Wednesday, February 21, 2007

The "Special Rights" Fallacy of HR 254...

So the AFA, those wonderful fear-mongers who feel it is their duty to scare the dutiful, doleful masses who worship the sky god into action, have sent out an "Action Alert"--a more appropriate name would be a "Keep Ourselves Special" alert--in the hopes of getting said sheep to email their senators en mass. Here is the email they sent out:

House of Representatives set to vote on 'hate crimes' giving homosexuals special rights

Okay, I'm already pissed. But I'll try to hold the rest of my thoughts...

Contact Your Representative In Opposition to HR 254 Today!

Dear Jason,

The U.S. House of Representatives will soon vote on HR 254, which establishes "hate crime" legislation. HR 254 will create new special rights for homosexuals under the guise of enhancing law enforcement. It would make "sexual orientation" a protected class alongside race, religion and gender.

The only way this bill can be defeated is with a real grassroots uprising by those who care about the future of their children, families and marriages!
Excuse me? Suddenly making it illegal to commit a crime against someone because of their sexual orientation is a threat to marriage and children? Exactly how?

The intent of this law is to force the acceptance and approval of homosexuality on every American, regardless of their religious views. Here is a short summary of HR 254.
So, making sure people get punished for when they beat up someone of "race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of any person" forces views on Americans? Perhaps, but that "view" is that you can't beat up someone, or deny someone something, simply because of who they are. What does this really boil down to? "Religion" (an alternative lifestyle if I've ever heard of one) can be a "protected class" but "sexual orientation" cannot? Are you kidding me?

For a more in-depth review of where we are headed, click here.
Unless you feel the desperate need for laughing at stupidity, you needn't click there.

Here is a partial list of what homosexual activists are trying to force on every American. While HR 254 will not, in and of itself, accomplish these goals, it will open the door to such regulations. Once the elephant gets its trunk under the tent, the way is open for the elephant to move inside and do whatever he wants.
Note the bold, italic phrase: the bill will not cause these things, but this is what they're afraid "will happen" if suddenly you aren't allowed to beat someone up for being, or perceiving they are, gay:

  1. Preaching that homosexuality is a sin from the pulpit will result in the preacher being charged with "hate speech."
  2. Churches will have their tax-exempt status revoked if they oppose homosexuality.
  3. Homosexual marriage will be legalized and recognized in all states.
  4. Polygamy will be legalized.
  5. Landlords will be forced to rent to homosexuals.
  6. Scouts, and all non-profit organizations, will be required to hire homosexuals as leaders.
  7. Biblical language used to define homosexuality will be considered "hate speech." City officials have already had a billboard removed in Long Island, NY, because it was classified as "hate speech." The billboard read: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." (Leviticus 20:13)
  8. Employees will not be allowed to say anything negative about homosexuality in their workplaces.
  9. Classes promoting the homosexual lifestyle will be included in school curricula beginning with the lower grades.
  10. Employers will be forced to hire homosexuals.
  11. Adoption by homosexuals will be legalized in every state.

Now, I could be a real ass here and say I see no issue with any of that happening, but then where are we? Fundies need to understand why these things are either
  1. Not a big deal, or
  2. won't happen anyway.
Let's start with the first issue: Preaching that homosexuality is a sin from the pulpit will result in the preacher being charged with "hate speech."
Not true, and if it were to happen, it would quickly get shot down for two Constitutional reasons, and a lot more reasons dealing in common sense; of course, I shouldn't assume anyone who takes these "Action Alerts" seriously has common sense. "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of Religion" both cover big-assed, hate-group leaders from preaching this all they want in their churches, synagogues, mosques, New York street corners--wherever. These two tenants of the Constitution won't be overturned simply because fundies can be punished for beating up a black dude, or a nerdy-looking guy, or a person in a wheelchair. All this bill does is says "You can be punished even more for beating someone up if your sole reason has been because they are _______" (black, Buddhist, disabled, female, gay) And unlike what the Fundies want to believe, it isn't rocket science to find out that, if no money was stolen, the reason they beat you up was because ______, especially if when they were committing this crime against you they said things like "filthy nigger" or "AIDs-ridden faggot" or even "god-loving baptist scum". These would all be hate crimes, and hence, punishment would flow accordingly. Disagreeing isn't hate speech. Fundies can preach all they want about how "immoral" it is, or how much they "hate the sin." But since they seem so convinced the sky is crumbling even as we speak, let's move on to the other fears of the fear-mongers.

