"Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license."(GatorGSA)
I love this quote....
I think that's LOLicious.
People really do compare same-sex marriage, with "human + animal" marriage don't they?
Kirk & Madsen: 1st, the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference. The message must read: "As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or... black... ... they never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. "
Kirk & Madsen have admitted this was pure deception, yet homos continue to follow the script
the reason hillary and obama both scare the crap out of me is that they will both pull out of iraq in a year. thats exactly what we did last time and the price we paid was september 11th and the whole conflict in the middle east. if we do it again, we deserve what we get. if we dont, we will finally have a friend in the middle east and the rest of them will see what democracy is and that it works.
where do you draw the line when changing the definition of marriage? what about animals? how is beastiality any different from homosexuality in that respect? what if i wanted to marry a duck?
how is beastiality any different from homosexuality in that respect? what if i wanted to marry a duck?
Read a few psychology books on sexuality and paraphilias. Homosexuality is a sexuality that presents itself in puberty just like heterosexuality. Bestiality presents at other times - not just puberty. Bestiality isn't arousal to animals. Like the other paraphilias it has to do with the process of violating something innocent with a very deviant and depraved act.
If you were sexually attracted to another child at age 5 - that's not normal. If it was a puppy love type crush, it seems kind of early but it's probably normal.
Paraphilias have a host of associated pathologies. Homosexuality does not. Bestiality is treatable. Homosexuality is not. Bestiality exists on top of a person's sexuality. Homosexality does not - if it did, all people with same sex attraction would be bisexuals. But homosexuals have no attraction to the opposite sex and thus are not capable of romantic relationships with the opposite sex.
The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the World Health Organization, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Council on Child and Adolescent Health, the American Academy of Pediatrics and even the health ministries in Russia and China say homosexuality is not a mental disorder, isn't a choice, can't be changed and trying to change it is harmful.
you dont get it. what if ive always been attracted to ducks? what if its not a choice? my point is i guess that marriage is a word that means something. why change the meaning? also, by your logic a bisexual person couldnt marry a person of the same sex
No. You don't get it. No one was born attracted to ducks. Marriage originally was often between a man and many women. Should we go back to that? By my logic a bisexual could certainly marry someone of either sex since they're capable of romantic relationships with either sex.
Marry a duck??? What a birdbrained analogy! Is your duck capable of love? Is it able to make a lifelong commitment or enter a legal agreement? Do you and your duck make long-term plans about your future, your dreams, your goals? My partner and I have been together more than half your lifetime. We care for each other, laugh, nurture, grow, pay our taxes, and love each other with all our hearts. Bunny Steve, how can you even compare this to a relationship with your duck?
you arent very smart. how can you compare a duck to another human being whether that human being be a man OR a woman? A duck is not capable of the things a human being is...so beastiality IS different than homosexuality.
30 years ago gay marriage/civil union would of had no support & now it does. What about support the bisexual community for marriage/unions of multiples with full goverment benefits? Should they get the same rights as Gays and Lesbians?
Until recently, the black man was beat,hung and jailed for owning a firearm for self defense.All blacks are not thugs and some are smart enough to know that guns are tools that can be used for both good and bad;depends on the person using it. Don't give up your right to own a gun. Forget Obamma being black, he wants to take away our right to LEGALLY own a firearm. Forget the lies of both Hillary & Obamma the elitest. Google how many people died/killed close to the Clintons 47!! VOTE REPUBLICAN
unfortunately, he is all we have. NRA gives McCaine a C+
Here is where Obamma stands on guns:You think that's scary? Now take a look at this:
"...Barack Obama: Supports extending the assault weapons ban. Supports national law against carrying concealed weapons, with exceptions for retired police and military personnel. Supports limiting gun sales to one per month..."
Vets died to protect our rights, the least we can do is VOTE PRO GUN! VOTE FREEDOM!!
here she plays politics with America..BS Hilary poor damage control. It had a direct impact but she didn't have an initial position..is this what America needs???
She is about to lose the primary that is unless the super delegates over turn the will of the people.Either way conservatives lose in this election for all the candidates are liberals including McCaine.
God can you imagine what America will be like under a Obama presidency?The man is all hype and no experience, will he even know what to do with the office?
Well, if you look at his website he has a lot of specific well thought out plans for dealing with every issue. He is short enough on experience that he may be naive - but still, McCain is so out of it that he commented the other day that we may be in Iraq for the next 100 years and ALSO said "The economy is not my strong suit." That's more frightening to me.
if hillary was a liar like people claim then she would have lied to us about the fact that she voted for the war...that to me is an honest person because she told the truth even though she knew that people would judge her...
The Democratic BASE (true democrats) reject the idea of electing an unqualified candidate.
We don't vote as if the Presidential Election is "American Idol." He who shall not be named has been seeking the Presidency since he was on the Illinois State sentate (Day 1). Why not focus on cleaning Illinois up before you focus on your SOLE GOAL (ego-driven).
Then we have someone like Hillary who has devoted her life to our nation.
Why don't you post some good plans Hillary has for dealing with issues? Is attacks on Obama all hillary has to offer? If it is, I'm voting Obama. He has plans for all the issues detailed on his website. The best thing a voter can do is go to the Washington Post website and take the blind quiz voting on the candidates responses to questions without knowing which candidate made them and see who you fit with ON THE ISSUES not on these BS attacks.
Poor maligned Hillary, she didn't say "F_cking Jew Bastard", and I don't believe 4 witnesses who took lie detectors and a secret service officer either, nor utube videos where she makes racist comments towards east-indians. We must support her and further our gay cause.
I told you I'm not voting for Hillary anyway. But I think it's sad that you can't stick to facts and issues and speak positively about whichever candidate you support instead of trying to tear others down. You're garbage.
And Hillary isn't the candidate to vote for to further gay rights. But whatever. You sure seem to know it all. Even plenty of things that aren't even true. Keep it up. Your Karma will get you. You've already done the typical and made bigoted comments about homosexuals while claiming that Hillary is a what? A bigot. LOL. Damn you're a piece of shit.
I'm bigoted because I stated the obvious, that you're a pissy queen? I can do this all day! I take back all my terrible slurs that so offend u, ..but its ok for hillery to say "Jew bastard", and categorize Ghandi as someone who like all east indians works in a gas station, on that you have no comment except blind denial, even when it's there for all eyes on video. You're a real piece of work
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
yes , you're right, I'm a bigoted asshole, and you're a pissy blinded illogical gay, but I'm not running for office .... and I'm not antisemitic, unlike your poster queen. Why do u so blindly defend her? All you do is give attention to my criticisms. Before, a few would have known of Hillarys antisemitic rant, now anyone looking here knows the issues
Why do you keep insinuating that I'm voting for her when I'm not. It's inconceivable that she could have gotten where she is today if she made the comments you claim. It's absolute bullshit. And thank you for admitting you're a fucking hypocrite. Now if you'd just admit you're garbage for making up lies.
Your hatred for the lady is just mind-boggling. It can't be based on anything but conservative fear-mongering talk radio. They've done a good job with you and created a total monster. You're hysterical over the thought of Hillary in the White House EVEN THOUGH she's been there before and she and Bill didn't exterminate Jews or discriminate against East Indians or whatever you think is going to happen.
This war in Iraq might be a mistake but it is certainly a mistake Senator Clinton was willing to vote for and authorize.Stop pretending like Clinton had nothing to do with this war she did and that is why Obama and Edwards are a head of her in the polls right now. Paul in 08.
She voted for this war because she did not want to appear weak on terrorism.Hillary has no values or principles she makes decissions based on opinion polls rather than on what she and her advisors believe is the best course of action.
Well that's fascinating, Plato, that you know exactly what goes on inside Hillary's head because I don't. I'm not voting for her in the primaries anyway unless I find out something really terrible about both Obama and Edwards between now and Feb 5.
Rupert Murdoch met with Hillary a few months ago and is supporting her, hence Fox New's attacks on Obama and Edwards NOT Hillary. Murdoch is hard core right wing! Why is he supporting Hillary?!?! Hillary scares the crap out of me more so than any other presidential candidate Dem or Republican.
"Strengthening a pragmatic rapprochement, Rupert Murdoch has agreed to give a fund-raiser this summer for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the latest sign of cooperation between the conservative media mogul and the Democratic lawmaker who has often been a prime target of his newspaper and television outlets.
Asked about her relationship with Mr. Murdoch, Mrs. Clinton described him as simply "my constituent," and she played down the significance of the fund-raiser." NYTimes
No, actually, Hillary would run things just about like Bill did and he is known as one of the better Presidents. It takes a real wacko to imagine that Bill had a decent presidency yet his wife is going to get in there and start opening concentration camps and have Joe Lieberman arrested as an enemy combatant. Are you taking your meds?
