Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Misconstruers: Fear the (Box) Turtle

Hat tip to Box Turtle Bulletin for this one. Good call.

It's a classic. Alan Chambers, the President of Exodus International, a religious group that tells gay people they can become straight, is telling a Family Blah Blah writer some stuff:
Violence within gay relationships is often hidden, but not new. Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International, says he knew the problem would become public at some point.

“It’s something that we knew would come to light more as the issue of gay unions began to be on the radar screen of the American public.”

In fact, according to the National Violence against Women Survey, 39- percent of homosexuals report being raped, physically assaulted or stalked by their partners. Chambers says many gays grew up in a home where they were abused and that transfers into their relationships later in life. Domestic Violence Among Gay Couples Ascends

Wow. Thirty-nine percent. That's a bunch. This is another great reason not to let 'em marry each other.

You know. To protect them from themselves.

(Never mind that the "abused at home" meme is pure bull-oney.)
“I’m not saying that all gay people are violent. But in these relationships I believe that that has to be taken into consideration and is a factor for why so many of these relationships end in violence.”

Several states are considering legislation to dedicate money to domestic violence programs for gays. Andrea Lafferty with the Traditional Values Coalition thinks it’s another equality issue for them.

“It’s a bizarre twist on their attempt to legitimize their lifestyle. But nonetheless, this is another attempt to say, ‘Hey, we, the homosexual community, we are just like everybody else.’”

Chambers blames the violence on an extreme sense of unhappiness that often leads to addictive behaviors.

Well, ignorant people read this sort of thing and it sounds plausible, those diabolical perverts are probably sodomistically possessed in other ways besides their sexual ... choices.

But there is another explanation. Maybe men are more violent than women.

(As a tofu-loving Volvo driver, I'm beginning to feel so guilty for sounding sexist -- it just can't be true, everyone must be equal in every way.)

Box Turtle Bulletin says, go to the data. Find the survey report RIGHT HERE. It's nontrivial, 62 pages long, about a meg and a half, but if you're not on dial-up you oughta take a look at it.

Here, I'm not going to pretend to have discovered this. Box Turtle Bulletin will tell you:
Well, it’s true, sort of. Thirty-nine percent of women with a history of same-sex partnership report being raped, assaulted, or stalked by their partners. For men with a history of same-sex partnership, the figure is “only” 23%. For couples with a history of opposite-sex partnership [only], the figures are 21.7% for women, and 7.4% for men.

Yes ... that's what Alan Chambers said.
But the real question is who is doing the raping, assaulting, and stalking?

OK, so I'm dying to know. Who does it?

Well, we already know, because Alan Chambers told us, it's violent gays and lesbians taking advantage of liberal "gay marriage" laws.
For that answer, all you have to do is go to the very next page [p. 30]. In exhibit 9, you will see that —

Among women with a history of same-sex partnership:

  • 30.4% were raped, assaulted or stalked by their husband/male partner
  • 11.4% were raped, assaulted or stalked by their wife/female partner.


And among men with a history of same-sex partnership:

  • 10.8% were raped, assaulted, or stalked by their wife/female partner.
  • 15.4% were raped, assaulted, or stalked by their husband/male partner.


So here is what it all means. Many women with a history of same-sex partnership also have a history of opposite-sex partnership. Because of that, they are far more likely to report being raped, assaulted or stalked because it is the men in their lives who are doing the raping, assaulting or stalking. Not the women. Same-sex cohabiting women were nearly three times more likely to report being victimized by a male partner than a female partner.

And here is where the statistic gets really interesting: 20.5% of women in opposite sex relationships were raped, assaulted or stalked by their husband or male partner. That compares to 15.4% of men who were raped, assaulted, or stalked by their male partners. In other words, gay men are safer around their same-sex partners than straight women are around their husbands or opposite-sex partner.

Is this so hard to understand?

I'm going to try to make a table here. Hopefully it looks right in your browser:

Perpetrator
Male Female
Victim Male 15.4% 10.8%
Female 30.4% 11.4%

To the rational person, this pattern says: men are more violent than women, especially in heterosexual relationships.

