When will we put LGBTQ issues behind us.?

[Geaux4it]

I don't want my country to be like that. How embarrassing. If there weren't SO MANY ignorant people, we wouldn't need these laws, but there are and we do.

See, this is exactly what I find so troubling about this kind of government. It's essentially the same kind of government the religious right wants (or some of them anyway). They want the power to force their ideas of how we ought to live on everyone else. In the same vein as you, they might say "If there weren't SO MANY sinful people, we wouldn't need these laws, but there are and we do.

It stuns me that people with an immediate cause can be so short sited. It might seem fine to you to give government this kind of power when the "sins" you despise are being targeted. But your favored leaders won't always be in power, and when the other side gets the reigns, do you really want them to have the power to force their views on you?

Another fail old sport! A logical fallacy in the form of a false comparison. The religious right seeks to divide people between those who believe as they do and those who do not. They promote inequality by creating the artificial categories of "us" and "them" The holy and the sinners. The good and the evil. The goal of government is exactly the opposite, to treat everyone equally on a level playing field. The Constitution applies equally to all. The ones who feel oppressed by the government are those who want the freedom to oppress others or to live without rules and laws altogether, as you apparently do.

The LBGT community also seeks to divide. You have to accept their lifestyle or you are absolutely wrong. No room for negotiation. That is another form of discrimination.

Government doesn't treat everyone equally, never has and never will. The government taxes those that make more money at a higher rate than low income, not equally. The government allows people with children a lower tax rate than people without, not equal. The government allows only people they choose to allow onto military installations. Government allows only people with enough money to enter a National Park, not everyone. The government does not allow blacks, women or other minorities to be discriminated against in housing or jobs. Not everyone has to laws to protect them, it is a form of discrimination. If you do not have a certain percentage of Indian in your blood you do not qualify for grants. Minority businesses have the ability to get grant money from the federal government. Minority companies have an advantage when getting government contracts. These are all forms of discrimination.

We need government I don't feel oppressed by government however it is foolish to claim the government doesn't discriminate.

The LGBT "community" wants respect and equal treatment. They don't give a fuck if anyone "accepts them" or approves of them" There are a lot of groups that I don't approve of but I accept their right to exist and to be treated with dignity TO THE EXTENT that they extend the same curtesy to all others. If you want to go that rout, you can just as well accuse blacks, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, obese people and a whole lot of others who have their detractors, but just want equality, of being divisive. Obama is accused of being divisive because there are people who can't stand the idea of a black president. So do you blame Obama for that, or the racists?

Inserting how government does not treat everyone equally on the basis of income or race is just a red herring- a distraction to avoid the actual issue here.

Treating someone differently for whatever reason is discrimination. I want treated equally, yet that is just a dream, no one is treated equally it doesn't exist.

Diversity prevents that.

-Geaux

 

[dblack]

The real question here is whether the government should have the power to conduct social engineering, to pass and enforce laws targeting certain ideas and opinions for suppression. THAT's what's going on. It has nothing to do with equal protection of our rights. And the 'commerce' angle is merely a convenient vehicle, a constitutional loophole blown open by the corporatists.

And it's all a result the most egregious flaw of the original Constitution - that it accommodated slavery.

 

[martybegan]

The real question here is whether the government should have the power to conduct social engineering, to pass and enforce laws targeting certain ideas and opinions for suppression. THAT's what's going on. It has nothing to do with equal protection of our rights. And the 'commerce' angle is merely a convenient vehicle, a constitutional loophole blown open by the corporatists.

And it's all a result the most egregious flaw of the original Constitution - that it accommodated slavery.

It was the only way to get all the States to agree on the document, a necessary evil that the Country paid for in blood, and continues to pay for in spirit.

One wonders if the country would have healed quicker if that Asshole Booth hadn't plugged Lincoln.

 

[ChrisL]

We'll never move "past" it because of the whiny babies. "Oh, we don't want to HAVE to treat other human beings equally," and "it's our RIGHT to discriminate." Lol.

