Gay man beat "to the point of disfigurement" by three 19 year olds

No, we certainly don't need hate crime legislation, do we, Republicans and conservative Christians?


====

LOWELL -- Three Lowell men are facing charges of mayhem and civil rights violation after police said jumped a Lowell man early Saturday morning and beat him to the point of disfigurement, police said.

Jonathan M. Artis, of 201 White St., Jeffrey J. Buchannan, of 378 Adams St., Apt. 152 and Jules V. Ruggs, of 32 W. 4th Street, 1st Floor, all 19, were arrested for mayhem, civil rights violation (assault and battery) and simple assault and battery, police said.

The 22-year-old victim of the attacks told police he was walking down the street when the three men began harassing him, hurling homophobic epithets at him before repeatedly punching him in the face shortly before 3 a.m.

http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_6047441

What is wrong with some people? Good God.

...as long as high profile people reject it!

Imagine if Cheney came out against homohobia???

...at least his daughter Mary would be safe.

you have a problem with someone so you just start beating them up ????????? stupid assholes.

:shrug:

Link to the article:

http://www.greenvillenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070603/NEWS01/706030315

Excerpts from the article:

The family of a man who died after being assaulted at a bar May 16 said they want to keep his memory alive by lobbying for the passage of legislation that would create a state hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by gender and sexual orientation.

Sean Kennedy, 21, died hours after he was struck in the face outside Brew's, a bar on Pelham Road, authorities said. The Greenville County Coroner's Office said Kennedy was hit at least once and fell back and struck his head on the pavement.

The Greenville County Sheriff's Office charged Stephen Andrew Moller, 18, of Taylors, with murder with a warrant stating that the act was "a result of the defendant (Moller) not liking the sexual identity of the victim." Moller is being held without bond in the Greenville County Detention Center.

The FBI and the Sheriff's Office are reviewing the case to see whether the fatal assault should be classified as a hate crime. But FBI spokesman Tom O'Neill said that federal hate-crime legislation doesn't include sexual orientation. O'Neill said there would be no increased penalty in such a case.

:mad:

Dominionst fuel this type of behavior...can you imagine what would happen if they gained control of the government?

is in the same league as the comments and slurs of the three gay-bashers!

You support the free exchange and criticism of ideas, don't you?

But, from the argumentation and debate perspective: just what in the fuck place has an a priori assumption of religion got to do with this incident?

One can only conclude that you live in the Lowell area and that they did this in the name of Christ or in the name of God, and that you found this out because it has been reported such.

What a cheesy argument you make!

the initial comment in this post, "always 'the same league'". Utter nonsense.

What liberal democrats are being beaten to disfigurement?
What Catholic nuns are being beaten to disfigurement?
How about dog haters?
Poles?
Israelis?
Licensed boat captains?
Vegans?

And, as for "hate crime", that kind of brutal behavior ALREADY IS A CRIME!

NO ONE should get a pass on that sort of behavior, including inflammatory comments that tend to incite hatred.

It's intended to take into account that a hate crime is carried out to intimidate an entire group of people to which the primary victims belong, and thus make secondary victims of the entire group.

They extend the sentence for the perpetrator, which is done as a service to the State, not the victim. If something is to be done for the victim, that will be decided in civil court, not criminal court

"Christian" movement, hatred against gays is acceptable. The purpose of hate crime legislation is to delegitimize the hatred and thus curtail the crimes triggered by that hatred.

which is why even the most rabid of right-wing religious radicals hides behind the "hate the sin, love the sinner" BS

The flock knows the "love the sinner" stuff is all for show.

but the fact that they feel the need to wink and nod suggests they feel societal pressure about their position.

Civil court. Wow.

Thank you for advocating throwing me under the bus, and welcome to my ignore list.

Criminal laws do nothing to help the victims get restitution for the crimes committed against them. Criminal laws are meant to protect the public, and not one individual. That's why criminal laws have no provisions for restitution and that's why crimes are prosecuted by the State, and not by the victims.

This is not a matter of opinion. It is fact

Please see my post #415 on victim compensation laws as part of the criminal sentencing process:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1030624&mesg_id=1063766

You're not, by any chance a lawyer, are you? :shrug:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime,
Legal Bulletin #6, "Ordering Restitution to the Crime Victim"



Link: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/bulletins/legalseries/bulletin6/welcome.html

:eyes:

Mentioning civil court (which is where individuals can seek compensation from those who have harmed them) does nothing to prevent the perpetrators criminal prosecution.

And Hate Crimes Laws are based on any benefit to the victim. The benefits of enacting and enforcing HC laws accrue to the community and the state

Not to mention, elevating this type of crime punishable under Federal laws.

Under our system of laws, prosecution of criminals is not meant to provide a benefit to the individual(s) harmed. The benefit accrues to the community and the state.

Yes, the legislation does elevate the crime and the sentence. But those effects benefit us all.

And yes, the legislation might also contain things that directly benefit the victims of these crimes (counseling, etc). I was a bit careless with my wording. By "hate crimes laws" I referring only to the part that elevates the crime and the sentence, and not other politicies that are included along with that. I should have been more clear.

You said, "If something is to be done for the victim, that will be decided in civil court, not criminal court." That's not true.

This document is from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, explaining how victim compensation is part and parcel of the criminal proceedings:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/bulletins/legalseries/bulletin6/welcome.html



...and:



...and:



It's not a perfect system, as this report notes. But even under the Bush-Cheney administration (which updated this web document in March of this year) the DOJ recognizes the value of restitution laws as part of the overall effort to broadly enact justice when a crime has been committed. I think the argument has been made -- convincingly -- that hate crimes laws can be a valuable part of that effort as well.

I just don't understand how some people fail to grasp such a clear concept:



Well said, IMO. :thumbsup:

It is the singling out of the victim, not for any perceived wrong or potential gain, but because of the belief that the victim's membership in a particular group make him or her a legitimate target.

Ideally hate crime legislation should protect even paedophiles from targeted attack and harassment.

WTF attacks should also attract the harshest penalties. The Current US administration is the clearest of evidence that "Because I can." should be an indictment and not an excuse.

three idiots were "Christians" or even claim to be.

How did "Christianity" get involved in this conversation.

Besides, even if they did CLAIM to be "Christians," they're not. Real Christians don't go beating up on people. It's not in keeping with Jesus' teachings.

You know, the one's who think it's silly to believe in something if there's no evidence to support the belief, except when it's their beliefs.

n/t

something that has nothing to do with the story is detestable.

I am not in favor of "hate crime legislation", I am solidly in favor of upholding laws that protect people from injury and bring perpetrators to justice. It is sad that these laws can only be used after a crime has been committed, therefore not preventing such an incident. Prevention of such things happening is the responsibility of society and community. Just as a Stop sign does not grab a car and force it to stop, laws, by themselves, cannot force people into restraint from doing horrible things.

