Fake News Site Owner Identified

[Revoltingest]

How does LGBT issues compare to gun rights?

Both are constitutional civil liberties, although gun rights
are more explicitly granted, & the other is a rising star.

LGBT issues has more to do with civil rights, dearimination type rights. And I certainly dot see the issue with gun control, we aren't in the Wild West.

One right doesn't matter much to you, but it does to many others.
Moreover, there need be no competition between them.
We can have both.

 

[Revoltingest]

I gave definitive proof that the Republican Party itself is inherently anti-LBGT according to their party platform. It states, numerous times, marriage is "one man, one woman," allowing transgender students to use appropriate gender-segregated facilities is wrong, and they will work to undo the progress that has been made in those areas. This is PARTY PLATFORM. It's not some news group exaggerating it, it's not words being twisted and taken out of context, it comes straight from what the Republican Party itself is saying they uphold.

The Pubs, like the Dems, have been "evolving" on this issue.
Even both Hillary & Obama recently opposed gay marriage.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Pubs, like the Dems, have been "evolving" on this issue.
Even both Hillary & Obama recently opposed gay marriage.

Many politicians have flopped on the subject over the past couple decades. However, you'll find no such anti-LBGT language within the current Democrat Party Platform, nor will you find language of a gunless society.

 

[columbus]

Both are constitutional civil liberties, although gun rights
are more explicitly granted, & the other is a rising star.

One right doesn't matter much to you, but it does to many others.
Moreover, there need be no competition between them.
We can have both.

This is @Shadow Wolf point.
Nobody is trying to add a gun ban onto the Constitution.
Trump picked a VP who specifically tried to ban gay marriage. He ran on a platform specifically promising to do so.
There really is a threat to LBGT rights. The threats to gun ownership is mostly a fake point invented by Republican politicians lying to their constituency.
Someone started a thread on RF about exactly that. I think it was @esmith , although it could have been @jeager106 . It was based on a fake news story and quickly debunked. But the meme just won't die.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Many politicians have flopped on the subject over the past couple decades. However, you'll find no such anti-LBGT language within the current Democrat Party Platform, nor will you find language of a gunless society.

But Dems have advocated both tighter restrictions & even elimination.
I give less weight to platforms, & more to the direction that the parties
are heading. Pubs are becoming more pro-gay, while Dems become
more anti-gun.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is @Shadow Wolf point.
Nobody is trying to add a gun ban onto the Constitution.

No one?
But that's not the issue I see, ie, it's about their attempts to curb constitutional gun rights.
Some might dismiss my concern, saying it's not happening.
I disagree, & I vote based upon (partially) gun rights.

Trump picked a VP who specifically tried to ban gay marriage. He ran on a platform specifically promising to do so.
There really is a threat to LBGT rights. The threats to gun ownership is mostly a fake point invented by Republican politicians lying to their constituency.

One politician (only a VP) has a stated agenda that neither you nor I like.
This is true every election. We're always faced with attaining or preserving
rights. What is different about Pence, & how it should be addressed?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But Dems have advocated both tighter restrictions & even elimination.
I give less weight to platforms, & more to the direction that the parties
are heading. Pubs are becoming more pro-gay, while Dems become
more anti-gun.

I seem to recall you thinking we need better regulations and punishments for reckless drivers, particularly drunk drivers. Does that make you anti-car/driving? Of course not. I'm not anti-gun in anyway, but that doesn't mean I can't see the need for improved laws and regulations concerning guns. And plenty of people I have talked to, from avid hunters to NRA certified instructors, are themselves pro-2nd and pro-regulation. It's not alarmist or an exaggeration to say guns are too dangerous to not have strict laws concerning who can get them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

One politician (only a VP) has a stated agenda that neither you nor I like.

You're saying it's one politician when I gave you an entire Platform for that politician's party. Pence himself didn't write it, and if he was the only Republican to support it, it wouldn't be their official party platform.

