In CNN report, Yellin claimed possible "political headache" for Dems with ENDA vote, citing 2006 ads "about Nancy Pelosi's radical homosexual agenda"
On the November 7 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, congressional correspondent Jessica Yellin asserted that the then-upcoming House vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) "could be a real political headache for some Democrats, especially when you consider the ads that ran last election cycle about [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi's [D-CA] radical homosexual agenda." But in contrast to her suggestion that ENDA could be "a real political headache for some Democrats," Yellin herself noted at the end of her report that polling shows Americans overwhelmingly favor protections for gay men and lesbians against workplace discrimination: "[A]bout 90 percent of Americans say gays and lesbians should be protected from employment discrimination. The overall sense from pollsters is that Americans believe discrimination is wrong, no matter who's the target."
Despite Yellin's citation of the anti-Pelosi ads as evidence that the ENDA vote "could be a real political headache for some Democrats," she gave no evidence that the ads damaged particular Democrats. Nor did she challenge their characterization of Pelosi as having embraced a "radical homosexual agenda" -- a so-called "agenda" that includes passage of a bill that would enact into law a principle that, according to Yellin, is held by about 90 percent of Americans. The Democrats gained 30 seats in the House of Representatives in the 2006 election, then elected Pelosi speaker.
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the November 7 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
WOLF BLITZER (host): Today, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and their supporters could be cheering. The House of Representatives appears likely to pass a bill that will protect them from workplace discrimination.
Our congressional correspondent, Jessica Yellin, is on Capitol Hill watching this legislation move through Congress. How soon is it likely to go into effect?
YELLIN: Wolf, we're expecting that vote sometime this hour. And I'll tell you, this vote could be a real political headache for some Democrats, especially when you consider the ads that ran last election cycle about Nancy Pelosi's radical homosexual agenda. But Pelosi says she and her members are ready to take this vote because it's the right thing to do.
[begin video clip]
YELLIN: Supporters call it a question of basic civil rights for gays and lesbians and insist it sends an important message.
REP. BARNEY FRANK (D-MA): To tell millions of Americans who are gay and lesbian that they are not bad people, that it is not legitimate to fire them simply because of who they are.
YELLIN: The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would make it illegal to hire, fire, or determine pay and promotions based on an employee's sexual orientation. Thirty states do not have laws banning employment discrimination against gays and lesbians, and supporters say that's why a federal law is essential.
REP. GEORGE MILLER (D-CA): In those 30 states, employers can -- can fire, refuse to hire, demote, and refuse to promote employees on the basis of sexual orientation alone.
YELLIN: But angry critics claim the bill will force some religious businesses to employ gays and lesbians.
REP. BUCK McKEON (R-CA): I think it's a disaster for Christian bookstores, at least 85 percent of whom would fall under this, all sorts of Christian colleges.
YELLIN: And, they claim, it opens the door to gay marriage.
REP. JOSEPH PITTS (R-PA): ENDA is merely a building block for efforts to overturn traditional marriage laws and to impose same-sex marriage on states.
REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): I believe this legislation has the real potential to undermine the importance of families in our culture and in our society and in our country.
[end video clip]
YELLIN: And I should point out, Wolf, that Democrats added language to this bill to make it clear that it should in no way make gay marriage legal.
But, still, this is a part of the debate that is going on, on the floor. Now, political watchers say it's actually a less risky vote, this one, than, say, a vote for gay marriage, because, in fact, about 90 percent of Americans say gays and lesbians should be protected from employment discrimination.
The overall sense from pollsters is that Americans believe discrimination is wrong, no matter who's the target -- Wolf.
Now who in their right minds thinks ensuring equal protection for all regardless of race, creed or sexual orientation is a bad thing? Oh, yeah. I forgot...
Probably the same people who will feel inclined to vote for Giuliani because Pat Robertson thinks he's a swell guy.
Homosexuality is not something to be celebrated. How much longer before NAMBLA becomes mainstream?.
What does NAMBLA have to do with Gay Rights?
It's a connection that dim-witted conservatives who can't think of anything better to say make whenever gay rights is the topic of discussion. Next, Dogrun will probably try to make a conenction between same-sex marriage and beastiality....
"Gay rights" is not the topic of conversation here. This article is about a reporter gratuitously slanting a story against Democrats, using wingnut talking points against Nancy Pelosi that polls show aren't effective. The question is: why is she doing this? Not, what's this about gays?
Pedophilia has advocates trying to make it acceptable, like homosexuality has become over the last few decades.
Again....what does pedophilia have to do with homosexuality?
Well, until the 1970's, both were considered a psychological disorder or perversion.
Homosexuality has had a somewhat successful campaign to become "mainstream."
Pedophilia has advocates trying to mainstream it. See the link for an idea of what I am talking about.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/3869/CFI/cfreport/index.htm
I'm wondering what possible comparison you could make between two consenting adults and a forced/coerced relationship between an adult and a child?
I made the comparison that both were a sexual/psychological disorder, that gays are becoming more mainstream, and pedophiles are attempting to become more mainstream.
