Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Paul Ryan on Women's and LGBTQ Rights

chrumbelievable
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 4:17:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Paul Ryan has made it clear where he stands on the issues of Women's and LGBTQ rights. He has voted against both gay marriage and gay adoption, and has a staunch pro-life record aimed at taking important health decisions out of the hands of women.

While I am not an Obama-loving Democrat (as much as I have been accused of it), I do believe that President Obama, more so than any other President, has done a fantastic job working for equality in the realms of both gender and sexual orientation.

However, many argue that social issues are not a government problem. What do you think? Should our Presidents be figureheads for social change, or mere policymakers?
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 4:21:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 4:17:44 PM, chrumbelievable wrote:
Paul Ryan has made it clear where he stands on the issues of Women's and LGBTQ rights. He has voted against both gay marriage and gay adoption, and has a staunch pro-life record aimed at taking important health decisions out of the hands of women.

While I am not an Obama-loving Democrat (as much as I have been accused of it), I do believe that President Obama, more so than any other President, has done a fantastic job working for equality in the realms of both gender and sexual orientation.

However, many argue that social issues are not a government problem. What do you think? Should our Presidents be figureheads for social change, or mere policymakers?

His social conservative aspect turns me away from Paul Ryan. I hate Obama more; so may vote for Johnson/Gray just to make a statement.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 4:22:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Get the state out of marriage, make it a matter of private contract.
For the Rest if it's not in the Constitution leave it to the states.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 4:23:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 4:17:44 PM, chrumbelievable wrote:
Paul Ryan has made it clear where he stands on the issues of Women's and LGBTQ rights. He has voted against both gay marriage and gay adoption, and has a staunch pro-life record aimed at taking important health decisions out of the hands of women.

While I am not an Obama-loving Democrat (as much as I have been accused of it), I do believe that President Obama, more so than any other President, has done a fantastic job working for equality in the realms of both gender and sexual orientation.

However, many argue that social issues are not a government problem. What do you think? Should our Presidents be figureheads for social change, or mere policymakers?

Well, social issues not being a government problem is actually what we both, I think, favor here. The absence of government is freedom, in this context, so the absence of government in marriage is the de facto liberalization of marriage to anyone who can get an organization to certify them, or whatever.

I agree that Obama has done more than most, but he's definitely a gradualist on this subject. A term to end Don't Ask Don't Tell, maybe another to get through something like marriage, if we're lucky.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 4:25:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 4:22:44 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Get the state out of marriage, make it a matter of private contract.
For the Rest if it's not in the Constitution leave it to the states.

This. The states should be deciding how much or how little "social change" that they want.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 4:31:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ryan is psychotically extreme when it comes to Abortion.

Allowing a hospital to refuse to give a woman a life-saving operation because it interferes with an administrator's religious beliefs?

If a doctor told a patient already confined to a hospital bed that he is against using medicine but instead prays to God for help (Christians Scientist, perhaps), and the patient needs immediate care which can be easily given, we'd revoke the f*ckers license and possibly lock him up.

I can deal with people who are against abortion even in cases of incest/rape. But letting women die because of how some schmuck interprets the Bible? Unacceptable.
chrumbelievable
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 4:32:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 4:25:01 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:22:44 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Get the state out of marriage, make it a matter of private contract.
For the Rest if it's not in the Constitution leave it to the states.

This. The states should be deciding how much or how little "social change" that they want.

I agree. I despise the federal government. States' rights is where it's at.
chrumbelievable
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 4:34:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 4:31:45 PM, Wnope wrote:
Ryan is psychotically extreme when it comes to Abortion.

Allowing a hospital to refuse to give a woman a life-saving operation because it interferes with an administrator's religious beliefs?

If a doctor told a patient already confined to a hospital bed that he is against using medicine but instead prays to God for help (Christians Scientist, perhaps), and the patient needs immediate care which can be easily given, we'd revoke the f*ckers license and possibly lock him up.

I can deal with people who are against abortion even in cases of incest/rape. But letting women die because of how some schmuck interprets the Bible? Unacceptable.

Did you hear about the law in Arizona (I think it was passed, but I can't remember for certain right now... I really hope it didn't pass) that allowed doctors NOT to tell their patients about life-threatening pregnancy complications IN ORDER TO PREVENT THEM from wanting to get an abortion?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 4:35:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 4:32:23 PM, chrumbelievable wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:25:01 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:22:44 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Get the state out of marriage, make it a matter of private contract.
For the Rest if it's not in the Constitution leave it to the states.

This. The states should be deciding how much or how little "social change" that they want.

I agree. I despise the federal government. States' rights is where it's at.

