Posts made by hubrys

@raphjd And then in your very next post you rely upon the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy. Classic, just classic!

@raphjd said in Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception:

There was no push to make marriage equality as a federal law because Clinton and the DNC-controlled Congress were homophobes.
If Clinton and Congress were friendly to marriage equality, there would have been a push for it on the federal level.

Oh, I get it now. You don't understand that federal judicial system and the Supreme Court of the United States, where the marriage equality advocates were making their arguments, is part of the federal government. That's the "federal level" that marriage equality advocates were working with. They were trying to get that whole co-equal third branch of the federal government created in Article III of the US Constitution to declare that Alabama doesn't have the state right to prejudicially define marriage.

You failed basic Civics, I guess.

@raphjd said in Karen in FL files criminal charges because school library didn't censor a LGBTQ book.:

Why do you have to defend putting a graphically detailed teen porn book in an elementary school? There are plenty of non-porn books you can defend.

I believe I explicitly agreed with you that the book in question shouldn't have been in an elementary school library.

I also pointed out to you, and I will point out AGAIN, that the original post involved the book in a HIGH SCHOOL library.

If you cannot constrain your discussion to the topic as posted, then I believe you need to temporarily ban yourself from the forum. I'm pretty sure that making posts unrelated to the OP is a violation of the rules for the Gay News forum.

Reference elementary schools again and it will only be proof that you cannot defend on the issue regarding high schools. I will mark it down as you admitting loss and I will move on to other activities.

@raphjd said in Gay Florida student says school stopping him from running for senior class president:

He would take a topic that had never been discussed here and assume my stance, and use that to slag me off. At least I based my comments on his proven track record on actual discussions here.

Pretty sure it was his opinion that he also was basing his comments on your proven track record. That's my assumption anyway. You don't seem capable of admitting you were guilty of the exact same thing he did.

You routinely misinterpret, mis-portray, mischaracterize, etc. the arguments presented by others. And failing that, you routinely rely upon fallacies: ad hominum, guilty by association, hasty generalizations, etc.

You're no better than the temporarily banned individuals.

@raphjd said in Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception:

The only thing you "won" was not admitting that you people flip-flop on states' rights and federal rights, as the situation suits you.

Again, you haven't provided a cogent argument to support this statement. Repeating the same unsupported assertion over and over again doesn't make it true.

Anti-gay marriage advocates certainly did argue that states had the right to define marriage as between one man and one woman. The marriage equality advocates were arguing that the 5th and 14th Amendment guaranteed equal protection, and that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, Section I of the US Constitution prevented the anti-gay marriage states from having the right to deny recognition of married gays.

But, whatever, you keep thinking that the above meant they were arguing FOR states' rights.

@raphjd The full "context" is that there is a push within the United States to relax the procedures for removing books from school libraries to make it easier for conservative, homophobic organizations to remove LGBT literature from those libraries. It is a coordinated effort with similar bills being pushed or already passed in several states at once.

The point of the efforts is to keep LGBT issues and representations from being normalized. It is culture warfare aiming at gay erasure.

I know in your personal hierarchy of identity politics, you rank your conservativism above your LGBT identity, so you might be okay with throwing yourself under the bus. But most of the rest of us LGBT people do not like being erased from culture.

@raphjd said in Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception:

You won't admit that if the DNC under Bill Clinton wasn't so hostile to gay equality, you would have gone the federal law route to make it the law of the land.
It's the same thing we see with abortion.

Just repeating your non-sequitur, red herring distraction. Yeah, I won. We're done here.

@raphjd said in Gay Florida student says school stopping him from running for senior class president:

The 2nd temp ban was because the person routinely assumed my position on topics, in many cases he was completely wrong, using that to slag me off even when I had not posted in the topic. His extreme TDS and hatred of anyone who supported Trump is what got him banned.

You mean like you routinely would pre-emptively put in strawman arguments and attribute them to the temporarily banned person, even before he'd ever even posted in the comment thread. How long are you temporarily banning yourself for that habit?

Didn't even have to try hard to find an example:

"YES, YES, I know our resident troll will be here shortly too screech and bleat some liberal bullshit to justify voter fraud, while losing his mind and exposing his extreme TDS."

The above posted in a thread about voter fraud BEFORE bi4smooth had ever even posted, or even read probably, the thread.

@raphjd said in Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception:

If the Democrats weren't so hostile to gay equality, the people fighting for marriage equality would have fought for a federal law making it the law of the US.
This is what we are seeing in the abortion argument.
Because you have Congress and the WH on your side, you want a federal law, despite abortion not being enumerated, therefore a states' rights issue.

So I can presume by the above non-sequitur, red herring tangent that you've discovered that your "marriage equality liberals were arguing for states' rights" BS was indefensible, and you're trying to sidetrack the discussion or distract from it now. Good, that means I won.

@raphjd No, you're the one that started talking about elementary schools. If you go back and read the original news article, it was talking about a Karen filing suit because the book was located in a high school. This elementary school tangent is yours and yours alone.

My point in the above quotes is that content related to sex does not make a book pornographic. It might make it inappropriate for elementary school children, but not pornographic. The material is perfectly appropriate in high schools, but its homophobic, conservative, religious Karens trying to get it removed even from locations where it is age-appropriate.

@raphjd Also, it looks like your method for "winning" arguments in "Gay News" is threatening people with bans when they disagree with you. That seems to be how you "win" arguments here in "Politics and Debate" lately as well. That's sad.

@raphjd said in Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception:

While statutes can not technically "erase" parts of the constitution, they can effectively erase them until the SCOTUS overturns the statute, as they did in DOMA and DADT. This almost always take more than a decade.

I agree; unconstitutional laws can be passed by Congress. However, our dispute here is that you think trying to overturn such an unconstitutional law passed by Congress means you're de facto arguing for states' rights. In other words, you're trying to create the false dichotomy of (1) fighting for states' rights by opposing a federal law; and (2) fighting for a federal law by opposing states' rights.

Marriage equality advocates were arguing against a federal statute AND the states who thought they had the right to pass Same-Sex Marriage bans.

@raphjd

"Until I was eleven or twelve, I didn't realize there was a second set of labia on the inside, since you couldn't see them. What's even funnier is that I thought urine came out of the clitoris…When you're standing up, all you see from the front is hair. Between your legs there are two soft, cushiony things, also covered with hair, which press together when you're standing, so you can't see what's inside. They separate when you sit down and they're very red and quite fleshy on the inside. In the upper part, between the outer labia, there's a fold of skin that, on second thought, looks like a kind of blister. That's the clitoris."

In addition to the above, Anne Frank also talks about masturbation and her homosexual attractions. Yet we shouldn't ban this book as pornographic.

"This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes. I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples"; – Bible : Song of Solomon (7) : 7 – 8.

"11 “Her sister Oholibah saw this, yet in her lust and prostitution she was more depraved than her sister. 12 She too lusted after the Assyrians—governors and commanders, warriors in full dress, mounted horsemen, all handsome young men. 13 I saw that she too defiled herself; both of them went the same way.

14 “But she carried her prostitution still further. She saw men portrayed on a wall, figures of Chaldeans[a] portrayed in red, 15 with belts around their waists and flowing turbans on their heads; all of them looked like Babylonian chariot officers, natives of Chaldea.[b] 16 As soon as she saw them, she lusted after them and sent messengers to them in Chaldea. 17 Then the Babylonians came to her, to the bed of love, and in their lust they defiled her. After she had been defiled by them, she turned away from them in disgust. 18 When she carried on her prostitution openly and exposed her naked body, I turned away from her in disgust, just as I had turned away from her sister. 19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled." Ezekiel 23:11-21

@raphjd said in Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception:

It was a states' rights argument in that each state was allowed to decide who could get married and due to the FF&C everyone else had to accept it.