Look, it wasn't like you had to dig for this. The survey report itself says:
Thus, same-sex cohabiting women were nearly three times more likely to report being victimized by a male partner than by a female partner. Moreover, opposite-sex cohabiting women were nearly twice as likely to report being victimized by a male partner than were same-sex cohabiting women by a female partner (20.3 percent and 11.4 percent).

Somewhat different patterns were found for men. Like their female counterparts, same-sex cohabiting men were more likely to report being victimized by a male partner than by a female partner. Specifically, 15.4 percent of same-sex cohabiting men reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male partner, but 10.8 percent reported such violence by a female partner. However, same-sex cohabiting men were nearly twice as likely to report being victimized by a male partner than were oppositesex cohabiting men by a female partner (15.4 percent and 7.7 percent). These findings suggest that intimate partner violence is perpetrated primarily by men, whether against male or female partners.

OK, that explains it: men are more violent than women. And they're more violent to women than to other men.

This idiot Chambers takes perfectly legitimate-looking data, a big government survey, and totally fabricates the interpretation of the results. Because he's talking to an audience of misanthropic illiterates with no sense of curiosity to motivate them to look anything up, they believe him. Plus, it fits their stereotype, and instead of thinking critically, the Family Blah Blah audience can just believe whatever somebody tells them they're suppose to believe.

Let's imagine they're right. Let's say gay-on-gay violence is a big problem, as Chambers asserts here.

Why would they lie about it?

55 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

August 29, 2006

Schwarzenegger Signs Pro-Gay Bill

by Pete Winn, associate editor


Sexual-orientation law is sure to collide with religious freedom.


California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday signed into law a major piece of legislation advancing special rights for homosexuals.

On the surface, SB 1441 would add "sexual orientation" to an anti-discrimination statute dealing with how state funds are handed out. The bill's sponsor, state Sen. Sheila James Kuehl, an openly gay legislator, claims the law will "close an important gap in California's nondiscrimination laws."

But pro-family analysts say the law will also expand the definition of discrimination to include the perception of someone's sexual orientation or even of someone "associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have" any of these characteristics.


Mona Passignano, state issues analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said what the bill really does is insidious.

"What it will actually do is create an atmosphere in which businesses and organizations that receive state funding cannot speak about homosexuality in any way which might be perceived as being negative," she said. "Funding could be taken away if somebody perceives that they have been discriminated against for their gender identity."

Passignano pointed out that the law could arguably include a church no longer being able to get police or fire protection from a city, if the pastor preaches from Romans 1 about the biblical view of homosexuality.

Any group or organization that gets money from the state — contractors, private schools or colleges — could lose funding if it has policies in place which take a Judeo-Christian line on homosexuality.

Life Pacific College in San Dimas, Calif., could conceivably fall afoul of the statute.

Dr. Terry Samples, academic vice president at the college, said the school doesn't discriminate against any students, but it does have behavioral standards and expectations they must abide by.

"It is spelled out in our Code of Conduct that any kind of sexual aberration could face school discipline policies," he told CitizenLink.

Samples said the college believes Scripture is very clear about homosexuality.

"While it is clear that we are to love all people and to care for all people, the Bible very clearly says that there are certain things we should be opposed to," he said. "There is no question we would refuse state funding if this were enforced upon us in such a way as to try to get us to back off our standards."

Ron Prentice, president of the California Family Council, said Schwarzenegger's action was deeply disappointing on several counts.

"He received thousands upon thousands of phone calls over the course of the last week, at all his offices, by people who oppose SB 1441 and the expansion of homosexual activism," Prentice said. "Unfortunately, he chose to ignore them."

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, said a court battle is looming.

"Invariably, there is a conflict between religious freedom and sexual-orientation laws," he said. "But what's so disturbing is that any governor would sign into law legislation that essentially criminalizes Christianity. We knew it was coming, we've talked about it for year, but now it's being thrust upon us."

