Fear in the wake of a Trump presidency.

[Acim]

Sure thing buddy.

So, because he favors it being a states right issue, he is anti L and G? Still not sure how B fits in there, nor T for that matter.

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.

As a B, I disagree with this. All I ever hear or see is people speaking about the bill. Why not link to the bill and highlight the part that you find so bad?

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".

It's also bull***** that it is actually anti B. Actually a lot of what L and G stands for in all their bi-as nonsense is utter bull****!

 

[Acim]

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.

Why only 2 consenting adults? I ask seriously. When it becomes about more than 2 consenting adults, then we can start talking like L and G actually care about how a B might frame this discussion. Just cause some other B's might see it the way L and G does, don't mean we all do. And this utter nonsense that it is between (only) 2 just shows your cultural and historical ignorance.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So, because he favors it being a states right issue, he is anti L and G? Still not sure how B fits in there, nor T for that matter.

If you say you will actively attempt to change the supreme court to overrule their ruling that grants access to the majority of states then yes you are anti-lgbt.

As a B, I disagree with this. All I ever hear or see is people speaking about the bill. Why not link to the bill and highlight the part that you find so bad?

If I do I wonder how you will simply spin that away.

It's also bull***** that it is actually anti B. Actually a lot of what L and G stands for in all their bi-as nonsense is utter bull****!

Do you know what you are even saying? You stopped making any real kind of sense this post.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Watch and learn.

I have for many years. Your way doesn't seem to ever work.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Why only 2 consenting adults? I ask seriously. When it becomes about more than 2 consenting adults, then we can start talking like L and G actually care about how a B might frame this discussion. Just cause some other B's might see it the way L and G does, don't mean we all do. And this utter nonsense that it is between (only) 2 just shows your cultural and historical ignorance.

Bisexual people are not more prone to being polyandrous. Polyandrous relationships are a totally different issue than gay and lesbian rights to marry. We might as well talk about prenups and gendered bias in child custody of divorce. They are issues but nothing to do with gay and lesbians having the right to marry.

 

[Acim]

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?

I don't see how any of this is rational. Moreover, how it is assumed that because a few states may be anti-bending of traditional marriage views, that makes it so those who seek to have it be state's rights, are anti LGBT. When CLEARLY, this issue has very little (or nothing) to do with B and T. And the degree it has to do with B, it seems like there's discrimination there that I find L and G aren't on board with, ya know, cause they favor a 'traditional' view of marriage/relationships.

 

[Watchmen]

I have for many years. Your way doesn't seem to ever work.

You'll see.

 

[Acim]

Bisexual people are not more prone to being polyandrous. Polyandrous relationships are a totally different issue than gay and lesbian rights to marry. We might as well talk about prenups and gendered bias in child custody of divorce. They are issues but nothing to do with gay and lesbians having the right to marry.

I disagree it is (totally) different issue. And if it is, then you are confirming my other point that this has nothing to do with B. Can't have it both ways. Can't include B in the anti-sentiment, then claim it is issue of "G and L rights to marry." I see the issue, on both counts, as being about what consenting adults wish to do, and the political narrative being, let's just go for this now, and think about the other later. Why? Either stay consistent on the issue or don't expect this B to back up your BS.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I don't see how any of this is rational. Moreover, how it is assumed that because a few states may be anti-bending of traditional marriage views, that makes it so those who seek to have it be state's rights, are anti LGBT. When CLEARLY, this issue has very little (or nothing) to do with B and T. And the degree it has to do with B, it seems like there's discrimination there that I find L and G aren't on board with, ya know, cause they favor a 'traditional' view of marriage/relationships.

let us change the wording a little.

Would it be racist to repeal the law making slavery an issue KNOWING that there are states that would keep it legal? Thinking it should be a state right? It isn't a state right its HUMAN RIGHT. Civil rights don't get to be determined by the state. They historically do bad at that.

 

[Acim]

If you say you will actively attempt to change the supreme court to overrule their ruling that grants access to the majority of states then yes you are anti-lgbt.

Disagree and find your rationale entirely non compelling.

Do you know what you are even saying? You stopped making any real kind of sense this post.

