I am genuinely concerned about the LGBTQ people, and what they will be facing in a Trump Presidency

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SuperblySkeptical
Every time I hear a friend wail about being scared I roll my eyes to the back of my skull and groan quietly. Perhaps instead of playing a victim, you learn to defend yourself. I'm a Concealed Carry advocate, I have my license, I carry. I help teach self defense and hand to hand defense techniques. Did any of the people whimpering about being afraid come to learn? Nope! And they're free. I don't charge a damn thing (although I do only offer the help to friends and family.)

So yeah, I'll completely and utterly call out the majority of the people I know for wanting to be professional victims.

The only thing that I can say remotely scares them is the fact that Pence is VP. But technically Pence can't really do much so it's like 'k'. All in all I just shake my head, laugh, clean my weapons, and sit with my partner on the balcony of my apartment.

What does any of that have to do with laws preventing equality?

In many states, by law, LGBT can be fired, denied housing, refused service, etc - - - - just for being LGBT.

They are not playing victim. They are victims of discriminatory law.

Well for one, They're panicking over a presidency that hasn't even hit the White House just yet. And two, yeah, there's discrimination- but that's already been going on way before Trump ever hit office. Acting as if it will somehow get monumentally worse or that you'll have the rights that you already have taken away is a fair bit improbable.

Supreme Court decisions rarely get overturned, and they are very arduous in getting overturned to begin with. We survived under the Bush administration, we'll survive again. We're not going to get wiped out in two days because of Trump. It's just not going to happen.

I choose to live my life in a manner that doesn't have me in fear constantly because something 'maybe' might happen to make my life a bit inconvenient. If I worried constantly about the future I would have worried myself half to death by now.

originally posted by: SuperblySkeptical

Well for one, They're panicking over a presidency that hasn't even hit the White House just yet.

With good reason. Trump pretty much pushed White Supremacy - who tend to be Fundamental Christians - - - they are responding.

There are ongoing cases in both state and federal on Equality Rights for LGBT.

There are states that have passed Religious Freedom Rights - - - that they can refuse service, housing, employment, etc - - just for being LGBT.

Of course it can go backwards. It already has in some states.

originally posted by: Annee
Homosexuals are sexually attracted to opposite sex.

Bi-sexuals are attracted to both sexes.

Looks like you might need to go look up the definition of homosexual. There is a reason the LGBTQ community fought for same-sex marriage. "Opposite sex" marriage was already legally acknowledged.

originally posted by: Annee
Here’s What Mike Pence Said on LGBT Issues Over the Years.

Not much of a concern unless some idiot decides to do something that would prematurely remove Trump from office. Pence isn't the President elect, and Trump has already made his feelings on the LGBTQ community and their issues well known, but the media conveniently ignored it because it didn't forward the "bigot" narrative they were fervently pushing.

a reply to: Annee

a reply to: Annee

Women, it's well known and scientifically established that they flip flop and are naturally bisexual. A study hooked up sensors to female volunteers to measure arousal whilst looking at images of naked men and naked women..they found that women who identified as straight were aroused just as much when looking at women as men.

Men on the other hand either get an erection or not. However bisexual men apparently can get turned on either way, this absolutely indicates that a percentage of gay men have been socialised into being gay...because if bisexual man can be physical aroused by both sexes then it's pretty obvious that sexuality can be influencesd in atleast some men. There are few people who buy the idea of bisexual men as being born that way. We also know when some men who have shown no gay tendencies have been stuck in prison long enough they will convert, same with male animals when you take away females. Meaning environment influences sexuality with atleast a portion of males.

Clearly you didn't read or understand my post.

I absolutely do not agree with gay or lesbian adoption and lots of gay people agree with me because they know full well that gay men are not monogamous and lead very selfish lifestyles..which is fine by me, but it does not make for a family.

Lesbians on the other hand have the highest insistence of domestic violence, much higher than straight couples. Look it up if you can be bothered. If a woman loses her temper with a man, the man will try to calm her down and passify her but two women losing it with eachother means there are no breaks on the crazy train. You know what I'm saying is true but I highly doubt you'll admit it.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SuperblySkeptical

Well for one, They're panicking over a presidency that hasn't even hit the White House just yet.

