At about the same time the hysterical jeremiads began circulating about the supposed discrimination against Christians by the gay-coddling American legal system, another earth-shattering story also exploded into the news: the outrage toward actor Kirk Cameron for standing by his “Biblical principles” on same-sex relationships. It goes without saying (but we’ll say it anyway) that the punditocracy brandished this backlash as a prime specimen of “liberal” intolerance, “liberal” hypocrisy, “liberal” bias in the media, and above all an anti-Christian vendetta of holocaust proportions.
Now you might figure that all show biz celebrities squander their free time in such frivolous pursuits as combating AIDS, world hunger, child abuse and neglect, homelessness, rape of the environment or rape of other human beings. But rest assured, some of them are perfectly willing to devote some precious time and energy to things that really matter, such as keeping those accursed Sodomites in their place.
If you’re old enough to remember the late Seventies (in which case you have my sympathies, you disco duck), you may recall that “Christian” pop singer Anita Bryant waged a more-sexually-pure-than-thou rampage to overturn anti-discriminatory legislation in Florida, establish further discriminatory measures in that state and elsewhere, and in general denounce the “deviant lifestyle” of queerness like a Good Christian. After successfully leading a campaign in Florida to repeal a law affording protection to gays, she crowed:
Tonight the laws of God, and the cultural values of man have been vindicated. The people of Dade County, the Normal majority, have said ‘Enough, enough, enough.’
She didn’t specify whose god, which divine laws or which man, but it’s clear enough that in her worldview, gays, by existing in her direction, were blatantly assaulting her and other “normal” folks. (Bear in mind, this was not about gay marriage or any other particular right or benefit; it was just a law to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.) In fact, she and her cohorts portrayed homosexuality as an evil cult that tried to recruit children into its Satanic rituals. (Actually, gay pedophiles are rather likely to be members of the priesthood. And anyone remember what religion they represent?)
Her triumph was short-lived, because laws recognizing gays as human were reestablished in Florida and elsewhere and in fact her activities galvanized a network of gay activists nationwide to fight harder than ever for equality. During one appearance on a TV station in Des Moines, one such activist smacked her in the face with a strawberry rhubarb pie. Whereupon she quipped, “At least it’s a fruit pie.” Nyuk nyuk nyuk. Afterward, I heard it said that her getting her just desserts constituted the kind of persecution that Christians typically have to face in our society, and the fellow who did the serving proved that them librulz are hateful and intolerant. Seriously.
Kirk Cameron hasn’t gone on nearly such a holy tear as Bryant, at least not yet. In fact, all the hubbub was really about a single comment, a tempest in a fruit punch bowl, if you will. Speaking to CNN’s Piers Morgan, he declared that he considered homosexuality not only “sinful” but “unnatural” and “ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.” What foundations? Destructive how? He didn’t elaborate. He didn’t need to. He has a direct line to Yahweh Himself.
It’s become trendy among fundamentalist gay-bashers to weasel out of the guilt of being hatemongers by insisting that they “hate the sin and not the sinner”, and that’s essentially how he tried to validate his position. Sorry, won’t work. To label anyone a “sinner” is arrogant, presumptuous and judgmental (Aren’t Christians supposed to believe that only God can determine who’s a sinner?); to do so on the basis of factors beyond their control is, in addition to the above, bigoted if not downright hateful.
But chances are there wouldn’t have been such an outcry over this one ill-advised utterance had not Mr. Cameron done an encore during another TV appearance. A couple of weeks later, NBC’s Ann Curry pressed him to explain himself a little further, pointing out that many people (she didn’t say including herself) might consider his words “hate speech”. It was a golden opportunity for him to redeem himself, to justify his beliefs or else apologize for his thoughtless words. Instead, he did more or less what simpleminded ideologues so often do when challenged: he did a Sarah — i.e., he shifted the blame to those doing the questioning:
I love all people. I hate no one. And, you know, when you take a subject and you reduce it to something like a four-second sound bite, and a check mark on a ballot, I think that that’s inappropriate and insensitive.
Pretty speech. But somehow I suspect that if I said Mr. Cameron was an unnatural critter who was destructive to civilization, he wouldn’t deem it particularly loving. Furthermore, he still tap-danced around the question he was asked, as well as the larger question of just what he’d intended to say in the first place. Why exactly does he consider gays such a threat to his particular civilization? And what exactly did he mean by “unnatural”?
The latter is no trivial pursuit; “natural” (and hence unnatural) is one of those words that mean whatever people want them to. At one extreme, nothing is unnatural, because we human beings are a part of nature, and therefore one might argue that everything we create or produce is also a part of nature — even including nuclear reactors and sneakers with lights. But when people invoke these two words for ideological purposes, they’re most often focused on the other extreme: that “natural” includes only those things that might have been around in the day of the Neanderthals — or in the Garden of Eden, if you will.
By this line of reasoning, the “unnatural” would include clothing, penicillin, razors, bicycles, spectacles, toilet tissue, the computers with which Christians disseminate their beliefs, and the Bible from which they profess to obtain them. But it would not include homosexuality. It’s common among animals of many kinds, not just humans, and most of these species have never even been exposed to the supposedly corrupting influences of pop culture or those legendary gay recruiters.
Homosexuality has always been around, and is an integral component of the foundations of civilization; yet Mr. Cameron believes that its continued existence, by some process or other, threatens the survival of civilization. He expressed, in other words, a strong opinion on a matter about which he is, in fact, quite ignorant. There’s a word for that: bigotry, the evil stepmother of hatred.
To condemn gayness in the name of the deity that invented it is misguided at best, and potentially far worse. Even when camouflaged by angelic robes, the rhetoric of the Cameron-Bryant Follies is a fuse attached to the powder keg of hate crime. Words like “unnatural” “destructive”, “abnormal” and “deviant” suggest “perverted”, “malicious”, “evil” and “dangerous”. And it’s not at all hard to conclude that repeatedly characterizing any segment of the population in such terms — particularly when coupled with the type of blatantly slanderous allegations advanced by Bryant and certain “Christian” “Family” organizations — breeds a festering animosity toward such a segment that could escalate into physical violence, perhaps of the type directed against Matthew Shepard.
(Food for thought: Since the official spin is that “liberals” are more hateful and intolerant than “conservatives”, and that criticizing a “Christian” is more hateful and intolerant that just about any type of attack against a gay, what would happen if “liberals” committed a Matthew Shepard type of torture-murder? Would that be considered as hateful and intolerant as, say, pieing Anita? A very interesting “lady or tiger” type of conundrum.)
Just as Bryant’s pie in the face was a badge of her putative persecution for her “principles”, Cameron — whose career hadn’t been exactly Disneyland lately — has used the notoriety from his TV appearances to make further TV appearances to say the same things and protest about being misunderstood again. He has become a poster boy for the National Organization for Marriage, one of those cherubic sounding groups that strive to “protect” marriage by prohibiting the wrong people from getting married. NOM, by the way, is also mulling the enlistment of other “glamorous, non-cognitive elites” — i.e., attractive but stupid celebrities — to champion its cause. You think I’m joshing?
He’s also launched a speaking tour to share his expertise with the rest of the world, and has even taken advantage of his newly acquired limelight to defend Congressman Todd Akin, who’s come under fire for displaying a level of scientific knowledge comparable to Cameron’s own. Yet for all his embracing of opportunities for exposure, he’s rejected a friendly invitation from a group of gay teens to conduct a constructive dialogue about his views on homosexuality.
In short, Ann Curry’s line of inquiry was entirely relevant; she was doing the job for which she gets paid. But that, of course, was not how it was spun. The media, taking its cue as usual from the most extreme of rightwingnutball diatribes, began to suggest that she was “attacking” him for his “Christianity” (always including, of course, the obligatory projection that “If he’d been Muslim instead”, yada yada yada). The most monumentally silly of these diatribes, the absolute Mount Rushmore of silliness was surely the one at Breitbart.com. (The man is gone, but his brilliant legacy lives on.) Accompanied by an audio clip of her questions on the topic with his responses edited out — giving the impression that she’d hammered away at him without giving him an opportunity to answer — the blog entry included these scintillating observations:
Make no mistake about it, this is all about going after the Christian Church. Same-sex marriage, GLAAD’s fascist rampages, and all of this Orwellian political correctness is part of long-term goal — and that’s to make Christian beliefs a form of bigotry and to force a left-wing agenda on the church all under a Trojan horse labelled “discrimination.”…
We all know what the next step is, and that’s the outlawing of these opinions under the principle that the speaking of such things will cause harm to others.
This, of course, would mean the end to the church — which is the whole idea.
No, stop laughing. These folks are serious. I think. Never mind that the great majority of “liberals” are Christians, and the great majority of gays are Christian, and that by no means do all Christians condemn gays as “sinners”. Facts? We don’t need no stinkin’ facts. We got an ideology.
Make no mistake (to coin a phrase), this has far less to do with any imagined persecution of Christians and far more to do with promoting the notion that them librulz are even more evil than them fairies. The good folks at Brietbart and elsewhere know that Bible thumping is a very reliable technique for getting people to fall in line with an extremist ideology.
Fortunately for them, there are plenty of Christians who are willing to swallow it hook, line and crucifix.
The Propaganda Professor 
Anita Bryant was bad enough, but 30 years later we have Mr. “Eat Da Poo Poo”!
With homosexuality being found among animals, cannibalism, stealing, etc. are also found among them, so it’s a bad idea to say that because animals do something people do. As I said in my last post, it’s best for gays/lesbians to be celibate until cure is found for this. No gays, don’t choose orientation, but they choose their sexual behavior. Transexuals are worse and they should abolish sex changes.No surprise you would mention Matthew or as I call him Methew Wayne Shepard but again before October 1998 day, Methew Wayne Shepard was regarded by many including friends as moody, obnoxious and selfish.
Methew Wayne Shepard a drug junky who mixed Ecstasy with antidepressants. Methew Wayne Shepard chose Univeristy of Wyoming out of all colleges but then insulted the college and Laramie. Metthew Wayne Shepard even rudely cut in line in front of handicapped while shopping-his excuse was his depression which Okay only he knew but depression impairing him is no excuse. In August 1998, 2 months before his killing Methew Wayne Shepard falsely accused a man of a crime-homosexual gang rape which was disproven by medical tests because nothing had happened. Excuses made by Shepard’s friends and family is his depression, PTSD, etc. Truth is before Metthew Wayne Shepard was killed he was viewed as obnoxious, moody and selfish but after he has killed by 2 men, then he got hero or queero worship.
As I said in another post, I’m nonreligious but I see something wrong with gay/lesbian behaviors, no matter why it happens. I could tell alot about gay bashings, but most gay bashings I’ve found are men (often teenage boys) reacting to crimes which the gay first did such as gay harasses or commits assault & battery on a teenage boy and the teenage boy fights back. It’s safe to attack Christians as you just did here, but it takes courage to tell the politically incorrect truth about gays, lesbians and transexuals.
The fact that I allow this kind of deranged rambling to be posted here is a pretty good indication of how tolerant I am.
Thanks for allowing my post esp. as you don’t usually get opposing facts. You didn’t rebut other than call it ‘deranged rambling’. You implied in this article that it’s religious people esp. Judeo-Christians who are against gayism, lesbianism but I am proof that there are nonreligious people who are against gayism, lesbianism & transexuality.
I don’t always agree with Religious Right. I was against Iraq War, am pro-choice on abortion, among other things where Religious Right differs. But I agree with Religious Right on the gay/lesbian topic & I agree with Religious Right that we must abolish sex change mutilations. Incidentally, there are gays/lesbians who are against sex change maimings.
& P.O.P., when I wrote the ugly truths of who Matthew or Methew Wayne Shepard was before his October 1998 death, you didn’t have thoughts. I am not a friend, relative or lawyer for the 2 men who killed him-he was a murder victim. But being a murder victim didn’t change ugly truth that Methew Wayne Shepard in the last year of his life mistreated others.
Gay icons Harvey B. Milk and Methew Wayne Shepard both mistreated others and in the end both were killed. & again, it’s Shepard’s friends and family who have profited from his death. In the few cases where the ugly truths were told about M.W. Shepard such as the November 2004 20/20 show detailing his drug junkyism, gay/lesbian groups condemned it. If you can think of anything, then please comment. Again, truth is that the 2 gay icons Harvey B. Milk (1930-1978) and as I call him Methew Wayne Shepard (1976-1998) both mistreated others with Harvey B. Milk committing sex abuse on a 16 year old boy in 1964. I don’t care if gay/lesbian groups privately honor them but when they bring Laramie Project and 2008 movie Milk into schools, then that is wrong especially when the ugly truths of who both gays were are left out. Thanks again for allowing my post and you have a nice weekend.
A 16 year old is old enough in many states to give informed consent… try again
Its disturbingly puzzling that anybody making such a complaint about Matthew Shepard in the last years of his life can turn around and feel self-righteous enough to say extremely hurtful things about Matthew’s parents—not to mention making glaringly hypocritical statements like the following:
“Matthew Wayne Shepard in the last year of his life mistreated others.”……….??
Aparently the commenter feels that he is on a self righteous mission to tell the world what gays are realy like, as described in his own book of narrow minded hatred—even though his ideas are backwards, callous, and abusingly hurtful to the parents of someone killed in such a brutal, violent, and ugly way!
As I have said before, this commenter must know nothing about having loving parents. or about loving one’s parents. The hurt he causes is downright criminal, yet he only see’s what he want’s to see, and hears what he wants to hear. The fact is that his version of Matthew Shepard and Jimenez’s grossly flawed book, are rife with faulty methodology that simply goes as far as someone can get from practicing good journalism. Jimenez’s research is reminiscent of the most bizarre scandal rags in our supermarket checkouts, yet this commenter continues to post his own faulty ideas over and over again—like a skipping record! Recently he has engaged me on other forums, even when I had no desire to engage him.
He may not be religious but he certainly swallows almost everything said, by those who approach this topic with their own religious bias to begin with, and adds one distortion after another, in order to imply that God and/or nature hates all gays, and that Gays are nothing but criminals!—after all, who is better at selling demented lies about gays then the self appointed experts to blindly discard tons of research and evidence from learned Psychologists, Psychiatrists, sociologists and just about every scientist who has ever studied sexual orientation with objectivity?
I said it before, and I’ll say it again. I want nothing to do with this commenter, on this or any other forum. If he continues rationalizing his own cruel disregard for the feelings of Mathews loved ones, I will treat all he says in the future with disregard also! Good riddance to bad rubbish! I wish I didn’t have to be so blunt, but after months of going back and forth countering every faulty and hateful comment he’s ever made, reading him the riot act is the only thing left that might possibly make a dent in his thick head.
And yes POP, some states do consider 16 year olds as being old enough to choose their own sex partners, and the laws also tend to tread male homosexual relationships with young men, with more leniency than it does those who seek sex with underage women. I believe the fact that a man cannot biologically impregnate another man has figured prominently in legal decisions about relationships like those Harvey Milk had. I just wish there were some excuse for the idiots who continue stereotyping gays with backwards disdain and bias, to actually change their narrow little minds!
I say these things in part because my next door neighbor and childhood friend, suffered the stigma of being told that every feeling which felt natural for him was somehow sick and perverted. It wasn’t until years later that I realized how much hurt and pain he must have dealt with just to maintain the courage to survive–meanwhile ignorant idiots who haven’t got half the virtues and courage as him, continue to blame depression and personally desperate feelings in gays, on the assumption that they are only suffering because of choosing to live a life of sin. None of us chooses our sexuality, and homosexual behavior is common among many other species, yet all is ignored by simply inventing the gay apologist myth, instead of recognizing the results of valid research being simply a way of arriving at facts and truth! No light or air can enter the sealed room where conspiracy theorists live in hermetically sealed darkness, in order to perpetuate their own ignorance.
The commenter who has repeatedly repeated himself—over and over again—without learning a bit about objective facts, will continue to deny all reason while a plethora of talented, sensitive, and sexually healthy people are denied the right to be full human beings with all the rights that the rest of us enjoy. Its just fruitless to try and reason with those who insist on spreading their own ignorance via referencing their own ignorance? Goodbye to the jerk who obsessively makes these deranged comments over and over again!!!
Added comment with gay bashings. With gay bashings, most gay bashings are men reacting to crimes the gay & transexual ( worse than gays) did. Gays often harass teenage boys or smaller men & the men react by bashing the gay. I would rather have a case where a jury decides if a man’s reaction to bashing or killing a gay after the gay did indecent exposure was justified or excess, vs. the man not doing enough & the gay does something worse. A gay bashing case I know of from many years ago in Arizona. What had happened was that an 18 year old boy had been in a park with friends. A gay who was much bigger than him grabbed the boy’s butt & made a sex comment. The boy then told his 2 friends. After this, the 2 men grabbed the gay, brought him to the boy who then hit the gay several times in the face.
That ‘gay bashing’ victim committed a crime-assault&battery & boy reacted by bashing him. If that teenage boy had tried to walk away, that gay who was much bigger than him would likely have attacked him (possibly homosexual rape) because the gay had a violent history (unreported to cops) of beating up teenager boys after harassing them for sex & these cases unpredictable-that teenager boy would likely have ended up in the hospital. To say that ass grabbing is the only crime the gay was going to do is dishonest. Better to do too much than not enough in cases like that. With that gay, it’s highly likely the gay was trying to do something more violent than ass grabbing, so that gay deserves no sympathy for getting hit in the face.
This gay again had beaten up other teenager boys after committing assault & battery (ass grabbing), was likely trying to do it to this teenager boy, but because this teenager boy had 2 friends (1 a martial arts expert) who were with him, they were able to defend this boy before he got beaten up. If the homosexual is high on drugs (many gays drugjunkies) such as cocaine as that gay possibly was then it’s likely the gay would’ve done more violent crime in a cocaine rage if indeed the gay was high. Self-defense is a jury topic after hearing both prosecutor & defense lawyer & jury decides if gay basher used reasonable or excessive force. If the gay has a violent history, then it is relevant because it supports idea that the gay was going to attack the man after harassing the man.
In another case in Hickory N.C., former cop Greg Joseph Miraglia, Judy P. Shepard, Jason C. Marsden of Shepard Foundation & farting Squaw Tiffany Camille Edwards Hunt of Big Island Chronicle predictably sympathized with homosexual coward Stephen Eric Starr. Homosexual coward Stephen E. Starr in February 2011 sexually abused a 19 year old mentally handicapped kid. What had happened was that Stephen E. Starr took this 19 year old mentally handicapped into this home & told others the boy was his ‘adopted son.’ But Stephen E. Starr sexually abused this kid by putting drugs in his Mucinex. The 19 year old kid shot and killed Stephen E. Starr in his sleep and then mutilated his body with ax. Stephen E. Starr committed a crime by sexually abusing the kid & that kid took his revenge. Judy P. Shepard & other gay groups see nothing wrong with homosexual coward Stephen E. Starr sexually abusing a 19 year old mentally handicapped kid. Don’t be surprised if Stephen Eric Starr had done this before to other teen boys before but that this time, the kid killed him.
Believe it or not Abner, but most liberals who promote tolerance towards gays, don’t approve if a gay person rapes another against his will, nor do they minimize any kind of sexual assault, including a straight man attacking a woman with the intent of raping her. However, you never seem to include just where, when and from whom, you receive such private information that victims of homosexual abuse, (by your own admission) hide from everyone else, out of shame and fear? The few times you are specific, it is pretty easy to reveal that the anti-gay ideologues you quote have cherry picked data, used faulty methodology, or have outright lied about supposed aggression on the part of homosexuals, who you seem to feel are all just dying to rape someone–I may be exaggerating your opinions, but I think, not by much!
Most of the information that you claim belongs only to those brave enough to ignore conventional and politically correct ideology, is in fact,mostly untrue or even completely false. The really scary thing is that you seem to believe the self-serving narrative that portrays all gays as the real villains, while straight minded victims of their affections, are portrayed as completely justified when they attack a gay person and beat him half to death—for anything they subjectively consider offensive! Truthfully speaking though, police records are full of testimony from such “victims,” who angrily report that the person they attacked, tried to flirt with, or homosexually attack them, for no other reason than that the offender smiled at them in a friendly way or transmitted such an intent with some vague gestures that they considered indicative of homosexual aggression. The police that document these reports are undoubtedly mostly NOT gay, and DO NOT try to bolster gays for having the right to love who they want to love. Cops are typically not on the far left, and most often are quite a ways to the right.
