How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights...?

[HenryReardon]

Re: How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights..

Talkingasshole - you're on a porn site.

No civil unions aren't enough when there is marriage. it should be either or for the ENTIRE population - so if straights can only do civil marriages, then fine, gays only can too. but if straights get marriage, then gays should be able to also.

You can get married any time you wish - just find a female willing to marry you.

Gay marriage is not an issue of equality.

 

[TheTalkingAsshole]

Re: How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights..

Talkingasshole - you're on a porn site.

Thanks. That was random...and quite helpful.

No civil unions aren't enough when there is marriage. it should be either or for the ENTIRE population - so if straights can only do civil marriages, then fine, gays only can too. but if straights get marriage, then gays should be able to also.

Well, if you'd read my posts you'd see that I think the government should only recognize civil unions for everyone. Marriage should be left up to the churches, at the choice of those getting married. But it's just semantics anyway. It's the rights that are the important thing.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights..

Quoted for excellence:

Well, no, it's not redundant. There are some crimes that I cannot imagine ever being hate crimes. Prostitution cannot be a hate crime. Speeding cannot be a hate crime. Smoking marijuana cannot be a hate crime. Vehicular manslaughter cannot be a hate crime.

"Hate crime" has a distinct definition. It is a crime against a victim who is selected because of his association with a particular class of people. A crime against property can also be a hate crime if the property is selected because it is associated with someone or a group that is protected by the statute.

Examples: Painting a swastika on a synagogue would be a hate crime. Painting gang graffiti on the side of a 7-11 would not. Rolling a patron of a gay bar might be a hate crime if he was selected because he was likely gay; it wouldn't matter whether the victim were not actually gay. Rolling the same patron because he had flashed a wad of bills inside the bar would not be a hate crime.

So no, all crimes are not hate crimes.

Federal legislation concerning hate crimes is constitutionally legitimate because it specifies that no one may be harmed primarily or even significantly because of race, gender, etc. It's legitimate on general principles because such a crime is specifically intended to deprive someone of liberty and the pursuit of happiness at the very least, and of life at most.

Actually, yes, it does. Disobedience beyond this is treason, or revolution.

Sorry, but the principles on which the country was founded say you're wrong. Legislation contrary to rights is invalid and immoral; the foundation of the Revolution was that they, the colonists, were being deprived of (the exercise of) their rights as Englishmen. When law supersedes eights, that is tyranny, and not only is there a right to insurrection against tyranny (as affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court), according to many of our Founding Fathers as well as others since (Ghandi, for one), there is a duty.

The principle you're arguing leads to concentration camps and judicial murder; it is not one to which which free and civilized people ought consent.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights..

I'm not a nomenclature purist, so long as it's the same for everyone, everywhere, you could call it Sue for all I care.

Naw, "Sue" already belongs to the lawyers. Let's call it Helga.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights..

I think a Freudian could make a very good case that all of the above mentioned crimes are in some way or another related to hate, even if it is self-hatred.

Besides, you're picking at nits.

You're going into la-la-land.

"Self hatred"? You own yourself, so you're free to hate yourself all you want. For that matter, you're free to hate anyone all you want, so long as you don't act on it or incite others to do so.

Chill little brother! Put on The Amphetameanies and rub one out, you'll feel better.

There's a good name for a rock band: Chill Pill and the Amphetamines!

The great irony of the US political situation is that a lot of the poor, vote against their own best interest. They've bought a bill of goods wrapped up in God and the flag and they defend to the death the policies - that they don't really understand - that keep them in the position they're in.

That could be said of either party; blacks have been voting against their own interests for a long time.

Like the Republican party?

I think the key word there is "originally". You don't even have to go back to the start to find the Republican Party as the party of civil rights, and the Democrats represented oppression.
Now both of them make nice words about civil rights, and both favor oppression -- but of everyone, this time.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights..

It doesn't bother you that so-called 'hate crime' statues create a special class of victim. Whatever happened to equal protection?

Beating up someone (assault) is a crime. Why should it be a worse crime because the victim is black? or gay? Aren't we creating a special class of victim here?

No, we're distinguishing between two kinds of crime: generic crime, aimed at whoever happens to have what the perpetrator wants, versus hate crime, which is directed at a person because who/what that person is is hated.
In broader terms, the first kind of crime leads to plunder, the second to racial cleansing. So a hate crime is racial/ethnic cleansing writ small; the robbery or any additional items are a second thought.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights..

Sure they do. No matter how you whitewash it, you're creating a special class of victim - one whose pain is more important than another's pain. That kind of goes against the principles laid down in our founding documents.

It isn't based on the victim's pain, although there are areas of law which do work that way (sexual harassment, though that's settling down, used to be based on the perception and feelings of the woman).

It's based on the intent of the perpetrator. We already have crimes defined that way, for instance various levels of murder and manslaughter, assault both ordinary, aggravated, and negligent, and so on. What the perpetrator intends is already a component of law, and all that hate crimes legislation is doing is distinguishing one sort of motivation from another.

 

[HenryReardon]

Re: How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights..

No, we're distinguishing between two kinds of crime: generic crime, aimed at whoever happens to have what the perpetrator wants, versus hate crime, which is directed at a person because who/what that person is is hated.
In broader terms, the first kind of crime leads to plunder, the second to racial cleansing. So a hate crime is racial/ethnic cleansing writ small; the robbery or any additional items are a second thought.

And how do you decide what was in a criminal's mind?
A thug beats up and robs a gay man. Did said thug do it because he is a robber, or because he hates gays?

When you try to figure that stuff out, you're on the proverbial slippery slope.

No matter what you choose to call the crime, the victim is still a victim.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights..

Well, as someone famously said in this very forum in the last two days, 'just because a court said so doesn't make it so.'

Seriously, I think it's a very dangerous concept, and it certainly gives the gay-bashers all the more reason to hate us.

Join the Pink Pistols, and give them one to fear us.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights..

How do gay Republicans also feel about:

- gays in the military

How do gay Republicans also feel about:

- gays in the military The more the merrier

Only gays should be in the military, worldwide.
That way the countries who won't admit they have gays don't have to worry about military spending.
Those which have gays will frolic in the jungles and trenches, so there won't be any more war.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights..

You can get married any time you wish - just find a female willing to marry you.

Gay marriage is not an issue of equality.

That sounds like something you looked up in a little book. It may sound quick and snappy to you, but it comes across as...

Well, as quick and snappy, like you don't care to deal with the issue and have no respect for those concerned with it.


Reframe it in terms of freedom of association, and then comment.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights..

And how do you decide what was in a criminal's mind?
A thug beats up and robs a gay man. Did said thug do it because he is a robber, or because he hates gays?

When you try to figure that stuff out, you're on the proverbial slippery slope.

No matter what you choose to call the crime, the victim is still a victim.

We do the same thing already, with crimes that have the phrase "... with intent to ...".
This falls in the jury's purview. Since juries are already making such decisions, what's the big deal?

 

[TX-Beau]

Re: How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights..

Sorry, but the principles on which the country was founded say you're wrong. Legislation contrary to rights is invalid and immoral; the foundation of the Revolution was that they, the colonists, were being deprived of (the exercise of) their rights as Englishmen. When law supersedes eights, that is tyranny, and not only is there a right to insurrection against tyranny (as affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court), according to many of our Founding Fathers as well as others since (Ghandi, for one), there is a duty.

Sorry but you're not the arbiter of what the founders meant, the supreme court is, and you aren't free to ignore them. It doesn't matter if you think it's immoral or "invalid," the law is what the SC says it is, the rights in the Constitution are what they interpret them to be. The only way to change that is to change the constitution, or revolution - which is what the founders did when confronted with laws they didn't like.

The principle you're arguing leads to concentration camps and judicial murder; it is not one to which which free and civilized people ought consent.

The principle I'm arguing is that there is a process in this country that determines both protected rights and law, and those both come down to the supreme court in the end, however much you might want to argue abstracts. If you don't like that, so be it, if you think they're wrong, your prerogative. But neither you nor I are "at liberty" to defy the law. Try it and see what happens.

 

[TX-Beau]

Re: How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights..

Only gays should be in the military, worldwide.
That way the countries who won't admit they have gays don't have to worry about military spending.
Those which have gays will frolic in the jungles and trenches, so there won't be any more war.

It kills me when people debate allowing gays in the military, because, well hello, they're already in the military and always have been.

 

[TX-Beau]

Re: How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights..

No matter what you choose to call the crime, the victim is still a victim.

LOL, an argument that says nothing.

It doesn't matter if snow is Ice, it's frozen water!

 

[construct]

Re: How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights..

We do the same thing already, with crimes that have the phrase "... with intent to ...".
This falls in the jury's purview. Since juries are already making such decisions, what's the big deal?

Please recognize that "with intent to" are not magic words to indicate that specific intent is required. For example, statutes like the proposed federal hate crime definition uses the phrase "because of." Further, the distinction is not defended on the basis of the Declaration of Independence (which does not have the force of law).

Also, Mitchell tells some of the types of evidence that goes to intent in proving up hate crimes. Those who automatically balk at how intent may be proved have obviously failed to review Mitchell (cited above).

 

[HenryReardon]

Re: How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights..

We do the same thing already, with crimes that have the phrase "... with intent to ...".
This falls in the jury's purview. Since juries are already making such decisions, what's the big deal?

And juries let murderers go free. Look at OJ for a prime example.

 

[HenryReardon]

Re: How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights..

LOL, an argument that says nothing.

[]

It wasn't an argument, it was a statement of fact.

 

[TX-Beau]

Re: How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights..

Oh it was a statement all right.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights..

And juries let murderers go free. Look at OJ for a prime example.

There's an old precept in this country: better a hundred guilty walk free, than one innocent man be punished.

That ought to be displayed in every jury room across the land.