If you live in the U.S., you’ve no doubt heard that the state of Arizona recently issued one of its periodic warnings to the rest of the world not to drink its water — this time in the form of SB 1062, a bill that would have allowed businesses to deny service to gays for “religious” reasons. The measure was vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer, and it’s no big secret that she likely did so on the basis of economic rather than moral concerns. And as you might expect, fundamentalists now claim that her veto was a slap in the holier-than-thou face of “religious freedom”. Some even refer to the torpedoed bill as the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” — as if religious freedom needed to be “restored”. As always, the spin is that prohibiting discrimination against other people by religious fanatics constitutes “religious discrimination”.
“Religious freedom” is a very predictable defense that some people offer for bigoted behavior. It’s also a very bullshit defense, because it can be used, and has been used, to mask just about anything and everything — from slavery and racism to child marriage to capital punishment to genocide to beating the crap out of little kids. But while true religious freedom means that you have the right to belong to whatever religion you choose (or, we hastily and emphatically add, to no religion at all), it doesn’t automatically mean that you have the right to practice whatever any religion preaches; it’s a case-by-case consideration that always must balance the freedom to indulge in a behavior with its impact on other people. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. You’re perfectly free to adhere to a faith that maintains some sectors of the population are second-class citizens (or “sinners” in fundie lingo) but that doesn’t mean you’re entitled to actually treat some people as second-class citizens.
Contrary to what the “religious freedom” crowd might have you believe, the United States government has always provided special dispensation to persons with strong religious convictions. Among other things, this has appeared in the form of exemption from military service, from property taxes, and now from certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Since such programs require mass participation to be effective, allowing some individuals to opt out places an undue burden on those who do participate; yet this has been deemed perfectly legal and constitutionally defensible from day one. Far from being the victims of discrimination and persecution, as they so often proclaim, Christians have been and still are the beneficiaries of reverse discrimination and even extraordinary privilege.
Likewise, the government has been, if not supportive, at least indifferent to, misguided and misinformed efforts by pharmacists to deny women access to medication on “moral” grounds. Many states have even passed legislation specifically authorizing such campaigns. And as despicable as it may be to contribute to the inconvenience, distress and even suffering of individuals in need of medical services in order to bolster one’s sense of moral superiority, it appears that such a position does not clash with constitutional ideals. Why? Because the “moralists” generally are tendering smug condemnation of individuals for their actions rather than smug condemnation for their demographic groups. (We say “generally” because in some cases women are prescribed birth control for medical conditions rather than for contraception. And we can’t help noting that sometimes, as in the case of Hobby Lobby, the “morality” dictated by Christian arrogance takes a backseat to Mammon.)
Homosexuality is another matter altogether. While the anti-gay factions try to portray homosexuality as something one does rather than something one is — to depict being gay as a “lifestyle” that one chooses — the fact is that one has no more control over one’s sexuality than one does over race, gender or age. That makes discrimination against gays as much prohibited by law as discrimination against Asians or women. Interestingly — and ironically — there has always been a virulent, overreaching protection against religious discrimination — even though religion, unlike age, race, nationality or sexual orientation, is entirely voluntary.
If someone operated a business that did not allow Christians on the premises, that would be religious discrimination. But it’s perfectly fine to prohibit religious activities — e.g., baptism, foot washing, pot smoking, circumcision, or snake handling. Similarly, a restaurant certainly could forbid patrons from engaging in overt displays of amorousness, whether gay or straight. But just because you can prevent customers from brushing their hair or applying makeup or wearing bikinis at the table doesn’t necessarily mean that you can bar women from entering.
Why should the government get involved at all? Why can’t we just adopt a Libertarianoid invisible hand policy and let those customers whose business isn’t wanted in one place just take their trade elsewhere (which they probably will anyway)? Get the government off our backs and let the markets decide. Live and let live. Cool and groovy, baby.
Ah, if only things really could work that way. But alas, ideological solutions work perfectly only in a perfect world. And in this particular world, people will not conduct themselves consistently in a civil manner if left to their own devices. Of course, it would be equally fallacious to suppose that government intervention is always the best answer. But it is, all too often, the only answer — it is frequently the only available mechanism by which the best of humanity can pull everyone else up, or at least prevent the worst from dragging everyone else down. Without it, we risk sliding into what “moralists” like to call (at least when condemning the actions of other people) a “slippery slope”.
By allowing some businesses to discriminate against a demographic sector, we invite an avalanche of such exclusions, which very well could result in a situation such that this group and others would find it difficult if not impossible to obtain certain services at all — at least in the “red” states. This is discrimination, oppression and persecution, no matter how many Bible verses you quote while doing it. And there is the very real risk that such exclusionary discrimination will escalate into persecutional discrimination and even violence. This isn’t just idle speculation; it’s gleaning from the shameful pages of history.
Many people are alive today who can remember when African-Americans were not allowed to attend the same schools, eat in the same restaurants, sit on the same park benches, or drink from the same water fountains as Caucasians. It was bad enough that black baseball players were confined to “Negro leagues” instead of major leagues; what made it even more undignified is that after playing their hearts out in a game and traveling by bus to their next destination, they often were denied lodging at hotels, and even the use of restroom facilities en route. And even worse still, they were subjected to endless harassment, threats and physical attacks.
And guess what? “Religious freedom” was the rallying cry of many who indulged in these evils. Going back even farther, slave owners used select biblical passages to justify the ownership, oppression and brutalization of fellow human beings of a different complexion. (And I won’t go into detail lest I be accused — quite inaccurately — of running into Godwin’s Law, but there was also a Christian ethnocentric dogma underlying Nazism.)
But things are very different now, you say? You bet. And if you believe that the changes just “happened”, you’re living in cloud cuckoo land. Social evolution is generally much too gradual to effect such a drastic difference in such a relatively short time. For kids growing up today, it may be hard to imagine there was ever a time when racism was so prevalent, so officially sanctioned. That’s because we’ve had a couple of generations for equality (relative if not total) to become the norm. But before that, there were many, many generations in which blatant, extreme racism was the norm. And overturning that norm required legislative, judicial and executive intercession — goaded, to be sure, by persistent and courageous activism.
Today, “faggot” is the new “nigger”; gays are the target of choice for Good Christians (and others) who feel that they absolutely must target someone, and no longer can get away with overt racism. In the past few years, American civilization (or what passes for it) has made tremendous strides toward respect and equality for gays. Now, the legislators of Arizona, among others, are trying to turn back the calendar. If they succeed, there almost certainly will be more Matthew Sheperds. And more Fred Phelpses saying they got what they deserved.
If even one person criticizes the religious right for its bigotry — or makes a vitriolic comment about them even in tasteless jest — then that individual will become an icon of “religious persecution” . And, of course, “proof” that “liberals” are intolerant and hateful. Meanwhile, when World Vision (which, lest we forget, is itself a Christian organization) announced that it would begin, in one measure at least, treating gays like human beings, it was bullied into reversing that decision by the reactions of hundreds of thousands of Good Christians outraged by its support for “immorality”. This even entailed cutting off financial support for World Vision’s programs that fight global poverty and greatly benefit children.
And what do we call this kind of reaction? Christian Love, of course. With a heavy dose of “religious freedom”
(See previous posts on Gay Activism and the Christian Persecution Complex: Playing Chikin, A Tale of Two Legal Judgments, The Kirk Cameron/ Anita Bryant Delusion, and Ducking Responsibility.)
The Propaganda Professor 
POP,
You make a lot of great observations here, some that I have never quite thought about.
Although those on the religious right often talk about having their 1st amendment rights violated, the constitution really never granted anyone the right to impose one’s own religious ideas on others—just to worship as they chose in the Churches of their choice.! And, since no one is forcing a “Christian druggist,” to use birth control personally, they needn’t feel such self-righteous urgency about having to fill out prescriptions for birth control pills that are only used by people other than them. It should also occur to such druggists and employers who provide group Insurance coverage for their employees, that they are preforming a pubic function when providing access to drugs that are considered legal and helpful to these others—such companies are not Religious institutions—so, I would think that if they really wanted to exercise the right to discriminate against others, they should look into opening stores, that are specifically designed to cater only towards those with “moral Objections—making it clear that they only cater towards fundamentalist or evangelical clients.
Of course this is very much like denying service at a lunch counter to anyone that is not white. Consequently, I think the point is, that when engaging with the pubic at large, they need to provide adequate services to that public—most of whom likely do not agree with their religious beliefs. The nature of a lunch counter and the nature of a drug store, is to provide a service to a large number of religiously, ethnically, and racially diverse clientele that are meant to be catered to. So a better point to make might be to discourage such people from starting a business in the first place.
I would also hope that, if religious organizations don’t want to preform gay marriages, etc. that the government would respect their right not to legally oblige. After all, marriage ceremonies are important parts of most religions and their various doctrines, however, if another religious organization or church, DOES want to preform gay marriages, churches that don’t, have no right to interfere with such freedoms. If either the government seeks to condone gay marriages or a church decides to forbid it from their particular services, interfering with the separation of church and state, has absolutely no place in a free society, especially when religions seek to universally disseminate their particularly chosen doctrines. The trouble begins when religious groups legally try to impose those doctrines through the courts and State legislatures. However, churches that do not physically hurt others or brainwash their members, should not be required to change their particular kinds of worship.
That being said, I have always thought that the claim of not hating gays, but rather hating their sins, is a thinly veiled attempt to condemn gays for just that—being gay! Its also funny that the same people who often claim that gays have some sort of psychological of spiritual illnesses that requiring fixing (something professional therapists have definitely determined not to be true) seems to totally disregard all the many incredibly talented and beautiful gay people, who often are artists of all kinds, and seem much much, more healthy than those Sunday morning TV preachers, who conduct group prayers with the masses, while wearing a (cat that ate the canary) type of smile on their faces.
The real problem is that for thousands of years, human beings have feared any who act, look or think in ways that threaten the social notion of “normal.” And it truly is ironic, that since gays supposedly have made deliberate decisions to pursue gay life styles, we have not yet heard one right wing person recount the exact moment when he or she, decided to be straight. Perhaps a few more decades from now, when our children and their children, are not longer besieged by such biased attitudes an unfounded claims, a great number of us will wonder what in the world the fuss was about anyway?
I read Book of Matt by Stephen Jimenez about Methew Wayne Shepard. The book discloses ugly truths of who the victim was-most of it old news such as him being a junky (old news), but the new information is that the victim was a drug dealer. ook of Matt by Stephen Jimenez Stephen Jimenez’s evidence are 1st party witnesses he interviewed-over 100 of them over 13 years. Those witnesses verified Methew Wayne Shepard’s a junky (old news), drug dealer and courier. There are bartenders who saw both AJ McKinney and Methew W. Shepard together, so this is verified information Methew W. Shepard was a drug junky and he went into bars where drugs were sold. Methew W. Shepard became a drug junky because antidepressants he was taking was not working and he mixed drugs-cocaine, Ecstasy and Meth with antidepressants. Methew W. Shepard had depression, PTSD and he mixed drugs with antidepressants. This is old news. Why could Methew W. Shepard have gotten involved in dealing drugs & or be a courier-$ problems-he bought them and when he had $ problems, he sold them & or was a courier-this is verified by witnesses who Stephen Jimenez interviewed. These witnesses are credible as they earn nothing saying this. Stephen Jimenez verified that Methew W. Shepard would use Doc O’Connor’s limousine services. Methew W. Shepard was living an extravagant life. His dad who is an engineer in Saudi Arabia could not have sent him enough $ to pay for it. Methew W. Shepard when he sees money problems with his drugs would likely sell some in order to make money.
With the criticism about Stephen Jimenez writing a book to make money, Judy P. Shepard and M.W. Shepard’s friend Romaine Patterson both wrote books about him. The last 2 also had interest to make money and since they are his mom and friend, they are biased and bias meddles with facts. The Shepard Foundation is a propaganda group whose main interest is to push an agenda and to make money. Stephen Jimenez makes $ from his book, Judy P. Shepard, Shepard Foundation and Laramie Project making $ off the case. Stephen Jimenez incidentally mentioned in his book that M.W. Shepard had been molested by 3 different people including a distant relative. If Metthew.W. Shepard had not been a victim of repeated molestations, it’spossible M.W. Shepard would have turned out straight instead of gay. Any conduct can be learned including sexual conduct and M.W. Shepard suffering child molestation damaged his thinking and possibly caused him to behave sexually in ways he would not have had the molestation not happened. And again, Methew W. Shepard molested 2 neighborhood 8 year old boys when he was 15 years old and got counseling for it. Stephen Jimenez interviewed a relative of 1 of the boys who M.W. Shepard had molested.
Stephen Jimenez in his book did go into irrelevant topics such as an unrelated murder trial in Wyoming where a teenage girl was murdered, an unrelated killing in Colorado, but what he said about M.W. Shepard is what he learned (though again most old news) after interviewing many witnesses. If Stephen Jimenez had been an FRC journalist, he would likely have been condemned as 1 of those Christians but Stephen Jimenez is a gay journalist. Stephen Jimenez’s sincerity is what is good about the Book of Matt. I would give the book 4 out of 5 stars.
No, I don’t think M.W. Shepard should have been killed. But M.W. Shepard should have gone to prison for molesting the 2 neighborhood 8 year old boys when he was 15 years old in 1992, but again only got counseling for it. While gay groups complain about Stephen Jimenez saying the murder case is complicated, that is incidental-main reason gay groups are offended by Stephen Jimenez’s book is because he talked about the ugly truths about who M.W. Shepard was. Methew Wayne Shepard does not deserve hero worship. Romaine Patterson is a friend and biased. M.W. Shepard being a drug dealer was something he likely kept secret from his friends and family because honestly, if a person is selling drugs, they usually aren’t going to tell their friends and family that they commit this crime. 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.
I am not a Christian but there are topics where I agree with Christian groups. Where 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. With homosexuality, if 2 knowing and willing adults want to do gay/lesbian conduct but not tell others what to think, then it’s their life. Homosexual/lesbian conduct is bad for health as smoking is and needs to be marginalized like smoking is.They must abolish sex change maimings. link between childhood sex abuse and adult homosexuality/lesbianism is old science and nothing new. 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.
With ‘homophobic’, homophobia is telling truths which offend homosexual groups. With what mental health experts say on homosexuality, 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. You can pay experts to say things which agree with gay/lesbian agenda and that is has happened with psychology/medicine since 1973-experts can say things to support gay agenda or any agenda. Truth with homosexuality is any ideas, speculations and truths which offend homosexual groups is condemned as homophobia as there’s alot of ideology on this. With repair therapy for homosexuals/lesbians. 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. 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 it often fails.
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.
To Anirbab (aka Abner) Bhattacharya -aka Abian Bhattacharya,
I really don’t have the energy to respond to all of your beliefs, but please understand that no gay person is expecting everyone else to conform to their particular sexual orientation. And any desires you may have to engage in a hetero-sexual relationship, have never been in any real danger.
I am amazed by the fact that you seem to believe there is some kind of conspiracy based on gay people bribing therapists and/or others, to falsify or reinforce the supposed destructiveness of being homosexual. You also seem to think that thinking freely requires going along with the centuries of fear, hate and prejudiced towards homosexuals and transsexual people that have really been destructive to their dignity. In fact, since this hate and repulsion towards something which seems so repulsive to many straight people, has been reinforced by traditional views of what constitutes normal sexuality for thousands of years, it is really those who dare question the status-quo of these beliefs who demonstrate the real character, capacity and bravery, to actually think for themselves. You may not accept current knowledge But science is now affirming that being gay or transsexual, is largely a function of biological differences, just as having dark hair, light hair, tallness or shortness is. No one has every faced a choice between leading a gay life style or leading a straight one. One is either gay or not, transsexual of not. And any person who fits into these categories is no more likely to be sick or to sexually abuse others, than any “normal,” or straight people are.
It is a cop-out to deny all of the findings of science and all of the enlightened attitudes about accepting others despite their physical difference, and believe instead, that their is some dire conspiracy to “turn others gay.” Religious conversions do not happen unless someone is already in the closet, or is already bisexually oriented. Not only are religious “cures,” cruel and inhumane, they are based on the assumption that anyone with homosexual attractions is inherently sick. But in fact, many members of the gay community are the most talented, intelligent and sane people, one will ever meet. My childhood friend and neighbor is a talented writer and Artist, and has never been in trouble with the law. He is sensitive to the feelings of others, and is far healthier than many of the “religious”people I see. But he was driven to consider suicide in the years before psychologist really studied homo-sexuality, because he was commonly told that what he felt was so real and healthy was really a sign of his being sick. He wouldn’t judge you for your own sexuality, and I would hope that you will learn not to judge him. Believing that only ones owns religious beliefs have any value, is another form of rationalizing having the right to judge others. That’s how bigotry always begins–basically by believing that everyone is equal in the eyes of God (or of the State), but that some of us are, inherently “more equal’ than others. Please check out George Orwell’s remarkable novel, “1984” concerning the way totalitarian states gain and control power over their people.
Sorry to tell you this, but there is no divine right that gives anyone the power to decide what forms of sexuality are acceptable or not–the only criteria that matters is the criminal records of those who are gay vs those who are straight. And In every category, including the presence of child abuse, gays are no more likely to be healthy or sick, than any straight person may be. This is NOT a scam to make money on someone’s personal distortion of the facts, rather it is determined by testing and gathering statistical data. No Psychiatrist is going to become rich merely by distorting the outcomes of his research–but those political figures who seek the support of religious people, stand to gain much by winning their votes.
I have no desire to tell you how to be, but your ideas about gay and transsexual people are backwards and based on faulty information. I couldn’t disagree with you more, Just as I will never agree with anyone who thinks epilepsy is a condition caused by evil spirits, or, that the moon-landing in 1969 was faked.
It takes no bravery to believe only what you want to. But it does take open-mindedness and courage to accept new information that has been revealed by scientific studies. You are basing your entire views about this issue, on the false beliefs and misinformation that have been commonly spread about those having different sexual orientations for thousands of years. All I can recommend is to look further into this issue before reacting with prejudice about those whose behaviors are unacceptable to you, rather than realizing that no gay relationship really threatens any heterosexual relationship that someone may have.
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. Behavior including sexual behavior can be learned. Ted W. Lieu who sponsored the California law is against therapy for gays and lesbians who want to be straight as California law banned it for minors. Ted W. Lieu is apologist for sex changes and Ted W. Lieu sees nothing wrong with giving a kid hormones to make them fake opposite sex members. Transexuals (mutilated gays and lesbians) have antisocial personalities because the hormone shots and hormone pills damage mind.
Childhood sexual abuse is linked to this as it is linked to homosexuality and lesbianism.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.
Gerald (Jerry) A. Sandusky is a gay pedophile because he did homosexual relations with young boys though he was also married to a woman. But homosexual groups say that he is not gay when his conduct defines him as such. A person who has same sex relations with a young boy would be a homosexual pedofile because of his sexual conduct.The priests who molest young boys are gay pedophiles. If a man has sex with little girls only, then he is a straight pedophile. 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. Sexual behavior is what defines. With homosexuality, lesbianism /tobacco use, it’s best for people to not do gay/lesbian conduct just as it’s best for people to not use tobacco.You didn’t say anything I haven’t already thought about. I guess I must be a bigot against tobacco users because I see something wrong with tobacco use.
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.
If you are going to condemn therapy for homosexuals and lesbians who want to change to heterosexuality then you may as well condemn therapy for drug/drinking problems 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. Saying 1 does not know and that they will not conclude until they are convinced is Okay. The right thing to do is to hope they are right in their belief and that they did change to heterosexuality. However, It is arrogant for psychologists or mental health ‘professionals’ to think they know and condemn by saying they did not change to heterosexuality. It would be rude for a psychologist to condemn an alcoholic who thinks he or she sincerely recovered, yet here people are condemned for saying they believes they recovered from homosexuality. 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.
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, 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. 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.
study which though needs to be replicated links smoking to homosexuality in adulthood http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10582504/Smoking-increases-chances-of-child-being-homosexual-in-adulthood.html
In 2011, I had suggested the link between a woman smoking during pregnancy and the increased risk of the baby turning out homosexual, Transexuals (mutilated homosexuals/lesbians) in adulthood, so this study is nothing new. Smoking during pregnancy is bad for health. Yes, there needs to be replicated or repeat studies but it wouldn’t surprise me. If 1 is exposed to other air and H2O pollutants in addition to smoking during pregnancy then that could cause deformities including possibly homosexuality. But yes, more studies need to be done to replicate this but it wouldn’t surprise if indeed it’s true. If a woman smokes while pregnant, that incr. risk of baby being deformed by the drugs and sexual deformity where a kid does homosexual/lesbian conduct in adulthood is possible. We know that childhood sex abuse raises risk of a kid doing homosexual/lesbian conduct in adulthood.
Saw replies to this on other sites, predictably comments such as ‘homofobia’ and condemning it as pseudo-science. Homofobia is telling truths, theories and speculations which offend homosexual groups. Truth with homosexuality is any ideas, speculations and truths which offend homosexuals is condemned as homofobia as there’s ideology on this. 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 theory is because it puts homosexuality negatively by suggesting it is the result of something bad-smoking.
see this video done by an honest homosexual man http://americansfortruth.com/2014/02/13/homosexual-walter-lee-hampton-on-man-boy-sex-gay-pederasty-i-would-not-let-my-teenage-sons-around-gay-men/
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
Sex abuse especially homosexual rape in youth is major cause of homosexuality/transexuality-deny it is dishonest, delusional or both. It remains to be seen how many of Gerald Arthur (Jerry) Sandusky’s victims think they’re gay because of this. Homosexual/lesbian sexual behaviors are bad for health often as result of childhood sex abuse though there possibly other causes such as birth defect though they’ve not conclusively proven gayism’s inborn. 33% of gays report homosexual rape in youth. 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. 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. Whatever causes, it’s best for gays/lesbians to be celibate until a cure is found for homosexuality.
I spoke on April 16, 2014 to Sheriff David S. O’Malley (who had investigated the 1998 Shepard murder) 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 S. 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. There’s a saying that it’s best for a Dr. to not to treat a friend or family member because when this happens, you’re more likely to make mistakes because you’re biased. With police, it’s best to not get involved in cases in which a friend or family member is a crime victim or crime suspect because you’re more likely to make mistakes as you’re biased. But their job as cops after they found M.W. Shepard’s coma 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. 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. When they talk of Methew W. Shepard, they should only talk of the murder case & not Shepard’s past before that October day as they didn’t know he was until the murder.
Sheriff David S. O’Malley, Regina S. Fluty and Sgt. Robert J. DeBree know as cops or former cops that you don’t always know the secrets a person has. 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 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 MW. 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. 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 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 S. Fluty and Sgt. DeBree are portrayed in Laramie Project.
I also support abolishing vasectomies, tubal ligations and breast implants, 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 after he has passed his prime. 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 perfornace enhancers comparable to Steroids as Viagra, Zestra are. I support fertility treatments and I support In Vitro Fertilization.
While I’m neutral on abortion, 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.
Anirban (aka Abner) Bhattacharya -aka Abian Bhattacharya says :
I agree that forced mutilation and forced sterilizations are barbaric, but transsexual people who desire sex-change operations, are not forced by anyone to have the necessary surgery. If one feels born in the wrong body and longs to live as a member to the opposite sex, this is not a sign of perversion or sickness. It’s the sign of an unfortunate biological condition that, once altered to match the identifying gender, results in happiness and fulfillment for a transsexual individual’s life
By and large almost all of your ideas do not hold water with current scientific knowledge, and probably stem from supposed “studies,” preformed by, and/or endorsed by, religious groups which claim to clearly reveal what just is not true. This happens because most hetero-sexuals feel repulsed by gay relationships which to them seem entirely unnatural. That’s because those of us who are not gay, are not attracted to the same sex, and have been taught to judge and fear people that do not fit societal norms. But once again, no straight person is threatened by a gay person just because of such differences. Homosexuals pose no greater threat to society than anyone else or any other group does. So, when we object to gay marriages, we are really saying that our minds are offended, over something we personally (along with others who share our views) do not accept. But there is no realistic reason to have that attitude!
I have been married and in a heterosexual relationship for almost 40 years, and, although I have occasionally felt uptight when around gays with affectations which I am not used to, nothing a gay person says, does, or believes, has ever really threatened the sanctity of my marriage or stood in the way of practicing my own hetero–oriented sexuality. The only reality behind negative attitudes towards gays, exists primarily in our minds–gay people are no more sick, unethical,or perverse than any other person. And, although many religious people consider it a sin to enter into a homo-sexual relationship, they probably have that attitude because their religious (beliefs) cause them to feel that way. Only behavior that is truly aberrant, (including homosexuality), can physically or emotional threaten the well being of people like myself and others. Gay people do not represent a danger to society, or to individuals, and only our pre-conceived notions make us think so.
I would hope that someday you will be exposed to valid scientific facts and realize the ignorance of what you believe–and I don’t use the word “ignorance,” to portray you as dumb or unintelligent–only to describe how social mores and norms can influence us, and keep us, from genuine understandings of this issue. I only hope someday you will become receptive to real scientific knowledge and realize that the things you believe about gay people and transsexuals are ridiculously untrue.
I’ve thought about this Peter W. Johnson and there is nothing any1 can say to change my view. You’re not saying anything I haven’t already thought about. & again, I’m not a Christian, yet you keep making lectures on religion. 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. You’re not saying anything I haven’t thought about but childhood sex abuse increases risk of a person being gay or transexual in adulthood. 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.
Most men and most teenage boys do not have interest in teenage girls who have not finished puberty. If you see who most men have interest in when it comes to women. Most men have interest in women who are in their 20s, 30s to early 40s with women in 20s being most popular, 30s popular and early to mid 40s a woman’s last pretty years. A woman’s prime years when it comes to sexual beauty for most men is when she is in her 20s and 30s with most beautiful years being when a woman is 18 to 35 years old.
But when you look at who gays have interest in-gays interest sexually are teenage boys to men in early 20s who still have acne. Once a man’s hairline recedes (while it varies this often is noticeable when a man is in early to late 20s), most gays find him too old because the youth is gone. And just because a gay is in a long term relationship such as 20 years, 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. Truth is that gay/lesbian groups think it’s Okay for gays to homolest teenage boys. From the times I have known gays, gays like teenagers (usually 18 or 19 -barely legal) to men in early 20s. It’s truth that gays like men who are boyish looking-those who still have a full head of hair and acne-there are many gays who have interest in 16 year old teenagers-such as Milk and Liberace. Once the acne clears, a man’s hairline recedes, full grown beard and so on such as in mid 20s, gays begin to lose interest because he looks too old.
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. Behavior including sexual behavior can be learned. 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. Homosexual/lesbian conduct is bad for health as smoking is and needs to be marginalized like smoking is. Gays and lesbians are a group based on behavior and thus should have the same rights as adults who use tobacco.With homosexuality, knowing and willing adults want to do gay/lesbian conduct but not tell others what to think, then it’s their life, their choice. But gay/lesbian conduct must be marginalized like smoking. They must abolish sex change maimings.
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. Only those who are dishonest or deluded deny it. While they have not conclusively proven same sex behaviors are genes-if that is true, it would be same as alcoholic gene. There are people who become alcoholics because they learn becoming drunkards by seeing this, emulating and getting addicted. Then some people are alcoholics because they have alcoholic gene.
Abner,You are absolutely right—if no one can convince you otherwise, your views will stay the same. However, I don’t recall making any lectures about religion except to point out that most religious people place their faith on that many passages in the Bible that condemn homosexual behavior. But I also am a Christian–I just believe that hatred and prejudice towards gays comes from the same place that any prejudice comes from, about anyone of anything else–being fearful of differences—especially when those differences are radically different from our own. The Racist history of our own country is a prime example of this, since there is nothing inherently evil or inferior about African Americans–even tough many prejudiced people tried to tell us so, and are still trying to spread such lies laced heavily with hatred and prejudice! And, just as is the case with gay people, people of color all over the world have experienced the ugly things prejudice can do. Of course, then there are Jews, who have been the brunt of prejudice and persecution for thousands of years, just because their religious beliefs and rituals are different than those of others. In America, the most recent prejudice is aimed at Muslims, as if they are all violent and religiously oppressive!
The thing is, that “faith,” by definition, is not based on reason and/or logic, but rather on beliefs and subjective values. If not there would only be one religion in the world, and we would have nothing to complain about, as we did when considering the supposedly false, religious beliefs of others.
So, when you accept what any fundamentalist faith believes about homosexuality, you are not basing that acceptance on actual facts, but rather, on what others believe about ethics and morality.
I am not saying that faith and intuition have no value, but they are notoriously inadequate when trying to gain factual knowledge. Those that blindly accept the edicts of their fundamentalist beliefs almost always think that only they have the ultimate knowledge about what correct religious beliefs are. It doesn’t matter if they are Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, or any other faith—as long as they think they have the authority to tell everyone else what to do, it’s obvious that they base their beliefs on little but speculation and arbtrary dogma. So, if you want to accept such beliefs based not on any facts, but merely because they speak to your own prejudices, then you have become impervious to facts!
You probably don’t believe it, but the existence of bias and subjectivity is one of the reasons that the scientific method of arriving at knowledge and truth actually began. And, contrary to what you constantly say, scientist of all times, have let go of beliefs they once thought were true, and changed their minds, once extra, or different data was discovered.
Say what you will, but fundamentalist religions very rarely accept ideas which contradict their own. So if you base most of your beliefs on faith, then at least have the honesty not to claim they are derived from reason. When it comes to accepting gays as ordinary people who are merely sexually oriented differently than us, all of the science has proven that religious dogmatists are wrong! If anything, there is little or NO actual evidence to back up most of what you believe, and that’s probably because many of your beliefs are based on prejudice and bias—based on the myths that people who cannot accept gays, have been spreading for centuries.
Some of what you say is true—like the fact that many boys who are sexually abused, suffer trauma that can lead to bed-wetting and nightmares. But there is no evidence that they BECOME gay just because of being assaulted. Heterosexual kids never become gay just because of being abused, but they do suffer anxiety and self doubt (usually because they worry about why their abusers picked them, and if that means that they are gay). You’re also right that many gay people suffer from depression and some even commit suicide. But the source of that depression often stems from nothing more than having to face the prejudice from a society composed of many like you, who insist that everything they feel, is unnatural of sick. But truthfully speaking, we are beginning to learn differently.
So if it comes to believing the rhetoric from religious fanatics who are prejudiced right from the beginning, and who will never change their views, or, believing learned scientists who are dedicated to studying the mysteries of sexuality, and who will actually change their views if different knowledge is revealed, I would much prefer and trust what they say, over all the opinion, prejudice and speculation that those who are biased cling to, even in the face of solid facts!
Most of the supposed facts passed on by biased researchers are based on cherry picked data and misinformation, which is deliberately used to enforce one’s own beliefs and assumptions—Not facts. You would think that if, childhood abuse was responsible for “turning 33 percent of children gay, (even though that is an outrageous claims in the first place) that there would not be so many heterosexual children who do not become gay, after being abused? But in the end, I choose to believe the facts uncovered by scientists, over the dogma spread by religious ideologues!
link between childhood sex abuse and adult homosexuality/lesbianism is old science and nothing new. 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. Never have I heard straights blame childhood sex abuse for reasons a man has sex with a woman and fathers children with her. Sex abuse especially homosexual rape in youth is major cause of homosexuality/transexuality-deny it is dishonest, delusional or both. It remains to be seen how many of Gerald Arthur (Jerry) Sandusky’s victims think they’re gay because of this.
Homosexual/lesbian sexual behaviors are bad for health often as result of childhood sex abuse though there possibly other causes such as birth defect though they’ve not conclusively proven gayism’s inborn. 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.
Sex change mutilations must be abolished but they sadly happen because science knows how to do it. We have laws in most places against consenting adults taking cocaine because cocaine damages body. They must cure Gender Dysphoria (GID) or better treat it. Mutilating people to make them fake opposite sex members is a sad science waste-comparable to trying to make a man a fake animal because he thinks he is an animal trapped in a human body.
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? With the comment ‘homofobia’, homophobia is telling truths which offend homosexuals. Anyhow you’re not saying anything I haven’t considered.
Abner,
Almost all of what you say has no valid scientific value and was probably invented to validate the idea that there is something innately dangerous to heterosexuals that results just because someone else is gay–either on a personal level or a societal one. I don’t want to go on about this endlessly but, your idea that sex change operations should not be preformed because they are only mutilations, completely ignores that those who receive them are in no way disabled by their operations, and, overall, their psychological health improves as a result of finally being able to fulfill their desires to be of another gender. And, its not valid to discourage these medical procedures, on the grounds, that, like some drugs, they are detrimental to physical and mental health. Those that are addicted to Cocaine or Heroin, or other dangerous drugs, often deteriorate physically as the result of their addictions, as well as frequently becoming thieves or committing some other types of crimes to gain enough money to support their habits. So, whereas these drugs do hurt addicts physically, mentally, and are also a threat to society because of the various crimes they encourage, sex change operations do not cause any of these things.
In the same way, there is no valid research which proves some link to socially detrimental behavior because of sexual orientation–of course no one can guarantee the notion that there are not (some) gay people who are thieves, or do commit violent acts against others–at least not any more so than ordinary heterosexuals. And, I have never looked into any studies which link childhood sexual abuse as being a cause of sexual orientation in later life, but, I suspect that these kinds of studies also are biased and non-scientific, or else use all kinds of faulty methodology to draw their conclusions. That’s because many gay people have grown up with good and nurturing parental relationships and, many gays are not the victims of childhood abuse. What heterosexuals really want is not to be told that they are sick, based on the norms of others who cannot get the idea out of their heads that being gay, involves some terrible kind of mental illness. That just isn’t so!
I am afraid that you are a victim of previous opinions and attitudes that have been thoroughly discredited by modern research. I don’t know what religious faith you belong to (if any), but the type of studies and the conclusions that some religious people are making, can also be used as sociological “proof,” that all Muslims believe only in violence and aggression to resolve conflicts. Of course this is an obvious stereotype, but it would be easy for any bogus study to draw on images of suicide bombers and Al-Qaeda training camps where the participants are bantering guns and learning military skills, and then, claim that these people are typical of an entire faith and of Muslims everywhere. The point is, that some people who call themselves Muslims undoubtedly do use violence to reach their goals–just as some Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews, etc. do. But it is unfair and misleading to use a narrow definition of the Islamic faith (or any other faith) to draw conclusions about the vast number of Muslims who practice a peaceful and virtuous faith. So what I am saying is, that the information you are getting is based on faulty and unscientific assumptions, just as any unscientific and biased studies about Muslims could be.
Please consult other more modern scientific data before trying to convince others that your word are completely truthful.
Peter W. Johnson, With what mental health experts say on homosexuality, 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. & with these studies, experts to give you the result that you want.
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.
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. I’m against sex changes for same reason as oppose trying to make a White person Black or viceversa because they think theyre another race, it doesn’t take an expert to know that hormone shots + the maiming surgery damages body. If they knew how to change skin color, they would be making justifications for changing color of people who think they are of other race as they now do for sex changes. Transexuals have antisocial personalities because the hormone shots and hormone pills damage mind. The lifetime of hormone shots and pills are linked to cancer.
1 would hope that feminists would oppose the mutilation, yet most feminists are not condemning genital and breast mutilation as what happened to Chastity Sun Bono where her healthy breasts were mutilated, dangerous hormone shots and genitals mutilated. I would hope California Atty. General Kamala D. Harris would be against sex change mutilations as guessing that AG Kamala D. Harris (who is 1/2 Black and 1/2 Indian) would be opposed to trying to make a Black person White or viceversa. Ted W. Lieu who sponsored the California law is against therapy for gays and lesbians who want to be straight as California law banned it for minors. Don’t be surprised if in future, Ted W. Lieu or those like him would ban therapy altogether for gays/lesbianism and the 2012 law is first step. Ted W. Lieu is an apologist for sex changes and Ted W. Lieu sees nothing wrong with giving a kid hormones to make them fake opposite sex members. Childhood sexual abuse is linked to this.
Abner,
The scientists who have studied homo-sexuality have not done so to deliberately conceal the truth. If they discovered in the future that they have been wrong after considering new data, they will change their opinions. They are also not doing research to get some sort of monetary wealth. When doing research, the grant money they receive is spent on supplies and any costs incurred in order to do the research itself. If they get any pay at all, it is usually to compensate for lost wages, that they have not received because instead they are committed to doing research. The idea that they are participating in some sort of conspiracy,just to shield against acknowledging some supposed social harm done by gays—just by being gay—is absurd! Unfortunately if you want to believe this, then nothing I can say is going to awaken you to the truth about such folly. The real scam belongs to those want to perpetuate the false belief, that being gay is inherently and socially harmful—it is not!
If anyone takes offense at gays or talk detrimentally about homosexuals for no reason, it is the person who is trying to perpetuate such myths, based on ignorance, who really offends—usually to validate his or her own religious beliefs, or to defend his or her outdated cultural mores. And, although actual scientists were open minded enough to change their minds after years of doing studies, those who want to discredit an entire group of people on the basis of simple genetic and hormonal differences, have refused to change their minds at all, even after thousands of years of blind discrimination. If you ask me, it takes more courage to admit mistaken assumptions after reviewing objective analysis, than it does to merely spread some sort of conspiracy theory based on the mistaken idea that there must be something sick about those whose sexual orientation differs from one’s own—just because, well—just because there just HAS to be something wrong with them!
If a gay person is offended by detrimental remarks about their lifestyles, it is because such remarks are based on ignorance and stereotyping. The same is true for black people, and those of various faiths in one culture who cannot accept that another religious faith is vital and important to another, or else, based on the idea that one person’s skin is not the right color.
We use conspiracy theories in order to condemn what we ourselves fear, or don’t think is normal. And, just like black people, women, or those born with cleft pallets, it is a mistake to regard any physical and biological differences as being indications that anyone different is innately inferior, sick ,or threatening. Homo phobias is the irrational fear of gay people, based on ignorance and previously conditioned prejudice and/or revulsion. None of it is based on facts and none of it has to be such a big issue. Until you read and accept objective research and quit wanting to rationalize your own negative perceptions, nothing I say will be able to make a dent in your wall of myth and illusion. I might as well be arguing with a brick wall. Sorry, but that is the way I feel.
statement 97% of pedophiles are straight. 97% # is wrong because it defines a person who has same sex behaviors as straight. Again, if 1 does not define a person who has same sex relations with a young boy as gay, then they call him straight or something else. It depends on your definition. The priests who molest young boys are gay pedophiles. If a man has sex with little girls only, then he is a straight pedophile. Rush H. Limbaugh’s right when he said Jerry A. Sandusky is gay-and columnist Patrick J. Buchanan condemns who he calls gay priests. Those priests are again gay pedophiles, pederasts or homolesters. So there are many homosexual pedophiles such as the gay priests, Jerry A. Sandusky. Though it’s repeat it must be said again. A person is homosexual or lesbian if they knowingly and willing do same sex behaviors. If a person has homosexual activities with a young boy, then they are a homosexual pedofile. Jerry A. Sandusky is a homosexual pedofile-even if J.A. Sandusky calls himself straight, he would still be gay by behavior definition. But homosexual groups say that he is not gay when his conduct defines him as such.
Again, it’s sexual conduct or behavior which defines if 1 is straight or homosexual. Even if a person has had opposite sex relations, if they knowingly and willing do homosexual behavior, then they’re homosexuals and lesbians. Just because a person has in past had sex with women, if they have sex with young boys then they are homosexual pedofiles and most regard themselves as homosexual but even for those who call themselves straight their conduct doesn’t change the truth they are homosexual pedofiles. 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. All homosexual pedofiles are homosexuals but not all homosexuals are homosexual pedofiles. 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. homosexual groups got offended when columnist Patrick J. Buchanan condemned who he called gay priests. What those priests did when they molest young boys is homosexuality. NC Register in a past link called it homosexual pedofilia among the priests. Yes, this is repeating but it must again be said that if a person has same sex conduct with young boys and girls then they are homosexual and lesbian pedofiles because again, it’s the same sex conduct which defines. Asking me again will get you the same answer.
