Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

This could work if there was some strict criteria to tie the action to reasoning. Like, you kill a guy, ok you're up for murder, turns out in the investigation you did it because he was gay, now there's two charges.

At 8/7/07 04:04 PM, stafffighter wrote: This could work if there was some strict criteria to tie the action to reasoning. Like, you kill a guy, ok you're up for murder, turns out in the investigation you did it because he was gay, now there's two charges.

Unless we start making Gay hate carry more of a penalty then 1st degree homicide, I don't see the point.

The intent was to murder, the motive was because he was gay.
But in most cases of the law, the motive is meaningless.

At 8/7/07 03:16 PM, fli wrote:
you were comparing being a rapist to being homosexual.

And you hence prove my point that you are, in fact, a dumb fuck. If you were smart you would realise I was not. But I did manage to find your typecast:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warrior shtm/ferouscranus.htm

At 8/7/07 01:50 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: I want a straight protection bill.

It's just a piece of paper to make gays feel better.

Oh and by the way... in the racial matter... it seems that based on the statistics, there should be a white protection bill, to protect whites from minorities.

Racist! I bet that site was founded by the KKK!

This is one argument, however... there isn't really any legislation for gays. They have to actively search and argue to be under certain ones... and it doesn't always work. It would only expand the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include queers.

Ok. I didn't realize gender and gender identity weren't already protected.

I could argue the legislation that makes it a crime to lynch black people is redundant. Because it's already a crime to murder people, right?

Yeah, it is. But I understand the point of such laws. The only thing I'm worried about now is how it defines the new protection. Are just gays covered, or does it cover the entire LGBT community?

As an aside:
I'm with Rav. I don't understand why a hate crime gets treated differently than another crime. I think it can lead to some bad judgements, where someone might get locked up longer on the basis of a hate crime when in reality the issues covered by hate crime laws weren't applicable.

I don't know why we don't just intensify the current laws for 1st degree murder or assault and battery. In essence, these crimes are committed out of "hate" anyways, whether it be racial or for some other reason. Why one merits more punishment seems to be a reminder of our aversion to genocide or something.

I see what the topic starter is saying, and I want to agree with him, but logic tells me that our country needs to stop making any law, that only is designed for one group, singling out people is wrong, what makes them so special, it is like affirmative action, it is wrong to help one but not the other.

as far as religion goes, NO LAW should be made to restrict there freedom, it is what our country was founded on.
;
is it any worse to beat a Gay man than it is to beat a straight man who looks at you wrong? if you are the type of person who is so violent that you hurt people because of what the do behind closed doors, or what they believe, then you should be punished equally as you would any other person, but not more.

to me what that bill says is we are special and deserve to be treated like it, when in-fact the way it should be id ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUIL, no person deserves to be treated better or worse, whatever the case, be it Skin color, religious beliefs, or sexual preference.
;
IF you are understanding what I am trying to convey that a crime is a crime and should be punished according to it but not any harsher because in doing so you set yourself apart from everyone else, witch should be what you are trying to stop..
;
our country is being torn apart by this Liberal mindset, and it MUST STOP.. everything that makes us AMERICANS, is being challenged and slowly getting destroyed.

DIVERSITY is a beautiful thing, but it must not be allowed to overcome what our nation was founded on.
TRUE EQUALITY is what is important.

At 8/6/07 07:38 PM, Imperator wrote: Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand the need for a separate bill specifically designed for gays.

Aren't they already protected under existing human rights laws, or does this bill contain something extra that isn't covered?

Maybe I just didn't read thoroughly enough.....

It's not specifically for hays, it's for hate-crime in general. So it applies to crimes where the sexual orientation of the victim was the "triggering" thing, be it homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. It also applies for racist crime and the like.

At 8/7/07 09:58 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 8/7/07 03:16 PM, fli wrote:
you were comparing being a rapist to being homosexual.

And you hence prove my point that you are, in fact, a dumb fuck. If you were smart you would realise I was not. But I did manage to find your typecast:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warrior shtm/ferouscranus.htm

wait, wait, wait...
You get the silly notion that if we make this law... it would lead and eventual compound to worser things that may include... sympathy of rapists.

What did I get wrong?

"But to be honest, definining hate crimes reaches a blurred line when it comes to personality things like someone's gayness. What if people like rapists start to try and say they should be protected from their victim's families commiting crimes against them. By strict definition, killing a rapist for being a rapist is a hate crime, not one which I would condemn, but still a hate crime."

And you give a hissy fit because it's not exactly what you said, but... I've read your post again and it's clear that you're creating a slippery slope of an argument by saying, "We can't pass this law because it blures the lines of hate crimes, and if we do this for gays... then RAPISTS will ask for protection too because, since they're hated, killing them is like a hate crime."

What the flying fuck is the huge bleeding motherfucking mistake in your words? You made an absolutely stupid claim (though, I would never say anything so bluntly even if it were true... UNLESS you're gonna be a mother's bloody cunt with me and provoke me...) and I said that that fear is baseless. Because it makes no friggin sense! Think about it... with COMMON SENSE.

