Obama Supports Changing Civil Rights Act

Post Reply New Topic

Well said GodzillaWoman

I second that.

I find it odd and contradictory that LGBT-rights people don't want to end discrimination against people with other sexual identities.

Why support discrimination against someone just because they have an attraction to kids? The person did nothing wrong.

Why is it OK to fire someone because of their sexual identity ?

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 13 Nov 2015, 2:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

But very, very likely their sexual orientation is fixed.

If it could be cured then some reparative therapy would work.

So, they appear to be in the same boat as LGBT people who say "..... but my sexual identity is fixed".

You appear to be grouping them differently for political purposes, because you find them distasteful, not because you disagree with the neurological/psychological research that these people have a fixed sexual orientation.

A pedophile is a law-abiding citizen who has a sexual orientation towards children.

Are you saying you support discrimination against people because of their sexual identities?

"The best current evidence suggests that pedophilia results from atypical wiring in the brain."
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi ... ia/279024/

Why support discrimination of neurologically-atypical people?

It's pedophilic acts that are illegal, as having sex with children is clearly harmful. Being a law abiding citizen ends when the pedophile acts on his sexual urges.
You don't really believe what you're saying, do you? I presume you're playing devil's advocate.

Pedophile does not mean you are a child molester.

"I'm attracted to children but unwilling to act on it".
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/21/im_a_pe ... a_monster/

The DSM actually has a category for law abiding pedophiles.

Why do you keep injecting that pedophiles are criminals. Why not point out LGBT child molesters?

Well, I finally found you have some right wing beliefs in you.

Because people who act on their pedophilic urges are committing criminal acts. I tend to believe the last place a pedophile should be sent is prison, as they probably won't get better there, unless they make an effort to seek treatment for their urges. That, and their very lives are in danger from the other inmates. That said, I believe someone with such urges has a responsibility to seek help.
As for "LGBT child molesters" - anyone guilty of having sex with a child, LGBT or straight, has crossed a line, and needs to face the consequences.

Please assume we are not discussing child molesters.

This is about whether a person's sexual identity should be protected or not.

Should employers be able to fire LGBT or pedophiles or necrophiliacs, just because they don't like their sexual identity? What do you think?

This is what president Obama is aiming to do. Protect people from discrimination.

Yes, actually we are discussing child molesters. Not people with pedophilic urges that are not acted upon (or any other sort of unfulfilled urges). The law does not criminalize thoughts, especially since research has indicated that pedophilia is not curable, although some people do enter therapy to deal with the impulses. The law only criminalizes the ACT, and it does not matter if the perpetrator is heterosexual or homosexual. It's just as illegal and abhorrent.

You're making a strawman argument, claiming that the law criminalizes the thoughts, sexual identity, or urges of people, which it does not. We are also not claiming that it should, since that would be difficult to enforce. You seem to be intelligent enough to understand what we're saying, so I am wondering if you are deliberately misdirecting the conversation to be perverse and contrary.

The matter is not whether it is not mainstream (I personally don't care if consenting adults are into polyamory or BDSM for instance). The matter is whether all parties can give consent. Children and animals (and corpses) cannot give consent. Therefore, sexual acts with them are illegal. We have to draw a line somewhere. No country has absolute freedom. Some acts will be proscribed as antisocial and harmful. My point, which you missed completely, is that the same people who profess to ban LGBT civil rights because they are concerned about imaginary victims are the same ones who allowed women to be brutalized by their own husbands because of some line in the Old Testament. It's complete hypocrisy. These people are the ones who want to police people's morals and thoughts rather than consider the public good and protect the weak.

It's contradictory to support activities that violate the consent of someone while wanting to criminalize acts between consenting adults, purely based on what may or may have not happened in some desert country 3,000 years ago.

Why?

Sure, LGBT people, or pedophiles or anyone can be child molesters, but that is not pertinent to this discussion.

This is about whether someone's sexual identity should be protected from discrimination.

For example, if an employer finds out a law abiding employee belongs to a "Pedophile Club". Should we permit the employer to fire that employee simply because they don't like the sexual identity of being attracted to children?

This is what happens presently to LGBT people - they can be fired because of their sexual identity.


Right , which is why I never brought that up, and pleaded for others to stop discussing child molesters.



I have simply questioned whether it protects odd/taboo sexual identities.


Civil rights laws are a "shield" to protect people, not a "sword" to violate others.

The civil rights proposed would protect people from discrimination, not permit them to violate others.

Theoretically, one should not be fired for beliefs, but most people don't simply identify with a sexuality without acting upon it. I currently have the right to identify as a Lesbian anywhere, but can be fired for acting like one in some places. I don't just want partial rights, I want the same rights as a heterosexual person, get married, jointly own a house, get insurance benefits, and put her in my will without paying thousands of dollars that a straight person wouldn't have to pay. It's not much comfort to a transwoman to identify as a woman but have to stay in the closet because the local police will not protect her. So the act and identity are, for me, part and parcel.

As to whether the law protects taboo sexual identities, well, probably not. Civil rights legislation tends to be very specific. I remember sitting in a gay civil rights meeting as people screamed at each other over whether transsexuals should be included. Many gays were against it--they thought the transpeople would sink the legislation. They tossed them out of the bill, and it failed anyway.

I don't see how the act and belief can be separated for pedophiles. I've talked to some hetero pedophiles online and some man-boy love advocates in person, and they all were pretty much wanting the right to act on their urges. I know some do try to get therapy to control them, but I think they seem to be a minority. People don't advocate for a sexual identity to be celibate.

LoveNotHate, you seem to misunderstand a few things about sex dimorphism, sexuality and fetishes. At the very least, you don't seem to understand the distinctions between them.

We humans are sex-dimorphic. Our brains, endocrine systems and other sites develop as the default (female) or if the right set of genes are expressed and the processes they trigger occur fully, the alternative (male). And although each attribute is on a female-male spectrum, there is no third alternative. Humans have no third sex. Hence, no third sexuality. Being gay is merely when the neurological and other sites whose structures encode sexual response develop opposite expectations based on assigned birth sex. Bisexuality is when they are essentially neutral or a roughly even mix. So falls your unsupported idea of a third sexuality.

Insofar as preference goes, people can have preferences for height, hair color, hair length, etc. Those are attractions, certainly but not sexualities; they are preferences. Personal opinions. You are conflating biological sexualities with preferences opinions merely by switching up the words a bit. Opinions are not protected, by the way, except as free speech and perhaps as 'liberty'.

But now lets look at pedophiles. They are not a third sexuality; they share none of the neurological traits. However, they do share neurological traits with a different group. Those who favor bestiality. Necrophiliacs. And rapists. The commonality is that they get aroused when they can disregard consent. When they have power over others. We as a society have decided that is wrong, as sovereignty - especially bodily sovereignty - is considered sacrosanct.

Pedophiles are not a third sex, nor attracted to one; therefore pedophilia is not a sexuality.
Pedophiles are not merely people with a fetish, although that is a minor component.
Pedophiles get off on having power over those they see as weaker than themselves. They objectify a young person as a way to power, and that is morally and ethically wrong.
Our society is not accepting of rapists or those who practice bestiality or necrophilia.

These are the reasons pedophiles are not deserving of the same protections as LGBT people.

Well, this bit of science doesn't change the reality that people with alternate sexual identities exist.


So you think pedophiles choose to be attracted to children? You think "chubby-chasers" / "granny-chasers" / and "tranny-chasers" choose to be attracted to the physical element of their desire?

I don't think anyone chooses their attraction.


However, they appear to be in the same boat as LGBT people.

-They have a fixed sexual identity.
-They are discriminated because of it.
-Research shows that they appear to have a particular neurological cause in the brain.


You are generalizing for an entire group of people.

There are many transgender serial killers/sociopaths. One could generalize that all transgender people are potential sociopaths, and therefore, should not be protected because they are a danger to society.

It can go further than that.

White gay men often can't be bothered to worry about discrimination against the L and B, and many of them kinda hate the T.

There's been a lot of criticism, last couple years, about the human rights campaign being a gay white dude club, for example.

LoveNotHate, regarding sexuality it is plain to see that you have a one dimensional view of gay people, because just like people did with Prop8 you've focused on only one aspect and forgotten what is actually being protected: their relationships. There can be no such legal relationships for pedophiles, period.

Now, on to other points:

Research does show that the brains of pedophiles/child molesters are atypical - in the same locations as sociopaths & rapists. And yes, pedophiles are discriminated against - because they harm children.


That's an extraordinary claim that requires statistical proof. It's also highly offensive and harmful. You are doing the same thing people have done to autistic people (i.e., "autistics are serial killers"). Please stop. You have communicated that you have a problem with trans people being granted legal equality to cis people. And you've made it quite clear that you don't think gay people should have legal equality to straight people. But you've done so by using logical fallacies such as straw men and false equivalencies.

Unless you have an actual, valid argument that specifically shows that LGBT people should not be included in the CRA, please stop wasting everyone's time with invalid fallacies. All it does is hurt people, and it risks you appearing to be a bigoted against people who've done no harm to anyone. Please stop.