Texas GOP Platform Calls For Imprisonment of Homosexuals

[MercuryJones]

They are not calling for the imprisonment of Homosexuals. In other words, if you are Gay, they aren't saying you should be thrown in jail. They want to make it illegal for Gays to get married and for anyone to declare Gays as a married couple.

And to criminalize same sex sexual relations.

Is that enough for you?

 

[laikaNYC]

Just curious if you just read the title or if you read the actual blog?

They are not calling for the imprisonment of Homosexuals. In other words, if you are Gay, they aren't saying you should be thrown in jail. They want to make it illegal for Gays to get married and for anyone to declare Gays as a married couple.

Not that I agree with that position, but 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.

They know the headline is extremely misleading, don't bother talking reason into them.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

Just curious if you just read the title or if you read the actual blog?

They are not calling for the imprisonment of Homosexuals. In other words, if you are Gay, they aren't saying you should be thrown in jail. They want to make it illegal for Gays to get married and for anyone to declare Gays as a married couple.
.

Or have sex. Don't forget the "have sex" part.

On the subject of legalizing slavery.. personally, I don't think it's much of a stretch.

I can easily see some Republican suggesting that instead of deporting illegal immigrants, we arrest them and "put them to work." I can see illegal immigrants being forced into "work release programs" where they'll be forced into chain-gang-like manual labour.

So yeah... I think that bringing back slavery is something that a lot of right wing people would support.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

So the law DOES call for the imprisonment of homosexuals unless they don't have sex.

 

[laikaNYC]

Jasun continues with his insanely paranoid theories...

Republicans want to:

1.) Bring back slavery
2.) Forcefully punish illegal immigrants into physically grueling hard labor
3.) Have police hide outside homes of homos and wait for them to have sex then storm in with guns drawn

 

[MercuryJones]

I said this... and I think you did also earlier....

And I'd ask, if sex between same sex couples is criminalized isn't that effectively the same thing?

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

And I'd ask, if sex between same sex couples is criminalized isn't that effectively the same thing?

well of course it isn't.

They don't want to make being gay illegal.. just.. you know... acting it.

 

[JayHawk]

And I'd ask, if sex between same sex couples is criminalized isn't that effectively the same thing?

I only read the OP's link and didnt see that in that link... It really means a whole lot of nothing to me so I didnt put a lot of effort into it... meh

Of course it is the same thing if what you naturally do is criminalized.

 

[JayHawk]

Or have sex. Don't forget the "have sex" part.

On the subject of legalizing slavery.. personally, I don't think it's much of a stretch.

I can easily see some Republican suggesting that instead of deporting illegal immigrants, we arrest them and "put them to work." I can see illegal immigrants being forced into "work release programs" where they'll be forced into chain-gang-like manual labour.

So yeah... I think that bringing back slavery is something that a lot of right wing people would support.

Hell yeah... lock em up and make em watch the border and then if they let their illegal friends thru put a cap in dat ass...

Maybe a bloodsport type thing and if they win twenty episodes and are not killed they get citizenship

Or hell maybe ...just maybe enforce the law.

 

[MystikWizard]

So the law DOES call for the imprisonment of homosexuals unless they don't have sex.

Where is that stated in there? Somehow I am not seeing the clause and I've read it, albeit quickly, several times.

If you can post the clause that states this, that would be great.

 

[MercuryJones]

Where is that stated in there? Somehow I am not seeing the clause and I've read it, albeit quickly, several times.

If you can post the clause that states this, that would be great.

Certainly.

Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

And before you both saying it would apply to everyone, not just gays, you should note that it would apply to only some heterosexual sex but virtually all homosexual sex.

It further states "no homosexual or any individual convicted of child abuse or molestation should have the right to custody or adoption of a minor child."

So, in summary, you can't be imprisoned for being homosexual as long as you don't ever have sex, but you can still have your children removed from your custody.

But you're worried about "twisting the opposite political party's words".

 

[MystikWizard]

Certainly.



And before you both saying it would apply to everyone, not just gays, you should note that it would apply to only some heterosexual sex but virtually all homosexual sex.

It further states "no homosexual or any individual convicted of child abuse or molestation should have the right to custody or adoption of a minor child."

So, in summary, you can't be imprisoned for being homosexual as long as you don't ever have sex, but you can still have your children removed from your custody.

But you're worried about "twisting the opposite political party's words".

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".

