Michigan City Bans LGBTQ Pride Flag

#126
#126
MercyPercy said:
I think you're being naive if you don't think there's any double standard whatsoever, even if it may not be as large as it seems being pushed by the left. There are definitely people that disagree with what they see as oversexualization at any level whatsoever, I'm not saying they don't exist. I think a lot of this is also from folks being so used to hetero stuff on TV and in public that they only notice it with greater attentiveness now because it's gay and it's not what they are used to seeing, and it's being "shoved down their throats" despite seeing it on the regular with hetero behavior but being so conditioned as to not make a twenty ton stink about it like what is happening now.
Click to expand...
thats why I said "most".

if you talk to most of that crowd bemoaning LGBT+ PDAs and asked their specific opinion on hetero PDAs I would bet you would see MOST of them also acknowledge it as a problem. people being desensitized to the matter doesn't make it a lesser issue. seems like a pretty heavy double standard on your part to argue they should just accept more of what they are already desensitized to. You punch my right arm until it goes numb, doesn't mean I should be ok with you punching my left. yeah clumsy argument because being gay isn't a wrong, but it should get the point across.
 
#127
#127
gcbvol said:
Exactly, but they were ignored. I believe the primary reason was the I'll person's family did not approve of their relationship and were able to keep them out. Maybe the hospital didn't want to get in the middle, but I know the POA was ignored.
Click to expand...
I think today these documents would not get ignored like you're saying. I'm not saying they never were, but today, I don't think they would be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gcbvol
#128
#128
LouderVol said:
I know of at least one case where a hetero spouse was denied access, and wasn't allowed to make medical decisions.

this has been my whole point. these issues exist outside the realm of sexuality. yeah they are "wrong" but its not a specific enough of a wrong to say its a targeted issue. If I try to operate, or do something, outside of the accepted practice of the government I will be denied whatever I am seeking.

I also remember pretty much everyone be denied access from 2020 to 2021/2022. I don't remember too many liberals marching to end that injustice for everyone.

there is a WHOLE lot of libertarianism hiding in the closet in this thread if you will forgive me hijacking the phrase. there is a reason when people ask me: "Should the government?", I just say "NO". the issues being brought up in this thread are part of them; but because its a partisan issue neither side is interested in having a real conversation. see EL lumping me in with the maga crowd despite me not espousing any of their ideas.
Click to expand...
I believe a lot of folks in this thread agree with you on the topic of marriage and government. The only point of contention is how much the government has intwined with marriage. We're saying it's not a simple process to just end it all, not that it shouldn't be. And I agree it's unfair for couples who don't wish to marry and single folks for some privileges. The difference is gay folks didn't even have the option to wed and receive those privileges 9 years ago.
 
#131
#131
volfanhill said:
Why do people file jointly? Are there benefits to doing so for those people?
Click to expand...
I had gone an googled and it seems like the benefit is simply not having to do the same paperwork twice.

the deductions get combined, so same amount as two individuals.
because their incomes are somewhat considered from a single person there are just as many benefits as negatives. There are some tax breaks, but you also risk being pulled up to a higher bracket by your partner.

seems like if both people are working there isn't a substantial monetary benefit. But if one is not working there does seem to be substantial monetary benefits from filing jointly. as with most of the tax code it comes down to the specifics of how much is being made, where its earned, and several other factors.

again if this is what we are revolting over this, there is a far larger group of unmarried people getting hosed by these conditions, where I don't see it as a particular "gay issue".
 
#132
#132
LouderVol said:
thats why I said "most".

if you talk to most of that crowd bemoaning LGBT+ PDAs and asked their specific opinion on hetero PDAs I would bet you would see MOST of them also acknowledge it as a problem. people being desensitized to the matter doesn't make it a lesser issue. seems like a pretty heavy double standard on your part to argue they should just accept more of what they are already desensitized to. You punch my right arm until it goes numb, doesn't mean I should be ok with you punching my left. yeah clumsy argument because being gay isn't a wrong, but it should get the point across.
Click to expand...

I think we just disagree on the percentages and there's not a way we can prove it either way. You have your personal experience and I have mine. Does @luthervol have a continuum for this?

