Kansas Crimson

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:33 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:47 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:42 pm

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.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:59 am 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.

Gutter wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:07 am 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 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:11 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:59 am 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?

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:09 am
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.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:20 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:09 am
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 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:21 am "Remember the 5 D's of message board discussions: Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge."

- DC

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:27 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:20 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:09 am
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.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:20 am 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.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:28 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:21 am "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."

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:34 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:20 am 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?

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:34 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:20 am 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 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:41 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:28 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:21 am "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.

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:49 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:34 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:20 am 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 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:05 am 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?