U.S. House backs hate crime measure protecting gays

Reuters ^ | 9-14-2005 | Joanne Kenen

[COEXERJ145]

WASHINGTON, Sept 14 (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday unexpectedly backed a measure to expand federal hate crime protection to gay people, a measure that House conservatives had blocked for years.

The Senate has passed similar legislation, which also expanded protections for the disabled, several times in recent years but House conservatives had argued that these cases should be dealt with on a local or state level without additional federal intervention.

This time the hate crime measure was attached to a bipartisan bill known as the Children's Safety Act aimed at tightening reporting requirements for child sex offenders. Companion legislation has not yet moved through the Senate, so the ultimate fate of the gay protection provision is uncertain.

Still backers were jubilant.

[maica]

This is a perfect example of a situation where the motive isn't clear, and it's one of the reasons why hate crime laws are problematic. You didn't give enough information to infer any motive other than robbery.

%%%%%

You write my thoughts exactly. Neither should any motive be inferred when the races are reversed - but we both know that does not happen.

I am totally opposed to "hate" crime legislation.

PS: I believe those boys shot the teacher because he sounded like a teacher, not because he was white and they were black. The shooter told the cops that he shot the man because he dissed him.

[maica]

This is a perfect example of a situation where the motive isn't clear, and it's one of the reasons why hate crime laws are problematic. You didn't give enough information to infer any motive other than robbery.

%%%%%

You write my thoughts exactly. Neither should any motive be inferred when the races are reversed - but we both know that does not happen.

I am totally opposed to "hate" crime legislation.

PS: I believe those boys shot the teacher because he sounded like a teacher, not because he was white and they were black. The shooter told the cops that he shot the man because he dissed him.

[Thorin]

It's so good to know that the Republicans are in charge.

[Kahonek]

"Neither should any motive be inferred when the races are reversed - but we both know that does not happen."

Glad to see that we agree on the basics. I do have to say that overall, prosecutors seem to be very careful when pressing "hate crime" charges. I don't think I've seen them pressed very often in ambiguous situations. Do you know of any examples? Seems like the prosecutors are often persecuted for NOT pressing them.

That said, I don't think the statutes are a good idea in the first place...

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Cong Boren of OK is in Dr. Tom Coburn's old district and would definitely be elected if he switched to Republican."

---

Absolutely. His family name and issue position makes him pretty much unbeatable, so we might be better off trying to get him to switch than running candidates against him.

[little jeremiah]

Your comment:

"Given that being homosexual is generally less than popular, it's a pretty safe assumption that they're more likely to be a target of abuse than a heterosexual person who is (other than sexuality) exactly the same."

Is mere personal, subjective supposition. Please cite some figures to support your opinion. Keep in mind that many so-called "hate crimes" against homosexuals have in fact turned out to be committed by the supposed victims themselves to elicit support for their cause.

For instance, the Matthew Shepard murder which was promoted as a "gay bashing" hate crime turned out to be a sordid, meth fueled robbery gone bad and had nothing to do with his homosexuality at all.

[costsvcrep]

If I choose to be a child molester and a neighbor decides to threaten me because I'm a child molester, do I get special protection?

First off, being a convicted child molester makes you a felon of a serious crime, making it quite a different situation than a regular law-abiding person who's gay.

Second, who's to say that homosexuality is a choice?

[mlc9852]

So you don't believe homosexuality is a choice? How can you say that? Is murder a choice? Is child abuse a choice? Is beating your dog a choice? Is sexual perversion a choice? I believe homosexuality is absolutely a choice, given the homosexuals I know and have known - everyone chooses who to have sex with, unless you are forced. I will never defend homosexual special laws by the thought police. I don't condone violence against anyone but I also don't believe homosexuals should have special laws protecting their behavior. That is ludicrous.

[costsvcrep]

First of all, why do you equate homosexuality to murder, child abuse, and cruelty to animals? HEALTHY sexuality has little to do with the illegal (and immoral) acts you allude to.

Second, there is little bearing to the argument "everyone chooses who to have sex with." By that stance, one's sexuality can be confirmed only by whether they have had sex with someone, which really isn't the case. If it was, then we would all be asexual until we each had sex. In reality, sexuality is not something gained through action, it's the tendancy to be attracted to a gender (I'm, of course, generalizing this).

If you honestly believe that being gay or straight (or somewhere in between) is a choice, then how can *anyone* be labeled gay or straight unless they're called that in the act of doing it? If it's the action (their choice of actions), not some intrinsic value, then they're only gay while actually engaging in gay sex. This, I'd hope you agree, doesn't make much sense.

[costsvcrep]

To quote myself:
Given that being homosexual is generally less than popular, it's a pretty safe assumption that they're more likely to be a target of abuse than a heterosexual person who is (other than sexuality) exactly the same.

