You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 09, 2016, 03:31:43 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Gotta Love Compassionate Conservatives . . .  (Read 3487 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Monica

Re: Gotta Love Compassionate Conservatives . . .
« Reply #25 on: May 20, 2007, 05:57:42 PM »
Quote
I have no problem with all sexual preferences being protected under the hate crime legislation. But right now, it's only homosexual people that are targets of hate-motivated attacks. Other groups do not suffer problems of th is magnitude.

That is by no means true, just the majority of these crimes are based homosexuals. I understand where you are coming from, but it would be unreasonable to suggest that only one sexual following recieve specific protection, even if the rest of them aren't very threatened at the moment.

Quote
I'm pretty sure that the moment someone would get beaten up for being heterosexual, there would be no problem adding this part to the legislation.
Myself I think that the protection should also apply to such minorities as fetishists, polyamorous people, crossdressers and such.

I'm almost positive that no such thing would happen. I treat such statements as I would a minority claiming foul of the justice system where the is none. Insinuating that the U.S. legislature is actively biased in this manner is somewhat bothersome. This isn't a matter of who's getting beat up and who isn't, but what underlines a justification for such legislation.

Quote
Hate crime legislation is necessary to make *sure* those people get a harsher sentence. Not every judge in America is sympatethic to every minority there is and often having clear guidelines makes giving a verdict simpler. And sometimes judges too can be racists, homophobes, or whatever other haters.

Most modern judges are not bigots, homophobes, and racists-- and if they are, they are at least objective when it comes to dealing with it in a court. Personally, I'm not fond of the idea of homosexuality in accordance to personal belief, but that doesn't mean I don't have plenty of homosexual friends, the ability to cooperate objectively with them, or have complete acceptance of it. Also, we have a safeguard against such judges-- the jury. Granted, some cultural patterns in courts can work against that system even further, in today's times its rarely seen-- especially further considering the appeals system, and the active checks and balances one can perform to ward off such occurings.

Quote
There's no such thing as commiting a crime 'with no real intent', unless someone is mentally ill.
There's always a motif. Either greed, substance abuse, personal revenge or ideological hatred. People who actually *believe* that hurting others is positive are the hardest to reform.

I'm talking mostly about nondiscrimatory violence and activity. Most criminals are nondiscriminatory: in that they will steal or abuse anyone to satisfy their needs. Hate-crime criminals are discriminatory-- in that they committ the crime not for some idealic satisfaction, but for the perpetuation of an emotion or personal stance. Nondiscrimatory violence, in the context of social targetting, is "without intent". As far as committing the crime itself, yes, there is a base intent. The hardest people to reform are those who do not see the difference between right and wrong (nondiscriminatory), which to some degree, would apply to the senario which you emphasize (hurting others is positive).

Quote
Also, I don't understand how hate-crimes can be called a 'habit' and I know that bigots are statistically less likely to be good people outside their bigotry.

Don't say that unless you actually expect you can provide said statistic for that outrageous statement. Bigotry does, by no means, mark someone as a horrible person. Bigotry is seen everywhere, and in every community-- and while it is no small thing, it does not immediately chalk someone up to a hellish blasphemy of all that is good and just. Many "bigots" are that way because they do not understand that which they persecute, or have been raised in a violent mindset. Bigots are those who take a personal stance and magnify it horribly, to the point at which violence is rationalized to them. Often times, psychologically, bigots learn to coexist with things they discriminate against after they've had extended contact with it. They learn to accept, which is a concept much of our nation has been based upon.

Quote
Please understand, we're talking here about people who actually go and search out for a member of a specific minority to attack them. Skinheads, KKK members, lynchers, people who believe they'll waging a 'holy war' of some sort.

No we aren't. Specifically, you said bigots. Bigots are by no means strictly extremists-- it is a much larger, more general term. However, when it comes to hate crimes, more extremist bigot-based groups are the subject of concern, so yes. Though, I find your selection of groups to be somewhat imbalanced, representatively, but to no real matter.

Offline Celestial Goblin

Re: Gotta Love Compassionate Conservatives . . .
« Reply #26 on: May 20, 2007, 06:38:08 PM »
That is by no means true, just the majority of these crimes are based homosexuals. I understand where you are coming from, but it would be unreasonable to suggest that only one sexual following recieve specific protection, even if the rest of them aren't very threatened at the moment.
If one group is a subject of attacks while other groups as you put it 'aren't very threatened at the moment' then it would unreasonable *not to* give that group special protection.
Law is supposed to protect those that need protection, that's all it needs to do.
I'm almost positive that no such thing would happen. I treat such statements as I would a minority claiming foul of the justice system where the is none. Insinuating that the U.S. legislature is actively biased in this manner is somewhat bothersome. This isn't a matter of who's getting beat up and who isn't, but what underlines a justification for such legislation.
All legislature actively biased, no. But if USA has homophobes/racists/whatever amongst all stratas of society, judges won't be an exception. And if the legislature isn't biased, then the law won't really make a difference, won't it?
If someone is getting beaten up for the way they were born, it is all justification a law needs.
Most modern judges are not bigots, homophobes, and racists-- and if they are, they are at least objective when it comes to dealing with it in a court. Personally, I'm not fond of the idea of homosexuality in accordance to personal belief, but that doesn't mean I don't have plenty of homosexual friends, the ability to cooperate objectively with them, or have complete acceptance of it.
Sorry, what do you mean by 'personal belief'? As in homosexuality being a personal choice? Or did I get you wrong?
Also, we have a safeguard against such judges-- the jury. Granted, some cultural patterns in courts can work against that system even further, in today's times its rarely seen-- especially further considering the appeals system, and the active checks and balances one can perform to ward off such occurings.
If the American system is so fair, what's the problem with adding a law that will be an extra safe-guard against the problem?
AFAIK, the first hate crime legislation about ethnic minorities was creates especially because judges in the rural states were more likely to pardon racists and needed oversight from federal goverment. You can't really say that homophobia is less prevalent in America than racism... You can't really say that homophobia doesn't participate in American politics...
I'm talking mostly about nondiscrimatory violence and activity. Most criminals are nondiscriminatory: in that they will steal or abuse anyone to satisfy their needs. Hate-crime criminals are discriminatory-- in that they committ the crime not for some idealic satisfaction, but for the perpetuation of an emotion or personal stance. Nondiscrimatory violence, in the context of social targetting, is "without intent". As far as committing the crime itself, yes, there is a base intent. The hardest people to reform are those who do not see the difference between right and wrong (nondiscriminatory), which to some degree, would apply to the senario which you emphasize (hurting others is positive).
Criminals who can't see 'right from wrong' would be psychopats and those are possible to reform. It's just that their reforming consists on making the *afraid* of going back to prison.
People who believe that 'hurting others is positive' would be the same, but I think in some cases it *is* possible to convince them that hurting others is not good. Racists and homophobes are often victims of ideologies passed trough their peers and families. This is easier to change than lack of emotions whatsover.
Don't say that unless you actually expect you can provide said statistic for that outrageous statement. Bigotry does, by no means, mark someone as a horrible person. Bigotry is seen everywhere, and in every community-- and while it is no small thing, it does not immediately chalk someone up to a hellish blasphemy of all that is good and just. Many "bigots" are that way because they do not understand that which they persecute, or have been raised in a violent mindset. Bigots are those who take a personal stance and magnify it horribly, to the point at which violence is rationalized to them. Often times, psychologically, bigots learn to coexist with things they discriminate against after they've had extended contact with it. They learn to accept, which is a concept much of our nation has been based upon.
Bigotry does make a person evil. It's not always a persons sole fault for being bigoted and many people are able to banish their bigotry. But the moment someone acts on their bigotry, they are nothing else but evil. If someone learns to accept others, then that person isn't a bigot.
But anyway, we might have different definitions of what 'bigot' means. To me someone who is simply uncomfortable around homosexuals is not yet a bigot.
Someone who supports discrimination of homosexuals in any way already is a bigot.

No we aren't. Specifically, you said bigots. Bigots are by no means strictly extremists-- it is a much larger, more general term. However, when it comes to hate crimes, more extremist bigot-based groups are the subject of concern, so yes. Though, I find your selection of groups to be somewhat imbalanced, representatively, but to no real matter.

Hate crime legislation doesn't target anyone for being a bigot in their own head or for stating bigoted beliefs. It targets those bigots who act out on their bigotry and for such there is no excuse.

