Stealth Homosexual ‘Hate Crimes’ Bill Passes House Of Representatives

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Please don’t discuss the clerical scandal in this forum. If you wish to discuss it, please go to the Sacrament forum. Holy Orders is a sacrament.
 
traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2441

“This legislation will ‘federalize’ every crime involving homosexuals and so-called transgendered individuals. It will strip local law enforcement officials of the right to prosecute what are essentially state or community criminal issues.”

All people are already protected by laws againt assault, manslaughter, murder and so on. The argument that not having homosexuals, cross-dressers and “transgendered” be part of a protected class is giving permission to harm them is puzzling.

“In addition, the whole concept of hate crimes is misleading. Every violent crime is an expression of hate against an individual. There is no such thing as a “love” crime of violence. Liberal call these “hate crimes,” but what they really want to do is penalize people for their thoughts, which will ultimately prove dangerous to pastors, religious leaders, therapists, and many others.”

“This legislation will set the stage for criminalizing any speech considered to be “hate” against homosexuals, cross-dressers, or transsexuals.”

The legislation passed by Congress is the first step on the road to prosecuting churches for not allowing homosexual ministers.

“While the nation’s attention was focused on the Judge John Roberts confirmation hearing and on aiding victims of Hurricane Katrina, pro-homosexual forces in the U.S. House of Representatives snuck through a pro-homosexual hate crimes bill by attaching it to legislation designed to protect children from sexual predators.”

This was puposeful timing and a purposeful attachment. What Congress member wants to be seen as voting against an act to protect children?
 
40.png
soulspeak23:
Well, as long as you seem to hate everyone equally, I guess you’re ok.How presumptive of you to write all that in his statement! So what is the only acceptable population in this country for you? White, rich and catholic?Catholics come in every color, in every financial state and we do not degrade others because of their Religion. And no one should have special rights?Not if we are all equal. And everyone should be equal and the same?Equal does not take away the differences between humans it just says that our rights are equal. Well, guess what, that is not, nor has it ever been, the case in America. Certain groups must be afforded certain priveledges at certain times so that we can get closer to the ideal of having everyone be equal.Then you create unequal for another which will breed hard feelings and more problems. Or do you still think that African Americans should be slaves?
Click to expand...
Oh, come on:rolleyes: Look at where you end up:nope: How did you get there? What are you using diversionary tactics for???
 
Hate crime laws are being used to prosecute a Catholic bishop in Canada who did no more than say publicly that homosexuality is wrong.

Hate crimes laws when applied broadly can make speech a crime, faith a crime, and ultimately, thought a crime.
 
Promotor Fidei:
Hate crime laws are being used to prosecute a Catholic bishop in Canada who did no more than say publicly that homosexuality is wrong.
Click to expand...
That is startling! Could you tell us more about this?
 
That’s interesting. I thought it was already considered a “hate crime” if a homosexual was beaten up/killed by someone who was demonstratively anti-homosexual.

I too believe it’s wrong that a special class of people has been made in the eyes of the law, but in my opinion, this slope was already made sufficiently slippery when the original concept of “hate crime” was passed into law.

I think the greatest cause for concern that now must be guarded against is to take the concept of a “hate crime” and infringe upon the First Amendment directly. Right now, hate crime statutes don’t infringe upon the 1st Amendment any more than any other criminal statute, but it comes awfully close.

As a side note: I don’t usually post to this forum, or others that use similar forum technology but does anyone know if there’s any kind of spell checking capability around here?
 
Guar Fan:
That is startling! Could you tell us more about this?
Click to expand...
‘A rally to support Calgary Bishop Fred Henry is in the works for this weekend, after the Alberta Human Rights Commission admitted to entertaining two human rights complaints against the bishop from homosexual activists, for comments the bishop wrote in a pastoral letter condemning same-sex “marriage” in January.’

lifesite.net/ldn/2005/apr/05040706.html

Their “hate crime” statutes made speech a crime. I’m betting if you looked close at the amendment we’re discussing, you’ll find it strips us ALL of rights in the name of protecting against hate.

"Those who sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety are not deserving of either liberty or safety." – Ben Franklin, 1776

Be awake! Be aware!
 
