Dumbfuck in charge

[DCHawk1]

It is not false. Mike Pence is objectively NOT anti-gay. And his policy positions were not significantly different from Barack Obama's in 2008.

You haven't "proven" a damn thing. You've claimed something and then demanded that I prove a negative.

Settle down.

[Deleted User 183]

Fine DC, Pence is not "anti-gay".
Is it ok with you if we simply say he's not "pro-gay" - and/or he has a history of discriminating against gay people?

[twocoach]

What is Pence's position. In its entirety.

I'll wait here.

Oh. And for the record, she didn't call his position disgusting. She said that orthodox Christians, orthodox Jews, and orthodox Muslims are not decent people.

http://web.archive.org/web/200105191650 ... ssues.html

- Opposed gay marriage: "Congress should oppose any effort to put gay and lesbian relationships on an equal legal status with heterosexual marriage. "

- signed a law that allowed businesses to claim "religious freedom" as an excuse for refusing to service gay people

- voted against employment nondiscrimination protections for gay and transgender people: "Congress should oppose any effort to recognize homosexual's as a "discreet and insular minority" entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws similar to those extended to women and ethnic minorities. "

- voted to repeal "don't ask, don't tell". "bringing an end to the "don't ask/don't tell" policy of permitting homosexuals to serve in the armed forces. Homosexuality is incompatible with military service because the presence of homosexuals in the ranks weakens unit cohesion."

- and his absurd one which led to the notion of his "support" of conversion therapy, which he really didn't do directly but his policy would provide government funding to support businesses that supported conversion therapy. "Congress should support the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act only after completion of an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus. Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior. "

So yeah, Pence's stance against the LGBTQ community are pretty clear.

Yes. His stance is objectively not pro-LGBTQ but not anti-LGBTQ either, which, apparently, is enough for him to be declared "not decent."

I'd think you might understand that this proves my point, but maybe not.

I understand your point. I just disagree that Pence's stance is not anti-LGBTQ. "Congress should oppose any effort to put gat and lesbian relationships on an equal legal status as heterosexual marraige" makes it pretty clear that he views them as "less worthy" of the legal rights afforded to heterosexual citizens.

I teally dont see ant way that isn't anti-LGBTQ. They are his own words and they explicitely call for a reduction in their legal rights afforded to others.

[twocoach]

It is not false. Mike Pence is objectively NOT anti-gay. And his policy positions were not significantly different from Barack Obama's in 2008.

You haven't "proven" a damn thing. You've claimed something and then demanded that I prove a negative.

Settle down.

You keep purposefully injecting that word "objectively" in there to insulate your opinion on this.

Do you understand why people objectively feel that he is anti-gay?

[DCHawk1]

Fine DC, Pence is not "anti-gay".
Is it ok with you if we simply say he's not "pro-gay" - and/or he has a history of discriminating against gay people?

You can say he's not pro-gay. In fact, I said that.

What history of discrimination does he have?

[DCHawk1]

It is not false. Mike Pence is objectively NOT anti-gay. And his policy positions were not significantly different from Barack Obama's in 2008.

You haven't "proven" a damn thing. You've claimed something and then demanded that I prove a negative.

Settle down.

You keep purposefully injecting that word "objectively" in there to insulate your opinion on this.

Do you understand why people objectively feel that he is anti-gay?

You cannot "feel" something objectively.

[DCHawk1]

I understand your point. I just disagree that Pence's stance is not anti-LGBTQ. "Congress should oppose any effort to put gat and lesbian relationships on an equal legal status as heterosexual marraige" makes it pretty clear that he views them as "less worthy" of the legal rights afforded to heterosexual citizens.

I teally dont see ant way that isn't anti-LGBTQ. They are his own words and they explicitely call for a reduction in their legal rights afforded to others.

On the one hand, you're conflating issues here. The status of marriage and support for gay men and women are -- or at least were, historically -- two separate issues.

On the other hand, you're proving the point: either accept a non-traditional definition of marriage or be defined as "anti-gay" and be labeled evil (i.e. "not a decent person"). THAT is the threat.


And all of this, I'll note, ignores the fact that Pence's position on marriage can be interpreted both from the libertarian and the federalist perspective as being anti-statist as opposed to anti-gay-marriage.

[twocoach]

"Remember the 5 D's of message board discussions: Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge."

- DC

[twocoach]

I understand your point. I just disagree that Pence's stance is not anti-LGBTQ. "Congress should oppose any effort to put gat and lesbian relationships on an equal legal status as heterosexual marraige" makes it pretty clear that he views them as "less worthy" of the legal rights afforded to heterosexual citizens.

