclon.jpg?w=242&h=262

[AlexMerced]

I have been working on this, living in NYC, a sizeable portion of my social circle is gay and/or transgendered so I created the Martini Party Facebook group for Libertarian LGBT and LGBT advocates

http://www.facebook.com/MartiniParty

I also founded the Merced Institute of Creativity and Tolerance which spend it's time researching and showing how Creativity and Tolerance are pillars which make a free society work to it's maximum potential.

http://www.MercedInstitute.com

[speciallyblend]

This is Gay, I approve!

[BrendenR]

"The name of the organization is a reference to the first Republican President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, who was born in a Log Cabin. President Lincoln built the Republican Party on the principles of liberty and equality. The party should return to its roots. When the organization was founded, the name, "Lincoln Club" was already taken by another GOP group, so organizers settled on the name Log Cabin Republicans."

[1000-points-of-fright]

"The name of the organization is a reference to the first Republican President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, who was born in a Log Cabin. President Lincoln built the Republican Party on the principles of liberty and equality. The party should return to its roots. When the organization was founded, the name, "Lincoln Club" was already taken by another GOP group, so organizers settled on the name Log Cabin Republicans."

Also because there's a theory floating around that Lincoln was gay.

[sailingaway]

When Dr. Paul voted to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military didn't he kiss goodbye all hope of support from the Christian Right? I agree that the economy can push social issues into the background.

No, only with the ones obsessed with this issue. He IS religious right, he just doesn't think it is the government's role to decide religion or morality.

[freedom-maniac]

No, only with the ones obsessed with this issue. He IS religious right, he just doesn't think it is the government's role to decide religion or morality.


No, only with the ones obsessed with this issue. He IS religious right, he just doesn't think it is the government's role to decide religion or morality.

Exactly. And if anyone on the Religious Right tries to condem Dr. Paul for this view, remind them that he served in the military, and ask them whether they have. If they've never worn the uniform, then they have no business condemning Dr. Paul for his vote, or the many gay or lesbian members of the military who are putting their lives on the line to defend America.

[dannno]

http://www.search.com/reference/Log_Cabin_Republicans

Ya that doesn't really answer the question..

[dannno]

"The name of the organization is a reference to the first Republican President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, who was born in a Log Cabin. President Lincoln built the Republican Party on the principles of liberty and equality. The party should return to its roots. When the organization was founded, the name, "Lincoln Club" was already taken by another GOP group, so organizers settled on the name Log Cabin Republicans."

That's a little better answer.. but..

[Maltheus]

Ya that doesn't really answer the question..

The answer to your question is that some believe that Lincoln was also our first homosexual president.

[MelissaWV]

When Dr. Paul voted to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military didn't he kiss goodbye all hope of support from the Christian Right? I agree that the economy can push social issues into the background.

Some folks can read what he actually wants, which is to punish behavior and not lifestyle or personal affiliation. You still would get kicked out for engaging in homosexual behavior, for instance (just like you're supposed to get kicked out for fraternizing in many other heterosexual cases), or punished, but someone would actually have to lodge a complaint about your behavior, and not just say you mentioned you're gay in casual conversation.

Some folks might realize that this is perfect: a "homosexual" who does not act on it is doing the precise thing that a lot on the Christian Right want. It looks like repenting, and it looks like a soul trying not to sin. Those who are "sinning" in that way still stand a chance of being knocked out of service.

[TheTyke]

We keep getting suggestions that will only help sink Ron in the Republican primaries, and play into the image the media is pushing to sabotage him... first needles, now this.Maybe they are well intentioned, but don't seem to have a grasp of political strategy.

[KurtBoyer25L]

Some folks can read what he actually wants, which is to punish behavior and not lifestyle or personal affiliation. You still would get kicked out for engaging in homosexual behavior, for instance (just like you're supposed to get kicked out for fraternizing in many other heterosexual cases), or punished, but someone would actually have to lodge a complaint about your behavior, and not just say you mentioned you're gay in casual conversation.

