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

[Stardreamer]

I'm not sure there is such a thing as neutral in political debate, I do try to be objective but I make no claim to being good at it. I think that there is too much emphasis on us vs them, like the world of politics is a bipolar black and white place. I also enjoy civilized debate and discussion which is why I find the rising discord into the personal here disconcerting.

Sometimes you have to 'wrap yourself into the opposition' if you really want to discuss the issue at hand. You cannot effectively explore and validate your own positions if you only test them against a two dimensional straw man of the 'opposition'. The opposition is not always of malicious intent after all, sometimes they are just wrong or sometimes they may actually have a point. One can be pro-gay civil rights and still legitimately ask if a proposed wording related to that subject is appropriate to a specific set of legislation.

[bankside]

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. - Napoléon.

I don't subscribe to the heterosexual infiltration theory when the problem of self-hatred is so well known.

[Rolyo85]

I'm not sure there is such a thing as neutral in political debate, I do try to be objective but I make no claim to being good at it. I think that there is too much emphasis on us vs them, like the world of politics is a bipolar black and white place. I also enjoy civilized debate and discussion which is why I find the rising discord into the personal here disconcerting.

Sometimes you have to 'wrap yourself into the opposition' if you really want to discuss the issue at hand. You cannot effectively explore and validate your own positions if you only test them against a two dimensional straw man of the 'opposition'. The opposition is not always of malicious intent after all, sometimes they are just wrong or sometimes they may actually have a point. One can be pro-gay civil rights and still legitimately ask if a proposed wording related to that subject is appropriate to a specific set of legislation.

Um, when it comes to gay issues, it IS us vs. them. They want us to not have any, to deny who we are and get "cured", or at least stuck back in the closet and pretend we don't exist. What is this, if not us vs. them?

I am only happy some of "them" are beginning to split from the party line. Too bad they risk their careers doing so (I read today that the Illinois GOP guy could be fired in the next two weeks), thus clearly showing how much "they" hate us as a group.

[Stardreamer]

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.

Actually its rather silly because there no real reason for them to do it even for "bat-sh*t crazy" it would be a pointless exercise and waste of energy. Aside from that I pretty much agree with your assessment of the Republican party as it stands.

[JockBoy87]

I'm not sure there is such a thing as neutral in political debate, I do try to be objective but I make no claim to being good at it. I think that there is too much emphasis on us vs them, like the world of politics is a bipolar black and white place. I also enjoy civilized debate and discussion which is why I find the rising discord into the personal here disconcerting.

I am glad you said that.

Civil rights for gay people is one of those rare issues that happens to be black and white.

There is no legitimate discussion that debates whether or not gay people should be protected from harm, and there is no legitimate discussion that debates factual information about whether or not gay people are being harmed.

One can be pro-gay civil rights and still legitimately ask if a proposed wording related to that subject is appropriate to a specific set of legislation.

Except that is not what has been debated here.

The criticism in this thread is that we have been mentioned at all, and that discrimination against gays does not happen, which is evidently not true.

[Stardreamer]

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.

I agree if all he is here for is to rattle cages. I'm not sure what asking him if he is gay accomplishes though, not all straight people are out to bash gays and not all gays are supportive of gay rights, I've seen some who are quite nasty about it. Why not just ask him straight out if he is bigoted?

[JockBoy87]

I agree if all he is here for is to rattle cages. I'm not sure what asking him if he is gay accomplishes though, not all straight people are out to bash gays and not all gays are supportive of gay rights, I've seen some who are quite nasty about it. Why not just ask him straight out if he is bigoted?

1) Word choice is everything, 2) this is a topic he has devoted a substantial number of his posts to, and 3) he has only been a member since November.

You do the math.

[xbuzzerx]

I agree if all he is here for is to rattle cages. I'm not sure what asking him if he is gay accomplishes though, not all straight people are out to bash gays and not all gays are supportive of gay rights, I've seen some who are quite nasty about it. Why not just ask him straight out if he is bigoted?

You wouldn't have a pretty good idea what someone was up to if they specially came to a gay forum to argue against gay rights as a non gay person?

Seriously, you can't see why that question actually has a point?

[T-Rexx]

Why not just ask him straight out if he is bigoted?

Interesting thing about bigots. They never believe they are bigoted. Never.

[Stardreamer]

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.

