You didn't get the entire purpose of my argument. I'm arguing that, the reason many are opposed to it is because they don't feel they really need that extra protection. I'm not agreeing with that by any means, but it is an example of what someone might refute your argument with.
Well, sorry then. I was arguing with the assumption it is your personal position, not an example of attitudes you know from others.
Anyway, I am sure that minorities of any kind do need extra protection to balance the fact that minorities are vulnerable.
Did you even read what I just said? What I said alotted to that the justice system is passive, and provides everyone equal protection without discrimination or specification.
I could argue that passing this law would not make things less equal. All people would be equally protected from violence from homophobes. A person doesn't have to *really* be a homosexual to fall victim to anti-homosexual hate crimes.
Yes, yes you can. Bias in law is "having a preference to one particular point of view or ideological perspective". Bias has and is a two-sided coin, but you should understand that bias isn't particularly "bad", its just subjective as opposed to objective.
If there would exist a pro-homosexual bias amongst judges, I am sure that legislation could be passed to counter that.
Also, if we assume that homosexuals simply deserve equal rights, then to be biased in their favor a judge would have to believe that they deserve *more* rights than heterosexuals. Such a thing never happened, neither in USA or in Europe. (unless we have different definitions of equal rights and such)
The entire point of my argument is that a biased judge might enact protection that is not needed, whereas suitable protection might already be in place. Overly-sympathetic legislation is what this would safe-guard against, so that no one recieves special treatment where it might not be needed. Also, just because you haven't seen such a case doesn't mean it has happened, will happen, or has the potential to happen. That's the "I've never seen this, therefore it cannot be real or ever exist!" fallacy if I've ever seen it. Prejudice as a means for bias is only a small part of what we might see in the courtroom, sadly.
(Note that a judge does not enact 'protection' but gives a sentence. Giving a harsher sentence is not a 'reward' to the victim.)
Pro-homosexual bias is something that exists only in theory. You say it *could* happen.
Anti-homosexual bias is in my opinion more likely, at least in today's society.
I also think that anti-homosexual bias in action can cause much more harm than the theoretical pro-homosexual bias.
My best friend, whom was my companion through college as a roomate even, was a lesbian. She died of AIDS three years ago, and she was a great Christian, a great person, and very knowledgeable of the situation homosexuals face in society. Please, don't question my motives here. Part of debate is giving equal representation to all sides; by no means do I agree with every argument I have put forth, I am merely providing that stance to show where one might refute the questions and statements that you have raised.
It would make it easier if you'd state from the very beggining which arguments you agree with and which are given for informative purposes.
It's a thing 'playing devil's advocate' and it can be confusing if it's not stated from the start.
Now, I won't dig into or question your personal experiences. It's your good will to mention details about your life and a passed away friend. I assume you say what you really feel.
I'm United Methodist (Christian - Protestant), and a rising majority of my denomination is committing to a new approach to homosexuality. Our religion teaches us that, in God's eyes, a sin is a sin is a sin is a sin (granted, I personally do not think homosexuality is a sin). We use this as justification to say that, since we are all sinners (part of Christianity is coming to terms with this), then we should treat homosexuals just as we do each other, and without the prejuidice others would show.
If you don't treat homosexuality as a sin then we shouldn't be arguing. Myself I am sympatethic towards religion and I'm happy when I see attitude towards sexuality becoming normal in many denominations.
A belief that homosexuality is a sin, no matter if it's big or small, is something that in my opinion cannot be accepted. But that's a different topic.
Entirely true, psychology is an idealistic field. We always try to instill morales of discernment between crime and consequence in reformed individuals, but when that fails, usually fear of consequence DOES become the motivator-- as much as we don't want that to happen.
I'm sure that the justice system would be improved if idealistic psychologists would get more to say about things.
But the way things are right now, jail is a deterrent and I'm basing my opinions on the current state of it.
TO CLARIFY: I personally belief that a generality clause, including "sexuality" with no further specifications, should be added to hate-crime legislation. While legislaters are on the subject, I would also like them to further consider and other factors they may wish to add, so that no amendments will need to be made in the future.
I also believe that this would be a better solution.
Both to prepare for the future and because it would save the unpleasant task of using legal language to define what 'homosexuality' actually is.
I apologize if I got you nervous over this matter. It's something very important to me, so I can't just ignore the matter and not respond to the concerns raised. But when it comes to the things I actually care about so much, we seem to have no disagreements.