Sunday, November 07, 2004
GBLT and pro-homosexual denial about how violent they are - discussion
Discussion on Political Animal Blog
Alessandra
Education indeed!
The "Gay Marriage" debate involves a lot more issues than marriage. America is waking up to how diseased the homo agenda is, which uses a marriage banner to try to legitimize every form of dysfunctional and violent sexual attitude and behavior. from The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association :
["Domestic violence is a hugely ignored health issue in the LGBT communities, affecting one in three LGBT relationships," said Susan Holt, an expert on LGBT domestic violence prevention.]
GBLTs are quite diseased and violent, and the above just speaks about internal violence, doesn´t even mention violence to other people.
Now who is more diseased, the GBLTs or their supporters who are fanatically blind to the above?
How much do you need to lie to yourself about how dysfunctional homosexuals are in order to ignore such a serious issue? 1 in 3? that is a lot of violence and homo supporters have a very bigotted mind not to face it. Why don´t these violent GLBT´s appear on Will and Grace, BTW?
Maybe because just shouting Hate everytime someone opposes homosexuality is a sign of a very small mind.
Young people support homosexuality because they are too ignorant and too alienated on issues of violence to know any better. It´s the stupid MTV mindset, all fun, all ignorant 24-7. When they start growing up and becoming more informed and responsible, they realize there is more to homo life than Queer Eye fluff. And it stinks.
Alessandrab
Posted by: Alessandra on November 5, 2004 at 7:00 AM | PERMALINK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Alessandra swoops in to prove my point and perfectly.
Alessandra, you quote one study about violence among gays and from there you extrapolate to "GBLTs are quite diseased and violent."
A few questions for you:
>How do you justify moving from violence between 1 in 3 gay relationships to "GBLTs are quite diseased and violent" - I assume you mean "all GBLTS"
>Have you read other literature to see whether this statistic is even accurate?
>How do you reason that because some gays are violent that homosexuality is the problem?
>Do you consider all men "diseased and violent" since most rapes and murders are comitted by them?
>Can you prove that the level of violence among gay couples is really any higher than among straight couples?
>Do you know any gays people?
>How many of them are involved in this lifestyle of violence?
>Will you read this article from the Advocate about violence in gay relationships: http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/799/799_bruises.asp
>Would you note that the Advocate is a gay publication, which would seem to indicate that the gay community is concerned about the existence of violence in some of their relationships?
>Will you especially consider this statistic from the article: "Although little research has been done on domestic violence among gays and lesbians, most experts agree that the level equals that among heterosexuals, with anywhere from 25% to 33% of couples experiencing some form of abuse."
Thanks for honestly considering and evaluating all of this information.
Posted by: Robert S. on November 5, 2004 at 7:42 AM | PERMALINK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>How do you justify moving from violence between 1 in 3 gay relationships to "GBLTs are quite diseased and violent" - I assume you mean "all GBLTS"
======================
Robert S. - actually you prove my point. How do assume that I say 1 in 3 equals 3 in 3? Your blind bigotry, that´s why. 1 in 3 is 1 in 3. GLBTs are quite diseased and violent because any group that has 1 in 3 violent relationships is quite diseased and violent. 1 in 3 does not mean all, it means a huge number, it´s not 1 in 5 million. You´re too fanatical to face issues of violence with homos. So everytime someone brings up the issue, you attack them with your blind bigotry and cowardice, instead of facing this stinking reality.
Posted by: Alessandra on November 5, 2004 at 7:51 AM | PERMALINK
I note that you've answered none of the questions above, Alessandra. That would seem to indicate that you're not willing to take an honest look at your opinions, and that you're unwilling to engage in true dialog.
Additionally, where in the above post did I attack you with "blind bigotry and cowardice"?
I'd like to see you enagage your own courage and answer the questions I've asked. Then you might have some claim to intellectual honesty.
Cheers.
Posted by: Robert S. on November 5, 2004 at 7:58 AM | PERMALINK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
from The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association :
["Domestic violence is a hugely ignored health issue in the LGBT communities, affecting one in three LGBT relationships," said Susan Holt, an expert on LGBT domestic violence prevention.]
>Have you read other literature to see whether this statistic is even accurate?
The literature I have read regarding partnership violence (in all of society) indicates that estimates of violence are usually under-represented and under-reported, because of reasons known to anyone who studies the issue of reporting violence.
It seems you are desperate not to face violence between homos and from homos towards others. Maybe the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association is a right-wing religious fanatical group, which puts out outlandish stats ? Is that what you are dying to believe? Actually you fit the profile in the study, you are who they describe as the people dying to ignore this issue.