Nice well reasoned, completely misses the mark on what my world view is but that fine. It would be utterly silly to think that every possible side of an issue is equal but it is just as silly to not explore and test the various sides against your own viewpoint. Even worse to reduce all other views to straw men and pat yourself on the back. Even if the 'opposition' is really motivated by hate and bias, they put forward public positions to justify their actions to others. Those positions should not be rejected out of hand but explored and discredited and where there is some logic to them (regardless of the motivation behind them) adjusted for so there is no longer a foothold for the opposition to use.

[xbuzzerx]

Nice well reasoned, completely misses the mark on what my world view is but that fine. It would be utterly silly to think that every possible side of an issue is equal but it is just as silly to not explore and test the various sides against your own viewpoint. Even worse to reduce all other views to straw men and pat yourself on the back. Even if the 'opposition' is really motivated by hate and bias, they put forward public positions to justify their actions to others. Those positions should not be rejected out of hand but explored and discredited and where there is some logic to them (regardless of the motivation behind them) adjusted for so there is no longer a foothold for the opposition to use.

Stardreamer have you been even reading?

His "position" is we all just engage in herdthink and bandwagoning because of some gay litmus. How exactly are we supposed to "explore and test that side"?

[Stardreamer]

I am glad you said that.

Civil rights for gay people is one of those rare issues that happens to be black and white.

There is no legitimate discussion that debates whether or not gay people should be protected from harm, and there is no legitimate discussion that debates factual information about whether or not gay people are being harmed.



Except that is not what has been debated here.

The criticism in this thread is that we have been mentioned at all, and that discrimination against gays does not happen, which is evidently not true.

Can you quote one single poster in this thread that has said that discrimination against gays does not happen or that they should not be protected from harm? I don't think anyone has put forward that idea.

[JockBoy87]

Can you quote one single poster in this thread that has said that discrimination against gays does not happen or that they should not be protected from harm? I don't think anyone has put forward that idea.

Hard to miss.

The assumption that sexuality will bar an individual from assistance or protection is a false one...

[CoolBlue71]

I support the concept of stopping/preventing/reducing violence against anyone - in this case women

How about responsibility?

why do gay/lesbian women need special notation here ?

Terrible question.

what am i missing ?

History.

women need protection - i get it

why do diff. types of women need diff. types of protection ?

So, are you saying that women who are not heterosexual are "different types" and do/may not need protection, unlike heterosexual women who, as you "get it," would be in need?

please do not respond as if this is anything but a reasonable question or POV

'

It's kind of you to start that sentence with the word please. But I won't respond to what you had written as if it has been "reasonable." It does not make sense.

[Stardreamer]

Stardreamer have you been even reading?

His "position" is we all just engage in herdthink and bandwagoning because of some gay litmus. How exactly are we supposed to "explore and test that side"?

You should explore and test it for no other reasoning than to disarm the other side by showing the flaw in their logic and in those cases where the have a point to stand on, adjust your own view accordingly to address that point and thus de-fang that argument.

[CoolBlue71]

Quote Originally Posted by CoolBlue71 View Post
In other news Log Cabin Republican or GOProud -- whichever -- aren't going to CPAC.


Did I say "however tangentially related" above? Let me correct that. The GOP uses every opportunity - however unrelated - to bash us. CPAC has become a showplace for Republicans to proudly and publicly enforce bigotry against gays. There really is something disturbingly pathological about that.

Yes. But the "pathological" doesn't excuse any of those two groups, Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud, from accountability. They want to be representing people of the LGBT community and, yet, endorse the political party whose platform and politicians work against them.

It's not "disturbing" so much as it's dangerous. Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud have no conscience in trying to lead the LGBT community to slaughter. And their motivation is chiefly attributed to their own delusions that it is worth selling out the LGBT because they figure it would be good for [their] financial gains.

[Stardreamer]

Hard to miss.

Originally Posted by itsmejeff View Post

The assumption that sexuality will bar an individual from assistance or protection is a false one...

Not well stated and rather flawed as presented but also presented here completely out of context. He was addressing if removing the language from the law says it is OK for institutions to discriminate as far as I know it does not. So the assumption may be flawed but it is not entirely accurate to say it is false since we have at least one example of discrimination in the system. We just don't know if it is institutionalized. The statement is not however in that context a statement that discrimination does not exist.