Abner,
I agree with much of what you said in your latest post, but I want to clarify that the word “straight pedophile,’ is a slang term for some child abuser who are hetero-sexuals. All types of child abusers are sick and may prefer boys or girls. But The term “straight pedophile,” commonly denotes that the abuser is attracted to children of the opposite sex, and pedophilia is a serious crime regardless of who committed it or what type of children they abuse.
Again, being gay does not magically make someone a pedophile or not, so your repeated attempt to portray homosexuality as being a sickness, and the cause of many sexual crimes, is a moot point. And yes, many gay people enter into hetero relationships and even have children. But the point is, that some of them do this just to avoid societal censure, or because they believe the myth that homosexuality is bad, and want to prove to themselves that they are not gay. Many of them eventually “come out of the closet,” once they gain the courage not to fool themselves, and to fully accept their own sexuality. But whatever people like Sandusky do or don’t do, that doesn’t excuse pedophilia, and it doesn’t mean that sexually active gay people are any more sick or healthy than anyone else.
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. A gay bashing case I know of from Arizona. What 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 because the gay had a secret violent history (unreported to cops) of beating up teenage boys after harassing them for sex & these cases unpredictable.
With that gay, it’s highly likely the gay was trying to do something more violent, so that gay deserves no sympathy for getting hit in the face. This gay again had beaten up other teenage boys after committing assault & battery, was likely trying to do it to this teenage boy, but because teenage boy had 2 friends (1 a martial arts expert) who were with him, they were able to defend this boy. If the homosexual is high on drugs 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 it’s reasonable, then you acquit and if it’s excessive, then what degree. if it turns out that homosexual committed indecent exposure, harassment or assault & battery on a young man (men) before the men reacted violently, then I have no sympathy for the homosexual being bashed. 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.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. 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.
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, 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.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 .
Sex change mutilations must be abolished but they sadly happen because science knows how to do it. We have laws in most places against consenting adults taking cocaine because cocaine damages body. They must cure Gender Dysphoria (GID) or better treat it. Mutilating people to make them fake opposite sex members is a sad science waste-comparable to trying to make a man a fake animal because he thinks he is an animal trapped in a human body.
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? With the comment ‘homofobia’, homophobia is telling truths which offend homosexuals. Anyhow you’re not saying anything I haven’t considered.
Peter W. Johnson,know that a person can be secular as I am and see the harms of homosexual and lesbian conduct. You know you are saying nothing new which I haven’t thought about. My reasons for being against gay/lesbian behaviors and being against sex changes are unrelated to any religion.Also If homosexuality is inborn, then it would be a birth defect. They have higher rates of smoking during pregnancy and Fetal Alcohol Syndrome on reservations so it would be a study to find out links between American Indian women smoking during pregnancy and a baby turning out homosexual or lesbian in adulthood. In 2011, I had suggested the link between a woman smoking during pregnancy and the increased risk of the baby turning out homosexual in adulthood.
I think you know any behavior can be learned but deny what you know is true. If a boy is repeatedly homosexually raped in his youth, the likelihood is more that he’ll do homosexual behaviors in adulthood because the sex abuse can damage mind and cause people to act in ways they normally wouldn’t. It’s like if a kid lives in a high crime neighborhood & sees muggings, the likelihood is more that he’ll be a mugger in his adulthood because of what he learned in his youth. It remains to be seen how many of Gerald Arthur (Jerry) Sandusky’s victims will think in their adulthood that they’re homosexual. 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.
With gay/lesbian conduct by adults, while I don’t believe in U.S. in making it a crime by consenting adults, I do believe it’s best to find a cure for homosexual/lesbian conduct just as it’s best to find cure for tobacco use-also a legal product. If homosexual/lesbian conduct and tobacco use were to disappear eventually, then it’s fine with me and I wouldn’t lose sleep over it. I believe in abolishing sex change mutilations-they must make sex changes a crime.
There are many like me who do not trust the American Medical Association (AMA) on gay/lesbian topic because the AMA and APA are both pro-gay/lesbian ideologues who arrogantly think because are Drs., that they know the answers. But they are dishonest. Can sexual orientation for some gays and lesbians change? We know that sexual behavior can. In 2001 Dr. Spitzer said that change was possible for highly motivated individuals and that it happened after long journey and he got condemned by gay/lesbian groups. In 2007, he said that while gays and lesbians should not be forced into therapy, he believed it was the hubris of psychologists to deny this for those who want it. In 2012, Dr. RL Spitzer retracted, apologized to gay/lesbian groups, saying therapy doesn’t work and condemned it. What I must wonder is did Dr. Spitzer in 2012 say what he believed, or did he say it to pacify gay/lesbian groups ? People have a right to doubt Dr. Spitzer’s sincerity. Repair therapy for gays and lesbians who want to be straight must be available just as repair therapy available for a drug junky who wants to become clean. 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 it often fails.
Abner,
You are correct in saying that a person can be secular and still believe that homo-sexuals are sick and that their sexuality is a threat to society. However, like most of us I doubt that you are totally unfamiliar with the views of religious people who make a crusade out of “reforming” gay people by “curing” them. However to consider Homo-sexuality a birth defect because such behavior bothers you, is completely uncalled for. If some personal trait, or aspect of one’s physiology is genetic, under your views, then all genetic traits can be considered birth defects, however this is just as silly as calling blond people, black people, tall People, short people, or anyone with any genetic trait you choose, sick by virtue of simple biological inheritance.
Psychiatrists and Doctors do also acknowledge the role of environment in determining certain behaviors, but as far as homo-sexuality is concerned, the central cause is now considered genetic or hormonal. Studies have actually been done to determine if gay parents are more likely to raise gay children if they are primarily brought up within the household, but still the major influence has been found to be genetic and hormonal since many children raised in gay households are not gay, and have no desire to be. Yet they love and are loved by their parents. Love seems to be the most important thing any parent can give to a child, because when children know they are loved, they grow up with mental and physical health and are no more likely to be gay,or not gay whether their parents also happen to be gay, or not! Further gender identity and sexual orientation can be ignored by anyone who wants to believe that gay people are because of bad childhood experience–and those who judge homosexuals don’t have to be religious to hold many false and absurd beliefs. You have also got to consider that when it comes to the people who abuse, many offenders are hetero-sexual also, this crime is not just reserved for gay people, but, is also very present in cases of abuse, that are committed by hetero offenders as well. There is no one way to stereotype who is gay or who is not, since even when the offenders own genetic traits are hetero, this does not mean that he or she, is not capable of abusing a child.
You are free to distrust the American medical association as well, but your suspicions about their supposed “pro-gay lesbian,” arrogance, seem to be based on circular reasoning. By that I mean, you are suspicious of their findings (because you are suspicious of their findings!) You have failed to criticize them on the basis of science, but rather criticize their judgment simply because you refuse to believe it is factual. And, I won’t argue that some Doctors aren’t arrogant— just as some brick-layers, cab drivers, or nuclear physicists are, but Doctors in general, including those whose fields of study cover many types of biological sciences, are not minimizing the research about homosexuality because they don’t want to be wrong. They were in fact, wrong about sexual orientation for many decades, and, many of them were undoubtedly reluctant to change their minds when new evidence was provided. However, the easiest thing in the world to do is provide self-justified criticisms or to make up conspiracies based on false knowledge, just to justify one’s own misconceptions.
There may be some individuals who feel that they have been cured of being homosexual because of some form of radical and extreme therapy. However, I think its likely that these individual were already straight or bi-sexual to begin with, since the fact that they wanted to change in the first place, indicates that they were already motivated by a dislike of their own feelings. However, the best thing you or I, or anyone else can do in order to assure that gay people are mentally and physically healthy, is just to accept their sexuality, and allow them to be themselves, without constantly bombarding them with negative attitudes about the way they are—that’s the most effective environmental therapy at all to destroy stigmas—because when the cultural one lives in is more able to accept behaviors that the majority personally does not have, but which are entirely natural and normal to gay people, we can allow them to remain psychologically healthy.
When we are young, we can experience all kinds of input about many aspect of life, and our role in it. Any child that is constantly told he is bad or sick, for wanting to be a ballet dancer, or even an artist, begins to loath his actual feelings and desires. That goes for fat kids, freckled kids, nervous kids, non-athletic kids, red haired, blond haired, smart,dumb, lovers of butter milk kids, or any kind of personal trait that one person uses to make another person feel bad.
Scientists know that, a very large part of our identities are pre-determined, including our propensity for certain behaviors which are determined by genetics— homo-sexuality is one of them. That, and any other physical characteristic which might be condemned by others as being wrong. Dr. Sptizer had no need to “pacify gays,” by changing his mind after examining the latest data. And,the “repair therapy you mention in cases like Alcoholism works because addicts commit serious crimes which risk their health as well as the safety of others–simply because they drink incredible amounts of alcohol. “Repair” therapy for gay, lesbian, or transgender people, is not needed because these conditions are not indications of sickness, nor do they endanger others. Most gay people today, just want the long history of emotional and psychological abuse to stop.The old saying, “if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it,” is still very appropriate in regards to the unnecessary forms of “repair” therapy which only show success in a very small number of cases. If you have ever been told negative things about your mind or your sexuality, over and over, on a daily basis, you too might be driven to despair. The same type of societal prejudice, and emotional abuse, often results in the suicides of those who were exposed to psychological abuse over and over again. There are no significant genetic traits responsible for the abuse they suffered, just as there is an absence of any physical reasons to censure gays for wanting to be different. Yet anyone who learns to hate what they are, just because they are a bit different from the majority, can be driven to suicide because of the way their cultures judge them.
If you want to help gay people, just quit looking for reasons to claim they are a menace to the rest of the world. They deserve a break from thousands of years of antagonism and abuse at the hands of the straight world!
Peter W. Johnson, everything you wrote here I’ve heard & thought about and most of what you wrote is not credible. AMA and APA are both pro-gay/lesbian ideologues. Before 1973, they said homosexuality’s a disease but changed their view in 1973 and have since become ideologues. 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. The studies you cite saying gay parents do well was done by gay psychologists and gay/lesbian psychologists have their own agenda and will distort things to support their conclusion.
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.
Peter W. Johnson, what you wrote I’ve heard, thought about and most of what you wrote is not credible. AMA and APA are both pro-gay/lesbian ideologues. Before 1973, APA said homosexuality’s a disease but removed that as disease in 1973 and have since become ideologues. Unless something is discovered which changes earlier conclusion, main ideas of science and math stays same (such as 2+2=4 or freezing temp. is 32 Degrees Fahrenheit and lower) and I don’t believe psychologists discovered anything new to change earlier conclusion 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. The studies you cite saying gay parents do well was done by gay psychologists and gay/lesbian psychologists have their own agenda and will distort things to support their conclusion. You talk of how religious people (such as religious pscychologists) have their agendas but pro-gay psychologists have their agenda.
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 http://americansfortruth.com/2011/11/10/labarbera-how-many-boy-victims-of-penn-state-homosexual-predator-jerry-sandusky-will-end-up-thinking-they-are-%E2%80%98gay%E2%80%99/
Abner,
Currently psychologists, geneticists, and those in the biological sciences, do give validity to the idea that the environment anyone of us grows up in may contribute to being homo-sexual. But the issue is not limited to environment. As I said, the role of genetics and hormonal influences (especially during development in the womb) are important factors that also determine sexuality.
I must say that I don’t understand your fixation on the Jerry Sandusky case, as being some indication that all child abusers are gay? Certainly some are gay, as their assaults on children of their own sex indicates, but, some child abusers, focus their assaults on children of the opposite sex, and therefore, it cannot be reasonably concluded that such abusers are homosexuals. However whatever the case may be, neither gay or straight people with healthy minds, condone child abuse—obviously! And, environment cannot be the only influence on sexual identity, simply because many gay people who were raised by heterosexual parents, still enjoy good relationships with their parents and love them as much as any other child does.
Here is a link to an article on the web authored by a gay psychologist and church member, who, although accepting genetic, hormonal, and environmental causes for homosexuality, questions why gay people should be considered diseased or perverted—instead of being regarded with respect and granted the dignity of human tolerance. Many other websites are often written by religious people in order to support the idea that gay people need to be given therapy–including religious indoctrination–in order to become “normal.” And although the internet is full of such sites, those who comment on them are rarely scientists or rarely approach the topic with real objectivity. Again, here is the link to the article I mention:
Click to access whatthesciencesays.pdf
Have a good day my friend, and remember to keep your mind open.
Abner,
What troubles me about your understanding about discrimination against gays is your feeling that it is some kind of liberal indoctrination involving unnecessary obedience to “political correctness.” But political correctness is not intended to censor free speech, rather it is an effort to respect the rights of others who do not want to be stereotyped by the use of pejorative terms. No one is going to be arrested and imprisoned for using the word, “nigger,” but given the historic context which gave rise to this term, black Americans have every right to be offended by it use. Likewise, valid scientific research has pointed to environmental, genetic, and hormonal differences as all being determinants of one’s sexual identity. And, it is disrespectful to deny all of that, by refusing to argue with the use of such valid scientific facts, and instead, favoring the bogus reasoning of many religious and/or political groups and/or individuals who desire to insist that homosexuality is perverse, or is destructive to civilized social values.
I personally don’t care what you think the causes of homosexuality are, but, I would hope you can grant me some respect by realizing that my remarks concern valid scientific discoveries, not the ideas coming from participation in some vast plot to be “pro-gay,” or to “advance homosexual agendas.” By placing both these phrases in quotation marks, I am indicating that they are common arguments, not just advanced by you, but by an entire group of angry people who feel that the entire concept of PC involves censoring what they say or what they believe—regardless of the fact that scientists and psychologists are neither “pro-gay” nor do they desire to advance anyone’s “political agenda.” They are only scientists who are committed to uncovering facts—no more, no less. Sometimes their opinions change depending on what new facts come to light, but, they do not seek answers merely in order to please any person or organization, rather they seek answers that are factual—not based on false beliefs or unfounded speculations. My personal feelings about political correctness are that, if anyone objects to my use of a pejorative word or a demeaning word in reference to them or to a group they belong to, then by virtue of being a conscientious human being, I should respect their feelings and be motivated to comply—out of respect, not the fear of breaking any law. And it is also obvious that like any other cultural changes, it is possible for those advocating for being politically correct to get carried away and be overly sensitive to some issues. I have many liberal friends and not one of them has failed to laugh at an obviously extreme example of this concept (such as the ideas of a feminists group in the 1970’s who wanted to call manhole covers, “person hole covers,” instead.
But Abner, when you buy into the idea of a vast conspiracy trying to be “pro gay,” or “anti-gay,” for that matter, it’s like you are enclosing yourself in a dark room and boarding all the windows as well as sealing any spaces which might let fresh air in. i.e. It doesn’t matter what I say or what facts I offer, because if you insist on staying in that darkened room, you will not even begin to be aware that there are legitimate arguments being made from outside that room and outside of your own comfortable ignorance—again I use the word “ignorance,” not to insult your intelligence, but rather, to emphasis that often real knowledge is not accepted because of personal biases. Personally, I AM VERY CONCERNED when so many people are currently engaging in polarizing debates when their beliefs are challenged. I know that sometimes this includes my own reluctance to have my personal ideas challenged. However, I think the evidence is very clear, in that, real scientists include environment, heredity and hormonal influences, all as being probable causes for homosexuality. But they do not believe this fact in order to be Pro-gay, or anti-gay, they believe it because they have thoroughly researched the issue and have determined that ALL of these factors DO help determine our sexuality–not just gay sexuality, but also heterosexuality. Here is a link to an interesting video about Political correctness. I hope you will listen to it:
Peter W. Johnson (I write as I watch your video on P.C.), 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 long held 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. It’s believed alcoholism is genetic or inborn for some.
I used to be neutral on homosexuality but in 2005 changed my view on this. I don’t care that the American Medical Association says that homosexual/lesbian activities isn’t a disease-go ahead & cure it. 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.You can rerun again & again that homosexuality isn’t a disease, but again, I say go ahead & cure it. Unsure what else we can say because we’ll mainly repeat what we’ve said so many times already on this topic.
Abner,
You claim that there is NOT a conspiracy to inaccurately portray homosexuality as not being an illness, yet paradoxically that, “bias meddles with any facts which differ with the pro-gay ideology.” You also claim that when homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 197 that, “They,’ (psychologists), “became ideological on the on the gay/lesbian topic.” well if that’s true then why do you accuse them of unfounded bias simply because they have done many scientific studies which offer proof that being homosexual is not a disease, and, that those who are gay, “are compatible with full mental health in other respects.”–(from the wolfenden Report of 1957). Gays were also found to be within the normal range in the 1982 research done by John C. Gonsiorek which concluded that, “Homosexuality in and of itself, is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment,” and also that, “Homosexuals as a group are NOT more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality.” These and many other valid types of research are mentioned in the soulforce.org report that one of my previous links refers to.
Psychologist Evelyn Hooker also administered a Rorschach test, the Thematic Apperception Test, a well as the Make-A-Picture-Story test which were given to 30 homosexual males and 30 heterosexual males who were also matched for age, IQ and and education. Although all of the tests were examined by three independent experts on projective tests, on all three tests, participants were found NOT TO PRODUCE DIFFERENT RESULTS among the homosexual or heterosexual men. To make doubly sure, the experts were asked to identify which of the anonymous men, were homosexual–But,they couldn’t!
If in light of all of these test results, if scientists are still thought to falsely promote a “pro-gay ideology,” then the research done on homosexuality must (of necessity) be regarded or miss-interpreted, or as being faulty, since if gay people are not any sicker than other people, (as they aren’t) It would be insane to discriminate against them or insist that they must be cured—cured of what? There is no disease or mental illness involved! And what are the goal of a supposedly false ideology that tries to make us think that others are not sick? to force acceptance of others, or to reveal the fact that conversion efforts are being wasted on those who don’t need and, won’t be helped by them? None of these represent political or psychological ideologies—they are quite simply, facts.
Abner, scientists are certain that gayness involves genetic, hormonal AND environmental factors, but they are unsure about many of the specific involved. However, concerning whether gays are mentally Ill, no valid scientific research has reached that conclusion. We now know that being gay is NOT an illness, NOT mentally or physically! This means that homosexuals are no more, or less likely, to have such illnesses, than are the general population!
The report by soulforce.org includes a quote from three gay ministers form Los Angeles who, in June of 2007, admitted that the sexual reorientation groups they organized had failed to change their homosexuality, and, they also apologized to, “those individuals and families who believed our message that there is something inherently wrong with being gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, or transsexual.”
One of the ministers involved was former EXODUS leader Michael Bussee whose full statement is listed under question 5 in that soulforce.org report.
In case you are wondering why I am so committed to shooting down the myths about homosexuality, it is not because I am a scientists, or because I am a “pro-gay,” activist–rather, when it comes to merely affirming valid research, there is no sinister anti-gay or pro-gay ideology—there is really only the truth–truth that I feel it’s right to support, and, that nearly all social scientists and those in the biological sciences confirm. NO one is getting rich off of these valid research results, and no one, wants to force anyone else to be gay, or even accept gayness—they only want to present the facts, and then let us reason for ourselves.
As far as Jerry Sandusky is concerned, the fact that he is a pedophile is real,and the idea that he has abused any child, gay or straight, is a tragedy. But let me suggest when to prevent pedophiles from raping children, why don’t you begin by examining the facts about THEM and also, ways to prevent their abuse. I don’t care if 33% of homosexuals blame childhood abuse for their orientation or not—if you want to prevent gays from spreading their sexual orientation, then, once knowing the facts, you should feel empowered to go after the people that (supposedly) cause others to be gay. However, no one has the right to punish or hold anyone accountable for their own personalities. We all agree that pedophilia is wrong, whether its causes a million people to become gay, or none at all! We also know that plenty of ordinary heterosexual children suffer just as much from abuse, as any other demographic or statistical group. So punish and criticize those who deserve it—not those who have done nothing but attempt to be themselves!–whether ill or not!
Peter W. Johnson, I didn’t comment on intelligence. Yes, homosexuals can be smart and talented. If a homosexual or lesbian is with other knowing and willing adults and not not harassing others about it and not pushing their views of sexuality on others, then it’s their life. This gets to late astronaut’s Sally K. Ride alleged lesbianism. If it’s true she was lesbian, astronaut Sally K. Ride kept her sex life to herself and her adult lesbian lovers and did not push her view on others. Astronaut Sally K. Ride had talent as a physicist and astronaut and she did not push her views on others if it’s true she was a lesbian. I would differ with her sex life, but @least she is not telling me what to think so no issue with her. With gay/lesbian conduct by adults, while I don’t believe in making it a crime by consenting adults, I do believe it’s best to find a cure for homosexual/lesbian conduct just as it’s best to find cure for tobacco use-also a legal product. I believe in abolishing sex change mutilations.
Homosexuals tend to earn more money yet they still have more mental & physical copathologies. Homosexuals have higher incidence of mental & physical copathologies such as Venereal Diseases (VD), anti-social behaviors, suicides,etc. The idea that it’s because of what people think of their sexual behaviors is bunk because topic is more complex and complicated.
J. Drescher who wrote that for Soulforce is himself a homosexual & an ideologue. While they have not conclusively proven same sex behaviors are genes-if that is true, it would be same as alcoholic gene. There are people who become alcoholics because they learn becoming drunkards by seeing this, emulating and getting addicted. Then some people are alcoholics because they have alcoholic gene. Just because they haven’t found a cure for gay/lesbian activities doesn’t change the fact that they must keep trying to find a cure for it just as we try to find a cure for drug junkyism & alcoholism. Maybe in future they’ll discover pill, drug or surgery which changes sexual orientation from gay to straight & the world will be better without homosexuality.
Homosexual/lesbian conduct is bad for health as smoking is and needs to be marginalized like smoking is.They must abolish sex change maimings. link between childhood sex abuse and adult homosexuality/lesbianism is old science and nothing new. 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. Any conduct can be learned and this includes sexual conduct.
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 not going to work. This therapy should be there for people especially minors because again, many of the minors suffered sex abuse which causes their homosexuality. Almost all the gays who committed suicide did not go into repair therapy. 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. If homosexual/lesbian conduct and tobacco use were to disappear eventually, then it’s fine with me and I wouldn’t lose sleep over it.
Abner,
I want to first say that the fact that J Drescher, is gay, should be considered as actually enhancing the accuracy of his statements and the facts he presents simply because he has first hand knowledge of the topic. This would also be true of an Alcoholic discussing alcoholism, a cancer patient discussing the ordeal of radiation therapy, a woman describing the pain of giving birth, a Christian discussing the message of Christ, or anyone of any other religion describing the core beliefs of that faith. You should also note that the “Soulforce” publication includes acknowledgment of the three PhD’s, an MD and several people with Masters degrees, who contributed to the work. But the really relevant fact is that, it also has the support of the Arch Bishop of the Ecumenical Catholic Church! So, without specifically checking out biographical information about these other contributors, I would guess it very unlikely that all of them are homosexuals. Yet in spite of these esteemed people who have rock solid and impressive credentials, those who seek to deny and distort the facts about homosexuality will repeatedly insist that any and all learned experts on the topic are merely presenting a biased opinion due to their “pro-gay,” agendas. So, if all valid knowledge is thus denied the debate has nowhere to go but to a subjective situation asserting that the others, are wrong, just because one “knows they are.”
As far as facts go, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Counseling association and the National Association of Social workers, all agree that homosexuality is not a disease since it would represent the only symptom and, is also compatible with full mental health in all other respects. All of these prestigious and established groups convincingly discredit the effectiveness of reparative or conversion therapies in regards to actually changing sexual orientation. In fact. half a million professionals in all major US medical and mental health organizations, agree with this conclusion.
Conversion or reparative therapies often have negative effects on the mental health of the individuals undergoing them since they reinforce the idea that gay individuals are sick or perverted, and therefore only increase the guilt and isolation felt by many homosexuals who feel they must repair what is really a natural condition—merely because they have been told it is sinful or wrong! I want to refer you again to the remarks made by Michael Bussee, under question 5 of the “Soulforce” report. His comments are particularly significant since he was the leader of the Exodus International movement—the largest of such reparative organizations—yet he and three other anti-gay ministry leaders apologized to, “those individuals who believed our message.” It is also quite common for such anti-gay Christian leaders, to abandon their faith and once again resume personally to have gay relationships with others. So if conversion is simply a matter of needing to believe STRONGLY enough, or have SUFFICIENT faith, what does this say about such a theory when even the leaders of these movements, who had once claimed to have their own homosexuality removed, eventually decided to reveal their own mistaken beliefs?
Your mention of Sally Ride being a lesbian woman who didn’t talk about her condition or “tell you what to think,” is particularly ironic, since she firmly believed along with many other of her colleagues during the time she trained for the US space program, that she would never have been accepted if word of her sexual orientation became public. It was only years later, after the facts about her lesbianism became known—that she knew that her own sexuality could no longer harm her career and revealed the truth. Even in America the acceptance of gay athletes, gay soldiers, or gay professionals in many fields have been slow to materialize, so many gays are still reluctant to divulge the truth, lest they, or their loved ones, be harmed by negative publicity. And, when has any gay person really told you what think?—unless you equate offering a different understanding about same sex orientation, or refusal to agree with your ideas, as, “telling you what to think?”
Gay people want the public to acknowledge their presence, in the same way that Jews want to be acknowledged for being faithful and moral beings, Muslims want to be acknowledged as members of a peaceful religion, or women want to be given credit for their own intelligence, etc. etc. etc. Just imagine you belonged to some group which was the brunt of social shame and criticisms, and were forced to pretend that you were something you’re really are not….this is exactly the way black people felt when forced to deny their humanity during the slavery years and the many years of Jim Crow racial oppression that followed. Naturally when the world begins to accept the legitimacy of a group’s particular qualities and/or beliefs, that group nearly always fully embraces standing up and letting the world know that, they too, have a right to be who they are! The only reason this sometimes takes so long is that, extreme prejudice and hatred are hard to overcome, and many gays have been the victims of violent attacks from people who want to hurt them—merely because such jerks believe gays represent some non-existent threat to their own ways of thinking—sometimes literally beating a gay victim to death! To me it’s obvious just why gay people want to speak with pride and to be allowed to be themselves in public—anyone who has ever been the object of racial, religious, or ethnic violence, as well as those who having been bullied by their fellow schoolmates, should immediately, and easily, possess the empathy to understand.
You continue to compare homosexuality to some sort of genetically based illness or condition that needs therapy or repair, but, while smokers endanger others who breath their smoke, as well as their own health, and contribute to the overall cost of medial care, and drug addicts pose a threat to others since they must commit crimes to support their habits—including theft and murder—gay people pose no real threat to themselves or others. The real threat they pose is in contradicting the personal stereotypes that we have in our own minds about homosexuals, just as we have entertained false beliefs about blacks, women, Jews, the Irish, Communists, and just about any other minority one can name. So, since when, should we try to destroy the freedoms of other people and/or groups just because we don’t like what they represent? In a true Democracy, we make laws and form opinions based on knowledge and tolerance—not because we personally may not like any given group or individual. The point you don’t get, is that no genetic condition should be considered harmful in and of itself. This is just as true for yourself—whether you have dark hair, blue eyes, are tall, short, heavy or thin, etc. etc. etc. these are all just different genetic traits. If they don’t cause socially destructive or violent behaviors, then it makes no sense to condemn them, or insist on changing them, merely on the basis of our own prejudice. And, all the research indicates that gay people are no more likely to be violent, criminal, insane, or pose any other possible threats to society, than heterosexual people are!
Abner, you can always choose to ignore all solid scientific research by claiming that those who conduct such research are only attempting to spread a “pro-gay” agenda. You can also claim that all the major health care professionals who have studied this issue of sexual identity for many years are completely wrong, and that the few studies done by religiously based groups, or groups with completely biased predispositions, are absolutely untrue. That’s your personal choice. But, where does this type of thinking really lead? Are all of the thousands of learned climate scientists who have spent decades studying climate change and who affirm man’s role in global warming, ignorant or mistaken about the meticulous science which completely backs up their observations? Did the Holocaust ever happen? Is the earth really flat? Did men actually land on the moon in 1969? And, is epilepsy really involve demonic possession? All or these possible beliefs have been promoted by various people who claim to be experts, and who claim to have proof positive that they are completely right. But are we to ignore or deny all of the valid scientific and historical evidence which reveals such beliefs as being completely untrue, just because in the past, many people have blindly accepted them as being true?
If something is not broken to begin with, it is no use to try and fix it. If homosexuality is a genetic, hormonal, or even a environmentally caused condition, that involves no other negative traits or behaviors which are actually no more prevalent in gays than they are in the actions of heterosexuals, then why should it be “cured,” or “repaired,” in the firsts place? In truth many homosexuals who have suffered under the yoke of societal prejudice and ignorance about their sexuality, have tried very sincerely and with all the faith they can muster, to become heterosexual. But even the leaders of churches and programs designed to “repair,” homosexuals, (mentioned in the Soulforce report), who sincerely believed that such conversion therapy changed their own sexual orientation, have time, and time again, resumed their old behaviors. That’s because heterosexuality, homosexuality, bi-sexuality, and transsexualism are naturally occurring traits just as left-handedness or right-handedness are naturally occurring biological conditions. The evidence supports that these types of orientations exist not only in man, but in all kinds of animals. So, the real mental and physical damage happens when we demonize these other forms of sexuality—just because they are not shared by the majority. It doesn’t matter if those in minorities are forced to undergo reparative therapy or not—those who undertake such extreme efforts to change, do so because social pressures and prejudice cause them to think that they are sick or evil, simply by being who they are!
So whether the pressure is direct or indirect, thousands of individuals have agreed to undergo such arduous therapy, just so they can be considered on par with other, “normal,” individuals. They do this because of the oldest of social motivations—to become accepted, just like all the rest! But the sad truth is, that they should never have been made to think that they must undergo such unnecessary pain and torment, in attempts to deny their own sexual identities in the first place! I have come to realizes these things by studying the issue, and because an old childhood friend of mine, who is one of the most intelligent, sensitive, and emotionally healthy people I have ever met, should never have been made to suffer under the yoke of the unenlightened social zeitgeist of the 1960’s, while he was in his formative years. I truly hope that everyone with your attitude and unsubstantiated misconceptions will eventually understand what this issue is really all about.
The above statement is miss-worded:
“As far as Jerry Sandusky is concerned, the fact that he is a pedophile is real,and the idea that he has abused any child, gay or straight, is a tragedy. But let me suggest when to prevent pedophiles from raping children, why don’t you begin by examining the facts about THEM.”
I should have said, “When trying to prevent pedophiles from raping children, why don’t you…..etc.” I also apologize for all the other small mistakes.
In my recent comment I said this:
“Abner, you can always choose to ignore all solid scientific research by claiming that those who conduct such research are only attempting to spread a “pro-gay” agenda. You can also claim that all the major health care professionals who have studied this issue of sexual identity for many years are completely wrong, and that the few studies done by religiously based groups, or groups with completely biased predispositions, are absolutely untrue. That’s your personal choice.”
I should have said,….”that the few studies done by religiously based groups, or groups with completely biased predispositions, are absolutely TRUE.”(Not untrue).
A little farther in the same paragraph I said:
“Did men actually land on the moon in 1969? And, is epilepsy really involve demonic possession?”
I should have said,….And, DOES epilepsy really involve demonic possession?” (Not IS epilepsy…)
Finally, when I said:
“Just imagine you belonged to some group which was the brunt of social shame and criticisms, and were forced to pretend that you were something you’re really are not….” I should have said, “SOMETHING YOU REALLY ARE NOT!” (Not, something you’re really are not.)
Since its is important to use the correct words and phrases, especially when discussing a topic like this, I decided to provide these corrections–Pete.
Peter W. Johnson, read your replies & again, you didn’t say much which I haven’t considered. You go into irrelevant topics such as Holocaust but to what you said. You lecture on how they have PHD but those who do repair therapy for homosexuality also have PHD. I don’t trust pro-gay pscyhologists such as J. Drescher or Gregory M. Herek because they distort things to support gay agenda including on topics such as gay bashings. Those 2 are apologists for Harvey B. Milk who in 1964 committed homosexual statutory rape on 16 year old boy which he wasn’t prosecuted for. So what they say is useless because they see nothing wrong with what Harvey B. Milk sexually abusing a 16 year old boy and even gay activists do not deny the truth that Harvey B. Milk sexually abused a 16 year old boy in 1964.
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. 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. A jury can acquit or if they convict, they can convict a person on lesser charge.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. Jury decides if it’s justified or excess force. Jury decides if it’s justified or excess force.
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 which may or may not be true. 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. & again, keep in mind that most crimes committed by gays such as indecent exposure, harassment, assault & battery usually go unreported to police.
With late astronaut Sally K. Ride-only she knew her motives. Most people do not care about a person’s sex life. But homosexual/lesbian conduct is bad for health and I don’t care what the American Medical Association and APA say. 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 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. The same things that you say about repair therapy for treating homosexuality can also be said for many other problems people have.
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. 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 not going to work.
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. Homosexual/lesbian conduct is bad for health as smoking is and needs to be marginalized like smoking is. Gays and lesbians are a group based on behavior and thus should have the same rights as adults who use tobacco. They must abolish sex change maimings. People who engage in homosexual/lesbian conduct have more medical problems caused by homosexual/lesbian conduct. You talk of how religious psychologists and Drs. have biases but again, though I’m not religious, I agree with them. 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 gay/lesbian conduct by adults, while I don’t believe in making it a crime by consenting adults, I do believe it’s best to find a cure for homosexual/lesbian conduct just as it’s best to find cure for tobacco use-also a legal product. I believe in abolishing sex change mutilations.If homosexual/lesbian conduct and tobacco use were to disappear eventually, then it’s fine with me and I wouldn’t lose sleep over it. Anyhow Peter W. Johnson, you can give another long reply to me but asking/saying the same things to me will get you the same answer.
Abner,
You have decided to deny all the objective scientific evidence pointing to the fact that homosexuality is not a disease and does not contribute any more or less, to negative social actions than those committed heterosexuals. When you state that, “I don’t care what the AMA and the APA say,” you are denying the findings of these two reputable scientific organizations as well as the conclusions that were reached by the American Psychological Association (different than the American Psychiatric Association), the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social workers and, the World Health Organization! And you are denying all of the objective research used by these organizations in favor of your own opinion, as well as the opinions of many religiously based groups that viewed this issue with bias from the start, and, which ignore real scientific findings.
You are perfectly entitled to your opinions, but you should also give a little credit to the many legitimate scientific studies that have been done, merely by virtue of the intelligence and objectivity with which they were conducted. And also because they all used the scientific method when doing their research. Their findings bear much more consideration than the opinions of yourself, who admittedly, doesn’t even care what they say! In this regard my questions about whether the Holocaust actually happened or, if the moon landing really happened in 1969, are only meant as illustrations of what we can falsely believe if we base our conclusions on opinions and speculation rather than facts. And, the relevance of the fact that many members of the animal kingdom also engage in homo-sexual behavior, is pertinent because you and others, often assert the idea that being gay is an illness or a perversion, or even unnatural. So, if you believe that nature reflects the idea that only unnatural and perverse people are gay, then you must also admit that nature itself (by your definition) is often quite unnatural and perverse. If I had used this fact to claim that homosexuality was the norm in the animal kingdom, then I would indeed have been in error, but I only pointed out that is does happen frequently among many other species in nature and thus challenges the notion that gayness or sexual orientation is unnatural or sick.
As far as Harvey B Milk, having supposedly committed Statutory rape with a 16 year old lover, the fact is, that at the time his affair with Jack Galen McKinley, California Statutes did not recognize a same sex sexual encounter with a minor as being statutory rape. This was because the law contained no Gender Neutral conditions including statutory rape between two consenting people, and therefore was not considered in violation of the law. In New York, where Milk previously resided, the age of consent was considered as being 16 and therefore McKinley would have also been considered an adult there in 1964, as well. Here is a link to the nature of those statues in California, during the time that Milk and McKinley’s affair happened:
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/39t3c2s9#page-1
Personally I think laws prohibiting sexual acts with minors, are important whether they include hetero or homosexual partners. But the point you continue to miss, is that, when prestigious scientific institutions find that being gay in itself, is NOT a mental illness or a perversion, that does not include some false idea that gay people never commit child abuse, or never commit any other types of crimes as well. The findings of the research merely reveal that whatever type of abuse or crime is being discussed, or being used to prosecute an individual, that individual’s sexual orientation has no relevance on the likelihood of whether or not a crime was committed. Therefore it is false to say that child abusers or anyone who commits statutory rape, are more often gay, rather than heterosexual.–there is absolutely no proven specific correlation between a persons sexual orientation and whether that person commits sex crimes. So, why then should religious and conservative organizations claim that being gay implies a much greater incidence of child abuse or statutory rape than it does in the case of heterosexuals? And why should homosexuals be denied their civil rights because of false information?
You also don’t “get” that the scientific organizations that have helped eliminate such false beliefs are not advancing a “pro-gay,” agenda anymore than they are advancing an “anti-gay” agenda. They are merely scientists whose objective research has led them to quit labeling homosexuality as an illness or a perversion of nature. Believe it or not, if their research had led to the opposite conclusion (that gay people are much more often involved in sex crimes)—as you seem to think, then their research would have led them to support that conclusion. That’s because when compared to theologies, political ideologies, or economic world views, (although it sometimes take them a long time), scientists are in love with objective truth, and are much more able to change their opinions, then make determinations based on truth, and by using objective analysis—whether or not they initially agree with challenges to their previous misconceptions, or not!
Likewise the controversy about conversion, or reparative, therapy does not hinge on whether it should be allowed or not, but rather concerns the actual effectiveness of such therapy and its likelihood to cause mental and emotional harm among participants. So, if this type of re-programming has little or no positive results, and can harm the minds and feelings of those who sincerely try to follow it, then you would think that any compassionate religious authority would not advocate for its use—just as former EXODUS leader Michael Bussee along with two other leaders of reparative movements decided not to so advocate, and to apologize to all those who believed their ideas about something being inherently wrong with being gay, lesbian or transgender. They made this confession during a 2007 Press conference in Los Angeles. Here is a Wikipedia URL which reports about that conference as well as some more recent admissions by religious leaders. Pay special attention to the section about conversion or reparative programs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_International
To me it is obvious that, although no laws should needlessly prohibit such potentially harmful sexual re-programming, we should still let it be known that usually the expected results are virtually non-existent, and, also extremely questionable concerning any permanent effects. Your mention of junkies, alcoholics and other individuals who use supports group efforts to achieve rehabilitation, are really not very good examples to use when justifying conversion or reparative programs. “ Alcoholics and drug addicts (as I said) exhibit behaviors that directly endanger the well being of others and of society as a whole—homosexuality does nothing of the kind—all the reputable organizations I have mentioned as well as many others knowledgeable organizations have also indicated, homosexuals are NO MORE LIKELY to commit crimes like child abuse, than any other person—INCLUDING MANY OTHER SERIOUS CRIMES!
Currently large corporations are promoting false knowledge about climate change and circulating false information intended to negate the dire need for us to transition to other renewable forms of energy. Anti-gay religious groups which deny the established science behind sexual orientation are also circulating false information about human sexuality. Both of these attempts to deny science and its proven knowledge have special interests at their cores—large oil naturally wants to keep making huge profits by making, producing, and exporting oil, and, those with traditionally religious values, (that unfortunately often include unreasoning prejudice) want to keep promoting their personal theological view about sex and morality, since for them, not doing so would be a willful sin, and might somehow ally them with liberals. However, many of those who have launched reparative programs, report having unwanted homosexual feelings themselves, and therefore tend to be motivated by the hope that such reprogramming is practical and can be accomplished . But, while those who want to demystify and educate the public about homosexuality are backed up with plenty of solid facts as the result of objective research, they have no likewise intentions to condone or prohibit those who want to accept only heterosexuality as the norm. Those of us who are heterosexual are not expected to change because of their findings. However the results of valid research may rightfully be used to determine the course of the law, and to prevent unfounded discrimination.
