• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Pedophile Protection Act

Darky

Darky

NAXJA Forum User
Location
29 Palms, CA
Link to article detailing the bill. It would classify all 547 "philias" as protected under hate crimes laws. So Necrophilia, pedophilia, exhibitionism (flasher guy in a trench coat), voyeurism, etc would all be protected "lifestyles". If you find out that some pervert raped you 12 yr old daughter and you kicked his butt, yeah, he can still be charged with the crime, but you get charged under federal hate crime laws. Guy runs up to your wife in a parking lot and throws open his trench coat and your wife slaps him, he gets a misdemeanor, your wife gets charged under, you guessed it, federal hate crime laws.
 
Not hardly, read the bill. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1913/show is the houses version of the S. 909. Same piece of legislation.

WND makes the argument that because the bill calls crimes committed against a person because of his/her "sexual orientation" a hate crime, but fails to go into detail about what "sexual orientation" is defined as, therefore is must mean it protects all forms of sexual perversion. That is really, really stupid not to mention openly homophobic.

Not to mention the argument is inherently flawed because it fails to realize the true meaning of a hate crime. A hate crime occurs when someone commits a crime based on race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, color, gender, and gender identity.

If somebody rapes your 12yr old daughter, you're kicking his ass because he raped your daughter, not for any other reason.

This article is probably the worst piece of "professional" journalism I've read in a while. Glen Beck, Rush, and Fox News don't even twist the truth this much.
 
Porter cited the amendment offering from Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, in committee that was very simple:
The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia.
But majority Democrats refused to accept that.
Congressman Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, then explained what that means, Porter wrote.
There are only 242 crimes where there is actually some – truly – an assault, and we just rejected an amendment to including pedophilia from being a part of this protected class. Do you realize what that means?
Click to expand...
Congressman Louis Gohmert said:
And having reviewed cases as an appellate judge, I know that when the legislature has the chance to include a definition and refuses, then what we look at is the plain meaning of those words. The plain meaning of sexual orientation is anything to which someone is orientated. That could include exhibitionism, it could include necrophilia (sexual arousal/activity with a corpse) … it could include Urophilia (sexual arousal associated with urine), voyeurism. You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them, they've committed a misdemeanor, you've committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong.
Click to expand...


I'm not worried about the gay aspect, per se. If there is any truth to the allegations that this would restrict people from speaking against homosexuality or any of the other newly protected "isms", I would have a problem with that. But looking past that aspect, the above quotes weren't from WND's brain, they were taken from Congressmen who oppose the bill.
 
Then the congressman is an idiot as well as the writer for even entertaining this crap. What appellate judge?

His logic is this, "They didn't do what I wanted so therefore I'm right." Don't think so. The way the clause is written would associate the "phelias" with homosexuality. These "phelias" are a mental diesease and therefore this law would have lumped homosexuality in with mental illnesses.

Republicans can talk tax policy and big gov't vs small gov't all day and it won't piss me off, but once the religious right opens their mouth and starts spitting out self-righteous shit like this really makes me angry.

Religious-right Republicans are all about the government not intruding on peoples lives unless of course you're gay, then you're sub-human and don't deserve the protection of the rule of law. It's like Democrats vehemently defending every other amendment except the 2nd. Doesn't pass the logic test.
 
Hate crime legislation is bogus. It's thought control. A crime is a crime. For someone to commit a crime against another human being, well, there ain't a lot of love going on.

Why should someone who's gay deserve special protection over someone like me and yo...uh, Darkey? BTW, homosexuality used to be listed as a mental disease, so what's to say that the APA won't hold a vote to change the classification of the "philias" like they did with homosexuality?

Most educated people know that when it comes to new legislation, someone will test the loopholes every which way possible. Think what you want about the congressmen opposed to the vague language in the bill, but they're still right.

Buschwhacked wrote:
If somebody rapes your 12yr old daughter, you're kicking his ass because he raped your daughter, not for any other reason.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct; however, with this POS legislation you will charged for a hate crime despite your reasons. See? That's how this works.
 
The way the Congressman wanted it would have dumped the philias and defined what was being protected more specifically. Instead that was rejected and the philias were kept in, lumping homosexuality in with them. You sound like you're arguing the same thing as the quote I gave, while still calling him a retard for saying basically the same thing.

Tom is correct, how is it fair and equal for a guy to get in a fight with a gay guy to be punished more severely than if they both had been straight, white guys? What if one is black and the other is gay? Do both get charged with hate crimes? Assault in and of itself is a hate crime. To try and inflict major bodily damage on another human being is pretty hateful no matter their orientation, color, preferences, etc.
 
Why can't just enforce the laws we have? Thats my question. Why the heck are dems trying to put in more laws when they won't even prosecute the ones we have? Safe haven cities, marijuanna, the list goes on.

It just goes to show that there is never a permanent "wrong" (ie. prohibition, drinking and driving) its just what the current moral levels of the society reflect.

When it comes to homophobia come off it.:spin3: It's ok to marry a man, why not a sibling? how about an animal? When are they going to give me the right to marry whatever I want? You say you have to draw the line somewhere, why at same sex marriage?
I KNOW MY WIFE THINKS I LOVE MY JEEP MORE THAN HER SOME DAYS!!:looney:
 
Darky said:
The way the Congressman wanted it would have dumped the philias and defined what was being protected more specifically. Instead that was rejected and the philias were kept in, lumping homosexuality in with them. You sound like you're arguing the same thing as the quote I gave, while still calling him a retard for saying basically the same thing.

Tom is correct, how is it fair and equal for a guy to get in a fight with a gay guy to be punished more severely than if they both had been straight, white guys? What if one is black and the other is gay? Do both get charged with hate crimes? Assault in and of itself is a hate crime. To try and inflict major bodily damage on another human being is pretty hateful no matter their orientation, color, preferences, etc.
Click to expand...

Homosexuality IS NOT a "phelia" of any kind. No judge is going to confuse "sexual orientation" with pedophilia. Why put the clause in unless you are trying to say that homosexuality is a choice and an illness, not a way of life that should be condoned.

And I'm not going to argue with you about the legitimacy of hate crimes. I personally have mixed feelings on this. But that wasn't the point of the article nor was it the point this ahole congressman was trying to make.

BTW- This bill had more to do with funding and resource allocation than changing the definition of a hate crime.
 
XJ Eric said:
Why can't just enforce the laws we have? Thats my question. Why the heck are dems trying to put in more laws when they won't even prosecute the ones we have? Safe haven cities, marijuanna, the list goes on.
Click to expand...

That's a bit vague and you could say that about any law proposed ever. Are you trying to say we shouldn't attempt to adjust our laws to meet the current demands?

XJ Eric said:
It just goes to show that there is never a permanent "wrong" (ie. prohibition, drinking and driving) its just what the current moral levels of the society reflect.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Laws for all of civilization of been a direct reflection of the society in which they exist. That is the one constant.

XJ Eric said:
When it comes to homophobia come off it.:spin3: It's ok to marry a man, why not a sibling? how about an animal? When are they going to give me the right to marry whatever I want? You say you have to draw the line somewhere, why at same sex marriage?
I KNOW MY WIFE THINKS I LOVE MY JEEP MORE THAN HER SOME DAYS!!:looney:
Click to expand...

This isn't about gay marriage whatsoever. I happen to disagree with gay "marriage." My belief that marriage is the business of the church but civil unions are the business of the state. You may think of this as semantics, but how the government should treat to homosexuals making a long term commitment to each other vs how the church should are two separate things.
 
buschwhaked said:
That's a bit vague and you could say that about any law proposed ever. Are you trying to say we shouldn't attempt to adjust our laws to meet the current demands?.
Click to expand...

No, Adjust the law that is there. Don't write an additional one to stack on top. You don't get credit for adjusting an old law. You only get bragging rights for new laws you write. Hasta

buschwhaked said:
Agreed. Laws for all of civilization of been a direct reflection of the society in which they exist. That is the one constant..
Click to expand...


buschwhaked said:
This isn't about gay marriage whatsoever. I happen to disagree with gay "marriage." My belief that marriage is the business of the church but civil unions are the business of the state. You may think of this as semantics, but how the government should treat to homosexuals making a long term commitment to each other vs how the church should are two separate things.
Click to expand...

