Kerry,

There are no structural barriers of discrimination to homosexuals

Is "structural" a euphemism for "lawful"? What happened to Chinese and Blacks wasn't merely discrimination, after all, it was the law of the land, at the time.

When those discriminatory laws were struck down, did no further barriers preventing "them from reaching the economic and cultural heights this nation has to offer" exist?

Jim Crow. Endemic, socialized racism. Widespread, organized terrorism against people based only on the color of their skin. Changing laws that kept Chinese out and Blacks in chains didn't end or reduce any of that, of course. They didn't yet have the same "rights" that white people had, after the laws were changed. That's one of the lessons American history offers. Here are some more.

Getting better treatment took many acts of courage. The affected people had to stand up against that organized and socialized racism. It took many many civil rights protests to get the attention of the nation's leaders. It took social unrest.

Thoughts lead to actions. The thought "I hate negroes" lead to a whole wide range of discriminatory actions - schools, housing, jobs, which fountain you can drink from, what establishment you were allowed to visit, where Rosa Parks could sit on the bus. The burning of homes, churches, the killing of many innocent people.

Where the dominant race refused to change its thoughts, and actions, and allow some measure of equality to exist for non-whites, new laws were required.

Anti-discrimination laws were passed. Equal opportunity laws and more. Where would people of color be today if all these changes hadn't been made? Would Tiger Woods be playing in the Masters?

Gays have been going through their time of courage and protest.

You bring up much of America's shameful past in an apparent attempt to belittle the need gays have to likewise receive fair and equal treatment. Would you like to try on their shoes, learn what life is like for them?

How would you feel, knowing that walking down the street in your town at night, as an openly gay person, could get you beaten up? Just because of your appearance. Isn't that the sort of treatment that Blacks and Asians experienced, and is now in the past?

That's what hate crime is. No, you can't change people's thoughts, and we shouldn't limit speech, one of the most important rights in this nation. Thought does lead to action, but we can only outlaw actions.

Thinking that you want to kill someone isn't illegal. Killing someone is. Thinking that you want to kill someone because of their "actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability" isn't illegal. Acting on it is.

Think on the history of discrimination you touched on in your post, how big a problem it has been in our country, and how hatred did and does lead to the most awful of crimes. How many people have died here because of the color of their skin? Or been raped because of their gender?

Conservatives love to say that capital punishment prevents capital crimes. Then maybe hate crime punishment will prevent crimes motivated by hatred of the victim's perceived race, color, religion and all.

Think about it, that's all I ask.

"Is "structural" a euphemism for "lawful"? What happened to Chinese and Blacks wasn't merely discrimination, after all, it was the law of the land, at the time."

No, it means there is nothing to prevent them from achievement.

"When those discriminatory laws were struck down, did no further barriers preventing "them from reaching the economic and cultural heights this nation has to offer" exist?"

No, the Democratic party continued its oppression of black people.

"Jim Crow. Endemic, socialized racism. Widespread, organized terrorism against people based only on the color of their skin. Changing laws that kept Chinese out and Blacks in chains didn't end or reduce any of that, of course."

Sure it did. Except in the Democratic south, where they completely ignored the law for 100 more years.

"They didn't yet have the same "rights" that white people had, after the laws were changed. That's one of the lessons American history offers. Here are some more."

What "rights" do gays not have? I've checked the Constitution, and I can't find the part about gays being 3/5 of a person, or not allowed to vote, or considered property.

"Getting better treatment took many acts of courage. The affected people had to stand up against that organized and socialized racism. It took many many civil rights protests to get the attention of the nation's leaders. It took social unrest."

No, it took a president willing to enforce the laws. The civil rights types could have sat at the lunch counters forever, and if the president had decided to let them rot in jail and ignore them, they would have stayed there.

"Thoughts lead to actions. The thought "I hate negroes" lead to a whole wide range of discriminatory actions - schools, housing, jobs, which fountain you can drink from, what establishment you were allowed to visit, where Rosa Parks could sit on the bus. The burning of homes, churches, the killing of many innocent people."

No, you miss the Southern thought pattern. Southerners didn't "hate" negroes--they didn't believe they were people to begin with (like we do to the unborn today.)

"Gays have been going through their time of courage and protest."

Uh, no. Not really. Rioting to keep the bathhouses open and throwing condoms at cardinals are not courageous actions.

"You bring up much of America's shameful past in an apparent attempt to belittle the need gays have to likewise receive fair and equal treatment. Would you like to try on their shoes, learn what life is like for them?"

No, thank you.

"How would you feel, knowing that walking down the street in your town at night, as an openly gay person, could get you beaten up? Just because of your appearance. Isn't that the sort of treatment that Blacks and Asians experienced, and is now in the past?"

It's not appearance. It's behavior.

"That's what hate crime is. No, you can't change people's thoughts, and we shouldn't limit speech, one of the most important rights in this nation. Thought does lead to action, but we can only outlaw actions."

Yes, we can only outlaw actions. But that's not what the gay lobby wants. They want to be liked and accepted and affirmed based on what they DO.

"Thinking that you want to kill someone isn't illegal. Killing someone is. Thinking that you want to kill someone because of their "actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability" isn't illegal. Acting on it is."

Statistics show that hardly ever happens.

"Think on the history of discrimination you touched on in your post, how big a problem it has been in our country, and how hatred did and does lead to the most awful of crimes. How many people have died here because of the color of their skin? Or been raped because of their gender?"

A good two or three million more than have been murdered or raped because of their sexual orientation.

"Conservatives love to say that capital punishment prevents capital crimes. Then maybe hate crime punishment will prevent crimes motivated by hatred of the victim's perceived race, color, religion and all."

Not unless the punishment is death.

"Think about it, that's all I ask."

I have thought about it. The problem is that we are talking about behavior. You can create all the laws you like, but it's not going to make people love what they find disgusting and abominable. As long as gays define themselves by their sexual behavior, others will find them obnoxious and pushy. And they will distrust them with children. There is no way to avoid it, until gays stop insisting that the world accept and approve of their behavior.

And there are far more pressing problems for the Congress to busy themselves with than passing legislation to protect four percent of the population.

So the jist of the comments, besides Kerrys. Is that the gay boy toy who killed the designer several years back is less of a crime because they both were sodomites. But if a hetro sexual does it, it is worse? How many times worse? I could let 2 or 3 times worse slide. At 10 times I agree we would need new laws.

