Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Do you know what hate crime is? It's a crime committed against a person or persons motivated by bigotry. For example, a man lynches another man because he's black. Stopping this is Orwellian? Have you even read 1984?
We have first and second degree murder. That's a case where one murder is more illegal than another. Maybe you'd like to clump involuntary manslaughter with murder one, that way when someone gets in a sober car accident and accidentally kills a passenger, they can get the electric chair? Saying 'murder is murder' is like saying being able to fly like superman is the same as taking a plane (sorry, I'm watching Heroes). There are murders that are worse, and we already have legislation to protect people from being murdered because of things like race, sex, and creed. The idea that this guy voted against adding homosexuality to the list was motivated because he doesn't agree with hate crime laws doesn't make any sense.
Persecuting hate criminals is perfectly fair. If you break the law, you must pay for your mistake.
The road to tyranny is subjugation. It's allowing loud voices to control what we think and do, like convincing us that homosexuals are some sort of threat to us.
|
Sorry Will, you are so far off imo. Don't stop the lynching because he's black. Stop it because they are KILLING A PERSON unjustly. God won't judge me if I kill a black man, or a white man, or a brown man, he will judge me for killing a man period.
The degree of murder or manslaughter isn't based on minority classes or hatred. It's based on if the person had planned to kill, or killed in the heat of the moment or on accident etc. If you're going to base crimes off race you're doing nothing but inciting more hatred and racism. The crime is murder treat it as such, don't bring race, religion, or sexual orientation into the sentence.
Is a person who plans to kill his wife any different than a person who plans to kill a homosexual? They are both pre-meditated murder. Giving the person who killed the gay man a stiffer sentence just puts gays on a higher platform than everyone else.
I support candidates on the issue not on what party they voted for or why they voted against something. Government not recognizing 'gay' marriage is the 'freedom' choice ( or the 'not recognizing an establishment of religion choice'). Just like it would be if they didn't recognize heterosexual marriage. There job is to enforce contracts not recognize religious ceremonies.
Government's job is not to protect the right of different classes, or races, or groups of people, it's job is to protect the right of every "INDIVIDUAL" EQUALLY.