The Instigator
Belladonda
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Littleweasle
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Should hate crime legislation include sexual orientation?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Littleweasle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/17/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,666 times Debate No: 5436
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

Belladonda

Pro

All violent crimes are reprehensible. But the damage done by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or dollars and cents. Hate crimes rend the fabric of our society and fragment communities because they target a whole group and not just the individual victim. Hate crimes are committed to cause fear to a whole community. A violent hate crime is intended to 'send a message' that an individual and 'their kind' will not be tolerated, many times leaving the victim and others in their group feeling isolated, vulnerable and unprotected.

1.They're a Victim:

a.When a homosexual is a victim of a violent crime, often it is because of his or her sexual orientation. Such crimes, motivated by intolerance, are not like other violent crimes, and they deserve to be addressed by federal law. Crimes against gays are not always taken seriously, because law-enforcement officers, like some members of society, are often unsympathetic (if not downright hostile) to gays due to their own homophobia. Adding sexual orientation to the language of federal hate crime laws would ensure that homosexual victims would have an additional recourse if state or local authorities cannot? or choose not to-- adequately prosecute a crime.

2.Every violent crime should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of what motivated the perpetrator of the crime:

a. This can and should be done under existing civil rights laws. Allowing homosexuals protection under federal hate crime laws gives them special consideration that is not warranted. No crime victim is more important than any other crime victim. President Clinton's attempt to expand hate crime laws to include sexual orientation is just political posturing, as studies show that hate crime laws do not prevent bias crime. Police stations aren't necessarily safe havens for gays: Reported attacks by officers against homosexuals in police facilities increased by 76 percent nationwide in 1997, according to one survey. The most dangerous month for homosexuals, statistically speaking, tends to be June, a month when hundreds of gay pride parades and festivals are held across the country. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports for 1997 show that almost 14 percent of all hate crimes occur because of the victim's sexual orientation. This is the third largest category reported, with race making up about 59 percent of all reported hate crimes, and religion comprising about 17 percent. In 1991, hate crimes based on sexual orientation comprised only 8.9 percent of reported hate crimes.

It is our right to fight for those who are being discriminated. We must fight for what is right in the country. If we are going to no allow the protection to homosexuals then why should we give it to everyone else? They are people too.
Littleweasle

Con

Homosexuality is chosen behavior, not an immutable characteristic like race, and therefore does not deserve special protection under federal law. If any form of legislation is passed it will provide a federal protection for; homosexual behavior, and the concept that is misleading.

The legislation that is currently being looked at will provide protection for homosexual behavior which is placing anal intercourse on a par with race or religion. It will be used to normalize drag queens, cross-dressers, transsexuals, and She/Males which in an individual who chooses to remain female from the waist up and male from the waist down, or the other way around. It will also federalize every crime involving homosexuals and so-called transgender individuals. It will strip local law enforcement officials of the right to prosecute what are essentially a state or community criminal issue. This will also deny individuals equal justice under the law. For example, if an individual commits a crime against and elderly woman will get less of a prison sentence than if the victim was a cross-dresser or a homosexual. This is unfair and denies all individuals equal protection under the law. The Pro has mention " if we are going to not allow the protection to homosexuals then why should we give it to everyone else?" Giving Homosexuals protection will not protect everyone fairly, that is the main issue the pro has to have fairness. Well what about the old lady? She will receive less representation than the homosexual case if this legislation was to pass. Fair? I think not.

In addition, the whole concept of hate crimes is misleading. Every violent crime is an expression of hate against an individual. We have the freedom of speech and religion, there is no such thing as a "love" crime of violence. Liberal call them "hate crimes." If Hate crime where not to protect people of the same ethnic group, and started to focuse on the individual person. This will in all penalize people for their thoughts, which will ultimately prove to be dangerous to pastors, religious leaders, and therapists, and many others. If hate crimes just helped the individuality then on could not ever speak their mind. For they could be charged with a hate crime. One could not tell you that homosexuality was offence to any living person or give them some type of name. What will happen to freedom of speech? It will be diminished to lesser freedoms. Also Homosexuality is a behavior, not a fixed identity. It is like comparing smoking and drug use to an immutable characteristic like a race or ethnicity. There are no former Hispanics or Caucasians, but there are ex-homosexuals. The existence of ex-homosexuals is a clear evidence that it is more a behavior based than a characteristic. It should not receive special minority rights protection in the federal law.