Churches will have their tax-exempt status revoked if they oppose homosexuality.
Stupid much? Actually, their tax-exempt status should be revoked, but for entirely different reasons. When the churches of the south all opposed equality for black Americans, did they lose tax-exempt status then? No? Hmm, then I wonder what they're using as their basis of fear? I know, they want to keep their special rights of tax-exempt (among other things). Funny how the people with the special rights are accusing others of reaching for what the fundies already have--it couldn't be because they fear everyone being treated equally, is it?

Homosexual marriage will be legalized and recognized in all states.
And? Oh, that's right--they want to keep straight, god-fearing people special. My bad that I didn't get that at first. Cause I thought they said we, the homosexuals, were the ones asking to be special... when it turns out they just want to stay special. Sorry, dudes, but it's coming and there's nothing you can do to stop it. And I personally don't see how it affects any of them on an individual level. Perhaps they're scared to find the Rapture isn't coming after all? I mean, Massachusetts, Canada, the Netherlands--god didn't wipe them out when they "strayed" from the path of the "special," did he? Is he still recovering from smiting all the evil-doers with the tsunami? Or Hurricane Katrina? Some all-powerful sky god they got there...

Of course, perhaps we gays are just so powerful, there's nothing sky god can do? Are our Penile Death Rays that strong? It's amazing how what I do in my bedroom prevents them from having a successful marriage, isn't it? Either I'm so damn good in bed I rock everybody's world, or they are way too interested in what other people do in their bedrooms (which kind of makes me think most of the fundies are the pervs... I mean, really, who spends this much time thinking about what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms?)

Polygamy will be legalized.
While I personally wouldn't want to have more than one spouse, why do they care if someone else does? If they are all consenting adults--what's the big deal? Their King David did it--so did Solomon. In fact, most of their patriarchs practiced this! Oh, but then--wait... No, see, I don't see sky falling here either, but that could be because their special fat-asses are blocking everyone else from seeing equality...

Landlords will be forced to rent to homosexuals.
You mean, you can't force us to be homeless anymore!! Gasp! They are making gays special, aren't they? Dumb asses...

Scouts, and all non-profit organizations, will be required to hire homosexuals as leaders.
Did they learn nothing? Obviously not. If they want to discriminate, they can. They just can't use government money to do so. End of story. As long as they say "only special people can join," they get no money from the government. So if the scouts want to stay a special organization, they can. But just like now, they get no government money for being bigots, pure and simple. Get a clue, you brainless worms...

Biblical language used to define homosexuality will be considered "hate speech." City officials have already had a billboard removed in Long Island, NY, because it was classified as "hate speech." The billboard read: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." (Leviticus 20:13)
My first thought is, what was your billboard supposed to accomplish? Drive millions of homosexuals in Pastor Ted Haggards waiting arms? (Eww--nasty visual!!) To show the "compassion of Christ"? Also a no. So, really, it was just to piss people off, wouldn't you say? I think they know that's true, but god forbid they admit it--that would be like admitting sky god had pedophile sex with a 12 year old virgin to get his jollies off under the guise of "saving the world." You know, sky god's and Mary's "special secret."

Secondly, that's something the church that put up the billboard should fight in court--because it does infringe on their constitutional rights to sound like an ass in the name of religion. Don't bitch about it--send out an "Action Alert" or something! Oh, wait, they did--but they missed the point, as they so usually do. Go figure...

Employees will not be allowed to say anything negative about homosexuality in their workplaces.
Are you getting paid to say nasty things about homosexuals in the workplace? No? You must not work for a church, then. I don't say nasty things about Christians at work, even though I would sometimes like to... Why? It's not very professional, but it's also not why you're at work, stupid dillholes. Your paid to do a job, not make the work environment a place of hate-mongering. Would you want me to have the right to bash Christians or Muslims at work? I didn't think so.

Classes promoting the homosexual lifestyle will be included in school curricula beginning with the lower grades.
Umm, that's been included. It's called "sex education." Abstinence may be the only guarantee that you won't get any nasty diseases, but it also ensures that when most of the teens in the world do have sex, they'll get those nasty diseases you so wanted to prevent. You have a right to keep you kid home that day--get involved, find out what they're teaching when, and leave your children willfully ignorant so that when they do get a job in the real world, they can get fired for not doing their job and instead spent all day preaching against homosexuality in the workplace! It would make your sky god so proud, I'm sure! Much like when he berated the whore at the well, right?

Employers will be forced to hire homosexuals.
You mean, that's on the application you filled out? "Are you a homosexual"? Employers don't care!! At least, the ones who have a lick of common sense and only worry about how their business works. Of course, if spreading the word of the gospel means keeping homosexuals jobless and homeless, then I'd say they're on the right track. That's exactly what Jesus would do!

