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

[Rolyo85]

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.

Nope, I am not. Or rather, I don't see it as good vs evil, but rather grey vs evil. And not even the fairy tale "evil" but the soulless, self-serving, backward mindset steeped in the misconception of its own superiority and baring its teeth against any perceive attack on said superiority. When there is deliberate harm involved, anything that doesn't directly fight that deliberate harm is failing to address it. That's not an "us vs. them" thing, it's a fact of life, which is why I said people with dogs in the fight can't afford to be philosophical about it. You're furthering nothing when holding your vote from either major party. You're just making the gap between them - whichever direction it may go in - smaller.

Frankly, I feel nothing but mild disgust at "those crazy libertarians" and the total lack of moral compass that ideology peddles, but that's a conversation for another topic.


Chance, Bizzaro World would be what CoolBlue71 is suggesting. What IS happening at CE&P is a normal healthy behavior. [Text: Removed]

 

[xbuzzerx]

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

Stardreamer, if your position is "the dems don't support the issue perfectly, and the Reps are an active enemy of gay rights, so I support neither of them" then you are letting perfect be the enemy of good.

 

[xbuzzerx]

[Quoted Post: Removed]

The entire concept that being an advocate of your own equal rights in society is part of some "ideological litmus test" doesn't say anything about liberal litmus narrowness. It says something about how slantedly ideological Republicans are that they'd call someone a partisan for defending themselves.

 

[Stardreamer]

Stardreamer, if your position is "the dems don't support the issue perfectly, and the Reps are an active enemy of gay rights, so I support neither of them" then you are letting perfect be the enemy of good.

Its more a case of thinking that if either party completely had its way it would be bad for America. If it makes you feel any better, of the two I currently favor the Democrats more right now than I ever have in my political life. The Republicans right now are getting absolutely nothing from me because the extremists have taken over the party.

 

[Rolyo85]

Now, this I can agree with. Only I don't see it as a reason not to choose among them. I expect the opposition to always be there and provide counterbalance - constructive or (as is the case now) not. I don't see it as a reason to stand outside.

 

[Stardreamer]

Now, this I can agree with. Only I don't see it as a reason not to choose among them. I expect the opposition to always be there and provide counterbalance - constructive or (as is the case now) not. I don't see it as a reason to stand outside.

Standing outside implies I am not involved, I vote and portion my votes and support where I think it is needed. I will not however simply vote for the Democrats blindly because they are the 'lesser evil'. Are we going to spend the rest of this tread trying to recruit me or psychoanalyze my political views? I sort of thought we were discussing legislation?

 

[Stardreamer]

I don't think anybody disagrees. The disagreement seems to be over what constitutes fair criticism, and the conflict of interest between the desire to hold public office and best public policy.

I thought we were discussing the Republican's position on LGBT Rights in the context of a domestic violence bill?

 

[Rolyo85]

Which we don't really have people crazy enough to oppose here, so I'd say that discussion is more or less done.

 

[chance1]

The entire concept that being an advocate of your own equal rights in society is part of some "ideological litmus test" doesn't say anything about liberal litmus narrowness. It says something about how slantedly ideological Republicans are that they'd call someone a partisan for defending themselves.

i was specifically speaking to rolyo who as i've pointed out numerous times as poster boy for litmus tests

as for this "act" i just don't get it

and i don't see it as anti-gay so much as anti extra regulation

i love that gay marriage is spreading organicially

i don't hate all people who oppose gay marriage

i don't condemn other gays who don't agree with my POV

many here do

and it blows on so many levels

 

[Stardreamer]

Which we don't really have people crazy enough to oppose here, so I'd say that discussion is more or less done.

There is really only one, maybe two truly mind numbed drones on the board, I don't know why some folks keep trying to bait them into defending anything when they really won't debate but just feed out the same talking points over and over. I do my best to provide some devil's advocate discussion and balancing but I can't defend the indefensible. I'm not a social conservative, I'm a Libertarian Conservative so the best I can do is argue from the 'is this really necessary?" position. Its like this subject as someone who values individual freedom over social freedom I would REALLY like to idea that everyone is treated equally under the law therefore special focus in law isn't necessary were TRUE but I'm enough of a realist to know that is not the case.

 

[Rolyo85]

and i don't see it as anti-gay so much as anti extra regulation

I'm sorry, I keep trying to read that sentence, and all I keep seeing is "cop out".

 

[Stardreamer]

i was specifically speaking to rolyo who as i've pointed out numerous times as poster boy for litmus tests

as for this "act" i just don't get it

and i don't see it as anti-gay so much as anti extra regulation

i love that gay marriage is spreading organicially

i don't hate all people who oppose gay marriage

i don't condemn other gays who don't agree with my POV

many here do

and it blows on so many levels

The 'is this really necessary?' argument is a perfectly valid one but as I just said, reality doesn't always live up to our expectations so I can understand why it is necessary sometimes. Is it necessary THIS time? I can't say without taking some time to study the legislation.