How soon do you expect hate crime protection... for rapists? Better yet, how soon will you find people symphsizing with rapists in general?

A-douuuhh...

And all this,
all the while you're acting like an indignant bitch,
even after you've ignored my wonderful and sound rebuttle about White people not getting protection of the law... Because White is a race, just like Black, or Asian, or Island Pacificer or whatever. And for whatever reason, you've ignored that argument in lieu of calling me names. Which I was good enough to ignore for the first few times.

Jesus Crist-- *eye rollie*
how about halting your hissy fit Ugly Betty and grow a pair.

At 8/8/07 05:33 AM, fli wrote:

wait, wait, wait...
You get the silly notion that if we make this law... it would lead and eventual compound to worser things that may include... sympathy of rapists.

Which, any non-dumb fuck would know is not the same as comparing being gay to being a rapist like you assumed it did. And the notion isn't really that silly, who are you to say where people will draw the line with this? If you protect people from being targeted for a particular lifestyle, surely it won't be the last "lifestyle" people choose to want protected from "hate crimes". And that's the problem. Although your primitive mind can not comprehend this, "rapists" were just an example. If they put together a law that says any crime involving hate gets punished(which is not all that unlikely), that would do just that. Punish any hate crime, including those against people like homuicidal maniacs and rapists. If you target specific groups like gay people, then you create a social ladder. The point, which you can't for the life of you comprehend is that any hate crime legislation is bad, and causes more problems than it will ever solve.

At 8/8/07 06:25 AM, JerkClock wrote: And the notion isn't really that silly, who are you to say where people will draw the line with this? If you protect people from being targeted for a particular lifestyle, surely it won't be the last "lifestyle" people choose to want protected from "hate crimes".

Be pratical. We have at least protected people's races, relgions, nationalities, and gender for 40 years... and the world hasn't ended. (At least, not because of that.)

40 years ago, White people were like, "If we give the Blacks legal protection, then latter on they will be enslaving us! And then anarchy will follow. We can't allow this to happen... it's going to open a Pandora's Box." And guess what? No such thing happened. The world continued, and the law protected people as a Race, Religion, Nationality and Gender. And while hate crimes continued... Justice became much more swifter because of these laws. And at the same time, it made the message loud and clear to people: We won't tolerate violence stemmed by hate of a person's skin, or belief, or orgin, or sex status.

And that's the problem. Although your primitive mind can not comprehend this, "rapists" were just an example. If they put together a law that says any crime involving hate gets punished(which is not all that unlikely), that would do just that. Punish any hate crime, including those against people like homuicidal maniacs and rapists. If you target specific groups like gay people, then you create a social ladder. The point, which you can't for the life of you comprehend is that any hate crime legislation is bad, and causes more problems than it will ever solve.

And your example sucked balls majorily. It's logically flawed. It's like comparing the accident of car accident to the accident of Chernobyl's nuclear meltdown. While anyone can see that both things are accidents... it's obvious you can't compare neither things because each situation is totally different.

And so you use this flawed comparison to, really-- to appeal the fear of people... of a make believe "Pandora's Box."

And here's something you've have not seen:
Not all Hate crime is punished. You claim that punish all hate crime, but by not adding homosexuality and transgenderdness... the laws of 1968 are, in effect, IMCOMPLETE. By not approving these laws, you're revealing a self-contradictory circular logic. A Catch 22 type of paradox.

You say, " If they put together a law that says any crime involving hate gets punished... that would do just that."

BUT, for the mean while, the only thing that the 1968 laws protect are Race, Relgion, Nationality and Gender. That nearly protects every type of person we have within the United States... except for Gay people, and the Transgendered.

By adding gay and the transgendered to the list, we have effectively protected nearly everyone who can be considered a target for certain types of hatred. (And I know, you're gonna peep up right now and say, "Well, whad-a-bout them poor rapists and pedophiles?" Well shucks darn feller, I havun't thought about them... seeing that they're felons, and being of a certain race, relgion, nationality, gender, sexuality and transgenderdness isn't a felony. But a human characteristic thing dealing with values and all that wonderful human stuff.

But you're stuck on this notion that this is giving certain "extra" privilages to a certain people! When really...

It's just finally equalizing everyone under the law... at least, under that law.

At 8/8/07 03:29 AM, troubles1 wrote: I see what the topic starter is saying, and I want to agree with him, but logic tells me that our country needs to stop making any law, that only is designed for one group, singling out people is wrong, what makes them so special, it is like affirmative action, it is wrong to help one but not the other.

I'l have to quote myself:
It's not specifically for gays, it's for hate-crime in general. So it applies to crimes where the sexual orientation of the victim was the "triggering" thing, be it homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. It also applies for racist crime and the like.

Please, read what the law says first.

:(1) constitutes a crime of violence under federal law or a felony under state, local, or Indian tribal laws; and (2) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim or is a violation of state, local, or tribal hate crime laws.

That is what it's about.

At 8/8/07 06:53 AM, fli wrote: It's just finally equalizing everyone under the law... at least, under that law.