 

[Skylar]

The real question here is whether the government should have the power to conduct social engineering, to pass and enforce laws targeting certain ideas and opinions for suppression. THAT's what's going on. It has nothing to do with equal protection of our rights. And the 'commerce' angle is merely a convenient vehicle, a constitutional loophole blown open by the corporatists.

And it's all a result the most egregious flaw of the original Constitution - that it accommodated slavery.

Most people would argue that it should. If you need a reason why, look to games theory. Most people have an innate sense of fairness. And gross abuses of the powerless by the powerful is something that most people would agree shouldn't happen. And when you have a general consensus that something shouldn't happen, codifying that into our laws is predictable....as all laws are is codified moral and ethical consensus.

You may feel that the government shouldn't But you're outnumbered by the people that believe it should.

 

[Skylar]

We'll never move "past" it because of the whiny babies. "Oh, we don't want to HAVE to treat other human beings equally," and "it's our RIGHT to discriminate." Lol.

Anti-gay nonsense will eventually be viewed with the same awe-struck disdain that say opposition to interracial marriage produces now.

Anti-gay bigotry loses because its stupid. As its based on the 'its wrong because we say so' line of moral reasoning rather than causing any intrinsic harm.

 

[Katzndogz]

There are a lot of people today still opposed to interracial marriage. Where have you been?

 

[Skylar]

There are a lot of people today still opposed to interracial marriage. Where have you been?

Yeah, but their numbers are dwindling and they are mocked and dismissed by the overwhelming majority of society. Which is where the anti-gay bigots are going.

The problem is.....like opposition to same sex marriage, interracial marriage opposition has lingering clumps in the religious and evangelical movements. And these types of moral lapses tend to undermine the credibility of these religious institutions in general. These public failures in moral reasoning among the religious is one of the major reasons why they've lost a fair amount of their credibility as moral arbiters.

 

[ChrisL]

There are a lot of people today still opposed to interracial marriage. Where have you been?

Yes, ignorant people.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The real question here is whether the government should have the power to conduct social engineering, to pass and enforce laws targeting certain ideas and opinions for suppression. THAT's what's going on. It has nothing to do with equal protection of our rights. And the 'commerce' angle is merely a convenient vehicle, a constitutional loophole blown open by the corporatists.

And it's all a result the most egregious flaw of the original Constitution - that it accommodated slavery.

Offline


Really""

The real question here is whether the government should have the power to conduct social engineering, to pass and enforce laws targeting certain ideas and opinions for suppression.

?? That is what was going on before SCOTUS smacked down the state laws banning same sex marriage and refusing to recognize marriages from other states in the Obergefell ruling. You do know that the ruling covered both issues, right? Commerce or full faith and credit hare moot points. The ruling was based on the 14th amendment.

 

[Katzndogz]

There are a lot of people today still opposed to interracial marriage. Where have you been?

Yes, ignorant people.

It doesn't matter. There is really no way to know who is against interracial marriage. There are plenty of people who avoid interracial couples and never say it's because they are interracial. I personally don't care one way or the other but I know plenty of people who do. They never say anything they just withdraw.

 

[Katzndogz]

The real question here is whether the government should have the power to conduct social engineering, to pass and enforce laws targeting certain ideas and opinions for suppression. THAT's what's going on. It has nothing to do with equal protection of our rights. And the 'commerce' angle is merely a convenient vehicle, a constitutional loophole blown open by the corporatists.

And it's all a result the most egregious flaw of the original Constitution - that it accommodated slavery.

Offline


Really""

The real question here is whether the government should have the power to conduct social engineering, to pass and enforce laws targeting certain ideas and opinions for suppression.

?? That is what was going on before SCOTUS smacked down the state laws banning same sex marriage and refusing to recognize marriages from other states in the Obergefell ruling. You do know that the ruling covered both issues, right? Commerce or full faith and credit hare moot points. The ruling was based on the 14th amendment.

