Diss a "gay", go to jail?

[Dos Equis]

Hey, dont' get me wrong... I don't agree with pedophilia at all.


http://www.bluegrassfairness.org/pages/TP-pedophilia.asp

Sources are cited.

Thanks.  From the link:

The vast majority of pedophiles and child molesters are heterosexual males.Pedophilia is the sexual attraction of an adult to a child. Homosexuality is the sexual attraction of an adult to an adult of the same gender.

This myth plays right into the fears of parents for their children, but the facts don't support this nasty, divisive ploy. Sex abuse crimes are a major problem. Sex abuse criminals should be vigorously prosecuted. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of sex abuse criminals are heterosexual males.

"The empirical research on adult sexual orientation and molestation of children does not show that gay men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children."


I don't have any basis to disagree with this, but it does seem like a number of male pedophiles molest female and male children.  

[Deedee]

I still question the jurisdiction.  How an I "exporting" anything if I make a posting from Texas, to Getbig's server which is in California, and a person in France later accesses Getbig's California server and reads what I had to say?  Is it now incumbent on every internet user to know the laws of all 200+ countries in the world (many of which conflict with each other), just to post on the internet from their own living room?  Everyone except your average Euro would agree that that's absurd!

Getbig haters are probably safe.    I think the problem arises if you have some kind of holocaust denier/white supremicist website with a European e-mailing list for example.  Not being a hater myself, I only know vague details, and even that's only because it's been on the Canadian news in the past. I agree it's frightening though.  Europa is fuc-kayed, as they say in French, in many ways, with regards to the hate crime issue...

[tu_holmes]

Thanks.  From the link:

The vast majority of pedophiles and child molesters are heterosexual males.Pedophilia is the sexual attraction of an adult to a child. Homosexuality is the sexual attraction of an adult to an adult of the same gender.

This myth plays right into the fears of parents for their children, but the facts don't support this nasty, divisive ploy. Sex abuse crimes are a major problem. Sex abuse criminals should be vigorously prosecuted. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of sex abuse criminals are heterosexual males.

"The empirical research on adult sexual orientation and molestation of children does not show that gay men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children."


I don't have any basis to disagree with this, but it does seem like a number of male pedophiles molest female and male children. 

That certainly may be true... I don't see homosexuality in the same regard as pedophilia myself... pedophilia by it's nature of preying on those who are weak is disgusting... being gay in and of itself is not "preying" at all.

[Dos Equis]

Which is why we need to zealously guard that freedom, since we seem to be the last bastion of freedom left, and since fascists like Sheila Jackson-Lee (the congresswoman from the original post) try to whittle away at that freedom all the time.

I agree with this too.  I never did like that woman.  She did some shady stuff.  Cannot believe they keep sending her back to Congress.  

And regarding "hate crime" laws, I think they are really unnecessary.  We have laws on the books that prohibit assault, rape, murder, etc.  If someone commits a crime like that, regardless of their motivation, they need to be punished.  I doubt these hate crime statutes are much of a deterrent.  

[Dos Equis]

That certainly may be true... I don't see homosexuality in the same regard as pedophilia myself... pedophilia by it's nature of preying on those who are weak is disgusting... being gay in and of itself is not "preying" at all.

I agree.  On the other hand, a male who molests a male child is a homosexual in my book. 

[tu_holmes]

I agree.  On the other hand, a male who molests a male child is a homosexual in my book. 

I would not necessarily disagree with that, but I would still say heterosexual pedophilia is much higher than homosexual pedophelia... Unless the group in question is the catholic palpacy.

[G o a t b o y]

And regarding "hate crime" laws, I think they are really unnecessary.  We have laws on the books that prohibit assault, rape, murder, etc.  If someone commits a crime like that, regardless of their motivation, they need to be punished.  I doubt these hate crime statutes are much of a deterrent. 

I absolutely agree. Murder, assult, rape, whatever are all illegal already! By creating a "hate crime" statute, what you're really doing is further penalizing someone for what is in their mind. While I agree that anyone who commits murder or assult needs to go to jail period, I'm not big on "though police" enhancements that criminalize their motivation as well as their actual crime.

[tu_holmes]

I absolutely agree. Murder, assult, rape, whatever are all illegal already! By creating a "hate crime" statute, what you're really doing is further penalizing someone for what is in their mind. While I agree that anyone who commits murder or assult needs to go to jail period, I'm not big on "though police" enhancements that criminalize their motivation as well as their actual crime.

I agree... it's like saying well, if you murder someone just because you hate them... it's ok, as long as you don't hate them for their race, creed, color, national origin, or sexual orientation.

WTF... murder is murder and assault is assault.

[G o a t b o y]

Getbig haters are probably safe. 

That's good to know.  However, whenever someone creates an objectionable law, and tries to mollify my objections by saying I'm not their "target", I'm reminded of this famous passage:


"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."

