1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiNo, the original poster, or someone else, I'm too lazy to hit the back button and look, is saying gays, people who believe murder is ok, and child molesters are mentally ill.
So you're saying they are mentally ill! Not Phlabibit.
My question is this - If they're mentally ill then aren't they also, under the laws of the US, also mentally incompetent?
Originally posted by wibSure. And it would explain why they should be protected under the law.
No, the original poster, or someone else, I'm too lazy to hit the back button and look, is saying gays, people who believe murder is ok, and child molesters are mentally ill.
My question is this - If they're mentally ill then aren't they also, under the laws of the US, also mentally incompetent?
Originally posted by PhlabibitInteresting. And maybe even there's some truth in it? I wonder how often that's been argued in court? Anyway, yeah you're right. That's a whole other topic.
That's a whole other thread, for sure. A friend of mine believes that anyone who does murder MUST be mentally ill... quite a 'catch 22'.
ES
Originally posted by ColettiMC2005's opinion is that gays have a mental desease. See, I actually went back and looked.
Sure. And it would explain why they should be protected under the law.
That's the opinion I was addressing. If gays have a mental desease, and since mentally incompetent people cannot be held legally responsible for their actions, then gays pretty much can do whatever the heck they want and get away with it. Oh sure they might get some time in an institution with a little electro-shock thrown in as "treatment", but really it's not a bad trade off IMO. 🙂
Originally posted by wibYou mean no one here want is going to argue that homosexuals should be legally protected against discrimination?
What's up with the "protected class" Coletti? How are gays protected?
Unless a minority sexual orientation is a basis for being a "protected class" of people - there is nothing legally wrong with discrimination against homosexuals.
Originally posted by ColettiAh. I see. So I'm guessing you disagree with the "Hate Crime" legislation?
You mean no one here want is going to argue that homosexuals should be legally protected against discrimination?
Unless a minority sexual orientation is a basis for being a "protected class" of people - there is nothing legally wrong with discrimination against homosexuals.
I'm not sure I agree that any class of people should be protected or defended more than any other. We're all human. We all have the same value IMO. But "protection" isn't exactly the right word. At least it's not if you're discussing the Hate Crime legislation. Gays aren't protected anymore than anyone else. If a gay guy calls the fire department because his home is on fire they don't get there any quicker than they get to my house. The police don't actively follow or protect gays anymore than they protect you or I.
Originally posted by ColettiThe wording is a bit off, but I understand what you're saying.
You mean no one here want is going to argue that homosexuals should be legally protected against discrimination?
Unless a minority sexual orientation is a basis for being a "protected class" of people - there is nothing legally wrong with discrimination against homosexuals.
If there were a problem here, I'd have erased some of the posts. I'm just here to state my case that Gays are not mentally ill, and anyone that discriminates against a person because of their sexual preferences is being a bigot.
ES
Originally posted by wibI haven't read through the thread - so I missed anything about "Hate Crime" legislation. But yes, I'm against it. I think crimes are generally "hate" crimes in some sense - and individual crimes should be judged as the situation requires.
Ah. I see. So I'm guessing you disagree with the "Hate Crime" legislation?
I'm not sure I agree that any class of people should be protected or defended more than any other. We're all human. We all have the same value IMO. But "protection" isn't exactly the right word. At least it's not if you're discussing the Hate Crime legislation. Gays ...[text shortened]... ouse. The police don't actively follow or protect gays anymore than they protect you or I.
"Hate Crime" sound like thought police and the legislation is just more knee-jerking on the part of government official who want to look like they are earning there pay by adding more laws to the books.
Originally posted by ColettiBelieve it or not, I agree. I've always had problems with hate crime legislation for those reasons and more. It gets complicated though in politics and I'm just not sure I can argue around all of it.
I haven't read through the thread - so I missed anything about "Hate Crime" legislation. But yes, I'm against it. I think crimes are generally "hate" crimes in some sense - and individual crimes should be judged as the situation requires.
"Hate Crime" sound like thought police and the legislation is just more knee-jerking on the part of government official who want to look like they are earning there pay by adding more laws to the books.
4 edits
Originally posted by PhlabibitI discriminate against lawyers. Is that wrong?
The wording is a bit off, but I understand what you're saying.
If there were a problem here, I'd have erased some of the posts. I'm just here to state my case that Gays are not mentally ill, and anyone that discriminates against a ...[text shortened]... rson because of their sexual preferences is being a bigot.
ES
Think about this - what does discrimination really mean? I know what the standard meaning is - treating people differently due to prejudice. But if someone is openly homosexual - theres no pre-judging involved. They have volunteered that they are behaving in a way that I believe is sinful.
No ones is forcing them, and I'm allowed to have my own moral standards. If you want to tell me how you don't like my morals, go ahead. But I shouldn't have to hang out with you or hirer you or rent to you if I find your behavior blatantly offensive. Nor should I have to subject my children to your offensiveness. That is really discriminating, not discrimination. It's freedom of association.
For me to be pre-judging, I'd have to assume something about a person due to something beyond their control. It would be wrong to pre-judge someone based on skin color. And everyone should be free to hold their own religious beliefs. And national origin is something that can not be helped. I know some French people are actually decent folks. So one should not pre-judge based on those criteria.
But if I choose to "discriminate" against people who's actions I find morally offensive, or violates my religious standards - I should have that freedom. I'm not going to make a Jewish guy eat pork, nor should I eat pork in his face if I can help it. I won't go kicking cows in front of Hindus, or stripping trees of bark in from of tree-hugger. I don't eat meat in front of vegetarians, and I won't fart in the presence of the Queen of England. That's not bigotry, that common decency. I expect no less from homosexuals.
(4 edits - I need a grammer checker to go with my spell checker.)