Trump: Clinton Can't Protect LGBT Community While Importing Those Who Want To Oppress Them

[Sableye]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50527328]which is basically saying to the gay community "Cya later, you're fucked in half the states".

Treating it as states rights, as 'noble' as that would be, puts the lgbt community in a bad place.[/QUOTE]

Ya leaving it as a states right and allowing states not to recognize out of state marriages violated the Constitution and left the country in a patchwork of rulings

[isak]

[QUOTE=Bazsil;50526503]If they're going to raise terrorist children, sure.[/QUOTE]

I assume you'd have no issue banning political groups and evicting them from the country, then? Communists might have terrorist children. They should be evicted. So could fascists. Socialists?

Religion, like race, ethnicity, political opinion, and most other forms of self-expression, is a [I]protected human right[/I]. The fact that multiple people in this thread are willing to [i]forcefully evict religious groups out of their home country[/i] and see nothing wrong with forced relocation and statelessness is just sad.

You fundamentally cannot say that religious groups need to be completely banned from a country and then pretend you're for first-amendment rights, for freedom of speech, for human rights, or for common human decency. You're a bigot if you think so - there's no other term for it. Banning people because their children might potentially be terrorists is thoughtcrime bullshit. You don't punish the father for the [I]possible[/I] crimes of the [I]yet-unborn[/I] son.

[Venomousbeetle]

[QUOTE=Saturn V;50519304]how about you go away and never come back[/QUOTE]

He's right though. There was even someone asking about it on the sub and it was explained the same way.

There's a famous homosexual supporter named Milo who's used the alias "dangerous faggot".

[editline]16th June 2016[/editline]

[QUOTE=Levithan;50523293]says the person that would most likely appoint a conservative-as-hell judge to the supreme court, and is part of the party that's notoriously evangelical and anti-LGBT[/QUOTE]

He's been a democrat longer than a republican. Running as one was a decisive move because he has a better chance in their primaries than democratic, just look at what happened to Bernie. It's better than the cunt that's advocated gay marriage ban for a long ass time and only just flipped around for this cycle, literally pretending she never opposed it.

Now that the republican primaries are over he gets to say these things. Before this he spoke out against the bathroom law. He's been disavowed by GOP already. He's even talked about running independent, but independent running hasn't worked in the past for anyone.

[Raidyr]

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50531674] It's better than the cunt that's advocated gay marriage ban for a long ass time and only just flipped around for this cycle, literally pretending she never opposed it..[/QUOTE]
Clinton supported universal same sex marriage in 2013, two years before her campaign began. Prior to that she supported states rights and prior to that supported civil unions. When put to task over her change in position she readily admits to it and suggests its the same sort of transformation that occurred nationwide, which the polling data supports. Finally, cunt huh. Really keeping it classy there.

[Elowin]

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50524933]Nope

[url]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/14/america-mass-murder-australia-gun-control-saves-lives[/url]

The rate per person went down so in the long term it's been highly effective. try a different, more honest argument for keeping guns - they empower me and I think they're cool.

You don't even have to ban guns Just agree to background checks for banning assault weapons. Anything rather than blaming it something else, you can ban Muslims but you gun homicide rate will still be the highest in the developed world.[/QUOTE]

You're looking specifically at [i]GUN[/i] deaths. Try looking at homicides in general, like this graph for instance.

[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Wch1iM2hiJ8/Uh_aTo_r8aI/AAAAAAAAG9k/KsgoGyZOVJQ/s1600/Screen+Shot+2013-08-29+at++Thursday,+August+29,+7.32+PM+1.png[/img]

It spiked pretty massively on the buyback.
It took almost a decade before the overall homicide rate returned to what it was before the buyback, and even longer before it started to decrease again, as it had been steadily doing before the buyback.

This graph is from the Australian Institute of Criminology, by the way, so I should hope it is pretty accurate.