Runoff: homophobia, hate crimes, and tyrany?
 

I don't think this about God. It's probably more about deterrence. The idea would be to regulate societal development by making it clear that bigotry is looked down upon legally. I think that we can all agree that the followin examples of murder are different:
1) A man comes home to find his beloved wife of 12 years in bed with his best friend. He flies into a fit of rage and stabs his friend in the arm. He hits the corroded artery and the man bleeds to death.
2) A man sees a flamboyant (a nice way to say flaming) homosexual leave a bar and decides that, because the Bible says God hates queers, he's going to bash his head in with a baseball bad from the back of his Ford truck.
This isn't just about protecting a minority, which is important, but it's also about motive. In our criminal justice system, we take motive into account when deciding the severity of a crime. If a man steals because his family is starving, he's probably more likely to get a reduces sentence than a guy who stole despite having plenty of money (case in point: Wynonna).
Voting records don't lie. Candidates do. Remember when Bush said he'd never invade another country for their resources? Yeesh.
I think a child rapist should get more time than an adult rapist.
_____________________________________________________________

I don't see any evidence that suggests he's against all hate crime legislation.
Again, I don't see any evidence of that. Not only that, but these two together are a mighty coincidence. Add on the same sex marriage thing and it's almost certain.
It's often a major issue when you're a Republican. Again, we're talking about multiple votes creating a precedence. He clearly has a precedence for voting against homosexuals, and it would have to be for very coincidental and varying reasons for it not to be a bias.
I would argue that being against gay marriage is a withholding of a right, not just kindness or respect...but I don't know your friends.
_________________________________________________________
The definition of genocide is "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group". That's killing out of bigotry, and is thus a hate crime.
Less justice? We're not talking about letting non-hate crime offenders walk. We're talking about the beefing up of the particularly bad crimes.
It's not just a class. It's gender, race, age, creed, orientation, etc.
We're talking about the criminal's intent more than the victim.

Good move, will.

You're claiming that those votes are evidence of homophobia. They aren't. At least not alone. I'd vote the same way and I'm not homophobic. You need more evidence, the burden is on you.

It's a major wedge issue, but not necessarily a major issue in any personal sense. Which brings up a third motive: there's bigotry, there's laziness, and there's political posturing. He might vote that way for the primary/sole purpose of getting votes/funding. Certainly not admirable if true, but not bigotry either.

Not much coincidence or variance is needed here. Just a weakness in unthinkingly towing the party line, or an opposition to hate crime legislation and business regulation coupled with a cursory glance at Webster's and Scandinavia. It's really not that outlandish, and you really haven't made your case yet, unless you were shooting for nothing more than 'plausible'. I'd conceed the word 'plausible' to your assertions.

I wouldn't defend their position, I'd only argue that 'bigoted' isn't an accurate way to describe their position, even if the political outcome is the same as a bigoted position.

TY. I felt like this conversation was important, but I didn't want to threadjack.
And my evidence is circumstantial, but very, very, very coincidental if I'm wrong. Really, this is as much evidence as we'll get without actually speaking to the guy. It it had been just one of those votes, I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. This is 4 separate votes, with 3 separate meanings.
That reminds me of the politician (the name is on the tip of my tongue) who is gay, but voted against gay interests. The thing is, he's not always a party line guy. The campaign finance reforms he's all about are very un-Republican. They're downright brave, frankly. I'm left wondering why someone who took over after Al Gore (LIBERAL) left would have the balls to fight campaign finance reform, but couldn't fight on gay rights.
I'm not saying it's a certainty. I'm saying it's likely. I'll admit my language in my first post on the subject didn't make that clear, but I guess I figured people would pick up on the meaning.
I'll agree there. Actually, this supports my other argument about hate crimes being about motive. We're arguing about the motives, while the voting record remains the same no matter what. That gives us a great deal of knowledge about the man. If he towes the party line, then he's likely to go hard line when in office. If he's a bigot, he may try to reverse some of the pro-homosexual legislation that's managed to squeak by.

BWAHAHHAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Your naivete is cute.

How do you think they attain that subjugation? read your post 13th Amendment history, jim crow laws, black codes, etc...

willravel, if you read my post #28 in the "Republican Fred Thompson officially Announces Candidacy for President. Good News, Or?" thread, you might agree that Thompson's anti gay stance may not be based on his personal homophobia.

