[quote]Therizza wrote:
Have homosexuals ever been lynched in public throughout a region of the US for years after emancipation? Wheres the homosexual Emmett Till? Where’s the signs that say ‘Straights’ and ‘Homos’ over water fountains?
Don’t cheapen how far African Americans have come in our country by putting them in the same category as homosexuals. [/quote]
Hey, I’m just the messenger…maybe you should write President Obama and the US Supreme Court a letter
Seriously though, I don’t think anybody is trying to say their “cause” is any more or less deserving than the “cause” of another minority group. The point is that all of these groups have suffered discrimination, and that all of these groups are entitled to equal rights under the law.
I’m just hating on him cuz I think TKD went to VMI… one of my rival schools. I have no issue with homosexuals, they are people too created in God’s image and all that good stuff. I just don’t like it when people try and lump ALL minorities who have ever had anything bad done to them into one group. Distinct differences.
[quote]Therizza wrote:
Well Mr. Keydet, his murderers didn’t get off easy, did they? There is no systemic discrimination against homosexuals, unlike what African Americans have had to deal with.
Go Hokies[/quote]
No, they didn’t, but society as a whole has progressed since what happened to Emmett Till. It’d be next to impossible to implement a systemic discrimination against homosexuals because there is no definable way to tell us from others in public unless we’re holding hands with, being coupley, PDAing with our partners. If we had pink triangles or rainbows tattoed on our forheads, then it’d be easier, but even then, like I said, society has progressed since then. We owe so much of the progress that we’ve made to the African American community because of all that they went through in the name of civil rights and even just basic human rights.
Rah Virginia Mil! hehe. Though I do love Tech, spent many a weekend there as an escape from VMI (my sister went there, so her sorority house was open for me to come crash in…any of my Brother Rats would have l-o-v-e-d that, lol, but me in a house full of college co-eds? no thanks, lol)
My partner and I want the same thing any married couple wants. We love each other, and are committed to spending the rest of our lives together. By choosing to be honest with ourselves and our loved ones, we have found happiness and peace in our lives.
You have not found peace…It doesn’t take a PHD in Psychology to see that you are on here night and day trying to rationalize what you are TO YOURSELF…How is that finding peace?
[/quote]
I think you being on here trying to convince us that we haven’t found peace is a way of projecting your own emotional unrest. I mean not that I need a PhD in Psychology or anything to see that. :oP
I’m pretty sure we have accepted ourselves, hence why we’re standing up for ourselves…no need for any kind of rationalizations.
No, they didn’t, but society as a whole has progressed since what happened to Emmett Till. It’d be next to impossible to implement a systemic discrimination against homosexuals because there is no definable way to tell us from others in public unless we’re holding hands with, being coupley, PDAing with our partners. If we had pink triangles or rainbows tattoed on our forheads, then it’d be easier, but even then, like I said, society has progressed since then. We owe so much of the progress that we’ve made to the African American community because of all that they went through in the name of civil rights and even just basic human rights.[/quote]
You seem reasonable, so I will pose this to you - if the gay civil rights struggle is morally indistinguishable to the civil rights of blacks in America, are the oppponents of gay civil rights the moral equivalent to the opponents of blacks’ civil rights?
[quote]forlife wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
I’m sure almost no one here will disagree that people in these groups deserve equal rights and shouldn’t be discriminated against.
You’d be surprised how many on these boards would disagree with you on that point.
[/quote]
I would like to think that if I sufficiently clarified my point that most people would agree, but perhaps you’re right.
This is a hard question that I admittedly could not give a satisfactory answer for. I will try to sketch an answer though. The basics of my reply would be that there is a difference between things like premeditation and intent, which differentiate the different degrees of murder, and motivation, which should not be taken into account. Now, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that motivation does not make a crime more or less morally blameworthy. For example, many people would probably agree that randomly beating a man because he is of a certain race is worse then beating a man because he called your wife a whore. Both cases would be similar in that they are not premeditated but are intended, but are dissimilar in that they involve different motives. Even though I would say that this difference in motivation certainly affects the moral blameworthiness of the two crimes, nevertheless I do not think it should affect the legal status.
Now obviously my explanation is insufficient in that I haven’t explained why I feel this way. The biggest reason I have for thinking this way is that I think legally judging the motivations of crimes is a slippery slope. For example, who is to say just how much worse a “hate crime” is over a regular crime? Who is to say just what motivations get to be tagged as “hate crimes”? Not only are these difficult questions that I cannot possibly see receiving unbiased and fair answers, but I think in fact they have not so far received such answers. My impression of the latest federal hate crime legislation was that it was heavily biased and very much so slanted. As far as I know there is no explicit provision for, example, racially motivated black on white crime. The attorney general himself was unapologetic on this point, trying to pass off some silly historical president argument for the bias.
There are other reasons one may think of not making motivation for a crime a legal matter. One purely legal reason–no pun intended–is that as far as I know there is no legal president for it. For example, we will all agree that if I rob a bank to pay for my drug habit my crime is worse then if I rob a bank to pay for my denying daughters cancer treatment. Nevertheless, no judge or prosecutor will take that difference of motivation into substantial consideration. Hence why should “hate” motivations come to bear when our legal system has not considered other sorts of motivations before? Other reasons might be given, I think someone mentioned the difficulty in proving motivation. Sure, that’s ok too I suppose.
At the end of the day I would be more supportive of “hate crimes” legislation if there was a epidemic of organized “hate” motivated crimes. At that point I think practical considerations would override idealistic legal concerns. Since though this is not the case, and our beloved Attorney general even admitted this is not the case, I’m a bit confused why we now have new federal hate crime legislation.
So pedophiles can’t help their orientation toward children either? Oh, wait, being attracted to children doesn’t make you a pedophile. The conscious act of molesting children does.
