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 28, 2009 at 8:13 am
Did you even read the article you linked?
Did you notice that, by rejecting an amendment to specifically list various perversions– sorry, “paraphilias”– as NOT being considered orientations, it clears the way for them to be redefined as thus? (Kinda like how homosexuality use to be a sexual disorder?)
Fact check your facts, maybe, before you accuse folks of lying.
May 28, 2009 at 11:41 pm
FfS,
From the linked article:
Furthermore, the Traditional Values Coalition makes a false claim when it says that 30 different “sexual orientations” – including pedophilia, incest and exhibitionism as well as homosexuality and heterosexuality – are contained in the American Psychiatric Association’s respected reference work, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV). This is pure bunk. In its chapter headed “Sexual and Gender Identity
Disorders,” DSM-IV explicitly states that sexual orientation “refers to erotic attraction to males, females or both.” It does not include any of the paraphilias (such as pedophilia). Nor is homosexuality (or heterosexuality, for that matter) listed as a sexual disorder in the book.
May 28, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Craig-
did you read what I wrote….
May 29, 2009 at 12:24 am
FfS,
The ammendment was rejected because it was not necessary.
Again, from the article:
It’s true that the bill’s authors have not defined “sexual orientation” in its text, but this isn’t the first legislation to use the term without stating its meaning. Judges typically use the “plain meaning” of a term when it isn’t defined in a law. And the plain meaning of “sexual orientation” does not include incest or pedophilia.
To determine “plain meaning,” judges often do what most of us might do: Look in the dictionary. All five definitions of sexual orientation listed in Dictionary.com describe it more or less the same way. The 2002 edition of the American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, for instance, defines it as: “The direction of one’s sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes, especially a direction seen to be dictated by physiologic rather than sociologic forces. Replaces sexual preference in most contemporary uses.” The 2002 Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary says it is “the inclination of an individual with respect to heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual behavior.”
And according to the American Psychological Association: “Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others. … Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality.”
Sometimes judges refer to other statutes when they’re seeking clarity. Here they could look to the Hate Crime Statistics Act, which contains this definition: “As used in this section, the term ‘sexual orientation’ means consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality.”
May 29, 2009 at 12:32 am
You’re still ignoring the fact that, by rejecting the amendment– which was crafted using current APA disorder listings– they pave the way for those disorders to be redefined, just as homosexuality was redefined.
“The direction of one’s sexual interest towards” does not have to relate to what sex the target is; it could very easily end in that whole list, plus animals, or prepubescent males/females.
Go check out the NAMBLA type sites– they’ve been making this argument for over a decade.
http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/98-053r_fog_eng.htm
is an article from 1992, hosted on a site that describes itself thus:
Ipce is a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults.
In this context, these relationships are intended to be viewed from an unbiased, non-judgmental perspective and in relation to the human rights of both the young and adult partners.This article argues, in part, that the political strength of homosexuals is the only reason it’s not a paraphilia anymore.
It is not enough to argue “it doesn’t mean this right now”– you have to show “it won’t be changed to mean this in the future, based on the past.”
May 29, 2009 at 5:23 am
Foxfier,
Let’s say that, in the future, society sinks to the level where pedophilia is considered socially acceptable enough to repeal all of the laws regarding acts of child sexual abuse or molestation, child exploitation, child pornography, incest, kidnapping, statutory rape, or the prostitution of minors.
It won’t have happened because the hate crime bill gave the politically active members of NAMBLA and the IPCE a bully pulpit from which they launched their assault on today’s societal norms.
May 29, 2009 at 5:32 am
Craig, can you please respond with an argument against something I actually said?
Besides, as per the slippery slope, it would be *a step.*
Try finding the turning point where folks would start admitting openly that they’re for “Man Boy Love” and be marginally respected, instead of thrown out.
Try finding the turning point that made it so thousands are killed by abortion in the US.
Try finding the turning point where half of all marriages end in divorce, rather than death.
Those all happened because of lots of little changes.
May 29, 2009 at 6:24 am
Foxfier,
NAMBLA is, was, and always will be a pathetic joke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMupwUD8vzk
And the only time I’ve witnessed a professed NAMBLA rep getting respect is at the 1:42 mark in the video linked above when Stephen Colbert visited the 2004 Republican National Convention.
The Hate Crime bill will not diminish the first ammendment and will not protect pedophiles or any of the other -philes and -isms mentioned in the original post. Nor will it be the first step on the slippery slope of rampant sexual deviancy in America.
It is a bill which will help victims of hate crimes maybe get some modicum of justice, not a liberal conspiracy to destroy American society as we know it.
May 29, 2009 at 6:31 am
It is a bill which will help victims of hate crimes maybe get some modicum of justice, not a liberal conspiracy to destroy American society as we know it. Justice?
By criminalizing thoughts, they’ll get justice?
This must be the new sort of justice, the one where some animals are more equal than others, the one where you’re racist if you don’t judge by their skin, and where talking about the superiority of being a “wise Latina woman” is acceptable– but “white men” is somehow a group that must be avoided.
Let’s leave aside that the fact that they advertise and promote a crime– NAMBLA can have respect without you noticing, amazingly enough.