# Trump administration launches global effort to end criminalization of homosexuality



## Yakamaru (Feb 19, 2019)

www.nbcnews.com: Trump administration launches global effort to end criminalization of homosexuality
*
"BERLIN — The Trump administration is launching a global campaign to end the criminalization of homosexuality in dozens of nations where it's still illegal to be gay, U.S. officials tell NBC News, a bid aimed in part at denouncing Iran over its human rights record.

U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, the highest-profile openly gay person in the Trump administration, is leading the effort, which kicks off Tuesday evening in Berlin. The U.S. embassy is flying in LGBT activists from across Europe for a strategy dinner to plan to push for decriminalization in places that still outlaw homosexuality — mostly concentrated in the Middle East, Africa and the Caribbean.

“It is concerning that, in the 21st century, some 70 countries continue to have laws that criminalize LGBTI status or conduct,” said a U.S. official involved in organizing the event."
*
From Tim Pool on the topic, if you don't fancy reading and prefer a voice to listen to, and his own take on the subject:





You know.. I expected this to happen at some point, but not during Trump's first term. This is a step in the right direction, and I look forward to hearing and/or seeing more of this or similar news in the next 5 years.


----------



## Dat Wolf (Feb 19, 2019)

*tries to make LGBT legal in countries that hate us*
*proceeds to get nuked by Iran or some country led by a nutcase with nuclear weapons*
>:/


----------



## Marius Merganser (Feb 19, 2019)

The administration is fiercely anti-LGBT.  I think this is nothing but distraction.  The same people backing the administration now are the ones who were pushing criminalization laws in Uganda, Russia, and Europe in the early 2000s.


----------



## Doulyboy (Feb 19, 2019)

Trump is a known racist and misogynist, for that I can't support anything he does.

It probably has a entirely different motive then what is being proposed anyway.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 19, 2019)

I would applaud this if it wasn't merely a distraction.


----------



## Deleted member 111470 (Feb 20, 2019)

If this is true and they actually make an effort to help countries such as where I live, then that is commendable. Being openly gay or supporting gay people here can be suicidal, and I have personally witnessed a case where people bragged their brains out for sending a gay boy to the hospital after beating him to a pulp. That happened when I was in high school and it was highschoolers who did it.

Things have somewhat calmed down since then, and aren't as unspeakable in the capital city. But people's minds are still ridden with extreme homophobia and hatred. Unless we get external help I can't see a scenario where people stop being so disgusting. At least not in the foreseeable future.


----------



## Vitaly (Feb 20, 2019)

Best president ever, 10 walls/10


----------



## Tendo64 (Feb 20, 2019)

Rimna said:


> If this is true and they actually make an effort to help countries such as where I live, then that is commendable. Being openly gay or supporting gay people here can be suicidal, and I have personally witnessed a case where people bragged their brains out for sending a gay boy to the hospital after beating him to a pulp. That happened when I was in high school and it was highschoolers who did it.
> 
> Things have somewhat calmed down since then, and aren't as unspeakable in the capital city. But people's minds are still ridden with extreme homophobia and hatred. Unless we get external help I can't see a scenario where people stop being so disgusting. At least not in the foreseeable future.


Man, stories like that piss me off. I hope that guy recovered.

I don't know how to feel about the Trump administration considering I am not informed whatsoever, but I think that if they're serious about this, I'll at least respect this action in particular.


----------



## Deleted member 111470 (Feb 20, 2019)

Tendo64 said:


> Man, stories like that piss me off. I hope that guy recovered.
> 
> I don't know how to feel about the Trump administration considering I am not informed whatsoever, but I think that if they're serious about this, I'll at least respect this action in particular.



From what I was able to gather - he did recover, and he moved out of this town. Whether he went away in a foreign country or not, I can never know.


----------



## CrookedCroc (Feb 20, 2019)

Hope something good comes out of this.
I know some artists and online friends that have to hide their sexuality because they fear for their lives. 

I've even seen mobs of people that turn their LGTB "friends" to the police over political disagreements online.


----------



## EmmyCatto (Feb 20, 2019)

It’s interesting, but given how anti-LGBT the administration is, I have to agree with many others in his thread who say that this is nothing but a distraction. I do hope something good can come out of this, though I also wouldn’t be surprised if something from this backfired horribly.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Feb 20, 2019)

I'm not going to say no to the _idea_, but at the same time he hasn't fulfilled the other grand projects he proposed completing in the first year, so I have no reason to suspect he will do anything he says he will.

Also, this is quite the opposite of the "America first" decision-making this administration was built on. This inconsistency does not look good for them. It generates uncertainty that concerns even the majority of his voters at this point.

As much as I support the _idea_, it just isn't realistic for _this_ administration already in their *3rd year. *It looks like bullshit.


----------



## Yakamaru (Feb 20, 2019)

Rimna said:


> If this is true and they actually make an effort to help countries such as where I live, then that is commendable. Being openly gay or supporting gay people here can be suicidal, and I have personally witnessed a case where people bragged their brains out for sending a gay boy to the hospital after beating him to a pulp. That happened when I was in high school and it was highschoolers who did it.
> 
> Things have somewhat calmed down since then, and aren't as unspeakable in the capital city. But people's minds are still ridden with extreme homophobia and hatred. Unless we get external help I can't see a scenario where people stop being so disgusting. At least not in the foreseeable future.


Indeed. Countries such as your own could definitely use the same level of rights and basic human respect and treatment as the US or other western nations.

Whether this is all talk and no action is yet to be seen. But if they put their money where their mouth is, boy will countries such as Saudi Arabia, The Congo, Afghanistan and other primarily Asian and African countries get a lot of flak on the world stage. Some European, especially East European countries will get flak too.



CrookedCroc said:


> Hope something good comes out of this.
> I know some artists and online friends that have to hide their sexuality because they fear for their lives.
> 
> I've even seen mobs of people that turn their LGTB "friends" to the police over political disagreements online.


Indeed.

We've come to a point in our lives where we may actually see more of the same streamlined rights for people across the board, at least as far as basic human rights and decency is concerned.

If Saudi Arabia end up with the same LGBT rights as America or somewhere to that in my lifetime I will no doubt celebrate.

But I understand people's skepticism on the matter, and so am I. Only time will tell if this is going to actually be a reality, or if it's just talk.

Though for being called anti-LGBT they are doing a pisspoor fucking job of being it, considering you are seeing more gays and women in the administration than ever before.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 20, 2019)

As others have said: If this is the start of a serious push or endeavor, then going through the motions of being concerned as to the treatment of LGBTQ+ persons in places like Russia or Saudi Arabia or so-on is a step in the right direction. 

Also as said by others, there's a lot of reasons to believe that there will not be a serious push or endeavor by the administration on the matter and that this is a distraction considering its... shall we say, bumpy history on the matter. For that matter, I'm not entirely sure if Trump's ever spoken out publicly or admonished his Vice Presidential pick - Mike Pence - for his... shall we say, _absolutely horrifying _stance on "Conversion Camps". 

Also before anyone brings up the LGBTQ+ wave of the 2018 Mid-Terms, I'll note that it's a bit disingenuous to give any credit there to Trump considering that of the 399-ish LGBTQ+ candidates on ballots in that election, only eighteen were Republican.


----------



## luffy (Feb 20, 2019)

ok but are we going to fix the issues in the US before fucking around in countries that _aren't ours_?

this is a fat reelection effort.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Feb 20, 2019)

Here's my opinion,

Any proposed effort to help reduce the cruelty towards gays, trans, and lesbians in countries where they are jailed, tortured, and executed is a step in the right direction, unless the motivation behind it is malicious and not in good intentions. I will choose to be optimistic on this one, not for Trump or his administration, but for gays and other minorities that live in places where they are abused and terrified.


----------



## KimberVaile (Feb 20, 2019)

I'd find this to be a positive revelation, I'm not too upset over what administration or camp that it comes from. That is of course, considering he follows through. Call be naively optimistic, but I think he will.


----------



## Faexie (Feb 20, 2019)

From what I've seen of Trump he can be really childish at times, does things that are useless or goes against his own goals (the wall for example: most illegal immigrants come by plane or boat anyway, and also he's sending tons of soldiers even though soldiers can't shoot them or arrest them, all they can do (and are obligated to) is to help the injured and the endangered.)

But I believe that everyone can find the motivation to do something good. A broken clock is right twice a day after all. Also you may call me naive, but I believe that wrongdoers tend to have good intentions, or at least could have been good under different circumstances.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 20, 2019)

Yakamaru said:


> www.nbcnews.com: Trump administration launches global effort to end criminalization of homosexuality
> *
> "BERLIN — The Trump administration is launching a global campaign to end the criminalization of homosexuality in dozens of nations where it's still illegal to be gay, U.S. officials tell NBC News, a bid aimed in part at denouncing Iran over its human rights record.
> 
> ...


According to my read of it - it could be more of just an "ends to justify the means" (on the part of the Administration)... whereas the gay rights (and human rights) issues are simply being "used" to go after Iran, right now - (by denouncing them over their human rights records).. but (in fact) the *real* issues (behind all these maneuvers) is the 2015 "nuclear deal", the sanctions (that Trump wants) and the passive approach that the EU has been taking on these issues with them.

I dunno.. (call me cynical), but by banning transgender people from the US military (which is supported by the Administration and is currently being hashed out in the Courts), which was actcually in the news also, only just only a few weeks ago - it seems odd to me that the "gay rights" issue would now be at the forefront of their minds, (globally).

Now, don't get me wrong - I completely agree that the recent anti-gay hangings (in Iran) are horrible - but, (frankly) that's nothing really new over there, (in those parts of the World).. as it's been going on for many years now.

So... why all of a sudden, is there a dire need to address this issue now? If the so-called "nuclear deal" wasn't currently on the table - would they be discussing this right now?

Hmmmm... (I wonder).


----------



## Yakamaru (Feb 20, 2019)

Infrarednexus said:


> Here's my opinion,
> 
> Any proposed effort to help reduce the cruelty towards gays, trans, and lesbians in countries where they are jailed, tortured, and executed is a step in the right direction, unless the motivation behind it is malicious and not in good intentions. I will choose to be optimistic on this one, not for Trump or his administration, but for gays and other minorities that live in places where they are abused and terrified.


We'll see how this goes. This is an administration that do what they say they will do, including the President.

Social change can easily take decades, and legal changes usually only occur _*after*_ social change. Social change come by changing the hearts and minds of people, and in order to do that we need conversation to happen, and a lot of it.



Connor J. Coyote said:


> According to my read of it - it could be more of just an "ends to justify the means" (on the part of the Administration)... whereas the gay rights (and human rights) issues are simply being "used" to go after Iran, right now - (by denouncing them over their human rights records).. but (in fact) the *real* issues (behind all these maneuvers) is the 2015 "nuclear deal", the sanctions (that Trump wants) and the passive approach that the EU has been taking on these issues with them.
> 
> I dunno.. (call me cynical), but by banning transgender people from the US military (which is supported by the Administration and is currently being hashed out in the Courts), which was actcually in the news also, only just only a few weeks ago - it seems odd to me that the "gay rights" issue would now be at the forefront of their minds, (globally).
> 
> ...


Personally I will take this at face value until we have anything else to go on. Correlation is not causation, and I am not interested in pulling an Alex Jones.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 20, 2019)

To me it largely appears to be an attempt to curry favor with a lukewarm-at-best voter base and/or an excuse to fuck with Iran. If this has the side effect of improving the situation for gay people worldwide, great, but I am sceptical that doing so is a very high priority for the Trump administration. It's also kind of sketchy that the countries specifically named don't include countries Trump wants to buddy up with, which are known for strong anti-gay sentiments.

_Particularly_ as the administration ostensibly intends to work with the UN on this, yet the US is sitting on a whole pile of UN requests to investigate issues in the USA, and in general the current administration has been acting like petulant children in their prior dealings with the UN.

Launching this so (relatively) close to the next presidential election is a good way of building support without actually needing to take much action. And, yanno, improving domestic discrimination protections for queer folks while they're at it would be nice, and hell of a lot easier than convincing other countries to change their laws.

EDIT: This just floated across my Twitter feed. Doesn’t look good on Trump admin.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098332842550005763


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 20, 2019)

Yakamaru said:


> Personally I will take this at face value until we have anything else to go on. Correlation is not causation, and I am not interested in pulling an Alex Jones.


Well, thats cool, taking things at face value can work, also. I kind of do myself also on this issue, (personally).

But.. that said, one has to be honest (and admit it though) - that it is kinda odd, to be banning transgendered service members on the one hand, and then pushing for decriminalization of their existence and activities, on the other.


----------



## dragon-in-sight (Feb 21, 2019)

Oh that's great news. May be he should start by fireing homophobes like Mike Pence then, and overthink his initiative to ban transsexuals from serving in the Army. Doing so would also dispel the impression that, this bold civil rights approach is more than just another Iran bashing attempt with LGBTs being instrumentalized for that.


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Feb 21, 2019)

1. Smart of the Trump administration to send an openly gay man as ambassador to Germany hahahaha XD. Seriously to anyone that follows politics that's fucking hilarious XD
2. Of course it's PR at this time for Trump. And yes most likely this was politically calculated. So what though, this is what most politicians do, and this is upholding basic human rights, which most countries are obligated to do. Don't think of this as a surprise even from a conservative country or gov't especially developed and Western ones. This is mostly standard procedure and rhetoric from most Western countries regardless of administration, (yes, even the Trump administration) as they will always stand strongly against the violation of basic human rights. This includes sex which is protected under article 2 of the UNDHR (Universal Declaration for Human Rights), and has been modified to include sexual orientation. So in many ways this isn't that important, but still a good thing to be upheld.
3. Most countries that still uphold LGBT discrimination in laws are reinforced by Islamic law in non-secular states which runs in a direct contrast to the Trump administration's agenda, Well, it is hard to predict his agenda, but it is worth mentioning there are exceptions on both sides of this issue such as non Islamic countries with anti-LGBT laws, and sharia law countries with strong Trump ties.

In all reality I think it's Trump trying to appease Americans and potential voters. Nothing more, or less. Yet I believe he would actually like to see more progress on the acceptance of the LGBT community internationally which is not yet accomplished. And this is good.


----------



## Dancy (Feb 21, 2019)

_i'll be brief here._

_if the trump administration hadn't argued in court that anti-discrimination laws don't protect gay people, scaled back workplace protections for gay employees, imposed a transgender military ban, and rescinded protections for transgender students, maybe this would be believable. But the administration even admits they have no concrete plan. so i'm not optimistic at all._


----------



## Aznig (Feb 21, 2019)

Dancy said:


> _i'll be brief here._
> 
> _if the trump administration hadn't argued in court that anti-discrimination laws don't protect gay people, scaled back workplace protections for gay employees, imposed a transgender military ban, and rescinded protections for transgender students, maybe this would be believable. But the administration even admits they have no concrete plan. so i'm not optimistic at all._



This is like, totally off-topic, but your avatar is so cute omg ahhhh!!!


----------



## BackPaw (Feb 21, 2019)

Trump and his cohorts lie. Believe it if it happens, not when they talk about it.


----------



## churio (Feb 21, 2019)

It's quite a sorry state when minorities a government were never interested in helping are being used as an excuse for imperialism.


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Feb 21, 2019)

Dancy said:


> _i'll be brief here._
> 
> _if the trump administration hadn't argued in court that anti-discrimination laws don't protect gay people, scaled back workplace protections for gay employees, imposed a transgender military ban, and rescinded protections for transgender students, maybe this would be believable. But the administration even admits they have no concrete plan. so i'm not optimistic at all._



Domestic vs. International are very different subjects. LGBT has among the most rights in the world in the US. If you are in the US, there is a good chance you don't understand that privilege. It takes a 2 min google search to understand this. Additionally, Western Europe, may offer more rights but they do not represent the rest of Europe or the world. The military has other reasons relating to safety of the personnel for not allowing trans. Me personally i couldn't give a fuck. But many people elsewhere do. Many countries hate the LGBT community and the last thing they want is anything relating to LGBT forced on them. I understand that perspective. But it can be toned down by A LOT. Regarding the US it seems to me that the majority of people actually are very open to the community (including conservatives) but don't want trans forced on them, among many things. That's why Trump won, and will win again. It's a silent majority. So it's good not to be optimistic.


----------



## Marius Merganser (Feb 21, 2019)

insertgenericnamehere1 said:


> In all reality I think it's Trump trying to appease Americans and potential voters. Nothing more, or less. Yet I believe he would actually like to see more progress on the acceptance of the LGBT community internationally which is not yet accomplished. And this is good.



Trump has never tried to appease anyone but his base, and they are most definitely not LGBT friendly.


----------



## Yakamaru (Feb 21, 2019)

BackPaw said:


> Trump and his cohorts lie. Believe it if it happens, not when they talk about it.


One of the reasons I wait for people's actions, if there are any. If someone is consistent in doing what they say they will do, they are at least trustworthy on that front. Whether you agree or not however depends on the issue.

I have no idea how this very idea/concept is even feasible, but we'll have to wait and see. This current administration seem to constantly surprise me, so may as well sit back and watch as things unfold.


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Feb 21, 2019)

This is about to be a prank that's going to reach the number one spot of "Top 10 Pranks on your citizens"

I just hope my gay oil loving(American) friends will be fine, especially since it still seems like some sort of hidden motive.


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Feb 21, 2019)

Yakamaru said:


> One of the reasons I wait for people's actions, if there are any. If someone is consistent in doing what they say they will do, they are at least trustworthy on that front. Whether you agree or not however depends on the issue.
> 
> I have no idea how this very idea/concept is even feasible, but we'll have to wait and see. This current administration seem to constantly surprise me, so may as well sit back and watch as things unfold.


Hahahahaha They surprise me so much, I think it might even be controlled chaos
One controversy here, then distract the media with a new one there, and soon another new one internationally, eventually on mars and so on..
I can't tell if it's bat shit crazy or genius XD


----------



## Yakamaru (Feb 21, 2019)

insertgenericnamehere1 said:


> Hahahahaha They surprise me so much, I think it might even be controlled chaos
> One controversy here, then distract the media with a new one there, and soon another new one internationally, eventually on mars and so on..
> I can't tell if it's bat shit crazy or genius XD


It's a bloody circus, that's for cure. 

Though if something actually gets done with this, and Saudi Arabia within my lifetime get about the same LGBT rights as that of the US? Fuck, I'll fly over to the US and kiss my gay best friend on the mouth in celebration.


----------



## Dancy (Feb 21, 2019)

Aznig said:


> This is like, totally off-topic, but your avatar is so cute omg ahhhh!!!


_i know! @Fluffyre did an amazing job! i forgot to change my signature, but that's fixed now._


insertgenericnamehere1 said:


> Domestic vs. International are very different subjects. LGBT has among the most rights in the world in the US. If you are in the US, there is a good chance you don't understand that privilege. It takes a 2 min google search to understand this.


_if i didn't understand that privilege, i wouldn't be taking the time to comment here. you could make the reasonable argument that the president should focus his so-called "pro-lgbtqia" efforts here first before tackling such issues abroad so other countries don't ignore us or point out our hypocrisy. you also might note that we americans actually put him in office, so he should be focusing on domestic lgbtqia matters as well too, not depriving his own citizen of rights. _


insertgenericnamehere1 said:


> The military has other reasons relating to safety of the personnel for not allowing trans.


_except the secretary of defense here was against the ban since it didn't affect military performance. so were most senior generals._


insertgenericnamehere1 said:


> Me personally i couldn't give a fuck.


_you don't give a fuck, but you can spare the time to said why you think this a good idea. right. plus, you're a quality human being for not caring about other people's rights, seriously._


insertgenericnamehere1 said:


> Many countries hate the LGBT community and the last thing they want is anything relating to LGBT forced on them. I understand that perspective. But it can be toned down by A LOT. Regarding the US it seems to me that the majority of people actually are very open to the community (including conservatives) but don't want trans forced on them, among many things.


_but many of the countries against lgbtqia rights are ardent in their opposition and some form pressure, namely sanctions and diplomatic efforts, will be necessary and somtimes when it comes to civil rights, some pressure is necessary. also, most americans have been against the transgender military ban and the other anti-lgbt legal measures the trump administration has taken. you might not know that from greece._


insertgenericnamehere1 said:


> That's why Trump won, and will win again. It's a silent majority. So it's good not to be optimistic.


_i mean, that silent majority was missing in action, but the blue waves sure showed up in 2018. ^-^_


insertgenericnamehere1 said:


> I can't tell if it's bat shit crazy or genius XD


_it's the former._


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Feb 21, 2019)

Yakamaru said:


> It's a bloody circus, that's for cure.
> 
> Though if something actually gets done with this, and Saudi Arabia within my lifetime get about the same LGBT rights as that of the US? Fuck, I'll fly over to the US and kiss my gay best friend on the mouth in celebration.


Hahahahahahaha 
Yeah save the tickets. I worked with a lot of refugees in Europe, have many Arab friends, and have been to the Middle East. They have no problem being touchy with other dudes, but the furthest things from gay. Hell will Freeze over b4 they accept that XD


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 21, 2019)

In free western society it is common belief on both sides that the government has no buisness dictating what two consenting adults are allowed to do to eachother. 
Other countries don't see the separation that should exist between what is socially acceptable and what should be illegal. 
Governments that create laws based on a set of moral or social values (almost always religions) tend to be very oppressive governments. Take the middle east for example.

I am curious what exactly the plan is, like just an international pr campaign? Or incentives or something?


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Feb 21, 2019)

Dancy said:


> _i know! @Fluffyre did an amazing job! i forgot to change my signature, but that's fixed now._
> 
> _if i didn't understand that privilege, i wouldn't be taking the time to comment here. you could make the reasonable argument that the president should focus his so-called "pro-lgbtqia" efforts here first before tackling such issues abroad so other countries don't ignore us or point out our hypocrisy. you also might note that we americans actually put him in office, so he should be focusing on domestic lgbtqia matters as well too, not depriving his own citizen of rights. _
> 
> ...


damn.. That's a lot. Well I'd prefer the US to uphold World order and actually prevent genocides against people who are LGBT for instance. And yeah Americans put him into office, not to promote the LGBT in the US. Sorry that's democracy. 

As I said, you have among the most rights in the world for gay rights. Do you need a source I can give you plenty from the official UN website. Again a 2 min google search. 
LGBT rights by country or territory - Wikipedia

Here's a simple Wikipedia link to help you out. Look which countries are pro/anit LGBT. You'll also find the US to be among the most progressive. Not to mention the pleanty of Americans I know who really don't give a fuck.

I really don't want to go into issues of military, but it has nothing to do with rights. As a matter of fact war has nothing to do with rights. Clearly you've never experienced it. It actually did affect performance including the effectiveness of joint male-female battalions. You can argue this in any other place but in the military people's lives are on the line. They don't fuck around. 

And yeah really I don't give a fuck. I'm a furry for fucks sake lol. 

And if Americans are against it why do they vote for it XD Why do they come out in droves to go against Trump then secretly go online and support him. Really it's ridiculous. I honestly think it's fear. 

lol being in Greece has nothing to do with this. You should read about the problems here. You'll appreciate life.


----------



## Dancy (Feb 22, 2019)

insertgenericnamehere1 said:


> damn.. That's a lot. Well I'd prefer the US to uphold World order and actually prevent genocides against people who are LGBT for instance. And yeah Americans put him into office, not to promote the LGBT in the US. Sorry that's democracy.
> 
> As I said, you have among the most rights in the world for gay rights. Do you need a source I can give you plenty from the official UN website. Again a 2 min google search.
> LGBT rights by country or territory - Wikipedia
> ...


