Reflections, Reflections

From WND - Hey Hollywood left: Don't let the door hit you in the asininity - Doug Powers

One of the best comparisons about how destructive culture can be to youth and adults:

Then there are those actors who take part in some of the trash that passes for movies, make fortunes from them, and then voice disenchantment with our culture. This behavior is akin to dealing drugs: Peddle dope without worrying about the damage you might be doing, and pretty soon you can afford to move your family out of that nasty drug-infested neighborhood. After all, that's no place to raise children.

Madonna figured that out years ago. She spent the majority of her career as the Mecca for aspiring skanks and two-bit perverts everywhere, teaching our kids that nothing is sacred, anonymous sex is great, and cone bras on gay men are wonderful accessories. Then, after having her own kids, she moved to England to develop good manners and escape an immoral nation. Wisely, Madonna would take no part in raising her children in a country whose youth spent their formative years under the lewd tutelage of their own mother.

UPDATE: jan-24-2005

Actually British culture manages to be worse than the US quite often nowadays. They are doing their best to "catch up and take first place."

From Mack - comment on Scrappleface:

I may yet write a book on how to spot a liberal. Ok, maybe a short essay. Liberals are eternally childish. Not to be confused with child like or innocent. Liberals sincerely believe that they are “special people.” They believe the world and all that is in it are there for the perpetual entertainment and gratification of the individual liberal. So the first warning sign of liberal-ness is the habit to throw tantrums when they don’t get what they want. It doesn’t matter how unreasonable the demand is, liberals want it all and they want it now.

This false sense self importance often leads the liberal to completely disregard anyone and anything that contradicts their feeling of being elite, intellectual, enlightened, or superior. Little things like reality, factual information, and common sense upset liberals because they can not explain them away. This causes them anger in that it challenges the liberal self image of greatness. They will attack and attempt to destroy anything that doesn’t feel good regardless of other consequences.

I think liberals have degenerated greatly over the years, in part, taken over by a very arrogant fringe, very tunnel vision of what supposedly are the crucial issues in society. There is a great disparity between what liberals define as the most important problems in society and reality (which comprises many more serious problems than liberals want to face). In many ways, they´ve lost seriousness and ethics, and gained this manipulative spoiled-brat self-pitying along with an exorbitant no-accontability self-righteousness and a very destructive, sleazy set of attitudes in the personal sphere.

Developments at Classical Values


Ironic that the "reality-based community" has chosen a sterotype (the moronic, hypocritical, bigot) to describe those with whom they disagree. This, of course, allows the RBC to create their own reality - one in which there are no good-faith disputes over policy or culture - and insolate their beliefs from any debate or empirical examination.

The RBC have already decided that anti-gay bigotry cost them this election. This will become the "Bush stole Florida" meme of 2004 - no matter how much evidence contradicts this "reality", 4 years from now it will still be gospel for those who believe themselves to be influenced only by their superior understanding of the real world.
posted by: Daniel
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alessandra-->> This comment by Daniel that the RBC crowd does not allow for discussion or examination is particular acute in the universities. This is where most of the worst harm is done. Media is second.

For example, pro-homosexuals have equated anti-homosexuals with haters. This maligning trick has seeped in popular culture so much so, that we see anti-homosexuals and/or anti-gay marriage supporters having to state that they are not full of hate. As if they ever were.

This is exactly the same as equating people who are anti-pedophilia, anti-prostitution, anti-SM as full of hate. A bigoted and cheap tactic to malign people who have opposing viewpoints with some ad hominen attack label.

Fortunately, it seems slowly but surely many Americans are catching on that the slimy "label your viewpoint opponent as full of hate" tactic is nothing but the sign of bigot incapable of discussion.

===============================================================
===============================================================

Alessanda wrote here (on a man's man's blog):

"For example, pro-homosexuals have equated anti-homosexuals with haters."

