Fear in the wake of a Trump presidency.

[Watchmen]

Do you think they are lying when they said they would take those rights away? We're they just kidding?

1. Show me where Trump said he would take LGBT rights away. Are you aware he's protected those rights before?

2. Are you aware of checks and balances? US Gov 101.

3. Are you familiar with politicking? Doing what's necessary to get elected then shifting to a more reasonable position.

 

[Watchmen]

Except for the truck-load going on between your own ears apparently.

Anyway, Watchman, you're right:

---- Riots and protests are exactly the same thing.

---- chanting and burning are synonyms,

--- tabloids are always more reliable than mainstream news sources.

--- "Can you post a link:" really mean "Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!!"

--- and anybody who asks you for a source to back up your claims is getting out of line and deserves to be lied about.

Thanks for straightening me out on all that.

Now you go ahead and finish your tea, be sure and tell the chessercat and the Red Queen I said hi, and I'm going to slip back through the looking glass and see what else is going on in the forums.

*smiles, nods, backs away slowly. . . .*

I love you.

 

[Watchmen]

Yes, Watchmen, people have already covered that, and a lot better than you have.

I do admire your willingness to be useful once it's too late to serve any purpose though.

You're funny.

 

[Lighthouse]

What gives you that confidence? The vice president himself stated it to be a major issue for the administration. The republican goal is to repeal LGBT rights and they DO have the power to do it. We just got equal rights for all americans to marry LAST YEAR! And it was decided by a single supreme court justice vote. He gets to replace as many as THREE! Only one of which is conservative in nature already. This is a very real threat. This isn't fear mongering. I don't think he will start WWIII with Russia. I don't think that he will manage to actually do mass deportations of hispanics. I don't think he will build the wall. I don't think he will tank the economy. I do think it is a very real possibility he revokes the marriages of millions of people who love each other.

That is dishonest, not repeal LGBT rights, but rather define marriage and/or protect people from being discriminated for their freedom of belief.

 

[Watchmen]

It seems the conservative right will fight tooth and nail to either overturn what was done in supreme with for Obergefell v Hodges or fight for religious liberty laws, or both. With a majority no telling what they will do.

Leftist Fear mongering. Watch and learn.

 

[Lighthouse]

I have a legitimate fear with Trump. The main fear I have is his supreme court appointments. If three liberals retire and he replaces them with 3 anti-LGBTQ people then they have the ability to overturn not only the the Marriage Equality but also Roe vs Wade.

That is dishonest. States are sovereign.

The ramifications would be too grand to overturn this. Swift civil war.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

1. Show me where Trump said he would take LGBT rights away. Are you aware he's protected those rights before?

Sure thing buddy.

“I disagree with the Supreme Court from the standpoint it should be a states’ rights issue. And that’s the way it should have been ruled on, not the way they did it. I can see changes coming down the line, frankly.”

When host Chris Wallace asked point-blank whether he would appoint new justices in order to overturn the ruling, Trump said: “I would strongly consider that, yes.”

Pence as well has a list of bills he has sponsored, cosponsored and signed longer than both my arms that deal with taking away rights from LGBTQ. Mostly it is centered around the defense of discriminatory policies of business and of conversion camps. I mean Pence is literally one of the worst politicians in recent history for the LGBTQ community objectively.

2. Are you aware of checks and balances? US Gov 101.

Which check are you assuming isn't accounted for? The republican held senate? The republican held House of representatives? The fact that the Judicial branch has zero power or control over who he appoints?

3. Are you familiar with politicking? Doing what's necessary to get elected then shifting to a more reasonable position.

Its bull****. Pence has a real actual history anti-LGBTQ legislation and as recently as just after the announcement stated that they will continue to push back for "conservative values".

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That is dishonest, not repeal LGBT rights, but rather define marriage and/or protect people from being discriminated for their freedom of belief.

It is the same. The mechanism does not matter. If someone is shot and killed by a 9mm pistol or a colt revolver they are still dead. If someone takes away marriage equality because they re-define it as man and woman it is the same as if they repealed it for any other reason.

It is dishonest to assume otherwise.

 

[Watchmen]

Sure thing buddy.

Pence as well has a list of bills he has sponsored, cosponsored and signed longer than both my arms that deal with taking away rights from LGBTQ. Mostly it is centered around the defense of discriminatory policies of business and of conversion camps. I mean Pence is literally one of the worst politicians in recent history for the LGBTQ community objectively.


Which check are you assuming isn't accounted for? The republican held senate? The republican held House of representatives? The fact that the Judicial branch has zero power or control over who he appoints?

Its bull****. Pence has a real actual history anti-LGBTQ legislation and as recently as just after the announcement stated that they will continue to push back for "conservative values".

1. Putting it in State's hands isn't the same as overturning.

2. Checks and balances are still checks and balances. You're making assumptions. There would be he'll to pay if he rolled back protections and Congress doesn't want to risk losing reelection. You'll see.

3. All I can say is wait and see. He's already compromising on Obamacare three days after the election. Time to get real.

For the record, my son is dating a transgender person, so it's not like this doesn't hit close to home. Everyone just needs to relax.

 

[Nietzsche]

That is dishonest, not repeal LGBT rights, but rather define marriage and/or protect people from being discriminated for their freedom of belief.

