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

[Rolyo85]

^^^ This. Being closedminded to alternative viewpoints is incredibly dangerous, but to overcompensate by bending backwards to give every viewpoint equal consideration is pretty much intellectual suicide.

 

[Stardreamer]

I'm not sure there is such a thing as neutral in political debate, I do try to be objective but I make no claim to being good at it. I think that there is too much emphasis on us vs them, like the world of politics is a bipolar black and white place. I also enjoy civilized debate and discussion which is why I find the rising some other website into the personal here disconcerting.

Sometimes you have to 'wrap yourself into the opposition' if you really want to discuss the issue at hand. You cannot effectively explore and validate your own positions if you only test them against a two dimensional straw man of the 'opposition'. The opposition is not always of malicious intent after all, sometimes they are just wrong or sometimes they may actually have a point. One can be pro-gay civil rights and still legitimately ask if a proposed wording related to that subject is appropriate to a specific set of legislation.

 

[bankside]

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. - Napoléon.

I don't subscribe to the heterosexual infiltration theory when the problem of self-hatred is so well known.

 

[Rolyo85]

I'm not sure there is such a thing as neutral in political debate, I do try to be objective but I make no claim to being good at it. I think that there is too much emphasis on us vs them, like the world of politics is a bipolar black and white place. I also enjoy civilized debate and discussion which is why I find the rising some other website into the personal here disconcerting.

Sometimes you have to 'wrap yourself into the opposition' if you really want to discuss the issue at hand. You cannot effectively explore and validate your own positions if you only test them against a two dimensional straw man of the 'opposition'. The opposition is not always of malicious intent after all, sometimes they are just wrong or sometimes they may actually have a point. One can be pro-gay civil rights and still legitimately ask if a proposed wording related to that subject is appropriate to a specific set of legislation.

Um, when it comes to gay issues, it IS us vs. them. They want us to not have any, to deny who we are and get "cured", or at least stuck back in the closet and pretend we don't exist. What is this, if not us vs. them?

I am only happy some of "them" are beginning to split from the party line. Too bad they risk their careers doing so (I read today that the Illinois GOP guy could be fired in the next two weeks), thus clearly showing how much "they" hate us as a group.

 

[Stardreamer]

As silly as claiming God steers hurricanes at gay people?

As silly as claiming that gay marriage will destroy straight marriage?

As silly as claiming the military cannot function if it includes out gays?

As silly as claiming homosexuality can be "cured" with a few re-education seminars?


If the modern Republican Party has taught us anything, it is that conservatives are bat-sh*t crazy fanatics who will believe anything and do anything to feed their own delusions. They don't accept reason, they don't accept science, they don't accept evidence, they don't accept history, and they don't accept reality.

All that matters to them are the (usually remarkably bigoted, intolerant, and hateful) pronouncements of a handful of their anointed prophets.

Modern American conservatism is a remarkably dysfunctional movement. And we are witnesses to that dysfunction in this forum every day.

That is the reason Republicans in the House have eliminated the LGBT protections from their version of the VAWA. It's not about crafting more reasonable legislation. It's about promoting their particular brand of hatred and intolerance. Conservatives believe that America will be a better place for straight, white, rich, male, Christians if certain minorities are beaten to a pulp.

I don't happen to share that view.

Actually its rather silly because there no real reason for them to do it even for "bat-sh*t crazy" it would be a pointless exercise and waste of energy. Aside from that I pretty much agree with your assessment of the Republican party as it stands.

 

[Stardreamer]

I am bothered by heterosexuals coming here to bash gay people. I think it should not be allowed. Have all the homophobic notions in the world if you're some self-loathing closet case. I will gladly wipe the floor with you in an argument. But this forum does not need straight 'phobes who come here to bash us with their heteronormative view of what hole we need to crawl back in.

So, as much as witch hunts have started pissing even me off, I have to ask - itsmejeff, are you gay? I don't give a fuck if you "don't like labels". You know exactly what I mean with that question and so you can answer it, with one word or ten sentences - I don't care, as long as the answer is clear.

Because if you are not, then what you're doing here is a deliberate attack.

I agree if all he is here for is to rattle cages. I'm not sure what asking him if he is gay accomplishes though, not all straight people are out to bash gays and not all gays are supportive of gay rights, I've seen some who are quite nasty about it. Why not just ask him straight out if he is bigoted?

 

[xbuzzerx]

I agree if all he is here for is to rattle cages. I'm not sure what asking him if he is gay accomplishes though, not all straight people are out to bash gays and not all gays are supportive of gay rights, I've seen some who are quite nasty about it. Why not just ask him straight out if he is bigoted?

You wouldn't have a pretty good idea what someone was up to if they specially came to a gay forum to argue against gay rights as a non gay person?

Seriously, you can't see why that question actually has a point?

 

[T-Rexx]

Why not just ask him straight out if he is bigoted?

Interesting thing about bigots. They never believe they are bigoted. Never.

 

[Stardreamer]

You're apparently unaware that this did start happening, for real, and not in some kind of hyper-paranoid conspiracy theory world.

This isn't about labelling someone a plant to discredit them. As far as I'm concerned Itsmejeff is already discredited because he's unable to defend his positions without beginning to shriek that we're all on a bandwagon or engaging in herdthink. I can't remember if it was bankside or tigersfan who said it -- but they said it incredibly well -- that if you could get 95% of people to agree the sky is blue, that is not proof of people jumping on a bandwagon.

Coming to a gay forum and expecting there to be a Fox vs. MSN-esque appearance of 50/50 split on the topic of gay rights is ridiculous, someone who thinks or expects that needs a reality readjustment, and someone who is just here to yell at us that we're brainwashed sheep for generally being in unison that we support equal rights for ourselves is here with some agenda other than reasonable discussion.

I have to agree with Jock on this one, Stardreamer. You engage in the sort of worldview that is totally poisoning public discourse and the information we receive in the mass media-- that worldview being that if we're not giving equal credence and respect to every possible side of every issue, regardless of how facts or reason may vary in their support of each position, we're engaging in "bias" or "closedmindedness." We shouldn't take a position for which there is no reasonable or credible argument as seriously as a position that does.

Nice well reasoned, completely misses the mark on what my world view is but that fine. It would be utterly silly to think that every possible side of an issue is equal but it is just as silly to not explore and test the various sides against your own viewpoint. Even worse to reduce all other views to straw men and pat yourself on the back. Even if the 'opposition' is really motivated by hate and bias, they put forward public positions to justify their actions to others. Those positions should not be rejected out of hand but explored and discredited and where there is some logic to them (regardless of the motivation behind them) adjusted for so there is no longer a foothold for the opposition to use.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Nice well reasoned, completely misses the mark on what my world view is but that fine. It would be utterly silly to think that every possible side of an issue is equal but it is just as silly to not explore and test the various sides against your own viewpoint. Even worse to reduce all other views to straw men and pat yourself on the back. Even if the 'opposition' is really motivated by hate and bias, they put forward public positions to justify their actions to others. Those positions should not be rejected out of hand but explored and discredited and where there is some logic to them (regardless of the motivation behind them) adjusted for so there is no longer a foothold for the opposition to use.

Stardreamer have you been even reading?

His "position" is we all just engage in herdthink and bandwagoning because of some gay litmus. How exactly are we supposed to "explore and test that side"?

 

[Stardreamer]

I am glad you said that.

Civil rights for gay people is one of those rare issues that happens to be black and white.

There is no legitimate discussion that debates whether or not gay people should be protected from harm, and there is no legitimate discussion that debates factual information about whether or not gay people are being harmed.



Except that is not what has been debated here.

The criticism in this thread is that we have been mentioned at all, and that discrimination against gays does not happen, which is evidently not true.

Can you quote one single poster in this thread that has said that discrimination against gays does not happen or that they should not be protected from harm? I don't think anyone has put forward that idea.

 

[CoolBlue71]

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

How about responsibility?

why do gay/lesbian women need special notation here ?

Terrible question.

what am i missing ?

History.

women need protection - i get it

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

So, are you saying that women who are not heterosexual are "different types" and do/may not need protection, unlike heterosexual women who, as you "get it," would be in need?

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

'

It's kind of you to start that sentence with the word please. But I won't respond to what you had written as if it has been "reasonable." It does not make sense.

 

[Stardreamer]

Stardreamer have you been even reading?

His "position" is we all just engage in herdthink and bandwagoning because of some gay litmus. How exactly are we supposed to "explore and test that side"?

You should explore and test it for no other reasoning than to disarm the other side by showing the flaw in their logic and in those cases where the have a point to stand on, adjust your own view accordingly to address that point and thus de-fang that argument.