This individual faces a lifetime if pain and disfigurement for something that should never have happened, and if society does not raise standards of behavior, more things like this be in happening.
Acts like this happen because a community does not hold it's members to a standard, they either condone such behavior outright, or condone it by their silence.

Society seeks justice from the court system, but the real blame rests w/a society that even allows such behavior. What galls me however, is that people will drag religion, political affiliation or anything else in to the discussion that has nothing to do w/the subject.

I thank you for your reason and your restraint in your response...you beat me to it...:hug:

are a sect and are very scary. What we call fundamentalists are not all such haters as the Domionists. Look them up.

But to assume that every perpertrator of a violent crime went to Regent University is faulty logic and not worth defending.

The issue of the original post was about a trio of scumbags. There is just a chance that they are not dominionists.

<edited for typing too fast -- TWICE!>

Do you know anything at all about Dominionism/Christian Reconstructionism?

These people (actually a very small but very highly-placed group of religious leaders) seek to subsume the United States Constitution with Biblical law. Religious motivations, under their rule, would become mjore important than whether xyz action is actually legal or not. So long as it is biblical, to them, it is legal.

Under Dominionism, Biblical law- Old Testament law, at that- would reign as the supreme law of the land. Every member of this board would either be given a single chance to "repent and recant", or be killed outright. I, as a gay man, would either be stoned to death by these people, or burned at the stake.

Christian Dominionists are just as dangerous to the US as Islamic Wahabbists who enforce Sharia law are to Muslim nations. I am not overstating the case when I say that these people desire nothing less than the total and complete destruction of the secular United States. For them, prayer in school would not go far enough, no- both history and science would be, under them, taught through an exclusively Biblical lens. Music classes would focus solely upon specifically religious works; art courses would require students to depict strictly religious themes. AP literature courses would be brought to an end, to be replaced by mandatory Bible classes.

I do not go far enough. These people want to take religious control of all functions of the State and make this their version of what a "Christian nation" looks like. Were they to actually try to follow through with this (and, each year, some crackpot in Congress reintroduces the so-called 'Constitution Restoration Act' to attempt exactly that), we would all see their actions as treason the like of which we had never seen.

Dominionists are a very real danger to the USA, although thankfully their numbers are as yet far too small, and their intentions far too extreme, to have the impact upon the public they desire.

But like them? As bad as them? I hope I've educated you on this subject a bit, because from your comment it's clear you didn't know what these people are really all about. I'm not going to flame you for it, though- in spite of the fact that they are happy to explain their intentions to you, individually, were you to actually ask one of them, they do tend to keep those same intentions away from the public eye. Honestl, I'm surprised as many people know about the Dominionists as do in the first place. It's generally not considered politic to consider the wanton destruction of one's own country.

I know PRECISELY who they are and what they stand for!

What concerns me is how you fail to see that what you and some other folks here are doing is tantamount to what those 3 ass clowns did, without the actual violence. You have made assumptions about....

Wait! I've an idea. Let's read the followup story in the Lowell Sunday paper and see if it makes mention of their ethnicity or religious affiliation. If it turns out that they are, in fact, dominionists, I'll eat my words. Every one of them.

And please note, that at no time do I make any apology for dominionists or hate-filled fundamental christians. The issue is to not make the same rational short-circuits that most of these people would make.

It's been found under every political and/or belief system known.

Nice try though, attempting to insert your own knee-jerk, broad-brush prejudice to an already tragic situation wrought with prejudice.

http://www.oneplace.com/Ministries/Focus_on_the_Family/Archives.asp?bcd=2007-5-9

"The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a bill that Dr. Dobson says is "designed to muzzle people of faith." Ironically, Congress approved this legislation on the National Day of Prayer -- a day when countless Americans gathered to pray publicly. Pro-family leaders Gary Bauer and Tony Perkins join Dr. Dobson to discuss how the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act could restrict Americans' right to free speech by making it a "hate crime" to say that homosexuality is immoral. In addition, Dr. Dobson provides an update on last week's National Day of Prayer events in Washington, D.C.
"It starts with hate crimes. Then it progresses to hate speech which will silence the pulpits of America." -- Tony Perkins"

The post referenced asserts that brutal mindless abhorrent killing of gay persons is the presumed end of a religion, namely, Christianity.


This is false.

and/or dominionists. At least, not in the article I read

Again, how did we veer into assuming these three characters were Christians, or even claimed to be?

Whether Dobson and his peons are fighting hate crime legislation has NOTHING to do with the event in question, UNLESS it turns out later that these three guys were sent by Dobson to perpetrate this crime - which is a fact not in evidence.

legitimization and gives "divine" inspiration to hatred of gays. It doesn't mean the perpetrators were necessarily Christian. To ignore that as an underlying basis is to not address the situation.

to the hatred of gays - and most of them aren't "Christian" based. Most of them are fear-based.

To automatically assume this crime was committed as a result of some "Christian" dogma is as bigoted as these three men are against homosexuals.

It may, very well, turn out that these three men belonged to some religious organization that taught them this hate. But, more than likely, I'm guessing their hatred of gays was more based in fear (either of something unknown or that they, themselves, might BE gay) than because they listened to Dobson, Robertson or some other preacher.

homosexuality was considered a mental disease and homosexuals are imprisoned

When I peruse the local news message boards in my area, all the people who are against homosexuality provide Christian fundamentalist reasons for their bigotry. My experience in this represents more than four decades and several different parts of the country.

I have never, ever heard a single person say anything against homosexuality UNLESS they were giving supposed Christian Biblical "reasons" - invariably selected passages from Leviticus, while the other passages are ignored - for their bigotry.

It is very easy to assume that ANYONE expressing violent hatred against gay people has been heavily influenced by fundamentalist Christian teachings.

if you havent met any non-religious homophobes

And I don't find it easy to make that assumption

Name one public figure who is homophobic and doesn't provide a religious reason for their opinion about gay people.

I can provide a dozen examples of public homophobic figures who used supposed biblical teachings to support their anti-gay bigotry.

this thread is not about a public figure. Neither the victim nor the perps were public figures. I see no reason to limit this to public figures.

I have never, ever heard a single person say anything against homosexuality UNLESS they were giving supposed Christian Biblical "reasons" - invariably selected passages from Leviticus, while the other passages are ignored - for their bigotry.

Even YOU weren't talking about public figures. You said you "never, ever heard a single person..."

"single person" not "single public figure"

which would punish these perps for singling out a gay person for their violence.

no evidence in the article that these perps were christian

You're ignoring decades worth of religious fundamentalist bigotry against gay people. It permeates our culture. It affects everybody.

