Calls for violence against LGBTQ people intensify

[Nilokeras]

It seems to me that the american right, and indeed the wider anglosphere, is not homophobic. They are heteronormative. These are often conflated by progressives, but there is a key distinction when it comes to things like sodomy laws. They're never getting passed again. Not unless society collapses at least.

A gay man who hates progressives, presents as masculine coded, and is broadly "A normal dude" is more than welcome among them and they're not going to take very kindly to suggestions they want to criminalize his sex life. The cat is so to speak out of the bag. The homosexual "Normal right wing dudes" have come out of the closet and built relationships in the community of right wingers. You might get the occasional wobbling over whether he should legally be able to get married, but even that is slowly being put down as the heteronormativity begins to trump it with;.

Let me tell you the parable of the Texas branch of the Log Cabin Republicans. They're a group of mostly gay male Republicans who started the caucus as a way to promote the idea that being LGBT doesn't mean people can't be conservatives, and to promote the GOP take up LGBT equality as a way to bring those LGBT conservatives and the segment of the population for whom gay rights matter on board.

Since their inception in 1989, they have been denied the ability to participate in the yearly GOP convention every single year, and are seen by both conservatives and the broader LGBT community as a joke.

The moral of this story: there are always kapos out there who think they can try and convince the camp commandants to treat us all fairly. It never works.

[Ostroeuropa]

It seems to me that the american right, and indeed the wider anglosphere, is not homophobic. They are heteronormative. These are often conflated by progressives, but there is a key distinction when it comes to things like sodomy laws. They're never getting passed again. Not unless society collapses at least.

A gay man who hates progressives, presents as masculine coded, and is broadly "A normal dude" is more than welcome among them and they're not going to take very kindly to suggestions they want to criminalize his sex life. The cat is so to speak out of the bag. The homosexual "Normal right wing dudes" have come out of the closet and built relationships in the community of right wingers. You might get the occasional wobbling over whether he should legally be able to get married, but even that is slowly being put down as the heteronormativity begins to trump it with;.

Let me tell you the parable of the Texas branch of the Log Cabin Republicans. They're a group of mostly gay male Republicans who started the caucus as a way to promote the idea that being LGBT doesn't mean people can't be conservatives, and to promote the GOP take up LGBT equality as a way to bring those LGBT conservatives and the segment of the population for whom gay rights matter on board.

Since their inception in 1989, they have been denied the ability to participate in the yearly GOP convention every single year, and are seen by both conservatives and the broader LGBT community as a joke.

The moral of this story: there are always kapos out there who think they can try and convince the camp commandants to treat us all fairly. It never works.

This is the thing though. Having a specific group to represent them goes against the tendency i'm outlining. You've made precisely the error I discussed progressives making in assuming that because they deny participation to an LGBT organization, they must logically oppose their existence as individuals.

So, despite feeling they can get away with denying entry to an LGBT collective, have they banned gay people from attending as individuals subsumed into the greater heteronormative mass? Take your time, but we both know the answer. It's actually a really good example of it.

If they can say "Fuck off" to the log cabin and not cause a fuss, why haven't they told gay republicans in general to fuck off and they aren't welcome, if homophobia and heteronormativity were synonymous in the manner you appear to be suggesting?

EDIT:

Tis a very fine story as well by the way.

Although I prefer this one;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_a ... of_America

[Bradfordville]

Let me tell you the parable of the Texas branch of the Log Cabin Republicans. They're a group of mostly gay male Republicans who started the caucus as a way to promote the idea that being LGBT doesn't mean people can't be conservatives, and to promote the GOP take up LGBT equality as a way to bring those LGBT conservatives and the segment of the population for whom gay rights matter on board.

Since their inception in 1989, they have been denied the ability to participate in the yearly GOP convention every single year, and are seen by both conservatives and the broader LGBT community as a joke.

The moral of this story: there are always kapos out there who think they can try and convince the camp commandants to treat us all fairly. It never works.

This is the thing though. Having a specific group to represent them goes against the tendency i'm outlining. You've made precisely the error I discussed progressives making in assuming that because they deny participation to an LGBT organization, they must logically oppose their existence as individuals.

So, despite feeling they can get away with denying entry to an LGBT collective, have they banned gay people from attending as individuals subsumed into the greater heteronormative mass? Take your time, but we both know the answer. It's actually a really good example of it.

If they can say "Fuck off" to the log cabin and not cause a fuss, why haven't they told gay republicans in general to fuck off and they aren't welcome, if homophobia and heteronormativity were synonymous in the manner you appear to be suggesting?

They literally do this everytime they platform someone who depicts gay people as basically being the anti-God. I could believe the idea that Republicans were not anti gay if their opposition to gay people only extended to some vague sense of traditional gender roles and not to much of their base holding extremely anti gay religious beliefs. The best you can say is that they're not against gay people as long as said gay people heavily repress their urges. To me, that sounds like homophobia in the first degree.

