Governor Orders End To LGBT Protected Class

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

Because the LGBT advocacy, for political reasons alone -- has chosen to align itself with a self-serving coalition of causes -- most of which are directly hostile to a conservative consensus. Some of that conservative group are simplistic social hard-liners, but others, myself among them, base our arguments on a belief that economic, as well as personal and expressionary freedoms, are unitary and inseparable.

Most prominently via abuse of executive power and judicial decision, the current campaigns by so-called "progressives' is weakening respect for individual rights on all fronts. If you can't recognize this you might as well join a couple of the other recent participants herein (Post #534 is a good example) as part of the lynch mob.

Maybe if conservative causes weren't directly hostile to our freedoms we would not oppose them.

How can you claim that using the judicial system to gain our individual rights, that have been withheld by those same conservative causes, is abuse?

Again, you still have not actually backed up your claim that same sex couples harm opposite sex couples in any way.

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by jjrose

Maybe if conservative causes weren't directly hostile to our freedoms we would not oppose them.

How can you claim that using the judicial system to gain our individual rights, that have been withheld by those same conservative causes, is abuse?

Again, you still have not actually backed up your claim that same sex couples harm opposite sex couples in any way.

You might find that out one day if your convictions place you on the "wrong" side of an issue that has been determined to be Politically Correct by the "New Facisti" who prefer to call themselves "progressives". These elitists are only "liberal" and tolerant toward those ideas of which they approve -- anyone else is a target of opportunity.

For most of the current crop of LGBT militants, the end justifies the means, and the concerns of anyone who doesn't buy into their agenda can be trampled in the process.

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

You might find that out one day if your convictions place you on the "wrong" side of an issue that has been determined to be Politically correct by the "New Facisti" who prefer to call themselves "progressives".

For most of the current crop of LGBT militants, the end justifies the means, and the concerns of anyone who doesn't buy into their agenda can be trampled in the process.

So, yet again no explanation of your assertion that same sex couples harm heterosexual couples.

Are you unwilling to back up your claims, or are you unable?

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by jjrose

So, yet again no explanation of your assertion that same sex couples harm heterosexual couples.

Are you unwilling to back up your claims, or are you unable?

I didn't say that homosexual couples "harm" or even threaten heterosexual couples -- or singles, for that matter; I said (admittedly, in an indirect way) that the push for same-sex-marriage will add to the burden of "societal overhead" for which all taxpayers and responsible individuals are compelled to pay.

But we all know that the reasoning of many of the folks over in Left Field is similar to that of Mr. Orwell's pig: "We're all equal here, but some are more equal than others".

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

I didn't say that homosexual couples "harm" or even threaten heterosexual couples -- or singles, for that matter; I said (admittedly, in an indirect way) that the push for same-sex-marriage will add to the burden of "societal overhead" for which all taxpayers and responsible individuals are compelled to pay.

But we all know that the reasoning of many of the folks over in Left Field is similar to that of Mr. Orwell's pig: "We're all equal here, but some are more equal than others".

So you think that giving homosexuals the SAME protections and benefits as any other married couple it will cost money?

Well why didn't you say so?
There has already been studies done on the cost of allowing SSM.

The potential effects on the federal budget of recognizing same-sex marriages are
numerous. Marriage can affect a person’s eligibility for federal benefits such as
Social Security. Married couples may incur higher or lower federal tax liabilities
than they would as single individuals. In all, the General Accounting Office has
counted 1,138 statutory provisions—ranging from the obvious cases just mentioned
to the obscure (landowners’ eligibility to negotiate a surface-mine lease
with the Secretary of Labor)—in which marital status is a factor in determining or
receiving “benefits, rights, and privileges.”1 In some cases, recognizing same-sex
marriages would increase outlays and revenues; in other cases, it would have the
opposite effect. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that on net,
those impacts would improve the budget’s bottom line to a small extent: by less
than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years (CBO’s usual estimating period). That
result assumes that same-sex marriages are legalized in all 50 states and recognized
by the federal government.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...exmarriage.pdf

There, now you can put your fears to rest that allowing homosexual taxpaying citizens the same protections and benefits as heterosexual taxpaying citizens won't hurt heterosexuals.