It seems that all republican candidates for elected federal office, most especially candidates for president, must embrace the same extreme positions...rabidly partisan against Plame, Wilson, and Patrick Fitzgerald, and irrationally pro Libby, to the extreme of ignoring national security consequences of the Plame CIA leak, in a time of war. They all must privately address TPTB at CNP, and seek the endorsement from it's board of governors. They must be anti-gay, anti-abortion, skeptical of the theory of evolution, and pro intelligent design.
They all must remind us.... 5-1/2 years after 9/11 that an "enemy wants to attack us". They all want "victory" in Iraq. They are all "saved" christians. They are all politically and ideologically, "fringe" candidates...extremely partisan, extremely christian, committed to reviving "Reagan's" legacy.

It's not homophobia, that they personally embrace, it's a mixture of ultra conservative rabidly partisan bullshit, spiced with just the right amount of fear mongering and race/ sexual orientation baiting. Ugly, ignorant....and a proven recipe for moving election results to a close enough actual outcome, that a revamped and totally corrupted and partisanized DOJ can suppress enough opposition votes to clinch close races in their candidates' favor...

"Hate crime" legislation is a ridiculous perversion of "doing the right thing." I certainly don't want myself classified as a type of person to whom a particular crime is "more wrong" than any other law-abiding citizen.

But is bigoted hate more likely to produce repeat offenders than greed or lust or other forms of hate?

It's very possible for a given hate crime to expose the community to more harm and more justified fears than a given greed crime. But the reverse is also true. It depends on the case. And if there's solid indication that the defendant might commit his crime again, whether out of hate or greed, the judge already has the ability to give a sentence closer to the maximum allowed.

The fact that the FBI keeps separate statistics on "hate crimes" - crimes motivated by biases based on race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/ national origin, and disability - is a recognition of the distinction from other crimes of the same nature.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/index.html

I dont know that hate crime legislation is the answer, but it is important to recognize the fact such bigotry is still a serous social problem.

And your condescension is ignored. The fact of the matter is that any crime out of bigotry is a hate crime, and if a crime by a black man were committed against a white man out of racial prejudice, a good lawyer could easily spin that into a hate crime and get the offender an extended sentence. Most crimes committed by black people against white people are theft, though.
Jim Crow laws were about singling out one group to punish. Hate Crime laws are about punishing a bigoted motive. Those are two very separate things.

I'll have to respond to the rest later (work)

I certainly hope you'll forgive any perceived condescension, but will, if you don't know that every single day there are white people killed by black or hispanic people and the media doesn't give a damn, nor do most in the justice system....but god help the white person who kills a black man because then we get to hear jesse jackson and al sharpton rail and rant about the blatant racism in (name your city) and that they expect the DA to charge a hate crime. Face reality my brother, you and I are the most discriminated against species on the planet at this time.

If you were talking civil cases, maybe...but you're talking about a slow crawl justice system with DA's more interested in political careers than you are anything else and the reality of that is, your death or mine just doesn't frickin matter to them. I'm not very up to speed on san fran crime, but here in dallas/fort worth, it's just not the way you describe.

and it's also sliding away from the topic of the OP so i'm not going to threadjack here.

Humor: even more than the cockroach? There are people out there who hate whites more than they hate cockroaches? What about rats? Or fleas?

Not humor: referring to whites as a separate species smacks of deep racism and marginalizes anything associated with that kind of claim. If you're going to stand behind that kind of sentiment, dk, my estimation of you just took a big nosedive.

While I will agree with this up to a point, hate crime laws have been used in black-on-white crime but rarely. Typically those kinds of crime have another motivation along with the hate, typcially robbery or drugs. Blacks just don't go out looking for a random white person to kill as often as whites do.

Wow, just, wow. I'm not saying that jackson and sharpton aren't necessarily full of shit, but this sounds like bullshit. I don't suppose you have any stats concerning interracial murder rates to back this up. If you don't, perhaps you should question the bases for your own beliefs before you call someone else naive.

As for whites being the most discriminated "species" in the world, well, i guess if that's true discrimination isn't so bad, since we (the poor oppressed white people) have managed to account for every president, the majority of congresspeople, and the majority of wealthy people in the united states. Kudos to us, i guess.

Yeah, I'm waiting for dk's explanation of his reference to whites being a separate species, let alone most discriminated against. Traveled much?

Yeah, i think he's probably confusing real oppression with having to deal with the aftereffects of being oppressive. Affirmative action = oppression of white men, immigration = oppression of white men, gun control = oppression of white men, Z.O.G. = oppression of white men, etc.

So, Host, you're saying it's partisanship, not homophobia?

The only condescension perceived was the condescension communicated.

White people are killed every day by people who aren't white, but it has nothing to do with race. They aren't killing someone because they're white. Usually, they're doing it because of theft. Theft is different than a hate crime.

If by species you mean race, then I'm afraid I'll have to disagree by citing the fact that I make over 100k a year, went to great schools, and my daughter is about to go to a great school. I may have been treated like crap by my old manager at Sears, who was black, because he resented me, but I've not felt the sting of bigotry the same way as women, blacks, or homosexuals.
Dallas just had a black man killed by hate crime a few weeks ago. I read something about it (I'll look for an article). We have hate crimes here, too, despite the very liberal nature of the people in this area. It's a problem. The thing is, it's a different problem than non-hate crimes.

I have to ask, do you understand that this discussion's roots lie in the motives behind the crime? If a black person kills a white one for a theft, or for revenge, or for taking his wife, that's one motive; it's not a valid motive to kill a person, but none-the-less, there is a perceived "reason" for the murder, which has nothing to do with hate for who the person is, but hate for what the person has done. If a black man kills a white man for being white, that's a hate crime; the murder arose only because of hate for the race, and had nothing to do what whatever the deceased has done, or whether he was a good person or not.

What's worse? "I'm going to kill that guy for wrecking my car and not having insurance," or, "I'm going to kill that guy for being a cracker (or nigger, spick...whatever, you get the point).

I see a significant difference here, and I'm sure others do as well.

This discussion all boils down to this simple question: Do you believe government should police the thoughts of others?

Thought-policing is what hate-crime legislation is. The crime itself is put aside and the focus is given to what nasty terrible thoughts they were thinking while they committed it. Now, I won't go so far as to whip out my annual income figure like will, but as a non-white non-heterosexual I will defend the right of the KKK to hate me purely for those reasons as much as I will defend the right of another to protest at KKK marches.

Thoughts are not crimes, even when they are ignorant and bigoted bullshit. I wish that people would realize the terrible implications of asking the government to intervene in this way. Ignorance and bigotry is a social issue, not a criminal one. It is something for society -- without government intervention -- to fix.

Are you really going to tell me that the intent isn't important? You're going to tell me the ends of the crime are the only thing we should look at? If that's the case, then what you're proposing would suggest that involuntary manslaughter is the same as premeditated murder (a point I've already made, but something you didn't address). Do you think that involuntary manslaughter and premeditated murder should be punished the same?

Right, right. I'm with you. But a "thought crime" is no longer a simple idea in the mind of the person committing it, when they are in the process of committing it. I agree, the government doesn't have the right to stop the KKK, or Fred Philps, Black Panthers, etc. from voicing their opinions, no matter how ugly and disgusting they are. But if a white kills a black merely because of race, it isn't "thought crime" anymore. It's something else entirely. Its a hate crime, done because of contempt for what the person is, not what the person has done.

If you had another non-heterosexual friend, and someone kills them simply because they were non-heterosexual, and the murderer had never met your friend before, would you be willing to simply categorize it as first or second degree murder? Even though this person was a saint in your eyes, the nicest person you'll ever meet, it wouldn't bother you that they were targeted just for being non-heterosexual?

It's a play on emotions, I know, but the point is still valid.

Will, hate crime legislation addresses neither ends nor means. It addresses intent.

Example:

Intent: to kill a homosexual
Means: baseball bat
End: he dies

It's the intent that would define this as a hate crime, not the end or the means.

Jeez, that was a massive slip. I'll go back and edit.

A moment of devil's advocacy:

Will, would it be appropriate to introduce LEGISLATION to lessen sentences in crimes of passion?

....no, I'm not saying that the target audience of Thompson's "queer baiting" are not homophobic, I'm saying that Thompson is not motivated by his own homophobia, anymore than Lee Atwater was by his own racism, when he said:
....and more from the same link:

While I AM upset intellectually by the idea that if someone kills me (as a white man) out of hate for my race that it is a less serious crime than if a white man kills a black man (or woman) out of hate for their race or sex, I recognize the necessity.

I hate to think that my life is less valuable than another's simply because of my skin color, as it does smack of reverse-racism. And yet I also see a demonstrable public need to stamp out as much racism as humanly possible.

Furthermore, I look at "hate crime" legislation with the same credibility as "premeditated murder" legislation. Certainly a murder still occurred, and the victim suffered pain and death, but I still feel differently about it. If someone accidentally murders someone through their reckless behavior, it is less severe than someone who makes the choice to kill someone out of anger. Worse still is someone who PLANS their attack; they had time to consider their actions, and didn't act out of anger or recklessness. If "premeditation" can be demonstrated and defended, certainly "hate" can be too.

If a person is killed by someone of the opposite race or sex, it should NOT be immediately considered a hate crime. Only when proof exists that the person acted directly out of hate for the other individual should it be acted on. And it should be acted on in exactly the same way that someone convicted of premeditated murder should be acted on.

...so it's the homophobia of his constituents.

You picked a bad example, since involuntary manslaughter is just that -- involuntary. First degree murder and first degree murder committed due to the criminal's hatred of homosexuals is still first degree murder and should be punished equally and harshly.

I do not want to criminalize bigotry or ignorance.

In matters of self-defense (since I am also a gun-owner as well as a conceal-carry licensee) the issue is still relatively simple if you take into consideration the FACTS surrounding a self-defense slaying. Often those who kill in self-defense are not even charged / taken in for questioning because it is so clearly not murder.

"Hate crime" is relatively new terminology. It has not existed forever and is not an absolute. What it is, is a perversion of the examination of intent when it comes to crimes, and even prosecution. It is shamelessly "playing the race card" when it should not even be in consideration. If I were an omnipotent embodiment of "The Law" the intent of someone would matter little to me in the face of the law-breaking. If someone stole bread from a bakery to feed his starving children, he is still a thief. If someone kills a mexican homosexual because he is a bigoted ass, he is still a murderer. Punish for the crime, not the "thought" which he may have used to justify it.

I fail to see the importance of making a distinction in law between someone who kills a) for money to support their drug habit, or b) "cuz dem faggots was askin' fer it." They both are murder and both should carry a heavy sentence.

"Hate crime" distinctions themselves are a play on emotions. They're not logical and reasonable things to consider when trying to judge innocence or guilt of the commission of a crime. So, I don't really see the "point as valid" but instead as proof of how far separated "hate crime" legislation is from a reasonable and objective system of law.

yup....Thompson panders to the racism and homophobia of his constituents...they all do, because their party has to convince folks to vote against their own REAL interests. While the southern white vote streams in and elects corporatist republican candidates because of their "guns, God, n' gays" platform, Thompson and the former republican congressional majority were easily able to pass "bankruptcy reform", against the interests of Tennesseans who experienced the highest rates of home foreclosures, in the US. it works great in Utah, too....another heavily republican state with high foreclosure rates.

It's win win for big corporations and for ignorant fundy christian racist gay bashing idiots lulled into believing that a corporatist shill like Thompson or Bush....are "on their side"....

The necessity being..?

Racism is race-motivated hatred, whether the target it white or black. Labeling hatred of whites as REVERSE racism is inaccurate, and something that really shows the thoughtless emotionalism of the entire debate.

Can, but why should it? Why not just criminalize "hate" entirely and throw people in jail for being bigots? Why wait until another criminal act is committed?

Becuase "hate" is not a crime, just like "premeditation" isn't a crime.

But it does dramatically effect my feeling of the situation if someone is killed accidently by a person hitting them with a car than if they spent three weeks plotting the murder of the person.

You can't reasonably say that the laws now would treat these two murders the same, and I don't think they should be. It's legal precedent at the least, but "moral imperative" at best. In an idealistic sense, laws are based on how we as a society feel about the crimes and how they should be punished. So feeling does have a place in the FORMATION of the laws, but not the enforcement.

We (as a society) feel that premeditation makes a murder worse, so I don't see how it's a logical leap to say that seething hatred for someone doesn't make it worse. It should require demonstration beyond a reasonable doubt, just like the addition of pre-meditation does. Hateful speech, writing, dismemberment or manipulation of the corpses, etc. It should be hard to prove, just like proving intent is in the case of premeditation.