To quote you:
Is mere personal, subjective supposition.
Yes, it *is* a supposition, which is why I said "assumption." It's not something I had facts for at hand, but the way in which I came to said assumption was pretty logical. Follow me here:
1) being gay is not very popular and is not widely accepted. (If it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion)
2) it is human nature to wish ill upon others that we do not like (this is an official way of saying "people don't like people that they don't like" which is obvious). A small amount of us act upon this ill will towards others.

Given these two statements, one can easily deduce that homosexuals (as a group) are more likely to be targeted by others for abuse (by the few who act upon their dislike or hatred) than heterosexuals are. Of course, another part of the reasoning has to do with there are far more heterosexual people than homosexual people in this world.

[costsvcrep]

Your example is logically invalid. You're presupposing the hyperthetical. What if man (A) and man (B) roles were reversed? The problem with hate-crime legislation is NOT in just and fair punishment, it is in subjective interpretation. How do you prove intent in the case oif man (B), if he was once in the KKK in his college days but now as a 50 year old contributing member of society happens to run-down and kill the black lady? His "past" will spawn motive, even though his intent was not to kill and was completely an accident. Under this legislation he would likely be convicted of a hate-crime, and suffer a more harsher sentence. The problem with subjective interpretation in law is that it shifts the burden of proof on the defendant, to prove innocence. How does one prove that they no longer ascribe to the views of the KKK??

I think you missed my point. My analogy is based on the assuption that man B *did* kill that person on purpose, regardless of what people can prove. Reversing the roles makes no difference; I simply put those in to demonstrate something racially motivated. Regardless of the victims, man B killed maliciously, which would deserve a harsher punishment.

Also, finding a motive behind a crime is neither subjective nor illogical. Finding motive helps us understand why something happened and allows society to better protect itself from violence in the future. We have laws like "intent to kill." If someone can be convicted of "intent to kill," how can that be done without motive?

In any just court, no one would be convicted based on 'subjective interpretation.' This is precisely why prosecutors attempt to find out *why* a crime is committed; it is rarely sufficient to base an entire case on evidence without reason. On the converse, motive, or lack thereof, helps people who are innocent to actually be freed of charges.

[mlc9852]

You consider homosexuality "healthy sex"?

[little jeremiah]

Your assumptions are purely speculative. And erroneous.

1. Someone like myself, who views same sex acts (due to overwhelming scientific evidence) to be unhealthy and unnatural, and wrong to promote, has no animus towards any individuals who so indulge. Therefore, even though my POV is that homosexuality is not something to be promoted, and not in any way equivalent to normal sexual relations, I wish no harm upon any self-identified "gays". The contrary - I hope that the message that they don't have to be "gay" gets to them, and that many seek help, so they can lead normal lives.

Many people think like me.

2. The evidence is actually opposite from your speculative assumption. There have been many, many instances of homosexuals violently attacking those who don't agree with them - interrupting church services, for instance, or shouting down lecturers, protesting in front of stores or residences, making aggressive demands, etc. So the evidence is the exact opposite of your speculation.

Many people feel sorry for homosexuals, just as they do for anyone who is mentally ill and needs help. But notice that very few other psychologically imbalanced people demand special rights or hold parades or promote their dysfunction.

[costsvcrep]

You consider homosexuality "healthy sex"?

Please don't troll. Besides, you asked the wrong question; it should've been "You consider homosexual sex 'healthy sex'?"
To answer that, yes I do, in the capacity that the sex (sexual intercourse) is heathy (possessing good health). Yes, there exists unhealthy sex, but that's not what I alluding to.

[little jeremiah]

Here we go again. Here's a link explaining some of the causes of homosexuality:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1420619/posts
Root Causes, Homosexual Consequences

An exremely high percentage of homosexuals were molested (which includes seduction) when quite young by older homosexuals. Many homosexuals have absent, abusive, or distant and cold fathers. And the clincher is that there are tens of thousands of former homosexuals. It's not for most people a conscious choice (although many admit that it is) but a psychological impairment, that can be healed in many cases.

And, as is the case with all sexual behavior, it is always a choice whether to engage in same sex acts or not.


mlc9852: Note recent signup date. It would be interesting to check his "in forum" comments.

[little jeremiah]

"HEALTHY sexuality has little to do with the illegal (and immoral) acts you allude to."

You consider homosexual sex 'healthy sex'?

"To answer that, yes I do..."