[JockBoy87]

Not well stated and rather flawed as presented but also presented here completely out of context. He was addressing if removing the language from the law says it is OK for institutions to discriminate as far as I know it does not. So the assumption may be flawed but it is not entirely accurate to say it is false since we have at least one example of discrimination in the system. We just don't know if it is institutionalized. The statement is not however in that context a statement that discrimination does not exist.

In context of the conversation that followed, yes that is what he meant. I engaged him on that point and he engaged me. O that sounded wrong.

[CoolBlue71]

what's REALLY insulting is that the premise u just suggested actually doesn't take place here

the reverse does

bizarro world of CE+P

According to the below-linked New York Times post-Election 2012 article, there was 22-percent support from self-identified "gay, lesbian or bisexual" people who voted for the Republican presidential nominee. So, you shouldn't be finding Just Us Boys' political forum a "bizarro world" … especially given that you have chosen to post here for years.


Gay Vote Proved a Boon for Obama

By Micah Cohen
Nov. 15, 2012 | http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/us...tory.html?_r=0

Research by Patrick J. Egan, a professor of politics and public policy at New York University, suggests that gay voters may prove difficult to bring into the Republican tent. Many of them “aren’t swingable because they have liberal positions on a whole bunch of issues besides gay rights,” Dr. Egan said.

Exit polls showed that 76 percent of voters who identified as gay supported Mr. Obama last week, and that 22 percent supported Mr. Romney.

[Benvolio]

If you read the Huffington article the difference is that the House bill protects everyone. The Senate wants to protect members of listed groups, excluding others. It is the same problem with hate crime laws. Democrats always want to prefer those who tend to vote Democrat. The Democrats want to use the law to discriminate.

[JockBoy87]

If you read the Huffington article the difference is that the House bill protects everyone. The Senate wants to protect members of listed groups, excluding others. It is the same problem with hate crime laws. Democrats always want to prefer those who tend to vote Democrat. The Democrats want to use the law to discriminate.

That would not be a correct analysis of the proposed law.

Discrimination against straight people is included in "sexual orientation," and there are already examples of straight people rightfully bringing claims against gay establishments under state laws.

Gay rights are not special rights.

[GiancarloC]

If you read the Huffington article the difference is that the House bill protects everyone. The Senate wants to protect members of listed groups, excluding others. It is the same problem with hate crime laws. Democrats always want to prefer those who tend to vote Democrat. The Democrats want to use the law to discriminate.

Incorrect. In fact vastly incorrect. The House version does not protect everyone and does not mention specifics. It leaves out sexual orientation. That's not protecting everyone. The republicans are pissing on democracy once again.

CoolBlue, that poll is disturbing. I can't believe 22% would vote against themselves... I was hoping it would be even higher for Obama.

[xbuzzerx]

That would not be a correct analysis of the proposed law.

Discrimination against straight people is included in "sexual orientation," and there are already examples of straight people rightfully bringing claims against gay establishments under state laws.

Gay rights are not special rights.

If only this hypersensitivity against even the perception of possible discrimination against either white people or heterosexual people were applied towards people who actually face discrimination, ey?

[opinterph]

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?

I suspect it is the member’s personal dramatization, but it reminds me of some recent segments on The Rachel Maddow Show.

… there's room [for] a worthwhile debate, but it's important for the public to understand that a constructive discussion is impossible when there's no shared basis for reality.

When false claims drive the debate

… the FBI definition of rape, for instance, does not allow for males to [be] victims of the act.

The definition was changed last January.

The new definition of rape is: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” The definition is used by the FBI to collect information from local law enforcement agencies about reported rapes.

Attorney General Eric Holder Announces Revisions to the Uniform Crime Report’s Definition of Rape (FBI)

For the first time ever, the new definition includes any gender of victim and perpetrator, not just women being raped by men.

An Updated Definition of Rape (DOJ Blog)

[Rolyo85]

I am glad you said that.

Civil rights for gay people is one of those rare issues that happens to be black and white.

There is no legitimate discussion that debates whether or not gay people should be protected from harm, and there is no legitimate discussion that debates factual information about whether or not gay people are being harmed.



Except that is not what has been debated here.

The criticism in this thread is that we have been mentioned at all, and that discrimination against gays does not happen, which is evidently not true.

Quoted for "thanks, that's exactly what I meant too".

