Canada - The True Home of Freedom!

[Cryozombie]

Every damn day of your life - it's a hetero world and you can walk freely down the street in the arms of your partner and no one will think much of this in-yer-face heteroism ramming your love for your opposing-gendered partner down everyone's throats except for gays who can't do the same without fearing bashing, ostracism, criticism and someone saying they're ramming it down everyone's throats.



When a gay person beats the living hell out of you for being straight - or when someone of another race beats the living hell out of you for being white - or a woman beats the living hell out of you for being a man.



No one is saying that bashing you is okay or that any crime anyone commits is "permitted" because they're upset and misunderstood. And I still fail to see how these comments apply as a viable argument as to why gays should not be allowed to marry?

You missed the point of everything I said kiddo, but illustrated my example perfectly... It was in response to Peachmonkeys request someone show "Examples of Special Treatment", not examples of why gays shouldnt eb allowed to marry. I said in my previous post, i dont care if Gays marry or not.

By the way... and a bit off topic, but in respoinse to your comment: I had a woman beat the hell out of me for being a man... I was beat to ****, she didnt have a mark on her becuase I refused to fight back... and guess who was found at fault when the cops showed up... I'll give you a hint... NOT HER.

 

[Kreth]

5. Let me see if we have this straight (pun intended)--there's a poster on this thread who believes that gay people demand too much BECAUSE HE SAW A COMEDY SKETCH?

Didn't you accuse me of painting you with a broad brush on another thread? Irony, what a wonderful thing. The sketch in question merely made the point in a humorous way. Namely that some gay people - note that I'm not saying *all* - insist that their sexuality enter into every conversation. Should you object, you're a homophobe...
On a similar note, a few weeks ago, I had to escort a gentleman from the fine drinking establishment where I occasionally work the door. This gentleman, who was African American, immediately accused me of being racist. My reponse was that it had nothing to do with his skin color, and everything to do with his behavior, except it was phrased in - pardon the expression - more colorful language...

Jeff

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. So you feel that if it's in a comedy sketch, that's the same thing as direct experience, facts, or statistics. Huh.

2. If the shoe don't fit, you must acquit...one merely wrote that the sources for hatred of gay people, denial of civil rights, the bizarre insistence that they're somehow abby-normal--in other words, homophobia--had a lot to do with one's internal issues.

3. Are we really basing our claims about, "gay people," in general on the yellings of some drunk jerk in a bar? If so, can the rest of us pass on the decades of stupid crap we've heard from white guys in bars and judge 'em all?

4. Why would a martial artist simply stand there and let some drunk chic beat them up? Stance work is important--it gives one strong legs to run away with.

5. Still waiting for explanations.

 

[raedyn]

When do I get to march in the "Hetero Pride" Parade?

Every day of your life. I've explained this before.

Hetero couples show us their sexuality all the time (myself included). Every day is Hetero Pride day. Consider every romantic comedy played in every theatre in North America. Consider straight weddings and the showers and celebrations that go along with them. Consider cuddles in the park and holding hands at the mall (there are few same-sex couples that have the guts to do this, but many won't out of fear).

Do straight people keep it out of my face?
What about movies, TV ads, people walking down the street holding hands, kissing, talking graphically about sex at work, telling about their husbands/wives etc etc.
Straight people don't leave it at home, why should gay people?

And, actually, there is nothing stopping you from having a Hetero Pride Parade. You just get a declaration from your mayor, and a permit from the police (I think it's the police -- call yr local city hall to find out the specifics for your town). In my province, one well known Christian fundamentalist zealot* got his City to proclaim Heterosexual Family Pride Day in 2001 and indeed he had a parade a couple of days before the Gay Pride Parade - with about 2 dozen supporters showing up compared to the 400ish that came out for the Gay Pride Parade. The next year, the Mayor's office refused that guy's proclamaition citing gay-hate literature he had distributed at the previous year's event. But even the Hetero Parade that did happen was good for the local gay community. Gay supporters took donations for Gay Pride Week along the parade route and gathered over $1000.

* (he is also a Right-To-Life activist who has a restraining order forbidding him to come within 3 city blocks of Planned Parenthood, and a couple of cities in the Province have banned him from entering thei municipalities at all -- well know as our local religious lunatic.)