Oh, I get why you think that's a states' rights argument....you're stupid.

The federal government, specifically Congress, only has specific enumerated areas within which it can legislate. Marriage is not one of those enumerated areas. Marriage laws are, by the federalist design of our country, controlled by the individual states. That's not an argument that the marriage equality advocates were making; that's just plain fucking facts. Even after the Obergefell decision established that the right to same-sex marriage as a fundamental right, marriage is still controlled by the states. Post-Obergefell, it's just that a state cannot pass a schema for marriage that discriminates without that statutory schema being unconstitutional.

In the days of DOMA and the Same-Sex Marriage bans, marriage equality advocates were definitely making arguments based on the US Constitution. The "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the US Constitution cannot be erased by federal statute (e.g., DOMA). The argument marriage equality advocates were making was specifically that Alabama, as a state, does not have the right to pass a state law that refuses to recognize a marriage contract issued by the State of Hawaii. In other words, the anti-gay marriage states didn't have the Right as a State to choose not to follow the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution.

That's not a states' rights argument, despite you trying to pretzel it into one.

@raphjd

"In response to questions sent by The Reporter after the meeting, district spokeswoman Christine Liberaski said Monday that “All Boys Aren’t Blue” was in the Oak Park library for five months during the 2020-21 schoolyear, but was never checked out by a student.

“Through investigation of the matter, it was found that the book was ordered after being researched and recommended as reading material helpful for students struggling with identity. After review of the book in August, it was removed from circulation (not last week as incorrectly reported) at the elementary school due to it not being developmentally appropriate for that age group. It was never read by the librarian to students,” she said."

[https://www.thereporteronline.com/2021/10/26/north-penn-parents-bash-board-over-books/](link url)

So, it was in AN elementary school, never checked out by a student, and then removed from the shelves after an investigation by the school district. This is your big evidence?

@raphjd said in Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception:

When individual states where starting to give marriage equality and civil unions to us, the right argued that it was not legal under federal law, but the left argued that it was states' rights.

Pretty sure that they were predominantly arguing that the federal DOMA act was a violation of Equal Protection, and that states and the federal government allowing some states to refuse recognition of marriages performed in other states as a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution (again, not a states' rights argument).

You'll have to do better than that.

@raphjd said in Gay Florida student says school stopping him from running for senior class president:

You called me an asshole and liar about that teen porn book being in Florida school libraries. Remember that?
Once I found the name of the elementary school that had it in their library, you ran away from the thread. So, using your rules, you are the asshole and liar since you have yet to admit that teen porn book was available in school libraries from K-12.

I don't even remember what you're talking about, but if you link to the discussion thread, then I'll try to make a special point of going back and reading your ramblings on the subject. If you've made cogent arguments that were responsive to the arguments I made, then I'll respond there. Frankly, I don't agree with the assertion that any book which discusses sexual events as a "porn book." By that definition, the Bible in the elementary school libraries is also a porn book.

@raphjd said in Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception:

What I find comical, is that during the "gay marriage" (I call it "marriage equality") argument, liberals where all about states' rights, but now they want a federal law.

What was the "states' rights" argument made by the advocates of marriage equality? I only recall marriage equality advocates attacking the federal Defense of Marriage Act on 14th/5th Amendments due process and equal protection grounds (i.e., definitely not states' rights arguments). And the marriage equality advocates leading up to the Obergefell were explicitly working against state-passed bans on same-sex marriage.

So, please remind me of the predominate states' rights arguments that you think the marriage equality movement was based on.

@raphjd said in Gay Florida student says school stopping him from running for senior class president:

So, as an "expert", why did you not include the whole thing?

So you don't understand how quoting works? Your critique of my argument is that I did not post a 20+ page SCOTUS decision; therefore, I don't understand the case.

@raphjd I seem to recall calling you a liar for posting a photoshopped photograph and refusing to acknowledge that you posted a fake photograph. Remember posting that fake photograph? Remember when you lied about it and refused to retract it?