40.png
soulspeak23:
So, what this means is that you think that it’s ok for these people to get beat up or killed in the streets because they are different? Don’t misunderstand me, I am not trying to put words in yuor mouth. But to try and fight this legislation because it includes the above mentioned people seems to me that you’d have no problem with them being beaten or killed. That doesn’t sound like a very Christian act. And as for sweeping things under the rug, look further into the legislation. It also includes a clause stating the anyone being arrested or even merely detained by ANY federal agency will have DNA collected from them to contribute to a nationwide DNA database. So that means, a federal agent sees you simply walking down the street, doesn’t like how you look and stops you, has the right to take blood, hair, saliva, etc. samples from you. How’s that for freedom?
Click to expand...
No discrimination is ever “right.” But, when the government starts protecting one groups of rights at the expense of another groups rights then it becomes problematic.
The laws should be made to be fair to all people with no exceptions. When I was a child divorce was so rare that people did not let me play with their children before my mother re-married(maybe I would have made them divorce;).
Look your private life is yours and you have to stand before the same GOD that I do. My private life is mine and I have to stand before the same GOD that you do. If we as human beings did not make such a public show of who we are sexually in public then it would not matter. When I was a child the women that lived together were as far as I was considered friends.
Even now I consider the two men that live down the street from us as friends living together. Most of the people that I know don’t care as long as it is not “in your face.” Maybe this is a lesson that needs to be re-viewed in our world today.
 
40.png
MikeinSD:
If you don’t like additional punishment for hate crimes, don’t try to beat up gay men or lesbians.Don’t do the crime, don’t do the time.
Click to expand...
**
Does this make my family and I less worthy of justice since we are no in the protected groups? IMHO the punishment needs to be handed out evenly to those that “do the crime.” No one deserves to be “beat up” or harmed by others. Every crime needs to be handled the same no exceptions.

As far as I am concerned the only protected group should be children in the womb.
**
 
Promotor Fidei said:
‘Alberta Human Rights Commission admitted to entertaining two human rights complaints against the bishop from homosexual activists, for comments the bishop wrote in a pastoral letter condemning same-sex “marriage” in January.’
Click to expand...

One of the complaints has been dropped. Apparently it was made for the sake of publicity.

lifesite.net/ldn/2005/aug/05082601.html
I’m betting if you looked close at the amendment we’re discussing, you’ll find it strips us ALL of rights in the name of protecting against hate.
Click to expand...
Here is the provision that the House of Representives passed:

thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./temp/~c109y0JJyD:e140452:

It looks to me that hate crimes can only be charged if bodily injury has been committed or has been threatened by means of fire, a gun or explosives. So merely shouting insults and threats wouldn’t qualify (unless the person was brandishing a gun while making the threats).
 
KathleenElsie said:
**
Does this make my family and I less worthy of justice since we are no in the protected groups? IMHO the punishment needs to be handed out evenly to those that “do the crime**.” No one deserves to be “beat up” or harmed by others. Every crime needs to be handled the same no exceptions.

As far as I am concerned the only protected group should be children in the womb.
Click to expand...

Are you specifically targeted because you are in a group (or percieved to be in that group) above and beyond the average?

if you are, you could be called ‘pursecuted’, in such a case you might consider the extra protection nothing more than having your suffering/chance of suffering reduced to average.

If violence and hatred were evenly and logically distributed your argument would have greater merit. They are not.

Indeed we can use the Catholic Church as an example of the uneven distribution of (note the inverted commas) ‘hate’, given the churches expected ban on gay priests and the faulty logic and faulty psychology behind it.

Your Church may be right, there is a chance I suppose, but you cannot deny that ‘anti-hate’ and ‘anti-dicrimination’ laws should not exist because ‘hate’ and ‘antithis/that’ are evenly distributed.
 
40.png
buffalo:
Hypothetical:

If I murder my wife because of my hate after she has an affair why doesn’t she get this special status? Why isn’t my crime more punishable because of a hate crime?
Click to expand...
If you hated your wife because she was a woman, and there was a history of violence in the local culture specifically aimed at women because they are women (examples might be: ‘all women are gossips’, ‘women made us unclean by touching us during menstruation’) then there could be specific additional punishments directed at you.

The additional punishment is to act as a disincentive to acts directed at a group just for being part of that group.

That is, if you hate your wife because she is always right and you are usually wrong, she earns more than you, and is a better cook, then your hate is personal and directed and the chance of murder is just like that of any other marriage.

If you hate your wife for none of the above, but because she is a woman, then your crime is impersonal, and you are a danger not only to your wife, but to all women (and transvestites and transexuals).

The greater punishment is to help protect all women, not just one in particular.
 
40.png
KathleenElsie:
No discrimination is ever “right.” But, when the government starts protecting one groups of rights at the expense of another groups rights then it becomes problematic.
Click to expand...
In what way does extra punishment for certain crimes come at the expense of anothers protection?

It doesnt. You still have the previous protection, nothing has been lost. 5 years for assaulting you is still 5 years for assaulting you.
 
2perfection, I don’t follow your logic. How can you undermine the authority of the Church to speak out about moral issues, as you did on a previous thread, and then accuse the Church of
faulty logic and faulty psychology
Click to expand...
for taking the issue seriously?

Fr. Euteneneur, president of Human Life International in an article, “Three Priests Speak Out on ‘Gay Priest’ Ban” had this to say:
“Our message to the media, to the homosexual activists and to the liberal church is clear. You can’t have it both ways: you can’t complain about Church negligence in the pedophilic priest problem and also complain about the Church’s diligence in addressing it. Either you grab the problem by its root and yank it out of the soil of the priesthood or you keep asking the faithful to subsidize deviant behavior and the resulting legal liability. Benedict has made his choice, and we are the better for it.”
Click to expand...
renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/050922
 
It is a tactic to use a bill which has some good elements in it such as the protection of children in order to pass other elements of a more dubious and controversial nature such as sexual orientation. I refer to the infamous Omnibus Bill which was introduced by Pierre Trudeau in 1968 which had over 100 items many of which were good. Nevertheless, this bill liberalized Canadian abortion laws.

In Canada today as a result of the new hate crime laws Christians are being persecuted because their religious viewpoints are regarded with hostility by the provincial Human Rights Commissions and the charges for hate crimes are on the increase. Honest citizens who are out of step with politically correct state doctrine invite trouble when they write so much as a letter to the editor. As a matter of fact, the police are requesting increased funding to monitor the Internet for hate crimes.
 
Guar Fan:
No, homosexuality is a personal characteristic, not a lifestyle… Its the same as being white doesn’t mean you have chosen a white lifestyle.
Click to expand...
Not according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

**"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex." (Catechism #2357.)
 
What if ppl publicy hate you becasue you are Christian? SHouldn’t that be a hate crime?

I don’t think they should include homosexuals and the like… they are already protected as citizens.
40.png
soulspeak23:
You have a very valid argument and I agree with most of it. However, does that mean that because you (not specifically you, just generally) don’t like someone for some aspect of thier person, that you have the right to attack them for it? Absolutley, you ahve the right to an opinion, but no one has the right to violence. Now, I fully understand that there are completely random acts of violence, based upon nothing at all but the attackers rage, and I think that those people should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I also think that a group of people who have repeatedly been targeted for such violence should be protected. If there was a wave of attacks on nice little church going ladies, I would support legislation protecting them. Its simply a form of (hopefully) detterrant so that perhaps these attackers will think more before they simply go and kill someone. Weighing a heavier sentence is meant to keep these crimes from happening in the first place. And I don’t think that anyone can argue with me wanting less crime all around.
Click to expand...
 
Hopefully it gets voted down. Homosexuals have protection already as citizens. To set them aside as special is just wrong. Plain and simple.
40.png
2perfection:
well. if citizen A has x1% chance of being beaten up, but person B has x1% + x2% due to identification (correct or erroneous), then X2% indicates a systematic abuse above and beyond that suffered by other citizens.

Special classes are created when dealing with bashing because special classes pre-exist. the law reflects nothing more than the reality.

opposing hate-crime bills it at worse wicked, at best misinformed.
Click to expand...
 
Why not use the time and money spent pursuing additional “hate crime” criminal charges and punishment to enforce the laws that are already in place to protect citizens? The notion of protected classes of people is questionable, but pushed forward because it is politically correct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top