posted May 17, 2009 02:55 PM         

hate speech is often mislabelled "truth". the facts you speak of might even be supportable but your insistence on labels and blanket judgements does make it hate speech. and in case you misconstrue that, i am not talking court-of-law but basic comprehension.

posted May 17, 2009 05:45 PM         

First of all, the American Psychiatric Association doesn't establish law. Nor does it establish the legal definition of terms, so this argument of yours still can't save you. As I've pointed out in my previous post, 31 states have used the term "sexual orientation" in their laws. There is not a single precendent of ANYONE EVER TAKING IT TO MEAN PEDOPHILIA. That's precedent. And you're f-cking insane if you think that this new piece of legislation redefines the whole spectrum of precedent to include pedophilia (which is a criminal way of expressing sexuality) under the term "sexual orientation"!

You talk about the simplest search:

What Is Sexual Orientation?

Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female), and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior).

Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional, and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only).

Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.
American Psychological Association

In 2004 the AP[sychiatric]A put out this: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/marriage.pdf
Which talks of "sexual orientation" exclusively in relation to a person's sexual gender preference, and made no mention of pedophilia fitting under the umbrella of what that term refers to.

This is funny, too...at least if you think that pedophilia is included by the American Psychiatric Association's definition of "sexual orientation":

Diversity
POSITION STATEMENT

Approved by the Board of Trustees, December 1998
Approved by the Assembly, May 1999

"Policy documents are approved by the APA Assembly and Board of Trustees… These are …position statements that define APA official policy on specific subjects…" -- APA Operations Manual.

Cultural diversity includes issues of race, sex, language, age, country of origin, sexual orientation, religious/spiritual beliefs, social class, and physical disability. Cultural diversity also includes knowledge about cultural factors in the delivery of mental health care and in patient health-related behavior.

Despite efforts to increase cultural diversity among psychiatrists, data from the AAMC and other sources indicate the continued serious under-representation of certain ethnic minority groups among U.S. medical students, medical school facilities and departments of psychiatry and practicing clinicians. Some ethnic minority clinicians have been found to treat ethnic minority and socio-economically impoverished populations at a substantially greater rate than non-minority clinicians.

Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association supports the development of cultural diversity among its membership and within the field of psychiatry (including in under-graduate and graduate medical education, in faculty development, in research, in psychiatric administration, and in clinical practice) in order to prepare psychiatrists to better serve a diverse U.S. population. http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsand Related/PositionStatements/199908.aspx

posted May 17, 2009 07:06 PM         

This bill does not address cultural diversity. It addresses hate crimes against protected classes under the act...including pedophiles as I showed you straight from the Official Journal of the American Psychiatric Association itself. You're only wreaking havoc on your own already dead arguments. Now we know where the saying..."beating a dead horse" comes from.

I suppose that you are simply incapable of reading and comprehending plain English but I've showed you the legal basis for charging citizens under the hate crimes act. I've showed you how that would play out in a court of law with expert witnesses...psychiatrists who would be forced to say pedophilia is a "Sexual Orientation" OR get ripped on the witness stand when they are forced to read from the witness stand the very writings of the Psychiatric Association which they are testifying against...and in which they are most likely members. In any case there's not a judge on the bench who would not side with the American Psychiatric Association in deciding whether or not pedophilia is a "sexual orientation". You lose and no amount of ducking, bobbing, weaving or evading the issues is going to save you. The facts as usual are against you.

I've showed you the attempted Amendment to the hate crimes bill which would have excluded pedophiles and demoscats rejected that with a 100% vote against the Amendment.

I've showed you the statement of the Congressman Alcee Hastings who said ALL philias are covered by the hate crimes bill. Both Alcee Hastings comments and the rejected Amendment which would have excluded pedophiles is exactly what courts would look for in the legislative history of the Act to establish "legislative intent".

It's clear the APA says pedophilia is a "sexual orientation". The bill itself lists "sexual orientation" as one of the covered protected classes and one of the Congressmen who worked on the bill says ALL philias are covered under the act. You lose on every count acoustic.

