If one disagrees with 1 gay agenda, does this equate to being "homophobic" as some critics claim?

Question

I aslo don't agree with "Hate Crime" legislation due to the litany of existing laws that deal with assault and battery. Not to mention how do you legislate the reading of minds?

Does this equate to being racist?

TD (below) Is disagreeing with a single pro-gay-marriage policy the same as condemning people? If so, those who are for gay marriage are condemning me as they do not agree with my policy. Doesn't make sense.

Nate123 (below) Persons commiting those crimes can be prosecuted by existing laws. Creating another one that also may or may not be enforced doesn't make the punishment send any additional message. It just adds confusion AND another way out (technicalities) of being convicted.

Answer 1

No to both. This is where PC goes way overboard. Since when is it okay to force people to believe or accept things that are not acceptable to them?

Answer 2

When John Byrd (a black man)was dragged to his death behind the truck that was occupied by several rednecks...George Bush was accused of being indifferent because he did not support hate crime legislation. George Bush countered "I'm for the death penalty for those guys."

This brings me agree with Chi Guy (maybe the last time ever?), we have penalties on the books that deal with crime, why make the terrible death or injury of one citizen more costly than another. Think about it, if you are maiming or murdering someone...it's probably not a love crime.

And disagreeing with one gay agenda (they used to deny having an agenda) would not make you racist, since homosexuality is not a race. As stated, anyone in disagreement with them is called names, usually with "homophobic" tossed in at the beginning.

Frankly, on the marriage issue, since I'm not pro-homosexual in general, I would like them to be able to marry, so they can experience the wonders of divorce like the rest of us. Divorce lawyers need the business.

Answer 3

Well heres another take on the subject.

When the Democratic candidates were at the Gay forum answering questions.

I noticed, that all of them(except one) were against gay marriages, but for gay civil unions.

Most explained their decision as being

" separate ,but equal "

IE: you can't get married, but civil unions are the same thing.

The thought that struck my mind was,

I thought the USSC had ruled " separate, but equal ", was unconstitutional.

And would any of those candidates, say that separate , but equal education was ok ?

You know the answer as well as I do,

Of course they wouldn't.

I was waiting for someone in the audience to bring it up.

Just goes to show, how people who call themselves progressive, are really regressive when it suits their point.

And more importantly, it doesn't alienate the 78% of american voters who are against gay marriage.

I surprised the heck out of you with this answer, didn't I Che?

Answer 4

You are entitled to your opinion and you don't have to be called names.

I personally disagree with you because hate crimes legislation is meant to deter future episodes. Two people getting in a brawl doesn't make any statement. But someone burning a cross on somebody's lawn or a group of people beating up a gay person makes a specific statement that can inspire future actions. An extreme example is the holocaust. It happened because over the years, Jews were so vilified that people were able to accept their mistreatment. This is what hate crimes legislation tries to prevent.

TheDude: thanks for the horizontal thumbs up ;)

I have one last example that I hope will help the discussion:

If you are white and live in a black neighborhood and the neighborhood has a high crime rate, you might consider moving or taking special precautions. However, if that same black neighborhood is known for black-on-white violence -- intimidation, beatings, being called names, threatening graffiti, etc. -- you might be more compelled to move out. This is ethnic cleansing by definition. You have been forced to pack up your belongings and leave because you are not welcome/safe because of your race. You might move to another high-crime area, but it's not the same thing as being targeted because of your race. If the authorities want to help reduce the likelihood of this happening, they can use hate crimes legislations to toughen penalties that send a particular message about where they stand on the issue. Crime is horrible, but neighborhood "cleansing" is even worse.

Answer 5

Disagreeing with gay marriage does not make one homophobic. Hate crime laws are unequal justice and treat people's rights disproportionately.

Answer 6

you are right on the target


damn it Nate123
i have to give you a thumbs horizontally cause i don't want to give you thumbs up , but that is a very well reasoned argument and the best i have heard for hc legislation , but I'm still for less legislation

if we enforce the laws , then the reinforcement of mistreatment wont happen

Answer 7

Not unless you have panic attacks when meeting gay men or something, no. If you do, seek treatment, a phobia like that could be debilitating, especially if it's set off by watching television or if you live in SF.

Answer 8

Of course not. One may disagree with the idea of something without hating or being afraid of the group promoting that thing.

Answer 9

I think it is the fact that you use terminology such as "gay agenda" that makes you homophobic.

Equal rights is not an "agenda", and to dissect it into something about a specific group of individuals (gays) is suspect, at best.

Answer 10

Hate crimes are when people are specifically targeted because of their race, religion, sexual pref., etc., right?

Would these people have been attacked if they weren't one of these?

Okay, example. A gay man gets the crap beaten out of him, the only reason for it, is that he's gay. Period. If he wasn't then he wouldn't not have been beaten up, right? Something wrong with that.

Hence, hate crame.

Answer 11

people should not be judged in a court of law based on "why" they did something as the determining factor of guilt. people should be tried for "what" they do.

that's not racist, just common sense....and I'm not even a neocon