Why is Assault, Rape, Murder, crime, not equally as bad no matter who does it?

As long as gays define themselves by their sexual behavior, others will find them obnoxious and pushy

So who's at fault here. The gays or the person who use that gayness as an excuse to label them obnoxious. People might find Jews, Chinese, Muslims, Black's or White obnoxious because of the way they look, the way they dress, their religion or their sexual behavior...but does that give you the right to treat them unfairly. Since Vancerr pretty much admitted that homosexuality is a genetic disorder, can we treat them any different that somebody who is missing a limb because of a birth defect? What makes any of us assume that gays can cure their behavior any more than the person missing their limb can grow it back.

P.D. is contradictory in saying that one cannot "change people's thoughts", and then going on to say "maybe hate crime punishment will prevent crimes motivated by hatred". If "thoughts" cannot be "changed", how is a special law going to make any difference? Fantasy.

Great point Vancerr, and one ignored by libs. The crime is the same.

"People might find Jews, Chinese, Muslims, Black's or White obnoxious because of the way they look, the way they dress, their religion or their sexual behavior...but does that give you the right to treat them unfairly."

No, and treating victims equally is not unfair. It is the very essence of fairness.

"Since Vancerr pretty much admitted that homosexuality is a genetic disorder..."

Vance saying it doesn't make it so.

"What makes any of us assume that gays can cure their behavior any more than the person missing their limb can grow it back."

All behavior is controllable. No one is COMPELLED to go to a gay bar and pick somebody up. No one is COMPELLED to have homosexual sex, unless they are being raped. A person who cannot control their BEHAVIOR is fundamentally dangerous to the rest of society, and if you are arguing that homosexuals cannot control their behavior the same way everyone else can, I think that is a rather patronizing and infantilizing thing to do.

A person who cannot control their BEHAVIOR is fundamentally dangerous to the rest of society

Kerry,

I suggest you try passing a law that says all people must stop having sex for 10 years...and see how long you remain in office. Gay's should not be expected able to "control" their sex drives more than any of the rest of us...especially if they aren't harming anyone....which they aren't.

No, and treating victims equally is not unfair. It is the very essence of fairness.

How is discriminating against gays, when you aren't discrimination against blacks, fair to them?

"I suggest you try passing a law that says all people must stop having sex for 10 years...and see how long you remain in office. Gay's should not be expected able to "control" their sex drives more than any of the rest of us."

Are you saying that heterosexuals can't control their sexual behavior, either?

You must be a very tortured individual.

"How is discriminating against gays, when you aren't discrimination against blacks, fair to them?"

Um....because we AREN'T discriminating against gays, maybe?

ahmanrah,

You needn't bother trying with Kerry. She lives in the Christian fantasy world, where the myths she believes in are the reality she's trying awfully hard to project onto everybody else.

Kerry, that you believe in something doesn't make it so. After all, your religion is predicated upon rewards and punishments after death. Stop trying to enact punishments in the here-and-now, particulary for people who don't share your belief system. The rest of us will be most grateful for your return to the consensual reality.

PD,

How, exactly, are gays being "punished" by not treating crimes against them as a special circumstance?

Are you saying that heterosexuals can't control their sexual behavior, either?

Considering 90% of people who walk the earth have probably had sex at least once, if not many times in their lives, I would say yes its not controllable to any great extent. You might think people have sex purely for the purposes of procreation, but since as PD mentioned you live in a fantasy world, you would be wrong.

That is why they call sex a "biological urge", its also why people freak out about all those "hormones" flowing in young teenagers. Then there is the infamous "biological clock ticking" and the "motherly instinct" to have children. There are nothing more than nice little phrases for those aspects of our biology that we don't control.

So to think gays are supposed to control their biological instincts and you don't have to, continous your laughable pattern of hypocrisy.

Kerry,

How, exactly, are gays being "punished" by not treating crimes against them as a special circumstance?

Same as any other group that's denied life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness due to their race, color, religion, gender, sexual preference etc.

A person who cannot control their BEHAVIOR is fundamentally dangerous to the rest of society, and if you are arguing that homosexuals cannot control their behavior the same way everyone else can, I think that is a rather patronizing and infantilizing thing to do.

Um, wow. So you'd like gays to be all closeted, not having sex, perhaps reading the bible and praying, is that it? You really do want to control the thoughts and actions of others, contrary to what you've already written on this page.

Also, I find it interesting (and specious) that you use the harm done to other people as a way of saying that the harm done to gays is nothing. That's like saying people harmed by a nuclear power plant accident have no right to claim or even complain about their experience because thousands before them died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Completely unrelated and different experiences.

When Matthew Shepard was viciously beaten to death for being gay, that was a hate crime. His murderers confessed that they went after him because he was gay. Killing someone because you hate them is above and beyond killing someone because you're mugging them, or you got into an argument with them.

In criminal law, there are many degrees of assault and murder, distinguished from one another because of the severity and circumstances of the crime. I think that the reason that most bigots don't want hate crimes on the books is because they really have no pity for that class of victim. Maybe they believe they had it coming, maybe they believe that their god is punishing punishing the victim for out of norm with respect to biblical interpretation, who knows?

What remains constant, from the 19th to the 21st centuries, is our country's long, sordid history of punishing classes of people for being different than the majority. I see nothing different between that and your response to the subject of gay hate crimes, Kerry.

PD,

To the credit of the United States though, we will, as we did with the Chinese, an the Blacks and Irish, ultimately overcome our prejudice toward gays, and that day I suspect will arrive shortly, when genetics links beyond a shadow of doubt that homosexuality is genetic, and not a perversion made up in somebody's mind. It will be on that day that society can't blame gays for doing what comes natural to them, even though its not natural for the rest of us. And its on that day that Christian's will have to face the hard fact that natural means created by God. And since God does not put people on this Earth to be intentionally abused, persecuted, and killed by bigots, they will have to either revise their thinking or lock their mind and their thinking inside their own delusional version of reality.

By the way Kerry, I know of a large Christian sect who adopted one of your "sophisticated" notions of morality, to keep black's out of their priesthood. They invented the notion based more than likely on their twisted interpretation of scripture, that Black's were the devil's representatives on earth...and thus inherently evil. And it was only when the realities of the modern world forced them to change or be marginalized, that they miraciously had a revelation that the previously believed revelation was no longer true. It wasn't the first they'd been forced to pull a revelation out of their ass either.