There are no precedents for courts or attorneys to consult because this is new proposed legislation. Of course the APA doesn't make law. Congress makes law and courts follow the law..or at least they're supposed to administer justice "according to the laws". However, the APA is most certainly the group to consult as to whether or not pedophilia is a "Sexual Orientation" and that's exactly what would/will happen when one of these cases gets to a court of law.

Now, where's that argument that the Hate Crimes Bill doesn't violate the "Equal Protection of the Laws" clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

posted May 17, 2009 07:29 PM         

quote:

---

doesn't seem to me acoustic needs my support...katatonic

---

quote:

---

the core point of your own arguments are superficial and specious...katatonic

---

posted May 18, 2009 01:04 AM         

1. You accept a false premise by conservative media. As per normal, you trust it wholeheartedly and unreservedly without an inkling of the nonsense you're promulgating.

2. I ask you to prove where the law says anything, anything at all about pedophiles. It doesn't. Instead, you suggest that because Democrats didn't accept a redundant definition of "sexual orientation" as excluding pedophilia that somehow that translates into the Act protecting pedophiles. It still doesn't dawn on you how the Act will function nor how it will be pursued as such you make the false statement, "Don't worry acoustic; if this legislation passes, day care centers in CA or anywhere else will no longer be able to 'discriminate' against Pedophiles." California employment discrimination isn't at all related to the justice for the violent as descibed in this Act.

3. I tell you the obvious, which is that this Act in no way addresses pedophiles, and challenge you to find a single court case that does so. You fail.

4. You come back with a ridiculous notion that Pedophilia is a sexual orientation as if to imply that it legally falls under the legal definition of "sexual orientation." It doesn't. Never has. Likely never will. Certainly won't under this Act.

5. You try to argue with Kat that it's special protections for groups of people. It's not. Anyone who reads the Act knows when it will be put to use, and that is only after the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General certifies with the State's agreement that justice has not been met. As such it's the least intrusive it can possibly be, and it can hardly be said that it gives "special protections" to anyone.

6. I once again challenge you to prove that pedophilia legally falls under the umbrella of what is deemed "sexual orientation." You try merely asserting an opinion that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, which did not contain a SINGLE bit of legal precedent. I make the point that a pedophile would have to incriminate him or herself in order to try to claim this imaginary protection Jwhop thinks is afforded under this Act. That's a real logical premise, isn't it Jwhop? Reasonably we can only assume a non-active (i.e. law abiding) pedophile could seek protection under this Act (if it were so afforded). How does that work? Who's taking up those cases, and more importantly, who's hearing them in court?

7. Node posts the bill.

8. I post part of the Bill stating the circumstances under which the Act could come in to play. Jwhop ignores it.

9. Jwhop once again tries to assert that no reasonable person would say that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. That is wrong, of course, because "sexual orientation" under the law does have a definition, and it also has legal precedent. Jwhop tries to pin the desire to save pedophiles on Democrats. Untrue...and lame.

posted May 18, 2009 01:23 AM         

_______________________________

posted May 18, 2009 12:24 PM         

quote:

---

In any case there's not a judge on the bench who would not side with the American Psychiatric Association in deciding whether or not pedophilia is a "sexual orientation".

---

You seem to forget that we're talking about the government taking up the case for a hate crime against a pedophile. There's no likely scenario where that is going to happen. And the government isn't going to be looking to a psychiatrist to define a legal term when there's precedent in a previous hate crime Act.

So tell me how this scenario plays out in accordance with how this Bill is designed where the government believes it's acceptable to take the bad press of trying to protect a pedophile under this Bill. Tell me how you believe a state is going to allow the Federal government to take up such a case with one of its citizens. You clearly aren't thinking your scenarios through very well.

quote:

---

I've showed you the attempted Amendment to the hate crimes bill which would have excluded pedophiles and demoscats rejected that with a 100% vote against the Amendment.

---

Once again, there's no point in approving a redundancy.

quote:

---

I've showed you the statement of the Congressman Alcee Hastings who said ALL philias are covered by the hate crimes bill.

---

I addressed that. He's wrong.

quote:

---

Both Alcee Hastings comments and the rejected Amendment which would have excluded pedophiles is exactly what courts would look for in the legislative history of the Act to establish "legislative intent".

---

The court would do no such thing. The court doesn't look at what Congress did surrounding the passage of the Bill. The court looks for precedent. How many times do we have to go over this before you get it through your head?

quote:

---

It's clear the APA says pedophilia is a "sexual orientation".

---

It's also clear that the APA wasn't speaking about the legal definition of "sexual orientation" as found in this Bill. It's also clear that the APA included "sexual orientation" in its diversity statement, which suggests that they also use the term under its normal use.

quote:

---

There are no precedents for courts or attorneys to consult because this is new proposed legislation.

---

Wrong again. "Sexual orientation" has been referenced in loads of laws. As such, if the term covers pedophilia, there ought to be precedent. This current Hate Crimes Act will not change the law to cover pedophiles. It very clearly won't change that at all.

quote:

---

However, the APA is most certainly the group to consult as to whether or not pedophilia is a "Sexual Orientation" and that's exactly what would/will happen when one of these cases gets to a court of law.

---

No, that's not what would happen. What would happen is inspection of the typical definition followed by an inspection of precedence. Both of those will be in agreement and congruence making such a consultation unnecessary. In the unlikely scenario where a member of the APA was consulted, the APA member would then have to speak about the term in relation to law and policies that use the term, which would still keep congruence with common meaning. It's a stretch of the imagination to think otherwise.

quote:

---

Now, where's that argument that the Hate Crimes Bill doesn't violate the "Equal Protection of the Laws" clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

---

It was already sufficiently made. I'm being redundant as it is considering I've made most of these points already.

quote:

---

Or, would you like to rest up for a while before attempting another flight into the bubble world of unreality?

---

posted May 18, 2009 12:55 PM         

However, since you already have your head up your butt, why not open up with some passionate dialog and start a passionate love affair?

The law and the operation of the law are totally against your position.

The American Psychiatric Association refutes your position.

The language of the Hate Crimes Bill is totally against your position.

The legislative intent of the Hate Crimes Bill is established by the legislative history of the Bill and both the history of the bill and it's legislative intent are totally against your position.

posted May 18, 2009 01:27 PM         

quote:

---

The law and the operation of the law are totally against your position.

---

No, they are opposed to your position. There is no confirmation of your position contained ANYWHERE within the bill. You tried showing that there was, and you were wrong. You wrongly defined "sexual orientation" as including pedophilia, which it doesn't in the legal sense. If you wish to prove otherwise, do so, but don't try to change legal definition's for the sake of convenience.

quote:

---

The American Psychiatric Association refutes your position.

---

No, they are in no position to refute my position, and if they did make a statement regarding the legal definition of "sexual orientation" they would back my position.

quote:

---

The language of the Hate Crimes Bill is totally against your position.

---

No it's not. Any legal scholar would back my position on it.

Now, why don't you address the scenario where YOU believe the government is going to take up protecting a pedophile with a state's blessing? Why don't you tell me why an agent of the Attorney General is going to try to define "sexual orientation" in order to "protect" a pedophile? Go ahead genius.

posted May 18, 2009 03:17 PM         

The law, legal procedures, legislative history, legislative intent and the American Psychiatric Association are all against your position and in my corner.

So acoustic, while you're having a passionate dialog with your butt, why not throw in a kiss and call it a love story?

Now, for all those who believe every argument should be given equal consideration and weight:

RESOLVED

posted May 18, 2009 03:37 PM         

Jwhop?

He did define each word, argued this point by point. and stopped the hysteria of another,if this passes, this IS WHAT WILL happen, mindset.

RESOLVED - all cantankerous old farts that want to fight should climb up a sterile blondes butt and fight for air, in hopes of a peacful world. we can call it a NEW WOLRD ORDER.

posted May 18, 2009 03:40 PM         

quote:

---

People who talk out of their butts should simply not expect to be taken seriously.

---

And you wonder why you're never taken seriously.

quote:

---

The law, legal procedures, legislative history, legislative intent and the American Psychiatric Association are all against your position and in my corner.

---

In your dreams.

Listen, in general, you aren't a person who can claim a detached, rational view. You've never shown yourself to be that. So this blathering on about "feelings" and "passion" is nonsense. To take your argument, and use it on my own behalf, you could say I'm merely matching the hateful, contemptible speech being thrown around (you know, your standard excuse for why you are the way you are that you use every time someone makes a big deal of your irrationally authoritative ways). You are certifiably ignorant a good deal of the time. You posted this assinine thread without even considering how illogical the premise sounded from the start. To do such a stupid thing requires a distinct lack of sense.

Now we've seen the one person who could be swayed, and it looks like she's come down on the side of common sense. If your argument were as strong as you want to believe it is, I can't imagine why this would happen.

posted May 18, 2009 03:43 PM         

if there were, i would stand by your side and say, this is horsehit that stinks to heaven. but, it isn't all that.

the other comment? not nice my buddy. i can give it just as good as you and your grumpiness doesn't scare me one dam bit!

posted May 18, 2009 05:45 PM         

Felony 'hate crime' against Christian dropped
Student pushed homosexual who got 'in his face'
Posted: October 22, 2008
11:42 pm Eastern

A Christian college student who was accused of a felony hate crime and faced up to three years in jail after a confrontation with a homosexual who got "in his face" has pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count, and the hate crime has been dropped.

According to a report in the Champaign, Ill., News Gazette, Parkland College student Brett Vanasdlen, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor battery and was sentenced to two years of court supervision.

WND reported when it happened Peter LaBarbera of the activist group Americans for Truth said it appeared it was a confrontation between two students: one hollering at the second, and the second pushing the first away.

According to reports, on April 12 Vanasdlen and a friend saw two homosexuals leaning on each other and holding hands, walking toward them on the sidewalk. Vanasdlen commented on "two guys holding hands."

Then, reports said, one of the "two guys" grabbed Vanasdlen by the shoulder and shouted at him. Brett told him to go away, then pushed him away, the reports said. The homosexual fell to the ground and called police.

Vanasdlen not only was the only one arrested, he was accused of a felony because the alleged victim is homosexual, reports said.

LaBarbera said at the time the circumstances were confirmed by Vanasdlen's mother, Rona Lee, when he talked with her.

He reported she confirmed her son did not initiate physical contact with the other participant in the dispute, 20-year-old homosexual University of Illinois student Steven Velasquez.

"She said Velasquez was yelling at Brett and 'in his face' and that Brett told him twice to get away from him before pushing him away," he said.

The mother told WND at the time she'd been asked by legal counsel not to talk with reporters.

"I just ask for prayers," she said, identifying the state's "hate crimes" as the problem.

"This would never have even been an event if this was another heterosexual male and he had a conflict with, and that's just unfair," she said. "I am a conservative Christian, and my son is. All we are doing is asking for prayers and support from people that may be opposed to this sort of thing happening.

posted May 18, 2009 05:51 PM         

answer, yes, possibly. that also would be considered a hate crime IF it were about his religion. but as in this case, it would be dropped if the facts indicated otherwise.

posted May 18, 2009 06:02 PM         

Click on the link and play the embedded video and see who the haters are. For this, we need hate crimes legislation giving "special protections" under "sexual orientation"?

I think not.

If anything at all, we need "special protection" against those with particular "sexual orientations".

