Democrat Admits ‘Hate Crime’ Bill Will Protect 30 Sexual Orientations, screams the headline at Right Side News.
Now, I’ve got to be honest with you I didn’t know there were more sexual orientations than flavors at your local Baskin Robbins. That’s a little disturbing.
I can come up with just two off the top of my head. Oh wait…three. So right away I have to click on this story and see what I’m missing. And then I’m thinking “Do I really want to read what I’m about to read?” But then I thought of you guys languishing in ignorance so I decided to jump in and check it out. That’s right. I’m a martyr who’s just interested in informing you.
Here’s a chunk of the story:
During floor debate on H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) admitted that this so-called “hate crimes” bill will protect the 30 mostly bizarre sexual orientations listed by the American Psychiatric Association.
These 30 sexual orientations/paraphilias are among numerous listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) and in other psychiatric literature…
Here is Hastings’ transcript from the Congressional Record, April 29, 2009:
We had an amendment offered by one of our colleagues to this particular legislation. I guess it was done in a creative fashion, and certainly the author of it did spend some time looking in the dictionary or creating new terms. And I apologize to our transcriber, but I am going to put in the Record what we have to put up with in the Rules Committee.“The term sexual orientation,” this proposed amendment said, “as used in this act, or any amendments made by this act, does not include apotemnophilia, asphyxophilia, autogynephilia, coprophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, gerontosexuality, incest, kleptophilia, klismaphilia, necrophilia, partialism, pedophilia, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, telephone scatalogia, toucherism, transgenderism, transsexual, transvestite, transvestic fetishism, urophilia, voyeurism, or zoophilia.”…
This is serious business. Mr. Speaker, we can’t legislate love, but we can legislate against hate. This legislation may not rid us of the intolerance and prejudices that continue to taint our society, but it will provide an added deterrent to those for whom these feelings manifest themselves into acts of violence. They will be fully aware that, should they commit a hate crime, there will be no lenience and they will not slip through the cracks of the American legal system.
Further, passage of this Hate Crimes bill will increase public education and awareness and encourage Americans to report hate crimes that all too often are silent.
Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice, and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability–or all of these philias and fetishes and isms that were put forward–need not live in fear because of who they are.
So these groups will all be protected minorities under this hate crimes legislation.
Apotemnophilia is the erotic interest in being or looking like an amputee.
Asphyxophilia is a sexual practice, of arranging to produce asphyxiation during sex.
Necrophilia is the sexual attraction to corpses.
Pedophilia – We all know what that is.
Telephone scatalogia -The love of making obscene phone calls.
Zoophilia -Also known as bestiality,
So while all these folks would be members of protected classes by law, Christians are most certainly not. And little babies in the womb are definitely not protected. Hey maybe that’s an idea, someone add fetal-Americans to the list of protected classes by hate crime legislation. Maybe nobody would notice. Maybe that would be a nice end run around the Supreme Court.
It’s not like these legislators actually read the bills they vote on anyway. Maybe we should try it.
What a country, huh? A country with legislators who don’t read bills that protects people who like to strangle other people during sex but not innocent children.
May 25, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I think their main focus is on making it illegal to say any kind of sex is wrong, immoral or even less than as good than heterosexual, married sex.
I’ve got a theory, that whatever makes someone feel guilty, they’ll either hide or flaunt– hardly ever just cope and move on.
May 25, 2009 at 5:52 pm
So the pedophile priests and other preditors can get out of jail free now? And the many bishops who passed around such a ones are also off the hook?
Is not the violence of incest, raped, pedophelia and the strangulation thing—hate?
May 25, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Failtroll is fail.
May 25, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Oh my Goddness. If this passes any and all sexual perversion will be acceptable.
What is a person likes rape? I see pedophilia on this list and necrophilia.
I wanna vomit.
Am i the only one hoping that the chastisement begins right now ?
May 25, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Just Curious: IS HETEROSEXUALITY on the list?
May 25, 2009 at 8:26 pm
May I offer some links for you to review? David Neiwert is not a random liberal blogger. He is widely respected for tracking Neo-Nazis and other right-wing extremists.
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/dobson-hate-crimes-whatever-happened
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/latino-advocates-press-federal-inves
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/why-we-need-federal-hate-crime-law-e
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/hannity-lies-about-hate-crimes-bill
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/does-hate-crime-bill-create-double-j
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/why-virginia-foxxs-non-apology-smear
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/hate-crimes-bills-passage-house-gets
And now I will bow out of this ‘blog. I’ve tried before to guide discussions on forums like this to constructive directions, yet all too often I’ve been hyper-critical instead. I should try to avoid that. In this case, I will simply offer you a chance to see what others are saying and invite you to actually listen before jumping to conclusions. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I will move on.