When do I get to call getting Beat up "A Hate Crime" so the perp gets an automatic greater sentence?

Because, you know, it's such a priviledge to be the victim of a hate crime. *rolls eyes*

Best known example: Matthew Sheppard
He was tied to a fence for 18 hours in freezing weather and his "skull was so badly crushed [from a smash with a gun butt] that his brain stem was seriously damaged, meaning vital funtions including his heartheat, breathing and temperature control were critically impaired" (from a Dever Post article archived here). The killer's lawyers claimed that Matthew Sheppard had hit on the perp, so McKinney has flown into a blind rage and wasn' responsible for his actions. The claim they were trying to make is that it's okay to kill the guy because he's gay and you aren't. Thankfully, the judge threw that out. Even the defence admitted that Sheppard was killed BECAUSE he was gay. If he'd been straight, the murder would not have happened. So you (straight) will always be safe but any gay man is at risk when these people are around. You want to talk about "special treatment". That's a "special" threat, reserved "especially" for gays. So it's a "special" crime one only a gay person can be a victim of.

 

[shesulsa]

You missed the point of everything I said kiddo, but illustrated my example perfectly... It was in response to Peachmonkeys request someone show "Examples of Special Treatment", not examples of why gays shouldnt eb allowed to marry. I said in my previous post, i dont care if Gays marry or not.

I'm getting nowhere with you on this, John, and it's truly a pity. Folks who are neglected - even shunned - by the law in the country for being different will always be given special circumstances and special treatment until they are no longer considered to be special, rather just another sector of the population. Glad you agree on the gay marriage thing, though.

By the way... and a bit off topic, but in respoinse to your comment: I had a woman beat the hell out of me for being a man... I was beat to ****, she didnt have a mark on her becuase I refused to fight back... and guess who was found at fault when the cops showed up... I'll give you a hint... NOT HER.

First off, let me say that if the facts are the way you represent them, then there is no reason why she shouldn't have gone to jail - unless "being a man" means something besides just carrying the genitals that identify you as mail and unless "being a man" means something you're not willing to post here. I'd like to think you know me well enough by now to know I believe in the pursuit of fairness and know of at least one man to have suffered abuse from a girlfriend who did not go to jail and whose actions gave HIM a record.

That said, I'd be willing to bet this was not a woman who walked past you on the street, noticed you are male, and just decided to attempt to bash your skull in. The situation I just described would fit the definition of hate crime, but probably would not be tried as such - and it should be. Gender-based hate crimes have not yet gained the recognition of other hate-based crimes.

Oh, and thanks for calling me "kiddo" - makes me feel younger than you.

 

[Cryozombie]

4. Why would a martial artist simply stand there and let some drunk chic beat them up? Stance work is important--it gives one strong legs to run away with.

5. Still waiting for explanations.

Because liberal freaks who feel nothing a man could do is justified when it comes to protecting himself from a woman have fostered an environment where ANY form of defense sends the man to jail, at least until the trial.

IMO Better to take a beating and remain free than hit back a single time and go to jail.

And, run? When she is in YOUR home between you and the door beating you with a telephone handset you arent going anywhere my friend. And, I would add, she was not Drunk, just REALLY pissed off.

 

[Cryozombie]

Because, you know, it's such a priviledge to be the victim of a hate crime. *rolls eyes*
.

Yeah... cuz thats exactly what I said, you didnt twist that at all...

Give me a break.

 

[Tgace]

On a similar note, a few weeks ago, I had to escort a gentleman from the fine drinking establishment where I occasionally work the door. This gentleman, who was African American, immediately accused me of being racist. My reponse was that it had nothing to do with his skin color, and everything to do with his behavior, except it was phrased in - pardon the expression - more colorful language...

Jeff

Welcome to my world brother . If I had a dime for every time Ive heard "youre only stopping me/bothering me because Im (insert group here)." Id be a rich man.

 

[PeachMonkey]

When do I get to march in the "Hetero Pride" Parade?