And the reason they are no more is because homosexuality has rightly been removed as a sexual disorder, where pedophilia is a sick and disguisting crime. There is no comparison between the two.
Explain to me why (or if) it is immoral for someone age 14 to marry someone age 21, assuming both consent.
14 year olds are not emotionally equipped to marry anyone, they are children.
I can't believe I am having this discussion.
Are they "emotionally equipped" for sexual activity?
One more time down this inane road.
NO! That is why it is against the law, they are children. Can you understand that?
Then why do we hand out condoms to middle schoolers?
Because just because they aren't emotionally prepared doesn't mean they aren't physically able and willing. They shouldn't be having children.
Then why don't we encourage abstinence for these kids?
We do. We can also encourage billionaires to donate 90% of their money to charity. You can encourage all sorts of things, that doesn't mean they're likely to actually happen.
Hmmm. So we give a kid a condom and then tell him not to use it? No wonder we have confused kids.
Do you really want to argue that kids don't understand the urge for sex until they're given a condom? Please.
How are you encouraging abstinence if you encourage condom use?
It's not a matter of "encouraging" to provide condoms. Teenagers don't need "encouragement" to have sex. The message is "IF you do it, use this", because the message of "don't do it" doesn't work all that well by itself.
Whether it works or not, I think it sends a mixed message.
That's too bad. You'd rather see pregnant teenagers than mixed messages? That's the attitude that leads to more abortions.
Perhaps you should re-evaluate your priorities.
I'd rather see responsible teenagers.
And I'd like a billion dollars. What you'd like isn't necessarily what you're going to get. Talking about how you think teenagers should behave doesn't address how they actually do.
We are way off topic now. We should not do things to encourage more of the undesirable behavior.
Sorry, you've lost this point already. Teenagers don't need "encouragement" to have sex. It's a natural desire. Obviously that makes such a concern irrelevant when balancing it against the problem of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
Yes, we should have more teen pregnancies...for the sake of not encouraging teens to have safe sex. Brilliant!
Disliking 1 method does not mean I would not support another.
Meaning?
You implied that I am for more teen pregnancies. I am not.
Your policies would lead to more teen pregnancies. If you don't want that, change your views instead of wishing for a different reality.
If you give a teenager a socket wrench its going to make them think about sex. They are TEENAGERS. Do you remember when YOU were a teenager?
"responsible teenager" may be an oxymoron, but I would still prefer that to some of what is being taught. (socket wrenches generally aren't used for intercourse)
Reman oblivious to the obvious point as long as you want. Talk to your local school board and it will remain a democratic decision like it has always been.
why are you encouraging him to keep derailing this thread with pure hyperbole and inane comparisons?
Which comparison is not valid?
Uh, hello? You've been trying to link pedophelia to homosexuality the entire thread. There is no link between the two, and no base of support whatsoever that changing attitudes about one group will lead to changing attitudes about another group. You have no proof whatsoever that this has ever happened ever.
I didn't say it has happened. I said some people are trying to legitimize pedophilia.
I didn't either, I'm calling you out for suggesting that acceptance of one leads to acceptance of the other, a concept that I've never seen occur. Baseless circular logic.
I merely pointed out the similarities and said that it could happen.
Ah, changing your story now. Sorry, you've been outed over and over again as a homophobe. Better luck next time.
What change? That's the point I made from the beginning. Anyone can read all the previous posts.
Indeed, we can read the previous posts.
"Homosexuality is not something to be celebrated. How much longer before NAMBLA becomes mainstream?."
Yeah. What is your point?
Snoopy said "I didn't either, I'm calling you out for suggesting that acceptance of one leads to acceptance of the other, a concept that I've never seen occur. Baseless circular logic."
The quote I provided shows you absolutely were suggesting that acceptance of one leads to acceptance of the other. You denied it.
Let's see. I said "I merely pointed out the similarities and said that it (legitimizing pedophilia) could happen."
He said, "Ah, changing your story now".
No, it will not definitely happen, but it might.
You were using the theoretical acceptance of pedophilia to argue against acceptance of homosexuality. What Snoopy said was exactly right.
Even if that were true, how was that changing my story?
a) it is true
b) you're denying it
c) take your beef up with the republicans, they are way more likely to support NAMBLA than any liberal ever will. (link courtesy of Ogg)
None of your claims now suggest I changed my story. Are you changing your story on that?
Like I said, Denial isn't a river in Egypt. You have been proven wrong, please show a little dignity and take your loss like an adult.
Do you deny that you are wrong?
Well, if it's true, then what on earth was your basis for modifying Snoopy's assessment?
Oh man. Here we go again...
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/
Are humiliated Republicans supposed to mean something to me? When have I ever trumped up the GOP? They are mainly spineless wimps who run to the left whenever threatened.
You're right Snoop, he is just being deliberately provocative and trying to ensnare followers down some idiotic trail. I pulled off the road.
I am only trying to defend my statements that are being attacked.
And doing a piss poor job of it, I might add...
Well you have already thrown at least 2 false attacks against me.
1- that I changed my argument
2- that I lied on previous posts
False attacks? You lost on both counts. You really are delusional to think you won either discussion.
What a hypocrite. How can you call for me to admit total defeat on a complicated topic, when you won't even admit you were wrong on obvious lies?
The only one lying here is you claiming I called you a liar. I said your credibility was in question because you couldn't post anything to back up your claims. If that's your definition of lying, then you really need to go back to school. Until then, don't feel sad about losing both arguments. You'll get over it.
dogrun you really are spewing alot of offtopic hate. Was that your goal?
The only hate in here is coming against me.
I find it a little hard to believe too Tommy. Your doing well though.
I can't believe I am having this discussion. - tommy
(heh heh, Tommy's getting Tommy'd)
By our modern standards, it is illegal. The 14 year old is below the age of consent. Is it "immoral" in a universal sense? Probably not, since some cultures encourage girls to marry young. This has nothing to do with pedophilia or homosexuality, though. A 14-year-old girl is, biologically speaking, not a "child."
Right. And that is partly my point. Because I believe that argument will soon be used on favor of pedophilia.
Do you have any evidence that there is even some remote groundswell of opportunists who are trying to promote anything so idiotic in this country? Outside of some fringe nuts who get off molesting kids, I can't imagine there are any.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/3869/CFI/cfreport/index.htm
Here are some examples.
You've linked to this before, and it resonated as much with me then, as it does now. Sorry.
Well a groundswell starts with only a few. I didn't say there is a big movement, just that there is one.
There's no basis for a groundswell. There's no reason to be compassionate with people who harm others, whether they can help it or not.
check out http://www.nambla.org/.
I have absolutely no interest in visiting that site.
How does citing a group of people who support the practice now address the argument that there's no basis for others to accept it? Obviously, it doesn't.
You probably could have said the same about gays a hundred years ago.
The difference is that homosexuality is not predatory, and so doesn't hurt anyone. That's why that attitude has changed over time, and why the attitude about pedophilia isn't very likely to.
The argument that pedophiles are making is that it doesn't hurt anyone if there is consent.
Who cares what they're arguing? Who's finding those arguments compelling?
Anyone can argue for anything if they like. That doesn't in any way suggest that it will be accepted, ever.
There are many so-called intellectuals who have some disturbing claims. Judith Levine's book won an award from the LA Times.
I haven't read that book. Did the L.A. Times endorse pedophilia?
Not directly. They endorsed a book that supports lowering the age of consent to 12.
I'd have to see that to believe it.
http://www.judithlevine.com/about.html
I'm not sure she's arguing exactly what you say she is. I think the main thrust of her book is entirely reasonable, but if she's saying that older men should be allowed to have sex with 12 year-old girls, I would vehemently disagree.
This is the same guy who said priests in america were getting thrown in jail for homosexuality and then failed to produce one link of evidence to support that phony claim. I've seen cockroaches with more credibility.
I never said "in America."
In the interest of full disclosure, I believe that case was eventually overturned on appeal, and it is not completely clear how much jail time was served (possibly none, although it was ordered).
But the point is that there have been numerous cases where people have been prosecuted/fined for not complying with the pro-homosexual ideology.
OK, then tell us what other countries have a pro homosexual ideology? And how about a few links proving those numerous arrests you mentioned? Inquiring minds want to know.
Talk about going off topic.
A poster's credibility is always, always relevant.
"This is the same guy who said priests in america..." ~SNOOPY
Credibility?
You see, people operate under the assumption that the points you make are relevant. If your point was about things that happen in other countries, that was irrelevant. It was entirely reasonable to conclude that you were talking about priests in America.
Unless, of course, we are to assume you are being intentionally misleading.
Since Europe is more "progressive" than the US, their policies tend to foreshadow what the left wants to bring here. Laws are becoming more international. What happens in Europe/Canada is very relevant to what happens here.
That's your story. Since none of us can read your mind, none of us consider that relevant. You should be more specific.
Denial isn't a river in Egypt, and discussion about previous mentionings on the topic of homosexuality are totally relevant. So, where are your facts?
Alright already,
convicted, but overturned
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17496-2005Feb11.html?referrer=email
Prosecuted, not sure of result
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/07/canadian_pastor_faces_legal_re.php
threatened with termination
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/22/AR2007062201704.html
The "Philadelphia 11"
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/6522/CFI/family/index.htm
There are a few who were fined in here.
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000005315.cfm
Wow, in every single case, people were denying homosexuals of equal rights (hotels not giving rooms to gays), illegal activities (protesting without a permit) or other right denying activities. I'm shocked, I tell ya!
You are wrong. Some of the cases were merely for saying that homosexuality is wrong. You are being hypocritical.
Yeah, you can think the Martians are about to attack Iceland if you want it is just as relevant. Tell you what when it HAPPENS, that is somewhere other than your fevered imagination. get back to us.
Usually when you predict something you do it before it actually happens. I don't like believing it, but I think it has decent chance of coming to fruition.
And that is relevant HOW? Oh yeah it isnt see above post.