May 25, 2009 at 8:41 pm
What is the cause of this extreme sexiness – hormones in the milk and meat? Or has chastity been under-rated since Vatican 2 with the new theology of the body?
May 25, 2009 at 8:45 pm
The supply of women who can make themselves sexually available with a very low risk of having bastard children has gone up, which caused/worked with the “sexual revolution.”
Basically, we’re going on generation three where women are told that they’re supposed to be able to do anything a man does– and a lot of focus is put on guys being promiscuous.
I’d guess that part of it is also that folks feel guilty, but they’re told they shouldn’t, so if anyone says they shouldn’t do what’s making them feel guilty they strike out.
May 25, 2009 at 8:45 pm
“The term sexual orientation,” this proposed amendment said, “as used in this act, or any amendments made by this act, does not include apotemnophilia, asphyxophilia, autogynephilia, coprophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, gerontosexuality, incest, kleptophilia, klismaphilia, necrophilia, partialism, pedophilia, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, telephone scatalogia, toucherism, transgenderism, transsexual, transvestite, transvestic fetishism, urophilia, voyeurism, or zoophilia.”…
The sexual orientations listed are NOT included in the bill. Please read more carefully.
You have become a victim of the phenomenon of the brain filtering data according to biases and expectations.
May 25, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Dr. Lacrimosus – might want to read a few paras down; there are other laws that cover “sexual orientation” and this bill adds:Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice, and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of…all of these philias and fetishes and isms that were put forward–need not live in fear because of who they are.
The headline is wrong in calling them sexual orientations, but correct in noting that they would be protected.
May 25, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Wait, David Neiwert? That guy who thinks Ann Coulter is a white supremest and that the Republican Party Elect is full of right-wing extremists? Runs Firedoglake?
LOLIRL.
May 25, 2009 at 10:03 pm
First of all, that statement is false. Federal law already contains some discussion of sexual orientation, and it refers to the traditional homosexuality, bisexual, heterosexuality and all points in between cateogories. Most of the other things listed are sexual BEHAVIORS rather than identification. Some, like pedophilia, are even illnesses.
Also, the notion that it creates “special classes” is false. Why? Heterosexuals have a sexual orientation. Whites have a race, etc. Everyone receives protection under the proposed law. Please read the proposed statute. I have written on this issue, and my essay contains links to the proposed legislation. Cutting Through the Rhetoric Regarding Hate Crimes Legislation
May 25, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Hi, Foxfier – how’s it going? Actually, the proposed law would not regulate what people “say” about sexuality. Instead, it only makes it a crime to cause bodily injury or attempt to cause bodily injury to another person on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. The language of the proposed statute only applies to situations where someone has engaged in arson, bombings, shootings, or other violent crimes based on the prohibited categories. This is an anti-violence law. People can still “hate fags” or any other group after the law is passed.
May 25, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Mr. Hutchinson-
saying that homosexuality is disordered is considered discrimination.
By making that chargeable in conjunction with another crime– similar to the “with a deadly weapon” enhancement– it is making the thought a crime.
Arson, bombings, shootings and other violent crimes are already illegal.
If you think that simple heterosexuality, orthodox religion or lack of kinks will actually be protected under this statue– I’d like some of what you’re smoking.
May 25, 2009 at 10:33 pm
hmmm…yes, you are right. My mistake.
May 25, 2009 at 10:53 pm
I think we are missing the big picture: all these filias, isms, etc. are out of the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) and in other psychiatric literature…”
Doesn’t this cause anyone else some discomfort that these people, with disorders, are protected from hate crimes, yet may commit crimes against humanity. Yes there are laws against some of these crimes but why do criminals get a hate crime law and innocent human beings get slaughtered?
May 25, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Dr. Lacrimosus-
We probably should’ve pointed that out in the first place, though; you were right to draw attention to it.
May 25, 2009 at 11:04 pm
“Yes there are laws against some of these crimes but why do criminals get a hate crime law and innocent human beings get slaughtered?”
Oh let’s see, well to start there is the ACLU, the DNC, a vast throng of leftist academics, judges, and government officials, RINOS like Congressman Mark Kirk, et al, so-called moderates, self-defined progressive Christians, a media with the spines and intelligence of tapeworms….. How’s that for a start?
May 27, 2009 at 2:05 pm
“Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I will move on.”
In other words, data-dump and flee for the hills. Yeah, that’s an improvement.
May 28, 2009 at 7:04 am
Factcheck.org crushes these lies easily:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_the_hate_crimes_bill_make_it.html
Does “creative” mean you just make stuff up?