I teally dont see ant way that isn't anti-LGBTQ. They are his own words and they explicitely call for a reduction in their legal rights afforded to others.

On the one hand, you're conflating issues here. The status of marriage and support for gay men and women are -- or at least were, historically -- two separate issues.

On the other hand, you're proving the point: either accept a non-traditional definition of marriage or be defined as "anti-gay" and be labeled evil (i.e. "not a decent person"). THAT is the threat.


And all of this, I'll note, ignores the fact that Pence's position on marriage can be interpreted both from the libertarian and the federalist perspective as being anti-statist as opposed to anti-gay-marriage.

Come on. Racists have been falling back on religion to shroud racism for centuries. Please.

Saying that gays should not be allowed to get legally married because of your religious views of marriage is absurd.

Religion has nothing to do with legal marriage. If you dont like gay couples tarnishing religious marriage then ask your church leaders not to allow gay wedding ceremonies in your church.

Banning them from being able to go to the non-religious courthouse to file a non-religious legal document for religious reasons is anti-gay. Period.

What I am doing is upholding the Constitutional view of our nation which is that ALL citizens of our nation should be granted equal legal status and rights.

Just because it was traditional for people to view legal marriage through their religious lens doesnt mean you should deny people legal rights because they dont look at the world through your same lens.

[DCHawk1]

"Remember the 5 D's of message board discussions: Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge."

- DC

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Mike Pence's view's on same-sex marriage and on the LGBTQ community as a whole differ considerably from mine. I find his views to be both unnecessarily rigid and damaging to the political position he purports to represent. But those views are, nevertheless, perfectly in line with orthodox Christianity (and Judaism and Islam) and are neither objectively detrimental to any individual or group nor enough to label a person (or 100 million American people) "not decent."

[DCHawk1]

I understand your point. I just disagree that Pence's stance is not anti-LGBTQ. "Congress should oppose any effort to put gat and lesbian relationships on an equal legal status as heterosexual marraige" makes it pretty clear that he views them as "less worthy" of the legal rights afforded to heterosexual citizens.

I teally dont see ant way that isn't anti-LGBTQ. They are his own words and they explicitely call for a reduction in their legal rights afforded to others.

On the one hand, you're conflating issues here. The status of marriage and support for gay men and women are -- or at least were, historically -- two separate issues.

On the other hand, you're proving the point: either accept a non-traditional definition of marriage or be defined as "anti-gay" and be labeled evil (i.e. "not a decent person"). THAT is the threat.


And all of this, I'll note, ignores the fact that Pence's position on marriage can be interpreted both from the libertarian and the federalist perspective as being anti-statist as opposed to anti-gay-marriage.

Come on. Racists have been falling back on religion to shroud racism for centuries. Please.

Saying that gays should not be allowed to get legally married because of your religious views of marriage is absurd.

Religion has nothing to do with legal marriage. If you dont like gay couples tarnishing religious marriage then ask your church leaders not to allow gay wedding ceremonies in your church.

Banning them from being able to go to the non-religious courthouse to file a non-religious legal document for religious reasons is anti-gay. Period.

That's not the way any of this works in practice. And the analogy to racism is as trite as it is morally facile.

Moreover, even if we were to agree that his position is "absurd," that doesn't mean it's evil.

[Deleted User 89]

And all of this, I'll note, ignores the fact that Pence's position on marriage can be interpreted both from the libertarian and the federalist perspective as being anti-statist as opposed to anti-gay-marriage.

this is a joke, right?

his stance on marriage isn't in a vacuum. why would his other views/legislative support not matter and be taken into account?

[twocoach]

"Remember the 5 D's of message board discussions: Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge."

- DC

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Mike Pence's view's on same-sex marriage and on the LGBTQ community as a whole differ considerably from mine. I find his views to be both unnecessarily rigid and damaging to the political position he purports to represent. But those views are, nevertheless, perfectly in line with orthodox Christianity (and Judaism and Islam) and are neither objectively detrimental to any individual or group nor enough to label a person (or 100 million American people) "not decent."

There are many legal rights, decisions and tools that are available exclusively to legally married couples. Tax benefits, estate planning, rights to govt social security benefits, access tomwdical benefits through a spouses employer, etc...

I am sorry that you feel that it isnt "detrimental enough" to deny persons those rights to hold an opinion that those who actively deny those rights to US citizens who deserve them are "not decent people".