 

[MercuryJones]

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".

Quite disingenuous of you.

If you can be imprisoned for having gay sex you are effectively imprisoned for being gay.

Your pride was hurt because you were shown up. Just ball up and admit it.

 

[MystikWizard]

Quite disingenuous of you.

If you can be imprisoned for having gay sex you are effectively imprisoned for being gay.

Your pride was hurt because you were shown up. Just ball up and admit it.

Nowhere in that blog did it state you would be imprisoned because of your orientation.

Frankly, you weren't very impressive in your argument.

By what was stated, you could be imprisoned for being heterosexual and performing oral sex, as well.

So how about we quit being a Bitter Betty and jumping to conclusions ..... and how about we start telling it like it is, mmmkay?

 

[MercuryJones]

By what was stated, you could be imprisoned for being heterosexual and performing oral sex, as well.

All homosexual sex would be illegal (unless you want to count handjobs), only some heterosexual - but only in theory. And we know Texas's specific anti-sodomy laws applied only to gays, so if the federal courts were to refuse to take cases, the law on the books is against gays only.

So yes, you could be attracted to members of the same sex, but if you act on it you're committing a crime.

But if you want to pretend it's not geared to outlawing homosexuality, go ahead. You're not fooling anyone.

Here's a modified header for you: Texas GOP Platform Calls For Imprisonment of Homosexuals if they have sex

 

[laikaNYC]

Here's a modified header for you: Texas GOP Platform Calls For Imprisonment of Homosexuals if they have sex

You're being extremely misleading yet again. It doesn't say anything about doing prison time if you violate the sodomy law. It's punishable by a fine. Actually Texas is the only state whose sodomy laws don't include jail time as a punishment.

Virginia, Utah, South Carolina, Alabama, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Missouri, Mississippi, Michigan, Louisiana, Kansas, Idaho, and Florida all call for jail time.

 

[MercuryJones]

BTW, the Texas Republican Platform would also seeks to eliminate parental custody for gays with children.

Hope it's not too extremist of me to point that out.

 

[construct]

It's important to realize that Christians (and other righties) define us by what we do. They, for instance, believe that cessation of homosexual sex makes you an ex-homosexual.

By contrast, we gay men define ourselves by what we are, so it's entirely possible to be a gay virgin, or be a long-time celibate gay, and so on.

This distinction is important to note while discussing the Texas Republican Platform.

I would take issue with the definition of "what we are." I would say that we gay folk define ourselves by what we desire. The difference is important. The import is that the first formulation reifies and essentializes being gay as though it were a single and univocal thing. The second formulation has the advantage of recognizing that "being gay" is more complex than that--that it is not a single thing that we think we can talk about as if we knew it as an exhaustive descriptor.

Being gay comes in different forms that we collectively group together into our own alternative and complex construct. The conflict is about alternative constructs--one that we feel as reductionistic not only because it is too simple but also because it is imposed upon us from outside ourselves as an exercise of power. The other we espouse and deploy because it is a descriptor that accounts for the variety and complexity of gay experience. That too is an exercise of power. This conflict in power-relations (power over the other and power over oneself) is at the root of our conflict within society.

I grant that many if not most gay folk have incorporated "being" gay into their language. It's tempting. I use the term, too, but it is important to recognize that I use it sous rature as an expression that tactically hides my real meaning.

 

[construct]

^ The important point, Construct, is that some of the posters in the thread are looking at the issue through the lens of how they define being gay, as opposed to looking through the lens of how a rightie defines being gay.

If you want to look at it the "Christian" way, the Texas Republican Platform does, indeed, openly discriminate against a class of people—if you define a "class" the way WE do.

(chuckles) Sometimes these discussions get a little bit baroque, don't they?

Sure. But it's not really a conflict over decriptors. It's a conflict over bodies and who controls them. The conflict over constructs (theirs and ours) is a stand-in in that power-conflict.

 

[construct]

People are many things, all at once, and call on many of them throughout their lives every day.

I am a vertebrate.
I am male.
I am Jewish.
I am white.
I am a Democrat.
I am liberal.
I am gay.

Disposition is an identity, especially when we emphasize it in continuity with others of the same. That defines the gay community.

Sure. And the adoption of each of those descriptors is reductionistic reifying a construct. They are all stand-ins operating as exercises of power--some within archaic fields of battle but deployments of language for the acquisition and consolidation of power all the same.