Now, all those wanting to give "special protections" under the new Hate Crimes Bill to Pedophiles...well, you should be sooo proud of yourselves. Because those protections for Pedophiles are there under "sexual orientation" which the APA says includes Pedophiles. Who should know better what should be included under "sexual orientation" than "Behavioral Scientists"...which psychiatrists ARE.

Attack on Californians a 'hate crimes' preview?
Report documents assault on freedoms of speech, religion
Posted: May 15, 2009
8:09 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh

An example of attacks on Christians in California by homosexuals upset over their support for traditional marraige

If you want a preview of America under a federal "hate crimes" plan, just look at the attacks on majority Californians when the Proposition 8 state constitutional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman only was approved in November, according to a coming report from Coral Ridge Ministries.

Robert Knight, a senior writer for the ministry, called the plan that already has been approved by the U.S. House and now is pending in the Senate, "perhaps the greatest challenge to the freedoms of speech, religion and assembly that we've ever seen."

The ministry's May 17 Corral Ridge Hour will report on the growing hostility towards advocates of traditional marriage and how the "hate crime" plan will inspire more abuse from homosexual radicals.

Cited in the report is an incident immediately following the 2008 election, in which a majority of Californians chose to define in their state constitution marriage as being between a man and a woman only.

An angry mob of homosexual activists in Southern California attacked an elderly bespectacled woman carrying a cross, then shouted her down as she tried to explain during a television interview her defense of the state's new marriage amendment.

"WE SHOULD FIGHT! WE SHOULD FIGHT!" screams one protester as the woman, identified as Phyllis Burgess, stands calmly with a reporter waiting to be interviewed.

A video of the attack is linked here and has been embedded below:

A cross Burgess was carrying was knocked from her hands, then stomped on the ground. Even the reporter was baffled by the aggressive protesters.

"She just wants to express her viewpoint, sir," she tells a protester who was waving his arms in her face.

The Coral Ridge report also cites the vicious and obscene attacks on Miss California, Carrie Prejean, who was asked by a homosexual activist judge during the national competition for her personal views on marriage. She responded with an acknowledgement of America's freedom to choose, then said her own belief was that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The response was a series of vicious name-calling attacks on her.

That attitude, Knight said, will be emboldened under a "hate crime" law.

Homosexual activist Perez Hilton calling Miss California an obscene name

"Seeing is believing. Perez Hilton berating Miss California is worth a thousand words," Knight said. "[You can] see what the guy is all about and what the gay movement will be like if they triumph. It should send a shiver down every spine in America."

Gary Cass, president of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, joins Knight on the program. He cites other instances of vandalism on churches, physical attacks on Christians, even a senior citizen being punched in the face because her yard held a "Yes on 8" sign.

Also featured will be "The War Against Christianity," a sermon by the late D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge founder.

More than 4,000 people already have sent 400,000-plus letters to the Senate expressing their concerns over the "Hate Crimes" plan, and the program has been extended indefinitely while the Senate has the plan pending.

A hearing on the pending "hate crimes" plan, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, already approved by the U.S. House as H.R. 1913 and pending in the Senate as S. 909, is expected in the Senate Judiciary Committee soon. It's been described by Shawn D. Akers, policy analyst with Liberty Counsel, as a bill to create penalties against "victims" who were chosen based on an "actual or perceived ... sexual orientation, gender identity."

Many have dubbed it the "Pedophile Protection Act," and Reps. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, and Steve King, R-Iowa, have explained how they tried to have majority Democrats in Congress define "sexual orientation" in the bill – and were refused.

They also tried to add an amendment that would state that pedophiles were not, in fact, protected under the law, and Democrats again voted to reject that idea.

King explained it's part of a national effort by homosexual activists not to just have the freedom to choose their lifestyle, but to be able to demand approval and likewise condemn those who don't agree with homosexual behavior.

First, he said, comes the so-called "hate crimes" law. Then will come the employment non-discrimination concept that says "thou shalt hire people of these proclivities." Finally, there would come the imposition of nation-wide same-sex marriage combined with speech limits banning any criticism of it, restrictions that already are in place in Canada.

