General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

whyamimrpink78
The Humanist Report
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "" video.

He is not wrong. Encouraging teens to change gender is wrong. Also, marriage is not a right.
2
@theflyingwelshman5338 " If gays want to marry, let them marry. " And I have zero problems with that. It comes down to if government recognizes it or not. To me government should stay out of marriage.
2
@theflyingwelshman5338 abortion and drugs are different issues. To many, abortion if murder. And drugs do cause many problems in life and society. Not saying my stance on them, just giving you a counter argument.
2
So he lives in an area where he is allowed to own a gun and crime is low there?
2
Arm yourselves for what?
1
@theflyingwelshman5338 what makes you think they will be attacked?
1
@theflyingwelshman5338 Colorado Springs was by a non binary person, not a straight person. That is why so many members of the media stopped talking about it.
1
@theflyingwelshman5338 " or how about the time I actually had to fight someone who attacked one of my friends for being gay? " I highly doubt it was because your friend was gay. Chances are you friend was being a jerk, and after the attack, you and him used the gay card. " I blinded the homophobe in one eye and mangled his right hand so badly, it had to be amputated." Doubt that bud. But remember when Jussie Smollett made up his story? You know, attacks on gays are so low that gays have to make them up to push propaganda.
1
@theflyingwelshman5338 "he was literally shouting homophobic slurs at my friend. And it’s a true story." Doubt it. If true in any sense, chances are your friend was being a jerk. How can one tell that your friend was gay to begin with?
1
@theflyingwelshman5338 "Colorado Springs was not by a non binary person. That was a lie to try to avoid being charged with a hate crime." Why avoid a hate crime? The idea of a hate crime is to be proud you did it. Also, what will avoiding a hate crime lead to? Him getting 30 life sentences instead of 50 life sentence? The guy is going to prison for life already.
1
@theflyingwelshman5338 "because he was coming home from a drag party." Ok, and? So your friend out of all the people leaving the drag party was the only one attacked?
1
@theflyingwelshman5338 "because the Colorado Springs shooter wanted to put more pressure on the LGBTQ community." Pressure for what?
1
@theflyingwelshman5338 who is a homophobe to you? I bet it is someone who simply disagrees with you. Look up the word "phobia". Doubt your story is true.
1
@aguyithink4119 what side? The point of a hate crime is to take credit for it. The idea of a hate crime is to install fear on the people you hate.
1
@aguyithink4119 dude, both sides can do hate crimes. The idea is to install fear in people you hate. And to take credit for it. What this shows is that the right are not going out attacking LGBT people. You guys keep saying the right are physically attacking the LGBT community but it is not happening. Jussie Smollett had to make up a story to push propaganda as it is not happening.
1
@aguyithink4119 " yeah this guys views just happen to align perfectly with alt / far right viewpoints" How so? "Also: “Both sides can do hate crime” yeah, and this time it was the far right." How are they far right? And even so, who on the right supports him? " Also also: It’s funny how the shooter wasn’t nb until after he: Made a bomb threat last year Was extremely homophobic online Went to a lgbt club and murdered 5 and injured 25" Well, maybe he found out he was non binary, just like how Dick Levine, decades later said he was a woman. How was he homophobic online? And who cares if it is a lgbt club. Why do you need clubs exclusive to lgbt?
1
@aguyithink4119 who is really homophobic here, the left or the right? That aside, who on the right supports him? No one. So what is your point?
1
@aguyithink4119 When did Tim and Stephen show support for him? Which video? What did they say?
1
@aguyithink4119 how is the right homophobic? Do you know what the word "phobia' means?
1
@aguyithink4119 revoke what rights? Please list them. And who fears LGBT people?
1
@aguyithink4119 "Tim did so on Twitter, claiming club w had a “grooming event”" That does not mean he supports killing them. "Stephen indirectly did by claiming the shooter wasn’t far right because “Uhhh he said”" Does not mean he supports the shooting or the shooter.
1
@aguyithink4119 there is not right to marriage.
1
@aguyithink4119 no, government should get out of marriage.