I should have guessed that I would find the same remarks regarding your beliefs endlessly copied and pasted over and over again from one comment to the next. The least you could do is offer a few new ideas once in a while since you are only giving the impression that your own words are somehow supremely just and wise—after all, why else would you rely on them over and over again, as if they are some sort of righteous statements of imbued with undeniably supreme truth that, those nasty scientists and psychologists, as well as those in dozens of other professional organizations refuse to acknowledge. However, you never seem to detail just why psychologists and medical doctors are advancing a “gay agenda,” as in—what do they want to gain, and where is your proof of that?
Apparently it is easier to repeat everything you have said many times over than to respond with original comments to new and different issues. Its sad to know that the arguments you and I engage in during 2014, reflect almost identical “facts” and beliefs which you have already regurgitated about this article, more than a year earlier. Are you really using your mind or are you just content to repeat old talking points ad-infinitum, to disguise the fact that you are not really interested in reason and open minded discussions at all, but only in rehashing all of the factually deficient statements, that you have made in years gone by?
only in opinions which sound good to you? Nothing feels quite as good as being persecuted for the “truth,” while you are busy spreading stereotypes slander, and hateful opinions that somehow the objects of your scorn become upset by. You don’t have to convince anyone else of your misinformation and mythological facts—you need to be aware of your own misconceptions–misconceptions that motivate you to falsely describe homosexuals in about every possible way you can.
I recently left another comment for the above commenter on another forum, in which I stated that those of us who cannot understand his obsessive attitude towards Matthew Shepard’s murder and trial,
sometimes cannot help but wonder if he is disguising disdain for his own self hated and personal sexual orientation because it is like Matthew’s. I didn’t accuse him of being gay, I just raised this reasonable question in response to his fanatic and cruel treatment of Matthew’s parents, who he believes only began their foundation as a way to get rich off of their son’s death?
The fact is that some of their work was done for free, and when receiving pay they only receive a stipend which provided for their food, room and board, and the traveling expenses which they incur, (and little else), while actively spread a message about intolerance and hate crimes. After all they are no longer working their former jobs while dedicating all their spare time to the cause of ending hate crimes against gays. These facts were openly given to me by volunteers who have knowledge about the expenses Mr. and Mrs. Sheppard’s foundation incur–and to think anything less, is to automatically accept unsubstantiated falsehoods and wishful thinking on the parts of those who hate people like Matt—not to mention the fact that if his parents really only wanted the money raised for Matthew’s charity, they would have given stipends to others who could then spread the word! There would really be no reason for them to work long and hard, traveling to all areas of the country when they could easily collect money just as well while doing nothing but using it for themselves? Obviously those who accuse and who want the facts to conform to their own desires, are really those taking advantage of Matthew’s murder!
In the meantime the way this commenter insists on what he must considers are his own righteous actions—taken in order to tell Matthew’s parents what a horrible person their brutally slain son was—also copies pastes and re-pastes issuing the same tired comments over and over again, as if he has no ability to respond directly to the many new and varied remarks made by those of us who disagree?
In regards to my understandable wonderings about whether he himself is gay or has some irrational vendetta against gays, he has reacted with the typical response of implying that he is being treated badly or persecuted, by those of us who don’t want to believe the character assasination attempts made by people like him, who are irrationally obsessed with the desire to tell the rest of us what a terrible person Matthew was? You see, in his mind it is more acceptable that all of us who question the extremely faulty research in the book of Matt, and who cite all of the many pesky facts that point to the convicted murderer’s unmistakable guilt, are somehow advancing a “pro-gay, or gay apologists vendetta?” Never mind that the evidence Jimenez uses to make his case does not stand up to scrutiny? Never mind that one of Matthew’s killers has admitted while behind bars, that he did indeed kill Matthew and that part of the reason was his gayness. And never mind that the other killer has written letters of apology to Matthew’s parents. Instead this commenters argument is that your spin is as good as mine!
In the meantime he continues to spread the myth that somehow Matthew’s parents are getting rich off of his death, while not providing a single shred of evidence beyond the hearsay and opinions provided by those who are already sure that homosexuals are all sick or perverse. To substantiate these charges. (like many Christian propagandists), the commenter has chosen to opt out from facing facts in order to repeat the tired old argument that he is merely being treated badly or being persecuted, for daring to accuse Matthew and his family of all sorts of hurtful things! some of which may be based on facts, but are then needlessly magnified and repeated to effectively vilify the person who was so brutally killed.
How very wrong and delusional this person is!
Other comments of mine recently made on this thread were intended to criticize A. Bhattacharya, or Abner as he is nicknamed. But, sometimes my replies seem to be posted in areas where they were not intended to be, and I just wanted to make it clear who my critical comments were directed at.
BTW, why Matthew or Methew Wayne Shepard was killed, only he and his 2 killers know and only he knew what was on his mind. But it’s possible that Methew Wayne Shepard had a suicide wish that day, in that he knew who both his killers were (1 a convicted robber) so it’s possible that he grabbed his killer’s groin against will and put his tongue in his ear (assault & battery) with hope his 2 killers would react violently and kill him. People have committed suicide by cops where a person charges cops with a knife or points a gun @ cops with the hope the police will shoot them dead. Methew Wayne Shepard was a drunkard junky who mixed Ecstasy with antidepressants and Methew Wayne Shepard had worsening depression as he learned had AIDS not long before his death.
So it’s possible Methew Wayne Shepard had a suicide that day though it’s not likely he expected to be hit 18 times with a gun and tied to fence but instead he expected his killer to take out the gun and shoot him dead. Yes, only Methew Wayne Shepard knew but possibility of him having a suicide with that October 1998 day can’t be ruled out. I spoke with Mr. Kerry A. Drake a former journalist/editor of Casper Star Tribune on Sept. 24, 2012 about this possibility and he couldn’t rule it out. We don’t know and will never know what was on his mind that day.
Finally, with gay/lesbian behaviors, yes it’s been around since time started and is not going away anytime soon. If 2 willing and knowing adults want to do gay/lesbian behaviors, then that’s what they’ll do, as it is legal. It’s undebatable truth that if a person’s a victim of childhood sex abuse, then it’s more likely he or she will do gay/lesbian conduct repeating what he learned-those who deny are either dishonest, delusional or both. Many gays were victims of homosexual rapes when they were boys such as by gay priests.
There could be other causes which haven’t been conclusively proven such as genes, but if that’s true then the gay gene would be the same thing as a cancer or heart attack gene. We should work to find a cure for the gay gene if indeed this is true.
Gay/lesbian behaviors are bad and transexuals are worse. They must abolish sex changes as those are maimings. I’ve never heard a straight person blame childhood sex abuse for reason a man is married to a woman & has kids with her but I’ve heard some gays & lesbians blame bad things such as childhood sex abuse. We must search for curing homosexuality & transexuality.
P.O.P., I used to be netural on gay/lesbian behaviors. If you had asked me about this in 2002 or 2003, I wouldn’t have cared by saying if 2 knowing and willing adults want to do gay/lesbian behaviors that it’s their business. But my view on gayism & lesbianism changed in late 2004, after thinking about it. P.O.P., I’ve thought about this topic and there’s something wrong with gay/lesbian behaviors just as there’s something wrong with drug junkyism and that we must find cure for this. If gay/lesbian behaviors are eventually cured, then I don’t see why you should lose sleep or care 1 way or the other.
I’ve even talked to an individual gay activist in Arizona (who I won‘t name) who in March 2010 told me that if a cure for gayism, lesbianism and transexuality were found, he would not lose sleep over it, just as he wouldn‘t lose sleep if oral sex eventually disappeared. Again, this gay who I talked to is a gay rights activist who repeats homosexuality isn’t a disease & is a gay rights activist, yet he also admitted that he wouldn’t lose sleep if gay/lesbian behaviors disappeared.
Michael E. Glatze has said that childhood sex abuse is major cause of homosexuality& transexuality-they must abolish sex changes. He used to be editor of Young Gay America before converting to Christianity & realizing his earlier views were wrong. My reasons for being against gay/lesbian behaviors are unrelated to a religion as I’m nonreligious, but nothing wrong with having religious justifications. Michael E. Glatze used to be editor of Young Gay America before converting to Christianity & realizing his earlier views were wrong.
See here http://www.wnd.com/2007/07/42385/ With gayism/lesbianism, if 2 knowing and willful adults want to do this, then yes, it‘s legal. But it must be understood that gay/lesbian behaviors are result of bad things in life, whether it’s childhood sex abuse or if it’s proven to be biological then bad biology such as gene defect if that’s proven.
#Also P.O.P. HYPERLINK “http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/kaitlyn-hunt-becoming-symbol-in-vero-beach”http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/kaitlyn…-in-vero-beach P.O.P.,
Lesbian Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt must go to prison for having sex with underage girl. But here, gay/lesbian groups are rallying for lesbian Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt who admitted to having sex with an underage girl among other places in a public bathroom.
What’s also said is that the victim’s parents have been harassed for reporting this crime to police. What Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt did is sex abuse for which she must be punished & let‘s hope the girl doesn‘t turn out lesbian because of this sex abuse. Jason Christopher Marsden (Fartsden) of Shepard Foundation, Judy Peck Shepard, Laramie Project, corrupt ex cop Greg Joseph Miraglia and farting Squaw Big Island Chronicle’s Tiffany Camille Edwards Hunt are against this lesbian going to jail for sexually abusing a teenage girl in a PUBLIC RESTROOM.
[…] Complex: “Playing Chikin“, “A Tale of Two Legal Judgments” and “The Kirk Cameron/ Anita Bryant Delusion“.) But they’ll settle for other groups as […]
[…] Activism and the Christian Persecution Complex: Playing Chikin, A Tale of Two Legal Judgments, The Kirk Cameron/ Anita Bryant Delusion, and Ducking […]
I believe the negative views of homosexual/lesbian conduct is the right view because there is something wrong with homosexual/lesbian conduct and again, they must make it a crime to do sex changes. Homosexual/lesbian conduct needs to be marginalized such as smoking/tobacco use is. I know my view offends homosexuals, but most smokers do not get offended by negative views of tobacco use. So homosexuals/lesbians have to hear others give negative views of their sex lives, because there is something wrong with this just as there’s something wrong with smoking.
With what is alleged about straight men going out and bashing gay men to prove their heterosexuality or because they are insecure of their own sexuality I have heard before, thought about and found that to be mostly false and homosexual propaganda which not enough people challenge. Yes, gay basher’s have an interest to justify their deeds, gay bashing victims have an interest to make themselves look like innocent victims. We don’t always know the other side of story and that is usually different from what homosexual says happened.
Most straight men are not going to bash a gay because he smiled, said hello or even proposed to them in a bar or house. Going out & attacking people with no provocation is stupid but yes, there are stupid people. Most straight men are not going to risk going to prison for many years by bashing or killing a gay. Most straight men while they see something wrong with homosexual and lesbian conduct as I do have the view that if a homosexual is not committing a crime, then what they do in their personal life is their life. If a man is a guest in a gay man’s house and the gay man proposes, the right thing to do is say no and leave because it is the gay man’s house and the gay man did not commit a crime when he did the proposal so the right thing to do is leave the house.
Proposing (straight or gay) in your house, singles bar or @ a private party is in most cases legal. The right thing to do is say no and leave. However, repeatedly proposing after some1 has said no is criminal harassment. If gay man repeatedly proposes such as follow the man around after no has been said, then the homosexual is committing criminal stalking and the man has a right to end this abuse. If a homosexual is going to commit indecent exposure, then it’s a crime and there is no need for a man to say no to a crime the homosexual had no right to do. & there is no need for a man to say no to a homosexual who is proposing to him in a public restroom because public restroom is not a house or a bar and it’s illegal to ask others for sex in public restroom. & for a homosexual to follow a man around and propose to him repeatedly after he said no is criminal.
Most gay bashings are men reacting to crimes which the homosexual first did such as after a homosexual committed indecent exposure, assault & battery or other crime. Homosexuals often target teenage boys because they think the teenage boys are easy targets to sexually abuse and some of the teenage boys fight back. With gay bashing cases, I have found that gays often harass & or commit assault/battery on teenage boys to men in early 20s & the men react by bashing the gay. Most men and boys who are victims of gays usu. won’t call cops to report that a gay is committing indecent exposure, harassment or in worst cases molestation until some1 reacts violently and bashes the gay.
Also Peter W. Johnson, words such as groping, ‘unwanted…’ are codes eupehemisms for assault and battery. If a homosexual ‘gropes’ a man’s butt or groin against his will, then it is criminal assault and battery and a man has right to use reasonable force to end the abuse. It is possible for a homosexual to commit assault and battery such as ‘grope’ a man’s butt or groin against will & then seconds later beat up the man or commit homosexual rape because these situations are unpredictable. Let’s say a gay grabs a man’s butt or groin against will (assault and battery possibly sex abuse) after which the man reacts violently and bashes or kills the gay. I would rather have this result and then have a jury decide if it’s justified or excess vs. the man does not do enough and the homosexual does something violent to him or the next man. The man is reacting to a crime the homosexual did I would rather have a case where a jury decides if a man’s reaction to bashing or killing a homosexual is justified or excess vs. the man doesn’t do enough and the gay does something worse to him or the next man and you do not always know what the homosexual did to others before you.
It is wrong Peter W. Johnson, to think that if you do nothing and walk away, the homosexual will end there because he can follow you and then violently attack you-these situations are unpredictable-When homosexuals molest men and teenage boys, the first thing they do is assault and battery such as grab a boy’s butt or groin against will. Many gay bashing cases are teenage boys beating up a 34 year old gay man and what happened in these cases the 30 something year old gay men exposed their genitals to the teenage boy & the teenage boys reacted by bashing or killing the homosexual-yes Peter W. Johnsin, we can debate whether the teenage boy used justified or excess force but what we can not debate is the fact the teenage boys reacted to a crime which the homosexual did which is indecent exposure and I would rather have the teenage boy kill the homosexual and then have a jury decide after hearing both prosecutor and defense lawyer is the teenage boys reaction justified (self-defense) or excess and if it’s excess then is it the lesser charge of manslaughter rather than murder. Self-defense is a jury topic after hearing both prosecutor & defense lawyer & jury decides if gay basher used reasonable or excessive force.
But here are other things for you to think about Peter W. Johnson-if you’re a store owner there is no need to put up signs that say ‘don’t steal’ because stealing is a crime and no need to say no to a crime the other person has no right to do. If some1 is stealing from your store, the right thing to do is use reasonable (not excess) force to stop the the thief and have the police arrest the thief. If you do nothing, then worse can happen as these situations can be unpredictable. It is possible for a thief to be stealing things anything small such as shoplifting candy to expensive things such as diamonds and then beat up or even kill the shop keeper in the same crime. Many cases where thieves have beaten up or killed shop keepers after stealing. No, stealing alone does not justify deadly force but theft may not be the only crime intended and it is possible for thieves to beat up or kill their victims. If the thief is high on drugs (such as a junky who steals to support his or her habit) then it is possible for the thief to be stealing things and then in a drug rage attack or even kill the store owner including with his own hands.
If a defense lawyer in a gay bashing case wants to raise a crime the gay did such as harassment, indecent exposure, etc. before man reacted violently, then that must be regarded in deciding verdict. Again if homosexual committed indecent exposure, harassment, stalking, etc. before men reacted violently, then the fact the homosexual committed a crime before he was bashed must be decided by jury in deciding if gay basher(s) used reasonable or excess force. If a defense lawyer in a gay bashing case wants to raise a crime the gay did such as harassment, indecent exposure, etc. before man reacted violently, then that must be regarded in deciding verdict. I would rather have a case where a jury decides if a man’s reaction to bashing or killing a homosexual is justified or excess vs. the man doesn’t do enough and the gay does something worse to him or the next man and you do not always know what the homosexual did to others before you. Again, if defense lawyer wants to bring up criminal conduct the homosexual did-harassment, indecent exposure, assault and battery, etc. before man reacted violently, then homosexual’s antisocial conduct must be regarded by jury in deciding verdict. A jury can acquit or if they convict, they can convict a person on lesser charge. Again I would rather have too much done than not enough in that I would rather have a case where a jury decides if a man’s reaction to bashing or killing a homosexual is justified or excess vs. the man doesn’t do enough and the gay does something worse. Most gay bashings are men reacting to crimes which the homosexual first did such as after a homosexual committed indecent exposure, assault & battery or other crime.
Abner,
Thanks for actually responding to some of the points I brought up, rather than just re-pasting everything you’ve said before.
All I can add, is to again, assert that liberals, psychologists, and those who research human sexuality, have never condoned sexual assault perpetrated against someones will. Even gays themselves condemn such forms of abuse even when carried out by other gay people–just as straight people condemn the acts of heterosexual rapists. So, gays are not all shady characters who emerge from under a rock to do their dirty deeds, just as straight people are not. So, the point should be well taken, that all kinds of people abuse and assault others sexually, and police reports are full of statements from those who brutally beat gays, who then say, that some minor thing like having the other person smile at them, set them off.
Of course some homosexuals attack straights, just like some people are attacked because of their race, religion, or some other quality which sets them apart from others, and members of these groups may also attack others in return. But historically, gays have been a prime example of those targeted by bigots who always justify what they do as being only “right.” So, I am wondering if you have the same opinions about flashers, or gropers who target women without respecting them as real human beings. If someone smiles at your girlfriend (even if that person is straight) would you feel justified in severely beating that person? Once again, have you considered that all kinds of people are victims of abuse and, at the hands of all kinds of other people?
Although some homosexuals are pro-football players, and others may be professional body builders, for the most part, gays are wary of being attacked and do not deliberately offend those who might react violently to, God knows what! And if you research cases of gay bashing, you’ll find that often those who assault gays are paranoid of minor things they perceived as being sexual insults or threats. And, even though, like straights, some gay people may rape others, they are by far, in the minority of those who commit such offenses. Again, I would ask you to provide objective proof of your apparent belief that all kinds of homosexuals are actively and sexually, assaulting straight people. It’s not enough to say that gays do this so frequently without proof to back up your claims or Without relying on specific examples that verify the supposed facts that are espoused by various religious people and others who are prejudiced from the start. I simply won’t accept such ideas from Abner, just because Abner says they are true!
Whether or not you change your opinions, I think you lack the ability of really putting yourself in someone else’s shoes. If you could do this, you would immediately become aware, that the reasons some people are angered by you, is because you continually push negative and unproven criticisms of them–not because you threaten them with charges of some wild and unfounded conspiracy! Ask yourself the question—if you were also condemned for qualities you consider normal–such as specifically, your religion, race, education, sexual orientation or income—although you countered such claims over and over again, after providing many factual examples of why none of these things were true, and/or, had no actual basis in reality—you were rebuffed by accusations including the unlikely possibility that all of your solid sources were not true?
When someone insists on holding on to various falsehoods, even when factual evidence clearly refutes them, it’s the person spreading those falsehoods who is persecuting a particular group–not the other way around!
Accordingly, would it be too much to ask if you provided specific proof about why professionals who seek to dispense facts about gays, rather than lies and stereotypes that are often spread about them, are taking part in some nefarious “pro-gay” agenda? Let me ask you directly once more—why would tens of thousands of educated people, who (even statistically), are not even close to being comprised of primarily gay members, and who undoubtedly prefer their heterosexual orientation, would be inclined to lie about all the data they collect? If you think the answer is money–then please provide known cases of scientists who accepted such bribery, and which explain why a learned psychologist or even an MD, might want to spread such damaging falsehoods?
If you want to compare the incomes of ordinary researchers with that of say, television evangelist, I am sure you will not find many scientists who drive Cadillac and live in multi-million dollar mansions. However, you will find cases in which evangelists knowingly used the money raised from their parishioners, to feather their own pockets.
In any case, it doesn’t help you validate your own beliefs by refusing to provide specific and verifiable cases that support them. All in all, there is no comparison between those who lie about gays because they think the Bible gives them that right, and those who supposedly would try and discredit straight people with accusations that they are using false science—for God knows what reasons–and objective scientist who only seek to share what they have found! And, although you claim not to be religious, I would suggest that you stop relying on the lies that some religious groups and their leaders dispense.
So, although you summarily dismiss almost all of the knowledge and evidence provided by tens of thousands of knowledgeable and professional people, let me provide you with an opportunity to provide reliable testimony from religious leaders and those who adamantly disapprove of homosexuals. Will anything they say stand up to valid scrutiny from those who disagree—like the objective scientific knowledge provided by scientists? After all,the simple use of objective knowledge in the defense of gays, is something you have denied people like me from providing since the beginning! Presumably because it doesn’t agree with what you, yourself, think is true! But you have left your tracks on perhaps hundreds of websites, whose owners generously allowed you to have your say!
People distrust mainstream psychologists or mental health ‘professionals’ on homosexuality because-http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200909/why-shrinks-have-problems
Psychologists and psychiatrists often have disorders of their own because they deal with people’s problems such as paranonia, schizophrenia and the stress of that job can mess up mind. I know my view offends homosexuals, but most smokers do not get offended by negative views of tobacco use. So homosexuals/lesbians have to hear others give negative views of their sex lives, because there is something wrong with this just as there’s something wrong with smoking.