August 30, 2006 8:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"OK, that explains it: men are more violent than women."

Probably one of the reasons why male-male sexual relationships are unstable. Mixing gasoline with fire.

"And they're more violent to women than to other men.

This idiot Chambers takes perfectly legitimate-looking data, a big government survey, and totally fabricates the interpretation of the results. Because he's talking to an audience of misanthropic illiterates with no sense of curiosity to motivate them to look anything up, they believe him. Plus, it fits their stereotype, and instead of thinking critically, the Family Blah Blah audience can just believe whatever somebody tells them they're suppose to believe."

Do tolerance yada-yada and lunatic fringe gay advocacy ever get curious. Do they wonder whether the data is all based on self-reporting has any impact on the validity? Maybe the gays don't report the violence because they are drawn to it?

"Let's imagine they're right. Let's say gay-on-gay violence is a big problem, as Chambers asserts here.

Why would they lie about it?"

Who lying about what?

August 30, 2006 8:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Global warming update:

Another big disappointment for the global catastrophe. Just yesterday, the media was just sure Ernesto would transform from a storm to a hurricane on the ninety miles from Cuba to Florida. Apparently, it turn out to be alot of rain and not much wind. How bizarre for Florida in late August!
That would make a total of, let's see here,...zero hurricanes hitting the U.S. now that global warming is approaching the tipping point. Maybe a little warmer planet's not going to be so bad after all.

Here's an eyewitness report:

"At a bar in Key Largo, transplanted New Yorker Brian Lima nursed a beer while he watched the rain fall. "I've seen much worse rainstorms in New York," Lima said."

August 30, 2006 8:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Analysts now expect gas to be $2 by Thanksgiving. One reason they were so high this summer is that oil was bid up by investors speculating that supplies in the Gulf of Mexico would be disrupted by all the hurricanes that were expected because of global warming. They don't, ahem, expect that anymore.

Think of all the money that went down the drain because of the global catastrophe nuts.

August 30, 2006 11:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AP Breaking News

Hurricane John Strengthens to Category 4
By EDUARDO VERDUGO, Associated Press Writer

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

(08-30) 08:46 PDT PUERTO VALLARTA, Mexico (AP) --

Hurricane John strengthened into a dangerous, Category 4 storm Wednesday and forecasters predicted its center would come closer to land during its march up Mexico's Pacific coast, where its outer bands already were lashing tourist resorts with heavy winds and rain.

The hurricane had maximum sustained winds of 135 mph, and stronger gusts capable of ripping roofs off buildings and causing storm surges of up to 18 feet above normal.

John was not expected to affect the United States, but a hurricane warning covered a more than 300-mile stretch of the Mexican coastline from Lazaro Cardenas to Cabo Corrientes, the southwestern tip of the bay that holds Puerto Vallarta.

August 30, 2006 1:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can't you do any better than a paid hack like Pete Winn? The guys who pay him are obviously POed that Schwarzenegger refused to do their bidding because he knows that equal rights for LGBT people are not special rights, they're just equal.

August 16, 2006

Dr. Dobson Calls for Defeat of Pro-Gay California Bills
by Pete Winn, associate editor

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger needs to be told to veto one, and state Assemby members need to be told to vote against another.

Focus on the Family Action Chairman Dr. James Dobson is calling on pro-family Americans — especially Californians — to take a stand against a pair of pro-gay bills that could become law in the Golden State...

(Paid for by Focus on the Family Action)


http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0041664.cfm

August 30, 2006 1:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Can't you do any better than a paid hack like Pete Winn?"

Always the personal attack with you guys. Why not address the issue?

August 30, 2006 2:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pointing out who pays someone for his writing is not a personal attack. It is reporting the facts. Was it a personal attack when we learned the current administration paid reporters to put out "news" reports? No, it was reporting facts.

As far as addressing this issue, try this:

Equal rights are not special rights. They are equal.