_for someone who doesn’t give a fuck, you're arguing pretty hard for trump, the transgender military ban, and being generally apathetic about lgbtqia rights. I daresay you seem an interested party trying to appear disinterested. especially since you just got here and this what you choose to talk about. _

_so let’s play ball._

_denying transgender citizens the ability to serve in the military is denying them a right. on a basic level military service is a job opportunity with room for advancement. also, the military is a career for those seeking to rise out of tough situations. plently of people in my old neighborhood joined to get out of poverty while doing their country a service. barring transgender citizens from entering the military and enjoying what it has to offer is discriminatory. every american should have the opportunity to serve in the military provided they meet the requirements of basic training. speaking of basic training, transgender individuals have go through all the same training and re-qualifications as everybody else in the military. the same applies to women serving in the military. you can’t join the military if you don’t get through basic training, which you would know if you actually knew about the military. _

_there are plenty of transgender military personnel, most of whom are specialists, who will be difficult to replace because they filled very specific roles. This is why certain specialists are being given exemptions even now._

_you should also know that donald trump’s ban on transgender service members is faced opposition from more than 50 retired generals and admirals who were warning that the discriminatory policy would degrade military readiness and harm morale. _

_www.theguardian.com: Top military officials call on Trump to reverse transgender ban_

_www.theguardian.com: Data sketch: trans people 2.3 times more likely to serve in the US military_

_www.theguardian.com: Defense chiefs resist Donald Trump's ban on transgender troops_

_i’m going to take their word over yours since they actually know what they are talking about._

_i’d add too that trump actually lost the popular vote by millions here and in polling subsequently only a third of the country approves of the job he is doing at anything given time. that isn’t what i’d call a silent majority, lmao. _

_lastly, i raised the point of you not being from here because I think you have a very skewed and inaccurate perspective of how things are in this country._


----------



## Purple Jackal (Feb 22, 2019)

I'm netural with trump as  a fyi.

Hope this helps things, Because i find it disgusting how those places ARE anti-LGBT while demanding respect. Also a total joke when in places like the US because no one gives a shit on there homophobic BS.

But somehow they get offended when called a backwards dump. That can't respect any human rights and also are just as nasty with the disabled.


----------



## KimberVaile (Feb 22, 2019)

"You disagree with me, therefore you are morally inferior to me," the thread.


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Feb 22, 2019)

Dancy said:


> _for someone who doesn’t give a fuck, you arguing pretty hard for trump, the transgender military ban, and being generally apathetic about lgbtqia rights. I daresay you seem an interested party trying to appear disinterested. especially since you just got here and this what you choose to talk about. _
> 
> _so let’s play ball._
> 
> ...


Slow down. Look I don't have  problem with you personally. I don't know you in real life, but I bet your're probably even a cool person. We probably just see the world differently. That's okay.

But I think you're missing my point or you're intentionally misrepresenting it with a strawman. Either way I don't like it so I'm going try to clear this up. You picked the issue I said I don't want go down as I think it's unrelated. When I say I don't give a fuck, I mean I don't give a damn if you or anyone is trans, LGBT whatever as that is your choice to make. Let me make this clear, I personally don't care if you're trans and want serve, you should be able to. However, I have read something about why some states and their militaries are keeping the sexes separate due to physical requirements that most women cannot meet, and perhaps it's something related to that. Really as I said I don't want to get into it because I honestly just don't know enough on the exact military issues, though I have personally experienced war and it's yes it's very fucked up. I don't like thinking about it and I don't think it's related to the trans/LGBT community especially when the issue being discussed is promoting rights for the LGBT community in the world outside the US. You basically played hardball with arguments I don't want to get into, points I'm not trying to make, and something other than the initial topic.

The issue is, there are more conservative countries in the world, that will not like the idea of even having basic rights for LGBT people. And like or hate Trump you should support this for the millions of people around the world who fear for their lives because of their sexuality. Why? Because something the US promotes has a great impact on the world, and people's outlooks. To go against something that promotes your agenda and basic human rights just because you don't like Trump is crazy. For instance, I don't like fanatic religious people. But if they are doing something good like helping to feed the poor, then that should be praised as it's a good thing. See my point? It's about being able to be look at the good in things. And yes I personally think it's a lot more important that millions of people around the globe don't have to fear persecution for their basic human rights, than the potential inequality or whatever the fuck discrimination issues in this sector of America or that one, when you have among the most rights in the world. If your so Anti-Trump shouldn't this be a good thing? Focusing on something other than nationalism and domestic issues? 

Idk believe what you want about me, Trump or any issues. But I strongly support this. And I think a lot of people around the world who truly are oppressed would appreciate it if America fought for things that are right in the world.


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Feb 22, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> "You disagree with me, therefore you are morally inferior to me," the thread.


hahaha so true XD


----------



## Dancy (Feb 22, 2019)

insertgenericnamehere1 said:


> But I think you're missing my point or you're intentionally misrepresenting it with a strawman. Either way I don't like it so I'm going try to clear this up. You picked the issue I said I don't want go down as I think it's unrelated. When I say I don't give a fuck, I mean I don't give a damn if you or anyone is trans, LGBT whatever as that is your choice to make. Let me make this clear, I personally don't care if you're trans and want serve, you should be able to. However, I have read something about why some states and their militaries are keeping the sexes separate due to physical requirements that most women cannot meet, and perhaps it's something related to that. *Really as I said I don't want to get into it because I honestly just don't know enough on the exact military issues*, though I have personally experienced war and it's yes it's very fucked up. I don't like thinking about it and I don't think it's related to the trans/LGBT community especially when the issue being discussed is promoting rights for the LGBT community in the world outside the US. You basically played hardball with arguments I don't want to get into, points I'm not trying to make, and something other than the initial topic.


_being blunt, if you don't know enough on the exact military issues, either don't comment on them or do your research and then comment on the issues as an informed person, especially since we are talking about an entire demographic of people being denied the right to serve in their military when they pay taxes for it. you literally said less than a day ago that google is a thing. take your own advice and use it to educate yourself. you also clearly didn't read the articles i provided or the rationale actual top-ranking military personnel provided for opposing the ban. since that is the case, read this blurb on the arguments for the inclusion of transgender citizens in the military: Transgender people and military service - Wikipedia_


> By excluding a demographic from equal service, militaries are overtly intensifying the stigma of that group's civic inferiority.[10] This is supported by the notion that all citizens are obligated to serve their nations if the need arises.[11] Allowing transgender military personnel to serve openly without fear of exclusion would be a huge step toward equality. It has been recognized by some academics that the inclusion of all LGBT personnel in the military is more than a mere human rights issue, it is argued that for militaries to survive in the twenty-first century diversity is critical.[1]
> 
> With advancements in the current understanding of human experience, sexual identity is now better understood. Where being transgender was once considered a paraphilic disorder, the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders places being transgender in a separate chapter, terming the condition gender dysphoria. It is argued that militaries that exclude transgender people on grounds of mental illness, whose policies pathologize gender dysphoria, are at odds with the current medical understanding. This argument requires that transgender personnel be treated by the same level of medical care as all other personnel, in accordance with established medical practice.[12]
> 
> ...


_i also noted you had some doubts about women being integrated in the military so it's worth noting that all positions, including combat positions, are open to women in the united states military. they just have to pass the necessary tests and training for their prospective units. _

_i'm also idly curious to know exactly how you experienced war, as you put it._


----------



## Dancy (Feb 22, 2019)

insertgenericnamehere1 said:


> The issue is, there are more conservative countries in the world, that will not like the idea of even having basic rights for LGBT people. And like or hate Trump you should support this for the millions of people around the world who fear for their lives because of their sexuality. Why? Because something the US promotes has a great impact on the world, and people's outlooks. To go against something that promotes your agenda and basic human rights just because you don't like Trump is crazy. For instance, I don't like fanatic religious people. But if they are doing something good like helping to feed the poor, then that should be praised as it's a good thing. See my point? It's about being able to be look at the good in things. And yes I personally think it's a lot more important that millions of people around the globe don't have to fear persecution for their basic human rights, than the potential inequality or whatever the fuck discrimination issues in this sector of America or that one, when you have among the most rights in the world. If your so Anti-Trump shouldn't this be a good thing? Focusing on something other than nationalism and domestic issues?
> 
> Idk believe what you want about me, Trump or any issues. But I strongly support this. And I think a lot of people around the world who truly are oppressed would appreciate it if America fought for things that are right in the world.


_i never said i didn't support it. i just don't think it will happen, based on trump's active efforts to turn back the clock on lgbtqia issues here and the fact that even the administration admits it has no concrete or immediate plans to accomplish this. that isn't an auspicious start to this grand initiative. but then again, this initiative is a public relations stunt meant to make trump more palatable without him putting in the necessary work. _

_if the administration actually showed interest and an actionable plan for advocating for lgbtqia individuals in other countries, i would support the initiative at that time, but trump isn't getting credit before results with his track record._


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 23, 2019)

Dancy said:


> _i'll be brief here._
> 
> _if the trump administration hadn't argued in court that anti-discrimination laws don't protect gay people, scaled back workplace protections for gay employees, imposed a transgender military ban, and rescinded protections for transgender students, maybe this would be believable. But the administration even admits they have no concrete plan. so i'm not optimistic at all._


I gotta say, yeah - exactly. To be doing all that on the one hand, and then pushing for decriminalization globally (on the other) frankly - seems odd (and suspect) to me. But - skepticism doesn't need to be cynicism I always say, and so - we should wait and see if the rhetoric matches up to the reality, a year from now.

The people in these places should be helped in any case, that's the main point... and that should be people's main concern.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 23, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> In free western society it is common belief on both sides that the government has no buisness dictating what two consenting adults are allowed to do to eachother.
> Other countries don't see the separation that should exist between what is socially acceptable and what should be illegal.
> Governments that create laws based on a set of moral or social values (almost always religions) tend to be very oppressive governments. Take the middle east for example.
> 
> I am curious what exactly the plan is, like just an international pr campaign? Or incentives or something?



There's an NBC article which explains their strategy and motivations.
Motivation: Largely seems to revolve around disatisfaction with the Iranian nuclear deal.
Strategy: No clear plan yet exists. The article says 'still being hashed out'

www.nbcnews.com: Trump administration launches global effort to end criminalization of homosexuality

There are reasons to doubt the sincerity of the Trump administration here, given that the administration previously rescinded the Visas of gay spouses of UN diplomats, under the justification that their relationships weren't marriages: www.bbc.co.uk: US to end visas for gay diplomat partners

My view? If the administration wants to talk the talk, well, they have to walk the walk as well.
I suppose thinking on it more deeply, I also want promoting gay rights to be done because it's the moral thing to do, rather than because it's a useful wedge to drive between countries and divide people. It should be done under the aegis of bringing people together.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 23, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> There are reasons to doubt the sincerity of the Trump administration here, given that the administration previously rescinded the Visas of gay spouses of UN diplomats, under the justification that their relationships weren't marriages: www.bbc.co.uk: US to end visas for gay diplomat partners



I just want to point out how misleading this article is. The title says _*"US to end visas for gay diplomat partners"*_. Sounds bad like that doesn't it? However that is not the full truth of course. A more honest and informative title would be _*"US to require marriage for diplomat family visas"*._ Because that is exactly what is happening here. They are even allowing unwed gay couples to get married in the United States to get visa status if it is not legal in the country they actually represent (helping diplomats subvert the laws of their own countries is dangerous ground to tread on btw).

This honestly makes perfect sense, you cant just get a visa for anyone just because you claim they are your girlfriend/boyfriend/partner/friend/whatever, and this is how it works for anyone who wants to get their family into the US.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 23, 2019)

It’s a fairly good thing Fallow’s argument was not solely based upon that one example. Just to echo myself from earlier,



Attaman said:


> As others have said: If this is the start of a serious push or endeavor, then going through the motions of being concerned as to the treatment of LGBTQ+ persons in places like Russia or Saudi Arabia or so-on is a step in the right direction.
> 
> Also as said by others, there's a lot of reasons to believe that there will not be a serious push or endeavor by the administration on the matter and that this is a distraction considering its... shall we say, bumpy history on the matter. For that matter, I'm not entirely sure if Trump's ever spoken out publicly or admonished his Vice Presidential pick - Mike Pence - for his... shall we say, _absolutely horrifying _stance on "Conversion Camps".
> 
> Also before anyone brings up the LGBTQ+ wave of the 2018 Mid-Terms, I'll note that it's a bit disingenuous to give any credit there to Trump considering that of the 399-ish LGBTQ+ candidates on ballots in that election, only eighteen were Republican.


Like, again: If this is legit that’s good. The fact that certain nations (such as Russia) are generally being ignored (and considering there were towns quite literally going on _purges _of LGBTQ+ demographics within the last decade), our Vice President is a man who endorses (to the point of trying to legally set in stone) _*literal torture*_ of LGBTQ+ individuals to “fix” them, supporters of the Trans Servicemen / women ban cannot go five posts without shoving their feet in their mouth espousing horrific bullshit of being “mentally defective” or a “morale threat” or the like (let alone the fig leaf legal justification against direct advisement from current and past military officers), the repeal of the Transgender bathroom bill, repeated pushes to allow public services to deny service to LGBTQ+ individuals, axing of HIV / AIDS research departments... and many, many more examples, has people less than convinced that this is a since turning over of a new leaf.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 23, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> I just want to point out how misleading this article is. The title says _*"US to end visas for gay diplomat partners"*_. Sounds bad like that doesn't it? However that is not the full truth of course. A more honest and informative title would be _*"US to require marriage for diplomat family visas"*._ Because that is exactly what is happening here. They are even allowing unwed gay couples to get married in the United States to get visa status if it is not legal in the country they actually represent (helping diplomats subvert the laws of their own countries is dangerous ground to tread on btw).
> 
> This honestly makes perfect sense, you cant just get a visa for anyone just because you claim they are your girlfriend/boyfriend/partner/friend/whatever, and this is how it works for anyone who wants to get their family into the US.



For those who don't realise (maybe those of you who aren't gay yourselves won't have considered this) requiring gay diplomats' spouses to marry them, or face deportation, is giving them a choice between deportation or being outed as gay.
In some countries that would be punishable by imprisonment or death, should those diplomats or their spouses ever return to their home countries.

On the face of it you can make deceptive arguments like 'we're just requiring the same legal standards of gay couples as straight couples' (indeed that's what the whitehouse argued).
This ignores the reality that gay couples in many countries face judicial reprisal for their mere existence, which is why it is necessary to handle visa applications for gay diplomats discreetly.



Attaman said:


> It’s a fairly good thing Fallow’s argument was not solely based upon that one example. Just to echo myself from earlier,
> 
> 
> Like, again: If this is legit that’s good. The fact that certain nations (such as Russia) are generally being ignored (and considering there were towns quite literally going on _purges _of LGBTQ+ demographics within the last decade), our Vice President is a man who endorses (to the point of trying to legally set in stone) _*literal torture*_ of LGBTQ+ individuals to “fix” them, supporters of the Trans Servicemen / women ban cannot go five posts without shoving their feet in their mouth espousing horrific bullshit of being “mentally defective” or a “morale threat” or the like (let alone the fig leaf legal justification against direct advisement from current and past military officers), the repeal of the Transgender bathroom bill, repeated pushes to allow public services to deny service to LGBTQ+ individuals, axing of HIV / AIDS research departments... and many, many more examples, has people less than convinced that this is a since turning over of a new leaf.




The NBC article points out that the Whitehouse, while criticising Iran for its mistreatment of gay people, has been content to ignore the *same* human rights abuses when they're committed by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia- a US ally.
So I think the rights of gay people are being used as a means to drive a wedge between Europe and Iran here, rather than because the Whitehouse has a committed interest in promoting gay rights abroad. :\
I think the best case scenario is that, in some round about way, this results in countries like Iran avoiding being so mean to gay people, so that they can avoid upsetting trade partners in Europe.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 23, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> For those who don't realise (maybe those of you who aren't gay yourselves won't have considered this) requiring gay diplomats' spouses to marry them, or face deportation, is giving them a choice between deportation or being outed as gay.
> In some countries that would be punishable by imprisonment or death, should those diplomats or their spouses ever return to their home countries.
> 
> On the face of it you can make deceptive arguments like 'we're just requiring the same legal standards of gay couples as straight couples' (indeed that's what the whitehouse argued).
> This ignores the reality that gay couples in many countries face judicial reprisal for their mere existence, which is why it is necessary to handle visa applications for gay diplomats discreetly.


Then don't sign on to be a diplomat in the first place, and you won't have that problem.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 23, 2019)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Then don't sign on to be a diplomat in the first place, and you won't have that problem.



I'd rather people not be barred from professions because of prejudice though?

That's not morally right.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 23, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> requiring gay diplomats' spouses to marry them



You should look up the definition of spouse. If you are someones spouse you are married to them...

It does't change the fact that the article is misleading and tries to paint a simple marriage requirement as some grand homophobic policy.
It also makes very little sense that a diplomat is breaking the very laws of the very country they are representing.
This entire article is a giant nothing burger.

I always found it strange how the left is trying to paint the most gay friendly republican president ever, as the most anti gay president ever. It is very silly.
As for Iran i care very little, we have far more leverage over our anti gay allies than we do over our enemies. But I take a pro lgb statement for what it is. Even if he doesn't do anything at all, he is still publicly stating his support for homosexuality worldwide.


----------



## Sarachaga (Feb 23, 2019)

I'd be wary of this given things like Pence's stance on homosexuality.

If it turns to something concrete then great. Otherwise it's just a big PR stunt.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 23, 2019)

Attaman said:


> our Vice President is a man who endorses (to the point of trying to legally set in stone) _*literal torture*_ of LGBTQ+ individuals to “fix” them



This is a complete lie based on severe misinformation. He never ever supported gay conversion therapy. He did however support federal funding for people "seeking to change their sexual behavior." referring to teaching  people sexual behavior that helped prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. Not changing their sexual orientation.

A simple google search could have provided you this information.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 23, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> You should look up the definition of spouse. If you are someones spouse you are married to them...


Not necessarily; I would say that "spouse" could definitely apply to some of the separate-but-"equal" marriage analogies some countries make available for same-sex couples. The quotes in the articles (so not the journalistic content, but the quotes from the policy) do not make completely clear whether this would be considered a marriage in the eyes of the policy. There are also multiple English-speaking countries that have the concept of a "defacto spouse" - while I don't know whether this includes the UK, I wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that it doesn't given Fallow's usage.

As someone who _has_ married abroad, I will say that it can be a bit of song and dance, and while being a diplomat might help, there's no guarantee that a government that doesn't permit or even criminalizes same-sex marriage will issue the requisite paperwork. Unless the US is significantly more sloppy with marriages than Canada (which, okay, given drive-in Vegas chapels I can sorta believe), it may be a significant hurdle even beyond whatever risk may await the now-married couple on returning home. What is the US going to do then? Void the requirement for the paperwork?

Plus, reversal of a policy giving diplomats already in the US three months to get married or else is not exactly gay friendly any way you slice it. If you so badly want to change the policy, at least have the decency to exclude diplomatic visas already granted, rather than push an arbitrary time table. (Three months is _not_ a long time to arrange a wedding. The bloody RSVP for my cousin's wedding alone was two months prior to the date.)


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 23, 2019)

quoting_mungo said:


> Plus, reversal of a policy giving diplomats already in the US three months to get married or else is not exactly gay friendly any way you slice it. If you so badly want to change the policy, at least have the decency to exclude diplomatic visas already granted, rather than push an arbitrary time table. (Three months is _not_ a long time to arrange a wedding. The bloody RSVP for my cousin's wedding alone was two months prior to the date.)



Haha yeah I am a big fan of the Ron Swanson marriage. Just going to the courthouse and getting it done in one day. No fanfare or anything like that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> You should look up the definition of spouse. If you are someones spouse you are married to them...
> 
> It does't change the fact that the article is misleading and tries to paint a simple marriage requirement as some grand homophobic policy.
> It also makes very little sense that a diplomat is breaking the very laws of the very country they are representing.
> ...



I don't think this article is misleading Anon. I think you aren't able to see the wood for the trees here because you have your own political biases, and I am sorry for you that these blind you.

I'm going to take a word out of the lexicon of the alt-right to describe people who publicly state opinions to improve their reputation, but do not support those statements with any action. 

Virtue signallers.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I don't think this article is misleading Anon. I think you aren't able to see the wood for the trees here because you have your own political biases, and I am sorry for you that these blind you.



I think this article is misleading Fallow. I think you aren't able to see the wood for the trees here because you have your own political biases, and I am sorry for you that these blind you.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> I think this article is misleading Fallow. I think you aren't able to see the wood for the trees here because you have your own political biases, and I am sorry for you that these blind you.



So let's say that you were right and that I am biased. Perhaps on account of being a gay man myself. 
If this were true, would it prove that your opinions are untainted by bias? No it wouldn't. 

Can you create a rational defence of your beliefs using logic and facts, rather than resorting to rhetorical devices?


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> So let's say that you were right and that I am biased. Perhaps on account of being a gay man myself.
> If this were true, would it prove that your opinions are untainted by bias? No it wouldn't.
> 
> Can you create a rational defence of your beliefs using logic and facts, rather than resorting to rhetorical devices?



My opinions have zero influence on the article to using a headline that does not tell the full story. It only tells the part of the story they want it to. I already pointed out what a more honest and informative headline would look like.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> This is a complete lie based on severe misinformation. He never ever supported gay conversion therapy. He did however support federal funding for people "seeking to change their sexual behavior." referring to teaching  people sexual behavior that helped prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. Not changing their sexual orientation.
> 
> A simple google search could have provided you this information.




www.businessinsider.com: Indiana's governor seems to have a long history of opposing gay rights

_"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,"
"Homosexuality is incompatible with military service because the presence of homosexuals in the ranks weakens unit cohesion,"_

He also seemed to advocate government funding for organizations that encourage gays to renounce their homosexuality.
The "Pence Agenda" supported _"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." _
Pence made this argument to oppose funding being apportioned to people who are suffering from HIV.

I think you have to be wilfully ignorant to believe that Pence was promoting using a condom during sex when he made these comments, because he made them in conjunction with arguments that gay people should be banned from armed service, and that no legal protection should be provided to protect gay people from discrimination. He's in fact supported legislation that seeks to permit discrimination against gay people when the reasons are motivated by religious beliefs.

What Pence meant here by 'behaviors that facilitate the spread of HIV' was merely 'being gay'.

Gay people see this sort of rhetoric for what it is. It is not pro-LGBT. It is not friendly towards gay people.



Anon Raccoon said:


> My opinions have zero influence on the article to using a headline that does not tell the full story. It only tells the part of the story they want it to. I already pointed out what a more honest and informative headline would look like.



So first off, I would discourage anybody from just reading headlines and not reading whole stories. 
I believe that if other users do read the BBC's full story, they will come to the conclusion that your appraisal is incorrect.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> It also makes very little sense that a diplomat is breaking the very laws of the very country they are representing.
> This entire article is a giant nothing burger.
> .




For anybody who doesn't realise. The law being broken is being gay and _existing_. Laws that criminalise homosexuality are unjust. 
The entire point of this thread was to celebrate Donald Trump's whitehouse saying it would not tolerate laws that criminalise gay people's mere existence. 

