Fred Karger, Anti-LGBT Rights, and Irony.

[Ovisterra]

I don't know if they'll accept LGBT rights, but I definitely hope so.

[Laerod]

???
Since when did Republicans want to take away the rights of LGBT persons?
Now of course, banning marriage for gays but allowing it for straight couples is a violation of Equality under law, but since when was marriage a Human right?

Since Loving v. Virginia. At least in the United States it has been such.

[Coffee Cakes]

The topic of the discussion is this: In 2012, is the GOP capable of accepting LGBT rights? It seems that there is a growing faction in the GOP that does, but it's still controversial in the party. Richard Tisei is a gay Republican who has managed to become the nominee for the sixth district in Massachusetts. However, it could be said that Massachusetts is more liberal than the rest of the nation. The presumptive nominee for the Republican Party, Mitt Romney, supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. However, he is flakey, and it wouldn't be surprising if he changed that view once he got into office.

Personally, I think that the current trend indicates that their is growing support for LGBT rights in the GOP. What's yours?

I've met Tisei a few times. And my city's mayor, who's a gay Republican, has been bantered about a time or two for state rep when the current guy retires, so it's not unheard of up here. But then again, I'm somewhat active in Republican politics up here.

Admittedly, I enjoy the GOP up here, because for the most part, they're practically libertarians.
That said, it's hard to point to 1 openly gay Republican and say that based on that, support is growing for LGBT rights in the party.
But, polls keep showing that a majority of Americans are supporting gay marriage, which means undoubtedly it is gaining at least some support in the rank and file members of the party.

[Ifreann]

you owe me for treatment on that whiplash...

first your post talks about the woman's grammar and then you do a sharp turn to discuss LGBT rights? ow...

The Trend is changing... remember that little over 50 years ago... Republicans were supporting the end of segregation and discrimination... and in most cases... many view women and being human... so give it another decade or three... and they will start viewing LGBT persons as humans with rights.

???
Since when did Republicans want to take away the rights of LGBT persons?
Now of course, banning marriage for gays but allowing it for straight couples is a violation of Equality under law, but since when was marriage a Human right?

At least since 1967.

[Northern Dominus]

you owe me for treatment on that whiplash...

first your post talks about the woman's grammar and then you do a sharp turn to discuss LGBT rights? ow...

The Trend is changing... remember that little over 50 years ago... Republicans were supporting the end of segregation and discrimination... and in most cases... many view women and being human... so give it another decade or three... and they will start viewing LGBT persons as humans with rights.

???
Since when did Republicans want to take away the rights of LGBT persons?
Now of course, banning marriage for gays but allowing it for straight couples is a violation of Equality under law, but since when was marriage a Human right?

Marriage is defined as a fundamental human right. The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution incorporates marriages as one of the rights defined under Life Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.

Back on topic, I hardly see how the GOP can sustain itself at this rate. With the rise if information on the web and progressive generations becoming more accepting, the only way they can maintain their outlook is by their usual Goebbls-style propaganda which by the year becomes more and more obvious. The GOP has to either come back towards the center by a fair margin or risk being splintered on ideological grounds.

Oh, and all you "Libertarians" who are conservative bigots in disguise, come out of the closet please, we know who you are, you're not fooling anybody.

[Transhuman Proteus]

you owe me for treatment on that whiplash...

first your post talks about the woman's grammar and then you do a sharp turn to discuss LGBT rights? ow...

The Trend is changing... remember that little over 50 years ago... Republicans were supporting the end of segregation and discrimination... and in most cases... many view women and being human... so give it another decade or three... and they will start viewing LGBT persons as humans with rights.

???
Since when did Republicans want to take away the rights of LGBT persons?
Now of course, banning marriage for gays but allowing it for straight couples is a violation of Equality under law, but since when was marriage a Human right?