Spoken like a true Ron Paul / Gary Johnson Libertarian.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 4:36:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 4:34:01 PM, chrumbelievable wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:31:45 PM, Wnope wrote:
Ryan is psychotically extreme when it comes to Abortion.

Allowing a hospital to refuse to give a woman a life-saving operation because it interferes with an administrator's religious beliefs?

If a doctor told a patient already confined to a hospital bed that he is against using medicine but instead prays to God for help (Christians Scientist, perhaps), and the patient needs immediate care which can be easily given, we'd revoke the f*ckers license and possibly lock him up.

I can deal with people who are against abortion even in cases of incest/rape. But letting women die because of how some schmuck interprets the Bible? Unacceptable.

Did you hear about the law in Arizona (I think it was passed, but I can't remember for certain right now... I really hope it didn't pass) that allowed doctors NOT to tell their patients about life-threatening pregnancy complications IN ORDER TO PREVENT THEM from wanting to get an abortion?

Sounds about right.

Imagine someone trying to pass a law in Arizona where if you're against overpopulation, you can offer a man a cure for some disease without mentioning it causes permanent impotence.
chrumbelievable
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 4:41:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 4:35:17 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:32:23 PM, chrumbelievable wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:25:01 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:22:44 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Get the state out of marriage, make it a matter of private contract.
For the Rest if it's not in the Constitution leave it to the states.

This. The states should be deciding how much or how little "social change" that they want.

I agree. I despise the federal government. States' rights is where it's at.

Spoken like a true Ron Paul / Gary Johnson Libertarian.

I hate political parties, I really wish people would stop trying to box people in to them. If we quit subscribing to the ideologies of certain "parties," and actually just thought for ourselves, our political system wouldn't be nearly as screwed.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 4:42:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I hate political parties, I really wish people would stop trying to box people in to them. If we quit subscribing to the ideologies of certain "parties," and actually just thought for ourselves, our political system wouldn't be nearly as screwed.

Spoken like a true hipster.
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 4:42:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 4:34:01 PM, chrumbelievable wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:31:45 PM, Wnope wrote:
Ryan is psychotically extreme when it comes to Abortion.

Allowing a hospital to refuse to give a woman a life-saving operation because it interferes with an administrator's religious beliefs?

If a doctor told a patient already confined to a hospital bed that he is against using medicine but instead prays to God for help (Christians Scientist, perhaps), and the patient needs immediate care which can be easily given, we'd revoke the f*ckers license and possibly lock him up.

I can deal with people who are against abortion even in cases of incest/rape. But letting women die because of how some schmuck interprets the Bible? Unacceptable.

Did you hear about the law in Arizona (I think it was passed, but I can't remember for certain right now... I really hope it didn't pass) that allowed doctors NOT to tell their patients about life-threatening pregnancy complications IN ORDER TO PREVENT THEM from wanting to get an abortion?

Even though I am Pro-Life, this is a bit too extreme.
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 4:44:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Who said abortion is a right?
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 4:49:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 4:44:41 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:
Who said abortion is a right?

Who said being alive is a right? Who said you have a right to be treated by doctors who don't kill you in your sleep? Who said an administrator's non-medical preferences can't decide whether medical procedures are appropriate?

I'm talking about doctors stopping women from getting life saving treatment because the woman had the crappy luck of ending up in an E.R. run by a religious nut-job.
chrumbelievable
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 4:50:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 4:42:44 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
I hate political parties, I really wish people would stop trying to box people in to them. If we quit subscribing to the ideologies of certain "parties," and actually just thought for ourselves, our political system wouldn't be nearly as screwed.

Spoken like a true hipster.

If wanting to think for yourself is hip, I guess I'm the hippest hipster of them all.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 4:52:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 4:41:54 PM, chrumbelievable wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:35:17 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:32:23 PM, chrumbelievable wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:25:01 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:22:44 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Get the state out of marriage, make it a matter of private contract.
For the Rest if it's not in the Constitution leave it to the states.

This. The states should be deciding how much or how little "social change" that they want.

I agree. I despise the federal government. States' rights is where it's at.

Spoken like a true Ron Paul / Gary Johnson Libertarian.

I hate political parties, I really wish people would stop trying to box people in to them. If we quit subscribing to the ideologies of certain "parties," and actually just thought for ourselves, our political system wouldn't be nearly as screwed.

So despite the requirement for politics in a well established Republic you'd refuse to join a political party, even if you agreed with everything they stood for?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
chrumbelievable
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 4:57:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 4:52:29 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:41:54 PM, chrumbelievable wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:35:17 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:32:23 PM, chrumbelievable wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:25:01 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:22:44 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Get the state out of marriage, make it a matter of private contract.
For the Rest if it's not in the Constitution leave it to the states.