Adoption by homosexuals will be legalized in every state.
Oh dear! You mean children would have more homes available to receive the love and care that their natural parents couldn't afford to give them? That there would be more homes to cloth, feed, and care for these kids who are overwhelming that state and federal governments? That more kids would be taken off the state welfare system as they've been placed in homes that meat state standards? I mean, it's not like the fundies are taking in all the children, are they? In fact, they want to first prevent women from having control over how many children they have by restricting abortion and not teaching about alternatives to abstinence, then they don't want the government to help when they can't care for these children, but they only want adopt the white ones because they buy into racial stereotypes, and then they get upset when "un"special segments of the population try to do their part to make life a little better for the ones who've been left behind... Look at the stats--it's white fundamentalists that are against sex education. They're the ones who adopt mostly white children--they're the ones who are against government programs for the poor (most likely because welfare checks don't come with a tract preaching the love of Jesus as he fires his gay employees and kicks them out of their homes...) Middle-class Bible-loving America doesn't adopt children of color, children with disabilities, or children who are older as a general rule--go on, I double-dog dare you to find a study from a reputable source that doesn't back me up on this...

Study after study by reputable, independent organizations have shown that kids do just as well with parents of the same or differing gender as long as they have the love, care, and support they need. End of story. Sky still not falling.

But they know all this is true--they just still want to keep their special privileges just for them instead of treating everyone as they should be treated under the law. Just like Jesus would do, right?

But then they continue this idiotic email with the following:

Let me say again: HR 254 will not, in and of itself, accomplish everything the homosexual activist’s desire. But it is the first step is to position their cause where they can achieve all their goals.

If they are successful with HR 254, rest assured they will pursue their next goal and will not stop until they achieve all their goals.
The sad part is, they admit they're pandering, they admit they are simply trying to scare you into action, and people are still buying into it without thinking it through. It boggles my mind....

12 comments:

Darkmind said...

Okay I've got two points dealing with this one. I don't think there should be hate crime legislation either. Not because it will "allow the gays thier rights"(WTF?!) but because I don't think crimes should be given special consideration because of the victim. If person A beats and murders person B, does it matter what person B's perticular characteristics were? Person A is guilty and should be punished, period. They should not get additional punishment just because person B was not like them. They should also not receive a lesser punishment for commiting the same crime within thier 'kind'. Punishment should fit the crime, not the crime AND the victim. Besides I'd be more concerned over a hate crime bill allowing judges to be more strict on minorities who commit crimes against whites than anything else. Minorities are already statistically sentenced more harshly. This bill would just give that fact legitimacy and allow further unfairness in the justice system.

Second, I have really been racking my brain over this one...but what exactly does polygamy have to do with homosexuality? Due to the rediculously religiously devout nature of people who practice polygamy (which is rare anyway, even among people who agree it is okay) I'd wager that ALL polygamists are heterosexual (or at the very least less than 1.5 on the Kinsey gayness scale).

Jason Hughes said...

e scenraio, and the crime scenario alone: it is silly to grade a crime more harshly just because of the reasoning behind it, and it does ingrain an inequality into the justice criminal code; that said, however, when it comes to economic issues such as housing or employment, to be able to discriminate based on religion, color, creed, or perceived sexual orientation is an issue and does need to be addressed, which is why there is this nondiscrimination policy, and which is why they want to add sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation, so that housing and employment will be based on whether you can do the job or pay the rent and not based on the neurotic brainlessness of the employer or landlord-to-be.

It really has nothing to do with "rights" in the criminal code portion, but it does when it comes to other issues...

As to the whole polygamy thing, they think if they allow gay marriage, they have to allow for polygamous marriages, then they think they have to allow pedophiles and such to get married, which is true silliness. Since homosexual and polygamous marriages can only happen between consenting adults, there is no harm to society in any way--except to their "biblical" senses, which also is really a non-issue... Since bestiality and pedophilia do cause harm and abuse to society, this is why those couldn't be legalized (I know you didn't mention these, but they always do like they have some sort of point, which they don't...)

Thanks for stopping by again, though--I always like what you bring to the table (unless it's Kitten Kibbles... just couldn't bring myself to do so.... :D)

Jason Hughes said...

Ach! That first sentence should read: "I agree with you on the crime scenario, and the crime scenario alone:"

Stupid blogger...

