gay people

[silvanricky]

Also, the impact of a hate crime on others is different. Hate crime is much more like gang violance. Its a lot more about intimidation and about people working (or feeling that they are working) in a group, as opposed to as individuals.

Sounds a lot like progressives in Congress and their feelings towards wealthy taxpayers. Or in your case, young earth creationists. Oh no wait, you hate both groups.

[King Doctor]

Sounds a lot like progressives in Congress and their feelings towards wealthy taxpayers. Or in your case, young earth creationists.

It sounds nothing like either of those things.


Please take your clumsy trolling efforts back to one of the threads dedicated to one of your regular blubbing topics.

[Woodruff]

5 casual reasons why coupleswhocookmethintheirkitchen are preferable to homosexuals:

3.) They don't try to nail you on a hate crime if you refuse to associate with them.

Refusing to associate is not a hate crime. Tying someone to a post and beating them to death; throwing things, threatening (serious threats.. not "kid stuff") a local teenager, etc because he admits to being gay, etc .. those are most definitely "hate crimes" and that the victim happens to be homosexual doesn't change that.

Beating someone to death is a crime, regardless of your motivation for doing so. The same with threatening someone. Why do we need the "hate crime label?" I haven't heard of too many cases of beating someone to death out of love...Its just an over-reaction to discrimination against people in certain groups. The members of those groups are entitled to all the same human rights as any other individual under existing law...I think the hate crime legislation arose because legislators feared our system of trial by jury...meaning that if you had a bigoted jury you might not get a conviction, but I am no expert on this.

Becuase the "why" does matter. People who randomly act like jerks pretty much know they are jerks or just "got out of hand" (got drunk/were in a bad mood/etc... ). However, too often people who commit hate crimes really don't see an issue. They feel they are justified because this particular class of people doesn't have the same or should not have the same rights as other. That is one difference.

But it DOESN'T MATTER if they feel it is justified or not. They do the crime, they do the time...that something is a "hate crime" should be irrelevant. It's like saying that the life of a homosexual or a black or whatever is more valuable than the life of someone else, because they need a special law that is more severe. Hate crime legislation does not pass the logic test for a just society.

[King Doctor]

It's like saying that the life of a homosexual or a black or whatever is more valuable than the life of someone else, because they need a special law that is more severe.

Is it not saying that crime predicated on hatred, deep-rooted malice and long-standing ill will towards a particular social grouping is worse than random crime instigated in the heat of the moment or on a more spurious and spontaneous whim?

Try thinking of it less in terms of 'special protection' (which is an easy enough trap to fall into) and more in terms of 'severe punishment of crime that is, to no small extent, pre-meditated; having been formented by a long-running process of violently negative thoughts towards a social grouping'.

Put it this way, which represents a more severe crime: (1) Jim to wishes violence on Terry for months before killing him in a bar, or (2) Jim doesn't know who Terry is, but one night they bump into each other in a bar and Jim kills Terry in an angry rage. Terry in a bar and kills him in an angry rage.

What 'hate crime' legislation does is pick up on individuals who are essentially falling into behaviour pattern 1; except that instead of pre-meditating violence against an individual they have pre-meditated it against a group, something which would go unpunished in a less sophisticated system of criminal law.

[billy07]

why there is guys that does't like boobs and stuff?. I can not understand. It's a mental problem or a hormonal imbalance, for sure

what about guys that like boobs and stuff but also like cocks and bums and stuff. is this less of a mental illness or worse?

[john9blue]

I actually agree with Woody.

South Park's episode on hate crime nailed it.

[Falkomagno]

why there is guys that does't like boobs and stuff?. I can not understand. It's a mental problem or a hormonal imbalance, for sure

what about guys that like boobs and stuff but also like cocks and bums and stuff. is this less of a mental illness or worse?

Well, as a male I would say that it's only a wrong choice. Not illness, just bad taste.

[jammyjames]

gay people can f*ck off...

[rockfist]

It's like saying that the life of a homosexual or a black or whatever is more valuable than the life of someone else, because they need a special law that is more severe.

Is it not saying that crime predicated on hatred, deep-rooted malice and long-standing ill will towards a particular social grouping is worse than random crime instigated in the heat of the moment or on a more spurious and spontaneous whim?

Try thinking of it less in terms of 'special protection' (which is an easy enough trap to fall into) and more in terms of 'severe punishment of crime that is, to no small extent, pre-meditated; having been formented by a long-running process of violently negative thoughts towards a social grouping'.

Put it this way, which represents a more severe crime: (1) Jim to wishes violence on Terry for months before killing him in a bar, or (2) Jim doesn't know who Terry is, but one night they bump into each other in a bar and Jim kills Terry in an angry rage. Terry in a bar and kills him in an angry rage.

What 'hate crime' legislation does is pick up on individuals who are essentially falling into behaviour pattern 1; except that instead of pre-meditating violence against an individual they have pre-meditated it against a group, something which would go unpunished in a less sophisticated system of criminal law.

That makes sense, but I do not know if we need a special law for it. We could call it pre-meditated. Are the existing laws such that because person x who committed a crime against person y, and they did not know y personally and y is a member of protected group z, could not be charged with a premeditated act since he did not know y?

[PLAYER57832]

Also, the impact of a hate crime on others is different. Hate crime is much more like gang violance. Its a lot more about intimidation and about people working (or feeling that they are working) in a group, as opposed to as individuals.

Sounds a lot like progressives in Congress and their feelings towards wealthy taxpayers. Or in your case, young earth creationists. Oh no wait, you hate both groups.

I see, so "liberal" did not work well for you, so now it's "progressive" ... .

I don't hate anyone. I don't even dispute creationist's right to believe as they wish. I just dispute their right to insist that their beliefs get taught as science and I will very much continue to bring to the light of day what they pretend is true, but is not.

In any case, your comparison sounds like a nice nomination for the "valid comparisons thread".

[AndyDufresne]

I haven't heard of too many cases of beating someone to death out of love.

'Crimes of passion' often involve love/obsession.


--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

But it DOESN'T MATTER if they feel it is justified or not. They do the crime, they do the time...that something is a "hate crime" should be irrelevant. It's like saying that the life of a homosexual or a black or whatever is more valuable than the life of someone else, because they need a special law that is more severe. Hate crime legislation does not pass the logic test for a just society.

King doctor nailed one aspect well.
Intent does matter in law, so does someone's potential to commit further crime. Someone who firmly believes that another class of humans -- be it another race, religion, sexual orientation, etc -- is inferior is going to continue the activities against others. Its like the difference between a psycopath who says "I am going to kill 20 people" and the guy who gets made and winds up killing someone in a fight.

BUT, and this is important, its also the difference between someone shouting "you $#@$$" and someone holding a knife and throwing it at passer-bys. To be a hate crime, you cannot just believe that someone is inferior. You have to act in a criminal way. You have the right not to like homosexuals, but have no right to do them harm.

ALSO, you have to realize that one reason why hate crime is usually brought up is that it makes a crime a federal offense instead of a state or local one. When the law is used, it is often because local jurisdictions are not protecting that particular class of people and are leaving them open to abuse. This last aspect is even the case now. Sometimes the hate crime statutes are used because the crime is more serious than other crimes, as mentioned above. However, when people start saying "more protections" and so forth..they usually are ignoring history. When people try to argue that these people are getting "extra" protection, they ignore the fact that they were not getting the protection they deserved under local laws and that this was why federal jurisdiction was needed, to ensure that they get the same protection as everyone else.

[Woodruff]

It's like saying that the life of a homosexual or a black or whatever is more valuable than the life of someone else, because they need a special law that is more severe.

Is it not saying that crime predicated on hatred, deep-rooted malice and long-standing ill will towards a particular social grouping is worse than random crime instigated in the heat of the moment or on a more spurious and spontaneous whim?

Try thinking of it less in terms of 'special protection' (which is an easy enough trap to fall into) and more in terms of 'severe punishment of crime that is, to no small extent, pre-meditated; having been formented by a long-running process of violently negative thoughts towards a social grouping'.

Put it this way, which represents a more severe crime: (1) Jim to wishes violence on Terry for months before killing him in a bar, or (2) Jim doesn't know who Terry is, but one night they bump into each other in a bar and Jim kills Terry in an angry rage. Terry in a bar and kills him in an angry rage.

What 'hate crime' legislation does is pick up on individuals who are essentially falling into behaviour pattern 1; except that instead of pre-meditating violence against an individual they have pre-meditated it against a group, something which would go unpunished in a less sophisticated system of criminal law.

Thank you for that fine example of thinking illogically. Well done. A crime is not and cannot be "worse" simply because it is committed against someone who happens to belong to a particular group. It cannot be. If it is pre-meditated, then it falls under the ramifications of any other premeditated crime. What you describe is an injustice based solely on political correctness which not only subverts our justice system but also quite frankly insults the members of that particular group.

[Woodruff]

But it DOESN'T MATTER if they feel it is justified or not. They do the crime, they do the time...that something is a "hate crime" should be irrelevant. It's like saying that the life of a homosexual or a black or whatever is more valuable than the life of someone else, because they need a special law that is more severe. Hate crime legislation does not pass the logic test for a just society.

King doctor nailed one aspect well.
Intent does matter in law, so does someone's potential to commit further crime. Someone who firmly believes that another class of humans -- be it another race, religion, sexual orientation, etc -- is inferior is going to continue the activities against others. Its like the difference between a psycopath who says "I am going to kill 20 people" and the guy who gets made and winds up killing someone in a fight.

That's my point...that sort of consideration (the potential to commit further crime) ALREADY EXISTS. Additional "hate crime" legislation is therefore superflous.

BUT, and this is important, its also the difference between someone shouting "you $#@$$" and someone holding a knife and throwing it at passer-bys. To be a hate crime, you cannot just believe that someone is inferior. You have to act in a criminal way. You have the right not to like homosexuals, but have no right to do them harm.

So? You have the right not to like ANYONE, but have no right to do ANYONE harm. This isn't any different than anyone else.

ALSO, you have to realize that one reason why hate crime is usually brought up is that it makes a crime a federal offense instead of a state or local one. When the law is used, it is often because local jurisdictions are not protecting that particular class of people and are leaving them open to abuse.

That is not typically true, no. There have been cases of it, yes. But as it has been written, hate crime legislation does not necessitate that any particular class of people being left unprotected or open to abuse.

This last aspect is even the case now. Sometimes the hate crime statutes are used because the crime is more serious than other crimes, as mentioned above.

How can a crime be "more serious" than other crimes, simply because it is committed against a member of a particular group of people?

However, when people start saying "more protections" and so forth..they usually are ignoring history. When people try to argue that these people are getting "extra" protection, they ignore the fact that they were not getting the protection they deserved under local laws and that this was why federal jurisdiction was needed, to ensure that they get the same protection as everyone else.

If the law already exists, then additional protections are exactly that.

[b.k. barunt]

How about the photographers who were sued for refusing to photograph a gay wedding? I'm a musician and i've done a few weddings - there's no way i'd want to be at a gay wedding for any reason. The fact that i can now be sued for that preference really shits the bed. I was never into gay bashing before but this doodlyfuck bullshit is steadily giving me a major case of the red ass.


Honibaz

[saxitoxin]

I'm a musician

You are?! What do you play? Ol' Saxi is a bit of a musician as well - purely amateur, though (no, I don't the play the saxophone ... accordian). Be fun to start an IRL CC band some day.

[duday53]

Maybe I'm off topic here, or maybe its been discussed already.. but being homosexual is not a choice. Correct? You are born that way?

So it kind of is a defect in a way. I think there are maybe one or two other animals that have gay relationship things. It goes against creation and against nature (not talking about religion here). I don't hate gays, I'm just curious about them.

[Woodruff]

Maybe I'm off topic here, or maybe its been discussed already.. but being homosexual is not a choice. Correct? You are born that way?

So it kind of is a defect in a way. I think there are maybe one or two other animals that have gay relationship things. It goes against creation and against nature (not talking about religion here). I don't hate gays, I'm just curious about them.

This definitely falls under "been discussed already" and you should go read it before posting.

[natty dread]

What about getting horny from a pussy-fart?

Who doesn't get horny from a pussy-fart?

[Snorri1234]

5 casual reasons why coupleswhocookmethintheirkitchen are preferable to homosexuals:

3.) They don't try to nail you on a hate crime if you refuse to associate with them.

Refusing to associate is not a hate crime. Tying someone to a post and beating them to death; throwing things, threatening (serious threats.. not "kid stuff") a local teenager, etc because he admits to being gay, etc .. those are most definitely "hate crimes" and that the victim happens to be homosexual doesn't change that.

Beating someone to death is a crime, regardless of your motivation for doing so. The same with threatening someone. Why do we need the "hate crime label?" I haven't heard of too many cases of beating someone to death out of love...Its just an over-reaction to discrimination against people in certain groups. The members of those groups are entitled to all the same human rights as any other individual under existing law...I think the hate crime legislation arose because legislators feared our system of trial by jury...meaning that if you had a bigoted jury you might not get a conviction, but I am no expert on this.

Becuase the "why" does matter. People who randomly act like jerks pretty much know they are jerks or just "got out of hand" (got drunk/were in a bad mood/etc... ). However, too often people who commit hate crimes really don't see an issue. They feel they are justified because this particular class of people doesn't have the same or should not have the same rights as other. That is one difference.

But it DOESN'T MATTER if they feel it is justified or not. They do the crime, they do the time...that something is a "hate crime" should be irrelevant. It's like saying that the life of a homosexual or a black or whatever is more valuable than the life of someone else, because they need a special law that is more severe. Hate crime legislation does not pass the logic test for a just society.

The problem here is that you think "hate crimes" are about the victim.

They're not. They're about the crime affecting society and targetting a specific group. It is comparable in a way to an act of terrorism. Killing someone for holding someone of the same sex's hand in public sends a message to others that they should refrain from certain things. That's why killing a black guy is not immediately a hate crime, the reason for the crime is important.

