282 réponses à ce sujet

[kcp12]

Wild Maiden wrote...

Bagenholt wrote...
What has it got to do with You what they do in the sack? Seriously, how self-righteous you are to think 1)you matter that much in general 2) that you matter that much in that persons life and 3) for trying to interfere in that persons life. Get the **** over yourself and move on. This thread just goes to show how little sexual difference are still not accept yet it's no ones business. How sad are we as a people to have this even matter anymore?

I think if it was confined to "what they do in the sack" most people wouldn't have a problem with it, but it's not.  It's not just about the personal relationship between two people in the privacy of their own home, they want to be accepted as an "equal alternative", which is where the problem is.  They are treated as victims because most people find homosexuality to be morally reprehensible and refuse to accept it as an alternative lifestyle.  

It's not a "you do it your way, I'll do it my way" sort of thing.

• They get special protection under hate crime laws, which means if I were to kill a gay person I would go to jail longer than if I killed a straight person, it's as if the life of a homosexual is worth more than the life a heterosexual.
• At most public universities students are FORCED to pay a fee that goes to fund the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender club due to university policy or state, local, and/or federal laws, even if they are none of those things, while other clubs are required to do fund raising.
• They are protected under Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity policies, which means that some people are hired or enrolled in universities simply because they are homosexual, while heterosexuals are put as a disadvantage.  

It has nothing to do with "the sack".  It has to do with the fact that homosexuals are treated as victims.  If you choose to to enter a relationship with a member of the same sex, that's fine, but don't act as if you are a victim entitled to special treatment when the rest of the world frowns upon that.  Race, sex, ethnic background, and other characteristics that are often used in similar ways are different, people can't choose their race.

I'm not saying that I personally have a problem with homosexual relationships, but it's not as if everybody who isn't completely accepting of that lifestyle choice is a bigot trying to press their moral view on other people.  I think a lot of people are just sick of everybody who isn't a white, heterosexual, male being treated a if they are a victim in need of special assistance to be successful in life.
 

Ya, Homesexuals are living the life.  Society is completly biasied in their favor.  Man I wish I wish could charge a person with a hate crimes if someone beats me with a baseball bat just because of my sexual oreintation. They have it soo good.[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/wondering.png[/smilie]

Who cares if they act like victims or not. It has nothing to do with issues about equality (legally and/or soically)

Modifié par kcp12, 04 décembre 2009 - 08:36 .

[Dark83]

Er, I'm under the impression that neuroscience has shown homosexuality is not a "choice".

[taine]

Dark83 wrote...

Er, I'm under the impression that neuroscience has shown homosexuality is not a "choice".

Science is for suckers. I made it halfway through high school and don't have to take crap from anybody, especially if it doesn't match up with my preconceived worldview.

Modifié par taine, 04 décembre 2009 - 09:02 .

[Dark83]

taine wrote...

Dark83 wrote...

Er, I'm under the impression that neuroscience has shown homosexuality is not a "choice".

Science is for suckers. I made it halfway through high school and don't have to take crap from anybody, especially if it doesn't match up with my preconceived worldview.

First I , then I

[MerinTB]

taine wrote...

Dark83 wrote...

Er, I'm under the impression that neuroscience has shown homosexuality is not a "choice".

Science is for suckers. They made it halfway through high school and don't have to take crap from anybody, especially if it doesn't match up with their preconceived worldview.

The first sentence is mind-boggling.  It is, effectively, saying "Those who like evidence based, provable reality are being fooled."  <_<

The rest of it made no sense.  Scientists made it halfway through high school and have a preconceived worldview?  Science did? The "suckers" who believe science?

"See this blue crayon?"
"It's not blue."
"What?  Look at it, the color is blue and it says "Blue" on the wrapper.  No matter how many times I look at it, it comes up a blue crayon.  Hey, let's test it.  Let's get other people to look at it.  Is this a blue crayon?  My evidence is that it is the color blue and says blue on the wrapper."
"I don't care that multiple repeated tests give evidence supporting your "blue" theory - it's just a theory and MY OPINION is that the crayon isn't blue."