August 30, 2006 3:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Equal rights are not special rights. They are equal."

No, it's special rights. No other behaviour or the impulse to engage in any other behaviour does not merit protection from criticism. The whole idea is absurd. Any other comparable situation one could think of would be considered ridiculous.

"Pointing out who pays someone for his writing is not a personal attack."

Sounded to me like you thought the validity of the news was somehow negated by the fact that the guy is paid.

The Washington Post, for example, has an editorial page which expresses opinions on everything under the sun. When they report on these issues in the news section, then, are their reporters "paid hacks"?

August 30, 2006 3:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Equal rights are not special rights. They are equal."

Oh, so, I have the government enforced right to be free from criticism about my behavior or desires? I had no idea!

August 30, 2006 3:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Analysts now expect gas to be $2 by Thanksgiving."

You have to watch those apostrophes Anon. Fred Rozell, a gasoline analyst at the Oil Price Information Service, made this prediction about pump prices at Thanksgiving. He also "figures prices will jump again next spring."

Just to be sure to report all the facts, here are the reasons Mr. Rozell cited for the drop in price as reported by USAToday.com:

"Behind the current drop:

•The end of summer. Driving slows, reducing demand for gasoline. And federal requirements for clean air, summer-blend gasoline end next month, making gasoline cheaper to refine and import.

•Sluggish demand. Gasoline use in the first eight months of the year is up 1% vs. a year ago, less than the 1.5% to 2% growth that's typical, says Michael Morris, analyst at the U.S. Energy Information Administration. "Wholesalers are trying to get rid of product. The growth in demand for gasoline has really tapered off," he says.

Wholesale prices are falling faster than retail gasoline prices, meaning stations are making more money than when prices were $3. Wholesale prices Tuesday ranged from $1.77 to $1.79 a gallon, well below the $2-plus prices typical until recently.

•Petroleum traders, worried that prices are too high to last, are selling their holdings. That pushes prices down. They also believe hurricanes won't disrupt Gulf of Mexico production, OPIS senior analyst Tom Kloza says.

Crude oil, which accounts for roughly half the price of gasoline, ended New York trading Tuesday down 90 cents, at $69.71 a barrel. That's the first time it's closed at less than $70 since May 4."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2006-08-29-gas-price-usat_x.htm

What a clear example of misconstrual -- ignoring all but one reason given that might explain this drop in pump prices.

August 30, 2006 4:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Oh, so, I have the government enforced right to be free from criticism about my behavior or desires?"

Yes....if you live in California.

August 30, 2006 4:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, man, don't diss California, man.

August 30, 2006 4:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:
"No, it's special rights. No other behaviour or the impulse to engage in any other behaviour does not merit protection from criticism. The whole idea is absurd. Any other comparable situation one could think of would be considered ridiculous."

"Sexual orientation" includes everyone, so everyone gets protected. Equal rights, plain and simple. I don't see anything "special" about it.

August 30, 2006 7:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anons arguing with other anons

Now that is special.

Anne

August 30, 2006 10:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"anons arguing with other anons"

Unless you're giving your full name, "Anne" is really no different than "Anon".

August 31, 2006 7:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""Sexual orientation" includes everyone, so everyone gets protected. Equal rights, plain and simple. I don't see anything "special" about it."

When you say someone has a government protected right to be free of criticism, you're also saying that someone else has a government enforced obligation to refrain from criticism. This is a violation of constitutional guarantees of free speech. It will eventually be overturned by the Roberts court.

The whole thing, though, is revelatory of the totalitarian nature of the gay advocacy movement. The want government to endorse and ENFORCE an idea. Their normality. The Fishback revisions would have resulted in a loss of students' rights to freedom of speech and religion.

August 31, 2006 7:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon said, Unless you're giving your full name, "Anne" is really no different than "Anon".


_______

And this coming from ANON??????????

Anne (said while laughing at ANON)

August 31, 2006 11:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:
"When you say someone has a government protected right to be free of criticism, you're also saying that someone else has a government enforced obligation to refrain from criticism. This is a violation of constitutional guarantees of free speech. It will eventually be overturned by the Roberts court."

I fail to see how this proves special rights being granted. If free speech is restricted, everyone has that restriction imposed on them.

If you see this as a free speech violation, it's only another violation added to what's already on the list.

September 01, 2006 3:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:
"The Fishback revisions would have resulted in a loss of students' rights to freedom of speech and religion."

You're naive if you believe freedom of speech and religion are not already restricted, especially in schools. Sexual orientation is not the only issue in the world.

September 01, 2006 3:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Sounded to me like you thought the validity of the news was somehow negated by the fact that the guy is paid."

I do not question the validity of Mr. Winn's articles by the fact that he's paid, but by the fact he's paid by Focus on Family Action, a 501(c)(4) political lobbying group. You post his articles as if they are legitimate news reports published in newspapers when they are actually propaganda (ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause ; also : a public action having such an effect) paid for by lobbyists.

September 01, 2006 7:25 AM  
Anonymous Sandy said...

Speaking of propaganda, look what the Washington Post buried on Page 20

"Positive Press on Iraq Is Aim of U.S. Contract

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 31, 2006; Page A20

U.S. military leaders in Baghdad have put out for bid a two-year, $20 million public relations contract that calls for extensive monitoring of U.S. and Middle Eastern media in an effort to promote more positive coverage of news from Iraq.

The contract calls for assembling a database of selected news stories and assessing their tone as part of a program to provide "public relations products" that would improve coverage of the military command's performance, according to a statement of work attached to the proposal...


Continues at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/30/AR2006083003011.html

September 01, 2006 7:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You post his articles as if they are legitimate news reports published in newspapers"

Facts are facts regardless of who says them. And if you think the facts are wrong in the piece, let's hear which ones. Gay advocates never have an argument. That's why they want to shut down the debate.

September 01, 2006 10:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I fail to see how this proves special rights being granted. If free speech is restricted, everyone has that restriction imposed on them."

It's because the idea of gay normalcy is the only one that the government will penalize people for not supporting.

September 01, 2006 10:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Positive Press on Iraq Is Aim of U.S. Contract"

Do you have any idea the kind of propaganda people are fed in those countries from birth? We get shocked when we hear someone here thinks the Holocaust didn't happen. Everyone over there thinks that. I'm glad the U.S. is mobilizing against the propaganda machine. The fundamentalist Islamic threat is as real as the Communist and Fascist threats in the 20th century.

September 01, 2006 11:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, an insider - it looks like Anon is on the Republican Talking Points mailing list.

September 01, 2006 11:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:
"It's because the idea of gay normalcy is the only one that the government will penalize people for not supporting."

That's only because their is opposition to "gay normalcy". There's no opposition to heterosexual normalcy or religious normalcy is there? If there was opposition to those things (i.e. discrimination), do you think it wouldn't be penalized? Well actually, before sexual orientation was added to the bill, one could discriminate against heterosexuals and not be penalized, although that never really happened except probably at gay bars and the like. There aren't many situations where straight people are discriminated against just because they're straight.

The only reason why gay issues always seem to be singled out is because opposition to it exists. It astounds me when I hear people claiming "special rights" are being granted because they are forgetting that heterosexuals are also included. Why do they forget? Because there is no opposition to heterosexuality.

Logic seems to fall through the floor when it comes to sexual orientation. No particular class of people are being protected, yet you still have a lot of people assuming that "sexual orientation" equates to non-heterosexuals. Why? Again, because there is no opposition to heterosexuality so it slides by unnoticed. Heterosexuals are still included though, so it just couldn't be more equal.

September 01, 2006 11:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The fundamentalist Islamic threat is as real as the Communist and Fascist threats in the 20th century."

The same could be said for the fundamentalist Christian threat which threatens to destroy our democracy from within, an even more insidious threat.

September 02, 2006 10:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Wow, an insider - it looks like Anon is on the Republican Talking Points mailing list."