 

[CoolBlue71]

Quote Originally Posted by CoolBlue71 View Post
In other news Log Cabin Republican or GOProud -- whichever -- aren't going to CPAC.


Did I say "however tangentially related" above? Let me correct that. The GOP uses every opportunity - however unrelated - to bash us. CPAC has become a showplace for Republicans to proudly and publicly enforce bigotry against gays. There really is something disturbingly pathological about that.

Yes. But the "pathological" doesn't excuse any of those two groups, Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud, from accountability. They want to be representing people of the LGBT community and, yet, endorse the political party whose platform and politicians work against them.

It's not "disturbing" so much as it's dangerous. Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud have no conscience in trying to lead the LGBT community to slaughter. And their motivation is chiefly attributed to their own delusions that it is worth selling out the LGBT because they figure it would be good for [their] financial gains.

 

[Stardreamer]

Hard to miss.

Originally Posted by itsmejeff View Post

The assumption that sexuality will bar an individual from assistance or protection is a false one...

Not well stated and rather flawed as presented but also presented here completely out of context. He was addressing if removing the language from the law says it is OK for institutions to discriminate as far as I know it does not. So the assumption may be flawed but it is not entirely accurate to say it is false since we have at least one example of discrimination in the system. We just don't know if it is institutionalized. The statement is not however in that context a statement that discrimination does not exist.

 

[CoolBlue71]

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

According to the below-linked New York Times post-Election 2012 article, there was 22-percent support from self-identified "gay, lesbian or bisexual" people who voted for the Republican presidential nominee. So, you shouldn't be finding Just Us Boys' political forum a "bizarro world" … especially given that you have chosen to post here for years.


Gay Vote Proved a Boon for Obama

By Micah Cohen
Nov. 15, 2012 | http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/us/politics/gay-vote-seen-as-crucial-in-obamas-victory.html?_r=0

Research by Patrick J. Egan, a professor of politics and public policy at New York University, suggests that gay voters may prove difficult to bring into the Republican tent. Many of them “aren’t swingable because they have liberal positions on a whole bunch of issues besides gay rights,” Dr. Egan said.

Exit polls showed that 76 percent of voters who identified as gay supported Mr. Obama last week, and that 22 percent supported Mr. Romney.

 

[Benvolio]

If you read the Huffington article the difference is that the House bill protects everyone. The Senate wants to protect members of listed groups, excluding others. It is the same problem with hate crime laws. Democrats always want to prefer those who tend to vote Democrat. The Democrats want to use the law to discriminate.

 

[xbuzzerx]

That would not be a correct analysis of the proposed law.

Discrimination against straight people is included in "sexual orientation," and there are already examples of straight people rightfully bringing claims against gay establishments under state laws.

Gay rights are not special rights.

If only this hypersensitivity against even the perception of possible discrimination against either white people or heterosexual people were applied towards people who actually face discrimination, ey?

 

[opinterph]

In other words, it's okay to beat up on women if they're lesbians, transgendered, or bisexual. Obviously, if you fall into one of those categories, you're not really a human being.

Where is this stated exactly?

I suspect it is the member’s personal dramatization, but it reminds me of some recent segments on The Rachel Maddow Show.

… there's room [for] a worthwhile debate, but it's important for the public to understand that a constructive discussion is impossible when there's no shared basis for reality.

When false claims drive the debate

… the FBI definition of rape, for instance, does not allow for males to [be] victims of the act.

The definition was changed last January.

The new definition of rape is: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” The definition is used by the FBI to collect information from local law enforcement agencies about reported rapes.

Attorney General Eric Holder Announces Revisions to the Uniform Crime Report’s Definition of Rape (FBI)

For the first time ever, the new definition includes any gender of victim and perpetrator, not just women being raped by men.

An Updated Definition of Rape (DOJ Blog)

 

[Rolyo85]

I am glad you said that.

Civil rights for gay people is one of those rare issues that happens to be black and white.

There is no legitimate discussion that debates whether or not gay people should be protected from harm, and there is no legitimate discussion that debates factual information about whether or not gay people are being harmed.



Except that is not what has been debated here.

The criticism in this thread is that we have been mentioned at all, and that discrimination against gays does not happen, which is evidently not true.

Quoted for "thanks, that's exactly what I meant too".