You mean like how it was redefined from a contract between two men(generally a father and a man without a spouse) by which goods(a woman or girl) was exchanged to that man in exchange for other goods(cows, oxen, horses, so on and what not) to a union between two consenting adults based ideally on some kind of mutual love?

Quit pretending marriage is some ancient institution with immovable qualities. It isn't and never has been. It just shows your cultural & historical ignorance.

 

[Nietzsche]

1. Putting it in State's hands isn't the same as overturning.

Like slavery!

 

[Lighthouse]

It is the same. The mechanism does not matter. If someone is shot and killed by a 9mm pistol or a colt revolver they are still dead. If someone takes away marriage equality because they re-define it as man and woman it is the same as if they repealed it for any other reason.

It is dishonest to assume otherwise.

Equal rights or equal definition of the word "marriage?"

I wouldn't see any harm in having a legal partner with equal rights other than people just loving to be pissed off and angry over nothing.

It then seems the whole argument is the silly definition of a word.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

1. Putting it in State's hands isn't the same as overturning.

It is. It overturns a national decision and locks and guarantees discrimination of a whole minority in a good number of conservative states. Don't be dumb. You know as well as I that Kentucky won't pass marriage equality for another 40 years. As its already been mentioned what if we put slavery back into the hands of the states knowing full well they would enact it?

2. Checks and balances are still checks and balances. You're making assumptions. There would be he'll to pay if he rolled back protections and Congress doesn't want to risk losing reelection. You'll see.

Republicans have no fear of that when hacking away at minority rights.

3. All I can say is wait and see. He's already compromising on Obamacare three days after the election. Time to get real.

For the record, my son is dating a transgender person, so it's not like this doesn't hit close to home. Everyone just needs to relax.

Did your son vote for trump?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Equal rights or equal definition of the word "marriage?"

I wouldn't see any harm in having a legal partner with equal rights other than people just loving to be pissed off and angry over nothing.

It then seems the whole argument is the silly definition of a word.

Civil unions are not equal. Didn't we learn out lesson with "separate but equal" in the 60's?

And it is a god damned issue! Marriage is marriage. Conservatives shouldn't get the chance to re-define it based on their religious views. Don't impose them on the rest of the country. Marriage isn't a christian concept.

 

[Lighthouse]

You mean like how it was redefined from a contract between two men(generally a father and a man without a spouse) by which goods(a woman or girl) was exchanged to that man in exchange for other goods(cows, oxen, horses, so on and what not) to a union between two consenting adults based ideally on some kind of mutual love?

Quit pretending marriage is some ancient institution with immovable qualities. It isn't and never has been. It just shows your cultural & historical ignorance.

All sorts of false assumptions and creations. You really should read before you respond and assume all sorts of illusions.

Marriage is a useless abstract term with no universal definition. All you had to do was ask before making the false comparison of what Republicans want and how I view it.

 

[Lighthouse]

Civil unions are not equal. Didn't we learn out lesson with "separate but equal" in the 60's?

And it is a god damned issue! Marriage is marriage. Conservatives shouldn't get the chance to re-define it based on their religious views. Don't impose them on the rest of the country. Marriage isn't a christian concept.

So essentially what you're saying is that the hissy fit of folks wearing uptighty whities is over the definition of a meaningless word more than equal rights of the same legal partnership?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So essentially what you're saying is that the hissy fit of folks wearing uptighty whities is over the definition of a meaningless word?

No. Number one we don't have equality between civil unions and marriage. It isn't equal. Quit acting like it is. Even if we did have it as equal it is in fact demeaning and dehumanising to define marriage as just a heteroseuxal thing. To an entire community they are treated as less important.

You call it just the definition of a word but it has significant meaning. What if we said all marriage involving black people is not just called Civil unions? Do you think it would be significant then?

 

[Lighthouse]

Civil unions are not equal. Didn't we learn out lesson with "separate but equal" in the 60's?

And it is a god damned issue! Marriage is marriage. Conservatives shouldn't get the chance to re-define it based on their religious views. Don't impose them on the rest of the country. Marriage isn't a christian concept.

But it is "separate but equal."

Separate sexual preference but equal rights.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But it is "separate but equal."

Separate sexual preference but equal rights.

It is not. You can be denied rights to adopt depending on your state. You cannot always cover health insurance depending on the state with civil unions. Other states must respect the marriages of other states but do not have to respect the civil unions of other states. It also does not cover any federal benefits of marriage such as tax breaks and social security benefits.

 

[Lighthouse]

No. Number one we don't have equality between civil unions and marriage. It isn't equal. Quit acting like it is. Even if we did have it as equal it is in fact demeaning and dehumanising to define marriage as just a heteroseuxal thing. To an entire community they are treated as less important.

You call it just the definition of a word but it has significant meaning. What if we said all marriage involving black people is not just called Civil unions? Do you think it would be significant then?

If rights remained the same and equal, I personally don't allow the definition of a meaningless word to offend me. What is the point?

Has nothing to do with black, white, purple, yellow people. Why are many intolerant towards those that harmlessly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman? Has nothing to do with discrimination. What's discriminating is the impedence on others harmless beliefs. Should it be a law to psychologically control and discriminate others for believing marriage is a certain way?

I really don't care what the meaningless word is defined as as long the rights and equality remain the same.

 

[Quagmire]

You're funny.

*Smiles, nods, . . . backs away slowly . . . *