House GOP Strips LGBT Protections from Its Version of Violence Against Women Act

[T-Rexx]

Oh I agree its bigotry and in a good number of cases driven by hate though the individuals may not always realize it themselves. They have a golden age view of American society and they tend to think that anything that moves us away from that mythical social structure will destroy the country. They thus construct the fallacy in their own minds that gays asking for equality is a challenge to that myth and therefore to them we ARE threatening them because we are trying to destroy our culture with our wanton ways. Its all nonsense of course but it makes for good political theater and plays to the fears of many people that the country and society is in decline and looking for some reason for it. The motivating force is hate and fear of those who are different of course, something that can demonstrated just by pointing to the similarities in the argument used by white supremacists and anti-Semitics to fight racial civil rights.

I agree entirely.

So, why do you support these bigots?

 

[chance1]

See Post #19

sorry T-Rexx

I don't see an answer

not one that addresses my simple question

 

[Stardreamer]

I support the concept of stopping/preventing/reducing violence against anyone - in this case women

why do gay/lesbian women need special notation here ?

what am i missing ?

women need protection - i get it

why do diff. types of women need diff. types of protection ?

please do not respond as if this is anything but a reasonable question or POV

That is the question isn't it?

 

[Stardreamer]

I agree entirely.

So, why do you support these bigots?

I don't. The question was being asked how Republicans and/or Conservatives defend their position, I'm just providing that answer, I also point out that I don't agree with it. There is I think a valid question of whether this particular bill warrants having language that focuses on LGBT individuals, but that is due to some confusion as to what the bill is about not that LGBT individuals may not need protections.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Nope. I can't see the GOP's point. I am positively sure I vehemently disagree with it. LGBT individuals are persecuted throughout this country. You need only look at the 30 states that have enshrined marriage discrimination into this country to know there are communities that harass, discriminate, and abuse both mentally and physically LGBT people. I only wish as a fellow homosexual, you would agree as well, rather than giving a political party of hate the benefit of a doubt.

"Equal protections already covers everyone" is the standard status quo argument heavily used by conservatives to claim that any program aiming to reduce the disproportionate level of discrimination, disadvantage, workplace harassment, hiring, bullying or beating of certain groups (which somehow magically Equal Protections fails to flow out into the minds of bigots and make them equal opportunity persecutors) is giving "special rights" that are unnecessary and should be opposed. Laws/programs/policies that help reduce the degree to which certain minority groups have a bullseye on them simply because of what they are are a necessary component of protecting everyone equally, imho.

I disagree with the premise of the act and its title.

Violence against men should be equally abhorrent to us. Even if violence against men were ten times less frequent than violence against women, that one man still deserves our support and recognition. But it seems that in domestic violence situations, the numbers may actually be far more equitable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence#Violence_against_men

Bankside, you sound like those shrill people who oppose things like breast cancer fundraisers or charities because "they disregard men with prostate cancer."

 

[Stardreamer]

And yet it passed the Senate 78-22. There were some seriously conservative Senators who voted for it, including Republicans from the Deep South.

The Republicans are in the throws of a re-evaluation period which they should have done back in 2008 but didn't in the hopes of a Tea Party revolution and the economy bringing them back to the White House. The election shattered that dream. The party is far from united right now and social issues particularly gay rights is one of the fracture points. Quite a few want to steer away from subject all together and those that are still fighting the fight are more willing to focus on abortion where the odds are better. The ones who can read the writing on the wall know that the gay rights issue is lost at least for now.

 

[CoolBlue71]

If you're gay and a republican in this day and age you are a moron---you can be an Independent, a Libertarian or a conservative democrat --fine--but to be associated with the party of stupid---is just plain dumb.

What is insulting is when a person who is gay and votes Republican comes across that he is being reasonable—perhaps due to self-interest of his personal economic situation—and then thinks he is in a position to tell those who are gay and vote Democratic that they are the ones who are misguided.