And like the church above, I suspect one day a miracle will occur across Christianity...and discrimination of gays will no longer be tolerated.

Quite right, ahmanrah. I suspect that a certain percentage of our bigot population will become non-vocal when that time comes, as they have wrt Blacks and Asians and others. But we'll probably see some of the same, tired old superstitious Christians waving signs and calling for the reenactment of sodomy laws and quarantining of HIV positive people.

Personally, I thought it was a great day when San Francisco's City Hall opened their doors for gays to be married. It proved that humans really can rise above the baseness and hatred we've come to be known for.

"By the way Kerry, I know of a large Christian sect who adopted one of your "sophisticated" notions of morality, to keep black's out of their priesthood. They invented the notion based more than likely on their twisted interpretation of scripture, that Black's were the devil's representatives on earth...and thus inherently evil. And it was only when the realities of the modern world forced them to change or be marginalized, that they miraciously had a revelation that the previously believed revelation was no longer true. It wasn't the first they'd been forced to pull a revelation out of their ass either."

That "church" is a cult. And their interpretation of the "curse of Ham" has never been accepted in the evangelical world.

Okay, try this. Why should these cases be handled differently?

#1: A man robs an elderly woman. In the course of the robbery, he says menacingly, "Gimme your purse, GRANDMA!"

#2: A man robs a male homosexual. In the course of the robbery, he says menacingly, "Gimme your wallet, FAGGOT!"

I don't see why the second case should result in additional time served. Can you explain it?

Kerry

Nice try, but wrong crime. Try this:

#3: An apparently homosexual male winks at a heterosexual male on the street. Heterosexual male freaks out, fears his sexuality is endangered, has a panic attack, grabs a tire iron, and whacks the other man on the cranium directly over the parietal lobe.

#4: A queer-looking man walks alone at night, and a bunch of drunken frat boys decide he's queer and has got it coming. They beat him up, putting him in the hospital with a broken hand and jaw, rescuing their manhood from any questions that might have arisen from sharing the same approximate geographic area with an apparent homosexual.

This is a hate crime of the type known as "gay bashing." You see someone that gives you the willies, and all that programming from jr. high and high school kicks in - oh my dear, it's a fag! I'd better beat the living crap out of him, otherwise my *own* manhood might be in question.

#3 and #4 above describes what happened to two of my neighbors in Manhattan over the last two years. Countless other stories I could recall, given that I live in downtown and am acquainted with the members of the gay community.

It's not my fight, but these are friends and acquaintances, and knowing that they're targeted for life-changing (and life-ending) violence, it makes me angry to read your denials.

PD,

These things are assault. They are ALREADY illegal. Why should perpetrators receive a harsher sentence because they don't like gays than if they want some cash?

Now, two things by way of update. HR 1592 passed yesterday and now goes to the Senate. The president will veto any such legislation.

Secondly, I wish there was some way to make you non-believers understand the overwhelming experience we had here yesterday at our national day of prayer commemorations.

I was unable to go to the breakfast meeting or the noon observance, but I have heard nothing but good of them. I can, however, tell you that the evening meeting was a positively transcendent experience.

A vast array of Christians, from Pentecostals and charismatics to Lutherans and Presbyterians, to Catholics and Baptists--and everything in between. Whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, international students. Pastors, ministry workers, missionaries, congregants--all gathered together in the name of Jesus to pray for the needs of our community and our nation.

We prayed for unity within and between the denominations, strength for our leaders and teachers, wisdom for our government officials, safety for our police officers, fireman, and soldiers. We prayed in small groups for the needs of our families, our churches, and our friends. We praised and worshipped Jesus and invited the Holy Spirit to come and change our city and our nation.

It was a three-hour moment of incredible unity and healing. Denominations that, 20 years ago, would never even set foot in the same building, have been working together on community projects requested by the mayor and sharing resources to strengthen our juvenile justice and child protection systems. As is our custom, there was a special blessing of the host church (which happened this year to be the one I go to), and it was amazing to see Baptists, Methodists, and others who have doctrinal disagreements with us laying hands on the pastors and proclaiming their love for this church and her ministries.

There was repentance and crying, forgiveness and healing. People who had said things about other churches and individuals went to those people to ask forgiveness, which was freely granted.

There was a report from the university that the prayer group that meets every night at 9 has grown from 6 to more than 360 in less than a semester (and is now called in and internet chatted to keep track of who is doing what), with many amazing testimonies of the divine intervention of Jesus on campus, bringing people together who did not know one another, yet came to the meeting with the same dreams, visions, and impressions of the will of God.

God is doing big things here, and we believe it is all a result of the prayers that have gone up and the dreams dreamed over the past two decades.

Having once been a heathen, I tell you plainly, you do not know what you are missing. There is nothing in this world that touches the experience of being in the presence and the power of God when His holy spirit is at work.

I wish you could be here. I wish I could give this to you. But I can't. Only Jesus can, and only you can accept it. There are no proxies for salvation, and there are no words that adequately describe what becomes possible to a person who has accepted Christ.

But I just want you to know, at least in this community, the National Day of Prayer was an enormous blessing. Thank you, President Reagan, for setting this day aside as a day to remember our heritage and pray for our country.

Matt shepard was killed for drugs and money, that he was a homo was not an issue. Except for agendists pushing a policy that issue was settled. Saying a lie over and over does not make it true. If gay hate is so bad, why are the two banner cases used by the gay community to promote this law both bogus?

A kid in school is picked on, for whatever. Those doing the picking are bullies. That some never grow up doesn't change it. There are more then enough laws to cover any crimes you can cite.

I never said that being gay was genetically anything. I said that until the 1970's homo-sex was a mental disorder, and that to date, not one study by any medical person, group, study has dispproved it. A quasi legal agenda of threats and intimidation got it changed.

Kerry,

National day of prayer was Truman

Hi pd,

First off I have to say I thought your first post was excellent.