I do. You thus far have no intelligent response to what I'm saying.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I disagree it is (totally) different issue. And if it is, then you are confirming my other point that this has nothing to do with B. Can't have it both ways. Can't include B in the anti-sentiment, then claim it is issue of "G and L rights to marry." I see the issue, on both counts, as being about what consenting adults wish to do, and the political narrative being, let's just go for this now, and think about the other later. Why? Either stay consistent on the issue or don't expect this B to back up your BS.

It also deals with bisexuals wanting to choose same sex partners. It also has to do with transgenders being able to be treated as their same gender. I use the term LGBTQ as the community at large. If you have an issue with me using that term which is the term for that group of people then we can change it for your comfort in the debate. You are anti-gay and anti-lesiban and anti-bisexual. Its a bit of a mouthful then.

The rights of people to have multiple legal partners is a different issue because it isn't the same thing remotely. Just as interracial marriage is a totally different issue.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Disagree and find your rationale entirely non compelling.

Let me make it clearer to you then.

Does a candidate support taking action that will result in the loss of rights to a demographic of people? Yes or no. Simple question. The answer is yes. They support taking action knowing full well it results in the loss of rights of people. Their goal is not to empower the state but to harm a specific demographic on the national scale. Simple as that.

I do. You thus far have no intelligent response to what I'm saying.

Mostly you have been blabbering about off topic issues such as polyandrous relationships and how you somehow think that bisexuals are not affected if same sex marriage is outlawed.

 

[Acim]

It also deals with bisexuals wanting to choose same sex partners. It also has to do with transgenders being able to be treated as their same gender. I use the term LGBTQ as the community at large. If you have an issue with me using that term which is the term for that group of people then we can change it for your comfort in the debate. You are anti-gay and anti-lesiban and anti-bisexual. Its a bit of a mouthful then.

When it comes to marriage equality as you are currently framing it, it is plausible (though debatable) to say those opposed are anti-LG. Adding in the other is disingenuous in my B opinion. Debatable, because on this issue, and with point I just made about more than 2 consenting adults, you reacted in way that I find to be anti-B, but apparently you don't see it that way, nor wish for it to be framed that way. I agree that this goes beyond B, but from B perspective, the traditional view isn't completely anti-B, and at very most is half anti-B, but that IMO would be assuming a few things about a B that I find challenging to reconcile, nor am I shy about discussing it. Still not clear how T fits in. May as well just include heterosexuals in there, if including T. Also debatable, because this is just one issue, and as our little debate shows, there are various ways to frame it, such that anti a whole group of people is just pithy rhetoric. Really is. Such that if Trump were to express something along lines in 2018 that says, "I'm glad Michigan has approved marriage equality for L and G citizens as a result of the SC overturning" .... somehow that would be spun by LW as "see! told you he was anti LG!"

The rights of people to have multiple legal partners is a different issue because it isn't the same thing remotely. Just as interracial marriage is a totally different issue.

Not a totally different issue. The whole argument / position rests on idea of decision between consenting adults (plural). It covers all these issues you are saying are different. To the degree you disagree is your being discriminatory. I'm not even saying that's horrible, but if I were to use your rhetoric, it would have to be spun as "why do you hate people?"

 

[Acim]

let us change the wording a little.

Would it be racist to repeal the law making slavery an issue KNOWING that there are states that would keep it legal?

What does racist have to do with it? IMO, you are assuming if the law regarding slavery was in place, it would only fall along racial lines. It could, but wouldn't necessarily. I actually highly doubt if that returned to being a state right that there is any state in current America that would go in that direction. I'm actually more confident that Creationists will become top notch professors in evolutionary biology and that atheists will start championing dissolution of a separation of church and state than I am of any state in the union returning to slavery.

But I actually think you are asking this as if it is serious inquiry. And given how you've framed it, racial presumption and all, I'd have to say... ask it a different way that makes you come off as more intelligent. Pretty please.

Civil rights don't get to be determined by the state. They historically do bad at that.

With slavery, there is no consent, or if there is, then that would be an interesting law to consider. With marriage, it's about being a decision among consenting adults. And yet, very much different ways of framing that. Me, I go for consistency and try to stay to the principle that would govern all possible scenarios. Others focus on their own little discriminatory viewpoints, and wanna then claim "this is totally different than that other thing" and yet when orthodox Christian says, "man and woman" is totally different than "same sex," suddenly that's to be downplayed in favor of "consenting adult" type rhetoric. How quaint to play that card when you need it. Gotta suck to be so inconsistent with your principles.

