-
Website
http://randythomas.org/ -
Original page
http://randythomas.org/2008/01/20/the-three-criteria-for-protected-class-status-in-civil-rights/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I appreciated the legal leg work and disassembling of the entire gay argument that they are being discriminated against on a civil rights basis and should be granted protected class status. Few argue from this perspective and fewer still understand because the 'gay' community has so obscured it with misinformtation and propaganda.
Take Ewe for instance. He reveals the mindset in the firt sentence, saying he needn't read further. That is just the point. He doesn't WANT to read any further. He doesn't want to reason, because he knows the facts and reason are not on his side so he dives into an ad hominem argument. Does he address your argument point by point or the psychiatrist's comments? Of course not.
Imagine the intolerance and bigotry that will manifest if these people gain more and more control of the seats of power. They will be like they are, tyrants ranting and raving about what blithering idiots we all are because we dont't want this dictatorial heterophobie bunch ruling us.
David
I appreciate David's view. I appreciate his comment. Their were a couple of things he stated that caused me pause and concern that I might address in another post or comment here (we'll see how the discussion goes.) I suggest you engage him in the conversation instead of asking me if I agree. He is the one that made the comment.
And I am honored you both would comment here. Thanks.
Randy, When you say "I know for a fact personally that it isn’t immutable" what do you mean by "it"? Do you mean being gay-identified or do you mean sexual orientation (attractions to men)?
It is a gender neutral pronoun. I am using "it" to describe homosexuality because I don't see that as who a person is.
For the second part ... I know that both being gay identified and sexual orientation are not immutable according to current scientific evidence and if it were genetic (which I don't think they will ever find conclusive evidence to prove such) I still found my attractions changed and my identity is completely transformed.
I don't want to talk too much about your comment, but I would like to say that I found the comment overly broad. I don't think calling gay people "these people" and then calling them tyrants is accurate or reasonable.
Randy, wow, it looks like you really did your homework on this one. I'm impressed ;-)
The problem I had the first time I saw you lay out the the 3 criteria for protected class status is that there are just too many groups that currently get some sort of protected class status that don't fit into the three criteria. I'm in HR, and as I learned about the position, I was amazed to see how many people/groups actually get some sort of protections.
Of the seven federally protected classes, familial status (being pregnant or having kids under 18), and religion don't meet all 3 of the criteria that you lay out.
Of course, there are several other protected classes at different local and state levels and even others get some protections federally. Here are some others that I don't think meet the 3 criteria you laid out (these are off of the top of my head):
Age
Marital status
Veteran or military status
Political affiliation
Health status
So, that's my take on the issue. If we're going to say that gay folks should not get special class protection because they don't meet certain criteria, then we should hold all groups to that criteria, but they really don't.
Also, the problem with the 3 criteria is that it's not just the "discriminated group" that gets the protection. For example, race is a protected class, but that means that white males get the same protected class status as black females, even though white males would undoubtedly be on the top of the income scales you mentioned in your earlier post.
You raise interesting questions about all of the other groups of people and the matters have probably all been hashed out in the courts concerning each of your exceptions.
However, I think the case is very clear that no matter what the criteria (3 points or more) the gay identified community to do not make the case for being able to use "civil rights" language credibly.
And again, the gay identified community has legitimate issues that need to be brought to the table of public dialog. Actually the issues are pretty much already served ::: escaping metaphor quickly :::
For example, I think the only way to move forward out of the trap of buzzword legalism is to get to reality ... gay identified people pay taxes and vote. Taxes fuel all aspects of the government. If government stewards that money back to individuals (i.e. Social Security and the like) then we should have a say about how that money is released back to us or to our beneficiaries named in a Will or power of attorney.
That is poorly framed and not fully fleshed out (meaning I don't know if I fully agree with the example argument above). But I think it is much more compelling to me to hear a gay identified person say that they are paying into a system and have a right to speak to that system in how it disburses the resources we provide to it. That is much more plausible to me than when I was watching a news story about two lesbians who have been together for decades, sailing off on their private mini-yacht claiming how they are "oppressed second class citizens" denied their civil rights because they can't have a marriage sanctioned by the state.
But again, I am not going to get to much more detailed than this.
Now I know you are testing me. :)
I don't care whether Alan is like what people say he is. He is one of the most masculine godly men I know. Mannerisms and affectations mean very little if anything regarding that.
Now, I can't speak for Brian or what type of answer he was looking for when he asked that question. However, the question he asked was a good one and it's something that I'm sure many people have wondered about you (or Alan, or Disputed Mutability, or me, or any other "strugglers" who put themselves out there for the Internet world to see).
I can say that I find your reply to be dodging the question a bit. He wasn't asking if temptations defined who you are. I think it's pretty clear from your testimony that they don't, and that's a good thing in my opinion. He was simply asking what your temptations were. Are you still attracted to men? Are you attracted to women? Those are "yes" or "no" questions. They may be misguided questions, because I think we can agree that the placement of attractions really is not significant when it cmes to salvation. However, it's fine to be clear about these things, and it would be less confusing for everyone if you could simply tell us the things you feel.
It hasn't hurt me so far. :-) Again, hope you're well, and I look forward to seeing more blog posts here.
The part about it not defining me is something I wanted to say ... so I said it.
Temptations are not sin. The Lord was tempted Himself and did not sin. So, same sex attraction might still be a temptation from time to time but that does not mean it dominates my life in anyway that would lead me to think or act in ways that conflict with my faith. Most people want me to limit it to a yes so they can dismiss everything else I say.
Jay, you may think that those are "yes" and "no" but they are only confusing because I refuse to get that simplistic. I am not going to be manipulated into a double bind question. If I say yes, my opponents will say I am still gay, If I say no then they call me a liar. I answered as I saw fit. My answer is forthright but framed the way I want it to be framed, not the culture war double bind question that nobody is really concerned about the answer for.
I have been on this journey almost as long as you have been alive. Young people speak wisdom to me all the time and I love their input. However, more often than not, you come off condescending to me.
You said: "I answered forthrightly. I believe that same sex attractions (in a romantic or erotic way) are temptations. If no one is above temptation that would include me. Contextually there isn’t any dodging and quite obvious."
If you had included your definition of "temptation" in your initial reply, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The answer would have been much more clear. Thank you for clarifying now, and again, I hope you're well and keep blogging here. God bless.
I can respect a position which holds that all bias crime laws are extraneous, which seems to be your statement above. However, why do you not actively work for the repeal of all such laws instead of against the inclusion of one group? The only situation which is untenable to both those who agree and disagree with such laws, is the selective exclusion of a certain group.
Are you willing to publicly call for and actively work for the repeal of all bias crime laws?
Which is what this post about. Once again you try to turn the tables on me when the topic of discussion is about how prosperous the gay identified community is and why they can't claim their fight is a Civil Rights issue with any legal (and I believe moral) credibility.
The topic of the post is "The Three Criteria for Protected Class Status in Civil Rights." In a comment above, you said:
And still someone else above asked about "hate crime laws." So I feel you are being someone harsh in singling me out, suggesting that I am "turning the tables" on you. This implies deception where there is none - I assure you I am asking a direct question.
Why do your efforts concerning bias crime laws not focus on repealing them entirely? I would see far more logic in this approach, because there is some consistency to it.
And on a personal note, when you posted for a brief period at XGW, we didn't removed the URL from your name - we allowed others the freedom to visit your blog to read more, or not. While you certainly can remove it, and obviously I don't have to comment on your blog, don't you think that is a bit oppressive?
I may have to endure mockery but I don't have to empower it.
That is why I take the url out of your comment and why I don't allow trackbacks from your team's blog. It's not oppressive at all. Your links still show up on technorati. People can still find your side of the story quite easily, but this is *my* blog and I am not going to facilitate your goals through it.
David, I like you but don't ever forget we are opponents as long as your blog seeks to undermine my life, twist my words and faith. I deal with issues and you all attack by name even to the point of my physical appearance. I don't feel in any way compelled to reciprocate linkage.
Thanks for allowing my URL on the handful of my comments I left over there but I didn't go looking to see if you had removed them and I don't owe you the same actions in return.
Hi Michael, I don't think we have ever met. Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
Yes I am attracted sexually and romantically towards the opposite sex. Very strongly in fact. Where it is in line with the Creator's intent I have enjoyed developing relationships and dating women over the years. Where it crosses over into lust... I have accountability for that. With women I think romantic and sexual attractions can be healthy and not always lead to temptation. With men, it is not my desire to ever be inclined to want a romantic or sexual relationship and so I believe those are temptations which give me an opportunity to self determine my actions and be obedient to my faith.
Today actually my friendships with men are such that I rarely am tempted beyond that. It's not always been like that and I have had seasons of zero temptations in that area for quite a while and seasons where it has been difficult to live out my faith and be obedient to what I believe Christ has called me too.
but here again... we are talking about me and not the point of the post.
So, I think I have answered your questions and I got the time stamp set right. Sorry about that.
I've debated and prayed over whether or not to try and engage you in a conversation. I'd just like to encourage you to let go of your own attempts to defend yourself against what you believe to be traps and tricks from the "other team". It may be that there are God-ordained positives and devil-inspired negatives in either corner. Alan garners a great deal more respect from the "other team" simply because he's at least willing to be open and transparent in spite of what games he may actually believe are being played. He seems to have the good faith in God and the common sense to understand that, in the end, what the "other team" does can't really affect him in the grand scheme of things. I'd like to see you exercise that sort of courage and faith. I realize that you and I may be the only one to see what I've written here. Even that knowledge, that you often don't allow dissenting or critical voices to stand in your comments....is just sad to me...for your sake. I would love to see you come to a place where your voice, and what you have to say, could actually be taken more seriously as part of the nitty gritty discussion that really must happen in order for any sort of positive change to take place. We all get a little mud slung on us now and then....big whoop. I'm praying you hear me with a fresh heart, and I promise to listen to what you say with a fresh heart as well.
love and grace,
pam
If you noticed since the beginning of the year I have allowed a LOT more to stand than I used too. That is part of what the Lord is helping me to deal with and what I think He used my month off from blogging to "reboot" my thinking on the blog and commenting.
