Veto threat for federal hate crimes protection for gays

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,997
37,170
136
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Originally posted by: K1052
What a total crock of horseshit Butterbean is posting. I don't agree that this legislation should pass, nor any like it for other classes, but his bias is showing pretty clear.

Homosexuality was deleted from the DSM in the mid 70s and there is pressure to do the same with Gender Identity Disorder. Find me a non-fundie psychologist or psychiatrist that will treat for homosexuality as a disorder and I'll eat my hat.

That article on the ACLU mentions homosexuality exactly zero times. It does however make an example of the abortion debate. I have my own issues with the ACLU (mostly 2nd Amendment related) but labeling them as a "homo group"pushing a "fetid agenda" is absurd, myopic, and insulting. They have defended everyone from the Klan to NAMBLA based on the constitutional rights they are entitled to.

Most of the studies posted have little to no bearing on the abuse causing homosexuality argument, which in my opinion and experience is totally inaccurate. The actual causes of homosexuality are still elusive. If that was the conclusive answer there would be no cause for anymore work in the field (which is still proceeding).


You are correct that homosexuality was deleted in the mid 70's - and pedophilia as a sexual perversion was deleted in 1994. Contrary to popular belief the membership of the psychological/psychiatric associations don't vote en masse about such things. Small work groups often politically motivated make such decisions and the APA and others caved to homosexual mafia along time ago. That's why they deleted child sex abuse as a disorder just to be forced to put it back in DSM as a "moral failing"

After pedophilia was dropped from DSM the APA (American Psychological Association) issued a bulletin called "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples." whose authors, Bruce Rind, et al., claimed child sexual abuse could be "harmless and beneficial".

So much for objective psychological associations. Indeed the DSM said pedophilia was only a problem if the abuser felt "conflicted". So an unconflicted abuser was healthy and normal. You can flush the APA.

Indeed the Dr responsible for dropping homosexuality from disorder list was a Dr Robert Spitzer who met with homosexual activists before altering disorder label. At the time he used Kinsey data to justify hi actions - data which has proven to be garbage. Spitzer at the time thought homosexuality "incurable" but in a recent study he reversed that opinion with other studies he conducted. Of course the homosexual groups were apoplectic.

When you say "there is PRESSURE" to drop Gender Identity Disorder from the DSM you are exactly right. Pressure - and not established science or even common sense rules the psychological associations. Its all about pretending the naked emperor has clothes on. Freud, Jung and Adler- all saw homosexuality as disordered and there is no conclusive science ever used to substantiate oitherwise.

You say studies I show have no bearing on abuse as a cause of homosexuality even though these studies and many others find abuse rates for homosexuals in the 30's and 40's. So you get an F for being able to asses studies. Most psychologists is they are honest no darn well the link between abuse and sexual disorientation are pervasive. Psychologists don't treat homosexuals because 1) the homosexual mafia will likely come to their house (they attack "ex gay" groups vigourously) 2) insurance companies wont pay for a disorder not in the DSM (and the homosexual mafia will go to ther offices if they did) 3) psychologists/psychiatrists cant even cure depression - or explain the exact cause. They are now shills for drug compnaies and political groups. Did you see the recent study showing that millions of people who lose their temper during traffic have a "disorder". Witch doctors have more integrity.

If what you say is true and the cause of homosexuality is "still elusive" then why are millions of school kids being taught its like race and the Congress passing laws? The answer is the homosexual mafia pressuring people. When you say "work in the field is progressing" that's not true at all. What's progressing are the contrived "PR"studies from places like the University of San Francisco (har har) and the hidding away of studies that illustrate the truths.

Concerning the ACLU you should know that it was the former director Ira Glasser who got the present director Anthony Romero installed. Ira Glasser is now calling for Romeros removal. He has harsh things to say:

"When the ACLU does not practice what it preaches, when the ACLU markets civil liberties principles externally but fails to live by those principles within the ACLU, it signals a disrespect for and a lack of genuine commitment to those very principles it seeks to establish. And it damages its ability to be taken seriously. Ultimately, a leadership that does not respect its own principles enough to live by them is a leadership that will over time fail to apply those principles externally? especially when doing so seems to interfere with short-term fundraising efforts. This is a triumph of marketing over substance, and over the past three years there is already evidence that it has begun to erode the ACLU?s commitment to its historic mission."