Must I constantly speak of it? The accusation being disputed here is that the perps must be christians. I haven't seen anyone claim that the religious right hasn't had a hand in perpetuating and promoting homophobia.

The FACTS are that a young mans life was brutally disrupted (at least) and people in this thread want to push their own agenda. Religion's role in this specific instance is unknown at this time.

YOU are arguing that "religion's role in this specific instance is unknown at this time," and I am arguing that you are wrong. Religion's role in this specific instance is quite readily apparent, due to the pervasive extent of anti-gay bigotry that is relentlessly promoted in this country by the religious right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1030624#1030727

amongst others

And there are other factions promoting homophobia other than the religious right. Atheist homophobes exist. It's not always about religion and christianity is not the only religion that promotes homophobia. I hear homosexuality is unpopular in black and muslim communities

As we've said over and over again in this thread, right-wing authoritarian religions promote homophobia. Homosexuality is "unpopular in black and muslim communities" that are influenced by right-wing authoritarian religions.

There may be atheist homophobes, but I don't know any and you haven't provided a single example to support your view.

Perhaps the fault is mine and I've not made myself very clear.

The post I responded to stated (like it was a fact:eyes: ) that the brutal beating and killing of gay men is the end result of Christian religion. It then states that dominionists fuel this behavior.

This is a broad-brush prejudicial and bigoted statement. It's also a great example of lazy thought.

Approximately 122 million people attend some form of religious service on any given weekend. Many of those attendees are themselves gay. If the statement that brutal killing of gay people is the end result of Christian religion then it would follow that no gay persons would attend church or occupy the positions of clergy and bishops, as they have. If the statement that brutal killing of gay people is the end result of Christian religion it would follow that at the very least, thousands of Christians would kill thousands of gay people every month. Since we know these statements are false it's quite obvious that the original statement is false. So - what other explanations might actually make more sense?

Reaction formation. It is the process by which a person reacts to an aspect of their own personality, trait or behavior that they are uncomfortable with by attempting to replace that aspect with it's polar opposite to the extreme or excess.

A man who is molesting a teenaged boy who leads a campaign against kiddie porn in his community.
A woman addicted to prescription drugs campaigning with great fervor against alcohol and marijuana.
A man uncomfortable with his own sexuality engages obsessively in anti-gay behavior.


Obviously not every person who votes against gay marriage and discriminates against gays is doing so to cover up their own homosexual feelings. More often it's attributable to the kinds of behaviors we all engage in in reaction to our social identity. I attend protests against Bush because it is part of my social identity. A fundamentalist Muslim or Christian may vote against gay marriage and donate to organizations that fight against equal rights for gay citizens because it is a part of their social identity. Another Christian may join the Iterfaith Alliance which actively supports hate crimes legislation and gay marriage because it is a part of their social identity. None of these actions have the end result of the brutal killing of other people.

With the little bit of information available, and drawing on our knowledge of similar cases it's a likely explanation that at least one of the young men had an extreme reaction formation, attempting to extinguish his own unacceptable feelings of homosexual desire with the violent beating and killing of a young gay man. Most people who display a reaction formation don't kill anybody, but it's certainly more common when you throw in some alcohol or other drugs and the kind of poor impulse control that is legendary among young males. In the Matthew Shepard case the dominant male of the two murderers had engaged in numerous homosexual acts as a child which he later claimed were non-consensual. Neither of the two murderers were describes as religious individuals or Christians.

Lots of things go into a murder like this. Fear, substance abuse, homophobia, group identity, deindividuation, and personality disorders just to start. To simply trot out and declare that vicious murder and hate crime is the end result of Christianity is simplistic, lazy and utterly lacking in validity.

...are fighting the inclusion of gays and lesbians in hate crimes legislation.

I don't claim that any of the monsters who beat this man are religious at all, just that conservative Christian elements would have their motives stifled when considering charges and sentencing.

and in this very thread.

the end result of Christian religion to stand. It's invalid. That is the statement I was commenting on.

It's definitely correct to say that the conservative "Christian" movement carries on the great human tradition of cloaking prejudice and oppression in a purported beneficial new or co-opted belief system. It's also true to say that the liberal Christian movement is grossly underestimated and reported. We're just not sexy enough for the news.

But hate crime is very egalitarian, you don't need faith to commit one. Nor does it follow that hate crime is the end result of Christianity.

I'm glad I wasn't misunderstood, and thanks for taking the time to follow up with me.



:hi:

for the totality of Christians is like saying GW speaks for all Americans. Come on BB, you have better logic than that

Not wanting to create a sub thread here, but the dominionists in power? The thought makes me want to wash my brain out with soap.

The ONLY organization in my community working for gay rights is a church--namely my church. We do it as an expression of our faith. The Dems in our town, including our "progressive" mayor, are desparately afraid to advocate for glbt citizens. So, this little rag-tag group of Christians does it.

What some of us are pointing out here is that in the United States, most anti-gay bigots are influenced by certain types of fundamentalist Christianity.

and according to religioustolerance.org, the only countries where this is the law are Muslim countries. Why, then, would you assume they are Christian? I'm guessing something to do with your own prejudice.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_isla.htm

In the United States, most extreme fundamentalists are Christians. In countries where other religions are in the majority, it's the extreme fundamentalist versions of them that promote bigotry.

They promote bigotry - not just against gays but against women and anyone "different" in order to centralize power under an authoritarian system.

It's not Christianity that is at fault, it's the authoritarianism. Nevertheless, we need to face the fact that here in the U.S., a LOT of Christians support authoritarianism. That's why they are such an important voting bloc for Republicans.

there are many others that promote this type of violence

Silly old me. I thought this type of behavior was (part and parcel) the end result of homophobia, regardless of whether the perpetrators were religious or not, Christian or not, or even educated or not.

:eyes:

Total barbaric savages.

People like this make me absolutely sick.

1985 in OKC. I got jumped by a truck full of rednecks. I got an emergency spleenectomy for my trouble. I have a nice foot long zipper scar down my front as a reminder of their hate.

The police were especially nonhelpful: "boys will be boys." That was it. Nothing.

22 years later and the same crap happens from coast to coast.

Boo.

Here's to you:

:toast:

:patriot:

Sorry that had to happen to you. Some people are just assholes.

Living in Oklahoma, I'm somewhat accustomed to the bible-thumping conservative religious extremists and general redneck atmosphere which percolates beneath the veneer of the (somewhat) cosmopolitan state capitol.

I was however extremely dissapointed with the non-action of the law.

Zip. Nada.

I'm so sorry that happened to you, and that it continues to happen to people. I am so sick of the homophobic crap that runs rampant in this country.