[Rolyo85]

Nice well reasoned, completely misses the mark on what my world view is but that fine. It would be utterly silly to think that every possible side of an issue is equal but it is just as silly to not explore and test the various sides against your own viewpoint. Even worse to reduce all other views to straw men and pat yourself on the back. Even if the 'opposition' is really motivated by hate and bias, they put forward public positions to justify their actions to others. Those positions should not be rejected out of hand but explored and discredited and where there is some logic to them (regardless of the motivation behind them) adjusted for so there is no longer a foothold for the opposition to use.

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

[xbuzzerx]

You should explore and test it for no other reasoning than to disarm the other side by showing the flaw in their logic and in those cases where the have a point to stand on, adjust your own view accordingly to address that point and thus de-fang that argument.

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.

[opinterph]

Being [closed-minded] to alternative viewpoints is incredibly dangerous, but to overcompensate by bending backwards to give every viewpoint equal consideration is pretty much intellectual suicide.

Your remarks correlate with Senator Chuck Grassley’s reasoning for removing new provisions to The Violence Against Women Act that prohibit discrimination by grantees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. He promotes equal distribution of services to everyone, but regards those provisions as “a political statement that shouldn't be made on a bill that is designed to address actual needs of victims.”

Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Executive Business Meeting
Thursday, February 2, 2012

[bankside]

I suspect it is the member’s personal dramatization, but it reminds me of some recent segments on The Rachel Maddow Show.




The definition was changed last January.

Seems strange to me that the only applicable orifice is anal or vaginal. If I'm forced to perform oral sex on someone, that's rape.

[chance1]

What is insulting is when a person who is gay and votes Republican comes across that he is being reasonable—perhaps due to self-interest of his personal economic situation—and then thinks he is in a position to tell those who are gay and vote Democratic that they are the ones who are misguided.

what's REALLY insulting is that the premise u just suggested actually doesn't take place here

the reverse does

bizarro world of CE+P

According to the below-linked New York Times post-Election 2012 article, there was 22-percent support from self-identified "gay, lesbian or bisexual" people who voted for the Republican presidential nominee. So, you shouldn't be finding Just Us Boys' political forum a "bizarro world" … especially given that you have chosen to post here for years.


Gay Vote Proved a Boon for Obama

By Micah Cohen
Nov. 15, 2012 | http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/us...tory.html?_r=0

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

you respond with a 22% poll

which has nothing to do with anything

the litmus test bullshit continues here - bandwagoning

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

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

same old finger pointing nonsense

life on JUB

with full support from the mgmt.

[JockBoy87]

the litmus test bullshit continues here

As it should, and stated earlier, we don't need straight people descending on a gay forum telling us how vain we are for trying to protect ourselves from discrimination.

i don't see after reading this and answers why lesbian women need extra protection

That couldn't be more obvious.

[opinterph]

Seems strange to me that the only applicable orifice is anal or vaginal. If I'm forced to perform oral sex on someone, that's rape.

I think forced oral is included in the definition.

… “or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

[Rolyo85]

Whether a gay man is for equal rights and special protections for gay people or not, is only a litmus test for sanity.

And to ask why lesbians might need special protections is sort of a litmus test of whether you know anything about the type of violence lesbians face...

[GiancarloC]

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

you respond with a 22% poll

What's so hard about dealing with the facts? It's not the only polls that says that.

which has nothing to do with anything

It has everything to do with this thread. Most gay people can see through the GOP's bullshit.

the litmus test bullshit continues here - bandwagoning

Absolute nonsense. Anyone with their some common sense can see what the GOP is up to and that they are trying to hurt women, gays and other minorities in this country. It's not bandwagoning. A real bandwagon is the Romney/Ryan campaign... for example, one man tattooed the Romney/Ryan logo to his face.

[Ninja108]

HEre's the thing with groups like GOProud,Log Cabin Republicians etc. Virtually all of their members have a lot of $$$,enough to the point that health care,housing etc isn't an issue for them.
They are mostly immune from the injustices middle class and poor LGBT citizens face in all of those areas and more.
Thus it's easy for them to align themselves with a party that hates them for the most part and wants to make LGBT citizens second class ones for life. They're all about making $$$,even if they make everyone else second class citizens in the process.

[GiancarloC]

It's also interesting to note many members of GOProud and LCR aren't even gay... and yeah they only care about their checkbook... it's interesting though. The GOP has a shitty record on the economy whenever they've been in power. So it's a misdirected sense of cult worshipping.