No, this didn't start out as a discussion of Homosexuality, but the comment is more of an offshoot, if you will, a tangent. maybe more appropriately call it a thread hijack...

My thought is that if you allow civil unions between same sex couples how long before I start trying to marry my Jeep or my ever loyal and non-judgmental dog, so I can claim I'm married, have a dependent to support and my child support shouldn't be so high? Marrying a man for me would be just as unnatural as marrying an animal. And really how is it any different?
 
buschwhaked said:
Homosexuality IS NOT a "phelia" of any kind. No judge is going to confuse "sexual orientation" with pedophilia. Why put the clause in unless you are trying to say that homosexuality is a choice and an illness, not a way of life that should be condoned.

And I'm not going to argue with you about the legitimacy of hate crimes. I personally have mixed feelings on this. But that wasn't the point of the article nor was it the point this ahole congressman was trying to make.

BTW- This bill had more to do with funding and resource allocation than changing the definition of a hate crime.
Click to expand...
I know you've been paying attention to the way the court systems work, right? If something isn't clearly defined, someone will go to court trying to push the boundaries and the court will too often side with said person.


Rep King wanted to add in a clause that would specifically state that this cannot be used by a pedophile to claim protection. It was rejected by the democratic leadership. Why would they deny that clause unless they are purposely leaving it more open?

A pedophile could make the argument that it is just the way he was born, he can't help his preference. Sounds crazy now, but back when the first homosexual said it 20 yrs ago or however long, it probably sounded pretty crazy then too. I'm not equating homosexuality to pedophilia (one of them is a crime, the other isn't) but 25 yrs ago people probably thought there was no way gays would be so accepted in the future. The world has been slowly moving more and more liberal and accepting of more and more "lifestyles".
 
I'm not a fan of gays. If they wanted respect they shouldn't have their damn ass wierd "dress up like a cat" gay parades all over the place.

If us straight people had a "straight parade" we would be considered......well I don't know what we'd be considered! Not racist, not sexist......gayist? lol..

I agree about the same sex marriage being the same as the marriage between a dog and a homosapien. Married couples get benefits, single people don't....so single people are even more screwed now that if you're anything but single you get benefits?

FUBAR......what is happening to the USA AND THE WORLD!
 
I'm all about dealing pain to anyone that hurts kids, women, or the defenseless; I'm guessing though that it might be 'hateful' to use a published resource, such as 123NC.com, to locate and deal with convicted perps.

Could this be the intent? Would it be acceptable to, on one hand act out with force in a moment of anger and passion, yet wrong in another to premeditate an act of violence against someone who has 'paid' their dept? It is the best I can do and there appears to be no other optional answers because surely, to advocate cart blanch coverage to all the philes would be political suicide.

More I think of it the more we need to put them all on the Island.
 
muddyrocks said:
I'm all about dealing pain to anyone that hurts kids, women, or the defenseless; I'm guessing though that it might be 'hateful' to use a published resource, such as 123NC.com, to locate and deal with convicted perps.

Could this be the intent? Would it be acceptable to, on one hand act out with force in a moment of anger and passion, yet wrong in another to premeditate an act of violence against someone who has 'paid' their dept? It is the best I can do and there appears to be no other optional answers because surely, to advocate cart blanch coverage to all the philes would be political suicide.

More I think of it the more we need to put them all on the Island.
Click to expand...
Good thinking, I hadn't looked at that angle...:)
 
Um if someone raped my 12 yo daughter I would be killing them, not kicking their ass. I can understand that certain people need to have certain protections in our society, but a pedophile should have no protection from anyone at all. I think that a pedophile should have child rapist tattooed on his face and thrown into gen pop.
 
Blaine B. said:
If us straight people had a "straight parade" we would be considered......well I don't know what we'd be considered! Not racist, not sexist......gayist? lol..
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily care about gays; only in the sense that I don't care if you're gay.