Hi Kerry,

well what a surprise, yet again a post on PME against gay men and lesbians. I'll ask yet again why you post on this subject from a Biblical perspective when you don't post on the many other things the Bible says. When you look at the couple of comments in the Bible that can be construed as anti gay and lesbian as opposed to the many, many references against divorce and so many other things I question whether this is motivated by your religious concerns or your personal concerns. I don't need to count the posts to say that they are massively disproportionate. Why is this? You seem to be more obsessed with gay and lesbian sex that many gay and lesbians to be frank.

I will address some of your points later.

Hi vancerr,

My hearty congratulations you've made an intelligent point – I’m not being sarcastic by the way. You screwed it up a little with your pejorative language, but little steps.

Why is Assault, Rape, Murder, crime, not equally as bad no matter who does it?

This would be my one concern about this proposed bill. My answer to you is that I agree the motivation isn't that important. If someone is murdered they are no less dead because they were murdered for what what's in their wallet or because of their sexual orientation.

BTW of course it’s true that the gay or lesbian person can be killed for their wallet or because of their sexual orientation. This is not true for a heterosexual person – something worth remembering.

I think pd actually made the counterpoint very well

Jim Crow. Endemic, socialized racism. Widespread, organized terrorism against people based only on the color of their skin. Changing laws that kept Chinese out and Blacks in chains didn't end or reduce any of that, of course. They didn't yet have the same "rights" that white people had, after the laws were changed. That's one of the lessons American history offers.

and

Think on the history of discrimination you touched on in your post, how big a problem it has been in our country, and how hatred did and does lead to the most awful of crimes.

This law is a disincentive to hatred and I think that is why it's worthwhile. I wonder why anyone would be against decreasing the hatred of other people. Perhaps it's one of the basics between liberals and conservatives. I suggest that liberals are not uncomfortable with a centralized organisation (government in this case) leading the way in changing peoples views. Conservatives would say they are not comfortable with this. I find it odd when people who align themselves with a religion are uncomfortable as this is exactly what churches/synagogues/mosques/temples and shrine rooms tend to do.

Now if Kerry hadn’t made this about gays and lesbians I think there might be an interesting debate. But that wasn’t the case.

Hi Kerry (again),

Had you argued against hate crime laws I wouldn’t be questioning your motives. Your and one of your links connection with this about gays and lesbians is sadly predictable and sadly displays a rather unpleasant position. You could have said hey I’m a Christian and I don’t want this and you would have had a point – one I disagree with, but again this ends up a discussion of gays and lesbians.

Shame on you.

OK lets address what you’ve written.

This is a bill that is resolutely opposed by the Christian right, not only for its codification of what they consider the ridiculous notion of gender identity bias, but also for the brazen and insulting way in which it equates the alleged problems of homosexuals with the long and continuing history of racial discrimination.

Kerry’s emphasis

Why not got for the disabled? Those of a different colour? (you’ll note in the bill race and colour are differentiated). A different origin? You could have gone for any of these. The “long and continuing history of racial discrimination” has this in common with gays and lesbians – discrimination.

"Is "structural" a euphemism for "lawful"? What happened to Chinese and Blacks wasn't merely discrimination, after all, it was the law of the land, at the time." – pd

No, it means there is nothing to prevent them from achievement. - Kerry

Ask people – blacks, gays and lesbians, those of a different race or origin – many will tell you that changing the laws so they are not discriminatory is the first step it’s not the end of discrimination. Discrimination does prevent achievement. An example would be that no woman has ever been POTUS or VPOTUS. Does anyone seriously believe that in the history of the US it just so happened that the best person able to do a job just didn’t happen to be a woman for any given 4 year period? Ever? Not once? The laws are all in place and have been for some time, but still not one woman was the best person. I don’t think so.

"When those discriminatory laws were struck down, did no further barriers preventing "them from reaching the economic and cultural heights this nation has to offer" exist?" – pd

No, the Democratic party continued its oppression of black people. - Kerry

"Jim Crow. Endemic, socialized racism. Widespread, organized terrorism against people based only on the color of their skin. Changing laws that kept Chinese out and Blacks in chains didn't end or reduce any of that, of course." - pd

Sure it did. Except in the Democratic south, where they completely ignored the law for 100 more years. - Kerry

You didn’t address the very good points – you deflected them onto the Democratic Party. Well I’ve never voted democrat and I can tell you there’s a bloody great big hole in your argument.

It does? That’s funny, because actual crime statistics don’t support any such “finding”. The facts, as reported by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report for 2003 (the latest date for which statistics are available) indicate that there were, in that year, a total of 7,489 incidents, involving 8.718 offenses, and 9.100 victims. But that is the total number of bias crimes, not those involving “gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity,” which is what this legislation is aimed at.

The actual number of “hate crimes” perpetrated as bias against sexual orientation, according to the UCR, was a paltry 1239, involving 1430 offenses, and 1479 victims.

By way of comparison, that same year saw 17,013 fatalities caused by drunk drivers (40 percent of the total); there were 206,500 toy-related injuries; and more than 1.2 million abortions were performed in America.

(By the way, only 6 of the sexual orientation bias incidents involved fatalities—in a year.)

To call the situation “a serious national problem” seems a bit ridiculous, even for the United States Congress.

You’re playing with numbers and semantics here.

The “serious national problem” relates “to 7,489 incidents, involving 8.718 offenses, and 9.100 victims.” Not the “1239, involving 1430 offenses, and 1479 victims.” You reduce it to.

On drunk drivers – well they were at least accidents in terms of the person didn’t plan on killing someone while drunk, but if you want to debate drunk drivers you’ll probably find that you and I are in total agreement.

Toy related injuries – well almost definitely accidents, and nothing to do with this.

Abortion – there are other threads and the essential difference as far as I can see is that you believe these abortions ended a life and I don’t. Lets discuss it elsewhere and we have.

“By the way, only 6 of the sexual orientation bias incidents involved fatalities—in a year”

So that’s alright then – someone kills 6 people it’s OK someone kills more well that’s just terrible.

This is just all sophistry.

"Gays have been going through their time of courage and protest." – pd

Uh, no. Not really. Rioting to keep the bathhouses open and throwing condoms at cardinals are not courageous actions. - Kerry

Are you unaware of the Stonewall Riots? Are you unaware that not only were the discriminatory actions based on dislike or hatred of gays, but they also had quite a strong racist element. You’ve shown me the speech of a black preacher saying we don’t need this law I feel duty bound to show you Black and Hispanic men protesting against discrimination.