[PLAYER57832]

How about the photographers who were sued for refusing to photograph a gay wedding? I'm a musician and i've done a few weddings - there's no way i'd want to be at a gay wedding for any reason. The fact that i can now be sued for that preference really shits the bed. I was never into gay bashing before but this doodlyfuck bullshit is steadily giving me a major case of the red ass.


Honibaz

Anybody can be sued for any reason. Did they win? As I remember it, no.

Furthermore, from what I remember of that case, it was a full can complete set up by BOTH parties. The photographer made a blatant point of saying she would not do gay weddings and the homosexual couple specifically chose her, not becuase there were no other options, but because they wanted to put forward a lawsuit.

Second, this is part of why courts are needed, to set boundaries. The issue there is whether a wedding photographer is primarily a business, and then subject to laws requiring service to all (you cannot refuse to serve a gay couple in a restaurant) OR if it was primarily a personnal service. You CAN refuse to offer massages to men or to women, etc.. a church CAN refuse to perform religious services of any kind (including weddings) to someone who is not of their beliefs in any way, etc.

[Tiggy D Amour]

...A crime is not and cannot be "worse" simply because it is committed against someone who happens to belong to a particular group. It cannot be. If it is pre-meditated, then it falls under the ramifications of any other premeditated crime. What you describe is an injustice based solely on political correctness which not only subverts our justice system but also quite frankly insults the members of that particular group.

What is and isn't a crime is decided on by the government of wherever you live. The justice systems just enforce those decisions. If the government has decided extra penalties for those guilty of hate crimes and you commit those crimes you suffer the penalty.

This is a great comment on Political correctness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IYx4Bc6_eE

Whereas I do get embarrassed by 'positive discrimination' that is suppose to benefit me, I'm not insulted by living somewhere that has hate crime legislation. I feel safer directly because of it.

[PLAYER57832]

But it DOESN'T MATTER if they feel it is justified or not. They do the crime, they do the time...that something is a "hate crime" should be irrelevant. It's like saying that the life of a homosexual or a black or whatever is more valuable than the life of someone else, because they need a special law that is more severe. Hate crime legislation does not pass the logic test for a just society.

King doctor nailed one aspect well.
Intent does matter in law, so does someone's potential to commit further crime. Someone who firmly believes that another class of humans -- be it another race, religion, sexual orientation, etc -- is inferior is going to continue the activities against others. Its like the difference between a psycopath who says "I am going to kill 20 people" and the guy who gets made and winds up killing someone in a fight.

That's my point...that sort of consideration (the potential to commit further crime) ALREADY EXISTS. Additional "hate crime" legislation is therefore superflous.

Except its not. Up until these laws were put forward, someone had a lot of latitude to discuss violance against specific groups. Unlike the psycopath, you then get the "mob mentality". It is as different as gang violance is different. They each require different laws because they are different.

Currently, you could argue that some of the gang statutes might apply, though that is a stretch because only sometimes are racists involved in a specific organized group. Often they just associate loosely or just think they associate with others (that is, many times racists think their views are shared by others who just are not "curageous" enough to speak up).

ALSO, you have to realize that one reason why hate crime is usually brought up is that it makes a crime a federal offense instead of a state or local one. When the law is used, it is often because local jurisdictions are not protecting that particular class of people and are leaving them open to abuse.

That is not typically true, no. There have been cases of it, yes. But as it has been written, hate crime legislation does not necessitate that any particular class of people being left unprotected or open to abuse.[/quote]
Woodruff, please you must know history well enough to know this is not true.

This last aspect is even the case now. Sometimes the hate crime statutes are used because the crime is more serious than other crimes, as mentioned above.

How can a crime be "more serious" than other crimes, simply because it is committed against a member of a particular group of people?[/quote]
Becuase it is not just an individual operating alone, at least the perception of the person doing the crime is that they are "defending their race", etc and are fully justified. This is not the case in any other type of crime, except extreme psycopaths, who ALSO have other laws.

However, when people start saying "more protections" and so forth..they usually are ignoring history. When people try to argue that these people are getting "extra" protection, they ignore the fact that they were not getting the protection they deserved under local laws and that this was why federal jurisdiction was needed, to ensure that they get the same protection as everyone else.

If the law already exists, then additional protections are exactly that.[/quote]
If the law was "black people must be protected", etc then that would be true. However, the laws are generic. Yes, they most often are implemented against whites perpetrating crimes against minorities, but that is because right now, those are the ones committing these crimes.

As I said above, really this is a case of the feds moving in because the states were NOT protecting the people equally.

Now, that said, whether homosexuals should qualify as a "protected class", like any other group is another question.

[oddzy]

all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

[King Doctor]

all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Particularly shellfish.