[tu_holmes]

That's good to know.  However, whenever someone creates an objectionable law, and tries to mollify my objections by saying I'm not their "target", I'm reminded of this famous passage:


"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."

That's why I stand up for everyone.

[Deedee]

And regarding "hate crime" laws, I think they are really unnecessary.  We have laws on the books that prohibit assault, rape, murder, etc.  If someone commits a crime like that, regardless of their motivation, they need to be punished.  I doubt these hate crime statutes are much of a deterrent.  

Some people, including me, feel that hate crimes are crimes of terrorism and therefore different than regular crimes, since a whole group of people are "assaulted" instead of an individual.

Let's say I am one of ten women living in a village of men who don't want us there, because their religious beliefs hold that we as a group are an abomination and should be expelled, executed, etc... if they murder one of the women to "send a message" wouldn't I be affected, i.e. frightened, intimidated, silenced? Wouldn't that encourage me to get out of dodge to avoid the same fate? I think that's the basic difference.

When a government institutes hate crime laws, it validates the precept that no group should be marginalized... but rather included and protected under its laws.

[Dos Equis]

Some people, including me, feel that hate crimes are crimes of terrorism and therefore different than regular crimes, since a whole group of people are "assaulted" instead of an individual.

Let's say I am one of ten women living in a village of men who don't want us there, because their religious beliefs hold that we as a group are an abomination and should be expelled, executed, etc... if they murder one of the women to "send a message" wouldn't I be affected, i.e. frightened, intimidated, silenced? Wouldn't that encourage me to get out of dodge to avoid the same fate? I think that's the basic difference.

When a government institutes hate crime laws, it validates the precept that no group should be marginalized... but rather included and protected under its laws.

Deedee if the woman in the group was murdered, the person who committed the crime would face the maximum punishment under the law:  either life in prison or death (depending on the state they're in).  And if the person committed the crime in Texas, he would actually be executed (if he committed the crime in California he's spend at least twenty years on death row).  This is why hate crimes legislation doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.  We cannot execute the person twice.  We don't need an enhancement to punish someone when there are laws on the books to deal with these crimes already.

I think these thought crime laws are designed to appease a small but vocal segment of our society.   

[tu_holmes]

Deedee if the woman in the group was murdered, the person who committed the crime would face the maximum punishment under the law:  either life in prison or death (depending on the state they're in).  And if the person committed the crime in Texas, he would actually be executed (if he committed the crime in California he's spend at least twenty years on death row).  This is why hate crimes legislation doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.  We cannot execute the person twice.  We don't need an enhancement to punish someone when there are laws on the books to deal with these crimes already.

I think these thought crime laws are designed to appease a small but vocal segment of our society.   

I agree with the Bum... Murder is murder... assault is assault... doesn't matter the reason for it.

[Deedee]

I don't necessarily agree with hate crime legislation... just stating why I "think" countries have them.

I do however, believe that hate crimes *exist* and that they are different from other crimes, for the reason I stated above. I think these crimes are on par with terrorism. If I murder my husband because we argued, no other person or group needs to fear me or anticipate any further act of violence from me. However, if I kill someone in the name of anti-semitism, or because I hate white men, many people are given the message that they need to fear me. These are totally different kinds of crime. 

I grew up with stories of Marc Lepine, who killed 14 female students in a classroom after letting the men go, because he hated women, obviously, and blamed *all* of them for his problems. I think if you find yourself in a "vulnerable" group, you have more of sensitivity to that sort of crime.

[tu_holmes]

I don't necessarily agree with hate crime legislation... just stating why I "think" countries have them.

I do however, believe that hate crimes *exist* and that they are different from other crimes, for the reason I stated above. I think these crimes are on par with terrorism. If I murder my husband because we argued, no other person or group needs to fear me or anticipate any further act of violence from me. However, if I kill someone in the name of anti-semitism, or because I hate white men, many people are given the message that they need to fear me. These are totally different kinds of crime. 

I grew up with stories of Marc Lepine, who killed 14 female students in a classroom after letting the men go, because he hated women, obviously, and blamed *all* of them for his problems. I think if you find yourself in a "vulnerable" group, you have more of sensitivity to that sort of crime.

In that context I can see a difference the reason behind the crime, but should the punishment be different for it?

Just tossing it out there.

[Deedee]

In that context I can see a difference the reason behind the crime, but should the punishment be different for it?

Just tossing it out there.

Well, that's where the reasoning breaks down.  As BB says, you can't mete out more punishment than the maximum, so ultimately, that's that.  The only value, might be a judge reiterating the reprehensible nature of the crime specifically as a hate crime... but it's not like the average person is privy to the Judge's last words before he sentences someone.

[tu_holmes]

Well, that's where the reasoning breaks down.  As BB says, you can't mete out more punishment than the maximum, so ultimately, that's that.  The only value, might be a judge reiterating the reprehensible nature of the crime specifically as a hate crime... but it's not like the average person is privy to the Judge's last words before he sentences someone.

Only in the most high profile of cases do we hear the judges words...