If someone took action to legally make it so my spouse wasn't eligible to be covered under my health insurance, wasn't entitled to my belongings upon my death without a will, couldn't visit me in the hospital if I was incapacitated and had no say in my burial arrangements then I would say fhey were not a decent person. You disagree? Fine.

[DCHawk1]

And all of this, I'll note, ignores the fact that Pence's position on marriage can be interpreted both from the libertarian and the federalist perspective as being anti-statist as opposed to anti-gay-marriage.

this is a joke, right?

No, it's a fact.

[twocoach]

And all of this, I'll note, ignores the fact that Pence's position on marriage can be interpreted both from the libertarian and the federalist perspective as being anti-statist as opposed to anti-gay-marriage.

this is a joke, right?

his stance on marriage isn't in a vacuum. why would his other views/legislative support not matter and be taken into account?

It's the argument of the theory while ignoring the practical impact.

I dont give a shit what Pence's motivations are or what label to assign to his official stance. The application of his stance results in US citizens being denied legal statuses that other US cirizens do have the right to for no other reason than their sexual preference. That's discriminatory and in my opinion, not what the founders of our nation had in mind when they declared that all men are created equal.

[DCHawk1]

"Remember the 5 D's of message board discussions: Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge."

- DC

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Mike Pence's view's on same-sex marriage and on the LGBTQ community as a whole differ considerably from mine. I find his views to be both unnecessarily rigid and damaging to the political position he purports to represent. But those views are, nevertheless, perfectly in line with orthodox Christianity (and Judaism and Islam) and are neither objectively detrimental to any individual or group nor enough to label a person (or 100 million American people) "not decent."

There are many legal rights, decisions and tools that are available exclusively to legally married couples. Tax benefits, estate planning, rights to govt social security benefits, access tomwdical benefits through a spouses employer, etc...

I am sorry that you feel that it isnt "detrimental enough" to deny persons those rights to hold an opinion that those who actively deny those rights to US citizens who deserve them are "not decent people".

If someone took action to legally make it so my spouse wasn't eligible to be covered under my health insurance, wasn't entitled to my belongings upon my death without a will, couldn't visit me in the hospital if I was incapacitated and had no say in my burial arrangements then I would say fhey were not a decent person. You disagree? Fine.

For starters, the fact that these "legal rights" exist only for married couples speaks to the unnecessary and unjust intrusion of the state into aspects of life in which it does not belong more than it speaks to any deficiency in gay rights. The notion that the state should be the arbiter of a relationship's worth is far more ridiculous than anything Mike Pence ever did.

Additionally, your recitation is flawed on at least two counts: First, Pence didn't try to "take away" anything from anyone. The difference -- in terms both of policy and moral justification -- is significant.

Second, you cite his agenda for the 107th Congress, which -- in a revelation that may cause tradition to shit himself -- means that you are citing campaign materials from a full 8 years BEFORE Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton expressed their OPPOSITION to gay marriage. Heck, Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in the prior Congress. If his opposition to gay marriage then makes him "not decent," then he has a LOT of company, including a pretty significant number of Democrats.

[DCHawk1]

And all of this, I'll note, ignores the fact that Pence's position on marriage can be interpreted both from the libertarian and the federalist perspective as being anti-statist as opposed to anti-gay-marriage.

this is a joke, right?

his stance on marriage isn't in a vacuum. why would his other views/legislative support not matter and be taken into account?

It's the argument of the theory while ignoring the practical impact.

I dont give a shit what Pence's motivations are or what label to assign to his official stance. The application of his stance results in US citizens being denied legal statuses that other US cirizens do have the right to for no other reason than their sexual preference. That's discriminatory and in my opinion, not what the founders of our nation had in mind when they declared that all men are created equal.

The application of Pence's stance doesn't result in anything.

Moreover, let's be perfectly accurate here, the application of Mike Pence's and Barack Obama's stance...

[DCHawk1]

Because I'm curious...

If someone took action to legally make it so my spouse wasn't eligible to be covered under my health insurance

Any chance you could name for me one single insurance company that denies domestic-partner benefits?

[Leawood]

Let me just say here that lesbians are fine with me.

[twocoach]

Because I'm curious...

If someone took action to legally make it so my spouse wasn't eligible to be covered under my health insurance

Any chance you could name for me one single insurance company that denies domestic-partner benefits?

At the time that Pence was banning gay couples from being married in Indiana? Several. Brad Wilson, the CEO and Preisident of Blue Cross Blue Shield put out a statement dated Jan. 29th 2014 revising their practice of not covering same sex marriages or domestic partners and began to cover them effective March 1, 2014.