Anti-homosexuals are indeed motivated solely by hatred of the good for being the good, though some of them may be merely confused fellow-travelling dupes.

"This maligning trick has seeped in popular culture so much so, that we see anti-homosexuals and/or anti-gay marriage supporters having to state that they are not full of hate. As if they ever were."

The truth is that they are and have always been motivated by hatred of the good for being the good.

"This is exactly the same as equating people who are anti-pedophilia,"

Equating homosexuals with child-rapers is a despicable lie.

"anti-prostitution,"

Prostitution, while it should be legal, is not in the same moral category as the eternal faithful love (marriage) between two women or two men.

"anti-SM as full of hate."

S&M is hate inverted into love, agony into ecstasy, which is indeed the leitmotif underlying all sexual passion, the sexual bond, the holy bond, bondage, of wedlock.

"A bigoted and cheap tactic to malign people who have opposing viewpoints with some ad hominen attack label."

The favorite tactic of the anti-homosexual movement, e.g., the lie that homosexuals have an "agenda", are irreligious, promiscuous, degenerate, out to corrupt children, linking them with Communists, etc.. These are all lies.

"Fortunately, it seems slowly but surely many Americans are catching on that the slimy "label your viewpoint opponent as full of hate" tactic is nothing but the sign of bigot incapable of discussion."

I may very well be a "bigot" (dogmatist) incapable of discussion with the enemies of my freedom and values. I know that I am right, and that is good enough for me.
posted by: Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato the Elder)

===============================================================
===============================================================

Prostitution, while it should be legal, is not in the same moral category as the eternal faithful love (marriage) between two women or two men.

by Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato the Idiot)
==============================
The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association has recently disclosed: "Domestic violence is a hugely ignored health issue in the LGBT communities, affecting one in three LGBT relationships."

Cato the Idiot above calls this love. Cato the Idiot is obviously too steeped in denial about how violent GLBTs are to have a clue. People who are too irresponsible to face mass violence problems (such as 1 in 3 violent GBLT relationships) are not fit to opine on such issues, much less serve office, school, parish, military, etc.

Prostitution, either legal or illegal, accounts for the destruction of millions of lives of children, adolescents and adults around the world. People like Cato the Idiot are too dehumanized to care or know. The only thing their small minds can muster is that people who are not ignorant, self-serving pro-homosexuals like them are full of hate.

Cato the Idiot, and the throngs of idiots like him, are not full of hate, they are full of joy and comfort with the destruction of so many human lives, and shoving sexual violence and denigration wherever they go, covering it up with a veneer little speech about freedom.
posted by: Alessandra on 11.07.04 at 11:10 PM [permalink]
===============================================================
===============================================================
"This is exactly the same as equating people who are anti-pedophilia,"

Equating homosexuals with child-rapers is a despicable lie.

by Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato the Idiot)
==============================
First, homosexuals were not being equated to pedophiles. ( As two asides, second, not all pedophiles end up raping children. Third, a number of pedophiles are not straight, guess what that makes them?)

Pedophilia, homosexuality, prostitution, SM are all examples of sexuality problems and having a critical viewpoint towards any or all these issues (and all other sexuality problems we have in the world) does not equate anyone to being full of hate.

That is only a maligning tactic of slimy, ignorant pro-homosexuals.
posted by: Alessandra on 11.07.04 at 11:23 PM [permalink]

===============================================================
===============================================================
I may very well be a "bigot" (dogmatist) incapable of discussion with the enemies of my freedom and values. I know that I am right, and that is good enough for me.

by Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato the Idiot)
===================
"When men are most sure and arrogant they are commonly most mistaken, giving views to passion without that proper deliberation which alone can secure them from the grossest absurdities"

David Hume (Scottish philosopher, historian, economist and essayist)
posted by: Alessandra on 11.07.04 at 11:46 PM [permalink]

And who would have thought...

And speaking in Paris this week, Hustler magazine porn magnate Larry Flynt told the German News Agency he'd have to consider living in exile.