I'm hoping we are getting closer to the tipping point where Social Conservatives will realize the fight isn't winnable and start embracing the alternative argument that in a society where gays are accepted, opposing gay marriage is opening the door to actually supporting 'alternative' marriages which will do far more harm to the institution of marriage than allow gays to marry will. You can phrase support for gay marriage in conservative terms if they really wanted to. It is either that or go for the removing government from marriage position.

 

[chance1]

^ yep ...... it's a loser on so many levels

reasonability being one
the shift in people's beliefs - many pro many just don't care
i can totally understand religious people thing gay is not right, etc. - they just don't have the right to infringe their beliefs on others
it's really very simple
and drawing a line in the sand on these issues where the public is becoming more and more liberal or laissez faire is uber dumb politically as well as morally

 

[xbuzzerx]

^ yep ...... it's a loser on so many levels

reasonability being one
the shift in people's beliefs - many pro many just don't care
i can totally understand religious people thing gay is not right, etc. - they just don't have the right to infringe their beliefs on others
it's really very simple
and drawing a line in the sand on these issues where the public is becoming more and more liberal or laissez faire is uber dumb politically as well as morally

Is this a concession that your party's platform is wrong on this issue? Because what you are saying does not reflect the GOP platform.

 

[chance1]

^ it's not my party

And I have made myself clear on what I think

 

[Stardreamer]

^ yep ...... it's a loser on so many levels

reasonability being one
the shift in people's beliefs - many pro many just don't care
i can totally understand religious people thing gay is not right, etc. - they just don't have the right to infringe their beliefs on others
it's really very simple
and drawing a line in the sand on these issues where the public is becoming more and more liberal or laissez faire is uber dumb politically as well as morally

What the 'Defenders of Marriage' need to understand is that Gays are here to stay, that horse has left the barn and isn't returning thanks to the Supreme Court. The 'changing the definition of marriage' argument that if we allow gays to marry it will lead alternative forms of marriage like polygamy and bestiality is also flawed because having been recognized by society, something has to be done to address the legal inequality concerning gay relationships. If you say civil unions is the answer then you are opening the door to other types of 'alternative' marriage. Thus refusing to recognize monogamous gay couples relationships as a marriage is the thing that will open the door to group marriages, etc. IF you REALLY want to defend marriage as it is, you either have to allow gay marriage or remove government from the recognition and approval of marriages all together. The later is not going to happen as much as I might like the libertarian feel of it.

 

[itsmejeff]

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?

The deleted provisions apparently deal with the inclusion of gay as a group that has barriers to aid. It does not appear to allow for violence against anyone. The sexist title aside, the act does little in terms of discriminating against anyone (the bigger issues are with other agencies; the FBI definition of rape, for instance, does not allow for males to victims of the act.)

The assumption that sexuality will bar an individual from assistance or protection is a false one that is not supported by anything within the act.

Based on real world data, this really does not appear to be true. Rates of domestic abuse for those in same sex relationships appear to be the same as seen in normal persons (though slightly higher). The issues regarding seeking assistance appear to be more related to social issues for the victims of abuse (dealing with sexuality becoming known mostly) than some systematic denial of service.

Generally, specific inclusions of the gay in legislation is an indication that society still views non-heterosexuals as being weak and requiring special help from the stronger and better heterosexuals.

 

[itsmejeff]

I have just linked a story on the previous page about a lesbian who was denied assistance.

It is one thing to be openly hostile to the idea of protecting LGBT people from discrimination; it is quite another to deny it happens even when presented with evidence.

Are we to repeal the Civil Right Act of 1964 because it makes whites appear stronger and better?

One case does not prove a system wide problem. Again, based on published rates of domestic transgression, homosex are not being denied protection. And, based on the writings I have seen be academics, social issues are more to blame for underreporting (just like with violence against males) than claims of institutional homophobia in government agencies.

The CRAs (all of them) have major issues. There are clear problems with defining which groups are protected while not offering similar protection to others. Paternalism is not good. It is not even respectful. It shows a clear disregard for groups labeled as "minorities." It fosters difference instead of breaking down social constructs.

 

[itsmejeff]

I appreciate that you belittle discrimination against the LGBT community though. Well done

I do not belittle anything. I approach problems with logic. Not emotion.

Your desire to suck dick should have no influence on how the determinations you make regarding issues. Subjectivity is for the intellectually differently advantaged.

Stop thinking of yourself as a victim. It is not good for you psychologically.

 

[xbuzzerx]

homosex are not being denied protection.

Is that a new word for us?

Are you a gay male?