Does it matter why people are gay?

No, even if 100% of your list is true that does not mean its a problem out of scale with the population, or that its a problem that deserves attention above and beyond the rest of the homicides.

Sixteen deaths over 10 years in a nation of 320 million people is not even a footnote. For example, sixteen people were killed just in Chicago last 4th of July.

An objective test would be comparing the percentage of gays who are crime victims relative to the general population in their geographic region. I don't mean hate crimes either, as hate crimes is a political category masquerading as a crime category. If LGBT are robbed, murdered, etc. significantly more than their neighbors then you might have a point.

 

All laws are political tools... and I'm not sure how it could be that someone was charged for a hate crime, if they didn't know the victim fit in that category. Did they target the victim by location? Which hate crime was the perpetrator charged with?

Hate crime legislation is problematic. I'm not a fan of it. But the idea isn't about protection for individuals. Hate crime legislation is about protecting the community. People who target vulnerable minorities aren't only impacting the individual they attack, they are creating divisiveness, fear, and fragmentation in the city, county, state or other community in which those individuals are attacked.

The city, state or other community has a right to protect itself from that assault. Hate crime legislation is one way to separately account for and prosecute the crime against the community beyond just the harm done to an individual. It's similar to anti-terrorism, racketeering or other special circumstances legislation. It's acknowledgement that an act can can cause more than one kind of harm.




​

 

No, it doesn't matter. Nor does it matter why some people eat boogers. It is equally disgusting, regardless of the motivation.

 

the term you are referring to is 'catamites'


by the way, the problem in Sodom was not homosexuality as so many believe but was the terrible economic injustices committed upon the poor: see Ezekiel 16

 

Why should Christians worship the Prince of Peace whose entire New Testament is about love and peace to all while those worshipers have killed more people than any other grouping in history?

 

Well, we can disagree then. And... no one said anything about taking ANY crime to a level of "ZERO". You made that up.

 

Then why aren't black people who attack whites charged with hate crimes?

Justice is all about the individual, not the community. All people should be treated equally under the law, not segregated based on race or gender or politics or wealth. Once you allow crimes to be committed against a "community" consisting of an arbitrary group, you have destroyed the rule of law.

 

I remember.

I agree.

 

Isn't it such a great shame that people have died, and others persecuted, because of a baseless myth such as that which professing Christians who claim to worship the Prince of Peace have about Sodom? Despite the fact that the Bible clearly and unequivocally demonstrates that homosexuality was NOT the problem in Sodom, people continue to persist in believing the baseless myth. So very sad.

 

It all stems from people being TRADITIONALLY indoctrinated to fear and hate homosexuality. And FEAR has been used to promote that indoctrination.

I wonder what it would be like, if people (at least in America) were indoctrinated to shun anger, violence, hatred, racism, greed and other things which affect people exponentially more than someone having a certain sexual-orientation.

There are many reasons that people are becoming more secular... and part of it, is that they are catching on (more and more) to the things that are hypocritical and mostly BS about religion.

Jesus is cool, but a LOT of His (so -called) followers are not.

 

Brings to mind the alleged Gandhi quote " I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." though it is disputed that he ever said it.

 

Hate crimes are not about the individual you attack, it's about why you attacked them and the result of that attack on the community. When you lynch a black man, hanging him in town square — you are guilty of murder. You are also guilty of creating division, fragmentation and terror in the community that is that town. You are guilty of attempting to carve that community into two pieces, one black and one white.

It's not about a man attacking a man wearing another color skin. The guy who shot another player at a poker table might be equally guilty of murder. But, even if the person he shot has a different skin color, he may not be equally guilty of what message he sent to that community. His act was not about challenging the towns promise of equality, safety and respect for even it's most vulnerable members. Intent and consequence matter to the law.

The attacks on 9/11 were not just crimes against the many people killed that day. They were an assault on the community America and a challenge to our choices and promises—a statement that America will not be allowed to live as our community has justly chosen to live. Rule of law absolutely gives us a right to respond to crimes against our community.




​

 

Yeah... whether Gandhi said it or not, it says what needs to be said, to the hypocrites and narrow-minded zealots walking this planet. Really, anyone like that, isn't doing the cause of 'Christ' any good whatsoever. (History ought to show everyone the same.)

 

You did not even come close to answering the question.

Why are white people who attack a black or LGBT person automatically charged with a hate crime, but a black person who targets a white person (for example, the "knockout game", or as the black teens call it "polar bear hunting") does not get charged with a hate crime? If you want to follow your (ridiculous) "community" argument, both crimes create division and fear in the community.

The answer is simple: hate crimes are political, the category is not about maintaining the community, its about politics. And creating the category of "hate crimes" is itself intended to divide the community.

 

They aren't.



​

 

I honestly think such religious dogma was introduced because people didn't like the idea that sexuality wasn't rigid or black and white.

There have been and continue to be horrendous acts justified by religion. Clearly it isn't the beliefs in and of themselves it is the power the oligarchs have over their followers. That's one if the reasons I find organized religion to be difficult to accept.

 

They aren't. They are charged with a hate crime when it's proven that their attack was because of the person being black, or the person being gay. They have no other motive, or it was the primary motive. Do you remember the Matthew Shepard case? He was targeted by two young men because he was gay, beaten and left for dead on a fence... because he was gay. That was the motive, that's it. That is a hate crime. A lesbian couple here in Denver had "d.y.k.e.s" written in spray paint on their garage door= hate crime. It's a crime motivated by hate towards a community of people.

 

Once again a supporter of hate crime laws (this time its you) have failed to answer the question.

Why are hate crime laws automatically invoked when the victim is LGBT or black and the criminal white, but almost never invoked when the conditions are reversed?

The classic case is the "knockout game", which black teens actually call "polar bear hunting", in which a black teen sneaks up on a white person and attempts to knock the white person out with one punch to the head. A clearly race based attack. Yet despite many cries for equal justice the black perpetrators are almost never charged with "hate crimes".

Why the hypocrisy? Do you have an answer?

 

Actually it's not. I didn't say anything about people of faith. I certainly don't hate them, nor am I "therophobic" I am a person of faith.

I spoke about dogma and particularly the bad things about religion. The way it's used to justify horrendous acts for example.

I think you took my observations personally.

The irony is palpable.

 

I think they could be considered hate crimes, but has anyone tried to go for hate crime status?

 

The shoe fits.

 

In your reality perhaps.

But your reality involves secret gay police. So in the rest of our realities it doesn't.

 

They aren't.



​

 

Cite your sources or concede



​

[/QUOTE]

 

Are you asking him to prove a negative?