Trump to become first president to speak at anti-LGBT hate group's summit

[Belsnickel]

(10-13-2017, 01:34 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yet the left's Democrats' last Presidential candidate was a huge fan of them, took tons of their donations, too.

There's some hypocrisy going on there, Hollo.

Let's not confuse the Democratic party with the left, because they ain't.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-13-2017, 01:45 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah and the current one performed some bizarre ritual with an orb there. When it comes to cuddling to rich sheikhs, both your parties are quite game and don't give anything away, isn't that true.

Yuuuup. Party "principles" are all well and good until someone who stands for everything they're supposed to oppose offers them large sums of money and/or support for reelection. Doesn't matter which party.

Politics here are desperately in need of removal of money being such a factor, but the problem is the people who could make that happen are the people who are profiting so greatly by how things are now.

[BmorePat87]

(10-13-2017, 01:34 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You walk in on a guy having sex with a cow. Is that disgusting, or if you say it's disgusting is it discrimination?
Or on a less hyperbolic/more realistic example, why is nobody trying to defend the rights of polygamists if discrimination is bad?

The bestiality bit was mostly a ridiculous example of the arbitrarily decided moving line on what you're required to be comfortable with if you don't want to be "discriminating" and the equally moving line on what is okay to be uncomfortable with/disapprove of.

A Korean man awhile back decided he wanted to marry his giant pillow that had an anime girl on it.

Should we support that, or is that not okay? Is that better or worse than wanting to lop off your genitalia?

Cow sex is illegal as animals cannot consent to sex with humans. So I'd call it a crime.

Anyone can hold a fake wedding ceremony to an inanimate object. They may or may not have a mental illness, but if they do, they cannot be discriminated against for it. If they don't, they still shouldn't be fired for it or denied service at a bakery.

I could cut my foot off, call it an accident, and be protected by federal law for the rest of my life because of my disability. 

We don't have to agree with the choices anyone makes, but calling it "hate" when you are pushing for people to lose their civil rights because you disagree with something that affects only that person isn't a ridiculous standard, is it?

[StLucieBengal]

(10-13-2017, 01:21 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: how does advocating for the removal of civil rights from a class of people based on their sexual orientation have anything to do with advocating for Christians? 

Gay people do not needcivil rights. Civil rights are for black people who suffered in this country thanks to a legacy of Jim Crow laws and slavery.

Stop trying to insert whichever group is your latest darling into the civil rights bubble. You take away from what happened to black people in this country when you do so.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-13-2017, 01:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Cow sex is illegal as animals cannot consent to sex with humans. So I'd call it a crime.

Anyone can hold a fake wedding ceremony to an inanimate object. They may or may not have a mental illness, but if they do, they cannot be discriminated against for it. If they don't, they still shouldn't be fired for it or denied service at a bakery.

I could cut my foot off, call it an accident, and be protected by federal law for the rest of my life because of my disability. 

We don't have to agree with the choices anyone makes, but calling it "hate" when you are pushing for people to lose their civil rights because you disagree with something that affects only that person isn't a ridiculous standard, is it?

You didn't touch my question of polygamy, which is both looked poorly upon, and illegal. I don't see any leftist groups supporting it and fighting for it, though. In fact, I remember quite a few polygamy jokes and jabs when Mitt Romney ran for President.

For that matter, both necrophelia and incest are illegal, too, even though the former is an inanimate object, and the latter is capable of giving consent.

Yet being against those three don't qualify you for a hate group, though the belief that those three things are wrong is denying others of civil rights that affects only that person.


(Also don't know why you said "when you are pushing for people to lose their civil rights because you disagree" because I specifically said I am fine with gay marriage. My point is the fake arbitrary moral high-ground hypocrisy, not that I disagree with people's rights to marry the same sex.)

[BmorePat87]

(10-13-2017, 02:09 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Gay people do not needcivil rights.   Civil rights are for black people who suffered in this country thanks to a legacy of Jim Crow laws and slavery.  

Stop trying to insert whichever group is your latest darling into the civil rights bubble.   You take away from what happened to black people in this country when you do so.

Ignoring the fact that civil rights laws protect more than black people... you didn't answer my question. 

[BmorePat87]

(10-13-2017, 02:10 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You didn't touch my question of polygamy, which is both looked poorly upon, and illegal. I don't see any leftist groups supporting it and fighting for it, though. In fact, I remember quite a few polygamy jokes and jabs when Mitt Romney ran for President.

For that matter, both necrophelia and incest are illegal, too, even though the former is an inanimate object, and the latter is capable of giving consent.

Sorry, I missed the polygamy part. I have no rational argument against it. I've never advocated for it being illegal. 

Children are not legal adults and cannot give full legal consent. 

Deceased humans are not pillows. Your slippery slope arguments are reaching an end if you're trying to argue ***** dead bodies now. At some point we accept universal moral standards and desecrating dead bodies are usually one of the top things on that list.

Quote:Yet being against those three don't qualify you for a hate group, though the belief that those three things are wrong is denying others of civil rights that affects only that person. 

So your argument is that rape and ***** dead bodies are civil rights?

Quote:(Also don't know why you said "when you are pushing for people to lose their civil rights because you disagree" because I specifically said I am fine with gay marriage. My point is the fake arbitrary moral high-ground hypocrisy, not that I disagree with people's rights to marry the same sex.)

Because... I am referring to the group that I mentioned in the OP... you weren't the subject of my OP...

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-13-2017, 02:21 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Sorry, I missed the polygamy part. I have no rational argument against it. I've never advocated for it being illegal. 

Children are not legal adults and cannot give full legal consent. 

Deceased humans are not pillows. Your slippery slope arguments are reaching an end if you're trying to argue ***** dead bodies now. At some point we accept universal moral standards and desecrating dead bodies are usually one of the top things on that list.

So your argument is that rape and ***** dead bodies are civil rights?

Because... I am referring to the group that I mentioned in the OP... you weren't the subject of my OP...

Yeah, but has the left ever advocated for it to be legal? Do they hold giant parades and attack anyone who disapproves of it, while shoving it in everyone's face as often as possible? No, because that wouldn't play into their identity politics of getting them more voters. Hence the hypocrisy.



I never said children. Two consenting adults would still be illegal.

Yes, we do need to accept universal moral standards, the problem is that one side of society has unilaterally chosen and imposed those standards and labeled the other side "hate groups" if they don't agree.

Don't get me wrong, I obviously don't think incest or necrophilia should be legal and I do think gay marriage should be legal. I just brought them up to make the point that moral standards aren't something that's unanimous, and one side labeling the other side as hate groups if they disagree with their one-sided decision is absurd.

Now if they were actively calling for, seeking for, or facilitating the physical attack on these people, then sure, that sounds like a hate group. But having a strong differing opinion or rejection of acceptance against something shouldn't make you a hate group.

[hollodero]

(10-13-2017, 01:49 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yuuuup. Party "principles" are all well and good until someone who stands for everything they're supposed to oppose offers them large sums of money and/or support for reelection. Doesn't matter which party.

Politics here are desperately in need of removal of money being such a factor, but the problem is the people who could make that happen are the people who are profiting so greatly by how things are now.

That sounds about right. 
It just seems even you sometimes fall into the partisan trap of claiming or proving one side is worse or more hypocritical, which might very well be the case (I feel the same sometimes, only more often in the opposite direction), but in this case.... I give "the right" the courtesy of not associating them with your current abomination of a president (forgive my honesty), but I feel you should also give "the left" the courtesy of not associating them with Obama donors.

And in the end, I don't even know if I can blame Obama (or any republican) for that. The candidates can be principled and say "no" to certain donors, all fine and respectable, but they will never get any votes then for the public wouldn't even know their name. When your ambition is to become a political figure and change things, and these intentions might be oh so noble, you have no choice but to play along, or you do not stand a chance. This is one of the most inexplicable things about US politics for an outsider. From the staunchest conservative to the most fiery leftist hothead, all of these people, the whole spectrum, should agree with what you said here and so lay the spark for a change. Yet partisan issues always seem to take precedence in the end and nothing changes. It's a political demand that has to come from the people, I agree with that; the politicians themselves won't and even if the wanted, probably couldn't change it without great public awareness of that.

[BmorePat87]

(10-13-2017, 02:32 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yeah, but has the left ever advocated for it to be legal? Do they hold giant parades and attack anyone who disapproves of it, while shoving it in everyone's face as often as possible? No, because that wouldn't play into their identity politics of getting them more voters. Hence the hypocrisy.



I never said children. Two consenting adults would still be illegal.

Yes, we do need to accept universal moral standards, the problem is that one side of society has unilaterally chosen and imposed those standards and labeled the other side "hate groups" if they don't agree.

Don't get me wrong, I obviously don't think incest or necrophilia should be legal and I do think gay marriage should be legal. I just brought them up to make the point that moral standards aren't something that's unanimous, and one side labeling the other side as hate groups if they disagree with their one-sided decision is absurd.

Now if they were actively calling for, seeking for, or facilitating the physical attack on these people, then sure, that sounds like a hate group. But having a strong differing opinion or rejection of acceptance against something shouldn't make you a hate group.

You're questioning my personal application of a word by invoking what "the left" has done, not me. I'm not sure if I follow that line of reasoning.

Also, sorry, I read incest but thought you said pedo. 

As far as your argument goes, I already stated that it isn't a matter of agreeing, just not actively trying to deny their civil rights. I stated that calling for discriminatory government practices and calling this class of people a detriment to society for something that only involves themselves is open hostility, qualifying them in my own view. 

[StLucieBengal]

(10-13-2017, 02:13 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Ignoring the fact that civil rights laws protect more than black people... you didn't answer my question. 

No one else needs civil rights protections.

Gays fall under the same rights we all do.

[GMDino]

(10-13-2017, 02:55 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: No one else needs civil rights protections.  

Gays fall under the same rights we all do.

As long as they don't act "too gay"....right?

[Belsnickel]

(10-13-2017, 02:09 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Gay people do not needcivil rights. Civil rights are for black people who suffered in this country thanks to a legacy of Jim Crow laws and slavery.

Stop trying to insert whichever group is your latest darling into the civil rights bubble. You take away from what happened to black people in this country when you do so.

Categorically false. Civil rights are something that protect all people from discrimination. Your argument is rooted in ignorance.

[BmorePat87]

(10-13-2017, 02:55 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: No one else needs civil rights protections.  

Gays fall under the same rights we all do.

So you can't explain how discriminating against gay people is advocating for Christians?

[StLucieBengal]

(10-13-2017, 03:12 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So you can't explain how discriminating against gay people is advocating for Christians?

A religious group advocating isn't discrimination. They are allowed to speak freely and advocate as they feel. Just as we are allowed to dismiss them if west choose.

[Belsnickel]

(10-13-2017, 03:15 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: A religious group advocating isn't discrimination. They are allowed to speak freely and advocate as they feel. Just as we are allowed to dismiss them if west choose.

If they are advocating for discrimination, then it is discrimination. No one is saying they can't advocate for it, only that is is discriminatory and hateful.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-13-2017, 03:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If they are advocating for discrimination, then it is discrimination. No one is saying they can't advocate for it, only that is is discriminatory and hateful.

Calling them a hate group does nothing but water down the meaning of hate group. Which only gives actual hate groups cover.

[Belsnickel]

(10-13-2017, 03:40 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Calling them a hate group does nothing but water down the meaning of hate group. Which only gives actual hate groups cover.

I didn't call them a hate group, I said they were discriminatory and hateful. I disagree, though, because hate groups come in all different shapes and sizes. The bigots that assault people are more blatant in their hate, but their effect is short term. Groups like those that discriminate against others can be more discreet in their hate, but they have a more detrimental effect in the long term because of their attempts to alter policy. Both are just as harmful to society, just in different ways.

[Benton]

(10-13-2017, 02:35 PM)hollodero Wrote: That sounds about right. 
It just seems even you sometimes fall into the partisan trap of claiming or proving one side is worse or more hypocritical, which might very well be the case (I feel the same sometimes, only more often in the opposite direction), but in this case.... I give "the right" the courtesy of not associating them with your current abomination of a president (forgive my honesty), but I feel you should also give "the left" the courtesy of not associating them with Obama donors.

And in the end, I don't even know if I can blame Obama (or any republican) for that. The candidates can be principled and say "no" to certain donors, all fine and respectable, but they will never get any votes then for the public wouldn't even know their name. When your ambition is to become a political figure and change things, and these intentions might be oh so noble, you have no choice but to play along, or you do not stand a chance. This is one of the most inexplicable things about US politics for an outsider. From the staunchest conservative to the most fiery leftist hothead, all of these people, the whole spectrum, should agree with what you said here and so lay the spark for a change. Yet partisan issues always seem to take precedence in the end and nothing changes. It's a political demand that has to come from the people, I agree with that; the politicians themselves won't and even if the wanted, probably couldn't change it without great public awareness of that.

Incest can lead to bury defects on kids who don’t get a say in being born. Necrophiliacs can catch and spread a variety of diseases. Whether both of those are moral laws or not, it’s irrellevant as both have some realistic concerns for people outside of the participant. Same with animals.

There’s no basis for anti-gay laws outside of spiritual beliefs.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-13-2017, 12:49 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I couldn't care less what SPLC labels them, nor do I care about how other religions view gay people. I don't even know where the Muslim comment came from.

I'll explain.  The left rightfully rails against discrimination coming from the religious right, which in this country is generally Christian based faiths.  However, at the exact same time they turn a blind eye, or at least temper their outrage, to similar offenses perpetrated by Islamic faith adherents.  Do you recall the female genital mutilation case in Minnesota?  Was there an enormous outrage over this?  You even had people arguing that it's part of the culture.

Quote:A group that lobbies government officials to legalize discrimination against a class of people and calls them detrimental to society on the basis of their gender, orientation, race, or any similar factor is a hate group. Discrimination is hostility towards a group.

So, then the catholic church is a hate group.  I have no problems with labels as long as they are applied equally to anyone who fits the criteria.

Quote:To clarify, the label I apply to them has to do with their actions and statements, not the labels used by any other group. I don't think any logical poster here would argue with labeling the Family Research Council a "hate group" if we took everything they wrote and lobbied for and replaced sexual orientation with skin color, age, or disability. Giving someone a pass because they justify discrimination with religion doesn't make it any less immoral.

We agree 100%.  Sadly, many do not share this level of consistency.  Religious based reasons for hateful activity are no more justifiable than secular ones.

(10-13-2017, 01:04 PM)hollodero Wrote: It#s also not entirely accurate, isn't it? I do not see said "alliance". That opposition to medieval beliefs in Islam isn't strong enough on the left side is something I do not like either... but you can't really forge an alliance out of that. An anti-gay stance is not accepted in wide parts of the left, no matter if these stances are expressed by muslims, christians or whom ever. Now granted I don't know the US as good, but it would really surprise me if the US left really said muslim homophobia is just fine and we are in alliance with them against Christmas and stuff :)

If the left applied the same level of scrutiny to islam that they did to the religious right in America then they would be engaged in non-stop outrage.  Instead, you have liberal leaning sources like HuffPo and the Guardian constantly seeking to mitigate or ignore these excesses.  It's more of a, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of alliance but it's still an alliance.  How could a pro women movement include Linda Sarsour as a main leader if this were not the case?  She told an anti FMGM activist that she wished that she wished an asswhopping upon her and wished she could take their vaginas away?  I don't recall much if any outrage over that or any of her other highly questionable statements or beliefs.

Quote:The priorities might be wrong, and the left might have some fear of appearing oppressive to other cultures, hence holding their tongue too much. As i said. That's all I am giving you on that one though. The left is not a fan of Saudi-Arabia or places like the ones you described.

Tacit approval is still approval.  If you stay silent or fail to speak against something, for whatever reason, then you are condoning it.  Especially if you criticize and castigate other people for the exact same type of offense.  Let's look at a huge hypocrite, Ashley Judd.  She settled a harassment case against Weinstein years ago, yet she rails against Trump for similar activities.  Maybe if she had a spine and refused to take Weinstein's money in exchange for her silence she could have prevented him from victimizing hundreds of other women.  Like I said, consistency is important, selective outrage doesn't impress me much.

Quote:Your assessment is not entirely fair, and the irony you see seems a bit constructed. Oh yeah. Take that. :)

If you see it that way.  I certainly don't, for reasons I hope I've explained a bit better.  I could go into more detail if you like.  You probably don't.