You know the TTF argument has played itself out when they start saying this.

September 03, 2006 3:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The same could be said for the fundamentalist Christian threat which threatens to destroy our democracy from within, an even more insidious threat."

You could say it but you would be delusional. Nations with a Judeo-Christian heritage are where democracy has thrived. The threat's all in your mind.

September 03, 2006 3:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That's only because their is opposition to "gay normalcy". There's no opposition to heterosexual normalcy or religious normalcy is there?"

It is within the right of every person to decide what is normal for themself. America has granted tolerance to homosexuals. We don't endorse, and won't ENFORCE, the idea of gay normalcy.

September 03, 2006 3:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Logic seems to fall through the floor when it comes to sexual orientation."

Exactly. There is no other idea whose adherents think the government should force people to support it. Not in America anyway. All other advocacy movements support democracy and rely on verbal suasion. Gay advocacy is a threat to democracy.

September 03, 2006 3:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:
"It is within the right of every person to decide what is normal for themself. America has granted tolerance to homosexuals. We don't endorse, and won't ENFORCE, the idea of gay normalcy."

America has granted tolerance to more than just homosexuals, but you choose to only acknowledge homosexuals because of your opposition to them. Wicca is form a religion, and ever since freedom of religion was granted, tolerance was granted to followers of Wicca.

Yes you can do whatever you want, but if you're funded by the state you won't be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation anymore.

Anonymous said:
"There is no other idea whose adherents think the government should force people to support it. Not in America anyway. All other advocacy movements support democracy and rely on verbal suasion. Gay advocacy is a threat to democracy."

You're having a laugh now (and you're still singling out gays). With your logic, there would no need for equality bills at all, and far more discrimination would be taking place. Bills exist to force adherence, but as you know, they can only come into force through democratic processes.

And after all this, it's clear that you can't support the notion that special rights are being granted to anyone.

September 03, 2006 8:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"America has granted tolerance to more than just homosexuals, but you choose to only acknowledge homosexuals because of your opposition to them. Wicca is form a religion, and ever since freedom of religion was granted, tolerance was granted to followers of Wicca.

Yes you can do whatever you want, but if you're funded by the state you won't be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation anymore."

Tolerance is granted to Wicca and any other religion. We also tolerate homosexuality. The difference is that criticism of Wicca is acceptable but, under new CA law, criticism of homosexuality won't.

We have freedom of religion guaranteed in the constitution. Freedom of sexual perversion is not in the Constitution. Try moving to Scandinavia.

September 03, 2006 4:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:
The difference is that criticism of Wicca is acceptable but, under new CA law, criticism of homosexuality won't.

Where did you get that idea? Replace Wicca with Christianity then.

Anonymous said:
"We have freedom of religion guaranteed in the constitution. Freedom of sexual perversion is not in the Constitution. Try moving to Scandinavia."

Freedom of expression? Heterosexuality is sexual perversion?

September 03, 2006 6:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Where did you get that idea? Replace Wicca with Christianity then."

We have the constitutional right to criticize Christianity. People here have done it repeatedly.

"Freedom of expression? Heterosexuality is sexual perversion?"

Sexual activity is not a form of speech. You're running out of steam.

September 04, 2006 12:33 AM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

Anonymous, it seems a little wierd here to see you argueing with your own self about wicca and xtianity. Why did you say this if you didnt believe it?

PB

September 04, 2006 12:44 AM  
Anonymous Frank said...

We seem to have two Anons here; one who supports civil rights for LGBT people and one who doesn't but instead insults LGBT people by referring their private behavior as "sexual perversion."

I have news for the second Anon.

Justice Kennedy wrote for the 6-3 majority in Lawrence v. Texas:

"...The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. "It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter." Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Texas Fourteenth District is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."

September 04, 2006 8:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:
"We have the constitutional right to criticize Christianity. People here have done it repeatedly."

