americanleader wrote:

Can't you leftists read? Please debate the issues, don't ALWAYS resort to fallacious ad-hom attacks, as you both have done above...

AL, you are the drag-queen of ad hom, baby.

americanleader wrote:

Can't you leftists read? Please debate the issues, don't ALWAYS resort to fallacious ad-hom attacks, as you both have done above...


Me thinks you is a hippokrit

Wren wrote:

gopherus wrote:

dailyherald wrote:

May 3, 2007, will go down in history as either a civil rights milestone or a day of infamy -- depending on which side of the culture war you're on.That's the day the U.S. House of Representatives voted 236 to 180 to pass H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.

Read more...


If a religious people believe that violent attacks are a form of free speech I would like to limit free speech and the freedom of that religion. Speech includes words and images, not actions. Inciting violence is already an unprotected form of speech. You may decry homosexuality all you want, but you may not incite/committ violence against gays any more than someone of another faith may incite/committ violence of those of your faith. If you are concerned that protecting people from violence is limiting your rights as a Christian you aren't a very good Christian anyway.

Gopherus, you are a far moral man than the religious charltan, AmericanLeader. However, you are protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, as are AL, me, and every other citizen in America.

This law can be used to abuse minorities and protect majorities. Brigham Young would have loved to have a law like this in Utah Territory that would have made mockery of Mormonism a hate crime.


I didn't read anything in the article suggesting it protected gays from speech (I did skim it). The article suggested it added those categories of individuals to a list protected from violent acts. Personally I think that hate crime legislation is simply an extension of anti-terrorism legislation. Violent acts committed because of a persons class (however you wish to define it), as opposed to their individual nature or because of opportunism, are acts designed to produce terror within that segment of the population. I have no problem protecting Mormons from violence with such motivation but I do not support protecting Mormons or gays (or anyone else) from words. If there is something I've missed I'll alter my position, but so long as the hate crime is an act of violence I will support such legislation.
I am aware of the potential slippery slope. I will not let such arguments prevent action, but will reserve the right to ensure that the passing of some legislation does not produce an unstoppable slide (just as I support some abortion restriction but will fight against those who suggest complete bans and those who suggest we cannot provide any limitations).

americanleader wrote:

Can't you leftists read? Please debate the issues, don't ALWAYS resort to fallacious ad-hom attacks, as you both have done above...


No one has resorted to an ad-hom attack. Do you need to look ad-hom up again? I believe that we both stated our opinion about the appropriateness or importance of hate crimes legislation or sodomy.

I disagree with your reasoning. The hate crime law criminalizes thought, and that is anti-American, in my opinion.

But if we can't agree, then we can agree to disagree agreeably.

AL, Orator, et al., pictures are next to the definition for ad hom in the dictionary.