• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Powerful GOP lobbyist drafts bill to ban gay athletes from playing in the NFL

Peter King said:
Civil rights should include the right not to be discriminated against due to onces sexual preference.
Click to expand...

A question for you is perhaps in order. What is the principle, of which, under all circumstances, necessarily fixed, determines, defines and governs the civil rights of men?
 
I don't know about your YMCA, happens all the time at mine.
Gipper said:
So a hot lipstick chick doesn't offer to give you a thorough soap job at the YWCA after a brisk workout?

Why does porn keep LYING to me, dammit!
Click to expand...
 
I chalk this up with some of the other recent moves SOME people are desperately trying.

While its obviously dispicable on the surface the emotion it brings out in me the most is joy lol

WHy?

These things and things like it are just further proof that America is on the road to improvement. Its just proof that the war for equal/human and civil rights is being won by those that support those things.
The writing is on the wall and while there may be little speed bumps in the remaining road to equal rights and there maybe a battle or so lost here and there, who is winning the war is obvious. THose that support equal rights are winning.

The fear and panic of those that support discrimination or are against equal/human/civil rights or who are bigots is made so obvious by insanity like this. They know who is winning and they know the days of gays not having equal rights are coming to an end!

So for me in the big picture of things its HILARIOUS and the best part is some of this mentally insane and bigoted moves are going to HELP establish equal rights just like the bannings are. Its sweet poetic justice :)
 
Gipper said:
So a hot lipstick chick doesn't offer to give you a thorough soap job at the YWCA after a brisk workout?

Why does porn keep LYING to me, dammit!
Click to expand...

This isn't about me. Keep the dream alive Gip.
 
Peter King said:
Yes, why not make this about giving bigots the right to not play on a team with gays.
Click to expand...

Since you bring up Hitler, let's roll that around a bit. Hitler didn't want to give rights to Jews. You don't want to give rights to bigots. You're both making a group "unpersons" who shouldn't be treated the same as others.

I'm really curious about how people like you think. Why do you feel it is moral to deny people you don't approve of the rights that you grant to others? Why can't bigots have a right to free association?

Voltaire's biographer attributed his position as ""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" and I'm wondering why so many of you liberals have turned your back on freedom. No one is asking you to support the association choices of people, all we're asking is that you respect their RIGHT to do so even if you disagree with those choices.

This is how freedom is defended. No one need step forth and defend the statement "I love my mother" it is the freedom to make offensive statements which is most in need of defense. You guys are not helping keep liberty alive, you're burying it so that you can peacock about how tolerant you are. Being tolerant while stomping on the grave of liberty is not something that I endorse.
 
RiverDad said:
What about the rights of all the team members who have no desire to have this man on their team? Why should they be forced into an association with this man so that you can feel good about your "enlightenment?"
Click to expand...

They're not forced into any association. They sign their contracts just like everyone else.
 
RiverDad said:
Since you bring up Hitler, let's roll that around a bit. Hitler didn't want to give rights to Jews. You don't want to give rights to bigots. You're both making a group "unpersons" who shouldn't be treated the same as others.

I'm really curious about how people like you think. Why do you feel it is moral to deny people you don't approve of the rights that you grant to others? Why can't bigots have a right to free association?

Voltaire's biographer attributed his position as ""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" and I'm wondering why so many of you liberals have turned your back on freedom. No one is asking you to support the association choices of people, all we're asking is that you respect their RIGHT to do so even if you disagree with those choices.

This is how freedom is defended. No one need step forth and defend the statement "I love my mother" it is the freedom to make offensive statements which is most in need of defense. You guys are not helping keep liberty alive, you're burying it so that you can peacock about how tolerant you are. Being tolerant while stomping on the grave of liberty is not something that I endorse.
Click to expand...
So it is OK to deny rights to some while you pretend to defend the rights of others which seem more deserving to you.
Nobody is trying to deny association rights to bigots. If they play for their private club by all means, but that not the case now is it? The bigots in question are playing for a team, I wonder if you understand the meaning of that beyond the obvious, never mind. So now you wish to bar some from playing on that team which is not a place of association, but one they get paid to perform a certain tasks. It is called employment at will for a reason, no one is forcing anyone into the game.
 
Henrin said:
Your fail is in thinking that one right gives into another or that somehow that train of thought even begins to make sense.
Click to expand...
It makes perfect sense.

You can't have all rights for everyone all the time, since some rights conflict with another person's sometimes.
 
Henrin said:
A question for you is perhaps in order. What is the principle, of which, under all circumstances, necessarily fixed, determines, defines and governs the civil rights of men?
Click to expand...

Well, the law would be the first source followed by the international treaties a country signs and ratifies.
 
RiverDad said:
Since you bring up Hitler, let's roll that around a bit. Hitler didn't want to give rights to Jews. You don't want to give rights to bigots. You're both making a group "unpersons" who shouldn't be treated the same as others.

I'm really curious about how people like you think. Why do you feel it is moral to deny people you don't approve of the rights that you grant to others? Why can't bigots have a right to free association?

Voltaire's biographer attributed his position as ""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" and I'm wondering why so many of you liberals have turned your back on freedom. No one is asking you to support the association choices of people, all we're asking is that you respect their RIGHT to do so even if you disagree with those choices.

This is how freedom is defended. No one need step forth and defend the statement "I love my mother" it is the freedom to make offensive statements which is most in need of defense. You guys are not helping keep liberty alive, you're burying it so that you can peacock about how tolerant you are. Being tolerant while stomping on the grave of liberty is not something that I endorse.
Click to expand...

So you compare the civil rights loss (and death) of Jews to not allowing idiotic bigots to discriminate against gays and other groups? :lamo

Hilarious, respecting civil rights has to start with respecting the rights of bigots to disrespect other people's civil rights. The only thing I want to deny is the non-existing right of bigots to remove or deny civil rights of others. You don't have to be a fan of gays, you can think it is immoral, you even have the right to deny them into your house and you have the right to tell them your point of view. But when it comes to denying gays the same civil liberties as other people have, then those bigots have no rights. The same goes for bigots against democrats, conservatives, Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.

Being a bigot might be a civil liberty, but when bigots deny others the same civil liberties then they should be stopped by law to do so.

And I am not a liberal, I am a social democrat. Now a lot of my points of view might be in line with liberal Americans but a lot of them do not. You define freedom as the right to deny others their freedom, I define freedom as the right for all to have the same right of freedom. If Freedom is done like in Animal Farm, where some have more right to freedom than others, then I am against it. Freedom should not be defined as the legal right to rob other people from that same freedom.
 
specklebang said:
Thank you. I'm amazed at how a candidate or a lobbyist can be taken so seriously when they come up with their awful ideas. When they are actually Senators or Congressmen, yes, if they propose something stupid you can try to blame their whole party, although even then that isn't really valid.
Click to expand...

The fact that the republican party does not speak out about these nut jobs speaks volumes.
 
Peter King said:
Well, the law would be the first source followed by the international treaties a country signs and ratifies.
Click to expand...

I was looking for more along the lines of something that acts as a foundation of a chain of reasoning, of which, under all circumstances, necessarily fixed, determines, defines and governs the civil rights of men. The law really doesn't work towards those ends, sorry.
 
Carleen said:
The fact that the republican party does not speak out about these nut jobs speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

The fact that there is no such thing as "the Republican party" or "The Democrat Party" that is a monolith or deity, speaks volumes. If you want to condemn an entire party over one person's comments, then you must accept the apology of one person and I have a Republican friend who said that this bill was stupid. So, now what?

Remember, everything is a 2 way street. Surely you're not so desperate that you can't accept that.

Had this guy been a Democrat pushing a bill that allowed ONLY gay people to play in the Olympics, I would have posted the same defense. Let's play fair please. That's how you win debates...not by trying to be even more ridiculous than the original speaker, but by being realistic and noble of spirit.

I hope you understand what I'm saying.
 
specklebang said:
The fact that there is no such thing as "the Republican party" or "The Democrat Party" that is a monolith or deity, speaks volumes. If you want to condemn an entire party over one person's comments, then you must accept the apology of one person and I have a Republican friend who said that this bill was stupid. So, now what?

Remember, everything is a 2 way street. Surely you're not so desperate that you can't accept that.

Had this guy been a Democrat pushing a bill that allowed ONLY gay people to play in the Olympics, I would have posted the same defense. Let's play fair please. That's how you win debates...not by trying to be even more ridiculous than the original speaker, but by being realistic and noble of spirit.

I hope you understand what I'm saying.
Click to expand...

So why do republicans say nothing about these comments. Like Nugent calling the pres a subhuman mongrel
 
specklebang said:
The fact that there is no such thing as "the Republican party" or "The Democrat Party" that is a monolith or deity, speaks volumes. If you want to condemn an entire party over one person's comments, then you must accept the apology of one person and I have a Republican friend who said that this bill was stupid. So, now what?

Remember, everything is a 2 way street. Surely you're not so desperate that you can't accept that.

Had this guy been a Democrat pushing a bill that allowed ONLY gay people to play in the Olympics, I would have posted the same defense. Let's play fair please. That's how you win debates...not by trying to be even more ridiculous than the original speaker, but by being realistic and noble of spirit.

I hope you understand what I'm saying.
Click to expand...

It's not an isolated incident. It's part of a greater pattern. You're pretending it's an anomaly.
 
Peter King said:
Sure, there and there are also countries that discriminate against Jews, catholics, blacks, etc. Just because they do does not mean that a civilized country that is ruled by laws and treaties can allow an organization to discriminate against gays.
Click to expand...

All those countries you imply are uncivilized are ruled by laws and treaties too. You're just parrotting soupy nonsense. And yes, Russia for instance. No doubt it's civilized and ruled by laws and treaty AND they do indeed discriminate against homosexuals.

Peter King said:
And you might deny human rights, but luckily a lot of people in the US believe in human rights and so does the supreme court when it struck down anti-black laws. And didn't the USA ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights?
Click to expand...

No to that last. And the UN's kumbayah meaningless in reality speech aside you really don't know much about the US do you? The Jim Crow laws were struck down by the SCOTUS because they violated CONSTITUTIONAL rights.

Peter King said:
Civil rights should include the right not to be discriminated against due to onces sexual preference.
Click to expand...

No they shouldn't.
 
Carleen said:
The fact that the republican party does not speak out about these nut jobs speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

When was the last time some democrat spoke out against the Free Mumia set? It's just not necessary. Now, if they pick up the legislation and run with it, that's a different story. But why should they claim any ownership of a bill they had nothing to do with and do not intend to ever take up?
 
Threegoofs said:
It's not an isolated incident. It's part of a greater pattern. You're pretending it's an anomaly.
Click to expand...


The only real pattern is the attempt by tiny slivers of the population to make mountains out of pebbles. A perfect example is your OP. The lobbyist is not a "powerful GOP" guy, as the lie in the Raw Story's headline suggests, he's just a bit player of little consequence.

When lies form the foundation of beliefs, there is nothing redeeming about the point, or the origin of it.
 
ocean515 said:
The only real pattern is the attempt by tiny slivers of the population to make mountains out of pebbles. A perfect example is your OP. The lobbyist is not a "powerful GOP" guy, as the lie in the Raw Story's headline suggests, he's just a bit player of little consequence.

When lies form the foundation of beliefs, there is nothing redeeming about the point, or the origin of it.
Click to expand...

Once again, the AZ case, the KS case and the pending IN gay marriage ban shows that you are wrong that this is just a sliver of the population making a mountain out of pebbles. Its a signficiant part of the population. And they all seem to vote GOP.
 
Threegoofs said:
Once again, the AZ case, the KS case and the pending IN gay marriage ban shows that you are wrong that this is just a sliver of the population making a mountain out of pebbles. Its a signficiant part of the population. And they all seem to vote GOP.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not wrong. You're bigotry doesn't change reality. California, arguably one of the most liberal states in the country, banned gay marriage via a vote to change the constitution. Although later overturned, the fact it passed speaks volumes.

The issue is far more complex than the radicals are attempting to get miles from.
 
Carleen said:
So why do republicans say nothing about these comments. Like Nugent calling the pres a subhuman mongrel
Click to expand...

••Are you claiming that no Republican criticized Mr. Nugent for his stupid comment? Or just not enough Republicans criticized him? How many does it take to respond to one known crackpot's remarks?

Top Republicans Condemn Ted Nugent's "Subhuman Mongrel" Comment | Blog | Media Matters for America

Threegoofs said:
It's not an isolated incident. It's part of a greater pattern. You're pretending it's an anomaly.
Click to expand...

••A "greater pattern"? Do you feel there is a conspiracy to make stupid and embarrassing remarks? Or do you consider the opposing party criticizing the other party to be something abnormal? If someone criticizes Obamacare, is that the same thing and part of the "pattern"? Criticizing your political opponent is pretty much normal IMHO. Using terms like "subhuman mongrel" is uniquely insulting and disgusting.

I've criticized Obama. And Bush. And Clinton. And Reagan. And Carter. And Johnson. Am I part of the pattern or am I exercising my right to disapprove or disagree?
 
Peter King said:
You define freedom as the right to deny others their freedom, I define freedom as the right for all to have the same right of freedom.
Click to expand...

America fought a Civil War to end Forced Association in the form of slavery. Perhaps you're not as sensitive to the issue of forced association as some Americans. You see, in America there is no such Right as Forced Association. What does exist is the Right to Free Association. Liberals hate this right and have been waging war on it and now they've also turned on Free Speech too, with their hate speech laws and speech codes at universities.

There seems to be something dark in the heart of liberals.
 
RiverDad said:
America fought a Civil War to end Forced Association in the form of slavery. Perhaps you're not as sensitive to the issue of forced association as some Americans. You see, in America there is no such Right as Forced Association. What does exist is the Right to Free Association. Liberals hate this right and have been waging war on it and now they've also turned on Free Speech too, with their hate speech laws and speech codes at universities.

There seems to be something dark in the heart of liberals.
Click to expand...

So you are opposed to the Civil Rights Act and all anti discrimination protections?
 
specklebang said:
••Are you claiming that no Republican criticized Mr. Nugent for his stupid comment? Or just not enough Republicans criticized him? How many does it take to respond to one known crackpot's remarks?

Top Republicans Condemn Ted Nugent's "Subhuman Mongrel" Comment | Blog | Media Matters for America



••A "greater pattern"? Do you feel there is a conspiracy to make stupid and embarrassing remarks? Or do you consider the opposing party criticizing the other party to be something abnormal? If someone criticizes Obamacare, is that the same thing and part of the "pattern"? Criticizing your political opponent is pretty much normal IMHO. Using terms like "subhuman mongrel" is uniquely insulting and disgusting.

I've criticized Obama. And Bush. And Clinton. And Reagan. And Carter. And Johnson. Am I part of the pattern or am I exercising my right to disapprove or disagree?
Click to expand...

There is a difference between disagreeing and ugly name calling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom