President Donald J. Trump

[albrecht]

Do you think there's a civil rights precedent here where the government can step on behalf of those who aren't being given equal status? This is one of the very few things I'm happy about in the last eight years with our government. I agree with you on state's rights issue. For instance I think each state should be able to decide whether it wants to decriminalize marijuana or not. But given that this involved the rights of citizens directly, I can appreciate the government stepping in.

I don't like to pull the civil rights card since it's being so abused and perverted right now. But given how gay couples had to face discriminatory practices in society such as weird health and legal laws, I think it's a valid case.

Plus with all due respect your religious beliefs, marriage is so nothing in a government capacity. To God it may be an abomination but to the government it should be about two or three forms they have to fill out. Also in the pragmatic sense, if two dudes or two ladies want to ruin their lives by getting married, it's no sweat off anyone else's sack.

I do appreciate your skepticism of government though. I don't want them involved in anything beyond their limited constitutionally granted role in my life.

Increased levels of diseases, obesity, and substance abuse?
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf
Especially as more and more the government or your insurance needs to cover the cost. Not to mention things like HIV/AIDs, and other, coming from that community into others when people are, as alleged one famous person is said to be, on the "down-low?"

Having said that I tend to agree because making whatever behavior not secret and legal could help our security. Do whatever you want in private as adults. It is interesting that Trump is way more open to the homosexuals and BLTs than Clintons, at least historically, and the change he made in the Republican convention. Who knows how many Mannings or people in security positions (or political positions of authority) can be blackmailed for their sexual antics? But no reason to redefine words, reality, and historical traditions like marriage, gender, etc. Keep in mind that Obama's own government's CDC says the BLTQH+- is less than 3% of the population. All this fuss, on all sides, over 3%? Obama's key concern all these years over war(s,) the economy, the open-border, education, crime, etc is some pet issue he has, for whatever reason, that effects less than 3% of the population? Guess what the others issues effect EVERYONE even BLTS? Maybe we should focus on those?
ps: I decide today to "self-identify" as a co-ed and I'm off to go use the Kappa shower.

[Humilia Lepus Foramen]

Frankly, if I had my druthers, the government would stay out of the marriage business altogether

*applause*

[FightTheFuture]

Frankly, if I had my druthers, the government would stay out of the marriage business altogether

Well, unfortunately, if the government wasn`t around to regulate marriage, we`d have people marrying their pets;  their sisters and brothers; multiple people, etc, etc.

I wouldn`t be surprised if folks start feeling it`s now time to allow polygamy. Perhaps even marrying their pet Chimp (I guarantee a chimp is more intelligent than SOME humans being granted marriage licenses.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

This is the great divide between Trump people on this board.

I want to read up on LBGTQ statistics online but they're so varied depending on what group they're coming from that I'm not sure what is reliable or not. I do find it amusing though that from your own source Gay men are healthier than Straight men. Makes total sense to me consider how diesel almost every younger gay dude I've met has been.

I take it from your tone that you don't have a lot of respect for the LBGTBBQ community. While I'm not a fan of a lot of the snowflake stuff, is it really hurting anyone? I've had instances where I left a place for a year and then when I came back a friend who used to be named Matt was now named Jennifer. Do I understand it? No. Does it in effect me in anyway? Not really. So I have a whatever attitude. If that makes them happier, that's great. But at the same time I don't want to listen to people don't talk about it because they finally found something that made them interesting.

But the issue we're talking about is Gay Marriage. To me it's ridiculous that two gay men would have to hide their relationship or one would be denied access to the other's medical or legal info or authority. Because of the government's stance, a lot of gay people were forced to live a silly hidden life and didn't have the legal protections or rights that a straight couple did. From a legal and governmental standpoint, that's stupid.

While you're more than entitled to your feelings, your religion and your traditions. There's no reason to persecute two consenting adults from the same legal protections and enfranchisement as two other consenting adults.

Besides what do you care? If it's a problem, they're going to hell anyway. 

[albrecht]

This is the great divide between Trump people on this board.

I want to read up on LBGTQ statistics online but they're so varied depending on what group they're coming from that I'm not sure what is reliable or not. I do find it amusing though that from your own source Gay men are healthier than Straight men. Makes total sense to me consider how diesel almost every younger gay dude I've met has been.

I take it from your tone that you don't have a lot of respect for the LBGTBBQ community. While I'm not a fan of a lot of the snowflake stuff, is it really hurting anyone? I've had instances where I left a place for a year and then when I came back a friend who used to be named Matt was now named Jennifer. Do I understand it? No. Does it in effect me in anyway? Not really. So I have a whatever attitude. If that makes them happier, that's great. But at the same time I don't want to listen to people don't talk about it because they finally found something that made them interesting.

But the issue we're talking about is Gay Marriage. To me it's ridiculous that two gay men would have to hide their relationship or one would be denied access to the other's medical or legal info or authority. Because of the government's stance, a lot of gay people were forced to live a silly hidden life and didn't have the legal protections or rights that a straight couple did. From a legal and governmental standpoint, that's stupid.

While you're more than entitled to your feelings, your religion and your traditions. There's no reason to persecute two consenting adults from the same legal protections and enfranchisement as two other consenting adults.

Besides what do you care? If it's a problem, they're going to hell anyway. 

Ha, true. Though the government stats say for the overall "community" more obesity, substance abuse, and diseases. Though how much of this is related TO the laws or society's feelings traditionally? It could be argued that besides the national security risk (blackmail, etc) that the illegality and over-all judgment forces the "community" into unsafe practices? BTW no homosexuals, or anyone, is denied "access." Simply fill out a POA, make a will, trust, or living will, hire a lawyer, etc. You don't even need to be related to grant access for someone to yourself, bank accounts, medical records. You have to do it BEFORE it becomes an issue though.

I still don't understand the concern, on all sides, it is a very small percentage of the population- even if you deny the government numbers and take the BLTQ activist numbers? The economy, war(s,) open-borders, crime, education, etc effect everyone, including BLTS, that should be the focus of attention. Not on what bathroom you can use or forcing some tranny to use your kids locker-room. Btw, I had a good friend who had a condo in West Hollywood because, at the time, got a deal and was close to work. He was always bitching and laughing, and his girlfriend would too, that every guy in the complex and neighborhood was in shape, etc and made him look bad. It was hilarious.
Off to the Tri-Delt House for a piss, I'm self-identifying as a sorority chick today.

[Jackstar]

Well, unfortunately, if [...] we`d have people marrying their pets;  their sisters and brothers; multiple people, etc, etc.

I sincerely don't get how you think that would be "unfortunate."

Are you really that fucking dim? Just fuck off with your fascist bullshit, Fucko! LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE

[GravitySucks]

I don't have a very good response, I'm afraid, other than to say that my gut tells me Hillary is one of the good ones. As a lawyer, she advocated for children; she served on the legal team that led to the impeachment of Richard Nixon. I just feel that she's on the side of justice. I don't see her as motivated by any kind of avarice.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cCDzRtZLUkc

[Jackstar]

It's so unfortunate, because I love gyoza and girls. What am I supposed to fap to now?

[TigerLily]

*snark*  Now the Donald talks about "unity" and "stop and frisk" in the same sentence. He stands for nothing and everything at the same time. How stupid does he think people are? .... Oh. Never mind

Trump supports 'stop and frisk,' calls for unity in wake of Charlotte riots-Fox News

[Dr. MD MD]

*snark*  Now the Donald talks about "unity" and "stop and frisk" in the same sentence. He stands for nothing and everything at the same time. How stupid does he think people are? .... Oh. Never mind

Trump supports 'stop and frisk,' calls for unity in wake of Charlotte riots-Fox News

The cops just wanna reach out and touch people, you know, maybe give them a hug (and while they're at it check for drugs, weapons and contraband). 