With good reason. Trump pretty much pushed White Supremacy - who tend to be Fundamental Christians - - - they are responding.

There are ongoing cases in both state and federal on Equality Rights for LGBT.

There are states that have passed Religious Freedom Rights - - - that they can refuse service, housing, employment, etc - - just for being LGBT.

Of course it can go backwards. It already has in some states.

Did you also watch the 60 Minutes interview in which Trump tells them to stop? As for the Bathroom laws in NC, the individual from what I understand, was ousted from his office. That can be reversed, and probably will be reversed by the person in charge.

And since Gay Marriage has been ruled constitutional and pretty much solidified by the supreme court, it's going to take a hell of a lot to get that overturned. Again, I'm not worried. Pence has no power, and Trump has already stated that "It's already been decided".

originally posted by: SuperblySkeptical
Did you also watch the 60 Minutes interview in which Trump tells them to stop?

Are you knowledgeable of the background of the "team" he has chosen?

Did I mention marriage equality or the bathroom bill. Although, the Supreme Court is going to hear a bathroom bill lawsuit.Gavin is from Virginia

Thought I was talking about every day living. Like renting an apartment, going out to dinner, going to the hardware store, buying flowers, employment, etc.

It is no longer legal to put a sign in the window of your business that says "We don't serve Blacks"

Today, in some states, it is legal to put a sign in the window of your business that says "We don't serve Gays"

originally posted by: Counterintelligence

Women, it's well known and scientifically established that they flip flop and are naturally bisexual.

You need to provide source material and a link.

There's a lot of debunked reports. Like Regeneris, McHugh, Allen to name 3.

Cuz, as far as I know, you don't know what you're talking about.

The 'pushing' agenda of this interest has been causing 'backpush' so yes, bills come up for vote that actually make things worse as a result. If we left everything to the states several of them would be in the social dark ages in ten minutes.

But some of this is already decided, as DJT noted. If we can keep some leftwing nut from shooting him, DJT's the most liberal guy in the republican ever I suspect. They'd sure be sorrier if he died.

There is a genuine reason for concern with the house and senate both republican, and president too. It is entirely possible they will send through a variety of bozo bills they might not have dared previously -- religiously inclined in all cases -- because they think they can get away with it, and get it through fast.

It is my hope that Trump will actually resist this -- he very well might. He has historically always been cool with the topic.

(While to the contrary, HRC is on record as insisting marriage is between male and female. She says what she wants to win votes. A wikileaks email from John Podesta, talking about what Bill Clinton said, actually showed the plan for their compaign painting DJT as dangerous and "bigoted" -- whose fear would then win for the Dems and they sure did play that fear hard, hard, hard, which is why people are freaking out for no reason, like they think that being latino is going to get them stuck in a nazi camp. It's insane.)

Also, Trump is going to be busy as hell, and he's a businessman, so I suspect he would rather focus on other things.

I DO think he may end up having to make some concessions to the right -- he may have limited choice, and the more the left and media actually tries to harm him, the less support he is seen as having, and so the less autonomous ability he has to actually stand UP against his own party when he disagrees.

He may allow the right to push on Roe vs. Wade. I am hugely in favor of this standing, but if the feds upheld it at least to "when health or life of the mother is at risk, or rape, or first-term" -- and only made 2nd and 3rd term up to the state -- I would be ok with that. That doesn't rule out abortion, that merely says, other than rape or health which wouldn't have a limit, "make a damn decision within 12 weeks" is the only restriction and that seems rather fair to me, and that would only be in some states, people could take a greyhound or drive to another state later if needed.

The trans bathroom issue should never even have come up. Gods. That really just needs to not be a law of any kind in any direction. I imagine all this ridiculousness, like people reporting women they think look too masculine, or like sweet little girls -- who are biologically boys but I assure you are petite little pretty girls in every way except a chromosome and an appendage -- getting utterly destroyed by assault or rape and so on for having to use the men's room when nobody even knew they weren't female before, nobody was ever hurt by them using the girl's room.