That quote is from www.savetheaclu.org website. It was created by former ACLU heavyweights who know its being hijacked and trashed by a loopy looney bird.

http://www.savetheaclu.org/?cat=8

The Times article doesn't mention the fact that there are members that dont like suing the boyscouts to forcible accept conspicuous homosexuals but it has been a thread in the huge inner struggles currently taking place. Other homosexuals like Kate Kendell, who runs the National Center for Lesbian Rights, says she got in fight to support Romero partly because of a fear that "homophobia" might be behind the fighting. ?I don?t want to engage in gay-baiting, but I would be lying if I said it hadn?t crossed my mind.? (from the article "Freedom to BAckstab" http://nymag.com/news/features/27839/ )

Freud, Adler and Jung had it right that homosexuality is a disorder. Actually nobody needs a degree to see a man's penis doesn't belong in another man's butt.

So when used to argue your position the DSM is useful and correct but with anyone else's it is badly flawed/politically motivated. Cherry picking and saying all other research (than that which can be twisted to support your views) is nothing more than useless "PR" makes it clear you are useless to argue with. If you are going to be a hateful moralistic bigot at least be up front about it.

Your infatuation with this "gay mafia" (which obviously wields incredible power) is most interesting. If the cause of homosexuality are so clear (abuse alone according to you) then why is there ANY debate at all? Oh right, the "gay mafia" is keeping any and all attempts at proving it down. I know a number (most of them in fact) of gay people who were never abused yet they are still gay...hmm.


 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: ericlp
Text


So what now the federal government is supporting Hate Crime against Minorities?

the carefully worded statement of administration policy from the White House called the expansion of hate crimes protections at the federal level "unnecessary and constitutionally questionable" and said that if the bill made it to the president, "his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill."

Hmm, can't this president "THINK" for himself? Oh yeah, he is brain dead and has to be spoon fed and hand holding on any action.... Sad state of affairs....



Hate Crimes are BS! Just another attempt for the government to circumvent the inability to try a person twice for the same crime.
 

Kur

Senior member
Feb 19, 2005
677
0
0
Why should gay's be the only person protected? I'm glad he veto'ed the bill it does break freedom of speech rights. If I want to get up in someone's face it's my right too, making it against the law breaks my first amendment rights to do that. Hey I might get my ass kicked but it's my right to do it.

while were at it let's make it a federal offence to say any racial slurs like cracker, the N word, beaners, anything like that just so the other people don't feel left out.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Kur
Why should gay's be the only person protected? I'm glad he veto'ed the bill it does break freedom of speech rights. If I want to get up in someone's face it's my right too, making it against the law breaks my first amendment rights to do that. Hey I might get my ass kicked but it's my right to do it.

Chalk up another person who hasn't read the bill or anything about it. There is a specific provision in it that protects freedom of speech. Thanks for playing though.
 

Kur

Senior member
Feb 19, 2005
677
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Kur
Why should gay's be the only person protected? I'm glad he veto'ed the bill it does break freedom of speech rights. If I want to get up in someone's face it's my right too, making it against the law breaks my first amendment rights to do that. Hey I might get my ass kicked but it's my right to do it.

Chalk up another person who hasn't read the bill or anything about it. There is a specific provision in it that protects freedom of speech. Thanks for playing though.

Ok but if protects free speech yet penalizes for saying something against a certain group does that not conflict with one another?
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
Originally posted by: halik
That would be a political suicide imo, there's really no way to spin it.
There is always a way of spinning things. Hitler & Friends were able to convince a lot of people to murder civilians wholesale, and that it was a good thing. Spinning a decision on legislation is child's play by comparison.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Why are gays any different from say christians?

Hate speech is hate speech!

You see where this is going next thing you know, Blonds will say blond jokes are a form of hate speech. Then Fat people will want all fat jokes outlawed as hate speech. Better look out for Lawyers also!

What a joke! I thought everyone was suppose to have equal treatment under the law?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Kur

Ok but if protects free speech yet penalizes for saying something against a certain group does that not conflict with one another?

Nope! Not in the slightest.

The only part of the bill that even references hate speech is that if a violent act is committed, then slurs that someone uses while committing that violent crime can be used as evidence that it was a hate crime. You can slur to your heart's content and it's every bit as protected as it ever was.

Example: You can call someone a i love you all day, and it doesn't matter in the slightest. (besides making you a jerk) You can kill someone and only be charged with murder. If you kill someone while screaming to everyone around you 'death to the fags!' then the fact that you said that can be used as evidence that the murder you were comitting was a hate crime. Clear? The speech itself is in no way criminalized, it can merely be used to judge the intentions of the violent criminal. This sort of evidence of intent is used constantly in other crimes, and has been done so for.. well... forever almost.
 

mithrandir2001

Diamond Member
May 1, 2001
6,545
1
0
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Homosexuality is a sexual disorientation. It aint like being black or white and deserves zip extra protections.

Religious beliefs are protected. However, these are something you choose. Sexual orientation OTOH is pre-determined for a percentage of the homosexual population. It definitely deserves protection.

"Sexual orientation OTOH is pre-determined for a percentage of the homosexual population"

How do you prove that? Don't waste your time trying to find the conclusive study because it doesn't exist. Religion is specifically protected - ah heck sex is not and framers of the constitution would consider protected homosexuality abhorrent. Thomas Jefferson the old homophobe said the penalty for buggery should be castration:

How do you prove God exists? Some of these kinds of questions can be very childish.

I did not say all gays were born that way but you have no proof that every single homosexual "decided" to become a homosexual after birth. Who the heck would choose to be hated and vilified???

You cannot tell me what the Founding Fathers would think. Jefferson is often paraded about as a champion of liberty. But the man had slaves, many of them, and it appears he slept with them as well. Talk about abhorrent behavior.

 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Homosexuality is a sexual disorientation. It aint like being black or white and deserves zip extra protections.

Religious beliefs are protected. However, these are something you choose. Sexual orientation OTOH is pre-determined for a percentage of the homosexual population. It definitely deserves protection.

"Sexual orientation OTOH is pre-determined for a percentage of the homosexual population"

How do you prove that? Don't waste your time trying to find the conclusive study because it doesn't exist. Religion is specifically protected - ah heck sex is not and framers of the constitution would consider protected homosexuality abhorrent. Thomas Jefferson the old homophobe said the penalty for buggery should be castration:


"The fantastical idea of virtue and the public good being a sufficient security to the state against the commission of crimes,... was never mine. It is only the sanguinary hue of our penal laws which I meant to object to. Punishments I know are necessary, and I would provide them strict and inflexible, but proportioned to the crime. Death might be inflicted for murder and perhaps for treason, [but I] would take out of the description of treason all crimes which are not such in their nature. Rape, buggery, etc., punish by castration. All other crimes by working on high roads, rivers, gallies, etc., a certain time proportioned to the offence... Laws thus proportionate and mild should never be dispensed with. Let mercy be the character of the lawgiver, but let the judge be a mere machine. The mercies of the law will be dispensed equally and impartially to every description of men; those of the judge or of the executive power will be the eccentric impulses of whimsical, capricious designing man." --Thomas Jefferson to Edmund Pendleton, 1776. Papers 1:505
"

Now you can see why the ACLU and homosexual groups hate America and want to turn it into a sewer while pretending they are "defending" the constitution.



"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
-- Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential Candidate in 1940, 1944 and 1948, co-founder of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

"We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism." -- Nikita Kruschev, former Soviet Premier/dictator

"I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." -- Roger Baldwin, leftist, anarchist, and Communist, was born in Wellesley MA and co-founded the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Er, I think you got your extremist ranting mixed up. We're talking about gay people, not "socialism", Jethro.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
The Catholic Five on USSC wouldn't uphold any law that protects gays anyways.
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Kur
Why should gay's be the only person protected? I'm glad he veto'ed the bill it does break freedom of speech rights. If I want to get up in someone's face it's my right too, making it against the law breaks my first amendment rights to do that. Hey I might get my ass kicked but it's my right to do it.

Chalk up another person who hasn't read the bill or anything about it. There is a specific provision in it that protects freedom of speech. Thanks for playing though.

won't float in court.

they will just find a reason to make any incident they want not subject to that provision.

Hate Crime is just an attempt to prosecute someone when there isn't enough evidence to convict them on the real crime. It also is a way to add years to another crime. Finally its a way for the the Feds to try people the state fails to convict. Its just bs.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,111
926
126
If you don't like, or condone a particular lifestyle, does that mean you "hate"?

To disapprove is not to hate. That is why this is a really misguided issue.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Shivetya


won't float in court.

they will just find a reason to make any incident they want not subject to that provision.

Hate Crime is just an attempt to prosecute someone when there isn't enough evidence to convict them on the real crime. It also is a way to add years to another crime. Finally its a way for the the Feds to try people the state fails to convict. Its just bs.

This is false.

How do you expect them to make certain cases not subject to the provision of the law protecting free speech? Are you aware of the language of the law and the context for which hate speech is relevant? I have mentioned this before... but I will do it one more time. The speech mentioned in the law is in NO WAY criminalized itself, it is as evidence that the crime already committed could be racially/religiously/blah blah motivated. As I said, you can be as bigoted and full of hate as you were before... you can tell everyone you meet how much you hate the fags, but if you happen to assault/kill/etc a gay person, then the fact that you have told everyone how much you want them to die can be used to show your crime was motivated in that way. I fail to see the problem with this.

Hate crimes suffer the exact same burden of proof as the commission of a regular crime. In fact the burden of proof is higher, as you must both A.) Prove that the crime was committed, and B.) That it was somehow motivated by racism/sexism/etc.

It IS a way to add years to another crime, but that is because the crime is viewed as fundamentally different from a normal crime of violence or intimidation and is thereby more damaging to society as a whole... hence the additional punishment. Intimidation and degredation of entire segments of our population through force or fear is unacceptable to me, and it should be unacceptable to you as well for both the reasons that it is morally wrong, and for the damage it does to our whole society. I feel like we've been over this before.

Federal and state laws overlap in dozens if not hundreds of situations. Federal laws are passed when there is a compelling national interest, and whether you like it or not it is fairly simple to put forth a compelling national interest for specific groups not being targeted for violence and/or intimidation.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
If you don't like, or condone a particular lifestyle, does that mean you "hate"?

To disapprove is not to hate. That is why this is a really misguided issue.

If you simply disapprove seem you wouldn't be motivated to commit a crime over it.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Shivetya


-snip-

This is false.

How do you expect them to make certain cases not subject to the provision of the law protecting free speech? Are you aware of the language of the law and the context for which hate speech is relevant? I have mentioned this before... but I will do it one more time. The speech mentioned in the law is in NO WAY criminalized itself, it is as evidence that the crime already committed could be racially/religiously/blah blah motivated.

I understand your point. But look at it from another perspective:

If the only evidence showing/provig "intent" was your speech, at the end of the day aren't you being penalized ofr that speech?

Only those who excercised their freedom of speech to say negative things about another race, gender etc can be successfully prosecuted under these so-called hate crime statutes adding years to an otherwise already criminal sentance. I.e., you've just been penalized for your "speech".

If race carries a presumption of "hate", i.e., a black guy attacks a white and thus race & "hate" are invoked, aren't we penalizing the black guy for his race?

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Frankly, what I'd like to ask Bush is: Are you vetoing this bill because you feel the very concept of a "hate crime" is unfair or unconstitutional? Or are you vetoing the bill because you don't think gay Americans should have the same rights and protections as the rest of society? I'm willing to bet it's the latter.

If gays are to have the same rights and protections as the rest of us, he must veto this bill.

If I understand this bill correctly, if you or I is victimized we can onlt rely on the state and it's resources to prosecute the crime.

OTOH, if it's a gay person, the federal government will step to add it's resources, a benefit denied to us. Fair & equal?. I don't see how at this point.

Fern
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Fern

If gays are to have the same rights and protections as the rest of us, he must veto this bill.

If I understand this bill correctly, if you or I is victimized we can onlt rely on the state and it's resources to prosecute the crime.

OTOH, if it's a gay person, the federal government will step to add it's resources, a benefit denied to us. Fair & equal?. I don't see how at this point.

Fern

You do not understand it correctly then. If you are victimized based on your gender/race/religion/etc you will have the full support of the federal government. This holds true for everyone in America.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Fern
I understand your point. But look at it from another perspective:

If the only evidence showing/provig "intent" was your speech, at the end of the day aren't you being penalized ofr that speech?

Only those who excercised their freedom of speech to say negative things about another race, gender etc can be successfully prosecuted under these so-called hate crime statutes adding years to an otherwise already criminal sentance. I.e., you've just been penalized for your "speech".

If race carries a presumption of "hate", i.e., a black guy attacks a white and thus race & "hate" are invoked, aren't we penalizing the black guy for his race?

Fern

While this is true, by that logic people are penalized on a daily basis for their speech. Words said during the commission of a crime, threats beforehand, etc. are constantly used as indicators of intent. Do you wish to remove speech as evidence admissable in criminal trials?

Race does not create a presumption of hate, that is a false premise... and not at all indicative of hate crime legislation in either its letter or its enforcement. There were 7,163 hate crime incidents in 2005. There were approximately 11.5 million crimes committed in 2005, meaning that approximately six hundredths of one percent of crimes were labeled as hate crimes. While I couldn't find interracial crime statistics, something tells me that a significant number were. To have such a small number of hate crime investigations out of such a large number of crimes, (even if you just want to take violent crime it's less then half a percent) obviously shows that differences in race do not come close to meeting the threshold necessary for hate crime prosecution.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
Originally posted by: aidanjm
more than 70 percent of people in the USA support the expansion of hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity according to Barney Frank

and according to polls, most people want lower taxes, and are against aborition, but that poll is bogus.

 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
The whole concept of a hate crime is stupid.

thought police... no worse the FEELINGS police...

truely unAmerican
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: EXman
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
The whole concept of a hate crime is stupid.

thought police... no worse the FEELINGS police...

truely unAmerican

Neither you or Aajax read much do you? I mean I did almost all of the heavy lifting for you... but apparently you can't even be bothered to read what I write. Why do I bother? If "HURF BLURF HAT3 CRIMZ r STOOPD" is your best argument, YOU are stupid.