So don’t worry Abner, you will not be forced to change your own sexual behaviors or to change your own opinions, however, if verifiable and objective science adds new facts to the mix, I would hope that all of us will be willing to voluntarily challenge our own assumptions about sexuality. That’s the difference—just like your observations that those needing some kind of reparative therapy cannot be forced to accept it, neither can any of us can be expected to change our beliefs by being forced. But, my right to determine what I know is true, and then pass it on to others by virtue of its being varifiable, should also not be restricted by force. Where unnecessary polarization is concerned (unfortunately), I see you as being much more anti-gay than any scientists as being “pro-gay,” but like it or not, the truth is here to stay , no matter what anyone of decides to deny or accept!
Something to add Peter W. Johnson. With gay bashing topic, gay groups predictably bring up the 1998 M.W. Shepard killing by 2 men lecturing on how it’s a hate crime. Before getting to that, when I read about a gay (transexuals are mutilated gays/lesbians) bashing case in the news, I wonder what the view is of the journalist reporting this on homosexuality/lesbianism. I also wonder if the journalist is a homosexual or lesbian and if so, 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 predictably make the homosexual look like an innocent victim whether or not that is the case.
Eg. in 2007, former MSNBC host Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson (Tucker Carlson) was condemned by lesbian columnist Pam Spaulding, Huffington Post & Daily Kos after Tucker Carlson talked of how as a teenager he had bashed a gay who was harassing him in a public restroom for sex. Though the homosexual committed criminal indecent exposure (public restroom is the place to use toilet and wash up not a place for sex) by harassing Tucker Carlson and though Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson defended himself by bashing the gay-Huffington Post, Daily Kos & lesbian columnist Pam Spaulding all condemned him. That homosexual gets no sympathy from me because that homosexual committed a crime by harassing an underage teenage boy for sex in a public bathroom and the teenage boy defended himself. Since Daily Kos, Huffington Post and lesbian columnist Pam Spaulding among others see nothing wrong with homosexuals committing crimes such as indecent exposure in public restrooms 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.
This gets to the 1998 case of M.W. Shepard. Now why Metthew Wayne Shepard was killed by 2 men, only he and his killers know. The legal system convicted both men (1 with plea and 2nd with jury trial) and they are doing life sentences. But no matter why the murder happened, Metthew Wayne Shepard being killed by 2 men does not change the ugly truths of who he was & M.W. Shepard knew 1 of his murderers (A.J. McKinney). It’s not believed he knew the 2nd man (R.A. Henderson). I read Book of Matt by Stephen Jimenez about Methew Wayne Shepard. The book discloses ugly truths of who the victim was-most of it old news such as him being a junky (old news), but the new information is that the victim was a drug dealer. Book of Matt by Stephen Jimenez Stephen Jimenez’s evidence are 1st party witnesses he interviewed-over 100 of them over 13 years.
Those witnesses verified Methew Wayne Shepard’s a junky (old news), drug dealer and courier. There are bartenders who saw both AJ McKinney and Methew W. Shepard together, so this is verified information Methew W. Shepard was a drug junky and he went into bars where drugs were sold. Methew W. Shepard became a drug junky because antidepressants he was taking was not working and he mixed drugs-cocaine, Ecstasy and Meth with antidepressants. Methew W. Shepard had depression, PTSD and he mixed drugs with antidepressants. This is old news.
Why could Methew W. Shepard have gotten involved in dealing drugs & or be a courier-$ problems-he bought them and when he had $ problems, he sold them & or was a courier-this is verified by witnesses who Stephen Jimenez interviewed. These witnesses are credible as they earn nothing saying this. Stephen Jimenez verified that Methew W. Shepard would use Doc O’Connor’s limousine services. Methew W. Shepard was living an extravagant life. His dad who is an engineer in Saudi Arabia could not have sent him enough $ to pay for it. Methew W. Shepard when he sees money problems with his drugs would likely sell some in order to make money.
-Metthew W. Shepard was himself a victim of child molestation and when Metthew W. Shepard was 15 years old, he was arrested for molesting 2 neighborhood 8 year old boys-M.W. Shepard got counseling for it.
M.W. Shepard in August 1998 (2 months before his death) attempted indecent exposure on a Cody bartender and bartender defended himself by decking M.W. Shepard. The next day, M.W. Shepard falsely accused the bartender of homosexual gang rape. When medical tests disproved M.W. Shepard, the excuse Methew W. Shepard gave to cops was that he was drunk, had PTSD and could not remember. M.W. Shepard was also once banned from a bar after a drunk M.W. Shepard committed assault and battery on the bouncer by grabbing bouncer’s crotch against will. M.W. Shepard should have been arrested and convicted by jury for those 2 incidents.
With the criticism about Stephen Jimenez writing a book to make money, Judy L. Shepard and M.W. Shepard’s friend Romaine Patterson both wrote books about him. The last 2 also had interest to make money and since they are his mom and friend, they are biased and bias meddles with facts. The Shepard Foundation is a propaganda group whose main interest is to push an agenda and to make money. Judy L. Shepard, Shepard Foundation and Laramie Project making $ off the case. Stephen Jimenez incidentally mentioned in his book that M.W. Shepard had been molested by 3 different people including a distant relative. If Metthew.W. Shepard had not been a victim of repeated molestations, it’s possible M.W. Shepard would have turned out straight instead of gay. Any conduct can be learned including sexual conduct and M.W. Shepard suffering child molestation damaged his thinking and possibly caused him to behave sexually in ways he would not have had the molestation not happened. And again, Methew W. Shepard molested 2 neighborhood 8 year old boys when he was 15 years old and got counseling for it. Stephen Jimenez interviewed a relative of 1 of the boys who M.W. Shepard had molested.
Stephen Jimenez in his book did go into irrelevant topics such as an unrelated murder trial in Wyoming where a teenage girl was murdered, an unrelated killing in Colorado, but what he said about M.W. Shepard is what he learned (though again most old news) after interviewing many witnesses. If Stephen Jimenez had been an FRC journalist, he would likely have been condemned as 1 of those Christians but Stephen Jimenez is a gay journalist. Stephen Jimenez’s sincerity is what is good about the Book of Matt. I would give the book 4 out of 5 stars.
No, I don’t think M.W. Shepard should have been killed. But M.W. Shepard should have gone to prison for molesting the 2 neighborhood 8 year old boys when he was 15 years old in 1992, but again only got counseling for it. While gay groups complain about Stephen Jimenez saying the murder case is complicated, that is incidental-main reason gay groups are offended by Stephen Jimenez’s book is because he talked about the ugly truths about who M.W. Shepard was. Methew Wayne Shepard does not deserve hero worship. M.W. Shepard being a drug dealer was something he likely kept secret from his friends and family because honestly, if a person is selling drugs, they usually aren’t going to tell their friends and family that they commit this crime. 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.
Abner,
What do you want me to say—that no gays ever commit crimes, including sexual crimes? That psychiatrists have have perfect knowledge of the human psyche, or that no one who is abused as a child ever experiences sexual difficulties when they become adults? I doubt you will ever come across a psychiatrist or a gay person who will insist that all of that perfect knowledge and behavior is true. The reason gays are being discriminated against is because what they are disgusts, and/or bothers people who insist that they are inherently ill or evil. But don’t think you can write off the validity of scientific knowledge by implying that psychiatrists are too stressed out to be objective, and/or unbiased. Many of them take vacations and work breaks for that very reason–they do not want the stress of their jobs to interfere with their work.
And, yes Abner, psychiatrists are not perfect just as you and I are not, but don’t try to imply that even though they have studied sexual orientation for many years and have had all of their work peer-reviewed, and inspected backwards and forwards, that they don’t know what they are talking about? I also know that physicists don’t know everything about the Cosmos,(nor do they think that they do)–if that were the case they would have nothing left to study! But I would rather attend a Astro-physics class taught by an accomplished physicist than one taught by you, since it is logical to assume that objectively, Physicists know much more about the way the universe works than you do. I would also not want a carpenter to preform brain surgery on me, a Janitor to design the new world trade center, or a plumber to give me financial advice about how to plan for retirement. I would especially not want a fundamentalist minister to teach me all about sexuality, and I would not expect you, or such a minister, to understand the science behind sexuality more fully than a PhD who has studied the subject for decades. Religion is notorious for teaching about absolutes and traditionally approved ideas, but very few of their ideas involve trying to view a moral issue without dogmatic bias!
All I can say is, reread some of the comments I previously made, and think about the points which you have apparently automatically rejected just because you don’t trust “pro-gay” psychologists (whoever they are?), or because you know that some gay people have also broken the law. Women break the law, black people break the law, white people break the law, oriental people break the law, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and almost any other category of fallible human beings you can think of, sometime break the law! The point you don’t get is that gay people are statistically NOT more frequent breakers of the law than anyone else, and their gayness does not make them any more or less capable of doing bad things than anyone else–that’s why it would be unfair to pass laws discriminating against them because they are supposedly much more full of defects than anyone else! Why can’t you see the reasons why discrimination should not be instituted as law? Or why gay people have been taught to hate themselves as a result of the misconceptions that society has taught them to judge themselves by? Questioning this supposed knowledge is NOT “pro-gay?” It is merely pro-fact!
I went to the link you provided and read your comment, but I failed to see anyone swearing at you in any kind of extreme way at all. And, even if a psychiatrist has at one time or other, reacted to you with anger, remember that anger is not a sin. It may not be desirable in a debate, but it is not automatically a sign of moral weakness. Can you honestly say that you have never reacted to the ideas of another with anger–especially when you know that person doesn’t understand your points?
To me it is clear who is reacting with bias about this issue and it isn’t those who have spent decades tying to objectively study homosexuality and sexual orientation! What I hear you saying is that you resent the idea that sometimes gays are the ones who create conflicts–undoubtedly there are times that this has happened. But when it comes to being the victims of hate crimes, don’t try to turn this around in some unproven and subjective manner. Throughout human history it is almost always those in power, or those who define what is normal, who have acted violently and intolerantly towards minority groups whom they feel threatened by. All the unfounded, unscientific, and unproven ideas in the world will not change this fact.
Peter W. Johnson, homosexuals are more likely to molest children because many homosexuals & transsexuals (mutilated gays/lesbians) were victims of child molestation as children. AMA and APA are not objective sources-they are pro-gay/lesbian ideologues and their views on homosexuality is useless. The other organizations you cite simply rehash what AMA and APA says and they don’t do any research of their own. With Harvey B. Milk, we know what’s reported but do not be surprised if Harvey B. Milk had more victims besides the 2 victims we know of he had and Harvey B. Milk committed homosexual statutory rape in that he did his victim in states where minimum age is 18. What gay groups say about Harvey B. Milk is homosexual propaganda. Possible his victim turned out gay because of homosexual statutory rapes.
Harvey B. Milk also bragged about having sex in park restrooms but never being caught by the police-he asked other boys for sex in the bathroom which is criminal indecent exposure because the bathroom is the place to use the bathroom and wash up and is not a house or bar so not the place for proposals. see http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/sexual-pr…postage-stamp/ A handicapped man in 2008 had mentioned that when he was a runaway in 1977, Harvey Bernard Milk abused him by asking him to runaway with him, with Harvey B. Milk knowing that he was handicapped. Is there something wrong with this So we know that Harvey B. Milk had @least 2 teenage boys who were his victims-1 in 1964 and another 1 in 1977 with the 2nd victim a handicapped runaway. Harvey B. Milk gets no sympathy from me for what he did to those teenage boys and he possibly had more victims.
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. Homosexual/lesbian conduct is bad for health as smoking is and needs to be marginalized like smoking is. Gays and lesbians are a group based on behavior and thus should have the same rights as adults who use tobacco. They must abolish sex change maimings.
People who engage in homosexual/lesbian conduct have more medical problems caused by homosexual/lesbian conduct. You talk of how religious psychologists and Drs. have biases but again, though I’m not religious, I agree with them. 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.
Something new-see the angry reply I got from a psychologist after I commented here http://aattp.org/tx-ex-gay-activist-says-he-knows-500-dudes-who-went-straight/ Since this psychologist got offended by what I wrote using profanities it makes me believe that the psychologist has copathologies of his or her own. I say this because psychologists & 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. Of course, they have found that people who work in stressful jobs such as paramedics, fire dept, police & war veterans are more likely to have problems such as insomnia, Adult Onset ADD, PTSD because when you see dead bodies (crime scenes), people killed in car wrecks, war deaths and woundings (if you’re a war veteran) those events can stress the mind.
Psychologists and psychiatrists deal with other people’s problems and that can stress the mind. That psychologist sounds like he or she has disorders of their own and I think it’s because of stress of their job because what that psychologist said is not convincing but got offended because some of us do not trust what mainstream pscyhologists say on homosexuality/lesbianism. I don’t trust pro-gay pscyhologists such as J. Drescher or Gregory M. Herek because they distort things to support gay agenda including. Those 2 are apologists for Harvey B. Milk who in 1964 committed homosexual statutory rape on 16 year old boy which he wasn’t prosecuted for. So what they say is useless because they see nothing wrong with what Harvey B. Milk sexually abusing a 16 year old boy and even gay activists do not deny the truth that Harvey B. Milk sexually abused a 16 year old boy in 1964.
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. That happened in Jodi Ann Arias trial where there were experts who said that the murderess had transit amnesia, that she was a domestic assault & battery victim (when in fact it was her boyfriend who was the victim of her abuse) and that the victim really was not dead when he was shot in head. Jury did not believe the Drs. who testified for Jodi Ann Arias (they did it for $ and did not care about truth) and they convicted her of Murder 1.
If homosexuality is inborn as some scientists believe, then it would be a birth defect. They have higher rates of smoking during pregnancy and Fetal Alcohol Syndrome on reservations so it would be a study to find out links between American Indian women smoking during pregnancy and a baby turning out homosexual or lesbian in adulthood. In 2011, I had suggested the link between a woman smoking during pregnancy and the increased risk of the baby turning out homosexual in adulthood, so this study is not new. Smoking during pregnancy is bad for health. Yes, there needs to be replicated studies on this but it wouldn’t surprise me. If 1 is exposed to other air and H2O pollutants in addition to smoking during pregnancy then that could cause deformities including homosexuality. Homosexual/lesbian conduct is bad for health as smoking is and needs to be marginalized like smoking is. We need to find cure for homosexual/lesbian conduct for homosexuals and lesbians who want to be cured just as we have help for smokers who want to quit tobacco. Treat homosexual/lesbian conduct like tobacco use and abolish sex changes.
Abner,
This is more of the same. All I can say is that you’re wrong, and, I hope someday when you accept objective science and acquire some empathy for those who are discriminated against and denied their human dignity, you will understand.
That being said, my comments would only continue to fall on deaf ears. I’m out of here!
Peter W. Johnson,know that a person can be secular as I am and see the harms of homosexual and lesbian conduct. You know you are saying nothing new which I haven’t thought about. My reasons for being against gay/lesbian behaviors and being against sex changes are unrelated to any religion. I am not a Christian but I agree with Christians on the dangers of gay/lesbian agenda and there are many non-Christians and even some atheists who agree with Evangelical Christians.
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 as they were not lucid when they did research-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. A person with problems giving medical advice on homosexuality or researching this makes me believe their conclusions are not right 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 long held 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.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. 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 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. 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,
A secular person is perfectly capable of swallowing the religious propaganda on this subject, even without being religious themselves. My point is that you believe such religious ideas while denying a large body of objective evidence. The difference between scientists and religious groups is usually that science looks at what we know and then uses objective reasoning to arrive at verifiable conclusions, what a religious study does is start with an assumption, such as the idea that smoking during pregnancy often causes homosexuals to be conceived and then wraps it in as many opinions as possible while insisting it must be true. Tell me, where are the scientific studies that support such an outrageous idea?
And Abner, the reason I repeat myself has been due to the fact that you bring up the same personal opinions over and over, without backing them up with proven facts–science does!
Your latest unproven contention is that, because psychiatrists have a lot of stress in their jobs, that therefore their ability to reason and make objective determinations about sexual orientation must be flawed. And, despite my explaining that such professionals take many vacations and breaks in order not to become overwhelmed by their work and responsibilities, you have also begun to repeat the unproven idea that they cannot think clearly due to stress, over and over again. If that’s the case Abner, than no regular MD can be trusted to take out an appendix, let alone preform open heart surgery, because all Doctors, including the ones that care for the body, also have great stress at work. This also includes many different professions such as politics. So by your reasoning NOTHING any politician ever says is to be trusted because of the great responsibility and stress of their jobs!
You also repeat over and over, the (opinion) that main stream psychology and medicine can’t be trusted, but we have only your personal biases on that matter. And on this flimsy unproven idea you reject all of the many prestigious organizations (which I have already mentioned) in favor of religious leaders who have never seriously entertained any doubts that the Bible is anything but an infallible authority when it considers homosexuality to be a sin. What I am trying to say, is that since scientists want proof and value objective reasoning, it makes much more sense to consider their findings than a minister who just “believes” that reparative therapy can change homosexual orientation. And as I’ve been forced to repeat over and over,(since you reject the objectivity of science) is the question of why even the leaders of large reparative groups often engage in gay relationships again, and have even apologized about misleading others to believe what they have said. Once again, you won’t allow any of this to shake your beliefs, since you just “know” that they are true. But sorry, evidence and truth must include more than just your opinions.
You even go so far as to imply that the reason scientists changed their original views about homosexuality is an illness, or a perversion, is just because they suddenly decided to support a “gay agenda”—they apparently wanted to support gay agendas so much that much that they originally concluded just the opposite by calling homosexuality an illness, and supposedly changed suddenly without any convincing truth??? Listen to the way you are reasoning Abner! That’s a pretty quick change or heart–especially when thousands of scientists and their research would have had to be suddenly discarded! And, if you think they were bribed with money to change their minds, where are all of the rich psychologists or social workers, that must all have been paid off with large sums of money from vastly “wealthy” gay groups, in order to deny their original assumptions? How many of them can be found in the pages of fortune 500? and although therapists often earn large incomes, they often have to repay hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans before undertaking their practices. Are they known to be independently wealthy after supposedly taking bribes?
And you keep saying over and over again, that scientists support a supposed “pro-gay” agenda, when the truth is that scientists just deliver known facts based on valid evidence. Your contention is like saying that all physicists are wrong about the acceleration rate of falling objects, because they support a “pro-acceleration,” agenda. Or that MDs claim that diseases can be spread when viruses, bacteria and other microscopic forms of life are transmitted from one person to another—are they just saying that because they are “pro-transmittable disease” people. Of course not! in all of these cases scientists have reached conclusions based on objective scientific facts–not just because they wanted to! And this includes what they know about sexual orientation! Mathematical knowledge such as the freezing point of water, and the fact that 2 +2=4 are not forms of knowledge, that can be changed with any new information–they are things which are obvious, and are, by their very nature, true. However human sexuality must be examined with much more evidence and data and is has never been considered a priori knowledge, like math! Guess what?–just like the discovery that a whale is a mammal, scientists have changed their conclusions about homosexuality because of new evidence! ONCE MORE–because of NEW EVIDENCE! Not to satisfy some “pro-gay,” agenda. That’s just a fact Abner! Yet you deny everything by labeling these “pro-gay,” scientists as being part of a biased Ideology–not a cult! but both assumptions involve your claims that base their knowledge on opinions and that they cannot be trusted. So I would say that people like you, who deny all objective knowledge because of your pre-conceived and unproven beliefs, are the real cult members and ideologues involved.
Once again, let me also repeat that no one is saying (including psychiatrists) that childhood sexual abuse has no effect on adult sexuality. But your reckless assumptions that most gay adults were abused as children, and that this abuse is the primary reason many supposedly become gay, is far from proven, and definitely needs to be more than your opinion before being believable.
Likewise, if you want to prove a connection between cigarette use during pregnancy in Indian women and conceiving gay children, you would have to do so by examining the medical records of women of all races and backgrounds, amassing large numbers of corroborative statistics and then use a control group composed of women who have never smoked, in order to reach any kind of rational conclusion linking smoking to the sexual orientation of a child. So far, you have not mentioned one bit of evidence like this that has been used, or, if used, has withstood peer analysis, and subsequent testing.
Yes, it is not controversial to talk about nightmares, bed-wetting, or suicides being caused by childhood sexual abuse. But it is just as normal to find those symptoms present in any group–especially nightmares. My God! If nightmares meant that those who have them, only have them, due to childhood abuse, then we must all have been abused as children? Have you never had nightmares Abner? Once again you don’t get the point that, in order to have things like this explained by being gay or by being a victim of childhood abuse, you would have to discover that these symptoms occur much more frequently in gays, than they have in any other groups of heterosexual children, who grow up to be heterosexual adults, and even then, you would also have to screen for many other variables as well!
A kid can become a mugger by living in high crimes areas and observing such behavior, but that kid cannot have his hair color magically change from black to blond just by moving to Sweden, and, neither can a straight person become gay, just by seeing gays around them. Just like victims of childhood sexual assaults are also NOT more likely to become gay just as the of their assault. Like it or not, scientists have most likely already considered and conducted research about these different factors and, so far, there is no convincing evidence that these things determine sexuality!
Abner, you continue to make many assumptions about thing like smoking and childhood sexual abuse without really backing them up with anything but your opinions. And then you have the audacity to claim that genuine scientists who are being much more thorough than you, are merely part of some political agenda! It mankind had listed unquestioningly to many human beliefs and assumptions like these, then modern civilization might never have evolved, and we might still be teaching children that the sun revolves around the Earth, and that bleeding with blood-suckers is the best cure for cancer.
If you don’t want to discuss the same things over and over, then respond to the many specific points I bring up–not just repeat the same assumptions you have made over and over, just because you “know” them to be true! What you are doing is making a defense for you ideas that is impossible to assail with the light of truth and reason, (because any criticisms against your ways of thinking) are automatically labeled as untrue–with or without any convincing evidence! That’s not what scientists do, and if you want to discuss anything else, then a quit wasting my time and yours by elevating your personal opinions to a level of unquestionable validity! They definitely are nothing of the kind!
This above paragraph of mine:
“You even go so far as to imply that the reason scientists changed their original views about homosexuality as an illness, or a perversion, is just because they suddenly decided to support a “gay agenda”—they apparently wanted to support gay agendas so much that much that they originally concluded just the opposite by calling homosexuality an illness, and supposedly changed suddenly without any convincing truth??? Listen to the way you are reasoning Abner! That’s a pretty quick change or heart–especially when thousands of scientists and their research would have had to be suddenly discarded!” Should have been phrased more like this:
“You even go so far as to imply that the reason scientists changed their original views about homosexuality being an illness or a perversion, was because they suddenly wanted to support “pro-gay agendas”—and they apparently wanted to support “pro-gay agendas” so much that, they rapidly changed their original conclusions into just the opposite, by deciding to actually call homosexuality an illness, and supposedly approving this change without any convincing objective truth??? Listen to the way you are reasoning Abner! That’s a pretty quick change of heart—especially when thousands of scientists and their research would have had to be suddenly discarded!”
Peter W. Johnson
Peter W. Johnson, I said many (not most) gays/lesbians were sexually abused in youth. 33% of gays report homosexual rape in youth. 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. Whatever causes, it’s best for gays/lesbians to be celibate until a cure is found for homosexuality.
Homofobia is telling truths, theories and speculations which offend homosexual groups. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10582504/Smoking-increases-chances-of-child-being-homosexual-in-adulthood.html Yes, the theory between a woman smoking during pregnancy and unborn baby doing homosexual/lesbian conduct in adulthood is not proven and replicated or repeat studies must be done. In 2011, I had suggested the link between a woman smoking during pregnancy and the increased risk of the baby turning out homosexual, Transexuals (mutilated homosexuals/lesbians) in adulthood, so this study is nothing new. Smoking during pregnancy is bad for health. Yes, there needs to be replicated or repeat studies but it wouldn’t surprise me. We know that childhood sex abuse raises risk of a kid doing homosexual/lesbian conduct in adulthood.
But main reason homosexual groups are offended by this is theory is because it puts homosexuality negatively by suggesting it is the result of something bad-smoking. While they have not conclusively proven homosexuality/lesbianism is inborn genes, homosexual groups 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, 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. Any facts which show homosexuality/lesbianism to be bad and put negative views on this is condemned.
Yes, Richard W. Johnson, the religious pscyhologists and psychiatrists use faith. But there’s nothing wrong with them using Christianity or other faith. People use faith to justify their views against drunkardism (alcoholism). 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.
The pro-gay pschologists say rubbish such as when they say Jerry A. Sandusky is not gay which proves bias meddles with facts when you say a homosexual pedophile is not a homosexual. It depends on your definition, if 1 does not define a person who has same sex relations with a young boy as gay, then they call him straight or something else. Though it’s repeat it must be said again. A person is homosexual or lesbian if they knowingly and willing do same sex behaviors. If a person has homosexual activities with a young boy, then they are a homosexual pedofile. Jerry A. Sandusky is a homosexual pedofile-even if J.A. Sandusky calls himself straight, he would still be gay by behavior definition. But homosexual groups say that he is not gay when his conduct defines him as such.The priests who molest young boys are gay pedophiles. If a man has sex with little girls only, then he is a straight pedophile. Rush H. Limbaugh’s right when he said Jerry A. Sandusky is gay-and columnist Patrick J. Buchanan condemns who he calls gay priests. Those priests are again gay pedophiles, pederasts or homolesters. So there are many homosexual pedophiles such as the gay priests, Jerry A. Sandusky.
Again, it’s sexual conduct or behavior which defines if 1 is straight or homosexual. Even if a person has had opposite sex relations, if they knowingly and willing do homosexual behavior, then they’re homosexuals and lesbians. Just because a person has in past had sex with women, if they have sex with young boys then they are homosexual pedofiles and most regard themselves as homosexual but even for those who call themselves straight their conduct doesn’t change the truth they are homosexual pedofiles. 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. All homosexual pedofiles are homosexuals. 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. homosexual groups got offended when columnist Patrick J. Buchanan condemned gay priests. What those priests did when they molest young boys is homosexuality. NC Register in a past link called it homosexual pedofilia among the priests. Yes, this is repeating but it must again be said that if a person has same sex conduct with young boys and girls then they are homosexual and lesbian pedofiles because again, it’s the same sex conduct which defines. Peter W. Johnson, asking/saying the same things to me will get you the same answer.
Abner,
My objection is that you have almost obsessively focused on child abuse at the hands of a gay abuser, as being a major cause of homosexuality itself. If you are now softening that idea somewhat I’m glad, because AS I SAID, sexual abuse can affect abused sexual children’s sexual feelings as an adult–no one is denying that! What I am denying is that there is any demonstrable link to the notion that abused children (even 33% of them) become gay exclusively because of childhood abuse. I doubt you have real research to back up this claim and, if you do, I would be interested in how the study was done, and if it got peer reviewed support by experts on sexuality, rather than experts on theology, of quack science. So let me say it one more time–No one is denying that sexual abuse can have an affect on adult sexual behavior–just that many victims are abused by homo-sexual abusers and grow up to be straight anyway. And, how can I interpret your insistence on taking the word of religious leaders (who agree with you on the effectiveness of conversion and reparative therapies), over the words of psychologists, Psychiatrists and the many other members of prestigious scientific fields which examine mental health issue), just because you don’t want their findings to be true?
Again, scientist are neither pro-gay or anti-gay–they merely uncover factual evidence and then base their conclusions on scientific research, and if that research has turned up evidence, or will someday discover convincing evidence, that your views are true, then they will change their opinions as a result of such new evidence. Would you be willing to do the same?
As far as your implications that objective research is falsified just because altering the data supposedly offers some kind of financial reward to millions of doctors who are willing to lie in order to please some pro-gay agenda–where is the proof of that? And if you want to include evidence taken from the claims of religious leaders who are already biased, I must say that their word does not rate the same as a scientist’s who spends years studying all aspects of sexuality. Still, you are effectively telling me that it is more logical to ask a carpenter to preform brain surgery, or a bricklayer to advise me about investing my money, rather than asking a neurologists or an investment banker to help me with those needs. Your stubborn ideas about NOT accepting the opinions of learned and educated men, boils down to, something like—I don’t believe them, just because I don’t!
You also don’t seem to get the fact that gay people are offended for the very reasons you seem to think they shouldn’t be? Historically gay people have been shunned and socially ostracized for centuries. They have been told that an orientation they did not choose, and which is natural for them to feel, means that they are sinful or mentally ill. They have often been beaten and killed by anti-gay bigots, who try to play God by telling them how bad and dangerous they are–the opposite is assuredly almost never true–that the weaker groups of people who are considered socially,ethically, or sexuality different from the norm, (such as gays) are virtually never the ones in power, or the ones that actively persecute the rest of us. Yet like the title of this article suggests, you are claiming that straight people only beat gays because they did something wrong. and that somehow, you, who apparently are not gay, are being philosophically abused because you don’t believe as they do. Once again, show me the proof that gays deserve to be bashed because as homosexuals they may have urinated in public, as if our entire social conflict only boils down to their supposed anti-social behaviors—since not only is this not an offense that should evoke violence and bashing FROM anyone, it should not involve violence TOWARDS anyone, ANYONE!! The truth is that many straight people also commit such offenses–so, do you think that hetero-sexual people shouldn’t be beaten for doing the same thing?
The reason why myself and many other people disagree with you, is that very little of what you believe is based on solid scientific research, but is rather based on anecdotal evidence and the already biased opinions of those who have no real evidence for what they believe. If you are Muslim, Christian, or Hindu, would you like being beaten up for your faith? And on the physical side, if you are crippled or cleft lipped, or short, or fat, or tall, athletic or not athletic, etc. etc. etc. would you be upset if other people beat you or taunted you for having those physical attributes?
At the present time scientists believe sexual orientation is a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors–including heterosexuality! So, the least you can do is admit to why so many gays have felt persecuted, suicidal and/or abuse. I really has to do with their being told that they have deliberately chosen to be gay, and that being gay is sinful and wrong! The self-loathing happens as a result of receiving a distorted social message preached and talked (AT gay people) not as the result of being gay! ‘Those who try to undergo sexual reparative therapy do so because they are taught to hate what they are! They would be much better off being taught to accept the type of sexuality they have, just like you or I might also be. The real question is about who is really being abused, and why. So, the anger directed at people with your beliefs usually happens as a result of your obstinate refusal to accept science and biological reality.
As usual you probably have refused to hear and understand almost anything I just said, or have said repeatedly. And, you will most likely continue dwelling on the cases of Mr. Sandusky and other child abusers who have never been defended by people like me, nor have been miscast as (not) being gay. How can I spell it out any more clearly? whether or not a gay person abuses a child or a straight person abuses one, that abuse can effectively damage an adult persons sex life, but there is not any significant proof that (many, or any) people become gay only, or mostly, as a result of that abuse! Like it or not, that is exactly what you are implying, and the frustration others feel in response, is because you just won’t see the forest for the trees!
Peter W. Johnson & again, keep in mind that most crimes committed by gays such as indecent exposure, harassment, assault & battery usually go unreported to police., 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. 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. A jury can acquit or if they convict, they can convict a person on lesser charge.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. Jury decides if it’s justified or excess force. Jury decides if it’s justified or excess force.
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 which may or may not be true. 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. Yes, Peter W. Johnson, there are anecdotal cases where gays are attacked w/o provocation but reality I have found is that most cases are men reacting to crimes which the homosexual first 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. 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.
3 experts who get condemned because they tell truths of the harms of gay/lesbian conduct and sex change mutilations are Dr. Paul Drummond Cameron, Dr. Julie Harren Hamilton and Dr. NE Whitehead and Dr. Paul Drummond Cameron gets the most criticism by homosexual groups. Dr. Paul Drummond Cameron has done studies which show the link between childhood sex abuse and homosexuality and he gets condemned. He resigned from the propaganda APA.
APA is dishonest, delusional or both on the gay/lesbian topic & it’s best their views be treated with contempt. I have contempt for the American Medical Association and the APA because both the APA and AMA views on the homosexual topic is rubbish and they are either dishonest, delusional or both. I have seen Dr Paul Drummond Cameron’s videos on You Tube and he does a good job.APA condemns Dr. Paul Drummond Cameron, but APA and homosexual groups (no surprise) are apologists for forensic psychologist Karen Franklin who is an apologist for homosexuality and transexuality, but here are ugly truths of pro-homosexual psychologist Karen Franklin.
Forensic psychologist. Karen Franklin is an apologist for Socorro Caro the woman who murdered 3 of her 4 children in California in 1999 (Socorro Caro is on death row) and she made excuses for defense expert Alyce L. LaViolette in the Jodi Ann Arias case.
here are things psychologist Karen Franklin omitted- Travis Victor Alexander reported Jodi Ann Arias stalking him and slashing his tires. But it’s possible Jodi Ann Arias had committed assault & battery on Travis V. Alexander or even threatened him with a knife only Travis V. Alexander didn’t report this to his friends. 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. Karen Franklin omitted that fact-Travis V. Alexander’s the victim.
Karen Franklin omitted that 6 other experts interviewed Jodi Ann Arias but refused to testify for her because they realized her story’s mostly false & possibly know that testifying for her would damage their reputations. Alyce L.LaViolette possibly didn’t expect the case would be televised, where people saw her & on cross examination, she became rude & arrogant. Alyce L. LaViolette ruined her reputation. Alyce L. LaViolette should not be harassed and she should not be a victim of violence for testifying-cops must stop any harassment. But honestly, Alyce L. LaViolette said what she knows is false but mainly cared about $.
Psychologist Karen Franklin criticizes those who critique Alyce L. Lavallette (minus any threats) of mobbing her, but Karen Franklin did not criticize those who harassed the parents of Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt’s victims where the victims parents got harassing phone calls for calling the cops to report that Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt committed lesbian sex abuse on a 14 year old girl. The victim’s parents did right thing by calling the police, but they were condemned and harassed and the victims parents earned no money for it. Alyce L. LaViolette made $50,000 giving mostly false testimony, gets critiqued on Internet and Karen Franklin made excuses for her. So forensic psychologist Karen Franklin sees nothing wrong with lesbians molesting 14 year old girls and Karen Franklin is an apologist for Alyce L. LaViolette giving false testimony. You see Ken, homosexual groups condemn Dr. Paul Drummond Cameron for telling truth on homosexuality, but Karen Franklin’s views as a forensic psychologist is rubbish for reasons given.
Abner,
In your last post, you seem to have changed your focus from insisting that a great many victims of child abuse, at the hands gay pedophiles, become gay themselves. You made this claim while using the Jerry Sandusky case, as well as some some dubious statistics and information from anti-gay groups with questionable reputations. Now you have shifted apparently, to proving that very often, those who are accused of being abusers, are really innocent and are the true victims in many bashing incidents. However, rather than focus on those who are accused of committing crimes against homosexuals, you have apparently expanded your horizons and are now using examples from court cases like that of the Jodi Ann Arias case to focus on the supposed bias of witnesses who defend those seeking to pin Domestic abuse, on the wrong participants. You also spend some time defending three supposed experts on sexual behavior, those being, Dr. Paul Drummond Cameron, Dr. Julie Harren Hamilton, and Dr. NE whitehead.
After doing some online searches, several things quickly became apparent about all three of the “experts,” you mentioned. 1. All three are religious people, who think that conversion and reparative therapy is effective, and 2.—All have questionable reputations within the scientific community. And 3.—Your own personal feelings, as well as those of these experts, involves the notion that Doctors who promote certain types of conversion and reparative therapies are being persecuted for not going along with some sort of “pro-gay” agenda advanced by numerous other sex researchers, rather than because the feasibility of their research about reparative therapy is now being questioned by scientific organizations and knowledgeable individuals who instead depend on objective peer reviewed research which stands up to vigorous scrutiny. You also deny that reparative therapies, are usually undertaken without a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved. And, just like many fundamentalist faiths, you seem to endorse the “catch-22,” accusations that those who deny the existence of a “pro-gay” agenda, are immediately revealing themselves as being “pro-gay”—simply because they have discovered, that such terminology is inaccurate and misguiding. In this respect you accept your own personal beliefs, but think it doesn’t even matter if religious groups and/or individuals are actually DENYING, valid research—and you doggedly deny the findings of numerous scientists who have instead concluded—after reviewing solid evidence—that homosexuality is not an illness or a pathological condition.
Dr. Paul Cameron, in his interview with Travis Gettys on the rawstory.com website, was recorded on video claiming that the death penalty might be appropriate for sexually active LGBT people, and said, “One must understand those who act on their homosexual desires or interests usually end up being (parasites) on society, and parasites that are very dangerous to society, not only because they take far more than they contribute to society, but they particularly injure children.” Personally Abner, this seems reminiscent to me of the vicious propaganda spread about the “Jewish threat,” exploited by Adolph Hitler, and the massacre of millions of Rwandan’s during a violent conflict between waring factions in Rwanda. Those who were brutally massacred by the dominate forces, were regularly referred to as “cockroaches,” in order to dehumanize and demonize them. At worst, for Dr. Cameron to use this type of derogatory term, is crude and unprofessional and should raise serious red flags about his credibility as an expert on sexuality, and at best, it should speak to his cruel and childish attempts to insult an entire minority of people present throughout the world.
In 1983 Dr. Cameron conducted what he called a, “fair sexuality poll—not one based on volunteers.” He reported that funding for his study came from businessmen, including several Nebraska chief executives. The “survey” was offered as a, “self-administered questionnaire,” and was offered to 9,129 adults in five US cities. Only 4,340 responses were received—less than half the number who his questionnaire. In 1984 they were supplemented by 824 adults from Dallas. So, this brought the number of respondents up to 5164 a little over 56%. of those who received the questionnaire. And, that means that Cameron’s “study,” in the first place, was really a glorified poll, the results of which were taken only from those who agreed to take it. Abner this is not valid science—it’s junk science based erroneously on faulty methodology.
A similar ruse involved a bogus survey which was written in part by Dr. Neil Whitehead and Dr. Julie Harren Hamilton, the President of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, aka NARTH—a group which champions reparative therapy. But NARTH’s paper was really a collation of a century of material which (they think) supports the idea of reparative therapy. As such it contained NO NEW OR ORIGINAL RESEARCH WHATSOEVER! And although it was claimed to be the result of peer-reviewed research by the (Journal of Human Sexuality), this journal is a Publication produced by NARTH itself! So NARTH made sure the report was peer reviewed alright—by its own journal! This bogus claim of being peer-reviewed is a gross deception and definitely does not represent valid scientific research!
As far as Julie Harren Hamilton goes she is a a therapist who integrates religious, or spiritual beliefs in support of reparative therapy, and wouldn’t you know, also happens to be the 2009-2011 President of NARTH. She uses an analytic approach that describes homosexuality as a psychological condition involving a lack of personal bonding with a child’s parents of the same sex. According to this theory the lack of such an early bond with a parent causes a child to seek closeness with member of the same sex in an attempt to recapture the emotional intimacy that should have been provided by that parent. So, the feelings of homosexual attraction represent the confusing of this longing for emotional closeness with sexual desires. However, most contemporary therapists and psychologists now believe that such a psychological complex cannot be applied to a great many individuals—since there are many gay people who have close relationships with both parents, and have always felt loved and supported by them. This type of (psychological-spiritual) explanation for homosexuality is interesting, but most Psychiatrists and Psychologists think it is far too lacking in universal application and, doesn’t acknowledge that much of a person’s sexuality comes from genetic and/or hormonal influences that have nothing to do with the environment. This majority of people in the psychological field—including researchers—have reached this conclusion not because they are doing it for money, or because they want to promote gay behaviors—they reach these conclusions after clearly and objectively reviewing all of the data and valid research that proves that genetic and hormonal differences also play a large part in determining sexual orientation. They don’t consider homosexuality to be a disorder or illness anymore, and unlike you, who admittedly doesn’t trust the APAs discovery that homosexuality is predominantly caused by nature—not nurture, scientists would change their opinions if new evidence lead them to believe otherwise. As I said, scientist are interested in establishing facts, rather than creating them from their own bias, and, scientists possessing many different views, are not all of the same religion, the same ethnicity or the same ideologies. Most of them can live comfortably because their educations generously have rewarded them with living salaries, but, they have no need to falsify data in favor of material rewards! And, they have no desire to perpetuate ignorance by trying to use their fifteen minutes as stepping stones to money and fame. However, many of them are already distinguished and intelligent scholars, with no need to earn the kind of fame that sometimes appears on the covers of super-market scandal rags while they are going through the checkout lanes! In fact, the situation is likely just he opposite—those who wail about the lack of real scientific evidence, are probably people with a personal ax to grind, or people who want to make a name for themselves as enlightened mavericks in the field of psychology,who dare to defy the conventional mold and are being persecuted and censured for doing so. If we look at Dr. Cameron’s statements in ROLLING STONE concerning his feelings that” homosexual sex is more pleasurable than heterosexual sex, and therefore that homosexuality, if tolerated, would become predominate in a few generations”—a pretty clear clue that Dr. Cameron has always had sexuality conflicts of his own. He claims to have been molested by a male at the age of four and then had a “much more positive experience” with a female a year later, and, that he had sexual attractions to men at the age of three, but became heterosexual at ages 8-9. I wonder if Mr. Cameron has his own issues with homosexuality and therefore, he criticizes gay men in an attempt to release feeling of anger about his own early abuse? It certainly is a theory with just as much credibility as that which was offered by Doctor Julie Harren Hamilton!
