Texas GOP Platform Calls For Imprisonment of Homosexuals

[construct]

Identity by characteristic is not reductionist and power seeking just because identities are characterized individually. I'm not going to respond to a query for identity with every identity I can think off the top of my head. People assume you are many things all at once; they aren't interested in the whole smash all at the same damn time.

Yes, and I'll go even further. In an ultimate, ontological sense there is no real identity. There is no real "me." Identity itself is a construct. (Hence my user name.)

 

[construct]

Classic:



Being and doing are two separate things.

Yes, he's right. I suppose what you're seeing in me is sort of a Buddhism without the metaphysics. Is the task to polish the mirror of consciousness? No, there is no mirror there.

It's actually developed out of post-structuralist philosophy. The concept of desire is from Gilles Deleuze. The idea of speaking sous rature is from Jacques Derrida. The military metaphor and the analysis of constructs in power-relations are from Michel Foucault. "The boy next door" is from Tim Price's ironic description of Patrick Bateman in American Psycho--"the voice of reason, the boy next door."

 

[construct]

Do you guys feel that, since Christians/righties have one idea about gays, and gays have another, that "never the twain shall meet" on the issue? I do.

Yes.

(I have to post ten characters, so here they are.)

 

[construct]

Allow me to go off topic for a second.

Apropos SloppySecords: do you ever get the feeling that his screen name should really be Patience Worth?

I had forgotten who that was. I did a search for his posts and remembered immediately.

Are you talking about the Patience Worth that Pearl Curran channeled?

 

[hotatlboi]

It is misleading.

I asked for it to be shown where it was stated in the blog and preferably the actual Republican platform where it called for the Imprisonment of Homosexuals.

And that was not done.

There is a difference between being "imprisoned simply for being Gay" and being imprisoned for "having oral sex".

The way this misleading headline presented it was that Texas was calling for Gays simply to be imprisoned for their Orientation, and that was false.

I am a Democrat and I definitely lean Left, but I want to be fair on all issues and not try to distort things simply because of various points of view. In other words, I want the truth told at all times, regardless of which side we may be on because it is in the best interests of our society to be honest and straight-forward ... and stop this manipulation bullshit.

So yes, you are participating in the manipulation being presented here. The headline should have read "Texas GOP platform calls for Federal Courts to refrain in taking cases pertaining to Oral Sex".

Come on dude, that's needless hair splitting.

Saying you "oppose the legalization of sodomy" is nothing but a slightly less open way of saying you think people should be imprisoned for being gay. It's the same type of language that appeared in those laws in reference to "deviant sexual intercourse".

It wasn't misleading at all. That suggestion is exactly what that language is saying. It would be misleading to suggest that it wasn't and that the real goal is to ban oral/anal sex among straight people or something, lol.

 

[MercuryJones]

Being and doing are two separate things.

Except when the doing is used as the proxy for the being.

 

[MystikWizard]

Come on dude, that's needless hair splitting.

Saying you "oppose the legalization of sodomy" is nothing but a slightly less open way of saying you think people should be imprisoned for being gay. It's the same type of language that appeared in those laws in reference to "deviant sexual intercourse".

It wasn't misleading at all. That suggestion is exactly what that language is saying. It would be misleading to suggest that it wasn't and that the real goal is to ban oral/anal sex among straight people or something, lol.

What I want to see done is let people draw their own conclusions as to who or what activity this statute is geared towards and not put words in people's mouths.

The bottom line is that nowhere in the text does it state that Texas is calling for Gays to be imprisoned because of their Orientation, which is what the title implies. And nowhere do you see this stated word for word in the statute. So, if a thread is going to be done, phrase it that the state of Texas wants anyone who participates in Oral Sex to be criminalized and subject to the statutes of Texas, without involvement from the Supreme Court. That way, it applies to both men who perform on men, and women who perform on men, as well.

Keep in mind that I am heavily against this statute, however what I am not for is this partisan bickering and distortion of words/positions crap. Present the statute as it is worded and let people conclude for themselves what it says. It is not calling for people to be imprisoned for being Gay-- bottom line.

 

[MercuryJones]

What I want to see done is let people draw their own conclusions as to who or what activity this statute is geared towards and not put words in people's mouths.

Uh-huh....

The bottom line is that nowhere in the text does it state that Texas is calling for Gays to be imprisoned because of their Orientation, which is what the title implies.

But the titles doesn't say "because of their orientation". That's YOU putting words in people's mouths.

Your hypocrisy stinks.

So, if a thread is going to be done, phrase it that the state of Texas wants anyone who participates in Oral Sex to be criminalized and subject to the statutes of Texas, without involvement from the Supreme Court. That way, it applies to both men who perform on men, and women who perform on men, as well.

Except the Texas statute of record only criminalizes homosexual sodomy. Do you even know if the law is off the books?

Your knowledge of the law stinks too.

 

[hotatlboi]

It is not calling for people to be imprisoned for being Gay-- bottom line.

I'm sorry dude but you're flat out wrong.

The sodomy laws were calling for exactly that.

They were seldom enforced in an open manner though.

It wasn't until someone was imprisoned for being gay and sued that we got to the Lawrence decision.

The GOP saying they want the sodomy laws put back in their party platform right next to where they bash gay people is in fact saying they want gay people imprisoned.

