Mixed media update. James Kirchick vs. Sean
Penn, from
Page Six of the New York Post. The hip Hollywood left continues
its mendaciousness.
----------
Newsweek runs a cover story making the case for gay marriage ("Our Mutual Joy"). Nice, but it's taking the liberal mainstream U.S. media way too long to get here. Britain's The Economist ran a similar cover story titled "Let Them Wed" - in January 1996.
And American popular culture remains deeply schizophrenic about gays: On one hand, featuring more openly gay characters on prime time TV, for example, albeit in supporting roles. And on the other, there's David Letterman's smarmy sneering about two men kissing in the new Harvey Milk biopic, as reported by the Washington Post's Hank Stuever:
"I didn't want to screw it up," Franco told Letterman on "Late Show" last week.
"See, if it's me, I'm kind of hoping I do screw it up," Letterman shot back. "That's what you want, isn't it?"
"To screw it up?" Franco asked.
"I mean, do you really want to be good at kissing a guy?" Letterman said as his audience howled with delight.
Remember, Letterman's the "hip" one, while Leno is for oldsters. It's just one more example of what Stuever labels "post-homophobic homophobia, the kind seen most weeks in 'Saturday Night Live' sketches," and it remains ubiquitous among those who know better but can't resist demeaning us for the shear sport of it.
More. There's a connection between the revulsion toward male intimacy that Letterman and his ilk promote daily, and this:
A Brooklyn real estate agent who was beaten to a pulp while walking tipsily with his brother - by bat-wielding thugs who apparently mistook them for gay - was declared brain-dead Tuesday, police said....
The 31-year-old father of two was badly bludgeoned early Sunday in Bushwick by three black men who, according to witnesses, shouted anti-gay and anti-Hispanic slurs....
Jose and his 38-year-old brother, Romel, who was visiting from Ecuador, had been drinking at a church party and then a Mexican restaurant and were holding onto each other as they stumbled home along Bushwick Ave. at 3:30 a.m. Sunday.
Hat tip: Box Turtle Bulletin.
Furthermore. In light of the above, recent remarks by Christian rightist/one-time popular entertainer Pat Boone are even more offensive. He spews forth:
Have you not seen the awful similarity between what happened in Mumbai and what's happening right now in our cities? Oh, I know the homosexual "rights" demonstrations haven't reached the same level of violence, but I'm referring to the anger, the vehemence, the total disregard for law and order and the supposed rights of their fellow citizens. ....
There is a real, unbroken line between the jihadist savagery in Mumbai and the hedonistic, irresponsible, blindly selfish goals and tactics of our homegrown sexual jihadists.
At least Boone isn't likely to get a free ride from LGBT media and inside-the-beltway Democratic Party fundraising funnels. But as regards Letterman and friends, I think reader "avee" is correct when he comments:
As long as Letterman / SNL earn their liberal cred via GOP/Bush-hatred, "progressives" are quite willing to give them a pass on their "post-homophobic homophobia."
Sadly, I supsect the Lettermans held in high regard by the popular culture have a far greater impact on the young bashers who actually are beating, and sometimes killing, us than do elderly looney tunes such as Boone.
Update: Letterman recently joked about the arson that partially burned down Sarah Palin's church. That's sure to earn him "free to be a homophobic jerk" points from the left for many years to come.
62 Comments for “Mixed Media”
posted by Bobby on
What an asshole that David Letterman, how come nobody asks the gay actors how disgusting it is to kiss women? And to see the homophobia come out from a Bill O’reilly hating progressive hypocrite makes my blood boil.
Whatever, Jay Leno is much better anyway.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Why can’t they just go back to knocking Sarah Palin, like they’re supposed to? Why not make fun of a woman who has worked her way up by proving herself talented in many areas to the governor of an oil-rich state? And let’s really punk her by setting fire to her church! What a laugh! Yes, let’s complain about how gays are misrepresented, slandered, and victimized by doing the exact same thing to other people! Especially conservative, pro-life women. Let’s defend Margaret Cho, Sarah Silverman, and Tina Fey in their mockery of religion and conservatism by complaining about the prepubescent giggles from David Letterman, Kevin James and Larry the Cable Guy when they see a man kiss. We’re the victims here! Don’t let anybody forget that gays are always the most persecuted people ever.
posted by avee on
Hyperbole aside, it’s true that as long as Letterman / SNL earn their liberal cred via GOP/Bush-hatred, “progressives” are quite willing to give them a pass on their “post-homophobic homophobia.”
posted by Bobby on
“Why can’t they just go back to knocking Sarah Palin, like they’re supposed to?”
—That’s a separate issue. While attacking Palin for being a woman is horrible, she is a politician, she can take it. This attack isn’t against one person, it’s against an entire community.
I don’t see David Letterman and his ilk accept women on women kissing, which for many gay men is not the easiest thing to watch. When QAF was popular, there where plenty of gays complaining about the sexual situations between Melanie and Lindsey. I won’t even watch The L Word!
If women on women sexuality is ok on film, then the same treatment must be given to male on male sexuality. And for God sakes, we need more gay actors to play gay roles. I am sick of breeders being glorified and rewarded for the “challenge” of going gay for a film. At the very least, pair straights with gays for the kissing scenes, have another voice describe what it’s like to kiss a man. Not that I would want to kiss Sean Penn, YUCK!
posted by Ashpenaz on
It’s interesting that you can go through a whole political season with vicious attacks on both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin and not see it as attacks on a whole community. Why is it gays can see homophobia in the slightest nuance but can’t see misogyny when they hang a woman in effigy and try to burn down her church?
posted by Jorge on
The AP is reporting the man died Friday before his mother made it to the US from Ecuador. I was at the rally for him today.
I hate to agree with you on *this*, but all those times the kids get away with saying stuff like that in the schools, I think it does lead to this violence.
posted by Bobby on
Ashpenaz, it’s not the same to attack individuals as it is to attack an entire community.
posted by Ashpenaz on
So you’re saying that the death of Harvey Mild was just an attack on an individual?
When it becomes clear that every woman who runs for high office, or who competes for a promotion against an attractive, inexperienced man, faces a similar type of attack, then it’s not an attack on individuals–it’s an attack on the whole group. Do you think that those pro-life conservative women who related to Sarah Palin didn’t see themselves in that noose? Those gays were attacking all those who supported Sarah Palin.
While what happened to that man from Ecuador was a tragedy, being beaten and murdered is a daily reality for many women. What if that old woman who was beaten up by gays outside her church had died? What if the women and children in Palin’s church had died? Would gays have rallied then?
posted by Ray Eckhart on
More from Raley Balko at Reason’s Hit and Run:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/130566.html#comments
posted by Bobby on
Yes Ashpenaz, the death of Harvey Milk was the death of an individual, a man beloved by the community. Attacking Sarah Palin is not the same as saying that pro-lifers are a bunch of abortion clinic-bombing rednecks. Calling Barney Frank a schmuck is not saying that all gays are schmucks, one schmuck doesn’t make us all schmucks.
