RECENT  POSTS:  » Read: NOM's guide to pressuring lawmakers to ban marriages (while pretending you're doing something good and positive instead) » Full trailer: 'The Normal Heart' » Vintage Clinton era oppo memo perhaps even more relevant today » Concerned Women For America advises churches to lockdown exclusionary marriage views » Video: What does conservative columnist Cal Thomas see as America's biggest threat? Take a guess. » Correcting NOM's fallacious fear graphic » Gee, Bryan, can't understand why federal courts are rejecting you gay = incest view » Former NOM sr. associate admits shift: Moving away from intellectual arguments, focusing on spiritual » Prop 8 defense attorney now planning lesbian daughter's wedding » If you can't afford your event, NOM, perhaps you should just cancel  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

04/23/2009

What about wanting to screw a bill with lies -- is that an 'orientation'?

by Jeremy Hooper

Last week we told you how the Traditional Values Coalition is again this year passing off the lie that a whole number of sexual paraphilias, encompassing everything from necrophilia to having sex with an amputee's stump (no, that's not a joke), are classified as "sexual orientations." And while we were annoyed that they would again trot out this wildly unscientific way of thinking, it wasn't all that unexpected considering it was coming from an SPLC-certified hate group that has proven willing to say just about anything to further their anti-LGBT cause.

However, when a U.S. Congressman recites that very same fallacious press release while sitting on a House Judiciary Committee, our eyebrows more fully raise. This from One News Now:

Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) told Democratic members that "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" are vague terms that need to be specifically defined since courts will be analyzing those terms.

"This panel -- this Judiciary Committee, including the authors of this bill -- either don't know or won't say what the definitions are, for example, [of] gender identity [or] sexual orientation," King stated. "Does sexual orientation...include transvestism? Does it include transgendered? Are those two that are also part of sexual orientation?" he asked. "And if so, if that's two of 30 [orientations], what are the other 28 that are part of sexual orientation?"
'Hate crimes' bill okayed; 'sexual orientation' remains undefined [ONN]

Yes, that's right -- Congressman Steve King today declared that there are over 30 sexual orientations, a specific Steve-Kingreference to TVC's yearly campaign. A reference that goes against all science, not to mention common sense. A reference that comes directly from a disdain factory whose campaigns have been heated enough to earn an official "hate" label.

Ya know, sometimes people ask us why we care about the more fringe groups like TVC. Well this is precisely why. We still live in a world where elected lawmakers who have the power to drastically affect our lives swallow their spin and regurgitate it on the Hill. We still have a communications chamber wherein even the most far-fetched lies can take hold if enough people commit to them. And we still exist in a time when a grown adult can liken in-born orientations with "sexual arousal" from feces (another of TVC's cited "orientations) and not get laughed all the way back to Iowa!

We fight back because opportunistic liars make us vomit. We fight back because opportunistic lies make us all more vulnerable.

MORE: CWA's also in on this game: What about being a concerned woman with a fetish for deceit -- is that too an 'orientation'? [G-A-Y]

**SEE ALSO: For Congressman King's education:

200904231620-1

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

I don't know how this (I don't even know what to call him without resorting to name-calling) buffoon keeps getting elected. It's an embarrassment to live in his district. I enthusiastically vote against him every two years, obviously to no avail :(

Posted by: dave31175 | Apr 23, 2009 4:52:10 PM

The real issue isn't what the definition of "sexual orientation" is. They throw out that red herring as a means of making the issue more salacious or scintillating. They can't raise up angry hordes against us, because our benign lives are not as "illicit" as they once were (perceived) to be.

So, they trot out everything from the pedophiles to the botanophiles (plant fuckers). ALL as a means of deceptively conflating increased penalties for crimes with their insidiously planted notion of decriminalization. Their truest purpose is to insinuate that illegal activities will be made somewhat less illegal. And, for the vast majority of the hordes who want to hate on us, it probably works very effectively. Hell, the majority of the lying liars who repeat this stupidity may be equally convinced of the veracity of the lie.

In my mind, the underlying lies (the lies that perhaps even some of the lying liars may not be cognizant of the fact that they are foisting) are just as harmful as the blatantly apparent ones are. And the underlying lies may be the ones that do the most damage. Just because they operate on a more subliminal level, doesn't mean that they don't appeal equally well to the basest of the fear induced emotions.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Apr 23, 2009 5:21:20 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails