• 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!

Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick[W:252]

Re: Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick

Henrin said:
And yet in neither case should they. If anti-discrimination laws exist they should only apply to things people can't control, not things people decided to do. If I discriminate against you because of a choice you made, but have no problem with who you are then it is inaccurate to say I discriminated against you because of who you are.
Click to expand...

Your problem is you're totally devoid of legal precedence or common sense. You sound more like a preacher trying to straddle the line between condemning certain acts but not the person, even though that type of person commits those acts 98% of the time. It's a worthless distinction and the courts agree

In lawrence v texas, the ruling was that laws against homosexual sex were out of animus towards and restricted the freedoms of the *class* of homosexuals. In obergefell, the court further linked the class to the action of same sex marriage. You cannot discriminate against the action without discriminating against the person

Not that you agree that orientation or gender identity is something that can't be controlled anyway, but these laws exist for the common good period
 
Re: Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick

Henrin said:
Are you suggesting that I can't disagree with peoples personal choices because I'm a libertarian?
Click to expand...

Define the following words in the context of what we are discussing:

disagree
choice
discrimination

Perhaps then we can all see what you are attempting to do and demonstrate how it makes no sense.

Don't bother responding to this, Henrin. You've already made your dishonesty well known in this thread. I figured that was what you were doing and was going to force you to reveal it. Didn't need to. You did it yourself.
 
Last edited:
Re: Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick

Abbazorkzog said:
No, I'm suggesting that your (admitted) discrimination is at odds with libertarianism itself (or, rather, what it should be). And this bias skews everything and anything further you have to say about transgender/transsexual people.
Click to expand...

Nothing about libertarianism obligates to associate with others or forbids me from picking freely what reasons I decide to use to not associate. Your rules might be true for modern liberalism, but for classic liberalism it has no basis.
 
Re: Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick

Henrin said:
No, it's not wrong. I discrimate against people when I decide to not respond to people on DP, I discriminate against people when I decide they are not worth my company in real life, I discriminate against stores when I decide to not shop there, I discriminate against products when I decide to not buy them, I discriminate against people when I turn them down, I discriminate when I decide to buy one cat over another, etc. Discrimination is part of necessary and unavoidable part of life.
Click to expand...

Ah. There it is. Henrin is using the word "discriminate" in a completely different context than how it is being used by everyone else in this thread and how it is being used in this issue. I should have figured that you were debating dishonesty right from the outset.

Don't bother responding to my "definitions" post, Henrin. You've already revealed your dishonesty and definition equivocation. I'll let your failure, here, stand on that.
 
Re: Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick

CaptainCourtesy said:
OK, so let's go with this. We have established that transsexuality, in and of itself is not a choice and is not defined by whether or not one has surgery or takes hormones. Is taking hormones or having surgery a choice? Yes. Here's the problem with the argument, though. It is identical to the one about homosexuality. Is being homosexual a choice? No. Is ACTING on being homosexual a choice? Yes. Now, we have a core difference. For the most part, acting on being homosexual is not public, whereas acting on being transsexual can be. The issue is, though, is the individual, at their essence, defined by those definitions? The answer is yes. Therefore, whether or not one acts on being transsexual, anti-discrimination laws apply, similar to homosexuals.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how they try to craft a legal argument masking their real intent, which is to find a way to discriminate against lgbt. There's literally no reason for an entire state or country to ban homosexual sex for instance unless it's out of animus towards homosexuals. Yet they try to pretend otherwise and they "love the sinner not the sin" which is all lying to themselves or the rest of us
 
Re: Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick

Henrin said:
No, it's not wrong. I discrimate against people when I decide to not respond to people on DP, I discriminate against people when I decide they are not worth my company in real life, I discriminate against stores when I decide to not shop there, I discriminate against products when I decide to not buy them, I discriminate against people when I turn them down, I discriminate when I hire one person over another, etc. Discrimination is a necessary and unavoidable part of life.
Click to expand...

