(04-27-2023 02:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To be frank, do you actually care as to why this person is doing this?

Yes I do. Assuming they're not just stupid, I think the person is intentionally poking the bear and I think that is not just 'not smart' but harmful. I am sympathetic to the situations got LGBTQ+ persons... but I think you don't help yourself by ignoring concerns of other people, especially if you share them. LGBTQ+ people aren't generally pedophiles... (probably any more than and maybe less than straight people) so when someone suggests that a bill would enable pedophiles... I think a trans person should say something along the lines of... well damn, we don't want that either so how can we fix it? SOME on the right certainly will say something rude, but vastly more will say 'specifically exclude that as something that anyone could even TRY and argue fits the definition and I'm good!'

Quote:I put forth an explanation (removing the historically bigoted connection that homosexuals were pedophiles, hence some feeling the need to clarify that homosexuals aren’t actually pedophiles), but you’re sitting here asking why still. Heck, you even acknowledge this but still ask why.

You keep using that word... I don't think it means what you think it means.

You put forth an explanation, but you haven't shown me how protections for 'Sexual orientation' does not include 'pedophelia' demonstrates a historically bigoted connection that homosexuals are pedophiles.

You're essentially arguing that a statement that 'homosexuals ARE NOT pedophiles' somehow creates a connection. The connection exists regardless of this bill. The wording of this bill literally severs that connection. People can still say it, but they can't reasonably say that this bill 'enables' it. Remove the language and they can.... Obviously.

What part of that isn't clear??

Quote:I don’t think removing the language is necessary, and, without knowing the full text of the bill, could see how it unintentionally creates a loophole as you say. But it seems pretty clear as to why this lawmaker is removing the language as part of the larger changes that are being pushed forward.

I agree its pretty clear, but I doubt we're in agreement. I think they're trying to use their position as a hammer rather than a shield. They want to remove language that 'protects' them from the accusation, so that IMO, they can continue having that argument rather than so easily dismissing it. They (meaning this lawmaker and zealots like them) don't WANT to be able to easily defeat stupid attacks... because there is more power in being victimized by them and lumping ANY dissent to their goals in with those morons. It's either that or they're just stupid... in which case they should take good advice.

With the language there, if someone (in defense of discriminating against an LGBTQ+ person) makes this allegation... the insulting connection... they are easily rebuffed because the law specifically exempts that from protection. Why would an LGBTQ+ person NOT want to be so easily able to shoot down an argument?

Dumb comment... pedophelia is specifically excluded as a sexual orientation and we agree that it should be... so the comment that it is in any way a 'gateway' to pedophelia is demonstably ignorant.

(04-27-2023 02:29 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I'm not the only one that thought your analogy was lousy, and I still do.

Agreed.... and no offense intended to Lad

The reason its lousy is that 'conservative' is clearly a subset of 'political affiliation'... but there isn't even a remote connection, even in a partisan sense between political affiliation and 'pedophelia'.

In the real situation... there IS (at least a partisan) connection between 'sexual orientation', LGBTQ+ and pedophelia.... and this bill directly eliminates that. While you may not LIKE that some people say... 'If a man can love a man, why not a sheep or a little boy'... but that manure has left the horse.

As I suggested, if they wanted to remain partisan and say that pedophelia IS a sexual orientation, just not a protected one... which WOULD be a slap at anyone seeking protection for their sexual orientation, they would have and easily could have. They didn't. They made it clear that pedophelia is NOT a sexual orientation. As I said, I don't know how they could have written it better. Ignoring what a decent number of people believe isn't helpful.... especially in light of the contentionsness today.

As I suggested, the only way your example fits is if you said... you can't discriminate against political affiliation... and 'pedophelia' is NOT a 'political affiliation'. I can't really linguistically correctly say... 'You can't discriminate against Republicans... and pedophiles are not Republicans'.... which is the best I can come up with using your analogy, and it doesn't work. SOME of them obviously ARE.

Let me say it differently Lad...

The position of the right is probably that 'sexual orientation' is not something that should create a protected class. Your sexual orientation is not really public knowledge, unless you somehow MAKE it public.

The position of the left is probably the opposite... that 'hiding' your orientation is paramount to being 'closeted'.. and that it is difficult/impossible to keep your work and personal lives that seperate.

Those on the right who are simply 'anti-gay' are not going to be swayed by any argument at all... so we're not talking to or about them. We're talking about those who might be swayed to accept protections for sexual orientation, so long as those protections can't EVER be used to protect something as abhorrent as pedophelia.

That's what this specific language does, and it does it in a way that doesn't 'presume' but instead specifically DENIES a connection between 'sexual orientation' and 'pedophelia'



Oh, and I think they're doing it because recent history suggests that 'enraging people and getting them to vote against your enemies' is a better plan/gives you more money and power than either getting people to vote FOR your plans, or getting those who are on the other side of the aisle to find a compromise with you

We know people like Talib and MTG more for the insane and divisive crap that they spew than we EVER do recently for people who 'work across the aisle'... in fact, I can't really think of an example of someone who regularly reaches across the aisle

(04-27-2023 03:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The position of the right is probably that 'sexual orientation' is not something that should create a protected class.

That is MY position.

Quote:The position of the left is probably the opposite...

Probably? Probably the sun rises in the east. Probably rains falls down. Probably tigers are not afraid of bunnies.

Quote:Oh, and I think they're doing it because recent history suggests that 'enraging people and getting them to vote against your enemies' is a better plan than either getting people to vote FOR your plans, or getting those who are on the other side of the aisle to find a compromise with you

Hit the nail on the head.

Aside:

I have known, and been friends with, L, G, T, and Q's.



I probably have known B's without knowing I knew them.

Still the same principle for me - treat everybody the same.

Does that make me NOT a conservative?