You decide who the sucker is.

EDIT - ah, an edit.  With THEY turned into I ...
I get it.  Sarcasm.  My bad.

Modifié par MerinTB, 04 décembre 2009 - 09:08 .

[RunCDFirst]

Wild Maiden wrote...

• They are protected under Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity policies, which means that some people are hired or enrolled in universities simply because they are homosexual, while heterosexuals are put as a disadvantage.   

Hm, I'm not sure how Affirmative Action works in your place, but here you're not allowed asking someone their sexual orientation in regards to job opportunities. It's not that there are positions reserved for homosexuals, it's that employers are not allowed asking for that information, nor can they base any hiring off that information.

Affirmitive Action is usually reserved for things that... you know... can't really go unnoticed by an employer. Something like race or sex.

And, really, most white, straight men are losing jobs to other white, straight men. There's a reason those other groups are minorities.

[taine]

MerinTB wrote...

taine wrote...

Dark83 wrote...

Er, I'm under the impression that neuroscience has shown homosexuality is not a "choice".

Science is for suckers. They made it halfway through high school and don't have to take crap from anybody, especially if it doesn't match up with their preconceived worldview.

The first sentence is mind-boggling.  It is, effectively, saying "Those who like evidence based, provable reality are being fooled."  <_<

The rest of it made no sense.  Scientists made it halfway through high school and have a preconceived worldview?  Science did? The "suckers" who believe science?

"See this blue crayon?"
"It's not blue."
"What?  Look at it, the color is blue and it says "Blue" on the wrapper.  No matter how many times I look at it, it comes up a blue crayon.  Hey, let's test it.  Let's get other people to look at it.  Is this a blue crayon?  My evidence is that it is the color blue and says blue on the wrapper."
"I don't care that multiple repeated tests give evidence supporting your "blue" theory - it's just a theory and MY OPINION is that the crayon isn't blue."

You decide who the sucker is.

You sir, do not understand satire.

[MerinTB]

taine wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

taine wrote...

Dark83 wrote...

Er, I'm under the impression that neuroscience has shown homosexuality is not a "choice".

Science is for suckers. They made it halfway through high school and don't have to take crap from anybody, especially if it doesn't match up with their preconceived worldview.

The first sentence is mind-boggling.  It is, effectively, saying "Those who like evidence based, provable reality are being fooled."  <_<

The rest of it made no sense.  Scientists made it halfway through high school and have a preconceived worldview?  Science did? The "suckers" who believe science?

"See this blue crayon?"
"It's not blue."
"What?  Look at it, the color is blue and it says "Blue" on the wrapper.  No matter how many times I look at it, it comes up a blue crayon.  Hey, let's test it.  Let's get other people to look at it.  Is this a blue crayon?  My evidence is that it is the color blue and says blue on the wrapper."
"I don't care that multiple repeated tests give evidence supporting your "blue" theory - it's just a theory and MY OPINION is that the crayon isn't blue."

You decide who the sucker is.

You sir, do not understand satire.

Actually, I didn't understand your post when the "I made it through" hadn't been edited to correct it from saying "They made it through."

Your post initially made no sense.

[taine]

MerinTB wrote...

Actually, I didn't understand your post when the "I made it through" hadn't been edited to correct it from saying "They made it through."

Your post initially made no sense.

It's the same thing, just worded differently to avoid offending too many more people.

Oh, and to address one of the arguments from earlier in the thread -- the whole thing about 'all the homosexual people I know have had troubled pasts/relationships, therefore all homosexuals are caused by said bad experiences and/or relationships' is a classic example of a post-hoc ergo propter-hoc (after, therefore because of) logical fallacy. It is similar to the argument used in anti-drug campaigns -- many people who use hard drugs first use marijuana, hence marijuana causes people to use harder drugs. This could be true, yes, but far more of them drank milk in their youth. Let's make milk illegal!

