Anyhow...Sammich and company, I just wanted to mention that this was never a "gay rights" discussion. Somehow it always comes down to that on here, but that really wasn't how I came at this thread.
Do I think homos are singled out for violence? Yup. Do I think they're the most in need of protection? Nope. Do I think gay pride parades and flaming fags are an eyesore? Yup. Does that matter right now? Nope.
The whole reason I entered this fray was the headline on the front page, and the implication that hate crime laws were designed to protect pedophiles from retaliation, or at the very least designed with provisions allowing this in mind.
I came to point out that that is clearly not the case, and technicalities won't serve as gateways for pedophiles to seek recourse (that's right, that's how it all started: the difficulty of defining 'sexuality' legally). Pedophilia does not equal 'sexuality' any more than 'cannibal' is equal to 'chef'.
It really doesn't matter who I feel needs this sort of legal recourse, or who your government finds most in need (although, I think it has more to do with anti-muslim and perhaps even anti-mexican acts than homos, truth be told).
My issue was the bullshit way it was addressed. Blatant lies and skewed implications are never a healthy way to initiate dialogue. The sad part is, this is how a great portion of your population gets their 'news'. Declaring that Obama is a pedophile supporter has no more to do with the legislation than telling you what I had for dinner this evening.
That's the issue. Whether or not a mincing faggot makes for a choice target to beat down is irrelevant.