[Unsettomati]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

Personally, while I don't fully understand homosexuality, I have no quarrel with it save that the more it is recognized, the more "exotic" the protections and benefits its advocacy seeks -- usually at the expense of the taxpayer. And don't ever think you'll convince me that the higher disposable incomes and greater personal autonomy of the LGBT minority don't place a greater financial burden among those who raise children in traditional marriages.

Oh, I have no illusions of convincing those who harbor anti-gay animus of anything. I respond to the nonsense of folks like you not in pursuit of the hopeless task of getting through to you but for the benefit of observers who are open to reality.

I have no idea what the underlined comment above is supposed to mean, because it's so profoundly wrong I cannot even imagine what basis you might have for spewing such a complete and total absurdity as that.

Here's a clue:
Gays, who have children at a far lower rate than straights, decrease the financial burden on us straights, in the same way that my straight 49-year-old brother-in-law - who has no children and likely never will - decreases the financial burden on us.

How? They pay taxes!

Their property taxes go to build schools. Being childless, they can generally afford more expensive homes/apartments/condos/etc., meaning they're paying even more in property taxes. And their incomes? They're generally higher in the first place, and their taxable income is higher still, since they lack the dependency-exemptions that come from having children.

When you spread some of the costs of child-rearing among all members of a society, it decreases the burden on those who do have children. It should take no more than about 4th-grade mathematics and even a vague familiarity with the tax code to comprehend this.

So what you are talking about is completely beyond me. I thought I'd heard every creative excuse to rationalize someone's anti-gay attitudes, but yours is a new one - a remarkably wrong one that is diametrically opposed to reality, but that's par for the course with you guys. And, yeah, your "I have no problem with gays" preface to whining about the problems you have with gays is as transparent as it is predictable.

You just can't walk the walk. You label yourself a libertarian, I see. I was curious, so I did a couple of searches on your user name. You use the word 'nanny' in 37 different posts. I clicked on a few - yep, all whines about the 'nanny-state'. You use the phrase 'big government' in no less than 77 different posts.

So... you're a libertarian who dislikes the nanny-state and big givernment'? No, you're not. You're someone who postures as a libertarian when you find it convenient. When it comes to those you dislike, you creative find excuses that allow you to reject applying your supposed libertarian principles to them. In my experience, that's par for the course for you self-styled 'libertarians'.

[ScoopLV]

Originally Posted by carlcockatoo

newsflash: a nation is not "founded"; nations are a process of evolution.

Evolution is a dirty word for many of that ilk.

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

Sounds to me like you are -- and don't corrupt other people's posts!; if you can't fathom the logic of the argument, you are the one with the problem.

Zeep! Zap! Boodily bee!

I don't think "crack or smack" goes far enough.

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

Most prominently via abuse of executive power and judicial decision, the current campaigns by so-called "progressives' is weakening respect for individual rights on all fronts. If you can't recognize this you might as well join a couple of the other recent participants herein (Post #534 is a good example) as part of the lynch mob.

Two issues illustrates the need for the judiciary to rein in the tyranny of the majority -- civil rights and same-sex marriage. These are/were exactly the same problem, just affecting different minorities.

And as for the nonsense spouted about homosexuals with children, there is no other way to describe it -- nonsense, blather, twaddle, gobbledygook. "Verbal diarrhea" isn't strong enough.

It has been my experience with gay parents that no group on Earth puts more thought and planning into raising a child than homosexuals. If everyone took that responsibility as seriously as homosexuals, we would not have nearly as many societal ills that we do.

[carlcockatoo]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

I didn't say that homosexual couples "harm" or even threaten heterosexual couples -- or singles, for that matter; I said (admittedly, in an indirect way) that the push for same-sex-marriage will add to the burden of "societal overhead" for which all taxpayers and responsible individuals are compelled to pay.