Dr. Hamilton has made some very inaccurate statements both in writing and on videos. One is the idea that Gays can change sexual orientation with reparative therapy and that the research affirms this fact. In response to such misinformation, Jason Milhalko—a licensed therapist with a private practice in Cambridge, informed Dr. Hamilton that the evidence she cites proves just the opposite—that currently accepted knowledge accepts that when any one is gay, that means they will stay gay. Here Is a post of what Dr. Hamilton said on a You Tube clip and part of Mr. Milhalko’s response to her on the website, The Irreverent Psychologist:
Dr. Hamilton said:
“There are many people who claim that it’s harmful for a therapist to try to help someone change in their sexual orientation and so when clients come in saying I have these attractions—these homosexual attractions and I don’t want to be gay there are many people who say that therapists should not assist those clients in achieving the goals for their lives because it is harmful yet the research reveals it is not harmful. There have never been research studies that have concluded that therapeutic attempts to change sexual orientation are harmful. In fact, it’s unethical not to assist a client in seeking to accomplish their goals for their lives, including their goals of living a life beyond their homo sexual attractions.”
Jason Milhalko:
“Again Julie, the evidence here is that reparative therapist is harmful, doesn’t work, and shouldn’t be done. Your public statements are not consistent with the professional literature. You are misrepresenting science and your field. Your apparent failure to understand the literature is putting those you serve at great potential risk for harm.”
Milhalko’s intent was to state his ethical concerns about Hamilton’s misinformation and outright lies about what researchers have actually discovered about homosexuality—even though many anti gay groups are claiming that whenever Psychologists, Psychiatrists or researchers in the field of human sexuality affirm the facts, it all just for the promise of financial gains?
One of the greatest names in psychology, Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, was responsible for having homosexuality taken off the list of Mental disorders. After misinterpreting the data from his own personal interviews with gay men who had undergone reparative therapy and who claimed that such therapy had indeed changed them, he remained positive that being gay was not an illness, but still decided to refer to it as (sexual orientation disturbance). Of course this drew criticisms from the gay community and was basically a refusal to let go of some old ways of thinking. Eventually Dr. Spitzer apologized for his own mistakes in evaluating his data, since he felt his former assumptions were not scientifically valid!
In 1998 Douglas Haldeman reported that reparative or conversion therapies included, “electric shock, nausea inducing drugs, hormone therapy, surgery” and, “visits to prostitutes and excessive bicycle riding.” As a result, the APA (the American Psychiatric Association), criticized reparative therapy and said that it could cause, “Depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior.”
It’s also true that many faith leaders oppose conversion therapy—considering them to be “harmful, damaging and dangerous to the mental and physical and spiritual well-being of LBGT people, their families and their communities.”–as several leaders of Oregon faith community have said.
Now, even though you insist on agreeing with Fundamentalists Christians, (Abner) you are turning your attention to the area concerning who were the real victims of abuse in the Jodi Arias trial. By taking this change of course in a post about the Christian persecution complex, I assume you are decrying the unfair way you think the prosecution was treated, including the on stand behavior of professional witness, Alyce Laviolette and the claim that as a professional witnesses, she was somehow only interested in money or fame. And, also supposedly, that she was unfairly aided by support from psychologist Karen Franklin who actually had the gall to dispute the many irrelevant and concocted charges, that Ms. Laviolette was accused of by prosecutor Juan Martinez. I also looked up some of the tapes posted by Ms Franklin, and witnessed many different video tapes she included to document the trial and the many claims made by Martinez. After watching Martinez in action (who actually must have spent as much as ten minutes), just trying to get one witness, to admit to the terrible crime of giving Jodi a book he thought might help Arias understand her feelings, and for having a professional opinion about her being the victim of abuse—so as to discredit any of these normal and expected parts of a therapeutic relationship. He also badgered Ms. Laviolette in a similar way concerning the audacious belief that she was able to form an opinion about Arias’ case, by delving over and over into the amount of Jodi’s emails she had read. and Martinez even tried to use Ms. Laviolette’s mention of the common adage that when two people talk to each other, 90% of the communication is non-verbal, in order to make it seem that forming any judgments from emails (which are not face to face personal communications), somehow prove she had been negligent in valuing any of her impressions about Aria after being informed by reading murderous emails written by Arias. In his Zeal to discredit valid testimony Martinez continually came across as a bulldog who wasted no opportunity to spend many minutes making points about the faulty judgments of witnesses, over and over again.
Abner, the testimony of professional witnesses is a legal and normal part of many court cases, so why the criticisms just because Ms. Laviolette’s opinion happened to include that Jodi might have been the victim of abuse, at the hands of their husband? Respected professional witnesses have every right to reach conclusions based on their knowledge of the facts as anyone else. And, what you probably don’t know is that many of the claims made by prosecutor Martinez were without verifiable value. And Psychologists who specialize in cases of domestic abuse, also have every right to support the testimony of witnesses they consider believable. Here Is a link to a website that discusses many of the false claims made by Juan Martinez, and many of the unproven claims that were leveled against Ms. Arias. I am not asking you to accept it as undeniably true, but I do think we all need to be exposed to some of the reasons that Jodi Arias’ case was not correctly handled by prosecutors and to some other reasons that make this sensationalistic case so completely disputable and rife with inconsistent testimony. I am not however, claiming that Ms. Arias didn’t murder her husband—only that a number of thing, including the savagery of her attack is very consistent with the rage that is often felt by those who are victims of abuse:
http://spotlightonlaw.wordpress.com/crystal-blue-persuasion/
When Dr. Richard Samuels testified for the defense, saying that Arias had PTSD—something which was very believable if Jodi was really the victim of domestic abuse, he was also treated like a brazen liar. The fact is that he, Lavoilette and many other witnesses who were called by the defense were only speaking honestly and according to their experience’s with cases of domestic abuse. The witnesses called by the prosecution also are duty bound to speak truthfully, even though they also may be mistaken about some of the facts in the case, this process Is called the American legal system, and it is not infallible by any means. But, the important thing to remember, is that we know for certain that many innocent people are put to death, or land on death row for decades. We know because many years later some of them have been exonerated by DNA evidence and when new facts come to light about their trials and their supposed crimes—sometimes the real killer confesses to doing the crime, and the innocent people who have been in prison for decades are finally acquitted and released!
Abner, many of the points you bring up about these types of trials and the honesty of the witnesses in them are not directly concerned with whether gays are sick and dishonest, etc. etc. etc. And are once again typical of your feelings that heterosexuals are the innocent ones when it comes to crimes like Gay bashing. If you want to maintain that belief than you will certainly find enough biased information about human sexuality and the causes of homosexuality to convince you of the unproven and actually, ridiculous belief that men who do scientific research are interested in fulfilling a pro-gay agenda, and doing so primarily for money and other equally ridiculous and unproven motivations! Here again its a list of many the many national and scientific organizations that you are discrediting and essentially calling liars about the facts they uncover. The list is provided by licensed Psychologist Jason Milhalko in response to the misinformation spread by Dr. Julie Harren Hamilton, which is examined on his website The Irreverent Psychologists:
“Let me not mince words here Julie—you are simply wrong! There is no credible evidence in any peer reviewed journal that provides substantive empirical evidence to suggest that so-called reparative therapy is effective or ethical. Further, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association of School Administrators, American Counseling Association, American Federation of Teachers, American School Counselor Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Secondary School principals, National Association of Social Workers, National Educational Association, and School Social Work Association of America have all taken the position that “homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be cured” (APA, Sexual Orientation and Youth, 2008, pg. 6). Your own professional association, the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, also states that “same sex orientation is not a mental disorder. Therefore, we do not believe that sexual orientation in and of itself requires treatment or intervention.” (AAMFT Board of Directors, July 31, 2005).
The old saying, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink,” is applicable concerning my inability to convince you of something your don’t want to accept. I don’t know what country you are from, or if you are now an American citizen, but some of the things you say, lead me to believe that you are from a more morally strict and regimented culture than I am. Your apparent beliefs about ideas such as that, gay people deserve to be beaten for doing gross things like public urination, and your feelings that such a punishment is simply a normal and well deserved consequence for perpetrators to suffer, sounds quite extreme to me. My own opinion about an offense like public urination is that, although it is gross and crude, those who do it are not fair game for a beating, but more likely should spend a night in Jail, along with receiving humiliating responses from their friends, and perhaps receive a citation for violating a city ordinance. I may be wrong, but sometimes I feel that your opinions about appropriate crime and punishments come from viewing moral issues through a different lens. I can only hope that you too, respect scientific research and the many positive things it has done for mankind. And, I only hope that eventually you will see through the veil of prejudice that you are now insist is the only way to judge LGBT people!
Peter W. Johnson, I watched the Jodi Ann Arias murder trial and I honestly don’t care about those who defend Alyce L. LaViolette, so no offense but I won’t read the link you gave since I watched the murder trial on Internet, saw her testimony, that of both prosecution and defense witnesses and the prosecution witnesses were credible. Psychologist Karen Franklin defended Socorro S. Caro the California woman who murdered 3 of her 4 children and is on California death row so Karen Franklin’s views are useless. Karen Franklin omitted- Travis Victor Alexander reported Jodi Ann Arias stalking him and slashing his tires. But it’s possible Jodi Ann Arias had committed assault & battery on Travis V. Alexander or even threatened him with a knife only Travis V. Alexander didn’t report this to his friends. 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. Karen Franklin omitted that fact-Travis V. Alexander’s the victim. Karen Franklin omitted that 6 other experts interviewed Jodi Ann Arias but refused to testify for her because they realized her story’s mostly false & possibly know that testifying for her would damage their reputations.
Psychologist Karen Franklin and Alyce L. LaViolette also omitted the fact that Jodi Ann Arias was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder and 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 while testifying was not credible. Travis V. Alexander’s the domestic violence victim and in the end he became murder victim of Jodi Ann Arias. Psychologist Karen Franklin knows this but Karen Franklin is dishonest. Alyce L. LaViolette made $50,000 testifying because her interest is money and she was not credible. I think Alyce L. LaViolette knows that Jodi Ann Arias abused Travis V. Alexander but she did not care and she thought she could fool the jury but he jury did not believe her. I think Jodi Ann Arias should spend the rest of her life in prison and never be released though if she gets the death penalty, I won’t sympathize with her. Juan M. Martinez did a good job (I met the prosecutor in 1999 when he prosecuted a case where Scott L. Falater murdered his wife and used sleepwalking defense but jury convicted him of Murder 1) showing Alyce L. LaViolette’s story to be rubbish. Jodi Ann Arias’s defense lawyers are not calling Alyce L. LaViolette to testify if there is a trial to decide if Jodi Ann Arias gets death penalty (jury convicted her of Murder 1 but could not decide on death penalty and it is believed Juan M. Martinez will try to seek death penalty where a new jury decides if Jodi Ann Arias gets the death penalty or life in prison) because both her defense lawyers saw how Alyce L. LaViolette’s a terrible witness during the murder trial. It’s my view that Alyce L. LaViolette and Karen Franklin both possibly have disorders of their own since psychologists are more likely to have disorders caused by the job stress. Yes, Alyce L. LaViolette may have during the 1970s been a qualified therapist but Alyce L. LaViolette damaged her credibility in the Jodi Ann Arias trial and she did not care for the truth, she cared about making money.
Peter J. Johnson, you are wrong on Jodi Ann Arias and Alyce L. LaViolette. While in most domestic violence cases the woman is the victim where men beat up their wives or girlfriends, there are violent women and Jodi Ann Arias is a woman who abused her boyfriend and in the end murdered him. Men sometimes are the victim of domestic violence. Karen Franklin’s views as a pscyhologist defending Alyce L. LaViolette is useless esp. as pscyhologist Karen Franklin made excuses for Socorro S. Caro the California woman who murdered 3 of her children and psychologist Karen Franklin sees nothing wrong with lesbians molesting 14 year old girls as happened in her defense for Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt the Florida lesbian who in 2013 was convicted of committing sex abuse on a 14 year old girl in a public restroom and the homosexual groups harassed the 14 year old girl’s parents for reporting this crime to cops.
With your critique on Dr. NE Whitehead, Dr. Julie Harren-Hamilton and Dr. Paul D. Cameron-yes all 3 are Christians. But there’s nothing wrong with them using Christianity. People use faith to justify their views against drunkardism (alcoholism). 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. & using Rolling Stone magazine interview with Dr. Paul D. Cameron-I believe Rolling Stone magazine distorted & left out what he said and gave 1/2 truths. Media gives alot of 1/2 truths in these interviews. I have spoken in the past to Dr. Paul Drummond Cameron and he is polite, takes time to discuss his view and he is right. I have seen Dr. Paul D. Cameron be interviewed by those hostile to him so he is honest.
With sex abuse, again, many gays/lesbians were sexually abused in youth. 33% of gays report homosexual rape in youth. 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. If a boy is repeatedly homosexually raped in his youth, the likelihood is more that he’ll do homosexual behaviors in adulthood because the sex abuse can damage mind and cause people to act in ways they normally wouldn’t. It’s like if a kid lives in a high crime neighborhood & sees muggings, the likelihood is more that he’ll be a mugger in his adulthood because of what he learned in his youth. It remains to be seen how many of Gerald Arthur (Jerry) Sandusky’s victims will think in their adulthood that they’re homosexual. 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. Whatever causes, it’s best for gays/lesbians to be celibate until a cure is found for homosexuality.
Peter W. Johnson, with nature argument you give, stealing and killing are also found among animals. Incest or inbreeding has also been observed in nature. Cannibalism is also found among animals so natural argument is poor.Using animals as a guide to how people should behave is a bad idea.
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 long held conclusions on homosexuality when they removed homosexuality from DSM in 1973. They have as said since 1973 become ideological on gay/lesbian topic. 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. 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 not going to work. This therapy should be there for people especially minors because again, many of the minors suffered sex abuse which causes their homosexuality. Almost all the gays who committed suicide did not go into repair therapy. 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.
If homosexual/lesbian conduct and tobacco use were to disappear eventually, then it’s fine with me and I wouldn’t lose sleep over it.With gay/lesbian conduct by adults, while I don’t believe in making it a crime by consenting adults, I do believe it’s best to find a cure for homosexual/lesbian conduct just as it’s best to find cure for tobacco use-also a legal product. If homosexual/lesbian conduct and tobacco use were to disappear eventually, then it’s fine with me and I wouldn’t lose sleep over it. If a nation wants to make homosexual behavior a crime as it is in Uganda, then that is their nation, their laws. I believe in abolishing sex change mutilations. I believe they should make it a crime to do sex change mutilations. Anyhow Peter W. Johnson, you can give another long reply to me but asking/saying the same things to me will get you the same answer.
Abner,
After reading your last post, I wonder if you understand the significance of a statement like this one that you made in defense of your own opinions:
Anirban (aka Abner) Bhattacharya says : July 4, 2014 at 4:13 pm
Peter W. Johnson, “I watched the Jodi Ann Arias murder trial and I honestly don’t care about those who defend Alyce L. LaViolette, so no offense but I won’t read the link you gave since I watched the murder trial on Internet, saw her testimony, that of both prosecution and defense witnesses and the prosecution witnesses were credible.”
But by saying this, you are refusing to consider any of the other opinions, both about homosexuality and the objectivity of scientific evidence that have been used to examine such issues. However, I did go to many of your links and saw some many of the comments on forums that must also have come from you, or were copied by you, since you said the same things with almost the same exact words.
The only further point I want to make about the Jodi Arias trial is that the entire circus was filmed by the media and reported about in the press. The jurors were also not sequestered and most certainly saw a lot of the sensationalist coverage of the trial before they reached their decisions, which could not help but influence and prejudice their opinions–in one way or the other!
If you would actually go to some of the links I provide you would understand that many of the closing arguments made by prosecuting attorney Martinez were not backed up by actual proof and that, many of the points he brought up made very little sense as a means to discredit the defenses witnesses. Still I see that you are continually making the same points in with the same words, that only shows me that you totally misunderstand many of the points I am trying to make. So let me repeat my opinion (which is NOT a belief that Arias was pure as the snow, and could not possibly be guilty of murder), but that the facts themselves really do illustrate that she brutally shot and stabbed her husband many times.
The only idea that I’m defending is the fact that often victims of abuse, snap and kill their tormentors in extremely violent ways, and that domestic abuse is a very relevant defense to use. All that Ms Laviolette testified to as being true , after examining Jodi’s case, meant that she considered it very possible that Arias was driven to such violence by an abusive lover. And despite Martinez’s claim that actually remembering the context of many different email, and therefore having an supposedly perfect impression about what could have happened to Jodi, was irrelevant. The exposure Ms. Laviolette had to these emails was an entirely logical and reasonable way to form an opinion–just like you or I might do! Martinez’s accusation that she thought of herself as a perfect lie detector by admitting that the emails helped her reach decisions, was completely uncalled for, and completely false, and also irrelevant to any of the facts about the case. And, if you examine some of the websites that discuss things that were not brought up at the trial, you will see that many of things the prosecution said were far from being accurate or provable–instead the proceedings were openly broadcast to millions of viewers, and only served as a good circus show that allowed the public to make partially informed judgments about.
Perhaps you agree with me that trials of that nature should not be broadcasts on live television and that the proceedings would be more believable and dignified without inviting condemnation from those who really have no idea of all the factors in play. In any case I am not saying that Arias didn’t commit murder–only that some of the mitigating facts really should have been considered before the jury reached its decision. Testimony from professional witnesses is often used by both the defense and the prosecution in cases like this, and is entirely acceptable as a means for helping the Jurors reach a decision. That’s all the people you mentioned, were there to do—not gain unneeded fame of money by deliberately committing perjury!
But you have made up your mind to refuse considering any alternate evidence that disagrees with your pre-conception ideas, and you casually discredit real scientists and prestigious organizations who say otherwise.
Dr. Cameron may have presented himself to you in a pleasant way, but I heard him condemn gay people as being “parasites,” in a video of one of his online interviews. This is not an accurate, Christian, or a loving thing to say about the many thousands of talented and socially aware gay people who often become the artists and innovative thinkers who continually contribute to society and all the rest of us who are in it.
You continue to say more of the same, often by using identical words and phrases such as the ones you included in previous posts. But if someone wants to feel righteous by refusing direct evidence and factual research, no one can even convince that person to believe that the earth is spherical of that it revolves around the sun–let alone that gay people are not parasite, are not sick, and do not disproportionately contribute to a large part of what people like yourself accuse them of!
Congratulations! Welcome to the world of self-proclaimed subjective truths and self-affirming “facts!” I won’t try to spoil your self-perceived right to remain ignorant anymore!
An answer people give when I discuss a man who punches a gay in the face after the gay grabbed the man’s butt or groin against will (assault and battery) is the scenario of if a man grabs a woman’s butt, boobs or vagina against will should women have a right to beat the man up or kill him and how women deal with this and so on. Well, there is no need for a man or woman to have to deal with criminal assault and battery. If a woman were to beat up a man after the man committed did this to the woman, most people would not sympathize with man. Also there are many men in jail for committing these assault and battery on women. There have even been cases where men have been falsely accused of abusing women such as in 2013 Jodi Ann Arias murder trial where her victim her boyfriend was falsely accused of abusing Jodi Ann Arias.
If a homosexual is going to commit assault and battery such as homosexual pinches a man’s butt or groin against will, the right thing for the man to do is use any just reasonable force to end abuse and call the police. 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. A jury can acquit or if they convict, they can convict a person on lesser charge. 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 either to him or to the next man. These situations are unpredictable and to say that a man should just do nothing if a homosexual pinches the man’s butt or groin against will (assault and battery) is wrong. A gay bashing case I know of from Arizona. What 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 because the gay had a secret violent history (unreported to cops) of beating up teenage boys after harassing them for sex & these cases unpredictable.
With that gay, it’s highly likely the gay was trying to do something more violent, so that gay deserves no sympathy for getting hit in the face. This gay again had beaten up other teenage boys after committing assault & battery, was likely trying to do it to this teenage boy, but because teenage boy had 2 friends (1 a martial arts expert) who were with him, they were able to defend this boy. If the homosexual is high on drugs 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 it’s reasonable, then you acquit and if it’s excessive, then what degree. if it turns out that homosexual committed indecent exposure, harassment or assault & battery on a young man (men) before the men reacted violently, then I have no sympathy for the homosexual being bashed. 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. Jury decides if it’s justified or excess force. Jury decides if it’s justified or excess force. And again, I would rather have too much done than not enough. 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 (such as it Murder 2 or Manslaughter) vs. the man does not do enough and the homosexual does something violent to him or the next man. The man is again reacting to a crime the homosexual did. 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.
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, 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.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 .
Abner,
In America we all have the right to defend ourselves from harm, but understanding the prevalence of paranoia and ill will between many heterosexual and homosexual men, what makes you so gullible as to believe that most gay men are recklessly willing to receive a beating from a straight man as the result of actually offending him, or simply because he may be offended because the gay person smiled at him? When a straight guy feels animosity to begin with, that’s often all that needs be done in order to unleash festering anger at a gay person who he intensely dislikes to begin with.
Nobody should be groped against their will, and, if one can prove that was the case, no straight guy will be thought the less of for simply pushing his groper away. But the truth is that most gay men live in constant fear of being attacked by straight men, who they know despise them for who they are to begin with, and who often are offended by a simple hello. I have a gay friend who must always be cautious if he is in the wrong place at the wrong time and a group of rowdy straight men catch him alone on the “wrong” street. However one cannot always tell who is gay and who is straight by sight alone, and in those cases gays who have more masculine looks are usually not picked on or abused by angry straight men. What does that tell you? Simply that the reason gays are bashed in the first place, is because volatile straight guys often feel offended at the slightest inappropriate look or glance, and are offended when someone who doesn’t accept the same sexual roles as he does when in a certain situation, or when made to feel insecure by being the brunt of an unwanted personal physical violation of space. It doesn’t really matter who did what first, because a beating can be given to one way or the other, and the offending party walking away, never to be blamed.
Men often get mad when their girlfriends are treated rudely by others, and gay males get mad when they are referred to as fags or queers, and most of the time it is not the straight person who fears a confrontation. The real nature of such violence stems from anger and insecurities about ones own sexuality or one’s anxiety when traditional social boundaries and roles are violated, or perceived to have been violated by an offended party. If a girl is rudely groped by a guy, and then is rebuffed by her, he should quit being so forward, get the message and walk away. It is very unlikely that the girl will attack him and beat him for making such a crude social offense. Its the same way with gays. Sure like anyone, some homosexual men are strong and capable of winning a fight, but much more likely the case is just the opposite and it is the gay person who is weaker and feels threatened by an other— unless overcome with anger about a crude or insulting remark, which incidentally, gay people are subjected too all the time. The wisest thing that the homosexual person should do, is just to walk away as fast as possible. And, it is very seldom the case that gay men seek confrontations with belligerent straight men. That would be foolhardy. But when someone is paranoid about his own sexual security, even an unappreciated look provides an opening for a straight guy to release his anger.
Homophobia involves the irrational idea that one’s sexual security is under threat from a gay person. Even if a gay guy waves and says something innocuous that offends, why shouldn’t you or I just walk away and ignore it—because all too often the altercation has to do with fear, paranoia and resentments that are not necessary in a world where each person respects the other. Your fascination with the perceived idea that gay people are just waiting to do offensive things, and therefore are making victims out of straight guys is cut from this mold, very unlikely and, entirely misses the point.
I wouldn’t like being groped by a guy, but rather than starting a fight and possibly a violent episode that might ensues, I’d rather walk away. Anyone can make insulting remarks or rude gestures about one thing or another—no matter what his sexual orientation or gender. But when something ugly happens as the result of someone’s blistering resentments, usually neither one is completely right or wrong, and it is the bigger man who chooses he better option and just walks away.
Political correctness, although taken to extremes at times—like anything else, is not meant as a means to repress or confine anyone’s individuality. Rather it is meant to promote respect for the dignity, pride, religious beliefs, race, or ethnic background, as well as respect for those who are biologically different from the accepted norms. To me it simply means that if a group or individual his offended by the language I use, or hurt by the sting of crude bigoted behavior, I should simply respect the feelings of that person, and grant him or her, the same dignity and right not be rudely or crudely offended. It should apply to the way one race or religion treats another as well as how on person wants to be talked to or treated by another person. It applies as much to the way gays treat straights, as to the way straight people treat gays. We are all only human and there is nothing wrong with granting someone else the gift of simple respect!
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 stealing 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.
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. 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 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.
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. 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. Finally, seeing comments on a Catholic website forums.catholic.com, 2 commenters such as Sally Butler and Joie de Vivre believe men should not have a right to defend themselves against a homosexual (transexuals are mutilated homosexuals and they must make it a crime to do sex changes) committing indecent exposure, harassment, assault and battery or other crime and condemn men who defend themselves against homosexuals committing these crimes. The thinking of posters Sally Butler and Joie de Vivre on forums.catholic.com is wrong and I think they know it. 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-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.
Peter W. Johnson, Proving when I read about a gay (transexuals are mutilated gays/lesbians) bashing case in the news, I wonder what the view is of the journalist reporting this on homosexuality/lesbianism. I also wonder if the journalist is a homosexual or lesbian and if so, 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 predictably 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 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.
Abner,
What do you do when all the facts gathered by legitimate scientific organizations do not agree with your own opinions about any controversial issue like the mental health of homosexuals and the fact that they are by far the real victims in the vast majority of bashing cases? First you deny it. Then you attempt to disprove it by offering subjective anecdotal evidence that your opinions are right, although they cannot be objectively proved. If you still fail to provide any real evidence for your personal biases, then you an always claim that honest and dedicated scientists, as well as anyone else who confronts you with the facts, are merely parts of a gay conspiracy which intends to make children gay, and eventually, the vast majority of the general population. You can also claim laws intended only to prevent violent attacks by “legitimately” angered men, who may seriously injure of kill the objects of their unreasoning prejudice, represent a threat to the free speech of those who want to openly proclaim their own hatreds and misinformed beliefs, as if they were their sacred rights! Nothing is farther from the truth!
Gay people have no interest in “making”others become like them—they only want the freedom to be themselves without fear. As William Shakespeare said, “The rest is silence.”
The defensive and unproven beliefs which you hold so dear are the product of thousands of year of hatred and fear concerning anyone who dares to be different–even if they must be beaten, killed, or intimidated into secrecy. But such dogma has gone on so long, that I doubt I, or anyone else is capable through inadequate words, of changing your mind. So have a healthy and prosperous life, and, if you ever decide to really examine the truth of your beliefs here is a link to an article that examines reality for what it is—not what anyone wants it to be! Read it if you decide that knowing the truth is worthwhile, and not just some threat to your own ideas or the security required for you to live your life–or throw it into the garbage! The choice is entirely your own, just as my commitment to the facts, however inconvenient, are also entirely up to me!:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
(EDITED VERSION OF A PREVIOUS COMMENT)
Peter W. Johnson, as with ANY assault and battery or murder cases including gay bashing cases, unless there is a pleabargain (which happens in most criminal cases) juries decide after hearing both prosecutor and defense lawyer. 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,
In a free society, the courts provide everyone with an equal opportunity to defend themselves in those courts. Any man, woman, child, religious, atheist, black, white, red, yellow, or straight of gay man have the opportunity to prove that it was they, and not some other person who was really the victim of the crime. So what is your point? I have always agreed with you about the right of anyone to defend themselves against wrongful conviction.
So if your saying that the perpetrators of beatings and crimes of aggression, are really more often gay people than straights, then where is your objective evidence. By that I mean, more than the words of religious organizations who are already assured of their bias as being right and just, and more than just the anecdotal evidence of those who describe gays as being “parasites! Also more than a listing of “research” or studies that seriously lack any solid methodology and produces biased results–often being more like polls rather than actually scientific research.
If you can provide solid evidence from police reports or court records that prove that gays are quite often the instigators in these crimes, then please do! But if you just want to provide your own beliefs that straight men have been misrepresented as aggressors, according only to your own feelings that they are not really guilty, that would be a first step. However as I said, the bias and lack of agreement concerning these issue is as old as hatred and fear itself, and just yours or my opinions are not enough. I have provided you with numerous links to valid scientific websites and provided numerous factual evidence that any belief about gays being any better or worse, sicker or healthier than anyone else, etc. is just not there. When I look up the sites that deal with the people you mention, further research invariably turns up evidence that what they say and think, very seldom include objective and verifiable evidence. But I am more than willing to admit that nothing I say has the power to change the mind of someone who doesn’t’ want their minds changed. that goes for all of us. So if you ever are able to present real scientific evidence for your prejudice then approach me with it. Other than that, have a great 4th of July and continue to be interested in seeking the truth!
Yes, Peter W. Johnson (I will comment on what you said about Jodi Ann Arias murder trial experts in the following paragraphs), I copy/paste what I have said about homosexuality on other forums because this topic has been discussed so many times and asking/saying the same things will get you the same answer. I used to be neutral on homosexuality but in 2005 changed my view . I don’t care that the American Medical Association says that homosexual/lesbian activities isn’t a disease-go ahead & cure it. 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.You can rerun again & again that homosexuality isn’t a disease, but again, I say go ahead & cure it. Unsure what else we can say because we’ll mainly repeat what we’ve said so many times already on this topic. But to what you said about Jodi Ann Arias experts.
Judge Sherry K. Stephens decided not to sequester the jury and we do not know if the jury watched the sensational murder trial on TV-there were 3 jurors who were dismissed and replaced by alternates. Just because psychologist Karen Franklin and AZ Republic reporter Michael B. Kiefer (I’ve talked to him and he is a Jodi Ann Arias apologist so his views are rubbish) speculate whether the jurors watched the sensational trial on TV, we have no proof that they and the jurors denied seeing this. Perhaps they should have been sequestered but I do not think that the media coverage would have been interesting because it is more interesting to watch a murder trial in a courtroom and make your own conclusion than to see Media commentators. I do not have Cable TV and on Internet I watched as little as I could of Nancy Ann Grace of CNN or FOX News because the most interesting thing about the trial is watching this on TV where the prosecution and defense witnesses testify.
You say that I didn’t consider what the defense experts say-well I watched Alyce L. LaViolette’s testimony, I watch Dr. Richard M. Samuels testimony and I saw Dr. RIchard M Samuels testimony. What all 3 defense experts said was mostly rubbish. The testimony of prosecution experts Dr. Janeen A DeMarte who diagnosed Jodi Ann Arias with Borderline Personality Disorder and coroner Dr. Kevin D. Horn were credible. Jodi Ann Arias was NOT a domestic violence victim so what you say about her being a domestic violence victim is fiction. Alyce L. LaViolette was arrogant and rude when she was cross examined by Prosecutor Juan M. Martinez especially when she told Juan M. Martinez that if he were in her group she would ask him to take a timeout. Alyce L. LaViolette cared about making money, but the jury including many of us who watched the murder trial found her to not be credible. Psychologist Karen Franklin and Alyce L. LaViolette both have to understand that there are many of us who watched the murder trial on Internet and the jury who convicted Jodi Ann Arias of Murder 1 that we are not going to accept what they say just because they are psychologists.
Karen Franklin and Alyce L. LaViolette are both either dishonest, delusional or both on the Jodi Ann Arias. Both have to understand that if psychologists are going to testify in a murder case and say what we think is rubbish as we saw Alyce L. LaViolette does, we will critique them and we will say their views are rubbish and do what we can legally (minus criminal threats) to see that they are understood as paid ‘experts’ who do things for money w/o regard for truth and Alyce L. LaViolette did not care about the truth. While only psychologist Karen Franklin and Alyce L. LaViolette know their motives, I believe that both psychologist Karen Franklin and Alyce L. LaViolette hate straight men, and both especially hate straight Christian White men. Alyce L. LaViolette’s a terrible witness and her arrogance and rudeness in giving testimony she knows is mostly false is why so many dislike her. My guess is that @least of the jurors who convicted Jodi Ann Arias of Murder 1 found Alyce L. LaViolette to be a joke. Alyce L. LaViolette may have during the 1970s been a qualified therapist but Alyce L. LaViolette damaged her credibility in the Jodi Ann Arias trial and she did not care for the truth, she cared about making money.
Psychologist Karen Franklin and Alyce L. LaViolette omitted the fact that Jodi Ann Arias was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder and 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 while testifying was not credible. Travis V. Alexander’s the domestic violence victim and in the end he became murder victim of Jodi Ann Arias. While in most domestic violence cases the woman is the victim where men beat up their wives or girlfriends, there are violent women and Jodi Ann Arias is a woman who abused her boyfriend and in the end murdered him. Travis Victor Alexander reported Jodi Ann Arias stalking him and slashing his tires. But it’s possible Jodi Ann Arias had committed assault & battery on Travis V. Alexander or even threatened him with a knife only Travis V. Alexander didn’t report this to his friends. 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.Men sometimes are the victim of domestic violence.
I said this above:
“But if you just want to provide your own beliefs that straight men have been misrepresented as aggressors, according only to your own feelings that they are not really guilty, that would be a first step.” It should have read:
“But if you just want to provide your own beliefs that straight men have been misrepresented as aggressors, according only to your own feelings that they are not really guilty, and instead can present me with factual evidence, that would be a first step.”
Abner,
If you think that I am trying to deny your right to hold any belief about Jodi Arias, or her lover Travis, or Ms LaViolette, or prosecutor Martinez, or any of the “anti-gay” ideologues who portray scientific facts as being somehow “pro-gay,” you are mistaken. All I am doing is responding to your claims with the information I have discovered, and pointing out that there is little real science, valid methodology, of factual evidence to back up what the “experts” you reference as being true.
In the Arias trial I have included links to websites that tell the other side of the story–a side which I personally am NOT saying proves that Arias didn’t in fact kill her lover. I just want to point out that the level of extreme violence with which the crime was carried out, is something common in cases of domestic or sexual abuse. And that witnesses familiar with domestic abuse cases would certainly be expected to affirm that fact. Neither have I ever tried to deny that Arias may have had some form of mental illness–she probably did! And, it is also quite possible that she (in some way) abused Travis. All I want to do is provide some alternate facts and speculations about the case that weren’t given full exposure during the trial, and suggesting that if these things are indeed true, then is is entirely possible that Jodi deserved some kind of mercy concerning her motivations at sentencing. And that the defense witnesses are quite correct about other factual possibilities–PTSD is a common response to intense abuse. So if Arias was abused, as expert witnesses for the defense assert, it is indeed, entirely possible, that she had been the brunt of abuse. And, when I watched the prosecuting attorney wasting tens of minutes belaboring some minor points concerning the defense witnesses testimony, I had the impression the he wanted to sensationalize this case in order to sway the jury.
There is controversy about whether trials like this, should be broadcast on pubic television since it could lend negative impressions about the case for the public to judge, and, if Jurors needed to be replaced, the pool of candidates would probably have been biased concerning a case that they had seen dramatically played out for all to see, in their own living rooms. My opinion is that trials like this, and many others, should not be televised like the next episode of Judge Judy. I think it is a shame to trivialize the justice system by reducing these cases to mere pubic interest and entertainment.
One of the things I wish you could understand is that, defense witnesses (expert of not) are very important to be heard if one intends to grant a fair trial to the accused–just as important as the fact that prosecution witnesses should be able to dispute the defendants version of event with their testimony! Since we know for certain that many convicted people have been, (decades later) found to be innocent after examining DNA evidence or having some new facts come to light, it’s very important that both sides of the issues are heard consistently and completely—simply because some of the people who end up being dragged out of court, yelling, “I’m innocent I tell you!” really are innocent.
In regards to your implications that gay people are somehow more likely to commits abuse and to become gay as the result of their own childhood abuse–that just isn’t true! And this idea has been overwhelmingly debunked by numerous valid scientific organizations and professional groups.
Whenever I visit the sites you suggest, or research some of the supposed expert professionals authorities who you provide as proof that gay people are ill or morally threatening, what I always find is faulty methodology, cherry picking, or simply opinions presented as facts. That’s why I asked you to provide concrete proof that more often it is straight people who are accosted by gay attackers, instead of the other way around. Evidence this important should be gathered form government websites and reputable journals which are less biased than openly prejudiced religious groups, and based on solid facts and statistics—I don’t think you will find such evidence very easily!
Also, if you are an American citizen who has strong ethnic bonds to Arabic or Asian cultures, the information you have relied on is probably not as accurate as that which originates from the US. Firstly, because Americans have spent centuries harboring the kind of resentments that are based on the false information which you may also have been exposed to. And, secondly, as a result of valid research, we are slowly growing out of such misinformation about gays, and becoming aware that they have as much a right to dignity and happiness as we do. Its not that we have never held views like your own, but is its significant that advancements due to the acquisition of knowledge are slowly changing our opinions—NOT desires for money, fame, or moral superiority. There is absolutely NO proof to back up such accusations, and no one I have talked to, or read the opinions of, are convincingly advancing that mythology. If you have credible proof that such accusation are based on fact, (not just speculations or anecdotal evidence) by all means let me see them. but if not, please go to this website and discover that the popular narratives behind many well known claims, are not always provable by virtue the “facts”, or even true at all!
Until then go to this website, to checkout some things that were not given fair publicity or fair exposure concerning the Arias trial. Whether the contentions discussed on this website are all absolutely true can be effectively argued about by yourself and other doubters, but I just want to use them as examples of the fact that the popular assumptions about some sensational court cases are not always completely true, nor do they provide enough evidence to convict someone for life, or to irrevocably execute them.
http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/2013/12/18/the-infamous-trial-of-candy-crush/
This phrase which I used in my previous comment, saying:
“All I am doing is responding to your claims with the information I have discovered, and pointing out that there is little real science, valid methodology, of factual evidence to back up what the “experts” you reference as being true.”
Should read something like this:
All I am doing is responding to your claims with the information I have discovered, and pointing out that there is little real science, valid methodology, or factual evidence, to back up what the “experts” you are referencing, as stating to be true about homosexuality–really is true!
Here is a link to the website about the famous hate crime murder of Matthew Sheppard:
http://www.matthewshepard.jeff-reys.com/
When I Googled, (“Have gay attackers ever beaten by straight men”), the results showed one site after another, for several pages, having to do almost exclusively with violent assaults on gay people that sometimes led to their deaths. Most of the perpetrators were offended at being approached by a gay man, and frequently dealt with the perception that they were being flirted with after the victim simply said hello, or smiled at them, by launching a violent attack! Then there were several cases where straight men were falsely perceived as being gay, and were violently assaulted for their appearance. These cases obviously reflect the fears that many insecure men have about gays!
I should of said this above:
“When I Googled, (‘Have gay attackers ever beaten straight men?’)…..That’s the way I phrased it when on Google. Sorry for all of these mistakes.
Peter W. Johnson, since you raise Metthew W. Shepard by linking to a pro-homosexual site, let me say that I again read the Book of Matt by Stephen Jimenez for the 2nd time and this time took notes reading his book-I have now read the book twice. You also gave a link to Southern Poverty Law Center and their views are rubbish as they side with gays no matter what wrong the homosexual does.
