The Moral Arc

[Aeson]

That analogy only works if we accept the premise that Trump had openly admitted to supporting racist policies. Is that what you are claiming?

Because Pryor has, on public record, expressed his view that it is ok to jail homosexuals for having sex in their own homes. You can't divorce yourself from what you are very clearly in support of.

[Aeson]

No. I understand it fine. Another tactic by you.

If you understand it then you know Trump has no vote in State legislatures, has no veto in state legislatures, and no vote in SCOTUS. Those are the arenas where this issue of state laws on sodomy are decided on.

Even on a federal level if a law were introduced he at most has veto power that Congress can override.

You would also know that Trump will at most be in office 8 years, while his SCOTUS appointments could last decades.

The only real input Trump has on the issue is who he nominates, and his list of potential nominees is very telling.

[Aeson]

That analogy only works if we accept the premise that Trump had openly admitted to supporting racist policies. Is that what you are claiming?

Because Pryor has, on public record, expressed his view that it is ok to jail homosexuals for having sex in their own homes. You can't divorce yourself from what you are very clearly in support of.

I should note that even if we accept that, it's still not a valid analogy. This is because a voter in the presidential election has virtually no choice in who has a viable chance at winning, and so "lesser of two evils" is a legitimate reason to vote for someone you disagree with. However, Trump has almost free reign to pick the nominees he thinks are best for the job. So who he picks is far more telling about his own positions.

[Kidlicious]

That analogy only works if we accept the premise that Trump had openly admitted to supporting racist policies. Is that what you are claiming?

Because Pryor has, on public record, expressed his view that it is ok to jail homosexuals for having sex in their own homes. You can't divorce yourself from what you are very clearly in support of.

Trump didn't openly support anti-gay policies. He put someone on a list of possible nominees that is anti-gay and likely would vote for allowing states to make sodomy illegal. Even if he nominated Pryor it wouldn't mean that he doesn't care gay rights because he may nominate him for others reasons.

So the analogy is perfect because most people who voted for Trump did so for some reason that has nothing to do with racism.

[Kidlicious]

If you understand it then you know Trump has no vote in State legislatures, has no veto in state legislatures, and no vote in SCOTUS. Those are the arenas where this issue of state laws on sodomy are decided on.

Even on a federal level if a law were introduced he at most has veto power that Congress can override.

You would also know that Trump will at most be in office 8 years, while his SCOTUS appointments could last decades.

The only real input Trump has on the issue is who he nominates, and his list of potential nominees is very telling.

And even if he appoint 3 judges they won't all be anti-gay unless he is anti-gay and there is no evidence of that by any reasonable standard. Pryor is one possible out of 21. Why aren't the rest in favor of putting gays in jail?

[Aeson]

Several others on his list are anti gay. Pryor reportedly is on the latest shortlist (of 5) ...

You are ignoring how Trump gets to hand pick his nominee... and doesn't have to worry that his nominee will lose to a competitors ... while voters can't do so while maintaining any hope of relevance of their vote.

[Aeson]

Trump didn't openly support anti-gay policies. He put someone on a list of possible nominees that is anti-gay and likely would vote for allowing states to make sodomy illegal. Even if he nominated Pryor it wouldn't mean that he doesn't care gay rights because he may nominate him for others reasons.

So the analogy is perfect because most people who voted for Trump did so for some reason that has nothing to do with racism.

You are mixing up the analogs.

Trump is to Pryor as voter is to Trump. Thus Pryor's view of homosexual rights is the analog to Trumps views on race. Trumps views on homosexuality are not.

[Kidlicious]

Several others on his list are anti gay. Pryor reportedly is on the latest shortlist (of 5) ...

You are ignoring how Trump gets to hand pick his nominee... and doesn't have to worry that his nominee will lose to a competitors ... while voters can't do so while maintaining any hope of relevance of their vote.