"If Bush is re-elected – but I don't want to even consider the thought for one second – I really have to think about living somewhere else," Flynt said.

I´ll pay his plane ticket to Falluja, the middle of shark infested Caribbean ocean and a few other places.

One less pro-sexual violence, pro-homo, pro-SM piece of crap on Earth. Time to go, Larry, now!

And I´d never thought I´d see this. One of the ugliest liberal MSM publications got kicked where they deserved in these elections. At Salon, they are foaming. some replies at the bottom.

I am sick to my stomach, literally sick. I hate this man, this president. And what I hate most of all, I suppose, is that I am sharing a country with nearly 60 million people who look at this disaster of an administration, and think it's a good thing. Us intellectual liberal types aren't supposed to say it, but let's pretend I'm Ann Coulter for the left: How fucking stupid are those people? And why in God's name should I, and my children, be punished because they're so fucking stupid?

You know what you Republicans can do with your smirking, snide, Schadenfreude calls for "reaching out" and "working together"? You can shove 'em where the sun don't shine. You beat us, battered us, abused us, lied, cheated, stole, and now you want us to play fair and nicey-nice? Well, forget it. We didn't declare this culture war, baby, but we're sure going to finish it.

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I'm not backing away from the ledge any time soon.

-- Doug Moran

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we need to reach out to hicks, blah, blah, blah.

Again, television media made a mockery of our national discourse and we're all blaming ourselves. Swift Boat liars needed only a $100K media buy to reach full-country saturation with the help of our television news. Ad campaigns featuring grieving mothers were ignored. Lying liars lied again and again while television "journalists" stared off into space. If a significant percentage of Bush voters believed things which were demonstrably untrue, our media had the obligation to set them straight. Of course, our media not only allowed the misinformation, but cultivated it.

As long as pampered, powdered, 401K'd millionaires run our political discourse on television, our political system will continue to be broken.

-- Bill Batten

I'm angry, mad, disappointed, etc., etc., etc. But here is the upside as I see it: The vacuous, simplistic, thimble-deep "majority" that reelected this trained monkey and his henchmen/corporate backers, ah, I mean "administration," will get what they deserve, free and clear. Let the body bags keep rolling from the Middle East, let health care get hollowed out, let the evisceration of the middle class roll on unabated, let civil liberties get erased in name of "moral values," whatever the fuck that is. But at least it will be clear four years from now who is responsible -- no blaming Democrats who are "weak on defense," who lack "the courage of their convictions."

Enjoy the honeymoon, America. Reap what you've sown.

-- Doug Hopkins

It is easy to feel the angst and anger of half a nation. It is one more crisis for an already loaded psyche the progressive American must face. Crisis means a call for change. Kerry is a candy-ass for not demanding it. Instead of conceding with a polite whimper, why not express some outrage? He's talking to Bush about unification when the nation is really anything but unified. He could have been a great catalyst for a grieving nation. Must the Republicans have all the alpha males?

-- Michael Taluc

The Democrats have Springsteen, the Republicans have the boss.

-- John Bonaccorsi

Some replies to the above:
"You beat us, battered us, abused us, lied, cheated, stole, and now you want us to play fair and nicey-nice? Well, forget it. We didn't declare this culture war, baby, but we're sure going to finish it."

You´ve been shoving your violence, aggression, disrespect, sleaziness on us and now you´re complaining? You didn´t declare the culture war, you created it. And the rest of us are no sitting ducks.

=================

"Let the body bags keep rolling from the Middle East, let health care get hollowed out, let the evisceration of the middle class roll on unabated, let civil liberties get erased in name of "moral values," whatever the fuck that is. "

You´re too ignorant and too much of a liberal lacking in morals or values to know why people don´t like to live in a violent, sleazy liberal society, this will be a chance to diminish your ignorance.

=====================

"Must the Republicans have all the alpha males?"

Actually, Dems have an alpha male. You got a slimy, stink of an alpha male, remember? From Arkansas. Doesn´t that tell you that something is wrong with liberals?
And, do not forget, you have all the pink males. The ones that are too dysfunctional to even be males, and who control your neck-collar, sometimes costing you an election. And on the subject, couldn´t we say the SF mayor is another one of your alpha-lite males ?

From AP

Wolfe said the idea of a college novel interested him because it's never been explored from the student's point of view, and because college has replaced the church as a moral touchstone.

These ideas came out muddled, as though he wasn't quite sure why he wrote the book. He spoke of college as being a breeding ground for political-correctness, but it can sometimes be a thin veil for the hedonism that goes on at schools.

Wolfe is no stranger to campus life. The Richmond, Va., native is the grandson of a Confederate rifleman - his family's Virginia ties, on the paternal side, date back to 1710. He attended Washington and Lee University before earning a doctorate in American studies at Yale. He was even in a fraternity.

"The drinking is neither more nor less now. There is the addition of cocaine, a little bit of ecstasy, but I wouldn't say these things really play any major part on campuses," he says.

The heroine of the new, 675-page novel is 18-year-old Charlotte Simmons, the pertinacious prodigy of a tiny mountain town in North Carolina who gets a full ride to the venerable Dupont. Charlotte is unbelievably naive, and the novel chronicles her education to the world of college. Once rigid and "moral" in a traditional sense, she matriculates to the world of sex, drinking and materialism as she deals with a frat guy, a jock and a caustic, emaciated roommate.

"Tom's work creates discussion in the literary world, but more important in the world of readers," said Jeff Seroy, senior vice president of marketing at the publishing house.

Fellow writer Gay Talese, whom Wolfe credits for starting New Journalism, said his work is important to both fiction and nonfiction because he is not afraid to take risks.

"I can tell you he is a very contrarian observer and a courageous writer and that is why he is read," Talese said. "He wasn't political in terms of offending people; whether he wrote about the Black Panthers, or the editor of the New Yorker. If there was a subject that today would be politically incorrect to write about, Wolfe would write about them."

Talese hasn't read "Charlotte Simmons" yet. So far, critics have not been kind and the book has debuted to mostly negative reviews. A Los Angeles Times review said, "His characters are burdened, often to the point of capsizing, by his stereotypes." The New York Times echoed a similar theme, and said, "He gives us some tiresomely generic if hyperbolic glimpses of student life."

[..]

"I don't think anyone is immune to that. It doesn't mean you're maniacal about moving up, like I am," he quips. "Preserving the status that you have is really important."

It's easy to be lulled by Wolfe and his smooth, slight Southern drawl. Friends say his dress and persona are the real thing. But don't be fooled: It is a red herring. This author is a Cheshire cat. He is ruthless and has an opinionated, caustic tongue, known for trashing contemporaries John Updike and Norman Mailer for being too self-indulgent. He wrote scathing articles about The New Yorker years ago and editors and the magazine would not comment on him for this story.

"Fiction is dying," Wolfe says. "There's just not the kind of work being done that should. I can enjoy Herman Hesse and (Franz) Kafka, they are writers of fables. But I don't consider that to be the optimal form of writing."

I hope this novel addresses how diseased and violent liberal culture and sexuality is. It´s what we need in terms of education, that universities (and many public schools) are profoundly failing their students.

From CounterPunch - By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

Weekend Edition -November 6 / 7, 2004

Don't Say We Didn't Warn You

Lessons They Won't Learn from November 2: a Word from Nader; a Last Look at Kerry and Michael Moore

Smart and with understanding, what the left often lacks.

(Read Article from previous post "Deep Red/Blue divisions unlikely to heal soon" first - this is the ending:)

Can the differences be bridged? This might be one area in which all sides agree.

Not likely, they say.