If anything EVER has to be done about this, I believe it should be that we simply make THREE restrooms and one is "unisex and family" and anybody can use it -- to include for example, fathers of girls and mothers of boys who need to go with them to the restroom. And people like me would make a point to always use it, so that other people who do are not automatically assumed to be trans, and so there is more traffic in them so anybody wanting to abuse others would not have victims alone, and so on.

I believe churches should be classified as businesses and should not have tax exemption, so I have no sympathy for them not wanting to have a third bathroom -- if businesses had to, they should too, even though I think it's fair to guess that if anybody ever used the bleeping thing they would be targeted by many congregations.

I do believe, however, that "sexual orientation" and "natural physical appearance" should be added to the list of things that we are not allowed to discriminate against. I said 'natural' because I do think employers should be able to say "You can't have blue hair or swastika tattoos if you work with the public" but I don't think they should be able to say "I don't like midgets, or fat people." Obviously they can always discriminate where it is appropriate for the employee role or a marketing function -- Hooters doesn't hire effeminate men, instead of busty women, for obvious reasons -- but in terms of just prejudice, I think those things are important, and the bias against natural appearance that doesn't fit the "corporate mainstream" is significant. I think this should be an amendment TO the existing laws which offer protection, not something new.

Whether it'll happen during this admin is another story.

To be fair there is a LOT of really serious stuff to do -- this country is in horrible shape in so many ways that are structurally, fundamentally endangering of our country as a whole, economically and more -- those need to be addressed. They are MORE IMPORTANT than the issues of ANY single group, no matter how much that group deserves those issues to be addressed. So the big stuff should come first, if it ends up being a priorities list.

I find it distressing that so many people expected anybody who was for example female or minority or gay, to vote Dem. There were so many reasons not to vote for HRC, she could have been running against the antichrist and I might still have voted for him just to keep her from the final-straw wreckage of the nation. There is so much BS it's into "big lie" territory. She is not the friend of illegal immigrants. She is not the friend of gay marriage. You can find her own comments on videos on youtube easily.

I expect every citizen to be just as concerned for the welfare of the nation as I am. How ridiculously biased would be for me NOT to? And yet, if people are totally ignoring the larger issue of the country, economy, jobs, trade, immigration danger via terrorism, illegal immigration in insane quantities, all so they can obsess on whether "maybe" "someone" "in the future" "might" write a bill that threatens their personal interest -- I find that surreal. I would vote against my personal interest if I thought the country's interests were harmed by the person marketing them, or would not be served by that person when the other person might. But if it's not even my interests, because a> HRC was not in favor of them until it was more politically convenient (so, not really), and b> DJT has not shown any serious bias about it -- aside from admitting that a judge (a conservative likely) might vote conservatively (so possibly not in favor of left issues), which I think was just being honest.

Trump also has no issue with race that I've seen. Some of the people accused of being racially motivated (like Sessions), that's incredibly unfair -- the guy ended segregation and personally pushed in two diff jobs to have a major KKK leader executed.

IMO Trump is not going to be the bad guy for LGBTetc at all. The republican party may -- but those people in the house and senate are there separately from DJT and would have been there even without him, the only diff being that he's far less right than any other pres in that group would have been.

If HRC had won, she'd have zero leverage with H&S. Trump, at least, will.

RC

a reply to: TheBulk

It doesn't matter what Trump says. His right-wing SCOTUS will be deluged with attempts to go around those rights as well the Abortion and voting rights of minorities will be devastated and the rights of ordinary workers will be crushed with a right-wing Supreme court, not to mention campaign reform will die.

originally posted by: Willtell
It doesn't matter what Trump says. His right-wing SCOTUS will be deluged with attempts to go around those rights

Possibly, and this would have been the case no matter who was in the red chair, but it's better with him in it than any of the rest.

As noted, he may have some ability to negotiate with them whereas HRC would have had none -- and the whole house and senate against her.

