• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I recall today, some efforts here, to convince me that Trump was actually 'pro gay rights'...

btthegreat

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2018
Messages
6,148
Reaction score
3,746
Location
Lebanon Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yes indeed. The logic was that Trump actually was good for gay rights because he did not specifically condemn same sex marriage like so many Republicans had and continued to. I was supposed to be impressed that he supported civil unions, and was utterly, completely indifferent to the issue, and not a homophobe. Of course such arguments were ludicrous considering his vows on Roe. Now look at where gay rights may end up, with a chunk of the legal underpinning to a federally recognized right to privacy on which Lawrence v Texas was founded, undermined by some language in a full SCOTUS rebuke of Roe.

But its not just about gays folks! From the Lawrence decision and its prohibition against gay sodomy laws under a privacy right established in part from Roe, state supreme courts, and legislatures saw zero reason to prohibit opposite sex activity when us gays got to do it, and all those 'cohabitation laws, banning unmarried cohabitation ie 'living in sin' laws began to disappear. Even North Dakota and Florida finally gave way with repeals of their cohabitation statutes in 2007 and 2016.

Our society formalized a zone of a 'right to privacy' based largely on language in Roe, with respect the conduct of our sexual and relationship status that includes with whom and what forms of sex we have, what forms of relationships we form, and our reproductive decisions including contraception and abortion access.

No Trump is not a homophobe himself. He could care less about gays which means they were always fine as 'collateral damage' to his presidential aspirations and anti abortion politics. That crap that Trump supporters tried to pass off, because Trump said he supported civil unions, and attended a same sex wedding of Jordan Roth in 2012, really does not seem to matter much, now does it?

Isn't equal opportunity great? Good to know that straights ang gays of both genders can still be collateral damage again and again!
 
Last edited:

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes indeed. The logic was that Trump actually was good for gay rights because he did not specifically condemn same sex marriage like so many Republicans had and continued to. I was supposed to be impressed that he supported civil unions, and was utterly, completely indifferent to the issue, and not a homophobe. Of course such arguments were ludicrous considering his vows on Roe. Now look at where gay rights may end up, with a chunk of the legal underpinning to a federally recognized right to privacy on which Lawrence v Texas was founded, undermined by some language in a full SCOTUS rebuke of Roe.

But its not just about gays folks! From the Lawrence decision and its prohibition against gay sodomy laws under a privacy right established in part from Roe, state supreme courts, and legislatures saw zero reason to prohibit opposite sex activity when us gays got to do it, and all those 'cohabitation laws, banning unmarried cohabitation ie 'living in sin' laws began to disappear. Even North Dakota and Florida finally gave way with repeals of their cohabitation statutes in 2007 and 2016.

Our society formalized a zone of a 'right to privacy' based largely on language in Roe, with respect the conduct of our sexual and relationship status that includes with whom and what forms of sex we have, what forms of relationships we form, and our reproductive decisions including contraception and abortion access.

No Trump is not a homophobe himself. He could care less about gays which means they were always fine as 'collateral damage' to his presidential aspirations and anti abortion politics. That crap that Trump supporters tried to pass off, because Trump said he supported civil unions, and attended a same sex wedding of Jordan Roth in 2012, really does not seem to matter much, now does it?

Isn't equal opportunity great? Good to know that straights ang gays of both genders can still be collateral damage again and again!
 

btthegreat

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2018
Messages
6,148
Reaction score
3,746
Location
Lebanon Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I know he's not a 'homophobe'. I know he was born and raised in New York city, where there tended to be a lot more interaction between out and open gays and straights especially in the business, banking and real estate worlds, that Donald traveled in. Now feel free to read the OP I wrote and respond to its content. Its not about his possible homophobia. Its about utter indifference, an absence of empathy, and a corrupted sense of entitlement that allows him to show up at a same sex marriage for a very good friend and then to exploit and feed homophobia if it suits him a few years later.

And then you could discuss what the impact may be of his judicial appointments beyond Roe on gay rights.
 
Top Bottom