Obama’s Protections for L.G.B.T. Workers Will Remain Under Trump
62 replies, posted
It is kinda funny that people take stuff at face value when it fits their views (believing Obama was born in Kenya or that Pence wants to electrocute the gay away), but when something is attacking their own position they cry fake news.
[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;51756096]It is kinda funny that people take stuff at face value when it fits their views (believing Obama was born in Kenya or that Pence wants to electrocute the gay away), but when something is attacking their own position they cry fake news.[/QUOTE]
Pence is Anti-LGBT as fuck what are you talking about? Nobody even cried fake news, they mentioned a deceptive headline (Which is out of context, not fake).
I'd like to remind people that being against the idea of gays marrying does not necessarily mean a hatred for gay people. Marriage originated from a religious context, and the original religious context naturally does not agree with the modern legal definition that should exist for equal rights. We worked a religious concept into our legal system and the religion that contained the original definition doesn't like it, no big deal. There are definitely christians with hatreds of gays but it's important to keep in mind that some of them just don't like the idea that something that used to "belong" to christianity was updated, hence why many people used to advocate for something with total equivalence legally to marriage but under a separate name.
Personally I'm of the opinion that we've changed enough things to differ from the biblical definition anyway and people should get over the idea that gays can get married but I just think it's important to understand that not believing in gay marriage is absolutely not equivalent with hating gays, despite some people holding both beliefs.
[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;51756096]It is kinda funny that people take stuff at face value when it fits their views (believing Obama was born in Kenya or that Pence wants to electrocute the gay away), but when something is attacking their own position they cry fake news.[/QUOTE]
Difference is that Obama wasn't born in Kenya but Pence DOES want to electrocute the gay away.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;51756489]Difference is that Obama wasn't born in Kenya but Pence DOES want to electrocute the gay away.[/QUOTE]
Pence supports therapy as a "cure?". Where has he supported electroshock conversion.
[QUOTE=Elspin;51756461]I'd like to remind people that being against the idea of gays marrying does not necessarily mean a hatred for gay people. Marriage originated from a religious context, and the original religious context naturally does not agree with the modern legal definition that should exist for equal rights. We worked a religious concept into our legal system and the religion that contained the original definition doesn't like it, no big deal. There are definitely christians with hatreds of gays but it's important to keep in mind that some of them just don't like the idea that something that used to "belong" to christianity was updated, hence why many people used to advocate for something with total equivalence legally to marriage but under a separate name.
Personally I'm of the opinion that we've changed enough things to differ from the biblical definition anyway and people should get over the idea that gays can get married but I just think it's important to understand that not believing in gay marriage is absolutely not equivalent with hating gays, despite some people holding both beliefs.[/QUOTE]
I've never once heard someone against gay marriage advocate an equal concept to marriage. But I guess that's anecdotal on my part.
[QUOTE=Elspin;51756461]I'd like to remind people that being against the idea of gays marrying does not necessarily mean a hatred for gay people. Marriage originated from a religious context, and the original religious context naturally does not agree with the modern legal definition that should exist for equal rights. We worked a religious concept into our legal system and the religion that contained the original definition doesn't like it, no big deal. There are definitely christians with hatreds of gays but it's important to keep in mind that some of them just don't like the idea that something that used to "belong" to christianity was updated, hence why many people used to advocate for something with total equivalence legally to marriage but under a separate name.
Personally I'm of the opinion that we've changed enough things to differ from the biblical definition anyway and people should get over the idea that gays can get married but I just think it's important to understand that not believing in gay marriage is absolutely not equivalent with hating gays, despite some people holding both beliefs.[/QUOTE]
Except marriage isn't a christian concept. It originated in ancient rome.
I don't think I have heard ANY reasonable argument against gay marriage.
[QUOTE=Elspin;51756461]I'd like to remind people that being against the idea of gays marrying does not necessarily mean a hatred for gay people. Marriage originated from a religious context, and the original religious context naturally does not agree with the modern legal definition that should exist for equal rights. We worked a religious concept into our legal system and the religion that contained the original definition doesn't like it, no big deal. There are definitely christians with hatreds of gays but it's important to keep in mind that some of them just don't like the idea that something that used to "belong" to christianity was updated, hence why many people used to advocate for something with total equivalence legally to marriage but under a separate name.
Personally I'm of the opinion that we've changed enough things to differ from the biblical definition anyway and people should get over the idea that gays can get married but I just think it's important to understand that not believing in gay marriage is absolutely not equivalent with hating gays, despite some people holding both beliefs.[/QUOTE]
Civil and religious marriage are two different things.
[editline]31st January 2017[/editline]
There's no argument to be made by bringing up religion to justify disagreement about law. Separation of church and state is supposed to make the law religion-blind.