[starrmtn001]

LIVE Stream: Donald Trump Holds Rally in Chester Township, PA 9/22/16 (RSBN Cameras).

https://youtu.be/2cl4gzliwbY

[21st Century Man]

Do you think there's a civil rights precedent here where the government can step on behalf of those who aren't being given equal status? This is one of the very few things I'm happy about in the last eight years with our government. I agree with you on state's rights issue. For instance I think each state should be able to decide whether it wants to decriminalize marijuana or not. But given that this involved the rights of citizens directly, I can appreciate the government stepping in.

I don't like to pull the civil rights card since it's being so abused and perverted right now. But given how gay couples had to face discriminatory practices in society such as weird health and legal laws, I think it's a valid case.

Plus with all due respect your religious beliefs, marriage is so nothing in a government capacity. To God it may be an abomination but to the government it should be about two or three forms they have to fill out. Also in the pragmatic sense, if two dudes or two ladies want to ruin their lives by getting married, it's no sweat off anyone else's sack.

I do appreciate your skepticism of government though. I don't want them involved in anything beyond their limited constitutionally granted role in my life.

I agree with your reasoning here.  My views on gay marriage have evolved over the years.  I've always felt that gay couples should have the same rights under the law as heterosexual married couples.  I was for civil unions when it wasn't cool.  I just have had problems with the term marriage but it is no big deal. I'm glad gay couples have the same rights as het couples.  It is hardly my hot button issue.

[Value Of Pi]

LIVE Stream: Donald Trump Holds Rally in Chester Township, PA 9/22/16 (RSBN Cameras).

https://youtu.be/2cl4gzliwbY

Uh oh, it looks like he might have lost his hair hat. Or it just went flat. Hair and makeup, get out there!

[Richard Groyper]

Uh oh, it looks like he might have lost his hair hat. Or it just went flat. Hair and makeup, get out there!

Baldism!

[Donald Noory]

Meanwhile, outside the Trump rally...

[analog kid]

*snark*  Now the Donald talks about "unity" and "stop and frisk" in the same sentence. He stands for nothing and everything at the same time. How stupid does he think people are? .... Oh. Never mind

Trump supports 'stop and frisk,' calls for unity in wake of Charlotte riots-Fox News

Nationwide stop and frisk, which has already been ruled unconstitutional. But here's Donald explaining his plan.

"Police will look for people with guns, stop them, and take their guns away."

So much for the second amendment. Also citizens should be considered enemy combatants, and denied their 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendment rights. He also wants to obliterate the first amendment, to make it easier to sue people who insult him.

[Donald Noory]

Here's what Trump will do at the debate on Monday, when asked any detailed domestic or foreign policy questions:

[WOTR]

Increased levels of diseases, obesity, and substance abuse?
...Keep in mind that Obama's own government's CDC says the BLTQH+- is less than 3% of the population. All this fuss, on all sides, over 3%?

I suppose when it comes to marriage and crap it is "all of this fuss" over 3% because that still represents almost 10 million individuals whose lives get fucked up because we "shouldn't make a stink about it" and just continue calling them filthy homos who do not deserve to take part in the "sacred" institution of marriage.  Perhaps Trump is more accepting of the idea of same sex marriage because he has already made a mockery of the institution?

For many years I have said the government should issue licenses to a civil union and if anybody wants a "marriage" they can ask their Rabbi, Minister or cult leader.  That way, marriage remains as sacred as your religion makes it and the legal part is open to every tranny, queer and breeder who happens to want the legal protections.

[21st Century Man]

I suppose when it comes to marriage and crap it is "all of this fuss" over 3% because that still represents almost 10 million individuals whose lives get fucked up because we "shouldn't make a stink about it" and just continue calling them filthy homos who do not deserve to take part in the "sacred" institution of marriage.  Perhaps Trump is more accepting of the idea of same sex marriage because he has already made a mockery of the institution?

For many years I have said the government should issue licenses to a civil union and if anybody wants a "marriage" they can ask their Rabbi, Minister or cult leader.  That way, marriage remains as sacred as your religion makes it and the legal part is open to every tranny, queer and breeder who happens to want the legal protections.

