Our great President

Antitrust32 · #1 05-04-2007, 02:08 AM

wants to veto a law against hate crimes committed against "gender" or "sexual orientation"

Why would he want to veto that bill??

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/...ill/index.html

I love how Mr. Bush looks out for the best interest in "his" country.

brianwspencer · #2 05-04-2007, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

wants to veto a law against hate crimes committed against "gender" or "sexual orientation"

Why would he want to veto that bill??

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/...ill/index.html

I love how Mr. Bush looks out for the best interest in "his" country.

I've been following this pretty closely, and even the whole run-up to it was sick. The "family" groups have been lying about what the bill means, twisting transcripts to make it look like an anti-Christian bill and so forth. They've completely made the bill into something it wasn't to scare people into opposing it.

Andrew Sullivan says it best. It's disgusting, and there is no argument for opposing it outside of simply disliking, or hating gays.

The Bid · #3 05-04-2007, 08:09 AM

Ist America, if they can be gay, you can dislike them.

brianwspencer · #4 05-04-2007, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bid

Ist America, if they can be gay, you can dislike them.

Yep, and according to the federal government (post-veto), it's still more okay to kill them for being gay than it is to kill an African-American of a Catholic just for being black or Catholic.

It's not about liking them or not.

The Bid · #5 05-04-2007, 09:03 AM

I would tend to agree with that. I dont want queer thrown in my face. If someone wants to be gay, they should do it on their own time, in the privacy of their own home. I dont want to explain to a child why 2 men are holding hands in the street.

Im glad he knocked the bill out.

brianwspencer · #6 05-04-2007, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bid

I would tend to agree with that. I dont want queer thrown in my face. If someone wants to be gay, they should do it on their own time, in the privacy of their own home. I dont want to explain to a child why 2 men are holding hands in the street.

Im glad he knocked the bill out.

Well, of course that's your prerogative to feel that way -- but that has nothing at all to do with the bill that was passed in the House yesterday. Our hate crime laws protect subsets of people based on their personal characteristics -- being black, a Muslim, a Christian, a Mexican, you name it -- they are protected from being attacked based on who they are. It doesn't matter if I want Islam "thrown in my face" or not, that's not the point of the law. This law, whether passed or not, will have zero effect on whether you have you explain to a child why two men are holding hands on the street. You'd still have to before the bill, and you'll still have to after the bill.

I haven't heard (from anyone) a good argument about why homosexuals should not be included under federal hate-crime laws.

SentToStud · #7 05-04-2007, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I've been following this pretty closely, and even the whole run-up to it was sick. The "family" groups have been lying about what the bill means, twisting transcripts to make it look like an anti-Christian bill and so forth. They've completely made the bill into something it wasn't to scare people into opposing it.

Andrew Sullivan says it best. It's disgusting, and there is no argument for opposing it outside of simply disliking, or hating gays.

I don't agree with Sullivan, though he may be right.

I think the real reason is the same reason that I found my tongue on the floor the other night as the Repub candidates (save Rudy G.) lined up like trained pigs to state they were in favor of overturning Roe v Wade. I expected at least a few of them to give a little more insight as to why they would support overturning a pretty important law but the short, straight "Yes" response was obviously directed at the Christian far-right.

The same applies to Bush here. It's a shame the Republicans have degenerated into what they've become. It's fairly stunning how quickly they have been able to start chipping away at Roe. Really, how the heck could you expect Bush to do anything different?

somerfrost · #8 05-04-2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SentToStud

I don't agree with Sullivan, though he may be right.

I think the real reason is the same reason that I found my tongue on the floor the other night as the Repub candidates (save Rudy G.) lined up like trained pigs to state they were in favor of overturning Roe v Wade. I expected at least a few of them to give a little more insight as to why they would support overturning a pretty important law but the short, straight "Yes" response was obviously directed at the Christian far-right.

The same applies to Bush here. It's a shame the Republicans have degenerated into what they've become. It's fairly stunning how quickly they have been able to start chipping away at Roe. Really, how the heck could you expect Bush to do anything different?

I think abortion is a far different issue than treating all people with respect...I'm about as far to the left as anyone here, a proud feminist and yet I oppose abortion...that is a very difficult issue for many folks!

timmgirvan · #9 05-04-2007, 04:00 PM

The "Violent Crimes Act of 1994" pretty much covers protections to any group! I really don't see that we need another Bill....We could just enforce the ones already on the books!

Cajungator26 · #10 05-04-2007, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

BTW, I prefer "breeder" over "straight".

k, thanx!

That you are!

Cajungator26 · #11 05-04-2007, 11:09 AM

I refuse to hate someone for their choice in religion or sexuality. I may not always agree with another person's choice, but there is absolutely NO reason to hate another person for their choice in the above two categories. To place blame on a person for someone else attacking them is ludicrous. I don't give a flying phuck WHAT they are doing in public... NOBODY deserves to be attacked for choosing a certain religion or sexuality. I could give two shiats what another person chooses... it has ZERO to do with my choice and is not harming me (or my child.)

The Bid · #12 05-04-2007, 11:11 AM

Jamie

You are comfortable taking you kid around a couple gays cuddling at a park? You wouldnt find it offensive if two men kissed in front of your son?

Cajungator26 · #13 05-04-2007, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bid

Jamie

You are comfortable taking you kid around a couple gays cuddling at a park? You wouldnt find it offensive if two men kissed in front of your son?

No more offensive than a straight couple doing it... either way (you obviously don't have children), I have to explain to my child what is going on. Would I have a problem if they were having sex in the park? Yes... and I'd have a problem with it if there was a straight couple having sex in the park. I think you're reaching here, R...