In other words, saying something has to be a cause simply because a result sometimes follows is, to put it bluntly, bull****.

[Dark83]

OMG milk is the gateway drug! Those drug pushers start at infancy! OMG!

[mathewgurney]

 Violence = WIN !

Reasons

Due to overpopulation and the needless polluting excesses of the majority, our world is becoming ruined. 

This process is not reversible if current population growth, pollution and exploitation of failing resources continue apace, which they will.

90% of humanity needs to die relatively immediately and certain key technologies be abandoned in order for this world to remain sustainable as a comfortable renewing environment for our descendants. 

This dramatic cull of humans will occur anyway inevitably within 50 years due to one major factor.

New weather patterns caused by the pollution of our atmosphere compress populations into smaller habitable areas.

Humanity in ever closer proximity to his neighbour, fighting for ever scarcer resources will do the rest.

However by that point the world would already be compromised environmentally, irreversibly.

Better to kill them all now.  Eco-vigilantism.

The coming generations, who will accomplish and/or survive this are going to need to be tough to survive in the other 10%.

Gayness = FAIL !

How is gayness relevant to anything discussed above ? It isn't.

Gays may not reproduce so they dont contribute to population growth but they consume as much if not more resources than your average person due to thier cosmopolitan lifestyle.

You see the gays problem is that they think its interesting, it's really not, it boils down to where you put your meat rod and how you attach emotional importance to that. So, everyone has sex, it's not interesting.

And i have no problem with someone who is gay and yet productive and engages in bettering society, doesn't make thier sexuality thier all.

My problem is with the gay who will spend a lot of time and money BEING gay, dressing right, acting right, as obsessed with appearance as much as any bored princess, and as shallow.

So while your busy standing on the street corner or bar discussing fashion, gossip, music and deciding what unknowable navel you want to point your personality at this evening ........

Someone like me is gonna bash you over the head and chalk one up for the human continuance fund, but don't feel bad about it, coz we didnt really know who you were or care that you were gay.

You were just a target becuse you were pointless and an easy mark because you walk around all day with nothing on your mind but skin deep banality and crudity.

[scootermcgaffin]

Wild Maiden wrote...

• They get special protection under hate crime laws, which means if I were to kill a gay person I would go to jail longer than if I killed a straight person, it's as if the life of a homosexual is worth more than the life a heterosexual.
• At most public universities students are FORCED to pay a fee that goes to fund the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender club due to university policy or state, local, and/or federal laws, even if they are none of those things, while other clubs are required to do fund raising.
• They are protected under Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity policies, which means that some people are hired or enrolled in universities simply because they are homosexual, while heterosexuals are put as a disadvantage.

1. You pretty obviously have no idea how hate crime legislature works. Killing a protected minority (which, by the way, homosexuals were only very recently added to that list, and a lot of places still don't recognize them as such) because, for random example, he or she broke into your house and was robbing you? Would not constitute a hate crime. Killing a protected minority because that person is a minority, however, would very much be a hate crime and there's really no way you can argue otherwise.

2. ...what universities do this? Seriously. Which ones? If you mean you pay for the "GLBT space" or whatever that many campuses are adopting, then...yeah, you do. You also pay for sorority row. What's your point? I pay for the computer lab, too, and I never even go in there because I have a laptop. Clearly computer users need to stop whining and pay their own way.

3. No, they're not. The closest thing to that is the few places that have a policy on Homosexuality under their Unfair Firing and Employee Discrimination policies. It is still perfectly legal in a depressing number of places to fire a person for being part of the GLBT(AIQP) community.

[taine]

If what you are saying is what you actually believe mathewgurney, then all I can say is that I feel really sorry for you.

[HorkaThane]

well if you dont attempt anything Gay you wont see anything Gay. LOL, this is stupid.

