• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Mike Pence shows no interest in Indiana’s latest ‘religious freedom’ fight

Summerwind said:
So my parents should've not allowed doctors to perform open heart surgery on me as a child without my permission?
Click to expand...

I wonder if you realize the difference between proper parental responsibility like maintaining their health and cutting off healthy body parts from your child.
 
Summerwind said:
I agree, and wanted to point out that bs excuse wouldn't stay limited to non-heteros if they are allowed to use that specific excuse as Henrin was touting.

I somewhat agree with the concept of the right to refuse service, within limits like causing someone causing an uproar, insulting personnel, etc., but not based on one's personal preferences or traits. For example, I hate that neon chartruese some people wear, but I certainly would feel it would be wrong to refuse service to someone just because they were wearing that color, hence preference, ... traits are obvious so I'll not elaborate on them.
Click to expand...

Welcome back. I hope you had an ice time away from this place.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Well look who is being racist and sexist.

No sir. I don't need special little laws to protect me. I think you mean to say my views on religion are more in line with left wing politics. But that's precisely why partisan hackery is stupid.

That's utter equine excrement. If you just change out the word "religious" with sex or women. It's the exact same argument.

Waa waaa waaaaaa my rights are being trampled.
Click to expand...

Except you are asking for special laws that say you can only be open to the public you choose to be open to. So you can't with any consistency suggest that bolded part.
 
RAMOSS said:
Welcome back. I hope you had an ice time away from this place.
Click to expand...

It's been trip and saga, but for me it always is. Don't know how long I'll be around this time. We'll see. I read often but don't sign in so I don't get too drawn into the same-o-same-o. Every so often though, I feel like it's time to get involved again.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Well look who is being racist and sexist.

No sir. I don't need special little laws to protect me. I think you mean to say my views on religion are more in line with left wing politics. But that's precisely why partisan hackery is stupid.

That's utter equine excrement. If you just change out the word "religious" with sex or women. It's the exact same argument.

Waa waaa waaaaaa my rights are being trampled.
Click to expand...

Yes... you are. That is a very male Texan attitude. I observe it down here. I notice it is a very common attitude among Texas men of all races down here. There is some of that elsewhere, but, it is exaggerated in Texas.
 
Henrin said:
I wonder if you realize the difference between proper parental responsibility like maintaining their health and cutting off healthy body parts from your child.
Click to expand...

As usual, you want specific rules based on your personal values and not about freedom of self or family at all.
 
Summerwind said:
It's been trip and saga, but for me it always is. Don't know how long I'll be around this time. We'll see. I read often but don't sign in so I don't get too drawn into the same-o-same-o. Every so often though, I feel like it's time to get involved again.
Click to expand...

Just let things flow, and don't take the emotionally wounded opinions seriously.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I would agree, so what is worn all the religious caterwalling? They are distracting from the issue. People should be allowed to choose which customers they want to serve. Reasons don't matter. They're mostly stupid.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with that. It's not very often that a good reason is provided. Still, it's not my property nor is my labor being called on, so it's not my place to tell them their reason is not good enough. Still, the religious reasoning should be good enough according to the law, so really, I'm not bothered nearly all that much by them using it.
 
Summerwind said:
As usual, you want specific rules based on your personal values and not about freedom of self or family at all.
Click to expand...

Specific rules based on my personal values? FGM is already banned in cases that do less harm that male circumcision. The government has already said it is wrong to cut off sexual organs from newborn girls, so its not uncalled for or special to apply that to newborn boys.

Oh a man being able to masturbate in a natural manner and have sex with his girlfriend with his foreskin still there is a view based on freedom. Why you would think stopping parents from harming their children is somehow out of line with how society views freedom is beyond me.
 
Henrin said:
There is that goofy word choice again. A public business that is private property. :lol: Also, what benefits are they benefiting from? Voluntary transactions? Roads that they are paying for? What are you even talking about?
Click to expand...

I suspect he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about, but simply regurgitating the issued talking points. ;)
 
Oh i'm sure he has no interest. He got the attention he wanted last time around and is now focusing his efforts on the far more deserving virginia, florida, colorado, iowa, and nevada. It's not like he's still governor or anything either. He's got a campaign to run!
 
Henrin said:
Specific rules based on my personal values? FGM is already banned in cases that do less harm that male circumcision. The government has already said it is wrong to cut off sexual organs from newborn girls, so its not uncalled for or special to apply that to newborn boys.

Oh a man being able to masturbate in a natural manner and have sex with his girlfriend with his foreskin still there is a view based on freedom. Why you would think stopping parents from harming their children is somehow out of line with how society views freedom is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Once again, not appropriate for this thread. To end it however, the decision was made by his father, circumcised at birth with no long term or sexual problems, and his uncle (father's brother), not circumcised at birth, but circumcised at age 21 after a life of UTIs and bladder infections. So did I put a stop to it, no, was I the determining voice, not at all. I let the men I trusted who had legitimate personal experiences to make the decisions. They both voted for circumcision at birth.
Done.

Lastly, anyone who sees circumcision as worse the FGM isn't a person whose opinion matters on the subject. FGM is akin to cutting off the entire penis, not a flap of skin on the penis.
 
Summerwind said:
Except you are asking for special laws that say you can only be open to the public you choose to be open to. So you can't with any consistency suggest that bolded part.
Click to expand...
No, that requires removal of the special snowflake laws.

If you ask me protecting some groups and not others is hypocritical. Laws should be consistent.
 
Summerwind said:
Once again, not appropriate for this thread. To end it however, the decision was made by his father, circumcised at birth with no long term or sexual problems, and his uncle (father's brother), not circumcised at birth, but circumcised at age 21 after a life of UTIs and bladder infections. So did I put a stop to it, no, was I the determining voice, not at all. I let the men I trusted who had legitimate personal experiences to make the decisions. They both voted for circumcision at birth.
Done.
Click to expand...

No, you said before you agreed with them and consented to it. Most men will not have a UTI in their life and there is medicines that can treat such problems if they do. There is no reason to harm boys for something that 75% of men will never have.

Lastly, anyone who sees circumcision as worse the FGM isn't a person whose opinion matters on the subject. FGM is akin to cutting off the entire penis, not a flap of skin on the penis.
Click to expand...

Female genital mutilation and male genital mutilation are umbrella terms that describe multiple surgeries and other practices. Female genital mutilation can be anything from removing the clitoral hood to removing the clitoris, while Male genital mutilation can be anything from circumcision to physical castration. It is simply a fact that it is illegal to remove the clitoral hood from a newborn baby girl, while it is legal to remove the foreskin from a newborn baby boy. Removing the clitoral hood causes less damage and less loss of function than removing the foreskin. Oh and the foreskin is not just skin, but a sexual organ, much like hood is of women.
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
Yes... you are.
Click to expand...
You are the only one that mentioned it. You are princess.

That is a very male Texan attitude.
Click to expand...
You ate being sexist again. And thank you. Texas is a nice place to be.
I observe it down here. I notice it is a very common attitude among Texas men of all races down here. There is some of that elsewhere, but, it is exaggerated in Texas.
Click to expand...
What is?
 
CLAX1911 said:
No, that requires removal of the special snowflake laws.

If you ask me protecting some groups and not others is hypocritical. Laws should be consistent.
Click to expand...

Your first sentence is rhetorical bull****.

Your second sentence shows a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "hypocritical." The word you were looking for is "inconsistent" which is true because an amusement park ride that says "you must be this tall to ride" is vastly different than an intimidating sign like "no niggers" so yes, we are "inconsistent" between valid reasons and invalid ones. It's sort of like how cars can drive on roads and planes in the air- that's "inconsistent" insofar as different things are simply different.
 
Henrin said:
I'll agree with that. It's not very often that a good reason is provided.
Click to expand...
No, all reasons are stupid. But we have the right to be stupid.

Still, it's not my property nor is my labor being called on, so it's not my place to tell them their reason is not good enough.
Click to expand...
Enough? Enough for what? You epithet have the right or you don't, it can't be percussions based on how good of a reason you deem it to be.

Reasons are all stupid. "I don't serve Germans because reason X," "I don't serve jews because reason Y." No matter your reason for discrimination, it's stupid.

I'm not afraid to make that claim. But the worth of the reason only matters to you.


Still, the religious reasoning should be good enough according to the law, so really, I'm not bothered nearly all that much by them using it.
Click to expand...
Lol the amount of lines of moby dick you can recite in klingon is a just as good of a reason.

Again reasons don't matter. You either have the right or you don't.

That's like saying the reason you chose to own a gun is good enough to own it. That's bull**** you either have the right or you don't. If you want to own a gun because you enjoy shooting sports, hunting, or keeping it in the microwave on the vernal equinox to appease Mandor the god of mong. It doesn't matter.
 
CLAX1911 said:
You are the only one that mentioned it. You are princess.

You ate being sexist again. And thank you. Texas is a nice place to be. What is?
Click to expand...

The attitude to 'feminism''.. or rather the straw man of feminism that the promote here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom