No, you're just a bigot. I am uncomfortable with this move towards making select crimes "hate" crimes. But that doesn't make you any less of a bigot.Anonymous wrote:Like many Americans, I believe that gay sex is deviant, disgusting and immoral. I think gay "marriange" goes against many thousands of years of human social interaction and is ridiculous. My religion teaches that homosexual acts are a sin. I hate the sin, but don't hate the sinner.
Have I committed a hate crime when I express my view?
Anonymous wrote:I think you have to consider how lots of Indian males are raised. They are the apple of their parents’ eye -- I know all kids are -- but many Indian boys are raised believing that they are so super special that they can do no wrong. It breeds an arrogance that leads many to believe they can say or do anything to anyone and get away with it because they are so smart and so special and the other person is nothing because they are unattractive, poor, whatever; I mean even his HS ‘friends’ came out in the New Yorker article saying that he acted like a d!ck most of the time. In terms of strictness at home -- there is strictness about being smart, picking a good profession, being a good student (which he wasn’t with a 2.8 HS gpa according to one article) but there is far less emphasis on being a good human. The values that are ordinarily taught -- such as respect others even if you don’t like their lifestyles/choices, respect everyone regardless of if they’re richer or poorer etc. -- tend to get lost when the parents are constantly validating their sons, ignoring behavior and treatment of others and only harping on academic issues. Being the oldest son and it seems the oldest kid in the extended family/friends circle who had every tech toy he wanted, drove himself to school in a Mercedes etc., I have to imagine that his upbringing played a huge role here. In terms of taking a plea, regardless of deportation issues, I have to imagine he and his family didn’t consider it even with assurances that he’d have state protection against deportation proceedings because they couldn’t conceive that anyone could find him guilty -- ignoring the fact that there is huge sensitivity to issues that indicate even the slightest amount of bullying.
Anonymous wrote:I think you have to consider how lots of Indian males are raised. They are the apple of their parents’ eye -- I know all kids are -- but many Indian boys are raised believing that they are so super special that they can do no wrong. It breeds an arrogance that leads many to believe they can say or do anything to anyone and get away with it because they are so smart and so special and the other person is nothing because they are unattractive, poor, whatever; I mean even his HS ‘friends’ came out in the New Yorker article saying that he acted like a d!ck most of the time. In terms of strictness at home -- there is strictness about being smart, picking a good profession, being a good student (which he wasn’t with a 2.8 HS gpa according to one article) but there is far less emphasis on being a good human. The values that are ordinarily taught -- such as respect others even if you don’t like their lifestyles/choices, respect everyone regardless of if they’re richer or poorer etc. -- tend to get lost when the parents are constantly validating their sons, ignoring behavior and treatment of others and only harping on academic issues. Being the oldest son and it seems the oldest kid in the extended family/friends circle who had every tech toy he wanted, drove himself to school in a Mercedes etc., I have to imagine that his upbringing played a huge role here. In terms of taking a plea, regardless of deportation issues, I have to imagine he and his family didn’t consider it even with assurances that he’d have state protection against deportation proceedings because they couldn’t conceive that anyone could find him guilty -- ignoring the fact that there is huge sensitivity to issues that indicate even the slightest amount of bullying.
Anonymous wrote:One thing to consider, if Ravi had taped him with a woman, Tyler might have felt more power in dealing with Ravi. He would have been able to cuss Ravi out publicly for the intrusion, calling him a peeping tom pervert, which many people could relate to and hence ostracize Ravi. But because Tyler was gay, he did not feel comfortable confronting Ravi since it would have further exposed Tyler's lifestyle. So in a way, Ravi had Tyler cornered, because of the homosexuality. This is where it is unfair.
Anonymous wrote:Why didn't he go to the older BF's place to have sex? Didn't the older BF feel weird going to an 18 yo's college dorm room to do it?
Anonymous wrote:Like many Americans, I believe that gay sex is deviant, disgusting and immoral. I think gay "marriange" goes against many thousands of years of human social interaction and is ridiculous. My religion teaches that homosexual acts are a sin. I hate the sin, but don't hate the sinner.
Have I committed a hate crime when I express my view?