[Rolyo85]

It's also interesting to note many members of GOProud and LCR aren't even gay... and yeah they only care about their checkbook... it's interesting though. The GOP has a shitty record on the economy whenever they've been in power. So it's a misdirected sense of cult worshipping.

That only applies to GOProud actually. The LCRs are legitimately gay, if nothing else. And though they've discredited themselves no end of course, they aren't as idiotically GOP-ball licking as GOProud is. They didn't endorse Bush, and almost didn't endorse Romney, until they got too scared of the Republican propaganda machine, thinking he'd win...

[GiancarloC]

That only applies to GOProud actually. The LCRs are legitimately gay, if nothing else. And though they've discredited themselves no end of course, they aren't as idiotically GOP-ball licking as GOProud is. They didn't endorse Bush, and almost didn't endorse Romney, until they got too scared of the Republican propaganda machine, thinking he'd win...

LCR stooped to GOProud's level when they eventually did endorse Romney... and thus endorsed that shitty VP candidate he picked. That guy who voted down any kind of equal rights legislation and has a piss poor record. Notice how that guy vanished off the map. I can't even remember his name.

[Rolyo85]

You're right. But still, in my mind they're a lot more genuine than GOProud who I don't consider an LGBT organization at all. When half your board members are straight and your public gay face outhomophobes all of them combined, it just seems like a tasteless joke.

[bankside]

I think forced oral is included in the definition.

Ohhh..You mean the obvious thing that you cleverly hid by quoting it directly in the post I was referencing...

[opinterph]

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.

I’m having trouble understanding the portion of this post I’ve quoted. I assume that CRA is intended to represent Civil Rights Act, but I would like to better understand how those acts relate to the concept of “paternalism.” Who or what is being paternal and how does that action negate or interfere with resolving the problems addressed by civil rights legislation?

[itsmejeff]

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.

Anyone with their some common sense can see what the GOP is up to and that they are trying to hurt women, gays and other minorities in this country. It's not bandwagoning. A real bandwagon is the Romney/Ryan campaign... for example, one man tattooed the Romney/Ryan logo to his face.

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.

I’m having trouble understanding the portion of this post I’ve quoted. I assume that CRA is intended to represent Civil Rights Act, but I would like to better understand how those acts relate to the concept of “paternalism.” Who are what is being paternal and how does that action negate or interfere with resolving the problems addressed by civil rights legislation?

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.

[GiancarloC]

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.

Cry me a river.... respond to what I actually wrote and not what ones think I wrote. Get real please. And get a grip.

I don't care for the victim antics either and the non-stop pandering to the political right that certain posters here do. People can wallow in their own ignorance all they want.

[Rolyo85]

So, itsmejeff, are you gonna respond to my question? Or is it too much to ask on a gay forum if you actually are gay?


Nobody here likes war. Just saying. Everything else you wrote is mostly making heroic postures of not caring.

[xbuzzerx]

the litmus test bullshit continues here - bandwagoning

Gay people overwhelmingly supporting their own equal rights in society and not wanting to vote for people actively opposed to those rights is not "bandwagoning." You need to revisit what the term means.

[opinterph]

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.

You are not required to be gay to participate here and you are not required to reveal personal information about yourself to other members. You are also not required to embrace whatever viewpoint you may wish to present in any particular thread. This forum is intended for discussion of issues – not to serve as a mechanism for personal approval or disapproval of each other.

[T-Rexx]

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?

i suspect it is the member’s personal dramatization, but it reminds me of some recent segments on the rachel maddow show.

… there's room [for] a worthwhile debate, but it's important for the public to understand that a constructive discussion is impossible when there's no shared basis for reality.

when false claims drive the debate

The "dramatization" is courtesy of the House GOP, not me. And the claim is hardly false.

No, of course the Republican exclusion of LGBT protections from VAWA does not mean that a lesbian who is abused would have no recourse whatsoever under the law.

But, Republicans did not remove the LGBT protections from VAWA because they thought it made the bill "more efficient." They did it because they wanted to send a message of hate. They did it because they wanted to let the world know that any attempt to improve the lives of gay people, however limited, would be opposed by them vigorously. Not because such legislation is unnecessary or unhelpful, but precisely because Republicans fear it might work.

The removal of the LGBT protections from VAWA is a wink and a nod to anyone who might be inclined to abuse gay people. "We're on your side, buddy, and we'll do what we can to help you out."

[opinterph]

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.