[Hardin4188]

Personally I think all violent crimes against people should be a hate crime since only a hateful person would use violence against an innocent person.

[MerinTB]

mathewgurney wrote...

 Violence = WIN !

Reasons

Due to overpopulation and the needless polluting excesses of the majority, our world is becoming ruined. 

This process is not reversible if current population growth, pollution and exploitation of failing resources continue apace, which they will.

90% of humanity needs to die relatively immediately and certain key technologies be abandoned in order for this world to remain sustainable as a comfortable renewing environment for our descendants. 

This dramatic cull of humans will occur anyway inevitably within 50 years due to one major factor.

New weather patterns caused by the pollution of our atmosphere compress populations into smaller habitable areas.

Humanity in ever closer proximity to his neighbour, fighting for ever scarcer resources will do the rest.

However by that point the world would already be compromised environmentally, irreversibly.

Better to kill them all now.  Eco-vigilantism.

The coming generations, who will accomplish and/or survive this are going to need to be tough to survive in the other 10%.

Gayness = FAIL !

How is gayness relevant to anything discussed above ? It isn't.

Gays may not reproduce so they dont contribute to population growth but they consume as much if not more resources than your average person due to thier cosmopolitan lifestyle.

You see the gays problem is that they think its interesting, it's really not, it boils down to where you put your meat rod and how you attach emotional importance to that. So, everyone has sex, it's not interesting.

And i have no problem with someone who is gay and yet productive and engages in bettering society, doesn't make thier sexuality thier all.

My problem is with the gay who will spend a lot of time and money BEING gay, dressing right, acting right, as obsessed with appearance as much as any bored princess, and as shallow.

So while your busy standing on the street corner or bar discussing fashion, gossip, music and deciding what unknowable navel you want to point your personality at this evening ........

Someone like me is gonna bash you over the head and chalk one up for the human continuance fund, but don't feel bad about it, coz we didnt really know who you were or care that you were gay.

You were just a target becuse you were pointless and an easy mark because you walk around all day with nothing on your mind but skin deep banality and crudity.

And this worldview is the one you eagerly share with your 5 year old daughter?  That 90% of the human race needs to die immediately?

I'm ferverently hoping beyond hope that you are executing some elaborate, long-term joke with these posts -

otherwise I find myself hoping someone who cares about your daughter calls child services.

[Wyvernne]

I find it funny that only homosexuality is mentioned here. So Matthew Gurney apparently feels it's ok for his 5 year old to watch sex as long as it's the "normal" kind. Um. Ok.

[RunCDFirst]

mathewgurney wrote...

 Violence
vs
Gayness

Not. Trolling. Hard. Enough.

I give it a solid 4/10 though. There was some effort.

Modifié par RunCDFirst, 04 décembre 2009 - 10:40 .

[Wild Maiden]

Hardin4188 wrote...

Personally I think all violent crimes against people should be a hate crime since only a hateful person would use violence against an innocent person.

I agree 100%.  If I kill somebody because they looked at me funny, or if I kill somebody because they are a certain race, or if I kill somebody in a drug deal gone wrong but the media alleges I killed them because they were gay, or if I kill somebody for any other reason other than self defense (or MAYBE in a "crime of passion"), does it really matter?

Does it really matter why?  Should a guy who kills people at random be punished less than somebody who chooses targets based on some "protected" characteristic?  The whole idea is ridiculous.  Murder is Murder no matter what the motive was (or might be perceived to be).

Modifié par Wild Maiden, 04 décembre 2009 - 10:51 .

[Bryy_Miller]

mathewgurney wrote...

 Violence = WIN !

I honestly hope that you are not this happy about the thought of not only a huge percent of the population dying, but at the thought of global violence on an astronomical scale. I hope to God that you just decided to be stupid and do caps and an emoticon.I like how you say that you have no problem with gays, and then proceed to say that they deserve to die because they are perverts.

MerinTB wrote...
otherwise I find myself hoping someone who cares about your daughter calls child services.