Views so deeply rooted in moral doctrine — however a person chooses to interpret “moral” — aren’t likely to change. But Americans suggest they and the nation’s leaders could do more to forge at least some understanding — a way to live together in a society of opposing convictions.

“Learn to accept people the way they are, not how you would like them to be,” says Santa McKenna, a Cuban-American hairdresser in Florida.

“Be more substantive in what we say ... rather than attacking people personally,” says Jerry Folk, a Lutheran minister in Wisconsin.

“The president could do something magnanimous, like naming a Democrat to his cabinet,” suggests Larry Gore, a Bush supporter in Pennsylvania.

“Find a sense of community that goes beyond my needs, my wants ... that draws the lines of community very broadly, so ultimately there is no ‘them,’” says V. Gene Robinson, the nation’s first openly gay Episcopal bishop whose election itself caused great division among churchgoers.
========================================================

"Find a sense of community that goes beyond my needs, my wants" - this from the homo Gene Robinson that made the Episcopal Church fracture and who destroyed the Episcopal community thanks to his egostistical homosexual needs, his sexual wants.

We do not want to be gay dittoheads, with a blurry sense of life, with no responsability, a particularly lewd, violent, sorry culture. We would like to draw the lines elsewhere, and anyone is welcome to join if they let go of their dysfunctional sexuality and culture.

Excellent article (though could be even better) - Deep divisions unlikely to heal soon By PAULINE ARRILLAGA The Associated Press

CAMPAIGN 2004

The map showed a sea of red with islands and shoals of blue. Election Day 2004 revealed two Americas — deep differences dividing the 55 million citizens who cast their votes for John Kerry, and the 59 million who just as passionately selected George W. Bush.

The gulf is much greater than questions of what to do in Iraq or how to improve the economy. So great that a wife who voted for Kerry slept at her office rather than home with a husband who celebrated Bush’s win. So great that friends canceled a postelection coffee klatch because they couldn’t sit at the same table and hear each others’ opinions.

[...]

Blues don’t simply disagree with reds, and vice versa. Increasingly, it seems, each side sees the other as just plain wrong. Not like us. Impossible to be around. They use words like “scary” to describe one another’s vision of tomorrow.

The candidates each talk of healing now, of the need to bridge the divides that separate Americans. But how, if compromise would mean moral surrender? Where do we begin, if we can hardly stand to look at each other?

“This has been way too hard-fought a campaign for us immediately to begin hugging,” says the Rev. Welton Gaddy, a Baptist minister and president of the left-leaning Interfaith Alliance.

“There are huge rifts. It’s raw emotions, anger, disappointment. It’s far more than red and blue states.”

‘IT BOTHERS ME A WHOLE LOT’

“How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?” screamed the day-after headline of one liberal British newspaper.

At a bar in Cleveland, tax clerk Bob O’Malley ponders the same question. A Kerry-Edwards button still clipped to his shirt, he bemoans what he sees as the takeover of America by “far right-wing evangelists.”

“I think we’re a country of morons,” he grumbles. “We’re more worried about two guys getting it on together than we are about losing our jobs. We’ve lost more jobs here in Ohio than any other state in the nation. And yet Ohio voted for Bush!

(continued)

It makes you feel really out of the swing of things when it is on Nov 7th the first time you even hear this RBC label.

From Classical Values - Eric

Realistic?

Slightly more than half of the citizens of this country simply do not care about what those of us in the "reality-based community" say or believe about anything.

-- Eric Alterman

Only slightly more than half? How many Americans have ever heard the expression "reality-based community" -- much less know what it means? I'd say the figure is considerably more than half.

Might even be 90%.....

Regular readers know how much I loathe labels, slogans and code-language. Perfectly good words are borrowed by various sorts of ideologues (left and right), with the result being that it's tougher and tougher to use once-ordinary words. "Family" is a perfect example which I have discussed before. A couple of years ago, some people started using the word "bright." "Choice" is another one. (Don't get me started on the word "values......") When this happens, my only resort is to tear out my hair (which is thinning, so I'd rather not), or complain to anyone who'll listen.