 

[Revoltingest]

I seem to recall you thinking we need better regulations and punishments for reckless drivers, particularly drunk drivers. Does that make you anti-car/driving? Of course not. I'm not anti-gun in anyway, but that doesn't mean I can't see the need for improved laws and regulations concerning guns. And plenty of people I have talked to, from avid hunters to NRA certified instructors, are themselves pro-2nd and pro-regulation. It's not alarmist or an exaggeration to say guns are too dangerous to not have strict laws concerning who can get them.

Regulations aren't inherently bad. But I oppose restricting rights which are granted by the Constitution, particularly when benefits look lacking. Dems have been bad on this, eg,
banning handguns in DC.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're saying it's one politician when I gave you an entire Platform for that politician's party. Pence himself didn't write it, and if he was the only Republican to support it, it wouldn't be their official party platform.

I see what you're concerned about.
I just don't believe the threat is so great that I should back different politicians.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics...ects-call-to-back-off-gay-marriage-opposition
July 12, 2016
Republican officials have rejected an emotional plea to back off the GOP's opposition to same-sex marriage, renewing the party's embrace of religious conservative values...
Republicans who gathered Monday to shape their party platform in Cleveland this week also refused to reverse their opposition to bathroom choice for transgender people...
Yet Republicans on Monday let stand language that attacks the Obama administration for directing schools to allow transgender students to use restrooms and other facilities that match their gender identities....
Delegates also changed language that offers a warning to children of same-sex parents:...
If you read carefully, this was not the move of one, a singular form of Republican, but the plural form of Republicans, officials, and delegates.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I see what you're concerned about.
I just don't believe the threat is so great that I should back different politicians.

Well, if Republicans have their way, it won't be the first time I've broken laws and have not cared that I did.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, if Republicans have their way, it won't be the first time I've broken laws and have not cared that I did.

Pub or Dem....I've 'bent' a few laws too.
(Must be careful about RF rules here.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Pub or Dem....I've 'bent' a few laws too.
(Must be careful about RF rules here.)

I'll brake restroom laws and not even concern myself with RF rules if I ever start a thread complaining about a fine received for doing so.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll brake restroom laws and not even concern myself with RF rules if I ever start a thread complaining about a fine received for doing so.

I suspect the mods will cut you some slack when out
of necessity breaking a law they see as unjust.'

Note: This is not a comment on moderation, but
rather speculation about the intent of the rules.

 

[esmith]

Not to cause an argument but just to ask a question. In other words I really don't care one way or another
Why insist on marriage whereas a civil union ceremony would give the same rights as a ceremony of marriage and put a stop to the religious right complaints?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why insist on marriage whereas a civil union ceremony would give the same rights as a ceremony of marriage and put a stop to the religious right complaints?

Because it was ruled a few decades ago that "separate but equal" is not Constitutional. Religion doesn't own a monopoly on marriage, nor do they reserve any rights to decide who may enter into such a legal agreement, or define the parameters of the agreement.

 

[columbus]

But Dems have advocated both tighter restrictions & even elimination.

Republicans have advocated execution of gays. They have advocated gay men put in prison camps to prevent them giving AIDS to everyone else. Democrats have advocated the elimination of guns.
I don't pay much attention to the freaks.

But I do see a need for serious restrictions. And, possibly more important, consistent ones across state lines. People like to pretend that Chicago's gun laws have resulted in the violence. But it's really Indiana's laxity that is the problem. Law abiding Chicagoans have a lot of restrictions, but any 17 y/o thug can drive to Gary and buy a cheap pistol.
But getting back to the point, where have you seen the concerted effort to ban gun rights that we have seen over the last ten years to ban LBGT rights?
Nowhere, that's where. It's fake news.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Why insist on marriage whereas a civil union ceremony

What is the legal difference?
Tom

 

[columbus]

Pub or Dem....I've 'bent' a few laws too.
(Must be careful about RF rules here.)

I remember when you bragged about painting over a handicapped parking space.
I didn't bother with the wienie mods of RF. I reported you directly to the FBI!
Tom