|
Grex > Glb > #37: gay bashers in the news again (long -- 163 lines) |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 102 of 404:
| 
Oct 21 05:19 UTC 1998 |
Hardly - that is Engler's agenda for the mentally ill. GIven that Engler
has forced many mentally ill people to live on the streets, however, the
ACLU works to prevent them being harassed by the police or otherwise
having them deprived of their civil rights. Do you think homeless people
should be *denied* rights provided by the Bill of Rights? Certainly,
people with mental disabilities should be protected from a denial of
their rights. So - what example of the practices of the ACLU with respect
to mentally ill living on the streets would you like to describe?
|
md
|
|
response 103 of 404:
|
Oct 21 10:40 UTC 1998 |
Heh. That used to be something the *ACLU* was blamed for.
Right before I moved to NYC, the influence of civil libertarians
like Tomas Szasz was responsible for releasing hundreds of
mental patients onto the streets of the city. The argument,
which I happen to agree with, was that you violate the rights
of a patient when you forcibly hospitalize (=incarcerate) him
or her for an indefinite period of time when no crime has
been committed. The result, unfortunately, was what were
called "bag ladies" at the time and "homeless people" now.
New Yorkers of the period (mid-'70s) have many "amusing"
stories about people like the man who used to put a picture
of himself on the wall outside Grand Central and then kneel
down on the sidewalk and pray to it. As immediately became
evident, releasing the unjustly incarcerated prisoners was
only half the solution, and no one wanted to pay for the
other half. It is incredible to me that we're *still* trying
to figure it out 25 years later. The ACLU are at least
trying. They were right then, and they're right now, imho.
|
md
|
|
response 104 of 404:
|
Oct 21 10:46 UTC 1998 |
[Anyway, I'm still waiting to hear a single pro-choice person
say that, yes, it should be legal for a homophobic woman to
abort a pregnancy solely because the fetus has the "gay" gene,
and it should be legal for a rich yuppie couple to abort a
pregnancy solely because the fetus is female and they already
have two girls, and it should be legal for a racist woman to
abort a pregnancy solely because the father is black. I will
take the plunge and say that I think all three abortions should
be legal.]
|
scott
|
|
response 105 of 404:
|
Oct 21 10:57 UTC 1998 |
I doubt any (well, OK, in America we specialize in odd extremes, so incredibly
few) fringe right wing churches would support or tolerate aborting "gay gene"
fetuses. I suspect that such organizations will say that "God is testing"
such children, and if they successfully resist the urge to *be* gay, they
stand a better chance of getting into Heaven.
|
mary
|
|
response 106 of 404:
|
Oct 21 11:04 UTC 1998 |
I too think such abortions should be legal, Michael.
|
brighn
|
|
response 107 of 404:
|
Oct 21 14:03 UTC 1998 |
#105> If you'd asked me seveal years ago, Scott, I'd've probably doubted that
any fringe Christian group would picket funerals of gay people, too. There's
always one whacko out there somewhere, which is what you allow for in your
parenthetical.
#104> As abhorrent as I would find such abortions personally, I would rather
that a mother abort a fetus she knows she won't be able to unconditionally
love, than to give birth to it, if that's her choice.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 108 of 404:
|
Oct 21 14:59 UTC 1998 |
I also think that abortions prior to some time limit for action should
be legal regardless of the motive.
|
drew
|
|
response 109 of 404:
|
Oct 21 19:16 UTC 1998 |
Re #104, 106, 107, and 108:
That makes five of us.
|
mta
|
|
response 110 of 404:
|
Oct 21 19:41 UTC 1998 |
I think one of your examples comes pretty close to being a no-brainer,
Michael.
How would a racist woman come to be carrying a black child? It seems unlikely
that she had any choice in the matter -- so we're talking rape here. Even
many people who favor very strong limits on abortion would agree that a
pregnancy resulting from rape falls outside the "abortion as birth control"
parameters.
Then again, although I would think them incredibly sad, I would support
keeping the abortions in your example legal for the sames reasons others have
stated.
|
senna
|
|
response 111 of 404:
|
Oct 21 20:02 UTC 1998 |
Yeah, #100, I hear they also revel in famine and starvation and homelessness
and racism and genocide.
|
faile
|
|
response 112 of 404:
|
Oct 21 22:39 UTC 1998 |
I don't think I could ever have an abortion. I don't know... I've never been
pregnant, let alone pregnant in a situation where that's the last thing I
want. But if I got pregnant at this point in my life, I'd be hard pressed
to keep the baby. But my personal issues aren't the point. I don't think
the governement has the right to legislate morality.
Of course, there are 2 counter-arguments to that: #1 is what about teh
rights of the unborn child? #2 What I call the fall back religious-right
argument: We're right and everyone else is wrong, and we know what's best for
them.
So I guess that I'm the next person to stand up and say that I supose
I support abrotions being legal, even in the case we've been discussing.
As for the Shepherd case, I'm of the mind that you don't strip someone naked
and tie him to something because you want to steal his money. You do it
because you want to make a point. You do it because you are sick and twisted.
(Sorry, that's the kind of thing that goes on my list of things "normal,
healthy people just don't do.") Picketting his funeral, if done in a
non-violent manner, is unfortunately, legal, just tasteless and crude.
The only real use that "hate crime" legislation would have would be stiffer
sentences for those acts which are already illegal if hate can be proved as
a motive.
A cartoon appeared in the student newspaper here at Vanderbilt that summed
up a view on this pretty well. Two anti-gay picketters are stading there,
with signs and such, and a voice comes out of the sky and it (supposed to be
god) says, "Well, actually, I don't really like hateful, close-minded,
ignorant murders."
|
lumen
|
|
response 113 of 404:
|
Oct 21 22:54 UTC 1998 |
Yess!! Can a have a copy of that political cartoon?
|
void
|
|
response 114 of 404:
|
Oct 21 23:00 UTC 1998 |
going wayyyy back there to the issue of hate crimes legislation...the
way i understand it is that a federal hate crime law could or would help
to stiffen the penalties for such crimes and make sure that they are
properly prosecuted. for instance, there was the recent case in texas
where a gay man was killed for being gay, and the judge gave the
culprits a light sentence because "any normal man would want to kill
fags." with a federal hate crimes law, such cases would be taken out of
the small-town jusridictions where the locals would pretty much refuse
to convict one of their own for killing what they consider the subhuman
freaks in their midst.
|
brighn
|
|
response 115 of 404:
|
Oct 22 00:16 UTC 1998 |
#110: Maybe it was consentual sex, but she met him in the dark and they never
turned on the lights? =}
#114: the recurrent problems is, everyone is considered a subhuman freak by
someone. it gets preposterous after a while. (yes, yes, the infernal "slippery
slope" argument.) If a judge really said that, the decision should have been
thrown out, the judge reprimanded, and the trial moved. Obvioulsy the
prosecuter wasn't doing his job. So we should change legislation because
people aren't doing their jobs right?
|
other
|
|
response 116 of 404:
|
Oct 22 00:41 UTC 1998 |
i believe abortion should be legal up through 1 year after birth.
i don't expect to see it happen, and i don't want to try to make it happen,
but that's beside the point.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 117 of 404:
|
Oct 22 04:12 UTC 1998 |
People (especially public officials) not doing their jobs correctly
is often the source of new or amended legislation.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 118 of 404:
|
Oct 22 04:44 UTC 1998 |
re #112: "as for the Shepard case, I'm of the mind that you don't strip
someone naked and tie him to something because you want to steal his money.."
You never know.. You're probably right but some strange things do happen
during robberies. Five years ago I was robbed by three men who told me
they were going to kill me, hit me on the head with the butt of their gun,
and locked me in the trunk of my own car while they joy-rode around Ann
Arbor for more than 3 hours. I was white and they were black (as far as
I know, we all still are :-)
Was I the victim of a racist hate-crime or just a trio of more-than-usually-
depraved criminals?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 119 of 404:
|
Oct 22 04:59 UTC 1998 |
Yes??? What happened then? (I doubt they singled you out to rob specifically
because of race but because your race usually has more money - so I would
guess the latter.)
|
md
|
|
response 120 of 404:
|
Oct 22 11:52 UTC 1998 |
*Oh* what a stereotype! White guys have more money. Hmph.
Re #116: You should become an anarchist, they have great answers
for everything. For example, when an anti-abortion extremist says
"Abortion is murder," you get to answer: "So?"
|
rcurl
|
|
response 121 of 404:
|
Oct 22 14:33 UTC 1998 |
Do you question the likelihood that white persons in the USA taken at
random will have more money on their person than a black person taken
at random? There is a wide disparity in average individual income, by race.
I don't think this likelihood is a stereotype but rather a plausible
deduction from economic statistics. Nevertheless, I have no objection
to your proving me wrong.
|
dino1
|
|
response 122 of 404:
|
Oct 22 14:37 UTC 1998 |
Sounds like something I would say.
|
nsiddall
|
|
response 123 of 404:
|
Oct 22 15:59 UTC 1998 |
Lots of people seem to have arrived at this idea that because
generalizations are sometimes harmful to individuals--as in the case of
racial stereotypes--they should be eliminated. Of course you can't
eliminate them--our human powers of observation and categorization are far
too good. But you can pretend to eliminate them, which is a large part of
"political correctness". And people really believe their pretenses, and
get angry if you don't play along. Dinesh D'Souza wrote a book saying,
wait a minute, some of these generalizations are actually true. I don't
know how good a book that was, but he received huge acclaim and stirred up
huge controversy, for stating something painfully obvious.
|
brighn
|
|
response 124 of 404:
|
Oct 22 16:37 UTC 1998 |
#120 et al.> If you go to godhatesfags.com, you will learn that gays have
significantly more moeny than straights... hence, the choice of a gay man for
robbery isn't based on hatred, it's based on the same common sense that
McNally was the victim of, right? =}
Rane> Whether that's a motivation for other legislation or not, that doesn't
make it a good or appropriate motivation.
|
mary
|
|
response 125 of 404:
|
Oct 22 17:49 UTC 1998 |
Re: Rane's #121
I don't know how you'd go about proving or disproving it, and I have no
desire to scout out an answer. But I certainly wouldn't assume the
comment "...the likelihood that white persons in the USA taken at
random will have more money on their person than a black person taken
at random" is true.
Actually, me gut feeling is this would not be true.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 126 of 404:
|
Oct 22 18:49 UTC 1998 |
Good question for the next census.... :)
|