Plotting to kill someone is indeed a crime. In some cases it is called "conspiracy to commit murder."

So: Why not just criminalize "hate" entirely and throw people in jail for being bigots? Why wait until another criminal act is committed?

Having been arrested for Conspiracy to Commit, I can tell you that while conspiracy (with other individuals) is a crime, premeditation is not. This is simple, becuase conspiracy requires you speaking your intent to another individual, making it no longer a thought. I can think about murdering someone all I want (premeditation) but it does not become a crime until I commit it. However, if I conspire (speak the intent to another) then I am no longer just thinking it and it is now criminal.

This makes sense from an enforcement standpoint, as you cannot prove what an individual was actually thinking, but you can prove what they said and what they wrote.

I can think hatred all I want, but if I make it clear through my actions or words spoken to others that I am acting out of hatred towards their class, race, gender, orientation, etc, then I am just as culpable who speaks intent to murder (conspiracy).

That's what I figured. I wonder what's worse: being a massive bigot yourself or being a hypocritical tool of bigots....I'd say the latter. At least with the former, one can simply blame ignorance. The latter is knowing bigotry.
I'm sure you know what the word motive means. We punish differently for different motives, as I made clear in comparing manslaughter to first degree murder.
It's a compound problem. We're not punishing bigotry alone (though there are laws against hiring practices that are bigoted, which I'm sure you agree with), we are punishing bigotry that leads to crime. There is a huge difference between the two concepts.

I like Jinnkai's take on this comparing a hate crime to premeditation.

Will, you keep using this example. I feel that you may be failing to distinguish between the presence of a motive and what the motive is.

To make it more clear, I'll move over to what Jinnkai is saying: hate crimes are to regular crimes as premeditated murder is to murder.

Premeditation is not just "thought" -- it involves planning a crime. E.g. making scheduling arrangements, researching, and otherwise taking action to ensure the crime is committed. Premeditation involves evidence of forethought, whereas labeling something as a "hate crime" plays merely on emotions.

Don't be so sure about what I agree with. :P

So you really wouldn't want to punish someone more for killing someone because of their skin color than someone who killed because he came home to find his wife in bed with another man? They're both, be definition, second degree murder.

In a word, no.

Agreed.

I guess it boils down to a philosophical difference.

why punish the guy who found someone else fucking his wife? could have been rape, you know?

funny, i don't mind the concept behind affirmative action so much, but i think hate crimes are bullshit. you don't kill someone you like.

you hug it out.

it's hard to see through all the straw men...

"hate crime" legislation seems to me well-intentioned but also to somehow miss the point in that it reduces racism to a subjective state--which is obviously incomplete....racism is also a social phenomenon, and the most dangerous dimension of that phenomenon is that context can "normalize" racism. such legislation has nothing to say about that. but i frankly dont know how legislation could be fashioned that would outlaw the normalization of racist or homophobic attitudes. and it is pretty obvious that the production of political arguments that resonate with such attitudes--that presuppose them, that de facto legitimate them---are a working feature of petit bourgeois conservatism. but this is separate...it does follow, so far as i am concerned anyway, that a political movement (or individual politicians who speak to or about the constituency of such a movement) that relies on racism or homophobia to sell itself (or to sell an individual politico) is unacceptable. or should be.

that said, i dont see the problem with such laws--i would imagine that they function to define a particular type of intent--which is always to some extent a construct built backward from an act. if you have some guy who kills someone with premeditation and is an avowed homophobe--say--and the victim is gay and the evidence points to homophobia as a motivation, then why not treat it more severely than other types of intent in that it strikes directly at the individuals who commit crimes across such motives and indirectly at the context(s) within which such attitudes are understood as acceptable.

the entire right liberatarian misinterpretation of the notion of intent--which results in the notion of "thought policing"--seems to me fundamentally wrong in that it assumes that intent is not constructed across evidence and imputed to the accused on that basis--there is no claim that this construct accounts for intent itself (the subjective state of the accused in a trial) itself, and if such was anything like the working definition of intent it would be impossible to establish it ever. an action is what provides the logical center of arguments ABOUT intent that attempt to fit evidence into a type of explanation for the action.

Subject 'A' killed a man

Subject 'A' killed a man because he was gay


anyone see a difference? The only difference is the why. Do we really think that demanding harsher punishment over murder, because of the reason a person was murdered, serves justice? Or is it that people who support this kind of hate crime legislation wish it to serve the purpose of social engineering?

