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

[chance1]

^ trying WAY too hard

 

[Rolyo85]

^ trying WAY too hard

 

[itsmejeff]

Is that a new word for us?

Are you a gay male?

Every post is a brick in the house of doubt.

Does it even matter? Should my opinion change because of a label?

When did this gay hive mind nonsense start?

 

[T-Rexx]

Where is this stated exactly?

It's implied.

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.

If sexuality discourages a person from seeking help, or causes an aid worker to treat a potential victim differently, then of course it is a bar to assistance.

Indeed, it is hard to imagine how sexuality could not be a factor here.

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 incidence of violence among gays vs. straights is not the issue.

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.

Does that matter?

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.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Does it even matter? Should my opinion change because of a label?

When did this gay hive mind nonsense start?

Because when you use some odd as hell phrase for gay people like when someone calls us "practicing homosexuals" I question very much if they are, themselves, a gay person. And it matters because if you are here, on a gay forum, discussing gay rights with a faintly negative slant on the topic, and aren't a gay male, you appear to be here with some kind of agenda.

 

[Ninja108]

Bottom line..there might be some moderate members of the GOP party but as it stands,it is still the anti gay party,period.

 

[Just_Believe18]

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

Hmm, I don't know, everything?

You've been a member of this community since 2005. You have witnessed countless threads of homosexuals sharing their experiences of being bullied, assaulted, beaten, hated, and discriminated against from strangers, friends, family, and spouses on the basis of their sexual orientation.

It would be nice, as a fellow homosexual, to have your support sometime. Regardless of politics, when it comes to gay people, we should all be uniting for equal rights and protections under the law. It's not a partisan issue, and the Republican House is repulsive for stripping these provisions from the Violence Against Women Act.

 

[itsmejeff]

It's implied.

that is not how law works.

If sexuality discourages a person from seeking help, or causes an aid worker to treat a potential victim differently, then of course it is a bar to assistance.

The first is a personal problem. The latter would be an issue regarding structure of assistance/protection. The latter is not shown to be a major factor.

The incidence of violence among gays vs. straights is not the issue.

It shows that reported incidence (and thus protection and services) are more often utilized.

Because when you use some odd as hell phrase for gay people like when someone calls us "practicing homosexuals" I question very much if they are, themselves, a gay person. And it matters because if you are here, on a gay forum, discussing gay rights with a faintly negative slant on the topic, and aren't a gay male, you appear to be here with some kind of agenda.

Summarized as "if you do not agree with the herd, you need to get out."

It would be nice, as a fellow homosexual, to have your support sometime. Regardless of politics, when it comes to gay people, we should all be uniting for equal rights and protections under the law. It's not a partisan issue, and the Republican House is repulsive for stripping these provisions from the Violence Against Women Act.

Your entire view is wrong. You are basing everything on sexuality. All other factors are ignored.

Grow up, sir. Homosex is not a club. There is no "we."

 

[xbuzzerx]

that is not how law works.

The first is a personal problem. The latter would be an issue regarding structure of assistance/protection. The latter is not shown to be a major factor.

It shows that reported incidence (and thus protection and services) are more often utilized.

Summarized as "if you do not agree with the herd, you need to get out."

Your entire view is wrong. You are basing everything on sexuality. All other factors are ignored.

Grow up, sir. Homosex is not a club. There is no "we."

Annnnnnd here's the part where you go completely off your rocker, and begin wildly saying that any gay person who shares a belief in gay people's equal rights is all a koolaid drinking herd member.

You're quite correct. When he said "we" he meant gay men, not non-gay Republican plants who refer to things like our "homosex agenda."

 

[Stardreamer]

I don't think anyone is denying that persecution exists against LGBT individuals, the question is whether this specific law requires special focus on the issue and it is not sure that it is. If you can show institutionalized discrimination against that group then most certainly such a focus would be appropriate but in this day and age such institutionalized discrimination is becoming rarer because it draws negative public opinion and controversy when spotlighted by the media. The one example provided is unclear but is just as or more likely to be a personal discrimination on the part of the individual. In my view this matter might be better addressed by wording in the law forbidding discrimination against anyone on factors outside the qualifying criteria for the providing of the service. This serves to protect a larger community than just LGBT individuals while still giving LGBT rights groups some teeth for taking legal action against specific offenders.

 

[xbuzzerx]

At this point it is not even thought by the corpus of this forum that you are gay, and at the very least, it is definite that you are not supportive of causes that benefit this community.

Furthermore, I concur that the phraseology you use is indicative of someone who not only frequents anti-gay news and opinion sites, but prefers the arguments they present.

Therefore, the most plausible explanation is that you are a conservative plant here to screw with us for your own amusement.

I may have been born at night, but I was not born last night.

Agreed and well said.

 

[vulgar_newcomer]

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

Their is more to discrimination , violence or marriage then sucking dick. You ask many married woman who like sucking dick too, but you only applied the terminology to gays. You post a excellent example of the sort of thing a bigot would use as a defense to smear a minority.