It’s a fact that 33% of gays report homosexual rape in youth. Why people take part in gay/lesbian activities is the same as why people get heart disease. Some people take part in gay/lesbian activities because maybe it’s because of biological defect such as hormones or if it’s genes a birth defect. Then some people take part in gay/lesbian activities because of childhood sex abuse reaction. It doesn’t take an expert to know that sex abuse esp. homosexual rape in youth can mess up the mind. There are people who take part in gay activities in adulthood due to reaction from homosexual rapes in youth. I’ve heard some gays & lesbians say that they think sex abuse in youth is a reason why they take part in gay/lesbian activities & it’s hard to know how sex abuse impacted mind. The politically correct psychologists who deny this know it’s possible for a boy to turn out gay as a result of childhood sex abuse, yet deny what they know is true. Of course, not all who are sexually abused in youth become gay in adulthood-but the risk is higher. Any conduct can be learned and this includes sexual conduct.
Abner,
Thanks for including the article from Psychology today.
When I was in college more than forty years ago I took several basic classes in psychology, and the professors I had made it clear that even psychiatrists had their own mental problems, and that no one in that field was arrogant enough to believe that being trained in that science somehow made them perfect examples of mental health, or without human frailties. However, the article you included, was primarily concerned with psychologists and psychiatrists who do talk therapy, or one-on one counseling with patients. None of the ideas expressed in it, had to do with questioning the validity of solid scientific research which by definition includes objective knowledge—not feelings colored by subjective mental and emotional problems. So, when we talk about the opinions endorsed by therapists as a group, we are talking about empirical findings derived by scientific research, not various types of personal therapy. But, if you are bothered by the fact that real human beings have real problems, just like anyone else, I would hope you don’t use this as a means to disregard all of the very valid science behind the study of human sexuality.
Just like a physicist does not base his or her discoveries about the universe and the physical laws on his own beliefs or non-belief In a God, scientists in any field strive to gain (objective) knowledge by studying things related to their fields. Therefore, understand that, when a very large group of therapists and other professionals concludes that there is no direct proof linking childhood sexual abuse to later manifestations of personal sexuality, they are not basing this finding on subjective prejudice–they are basing this finding on the actual physical and statistical evidence that has been studied. And, unlike so many who believe in the promise of things like reparative therapy, they include real facts about what they find, not just unfounded beliefs that such therapy can be successful. Nor do they deny any of the doubts that normally contribute to such an issue. ‘As an example, the very article you have referred to is in a publication dealing with psychiatry, yet still takes a hard look at the lives of therapist themselves.On the other hand, how often have you read a published study put out by religious groups who believe in sexual conversion, that seriously questions the results of its own research? Irregardless, I would suggest you consider this paragraph pasted from the article you gave a link to:
“Data supporting this idea, however, are hard to find. “There’s no evidence whatsoever that you need a history of psychological problems in order to be a good therapist,” insists John Norcross. “In some studies, in the first few sessions only, [patients see] the wounded therapist as a little more empathetic, but the effect doesn’t last. Experience with pain can enhance a therapist’s sensitivity, but that doesn’t necessarily translate into good outcomes.”
Therapists have never claimed to not be human and not having problems of their own, yet there is no evidence that their personal problems affect their ability go be good therapist, However, although it may not be required, may psychologists and Psychiatrists, do periodically undergo therapy themselves in order to assure their own effectiveness at being able to objectively treat others. But, as I said, the results of scientific research do not hinge on having personal problems or not, they have to do with objectively evaluating data, and then reaching objective conclusion–results have more to do with statistical evidence than with personal feelings.
However, the model provided by those in 12 step programs like Alcoholics anonymous is evidence that often personal empathy enhances the ability of one drunk being able to understand and help another. Likewise, when a psychologists has experiences which equal or parallel those of his patient, those experiences just may make him or her, a better and more effective therapist–provided the therapist has worked out their own problems successfully before counseling others having similar problems.
Abner, when you make claims such as, that 33% of those suffering child abuse, become gay as a result, you are still providing non-scientific evidence and opinions, that at best, were arrived at and/or determined by flaws in the ways studies were conducted, and at worst are the conclusions of those who have already examined the data with prejudice, like the many religious groups which have very little objective success to report about conversion therapy, other than those who may temporarily report a lessening of their desires. But, in reality it is dubious if any of them really expriences lasting changes.
I also want to correct your misconception that sexuality is like an addiction to cigarettes. Sexuality is determined by physical, genetic and environmental factors, but addiction to cigarettes, like any addiction (although to some extent may be based on the presence of addiction genes) can happen to anyone who gets into a habit like smoking. Furthermore much of the actual evidence supports that sexuality may be similar to having red hair, blond hair, or black–meaning it is not dependent on environment, but happens primarily because of biological and physical factors–smoking does not specifically follow the same types of physical causes.
You also are quite wrong if you believe that psychiatrists or psychologists are following a political or ideological agenda, when publishing their findings on sexuality. Many of the professional agencies and professionals who accept the findings of researchers are not even in the psychological fields, but they find the conclusions of science entirely accurate anyway.
Once again, I ask you to provide evidence that people in all of these professions are somehow skewing their evidence to support a “pro-gay,” agenda? And if they are, what is their real motivation? If you think money is involved then provide me with proof of that. And remember, that even though people who study sexuality might have their own emotional of mental problems, that does not mean they are willing to falsely evaluate their findings about human sexuality to somehow support gay causes. This is obvious since just like the over-all population, only a small minority of them are avowed gays, and if they want enough statistics to be able to convincingly distorted findings to agree with validations of their own sexuality, that would mean that many many more of these researchers would have to have a gay sexual orientation to begin with, in order to even want to pass of false statistics as being valid, since their results are are examined by peer research done by everyone in their fields! So, you’ll have to do better if you want to pass off your own prejudices as being based on reality!
Something to regard-if you’re a store owner there is no need to put up signs that say ‘don’t steal’ because stealing is a crime and no need to say no to a crime the other person has no right to do. If some1 is stealing from your store, the right thing to do is use reasonable (not excess) force to stop the the thief and have the police arrest the thief. If you do nothing, then worse can happen as these situations can be unpredictable. It is possible for a thief to be stealing things anything small such as shoplifting candy to expensive things such as diamonds and then beat up or even kill the shop keeper in the same crime with or without weapons. Many cases where thieves have beaten up or killed shop keepers after stealing. No, stealing alone does not justify deadly force but theft may not be the only crime intended and it is possible for thieves to beat up or kill their victims. If the thief is high on drugs (such as a junky who steals to support his or her habit) then it is possible for the thief to be stealing things and then in a drug rage attack or even kill the store owner including with his own hands.
So, if a homosexual is going to commit harassment, indecent exposure, stalking, assault and battery (such as if a homosexual grabs a man’s butt or groin against will), etc. then a man has a right to use reasonable force to end the abuse. There’s no need for a man to say no to a homosexual who is committing indecent exposure, etc. because there’s no need to say no to a crime the other had no right to as in the store owner eg.-stealing is a crime and no need to say no to thieves. If a defense lawyer in a gay bashing case wants to raise a crime the gay did such as harassment, indecent exposure, stalking, etc. before man reacted violently, then that must be regarded in deciding verdict. I would rather have a case where a jury decides if a man’s reaction to bashing or killing a homosexual is justified or excess vs. the man doesn’t do enough and the gay does something worse to him or the next man and you do not always know what the homosexual did to others before you. Again I would rather have too much done than not enough in that I would rather have a case where a jury decides if a man’s reaction to bashing or killing a homosexual is justified or excess vs. the man doesn’t do enough and the gay does something worse.
Peter W. Johnson, with gay bashing cases, gays often harass & or commit assault/battery on teenage boys to men in early 20s & the men react by bashing the gay. Most men and boys who are victims of gays usu. won’t call cops to report that a gay is committing indecent exposure, harassment until some1 reacts violently and bashes the gay. With gay bashing victims, are there things about homosexual which news left out ? Possible. We don’t know if the homosexual in news has a secret history of harassing/abusing teenage boys.
If a defense lawyer in a gay bashing case wants to raise a crime the gay did such as harassment, indecent exposure, etc. before man reacted violently, then that must be regarded in deciding verdict. Jury decides if it’s justified or excess force. A jury can acquit or if they convict, they can convict a person on lesser charge. If it is true the homosexual was doing antisocial conduct before he was bashed, then yes, a jury must decide if it was justified or excess force to end the abuse. I would rather have a case where a jury decides if a man’s reaction to bashing or killing a homosexual is justified or excess vs. the man doesn’t do enough and the gay does something worse.
A rebuttal people make with my argument is that gay bashers will sometimes say things to justify their deeds such as the homosexual committed indecent exposure, harassment, stalking and so on and that it’s the gay basher’s side of story which may or may not be true. Yes, this part is true. But just as gay basher’s have an interest to justify their deeds, gay bashing victims have an interest to make themselves look like innocent victims. With gay bashing victim, is he lying to get sympathy ? It’s possible. He maybe telling the truth but he maybe lying to get sympathy. We don’t always know the other side of story and that is usually different from what homosexual says happened.
Abner,
Again, much of your post simply rehashes many of the things you’ve said before, a large part of it even word for word. However, it isn’t a myth that many people who physically assault gays, do so because they are offended by some little thing such as a smile, or an innocent actions which is then interpreted as a gay overture or intention to have sex–the police reports are full of such statements which come directly from the accounts of those who attacked and beat, so called offending gays, for just such trivial reasons. Are you saying that that the police also have a “pro-gay” agenda to fulfill? In my experience the police force and its officers, do not overtly support gay causes, and may in fact, actually be opposed to gay life styles and be prejudiced against gays themselves. As for your analogy about not needing a sign that says, “no stealing,” in order to have the right to defend and protect ones property, I don’t understand the relevance. One also does not have to read any sign around a gay persons neck, to know that attacking and beating someone for a self-perceived threat against their own sexuality is wrong. However when a sexual assault does clearly occur, no one I know, and no authority I have ever heard or read about, would deny the right to self defense–no matter what the sexual orientation of the attacker! Unfortunately most of these accusations are unfounded, or the perceived threat, in no way justifies the severity of the response.
Truth is that gay/lesbian groups think it’s Okay for gays to homolest teenage boys. And just because a gay is in a long term relationship, that usually is not their only relationship. They often bring teenage boys to their home. Of course they won’t usually admit this to avoid arrest going to jail and why they are secretive-most criminals try to keep their crimes secret.
And again Abner,
No person I know, gay, straight, professional or unprofessional, thinks that molesting minors is alright. And, as far as having affairs outside of marriage, the statistics on heterosexual divorces are full of such incidents of cheating or covert affairs done without the knowledge or approval of ones spouse. The frequency of married heterosexual men who do business with prostitutes and/or professional call girls, is also well known and documented. Besides, if gays have no interest in being faithful to the people they wed, then just like straight people, there would be no intention or need to have a wedding in the first place.
The fact is that many gay people have been completely faithful to the same partner for years, and deeply desire to consecrate their relationships by having access to the institution of marriage. Of course some of them might stray, just as heterosexual spouses might stray, but, if gays didn’t care about monogamy or faithfulness, then why in the world would they even want to make an issue about their right to wed in the first place. If they were just interested in sharing legal rights with a partner, such as their own rights as next of kin, or their inheritance of a partner’s estate, then they would be entirely satisfied with laws increasing the binding authority of civil unions–irregardless of marriage! But the fact is, that many of them have been deeply in love with other gay people and desire to consecrate their relationships with the right to marriage and being married in the presence of God and their peers. If not, gay marriage would never have even been an issue to anyone at all!–either gay or straight!
When I read about a gay (transexuals are mutilated gays/lesbians and they must abolish sex changes) bashing case in the news, I wonder what the view is of the journalist reporting this on homosexuality/lesbianism. If the journalist is a homosexual or lesbian , are they setting aside their bias and reporting the news with no problems. I do not trust news that I get from Daily Kos or the Huffington Post on their coverage of gay bashing cases because they make the homosexual look like an innocent victim no matter what wrong the gay does. see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rowe/man-acquitted-of-murder-a_b_231748.html and see
http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2009/07/13/il-cook-county-jury-acquits-man-on-gay-panic-defense-he-stabbed-victim-61-times/
Huffington Post (along with their posters), Daily Kos & lesbian columnist Pamela F. Spaulding all condemned this man for a jury acquitting this man of killing the homosexual though jury concluded man acted in self-defense. Likely that homosexual brought the man home and while the man was sleeping the homosexual started touching the man and the man defended himself by taking a knife and stabbing homosexual to death to prevent something worse such as homosexual rape and the jury concluded the man used justified not excess force. Since Daily Kos, Huffington Post and lesbian columnist Pamela F. Spaulding among others see nothing wrong with homosexuals committing crimes and condemn men who defend themselves against these crimes, I don’t trust media on the gay bashing topic, because too many make homosexuals look innocent victims no matter what wrong the gay does. A rebuttal people make with my argument is that gay bashers will sometimes say things to justify their deeds such as saying the homosexual committed indecent exposure, harassment, stalking and so on and that it’s the gay basher’s side of story which may or may not be true. Yes, just as gay basher’s have an interest to justify their deeds, gay bashing victims have an interest to make themselves look like innocent victims.
When homosexuals molest men and teenage boys, the first thing they do is grab a boy’s butt or groin against will-assault and battery before trying a more violent deed. I would not be surprised if the homosexual in that news story had a history of bringing men to his apartment to sexually abuse but this time a man fought back by killing him and the man is condemned for acting in self-defense. With gay bashing cases, I have found that gays often harass & or commit assault/battery on teenage boys to men in early 20s & the men react by bashing the gay. Most men and boys who are victims of gays usu. won’t call cops to report that a gay is committing indecent exposure, harassment or in worst cases molestation until some1 reacts violently and bashes the gay. Again I would rather have too much done than not enough in that I would rather have a case where a jury decides if a man’s reaction to bashing or killing a homosexual is justified or excess vs. the man doesn’t do enough and the gay does something worse. Most gay bashings are men reacting to crimes which the homosexual first did such as after a homosexual committed indecent exposure, assault & battery or other crime.
And, again Abner, you are making a lot of unwarranted assumption about gays being the actual aggressors in cases of gay-bashing. But in America, even exposing one’s genitals, or grabbing someone’s butt is not a crime punishable by death. If it was, then many heterosexual assaults committed against women, would be punishable by death, even if no real physical harm was done, or, if the alleged assault did not really happen in the way a female victim claimed!
And, if you think stabbing someone in his or her sleep, in order to prevent a (possible sexual assault when that person awakes but hasn’t even committed by them yet) is enough justification to kill someone for a crime that wasn’t even carried out, then I have serious reservations about your understandings about the laws governing real sexual assaults!
Peter W. Johnson, I see no proof that many gays are beaten up in unprovoked attacks, because there are not many police reports saying this. I have talked to cops and they almost never get gay bashing cases. Almost all the assault & battery cases they get are domestic violence-usually man beating up his wife or girlfriend but sometimes women who beat up their husbands or boyfriends & though women commit 10 to 15% of domestic violence cases, there are many more reports of this assault & battery than gay bashings. Most police cases are the usual-drunk driving, drugs, thieves and domestic violence with a few other assault & batteries here & there. Some are rape/sex abuse cases (usually he says she says) & homicides. But gay bashings almost never happen and even here they are usually assault & battery cases, he says he says. Few are homicides.
Peter W. Johnson, with ANY assault and battery or murder case including gay bashing cases, unless there is a plea bargain (which happens in most cases) juries decide after hearing both prosecutor and defense lawyer. Juries decide what is reasonable & excess because each case is different and must be judged individually.
If a homosexual ‘gropes’ a man’s butt or groin against his will, then it is criminal assault and battery and a man has right to use reasonable force to end the abuse. Also these situations are unpredictable. It is possible for a homosexual to commit assault and battery such as ‘grope’ a man’s butt or groin against will & then seconds later beat up the man or commit homosexual rape because these situations are unpredictable. Let’s say a gay grabs a man’s butt or groin against will (assault and battery possibly sex abuse) after which the man reacts violently and bashes or kills the gay. I would rather have this result and then have a jury decide if it’s justified or excess vs. the man does not do enough and the homosexual does something violent to him or the next man. The man is reacting to a crime the homosexual did and I would rather have a jury decides if a man’s reaction to bashing or killing a homosexual is justified or excess vs. the man doesn’t do enough and the gay does something worse to him or the next man and you do not always know what the homosexual did to others before you.
With that case, the jury concluded that the man killed the gay in self-defense after hearing both the prosecution and defense lawyer. If that man had done nothing, then worse can happen. I would not be surprised if the homosexual in that news story had a history of bringing men to his apartment to sexually abuse but this time a man fought back by killing him and the man is condemned for acting in self-defense. Likely that homosexual brought the man home and while the man was sleeping the homosexual started touching the man and the man defended himself by taking a knife and stabbing homosexual to death to prevent something worse such as homosexual rape and the jury concluded the man used justified not excess force.
If a defense lawyer in a gay bashing case wants to raise a crime the gay did such as harassment, indecent exposure, etc. before man reacted violently, then that must be regarded in deciding verdict. Jury decides if it’s justified or excess force. As known with murder cases, there is Murder 1, Murder 2 and Manslaughter which is a jury topic. A jury can acquit or if they convict, they can convict a person on lesser charge. If it is true the homosexual was doing antisocial conduct before he was bashed, then yes, a jury must decide if it was justified or excess force to end the abuse. It is wrong to think that if you do nothing and walk away, the homosexual will end there-When homosexuals commit sex abuse, the first thing they do is commit indecent exposure, stalking assault and battery before doing something worse. I would rather have a case where a jury decides if a man’s reaction to bashing or killing a homosexual is justified or excess vs. the man doesn’t do enough and the gay does something worse.
Abner,
Once again you are re-pasting old comments about how anyone who commits sexual assault is committing a crime–as if no one else thinks the same thing–gay, straight, bi. or trans? There are very few people of any orientation who are willing to excuse sexual assault as not being a crime, so you are continually making a moot point.
As far as anyone assuming they are being assaulted because a gay person flashes them or commits some obscene act. NO—that is not legally considered as sexual assault, nor does it justify someone killing another person for doing so. Just because something done might offend our eyes or our own sensibilities, without actual violent physical regression, no one can be accused of committing rape! By that reasoning it would be acceptable to kill a woman for displaying her breasts as part of an innocent college prank, and the punishment would be far more barbaric than the crime.
No one would get far if they considered killing someone else who was sleeping, as not being murder. That’s because without any assault happening yet, the attacker is only guessing or assuming that he is in danger. There is the obvious question concerning why that person didn’t try to escape by opening the door or calling the police on the phone. Unless there is evidence that the door was locked with a key hidden on the person of the man who was asleep, or that the phone lines had been cut, or cellphones deactivated, the defendant would be seen as deliberately not doing the right thing by failing to try and escape–as well he should have!
As for police reports that report trivial excuses used by attackers to beat up gays, just Google something like, (what motivate those accused of gay bashing to attack)? If your computer is connected to the same internet as mine, you will discover page after page, that include cases in which a very minor and insignificant look, or act, set off an attacker.
It Should read above:
“And, if you think stabbing someone in his or her sleep, in order to prevent a (possible sexual assault when that person awakes but hasn’t even BEEN committed by them yet),
Instead of:
“And, if you think stabbing someone in his or her sleep, in order to prevent a (possible sexual assault when that person awakes but hasn’t even committed by them yet),”
In my recent post to Abner in which I discussed what constitutes a rape or sexual assault I said this:
“without actual violent physical (regression),”
The words I should have used are, “without actual violent physical (aggression).
Peter W. Johnson, a homosexual exposing himself to others in a public places is criminal indecent exposure. Also in that criminal case you lecture about, the homosexual was touching the man’s privates (assault and battery) as the man slept (not the gay) & the man woke up and stabbed the gay to death & the jury concluded man acted in self-defense. The homosexual was not sleeping, so you’re wrong on that 1.
There’s no need for a man to say no to a homosexual who is committing indecent exposure, etc. because there’s no need to say no to a crime the other had no right to do. I would rather have a case where a jury decides if a man’s reaction to bashing or killing a homosexual is justified or excess vs. the man doesn’t do enough and the gay does something worse. Most gay bashings are men reacting to crimes which the homosexual first did such as after a homosexual committed indecent exposure, assault & battery or other crime.
Abner,
So let me get this straight, the person who was asleep was not gay, but killed a gay person simply because he awoke and found the man fondling his genitals? So, the gay man may simply have thought the sleeping man was gay, for some reason or other, and the straight guy was actually the person who committed a violent assault—I think you are neglecting to tell the whole story about this, or else the case was much more complicated than you are saying.
No, absolutely not! In most States indecent exposure is a misdemeanor, which although obscene, is not something which should warrant a murder charge. Nor should it justify someone else beating a guy nearly to death just because he objected to what was seen, or because of being the object of a mistaken pass!
And, if the gay person made a pass at someone he falsely assumed was gay, all that is, is a mistake—not something worthy of receiving a beating or being stabbed by a knife? If the gay person and the straight guy both spent the night where the gay guy was stabbed, unless the straight guy was being held against his will, it make no sense at all that the gay person was considered guilty? ” After all, the straight guy could have ejected the gay person from his apartment or let the police do so. And, if he felt such anger about homosexuals to begin with, why let the gay guy stay in the first place? In fact, no matter who rented the apartment, the other person was apparently allowed to stay? I don’t know a lot about this case, but I do know that not every trial is conducted fairly, not is every juror without prejudice.
In my online searches, I have found a few accounts of gays, trying to lie about others bashing them. These are not all true, but even if some are, that’s not unusual in a country of 300 million people who are capable of many individually different attitudes. The vast majority of crime descriptions clearly describe gays as being the victims of Bashers—not the other way around!
The idea of a “pro-gay,” agenda, is nothing but bull circulated by people who consider being gay a sin, a choice, or a predominant source of perversion. But, when one does not like idea of someone being bullied in school just for being gay, that says nothing at all about being “pro-gay”, or “anti-gay”–only that one considers bullying for any reason, to be a form of unsolicited physical abuse.
When scientists discovered the laws of motion, they didn’t do so because they were anti-religion, or pro-religion, they did it because the science they studied revealed this knowledge to them—no matter what the Church or the Spanish Inquisition might have wanted, or how many good scientists were put to death for their supposed heresy. Today the laws do not allow torture or murder, but anti-gay zealots are doing the next best and most predictable thing–they are claiming that all of the science is one big hoax and scam, in order to “recruit more gay children” into their ranks. They are claiming that the vast majority of heterosexual scientists, who represent all kinds of religious, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds, are somehow convinced that they should all lie about an issue that no straight man would even want to lie about, unless what they discovered wasn’t a lie at all, but the actual truth determined by objective research! I also doubt that money is any great source of corruption for them—most research does not bring large amounts of money to researchers—primarily, it pays for the equipment and expenses of conducting the research itself, or else, simply compensates scientist for the income they lost as a result of being involved full time in the research!
Why don’t you think for yourself Abner? Thousand upon thousands of researchers, the majority of which are not even gay, and who don’t make any lucrative amounts of money for skewing data, have no reason at all to perpetrate such a conspiracy. But, obviously religious groups and people who are dedicated to the belief that their religious texts are the indisputable will of God, have every reason to claim that reliable research is not true! And that God doesn’t approve of the supposed perverse nature of gays—ideas that those on the religious right all want to perpetuate, and have every reason to want to spread such lies!
At the end of the (Wizard of Oz), the person operating the ropes and wires behind a curtain where the image of Oz seems to appear, cries, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!,” when a breeze accidentally reveals him.
Committing false witness against one’s neighbor is a crime and a sin—no matter what lies anyone may claim are spread just to further a greater good! Scientists have absolutely no reason to lie, but unfortunately, many religious Zealots clearly do!—funny about that?
Peter W. Johnson, gay bashing cases are uncommon. They get reported in the news when they happen because they’re strange & unusual. The news (local, national and international) is about things which are strange, unusual & interesting. If homosexuals getting bashed and killed in unprovoked attacks was common, then it would not be in news because it would not be interesting. Going out & attacking people with no provocation is stupid but yes, there are stupid people and when this happens it is reported in news. Most domestic violence & rape/sex abuse cases do not get reported in news in most cases unless it is let’s say a famous person accused of rape or hitting his girlfriend or an unusual or strange case because there are so many of these cases that they would not be interesting.
With homosexuals, it is far more common for homosexuals to molest boys but most of these cases do not get reported in the news unless it’s a famous homosexual such as Jerry A. Sandusky. Homosexuals often target teenage boys because they think the teenage boys are easy targets to sexually abuse and some of the teenage boys fight back. Most men and boys who are victims of gays usu. won’t call cops to report that a gay is committing indecent exposure, harassment or in worst cases molestation until some1 reacts violently and bashes the gay. Most gay bashings are men reacting to crimes which the homosexual first did such as after a homosexual committed indecent exposure, assault & battery or other crime.
Also touching some1’s genitals while they are sleeping is criminal assault & battery and that is what the homosexual did. The man awoke, grabbed a knife and stabbed the homosexual to death. It is possible for a homosexual to commit assault and battery such as ‘grope’ a man’s butt or groin against will & then seconds later beat up the man or commit homosexual rape because these situations are unpredictable. Jury concluded the man acted in self-defense with view that had he done nothing, the homosexual would’ve attempted homosexual rape and concluded the man was protecting himself. People sometimes rape others as they are sleeping. This was the homosexual’s fault. We have no right to lecture this jury as neither of us were in the courtroom and did not hear the prosecutor and defense arguments.
Indecent exposure is a felony, though that sometimes can be pleaded down to misdemeanor. While harassment & indecent exposure alone does not justify killing a person, indecent exposure may not be the only crime intended. When homosexuals commit sex abuse, the first thing they do is commit indecent exposure, stalking assault and battery before doing something worse. If the homosexual is high on drugs such as Meth or Cocaine while committing indecent exposure, then it is possible for a homosexual who is committing indecent exposure to commit violence in a drug rage, even commit murder in a drug rage. There’s no need for a man to say no to a homosexual who is committing indecent exposure, etc. because there’s no need to say no to a crime the other had no right to do.
Peter W. Johnson, with ANY assault and battery or murder case including gay bashing cases, unless there is a plea bargain (which happens in most cases) juries decide after hearing both prosecutor and defense lawyer. Juries decide what is reasonable & excess because each case is different and must be judged individually. As known with murder cases, there is Murder 1, Murder 2 and Manslaughter which is a jury topic. A jury can acquit or if they convict, they can convict a person on lesser charge. If it is true the homosexual was doing antisocial conduct before he was bashed, then yes, a jury must decide if it was justified or excess force to end the abuse. If a defense lawyer in a gay bashing case wants to raise a crime the gay did such as harassment, indecent exposure, etc. before man reacted violently, then that must be regarded in deciding verdict. I would rather have too much done than not enough in that I would rather have a case where a jury decides if a man’s reaction to bashing or killing a homosexual is justified or excess vs. the man doesn’t do enough and the gay does something worse.
Peter W. Johnson, you’re not saying anything I haven’t considered. Though I’m not a psychologist, I have studied the homosexual/lesbian topic & homosexual/lesbian sexual conduct is bad for health. Just because a person’s a psychologist does not mean that they know the answers and psychologists have biases just like any other person. Even if orientation doesn’t change, it’s best for gays/lesbians to be celibate just as it’s best for a person not to smoke. Transexuals are mutilated gays and lesbians. They must abolish this surgical mutilation. Sex change maimings which is mutilating some1 to make them fake members of opposite sex is comparable to trying to make a man a fake animal because he thinks he is an animal trapped in a human body.
Behavior including sexual behavior can be learned. Never have I heard straights blame childhood sex abuse for reasons a man has sex with a woman and fathers children with her. Yet sometimes have heard gays and lesbians say childhood sex abuse is reason they do same sex behaviors. Yes, it’s a proven fact that childhood sex abuse is a major cause of homosexual/lesbian conduct in adulthood. Anybody who denies the link is dishonest, delusional or both. Any conduct can be learned and this includes sexual conduct. There are homosexuals and lesbians who say that childhood sex abuse (especially those who are victims of a gay priest) are reasons why they think they do same sex behaviors in adulthood. Had they not been repeatedly molested, would they have turned out straight instead of gay or lesbian?
Those denying link between childhood sex abuse and adult gay/lesbian behaviors are usually gay, lesbian or a sympathizer. Sex abuse in youth can cause people to behave in ways. It’s not controversial to talk of nightmares, suicides, bed wetting often a result of sex abuse in youth. Yet when 1 talks gay/lesbian behaviors in adulthood because they learned this sexual behavior by being repeatedly molested, then gays with politically safe psychologists complain. The politically correct psychologists who deny this know it’s possible for a boy to turn out gay as a result of childhood sex abuse, yet deny what they know is true. Of course, not all who are sexually abused in youth become gay in adulthood-but the risk is higher.
I am not a Christian but I agree with Christians is on the dangers of gay/lesbian agenda and there are many non-Christians and even some atheists who agree with Evangelical Christians. People distrust mainstream psychologists or mental health ‘professionals’ on homosexuality is because-1. They arrogantly say they’re mental health professionals as though what they say is infallible. 2. They have pro-homosexual biases and are dishonest. Psychology since 1973 in the USA usually has a pro-homosexual bias and not trustworthy. If a psychologist says truth which offends homosexual groups, then it gets condemned by homosexual groups.
Homofobia is telling truths, theories and speculations which offend homosexual groups. While they have not conclusively proven homosexuality/lesbianism is inborn genes, homosexual groups often use this theory as definite by saying how they are born this way-which possibly can be the case for some but more studies are needed. But when facts are raised about the link between childhood sex abuse and a kid doing homosexual and lesbian activities in adutlhood, homosexual groups often get offended, condemn it as homofobia. Any facts which show homosexuality/lesbianism to be bad and put negative views on this is condemned. Yes, the theory between a woman smoking during pregnancy and the unborn baby doing homosexual/lesbian conduct in adulthood is not proven and replicated or repeat studies must be done. But the main reason homosexual and lesbian groups are offended by this is theory is because it puts homosexuality negatively by suggesting it is the result of something bad-smoking.
Abner,
I disagree with you on almost every point. Firstly, if anyone can prove they were sexually assaulted against their will, that is obviously a crime, but in my home town, a homicide based on hatred of gays, is news all readers find interesting, and, if there were cases where gay people, were proven to have falsely claimed that they were attacked, while the opposite was actually true, that would make a very interesting story indeed! Just such a reverse hate crime or case of lying to police, is prime material for interested readers, and, if there are very few stories in the paper about such deceptions, it is probably because the charges were not considered valid, or because such cases of reverse assaults very rarely occur, or are based on insufficient evidence.
In the case you mention, several facts seem to cast suspicion on what really happened. One being that straight guys do not just happily go to a gay guy’s apartment, and usually know very well if the person making them the offer, is gay? You don’t just go to a strangers apartment unless there is some intriguing reason to go—and asking if you can stay the night, or agreeing to stay the night later, is very unwise behavior for anyone to take a part in. We straight guys are not naive enough not to suspect such unusual offers. Furthermore, gay people are not often gullible enough to accept an invite from someone who completely rejects their sexuality, and they usually know from the start if someone disagrees with their right to have a gay sexual orientation. The reverse is also true–a straight guy who rejects gays, does not just go ahead and invite a stranger, to come home with him, as an innocent request? Someone opposed enough to a gay persons orientation, to stab him to death over an incident of groping which he discovers upon waking, has a pretty good idea that the person he invited to his home was gay and would never agree to having that person overnight. And, even if he did, he has obviously given voluntarily consent for that person to stay overnight. The gay person too, would very likely not even make a sexual overture unless he mistakenly thought the person he was attracted to was also gay. So being knifed to death for acting on a mistake, means that what happened is probably just that— a mistake, and not something to be knifed or beaten to death over. Just as straight men often falsely believe a woman is interested in them, and may then make a move to kiss her, or to fondle her breast, is certainly an offensive thing to do, just being groped by itself does not justify murder—unless the person groped, definitely had to fight off a sexual predator who was forcefully trying to rape her. From listening to your recount of what happened,I see no such immediate danger involved, and, just an unwanted grope is not automatically a case of forcible rape? So, if the person was acquitted after stabbing to death someone who willingly went home with him, or visa versa, that would make no sense, unless as I say, you are not reporting all the facts about what happened. Most of the gay people I have met, would be very hesitant to blindly gamble on groping a stranger, since they know that many of the people they could make a pass at, may actually be very repulsed by their behavior. Here is a link to an account of supposed gay aggression, that is full of questionable arguments by the police:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/06/30/fort-worth-police-chief-that-faggot-had-it-coming
The fact is that gays are seldom so ruthless or stupid enough, to grope someone if they don’t already know how that person might react, nor would they beat someone to death or murder someone if their sexual advances were opposed. And, if such cases were really common, you can bet that they would be prime material for journalist to cover, since the idea of reverse hate crimes is such an obviously intriguing topic.
Since it is you who insist on denying established research, even though a very small percentage of the psychologists, psychiatrists, and other health professionals who report about such research, are gay themselves, it makes no sense for a large body of straight male and female health professionals to deliberately call into question the idea that none of their evidence supports the belief that their own heterosexual orientations are the only norms, or, that homosexuality is really a disease. So, you had better be prepared to prove some connections to a the money motive causing massive numbers of these highly educated researchers to deliberately agree to lie! If not, then you have no real proof other than your own blind acceptance of the idea that skewed or cherry picked data, or studies lacking any reputable methodology, are actually sufficient and reliable evidence. I doubt that you’ll be able to document any cases where these health professionals are getting rich from perpetrating a massive and blatant, group lie!
When a group of people who are biased and fearful of any scientific evidence which threatens the reliability of their own beliefs, and they cannot discredit those whose threatening ideas which are based on empirical evidence, a common tactic is to call into question the integrity of all those whose ideas they oppose. In other words, if the facts don’t support you, then just claim they are derived from people who are perpetrating a massive hoax. And, pardon me if I point out that no accusation about a hoax being perpetrated against religious zealots has been circulated by scientists, but the opposite is actively being perpetrated by fundamentalist groups who probably believe that even lying in the service of their God, is alright! Since these fundamentalists are so fervent about condemning homosexuality, and about reporting parts of the Bible which condemn gays, they have every reason to spread distrust about the findings of very rational, and solid scientific research. But a large number of heterosexual PhD’s who know a great deal about human sexuality, and, who are not getting rich on the findings of their research, DO NOT!
And contrary to your belief that scientists think they know all the answers—that just isn’t true! Traditionally scientists understand that they must always leave the door open to new and previously undiscovered knowledge, so they almost never claim to be 100% right about anything. That’s why so many sex researchers believe that human sexuality is the result of many factors, environmental conditions being one of them. But they really do know that environment or childhood experiences are not the primary causes of homosexuality. However, can the same thing be said about fundamentalist ministers who are only trying to affirm their own pre-conceived biblical beliefs?
The massive denial of human caused global warming is another example in which detractors who represent special interests i.e. oil and coal companies, desperately and often absurdly, trying to dispute scientific knowledge about climate change. It’s painfully obvious just who has the need to distort and misrepresent facts about human caused global warming, since the massive profits of the carbon producing and using industries, are at stake–something the CEO’s of Exxon Mobile and Chevron don’t want to see happen! Yet since so many of us just don’t want to accept the truth, we still have a very long way to go, before passing critical legislation which would help reduce greenhouse gasses.
Abner, if you truly were capable of thinking for yourself, you would see that, religious fundamentalists have a powerful and obvious reason to fight against gay rights, and that scientists have NO real reasons to distort their findings–especially since they once considered homosexuality an illness, but then changed their minds with additional research.
It is just absurd to think that all of them suddenly began thinking that lying and falsifying what they know, although being criminally negligent, justifiably supports the supposed existence of an unproven conspiracy as being completely acceptable!
If you truly are were objective about the reasons for spreading such falsehoods, you would not be content to ignore the nose on your face. Since you are absolutely sure that thousands of heath professionals, representing a vast amount of knowledge, think nothing of lying to support some ridiculous conspiracy designed to benefit gays, let me suggest that it is only you who really thinks you know all the answers—along with the many religious ideologues who deliberately lie about such beliefs!
When I said, “And, pardon me if I point out that no accusation about a hoax being perpetrated (against) religious zealots has been circulated by scientists,
I should have said,
“And, pardon me if I point out that no accusation about a hoax being perpetrated (BY) religious zealots has been circulated by scientists,”
Peter W. Johnson, the link you give was written by a homosexual Dan Savage (Daniel Keenan Savage) and what he says is useless. Dan K. Savage is an apologist for homosexuals having sex in public restrooms and Dan K. Savage sees nothing wrong with homosexuals molesting children. What Dan K. Savage is useless since he is a homosexual. But to that murder trial.
Peter W. Johnson, since neither of us were on the jury & we don’t know the facts -what you say is speculation. We don’t know if the homosexual put drugs in the man’s drink, brought him home and when man was asleep started committing assault & battery but man woke up and stabbed him to death. We also do not know if the homosexual in that story has a history of sexually abusing teenage boys which wasn’t reported. But what I do know is that the defense lawyer gave a credible argument that it was self-defense and the man was acquitted. If you want your client to be acquitted or convicted of a lesser charge, then a good defense lawyer must make credible argument the man was defending himself from a more violent deed the homosexual was intending to do.
We don’t know if the defense discovered things about the homosexual such as does the homosexual have a violent history of attacking young men? Defense can subpoena medical/psych records of a crime victim to find if crime victim has antisocial history, drug related violence and so on. We don’t know if the homosexual was high on drugs such as Meth & homosexuals have higher rates of drug junkyism such as cocaine, Meth and people can get violent in Meth rages. & again, touching a person’s genitals against will is assault & battery which can easily worsen to something more violent such as homosexual rape. It is dishonest Peter W. Johnson to think that if a homosexual commits indecent exposure or assault & battery, the homosexual will just stop there and do nothing else. Since there was an acquittal, the defense made a credible case to jury that if the man had not stabbed the homosexual to death, the homosexual would have sodomized him or even killed him.
Also Peter W. Johnson, even if a homosexual commits indecent exposure and does nothing else to that man, it is unpredictable what worse crimes he can do to others as people’s conduct can worsen over time. If a homosexual thinks he can get away with indecent exposure, then it is possible that the next time, the homosexual can commit a more violent crime against the next man. So yes Peter W. Johnson, I would rather have a gay bashing where a man kills a homosexual after the homosexual committed indecent exposure and then have the jury decide if man’s reaction was justified or excess (if excess it would likely be Manslaughter rather than Murder 2 as it’s reacting to a crime) vs. the man does nothing and then a few months later that same homosexual molests a 10 year old boy. If a man kills a homosexual after the homosexual committed indecent exposure, while that may or may or may not be excess, that homosexual won’t victimize others.
As known with murder cases, there is Murder 1, Murder 2 and Manslaughter which is a jury topic. A jury can acquit or if they convict, they can convict a person on lesser charge. If it is true the homosexual was doing antisocial conduct before he was bashed, then yes, a jury must decide if it was justified or excess force to end the abuse. If a defense lawyer in a gay bashing case wants to raise a crime the gay did such as harassment, indecent exposure, etc. before man reacted violently, then that must be regarded in deciding verdict. I would rather have too much done than not enough in that I would rather have a case where a jury decides if a man’s reaction to bashing or killing a homosexual is justified or excess vs. the man doesn’t do enough and the gay does something worse.
When homosexuals commit sex abuse, the first thing they do is commit indecent exposure, stalking assault and battery before doing something worse. If the homosexual is high on drugs such as Meth or Cocaine while committing indecent exposure, then it is possible for a homosexual who is committing indecent exposure to commit violence in a drug rage, even commit murder in a drug rage. If a homosexual ‘gropes’ a man’s butt or groin against his will, then it is criminal assault and battery and a man has right to use reasonable force to end the abuse.
Also these situations are unpredictable. It is possible for a homosexual to commit assault and battery such as ‘grope’ a man’s butt or groin against will & then seconds later beat up the man or commit homosexual rape because these situations are unpredictable. Let’s say a gay grabs a man’s butt or groin against will (assault and battery possibly sex abuse) after which the man reacts violently and bashes or kills the gay. I would rather have this result and then have a jury decide if it’s justified or excess vs. the man does not do enough and the homosexual does something violent to him or the next man. Most men and boys who are victims of gays usu. won’t call cops to report that a gay is committing indecent exposure, harassment or in worst cases molestation until some1 reacts violently and bashes the gay. Most gay bashings are men reacting to crimes which the homosexual first did such as after a homosexual committed indecent exposure, assault & battery or other crime.
Abner,
My entire point is that because it is possible for both of us, as well as anyone else, to speculate about so many unknowns, that the defense didn’t and couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the straight man was justified in killing someone who he claims was fondling him when he woke up? In fact how does anyone prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he even WAS being fondled. Obviously there was no video as evidence, nor were there any kinds of other forensic evidence to prove that the man who was murdered even touched the defendant on his groin—unless finger prints were all over his crotch, and even those could have been the result of the defendant’s voluntary permission to let the victim touch him.