Yeah because Hillary Clinton a person who while running for sentator of N.Y gave a speech at an AIPAC conference "hates the jews". Damn you zionist are really are out of your mind.
No,its nothing to do with her giving a speech at a AIPAC conference... it's to do with her stereotyping east indians and Ghandi as people who work in gas stations, and her well-documented and multi-witnessed statement calling Paul Fray a "F_cking Jew Bastard" where she betrays her true sentiments
Well documented where? I can't find it anywhere and I can't imagine that even if she felt that way that she'd be stupid enough to say it and that somehow the media would just ignore it. It's obviously propaganda that can't be backed up because it's MADE UP.
You, guardian of one-celled brains, can't find her racist and antisemitic comments "anywhere"?!?!? Why don't you type "hillary jew bastard" into google and see what u get? You have a brain so small you "can't imagine", so spare us your conjectures how if YOU haven't heard about it, it couldn't possibly have happened! You're oblivious, unknowledgable and uninformed as to the issues here, so stop making an ass of yourself, and vote for someone nonracist and with a shred of integrity.
You have a brain so small that just because someone typed it on a web page you think it's true. Look for references and confirm it's true before you post it like it's fact next time. And don't worry so much. Hillary isn't going to get the nomination anyway - Obama is.
If u want a racist, lying piece of shit for a president(in the finest american tradition), just vote Hitlery. Her stereotyping east indians and Ghandi as people who work in gas stations, and her documented, witnessed by 4 people who swore affidavids, including one by her secret service officer assigned to protect her, verified statement calling Paul Fray a "F_cking Jew Bastard" where she betrays her true sentiments shows what you'll get.
Why isn't there a video on youtube of her expressing racist sentiments. The camera is always on her. Why has no one captured this? Why aren't the many Jews who work in the media concerned about this? I'll tell you why. Because it's a lie. It's made up propaganda. But I do believe that you actually believe it.
I bow to your logic, queeny guardian, that because either you are ignorant of it, or theres no video of it, it just can't be true. There was no video of Micheal Jackson molesting those boys, none of Monica blowing Bill, none of O.J ... so none happened!
Hillary does not support gay marraige...if she can't support us fully...why she we even support her...gay people need to stop selling themselves short...kucinich or gravel...
This woman is scary effective in interview situations...it would be good to remember that she pretty much aces any situation in which she has a chance to sit down and be friendly. But I don't know if that's going to be enough for my vote.
I love Socialist Hill. I hope she rules the world. She should take the tax exempt status of religous groups away and give the money to a national secularism enforcememnt tax force.
While Hillary Clinton was speaking out both sides of her mouth at the debate over the issue of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, what went unsaid is that this is a recipe for increased voter fraud. Under the federal "Motor Voter" law (the National Voter Registration Act of 1993), states must provide applicants for drivers licenses with the opportunity to register to vote.
It's easy for you to talk down to me. But have you taken a look at utube video "Red State Update: Ron Paul"...it seems funny to you maybe but by the time it's over nobody's laughing
Two questions: 1) Since becoming the senator from New York, what has hilarie done for her state? 2) What qualifications does she have to be President of the United States?
Per - NOPE! She does not have that kind of authority. It is the President of the United States who is responsible for overseeing security of the United States. And since we were hit the first time, Bush(and I know you don't like this one) has had the right people in the right places to prevent attacks like 9/11.
She voted for like how many security measures that he supported. Hm, Bush was given a plan to attack Al-Qaidea on 01/25 in reaction to the Cole attack. He did nothing. The Dems Clinton 1) develops a plan and the reps do nothing and then accuse the dems of complacency. What did Bush do for TX, nada.
Cole attack? That was under President clinton's watch. Get your history right. As for Texas,,,I think you had best take a look at a history book,,,not from any of your liberal profs. DS
i really hope that she doesn't become president. she has no respect for the bible and no respect for God's plan. what if eveyone was Gay? there woud be no more chidern and what? either force yourself to have sex with the opposite sex or have test-tube babies. NOT GODS PLAN. our kids are so confused right now, how much more with a president how is for it. we are pushing God out of everything, and if God is not there, Satan is. THINK!!! is a sin, just stop. i'm sure is hard but it can be done.
well, I'm not trying to be rude but really there is way too much population of humans on this planets that we are killing other animals and the enviroment. Though I'm not gay and not planning to be gay, I do believe have little offsprings would bring better for the future world.
Theres something we can all do gay straight bi etc to make this world a better more loving open minded accepting place, We can/must all work together to ensure full equal rights for the gay lesbian bi community
That's my point a single crime with multiple charges means that you are being charged with the other violations you have also committed.If you are being charged with hateful motive as a separate charge then isn't that punishing hatred?
You can not have it both ways Marzett if the hate crime has two components, the actual crime and the hateful motive then the latter charge is indeed punishing bigotry.Otherwise what is the second charge punishing, you can't say the assault because that is already accounted for.
" it will make bigots with violence/anger issues think twice before the physically attack someone." Umm isn't that the same thing as detering the hateful motive (mindset) which leads to the crime?You are infact out lawing hate, since if you were a homophobe and able to hide your true motive for assault and instead gave another reason (i.e robbery)you would not be charged with a hate crime.
LOL you are so P.C you don't even realize it.Man I'm don't believe in God but if someone told me Merry Christmas during the holiday season I would not be offended in the least.Everybody is so sensative that the slightest innocent remark offends and hurts them.This is especially true with the gay community.
Yes but what is society trying to deter with hate crime laws, is it not the hateful mind set that leads to such crimes?If that is the case then are they not thought crimes?
Granted but do you think such actions help preserve free discourse or send a "chilling effect" throughout the community? P.C is ruining this country people can't even joke about anything without fear of offending someone and losing their job.I don't you why people are so affaird of the other person's opinion.
So because the ACLU does not stand against hate crimes laws that means they are constitutional and right?Wow I did not know the ACLU became the Supreme Court and guardians of freedom.I wish they would stand up for Imus when he was thrown off the air because of P.C.
I put nothing pass the government. Who would have thought that the President would be able to arrest and detain a citizen for years without charging him with a single crime.Moreover with how P.C this country has become I can easily see hate speech being outlawed to satify people like you.
We don't need affirmative action that is social engineering.You said it yourself hate crimes are a deterent so the question then becomes what behavior they are trying to deter?There are already laws against assault and murder so hate crimes are really just punishing the biggoted mindset behind the acts.
What? So why do we need hate crimes at all if eventually they should be abolished?Oh so you finally admit that hate crimes are a way for society to enforce it's beliefs on the individual by adding additional punishments for a crime while holding unpopular views?
If hate crimes are separate charges attached to actual crimes then why couldn't they eventually become independent charges unto themselves? If the whole point of hate crimes is to provide deterence against bigotted attacks well the logical conclusion to such legislation is to outlaw hate speech since that contributes to a climate that makes hate crimes acceptable.
Actually I was, I don't support giving the government and especially the executive the power to spie on it's citizens without a warrant.Surrendering your rights in the name of national security or tolerance (i.e hate crime laws) will have the same result.
The government has sqelched free speech in the past in the name of security and safety I can easily see it doing that once again with hate crime laws.Hey but a fascist like yourself doesn't give a damn about civil liberties of people you dispies so it's just fine isn't.
Yeah I'm proud that people hate eachother to the point that they are willing to attack eachother.Hey maybe you can through me in jail for expressing that opinion Marzett918,I'm sure it offended and frightended some quenn in the Castro.
It's all a slipery slope Marzett918 today you throw extra penalties onto a crime because the man uttered a slur and next week you throw him in jail just for using hatful language.This has already happened in Europe and it can happen here too.Assault is assault and murder is murder regardless of who it happens to.
Why would it have been "nice" to get a stiffer penalty for the guys who assault your friend?Why are you not satisfied with assault and battery charges if those were indeed the actual crimes committed?Again you are afraid to draw your own conclusions because the real reason why you support hate crimes is because you have a vendetta against bigot and wish to punish them further.
Again you miss the point with heavier penatlies for crimes against police officers, it's about deterence.Why do you believe hate crimes require stiffer penatlies than regular crimes?
So there is no solid proof that hate crimes effect victims in a greater manner than regular crimes yet you still support heavier punishments for hate crimes?Your not being honest just admit you don't like homophobes and you wish to punish them for their bigotry.Come out the closet.;)
I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree because we have already covered this ground before.I just want to know one last thing, why do you find hate motivated crimes any worst than regular.If it is because hate motivated crimes damage their victims more than regular crime well then I ask you to show me the support that claim with evidence.