That ruling does not and cannot apply to personal relationships.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The real question here is whether the government should have the power to conduct social engineering, to pass and enforce laws targeting certain ideas and opinions for suppression. THAT's what's going on. It has nothing to do with equal protection of our rights. And the 'commerce' angle is merely a convenient vehicle, a constitutional loophole blown open by the corporatists.

And it's all a result the most egregious flaw of the original Constitution - that it accommodated slavery.

Offline


Really""

The real question here is whether the government should have the power to conduct social engineering, to pass and enforce laws targeting certain ideas and opinions for suppression.

?? That is what was going on before SCOTUS smacked down the state laws banning same sex marriage and refusing to recognize marriages from other states in the Obergefell ruling. You do know that the ruling covered both issues, right? Commerce or full faith and credit hare moot points. The ruling was based on the 14th amendment.

That ruling does not and cannot apply to personal relationships.

What exactly are you talking about? And BTW, I don't believe that you could be a cat lover. I AM a cat lover.

 

[Katzndogz]

The real question here is whether the government should have the power to conduct social engineering, to pass and enforce laws targeting certain ideas and opinions for suppression. THAT's what's going on. It has nothing to do with equal protection of our rights. And the 'commerce' angle is merely a convenient vehicle, a constitutional loophole blown open by the corporatists.

And it's all a result the most egregious flaw of the original Constitution - that it accommodated slavery.

Offline


Really""

The real question here is whether the government should have the power to conduct social engineering, to pass and enforce laws targeting certain ideas and opinions for suppression.

?? That is what was going on before SCOTUS smacked down the state laws banning same sex marriage and refusing to recognize marriages from other states in the Obergefell ruling. You do know that the ruling covered both issues, right? Commerce or full faith and credit hare moot points. The ruling was based on the 14th amendment.

That ruling does not and cannot apply to personal relationships.

What exactly are you talking about? And BTW, I don't believe that you could be a cat lover. I AM a cat lover.

I love cats. Even tipsy cats, they are the best kind. I have no cats now and the name was assigned to me, I didn't choose it.

There has been no court ruling nor legislation that mandates a universal acceptance of same sex relationships or marriages.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The real question here is whether the government should have the power to conduct social engineering, to pass and enforce laws targeting certain ideas and opinions for suppression. THAT's what's going on. It has nothing to do with equal protection of our rights. And the 'commerce' angle is merely a convenient vehicle, a constitutional loophole blown open by the corporatists.

And it's all a result the most egregious flaw of the original Constitution - that it accommodated slavery.

Offline


Really""

The real question here is whether the government should have the power to conduct social engineering, to pass and enforce laws targeting certain ideas and opinions for suppression.

?? That is what was going on before SCOTUS smacked down the state laws banning same sex marriage and refusing to recognize marriages from other states in the Obergefell ruling. You do know that the ruling covered both issues, right? Commerce or full faith and credit hare moot points. The ruling was based on the 14th amendment.

That ruling does not and cannot apply to personal relationships.

What exactly are you talking about? And BTW, I don't believe that you could be a cat lover. I AM a cat lover.

I love cats. Even tipsy cats, they are the best kind. I have no cats now and the name was assigned to me, I didn't choose it.

There has been no court ruling nor legislation that mandates a universal acceptance of same sex relationships or marriages.

Gee thanks for telling me that the law can't force "acceptance" Dah......I knew that. Acceptance is a mental state that happens between your own two ears. Of course it can't be forced unless by lobotomy or brain washing. However, the law can and does force tolerance and that is what most LGBT people want-but you knew that already, so your post was trite and pointless.

Not convinced that you love cats. Cat people are kind and caring. There is a high correlation between how people treat other people and how they treat animals.

 

[Katzndogz]

The real question here is whether the government should have the power to conduct social engineering, to pass and enforce laws targeting certain ideas and opinions for suppression. THAT's what's going on. It has nothing to do with equal protection of our rights. And the 'commerce' angle is merely a convenient vehicle, a constitutional loophole blown open by the corporatists.

And it's all a result the most egregious flaw of the original Constitution - that it accommodated slavery.