I like that idea.

[albrecht]

I suppose when it comes to marriage and crap it is "all of this fuss" over 3% because that still represents almost 10 million individuals whose lives get fucked up because we "shouldn't make a stink about it" and just continue calling them filthy homos who do not deserve to take part in the "sacred" institution of marriage.  Perhaps Trump is more accepting of the idea of same sex marriage because he has already made a mockery of the institution?

For many years I have said the government should issue licenses to a civil union and if anybody wants a "marriage" they can ask their Rabbi, Minister or cult leader.  That way, marriage remains as sacred as your religion makes it and the legal part is open to every tranny, queer and breeder who happens to want the legal protections.

I agree, actually. But there are already legal means to accomplish what whomever wishes to accomplish. POA, Living wills, trusts, etc. But I agree. My point is that so much focus for a few people when other more important issues that effect EVERYONE. Also there is prosecutable discretion, jury nullification, and common-sense not EVERYTHING needs to be codified and sometimes some laws are used to 'get' offenders that could not otherwise be prosecuted. An example. The silly laws that used to be on the books about sodomy but over-turned. Well, of course they seem silly. But, in practice usually back then they weren't used to prosecute adults or homosexuals (sometimes were) but as a secondary charge when facts happened but couldn't hold up in court like a damaged witness, a witness who refused to testify, etc. So you can't get the guy on a rape charge but could at least get him on sodomy. And now he is on the radar or faces some punishment. Or so you could "get" a rapist or child molester on a "lesser charge" and not go to court and at least get him on the books. I know many people don't like the idea of plea-bargaining or over-charging and then going down but with the volume of cases it sometimes makes sense and, in some cases, at least you get a prior on some creep so next time you have more ammo or at least alert community that he might be a threat.

[chefist]

Debate Monday night is going to be carried by almost everyone...I'm tuning into Alex Jones...live commentary! LOLZ should be a hoot!

[21st Century Man]

I agree, actually. But there are already legal means to accomplish what whomever wishes to accomplish. POA, Living wills, trusts, etc. But I agree. My point is that so much focus for a few people when other more important issues that effect EVERYONE. Also there is prosecutable discretion, jury nullification, and common-sense not EVERYTHING needs to be codified and sometimes some laws are used to 'get' offenders that could not otherwise be prosecuted. An example. The silly laws that used to be on the books about sodomy but over-turned. Well, of course they seem silly. But, in practice usually back then they weren't used to prosecute adults or homosexuals (sometimes were) but as a secondary charge when facts happened but couldn't hold up in court like a damaged witness, a witness who refused to testify, etc. So you can't get the guy on a rape charge but could at least get him on sodomy. And now he is on the radar or faces some punishment. Or so you could "get" a rapist or child molester on a "lesser charge" and not go to court and at least get him on the books. I know many people don't like the idea of plea-bargaining or over-charging and then going down but with the volume of cases it sometimes makes sense and, in some cases, at least you get a prior on some creep so next time you have more ammo or at least alert community that he might be a threat.

I've always thought sodomy laws were wrong.  What goes on in a consensual relationship is none of the government's business.

[albrecht]

I've always thought sodomy laws were wrong.  What goes on in a consensual relationship is none of the government's business.

Right, but they were also used frequently to plea down non-consensual rape and child-abuse cases that couldn't be proven as well like in the case where age/damage to victim that the trial, discovery, and public nature were problematic. Sort of like catching Capone on taxes.

[21st Century Man]

Right, but they were also used frequently to plea down non-consensual rape and child-abuse cases that couldn't be proven as well like in the case where age/damage to victim that the trial, discovery, and public nature were problematic. Sort of like catching Capone on taxes.

I see your point but such laws are still wrong.   There should be other laws to plea down to.

[albrecht]

I see your point but such laws are still wrong.   There should be other laws to plea down to.

