I hate gays!

Originally posted by RANT
Meaning that if you were to kill a gay guy MCory1 having nothing to do with him being gay, that's NOT a hate crime. It's very hard to prove hate crimes. They are almost never prosecuted. It's literally supposed to be a "message" or feel good legislation for the most part. It's just so funny, it pisses so many people off. Unless you plan on blowing up gay night clubs, it shouldn't bother you. And if you do plan on blowing up gay night clubs, you should be under a jail. So I really don't care what psychotics think about hate crime legislation or anything else.

Only criminals need to worry about hate crime legislation.

While you do make a good point, and I do agree that in most situations it would be extremely difficult to prove a crime as being or not being hate motivated, I'm still not convinced as to the ethics of it.

Why not just make every crime that could potentially be a hate crime have a stricter penalty, if it's an attempt to dissuade the crime? You can't force people to not hate. You cannot force tolerance on people. In essence, this is boiling down to "It's not as bad to hate someone like you."

I understand that it's more of a political statement than an actual legal concern, but that doesn't take away any of the sting. Hell, I'm a minority. Last time I counted, there was only one of me. There isn't any legislation that makes it worse to kill me or assault me than there is for anyone else though. I'm not a racial minority, nor am I a sexual-orientation minority though. Does that mean it isn't as bad for someone to commit a crime against me?

Do I worry about this directly affecting me? No, I don't. I have no plans to commit any crime of any nature, hate-driven or otherwise. I don't expect to ever be on the receiving end of this legislation in anyway, nor would I use it to my advantage if the possibility ever arose. I don't like the principle though. I don't like the concept of placing a higher value on one person's life because of the color of their skin or whom they decide to sleep with, and that's very much how most of this legislation seems to me.

First off, to Lecky: Yes, I am paranoid! I believe you have known that for several months, now. That is why I am a frequenter of a conspiracy web site! Duh!
Now, you silly girl, I am aware that this Christian nation is not ruled by a theocracy. I've made it a point to study the foundation of the country for many years now, and although I have a long way to go, I have picked up on that. That is why we don't have mullahs and the like. That does not mean that it is wrong to understand the difference between right and wrong, moral and immoral, and refuse to make excuses for or rationalize immorality.

Now, when you suggest that one particular group of people should be protected by saying that there murder should carry a heavier penalty than another group of people, you are raising their value above the rest. That is wrong.
Furthermore, I am not spreading any hatred for anyone. Knowing right from wrong, righteous from evil, does not mean that you are spreading hatred. As a matter of fact, to suggest that this is the case is simply a diversion you have been taught. This way, you make the person who recognizes immorality for what it is as the one who is immoral. As you must not have noticed, I never suggested hating homosexuals, and I have certainly not even come close to suggesting anyone do harm to them. I said that protecting them more than any other person is lifting their worth to a higher level than other folks. Do not try and twist my words or my meaning.

Paperclip, it doesn't make a bit of difference if the one who is molesting a child is a neighbor or a priest or the milk man, when a male molests a male, it is what? that's right.

Now, as far as liberals wanting not to legislate morality, you are correct. They want to legislate morality out of our society. That, in effect, is antimorality legislation, which one cannot base on the history of our government. You try and claim that the nation is not a Christian one, and you do that purely out of a refusal to grasp the truth, the facts. The fact is, however, that is what legislation is, morality. You have two things, laws and statutes. A law is in line with the Christian faith, as is the constitution, therefore it is constitutional. A statute, on the other hand, is something entirely different. As "ignorance" of the law is no excuse (you heart tells you when you've done something wrong, so you can't claim to not know. You simply ignored the truth), when you violate a statute that has nothing to do with right/wrong but is equity or admiralty in nature. This has nothing to do with the establishment of a religion, which the feds cannot do, but the general ethics and morality of the Christian faith, which this nation is obligated to abide by.

Now, oncve again, if you understood Christianity, folks, you would clearly understand that this is not hate speech, and that underastanding right from wrong, morality from immorality, has nothing to do with killing anyone.

Much of this crap is nothing more than "Them" generated, so to destroy the moral fabric of a once-great nation. Guess what, research was doen several months ago that showed just as much violence commited against hetro by homo, but the media never covered it. Why? It doesn't fit their agenda. What is theri agenda? To make us TV-brainwashed idiots think wrong is just as acceptable as right. To make you think that those who can discern right from wrong is haters.

May I point out, AGAIN, that what the Frosty was doing was illustrating a point about the anti-hate legislation. Why is it that focusing in on the point might be more beneficial than taking his words literally?

Frosty, from this point forward, do not try and be creative or imaginative! Some cannot handle it, and some will understand it but will take the words literally so as to muddy the waters.

Understood MCory1 and you make excellent victim oriented moral arguments, but I don't think that's how the law is intended.

It's not that the victim is more special. It's that the criminal is.

I'm no expert, but we have all kinds of increased punishments based on acts commited in the process of other acts. There's arson, and then there's terrorism for example. Is one building worth more? Well, if it's some stranger that's one crime. If it's your ex girlfriend's house, that's another. And if it's a black church, for my money that's equivalent to terrorism. The building's aren't more special, but the different acts become more heinous given intent. The law is all about intent. This is no different.