1
@aguyithink4119 why should the government get involved?
1
@salomaogomes7311 marriage is not a right. Point to me where in the Constitution it is.
1
@theflyingwelshman5338 doesn't matter if it effects me or not. It effects society and standards we have, and that is what I care about.
1
@theflyingwelshman5338 you see, I can look beyond myself.
1
@salomaogomes7311 if all men are created equal under the law, then why do married people get special tax benefits? I choose to remain single, why do I have different tax codes to follow? Or another counter argument, if a gay person wants those tax benefits, marry a woman. Nothing is stopping them legally.
1
@theflyingwelshman5338 you don't look beyond yourself. To you, a "homophobe" is someone with a different idea than you. Homophobe means scared of homo people. I am not scared of gays, nor do I hate them. I am simply saying these arguments are complex and much deeper than you make it out to be.
1
@theflyingwelshman5338 "to 70% of the country, abortion is NOT murder. " That number is misleading. Even in that group there are people who support some form of abortion restrictions, like banning late term abortions. "That’s why attempts to ban it failed in Kentucky and Montana. " Which is fine, let the people decide. Isn't that what you want? Democracy? Let the people decide. "It’s a statistical fact that you choose to ignore. " Nope, again, amongst that group there are people who support some form of restrictions like banning late term abortions. "And if you still think banning drugs solves any problems, then you’re not looking at the real world. Banning anything only makes people more inclined to do it. " Never said I was for banning drugs. But making them more accessible arguably causes more problems. Look at alcohol. Alcohol is one of the deadliest substances anyone can take, either while taking it or via the withdraws (only one of 2 substances the withdraws can kill you). But we keep it legal. How many people drink? Around 70%.
1
@patchwurk6652 no, I do not seek out relationships. Had other pursue me, did not partake. "And yet I've never seen you argue for the rejection of Straight couples marriage benefits." Uh, I did in a comment you just responded to. Why do married people get special benefits that single people do not? I say get government out of all marriages.
1
@theflyingwelshman5338 "Those are people you cherry-picked, but even they would rather have abortion fully legal rather than having it banned. " Good thing we do not live in the world of extremes. "also, alcohol is fine if used in moderation. All drugs are the same: nothing bad will happen if you use responsibly" You sure about that? Look at opioids. Highly addicting leading to the crisis we have. Benzodiazepines are highly addicting as well.
1
@patchwurk6652 " What, should someone's Wife get barred from seeing them in the hospital" There are other ways we can work with that legally. It does not have to be marriage. "Because the married couple are considered part of the same family now dumbass." Don't have to get married to start a family. "Also how does this affect you at all besides you just whining that you don't magically get benefits" You just answered your own question. Why do others get special benefits?
1
@theflyingwelshman5338 so explain the opioid crisis?
1
@theflyingwelshman5338 opioids are highly addictive. Heroin, cocaine and meth are highly addictive. And there are rehab clinics. I have been to them.
1
@Hipfireturtle "I’m sure this mrpink dude who I’ve seen arguing against everything Mike, David (Rational National) and Kyle (Seccy Talk) posted for literally years without ever agreeing with a single thing they’ve said" I agree with a lot of things they said, especially early on. Problem is that the left have become extreme over the past few years. I have also changed my mind on a lot of issues.
1
@Hipfireturtle "I can’t even imagine dating someone like this, nor do I know a single other woman over 25 who’d be interested as well…" Ok, that is you. How many women are out there? Besides, I do not make an effort to get in a relationship as to me it is not worth my time. I like being single. I like living on my own and having my own place and my own life.
1
@Hipfireturtle I have agreed with points in the past. But as I said, the left have become extreme recently, especially during the Trump years.
1
@theflyingwelshman5338 "one use addiction is impossible." No, it is impossible, just highly unlikely.. "I don’t care how highly addictive opioids are. I used responsibly, so I never got hooked." I doubt that.
1
@theflyingwelshman5338 yeah, I doubt it. And even if so, you are the exception, not the norm. Also, if you are using those drugs then you story of beating a man is not true as you would be too weak to.