The lack of cooperation from the OKC cops doesn't surprise me, unfortunately. As much as I like certain aspects of Oklahoma (I came for school at OU and stayed for about 12 years and moved away two years ago), there are definitely things I don't miss :(

But circumstances aside, always good to see another sooner around :hi:

:)

:hi:

I was just thinking this afternoon (being Saturday and all), that it's only 13 weeks until football season :))

A friendly Husker hello.

I miss the Big Eight.

:hi:

I miss the old OU-Nebraska rivalry for sure. It seems to have been strained lately by the alternating schedule and by the apparently mutual dislike between the NU coach and the OU fans. But meeting for the conference championship last year was a step in the right direction, even if it wasn't thanksgiving weekend :)

Good luck to the Huskers this year. :hi:

:D

Speaking of NE sports figures. Do you recall Softball in the last Olympics? The star pitcher was from UNL, she threw that ball faster and w/more accuracy than many major league BB pitchers. I rarely watch the Olympics, but while channel surfing, and seeing the USA Team on the field, I was riveted by the entire team. Rarely, do people work so well, and for such an extended period of time. It was like watching a well rehearsed ballet...Those women were spectacular, and showed just what could be accomplished when people work together. Made me proud to be here in NE....:)

:hi: from Norfolk

I was recently told by a fellow DU'er that im "An ugly American" because I like sports!

I know a friend of a cousin who was also attacked outside a OKC mall because he was gay. So sorry to hear about what happened to you. Hate crime legislation is the only way to stop this sort of thing.

Welcome to DU, btw! :hi:

Truly sorry to hear about what happened to you.

*sigh*

thanks LoweLL.

there is a really awful sickness growing in this country.

really manly, macho men.

Jerks. I hope they spend a long, long time in prison.

those three creeps thought they were real tough. Wonder how tough they'll be when they go to prison. I hope they get a taste of their own medicine when they are in prison. Thugs like that make me so angry.

Including the sickos Perkins and Dobson.

these hate-mongers were Christian?

You can't, because it's not in there.

We don't know that they are or aren't. Most likely, they're three idiots who need their asses kicked.

Can we stop being just as bigoted against Christians as these three fellows are against gay men?

That homosexuality is a quote "abomination". Doesn't matter which "brand". I myself got out of that country club long ago and have formed my own views of it.

Religion is not the only entity. Don't let your hatred of religion blind you to the fact that there are many groups of people who hate homosexuals.

They got thier cues from organized religion. Nice of you to assume what I believe. I do believe in God. I don't believe in church. It's churches of one form or another that has stirred up hatred between peoples for millennia and they will get thier just retribution.

On edit: Hitler was a "christian" and invoked God in many of his speeches. One anti-christ in a long line of them.

In which universe?

And Hitler was an antheist. His desire to use the Church to consolidate power is documented. If Hitler had any religious beliefs, they were paganistic.

The appendages of Organized religion reach far and wide and have given the go-ahead for such atrocities as Manifest Destiny, Slavery, Inequality, and other forms of hatred. Too many people are more than willing to take thier cues from these so-called religious "experts". I really would like to see one modern sermon based on the Sermon of The Mount. Just one.

I don't anything in your response about communism, or how religion led the communists to hate gays

Could you explain how your "noodly appendage" theory works in communist nations?

Even though Stalin suppressed them, he didn't not use thier ideas. China allowed and is still tolerant of religion except in cases where they step on the toes of the government. Cuba by contrast if I'm correct doesn't target homomsexuals for repression.

Communism was an ideology not a "religion" as you suggest.

never mind

You left out the church's endorsement of various atrocities. What a coincidence.

This explains much of what you've been writing--you don't know what you're talking about!! Amusing, though.

:rofl:

I would suggest you may be seriously deluded.

If you think the influence always works toward an acceptance of religious idea, then I suggest you may be seriously deluded.

Civil rights for everyone? Wow. What a concept. :sarcasm:

in the lectionary.

If you meant to say "Hitler was an ATHEIST" i say you are completely and utterly wrong and so do Hitlers own writings as well as all the authoritative history of the man. But then, the "Hitler was an atheist" meme is a tired, old, completely untrue and discredited canard trotted out so often as to become tiresome.

Hitler was most certainly a "Theist". Of what particular stripe is still being debated but there is no doubt he was convinced he was doing the Lords work.

and you shouldnt belive everything Hitler said or wrote. After all, Hitler was a propogandist, amongst other things.

And as far as Hitler having a religious belief of any sort, the debate is far from settled.

Yes, most people, propagandists or otherwise, claim deep religious convictions in their writings just to throw subsequent readers off the trail.

Happens all the time, I'm sure.

I should have been clearer, but on the internet, you don't always put an "IMO" in front of every statement. Usually, it's implied, but my post was definitely unclear on that distinction.

And I don't know about most people, but some have definitely faked deep religious convictions, using both the spoken and the written word.

Lenin came from a normal, middle-class household. Stalin was raised in a poor Georgian Muslim household.

All were brought up with the predjudices of the societies they were born into. Racism, sexism, homophobia were endemic to the cultures from which they came. Since Marx said nothing about gays, they took their clues from the general culture. Russian culture was among the most religion-soaked in the entire world, prior to the revolution.

But, hell, if the shoe fits...

Are these friends of yours? Neighbors? Relatives? Or are you just spouting your own prejudice?

:mad:

I know Lowell isn't the most liberal part of Massachusetts, but you expect this shit to happen in Texas or Mississippi, not New England. :cry:

I expect this to happen all over the country, unfortunately.

Hate knows no boundaries.

and not just christian republicans.

There isn't a country in the world where homophobia is non-existent. They stone homosexuals in Iran. I doubt christianity or republicanism had anything to do with that

Do you also automatically assume that Southerners are more stupid?

Do you realize how bigoted YOUR statement just sounded?

I'm a Southerner and don't have a bigoted bone in my body. My husband is from Massachusetts and will tell you he knew far more bigots there than here in Tennessee.

Please stop the stereotyping. It's not good on ANY level.

And grow a thicker skin--I never said all Southerners were stupid. I'm a human rights worker working in Mississippi after Hurricane Katrina. I grew up in Massachusetts one town over from where the New England KKK was based. I work daily combating race, class, and gender discrimination working alongside native Southerners doing the same. I based my comment on the historical precedent of more violent hate crimes happening in the south and the west than in New England. If you can show me proof that that isn't so, I'd be happy to enter in a reasoned discussion with you.

Cities in New England regularly lead the list of the cities with the most hate crimes.

Where is that on the SPLC web site? Looking at their Hate Groups map, I see 25 hate groups for all six New England states combined, where as the south averages many more hate groups per state.

