The law should not discriminate in favor of the gays.
Debate Rounds (2)
Now, when the gay couple spotted the group of pub-crawling football fans pass by they decided to shout heterophobic abuse at them. Because the boozed-up football fans didn't want any trouble, they hurried off, but the gays gave chase and eventually cornered the football fans in a back alley. There, the gays viscously attacked the terrified fans but, luckily, the lagered-up lads managed to escape their arse-ramming assailants.
CCTV footage shown later in court showed the terrified young fans running for their lives down the street but, incredibly, the jury were persuaded that, because the young revellers didn't report the incident to the police, they, and not the gay couple, were the aggressors and that they were fleeing the scene of a crime.
This claim was given false legitimacy because in the melee in the back alley the gay couple sustained some minor injuries while the drunken football fans were trying to defend themselves and when they regained consciousness in hospital the dirty, lying bastards audaciously told the doctor it was the football fans that had attacked them, not the other way round, and the doctor duly reported the matter to the police.
Outrageously, when the case came to court and the football fans were, in a gross miscarriage of justice, found guilty of Grievous Bodily Harm and were each sentenced to three years in jail with an additional year's imprisonment added to each of their sentences because their supposed "victims" happened to be gay. 
That's because the law in many countries instructs judges to give longer sentences to those convicted of assault where hostility or prejudice based on sexual orientation (or perceived sexual orientation) was an aggravating factor in the offense. 
This means that if the heroes of this story had been convicted as the result of a fight with rival football fans they would have been sentenced to a year less in jail (unless, of course, they were fighting Brighton and Hove Albion supporters who are all screaming homosexuals). 
That's ridiculous! Having your head kicked in doesn't hurt any less if you heterosexual so why should your attacker be punished less severely just because you aren't gay?
That's why I maintain that the law should apply to everybody equally and the gays should not be receive any special favors.
So basically, the "drunk"? football players came into a gay bar and a gay couple chased out the drunk football players and then beat them up? When it was brought in court, the football players were instead charged for defending themselves and hitting the gays because the judge thought it was discrimination??
If that's true, that is mess-up. The ones beat up shouldn't be arrested! The ones who beat of the innocent people should be. I am saying this on NO regards of sexuality! A criminal is a criminal regardless of their preference. Gosh.
However, that was one case. I really do not think the law discriminates in favour for gay people. I'd hope they would fairly judge the case and see who is the criminal and not just assume, if it has gay people involved, they are the innocent ones, because that's not always what happens.
Just one thing more, I hope YOU, yes YOU, do not go hating gays all because of this one incident.
And heterphobia really doesn't exist.
Unfortunately, miscarriages of justice happen all the time, I accept that, but the point I am really trying to make is that the motive for attacking someone should be irrelevant in sentencing the offender.
For example, if an attacker objected to another guy in the pub chatting up his girlfriend and the motive for his attack was jealousy he should be punished, of course, but he should not be punished more severely if the guy in the pub was a homosexual who he attacked because the guy chatted him up rather than his girlfriend.
At the end of the day, the victim got the same beating so the attacker should get the same punishment, regardless of his motive.
CoolPeppers12 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Rhodesia79 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con was wasn't open minded enough to see that not all people are gay lovers.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.