[QUOTE=Anderan;51756618]I've never once heard someone against gay marriage advocate an equal concept to marriage. But I guess that's anecdotal on my part.[/QUOTE]
Everyone ive ever talked to thats against gay marriage are pro-civil unions.
[QUOTE]
The decision to keep the order, the statement added, was Mr. Trump’s. It uses stronger language than any Republican president has before in favor of equal legal protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, though that is not likely to quiet Mr. Trump’s critics on the left.[/QUOTE]
Apathy is better than hate but not by much. Really don't think this deserves any praise.
[QUOTE=ScottyWired;51754457]:huh:
I can't keep track any more[/QUOTE]
He never criticized worker protections for LGBT individuals, at least that I remember. Pretty in line with what he has said.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51754464]He was always fine with the LGBT community.
[URL]http://www.advocate.com/election/2015/9/28/read-donald-trumps-advocate-interview-where-he-defends-gays-mexicans[/URL][/QUOTE]
The words of a 2000 "Reform Party" businessman who donated tens of thousands of dollars to Democrats vs the words of a 2016 Republican businessman who thinks civil rights should be decided on a state by state basis. He is "fine" with the LGBT community as long as we define fine as "baseline standard respect for a human being". Which, to be fair, is better than a lot of Republicans, but it's not particularly noteworthy.
The problem is that the word marriage, as you put it, Elspin, is no longer a purely religious concept. It's become a loaded word, implying a happy union between two people who love each other in the way that the clinical 'civil union' simply cannot. It's an important part of Western culture, and even comes with its own tax and property-related privileges that aren't always the same ones applied to civil unions.
Therefore, people who wish to marry, regardless of sex, should be allowed to marry.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51756759]The problem is that the word marriage, as you put it, Elspin, is no longer a purely religious concept. It's become a loaded word, implying a happy union between two people who love each other in the way that the clinical 'civil union' simply cannot. It's an important part of Western culture, and even comes with its own tax and property-related privileges that aren't always the same ones applied to civil unions.
Therefore, people who wish to marry, regardless of sex, should be allowed to marry.[/QUOTE]
It wasn't really a religious concept to begin with.
Someone living with someone they love and a family they started together has been around for almost literally ever.
Maybe the word "marriage" has religious connotations, but it just means joining by definition.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51756734]Everyone ive ever talked to thats against gay marriage are pro-civil unions.[/QUOTE]
Hi. I'm in a gay marriage. Civil unions do not offer quite a few benefits that marriages offer, such as hospital visitation rights, right-to-decide (whether to pull the plug on life support for example), taxation benefits, immigration benefits, and so on. The reason being is that conservatives have historically blocked legislation which would have given civil unions the same benefits as marriages.
Frankly I don't trust a word he or his cronies say. First he fucks with muslims, then he'll fuck with latinos, how long till he lets the GOP fuck with homosexuals?
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51756734]Everyone ive ever talked to thats against gay marriage are pro-civil unions.[/QUOTE]
Separate but equal, right?
[editline]31st January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=1239the;51757085]Hi. I'm in a gay marriage. Civil unions do not offer quite a few benefits that marriages offer, such as hospital visitation rights, right-to-decide (whether to pull the plug on life support for example), taxation benefits, immigration benefits, and so on. The reason being is that conservatives have historically blocked legislation which would have given civil unions the same benefits as marriages.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. Separate but equal in a nutshell.
[QUOTE=LeonS;51754480]is that why he chose a VP who wants to zap homosexual people into liking the opposite gender[/QUOTE]
Choosing someone terrible as VP is a good way to not get impeached, and, in fact, "President Pence" comes up as an argument every time impeachment is mentioned
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51756750]Apathy is better than hate but not by much. Really don't think this deserves any praise.
He never criticized worker protections for LGBT individuals, at least that I remember. Pretty in line with what he has said.
The words of a 2000 "Reform Party" businessman who donated tens of thousands of dollars to Democrats vs the words of a 2016 Republican businessman who thinks civil rights should be decided on a state by state basis. He is "fine" with the LGBT community as long as we define fine as "baseline standard respect for a human being". Which, to be fair, is better than a lot of Republicans, but it's not particularly noteworthy.[/QUOTE]
for a republican, "baseline standard respect for a human being" is progressive
[QUOTE=Rufia;51756657]Except marriage isn't a christian concept. It originated in ancient rome.[/QUOTE]
I mean you can get into picky details about the *exact* origin but the modern idea of traditional marriage is clearly very christian. The point of my post was not to make a historical claim about the exact origin but just to point out that being against gay marriage (which I am not, ofc) does not equate to hatred for gays
[QUOTE=_Axel;51756707]Civil and religious marriage are two different things.