There are but just one less bullet in the chamber. I tend to agree with you though in general. I also hate the plea bargaining and sheer volume of laws and regulations on the books and also laws/rules that prohibit discretion on the behalf of cops, judges, and juries. I even have problems sometimes with the adversarial process but I can't find much, at least in criminal law, a better system. I think the benefit should be on the charged, even when they are scum, simply due to the power of the government. 

[chefist]

https://youtu.be/lDUwXFvTJfA

[WOTR]

I agree, actually. But there are already legal means to accomplish what whomever wishes to accomplish. POA, Living wills, trusts, etc. But I agree. My point is that so much focus for a few people when other more important issues that effect EVERYONE. Also there is prosecutable discretion, jury nullification, and common-sense not EVERYTHING needs to be codified and sometimes some laws are used to 'get' offenders that could not otherwise be prosecuted. An example. The silly laws that used to be on the books about sodomy but over-turned. Well, of course they seem silly. But, in practice usually back then they weren't used to prosecute adults or homosexuals (sometimes were) but as a secondary charge when facts happened but couldn't hold up in court like a damaged witness, a witness who refused to testify, etc. So you can't get the guy on a rape charge but could at least get him on sodomy. And now he is on the radar or faces some punishment. Or so you could "get" a rapist or child molester on a "lesser charge" and not go to court and at least get him on the books. I know many people don't like the idea of plea-bargaining or over-charging and then going down but with the volume of cases it sometimes makes sense and, in some cases, at least you get a prior on some creep so next time you have more ammo or at least alert community that he might be a threat.

Interesting take... I suppose I should ask how same sex couples are supposed to be covered by medical insurance of the other partner?

As to not being used to harass?  Lets look back 35 years to Toronto, Canada.  "On Feb. 5, 1981, officers armed with crowbars and sledgehammers raided the bathhouses and arrested some 300 gay men.  Those who owned or worked in the bathhouses were charged with keeping a common bawdy house and patrons were charged with being found in a common bawdy house."

To me, that does not seem like they were after rapists.  There is no reason anybody should have to live their lives in fear that a city administrator or police chief will decide they dislike gays and suddenly be targeted.  To me, it is not just targeting them and making the action illegal- but targeting them by denying what is legal for others...

It would not be an issue that would top my list of important issues- but I think it does say quite a lot about a candidate (or person...)

[albrecht]

Interesting take... I suppose I should ask how same sex couples are supposed to be covered by medical insurance of the other partner?

As to not being used to harass?  Lets look back 35 years to Toronto, Canada.  "On Feb. 5, 1981, officers armed with crowbars and sledgehammers raided the bathhouses and arrested some 300 gay men.  Those who owned or worked in the bathhouses were charged with keeping a common bawdy house and patrons were charged with being found in a common bawdy house."

To me, that does not seem like they were after rapists.  There is no reason anybody should have to live their lives in fear that a city administrator or police chief will decide they dislike gays and suddenly be targeted.  To me, it is not just targeting them and making the action illegal- but targeting them by denying what is legal for others...

It would not be an issue that would top my list of important issues- but I think it does say quite a lot about a candidate (or person...)

Yeah it was horrible that the homosexuals valued their bath house lifestyle over the spread of a disease that still disproportionally kills them.  That happened here also even during of the initial crisis. Prostitution is another issue though. I tend towards the attitude of prosecution of the "john" if the girl (or whatever) is underage, forced, etc and on the operators more than the crackdowns on the workers, who often exploited or addicted. But maybe legal with some zoning, like Private house etc in Holland, Germany or Boy's Town in Mex with testing, security, etc. The problem is sex trafficking and organized crime involvement. So it is not, often, some mutual consent and someone making money how she wants. Making it legal, or at least decriminalized, might make a cut in that or, at least, minimize the social costs (I feel same about most drugs.)

[analog kid]

http://twitter.com/ThomasB00001/status/778833799228432385

[starrmtn001]

How cool!

Donald Trump Stops for Philly Cheesesteak in PA. "Going to Get one for Hillary"(9-22-16).

https://youtu.be/KrpcISemnPM