Offline


Really""

The real question here is whether the government should have the power to conduct social engineering, to pass and enforce laws targeting certain ideas and opinions for suppression.

?? That is what was going on before SCOTUS smacked down the state laws banning same sex marriage and refusing to recognize marriages from other states in the Obergefell ruling. You do know that the ruling covered both issues, right? Commerce or full faith and credit hare moot points. The ruling was based on the 14th amendment.

That ruling does not and cannot apply to personal relationships.

What exactly are you talking about? And BTW, I don't believe that you could be a cat lover. I AM a cat lover.

I love cats. Even tipsy cats, they are the best kind. I have no cats now and the name was assigned to me, I didn't choose it.

There has been no court ruling nor legislation that mandates a universal acceptance of same sex relationships or marriages.

Gee thanks for telling me that the law can't force "acceptance" Dah......I knew that. Acceptance is a mental state that happens between your own two ears. Of course it can't be forced unless by lobotomy or brain washing. However, the law can and does force tolerance and that is what most LGBT people want-but you knew that already, so your post was trite and pointless.

Not convinced that you love cats. Cat people are kind and caring. There is a high correlation between how people treat other people and how they treat animals.

The law cannot even enforce tolerance. If I have a gay couple living next door, I do not have to tolerate them. I could tell them they are intolerable. What the law does enforce is endurance. I don't have to tolerate them. I can move. If I stay, I do have to endure them.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Offline


Really""
?? That is what was going on before SCOTUS smacked down the state laws banning same sex marriage and refusing to recognize marriages from other states in the Obergefell ruling. You do know that the ruling covered both issues, right? Commerce or full faith and credit hare moot points. The ruling was based on the 14th amendment.

That ruling does not and cannot apply to personal relationships.

What exactly are you talking about? And BTW, I don't believe that you could be a cat lover. I AM a cat lover.

I love cats. Even tipsy cats, they are the best kind. I have no cats now and the name was assigned to me, I didn't choose it.

There has been no court ruling nor legislation that mandates a universal acceptance of same sex relationships or marriages.

Gee thanks for telling me that the law can't force "acceptance" Dah......I knew that. Acceptance is a mental state that happens between your own two ears. Of course it can't be forced unless by lobotomy or brain washing. However, the law can and does force tolerance and that is what most LGBT people want-but you knew that already, so your post was trite and pointless.

Not convinced that you love cats. Cat people are kind and caring. There is a high correlation between how people treat other people and how they treat animals.

The law cannot even enforce tolerance. If I have a gay couple living next door, I do not have to tolerate them. I could tell them they are intolerable. What the law does enforce is endurance. I don't have to tolerate them. I can move. If I stay, I do have to endure them.

Do you really want to split hairs regarding the issue of what tolerance means? To me tolerance means your behavior with respect to others. The law says that you cannot harass them, intimidate them or discriminate against them. You can tell them that they are intolerable, but if you do it enough times you may well be subject to criminal and civil consequences. You do indeed have to shut the fuck up and deal with the fact that they live there and that under the law, they have every right to do so free of interference by you or anyone else. Is there any part of that you don't get.?

 

[Katzndogz]

The real question here is whether the government should have the power to conduct social engineering, to pass and enforce laws targeting certain ideas and opinions for suppression. THAT's what's going on. It has nothing to do with equal protection of our rights. And the 'commerce' angle is merely a convenient vehicle, a constitutional loophole blown open by the corporatists.

And it's all a result the most egregious flaw of the original Constitution - that it accommodated slavery.

Offline


Really""

The real question here is whether the government should have the power to conduct social engineering, to pass and enforce laws targeting certain ideas and opinions for suppression.

?? That is what was going on before SCOTUS smacked down the state laws banning same sex marriage and refusing to recognize marriages from other states in the Obergefell ruling. You do know that the ruling covered both issues, right? Commerce or full faith and credit hare moot points. The ruling was based on the 14th amendment.

That ruling does not and cannot apply to personal relationships.

What exactly are you talking about? And BTW, I don't believe that you could be a cat lover. I AM a cat lover.