1
@Hipfireturtle yeah, don't care.
1
@Hipfireturtle well, the issue is that the left is so extreme they refuse to have a discussion. If you had a discussion you would see I agree with a lot on the left. Take abortion, for example. Here are my three stances on it 1. It is not in the Constitution, so it becomes a state issue 2. It is a personal issue. I hate people who celebrate it or encouraged people to celebrate it. I also hate people who ridicule those who get one 3. I support rare, safe and legal On the last point I support abortions being legal. But my ultimate stance is to stick with the standard of the Constitution. When I say I support revoking Roe V Wade people think I oppose abortion. I don't. I support rare, safe legal, and I know abortion is not in the Constitution and should be a state issue. If people want abortion to be a right then amend the Constitution. If the Constitution is amended to make abortion a right, I would support such actions. But you can't just claim something is a right. As here with gay marriage. I have no problem with gay people living together and even getting married. I point out that it comes down to if government recognizes it or not. I say government should not recognize marriage all together. But if it does it becomes a state issue as marriage is not listed in the Constitution. When I say that I get called a homophobe when I say, at the very beginning, that I support gay people getting married. Problem is that the left have become so extreme that they have short talking points and when you try to get into details on these complex issues they name call. So my actual stances are never really shown.
1
@theflyingwelshman5338 yeah, sure. It does not work that way, especially with meth.
1
@theflyingwelshman5338 so you used it once. That is not what I am saying.
1
@aguyithink4119 I want everyone to have equal treatment. That is why I want government to get out of marriage all together.
1
@aguyithink4119 how would it make life harder for married couples?
1
@KingHavocDraigo sure, I agree. Still does not mean government has to recognize it.
1
@aguyithink4119 "Completely changing the way their taxes are filed," Oh no. Not that. Not like that happens to millions of people every year. It happened to me as I have a new job now and live in a different state. " making it harder to see your wife / husband if they’re hospitalized." There are other legal methods you can do to change that.
1
@aguyithink4119 so nothing on my taxes being changed?
1
@KingHavocDraigo ok, and they should not exist. You don't need government to handle those things.
1
@aguyithink4119 never said you don't need government to handle your taxes. I am referring to the other person saying "and other things related to you or your family just in case of a murdered or assaulted spouse" There are couples who are not married where one assaults the other and police get involved. No marriage law necessary.
1
@KingHavocDraigo what rights do they lack?
1
@KingHavocDraigo there is not right to privacy. You actually don't have a right to safety, nor do you have the right to have your marriage recognized by the government. "and equal protections to what we have at our jobs" Nope, not a right either. "clearly they don't have it when they receive death threats, bomb threats and face mass shootings and lynchings because of their sexuality and identity"' When do these ever occur? Jussie Smollett had to make up a story to push propaganda that gays are being attacked. They aren't. No one is supporting it if they are. This is an issue, you guys make things up. "as long as people like Marjorie Taylor greene keep calling them groomers they're not treated equally to their straight counterparts" But when you name call others that is OK. I have seen people call Greene awful things as well. So that is OK?