You have any stats on that oppressed white man thing?

As Will already said, it comes down to personal politics and philosophies. In my opinion, if someone kills a friends because they duked it out once, the bad guy lost, then came back with a gun, it's sick, but there was "reason" or "motive" to do so: anger and revenge.

If my friend is a flamboyant homosexual, walking down a street and some homophobe pulls out a gun and kills him BECAUSE he is gay, there is no "motive", no "reason" or "rhyme" or "rationalizing" like the former example.

For me, there's a huge difference. One is out-right hate, the other revolves around an action. I don't know how else to put it.

Yeah, I think so too... Your best reasons are not enough for me, and mine would likely not be enough for you. It's still interesting to hear a different point of view.

All rape is a hate crime. Same with vandalism. Robbery too in many instances.

A man who murders his wife's lover is also commting a hate crime presuming he hates the wife's lover.

All terrorism is a hate crime. Those people hate a lot.

People who blow up abortion clinics are also committing hate crimes since they hate people who perform abortions.

Etc, etc, etc......

Hate crime legislation is very slippery slope.

...and spray-painting swastikas on Jewish tombstones is a hate crime.... verbally attacking lesbians on the basis of their identity is a hate crime... Not only do they affect the victims, the emotional effect they have on their particular communities runs deep.

Hate crime legislation a slippery slope? The quicker the slide, the better.

From where do you derive such generalizations? My guess is from your posterior region, but you're welcome to disprove me with actual studies.

If I can cite one instance of a rapist who raped for sex rather than power, or one tagger who tagged for the fun of it, challenge of it, or artistic ability of it, then your declaration of "all" is useless.

And a bad straw man, at that.

Interesting... you completely avoided the questions that several of us asked in response to your previous post. Hope you're coming back to answer them.

Honestly, if I dropped an un-defendable argument like "white males are the most persecuted" I wouldn't come back to defend it either.

I think that opposing same-sex marriage is a pretty clear sign of anti-gay sentiments. The legal status of the relationship between consenting adults doesn't have much real-world affect on the lives of others. In my opinion, there is no reason to oppose same-sex marriage unless you have a problem with the people who want to marry.

Hate crime laws are another story. Allowing the government to hand out extra punishment to criminals motivated by certain political/social views is a dangerous road to go down. There's nothing inherently homophobic (or racist, sexist, etc.) about opposing hate crime laws. But, in fairness, I'm guessing that most "hatemongers" probably oppose hate crime laws as well.

I'm hesitant to throw out the "anti-gay card" simply because it should be a last resort when arguing with people who are opposed to same-sex marriage. There are indeed legitimate reasons to oppose gay marriage legislation (mine is to avoid further legislating a social contract -- my solution would be for ALL marriages to become "civil unions" in the eyes of the State), however I can think of none to justify the support of "..ONLY between a man and a woman.." constitutional amendments and the like.

well, first off you misquoted me....and horrendously at that. Was that on purpose?

What I SAID was that white males are the most DISCRIMINATED against at this time, what with affirmative action and all.

Are there studies? who knows and who cares...you wouldn't believe them anyway. I'd hear nothing but excuses about how the study is skewed to produce particular results or that it's just karma for the last 200 years or some other such crap. If you refuse to see reality, far be it from me to rock your fantasy.

Who cares if there isn't any evidence or data to support dksuddeth's theory that it's not Blacks or Asians or Latinos who are discriminated against...no way José. It's white men. It's the people who have been in charge of everything for hundreds of years. It's the people who occupy the richest of the rich not only in the US, but worldwide. It's the only race and gender that has ever been president of the US. It's the race and gender that's most likely to get hired for a job, or star in a movie, or do much of anything.

I can make up things, too:
- Asians can fly and fire energy blasts
- Jules Verne hated cream pies
- George W. Bush is actually a woman
- Axe body spray is people!
- If you play a trombone backwards, you can travel through time


See how silly that is?

Racism isn't racism if it's directed toward white men, it's just payback for hundreds of years of injustice perpetrated by other people who look just like them.

Is that what you're trying to say? :)

Seretogis, dksuddeth said this:
The most? Are you really going to line up behind that? Everyone is discriminated against. I've been discriminated against, and I'm German/Irish. Am I the most discriminated against? Shit no. Not even close. White males still run the show, and are still probably the least discriminated against. The idea that we are the most discriminated against is delusional (note: I'm calling the idea delusional, not the person that had the idea).