I love cats. Even tipsy cats, they are the best kind. I have no cats now and the name was assigned to me, I didn't choose it.

There has been no court ruling nor legislation that mandates a universal acceptance of same sex relationships or marriages.

Gee thanks for telling me that the law can't force "acceptance" Dah......I knew that. Acceptance is a mental state that happens between your own two ears. Of course it can't be forced unless by lobotomy or brain washing. However, the law can and does force tolerance and that is what most LGBT people want-but you knew that already, so your post was trite and pointless.

Not convinced that you love cats. Cat people are kind and caring. There is a high correlation between how people treat other people and how they treat animals.

If people were cats or dogs, I would treat them well too.

That ruling does not and cannot apply to personal relationships.

What exactly are you talking about? And BTW, I don't believe that you could be a cat lover. I AM a cat lover.

I love cats. Even tipsy cats, they are the best kind. I have no cats now and the name was assigned to me, I didn't choose it.

There has been no court ruling nor legislation that mandates a universal acceptance of same sex relationships or marriages.

Gee thanks for telling me that the law can't force "acceptance" Dah......I knew that. Acceptance is a mental state that happens between your own two ears. Of course it can't be forced unless by lobotomy or brain washing. However, the law can and does force tolerance and that is what most LGBT people want-but you knew that already, so your post was trite and pointless.

Not convinced that you love cats. Cat people are kind and caring. There is a high correlation between how people treat other people and how they treat animals.

The law cannot even enforce tolerance. If I have a gay couple living next door, I do not have to tolerate them. I could tell them they are intolerable. What the law does enforce is endurance. I don't have to tolerate them. I can move. If I stay, I do have to endure them.

Do you really want to split hairs regarding the issue of what tolerance means? To me tolerance means your behavior with respect to others. The law says that you cannot harass them, intimidate them or discriminate against them. You can tell them that they are intolerable, but if you do it enough times you may well be subject to criminal and civil consequences. You do indeed have to shut the fuck up and deal with the fact that they live there and that under the law, they have every right to do so free of interference by you or anyone else. Is there any part of that you don't get.?

Well you can discriminate against them. And there are no civil or criminal penalties. If I give a party and invite the whole neighborhood but the Gay couple down the street, I have discriminated and there's nothing anyone can do. I can tell my child that all their friends are welcome but Heather who has two mommies. That's discrimination and I can do that.
You have a completely erroneous idea of how far the law can go.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Offline


Really""
?? That is what was going on before SCOTUS smacked down the state laws banning same sex marriage and refusing to recognize marriages from other states in the Obergefell ruling. You do know that the ruling covered both issues, right? Commerce or full faith and credit hare moot points. The ruling was based on the 14th amendment.

That ruling does not and cannot apply to personal relationships.

What exactly are you talking about? And BTW, I don't believe that you could be a cat lover. I AM a cat lover.

I love cats. Even tipsy cats, they are the best kind. I have no cats now and the name was assigned to me, I didn't choose it.

There has been no court ruling nor legislation that mandates a universal acceptance of same sex relationships or marriages.

Gee thanks for telling me that the law can't force "acceptance" Dah......I knew that. Acceptance is a mental state that happens between your own two ears. Of course it can't be forced unless by lobotomy or brain washing. However, the law can and does force tolerance and that is what most LGBT people want-but you knew that already, so your post was trite and pointless.

Not convinced that you love cats. Cat people are kind and caring. There is a high correlation between how people treat other people and how they treat animals.

If people were cats or dogs, I would treat them well too.

What exactly are you talking about? And BTW, I don't believe that you could be a cat lover. I AM a cat lover.

I love cats. Even tipsy cats, they are the best kind. I have no cats now and the name was assigned to me, I didn't choose it.

There has been no court ruling nor legislation that mandates a universal acceptance of same sex relationships or marriages.

Gee thanks for telling me that the law can't force "acceptance" Dah......I knew that. Acceptance is a mental state that happens between your own two ears. Of course it can't be forced unless by lobotomy or brain washing. However, the law can and does force tolerance and that is what most LGBT people want-but you knew that already, so your post was trite and pointless.

