Posted on 04/28/2009 4:37:28 PM PDT by IbJensen
However, in the future it is not out of the realm of possibility.
Such sweet faces!
I’m way on the libertarian end of the FR spectrum when it comes to sexual issues, but our society’s general obsession with the whole subject of sexual orientations/identities is unhealthy. And I’d include in the “unhealthy” description both the loony lefties who dream up outlandish sexual categories and try to get everybody to take them seriously, and the social conservatives who often overreact to this sort of nonsense.
I recently had the bizarre experience of meeting a young female college student who goes by the name of “Charlie” and has all her friends trained to refer to her as “he” (and I suspect her professors have also been persuaded to go along with this charade). She seems perfectly well-mannered, intelligent, and sane apart from the “he” stuff. She dresses like a male college student and has her hair cut conspicuously short (shorter than most male college students), and speaks in a delicate feminine voice. Did I mention that the college she attends is women-only?
Yes, it IS a problem when any legislative body tries to enshrine odd sexual predilections as “orientations” with special legal protections. But rather than trying to claim that these practices will bring about the end of civilization (which is not a whole lot less silly than the enshrining), opponents of the legislative maneuvers would do better to approach the matter by promoting a view that these predilections are simply personal preferences in leisure time activities, and no more deserving of special legal protections than proclivities to play golf a lot and dislike tennis. Lots of people get hired and promoted because they play golf and make business connections on the golf course — refuse to play golf, even though it isn’t in your official job description, and you’ll definitely be at a huge disadvantage in many lucrative employment situations. Same deal with these screwball sexual “orientations” — you opt out of certain mainstream social activities (like identifying yourself as female when you obviously are) because you don’t like them, then you live with the consequences, which generally consist of living on the fringes of society both in terms of social contacts and employment.
If the legislation is written by liberals then they can claim that it only applies to the perversion du jour ... and anyone who suggests otherwise is a bigot.
Then later they can forget what they said and claim the law also applies (and obviously so) to new and more deviant perversions as time goes on.
And I wouldn’t rule out that it “sexual orientation” could come to include all the things listed in this article. (Actually the fact that there were 30 sexual orientations was more shocking to me than any of the items listed. :))
I think AFA treated that possibility as if it were a certainty. They do admit at the end though, that the bill does not define sexual orientation.
How sick is that? That what you state is true, but even sicker that they keep getting elected! I refuse to believe there are that many out right STUPID people in Franks district, or any other since he (it?) obviously has the majority of them.
They forgot one: telepromptophilia
Does “protected” mean legal?
Whoa! Frotteurism? That means I can run up against female strangers from behind on the bus or subway? Wow!
What about women who aren’t strangers? How about co-workers? Wow!
Speechless...
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
(6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:
(A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.
(B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.
(C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.
(D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.
(E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.
There are some things, well it is just better not to know.
“Gerontosexuality - distinct preference for sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with an elderly partner.”
This is the only one I fully support. I am 60.
Just WOW... Can’t even comprehend some of these as being “sexual orientations” (especially the pedophilia - I understand that it’s a result of STUNTED sexual maturity in some ways, but not how it can be considered an “orientation” on the same caliber as say “lesbianism”). I’ll have to read more about this (including the bill itself) to make any other comments. Boggles the mind right now...
I will say that any “law” or “status” that separates a certain class of citizens from another class of citizens is anathema to our Constitution. All should be treated equally. This to me sounds like another tentacle of the “hate crimes” ‘philosophy’ (which frankly doesn’t include many REASONED arguments!). No one person is above another, and no crime is WORSE than another simply because the person belongs to a “protected class”. [Example: If I were to be raped and killed because I happened to have red hair and the perpetrator chose me because of that, does that make the crime any less serious than someone who chose to rape and kill a different woman because she was a homosexual — and how can anyone really PROVE that was the reason the second person was CHOSEN by their perpetrator].
The other thing that always comes to mind when I see these issues is Isaiah 5:20;
20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
It’s as if people have “rounded the bend” and are justifying all sorts of behaviors and such that SHOULD be considered PATHOLOGICALLY abnormal, and worthy of concern as to the mental status of those who show these PATHOLOGICAL obsessions... [One more note: they mentioned people who are attracted to certain body parts... this isn’t ‘abnormal’ unless it becomes a Pathological problem. Just ask any guy, “Are you a “leg man”, or a “breast man”. How in the world they could call this a sexual “orientation” is beyone me...]
It is one of the sickest things I’ve ever seen.
OK, just noticed one more thing in their “list”. Someone here is going to have to help me understand THIS one...
“Frotteurism - approaching an unknown woman from the rear and pressing or rubbing the penis against her buttocks”
When I was assaulted in this manner 7 years ago, by some disgusting punk, the police called it “SEXUAL ASSAULT”. (The case remains unsolved as to WHO this jerk was - I tried to hold him till the cops got there (and got battered and bruised from the effort), but I wasn’t strong enough and everyone around looked like they were paralyzed or something...)
There is NO WAY this is any kind of “sexual orientation”, or that the perpetrator who attacked me should be in any way a ‘protected class’ of citizen. This is TOTAL and COMPLETE insanity!!! What “protections” are they proposing for these likely CRIMINALS???
[Same goes for the pedophiliacs I addressed in my last post to you.]
I’m going to have to come back and read this later, because now I’m just tee’d off and wouldn’t be able to look at this rationally at the moment. My thought, “How DARE they try to say that the _____ who assaulted me should be in a ‘protected class’???”
Time for me to go for a walk, and chill out a bit here...
I totally completely agree — it ranks right up there with that German ‘doctor’ who recommended sexual abuse & incest as a good “teaching” tool for ‘normal sexual development’ a few years back (talk about exchanging good for evil!).
God forgive me, but I find it SO hard to be forgiving of these people. And, people like those proposing these laws — frankly, it’s almost as if they are MORE sick than those who suffer from these abnormal pathological mental problems.
I thought they did away with defining a homosexual orientation as a mental disorder. Or was that the American Medical Association?
Lusting after Helen Thomas is more than a personality disorder. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.