[quote]forlife wrote:
I see what you’re saying, but how would you justify, for example, the extra prosecution associated with a crime’s motivation when it comes to manslaughter vs. murder?
[/quote]
This is why most on here will never take you seriously.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
forlife wrote:
I see what you’re saying, but how would you justify, for example, the extra prosecution associated with a crime’s motivation when it comes to manslaughter vs. murder?
This is why most on here will never take you seriously.[/quote]
I don’t think forlife was actually arguing that there is no difference. He was using this to question some arguments I made against prosecuting based on motivation which seemed to also apply to manslaughter type cases.
I explained myself, and he seemed to like my response.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
forlife wrote:
I see what you’re saying, but how would you justify, for example, the extra prosecution associated with a crime’s motivation when it comes to manslaughter vs. murder?
This is why most on here will never take you seriously.[/quote]
X2
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
I don’t think forlife was actually arguing that there is no difference. He was using this to question some arguments I made against prosecuting based on motivation which seemed to also apply to manslaughter type cases.
I explained myself, and he seemed to like my response. [/quote]
Yep, I think you made some good points and I agree with you.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
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?
Check his breath on Sunday morning?
(Fuck that one actually disgusted me too.)[/quote]
Hahahahaha, nice one Irish.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There are distinct differences between race and gender discrimination and that of gays. Right or wrong, deserving or not, they are different circumstances.
Being gay describes an activity, being black or female does not.
There are open outward indicators of being black or female that are beyond the control of the person and permanent. This allows anyone to discriminate against you knowing your race and gender status on sight.
Indication of being gay requires either verbal conformation or somehow being caught in the act. Unless you are contending â??gaydarâ?? based on how a person acts in which case you are now arguing â??how a person actsâ?? discrimination, not gay discrimination.
Even assuming there is a genetic link to a tendency toward homosexuality, being gay requires voluntary action. Being female of black does not.
There is (supposedly, I havenâ??t really studied it) a genetic link to alcoholism. However, having that gene and a tendency to alcohol abuse doesnâ??t label one an alcoholic. Actually drinking too much makes you an alcoholic with or without the gene. A baby born with the gene isnâ??t alcoholic.
Even with a genetic link it requires a conscious decision. I donâ??t buy being born gay any more than being born alcoholic.
Now, Iâ??m not arguing against homosexuals, or fair treatment under the law (though hate crime legislation is a crock). All Iâ??m arguing against is the comparison to race/gender discrimination. The gay rights campaign is itâ??s own unique struggle to protect a conscious choice and conscious act.
And before you attack me over it, with the alcohol comparison, I’m comparing one the genetic predisposition to a choice, not relating homosexuality to a disease.[/quote]
I love how the most reasonable response is always totally ignored.
Good shit, DoubleDuce.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Exactly. In 1967, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. The laws banned interracial marriage, and in some cases banned interracial sex, similar to laws on homosexual behavior.
I actually came out the year that the Supreme Court struck down the sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas, and have been gratified to see gay marriage recognized in several states since then.[/quote]
We’ve been down this road before, but the most important distinction in the Loving matter was that the marriage law was being used to actively discriminate against a class.
There isn’t a single person who can make a credible argument that traditional marriage was enacted to actively discriminate against homosexuals - there is not even a ghost of any argument that Mean Old Heteros sat around and said “hey, you know what? We gotta keep the homos down. Let’s create a social institution and leave them out of it. That’ll show 'em!”
There are many reasons why the comparison is inapt - but that might be the lead distinction. Apples and oranges.
So odd - the minority groups you profess to have “common cause” say the exact opposite. Can’t have much of a “common cause” of the minorities don’t think you have much in common.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
forliar continues his march to see how many gay threads he can begin…Wonderful…just wonderful.[/quote]
That’s because he’s a homo, what else would he talk about. They don’t need ore civil rights, they should worry more about civil responsibilities. Same goes for women , blacks and everyone else who’s whining about their rights.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
forlife wrote:
Nonetheless, the idea that a crime’s motivation can warrant extra prosecution is hard to defend, especially when such “hate” oriented crimes are not systematically under prosecuted in the first place.
I see what you’re saying, but how would you justify, for example, the extra prosecution associated with a crime’s motivation when it comes to manslaughter vs. murder?
You can prove this. If a guy buys a gun and it’s on record, then he’s seen surveilling someone’s house from a car incessantly, and then two days later he blows the guy away, you can say that there’s intent there.
However, if I beat the crap out of you outside a bar, it might be because you’re a homo, it might be because you’re irritating and loud, it might be because I’m drunk. Either way, good luck proving it.