Police officers need special protection because they put their lives on the line in order to enforce the law and thus they are confronted with the criminal element everyday.They are greater targets of violence than the average man and thus soceity must do something to make police officers less desirable targets and that is done through greater punishment.
Where as homosexuals are just ordinary people and thus are not at a greater risk of violence than the average man and thus do not require special protection.
You are not allowed to assault anyone because assault is against the law.If there are already laws against assault protecting all why do you extra penalty for hate motivated laws?Do not tell me about police officers they are not civilians and thus need special protection.
Everything has it's limits and free speech is no different.Speech that directly threatens the life of another or that prevents another person from expressing their speech are not protected by the 1st Amendment.Conspiring to commit murder falls under the former category and thus is not protected speech.
Like a broken merry go round this conversation keeps going in circles.For the last time if I can say anything I want then why should I be charged with a hate crime if during an assault I say these things?Does the nature of my actions change the status of my SPEECH?If so then I do not have freedom of speech now do I?
Moreover let me make it crystal clear to you that I DO NOT support hatred and violence brought on by bigotry.All I support is your and my right to say anything and everything we want with out Big Sister throwing us in jail.I know the first amendment has it's limits, you can't threaten a person or scream fire in a crowded theater.
Hillary is a CFR memeber. A group Chenny was Head of! Rockafeller started..and in his book he said the United States must be destroyed...whats the North American Union. HIV AIDS! what the hell Bayer spreads the shit. Federal Reserve needs to be kicked out and Income tax is illegal and should be thrown out we dont need it tax imports.Did you laugh about nuclear war hillary? guess cause you got a bunker :) my child lives in a normal house. CFR are all yes men to world bankers.
Nice dodge but you still did not answer the question.How can you have free speech if one is punished for using such speech?If free speech truly existed then I would only be charged with assault (and rightfully so)and not some BS hate crime.
See I knew sooner or latter you would have to resort to name calling when it became obvious that you lost the argument.Police officers and other government employees are not just regular people since they enforce the laws and put their lives on the line in the process.Therefore they need special laws to protect them.Where as gays and other minority groups do not need any more protect then what the law already provides.
How can you have free speech and thought IF you get hit with an additional charge for committing a crime motivated by these thoughts?Moreover if I punch you that would be assault.However if I punch you while screaming an slur now it becomes a hate crime.Does that sound like free speech to you?
That is not true since the hate crime is a separate charge unto itself from the actual crime and therefore you are punishing a bigoted mindset.You have been arguing from the begining that motive matters when considering punishment and now you say we DON'T punish people because of their motive?Thank you for seeing it my way.;)
Laws protecting police officers have a real purpose which again is to aid the state in maintaining order by discourging violence against law enforcement.We are not punishing people because of their motive or mindset but rather for an actual crime they have committed.What purpose do hate crimes law serve except disencouraging bigotry and thus punish free though?
Yet again you make another apples and oranges comparison.When an officer is in uniform or on duty he is a representative of the state and thus when a person harms him the punishment should be greater than harming an oridinary person because that is like attacking the state itself.
As a libertarian I cringe at the thought of elevating the life of a state representaive over that of the ordinary citizens however such laws are needed to discourage violence against the state and maintain order.
Assaults the entire group? This is exacty what people mean when they say hate crimes are thought crimes.How can violence against one member of the group effect the entire group unless we take into account that speech and mindset behind the attack terrorizes and drives fear into the heart of the rest of the group.Thus hate crimes punish speech and "philosophies" that society finds repulsive.
The difference is that the younger the child is the more damage that is done to the child and thus the punishment should be greater.Consider it this way, if you punch a man that is one level of assault but then if you continue to attack him while he is down the charge becomes greater.
Where as with hate crimes the only thing that separates them from ordinary crimes is the motive.Changing the age of the victim completely changes the crime changing motive does not mean you did not commit murder or assault etc.
Emotional reaction? I layed the my logic out clearly if you disagree that is fine but don't pretend I am not presenting a real argument.Infact you are the one who is using a false logic when you compare hate crimes to that with crimes against children.The two have no relation what so ever, it is as clear as day that children can not consent to anything and that is why it is illegal to have sex with them.Really what are you talking about?
Not necessarily true, while it is extremely unlikely it is not out of the realm of possiblity.When the Son of Sam was murdering women in NYC he choose them because they where brunettes.Just admit that you are sickened by bigotry (as am I) and wish to punish people for holding bigotted views.The difference between you and me is that I actually respect civil liberities.
Not true globalgringo if we just treat them as "crimes" and as such then how will we teach our youth what is right and what is wrong, I think the Hate crime label is perfectly fine the way it is. Oppression has been a reason to go to war for the United States and over the past 231 years we have proven as a country that we do need labels like "hate" crime, that way when the time comes for a suspect they may judge accordinly
That is my point exactly gringo there is no difference between the two acts so why should an attack motivated by hate carry a higher penalty.Remember a hate crime is a separate charge that is added on to the criminal charge (i.e murder).
No the intent would simply be to commit physical harm(assault,murder etc). The rest of your comment would fall into the motive category because that was the reason why you attacked that person.This is why hate crimes have to compents to them.You are charged with hateful motive AND the actual crime you intended to commit.
No the intent is to take the property for the purpose of keeping it or otherwise permanently depriving the owner of it.That was the crime the person intented to do. The motive would be for example the person wronged him in some way so he wanted to take their belonging to get back.The why is the reason, i.e hate,finical gain, jealousy whatever not what you intented to do.T
Motive does not determine whether a person has committed murder or manslaughter that is INTENT!Why is it so difficult for you to understand the difference between two distinct legal terms?
Listen to reason friend and enjoy this quote from legal scholar Jerome Hall.
" hardly any part of the penal law is more definately settled than that motive is irrelevant." Jerome Hall General Principles of Criminal Law 153 (1947).
Not convinced with that quote well check out what legal scholar Alan W. Norrie has to say about motive. "It is as firmly established in legal doctrine as any rule could be that motive is irrelevant to responsibility?" Alan W. Norrie, Crime, Reason and History: A Critical Introduction to Criminal Law 37 (1993).
Nice try I see how you changed the intent in your scenarios. What if you had the same intent (i.e premedidated murder) like in my example should you be charged with a greater crime because you hated your victim?
Did I say I agree with hatered or violence because on hate? Damn way to spin what I said.What I said was that people should not be charged with hate as a separate crime.If a man assaults another that is a crime in itself.
Please oh please look up the legal definition of motive and intent and then tell me that you need to prove motive in order to prove a crime was committed.Motive only plays a role if intent is unclear since it is difficult to prove.
Does it matter if I killed a man because he was gay or because I was paid if in both instances I preplanned the assassination?Whether you like it or not hate is protected by the 1st amendment and thus should not be criminalized.
This is getting repetitive really fast.For the last time motive and intent are not the same thing and as I told an earlier poster legal scholars acknowledge that "we seldom punish people for the why (motive)." The only exception is of course hate crimes laws.You say the FBI keep records of hate crimes against whites prepetuated by gays etc then can you site one case?
I think you're confusing actual lesbians with the drunk college girls making out with each other in Girls Gone Wild videos as to what "people generally accept".
This is a stupid issue. People have the right to do whatever they want to so long as they are not causing harm to other. Nobody has the right to say what rights others can have based upon their own ideology.
Yeah unfortunately I think you're right but I believe we are a growing minority.Really my views line up more with the Libertarian wing of the party than with the religious Conservatives.
Yeah some Conservatives do claim that Hillary was behind a string of murders but those guys are either nuts or partisan hacks who view democrats and libs as evil.I'm not one of those clowns I don't worship at the GOP altar,I think for myself.
As for Hillary well she isn't really standing up for gay rights; she is standing up for special treatment for gays.If we are all equal in the eyes of the law then why do we need special laws to protect gay people?Any politican who is willing to hinder free express of thought and speech in order to please an extremely small group has subplanted the interest of the many for the few.
You may not like IBmax's argument but he is making a point.If Hillary or any politician can't even stand up to a pressure group what makes you think she will have the "diplomatic" abilities to deal with America's enemies?
That's a very strong argument you make do you care to elaborate since you are so articulate? Really you liberals have no argument so all you can do is curse and throw labels around.Just pathetic.
Hates Crimes legislation is not about "thought crimes." The legislation does nothing to censor someone's beliefs or prevent them from saying something. People will still be free to say they think homosexuality is immoral. It basically says if you beat the crap out of a gay person and you did it specifically because they're gay, you're prison sentence will be longer.
It's has nothing to do with free speech it has to do with making hateful intent a separate charge unto itself. In effect we are punishing people for harboring bigotted thoughts at the time they commit a crime thus it is a thought crime.
