6 ms·

> Associated Press, 18 November, 1993 I would argue that statements made 30 years ago are irrelevant to the current debate, considering that would also bring i

> Associated Press, 18 November, 1993 I would argue that statements made 30 years ago are irrelevant to the current debate, considering that would also bring into discussion every opinion held by GOP operatives over that time period and boy that ain't pretty. Im generally opposed to equating LGBT issues to gun-control issues. This dichotomy was brought up by a previous comment and I dont really want to get bogged down in the issue. After all, one is an issue of bodily autonomy and freedom of expression, and the other is an issue of "what do we do about this thing that is expressly designed to harm other humans". My personal views on gun control aren't really reflected by any sitting member in congress, and I will admit that a lot of debate on both sides are largely reactionary and you can take impassioned statements from either side out of context. Fine. I will still hold that the right will shut down at any nuanced discussion of the issue, which I see as the main problem. If the GOP took a principled but open-minded stance, you could negotiate down from the reactionary Dem position down to one that thinks critically about privacy as you suggest... but the GOP doesn't allow that discussion. > That said, which LGBT rights do you think they oppose? My right to self expression. My right to live a life of my choosing without fear of retaliation. My right to tell others about my existence. As evidenced by objections to bills that would enshrine my safety in finding employment and healthcare. As evidenced by politicians that equate my speech to pedophilia. Are my rights to safety and speech privileges given only to cis/straight people? What are the "common sense" regulations to me living my life? Do you see how I may not agree with the false equivalency of gun rights and lgbt rights?

giantg2 4y ago
"I would argue that statements made 30 years ago are irrelevant to the current debate" You asked for a sitting representative. She's still there. I would guess her views haven't changed much but is just out of the spot light now. "Im generally opposed to equating LGBT issues to gun-control issues. This dichotomy was brought up by a previous comment and I dont really want to get bogged down in the issue. After all, one is an issue of bodily autonomy and freedom of expression, and the other is an issue of "what do we do about this thing that is expressly designed to harm other humans"." I don't think they are closely related, but they are both strongly held beliefs and deal with rights. Some say the right to self defense is a natural human right and that guns are a tool in that context. It seems that by your statement you hold some rights above others (and don't even mention anything related to right on the other subject). Is this perhaps indicating that each side has a different perception? Also, guns have other purposes, they aren't all just for harming others. "I will still hold that the right will shut down at any nuanced discussion of the issue, which I see as the main problem. If the GOP took a principled but open-minded stance, you could negotiate down from the reactionary Dem position down to one that thinks critically about privacy as you suggest... but the GOP doesn't allow that discussion." Is it possible this is a standoff - that the GOP thinks they would have critical debate if only the other side proposed something they saw as reasonable first? Everyone wants to blame the other side, and I agree that it's just all reactionary at this point. But seeing the other side as the main problem might just be the reason we have such stalemate. "Do you see how I may not agree with the false equivalency of gun rights and lgbt rights?" I'm not saying they are equal, but they are similar in how rights and restrictions are imposed/violated in the name of common sense and reasonable things (as said by people with no experience on the issues). I'm not aware of anyone at the federal level trying to take away your Healthcare and safety rights (but maybe they aren't mainstream enough). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County On the fear and retaliation, I believe those would be federal hate crimes. Again, I don't know of any mainstream movement against that. The comments about pedophilia are terrible. I believe the bill only removes all sex related cirruculum material but doesn't impact personal expression.

giantg2 4y ago

"I would argue that statements made 30 years ago are irrelevant to the current debate" You asked for a sitting representative. She's still there. I would guess her views haven't changed much but is just out of the spot light now. "Im generally opposed to equating LGBT issues to gun-control issues. This dichotomy was brought up by a previous comment and I dont really want to get bogged down in the issue. After all, one is an issue of bodily autonomy and freedom of expression, and the other is an issue of "what do we do about this thing that is expressly designed to harm other humans"." I don't think they are closely related, but they are both strongly held beliefs and deal with rights. Some say the right to self defense is a natural human right and that guns are a tool in that context. It seems that by your statement you hold some rights above others (and don't even mention anything related to right on the other subject). Is this perhaps indicating that each side has a different perception? Also, guns have other purposes, they aren't all just for harming others. "I will still hold that the right will shut down at any nuanced discussion of the issue, which I see as the main problem. If the GOP took a principled but open-minded stance, you could negotiate down from the reactionary Dem position down to one that thinks critically about privacy as you suggest... but the GOP doesn't allow that discussion." Is it possible this is a standoff - that the GOP thinks they would have critical debate if only the other side proposed something they saw as reasonable first? Everyone wants to blame the other side, and I agree that it's just all reactionary at this point. But seeing the other side as the main problem might just be the reason we have such stalemate. "Do you see how I may not agree with the false equivalency of gun rights and lgbt rights?" I'm not saying they are equal, but they are similar in how rights and restrictions are imposed/violated in the name of common sense and reasonable things (as said by people with no experience on the issues). I'm not aware of anyone at the federal level trying to take away your Healthcare and safety rights (but maybe they aren't mainstream enough). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County On the fear and retaliation, I believe those would be federal hate crimes. Again, I don't know of any mainstream movement against that. The comments about pedophilia are terrible. I believe the bill only removes all sex related cirruculum material but doesn't impact personal expression.