No, that isn’t the ORIGINAL intent. Remember, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve and Gretchen and Bambi and Matilda and….

Of course, clearly, God’s original intention was incest, cause, c’mon, where else were the grandchildren going to come from, and leaves completely aside the entire question of who actually did make Steve, but those are different issues.

(Though Steve would kinda like to know.)

Hate crimes laws enhance punishments based on the perp’s actions toward her/his victim - and are *not* based on the victim’s identity.

As further evidence that the important factor is the PERP’S actions, it’s still a hate crime even if they do it just because thay THINK the victim is gay even if s/he really isn’t.

Actually, the more Koolaid you drink, the more difficult it gets…

Um, no.

‘Cuz folks can *be* LGBT without actually ever having a sexual partner.

And, um, no, not “preferred status.”

Hate crimes laws enhance punishments based on the perp’s actions toward her/his victim - and are *not* based on the victim’s identity.

Really, not a difficult concept to grasp.

Again, umm …. that would be where we are all scampering around nekkid in the Garden avoiding selected fruit trees, right?

Moron.

Ummm… then they wouldn’t keep the preferred status and ummm… you wouldn’t hate them anymore?

Why is it that these people can’t even get things right by their own twisted logic?

It’s bad enough when their arguments are wrong based on either bad premises or poor conclusions, but when they can’t even hold it together for a paragraph at a time, it is just staggering to me that they don’t get laughed out of town.

This one is right up there with “we’ve never given Constitutional protection to something that is a choice, unlike race, gender, or religion.”

Never mind the inaccuracy about the preferred status, but why is it that I doubt this clown objects to prosecuting anti-Christian hate crimes (rare), simply because people could choose another (or no) religion the next day.