1
@Hipfireturtle the Constitution is the standard to go by. We need standards or chaos will occur. And to me, the Constitution is basically perfect. What it establishes is that the federal government is really there for two things: deal with foreign affairs and deal with commerce between states. Everything else is left up to the states. The states cannot go rogue and interact with foreign affairs as that can harm other states. Only the federal government can. States cannot harm other states as well, thus, commerce between states. With almost all issues there is an objective and subjective side. We can look at facts and data all we want objectively. But subjectively, that really depends on the person and really the local community and culture. Thus, state rights deal with the subjective sides of issues. If one state has citizens that want to ban abortion for whatever reasons, then so be it. Same with states that have citizens that want to make it legal. There are legit arguments on both sides being for or against it. Who is right? Well, that is subjective. "I’ve never understood this personally, because to me it’s always seemed like you’re just letting rich white dudes from the 1700s do your thinking for you, which no matter how intelligent you think they may have been they didn’t know what it was like to not be rich white dudes, and so they ended up creating a system of law that was explicitly beneficial to rich white dudes." And there is a way to change the Constitution, and it has been changed, many times. Also, those rich white dudes created the concept of a limited government with state rights so the people at the state level can govern themselves. They can think for themselves. "and personally I would rather form my own beliefs than just let a 200+ year old document do it for me." Again, that document allows me, and others to form their own beliefs. The document does not create a centralized government telling people want to do. It allows people to govern themselves. " I ask because the Declaration of Independence mentions the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, which factors into almost every situation including abortion, seeing as how it’s hard for someone to have those things if they are forced to carry a pregnancy they don’t want." No, all that means is that government cannot take away life, liberty or pursuit of happiness without due process. And you have the right to pursue happiness, you are not guaranteed it. On abortion, a couple of things. One, do not have sex if you do not want to get pregnant. Two, why is murder illegal then? If I do not like my neighbor why can't I just kill them? "Moving onto your stance about abortion, it looks to me like yes, you are functionally against abortion because your preferred way of legislating would lead to it being banned or severely restricted in many places " And those places that want to ban it, if that is what those citizens want, that is what they will pursue. We have already seen on ballots people voting to keep abortion legal even in states that would be considered red. This is a big problem I have with the radical left. They are on the outside looking into another state and feel those people are being oppressed. How do you know? You don't live there, you don't vote there, you don't pay taxes there, etc. But the left want to force their way on others claiming they are right and the people in that state is wrong. People have legit reasons to want to ban abortions. I will not agree, but I do see the reasoning. " Any time you’re fine with standing idly by as a certain thing happens, it means that in a way you’re pro-that thing happening, or at the very least you’re okay with people doing that thing" And that is a problem I have with the radical left. You want to tell other states what to do as you see their viewpoints as wrong. Well, guess what, the people of that state sees your viewpoints as wrong. How would you feel if they went a step farther and did a federal abortion ban? I bet you would not like it. But in their eyes they are doing what you are saying not to do. That is "standing idly by as a certain thing happens." The citizens of a state that wants abortion to be ban will look at CA and feel them allowing abortions is wrong. So by your standard they should push for a federal mandate. Do you support that? I doubt it. But you support that standard in allowing that to happen. " you support “rare” abortions and states having the ability to ban it, which most people would reasonably peg as an anti-abortion stance." And there is where they will be wrong. I support rare as it should be rare. If someone is getting 5 or 10 abortions, or more, there is clearly something wrong with them that needs to be corrected. Either they do not know how to use birth control, or they need to control their sex life, or whatever. That is similar, in my eyes, an alcoholic going to detox many times. At some point they need to control their drinking. "lso, if we’re going by what the majority of Americans believe or what medical science says, you are the extreme one for not supporting nearly or completely unfettered access to abortions." What medical science? What do they say? Also, science usually does not include morals. We saw that recently in many people said "follow the science" and stripped peoples' lives away. As for the majority of the nation, if that is the case it would be reflected in the states. So where is the problem? I do not see an issue. "And personally, yeah, I think it’s extreme to have any laws restricting abortion, because a. any law that restricts its’ access will normalize the idea that it’s okay to do, leading only to further restrictions down the road, and b. because there’s no necessity to legally block abortions, not even in the “late term,”" Now you are pulling logical fallacies here. As for normalizing it, you can say that with all laws. This, once again, goes back to there being a subjective side to issues. All laws have a subjective side. How far is too far? How late is too late on abortions? It is subjective to many. Same with any laws. Should a DUI be a felony like it is in IA, or should it take 3 to become one like it is in MO? And there are arguments to block abortions as some see it as murder. You may disagree, but they disagree with you for whatever reason, maybe their culture, or how the community acts with each other, etc. "Why legally try and block this, if it is not being abused? It’s a really good question, and certainly not a short or snippy talking point. Also, why shouldn’t a living, breathing person be allowed to not carry a dependent lifeform with no capacity to feel or understand much of anything, if that’s their choice?" As I said, some view it as murder. Also, you bring up normalizing it. I find it disturbing the left is so open about abortions. It appears they want to normalize it. I support rare. But would you support someone getting 20? And it also begs the question of the morals of our society when so many are so open about killing their baby. Again, I support rare, but to me I see some people who will just do it and not care. As for not wanting to carry it, do not have sex. If I do not want a DUI I do not drink and drive. You made a choice and sometimes you have to live with it.
