By 'agenda' I personally mean quite a bit. Too much to be covered here but a couple things I see are:
Convincing the world that anyone who says anything against the homosexual lifestyle is filled with hate or fear. This is so 'close minded' (something the left rails against) and does not allow for those that disagree with the lifestyle any room for any other heartfelt reasons. Be it moral, health, political or whatever.
That and allowing 'extra rights' for those who claim to be homosexual. (I say this because ANY individual can switch overnight and claim to be Homo, Bi or heterosexual and who can say they are not? It is not the same as a black man bleaching himself white and claiming to be white.) As it stands now every person in this country has the same rights. A crime is committed against a homosexual the criminal should go to jail. A crime is committed against a heterosexual the criminal should go to jail.
Someone, anyone, can marry a person of the opposite sex!
I hear the claim that, "I can't marry the one I love!" "Love", by the common definition of a nice feeling, is tenuous at best. A breeze comes and it blows away. "True Love" is really a decision. A decision to stick through it all through thick or thin. Government using the term marriage is not necessary. Civil Unions and legal contracts can cover the rest. If one of the pair decides it is not worth it, the relationship is broken. Hence divorce. No matter the sexual orientation. We are working with people here. Both sides (of any pair) have a lot of self centeredness that must be overcome to make it work. What I see with the same sex marriage agenda is the desire of socialistic activists to change word definitions to the point where they are meaningless in a court of law and the homosexual community is simply a tool they are using. (Give me a tin foil hat. It is a conspiracy theory for which I have no proof... Except current history...)
If those in the homosexual community really are honest they will see where the extra rights agenda is taking them.
Hate Crimes for example. Someone bips anyone over the head with a stick that person should go to jail. I could care less whether the victim of a crime is black or white, homosexual or straight. Whether the criminal is black or white, homosexual or straight doesn't matter. The criminal should be PUNISHED to the full extent of the law. Do we really believe we can crawl into a persons mind and see if they committed the crime with hate in their thoughts. Who cares if it was hate, or lust or jealousy? They committed a crime they should be punished. I could go on but enough is here to get people mad at me. To quote K. V. Jr., "So it goes."
...and like all of a sudden they discovered in the Consitution that gays have a right to get married...like it has always been there staring America in the face...RIIIIIIIGHT!
ReplyDeleteExcuse me public theologian but it still appears to me that it entails searching the motive for the persons intent which is something that is in their mind. Burning the cross on one lawn may or may not have been intended to scare others. The action in and of itself is illegal and should be prosecuted to the max.
ReplyDeleteBut we prosecute motive all the time already, as for example in the difference between first and second degree murder, where we make inferences about pre-meditation. If a jury hears enough evidence that a given individual's actions were not simply directed at a an individual, but were directed at a class of people and designed to intimidate others, shouldn't they be held accountable for all the evil they do? To use your example of being hit over the head, if I hit a Jew over the head who moved into my neighborhood, and it was my intent to intimiidate not just him but every other potential Jew from moving into the neighborhood, and if the two other Jewish families who had just signed contracts to buy houses on my street backed out of those contracts, and if the housing values on my street declined and everyone on the street who wanted to sell their house lost money because they had to lower their price to get a buyer, wouldn't just punishing me for hitting the Jew on the head be missing half of the damage that I had caused? Wouldn't I be more likely to make that trade, an aggravated assault charge in order to keep my neighborhood Jew-free, than if I was looking at 10-15 in the Big House for a hate crime? I think that people recognize that some crimes have wider ripples of effect than others, and that's why hate crimes legislation has become more prevalent.
ReplyDeleteThis entire subject of 'hate crime legislation' has been hashed over since 1985 with both sides saying the same things.
ReplyDelete~~~~~~~~~
http://www.utahpolitics.org/archives/009808.shtml
~~~~~~~~~
http://www.debatabase.org/details.asp?topicID=237
~~~~~~~~~
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/hatecrimes.html
~~~~~~~~~
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I will agree that it is reprehensible for an individual or group to attempt to instill fear into another group for whatever reason. It still looks to me to be a prying into the mind of the criminal which is virtually impossible and un (or perhaps extra)constitutional.
I also feel that if the punishment for the 'initial' crime is abhorent enough for the potential criminal the (redundant) 'hate crime legislation' would be unneccesary. Cruel and unusual is not neccesary but neither is coddling.Make prisons so they are not social clubs for criminals and perhaps the crime rate will drop.