Dobson: Hate crimes bill could protect exhibitionism, fetishism, incest, necrophilia, pedophilia, prostitution, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, urophilia, voyeurism, bestiality
May 15, 2009 10:28 am ET
Previously: O'Reilly smears hate crimes bill with false claim that pedophiles could be protected
More on Dobson's radio program from People For the American Way.
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
Even if Dobson's hysteria proves to be true, exactly from what does it "protect" all these deviants? What does Dobson want to do to these people that he won't be able to do under the new law?
It's already against the law to murder any of these people, or to assault them (except in defense of self or someone else); all this would do is give the Federal Government the option to press charges in case a local jury of gap-toothed morons acquits Bubba for caving in the skull of a Gay man that looked at him funny.
It must be.
exactly from what does it "protect" all these deviants?
It doesn't "protect" anyone. We all know that's just nonsense that the RW and their religious funny-mentalists like to spew. All it CAN POSSIBLY do is punnish a CRIME (assult, murder, rape, vandalism) more harshly if the perpetrator is doign it for the purpose of intimidating an entire group, in addition to victimizing a single person. There no "thought police" stuff going on, no "gag rules"... That's all utter nonsense. I can't understand how ANYONE could be agianst this legislation. (Well... except scumbags like Dobson.)
It does nothing to PROMOTE the activities he mentions, it does not offer LEGAL PROTECTION to them (or to anyone else) - inded several are, and will remain, punnishibale crime. It just more funny-mentalist shullbit. Dobson, Donohue and Roberston are basically the un-holy trinity of lies and superstitious nonsense.
On what do you base this nonsense? Where was this said? Where are assaults and murders going unpunished due to "bigoted local sheriffs?"
Yes, you're right, nerzog. Dobson wants to cave in a gay man's skull. That's his whole point. /eyeroll
What don't you understand about the negative implications for you and yours of criminalizing thought? Hate is a feeling. A feeling is the most primitive form of thought. We don't criminalize thoughts in this country, nerzog; at least we didn't used to. We criminalize actions. This legislation is nothing less than a de facto repeal of the First Amendment.
No one was ever more or less assaulted, more or less dead, because of the motivation of their assailant. Turns out you're just as dead if I kill you for being gay as if I do it because I was bored.
fightinwords.podomatic.com
In other news, I don't see the problem with protecting sexual masochism or sadism. As long as it's between two consenting adults, how does that impact you? I always want to ask these morality police-types, why does it matter to you what my wife and I are doing in our bedroom? We're both of age. Are you worried we're having more fun than you are or something?
I used to listen to Dobson on the radio for amusement, and he believes that pornography is a progressive addiction. He insists that if you look at a Playboy too many times, you'll get caught in a downward spiral of more and more degenerate material until you turn into Ted Bundy. In fact, I think he's the one who interviewed Ted Bundy in the death house, and he let Teddy blame pornography for his crimes.
This is nonsense, of course, but it fit right in with Dobson's sexually repressed world view.
The only argument the right-wingnuts have is the slippery slope, and that argument is fallacious.
(And fellacious isn't a hate drime, either...)
There's also no sensible way that the hate crimes bill could "protect" these things. Protect them from who? How? Are these things even stances that require protection?
I have never heard of a case of urophiliac-bashing. But if there were somebody who specifically targetted people into that particular fetish, and terrorized them ... then I guess the law could be "protecting" them. But what's worse? Liking to pee on people, or hating and terrorizing people who like to pee on people?
As you've pointed out, most of these are victimless fetishes, as long as it occurs among consenting adults. I think its safe to say that pedophilia and necrophilia are already crimes in all 50 States, and that won't change, so I don't see what his beef is.
Personally, I think Troglodyte wags like Dobson are voyeurs at heart, and pretend to do "research" on this topic so they have an excuse to look at it.
But it would also not protect those who preach hate in the name of their lord and risen savior, like this lowlife Dobson.
This guy sounds like a closet pedophile.
Truths and Assumptions
Before we launch into the four stages of childhood sexual development, I'd like to list some basic truths and assumptions that will apply not only to your children's lives but to yours.
* No one wants a bad marriage or divorce.
* Research has shown greater sexual satisfaction within monogamous marriages.
* Cohabitation increases the likelihood of divorce.
* Sex is designed to bond a man and woman in physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual ways.
* Sex outside of marriage is robbery (The Bible teaches that Christians don't own themselves therefore can't give themselves away sexually).
* Sex within marriage is restorative.
* Sex addiction is a preventable, developmental disorder (as is homosexuality, which is not necessarily a sex addiction).
* There is a dynamic, God-placed link between sexuality and spirituality.
* When raising our children, we must begin with the end in mind.
This new list will include:
- Conservative Christians, particularly those of traditionalist beliefs.
- White males.
- People of Confederate States heritage and the display of symbols of that heritage.
- Heterosexuals.
- Virgins and others who wish to practice or advocate sexual abstinence.
- Private property owners as they have experienced a long history of discriminatory taxation and infringement on their personal property.
- Persons who earn more than $200,000 per year, (for the same reasons as above.)
Give me time and I'll think of some more. And from then on, be prepared to face prosecution or the denial of access to publicly supported services because we don't plan to tolerate any bigots around here.
Who criticizes heterosexuals for being heterosexual, or people who practice sexual abstinence, for instance? I genuinely do not think I've seen either of those things occur. I've seen people criticized for being homophobic, or saying that abstinence is the only sex education/safe sex measure that should be available for everyone, but that's clearly not the same thing.
Or would it just be that anyone who is on that list can't be criticized for anything? So you couldn't say anything negative about Barney Frank, for instance, since he's a white male?
Can you please refer us to the section of the proposed legislation that punishes speech, writing or the use of graphic images?
I can't seem to find it.