At the same time, my voice is taken seriously by other people who think I am wrong in my conclusions. The crowd you are alluding to are not the whole of public discussion on the issue.
There is a lot of constructive discussions that you all are not aware of. I might get mud thrown at me but I am not going to be the one who brings them the water and dirt.
Thanks for your sincere reply. I'd love to be privy to some more of those discussions....but I probably don't have time, even if that's possible. I'm going to pray that you will be willing to go ahead and bring the dirt and water....it's actually quite freeing when you find yourself in that place where you can just say whatever you really need or mean to say without feeling those feelings you are having when the mud comes your way. One of my friends and I have this little thing we say amongst ourselves...."rise below it". haha! anyway....I'm encouraged that you are at least willing to say that it's something your working on....the blog comments and all. Thanks for talking Randy! :)
much love and grace,
pam
"Yes I am attracted sexually and romantically towards the opposite sex. Very strongly in fact. Where it is in line with the Creator’s intent I have enjoyed developing relationships and dating women over the years. Where it crosses over into lust… "
Since you openly acknowledge that you are now romantically and sexually attracted to both mena and women -- even to the point of "lusting" after both sexes, wouldn't that mean that you are now bisexual in orientation? Have you always been attracted to both sexes or is attraction to women something new?
By "orientation", I only mean the DIRECTION of the attractions you experience. You seem to acknowledge that the "direction" is not exlcusively heterosexual or homosexual. And, I am not suggesting that "orientation" is a fixed state or identity. To me, "orientation" only means "direction" -- as in "the house is oriented in a North-South direction".
In my own case, I never developed attractions to the opposite sex, so my sexual orientation (the prevailing direction of my attractions) is now and has always been exclusively towards men -- even when I was celibate, mariied heterosexually, "ex-gay" or "former homosexual". I am talking here only of attractions, not behavior. Do you agree that (at least in the sense that most people understand "orientation)that your attractions to both sexes would meet the standard definition of bisexual?
"Homosexual" or "gay" refer to a person who is not attracted to the opposite sex, but only to their own sex. Yes, I know that some people adopt it as an "identity" and insist they were "born that way" and cannot "change". But I am only speaking of the ATTRACTIONS, whether "wanted" or "unwanted". In 54 years of living, my attractions have always been EXCLUSIVELY towards males. Therefore, I am gay or homosexual.
"Straight" of "heterosexual" would refer to a person whose attractions were exclusively towardsd the opposite sex -- like my parents.
"Bisexual" would refer to a person with BOTH attractions -- even though those attractions may be more strongly "oriented" towards males or females. I have met very few bisexuals whoare "50 -50". You admit sexual, romantic, lustful attractions towards BOTH sexes. In this regard, you and I are very different. I have never lusted towards women. It seems to me that that's what BISEXUAL men do.
I again am going to write a more adequate response but I can honestly say that regardless of the temptations (old/new) I was once like you and exclusively homosexual. Now I am not.
More later.
Isn't that exactly what Exodus and most other "ex-gay" groups are trying to do? I would have no quarrel with you if your goal was simply to change your life in the direction you feel God is leading you. But it clearly goes far beyond that. There was a time when many "ex-gay" ministries existed to help those who could not reconcile their sexual orientation and their faith. I participated in a couple of them that were run by loving, sensitive people. But now all I see are political organizations claiming to offer help when actually the majority of their time and money is spent attacking every single aspect of the lives of LGBT people. Their voices are shrill and hostile as they parrot the false and/or exagerrated claims made by the far right. Where is the healing, where is God in this? Both sides need to take a step back and change the attitude that theirs is "the only way". Dave
Even so, the rest of your post is very mistaken.
Less than 5% (Probably a lot less than that last year) of our budget went to "lobbying efforts." The government allows 501(c)3 organizations like us (and the gay pressure group HRC) up to 15% to do direct lobbying. A vast majority of our time is working with churches, conferences, colleges and Member Ministries. Go look at the Exodus website and tell me when was the last time we had a press release on some public policy issue. It was last May and there were two of them on one subject. There has been a LOT of things we could have commented on public policy-wise and we have not. Also, go and do a round up of all the public policy issues our Ministries have been involved in. It is a very very very small fraction of what we do at the Exodus headquarters and even smaller fraction among our autonomous Member Ministries.
As a matter of fact our biggest news items from 2007 were all on topics of identity, genetics and our church outreach.
Even so, to say that we are "shrill" and only devoted to politics is quite frankly ridiculous. It's only got traction because it is a lie repeated among gay activists almost obsessively. It's called stigmatization (manipulation) and they are pretty good at it.
Even so, just because we are no longer gay does not mean we are no longer citizens or without a voice. That is why I post about public policy here on my private personal blog.
Thanks for leaving a comment.