So - when I encourage and infuriate one demographic against another for the purpose of galvanizing their hatred against said 'other' demographic for a political purpose, use it to ride a wave of populist and nationalistic furor to political power, sustain that hatred to prolong this power, and - purposefully or not purposefully - escalate this hatred into violence and end up getting innocent people killed, this discrimination is okay as well? Since, you know - as you said - discrimination is necessary part of life...
 
Re: Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick

Henrin said:
No, it's not wrong. I discrimate against people when I decide to not respond to them on DP, I discriminate against people when I decide they are not worth my company in real life, I discriminate against stores when I decide to not shop there, I discriminate against products when I decide to not buy them, I discriminate against people when I turn them down, I discriminate when I hire one person over another, etc. Discrimination is a necessary and unavoidable part of life.
Click to expand...

Then you need to invent another word for what takes place when a store owner holds up "no coloreds" or "no homos" because it's entirely different from you're babbling about
 
Re: Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick

chromium said:
It's amazing how they try to craft a legal argument masking their real intent, which is to find a way to discriminate against lgbt. There's literally no reason for an entire state or country to ban homosexual sex for instance unless it's out of animus towards homosexuals. Yet they try to pretend otherwise and they "love the sinner not the sin" which is all lying to themselves or the rest of us
Click to expand...

Don't even bother, chromium. Henrin is using a dishonest debate tactic. He's altering definitions to fit his presentation, definitions that do not apply in the context of what we are discussing. Standard for him, since he can't debate the topic, without using some sort of trick, dishonesty, or lack of logic.
 
Re: Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick

Henrin said:
Nothing about libertarianism obligates to associate with others or forbids me from picking freely what reasons I decide to use to not associate. Your rules might be true for modern liberalism, but for classic liberalism it has no basis.
Click to expand...

Freewheeling skewed assumptions that your interpretation of discrimination that is specifically tailored to further your own personal zeal as examples as to why it is 'necessary' to put people into boxes and labels and exacerbate divisions and conflict is wholly irresponsible to the most quantum of degrees.
 
Re: Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick

chromium said:
It's amazing how they try to craft a legal argument masking their real intent, which is to find a way to discriminate against lgbt. There's literally no reason for an entire state or country to ban homosexual sex for instance unless it's out of animus towards homosexuals. Yet they try to pretend otherwise and they "love the sinner not the sin" which is all lying to themselves or the rest of us
Click to expand...

Strawman alert! No one is looking to ban homosexual sex.
 
Re: Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick

Abbazorkzog said:
Freewheeling skewed assumptions that your interpretation of discrimination that is specifically tailored to further your own personal zeal as examples as to why it is 'necessary' to put people into boxes and labels and exacerbate divisions and conflict is wholly irresponsible to the most quantum of degrees.
Click to expand...

It's all discrimination in the end. :shrug: What you guys are doing is putting discrimination into categories based on your own personal opinions on what is right and wrong, while just saying discrimination is part of life. My argument is factual, while your arguments are just your opinion.
 
Re: Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick

Henrin said:
Strawman alert! No one is looking to ban homosexual sex.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. There are plenty of politicians who would ban homosexual sex in a heartbeat. :roll:
 
Re: Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick

Abbazorkzog said:
Oh, please. There are plenty of politicians who would ban homosexual sex in a heartbeat. :roll:
Click to expand...

Nah. Too many would then get arrested. ;)
 
Re: Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick

Abbazorkzog said:
Oh, please. There are plenty of politicians who would ban homosexual sex in a heartbeat. :roll:
Click to expand...

So is there enough of them to make any difference to things?
 
Re: Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick

Henrin said:
It's all discrimination in the end. :shrug: What you guys are doing is putting discrimination into categories based on your own personal opinions on what is right and wrong, while just saying discrimination is part of life. My argument is factual, while your arguments are just your opinion.
Click to expand...

To the bold: no, that is in fact what you are doing. To that last sentence: :lamo
 
Re: Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick

Henrin said:
It's all discrimination in the end. :shrug: What you guys are doing is putting discrimination into categories based on your own personal opinions on what is right and wrong, while just saying discrimination is part of life. My argument is factual, while your arguments are just your opinion.
Click to expand...

Your argument is dishonest. You are using a word differently than how it is being used in the context of the thread and the issue.

You've been exposed, Henrin. Move on to some other dishonest debate tactic.
 
Re: Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick

Henrin said:
So is there enough of them to make any difference to things?
Click to expand...

Not sure, but to say that no one would try to ban homosexual sex (if they were given the opportunity) is absurd. The very foundations of the argument against Gay Rights is irrational homophobia.
 
Re: Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick

Abbazorkzog said:
To the bold: no, that is in fact what you are doing. To that last sentence: :lamo
Click to expand...

No, discrimination is discrimination. Making choices in life leads to discrimination taking place. Most of the reasons behind the discrimination done towards others just so happens to be for things they can't control or at least change easily.
 
Re: Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick

Henrin said:
Strawman alert! No one is looking to ban homosexual sex.
Click to expand...

When you say they should be able to discriminate against the action not the identity, that is the exact same line of thinking - that an employer shouldn't be able to fire homosexuals, unless they've ever had homosexual sex, or gotten a gay marriage. Out of all the convoluted legal arguments, such as "obergefell legalized gay marriage but not the employment benefits", no court has or ever will side with you on this. A protected class includes the behaviors associated with that class
 
Re: Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick

Henrin said:
So is there enough of them to make any difference to things?
Click to expand...

in states like mississippi and texas hell yeah. But the supreme court already ruled
 
Re: Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick

chromium said:
When you say they should be able to discriminate against the action not the identity, that is the exact same line of thinking - that an employer shouldn't be able to fire homosexuals, unless they've ever had homosexual sex, or gotten a gay marriage. Out of all the convoluted legal arguments, such as "obergefell legalized gay marriage but not the employment benefits", no court has or ever will side with you on this. A protected class includes the behaviors associated with that class
Click to expand...

So? Having gay sex and getting married to someone of the same sex are choices that someone can make rather they are homosexual or not.
 
Re: Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick

Henrin said:
So? Having gay sex and getting married to someone of the same sex are choices that someone can make rather they are homosexual or not.
Click to expand...

That is damn easy to say when you aren't homosexual. Try going without sex or marrying your whole life just so you don't get fired by your bigot boss who's looking for some loophole in the worthless civil rights protection law

And hell, why stop there. If you ever admit to being gay you lose your worthless protections under your ideal brand of civil rights
 
Re: Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick

chromium said:
That is damn easy to say when you aren't homosexual. Try going without sex or marrying your whole life just so you don't get fired by your bigot boss who's looking for some loophole in the worthless civil rights protection law
Click to expand...

So you admit that both of the things you said can apply to people that are not gay, right?

And hell, why stop there. If you ever admit to being gay you lose your worthless protections under your ideal brand of civil rights
Click to expand...

My ideal brand of civil right protections wouldn't impose anything on private persons. :shrug:
 
Re: Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick

Henrin said:
Transgenders decide to get treatment, they decide to dress and present themselves a certain way, and they decide what pronouns they wish to be called. I don't see how you can apply anti-discrimination laws to transgenders without protecting them from criticism for the choices they made.
Click to expand...

No more than you decide to get up and put pants on instead of a dress each morning. I think that is where you are lost. It is a little over your "paygrade" to accept that those different from you are just people too. Some of us were brought up this way. I always ask them what are they afraid of?
 
Re: Trump's Anti-LGBTQ Civil Rights Pick

iguanaman said:
No more than you decide to get up and put pants on instead of a dress each morning. I think that is where you are lost. It is a little over your "paygrade" to accept that those different from you are just people too. Some of us were brought up this way. I always ask them what are they afraid of?
Click to expand...

Yes, putting on pants instead of a dress is a choice. How is posting a choice somehow supposed to work against what I said? :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom