• 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!

LGBT Non-Discrimation Vote Passes Senate [W:215]

Mr.Nick said:
Call me a realist but:

Boys are born with a penis and girls are born with the vagina... I suppose that concept is too crazy and complicated for progressives...
Click to expand...

thank you for this post that exposes how severely uneducated your posts are about this topic, facts, human and medical science and psychology

its stunning

theres nothing "realist" about your post at all its pure ignorance and science and facts totally disagree with you
 
AGENT J said:
1.) true it prevents society from breaking the law and infringing on rights and it helps fight illegal discrimination
2.) 100% false, ZERO acceptance of any sexual practice is required to not infringe on peoples rights
3.) theres no force acceptance so its pretty easy

if this bill pases tomorrow personal acceptance is factually not required, just like people today factually dont personally accept religions, genders, races etc

4.) theres ZERO consequence for not accepting
5.) nothing to hide, just like the laws protecting genders, religions, races dont force personal acceptance
6.) i agree but this bill doesnt force that

7.) tin foil hat? lol well thats being nice to him

anyway theres no ideas or acceptance being forced because you can still totally personal NOT accept gay sex and you will not be in violation of this law/bill, so i have no clue how one can come to that conclusion, theres no logic that supports "FORCE" of the idea of acceptance
Click to expand...

Did similar protections for the disabled promote an acceptance of individuals with disabilities? I would be foolish to deny it, because even in small doses, the force of the law did. I'm grateful for it, because I benefited from it.

You're misunderstanding the difference between an abstract social structure and judicial force to make sure people accept the practice.
 
Fiddytree said:
1.)Did similar protections for the disabled promote an acceptance of individuals with disabilities? I would be foolish to deny it, because even in small doses, the force of the law did. I'm grateful for it.

2.) You're misunderstanding the difference between an abstract social structure and judicial force to make sure people accept the practice.
Click to expand...

1.) now we saying "promote" acceptance instead of force which is GREATLY different

yes the argument could be made that it promotes people to educate themselves and realize that people with disability dont just sit in a corner and drool on themselves

but it did NOT force the idea or acceptance of them, many people till this day do not accept them and even think its a good reason for abortion no matter how light the disability is and they are committing no crime

2.) no you are confusing protecting peoples rights and and POSSIBLE "promoting" people to get educated about what people are and "FORCE"


if his bill passes right now and tomorrow i go on tv and radio and on line and walk through the streets and announce i dont accept them what law did i break and what will be my punishment forced upon me?

especially when you say "practice" and not even the person that is just factually wrong.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) now we saying "promote" acceptance instead of force which is GREATLY different
Click to expand...

Alright then, let's split the difference and call it...."thrust."

if his bill passes right now and tomorrow i go on tv and radio and on line and walk through the streets and announce i dont accept them what law did i break and what will be my punishment forced upon me?
Click to expand...

You didn't break the law by not accepting them, but allowing their employment qualifications to shrine through. You would potentially eventually be breaking de facto viewpoints of the LBGT if, as a result of these laws and time, individuals under that LBGT banner are seen as equals and not nearly disdained or shunned as they are today.

Laws, court decisions, and so forth are a legal mechanism to affect social change. The two are distinct, but interrelated.

Again, there is absolutely nothing in my mind wrong with this with this legislation. Legislation and court decisions which promote gay marriage also work toward this end. It doesn't mean that there is literally "thought crime." It is, however, a means of making certain thoughts and ideologies less socially acceptable.
 
Fiddytree said:
1.)Alright then, let's split the difference and call it...."thrust."



2.) You didn't break the law by not accepting them, but allowing their qualifications to shrine through.
3.) You would potentially eventually be breaking de facto viewpoints of the LBGT if, as a result of these laws and time, individuals under that LBGT banner are seen as equals and not nearly disdained or shunned as they are today.
Click to expand...

1.) ill take thrust if we are talking about thrusting NOT violating peoples rights and thrusting not discriminating :) but not acceptance, its simply not required.
the only acceptance that is forced is yes, gays are people with equal rights, nothing else

now if people are upset they have to accept gays as equal human beings with rights just like they are, again they are in the wrong country

2.) so then theres no force of acceptance
3.) but again no force on me and no law broken.

i get what you are saying but there is ZERO "force" of acceptance . . none
just like with religion, gender, race etc


if you can show me where the force is of personal acceptance then id buy it but theres not fiddy sorry I simply cant agree on force because theres nothing factual that supports that
 
AGENT J said:
if you can show me where the force is of personal acceptance then id buy it but theres not fiddy sorry I simply cant agree on force because theres nothing factual that supports that
Click to expand...

Here's an example:

yes the argument could be made that it promotes people to educate themselves and realize that people with disability dont just sit in a corner and drool on themselves
Click to expand...

Now, without additional legislation and strong-armed tactics, it is far less possible for that to become a common viewpoint (the one you yourself hold about people with disabilities).

You promote a notion that people with disabilities aren't a certain way. I guarantee you that is the result of numerous court decisions, legislation, regulation, desegregation, and employment protections.