Can you tell me where the trial took place, or if there were any other definite forms of evidence that convincingly backed up the story of the defendant?
Hopefully before any jury reaches a decision it has carefully weighed all of the evidence, but we know for a fact that justice isn’t always done— since many of those who have spent decades on death row, are sometimes released many years after being convicted, because modern DNA evidence exonerates them.
Unfortunately, sometimes trials take place in Venues where the accused does not get a fair trial or where the plaintiff is not able to access an unprejudiced ear from a certain Jury which decides if what he claims as being true, really is, or is not.
Although we can only hope that our court system will be thorough and fair, we also know that sometimes it is really is not! And, my rights under the first Amendment give me every right to disagree with the findings of any jury, even though everyone else may differ with my opinion–you also have the same right to differ with anyone!
What distresses me about your posts is that you seem very sure about everything that motivates gay people to commit supposed homosexual rape—right down to assurances that they first expose their genitals in public before attacking their victims?
In truth very few gay people ever commit homosexual rape. And if any do, its because those individuals have a criminal mentality that is not determined by their sexual orientation. The same is true about heterosexual rapists who attack victims of the opposite sex—of course their crimes do not reflect on their personal heterosexual orientation, but rather, on their criminal mentality!
Much as you may like to believe it, ordinary gays every where are not lurking in shadows just waiting to rape straight guys. wouldn’t you think they would actually prefer having sex with other homosexuals—since that is the focus of their sexual desires in the first place?
The link I provided about the cops who attacked a gay patron in a gay bar, is all the more persuasive since it includes a witness who expounds on the feelings of gay people, and the common sense fact that they are not going around waiting to fondle straight cops? Videos were taken which clearly showed the cops as aggressors, and the person who witnessed the attack was also gay, and present at the scene of the crime—Just a the cops were presumably not gay, and at the scene of the crime? The fact is that either the cops or the patrons could have lied, but the video evidence clearly backed up the story told by the gay witnesses!
Your belief that gays cannot be trusted to testify against other gays, just because they are also gay, is absurd! By that reasoning courts would also be allowed to restrict the testimony of any heterosexual witness who testified in favor of, or against, any heterosexual suspect–since they are also heterosexuals?
Once again you are hung up on the mythical notion of a pro-gay conspiracy. And the idea that, anyone who speaks correctly about the large body of scientific knowledge about sexual orientation, must be somehow be helping gays escape being blamed for anything that, you so self-righteously claim they are guilty of, is also absurd! In reality the gay rights movement is made up by people who have been historically victimized because of bias like yours, and they are quite satisfied if you don’t want to be gay,or, if you married heterosexually and wanted to pass your own moral values on to your children. But because they have a history of being victimized and stereo-typed, they simply want to inform others about the many myths circulated about them, in the hopes that someday prejudice will not be so wide spread, and that might collectively change our many misconceptions!
Neither you nor I, are authorities on human sexuality, but I do know enough about the discipline of science to understand that that heterosexual researchers are duty bound to remain true to their findings, and to convey accurate knowledge gleaned by their research! Whether they , or anyone else likes the results, You’re a fool to automatically disregard everything they discover because they are supposedly advancing gay causes? Such reasoning make no sense, and is based on faulty and often viscous propaganda! Sorry if you insist on believing otherwise. But that still will not make all contrary scientific knowledge automatically wrong!
Peter W. Johnson, since psychologists & psychiatrists often have disorders of their own as they deal with people’s problems and the stress of that job can mess up mind, that makes me think their findings on a controversial topic such as homosexuality is useless-having PHD or years of research does not make that valid because repair therapists also have PHD and they did years of work studying homosexuality. Psychologists and psychiatrists deal with other people’s problems and that can stress the mind. The fact that psychologists and psychiatrists often have problems of their own makes their findings useless because if they can not solve their own problems, then when they research this, they are often wrong.
Mainstream psychology/medicine is not to be trusted on gay/lesbian topic and too many people accept what is said w/o challenging or having doubts-experts can say things to support any agenda. Main ideas of science stays same and I don’t believe psychologists discovered anything new to change their view but did so because of pro-gay/lesbian ideology. Yes, Judeo-Christians have their views against homosexual/lesbian conduct and the views given by Christian psychologists will differ from that of APA but though I’m not religious, I agree with the Christian psychologists. There’s nothing wrong with using faith to justify their views.
I do not believe that there is a conspiracy, but most mainstream psychologists are pro-gay ideologues on the homosexual topic where bias meddles with any facts which differ with the pro-gay ideology & has been that way since 1973. Main ideas of science and math are always the same (such as freezing temperature is 32 Degrees Fahrenheit, 2+2=4) and with main ideas of science, unless new information is found which changes prior conclusion (such as in 1950s when they found a whale is a mammal not a fish as scientists first thought), the main ideas of science stay the same.
I do not believe mainstream science/psychology in the 1960s to early 70s discovered anything new to change conclusions on homosexuality when they removed homosexuality from DSM in 1973. They have as said since 1973 become ideological on gay/lesbian topic. It’s not a conspiracy but it’s ideology. I don’t deny possibility homosexuality could be genetic or inborn for some but that is unproven. Even if it’s true that homosexuality is inborn for some people, homosexual/lesbian conduct would still be bad for health.
Never have I heard straights blame childhood sex abuse for reasons a man has sex with a woman and fathers children with her. Yet sometimes have heard gays and lesbians say childhood sex abuse is reason they do same sex behaviors. Sex abuse in youth can cause people to behave in ways. It’s not controversial to talk of nightmares, suicides, bed wetting often a result of sex abuse in youth.
Yet when 1 talks gay/lesbian behaviors in adulthood because they learned this sexual behavior by being repeatedly molested, then gays with politically safe psychologists complain. The politically correct psychologists who deny this know it’s possible for a boy to turn out gay as a result of childhood sex abuse, yet deny what they know is true. Of course, not all who are sexually abused in youth become gay in adulthood-but the risk is higher. Any conduct can be learned and this includes sexual conduct.
Many gays and lesbians who commit suicide do so because they often were childhood sex abuse victims and many have other copathologies such as antisocial conduct, drugs, etc. No, not all boys who are homosexually raped in youth become homosexual in adulthood & yes, there are many gays who weren’t homosexually raped in their youths. But homosexual rapes in youth incr. risk of a boy turning out homosexual. A kid can become a mugger by living in high crime neighborhood, seeing muggings in childhood and learning this conduct. Yes, there are muggers who were not raised in high crime neighborhoods but still became muggers, but that does not rule out other causes. Many emphysema victims did not smoke and were not exposed to 2nd hand smoke and got emphysema due to bad genes but it would be dishonest to deny truth that if a person smokes, he or she is more likely to get emphysema.
Homosexual/lesbian conduct is bad for health as smoking is and needs to be marginalized like smoking is. People who engage in homosexual/lesbian conduct have more medical problems caused by homosexual/lesbian conduct. I believe the negative views of homosexual/lesbian conduct is the right view because there is something wrong with homosexual/lesbian conduct and again, they must make it a crime to do sex changes. I know my view offends homosexuals, but most smokers do not get offended by negative views of tobacco use. So homosexuals/lesbians have to hear others give negative views of their sex lives, because there is something wrong with this just as there’s something wrong with smoking.
Again with repair therapy for homosexuality, that should be there for homosexuals/lesbians who want to change to straight. Whether it works or not, that has to be something they find for themselves. Yes, it should also be the right of homosexuals and lesbians not to go into repair therapy just as I support right of any lucid person to refuse medical care such as if a lucid person’s a heart attack victim and does not want open heart surgery, then it should be their right to refuse this. Yes, proof burden is on repair therapists, but if you aren’t going to have repair therapy for homsexuality/lesbianism, then you may as well not have repair therapy for drug junkyism or drunkardism, because such therapy often fails and high relapses. The same things that you say about repair therapy for treating homosexuality can also be said for many other problems people have. Peter W. Johnson, asking/saying the same things to me will get you the same answer.
Abner,
Sure religious reparative advocates may have degrees, but how do the numbers indicating how many of them do, compare with the tens of thousands of objective scientists who have very extensive and valid degrees? No amount of education automatically makes anyone all-knowing, but we can know many things—among them being that conversion therapists often display a biased attitude from the beginning—believing that, only their faulty and flawed research is correct—unlike authentic scientists who began by thinking gays were mentally ill, but eventually had to believe the contrary data they collected before their very eyes!
For someone who claims not to believe in an conspiracy, I only wish I had a nickel for every time you have accused reputable scientists of not being “trustworthy” because they chose to support “politically safe, pro-gay” ideas. If you are willing to believe they are not doing this because of some massive conspiracy, then why do you refuse to even consider taking them at their word about using objective scientific methods to arrive at their knowledge? If there is no conspiracy, shouldn’t you consider the very real possibility that they’re right? Otherwise you are claiming that you, and those with religious bias, must know much more than any of them?That, my friend, is nothing but plain, ordinary anti-scientific knowledge bias!
Peter W. Johnson, here’s an article which proves how antisocial Dan Keenan Savage is and Dan K. Savage admits to licking doorknobs http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/29/Savage-Bully-Gary-Bauer Dan K. Savage is an apologist for homosexuals having sex in public restrooms and Dan K. Savage sees nothing wrong with homosexuals molesting children. But thoughts to what you said.
Peter W. Johnson, yes innocent people are sometimes convicted and guilty are sometimes acquitted. I have seen trials and criminal trials are not just the law but the people skills of lawyers arguing their case. Most people accused of crimes are guilty & most criminal cases are plea bargained. Eg. if a person is arrested for robbing 4 stores, it’s often ends in a plea bargain where the suspect agrees pleads guilty to 1 robbery and gets X # of years in prison without parole & have other 3 charges dismissed than risk jury trial & if he gets convicted of the 4 robberies, get more prison time.
With self-defense if it is argued in a trial, jury decides if it’s reasonable or excess after hearing both prosecution and defense. Eg. a person is stealing from a store and the store owner shoots the thief dead. Is it self-defense? Only if the defense can give a credible case that if the store owner had not not shot and killed the thief, he would have been beaten or killed by the thief. Prosecution will argue that the store owner used excess force and that the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. Defense will argue that if the store owner had not shot the thief dead, the thief would’ve beaten or even killed the owner. If the thief is high on drugs such as Meth & or if the thief has a violent history of beating up store owners, the defense will raise that. Jury then decides if store owner used reasonable (justified) or excess when killing the thief? If jury thinks it’s justified, they acquit. If jury thinks it’s excess, then on what charge do they convict the store owner-is it Murder 2 or Manslaughter? As known with murder cases, there is Murder 1, Murder 2 and Manslaughter which is a jury topic.
If some1 is stealing from store, the right thing to do is use reasonable (not excess) force to stop the the thief and have the police arrest the thief. If you do nothing, then worse can happen as these situations can be unpredictable. It is possible for a thief to be stealing things anything small such as shoplifting candy to expensive things such as diamonds and then beat up or even kill the store owner in the same crime with or without weapons. Many cases where thieves have beaten up or killed store owners after stealing. No, stealing alone does not justify deadly force but theft may not be the only crime intended and it is possible for thieves to beat up or kill their victims. If the thief is high on drugs (such as a junky who steals to support his or her habit) then it is possible for the thief to be stealing things and then in a drug rage attack or even kill the store owner with his own hands.
So, if a homosexual is going to commit harassment, indecent exposure, stalking, assault and battery (such as if a homosexual grabs a man’s butt or groin against will), etc. then a man has a right to use reasonable force to end the abuse. If a defense lawyer in a gay bashing case wants to raise a crime the gay did such as harassment, indecent exposure, etc. before man reacted violently, then that must be regarded in deciding verdict. Jury decides if it’s justified or excess force. A jury can acquit or if they convict, they can convict a person on lesser charge. If it is true the homosexual was doing antisocial conduct before he was bashed, then yes, a jury must decide if it was justified or excess force to end the abuse. It is wrong to think that if you do nothing and walk away, the homosexual will end there-When homosexuals commit sex abuse, the first thing they do is commit indecent exposure, stalking assault and battery before doing something worse. I would rather have a case where a jury decides if a man’s reaction to bashing or killing a homosexual is justified or excess vs. the man doesn’t do enough and the gay does something worse.
Abner,
I have never heard of Dan Savage in my life, but I Googled some information about him, and apparently he is one of the more extreme “shock Jock” kind of commenter who loves to inflame those with anti-gay feelings. The same could be said (at the other extreme) about Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Karl Rove, who stop at nothing to spread false propaganda about liberal views.
Of course trying to give a candidate the flu, is a very extreme and vindictive thing to do. Notice however, that Mr. Savage is openly admitting to the entire thing voluntarily, unlike so many conservative talk show hosts like Sarah Palin, who never really did withdraw her claims about the ACA legislation included provisions allowing the government to “unplug granny,” and determine when she would become too much trouble and need to much costly medical to keep alive? Of course there is no such provision in the health care bill, and any Democrat thinking that they could get away with something so blatant, would have to be crazy!
Although I can understand a gay person being very angry at those who constantly demean him and misrepresent his intentions (just as I can sympathize with Muslims who object to all of them being stereotyped as nothing but scheming terrorists, I still consider what Savage did wrong, even if he felt such extreme anger towards Bauer. For what it’s worth, though, Savage describes himself in other articles as having the worst case of the flu in his life—since when has anyone having such an extremely bad case of the flu been able to get close enough to a candidate to hand him a pen—without obviously, and immediately, revealing his sickness? And, although there is a chance he wasn’t detected, are you now going to claim that all gay people are trying to pass on illnesses by licking door knobs?
In the case of the gay man who was stabbed to death after his alleged victim woke up and found him in the process of feeling his crotch, the question of his using EXCESSIVE force seems obvious. A better reaction would have been to punch the guy in the mouth and then go home or kick the guy out (if this happened at the straight guys apartment)? The fact that he stabbed his supposed assailant several times, not just once, would immediately raise a red flag to me, tipping me off to the probability that, perhaps he did respond with EXCESSIVE force?
I don’t know what all the facts were, but I don’t want to jump to them automatically like so many people who share your prejudice against gays do. Like I said, how could the sleeping guy even prove that he had been groped in the groin? And since proof would require finger prints being all over his crotch, even that would not be conclusive—since the guys pants could have been handled by the gay guy, before having sex. Personally I would also have to wonder what a straight guy was doing spending the night with a gay person, or visa versa? I’m not trying to say that the court system should not be given the option of determining someone’s guilt after carefully looking at the evidence, but all the unsure things this case involves would imply to me, that the man was acquitted without reasonable doubt being appropriately considered before reaching such a not guilty verdict.
The court systems are not perfect and I don’t expect them to be, it’s just that the issues of excessive force and lack of evidence didn’t seem to be important parts of the equation–even though in the case of the man who stabbed someone who he claimed was sexually assaulting him—thy should have!
As always you repeat old allegations over and over again, that are just not true. No one except a criminal would think that rape and/or child abuse are “OK,” and gays are not just waiting to sexually assault straight guys whom they know nothing about, since most of the time they would fear a violent reprisal from their supposed victims, and often, are just not capable of overcoming a strong hetero-sexual man. If anything, they are fearful of bashers and go out of their way not to antagonize people they are not sure about? The point is that all kinds of people who do criminal offenses, come from many different backgrounds, religions, cultures, and sexual orientations. However, there is no real proof that gays commit crimes of assault any more often than other types of people! Therefore when any of them do, its reasonable to assume that their sexuality is not the primary reason behind such attempts to break the law. Are heterosexuals who rape women, (always) doing such violent acts because of their own sexual orientations–certainly not! And, in the same way, gay people who commit sex crimes are not primarily motivated by their own personal sexuality.
Although you claim not to believe in conspiracies, you have repeatedly claim that thousands of educated scientists, who were willing to change their original evaluations (judging homosexuality as being an illness), after more thorough types of research were used (but failed to establish such a link), have now almost Unanimously decided to commit collective fraud and lie about their research in order to falsely exonerate gays from being criticized. If that weren’t enough, you also claim that straight psychiatrists know less about human sexuality than you do, and want to take part in a “politically safe,” determination. But how many of them were really concerned that their original evidence was wrong, and for what possible reason would they want to change that view, unless the addition of new data prompted them to? Their conventional notion had always been that gays were mentally ill, and if anything, suddenly reversing that image, would have been a professionally risky thing to do? You have also consistently claimed that those who defend gays are usually gay themselves, but that would mean that tens of thousands of mental and physical health experts are almost all gay? Good luck with that one Abner.
Hiding behind conspiracy theories is the last refuge or cowards and ideologues. They were used by the tobacco industry, the science of climate change, odious and hysterical politicians like Joe McCarthy who spread fears about “commies” being everywhere, and are used to question just about everything President Obama says and does. And they are now being used to discredit solid scientific research about homosexuality! These lies are spread by people and groups which obviously hold views that pre-judge the objects of their lies and are deliberately trying to use faulty research to affirm their biases. But most scientists are not gay, and most cops are not going to let “genuine” cases of reverse bashings get by without punishment or without raising great public controversy. There is no proof that scientists are getting rich on such lies and no reasons why they would suddenly want to change their collective evaluations—unless what they discovered just happens to be true, and, as scientists they feel duty bound to report accurately about what they found?
For God’s sake Abner, quite circulating the ridiculous idea that gay people are opposed to child abuse or sex crime like rape! Even if some gay people commit sex crimes, you cannot generalize by claiming that all, or even a small number of them, therefore care nothing about sexual abuse and ugly sexual crimes—ideas like that are based on backwards reasoning and, despite your self perceived belief that you are trying to be open minded, a large number of the things you claims, just are NOT backed by any facts, and, are blatant generalizations about homosexuals!
Surely you do not expect that those you spread lies about, are going to remain undisturbed about being the objects of such viscous slander and made into pariahs? I am sure that when others lie about you, you are similarly offended! Yet somehow you continue to condemn, and spread false information about, a large group of people who don’t want anything other than avoid being the victims of hate and prejudice. They are not a threat to you, your children, your political beliefs, or your love life. So for God’s sake! don’t be so quick to prejudge Millions of people who don’t even want to spread a, “pro-gay” agenda! Like anyone, they just want not to be attacked because of what they are, or because they somehow threaten the many people who seem to need making regular self-righteous and false judgments about their sexuality. This has happened to black people, to women, and is now happening to gays. If you really believe everything you say, I would suggest thinking of all the absurd things that would need to be true, if you are really correct. You already have discredited all valid scientific inquiries about sexuality, and replaced them with the unreliable biases of those whose “research” cannot stand up against valid inquires! Whats next, claiming that all modern day astronomers are committing heresy?
In my previous post, I said:
For God’s sake Abner, quite circulating the ridiculous idea that gay people ARE opposed to child abuse or sex crime like rape!
I should have said,
“For God’s sake Abner, quite circulating the ridiculous idea that gay people are NOT opposed to child abuse or sex crimes like rape!”
I just had to correct that one.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/kaitlyn-hunt-jailed-underaged-sex-dating-older-woman-article-1.1615514
Since homosexuals and lesbians often suffered childhood sex abuse, it’s no surprise that homosexuals and lesbians think childhood sexual abuse is OK when it’s homosexual activities case in 2013 of Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt-Florida lesbian who sexually abused a 14 year old girl in a public bathroom and how gay lesbian groups reacted. This lesbian sexually abused a 14 year old girl in a public bathroom. The parents did the right thing calling the police to report this sex abuse and homosexual groups condemn and harass the parents. For homosexual groups to get children to rally for Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt after she sexually abused this minor girl is wrong-exploit children for causes.
Big Island Chronicle Tiffany Camille Hunt (formerly Tiffany Camille Edwards) and Shepard Foundation JC Marsden-no surprise that Laramie Project, Shepard Foundation’s Jason Christopher Marsden and Big Island Chronicle‘s Tiffany Camille Edwards Hunt see nothing wrong with that lesbian committing sex abuse on a 14 year old girl in a public bathroom & against this lesbian going to jail for what she did to this teenage girl.
If a man (even 18 years old) were having sex with a 14 year old girl, he would have go to jail for statutory rape. If a woman had sex with a teenage boy, she would go to jail for statutory rape and yes, women have gone to prison for having sex with teenage boys. But homosexual groups exploited kids to rally for a lesbian who had sex with a 14 year old girl in a public bathroom and harassed the victim’s parents for calling the cops. Siding with gays or in this case lesbian no matter what wrong the gay or lesbian does. This rubbish must end.