[Fractalnavel]

[...] not against gay people as long as said gay people heavily repress their urges. [...]

Wasn't (isn't?) that the official Catholic Church position? "We're not rejecting who you are. But you are sinning if you act on it or express it." Something like that - ?

[Bradfordville]

[...] not against gay people as long as said gay people heavily repress their urges. [...]

Wasn't (isn't?) that the official Catholic Church position? "We're not rejecting who you are. But you are sinning if you act on it or express it." Something like that - ?

Yeah basically. They know that even by strict standards it would be unfair to condemn someone simply for feeling gay. So they accept with open arms even gay individuals...as long as said individuals promise to never act on their desires.

It's like the homophobia equivalent of "I'm not racist but..."

[Galloism]

Wasn't (isn't?) that the official Catholic Church position? "We're not rejecting who you are. But you are sinning if you act on it or express it." Something like that - ?

Yeah basically. They know that even by strict standards it would be unfair to condemn someone simply for feeling gay. So they accept with open arms even gay individuals...as long as said individuals promise to never act on their desires.

It's like the homophobia equivalent of "I'm not racist but..."

To be fair, we even do that in society at large.

You can fantasize about killing someone all you want and we just kind of shrug and say "well, s/he's entitled to their feelings". The moment you actually do kill someone though everyone gets (justifiably) upset. We recognize that even by strict standards involving murder it would be unfair to condemn someone simply engaging in homicidal thinking.

This also goes for almost all other things. It's a basic premise of modern society that your feelings are yours (middle eastern and some far eastern countries need not apply), but actions are punishable.

[Fractalnavel]

Yeah basically. They know that even by strict standards it would be unfair to condemn someone simply for feeling gay. So they accept with open arms even gay individuals...as long as said individuals promise to never act on their desires.

It's like the homophobia equivalent of "I'm not racist but..."

To be fair, we even do that in society at large.

You can fantasize about killing someone all you want and we just kind of shrug and say "well, s/he's entitled to their feelings". The moment you actually do kill someone though everyone gets (justifiably) upset. We recognize that even by strict standards involving murder it would be unfair to condemn someone simply engaging in homicidal thinking.

This also goes for almost all other things. It's a basic premise of modern society that your feelings are yours (middle eastern and some far eastern countries need not apply), but actions are punishable.

I suppose "conspiracy" is more than thinking about something.

It does seem that some things are being pushed in the direction of creating thought crimes.

On the other end, the actions in this case aren't something that results in justifiable upset. Which may explain why there's a push for the former. And if one's mere existence manifests a forbidden thought...

[Galloism]

To be fair, we even do that in society at large.

You can fantasize about killing someone all you want and we just kind of shrug and say "well, s/he's entitled to their feelings". The moment you actually do kill someone though everyone gets (justifiably) upset. We recognize that even by strict standards involving murder it would be unfair to condemn someone simply engaging in homicidal thinking.

This also goes for almost all other things. It's a basic premise of modern society that your feelings are yours (middle eastern and some far eastern countries need not apply), but actions are punishable.

I suppose "conspiracy" is more than thinking about something.

Correct, typically conspiracy involves active planning and preparing for a thing, not just thinking about it.

Also, it usually involves two people, although I've seen some things pursued on a conspiracy of one basis (which seems weird to me, but the courts have let it fly).

It does seem that some things are being pushed in the direction of creating thought crimes.

On the other end, the actions in this case aren't something that results in justifiable upset. Which may explain why there's a push for the former. And if one's mere existence manifests a forbidden thought...

I mean, I agree that there's lots of things that cause upset where the upset is not justifiable (homosexuality, transitioning, eating the rich, speeding, buying gamestop stock, etc). You can certainly disagree with other peoples form of upset, but "we find actions deplorable and not thoughts" as a concept is not in any way an unusual position in our society.

In fact, it's the norm for most things (some exceptions exist).

[Nilokeras]

This is the thing though. Having a specific group to represent them goes against the tendency i'm outlining. You've made precisely the error I discussed progressives making in assuming that because they deny participation to an LGBT organization, they must logically oppose their existence as individuals.

So, despite feeling they can get away with denying entry to an LGBT collective, have they banned gay people from attending as individuals subsumed into the greater heteronormative mass? Take your time, but we both know the answer. It's actually a really good example of it.

If they can say "Fuck off" to the log cabin and not cause a fuss, why haven't they told gay republicans in general to fuck off and they aren't welcome, if homophobia and heteronormativity were synonymous in the manner you appear to be suggesting?