This is not even mentioning the fact that what Matt is doing is MENTAL CHILD ABUSE. 
His daughter can't even possibly comprehend the information that he is telling her.

If it is a huge troll, then he failed due to being too extreme.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 04 décembre 2009 - 10:52 .

[RunCDFirst]

Wild Maiden wrote...
I agree 100%.  If I kill somebody because they looked at me funny, or if I kill somebody because they are a certain race, or if I kill somebody in a drug deal gone wrong but the media alleges I killed them because they were gay, or if I kill somebody for any other reason other than self defense (or MAYBE in a "crime of passion"), does it really matter?

Does it really matter why?  Should a guy who kills people at random be punished less than somebody who chooses targets based on some "protected" characteristic?  The whole idea is ridiculous.  Murder is Murder no matter what the motive was (or might be perceived to be).

Well, I guess not everyone's expected to be informed on how the law works.

There are various charges for the unlawful demise of an individual. Manslaughter is when someone dies from your action's but you didn't intend to kill them. First degree murder is basically the hate crime version, since you took the time to plan their death. It is a harsher sentence than second degree murder where you may have killed someone but you didn't hate them enough to actually plan it.

Edit: As for why a hate crime murder is more severe than first degree murder, it can be likened to a low scale genocide. The intent for the murder is based on no reason other than a characteristic of the individual. The perpetrators could, theoretically, continue their crimes against others unconnected to the original victims. Thus, the intent is worse than the individual causes for non-hate crime murder.

Modifié par RunCDFirst, 04 décembre 2009 - 11:11 .

[Wild Maiden]

RunCDFirst wrote...
Well, I guess not everyone's expected to be informed on how the law works.

There are various charges for the unlawful demise of an individual. Manslaughter is when someone dies from your action's but you didn't intend to kill them. First degree murder is basically the hate crime version, since you took the time to plan their death. It is a harsher sentence than second degree murder where you may have killed someone but you didn't hate them enough to actually plan it.

It's only a hate crime if you murder somebody for a selected list of reasons, specifically race, gender, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, etc.  If you murder somebody for one of those things (or are perceived to have been motivated by one of those factors, even if you were not) you can be charged with a hate crime and get even harsher penalty than if you murdered somebody who didn't have those characteristics.  Manslaughter is not murder... Second degree murder can still be a hate crime.

[MartinJHolm]

RunCDFirst wrote...
.
There are various charges for the unlawful demise of an individual. Manslaughter is when someone dies from your action's but you didn't intend to kill them. First degree murder is basically the hate crime version, since you took the time to plan their death. It is a harsher sentence than second degree murder where you may have killed someone but you didn't hate them enough to actually plan it.

In your country it might be that way, it's not universally like that.

[RunCDFirst]

Wild Maiden wrote...
It's only a hate crime if you murder somebody for a selected list of reasons, specifically race, gender, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, etc.  If you murder somebody for one of those things (or are perceived to have been motivated by one of those factors, even if you were not) you can be charged with a hate crime and get even harsher penalty than if you murdered somebody who didn't have those characteristics.  Manslaughter is not murder... Second degree murder can still be a hate crime.

I realized my post probably wasn't clear so I made an edit.

Essentially, hate murder is worst than first degree murder since the intent implies that the perpetrator would continue their crime.

[Sylvius the Mad]

scootermcgaffin wrote...

You pretty obviously have no idea how hate crime legislature works. Killing a protected minority (which, by the way, homosexuals were only very recently added to that list, and a lot of places still don't recognize them as such) because, for random example, he or she broke into your house and was robbing you? Would not constitute a hate crime. Killing a protected minority because that person is a minority, however, would very much be a hate crime and there's really no way you can argue otherwise.

Not that I think this thread serves any purpose at all, but the motives of the attacker aren't knowable to the court.  Why I shot somebody is forever a mystery to you.

That's what's wrong with making it a different crime bacsed on my motives.  You can't know my motives.