This. The states should be deciding how much or how little "social change" that they want.

I agree. I despise the federal government. States' rights is where it's at.

Spoken like a true Ron Paul / Gary Johnson Libertarian.

I hate political parties, I really wish people would stop trying to box people in to them. If we quit subscribing to the ideologies of certain "parties," and actually just thought for ourselves, our political system wouldn't be nearly as screwed.

So despite the requirement for politics in a well established Republic you'd refuse to join a political party, even if you agreed with everything they stood for?

I guess that's kind of a difficult question for me to answer, considering that the chances of that happening are slim to none. Theoretically, yes, if I came to those beliefs of my own thought, and then realized that a political party matched up with them.

The problem that I see, however, is that most people (not unusually do to the circumstances in which they are raised) subscribe to a political party BEFORE thinking about the issues themselves. Then it's, "I'm a Republican, so I think a, and I'm against b," and "I'm a Democrat and I'm the opposite of you, so I hate a, and love b." Does that make sense?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 4:59:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm all for giving these people some extra privileges, but it really pisses me off when people refer to them as "rights." The only things that are 'rights' are what society imposes for various cultural benefits. The word 'right' has an implicit message of continuity of current policies.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 4:59:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 4:49:16 PM, chrumbelievable wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:44:41 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:
Who said abortion is a right?

Who said it isn't?

The BOP is reversed.
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 5:00:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 4:49:35 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:44:41 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:
Who said abortion is a right?

Who said being alive is a right? Who said you have a right to be treated by doctors who don't kill you in your sleep? Who said an administrator's non-medical preferences can't decide whether medical procedures are appropriate?
:
I'm talking about doctors stopping women from getting life saving treatment because the woman had the crappy luck of ending up in an E.R. run by a religious nut-job.

I wasn't responding to that.
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 5:02:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
He's also against abortion even in cases of rape or incest. Isn't that nice? "Sorry you were molested by your dad. I will now force you by law to house your rapist's baby – a.k.a. your sister – in your womb for 9 months despite all of the risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Even though I can't use the ‘You were irresponsible and must pay the consequences' argument, I still believe that the government a.k.a. elected strangers should have control over your body and personal decisions, despite the emotional trauma and other harms. I don't care if you can't afford it or if this inhibits your livelihood in innumerable ways… By the way, did I mention I believe in small government?"

Scumbag.
President of DDO
chrumbelievable
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 5:04:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 5:02:41 PM, Danielle wrote:
He's also against abortion even in cases of rape or incest. Isn't that nice? "Sorry you were molested by your dad. I will now force you by law to house your rapist's baby – a.k.a. your sister – in your womb for 9 months despite all of the risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Even though I can't use the ‘You were irresponsible and must pay the consequences' argument, I still believe that the government a.k.a. elected strangers should have control over your body and personal decisions, despite the emotional trauma and other harms. I don't care if you can't afford it or if this inhibits your livelihood in innumerable ways… By the way, did I mention I believe in small government?"

Scumbag.

Love it.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 5:05:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 4:59:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I'm all for giving these people some extra privileges, but it really pisses me off when people refer to them as "rights." The only things that are 'rights' are what society imposes for various cultural benefits. The word 'right' has an implicit message of continuity of current policies.

Surely they are rights then, by the definition you've provided?
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 5:08:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Adoption is another option. 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child.

Fetuses feel pain during an abortion according to Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. "If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain,"

http://news.discovery.com...
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 5:08:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 5:05:33 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:59:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I'm all for giving these people some extra privileges, but it really pisses me off when people refer to them as "rights." The only things that are 'rights' are what society imposes for various cultural benefits. The word 'right' has an implicit message of continuity of current policies.

Surely they are rights then, by the definition you've provided?

Except for the slight fact that society hasn't imposed them yet, thereby making them not rights.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 5:09:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Legalize Civil Unions
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 5:12:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 4:57:32 PM, chrumbelievable wrote:
I guess that's kind of a difficult question for me to answer, considering that the chances of that happening are slim to none. Theoretically, yes, if I came to those beliefs of my own thought, and then realized that a political party matched up with them.

The problem that I see, however, is that most people (not unusually do to the circumstances in which they are raised) subscribe to a political party BEFORE thinking about the issues themselves. Then it's, "I'm a Republican, so I think a, and I'm against b," and "I'm a Democrat and I'm the opposite of you, so I hate a, and love b." Does that make sense?

Ya Democrats and Republicans get a lot wrong and everyone feels like they have to be one or the other.
But why not try to get as many people as possible to vote for the Gary Johnson and the third largest political party who most people agree with on most everything.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler