Do gays really want to be equal?

This came up in another thread, and I thought it was significant enough to be further explored.

Gay marriage proponents like to claim that they don’t want special rights for homosexuals, they just want equal rights. They want them to be the same as everybody else.

Okay then. Fair enough. So let me ask you this. Homosexuals are currently given extra protection in the justice system through hate crimes laws. Someone who attacks or kills a homosexual, if charged with a hate crime, will get a stiffer penalty than if they had committed the exact same crime against a straight person. This obviously isn’t equal.

If you want equal rights like you say you do, would you be willing to give up hate crimes protection to get gay marriage legalized across the country? Why or why not?

It seems like a pretty obvious answer to me. If you’re not willing to sacrifice one to get the other, then gay marriage isn’t really about equal rights, is it? It’s just about choosing when you want to be considered equal. Which isn’t how equality works.

Anybody here willing to make the sacrifice?

 

If a straight person were attacked because they were straight, said attacker would be charged with a hate crime. The motive is what matters, and oddly... as many times as that's explained, it never sinks in.

As far as equality:

 

It never ends actually. In Canada, gays are legally considered equal.

So, why does this still persist?

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/art...ernment-won-t-fund-toronto-gay-pride-festival

Victim status mentality is endless. I recall when my Prime Minister didn't go to an Aids symposium in another country, and sent his designated health specialist instead (you know, the qualified person to go)...and the gays railed against Harper for it.

 

And homosexuals already have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals; the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

You see, two can play at that game. If you want to get technical, marriage laws are already equal too.

 

but sadly, most of them advocate discriminate government privilege being extended to a whole host of other groups.

 

You were given a correct interpretation of hate crime legislation and how it applies to everyone, only to retort with how marriage legislation is equal only if homosexuals disregard their preference. A complete lack of understanding on your part.

 

___Amen.___

 

By now, you should know why the above is just an expression of stupidity.
It seems that those with your mindset will either be offended or surprised once all homosexuals are allowed to marry.

So be it.

 

Your post should be repeated 'perpetually'.

 

does government privilege apply to everyone, or are some extended privilege at the expense of others, based upon age, income, etc, for instance welfare, medicare, subsidies, tax breaks, ............

should we eliminate all discriminate privilege or just as it applies to gays and gay marriage ?

 

start a thread on it with direct instances, and we'll have a conversation.

 

Actually that assessment is more accurately applied to the underlined distortion of what Unifer said.

 

No distortion.

 

You are absolutely correct!

 

let's take the "hot button" and set it aside

first, I don't think the govt has any business in marriage. If mom and son wish to wed then to heck with the govt. If living together and drafting joint tenancy contracts isn't sufficient then find a church and profess your love in front of the congregation and your God (if you have one)

that put aside it brings us to the real meat, laws

we already have laws for murder, rape, battery etc etc

I will never understand why my life is valued less if i get murdered vs if a man who sleeps with other men gets murdered. Or, if a white person kills me they serve less time than if a black person kills me because then it's because the black person hated me............oi vay; either way I'm murdered


that is where creating all types of special interests ultimately gets you. it actually creates a greater divide then equality.

 

Of course it is. You had to change the wording around to make it into something you could find fault with. By your reasoning, US motor vehicle laws aren't "equal" because they disregard the preferences of those like British expats who would prefer to drive on the left side of the road.

 

The whole concept of a "hate crime" is silly. Has anyone ever committed a "love crime"? No, the reason you did whatever you did is irrelevant, the crime ought to be punished, not the reason for committing the crime.

With that being said, the state should have no role whatsoever in who we choose to be in a relationship with, the whole argument about gay marriage is missing the forest for the trees.

 

They get a stiffer penalty because of the motive.

If I run you over with my car by accident because I wanted to text instead of pay attention, that is far different from mowing you down deliberately because I dont like the hat you're wearing.

Motive does matter. But really, the point is to deter the crime in the future. Continue raising the penalty for the crime until people stop committing it.

As to why homos are special...well, its because they are specifically targeted because they are homos. How many straight people are targeted for being straight? There's your answer.

Yes.

 

This. The state should be involved in enforcing contracts, and thats it.

But since they are not, things need to be more equal than they are.

 

We already consider the reasons people commit crimes... why do you think murder has degrees? As much as it may trouble people, they're going to have to realize that there are different levels to the dangers specific people pose in society. Joe Random who's been charged with 2nd degree murder isn't the same as a terrorist.

 

Not done at all.

 

Ok, right. I misspoke, but only slightly.

Premeditation matters, hence the degrees of murder, however I'm not interested in engaging in policing peoples thoughts. I can't prove why you committed a crime, only whether you planned it or not.

Joe Random kills in the "heat of the moment" isn't the same as a terrorist, but John Doe who planned and committed a murder is the same as a terrorist (assuming both killed the same number of people)

 

I can't view page 3.

 

but it can be proven, and it has. The reason motive is entertained is to determine the threat level a suspect poses to society. If he killed because of race, think about his potential target radius. That should garner a stiffer penalty.

 

It's exactly what you did, and you bloody well know it.