This isn’t about rioting to keep bath houses open it’s about being able to meet, in public in a group of three or more.

As for condoms being thrown at cardinals how about Harvey Milk.

Killed by Dan White who was convicted of manslaughter. More riots with the White Night Riots.

Yep this is all about…

Rioting to keep the bathhouses open and throwing condoms at cardinals are not courageous actions.

Yes, we can only outlaw actions. But that's not what the gay lobby wants. They want to be liked and accepted and affirmed based on what they DO.

What the gay lobby wants I won’t bother with as far as your opinions of it are concerned, but I am certain that what they gay lobby wants is for people to listen to what they want rather than your interpretation of it. You are not in a fit position to understand what they want.

Would you like to try on their shoes, learn what life is like for them?" – pd

No, thank you. - Kerry

------------------------------------------------

Much of the rest of the conversation has been about sexual behaviour and controlling it.

I think that ahmanrah’s posts sum it up very well

Kerry,

I suggest you try passing a law that says all people must stop having sex for 10 years...and see how long you remain in office. Gay's should not be expected able to "control" their sex drives more than any of the rest of us...especially if they aren't harming anyone....which they aren't.

and

Considering 90% of people who walk the earth have probably had sex at least once, if not many times in their lives, I would say yes its not controllable to any great extent. You might think people have sex purely for the purposes of procreation, but since as PD mentioned you live in a fantasy world, you would be wrong.

That is why they call sex a "biological urge", its also why people freak out about all those "hormones" flowing in young teenagers. Then there is the infamous "biological clock ticking" and the "motherly instinct" to have children. There are nothing more than nice little phrases for those aspects of our biology that we don't control.

So to think gays are supposed to control their biological instincts and you don't have to, continous your laughable pattern of hypocrisy.

When the rest of the world gives up sex then you can criticise gays and lesbians. When you want to tell people to stop having sex please make sure you aren’t having sex and that your sure all the people around you aren’t either until then why not try reining back on the helpful advice.

----------------------------------

OK a quick recap -

"Gays have been going through their time of courage and protest."

Uh, no. Not really. Rioting to keep the bathhouses open and throwing condoms at cardinals are not courageous actions.

Rioting so three gay men could have a drink together - the Stonewall Riots

Rioting when a leader was assassinated and was found guilty of manslaughter - the White Night Riots

But I'm sure you know the story of Harvey Milk

and Dan White

Lastly - I don't know the US as well as I know the UK so you'll forgive me using an example of hate from over here

David Copeland

Now as it happens I used to work round the corner from the Admiral Duncan where his last bomb was and it was a regular haunt for after works drinks. It was a straight pub at the time and do you know it wasn't bombed while it was a straight pub.

I also had a friend who has a serious car accident around the same time and she was in a bed next to one of the victims of the bomb in the Admiral Duncan. David Copeland had packed dog shit around the nails he used in his last bomb so the wounds created by the bomb became badly infected - people had to have legs removed because of those infections - "By the way, only 6 of the sexual orientation bias incidents involved fatalities—in a year." - those people wouldn't have shown up as part of your 6 fatalities had it been the UK you quoted and that it been that year.

Kerry you know nothing of this discrimination from the receiving end on this subject, sadly you only know of it from the discriminating end.

Shame on you Kerry, shame on you.

Kerry,

These things are assault. They are ALREADY illegal. Why should perpetrators receive a harsher sentence because they don't like gays than if they want some cash?

Using that logic, you could divide crimes into simple categories: stealing, hurting, and killing.

Because we already have a crime called "hurting," we don't need any special, extra crimes like "assault with a deadly weapon," or "rape." We have enough punishment with the crime called "hurting." You're getting way too complicated if you add a sexual or gender dimension to the crime.

Same goes with killing - let's dole out the identical punishments for the driver who accidentally runs over the child who shot out from behind the parked car (aka manslaughter) and the person who chased a specific somebody down and shot them to death with a 44 Magnum because they wanted them dead (aka first degree murder, a capital crime.) They're both killing.

No need for degrees of the crime. Give 'em all the same punishment.

Hiya pd,

as I said an excellent first post and subsequent ones.

How difficult is to see that there is a big difference between hunting down gays to beat up (and taking their money as an after thought), versus mugging a guy who just happened to be gay, because you are looking for money.

What level of violence does it taken when someone is purposely attacking gays, before you would consider it a hate crime. Spraying fag on his shirt, and bashing his head in? May beheading? You seem to get all hot and bother about that with the terrorists, even though it doesn't make you any more dead than a bullet to the back of the head.

"National day of prayer was Truman"

Well, yes and no. This explains how we are both right (From the NDP website):

"When did the NDP begin? Days of prayer have been called for since 1775, when the Continental Congress designated a time for prayer in forming a new nation. In 1863, Abraham Lincoln called for such a day. Officially, the NDP was established as an annual event by an act of Congress in 1952 and was signed into law by President Truman. President Reagan amended the law in 1988, designating the first Thursday of May each year as the NDP."

"When Matthew Shepard was viciously beaten to death for being gay, that was a hate crime."

Actually, it wasn't.

"His murderers confessed that they went after him because he was gay."

Which they and their girlfriends later admitted was a lie. It was a drug deal gone bad. And the idiots that did it brought their fate upon their own heads, by attempting to use the ridiculous "gay panic" defense.

"Killing someone because you hate them is above and beyond killing someone because you're mugging them, or you got into an argument with them."

Why? Would you rather someone kill you out of love than hate?

"In criminal law, there are many degrees of assault and murder, distinguished from one another because of the severity and circumstances of the crime."

Yes, but there are not crimes called "stabbing" and "manslaughter two because I wanted to" and "pool cue impalement" and "I was hoping for a Longines." Crimes are not adjudicated according to the nature of the victim or the perpetrator. Would you like crimes to be aggravated by race? How about the crime "first-degree murder by college student" or "second degree celebrity homicide"? These are ridiculous ideas because they make a mockery of the principle of equal justice under the law, as does the notion of a "hate crime."

"I think that the reason that most bigots don't want hate crimes on the books is because they really have no pity for that class of victim. Maybe they believe they had it coming, maybe they believe that their god is punishing punishing the victim for out of norm with respect to biblical interpretation, who knows?"

Obviously, not you.

"What remains constant, from the 19th to the 21st centuries, is our country's long, sordid history of punishing classes of people for being different than the majority."

