Focus on the Family says Equal Rights for Homosexuals

[jeremiah]

Erm, yes.. a crime. Since when is hating someone a crime? :squint:

As long as one doesn't act on said hate with any more than speech, you're fine.

Do you think you could "equally" apply your thinking to others. For example. Suppose we had Christian hate crimes, wherein the penalty is doubled. Are you still OK with that.

You can hate Christians as long as you don't act on that hate. If you do the penalty is doubled. Would you agree with that law, if it was lawfully passed, by legislatures, as the homosexual hate crimes laws were, here in the U.S.?

 

[Layla]

Do you think you could "equally" apply your thinking to others. For example. Suppose we had Christian hate crimes, wherein the penalty is doubled. Are you still OK with that.

You can hate Christians as long as you don't act on that hate. If you do the penalty is doubled. Would you agree with that law, if it was lawfully passed, by legislatures, as the homosexual hate crimes laws were, here in the U.S.?

Where did I say I thought hate crimes were a good concept? I think they're stupid, personally.. a crime is a crime. If someone's murdered, it's wrong, regardless of whether it's for reasons based on race, homosexuality, or just random brutality. I was simply responding to you saying that to hate homosexuals is a crime, which is not true.

 

[amosman]

I didn't tell Lighthouse not to ask why. I simply reminded him that his statement was not currently accurate, as homosexuality is not currently a crime.

If a government passes a law making it legal to kill Jews, then that would not be a crime anymore. Right? No. It is still a crime regardless. So is homosexuality. A crime against nature.

 

[jeremiah]

Where did I say I thought hate crimes were a good concept? I think they're stupid, personally.. a crime is a crime. If someone's murdered, it's wrong, regardless of whether it's for reasons based on race, homosexuality, or just random brutality. I was simply responding to you saying that to hate homosexuals is a crime, which is not true.

I agree with your reasoning, and I can see that you are not being hypocritical. Good for you.

I simply disagree with your conclusion, at the "very end". Hating homosexuality is a crime in the U.S. I can draw no other conclusion from the double penalty invoked on the one found guilty. If it is not, then punish him for the mugging e.g. When you add a second equal penalty. You are stating explicitely, and implicitely, hating homosexualitiy and homosexuals, is a crime in the U.S.A.

 

[CRASH]

And against society and God.

 

[Layla]

If a government passes a law making it legal to kill Jews, then that would not be a crime anymore. Right? No. It is still a crime regardless. So is homosexuality. A crime against nature.

We're not talking about morals, or crimes against nature. We're talking about laws -- societal constructs. If a government made a law making it legal to kill Jews, it'd be legal to kill Jews in that society. Moral, no.

 

[amosman]

And against society and God.

That's right.

 

[amosman]

We're not talking about morals, or crimes against nature. We're talking about laws -- societal constructs. If a government made a law making it legal to kill Jews, it'd be legal to kill Jews in that society. Moral, no.

We hung German judges for killing Jews because the tribunal found them guilty of a crime against mankind.

 

[Layla]

I agree with your reasoning, and I can see that you are not being hypocritical. Good for you.

I simply disagree with your conclusion, at the "very end". Hating homosexuality is a crime in the U.S. I can draw no other conclusion from the double penalty invoked on the one found guilty. If it is not, then punish him for the mugging e.g. When you add a second equal penalty. You are stating explicitely, and implicitely, hating homosexualitiy and homosexuals, is a crime in the U.S.A.

That doesn't entirely make sense. You can't call it a crime, in itself, when no people are arrested for simply hating when it's unconnected to any other crime.

 

[Layla]

We hung German judges for killing Jews because the tribunal found them guilty of a crime against mankind.

Yup. Because a group of people tried to make their own laws, which the larger societies disagreed with. That doesn't change that laws are a societal construct.

 

[mojill]

Newsflash: But it should be!

What should be the punishment for all those preachers and teachers and doctors and lawyers and sunday school teachers and pro-athletes and soldiers and neighbors, friends, and family members of yours?

 

[amosman]

Yup. Because a group of people tried to make their own laws, which the larger societies disagreed with. That doesn't change that laws are a societal construct.

Homosexuality is harmful to society and individuals.

 

[CRASH]

What should be the punishment for all those preachers and teachers and doctors and lawyers and sunday school teachers and pro-athletes and soldiers and neighbors, friends, and family members of yours?