Now look I appreciate the attitude of civility you were going for, but you picked the wrong item to call distortion on. The distortion is to not recognize this for exactly what it is.

 

[MercuryJones]

BTW, here's Chapter 21, Sec. 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code, designated it as a Class C misdemeanor when someone "engages in deviant sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex."

That's the law if, as the Texas Republican platform demands, "Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy."

Tell me again how it applies to heterosexual and homosexual sex.

 

[MystikWizard]

Uh-huh....

But the titles doesn't say "because of their orientation". That's YOU putting words in people's mouths.

Your hypocrisy stinks.



Except the Texas statute of record only criminalizes homosexual sodomy.

Your knowledge of the law stinks too.

I honestly am not all that emotionally vested in what occurs in Texas as I don't live there. Maybe if I did, I would look into the law that would actually apply to me. However, since it does not, it is what it is.

Anyway, please go troll someone else and quit obsessing over getting the last word in. I remember when I would go through phases like this on another forum and it really is pathetic, if you think about it.

 

[MercuryJones]

I honestly am not all that emotionally vested in what occurs in Texas as I don't live there. Maybe if I did, I would look into the law that would actually apply to me. However, since it does not, it is what it is.

But you cared enough to comment on it, though you had no idea what you were talking about. (And by the way, a 3 minute review of the thread would have given you all the information.)

Anyway, please go troll someone else and quit obsessing over getting the last word in. I remember when I would go through phases like this on another forum and it really is pathetic, if you think about it.

So now you're in a phase of making shit up, and then getting pissy when exposed, instead?

 

[laikaNYC]

Uh-huh....




But the titles doesn't say "because of their orientation". That's YOU putting words in people's mouths.

Your hypocrisy stinks.

That's actually YOU exaggerating the truth. The title is extremely misleading.

Apparently Jones is a constitutional lawyer.

 

[MercuryJones]

bullshit like this in which everyone twists the opposite political party's words and posting stuff every time some far right or far left extremist picks their nose, and portraying it as the whole party's fault, needs to stop.

By the way, since you gave me reason to re-read your first post in the thread, the platform is of the Texas Republican Party, not some incidental extremist. This isn't Rush Limbaugh or a a right wing nut on a message board - this is the party position.

And it includes criminalizing sex between gay people, as well as removing custody of gay parents of their own children.

That's the Republican party platform in Texas. Defend it or minimize it as you wish.

 

[MystikWizard]

That's actually YOU exaggerating the truth. The title is extremely misleading.

And I am going to side with those on the Right with this particular notion. He is trying to exaggerate what the article said and simply refuses to admit he is wrong. He wants me to admit I'm wrong, and I'm not wrong. The bottom line was that the blog did not state that the GOP platform is that homosexuals should be imprisoned for being Gay.

Being Gay and acting on your sexual desires are two completely different things. If you wish to argue the later, sure .... but not the former as this article concerns.

One more troll to place on Ignore. I don't know what it is with depressed people and their desire to troll others .... as if doing so on a public message board amounts to some major accomplishment of theirs. I guess it makes themselves feel bigger about themselves.

Whatever their purpose, the trolls aren't being fed anymore. He can play his little stalking game with someone else.

 

[MercuryJones]

Being Gay and acting on your sexual desires are two completely different things. If you wish to argue the later, sure .... but not the former as this article concerns.

Anyone who cares to look back can see MystikWizard didn't even say this in his initial post. He said all the Platform did was criminalize weddings.

He then went on to say the anti sodomy bit would apply to everyone, because he didn't know that statute in question criminalizes gay sex only.

When people are trying to criminalize the lives of gays, pay attention.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

Being Gay and acting on your sexual desires are two completely different things.

I've been with my husband for 18 years.

18 YEARS.

when I married him, I wasn't "acting on my sexual desires."

When I cared for him when he was sick, I wasn't "acting on my sexual desires."

When I washed his underwear, I wasn't "acting on my sexual desires."

When I bought him a motorcycle, I wasn't "acting on my sexual desires."

When I talked him into moving with me to a new country, I wasn't "acting on my sexual desires."

When I waited for him to get home, I wasn't "acting on my sexual desires."

When I woke up this morning and said "where's my coffee?" I wasn't "acting on my sexual desires."

But the whole time, he was my husband.

The GOPigs of Texas want to make our marriage punishable by jail time. They want to make it illegal that we're not cowering in the closet like good Republicans.

And you are defending them.

Just so we're clear.

 

[JayHawk]

When I woke up this morning and said "where's my coffee?" I wasn't "acting on my sexual desires."

I know I will be summarily executed at dawn for topic change BUT I gotta know.

You actually have someone bring you coffee so regularly that you wonder where it is?

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

I know I will be summarily executed at dawn for topic change BUT I gotta know.

You actually have someone bring you coffee so regularly that you wonder where it is?

He doesn't bring it to me, but he makes a full pot in the morning and when I wake up and stumble into the kitchen, it's usually already made. When it's not, I ask... "where's the coffee?"

And he usually snaps back "at the grocery store where you forget to buy it, asshole."

And then I make tea. Or he does.

either way.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

and THAT is a marriage.

Which is what the GOPigs of Texas want to jail people for.