Examples?

"I see nothing different between that and your response to the subject of gay hate crimes, Kerry."

That's because you are so blinded by your obsession with punishing thought that you can't see the logic involved.

"To the credit of the United States though, we will, as we did with the Chinese, an the Blacks and Irish, ultimately overcome our prejudice toward gays, and that day I suspect will arrive shortly, when genetics links beyond a shadow of doubt that homosexuality is genetic, and not a perversion made up in somebody's mind."

"Genetic" doesn't mean uncontrollable, advantageous or appropriate. That's why we use terms like "predisposition" (controllable), mutation (disadvantageous) and defective (inappropriate).

"It will be on that day that society can't blame gays for doing what comes natural to them, even though its not natural for the rest of us."

Are they animals? "Doing what comes natural" isn't always a good idea. The whole idea of civilization is based on controlling "natural" impulses and learning more appropriate behavior.

"And its on that day that Christian's will have to face the hard fact that natural means created by God."

Yes. So? "Human" means "capable of exercising free will" and "tainted by sin."

"And since God does not put people on this Earth to be intentionally abused, persecuted, and killed by bigots, they will have to either revise their thinking or lock their mind and their thinking inside their own delusional version of reality."

God put people on this Earth to worship and serve Him and help others to do so. Christians do not abuse, persecute, or kill gays as a matter of course, as you seem to think. Nor do they favor the idea of disproportionately punishing people based on their attitudes and ideas.

"I'll ask yet again why you post on this subject from a Biblical perspective when you don't post on the many other things the Bible says."

Other things? Like abortion and poverty and the meaning of "faith" and tsunami relief and the response to Katrina and Christmas and church/state separation policies and...............

And here I thought you all had made it clear that I post on ENTIRELY too MANY things the Bible says!

I can't win with you people!

"When you look at the couple of comments in the Bible that can be construed as anti gay and lesbian as opposed to the many, many references against divorce and so many other things I question whether this is motivated by your religious concerns or your personal concerns."

There are about as many references to divorce as to homosexuality. One God "hates" and one He calls an "abomination." If you want me to do a piece on the Bible and divorce, I think you'd better weigh your words carefully. You won't like what you get.

"I don't need to count the posts to say that they are massively disproportionate."

You can say it, but you're wrong. This is an active issue. If there were a bill about divorce moving through the House and Senate, you bet I would be talking about it.

"You seem to be more obsessed with gay and lesbian sex that many gay and lesbians to be frank."

I don't care what they want to do in their private lives. I get irritated when they (or anyone) start using the public laws to force people to accept and affirm that behavior.

By the way, another MAJOR problem with this bill is that it is just a first move. The real agenda is to move the US into the anti-Christian speech model that Canada has adopted. Christian ministries in the US now produce 2 different shows for radio and television--one for the US and one for Canada. Because the ordinary preaching of Biblical principles is now considered "hate speech" in that country and punishable by fines and imprisonment.

"BTW of course it’s true that the gay or lesbian person can be killed for their wallet or because of their sexual orientation. This is not true for a heterosexual person – something worth remembering."

That's nonsense. A straight person can be killed for their sexual orientation. It's not as though there's no hate in the homosexual world.

"This law is a disincentive to hatred and I think that is why it's worthwhile."

No, it's not. The law can't make a person not hate another person. All it does is punish theem for their ideas.

"I wonder why anyone would be against decreasing the hatred of other people."

Funny. That's exactly why we don't understand why you all wanted to remove the Ten Commandments and Bible reading in public schools and the name of Jesus from the public square. Since only the love of God can truly change a hate-filled heart.

"Perhaps it's one of the basics between liberals and conservatives."

You mean, the idea that the state should be telling us what to think and punishing us when we think the wrong things? Could be.

"I suggest that liberals are not uncomfortable with a centralized organisation (government in this case) leading the way in changing peoples views."

True. And Christians know that only God can do that, in cooperation with the person in need of change.

"Conservatives would say they are not comfortable with this. I find it odd when people who align themselves with a religion are uncomfortable as this is exactly what churches/synagogues/mosques/temples and shrine rooms tend to do."

You entirely misunderstand the Christian religion. We offer you Jesus. If you accept Him, we show you how to be in relationship with Him, read the Word of God, study, pray, and grow in the knowledge of your Creator. There is no force involved. You cannot MAKE someone give up their hate. They have to do it voluntarily.

Persuation (evangelism, discipleship, teaching) is not coercion (the use of the state to enforce a particular set of ideas and punish those that do not conform.)

"Now if Kerry hadn’t made this about gays and lesbians I think there might be an interesting debate."

It's Congress and the Human Rights Campaign and Lambda Legal Foundation that made it about that, not me. In fact, during the process, Republicans tried to include other "classes" of victim, such as police officers, the elderly, teachers--no dice.

"Had you argued against hate crime laws I wouldn’t be questioning your motives. Your and one of your links connection with this about gays and lesbians is sadly predictable and sadly displays a rather unpleasant position. You could have said hey I’m a Christian and I don’t want this and you would have had a point – one I disagree with, but again this ends up a discussion of gays and lesbians."

Would you care to ask the gay and lesbian community what THEY think this bill is about?

"Why not got for the disabled? Those of a different colour? (you’ll note in the bill race and colour are differentiated)."

That's because Democrats like to use lofty but meaningless language. No one has actually thought of those as different things since they first wrote the EEOC boilerplate.

"A different origin? You could have gone for any of these. The “long and continuing history of racial discrimination” has this in common with gays and lesbians – discrimination."

No, this bill ADDS "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to a list of protected classes already accepted by the Supreme Court, giving the Court the opportunity to accept the finding of Congress and add them when the inevitable case gets to the Big Bench. Race, color, religion, national origin, and disability are all federally protected classes. (I wonder why they left out veteran status, though. Wait--I can guess.)

"Discrimination does prevent achievement. An example would be that no woman has ever been POTUS or VPOTUS."

So?

"Does anyone seriously believe that in the history of the US it just so happened that the best person able to do a job just didn’t happen to be a woman for any given 4 year period? Ever? Not once? The laws are all in place and have been for some time, but still not one woman was the best person. I don’t think so."