It didn't take long for those users who defend the whitehouse most vociferously to begin defending those countries' rights to criminalise homosexuality, did it?
This is one of the reasons that I am skeptical about the levels of sincerity here.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> The "Pence Agenda" supported _"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." _
> Pence made this argument to oppose funding being apportioned to people who are suffering from HIV.
> 
> I think you have to be wilfully ignorant to believe that Pence was promoting using a condom during sex when he made these comments, because he made them in conjunction with arguments that gay people should be banned from armed service, and that no legal protection should be provided to protect gay people from discrimination. He's in fact supported legislation that seeks to permit discrimination against gay people when the reasons are motivated by religious beliefs.
> ...



This is where two sides see the same statement and draw a different conclusion. At face value it is quite clear that he _is _in fact trying to encourage safer sex practices and less of the sexual promiscuity that contributes to the spread of HIV. 
You are creating a false subtext that what he actually means when he says he wants to stop the 'behaviors that facilitate the spread of HIV' is that he hates gay people.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Feb 24, 2019)

You know... I'm beginning to dislike the fact LGBTQIA+ is being thrown like an unwanted political hot potato around as a way to gain publicity. I am also wondering if other minorities feel the same way.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> For anybody who doesn't realise. The law being broken is being gay and _existing_. Laws that criminalise homosexuality are unjust.
> The entire point of this thread was to celebrate Donald Trump's whitehouse saying it would not tolerate laws that criminalise gay people's mere existence.
> 
> It didn't take long for those users who defend the whitehouse most vociferously to begin defending those countries' rights to criminalise homosexuality, did it?
> This is one of the reasons that I am skeptical about the levels of sincerity here.



I think it is a very good stance by the whitehouse to support pro lgb movements in other countries.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> *This is where two sides see the same statement and draw a different conclusion.* At face value it is quite clear that he _is _in fact trying to encourage safer sex practices and less of the sexual promiscuity that contributes to the spread of HIV.
> You are creating a false subtext that what he actually means when he says he wants to stop the 'behaviors that facilitate the spread of HIV' is that he hates gay people.



I am glad you brought this up. The political term for this is a 'dog whistle'; to make camouflaged statements.
Dog-whistle politics - Wikipedia

In this case you need to be aware that groups that campaign against gay rights or to promote conversion therapy, will see this as a nod in their direction.

and while I've brought virtue signalling up, let's remember that Pence made these comments having moved to rescind funding for HIV patients. No matter how virtuous you think his words are, his action is not virtuous.



Anon Raccoon said:


> I think it is a very good stance by the whitehouse to support pro lgb movements in other countries.



Are you willing to condemn your previous comment that it 'makes little sense' that gay diplomats are willing to break the [anti-gay] laws of the countries they represent?


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I am glad you brought this up. The political term for this is a 'dog whistle'; to make camouflaged statements.
> Dog-whistle politics - Wikipedia
> 
> In this case you need to be aware that groups that campaign against gay rights or to promote conversion therapy, will see this as a nod in their direction.
> ...



I am well aware of the tendency on the alt-left to see everything every republican politician says as a dog whistling. As I recall the media lost their mind claiming that Ron DeSantis was dog whistling to racists when he used the common phrase "monkey this up". Which was completely hilarious to be perfectly honest.



Fallowfox said:


> Are you willing to condemn your previous comment that it 'makes little sense' that gay diplomats are willing to break the [anti-gay] laws of the countries they represent?



Haha no. It makes very little sense that a country that outlaws homosexuality to send a homosexual diplomat to represent their country. But I can't speak for the decision making of other countries governments obviously.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> I am well aware of the tendency on the alt-left to see everything every republican politician says as a dog whistling. As I recall the media lost their mind claiming that Ron DeSantis was dog whistling to racists when he used the common phrase "monkey this up". Which was completely hilarious to be perfectly honest.
> 
> Haha no. It makes very little sense that a country that outlaws homosexuality to send a homosexual diplomat to represent their country. But I can't speak for the decision making of other countries governments obviously.



You appreciate that I'm not a representative of the media, or a member of the 'alt-left' (whatever that is?). 
So can you address my specific point that Pence's comments are a dog whistle? 
Presuming you disagree, why? And what do you think about the moral justification of rescinding federal funding for HIV patients under the pretext that funding their medical care endorses the spread of HIV? 

I think you seem confused on the second issue. Gay diplomats from countries like Pakistan or Iran do not tell their countries that they're gay; they keep it a secret otherwise they'd face the injustice of being imprisoned or executed. 
The US had previously allowed these diplomats to seek visas for the people they were in love with, in a discreet way. The move to require a US marriage, or deportation, exposes their sexuality to their host countries- countries that will imprison or execute those people. 

Do you see the moral issue here?


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> So can you address my specific point that Pence's comments are a dog whistle?



Yeah sure. *They arent.*
It matters literally zero if someone who is actually radical decides to misinterpret what Pence says. Because it is not what he actually believes.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Yeah sure. *They arent.*
> It matters literally zero if someone who is actually radical decides to misinterpret what Pence says. Because it is not what he actually believes.



So your argument distills to 'they're not because they're not' ?
Do you have any reason or evidence to justify this perspective?
There is a lot of evidence to justify the position that they were intended as a discreet endorsement of conversion therapy, provided earlier in the discussion. 

I am going to press you to make a comment on the morality of trying to remove federal funding from HIV patients under the auspice that caring for them promotes HIV-risky behaviour.
You seem to think that Pence disapproves because he thinks that this will promote sex without condoms, but I don't see how this would make his action moral. 

I've asked you a few times now and you have avoided commenting on the morality. 

I also want to know your position on diplomat visas, now that I have explained the moral context to you.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Presuming you disagree, why? And what do you think about the moral justification of rescinding federal funding for HIV patients under the pretext that funding their medical care endorses the spread of HIV?



For this I would actually need to spend the time to look at the specific organizations, I think it is good to stop funding for organizations that encourage, or refuse to discourage unsafe sexual behaviors. Wouldn't you agree?



Fallowfox said:


> I think you seem confused on the second issue. Gay diplomats from countries like Pakistan or Iran do not tell their countries that they're gay; they keep it a secret otherwise they'd face the injustice of being imprisoned or executed.
> The US had previously allowed these diplomats to seek visas for the people they were in love with, in a discreet way. The move to require a US marriage, or deportation, exposes their sexuality to their host countries- countries that will imprison or execute those people.



Even if they have not told their home country they are gay, It is still not a politically good idea (in case we are caught) to help diplomats subvert the laws of their own countries. 
All they have to do is get married to get a visa if it is legal to be gay married in their country then great there is no problem.
If it is illegal in their home country then it is a bad idea to grant visas to 'friends' of diplomats for the reason that they are a gay significant other.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

I hope that the members of the NSFW discord server Anon-Raccoon runs will read this discussion and think carefully about what his reasons for participation in the furry community are. 
forums.furaffinity.net: NSFW discord server inviting new members

I am very suspicious that somebody seeking to reframe policies that single-out gay people is also seeking to be in charge of discord servers with lots of gay furries on them. 
Those of you who are gay and use that discord, what do_ you_ think about its creator accusing people who regard Pence's opposition to gay rights as 'alt left' ?


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> So your argument distills to 'they're not because they're not' ?
> Do you have any reason or evidence to justify this perspective?
> There is a lot of evidence to justify the position that they were intended as a discreet endorsement of conversion therapy, provided earlier in the discussion.
> 
> ...



You are completely wrong, there is no evidence that they are an endorsement of gay conversion therapy.

Just because some people (such as yourself) misunderstood it as such does not make it that.

Read the article, he was removing funding from organizations, not from patients. The government does not just pay you because you have HIV.
It is _Immoral _to fund organizations that do not discourage behaviors that spread of HIV.
Also it is immoral to spend my tax dollars to fund an organization whose practices I disagree with so there's also that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> For this I would actually need to spend the time to look at the specific organizations, I think it is good to stop funding for organizations that encourage, or refuse to discourage unsafe sexual behaviors. Wouldn't you agree?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Organisations that provide care for people suffering from HIV do not discourage safe sex.
I expect you to take the time to read about the federal funding programmes that Pence criticised, and then make a moral comment on his decision.

The official position of the US is that criminalisation of homosexuality is an injustice. Outing gay diplomats to countries that will persecute them is not compatible with that position.
Helping gay diplomats avoid those unjust laws is a moral act.

I think it is also important that countries like Pakistan and Iran realise that some of the people who represent and defend their countries' interests on the world stage are gay- and that those people are proud to represent their homes even though they would face persecution if their true selves were exposed.
It shows these countries that they can't deny the existence of their gay communities, and it provides a mandate for those communities to be respected.



Anon Raccoon said:


> You are completely wrong, there is no evidence that they are an endorsement of gay conversion therapy.
> 
> Just because some people (such as yourself) misunderstood it as such does not make it that.
> 
> ...



Do you think I was under the impression that the government gives money to people because they have HIV?

No. I believe that the US spends money on medical care for those people, because that is the moral thing to do and because it helps reduce the further spread of the disease. 

There we have it though...finally a moral comment, you _do_ think that using federal funding to care for those with HIV is immoral. 

It was like getting blood from a stone, but we got there. :\


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I hope that the members of the NSFW discord server Anon-Raccoon runs will read this discussion and think carefully about what his reasons for participation in the furry community are.
> forums.furaffinity.net: NSFW discord server inviting new members
> 
> I am very suspicious that somebody seeking to reframe policies that single-out gay people is also seeking to be in charge of discord servers with lots of gay furries on them.
> Those of you who are gay and use that discord, what do_ you_ think about its creator accusing people who regard Pence's opposition to gay rights as 'alt left' ?



The people who actually know me, know that I am very lgbtq friendly and have also done some thigs myself as well.

(btw I am not taking a stance on his proposal, since it was so long ago, I am merely refuting the absurd claim that he was pro gay conversion therapy)

Just because you pretend someone is anti gay does not mean they actually are.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Do you think I was under the impression that the government gives money to people because they have HIV?





Fallowfox said:


> remove federal funding from HIV patients


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> The people who actually know me, know that I am very lgbtq friendly and have also done some thigs myself as well.
> 
> (btw I am not taking a stance on his proposal, since it was so long ago, I am merely refuting the absurd claim that he was pro gay conversion therapy)
> 
> Just because you pretend someone is anti gay does not mean they actually are.



You are unable to condemn rescinding funding for HIV medical care as immoral.
You defended outing gay diplomats to countries that will persecute them.

If you want to be pro gay you actually have to support us! You can't just label yourself as 'pro gay' and then support all of the policies that harm us!


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> There we have it though...finally a moral comment, you _do_ think that using federal funding to care for those with HIV is immoral.



It is fundamentally immoral for me (or anyone) to be forced to pay for another person's healthcare.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> If you want to be pro gay you actually have to support us! You can't just label yourself as 'pro gay' and then support all of the policies that harm us!



We are seeing the same policy and coming to a different conclusion. You see something you think is anti gay and I see the same policy and thing it is not. 

Coming to a different conclusion as to the effect of a policy on the lgbtq community does not make one person good and the other bad. We just see different things. 

Do you understand?? More than one opinion exists in the world besides yours.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> It is fundamentally immoral for me (or anyone) to be forced to pay for another person's healthcare.



and that's a position that harms gay people. HIV infections affect our community particularly badly. Government funded medical assistance for things like HIV-testing and treatment helps HIV positive people discover that they are infected. Treating HIV positive people reduces the chance of new infections and it prevents avoidable deaths.

If you want to describe yourself as a person who is gay friendly, you have to put the well-being of real people first.

'I support libertarian political positions' or 'taxation is theft' *aren't excuses*; they're just explanations for why you support policies that hurt us.



Anon Raccoon said:


> We are seeing the same policy and coming to a different conclusion. You see something you think is anti gay and I see the same policy and thing it is not.
> 
> Coming to a different conclusion as to the effect of a policy on the lgbtq community does not make one person good and the other bad. We just see different things.
> 
> Do you understand?? More than one opinion exists in the world besides yours.



You are literally trying to explain to a gay man why you're not anti-gay but just *happen to* support politicians who are, and agree with all their policies. 
¬¬

How about actually listening to gay people and changing your views on things?


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> and that's a position that harms gay people. HIV infections affect our community particularly badly. Government funded medical assistance for things like HIV-testing and treatment helps HIV positive people discover that they are infected. Treating HIV positive people reduces the chance of new infections and it prevents avoidable deaths.
> 
> If you want to describe yourself as a person who is gay friendly, you have to put the well-being of real people first.
> 
> 'I support libertarian political positions' or 'taxation is theft' *aren't excuses*; they're just explanations for why you support policies that hurt us.



The burden should not be on me to pay for the healthcare of someone else. If it is 'hurting' gay communities for me to not be forced to give hiv/aids victims free money then so be it. 

I would prefer charities because it is voluntary and you may actually receive some level of gratitude for your contribution.



Fallowfox said:


> How about actually listening to gay people and changing your views on things?



I do not believe in intersectional politics, your identity does not make your opinion on government policy any more valid than mine.


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Feb 24, 2019)

Just saw this gold one XD


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> If it is 'hurting' gay communities for me to not be forced to give hiv/aids victims free money then so be it.



People die needless deaths because of attitudes like this. ._.

and I don't care whether you believe in intersectional politics. You should listen to me not because of my nominal gay identity, but because I have direct experience of what it's like to be gay and be affected by public discussions about policies that concern us- like whether we should be allowed to marry. (another policy Pence opposes by the way)

I'm not out in real life, so I know why discretion is important to gay people- and_ I _live in a country that's comparatively safe for gay people.
So you can see why I think it's cruel for an administration to confront gay diplomats with the prospect of being outed, when they come from dangerous countries.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> People die needless deaths because of attitudes like this. ._.
> 
> and I don't care whether you believe in intersectional politics. You should listen to me not because of my nominal gay identity, but because I have direct experience of what it's like to be gay and be affected by public discussions about policies that concern us- like whether we should be allowed to marry.
> 
> ...



Your direct experience does not automatically make you right. You can still have an incorrect perceptions of what politicians believe as we have clearly seen here.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Your direct experience does not automatically make you right. You can still have an incorrect perceptions of what politicians believe as we have clearly seen here.



When you say you support LGBT people, it's just virtue signalling. 

Our experiences and the way we say policies affect us clearly don't matter _one jot _to you. 
You'd rather daemonise us as 'alt-left' or 'intersectional' than actually consider listening to us. 

Anybody who uses Anon's discord, can you please forward the discussion to the gay users there? They need to know how Anon actually treats concerns raised by gay people, and his pervasive support for policies that harm us. 
I get the suspicion that the entire point of making the discord was for 'redpilling' gay furries- to make us willing even to dismiss each other's real experiences and to ignore anti-gay policies of politicians in the Trump whitehouse.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> When you say you support LGBT people, it's just virtue signalling.
> 
> Our experiences and the way we say policies affect us clearly don't matter _one jot _to you.
> You'd rather daemonise us as 'alt-left' or 'intersectional' than actually consider listening to us.
> ...



You pretending that I am anti gay doesn't make it even remotely true. 
This isn't even that complicated of an issue. 
I am for equality under the law for all relationships. 

That means same sex marriage on a federal level.
If a politician is not in favor of that, then I disagree with them on that policy.
I would never be a single issue voter on this.
I care far more about a politicians economic policy.

Your attempted mob tactics are not going to work. I never treat anyone differently.  I am kind and accepting to all types of people, and you should be ashamed for making such a terrible assumption about someone you barely know.

Also I don't allow politics it's just for sex


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> You pretending that I am anti gay doesn't make it even remotely true.





Anon Raccoon said:


> If it is 'hurting' gay communities for me to not be forced to give hiv/aids victims free money then so be it.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


>



Simple fact is I shouldn't be forced to fund that in the first place. 
I am for equality, that also means no special treatment.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

= If it hurts you for me to not be forced give you free shit then so be it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Simple fact is I shouldn't be forced to fund that in the first place.
> I am for equality, that also means no special treatment.



Federal funding to curtail the spread of HIV isn't just for gay people.
But *look *at yourself. You whine that gay people think you're anti-gay, but then you also make posts about how you don't give a shit about the consequences that failing to halt HIV spread has for us.
Do you really believe that this perspective is 'kind' and 'accepting'? I would call it selfish and un-caring.
When gay people disagree with you, you call us alt-left or a 'mob'.  :\ How is this kind?


This is the true face of many Trump supporters' attitudes to gay people. They're prepared to pay lip service to the ideals of kindness and equality if it furthers their own agenda, but they'll support every possible measure under the sun that hurts us as soon as it's no longer in their self-interest to play pretend.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> You whine that gay people think you're anti-gay



Actually it is just you, I have never had accusation thrown at me before.



Fallowfox said:


> the consequences that failing to halt HIV spread has for us



Why is it that MY tax money is required to stop the spread of this disease? The most I would want to compromise on is a pr campaign about monogamy and safe sex. If everyone knows the risks then the job is DONE, and it is up to people to make good decisions.



Fallowfox said:


> Do you really believe that this perspective is 'kind' and 'accepting'? I would call it selfish and un-caring.



At this point I care zero about your opinion of me.



Fallowfox said:


> When gay people disagree with you, you call us alt-left or a 'mob'. :\ How is this kind?



It's funny how you pick certain words and lie about how I used them.
I said the folks who think everything is dog whistling are alt left.
And i said you are using mob tactics when you try to demonize my server to everyone which you know literally nothing about.


----------



## Doulyboy (Feb 24, 2019)

Pence is known to be anti-LGBTQ, how can anyone on here support him or Trump for that??

Why can't we all agree that this administration is anti-gay and this is just all a distraction of this?

This makes me so mad to the point of literally shaking.


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Actually it is just you, I have never had accusation thrown at me before.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dude don't worry about radical leftist accusations. Especially when you know they're false. I know a few people who are actually on the alt-right or whatever. And I'm convinced they're clinically insane.


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Feb 24, 2019)

This is the story of my life.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

insertgenericnamehere1 said:


> Dude don't worry about radical leftist accusations. Especially when you know they're false. I know a few people who are actually on the alt-right or whatever. And I'm convinced they're clinically insane.



For the record, _do_ you actually think I'm a 'radical leftist'?

Let's suppose I was; let's pretend I'm a pinko communist just for funsies, how would that make_ any_ of my assessments about how these policies affect gay people false?


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Doulyboy said:


> Pence is known to be anti-LQBTQ, how can anyone on here support him or Trump for that??
> 
> Why can't we all agree that this administration is anti-gay and this is just all a distraction of this?
> 
> This makes me so mad to the point of literally shaking.



Well trump is known to be pro lgb, not so much pence (hes still not for gay conversion therapy which was the original point). I support them for other reasons.


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Well trump is known to be pro lgb, not so much pence (hes still not for gay conversion therapy which was the original point). I support them for other reasons.


The guy is a New Yorker for christ's sake. Most New Yorkers even the conservative ones are extremely socially progressive. I just think Don has no filter. It's very different from actual hating.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Well trump is known to be pro lgb, not so much pence (hes still not for gay conversion therapy which was the original point). I support them for other reasons.



"(The Family Research Council has said it was able to establish its Washington office only with the financial assistance of the family of Betsy DeVos, whom Donald J. Trump named education secretary last week.)"

"A coalition of former leaders of the ex-gay movement wrote an open letter in July denouncing the platform as “essentially affirming” conversion therapy. They said they could “attest to the emotional and spiritual damage caused to men, women, children and their families” by the practice."

www.nytimes.com: Mike Pence and ‘Conversion Therapy’: A History

If a president helps anti-gay campaigners find a voice, and chooses a vice president who promotes policies that harm us, then he's *not* 'pro lgbt'.



insertgenericnamehere1 said:


> The guy is a New Yorker for christ's sake. Most New Yorkers even the conservative ones are extremely socially progressive. I just think Don has no filter. It's very different from actual hating.



I don't think we can safely assume that somebody supports gay rights just because they live in New York. 
Our opinions should be formed around facts and evidence, rather than stereotypes.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Let me just remind you fallow that the original claim was that Pence was in favor of gay conversion therapy which was proven to be untrue.

I willingly admit he is not a good representative of my pro lgbtq beliefs. But he is not a threat to them in his current position. I trust Trump far more on this subject than I do Pence.


----------



## David Drake (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> This is the true face of many Trump supporters' attitudes to gay people. They're prepared to pay lip service to the ideals of kindness and equality if it furthers their own agenda, but they'll support every possible measure under the sun that hurts us as soon as it's no longer in their self-interest to play pretend.



Yes, and it's not a new tactic either. Many purveyors of harmful ideals have snuck in like this throughout history. And the well-meaning but ignorant get played for saps.

FYI there is no such thing as an "alt-left". Our different subgroups don't agree enough to put something like that together even if we wanted to (and as a leftist I will admit that this is a weakness on the part of the left that the right has always been too happy to exploit). But we wouldn't want to put anything like that together anyway because, y'know, we just want people to change their ideas not stop existing.


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> For the record, _do_ you actually think I'm a 'radical leftist'?
> 
> Let's suppose I was; let's pretend I'm a pinko communist just for funsies, how would that make_ any_ of my assessments about how these policies affect gay people false?



No it's just making accusations about people being anti-lgbt when they make clear they are pro. Is like calling a cat a dog, because it likes to go on walks. It's still a cat. It's pointless. And the only people I really see doing this are radical leftists. I used to be on the left myself. Since the left though has gone on this ghost hunt for nazis and biggots I left. More or less because the actual Nazis and bigots or alt-Right are a much smaller community than people think. Also the country I live in has been fucked up by leftists, so I think that also has influenced me.


----------



## Doulyboy (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Well trump is known to be pro lgb, not so much pence (hes still not for gay conversion therapy which was the original point). I support them for other reasons.




Tell that to the people who can't serve their own country because of Trump's hate.

I literally can't stand people that think like you do.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Doulyboy said:


> Pence is known to be anti-LGBTQ, how can anyone on here support him or Trump for that??
> 
> Why can't we all agree that this administration is anti-gay and this is just all a distraction of this?
> .



I think that Donald Trump's supporters know that most young people view homophobia as unacceptable. 
I think they want rebrand homophobic policies and politicians, so that they're more palatable to young people, in the hope that they can suppress political efforts we might make to oppose those people. 

So it's no surprise that the people doing that are seeking positions of influence in furry communities by promoting their furry discords, and making threads promoting Donald Trump's 'Pro-LGB' credentials. 

But still...notice that they say 'pro-LGB'...not LGBT. There's a tacit little evasion there, because they know they can't possibly present Trump as a defender of trans rights.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> "(The Family Research Council has said it was able to establish its Washington office only with the financial assistance of the family of Betsy DeVos, whom Donald J. Trump named education secretary last week.)"
> 
> "A coalition of former leaders of the ex-gay movement wrote an open letter in July denouncing the platform as “essentially affirming” conversion therapy. They said they could “attest to the emotional and spiritual damage caused to men, women, children and their families” by the practice."
> 
> ...



Without even reading that yet, 
Has it occurred to you that someone's lgb record is very low in the list of priorities when trump is hiring somebody?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

insertgenericnamehere1 said:


> No it's just making accusations about people being anti-lgbt when they make clear they are pro. Is like calling a cat a dog, because it likes to go on walks. It's still a cat. It's pointless. And the only people I really see doing this are radical leftists. I used to be on the left myself. Since the left though has gone on this ghost hunt for nazis and biggots I left. More or less because the actual Nazis and bigots or alt-Right are a much smaller community than people think. Also the country I live in has been fucked up by leftists, so I think that also has influenced me.



I think we should judge people by the sincerity of their actions and views, rather than by the way they choose to describe themselves.
Judge them by the fruits they bear.

If somebody says they support religious freedom for example, but then continuously talks about how they don't like people from religion x, then maybe we wouldn't believe their claim that they support freedom.