A hate crime is there to protect the ethnicity or a person. Homosexuality is a behavior. It is a choice among men. Men cannot choose to be born Hispanic or Caucasian. But to be a cross-dresser. That is the individual choice. How can we protect the individual? We cannot allow one to receive more representation over another. This is America where we are free to be who we want. America were we have the right to speak as we choose. An America where representation is fair to and individual. We have the right to that, but we don't have the right to change it.
Debate Round No. 1
Belladonda

Pro

Belladonda forfeited this round.
Littleweasle

Con

Seeing as my opponent had to forfeit the round, my argument still stands. Homosexuality is chosen behavior, not an immutable characteristic like race, and therefore does not deserve special protection under federal law. If any form of legislation is passed it will provide a federal protection for; homosexual behavior, and the concept that is misleading.

Allowing any form of legislation that allows this to become a hate crime. Than the who system will have to be subjected to allow anything stand as a hate crime. If everything stood as a hate crime there would be not hate crime. Then the crimes that need to be protected will not be protected. The Pro talks about what has happened to the people and all the crime. Well if we are going to look at those as a reason to allow this to become a hate crime. Well then lets put Pit Bulls under the hate crimes. Not any other dogs just Pit Bulls. Why because they are the most controversial canine. Or as I stated before; This will also deny individuals equal justice under the law. For example, if an individual commits a crime against and elderly woman will get less of a prison sentence than if the victim was a cross-dresser or a homosexual.

There are no former Hispanics or Caucasians, but there are ex-homosexuals. The existence of ex-homosexuals is a clear evidence that it is more a behavior based than a characteristic. It should not receive special minority rights protection in the federal law. ( look back to the Pit Bull comment)

How can we protect the individual? We cannot allow one to receive more representation over another. This is America where we are free to be who we want. America were we have the right to speak as we choose. An America where representation is fair to and individual. We have the right to that, but we don't have the right to change it.

For the people who are reading this. Thanks
Debate Round No. 2
Belladonda

Pro

Belladonda forfeited this round.
Littleweasle

Con

Well two for one so my argument must stand... any confustion of what my argument is please read the past rounds. Now i think i am just talking to my self on this debate. I feel special.... ;)
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by my.matryoshka 8 years ago
my.matryoshka
Belladonda, you could vote for yourself.
Posted by Littleweasle 8 years ago
Littleweasle
sexual orientation: The direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, or both sexes. In a cross-dresser it is not an interest towards another gender but another person with a diffrent way of living.
Posted by knick-knack 8 years ago
knick-knack
Hate Crime- a crime that violates the victim's civil rights and that is motivated by hostility to the victim's race, religion, creed, national origin, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, or gender.

Don't argue against Merriam-Webster weasle.
Posted by Littleweasle 8 years ago
Littleweasle
Knick-knack:

No it wouldn't be a hate crime, a hate crime is when somthing is committed to a person because of their race. so no it would not be a hate crime.... Yes it is a behavior that people choose…. Its like choosing to be republican or be apart of a ‘whig' party. It is a choice to do so. They choose to be a cross-dresser or to love someone of their same gender.
Posted by my.matryoshka 8 years ago
my.matryoshka
I see a hate crime as being perpetrated by those that are prejudice towards a certain ethnicity. If killing a homosexual (by a hetero.) or killing a heterosexual (by a homo.) was considered a hate crime, then any kind of violence between any number of parties in disagreement would be considered as "hate violence". I'm afraid this debate is a spin-off from a much more heated topic, "Is homosexuality a choice?" I believe it is, and therefore I don't believe it should be considered a hate crime. Even if the homosexual was born attracted to his/her own sex, it's still a choice. Whether or not to indulge in it is up to the individual. If attacks on homosexuals can be considered a hate crime, then any attack on anyone with a disagreeable position on something can be considered a hate crime.
Posted by knick-knack 8 years ago
knick-knack
Weasle
What if a straight person (heterosexual) was killed by a homosexual?

Is heterosexual a chosen behavior?

Would that be considered a hate crime?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by my.matryoshka 8 years ago
my.matryoshka
BelladondaLittleweasleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
BelladondaLittleweasleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Littleweasle 8 years ago
Littleweasle
BelladondaLittleweasleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07