I do. And that's a problem of democracy you have there. No woman has been able to persuade a majority of primary voters (let alone in a general election) that she was the best candidate. And the Democrats seem to be worse at that than the Republicans. As far as I know, the Democrats have turned back far more female candidates than the Republicans have.

[Regarding my factual linkage of historical discrimination to the leadership and followers of the Democratic party, particularly in the South] "Well I’ve never voted democrat and I can tell you there’s a bloody great big hole in your argument."

We're waiting to hear it. Do tell.

You’re playing with numbers and semantics here.

"The “serious national problem” relates “to 7,489 incidents, involving 8.718 offenses, and 9.100 victims.” Not the “1239, involving 1430 offenses, and 1479 victims.” You reduce it to."

And I would argue 10,000 is not a number that constitutes a "serious national problem" worthy of Congressional attention and action. Not in a nation of 300 million.

"On drunk drivers – well they were at least accidents in terms of the person didn’t plan on killing someone while drunk, but if you want to debate drunk drivers you’ll probably find that you and I are in total agreement."

That drunk driving is a much more serious problem than "hate crimes" and that the government should start cracking down on the alcohol industry? It's nice to have an agreement, then.

"Toy related injuries – well almost definitely accidents, and nothing to do with this."

But something of a more valid concern for government action, given the number of people affected.

"Abortion – there are other threads and the essential difference as far as I can see is that you believe these abortions ended a life and I don’t. Lets discuss it elsewhere and we have."

But the point is the sheer numbers that justify making it a valid concern of public policy.

"“By the way, only 6 of the sexual orientation bias incidents involved fatalities—in a year”"

"So that’s alright then – someone kills 6 people it’s OK someone kills more well that’s just terrible."

No--it's terrible for one person to be murdered (particularly a non-Christian). But it does not justify Congressional action. If 30 million people die of a preventable cause every year (which they don't), then Congressional-level intervention would be justified. This doesn't (as they say) rise to the occasion.

"Are you unaware of the Stonewall Riots?"

I am very aware of Stonewall. You will excuse me if I show little admiration for a bar serving alcohol without a license at which the patrons, while being arrested, resist arrest, destroy property and attempt to burn down the bar.

That's not my idea of passive resistance.

"Are you unaware that not only were the discriminatory actions based on dislike or hatred of gays, but they also had quite a strong racist element."

The "discriminatory actions" you refer to were police raids of an unlicensed bar with mob ties. Actually, I'm all for that, no matter what the "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" of the rioters.

"This isn’t about rioting to keep bath houses open it’s about being able to meet, in public in a group of three or more."

In an unlicensed bar. How dare the police raid them!

"As for condoms being thrown at cardinals how about Harvey Milk."

How about him?

Dan White killed Harvey Milk because he believed he persuaded Mayor Moscone not to re-appoint him to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. NOT because he was gay. He HAPPENED to be gay. But professional jealousy and ruination is a murder story as old as time. Because he was a gay activist, the gay activist community made the story about his sexual orientation, when it was really about politics and personal animosity.

"Killed by Dan White who was convicted of manslaughter. More riots with the White Night Riots."

Another good reason to disrespect this "movement." It's all based on and steeped in rebellion. The White Night riots were yet another homosexual activist-fueled orgy of destruction, this time caused by the petulant refusal of the rioters to accept the jury's verdict and sentence in the case--guilty of voluntary manslaughter with diminished capacity (the infamous "Twinkie defense"), 8 years, 7 months. (By the way, after he got out of prison he ended up committing suicide.)

"What the gay lobby wants I won’t bother with as far as your opinions of it are concerned, but I am certain that what they gay lobby wants is for people to listen to what they want rather than your interpretation of it."

I'm sorry, but no one is legally entitled to be listened to, nor forced to listen to someone else.

"You are not in a fit position to understand what they want.

"Considering 90% of people who walk the earth have probably had sex at least once, if not many times in their lives...."

Considering that 20% of the population is under the age of 19, I would say you are probably WAY off on your numbers, but let's move on...

"Kerry you know nothing of this discrimination from the receiving end on this subject, sadly you only know of it from the discriminating end."

Ah, yes. I knew a liberal would pull out this hoary old red herring--the subjective inauthenticity argument. Only the offended can or should define or speak about the offense. There are no universally understandable experiences, no twice-transferrable experiences, no knowable theories, no connection to comparable situations.

"How difficult is to see that there is a big difference between hunting down gays to beat up (and taking their money as an after thought), versus mugging a guy who just happened to be gay, because you are looking for money."

Very.

"What level of violence does it taken when someone is purposely attacking gays, before you would consider it a hate crime."

I do not accept the validity of the term "hate crime." I thought I made that clear.

"Spraying fag on his shirt,"

Assault.

"and bashing his head in?

Assault and battery. Probably murder one, as well, unless there are no ill effects.

"May beheading?"

Huh?

"You seem to get all hot and bother about that with the terrorists, even though it doesn't make you any more dead than a bullet to the back of the head."

No, but the level of glee involved clarifies the evil involved. Your point?

Kerry,

Denial is what made the Holocaust possible.

WB,

Nice to see you around these parts. Much obliged for the kind regards.

All,

In this thread, I'm reminded of a favorite rhyme,

A (wo)man convinced against (her)his will,

Is of the same opinion still.

Are they animals? "Doing what comes natural" isn't always a good idea. The whole idea of civilization is based on controlling "natural" impulses and learning more appropriate behavior.

Kerry,

Then you should run for Congress and pass a law saying everybody should stop having sex, because its primitive and carnal, and we have better ways of achieving the same result without doing the nasty. Guess what, most people will laugh in your face...why because there are something in nature we aren't going to overcome....because they are what make us human!

Oh and its interesting you assume that anything genetic related homosexuality is easily overcome, what makes you think its any easier to overcome than it is for somebody to grow a limb they were not born with? Until the day it can be demonstrated that the vast majority of heterosexuals can control their sexual urges (and we can see the spectacular failures of many in the Catholic priesthood who tried), I personally will not expect a gay person to have to do the same. So you have two choices, lock them up or let them be.

Kerry,

In fact this entire conversation centers around the ability of man to control perpetually, his animal nature, his emotions and ultimately his weaknesses. This is why year in and year out, day in and day out, people are murdered, raped, and robbed. Its the root of all crimes, and man's inhumanity toward his fellow man. Its what causes mobs, riots, and wars, and makes otherwise good people do really stupid things.