Anon Raccoon said:


> Without even reading that yet,
> Has it occurred to you that someone's lgb record is very low in the list of priorities when trump is hiring somebody?



I would propose searching for politicians who support economic models you like *and* who promote LGBT (LGB and T will not be split) rights.

It's not an 'either or'.

But yeah...actually read articles before you comment on them maybe?


----------



## Attaman (Feb 24, 2019)

Busy at work at the moment, but since @Fallowfox has taken care of the Pence on Conversion Therapy debate well enough and people are still claiming the Trump administration is a pro-LGBTQ+ ally, enjoy. Funnily enough this also covers a few things that I missed last post, such as efforts to literally legalize discrimination based on gender because “it technically isn’t mentioned explicitly in some old documents”.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Doulyboy said:


> Tell that to the people who can't serve their own country because of Trump's hate.
> 
> I literally can't stand people that think like you do.



I am not in favor of the trans ban if that's what you are referring to. I think if they can pass training and psych eval they should be fine.


----------



## Jarren (Feb 24, 2019)

Will then, this certainly became... Something of a call-out thread.

My two cents on the matter:
Nobody should be forced to pay for someone else's healthcare/testing unless everyone is. That's not discriminatory, that's fair. If we can get a universal system rolling in this country then sure. Everyone pays in and everyone benefits. Otherwise you pay your bills, I'll pay mind and I'll pick the charities and organizations I want to support that help to fill in the gaps.
HIV can, correct me if I'm wrong, be found very easily via a blood test that anyone can schedule through their doctor or local hospital for a low fee if they have insurance. If someone is unsure, insisting on condoms is hardly a controversial or oppressive issue until the people involved can get themselves tested. Hell, I'd argue that's even more effective, as people can lie about being 'clean' but if you don't consent until they've 'rubbered up' that's not much of a problem anymore. Plus, it'll hamper the spread of most other STDs as well. 
As far as marriage goes, marry who you want, so long as they're age of majority and have a say in the matter, there's no issue.
And I'm pretty sure calling out another user for the express purpose of impacting their private business or lives outside this website it inciting members against other members is against the ToS.
On a personal note, you, Fallow, seem to be the only one accusing Anon of being unsupportive/harmful to the gay community (could be wrong, haven't looked back more than a page ATM). I realize youryo trying to look out for people, but maybe youryo seeing a threat where there really isn't one? (I've made that mistake before and I still regret it). Could you maybe be attributing malice where there is none and trying to make an enemy out of someone simply because they've had a history of disagreeing (generally respectfully) with you? We all let our emotions get the better of us at times, and I realize this is a personal issue for you. But maybe take a break, get some tea or coffee, and come back with a clear head?

I won't tell you what you are or aren't doing, or what you do or do not believe. Only you can know that. I just want to make sure you've taken a step back to think.

Anywho, I'll duck out of this now.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> But still...notice that they say 'pro-LGB'...not LGBT. There's a tacit little evasion there, because they know they can't possibly present Trump as a defender of trans rights.



Yes even I would add the t when talking about trump.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Let me just remind you fallow that the original claim was that Pence was in favor of gay conversion therapy which *was proven to be untrue.*
> 
> I willingly admit he is not a good representative of my pro lgbtq beliefs. But he is not a threat to them in his current position. I trust Trump far more on this subject than I do Pence.



No.

Former heads of the 'ex-gay' movement submitted an open letter criticising the administration for its tacit promotion of conversion therapy. 

These politicians are not exonerated.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Attaman said:


> Busy at work at the moment, but since @Fallowfox has taken care of the Pence on Conversion Therapy debate well enough and people are still claiming the Trump administration is a pro-LGBTQ+ ally, enjoy. Funnily enough this also covers a few things that I missed last post, such as efforts to literally legalize discrimination based on gender because “it technically isn’t mentioned explicitly in some old documents”.



Well he failed miserably to back your claim that Pence wants to shock gays.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> No.
> 
> Former heads of the 'ex-gay' movement submitted an open letter criticising the administration for its tacit promotion of conversion therapy.
> 
> These politicians are not exonerated.



An open letter of criticism for tacit anything is as good as toilet paper. It's just a bunch of dudes who don't like trump getting together and writing a letter.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Jarren said:


> Will then, this certainly became... Something of a call-out thread.
> 
> My two cents on the matter:
> Nobody should be forced to pay for someone else's healthcare/testing unless everyone is. That's not discriminatory, that's fair. If we can get a universal system rolling in this country then sure. Everyone pays in and everyone benefits. Otherwise you pay your bills, I'll pay mind and I'll pick the charities and organizations I want to support that help to fill in the gaps.
> ...



So it's not just gay people who benefit from federal funding for HIV treatment. You have to consider that many insurance companies refuse to cover pre-existing conditions too, so people unfortunate enough to be afflicted with this disease can find themselves high-and-dry.
I agree with your support for comprehensive universal health care, but something is better than nothing at all, obviously.

From my perspective as a gay man, I got myself checked for HIV at a pop-up clinic, not at my normal doctor, because the pop-up clinic provided a context in which I could get tested without my family or doctor realising I'm gay.

I got tested because, if I discovered I _was_ infected, then I would be able to seek treatment- meaning that anybody I decided to have sex with would be at a much lesser risk of infection.
It's not about other people being able to demand my HIV status and believe the result I would give them (although I always would tell a prospective sexual partner what my status is).
It is about how I would be able to look-out for myself and others' well being, by making sure I'm not going around unknowingly infected.



Anon Raccoon said:


> An open letter of criticism for tacit anything is as good as toilet paper. It's just a bunch of dudes who don't like trump getting together and writing a letter.



You have the audacity to claim that you're a kind person. :\

Those are people whose perspectives you should value, because they lived through the harm that conversion therapy does- and they know all of the rhetoric devices that its proponents use to promote it, because that was once their own lived experience.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> You have the audacity to claim that you're a kind person. :\
> 
> Those are people whose perspectives you should value, because they lived through the harm that conversion therapy does- and they know all of the rhetoric devices that its proponents use to promote it, because that was once their own lived experience.



Notice the complaints are always against his "tacit" support of random bad things. 
That means that people who already dont like trump are trying really hard to link his words to bad things that have nothing to do with his actual beliefs and statements.

If trump had a dollar for every group or organization that has written a complaint he would literally have enough money to buy another golden toilet.
And enough paper to wipe his ass for eternity.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Notice the complaints are always against his "tacit" support of random bad things.
> That means that people who already dont like trump are trying really hard to link his words to bad things that have nothing to do with his actual beliefs and statements.
> 
> If trump had a dollar for every group or organization that has written a complaint he would literally have enough money to buy another golden toilet.
> And enough paper to wipe his ass for eternity.



I realise it is politically convenient for you to dismiss these people as politically motivated, but you should actually take the time to read their reasons for concern that the Trump Whitehouse has allied itself with the Family Research Centre, and released statements that strongly elude to conversion therapy.

The people writing that letter used to promote conversion therapy themselves- so they know all the tricks that are used to promote it. *They recognise those same tricks now.*


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> The people writing that letter used to



They... _used to_?
Soooo they don't anymore?
Sounds like a whole lot of nothing to me.

I really don't have time to read all of the angry things ever written to his administration.

It's a fill in the blank news story now.

_Breaking news!
"The organization for something, wrote a strongly worded letter to the trump administration for subtle implicit tacit support for an organization that used to fund people associated with this other particularly very bad thing"_


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

This has kind of died down and i have to go to sleep now. Maybe we can do a different topic again soon.


----------



## Jarren (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> They... _used to_?
> Soooo they don't anymore?
> Sounds like a whole lot of nothing to me.
> 
> ...


He means that the people who wrote the letter condemning the administration's language used to promote conversation therapy. Thus, they claim to recognize tactics they used to use. 
You've gotten it a little jumbled in your comprehending.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Well he failed miserably to back your claim that Pence wants to shock gays.


And do you have any commentary on the literal slew of other points and links you’ve ignored from two posts now while claiming that the administration is pro-LGBTQ+? Because you seem awfully insistent on trying to hammer on this one point instead of address... the Trans ban, the double-speeches by Trump and Pence with a recognized anti-LGBTQ+ hate group, their removal of mention of LGBTQ+ discrimination from reports and the government website, their attempts to legalize discrimination of LGBTQ+ persons, their refusal to confront nations such as Russia over their own horrific anti-LGBTQ+ practices... 

Let alone that the hill you’ve seemingly chosen to die on is “Taxation is theft and if those dirty gays didn’t make themselves vulnerable to HIV then they wouldn’t be dying. Also your opinions don’t matter Leftist cuck, dog whistles are make believe, the adults are talking” while claiming “I’m totally pro-LBGTQ+”. 

We’ve had this game on here a bunch the last year. It isn’t fooling anyone. In fact, the only reason I’m confident you aren’t one of the people we’ve had this dance several times with before is that at least they had the decency to not be a Randian “Leeches bleeding the honest man dry” Libertarians.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 24, 2019)

There shouldn't be any anti-gay discrimination, period. And as a gay male myself - I'd totally support decriminalization Worldwide, as it's very long overdue. But - that said, when one steps into the diplomatic limelight, and signs on to be a "public official" - then, there's certainly a number of risks involved in that decision, (both politically and personally)... and - making the choice to do it anyway is a personal one.

You can't pursue something risky, agree to do it anyway (knowing the risks involved), and then complain about it later on. Sorry.


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Feb 24, 2019)

I think the point that anon is trying to make is more about the fact that this isn't really newsworthy. It's just people looking for a story. That's what the media does in general. But I don't think we should all jump to conclusions. 

If I remember correctly from int'l law and based on the Vienna Conventions, I believe diplomats and their families receive some form of diplomatic immunity, specifically from criminal prosecutions in their host countries. I think this expires after they have completed their service, or if the host country wants they can send a warning or expel the diplomat for whatever reason. I'm really not sure though when it comes to diplomats violating laws of their own countries while abroad. I don't think it's not a crime for citizens and it would depend on the type of crime. But for diplomats (even citizens actually), I think it depends on their country of origin. Honestly I have no fucking clue. Int'l law is complicated as shit. If anyone wants to go research that please do me the favor, cuz I'd like to know, and I don't feel like picking up any old textbooks. XD


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

insertgenericnamehere1 said:


> I think the point that anon is trying to make is more about the fact that this isn't really newsworthy. It's just people looking for a story. That's what the media does in general. But I don't think we should all jump to conclusions.



Do you really think that?


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 24, 2019)

I don't think anyone on any side disagrees that if this results in decriminalization of homosexuality in more countries, that would be a positive step. Where we differ is in our perceptions of the motivations behind the announcement, and our faith in it being sincere. The thread does pretty neatly demonstrate how many issues are interconnected with each other.



insertgenericnamehere1 said:


> I think the point that anon is trying to make is more about the fact that this isn't really newsworthy. It's just people looking for a story. That's what the media does in general. But I don't think we should all jump to conclusions.


Changing national policy in a way that makes the UN go "um wot mate?" I would say is definitely newsworthy. It can be framed as "equality" all Trump & Co wants, but given the stigma that still exists against homosexuality in many countries, maybe the more appropriate (and definitely more humane) solution if the aim was equality would be to look at extending some leniency to non-married domestic partners of straight diplomats, as well.

The problem we have is that some users think the track record of the Trump administration and individuals within it cast doubt on the sincerity of the whole "decriminalization of homosexuality" push, while other users feel the Trump administration hasn't already used up its credibility on queer issues.

(I would also like to point out that saying that Trump is the most LGBT-friendly Republican President the US has had or whatever... kind of just makes Republicans look like bigots. And if you're okay with saying "past Republican Presidents have historically been raging homophobes," I suppose that's a statement you have a right to make...)



Fallowfox said:


> So it's not just gay people who benefit from federal funding for HIV treatment. You have to consider that many insurance companies refuse to cover pre-existing conditions too, so people unfortunate enough to be afflicted with this disease can find themselves high-and-dry.


IMO for any condition that involves mandatory reporting (I believe this is a thing in the US as well, at least - I know here there are infectious diseases, including STDs, that must be reported to our equivalent of the CDC, and you must provide information about whom you might have infected, and so on.) testing _at least_ should be done on the government's dime. How the hell else are you going to control the spread of the disease? _Force_ people who may have been subjected to infection to pay for testing? Just ask for the information, send up some thoughts and prayers, and then ignore it?

Eradicating devastating diseases is in the best interest of society at large. As such society should engage itself in the treatment, detection, and prevention of those diseases.



Connor J. Coyote said:


> There shouldn't be any anti-gay discrimination, period. And as a gay male myself - I'd totally support decriminalization Worldwide, as it's very long overdue. But - that said, when one steps into the diplomatic limelight, and signs on to be a "public official" - then, there's certainly a number of risks involved in that decision, (both politically and personally)... and - making the choice to do it anyway is a personal one.
> 
> You can't pursue something risky, agree to do it anyway (knowing the risks involved), and then complain about it later on. Sorry.


Another way of viewing it would be that a diplomatic assignment might be their best chance to 1) actually get to be relatively safe as a queer person from a country that criminalizes it and 2) be in a position to help get that unjust law changed. Yes, there is a risk. But expecting gay diplomats to have magically predicted that the protections their partners enjoyed would be rescinded isn't exactly fair.

If you take a calculated risk, and someone turns the calculation topsy-turvy on you, you can hardly be blamed for that.



Jarren said:


> If someone is unsure, insisting on condoms is hardly a controversial or oppressive issue until the people involved can get themselves tested. Hell, I'd argue that's even more effective, as people can lie about being 'clean' but if you don't consent until they've 'rubbered up' that's not much of a problem anymore. Plus, it'll hamper the spread of most other STDs as well.


That's a... complicated issue for multiple reasons. The receiving party (IIRC at greater risk of infection for all forms of sex; definitely the case for anal) is not going to be in a position to easily see whether their partner is actually wearing the condom that was agreed on. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't trust someone who lies about STD status to get laid wouldn't also lie about their intent to cover up. Pulling off a condom isn't all that difficult, and how much satisfaction a guy gets from sex with a condom (or so I've been told) is highly individual.

For HIV, being under treatment drastically reduces your risk of infecting others. This is not to say that taking your meds means you can go bareback willy-nilly, but rather that the ever-present risk of condoms breaking is less of a disaster if people are actually aware of their HIV status and able to get treatment.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Attaman said:


> “Taxation is theft and if those dirty gays didn’t make themselves vulnerable to HIV then they wouldn’t be dying. Also your opinions don’t matter Leftist cuck, dog whistles are make believe, the adults are talking”



Dont put words in my mouth. If you are going to use "" quotes make it a real one please.



Attaman said:


> the Trans ban,





Anon Raccoon said:


> I am not in favor of the trans ban if that's what you are referring to. I think if they can pass training and psych eval they should be fine.





Attaman said:


> the double-speeches by Trump and Pence with a recognized anti-LGBTQ+ hate group, their removal of mention of LGBTQ+ discrimination from reports and the government website, their attempts to legalize discrimination of LGBTQ+ persons, their refusal to confront nations such as Russia over their own horrific anti-LGBTQ+ practices...



I like to look at each specific point of controversy and decide from there if I think it is good or bad. I don't just blindly condemn or defend everything without knowing the facts.


----------



## Dancy (Feb 24, 2019)

_as an economic analyst, i weep looking at this thread._

_i see some comments about how certain people who are totally pro-lgbtqia are saying that they shouldn't be expected to pay for someone else's healthcare. like, y'all do realize that that is how any type of insurance works? you pay into a collective pool that covers the most susceptible members and the unfortunate. guidelines are laid out to ensure that insured parties don't take unnecessary risks.  if something happens to you specifically, you are then covered by the pool. this works because most people in the pool won't suffer any calamities they need to have have paid for by the pool. _

_think of your taxes the same way you think of insurance. you're adults, you should know this._

_i also want to ask if it is really wise for us to axe hiv/aids research when we had a major pandemic just a few decades ago? is it really in the public interest to not develop vaccines or cures?_


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> I like to look at each specific point of controversy and decide from there if I think it is good or bad. I don't just blindly condemn or defend everything *without knowing the facts.*






Anon Raccoon said:


> *Without even reading that yet,*
> Has it occurred to you that someone's lgb record is very low in the list of priorities when trump is hiring somebody?


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


>


Here is your answer:
Selective Obliviousness - TV Tropes


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Feb 24, 2019)

quoting_mungo said:


> Changing national policy in a way that makes the UN go "um wot mate?" I would say is definitely newsworthy.


The UN deals with a lot more weird shit. Just look at some of the dictators who go up there, and rant about weird shit. Have you ever seen the one with Ghaddafi. The man is clearly on way too many drugs throwing papers around and doing weird shit. (It's actually a really funny watch and he does make a few points here and there. I'd recommend it) Not to mention more pressing issues like, the civil wars, peace &security, poverty, development, climate change, etc. Trump says and does things that will always get a reaction. He's a provocateur, he learned that doing reality tv.


Fallowfox said:


> Do you really think that?


And yup. It's fine if you disagree.


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> I like to look at each specific point of controversy and decide from there if I think it is good or bad. I don't just blindly condemn or defend everything without knowing the facts.


That's the best way to go about politics I find. Try reading in between the lines, especially in diplomacy. The world is a lot more Machiavellian than we wish to believe.


----------



## Dancy (Feb 24, 2019)

insertgenericnamehere1 said:


> I think the point that anon is trying to make is more about the fact that this isn't really newsworthy. It's just people looking for a story. That's what the media does in general. But I don't think we should all jump to conclusions.
> 
> If I remember correctly from int'l law and based on the Vienna Conventions, I believe diplomats and their families receive some form of diplomatic immunity, specifically from criminal prosecutions in their host countries. I think this expires after they have completed their service, or if the host country wants they can send a warning or expel the diplomat for whatever reason.* I'm really not sure though when it comes to diplomats violating laws of their own countries while abroad. *I don't think it's not a crime for citizens and it would depend on the type of crime. But for diplomats (even citizens actually), I think it depends on their country of origin. *Honestly I have no fucking clue. Int'l law is complicated as shit. If anyone wants to go research that please do me the favor, cuz I'd like to know, and I don't feel like picking up any old textbooks. XD*


_bruh, i think it wouldn't hurt to know what you are talking about before you talk._


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

insertgenericnamehere1 said:


> That's the best way to go about politics I find. Try reading in between the lines, especially in diplomacy. The world is a lot more Machiavellian than we wish to believe.



I need to point out here that, in order to read between the lines, you actually have to read some of the lines in the first place. 

Anon's in the position where he's bragging about how analytical he is, but has also admitted not bothering to read the news.


----------



## Dancy (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I need to point out here that, in order to read between the lines, you actually have to read some of the lines in the first place.
> 
> Anon's in the position where he's bragging about how analytical he is, but has also admitted not bothering to read the news.


_i think there is a basic argument that part of being an adult is reading the news to stay informed. however, a few people here actively reject the news because they know it will conflict with the lies and propaganda they are trying spread here. so they cast doubt on the media and act like they are skeptics wary of media bias._


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I need to point out here that, in order to read between the lines, you actually have to read some of the lines in the first place.
> 
> Anon's in the position where he's bragging about how analytical he is, but has also admitted not bothering to read the news.



Lol I do a lot. Probably too much for my own good =p

And if I'm reading correctly based on anon's posts I think it's more he doesn't want to defend positions he doesn't believe. Simple as that. Who does? If I was to say 'why do you approve of Stalin?' because your on the clearly more to the left on an issue, you'd look at me like I'm crazy. And rightfully so! Btw I hope you don't like Uncle Jo. =p 
You're making accusations that aren't true and don't exist. People don't appreciate that. It's not cool.

Best not to get too personally involved in politics. People will disagree. It's just something everyone will have to accept. I think it's good to learn to agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with it.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Dancy said:


> _as an economic analyst, i weep looking at this thread._
> 
> _i see some comments about how certain people who are totally pro-lgbtqia are saying that they shouldn't be expected to pay for someone else's healthcare. like, y'all do realize that that is how any type of insurance works? you pay into a collective pool that covers the most susceptible members and the unfortunate. guidelines are laid out to ensure that insured parties don't take unnecessary risks.  if something happens to you specifically, you are then covered by the pool. this works because most people in the pool won't suffer any calamities they need to have have paid for by the pool. _
> 
> ...



The difference is I am not forced to pay for health insurance, and my rates depend on my individual health for most policies. 
I think there is plenty of incentive for the private sector to research aids prevention and cures. 
After all the US is number 1 for new drug development.
My tax dollars are not required.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> The difference is I am not forced to pay for health insurance, and my rates depend on my individual health for most policies.
> I think there is plenty of incentive for the private sector to research aids prevention and cures.
> After all the US is number 1 for new drug development.
> My tax dollars are not required.



Do you support spending tax dollars on the immunisation of children against measles?



insertgenericnamehere1 said:


> Lol I do a lot. Probably too much for my own good =p
> 
> And if I'm reading correctly based on anon's posts I think it's more he doesn't want to defend positions he doesn't believe. Simple as that. Who does? If I was to say 'why do you approve of Stalin?' because your on the clearly more to the left on an issue, you'd look at me like I'm crazy. And rightfully so! Btw I hope you don't like Uncle Jo. =p
> You're making accusations that aren't true and don't exist. People don't appreciate that. It's not cool.
> ...



With due respect, I'm not accusing Anon raccoon of heinous positions that he doesn't hold. 

I _am_ accusing Michael Pence of holding heinous positions that he denies holding. 
But you know, he's a big boy and he can take that.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


>



These statements are not contradictory.

I don't blindly defend or condemn anything which is why I support some of Trumps polices and dont support others.

I can see why you are confused, but I can make that observation about trump's hiring decisions regardless of whether or not I read that article. (Which was about something else completely)


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> With due respect, I'm not accusing Anon raccoon of heinous positions that he doesn't hold.
> 
> I _am_ accusing Michael Pence of holding heinous positions that he denies holding.
> But you know, he's a big boy and he can take that.



Okay dude


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> These statements are not contradictory.
> 
> I don't blindly defend or condemn anything which is why I support some of Trumps polices and dont support others.
> 
> I can see why you are confused, but I can make that observation about trump's hiring decisions regardless of whether or not I read that article. (Which was about something else completely)



I think you should take a wider 'aesthetic' approach here and maybe just admit that it looks bad to brag about how informed you are, while also being loud about not bothering to read.

The fix _is_ easy and simple; just read more stuff. Maybe start with that particular article?


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Do you support spending tax dollars on the immunisation of children against measles?



Yes I am against the spending tax dollars on that. The parents should be the ones to pay to vaccinate their children.



Fallowfox said:


> With due respect, I'm not accusing Anon raccoon of heinous positions that he doesn't hold.
> 
> I _am_ accusing Michael Pence of holding heinous positions that he denies holding.
> But you know, he's a big boy and he can take that.



This is where the source of our disagreement lies. 
I say the claims that Pence is in favor of gay conversion therapy are unfounded.
And you accuse me of being anti gay because I don't read between the lines making assumptions and come to the same conclusion as you.


----------



## Dancy (Feb 24, 2019)

insertgenericnamehere1 said:


> Lol I do a lot. Probably too much for my own good =p
> 
> And if I'm reading correctly based on anon's posts I think it's more he doesn't want to defend positions he doesn't believe. Simple as that. Who does? If I was to say 'why do you approve of Stalin?' because your on the clearly more to the left on an issue, you'd look at me like I'm crazy. And rightfully so! Btw I hope you don't like Uncle Jo. =p
> You're making accusations that aren't true and don't exist. People don't appreciate that. It's not cool.
> ...


