It appears TVC has lost last trace of shame
We've seen the Traditional Values Coalition do some nutty things in the past, but this just might take the crazy cake! They have today posted the text from HR 2232, a piece of legislation that is meant "to affirm that Federal employees are protected from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to repudiate any assertion to the contrary." However, every time the term "sexual orientation" is mentioned in the text from the bill, they have taken it upon themselves to write the following underneath (red arrows our own):
And then they have the AUDACITY to include this as the footnote associated with their offensive bullet points:
Only problem? THIS IS A BLATANT LIE!!!!!!!! The vast majority of what is in TVC's list is classified in DSM-IV as a "paraphilia." And actually, true sexual orientations (homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality) are not even all that defined in the DSM, as they are not disorders (which is the concept with which the DSM deals)!
TVC themselves would even seem know at least a little about the DSM's truth, as other times they have used this false list of "sexual orientations," that have AT LEAST made note of the "paraphilia" connection:
Notice that in the above attempt to muddy the waters of what constitutes a "sexual orientation," they didn't place page numbers next to things like homosexuality or heterosexuality, as there simply is no corresponding DSM page to go along with those ACTUAL orientations!! Yet apparently they feel that since they have been distributing this list of "sexual orientations" for so long now -- having it picked up as fact by MANY other people along the way -- they can just be completely untruthful about where they found their data! They are truly attempting to rewrite scientific classifications for their followers and allies to swallow up and regurgitate (knowing the vast majority will never do further research).
::exasperated sigh:: It is truly unreal that they can call themselves the "moral" team and continue to keep a straight (and only straight) face!
**UPDATE: It's even more offensive and blatant in this TVC piece, also issue today. A sample:
What Are The Effects Of H.R. 2232?
By adding “sexual orientation” to federal law, Congress will be legalizing and normalizing the whole range of sexual orientations as listed in the APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). This list, of course, is subject to endless change as individuals decide they wish to push the envelope and engage in an ever-growing number of perverted behaviors.
Congress will, in effect, be protecting behaviors that are currently illegal in most states and will open up a Pandora’s Box of potential lawsuits and sexually bizarre behaviors in the workplace.
*How will federal employers deal, for example, with a pedophile whose sexual orientation will effectively be protected under H.R. 2232?
*What about the man who is sexually aroused by the stumps of an amputee (Apotemnophilia)? Will he be protected from “discrimination” if he wants to work at a Veteran’s Hospital?
*What of the man who enjoys having sex with animals? Can he claim federally-protected status under H.R. 2232 as a Park Ranger? Will his conduct be protected?
*What about the man who engages in Transvestic Fetishism and wants to wear a dress to work and use the women’s restroom in the Department of Commerce building? Will he be protected under H.R. 2232? If so, why? If his sexual orientation is wearing opposite sex clothing, he would have absolute protection under this law.
* What about the man who is a Fronteurist? This is a sexual orientation. Will a man who approaches a woman and rubs up against her buttocks be protected?
While I definitely think that we should keep track of such groups and fight and condemn them in every way we can, we must never be surprised that rabid dogs bite. TVC's ruthless head Lou Sheldon has a psychopathic obsession with we 'mos that ranks right up there with Fred Phelps. I think they should be locked in a room together with a hard mattress, a TV/VCR and an old Falcon tape, one condom, and a tube of KY, and see who survives. But permit me to remind any G.A.Y. readers still suffering under the delusion that California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is sincerely gay-friendly that his campaign for reelection hired Ben Lopez, the Traditional Values Coalition's "lobbyist and legislative analyst," to drum up evangelical votes. Mainstream media wrote about it and he was quickly terminated. But many gays, particularly gay Repugs still luvs them some Arnie.
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jul 11, 2007 7:29:21 PM
I stole an office doughnut (Kleptophilia) while thinking about that cute guy's chest I saw running this morning (Partialism). I need an intervention Jeremy.
Posted by: Franc | Jul 12, 2007 12:30:35 AM
It seems to me that the bills just need to be more specific. If the term "sexual orientation" is defined within the bill itself, then it would be a lot harder for them to make such extreme interpretations. They could still easily oppose it, but only with their tired, baseless arguments.
Posted by: Ben | Jul 12, 2007 12:43:40 AM
The reason why they published this list of sexual orientations is because a sexual orientation can be defined as a persons awareness of their position in regards to sexual relationships. By that definition, the American Family Association (AFA), actually thought of 20 more that aren't listed above.
By definition, a sexual orientation must be inclusive of ALL sexual orientations. How do you tell the difference between a "legitimate" sexual orientation and a mental disorder? Since laws and opinions change on that matter every day (Canada's westernmost province is looking into legalizing polygamy), then you have to conclude that either all non-heterosexual sexual orientations are mental disorders, or they are all simply different from the original heterosexual orientation. You can't start choosing between them. So the question becomes, "What gets you off?", pardon the crudeness. If a person is aroused by corpses (necrophilia), then what is that to you? If a person is aroused by his picnic table (Fetishism):
Then what is that to you? If a person is aroused by his feces (Coprophilia), then what is that to you? If a person is aroused by animals (Zoophilia), enemas (Klismaphilia), siblings (Incest), elders (Gerontosexuality), stealing (Kleptophilia), then what is any of that to you?
You might call those "paraphilias". But there was a time when homosexuality was considered a paraphilia. Like I said, that changes every day (Canada has also talked about lowering the age of consent to age 12 (pedophilia)). In fact, princeton university defines paraphilia as "abnormal sexual activity".
What is normal? Is there such a thing?
So when TVC puts that list in there to show you what it really means, they are not exaggerating. All someone has to do to be protected while he gets off on corpses in the morgue is to claim that it is his sexual orientation. If they don't like that, then they have to let the courts battle it out. But under this law, the words sexual orientation can, in fact, be interpreted to include these "paraphilias", as you called them.
Sorry guys. The TVC is right.
Posted by: ~The Mage~ | Apr 11, 2008 8:49:19 AM
'paraphilias', as you called them."
No, The Mage -- that is what credible science calls them, not just us.
And your logic is flawed, flawed, flawed. yes, homosexuality was once classified as a mental disorder -- but it was WRONGLY classified as such. It, unlike all of the other things you mention, is an orientation, not a behavior. We overcame that stigma. Now you are suggesting we should go back to it?!
Posted by: G-A-Y | Apr 20, 2009 11:54:06 AMcomments powered by Disqus