However, attacking gay kissing in the movies is an attack on all gays.
posted by Jim on
as to this ashpenaz person: what in the hell does sarah palin have to do with this discussion?
since you hate, despise & deplore everything about gay people, mr. or ms. ashkenaz, why do you post repeatedly EVERY DAY on what appears to be, by title anyway, a gay website? have you ever considered just going away? or exploring why you’re so profoundly obsessed with your contempt for gay people?
dare i suggest self-loathing? or would that just be redundant?
posted by Ashpenaz on
My point is that gays think it is OK to attack Sarah Palin but they get irate when one suggests that Harvey Milk isn’t a hero to anyone. It’s OK to call Hillary a bitch but any slight nuance of homophobia is a call to arms. It’s OK for gays to hang Sarah Palin in effigy and burn down her church but any type of resistance to riding a penis float down a public street is a hate crime.
Sexism, ageism, racism are all OK for gays. So gays shouldn’t condemn other people for doing things which gays do to other groups on a daily basis.
I don’t hate men with homosexual attractions. If I hate anything, it’s the gay community. I think identifying as gay is toxic and shame-based and self-loathing. But having homosexual attractions and expressing them in a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship is natural and healthy.
Notice how quick someone was to post an article on David Letterman’s giggly behavior, but not one person thought to post an article about gays burning down Sarah Palin’s church. Gays accuse others, but never, ever look at themselves.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Ashpenaz…
How the HELL could you assume it’s gay people burning the church?!
They haven’t even made any arrests.
The last time there was a spate of church burnings anywhere…it turned out to be three white college students. They burned three churches.
How many times have you seen packs of young people, videotaping themselves on vandalism and assault sprees?
A small town like Wasilla tends to have bored and disaffected teenagers more likely to attack gay people than gay people do anything of the like.
Even in retaliation.
And even YOU, without evidence, without even a whisper of who is responsible, except that it was an arson fire…already you know it’s gay people.
Considering the church and other religious communties excommunication, blackmailing and considerable threat and hurt they’ve exacted on gay people since it’s establishment…gay people have had put very little energy in responding in kind to most of the violations to their number.
I can’t believe you did this.
That was truly stupid and irresponsible and unless and until otherwise, innocent until PROVEN guilty should be the order of the day.
Especially since gay people are treated just the opposite so often as it is.
posted by dalea on
Ash sez:’What if that old woman who was beaten up by gays outside her church had died? What if the women and children in Palin’s church had died?’
Here we go again. This did not happen. You must be taking ‘truthiness’ lessons from ND40. If you have proof that gays burned down the church, you had better contact the police. Or quit making incendiary claims.
posted by ReganDuCasse on
Did it not occur to you that the effigy of Sarah Palin, although offensive…was not something representative of her being actually threatened or not in a position of power and authority in ways gay people are not?
David Letterman, or Sarah Palin can take the heat. Their lives are not at all compromised by whatever tacky humor someone wishes to use at their expense.
But gay people don’t have the luxury of the similar happening at theirs.
Since casual and horrific violence is directed at gay people going about their lives as they should, usually it’s not effigy they have to worry about, but actually being lynched any time any where.
There is no political clout in popular votes because of the perpetuity of minority status.
And gays have barely made a dent in visibility without resentment of it in our age.
You’re not a very effective devil’s advocate here, Ash.
What you’re doing isn’t eliciting any second thoughts on anything reactionary or impulsive, but your tone and attitude is one that foments reaction and incites anger.
You must really be exceptionally immature to require laying the bait the way you do.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
In the annals of crimes against perceived homosexuals, any other violent assaults against old women or children, Ash…is met with sympathy.
Attacks on gay people usually is not. Not by first responders, not by juries or judges after the fact.
Perpetrators effectively turn themselves into the victims of the victim of THEIR crime.
This does NOT happen with any other violent crime.
The Suchucznay brothers will be sympathetic victims because they were not actually gay.
But had they been gay men, admonishment inevitably follows.
What were they doing out at that bar? Why were they holding hands or each other?
Why didn’t they just act like they weren’t gay?
See?
That’s what distinguishes a hate crime from the others.
Sympathy, empathy and enforcing fair justice.
Being contrarian doesn’t mean you’re right. Your opinion sometimes offers nothing good, or informative.
And I think it should. The stakes are so much higher for gay folks. Things have to be considered that offers something that helps that, not just plays with people’s feelings and supports the opposition who has so much destructive and unfair power.
You don’t have any better ideas?
They why bother, unless it’s all about what I said. You’re immature and like to see the negative reactions to have something to point to.
And in this regard, you’re not treating the people in this forum respectfully like they are adults.
posted by Bobby on
“My point is that gays think it is OK to attack Sarah Palin but they get irate when one suggests that Harvey Milk isn’t a hero to anyone.”
—All minorities do that. They only focus on themselves. The same blacks that voted for prop-8 would scream bloody murder if you tried to outlaw affirmative-action.
“Sexism, ageism, racism are all OK for gays. So gays shouldn’t condemn other people for doing things which gays do to other groups on a daily basis.”
—The gay community is no better and no worse than any other community. We should not hold ourselves to a higher standard.
“I think identifying as gay is toxic and shame-based and self-loathing. But having homosexual attractions and expressing them in a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship is natural and healthy.”
—So at work I shouldn’t tell people I had a date? What do I tell them? That I had homosexual attractions towards a guy? Ash, if gays where the majority, straights would have straight-pride parades and do all the crazy stuff we do. Identifying as gay is no different than identifying as republican, straight, unitarian, whatever. How else can groups be formed and like-minded individuals find each other without the labels?
Can you try to hold gays to the same standards as straights? Do you not see how straight people love their labels? Do you not see them wearing crosses, stars of david, getting married publicly, wearing wedding rings, putting pictures of their spouses/partners in their desks?
Look at muslims, they’re not afraid of labelling themselves. At my office there are 2 or 3 women that wear a hijab (not a full burka, just something to cover the hair).
What’s the difference between John Doe putting a picture of his boyfriend on his desk and a muslim woman wearing a hijab? They’re both advertising it. Does one have more rights than the other?
posted by Ashpenaz on
The difference between “man with homosexual attractions” and “gay” is the same as “Muslim” and “Wahabbist.” The first is a neutral fact-based label; the second is an identification with the radical aspect of a larger group and and implicit acceptance of its mythology and tactics.
The fact that the various violent Prop 8 protests did not actually end in death does not make them less reprehensible. Calling McCain “erratic” is the same as calling Lance Bass “swishy.” Looking at the misogynist and violent language used first against Hillary and then against Palin in order to slander and discredit them in favor of Obama is evidence that the gay community contributes its share to the cycle of violence. I don’t identify with any group as violent and as inhuman as the Prop 8 protestors.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I didn’t make the connection between arson and gays–this AP reporter did:
“The 1,000-member evangelical church was the subject of intense scrutiny after Palin was named John McCain’s running mate. Early in Palin’s campaign, the church was criticized for promoting in a Sunday bulletin a Focus on the Family “Love Won Out Conference” in Anchorage. The conference promised to “help men and women dissatisfied with living homosexually understand that same-sex attractions can be overcome.
The fire was set at the entrance of the church and moved inward as a small group of women were working on crafts, Steele said. The group was alerted to the blaze by a fire alarm.”
posted by Pat on
No, Ashpenaz, you made the connection. The reporter just stated a fact that the FOF bulletin was criticized. You were the one that stated the following:
“It’s OK for gays to hang Sarah Palin in effigy and burn down her church”
By the way, I don’t think it’s okay to hang Palin in effigy. But I think what was worse was that scummy idiot that hacked into her personal email. I hope he gets some good jail time for that stunt.