What you may or may not realize is that any crime (except crimes punished under strict liability) must have a criminal act, a criminal intent, and a concurrence between the two. If one's criminal intent that caused them to commit the crime is based on prejudice, then the punishment should reflect the severity. For as long as our justice system has existed, crimes have been judged this way.
You are confusing motive with intent, they are two different things. I should have not said "hateful intent" in my previous comment I really meant a hateful motive. The difference being intent is the criminal act you wanted to commit i.e murder,assault and it is relevant to a case.Motive on the other hand is why you committed the crime,something that is very hard to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt and has never had much bearing in a case.
Hate is a motive for a crime just like jealousy or finacial gain and therefore should be irrevelant to what one is charged with and the amount of time they get.Does it matter whether or not a person killed because he was payed to or because someone looked at him wrong?
I agree that your motive is what triggers your intent to commit a crime, but motive and intent are immutably connected. One cannot have intent without motive and that motive is what is so dangerous. Technically speaking, defending yourself is still a crime, but is not in most cases punishable. If what you said was true, then self defense would not be a defense, one could argue innocence based on the fact that they " did not mean to" it may seem small, but the difference is apples and oranges.
Your motive does matter. If motive does not matter then why is there a more severe punishment for 1st degree murder than 2nd? Even less severe for manslaughter? The only difference between them in the motive. Did you want to kill? Did you plan it out? Were you overly reckless? Was it a complete accident? Was it self defense?
Again you are confusing the two terms. Your intent is what determines what degree of crime you are charged with.Using your example of murder we would say a person who intended to beat another person up but ended up killing him would be guilty of manslature because he had no intent to kill.Incotrast if the same person planned out a hit on another person they would be guilty of 1st degree murder because they not only had intent to kill but actively pursued the murder.
Your intent has nothing to do with what crime that you commit, one could intend to hurt and accidentally kill. That person would be guilty of murder, not assault. They intended to hurt, they did and as a result, someone was killed. Motive like jealousy or financial gain have always been and always be a huge factor in determining the punishment for a crime.
Stop repeating yourself you only make yourself look more foolish. Please look up the legal definitions of intent and motive than comment because you are seriously confused.A little enlightenment can go a long way.;)
Here is a quote form Attorney Nathan Moore to finally drive the point home.
"Intent and motive are distinct and seperate concepts.Most criminal laws...require some level of intent (or mensrea).The question of 'motive' is not a question of what,but of why.We seldom punish individuals for the why.Motive can help infer intent but it is not the same thing.Motive most comes into play when the facts to establish intent are weak or unclear."
But that still brings me back to my earlier point. You asked whether or not it matters if someone kills for money or because they were looked at wrong. The federal courts believe that it does. Our justice system believe that It does. If motive is so irrelevant, than why are there already hate crime laws that are based on race? Do you believe that someone that does not like black people and attacks them as a result should not be punished more severely as a result?
The reason why we have hate crime laws is because the system believes that crimes inspired by bigotry are especially horrible since they do not only effect the victim of the crime they effect the whole group that person belonged to. Hate crimes are similar to terrorism because they are used to inspire fear and misery in a large section of society rather than one individual.
The reason why I do not believe hate crimes laws are just is because ineffect we are punishing a person because of their thoughts (i.e racism, homophobia)and because it violates equal protection under the law.We shouldn't punish people because we are disgusted with their beliefs we should only punish them for the crimes they commit.Moreover if we are all equal under the law why should some groups receive more protection than others?
The same is done between voluntary manslaughter and second degree murder...your intent matters...some motivations society finds more offensive and therefore should carry a greater punishment!
Intent and Motive are separate because intent goes to the state of mind...but motive is often the only way of demonstrating the state of mind...someone who commits a hate crime does so without any provocation, or excusable justification. Look to Manslaughter...adequate provacation can reduce a 2nd degree murder to voluntary manslaughter...hate crimes are worse because they are done in the absence of any mitigating circumstances
no comment
you either are a leader or you aren
t
and there are gays all over the world
so i guess that is one of the signs of the apocolyptes
the end of days.
xxvtpatrick 3 years ago
"Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license."(GatorGSA)
I love this quote....
I think that's LOLicious.
People really do compare same-sex marriage, with "human + animal" marriage don't they?
Animals CANNOT sign contracts idiots!!! 8D
Akwaishigot 3 years ago 2
Kirk & Madsen: 1st, the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference. The message must read: "As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or... black... ... they never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. "
Kirk & Madsen have admitted this was pure deception, yet homos continue to follow the script
RealityChekr 3 years ago
the reason hillary and obama both scare the crap out of me is that they will both pull out of iraq in a year. thats exactly what we did last time and the price we paid was september 11th and the whole conflict in the middle east. if we do it again, we deserve what we get. if we dont, we will finally have a friend in the middle east and the rest of them will see what democracy is and that it works.
bunnysteve87 3 years ago
where do you draw the line when changing the definition of marriage? what about animals? how is beastiality any different from homosexuality in that respect? what if i wanted to marry a duck?
bunnysteve87 3 years ago
how is beastiality any different from homosexuality in that respect? what if i wanted to marry a duck?
Read a few psychology books on sexuality and paraphilias. Homosexuality is a sexuality that presents itself in puberty just like heterosexuality. Bestiality presents at other times - not just puberty. Bestiality isn't arousal to animals. Like the other paraphilias it has to do with the process of violating something innocent with a very deviant and depraved act.
guardian22222 3 years ago 2
Puberty? Well...I'm not sure...but do you reach puberty at the age of 5? I had my first crush on a girl at that age...
=D
lostinhersong 3 years ago
If you were sexually attracted to another child at age 5 - that's not normal. If it was a puppy love type crush, it seems kind of early but it's probably normal.
guardian22222 3 years ago
Puppy love. It's not like I wanted to throw her on the floor a have wild lesbian sex with her. Haha. =D
lostinhersong 3 years ago
Paraphilias have a host of associated pathologies. Homosexuality does not. Bestiality is treatable. Homosexuality is not. Bestiality exists on top of a person's sexuality. Homosexality does not - if it did, all people with same sex attraction would be bisexuals. But homosexuals have no attraction to the opposite sex and thus are not capable of romantic relationships with the opposite sex.
guardian22222 3 years ago 2
The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the World Health Organization, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Council on Child and Adolescent Health, the American Academy of Pediatrics and even the health ministries in Russia and China say homosexuality is not a mental disorder, isn't a choice, can't be changed and trying to change it is harmful.
guardian22222 3 years ago
you dont get it. what if ive always been attracted to ducks? what if its not a choice? my point is i guess that marriage is a word that means something. why change the meaning? also, by your logic a bisexual person couldnt marry a person of the same sex
bunnysteve87 3 years ago
No. You don't get it. No one was born attracted to ducks. Marriage originally was often between a man and many women. Should we go back to that? By my logic a bisexual could certainly marry someone of either sex since they're capable of romantic relationships with either sex.
guardian22222 3 years ago
Marry a duck??? What a birdbrained analogy! Is your duck capable of love? Is it able to make a lifelong commitment or enter a legal agreement? Do you and your duck make long-term plans about your future, your dreams, your goals? My partner and I have been together more than half your lifetime. We care for each other, laugh, nurture, grow, pay our taxes, and love each other with all our hearts. Bunny Steve, how can you even compare this to a relationship with your duck?
ssawdon 3 years ago
you are taking my words out of context. i never compared your relationship to that of a duck. i am talking strictly about the word marriage.
bunnysteve87 3 years ago
you arent very smart. how can you compare a duck to another human being whether that human being be a man OR a woman? A duck is not capable of the things a human being is...so beastiality IS different than homosexuality.
quit being so IGNORANT AND INSENSITIVE!!!
leahsouza9 3 years ago
30 years ago gay marriage/civil union would of had no support & now it does. What about support the bisexual community for marriage/unions of multiples with full goverment benefits? Should they get the same rights as Gays and Lesbians?
covakid 3 years ago
Until recently, the black man was beat,hung and jailed for owning a firearm for self defense.All blacks are not thugs and some are smart enough to know that guns are tools that can be used for both good and bad;depends on the person using it. Don't give up your right to own a gun. Forget Obamma being black, he wants to take away our right to LEGALLY own a firearm. Forget the lies of both Hillary & Obamma the elitest. Google how many people died/killed close to the Clintons 47!! VOTE REPUBLICAN
romans933 3 years ago
I agree but do you really feel McCain is going to defend our right to own firearms for protection.He isn't exactly a strong 2nd Amendment supporter.
Plato86 3 years ago
unfortunately, he is all we have. NRA gives McCaine a C+
Here is where Obamma stands on guns:You think that's scary? Now take a look at this:
"...Barack Obama: Supports extending the assault weapons ban. Supports national law against carrying concealed weapons, with exceptions for retired police and military personnel. Supports limiting gun sales to one per month..."
Vets died to protect our rights, the least we can do is VOTE PRO GUN! VOTE FREEDOM!!
romans933 3 years ago
I knew Hillary was a rug muncher, that's why Bill went elsewhere! (Monica :o)
PearlHarborDay127 4 years ago
here she plays politics with America..BS Hilary poor damage control. It had a direct impact but she didn't have an initial position..is this what America needs???
kryminalll 4 years ago
i hope they count the votes of florida
teenboi1 4 years ago 2
she is amazing
teenboi1 4 years ago 2
She is about to lose the primary that is unless the super delegates over turn the will of the people.Either way conservatives lose in this election for all the candidates are liberals including McCaine.
Plato86 4 years ago
Yeah I'm thinking Obama is elected in November since a lot of GOP won't even show up to vote for McCain.
guardian22222 4 years ago
God can you imagine what America will be like under a Obama presidency?The man is all hype and no experience, will he even know what to do with the office?
Plato86 4 years ago
Well, if you look at his website he has a lot of specific well thought out plans for dealing with every issue. He is short enough on experience that he may be naive - but still, McCain is so out of it that he commented the other day that we may be in Iraq for the next 100 years and ALSO said "The economy is not my strong suit." That's more frightening to me.
guardian22222 3 years ago
if hillary was a liar like people claim then she would have lied to us about the fact that she voted for the war...that to me is an honest person because she told the truth even though she knew that people would judge her...
adrian1thuwun 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm sorry, but she's wack.
lmsccc11 4 years ago
The Democratic BASE (true democrats) reject the idea of electing an unqualified candidate.
We don't vote as if the Presidential Election is "American Idol." He who shall not be named has been seeking the Presidency since he was on the Illinois State sentate (Day 1). Why not focus on cleaning Illinois up before you focus on your SOLE GOAL (ego-driven).
Then we have someone like Hillary who has devoted her life to our nation.
Vote Smart. Vote Hillary.
2025DPlaza 4 years ago 4
Why don't you post some good plans Hillary has for dealing with issues? Is attacks on Obama all hillary has to offer? If it is, I'm voting Obama. He has plans for all the issues detailed on his website. The best thing a voter can do is go to the Washington Post website and take the blind quiz voting on the candidates responses to questions without knowing which candidate made them and see who you fit with ON THE ISSUES not on these BS attacks.
guardian22222 4 years ago
Poor maligned Hillary, she didn't say "F_cking Jew Bastard", and I don't believe 4 witnesses who took lie detectors and a secret service officer either, nor utube videos where she makes racist comments towards east-indians. We must support her and further our gay cause.
Satan4HitleryClinton 4 years ago
I told you I'm not voting for Hillary anyway. But I think it's sad that you can't stick to facts and issues and speak positively about whichever candidate you support instead of trying to tear others down. You're garbage.
guardian22222 4 years ago
And Hillary isn't the candidate to vote for to further gay rights. But whatever. You sure seem to know it all. Even plenty of things that aren't even true. Keep it up. Your Karma will get you. You've already done the typical and made bigoted comments about homosexuals while claiming that Hillary is a what? A bigot. LOL. Damn you're a piece of shit.
guardian22222 4 years ago
I'm bigoted because I stated the obvious, that you're a pissy queen? I can do this all day! I take back all my terrible slurs that so offend u, ..but its ok for hillery to say "Jew bastard", and categorize Ghandi as someone who like all east indians works in a gas station, on that you have no comment except blind denial, even when it's there for all eyes on video. You're a real piece of work
Satan4HitleryClinton 4 years ago
I'm bigoted because I stated the obvious, that you're a pissy queen?
Hell yeah that's bigoted and stereotyping. You have some nerve to say that and then complain that Hillary is a bigot. You're a fucking bigot.
guardian22222 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
yes , you're right, I'm a bigoted asshole, and you're a pissy blinded illogical gay, but I'm not running for office .... and I'm not antisemitic, unlike your poster queen. Why do u so blindly defend her? All you do is give attention to my criticisms. Before, a few would have known of Hillarys antisemitic rant, now anyone looking here knows the issues
Satan4HitleryClinton 4 years ago
Why do you keep insinuating that I'm voting for her when I'm not. It's inconceivable that she could have gotten where she is today if she made the comments you claim. It's absolute bullshit. And thank you for admitting you're a fucking hypocrite. Now if you'd just admit you're garbage for making up lies.
guardian22222 4 years ago
Your hatred for the lady is just mind-boggling. It can't be based on anything but conservative fear-mongering talk radio. They've done a good job with you and created a total monster. You're hysterical over the thought of Hillary in the White House EVEN THOUGH she's been there before and she and Bill didn't exterminate Jews or discriminate against East Indians or whatever you think is going to happen.
guardian22222 4 years ago
Maybe you're afraid she's going to start a war based on lies and blame it on faulty intelligence and compromise the security of the United States.
guardian22222 4 years ago
This war in Iraq might be a mistake but it is certainly a mistake Senator Clinton was willing to vote for and authorize.Stop pretending like Clinton had nothing to do with this war she did and that is why Obama and Edwards are a head of her in the polls right now. Paul in 08.
Plato86 4 years ago
She voted for it because she made the mistake of believing that the President and V.P. were being truthful - not for any other reason.
guardian22222 4 years ago 4
She voted for this war because she did not want to appear weak on terrorism.Hillary has no values or principles she makes decissions based on opinion polls rather than on what she and her advisors believe is the best course of action.
Plato86 4 years ago
Well that's fascinating, Plato, that you know exactly what goes on inside Hillary's head because I don't. I'm not voting for her in the primaries anyway unless I find out something really terrible about both Obama and Edwards between now and Feb 5.
guardian22222 4 years ago
Satan is the right word for you. You are a bag of nuts, guy. Wake up. The problem is your stinking thinking.
flyingeagle25 4 years ago
Rupert Murdoch met with Hillary a few months ago and is supporting her, hence Fox New's attacks on Obama and Edwards NOT Hillary. Murdoch is hard core right wing! Why is he supporting Hillary?!?! Hillary scares the crap out of me more so than any other presidential candidate Dem or Republican.
megalonaut 4 years ago
"Strengthening a pragmatic rapprochement, Rupert Murdoch has agreed to give a fund-raiser this summer for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the latest sign of cooperation between the conservative media mogul and the Democratic lawmaker who has often been a prime target of his newspaper and television outlets.
Asked about her relationship with Mr. Murdoch, Mrs. Clinton described him as simply "my constituent," and she played down the significance of the fund-raiser." NYTimes
megalonaut 4 years ago
I actually support Hillery because, well, same as the rest of the gloating world: I'd LOVE to see America get fucked in the ass again for 4 years
Satan4HitleryClinton 4 years ago
No, actually, Hillary would run things just about like Bill did and he is known as one of the better Presidents. It takes a real wacko to imagine that Bill had a decent presidency yet his wife is going to get in there and start opening concentration camps and have Joe Lieberman arrested as an enemy combatant. Are you taking your meds?
guardian22222 4 years ago
Yeah because Hillary Clinton a person who while running for sentator of N.Y gave a speech at an AIPAC conference "hates the jews". Damn you zionist are really are out of your mind.
Plato86 4 years ago
No,its nothing to do with her giving a speech at a AIPAC conference... it's to do with her stereotyping east indians and Ghandi as people who work in gas stations, and her well-documented and multi-witnessed statement calling Paul Fray a "F_cking Jew Bastard" where she betrays her true sentiments
Satan4HitleryClinton 4 years ago
Well documented where? I can't find it anywhere and I can't imagine that even if she felt that way that she'd be stupid enough to say it and that somehow the media would just ignore it. It's obviously propaganda that can't be backed up because it's MADE UP.
guardian22222 4 years ago
You, guardian of one-celled brains, can't find her racist and antisemitic comments "anywhere"?!?!? Why don't you type "hillary jew bastard" into google and see what u get? You have a brain so small you "can't imagine", so spare us your conjectures how if YOU haven't heard about it, it couldn't possibly have happened! You're oblivious, unknowledgable and uninformed as to the issues here, so stop making an ass of yourself, and vote for someone nonracist and with a shred of integrity.
Satan4HitleryClinton 4 years ago
You have a brain so small that just because someone typed it on a web page you think it's true. Look for references and confirm it's true before you post it like it's fact next time. And don't worry so much. Hillary isn't going to get the nomination anyway - Obama is.
guardian22222 4 years ago
Hillary would make a good President though. She just wouldn't make a great President.
guardian22222 4 years ago
If u want a racist, lying piece of shit for a president(in the finest american tradition), just vote Hitlery. Her stereotyping east indians and Ghandi as people who work in gas stations, and her documented, witnessed by 4 people who swore affidavids, including one by her secret service officer assigned to protect her, verified statement calling Paul Fray a "F_cking Jew Bastard" where she betrays her true sentiments shows what you'll get.
Satan4HitleryClinton 4 years ago
Why isn't there a video on youtube of her expressing racist sentiments. The camera is always on her. Why has no one captured this? Why aren't the many Jews who work in the media concerned about this? I'll tell you why. Because it's a lie. It's made up propaganda. But I do believe that you actually believe it.
guardian22222 4 years ago
I bow to your logic, queeny guardian, that because either you are ignorant of it, or theres no video of it, it just can't be true. There was no video of Micheal Jackson molesting those boys, none of Monica blowing Bill, none of O.J ... so none happened!
Satan4HitleryClinton 4 years ago
You live in a sick paranoid world. And you're a bigot too which isn't surprising.
guardian22222 4 years ago
Hillary does not support gay marraige...if she can't support us fully...why she we even support her...gay people need to stop selling themselves short...kucinich or gravel...
fredoflettuce 4 years ago
Go watch Putin on you tube and learn how real leaders operate.
Your useless.
Edward England.
Edenglaender 4 years ago
huh?
xxvtpatrick 4 years ago
I'm sure they do but that does not mean people who oppose gay marriage hate gays.
Plato86 4 years ago
Or Obama - one of them at least.
guardian22222 4 years ago
This woman is scary effective in interview situations...it would be good to remember that she pretty much aces any situation in which she has a chance to sit down and be friendly. But I don't know if that's going to be enough for my vote.
roughwithanr 4 years ago
I love Socialist Hill. I hope she rules the world. She should take the tax exempt status of religous groups away and give the money to a national secularism enforcememnt tax force.
PereztiToaleay 4 years ago
Hillary clearly doesnt support homosexual marriage, and I will be voting for her!
TimothyRed1990 4 years ago
While Hillary Clinton was speaking out both sides of her mouth at the debate over the issue of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, what went unsaid is that this is a recipe for increased voter fraud. Under the federal "Motor Voter" law (the National Voter Registration Act of 1993), states must provide applicants for drivers licenses with the opportunity to register to vote.
TheTruthHurts101 4 years ago
Good they pay taxes and work, help the economy, and fight for or country.
PereztiToaleay 4 years ago
It's easy for you to talk down to me. But have you taken a look at utube video "Red State Update: Ron Paul"...it seems funny to you maybe but by the time it's over nobody's laughing
barryhomework04 4 years ago
do we really need another idiot that is constantly making mistakes?
Ackdacka 4 years ago
blah blah blah
Ackdacka 4 years ago
Two questions: 1) Since becoming the senator from New York, what has hilarie done for her state? 2) What qualifications does she have to be President of the United States?
Unklebillybob 4 years ago
She has prevented there from being another terrorist attack in NY.
PereztiToaleay 4 years ago 2
Per - NOPE! She does not have that kind of authority. It is the President of the United States who is responsible for overseeing security of the United States. And since we were hit the first time, Bush(and I know you don't like this one) has had the right people in the right places to prevent attacks like 9/11.
Unklebillybob 4 years ago
She voted for like how many security measures that he supported. Hm, Bush was given a plan to attack Al-Qaidea on 01/25 in reaction to the Cole attack. He did nothing. The Dems Clinton 1) develops a plan and the reps do nothing and then accuse the dems of complacency. What did Bush do for TX, nada.
PereztiToaleay 4 years ago
Cole attack? That was under President clinton's watch. Get your history right. As for Texas,,,I think you had best take a look at a history book,,,not from any of your liberal profs. DS
Unklebillybob 4 years ago
Try Freedom.. Vote Ron Paul
Goodmanjoe55 4 years ago
Everytime Hillary opens her mouth the poll numbers fall. She is a complete idiot.
fanfilmfollies 4 years ago
Hillary just wants everyone to like her. She'll say whatever it takes to win.
persecutionservant 4 years ago
i really hope that she doesn't become president. she has no respect for the bible and no respect for God's plan. what if eveyone was Gay? there woud be no more chidern and what? either force yourself to have sex with the opposite sex or have test-tube babies. NOT GODS PLAN. our kids are so confused right now, how much more with a president how is for it. we are pushing God out of everything, and if God is not there, Satan is. THINK!!! is a sin, just stop. i'm sure is hard but it can be done.
BroPacheco 4 years ago
well, I'm not trying to be rude but really there is way too much population of humans on this planets that we are killing other animals and the enviroment. Though I'm not gay and not planning to be gay, I do believe have little offsprings would bring better for the future world.
Redeemed 4 years ago
What does overpopulation have to do with hate crimes and gays in the military? That is not what is at issue here.
Plato86 4 years ago
Theres something we can all do gay straight bi etc to make this world a better more loving open minded accepting place, We can/must all work together to ensure full equal rights for the gay lesbian bi community
bilmar78 4 years ago
VOTE RON PAUL 2008
JOIN THE REVOLUTION
plugginmuffin 4 years ago
That's my point a single crime with multiple charges means that you are being charged with the other violations you have also committed.If you are being charged with hateful motive as a separate charge then isn't that punishing hatred?
Plato86 4 years ago
You can not have it both ways Marzett if the hate crime has two components, the actual crime and the hateful motive then the latter charge is indeed punishing bigotry.Otherwise what is the second charge punishing, you can't say the assault because that is already accounted for.
Plato86 4 years ago
" it will make bigots with violence/anger issues think twice before the physically attack someone." Umm isn't that the same thing as detering the hateful motive (mindset) which leads to the crime?You are infact out lawing hate, since if you were a homophobe and able to hide your true motive for assault and instead gave another reason (i.e robbery)you would not be charged with a hate crime.
Plato86 4 years ago
With hate crimes you can not separate the mindset from the actual offense, they are one in the same.
Plato86 4 years ago
LOL you are so P.C you don't even realize it.Man I'm don't believe in God but if someone told me Merry Christmas during the holiday season I would not be offended in the least.Everybody is so sensative that the slightest innocent remark offends and hurts them.This is especially true with the gay community.
Plato86 4 years ago
Yes but what is society trying to deter with hate crime laws, is it not the hateful mind set that leads to such crimes?If that is the case then are they not thought crimes?
Plato86 4 years ago
Granted but do you think such actions help preserve free discourse or send a "chilling effect" throughout the community? P.C is ruining this country people can't even joke about anything without fear of offending someone and losing their job.I don't you why people are so affaird of the other person's opinion.
Plato86 4 years ago
So because the ACLU does not stand against hate crimes laws that means they are constitutional and right?Wow I did not know the ACLU became the Supreme Court and guardians of freedom.I wish they would stand up for Imus when he was thrown off the air because of P.C.
Plato86 4 years ago
I put nothing pass the government. Who would have thought that the President would be able to arrest and detain a citizen for years without charging him with a single crime.Moreover with how P.C this country has become I can easily see hate speech being outlawed to satify people like you.
Plato86 4 years ago
We don't need affirmative action that is social engineering.You said it yourself hate crimes are a deterent so the question then becomes what behavior they are trying to deter?There are already laws against assault and murder so hate crimes are really just punishing the biggoted mindset behind the acts.
Plato86 4 years ago
What? So why do we need hate crimes at all if eventually they should be abolished?Oh so you finally admit that hate crimes are a way for society to enforce it's beliefs on the individual by adding additional punishments for a crime while holding unpopular views?
Plato86 4 years ago
If hate crimes are separate charges attached to actual crimes then why couldn't they eventually become independent charges unto themselves? If the whole point of hate crimes is to provide deterence against bigotted attacks well the logical conclusion to such legislation is to outlaw hate speech since that contributes to a climate that makes hate crimes acceptable.
Plato86 4 years ago
Actually I was, I don't support giving the government and especially the executive the power to spie on it's citizens without a warrant.Surrendering your rights in the name of national security or tolerance (i.e hate crime laws) will have the same result.
Plato86 4 years ago
The government has sqelched free speech in the past in the name of security and safety I can easily see it doing that once again with hate crime laws.Hey but a fascist like yourself doesn't give a damn about civil liberties of people you dispies so it's just fine isn't.
Plato86 4 years ago
When they came for the homophobes you said nothing for you were not one of them.When they come for you Marzett918 who shall be left to defend you?
Plato86 4 years ago
Yeah I'm proud that people hate eachother to the point that they are willing to attack eachother.Hey maybe you can through me in jail for expressing that opinion Marzett918,I'm sure it offended and frightended some quenn in the Castro.
Plato86 4 years ago
It's all a slipery slope Marzett918 today you throw extra penalties onto a crime because the man uttered a slur and next week you throw him in jail just for using hatful language.This has already happened in Europe and it can happen here too.Assault is assault and murder is murder regardless of who it happens to.
Plato86 4 years ago
Why would it have been "nice" to get a stiffer penalty for the guys who assault your friend?Why are you not satisfied with assault and battery charges if those were indeed the actual crimes committed?Again you are afraid to draw your own conclusions because the real reason why you support hate crimes is because you have a vendetta against bigot and wish to punish them further.
Plato86 4 years ago
Again you miss the point with heavier penatlies for crimes against police officers, it's about deterence.Why do you believe hate crimes require stiffer penatlies than regular crimes?
Plato86 4 years ago
So there is no solid proof that hate crimes effect victims in a greater manner than regular crimes yet you still support heavier punishments for hate crimes?Your not being honest just admit you don't like homophobes and you wish to punish them for their bigotry.Come out the closet.;)
Plato86 4 years ago
I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree because we have already covered this ground before.I just want to know one last thing, why do you find hate motivated crimes any worst than regular.If it is because hate motivated crimes damage their victims more than regular crime well then I ask you to show me the support that claim with evidence.
Plato86 4 years ago
Police officers need special protection because they put their lives on the line in order to enforce the law and thus they are confronted with the criminal element everyday.They are greater targets of violence than the average man and thus soceity must do something to make police officers less desirable targets and that is done through greater punishment.
Plato86 4 years ago
Where as homosexuals are just ordinary people and thus are not at a greater risk of violence than the average man and thus do not require special protection.
Plato86 4 years ago
You are not allowed to assault anyone because assault is against the law.If there are already laws against assault protecting all why do you extra penalty for hate motivated laws?Do not tell me about police officers they are not civilians and thus need special protection.
Plato86 4 years ago
Everything has it's limits and free speech is no different.Speech that directly threatens the life of another or that prevents another person from expressing their speech are not protected by the 1st Amendment.Conspiring to commit murder falls under the former category and thus is not protected speech.
Plato86 4 years ago
Like a broken merry go round this conversation keeps going in circles.For the last time if I can say anything I want then why should I be charged with a hate crime if during an assault I say these things?Does the nature of my actions change the status of my SPEECH?If so then I do not have freedom of speech now do I?
Plato86 4 years ago
Moreover let me make it crystal clear to you that I DO NOT support hatred and violence brought on by bigotry.All I support is your and my right to say anything and everything we want with out Big Sister throwing us in jail.I know the first amendment has it's limits, you can't threaten a person or scream fire in a crowded theater.
Plato86 4 years ago
Hillary is a CFR memeber. A group Chenny was Head of! Rockafeller started..and in his book he said the United States must be destroyed...whats the North American Union. HIV AIDS! what the hell Bayer spreads the shit. Federal Reserve needs to be kicked out and Income tax is illegal and should be thrown out we dont need it tax imports.Did you laugh about nuclear war hillary? guess cause you got a bunker :) my child lives in a normal house. CFR are all yes men to world bankers.
YadaYadaguy 4 years ago
Nice dodge but you still did not answer the question.How can you have free speech if one is punished for using such speech?If free speech truly existed then I would only be charged with assault (and rightfully so)and not some BS hate crime.
Plato86 4 years ago
See I knew sooner or latter you would have to resort to name calling when it became obvious that you lost the argument.Police officers and other government employees are not just regular people since they enforce the laws and put their lives on the line in the process.Therefore they need special laws to protect them.Where as gays and other minority groups do not need any more protect then what the law already provides.
Plato86 4 years ago
How can you have free speech and thought IF you get hit with an additional charge for committing a crime motivated by these thoughts?Moreover if I punch you that would be assault.However if I punch you while screaming an slur now it becomes a hate crime.Does that sound like free speech to you?
Plato86 4 years ago
That is not true since the hate crime is a separate charge unto itself from the actual crime and therefore you are punishing a bigoted mindset.You have been arguing from the begining that motive matters when considering punishment and now you say we DON'T punish people because of their motive?Thank you for seeing it my way.;)
Plato86 4 years ago
We have free speech to speak out against the government but that does not mean you can harm a representative of the government because of that right.
Plato86 4 years ago
Laws protecting police officers have a real purpose which again is to aid the state in maintaining order by discourging violence against law enforcement.We are not punishing people because of their motive or mindset but rather for an actual crime they have committed.What purpose do hate crimes law serve except disencouraging bigotry and thus punish free though?
Plato86 4 years ago
Yet again you make another apples and oranges comparison.When an officer is in uniform or on duty he is a representative of the state and thus when a person harms him the punishment should be greater than harming an oridinary person because that is like attacking the state itself.
Plato86 4 years ago
As a libertarian I cringe at the thought of elevating the life of a state representaive over that of the ordinary citizens however such laws are needed to discourage violence against the state and maintain order.
Plato86 4 years ago
Assaults the entire group? This is exacty what people mean when they say hate crimes are thought crimes.How can violence against one member of the group effect the entire group unless we take into account that speech and mindset behind the attack terrorizes and drives fear into the heart of the rest of the group.Thus hate crimes punish speech and "philosophies" that society finds repulsive.
Plato86 4 years ago
The difference is that the younger the child is the more damage that is done to the child and thus the punishment should be greater.Consider it this way, if you punch a man that is one level of assault but then if you continue to attack him while he is down the charge becomes greater.
Plato86 4 years ago
Where as with hate crimes the only thing that separates them from ordinary crimes is the motive.Changing the age of the victim completely changes the crime changing motive does not mean you did not commit murder or assault etc.
Plato86 4 years ago
You sure about that?
globalgringo 4 years ago
Emotional reaction? I layed the my logic out clearly if you disagree that is fine but don't pretend I am not presenting a real argument.Infact you are the one who is using a false logic when you compare hate crimes to that with crimes against children.The two have no relation what so ever, it is as clear as day that children can not consent to anything and that is why it is illegal to have sex with them.Really what are you talking about?
Plato86 4 years ago
Not necessarily true, while it is extremely unlikely it is not out of the realm of possiblity.When the Son of Sam was murdering women in NYC he choose them because they where brunettes.Just admit that you are sickened by bigotry (as am I) and wish to punish people for holding bigotted views.The difference between you and me is that I actually respect civil liberities.
Plato86 4 years ago
Not true globalgringo if we just treat them as "crimes" and as such then how will we teach our youth what is right and what is wrong, I think the Hate crime label is perfectly fine the way it is. Oppression has been a reason to go to war for the United States and over the past 231 years we have proven as a country that we do need labels like "hate" crime, that way when the time comes for a suspect they may judge accordinly
Kotakai 4 years ago
It is not the job of the government to teach tolerance that is the job of parents and guaradians etc.
Plato86 4 years ago
There is no difference between a crime and a hate crime. It is another example of political pandering to the fringes of society.
If I kill you because you are gay, that is a crime punishable by death.
If I kill you because you like figure skating, that is a crime punishable by death.
What's the difference?
globalgringo 4 years ago
That is my point exactly gringo there is no difference between the two acts so why should an attack motivated by hate carry a higher penalty.Remember a hate crime is a separate charge that is added on to the criminal charge (i.e murder).
Plato86 4 years ago
That happens about as often as someone contracting AIDS from blood transfusions.
Taking the tenth of a percent and making it the norm.
We know how you work.
globalgringo 4 years ago
It is only a Hate Crime when it is committed by White Heterosexual Males.
Any other race or sexual orientation and it is just a crime.
Hate crimes should be abolished because a crime is a crime.
globalgringo 4 years ago
No the intent would simply be to commit physical harm(assault,murder etc). The rest of your comment would fall into the motive category because that was the reason why you attacked that person.This is why hate crimes have to compents to them.You are charged with hateful motive AND the actual crime you intended to commit.
Plato86 4 years ago
No the intent is to take the property for the purpose of keeping it or otherwise permanently depriving the owner of it.That was the crime the person intented to do. The motive would be for example the person wronged him in some way so he wanted to take their belonging to get back.The why is the reason, i.e hate,finical gain, jealousy whatever not what you intented to do.T
Plato86 4 years ago
Motive does not determine whether a person has committed murder or manslaughter that is INTENT!Why is it so difficult for you to understand the difference between two distinct legal terms?