What are you missing in my selection of groups? I hope you don't feel that any of people are listed are in any way justified with what they are doing?

Offline Monica

Re: Gotta Love Compassionate Conservatives . . .
« Reply #27 on: May 20, 2007, 08:37:39 PM »
Quote
If one group is a subject of attacks while other groups as you put it 'aren't very threatened at the moment' then it would unreasonable *not to* give that group special protection.
Law is supposed to protect those that need protection, that's all it needs to do.

Our justice system is enacted to protect all peoples, whether they need the protection or not. That's why.

Quote
All legislature actively biased, no. But if USA has homophobes/racists/whatever amongst all stratas of society, judges won't be an exception.

The there is a far more deep-seated problem there, but it does not necessarily have to do with legislation. Similiarly, for every judge biased against such groups, there is a judge who is biased in defense of those groups. Objectivity is the judge's calling, but human flaw is present in everything.

Quote
And if the legislature isn't biased, then the law won't really make a difference, won't it?
If someone is getting beaten up for the way they were born, it is all justification a law needs.

That's like saying "well I already have a shirt on, and its plenty enough protection from the elements, but because its only benefiting why don't I put on yet another shirt!" This is a question of "will it help or not", but "is this required, or is it overkill." Though, I'm not particularly arguing against it, just for a generality clause.

Quote
Sorry, what do you mean by 'personal belief'? As in homosexuality being a personal choice? Or did I get you wrong?

"Personally, I'm not fond of homosexuality in accordance to personal belief"-- as in, MY belief. I was saying that my personal belief doesn't necessarily agree with homosexuality, not that I thought homosexuality was a personal belief. The word flow was kind of strange, should have clarified.

Quote
Criminals who can't see 'right from wrong' would be psychopats and those are possible to reform. It's just that their reforming consists on making the *afraid* of going back to prison.

It absolutely does not! Firstly, intimidation as a means of molding behaviour is an illegal practice. Secondly, it's not at all a good means of reforming any criminal.

Quote
People who believe that 'hurting others is positive' would be the same, but I think in some cases it *is* possible to convince them that hurting others is not good. Racists and homophobes are often victims of ideologies passed trough their peers and families. This is easier to change than lack of emotions whatsover.

Change that "some" to "most" and I entirely agree.

Quote
To me someone who is simply uncomfortable around homosexuals is not yet a bigot.
Someone who supports discrimination of homosexuals in any way already is a bigot.

I agree, though it could be any number of things a bigot would discriminate against.

Quote
What are you missing in my selection of groups? I hope you don't feel that any of people are listed are in any way justified with what they are doing?

No, I just found it curious that you stuck to Skinheads, KKK, and "holy crusaders" instead of a list which include more worldly examples. I.E.-- I think it wasn't geographically sound, but I was just being picky, not really disagreeing. ;)

Offline Celestial Goblin

Re: Gotta Love Compassionate Conservatives . . .
« Reply #28 on: May 20, 2007, 08:59:06 PM »
Our justice system is enacted to protect all peoples, whether they need the protection or not. That's why.
'protect all people regardless if they need protection or not' is a completely absurd sentence that cannot be parsed logically.
You can't protect people if they've got nothing to be protected from.
Also, hate-crime legislation doesn't strip away protection from anyone, it simply adds extra protective measure to where it is currently needed.

The there is a far more deep-seated problem there, but it does not necessarily have to do with legislation. Similiarly, for every judge biased against such groups, there is a judge who is biased in defense of those groups. Objectivity is the judge's calling, but human flaw is present in everything.
The problem of judge's prejudice can be solved with legislation and there exists no other solution.
Also, how exactly it is possible to be 'biased in someone's defense? And how is that supposed to make up for the first bias?

That's like saying "well I already have a shirt on, and its plenty enough protection from the elements, but because its only benefiting why don't I put on yet another shirt!" This is a question of "will it help or not", but "is this required, or is it overkill." Though, I'm not particularly arguing against it, just for a generality clause.
Since it's toughening of laws we're talking about, it won't cost anything but it can potentially save human lives and eliminate very dangerous people from the society.
It's not like putting on an extra shirt, it's like packing an extra shirt when you are going on a trip to a place you don't know what weather to expect.
"Personally, I'm not fond of homosexuality in accordance to personal belief"-- as in, MY belief. I was saying that my personal belief doesn't necessarily agree with homosexuality, not that I thought homosexuality was a personal belief. The word flow was kind of strange, should have clarified.
Uh...
As to say, if you can honestly say you don't 'agree' with somebody else sexual preference, there's something very wrong.
I can't even understand how a person can 'agree' with somebody else personal matter. To me it sounds like 'I don't agree with you having blonde hair' or similarly absurd.
Remember that you and only you are responsible for your personal beliefs, that's why they are called personal. Beliefs are not something you are born with.
It absolutely does not! Firstly, intimidation as a means of molding behaviour is an illegal practice. Secondly, it's not at all a good means of reforming any criminal.
Deterring criminals from crime by the threat of jail time is illegal?
And doesn't work?
Then what? A slap on the wrist? Yoga meditation?
I agree, though it could be any number of things a bigot would discriminate against.
Yes. In this case we're discussing homosexuality because that's what politicians oppose.
You can be a bigot against all kinds of stuff.
No, I just found it curious that you stuck to Skinheads, KKK, and "holy crusaders" instead of a list which include more worldly examples. I.E.-- I think it wasn't geographically sound, but I was just being picky, not really disagreeing. ;)
I'm afraid those are actually very worldly. You'll find a variety of those on all continents. And I don't really want to bring specific groups form countries so not to tangle politics into the discussion.

Offline Monica

Re: Gotta Love Compassionate Conservatives . . .
« Reply #29 on: May 20, 2007, 09:34:18 PM »
Quote
'protect all people regardless if they need protection or not' is a completely absurd sentence that cannot be parsed logically.
You can't protect people if they've got nothing to be protected from.
Also, hate-crime legislation doesn't strip away protection from anyone, it simply adds extra protective measure to where it is currently needed.

I'm not currently being attacked. In fact, I'm rather safe from any sort of hate-crime. I dont' have anything to worry about. That doesn't mean I won't be attacked or threatened, ever, and it doesn't mean I don't deserve that protection should the need arise. It makes perfect sense: justice alots to provide protection for everyone if and when they need it, not just to those who immediately make use of that.

Quote
The problem of judge's prejudice can be solved with legislation and there exists no other solution.
Also, how exactly it is possible to be 'biased in someone's defense? And how is that supposed to make up for the first bias?

A judge can be biased towards enacting certain protections whereas an objective judge might not, just as a biased judge can be against enacting protections that an objective judge might opt to use.

Quote
Since it's toughening of laws we're talking about, it won't cost anything but it can potentially save human lives and eliminate very dangerous people from the society.
It's not like putting on an extra shirt, it's like packing an extra shirt when you are going on a trip to a place you don't know what weather to expect.

No, their "lives" are just as protected as they had always been. Just those who committ such acts would be punished more accordingly. And yes, it does "cost" something. Again, it's a matter of efficiency and management-- it's also further considering that, if we add this clause, are we going to have to add another later to be fair to another factor in this situation?

Quote
Uh...
As to say, if you can honestly say you don't 'agree' with somebody else sexual preference, there's something very wrong.
I can't even understand how a person can 'agree' with somebody else personal matter. To me it sounds like 'I don't agree with you having blonde hair' or similarly absurd.
Remember that you and only you are responsible for your personal beliefs, that's why they are called personal. Beliefs are not something you are born with.

Okay then, I'll strip it down further for you: my religious following doesn't agree with homosexuality. That's it. That's my belief, and I stated it rather clearly, or so I thought. Granted, you'll also see that I said that this belief does not hinder the fact that I am friends with many homosexuals, cooperate avidly with them, and embrace them in every social aspect.

And yes, I'm very aware of what a personal belief is, that's why I said it.

Quote
Deterring criminals from crime by the threat of jail time is illegal?
And doesn't work?
Then what? A slap on the wrist? Yoga meditation?

Yes, it is. In the psychological community, reforming someone by making them inherently "afraid" of jail is immoral. Teaching them the wrongs of their crime, though, is quite acceptable. I wouldn't have disagreed with you if you'd said that they reform them by making them mindful of consequences. But being mindful of something and teaching them to be afraid are entirely different things.

Quote
In this case we're discussing homosexuality because that's what politicians oppose.

Some of them.

Quote
I'm afraid those are actually very worldly. You'll find a variety of those on all continents. And I don't really want to bring specific groups form countries so not to tangle politics into the discussion.

I don't mean, literally, worldly, but descending of all viewpoints. Its just that the list envolved mostly stereotypical groups associated commonly with it, and wasn't entirely encompassing of the matter. Like I said though, I doesn't matter, I was just being picky.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2007, 09:38:29 PM by Monica »

Offline Celestial Goblin

Re: Gotta Love Compassionate Conservatives . . .
« Reply #30 on: May 21, 2007, 06:48:50 AM »
I'm not currently being attacked. In fact, I'm rather safe from any sort of hate-crime. I dont' have anything to worry about. That doesn't mean I won't be attacked or threatened, ever, and it doesn't mean I don't deserve that protection should the need arise.
Since you are currently safe, why are you denying others the same right?
Understand that some people need an extra protection to be as safe as you.

Quote
It makes perfect sense: justice alots to provide protection for everyone if and when they need it, not just to those who immediately make use of that.
Making immediate use of justice? What? Are you saying it's okay to leave someone without protection because they are alone in their problem?

A judge can be biased towards enacting certain protections whereas an objective judge might not, just as a biased judge can be against enacting protections that an objective judge might opt to use.

You can't be biased towards protecting people from harm. And I've yet to hear about a case in which a judge was *too* sympatethic towards a homosexual victim.
No, their "lives" are just as protected as they had always been. Just those who committ such acts would be punished more accordingly. And yes, it does "cost" something. Again, it's a matter of efficiency and management-- it's also further considering that, if we add this clause, are we going to have to add another later to be fair to another factor in this situation?
The legislation is supposed to improve efficiency and management, not decrease it. You said yourself that biased homophobic judges can be countered by taking the matter to higher courts and such. There should be no need for such legal battles.
Okay then, I'll strip it down further for you: my religious following doesn't agree with homosexuality. That's it. That's my belief, and I stated it rather clearly, or so I thought. Granted, you'll also see that I said that this belief does not hinder the fact that I am friends with many homosexuals, cooperate avidly with them, and embrace them in every social aspect.
I think your belief might still, at least subconciously be affecting your views on this particular matter. It's good you are not a homophobe yourself of course, but I really think that if not for your particular belief you wouldn't be looking for every possible justification against the hate crime laws.
Also, I won't ask details about your religious creed since that's a private matter. But if you are a Christian, then I don't think Christianity actually requires you to 'not approve' of homosexuals. It's something many priests claim, but there's no substance to that.

If(assuming you're indeed Christian or a monotheist anyway) you believe in concience, you should really follow that concience about the matter.
Yes, it is. In the psychological community, reforming someone by making them inherently "afraid" of jail is immoral. Teaching them the wrongs of their crime, though, is quite acceptable. I wouldn't have disagreed with you if you'd said that they reform them by making them mindful of consequences. But being mindful of something and teaching them to be afraid are entirely different things.
I'm afraid that the psychological community is idealistic here.
Jails are unpleasant places and regardless if doctors accept that or not, people who leave them are not eager to return.
Though I am not advocating actively making prisoners suffer. I simply argue that hate criminals will become less dangerous when their sentences will be longer.

Offline Monica

Re: Gotta Love Compassionate Conservatives . . .
« Reply #31 on: May 21, 2007, 05:22:04 PM »
Quote
Since you are currently safe, why are you denying others the same right?
Understand that some people need an extra protection to be as safe as you.

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.

Quote
Making immediate use of justice? What? Are you saying it's okay to leave someone without protection because they are alone in their problem?

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.

Quote
You can't be biased towards protecting people from harm. And I've yet to hear about a case in which a judge was *too* sympatethic towards a homosexual victim.

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.

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.

Quote
I think your belief might still, at least subconciously be affecting your views on this particular matter. It's good you are not a homophobe yourself of course, but I really think that if not for your particular belief you wouldn't be looking for every possible justification against the hate crime laws.

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.

Of coures my beliefs are affecting how I respond to this debate, but as I've clarified, most of what I've been saying are mere refutes-- not really what I believe.