I am sure you can dig up disingenuous studies that say homos never commit any violence anywhere, and you could go to bed less anxious after having lied to yourself completely.
Posted by: Alessandra on November 5, 2004 at 8:01 AM | PERMALINK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I note that you've answered none of the questions above, Alessandra. That would seem to indicate that you're not willing to take an honest look at your opinions, and that you're unwilling to engage in true dialog.
================
No, it seems to indicate that I prefer to answer an answer per comment. It seems to indicate that you are dying to tarnish me in ways which aren´t true.
And it seems to indicate you don´t do anything but bum around a computer all day long. Other people like myself have more to do with your time.
People who are dying to ignore violence in society don´t know the meaning of the word honesty, btw.
Posted by: Alessandra on November 5, 2004 at 8:08 AM | PERMALINK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>How do you reason that because some gays are violent that homosexuality is the problem?
==================
My post refers to how high the level of violence is among GLBTs, and this only points to the fact that there is even more violence that is perpetrated by GLBTs to others. People like you do a disservice to society by being such cowards in facing this problem.
It´s not "some gays are violent", the problem is **many** gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and trans are violent, diseased, criminal, disrespectful, sleazy. Many GLBTs have a profoundly diseased, violent sexual and emotional mindset or we wouldn´t have 1 in 3 violent relationships. Many more have a reasonably sleazy and disrespectful sexual and psychological mindset. The point is how dysfunctional and lacking in respect so many of GBLTs are.
Thanks to your cowardice and irresponsibility facing this reality, the problem is only growing worse.
Posted by: Alessandra on November 5, 2004 at 8:21 AM | PERMALINK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Do you consider all men "diseased and violent" since most rapes and murders are comitted by them?
=======================
No, I don´t. But I consider the ones who do rape and murder to be diseased and violent. And I am not a coward in facing this reality exists in society. And it takes a really diseased and fanatical mind to want to be blind to this reality of violence, which is what you are doing in the case of violence committed by GBLTs.
I can see you are desperately trying to frame what I have posted as ***all*** GBLTs are violent, it´s your strawman argument. Get real, I posted a study which says 1 in 3. Reality is not all GBLTs are violent. Read my post. Reply with an argument if you have one to what I´ve written, not to your silly distortion.
Posted by: Alessandra on November 5, 2004 at 8:29 AM | PERMALINK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Can you prove that the level of violence among gay couples is really any higher than among straight couples?
======================
I can prove any time that pro-homosexuals are cowards and liars regarding how much violence exists in GBLT relationships (which is a lot more broad than gay couples, btw), than anti-homosexuals are regarding violence in heterosexual couples.
It´s taken a major social movement btw to get past society´s denial of how much violence there exists in heterosexual couples, and it´s going to take another major movement to defeat cowards like you.
My post shows that the propaganda that GLBTs are not safe because of anti-homosexuals is trash. GLBTs perpetrate a ton of violence and disrespect, among themselves and towards others. This is a major lack of safety for society in general, and it´s caused by GBLTs. Your are just too much of cowards to deal with this issue.
I also find your logic really fanatical, I imagine in your mind, if you think there is 1 in 3 violent straight relationships that makes it OK for GLBTs to have 1 in 3 violent relationships? I guess you are just too out of touch with reality and too bigoted to understand how much violence this means. This is not OK regarding any group of people.
I have only seen 1 stat lately regarding violence in straight couples and it indicates at most 1 in 10 for straight couples.
Go dig up some stats that say every straight couple is violent so that you can feel better and dig deeper in your denial. I´m sure these homo activist/profs have come up with these fake numbers somewhere.
Posted by: Alessandra on November 5, 2004 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not distorting anything: "GBLTs are quite diseased and violent, and the above just speaks about internal violence, doesn´t even mention violence to other people."
I'll let you finish answering my questions. When you've finished please, prove that the incidence of violence among gays is higher than among straights. In the unlikely event that you can do that, I'd encourage you to join with the gay community in their own effort to reduce violence in their community.
I know they will appreciate your concern, and you will demonstrate great courage in aiding them.
Posted by: Robert S. on November 5, 2004 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Would you note that the Advocate is a gay publication, which would seem to indicate that the gay community is concerned about the existence of violence in some of their relationships?
=======================
1 publication publishes 1 article and this equals awareness?
Even in the article you mention, they say there is tremendous denial of the problem.