_respectfully, most people here laid out good arguments for why that is not the case, which you are choosing to ignore. i would not call anonraccoon pro-lgbtqia by any stretch of the imagination. from offering cover to mike pence (a man who caused a hiv/aids epidemic in his own state because of his anti-lgbtqia views) to taking any position here that would allow him side against the lgbtqia community, that should be evident._

_also, you have been here all of a week and seem to have a tenuous grasp on the issues here. maybe you might want to wait and read a little before commenting. _


Anon Raccoon said:


> The difference is I am not forced to pay for health insurance, and my rates depend on my individual health for most policies.
> I think there is plenty of incentive for the private sector to research aids prevention and cures.
> After all the US is number 1 for new drug development.
> My tax dollars are not required.


_except the private sector disagrees, since the federal government has underwritten funding for every major vaccine. research and development is very capital intensive and there is something to be said for american companies being the first to develop vaccines. taxes fund that research and even the distribution of these drugs to a degree._

_furthermore, your taxes are adjusted to your income and you are "forced" to pay them because you consume government services like military security and police protection. some people may want to opt out of paying taxes for certain services, but you obviously can't run an effective government like that. think of how many people anti-war protestor might want to opt out of funding the military. _

_you can also say that your taxes makes sure we all are protected from the spread of hiv/aids. _


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Yes I am against the spending tax dollars on that. The parents should be the ones to pay to vaccinate their children.
> This is where the source of our disagreement lies.
> I say the claims that Pence is in favor of gay conversion therapy are unfounded.
> And you accuse me of being anti gay because I don't read between the lines making assumptions and come to the same conclusion as you.



No I accuse you of being anti gay because of charming comments like this, Anon:


Anon Raccoon said:


> If it is 'hurting' gay communities for me to not be forced to give hiv/aids victims free money then so be it.



You made this comment _even though _you had earlier clarified that you believed it was stupid to view medical care as 'giving people free money'.

Of all the gay policy issues that have come up, you've found some excuse to support the option that hurts gay people. 

You've refused to listen to gay people's experiences of how those policies affect them. You described an open letter by people who had experienced conversion therapy as 'toilet paper'. 

._.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Dancy said:


> _respectfully, most people here laid out good arguments for why that is not the case, which you are choosing to ignore. i would not call anonraccoon pro-lgbtqia by any stretch of the imagination. from offering cover to mike pence (a man who caused a hiv/aids epidemic in his own state because of his anti-lgbtqia views) to taking any position here that would allow him side against the lgbtqia community, that should be evident._
> 
> _also, you have been here all of a week and seem to have a tenuous grasp on the issues here. maybe you might want to wait and read a little before commenting. _
> 
> ...



We arent gonna come to any sort of conclusion and this will just drag us off topic. But I think the huge amount of government influence in our healthcare system is stifling innovation and increasing costs. But you are correct, around half of all healthcare spending is done by the federal government in the US last I checked.


----------



## Dancy (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> We arent gonna come to any sort of conclusion and this will just drag us off topic. But I think the huge amount of government influence in our healthcare system is stifling innovation and increasing costs. But you are correct, around half of all healthcare spending is done by the federal government in the US last I checked.


_i don't see how capital from the government to expedite and ensure the success of research and development is stifling innovation. furthermore, that money is usually given with very few conditions for the pharmaceutical companies involved. but yes, i try to know what i am talking about. _


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> We arent gonna come to any sort of conclusion and this will just drag us off topic. But I think the huge amount of government influence in our healthcare system is stifling innovation and increasing costs. But you are correct, around half of all healthcare spending is done by the federal government in the US last I checked.



It is difficult to reconcile these views with reality. 

I am sure you desperately want then to be true, but they just aren't, are they?






Maybe we Europeans just have better genes than you guys? I do doubt it though.


----------



## KimberVaile (Feb 24, 2019)

I'm kind of shocked that feeling that the government should stay away from having a hand in the insurance market is being bandied about as somehow being the equivalent of being homophobic or close to it. Considering that it is a very common conservative position and often most of them cite pretty legitimate reasons for why they believe that. More often than not, it stems from believing big government is overall a net negative for individual rights and causes stagnation when government dictates policy to companies. I've never really heard a line of reasoning that really ever touched on a homophobic basis.

Disclaimer: I do not necessarily agree with all lines of reasoning.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> No I accuse you of being anti gay because of charming comments like this, Anon:
> 
> 
> You made this comment _even though _you had earlier clarified that you believed it was stupid to view medical care as 'giving people free money'.
> ...





If not wanting to give my tax money to fund aids treatment is "anti gay" (it isn't that is just your opinion) then so be it. I stand by that.
I am against any of my tax money going to fund someone else's healthcare.
(with a few exceptions such as people with disabilities)

You may have the wrong idea just because we chose to discuss a minor disagreement. If this conversation was about the right to marry or adopt kids ect.. you would find no opposition.


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Feb 24, 2019)




----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> I'm kind of shocked that feeling that the government should stay away from having a hand in the insurance market is being bandied about as somehow being the equivalent of being homophobic or close to it. Considering that it is a very common conservative position and often most of them cite pretty legitimate reasons for why the believe that. More often than not, it stems from believing big government is overall a net negative for individual rights and causes stagnation when government dictate policy to companies. I've never really heard a line of reasoning that really ever touched on a homophobic basis.



So this isn't what's being discussed Kimber.

Here's the low-down.

-The US has federally funded initiatives to control the spread of HIV, by providing testing and treatment.
-Michael Pence believes this is bad, not because it is 'government interference in the insurance market', but because he believes that these federally funded initiatives celebrate the causes of HIV.
Michael Pence instead wants money to be apportioned to groups that will 'discourage behaviours that cause HIV'. He has never cared to specify what those groups are, but he is closely affiliated with the Family Research Centre, which has promoted conversion therapy.

Are the dots connecting in your head now?
Michael Pence thinks paying for HIV treatment encourages homosexuality. He would rather the federal government attack homosexuality than confront HIV.




Anon Raccoon said:


> If not wanting to give my tax money to fund aids treatment is "anti gay" (it isn't that is just your opinion) then so be it. I stand by that.
> I am against any of my tax money going to fund someone else's healthcare.
> (with a few exceptions such as people with disabilities)
> 
> You may have the wrong idea just because we chose to discuss a minor disagreement. If this conversation was about the right to marry or adopt kids ect.. you would find no opposition.



I think you've evaded some of the other reasons I view you as anti-gay, such as insisting that you don't have to listen to gay people's views because you're 'not into intersectional politics', or your description of conversion therapy survivors' letters as 'toilet paper'. 


If you want to have a discussion about marriage though, you surely know that Michael Pence opposes gay marriage, as well as opposing gays serving in the military...pretty much every policy you can think of that's against gays to be honest.


----------



## KimberVaile (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> So this isn't what's being discussed Kimber.
> 
> Here's the low-down.
> 
> ...



This is more about the current administration then, specifically the Vice President? 
I suppose it's on topic, though, do you have a source for where he said those things though?


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> It is difficult to reconcile these views with reality.
> 
> I am sure you desperately want then to be true, but they just aren't, are they?
> 
> ...



Lol I never even mentioned European countries in my response, and nothing I just said contradicts the graphic you just put there.

If you really want me to get into healthcare, start a new thread and I will tell you all about it. Because that is getting off topic.


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Lol I never even mentioned European countries in my response, and nothing I just said contradicts the graphic you just put there.
> 
> If you really want me to get into healthcare, start a new thread and I will tell you all about it. Because that is getting off topic.



Logical fallacies my dude. Way too many logical fallacies.


----------



## Minerva_Minx (Feb 24, 2019)

Military requirements is what drives our economy as we developed and implemented the military industrial complex.  You meed military research because f the threat to the homeland from chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threat from outside actors.  So government subsidized vaccines and, the lawful dispersion thereof, is what we expect from a government in relation to the protection of its citizens.   

For the LGBTQIA community, the Trump agenda is about cause and distract.  Immigration isnt a problem.  However, you dont sell peace, you sell fear.  Fear of maintaining peace, fear of what your neighbor is or isnt.  Trump and many like him, want fear because his base can use it as a weapon, he can use it as cover, and the country can rally against invisible threats.  Indeed, this nationalist fervor is exactly what lead to our isolationism and was a key contributor to the last two world wars.  

I dont fear the LGBTQIA community, no more thn I fear a particular race or country.  I trust individuals to do what is in their best interest when push comes to shove.  Information is based on fact.  However, again, with this level of lying and deception, assumptions have replaced fact.  Tariffs are hurting the consumer.  The joc creation bill just caused the IRS indebtedness of nearly 30 million people.  37 people have been indicted and found guilty of crimes in this administration with new york looking to press three counts against the sitting president. This will again ignite a disruption which will press class warfare to a whole new level which again, serves to distract.  The current support for the LGBTQIA community is equally recent.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> This is more about the current administration then, specifically the Vice President?
> I suppose it's on topic, though, do you have a source for where he said those things though?



Yes I do I am posting it here and forwarding it to you on Discords. 

www.nytimes.com: Mike Pence and ‘Conversion Therapy’: A History


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I think you've evaded some of the other reasons I view you as anti-gay, such as insisting that you don't have to listen to gay people's views because you're 'not into intersectional politics', or your description of conversion therapy survivors' letters as 'toilet paper'.



I don't have to agree with you and just be far left to support gay rights.
And yes, their letters to Trump are utterly meaningless. It's just a bunch of anti trump people finding an excuse to call the orange man bad for the millionth time.



Fallowfox said:


> Michael Pence opposes gay marriage



Yes I am opposed to that policy no matter who holds it. I can support a politician without endorsing every single one of their beliefs.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> I don't have to agree with you and just be far left to support gay rights.
> And yes, their letters to Trump are utterly meaningless. It's just a bunch of anti trump people finding an excuse to call the orange man bad for the millionth time.
> 
> 
> ...



The position that I am defending is just the continuation of the status quo- some federal funding being spent on mitigation of HIV-Aids. 

This isn't 'far left' unless you think the Unites States of America is far left.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Yes I do I am posting it here and forwarding it to you on Discords.
> 
> www.nytimes.com: Mike Pence and ‘Conversion Therapy’: A History



I just read this article and I can sum it up in one sentence:

The New York times accuses him of being in favor of conversion therapy and he is not.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> The position that I am defending is just the continuation of the status quo- some federal funding being spent on mitigation of HIV-Aids.
> 
> This isn't 'far left' unless you think the Unites States of America is far left.



This is a microscopic issue on my political radar. I think the federal government wastes so much money on well meaning but ineffective causes just to signal to voters how caring they are.

I want to ask you something. Do you think it is possible to fight hiv/aids _without _federal taxpayer money?


----------



## Dancy (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> And yes, their letters to Trump are utterly meaningless. It's just a bunch of anti trump people finding an excuse to call the orange man bad for the millionth time.


_but if you are really dismissing the letters of victims of conversion therapy, can you really call yourself an ally? would an ally of the lgbtqia community really use this sort of language?
_


Anon Raccoon said:


> Do you think it is possible to fight hiv/aids _without _federal taxpayer money?


_we only really got a handle on the pandemic in this country after the government started serious research funding and offering subsidies to pharmaceutical companies for development, so I would say yes. economies of scales do certainly apply in pharmaceutical research & development. furthermore, the government gives federal agency research to pharmaceutical companies for vaccine and cure development, which speeds up delivery times considerably for new products. the government has always been an essential partner in drug development. _


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> I just read this article and I can sum it up in one sentence:
> 
> The New York times accuses him of being in favor of conversion therapy and he is not.



He's not because he's not because he's not because he's not.

That's been all the justification we've gotten here. :\



Anon Raccoon said:


> This is a microscopic issue on my political radar. I think the federal government wastes so much money on well meaning but ineffective causes just to signal to voters how caring they are.
> 
> I want to ask you something. Do you think it is possible to fight hiv/aids _without _federal taxpayer money?



You appeared to care about it passionately earlier. 

But now that you regard funding for HIV as a microscopic issue, are you willing to concede to my view that it should continue to be funded? 

After all, apparently you don't care about it much.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> He's not because he's not because he's not because he's not.
> 
> That's been all the justification we've gotten here. :\



The burden of proof is on the accuser! You have been unable to prove hes in favor of conversion therapy with anything other than statements that you are required to wildly misinterprete.

His administration has said repeatedly that he is not in favor of it and you just plug your ears and pretend it doesn't matter. 
Because you just believe your preconceived notion of what he is and anything he does that contradicts your already formed opinion is just some kind of a lie or a ruse.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> The burden of proof is on the accuser! You have been unable to prove hes in favor of conversion therapy with anything other than statements that you are required to wildly misinterprete.
> 
> His administration has said repeatedly that he is not in favor of it and you just plug your ears and pretend it doesn't matter.
> Because you just believe your preconceived notion of what he is and anything he does that contradicts your already formed opinion is just some kind of a lie or a ruse.



I think what's happened is that proof has been supplied, but you've just put your fingers in your ears and shouted 'la la la can't hear you,'.

Think of all the evidence you have to ignore; you have to hand-wave away Pence giving speeches at the FRC's meetings, an orginsation which promotes conversion therapy.
You have to ignore people who previously practices conversion therapy pointing out that 'yes, that's what he's promoting; that's how we used to do it,'.
You have to assume that Pence's universal opposition to any legislation that would help gay people is merely a coincidental detail that is irrelevant.

These assumptions are a more complicated model of the world than the simplicity of the obvious truth- a truth that is politically inconvenient for you; that it is a dog-whistle.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Dancy said:


> we only really got a handle on the pandemic in this country after the government started serious research funding and offering subsidies to pharmaceutical companies for development, so I would say yes. economies of scales do certainly apply in pharmaceutical research & development. furthermore, the government gives federal agency research to pharmaceutical companies for vaccine and cure development, which speeds up delivery times considerably for new products. the government has always been an essential partner in drug development.



I can forgive the government subsidizing private research on a specific disease in times of an actual pandemic that little is known about. But aids is now well understood; and decades of trying to find a vaccine or cure havent gone very far.

But I think the FDA takes far too long to approve new and experimental drugs and it really slows drug development.

Anyways this is way off topic and my question was addressed to fallow about if he thinks it is possible to fight the spread of hiv/aids without federal funding


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> I can forgive the government subsidizing private research on a specific disease in times of an actual pandemic that little is known about. But aids is now well understood; and decades of trying to find a vaccine or cure havent gone very far.
> 
> But I think the FDA takes far too long to approve new and experimental drugs and it really slows drug development.
> 
> Anyways this is way off topic and my question was addressed to fallow about if he thinks it is possible to fight the spread of hiv/aids without federal funding



I defer to Dancy's answer because she clearly knows more about this subject than me. You should continue your discussion with her.


----------



## Dancy (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I defer to Dancy's answer because she clearly knows more about this subject than me. You should continue your discussion with her.


_awww, i've got it, darling, and thanks. that is high praise from you._



Anon Raccoon said:


> I can forgive the government subsidizing private research on a specific disease in times of an actual pandemic that little is known about. But aids is now well understood; and decades of trying to find a vaccine or cure havent gone very far.
> 
> But I think the FDA takes far too long to approve new and experimental drugs and it really slows drug development.
> 
> Anyways this is way off topic and my question was addressed to fallow about if he thinks it is possible to fight the spread of hiv/aids without federal funding


_like, tell that to people living with hiv/aids who are currently at undetectable levels due to hiv/aids treatments developed in conjunction with the government. hiv/aids patients have much longer lifespans now than ever before. plus, several vaccine candidates are currently process of receiving trials. that is a lot of progress. _

_furthermore, you should be a fan of government funding of drug development, since drugs developed using research from the national institutes of health and centers for disease control are fast-tracked for fda approval._

_but i did answer you question._

_also, you seem unfamiliar with the drug development process and pharmaceutical industry, so here:_

_www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov: Current Model for Financing Drug Development: From Concept Through Approval - Breakthrough Business Models - NCBI Bookshelf_


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> but you've just put your fingers in your ears and shouted 'la la la can't hear you,'.



 No, U lol



Fallowfox said:


> you have to hand-wave away Pence giving speeches at the FRC's meetings, an orginsation which promotes conversion therapy.



Tons of people do speeches to them, they are just a Christian traditionalist group. That is not evidence that he believes in that one specific practice.

He can still oppose gay marriage and gay rights without pushing conversion therapy... 
I don't like that he does that but it is not somehow tacit support of it.

Assuming that because he believes X and Y things against gays does not equal him supporting literally every anti gay policy that exists.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Dancy said:


> like, tell that to people living with hiv/aids who are currently at undetectable levels due to hiv/aids treatments developed in conjunction with the government. hiv/aids patients have much longer lifespans now than ever before. plus, several vaccine candidates are currently process of receiving trials. that is a lot of progress.



I never said they hadn't made progress, I just pointed out there is no cure or vaccine.



Dancy said:


> furthermore, you should be a fan of government funding of drug development, since drugs developed using research from the national institutes of health and centers for disease control are fast-tracked for fda approval.



Why play favorites? We should fast track everything for FDA approval. Bureaucratic obstacles are the biggest barrier to economic growth, especially for smaller businesses.

This talk is just gonna go in circles where you say the government is better at healthcare and I say that a privatized system would be better.
Also it's still off topic


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I defer to Dancy's answer because she clearly knows more about this subject than me. You should continue your discussion with her.



Nice dodge of a simple question btw. It is a yes or no. Do you think my tax money is absolutely required to fight the spread of hiv/aids?


----------



## Dancy (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> I never said they hadn't made progress, I just pointed out there is no cure or vaccine.


_except that "progress" is increased life expectancy for those patients, which in and of itself is an achievement worthy of following up on. remember, we're talking about people's lives here. also, there are vaccine candidates which are currently promising as well as treatments for newborns that can potentially render them hiv negative._


Anon Raccoon said:


> Why play favorites? We should fast track everything for FDA approval. Bureaucratic obstacles are the biggest barrier to economic growth, especially for smaller businesses.


_because some drugs have less potentially risky side effects or show more overwhelming promise than other drugs do. no pharmaceutical company wants to be on the hook for releasing a defective drug on market. no government wants its people to sickened by the defective drugs. this is why we have the food and drug administration in the first place._


Anon Raccoon said:


> This talk is just gonna go in circles where you say the government is better at healthcare and I say that a privatized system would be better.


_i'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth as to what i believe about healthcare. i happen to believe a hybrid of public sector involvement in a mostly private sector healthcare system is the best forward for us. i said nothing about the government being better at healthcare, which is a facile argument._


Anon Raccoon said:


> No, U lol
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_so what is more interesting to me is that you concede that he is against gay marriage and gay rights, which to me is still a dealbreaker for someone becoming vice president regardless of whether they believe in gay conversion therapy or not. though i would argue that you if concede mike pence is against gay marriage and gay rights, it makes little sense for you to deny that he doesn't support conversion therapy given the wording of his statements and the totality of his anti-lgbtqia actions as governor. i mean, it seems like you are quibbling about one horrible aspect of the man when there is so much more about him to be distressed and disgusted about. _

_i'll also throw out there that if you support mike pence and donald trump despite the many anti-gay actions they have undertaken in their careers, even if you are supporting them for "other reasons", you at least can't call yourself being pro-gay. if you are putting those "other reasons" over gay and trangender people being denied their rights, you care about those reasons more than you do about gay rights. so maybe don't so quick to wrap yourself in the cloak of being an ally if you can't be bother to stand with them and are supporting politicians actively hurting their interests._


Anon Raccoon said:


> Nice dodge of a simple question btw. It is a yes or no. Do you think my tax money is absolutely required to fight the spread of hiv/aids?


_he said he deferred to my answer, so yes. you could also recognize that it is late for him and he has work tomorrow. i'll answer in his stead and he can disavow anything he disagrees with later. just be aware i am dyeing a friend's hair so i might be little delayed. _


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 24, 2019)

Dancy said:


> he is against gay marriage and gay rights, which to me is still a dealbreaker for someone becoming vice president regardless of whether they believe in gay conversion therapy or not.



It truly is sad how many single issue voters their are. 



Dancy said:


> if you are putting those "other reasons" over gay and trangender people being denied their rights, you care about those reasons more than you do about gay rights.



Yes, I care far more about things such as the economy, foreign policy, and the second amendment, than I do about gay rights. That just means I have different priorities in what I look for in politicians. 
Trump was the most lgb friendly republican candidate available anyway.


----------



## Dancy (Feb 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> It truly is sad how many single issue voters their are.


_did i say was a single issue voter? no. but if you put me on the spot, i would say i would never sell out an entire group of americans to have their rights and protections slowly stripped away so i could personally benefit from nebulous and empty promises from a man who is a proven liar and cheat. call me a value voter if you want._


Anon Raccoon said:


> Trump was the most lgb friendly republican candidate available anyway.


_jeb bush ran, but nobody knew, lol._


Anon Raccoon said:


> Yes, *I care far more about things such as the economy, foreign policy, and the second amendment, than I do about gay rights.* That just means I have different priorities in what I look for in politicians.


_this is progress._

_i would question how well he is doing on the foreign policy front and especially in terms of the economy, but hey._


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 25, 2019)

Dancy said:


> did i say was a single issue voter? no. but if you put me on the spot, i would say i would never sell out an entire group of americans to have their rights and protections slowly stripped away so i could personally benefit from nebulous and empty promises from a man who is a proven liar and cheat. call me a value voter if you want.



That particular comment very much gave me that impression, but thanks for the clarification. 

We clearly have different opinions about his administration and that's not gonna change of course. Very often hard choices need to be made about candidates in elections can we agree on this much? There is rarely a perfect candidate for most Americans.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 25, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> I never said they hadn't made progress, I just pointed out there is no cure or vaccine.


Having a preventative drug regimen (of a single daily pill with FAIK few side effects) that will protect someone ("Doctors wont say it makes you immune, but they will say there are few to none of people on prep (and following the dosing regime) who have contracted hiv," from someone who knows more about it than I do) from contracting HIV if it's taken is not exactly chopped liver in that regard. More effective  treatment drugs with less severe side effects for better results is also pretty damn significant. Insisting that research hasn't "gone very far" (keeping in mind that HIV research was initially severely underfunded because HIV was a "gay disease") feels, at best, like splitting hairs to save face. You didn't say "well they've researched for decades and still can't cure it or vaccinate against it," you said "decades of trying to find a vaccine or cure _havent gone very far_" (emphasis mine). That _is_ referring to progress.

Cures to viral diseases are _hard_. The only known treatment to give people with rabies a _chance_ at survival is putting them in a coma to prevent their bodies from tearing themselves apart and letting their immune systems do their job. And rabies has a _much_ longer history in humans than HIV. By comparison, HIV treatments are fucking miraculous.



Dancy said:


> i'll also throw out there that if you support mike pence and donald trump despite the many anti-gay actions they have undertaken in their careers, even if you are supporting them for "other reasons", you at least can't call yourself being pro-gay. if you are putting those "other reasons" over gay and trangender people being denied their rights, you care about those reasons more than you do about gay rights. so maybe don't so quick to wrap yourself in the cloak of being an ally if you can't be bother to stand with them and are supporting politicians actively hurting their interests.


So, hypothetically, there _might_ be valid issues to prioritize over gay rights. _Maybe_. Like, if a genie told me "you can end world hunger permanently, humanely and sustainably, but DADT has to be reinstated," I'd have to think hard about that, and I suspect so would even, say, some queer servicemen and/or veterans. So I won't preclude the _possibility_. Can't think of a realistic one off the top of my head, and definitely don't personally think it's the case here, but yeah.