I hope the person(s) responsible for the fire are caught, and punished to the full extent of the law. If it does happen to be a gay person, then that’s one person, not the whole community. Just like all straights shouldn’t be criticized when Matthew Shepard was murdered. Even the ones who didn’t rally for Shepard.
The difference between “man with homosexual attractions” and “gay” is the same as “Muslim” and “Wahabbist.”
People aren’t that stupid, Ashpenaz. The persons who have negative connotations regarding “gay” are not going to have more positive thoughts about “man with homosexual attractions.” If anything, people may have more negative thoughts about a person who says they are a “man with homosexual attractions.” Kind of like a straight man who insists he is a “man with heterosexual attractions.” I’m afraid I don’t know of any community that is 100% perfect, and doesn’t have clunkers in it.
Gays accuse others, but never, ever look at themselves.
I suppose that’s true for some gays. But I think it’s more important for gay persons, or anyone for that matter, to “look at themselves” as individuals, as opposed “look at themselves” as a community. As I said before, it’s okay to criticize the majority, the gay community, or whomever when warranted. But one also has to look at himself for what’s wrong in his life.
Bobby, excellent points!
posted by USMaleSF on
Re Litterman etc. nice to know someone else picked up on it.
http://usmalesf.blogspot.com/search?q=letterman
posted by Regan DuCasse on
WHAT violent and inhuman Prop. 8 protesters?!
I see you have bought into the opinion that the rallies, and responses to Prop. 8 AFTER the violation to thousands of gay couples wasn’t warranted or appropriate.
I live in Los Angeles, I have attended most of the largest protests, and several townhall meetings convened after.
Including the meeting at El Coyote.
The protests have been definitively peaceful, legal and exceptionally orderly considering how many thousands of people were in attendance.
The reportage has greatly exaggerated these events as violent.
Or any supporters of 8 as threatened.
The few incidents regarding arrests, or vandalism have been few. Literally A FEW.
As have any resignations you’ve heard of.
Also a FEW.
And these, compared to the acts committed against gay people are virtually nothing.
Some straight people feel threatened by more than one gay person having a friendship.
Feel threatened by witnessing casual affection. Feel threatened by having a gay person in the same room with them
Get real.
What happened to all those couples in my state required catharsis and some kind of response.
And anyone that thinks gay people should have stood by, remained silent or not responded clearly is already thinking of gay people as INHUMAN and unworthy of emotions no straight person would put up with.
Straight people’s marriages, nor marriage itself were threatened and look how THEY responded.
All they have to do is THINK they are…and somebody might DIE.
I don’t think gay people deserve to be scolded for being human. Especially for a direct attack on a something they did legally and through proper due process to begin with.
What was the excuse for the defamation and attacks on gay people BEFORE the amendment passed and gay people hadn’t taken to the streets by the thousands?
You got a smart answer for THAT, Ash?
posted by ReganDuCasse on
Ash, I really don’t want to hear from someone who hasn’t had the spine to take the kinds of heat most of us are willing to.
Don’t stick YOUR neck out son. You go ahead, safe and sound and don’t YOU rock the boat or challenge anything that’s unfair or dangerous.
I’m sure someone will just LOVE you for being such a good little, non threatening person.
You have reaped the rewards of someone else’s sacrifice, someone else’s work and courage.
I have been a fortunate woman that someone else’s sacrifice and courage gave ME the right to vote, marry my white husband, be able to live free and I have legal recourse for any violations to my equal rights.
I’m a heterosexual and I don’t have any children or siblings, no one close to me who is gay. My cousin came out years after I’d already been a committed activist.
I know the stakes, I won’t sit by and allow what’s going on without getting into it.
I could be completely empathetic and my gay friends and colleagues might trust that I love them and wouldn’t support any policies that leave them vulnerable.
But activism is in my gene pool.
Kindness is not enough. Maybe you think I shouldn’t disrespect you for the way you go about dealing with YOUR life.
But you’re critical of people doing what you won’t.
And that’s not right with so much at stake and much to do.
You’re not even helping to educate the opposition, but in some way you give validation to their already entrenched and virtually intractable stereotypes.
We don’t have the luxury of allowing that.
Especially when two innocent men, who happened to be walking arm in arm, were set upon violently and one dies because of those stereotypes.
People see gay people as weak, as easy target and exploit political and social vulnerability. They are not physically or economically threatened, but CHALLENGED that gay people will make it harder for the status quo to be maintained.
It won’t kill them if it isn’t, but they don’t care.
You admonish gay people for EVERYTHING, and yet…I don’t hear YOU going out and doing anything to teach the opposition other than the typical standard they already expect.
you challenge US, but I bet you don’t challenge THEM.
And if you did, how would you go about it?
You have a lot of criticism, but I don’t hear you suggesting anything that’s BETTER or more EFFECTIVE than what’s already being done or hasn’t already been tried.
You got a better idea, let’s hear it.
Otherwise, it seems like you’re the sort of coward who has all the benefits but won’t make any of the sacrifices his damn self.
And in that regard, you should just STFU until you DO have something important or helpful to say.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Yes, I have suggested something better. Everyone? Ready? Let’s all sing along! “Join a church. Live in lifelong, monogamous relationships which show the world how sacred and nurturing gay love can be. Don’t use the word ‘gay.’ Don’t support self-defeating parades and rallies.” etc. That’s my suggestions.
I agree with Pat Boone.
What if the old woman the gays beat up had died? What if the guy putting up signs had died? What if the women and children in Palin’s church had died? Would gays have taken responsibility for spewing a violent and hate-filled rhetoric which drove its more unhinged element to murder? Why don’t gays stop now before they do kill someone?
Oh. right. There’s all that unprotected sex with multiple partners which is already killing people.
posted by dalea on
Ash sez: Gays accuse others, but never, ever look at themselves.
This is one of the most ignorant statements you have made. We have a long history of looking at our community and criticizing it. Have you read any critiques at all, any novels or studies? Or do you just read what slime like evangelical christians say about us?
Here’s a book to check out: Larry Kramer’s ‘Faggots’, from the mid 70’s. This is a searing look at the promiscuity and flakeness of the gay men’s world. Very harsh critique; which you say does not exist. Until you demonstrate that you have actually learned something about the gay world and its history, I won’t be responding to you. Others will do as they choose, but perhaps ignore the troll is the best policy.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Ashpenaz said “What if the old woman the gays beat up had died? What if the guy putting up signs had died? What if the women and children in Palin’s church had died? Would gays have taken responsibility for spewing a violent and hate-filled rhetoric which drove its more unhinged element to murder? Why don’t gays stop now before they do kill someone?”.
Stop with the lies Ashpenaz. There is no evidence that gays set Palin’s church on fire, for all you know it was competing Christians that did it. By “the old woman gays beat up” I presume you’re talking about the old lady who had the styrofoam cross knocked out of her hand after pushing her way into a prop8 protest and knocked down a handicapped man in her determination to preach anti-gay hate. Its a lie for you to claim that was the equivalent of being “beat up” and mighty convenient of you to ignore her assault on a helpless man in her eagerness to spread hate. I don’t know what you’re referring to regarding “the guy who put up the signs” but based on your other lies I can only assume this is similarly a grotesque lie on your part. The people spewing a violent and hate filled rhetoric that spurs its more unhinged element to murder are the christians you call your friends. Two innocent brothers, who happened to be walking arm in arm, were set upon violently and one died because of the rhetoric you and yours spew. A woman having a styrofoam cross knocked out of her hands isn’t even remotely comparable.
posted by Bobby on
Thanks Pat! Glad we can agree sometimes. 🙂
“But I think it’s more important for gay persons, or anyone for that matter, to “look at themselves” as individuals, as opposed “look at themselves” as a community.”
—You’re completely right. Even our critics are starting to judge us like individuals because ironically, they all have gay friends. So instead of talking about those evil gays, they talk about militant gays.
Ash, you will never find support from the gay community, but you can always find gay individuals that support you. There lies the difference.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I notice no one is attacking Letterman for joking about the fire at Palin’s church–apparently, putting innocent women and children in danger because you disagree with someone’s politics is great for laughs, but giggling about men kissing is a hate crime. (Incidentally, the Advocate makes the same connection between gays and the fire.)
If gays are accused of violence, it’s always a lie. How convenient. If those two brothers had gone to a gay bar, they might have been killed by a man who didn’t tell them he was “poz”, but that’s not really murder, is it?
Speaking of lies, it’s a lie that Matthew Shepard’s death had anything to do with his orientation. He was killed as part of a robbery. No one has proven any gay connection.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Ashpenaz its irrelevant if anyone connects gays to the fire unless they have proof. Until you have such evidence stop repeating this lie.
posted by Priya Lynn on
And as far as Letterman goes I don’t watch him and I’m certainly not going to take your word for what he may or may not have done.
posted by Carl on
“Sadly, I supsect the Lettermans held in high regard by the popular culture have a far greater impact on the young bashers who actually are beating, and sometimes killing, us than do elderly looney tunes such as Boone.”
Debbie Boone has more of an impact on younger people than Pat Boone does. That really doesn’t mean very much. I have a very hard time believing that teenage gay-bashers get their cues from David Letterman.
posted by Pat on
I notice no one is attacking Letterman for joking about the fire at Palin’s church–apparently, putting innocent women and children in danger because you disagree with someone’s politics is great for laughs, but giggling about men kissing is a hate crime. (Incidentally, the Advocate makes the same connection between gays and the fire.)
Ashpenaz, I don’t watch Letterman, but from what I read, the joke about the church fire was tasteless. As for the kiss, it’s not a big deal, IMO. However, it just goes to show how far we still have to go.
If gays are accused of violence, it’s always a lie.
No, that’s not what people are arguing. People are just trying to put the violence in perspective. Violence is always wrong. But when any community engages in the type of mass protest similar to the one that followed passage of Prop. 8, there is usually some violence. Hopefully, the perpetrators were arrested.
If those two brothers had gone to a gay bar, they might have been killed by a man who didn’t tell them he was “poz”, but that’s not really murder, is it?
???
Speaking of lies, it’s a lie that Matthew Shepard’s death had anything to do with his orientation. He was killed as part of a robbery. No one has proven any gay connection.
There is some strong evidence that the murder was motivated by anti-gay hate (and the robbery occurred simply because the victim carried a wallet). But yet, there is zero evidence, at this point, that a gay person set the fire at the church. Nada. Yet you insist that it was, simply because two sources in the article mentioned that the church was criticized for publishing a bulletin with a “reparative” “therapy” advertisement. If it does turn out that a gay person did set the fire (and if innocent persons were injured or lost their lives), I don’t see how that’s the gay community’s fault, anymore than it is all straight persons’ fault that two thugs murdered Matthew Shepard (whether or not is was anti-gay hate motivated).
posted by Bobby on
“Speaking of lies, it’s a lie that Matthew Shepard’s death had anything to do with his orientation. He was killed as part of a robbery. No one has proven any gay connection.”
—Ash, I was robbed in Chicago. They did not beat me up, took my shoes and tied me to a fence. I just took out the money I had in my wallet, gave it to them and they where gone. So don’t call what happened to Mathew a robbery. It went way beyond that.
posted by Ashpenaz on
My best friend in high school was beaten up by an older man after having sex with him. Gays’ violence against gays is much more prevalent than gay-bashing.
An HIV+ man having unprotected sex with multiple partners without informing them of his status is murder, IMHO. More gay men die that way than from gay-bashing.
The implication in the Advocate article was that, whether or not gays actually caused the fire, the fire was justified because the church sponsored a seminar on reparative therapy. Supporting those who commit acts of violence is the same as performing the acts of violence. As gays always say, those Christians who support gay-bashing are as bad as the bashers themselves.
posted by Jimbo on
Ash, this is a yes or no question: do you support & applaud the killing that happened recently? Yes or no? No smarmy answer about how we should just go to church, stop pride parades, blah blah blah. Do you approve of the killing that occurred? Yes or no?
posted by Pat on
My best friend in high school was beaten up by an older man after having sex with him. Gays’ violence against gays is much more prevalent than gay-bashing.
Ashpenaz, I assume you have further substantiation than one example. That’s too bad about your friend though. Hopefully, the creep that raped your friend (I’m assuming he was under the age of consent) and then assaulted him was arrested and spent some time in jail for those crimes.
An HIV+ man having unprotected sex with multiple partners without informing them of his status is murder, IMHO. More gay men die that way than from gay-bashing.
While I think an HIV+ man having unprotected sex with any partner (single or multiple accounts) is horrible, but I don’t think it is tantamount to murder, unless the person forced the other to have sex with him. I’m willing to agree that more gay men have died that way than gay-bashing. The thing is that any gay man having unprotected sex with someone whom they don’t know of their HIV status is a terrible idea. One should assume that the other is HIV+, because people sometimes lie, and it could be the case that the person really didn’t even know he was HIV+. I’m not excusing any bad behavior here, but it’s 2008, not 1985. Any gay adult who is even thinking of having sex should know the consequences of having unprotected sex. An adult stupid enough to believe the HIV status of someone they barely know just by the person’s word should not be having sex, among other things.
The implication in the Advocate article was that, whether or not gays actually caused the fire, the fire was justified because the church sponsored a seminar on reparative therapy.
I’ll have to check that out for myself when I get a chance. Somehow, I doubt it.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Ashpenaz said “Gays’ violence against gays is much more prevalent than gay-bashing.
An HIV+ man having unprotected sex with multiple partners without informing them of his status is murder, IMHO. More gay men die that way than from gay-bashing. “.
Absent a properly researched study on the topic you have no evidence to support such a conclusion and it is irresponsible and hateful for you to make this unsupported assertion.
Ashpenaz said “The implication in the Advocate article was that, whether or not gays actually caused the fire, the fire was justified because the church sponsored a seminar on reparative therapy.”.
That’s preposterous. Merely mentioning why the church was of interest to the gay community is in no way an implication that the fire was justified for this reason.
Ashpenaz said “If those two brothers had gone to a gay bar, they might have been killed by a man who didn’t tell them he was “poz”, but that’s not really murder, is it?”.
So in other words the killing of those two brothers out of hostility towards gays doesn’t matter because hypothetically they could have been killed by AIDS. You are one disturbed, irrational, and hateful individual Ashpenaz. Stop trying to hold the entire innocent gay community for your failed love life. The problem is not in the gay community, its with the unsavoury person you are.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I think the killing of the young man is a horrible tragedy–just not more horrible than those gays who are killed by gays’ violence toward gays, gays infecting each other with AIDS, gays tolerating drug use among gays, gays either committing or justifying violence against people who disagree with them, etc., etc., etc.