Abner,
If you see black men as equal human beings, you are not siding with “nigger lovers.”
If you understand that women who do the same work as men, and do it just as well, are entitled to equal pay, you are not siding with those who are anti-men!
If you recognize that a vast majority of Muslims want to promote peace through their religion, you are not being anti-christian, or an apologist for Muslims!
If you recognize that there is a massive and well studied fossil record that proves that the Earth is many millions or billions of years old, you are not being anti religious, nor are you being an apologist for scientists!
You only conceive of those who recognize the biological basis for homosexualty as being “pro-gay” because the knowledge they have discovered disagrees with your own biased, limited, and inaccurate view of homosexuals! Its really you who are anti-science, and you who is convinced that you have some sort of righteous permission to psychologically torment the hearts and feelings of two mourning parents, whose son was brutally murdered!
You’ve said you don’t know what was in the hearts of Matthews murderers. So why don’t you also admit that you do not have any godlike knowledge about what was in the heart of Matthew, and what is now in the heart of his grieving parents—or in the hearts of any grieving parents!
You know that no matter what I say, you will see it as an opportunity to have a continuous audience for your prejudice, and will never change your ignorant perceptions one bit! Therefore, as far as I’m concerned, this discussion is over! Go ahead and be a great big horse turd if it makes you feel like a righteous man!
http://spectator.org/blog/53864/freekate-movement-normalize-pedophilia-finds-its-poster-girl
Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt-Florida lesbian who sexually abused a 14 year old girl in a public bathroom and how gay lesbian groups reacted. This lesbian sexually abused a 14 year old girl in a public bathroom. The parents did the right thing calling the police to report this sex abuse and homosexual groups condemn and harass the parents. For homosexual groups to get children to rally for Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt after she sexually abused this minor girl is wrong-exploit children for causes.
Big Island Chronicle Tiffany Camille Hunt (formerly Tiffany Camille Edwards) and Shepard Foundation JC Marsden-no surprise that Laramie Project, Shepard Foundation’s Jason Christopher Marsden and Big Island Chronicle‘s Tiffany Camille Edwards Hunt see nothing wrong with that lesbian committing sex abuse on a 14 year old girl in a public bathroom & against this lesbian going to jail for what she did to this teenage girl.
Yes, Judy L. Shepard does exploit her son for $. Judy L. Shepard sees nothing wrong with her son molesting 8 year old boys and Judy L. Shepard earns anywhere from $5,000 to $20,000 per speech. Judy L. Shepard’s interest is to profit from her son’s 1998 killing. The Shepard Foundation is a propaganda group whose main interest is to push an agenda and to make money. Laramie Project’s interest is to make $.
Let’s look @ what we do know about Methew W. Shepard. No matter why the murder happened, the idea that A.J. McKinney and Methew W. Shepard were strangers who did not know eachother until that day is rubbish. There are many witnesses-Doc O’ Connor’s ex girlfriend, Elaine Baker (bartender), M.K. Rohrbacher (drug dealer), Tristan (Ted) Henson (Methew W. Shepard’s former lover) & others who saw them together.
Even if 1 believes the murder was motivated by hatred of homosexuals, it is truth that A.J. McKinney and Methew W. Shepard knew eachother though A.J. McKinney denies it. There are too many witnesses who saw both men together. Of course the witnesses can only say they saw them together and can not know it all.
Methew W. Shepard associating with drug dealers in both Wyoming and Colorado is not disputable. Methew W. Shepard went into bars where drugs were sold and he did associate with drug dealers-we know that he went to bars named Tornado, Ranger, Library & other bars in Wyoming and Colorado where drugs were sold. Methew W. Shepard’s friend Tina LaBrie expressing concerns about Methew W. Shepard’s drug and $ problems. We know that Methew W. Shepard was having $ problems (spending so much on limosuine rides in Doc O’ Connor’s limousine).
Methew W. Shepard’s a junky (proven fact), drunkard and had money problems. Sheriff O’Malley has said that if Methew W. Shepard sold drugs, the cops would have known which is dishonest-Sheriff David S. O’Malley and Sgt. R.J. DeBree know cops don’t always catch all the criminals and that many drug dealers escape detection. Sheriff David S. O’Malley and Sgt. Robert J. DeBree have arrested drug dealers and they know how it’s the family and friends who get surprised after they learn some1 they know is a drug dealer.
Sheriff David S. O’Malley and Sgt. Robert J. DeBree know that it’s unlikely MW. Shepard told his friends and family that he was a drug dealer, and even if Methew W. Shepard did tell his friends and family that he sold drugs, don’t think his family will admit this ugly as they had tried to hide the fact that Methew Wayne Shepard molested 8 year old boys and got counseling.
Now was Methew W. Shepard’s assocation with drug dealers and going into bars where drugs were sold more than buying drugs ? Was Methew W. Shepard a drug dealer or a drug courier? Stephen Jimenez thinks so and he believes it was the Denver circle. The journalists who critique Stephen Jimenez can not prove or disprove Stephen Jimenez’s conclusion.
No, Stephen Jimenez does not know it all but his conclusions are sincere and honest. While homosexual groups complain about Stephen Jimenez saying the murder case is complicated and possibly not a hate crime, that is incidental-main reason homosexual groups are offended by Stephen Jimenez’s book is because he talked about the ugly truths about who M.W. Shepard was. You don’t always know the secrets friends and family have. If a person is a drug dealer, then they are usually not going to tell their friends and family that they do this.
Even if Metthew W. Shepard did tell his friends and family that he sold drugs, don’t think his family will admit this ugly truth about him, as they had tried to hide the fact that Methew Wayne Shepard molested 8 year old boys and got counseling for it. Laramie Project, Shepard Foundation & Big Island Chronicle Tiffany Camille Hunt sees nothing wrong with Methew W. Shepard selling drugs and molesting children so their view is rubbish.
I actually don’t care about the homosexual marriage topic because that is minor and we have lost the war on homosexuality because when columns are written on gay marriage rather than the dangers of homosexual/lesbian sexual conduct, then we have lost. In 1972, 1982 and 1992, we would be mainly talking about why homosexual/lesbian sexual conduct is bad for health. But since the late 1990s, the discussion has been mostly about homosexual marriage (which the law already allows) & only here and there the harms of homosexual/lesbian conduct.
I like what Peter J. LaBarbera and Mission America’s Linda P. Harvey both say, but both have given too much talk to homosexual marriage topic. When people including Christians see nothing wrong with homosexual/lesbian sexual conduct, then it’s no surprise they accept homosexual marriage, and homosexual marriage has become land’s law. We need to keep talks limited to harms of homosexual/lesbian conduct as no matter what politically safe psychologists, celebrities or any1 says, homosexual/lesbian conduct is bad for health.Even if orientation doesn’t change, it’s best for gays/lesbians to be celibate just as it’s best for a person with tobacco orientation not to smoke. If homosexuality is inborn as some scientists believe, then it would be a birth defect.
Never have I heard straights blame childhood sex abuse for reasons a man has sex with a woman and fathers children with her. Yet sometimes have heard gays and lesbians say childhood sex abuse is reason they do same sex behaviors. Sex abuse in youth can cause people to behave in ways. It’s not controversial to talk of nightmares, suicides, bed wetting often a result of sex abuse in youth. Yet when 1 talks gay/lesbian behaviors in adulthood because they learned this sexual behavior by being repeatedly molested, then gays with politically safe psychologists complain. The politically correct psychologists who deny this know it’s possible for a boy to turn out gay as a result of childhood sex abuse, yet deny what they know is true. Of course, not all who are sexually abused in youth become gay in adulthood-but the risk is higher.
Homosexual/lesbian conduct needs to be marginalized such as smoking/tobacco use is. I know my view offends homosexuals, but most smokers do not get offended by negative views of tobacco use. So homosexuals/lesbians have to hear others give negative views of their sex lives, because there is something wrong with this just as there’s something wrong with smoking.
Repair therapy for gays and lesbians who want to be straight must be available just as repair therapy must be available for a drug junky who wants to become clean. For a therapy to have best chance of success, the patient has to want it for themselves. If a person goes into therapy because he or she is pressured by peers into this, they are usu. not going to last long because they don’t sincerely want it. If a kid is a junky and he or she doesn’t want therapy to quit drugs, then it’s usu. going to fail because they don’t want it. You can not force a person into therapy minus a court order and even if you do, if they don’t sincerely want it, it’s usu. will fail. While repair therapy to treat gayism, lesbianism often fails, using what you ask, we also should not have repair therapy to treat smoking, drug junkyism, etc. because that often fails. Minors can not be forced into therapy against will-minus a court order such as requiring medicines for a minor who does not want medicines.
Yes, it should also be the right of homosexuals and lesbians not to go into repair therapy just as I support right of tobacco users not to have repair therapy to quit smoking and I support right of any lucid person to refuse medical care such as if a lucid person’s a heart attack victim and does not want open heart surgery, then it should be their right to refuse this. Yes, proof burden is on repair therapists, but if you aren’t going to have repair therapy for homsexuality/lesbianism, then you may as well not have repair therapy for drug junkyism or drunkardism, because such therapy often fails and high relapses. Is it possible for a homosexual or lesbian to change sexual behavior and sexual orientation to heterosexuality? There are gays and lesbians who sincerely believe they changed to heterosexuality and without contrary proof only they know.
There is something wrong with a man thinking he is a woman or a woman thinking she is a man. It is mutilation with dangerous hormones. Most transexuals were sexually abused in childhood which messed up their minds and transexuals sexually abuse children. Transexuals are mutilated gays and lesbians. I don’t care what others say but mutilating a man or woman to make them fake members of opposite sex is gay/lesbian. And gay/lesbian groups are apologists for Transexuals which is why the word T is there. They must abolish this surgical mutilation.
All transexuals are homosexual/lesbian as the act of mutilating to become false opposite sex is itself an act of homosexuality/lesbianism-sad maiming and make this illegal. Finally, sex change maimings which is mutilating some1 to make them fake members of opposite sex is comparable to trying to make a man a fake animal because he thinks he is an animal trapped in a human body. Most feminists are not speaking against this. 1 would hope that feminists would oppose the mutilation that happened to Chastity Sun Bono as feminists have spoken against Female Genital Mutilation which happens in some nations. Transexuals are mutilations which no Dr. should take part in, yet most feminists are not condemning this female genital and breast mutilation as what happened to Chastity S. Bono where her healthy breasts were mutilated, dangerous hormone shots and her genitals mutilated.
Again I would rather have too much done than not enough in that I would rather have a case where a jury decides if a man’s reaction to bashing or killing a homosexual is justified or excess vs. the man doesn’t do enough and the gay does something worse. Most gay bashings I have found are men reacting to crimes which the homosexual first did such as after a homosexual committed indecent exposure, assault & battery or other crime.
Peter W. Johnson, with nature argument you give, stealing and killing are also found among animals. Using animals as a guide to how people should behave is a bad idea. Cannibalism is also found among animals so natural argument is poor. Mainstream psychology/medicine is not to be trusted on gay/lesbian topic and too many people accept what is said w/o challenging or having doubts. If a Dr. says something which offends homosexuals, they get condemned incl. from groups like APA. Dr. Paul Drummond Cameron has talked about the dangers of gay/lesbian behaviors & he has been condemned for years by APA. Dr. Paul Drummond Cameron is right on the dangers of gay/lesbian conduct. Many gays and lesbians who commit suicide do so because they often were childhood sex abuse victims and many have other copathologies such as antisocial conduct, drugs, etc. Gay/lesbian groups say suicide rates are high because of societal attitudes but that is not credible. People who have suffered sex abuse esp. childhood sex abuse have higher suicide rates. Facts are that homosexual/lesbian conduct is bad for health though pro-gay ideologues such as AMA and APA say otherwise and I think AMA and APA are dishonest on the homosexual topic.
Yes, it’s a proven fact that childhood sex abuse is a major cause of homosexual/lesbian conduct in adulthood. Anybody who denies the link is dishonest, delusional or both. Any conduct can be learned and this includes sexual conduct. There are homosexuals and lesbians who say that childhood sex abuse (especially those who are victims of a gay priest) are reasons why they think they do same sex behaviors in adulthood. Had they not been repeatedly molested, would they have turned out straight instead of gay or lesbian? It doesn’t take an expert to know that sex abuse in youth can mess up the mind and cause people to behave in ways they normally wouldn’t. Of course, not all who are sexually abused in youth become gay in adulthood-but the risk is higher.
No, not all boys who are homosexually raped in youth become homosexual in adulthood & yes, there are many gays who weren’t homosexually raped in their youths. But homosexual rapes in youth incr. risk of a boy turning out homosexual. A kid can become a mugger by living in high crime neighborhood, seeing muggings in childhood and learning this conduct. Yes, there are muggers who were not raised in high crime neighborhoods but still became muggers, but that does not rule out other causes. Many emphysema victims did not smoke and were not exposed to 2nd hand smoke and got emphysema due to bad genes but it would be dishonest to deny truth that if a person smokes, he or she is more likely to get emphysema. Since homosexuals and lesbians (transexuals) often suffered childhood sex abuse, it’s no surprise that homosexuals and lesbians think childhood sexual abuse is OK when it’s homosexual activities. Homosexual/lesbian conduct is bad for health as smoking is and needs to be marginalized like smoking is.They must abolish sex change maimings. Anyhow, asking/saying the same things to me will get you the same answer.
Abner,
Virtually none of what you say is backed up by solid scientific research, but who cares about that anyway–heh?
You are merely repeating what you have said over and over again, but you don’t respond to any new points I try to make.
It would be fine to prefer too much be done than too little, but when prosecuting or defending anyone, it would also be nice to know if that too little or too much was not just determined by using insufficient or false evidence? But who cares about that either?
Even if I tried forever, I wouldn’t even be able to convince you that 12 noon happens during the day, instead of the night!
I’m done here. To continue would only be a colossal waste of time!
I spoke November 3, 2014 to Dennis W. Shepard (Methew W. Shepard’s dad) by calling his house-I found his phone # on Internet. I first asked him if he was the late Methew Shepard’s dad which he verified. I then told him that his son was a drug dealer (his son was a junky who associated with drug dealers and possibly was a drug dealer/courier himself) and a child molester. He said it was horseturd (profane word used) and asked where I got the information and whether I read the court documents (guessing from murder trial). I replied by telling Dennis that his son was a drug dealer and child molester-you know about the 8 year old boys who Methew molested & that Shepard’s exploit their son for money.
I found Mr. Dennis W. Shepard to be dishonest & he hung up on me. He said it’s horseturd but he didn’t give a rebuttal. I believe I was justified in calling Methew W. Shepard’s parents (I was trying to get his mom but instead got his dad) as Methew W. Shepard’s family exploits him for money & people need to tell them the ugly truth of who their son was. Do you think I did the right thing? I believe I did. Anyhow please share your view because don’t be surprised if the Shepard’s change their phone # as it’s possible others have done the same thing that I did which is to call the Shepard’s to tell them what a bad person their son was, especially if others have read the Book of Matt as we did. I think Mr. Dennis W.Shepard knows that some of us know the ugly truths of who his son was.
Is this a joke? Or would you really do something like this? If so, you are a very sick individual, and need to get help.
Abner haven’t you ever been a father or had a father who cares for you? Mr. Sheppard owes nothing to someone who calls deliberately in order to cast aspersions and accusations about someone he loves. Even if Matthew had used drugs or been guilty of some other crimes, still, a parent loves and cares for his or her child, with one of the strongest emotional bonds in the world! So, no, you didn’t do the right thing at all, by hurling insults at Matthew’s father or his son!
You have the right to believe what you want to about Matthew Sheppard and his brutal murder, but you have absolutely no right to harass his father by subjecting him to your self-righteous rants! You are not God and you have no idea of what Matthews parents feel, or don’t feel—or how sincere is their grief really is!
Believe it or not, most of us do not approve in the least when an ignorant persons believes it is his right to rub salt in the wounds of a grieving man. And we absolutely do not want to become apologists for his violent killers!—no matter what you might think their motives were!
Even though I disagree with you about many of your biases and beliefs, I would never call your parents and dishonor you in such an insensitive and shallow way–no matter what the facts of your live may or may not be!
You won’t get any more responses from me that will likely, only satisfy your sadism. In this case you absolutely are a HORSE TURD!–plain and simple!
Abner,
Here is a quote from you, stating one of your most cherished moral principles:
BTW, why Matthew or Methew Wayne Shepard was killed, only he and his 2 killers know and only he knew what was on his mind.
I hope you realize how hypocritical it is to give Matthews murderers the benefit of the doubt by saying that, “Only he and his two killers knew what was on his mind,” when at the same time, you are granting yourself the right to accost Matthews parents, and even state that they only care about his death for the money they can make because of it! But by your own reasoning, how could anyone but Matthew’s parents really know how they feel about their son–let alone if they only dedicate their lives to ending hate crimes just for the money? As Jesus said, “Pluck the log out of your own eye before you can see to take the mote out of your neighbors eye.” This is probably not an exact quote but Christ’s meaning is very clear.
I hope someday God will help you understand just how terribly you treated Matthew’s father, and that you will then ask for his (God’s)
forgiveness.
Judy L. Shepard does exploit her son for $. Judy L. Shepard sees nothing wrong with her son molesting 8 year old boys and Judy L. Shepard earns anywhere from $5,000 to $20,000 per speech. Judy L. Shepard’s interest is to profit from her son’s 1998 killing. The Shepard Foundation is a propaganda group whose main interest is to push an agenda and to make money. Laramie Project’s interest is to make $. Shepard Foundation, Laramie Project and Judy L. Shepard all are apologists for child molestation when the molestation is homosexual.
http://spectator.org/blog/53864/freekate-movement-normalize-pedophilia-finds-its-poster-girl
Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt-Florida lesbian who sexually abused a 14 year old girl in a public bathroom and how gay lesbian groups reacted. This lesbian sexually abused a 14 year old girl in a public bathroom. The parents did the right thing calling the police to report this sex abuse and homosexual groups condemn and harass the parents. For homosexual groups to get children to rally for Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt after she sexually abused this minor girl is wrong-exploit children for causes.
Big Island Chronicle Tiffany Camille Hunt (formerly Tiffany Camille Edwards) and Shepard Foundation JC Marsden-no surprise that Laramie Project, Shepard Foundation’s Jason Christopher Marsden and Big Island Chronicle‘s Tiffany Camille Edwards Hunt see nothing wrong with that lesbian committing sex abuse on a 14 year old girl in a public bathroom & against this lesbian going to jail for what she did to this teenage girl.
Abner,
Since I had never heard of the Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt case, I tried Googling it. Of course I was immediately bombarded by a large number of conservative groups who seemed to want to immediately draw blood over this controversy. Personally I also think that very young children (14 is still adolescence) Need to be protected by law from situations that may be dangerous to them because of their lack of knowledge about the dangers of sexual relationships with strangers and adults. I think this is important to recognize in all cases involving adults and teenagers, and in any case, should also include taking advantage of a younger person who is part of an LGBT relationship.
However, I think the issues brought up by the ACLU had more to do with the appropriateness of extreme punishment in cases where consent is mutual and what happens is between two minors. And from what I gathered, this single encounter happened when the older girl was only 17, and thus considered another minor in many States. So, what must also be considered is the commonplace nature of sexual encounters between all types of minors including Male kids on a High School football team who might not take no for an answer when making advances towards their female dates, or any adult person of any sex, who knowingly takes sexual advantage of an underaged partner. However our Constitution’s 8th amendment, has been designed to protect all citizens from cruel and unusual punishment in cases where the severity of the punishment does not match the gravity of the crime, and where the offense is widespread and, commonplace among many members of society who normally, do not warrant being labeled as (sexual offenders) for the rest of their lives—especially after consenting to behaviors that are common among all types of sexual relationships, and are typical forms of adolescent behaviors that so many teens and young people engage in. Here is a paste from Wikipedia about what the 8th amendment is designed to do;
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted”. The general principles the United States Supreme Court relied on to decide whether or not a particular punishment was cruel and unusual were determined by Justice William Brennan.[3] In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), Justice Brennan wrote,
[“There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is ‘cruel and unusual’.”
The “essential predicate” is “that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity,” especially torture.
“A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion.” (Furman v. Georgia temporarily suspended capital punishment for this reason.)
[“A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society.”
“A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary.”]
And he added:
(“The function of these principles, after all, is simply to provide means by which a court can determine whether a challenged punishment comports with human dignity. They are, therefore, interrelated, and, in most cases, it will be their convergence that will justify the conclusion that a punishment is “cruel and unusual.”)