Many of the things people are sure will happen, take more time than he's got to make happen, even if he wanted to and started right away.

RC

originally posted by: Counterintelligence
a reply to: Annee

I absolutely do not agree with gay or lesbian adoption and lots of gay people agree with me because they know full well that gay men are not monogamous and lead very selfish lifestyles..which is fine by me, but it does not make for a family.

What in the world?

Such sweeping accusations warrant a certain level of integral citation.

Saying "lots of gay people agree with me" could mean a total of 10 gay people worldwide.

The overwhelming majority of gay men claim to "not be into the whole gay scene", where casual sex and promiscuity is often the norm.

It's funny because you cite lesbian couples directly after, and I know full well that that's the same study which claims that gay men are doing better than heterosexual families on average.

Better leave that part out, though, and claim the opposite based on observational bias and intentional conjecture?

What a silly little 7th grade, B- essay you're writing here.

originally posted by: Annee
Trump pretty much pushed White Supremacy

No. Trump did not. Stop lying.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Annee
Trump pretty much pushed White Supremacy

No. Trump did not. Stop lying.

YES. HE DID.

And they are now feeling the power.

Trump gave them license to come out of the shadows.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Annee
Trump pretty much pushed White Supremacy

No. Trump did not. Stop lying.

YES. HE DID.

And they are now feeling the power.

Trump gave them license to come out of the shadows.

Why shouldn't they "come out of the shadows"? Because you don't agree with them? I don't either but I wouldn't throw anyone in the shadows just because I disagree with them. They are still human beings...right? You support LGBT and don't think they should be in the shadows but some people don't like them.

Or...are you simply a hypocrite? Well...you are left so I guess that kinda goes with your religion of I'm right and everyone else is wrong unless they think like me.

Piece of work.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Well...you are left so I guess that kinda goes with your religion of I'm right and everyone else is wrong unless they think like me.

The second anyone has to describe someone as being "left" or "right" to try and compel an argument one way or another is indicative of your exact supposition that "everyone else is wrong unless they think like me."

This intellectually dishonest proposal of a political dichotomy is so stale and does nothing to change anyone's mind, but only leads people to think that you're here to indulge with the people who already agree with you.

Annee has actually shown herself to me to not be a very partisan thinker in general apart from a select few common social issue talking points.

Piece of work.

Perhaps people should be more in line with your maturity standards?

Let's go back to arguing with basic insults and no actual content?

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Well...you are left so I guess that kinda goes with your religion of I'm right and everyone else is wrong unless they think like me.

The second anyone has to describe someone as being "left" or "right" to try and compel an argument one way or another is indicative of your exact supposition that "everyone else is wrong unless they think like me."

This intellectually dishonest proposal of a political dichotomy is so stale and does nothing to change anyone's mind, but only leads people to think that you're here to indulge with the people who already agree with you.

Annee has actually shown herself to me to not be a very partisan thinker in general apart from a select few common social issue talking points.

Piece of work.

Perhaps people should be more in line with your maturity standards?

Let's go back to arguing with basic insults and no actual content?

I have met and discussed many things with many people on ATS, and most are at least a contributing member willing to discuss, consider and debate. Anne falls into none of those categories and her only purpose here is to dictate her beliefs unto others. Because in her mind...there IS only one person involved...herself.

Where I grew up, we called that ignorant and selfish...and yes, that makes her a real piece of work.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

There are people you can have a conversation with and those you can't.

Stating my thoughts is exactly that.

I have no need to defend them in a circular "pity-pat" when there's no chance of making a difference.

I choose who I engage with. And how I engage.

I don't attack people or resort to name calling.

originally posted by: Counterintelligence
a reply to: Annee

a reply to: Annee

Women, it's well known and scientifically established that they flip flop and are naturally bisexual. A study hooked up sensors to female volunteers to measure arousal whilst looking at images of naked men and naked women..they found that women who identified as straight were aroused just as much when looking at women as men.

Could you please cite the source of these sensationalist claims?

I kind of preferred to stay neutral on this subject, but if you want to paint me as GLBT because I'm female, I can certainly wear that has as well.