1
@Hipfireturtle " I think that if you take the time to really engage with most lefties, you’ll find we’re all about the substance like this, more than any other political group honestly." That is the point, I do. And I see the left being radical. A good example is this statement you made "Any time you’re fine with standing idly by as a certain thing happens, it means that in a way you’re pro-that thing happening, or at the very least you’re okay with people doing that thing" And this really proves my point. The left feels the need to force their way of life on others, but then complain when others do it on them. As I said, say the citizens of a state that has an abortion ban, and approves of it sees a state like CA and do not like them having abortions being legal. By your standard they should not be "standing idly by as a certain thing happens" but instead should be pushing for a federal abortion ban. I bet you will not support that. But that is the standard you support. You will not support it happening, but you support a standard of people forcing their way of life on others. You see, I am against that. I want the people to govern themselves at the state level within the restrictions of the Constitution so they get all, and if not all, almost all that they want. You just want to force your way on others like radical leftists do but then complain when others do it back.
1
@Hipfireturtle "Also, how exactly can you say that you support gay marriage, while also saying you support states’ rights to ban it? " No state can ever ban gay marriage, they just won't recognize it. This comes back to the subjective part of the issue. Why should a state be involved in marriage to begin with? What is the rational behind it? And when you start going down that path, then you start leading to discussion on what marriages should be recognized, and why? "The thing that can’t be understated here is that these are two forces directly in opposition, and by saying you support states’ rights to deny you are implicitly saying that matters more to you than gay folks being able to get married" Yes, because I want the people to govern themselves. You want to force you way on people, but then complain if they do it back to you. If a state does not want to recognize gay marriage that means the citizens agree. So whom am I to say they can't do that? How would you feel if there was a federal law saying no state can recognize gay marriage? I bet you would not like it, but that is the standard you support. "I’m wondering if part of what’s going on here, is the fact that you’re presumably not gay and so these issues exist somewhat in a vacuum for you, they aren’t things you will ever have to personally deal with the consequences of" It goes beyond that. You do not want a the federal government to be that powerful. To me it is about the standard of the Constitution. I place that above all. You go against that standard you end up with whoever is in charge at the federal level will force their way on others. How would you feel if the federal government banned abortions? You will disagree, but that is the standard you support. That will lead to other laws such as the federal government mandating how public education functions, or federal laws related to how a business operates, or federal traffic laws, etc. The people will no longer govern themselves. I used to live near CA and visited many times. I have many friends there. I completely disagree with how they run their state. However, I do not live there, I do not vote there, I do not pay taxes there, etc. So I should not have the ability to force my way on them. Same goes for the citizens of CA trying to force their way on my state. It should not happen. As I said, the radical left wants to force their way on others, mostly people they know nothing about, but complain when others do it back to them.
1
@KingHavocDraigo I have, where am I wrong?
1
@knavishknight please explain.
1
@Hipfireturtle to give you another example of how I place the Constitution above all. I do not like racist speech. I do not like it when people say racists things. However, if the government were to push a law to ban racists speech, I would oppose that law. Why? I support free speech. When you allow government to have the ability to ban any speech, you give it the power to ban speech they disagree with, or to censor information. So by your standard you will say that I support racist speech because I would oppose any law that will ban it. But the realty is that I support the Constitution and freedom of speech. I rather have people say racist things as opposed to having government decide what to censor. As with state rights and abortion. I rather allow states to decide if they want to ban abortion as opposed to the federal government deciding nation wide to ban it.
1
@knavishknight "The Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution do NOT allow states dominated by racist and homophobic politicians to not legally recognize / to illegalize / to legally ban interracial and same-sex marriages" You are correct when it comes to race. When it comes to same sex marriage that is different. Again, why does government get involved in marriage to begin with? Also, as is we divide people by gender in certain cases. Take athletics for example. Or the draft.