[The test, then, will ordinarily be a cumulative one: if a punishment is unusually severe, if there is a strong probability that it is inflicted arbitrarily,]
[if it is substantially rejected by contemporary society, and if there is no reason to believe that it serves any penal purpose more effectively than some less severe punishment,]
(then the continued infliction of that punishment violates the command of the Clause that the State may not inflict inhuman and uncivilized punishments upon those convicted of crimes.”
Continuing, he wrote that he expected that no state would pass a law obviously violating any one of these principles, so court decisions regarding the Eighth Amendment would involve a “cumulative” analysis of the implication of each of the four principles. In this way the United States Supreme Court “set the standard that,]
[(a punishment would be cruel and unusual [,if] it was too severe for the crime, [if] it was arbitrary, if it offended society’s sense of justice, or if it was not more effective than a less severe penalty.”[4] ).]
I have placed in parenthesis and separated portions of the above stipulations that I believe the ACLU may have considered when deciding to defend one member of a consensual adolescent sexual relationship that was done when both parties were minors, and which therefore, includes cruel unusual and arbitrarily enforcement regardless of the actual
minor offense of the crime.
Remember Abner, teenage boys and girls are notorious for having underage sexual relationships that many of us recognize as the foolhardiness of youth, yet are actually quite normal for most adolescents to engage in.
Of course the parents of any child have the right to seek damages, if they feel their minor child has been taken advantage of by an older child, and its seems that once Kaitlyn became 18 this is exactly what the younger child’s parents did!
This begs the question of whether it is cruel and unusual punishment to condemn an 18 year old who was part of a consensual relationship when she was 17, to a life of being labeled as a sex offender—something that would damage her ability to find a job and make her an outcast from society for the rest of her life? Remember both girls consented to the encounter, and there is no contesting of that fact!
I have emailed the Florida ACLU and asked for information about exactly why they took up the role of the defense in this case, and I’ll wait to see what they tell me, but I am pretty sure that their defense was really about whether it is appropriate to label a young kid as being a felony sex offender and thereby cripple her social and civil freedoms for the rest of her life, even though both girls in this relationship freely consented to the sexual encounter they had!
Let me ask you Abner, if you had a teenage son, that was caught having sex with a young teenage girl, and you knew that both of them had consented to the encounter, would you consider it appropriate to have the State brand your son as a dangerous felon for the rest of his life–just for giving into his sexual desires without first considering the consequences of his actions? Perhaps YOU would, but I’ll wager that most loving parents would recognize that acting impulsively is something many teenagers commonly do, and something that they may also have done as teenagers themselves! Consequently they would not think their child should be sent to prison and branded for life just for a moment of normal adolescent stupidity.
Are the religious and right wing groups pinnacles of morality when screaming for punishment in ways that are truly cruel and unusual considering the commonplace and usually harmless nature of the crime? Remember, these were two females–there was not even a danger of causing an unwanted pregnancy!
But back to Matthew and your ugly and inconsiderate verbal attack on his father. If your son had been straight and yet, had been murdered in such a brutal way—just for not being acceptably in lockstep moral behavior with others—and even if he had committed misdemeanors in his youth, or if he had tried to forced himself on a young girl—would you still consider it right to have him brutally beaten to death by another person?…. Say he had been murdered for being black, or being Muslim, or just being at the wrong place at the wrong time, would you not be outraged if he was savagely beaten and left on top of a fense for many hours in near freezing weather–until he eventually died? And if you decided to condemn his murderers for committing a hate crime, would you think it would be right for others to label you as an apologist for black men, or an apologist for heathen Muslims etc. etc. Just because your son was brutally murdered when belonging to either of these groups?
What you don’t realizes is that this is not about promoting homosexuality, or condoning rape or the abuse of minors. Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt, was caught doing what many impressionable young teens might also have done. She didn’t deserve to have her future ruined for such a relatively insignificant offense! And Matthew’s parents don’t deserve to be emotionally abused by you, just because you think all homosexuals are sick or immoral, or even if they have at times used drugs! You DON’T know what’s in the hearts of Matthews parents and you are dead wrong to accuse them of wanting only to profit from his death by collecting money for working to end hate crimes! I can easily guess which end of the ideological spectrum you got that poison from!
Your mind is already made up and you have made yourself judge jury and executioner of Matthew’s parents! But, the saddest and sorriest thing is that you don’t understand what this issue is really about! like the religious bigots described in this article by the POP, you think nothing about judging others even though you have not walked a single step in their shoes. You think nothing of spreading this poison propaganda as if you were heroic and special for doing so. Then like the religious bigots mentioned in this article, you scream like and idiot because the Constitution does not give you the right to deny another person’s freedom in order to enhance your own, while allowing your own pre-conceived and hateful biases to be spread! You have the unmitigated gall to think that you are the ones being persecuted!!
Abner, you are being an apologist for bigots, religious hypocrites, and extreme thinkers everywhere, who frequently crawl out from the ideological rocks they live under, to hide themselves when not self-righteously throwing stones at others! After how you treated Matthew’s father, and after you cruelly demeaned and cheapened the dedicated work his parents do, I have absolutely no respect for you at all!!!
Peter W. Johnson, if it’s a teenage boy having sex with a willing teenage girl (both being under 18 years old), then no, there should not be criminal prosecution. If an 18 or 19 year old man has sex with a 17 year old girl or if an 18 or 19 year old woman has sex with a 17 year old boy & there is let’s say an age difference of 2 years or less, then I would be against criminal prosecution.
But if let’s say an 18 year old man or older has sex with a 16 year old girl or if an 18 year old woman or older has sex with a 16 year old boy, then I would support criminal prosecution, though if they decided to plead case to misdemeanor rather than felony, I can go along with it. If some1 20 or older has sex with a 17 year old or younger, then it must be prosecuted as a felony. This rule does NOT apply to homosexual/lesbian activities. If people want to do homosexual/lesbian conduct, then they must be 18 or older and only with adults who are 18 or older.
18 is when puberty ends-+ or – a couple of years. Peter W. Johnson, it is normal for a 14 year old boy to want a woman & it’s normal for a 14 year old girl to want a man. But no normal man wants a 14 year old girl & no normal woman wants a 14 year old boy. A normal man wants a woman who is in her 20s and 30s. A normal woman wants a man. There’s something wrong with an adult who wants a teenager who has not finished puberty.
Peter W. Johnson, homosexual/lesbian conduct is bad for health and if people are going to take part in homosexual/lesbian sexual behaviors, then they must be adults, not minors. It is wrong to affirm homosexual/lesbianism in people who are minors. If a man (even 18 years old) were having sex with a 14 year old girl, he would have gone to jail for statutory rape and been reqd. to register as a sex offender. If a woman had sex with a teenage boy, she would go to jail for stautory rape and yes, cops and prosecutors are going after women who do this and women have gone to prison for having sex with teenage boys.
This lesbian sexually abused a 14 year old girl in a public bathroom. She had no business having sex with a minor and she had no right to do indecency in a public bathroom. If an adult wants to do homosexual or lesbian conduct with other knowing and consenting adults in their own home or apartment and not harass others about it, then it’s their life, though it’s harmful behavior. Same as if an adult wants to use tobacco in their own house or place permitted. These conducts though harmful is legal by consenting adults-we should work to find cures for this. But here, homosexual groups exploited kids to rally for a lesbian who had sex with a 14 year old girl in a public bathroom and people harassed the victim’s parents for calling the cops.
Let us hope her victim does not turn out lesbian because of this sex abuse. Many homosexuals were victims of sex abuse when they were boys-that causes homosexuality. Never have I heard straights blame childhood sex abuse for reasons a man has sex with a woman and fathers children with her. Yet sometimes have heard gays and lesbians say childhood sex abuse is reason they do same sex behaviors. Any conduct can be learned and this includes sexual conduct. There are homosexuals and lesbians who say that childhood sex abuse (especially those who are victims of a gay priest) are reasons why they think they do same sex behaviors in adulthood. Had they not been repeatedly molested, would they have turned out straight instead of gay or lesbian? It doesn’t take an expert to know that sex abuse in youth can mess up the mind and cause people to behave in ways they normally wouldn’t. Of course, not all who are sexually abused in youth become gay in adulthood-but the risk is higher.
Shepard Foundation, Laramie Project and Judy L. Shepard all are apologists for child molestation when the molestation is homosexual. Big Island Chronicle‘s Tiffany Camille Edwards Hunt see nothing wrong with that lesbian committing sex abuse on a 14 year old girl in a public bathroom & against this lesbian going to jail for what she did to this teenage girl. Yes, Judy L. Shepard does exploit her son for $. Judy L. Shepard sees nothing wrong with her son molesting 8 year old boys and Judy L. Shepard earns anywhere from $5,000 to $20,000 per speech. Judy L. Shepard’s interest is to profit from her son’s 1998 killing. The Shepard Foundation is a propaganda group whose main interest is to push an agenda and to make money. Laramie Project’s interest is to make $.
Finally, sex change maimings which is mutilating some1 to make them fake members of opposite sex is comparable to trying to make a man a fake animal because he thinks he is an animal trapped in a human body. Most feminists are not speaking against this. 1 would hope that feminists would oppose the mutilation that happened to Chastity Sun Bono as feminists have spoken against Female Genital Mutilation which happens in some nations. Transexuals are mutilations which no Dr. should take part in, yet most feminists are not condemning this female genital and breast mutilation as what happened to Chastity S. Bono where her healthy breasts were mutilated, dangerous hormone shots and her genitals mutilated. All transexuals are homosexual/lesbian as the act of mutilating to become false opposite sex is itself an act of homosexuality/lesbianism-sad maiming and make this illegal.
Daily Kos is even worse than the Huffington Post on the homosexual topic-both Huffington Post and Daily Kos must be made of reporters & most posters who are junkies and possibly molest children but see here where they (Daily Kos and their homosexual posters) condemn Tucker Carlson (full name Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson) for acting in self-defense http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/08/30/378328/-Putting-the-Pressure-on-Tucker-Carlson Perhaps Huffington Post, Daily Kos , Judy Lynn Shepard & Big Island Chronicle Tiffany Camille Hunt all masturbate with homosexuals in public restroom & harass children, as they are apologists for the homosexual who was harassing a teenage Tucker Carlson and they condemn Tucker Carlson (fully name Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson) for defending himself by bashing the homosexual.
Perhaps Daily Kos, Judy Lynn Shepard, Big Island Chronicle Tiffany Camille Hunt, Huffington Post & lesbian columnist Pamela F. Spaulding all masturbate to the idea of homosexuals committing indecent exposure in public restrooms and perhaps Daily Kos (along with their posters), Huffington Post (along with most Huffington Posters), Big Island Chronicle Tiffany Camille Hunt, & lesbian columnist Pamela F. Spaulding smoke drugs. If an adult wants to do homosexual or lesbian conduct with other knowing and consenting adults in their own home or apartment and not harass others about it, then it’s their life, though it’s harmful behavior.Public restroom is the place to use toilet and wash up not a place for sex.
Abner,
Any intelligent response would only be a waste of time.
Gay bashing victims will face the same public opinion court as gay bashers. If there are ugly truths about a homosexual which the media omits as most media did with Methew Wayne Shepard, then we will use our free speech rights to tell the ugly truths about the homosexual even if others dislike it. & there is nothing the any1, be it media or cops can do to legally stop us from telling the ugly truths. Gay bashing victims will face the public opinion court as gay bashers and ugly truths will be told about a homosexual though it offends homosexual groups.
No, I don’t think Methew W. Shepard should have been killed but Methew W. Shepard molested 8 year old boys and got counseling for this when he was 15 years old-that is verified information and Stephen Jimenez incidentally mentioned this near end of book-he interviewed a Casper Wyoming cop and a relative of 1 of victims. The 2 boys who Methew W. Shepard molested is verified by Natrona County Juvenile Court records, the Cody Woming bartender who was victimized by Methew W. Shepard in August 1998 and which is backed by Cody Wyoming police reports.
Judy L. Shepard and the Shepard Foundation omits this ugly truth of Methew W. Shepard being a child molester and it would not surprise me if ex Casper Star Tribune journalists Tiffany C. Hunt, Kerry A. Drake and JC Marsden know this but left this out in that I find it hard to believe these 3 Casper Wyoming journalists did not know about Methew W. Shepard molesting 8 year old boys when he was 15 years old because Stephen Jimenez found this in court records and again, Stephen Jimenez incidentally mentioned this near end of book as most of the book was about the 3 people, A.J. McKinney’s problems, Methew W. Shepard’s life and problems and of course the drug problems. Incidentally, it’s possible that Methew W. Shepard had molested more boys other than the 2 case reported to cops. Both JC Marsden & Big Island Chronicle Tiffany Camille Hunt sees nothing wrong with Methew W. Shepard selling drugs and molesting children so their view is rubbish.
Proposing (straightorgay) in your house, singles bar or @ a private party is in most cases legal. The right thing to do is say no and leave. However, repeatedly proposing after some1 has said no is criminal harassment. If a homosexual is going to commit indecent exposure, then it’s a crime and there is no need for a man to say no to a crime the homosexual had no right to do-just as there is no need for a store owner to put up signs that say ‘don’t steal’-no need to say no to a crime the other person has no right to do.
& there is no need for a man to say no to a homosexual who is proposing to him in a public restroom because public restroom is not a house or a bar and it’s illegal to ask others for sex in public restroom. & again, for a homosexual to follow a man around and propose to him repeatedly after he said no is criminal. Again, if defense lawyer wants to bring up criminal conduct the homosexual did-harassment, indecent exposure, assault and battery, etc. before man reacted violently, then homosexual’s antisocial conduct must be regarded by jury in deciding verdict.
Let’s look @ what we do know about Methew W. Shepard. No matter why the murder happened, the idea that A.J. McKinney and Methew W. Shepard were strangers who did not know eachother until that day is rubbish. There are many witnesses-Doc O’ Connor’s ex girlfriend, Elaine Baker (bartender), M.K. Rohrbacher (drug dealer), Tristan (Ted) Henson (Methew W. Shepard’s former lover) & others who saw them together.
Even if 1 believes the murder was motivated by hatred of homosexuals, it is truth that A.J. McKinney and Methew W. Shepard knew eachother though A.J. McKinney denies it. There are too many witnesses who saw both men together. Of course the witnesses can only say they saw them together and can not know it all. It’s not believed Methew W. Shepard knew the 2nd man (R.A. Henderson) and I agree with Stephen Jimenez that Russell A. Henderson should have been convicted of a lesser crime such as Manslaughter and that he should have gotten a jury trial but got bad representation by his lawyers who urged him to take a plea when he wanted a jury trial. Book of Matt by Stephen Jimenez Stephen Jimenez’s evidence are 1st party witnesses he interviewed-over 100 of them over 13 years.
I don’t think Methew W. Shepard should have been killed but it is truth that Methew W. Shepard molested 8 year old boys and got counseling for this when he was 15 years old-Stephen Jimenez incidentally mentioned this near end of book-he interviewed a Casper Wyoming cop and a relative of 1 of victims. But Judy L. Shepard and the Shepard Foundation omits this ugly truth of Methew W. Shepard being a child molester and it would not surprise me if ex Casper Star Tribune journalists Tiffany C. Hunt, Kerry A. Drake and JC Marsden know this but left this out in that I find it hard to believe these 3 Casper Wyoming journalists did not know about Methew W. Shepard molesting 8 year old boys when he was 15 years old because Stephen Jimenez found this in court records and again, Stephen Jimenez incidentally mentioned this near end of book as most of the book was about the 3 people, A.J. McKinney’s problems, Methew W. Shepard’s life and problems and of course the drug problems. Incidentally, it’s possible that Methew W. Shepard had molested more boys other than the 2 case reported to cops. Both JC Marsden & Big Island Chronicle Tiffany Camille Hunt sees nothing wrong with Methew W. Shepard selling drugs and molesting children so their view is rubbish.
Methew W. Shepard associating with drug dealers in both Wyoming and Colorado is not disputable. Methew W. Shepard went into bars where drugs were sold and he did associate with drug dealers-we know that he went to bars named Tornado, Ranger, Library & other bars in Wyoming and Colorado where drugs were sold. Methew W. Shepard’s friend Tina LaBrie expressing concerns about Methew W. Shepard’s drug and $ problems. We know that Methew W. Shepard was having $ problems (spending so much on limosuine rides in Doc O’ Connor’s limousine).
Methew W. Shepard’s a junky (proven fact), drunkard and had money problems. Sheriff O’Malley has said that if Methew W. Shepard sold drugs, the cops would have known which is dishonest-Sheriff David S. O’Malley and Sgt. R.J. DeBree know cops don’t always catch all the criminals and that many drug dealers escape detection. Sheriff David S. O’Malley and Sgt. Robert J. DeBree have arrested drug dealers and they know how it’s the family and friends who get surprised after they learn some1 they know is a drug dealer.
Sheriff David S. O’Malley and Sgt. Robert J. DeBree know that it’s unlikely MW. Shepard told his friends and family that he was a drug dealer, and even if Methew W. Shepard did tell his friends and family that he sold drugs, don’t think his family will admit this ugly as they had tried to hide the fact that Methew Wayne Shepard molested 8 year old boys and got counseling.
Now was Methew W. Shepard’s assocation with drug dealers and going into bars where drugs were sold more than buying drugs ? Was Methew W. Shepard a drug dealer or a drug courier? Stephen Jimenez thinks so and he believes it was the Denver circle. No, Stephen Jimenez does not know it all but his conclusions are sincere and honest. While homosexual groups complain about Stephen Jimenez saying the murder case is complicated and possibly not a hate crime, that is incidental-main reason homosexual groups are offended by Stephen Jimenez’s book is because he talked about the ugly truths about who M.W. Shepard was. You don’t always know the secrets friends and family have. If a person is a drug dealer, then they are usually not going to tell their friends and family that they do this.
Even if Metthew W. Shepard did tell his friends and family that he sold drugs, don’t think his family will admit this ugly truth about him, as they had tried to hide the fact that Methew Wayne Shepard molested 8 year old boys and got counseling for it. Laramie Project, Shepard Foundation & Big Island Chronicle Tiffany Camille Hunt sees nothing wrong with Methew W. Shepard selling drugs and molesting children so their view is rubbish.
Abner,
You and I have discussed all of these issues many times and I am confident that it’s useless to reason with you. Although you seem to be having some sort of self-righteous flash back, when you had gall enough to call Matthew’s father in order to rant about what a bad person his son was, you ceased to have my respect as a human being, I told you I would not humor your vitriol any longer and I meant every word I said! I am done trying to respond to someone who doesn’t even know the meaning of the word compassion!
Police files charges for harassment, not the victims. Calling them once to tell the truth is not harassment. Harassment is repeatedly contacting a person after they have asked you to stop contacting them. Since this happened once, it was not harassment, so it’s legal. Shepards are high profile people though they are not famous like an actor is. If the Shepard’s don’t want people calling them to tell ugly truths of Methew W. Shepard being a drug junky and a child molester, then they should get an unlisted # because that is what comes with being high profile.
Abner,
What’s legal is not always moral, or justifiable. You’re a jerk even for doing what you did once!
Homosexual groups lecture about how homosexuals & transexuals (mutilated gays/lesbians) are bullied-yet homosexuals are apologists for homosexuals (homolesters or homosexual pedophiles which include transexuals) molesting children. Truth is that gay/lesbian groups think it’s Okay for gays to homolest boys.
There is something wrong with a man thinking he is a woman or a woman thinking she is a man. It is mutilation with dangerous hormones. Most transexuals were sexually abused in childhood which messed up their minds and transexuals sexually abuse children. Transexuals are mutilated gays and lesbians. I don’t care what others say but mutilating a man or woman to make them fake members of opposite sex is gay/lesbian. And gay/lesbian groups are apologists for Transexuals which is why the word T is there. They must abolish this surgical mutilation.
All transexuals are homosexual/lesbian as the act of mutilating to become false opposite sex is itself an act of homosexuality/lesbianism-sad maiming and make this illegal. Finally, sex change maimings which is mutilating some1 to make them fake members of opposite sex is comparable to trying to make a man a fake animal because he thinks he is an animal trapped in a human body. Most feminists are not speaking against this. 1 would hope that feminists would oppose the mutilation that happened to Chastity Sun Bono as feminists have spoken against Female Genital Mutilation which happens in some nations. Transexuals are mutilations which no Dr. should take part in, yet most feminists are not condemning this female genital and breast mutilation as what happened to Chastity S. Bono where her healthy breasts were mutilated, dangerous hormone shots and her genitals mutilated.
Abner,
You wouldn’t be trying to condemn another group just for disagreeing with you, like that rotten Madalyn Murray O’hair, would you? But wait, you have that privilege since you’re not wrong and she obviously is?….Get a life Abner!