Before getting to M.W. Shepard case, what you did is rerun propaganda by homosexual groups which I do not believe. Peter W. Johnson, juries must decide each case after hearing both prosecutor and defense lawyer, but what you say 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 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. 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.
But since you mention Methew W. Shepard, when I read about a gay (transexuals are mutilated gays/lesbians) bashing case in the news, I wonder what the view is of the journalist reporting this on homosexuality/lesbianism. I also wonder if the journalist is a homosexual or lesbian and if so, 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 predictably make the homosexual look like an innocent victim no matter what wrong the gay does. In the Metthew W. Shepard case, the mainstream media left out ugly truths on who he was. When Stephen Jimenez’s Book of Matt came out in October 2013, the Huffington Post, Daily Kos & others condemned Stephen Jimenez (who is a homosexual journalist) for writing ugly truths about who M.W. Shepard was-mainly a drug dealer or courier. Casper Star Tribune covered the Shepard case and I have talked to 2 of their ex-journalists Kerry A. Drake and JC Marsden (Executive Director of Shepard Foundation)-both men leave out ugly truths on who Metthew Wayne Shepard was and Kerry A. Drake though he no longer works for Tribune along with Tiffany C. Hunt (another former CST Reporter who now runs Big Island Chronicle) continue to leave out the ugly truths of who M.W. Shepard was because their loyalty is to Laramie Project.
Kerr A. Drake, JC Marsden and Tiffany C. Hunt are portrayed in Laramie Project. Casper Star Tribune when they covered the Shepard case left out ugly truths of who the victim Methew W. Shepard was Now why Metthew Wayne Shepard was killed, only he and his killers know. The legal system convicted both men (1 with plea and 2nd with jury trial) and they are doing life sentences. But no matter why the murder happened, Metthew Wayne Shepard being killed by 2 men does not change the ugly truths of who he was & M.W. Shepard knew 1 of his murderers (A.J. McKinney). It’s not believed he 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 discloses ugly truths of who the victim was-most of it old such as him being a junky (old news), but the new information is that the victim was a drug dealer. Book of Matt by Stephen Jimenez Stephen Jimenez’s evidence are 1st party witnesses he interviewed-over 100 of them over 13 years.
Those witnesses verified Methew Wayne Shepard’s a junky (old news), drug dealer and courier-witnesses such as Mark K. Rohrbacher (former drug dealer), Shannon Shingleton and others. There are bartenders such as Elaine Baker who saw both AJ McKinney and Methew W. Shepard together, so this is verified information Methew W. Shepard was a drug junky and he went into bars where drugs were sold. Methew W. Shepard became a drug junky because antidepressants he was taking was not working and he mixed drugs-cocaine, Ecstasy and Meth with antidepressants. Methew W. Shepard had depression, PTSD and he mixed drugs with antidepressants.
Why could Methew W. Shepard have gotten involved in dealing drugs & or be a courier-$ problems-he bought them and when he had $ problems, he sold them & or was a courier-this is verified by witnesses who Stephen Jimenez interviewed. These witnesses are credible as they earn nothing saying this. Stephen Jimenez verified that Methew W. Shepard would use Doc O’Connor’s limousine services. Methew W. Shepard was living an extravagant life. His dad who is an engineer in Saudi Arabia could not have sent him enough $ to pay for it. Methew W. Shepard when he sees money problems with his drugs would likely sell some in order to make money. Stephen Jimenez in his book talks of the Denver circuit and this is the drug circuit which Metthew W. Shepard was involved with.
Near book’s end, it is incidentally mentioned that Metthew W. Shepard was a victim of child molestation by 3 different people-an adult @ his church, a friend and a relative and when Metthew W. Shepard was 15 years old, he was arrested for molesting 2 neighborhood 8 year old boys-M.W. Shepard got counseling for it. It is also incidentally mentioned that Metthew W. Shepard was involved as a witness with a May 1998 arson (Officer Flint Waters) but what his role was will never be known.
M.W. Shepard in August 1998 (2 months before his death) attempted indecent exposure on a Cody bartender and bartender defended himself by decking M.W. Shepard. The next day, M.W. Shepard falsely accused the bartender of homosexual gang rape. When medical tests disproved M.W. Shepard, the excuse Methew W. Shepard gave to cops was that he was drunk, had PTSD and could not remember. M.W. Shepard was also once banned from a bar after a drunk M.W. Shepard committed assault and battery on the bouncer by grabbing bouncer’s crotch against will. M.W. Shepard should have been arrested and convicted by jury for those 2 incidents.
With the criticism about Stephen Jimenez writing a book to make money, Judy L. Shepard and M.W. Shepard’s friend Romaine Patterson both wrote books about him. The last 2 also had interest to make money and since they are his mom and friend, they are biased and bias meddles with facts. The Shepard Foundation is a propaganda group whose main interest is to push an agenda and to make money. Judy L. Shepard, Shepard Foundation and Laramie Project making $ off the case. Stephen Jimenez incidentally mentioned in his book that M.W. Shepard had been molested by 3 different people including a distant relative. If Metthew.W. Shepard had not been a victim of repeated molestations, it’s possible M.W. Shepard would have turned out straight instead of gay. Any conduct can be learned including sexual conduct and M.W. Shepard suffering child molestation damaged his thinking and possibly caused him to behave sexually in ways he would not have had the molestation not happened. And again, Methew W. Shepard molested 2 neighborhood 8 year old boys when he was 15 years old and got counseling for it. Stephen Jimenez interviewed a relative of 1 of the boys who M.W. Shepard had molested.
Stephen Jimenez in his book did go into irrelevant topics such as an unrelated murder trial in Wyoming where a teenage girl was murdered (Daphne Saulk and the man Kevin Robison was convicted of Manslaughter), an unrelated killing in Colorado (1993 of Steve Heyman a gay psychologist), but what he said about M.W. Shepard is what he learned (though again most old news) after interviewing many witnesses. If Stephen Jimenez had been an FRC journalist, he would likely have been condemned as 1 of those Christians but Stephen Jimenez is a gay journalist. While gay groups complain about Stephen Jimenez saying the murder case is complicated, that is incidental-main reason gay groups are offended by Stephen Jimenez’s book is because he talked about the ugly truths about who M.W. Shepard was. Methew Wayne Shepard does not deserve hero worship. M.W. Shepard being a drug dealer was something he likely kept secret from his family because honestly, if a person is selling drugs, they usually aren’t going to tell their friends and family that they commit this crime. 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.
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 S. 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 S. 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 S. 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.
Abner
The first thing I’d like say is that its quite interesting that you are quick to accuse any website that reports on and supports the findings of the criminal Justice system’s decision that Mathews killers and the information provided by the Laramie project, are correct, as merely propaganda from “pro-homosexual” sites. Yet by the same token you judge the reporting of Stephen Jimenez as being beyond reproach. You believe this even though throughout Jimenez’s book he repeatedly makes use of sources which he claims are valid—just because he says so! He specifically reports about a letter from a “concerned citizen” which supposedly was sent to prosecutor Carl Rerucha as well as the (anonymous) testimony from many other “witnesses,” and totally ignores the established facts reported by Local law enforcement officials and others who testified during McKinney’s and Henderson’s trial. But, in fact, he bases much of the anonymous testimony from many other witnesses, on “facts” that were really never proven, or were reported only by those whose identities are never revealed. As such, it is a typically deceptive effort made by someone with questionable motives, to discredit numerous eye witnesses who testified otherwise during the actual trial. And, the testimony given by those mentioned in the Laramie project are quoted in red throughout the article. As such it is documented, quoted, and easily verified by police reports and records of the trial. Yet Jimenez disputes much of this documented testimony by consistently relying on unsubstantiated, anonymous, and unproven statements from many dubious sources. So essentially we are taking his word as adequate proof about the “facts” he reports. However we also know that the Governor of Wyoming, Jim Derringer reported that Matthew’s parents said:
“Don’t rush into passing all kinds of new hate-crimes laws. Be very careful of any changes and be sure you’re not taking away rights of others in the process to race to this.”
Strange, coming from a loved one you claim is only motivated by money!Yet despite such incredible tolerance on the part of Matthew’s grieving father, you are eager to claim that Matthew’s parents were only interested in money when they helped publish a book about their son’s brutal killing! Has it ever occurred to you, that as grief stricken parents, they may have wanted the world to know what really happened, in the hopes that nothing like it would happen again?
Contrarily, Jimenez may have had clear monetary motivations to publish his alleged expose, and may also have had homosexual conflicts in his own psyche which remained unresolved and could have been responsible for Jimenez’s effort to support the discredited idea that McKinney had a legitimate “gay panic,” response that made him not responsible for the violence that was done during Sheppard’s brutal murder. In any case, the evidence that Jimenez bases his book on, consists of heavily unproven and anecdotal evidence, that is either untrue, unverified, or not provable by undocumented words from his his many anonymous “sources.”
You cannot decide a trial based on unconfirmed statements from unknown witnesses, or cherry picked information that is not even proven to be valid. For example, the testimony from chauffeur, “Doc O’conner,” which was used to verify a gay relationship between McKinney and Sheppard in Jimenez’s novel was far from definite. What O’conner actually said was, “Matt MAY have been one of the guys in the back (of the Limo) with Aaron. I CAN’T SAY FOR SURE.” Yet as part of his story Jimenez uses this unsubstantiated hearsay evidence as positive proof that a sexual relationship existed between Matthew and McKinney. One of the only sources he does name, is that of Glenn Duncan, a disbarred attorney who lost his law license after allegations of misusing clients funds! Do you suppose that a man like Duncan may have actually been motivated by money when affirming Jimenez’s unfounded suspicions about the Sheppard trial—perhaps more so than a pair of grieving parents who wanted to world to know what happened to their son—especially since McKinney himself has repeatedly denied being bi-sexual or having any link to Sheppard before the night of the attack! Yet Jimenez cites that “ten different sources,” have acknowledged that they have been in the company of both men together, or that they learned from Matthew himself about his supposedly gay relationship with Aaron.” So, considering that he has also said that his witnesses are meth addicts struggling to recover from addiction, is it really credible that this anecdotal evidence about an unproven relationship is considered to be so beyond questioning by Jimenez—when coming from very questionable witnesses?
Furthermore Jimenez used (once more) unnamed sources to explain why McKinney and his girlfriend stated that Sheppard’s sexual orientation was an important factor in the crime—even though this girlfriend, Kristen Price, granted a television interview in which she stated that, McKinney and Henderson, “Just wanted to beat (Sheppard) up bad enough to teach him a lesson not to come on to STRAIGHT people.” But McKinney once again (without real proof) spun the idea that Price’s interview, as well as “McKinney’s “gay panic” defense, were a concocted scheme devised to cover up their own use and selling of drugs like meth”! But is this really a logical way to clear McKinney of such a crime? By implicating him as a murderer, who even after being imprisoned for years, (long after the crime was committed) continues to describe himself as a “homofobick,” and even after his gay panic defense cannot ever possibly be used to free him? And, aren’t McKinney’s frequent use of the terms (fag and queer), to describe Sheppard in his confession—both derogatory and demeaning slang words commonly used to insult gay people?—hardly a logical way to describe someone who, as Jimenez claimed, was McKinney’s lover, and since a person using a “gay panic” defense is very likely to speak ill of homosexuals—just as McKinney actually did!
Then there is the fact that Jimenez accused detective Debree of conducting duplicitous investigation which resulted in determining that neither McKinney or Henderson had used Meth for two weeks before the attack, thereby laying to rest reports from McKinney about being an unwitting victim having a bad drug reaction, which then caused him to kill Sheppard? The fact is that Aaron McKinney has changed his story many many times and the only thing he has consistently claimed, is that he didn’t know Matt beforehand!
In previous posts you belabor the fact that Sheppard may have been a drug user, as well as the claim that he knew McKinney before the attack took place, and, that he was a “junkie” and a drug dealer. However, like so many other young men of that time, Sheppard may have used drugs like Marijuana, or tried other drugs, but there is really only hearsay or anecdotal evidence relied on heavily by Jimenez as “proof” that Matthew dealt methamphetamine or, that he had a previous gay relationship with McKinney. Even if there HAD been directly verifiable sources which could Establish that these claims were factual, let’s remember that the trial was not about whether Sheppard used drugs, or even about the possibility that he might have supposedly dealt them—the trial was meant to establish whether or not McKinney and Henderson knowingly beat and abducted Sheppard, and then cruelly left him hung on a fence to die! And, Henderson’s own DEFENSE attorney, Tim Newcomb, has released a statement defending the professionalism of law enforcement officials and officials who ruled out meth as a factor in the crimes.
About how the case was decided–quote provided by the website I referenced about Project Laramie:
“Before the jury could hear opening arguments in McKinney’s death penalty trial, trial watchers were stunned when McKinney agreed to serve life in prison without parole and promised never to appeal his conviction, and thereby avoided the death penalty. The jury was prepared to begin hearing arguments Thursday, November 4, 1999 on whether McKinney should get the death penalty or life in prison. Instead he accepted a deal that his lawyers had proposed to prosecutors and Shepard’s parents. “I will never get over Judy Shepard’s capacity to forgive, ” prosecutor Cal Rerucha said.”
Abner, It is also quite irrational of you to automatically accept the many uses of hearsay and anecdotal evidence provided by Jimenez’s supposed sources, especially since the discredited theory about McKinney’s relationship with Matthew changed many times during his testimony and, he had tried to use a “gay panic” defense to clear himself of the charges. This is completely inconsistent with your automatic rejection of the theory that Jodi Arias was a victim of domestic abuse, as proffered by defense witnesses in her case. Remember, witnesses like Ms Laviolette based their opinions on factual knowledge about the role that domestic and sexual abuse play in cases where extreme violence is involved. But apparently, a bunch of unproven claims about unproven events that are backed up only by anecdotal and hearsay evidence, perfectly justify using essentially the same defense to explain the role of McKinney’s state of mind, while credible testimony from defense witnesses in the Arias trial who correctly affirmed the possibility that extremely violent attacks often indicate cases where the accused has suffered extreme personal abuse at the hands of his or her tormentors, are not considered acceptable by you as being just as valid!
In the second paragraph of your July 6th post about Matthew, you immediately make the claim that the opinion of organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center, are “rubbish, as they side with gays no matter what wrong the homosexual does.” I beg to differ! In cases like this, those accused of gay-bashing—which in this case led to a brutal murder, are given every opportunity to use facts about the case in order to exonerate themselves from convictions. That also goes for the defendants in other kinds of cases were our courts are devised to apply the law equally no matter what the alleged crimes may be, or who is accused of committing them. McKinney and Henderson were given every opportunity to adequately defend themselves and had access to legal aid, but McKinney VOLUNTARILY accepted a plea deal, instead of risking being tried further about the inclusion of a death penalty. This was an agreement which allowed in order to protect him from the ultimately worst form of sentencing, and to keep him from being executed. This was done to allow him to use his legal right to take a plea deal. It was NOT a deliberate blunder on the part of his defense attorney!
After hearing how eager you are to discredit any group or organization which exists to protect the rights of gays, it is amazing and incredible how you also so easily accept the non-scientific claims made by organizations that are often religiously based, or fail to apply research in objectively convincing ways, And, It’s also amazing how you automatically accuse theories that include real facts and established testimony, as implicating that these are only“pro-gay” groups which merely want to make false claims to advance a, “gay agenda?”
So, Could you tell me Abner, if there are ANY reputable scientific groups that offer objective information about human sexuality? Do you deny all of them even though their research is upheld by scientists from all around the world who are of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds and, obviously, possess various religious and social beliefs? Are you implying that ALL of them are unreliable?–even though they provide verifiable evidence that is supported by peer-reviewed research, rather than the endless list of lies and misinformation supplied by many so-called “scientists,” which is almost always based on hearsay and anecdotal evidence? Can you provide me with just one body of research done about his issue which makes use of verifiable knowledge—not just the insistence of journalists like Jimenez who only say that, “they know someone,” or, “have a reliable source,” or were “told by someone,” about a cover-up existing? And if you consider the idea that reputable scientist are all lying about, or lack convincing evidence to prove the contrary, does this mean you also object to all the proven knowledge gained from using the scientific method in the same way, to gain real knowledge about many other issues? Do you just reject the findings of Almost all American scientific, psychological, social, or academic organizations, the police force, the court system, corrupt judges, local, state and federal governments, the UN, or all human right organizations, as also being complicit in the massive cover up which would have to be in force, in order to confirm your many forms of logically faulty evidence? Do the words of McKinney’s own defense attorney, prove that, McKinney did indeed, target Sheppard for being gay, or do they only represent the fantasies of a lawyer, who is scheming (for some unknown reasons) to spread this alternate and totally unproven view of a hate crimes? Are Matthew’s own parents, who urged those involved in the investigation not to rush to judgments which might threaten the rights of others, before making any determinations, only motivated by greed for money, rather than the sincere and understandable desire to prevent crimes like this from happening again? Can you grasp the significance of the completely subjective world you are creating?
How long must I repeat to you that scientific organizations are not political—They do not exist to arbitrarily support the views of others, or, even of their fellow scientists? Does it follow that a scientific organization that makes medical breakthroughs is only trying to be “pro-medicine,” or that a mathematician who teaches a class in Algebra or trigonometry, is only trying to push a “pro-math” agenda? Is every historian who writes about the battles which occurred in in the Civil War, or in WWII, only scheming to advance a “pro-war history” agenda? Of course not! IT’S ABOUT KNOWLEDGE, not one supposed agenda over another!
You force me to say over and over again, that, virtually no scientists works just to falsify research in order to support some political or social end. And rather, that they are primarily interested in truth and verifiable facts—not any personal agenda’s coming from themselves or any of their colleagues who, although representative of many different religious and cultural backgrounds, (according to you) somehow totally agree about specific covert political goals?
While I have continuously referenced knowledgeable scientists who provide verifiable facts, and who would willingly change their own findings if new research indicated their original findings were wrong, you continue promoting delusional claims and false information that are not provable and often completely without merit. These are mistaken claims that are spread by people using very questionable methodologies, only to arrive at conclusions that are frequently supported only by hearsay and/or anecdotal evidence!
Please don’t cop-out by using your usual “catch-22” defense, and, continually re-pasting the many dubious and unsupported statements that you continuously make. If you ever have any real evidence, let me know. And, If you ever decide to quit projecting your own faults onto researcher who are supposedly wrong, (just because you disagree with them), please let me know!
Most people who are supplied with valid critiques about such concocted proofs, are well aware of where the truth really lies as well as where it is being distorted. Yet you continue to spread ignorance and fear, by circulating falsehoods coming from biased or pseudo-social scientists, or from religious groups, which are really making up their talking points as they go. You have every right to your opinions even if they ignore all of the solid facts, but you are NOT allowed to make up your own facts while denying the mountains of evidence that are in clear disagreement with your opinions!
Abner,
Here is a direct quote from Russel Henderson’s girl friend, Chastity Pasely, concerning how he and the other perpetrator, McKinney, tried to get their stories straight in order to deflect suspicion, You can find it at the website I listed in my previous comment:
During testimony, Pasley told jurors that Henderson and McKinney got together after the beating “so they could get their stories straight. I knew that they beat somebody up and he was tied,” she said. Pasley and Price also arranged to get their stories straight by at first telling police that the two women watched movies together the night of the attack and knew nothing of it. McKinney sat back in his chair at the defense table and smiled briefly when Ms. Pasley pointed to him.
Please read the entire account, and then tell me why gay people are so dangerous and how straight men are usually the unfortunate victims of their vile flirtations? Who are really the vile men in this true account, as well as in countless other hate crimes?
Peter W. Johnson, these are my final thoughts on Jodi Ann Arias because I watched the murder trial and she is guilty of Murder 1 and a jury convicted her of Murder 1. I support the right of both prosecutor and defense lawyers to call witnesses and jury decides which witnesses are credible. If a witness is not credible, the jury concludes. In Jodi Ann Arias case, the prosecution experts were credible while the defense experts were not. Also 1 thing to know is that jurors are ordinary people & how they view witnesses. If a witness comes off as arrogant and unlikeable, then jury can dislike them that can work against a side.
With the prosecution-witnesses such as Dr. Janeen A. DeMarte who diagnosed Jodi Ann Arias with Borderline Personality Disorder and who rejected Dr. Richard M. Samuels diagnosis of PTSD, coroner Dr. Kevin David Horn, Detective Esteban Flores and others-they were credible and they were likeable witnesses. Prosecutor Juan M. Martinez did an excellent job connectingn with jury.
With the defense-The 2 defense lawyers Jennifer L. Wilmott and L.Kirk Nurmi are doing their jobs as is the Mitigation Specialist because their job is to give their client the best representation and I won’t fault defense lawyers for doing their job no matter how bad their client is. Now to the defense witnesses-Dr. Richard M. Samuels & Dr. Robert A. Geffner the 2 defense witnesses who testified were not credible, but they were not arrogant and not dislikeable. They did it for money and did not care for truth, but @least those 2 were not arrogant, but they could not be taken seriously because what they said is wrong. Both of them while being critiqued did not get the same hostile reactions as Alyce L. LaViolette got which gets to her.
Alyce L. LaViolette in the beginning when testifying about domestic violence in general was alright-she started out credibly when she talked of domestic violence in general and yes, most domestic violence cases are committed by men against their wives and girlfriends. But in Jodi Ann Arias case, it was Jodi Ann Arias who abused Travis. As the trial went on, especially on cross examination, she was arrogant, rude because she did not care for truth in this case but mainly cared about money. She revictimized Travis V. Alexander in front of his family by saying Travis abused Jodi when it was Jodi Ann Arias who abused Travis. Alyce L. LaViolette’s dislikeable as a witness-what she said is mostly false and she’s a bad witness as Jodi Ann Arias-Jodi Ann Arias also came off to the jury and to many who watched the trial as not credible and dislikeable.
From the Jodi Ann Arias murder trial-after Jodi Ann Arias, Alyce L. LaViolette has been bashed the most on different Internet sites because her arrogance and rudeness is what makes her dislikeable. To be arrogant and believe you are right is bad enough-but @least you think you are right. But when you are arrogant even when you know you are wrong, that is going to get hostility. Alyce L. LaViolette’s arrogant and knows she is wrong on Jodi Ann Arias or Alyce L. LaViolette is delusional in her think or both. Peter W. Johnson, the best way to understand the Jodi Ann Arias murder trial is to watch the trial, not read commentaries (pro or con). Since much of Jodi Ann Arias murder trial is still on YouTube (unless they removed them), then what I can suggest is watch the trial. I watched 70% or so of the trial esp. when key witnesses testified for both sides and the prosecution is credible. Jodi Ann Arias lawyers are not believed to call Alyce L. LaViolette as a witness if prosecutor Juan M. Martinez decides pursue a 2nd jury trial to decide if Jodi Ann Arias gets life in prison or the death penalty because both her lawyers and Alyce L. LaViolette know that Alyce L. LaViolette’s not credible and her arrogance is why so many dislike her. Alyce L. LaViolette’s wrong and being arrogant and is why she is disliked. My guess would be that some of the jurors who convicted Jodi Ann Arias do not like Alyce L. LaViolette.
Abner,
I agree with much of what you said, and I am glad that you accept the rights of both the prosecution and defense to give their testimony according to what they believe happened. If that doesn’t happen, none of us could be sure of receiving a fair trial if, at some time in our lives, we are in trouble with the law and need fair and equitable representation.
I did watch quite a few video clips about the trial at the websites I visited, and, I must say that I don’t share your opinion of Ms LaViolette’s demeanor. To me she seemed to be trying to offer an educated opinion, while Martinez seemed to want only to doggedly discredit everything she said–including the many emails which someone in her position should be required to read, and, should then be able to form an opinion about the people who wrote them. Martinez didn’t seem to respect this natural kind of inquiry at all, and belabored many points that really were not significant at all i.e. forming an opinion about significant emails and then making a judgement call based on one’s personal experiences with numerous abuse cases, in no way implies that LaViolette considered herself to be a perfect lie detector. That’s only Martinez’s claim and something he tried to convey in order to destroy the real credibility which LaViolette had as a result of working in the field of her expertise, and also because of her examination of the emails. If she ignored these things when making professional evaluations, (for Jodi or anyone else), she would not be doing her job!
To me Martinez seemed far too dominating and rude to Ms LaViolette, while he exaggerated the significance of particularly petty points while trying to convince the jury that she had no basis for making any evaluations based on those emails at all!
I also am in total agreement that Jodi might have been the abuser in the relationship. But if one accepts the testimony of other experts who pointed out her mental illness, and affirmed the idea that she could very well have been dealing with PTSD, then I should think that one should also respect the possibility that Arias was not really the aggressor. To me uncertain possibilities like these, beg to be considered before the jury rules and before a final decision is made about a defendants punishment or sentencing–how could it not?
I disagree about the importance of reading written material from journalists and bloggers,and not just watching television and videos, because both the defense and prosecuting attorneys have a need to confine their arguments to those aspects of a case that they feel will work in the best interests of their clients, and, if one watches only video coverage one will most likely never see a large number of other vital bit of evidence which are very relevant to the case. However, much of this other information can be discussed or be discovered by examining written accounts, as well as serve to provide insight about which facts are true, and which are merely the results from clever Attorneys who are determined to win (whether a defendant is actually guilty or not)!
You always claim to be open minded about this case, yet you frequently base your criticisms on assumptions about who is actually telling the truth or not–yes, you have a right to feel the way you do about any given witness, but just liking or disliking them, has little to do with deciding how Ms Arias, should be sentenced. Originally you seemed angered that defense witnesses even gave testimony which portrayed Arias as an abused person at all, and you consistently included comments that unquestionable portrayed your own beliefs as being true beyond a shadow of a doubt. For example—this from your recent post:
“But in Jodi Ann Arias case, it was Jodi Ann Arias who abused Travis. As the trial went on, especially on cross examination, she was arrogant, rude because she did not care for truth in this case but mainly cared about money.”
In other words you are expressing outrage about the testimony of LaViolette, on the basis of her being WRONG. But you don’t know that for a fact—at least as far as whether Jodi’s probable mental illness, PTSD, or her extremely violent assault on Travis could really corroborate the theory that she had been abused. The point is that (whether correct in Jodi’s case or not) all of these things can be important signs that someone is in an abusive relationship! You also go on to say that Ms. IaViolette cared mainly about money–not the truth. However although she may have received some income by virtue of being a professional witness, since she has the qualification of having an educated opinion, she would have been committing perjury if agreeing to say things that weren’t true, or, because someone else paid her to agree with that person’s own biased views. Do you really think that Juan Martinez would leave any stone un-turned in order to reveal such a deliberate lie from the defense, or that, the judge would overlook the possibility that she was paid off? Instead you offer your judgement as absolute truth, even though you cannot produce real factual evidence that LaViolette did, indeed lie—other than the fact that some people accused her of lying, and because you personally believe she did? In reality, there is absolutely NO evidence that she cared mainly about making money before giving her testimony, or, that she accepted a bribe or some other form of monetary compensation–if their were, she would probably be sitting in jail right now for attempting such a serious and foolish crime!
Abner, you have stated your unproven opinions over and over as we continue this dialogue, as if merely saying that these opinions are true, is enough to make them that way.
We all have biases which cause us to believe one witness or another, but we are not talking about Jodi’s guilt or innocence just because each of us may have an opinion. What we are talking about is the possibility–THE POSSIBILITY—that her state of mind might be relevant to the defenses claim that she actually was abused.
I respect your opinions on this matter, but I don’t believe that you have any absolute knowledge what really transpired between Jodi and Travis. And, if you read other accounts about he trial, you will find that there are many legitimate reasons to doubt that what Martinez wanted the jury to believe, was undeniably true–in fact there is very much evidence that Ms Arias was the person suffering from abuse. And no, I am not saying that this possibility should be exploited just to let a guilty person go free, or avoid the punishment that he or she really deserves—only that is is very reasonable information to consider before a sentence is finalized. Our legal system prohibits he use of “cruel and unusual punishment,” so if Jodi was abused, it is only right that the Jury should be aware of this reak possibility before delivering its verdict.
I can understand why you might have a different impression about the credibility of any given witness, but what I can’t understand is your apparent outrage at the mere fact that Ms LaViolette did her job and called it like she believed it happened? No one who took the stand, and no who argued for or against Ms Arias, is God. Therefore none of us should be contents with judging guilt or innocence based only on personal impressions. Even our worst enemies deserve a fair chance for the best defense possible, and in order to do that, it is important that both sides be able to produce corroborative witnesses.
The fact that the Jury wasn’t sequestered (during such a sensationalist trial) could not help but influence their perceptions of the case–especially after witnessing damning opinions about anyone’s guilt or innocence based on what they hear on the nightly news. As I said—I think among all the variables pro or con, the idea of publicly broadcasting a trial like this is the most inappropriate idea possible. Sure a good attorney got someone like OJ Simpson off the hook. But a good attorney can also enable a verdict of guilty become a reality. So none of us has the right to think that every verdict in every controversial trial, should be considered as absolutely right or wrong, without also considering both side of the allegations. Excess media attention tends to help to determine a defendant’s guilt or innocence in the court of public opinion, based on nothing but hearsay and prosecutorial hubris. Ms LaViolette was not threatened or harassed just because she did, or didn’t, tell the truth. More likely, people who agree with you, decided to threaten her based only on the way she came across on television! If we believe in justice, we should be able to do better than that!
Peter W. Johnson, with your last post critiquing Stephen Jimenez. I will rebut what you said about Stephen Jimenez but rest of your post after you discussed Stephen Jimenez was so long & quite dull. But with your critique of Stephen Jimenez’s Book of Matt-you didn’t say anything that I didn’t already hear before. I’m guessing that you did not read the Book of Matt but reran what JC Marsden (Methew Shepard Foundation & who is a friend of the late M.W. Shepard), Huffington Post, Daily Kos & others who did not read the book say because they hate the ugly truths Stephen Jimenez found about Methew W. Shepard being a junky (old news), drug dealer or courier and who incidentally molested 8 year old boys when he was 15 years old but got counseling for this crime by Natrona County Juvenile Court. Stephen Jimenez originally was going to do a screenplay on the Shepard case and he first believed the narrative but after investigating, he changed his view because he learned it’s more complicated. Again Stephen Jimenez is himself a homosexual and he is honest with what he said about Methew W. Shepard. Homosexual groups have also tried to censor Stephen Jimenez’s Book of Matt because they hate what he found. Yes, he makes money writing a book, but Shepard Foundation
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. Judy L. Shepard and M.W. Shepard’s friend Romaine Patterson both wrote books about him. The last 2 also had interest to make money and since they are his mom and friend, they are biased and bias meddles with facts. 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 $. There has been controversy over students saying things which offended Laramie Project as what happened in Ole Miss where college students heckled a Laramie Project play. The criticism people make about the comments made on Methew W. Shepard is that it is talking about a dead person who can’t defend himself. Well it was the gay groups who have been pushing hero worship. They raised the topic, so we have the right to tell ugly truths of who M.W. Shepard was. Methew W. Shepard was a drunkard (possibly alcoholic) and junky who mixed alcohol and drugs with anti-depressants. M.W. Shepard had a secret life as a drug dealer which Stephen Jimenez learned after interviewing many people.
And again, Methew W. Shepard molested 2 neighborhood 8 year old boys when he was 15 years old and got counseling for it. Stephen Jimenez interviewed a relative of 1 of the boys who M.W. Shepard had molested.
Why Metthew W. Shepard was killed-Stephen Jimenez said it’s impossible to know what was in A.J. McKinney’s mind as before killing Shepard, he had beaten another man who was a drug dealer and that after beating M.W. Shepard to coma, he got into a fight with 2 men (possibly gangsters) who were vandalizing cars. A.J. McKinney’s a drug dealer and junky who damaged his brain from Meth. It’s impossible to know why he did it. Yes, he made those comments but Stephen Jimenez said that given that he would be killed in prison if he discussed the drug related activities, his lawyers raised the panic to keep attention away. AJ McKinney also used ethnic slurs to refer to Blacks but Stephen Jimenez said that this is because AJ McKinney liked gangsta rap and he imitated rap lyrics which use these slurs.
But 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 so it is not hearsay or rumor as the Shepard Foundation says. I don’t think these witnesses are lying because they gain nothing saying this. The weak criticism is that Stephen Jimenez interviewed drug dealers, junkies, and that he went into bars where drugs were sold, to learn about M.W. Shepard being a drug dealer. That is who Stephen Jimenez would have to interview to learn this. M.W. Shepard being a junky is old news as he had told his friends such as Tina LaBrie about his drug problems and M.W. Shepard’s lover Tristan (Ted) Henson admits that M.W. Shepard used drugs and that he knew 1 of his killers. M.W. Shepard being a drug dealer was something he likely kept secret from his friends and family because honestly, if a person is selling drugs, they usually aren’t going to tell their family that they commit this crime. Even if Metthew 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.
M.W. Shepard had a secret life as a drug courier/dealer because he had $ problems & his friend Tina LaBrie was concerned about his drug junkyism, suicidal thoughts and $ problems. It is a fact that 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. But 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. With the rest of your post Peter W. Johnson, that just reruns.
I don’t care that the American Medical Association says that homosexual/lesbian activities isn’t a disease-go ahead & cure it. 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.You can rerun again & again that homosexuality isn’t a disease, but again, I say go ahead & cure it. But to your critique of Stephen Jimenez.
Abner,
The words in red in the Laramie report are direct quotes from people who testified about the crime, knew Matthew personally, and from a grieving mother. They also include comments from police officials, Court officials, and the testimony of the people who were at the bar that night. As such they are documented parts of the public record are easily ascertainable. The book written by Jimenez was full of claims from unknown witnesses and sources, which were never named or revealed to the public, so we ultimately have only Stephan’s words as proof of his words. It is not a quality piece of journalism by any means, and it brings up some puzzling points that confuse those on both sides of the issues.
Contrary to your belief that I have read little of the thoughts written by those who find Jimenez’s credible, I have spent the last few days reading comments in favor of Jimenez’s story, and I have also read impassioned critiques of The book of Matt, and, although the story does bring up some puzzling truths on either side, this comment from Alyssa Rosenberg, is one that stays in my mind:
“If you want to prove a controversial theory about a story that’s become deeply embedded in accepted history, and to suggest that you have more integrity than your critics, it helps to impeccably document your claims. But the problems with Jimenez’s ethics begin in the Author’s Note that begin The Book of Matt. “Though this is a work of nonfiction journalism, I have occasionally employed methods that are slightly less stringent to re-create the dialogue of characters — words I did not personally hear; nor could the characters themselves recall every word exactly from memory,” he explains. “But my intention throughout has been to remain faithful to the actual characters and events as they really happened.” This is a dubious practice to employ at all, but Jimenez compounds the problem by not distinguishing which quotations are manufactured from recollections, which are paraphrases recounted by sources, and which were spoken directly to him.”
Think about it! Jimenez is an investigative reporter and he knows very well that in order to write a convincing story one must include facts and quotes that are provable and documented. So why would he leave out the names of so many sources, that should have been mentioned? I can’t believe that everyone in Laramie (including many of those Stephen interviewed) were so scared to death of a criminal underworld that they would fear even mentioning an involvement with drugs, on Matthew’s part. In a small town most people know more about what is happening than you would think. And since small towns feature watering holes (Bars) where many of them congregate, people who made statements about the relationship between Matthew and McKinney, may actually have only seen them in the same room and then, believed and repeated gossip about such a relationship. So, in this case you would think that witnesses of Jimenez would at least name themselves without fearing being “bumped off” by drug lords or ostracized just for personally witnessing a gay relationship. And why were there also witnesses who claimed never seeing Matthew and McKinney together, or flirting in a gay way? They certainly should not have felt endangered just by repeating everyday gossip, nor would they be likely to commit perjury for money! The unknowns were glaring. So why would Jimenez not have fully explained his need of secrecy in the novel itself? Why wait until being interviewed much later?
Another thing that impressed me about the details the making of the Laramie project, which included direct quotes highlighted in red, was this one from Judy Sheppard, about the fact that she didn’t want anyone to mythologize Matthew:
“In the Vanity Fair issue, Mrs. Shepard said that her son had suffered periodic clinical depression and had been taking an antidepressant and an anti-anxiety drug. She described her son as a sometimes-naive young man who was often too trusting for his own good. ‘It’s a very frightening concept as a parent that your son now becomes a martyr, a public figure for the world. He’s just our son,’ Mrs. Shepard stated. She said she was disturbed that some sympathizers had compared her son to Jesus Christ. “You must understand, it’s like putting him on a pedestal that just won’t work. I’m concerned that if people find out he wasn’t a saint, they’ll be disappointed or angry or hate him,’ Mrs. Shepard declared”.
Not only does she openly admit that Matthew was taking medications for anxiety and depression, which you think is some kind of deep dark secret feared by the Shepard’s, but she knew that if Matthew was perceived a only human and if people realized his ordinary humanity, they would dislike him. And, it would seem by openly making this statement, she wasn’t afraid to admit to his faults in public.
Abner, I think no matter what ideologies and philosophies we gravitate too, all of us are aware of people who seem larger than life, or somehow epitomize everything right about humanity. Even if such illusions aren’t true, it is natural to have those feelings and they don’t mean that anything said about Matt, or not said about Matt,should be automatically rejected as being unfounded. Neither should it distract us from facing our common humanity. So, even though we sometimes put people on a pedestal or knock them off of one, this tendency isn’t proof positive of any particular facts being true or not.
Yes there are interesting statements about Matt’s problems, just as there are 400 hours of recorded testimony from friends of Matthew as well as law enforcement officials, Lawyers, and local media. So here too it is unlikely that all, or even any of these statements are lies.
Although I have tried to honestly tell you about my feelings about this controversy, you occasionally see fit to insult me by claiming that my comments are boring. But interesting, you do not respond to specific points made by scientific and social institutions that humanize gays by truthfully reporting their findings because you see them as merely advancing some kind of “pro-gay” ideology. In fact you summarily dismiss virtually every bit of valid research as merely representing lies from those who are somehow only interested in money, but when I bring up the obvious fact that Jimenez himself could have been motivated by greed or fame, you utterly dismiss any such possibility.
I honestly don’t know what a “pro-gay agenda,” or a “pro-gay ideology” is? And I don’t know why something could not be gained simply by conducting verifiable research and discovering that the terrible traits you think are so prevalent in gays, are really statistically identical or very similar, in all kinds of other fallible and imperfect human beings? One thing for certain, is that if you accuse me of being biased, then you must also admit that you also, cling to pre-conceived ideas, and refuse new input—and are therefore also biased.
What really bothers me is the way you demonize Matthew, by insinuating that he was corrupt for being involved in drugs like so many others young people are! Do really think that any of the scandals attributed to Matthew—including the use drugs (dealing is not so clear) or the fact that he was gay, makes a crime of hate (or extreme hatred) something that any person deserves.
Matthew wasn’t just beaten, he was taken from a bar and brutally attacked! He was viciously assaulted! He was strapped to a fence post, beaten, and pistol whipped Until his brain stem was crushed. If that weren’t enough, he appeared to have been tortured! His shoes were removed on a cold snowy night, so that his feet would freeze. He was left on that fence post for hours, and, it took him five days to die at the hospital. His killers were tried in a court of law and confessed, and were justly found guilty of murder!
We can argue for hours whether this was a hate crime or not, but when such a brutal attack comes from a man who at first complains about being angered by inappropriate gay advances from Matt and then changes his story into one of “gay panic”—even though he was said to have been previously sexually active with Shepard, and then changed his story many times to what ever would be an advantage, the only thing I can conclude is that HE was the lying and hating one. If you want to punish someone for ruining a drug deal, you don’t have to pistol whip him into a pulp and leave him hanging for hours on a fence! You don’t have to torture your victim to death! All you have to do is punch him in the nose, or knock him down, and maybe steal his money. Yet, when McKinney basically tried to use an insanity defense which you vigorously refused to believe made Jodi Arias violently kill, you are also fully willing to believe drugs and mental instability on the part of McKinney are proper arguments in favor of the same idea!
