Hang homosexuals!

[dales]

Yes, meanwhile back on topic, RUBE.

It might seem to people such as yourself that if one person who calls themself a "Christian", "Muslim", "Buddhist", "Hindu" or whatever commits a hateful act (which this most certainly is) that misguded person would come to the wrong conclusion and believe that "they're all like that".

Is that you, rube?

It sounded to me like it was from your post.

I hope you're not that stupid.

[Gob]

When I dream.....

[Sue U]

But in this country, we don't have laws like this; and I'm glad we don't.

Once you have laws against "stirring up hatred" you put government in the business of determining what constitutes "hate speech" and then empowering it to punish those that engage in that speech. I don't want government in that business. I don't want government in the business of determining which opinions are acceptable and which are not, and I certainly do not want it to have the power to toss in jail those who express opinions that it deems unacceptable.

In my view, the potential for abuse, and the potential negative implications for society in general that would flow from empowering the state in this way far out weighs having to put up with allowing whack jobs to publicly express hateful and repugnant views. That price is worth paying, to safe guard a freedom which I believe is fundamental to the long term survival of a free society.

As to that much of your post, I agree 100%.

[Lord Jim]

As to that much of your post, I agree 100%.

You're not down with having an "eyesight malfunction" when one of these clowns gets punched in the nose?

[dgs49]

So here's my question: Since the United States Supreme Court has "discovered" a right of privacy in the constitution, which protects private, consensual, sexual conduct between adults, should we now invite Utah to rename itself "Deseret" (which the Mormons always preferred), and re-institute polygamy? It is a well-known fact that the Mormon practice of polygamy was the main (but not only) reason that statehood was denied them for so long, and that they only abandoned it under threat of force. Clearly, polygamy was nothing more than the Mormons' exercising their constitutional right of privacy (Utah was a U.S. territory).

And do we now consider the politicians who fought statehood for Deseret/Utah to have been guilty of "hate crimes" for condemning polygamy?

Where is editec when you need him?

[Scooter]

If you are referring to the SCOTUS ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which prohibits the criminalization of sexual activity between persons of the same-sex, or of certain sexual acts between persons of the opposite sex, the ruling was not based on the right to privacy, but rather on the rights to equal protection and substantive due process under the 14th Amendment.

Care to try again?

[dgs49]

Actually, I believe the fictitious right of privacy was discovered in Griswold. It has been expanded, amoeba like, in the ensuing years.

[Scooter]

But was not used in the way you described.

Not interested in reframing your argument, then?

[rubato]

So here's my question: Since the United States Supreme Court has "discovered" a right of privacy in the constitution, which protects private, consensual, sexual conduct between adults, should we now invite Utah to rename itself "Deseret" (which the Mormons always preferred), and re-institute polygamy? It is a well-known fact that the Mormon practice of polygamy was the main (but not only) reason that statehood was denied them for so long, and that they only abandoned it under threat of force. Clearly, polygamy was nothing more than the Mormons' exercising their constitutional right of privacy (Utah was a U.S. territory).

And do we now consider the politicians who fought statehood for Deseret/Utah to have been guilty of "hate crimes" for condemning polygamy?

Where is editec when you need him?

Polygamy is explicitly approved of in the Bible. Jacob had two wives and each of them had a servant girl with whom he produced children. All 12 of the (male) children produced by these unions formed the 12 tribes of Israel.

What's the matter? You don't approve of the bible?

yrs,
rubato

[dales]

Why stop there, rube?

What about Noah's incestous relationship with his daughters?

[Scooter]

Noah was drunk.

Abraham, on the other hand, knowingly married his sister.

[loCAtek]

Why stop there, rube?

What about Noah's incestous relationship with his daughters?

That was Lot.

[Crackpot]

Why stop there, rube?

What about Noah's incestous relationship with his daughters?

You mean Lot

[Lord Jim]

LJ, how do you feel about enhanced penalty hate crime legislation here in the US?

I recall we had a pretty thorough discussion about this on the CSB a few years ago; my answer then, and today, is that I'm not comfortable with "hate crime" laws, for several reasons:

First, I don't believe they serve any real purpose, beyond providing some folks with a sense of PC feel-good self righteousness. It seems to me that the deterrent value of these laws is pretty much zero. I don't believe that the sorts of mouth breathing knuckle draggers who commit these sorts of crimes think to themselves:

"Well, I'm willing to risk the penalties for murder, or beating the hell out of someone, but whoa...wait a minute...we might have a few years tacked on to our sentence for a hate crime, That's too much, we shouldn't do this"

Second, I have equal protection issues with the concept. If someone whacks me over the head because I'm white, and someone else whacks you over the head because they wanted your watch, why should the crime against me carry greater value than the crime against you? We are both equally whacked over the head.

And third, I'm concerned that "hate crime" enhancement laws (I put hate crime in quotes btw, because in my view almost every crime of extreme violence is "hate crime"; rarely does someone beat or torture another person to death out of kindness) can form the predicate for the kinds of laws that we've been discussing here. Laws that take the next step, and criminalize the mere public expression of the hate, spoken or written. (edited for clarity)

But all of that having been said, at least hate crime enhancement laws, in and of themselves, (if they don't lead to the next step) are attached to some other real crime. Absent an actual crime of violence that would be punishable even without the statute they don't apply, and therefore they are definitely less troubling to me than the criminalization of speech represented in the OP.

[Lord Jim]

Is that you, rube?

It sounded to me like it was from your post.

I hope you're not that stupid.

Dale, I believe I recently addressed that subject in another thread....

[dgs49]

My point is that the United States and its people both formally and informally hated the Mormons, primarily (but not entirely) because of their practice of polygamy. This was the main reason why they were rejected, time after time, for statehood, and it was not until they formally condemned polygamy (and got their political parties in order) that they were admitted to the Union.

Since we now know that there is a right of privacy in the Constitution (the Constitution has not been changed in this regard), which protects private sexual conduct between (and among) adults, were our political ancestors "hateful" in condemning and ostracizing the Mormons of Utah merely because of their private sexual conduct?

(I have written on this board previously that I have no position on civil marriage, one way or another. If a state wants to recognize gay marriages, polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages, or self-marriages, that's fine with me, as long as it doesn't affect the taxes they collect).

[Scooter]

Except that it is not the right to privacy that "protects private sexual conduct between...adults", it is the right to substantive due process and the right to equal protection. Therefore your entire argument rests on a false premise. If you can argue for the legalization of polygamy based on substantive due process and equal protection grounds, that is one thing, but attempting to equate it to other sexual conduct based on the right to privacy is meaningless because it was not the right to privacy that caused that other sexual conduct to be legalized.

[dgs49]

You may be alone in that opinion, Scoots.

[Scooter]

The rights on which the SCOTUS based their decision are not a matter of opinion, it s a fact that is documented in their opinion on the case. If you had actually bothered to read the opinion, you would have seen that it was based on substantive due process and equal protection, not privacy.

[dales]

Why stop there, rube?

What about Noah's incestous relationship with his daughters?

That was Lot.

Why stop there, rube?

What about Noah's incestous relationship with his daughters?

You mean Lot

Why yes it was.

My error.