1
@knavishknight " YOU LIE! There is no difference! " There is a difference race is race. Being gay requires actions and is a through process.
1
@knavishknight "Gender division in athletics does NOT mean homophobic politicians may legally ban / illegalize / refuse to legally recognize homosexual marriages on the basis of the genders" No, it means government can create laws recognizing different genders. Besides, you know my stance on marriage, get government out of it. All marriages.
1
@knavishknight " So you've resorted to regurgitating your homophobic ilk's bullshit "homoseuality is a choice" which has been used to rationalize anow?" Not saying it is a choice, there is action. I am straight. Say I were to rape a woman because, as a straight male, I had a sexual urge and wanted to relieve it. By your standard that should be allowed. With gay people you do not have to marry another guy. But again, I want government out of marriage completely. End this mess all together.
1
@knavishknight "YOU TYPED : "I support state rights to get involved in marriage if they want"" I support state rights above everything ese. You know that.
1
Ok, what rights are being stripped?
1
@salomaogomes7311 no one is stopping them from being themselves. Just mind your own business, that is all people ask. That is all you wanted. But then you get all mad when someone does not want to bake you a gay wedding cake.
1
@Ataraxia_Atom sure, ok, how are those rights being stripped?
1
@rarecandy3445 that is not a right.
1
@heatherhansen3664 they do have a right to get married. The issue is if government recognizes or not. A gay couple have always had the right to get married, government just did not recognize it. And marriage is not listed in the Constitution so it becomes a state issue.
1
@heatherhansen3664 compare marriage to an education. You have the ability to make up a diploma of some university you made up. If the state government does not recognize your university as accredited, then your diploma is not recognized as such. Same with marriage, two gay people always had the ability to get married and create their own marriage license, it just came down if the government recognized it.
1
@Ataraxia_Atom who is advocating for LGBT to be illegal?
1
@rarecandy3445 where in the Constitution is it listed as a right?
1
@Azrael_Garou "Not minding business when LGBTQ people are being murdered in cold blood by rightists. " When, where?
1
@arcadiaberger9204 what?
1
@arcadiaberger9204 "Since marriage is a legal contract" Why? To many it is a legal thing? To others it is a traditional thing. To others it is a formal thing. But really, marriage should be a personal thing. If you really love someone, why make it legal?
1
@Ataraxia_Atom what stupid questions?
1
@Ataraxia_Atom I have said if to gay people want to get married then so be it. It just comes down if government recognizes it.
1
@arcadiaberger9204 "Marriage confers a huge slate of legal rights. You want to deny all of those rights to certain Americans. I think all Americans should have the same rights." They are not rights but instead are benefits. Also, why should married people get them as opposed to single people?
1
@patchwurk6652 "You are literally one comment up outright lying and accusing LGBT people of being groomers and pedos." A lot are groomers. That is not making LGBT illegal but instead their actions. I have no problem with them as long as they mind their own business.
1
@rarecandy3445 "another dipshit constitutionalist that thinks national and international codified labor and employment laws have to be specifically listed and addressed on a piece of paper signed by a bunch of slave owners who definitely did not care about laborers" That is how rights work buddy. You want to know what else they wrote on that piece of paper? A way to change it. " the first and 13th amendment effectively protect workers rights to association and collective bargaining(free speech) and forcible or compulsory labor(slavery)," You are right on the 13th amendment, not the 1st. Free speech protects speech from the government, not private entities. " hey, how about the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”?" Those do not mean you are guaranteed those things. All that means is that government cannot take those things away without due process. "cause in a capitalist economy where everything is privatized we kind of need to actually clock in at a 9-5 to pay for the food and water we drink?" OMG, you need to produce in a society? If people are not working, how do things get produced? Where do you get your food and water from? "the language of the civil rights act of 1964 effectively protects all workers from discrimination against race, sex, orientation" Which I disagree with. Businesses should be allowed to discriminate just like I can discriminate against them if I want. " this is all codified law, rooted in constitutional amendments. " It may be law, but it is not rooted in the Constitution. Thus, they are not rights. "to deny otherwise is to also agree that the founding of the USA is the founding of state by and for wealthy, propertied white men. not their slaves, not the “indian savages”, not women. to deny this codification and constitutional amending" There is a process to change the Constitution, and it has been changed many times. "there is no legal excuse to discriminate against trans workers for being trans" What about allowing people to make their own free choices? Here is the thing, force integration is just as bad as forced segregation. You can't force people to get along.