Plato86 4 years ago
Listen to reason friend and enjoy this quote from legal scholar Jerome Hall.
" hardly any part of the penal law is more definately settled than that motive is irrelevant." Jerome Hall General Principles of Criminal Law 153 (1947).
Plato86 4 years ago
Not convinced with that quote well check out what legal scholar Alan W. Norrie has to say about motive. "It is as firmly established in legal doctrine as any rule could be that motive is irrelevant to responsibility?" Alan W. Norrie, Crime, Reason and History: A Critical Introduction to Criminal Law 37 (1993).
Plato86 4 years ago
Nice try I see how you changed the intent in your scenarios. What if you had the same intent (i.e premedidated murder) like in my example should you be charged with a greater crime because you hated your victim?
Plato86 4 years ago
Did I say I agree with hatered or violence because on hate? Damn way to spin what I said.What I said was that people should not be charged with hate as a separate crime.If a man assaults another that is a crime in itself.
Plato86 4 years ago
Please oh please look up the legal definition of motive and intent and then tell me that you need to prove motive in order to prove a crime was committed.Motive only plays a role if intent is unclear since it is difficult to prove.
Plato86 4 years ago
Does it matter if I killed a man because he was gay or because I was paid if in both instances I preplanned the assassination?Whether you like it or not hate is protected by the 1st amendment and thus should not be criminalized.
Plato86 4 years ago
This is getting repetitive really fast.For the last time motive and intent are not the same thing and as I told an earlier poster legal scholars acknowledge that "we seldom punish people for the why (motive)." The only exception is of course hate crimes laws.You say the FBI keep records of hate crimes against whites prepetuated by gays etc then can you site one case?
Plato86 4 years ago
The Lesbos need to distance themselves from the GBT's if they want to move forward.
The sodomites and the freaks are dragging you ladies down.
People generally accept Lesbians but not when you drag along the dregs of society with you.
globalgringo 4 years ago
I think you're confusing actual lesbians with the drunk college girls making out with each other in Girls Gone Wild videos as to what "people generally accept".
anhero86 4 years ago
No, I'm talking about the portly, short haired ones with round glasses, flannels and birkenstocks.
globalgringo 4 years ago
This is a stupid issue. People have the right to do whatever they want to so long as they are not causing harm to other. Nobody has the right to say what rights others can have based upon their own ideology.
robtul12 4 years ago
Agreed we all deserve the same rights and thus hate crimes laws should be struck down.
Plato86 4 years ago
Yeah unfortunately I think you're right but I believe we are a growing minority.Really my views line up more with the Libertarian wing of the party than with the religious Conservatives.
Plato86 4 years ago
Hillary through her support of Hate Crimes legislation.
Plato86 4 years ago
Yeah some Conservatives do claim that Hillary was behind a string of murders but those guys are either nuts or partisan hacks who view democrats and libs as evil.I'm not one of those clowns I don't worship at the GOP altar,I think for myself.
Plato86 4 years ago
As for Hillary well she isn't really standing up for gay rights; she is standing up for special treatment for gays.If we are all equal in the eyes of the law then why do we need special laws to protect gay people?Any politican who is willing to hinder free express of thought and speech in order to please an extremely small group has subplanted the interest of the many for the few.
Plato86 4 years ago
You may not like IBmax's argument but he is making a point.If Hillary or any politician can't even stand up to a pressure group what makes you think she will have the "diplomatic" abilities to deal with America's enemies?
Plato86 4 years ago
That's a very strong argument you make do you care to elaborate since you are so articulate? Really you liberals have no argument so all you can do is curse and throw labels around.Just pathetic.
Plato86 4 years ago
How can Hillary expect to lead the world if she can't even stand up to a bunch of perverts?
IBmaxlightzonk 4 years ago
Go Ron Paul!!!!911 was an inside job!!!! Vote for Ron Paul in 08
ronpaul911 4 years ago
Hill for President!!!!!!! I call her Hill because I feel close.
jefgain 4 years ago
Hates Crimes legislation is not about "thought crimes." The legislation does nothing to censor someone's beliefs or prevent them from saying something. People will still be free to say they think homosexuality is immoral. It basically says if you beat the crap out of a gay person and you did it specifically because they're gay, you're prison sentence will be longer.
danryan24 4 years ago
It's has nothing to do with free speech it has to do with making hateful intent a separate charge unto itself. In effect we are punishing people for harboring bigotted thoughts at the time they commit a crime thus it is a thought crime.
Plato86 4 years ago
What you may or may not realize is that any crime (except crimes punished under strict liability) must have a criminal act, a criminal intent, and a concurrence between the two. If one's criminal intent that caused them to commit the crime is based on prejudice, then the punishment should reflect the severity. For as long as our justice system has existed, crimes have been judged this way.
zanman2323 4 years ago
You are confusing motive with intent, they are two different things. I should have not said "hateful intent" in my previous comment I really meant a hateful motive. The difference being intent is the criminal act you wanted to commit i.e murder,assault and it is relevant to a case.Motive on the other hand is why you committed the crime,something that is very hard to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt and has never had much bearing in a case.
Plato86 4 years ago
Hate is a motive for a crime just like jealousy or finacial gain and therefore should be irrevelant to what one is charged with and the amount of time they get.Does it matter whether or not a person killed because he was payed to or because someone looked at him wrong?
Plato86 4 years ago
I agree that your motive is what triggers your intent to commit a crime, but motive and intent are immutably connected. One cannot have intent without motive and that motive is what is so dangerous. Technically speaking, defending yourself is still a crime, but is not in most cases punishable. If what you said was true, then self defense would not be a defense, one could argue innocence based on the fact that they " did not mean to" it may seem small, but the difference is apples and oranges.
zanman2323 4 years ago
Your motive does matter. If motive does not matter then why is there a more severe punishment for 1st degree murder than 2nd? Even less severe for manslaughter? The only difference between them in the motive. Did you want to kill? Did you plan it out? Were you overly reckless? Was it a complete accident? Was it self defense?
zanman2323 4 years ago
Again you are confusing the two terms. Your intent is what determines what degree of crime you are charged with.Using your example of murder we would say a person who intended to beat another person up but ended up killing him would be guilty of manslature because he had no intent to kill.Incotrast if the same person planned out a hit on another person they would be guilty of 1st degree murder because they not only had intent to kill but actively pursued the murder.
Plato86 4 years ago
Your intent has nothing to do with what crime that you commit, one could intend to hurt and accidentally kill. That person would be guilty of murder, not assault. They intended to hurt, they did and as a result, someone was killed. Motive like jealousy or financial gain have always been and always be a huge factor in determining the punishment for a crime.
zanman2323 4 years ago
Stop repeating yourself you only make yourself look more foolish. Please look up the legal definitions of intent and motive than comment because you are seriously confused.A little enlightenment can go a long way.;)
Plato86 4 years ago
Here is a quote form Attorney Nathan Moore to finally drive the point home.
"Intent and motive are distinct and seperate concepts.Most criminal laws...require some level of intent (or mensrea).The question of 'motive' is not a question of what,but of why.We seldom punish individuals for the why.Motive can help infer intent but it is not the same thing.Motive most comes into play when the facts to establish intent are weak or unclear."
Plato86 4 years ago
But that still brings me back to my earlier point. You asked whether or not it matters if someone kills for money or because they were looked at wrong. The federal courts believe that it does. Our justice system believe that It does. If motive is so irrelevant, than why are there already hate crime laws that are based on race? Do you believe that someone that does not like black people and attacks them as a result should not be punished more severely as a result?
zanman2323 4 years ago
The reason why we have hate crime laws is because the system believes that crimes inspired by bigotry are especially horrible since they do not only effect the victim of the crime they effect the whole group that person belonged to. Hate crimes are similar to terrorism because they are used to inspire fear and misery in a large section of society rather than one individual.
Plato86 4 years ago
The reason why I do not believe hate crimes laws are just is because ineffect we are punishing a person because of their thoughts (i.e racism, homophobia)and because it violates equal protection under the law.We shouldn't punish people because we are disgusted with their beliefs we should only punish them for the crimes they commit.Moreover if we are all equal under the law why should some groups receive more protection than others?
Plato86 4 years ago
The same is done between voluntary manslaughter and second degree murder...your intent matters...some motivations society finds more offensive and therefore should carry a greater punishment!
darkndan 4 years ago
Intent and Motive are separate because intent goes to the state of mind...but motive is often the only way of demonstrating the state of mind...someone who commits a hate crime does so without any provocation, or excusable justification. Look to Manslaughter...adequate provacation can reduce a 2nd degree murder to voluntary manslaughter...hate crimes are worse because they are done in the absence of any mitigating circumstances
darkndan 4 years ago