 

[bankside]

"Equal protections already covers everyone" is the standard status quo argument heavily used by conservatives to claim that any program aiming to reduce the disproportionate level of discrimination, disadvantage, workplace harassment, hiring, bullying or beating of certain groups (which somehow magically Equal Protections fails to flow out into the minds of bigots and make them equal opportunity persecutors) is giving "special rights" that are unnecessary and should be opposed. Laws/programs/policies that help reduce the degree to which certain minority groups have a bullseye on them simply because of what they are are a necessary component of protecting everyone equally, imho.



Bankside, you sound like those shrill people who oppose things like breast cancer fundraisers or charities because "they disregard men with prostate cancer."

When men live as long as women, I'll give money to breast cancer research. Until then we should have the right priorities.

 

[Stardreamer]

What is insulting is when a person who is gay and votes Republican comes across that he is being reasonable—perhaps due to self-interest of his personal economic situation—and then thinks he is in a position to tell those who are gay and vote Democratic that they are the ones who are misguided.

Some people feel the Democratic party does not represent their best interests overall either. As long as we are locked in a two party system where the game is rigged keep both parties in power, this will be the way of things.

 

[Rolyo85]

Some people feel the Democratic party does not represent their best interests overall either. As long as we are locked in a two party system where the game is rigged keep both parties in power, this will be the way of things.

There is a difference between a party that doesn't represent your best interests overall, and one that directly tries to do you harm. The first is to be suspected and constantly re-evaluated. The second is to be fought against with extreme prejudice.

 

[xbuzzerx]

When men live as long as women, I'll give money to breast cancer research. Until then we should have the right priorities.

We do have priorities. Prostate cancer shows up incredibly late in life for men and is extremely treatable. Breast cancer strikes down a lot of women in the age of being mothers. There are biological reasons men don't live as long as women and almost none of it has anything to do with "we prioritize treating women's illnesses more."

 

[Stardreamer]

There is a difference between a party that doesn't represent your best interests overall, and one that directly tries to do you harm. The first is to be suspected and constantly re-evaluated. The second is to be fought against with extreme prejudice.

Which is why I"m currently supporting neither

 

[xbuzzerx]

Which is why I"m currently supporting neither

That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Rolyo85]

Which is why I"m currently supporting neither

What part of "is to be fought against with extreme prejudice" was unclear? Your response does not follow from my statement.

 

[Stardreamer]

That doesn't make any sense.

I am neither a Republican or a Democrat, neither party currently has my support.

 

[pat grimshaw]

When men live as long as women, I'll give money to breast cancer research. ...

We have a weird situation in my country where donations to breast cancer research has become VERY popular and successful. Researchers for the other cancers are struggling really hard to be as successful.

 

[Stardreamer]

What part of "is to be fought against with extreme prejudice" was unclear? Your response does not follow from my statement.

That aspect is the major reason why the Republicans are getting no support from me at present.

 

[Rolyo85]

But they kind of are, indirectly, if you are not supporting Democrats. Who, by the way, may not have done everything for you that you need, but they have been fighting for your rights in the particular field where the Republicans are trying to harm you.

In a two-party system, I think the only ones who are entitled to standing on the sidelines, are those with no dog in the fight. Us gay folks - all of us - DO have one.

 

[Stardreamer]

But they kind of are, indirectly, if you are not supporting Democrats. Who, by the way, may not have done everything for you that you need, but they have been fighting for your rights in the particular field where the Republicans are trying to harm you.

In a two-party system, I think the only ones who are entitled to standing on the sidelines, are those with no dog in the fight. Us gay folks - all of us - DO have one.

I do not embrace the 'us vs them' philosophy of American politics. It may look like a war at time but it is not war but the means we have of political debate, factious as it is. I do not consider myself to be standing on the sidelines either, I dole my support where I will to push the debate in the direct I want it to go. If you are caught up in the us vs them, evil vs good mindset don't bother trying to understand me, just file it under those crazy Libertarians and move on.

 

[chance1]

What is insulting is when a person who is gay and votes Republican comes across that he is being reasonable—perhaps due to self-interest of his personal economic situation—and then thinks he is in a position to tell those who are gay and vote Democratic that they are the ones who are misguided.

what's REALLY insulting is that the premise u just suggested actually doesn't take place here

the reverse does

bizarro world of CE+P