Dilemma for LGBT community?

Truth be told, statistically a gay person is more likely to be killed by a drunk Christian driver than a muslim terrorist in this
country.

Just say''n.

 

It is a fine point. Ideology, or the world view, is the primary motivator for most people, & it colors their beliefs & actions. Islamic ideology is elitist centered, mandated beliefs, state empowered ideology, where conformity is mandated. THAT was the source of his 'homophobia'. I'm sure there are other ideologies that have the same basis.

My point is that AMERICAN ideology.. that of freedom, tolerance, equality, & opportunity is CONTRARY to homophobia, or at least acting out with violence. AMERICANS can have different views.. different opinions, without feeling compelled to kill any dissenters. THAT is the American Ideal. We tolerate diversity, even when we don't agree. That is a sharp contrast to the islamic or progressive ideology, which demands conformity. THAT is the dilemma that the OP is talking about, & which i have based my comments on.

AMERICAN freedom, equality, diversity, tolerance & acceptance is unique to the world.. you don't find it many places, especially imbedded in our founding documents. The progressive left is NOT promoting this ideology, but one based on mandated conformity, JUST LIKE islam, & other oppressive ideologies.

Gays might find Americans who disagree with their lifestyle, or who won't bake them a cake for their weddings, but they will die for their right to believe as they wish, & they will pass laws defending their right to express themselves as they please. You do not find that in islamic or socialist ideologies. You find mandates. You find arbitrary law. You find discrimination from the majority toward the minority, on any opinion or trait.

Don't you get it, people? America is the ONLY HOPE for this kind of freedom & diversity. You destroy it, & you destroy your own freedoms.

 

That's simply due to the population size of both groups. Christians are over 70% of the country, Muslims are about 1%. Are you making an argument for keeping the Muslim population low?

 

Again, statistically speaking, Muslims consume far less alcohol and over 10,000 Americans are killed by drunk drivers each year, so
that would not support keeping the muslim population low.

Take from that what you will.

 

I am absolutely not bigoted towards any peaceful group, to include muslims. And I agree about the word 'import', but I struggle to find a word that accurately describes the democrats desire to bring as many refugees here as possible, even though our intelligence community, and ISIS themselves, have warned us that the refugee stream will be infiltrated by radical jihadists. Perhaps 'welcome' would be a more PC choice than 'import'? The democrats want to 'welcome' as many violent jihadists in the refugee stream as ISIS can provide.

So, the question remains: Which party should the LGBT community support? The non-violent one that is merely hostile to their causes, or the one who wants to "welcome" groups who have been infiltrated by individuals who want to kill them in spectacularly violent ways.

 

Not what you said. You said the Democrats "are committed to importing people into the country who have demonstrated a desire to KILL LGBT people".

 

I did agonize over the use of that word, and made an attempt to clarify. If you choose to reject my clarification, then there is little else I can say.

Would you characterize this statement to be inaccurate:

The democrats "are committed to welcoming people into the country who have demonstrated a desire to KILL LGBT people".

 

`
Nice, stirring, pseudo-patriotic speech that says nothing and certainly does not prove that the terrorist was motivated by homophobia as opposed to religious zealotry.

 

I noted your clarification.


Yes. I have yet to see a single person advocate or suggest allowing into this country a person with a demonstrated desire to "KILL LGBT". Sounds totally made up.

 

Milo is a huge Trump supporter, he's got it figured out.

Democrats don't care about Americans, they care about politics.

 

Of course trump is right.

 

What is their 3rd choice?

 

ISIS has videotaped their people throwing gay folks off of buildings. The Orlando psycho pledged his allegiance to ISIS, who claimed him as one of their "soldiers".

National Intelligence director James Clapper said ISIS is likely to infiltrate the refugee population. The State Department spokesman, John Kirby, has said as much. The FBI director, James Comey, agreed. The House Homeland Security chairman warned that ISIS will infiltrate the Syrian refugee population.

I didn't make any of that up.

And yet, the democrats are insistent upon 'welcoming' tens of thousands of them into our country, including the radical jihadists who have demonstrated their zeal and delight in killing LGBT folks.

I see this as a potential dilemma for LGBT folks.

So, I ask again: Which party should the LGBT community support? The non-violent one that is merely hostile to their causes, or the one who wants to "welcome" groups who have been infiltrated by individuals who want to kill them, in spectacularly violent ways, and share youtube videos with their friends.

 

Libertarians are the obvious choice, but we're not going to win the White House, this time, unfortunately.

 

Which did not happen in the US, nor has anyone advocated letting in those people. Your argument is relies on a bad strawman.

 

Another clarification: I am absolutely sympathetic to the Syrian refugees, and I know the vast majority of them wish us no harm and would appreciate our hospitality and assistance. I get that. But, if you have a bowl of otherwise identical jellybeans, except 1% of them will immediately KILL you, do you let your kids eat ANY of them, at least until you can positively identify the dangerous ones?

 

Care to comment on the rest of my response, beyond an irrelevant point about the first sentence, or are we done?

 

I'm afraid that if you are going to take this intellectual stance, then it would be hypocritical of you NOT to be against letting anyone
in America have guns, because there might be just ONE crazy in the bunch.

Now I am for individual ownership of guns, so I know it would be hypocritical of me to place all muslims in a terrorist box when we know
there a thousands of Americans who are muslims who have never attacked anyone, just as there are thousands of gun owners who handle their guns safety. I also know that there are hundreds of Muslim refugees seeking asylum because they ARE gay, and face death if they remain in their country.

So, in answer to the headlines of this post - should a gay person support a Republican platform that would repeal their
rights AND condemn other gay people to death by not letting them immigrate to countries where death is not mandatory, or
should they support a Democrat who will let some gay people into the country so that they might not be burned or beheaded and
a member of a party that helped them strike down anti-gay laws?

So, honestly - it's not much of a choice for gay individuals to make.

 

I was agreeing with you.. i put the 'homophobia' as a RESULT of his 'religious zealotry' or ideology.. he was obviously homophobic, as many who knew him have testified. The source of that homophobia was his world view of radical islam, & his acting on those beliefs were also a result of his world view, which did not contain the distinctly American view of tolerance. IOW, radical islam flavored his world view much more than any American values.

 

Yet we know there are also Christians and others (including atheists) who are also homophobic. So the underlying cause is the homophobia, not the religion.

 

It has happened, & there are those who want MORE. The boston bombers,, the san bernardino shooters.. this guy's family.. too many attacks from anti-American ideologies toward innocent citizens because of lax vetting, or PC delusion, or deliberate, cloward piven like strategies. Of course it has happened, & will continue, unless we change our immigration ways.

 

`
I sincerely apologize. While there is no excuse for misreading your statement, I cracked my ribs the other day and am feeling a bit grumpy.

 

I'll take it as obfuscation in defense of a Democratic voting bloc.

 

Yes, it is a fine point, perhaps, which was my point to PA. But i look for the motivation, not just the superficial. I see ideology as being the main driver for our beliefs & actions.. they do not just appear in a vacuum. It was islamic ideology, combined with the radical notions from al qaeda & ISIS. This was NOT an American tolerance, free speech, open expression motivated action. It was motivated by islamic terrorist ideology.

Plenty of people are homophobic, but they do not act out with violence. You cannot correlate the OPINION about homosexuality with the ACTION of killing them.

Plenty of people hate jews, or christians, but very few act out these beliefs with murderous intent.

 

Like I said, an Arizona LGBT group officially endorsed Trump.
Your opinion of them is irrelevant.