It's unfortunate they call it "hate crimes" at all since home grown domestic terrorism is what's really happening when you seek to send a message with violence or intimidate groups or influence ideology, but that's what hate crimes are. Like I said in the last post, if attacking Christians ever becomes a problem because they're Christians, those "terrorists" should get charged accordingly too.

Originally posted by Kidfinger

So you hate gays.

I thought this would be obvious by the thread title.

Feel better now that you have told the world?

Yes, I enjoy having the privlege to discuss such things an openminded forum

Enjoy spreading your hate to others? Like to publically defame people?

No, I like speading my beliefs. Only when the deserve such treatment.

Mods, here is yet another vote to close this thread.

What is your reasoning for doing this?


I surmise that in the near future that it would be capable for such hate laws to become seperate from the parent laws that are currently attached to them (I'm surprised many of you NWO Illuminati conspiracy nuts haven't found this out and jumped all over it, guess it shows where your attention truly is). One day Democrats may take control of the Senate...oh, wait, what did I just say...back to the point, if it were possible for democrats to regain power: what is to stop them from enacting whole new laws stating that no one may defame a gay or black in public or over the radio or television by using the existing attached laws to murder, rape, battery, etc?

RANT,
Stating that it's the criminal in this case that's more special than the victim does put things in a different light, but I'm not sure if it really changes the perspective enough for me to agree with the concept. Regardless of the motivation behind the crime, the crime still occured. I know that if I were shot tomorrow because someone wanted what might be in my wallet or because I said the wrong thing, my fiance wouldn't be sitting at home thinking "Well, at least he wasn't black or gay, it was only because of money."

If I went out and torched a house, what does it matter what my reasons were? The house still burnt down, and someone might have been killed in the process. If it was motivated by bigotry, that doesn't make it any more destructive than if it was because I was mad at my ex or if I just liked to play with fire. Perhaps it's because I've (fortunately) never been directly affected by hate of that nature, but in all honesty someone who was "temporarily insane" scares me a hell of a lot more than some guy yelling "Kill Whitey!" at the top of his lungs.

I would think random acts of violence are more terrorizing than attacks on a specific group. At least with specialized terrorism you have a better chance of figuring out who's behind it and they generally give much better warning signs. A burning cross in someone's yard is generally a good sign that someone is out to get you, and odds are you can figure out who's behind it a lot quicker than if the house next door just blew up for no reason.

While I haven't exactly said it, I don't want to give the impression that I think someone who pulls a .45 in a gay bar and starts taking people out should be treated better than your "average" criminal. I'd actually prefer it to be the other way around--regardless of why you committed a crime, you should be punished as much as possible.

If you killed someone, the only questions to be answered should be was it an accident, was it self defense, or was it malicious? If you meant to take someone's life and your life was in no danger, then you get fried, or life, or whatever the punishment of the week is. I don't care if she cheated on you, or he was black, or you got pissed at the Pats for winning another Super Bowl. Temporary insanity? Who's to say it won't happen again? And we all get mad; most of us are just able to control it. We all have people we hate; again, most of us are just able to control it. The person is still dead, and "why" doesn't really matter any more once you're convicted.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Please, this thread was confusing enough from the very title. He said he hates gays, and I came in here ready to find out why he hates me. Turns out, he isn't talking about people who are full of joy, but is talking about people who practice an abomination!

Hey it won't be long when saying practice an abomination! is a crime in itself. Its coming you know....oh wait, maybe not


Rumor has it that 2 conservative judges might be appointed in something like that big court thingie.....

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Now, when you suggest that one particular group of people should be protected by saying that there murder should carry a heavier penalty than another group of people, you are raising their value above the rest. That is wrong.

No, I didn't. I don't think homosexuality is wrong but I do think outright bigotry is disgusting and vile and should not be encouraged by the mods on ATS.

Furthermore, I am not spreading any hatred for anyone. Knowing right from wrong, righteous from evil, does not mean that you are spreading hatred. As a matter of fact, to suggest that this is the case is simply a diversion you have been taught.

What? I am just questioning your intent in encouraging bigotry and claiming it to be creative!??

Frosty, from this point forward, do not try and be creative or imaginative! Some cannot handle it, and some will understand it but will take the words literally so as to muddy the waters.

PS- I really think he hates gays, and he meant it in the literal sense.

This way, you make the person who recognizes immorality for what it is as the one who is immoral.

I believe one can say homosexuality is immoral (even though I disagree), the original poster didn't even go there...he just plain out hates gays. He never explained why...yet you stuck up for his hatred. That makes me question your intent, especially someone with such strong Christian beliefs as yourself. I'm not twisting your words around, just wondering what exactly you were thinking you silly boy



[edit on 7/12/2005 by Lecky]

I always remember an old saying they told us in College:

State - Explain - Apply.

Now, really he has just stated his point, he has not bothered to explain why he hates them nor has he applied it to a real life situation where it can be proven that homosexuality is wrong.