And there is one more important thing; Rapists are usually hated because they have raped someone, and child molesters since they have molested someone. Race, religion, sexual orientation and such, isn't about what you do but what you are.

At 8/7/07 02:09 PM, CommanderX1125 wrote: To create laws that give stiffer penalties to people based on race, religion, or sexual preferences seems to do nothing but create rifts within society and increasing stereotypes that are alread over used, thus continueing the problem. As for the mention that a gay guy got assaulted and the people who did it got nothing but some slaps on the wrist and a tongue lashing, well thats the police who dropped the ball, not the laws.

;
This is exactly how I feel as well.
Whenever legislators decide to enact laws based on one group or another, it sends a message of different people in a society are somehow more & or less protected by law.
In Canada we have laws that are based on no discrimination under the law based on anything. Doesn't even matter if your a 10 times murdering child molester, you still have all rights applicable under the law if your caught to, fair trial, humane treatment, privacy etc.

The fact that it is set out that anyone who does anything discriminatory based on sex, ethnic background, religion, sexual orientation is guilty of discrimination. All of our laws are based on this & I personally see no reason that there should be a discrimination law for whites, another for blacks, a different one for hispanics, gays, women etc. etc. Its all bullshit.
All you need is one group of laws that EVERYBODY is covered by.
Anything else is just another form of discriminating as well as pointing out that this group is somehow different/special & needs preferencial treatment.
THe only way in my opinion that we can ever truely be one society of equal citizens is if the laws of the land are applied equally to everyone, no matter what.

At 8/8/07 07:49 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: And there is one more important thing; Rapists are usually hated because they have raped someone, and child molesters since they have molested someone. Race, religion, sexual orientation and such, isn't about what you do but what you are.

I couldn't agree anymore...

At 8/8/07 06:53 AM, fli wrote:
Be pratical. We have at least protected people's races, relgions, nationalities, and gender for 40 years... and the world hasn't ended. (At least, not because of that.)

40 years ago, White people were like, "If we give the Blacks legal protection, then latter on they will be enslaving us! And then anarchy will follow. We can't allow this to happen... it's going to open a Pandora's Box." And guess what? No such thing happened. The world continued, and the law protected people as a Race, Religion, Nationality and Gender. And while hate crimes continued... Justice became much more swifter because of these laws. And at the same time, it made the message loud and clear to people: We won't tolerate violence stemmed by hate of a person's skin, or belief, or orgin, or sex status.

But at the same time it was much less realistic than the possibility of a general hate crime bill.

And your example sucked balls majorily. It's logically flawed. It's like comparing the accident of car accident to the accident of Chernobyl's nuclear meltdown. While anyone can see that both things are accidents... it's obvious you can't compare neither things because each situation is totally different.

If only the overwhelming majority of the population wasn't incredibly stupid I would agree. The problem is you assume people would be logical enough to know the proper place to draw the line at. But they aren't. You give a guy morphine for his broken leg and the guy next to him with a minor laceration cries foul that he didn't get it too, because hey, he was also injured and feeling pain. You give someone a raise for doing his job efficiently, and his slower co-worker demands one too because hey, he also got the job done,. And yes, people do this. It'll be the same with hate crimes. Sure it'll be a bit more gradual than that, but it'll probably come to pass that they pass a bill that punishes any crime involving hate, which by definition, would have to punish those against absolute scum bags.

But you're stuck on this notion that this is giving certain "extra" privilages to a certain people! When really...

It's just finally equalizing everyone under the law... at least, under that law.

But would getting rid of hate crime legislation altogether not do the same?

At 8/8/07 03:29 AM, troubles1 wrote: I see what the topic starter is saying, and I want to agree with him, but logic tells me that our country needs to stop making any law, that only is designed for one group, singling out people is wrong, what makes them so special, it is like affirmative action, it is wrong to help one but not the other.

But, the law does not single out any group. Every person alive has a sexual preference and a sexual identity. Regardless of which those are, this bill would help prevent violence against them.

is it any worse to beat a Gay man than it is to beat a straight man who looks at you wrong? if you are the type of person who is so violent that you hurt people because of what the do behind closed doors, or what they believe, then you should be punished equally as you would any other person, but not more.

Heterosexuals would receive the same sort of protection as homosexuals...

to me what that bill says is we are special and deserve to be treated like it, when in-fact the way it should be id ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUIL, no person deserves to be treated better or worse, whatever the case, be it Skin color, religious beliefs, or sexual preference.

Why can't all men be protected based on sexual preference/identity? This bill does not single out any groups. The protection is universal.

IF you are understanding what I am trying to convey that a crime is a crime and should be punished according to it but not any harsher because in doing so you set yourself apart from everyone else, witch should be what you are trying to stop..

I believe that certain crimes deserve harsher punishments based on motivation. Criminals who hate are more likely to repeat the crime, and therefore they should receive a greater punishment the first time around to discourage them. Moreover, the perception of a more severe sentence would help deter potential first-timers from enacting fantasies of violence against the objects of their hate. And lastly, studies have shown that the victims of a hate crime carry their scars longer as a result of being targetted based on the type of person that they are, rather than the situation they were in.