JustUsBoys.com gay porn forum

logo

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst ... 23
Results 101 to 139 of 139
  1. #101
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,931

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    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?
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  2. #102
    CE&P Secret Police xbuzzerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    11,232

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    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.

  3. #103
    Virtus in medio stat JUB Admin opinterph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jawja
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    22,777
    Blog Entries
    14

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    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

  4. #104
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    17,721
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by opinterph View Post
    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.

  5. #105
    Banned chance1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    21,386

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CoolBlue71 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by chance1 View Post
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by CoolBlue71 View Post
    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.

  6. #106
    Virtus in medio stat JUB Admin opinterph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jawja
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    22,777
    Blog Entries
    14

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by opinterph View Post
    … “or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

  7. #107
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,931

    Code of Conduct

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

    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...
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  8. #108
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    65,484

    Code of Conduct

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

    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.

  9. #109
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,931

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by GiancarloC View Post
    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...
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  10. #110
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,931

    Code of Conduct

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

    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.
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  11. #111
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    17,721
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by opinterph View Post
    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...

  12. #112
    Virtus in medio stat JUB Admin opinterph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jawja
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    22,777
    Blog Entries
    14

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by itsmejeff View Post
    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?
    Last edited by opinterph; February 24th, 2013 at 09:46 PM. Reason: typo

  13. #113

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

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by GiancarloC View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by opinterph View Post
    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.
    Last edited by itsmejeff; February 24th, 2013 at 08:45 PM.

  14. #114
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,931

    Code of Conduct

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

    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.
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  15. #115
    CE&P Secret Police xbuzzerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    11,232

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by chance1 View Post

    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.

  16. #116
    Virtus in medio stat JUB Admin opinterph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jawja
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    22,777
    Blog Entries
    14

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by itsmejeff View Post
    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.

  17. #117
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    5,250

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by t-rexx View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by itsmejeff View Post
    where is this stated exactly?
    Quote Originally Posted by opinterph View Post
    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."

  18. #118
    Virtus in medio stat JUB Admin opinterph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jawja
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    22,777
    Blog Entries
    14

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by itsmejeff View Post
    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.

  19. #119
    Virtus in medio stat JUB Admin opinterph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jawja
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    22,777
    Blog Entries
    14

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    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]

  20. #120
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    5,250

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by opinterph View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by opinterph View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by opinterph View Post
    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.
    Last edited by T-Rexx; February 25th, 2013 at 12:15 AM.

  21. #121
    auribus teneo lupum Stardreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Married
    Posts
    3,423

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    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.
    Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)

  22. #122
    auribus teneo lupum Stardreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Married
    Posts
    3,423

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by xbuzzerx View Post
    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.
    Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)

  23. #123
    auribus teneo lupum Stardreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Married
    Posts
    3,423

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by itsmejeff View Post
    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.
    Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)

  24. #124
    CE&P Secret Police xbuzzerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    11,232

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    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.

  25. #125
    Halleluja! chrisrobin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    9,126

    Code of Conduct

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

    .
    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!

  26. #126
    auribus teneo lupum Stardreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Married
    Posts
    3,423

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by xbuzzerx View Post
    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.
    Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)

  27. #127
    auribus teneo lupum Stardreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Married
    Posts
    3,423

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    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.
    Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)

  28. #128
    CE&P Secret Police xbuzzerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    11,232

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    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.

  29. #129
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,931

    Code of Conduct

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

    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.
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  30. #130
    auribus teneo lupum Stardreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Married
    Posts
    3,423

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by xbuzzerx View Post
    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.
    Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)

  31. #131
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,931

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    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.
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  32. #132
    auribus teneo lupum Stardreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Married
    Posts
    3,423

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    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.
    Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)

  33. #133
    Sex God tigerfan482's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    862

    Code of Conduct

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

    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.

  34. #134
    JUB Addict CoolBlue71's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    State of Michigan
    Posts
    2,083

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by chance1 View Post
    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/defin...m=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?

  35. #135
    Halleluja! chrisrobin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    9,126

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan482 View Post
    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!

  36. #136
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,931

    Code of Conduct

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

    I read about it this morning ...and went back to sleep instead of posting it here. I'm a bad JUBber...
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  37. #137
    Sex God tigerfan482's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    862

    Code of Conduct

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

    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.

  38. #138
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    5,250

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    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/2013/02/28...t-lgbt-people/
    WOW! Just WOW!

  39. #139
    JubberClubber White Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Kerrville
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Widower
    Posts
    10,990

    Code of Conduct

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

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



    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	VAWA.jpg 
Views:	19 
Size:	69.6 KB 
ID:	934039
    BEWARE! Harassing the Indian may result in sudden and severe hair loss.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | About JustUsBoys.com | Site Map | RSS | Webmasters | Advertise | Link to JUB | Report A Bug on this Page

Visit our sister sites: Broke Straight Boys | CollegeDudes.com | CollegeBoyPhysicals.com | RocketTube
All models appearing on JustUsBoys.com were over 18 at the time of photography. The records for sexually explicit images required by U.S. 2257 are kept by the
individual producers of the images. The location of the records is available by clicking the Custodian of Records link at the bottom of each gallery page.
© 2012 JustUsBoys.com. The JustUsBoys.com name and logo are registered trademarks. Labeled with ICRA and RTA. Member of ASACP and The Free Speech Coalition.