You're confusing discrimination with criticism. Where are you getting the idea that criticism of homosexuality will not be allowed? I'm still waiting for an answer. From others' interpretation of the bill? I asked you before to replace Wicca with Christianity, to show that state-funded instituations are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, in the same way that sexual orientaion is no longer be a valid basis either.

Somehow, you're singling out homosexuals and giving them special rights. By extrapolating from what the bill proposes, you're just setting up strawmans over and over again.

Anonymous aid:
"Sexual activity is not a form of speech. You're running out of steam."

Haha, nice try, but you ran "out of steam" long ago. My presence in this post was to simply point out special rights were NOT being granted, and you failed to defend your position. Throwing in red herrings to try and save face won't do anything to help you defend your original assertion.

You just decided now to introduce the concept of "freedom of sexual perversion" which not only is a ridiculous interpretation, but also completely irrelevant. I merely pointed at freedom of expression because that hits closer to the point than your made up babble. "Sexual activity" is also irrelevant, and even if it were revelant, it would also include heterosexual sexual activity (like I hinted at before, but you chose to convenientaly ignore).

I really don't see where you're trying to going with this. Try as you might, you will not be able to produce a sound argument to defend the notion that special rights are being granted to homosexuals by this bill.

September 04, 2006 11:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And just for reference, my pointing out that the bill does not grant special rights does not mean I support it. I just hate when logic twisted to fit bias.

September 04, 2006 12:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual."

Frank, man, follow the conversation. Nobody has suggested making homosexuality illegal. We're talking about whether the government should try to prevent people from SAYING anything negative about it.

September 05, 2006 11:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Try as you might, you will not be able to produce a sound argument to defend the notion that special rights are being granted to homosexuals by this bill."

The bill wants to prevent people from saying negative things about homosexuality. That's special protection rights.

September 05, 2006 11:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And just for reference, my pointing out that the bill does not grant special rights does not mean I support it. I just hate when logic twisted to fit bias."

Out of curiousity, do you support it? If not, why?

September 05, 2006 11:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:
"The bill wants to prevent people from saying negative things about homosexuality. That's special protection rights."

You haven't been paying attention have you? You've singled out homosexuality. Again. And what bill are you talking about? SB 1441? That doesn't violate freedom of expression.

Regardless of whether any other right is being violated, everyone would receive protection. Like I said before, logic seems to fall through the floor when "sexual orientation" is concerned, because many assume it equates to non-heterosexuals. Heterosexuals are also protected.

Anonymous said:
"Out of curiousity, do you support it? If not, why?"

Why does it matter?

September 05, 2006 1:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You haven't been paying attention have you? You've singled out homosexuality. Again. And what bill are you talking about? SB 1441? That doesn't violate freedom of expression.

Regardless of whether any other right is being violated, everyone would receive protection. Like I said before, logic seems to fall through the floor when "sexual orientation" is concerned, because many assume it equates to non-heterosexuals. Heterosexuals are also protected."

Well, if I'm a beneficiary, let me just say: no thanks. I don't need the government's intervention.

Obviously, this is to protect sexual desires that the general public considers immoral. This is a law designed to negate the idea of sexual immorality. Further, does anyone really think this bill prohibits discrimination against all orientations? If one is oriented to animals or dead bodies or public displays? Of course not. This bill is designed to give special protection against criticism to homosexuals.

September 05, 2006 3:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:
"Well, if I'm a beneficiary, let me just say: no thanks. I don't need the government's intervention."

Ah, but you get it anyway. You may not need it, but you still get the protection. Don't go claiming special rights are being granted to homosexuals just because YOU personally don't need the protection. The bill may not affect you directly, but you still receive the protection; there's no "special" protection for anyone.

Anonymous said:
"Obviously, this is to protect sexual desires that the general public considers immoral. This is a law designed to negate the idea of sexual immorality."

That's merely your perception and interpretation; it's not actually what the bill is proposing. The bill forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and whatever you extrapolate is irrelevant.