If there was no connection between the fire and the Love Won Out seminar, why did the Advocate article bring it up? Why didn’t it say the fire occurred at a church where there had recently been a bake sale instead? The Advocate writer wanted his readers to see the fire as retribution for homophobia, and you know it. And when you heard about the fire, you secretly were glad for the same reason–admit it. You were glad that innocent people were put in danger because they belonged to a church you consider homophobic, and then you have the nerve to get angry at violence against gays.
I think the attempt to defend unprotected sex with multiple partners goes way beyond being disturbed, irrational, and unsavoury. It’s simply insane. It’s rationalizing murder. It is like justifying giving smallpox blankets to the Native Americans because if they didn’t want the blankets, they shouldn’t have taken them.
It’s nice to know that if I want to join a group who will cheer me on as I kill myself with drugs, or kill myself with unprotected sex, or who exults in the deaths and injuries of those who disagree with them, I can always find a home at the nearest Rainbow community center.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Ashpenaz said “I think the killing of the young man is a horrible tragedy”.
If you sincerely thought that you wouldn’t have tried to trivialize the incident by changing the subject to gays hypothetically infecting unknowing sexual partners.. Spare us your after the fact “concern”.
Ashpenaz said “If there was no connection between the fire and the Love Won Out seminar, why did the Advocate article bring it up?”.
An article mentioning two incidents in the same building is in no way evidence that the two are connected – grow up.
The Advocate presented no proof that there was a connection and didn’t say there was – it just gives you joy to assume such because doing so validates your hatred of gays. It is irresponsible of you to make the baseless claim that there is a connection. YOU DO NOT KNOW – GROW UP.
Ashpenaz said “The Advocate writer wanted his readers to see the fire as retribution for homophobia, and you know it.”.
I know no such thing and neither do you.
Ashpenaz said “And when you heard about the fire, you secretly were glad for the same reason–admit it.”.
You’re twisted. There’s nothing about that incident regardless of who or why it happened that would make me glad.
Ashpenaz said “You were glad that innocent people were put in danger because they belonged to a church you consider homophobic, and then you have the nerve to get angry at violence against gays.”.
Stop your perverted rant. I think its horrible that people’s lives were risked for whatever reason the fire was set, and the reason is NOT known so don’t presume to blame the gay community any more than you blame the religious community. You are the one trying to discredit the fact that gays are persecuted because of their orientation, you’re the one trying to excuse and overlook such motivatsions for violence.
Ashpenaz said “I think the attempt to defend unprotected sex with multiple partners goes way beyond being disturbed, irrational, and unsavoury, blah, blah, blah blah…”
No one has defended your hypothetical fantasy. Once again you’re making stuff up to blame on gays in your effort to get revenge on the gay community for your lack of a love life. Potential mates have rejected you because there is something wrong with you, not because there is something wrong with all of them. You can’t expect anyone to be drawn to you when you’re constantly projecting this irrational hatred and demonization of them. Your loneliness is no one’s fault but your own.
Ashpenaz said “It’s nice to know that if I want to join a group who will cheer me on as I kill myself with drugs, or kill myself with unprotected sex, or who exults in the deaths and injuries of those who disagree with them, I can always find a home at the nearest Rainbow community center.”
Oh boo hoo hoo. Cry me a river. There is no such group, no one’s going to “cheer you on” if you choose to do such things and by the same token I doubt anyone’s going to shed many tears if you choose to self-destruct given your attacks on what has been based on my experience been a community of largely wonderful people. The gay community doesn’t “exult in the death and injury” of those who merely disagree with them but you can’t expect them to embrace a person who’s made it his life’s mission to demonize them, deny them equal rights, and trivialize their oppression, assaults, and murders.
posted by dalea on
According to an actual book, The Soul Beneath the Skin, written by a gay man, actual studies of police records demonstrate clearly that gay venues have much, much lower rates of violence than comparable straight venues. IE: fights in gay bars are very very rare.
Major gay events, like Pride Parades, have the lowest arrest rate for major gatherings across the nation. The NY Pride results in maybe one or two arrests: Puerto Rican Day results in at least 100. No other group can assemble millions of people and have so little violence; not one. This is true nationwide. Interestingly, Pride duty is regarded by police as one of the esiest jobs going. Just enjoy the entertainment because nothing that requires police intervention will happen.
Studies of police records regarding domestic violence show that in gay neighborhoods such events rarely ever happen. And then almost all involve straight couples. Gay domestic violence is extremely rare.
Bareback sex is defended almost solely by Andrew Sullivan and a small clique of conservative gay men. This rarely occurs among out gay men. There are many gay men who have turned in barebackers to AIDS agencies. The agencies then apply pressure and get the PWA out of circulation. I have turned someone in and that person was rapidly put into confinment.
Making bizarre assertions and attacks should, at most well run forums at least, require citing sources and evidence.
posted by dalea on
From:
http://www.aardvarc.org/dv/statistics.shtml
‘Over two-thirds of violent victimizations against women were committed by someone known to them: 31% of female victims reported that the offender was a stranger. Approximately 28% were intimates such as husbands or boyfriends, 35% were acquaintances, and the remaining 5% were other relatives. (In contrast, victimizations by intimates and other relatives accounted for only 5% of all violent victimizations against men. Men were significantly more likely to have been victimized by acquaintances (50%) or strangers (44%) than by intimates or other relatives.)’
‘Violence by an intimate partner accounts for about 21% of violent crime experienced by women and about 2 % of the violence experienced by men.’
Given that most men are straight, the figure for gay man on man dv is about 00.2%. This is statistically ‘ZERO’.
Concerning those wonderful heterosexuals:
‘It is estimated that 503,485 women are stalked by an intimate partner each year in the United States. Source: National Institute of Justice, July 2000
Studies show that child abuse occurs in 30-60% of family violence cases that involve families with children. Source: “The overlap between child maltreatment and woman battering.” J.L. Edleson, Violence Against Women, February, 1999
Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives. Source: Commonwealth Fund survey, 1998
About 75% of the calls to law enforcement for intervention and assistance in domestic violence occur after separation from batterers. One study revealed that half of the homicides of female spouses and partners were committed by men after separation from batterers (Barbara Hart, Remarks to the Task Force on Child Abuse and Neglect, April 1992)
Each year, medical expenses from domestic violence total at least $3 to $5 billion. Businesses forfeit another $100 million in lost wages, sick leave, absenteeism and non-productivity. Source: Domestic Violence for Health Care Providers, 3rd Edition, Colorado Domestic Violence Coalition, 1991.
From 1983 to 1991, the number of domestic violence reports received increased by almost 117%. Source: New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, 1983 and 1991.
Violence is the reason stated for divorce in 22% of middle-class marriages. Source: EAP Digest November/December 1991.’
Wow! Long term monogamous relationships result in almost one third of women being bruttaly assaulted. And more than one fifth of divorces list this as a reason.
posted by dalea on
From: http://news.aol.ca/article/bc-080515-gay-men-violence-report/231600/
‘Gay men in Vancouver are twice as likely as straight men to be victims of violent crime, suggests a study conducted at the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS.
The nine-year study surveyed more than 500 homosexual men to document the rate of physical assaults in Greater Vancouver.