I don't want to punish any of those people, except mabe the liars, I mean, lawyers. They are the scum of the earth. :hammer:

 

[Layla]

Homosexuality is harmful to society and individuals.

Erm. How is this a relevant response to what I said?

 

[amosman]

Erm. How is this a relevant response to what I said?

It probably wasn't. It was just my last words before going on to something else.

 

[Layla]

It probably wasn't. It was just my last words before going on to something else.

Productive. :chuckle:

 

[jeremiah]

That doesn't entirely make sense. You can't call it a crime, in itself, when no people are arrested for simply hating when it's unconnected to any other crime.

Then I simply go back to my other point. If there were a law where you got double the penalty, if you beat up a Christian, as opposed to a non Christian, then you are agreeing with yourself and stating, that it is not a crime to hate Christians, and you have nothing to worry about, as you say.

You then have two problems, they specifically call it a "hate" crime, and they are specifically punishing you for hating, "Christians" {hypotheticaly} or homosexuals. Does that make sense?

No, you do not "yet" get arrested "just" for hating. But we are "very" "very" close. One more national election, and a few more years, and people will be arrested and cuffed in their own Churches.



If you are guilty of the mugging, you are then guilty of hating, "if" the one you mugged was a homosexual. It is becoming a presumption and assumption, rather than needing to be proved. You are punished for the mugging, then after that time is served, you serve an equal time for hating, a homosexual. I am sorry, IA, I don't know how to make it any clearer.

I suppose you would actually have to live here and feel the growing hatred and injustice towards Christians, and the Bible, to understand. I know that England is much more secular and Homosexually oriented, than we are in the U.S.

Therefore I don't know if you can appreciate the difficulties of traditional Christianity, and American values.

 

[Layla]

Then I simply go back to my other point. If there were a law where you got double the penalty, if you beat up a Christian, as opposed to a non Christian, then you are agreeing with yourself and stating, that it is not a crime to hate Christians, and you have nothing to worry about, as you say.

I know loads of people who hate Christians. Attacks on people on religious grounds can be considered hate crimes, so I'm not sure what you mean, here. You're free to hate anyone you want as long as you don't do it violently.

You then have two problems, they specifically call it a "hate" crime, and they are specifically punishing you for hating, "Christians" {hypotheticaly} or homosexuals. Does that make sense?

They're not punishing you for your hate, they're punishing you for acting on it. It makes no more sense to me than to you, though, as what crime is committed out of love? It's a silly term. It doesn't mean it's illegal to hate, though.

No, you do not "yet" get arrested "just" for hating. But we are "very" "very" close. One more national election, and a few more years, and people will be arrested and cuffed in their own Churches.

Slippery slope fallacy..

If you are guilty of the mugging, you are then guilty of hating, "if" the one you mugged was a homosexual. It is becoming a presumption and assumption, rather than needing to be proved. You are punished for the mugging, then after that time is served, you serve an equal time for hating, a homosexual. I am sorry, IA, I don't know how to make it any clearer.

That's not true at all. Each case is taken on merit, not every case that involves violence against a black person, or a homosexual, is automatically labelled a hatecrime.

I do agree, though, that it should serve no greater sentence. A crime is a crime. The motivation is useful to know so as to prevent future crime, but it should not be a basis for sentencing, in this way.

I suppose you would actually have to live here and feel the growing hatred and injustice towards Christians, and the Bible, to understand. I know that England is much more secular and Homosexually oriented, than we are in the U.S.

Therefore I don't know if you can appreciate the difficulties of traditional Christianity, and American values.

We have the hatecrime laws, same as you. We are more religiously apathetic and secular as a culture, though, it's true.

 

[jeremiah]

......but assuming the cases are taken on merit, you can be found guilty of hating a homosexual and punished for hating a homosexual. Agreed?

Also please define slippery slope fallacy, I don't know what you mean. I do know what slippery slope "reality" is, as it applies to the loss of free speech, and homosexual "rights."?

 

[Layla]

......but assuming the cases are taken on merit, you can be found guilty of hating a homosexual and punished for hating a homosexual. Agreed?

Yeah, I agree. I guess this is all semantics, really, could see it either way depending on how you choose to word it.

Also please define slippery slope fallacy, I don't know what you mean. I do know what slippery slope "reality" is, as it applies to the loss of free speech, and homosexual "rights."?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

It may not be fallacious reasoning to suppose that hate crimes may lead to restricted speech and thought police, and such, but you need to provide independent reasoning in order to demonstrate that.