Homophobia: 5 charged with calling for execution of gays

[spindrift]

The judge ruled she should get an extra year due to the homophobic nature of the attack - thus she got 7 years instead of 6

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/26/ruby-thomas-sentenced-fatal-homophobic-attack

 

 

 

Homophobes are like racists, there's no reasoning with ignorant hatred of people based on what they are rather than who they are.

[Glamrocker]

Come back Ian Dury we need your advice

[Rupert_Baehr]

Murder wasn't the charge. You can knock someone to the ground then kick them in the head and successfully reason you didn't mean to kill them. No murder.

 

That's irrelevant. - But if you were to knock somebody down, kick that person in the head and the person subsequently died, the prosecutors would not be obliged to prove an intent to kill to obtain a conviction on a charge of murder.

 

If the prosecutors could prove that when you kicked the person in the head you intended to cause him grievous bodily harm, that would be sufficient mens rea to support a charge of murder.

 

It's difficult to imagine how one person could knock another to the ground, kick him in the head and not intend to harm him.

 

Do you not read your own posts?

 

You wrote: "screaming homophobic abuse and then killing a man means you will get a harsher sentence because the offence is exacerbated by the homophobic element."

 

Note your own use of the word 'killing'. if you scream abuse at somebody and then kill that person the charge is murder and on conviction, the penalty is life imprisonment.

 

If you didn't say a thing but killed a person in the same manner, the charge would still be murder and on conviction the penalty is life imprisonment.

 

There is only one penalty at law for murder. That penalty is life imprisonment.

[spindrift]

 

Note your own use of the word 'killing'. if you scream abuse at somebody and then kill that person the charge is murder and on conviction, the penalty is life imprisonment.

.

 

 

Not always, and not in the case I am talking about, the charge was NOT murder.

[mj.scuba]

Not always, and not in the case I am talking about, the charge was NOT murder.

 

Yet YOU have on occasion have referred to a person convicted of the offence of Careless Driving relating to an incident in which a cyclist was killed as a 'murderer', even though he was not convicted of murder. You seem to change your stance to argue whatever point at the time.

[spindrift]

Yet YOU have on occasion have referred to a person convicted of the offence of Careless Driving relating to an incident in which a cyclist was killed as a 'murderer', even though he was not convicted of murder. You seem to change your stance to argue whatever point at the time.

 

No, I've never said that.

[plekhanov]

No, I've never said that.

Sounds kind of like you did:

 

"There's a chap in Essex who is now paralysed after being pushed from his bike by yobs in a car. There was the van driver who murdered a cyclist by ramming him, and Catriona Patel was killed in London by a drunk driver on a mobile phone. People in cars saying "I will kill you" to vulnerable road users ought to be at the very least questioned so they know how seriously behaving like a thug is treated by the law.

 

 

If a man wielding a chainsaw said "I will kill you" would you report it?

 

Same with a car."

 

Was the van driver in question convicted of murder?

[spindrift]

Sounds kind of like you did:

 

"There's a chap in Essex who is now paralysed after being pushed from his bike by yobs in a car. There was the van driver who murdered a cyclist by ramming him, and Catriona Patel was killed in London by a drunk driver on a mobile phone. People in cars saying "I will kill you" to vulnerable road users ought to be at the very least questioned so they know how seriously behaving like a thug is treated by the law.

 

 

If a man wielding a chainsaw said "I will kill you" would you report it?

 

Same with a car."

 

Was the van driver in question convicted of murder?

 

That would be an impressive quote if it proved anything like what was claimed I had said. If I had called the driver a murderer it would have been a great post. Since I didn't, it's not proof of anything more than I remember my posts better than you do.

[Wildcat]

"Cannot be homosexuality"! It explicitly states "ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women" that cannot be anything other than homosexuality.

 

Lot may well have condemned other behaviours as well including bestiality but that doesn't magically change the fact that homosexuality is explicitly mentioned and condemned.

 

 

with lust you approach men instead of women just as with the other translations yours specifically mentions homosexuality.

 

 

This really is pathetic the condemnation is because the lust is directed at "men instead of women"

 

As for your backtracked claim that the reference to homosexuality is "not significant". It's mentioned on 4 separate occasions all referring to a single incident, if it "particularly significant" then why is the "men in preference to women" thing mention time after time?

 

 

It may well have been, which rather begs the question; Why was repeated reference made to homosexuality other than to specifically condemn homosexuality?

 

4 references and none of them mention a penalty... each reference to the Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah story where the topic under discussion is two Angels visiting Sodom to decide whether to destroy it or not. Condemnation of the behaviour of lusting after Angels homosexually is not really a strong basis to extend the analogy any further. Especially not when there are no other mentions and Islamic history is littered with homosexuality.

 

Yet another blatant lie, which rather like the one you made about Jimmy's verse not mentioning homosexuality.

 

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

 

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

2 rules out of the 600 rules of varying degrees of nuttiness, like the one about killing your child if it curses the parent.... Even those passages are debatable. There is good reason to believe from the Hebrew word used and context the correct translation is a reference to ritual sex.

 

It is also a Ritual Manual for priests in a particular time and place, so the instructions could be specifically related to their behaviour, they certainly aren't very relevant to today. The major Christian groups don't see Leviticus as binding today anyway.

 

Rom.1:26-27

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

I Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

 

Now maybe homosexuality isn't condemned in your PC bible with, which no doubt also condemns slavery, but in the bible which people actually read and use homosexuality is repeatedly condemned. Just as it is in the similarly despicable Koran.

 

Rowan Williams says this about Rom.1:26-27

 

"Many current ways of reading miss the actual direction of the passage. Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding. [These lines are] for the majority of modern readers the most important single text in Scripture on the subject of homosexuality."

 

However, right after that passage, Paul warns readers not to condemn others:

 

Romans 2:1: "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things." (King James Version)

 

Or as Williams rendered the passage:

 

"At whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself."

 

C. Ann Shepherd sees it slightly differently: "When the scripture is understood correctly, it seems to imply that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals."

 

As for Corinthian's the translation you have used doesn't even mention homosexuals. In translations where it does appear the point to make is that Paul used the word arsenokoitai.... who's meaning is lost to us... it could mean anything. It is unlikely to mean homosexual because there is a common greek word he could of used but he didn't.

[Mutts Nutts]

That would be an impressive quote if it proved anything like what was claimed I had said. If I had called the driver a murderer it would have been a great post. Since I didn't, it's not proof of anything more than I remember my posts better than you do.

 

I’ve read through the posts for this thread throughout the evening. There have been some very intense points of view. It’s intriguing how people’s opinions can be either interpreted or, indeed, misinterpreted.

I’ve read many posts on different topics too, so that I can get a feel for the type of character behind them. The cut and thrust of the sharp witted pitting their knowledge and debating skill against the lesser talented, but nevertheless, valued opinions of the not so talented.

Call me old fashioned, I know, I know, but one fact seems to leap out from the screen as I read it.

A particular aspect of all the to and fro of debate seems to point to the unmistakeable fact that you seem to wish to aspire to the definition of the word silly...