Pedophiles should be tortured.
 
bigalpha said:
Pedophiles should be tortured.
Click to expand...
Um,...

No.

If you have someone who has committed a crime so heinous that there is no hope of redemption, you should kill them,... as quickly, quietly, and humanly as possible. You do this NOT to be nice to the perp. Would you torture a dog that had attacked your 6 year old? No, you put it down. The same with the sub-human. Just like the dog, he(or it) wouldn't understand why you're hurting him (or it). Would hurting him make YOU feel better?
 
tbburg said:
Um,...

No.

If you have someone who has committed a crime so heinous that there is no hope of redemption, you should kill them,... as quickly, quietly, and humanly as possible. You do this NOT to be nice to the perp. Would you torture a dog that had attacked your 6 year old? No, you put it down. The same with the sub-human. Just like the dog, he(or it) wouldn't understand why you're hurting him (or it). Would hurting him make YOU feel better?
Click to expand...

So you are comparing a pedophile to a dog? Apples to oranges.

The pedophile knows it's wrong. The dog is being an animal. Pedophiles mentally (and sometimes physically) scar someone for life.

If it was YOUR 6 y/o who had been raped by a 42 y/o man, you are just going to want him to die humanely? You're not going to want to see him in agonizing, searing pain? :bs:

If that was my kid, I'd want the pedophile to die a slow, painful death. But, that's just me.
 
Darky said:
I know you've been paying attention to the way the court systems work, right? If something isn't clearly defined, someone will go to court trying to push the boundaries and the court will too often side with said person.
Click to expand...

Can't argue with cynicism, but on this, unless they score a judge that has no concern for his career, then that challenge would lose thanks to one of the most effective forms of checks and balances: appeal. The accused isn't he only one with that right.

Darky said:
Rep King wanted to add in a clause that would specifically state that this cannot be used by a pedophile to claim protection. It was rejected by the democratic leadership. Why would they deny that clause unless they are purposely leaving it more open?
Click to expand...

Why include a clause that isn't necessary? I've already answered this twice. They aren't leaving anything open. Anybody in their right mind that doesn't have a homophobic Christian right political agenda would never be confused about the meaning of sexual orientation. It seems only this Representative is confused while the rest of America and the judicial system is not. Oh, and everybody else with common sense.

Darky said:
A pedophile could make the argument that it is just the way he was born, he can't help his preference. Sounds crazy now, but back when the first homosexual said it 20 yrs ago or however long, it probably sounded pretty crazy then too. I'm not equating homosexuality to pedophilia (one of them is a crime, the other isn't) but 25 yrs ago people probably thought there was no way gays would be so accepted in the future. The world has been slowly moving more and more liberal and accepting of more and more "lifestyles".
Click to expand...

Most phelia's impede another persons basic rights. Homosexuality does not. And being gay is not a lifestyle, it's who you are. Just like being straight. Would you label a heterosexual a "lifestyle?"
 
buschwhaked said:
Why include a clause that isn't necessary? I've already answered this twice. They aren't leaving anything open. Anybody in their right mind that doesn't have a homophobic Christian right political agenda would never be confused about the meaning of sexual orientation. It seems only this Representative is confused while the rest of America and the judicial system is not. Oh, and everybody else with common sense.
Click to expand...
I'm a non-homophobic Christian (mostly) conservative, and can easily see where someone can claim a deviance as their sexual orientation. I bet a lot of the pedophiles out there know that their desire is wrong/unnatural and wish they didn't have it, but "can't help themselves".

And being gay is not a lifestyle, it's who you are. Just like being straight. Would you label a heterosexual a "lifestyle?"
Click to expand...
This is something we'll just have to disagree on. I'm pretty sure we've been down this road and no one will change the mind of the other side on this. :)

Anyways, this isn't meant to be about homosexuality. I agree that it's wrong to hate them or to inflict harm on them, mentally or physically just because they're gay. I don't think we need more hate crime legislation about it and I think if the Congress is going to insist on passing it, they need to make sure it is well written to ensure that it can only be used for what it's intention is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top