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

[Stardreamer]

What is there to explore about civil rights and whether we should have them?

What harm is there in validating the need for them? My own look at this subject is while ideally the language removed from the bill should not be necessary, given the realities of discrimination that exists it likely is thus the Republican position is shown as invalid. It hoped that one day we will get closer to the ideal and that answer would change.

 

[Stardreamer]

The simple fact of how many people support gay rights today, the number of which enormously dwarfs the actual number of gay people, by itself completely invalidates a claim that the 'only' or 'primary' reason someone would support gay rights is because they themselves are gay and engaging in some kind of gay bandwagon.

I think you give some of these arguments more credence than they deserve and you are doing exactly what I said in my earlier post. You are artificially assigning to them a considerable or comparable weight when they're completely ridiculous.

What does testing and proving the validity of a position have to do with how many people support the position? 99 out of 100 people can support a position and it can still be flawed.

 

[Stardreamer]

My entire point can be simplified in this wise: if the language that was removed referred to "race" (another non-existent social construct to which ignorant people cling), then no one on here would care. It is only a matter of concern because it deals with gay. It may not have any real world effect, but the language is gone, so gays are being hated on. It is not true. Requiring mention of gay is actually something that prevents "gay" from becoming normal.

I have to laugh at the "you cannot be a queer if you disagree" statements. I do not care about any of that. It does not matter for me. It does not change anything. The only issue here is granfalloonism. People are concerned with the group, not with the actual situation.

People can disagree. I do not care. I will not accuse them of being too gay or not gay enough.

Yes. Everyone is out to get you. Everything is a war. Except real war. That is something else and everyone should support it now and forever.

You are not paranoid. You are objectively viewing the world around you. I mean it. Truly.

The issue with the civil rights acts deals mostly with protected classes. They are either obsolete ("race") or things that should not be protected ("religion"). The extension of the protections to the private sector (public accommodations) is also unnecessary. The claim that certain (made up) groups require more protection while others do not is simply illogical. It is contrary to all of modern social science.

Paternalism comes in with the desire to "protect" weak "minority" groups. The problems are basically non-existent now. What parts of society actually accept discrimination? The CRAs were also an attempt to repaid the damage caused by government mandated segregation.

I will disagree to the point that discrimination and persecution of selected groups of people exist. The government did need to 'make up' the protected classes the people persecuting them already did that in order to justify their persecution. Because that persecution became institutionalized where even government was engaging in it, it became necessary to spell out in the law that everyone 'including this group' would be protected. It is a sad state of affairs but it is the history of it.

Now ideally that need to spell out special protections should be temporary, to address the shortcomings of the law until society and elements of government involved corrects itself. But the world we live in is far from ideal.

My conclusion on this issue after much debate and the provided example is that the wording used, which ideally shouldn't be needed, is needed to address shortcomings in how the law has been applied, at the very least it does no harm to the implementation of the law. I would better prefer wording that extends to a more general restriction against discrimination but I'm not writing the legislation.

 

[xbuzzerx]

What does testing and proving the validity of a position have to do with how many people support the position? 99 out of 100 people can support a position and it can still be flawed.

The evidence only supports one side of this debate, Stardreamer. People have claimed in this thread everything from gay people don't need protection to gay people aren't the target of violence or discrimination, none of which is true.

You are placing a double burden of proof on one side with no burden of proof on the other.

 

[chrisrobin]

.
There is no Republicon "war on women." See cut below. You needn't watch any more than the first minute or two:

If we can't trust Ann Romney, whom can we trust?

Stop it! Stop it! Stop it!

 

[Stardreamer]

The evidence only supports one side of this debate, Stardreamer. People have claimed in this thread everything from gay people don't need protection to gay people aren't the target of violence or discrimination, none of which is true.

You are placing a double burden of proof on one side with no burden of proof on the other.

It would seem from one of the link to the press release provided by Opinterph that the committee asked the congressmen to provide documentation supporting the need for the LGBT language in the new bill and they failed to provide any. So it seems even congress asked the question.

 

[Stardreamer]

Yet I provided evidence in this thread.

Yes I referenced it. It seems your faster than the your congress critter. Perhaps you should run for the office.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Yes I referenced it. It seems your faster than the your congress critter. Perhaps you should run for the office.

You could probably find a Congressperson somewhere who would agree that the earth is a matter of thousands of years old, that doesn't mean their position would be worth serious debate.

 

[Rolyo85]

Um, we had a Congressman who said that evolution is "lies from the pits of Hell". On national tv. So let's not refer to congresspeople as some paragon of elevated discourse please.

 

[Stardreamer]

You could probably find a Congressperson somewhere who would agree that the earth is a matter of thousands of years old, that doesn't mean their position would be worth serious debate.