It is my impression that federal measures to counteract discrimination address current situations, rather than redress for the past. I think many regulations are misunderstood and that may account for hostility toward the general notion. I am quite certain that parts of society continue to accept and even promote discrimination. And though I understand your complaint relating to the use social constructs to differentiate groups, I think those measures of identity are also frequently used by people to characterize subsets of the population that they disdain. Also relative to constructs, I think there is a need of some sort for many people to identify an “us” and a “them.” Besides differentiation, that process invites comparison and even competition, which ideally would result in mutual benefit. Perhaps too often, though, it intensifies the separation and maybe that is one reason I continue to perceive discrimination.

[opinterph]

Republicans did not remove the LGBT protections from VAWA because they thought it made the bill "more efficient." They did it because they wanted to send a message of hate. They did it because they wanted to let the world know that any attempt to improve the lives of gay people, however limited, would be opposed by them vigorously. Not because such legislation is unnecessary or unhelpful, but precisely because Republicans fear it might work.

The removal of the LGBT protections from VAWA is a wink and a nod to anyone who might be inclined to abuse gay people. "We're on your side, buddy, and we'll do what we can to help you out."

I have been trying to figure out the “why.” Though I don’t see it as an invitation for abuse, I wonder if what is stated publicly may not be indicative of the real motivation. House Republicans – most notably Leader Cantor, indicated that allowing Native American courts to have jurisdiction in the prosecution of [Not-So-Native] Americans was the main objection. [NYT]

Meanwhile, Senator Leahy made a strong case that removal of the provisions involves substantive reduction of genuine protections – not just deleting a tribute that was included to appease certain minority groups. [Press Release]

[T-Rexx]

I have been trying to figure out the “why.” Though I don’t see it as an invitation for abuse, I wonder if what is stated publicly may not be indicative of the real motivation.

I suppose I'm a cynic, but I don't accept the premise that VAWA is improved by removing provisions intended to make it more effective and fair. Yes, of course, the provisions in question may not, in fact, end up making the bill better. But, they might. And, leaving them in doesn't make the bill particularly cumbersome. So, the provisions in question are at best helpful and at worst neutral. Therefore, the only reason to oppose them is to send a message that Republicans don't like gay people and will do whatever it takes to oppose any legislation that might benefit us in any way.

My own cynicism aside, there is good reason to believe Republicans have nefarious motive here. This is a party that pushed through constitutional amendments opposing same-sex marriage in 31 states. In every case, the amendments were proposed and promoted by Republicans, not Democrats. If there were some evidence that gay marriage were a bad thing, there might be some logic to devoting so much energy to this cause. But, there is no such evidence. The amendments were advanced solely on the basis of prejudice and prejudice alone.

Similarly, this party opposed repeal of DADT with great energy. This opposition was not based on some evidence that acknowledging gays in the military would be harmful to the military. Indeed, the evidence was very much to the contrary - that repealing DADT would be good for everyone. Republican opposition was not based on evidence, reason, or logic. It was based on prejudice and prejudice alone.

This party has aggressively opposed defining violence against gays as a hate crime. This opposition is not based on some evidence that gays are not at special risk as objects of hated. The opposition is based on anti-gay prejudice and prejudice alone.

So, forgive my cynicism, but Republicans use every available opportunity to oppose gay rights. Not because there is evidence that acknowledging such rights would be harmful to America, but because prejudice has become a way of life for these people. Their knee-jerk reaction to everything gay is hatred.

I don't see how one can interpret the removal of LGBT protections from VAWA by Republicans in any other light. It follows their usual (indeed, only) pattern.

House Republicans – most notably Leader Cantor, indicated that allowing Native American courts to have jurisdiction in the prosecution of [Not-So-Native] Americans was the main objection. [NYT]

Republican opposition to native American tribal courts is another matter entirely. It deserves discussion, but I focused my OP on removal of LGBT protections because of the nature of the audience here.

Meanwhile, Senator Leahy made a strong case that removal of the provisions involves substantive reduction of genuine protections – not just deleting a tribute that was included to appease certain minority groups. [Press Release]

Yes, exactly. There is a strong argument that the LGBT protections in the Senate VAWA might be quite helpful to gays. That is, of course, why the Senate included them. I suspect that's why Republicans want to try to get rid of the protections. Anything beneficial to a group they hold in contempt is worthy of their vigorous opposition.