Why isn´t the issue brought up in the gay marriage campaign? Why don´t we see it on sitcoms? Instead of showing these little pictures of "loving" same sex people in your gay marriage propaganda, you could show how GBLTs batter each other to death.
It is reality, you know.
You are too much of a coward to show that to society. Not only regarding couples violence, you are too much of a coward to show how GBLTs are sleazy, how they make unwanted and unwelcome sexual advances, sexual harassment, etc.
Did you include information about how violent GLBTs are in your little web site? Or did you completely ignore the issue?
I don´t think neither you nor any homo campaign knows the meaning of honesty.
Posted by: Alessandra on November 5, 2004 at 9:05 AM | PERMALINK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you've finished please, prove that the incidence of violence among gays is higher than among straights. In the unlikely event that you can do that, I'd encourage you to join with the gay community in their own effort to reduce violence in their community.
I know they will appreciate your concern, and you will demonstrate great courage in aiding them.
==========================
I don´t think proving a statistical comparison rate changes anything (for more, for equal, or for less). It is just a diversion tactic. It is proven that GLBTs are quite violent and diseased as a group, and that pro-homosexuals continuously lie to mask this reality.
You call anti-homosexuals bigots, but you are too much of a coward to go public with the millions of acts of violence that GBLTs commit themselves. The way to aid people who are dysfunctional and violent and supported by cowards with a homo agenda is to challenge your denials and your lies about GLBTs.
I have a right not to live in a sleazy, violent homo society, and this is a fundamental human right you have no respect for and have destroyed. You would show great character the day you started respecting fundamental human rights for people to live in a healthy, non-violent, heterosexual society.
It is a question of rights. And this is what got Bush elected. Many people would rather be poor than have your homo aggression and disrespect shoved in our faces every week as it happens now.
Posted by: Alessandra on November 5, 2004 at 9:41 AM | PERMALINK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's another view on the election that happens to mirror some of what I've seen here, on Kos, on Atrios and elsewhere. Jane Smiley lets loose on the Gadarene swine ... er ... Red State Voters at:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2109218/
I find it most interesting that some on the left manage to cling to the notion that they are much more intelligent, nuanced and capable of empathy than anyone else, while at the same time confidently asserting that those who disagree with them are knuckle-dragging simians with the most bestial of desires. That's pretty rich in irony.
But one could also make the amusing point that more than a few leftists/liberals are denouncing the Manichean worldview of their opponents by asserting that the country is divided into the Land of the Light and the Domain of Darkness...a condition that might exceed one's Minimum Daily Requirement of irony.
One could do that, but I couldn't, because I'm
Posted by: Just a gun-toting redneck on November 5, 2004 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don´t think proving a statistical comparison rate changes anything (for more, for equal, or for less). It is just a diversion tactic."
To show that homosexuality is the cause of violence you have to show that there is more violence in homosexual relationships than in heterosexual relationships. You have to also "control" for other possible factors contributing to violence to isolate the "lifestyle" as the cause.
If the rate of violence is similar in heterosexual relationships will you say the same is true of heterosexuals?
People, in general, are sinful and fallen. Singling out homosexuals is a way to keep the spot-light off of sin that people might have to take responsibility for. Always looking outward instead of at your own heart... which is what you're going to have to answer for in the end.
Posted by: Julie on November 5, 2004 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To show that homosexuality is the cause of violence you have to show that there is more violence in homosexual relationships than in heterosexual relationships.
============================
Your sentence doesn´t make sense to me.
To show that homosexuality includes a ton of violence you have to show that many homosexuals are violent and there is a violent homosexual culture. This has been shown.
People who are violent within a couple have a violent sexuality (whether straight or non-straight).
Therefore, if they are homosexual, their sexuality is violent and homosexual. Their violent homosexuality is both the result and caused by their violent, diseased minds.
To say that heterosexuality causes violent heterosexuality does not make any sense, neither does your parallel statement that one needs to prove that homosexuality causes violent homosexuality. This is totally without meaning.
What this study confirms is that GBLTs are VERY violent (not all). It talks about a factual reality. This is to counter the sorry propaganda put out by pro-homosexuals that a) only anti-homosexuals are bigots and b) only heterosexuals are violent, c) anti-homosexuals make society unsafe. The truth is a) pro-homosexuals are major bigots b) GBLTs are very violent c) GBLTs make society quite unsafe.