I don't recall anyone stopping you from having a "Hetero Pride" parade. However, since you don't live in a society that goes out of its way to make you feel subhuman for being heterosexual, you'd be a bit of a jerk to have one.

The idea of "hate crime" legislation, both potential objections to it and, more importantly, the fact that there are more serious problems (like the crimes themselves) has already been dealt with.

If that's the kind of "special treatment" you're worried about -- tacky parades and potentially excessive laws for when gays are beaten and murdered -- I think that perhaps your priorities are completely out of whack.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Because liberal freaks who feel nothing a man could do is justified when it comes to protecting himself from a woman have fostered an environment where ANY form of defense sends the man to jail, at least until the trial.

Yes, it's the fault of "liberal freaks" that the vast majority of domestic violence situations involve men violently abusing female partners and/or children.

As a martial artist, I would hope you would be able to find a way of dealing with conflict with someone, female or otherwise that would not require hitting back. Particularly if her only gripe with you was that, as you report, "you are male".

 

[pete]

And Avril Levigne & Pamela Anderson & Nickelback & Neil Young & Dan Aykroyd & Alexander Graham Bell & Linda Evangelista & Michael J Fox & Mike Myers & Norm MacDonald & Cirque Du Soleil & Patrick Roy & James Cameron & Morley Safer & Frederick Banting & Jim Carrey & Tom Green & Wayne Gretzky & Peter Jennings & Leslie Neilson & Bill Shatner & Alex Trebek & Douglas Coupland....
I don't know if I should puff up with pride, or hide under the rug!

long may you run....

 

[raedyn]

Because, you know, it's such a priviledge to be the victim of a hate crime. *rolls eyes*

Yeah... cuz thats exactly what I said, you didnt twist that at all...

Can you see where I get that from? In all seriousness, I wasn't intentionally twisting your words. You said Hate Crimes legislation is "special treatment" I assume you mean preferrential treatment (correct me if I'm wrong). And with that sarcastic comment, I was only attempting to point out the silliness of accusing the victims of these heinous crimes of recieving "preferential treatment". They are victims of otherwise random attacks on them because of who they are. There is no other 'reason' for the attacks other than the colour of their skin / orientation / God they worship / etc. Hate crimes legislation is used to protect other groups as well - visible minorities, religious groups, etc (such as treating a burning cross put on a black person's yard by the KKK as something more than Mischief - which it clearly is more that mischief). So if you're a Jew, and you get beaten up because you're a Jew, that's a hate crime.

Hate crimes are a form of terrorism. If you are among the priviledged who are not targeted specifically for these sorts of crimes, then you probably don't know what it's like to live in fear of an unprovoked attack cause by a portion of your identiy. These crimes wouldn't happen if the targets of them didn't exist. And the people who commit the crimes do them as a way to send a message to their victims, and everyone who belongs that group. Gay bashers are saying "stay in the closet" cross-burners are saying "we don't want blacks", etc. Not only do Hate Crimes affect the direct victim of the attack (the guy beaten to death, the family with the burning cross on their lawn) but the entire community connected to the victim. Every gay person is more afraid after a gay bashing in their community. Black people are all affected when the KKK comes to town. So Hate Crimes laws are like specialized anti-terrorism laws.

What is 'preferential' about having legislation designed to discourage and punish these behaviours? To protect people that are at risk? If you feel you don't 'benefit' from Hate Crimes legislation, then please realize you are lucky. Because that probably means you aren't negatively impacted or at risk for being the victim. If someone beat you because they thought you were gay - even though you aren't - they could be charged with a hate crime. If a gay person is attacked, but their sexuality isn't a major motive to the crime, then it isn't a hate crime. It's a special charge for a special offence. Myself, I wish there was no need for a special charge. But that would mean there would have to be no more of the hate-motivated crimes.

 

[kenpo tiger]

1. On St. Patrick's Day, and all the other holidays.

2. a) While one doesn't necessarily agree, it's called a, "hate crime," because somebody's been specifically targeted to get beat up for their sexuality; b) Hey, what's worse...yakking about, "hate crimes," or travelling around with your buddies, looking for, "fags," to beat up?