Well, until the 1970's, both were considered a psychological disorder or perversion.
Yes, that's correct. However, they were not considered THE SAME THING.
I assume this means you're okay with heterosexual pedophiles? Because I don't see you trying to link their sexual dysfunction with their sexual orientation.
No one said they were the same thing. I only made a comparison.
You're question is confusing, but no I am not in favor of homosexual pedophiles if that's what you're asking.
Trying to say there is a link between homsexuality and pedophilia is about as low and disgusting a post I have seen today. How are you insult millions of good gay Americans. Shame on you!!!!
Which of my claims do you object to? That they were both classified as psychological disorders, or that they have both made at least some attempts at becoming more mainstream/acceptable?
Is there are reason why none of you guys are addressing THE TOPIC OF THE ARTICLE?
This is not about homosexuality, it's about this reporter deliberately throwing in a gratuitous, right-wing curveball to slant the story against Democrats, despite the fact that the evidence clearly shows that it's a false claim.
Can we get some straight thinking here? Is this a forum or a flame assembly?
I just made the comment that pedophiles might start fighting for their rights too. That made everybody mad.
Neither claim is relevant to anything. What they were classified as is utterly meaningless. And just because both groups have advocates doesn't mean that one of them has any chance in hell of advancing their agenda. Thinking people understand that a relationship between two consenting adults is not the same as sexual abuse of a child. The latter will not be supported by people who support gay rights, as a rule.
What about consenting children?
Legally, there's no such thing. What's the argument here, that a kidnapper can convince a child to go with them, and then when they get caught they say "well they came willingly?"
Do you have any concept how you are coming across here?
It's more of a moral question than a legal one.
So it's moral to seek consentual sex from children who are too young to know better? It's predatory. Consent is absolutely irrelevant to the matter.
So is the legal age the same as when a child suddenly knows better? How do you determine a moral age of consent? I think pedophiles will soon begin using more arguments like this.
What the hell is a "moral age of consent"?
You'd think liberals would accept such nuanced arguments for tolerance for a minority group like NAMBLA. You'd be wrong. And if permissive, "do-what-you-wanna-do", over-tolerant liberals don't accept their arguments, who will?
Maybe they won't be accepted. The point is that they are trying.
And who didn't know that? It doesn't mean anything.
Apparently most of the previous posters didn't know.
I'd like to see you support that. This was your original argument:"How much longer before NAMBLA becomes mainstream?"
I haven't seen anyone deny that NAMBLA is trying to make it mainstream. All people have done is to show why it won't be mainstream and why using that as some sort of slippery slope argument against accepting homosexuality is flat-out retarded.
Being stupid shouldn't be celebrated either, Dogrun. But you do that with every post you make here.
No one is "celebrating" homosexuality. It's simply a matter of people not being treated as second-class citizens because of their sexua orientaition.
When my kids have to be taught (against my wishes) that homosexuality is normal, there is a problem.
Some people may be born with a propensity for homosexuality. Some people may develop it as a result of something in their childhood (often a bad paternal relationship). That does not excuse deviant behavior.
Some people may have a propensity for substance abuse, violence, or any number of things. That does not mean society needs to accomodate what everyone wants to do.
We try to rehabilitate people with addictions, criminal behavior, or various disorders. Why not gays?
Dogrun You are now crossing the line and spewing what I call "Hate". I suggest you stop. It is as bad as if you were to use a racial slur.
Unitl 10-30 years ago, most health/psychology groups classified homosexuality as a disorder.
Try about 60 years ago, which was when some psychologists started working with homosexuals, and guess what? It's not a psychological issue. I think that you might have one.
The APA didn't remove homosexuality from its list of disorders until 1973. World Health Organization? 1992.
You let us know when any organization worthy of notice removes pedophila from being a disorder and/or a crime. Then we can talk.
That's fair. I'm just saying it looks like it could happen someday.
I don't HATE gays. I just disagree with the classification of homosexuality.
So what would you classify it as then?
Face it, either you're a serious closet case homosexual yourself, or you just hate gay people, it could be either.
did you read any of my other posts? It's a disorder.
Let me ask you a question. Can a pedophile help it if he is attracted to children?
There you go again, conflating homosexuality with a pedophile. I hate to break it to you, but it's not the same. Homosexualtiy is NOT a disorder. Never has been. They used to think that it was, but it was re-classified quite some time ago.
Let me ask you this? When did you "decide" that you were not gay? Or did you just know? Guess what chief? It's the same for gay folks. They just know that they are attracted to someone of the same gender that they are.
Anyone who says homosexuality is a disorder, is well, completely and totally ignorant. What do homosexuals do that would make it a disorder in your mind? Aside from liking someone of the same gender. What else do they do that is a "disorder"?
Can a pedophile help it if he is attracted to children?
I don't know. You tell me. Pedophilia is a disorder, and it's not considered "normal" activity, but we're not talking about pedophilia, and you're trying to tie it into being gay, and they're not the same. That's your problem.
