Hermann, you keep referring to Gwen (Mr. Araujo) as a male homosexual, even after all of the efforts of different posters to educate you otherwise. Did you read any of the links that were offered? That sort of mistake is excusable at first, but not after there has been ample opportunity to correct it. I find your repeated use of the terminology extremely offensive.
Specifically, you still challenge the label of “transgendered youth.” The word “transgendered” has a definition, and it is clear you do not know it. I’ll again defer to Merriam-Webster’s, one of the most definitive sources for english language definitions. They define transgendered as :
“exhibiting the appearance and behavioral characteristics of the opposite sex”
which describes Gewn perfectly.
I hope beyond hope that you will afirm my faith in the intellectual capaciities of human beings by recognizing your error and correcting it.
I don’t see why a transgendered individual can’t also be considered a homosexual. Yes, he appears and behaves like a female, but he is also attracted to males. The way I see it, you can be transgendered and homosexual.
And the M-W definition of “transgendered” also makes it very obvious that Mr. Araujo was a MALE, though many people have been calling him a female.
Let me get this straight one last time. These guys willingly stuck their dicks in someone’s anus, questions unasked, presumably getting off spectacularly. I’m supposed to feel at all sorry for them because they found out that the asshole in question had another penis lurking nearby that they didn’t know about?
It is excrutiatingly frustrating for me (and many other posters) to have to restate certain facts over and over again.
Splanky, we are on the 3rd page of this thread. Are you still unable to understand the difference between sex and gender? When most of the posters refer to Gwen as a female, they are referencing her gender. Most people chose to describe a person by their gender because it is a more useful concept when considering social behaviour.
I’m too frustrated at this point to explain why you should not refer to Gwen as a homosexual. There are many reasons, and I will explain them if pressed. However, is it not enough that Gwen, nor the GLBT community, would have considered herself a homosexual?
Well, given that you say your OP was trying to point out problems with the way the article was written, it might be worth pointing out to you that the reason so many people in this thread have criticized you is the way your OP was written. While you see some sort of “liberal” bias or prejudice in the article, the wording of your OP is just as open to a critique of homophobic prejudice.
Well, i’m not a big fan of hate crime statutes either (as i made clear in an earlier post), but given that they exist, they can be used. You keep asserting that this crime should not fall under the hate crime statue, yet provide no citations regarding the application of hate crime charges in California, nor do you make any attempt to provide factual information regarding the burden of proof that rests on the prosecution in such cases. You say that offenders should only be charged under hate crime statutes “if it can be proved that they acted out of a mere hatred of Mr. Araujo’s homosexuality,” yet you provide no evidence that this is the legal requirement for making the charge.
And a quick perusal of California Penal Code, Section 422.75 suggests that the hate crime charge in this case falls well within the scope of the statute:
Note the bolded text. Even if homophobia wasn’t the only motive, a hate crime can still be charged as long as homophobia was “a substantial factor,” and the story we have so far seems to indicate that the DA can make a good case for this.
Also, your position is that killing someone out of anger at deception is sufficient cause for avoiding a hate crime charge, but you fail to take account of the fact that the anger someone feels at being deceived in this way may well be proportional to the amount of hate that the person feels for the deceiver. And that hate, in this case, appears to have resulted largely from the fact that the victim was (in your opinion, and the defendants’) a gay male and not a straight female. The words and actions of Merel, described by Nabors to police in the article you linked to in your last post, indicate that homophobia is an important aspect in this case:
Sure, Merel might have been deceived into having sex with someone that he would not otherwise have considered as a sexual partner, but you (and others who are making the same argument) have consistently failed to show how this sort of deception is any different from a married man tricking a woman into sleeping with him by saying that he is single, as nearly happened to cjhoworth. The fact is, verbal trickery does not constitute rape, as far as i’m aware. Also, you provide a quotation regarding the sex that Merel and Magidson had with Araujo:
This indicates that the two accused performed anal sex on Araujo, and suggests that they hardly had to be forced to do this.