Darkmind said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darkmind said...

typo correction:
Yes, but I was under the impression that there were already codes in place that protected people in these cases. Its already illegal to discriminate in housing and employment based on those things, isn't it? Therefore, wouldn't all of those situations fall under the 'criminal violation' section?

Jason Hughes said...

You said: Yes, but I was under the impression that there were already codes in place that protected people in these cases. Its already illegal to discriminate in housing and employment based on those things, isn't it?

Depends on where you live:

9 states and D.C. ban discrimination (through state law) based on gender identity and perceived sexual orientation--so in those nine states and in D.C., it is illegal to discriminate in either employment or housing in thsoe places: California, Washington, New Mexico, Minnesota, Illinois, Maine, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Hawaii

8 states through law ban on sexual orientation alone (leaving out transgendered/transexual persons): Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Wisconsin

8 states have an executive order banning discrimination based on sexual orientation alone: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Louisianna, Michigan, Montanna, and Virginia

2 states have an executive order banning discimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity: Indiana and Pennsylvania

Which leaves 23 states who don't protect gay or transgenered/transexual individuals in issues such as housing or employment, which means they can be actively discriminated against and there is no recourse on the books, although they can try to sue. Most of these states are in the bible belt (surprise, surprise...): Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Ohio...

You can find a map detailing all this in PDF format here.

Which is why federal law is necessary, much like it was for colored people back in the day. States fight equality in certain areas where certain backwoods influences still run strong...

FCSuper said...

The argument about polygamy is meant to make the issue seem bigger than it really is. The idea is that once homosexually is accepted, then polygamist will then seek acceptance.

Of course, this is nonsense, because Polygamistis not a class of people. Sure, it can be considered a livestyle, and polygamists may try to move for more acceptance.

I'm on the fence about polygamy. On the one hand, in some scenarios (all things being equal and fair) it provides advantages to the family. On the other hand, it can be used to take advantage of others. Two main ways are 1)a drifter moving from town to town, wooing and marrying women all along the way. 2) In family units that are way too closely knit, like where the same man marries 2 sisters and their cousins and an aunt.

But what does any of this have to do with homosexuality? Nufin.

Anonymous said...

"The argument about polygamy is meant to make the issue seem bigger than it really is. The idea is that once homosexually is accepted, then polygamist will then seek acceptance.

"Of course, this is nonsense, because Polygamistis not a class of people. Sure, it can be considered a livestyle, and polygamists may try to move for more acceptance....

"But what does any of this have to do with homosexuality? Nufin.

Much like homosexuality, poligamy is a lifestyle. So, if you are going to protect homosexuality, then you need to protect poligamy, bestiality and all other "alternative lifestyles." By failing to do this in this "hate crimes" legislation, you are violating the 14th amendment clause as most liberals tend to define the rights eminating from that amendment

Jason Hughes said...

Anon: I covered most of the false arguments put forth by your comment in this post: Incest, Bestiality, and Pedophilia... Oh My!

Steve said...

I am a regular visitor of your blog and always find something new at your site. I have come up with some new findings and want to share it with you.
I just launched a family 2.0 social network and would like to invite you for the review of the service and provide feedback to andy@kincafe.com.

Jason Hughes said...

So where do I find this family service? I'd be happy to review it if you could tell me how to get there or where the link is... I tried going to your profile, but it's apparently set to private...

Thanks for stopping by, though, and always feel free to comment...

Jason Hughes said...

e scenraio, and the crime scenario alone: it is silly to grade a crime more harshly just because of the reasoning behind it, and it does ingrain an inequality into the justice criminal code; that said, however, when it comes to economic issues such as housing or employment, to be able to discriminate based on religion, color, creed, or perceived sexual orientation is an issue and does need to be addressed, which is why there is this nondiscrimination policy, and which is why they want to add sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation, so that housing and employment will be based on whether you can do the job or pay the rent and not based on the neurotic brainlessness of the employer or landlord-to-be.

It really has nothing to do with "rights" in the criminal code portion, but it does when it comes to other issues...

As to the whole polygamy thing, they think if they allow gay marriage, they have to allow for polygamous marriages, then they think they have to allow pedophiles and such to get married, which is true silliness. Since homosexual and polygamous marriages can only happen between consenting adults, there is no harm to society in any way--except to their "biblical" senses, which also is really a non-issue... Since bestiality and pedophilia do cause harm and abuse to society, this is why those couldn't be legalized (I know you didn't mention these, but they always do like they have some sort of point, which they don't...)

Thanks for stopping by again, though--I always like what you bring to the table (unless it's Kitten Kibbles... just couldn't bring myself to do so.... :D)