Pro-homosexuals are cowards and liars. To be in denial of a mass violence problem, such as 1 in 3 violent GBLT relationships, shows how diseased your minds are and how fanatical you are to the point of being completely blind. And this not to mention all the violence GBLTs perpetrate towards non GBLT victims. And not to mention the sexual harassment, the sleazy, dehumanized sexual culture, the homo prostitution, the homo SM, and all the other trash...
Posted by: Alessandra on November 5, 2004 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re-reading Kevin Drum's observation up at the top of this string of comments that he's surely not bothering to read, I am struck by the condescending prejudice that is embedded within.
Drum seems to be asserting that a whole passel of red-state voters were a-sittin' around the cracker barrel, arguing about Leviticus and not at all planning to vote, when Karl Rove came along and hollered "Hey, boys, let's all go and vote to lynch some queers!", and of course the red-staters all shouted "Yee-Haw!" as they rushed out to the polls.
Drum seems to be assuming that there weren't any other aspects to the notion of "moral issues" than homosexual marriage. Partial birth abortion, the rising tide of sewage in the infotainment wing of the Main Stream Media, genocide in the Sudan being ignored by virtually everyone from the UN to the NY Times...the list of "moral issues" can get kinda long and complex.
But good ol' Kevin, he put on his mindreading hat that some CIA guy musta given to him just before leaving for Cambodia, and he knows ... he doesn't speculate, mind you, he KNOWS ... that it was "homophobia" that got the red-state vote out the door and in the voting booth.
The more I mull this over, as I examine other parts of Mr. Drum's weblog, the more insulting it becomes.
Kevin Drum is starting to look rather like a more genteel version of Jane Smiley, whose slogan for the Democrats in 2008 seems to be "You're A Stupid Bigot, Vote For Us!", as one can see at:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2109218/
I'm purty shore that she's sayin' bad thangs about me and mine, but I can't unnerstand all them big words she uses, cause I'm
Posted by: Just a gun-toting redneck on November 5, 2004 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"To show that homosexuality is the cause of violence you have to show that there is more violence in homosexual relationships than in heterosexual relationships."
============================
"Your sentence doesn´t make sense to me."
I don't doubt it. But what I said is a very simple and common concept, and that is that to show "cause" one must control for other possible causes. If I want to prove something about education (as an example) it is not enough to state the fact that poor children do poorly, I have to show that the poor performance is due to poverty and not some other factor.
If homosexual partnerships are no more violent than heterosexual ones, then, quite probably, the homosexuality is irrelevant to the violence. If homosexual partnerships are more violent than heterosexual ones, then other factors *still* need to be accounted for to isolate homosexuality as the element that causes the difference.
You haven't shown either to be true. You haven't shown that homosexuals are more violent than heterosexuals, and you haven't shown that the violence (be it greater or equal) is not related to some other factor.
That you don't see the need to answer either issue says a whole lot about the intelligence of whomever has been explaining this to you. If you ask those questions will they be answered or will you be berated for asking?
Posted by: Julie on November 5, 2004 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not every problem that homosexuals and lesbians encounter is due to homophobia. Straight people can have their wills thrown out in court. Straight people can be denied access to loved ones in the hospital (e.g., Terry Schiavo's parents). Straight people can be wrongly denied custody of their children. Those are problems that can be handled on an individual basis.
On another subject: Contrary to what Alessandra is spewing out above, many, many conservatives have no beef with homosexuals and lesbians choosing to live their lives however they may wish. And I am sure that all of the dead and maimed (mostly) women out there who suffered in heterosexual relationships would claim that there is not enough awareness and acknowledgement of domestic violence among heterosexual couples.
What many conservatives object to is the capricious redefinition of an institution that forms the basis of this society and almost all others. Marriage came about as a way to support the basic unit of society--the only unit that re-creates itself, leading to the perpetuation of the society. Regarding marriage as between a man and a woman is one of this culture's (and most culture's) mores. Desire to adhere to society's mores is not per se homophobic.
Why don't you work on some other legal process, like "Domestic Partnership License" which would safeguard all the legal rights that marriage affords, and could be entered into by not only homosexuals and lesbians, but also heteros choosing only to live together, family members living together, platonic friends living together, etc.
And when it comes to marriage and its redefining--how do you stop the process? If two men can marry, why not four men? Why not 2 men and 2 women? Why not a man and a dog? Why not one man and a dozen women? After all, that is what would be "fair"...isn't it a "right" to live the way you want?
Posted by: thinkingconservative on November 5, 2004 at 10:17 PM | PERMALINK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't doubt it. But what I said is a very simple and common concept, and that is that to show "cause" one must control for other possible causes. If I want to prove something about education (as an example) it is not enough to state the fact that poor children do poorly, I have to show that the poor performance is due to poverty and not some other factor.