Some folks might realize that this is perfect: a "homosexual" who does not act on it is doing the precise thing that a lot on the Christian Right want. It looks like repenting, and it looks like a soul trying not to sin. Those who are "sinning" in that way still stand a chance of being knocked out of service.

I gather from this a certain "inequality" in treatment. Is your position (or your elucidation of Dr. Paul's position) that any homosexual contact should be an actionable offense, and only some heterosexual contact subject to same?

I always took Ron's remarks on the subject to mean servicefolk simply aren't there to party, but to do a job, and that any sexual conduct, of any orientation, should be equally subject to penalty if found disruptive to other personnel.

[MelissaWV]

I gather from this a certain "inequality" in treatment. Is your position (or your elucidation of Dr. Paul's position) that any homosexual contact should be an actionable offense, and only some heterosexual contact subject to same?

I always took Ron's remarks on the subject to mean servicefolk simply aren't there to party, but to do a job, and that any sexual conduct, of any orientation, should be equally subject to penalty if found disruptive to other personnel.

My position is the same as Ron's, but my "supposed to" and "many" was a reference to reality. I don't, for one moment, think that a guy kissing a girl would get the same punishment as a guy kissing a guy would. If a man and a woman were caught "in the act" the reaction would be decidedly different than if two men were.

I'd rather people were punished for any and all activity that detracts from their job. When you're in the military, your job may be to keep watch for enemies around your base. You can't do that if you're engaged in sexual contact (or I guess you could, but the contact must be really awful...), regardless of with whom you are having your fun.

[sailingaway]

I gather from this a certain "inequality" in treatment. Is your position (or your elucidation of Dr. Paul's position) that any homosexual contact should be an actionable offense, and only some heterosexual contact subject to same?

I always took Ron's remarks on the subject to mean servicefolk simply aren't there to party, but to do a job, and that any sexual conduct, of any orientation, should be equally subject to penalty if found disruptive to other personnel.

My understanding is that Ron had previously thought it was a nonfraternization policy as with the 'no sex in the office' rules many businesses have, not wanting the loss of morale from bosses / officers dating one subordinate and being considered to have a pet, or the potential pressure, or the difficulties of a messy break up. He didn't know it was treated as a status crime. He thinks if sexual behavior amongst service members be they heterosexual OR homosexual is disruptive, it is ok to have a neutral rule that applies equally to everybody.

[dannno]

My position is the same as Ron's, but my "supposed to" and "many" was a reference to reality. I don't, for one moment, think that a guy kissing a girl would get the same punishment as a guy kissing a guy would. If a man and a woman were caught "in the act" the reaction would be decidedly different than if two men were.

I'd rather people were punished for any and all activity that detracts from their job. When you're in the military, your job may be to keep watch for enemies around your base. You can't do that if you're engaged in sexual contact (or I guess you could, but the contact must be really awful...), regardless of with whom you are having your fun.

Or maybe not getting laid and thinking about it constantly is such a distraction that having sex helps you focus on watching the base :confused:

That's all beside the point of course.

[Eric21ND]

I agree we should do the reaching out. I know lots of Ron Paul people at CPAC wore the GO PROUD stickers and supported them being there.

[thehighwaymanq]

BUMP.

I think this is an important faction of people we need to approach. There are votes out there and we need to get them. But how do we go about that?

What we need is an endorsement from Lady Gaga. It may sound stupid, but honestly, that would be HUGE. She's the number 1 figure in the LBGT community and has a enormous following of people who wouldn't consider voting for a "Republican"

[AlexMerced]

For LGBT outreach, make sure to fan the Martini Party Page, it's already got a decent bit of likes already.

http://www.facebook.com/MartiniParty

[Danke]

We Need the Support of the Viking "community" too.

[MelissaWV]

What is the obsession with these copycat "___________ Party" folks? It's moronic.