I thought a number of state GOP platforms currently contain a whole bunch of anti-LGBT rights planks - like Texas planks including recriminalization of sodomy, denying visitation rights to children of gay parents, opposing anti-discrimination laws that include being protected from discrimination based on sexual orientation etc.

[Galborg]

Message Body:
you are an idiot. You met with my husband Willie Billings today about being on the Utah ballot. He brought your frisby and tshirt home and it is now out in the trash. I never want to hear from such a radical idiot again. you think you are conseritave? conseritave means you beleive in the values of foudning fathers and God. Do you know you cant procreate right? Well thank goodness for that. Nanette Billings.


Hopefully, you've realized the complete irony of the e-mail, and the notion that Mrs. Billings is in any position to call Fred Karger an idiot. I've made an entire list, for your convenience, of the errors in her e-mail. This is only a collection of errors based on a quick proofreading, and if you find any, let me know, and I'll put them in.


1: The first sentence in her e-mail should start with a capital letter, and while not grammatically incorrect, should probably use ''you're'' instead of ''you are''.

2: The second sentence should be ''Today, you met with my husband...'', instead of ''You met with my husband today''.

3: Every instance of ''conseritave'' should be spelt as ''conservative''. There is a lot of irony in lecturing somebody about what a ''true'' conservative is, when you can't even spell it correctly.

4: Mrs. Billings does not seem to understand what an ad hominem attack is. Calling Fred Karger an idiot does not disprove his ideas. While you may call his ideas radical, that is only a condition of his ideas, and does not prove them wrong.

5: Mrs. Billings asserts that Fred Karger cannot procreate. This is incorrect. Based on accounts I have read, when a homosexual man tries to have heterosexual sex with a woman, there isn't some invisible force field stopping them. It just feels extremely awkward for that man. If Mr.Karger wanted to, he could force himself to procreate.

Mrs. Billings also fails to realize that her logic would require infertile people to be deprived of their rights as well.

1) Sentences should start with Capital letters. Indeed, but this an e-mail LOL, and people are more lax and TXT-speaky in e-mails than in proper letters.

''you're'' instead of ''you are''.

Why? What advantage in meaning or style does the contraction convey?

2) Why? What's the difference? Both sentences mean exactly the same.

3) Everybody knows that conseritaves advocate Education cuts. Mrs. Billings practices what she preaches.

4) A radical idea may not be wrong in and of itself, but it still won't get a hearing within the context of the GOP.

5) Conseritaves want to deprive people of their rights, that's what they are there for.

6) You missed "foudning fathers".

[Tmutarakhan]

???Since when did Republicans want to take away the rights of LGBT persons?

First things first. They don't want to take away the rights of LGBT people, but they want to prevent those rights from being given in the first place.

Huh? No, they're equally eager to take away rights wherever they are achieved, as well as preventing it where they haven't.

[Trilobitia]

First things first. They don't want to take away the rights of LGBT people, but they want to prevent those rights from being given in the first place.

Huh? No, they're equally eager to take away rights wherever they are achieved, as well as preventing it where they haven't.

Yes, I agree. That's not what I was trying to say though.

[Trilobitia]

1) Sentences should start with Capital letters. Indeed, but this an e-mail LOL, and people are more lax and TXT-speaky in e-mails than in proper letters.

She's writing a critical letter to a political figure. This isn't her talking to her best friend.

2) Why? What's the difference? Both sentences mean exactly the same.

I agree--and I put in my post that both were correct. It's just better to have ''you're'' because it makes it easier to read.

4) A radical idea may not be wrong in and of itself, but it still won't get a hearing within the context of the GOP.

The GOP has a history of it.

6) You missed "foudning fathers".

Hence the point of asking for anything I missed in the OP.

[Grenartia]

The GOP, on all levels, needs to get its head out of its ass. From my perspective, the GOP seems to enjoy throwing political temper tantrums whenever something doesn't go its way. They're more concerned with being the opposite of Obama than actually doing anything that would benefit the country.