It doesn't matter. I wasn't talking about losing to competitors although having limited choices is part of it. Trump could appoint Pryor and then not appoint too other judges with similarly offensive stances, so appointing Pryor is not anti-gay. It isn't pro gay rights, but it isn't anti-gay. This argument is coming from those who think that everything has to be pro gay rights.

[Kidlicious]

You are mixing up the analogs.

Trump is to Pryor as voter is to Trump. Thus Pryor's view of homosexual rights is the analog to Trumps views on race. Trumps views on homosexuality are not.

No. It's simple. Trump could appoint Pryor because of other issues besides this issue.

[kentonio]

Trump didn't openly support anti-gay policies. He put someone on a list of possible nominees that is anti-gay and likely would vote for allowing states to make sodomy illegal. Even if he nominated Pryor it wouldn't mean that he doesn't care gay rights because he may nominate him for others reasons.

He chose a man (creature) for his vice-president who is a supporter of conversion therapy and one of the most vicious anti-gay ********* in the Republican party. Yes, its pretty safe to say that Trump doesn't give a **** about gay rights.

[Kidlicious]

Do gay people have a right to receive conversion therapy kentonio? Maybe you should leave this to those who actually care about people's rights.

[Aeson]

It doesn't matter. I wasn't talking about losing to competitors although having limited choices is part of it. Trump could appoint Pryor and then not appoint too other judges with similarly offensive stances, so appointing Pryor is not anti-gay. It isn't pro gay rights, but it isn't anti-gay. This argument is coming from those who think that everything has to be pro gay rights.

Strawman. I said, "it is an admission he doesn't care about homosexual rights". I did not say it was proof he was anti-gay as you are arguing against.

Also, Pryor is not the only one Trump has shown support for that has/would vote to reinstate sodomy laws. Trump loves Scalia, and Scalia voted against striking down sodomy laws. As kentonio points out, he also chose a vice president who is very anti-gay. (You could perhaps ascribe that to protection via successor though...)

But most importantly, we are talking about whether homosexuals have a good reason to be scared. "Trump might not continue to support anti-gay supreme court nominees/justices ..." is not going to win that argument. Neither is, "Trump really doesn't know what he's doing ..."

[kentonio]

Do gay people have a right to receive conversion therapy kentonio? Maybe you should leave this to those who actually care about people's rights.

Every scientific study of conversion therapy has shown it to be absolute nonsense which does not result in any change to peoples sexual preferences but which can do extreme psychological harm to those it is inflicted on. If your question is 'should people be allowed to harm themselves?' then that's a very different discussion, however I'm curious to see some examples of these gay people who are rushing to get conversion therapy without being forced/driven into it by religious and/or homophobic parents/family.

[Kidlicious]

Strawman. I said, "it is an admission he doesn't care about homosexual rights". I did not say it was proof he was anti-gay as you are arguing against.

Also, Pryor is not the only one Trump has shown support for that has/would vote to reinstate sodomy laws. Trump loves Scalia, and Scalia voted against striking down sodomy laws. As kentonio points out, he also chose a vice president who is very anti-gay. (You could perhaps ascribe that to protection via successor though...)

But most importantly, we are talking about whether homosexuals have a good reason to be scared. "Trump might not continue to support anti-gay supreme court nominees/justices ..." is not going to win that argument. Neither is, "Trump really doesn't know what he's doing ..."

The chance that sodomy rights could be taken away being extremely low wins that argument. Also the fact that liberals have a very extensive trace record of claiming that people are Hitler etc...

[Kidlicious]

Every scientific study of conversion therapy has shown it to be absolute nonsense which does not result in any change to peoples sexual preferences but which can do extreme psychological harm to those it is inflicted on. If your question is 'should people be allowed to harm themselves?' then that's a very different discussion, however I'm curious to see some examples of these gay people who are rushing to get conversion therapy without being forced/driven into it by religious and/or homophobic parents/family.

Harm themselves? Really? Aren't you for the legalisation of drugs? Your damn worldview should scare the living daylights out of any reasonable person.