Since it would have been illegal in many states and now federally since 2020 to ban people explicitly based on sexuality, they haven't. That doesn't mean that the party is accepting of gay people or a bare modicum program of legal tolerance:

In 2016, [the Texas GOP] removed its explicit endorsement of “reparative therapy,” a debunked and harmful treatment that claims to turn gay people straight, but still made a point of citing its availability "for self-motivated youth and adults." The state party also retained the official position that said “homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that has been ordained by God in the Bible.”

Roberts, the first openly gay person on the Texas GOP platform committee, led the charge to remove the language in 2018. Texas Values, a conservative Christian organization, initially worked against him to preserve the plank.

Ultimately, the party delegates voted to soften the language while retaining the opposition to same-sex marriage — even as the U.S. Supreme Court had legalized gay marriage three years earlier.

It was seen as a win — a sign that the party was slowly but surely moving forward on the issue. That optimism evaporated this year.

The addition of the anti-LGBTQ language in this year’s platform caught many people off guard.

As the platform committee was wrapping up its work, Matt Patrick, the committee’s chairman, proposed an amendment to add the language that “homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice.” Patrick did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Houston resident Jason Vaughn, a member of the platform committee who is gay, immediately objected to the change.

“This is meant to be insulting language, it does nothing for policy,” Vaughn, 38, said to the committee.

Vaughn’s objections were unsuccessful. The committee approved the change 17-14.

Two days later, the entire floor of delegates voted on the platform. One member of the platform committee, David Gebhart, called to remove the language, saying the Texas GOP “is not the Westboro Baptist Church.” He was booed. The platform plank passed overwhelmingly.

LGBT people can, through sheer force of will, make it into the party. That does not mean the party wants them.

Roberts is hopeful the party will remove the language at its next convention. Vaughn is less optimistic.

“There’s been a lot of progress if you get down with people actually having conversations,” Vaughn said. “If you want to talk about basic rhetoric, no, there’s not been a lot of progress.”

Dillard, the longtime treasurer of the state Log Cabin group, said there was some progress in his time with the group. He helped run the group’s political action committee and said that funding helped stop anti-gay legislation. He’s still a Republican but doesn’t support Trump.

He’s not too worried about the state of gay rights in the country. But he acknowledged the state party’s executive committee “has kind of gone back to being almost as nutty as they've ever been.”

Carpenter agreed that the Texas GOP’s views on LGBTQ issues are wildly out of touch.

“[The party’s] views have not changed, but the wider cultures have. That’s a very striking thing to me,” Carpenter said. “They are like a fossil from another age. And it’s on everything. I don’t believe they support a single thing that’s happened over the last 25 years.”

[Bradfordville]

Yeah basically. They know that even by strict standards it would be unfair to condemn someone simply for feeling gay. So they accept with open arms even gay individuals...as long as said individuals promise to never act on their desires.

It's like the homophobia equivalent of "I'm not racist but..."

To be fair, we even do that in society at large.

You can fantasize about killing someone all you want and we just kind of shrug and say "well, s/he's entitled to their feelings". The moment you actually do kill someone though everyone gets (justifiably) upset. We recognize that even by strict standards involving murder it would be unfair to condemn someone simply engaging in homicidal thinking.

This also goes for almost all other things. It's a basic premise of modern society that your feelings are yours (middle eastern and some far eastern countries need not apply), but actions are punishable.

Yeah most people from the church to your average rando seem to shy away from criminalizing thoughts or desires. Probably cause it would open up a giant can of worms with "total hell" written on the side.
Imagine how many people would be being punished for any random bad thought they had.

[Galloism]

To be fair, we even do that in society at large.

You can fantasize about killing someone all you want and we just kind of shrug and say "well, s/he's entitled to their feelings". The moment you actually do kill someone though everyone gets (justifiably) upset. We recognize that even by strict standards involving murder it would be unfair to condemn someone simply engaging in homicidal thinking.

This also goes for almost all other things. It's a basic premise of modern society that your feelings are yours (middle eastern and some far eastern countries need not apply), but actions are punishable.

Yeah most people from the church to your average rando seem to shy away from criminalizing thoughts or desires. Probably cause it would open up a giant can of worms with "total hell" written on the side.
Imagine how many people would be being punished for any random bad thought they had.

I mean, think about if we did that in the legal system (which, religion is kind of a legal system in theory anyway - do good things, get rewarded, do bad things, get punished). It's the same kind of problem, and why we generally avoid it.

Pretty much everyone agrees that your thoughts are controllable only to a certain limited extent, but your actions are largely (almost completely) controllable.

[Dreria]

why are u guys making this about republicans and democrats because both is for the politicians and corporations and neither is for regular people

[Neu California]

why are u guys making this about republicans and democrats because both is for the politicians and corporations and neither is for regular people

Because one wants to dehumanize LGBT people, while the other supports giving them rights. That's what it boils down to.