Lead author Dr. Thomas Lampinen concluded that 2.3 per cent of gay men reported being assaulted each year, roughly double the overall violent crime rate in B.C.’
http://www.physorg.com/news102591950.html
‘Nearly four in 10 gay men and about one in eight lesbians and bisexuals in the United States have been the target of violence or a property crime because of their sexual orientation, according to a new study by University of California, Davis, psychology professor Gregory Herek.
?This is the most reliable estimate to date of the prevalence of anti-gay victimization in the United States,? Herek said. ?The data demonstrate that crimes against sexual minority adults, especially gay men, are disturbingly widespread.?
Herek?s findings were based on a survey he conducted in the fall of 2005 with a nationally representative sample of 662 self-identified gay men, lesbians and bisexuals. The study will be published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
Overall, 21 percent of the people in the survey reported being the victim of violence or a property crime — including physical assault, sexual assault, theft and vandalism — because of their sexual orientation. In addition, 49 percent said they had been verbally abused because of their sexual orientation, 23 percent reported being threatened with violence, 12.5 percent reported having objects thrown at them, and 11 percent reported housing or job discrimination.’
This should serve as a start in discussing the topic.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Excellent job Dalea.
posted by Bobby on
“Bareback sex is defended almost solely by Andrew Sullivan and a small clique of conservative gay men.”
—Hold on! Andrew Sullivan defends bareback sex ONLY between HIV+ people. And frankly, if you’re already HIV+ and are not afraid of being reinfected, that’s your choice. As a conservative/libertarian gay man, I don’t approve of bareback sex but like abortion, it’s a CHOICE.
And by the way, unlike heterosexuals which rarely use condoms unless a prostitute forces them, most gays use condoms on a regular basis. Just look at all the unwanted pregnancies breeders have, so Ash, if you’re gonna call anyone irresponsible, you’re looking at the wrong target.
Seriously Ash, I think you should experiment with promiscuity, see what the fuss is all about. Eventually you’ll get tired of it, like I did, and then you’ll be ready for a monogamous relationship.
I know my advice sounds like BS, but I used to hate the “decadence” of the gay community until I finally gave it a chance.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I don’t have anything to add to this thread, so I’ll end my posts here by saying that the gay community has an absolute commitment to lack of introspection and self-criticism matched only by born-again Christians, militant Muslims, and Obama supporters.
I am most impressed by the tenacity with which people defend barebacking with multiple partners. Selling tobacco to minors is also a choice–but many people would say that it’s WRONG.
Also, the “We are good because straights are bad” defense keeps appearing as a legitimate argument. Venezuela is good because North Korea is bad is also true, but I wouldn’t want to be part of either one.
I look forward to the day when those who choose to identify as gay look at what the word gay has come to include–the violence, the drug use, the unsafe sex, the exploitation, the victim mentality, etc. I’d like to think that a period of introspection and repentance could become a fad in the gay community, lasting longer than the career of Scissor Sisters. But I doubt it.
Have fun with the rest of this thread.
posted by dalea on
Like a vampire confronted with a crucifix, Ash has fled. Amazing what 20 minutes of googleing can come up with. Every statement that the most christian Ash has promulgated is a flat out lie. There is no basis for his statements. Which tells us a lot about him.
Also note, that for one woman in three, heterosexuality is an invitatian to physical abuse. Broken bones and bruised flesh is the symbol of heterosexuality. And for one in six women, violent death is the meaning of staight marriage.
For every three straight marriages, one women bloody with broken bones is the price. For every six straight marriages, a violent death is required to keep the system going. The Aztec religon required ripping out beating hearts; which is benign compared to the requirements of actual existing heterosexuality.
We need to be vigilent on this issue; never letting the actual experience of actual existing heterosexuality be obscured.
posted by Pat on
I am most impressed by the tenacity with which people defend barebacking with multiple partners.
Ashpenaz, you impress yourself with things you make up and don’t exist. That’s impressive.
I don’t have anything to add to this thread, so I’ll end my posts here by saying that the gay community has an absolute commitment to lack of introspection
Like charity, introspection begins at home. You may want to start your own introspection (real introspection, and not your perceptions of others).
I look forward to the day when those who choose to identify as gay look at what the word gay has come to include–the violence, the drug use, the unsafe sex, the exploitation, the victim mentality, etc. I’d like to think that a period of introspection and repentance could become a fad in the gay community, lasting longer than the career of Scissor Sisters. But I doubt it.
I’d like the violence, drug use, unsafe sex, etc., to end in ALL communities, but realistic to realize that isn’t going to happen any time soon. If you are going to wait for this to happen before you can live your life, then life is going to be a short, miserable one. Let’s even assume that everything you say about the gay community is correct. Now what? When you begin your own introspection, you may want to work on your own victim mentality. That will be a tough challenge, but it involves changing yourself, as opposed to changing your perceptions of others, so it’s possible. Good luck!
posted by Bobby on
“Selling tobacco to minors is also a choice–but many people would say that it’s WRONG.”
–Your analogy is flawed. Barebacking between consenting adults is not the same as selling tobacco to minors, it is however the same as selling or consuming tobacco with adults.
Just because you don’t like sex before a committed relationship doesn’t mean all gays need to live by your puritan values.
posted by Pat on
Your analogy is flawed. Barebacking between consenting adults is not the same as selling tobacco to minors, it is however the same as selling or consuming tobacco with adults.
Yeah, I didn’t get the part with those who have sex with persons with multiple partners (and unprotected no less) are somehow innocent victims. Unless he was talking about minors, or about a person who believes he’s in a monogamous relationship, but whose partner sleeps around. Ashpenaz didn’t bother to defend his comments and lashed out instead.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Given that most men are straight, the figure for gay man on man dv is about 00.2%. This is statistically ‘ZERO’.
Or:
Studies of police records regarding domestic violence show that in gay neighborhoods such events rarely ever happen. And then almost all involve straight couples. Gay domestic violence is extremely rare.
Then there are the facts.
Such as this.
Key point: ?Same-sex domestic violence rates among men are actually as high or higher than in man-woman relationships”.
Or this:
About 25% of LGBT people suffer through violent or threatening relationships with partners or ex-partners ? about the same rate as heterosexual women.[1] Sometimes the abuse looks similar to that experienced by heterosexual women: emotional bullying, physical aggression, threats to harm the victim or other loved ones, social isolation, control of finances, extreme jealousy. There are additional features that can be present in LGBT intimate partner violence that do not factor into heterosexual relationships. The abuser may threaten to ?out? the victim to friends, family, religious communities, co-workers, and others if he or she does not comply with the abuser?s wishes. The abuser may use the close-knit dynamic of the gay and lesbian community and the lack of support for LGBT people outside the community to further pressure the victim into compliance.
Meanwhile, we have plenty of examples of gays who infect teenage boys. Take a gander:
The numbers suggesting steady condom use among gay youth don?t harmonize with 23-year-old Kelvin Barlow?s experiences in Atlanta. ?A lot of my partners are not thinking about condoms,? said Barlow, who was diagnosed with HIV at age 17. ?I think I?m usually the first one to bring [condom use] up [in sexual situations]. Sometimes my partners know my status and sometimes they don?t ? they just want to jump in the bed.?
Barlow believes a combination of ignorance and emptiness led to his seroconversion. ?At that time I was the dumbest thing walking ? I thought I was invincible and could do whatever and not get ill,? said Barlow, who was 15 and dating a 35-year-old man. ?I thought I was in this relationship with this man who loved me, why do we need to wear condoms??
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallas said “Then there are the facts.”.