However, looking at the number of anti-QUILTBAG policies and statements made and insisting that this is a queer friendly administration... _That_ is not being an ally any way you slice it. I can't think of any past presidential administration, nor could my _American_ boyfriend, that has actively gone out of its way to _roll back_ protections for queer people the way this one has. Much like you can't put an apple purchased yesterday next to an apple purchased a decade ago and compare the prices straight across, comparing stances on social issues without adjusting for society progressing in the meantime is pretty useless. Someone who was progressive on queer issues ten years ago would, if transplanted straight into current debate, not sound nearly as much so, and probably even sound backwards on some issues.

I feel like queer people are, in the arguments of some people here, being turned into the sacrificial child in _The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas_, but without the utopian prosperity that _Omelas_ enjoyed in exchange. Pretty bum deal, if you ask me.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 25, 2019)

quoting_mungo said:


> Having a preventative drug regimen (of a single daily pill with FAIK few side effects) that will protect someone ("Doctors wont say it makes you immune, but they will say there are few to none of people on prep (and following the dosing regime) who have contracted hiv," from someone who knows more about it than I do) from contracting HIV if it's taken is not exactly chopped liver in that regard. More effective treatment drugs with less severe side effects for better results is also pretty damn significant. Insisting that research hasn't "gone very far" (keeping in mind that HIV research was initially severely underfunded because HIV was a "gay disease") feels, at best, like splitting hairs to save face. You didn't say "well they've researched for decades and still can't cure it or vaccinate against it," you said "decades of trying to find a vaccine or cure _havent gone very far_" (emphasis mine). That _is_ referring to progress.



There is not a single thing incorrect about my statement that decades of trying to find a vaccine or cure havent gone very far. 
You are not understanding.
Research toward _treatments_ has gone very far.
They are different things.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 25, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> There is not a single thing incorrect about my statement that decades of trying to find a vaccine or cure havent gone very far.
> You are not understanding.
> Research toward _treatments_ has gone very far.
> They are different things.


I would argue that having a drug that nigh-guarantees one will not be infected is good progress in that regard; it may not be a vaccine but it is reliable prevention.
There are also some promising vaccines in trial.

Treatments that can reduce viral load as drastically as what we currently have (with the bonus of making the patient a lot less likely to transmit the disease should eg a condom break) are also, while not a cure, likely to be significant in the progress towards one. Similarly, research _has_ resulted in the development of post-exposure prophylaxis regimens, which is quite significant: www.hiv.gov: Post-Exposure Prophylaxis

Flu vaccines need to be redeveloped for practically every strain, and influenza mutates at a vastly slower rate than HIV. There are pretty few if any viral diseases that we can actually cure. What we do is treat symptoms and _maybe_ slow the virus down to give the body's immune system a better chance of fighting it (antivirals do not kill the virus, they inhibit its replication). Treatment and cure are intrisically linked when it comes to viruses.

So I don't find your definition or expectation of progress towards curing (distinct from "a cure") HIV, or vaccinating against it, useful nor realistic.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 25, 2019)

quoting_mungo said:


> I would argue that having a drug that nigh-guarantees one will not be infected is good progress in that regard; it may not be a vaccine but it is reliable prevention.
> There are also some promising vaccines in trial.
> 
> Treatments that can reduce viral load as drastically as what we currently have (with the bonus of making the patient a lot less likely to transmit the disease should eg a condom break) are also, while not a cure, likely to be significant in the progress towards one. Similarly, research _has_ resulted in the development of post-exposure prophylaxis regimens, which is quite significant: www.hiv.gov: Post-Exposure Prophylaxis
> ...



Having (somewhat) preventative drugs is good too even if they arent vaccines.
I hope one day we can make HIV go the way of smallpox, especially when the cause of its spread is so very predictable.
But talking about aids drugs is far off topic for this thread so I will say nothing further.


----------



## Simo (Feb 25, 2019)

This thread makes me very sad, to see so much anti-LGBT things soft pedaled as OK. It's really mean and offensive, the shit that is tolerated here.

God lifts up the lowly, but he's not gonna lift Trump supporters, and their implicit hate.






I cry, reading many posts here; I want nothing to do with this site, increasingly. It's not kind, not empathic, it's mean.

As a liberal Jew, I've never felt very welcome here. Mods softpedal and tolerate shit, it goes on. Whatever. I go here less and less. I'm almost ashamed to be on this site, as it is so mean, and ugly. 

New mods? I don't see much change.


----------



## David Drake (Feb 25, 2019)

Simo said:


> This thread makes me very sad, to see so much anti-LGBT things soft pedaled as OK. It's really mean and offensive, the shit that is tolerated here.
> 
> God lifts up the lowly, but he's not gonna lift Trump supporters, and their implicit hate.
> 
> ...



A lot of us are fighting back, dude. In each instance it's usually three or four of us against one or two Bad Idea Peddlers, and that's an encouraging thought.

I'd be contributing more, but everyone else is saying my points from a more educated place than I could. So I just go on a liking spree.

I feel you. I'm a "Left-Wing" (I don't know what label my views fit but I know it's a left side) Progressive. Ethnically Jewish, spiritually agnostic, neuroatypical, polyamorous at heart (if not in practice yet, point is I'm open), prequel lover, emotional domestic abuse survivor (though I'll be the first to admit many people have survived much worse). Eternal ally to the Ls, the Gs, the Bs, the Ts, and all you filthy, filthy Qs . The shit that gets said here sometimes makes my blood boil. But from what I see, it almost never goes unchallenged. And THAT'S what gives me hope.


----------



## Simo (Feb 25, 2019)

I suppose it's hard to say, who I am, what, who, but thanks. It just gets hard, I guess? And I wanna cry. I don't feel a part of this 'furry place' much. But I try and have hope, it just gets hard. I guess maybe one gets tired, after a while?  Looks for hope? And it can be a lonely thing.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 25, 2019)

Since others have taken care of the argument on LGBTQ+ stuff, I'm just dropping in briefly to say...


Anon Raccoon said:


> Dont put words in my mouth. If you are going to use "" quotes make it a real one please.





Anon Raccoon said:


> The difference is I am not forced to pay for health insurance, and my rates depend on my individual health for most policies.
> [...]
> My tax dollars are not required.





Anon Raccoon said:


> Yes I am against the spending tax dollars on that. The parents should be the ones to pay to vaccinate their children.





Anon Raccoon said:


> If not wanting to give my tax money to fund aids treatment is "anti gay" (it isn't that is just your opinion) then so be it. I stand by that.
> I am against any of my tax money going to fund someone else's healthcare.





Anon Raccoon said:


> But I think the huge amount of government influence in our healthcare system is stifling innovation and increasing costs.



This very much _*is*_ a "Taxation is theft" argument. Worse, it is one purposefully veiled under false information.

Do you know what the _*very fucking basic principle behind insurance is*_? Do you know what the _*utmost basic purpose of taxes is*_ (Unless you admit to a belief that "Might = Right, Tax = Cost to live under authority's benevolence")? _*Why*_ some people's premiums went up under the ACA?

I'll give a hint for all three: Insurance is a system wherein a pool of people (a _very, _*very* large pool of people) contribute money towards a specific cause or system (automobile work, personal health, private belongings, etcetera) so that if an accident befalls one of the people in the pool in that specific field, they aren't fucked ten ways to Sunday. When you say "I shouldn't have to pay money for vaccines or HIV treatment or sinful gay debauchery", you're saying "I like the idea of insurance but not for these people". Not only that, you're saying you _would be perfectly fine if everyone who has children in need of a vaccine _(hell, who took a vaccine in general), _is LGBTQ+, has HIV, or so-on_ contributed _fuck-all_ to your own Insurance costs. However, I imagine if suddenly you found your insurance premiums increasing by $20, $50, $100 a week you'd be singing an _entirely_ different tune on this matter.

Which leads us to taxes, which are - effectively - to government services are to Insurance. Only unlike a lot of shitty, crappy, "Literally a scam" style insurances, they also cover what amounts to "preventative care" and such matters. When hundreds of millions of people contribute money towards taxes, they are _*quite literally endorsing the use of their money for public services that would be too expensive, impractical, or undesirable to fund privately*_. And you know what is among that? Medical research. And you know what the government generally puts aside money for medical research into? A disease that _approximately 1.1 million of its residents have that is permanent, readily passes on to partners / children when left unwatched / untreated, and is ultimately terminal within years if aforementioned treatment is not provided. _When you argue that your money is being misappropriated when a handful of pennies go into HIV research, or for subsidizing treatment to patients, you are quite literally saying "This is theft of my money".

Lastly, since you tried to be a weaselly little shit and smear the ACA on your quest of Libertarian Galt's Gulch, I'm going to let people who were unaware of why premiums might have rose after ACA was enacted in on a little secret: They didn't go up because the Insurance Agencies used it as an excuse to pocket your money in greater quantities. They didn't do it because of some "Federally enforced monopoly" or some bullshit. You know why they went up? Because insurance _*now had to fucking cover huge swathes of the population they wouldn't because "Fuck you got mine" reasons*_. Pre-existing conditions? Covered. Life-long conditions? Covered. Medical expenses worse than a cracked tooth or broken wrist? Covered. Emergency hospital visits? Covered. Demographics predisposed to certain ailments or likely to contract certain afflictions? Covered. So as Anon whinges about this and how the free market would handle things so much better and how their money is being stolen for things it shouldn't have to cover, they're whining "How dare insurance cover people who're less healthy than me. Why can't they just _*fucking die*_ so that I can keep my prices low."

This is why nobody is treating you as earnest in your "My heart really bleeds for the LGBTQ+ demographics" Anon (well, that and explicitly and literally saying that you care more about _*owning goddamn firearms with the least restrictions as possible*_ over LGBTQ+ _*Rights*_). Because the more you open your mouth the more falsehoods and lies that spew out like flies from _The Green Mile_.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 25, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> No, U lol
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For the record this is the first time that a vice president or president have given speeches to the FRC. The FRC also now has a Washington presence, thanks to Donald Trump's approval. FRC positions promoting conversion therapy are now included in the Republican party manifesto 

The 'traditionalist' views of the FRC include support for conversion therapy to 'cure' homosexuality. They view our existence as unnatural and harmful to society. :\
www.frc.org: Family Research Council
The organisation has historically spent vast sums of money promoting the practice:
www.theatlantic.com: How Christians Turned Against Gay Conversion Therapy
They've even defended a parent's 'right' to subject their child to conversion therapy.

It's still legal for parents to do that to children in 35 US states, and the current GOP manifesto supports a parent's 'right' to choose. 

@KimberVaile Hopefully, given Anon's comment, you can see what I meant when I expressed my view on Discord that 'traditionalist' is often a word used to sugar coat homophobia; how could anybody oppose tradition after all? Traditional sounds quaint and cuddly in a way that exorcisms or electro-shock therapy do not.


----------



## KimberVaile (Feb 25, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> For the record this is the first time that a vice president or president have given speeches to the FRC.
> 
> The 'traditionalist' views of the FRC include support for conversion therapy to 'cure' homosexuality. They view our existence as unnatural and harmful to society. :\
> www.frc.org: Family Research Council
> ...



Well, I can't say I am much a fan of Pence, just based on the opposition to gay marriage thing for purely religious reasons of all things. That and I have yet to see anything productive that he has done.  I'm not necessarily a fan of Trump either, but I will acknowledge some of the good things he has accomplished. I assume Pence was the one who gave the speech to the FRC?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 25, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> I assume Pence was the one who gave the speech to the FRC?



Both of them did.


----------



## KimberVaile (Feb 25, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Both of them did.


So his (Trump's) motives are contradictory, going by the title of the thread, and the FRC speech. Or if I had to guess, trying to appeal to two demographics and failing at swaying either.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 25, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> So his (Trump's) motives are contradictory, going by the title of the thread, and the FRC speech. Or if I had to guess, trying to appeal to two demographics and failing at swaying either.



So yes, Donald Trump's promotion of homophobic groups like the FRC is the reason that lots of people are skeptical about the sincerity of the whitehouse's promise to try to get homosexuality legalised across the world- especially given that the US has singled out some countries for criticism (like Iran) but been careful to avoid criticising US allies like Saudi Arabia, which are just as bad _or even worse_ than Iran.  

The whitehouse has been trying to persuade European countries to abandon trade with Iran recently, so most analysts think that the whitehouse's objective isn't to promote gay rights, but to drive a wedge between Europe and Iran by highlighting the differences in their moral values.


----------



## KimberVaile (Feb 25, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> So yes, Donald Trump's promotion of homophobic groups like the FRC is the reason that lots of people are skeptical about the sincerity of the whitehouse's promise to try to get homosexuality legalised across the world- especially given that the US has singled out some countries for criticism (like Iran) but been careful to avoid criticising US allies like Saudi Arabia, which are just as bad _or even worse_ than Iran.
> 
> The whitehouse has been trying to persuade European countries to abandon trade with Iran recently, so most analysts think that the whitehouse's objective isn't to promote gay rights, but to drive a wedge between Europe and Iran by highlighting the differences in their moral values.



Perhaps, most of these things are usually done with ulterior motives in mind, even the trip to the FRC I posit, wasn't done with genuine intentions. Likely a cheap ploy to win over a demographic or something Pence pushed for. Trump never came across as particularly adept with planning, if you ask me. Seems more impulsive, but that's just me. Then again, maybe he he did, it is hard to say definitively.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 25, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> Perhaps, most of these things are usually done with ulterior motives in mind, even the trip to the FRC I posit, wasn't done with pure intentions. Likely a cheap ploy to win over a demographic or something Pence pushed for. Trump never came across as particularly adept with planning, if you ask me. Seemed more impulsive, but that's just me. Then again, maybe he he did, it is hard to say definitively.



I agree. I personally think Donald Trump doesn't care at all about gay people; if promising to expand our rights would win an election, he'd promise to do that. If promising to lock us all up would win an election, then he'd promise that instead.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 25, 2019)

A sidenote about vaccines: A major advantage of vaccines is to create herd immunity. This is a large part of why governments will cover or subsidize vaccines. (It's also why I'm rather irate that they _won't_ include HPV in the standard vaccination regime for boys here - are they seriously expecting lack of a cervix to keep these boys from becoming disease vectors?) Herd immunity protects not only the people who got the vaccine, but also those who for some reason didn't (maybe they immigrated past the standard vaccination age) or couldn't (immunocompromised or otherwise vulnerable in a way that contraindicates vaccination). This is why I, who am fucking terrified of needles, still got my swine flu vaccine back when that was going around.

@Simo I'm so sorry forum activity leaves you feeling alienated. The amount of good faith being wafted in Trump's general direction is disturbing to me, too, as is the creep of bigotry it brings with it. I definitely never expected, when I joined furry fandom ~20 years ago, to ever see it harbor so much intolerance. Furry was the magical place where people tolerated each other, not a place to sneak in cheap digs at minorities. Not saying it didn't happen, but I keep getting the feeling that hateful speech used to be shocking in furry communities, and now... it's not. 

Boyfriend keeps telling me I should ditch this place, but I evidently have a stubbornness problem. So I... feel you. I want to be part of the good that exists here, and not allow it to become overshadowed by bad takes and shitposting.



Fallowfox said:


> Traditional sounds quaint and cuddly in a way that exorcisms or electro-shock therapy do not.


I feel compelled to note that ECT is not _always_ an unmitigated evil; I actually have a relative who saw some relief from acute depression/anxiety as a result (just to be clear, those conditions were what was being treated, too). _However_, it has no place as a response to finding out your kid is gay. In the context of conversion therapy it's absolutely terrible and the people advising it to be administrated should feel bad; that it hardly ever gets mentioned outside of conversion therapy contexts makes it sound like this terrible thing to people who might be helped by it, though. That I find is unfortunate.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 25, 2019)

quoting_mungo said:


> A sidenote about vaccines: A major advantage of vaccines is to create herd immunity. This is a large part of why governments will cover or subsidize vaccines. (It's also why I'm rather irate that they _won't_ include HPV in the standard vaccination regime for boys here - are they seriously expecting lack of a cervix to keep these boys from becoming disease vectors?) Herd immunity protects not only the people who got the vaccine, but also those who for some reason didn't (maybe they immigrated past the standard vaccination age) or couldn't (immunocompromised or otherwise vulnerable in a way that contraindicates vaccination). This is why I, who am fucking terrified of needles, still got my swine flu vaccine back when that was going around.
> 
> @Simo I'm so sorry forum activity leaves you feeling alienated. The amount of good faith being wafted in Trump's general direction is disturbing to me, too, as is the creep of bigotry it brings with it. I definitely never expected, when I joined furry fandom ~20 years ago, to ever see it harbor so much intolerance. Furry was the magical place where people tolerated each other, not a place to sneak in cheap digs at minorities. Not saying it didn't happen, but I keep getting the feeling that hateful speech used to be shocking in furry communities, and now... it's not.
> 
> ...



My mother actually did ECT to people when she was a doctor. BZZzzzt!! 

But yeah, keeping the site (and the fandom) a place that typical furries like me would _actually want to be_ is the reason that I came back after being away for a year. 

My community. *Mine*. Nobody going to take it away from me. grrrr >:C


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 25, 2019)

Attaman said:


> Since others have taken care of the argument on LGBTQ+ stuff, I'm just dropping in briefly to say...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It appears to me that you are a deeply troubled person so I don't really want to feed it by replying fully to this long and angry rant.

But I will just remind you that high risk people (for health insurance, car insurance, ect..) they pay higher premiums.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 25, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> 'traditionalist' is often a word used to sugar coat homophobia;



 Having 'traditional' values means far more than just 'homophobia'. It means believing in religion for one thing, that some behaviors are sinful and aught to be discouraged that includes adultery, sex before marriage, not lying or stealing, and of course homosexuality

Believe it or not some people still follow religious codes to govern how they live their lives.

And of course there are people like me who exist in the middle.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 25, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Having 'traditional' values means far more than just 'homophobia'. It means believing in religion for one thing, that some behaviors are sinful and aught to be discouraged that includes adultery, sex before marriage, not lying or stealing, and of course homosexuality
> 
> Believe it or not some people still follow religious codes to govern how they live their lives.
> 
> And of course there are people like me who exist in the middle.



I would contend Religion isn't about finding an excuse to subject other humans to indignity, but a call to end it.
That is why, in England, our Church supports a ban on conversion therapy.

Now, if you want to take a pernicious view of religion, and suppose that it is all about being condemned for one's wretched sinfulness, then that's your prerogative. You can live your life that way. Freedom of religion guarantees you the right to live your own life as you feel your religion dictates, not force everybody else to; so you have to leave that stuff at the door when you want to participate in discussions about how to continue the fight against HIV.

'I want to undermine the fight against HIV because I don't think God likes gay love,'...that's_ not _a good reason.


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Feb 25, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Having 'traditional' values means far more than just 'homophobia'. It means believing in religion for one thing, that some behaviors are sinful and aught to be discouraged that includes adultery, sex before marriage, not lying or stealing, and of course homosexuality
> 
> Believe it or not some people still follow religious codes to govern how they live their lives.
> 
> And of course there are people like me who exist in the middle.


It becomes homophobia when you basically enforce said "religion" and yell at every gay guy telling them they're going to "burn in hell, fag!" and "God hates fags!", etc. (Yes, this shit still fucking happens.)
Religion does not give you a reason to basically insult nor even be malicious to others, especially when said religion is meant to be "peaceful", it's why I stopped giving a single f about religion anymore.

I do not care if your religious, just like how I'd expect people not to care if i'm gay. (As in not make a big deal about it.)

This image can also go with other stuff and not just religion.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 25, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> 'I want to undermine the fight against HIV because I don't think God likes gay love,'



 First if all nobody made this quote. You are fabricating a caricature of something you dont like. 



Fallowfox said:


> I would contend Religion isn't about finding an excuse to subject other humans to indignity, but a call to end it.
> That is why, in England, our Church supports a ban on conversion therapy.
> 
> Now, if you want to take a pernicious view of religion, and suppose that it is all about being condemned for one's wretched sinfulness, then that's your prerogative. You can live your life that way. Freedom of religion guarantees you the right to live your own life as you feel your religion dictates, not force everybody else to; so you have to leave that stuff at the door when you want to participate in discussions about how to continue the fight against HIV.



I think there is an interesting movement coming from the far left where religious beliefs that hold the position that homosexuality is sinful,  are being declared as discriminatory for holding that belief.

(Just a reminder for the hundredth time that I personally am not in the 'being gay is sinful' category)


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 25, 2019)

Smexy Likeok4™ said:


> It becomes homophobia when you basically enforce said "religion" and yell at every gay guy telling them they're going to "burn in hell, fag!" and "God hates fags!", etc. (Yes, this shit still fucking happens.)
> Religion does not give you a reason to basically insult nor even be malicious to others, especially when said religion is meant to be "peaceful", it's why I stopped giving a single f about religion anymore.
> 
> I do not care if your religious, just like how I'd expect people not to care if i'm gay. (As in not make a big deal about it.)
> ...



It just so happened that my reply answers that quite well without even seeing your post first. I think it is perfectly fine for religious people to believe certain behaviors are sinful and it is protected by freedom of religion.


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Feb 25, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> It just so happened that my reply answers that quite well without even seeing your post first. I think it is perfectly fine for religious people to believe certain behaviors are sinful and it is protected by freedom of religion.


Yeah, but no it doesn't answer it, not in the slightest.
Religion isn't a right to bash other people for something, even with violence. It's a right to believe in something.

I am not saying they're not allowed the idea of thinking something is sinful. No, I wouldn't take another man's freedom unless they abused said freedom.
However, when you go and harass OTHER PEOPLE because of it, that is when you go too far.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 25, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> First if all nobody made this quote. You are fabricating a caricature of something you dont like.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Opposing discrimination against gay people under the pretext of religious belief isn't far left; it's just being a decent person. This is a perspective shared by people across the political spectrum with all sorts of religious beliefs.

Groups like the FRC want to undermine the fight against HIV; that's why they clamour for funding that helps HIV's victims, and controls its spread, to be rescinded.
As I am sure you well know, there are some religious groups that view HIV as a divine punishment on gay people- and the actions of Michael Pence are the political manifestation of those attitudes.

This isn't just dangerous for gay people, but for everybody- because the HIV virus does not care whether you are gay and it does not care what your spiritual beliefs are.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 25, 2019)

Smexy Likeok4™ said:


> Religion isn't a right to bash other people for something, even with violence.



Well freedom of speech lets you call whoever you want whatever you want so yeah anyone has a right to call people mean things.

Freedom of religion does not protect violence. Even if you claim to be a practicing Aztec, freedom of religion wouldn't protect any right to sacrifice people.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 25, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Opposing discrimination against gay people under the pretext of religious belief isn't far left; it's just being a decent person. This is a perspective shared by people across the political spectrum with all sorts of religious beliefs.



You have a constitutional right (in the US) to believe whatever you want, including that some behaviors are immoral. What constitutes being a decent person is still a matter of opinion. (though there are many things people agree on)


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 25, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> You have a constitutional right (in the US) to believe whatever you want, including that some behaviors are immoral. What constitutes being a decent person is still a matter of opinion. (though there are many things people agree on)



Nobody is arguing that criminal charges should be brought against people who believe, say, that HIV is a God's punishment against gay people. So you're attacking a strawman there.
We're arguing that those beliefs aren't right and that the political ambitions of groups representing those beliefs should be opposed on moral grounds. 

Now, maybe you don't agree that it's immoral to think gay people are inferior, or to court the political support of homophobic groups like the FRC. 
But if that is your perspective...maybe it's time to stop pretending that you're our ally?


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Feb 25, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Well freedom of speech lets you call whoever you want whatever you want so yeah anyone has a right to call people mean things.
> 
> Freedom of religion does not protect violence. Even if you claim to be a practicing Aztec, freedom of religion wouldn't protect any right to sacrifice people.