3. Used to live in a part of Long Beach with a lot of gay people. On several occasions, was standing on a corner, waiting for the light to change, ir walking down the street, when a carload of yahoos drove by, yelled, "Fag!" (Perhaps it was the nifty gold lame off-the-shoulder was wearing at the time...) Once, they threw eggs at me and some other guy who was just standing there. Odd thing is, have lived all over the country for quite a while now, and have never had anybody drive by, scream, "Straight!" and throw anything. Nor ever heard of such. So run this by us again...who's got the problem, exactly?

4. Incidentally, if you're a guy and you want to drive these yahoos absolutely crazy, yell back, "Thanks, but I don't date men!" If they stop--and they might--keep a straight face (pun intended), and say, "Really...whatever you're into is fine by me, but I've got this girlfriend, and I don't date men. It's fine if you do, and thanks for the compliment, but no."

5. Let me see if we have this straight (pun intended)--there's a poster on this thread who believes that gay people demand too much BECAUSE HE SAW A COMEDY SKETCH?

6. Still waiting for info on a) why the existence of gay people hurts anybody; b) how people gettting married hurts anybody; c) just considering Christians who happen to be gay, how it is that one justifies telling them that they aren't allowed to read the Bible in their own fashion, follow the teachings of their own Church, and get married in what they see as the sight of God and the presence of their friends and family.
7. Not expecting answers to that last, because there ARE no answers outside of religious bigotry and sexual panic to justify taking people's rights to worship as they please away from them in this case. Expecting, instead, more silence, evasion, topic-shifting, and weird complaining about Gay Pride parades that have only been seen on TV...

Robert! We're still waiting to see the picture of you in the nifty off-the-shoulder gold lame thing (film at 11). :xtrmshock

People want to feel that they're *better than* someone, otherwise their pathetic little lives might be put into too sharp relief.

 

[Tgace]

The "problem" with hate crime legislation is its appearance of violating the concept of "equal protection under the law". You have 2 people, each brutally beaten. How do you explain to one that his attacker isnt going to be punished as harshly as the other because the other victim was a member of some protected group? IMO we should be focusing on the crime rather than the victim. Nobody deserves to be illegally assaulted regardless of race,sex, etc....

 

[Cryozombie]

Yes, it's the fault of "liberal freaks" that the vast majority of domestic violence situations involve men violently abusing female partners and/or children.

It amazes me how easily you people can take a sentence, re-write it, and make it say somthing else, and try and pass it off as the same original statement.

As a martial artist, I would hope you would be able to find a way of dealing with conflict with someone, female or otherwise that would not require hitting back. Particularly if her only gripe with you was that, as you report, "you are male".

If my only gripe with you was that we have opposing political views and I backed YOU into a corner and beat the crap out of you with a blunt object, would you feel that as a martial artisit you should have found a way to deal with the conflict without "hitting back"?

because you know what? I did. I stood there and took it, untill her rage subsided enough to get away. I would have been far less injured if I had struck ONCE and ended the conflict... but YOUR attitude that I should have found another way to deal with it is exactly why I could not strike back. PERIOD.

Let it happen to you... THEN preach to me.

And Incidentally, she was not angry at me, PER SE, she was pissed off at her husband, and I happened to be the male there for her to take it out on.

 

[shesulsa]

The "problem" with hate crime legislation is its appearance of violating the concept of "equal protection under the law". You have 2 people, each brutally beaten. How do you explain to one that his attacker isnt going to be punished as harshly as the other because the other victim was a member of some protected group? IMO we should be focusing on the crime rather than the victim. Nobody deserves to be illegally assaulted regardless of race,sex, etc....

I completely, wholeheartedly agree with you. I have heard before of protected-sector arrests in mutual assault cases, such as John's case (and my friend's case) where the female beat the crap out of the guy, he has marks but she none and he's the one who goes to jail. It's crap, I tellya, crap! This just should not be happening.

I honestly believe a crime is a crime and I think the only distinction a hate crime should have above an indescriminate crime of the same caliber is anyone convicted of a hate crime should receive some time in the mental ward, rather than more time, per se.

This thread gives me a headache ... *sigh* I've been up for three days - I'm gonna go take a nap.

 

[raedyn]

The "problem" with hate crime legislation is its appearance of violating the concept of "equal protection under the law". You have 2 people, each brutally beaten. How do you explain to one that his attacker isnt going to be punished as harshly as the other because the other victim was a member of some protected group? IMO we should be focusing on the crime rather than the victim. Nobody deserves to be illegally assaulted regardless of race,sex, etc....

I can see your point, Tom, but it isn't because of the victim of the crime, it's the intent of the crime. Killing a black person is only a hate crime if you killed them because they were black and would have left them alone if they were white. Same if it's gay instead of black. And if the victim was NOT gay but was beaten because someone thought they were gay and they were yelling gay slurs at the victim, that's a hate crime. So it's not the victim, it's the intent. And there are other crimes that are classified similarly. Like Manslaughter, Murder 1 and Murder 2 - the Victim is equally dead, but the actual charge and the punishment that goes along with it varies depending on the intent of the crime.

*thoughtfully* "equal protection under the law". Isn't murdering a police officer automatically a more serious crime? (I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong, and I appreciate that, cuz you help me to understand something I know little about). So haven't we already decided that if you target a certain group it's deserving of more severe punishment?

 

[Tgace]

There is no separate "charge" (or law) for murdering a police officer (in my state). It makes it 1st degree murder automatically and the penalty on the conviction will be more severe. The same should be said regarding the "hate crime" statutes. You want to argue that the sentence should be more severe due the defendants intent fine. I dont agree with passing laws that are designed to protect people due to their classification.

PS-The law states that the victim (LEO) had to be in the course of his/her official duty and the killer had to reasonably know that the victim was an LEO. Designed to keep people from fighting "the system" more than the person. IMO.

 

[Flatlander]

Hi everyone, sorry I'm late to the luncheon!

This, so far has been a most interesting thread. For the most part, it has remained approximately on topic. For that, I thank you. I do, however, have something to add.

Regarding the "gay pride parade" issue, something here needs to be said. The idea that organizing and having a parade in order to provide this particular issue with some public recognition has perhaps been viewed by some as "shoving it in your face", or otherwise exposing folks to things that they perhaps would rather not see.

I offer that perhaps this is a necessary thing. You see, I don't think it reasonable to assert that our progressive Western society actually affords equal rights to homosexual people, because it does not. As has been illustrated upthread, there are numerous circumstances wherein social rights are consistently denied to these folks and I believe that they have had quite enough. The few of them bold enough to organize events such as this do so in order to change their condition. This is necessary. How else should they get people's attention? We all know that a democratic system will only undergo a significant change with popular support. How sad that such is necessary in order for equality to be granted.

The fact is, they are NOT treated equally. For other groups that have been treated unfairly, these tactics HAVE worked to affect change. It is a process of growth and shifting of paradigms which must begin somewhere, and there must be vehicles through which they can operate, the "pride parade" being one of them.

Listen, the simple fact is, people are being opressed in your country by your neighbors. Does this not outrage you? Are we all created equally? Do we all bleed red? Should we all stand equal before the law?

I have been wholly unsuccessful in my attempts to formulate a logical reason for homosexuals to be treated any differently than anyone else. Any argument to the contrary can be grounded only in fear of the unknown, belief in the superiority of one's own "way", or religious intolerance. All are insufficient reasons for a representative government to deny equal rights to another human.

These ideas are not "Canadian" in nature, they are simply fair, just, and honest.

 

[Tgace]

Just as "devils advocate" heres an off the top of my head thought. Not really well thought out but here it goes...

The "denial of rights" issue. Nobody that I know of is being kept from having sex with, living with, or having legal documents drawn up between, due to their sexual preference. The marriage issue is about the government issuing a license. Do we have "rights" to that license? I suppose that it could be argued that short of some articulateable reason the government should issue. As it stands I believe a Gay couple could have a religious ceremony (in the right church) and have civil contracts drawn up to cover financial issues. If the gvt. was arresting people because they kissed in public and saying people cant sleep in the same bed etc. thats one thing. Im not quite on board with the "horrible oppression" standpoint. Is the issue debateable? Yes, put it to the test. Is it Nazi Germanylike? I dont think so.