 

[Stardreamer]

It is, and often why judges have such a hard time searching for a record to infer meaning from the law.




At this point it is not even thought by the corpus of this forum that you are gay, and at the very least, it is definite that you are not supportive of causes that benefit this community.

Furthermore, I concur that the phraseology you use is indicative of someone who not only frequents anti-gay news and opinion sites, but prefers the arguments they present.

Therefore, the most plausible explanation is that you are a conservative plant here to screw with us for your own amusement.

I may have been born at night, but I was not born last night.

I think the idea that Conservatives are so desperate to undermine liberal causes that they are seeding 'plants' into a gay porn website's political forum is rather silly. Aside from that, is there some condition of participation here that you have be gay and supportive of gay rights to participate in this forum? I find forums limited to one sided opinion to be quite boring, part of the reason why I'm usually willing to step in an play devil's advocate when I can at least understand the other side's viewpoint.

Whether or not he is gay is irrelevant to the discussion, and his points are relevant to the discussion. Whether they are right or wrong is the point of the discussion but if you are unwilling to hold the discussion just because he might be a straight conservative then you have already spoiled any rational debate by making it clear you will attack the messengers you disagree with.

 

[Centexfarmer]

^ WORD!

Nobody wants to be slammed with being on "the bandwagon" but that's just a stupid sports analogy that really doesn't apply unless one is only talking about supporting "one team."

On a Gay Porn discussion forum it's only reasonable that, when it comes to topics like this, that we'd all be on the same page...or "bandwagon."

But, instead it DEVOLVES (sorry to those who don't accept evolution) into a partisan witch hunt, and everyone ends up talking past each other.

So as a volunteer Moderator of this forum, where it's clear that I am bias, I prefer that we skip past the Fox/MSNBC News talking points and discuss how these issues effect us personally.

Otherwise, (and this is me taking off my volunteer moderator / JUB T-shirt) right wing, or left, when it comes to Gay Equality there are quite a few TROLLS who post regularly in this forum.

In some instances the only reason CE&P exists is so not to interrupt the more pressing topics in Hot Topics.

Which, btw....

IT'S BRITNEY BITCH!

 

[Stardreamer]

We gays are used to hate, but what we do not like are lies.



Your problem is you don't know the difference between neutrality and objectivity.

Perhaps I could learn if there were an example of either in the last few posts but I must admit to failing to find any.

I thought the one comment suggesting the board filled with right wing rantings amusing, compared to some message boards I've visited this one is clearly a liberal domain. This is really the only political message board I frequent anymore because I feel there is really honest informed discussion here. I would hate to see this become like all the others I've left because they had become so one sided in opinion that any real discussion dissolved in to bashing the offender who had the temerity to disagree right or wrong.

That being said some of Itsmejeff's responses to being challenged were clearly out of line in reasonable debate, post 69 particularly. But he may just have a temper, something he is not alone with, my advice to him is focus on the subject and ignore the personal. And it is amazing to watch how quickly the wagons circle around the dreaded conservative plant, LOL. However unlike one or two others here who can only spout talking points and cliche's he is actually addressing the subject before things started devolving. Which makes this even more amusing since there have been a few posts lately asking for a Republican defender's response to the subject and now when you think you have one, it all turns into personal bashing and lamenting on the evil conservative plants. One would almost suspect that such posts were not really plea for an opposing viewpoint but bait for a trap.

Everyone should take a step back and calm it down. You wanted a conservative to debate, be glad you got one that is actually debating and not another drone. Drop the personal unless you really are saying this is a Gay Progressive only board. It which case all of us who aren't gay progressives can just leave and let you'll have a nice quite echo chamber to talk in.

 

[Centexfarmer]

^ Thank you.

Yes that are some opinions expressed here that I personally don't agree with.

There are some members who post here that I don't think are "conservative plants" but just random internet trolls.

And there are "regular" posters who post here that do nothing more than to wrap themselves in the opposition (calling them devil's advocates gives them too much credit) that they themselves want to be the "lightening rods" for opposition, while branding everyone else as "percenters" and leaders of "bandwagons."

Yeah, there are some TROLLS who regularly post in this sub-forum.

When CE&P works best, it works when all of us can just "put it out there" and then we discuss it.

Where and when this forum sucks (for all of us), is when avatars try to make it personal between each other.

Then, as a moderator, it becomes difficult for us to untangle that discussion.

 

[Centexfarmer]

No, he's actually right. Certain posters here try to play the neutral ground and they fail miserably at I must add. It's not about making this neutral or objective, but rather looking at intentions. The poster in question seems to be incredibly bitter and defensive... resorting to insults when their argument fails. So I think telling some people here to step back and calm down is misdirected.

Said the kettle to the pot.

 

[Rolyo85]

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.

 

[T-Rexx]

I think the idea that Conservatives are so desperate to undermine liberal causes that they are seeding 'plants' into a gay porn website's political forum is rather silly.

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.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I think the idea that Conservatives are so desperate to undermine liberal causes that they are seeding 'plants' into a gay porn website's political forum is rather silly.

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.