Its the congressmen trying to add the protections for LGBT folks who didn't bother to provide any evidence. I assume you are not trying to compare them to creationists. If your presenting a case to change the law, it is only reasonable to defend your case if asked. If such a creationist language was submitted into a bill for government recognition, the first act of the debate would be to ask the supporters for proof.

 

[Rolyo85]

Its the congressmen trying to add the protections for LGBT folks who didn't bother to provide any evidence. I assume you are not trying to compare them to creationists. If your presenting a case to change the law, it is only reasonable to defend your case if asked. If such a creationist language was submitted into a bill for government recognition, the first act of the debate would be to ask the supporters for proof.

buzzer's point was that the fact that LGBTs require special protection is so glaringly obvious that he shouldn't have been asked to provide it, and the request to do so was not out of some concern for the law, but as a means of obstructing the amendment.

 

[Stardreamer]

buzzer's point was that the fact that LGBTs require special protection is so glaringly obvious that he shouldn't have been asked to provide it, and the request to do so was not out of some concern for the law, but as a means of obstructing the amendment.

But it should not have been unexpected, it is a change to the law. Any proposed legislation is subject to debate no matter how straightforward you may think it is.

 

[tigerfan482]

Bottom line is that if this country treated everyone like they treat a straight, well-to-do, white male, then these laws wouldn't be needed to specifically protect certain groups. However, everyone in this country is not (and up to this point has not) been treated equally, so laws like this with language like this in them are needed to make sure that the law specifically spells out who you cannot discriminate against and who, specifically, has access to programs and support under these laws. This type of language is only added when it remedies an issue of someone belonging to a specific group being addressed by said language being denied protections under the bill the language is being added to.

 

[CoolBlue71]

my response to your bullshit was about goings on here on CE+P

I'm pretty good about not bullshitting. So, it's a matter of you feeling differently. That's not the same thing.

you respond with a 22% poll

Yes. It's The New York Times with a national report of the exit polls showing an outcome of support from the LGBT community for the 2012 U.S. presidential nominees Mitt Romney (22%) and re-elected incumbent Barack Obama (76%). It illustrates that you, chance1, apparently being a homosexual Republican voter are in the minority among those in the LGBT community. So, you are apparently among the 22 percent who voted for Romney.

which has nothing to do with anything

Wrong.

the litmus test bullshit continues here - bandwagoning

I haven't latched on to many postings here to be conscious of a "litmus test." I don't tend to go over pages and pages of every thread ever created here to follow and conclude that there is a litmus test.

The word bandwagoning, as you used it, is described by UrbanDictionary.com as follows:

@ http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bandwagoning

"the uncontrollable attraction of multiple individuals from one social grouping to an individual of the opposite sex; without realization or intention."​

i don't see after reading this [any] answers why lesbian women need extra protection - i think protecting women (inclusive of lesbians is enough

You're not aware of violence against the LGBT community? Hate crimes? Discrimination?

This remark of yours is making me question two things: Are you, chance1, actually a person of the LGBT community? Were you born after the year 2000?

Either you choose to bury your head in the sand ... or you do not care.

course the answer to that by many here is "are you gay" - "you don't support us" etc.

That is a reasonable question.

I assume you are a member of the LGBT community who has chooses to side with the Republican Party.

same old finger pointing nonsense

life on JUB

with full support from the mgmt.

Ask yourself the following question:

Why do I, chance1, choose to participate here?​

 

[chrisrobin]

Bottom line is that if this country treated everyone like they treat a straight, well-to-do, white male, then these laws wouldn't be needed to specifically protect certain groups. However, everyone in this country is not (and up to this point has not) been treated equally, so laws like this with language like this in them are needed to make sure that the law specifically spells out who you cannot discriminate against and who, specifically, has access to programs and support under these laws. This type of language is only added when it remedies an issue of someone belonging to a specific group being addressed by said language being denied protections under the bill the language is being added to.

Q. What would happen if equal rights were extended to everyone.
A. This would become a pretty damned good country!

 

[Rolyo85]

I read about it this morning ...and went back to sleep instead of posting it here. I'm a bad JUBber...

 

[tigerfan482]

Woohoo. I was ecstatic when I saw that the House version failed to muster enough votes to pass. I hope this is just the next link in a very long chain of failures the Republicans and their Tea Party handlers will continue to encounter.

 

[T-Rexx]

Well the House has decided it would pass the Senate bill

286 - 199, with 87 Republicans, the LGBT inclusive language will now go to the president

This is the first LGBT anti-discrimination law of any kind ever passed by Congress!


http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/02/2...nce-against-women-act-to-protect-lgbt-people/

WOW! Just WOW!

 

[White Eagle]

the Senate’s bill passed the House. I got this in an email this AM