You could also, y'know, reach out to people in general and cast a wide net, rather than playing to the cliche.

[Danke]

http://images.broadwayworld.com/upload/37223/59.jpg





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTN6Du3MCgI&feature=player_embedded#at=27

[Johncjackson]

Plus, most in the gay community like an authoritarian government that tells people what to do - thus pushing for things like hate crime legislation and gay marriage.

As do most "Christian conservatives."

[AlexMerced]

As do most "Christian conservatives."

FTW... any group without an understanding of the constitution want the government to put laws to make life easier for them it's natural

Not everyone was exposed to the Philosophy everyone here has, it's our job to outreach and educate

[freedom-maniac]

For LGBT outreach, make sure to fan the Martini Party Page, it's already got a decent bit of likes already.

http://www.facebook.com/MartiniParty

Joined/ "Liked"

[BlackTerrel]

Let's go after the furries and the foot fetish community as well.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

We Need the Support of the LBGT Community

This ranks right up there in importance with the "how to win progressives" and "we need atheist support" threads. :rolleyes:

This is a national Republican primary, in case it has been forgotten for the umpteenth time. "We" need to go after conservatives and Christians (especially Protestants and Mormons in the west like Nevada) and gun owners and the like. People that, you know, actually decide whom the GOP nominee will be.

[freedom-maniac]

This ranks right up there in importance with the "how to win progressives" and "we need atheist support" threads. :rolleyes:

This is a national Republican primary, in case it has been forgotten for the umpteenth time. "We" need to go after conservatives and Christians (especially Protestants and Mormons in the west like Nevada) and gun owners and the like. People that, you know, actually decide whom the GOP nominee will be.

Christian conservatives and seniors may be larger fish to catch, but there is no need to ignore LBGT in the GOP. As I stated before an endorsement from the Log Cabin Republicans could bring thousands of GOP voters to poll for Dr. Paul, considering their nationwide membership.

If we only had the time or the resources to go after just one or two demographics, I would say focus on rural conservatives and seniors who make up most of the GOP, but considering how we do have the time and effort, there is no need to ignore this demographic.

In a primary race with 7-8 candidates where only a few percentage points will seperate 3rd place from 2nd place, and 2nd place from 1st place in the early primaries, there is no need to ignore the influence of any group. It is CRITICAL to get everyone we can.

[AlexMerced]

This ranks right up there in importance with the "how to win progressives" and "we need atheist support" threads. :rolleyes:

This is a national Republican primary, in case it has been forgotten for the umpteenth time. "We" need to go after conservatives and Christians (especially Protestants and Mormons in the west like Nevada) and gun owners and the like. People that, you know, actually decide whom the GOP nominee will be.

I understand, but not everyone in this forum is neccessarily in a position to really relate or be good advocates to the Republican primary voters, inw hich case they me be more useful advocating the center and left.

The main goal is the republicans primary, but if we have the wrong peoples reaching out to the right people and vice versa we might as well no be shooting oursleves in the foot

each person should reach to to communities they are part off, cause it's those people who'll they'll be able to convert the best.

[Meatwasp]

Why should we lead those people to us? They can come if they want

[Rebel4Liberty]

Well this is an interesting thread going, and I have a little news for the OP. I work inside the gay community, and with every chance I get to speak about RP's limited govt/freedom of choice I do so. I am pleased to say since 08, many have realized they were lied to and duped. Some are ashamed of falling for the hype of Obama. When you talk about Wall St, the FED and power elite with their social engineering agenda, it begins to make sense to them. You have to point it out and make them THINK about it then they start to stir from slumber. Some have surprised me, with forebear knowledge of reality around them and the truth, they just work the system instead of working for it! For the most part though I would say the message of the libertarian philosophy is being received better than it used to by gays from what I can tell

Still, I have been told numerous times "he can't win" but when that is said, my rebuttal is simply INFLATION and WHO speaks of that all the time. Not many are able to argue with that fact of who told the truth about the ECONOMY before the bust happened. As a poster here mentioned it is the ITCH to go after above all else.. no matter what "community", WE all have to eat and FOOD INFLATION is only getting started. I think when people gay, straight and everything else in between realize they are going to pay more for food/cost of living OR able to get less for their dollar spent,it will sink in about the quandary of a central bank that is disastrous for society, and is the ROOT cause of many issues that never get solved..... and who is the only man willing to do something before it becomes too late. We need to hammer on inflation/monetary policy as the key drivers to the campaign! :D

PS I was here in 08, so not a newbie. Just re-registered

[Dr.3D]

Why should there be support for any group? Why not just let free people live as free people and keep the government out of their business?

[Billay]

This really is just an awful thread.

[freedom-maniac]

This really is just an awful thread.

For what reason?

[PaulConventionWV]

I disagree.

From the primary perspective - as you point out - there is little other option out there. Thus, there is little need to reach out to them. Plus, reaching out to the gay community risks alienating the Christian right - which is a far larger and more crucial primary voting block.

From a general election perspective, RP would again risk losing the religious right - which would certainly cost him the election. Plus, most in the gay community like an authoritarian government that tells people what to do - thus pushing for things like hate crime legislation and gay marriage.

I agree that most in the LGBT community are very liberal. My university is exactly like this. The LGBT "diversity" is one of their main mantras. They push the issue all the time. However, I have heard a lot of "it shouldn't matter what two people do in the bedroom," which is a very RP-like argument. Just because some of them hold the view that government should fix it, does not mean they can't be attracted by RP's message of personal liberty. I think they are a very worthwhile bloc of voters. And no, it wouldn't "alienate" anybody. Dr. Paul receives support from a wide variety of people for their own reasons. He can have both. It's a false dichotomy to assume he can only reach out to one bloc at a time and act like he doesn't know the others.

[freedom-maniac]

I agree that most in the LGBT community are very liberal. My university is exactly like this. The LGBT "diversity" is one of their main mantras. They push the issue all the time. However, I have heard a lot of "it shouldn't matter what two people do in the bedroom," which is a very RP-like argument. Just because some of them hold the view that government should fix it, does not mean they can't be attracted by RP's message of personal liberty. I think they are a very worthwhile bloc of voters. And no, it wouldn't "alienate" anybody. Dr. Paul receives support from a wide variety of people for their own reasons. He can have both. It's a false dichotomy to assume he can only reach out to one bloc at a time and act like he doesn't know the others.

Exactly. These people on here are saying that have LBGT voters somehow will "alienate" mainstream conservatives and prevent them from supporting Dr. Paul. It's a bad and unfounded arguement.

If they haven't been "alienated" by Ron Paul recieving support from:


9/11 Truthers
Anarchists
World of Warcraft
Pot Smokers
Nevada Prostitutes
Annoying Spammers (like some of us)
Pro-choicers
and the Anti-War Left


I doubt gay Republicans will scare them off.

[Dr.3D]

Exactly. These people on here are saying that have LBGT voters somehow will "alienate" mainstream conservatives and prevent them from supporting Dr. Paul. It's a bad and unfounded arguement.

If they haven't been "alienated" by Ron Paul recieving support from:


9/11 Truthers
Anarchists
World of Warcraft
Pot Smokers
Nevada Prostitutes
Annoying Spammers (like some of us)
Pro-choicers
and the Anti-War Left


I doubt gay Republicans will scare them off.

I haven't seen Ron Paul support any of those groups. He just supports that all people should have the liberty to make their own decisions without federal government intervention. Of course if the people wish, they may have their state regulate those kinds of decisions.

[PaulConventionWV]

FTW... any group without an understanding of the constitution want the government to put laws to make life easier for them it's natural

Not everyone was exposed to the Philosophy everyone here has, it's our job to outreach and educate

Thank you. I was not very clear in my response to this issue, but you summed it up pretty well. I don't think we need to focus on any groups. Let's reach out to everyone, regardless of what "group" they belong to.