I want to imagine saying "God hates fags" is considered a "hate speech" or in technical term a "fighting word"
which isn't protected under the freedom of speech as it provokes a violent response especially if directed at said person.

You do not have the freedom to do whatever you want, there are actual exceptions to the Freedom of Speech, especially ones where you intend to provoke a violent response from said person.

Please stop waving "muh freedom!" especially when it's not protected by said freedom of speech.
I do not deny the fact people are allowed to THINK gays are sinners (or are fags), but to call someone a fag and then to say it's your freedom of speech to avoid getting a punch to the face isn't going to help.
Edit: I also want to point out that yes, Freedom of speech is a thing and there are many ways to have it. But directly calling someone a fag is not a freedom of speech. To say "homosexuality is a sin" and NOT direct it at someone would be a freedom of speech since it isn't directed at anyone, and it also doesn't provoke a violent response.


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Feb 25, 2019)

Imo, the ‘god hates gays’ is bs. A lot of christian branches teach to follow the teachings of christ/christlike values. Would christ hate someone just because they are gay? Christ didn’t judge others when he served them. He helped the samaritan, the sick, everyone. So, at least for me, I’m unsure of where the “god hates gays” came from.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 25, 2019)

TacomaTheDeer said:


> Imo, the ‘god hates gays’ is bs. A lot of christian branches teach to follow the teachings of christ/christlike values. Would christ hate someone just because they are gay? Christ didn’t judge others when he served them. He helped the samaritan, the sick, everyone. So, at least for me, I’m unsure of where the “god hates gays” came from.


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Feb 25, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


>


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 25, 2019)

Smexy Likeok4™ said:


> I want to imagine saying "God hates fags" is considered a "hate speech" or in technical term a "fighting word"
> which isn't protected under the freedom of speech as it provokes a violent response especially if directed at said person.
> 
> You do not have the freedom to do whatever you want, there are actual exceptions to the Freedom of Speech, especially ones where you intend to provoke a violent response from said person.
> ...



'Hate speech' =/= violent speech. In fact in the US hate speech is not legally defined at all because it is protected by the first amendment. 
You can say you hate someone for whatever reason you want.
You cannot tell people to attack them. Constitutional law is very clear on this.



Smexy Likeok4™ said:


> But directly calling someone a fag is not a freedom of speech.



In the United States calling someone a fag is protected under the first amendment, you are wrong. 

I am just stating the facts, these are not opinions.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 25, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> We're arguing that those beliefs aren't right and that the political ambitions of groups representing those beliefs should be opposed on moral grounds.



I agree, moral opposition not legal opposition.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 25, 2019)

TacomaTheDeer said:


> Imo, the ‘god hates gays’ is bs. A lot of christian branches teach to follow the teachings of christ/christlike values. Would christ hate someone just because they are gay? Christ didn’t judge others when he served them. He helped the samaritan, the sick, everyone. So, at least for me, I’m unsure of where the “god hates gays” came from.



I agree, hence why I personally think that homosexuality and Christian beliefs are not mutually exclusive. It is not one of the ten commandments to not be gay, and you also must love your neighbor.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 25, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> I agree, moral opposition not legal opposition.



We need both. If a politician succeeds in stripping services that help curtail the spread of HIV of federal funding, under the auspice that they promote immoral sexuality, sympathetic words don't help. 

...not that your words so far _have_ been sympathetic; you offered defenses of Michael Pence's decision before ultimately admitting you didn't really care if that decision would harm the gay community- and then going on to defend people who want to harm us with politically punitive action, because they're just being 'traditional'. :\


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 25, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> I personally think that homosexuality and Christian beliefs are not mutually exclusive. .



You 3 hours ago:



Anon Raccoon said:


> Having 'traditional' values means far more than just 'homophobia'. It means believing in religion for one thing, that some behaviors are sinful and aught to be discouraged that includes adultery, sex before marriage, not lying or stealing, *and of course homosexuality*


----------



## Attaman (Feb 25, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> It appears to me that you are a deeply troubled person


 Well yes, I am generally troubled when somebody tries to present their self as being totally benevolent and morally in the clear and whatnot when they start talking about how they'd readily throw LGBTQ+ persons under the bus for "Muh guns" and how there totally isn't anything anti-LGBTQ+ about the current administration or its associates and how Dogwhistles are a Far-Left conspiracy and did you know Insurance and Taxation is theft?



Anon Raccoon said:


> But I will just remind you that high risk people (for health insurance, car insurance, ect..) they pay higher premiums.


 ... Yes? And? I'm... pretty sure you think this is some sort of "Gotcha", but... I'm not entirely sure how? Unless this is you displaying a rare moment of empathy and arguing that this is generally a terrible thing and that it'd be better to, say, have everyone's premium be $0.50 to $1 more than average and not gouge such persons in which case yes I agree. Though I have an odd hunch it's actually supposed to be a segue into "And that's why I should have my costs lowered and their premiums should be even higher since we've already declared that they're at least partially responsible for their own - often uncontrollable, such as genetic- or age-based - risks."


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 25, 2019)

Attaman said:


> Well yes, I am generally troubled when somebody tries to present their self as being totally benevolent and morally in the clear and whatnot when they start talking about how they'd readily throw LGBTQ+ persons under the bus for "Muh guns" and how there totally isn't anything anti-LGBTQ+ about the current administration or its associates and how Dogwhistles are a Far-Left conspiracy and did you know Insurance and Taxation is theft?
> 
> ... Yes? And? I'm... pretty sure you think this is some sort of "Gotcha", but... I'm not entirely sure how? Unless this is you displaying a rare moment of empathy and arguing that this is generally a terrible thing and that it'd be better to, say, have everyone's premium be $0.50 to $1 more than average and not gouge such persons in which case yes I agree. Though I have an odd hunch it's actually supposed to be a segue into "And that's why I should have my costs lowered and their premiums should be even higher since we've already declared that they're at least partially responsible for their own - often uncontrollable, such as genetic- or age-based - risks."



You are the one comparing insurance to taxes so let's talk about that 

So we establish that higher risk people (those most likely to need to cash out on the policy) pay more for insurance. Some policies even offer blood tests to qualify for lower rates. (yes they check for HIV/AIDS)
In this way healthy people (such as myself) don't have to pay more to cover unhealthy people. Which is a very attractive option, also why the ACA failed. Healthy people don't want to join a pool that will cost them more.

As for taxes, does the government vet taxpayers for how likely they are to need government subsidies? Would I qualify for lower taxes if I am very financially responsible? NO.
In fact it is just the opposite, people who are more financially responsible and hard working actually pay more. It is the completely different, and it makes utterly no sense to compare this to insurance.

Good day sir.


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Feb 25, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> 'Hate speech' =/= violent speech. In fact in the US hate speech is not legally defined at all because it is protected by the first amendment.
> You can say you hate someone for whatever reason you want.
> You cannot tell people to attack them. Constitutional law is very clear on this.


I think you should google "United States Free Speech Exceptions" Or even google "What isn't protected by the first amendment", you seem pretty unclear about it to be fair.
It has been made NOT to stop free speech, but to stop speech that violates the legal rights of others, because nobody in their right mind would allow such chaos, it's why in general every forum, sever or anything will have a rule of "Do not insult other members." Unless you mean to tell me you allow people to say what they want on your server with no restrictions, no matter how controversial or offensive it is to people.

Maybe i'm not in the right mind to be talking about this shit, it's 2:51am as I type this part out, but at this point idc since you seem to be so deep with the idea of "people can spew whatever they want in the most toxic way possible, but it's fine because fuck you, freedom." which if so then I guess I can see why you'd want to defend violent people. You just better hope they don't come for you after.

All that I know is you cannot say shit like "God hates fags" and get away with it, even with the freedom of speech. Or at least I hope that's the case, otherwise I lost the very little faith I had left in America.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 25, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> You 3 hours ago:



One of those statements is my personal belief, and the other is me defining what traditionalist beliefs are. They are not the same thing. Because I am not a traditionalist... How do you not see that


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 25, 2019)

Smexy Likeok4™ said:


> I think you should google "United States Free Speech Exceptions" Or even google "What isn't protected by the first amendment", you seem pretty unclear about it to be fair.
> It has been made NOT to stop free speech, but to stop speech that violates the legal rights of others, because nobody in their right mind would allow such chaos, it's why in general every forum, sever or anything will have a rule of "Do not insult other members." Unless you mean to tell me you allow people to say what they want on your server with no restrictions, no matter how controversial or offensive it is to people.
> 
> Maybe i'm not in the right mind to be talking about this shit, it's 2:51am as I type this part out, but at this point idc since you seem to be so deep with the idea of "people can spew whatever they want in the most toxic way possible, but it's fine because fuck you, freedom." which if so then I guess I can see why you'd want to defend violent people. You just better hope they don't come for you after.
> ...



Did you actually click the links of the stuff you googled?
You cannot say things that directly call for crime. Also you cannot declare a clear and present danger (no screaming 'bomb!' in an airport)

You legally _can_ insult people as much as you want.

Obviously it's not a nice thing to do, and people will hate you. I am just informing you that legally it is allowed.

Would you like me to think up some examples for you?


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 25, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> We need both. If a politician succeeds in stripping services that help curtail the spread of HIV of federal funding, under the auspice that they promote immoral sexuality, sympathetic words don't help.
> 
> ...not that your words so far _have_ been sympathetic; you offered defenses of Michael Pence's decision before ultimately admitting you didn't really care if that decision would harm the gay community- and then going on to defend people who want to harm us with politically punitive action, because they're just being 'traditional'. :\



I am defending the constitutional right of religious organization to oppose things they find immoral.

Also your little strawman summary of what I believe is full of lies. Go ahead and quote me and we can talk about that. Dont just make up what it is you think I believe.


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Feb 25, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Did you actually click the links of the stuff you googled?
> You cannot say things that directly call for crime. Also you cannot declare a clear and present danger (no screaming 'bomb!' in an airport)
> 
> You legally _can_ insult people as much as you want.
> ...


Yes I did click the links to the stuff I googled, I can only assume I either misread (wouldn't be surprised due to it being past midnight), or even the site being potentially made up. Although I didn't consider it to be right I did see a site that had a popup (Not an ad kind) that basically said something along the lines of "throw trump in prison", I wouldn't be surprised if the stuff on that site was to be wrong, especially since said site was meant to be used when I was double checking the first amendment.

At this point I'm just surprised I can still get bombarded with insults because of what/who I am from them, I guess that's how "peaceful" religions are.
I would've imagined death threats to be illegal, correct me if i'm wrong on that though.
For context, I refer to stuff like: "You should be killed for being gay" and "I will find where you live and kill you, fag."


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 25, 2019)

Smexy Likeok4™ said:


> I would've imagined death threats to be illegal, correct me if i'm wrong on that though.
> For context, I refer to stuff like: "You should be killed for being gay" and "I will find where you live and kill you, fag."



Omg yeah that's very illegal you should talk to the police if that is happening to you.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 26, 2019)

The thing about religious freedom is, you can't simultaneously say "I'm allowed to do this thing because religious freedom" and try to impose your religion's values on others. Because they enjoy freedom of and from religion, too. (I mean, you _can_, in the same way you can cut off your nose to spite your face or be a hypocritical dipshit in assorted ways not related to religion, my point is doing so is essentially calling for religious freedom not applying to all people.) I have no beef, abstractly, with people thinking being gay is a sin or that everyone should cut off their left pinky toe as an offering to God or whatever. In practice, I think those values are daft and immoral, and dislike that there's still religious denominations out there that teach them (well, maybe not so much the left pinky toe thing), but as long as they keep that shit between themselves and God, no skin off my back. It _is_, however, pretty telling both that which "religious" prohibitions get upheld is ridiculously arbitrary, and that _some_ denominations following the same damn text can reconcile their religion with accepting queer folks. To me, that speaks of hate not being intrisic to the religion, as well as to the beliefs of the people who do oppose homosexuality on "religious grounds" very much qualifying as homophobic.

This is also a major reason why abstinence-only or abstinence-focused (with contraception and safe sex as a tiny footnote) sex ed is not only bad for teenagers' sexual health but also goes against the grain of the First Amendment. (And, yanno, it's hella problematic if someone at once supports abstinence-only sex ed and defunding HIV services that don't correctly "discourage" risky behavior. Not saying one way or the other regarding whether Pence and/or Trump have done so, as I don't know, but it's worth keeping in mind in general.)

Hate speech is a problem because even if you don't explicitly calling for violence, you foster an environment where the targets of your hate speech are more likely to be the targeted by assorted violence and indignities. I live in a country that does have hate speech laws, and it's not some kind of Orwellian nightmare, because the speech that is regulated by that legislation? The phrase "nothing of value was lost" comes to mind. You don't lose out on any speech that actually contributes anything valuable. 

Of course, if hate speech laws were in place in America, Trump would have gotten himself some hefty fines both during his campaigns and his presidency (not that he'd likely have made it to the latter in that case).


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 26, 2019)

quoting_mungo said:


> The thing about religious freedom is, you can't simultaneously say "I'm allowed to do this thing because religious freedom" and try to impose your religion's values on others.



This is where most people do agree, making laws enforcing religious rules that violate various other freedoms in unjust and that is the premise behind Trumps quest to end the ban on being gay in other countries.



quoting_mungo said:


> This is also a major reason why abstinence-only or abstinence-focused (with contraception and safe sex as a tiny footnote) sex ed is not only bad for teenagers' sexual health but also goes against the grain of the First Amendment. (And, yanno, it's hella problematic if someone at once supports abstinence-only sex ed and defunding HIV services that don't correctly "discourage" risky behavior. Not saying one way or the other regarding whether Pence and/or Trump have done so, as I don't know, but it's worth keeping in mind in general.)



Personally I think it is the parents job to teach proper sex practices to their children. It never made sense to me why governments have schools teach their own version of it to kids.



quoting_mungo said:


> Hate speech is a problem because even if you don't explicitly calling for violence, you foster an environment where the targets of your hate speech are more likely to be the targeted by assorted violence and indignities. I live in a country that does have hate speech laws, and it's not some kind of Orwellian nightmare, because the speech that is regulated by that legislation? The phrase "nothing of value was lost" comes to mind. You don't lose out on any speech that actually contributes anything valuable.



If you live in Britian, it has become a very serious problem with hundreds of arrests just for saying mean things on twitter. The problem with it, and why i support the first amendment is that there is far too much gray area as to what speech is hateful. If I were to say "being gay is a sin" or something similar so one person that's just a religious opinion to another observer that is hate speech. (I could come up with dozens of examples of things that may or may not be considered hate speech but you get the idea) When what speech is illegal is decided by politicians you inevitably end up creating an environment where one side may have their ideas literally banned under the guise that they are hateful. (like wanting border security. Hateful to some, normal to others)


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 26, 2019)

quoting_mungo said:


> The phrase "nothing of value was lost" comes to mind.



This is an absolutely terrible way to look at it. Who gets to decide what ideas are "of value"? The answer is whatever party is in charge. Neither political side thinks the others ideas are "of value". If right wing people were in charge would you want them deciding if your ideas are "of value" and making them illegal if they aren't? I suspect not.
This I think is something that the US absolutely does better than any other country. The fairest way is to allow everything.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> If you live in Britian, it has become a very serious problem with hundreds of arrests just for saying mean things on twitter. The problem with it, and why i support the first amendment is that there is far too much gray area as to what speech is hateful. If I were to say "being gay is a sin" or something similar so one person that's just a religious opinion to another observer that is hate speech. (I could come up with dozens of examples of things that may or may not be considered hate speech but you get the idea) When what speech is illegal is decided by politicians you inevitably end up creating an environment where one side may have their ideas literally banned under the guise that they are hateful. (like wanting border security. Hateful to some, normal to others)


It takes about two seconds to tap my user icon and see that I am Swedish. Just saying.

Dismissing criminal prosecution of hate speech on the Internet as "just for saying mean things on Twitter" is something I tentatively find to be dismissive of the very real consequences such speech can have, but I don't know what sorts of comments resulted in those arrests so I can't comment on whether I find UK law to be overreaching in that regard.

Wanting border security is not in itself hateful, but wanting special attention paid by border security to particular groups is. That includes more rigorous checks of individuals arriving at the US-Mexican border than at the US-Canadian border or international airports throughout the United States, particularly if the stated motivation behind wanting increased border security singles out race/ethnicity/nationality. So if you want increased border security because "those damn $ethnicity are coming here and raping our women," that's hate speech. If you want increased border security because you think terrorists are lurking behind every bush, that's arguably paranoid, but not hate speech.

Unfortunately an English version of the page is not available, but this is what Wikipedia has to say about the Swedish law about agitation against groups based on intrisic qualities. Notable points being:

*The law itself*
Obviously copypasting the law text isn't going to be helpful to you, and I can't find an official translation to English though I suspect one exists somewhere. So this is my quick and dirty translation (while I have worked as a translator before, legal texts were not my specialization).


			
				16 chapter 8 § of Swedish criminal code said:
			
		

> A person who in a statement or other message that is spread threatens or expresses disdain for an ethnic group or other such group of people alluding to race, skin color, national or ethnic origins, faith, sexual orientation or gender-nonconforming identity or expression, shall be convicted of agitation against ethnic group [bunch of stuff about sentences that isn't important here].


It is also noted in a comment to the law on a non-profit site dedicated to hosting law text and related information (such as cases relating to the laws, comments relating to how they are applied, etc) that according to another section of the criminal code, a congregation of people is considered to be at least 13 individuals.

It must be done with intent, and does not apply to factual and relevant discussion, as per the Wikipedia article, though the proposition in the source link concerns a lot of things and is awfully formatted on the government's website so I can't really source that. It also doesn't apply to statements made in the completely private sphere, which I presume means if a baker's dozen of white supremacists hang out in one of their living rooms, they can spout whatever hateful bullshit they want.

*Filed reports*
Statistics on Wikipedia do not include how many reports resulted in conviction, however in 2012 there were 601 hate crimes classified as agitation against ethnic group. That's about 0.006% of the Swedish population at the time (though obviously it's possible that some of the reports concerned actions by more than one person. Still, it's clearly not exactly a large percentage of the population who engage in hate speech.

*Protected speech*
While it is theorethically possible that a priest could be convicted based on statements made in a sermon, or other people for religion-based statements, it would take a _lot_ of doing (probably down to also breaking other laws). Sweden must follow the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights which places great importance on freedom of religion. So much so that a priest that, in a sermon, said that "sexual abnormalities [such as homosexuality] are a deep cancer tumor on the body of society" was aquited in Supreme Court. (I may personally disagree with this decision, but I'm just trying to describe a largely-functioning hate speech law here.) So your "being gay is a sin" is definitely protected.



Anon Raccoon said:


> This is an absolutely terrible way to look at it. Who gets to decide what ideas are "of value"? The answer is whatever party is in charge. Neither political side thinks the others ideas are "of value". If right wing people were in charge would you want them deciding if your ideas are "of value" and making them illegal if they aren't? I suspect not.
> This I think is something that the US absolutely does better than any other country. The fairest way is to allow everything.


If you think "Mexicans are rapists" or "niggers are lazy" is valuable speech, then absolutely. If you recognize that saying that provides an excuse for racists to attack hispanic people or avoid employing black people, and in general is pretty damn abhorrent, not so much.

You are assuming that "nothing of value was lost" means that _all_ worthless bullshit that gets spouted is or should be illegal under hate speech laws. That is not at all what I was suggesting. However, the speech that falls under hate speech law as I see it (based on the law that I am familiar with, which informs the societal norm I've grown up with) does not add anything worthwhile to public discussion. Its entire purpose is to demean, and it contributes nothing useful.

Saying the fairest thing is to allow everything is easy enough when you belong to a majority that is rarely targeted by hate crime. It is society's responsibility to protect _all_ people, not just the majority, from harm. After all, that's why this whole global effort to end criminalization of homosexuality thing is commendable if actually sincere.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 26, 2019)

quoting_mungo said:


> It takes about two seconds to tap my user icon and see that I am Swedish. Just saying.
> 
> Dismissing criminal prosecution of hate speech on the Internet as "just for saying mean things on Twitter" is something I tentatively find to be dismissive of the very real consequences such speech can have, but I don't know what sorts of comments resulted in those arrests so I can't comment on whether I find UK law to be overreaching in that regard.
> 
> ...



You are not understanding or you are ignoring, but I am unsure if I can say it better for you to understand. The power to decide what speech is hateful and what isn't absolutely should not belong to the government, no matter which party is in control. There is far too much gray area for for ambiguous statements to draw any kind of lines around what words are legal, and illegal to say.


----------



## David Drake (Feb 26, 2019)

I've said before and I will say again and I think it was even you who tried to disagree with me.

Freedom of Speech is NOT freedom to be an asshole without consequences. Maybe not always legal consequences, but certainly social consequences.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 26, 2019)

David Drake said:


> I've said before and I will say again and I think it was even you who tried to disagree with me.
> 
> Freedom of Speech is NOT freedom to be an asshole without consequences. Maybe not always legal consequences, but certainly social consequences.



I agree, socially it is bad to say mean things in general, especially about race, s.o., gender ect..
I am just thankful that in the US we don't have a bunch of bureaucrats aren't sitting around deciding what words they can throw people in jail for saying.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 26, 2019)

Do I really need to bring up Stanley Fish and his works again? Because you may not be aware and think you pulled out your trump card,  Anon, but this is a discussion that has literally been had _over a dozen times_ on here before in the last year (by sheer coincidence on the matter of whether it should be perfectly fine to spout Neo-Nazi propaganda or hate-speech freely and without consequence).

Protip: The government already decides what words people can and cannot say and what will have them thrown in jail. It has already defined what "speech" is and isn't. It has also made quite clear that Freedom of Speech is not a suicide pact. Furthermore I highly suggest _reading the goddamn article in full _before commenting on it specifically as the last ten times it was brought up people _didn't_ which only lead to them hilariously stuffing their feet in their mouths and showing that they hadn't while claiming that they did.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Feb 26, 2019)

TacomaTheDeer said:


> View attachment 55684





Fallowfox said:


>


Why am I flashing on the movie Dogma with these images?  (Must be the buddy Jesus part of the movie and mind you I have only seen parts of that movie and not the entire movie.)


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 26, 2019)

Attaman said:


> Do I really need to bring up Stanley Fish and his works again? Because you may not be aware and think you pulled out your trump card,  Anon, but this is a discussion that has literally been had _over a dozen times_ on here before in the last year (by sheer coincidence on the matter of whether it should be perfectly fine to spout Neo-Nazi propaganda or hate-speech freely and without consequence).
> 
> Protip: The government already decides what words people can and cannot say and what will have them thrown in jail. It has already defined what "speech" is and isn't. It has also made quite clear that Freedom of Speech is not a suicide pact. Furthermore I highly suggest _reading the goddamn article in full _before commenting on it specifically as the last ten times it was brought up people _didn't_ which only lead to them hilariously stuffing their feet in their mouths and showing that they hadn't while claiming that they did.



I am straight up not gonna waste time reading that because of the title. It is my opinion that the US has the most free and fair speech laws in the entire world.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 26, 2019)

Attaman said:


> (by sheer coincidence on the matter of whether it should be perfectly fine to spout Neo-Nazi propaganda or hate-speech freely and without consequence)



Should it be illegal? No. Unless it is directly a call for crime. (Which it often can be)

Is it "perfectly fine"? Definitely not.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> You are not understanding or you are ignoring, but I am unsure if I can say it better for you to understand. The power to decide what speech is hateful and what isn't absolutely should not belong to the government, no matter which party is in control. There is far too much gray area for for ambiguous statements to draw any kind of lines around what words are legal, and illegal to say.