Quote
Also, I won't ask details about your religious creed since that's a private matter. But if you are a Christian, then I don't think Christianity actually requires you to 'not approve' of homosexuals. It's something many priests claim, but there's no substance to that.

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.

Quote
I'm afraid that the psychological community is idealistic here.
Jails are unpleasant places and regardless if doctors accept that or not, people who leave them are not eager to return.
Though I am not advocating actively making prisoners suffer. I simply argue that hate criminals will become less dangerous when their sentences will be longer.

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.

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.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2007, 05:30:51 PM by Monica »

Offline Celestial Goblin

Re: Gotta Love Compassionate Conservatives . . .
« Reply #32 on: May 21, 2007, 06:15:33 PM »
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.

Offline Monica

Re: Gotta Love Compassionate Conservatives . . .
« Reply #33 on: May 21, 2007, 06:44:10 PM »
Quote
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.

They're pretty sturdy when they need to be.

Quote
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.

If you consider extra protection to be unequal to those who don't receive such boosted protection, then one might say it is unequal. Granted, we also give extra protection to abused teenager mothers, and children. Essentially I agree with you on that matter.

Quote
If there would exist a pro-homosexual bias amongst judges, I am sure that legislation could be passed to counter that.

As far as I'm concerned, there's plenty of pro-homosexual judges. Just because they haven't made rulings for this hate-crime amendment doesn't mean they aren't biased, or that they exist.

Quote
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.

This isn't about "equal rights", this is about a clause in a hate-crime legislation for sexuality. It's not granting or taking away rights from anyone. Also, we should be careful about only representing two sexualities in this argument.

Quote
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.

There are plenty of judges representing a pro-homosexual standpoint. Same with congressmen and legislatures. It is seen in today's society, but it gets very little spotlight-- because, and I will agree with you on this, anti-homosexual bias tends to be far more negative.

Quote
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.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking a side you don't necessarily agree with, especially in a debate. If I'd told you that little story before-hand, you wouldn't have analyzed what I had to say so strictly.

And, actually, I clarified quite clearly those beliefs I stood by. Those sentences started with the adverd "personally", followed by a comma.

Quote
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.

We're not arguing it, that is simply the catholic (meaning, a united church, not a denomination) accepted stance of Christians. Not everyone agrees with it, you certainly don't have to, but its part of our doctrine (to which you are inclined to believe otherwise). Its an entirely different debate though, and we should probably set it up sometime.

Quote
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.

My homeboard is strictly a means for serious debate and discussion-- and I sometimes drag some of our tendencies to other forums. I take this worldly stance, in that I offer refutes whereas I don't necessarily agree with it, to cover a number of perspectives so that we might analyze the implications of such. I never take anything in a debate like this as personal, and I certainly wouldn't get into a hostile argument with another here-- it's just immature, as most of us are friends or could be, will be. Besides, I think there is very little room for hypocrisy with any party on a forum like this, considering what we aspire to on other areas. :) I think we all have to keep a very open mind here.

Offline Celestial Goblin

Re: Gotta Love Compassionate Conservatives . . .
« Reply #34 on: May 22, 2007, 12:55:36 PM »
To sum it up, if you are okay with having a hate-crime law that has a single provision for 'sexuality' without listing what sexualities are protected, I am okay with that.
Some things you said are things I completely disagree with, but those are things not directly related to the topic of hate crime law.

I'd tell you, I'd rather have a non-specific hate crime law rather than one that has a list of minorities to protect. But I rather have the currently proposed one than nothing. Pretty much that.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Gotta Love Compassionate Conservatives . . .
« Reply #35 on: May 22, 2007, 02:32:07 PM »
Wel I'm still opposed tot he entire Federalizing of Hate Crime for behaviour. Yes I'm Gay but its not like being in a handicapped state (I use a wheelchair) or a woman or of a particular race frankly even in regards to religion such laws shouldn't be used. I feel leave such matters to the states and legitimate laws regarding such violence against anyone. Federal Laws should only involve matters that affects the entire nation criminal racketeering in organized crime and the like.

Simple question- is it more evil to kill a woman due to hate than a white male due to hate- no its both equal and should be treated with no differnce in the law.