Gay MarriageThere were two topics pertaining to gay rights in the past. One had a last post from a year ago. The second was about 6 months ago. I think they qualify as "dead" by now.
So here we are. Should gay marriage be legalized? Why or why not? Should gays get any other rights? Is there really a tr...
Gay MarriageThere were two topics pertaining to gay rights in the past. One had a last post from a year ago. The second was about 6 months ago. I think they qualify as "dead" by now.
So here we are. Should gay marriage be legalized? Why or why not? Should gays get any other rights? Is there really a true reason to be for or against gay marriage?
But first, the rules:
1. Spell properly and refrain from excessive swearing. ("u fucking bitch ur just a pussy, u dumbass. go 2 hell" = big no-no.)
2. Refrain from gay "slang" as well. (flamer, faggot, queer, dyke are also big no-nos.)
3. Do not use your religion as an excuse to be against gay marriage.
Example:
Bad -
The bible says that gay marriage is wrong so clearly all gays are an abomination of nature!
Good -
Considering that religion is a big part of why gay marriage is illegal, then...
4. Feel free to voice your
opinion on the subject, keeping in mind that opinions are not facts, and it is impossible to win an argument or debate by acting like your opinion is the only correct one. If you seriously want to get into a debate and try to come out the winner, do your research. You never win a debate by having the "I'm right you're wrong" attitude. You have to prove someone wrong. You have to prove yourself right.
5. No personal attacks unless they are clearly deserved.
6. If two people are getting into a personal conversation, it's best taking to messages or comments if it begins to both (or could bother) others in the thread.
Personally, I am for gay marriage and gay rights. I also believe that gays deserve the right to not be ridiculed or judged (similar to the rights the physically and mentally handicapped have). I've written an essay as to why the religious argument and the "gays are this and that so they don't deserve rights" argument both fail. You can read it
here.
I know what a hate crime is.
when I said I was biased, I meant I don't generally care what the motive for a crime is, the punishment should be the same. (I understand a less sentence in the case of passion crimes, I'm not a complete dick)
Regardless, I think the discussion of motive in a crime can end at the moment.
We can move on to something else.
Let's agree to disagree. Aye.
Except that that totally fails to address the purpose of the justice system.
If all you are doing is punishing the act, then yes, you deal out the same sentence to everyone who commits the crime.
If you want to prevent the person from re-offending, you probably need to refine your methods a little more. You wouldn't lump someone who killed a woman after stalking her for six months in with a guy who killed one while drunk.
Please. Pleaspleasplease. Dear God.
I think you said this. These things often get accounted for in the sentencing process. We don't need extra laws in place to take care of it if the jury can.
Then why are there rights and laws for the handicapped? I mean, obviously the court could just take care of it after the fact, instead of preventing hate crimes. (Note the sarcasm.)
If laws prevented crime our jails would be empty.
But I more or less agree with you, that special circumstances have to be dealt with in there own way. I just don't agree with a law that will punish someone different just because they hated someone in a special way. I'm excluding crimes of passion from this.
Sentencing is decided by those laws.
The jury doesn't handle sentencing in most cases. Rather they find guilty or not guilty of a given offence, and the judge then sentences according to the law regarding that crime.
If someone is found guilty of first degree murder, they are sentenced for first degree murder. If they are guilty of second degree or manslaughter, then that is what they are sentenced according to. Similarly if there was a racial context, then they are found guilty of a racially motivated crime and sentenced according to that.
Murders resulting from hate crimes aren't the only murders that are considered special circumstances. Killing a juror is another such crime in some jurisdictions. A few minutes of research would probably bring up more.
I think the reason laws like that exist is because of the effect it has on society. Yes, killing someone in an armed robbery or because of a dispute over money is bad, but it doesn't have the broader social implications that a hate crime does. The knowledge that you might get caught in an armed robbery or be killed by a home invasion may change your behavior somewhat, but it doesn't have the potential to hold an entire group of people prisoner to their fears. Hate crimes can do this. If someone is going around targeting gays (or Muslims or people in wheelchairs) for attacks due to their status, then it can effectively hold an entire group hostage.
The reason for the laws isn't because the motivations for a crime make it any better or worse. It's because the motivations for a crime can have a huge impact on public policy.
Actually, those who are married in the US get tax stipulations and generally pay less.
That's why many heterosexuals say they are just trying to scam the government.
The main reason for law is for a "society to function in an organized manner." I forgot where I heard that, but it makes sense to me.
because that is how I like to type
Is that a problem??
I'm letting it stay.
The other thread hasn't been posted in in 6 months, and it was already pretty long.
these were the four major arguments against interracial marriage:
1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
now change the word "interracial" in each of these to "homosexual". these arguments fit perfectly with all the arguments against gay marriage. now logically you can deduce that since interracial marriage is so prevelent and accepted in todays culture that in 20 years or so gay marriage will be too. so why fight the inevitable change?
Because it's unnatural, duh.
/sarcasm
God hates fags.
And cigars, worse then fags.
Leviticus 18:22
Rule number 2 and 3 were created for a reason. Follow them please, or leave.
In reply to JohnLethal, #56:
Aaaaand the bible is against gay sex. Not gays. Not gay marriage.
You are probably thinking of "God is love." God certainly is love, toward His elect (His children). But He certainly is not love toward the reprobate (children of the devil). That's why His elect go to heaven, and the reprobate go to hell. In Romans 9:13, which says "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated", Jacob is a representative of God's elect, while Esau is a representative of the reprobate. In Romans 1, the word "reprobate" is used to describe fags. Fags are reprobate. God hates reprobates. Therefore, God hates fags.
Furthermore, God specifically says that He ABHORS people who engage in sodomy (as well as other forms of sexual perversion): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them...And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them." Leviticus 20:13,23. Understand? GOD ABHORS FAGS.
God's hatred is one of His holy attributes, whereby He reveals Himself as having a fixed and immutable determination to punish the finally impenitent with eternal perdition. God's hatred is not like man's hatred. His hatred is holy, pure, unchanging, while man's hatred is a sinful, fickle emotion.
Maybe you're blind? But there's that rule again.
Also, read the first half of this essay. I explained in there exactly why the religious argument fails.
As much as I agree with you, you don't get to make rules for threads.