It is rather presumptuous and frankly disrespectful of you to say that I'm either ignoring or not understanding you because I believe that hate speech laws can exist without being Orwellian in nature, and that Sweden's laws are well on the way to being well-formed hate speech laws. I understand just fine that you think some dickweed's right to shout neo-nazi slogans is more important than Jewish people's right to feel safe in their country, and I think that you are wrong in that. What party is in control isn't relevant, because what hate speech laws protect are intrisic qualities (including religion here even if people in theory _can_ convert), not political leanings.

The US already does draw up lines for what is legal to say. You just happen to like those laws better. I think permissiveness towards hate speech makes it much easier for bigotry to propagate at the expense of minorities that society has a responsibility to protect, and I don't find that acceptable.


----------



## David Drake (Feb 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> I am straight up not gonna waste time reading that because of the title. It is my opinion that the US has the most free and fair speech laws in the entire world.



How can you hold that opinion when you've demonstrated you do not know what they are and refuse to read them?



ZeroVoidTime said:


> Why am I flashing on the movie Dogma with these images?  (Must be the buddy Jesus part of the movie and mind you I have only seen parts of that movie and not the entire movie.)



Yes, that image is exactly Buddy Christ from Dogma, my 16th favorite movie of all time.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> One of those statements is my personal belief, and the other is me defining what traditionalist beliefs are. They are not the same thing. Because I am not a traditionalist... How do you not see that



Long story short, if you want to claim that you're pro LGBT, you should invest your efforts trying to convince people who justify their homophobia with religion to change their minds, rather than defending political causes that are intended to penalise gay people.




Anon Raccoon said:


> I don't just blindly condemn or defend everything without knowing the facts.





Anon Raccoon said:


> *I am straight up not gonna waste time reading that because of the title.* It is my opinion that the US has the most free and fair speech laws in the entire world.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 26, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Long story short, if you want to claim that you're pro LGBT, you should invest your efforts trying to convince people who justify their homophobia with religion to change their minds, rather than defending political causes that are intended to penalise gay people.



Yep, didn't read it, didn't condemn or defend it.

And in fact I do invest my efforts to talking to my more religious friends about it. 
My best friend irl is a Russian immigrant that was very religiously fundamentalist. I convinced him that the earth is more than 6000 years old and that creationism and evolution can coexist.
Hes never said anything bad about gay people we met, or gays in general so I haven't talked to him much about that.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 26, 2019)

David Drake said:


> How can you hold that opinion when you've demonstrated you do not know what they are and refuse to read them?



If it is the US laws regarding what people are allowed to say that you are referring to, I already have a good understanding of them.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Yep, didn't read it, didn't condemn or defend it.
> .



The essay Attaman linked you to is about the nature of speech, and whether legal approaches to the concept in the USA are flawed.

So saying 'I refuse to read this because of the title; American laws are the freest and fairest in the entire world,' really is just a case of condemning the author's argument without bothering to read so much as the first paragraph they wrote.

Now, obviously I can't comment on personal anecdotes about your Russian friend. I am only presented with the evidence of the comments you make where I can see them.
In those comments, while_ claiming_ that you're a pro-lgbt person, you've aggressively defended anti-gay policies and repeated popular talking points used to justify institutional homophobia in politics and religion.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 26, 2019)

quoting_mungo said:


> The US already does draw up lines for what is legal to say. You just happen to like those laws better. I think permissiveness towards hate speech makes it much easier for bigotry to propagate at the expense of minorities that society has a responsibility to protect, and I don't find that acceptable.



I see so many conservative speakers all around the country being declared white supremacist nazis by members of the left when the words they say are very much not that. I don't want the people who call Ben Shapiro a Nazi in charge of laws that throw people in jail for wrong think. 

If the people that control the definition of what speech is hateful are anything like those that define it at Twitter, we are going to have some serious oppression of what people are allowed to believe.

It's far easier to point at extreme cases than it is to acknowledge that so many conservatives are mislabeled as bigots without so much as a second thought.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 26, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> The essay Attaman linked you to is about the nature of speech, and whether legal approaches to the concept in the USA are flawed.
> 
> So saying 'I refuse to read this because of the title; American laws are the freest and fairest in the entire world,' really is just a case of condemning the author's argument without bothering to read so much as the first paragraph they wrote.



I make no judgement on the contents of the article. There is nothing that will change my mind about the first amendment being important. Reading that will just be a waste of time.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> I make no judgement on the contents of the article. There is nothing that will change my mind about the first amendment being important. Reading that will just be a waste of time.



On the contrary, the author doesn't argue that the first ammendment is unimportant; they argue that it has flaws.
Do you disagree with the article's claim that the American approach to free speech has flaws?
If you do, then you've made a judgement- and you're obliged to read the article to see whether that judgement really is credible.



Anon Raccoon said:


> I see so many conservative speakers all around the country being declared white supremacist nazis by members of the left when the words they say are very much not that. I don't want the people who call Ben Shapiro a Nazi in charge of laws that throw people in jail for wrong think.
> 
> If the people that control the definition of what speech is hateful are anything like those that define it at Twitter, we are going to have some serious oppression of what people are allowed to believe.
> 
> It's far easier to point at extreme cases than it is to acknowledge that so many conservatives are mislabeled as bigots without so much as a second thought.



Well it's a good think that the idea that Quoting Mungo wants to imprison Ben Shapiro is just a straw man. 

If you genuinely model your political beliefs off of your experience on Twitter, that probably tells a story of you trapping yourself inside a paranoid confirmation bubble, where everybody who raises a disagreement with you- no matter how politely- is secretly machinating your political oppression.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 26, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Do you disagree with the article's claim that the American approach to free speech has flaws?



Are you asking me to make a judgment about the contents of the article?

Because I just said I don't do that bruh

I don't think the first amendment has flaws. I thought that before he even spammed down that dumb essay.

If you are summarizing that article with that statement you just made there then I disagree.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Are you asking me to make a judgment about the contents of the article?
> 
> Because I just said I don't do that bruh
> 
> ...



So you've decided the essay's argument is wrong, and that it's 'dumb'. 
All without having to even read the first sentence. 

You aren't a high school student; you are a grown man, so you should be comfortable reading news articles or short essays. 
You don't need other people to read them for you.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 26, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> So you've decided the essay's argument is wrong, and that it's 'dumb'.
> All without having to even read the first sentence.
> 
> You aren't a high school student; you are a grown man, so you should be comfortable reading news articles or short essays.
> You don't need other people to read them for you.



It is dumb to spam down some random article expecting me to read it. 

If I started spamming articles written by Ben Shapiro or prageru all over the place would you read all of them? Hes written tons of books so I got plenty of material.

How about you be a man and argue with your own words and not expect me to read someone else's and respond to them instead.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Are you asking me to make a judgment about the contents of the article?
> 
> Because I just said I don't do that bruh
> 
> ...


Hey, you know how I said to read it before following in the footsteps of your peers and shoving yourself ankle-deep in your own mouth?


			
				The Fucking Essay I Told You To Read said:
			
		

> "This is a large thesis, but before tackling it directly I want to buttress my case with another example, taken not from the seventeenth century but from the charter and case law of Canada. Canadian thinking about freedom of expression depats from the line usually taken in the United States in ways that bring that country very close to the _Areopagitica_ as I have expounded it. The differences are fully on display in a recent landmark case, R. v. Keegstra. James Keegstra was a high school teacher in Alberta who, it was established by evidence, "systematically denigrated Jews and Judaism in his classes." He described Jews as treacherous, subversive, sadistic, money-loving, power hungr, and child killers. He declared them "responsible for depressions, anarchy, chaos, wars and revolution" and required his students to "regurgitate these notions in essays and examinations." Keegstra was indicted under Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code and convicted. The Court of Appeal reversed, and the Crown appealed to the Supreme Courty, which reinstated the lower court's verdict.
> 
> Section 319(2) reads in part, "Everyone who, by communicating statements other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of ... an indictable offense and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years." In the United States, this provision of the code would almost certainly be struck down because, under the First Amendment, restrictions on speech are apparently prohibited without qualification. To be sure, the Canadian charter has its own version of the First Amendment, in Section 2(b): "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms ... (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." But Section 2(b), like every other section of the charter, is qualified by Section 1: "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Or in other words, every right and freedom herein granted can be trumped if its exercise is found to be in conflict with the principles that underwrite society.



By all means, Anon Raccoon, do you care to share your thoughts on this highly specific and quite literal / real example? After all, you've said you find the US' version without flaws, and in fact that stipulations like the above are Orwellian in nature.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> It is dumb to spam down some random article expecting me to read it.
> 
> If I started spamming articles written by Ben Shapiro or prageru all over the place would you read all of them? Hes written tons of books so I got plenty of material.
> 
> How about you be a man and argue with your own words and not expect me to read someone else's and respond to them instead.



If you want to present yourself as an intellectual who never jumps to conclusions without all the facts, maybe you shouldn't be complaining that people expect you to read small amounts of content, or insinuating that expecting people to read makes somebody_ less of a man_.
In the time you've invested defending your decision to judge a work by its title, you'd have been able to finish reading it.

I know that, because I read through it again while we talking about your reluctance to.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 26, 2019)

Attaman said:


> Hey, you know how I said to read it before following in the footsteps of your peers and shoving yourself ankle-deep in your own mouth?
> 
> 
> By all means, Anon Raccoon, do you care to share your thoughts on this highly specific and quite literal / real example? After all, you've said you find the US' version without flaws, and in fact that stipulations like the above are Orwellian in nature.





Fallowfox said:


> If you want to present yourself as an intellectual who never jumps to conclusions without all the facts, maybe you shouldn't be complaining that people expect you to read small amounts of content, or insinuating that expecting people to read makes somebody_ less of a man_.
> In the time you've invested defending your decision to judge a work by its title, you'd have been able to finish reading it.
> 
> I know that, because I read through it again while we talking about your reluctance to.




No, I refuse. You cannot just shut down a 
discussion until I read some article that will make your case for you because your own thought forming processes are too weak to conjure your own defense of your opinion. 

Rationalize your own position, don't just take a stance and then expect someone else's words to defend it for you.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 26, 2019)

Honestly I feel like the best thing about that example (insofar as how anything about it can be referred to even relatively as "Good") is how it's just such a... perfect, example of the flaws of either First Amendment Absolutism or even "Only having a caveat specifically for direct calls to violence". Like, okay, great: You've drawn your line in the sand. Now here's an authority figure tasked with _*directly feeding knowledge into the minds of upcoming generations*_ using their position to spew _*horrific *_ideology (and penalizing students who dare to stick their heads out and confront or contradict such ideology, using said authority), but stopping just short of calling for direct calls to violence. What do?


Anon Raccoon said:


> No, I refuse.


Which puts a _very_ uncomfortable light on those making the Freeze Peach arguments, as now... well: They're in a bit of a pickle. Pretty much any attempt to portray themselves as an Ally and One of the Good Guys slams at supersonic speeds into a solid steel wall should they try to defend as much ("I'm totally an ally of LGBTQ+ persons! Also if a teacher used their position to make their students write about how the Gays are responsible for all of life's issues it's their right")... but by decrying the example and saying "Yes, this is an example where a nail sticks out and a hammer should be dropped", the Free Speech Absolutism argument suddenly becomes _*very*_ awkward.

Your refusal to comment on this says everything. But being fair, I did warn you.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> I see so many conservative speakers all around the country being declared white supremacist nazis by members of the left when the words they say are very much not that. I don't want the people who call Ben Shapiro a Nazi in charge of laws that throw people in jail for wrong think.





Anon Raccoon said:


> It's far easier to point at extreme cases than it is to acknowledge that so many conservatives are mislabeled as bigots without so much as a second thought.


You do realize that "white supremacist" and "bigot" aren't synonymous, right? Progressing from one to the other makes your argument rather blurred. While I will not deny that people do sometimes get accused of bigotry without cause (and this all goes for basically any demographic, not just the poor put-upon conservatives), in the vast majority of cases, it's at best a matter of a poorly-worded comment made in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Hate speech laws are not about "wrongthink." They are about _spreading_ disparaging messages. You can think whatever the fuck you want. You can chat with your mates about it in the privacy of your own homes. You cannot, in most countries with sensible hate speech laws, go make a public speech about it. 

And yes, private organizations often apply stricter rules regarding malicious speech than what is codified in law. It's up to them what they wish to host, and that's their right. This isn't any different for companies based outside the US - chances are whatever laws there may be about hate speech in their jurisdiction, their rules will be more restrictive. Partly because they want some margins as to avoid potential legal snafus, partly because they realize that permitting people to act nasty will give birth to a toxic atmosphere. 

I recognize that you're in favor of virtually-zero government restrictions on speech. It's starting to irk me a little that your arguments against restrictions on speech seem to repeatedly boil down to taking for granted that if hate speech laws are made they will by necessity be designed as some kind of tool for the ruling party to quash all dissenting opinions. Which, okay, America is kind of the land of hare-brained legislation with pages of randomly tacked-on riders on virtually every bill passed, but it isn't really condusive to a constructive discussion. It's not impossible to design hate speech laws that protect people against being attacked for something they have no control over without reenacting _1984, _though. A _lot_ of hate speech trials in countries which do prohibit such speech result in aquitals, either in lower courts or on appeal. Swedish hate speech law requires intent (actually, that goes for much of the criminal code). 

Social repercussions only work to curb the behavior of people who give a fuck about them. Someone as shameless as, say, Trump, has no qualms about crowing really quite terrible things about various groups that already suffer discrimination in many areas. And if the _President_ says Muslims and Mexicans are rapists and terrorists and God knows what else, that will in too many people's eyes justify treating those people badly. Speech doesn't exist in a vacuum - speech influences people's thinking and actions. Social repercussions are not always enough, and the people who end up suffering for that is generally not the people engaging in hateful discourse. Hell, there's enough people out there _defending_ Trump's statements and protesting that they do not indicate bigotry to make your head spin.



Anon Raccoon said:


> Rationalize your own position, don't just take a stance and then expect someone else's words to defend it for you.


When I did just that, you accused me of ignoring or "not understanding" your position. You refuse to accept any argument that is based on the premise that maybe minorities deserve protection, or maybe some things are sufficiently unsuitable for being said in public that there should be restrictions against that. You will not accept examples of hate speech law that functions quite well as evidence that it can be done without turning into an Orwellian nightmare.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 26, 2019)

quoting_mungo said:


> without reenacting _1984_



I was thinking more Farenheit 451. Though we may not literally throw books on the fire, the end result of making speech laws in such a way as not to offend anyone, is to make everyone afraid of speaking their mind. 
If the leftist half of our government had their way tons of mainstream conservatives would be thrown in jail for having the wrong beliefs.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 26, 2019)

So it's occurred to me, given other gay furries have said that conversations like this make them feel alienated, that perhaps we should ask the staff to watch this thread. 

I'm pretty sure that, like the threads that invited people to vote whether somebody's son was 'really' trans, that the objective here is to subvert a fluffy and LGBT friendly community's space, and turn it into a place where disparaging views of gay and trans people are defended and disseminated under the guise of free and open discussion; a place where support for even the most staunchly homophobic politicians, like Michael Pence, is promoted. 

I think that users like Anon are savvy enough to stay 'nominally' inside the site's rules by insisting that they are 'pro lgbt' and that all of the homophobic ideas and politicians they are promoting are just coincidental, but maybe the staff will see that for what it is.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 26, 2019)

Attaman said:


> Now here's an authority figure tasked with _*directly feeding knowledge into the minds of upcoming generations*_ using their position to spew _*horrific *_ideology



You are referring to higher education right? Yes they have a right to speak too.



Attaman said:


> Which puts a _very_ uncomfortable light on those making the Freeze Peach arguments, as now... well: They're in a bit of a pickle. Pretty much any attempt to portray themselves as an Ally and One of the Good Guys slams at supersonic speeds into a solid steel wall should they try to defend as much ("I'm totally an ally of LGBTQ+ persons! Also if a teacher used their position to make their students write about how the Gays are responsible for all of life's issues it's their right")... but by decrying the example and saying "Yes, this is an example where a nail sticks out and a hammer should be dropped", the Free Speech Absolutism argument suddenly becomes _*very*_ awkward.
> 
> Your refusal to comment on this says everything. But being fair, I did warn you.



I think if I am having my tax dollars spent on education in have a right to ask that the education be politically neutral. But acknowledge that every teacher is an individual person so that's not easy.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Feb 26, 2019)

Yes, embrace the gay, _inhale _the *gay.*


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 26, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> So it's occurred to me, given other gay furries have said that conversations like this make them feel alienated, that perhaps we should ask the staff to watch this thread.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that, like the threads that invited people to vote whether somebody's son was 'really' trans, that the objective here is to subvert a fluffy and LGBT friendly community's space, and turn it into a place where disparaging views of gay and trans people are defended and disseminated under the guise of free and open discussion; a place where support for even the most staunchly homophobic politicians, like Michael Pence, is promoted.
> 
> I think that users like Anon are savvy enough to stay 'nominally' inside the site's rules by insisting that they are 'pro lgbt' and that all of the homophobic ideas and politicians they are promoting are just coincidental, but maybe the staff will see that for what it is.



You cannot point to a single post where I have said anything openly against anything LGBTQ. Because I support them.

You seem to be convinced that me supporting Trump's quest to end homosexuality bans, opposing false accusations Pence of torturing gays, or defending the first amendment, is somehow anti gay.

You are merely confused.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> You are referring to higher education right? Yes they have a right to speak too.
> 
> 
> 
> I think if I am having my tax dollars spent on education in have a right to ask that the education be politically neutral. But acknowledge that every teacher is an individual person so that's not easy.



Example Attaman was quoting was of a High school teacher in Alberta, who was prosecuted for teaching his students harmful stereotypes about Jewish people. 
The matter is discussed in more depth in the essay that Attaman referred to. 

At first 'my tax must be spent in a politically neutral way' appears reasonable, until we realise that the machinery of government itself is tax payer funded, and that requiring the government to be politically agnostic would defeat its purpose. A tangential discussion about what political neutrality even is will also be necessary; for some people the mere shape of the planet is a political issue. 

The reason that high school students being indoctrinated is wrong is actually a moral one; it subverts the very purpose of education, which is to broaden the mind, rather than to confound it. 

At this point you have to negotiate some weighty discussions about what free speech really means, because we have the intuitive sense that a nasty teacher exploiting their position to spread their ideas to minds deliberately left unequipped to mount a proper appraisal isn't really in the spirit of what we say when we mean 'free speech'.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 26, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> At first 'my tax must be spent in a politically neutral way' appears reasonable, until we realise that the machinery of government itself is tax payer funded, and that requiring the government to be politically agnostic would defeat its purpose. A tangential discussion about what political neutrality even is will also be necessary; for some people the mere shape of the planet is a political issue.



You misunderstand, i was referring to education. Because education is the propagation of ideas. Not literally the government itself.



Fallowfox said:


> The reason that high school students being indoctrinated is wrong is actually a moral one; it subverts the very purpose of education, which is to broaden the mind, rather than to confound it.



I agree, which is why I dont want to see my tax dollars spent on something that is immoral.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 26, 2019)

> Redacted by staff



These are only homophobic through your lens of opinions, nothing I've said is disparaging. And you left out all of the posts where I defend and support LGBTQ rights. How is that fair?


----------



## Attaman (Feb 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> You are referring to higher education right? Yes they have a right to speak too.





			
				You Can't Make This Shit Up said:
			
		

> The differences are fully on display in a recent landmark case, R. v. Keegstra. James Keegstra was a high school teacher in Alberta who, it was established by evidence, "systematically denigrated Jews and Judaism in his classes." He described Jews as treacherous, subversive, sadistic, money-loving, power hungr, and child killers. He declared them "responsible for depressions, anarchy, chaos, wars and revolution" and required his students to "regurgitate these notions in essays and examinations."


Anon Raccoon and the hill they wish to die on, ladies and gentlemen and non-binary folk.


----------



## KimberVaile (Feb 26, 2019)

> Redacted by staff



I mean, I don't think his views really come coupled with hateful intent. They're just different viewpoints, libertarian viewpoints at that. Is he really anti gay for legitimately believing that the US would be a better place with those measures in place? It's just a different way of thinking, even if I don't agree with it, I wouldn't call it homophobic.

Calling it homophobic seems hyperbolic. Worst you can say is that he might be apathetic, but even that I'd argue is a stretch.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 26, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> I mean, I don't think his views really come coupled with hateful intent. They're just different viewpoints, libertarian viewpoints at that. Is he really anti gay for legitimately believing that the US would be a better place with those measures in place? It's just a different way of thinking, even if I don't agree with it, I wouldn't call it homophobic.
> 
> Calling it homophobic seems hyperbolic.



With due respect these aren't simply different viewpoints. They're homophobia carefully veiled to appear as if it is just fiscal conservatism or sincere religious belief.
A good example is trying to rebrand the Family Research Council, which has donated historic sums of money to gay conversion therapists, as 'traditional'.

But the mask slips occasionally, for example responding to the prospect of  increased HIV deaths with 'so be it,'
or denigrating the suggestion that we should listen to how gay people are affected by these policies as 'alt-left' and 'toilet paper'.

The face behind the mask is seething with a contempt for gay people or the prospect that we should be involved in political discussions about our rights.


----------



## KimberVaile (Feb 26, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> With due respect these aren't simply different viewpoints. They're homophobia carefully veiled to appear as if it is just fiscal conservatism or sincere religious belief.
> A good example is trying to rebrand the Family Research Council, which has donated historic sums of money to gay conversion therapists, as 'traditional'.
> 
> But the mask slips occasionally, for example responding to the prospect of  increased HIV deaths with 'so be it,'
> ...



Right, but the whole increase in HIV deaths is rooted in the belief that healthcare shouldn't be universal and the onus should be on the person, that's in line with libertarian talking points. Personal liberties, and independent lifestyle thing
The other remark was about people who oppose Trump, if I am not mistaken. It's swaggering sure, but he was being pretty blanket in his remark, no singling out anybody.
Honestly? He just seems like another libertarian drumming on about personal liberties, he really doesn't seem like the person you paint him as.  I'm really struggling to see any sort of smoking gun homophobia or really any at all if I must be honest.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 26, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> Right, but the whole increase in HIV deaths is rooted in the belief that healthcare shouldn't be universal and the onus should be on the person, that's in line with libertarian talking points.
> The other remark was about people who oppose Trump, if I am not mistaken. It's swaggering sure, but he was being pretty blanket in his remark, no singling out anybody.
> Honestly? He just seems like another libertarian drumming on about personal liberties, he really doesn't seem like the person you paint him as.  I'm really struggling to see any sort of smoking gun homophobia.



Kimber, Michael Pence and the Family Research Center don't campaign for funding to be taken away from HIV mitigation because they value libeterian ideals. 
Michael Pence's campaign website  said it was because he thinks it celebrates homosexuality- and that funding should instead be redirected to organisations that help people 'change their sexual behaviour': www.nytimes.com: Mike Pence and ‘Conversion Therapy’: A History
Here's the FRC's views on homosexuality: www.frc.org: Family Research Council

So we know that the motivation behind this policy is distaste for gay people; homophobia. 

It's not tradition and it's not libertarianism. (although I find it difficult to understand why we should treat libertarian views as 'just another opinion' if the people who are espousing them think that the spread of HIV is an acceptable price to pay for political success)


----------



## luffy (Feb 26, 2019)

Locking for review.


----------