Texas: 55
Louisiana: 25
Mississippi: 28
Alabama: 22
Florida: 49
Georgia: 44
South Carolina: 45

Edited because I did find a list of 2007 hate crimes by cities. My response to Clark2008 said that more violent hate crimes happen in the south than in New England. The list of 74 hate crimes list two in New England (both in Western Massachusetts), but they were not physically violent. Compared to the 14 hate crimes in the southern states I listed above, seven of which were violent (assault, murder, arson). I'm certainly not making apologies for hate crimes or the people who do them, but talking semantics: intimidation vs. physical violence. I am fully aware that intimidation can be psychologically damaging, but I'd argue that it's not as damaging as being physically beaten and then also having the psychological damage of knowing your body was damaged because of who you are. In most cases, at any rate.

The real shocker to me was seeing the number of hate groups (63!) and hate crimes (17!) in California. :wow: But then, I've never spent much time in California, so I admit my perception was skewed by my direct inexperience.

What I read, and I would swear I read it, was on a city by city basis. I could see how southern states have more hate crimes (and more violent ones) while still allowing NE cities to head the list. Basically, I've made the mistake of taking one statistic, and thinking it the entire matter. Thanks for making me aware of the distinctions.

And admittedly, I am biased by my experiences in NYC, where I've seen some violent hate crimes.

The whole Merrimack Valley area does.

Having worked in Malden and Stoneham, this was no surprise.

Really, it may be the worst city in New England. Doesn't matter if you are gay or not, I wouldn't go anywhere in that town after dark.

In all too many cases, these guys escape the punishment they deserve.

...for protect protection from His followers.

cliched and broadbrushing, nice combo move.

Christianity's track record for tolerance of anything it does not agree with, is not at all good. "True" (charitable) Christianity is the exception not the rule.

the exception rather than the rule, that's just the way humans work. Still, you are overstating the case and allowing the shit heaped upon the religion both by right-wingers and malcontents to warp your view.

...and I call it as I see it. Though I find it amusing that you think YOU can call others "malcontents" and accuse us of allowing shit to "warp your view" while YOU remain blind to the hypocrisy that is ALL organized religion. Specially X-tianity! There is absolutely nothing catholic (little "c") about Catholicism (big "c"). X-tianity provides a platform for hatred and violence against Gay men and Lesbians. Piety breeds contempt of those who are not "pious" enough.
No one will ever convince me that the world is better off with organized religion as the accepted dogma. Almost every war fought in the history of mankind has had religion as a cause.

perhaps one day you will figure that out.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

An apology to the people of this board you've smeared would be a better start.

say these men were followers of Christ?

It doesn't.

unless the story could "speak".

When it comes to gay bashing, I am sure that X~tianity cannot be far behind.

So, why not consider that? Oh, right, because you're functioning out of your own prejudices.

...let us not assume that they are "earthlings". That would also be prejudicial wouldn't you say?

aliens are more likely to be found in Lowell than Dominionists

I hope they get the maximum sentences allowed.

keep fueling this hatred

to keep our abortion rights.

we can rightly pass a gift-horse like that up. i say we deluge them w/ letters and postcards exhorting them to come out of the closet and/or hoping their boyfriend's HIV test comes back negative.

I think their moms would bear the brunt of it however.

hate crimes legislation, I fail to see why the newspaper felt the need to print the addresses of the three accused men. Do they do that for every arrest even before the accused has their trial? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? What if a man was falsely accused of child molestation (as has happened so often these last couple decades)...would they print his address before his trial so some yahoo can visit and beat the shit out of him? This really burns my butt. Where are the jounalistic standards and ethics?

I also want to point out that it is a bad idea for ANYONE, gay, straight, man, woman, to walk aroung town alone at 3 AM. Decent (read smart) people are home in bed at that hour.

Well, there are many places you could walk a block to a 7-11 for a Coke without fear. Also, many of us work nights and are certainly not in bed at home.

It's so that there is NO CONFUSION as to who was arrested. There may be others in that community with similar names and/or ages. By printing ALL the information we have about the suspects, the community at large knows that the "John Smith" who teaches their children or bags their groceries or sits next to them at Sunday School or whatever isn't the same "John Smith" who's charged with this crime.

And, I would hope that, if these three men ARE found not guilty of the crime, that they publish that verdict just the same as they would if they are found guilty.

Hmmm...

Let's see if one of us can get Mitt's take on this...

Perhaps we can get some ammunition against him from it...

these days, At least they didn't destroy property.


:sarcasm:

I'm sure that gays don't feel terrorized by this act
upon another member of their legitimate reality.


Hate crime for sure.

Terrorism? I would feel that if I was gay.

...than beating a straight man, or woman to the same degree?

I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to this question yet.


The argument I always hear is that crimes against minorities are not prosecuted vigorously enough. There has to be a way of making sure that crimes against minorities are punished without actually elevating them to a class of citizen with greater protection under the law than others.

Then there are others who say "these laws don't do that. If a white man is attacked by someone yelling Honky, he would be protected too", so then the actual emotion is the issue. But since when is it illegal to hate? And why is a crime motivated by hate or bias any worse than the exact same crime motivated by greed or a flash of rage?

Crimes of violence against ANYONE should be prosecuted equitably, end of story.

But, you're right, and such laws would change our legal system to take into account the accused's motive. Some people confuse motive with intent. There's a good reason our legal system doesn't require proof of motive in trial.

The solution here, as in all cases of violent crimes against persons, is to make sure that laws are enforced and the guilty are punished for their crimes. I've always thought that our society would be better served by making more room in the jails and prisons for violent criminals rather than white collar criminals and simple drug users. But that's a whole new argument.

:eyes:


Another glaring example of ignorance regarding "requiring" versus "proving" motive.

when charging someone. Do you have a specific citation (of the charge AND the law)?

Also, you need to work on your reading comprehension.

The law isn't based upon emotion. Sorry. :(

Intent, state of mind, pre-mediation or not, are some of the many mitigating circumstances weighed in criminal decisions. That's why there are levels of guilt, 1st degree, 2nd Degree, murder or manslaughter etc.

One it is a total myth that we don't punish motive. Death penalty statutes elevate crimes to DP status on the basis of motive all the time. After a couple of pizza delivery guys were killed by a person for no apparent reason not having a motive was deemed a DP enhanser. Killing witnesses is a DP enhanser in several states.

Two hate crimes are harder to deter. It is much harder to deter a person who has hatred as a motive then one who has money as a motive. In the second case one simply has to make the percieved cost of doing the crime more than the percieved benefit of doing the crime. Hate doesn't work that way. Thus people who commit hate crimes need to have much stiffer sentences so that future hate crimes won't happen.

Three hate crimes target a whole community and thus do more damage to society than other crimes. As bad as a man getting robbed of his money is, it doesn't make the whole society feel less safe in their daily lives. Conversely that is the whole reason minorities are targetted to make the whole minority feel less safe.