=================================
Let´s continue with your fictional example. If you lie to people that poor children are doing great in school while the reality is that they are doing poorly, it is enough to prove you are lying by showing they are doing poorly. If 1 in 3 poor children fail school, this means millions of poor kids are doing poorly, it is a fact and you are a major liar (no surprise there either).
If you, a liar, come and say that rarely any poor child ever does badly in school, it suffices to show how much you lie by showing the reality of how badly poor children are doing. If you try to divert attention from the FACT that poor children (in this fictional example) are failing school 1 in 3, by saying rich children fail school 1 in 3 too, so it´s not bad or it´s shouldn´t be considered a failure that millions of poor kids fail, then you are missing the point and trying to run away from the issue that you are lying about. Independently of how much rich kids do at school, poor kids are failing at a large rate. And you are lying about it.
This is what this study shows. How much pro-homosexuals lie about how violent GBLTs are.
Following your example, to go into why poor children do poorly in schools, that is, the causes, is another issue. And to make a correct parallel to your nonsensical statement, what you asked for is for one to show that poverty causes a poor kid to be poor. It makes no sense. Apparently you were implying that if one didn´t discuss the causes for why millions of poor kids were failing school at such a large rate, then the truth that millions of kids were failing would go away. That´s why it´s a diversion tactic. You are major liars.
Similarly, why GBLTs are so violent is another issue. And that is why bringing the cause question is a diversion tactic from focusing on the lie aspect.
Reality is that GBLTs are very violent. This is a fact. The causes for why they are so violent and make society unsafe are multiple.
Posted by: Alessandra on November 6, 2004 at 6:10 AM | PERMALINK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
thinkingconservative-->On another subject: Contrary to what Alessandra is spewing out above, many, many conservatives have no beef with homosexuals and lesbians choosing to live their lives however they may wish.
========================
And these conservatives have the awareness of a slug about the issues I am writing here. However, there are many others who don´t care to live in a sleazy, violent culture, of which homosexuality is only a part. The home schooling movement, the Janet Jackson flack, the concern with child pornography, the objection to lack of freedom of speech in schools regarding issues of homosexuality, these are all examples that many conservatives are not a self-serving, irresponsible pro-homosexual.
To say to people who are violent, Go live as you wish, shows how irresponsible these pro-homosexual conservatives are. Just as in denial as the millions of liberal pro-homosexuals. In fact, people who call themselves "conservatives and pro-homosexuals" are creating a contradiction in terms.
======
thinkingconservative-->And I am sure that all of the dead and maimed (mostly) women out there who suffered in heterosexual relationships would claim that there is not enough awareness and acknowledgement of domestic violence among heterosexual couples.
=======
And lying to yourself about how violent GLBTs are will not change that a bit.
Perhaps these pro-homosexual conservatives are a variation of exactly the conservatives who used to be blind to violence in heterosexual couples. Now their blindness is pegged elsewhere, so they can feel they´ve "advanced."
Posted by: Alessandra on November 6, 2004 at 6:57 AM | PERMALINK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julie-->You haven't shown either to be true. You haven't shown that homosexuals are more violent than heterosexuals, and you haven't shown that the violence (be it greater or equal) is not related to some other factor.
===================
Because those were not the issues I brought up. Those are diversion issues you are bringing up. You want to discuss these issues, bring them up.
But I will continue to talk about the issue I brought up and not have it diverted.
What I am showing is how much pro-homosexuals lie about how violent GBLTs are. You have not shown this is false. GBLTs are violent as a group. There is a huge number of cases of violence perpetrated by GBLTs. You have not shown this to be false. There is also a major problem of denial (stated in both the Advocate and the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, as two pro-homosexual source examples) about this whole reality. You have not shown this to be false.
There is a huge propaganda machine from pro-homosexuals and GBLTs activists that spews forth lies to maks this violent GBLT reality constantly. You have not shown this to be false.
These are the issues I am addressing.
==================
Julie-->That you don't see the need to answer either issue says a whole lot about the intelligence of whomever has been explaining this to you. If you ask those questions will they be answered or will you be berated for asking?
===================
That you are so in need to be in denial of what I am bringing up here shows that your self-serving push-button emotions are too strong for any awareness (not to mention intelligence and rational thought).
If you focus on how violent GBLTs are will the sky fall on your head?
Alessandra
Comments:
Post a Comment