[Dreria]

why are u guys making this about republicans and democrats because both is for the politicians and corporations and neither is for regular people

Because one wants to dehumanize LGBT people, while the other supports giving them rights. That's what it boils down to.

maybe this is projection given that your signature makes it very clear that you objectify and dehumanize women.

[The Pirateariat]

Because one wants to dehumanize LGBT people, while the other supports giving them rights. That's what it boils down to.

maybe this is projection given that your signature makes it very clear that you objectify and dehumanize women.

I'm pretty sure you've interpreted that backwards.

[Neu California]

Because one wants to dehumanize LGBT people, while the other supports giving them rights. That's what it boils down to.

maybe this is projection given that your signature makes it very clear that you objectify and dehumanize women.

maybe this is projection given that your signature makes it very clear that you objectify and dehumanize women.

I'm pretty sure you've interpreted that backwards.

Correct.

[Primitive Communism]

Because one wants to dehumanize LGBT people, while the other supports giving them rights. That's what it boils down to.

maybe this is projection given that your signature makes it very clear that you objectify and dehumanize women.

Being interested in homosexual romance as a genre is not necessarily objectifying or dehumanizing unless done for sexual gratification; generally speaking though if one wants sexual gratification they'll look at pornography - not romance.

[Ifreann]

maybe this is projection given that your signature makes it very clear that you objectify and dehumanize women.

Being interested in homosexual romance as a genre is not necessarily objectifying or dehumanizing unless done for sexual gratification; generally speaking though if one wants sexual gratification they'll look at pornography - not romance.

Ain't no one reading This Is How You Lose The Time War and jacking off.

[Point Blob]

2023, where "treat us like human beings with equal rights to you" is "authoritarian"

2023, where people want to be treated like something, but I'd rather just ignore them, because giving people special attention is a hassle, and I don't really give a toss about them (though I wish they'd be quieter because their noise is bothersome).

[El Lazaro]

maybe this is projection given that your signature makes it very clear that you objectify and dehumanize women.

Being interested in homosexual romance as a genre is not necessarily objectifying or dehumanizing unless done for sexual gratification; generally speaking though if one wants sexual gratification they'll look at pornography - not romance.

It’s weird to for a straight guy to specify “romantic lesbian stuff” while having two anime waifus kissing in his flag and founding a region named Land of LGBT. If a white person said they love seeing [insert racial minority] couples make out, had a flag that put this in a borderline fetishistic context, and created a region for an activist cause that doesn’t directly affect them, would you agree that it would be kind of gross and patronizing? By all means, read novels and watch media about any community, but there’s a difference between treating people like people and being low-key creepy to them.

Being interested in homosexual romance as a genre is not necessarily objectifying or dehumanizing unless done for sexual gratification; generally speaking though if one wants sexual gratification they'll look at pornography - not romance.

Ain't no one reading This Is How You Lose The Time War and jacking off.

Corollary of Rules 34 and 35: If it exists, someone has jacked off to it—no exceptions. If nobody has jacked off to it, then someone will.

[Ifreann]

Being interested in homosexual romance as a genre is not necessarily objectifying or dehumanizing unless done for sexual gratification; generally speaking though if one wants sexual gratification they'll look at pornography - not romance.

It’s weird to for a straight guy to specify “romantic lesbian stuff” while having two anime waifus kissing in his flag and founding a region named Land of LGBT. If a white person said they love seeing [insert racial minority] couples make out, had a flag that put this in a borderline fetishistic context, and created a region for an activist cause that doesn’t directly affect them, would you agree that it would be kind of gross and patronizing? By all means, read novels and watch media about any community, but there’s a difference between treating people like people and being low-key creepy to them.

Ain't no one reading This Is How You Lose The Time War and jacking off.

Corollary of Rules 34 and 35: If it exists, someone has jacked off to it—no exceptions. If nobody has jacked off to it, then someone will.

I'm sure there's pornographic fanworks, but the book is not that kind of horny.

[The Crimson Isles]

2023, where "treat us like human beings with equal rights to you" is "authoritarian"

2023, where people want to be treated like something, but I'd rather just ignore them, because giving people special attention is a hassle, and I don't really give a toss about them (though I wish they'd be quieter because their noise is bothersome).

This tbh

[Necroghastia]

2023, where "treat us like human beings with equal rights to you" is "authoritarian"

2023, where people want to be treated like something, but I'd rather just ignore them, because giving people special attention is a hassle, and I don't really give a toss about them (though I wish they'd be quieter because their noise is bothersome).

...Who wants "special" attention?

[Point Blob]

...Who wants "special" attention?

A number of people somewhere between "too many" and "way too many".

[Ifreann]

...Who wants "special" attention?

A number of people somewhere between "too many" and "way too many".

Gibberish answer.