I don’t believe I read the Huffington Post’s articles or the others you mention. But the many websites on which I read reviews of Jimenez’s book were obviously written by people who read the book. How can anyone critique a book without first reading at least a large part of it? Certainly no one providing an intelligent review of that book as part of their professional work!
The witnesses who revealed details about Matthews alleged drug dealing, were said by Jimenez to be recovering from drug addiction. So, if they existed, their words would not be very reliable in court. I also doubt that much of what Jimenez’s witnesses supposedly said are actually undocumented. If they weren’t the controversy about his book would already have been resolved, and, despite your cruel suggestion that Matthews parents are only interested In making money off of his story, I would guess that all or most of the money goes directly into a fund for preventing hate crimes like that which happened to Mathew. How else can one finance a large foundation which needs to organize countless lectures and public appearances, in addition to the many other programs that must be financed in an organization which exists to end hate crimes? Whether one happened in Laramie or not, how can you be so blind a to think a grieving mother is greedy for wanting prevent even one from happening again?
Like you should I just dismiss everything you bring up because I consider you to be pursuing a “pro-hate crime” agenda? Aren’t you also opposed to hate crimes? If they do occur shouldn’t a caring mother be able to try and end them? I just don’t see how you can ignore all of that and be so cruel and indifferent to human suffering and human fallibility!
I am going to end this letter with one of the most intelligent comments I found online when researching Jimenez and the issues brought up in The Book of Matt. It’s posted in The New Inquiry by Frederick Deboer in an article called, “Kill your Martyrs:”
“What, ultimately, is true about what happened in Laramie? I don’t know, and neither does Stephen Jimenez, and neither do his vitriolic critics. But I feel confident in the following: Someone who was innocent of anything immoral, as opposed to illegal, was intentionally and brutally murdered. His murderers were possessed, at the time, of some degree of homophobia, whether those feelings included the self-hatred of McKinney or not. The victim was forced to live in an unrepentently homophobic country, one which refuses to meaningfully address the physical vulnerability of its unjustly targeted gay population and which was thus tacitly implicated in his murder. He died for no reason, and his killers deserve to spend the rest of their lives in jail. All that is true.”
“I also doubt that much of what Jimenez’s witnesses supposedly said are actually undocumented.”
I should have said:
“I also doubt that much of what Jimenez’s witnesses supposedly said are actually documented.”
I have not been to Russia, but with gay bashings which are happening in Russia, media version can’t be trusted. Though what the Russian men did was assault and battery, the media gave 1/2 truths by saying the Russian men (calling them neo-Nazis with no proof) bashed gays and put the images on Internet, but here’s what most media omitted though some have now raised it. The Russian men who were bashing gays had pretended to be 15 year old boys on Internet by going on gay websites. Gays looking for teenage boys on Internet replied and set up places to meet them, but instead the gays got bashed by men pretending to be 15 year old boys. Yes, what the Russian men did is vigilanteism for which they should do jail time because right thing to do is to report this to cops and let the cops arrest the gays for soliciting minors and then hopefully the legal system will convict the gays and send them to prison.
But these gays who were bashed did commit a crime by looking for teenage boys on Internet and instead got bashed by men who pretended to be the teenage boys, so I have no sympathy for the gays bashed here. If a man were looking for teenage girls on Internet but instead got bashed by a mob, many would say the man was a disgusting pig looking for underage girls. Gays often harass teenage boys. Those gay bashing victims deserve no sympathy because there is something wrong with an adult looking for teenagers. The gay bashers put the images on Internet after they bashed the gays with slogan ‘occupy pedophilia’ because they aren’t going to tolerate gays harassing teenage boys.
Peter W. Johnson, Alyssa Rosenberg got offended by Stephen Jimenez’s book because he told ugly truths of who Methew W. Shepard was. I think in her mind Alyssa Rosenberg knows that’s the ugly truth but she hates this. The people who give Stephen Jimenez 1 star usually did not read the book or if they did, they hate what he wrote. Most people who have read Stephen Jimenez’s book give him 4 or 5 stars-I would give him 4 stars. Peter W. Johnson, rather than read commentaries, you should read the book yourself. Yes, Judy L. Shepard does exploit her son for $. Judy L. Shepard leaves out ugly truths of her son molesting 2 neighborhood 8 year old boys when he was 15 years old which he got counseling for. Judy L. Shepard sees nothing wrong with her son molesting 8 year old boys and she is biased source. 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. Judy L. Shepard and M.W. Shepard’s friend Romaine Patterson both wrote books about him. The last 2 also had interest to make money and since they are his mom and friend, they are biased and bias meddles with facts. 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 $. Shannon Singleton who is portrayed in Laramie Project has said that Laramie Project said wrong things.
But Peter W. Johnson, why Methew W. Shepard was killed and the murder case itself- only some of the book is about the murder. Alot of the book is about Methew W. Shepard’s drug junkyism and yes, Methew W. Shepard was either a drug dealer or courier. We do know that Methew W. Shepard going into bars such as Tornado, Public, Ranger, Library & other bars where drugs were sold and that he associated with drug dealers is not disputable. We also know that Methew W. Shepard was having $ problems (spending so much on limosuine rides in Doc O’ Connor’s limousine) that it can easily be that he sold drugs and or was a courier-Methew W. Shepard would not be the first junky to sell drugs. But Methew W. Shepard associating with drug dealers in both Wyoming and Colorado is not disputable. And the idea that A.J. McKinney and Methew W. Shepard were strangers who did not know eachother until that day is rubbish.With your critique about the witnesses being junkies, drug dealers-well there is no reason to doubt their credibility. A junky like Methew W. Shepard would have to associate with drug dealers to buy his drugs and not with good citizens.
No, AJ McKinney is not a credible source when it comes to the murder and he did change his story many times (he was a junky) no matter why the murder happened, but there are many witnesses-Doc O’ Connor’s ex girlfriend who is Stephanie Errington, Elaine Baker (bartender), M.K. Rohrbacher (drug dealer), Tristan (Ted) Henson (Methew W. Shepard’s former lover) & others who saw them together so it is not hearsay or rumor as the Shepard Foundation says. The Shepard Foundation and Laramie Project’s pushes hero worship of Methew W. Shepard but Methew W. Shepard who is a proven child molester and likely a drug dealer or courier. I don’t think these witnesses are lying because they gain nothing saying this. If you want to know if a person such as Methew W. Shepard is a drug junky or sold drugs, then you would have to go interview criminals such as drug dealers.
The weak criticism is that Stephen Jimenez interviewed drug dealers, junkies, and that he went into bars where drugs were sold, to learn about M.W. Shepard being a drug dealer. That is who Stephen Jimenez would have to interview to learn this. M.W. Shepard being a junky is old news as he had told his friends such as Tina LaBrie about his drug problems and M.W. Shepard’s lover Tristan (Ted) Henson admits that M.W. Shepard used drugs and that he knew 1 of his killers. M.W. Shepard being a drug dealer was something he likely kept secret from his friends and family because honestly, if a person is selling drugs, they usually aren’t going to tell their family that they commit this crime. Even if Metthew 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.
Abner,
I’ve said all I can say, but I doubt you have really heard any of it. The ugly truth is that we live in a culture where many gays are attacked and beaten by angry and fearful men. The ferocious nature of the attack on Shepard, only provides convincing evidence of the intense resentment and rage, which was directed at someone hated for his sexuality. It doesn’t matter if Matt committed any number of crimes before this happened, or if he didn’t—no one deserves to die in the way he did. I refuse to continue trying to convince someone like yourself who feels the need to demonize gays, and pretend that you are not to blame for spreading prejudice. Especially when circulating the ill formed rumor that Judy Shepard only runs her foundation to make money off her son’s death–a son who she clearly loved and never tried to portray as a Saint.
The outrage felt by the gay community over Jimenez’s book isn’t really about destroying a false Icon. It’s about the denial that Gay’s are persecuted by people who feel self-righteous about their own prejudice while helping create a world full of ugliness and hate—and all the while ignoring established and real science, while clinging to faulty and purposeful ignorance.
I just can’t waste more time trying to criticize someone who is so delusional that he believes that any grieving mother, let alone Judy Shepard, would try to use Matt’s death to scam those who support her foundation. The money goes almost entirely to fund foundation programs and the expenses of managing such a large enterprise. If Judy uses any of it for personal expenses, that’s because while she is busy being committed to her goals. It’s most likely very very hard to provide for one’s own needs while being without any other job that seriously limits her speaking engagements and commitments!
If you don’t recognize the presence of grief being used to spread a positive message, from of a emotionally wounded, but fully committed mother, than you must have no conceptions about what love entails. I’m tired of trying to illustrate your insistence on wanting to see the negative and scandalous while completely ignoring hope and truth—since only hearsay and rumors are what really supports your ideology.
Don’t ask me to waste anymore time trying to explain why it is offensive to be continually forced to counter lies and innuendos, in ways that clearly reveal their obvious contradictions and ill will. You have given me only more of the same! I really wish I could convince you that you are just plain wrong—but apparently that option does not exist for someone who has already decided to believe the opposite to instead, and to maintain his own ignorance in the face of any rational and obvious truths!
Other things Peter W. Johnson-with the brutality of the murder-Stephen Jimenez mentioned that in Mexico, the killings committed by drug dealers against their rivals can be brutal as what happened to Methew W. Shepard. Stephen Jimenez said it’s impossible to know what was in A.J. McKinney’s mind as before killing Shepard-it’s likely AJ McKinney is retarded from the drug junkyism-yes he did this to himself. But you also talk of court records, police and so on. There is no need for prosecutors to prove why a murder happened. Police arrest people they believe committed a crime and then they help prosecutors prove the suspect committed a crime. With murder cases-jury decides if suspected committed the murder and if so, was it 1st Degree Murder, Murder 2 or manslaughter. You do not have to prove motive.
But there was no need for the police to investigate Methew W. Shepard’s past because he is dead and can not be arrested or prosecuted for selling drugs. Sheriff David S. O’Malley, Regina S. 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. There’s a saying that it’s best for a Dr. to not to treat a friend or family member because when this happens, you’re more likely to make mistakes because you’re biased. With police, it’s best to not get involved in cases in which a friend or family member is a crime victim or crime suspect because you’re more likely to make mistakes as you’re biased. But their job as cops after they found M.W. Shepard’s coma 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. 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. When they talk of Methew W. Shepard, they should only talk of the murder case & not Shepard’s past before that October day as they didn’t know he was until the murder.
Sheriff David S. O’Malley, Regina S. Fluty and Sgt. Robert J. DeBree know as cops or former cops that you don’t always know the secrets a person has. All know that most criminals try to keep their crimes secret esp. from friends and family as they don’t want to be caught. 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 learned 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. Sheriff O’Malley has said that if Methew W. Shepard sold drugs, the cops would have caught him which is 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 police detection. Sheriff David S. O’Malley and Sgt. R.J. DeBree’s are dishonest, delusional or both esp. again as Sheriff f O’Malley is a friend of Judy L. Shepard and Chief O’Malley, Reggie S. Fluty and Sgt. DeBree are portrayed in Laramie Project.
M.W. Shepard’s lover Tristan (Ted) Henson admits that M.W. Shepard used drugs and that he knew 1 of his killers. Yes, Tristan (Ted) Henson is a recovering junky but there is no reason to doubt his credibility. Junkies associate with junkies and they associate with drug dealers in order to buy the drugs. Though I think Alyssa Rosenberg knows this, it is dishonest for to expect Stephen Jimenez to interview law abiding citizens to learn if Methew W. Shepard sold drugs. The weak criticism is that Stephen Jimenez interviewed drug dealers, junkies, and that he went into bars where drugs were sold, to learn about M.W. Shepard being a drug dealer. That is who Stephen Jimenez would have to interview to learn this. A junky like Methew W. Shepard would have to associate with drug dealers to buy his drugs.
Abner,
No reason to doubt the credibility of a recovering junkie, but every reason to doubt and discredit anything at all which pertains to the life of “drug junkie” Matt Shepard?–good luck with that hypocrisy!
Peter W. Johnson, Alyssa Rosenberg was also offended by the fact Stephen Jimenez incidentally mentioned near end of book that Methew W. Shepard was arrested when he was 15 for molesting 8 year old boys. Alyssa Rosenberg sees nothing wrong with Methew W. Shepard selling drugs and molesting children so their view is rubbish.
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. 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.
No, Peter W. Johnson, I don’t think Methew W. Shepard should have been killed but it is truth that Methew W. Shepard at Methew Wayne Shepard molested 8 year old boys and got counseling for this when he was 15 years old-that is not rumor but 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. 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.
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 $. Shannon Singleton who is portrayed in Laramie Project has said that Laramie Project said wrong things.
No, Peter W. Johnson, it is fact not rumor that Methew W. Shepard was having $ problems (spending so much on limosuine rides in Doc O’ Connor’s limousine) that it can easily be that he sold drugs and or was a courier-Methew W. Shepard would not be the first junky to sell drugs. Methew W. Shepard associating with drug dealers in both Wyoming and Colorado is not disputable. A junky like Methew W. Shepard would have to associate with drug dealers to buy his drugs and not with good citizens. Methew W. Shepard definitely knew drug dealers & he worked with them-he could have been a drug dealer, he could have been a courier or he could have done some other work with them to make money.
And the idea that A.J. McKinney and Methew W. Shepard were strangers who did not know eachother until that day is rubbish. With the murder, yes it’s brutal but it’s impossible to know why it happened. People murder eachother for many reasons and they sometimes can be brutal. Was there some other animosity between A.J.McKinney and Methew W. Shepard that we do not know of between the 2 which had been going on for some time? With your critique about the witnesses being junkies, drug dealers-well there is no reason to doubt their credibility. It is dishonest to expect Stephen Jimenez to interview law abiding citizens to learn if Methew W. Shepard sold drugs. Sometimes if you want to learn bad secrets a person has in their life you have to interview people who are criminals. A junky like Methew W. Shepard would have to associate with drug dealers to buy his drugs. Incidentally in M.W. Shepard’s autopsy they found alcohol and traces of chemicals found in drugs such as Meth.
No, Peter W. Johnson, I do not trust what Judy L. Shepard, Shepard Foundation and the Laramie Project say about Methew W. Shepard because if they were honest, they would not leave out the fact Methew W. Shepard’s a child molester of 8 year old boys, but they leave this out because they know that a child molester is not going to get sympathy by many people if he is murdered, no matter why the murder happened. Now with M.W. Shepard being a drunkard (possibly alcoholic) and junky who mixed drugs such as Meth with antidepressants, those are his issues. With M.W. Shepard being a drug dealer, no that is not the worst crime. But the fact that M.W. Shepard molested 8 year old boys when he was 15 years old. No normal straight man is going to accept what M.W. Shepard did to those 8 year old boys. I do not think that Methew W. Shepard should have been murdered as the murder is unrelated to Methew W. Shepard being a child molester, but I care more about the 8 year old boys who Methew W. Shepard molested over him getting murdered.
Through all of your comments, runs the theme that a “pro-gay agenda,” or a “pro-gay ideology,”whatever you choose to call it, is responsible for creating the false impression that most hate-crimes committed against gays, are really done, not out of hate, but rather, because of natural responses to unwanted gay advances. So, what are you really judging Matthew for—the fact that he was some kind of supposed junkie or child abuser, and therefore that his killers were falsely charged with a hate crime, since when they beat him within an inch of his life and left him to die, it was only MERELY over drugs and money,or, are you concerned that (whatever happened) Matthews life and death (including his murder) lack any injustices done simply because he was a supposed “drug junkie” or a “child molester”?
Remember, in all court cases, the records of juveniles are typically sealed, since what happened in their youth may not be applicable towards the facts pertaining to current trial. And, remember that accordingly, none of Matt’s past was on trial–only the question of whether his sexual orientation played a definite part in the brutal beating and murder meted out by McKinney and Henderson.
To me McKinney’s mentality was typical of narrow minded and the uneducated contempt aimed aimed gays, and whatever other minority groups are handy to place blame on. And, the brutal assault that killed him, seemed obviously to be more than just a beating but also because of act of hatred which unleashed the perpetrators rage upon his victim. In the end a jury agreed! And,the subsequent plea made by McKinney was able to happen only because Matthews parents agreed to it–thus illustrating that they showed much more human compassion towards McKinney than he ever showed Mathew while savagely beating him to death.
The fact is that Jimenez’s book was based very much on hearsay and anecdotal evidence and also on Jimenez’s lack of distinguishing just which statements in the the book came from a witnesses own words, and which ones were reconstructed from memory, or were actually accurate paraphrasing of what witnesses said. Considering that Jimenez is an investigative journalist, his novel is really a comedy of errors and a blatant use of unsubstantiated evidence–even if some small parts of it may be true. I would suggest Abner, that you review your own comments on this thread and take note of just how often you back up your claims by saying things like, “Stephen Jimenez said so”, or even when testimony from his witnesses is not properly sourced or established. Then read how often you discredit what has been said by either the Shepard’s or witnesses or witnesses for the defense, just because they are “liars,” or “drug junkies.
Its obvious to me that this crime involved much more than simple anger. And, without actually being there to witness it, the jury made the best decision possible according to the evidence it considered.
As to the odious ad insensitive ideas you spread about Judy Shepard only working for Matthews foundation because of the money–you must not have had children yourself (let alone any who died as victims of this kind of violence)—because reducing Judy’s motives to merely monetary greed is typical of someone who doesn’t know what a parental love can be.
I took the trouble to research some real information about the Matthew Shepard’s Foundation and this is what I found:
The foundation currently has a staff of nine members, only three of which are full-time. It has an operating budget of $810,000 per year, which come mostly from public donations. Judy Shepard travels for half of the year, and does several speaking engagements each year, but currently is paid only $24,000 dollars annually, which, considering that she must also take care of herself and her loved one’s needs, is a very small amount. And, even though her husband Dennis does volunteer work, he has never taken any compensation for that work.
Abner,
How much of your life’s work, has been done without compensation, even though it might require extreme dedication from you and many hours worked, all the while providing barely a poverty level income?
Abner! In my opinion, you should be ashamed of yourself!
Peter W. Johnson, you have said that what you say falls on deaf ears, yet you repeatedly comment on what I write about. Stephen Jimenez did a 13 year investigation (2000 to 2013) of Methew W. Shepard case and he investigated the rumors in which rumors are true and which rumors are false. I think Peter W. Johnson that you are denying what you know is true because all your posts on Stephen Jimenez have done is rerun what others such as Shepard Foundation say. Stephen Jimenez did not seek to prove or disprove whether this was a hate crime and only some of the book is about the murder. You did not read the book yet you critique this based on what others say. Incidentally, while Alyce L. LaViolette’s a bad witness during the Jodi Ann Arias murder trial, I won’t critique Alyce L. LaViolette’s book because I did not read her book. I critique Alyce L. LaViolette based on what I saw of her testifying during the murder trial and she’s not a credible witness.
No, Peter W. Johnson, 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-that is not rumor but 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 defense in the Shepard murder trial wanted to bring up the fact (p. 349) that Methew W. Shepard molested 8 year old boys but the judge in a February 1999 hearing forbade this. Though we have repeatedly heard that the prosecution decided not to seek the death penalty but settle for life without parole @ Judy L. Shepard’s request, the truth is that had the prosecution sought the death penalty, the defense would have been allowed to raise the fact Methew W. Shepard molested 8 year old boys and other evidence which the judge had forbidden during trial with the jury in a death penalty hearing to see if A.J. McKinney gets life in prison or the death penalty. A jury is less likely to give a death penalty to a convicted murderer if the victim’s a child molester and drug dealer.
Since the prosecutor decided after A.J. McKinney was convicted not to seek the death penalty, the jury did not hear this. With Methew W. Shepard’s past, the judge limited the defense in what they could bring up during the trial such as they could bring up an incident which happened in August 1998 where Methew W. Shepard tried to commit indecent exposure on a Cody Wyoming bartender where a drunk Methew W. Shepard harassed the bartender by asking the bartender if he could have sex with him behind a parked car and when the bartender reacted by decking him, Methew W. Shepard the next day falsely accused him of homosexual gang rape, which was disproven by medical tests.
The rumor that Methew W. Shepard and A.J. McKinney knew eachother is verified by witnesses, so it is no longer hearsay or rumor because it is verified by witnesses who saw them together. But 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. Peter W. Johnson, it is fact that Methew W. Shepard was having $ problems (spending so much on limosuine rides in Doc O’ Connor’s limousine) that it can easily be that he sold drugs and or was a courier. Methew W. Shepard associating with drug dealers in both Wyoming and Colorado is not disputable. A junky like Methew W. Shepard would have to associate with drug dealers to buy his drugs and not with good citizens. Methew W. Shepard definitely knew drug dealers & he worked with them-he could have been a drug dealer, he could have been a courier or he could have done some other work with them to make money. It is dishonest to expect Stephen Jimenez to interview law abiding citizens to learn if Methew W. Shepard sold drugs. Sometimes if you want to learn bad secrets a person has in their life you have to interview people who are criminals. A junky like Methew W. Shepard would have to associate with drug dealers.
Yes, Judy L. Shepard does exploit her son for $. Judy L. Shepard leaves out ugly truths of her son molesting 2 neighborhood 8 year old boys when he was 15 years old which he got counseling for. Judy L. Shepard sees nothing wrong with her son molesting 8 year old boys and she is biased source. 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. Judy L. Shepard and M.W. Shepard’s friend Romaine Patterson both wrote books about him. The last 2 also had interest to make money and since they are his mom and friend, they are biased and bias meddles with facts.
Again, Peter W. Johnson, with M.W. Shepard being a drunkard (possibly alcoholic) and junky who mixed drugs such as Meth with antidepressants, those are his issues. With M.W. Shepard being a drug dealer, no that is not the worst crime. But the fact that M.W. Shepard molested 8 year old boys when he was 15 years old. No normal straight man is going to accept what M.W. Shepard did to those 8 year old boys. I do not think that Methew W. Shepard should have been murdered as the murder is unrelated to Methew W. Shepard being a child molester, but I care more about the 8 year old boys who Methew W. Shepard molested over him getting murdered.I do not trust what Judy L. Shepard, Shepard Foundation and the Laramie Project say about Methew W. Shepard because if they were honest, they would not leave out the fact Methew W. Shepard’s a child molester of 8 year old boys, but they leave this out because they know that a child molester is not going to get sympathy by many people if he is murdered, no matter why the murder happened.
Abner,
First of all, I have never read the entire Bible, yet I am aware of many verses in it which I find disagreeable, as well as the parts that I consider being beautiful and true, and since all of these things are not disputed concerning their content. I certainly can have opinions about them. I also have never read the entire Webster’s dictionary, but I assume all the words in it have been defined accurately. If they weren’t, someone would dispute their meanings and bring such errors into the public’s awareness. And, the same principle is involved whether I have read THE BOOK OF MATT or not—the professional journalists who have criticized it would have been quickly be sued for Libel if their criticisms were based only on concocted content, and, since as far as I know, none of Jimenez’s critics have had to defend themselves in court—concerning any libelous allegations, which would have long ago been front page news, I do have every right to respect their criticisms. So give up the specious arguments claiming that I cannot disbelieve anything in Jimenez’s book unless I have read everything in it! That is just not true! Just as it is not true that the length of time he spent writing it automatically validates anything he says!
The point is that there are a lot of questionable things defense witnesses said about Matt, as well as many things that do not completely jive about the prosecution’s witnesses and their testimony. It’s true that many of the People Jimenez quotes do have their names listed in this book, but that doesn’t diminish the contention that what they said may not have been completely, word for word true—or that Jimenez may have really been putting his own spin on those things according to his own assumptions. In fact Jimenez admitted that the journalistic techniques he used were not up to usual standards–
as follows:
“Though this is a work of nonfiction journalism, I have occasionally employed methods that are slightly less stringent to re-create the dialogue of characters — words I did not personally hear; nor could the characters themselves recall every word exactly from memory,” he explains. “But my intention throughout has been to remain faithful to the actual characters and events as they really happened.”
Possibly true, but what do you call it when an investigative reporter reaches conclusions based on words he didn’t personally hear? And, what would you call his insistence on using quotes from witnesses who could not recall if everything they said was even accurate—who couldn’t recall every word exactly from memory?” To some people these disparities might seem minor. But Jimenez even fails to explain which pieces of testimony were not personally heard by him, and which came from witnesses who couldn’t recall exactly what they said! Should gaps like this even be in question concerning the work of an INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST, who completely understands how important these documentations are when making a believable case in support of what he claims is true? So, what I am saying, as well as the journalists who read his book and made pertinent criticisms of it, is that, this book should be called out what it is—SHODDY AND VERY QUESTIONABLE JOURNALISM!
Abner, many of the facts you claim as being unquestionably true in many of your comments, are validated without definite sourcing, such as, (speaking about Matt) “it can be easily said that he sold drugs and or was a courier.” and then in the next few sentences that, because Matt was a “junky,”he (could have been a drug dealer), or that, “he (could have been a courier,) or that, he (“could have”done some other work for them (drug dealers) to make money.”) So, note your own use of the words “could have,” and your statement about his being associated with drugs, by using the words ( it can be easily said) as well as (he could have been) a drug dealer. When making such statements you are only providing proof that much of what you claim as being facts about Matt’s life are based on nothing more than hearsay—yes he could have used drugs or been a drug dealer, but he could also have been a church member of a person who collected fine wines, or someone interested in Archaeology—take your pick of any number of things that MAY HAVE BEEN true about him! And, perhaps some of the things known about his life, such as being a college student and political science major, and his desire to pursue a career in foreign service, as well his belief in non-violence should also be considered! Furthermore, Jimenez could have also reported about known facts that directly and accurately portrayed Matthews murder as a hate crime, Such as this statement from investigator Debree:
Police officials interviewed after Jimenez’s book’s publication disputed certain claims made in the book. O’Malley said Jimenez’s claim that Shepard was “a methamphetamine kingpin is almost humorous. Someone that would buy into that certainly would believe almost anything they read.” Rob Debree, lead sheriff’s investigator at the time, said the book contains “factual errors and lies”, and deemed Jimenez’s claim that Shepard was a drug dealer “truly laughable.”
Pardon my saying so Abner, but doesn’t the testimony from a police investigator also count for something—especially when that investigator’s name is provided as well as an exact quote of what he really said? Many of the supposed facts mentioned by Jimenez are really not substantiated by fact, but are, in the final analysis, only offered on the basis of his own memory and his own words. And you make constant references in regards to “known facts,” which are ultimately only backed up or verified by Jimenez’s own testimony about them.
An additional fact is that the 400 hours of testimony from town officials, families and friends, as well as police investigators are recorded and are completely verifiable by anyone who hears the tape, along with those making statements having their names given. So how do you explain away their testimony Abner?
The point I made about the supposed testimony given by recovering Junkies and Meth addicts is that people recovering form drug addictions are notorious LIARS before their treatment and after treatment, especially if they decide they want to drop out of recovery programs and score some more drugs. There could have been many reasons for them to lie, not the least of which is the possibility of being paid off. But, before you cry foul! Please reference your own claims about anyone who speaks for Matthew, including his own parents, the Mathew Sheppard foundation, and the Laramie project’s creators. If you expect me to consider the words of addicted meth heads as being truthful, then I should have every reason to expect the same opinions from you about the statements made by Matt’s own family and their foundation.
The sealing of records dealing with Shepard’s juvenile history, was perfectly legitimate since he wasn’t being tried for them, as well as the fact that whatever he was alleged of doing, including the sexual abuse of younger children when he was only 15, had nothing to do with the hate crime committed by McKinney and Henderson. And, even if this crime was typical of Shepard’s juvenile mentality, It doesn’t mean that he continued such behavior in adulthood, nor is it an indication that he might become sort of “drug junkie” in the future. Imagine that, Abner! The law actually wants to restrict the court to examining relevant testimony, not the testimony of crimes committed long ago as a juvenile. And, since you have already admitted that Matthew’s earlier crimes are unrelated to the murder, why do you insist on continuing to make Shepard’s childhood pivotal? Are you saying that a person involved in one type of crime is completely doomed to the same mentality in that person’s future? Should juvenile records be used to soften the sentencing of viscous murderers. If that’s not what you are trying to suggest, then why do you keep complaining and trying to undermine Matt’s character?
You would be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks that abusing children is not a serious crimes and one that shouldn’t result in punishing convicted offenders. But if you are more upset about sexual abuse than you are with murder, I would call that feeling a rather biased one. Presumably the children Matt is alleged to have abused, are still alive, were not ever tortured, pistol whipped or beaten within and inch of their lives, but that much cannot be said about the things McKinney and Henderson really did! How can you expect the courts to be lenient on vicious murderers and instead, diminish the facts of his violent death by emphasizing a crime committed by a fifteen year old—the full specifics of which are not even known? You are absolutely right that Matt should not have been murdered! So why are you attempting to elaborate on his sins in order to validate being lenient towards those who are KNOWN to have murdered him?
The point I tried to make about Ms LaViolette’s testimony in the Jodi Arias trial is that, somehow you seem disgusted that her testimony as a known expert on domestic abuse could have been used to support the possibility that being a victim of abuse played a role in her lovers extremely violent murder. Yet even though McKinney first tried to make use of a gay panic defense and later pleaded that he was the poor victim of drugs—that he himself, decided to take, you have decided not to grant consideration for a similar kind of defense used by Arias—(being temporarily insane). Abner, the attorneys for both Arias and McKinney tried to blame their action on a temporary loss of control that happened without their conscious volition, so to give credibility to one and not to the other, is at best a double standard which should not be employed as information to determinate guilt or innocence of one, but not the other.
Still you mention witnesses that “saw” McKinney and Shepard together as proof that they knew each other and that McKinney may have also been gay, yet where are the exact quotes used to determine this? If Jimenez is only recounting statements that he is NOT sure contained the exact words used by the witness or, cannot remember which statements he did not personally hear, that is more than shoddy journalism and is in fact, only hearsay vouched to by Jimenez. I have also read articles claiming that the Limousine driver, Doc O’Connor’s exact words were only of that, it COULD HAVE BEEN MATTHEW in the back seat, and that he WASN’T SURE. In any case, we all know that one’s sexual orientation is not an excuse to brutally murder any person, and so all of these undocumented statements are irrelevant to begin with.
What is upsetting to me about the opinions you express, is that, you seem to be giving support to what is basically a pity party all about defending poor straight guys who are merely giving well deserved beatings to “queers” in response to unwanted sexual advances (or so you say). But, when almost all of the police reports, as well as the accounts of many worldwide human rights agencies all provide evidence about thousands of gays who were savagely attacked just because of who they are, we must take notice. No feelings of persecution justify anyone to deliver a savage beating in response to a self-perceived, or even a real flirtation, and charging such men with crimes is really a justifiable affirmation of law, order, or justice. It is absolutely NOT right to beat someone to death or severely injure anyone, based on the claim that he or she was seen exposing themselves, or making an appropriate gesture, and it is also not lawful to angrily pistol whip anyone to death who MAY have, at some point in their lives, been charged with molestation!
As far as I can see, if one is angered to such an extent over a minor issue like an unwanted flirtation, this is all the more evidence that many straight attackers are sometimes concerned about their own masculinity and sometimes feel threatened enough by gay person, to hate, or even to kill that gay person just to defend their own pride! Men and women flirt all the time in ways that may be inappropriate or even considered unwanted forms of harassment towards the object of desire—but they don’t beat each other to death over such minor social faux pas—at least not lawfully! However for some reason many victims of hate crimes are beaten just because of a smile or a simple greeting, and police reports are full of testimony from straight attackers who became violent over of such minor, and self-perceived transgression. Even indecent exposure should be punished by a fine or a night in jail, rather than by being beaten or deliberately murdered! If you find yourself somewhere that a bathroom is not present, should you be beaten to death for needing to relieve yourself in the great outdoors? I hope not!
Your claim that the grieving parents of a son who suffered one of the most violent murders on record, are only motivated by making money off of his death, continues to be asserted by you just because YOU claim its true. If you have real evidence other than your opinion, then where is it? And, I don’t mean proof that Judy received payment for speaking engagements or for publishing a book—obviously the Lions share of that should go towards the funding of their foundation. And indeed, it did!
Finally, let me affirm once again that undocumented claims made by unknown writers who may be giving account about things that are not completely verifiable, are one thing, but, when a well-known investigative journalist admits to breaking the rule of his trade in order to deliver a highly opinionated book—that is no less than negligent and could be considered stupid! More importantly than that, it is not just romantic memories about Matthews “sainthood”, or his, “mythological” image that are at stake—its also that the foundations of responsible journalism have been violated and, someones excessive speculations as well as the abundant use of hearsay and undocumented evidences should not be allowed to retell history in ways that are very suspect because they depend on unnamed sources. And, if someone with a reputation for responsible journalism fails to point out that the gaps in his actual knowledge, and fear of reprisals made by organized drug dealer, were the reasons he did not include enough verifiable information, it is ridiculous that Jimenez didn’t provide us with that information in relation to his journalistic breaches from the beginning—why wait until months later? It’s not that nothing about Jimenez’s report is verifiable, its that way too many large chucks of it aren’t! And any responsible journalists should not allow that to happen!
If I repeat myself, its only because you keep on using the same unproven speculations and the opinions that you claim are all factual—with or without adequate documentation, or even any appropriate justifications that verify their reliability!
Peter W. Johnson, I think you aredishonest. Though you write me long posts replying to my posts, you do not raise anything new but just rerun what other journalists say who critique Stephen Jimenez’s book either without reading his book or if they did, they are dishonest because the people who give 4 or 5 stars to Stephen Jimenez’s book know he found ugly truths while those who give 1 or 2 stars either did not read his book or if they did, they got offended by what he found-such as Sgt. R.J. Debree and Sheriff O’Malley. MediaMattters’s critique (which I read) of Stephen Jimenez’s book is rubbish and dishonest. MediaMatters like Alyssa Rosenberg can not be taken seriously because they selectively choose parts of the book, quote parts of what Stephen Jimenez said and reply to that.
Peter W. Johnson, you have no rebuttal to the truth Methew W. Shepard’s a child molester because it is proven that he did it as he got counseling by juvenile court. It’s possible that he molested more boys than the 2 cases which were proven. Yes, I think Methew W. Shepard molesting 8 year old boys is a more serious crime than most murders and1 debate whether getting beaten to death as he did is more or less serious than his crimes of child molestation. Methew W. Shepard being a child molester is proven, so it is not alleged. That is only an incidental part of Stephen Jimenez’s book but you need to be honest Peter W. Johnson and not say alleged because it is proven fact he molested 8 year old boys in his neighborhood and we don’t know the damage that it did to them. Since Methew W. Shepard was killed, no matter why he was murdered, he won’t be able to molest anymore children.
There is no proof to your claim that thousands of gays are beaten up in unprovoked attacks. 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 excess force. 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.
With your comment about the witnesses credibility. Peter W. Johnson, if it were 1 or 2 junkies saying this, then I could see dismissing the witnesses credibility as liars and so on. But when you have so many witnesses who saw A.J. McKinney and Methew W. Shepard together and when you have bartenders such as Elaine Baker who saw Methew W. Shepard with A.J. McKinney, then the idea that all these witnesses are not credible is rubbish. When you have Methew W. Shepard’s friend Tina LaBrie expressing concerns about Methew W. Shepard’s drug and $ problems, that can’t be dismissed. Methew W. Shepard associating with drug dealers in both Wyoming and Colorado is not disputable. A junky like Methew W. Shepard would have to associate with drug dealers to buy his drugs and not with good citizens. Stephen Jimenez did not say that Methew W. Shepard’s a drug kingpin. He said that Methew W. Shepard’s a junky (which is proven fact), drunkard and had money problems. Stephen Jimenez thinks Methew W. Shepard either sold drugs or he was working a courier for drug dealers to make $ to meet ends. 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. It is dishonest (& I think Peter W. Johnson that you’re being dishonest) to think that all of these witnesses be they bartenders (the bartenders are not believed to be junkies), drug dealers and junkies are lying when they say they saw him there. I think his association with drug dealers is more than buying drugs because if all he wanted to do is buy drugs, he could just go into 1 or 2 bars and not so many bars in both Wyoming and Colorado.
With siting Undersheriff R.J. DeBree and accusing me of not taking the word of law enforcement officer on this. Though you know this, Sheriff David S. O’Malley and Undersheriff Rob J. DeBree investigated the murder. When they talk of Methew W. Shepard, they should only talk of the murder case & not Shepard’s past before that October day as they didn’t know he was until the murder. They did not investigate Methew W. Shepard’s past and they can not comment on Methew W. Shepard’s association with drug dealers because they did not investigate witnesses. Since M.W. Shepard is dead, he can not be arrested and prosecuted for any crimes he committed. 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.
Sheriff David S. O’Malley, Regina S. 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. There’s a saying that it’s best for a Dr. to not to treat a friend or family member because when this happens, you’re more likely to make mistakes because you’re biased. With police, it’s best to not get involved in cases in which a friend or family member is a crime victim or crime suspect because you’re more likely to make mistakes as you’re biased. But their job as cops after they found M.W. Shepard’s coma 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.
Sheriff David S. O’Malley, Regina S. Fluty and Undersheriff Robert J. DeBree know as cops or former cops that you don’t always know the secrets a person has. All know that most criminals try to keep their crimes secret esp. from friends and family as they don’t want to be caught. 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 learned 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. Sheriff O’Malley has said that if Methew W. Shepard sold drugs, the cops would have caught him which is 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 police detection. Sheriff David S. O’Malley and Sgt. R.J. DeBree’s are dishonest, delusional or both esp. again as Sheriff f O’Malley is a friend of Judy L. Shepard and Chief O’Malley, Reggie S. Fluty and Sgt. DeBree are portrayed in Laramie Project.
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.
Peter W. Johnson, you can give me another long reply, but I think Peter W. Johnson that you’re being dishonest and you can’t be taken seriously on this. There are too many witnesses to think they are all lying. The 2 boys who Methew W. Shepard molested which 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 and this happened before the October 1998 murder. Judy L. Shepard sees nothing wrong with her son molesting 8 year old boys. I know Peter W. Johnson that it is attacking a mourning mom, butI care more about the 8 year old boys who Methew W. Shepard molested over him getting murdered.
Once again Abner,
In all honestly, do you really think that any professional journalist, assigned the task of reviewing a book, (any book) does so without first reading it, or at least, a large part of it? If you insist this is true I would like to know what your source was for this amazing claim. And, forgive me for supporting a supposed “pro-gay,” agenda, but if anyone who reviews a new book wants to illustrate the reasons for their criticisms, isn’t it necessary to discuss certain selectively chosen parts of that book?
A constant criticism you make of me, (presumably derived from selectively chosen parts of my comments) is that somehow you perceive me as being dishonest when criticize Jimenez’s book and also that I think anyone who is sexually assaulted or inappropriately groped, has no right to defend himself, or even be offended? In reality I have always asserted the fact that in our American justice system, anyone has the right to use force in self defense or to repel an attacker. Where I differ with you is about your single minded belief that anyone, or at least the vast majority of those arrested for Gay-bashing crimes, are really the innocent victims of someone who grabbed their groins, revealed their genitals, or were even audacious enough to urinate in public areas. Your implication is that righteous straight men, are being picked on or persecuted for merely wanting to defend themselves and what you don’t see is that this kind of (pity me I’m a victim) defense, is from exactly the same playbook as the idea that (poor picked on gays) are not being truthful about their own roles as aggressors.
Here again, let me make it clear that I do not deny the very probable idea that some gay men have attacked and beaten heterosexual men as a result of their own rage being directed at straight men. However, it is absolutely true that police files are full of cases described as gay bashing which include quotes from the straight men who did the assaulting. They very frequently describe very minor things as justifications for the beating they delivered—such as being winked at, being given a simple greetings, or just because someone made unwanted flirtations by simply looking at them the wrong way. You may not want to believe this Abner, but don’t take my word for it—just Google something like, “what motivates gay bashers,” or, “What do police report as the motivations of bashers who attack gays?”—you’ll find that cases like these are very frequent and even typical of such arrests.
I am also curious about your ethnic heritage and background, since our legal system typically would not approve of severe beatings based on public exposure, or assumptions that revealing one’s genitals implies an immanent attack by a gay flasher. I know that in some countries crimes like these are considered very serious and are dealt with by harsh punishments. But to me, although somethings like public exposure may be rude or gross, the most reasonable punishment would be to fine the person accused, or make his spend a short time in jail. I think it would be unspeakably cruel and harsh to justify severe beatings or to use an obscene act as a defense for murder, or for justifiable self defense in a court of law. I completely disagree with you on the seriousness of these minor crimes which are considered misdemeanors by our courts.
While you are accusing me of not being honest about admitting the validity of Jimenez’s book, you simultaneously dismiss any evidence taken from the large amount of contradictory testimony and validly sourced statements opposing his version, and then consider it all as being sinister lies pushed by “pro-gay agendas.” I want to be very clear that firstly, contradictory statements from those who, during the trial said one thing, and then said another during 20/20 interviews (thus admitting they willfully committed perjury during the trial) are very good reasons to question the work of Jimenez, as well as serving to raise a red flag about the honesty and motivations of anyone who has already admitted to deliberately lying in a legal proceeding, but then tells another story on television.
And, if you are perfectly willing to make rash and unsupported charges about Judy Sheppard only doing her foundation’s work, to prosper from her son’s brutal killing, not caring about child abuse, or that the 200 people who were filmed and recorded by the Laramie Project, and who gave definitive testimony at the trial were all just lying to get back at Matt’s killers, or, that they were all paid off by the prosecution, (including some of who later opened themselves to legal charges by dismissing their own sworn testimony), then I think you deserve to be confronted with the many unsourced, and shoddily affirmed statements made by witnesses. When you willfully dismiss or minimize all the contradictions inherent in Stephen Jimenez’s book, it is really you who are not being honest! Why should you automatically accept one version of the story delivered many years after this crime, and then completely dismiss testimony that was actually given at the trial itself?
Judy Sheppard and Dave O’Malley were both selectively interviewed by 20/20—Judy criticized the Tabloid tone of the show by discussing the fact that she was refused an advanced copy from ABC and that her relevant comments about the direction of the show as well as pertinent facts about her Son’s trial, ended up on the cutting room floor. Additionally her comments were limited to personal maternal comments that were edited and taken out of context to imply that she agreed with 20/20’s theories—in fact, she didn’t!
Although 20/20 had no real evidence that drugs were really the basis for Matt’s murder, since this contention was made by Jimenez’s personal sources who, by his own admission could not verify exactly what they said, and could not always be vouched for about accuracy of their statements. And, since his claims are contradicted by the actual testimony taken from the trial and from the public record—lacking serious journalistic credibility, the information in his book remains highly suspect.
Although you personally, Abner, wholeheartedly accept every claim made in the book of Matt, Jimenez’s research was was absolutely not on par with acceptable journalistic standards. So all of his interpretations and evidence should remain open to valid questioning. Yet, when I point to actual testimony taken from the trial—including girlfriend Kristen Price’s statement that Matthew’s gayness was a definite motivation for McKinney’s assault, that he and Henderson tried to get her and Henderson’s girlfriend to provide a made up alibi, and, that she said drugs were not taken by either McKinney or Henderson the night of the attack, you deny that these should all be important reasons to doubt 20/20’s version of the story.
Consider the fact that if either Jimenez or 20/20 had offered balanced and fair journalism, they would have made mention of all this contradictory evidence given during Matt’s trial. These also include McKinney’s denial that he is bi-sexual. And, since both killer’s friends emphatically denied any close connection between he and Matt, discrepancies like these plus the fact that Jimenez’s “ten different sources,” are mostly anonymous or recovering meth addicts, should absolutely invite criticisms. The reason I asked you to point to specific evidence, such as quotes from witnesses who actually saw Aaron and Matt kissing or having sexual contact—is because it’s not enough for both men to merely be seen together—firstly, because just being seen in the same room does not establish a sexual liaison, nor does it negate the fact that in many small town bars, it is very possible that many people are drinking with other people whom they don’t even know, or that if they do, this, in no way establishes that they must be sexually intimate with each other. And since Jimenez’s research was so shoddily done, there is no way of knowing exactly what his witnesses actually said! (independent of his own interpretations).
Kristen Price stated in a television interview that, McKinney and Henderson “just wanted to beat (Shepard) bad enough to teach him a lesson not to come on to straight people.” The supposed idea that she and McKinney were only making such statements just to cover up their involvement in using and selling meth, and thus leaving McKinney vulnerable to a conviction which could possibly include execution—is more than silly—its just plain stupid! So, Abner, if you want to decide why Shepard was killed by embracing alibis like this, you should revise your belief that Jimenez’s book was made with solid evidence and completely verifiable testimony—It was not Abner!
On top of all of the questionable research which makes up a large part of The Book of Matt, The primary killer himself admitted that it was a hate crime based on Shepard’s gayness. McKinney is recorded as saying to Greg Pierotti, in an interview done in 2004 (that was part of the epilogue for the Laramie project) that, “Matt Shepard needed killing,” and that, “As far as Matt is concerned, I don’t have any remorse.” and also that, “The night I did it, I did have hatred for homosexuals.” If that isn’t enough for you Abner just remember that this was all recorded. McKinney also said that, he targeted Shepard because, “He was obviously gay. That played a part. His weakness his frailty.”
Despite all of these obvious challenges to Jimenez’s version of the story, neither he nor 20/20 fairly examined Matt’s murder by bringing them up! What kind of responsible journalism is that?
If I wanted to stir up my own dramatic hornets nest about the reasons the Book of Matt is so inconclusive, I might include the fact that Tim Newcomb, who handled Henderson’s appeal was a friend of Jimenez and that Jimenez only got access to McKinney because of his relationship to Henderson’s attorney. So, just suppose that since Newcomb was the attorney who handled Henderson’s appeal, that he helped Jimenez with the 20/20 documentary by providing many of his tidbits of personally chosen information about Henderson, in order to help in Henderson’s appeal.
I might also refute your claim that no one really knows what happened to Shepard that night—of course that’s NOT true! Three men, McKinney, Henderson and Sheppard were there. Henderson freely testified that he had tried to get McKinney to stop beating Matt so severely and McKinney has stated that, although Henderson took part in Matt’s robbery, he played no part in the killing, yet also received a life sentence. Henderson, has provided a great deal information about what happened that night, And even wrote a letter of apology to Judy Henderson.
Abner, despite all of these very serious and significant discrepancies between what witnesses have been recorded as saying during and after the trial, and what often are just Jimenez’s own estimates of what they said in The Book of Matt, you continue telling me that I am fooling myself? To make myself clear, I am not saying that none of Stephan Jimenez’s work is notable or bears examination, I am just pointing out that as a piece of journalism, it has very serious flaws! As such, it may have received critical acclaim only because of the sensationalism of his story. But as far as solid evidence is concerned, it totally fails to deliver!
Abner, even though you have long ago admitted that what happened in Shepard’s past was not related to his murder, you keep on bringing up disgraceful information about his drug use and his arrest for sexual abusing two younger boys. Since these crimes really did have nothing to do with McKinney’s brutal murder of Shepard, and thus were rightly not allowed as evidence during the trial, you still seem intent on trying to destroy any virtuous image that Matt may be given by those who mourn his death. I can only conclude that you think these transgressions of his—many of which are far from proven anyway—somehow speak for your accusations about the gay community as a whole. And what you want to imply is that since McKinney did what he did while on drugs, which has never been proven (even though the vehicle he used to take Matt to the scene of his violent death, was thoroughly searched, and no drugs were found) that, somehow those immoral folks who are spreading a “gay-agenda,” are making too much of the beating, torture, and pistol whipping of a frail young man, which actually crushed his brain stem and left him to die slowly—first on a fence for 18 hours, then while he was hospitalized for 5 days–before finally succumbing to death! All who show doubt just whining babies who don’t realize how straight guys are the real victims In gay bashing?
Abner, I have never asked anyone to not defend themselves when in danger, and I have never denied that Jimenez’s book raises some very intriguing points, but (the poor picked on) narrative that you accuse gay people of using, is nothing more than a mirror image of your own excuses made for straight people who violently attack homosexuals–often, for very frivolous reasons.
I don’t deny that some drugs may have been used by the people involved in Matthew’s murder—even the gay community sees nothing new about drugs being involved with hate crimes! And I am not trying to deny that Matthew was arrested for assaulting two young boys. But Matt himself, was still 15 and virtually a child himself when he did what he did. And, besides the knowledge that he was arrested for that crime, he has never been imprisoned for sexual abuse, and we really don’t know all the fact about something happening between three young boys years six years before Matt was killed. But your insistence that all of the rumors uncovered by Jimenez’s alternate murder theory are undeniably correct, is really far from being proven, and is contradicted by recorded testimony—not just hearsay! So, if you would like to use this tabloid kind of investigation as proof that gays want only to abuse other men by sexually assaulting them, or are obsessively interested in many unwholesome activities like using and selling meth amphetamines, there are really so many holes and questionable facts involved in making those claims that they will never hold water!
Finally, McKinney and Henderson were not even on trial for a hate crime! In 1998 the Hate crime laws had not been extended to include the victims of attacks on gays! Rather, the known facts in this case were so extremely repugnant and involved so much violence that they became the inspiration for enacting such laws. McKinney could have waited for a Jury to possibly rule out his execution but his own sense of self preservation, prompted him to agree to two consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole. Dennis Shepard, wanted with all this heart to see McKinney die, but for Matt’s sake, he and Judy agreed to wave the death penalty, so that McKinney could spend the rest of his life in prison, dwelling on what he had done!
Don’t try again to tell me I am denying facts and failing to see the truth in Jimenez’s sadly inadequate and questionable investigation. To me this is not about preserving a false impression of Matthew’s virtues, or even an attack on the poor straight men who deliberately target gays to gratify the hatred they feel towards “queers,” or, “fags.” What interests me is the truth! Over the past week I have read and researched dozens of article on dozens of websites–including many who approved of Jimenez’s book. I have discovered that many of those who approve, report his claims as being true, just because they are in his book–without carefully examining their validity. so I HAVE thought long and hard before deciding who is at fault and who really committed a wrong!
As with ANY assault and battery or murder cases including gay bashing cases, unless there is a pleabargain (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. Also these situations are unpredictable. 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 that the other person had 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 anything small such as shoplifting candy to expensive things such as diamonds and then beat up or 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 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 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. 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 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, you sound like a friend or member of Shepard family. Let me say that I do not care why Methew W. Shepard was killed-only he and A.J. McKinney knows no matter why, but I am not going to do a vigil for a child molester. Judy L. Shepard thinks it is OK for homosexuals to molest children as 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. & again, Methew W. Shepard vicitimized 2 others such as the Cody bartender in August 1998 and a bouncer. Methew W. Shepard’s false accusation against the Cody bartender in August 1998 of homosexual gang rape is wrong. Methew W. Methew W. Shepard’s a child molester & a victimizer of young men. Yes, that it is attacking a mourning mom, but I care more about the 8 year old boys who Methew W. Shepard molested over him getting murdered. Judy L. Shepard, the Shepard Foundation and the Laramie Project must understand that while Methew W. Shepard should not have been murdered, Methew W. Shepard will not be able to molest any more children and getting murdered does not change the truth Methew W. Shepard’s a child molester and likely a drug dealer. The Shepard Foundation, Laramie Project and Judy L. Shepard all are apologists for child molestation when the molestation is homosexual.
No, Stephen Jimenez does not know everything. Sheriff O’Malley and Undersheriff R.J. DeBree also do not know everything-they did not investigate Methew W. Shepard’s past and they can not comment on Methew W. Shepard’s association with drug dealers because they did not investigate witnesses.. The journalists who critique Stephen Jimenez do not know everything as the journalists did not interview the witnesses who Stephen Jimenez did. Stephen Jimenez did a 13 year investigation & he reached his conclusions after interviewing them. Some of the witnesses are anonymous as some worked in law enforcement and some are criminals who chose to remain anonymous as they do not want to incriminate themselves, but there are also drug dealers such as Mark K. Rohrbacher who chose to identify themselves. Sometimes, investigations require testimony from criminals. Just because a person is a criminal, does not mean that they are not credible. Of course the witnesses who Stephen Jimenez are not likely to know everything about Methew W. Shepard, but there are things they saw which can not be dismissed.
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 caught him which is 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.
Peter W. Johnson, of course 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, I think 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,
I am a friend of tolerance and an enemy of those who attempt to manipulate opinions for their own ends. Here is a paste of something I already said above:
Again Abner,
In all honestly, do you really think that any professional journalist, assigned the task of reviewing a book, (any book) does so without first reading it, or at least, a large part of it? If you insist this is true I would like to know what your source was for this amazing claim. And, forgive me for supporting a supposed “pro-gay,” agenda, but if anyone who reviews a new book wants to illustrate the reasons for their criticisms, isn’t it necessary to discuss certain selectively chosen parts of that book?
A constant criticism you make of me, (presumably derived from selectively chosen parts of my comments) is that somehow you perceive me as being dishonest when criticize Jimenez’s book and also that I think anyone who is sexually assaulted or inappropriately groped, has no right to defend himself, or even be offended? In reality I have always asserted the fact that in our American justice system, anyone has the right to use force in self defense or to repel an attacker. Where I differ with you is about your single minded belief that anyone, or at least the vast majority of those arrested for Gay-bashing crimes, are really the innocent victims of someone who grabbed their groins, revealed their genitals, or were even audacious enough to urinate in public areas. Your implication is that righteous straight men, are being picked on or persecuted for merely wanting to defend themselves and what you don’t see is that this kind of (pity me I’m a victim) defense, is from exactly the same playbook as the idea that (poor picked on gays) are not being truthful about their own roles as aggressors.
Here again, let me make it clear that I do not deny the very probable idea that some gay men have attacked and beaten heterosexual men as a result of their own rage being directed at straight men. However, it is absolutely true that police files are full of cases described as gay bashing which include quotes from the straight men who did the assaulting. They very frequently describe very minor things as justifications for the beating they delivered—such as being winked at, being given a simple greetings, or just because someone made unwanted flirtations by simply looking at them the wrong way. You may not want to believe this Abner, but don’t take my word for it—just Google something like, “what motivates gay bashers,” or, “What do police report as the motivations of bashers who attack gays?”—you’ll find that cases like these are very frequent and even typical of such arrests.
I am also curious about your ethnic heritage and background, since our legal system typically would not approve of severe beatings based on public exposure, or assumptions that revealing one’s genitals implies an immanent attack by a gay flasher. I know that in some countries crimes like these are considered very serious and are dealt with by harsh punishments. But to me, although somethings like public exposure may be rude or gross, the most reasonable punishment would be to fine the person accused, or make his spend a short time in jail. I think it would be unspeakably cruel and harsh to justify severe beatings or to use an obscene act as a defense for murder, or for justifiable self defense in a court of law. I completely disagree with you on the seriousness of these minor crimes which are considered misdemeanors by our courts.
While you are accusing me of not being honest about admitting the validity of Jimenez’s book, you simultaneously dismiss any evidence taken from the large amount of contradictory testimony and validly sourced statements opposing his version, and then consider it all as being sinister lies pushed by “pro-gay agendas.” I want to be very clear that firstly, contradictory statements from those who, during the trial said one thing, and then said another during 20/20 interviews (thus admitting they willfully committed perjury during the trial) are very good reasons to question the work of Jimenez, as well as serving to raise a red flag about the honesty and motivations of anyone who has already admitted to deliberately lying in a legal proceeding, but then tells another story on television.
And, if you are perfectly willing to make rash and unsupported charges about Judy Sheppard only doing her foundation’s work, to prosper from her son’s brutal killing, not caring about child abuse, or that the 200 people who were filmed and recorded by the Laramie Project, and who gave definitive testimony at the trial were all just lying to get back at Matt’s killers, or, that they were all paid off by the prosecution, (including some of who later opened themselves to legal charges by dismissing their own sworn testimony), then I think you deserve to be confronted with the many unsourced, and shoddily affirmed statements made by witnesses. When you willfully dismiss or minimize all the contradictions inherent in Stephen Jimenez’s book, it is really you who are not being honest! Why should you automatically accept one version of the story delivered many years after this crime, and then completely dismiss testimony that was actually given at the trial itself?
Judy Sheppard and Dave O’Malley were both selectively interviewed by 20/20—Judy criticized the Tabloid tone of the show by discussing the fact that she was refused an advanced copy from ABC and that her relevant comments about the direction of the show as well as pertinent facts about her Son’s trial, ended up on the cutting room floor. Additionally her comments were limited to personal maternal comments that were edited and taken out of context to imply that she agreed with 20/20’s theories—in fact, she didn’t!
Although 20/20 had no real evidence that drugs were really the basis for Matt’s murder, since this contention was made by Jimenez’s personal sources who, by his own admission could not verify exactly what they said, and could not always be vouched for about accuracy of their statements. And, since his claims are contradicted by the actual testimony taken from the trial and from the public record—lacking serious journalistic credibility, the information in his book remains highly suspect.
Although you personally, Abner, wholeheartedly accept every claim made in the book of Matt, Jimenez’s research was was absolutely not on par with acceptable journalistic standards. So all of his interpretations and evidence should remain open to valid questioning. Yet, when I point to actual testimony taken from the trial—including girlfriend Kristen Price’s statement that Matthew’s gayness was a definite motivation for McKinney’s assault, that he and Henderson tried to get her and Henderson’s girlfriend to provide a made up alibi, and, that she said drugs were not taken by either McKinney or Henderson the night of the attack, you deny that these should all be important reasons to doubt 20/20’s version of the story.
Consider the fact that if either Jimenez or 20/20 had offered balanced and fair journalism, they would have made mention of all this contradictory evidence given during Matt’s trial. These also include McKinney’s denial that he is bi-sexual. And, since both killer’s friends emphatically denied any close connection between he and Matt, discrepancies like these plus the fact that Jimenez’s “ten different sources,” are mostly anonymous or recovering meth addicts, should absolutely invite criticisms. The reason I asked you to point to specific evidence, such as quotes from witnesses who actually saw Aaron and Matt kissing or having sexual contact—is because it’s not enough for both men to merely be seen together—firstly, because just being seen in the same room does not establish a sexual liaison, nor does it negate the fact that in many small town bars, it is very possible that many people are drinking with other people whom they don’t even know, or that if they do, this, in no way establishes that they must be sexually intimate with each other. And since Jimenez’s research was so shoddily done, there is no way of knowing exactly what his witnesses actually said! (independent of his own interpretations).
Kristen Price stated in a television interview that, McKinney and Henderson “just wanted to beat (Shepard) bad enough to teach him a lesson not to come on to straight people.” The supposed idea that she and McKinney were only making such statements just to cover up their involvement in using and selling meth, and thus leaving McKinney vulnerable to a conviction which could possibly include execution—is more than silly—its just plain stupid! So, Abner, if you want to decide why Shepard was killed by embracing alibis like this, you should revise your belief that Jimenez’s book was made with solid evidence and completely verifiable testimony—It was not Abner!
On top of all of the questionable research which makes up a large part of The Book of Matt, The primary killer himself admitted that it was a hate crime based on Shepard’s gayness. McKinney is recorded as saying to Greg Pierotti, in an interview done in 2004 (that was part of the epilogue for the Laramie project) that, “Matt Shepard needed killing,” and that, “As far as Matt is concerned, I don’t have any remorse.” and also that, “The night I did it, I did have hatred for homosexuals.” If that isn’t enough for you Abner just remember that this was all recorded. McKinney also said that, he targeted Shepard because, “He was obviously gay. That played a part. His weakness his frailty.”
Despite all of these obvious challenges to Jimenez’s version of the story, neither he nor 20/20 fairly examined Matt’s murder by bringing them up! What kind of responsible journalism is that?
If I wanted to stir up my own dramatic hornets nest about the reasons the Book of Matt is so inconclusive, I might include the fact that Tim Newcomb, who handled Henderson’s appeal was a friend of Jimenez and that Jimenez only got access to McKinney because of his relationship to Henderson’s attorney. So, just suppose that since Newcomb was the attorney who handled Henderson’s appeal, that he helped Jimenez with the 20/20 documentary by providing many of his tidbits of personally chosen information about Henderson, in order to help in Henderson’s appeal.
I might also refute your claim that no one really knows what happened to Shepard that night—of course that’s NOT true! Three men, McKinney, Henderson and Sheppard were there. Henderson freely testified that he had tried to get McKinney to stop beating Matt so severely and McKinney has stated that, although Henderson took part in Matt’s robbery, he played no part in the killing, yet also received a life sentence. Henderson, has provided a great deal information about what happened that night, And even wrote a letter of apology to Judy Henderson.
Abner, despite all of these very serious and significant discrepancies between what witnesses have been recorded as saying during and after the trial, and what often are just Jimenez’s own estimates of what they said in The Book of Matt, you continue telling me that I am fooling myself? To make myself clear, I am not saying that none of Stephan Jimenez’s work is notable or bears examination, I am just pointing out that as a piece of journalism, it has very serious flaws! As such, it may have received critical acclaim only because of the sensationalism of his story. But as far as solid evidence is concerned, it totally fails to deliver!
Abner, even though you have long ago admitted that what happened in Shepard’s past was not related to his murder, you keep on bringing up disgraceful information about his drug use and his arrest for sexual abusing two younger boys. Since these crimes really did have nothing to do with McKinney’s brutal murder of Shepard, and thus were rightly not allowed as evidence during the trial, you still seem intent on trying to destroy any virtuous image that Matt may be given by those who mourn his death. I can only conclude that you think these transgressions of his—many of which are far from proven anyway—somehow speak for your accusations about the gay community as a whole. And what you want to imply is that since McKinney did what he did while on drugs, which has never been proven (even though the vehicle he used to take Matt to the scene of his violent death, was thoroughly searched, and no drugs were found) that, somehow those immoral folks who are spreading a “gay-agenda,” are making too much of the beating, torture, and pistol whipping of a frail young man, which actually crushed his brain stem and left him to die slowly—first on a fence for 18 hours, then while he was hospitalized for 5 days–before finally succumbing to death! All who show doubt just whining babies who don’t realize how straight guys are the real victims In gay bashing?
Abner, I have never asked anyone to not defend themselves when in danger, and I have never denied that Jimenez’s book raises some very intriguing points, but (the poor picked on) narrative that you accuse gay people of using, is nothing more than a mirror image of your own excuses made for straight people who violently attack homosexuals–often, for very frivolous reasons.
I don’t deny that some drugs may have been used by the people involved in Matthew’s murder—even the gay community sees nothing new about drugs being involved with hate crimes! And I am not trying to deny that Matthew was arrested for assaulting two young boys. But Matt himself, was still 15 and virtually a child himself when he did what he did. And, besides the knowledge that he was arrested for that crime, he has never been imprisoned for sexual abuse, and we really don’t know all the fact about something happening between three young boys years six years before Matt was killed. But your insistence that all of the rumors uncovered by Jimenez’s alternate murder theory are undeniably correct, is really far from being proven, and is contradicted by recorded testimony—not just hearsay! So, if you would like to use this tabloid kind of investigation as proof that gays want only to abuse other men by sexually assaulting them, or are obsessively interested in many unwholesome activities like using and selling meth amphetamines, there are really so many holes and questionable facts involved in making those claims that they will never hold water!
Finally, McKinney and Henderson were not even on trial for a hate crime! In 1998 the Hate crime laws had not been extended to include the victims of attacks on gays! Rather, the known facts in this case were so extremely repugnant and involved so much violence that they became the inspiration for enacting such laws. McKinney could have waited for a Jury to possibly rule out his execution but his own sense of self preservation, prompted him to agree to two consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole. Dennis Shepard, wanted with all this heart to see McKinney die, but for Matt’s sake, he and Judy agreed to wave the death penalty, so that McKinney could spend the rest of his life in prison, dwelling on what he had done!
Don’t try again to tell me I am denying facts and failing to see the truth in Jimenez’s sadly inadequate and questionable investigation. To me this is not about preserving a false impression of Matthew’s virtues, or even an attack on the poor straight men who deliberately target gays to gratify the hatred they feel towards “queers,” or, “fags.” What interests me is the truth! Over the past week I have read and researched dozens of article on dozens of websites–including many who approved of Jimenez’s book. I have discovered that many of those who approve, report his claims as being true, just because they are in his book–without carefully examining their validity. so I HAVE thought long and hard before deciding who is at fault and who really committed a wrong!
If you want to try responding to all the points I have brought up, Please do! But instead of offering your basic defense—that gay apologists like to hide the truth about Matthew, comment instead about why so many flaws are in Jimenez’s research. So,who is actually hiding behind the many flaws in The Book of Matt?
I know you will never understand, but, once again, knock yourself out! But whatever you say, I’ll just post and repost this comment of mine over and over again. Can you take what you dish out?
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. When I read about a gay (transexuals are mutilated gays/lesbians and they should abolish sex change mutilations) bashing case in the news, I wonder what the view is of the journalist reporting this on homosexuality/lesbianism. I also wonder if the journalist is a homosexual or lesbian and if so, 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 predictably make the homosexual look like an innocent victim whether or not that is the case.
Eg. in 2007, former MSNBC host Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson (Tucker Carlson) was condemned by lesbian columnist Pamela F. Spaulding, Huffington Post & Daily Kos after Tucker Carlson talked of how as a teenager he had bashed a gay who was harassing him in a public restroom for sex. Though the homosexual committed criminal indecent exposure (public restroom is the place to use toilet and wash up not a place for sex) by harassing Tucker Carlson and though Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson defended himself by bashing the gay & after knocking the gay unconscious, he called the cops who arrested the homosexual for indecent exposure-Huffington Post, Daily Kos & lesbian columnist Pamela F. Spaulding all condemned him. That homosexual gets no sympathy because that homosexual committed a crime by harassing an underage teenage boy for sex in a public bathroom and the teenage boy defended himself. Since Daily Kos, Huffington Post and lesbian columnist Pamela F. Spaulding among others see nothing wrong with homosexuals committing crimes such as indecent exposure in public restrooms 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.
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. A jury can acquit or if they convict, they can convict a person on lesser charge. Jury decides if it’s justified or excess force. 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.
Abner,
Just one more thing. Where do you get the idea that gays are notorious stalkers who can’t wait to beat and rape straight men? In my youth (during the 1970s) I lived in San Francisco for two years, (a city with a large number of gay men) and often went out to drink in bars and be part of the social scene. Sometimes my friends and I accidentally walked into a gay bar, looked around, realized where we were, and then walked out again. During all of that time, I was never accosted by a gay man, and never inappropriately flirted with. This fact is particularly significant since during the time I lived there, the aids epidemic had not yet begun and gay people had no reason to fear any sexual relationships. But the ones I met were all well-mannered and never did anything aggressive towards me or to any of my friends.
I don’t know what kind of ethic background or cultural situation has influenced you, but as far as in the United States, your ideas about gays bear little resemblance to how they really behave.
see this video done by an honest homosexual man http://americansfortruth.com/2014/02/13/homosexual-walter-lee-hampton-on-man-boy-sex-gay-pederasty-i-would-not-let-my-teenage-sons-around-gay-men/
Abner,
I watched your video and had the following impressions;
First, the gay man that recorded the video comes across as a nice person, and I am sure he really is! Secondly, when he talks about old straight men who also pursue young girls, he gets the fact that this sort of thing is not limited to the gay community. Thirdly, most straight men and most gay men would probably agree that it is both wrong and risky to dabble in relationships with young girls as well as it is to actively pursue very young boys who are only 14 years old. Fourthly, it is completely unethical for anyone, gay or straight, to knowingly transmit the HIV AIDS virus to another person via sexual contact–to me that ‘s by far the worst hatefully irresponsible crime possible to be committed by anyone—gay, straight, or bisexual! Moreover, I have never claimed anything else! The fact is that, many gay and straight men see an obvious and immoral problem, with this kind of illicit relationship.
Now here are some questions that came to mind while I watched the video. Firstly the person who made the video communicates the fact that many of the gay people who commented on said article about the older gay man who deliberately pursued a 14 year old boy, expressed anger towards the younger man. That being said, I don’t really know exactly what their specific objections may be–perhaps they thought the facts were presented in a prejudiced and inaccurate way? I would have to examine the article to see exactly why they were angry. Secondly, the man in the video often mentioned 18 year old children being actively pursued by both older gay, (and straight men). I am also not sure if the age of adulthood is currently set at 21 years old across the entire country. But, I know that when I was young, my home state allowed 18 year olds to drink in bars, and some states allowed 18 year olds to marry and to vote. And of course, for many many years the United States Government has thought it perfectly fine for 18 year old men to enlist in the armed forces, and, to suffer and die in the battles our government engages in. Frankly, this also seems a bit obscene, since at 18, most young men should be enjoying life and investing in their financial future–not violently attempting to kill or be killed? So, as with military service, alcohol consumption and marriage, many states have allowed the age of consent to vary. Personally, when it comes to sexual relationships, I think one should be at least 18, and that statutory rape laws are justifiably enforced.
I was also impressed with the fact that when talking about young men being chased by gays, the man on the video did not imply that these were straight young men. In fact, they were probably gay, since heterosexual young men—even at age 14—are most often repulsed and angered if propositioned by a gay man. These heterosexual youths are not often willing to be whisked off by an old homosexual man, just as young women do not all desire to be pursued by straight older men—Not by older lesbians either. But when one is attracted either by gay men or straight women, age 14 includes the onset of puberty and the hormonal changes that involves. So while it is wrong for older men to pursue younger partners, either gay or straight (just as the guy in the video says), it is also worth noting that these people probably have adolescent gay desires or hetero desires, and are not taken in completely against their will. But that being said, that’s precisely the reason for statutory rape laws–to protect immature people from doing things that they may not be old enough to know are dangerous. I wholeheartedly agree, and I would guess that a great many gay people agree also!
What I don’t know is frankly why you seem to believe that since some gays do unethical things—just like many straight men do—that this somehow proves that the majority of gay men, are eager and willing to risk assaulting a straight man who usually is stronger and more easily accepting physical ways to resolve issue, (not always but usually)? I would guess that when most gay men approach others (young or old) they do so with the belief that the object of their desire is also of the same sexual orientation. I know that this also is not always true, but I would say that most gay men are very selective about whom they approach–basically since a lot of belligerent men like Aaron McKinney are just as likely to deck or apparently kill, any gay guy they are angered by.
So are some gay people prone to seek out very young partners?–yes very often I would guess! And are many older straight men tempted to seek out younger girls–of course! Where your reasoning fails Abner, is not that these things don’t happen–they do! What you are wrong about is that, this not a license to believe that most gay men are child abusers, or, that other gay men think nothing of their questionable activities. Just like the guy in your video, many gays would agree that one should not pursue younger partners merely for erotic fulfillment. The same also goes for most straight guys.
But the fact is, that as we grow older, many of us are attracted to the young, good looking people who remind us of the passion and vigor of our youths. The crucial difference is that we know acting on such desires is wrong, and unless we are irresponsible, we recognize how wrong acting them out would be, and how (especially, very young adolescents) can be emotionally hurt or psychologically damaged by such advances–we don’t break the law!
So what is your point? Whether Matthew or anyone else has desires for young men, that does not exonerate any attackers to kill gays because of resentments about their sexual orientations! So, this really has got a lot to do with the fact that often gay people are savagely attacked by angry straight men who pigeonhole them and stereotype them as ALL wanting to make obscene advances. If something like this happens if is understandable why anyone—gay or straight, might want to take a swing at those who are pushing themselves on that person. And, sometimes it is understandable if they knock out, or even knock down their assailants. But hate crimes involving unjustified brutality towards gays, have been adopted for a reason— that being, that far more often the reverse situation—- where gays are attacked, not because of clear threats made by them towards straight men, but rather because of self-perceived threats, which are irrationality exaggerated by the minds of homophobic men who harbor hostility towards gays. Once again, don’t take my word for it—try Googling some information about hate crimes, and you will discover that far more often it’s the straight guys who violently assault gays. None of this is an excuse for beating someone like Matthew to death, and unfortunately, men like McKinney all too often think it is!
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 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. 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. 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. 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.
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. 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.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 .
Abner,
If you want to engage in a worthwhile debate, you’re going to have to offer some new ideas for the discussion—not just regurgitate things you have already said before—over and over again!
I also don’t see how you can accuse me of writing (re-runs), since I say many different things in response to your dogmatically repetitive comments which are apparently re-copied and re-pasted into the same thread, perpetually!
Most men have interest in adult women in 20s and 30s. Usually when you read of a woman who has an affair, she is having an affair with an adult man. If a woman has sex with a 14 year old boy, then she will go to jail for sex abuse. If a man has sex with a girl who is under 18 years old, then he will go go to jail for sex abuse. Almost none of them are interested in underage girls (those under 18). When a 40 something man has an affair (known men who have done this) he has an affair with a woman who is in her 20s and 30s such as 43 year old man with 23 year old woman. Older men (40s and older) who have affairs with young women do so because their sex life with their wife after many years of marriage has ended due to boredom and they seek younger women-some who look like who their wife did when she was in 20s. With Miley Cyrus, while since 2010 (when she turned 18) she has become sexual, when she started out @ 15, she was not so. Britney and Beyonce began their music stardom when they were 17 years old in 1999. But most men did not view them as sexually when they were 17. Yes, those 2 became sexual afterwards but that was after they turned 18. If you show men pictures of Britney Jean Spears in 1999 (when she was 17) vs. Britney Jean Spears in 2003 (@21) when it comes to beauty, most men will take the 2003 Britney. Singers such as Lady Gaga, Katy E. Perry (she turns 30 in Fall 2014) in 2014 are in their prime when it comes to beauty. Britney and Beyonce who in the 2010s are in their 30s are in their good years when it comes to beauty though not as good as 2000-2009 because for many men seeing them flaunt their beauty after many years becomes predictable and we know what to expect.
But with homosexuals and who they have sexual interest in, gays interest sexually are teenage boys to men in early 20s who still have acne. There are old gays who have told me that they shave their body and my guess is they do it because they want to look the same way as they did when they were 14 years old. 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. Many times when it’s discovered a person is 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. A homosexual is who is having sex with 14 year old boys as Jerry A. Sandusky did is not usually going to admit they commit this crime. With homosexuals, you don’t always know the secrets a person has in their life. Homosexual groups saw nothing wrong with HB Milk sexually abusing a 16 year old boy. Truth is that gay/lesbian groups think it’s Okay for gays to homolest teenage boys.
As the guy in the video said, (in effect), “I also know (many) straight guys who chase after young girls.”And, he is absolutely right! Then there is the fact that straight guys may be seeing prostitutes, or having affairs with other women, just like gays do. However until recently, gays have been officially denied access to the institution of marriage, so ANY relationship they may have been in, was looked at as an affair or a blatant sexual romp. The truth is that many are willing to commit to a lifetime of fidelity once they become officially married, and in fact, HAVE been faithful to each other for decades—even before they became officially wed.
The message the guy on the video seemed to be conveying is that it’s wrong for ANY older person to take advantage of under-aged children–something many in the gay community would agree with. And, of course the boy in the newspaper article he referred to, was having sex with a male porn star. So, for what its worth, a porn star generally has a much greater need and desire for sex than straight people, so comparing what a porn star may do, with what other, more conventionally sexual people, (gay of straight) may do,is probably not representative of most others with differing orientations anyway.
If you look at the film again, you will see that the man in it, (in the interest of honesty) invariably qualifies his statements to include the fact that older STRAIGHT men, also act the same towards younger women etc.
The fact is also, that once a male or female adolescent develops into his or her, more fully adult sexuality, they are often attractive to straight older males. This may happen when they are well-under 18. The statutory rape laws are intended to protect minors from older partners because of the simple reason that they are physically attractive to many adults and so, are vulnerable to sexual advances and exploitation from such older adults. However, I don’t believe every gay man is out to rape or exploit adolescents anymore than every straight man is. And, the guy in the video was right to understand that abuse of under-aged children is not just a gay or straight thing, but a problem across all sexual categories. Neither does he imply that most gays are just seething to abuse or rape under-aged children. Although the circle of friends he discusses in Atlanta were very loose about their 18 or under affairs, it’s not that way in may other areas of the country, just like it doesn’t happen to the same extent at the hands of all straight older men who live in other areas.
No one is denying that Harvey Milk had an affair with an under-aged adolescent, but at the time this happened, the State of New York prosecuted only cases that were under sixteen–since that’s what the laws in New York were during the time Milk lived there! And, in the San Francisco of the 1970’s, the laws governing abuse of minors was not defined or enforced in the same way for gay relationships as it for straight relationships. That’s because there were no clear legal definitions involving sex between two men, who could not cause their partners to become pregnant, and therefore, did not include blatant disregards for the possibility of unwanted pregnancy happening to their young partners. I believe that has now has been changed, but, rightly or wrongly, at the time of Harvey Milk’s relationship, although many might have regarded him as creepy, what he did was not against the law.
What the guy in your video appeared to be saying is that ALL older men, gay, straight, or bisexual, should (voluntarily) accept the responsibility of leaving young adolescents alone–a very reasonable message for gays, straights and bisexuals to hear—and one with a very ethical theme that promotes awareness of the dangers posed by sexual exploitation–especially as it affects adolescent—which is now especially important after the Aids epidemic began—since sexual contact now poses even greater dangers for under-aged participants in sexual relationship.
I don’t trust pro-gay pscyhologists such as J. Drescher or Gregory M. Herek because they distort things to support gay agenda including. Those 2 are apologists for Harvey B. Milk who in 1964 committed homosexual statutory rape on 16 year old boy which he wasn’t prosecuted for. So what they say is useless because they see nothing wrong with what Harvey B. Milk sexually abusing a 16 year old boy and even gay activists do not deny the truth that Harvey B. Milk sexually abused a 16 year old boy in 1964. With Harvey B. Milk, we know what’s reported but do not be surprised if Harvey B. Milk had more victims besides the 2 victims we know of he had and Harvey B. Milk committed homosexual statutory rape in that he did his victim in states where minimum age is 18. What gay groups say about Harvey B. Milk is homosexual propaganda. Possible his victim turned out gay because of homosexual statutory rapes.
Harvey B. Milk also bragged about having sex in park restrooms but never being caught by the police-he asked other boys for sex in the bathroom which is criminal indecent exposure because the bathroom is the place to use the bathroom and wash up and is not a house or bar so not the place for proposals. see http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/sexual-pr…postage-stamp/ A handicapped man in 2008 had mentioned that when he was a runaway in 1977, Harvey Bernard Milk abused him by asking him to runaway with him, with Harvey B. Milk knowing that he was handicapped. Is there something wrong with this So we know that Harvey B. Milk had @least 2 teenage boys who were his victims-1 in 1964 and another 1 in 1977 with the 2nd victim a handicapped runaway. Harvey B. Milk gets no sympathy from me for what he did to those teenage boys and he possibly had more victims.All homosexual pedofiles are homosexuals. 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.
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 long held conclusions on homosexuality when they removed homosexuality from DSM in 1973. They have as said since 1973 become ideological on gay/lesbian topic. 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.
I don’t care that the American Medical Association says that homosexual/lesbian activities isn’t a disease-go ahead & cure it. 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.You can rerun again & again that homosexuality isn’t a disease, but again, I say go ahead & cure it.
Abner,
Once again, except for a few new bits of personal speculation, such as the claim you would not be surprised if Harvey Milk, “had more victims besides the two we know he had,” you have again regurgitated and re-pasted old comments from previous posts. I will not continually respond to the many baseless accusations, speculations, and distortions of scientific research which you rely on, over and over and over and over and over again!
I don’t know about any disabled runaways “abused” by Milk but I do know he encouraged a young man to leave his home environment (where his biased parents and peers), had driven him to suicide and despair by making him believe that his natural sexual orientations were sick and perverted. You can say Milk abused him by giving him this moral support, but I am sure Milk considered his actions as giving support to a person who was regularly abused—mentally and emotionally–by the small minds of his home town.
If you chose not to believe the American Medical Association as well as dozens of other major American scientific groups, I can’t stop you. But I would recommend that you write your own dictionary of the English language as well. Why should you let yourself be burdened by factual knowledge of any kind at all?
the ideas of mainstream science DON’T stay the same. As any student of history knows, scientists are constantly changing their evaluations in response to new information, and wouldn’t be doing their jobs well if they ignored all other research.
One example of Scientific flexibility is that The American Psychological Association, did not support “pro-gay” or “pro-lesbian,” ideologies after simply changing their previous assessments about whether being gay is really sick or unnatural—it’s only ideological Christian and right wing groups who claim that scientists are being “pro-gay.” However, In reality, the entire discipline of scientific investigation, reveres facts! And, many scientists who come from all different kinds of religious, political and cultural backgrounds, all rely on facts to guide them! Especially when rejecting those ideas they have found to be untrue!
It also doesn’t take only Abner, to know that, “homosexual rape in youth, can mess up the mind.” Researchers have always known that sexual abuse in any form–including the abuse of children, can cause serious psychological problems. They have never claimed anything different!
But scientific researchers doubt that sexual abuse can cause anyone to “turn out gay”—unless they are homosexuality oriented to begin with. But that’s NOT a denial that childhood sexual abuse, can cause serious psychological problems. And obviously, being told from adolescence that one’s natural sexual orientation is wrong, or sick, and/or evil, can obviously also cause serious psychological problems. Just access your human empathy to understand why!
Abner, all of your unproven speculations and claims about facts that you think scientists believe, as well as those that they have never really denied, have been responded to by me, over and over and over and over again. Your latest response is still largely a repetition of your previous claims, after being recopied and re-pasted, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Do you get my point? If not, be careful–you might trip over it!
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. Behavior including sexual behavior can be learned. Childhood sexual abuse is linked to homosexuality and lesbianism. 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.
Sex abuse especially homosexual rape in youth is major cause of homosexuality/transexuality-deny it is dishonest, delusional or both. It remains to be seen how many of Gerald Arthur (Jerry) Sandusky’s victims think they’re gay because of this. Homosexual/lesbian sexual behaviors are bad for health often as result of childhood sex abuse though there possibly other causes such as birth defect though they’ve not conclusively proven gayism’s inborn. 33% of gays report homosexual rape in youth. 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. Whatever causes, it’s best for gays/lesbians to be celibate until a cure is found for homosexuality.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? With the comment ‘homofobia’, homophobia is telling truths which offend homosexuals. Anyhow you’re not saying anything I haven’t considered. You can rerun again & again that homosexuality isn’t a disease, but again, I say go ahead & cure it. Unsure what else we can say because we’ll mainly repeat what we’ve said so many times already on this topic.
Once again Abner,
No scientists who specialize in studying sexuality has ever claimed that childhood abuse, does NOT influence or damage the person abused.
However, there is no real evidence that sexual abuse, even at the hands of a gay person, can determine the course of ones adult sexual orientation. So, If you want to continue playing these myths like a broken record, please provide me with claims from any reputable scientist (who is not affiliated religious or right wing organizations) who claims abuse can “cause” someone to be gay. Abuse will cause insecurities about one’s sexuality or fears that one was chosen by a gay offender because of being gay—these are all natural fears that arise as a result of abuse—but abuse itself does not determine that one is secretly gay, or was (made) to change into being gay, or will seek ought gay adult relationships. The scientific research done by objective scientists absolutely does not prove any such idea! You will find plenty of sites that contain testimonials by ministers and by those belonging to fundamentalists faiths which make these claims, but they seldom have anything to do with real scientific research! But this does NOT imply that childhood sexual abuse does NOT cause anxiety and sexual confusion–including the false fear that the abused person is gay or may become gay because of abuse! Actually, most hetero males who were abused are completely reluctant to cause other children the same psychological stress that they felt, and often will continue to feel, for many years.
Scientists who reach these conclusions from valid research are not part of some “politically correct,” or some, “pro-gay” conspiracy. All they are doing is reporting the factual evidence that supports their conclusions. If that evidence did not exist, or if it supported your ideas, you can bet that scientists would openly share those results as well.
Of course Abner knows better? and Christian “experts” know better? so tell me Abner who really is following some sort of agenda? The people who invariably accept the words of religious experts and who begin with the biased religious premise that homo-sexuality is sick and wrong—because the Bible, the Koran, or some other religious text says so? Or those of all different faiths and backgrounds who report the results of solid and verifiable research as being more credible? And, scientists cannot “deny” a link that “proves,” homosexual child abuse determines adult sexuality, since on cannot deny something that doesn’t exist in the first place! And, as for the claim made by you that, “Those denying link between childhood sex abuse and adult gay/lesbian behaviors are usually gay,” First where to you get the evidence supporting such a subjective idea–certainly not from valid scientific research! Since that would mean that the myriad of psychological, sociological, medical and educational authorities that confirm the results of current research must all be gay,or—nearly all be gay? Lots of luck with that one Abner!
Did you ever think that those who disagree with your biased, unproved, and anecdotal evidence become angry because they don’t like those who deny valid, and proven truths?–not just because they agree about gay sexual orientation being natural?
As for the bulk of your last comment–more recopying and re-pasting of former comments! Yada, yada, yada, Yada, Yada! You’ll have do do better than that Abner!
https://1in6.org/family-and-friends/myths/
Peter W. Johnson, with nature argument you give, stealing and killing are also found among animals. Incest or inbreeding has also been observed in nature. Cannibalism is also found among animals so natural argument is poor.Using animals as a guide to how people should behave is a bad idea.
The pro-gay pschologists say rubbish such as when they say Jerry A. Sandusky is not gay which proves bias meddles with facts when you say a homosexual pedophile is not a homosexual. It depends on your definition, if 1 does not define a person who has same sex relations with a young boy as gay, then they call him straight or something else. Though it’s repeat it must be said again. A person is homosexual or lesbian if they knowingly and willing do same sex behaviors. If a person has homosexual activities with a young boy, then they are a homosexual pedofile. Jerry A. Sandusky is a homosexual pedofile-even if J.A. Sandusky calls himself straight, he would still be gay by behavior definition. But homosexual groups say that he is not gay when his conduct defines him as such.The priests who molest young boys are gay pedophiles. If a man has sex with little girls only, then he is a straight pedophile. Rush H. Limbaugh’s right when he said Jerry A. Sandusky is gay-and columnist Patrick J. Buchanan condemns who he calls gay priests. Those priests are again gay pedophiles, pederasts or homolesters. So there are many homosexual pedophiles such as the gay priests, Jerry A. Sandusky.
Again, it’s sexual conduct or behavior which defines if 1 is straight or homosexual. 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. All homosexual pedofiles are homosexuals. 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. homosexual groups got offended when columnist Patrick J. Buchanan condemned gay priests. What those priests did when they molest young boys is homosexuality.
Abner,
No one ever said that someone who assaults a child of the same gender, is NOT a homosexual, but researchers do find that some child abusers are indiscriminate about whatever gender they choose abuse. I also am NOT using nature to “justify,” homosexual behavior, just to point out that it is, in itself, not an unusual occurrence in the natural world. However, you do seem to be using examples in nature to justify your dislike of gay behavior, which in that sense, is completely invalid.
As for everything else you re-paste over and over again, go right ahead and continue re-saying and re-pasting them. That in no way, means that what you say is true, or that you’re your beliefs are correct in any way!
If a man has sex with many women, not use condoms & he gets a Venereal Disease (VD), many people would say that they don’t sympathize with the straight man-he chose to be reckless in having sex with many women w/o condoms and he got a disease from taking risks.
Yet when a homosexual man has sex with many men, not use condoms and the homosexual uses drugs such as Meth, Cocaine, etc. during sex and in the end he gets AIDS, homosexual groups, celebrities like Elton Toilet John & politically safe Drs. say that we should sympathize with the homosexual AIDS victims with Red Ribbons for sympathy, though the homosexuals chose to be reckless. The homosexual men who got AIDS know about condoms & the risks of being promiscuous w/o condoms, but they choose to be reckless and promiscuous because that is what they want to do. It is the homosexuals fault that they got AIDS, because they knew the risks but chose to take the risks as they did not care. If the homosexuals had been celibate, they would not have gotten AIDS. Most smokers know tobacco is dangerous, yet they smoke and chew tobacco & though there are exceptions most tobacco users do not blame others if they get disease such as emphysema or lung cancer because they know the dangers of tobacco use. Some other things for you to think about when it deals with sexuality.
Most men have interest in adult women in 20s and 30s. Usually when you read of a woman who has an affair, she is having an affair with an adult man. If a woman has sex with a 14 year old boy, then she will go to jail for sex abuse. If a man has sex with a girl who is under 18 years old, then he will go go to jail for sex abuse. Almost none of them are interested in underage girls (those under 18). When a 40 something man has an affair (known men who have done this) he has an affair with a woman who is in her 20s and 30s such as 43 year old man with 23 year old woman. Older men (40s and older) who have affairs with young women do so because their sex life with their wife after many years of marriage has ended due to boredom and they seek younger women-some who look like who their wife did when she was in 20s. With Miley Cyrus, while since 2010 (when she turned 18) she has become sexual, when she started out @ 15, she was not so. Britney and Beyonce began their music stardom when they were 17 years old in 1999. But most men did not view them as sexually when they were 17. Yes, those 2 became sexual afterwards but that was after they turned 18. If you show men pictures of Britney Jean Spears in 1999 (when she was 17) vs. Britney Jean Spears in 2003 (@21) when it comes to beauty, most men will take the 2003 Britney. Singers such as Lady Gaga, Katy E. Perry (turns 30 in Fall 2014) in 2014 are in their prime when it comes to beauty. Britney and Beyonce who in the 2010s are in their 30s are in their good years when it comes to beauty though not as good as 2000-2009 because for many men seeing them flaunt their beauty after many years becomes predictable and we know what to expect.
But with homosexuals and who they have sexual interest in, gays interest sexually are teenage boys to men in early 20s who still have acne. There are old gays who have told me that they shave their body and my guess is they do it because they want to look the same way as they did when they were 14 years old. 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. Many times when it’s discovered a person is 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. A homosexual is who is having sex with 14 year old boys as Jerry A. Sandusky did is not usually going to admit they commit this crime. With homosexuals, you don’t always know the secrets a person has in their life. Homosexual groups saw nothing wrong with HB Milk sexually abusing a 16 year old boy. Truth is that gay/lesbian groups think it’s Okay for gays to homolest teenage boys.
Abner, you continue to distort the issue with more falsehoods than can be mentioned in one letter, so keep on regurgitating more of the same. Just because you may think so, doesn’t necessarily make a thing you say true, and it never will!
Most men and most teenage boys do not have interest in teenage girls who have not finished puberty. If you see who most men have interest in when it comes to women. Most men have interest in women who are in their 20s, 30s to early 40s with women in 20s being most popular, 30s popular and early to mid 40s a woman’s last pretty years. A woman’s prime years when it comes to sexual beauty for most men is when she is in her 20s and 30s with most beautiful years being when a woman is 18 to 35 years old.
But when you look at who gays have interest in-gays interest sexually are teenage boys to men in early 20s who still have acne. Once a man’s hairline recedes (while it varies this often is noticeable when a man is in early to late 20s), most gays find him too old because the youth is gone. And just because a gay is in a long term relationship such as 20 years, 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. Truth is that gay/lesbian groups think it’s Okay for gays to homolest teenage boys. From the times I have known gays, gays like teenagers (usually 18 or 19 -barely legal) to men in early 20s. It’s truth that gays like men who are boyish looking-those who still have a full head of hair and acne-there are many gays who have interest in 16 year old teenagers-such as Milk and Liberace. Once the acne clears, a man’s hairline recedes, full grown beard and so on such as in mid 20s, gays begin to lose interest because he looks too old.
Abner,
Once again there are many pedophiles who prefer young pubescent children, but these people do not represent the majority of gay men, or bisexual men, any more than they are indicative of the vast numbers of straight men and women, who prefer more mature partners and would be very upset to know that child abuse happens to anyone! I have known many gay people who absolutely don’t think it is “alright to abuse young children!” And I would like to know where in the world you discovered such false information.
As I have said many times, the vast majority of sexually active adults (including those who fit the LGBT designation) do not think it is alright to abuse children. What you are repeating is a blatant myth which has no doubt been circulated by bogus scientists, biased religious groups, and those who spread outrageous misinformation that is then circulated by biased groups and ignorant organizations. Those who speak the real truth include a vast number of social scientists and medical experts who have done real research into this topic. Excuse me but I’d much rather get my information form learned scientists who have spent decades researching human sexuality. I know that specialists in this field know much more than other scientists, more than me, and even more than that guy named Abner. Keep on denying science and distorting the facts if you want, I will still chose the advise of objective scientists, who are probably members of many various faiths, over biased fundamentalists, who from the beginning, choose circular religious reasoning over solid facts. So as the saying goes, babble on, and knock yourself out! Its all up to you!
Peter W. Johnson, information from homosexual groups is not to be trusted and it’s best people not trust what APA says on homosexuality because they are pro-gay ideologues who are dishonest. Also Peter W. Johnson, you do not know all that happens in a person’s life. Many times when it’s discovered a person is 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. A homosexual is who is having sex with 14 year old boys as Jerry A. Sandusky did is not usually going to admit they commit this crime. With homosexuals, you don’t always know the secrets a person has in their life. 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.
Abner,
As I have told you many times before, groups like the APA, and the AMA, among many others, are not “pro-gay,” or “anti-gay”–they are only composed of scientists who have honestly investigated the biology and environmental effects that influence
human sexuality. It’s really anti-gay groups that perpetuate the myth which claims that scientists follow a “pro-gay” agenda i.e. how many groups who accept homosexuality,(not just tolerate it) do you hear agreeing with those who dispute the knowledge of scientists? Furthermore, I doubt the vast majority of of supposedly (pro-gay) scientists, are gay themselves–rather they are most likely heterosexuals (by a large percentage)! Still, if you want to claim that you, as a laymen, are more knowledgeable about human sexuality than they, no one can really convince you that they are not pushing some sinister, liberal, socialist, pro-gay, pro-political correctness conspiracy! All I can say is that if you really research the issues, you’ll find that very many of the things you claim as being facts are NOT really true. That requires understanding what scientific research is REALLY all about, as well as dropping the many bizarre political talking points you currently obsess about as being undoubtedly true.
Once again, I have known and observed many homosexual people during my college years and while I lived in San Francisco, and I can’t remember a single one of them expressing the idea that they don’t care about child abuse–perpetrated by gays or straights!
Your excuse for doubting all of the evidence against your opinions often includes the blind proposition that people who commit crimes, especially child abusers, are not eager to admit to them. But this begs the question of how any of us could know that the claims you make are true. Did a gay person tell you about their hidden crimes? If so, why did they trust you? Or, did you just assume that the things you’ve heard from anti gay groups are true? If these crimes are kept secret, then who knows about them-?—and whether they are real or not? Then there is the question you must ask straight people answer, to ascertain if they, (as opposed to gays) are not concerned with keeping their crimes secret? How many straight guys have you heard admit to molesting a child–it does happen Abner! So in that case are they must be different from gays who prefer not telling others about their transgressions. So are straight guys contrarily, very open about the child abuse they have done?—good luck with that Abner!
How would you feel if everyone claimed that you were personally gay, despite all the evidence that you are not? Do you think that the many, mostly gay people, who are constantly accused of sick crimes by people who won’t accept the mountains of proof to the contrary, would feel any differently?
The truth is that your mind is full of unsubstantiated myths that people who cannot accept anything but hetero-sexual behavior from everyone, (no matter how often the truth hits them between the eyes)!
When you dwell in a darkened and sealed off room, only you are capable of uncovering the windows and opening the doors, to then see what the daylight is all about!
Peter W. Johnson, homosexuals are more likely to molest children because many homosexuals & transexuals (mutilated gays/lesbians) were victims of child molestation as children. It would not surprise me if some of the homosexuals you knew in college in San Francisco were molested as children and in their adulthood have molested children, of course the gay men you knew in college are unlikely to admit to you that they molest children if they did it, because they don’t want to go to prison and they are not so dumb as to admit that they commit this crime. 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.
APA and AMA are apologists for sex change mutilations, sterilization surgeries so their views on homosexuality is rubbish, it’s best people not trust AMA & APA APA says on homosexuality because they are pro-gay ideologues who are dishonest. Just because they are scientists does not change the truth that they can be dishonest, distort science to support a conclusion & so on. When APA and AMA say rubbish such as AMA rubbish that homosexual child molester Jerry A. Sandusky is not a homosexual, then that proves the AMA is dishonest. AMA also denies link between childhood sex abuse and adult homosexual conduct which further proves why the American Medical Association is an evil group.
Sex abuse especially homosexual rape in youth is major cause of homosexuality/transexuality-deny it is dishonest, delusional or both. It remains to be seen how many of Gerald Arthur (Jerry) Sandusky’s victims think they’re gay because of this. Homosexual/lesbian sexual behaviors are bad for health often as result of childhood sex abuse though there possibly other causes such as birth defect though they’ve not conclusively proven gayism’s inborn. 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. Finally here another 1 for you, see my posts (under name snowisfun) here http://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/2014/08/05/queers-harass-teens-in-public-toilets-then-whinge-about-gay-bashing-3/
Abner,
In both of your last posts, you have denied the education and expertise of tens of thousands of Psychiatrists, Psychologists and Sociologists who have spent years researching this topic. Yet in your last post you have referred me to a website which first of all, is glaringly religious and biased, and secondly, features the opinions of political comenter from Fox News? Neither Fox, nor fundamentalist Christians have any credibility as being objective about much of anything. What they do, is stir up controversy by continually claiming to know much more about topics like human sexuality, political correctness and climate science, than the people who study those things, even though they often have no formal education or training in any of these areas of knowledge. You also are extremely presumptuous to place your trust in anything these vociferous pundits say by blindly accepting it. you are also establishing yourself as an authority who knows much more than accomplished scientists with PhD’s who you summarily dismiss as serving a “pro-gay,” or “apologist” agenda.
One of your misconceptions has to do with the ideas that those who defend gay rights, are almost certainly gays themselves, (or at least) that very many are. This does not exclude the tens of thousands of scientists who have the integrity to dispel myths like the ones you perpetuate. Therefore, you are also saying that the vast majority of these thousands of educated and learned men, must certainly be gay? Undoubtedly some are, but, I challenge you to provide corroboration of your implication that anyone like them who, denies the link between childhood sex abuse and homosexuality is, “dishonest, delusional or both.” Furthermore the idea that sexual conduct (can) be learned, has never been denied by any of them, as you would know if you ever really studied their research instead of appointing yourself, and those who distribute obvious bias concerning homosexuals, from the beginning!
when doing research about your claims on Wikipedia, I discovered and article which had been flagged for scrutiny because of its possible false information, or inadequate presentation of that information. Overall, the most Wikipedia would do, is to grade this information with a (C-class) rating! and in fact, the webpage it was on, was deleted on February 13th, 2006, although many follow-up comments were made on more recent dates.
The article originally contained information about the causes of sexual abuse, and how it often caused adults to become homosexuals later. It also reported that, “other researchers had established “proof” that the Freudian concept which claims that the children of emotionally distant and rejecting fathers, and most often have closer relationships with their mothers, often become gay. The individual who cited these ideas as being valid, included references from the APA, and the AGLP (the Association of Gay and Lesbian Pediatrics), to bolster his case that there is a well known relationship between sexual preference and a history of sexual abuse. He cited these academic journals as admitting that, a definite link exists between such factors. However this information is misleading in that, although such studies do exist (albeit suspected of using questionable methodology) that does not mean that many other studies also exist, (the vast majority of which), do not support these conclusions, and more often have been accepted by scientific journals like the APA, that uses much more scientifically valid information and which produce entirely more valid conclusions. In discussions about these sources, many other contributors pointed out this commenter gave entirely too much weight to a few studies, and ignored the many other studies that didn’t support his conclusions.
The official position of the APA is that:
“No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice.” And also that, “to date their is no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiologies for homosexuality.” However also, to date, “no, specific psycho-social or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified.”
It is solid research like this that has left many experts in the field to conclude that homosexuality, and bisexuality are caused by many different factors but, absolutely have no consitent link to family dynamics or childhood sexual abuse.
the person making such unproven claims was criticized for placing too much emphasis on only 2 studies,while denying the many studies which did not support his ideas. Another commenter criticized his claims because they excluded many of the studies that do NO’T conform to his claims and that he appeared to have cherry picked information from a site like “Conservapedia,” and offered no solid information to validate causation. For example, the Journal of the American Medical association (JAMA) was also cited as a source in which he found something that he agreed with his view points and was later inserted into the article to bolster the claim that, “Abused Adolescents, particularly those who were abused by males, were up to 7 times more likely to self identify as gay or bisexual than peers who had not been abused.” But what the JAMA article actually said was, “Sexual abuse of boys appears to be common, underreported, underrecognized, and undertreated.” but didn’t contain one word about discovering the cause of homosexuality!
You see Abner, these same things happen to children at the hands of straight offenders, towards heterosexual childminder yet are also underreported, and do not determine the course of their future sexuality!
But again, if you claim that a particularly large numbers of sexual abuse happens to children that later “turn out,” gay, how can you make this claim side-by-side with your idea that these children don’t usually report abuse, and in fact, lie about their abuse, yet still claim for a fact, that the majority of such homosexuality abused kids later become gay themselves because of abuse? Forgive me, but, if these transgression are rarely mentioned, then what makes you privy to special knowledge about them? Do you have unique knowledge about such occurrences that are not mentioned? Do these abused people routinely tell the truth to you, but not to their parents, their doctors, psychiatrists, or teachers? If not, than what you say about them cannot be anything but your own opinions and speculation–coming only from someone who has very little scientific training or pertinent knowledge about human sexuality. In reality Abner is the only expert who confirms Abner’s claims, along with his many unfounded opinions, is Abner himself!
If one really investigates the methodology used to validate the many false things you claim, he will soon understand that most often very unscientific and questionable methodology is used in studies that report such biased views. And, often the entire studies they come from, have deceptively manipulated information. yet you expect me to accept the authority of a Fox News Commenter, writing on a religious site, about his own experience with someone who approached him for sex many years ago. But Abner, exactly the same types of things happen between straight people who make unwanted advances towards people of the opposite sex, or homosexuals who proposition members of their own sex! And, in general, any author who uses the word, “queers,” betrays his own lack of intelligence and depth. Just as using the word “niggers,” to describe a black man, would also be indicative of an individual with little intelligence or moral integrity! If you consider all of this, along with the fact that many of the most staunch anti-gay ideologues (often politicians), are commonly exposed as participating in gay relationships which they blame on “the devil,” then you couldn’t help but understand that such people are not nearly as reliable as the thousands of trained and experience sex researchers who are only approaching this topic with open minds and thorough intellectual diligence.
Please enlighten me as to why sexual researchers, who are by far, more commonly heterosexually oriented, would want to betray their own gender by attempting to falsely claim that gays are really NOT sick and primarily, NOT the products of childhood sexual abuse? Let’s not pretend they are selling out about this in return for sums of money, or false prestige–the vast amount of money that goes for research, is used to support only the equipment and methodology used in that research, or to provide compensation for the normal loss of wages suffered by those who (for example) cannot teach because they are occupied with conducting such research. And, please don’t provide me with ignorant testimony from pre-biased religious fundamentalists, or the cherry picked data from those who erroneously emphasis insignificant portions of articles which agree with a small number of the things they say! Mos Television evangelists, and fundamentalist religious leaders are far more likely to be seen driving a Porsche, or living in a fancy mansion than any scientist who has dedicated his or her lives to learning about human sexuality, and simply attempting to express their findings with scientific objectivity. Neither is Abner, any valid authority about the science he doesn’t even understand!
Peter W. Johnson, you can see my posts (under name snowisfun) here http://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/dharun-ravi-was-a-victim-of-gay-bullying/
With this suicide case, was the suicide victim as a boy had been a victim of child molestation especially repeated molestation by a homosexual priest which caused him to engage in homosexual conduct and in the end commit suicide @ 18 years old ? Childhood sexual abuse is linked to homosexuality and lesbianism. 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.
Sex abuse especially homosexual rape in youth is major cause of homosexuality/transexuality-deny it is dishonest, delusional or both. It remains to be seen how many of Gerald Arthur (Jerry) Sandusky’s victims think they’re gay because of this. Homosexual/lesbian sexual behaviors are bad for health often as result of childhood sex abuse though there possibly other causes such as birth defect though they’ve not conclusively proven gayism’s inborn. 33% of gays report homosexual rape in youth. 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. Whatever causes, it’s best for gays/lesbians to be celibate until a cure is found for homosexuality.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?
Abner,
Here is a link to the Wikipedia article I mention. I hope you are willing to examine and understand it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Environment_and_sexual_orientation#History_of_Abuse
this sentence of mine should read:
“You see Abner, these same things happen to children at the hands of straight offenders towards heterosexual children, yet are also underreported, and do not determine the course of their future sexuality!”
Where I came up with a word like “childminder,” I’ll never know!
POP,
Somehow my recent August 11th, 2014 post at 4:38 AM ended up very far up in this thread and was included with posts dated, June 11th, of this year?
Are Abner and I running out of room, or did I accidentally respond to one of his earlier posts?
I would have preferred that my comment be placed near the end of this thread, which is where I thought it would go.
Sorry, I don’t know how that happened. If you’d like it moved up, please resubmit it, and I’ll delete the first one.
Abner,You are absolutely right—if no one can convince you otherwise, your views will stay the same. However, I don’t recall making any lectures about religion except to point out that most fundamentalist religious people place their faith on many passages in the Bible that condemn homosexual behavior. But I am also a Christian–I just believe that hatred and prejudice towards gays comes from the same place that any hatred or prejudice comes from, about anyone of anything else–the place where we are fearful of our differences—especially when those differences are radically different from our own. The Racist history of our own country is a prime example of this, since there is nothing inherently evil or inferior about African Americans–even tough many prejudiced people tried to tell us so, and are still trying to spread such lies laced heavily with hatred and prejudice! And, just as is the case with gay people, people of color all over the world have experienced the ugly things prejudice can do. Of course, then there are the Jews, who have been the brunt of prejudice and persecution for thousands of years just because their religious beliefs and rituals are different from those of others. In America, the most recent prejudice is aimed at Muslims, as if they are all violent and religiously oppressive!
The thing is, that “faith,” by definition, is not based on reason and/or logic, but rather on beliefs and subjective values. If not, there would only be one religion in the world, and we would have nothing to complain about, as we did when considering the supposedly false, religious beliefs of others.
So, when you accept what any fundamentalist faith believes about homosexuality, you are not basing that acceptance on actual facts, but rather, on what others believe about ethics and morality.
I am not saying that faith and intuition have no value, but they are notoriously inadequate when trying to gain factual knowledge. Those that blindly accept the edicts of their fundamentalist beliefs almost always think that only they have the ultimate knowledge about what correct religious beliefs are. It doesn’t matter if they are Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, or any other faith—as long as they think they have the authority to tell everyone else what to do, it’s obvious that their beliefs are based on little but biased speculation and arbtrary dogma. So, if you want to accept such beliefs based not on any facts, but merely because they speak to your own prejudices, then you have effectively become impervious to facts!
You probably don’t believe it, but the existence of bias and subjectivity is one of the reasons that the scientific method of arriving at knowledge and truth actually began. And, contrary to what you constantly say, scientist of all times, have let go of beliefs they once thought were true and changed their minds once extra, or different, data was discovered.
Say what you will, but fundamentalist religions very rarely accept ideas which contradict their own. So if you base most of your beliefs on faith, then at least have the honesty not to claim your beliefs are derived from reason. When it comes to accepting gays as ordinary people who are merely sexually oriented differently than us, all of the science has proven that religious dogmatists are wrong! If anything, there is little or NO actual evidence to back up most of what you believe, and that’s probably because many of your beliefs are based on prejudice and bias—based on the myths that people who cannot accept gays, have been spreading for centuries.
Some of what you say is true—like the fact that many boys who are sexually abused, suffer trauma that can lead to bed-wetting and nightmares. But there is no evidence that they BECOME gay just because of being assaulted. Heterosexual kids never become gay just because of being abused, however, they do suffer anxiety and self doubt (usually because they worry about why their abusers picked them, and if that means that they are gay). You’re also right that many gay people suffer from depression and some even commit suicide. But the source of that depression often stems from nothing more than having to face the prejudice from a society composed of many people like you, who insist that everything gay people feel, is unnatural of sick. But truthfully speaking, we are now beginning to learn differently.
So if it comes to believing the rhetoric from religious fanatics who are prejudiced right from the beginning, and who will never change their views, rather than believing learned scientists who are dedicated to studying the mysteries of sexuality, and who will actually change their views if different knowledge is revealed, I would much prefer and trust what they say, over all of the opinion, prejudice and speculation that those who are biased cling to, even in the face of solid facts!
Most of the supposed facts passed on by biased researchers are based on cherry picked data and misinformation, which is deliberately used to enforce one’s own beliefs and assumptions—not facts! You would think that if, childhood abuse was responsible for “turning 33 percent of children gay, (even though that is an outrageous claim in the first place) that there would not be so many heterosexual children who do not become gay, after being abused? But in the end,(if open mindedness means anything), I choose to believe the facts uncovered by scientists, over the dogma spread by religious ideologues!
Peter J. LaBarbera & Mission America’s Linda P. Harvey both are right when they talk of the dangers of homosexuality & transexuality. Both Peter J. LaBarbera & Mission America’s Linda P. Harvey haved talk of how too many Christians have sadly become apologists for the gay agenda. Peter J. LaBarbera & Mission America’s Linda P. Harvey are both brave in talking about the dangers of gay & transexual agendas & I am a non-Christian who agrees with Mission America’s Linda P. Harvey & Peter J. LaBarbera. Mission America’s Linda P. Harvey says Republican Party has become the meaningless party as Republican Party and the Democratic party both are apologists for homosexual agenda and there are too many Republicans as ex Republican Governor Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger’s an apologist for homosexuality and just as bad as the Democrats. Republican and Democratic Parties are both useless & other thoughts.
With repair therapy for homosexuals/lesbians. 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. 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 it often fails.
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. 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.
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.
86% of gay & lesbian pedophiles self-ID as gay & lesbian. Yes, it’s possible for homo/lesbian pedophiles to self-ID as straight (14% do) just as it’s possible for a junky who smokes drugs to self-ID as a non-smoker. But that doesn’t change fact that they’re gay & lesbian pedophiles & drug junkies. If a person knowingly & willingly has same sex sexual behaviors, then they’re gay/lesbian by sexual behavior definition even if they self-ID as straight.
It depends on your definition, if 1 does not define a person who has same sex relations with a young boy as gay, then they call him straight or something else. Though it’s repeat it must be said again. A person is homosexual or lesbian if they knowingly and willing do same sex behaviors. If a person has homosexual activities with a young boy, then they are a homosexual pedofile. Jerry A. Sandusky is a homosexual pedofile-even if J.A. Sandusky calls himself straight, he would still be gay by behavior definition. But homosexual groups say that he is not gay when his conduct defines him as such.The priests who molest young boys are gay pedophiles. If a man has sex with little girls only, then he is a straight pedophile. Rush H. Limbaugh’s right when he said Jerry A. Sandusky is gay-and columnist Patrick J. Buchanan condemns who he calls gay priests. Those priests are again gay pedophiles, pederasts or homolesters. So there are many homosexual pedophiles such as the gay priests, Jerry A. Sandusky.
Again, it’s sexual conduct or behavior which defines if 1 is straight or homosexual. 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. All homosexual pedofiles are homosexuals. 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. homosexual groups got offended when columnist Patrick J. Buchanan condemned gay priests. What those priests did when they molest young boys is homosexuality.
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 they 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 do and ugly truths will be told about a homosexual if it’s found 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.
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.
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.
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-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 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.
When I read 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. I also wonder if the journalist is a homosexual or lesbian and if so, 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 predictably make the homosexual look like an innocent victim no matter what wrong the gay does.
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.
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 they 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 any1 can do to legally stop us from telling the ugly truths. Gay bashing victims will face the public opinion court as gay bashers do and ugly truths will be told about a homosexual if it’s found though it offends homosexual groups.
ANY assault and battery or murder cases 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. 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 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-there is no need for a store owner 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 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.
Most prisoners both men & women have libido loss in prison as hormone levels among prisoners are ½ that of normal men & women. Most prisoners lose interest in sex but even among prisoners who do homosexual activities, most are homosexually raped. With prison’s homosexual rape victims-how many of the victims become homosexual after they leave prison in that how many do homosexual & lesbian activities after leaving prison because they learned this conduct by being homolested in prison ? Some adults turn out gay & lesbian because they learned this by being repeatedly homosexually victimized in prison which damaged them. They must end homosexual sex abuse in prison.
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. 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.
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.
Abner,
As I have already said, The Book of Matt was done in one of the most negligent journalistics ways possible and lacks any credible methodology in its gathering of “facts,” and its interpretation of them.
No one is saying that Matthew was a saint or some kind of virtuous martyr. To those who loved him he was just a good but fallible human being who unfortunately met a violent end that he didn’t deserve.
By now, myself and many others who read your propaganda, are beginning to wonder just why you apparently have made verbally bashing Homosexuals your life’s mission, and, why you still haven’t got the foggiest notion of the social barriers and injustice faced by gays everywhere, and everyday? If anyone at all stands up to you about the very real need for protecting gays from hate crimes, you immediately accuse them of being gay apologists or of taking part in a “pro-gay agenda.” And, I would guess even gay themselves don’t really know what you mean by making that charge? Those who put all this crap in your head have done a fine job of perverting your concept of equality, and the fact is, that anybody who is murdered in the way Matt was—whatever his or her personal faults may be—just doesn’t deserve torture and death!
Very few commenters on this thread are as ignorant as you about the issues involved in gay rights, or have the bizarre need to prevent anyone from recognizing Matthew’s role as a victim in a hate crime.
Many of us are tired of your repetitious vendetta against gays and against Matthew in particular. NOBODY cares what you say because 99.999% of what you say is garbage!
But before you accuse me of persecuting you for merely being one of the brave few who dares tells the truth, (as you seem to think), just remember that your insults aimed at gays and at Matthew, have been virtually astronomical in number, yet you continue dispensing hate and ignorance which cruelly minimizes the problems gays face! You also had the gall to call Matthews father and unload the same load of venom and crap onto him, even though you have no way of really knowing what is in his heart, and have obviously never lost a child! If you have, something about that child’s death must have left a permanent scar on your character. Congratulations! myself and many others whom you offend are giving you back the scorn you seek.
I am not going to address this problem with you again, but I will surely give you back the same scorn and anger that you continue to spew at gays everywhere!
However, just think back on all the things you’ve said on this thread and of all the hateful demeaning accusations you have made about things and people you don’t really know much about yourself, before you decide who is persecuting whom on this thread—one which you only use as an opportunity to insult and hurt people whose lives you really know nothing about!
I might add to Abner that I am going to have to put a stop to his comments of this type. I’ve been extremely patient, as he has been at least courteous, which is the main requirement here. But he has also used this forum to promote hateful and deranged views. This is a website to counteract bigotry and lunacy, not to encourage them. And I have to draw the line somewhere.
POP,
The fact is, I and many others would not be offended if Abner is no longer allowed to comment. And he really shouldn’t care either—since anything he currently says, has long ago been added to this thread and many others, over and over again—in fact most of his comments are just copies and pastes of things he has said before.
Some people just can’t empathize with others because that would cramp the style of their mission to spread hate and ignorance. And, if such people are told over and over again, just why they offend others, they truly seem blind to reason and logic and will never truly listen to reason or understand.
I would just tell Abner that he has already recorded all of his bigotry on the pages of your website, and any of us can access it easily, if we ever want to be enlightened by all his hate and BS. Then I would tell him politely to just hit the road!
Alyssa Rosenberg was offended by the fact Stephen Jimenez incidentally mentioned near end of book that Methew W. Shepard was arrested when he was 15 for molesting 8 year old boys. 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 and this happened before the October 1998 murder. Judy L. Shepard sees nothing wrong with her son molesting 8 year old boys. Alyssa Rosenberg sees nothing wrong with Methew W. Shepard selling drugs and molesting children.
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 they 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 any1 can do to legally stop us from telling the ugly truths. Gay bashing victims will face the public opinion court as gay bashers do and ugly truths will be told about a homosexual if it’s found though it offends homosexual groups.
EDITED & HOPE IT”S APPROVED:
Peter W. Johnson on another post said ‘ I am done trying to respond to someone who doesn’t even know the meaning of the word compassion!’ but you again replied. P.O.P.,homosexual groups have been trying to keep Stephen Jimenez’s Book of Matt from being sold. Honest discussion is discussing & rebutting-not censoring because 1 finds something offensive. I read Book of Matt & have read the critiques of Media Matters & others found the Media Matters critique to be rubbish. Other critiques such as that of Alyssa B. Rosenberg are her getting offended but giving no serious rebuttal.
P.O.P.-I did my homework on the Shepard case which includes talking to 2 of the cops involved, 2 of the Casper Star Tribune ex journalists (Kerry A. Drake & J.C. Marsden) & comparing this to the Book of Matt. The Casper Star Tribune along with their 3 ex journalists-Big Island Chronicle Tiffany Camille Edwards Hunt, Kerr A. Drake & JC Marsden are shills for the Laramie Project & the Shepard Foundation, especially when they omit ugly truths about the victim. Kerr A. Drake, JC Marsden and Tiffany C. Hunt are portrayed in Laramie Project. Casper Star Tribune when they covered the Shepard case left out ugly truths of who the victim Methew W. Shepard was
No, Stephen Jimenez does not know everything. The journalists who critique Stephen Jimenez do not know everything as the journalists did not interview the witnesses who Stephen Jimenez did. Stephen Jimenez did a 13 year investigation & he reached his conclusions after interviewing them. Some of the witnesses are anonymous as some worked in law enforcement and some are criminals who chose to remain anonymous as they do not want to incriminate themselves, but there are also drug dealers such as Mark K. Rohrbacher who chose to identify themselves. Sometimes, investigations require testimony from criminals. Of course the witnesses who Stephen Jimenez are not likely to know everything about Methew W. Shepard, but there are things they saw which can not be dismissed.
I have an agenda here which is to tell the ugly truth of who Methew Wayne Shepard was & not the ½ truths given by his friends and family because he wasn’t the innocent saint as his friends and family portray him. If people want to watch the Laramie Project play, then it’s their right. The same thing with if people want to watch the 2008 movie Milk about Harvey B. Milk which starred Sean J. Penn. But schools push the movie Milk and the Laramie Project play on schoolchildren with little to no opposing views. With Harvey B. Milk and M.W. Shepard, what has happened is adults pushing their agenda on schoolchildren. If homosexual/lesbian groups want to honor Harvey B. Milk and Methew Wayne Shepard, then it’s their business. But when they push their views on children, then it’s wrong. If Harvey B. Milk, Laramie Project propaganda comes to your school, then tell truths about who both were. If people want to watch Laramie Project on their own will, then it’s their right. But it is wrong for high schools and colleges to require students to watch this. If they do require students to watch this, then students should have a right to tell the ugly truths about who he was and to give their views w/o being punished by a teacher who didn’t like their view.
Methew W. Shepard’s parents (especially his mom) and brother Logan P. Shepard get rich from the Methew W. Shepard case by the Methew W. Shepard Foundation and Judy P. Shepard writing a book about her son. Judy L. Shepard and M.W. Shepard’s friend Romaine Patterson both wrote books about him. The 2 have interest to make money and since they are his mom and friend, they are biased and bias meddles with facts. The Shepard Foundation is a propaganda group whose main interest is to push an agenda and to make money.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.
You are repeatedly offering ignorant and judgmental opinions supported by misinformed sources. As I have stated before, this blog is not about expressing opinion. That doesn’t mean that opinions are unwelcome — even ignorant ones. But we’re not here to provide a soapbox for your twisted view of homosexuality or anything else, and I don’t want this blog to become associated with this type of thing. So I’m asking you to tone it down.
[…] attention, especially from American readers. There is, for example, the Christian Right’s Nazi-flavored campaign to marginalize gays. (No, “Nazi-flavored” is not an exaggeration.) […]