I think it's a power thing. Some men regard sexual submissiveness to be somehow linked with homosexuality. They see it as 'womanly' behaviour, and we all know that if men do anything even vaguely 'womanly' that they're OBVIOUSLY gay. ;)

That's why straight men:

Don't wrap presents nicely

Don't take more than 15 minutes to get showered and dressed for a night out

Don't remember anniversaries or do romantic stuff for their wives

Don't worry about whether their shoes match their belt

etc etc


Of course I'm joking, but there are men out there who think like that. It's odd that men's sexuality is such a fragile thing....I mean women don't enjoy a soccer match and then get paranoid they're a lesbian.

Hate me for saying it, but the only stigma is in your head. And that goes for everyone.

Look again hon.
 

WW slips into "teaching attitude"

Of course we care about intent.
I don't like the idea of too many laws any more than the next person. Especially laws that concern what I do in my private life.
But when we look at a crime we have to look at intent. Sometimes intent defines the crime. In my post I used the example of killing as an unplanned act of passion vs. a planned calculated attack. The law cares about the differences.
Look at a milder act and the effect of intent on deciding punshment.
Setting fire to a pile of trash in front of a house just to make a commotion and wake up the neighborhood is NOT the same thing as a bunch of white men (no, I Do NOT blame all the world's problems on white men!) burning a cross in front of the home of a Black, Jewish or Catholic family.
Do you think that the guilty in both of these cases should be treated and punished equally? One group, a bunch of bored kids acting stupid, burning some trash, no damage done except to people's nerves. The second group is all about hate, setting out to terrorize a family.
The intent is the difference, what makes it a hate crime and justifies a greater punishment.
Of course there are crimes when the intent is not the point, where the crime is so awful the motive doesn't matter.

Some last thoughts.

The Central Park Jogger was attacked by a serial rapist, (who was identified by his DNA years after the attack. It didn't get a lot of publicity.) She was alone, and didn't appear to be a threat. I easily identify with that.
Matthew Shepard was picked because he was gay, (they planned to rob a "gay guy") small, and non threatening, something else I identify with.

It's hard to be distant and objective about this.

Mark, your friend worries too much, and seems insecure. Just tell him to be happy, do what feels good, take care of his partner and make them happy.

I really do love my Pixies friends.
(And that goes for everyone.)

Linda (WW)

I agree 100% WW.

I'm married to a gay guy :o :D

*runs to check again :D

The Central Park Jogger assailant selected his victim because she was a woman. Matthew Shepard's because he was gay. If selection criteria equals hate crime then I fail to see a difference.

It's funny how a thread that is posted from someone can quickly turn into a debate on something else entirely. Thank you to those who bothered tried to keep it on track.

i don't think it's entirely different, just branches off a central idea. i think you should thank everyone who's shared their thoughts.


and tell your friend that gay people like to kiss and cuddle and pet each other, too so if he wants to avoid everything that gay people might do, he should avoid those as well.

Just because we don't agree on something doesn't mean I need to be educated.

I'm telling you that I don't give a rat's ass what's going through the mind of someone who commits murder, rape, assault, or to use your analogy...sets fire to a garbage can or a cross. Does a spontaneous crime of passion result in the victim being any less dead than a planned and calculated attack? Does the family left behind feel any more comfort? If the laws we already have were enforced correctly, we wouldn't need new ones designed specifically around personal crimes. Does anyone think that if hate crimes legislation was in existance in 1880 that the lynching of African-Americans wouldn't have taken place? The problem wasn't what the crime was called...it was that the laws on the books weren't being enforced. And in my opinion, that's what the problem is today. People feel free to run amok doing whatever they damn well please with little or no fear of reprocussions and absolutely no respect for others on this planet. We are living in a world where nobody gives a flying fuck about anyone but themselves, and the sense of entitlement & privilege overrule the importance of recognizing that we are a society. And when they break the law...it takes two years to go to trial! For crying out loud, it took 18 years for Connecticut to execute a serial killer that admitted to killing 4 young women! 18 years! And that he preyed upon young white girls versus college aged homosexuals or senior citizen rabbis is irrellevant.

I'm way off topic now, but the jist of my mindframe is that it is my opinion that existing laws need to be enforced, not rewritten.

bad writing
 

Sorry hon. That was bad writing on my part.
What I was trying to do was restate my point, from the end of the previous paragraph, that some crimes are so terrible that motive, or "selection criteria" is not important. I was also trying to show (badly) that just because I can identify with a victim, I am not trying to make the crime more than it is.

I slipped into "teaching attitude" because I am a recent victim of higher education. When I am presenting a point or making an argument in a more formal manner, a certain way of speaking and writing takes over, one I call "teaching attitude." When I am in an actual face to face conversation, people who don't know me well sometimes are a bit shocked at the difference.

Wild Irish.

I wasn't trying to "educate you".
I thought maybe if I introduced a new, different way of looking at the issue, you might understand my point of view.

I understand yours, I think. It is almost bibical, the "eye for an eye" belief.

I was taught the point of having a trial was not just about guilt or innocence, but discovering mitigating factors that might affect punishment.

Take a person who kills another person without intent, say during a fistfight, where a person with a heart condition becomes overstressed and dies. Compare to someone who kills another for gain, killing a spouse for the insurance money for example. In each case someone died as a result of an act by another.
If you feel they should be treated the same, that is most certainly your prerogative. I was just pointing out that the law has looked at it differently for a very, very long time. Intent as a basis for deciding the degree of a crime or the punishment isn't new, and certainly not just for hate crimes.

My last thought, as I am not going to post about this anymore.

The laws will change. I just don't know wich way. In the 19th century being lesbian or gay was punishable by imprisonment, or even death, as it still is in several countries. African Americans were "3/5" of a person. It wasn't illegal to kill your slave.

Things change

WW

Thngs change.

WW...

I havent read much.. and but I have read some of the things youhave said.. and as unfortunate as it is.. ther will always be those who will discriminate. no matterhow civilised the world get.. you will never get rid of homophobes, you will never get rid of KKK.. it is simply a fact of life that there is always going to be someone who disagree's.. and it really is unfortunate.. here in australia we really dont care.. if someone is gay.. so be it.. but america.. (no offence to those who live there) really is a messed up country.. dont get me wrong there are loads of decent people who live there.. but with the gang wars and all the crap that goes on there.. it just make me feel happy that i live in a carefree australia.. all i can say isgood luck to america.. it will soon implode on itself and I hope allte good people survive..