[editline]31st January 2017[/editline]
There's no argument to be made by bringing up religion to justify disagreement about law. Separation of church and state is supposed to make the law religion-blind.[/QUOTE]
What is your point? Your post doesn't bring up any counterpoints to anything I've said, nor does it add anything not said in my post? The entire point of my post is that religious people are upset that the legal definition of marriage differs from the christian defintion, and some christian people take issue with that (despite not having any particularly hatred for gays) regardless of whether it should be the case or not. You're preaching to the choir here as well, I'm fully in support of gay marriage legally.
[QUOTE=Elspin;51757834]What is your point? Your post doesn't bring up any counterpoints to anything I've said, nor does it add anything not said in my post? The entire point of my post is that religious people are upset that the legal definition of marriage differs from the christian defintion, and some christian people take issue with that (despite not having any particularly hatred for gays) regardless of whether it should be the case or not. You're preaching to the choir here as well, I'm fully in support of gay marriage legally.[/QUOTE]
My point is that Christians being upset that the legal definition of marriage - which I reminded is supposed to be clearly separated from religion - doesn't fit the definition in their book is not a valid argument by any stretch of the word. It's like saying radical Muslims being upset that western law differs from sharia law is an argument for enforcing the latter. It makes no sense at all.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51757877]My point is that Christians being upset that the legal definition of marriage - which I reminded is supposed to be clearly separated from religion - doesn't fit the definition in their book is not a valid argument by any stretch of the word. It's like saying radical Muslims being upset that western law differs from sharia law is an argument for enforcing the latter. It makes no sense at all.[/QUOTE]
I mean like I said you're preaching to the choir here, I'm of the same opinion, I'm just trying to explain that they see that same situation very differently, even if I don't agree with it.
[QUOTE=LeonS;51754480]is that why he chose a VP who wants to zap homosexual people into liking the opposite gender[/QUOTE]
I find it disturbing that so many people believe so strongly in this lie that they felt they needed to stamp their names on it.
Everyone seems to be forgetting that [URL="http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/09/donald-trump-pledges-sign-anti-lgbtq-first-amendment-defense-act/"]Trump and Pence have promised to pass a federal law that makes it legal for businesses to discriminate against gays on religious grounds.[/URL]
[QUOTE=Chonch;51758048]I find it disturbing that so many people believe so strongly in this lie that they felt they needed to stamp their names on it.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/dec/02/gavin-newsom/pences-support-conversion-therapy-not-settled-matt/"]It's an unsettled matter. Whether he meant to specifically use electro torture or some other method is the unclear part. To change people from gay to straight is true.[/URL]
[QUOTE=Elspin;51757984]I mean like I said you're preaching to the choir here, I'm of the same opinion, I'm just trying to explain that they see that same situation very differently, even if I don't agree with it.[/QUOTE]
I know that, but I don't see how that changes anything. Wanting to impose your religion on people who have nothing to do with you isn't any more acceptable or understandable than hating on the gays for no reason.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51758358]I know that, but I don't see how that changes anything. Wanting to impose your religion on people who have nothing to do with you isn't any more acceptable or understandable than hating on the gays for no reason.[/QUOTE]
It basically comes down to them not seeing any line between "legal and religious" definitions of marriage - to them there's just marriage, as the bible defines it. I'm not sure what it's like in France but there's still a massive amounts of holdouts from religious traditions in daily life in the US so the line is a lot greyer down there, especially if you're in the jesus camp (you swear over a bible in court, for example)
You don't have to agree with them to understand why they think the way they do. [b]While I do consider both pretty offensive[/b] I definitely think hating gays is worse than thinking they shouldn't marry, especially if you believe they should have all the same rights just under a different name.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51758048]I find it disturbing that so many people believe so strongly in this lie that they felt they needed to stamp their names on it.[/QUOTE]
He still said "Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior". The only lie is that he supported shock therapy. The rest is the truth.
[QUOTE=LeonS;51754480]is that why he chose a VP who wants to zap homosexual people into liking the opposite gender[/QUOTE]
Cant believe the amount of people who believe this tbh
[editline]1st February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=AnnieOakley;51758096][URL="http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/dec/02/gavin-newsom/pences-support-conversion-therapy-not-settled-matt/"]It's an unsettled matter. Whether he meant to specifically use electro torture or some other method is the unclear part. To change people from gay to straight is true.[/URL][/QUOTE]
A statement he made [B]17 years ago[/B]
[QUOTE=redBadger;51759184]Cant believe the amount of people who believe this tbh
[editline]1st February 2017[/editline]
A statement he made [B]17 years ago[/B][/QUOTE]
As Pence has taken steps and approved legislature in his state of Indiana that were widely seen as deliberately discriminatory towards gays even among Republicans, and this far more recently than that statement, his politics are still a valid concern, especially for a man who holds the second highest office in the country.
[QUOTE=redBadger;51759184]Cant believe the amount of people who believe this tbh
[editline]1st February 2017[/editline]
A statement he made [B]17 years ago[/B][/QUOTE]
Has he acknowledged and apologized for it?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.