1
@Ataraxia_Atom why should government recognize marriage to begin with? That is my question. My stance government should not.
1
@camwyn256 what about it?
1
@patchwurk6652 pushing it in schools with drag queen story hour. The gay men choir singing about converting children. "No, you "have no problem" as long as they don't "act" gay at all or be themselves in any way shape or form." I don't go prancing around saying I am straight to other people.
1
@rarecandy3445 how did I ruin my own argument?
1
@patchwurk6652 "And this is bad... Why?" Because kids will start going down the path of asking what are drag queens? It is also the same of pushing the talks of gay and lesbian on elementary school kids. "Citation fucking needed." Look up the song "A Message From the Gay Community" Performed by the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus" "Wow, so all this bitching and advocating for restriction of civil liberties on LGBT people stems from something as petty-ass basic as you "not liking hearing about it?"" I don't. I also don't like it when they force it on others. Take the gay wedding cake situation. All they had to do was go to another bakery. Or pick a cake that was already baked. Instead, they wanted to force someone to celebrate them being gay. " ya don't see me advocating for your second-class citizenship do you?" How are LGBT second class citizens?
1
@salomaogomes7311 no, they worry about kids, not adults.
1
@phatmhat9174 I never said marriage is a right. I feel it is a state issue.
1
@phatmhat9174 uh, many people have kids without getting married, you do know that?
1
@phatmhat9174 "yeh and when they have kids the state has to help take care of the kids, else the woman is screwed. so laws were made to protect the kids and women and families and these were called marriage laws." That is not called marriage laws. Many people have kids and never get married.
1
@snoopy_peanuts_77 "Abortion, The right to marry who you want" Abortion is not a right. Anyone marry whomever they want. "..the right to speak in front of cops without them tasing you or shooting because they feel like it" That already exists.
1
@patchwurk6652 no, it does not mean you have the right to do it. You have the privilege. The law can quickly change. A right is something government cannot take away without due process. 'The definition of a Right is not "Whatever's in the Constitution."" Nope, those are what rights are. Abortion is not a right. That is why some states are looking to ban it. If it is a right then states cannot ban it.
1
@salomaogomes7311 what?
1
@patchwurk6652 the Constitution lists our rights. Laws can be changed very easily, the Constitution cannot be changed easily.
1
@phatmhat9174 you do have recourse to protect yourself if you have kids out of marriage. There are laws related to custody and child support.
1
@kurisu7885 "Ok, and then people on your side whip others into a frenzy until someone shoots up an LGBTQ club " This is pathetic. No one is saying to shot LGBT people. But if you want to play that game, when your side claimed cops are racists and it led to months of rioting, millions of dollars of damage and deaths, well, then you should own that by your standard.
1
@patchwurk6652 yes, the Constitution lists our rights. There are different standards in how you generate laws and how you amend the Constitution.
1
@knavishknight "Still does NOT mean only marriages between heterosexuals may be legally recognized as marriages instead of marriages among consenting adults" That is a different topic bud.
1
@patchwurk6652 how am I wrong? Rights are listed in the Constitution. They cannot be violated by any government without due process and they are nation wide. With laws they vary from state to state and can change quickly. " the 9th Amendment directly states that the Constitution is not the Totality of your rights." That is based on what was common at that time. For example, owning land is a right as that was common for people.
1
That would violate the Constitution.
1
Like Griner who hates America?
1
@bigvaxmeanie925 I don't watch Fox News. Fact is that we still have hundreds of American in prison overseas and we traded a literal murderer for a someone simply because they are a black, lesbian woman.
