Our great President

[The Bid]

I would tend to agree with that. I dont want queer thrown in my face. If someone wants to be gay, they should do it on their own time, in the privacy of their own home. I dont want to explain to a child why 2 men are holding hands in the street.

Im glad he knocked the bill out.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by The Bid

I would tend to agree with that. I dont want queer thrown in my face. If someone wants to be gay, they should do it on their own time, in the privacy of their own home. I dont want to explain to a child why 2 men are holding hands in the street.

Im glad he knocked the bill out.

Well, of course that's your prerogative to feel that way -- but that has nothing at all to do with the bill that was passed in the House yesterday. Our hate crime laws protect subsets of people based on their personal characteristics -- being black, a Muslim, a Christian, a Mexican, you name it -- they are protected from being attacked based on who they are. It doesn't matter if I want Islam "thrown in my face" or not, that's not the point of the law. This law, whether passed or not, will have zero effect on whether you have you explain to a child why two men are holding hands on the street. You'd still have to before the bill, and you'll still have to after the bill.

I haven't heard (from anyone) a good argument about why homosexuals should not be included under federal hate-crime laws.

[The Bid]

Gays arent a race or religion, its a choice. I dont get any special privledge for being straight. What if a group of crazed gays attacked a guy like me, why wouldnt that be a straight hate crime?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by The Bid

Gays arent a race or religion, its a choice.

Are you kidding me? Whether or not you think homosexuality is a choice is irrelevant. Are you even thinking before you type? You're saying homosexuals choose to be gay, but Christians don't choose to be Christians? Religion is very much a choice, and still protected by these laws. So that argument it inherently flawed and nonsensical.

Originally Posted by The Bid

What if a group of crazed gays attacked a guy like me, why wouldnt that be a straight hate crime?

Does this happen often? No, in fact I'm not sure I've ever heard a story about a crazed group of gays attacking a man for being straight. Using that argument is setting up a worst-case scenario fantasy hypothetical straw man so that it's easier to tear down.

Hate crimes terrorize entire groups of people. When someone assaults a homosexual on the street just for being a homosexual in Chicago, it creates paralyzing fear in all homosexuals in Chicago when they walk on the street afterwards. FBI statistics show that 1 in every 6 hate crimes is motivated by sexuality. So while your straw man argument might seem like a logical conclusion to you, the fact remains that these things are already happening all over this country. And plenty of people yesterday exposed themselves in basically saying, "Yep, it's happening, and we don't care."

[estreetposse]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Well, of course that's your prerogative to feel that way -- but that has nothing at all to do with the bill that was passed in the House yesterday. Our hate crime laws protect subsets of people based on their personal characteristics -- being black, a Muslim, a Christian, a Mexican, you name it -- they are protected from being attacked based on who they are. It doesn't matter if I want Islam "thrown in my face" or not, that's not the point of the law. This law, whether passed or not, will have zero effect on whether you have you explain to a child why two men are holding hands on the street. You'd still have to before the bill, and you'll still have to after the bill.

I haven't heard (from anyone) a good argument about why homosexuals should not be included under federal hate-crime laws.

Why is it more of a crime to hurt or kill someone(gay,black,muslim,etc.) out of hate then it is for sh!ts and giggles(premeditated randomness). Assault or murder(premeditated) should be the same charge no matter the race, religion or creed. Labeling things in our society has gotten way out of control...why do we label anything? To be able to separate and organize as we need just like socks. The more protesting, the more laws that are enacted, the more we feel we aren't being treated fairly = the more our everyday rights are being taken away as a whole society. Keep crying about how people are oppressed, treated unfairly, don't have equal rights and guess what...there won't be any rights to be bitching about cause Big Bro ain't far off from snatching them away. It's time the American people bent over and used their good eyes!!!

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by estreetposse

Why is it more of a crime to hurt or kill someone(gay,black,muslim,etc.) out of hate then it is for sh!ts and giggles(premeditated randomness). Assault or murder(premeditated) should be the same charge no matter the race, religion or creed. Labeling things in our society has gotten way out of control...why do we label anything? To be able to separate and organize as we need just like socks. The more protesting, the more laws that are enacted, the more we feel we aren't being treated fairly = the more our everyday rights are being taken away as a whole society. Keep crying about how people are oppressed, treated unfairly, don't have equal rights and guess what...there won't be any rights to be bitching about cause Big Bro ain't far off from snatching them away. It's time the American people bent over and used their good eyes!!!

Only for this reason: Hate crimes terrorize entire groups of people.

I'm perfectly fine with your assessment that hate crimes shouldn't exist at all. That's a valid argument, and one that I have no problem supporting. Getting rid of them wholly is one thing, but if we're going to keep them and let certain groups have them (religion, races) but not a group that makes up ~16% of all hate crimes, something is very wrong.

[The Bid]

If gays kept being gay to themselves they wouldnt get attacked.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by The Bid

If gays kept being gay to themselves they wouldnt get attacked.

Without really digging into that classy little bit up there, it seems pretty obvious that you haven't read the bill or know anything about other than that it has something to do with gays, so it must be bad.

The bill covers gays and non-gays alike. If someone attacks you (not gay) because they think you are gay (even though you aren't) and they carve the word F-A-G in your stomach, that's still a hate crime. If that were to happen, I'm sure there'd be lines of people standing around saying "If he would have just kept his gayness to himself this wouldn't have happened." That, by the way, is the same awful logic that says that if women would just wear pants and sweatshirts, they wouldn't get raped -- that it's their fault.

Foolish.

[The Bid]

Brian

Whats wrong with a standard assult charge? Why does someones sexual orientation have to come into play at all.

[Antitrust32]

Hate crimes based on sexuality happen all the time. When I lived in Tucson, this gay man was beat to death a block from where I lived. Hit in the head like 60 times with a baseball bat for no other reason than he was gay. My ex-gf was beat up by a bunch of frat boys when she was on her was to see me just cause she "looked like a d***". These acts of violence effect the entire community, and terrorize the "gay" community.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of homosexuality, but why wouldnt you want people who are targeted for violence to be protected.