Without strong-arming the public, you have a more difficult time swaying the opinion of the masses.

Now, if we moved the other direction, and placed more legal restrictions on people with disabilities in many areas, it will become a whole lot more likely a social rationale will trickle to the masses justifying such measures (and more).

Social norms come with a force all their own.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Call me a realist but:

Boys are born with a penis and girls are born with the vagina... I suppose that concept is too crazy and complicated for progressives...
Click to expand...

See, I support your right to say this 100%. However, when a person has mental anguish over reconciling their thinking to their bodies to the point (for some) of suicide or at least ruining their chance of living a happy productive life something should be done. For the vast majority that have tried counceling through the years, trying to fix the brain has failed and there is even some research to show actual physcial similarities between the brain of transgender people and that of the gender they feel they are. If fixing the brain doesnt work and changing the body does, then I support changing the body.
 
If people don't think this is an issue still, consider the military, which was very openly expelling gay employees by the thousands. Now few lines of work are as blatantly homophobic as the military, but this is surely under-reported in states/cities that have no ENDA type of law. The fired workers know they have no case and the "private" employer doesn't have to give a publicized reason unless sued.
 
Fiddytree said:
Here's an example:



1.) Now, without additional legislation and strong-armed tactics, it is far less possible for that to become a common viewpoint (the one you yourself hold about people with disabilities).

2.) You promote a notion that people with disabilities aren't a certain way.

3.) I guarantee you that is the result of numerous court decisions, legislation, regulation, desegregation, and employment protections.

4.) Without strong-arming the public

5.) you have a more difficult time swaying the opinion of the masses.
Click to expand...

1.) its not strong arm its simply protecting rights and facts, the view point is meaningless to the law and rights
2.) no, "i" dont facts and rights simply do, reality and truth does
3.) no its just facts and reality, it is a fact people with disabilities dont just sit in a corner and drool and that fact would be true without protecting their rights but luckily we do
4.) again theres no strong arming unless you think protecting rights is strong arming and then if thats the case then the only logical thing to do is to not have rights cant have it both ways
5.) opinions dont matter to facts

take interracial marriage, 80+% of people had the opinion it was wrong and should be illegal when government started protecting that right, the majority didnt start thinking it was right until the 90s, 30 years later.

if so called strong arming takes 30 years i dont see whats strong about it, also i do agree the argument can be made that without the government protecting those rights it probably would have took longer but again peoples uneducated wrong opinions dont matter to facts and rights.

and again "ACCEPTANCE" still factually is not "FORCED" its still legal to personally not accept it

whats the alternative? how do we protect rights without laws?

like i said if you can give me one example of forced personal acceptance ill buy it, but one doesnt exists because there is no force of acceptance
 
Fiddytree said:
There's no reason to be ashamed of wanting to change social structures to be more accepting of homosexuals or transgendered individual beyond de jure protections.
Click to expand...

Actually there is. You cannot force acceptance. Trying to use the government's hand to force it is extremely extremely shameful. Equal rights don't mean special rights. Imposing your will, what you view as acceptable onto others whose conscience won't allow it, and telling them to shut up and deal with it. That, yeah, that's pretty shameful behavior... And yes, this goes the other way as well... Which is why social issues need to be Federal Government neutral and the power vested in local municipalities, counties, and States.
 
AGENT J said:
3.) no its just facts and reality, it is a fact people with disabilities dont just sit in a corner and drool and that fact would be true without protecting their rights but luckily we do
Click to expand...

"Facts" and "reality" dictated that many/most of the disabled were bitter people. "Facts" and "reality" dictated that people with disabilities were moral degenerates.

Social structures matter.

Study up on post-structuralist thought.
 
ChezC3 said:
Actually there is.
1.)You cannot force acceptance.
2.) Trying to use the government's hand to force it is extremely extremely shameful.
3.)Equal rights don't mean special rights.
4.) Imposing your will, what you view as acceptable onto others whose conscience won't allow it, and telling them to shut up and deal with it.
5.)That, yeah, that's pretty shameful behavior...
6.) And yes, this goes the other way as well... Which is why social issues need to be Federal Government neutral and the power vested in local municipalities, counties, and States.
Click to expand...

1.) correct and thats factually not happening
2.) see #1
3.) correct! good thing this is factually not special rights
4.) also not going on in this bill
5.) since thats not happening no worries
6.) 100% false since we are talking about equal rights
 
ChezC3 said:
Actually there is. You cannot force acceptance. Trying to use the government's hand to force it is extremely extremely shameful. Equal rights don't mean special rights. Imposing your will, what you view as acceptable onto others whose conscience won't allow it, and telling them to shut up and deal with it. That, yeah, that's pretty shameful behavior... And yes, this goes the other way as well... Which is why social issues need to be Federal Government neutral and the power vested in local municipalities, counties, and States.
Click to expand...

No one is forcing acceptance. The laws are just mandating non-discrimination. However, it has been shown
as discrimination goes down acceptance tends to go up on its own.
 
Last edited:
ChezC3 said:
Actually there is. You cannot force acceptance.
Trying to use the government's hand to force it is extremely extremely shameful. Equal rights don't mean special rights. Imposing your will, what you view as acceptable onto others whose conscience won't allow it, and telling them to shut up and deal with it. That, yeah, that's pretty shameful behavior... And yes, this goes the other way as well... Which is why social issues need to be Federal Government neutral and the power vested in local municipalities, counties, and States.
Click to expand...

You live in an entire society were acceptance or disdain is socially enforced. Government has a hand in that.
 
Fiddytree said:
1.)"Facts" and "reality" dictated that many/most of the disabled were bitter people.
2.) "Facts" and "reality" dictated that people with disabilities were moral degenerates.
3.) Social structures matter.
4.) Study up on post-structuralist thought.
Click to expand...

1.) according to what? and why
2.) see 1#
3.) yes they do but there is still factually no force of personal acceptance
4.) no need since it doesnt impact that fact theres no force of personal acceptance, as soon as you can give me one ill agree
 
Amandi said:
1.)No one is forcing acceptance.
2.)The laws are just mandating non-discrimination.
3.) However, it has been proven as discrimination goes down acceptance tends to go up on its own.
Click to expand...

1.)100% correct
2.) also correct, it protects rights and stops illegal discrimination
3.) agreed
 
Amandi said:
No one is forcing acceptance. The laws are just mandating non-discrimination. However, it has been proven as discrimination goes down acceptance tends to go up on its own.
Click to expand...

Certainly they are. So long as all are equal in the eyes of the government, let no man be told whom he may associate with.

People lose this argument with me every time, it's the ugly side of freedom, I know, but you've got to let people do as thou wilt. That goes for both camps.
 
ChezC3 said:
1.)Certainly they are. So long as all are equal in the eyes of the government,
2.) let no man be told whom he may associate with.
3.) People lose this argument with me every time, it's the ugly side of freedom, I know, but you've got to let people do as thou wilt. That goes for both camps.
Click to expand...

1.) nope already proven they factually are
2.) everybody is still free to do this
3.) love to see your "FACTUAL" winning argument then because you havent presented it yet, not your opinion, FACTS
 
AGENT J said:
1.) according to what? and why
2.) see 1#
3.) yes they do but there is still factually no force of personal acceptance
Click to expand...

1 & 2) It was a common statement delivered from people hiring to people rehabilitating the disabled. Do you really want me to pull out books from 60 years ago to 15 years ago to quote to you?

To pull out Foucault:

Force doesn't have to mean strapping a man down to a chair and hitting him with a hammer to punish him. It can mean altering his thought patterns over time, impacting his routine.
 
Fiddytree said:
You live in an entire society were acceptance or disdain is socially enforced. Government has a hand in that.
Click to expand...

I also live in a society were the government takes a nice chunk of change out of my coffers regularly but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it, nor offer up ways to let them have more, or no?
 
Fiddytree said:
You live in an entire society were acceptance or disdain is socially enforced. Government has a hand in that.
Click to expand...

The presence of abuse is not an excuse for increasing it.
 
Fiddytree said:
1.) 1 & 2) It was a common statement delivered from people hiring to people rehabilitating the disabled. Do you really want me to pull out books from 60 years ago to 15 years ago to quote to you?

To pull out Foucault:

2.) Force doesn't have to mean strapping a man down to a chair and hitting him with a hammer to punish him. It can mean altering his thought patterns over time, impacting his routine.
Click to expand...

1.) people being factually wrong and uneducated doesnt make if fact. Right now its common for people to think all gays are just perverts and are running around banging anything that moves, doesnt matter because no matter how many people think that its factually not true :shrug: thank you for proving my point

facts and reality doesn't care about opinions

2.) never claimed that, the fact is though that people are still free to think how they want about gays, gender, race, religion etc and they still do.

laws protect religion but it seems more people are less religious over time in the us? weird huh?

all you have to do is give me on factual example of forcing personal acceptance
 
Fiddytree said:
post
Click to expand...

sorry fiddy i gotta go, its almost 3 here in the burgh but we can continue later if you wish

always nice having a civil talk even when we dont agree

later
 
Amandi said:
See, I support your right to say this 100%. However, when a person has mental anguish over reconciling their thinking to their bodies to the point (for some) of suicide or at least ruining their chance of living a happy productive life something should be done. For the vast majority that have tried counceling through the years, trying to fix the brain has failed and there is even some research to show actual physcial similarities between the brain of transgender people and that of the gender they feel they are. If fixing the brain doesnt work and changing the body does, then I support changing the body.
Click to expand...

You see - you agree to a point - not 100%....

There is no individual in this world that has full "junk" that has an excuse to believe their "junk" is wrong...
 
cpwill said:
The presence of abuse is not an excuse for increasing it.
Click to expand...

And telling the truth when the truth needs to be told does nothing but mute it...

Quit being an armchair QB....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom