Yes it is. And some of the different types of paraphilia, [abnormal sexual desires/sexual deviant acts], are those mentioned in the “Equality Act”.
Are you a victim of a government school education?
JWK
Being trans or gay is not at all paraphila. Your title was incorrect, and you proved my point that you view gays/lesbians/trans/bisexuals/queers as less than human. Don’t complain, when I am accurately describing your beliefs.
I have attended both public and private schools. I also a member of the National Honor Society.
I don’t mean to sound mean or anything like that, but I actually study American history and understand that leaving civil rights up to the whims of states is a bad idea. We need guidelines for states – that’s why I support the 64 civil rights act and the equal protection clause within the 14th amendment. Every American deserves to be protected from discrimination, regardless if I agree with them politically or their lifestyle choices.
Much like Carson and his Oreos, the fact that you didn’t know that sex was a protected class in our society was extraordinary telling. Referring to Marbury v. Madison was yet another big blunder on your part.
1 Like
The mislabeled “deviants” (your loaded terminology, which betrays a fundamental lack of understanding) are entitled to all the rights that you have, John.
Sorry that triggers you so.
1 Like
That’s a major point. It’s not an official term. Actually, it’s pretty disgusting.
It works and has worked for as long as law has existed. This is an objection to ALL laws.
Paraphrasing you: “An ‘income tax’ is not the same thing as a ‘tax on income’.”
2 Likes
Illegal immigrants are protected from ICE if they’re gang members, drug dealers, murderers or rapists.
The Democrat Politicians in general want to protect those kind of people, because they know that most of those kind of people’s morality match up with their own, and most of those people will vote for them.
Just look at Bernie wanting Felons to vote.
1 Like
(bolded) That is a lie.
Uuuuuuum what?
They’re called Sanctuary Cities.
And even most Democrat voters don’t want Americans to have to pay taxes to help
support that aspect of their Socialist Agenda.
1 Like
Don’t crawfish. Your post was a lie.
1 Like
I don’t know what “paraphila” means which you referenced, but I certainly know what the meaning of paraphilia is:
par·a·phil·i·a
/ˌperəˈfilēə/
noun
Psychiatry
noun: paraphilia
- a condition characterized by abnormal sexual desires, typically involving extreme or dangerous activities.
For example Transvestism is found on the list and involves recurrent and intense sexual arousal from cross-dressing, which may manifest as fantasies, urges, or behaviors. Transvestic disorder is transvestism that causes significant distress or significant functional impairment.
Why do you pretend “sexual deviant” is improper to use to describe “Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer" which the Equality Act is about? Let us at least be honest in the discussion.
And where is your evidence to support your insulting remark and personal attack that I “view gays/lesbians/trans/bisexuals/queers as less than human?” The truth is, I view those you mention as having a mental disorder and your personal attacks on me appear to be an impetuous reaction and unwillingness to accept what is.
I will not dispute that you have studied American history. But your notion that “leaving civil rights up to the whims of states is a bad idea,” is very much in contention and conflicts with FEDERALISM, our Constitution’s big tent plan.
Additionally, in your frustration, and desire to legitimize your cause, you misinterpret and/or misrepresent the meaning of “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”, found in the Fourteenth Amendment.
This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery. How do I know this to be true? Let us review what one of the Fourteenth Amendment’s supporters says during the 39th Congressional debates which framed the amendment:
“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293
Finally, with regard to your comment that I “…didn’t know that sex was a protected class in our society…” you have intentionally mischaracterized what I have been saying. And what I have stated, and correctly so is that In regard to the Civil Rights Act, and those parts forbidding distinctions in law based upon sex, there is no constitutional authority, explicit or intended, to be found in the Fourteenth Amendment authorizing Congress to legislate in this area. And that is why an Equal Rights Amendment has been advocated ever since 1943.
And now, instead of abiding by our Constitution and proposing an amendment to our Constitution such as the Equal Rights Amendment, which would, if ratified, and by 'Section 2 of the amendment, grant power to Congress "to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article ", the Democrat controlled House has decided it is above the Constitution and proposes legislation over a subject matter not delegated to it under the Fourteenth Amendment.
JWK
“The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?” ______ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
He’s not worth the effort to respond to.
2 Likes
The only area in which the Fourteenth Amendment “trumps” the Tenth Amendment is in a very narrow area ___ it forbids distinctions in law based upon race, color, or former conditions of slavery. In fact, the Fourteenth Amendment created a national civil right forbidding the States to make distinctions in law based upon race, color, or former condition of slavery.
Likewise, the Nineteenth Amendment “trumps” the Tenth Amendment in that the States may not deny or abridge the right to vote based upon sex, and thus created yet another federally enforceable “civil right”.
And let us not forget that the Tenth Amendment is also “trumped” by the Twenty Sixth Amendment, which also created a federally enforceable civil right ___ the right of citizens of the United States to vote who are eighteen years of age or older, and this right shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
But the notion that “Civil Rights are never a state issue” is totally false. In fact, a number of the States have made, e.g., sex discrimination a “civil rights” issue and have passed laws dealing with it, and have done so by exercising their Tenth Amendment reserved powers.
Having stated the above, there has been a movement ever since 1943 to make sex discrimination a federal civil rights issue by passing an Equal Rights Amendment to the our federal constitution. But, as we all know, it has never been ratified, and for a number of good reasons. And this is why the so called “Equality Act” is without constitutional authorization ___ Congress is not authorized to legislate in an area in which a power has not been delegated.
Instead of alleging our federal constitution means things which it does not, and that Congress may prohibit distinctions based upon sex, why not simply abide by our constitution and promote the Equal Rights Amendment which, if passed would actually authorize Congress to adopt appropriate legislation to enforce such an amendment?
JWK
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void._ Chief Justice Marshall, MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
Taking this down your logical path… you don’t think that people with mental disorders deserve to be treated equally?
2 Likes
No matter what excuse you make, John, your logic is disturbing and disgusting.
2 Likes
We do have the disability act as well.
Your ignorance is staggering. Here’s the definition of Paraphiliac disorders
:> Paraphilic disorders are recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, urges, or behaviors that are distressing or disabling and that involve inanimate objects, children or nonconsenting adults, or suffering or humiliation of oneself or the partner with the potential to cause harm.
Being attracted the same sex or having your brain and body on different level does not qualify as paraphila.
If you look deeper in the actual Manual, it says this:
Transvestism is a form of paraphilia, but most cross-dressers do not meet the clinical criteria for a paraphilic disorder
Having a disorder does not make anybody have less rights. I mean, I have a speech disorder aka a stutter/speech impediment. Does that mean I shouldn’t have rights?
Simply quoting things does not make you an expert either, especially when you’re quoting things dating before the 14th amendment. You yourself believe the 16th amendment doesn’t exist.
I am well aware of the world. It’s important that all Americans get treated fairly and have a sense of dignity.
2 Likes
That question is one deserving of an entire thread and is a subject far different from the Equality Act being beyond the powers delegated to Congress.
This thread is about the Equality Act stating a big fat lie
As I have demonstrated, The Equality Act states the following lie:
Discrimination by State and local governments on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing, and public accommodations, and in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The irrefutable fact is, the 14th Amendment does not prohibit by its text, nor was it intended by those who framed and ratified the amendment, to prohibit a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex. The idea that the 14th Amendment does prohibit distinctions based upon sex was invented by Justice Ginsburg who engaged in judicial tyranny in the Virginia Military Academy (VMI) case.
In delivering the Court’s opinion in the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) case, decided June 26, 1996, which commanded the Institute to accept women by citing the 14th Amendment as forbidding sex discrimination, Ginsburg pointed to previous Supreme Court rulings and a court invented test unknown to our founding fathers or the 39th Congress, and asserted a party seeking to uphold government action making a distinction based upon sex must establish an “exceedingly persuasive justification” In addition, Ginsburg noted, “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.”
But to this day, neither Justice Ginsburg nor any Supreme Court Justice has ever established by the text of the 14th Amendment, nor its legislative intent as expressed during the debates of the 39th Congress which framed the amendment, that its purpose was to forbid distinctions based upon sex.
The unavoidable truth is, Justice Ginsburg couldn’t establish this prohibition because time and again during the debates when the 14th Amendment was being framed the intended prohibition against discrimination was identified as being limited to discrimination based upon “race, color, or former condition of slavery”, and was only intended to apply in a very narrow area protecting the civil, not political rights, of Blacks: “to make and enforce contracts, to sue…to inherit, purchase…property as was then enjoyed by white citizens. “Congress did not assume…to adjust what may be called the social rights of men…but only to declare and vindicate these fundamental rights. ” See the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3,22 (1883) for confirmation.
As a matter of fact one of the supporters of the 14th Amendment during the 39th Congress, summarized the very purpose of the amendment as stated by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases. He says:
“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Representative Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293
It should also be noted that Senator Bingham the Amendment’s principal author, emphasized “the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen . . . is in the States and not in the federal government. I have sought to effect no change in that respect.” See Cong. Globe page 1292
Bingham goes on to say:
“I have always believed that the protection in time of peace within the States of all the rights of person and citizen was of the powers reserved to the States. And so I still believe.”
The argument that the wording in the 14th Amendment: (a)“all persons”, (b)“No State shall make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of United States.”, [c] “[N]or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”, as being evidence the amendment was intended to forbid distinctions based upon sex and intended to be a universal rule to bar every imaginable type of discrimination as the court falsely pretends today, falls flat on its face when reading the words of the 15th Amendment which was intended to enlarge the prohibition against race-based legislation __enlarging it to forbid discrimination at the voting booth based upon “race, color, or previous condition of servitude“ ___ while the Constitution was still silent with regard to forbidding distinctions based upon sex.
The argument that the 14th Amendment prohibits state legislation which makes distinctions based upon sex, becomes even weaker when reading the 19th Amendment which specifically forbids a new kind of discrimination. In this Amendment, the People of America decide to forbid sex discrimination [the discrimination mentioned by Ginsburg] but only extend the prohibition with respect to the right to vote being “denied or abridged” on account of “sex”
If the 14th Amendment prohibits every kind of discrimination as alleged in the Equality Act including discrimination based upon sex and sexual orientation then why was it necessary for the above mentioned amendments [the 15th and 19th] to be added to the Constitution after the adoption of the 14th Amendment?
Finally, why would there have been a proposed and so-call equal rights amendment attempted to be added to the Constitution of the United States in the 1980’s to prohibit sex discrimination, which fell short of the required number of ratifying States, if the 14th Amendment already prohibits discrimination based upon sex and sexual orientation, as alleged in the Equality Act?
The bottom line is, the assertion in the Equality Act, that Discrimination by State and local governments on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing, and public accommodations, and in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. is a big fat lie ___ a lie which is made to pretend the Act is within the four walls of the Constitution, which it is not.
JWK
This part of the 14th states
“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.“
Nor deny… Nor deny
If a state denies rights to a gay person based on the fact that he is gay… that would violate the equal protection clause. To put it simply… they are not being treated equally under the law.
Do you need a colored picture? Also please spare me the paragraphs of nothing. Get to the point and answer the question
For the sake of argument, if it was even granted that LGBTQ people have mental disorders, it does not follow that they should be discriminated against based on that disorder. Depression, chronic pain, ADHD, narcissism, gambling addiction, etc… are all classified as disorders. There’s no ethical reason to discriminate against a person with a disorder unless that disorder directly impairs their ability to do a job.
You seem to be conflating abnormality with immorality or wickedness. Many of the things that have been classified as mental disorders were controversial because being atypical isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Once you remove religion and cultural expectations from the equation, many so-called disorders aren’t objectively bad.
3 Likes