You don't know if a pedophile can help being attracted to children? Let's assume a known cannot help it. Then the options would be to 1) Ignore him, 2) Try to rehabilitate him 3) Petition the legal system to make pedophilia legal so that the pedophile is free to do as he wishes if he can find a child who is willing. (this is what NAMBLA does.)
If a pedophile cannot help his feelings, is it wrong to tell him that he is not normal?
I draw the line at feelings and attractions vs. actions. If a pedohilia has certain feelings then he should seek help BEFORE he acts on them. Once he does act on them, it's a whole new ball game and he or she should be punished to the max.
And you're still off topic going down this pedohilia road, you're only doing it to conflate it with homosexuality, and it's repulsive.
Pedophilia involves a victim. Homosexuality does not. Next lame argument....?
What if the "victim" consents?
They aren't of age to consent. That's what makes them a victim.
That goes back to my argument that it is only a legal difference, not a moral one.
The legality is based on societal standards of morality. That argument gets pedophiles nowhere, which is exactly where your argument is taking you.
If Judith Levine http://www.judithlevine.com/about.html is accepted, what's next?
Well troll you managed to completely derail this thread which had nothing to do with pedophelia or NAMBLA. Good job, you can go back to your bridge now
did you read any of my other posts? It's a disorder.
Let me ask you a question. Can a pedophile help it if he is attracted to children?
1) So you support the suppression of civil rights for the mentally ill?
2) Again, you fail to understand that there's a difference between two consenting adults vs one consenting adult and a non-consenting child.
What about a consenting child?
Children cannot legally consent. Try again.
Nerzog, If I ever get this infuriating, please let me know. ;)
Sorry, but how else do argue with a dozen liberals? My every claim is attacked.
Because every one of your claims is ridiculous and poorly thought out, not to mention irrelevant.
It's really interesting to note that you automatically assume that everyone arguing with your severely flawed thought processes that you think are "logic" is a liberal.
Tommy, your secret is out, everyone knows that only dirty liberals would dare argue against a rabid homophobe.
Again, it is a moral argument, not a legal one.
WOW! Are you an idiot. I don't think that I've read anything as stupid as what you've written in this thread at all. This is why gay people have such issues in American society today is because of people like you. I'm sure you're trying to push some sort of Christian agenda, but what you've been posting is not even close to Christian. You're a complete and utter moron. It's utterly amazing.
Dogrun, I know many gay people and they are not deviants. You are truly the most deplorable poster I have read on here.
I know many people who smoke. I don't have any problems with them. But I think that what they do is bad for their health. If they start telling me that it is good, then I will have a problem with that.
Your argument is dumb. We all know smoking is bad for you. Homosexuality isn't bad for you. It's just who you are.
I think you protest too much. Closet case. No doubt. Come out and live in the light.
Physical problems include higher risk of colorectal cancer and HIV.
Dog,
Risky sex for anyone is risky and could result in sexually transmitted diseases, this is no different for straights or gays.....so that argument is really invalid.
And if you could provide proof that gay people suffer more with colorectal cancer than anyone else, then pony up your stats please.
http://www.gaylifetime.com/index.php/2007/10/12/fearful-of-hiv-this-killer-puts-it-to-shame/
Since you asked.
Laughable set of stats you have there.
But you're being disingenuous. You intimated that gay men get colorectal cancer more because of their behavior, when your link clearly indicates it's because they don't get tested as often.
So, I am not sure what your point is now.
You don't think a gay website is going to try to spin the facts?
How about this:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_What_are_the_risk_factors_for_colon_and_rectum_cancer.asp
Risk factors for getting colorectal cancer, most, if not all of them, that have nothing to do with being gay. Genetics plays a much bigger role.
Now you are being hateful and attempting to hijack this thread with your anti Gay hate. You are now ignored by me.
There's that "hate" word again. I think there is far more venom against me than in anything I have said.
Dogrun,
Your linkage of homosexuals to NAMBLA is reprehensible. It would like linking white men to Jeffrey Dahmer.
Tommy, Thank you you are 100% correct. It is deplorable what he is trying to do with NAMBLA.
thank you tommy
Wonderful and truthful post Tommy. Thank you so much.
The only main difference is the legal one. Some "elites" are trying to mainstream pedophilia.
Check out this commentary for an idea of what I am talking about.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/3869/CFI/cfreport/index.htm
Nobody is trying to mainstread pedophilia, and again it has nothing to do with being gay, since most pedophiles tend to be straight men, but hey, don't let that get in the way of your stupid rhetoric.
What about all those Catholic priests and the altar boys?
What about dead molested little girls at the hands of twisted sick adult men?
Really, your continuing down this line is ludicrous.
Did you read my link? What is wrong with the comparison I made?
What specifically is the link you are making between homosexuals and pedophila? By trotting out 50 year old psychological classifications as some proof.
And pulling in priests and pedophilia? Dumb Dog has nothing, except hate in his heart for homosexuals, or as I said before, he is so closeted, he can't help himself. Classic self loather case no doubt.
Are you actually saying that because homosexuality has become more accepted that pedophilia will too? Some slippery slope danger here afoot?
