The X factor here, compared to times of yore, is the sheer number of average citizens who actually know and like LGBT people, including celebrities.
We’ll see, but I’m not as pessimistic as some here.
We are NOT going to rehash it here. Is that clear to everybody?
Yeah, on this issue at least, Pence is a helluva lot scarier than the Trump.
Sherrerd would immediately win this one because there are always calls like that, coming from various fringe groups. The concern is that they might get some traction this time.
I suggest, though, that a possible silver lining to this is the demonstration of it not being necessary to make overtly anti-LGBTQ statements to get elected as a Republican, though how (or even if) this could translate to a nonTrump candidate is unclear, I admit.
I do not see this as likely.
The anger that drove the Trump electorate is not congruent with anti-gay feelings.
Trump won the Electoral College, but not by the three quarters of the states needed to pass an Amendment (and he actually lost the popular vote).
Republicans do not control two thirds of the Senate (and not all Republicans are anti-LGBTQ).
While Pence can be seen proposing and supporting such actions, I doubt that Trump cares that much about such issues, (even if he can focus long enough to take action).
But part of the fear is that Trump will lazily rubber stamp anything the smarter people around him want to do. So it doesn’t really matter what he thinks in the areas he doesn’t care about directly.
To push a Constitutional Amendment takes more than a rubber stamp, particularly when there is no evidence that anything resembling a majority of people, (much less two thirds of the Senate and three fourths of the States), are actually behind a Religious Right pipe dream.
no; what I was talking about is that just as many women say about short men, among their friends and in casual company “ew, short men are gross,” I should be able to say that “trans are disgusting” as much as or as little as they do.
You said it here, a public forum, not in private, casual conversations.
(I’ve never heard a woman say “ew, short men are gross,” and every short man I know is married on dating, so I suspect that your claim is some sort of imaginary role playing you do in your head.) However, since you made your claim PUBLIC, you have invited others to make PUBLIC comments on your dystopian fantasies.
I’m a little baffled by comparing a post on this message board with conversation among “friends and casual company”.
I have no friends here and I’m wearing a tuxedo.
Why do you believe his Muslim ban or Wall plan?
So, let me get this straight.
Some people say hurtful things about an aspect of you that you can’t control. And your response to that is to use it as an excuse to say hurtful things about an entirely unrelated group of people.
This is pretty much exactly like me walking up to you and punching you in the face, and then saying you deserved it because some other, entirely different person once punched me in the face.
Trump supporter here. And a strong, practicing Christian too (Lutheran, if it matters). LGBTQ rights had better keep increasing. I will vote and work to that end.
Heck, that’s not an end, that’s a direction. I will vote and work for complete equality.
Out of curiosity, did you vote for any Republicans other than Trump? If so, are your preferred Republican candidates on record as being pro- or anti-LGBTQ rights?
No.
If I may be allowed a value judgement: good. Not ideal, but… okay.
That’s still bigoted, but it’s also not what you said. Here it is yet again:
In your own words, you want to be able to call trans people repulsive in public, not in private conversations, without being called a bigot. Ask yourself if calling Jews repulsive in public is bigoted.
“Repulsive” and “disgusting” – your bigoted words. If you agree they’re bigoted, why not apologize and try to improve yourself?
Isn’t this basically the psychological dynamic that fuels the success authoritarians achieve by scapegoating?
As in: your life is hard; why not stomp a ____ person to death? Even if they haven’t done anything, you’ll feel better by asserting your right to stomp a member of an inferior group.
Rational, it is not.
But look at the number of people freaking out about trans people using one restroom other than the other. There’s little or no evidence of any of the Terrible Consequences these folks claim, actually occurring–yet they feel perfectly justified in calling for measures intended to make the lives of trans people more miserable and more precarious. And politicians are enhancing their career prospects by keeping this ginned up: *It’s a dire danger!!!1!!!–and we’ll all feel better if these terrible Trans people are officially made second-class citizens, via the law … *
As in your example, there’s no good reason for punching the unrelated person; the puncher simply believes he’ll enjoy doing the punching. And maybe he’s been encouraged to believe that.
Well, it doesn’t really take a majority; Trump will be President despite not getting a majority of the votes of eligible Americans. In thirty-eight states there may well be legislatures (or conventions) that would go for a Hate-and-Resentment-and-Fear-and-Scapegoating Amendment, so to speak.
As I’ve said, I don’t think Trump is gung-ho on restricting gay rights, but I do think he needs the cooperation of people who are. They may make it a condition of giving him whatever it is he wants, that he make a strong effort to sell the notion. He would succeed with some.
I hope that Pence and his allies will occupy themselves otherwise, but I don’t think that should be taken for granted. They might well prioritize it.
It’s a reach - thirteen states can block it, and if you can’t swing that, well… then you really have lost your way, America.