Average life-span of a gay male: 44 years
Average life-span of a gay female: 49 years
% of gay men in the general population: 1.8%
% of HIV carriers that are gay: 60%
% of gay men that contract venereal disease: 75% (vs 17%, general pop)
% of gay men that contract a VD annually: 40% (vs 2%, general pop)
% of gay men who are addicted to drugs: 51% (vs 7%, general pop)
% of gay men who have a major psychological disorder: 40% (vs. 3%, general pop)
% of gay men who are infected with:
Amebiasis: 35% (Inflamation of the rectum)
Giardiasis: 20% (chronic diarrhea, nausea)
Gonorrhea: 60%
Shigellosis: 15% (colonic and intestinal ulcers)
Chlamydia: 10%
Syphilis: 30%
"Crabs": 69%
Condylomata: 60% (anal warts)
Scabies: 22%
Herpes: 15%
Hepatitis A: 16%
Hep B: 27%
HIV +: 30% (As high as 50% in San Francisco)
AIDS: 10%

Healthy? I don't think so.

[mlc9852]

I am a woman and I believe homosexuality is sinful. I also believe it is a psychological condition, often caused by absent or abusive fathers. And with our public school systems pushing homosexuality as normal and an "alternative lifestyle", it will become even more prevalent. Remember, homosexuality used to be considered deviant by psychiatrists. Special laws for sexual choices is just stupid. We all make choices regarding sex.

[Benkei]

What if homosexuals target normal (yes, normal IS heterosexual) people? Will that get the same type of prosecution that black on white crime gets in terms of being treated as a 'hate' crime? If so, that is hardly the supposedly fair intent of the law; rather, it protects homosexuals as a privileged class.

If you recall any of dozens of race-based crimes, where the victim was targeted because they were white, where are the 'hate' crime prosecutions? True, blacks do get prosecuted for it, but if every crime that crosses the race/gender/religion line is a hate crime - and blacks commit 40% of violent crimes, at least, the numbers are not there. Sure, sure - the numbers are biased, the police only arrest homies, blah, blah and blah.

When some scumbag, say the guy who killed Dylan Groene's family, kidnapped him and his sister, raped them both and killed him. Now let's see: is his crime worse because he homosexually raped the boy? Should he automatically get a more severe sentence than the one for multiple murder, kidnapping and child raping? Should he, for example, be prosecuted Federally in weenie states like Wisconsin that have no death penalty to ensure that he finally gets what he deserves - but only because he apparently hates kids/heterosexuals/their parents/their siblings?

What, really, is the goal of this legislation? To add yet another layer or normalcy to the perversion that is homosexuality's?

[costsvcrep]

1. Someone like myself, who views same sex acts (due to overwhelming scientific evidence) to be unhealthy and unnatural, and wrong to promote, has no animus towards any individuals who so indulge.
Bluntly, there does not exist the 'overwhelming evidence' (scientific or not) that homosexual sex is inherently uhealthy. If anything, you are alluding to the common misnomer that "gay sex gives you AIDS," or something of that capacity. Sex (regardless of straight or gay) is unhealthy only if one or both partners possess a condition that would make it unhealthy. In fact, the only inherently unhealthy sex is sex between male and female blood relative, as it's been shown that children borne out of incest are much more likely to have developmental problems.

Therefore, even though my POV is that homosexuality is not something to be promoted, and not in any way equivalent to normal sexual relations, I wish no harm upon any self-identified "gays". The contrary - I hope that the message that they don't have to be "gay" gets to them, and that many seek help, so they can lead normal lives.
By your statement, you identify with the majority of people who do not react violently towards something you dislike. I was referring to those who DO react with violence. You, however, are still issuing an ill-will towards homosexuality; you believe it is not right and wish to change it. The practice of attempting to change something based only on your dislike of it can be dangerous. You may not be wishing physical harm on them, but what you want could quite possibly cause mental or emotional grief.

2. The evidence is actually opposite from your speculative assumption. There have been many, many instances of homosexuals violently attacking those who don't agree with them - interrupting church services, for instance, or shouting down lecturers, protesting in front of stores or residences, making aggressive demands, etc. So the evidence is the exact opposite of your speculation.
What about the violence toward homosexuals in their homes, in their parades (as you reference below), in places of work, in public, and in their places of worship. This, of course, is in addition to actual physical violence (beatings, rapes, murders, etc). Considering the number of homosexuals in this country to heterosexuals, you will not find numbers showing more homosexuality-inspired violence or crime than anti-homosexuality. Besides, the acts you describe, while not right, do not justify reciprocal actions against an entire group of people.

Many people feel sorry for homosexuals, just as they do for anyone who is mentally ill and needs help. But notice that very few other psychologically imbalanced people demand special rights or hold parades or promote their dysfunction.
I very much hope (for your argument's sake) you are not proposing that being homosexual is something that constitutes being mentally ill or psychologically imbalanced. In the court of law, psychological conditions are generally well protected (*too* protected, one would say), and blame is often placed on these disorders, as opposed to the individual who committed a crime. Are you to suggest that someone that identifies with being gay has less responsibility for their actions than a straight person does?