I'm not sure how legalizing same-sex marriage results in a social contract, but I wouldn't define your position as anti-gay. On the other hand, I wouldn't define your position as simply being opposed to same-sex marriage, either. Most people who oppose same-sex marriages aren't calling for all marriages to be redifined as civil unions. They usually want marriage for heterosexual couples and no marriage for same-sex couples. I guess I should rephrase my statement to say, "Believing that same-sex couples don't deserve the same legal status as heterosexual couples is a pretty clear sign of anti-gay sentiments."

People generally don't demand discrimination against a group of people unless they have a problem with that group of people. This applies to everything from the old caste system in India to bans on same-sex marriage to Jim Crow laws to affirmative action.

It's okay for some people punished for the actions of others simply because they looked similar? Wow! If that doesn't set up an endless cycle of hostility, I don't know what will! That's bound to stir up resentment from the people being punished for shit they didn't do. :orly:

EDIT: I've surpassed 300 posts. :thumbsup:

You'd think that would be generally true, but in my experience it frequently isn't. There aren't any good reasons to support such discrimination, but there are non-bigoted reasons. If I accepted the idea that gay marriage destabilizes the institution, or that a lower childbirth rate could result, I could support the discrimination without the aid of any animosity toward the group.

Why would I accept such an idea, if not for pre-existing bigotry? Well, there's groupthink, casual/lazy examination of the evidence, and getting my information from people with an ideological axe to grind. Any of those can result in my acceptance of a position that, in reality, isn't very sound. And the alleged prerequisite of bigotry can be bypassed entirely.

Of course, there are people who claim to "hate the sin, not the sinner", yet show at least a little disdain for the noticeable ones that pass their way. And even the ones who show friendliness outwardly might have a prejudice they hide within. But I prefer to take an innocent until proven guilty stance with this stuff.

I was referring to marriage itself as a social contract. It is something which social institutions should define, not government. Government should only recognize/support a legal binding of people such as a civil union or business partnership. It should not become involved in "defining marriage" any moreso than it should be invovled in defining the qualifications necessary to become a stand-up comedian.

Agreed.

seretogis,

i agree on your take on civil unions...i'd extend it to polyamorous groups as well...i don't really see the problem with bigamy, personally.

If that's the case, then deregulating marriage is something you'd support. If homosexuals are allowed to be joined in a legal union, with all of it's various benefits, then the other stuff is their business. Let them go find a pastor or a priest or imam that is willing to do it. Shoot, do it yourselves. I'll do it. Philosophical marriage can be what you want it to be.

When the government says that Frank can't visit Jim in the hospital because he's not a 'spouse', it's wrong. It doesn't matter if you agree with their lifestyle or whatever. Many of my friends are gay, but if I ever saw them consummating I'd get sick to my stomach. It's not about that. It's about their rights. It's about all men being created equal.

will, i don't think there's any disagreement on that between yourself and seretogis.

I was adding on more than anything else.

ahhh...i'll quit playing mediator then :)

I completely agree. deregulation is the way to handle the issue, not piling more regulations on.

I see allowing gay marriage as a step towards deregulation. Continuing the ban on gay marriage is the continuation of the regulation. I'm not sure, but I believe that we may disagree on this point.

Piling more regulation on top of regulation is not a step towards deregulation. It simply would result in a smaller number of people (bigamists for instance) being discriminated against. Complete deregulation is the only reasonable way out, imo.

I think I agree with you here. Legalizing gay marriage would seem to lead to a closer resemblance between legal marriage and the ideal civil union thing. I guess I'd have to know what the ideal means, how a proper civil union (from a libertarianish perspective) would differ from what the government currently does with marriage. But gay marriage would at least establish that legal marriage is a legal contract that doesn't necessarily involve God, tradition, or procreation. (Las Vegas eloping should've already taken care of the first two.)

Of course deregulation is best, but this kind of thing happens one of two ways: 1) revolution, featuring beheadings and such, or 2) slow, gradual change. Legalizing gay marriage is part of the slow, gradual change towards deregulation. You see how allowing gay marriage is more free than not allowing it, right? Allowing gay marriage isn't regulation, it's deregulation.