The latest example of this phraseology ("REALITY BASED COMMUNITY") abounds in leftish circles of the blogosphere, and it involves the use of the word "reality" to denote opposition to Bush, opposition to the war in Iraq, and opposition to religious influences on policy making.

and some of the best comments:

I reckon that "reality-based community" is meant to be the antonym of "faith-based community", Bush having introduced some various initiatives regarding the former. Although the connection to the argument about who defines reality is apposite as well.
posted by: Sean Stickle
----------------------------------------------------------

Actually, it's just another collection of phonemes that mean "We're right and everyone else is wrong and stupid."

It's a sentiment as old as history.
posted by: Ian Wood
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aren't these the same people who used to assert that reality is a crutch for people who can't face drugs?
posted by: triticale
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ironic that the "reality-based community" has chosen a sterotype (the moronic, hypocritical, bigot) to describe those with whom they disagree. This, of course, allows the RBC to create their own reality - one in which there are no good-faith disputes over policy or culture - and insolate their beliefs from any debate or empirical examination.

The RBC have already decided that anti-gay bigotry cost them this election. This will become the "Bush stole Florida" meme of 2004 - no matter how much evidence contradicts this "reality", 4 years from now it will still be gospel for those who believe themselves to be influenced only by their superior understanding of the real world.
posted by: Daniel
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alessandra-->> This comment by Daniel that the RBC crowd does not allow for discussion or examination is particularly acute in the universities. This is where most of the worst harm is done. Media is second.

For example, pro-homosexuals have equated anti-homosexuals with haters. This maligning trick has seeped in popular culture so much so, that we see anti-homosexuals and/or anti-gay marriage supporters having to state that they are not full of hate. As if they ever were.

This is exactly the same as equating people who are anti-pedophilia, anti-prostitution, anti-SM as full of hate. A bigoted and cheap tactic to malign people who have opposing viewpoints with some ad hominen attack label.

Fortunately, it seems slowly but surely many Americans are catching on that the slimy "label your viewpoint opponent as full of hate" tactic is nothing but the sign of a bigot incapable of discussion.

From the Washington Times

"The party just has to have a better message and a new set of messengers and strengthen the grass-roots operation that we built this year," he said. "The next target, the next focus of politics has to be stopping the Bush agenda and making the Bush agenda an issue in the congressional elections." Roger Hickey, co-director of Campaign for America's Future, a liberal grass-roots advocacy organization.

A new flurry of comments/articles has emerged after the big loss. The Dems hate the mass of middle America reds, they think they are stupid, supersticious faith-based simpleheads. They differ on fundamental positions. However, in order to be majority and have more political clout, they (the Dems) need the red votes (the people they so despise). So, they seem now, after the big loss, to be scrambling to figure out a way in the next elections to couch their political campaign messages in words that will trick the reds in voting for a party that does not stand for their issues.

Toronto Sun - Thane Burnett

TO: THE UNHAPPY STATES OF AMERICA

RE: YOUR APPLICATION OF ADOPTION BY CANADA

THANK YOU FOR YOUR interest in becoming us.

I'm pleased to say that during a regular meeting of all Canadians held at Tim Horton donut shops last night, almost everyone in our country voted in favor of your wish to "cede" to us - some thought that word may be sexual, others were still upset about that whole War of 1812 thing, and at least a half a dozen ballots were ruined when coffee was spilled pulling out of the drive-through.

(continued...)

It gets better.

Discussion on Political Animal Blog

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

From the Guardian:

Kudos to Terri Leo.

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - The Texas Board of Education approved new health textbooks for the state's high school and middle school students Friday after the publishers agreed to change the wording to depict marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The board decision could affect books sold in dozens of states because of Texas' market clout as the nation's second-largest buyer of textbooks.