Not convinced that you love cats. Cat people are kind and caring. There is a high correlation between how people treat other people and how they treat animals.

The law cannot even enforce tolerance. If I have a gay couple living next door, I do not have to tolerate them. I could tell them they are intolerable. What the law does enforce is endurance. I don't have to tolerate them. I can move. If I stay, I do have to endure them.

Do you really want to split hairs regarding the issue of what tolerance means? To me tolerance means your behavior with respect to others. The law says that you cannot harass them, intimidate them or discriminate against them. You can tell them that they are intolerable, but if you do it enough times you may well be subject to criminal and civil consequences. You do indeed have to shut the fuck up and deal with the fact that they live there and that under the law, they have every right to do so free of interference by you or anyone else. Is there any part of that you don't get.?

Well you can discriminate against them. And there are no civil or criminal penalties. If I give a party and invite the whole neighborhood but the Gay couple down the street, I have discriminated and there's nothing anyone can do. I can tell my child that all their friends are welcome but Heather who has two mommies. That's discrimination and I can do that.
You have a completely erroneous idea of how far the law can go.

Well, if you think so, go and harass and intimidate some gay people and you might learn something about the law. The hard way.

 

[Katzndogz]

That ruling does not and cannot apply to personal relationships.

What exactly are you talking about? And BTW, I don't believe that you could be a cat lover. I AM a cat lover.

I love cats. Even tipsy cats, they are the best kind. I have no cats now and the name was assigned to me, I didn't choose it.

There has been no court ruling nor legislation that mandates a universal acceptance of same sex relationships or marriages.

Gee thanks for telling me that the law can't force "acceptance" Dah......I knew that. Acceptance is a mental state that happens between your own two ears. Of course it can't be forced unless by lobotomy or brain washing. However, the law can and does force tolerance and that is what most LGBT people want-but you knew that already, so your post was trite and pointless.

Not convinced that you love cats. Cat people are kind and caring. There is a high correlation between how people treat other people and how they treat animals.

If people were cats or dogs, I would treat them well too.

I love cats. Even tipsy cats, they are the best kind. I have no cats now and the name was assigned to me, I didn't choose it.

There has been no court ruling nor legislation that mandates a universal acceptance of same sex relationships or marriages.

Gee thanks for telling me that the law can't force "acceptance" Dah......I knew that. Acceptance is a mental state that happens between your own two ears. Of course it can't be forced unless by lobotomy or brain washing. However, the law can and does force tolerance and that is what most LGBT people want-but you knew that already, so your post was trite and pointless.

Not convinced that you love cats. Cat people are kind and caring. There is a high correlation between how people treat other people and how they treat animals.

The law cannot even enforce tolerance. If I have a gay couple living next door, I do not have to tolerate them. I could tell them they are intolerable. What the law does enforce is endurance. I don't have to tolerate them. I can move. If I stay, I do have to endure them.

Do you really want to split hairs regarding the issue of what tolerance means? To me tolerance means your behavior with respect to others. The law says that you cannot harass them, intimidate them or discriminate against them. You can tell them that they are intolerable, but if you do it enough times you may well be subject to criminal and civil consequences. You do indeed have to shut the fuck up and deal with the fact that they live there and that under the law, they have every right to do so free of interference by you or anyone else. Is there any part of that you don't get.?

Well you can discriminate against them. And there are no civil or criminal penalties. If I give a party and invite the whole neighborhood but the Gay couple down the street, I have discriminated and there's nothing anyone can do. I can tell my child that all their friends are welcome but Heather who has two mommies. That's discrimination and I can do that.
You have a completely erroneous idea of how far the law can go.

Well, if you think so, go and harass and intimidate some gay people and you might learn something about the law. The hard way.

I never said anything about harassing or intimidating anyone. I wouldn't spend my time harassing or intimidating. Discrimination is not harassing and intimidating. What cannot be tolerated must be endured.