Hate crimes are one of the most ridiculous things that this fuckin country ever came up with.[/quote]
Exactly, and you’ll never seen a hate crime committed on a white male. I’ve challenged people to show me ten cases of hate crimes against a white male that have even been started, not necessarily ending in conviction.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
dhickey wrote:
forlife wrote:
I see what you’re saying, but how would you justify, for example, the extra prosecution associated with a crime’s motivation when it comes to manslaughter vs. murder?
This is why most on here will never take you seriously.
X2[/quote]
X3 or google or whatever.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
forlife wrote:
Nonetheless, the idea that a crime’s motivation can warrant extra prosecution is hard to defend, especially when such “hate” oriented crimes are not systematically under prosecuted in the first place.
I see what you’re saying, but how would you justify, for example, the extra prosecution associated with a crime’s motivation when it comes to manslaughter vs. murder?
You can prove this. If a guy buys a gun and it’s on record, then he’s seen surveilling someone’s house from a car incessantly, and then two days later he blows the guy away, you can say that there’s intent there.
However, if I beat the crap out of you outside a bar, it might be because you’re a homo, it might be because you’re irritating and loud, it might be because I’m drunk. Either way, good luck proving it.
Hate crimes are one of the most ridiculous things that this fuckin country ever came up with.
Exactly, and you’ll never seen a hate crime committed on a white male. I’ve challenged people to show me ten cases of hate crimes against a white male that have even been started, not necessarily ending in conviction.[/quote]
You could find them if you were looking for them, Tom.
The problem you guys are having is looking only one-dimensional (which is no surprise). While you may not admit it, you are looking for crimes committed by black males against white, Protestant, Heterosexual, able-bodied males that have been considered “hate” crimes.
There are case after case of prosecuted and convicted hate crimes against white Jewish males; white homosexual males; white “GOTH” males/those considered “different” by the attacker.
The list goes on and on.
I have agreed that adding “hate” to a crime gets us into Constitutional problems, and personally I don’t like the designation.
But please don’t make this into another “persecuted White Male” thing.
(Of course, that may be too late…)
Mufasa
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
forlife wrote:
I see what you’re saying, but how would you justify, for example, the extra prosecution associated with a crime’s motivation when it comes to manslaughter vs. murder?
This is why most on here will never take you seriously.
Look…in other threads he earned the name “forliar” for a reason.
[/quote]
Let me guess…
Your social skills have not improved since elementary school?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
forlife wrote:
I see what you’re saying, but how would you justify, for example, the extra prosecution associated with a crime’s motivation when it comes to manslaughter vs. murder?
This is why most on here will never take you seriously.
Look…in other threads he earned the name “forliar” for a reason.
Let me guess…
Your social skills have not improved since elementary school?
Try to forget about the times you were traumatized in elementary school…We know you were rejected bla bla bla…Just stick to the topic at hand.
[/quote]
I did!
You asked if anyone could guess how Forlife “earned” your oh so clever “Forliar”.
Well, obviously because you are eternally stuck in your schoolyard bullying years.
What did I win?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
You’re not born gay, so how can you have ‘Civil Rights’ for something you made a choice about.
[/quote]
Yes. Sex is rooted in the desire to procreate. That’s the main reason for it.
Being gay substitutes something else for the desire to procreate, the main reason for sex. Since procreation means ‘life’ then the premise of non-procreation must be ‘death’.
Sure people have sex for fun. But gay people are SUBSTITUTING for the main reason for sex. Gay people have a secret death wish. That’s a sickness and we should not be providing any sort of countenance to that.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
You’re not born gay, so how can you have ‘Civil Rights’ for something you made a choice about.
Yes. Sex is rooted in the desire to procreate. That’s the main reason for it.
Being gay substitutes something else for the desire to procreate, the main reason for sex. Since procreation means ‘life’ then the premise of non-procreation must be ‘death’.
Sure people have sex for fun. But gay people are SUBSTITUTING for the main reason for sex. Gay people have a secret death wish. That’s a sickness and we should not be providing any sort of countenance to that.
[/quote]
You are wrong and you know that right?
The very idea that evolution would use the desire to serve evolution as a stimulus is blatantly absurd.
It uses pleasure.
Or pain, or desire but never the evolutionary function in and of itself.
So no, “gays do not have a deathwish”, they are just doing what nature commands them to do.
And nature has a monopoly on what is “natural”.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
There is a variety of reasons why a guy would like a woman, mostly because I don’t know that is how all men are born.
So they’re born to like women. But they can’t be born to like men. That doesn’t make any sense.
Unless, in your infinite wisdom, you left some commas out of that sentence and you mean something else.
Second, specifics and abnormalities come from external factors not internal. The guy does choose it on both accounts.
Prove it.
[/quote]
We are born and raised to like the opposite sex. It is only when something traumatizing or a man decides to become rebellious have I seen this happen.
Well just go look at all the studies on how people are not born gay. There is your proof.