But its also at the root of alot of things we consider good, including what makes life worth living.

In fact I would argue if you can show me someone who is complete control of themselves all the time, I'll show you someone who isn't human, and isn't alive.

I just can't resist.

Kerry, you say "And I would argue 10,000 is not a number that constitutes a "serious national problem" worthy of Congressional attention and action. Not in a nation of 300 million."

Lets let than sink in for a sec. Okay, now, how many people died on 9-11 ?? 3000? And we allowed that to not only define us as a nation for the next 6 years, we allowed it to dictate the way we as Americans live our lives. It led us into war and into irrational fear and divisiveness. So, tell me again how a number of victims less than 10,000 isnt significant number "worthy of Congressional attention and action" in your book ? Kerry, it's official, you are really quite a pathetic excuse for a human being.

TRF,

Interesting point. You'll remember she also doesn't see the 30,000 people killed by guns every year as a problem worth solving either....yet she'll spend $400 billion and countless Iraqi lives (an those of American soldiers), hunting down a terrorist organization in a country where they largely weren't at before we invaded it, and overthrowing a dicator who was very much contained, and didn't have what Bush wanted us to believe he had.

"Lets let than sink in for a sec. Okay, now, how many people died on 9-11 ?? 3000? And we allowed that to not only define us as a nation for the next 6 years, we allowed it to dictate the way we as Americans live our lives. It led us into war and into irrational fear and divisiveness. So, tell me again how a number of victims less than 10,000 isnt significant number "worthy of Congressional attention and action" in your book ? Kerry, it's official, you are really quite a pathetic excuse for a human being."

Very polite. You kiss your mother with that mouth?

Okay, I see these conversations are too sophisticated and complex for you to follow. The blowing up of the World Trade Center was AN ACT OF WAR, which demanded a response, whether it had been 3000 killed or 30.

As to the 30,000 killed by guns, the problem there is that there is a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT protecting the right of people to own firearms. Since there are 8 times fewer people killed by guns than injured by toys every year and Congress has no interest in doing anything drastic about the "toy injury epidemic," it would seem highly disproportionate to go to the trouble of repealing an article of the Bill of Rights to deal with it.

I would say 10,000 American's being murdered every year, as close to an act of war as I need to want to solve the problem. What you consider "sophisticated and complex" is actually very simple, and could be fixed if people had a "little will", and were filled with less BS. Anybody see that article recently that the IRA doesn't want potential terrorists suspects stripped of their weapons? If this were any other subject beside gun ownership, Kerry would be howling about favoring the "terrorists" suspected or otherwise in any fashion.

there is a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT protecting the right of people to own firearms.

Tell me where it says "firearm or gun" anywhere in the second amendment wording and I'll agree.

There is already alot of precedent for not allowing us to "bear" any "arms" we want, so your sacred cow isn't as sacred as you think it is.

Kids

You've all misread the 2nd amendment:

http://www.bustedtees.com/shirt/secondamendment

"I would say 10,000 American's being murdered every year, as close to an act of war as I need to want to solve the problem. "

Wait. I think you're confused. What "10,000 Americans" are "being murdered every year?"

About the topic: Because (CONSERVATIVE) Christians were against this, it means that it was specifically was a slap against them? Were they the only ones who opposed it? Next thing you'll say this is proof that they are all atheists.

Kerry,

Its pretty clear what I am talking about. 10k roughly are murdered every year by guns, 10k roughly kill themselves, and roughly 10k are accidentally killed by others.

No, AG. It was a slap in the face to Christians (who had expressed loud opposition to the bill) to take the floor vote on THE NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER--a day devoted to honoring God, not protecting behavior He has called an "abomination."

"Its pretty clear what I am talking about. 10k roughly are murdered every year by guns, 10k roughly kill themselves, and roughly 10k are accidentally killed by others."

And this has what to do with the hate crimes bill, again?

who had expressed loud opposition to the bill) to take the floor vote on THE NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER--a day devoted to honoring God, not protecting behavior He has called an "abomination."

Why the all-caps? Pretty dramatic! Consider that there are many non-conservative Christians, and most of them don't object to homosexuality nearly as much as your right-wingers, if at all. I know, they are not the true Christians. Nonetheless, these self-styled Christians didn't feel slapped in the face. Some of them even voted for the bill.

It's always lovely to see Christians co-opting oppression, wherever they can find it. If any group should potentially have a problem with comparing sex-orientation discrimination to racial discrimination, it should be black people! But I guess the religious right wants to get upset on their behalf, just like they always do when black people are the subject of discrimination.

You know, I'm generally with you on this issue. However, your attempt to portray this as some kind of specifc affront to Christians is just another absolutely pathetic attempt by the religious right to don the mantle of whatever kind of oppression and victimization they can put their hands to. There is an apparent desperation to reinfoce this siege mentality. I wish I could get you to see how absurd and sad it looks from the other side.

One day, the religious right will realize that Christians already control this country, but even that doesn't mean they can or should have their way on everything. Oh wait, then they wouldn't be right wing. We already have Christians like that who vote democrat and independent.

As for the issue itself, I've already weighed in on it a bunch of times and don't have anything new to say.

Hi Kerry,

No, AG. It was a slap in the face to Christians (who had expressed loud opposition to the bill) to take the floor vote on THE NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER--a day devoted to honoring God, not protecting behavior He has called an "abomination."

This is so daft I love it. It's like a husband who beats his wife, the wife complains he ends up in court and rather indignately he says how dare you bring me to court especially today as it's my birthday!

Not happy with your religion being used to persecute gays and lesbians for centuries, you'd like to dictate how and when they complain about it. Priceless!

Yep that really has made me smile.

"Its pretty clear what I am talking about. 10k roughly are murdered every year by guns, 10k roughly kill themselves, and roughly 10k are accidentally killed by others." - ahmanrah

And this has what to do with the hate crimes bill, again? - Kerry

You decided it was legitimate to bring up the number of toy accidents a year in to justify your opinion on what is and what isn't a serious national problem. I thought it was irrelevant and said so. However, it's fair enough that others can argue the numbers. Don't pick the ground of the debate then ask in wonderment why you're having the conversation.

And this has what to do with the hate crimes bill, again?

Another one for your play book Kerry, the "Alzheimer Dodge"?