But we all know that the reasoning of many of the folks over in Left Field is similar to that of Mr. Orwell's pig: "We're all equal here, but some are more equal than others".

goddamn

"LGBT rights= Orwellian totalitarian state"

lmao this side of the debate is so melodramatic.

Yet again, there is no evidence of heterosexual, Christian (which is not mutually exclusive with LGBT people anyway), etc. people or views being suppressed. What rights are heterosexuals being denied?

Honestly it's ****ing bull**** that LGBT people are often a persecuted minority in this culture and the 'beneficiaries' of this culture of normalisation are making up a bunch of bs about how their rights are being infringed. It's downright insulting. Wish I could pass you off as a troll but I can't do that when I know people like you exist.

[Macgregorsailor51]

Well I for one do NOT believe Gays (LGBT) should be allowed to adopt..As for Hero's? I dont need a Political Hero I just need Leaders who are un-affraid to stand for Truth Justice and Honesty. You do not support what I believe in and there by I should not have to support what you believe in and I dont. There has never been a "Great Society" that embraced The Homosexual Life Style that lasted 200 years. This wont either.

Originally Posted by Unsettomati

I see you've found an anti-gay hero. They're getting harder to come by these days, aren't they? It must be very depressing, living in an age in which sanctioned discrimination against gays is being rolled back virtually everywhere. All this equality, justice - such developments must be difficult to live with for you people who loathe such concepts.

Oh - nice touch with the "But... but... I just care to much about the children!" shtick. It ain't much, and it's incoherent nonsense, but since there is no coherent rationale for your anti-gay animus, I guess you've got to throw something out there.

But, do tell me this:
How does it benefit the child of gay parents in Kansas, when one of those parents is fired from a job not for job performance but for no reason other than the fact that he or she is gay? Or, when that parent is not hired in the first place for precisely that reason? Of course, it doesn't - it harms that child. And you don't care one bit.

Stop pretending you care at all about children. You don't. You're just upset that this generation is not raising another generation that shares your irrational dislike of gays.

[Macgregorsailor51]

Well Those Taxes sure didnt cover the cost let alone the hurt and grief that AIDS brought us here in the USA.. and That was a Disease brought here by Gays..

Originally Posted by Unsettomati

Oh, I have no illusions of convincing those who harbor anti-gay animus of anything. I respond to the nonsense of folks like you not in pursuit of the hopeless task of getting through to you but for the benefit of observers who are open to reality.

I have no idea what the underlined comment above is supposed to mean, because it's so profoundly wrong I cannot even imagine what basis you might have for spewing such a complete and total absurdity as that.

Here's a clue:
Gays, who have children at a far lower rate than straights, decrease the financial burden on us straights, in the same way that my straight 49-year-old brother-in-law - who has no children and likely never will - decreases the financial burden on us.

How? They pay taxes!

Their property taxes go to build schools. Being childless, they can generally afford more expensive homes/apartments/condos/etc., meaning they're paying even more in property taxes. And their incomes? They're generally higher in the first place, and their taxable income is higher still, since they lack the dependency-exemptions that come from having children.

When you spread some of the costs of child-rearing among all members of a society, it decreases the burden on those who do have children. It should take no more than about 4th-grade mathematics and even a vague familiarity with the tax code to comprehend this.

So what you are talking about is completely beyond me. I thought I'd heard every creative excuse to rationalize someone's anti-gay attitudes, but yours is a new one - a remarkably wrong one that is diametrically opposed to reality, but that's par for the course with you guys. And, yeah, your "I have no problem with gays" preface to whining about the problems you have with gays is as transparent as it is predictable.

You just can't walk the walk. You label yourself a libertarian, I see. I was curious, so I did a couple of searches on your user name. You use the word 'nanny' in 37 different posts. I clicked on a few - yep, all whines about the 'nanny-state'. You use the phrase 'big government' in no less than 77 different posts.

So... you're a libertarian who dislikes the nanny-state and big givernment'? No, you're not. You're someone who postures as a libertarian when you find it convenient. When it comes to those you dislike, you creative find excuses that allow you to reject applying your supposed libertarian principles to them. In my experience, that's par for the course for you self-styled 'libertarians'.