I spoke on January 21, 2015 to Undersheriff R.J. Debree on Stephen Jimenez’s Book of Matt. Undersheriff RJ DeBree was courteous and spoke with me. He said that 1 part where Stephen Jimenez got wrong was that there was a drive by shooting and he said that didn’t happen. He said that Stephen Jimenez did not interview him. Stephen Jimenez did interview Sheriff O’Malley. Undersheriff RJ DeBree also said that he would be willing to debate Stephen Jimenez on the book. I told Undersheriff R.J. DeBree that Methew W. Shepard was a junky and possibly a drug dealer. He asked me how I knew that & I mentioned that Judy L. Shepard said in her book that Methew W. Shepard ‘self-medicated’ which is another word for drug junky. I said that Methew W. Shepard associating with drug dealers in both Colorado and Wyoming is indisputable. Now did he also sell drugs in addition to use them? It’s possible and we don’t know the money problems Methew was having.
Of course, I also told UnderSheriff R.J. DeBree that Methew W. Shepard was a child molester and no matter why the murder happened, I care more about the 2 boys who Methew molested. I told Undersheriff R.J. DeBree that it’s possible Methew had more victims than the 2 cases reported. I told Undersheriff R.J. DeBree that if he and Sheriff O’Malley want to talk about the murder and what they found in the murder investigation, then that is fine. I also said that if they want to say that in the murder investigation they did not find proof of Methew selling drugs, then that it also fine. I told him that since he and Sheriff O’Malley are cops, they both know that you don’t always know the secrets a person has such as if a person is a drug dealer. Undersheriff DeBree talked about the anonymous witnesses who Stephen Jimenez interviewed-since he also read the book. I replied that there were also named witnesses, which he said only a few. I mentioned that some of the witnesses who Stephen Jimenez interviewed are anonymous because they were drug dealers and that they don’t want to be ID because they don’t want to be arrested and sent to jail.
I mentioned to UnderSheriff DeBree that the critique both he and Sheriff O’Malley have made is not credible & that I believe Stephen Jimenez. I of course mentioned the Laramie Project and Methew W. Shepard is a friend of mine and Undersheriff R.J. DeBree said that he is not associated with that. Both he and Sheriff O’Malley are portrayed in both. I told Undersheriff R.J. DeBree that the Shepard Foundation & Laramie Project think that child molestation is ok when committed by homosexuals such as the fact that both Shepard Foundation and Laramie Project see nothing wrong with Harvey B. Milk sexually abusing a 16 year old boy & they see nothing wrong with Methew W. Shepard molesting 8 year old boys. I also told Undersheriff R.J. DeBree that they should make it a crime to do sex changes.
Anyhow, Undersheriff R.J. DeBree was courteous to speak with me and he did say he would debate Stephen Jimenez.. I thanked him for taking the time to talk with me though he is not credible in his accusation against Stephen Jimenez. No, Stephen Jimenez doesn’t know all the answers and while I can’t conclusively say that Methew W. Shepard sold drugs, Methew W. Shepard was a junky who associated with drug dealers in Wyoming and Colorado. He could’ve been a drug dealer or he could have been a courier as we don’t know all the $ problems he had and Stephen Jimenez in his book talked about Methew W. Shepard living life of spending $ on Doc O’Connor’s limo rides.
I spoke on April 16, 2014 to Sheriff David S. O’Malley about Book of Matt and gave facts about Methew Wayne Shepard being a child molester and drug dealer. He predictably said Book of Matt should be called Book of Lies, that he did investigation & hung up on me without explaining why it should be called book of lies. He has no rebuttal. Chief O’Malley said he is offended by Stephen Jimenez’s book but he’s dishonest.
Sheriff David S. O’Malley, Cop Regina D. Fluty and Sgt. Rob J. DeBree’s all have been portrayed in Laramie Project and Sheriff O’Malley is a friend of Judy L. Shepard. But their job as cops after to they found M.W. Shepard’s comatose body was to solve M.W. Shepard’s murder and they quickly found and arrested the 2 who did this. After that their job was to help prosecutors prove the 2 men guilty of murder which they did. Since M.W. Shepard is dead, he can not be arrested and prosecuted for any crimes he committed before October 1998. I don’t believe the 2 cops investigated whether Methew W. Shepard was a drug dealer because there was no need to because he is dead and can’t be punished for it.
Sheriff David S. O’Malley, Regina D. Fluty and Sgt. Robert J. DeBree all know as cops or former cops that you don’t always know the secrets a person has in their life. All know that most criminals try to keep their crimes secret esp. from friends and family as they don’t want to be caught. Many times when it’s discovered a person is let’s say a child molester, it’s friends and family who get surprised because a child molester is unlikely to admit that they commit this crime to their friends and family. Sheriff David S. O’Malley and Sgt. Robert J. DeBree in their lives have arrested drug dealers and they know how it’s the family and friends who get surprised after they learned some1 they know is a drug dealer.
I don’t think Sheriff David S. O’Malley and Sgt. Robert J. DeBree are honest criticizing Stephen Jimenez as bias is meddling with facts especially again as Sheriff O’Malley is a friend of Judy Lynn Shepard. Sheriff David S. O’Malley and Sgt. Robert J. DeBree know that it’s unlikely Methew W. Shepard told his friends and family that he was a drug dealer, because both have seen many times as cops as how criminals usually keep their crimes a secret esp. from their friends and family. M.W. Shepard kept it a secret. Even if Methew W. Shepard did tell his friends and family that he sold drugs, don’t think his family will admit this ugly truth about him, as they had tried to hide the fact that Methew Wayne Shepard molested 8 year old boys and got counseling for it. Both Sheriff David S. O’Malley and Sgt. R.J. DeBree know as cops that they don’t always catch all the criminals. Stephen Jimenez to repeat interviewed over 100 witnesses and he did a 13 year investigation. He went into bars, interviewed drug dealers, junkies and they verified that both A.J. McKinney and M.W. Shepard knew eachother and that M.W. Shepard had a secret life as a drug dealer/courier.
Again, Sheriff O’Malley and Sgt. DeBree interest in October 1998 was to solve the homicide and to help prosecutor Mr. Rerucha prove the 2 men gulity of murder. I don’t think Sheriff David S. O’Malley, Sgt. Robert J. DeBree and any1 else in the Albany County Sheriff’s Dept. investigated M.W. Shepard’s background because there was no need to. Sheriff David S. O’Malley and Sgt. R.J. DeBree’s critique sounds like they are dishonest, delusional or both esp. again as Sheriff f O’Malley is a friend of Judy L. Shepard and Chief O’Malley, Reggie D. Fluty and Sgt. DeBree are portrayed in Laramie Project. JC Marsden (executive Director of Shepard Foundation) and Tiffany C. Hunt are portrayed in Laramie Project. Both JC Marsden & Big Island Chronicle Tiffany Camille Hunt sees nothing wrong with Methew W. Shepard selling drugs and molesting children so their view is rubbish.
ANY assault and battery or murder cases including gay bashing cases, unless there is a plea bargain (which happens in most criminal cases) juries decide after hearing both prosecutor and defense lawyer. Juries decide what is reasonable & excess because each case is different and must be judged individually. As known with murder cases, there is Murder 1, Murder 2 and Manslaughter which is a jury topic. If a defense lawyer in a gay bashing case wants to raise a crime the gay did such as harassment, indecent exposure, etc. before man reacted violently, then that must be regarded in deciding verdict. Prosecutors can argue why they think it was excess force and defense lawyer can argue why it was justified force. Jury decides if it’s justified or excess force. A jury can acquit or if they convict, they can convict a person on lesser charge.
Most gay bashings I have found are men reacting to crimes which the homosexual first did such as after a homosexual committed indecent exposure, assault & battery or other crime. I would rather have too much done than not enough in that I would rather have a case where a jury decides if a man’s reaction to bashing or killing a homosexual is justified or excess vs. the man doesn’t do enough and the gay does something worse. A rebuttal people make is that gay bashers will sometimes say things to justify their deeds such as saying the homosexual committed indecent exposure, harassment, stalking and so on and that it’s the gay basher’s side of story. Yes-but just as gay basher’s have interest to justify their deeds, gay bashing victims have interest to make themselves look like innocent victims. We don’t always know the other side of story and that is usually different from what homosexual says happened. Again if it’s true homosexual committed indecent exposure, harassment, stalking, etc. before men reacted violently, then the fact the homosexual committed a crime before he was bashed must be decided by jury in deciding if gay basher(s) used reasonable or excess force. I would rather have a case where a jury decides if a man’s reaction to bashing or killing a homosexual is justified or excess vs. the man doesn’t do enough and the gay does something worse. Most men and boys who are victims of gays usu. won’t call cops to report that a gay is committing indecent exposure, harassment or in worst cases molestation until some1 reacts violently and bashes the gay.
Something to regard-if you’re a store owner there is no need to put up signs that say ‘don’t steal’ because stealing is a crime and no need to say no to a crime the other person has no right to do. If some1 is stealing from your store, the right thing to do is use reasonable (not excess) force to stop the the thief and have the police arrest the thief. If you do nothing, then worse can happen as these situations can be unpredictable. It is possible for a thief to be stealing things anything small such as shoplifting candy to expensive things such as diamonds and then beat up or even kill the shop keeper in the same crime with or without weapons. Many cases where thieves have beaten up or killed shop keepers after stealing. No, stealing alone does not justify deadly force but theft may not be the only crime intended and it is possible for thieves to beat up or kill their victims. If the thief is high on drugs (such as a junky who steals to support his or her habit) then it is possible for the thief to be stealing things and then in a drug rage attack or even kill the store owner with his own hands.
Synonymously, if a homosexual is going to commit harassment, indecent exposure, stalking, assault and battery (such as if a homosexual grabs a man’s butt or groin against will), etc. then a man has a right to use reasonable force to end the abuse. There’s no need for a man to say no to a homosexual who is committing indecent exposure, etc. because there’s no need to say no to a crime the other had no right to as in the store owner eg.-stealing is a crime and no need to say no to thieves. If a defense lawyer in a gay bashing case wants to raise a crime the gay did such as harassment, indecent exposure, stalking, etc. before man reacted violently, then that must be regarded in deciding verdict.
Comments sometimes made are should women have a right to kill men who make ‘unwanted..’ & or that women don’t have a right to raise defense that the man made ‘unwanted…’. When people ask & or say things like that I wonder if they believe this or are they being dishonest because there are many cases where women have killed men & then said the man was abusing the woman when it was opposite. Which gets to the Jodi Ann Arias murder trial.
Jodi Ann Arias stalked her boyfriend and 1 day she murdered him by stabbing him to death and cutting his throat. During the murder trial, Jodi Ann Arias said that her boyfriend abused her when she abused her boyfriend. Jodi Ann Arias even falsely accused her boyfriend of being gay by saying he masturbated to images of young boys (homophilia) but the tests on computer disproved her as they showed images of women. Travis Victor Alexander did nothing wrong other than be involved with Jodi Ann Arias a woman with Borderline Personality Disorder and in the end that got him murdered & during the murder trial, he is accused of abusing her when it’s other way round. & long before Jodi Ann Arias met Travis V. Alexander, she had a violent history going back years such as Jodi Ann Arias kicking a dog when she was a teenager, Jodi Ann Arias abusing her cat (which prosecutor Juan M. Martinez was not allowed to raise) and Jodi Ann Arias was not credible during the murder trial.
& there were defense witnesses such as Alyce L. LaViolette, L.C. Miccio-Fonseca, Richard M. Samuels and Robert A. Geffner who said what they knew is false for money. They didn’t care what the facts were, they just saw a chance to make $ by testifying by making the victim look like the abuser when it’s other way round.
Alyce Louise LaViolette did not care that Jodi Ann Arias was stalking Travis V. Alexander, among other things. Travis Victor Alexander reported Jodi Ann Arias stalking him and slashing his tires. But it’s possible Jodi Ann Arias committed assault & battery on Travis V. Alexander or even threatened him with a knife only Travis V. Alexander didn’t report this. Men are more likely to tolerate women stalking them and Travis V. Alexander figured that because he was a risk taker and bigger than Jodi Ann Arias, he could handle Jodi Ann Arias abusing him. Don’t be surprised if Jodi Ann Arias had even tried to stab Travis V. Alexander before only that he had stopped it, except this time, she murdered him. Victim has to be right all the time, only that on that day in shower he could not stop her. Travis V. Alexander’s the victim. Jury convicted Jodi Ann Arias convicted of Murder 1 because she and her witnesses were not credible-she must spend rest of her life in prison or get death penalty but I don’t believe in death penalty.
Psychologists can be dishonest & they can deny what they know is true as we see with psychologists dishonesty on childhood sex abuse & homosexuality. If a child is repeatedly sexually abused, then it’s more likely he will do gay activity in adulthood vs. if he wasn’t. It’s possible for an adult who is repeatedly sexually abused in prison to take up gay conduct vs. if he wasn’t as any behavior can be learned.
Never have I heard straights blame childhood sex abuse for reasons a man has sex with a woman and fathers children with her. Yet sometimes have heard gays and lesbians say childhood sex abuse is reason they do same sex behaviors.Those denying link between childhood sex abuse and adult gay/lesbian behaviors are usually gay, lesbian or a sympathizer. Sex abuse in youth can cause people to behave in ways. It’s not controversial to talk of nightmares, suicides, bed wetting often a result of sex abuse in youth.
Yet when 1 talks gay/lesbian behaviors in adulthood because they learned this sexual behavior by being repeatedly molested, then gays with politically safe psychologists complain. The politically correct psychologists who deny this know it’s possible for a boy to turn out gay as a result of childhood sex abuse, yet deny what they know is true. Of course, not all who are sexually abused in youth become gay in adulthood-but the risk is higher. Any conduct can be learned and this includes sexual conduct. Many gays and lesbians who commit suicide do so because they often were childhood sex abuse victims and many have other copathologies such as antisocial conduct, drugs, etc.
See this column by Peter J. LaBarbera (Americans for Truth About Homosexuality) on Gerald Arthur (Jerry) Sandusky below:
CHICAGO—The discovery that former Penn State University defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky has been molesting boys as young as 10 years old – has shocked America. Peter J. LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), said the scandal exposes the continuing problem of homosexual predators in society. He offers the following observations related to the PSU scandal:
Many openly homosexual (“gay”) men, like CNN anchor Don Lemon, were molested as boys or experienced abnormally early sexualization. Yet many of these same men do NOT see their boyhood victimization at the hands of homosexual male predators as causing their homosexuality. (This is due partly to the success of the modern “gay” movement that falsely ascribes “gayness” to a person’s (innate) identity, and emphasizes the ambiguous notion of “sexual orientation” as opposed to behavior that is sinful, destructive and changeable.) Thus, how many boy victims of homosexual predator Sandusky will end up believing that being homosexual (“gay”) is “who they are”? How many will struggle with sexual identity issues? And how many will be told by LGBT advocates and liberal-minded people just to “accept being gay” as “who they are” because they were “born that way”?
Because the media and academia have largely become apologists for the modern homosexualist movement, they downplay or ignore obvious causative factors in the formation of “gay” identity – including pederastic molestation. CNN’s Lemon is a case in point: he is now an “out gay” celebrity, yet few question the absurdity of him not associating the molestation of his youth with his later embrace of homosexuality as a positive identity. There IS a long history connecting homosexuality to pederasty, and a disproportionate link between homosexuality and pedophilia: why else would so many child molestation victims be boys when only 1-3 percent of the population is homosexual? Since cases of women molesting boys remain rare, if homosexuality were not such a strong factor, nearly all of pedophile victims should be girls, which is far from the case. Sandusky is married but obviously has a homosexuality (perversion) problem. Yet pro-“gay” liberals will deny any linkage between homosexuality and Sandusky’s rape/seduction of boys. In fact, after news of the Penn State scandal came to light, “gay” activists stressed that Sandusky is married and that most pedophile cases involve “straight, married men.” However, behavior is what matters – not a person’s marital status or self-described “sexual orientation.” Sandusky was married but was he really “straight” (sexually or morally)? Some inner demons or life traumas – probably in his own youth – caused him to lust for boys, wrecking untold misery in the lives of his victims. Behavior is the issue, and this was a case of a serial homosexual predator raping boys.
My reasons for being against gay/lesbian behaviors and being against sex changes are unrelated to any religion. You can be secular as I am and see the harms of homosexual and lesbian behavior as you can see the harms of tobacco use. Behavior including sexual behavior can be learned. While they have not conclusively proven same sex behaviors are genes-if that is true, it would be same as alcoholic gene. It’s undebatable truth that if a person’s a victim of childhood sex abuse, then it’s more likely he or she will do gay/lesbian conduct repeating what he learned-those who deny are either dishonest, delusional or both. There could be possibly be genes, but if that’s true then the gay gene would be the same thing as heart attack gene. There is more than 1 cause for why a conduct happens.
Gerald (Jerry) A. Sandusky is a gay pedophile because he did homosexual relations with young boys though he was also married to a woman. The priests who molest young boys are gay pedophiles. If a man has sex with little girls only, then he is a straight pedophile. You didn’t say anything I haven’t already thought about. Rush H. Limbaugh’s right when he said Jerry A. Sandusky is gay-a gay pedophile and columnist Patrick J. Buchanan condemns who he calls gay priests who molest young boys. Those priests are again gay pedophiles, pederasts or homolesters. All transexuals are homosexual/lesbian as the act of mutilating to become false opposite sex is itself an act of homosexuality/lesbianism-sad maiming and make this illegal.
While I’m neutral on abortion, in justness to pro-lifers they believe abortion is killing a baby-there are many women pro-lifers so it’s not men seeking to control women’s bodies. If they decided to make abortion illegal, then I would not care 1 way or another. I’m pro-abortion in some cases such as if it can be predicted an unborn baby will be deformed, transexual or gay-then go ahead and abort them. But I understand view of pro-lifers regarding abortion as murder. I’m against sterlizations. There’s birth control such as the pill, condoms & old fahshioned Rhythm Method. Sterilization surgeries however are mutilations. Unless it’s a hysterectomy to save a life, they must make it a crime to do sterilizations. Sterilizations are spaying & neutering people. Also they make less attractive. All things=, if you have an intact woman vs. a woman who has been spayed, most men would take the intact woman. Same thing with a man who is intact vs. a man who has had a vasectomy, most women would choose the intact man.
I support birth control but am against sterilization surgeries. I oppose breast implants because they are fake (excludes reconstruct surgeries for women who have had breast disease). If a woman has naturally nice big boobs as singer Katy E. Perry has (she is listed as DD but there are women with bigger boobs than her), then that is good. There is nothing wrong with a woman having small boobs. Most men want a woman with natural boobs-small, medium or big vs. a woman with fake boobs. I would limit Viagra in most cases because those are performance enhancers. If a man is let’s say 25 years old and in a wheelchair, then I support him using Viagra to have sex with his wife or girlfriend and have kids with her because there’s a use to it. But I am against Viagra or any other sexual enhancement drug for old men because that’s like giving steroids to nfl player. I would also be against giving Viagra and sexual enhancement drugs to homosexuals. So I would limit Viagra or other sexual enhancement drug to straight men who are under 40 years old with a handicap to that they can father children which below a certain age it’s medicine, but after a certain age it’s performance enhancers comparable to Steroids as Viagra, Zestra are.
I support fertility treatments and I support In Vitro Fertilization. There are couples who want children but because the mom has problems getting pregnant or giving birth the only way for a man and his wife to have children is by In Vitro Fertilization. Let’s say that you have a man and a wife and the wife is let’s say paralyzed so that giving birth would be dangerous. I would support that couple’s right to In Vitro Fertilization (I.V.F.) so that both can enjoy having a family, raising kids, taking kids to the zoo, fun of seeing kids raise pets and so on. While In Vitro Fertilization (I.V.F.) is not perfect, In Vitro Fertilization (I.V.F.) must be there for couples who have problems having children. I also support Artificial Insemination with regulations. If you have a straight couple and let’s say the husband has disease where treatment could keep him from having children. Man should have a right to have his sperm stored so that he and his wife can have children. If however, you have artificial insemination for purpose of single parenthood or homosexual parenting, then it is a problem. Of course if a woman wants to have a child without father involvement then what she can do is have a 1 night stand. Also I have a friend who is a Born Again Christian who has told me that he supports In Vitro Fertilization because I.V.F. is about creating life while abortion is about preventing life so there are pro-lifers who support I.V.F. In Vitro Fertilization must be there for people who have problems having children.
(Link removed)
Sorry, Anirban. You don’t get to post any more comments here about homosexuality. Enough is enough.
[…] from American readers. There is, for example, the Christian Right’s Nazi-flavored campaign to marginalize gays. (No, “Nazi-flavored” is not an exaggeration.) There’s the way a shamelessly […]