Now, these are wholly different situations in respect to consent and criminality, but a genetic desire for something doesn’t automatically deserve protection. Same can be said for murderers/serial killers, polygamists, the violent, compulsive gamblers, alcoholics, addicts in general. Again, not arguing the wrongness of homosexuality, just that a desire for something magically excuses personal conscious physical decision making. And the notion that choices for which there is a genetic base must be accepted and embraced.
For the record, I am against regulation restricting or defining marriage, I do sympathize with hardships and discrimination against homosexuals, but many of the arguments I see are full of shit.
It’s a relationship between consenting adults that doesn’t affect anyone else, I personally don’t need any more argument. It’s your bedroom.
I also generally think as ill of the proud homosexuals shoving the crap in your face as the gay bashers. You are proud of what exactly? You have a desire to sleep with men… um… k… I desire that knowledge about as much as I want to hear about my parent’s sex life. Trying to force someone to condone something is no different than trying to force someone to condemn it. Being proud of it is an attempt to be noted as different, not accepted.
I also can’t stand the bible thumping sex as a sin people. True, it labels homosexuality a sin, but it also says if you commit adultery in your heart, it’s the same as physical adultery. Not only is every person I’ve ever met a sinner, but every single one has sinned with regard to sexuality. Are we going to start constitutionally outlawing sex outside of marriage and lust in general?
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
This is a hard question that I admittedly could not give a satisfactory answer for. I will try to sketch an answer though. The basics of my reply would be that there is a difference between things like premeditation and intent, which differentiate the different degrees of murder, and motivation, which should not be taken into account. Now, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that motivation does not make a crime more or less morally blameworthy. For example, many people would probably agree that randomly beating a man because he is of a certain race is worse then beating a man because he called your wife a whore. Both cases would be similar in that they are not premeditated but are intended, but are dissimilar in that they involve different motives. Even though I would say that this difference in motivation certainly affects the moral blameworthiness of the two crimes, nevertheless I do not think it should affect the legal status.
Now obviously my explanation is insufficient in that I haven’t explained why I feel this way. The biggest reason I have for thinking this way is that I think legally judging the motivations of crimes is a slippery slope. For example, who is to say just how much worse a “hate crime” is over a regular crime? Who is to say just what motivations get to be tagged as “hate crimes”? Not only are these difficult questions that I cannot possibly see receiving unbiased and fair answers, but I think in fact they have not so far received such answers. My impression of the latest federal hate crime legislation was that it was heavily biased and very much so slanted. As far as I know there is no explicit provision for, example, racially motivated black on white crime. The attorney general himself was unapologetic on this point, trying to pass off some silly historical president argument for the bias.
There are other reasons one may think of not making motivation for a crime a legal matter. One purely legal reason–no pun intended–is that as far as I know there is no legal president for it. For example, we will all agree that if I rob a bank to pay for my drug habit my crime is worse then if I rob a bank to pay for my denying daughters cancer treatment. Nevertheless, no judge or prosecutor will take that difference of motivation into substantial consideration. Hence why should “hate” motivations come to bear when our legal system has not considered other sorts of motivations before? Other reasons might be given, I think someone mentioned the difficulty in proving motivation. Sure, that’s ok too I suppose.
At the end of the day I would be more supportive of “hate crimes” legislation if there was a epidemic of organized “hate” motivated crimes. At that point I think practical considerations would override idealistic legal concerns. Since though this is not the case, and our beloved Attorney general even admitted this is not the case, I’m a bit confused why we now have new federal hate crime legislation. [/quote]
You make some good points on the difficulty of defining and prosecuting hate crimes. Also, it’s my understanding that hate crimes don’t statistically reduce the incidence of such crimes beyond the normal laws.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So pedophiles can’t help their orientation toward children either? Oh, wait, being attracted to children doesn’t make you a pedophile. The conscious act of molesting children does.
[/quote]
It’s my understanding that pedophiles didn’t choose to be pedophiles (who would?), and can’t generally change their attraction to children.
However, they can control their behavior. Which they should, because pedophilia hurts people. Homosexuality doesn’t.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
So pedophiles can’t help their orientation toward children either? Oh, wait, being attracted to children doesn’t make you a pedophile. The conscious act of molesting children does.
It’s my understanding that pedophiles didn’t choose to be pedophiles (who would?), and can’t generally change their attraction to children.
However, they can control their behavior. Which they should, because pedophilia hurts people. Homosexuality doesn’t.[/quote]
Yes, I agree. I was disagreeing with the notion that a desire excuses the notion of choice.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Eventually they’ll expand it to cover “loud, irritating drunks,” and then every fight I’ve ever been in will have been a hate crime too. Fuckers.[/quote]
Employers already discriminate against alcoholics. Bastards.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Eventually they’ll expand it to cover “loud, irritating drunks,” and then every fight I’ve ever been in will have been a hate crime too. Fuckers.
Employers already discriminate against alcoholics. Bastards.[/quote]
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Eventually they’ll expand it to cover “loud, irritating drunks,” and then every fight I’ve ever been in will have been a hate crime too. Fuckers.
Interesting point. What happens if some guy starts a fight with you…you beat him up and then later on for financial and vengeful reasons he claims that he’s gay?
I mean how do you prove that he’s not gay? [/quote]
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Eventually they’ll expand it to cover “loud, irritating drunks,” and then every fight I’ve ever been in will have been a hate crime too. Fuckers.
Interesting point. What happens if some guy starts a fight with you…you beat him up and then later on for financial and vengeful reasons he claims that he’s gay?
I mean how do you prove that he’s not gay? [/quote]
What if you hook up with a girl after a night out, she consents at the time then she sues for rape.