[MelissaWV]

I think the "it's the primary" people are just trying to get the most bang for their buck. Holding LGBT-specific events or passing out LGBT-specific literature or whatever... it's a niche group (as far as registered GOP voters for those states that require such for primary voting).

Of course I still say we should just be reaching out to whomever we can, and not trying for special interest groups in particular.

[Billay]

For what reason?

You won't win the Republican primary pandering to the gay community. Doing so turns away 25% of the voting base it's just a really horrible idea.

[freedom-maniac]

You won't win the Republican primary pandering to the gay community. Doing so turns away 25% of the voting base it's just a really horrible idea.

Do you have an evidence to back your assertion? I'm not suggesting that Dr. Paul do this ,but that we should.

Your statement is wholly unfounded. Like I said, if having 9/11 truthers, anarchists, pot smokers, etc. supporting Dr. Paul and showing up rallies hasn't cost us the convservative vote, I highly doubt that having gay supporters will.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I find myself constantly prejudiced against gay propaganda because I often see the recurring theme sexual orientation is not a choice. For those of you who lambasted me in the conversation pointing out that if sexual orientation is not a choice, then neither is social orientation and under that philosophy babies with the murder gene will be killed.

I find myself unable to work with that until gay propaganda and philosophy does not lead to persecuting people for being born who they are. Since the gay community often rallies behind not being persecuted for being born who you are on sexual orientation I am surprised the social orientation inconsistency has not been addressed.

I can accept everyone may be born with happiness preferences but it still requires active pursuit of innate happiness preferences once they are discovered through choice. If gay philosophy is going to render choice and the active pursuit of happiness irrelevant... on what grounds do you persecute someone for murder if it makes them happy?

[freedom-maniac]

I find myself constantly prejudiced against gay propaganda because I often see the recurring theme sexual orientation is not a choice. For those of you who lambasted me in the conversation pointing out that if sexual orientation is not a choice, then neither is social orientation and under that philosophy babies with the murder gene will be killed.

I find myself unable to work with that until gay propaganda and philosophy does not lead to persecuting people for being born who they are. Since the gay community often rallies behind not being persecuted for being born who you are on sexual orientation I am surprised the social orientation inconsistency has not been addressed.

I can accept everyone may be born with happiness preferences but it still requires active pursuit of innate happiness preferences once they are discovered through choice. If gay philosophy is going to render choice and the active pursuit of happiness irrelevant... on what grounds do you persecute someone for murder if it makes them happy?

Um...dude...do you know nothing of libertarian philosophy, whatsoever? I never would have believed I would hear such an argument on Ron Paul forums.

The basis of libertarian philosophy is that you have every right to do what you want to - whether by choice or nature - so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. Being gay - whether by nature or choice is irrelevant - infringes upon NO ONE'S rights, whereas murdering someone obviously does. Gays shouldn't have to justify themselves any more than people who "cling to guns and religion".

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Um...dude...do you know nothing of libertarian philosophy, whatsoever? I never would have believed I would hear such an argument on Ron Paul forums.

The basis of libertarian philosophy is that you have every right to do what you want to - whether by choice or nature - so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. Being gay - whether by nature or choice is irrelevant - infringes upon NO ONE'S rights, whereas murdering someone obviously does. Gays shouldn't have to justify themselves any more than people who "cling to guns and religion".

I said I find myself prejudiced against gay propaganda and I stated why. I do not agree with supporting killing babies who have the murder gene. I didn't pull the reasons I articulated out of my ass. They are real. Do you need examples of gay propaganda sexual orientation is not a choice?

There is nothing un-libertarian about exercising a personal preference to socialize with who I want to. There is nothing un-libertarian about articulating the reasons I find it difficult to work with a mindset that supports baby killing in the name of the murder gene. There is nothing un-libertarian about anything I expressed.

You are acting as if I advocated using violence against people because they actively pursue happiness with same sex partners. Get real...