On Wednesday, a board member charged that the proposed new books ran counter to a Texas law banning the recognition of gay civil unions because the texts used terms like ``married partners'' instead of ``husband and wife.''

After hearing the debate Thursday, one publisher agreed to include a definition of marriage as a ``lifelong union between a husband and a wife.'' Another changed phrases such as ``when two people marry'' and ``partners'' to ``when a man and a woman marry'' and ``husbands and wives.''

Board member Mary Helen Berlanga, a Democrat, asked the panel to approve the books without the changes. Her proposal was rejected on a 10-4 vote.

``We're not supposed to make changes at somebody's whim,'' Berlanga said. ``It's a political agenda, and we're not here to follow a political agenda.''

Board member Terri Leo, a Republican, said she was pleased with the publisher's changes. She had led the effort to get the publishers to change the texts, objecting to what she called ``asexual stealth phrases'' such as ``individuals who marry.''

``Marriage has been defined in Texas, so it should also be defined in our health textbooks that we use as marriage between a man and a woman,'' Leo said.

Texas lawmakers last year passed a law that prohibits the state from recognizing same-sex civil unions. The state already had a ban on gay marriage.

AlessandraB

One of Santa's elves (a so-called Canadian MP, whatever that is) is accusing America of being "out of step" with the world.

Michael Williams -- Master of None

Canadian MP = Santa elf = too funny :-)))

And to think of it, I don´t know what the MP stand for... if it were PM...

From Instapundit - Nov.5th, 2004.

Meanwhile reader Dave Cole sends this email:

On Tuesday, a majority of the American electorate took a look at their party and asked, "Who are these people?" Who are George Soros, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, Susan Sontag, Teresa Heinz Kerry and all these other self-anointed spokespersons for everything good and true? And what does a party that is dominated by a loose coalition of the coastal intelligentsia, billionaires with too much spare time, the trial lawyers' association, the Hollywood Actors' Guild, rock stars and unionized labor have in common with what's quaintly known as Middle America? The majority's answers were (a) not us; and (b) not a whole lot.

Growing up in Topeka, Kansas (where my dad still lives), and now living in Denver, this is pretty much what my friends and associates are thinking, too. What I'm hearing from the Democrats is that middle America voted on moral values, which I take to be code for "they are a bunch of ignorant, bible thumping sheep". There seems to be a lot of hand wringing over how they could have better conveyed their message to the Midwest, and an arrogance that if they had, Kerry would have won in a landslide. What the Democrats don't understand is that yes, we do understand your message, and we reject it.

A lot of people abroad don´t understand this about why Kerry didn´t get these votes.

From homofromtroy blog comment:

Nobody cares about gay marriage except, gays and religious people. Those folks are located in non-competitive states and are pretty strong voters regardless.

This election was about the war. You don't get a massive turn out on gay marriage alone.
Posted by: Aaron at November 5, 2004 01:15 AM

===============================

Dream on. 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 less stupid, they realize there is more to homo life than Queer Eye fluff. And it stinks.

4 more years and 40 more years on the new Supreme Court. Yes!

AlessandraB

Pro-homosexuals never bring up issues such as these, and this (1 in
3) is just violence **in** LGBT relationships. It doesn´t even go into numbers
about when the perpetrators are
homos and bisexuals and the victims are heterosexuals. To how many of these
GBLT battererers and rapists did pro-homosexuals clap at in the latest Pride
parades?

What happens when you put such homos in the army? in the boys/girl scouts?
as judges and professors?

No wonder homos and pro-homosexuals do everything they can to ignore such an
issue (as the article itself states).

What is particularly noteworthy is the profound degree of denial of pro-homos regarding the subject. This is not just a couple of cases, this is a diseased group of people, with violence in epidemic proportions.

It makes the UK ruling barring the performance of Sizzla really ridiculous . Homo activists say this performer will incite violence against homos, and yet do they ever ask the court to expell from Britain all the violent, diseased GLBT that are perpetrating violence to themselves and to other people? Of course not. This is homosexist propaganda in the most disingenious manner.

Domestic Violence in LGBT Relationships Targeted
Wed, Oct 20, 2004


(CNSNews.com) - The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association is launching a
first-of-its-kind "LGBT Relationship Violence Project" to educate medical
professionals about domestic violence in lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or
transgender communities.
The project will be paid for by a $50,000 grant from the Blue Shield of
California Foundation, the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA)
announced in a press release.

"The Blue Shield of California Foundation recognizes that little attention
has been paid to domestic violence in LGBT contexts, and that GLMA is
uniquely positioned to educate medical professionals and the larger LGBT
community about this widely neglected, serious health issue," said Marianne
Balin, who manages the Blue Shield of California Foundation's anti-violence
program.

The Relationship Violence Project will be formally launched at GLMA's 22nd
Annual Conference, on October 21-23, in Rancho Mirage, California.

"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.

"This conference is an important step for our community in facing the
violence in our midst and systematically challenging it. Medical
professionals can play a pivotal role not only in identifying domestic
violence, but also in educating others about the problem," Holt added.

Also speaking in Palm Springs later this week is Patrick Letellier,
co-author of Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and
Domestic Violence.

A new report from the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Projects released
last week documented 6,523 cases of LGBT domestic violence that were
reported in 2003, a 13 percent increase over the prior year. The number
includes six domestic violence-related deaths, the report said.

It´s just too nice to see hate filled dems and liberals desperate with Bush´s win. They look like chickens with their heads cut off... and they are spewing their hatred of the winners with all the venomn they have inside their guts and their souls.

This election was won by Greed, Fear, Hatred, and Stupidity. You can always count on a day of publicly sanctioned gay-bashing to draw out the worst in America.

Let me be the first to say, F**K Mary Cheney. Ernst Roehm should come back from the dead and tell her what it's like to sell yourself out for a chance to be around power. With us, or against us.
===============
"Unfortunately we have to wait for the older generation of homo-haters to die off a bit more."

Why wait??? I say we start hanging these GOP fascists from lamp-posts (its called revolution people!)
===============
" In the meantime listen to yourselves - you can barely hide your utter DISDAIN for the common man."

Well said, Caroline.

True or not, the Democratic party is seen by most white middle-class culturally-conservative voters as hating them, and it's done damned little to dispel that belief.

=============

Alessandra-->Curious to note: after you read 300,000 posts and blogs about how dems and liberals hate, despise, bash conservatives in the most ignorant, vile fashion, the above poster frames this as a "belief" (read illusion) from conservative voters that the Democratic party hates them. Where in the world did they get that idea?

OK, I didn´t think Bush was going to win, even though I thought the race was tight. I had that pessimistic, prepare yourself for the worst so you don´t become even more disappointed feeling this week, and then... he won! And he won on a victory for values. And all those out-of-touch-with-reality liberals, who want to destroy families and a family structured society, who are so bigotted, and sleazy, and fanatical, had to put their tails between their legs and shuffle to their self-pity corners.

It was a joy to read how depressed liberals are. here- the lying human rights campaign here- the irresponsible-think-we-know-it-all-liberals These liberals that sustain so much social aggression and violence with such glee, that have no idea what the word accountability means, that create such a horrible society for me to live in, YOU LOST. And you are going to lose big time with the Supreme Court nominations that are coming your way in these 4 more years. The HRC spent a ton of money to shove sexual violence and dysfunction in society through politics, which is the consequence of electing these pro-homo candidates, and IT LOST BIG TIME.

These disgusting liberals that think they can perpetrate violence to anyone they wish, they can sexually harass anyone they wish, they can shove homosexuality, sadomasochism, sexual abuse, pornography down everyone´s throat and claim this is freedom, YOU LOST.