1
@bigvaxmeanie925 only WNBA trade anyone has ever heard of.
1
@bigvaxmeanie925 no one directly. But dealing arms to nations to start wars does not help. "We need our people back" I agree, this deal was weak. It makes us look weak and other nations will see that meaning more Americans will just remain in foreign prisons until those nations get the way better deal. Really, was Viktor Bout worth Griner?
1
@bigvaxmeanie925 "yes because vikor no long has the skills or connections to deal arms" You sure about that? "He's on a global registration as a criminal many people would love to put 6ft under. " As if that stopped other criminals in the past.
1
@bigvaxmeanie925 also, why Griner? Because she is a black, lesbian woman. No one cared about Paul Whelan as he is a white male. People freaked out over Griner as she is a black, lesbian woman.
1
@bigvaxmeanie925 "Pretty sure since 194 countries has his finger prints, mug shots, DNA, and full criminal history all on record to arrest him if he goes anywhere near 194 countries to do business." Yeah, because that really stopped criminals in the past. "Because her case was the most recent" So screw people who have been in there longer? "Why didn't trump save Whelan 2018? " Probably did not get the deal he wanted. Unlike Biden and Obama Trump is not weak. This is why Putin started a war under Biden, he knew Biden is weak. "Where was your outrage the last 4 years ? All of a sudden you remember Whelan because the right wing media spoon fed you to" No, find it ironic how no one talked about Whelan but they talked about Griner. It is because she is a black. lesbian woman. That is all it boils down to. Putin knew that knowing that Biden will bend the knee to try to bring home a black, lesbian woman.
1
@bigvaxmeanie925 yeah, because no one in the world will ever not do business with a criminal. As if that does not happen. "So you rather have Americans stay in russian prison instead of getting one of them out? " At what cost? Obama traded 4 Guantanamo prisoners for 1 person. Those four are now senior members of the Taliban. Is that a good deal? Yes, I want Americans back, but at what cost? Should we just send a team of Navy Seals in there to bust them out? How many lives would that lead to being lost? "I seem to be missing the point you are arguing for. You are soo unhappy that biden freed an America locked up in Russia." But at what cost? This makes us look weak to the rest of the world. Now our foreign enemies know that can easily get the upper hand on Biden and his team. This is a long list of Biden looking weak. Like Putin starting a war under Biden's watch. Or how OPEC stopped oil production and when Biden asked them to produced they said no to him. Or Biden begging the Saudis for oil. "You seem to be under the disillusion that biden could simply pick which prisoner he wanted. When the man behind the book "art of the deal" that hates soldiers who get captured couldn't or chose not to feee Whelan." There is cost benefit analysis. As I said, we can screw trades and send in a team of Navy Seals to bail them out. Or how about we trade 4 prisoners for one like Obama did. Are those good ideas? Both will free Americans, but at what cost?
1
@bigvaxmeanie925 "I'll put it this way, no one will work with a INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL BECAUSE THEY DONT WANT TO GET ARRESTED," Yeah, because that has never happened in the past and does not happen now.
1
@bigvaxmeanie925 "trump releasing FIVE THOUSAND TALIBAN FIGHTERS FOR ZERO AMERICANS. " When? With what context? Also, Paul is in Russia.
1
@bigvaxmeanie925 "did you forget trumps crappy peace deal with the taliban? Or do you have selective memory as well" You can't work with the Taliban. Look at that happen with Biden when he pulled out of Afghanistan. The Taliban took over. Same with Obama's prisoner exchange how they are now senior members of the Taliban. You can't blame Trump for that.
1
@bigvaxmeanie925 yeah, because that has never stopped criminals in the past, especially international criminals. He was already risking death or life in prison. What would he gain? Money, power.
1
A few things. On, gay people always had the ability to get married, it just came down to if government recognized it or not. To me, government should not be involved in marriage to begin with. Next, it is slippery slope. it went from gay people wanting to get married and be left alone to forcing a bakery to bake them a gay wedding cake. Forcing a bakery to celebrate their marriage. Now gay people want to force their ideas on others. How far does this go?
1