Furthermore I said I was prejudiced against the propaganda not individuals.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Let's play word substitution... change the word homosexual to murderer (or any other word that can be used to articulate an unpopular social orientation)...

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1030/1392893373_a428d21530.jpg

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1030/1392893373_a428d21530.jpg

That baby is gay? :rolleyes:

[AlexMerced]

I haven't seen Ron Paul support any of those groups. He just supports that all people should have the liberty to make their own decisions without federal government intervention. Of course if the people wish, they may have their state regulate those kinds of decisions.

It's not that those groups have been supported by Ron Paul, but those groups support of Ron Paul has been very open and visible. You average person doesn't seperate the difference.

[freedom-maniac]

Let's play word substitution... change the word homosexual to murderer (or any other word that can be used to articulate an unpopular social orientation)...

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1030/1392893373_a428d21530.jpg

With all respect, I seriously don't understand what point you're trying to make here.

I can't tell if you're trolling me, or not.

Either way, I'm here not as a humanitarian asking everyone to accept homosexuality - that's not my problem - I'm hear as a tactician reminding us that we can't pass up the thousands of GOP voters who identify themselves as gay because we think they'd scare off "conservatives". Like I said that's false. The Log Cabin Republicans endorsed McCain in 2008, and he won.

[Krugerrand]

With all respect, I seriously don't understand what point you're trying to make here.

I can't tell if you're trolling me, or not.

Either way, I'm here not as a humanitarian asking everyone to accept homosexuality - that's not my problem - I'm hear as a tactician reminding us that we can't pass up the thousands of GOP voters who identify themselves as gay because we think they'd scare off "conservatives". Like I said that's false. The Log Cabin Republicans endorsed McCain in 2008, and he won.

"At risk" women get tested by ultrasound and blood tests to let them know the chances that they may carrying a child with down syndrome.

Blood tests exists today that can tell you if you're going to have a boy or girl as soon as the pregnancy test confirms you're pregnant.

China treats a female baby in the same way we (US medical profession at large) treat a down syndrome baby - abort it.

If homosexuality is genetic - then it eventually can be tested for. If it can be tested for, it can be aborted for. If being a murder is something that can be tested for - it is something that can be aborted for.

At least, that's how I read the point being made.

To the OP point the issue at hand is by whom and to what extent should a proactive message be directed towards the Log Cabin Republicans et al. Did McCain court the LCR endorsement or did it just show up on his doorstep? One of the prevailing thoughts - and to which I subscribe - is that Ron Paul stands to lose more votes by direct courting of LCR endorsements than he stands to gain. That is not to say RP supports can't make the push. But, for RP to actively try and go after LCR's in the primary will hurt him more than it could ever help him.

[freedom-maniac]

I agree. It seems like people keep missing the points I made. I never suggested that Dr. Paul should court them, and neither did McCain. The LCRs endorsed McCain because he opposition to gay marriage was less extreme than that of other "front runners", and the supported him as the most likely candidate to beat Romney, who was abominable. They aired several attack ads against Mitt.

Yes, you're right in saying it should be our job to try to get this. After all, Dr. Paul has the only stance that would permit gay marriage any where in the nation (the rest want to ban it on the federal level), so gaining an LCR endorsement would bring in thousands of LCR voters, as well as the groups critical funds for airing attack ads (and the best part is they would be attacking people like Mitt, not us, so it wouldn't have any blow back on Dr. Paul's official campaign). As Mitt is the "front runner" at the moment, we need everything we can to knock him down into the pile of filth that his movement is.

[parocks]

Right.




This ranks right up there in importance with the "how to win progressives" and "we need atheist support" threads. :rolleyes:

This is a national Republican primary, in case it has been forgotten for the umpteenth time. "We" need to go after conservatives and Christians (especially Protestants and Mormons in the west like Nevada) and gun owners and the like. People that, you know, actually decide whom the GOP nominee will be.