With that being said, I imagine if we took a deep dive in this forum for the phrase "shoving it down our throats", the vast majority would be complaints about non-hetero behavior.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#133
#133
LouderVol said:
I had gone an googled and it seems like the benefit is simply not having to do the same paperwork twice.

the deductions get combined, so same amount as two individuals.
because their incomes are somewhat considered from a single person there are just as many benefits as negatives. There are some tax breaks, but you also risk being pulled up to a higher bracket by your partner.

seems like if both people are working there isn't a substantial monetary benefit. But if one is not working there does seem to be substantial monetary benefits from filing jointly. as with most of the tax code it comes down to the specifics of how much is being made, where its earned, and several other factors.

again if this is what we are revolting over this, there is a far larger group of unmarried people getting hosed by these conditions, where I don't see it as a particular "gay issue".
Click to expand...
The issue was access. Whether they wanted to or not, straight folks could marry. Gays couldn't (at least not to the person they wanted to wed).
 
#135
#135
gcbvol said:
I believe a lot of folks in this thread agree with you on the topic of marriage and government. The only point of contention is how much the government has intwined with marriage. We're saying it's not a simple process to just end it all, not that it shouldn't be. And I agree it's unfair for couples who don't wish to marry and single folks for some privileges. The difference is gay folks didn't even have the option to wed and receive those privileges 9 years ago.
Click to expand...
and unmarried couples are still denied that privilege. or if the government doesn't recognize your marriage (usually due to being immigrants) you are also denied that privilege.

if the argument is the government shouldn't be picking and choosing, the government shouldn't be picking and choosing. the line of acceptability vs a problem shouldn't be based on if the qualifier is drawn on a demographic line or some other consideration.
 
#136
#136
MercyPercy said:
Literally the 4th post in this thread, part of a reply that you actually responded to, equating showing support for the lgbtq community = groomer.

This is the last time I'm going to do your homework for you.
Click to expand...
OK, now we're getting somewhere. First of all, it's not my homework. It's yours. You are the one who raised the question. It wasn't my desire to get into this at all but I'm trying to work with you.

In this quote he's talking about pedophiles who might fly a Pride flag. He does give the impression that all LGBTQ folks are "groomers". It's not something I would type but that's up to him. Based on that quote alone, I would not go so far as to say "I don't respect him" or that he's a bad person. I'd simply say "I'm not with you 100% on that"

I do see where he's coming from. He's referring to all LGBTQ stuff thrown at kids nowadays trying to normalize alternative lifestyles. Not all LGBTQ folks do that but I'm pretty pissed that any of them try to take their case to kids
 
#137
#137
LouderVol said:
and unmarried couples are still denied that privilege. or if the government doesn't recognize your marriage (usually due to being immigrants) you are also denied that privilege.

if the argument is the government shouldn't be picking and choosing, the government shouldn't be picking and choosing. the line of acceptability vs a problem shouldn't be based on if the qualifier is drawn on a demographic line or some other consideration.
Click to expand...
I mentioned in another reply it was about equal access under the law. It didn't exist before Windsor/Obergefell.
 
#138
#138
gcbvol said:
The issue was access. Whether they wanted to or not, straight folks could marry. Gays couldn't (at least not to the person they wanted to wed).
Click to expand...
access to government granted approvals.

I don't think I have heard of the government going around and locking up gay couples who got married at some private event. well beyond the states that did punish people for being gay. yeah the government wouldn't recognize that marriage. but there was access to act of marriage.

now if you want to discuss the libertarian issue of the government being involved as a decision maker of what marriages they recognize, thats a completely separate issue. and I have yet to see anyone in this thread propose the government should be punishing the fact of being gay, so I am not considering that an issue that needs to be discussed further.
 
#140
#140
LouderVol said:
access to government granted approvals.

I don't think I have heard of the government going around and locking up gay couples who got married at some private event. well beyond the states that did punish people for being gay. yeah the government wouldn't recognize that marriage. but there was access to act of marriage.

now if you want to discuss the libertarian issue of the government being involved as a decision maker of what marriages they recognize, thats a completely separate issue. and I have yet to see anyone in this thread propose the government should be punishing the fact of being gay, so I am not considering that an issue that needs to be discussed further.
Click to expand...
So you are okay with separate but equal? That's what we're talking about here. If the government is granting privileges available only through marriage then equal access under the law is in play. It's literally the only way to obtain certain benefits/privileges. Sounds like you don't think gay folks should have access to those privileges.
 
#143
#143
gcbvol said:
So you are okay with separate but equal? That's what we're talking about here. If the government is granting privileges available only through marriage then equal access under the law is in play. It's literally the only way to obtain certain benefits/privileges. Sounds like you don't think gay folks should have access to those privileges.
Click to expand...
where did I even infer they shouldn't?

I am pointing out the flaw with the government and saying its a much broader problem than just for the LGBT community.

I don't understand the purity test you are applying here? why is it only allowed to be a problem for the LGBT community, and everyone else should just have to deal with the government being bad?

under my "perfect" situation there wouldn't be difference between a gay couple and a straight couple. I just don't see why we should only fix the issue for the gay couples, when the problem still exists for straight couples? I would rather fix it for everyone, than only fix it for some. because that's more of the government picking and choosing winners, which got us here.

This has been my biggest issue with any of the current social justice crap. It can only be a problem for the black community, it can only be a problem for the gay community, it can only be a problem for women. If you aren't part of that preferred demographic you need to STFU and get to the back of the bus. I could respect that opinion a little if it was a openly a revenge thing; but no it gets hidden behind the social justice platform as a good thing to make second class citizens out of the "breeders".

imo this is part of the thing that gets push back. its conform or get out. No room, no acceptance, just attack attack attack, because I offer further suggestions beyond the demographic.
 
#145
#145
LouderVol said:
where did I even infer they shouldn't?

I am pointing out the flaw with the government and saying its a much broader problem than just for the LGBT community.

I don't understand the purity test you are applying here? why is it only allowed to be a problem for the LGBT community, and everyone else should just have to deal with the government being bad?

under my "perfect" situation there wouldn't be difference between a gay couple and a straight couple. I just don't see why we should only fix the issue for the gay couples, when the problem still exists for straight couples? I would rather fix it for everyone, than only fix it for some. because that's more of the government picking and choosing winners, which got us here.

This has been my biggest issue with any of the current social justice crap. It can only be a problem for the black community, it can only be a problem for the gay community, it can only be a problem for women. If you aren't part of that preferred demographic you need to STFU and get to the back of the bus. I could respect that opinion a little if it was a openly a revenge thing; but no it gets hidden behind the social justice platform as a good thing to make second class citizens out of the "breeders".

imo this is part of the thing that gets push back. its conform or get out. No room, no acceptance, just attack attack attack, because I offer further suggestions beyond the demographic.
Click to expand...
I think we're talking past each other. You are coming from a perspective where government was never in the marriage business, when I am speaking to current reality.

If it helps, I agree government should have nothing to do with marriage. But in our current reality it does.
 
#146
#146
ClearwaterVol said:
No, I am not to open minded about people who argue dishonestly by lumping pedophiles and groomers in with gay people.
Click to expand...

When you let your "movement" get hijacked and LG became a endless acronym, you snuggled up and cuddled with the groomers and a bunch of other mental deviates. Don't be surprised now when they are @!#$)&* you up the ass and you get labeled together ;)
 
#147
#147
LouderVol said:
where did I even infer they shouldn't?
Click to expand...
Right here you imply since gays had the ability to marry in some states, while also acknowledging the government did not recognize them, meant they had access. That completely sidestepped my entire point about access to the benefits/privileges imparted by the federal government via marriage. That certainly indicates you are okay with same-sex couples not having access to those benefits in our current reality.

yeah the government wouldn't recognize that marriage. but there was access to act of marriage.
Click to expand...
 
#148
#148
Gandalf said:
When you let your "movement" get hijacked and LG became a endless acronym, you snuggled up and cuddled with the groomers and a bunch of other mental deviates. Don't be surprised now when they are @!#$)&* you up the ass and you get labeled together ;)
Click to expand...

I have my issues with organized religion, but I'm not lumping Catholics in with pedophilia despite the church covering a lot of it up.

It's a low brow approach. You can do better.
 
#149
#149
DinkinFlicka said:
I have my issues with organized religion, but I'm not lumping Catholics in with pedophilia despite the church covering a lot of it up.

It's a low brow approach. You can do better.
Click to expand...

And I have my issues with gays - but I dont believe the whole tranny, pedo, anything goes crap is the same thing - BUT ITS STILL YOUR FAULT. You were the ones who let them in the bathhouse to piggyback on the work done for gay marriage.

When you rip apart the social fabric of society for your own needs, dont be surprised when other diseases flood into the hole you made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zues1
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top