Gohmert pointed out that Christians and their pastors need especially to be worried because of the bull's-eye being painted on them by homosexuals.

He said while the "hate crimes" bill says its provisions shouldn't be used against religious statements, there's an important word that follows that provision: "Unless."

That's unless "the evidence relates to that offense," he said.

posted May 18, 2009 06:13 PM         

Are you sure about that? Let's consult Randall on that.

acoustic hasn't argued any valid points. His points don't line up with the language of the bill, don't line up with court procedures, don't line up with the law, don't line up with the legislative history of the bill, don't line up with the legislative intent of the bill and don't line up with the Behavioral Scientists at the American Psychiatry Association. All are lined up against acoustic who is talking through his butt.

One of his sources..Politfact went running to homosexual activists to get their opinion which they palmed off as authoritative.

The other...fact check never bothered to talk to the APA or do so much as a simple search or they would have found the APA says pedophilia IS A SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

posted May 18, 2009 06:39 PM         

i personally think no victims need to be treated with any less concern than any other victim. all which are protected by the law in the first place. I agree that as far as hate crimes go, since we are treating this as special and worse crimes, that hate crimes against christians should be the next bill through. ok. trust me i full well know there is not much tolerence for christians in the mainstream america.

that little jerk face who was in that kids face should not have special protection, i agree. a lot of things get out of hand. interpretation of the bills designed to protect complicates everybody's life and makes attorneys rich. this i agree on.

what i dont agree on is definition of sexual orientation, which has been proved not to include pedophiles. other than that one little thing, which is the whole point here, i was in your corner.

posted May 18, 2009 06:45 PM         

But wait, gays and lesbians believe they're covered in the Hate Crimes Bill. Why do they believe that Cpn?

Do you believe gays and lesbians are covered by this Hate Crimes Bill? If you do, why do you?

posted May 18, 2009 07:00 PM         

The text of the law doesn't support your position at all, so how you can say it doesn't support my position in untenable. I'd love to watch you squirm as you try proving that one.

Regarding how justice is defined and pursued, I've given a more accurate account than you. You make up fairy tale scenarios where psychiatrists are brought in to provide new legal definitions to terms already widely in use. Psychiatrists DON'T define legal terms. Judges and juries do. Judges and lawyers seek common definition and precedence. Show me that they don't. Go for it.

Legislative intent on a Bill that follows previous Hate Crime legislation builds on the former; the former of which DOES specifically exclude pedophilia (though the clarification wasn't necessary even in that scenario as the term already had a common legal definition). Show me where Attorneys and Judges look to what Congress excludes when deciding legislative intent. I bet you can't.

Politifact and factcheck.org were both right on this issue, and no amount of trying to disparage them is going to reverse that. Factcheck.org DID research the document Republicans sourced in their original argument, and found that the Conservatives lied.

quote:

---

So much for acoustics "facts".

---

Hmmm...you think what you wrote constitutes a cohesive argument? Really? Even though virtually everything is against you? An APA paper on pedophilia, which doesn't speak one word as to the legal definition of "sexual orientation," doesn't make for an argument. It doesn't save your perspective in any way, because you have to realize that in order for a psychiatrist's opinion to have the effect of changing a legal definition that the psychiatrist has to be brought into court, he or she has to say what you want to hear, and judge and jury have to concur with the assessment. What bizarro world are you dreaming of where that's going to happen? To further compound things, for this to happen under this Bill, the government has to be the one seeking a new definition of the term. This is all logical procession, Jwhop. What fantasy world are you in where you think the government is going to seek out Hate Crimes on pedophiles, and in the process seek to broaden the legal definition of "sexual orientation" to include pedophiles?

It would be nice if you'd also explained to me why you think a judge is going to let a case like this be heard in the first place. There's a good chance the case wouldn't even get to the point of trying to redefine "sexual orientation". It would get thrown out before it ever gained steam.

I can't fathom anyone even supposing your position is true. It's completely illogical.