But then, go search Frosty and look at some of his other posts and the words he uses, such as "Paki" and similar ones.

God, it's not to have him here with us and so glad he could find ATS.

Edit:

RANT gets a gold star and a drink, as he just worked it out.

The law is based on intent as well as the crime, not just the crime in question.

Was that guy bringing drugs into the country for private use or to sell them on?
Was the murder pre-planned or spur of the moment?
Did he pick that man because he was gay or was it a coincidence?
etc, etc, etc.

[edit on 12/7/2005 by Odium]

Originally posted by Odium
Was the murder pre-planned or spur of the moment?
[edit on 12/7/2005 by Odium]

Are you being serious or do you not know what murder means?

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by Odium
Was the murder pre-planned or spur of the moment?
[edit on 12/7/2005 by Odium]

Are you being serious or do you not know what murder means?

Yeah I saw that and thought the same thing, I guess it depends on whether the individual was mistreated as a child and therefore insane when he decided to end someones life.....gets pretty deep really.


Deep dodo that is..

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by Odium
Was the murder pre-planned or spur of the moment?
[edit on 12/7/2005 by Odium]

Are you being serious or do you not know what murder means?

Yeah I saw that and thought the same thing, I guess it depends on whether the individual was mistreated as a child and therefore insane when he decided to end someones life.....gets pretty deep really.

Deep dodo that is..

Basically, if I walk in on my wife sleeping with another man, I go off the handle and shot the guy, I would get less time then if I walked in on them, then later on planned the murder out and attempted to get away with it.

In the U.K. you get 5 years to 10 years more if something is pre-planned(premeditated), the same goes for bank robbing, etc.

SourcePremeditated murder is the crime of wrongfully causing the death of another human being (also known as homicide) after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension. State laws in the United States vary as to definitions of "premeditation." In some states, premeditation may be construed as taking place mere seconds before the murder. Premeditated murder is usually defined as one of the most serious forms of homicide, and is punished more severely than manslaughter or other types of murder.

In the U.S, there is no Federal offense of premeditated murder.

However, as I stated above in the U.K. to pre-plan a murder is a lot worse then if it happens due to a "gut reaction".

And Frosty, I can give you the legal meaning of murder in several Nations, so yes I do know what it means - when you do and the different legal forms of murder, get back to me O.K? (Since my point to RANT was about the legal versions of murder.)

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by Odium
Was the murder pre-planned or spur of the moment?
[edit on 12/7/2005 by Odium]

Are you being serious or do you not know what murder means?

I take it you've never heard of first and second degree murder.
Why exactly do you "hate " gays anyway?
What have they ever done to you?

I don't believe human beings should engage in sexual relations with the same sex as it does not make sense for the survival of our species.

Originally posted by Frosty .....

I like you sig.......nice touch.

Originally posted by Frosty
I don't believe human beings should engage in sexual relations with the same sex as it does not make sense for the survival of our species.

That's all well and good, but what business is it of your who they sleep with? I mean, as long as someone isn't trying to rape you or one of own, what does it matter?

That's something I've wondered for a long time, and I hope you can explain it to me. Is it really worth it? I mean, hating someone because they wouldn't go along with your choice for the hottest person of the year? Or is the hatred one's own fear that they will end up being the object of a homosexual's affection?

I'm truly curious with this; I hope it doesn't sound like I'm trying to flame you or anything.

I hate gays the way I hate Diet Coke or any diet drink in that matter. I am not going saying you can't drink diet coke, I am saying I hate it, plain and simple.

Hating gays isn't like hating Diet Coke. Hating homosexuality might be like hating Diet Coke, but hating homosexuals is like hating people that drink Diet Coke. You may not like it, but why discriminate?

Originally posted by Frosty
I don't believe human beings should engage in sexual relations with the same sex as it does not make sense for the survival of our species.

Survival of our species? What?

It is not like 50% of the world is homosexual, doubtful if even 10% is and in reality 6.3billion people is too large a number for this planet. If anything it is a goof form of population control.

But here is a question for you;
Why are these people attracted to those of the same sex? In your view.

Frosty: I very much doubt the future of our species will be threatened by non-procreative sex. In fact I think China and India have pretty much got it covered even if everyone in America decided to jump on the Good Ship Lollypop.

In any case, perhaps you should be less concerned about what people do with their beds, but it's your right.

Hate is such a nasty term, but I'd bet that you either don't really believe what you are saying or you are at the low end of the bell curve (no offense). Being blunt is catching I guess.

I love you though. So have some fun, grab a coke, and find some peace. It makes for a sunnier day.

Listen people, I hate gays but I'm not saying they can't continue to practice what they do. Where did you people get that form anyway?
I hate gays because it is my choice.

Originally posted by Frosty
Listen people, I hate gays but I'm not saying they can't continue to practice what they do. Where did you people get that form anyway?
I hate gays because it is my choice.

And always will be. The whole premise of your thread though is that "democrats" and "liberals" are trying to outlaw that choice.

And you're wrong.