[McGavin999]

"Hi, we're a subset of Republicans distinguished by only one thing, that we are all addicted to deviant, immoral, and harmful sexual practices. Accept us as such, and we will get to work on our agenda to have our practices (not just ourselves) approved and protected and made equivalent to heterosexual message."

And how do you get this across to them without meeting with them to explain that it won't work with us. These are American citizens and they have a right to access to politicians. We just have to make sure the politicians we support will listen to them and then explain that we can't support their agenda because it's opposed to our core beliefs, but we can find common ground on those things that do not oppose our core beliefs.

I have a problem with the aggressive agenda too, but I have no objection to holding a meeting with people to explain WHY I have a problem with it.

[BibChr]

That's certainly a good question. Let me offer a thought, though, and do ponder this.

Suppose NAMBLA approached Racicot? Should he meet with them? How about the KKK?

Now, someone here (I hope not you) just brushed aside that question. But logic demands that we not. Pederasty is repellant, immoral, destructive. Racism is repellant, immoral, destructive. Likewise, homosexuality is repellant, immoral, destructive.

So if (as I trust you'll say) Racicot should not (here comes the important word) LEGITIMATIZE the NAMBLA nor the KKK by meeting with them, neither should he LEGITIMATIZE any other group who chooses to identify themselves SOLELY by a sexual perversion, as the LCR's do.

If (as they argue) they're just conservatives like anyone else, then just let them join the other coalitions -- pro-life, pro-tax-relief, and the like. Stop trying to force approval of the unapprovable.

Legitimate points?

Dan