So I don’t believe that Hermann Cheruscan is “really” a male, since I’ve never seen her penis (thank God!). And I think she is failing to grasp the difference between what she presents herself to be on this board and what she really is. And that Splanky chick is doing the same thing. Neither of these women seem incapable of reading the English language, but both seem to be hung up on the presence or absence of a penis rather than the psychology of the individual in question.
Ladies, if that previous paragraph has pissed both you girls off enough, you may begin to get a handle on what the rest of us are trying to tell you about what’s mistaken in your conceptions of Ms. Gwen Araujo as a male homosexual.
Sorry you don’t buy it, Mothchunks, but facts are facts. It would be a good idea, I think, for you and Mr/Ms Cheruscan to accept that the law and society don’t agree with you. And to think about that if you ever happen to find yourselves “surprised” as those four men were.
If someone deceived me and took advantage of me like that, I would feel justified fighting them, and since it’s a man I’d have no trouble throwing the first punch. I wouldn’t beat someone who refused to fight back, though, nor would I have friends help. I have nothing against homosexuals, just sick fucks who will deceive someone to sexually manipulate them.
So, judging from the extent of the crimes - yes, probably would be classified as a ‘hate crime’. If the guy who got beat only suffered from a punch in the mouth, I’d feel bad about the puncher getting assault charges.
You’re gonna have to define “homosexual sex” for me here, Hermann. Anal sex is simply NOT a strictly homosexual thing.
Sounds to me like they had some sort of sexual contact with Araujo, and found out later that Araujo was still genetically male, but presenting as female.
And IMHO, that makes it a hate crime. They hated Araujo because even though they’d had sexual contact, “he” was genetically male, and they could not tolerate the thought of male/male sexual contact. I can understand being angry at deception, but that simply does not excuse the violence.
Oh, and if indeed they became suspicious after comparing stories but before the murder, well…that smacks of premeditation to me. IANAL, though, so if there’s a lawyer out there who wishes to address that, I’d appreciate it.
What I don’t understand is how it could possibly make any difference anyway. Even if we all gave up (which we won’t) and said, OK, Araujo was a male homosexual, what does that change? how does that mitigate, in any way, against the crime? Are we supposed to just say, “Oh, he was a HOMO, well that changes everything, those poor kids had no choice but to beat him to death with a shovel?”
What if a couple of guys in a gay club somewhere stuck their dicks thrugh a glory hole (are there still glory holes? I hope I’m not perpetuating some naive and idiotic stereotype. please let me know if I am) expecting to get sucked off by a dude, and they do get sucked off, but they later find out it was a 17 year old girl doing the sucking. Is it accurate in anyway to say that the two gay men have been “raped?” Would they be at all justified in beating the girl to a pulp with a shovel? Would the girl have any cupability in bringing her own murder down on herself?
The guys in the OP committed a brutal murder purely out of homophobic rage. I think it’s a hate crime, but I don’t really care that much how we able it as long as these guys never draw a free breath again.
Well, i’ve been hanging out in GD for the last week, after a bit of an absence, during which i mainly spent my time having fun in the Pit, Cafe Society, etc.
And now i remember why i left GD in the first place.
I’ve posted more than one long post in this thread, going over people’s arguments one by one and attempting to refute them in a logical and civil manner.
My last post contained direct citations from the California Penal Code that called into question, perhaps even refuted, the assertions made by Hermann, Splanky, Tristan, etc. that this did not qualify as a hate crime.
I also cited the CA Penal Code to show that, if Nabors’ testimony is true, even before the murder Merel and Magidson were guilty of the statutory rape of Araujo, and not the other way around as suggested by Hermann.
And what have i seen in reply? Nada. Not one of these people has even acknowledged any of my posts, let alone attempted to refute my arguments.
I know i sound like a whiner here - and maybe i am - but i see no point in participating in GD if those you’re debating can’t even be bothered to read and understand and respond to direct challenges to their position.
