Misinformation about Hate Crimes bill

I would interpret "sexual orientation" as not being exclusively defining a gay person. Your example of a straight person being attacked by a gay person because he is straight would seemingly invoke the hate crime definition and the expanded punishment. 

Root causes:  The root causes of bigotry and hatred particularly in race and religion is the reason most wars have been fought.  Sure, it would be great to have a utopia where everyone loved one another, but the reality of human behavior does not support this.  So, what are we left with?   Nations that recognize the inequities and address them in a socially responsible way.

After some thought, I would propose the Hate Crime Bill to include crimes perpetrated by a special interest group in a conspiratory manner against an individual such as gang stalking be included in the legislation.   

I would agree with special interest group and gang stalking, definitely.

  And this whole hate crimes bill should obviously cover all under its own definition.  It a gay man did take it upon himself to kill a straight man from political revenge,  this would fall under the "sexual orientations"  clause.  It must cut in all directions to be fair.  A feminist castrating a man would be a hate crime directed at his sexual orientation.  It can be used against the original writers of the bill, as has happened with various things I can think of.  But this must be neutral and impartial and stick to the definition to be just. 

But this must be neutral and impartial and stick to the definition to be just. 

I agree smk

Thanks,  A ;)

Interesting that one class of peoples demands special and/or extra protection, coverage, compensation, benefits, what-have-you, because they are supposedly "equal".

Possessing but a small amount of common sense, i question why, if they are indeed equal, special rules, or laws, need to be invented for their benefit.

It would seem, to this meager mind, that justice would demand the same for all, without partiality.

 
special rules, or laws, need to be invented for their benefit

Equality is a social construct, and for it to be applied to everyone without exception, you assume there is no prejudice through which people judge and direct their actions.  Knowing this is not the case, social justice applied equally needs a benchmark from which to determine a value; hence, the creation of laws or, as in this case, the expansion of a law focusing on motive.

The problem is that justice is not always impartial and fair. If you've got enough money and  connections, it works wonders in the "justice" system.

Sexual orientation is a pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, both genders, neither gender, or another gender. According to the American Psychological Association sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of "personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."[1] Sexual orientation is usually classified relative to the gender of the people who are found sexually attractive. Though people may use other labels, or none at all[2], sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. These orientations exist along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexual to exclusive homosexual, including various forms of bisexuality in-between. The continuum between heterosexual and homosexual does not suit everyone, however, as some people identify as asexual.[3] Sexologists see this linear scale as an oversimplification of a more nuanced notion of sexual identity. Source: wikipedia, Sexual Orientation

Sexual orientation is also a concept that evolved in the industrialized West (no surprise:))

Rhonda:  Thanks for this important factual information.  There is much confusion over all of these definitions,   and it is important for people to understand the differentiations and that not all can be lumped under the "gay or straight " banner.  

You are very welcome, smk! Yes, "it is important for people to understand the differentiations and that not all can be lumped under the "gay or straight " banner."

"The term "sexual orientation"  does indeed cover pedophiles,  but this is only common sense."

It is important to understand Pedophilia.

I am aware of the strange history surrounding the APA's removal from DSM of homosexuality as disorder in 1973.    I think there is a third way,  between "born that way"  on the one hand,  and "choice"  on the other.  I think gays may be compared to philosophers and artists :  Born with certain temperaments which offer many good things to society,  and highly strung enough to have their own special set of "disorders".  Businessmen have disorders as well,  as do capitalists and politicians.  If I am a philosopher ,  and you tell me,  if I was born that way,  it is an illness,  and if I chose it,  it was a bad choice,  I will tell you that I was both born that way and then ran with it.  I will admit that as this "type",  I am known to have extreme moods and certain social phobias,  and that I am known to buck against the established order and to write strange doctrines.  But then,  so are many, many groups:  There is a typology of the policeman,  the politician,  the entrepreneur.  How is the gay any different?  

Thanks Rhonda: Yes we all have our preconditions and disorders! ;)

Rob:  Yes,  gays cannot monogamously reproduce,  which is true.  I think what they seek with marriage is simply to not have their relationships be demeaned.   Marriage itself has been demeaned by heterosexuals,  which opened this other door.  When you open a door,  you have to accept what comes through.   Gays are  arguing that most children are being raised now in single parent homes.  Who opened the door to this argument?  They argue that many are raised without fathers.  Who opened that door?  Marriage has changed into something different.  Blame the original transformers,  (we know who I refer to now).  Gay marriage is symptom, consequence,  incident ,  of this prior transformation.  

In the order of nature,  homosexuality is less than heterosexuality.  In the old order of society,  it was less.  But we are in an advanced state of democracy.   We have a right and a duty to overcome nature and the old order.  Women are less than equal in nature and the old order.  We are not there anymore. 

Rob and smk, some reading you might find interesting: What Are Homosexuals Good For? or Gaiety as a Family Value.

I have looked at it,  and as it is lengthy have only skimmed it,  but can see thus far that it makes good arguments and interesting points not often considered.  Thanks,  Rhonda.