Keckler, University of New Mexico, finding a clear deterrent in the death penalty for those who murder and do not fear prison.
Civil rights concerns about these laws. Arguments about hate crime legislation -- pro and con: In opposition to hate crime legislation In support of hate crime legislation The legislation is not needed. Protecting a group under hate crimes legislation will make the public aware that the group is vulnerable, has been extensively victimized in the past, and is in need of protection.
Many victims have been attacked by strangers because of their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or ability status in the past.
These are particularly heinous crimes.
Legislation should be expanded to cover them. American justice is based on the principle that everyone is treated identically. But if hate crimes legislation is passed, then the perpetrators of two identical crimes would receive different sentences, depending upon some characteristic of the victim e.
All the latest news, commentary, and analysis of issues that impact the transgender community. The Advocate provides up-to-date coverage from around the web about political, medical, and social. Pro Gay Marriage Argument Words | 6 Pages Pro Gay Marriage The United States is currently embroiled in a battle over issues regarding civil rights of its citizens and what rights are constituted by that term. The goal of Sudoku is to fill in a 9×9 grid with digits so that each column, row, and 3×3 section contain the numbers between 1 to 9. At the beginning of the game, .
A hate crime is more serious than a conventional crime because it abuses more than the immediate victim. When a criminal act is based on a factors such as a victim's race, gender, sexual orientation or religion, it takes on some of the characteristics of a terrorist act.
The victim and the perpetrator are typically strangers. The crime is not directed simply against one person; it is intended to target and intimidate the victim's entire group.
These acts have been referred to as "message crimes: It will advance their claim that homosexual behavior is normal and natural. But the law would protect more than gays and lesbians. It would protect persons of all sexual orientations: In earlier decades, civil rights legislation had a chilling effect on racial bigotry in the U.
The long range effects of including sexual orientation in hate crimes legislation will probably significantly reduce homophobia within the country. Federal hate crime legislation would increase federal government participation in law enforcement.
Sometimes local prejudices prevent bigots who target specific groups from receiving a proper trial and sentence. Such legislation would infringe on freedom of speech.
If an individual's sexual orientation is a federally protected civil right, the logical conclusion is that moral, religious, or personal beliefs about certain behaviors would be criminalized. The freedoms of conscience and speech would be lost. Beliefs, thoughts, and speech would be criminalized.
In order for hate crime legislation to be applied in a specific case, a criminal act must first be committed. Preaching hatred against a particular group of people such as JewsAfrican-Americans, women, Romagays, lesbiansetc, or stating that God hates a specific group of people have always been protected forms of speech.
Such speech is in no way a criminal act. Freedom of speech is protected under the First Amendment of the U. Willfully inflicting harm on another human being based on hate is not protected free speech. Homosexuality is a chosen and changeable preference for members of the same gender.
Denying sexual orientation as a protected class because it is a chosen behavior cannot be supported because: There is growing evidence that sexual orientation is not chosen.
It has a strong genetic component.
Religion is already a protected class and is clearly chosen and changeable. Hate crime legislation would grant special privileges to gays and lesbians because it would identify them as a protected class.
Homosexuals would not be given special privileges.At the end of Virtually Normal, Andrew Sullivan called for the legalization of gay and lesbian marriages as a recognition of an individual's right to enter into a committed relationship with the person he or she loves.
Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con is, as the title suggests, a collection of arguments for and against such unions. Sullivan provides little commentary, allowing the various. Contrary to the pro gay marriage argument that some different-sex couples cannot have children or don't want them, even in those cases there is still the potential to produce children.
Court papers filed in July by attorneys defending Arizona's gay marriage ban stated that "the State regulates marriage for the primary purpose of. People on both sides of the gay marriage debate reveal the argument for the other side that keeps them up at night.
Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side. When the Left complains about being "silenced," it is not because they are actually prevented from speaking, but only because they are timberdesignmag.com their Orwellian, or Marcusan, universe, "Free speech" is when the Right is silenced.
Apr 15, · Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council reintroduced a tired refrain: Legalized gay marriage could lead to other legal forms of marriage .