 

[Acim]

Let me make it clearer to you then.

Does a candidate support taking action that will result in the loss of rights to a demographic of people? Yes or no. Simple question. The answer is yes. They support taking action knowing full well it results in the loss of rights of people. Their goal is not to empower the state but to harm a specific demographic on the national scale. Simple as that.

Is it fun to have a one person discussion? I ask that because I'd like to have a simple response. The answer is yes. It is fun, because my view on this is better than yours and you can't speak in my post right now, so my voice is the only one that matters. Especially when I ask a question and demand a simple response. Therefore I win.

Mostly you have been blabbering about off topic issues such as polyandrous relationships and how you somehow think that bisexuals are not affected if same sex marriage is outlawed.

As I said, it's gotta suck to be inconsistent with your principles.

 

[Notanumber]

If you like a laugh watch this

then this

It’s a killer!

 

[Lighthouse]

I disagree. Its not dishonest. I mean exactly what I say.
To say oh they just want to legalize discrimination and take away the ruling that allowed them to have marriage equality. We aren't taking rights.... bull****. You know it too.

Fair enough if you perceive that defining the word marriage in the US will correlate with the intent to remove rights with it. I do not. I think it's all speculative fear.

It is dishonest propaganda to tell others this is what they're saying when they are not.

 

[Lighthouse]

Bull****! Pence is pushing to do just that very thing, and he has in the past!

They just about all have in the past. It's too late, there is nothing to fear.

 

[Notanumber]

I thought this was shameful as well

If she had done the decent thing, there might not be as much unrest, but to think that there is now a wailing and a gnashing of teeth on her behalf is incredible.

 

[ShivaFan]

Clinton's loss at the hands of Donald Trump supposedly amounted to the most surprising outcome in the history of modern electoral politics, but there is nothing surprising about it.

This was an election of 50 states, it was about a color of diversity that the arrogance of an all imposing top down bureacratic centralist government doesn't understand.

Arrogance of 1 verse the diversity of 50 gasping to be heard. Entire populations in many states that came to feel to be invisible - in fact so invisible they weren't bothered to be counted in the phony liberal election polls. Here too, it was arrogance that "missed" counting them.

America is way more than just downtown New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Seattle, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Chicago or Portland. And certainly way more than K Street and Washington D.C..

Way more diverse than that.

Perhaps there are not enough States. Sure, there has now been a tremendous victory of the true voice of diversity against the arrogance of one that "forgot" about the jobs and the need for a sense of pride of the "invisible".

The "forgotten man". Oh how shocking, let me add the truly "forgotten woman" as well.

Today I heard about a supposed "movement" to breakaway California from the United States because folks are suppose to be so upaet with Trump winning.

But there was already an actual, real and growing "successionist" movement on the rise in California, organised and living movement - to secede from California. And they spelled the word correctly, secede not succession as it was spelled by the same arrogant centralists who wanted to push a phony story as part of the same arrogance.

In this real movement to secede from California, the people want to breakaway from the arrogance of Los Angeles and San Francisco, and form their own new States. Where the end result is more diversity, 52 states instead of just 50.

Maybe this is a good idea. Let's have more and more States in the Electoral College - let's have true diversity in the face of this rancid arrogance. That way, if you are being drowned and turned into invisible, you have more options to drain the swamp and become visible by the sheer power of a "new" sort of "migration" within our own national boundaries where we actually still have borders from complete and entire suffocation in the prisons of arrogance. Probably 60 States is a good idea. 70. Entire parts of New York deserve their own Statehood as much as entire parts of California. Entire areas of Illinois needs their own new State and breakaway from Chicago.

You see Hillary was going to take us backward.

Backward to the times of Mesopotamia and City States. When a City rules over everyone else instead of a State. Talk about archaic and arrogant.

Kansas doesn't exist? Dorothy can't go home to Kansas anymore? She can only go to some bum infested sidewalk of Portland? Hillary Clinton lost because of arrogance. But America doesn't want to live in her ghetto. Too many are already invisible but sort of don't like it.

However, being invisible does have one advantage. When you slap the uninvisible they often don't see the hand coming.