Why should we believe you’ve presented the “facts” and not Dalea? You’ve got a reputation for lying, distorting, and claiming anecdotes are representative of the entire community. Dalea on the other hand does not. Seems to me that U.S. department of Justice figures are going to be more accurate and representative of the U.S. population than Minnesota governement statistics. One state is more likely to be an outlier.
Northdallas said “Meanwhile, we have plenty of examples of gays who infect teenage boys.”.
Prime example of one of your distortions that I just pointed out. You don’t have “plenty of examples”, you list one. An anecdote is not science, but of course you knew that but if you couldn’t rely on gross distortions you wouldn’t have much to say.
Meanwhile the article you linked to points squarely to George Bush and his pushing of abstinence only programs which fail to encourage condom use as a major source of the AIDS problem amongst gays. You fully supported and endorsed Bush and his approach that’s encouraged the spread of AIDS. Once again its clear you’re not motivated to diminish AIDS but solely to demonize the gay community. You’d be sorely disappointed if AIDS diminished in the gay community, it would detract from the sick pleasure you get from demonizing gays.
posted by Priya Lynn on
In one of the articles Northdallas linked to he says “Key point: ?Same-sex domestic violence rates among men are actually as high or higher than in man-woman relationships”.
In one of his typical distortions he skips the line immediately preceding that one:
“In metropolitan areas, the study found that domestic violence rates were comparable among gays and straights.”
Once again is is typically the case with northdallas’s “facts” this study deals with Chicago gay neighbourhoods only rather than with the domestic violence rates amongst gays across the U.S. as a hole. Dalea’s figures on the other hand were nationally representative. Once again Northdallas digs through study after study until he finds one he can cherry-pick to support the anti-gay conclusions he wants to promote.
And even when he does the studies he quotes make say there is no difference between domestic violence rates amongst gays and straights.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You’ve got a reputation for lying, distorting, and claiming anecdotes are representative of the entire community. Dalea on the other hand does not.
Hilarious.
Bareback sex is defended almost solely by Andrew Sullivan and a small clique of conservative gay men. This rarely occurs among out gay men. There are many gay men who have turned in barebackers to AIDS agencies. The agencies then apply pressure and get the PWA out of circulation. I have turned someone in and that person was rapidly put into confinment.
That’s an anecdote of a single instance, but you accept it as fact and claim it to be representative of the entire gay community.
Meanwhile, the statistics tell a different story.
New statistics on rates of unprotected sex among gay and bisexual men are more certain, however. In Mayer’s analysis, researchers had more than 500 Boston-area HIV-infected gay or bisexual men complete “behavioral risk assessments.” Three-quarters of the men were white, with ages ranging from 21 to 70.
The research team found that 37.3 percent of the men said they had engaged in unprotected anal intercourse over the past three months. In 41.3 percent of these cases, unsafe sex took place with another HIV-infected partner, but in 31.4 percent of cases the unprotected behavior took place with a partner whose HIV status was unknown. In 23 percent of cases, the infected man engaged in unprotected sex with a partner he knew to be HIV-negative, the study found.
Another study, this one led by CDC researcher Nicole Crepaz, found similar results. Her team reviewed data from 27 studies published between 2000 and 2006. The studies included more than 10,000 gay or bisexual men who knew they were HIV-positive.
“The team found that more than a third — or about 35 percent — of men in the studies reported having unprotected intercourse overall,” Fenton said at the news conference.
In short, you use anecdotes as reliable facts that apply to the entire gay community when they have no reference, but consider ones with reference to be unreliable.
Next up:
Seems to me that U.S. department of Justice figures are going to be more accurate and representative of the U.S. population than Minnesota governement statistics.
Oh really? Which link that I provided is Minnesota government statistics only?
Furthermore, let us demonstrate what Priya Lynn considers to be a “fact”:
Given that most men are straight, the figure for gay man on man dv is about 00.2%. This is statistically ‘ZERO’.
And finally:
Meanwhile the article you linked to points squarely to George Bush and his pushing of abstinence only programs which fail to encourage condom use as a major source of the AIDS problem amongst gays.
Which is hilarious, given the last line of the specific quote that I used.
?I thought I was in this relationship with this man who loved me, why do we need to wear condoms??
Clearly, this person knew about condoms and what they did; however, this person chose not to wear one or insist that his partners wear ones.
Of course the article is going to blame Bush; immature and irresponsible gay and lesbian people refuse to take any responsibility for their behavior and insist that their choices to have unprotected and promiscuous sex are other peoples’ fault.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Priya, unfortunately, this is what you and your fellow gay bigots were pushing as “fact”:
Studies of police records regarding domestic violence show that in gay neighborhoods such events rarely ever happen. And then almost all involve straight couples. Gay domestic violence is extremely rare.
And:
Given that most men are straight, the figure for gay man on man dv is about 00.2%. This is statistically ‘ZERO’.
In short, Priya, both you and dalea asserted as fact that gay and lesbian domestic violence is “extremely rare”, or “ZERO”.
Now watch as we rewrite the paragraph from above, since you now are trying to spin that rates are “comparable”.
Also note, that for one lgbt in three, homosexuality is an invitatian to physical abuse. Broken bones and bruised flesh is the symbol of homosexuality. And for one in six lgbt people, violent death is the meaning of gay relationships.
posted by Pat on
?I thought I was in this relationship with this man who loved me, why do we need to wear condoms??
Now we have anecdotal evidence that abstinence-only sex education (see Palin family) and comprehensive sex education doesn’t always work.
posted by Priya Lynn on
I pointed out the truth to northdallas: “You’ve got a reputation for lying, distorting, and claiming anecdotes are representative of the entire community. Dalea on the other hand does not.”
He replied “Hilarious.
Bareback sex is defended almost solely by Andrew Sullivan and a small clique of conservative gay men. This rarely occurs among out gay men. There are many gay men who have turned in barebackers to AIDS agencies. The agencies then apply pressure and get the PWA out of circulation. I have turned someone in and that person was rapidly put into confinment.
That’s an anecdote of a single instance, but you accept it as fact and claim it to be representative of the entire gay community.”.
I never made that statement, Dalea did. I never commented on it or said anything about it. Your claim that I “accept it as fact and claim it to be representative of the entire gay community” couldn’t be more transparently dishonest and unfortunately all too typical. What’s hilarious is your attempt to cover up your distortion with two more lies.
Northdallas said “In short, Priya, both you and dalea asserted as fact that gay and lesbian domestic violence is “extremely rare”, or “ZERO”.”.
I never said any such thing – you’re lying again.
Northdallas said “Priya, unfortunately, this is what you and your fellow gay bigots were pushing as “fact”:
Your lying for at least the third time in your last two posts. I never said any such thing, Dalea did and he gave a reference you have failed to refute.
See this is the problem with your posts, right from the very start you use one of your typical lies and claim someone has said something that’s actually atributable to someone else. This is one of the major reasons why you have no credibility. Here’s another:
You said “you now are trying to spin that rates are “comparable”.”.
That “spin” came DIRECTLY FROM THE LINKS YOU PROVIDED. You were trying to claim domestic violence was worse amongst gays and provided links ostensibly to back up that claim hoping no one would actually read them and see you’re lying, but I did, provided the quotes from your links and demonstrated once again your dishonesty. In your fevered hatred of the gay community you can’t resist grasping at lies, distortions, and misrepresentations. Its clear you will never achieve the happiness that so obviously eludes you.
I said “the article you linked to points squarely to George Bush and his pushing of abstinence only programs which fail to encourage condom use as a major source of the AIDS problem amongst gays. You fully supported and endorsed Bush and his approach that’s encouraged the spread of AIDS.”
Northdallas replied “Which is hilarious, given the last line of the specific quote that I used. ?I thought I was in this relationship with this man who loved me, why do we need to wear condoms??
Clearly, this person knew about condoms and what they did; however, this person chose not to wear one or insist that his partners wear ones.”.
Once again you dishonestly try to claim an anecdote is represetntative of a community as a whole. You know that’s a lie but you pathetically try to pass it off anyway. You want us to accept your link as an authority backing you up but when it actually shows you fully support and endorse the person who is heavily responsible for AIDS you want to suddenly pretend we shouldn’t accept it as an authority.
Its clear you’re not motivated to diminish AIDS but solely to demonize the gay community. You’d be sorely disappointed if AIDS diminished in the gay community, ever gay that gets AIDS brings a smile to your face.
Now Northdallas will go on to spin more lies, claim I said and believe things I never said and don’t believe, distort the facts, cherry pick studies and quote selectively from them while ignoring the parts that directly contradict what he says in the hopes that no one will take the time to read his links. Ironically he was recently banned from another forum for just this sort of blatent lies and he’s too stupid to have learned his lesson:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/11/14/6239#comment-24159
Now watch him while he falsely accuses others and whines how other people did the same thing and weren’t banned as though someone else behaving badly justifies him doing so.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I never commented on it or said anything about it.
Oh really?
Priya Lynn | December 17, 2008, 6:31pm | #
Excellent job Dalea.
I never said any such thing – you’re lying again.
Oh really?
Priya Lynn | December 17, 2008, 6:31pm | #
Excellent job Dalea.
I never said any such thing, Dalea did and he gave a reference you have failed to refute.
Oh really?
Priya Lynn | December 17, 2008, 6:31pm | #
Excellent job Dalea.
And notice how suddenly Priya cannot defend her previous statements that I challenged her to defend.
“Seems to me that U.S. department of Justice figures are going to be more accurate and representative of the U.S. population than Minnesota governement statistics.”
Oh really? Which link that I provided is Minnesota government statistics only?
And now, the most hilarious one.
That “spin” came DIRECTLY FROM THE LINKS YOU PROVIDED. You were trying to claim domestic violence was worse amongst gays and provided links ostensibly to back up that claim hoping no one would actually read them and see you’re lying,
Oh really? Where did I try to claim that?
Meanwhile, YOU and your fellow leftist Dalea were saying that there was “ZERO” domestic violence among gays. I provided links and sources that proved you were wrong and demonstrated your dishonesty. But instead of admitting that domestic violence rates among gays were the same as they were among heterosexuals, you lied and tried to get out of the claims that both you and dalea made.
Next:
You want us to accept your link as an authority backing you up but when it actually shows you fully support and endorse the person who is heavily responsible for AIDS you want to suddenly pretend we shouldn’t accept it as an authority.
Actually, this is what I said:
Of course the article is going to blame Bush; immature and irresponsible gay and lesbian people refuse to take any responsibility for their behavior and insist that their choices to have unprotected and promiscuous sex are other peoples’ fault.
It simply is written from the perspective of gays like yourself, Priya, who refuse to accept any responsibility and insist that your inability to avoid having promiscuous sex and spread disease is due to President Bush.
If you were honest, you’d admit that having promiscuous disease-spreading sex is a choice that gays and lesbians like you make, instead of trying to blame it on President Bush. But then you would have to take responsibility for your own decisions, and like an immature child, you can’t do that.
posted by Bobby on
“Bareback sex is defended almost solely by Andrew Sullivan and a small clique of conservative gay men. This rarely occurs among out gay men.”
—Actually, SexPanic! defends bareback sex, and a wide variety of other things, and the’re not conservative at all.
“Sex Panic! formed in 1997 and regards itself as “a pro-queer, pro-feminist, anti-racist direct action group” with a multi-issue agenda including HIV prevention, the defense of public sexual culture and sexual self-determination. Sex Panic! has a website, pamphlets and regular meetings. Members believe that police entrapment and crackdowns on public sex, closure of commercial sex establishments, plus the demonization of certain gay male subcultures constitute a contemporary American sex panic.”
http://www.thebody.com/content/art32486.html
Out gay men do all kinds of stuff. Visit the Folsom Street Fair and you’ll see what out gays do.
posted by dalea on
The issue here is one of statistical inference. Many of the sources I found regard domestic violence as consisting of a number of phenomena: verbal, psychological, social and physical. This is all well and good. But the studies that show a high incidence of gay domestic violence come from using this definition. The actual records of police certified violence against men show that 2% of all violence against men comes from ‘intimates’, IE roommates, lovers and those in the household.
All the studies that show a high level of domestic violence rely on using an expansive definition of ‘violence’. A partner who is particularly bitchey and nasty at times is lumped in with being beaten to a pulp.
To solve the problem, I looked at police reports which include everyone who shows up at an emergency room or urgent care center. The stats from there show that of men who require care, 2% are caused by ‘intimates’, a term that encompasses lovers, room mates, business associates and friends. All of this shows the extent of violence in the lives of all men.
To the 2% figures, I applied the 10% incidence used by Kinsey, which both ND40 and Ash will object to, to arrive at the .02%. This is the method used to arrive at the conclusion using readily avialable public data from law enforcement.
The inescapable conclusion: physical violence is extremely rare among gay males.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
All the studies that show a high level of domestic violence rely on using an expansive definition of ‘violence’. A partner who is particularly bitchey and nasty at times is lumped in with being beaten to a pulp.
Did you not read your own source for your data on heterosexuals, dalea?
Law enforcement and the courts use domestic violence as an umbrella term for a wide variety of combinations of other crimes. Most domestic violence charges include at least one “person to person” crime, such as assault (threatening to harm someone either by word or action) or battery (physically harming or attempting to harm someone). Other common elements of domestic violence crimes include: kidnapping (which can be as simple as not letting you leave the room), criminal mischief or vandelism (egging your house, scratching up your car), burglary (entering your home or vehicle without your permission, even if nothing is taken), and stalking. Although many domestic violence arrests include a specific action that results in an injury, just the attempt or threat to injure can be enough – just ask all the people (of both genders!) who have been arrested for hurling coffee cups and other objects at their spouse/partner.
This is the definition you used to create and trumpet your statistics about heterosexual abuse; however, when it comes to LGBT abuse and abusers, you insist on excluding a) anything other than violent abuse, b) anyone who is violently abused, but does not go to an emergency room or urgent care facility, c) anyone who is violently abused, but does not file a police report or go to the police, and d) LGBT women.
This is no surprise; after all, as we saw above, you insisted that out gay men do not have bareback sex, a fact which is both empirically and scientifically proven to be false.
posted by Priya Lynn on
North Dallas Thirty | December 18, 2008, 7:28pm
North Dallas Thirty | December 19, 2008, 1:19pm |
Thanks for proving yourself a repetitive liar just as I said you were.
posted by Frankie on
The Economist is a pretty decent magazine, although it is probably much more neo-classical liberal, where as
Newsweek tends to be a NPR centrist.
Also, much of the western European voting public seems more willing to support gay rights issues.