Your first point - it is true that motive is often considered in court. But I completely disagree with that. Motive can only be ascertained in a subjective way and cannot be quantified or weighed fairly in my opinion. The only thing of relevance should be the crime itself. One example is the man who comes home to find his wife in bed with another man and kills her in a fit of rage. This is supposedly worse than killing her with poison to get the insurance, but it's only "worse" because it makes us subjectively feel angrier. The end result is the same, and the motive is ultimately irrelevant. I personally don't believe it should EVER be considered, except to determine whether the perpetrator intended to commit the crime, or if he or she committed the crime by accident.


Your second point - deterrence. I personally don't believe in laws as deterrent, but to punish crimes. The punishement should be appropriate to the crime. A person who kills for greed or hate, either way they deserve life in prison, IMO.


Third point - targeting communities. A lot of people are targeted for crimes simply because they are easy targets - poor, thus low security, elderly, etc. I'm sure pizza drivers feel a lot less safe in their daily lives than people who work in offices, but it's not more illegal to hurt a pizza man than an office worker. Also, because of the equal protection clause of the constitution, these laws cannot protect just minorities, they must protect everyone, so if a gay man called me "breeder" and punched me, I could get him convicted of a hate crime. There are all kinds of worm cans waiting to be opened here...


Any criminal who is not a drooling idiot must know that assaulting or killing a gay man is illegal and will result in serious punishment if he is caught, and yet these crimes still happen. I don't think they would deter these crimes much at all.

In regards to your motive example, I think you are wrong on both the specifics and the general principle. Specificly I think the law treats the first case much worse than the second one. Also I think the justification for that difference is far less motive than intent. The first case would clearly be premeditated while the second would likely not be considered premeditated.

In regards to your example of the breeder I absolutely should get an enhansed punishment for beating up a straight person for simply being straight.

In regards to deterrence, of course punishment has an element of deterrence. If it didn't it would be simply vengence.

Degrees of murder are determined by intent not motive.

"One example is the man who comes home to find his wife in bed with another man and kills her in a fit of rage. This is supposedly worse than killing her with poison to get the insurance, but it's only "worse" because it makes us subjectively feel angrier. The end result is the same, and the motive is ultimately irrelevant.

I personally don't believe it should EVER be considered, except to determine whether the perpetrator intended to commit the crime, or if he or she committed the crime by accident."

.......by a certain "class" of posters on DU is fucking annoying. It's been pointed out 10,000 times here that no one is talking about "outlawing hate." To suggest same is just fucking ignorant and serves to muddy the waters.

What's being "outlawed" is a certain motivation. A motivation that has to be proved, in a court of law, to the jury/judge's satisfaction - beyond a reasonable doubt.

And before you go on with the bullshit that motive isn't "required" to convict someone of a crime - you would be correct...........but sometimes.....often times......motive CAN BE and IS proved...........AND USED IN CHARGING/SENTENCING.

See: "murder in the heat of passion" versus "pre-meditated murder for hire or financial motives".....both victims are dead.....One day, way back when, SOCIETY determined that one crime was much more "shocking to the conscious" than the other.........hence the harsher sentences for pre-meditated murder for profit. Often times, pre-meditated murder is suspected and can't be proved. What happens? The state decides to charge on the lesser charge absent available PROOF of motivation.

If you can't see the difference of driving in to town and beating the fuck out of some random person for their sexuality versus, say, beating someone in a bar-fight then I can't really help you. One is an attack on an individual but the other is an attack on an entire group of people or entire neighborhood to be specific. Often times, these thugs will cruise a certain neighborhood to find their victims. This serves to terrorize entire neighborhoods and intimidate the community.

Question: Does it shock your conscience to have people beaten to death for no other reason than their sexuality?

The nice thing about shit-heels such as the ones that beat the fuck out of this kid........they aren't too bright. My guess is, that they separated the fucking morons and the morons started to squeal, cry, and roll-over on each other. I betcha motive won't be hard to determine in this case.

And they come out like worms after a rainstorm whenever threads about hate crimes are started.

Their arguments usually make no sense.

For example:

1) "All crimes are hate crimes!": No they aren't. A person stealing from his employer is not usually doing so out of hate. Killing a person while driving drunk is a crime, but it's hardly a hate crime. Smoking marijuana is a crime (and shouldn't be) but it's not a hate crime. Selling heroin isn't a hate crime.

2) "We already have laws that can punish these acts": One could say the same thing about killing another person. Why do we need 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, voluntary homicide, involuntary homicide, negligent homicide, etc? After all, they are all basically the same act. What's the difference?
MOTIVE!

3) "It gives crimes against certain people special treatment".: No it doesn't. I don't know about you, but I've never met anyone who didn't have a race, gender, sexual orientation, age, etc. The laws protect whites as well as black and straights as well as gays. Now some may argue that more often than not hate crimes are charged for actions against minorities and that would be true, but is it our fault that gay guys don't hang out near Hooters waiting to beat the shit of some heterosexual?

4) "If these laws are passed, every action crime against <insert trait here> will be considered a crime!". That is just nonsense on the face of it.

5) "It punishes thought!": No....it punishes MOTIVE. Which is no different than what we have done for hundreds of years in the legal system.

6) "It will stifle free speech! (or have some other bizarre consequence)": 45 states already have hate crime laws on the books and yet all the dire predictions about preachers being arrested in their pulpits for preaching homosexuality is immoral or some such idiocy haven't come to pass.

And what REALLY is telling is that 99% of people who argue against hate crime laws are people who are likely never to be a victim of a hate crime since and have no idea what it is like to be singled out for violence for an innate trait or live in a community where people are being singled out for violence because of an innate trait and have to look over their shoulder and worry all the time that some bigot is going to single them out and do what happens in so many of these stories.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Then by all means alert me.

Citing a bunch of stock arguments against your case, with the insinuation that they can only come from bigotry, you did imply that people who disagree with you must be bigots.

And I only alert on trolls. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I automatically think you're a troll.

...are based on nothing more than cheap rationalizations that are the product of prejudice.

You'll note that you very rarely hear anyone arguing against hate crimes legislation until they want to include "sexual orientation" in that.

One wonders why that is the case?

"Does it shock your conscience to have people beaten to death for no other reason than their sexuality?"

Yes. It shocks me when people are beaten to death for ANY reason.

the reason they were beaten is irrelevant to that.

I know motive and intent are often considered in court. I just don't think they should be.

Self-defense?

....who is dying of terminal cancer and in intractable pain begging him to end her suffering and a man who takes out a multi-million dollar insurance policy out on his wife and then kills her for the money?


They should be charged with the same crime and get the same punishment?


Or how about a man who embezzles hundreds of thousands of dollars from the company he works for to maintain a lavish lifestyle versus a man who steals an apple because he is hungry and has no money for food?


It's still theft....does their motive matter?

The man killing the wife wiuth cancer - NOT a violent crime, not even a murder.

as for the embezzling vs. the apple, one is grand larceny, one is petty theft. It's not the motivation, it's the dollar amount.

There are some people who will argue vociferously that killing a terminal loved one in intractable pain is MURDER.

And hell, theft is theft! Why should dollar amount matter? If motive is irrelevant to a crime, then why should the scale or dollar amount matter?

Right?

The glaring logical flaw in your argument is you think one particular aspect of a crime (scale) is relevant, but the reason for the committing the crime is irrelevant.

Why should one matter and not the other?

Sorry, but killing a terminally ill person out of mercy is not the same as a violent crime. And if the person who dies ASKED to be killed, the court does consider that.

And as for dollar amount the reason that matters is because it can be quantified OBJECTIVELY. The emotions motivating a crime cannot.

I didn't decide that there should be a difference between petty theft and grand larcey, but according to the law, there is.

The motive should not be relevant because it has not bearing on the damages to the victim and because it cannot be evaluated objectively by the jury.

It is impossible to murder someone w/o using violence.

And if the person who dies ASKED to be killed, the court does consider that.

And yet, you continue to claim that motive is irrelevant to the sentence because "it cannot be evaluated objectively by the jury"

So then what's the difference between 1st Degree Murder and 3rd Degree Murder?

If you were driving and missed a stop sign and accidentally hit a child crossing the street, it is absolutely the same thing as if you had broke into the kid's bedroom and slit his throat.

At least that's what the "motive doesn't matter" crowd would have you believe.

After all. You killed a kid. That's all that matters.

And while I don't think motive should be a factor, the fact that a crime was deliberate or accidental (or in self-defense) obviously should be.

What's the difference. Someone DIED for heaven's sake! Why should we care if someone meant to kill or not? It's murder, right?

NT

which must have gone right over your head

The "point" is absurd. There is no "motive" in manslaughter, because the death is completely accidental.

:eyes:

So give us your thoughts on the difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder (which in many respects is analogous to your defense on the difference between petty theft and grand larceny).

There are motives and intent in ALL acts, criminal or not.

In a manslaughter case, the motive that led to the crime may have been a desire to get home quickly, which led to negligence (intent), which led to a death

when motive and intent is what seperates the two, and you say they should not be a factor.

And while I don't think motive should be a factor, the fact that a crime was deliberate or accidental (or in self-defense) obviously should be.

So you don't think motive should be a factor, except when it should be a factor.

.......should be the same as murder in the heat of passion? Wow! I guess we can't discuss this issue because you are completely out of touch with 200 plus years of American civil and criminal justice system. Allrighty then!

Premeditation does NOT have anything to do with motive. Motive is HELPFUL when proving a case but it is not required for good reason.

And yes, I read your other post. It doesn't bear much resemblance to the truth, though.

"for profit motive"

You are full of shit if you are going to argue the courts don't sentence differently for different motives.

That's fine.

I realize that this is a highly emotional issue, but it has no basis in law, and as someone who thinks our legal system is the best (as long as judges and juries are following the law) I don't want to see it cheapened by injecting emotion into the law.

Have a nice day.

A great deal of violence is driven by an emotional, reactionary response. Hate crime, which is EXACTLY what this is, is driven by ego, or one's desire for violence because of their personal opinion on something.

1. An act of violence

2. An threatening act against all gay people. It's a way of saying, "Stay in the closet or you'll get hurt too!"

Just like lynchings in the south during the civil rights era. They were acts of violence, but they were also a way of keeping black people "in their place" and making sure they didn't try to get voting rights or anything along those lines.

No one is "elevated to a class of citizens above others". That's bullshit. It isn't the fault of gay people or black people that straight and white people aren't targeted for being straight and white. But if people start being targeted for being straight and/or white, that would also fall into the realm of a hate crime, if it can be proven in court that the motive was to keep other straight and/or white people from "flaunting their sexuality" or trying to keep white people from working to get those ever so elusive rights that only black people have in this country.

In fact, I can't find a shred of logic in your entire post.

and your supposition that it's about "keeping gays in the closet" is just that.

Most gay-bashers are more than likely suppressed, self-hating gays themselves, not fundies trying to keep gays in the closet. They hate out gays because they have the courage to do what the suppressed cannot - live honestly, openly and happily, without fear of society.

"But if people start being targeted for being straight and/or white, that would also fall into the realm of a hate crime, if it can be proven in court that the motive was to keep other straight and/or white people from "flaunting their sexuality" or trying to keep white people from working to get those ever so elusive rights that only black people have in this country."

So what? How is that, or any of the rest of this an argument in favor of these laws?

why do you assume that most gay-bashers are supprsed self-hating gays themselves? That is a huge assumption. Maybe they're just bigots?

The second part is that the laws don't make gay people a special class of citizens, the laws simply recognize that some people are targeted for hate crimes and some people aren't.

My assumption is based on the fact that the only logical reason why someone would hate gays THAT much is because the criminal is threaatened by them. Example: Allen Schindler (a close personal friend of mine) was killed by a thug named Terry Helvey in a public restroom in Japan because of what he Helvey percieved as homosexual advances. A straight man secure in his own sexual identity would just say thanks, but no thanks, but a thug like this, with deeply repressed homosexual tendencies is extremely threatened by the possibility that his own secret feelings might be revealed and lashes out in anger to maintain the facade.

Hatred against gays (it's almost entirely against male gays, BTW) is largely caused by this, in my opinion. I don't think most of them are "just bigots". A few of them are motivated by some twisted view of religion, but most of them are self-hating, repressed gays themselves, IMO.

As for the second part - I realize that the laws don't really make gays or anyone else a special class of citizen.

The murder of your friend proves nothing about other murders or about hatred and fear.

Are the people who bash black people secretly black?

Hatred of gays is bound up with self-hatred. The "softness" or "weakness" these people perceive in gays is the same softness and weakness they hate in themselves.

And you have no more proof than I do that they are "just bigots" (whatever that means)

I don't see any evidence for your claims aside from the claims themselves.

I know someone who was abused by a homosexual and hated honosexuals as a result. Was that self-hatred?

(Note: the abuser was not just a pedophile who like children of the same sex. He had an active sex life with adult males)

Rape victims often fell shame and blame themselves to a degree for what happened to them.

Even while being victimized, this person might have felt some amount of pleasure as well, which mixed with pain, shame and fear would make a very complex brew of emotions.

If anything you've made my point. This person probably hated gays in part because his attacker made him feel feelings he did not want to feel, and never would have had he not been forced.

Not quite the same as the repressed homosexual, but I would suspect some self-hatred at work there. Most gays are NOT pedophiles or molesters. Your friend must have known that, but he hated them anyway.

In an toddler? And he remembers the pleasure and feels guilty about it?

You really know a lot about people you've never met, don't you?

He was a toddler, but he remembers enough to hate all gays...

What memory is it that makes him hate all gays, then?

And why does he associate gays with pedophiles?

His parents figured it was best to tell him the truth about it. Funny how this possibility never occurred to you, who seems to know everything about homophobia.

What memory is it that makes him hate all gays, then?

No memory. Just the reality of a disfigured and dysfunctional penis. I would think that would be enough to arouse some strong emotions. But maybe, that's just me.

And why does he associate gays with pedophiles?

He doesn't. He associates gays with his abuse because he was abused by a gay man.

Calling him a "gay man" would be like calling a man who molests little girls "straight". And there is nothing "straight" about that.

I do feel terrible for your friend. I hope he is able to overcome his misdirected anger. That is beyond fucked up.


"His parents figured it was best to tell him the truth about it."

If they told him that that pervert was "a gay man" they were not telling the truth. That was a pedophile. The fact that he had adult partners doesn't change that fact. Gay men are not attracted to children, pedophiles are. The criminal may have had two overlapping sexual predilections, but it was the pedophile that molested him, not the gay man.

He was attracted to men and had sexual relationships with men. Adult men.

If they told him that that pervert was "a gay man" they were not telling the truth. That was a pedophile.

Generally speaking, pedophiles don't mutilate their victims genitals. Has it occurred to you that this is not your typical case of pedophilia yet? And has it occurred to you that "sexual abuse" does not necesarily involve activities that you or I would consider "sexual activity"?

And has it occurred to you that for some sickos, age isn't the important factor? You have assumed the victim was chosen due to his age. Do you realize now that this is not necesarily true?

The criminal may have had two overlapping sexual predilections, but it was the pedophile that molested him, not the gay man.

The two are not mutually exclusive. The man who abused him was a gay man. Besides, I don't know if the parents said it was "a gay man". As far as I know, they told my freind who he is, and my freind knows him (they're related) and knows that he is a gay man.

Now you can say that his identifying his abuser as "gay" is somehow inaccurate and illogical, but that does nothing for your argument. Hate is often illogical. That's why your dependence on logical reasons for homophobia is inappropriate.

You wouldn't tell a girl who was molested by a man that her molester was "straight" just because he had a wife, would you?

How sad that this boy's parents would drag gays into this when they had nothing to do with it.

You say the two are not mutually exclusive, but I say that they are. Just because they exist in one person does not mean they are the same thing. A man may be a habitual gambler and a golfer, but that doesn't mean the two behaviors have anything to do with each other.


Then you talk about my dependence on logical reasons for homophobia - but from the beginning, my point has been that the reasons should be irrelevant, as far as the law is concerned.

It doesn't matter if a guy beats a gay man because he's a repressed homosexual, or because he thinks he's superior, or just because he thought the guy might have some money - the fact is he beat the crap out of the guy and ought to do time for it.

How sad that this boy's parents would drag gays into this when they had nothing to do with it.

I don't know what exactly he was told. All I know is what he said to me. The friend identifies his abuser as a homosexual. I don't know how the parents phrased it. I said this in my earlier post, so I have no idea why you continue to blame the parents when even I don't know what they said. You have made several assumptions about this matter, and I pointed this one out, yet you continue to make the same false assumption.

You say the two are not mutually exclusive, but I say that they are. Just because they exist in one person does not mean they are the same thing. A man may be a habitual gambler and a golfer, but that doesn't mean the two behaviors have anything to do with each other.

You don't seem to understand what "mutually exclusive" means. It doesn't mean that they are the same.


Then you talk about my dependence on logical reasons for homophobia - but from the beginning, my point has been that the reasons should be irrelevant, as far as the law is concerned.

Maybe that's why no one is buying your argument in this thread. Your argument is incoherent. Whether or not homophobia is "logical" has nothing to do with how hate crimes are defined or punished. Your posts on this thread have been filled with unsupportable and outright false claims, and a few revealing assunptions.

the laws of Physics.
We aren't talking about atoms and ions here. We are talking about human beings. There aren't these kinds of infallible laws for the kind of complex issues we are discussing here.

I haven't even heard social scientists make the kind of claims you make with such certainty about these types of things. Are you seriously saying this like it is some sort of science that :a) anti-black and anti-gay crimes are fundamentally different, b) the majority of gay crimes are committed by self-hating gays etc.

These are theories at best and ones I personally think are just wrong, but all you have is anecdotal evidence to back you up and even that is very weak. You are making some pretty bizarre assertions.

Personally I think DU should add the whole "self-hating gays are responsible for all the evil in the world" argument to the list of deletable statements.

absolutely no way in this world. There is no way of even knowing in any given case why the person hates gay people. Maybe they're just stupid? Maybe their parents told them gay people would try to rape them and they're afraid of them? Maybe they think that god hates gay people and they want to do god's work? Maybe they think that gay people are undesirable and they want to weed out undesirables? Maybe they saw gay people holding hands and went into a rage? Maybe they're just violent and like to beat up people who are different from them regardless of why they're different? Who the fuck knows why any particular bigot is a bigot. Each person might have a different reason. In some of those cases, the person might be gay and self-hating, but I don't see how you can say that is the case even a majority of time, let alone every single time to the point where therefore gay people don't deserve protection from hate crimes.

There is no difference in why someone would beat up a black person for being black and why someone would beat up a gay person for being gay. In both cases, the violence is supposed to also terrorize the group the beaten person belongs to. In both cases, there is an act of violence and an aggressively threatening act against the group. In both cases, the public needs to respond in a way that shows that it is completely unacceptable to target people for being different and make those targeted people afraid of living their lives in an open and honest way.

Some posters just are experts on everything, you know?

I honestly don't even know why it would make a difference if a person who beat up some gay person was gay but closeted. Why would that make a difference legally? If he beats up gay people to intimidate and scare the gay community, it's a hate crime regardless.

So there are two issues:

1. This stupid assumption that anyone who would attack a gay person must actually be gay

2. Another apparent assumption that it would legally make a difference anyway

except herself, evidently

That's surprising. How about people who were raised in a home where gay-bashing was the norm, and they learned the hate from their parents? Just like racist people learn racism from their parents?

And, from your OP:

"There has to be a way of making sure that crimes against minorities are punished without actually elevating them to a class of citizen with greater protection under the law than others."

It certainly sounds like you think these laws make gay people a special class of citizen.