Do you realize that one is a legal involvement between consenting adults, and the other is a hideous criminal act involving innocent children. Any reasonable person knows there is no comparison.
all I said is that there are people trying to legitimize the sexualization of children. (as given in other posts)
And that is wrong. But it still has no more to do with homosexuals than heterosexuals.
What about Judith Levine? Theo Sandfort? Edward Brongersma? Alfred C. Kinsey?
Dog,
For you to turn a topic about homosexual discrimination into a sleazy off-topic one about pedophilia is ridiculous. There is no basis for doing so, other than to highlight your bigotry.
You have every right to your feelings, to despise anyone you feel like and to categorize gays anyway you'd like. But to falsely line it to child molestation just illustrates you have little else to backup those feelings, except garbage. Sad.
What does NAMBLA have to do with Gay people? Do you know anything about the gay community? You are a disgrace.
Dog- Are you a member of the Westboro Baptist Church? Fred Phelps , is that you?
Ahem --
http://www.armchairsubversive.com
You were saying??
I am very conflicted on this bill.
What I find reprehensible is how some Republicans are linking the passage of this bill to the issue of gay marriage rights, that is abominable and totally unrelated. And why I think it's immoral to discriminate against anyone based on their sexual orientation, the libertarian in me feels that government needn't be in the business of dictating to businesses who they should or should not hire, it's their business. I don't believe we need legislation for everything.
If an employer is foolish enough to fire someone simply because they are gay, despite their job performance, then that employer survives at his or her own peril - most likely their bigotry will sink them eventually.
I just cannot support this legislation. I know I will get hit with whether I support racial or gender anti-discrimination laws as well for private businesses, and to be consistent I cannot.
Now, the government is another matter. I fully support laws to protect discrimination in the workplace for government jobs and practices......we pay these salaries and these are not private businesses who should have the right to employ as they see fit.
If someone can change my mind, I would be open to listening.
Tommy, I support it. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that he/she was discriminated against because he/she was ___, and not because of performance, and it doesn't happen very often since usually he/she would need to come up with tangible proof that there was a non-performance related reason he/she was fired or not hired. Since that's the litmus test, I support the same for homosexuals.
Whether private companies should be able to hire/fire at will is another debate...the precedent has been set, so sexual preference should be afforded the same protection as race, creed, etc.
"the libertarian in me feels that government needn't be in the business of dictating to businesses who they should or should not hire"
I'm assuming that you'd apply that principle to all anti-discrimination laws, including those for race, religion or gender? In other words, if your boss fires you because of your religious views, you should have no legal recourse?
Nerzog,
I understand my position on this is not popular, and controversial, but the answer is yes. Of course I don't want to be fired for any reason, but isn't it up to my employer who he hires or fires, and those decisions should be his. I don't want the govt. telling him what to do.
As I said, I think the market takes care of these things - if an employer fires an exemplary and valuable employee simply because of his religious views, then #1 he will probably be out of business pretty damn quick, and #2 do I want to really work for someone like that? No.
Did the market take care of it before the Civil Rights Act?
If you want to argue a bill in 2007 within the context of our country over 40 years ago, fine....but not with me.
I think that his point might be valid though, because what you're saying is sort of like what happened with the Civil Rights movement for African Americans. See, it was OK to discriminate against blacks, and legal to do so. It took the federal government to make it a law that it was NOT OK.
Whether you believe it or not, there is rampant discrimination against homosexual individuals, and I've seen it happen first hand in a company that I worked for. The gay man that I worked with was harangued, and openly discriminated against at our company, and because of that, he suffered depression, and some mental health issues, which lead to the degredation of his work habits, which lead him to quit. So he wasn't fired for who he was, but it lead him to leave a good stable job, because there was really no other legal recourse for him to take. This happens, a lot, and it is akin to the civil rights movement, and we should have a law on the books to make it against the law to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation. And we can't rely on the States to do anything about it, because then we'll have a mish-mash of what should be enforced throughout the nation.
That's just me looking for equal rights for everyone is all.
Mag,
Do you have stats showing "rampant discrimination against homosexuals" in private businesses? Because I would be interested to see evidence of that.
Tommy, my point is that I don't share your confidence that the Market will sort these things out, since it never has in the past.
I agree the market does not straighten out every single injustice, that is impossible. I just don't believe that government needs to be in the business of telling employers who they can or cannot hire.
Let me give you an anecdotal injustice that could occur if this bill were law. Let's say an employer has a lousy, non-productive gay employee and instead of running the risk of getting entangled in the law, he keeps the lazy good-for-nothing because he is afraid to fire him, even with documentation the gay guy could get a hotshot lawyer and tie this up forever. In the meanwhile a very productive and worthy employee gets denied the very promotion he would get if the gay guy were fired.
I realize this is a hypothetical, but it could very easily happen - and is definitely an unfair injustice to the hard worker who isn't protected by any such law.
Employers that fire good people based on prejudices are just shooting themselves in the foot, and it hurts them more than the employee who will undboutedly find far better, more desirous employment.
True, that is a potential problem, as it is with any anti-discrimination law. For example, a woman could goof off and threaten the boss with a sexual discrimination suit if he fires her.
The problem with your argument is that saying "that's their loss" doesn't put food on the worker's table. If I grew up in a town where atheists were discriminated against, my options would be severely limited. Saying "that's their loss" doesn't pay my bills, now does it?
And as Nerzog points out, your hypothetical is true for any group. Your argument could be used against almost literally anything. If there are valid grounds for termination, then there shouldn't be much risk. I've seen black people cry racism when fired, but it doesn't go anywhere because they showed up late every damn day. White people got fired for the same reason. Such possibilities are not a valid basis for opposing it;that's just throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
As I re-read the thread, I also realized that you admitted that it was impossible for the marketplace to straighten out every injustice, but then you use the possibility of injustice to argue against government action. Obviously the government can't straighten out every injustice either, but you're using that as a rationale to reject it when you accept the marketplace under the same circumstances.
As you can see, Nerzog, lessons from history don't hold any weight with some people.
Pete, Think what you want, I have been honest about my feelings on this topic, if you need to take potshots to feel better, go ahead.
I understand my position on this is not popular, and controversial, but the answer is yes. Of course I don't want to be fired for any reason, but isn't it up to my employer who he hires or fires, and those decisions should be his. I don't want the govt. telling him what to do.
No. There are labor laws, and fair practice standards. These are mostly good, mostly just and completely necessary. If they didn't have them, 90% of our poplulation would survive at the whim of the richest among us. This is wrong, and labor lawsensure that we all have real opportunity. If the laws not there, the employees would treat workers like cattle. It happened time and time again, thoughout history.
Certain positions have reason to make judgements that might otherwise be deemed inappropriate. For instance:
PETA probably wouldn't hire an avid hunter; or
Planned Parenthood probably doesn't have many pro-life employees.
The Girl Scouts don't have men as troop leaders. (Although I think there are male members.)
Why can't a Christian organization (like the Boy Scouts) not hire gays in leadership positions?
"Planned Parenthood probably doesn't have many pro-life employees."
Then, you'd have no problem if Planned Parenthood fired someone for attending a Baptist Church?
Fred Phelps
What is your point other than to spew your hate on this site?
Certain positions have reason to make judgements that might otherwise be deemed inappropriate. For instance:
PETA probably wouldn't hire an avid hunter; or
Planned Parenthood probably doesn't have many pro-life employees.
The Girl Scouts don't have men as troop leaders. (Although I think there are male members.)
Why can't a Christian organization (like the Boy Scouts) not hire gays in leadership positions?
All of your "examples" are stupid. Why you might ask? Well, first of all, an avid hunter wouldn't want a job with PETA.
I'm sure that there aren't any pro-life people working for Planned Parenthood. Why? They don't want to work there, it doesn't fit their views at all, as with the hunting example and PETA. Those don't equate with firing someone because they're gay.
I know a Girl Scout male troop leader. What's your point there?
Last I checked the Boy Scouts had nothing to do with Christians.
Last I checked the Boy Scouts had nothing to do with Christians.
Wha.? I don't have a problem with anything you posted in this thread, but this? Really?
Government has every right regulate business in the interest in the common good. In fact, it is a moral obligation of government to regulate and enforce standards of ethical conduct for business. Furthermore, such regulations are of the sort that probits slave labor and child labor. Such regulations dictate safe work environments and curtails excessive work week hours.
I'm all for it. I'm all for Progressive government that responds to the will of the people.
That should be, "prohibits" not "probits."
Roundhouse, You make good points and I have considered them and will do so again. Thanks for your honest response.
Just be cautious when considering it, you may wake up in the morning a full-on socialist or something!
Ahh, but considering it means I must have some thinking skills, but waking up the way you describe would mean I have none.
;)
Tommy, while I have to violently disagree with your extreme Libertarian views regarding employment law and the power of the market to do the right thing in the absence of legal coercion, I've gotta hand it to you for following that belief all the way into getting rid of all those laws and not picking and choosing among them.
Tommy,
The Pledge of Allegiance says “with liberty” , the people of this nation being afforded the freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness. It also says “and justice for all” meaning each person is entitled to be treated justly, fairly, and according to proper law and principle, FOR ALL. These principals afforded to EVERY AMERICAN, regardless of Race, Religion, Color, Creed, OR ANY OTHER CRITERIA.
There was a time in this nation when it was lawful to discriminate against black people. Not only did private businesses do it but the government discriminated as well. It was ignorance that caused the discrimination and it was the law that forced change and to some degree acceptance.
Having been the victim of discrimination, I don't want ANYONE to feel what I felt. I did nothing wrong, I just wasn't the right color. My blood was as red as white folks, I had a heartbeat just like white folks, I had a brain just like white folks, I just wasn't white. Women were subjected to nasty, dirty men as employers and they were forced to keep silent cause there were no laws on the books to force employers to treat them with dignity and respect. Child labor laws to prevent children working when they should be playing. Seniors who were perfectly able and willing to work but their age was used against them. In allowing discrimination of any kind ANYWHERE we are maintaining our ignorance. We are nation of laws and a better nation for those laws. We should not continue to be an ignorant nation regarding gays, and if a law is the only way to bring about change, we should welcome it.
Hear, hear.
As if the government isn't in the business of protecting individual rights? Tommy argues against homophobes, which I appreciate, but as soon as the big bad government comes into the picture, well, gay people are on their own. It's a strange set of priorities, to be sure.
YELLIN: Wolf, we're expecting that vote sometime this hour. And I'll tell you, this vote could be a real political headache for some Democrats, especially when you consider the ads that ran last election cycle about Nancy Pelosi's radical homosexual agenda. But Pelosi says she and her members are ready to take this vote because it's the right thing to do.
What is exactly radical about it? Why do they use the words radical?
I think the reporter is tying to paraphrase the ads, not that the Speaker has a radical homosexula agenda. It is poor phrasing never the less. The Speaker is not a homosexual and any agenda she has is supported by a pluarity of Americans other wise she would not be the Speaker, thus any agenda she may have cannot accurately be labeled radical.
What is considered radical , is supporting equal rights for gay people.
Supporting equal rights for black people was considered radical at one time, and while there has been great progress, I would not say we are a color blind society.
For gays I imagine the same process will ensue, and it will take another generation or two before the idea of gays having equal rights is not at the least considered radical.
One of the keystones to belief systems that consider homosexuality to be imoral is the belief that it is a choice. Here is a link to more science that supports common sense, that no one would choose a lifestyle that subjects them to abuse, violence, ridicule and hate.
link
I doubt Dems are worried about the voters who would oppose EDNA.
I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but how in the hell would this bill open the door to gay marriage?
And if any law threatens your marriage, you're marriage isn't worth saving anyway.
Another reason to make the repugs extinct in '08 before they (repugs) destroy our country completely.
Here's a great example of pandering to fear and bigotry:
REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): I believe this legislation has the real potential to undermine the importance of families in our culture and in our society and in our country.
Please someone explain to me how the gay goth clerk at blockbuster is going to undermine my family.
Don't hold your breath. I've issued that challenge repeatedly, and they can't do it. I have yet to hear any remotely logical explanation of how Gay Rights or Gay marriage will harm or inhibit families, heterosexual marriage, the institution of marriage, individual marriage...etc.
By recommending to your impressionable teen age son check out "Edward Scissorhands" which will start him down the slippery slope of turning awkward teenage strangeness into full on rampaging queerocity of course. :)
And don't even get me started on what the butch feminist with the nose piercing is telling your daughters while she makes them lattes at Starbucks.
Well, whatever it is, maybe the daughters will have the same chance of getting pregnant as the "feminist" !
Why the repugs fight the gay rights issue is a laugh, how may more have to be caught in the bathroom before they realize... yeah probably never.
Justice and Truth in the USA - FACT CHECK:
In CNN report, Yellin claimed possible "political headache" for Dems with ENDA vote, citing 2006 ads "about Nancy Pelosi's radical homosexual agenda"RESPONSE: Of course this is going to be a political headache for the Democrat Party. Honestly, we on the conservative side are going to use this radical homosexual agenda bill like a sledge hammer to beat and beat and beat any Dem who supports it.
This is not a threat - just a promise. As a friend of the homosexual community, I only want you to know that my prediction is designed to help and not hurt. Passage of the ENDA bill will mean hurt the homosexual agenda and NOT help.
Yeah, because of bigotted idiots, like you.
just as a note of assistance, it's the DemocratIC Party.
Thanks for the advice big guy. I'd rather be on the losing team, if the winning team is WRONG.
Pelosi was so tied into the radical homosexual agenda, and the democratic party, that we won big in 2006.
This is not a threat - just a promise. As a friend of the homosexual community, I only want you to know that my prediction is designed to help and not hurt. Passage of the ENDA bill will mean hurt the homosexual agenda and NOT help.
And the homosexual community (is that somewhere near south beach?) would be stupid not to recognize what a good friend they have in you. But they're probably all wrapped up in their gay agenda, recruiting grade-schoolers, enticing congressmen and all that, and ignoring your warnings. Sadly, you may have to fight this one on their behalf, by yourself.
Godspeed, Proxy-homo Avenger.
If you think you're going to out crazy Dogrun, you've got a rough road ahead, Colonel.
Maybe you guys could team up and take your act on the road.
Sure protection against discrimination on the job is something that will hurt homsexuals. And it is somehow part of a radical homsexual agenda NOT to be discriminated against in the workplace. You have GOT to be kidding.
Behold, in all its glory, the ultimate concern troll post.
"Yes, I'm your friend...but if you don't want to be fired for being who you are, well that's just RADICAL!"
Brilliant.
Why is it so "risky" for congress to do the will of the majority of the American People? That used to be how our governmnet worked.
This is a headache for the far right and no one else.
How absurd. Between skeletons and homosexuals, I don't think there's room enough in the Republican's closet for a light windbreaker.