Anonymous said:
"Further, does anyone really think this bill prohibits discrimination against all orientations? If one is oriented to animals or dead bodies or public displays? Of course not. This bill is designed to give special protection against criticism to homosexuals."

Your logic falls again; you're using a conjecture which isn't even linked to your final assertion as reasoning. I'll play along anyway, so let's assume that those who engage in beastiality and necrophilia are not protected. How does that equate to "special protection against criticism" for homosexuals? I fail to see the link.

Your logic is clearly clouded by your own personal bias, and you're still going on about criticism when this bill is about discrimination.

How much actual steam do you have left? Oh right, you didn't actually have any to begin with. All your reasoning has been invalid. Really I want to see a valid and sound argument that can defend the idea that "special rights" are being granted to homosexuals by this bill. Really I do.

September 05, 2006 5:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Really I want to see a valid and sound argument that can defend the idea that "special rights" are being granted to homosexuals by this bill. Really I do."

Well, alright. But could you at least make up a name for yourself and tell me why you're so hopped up about this? Are you a gay, PFLAG, libertarian, atheist, Marxist, et al? I need to know what logic you're falsely relying on to show you how it's false.

Lancelot

September 06, 2006 2:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:
"Well, alright. But could you at least make up a name for yourself and tell me why you're so hopped up about this?"

Like I said before, I hate when logic is twisted to fit bias; that is why I'm so "hopped up" about this. When people claim that "special rights" are being granted and then spread the word, they're spreading lies.

Anonymous said:
" Are you a gay, PFLAG, libertarian, atheist, Marxist, et al? I need to know what logic you're falsely relying on to show you how it's false."

You sent me off my chair there; this is truly hilarious. My position is irrelevant (meaning you don't need to know it), but I'll play along anyway for the sheer purpose of entertainment. First, assume I'm a Christian fundamentalist. Then assume I'm a Muslim. Then assume I'm a libertarian. Then er... assume I'm the Vice Predisent's daughter. Then assume I'm a PFOX representative, and then assume I'm a PFLAG representative. Finally, assume I was Schwarzenegger himself.

They are all possible, although some are improbable. Choose the one you feel you have the best chance against, or try them all. The bottom line is, if you really had a sound argument, my position wouldn't matter; you would be able to use facts and logic to counter everything I've said.

By simply asking for my political position, you're setting yourself up for yet another logical blunder, thereby invalidating everything which would rely on such information.

September 06, 2006 5:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Schwarzenegger Vetoes SB 1437

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today vetoed SB 1437, a bill that would have required the state's public schools to teach only positive messages concerning people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender.

Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and public policy at Focus on the Family Action, said he was pleased the governor kept his word.

"If passed, it would have had grave implications for children and families -- not just in California, but across the country," he said, "by forcing all public-school teachers to present a one-sided message about homosexuality, bisexuality and transgender issues to students as young as five."

Two other anti-family bills are on the governor's desk awaiting his decision

September 07, 2006 9:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Like I said before, I hate when logic is twisted to fit bias; that is why I'm so "hopped up" about this. When people claim that "special rights" are being granted and then spread the word, they're spreading lies."

Hmmm...I get the feeling there's more to it than this.

"You sent me off my chair there; this is truly hilarious."

Yeah, crazy people laugh at, like, random times.

"Choose the one you feel you have the best chance against,"

OK, you're a 47-year-old female scientologist named Spiro. What you don't understand is that all of us go through life with things about ourself that others don't like. Some may not get a job because they eat with their fingers or dress like a goth. Some may not get an apartment because they're too young or their kids are obnoxious. People make preferential and irrational and, possibly, unfair decisions. It would be too much of a burden on society to track down every reason and decide whether it's justified so we've decided to leave these things to personal freedom. We can associate and do business and criticize who we want.

Gays have now decided they are a special exception. They want people to be forced to associate with them and do business with them and refrain from criticizing them. They want a risk-free social existence that none of the rest of us enjoy. For society to go along with this is illogical.

September 07, 2006 1:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:
"Hmmm...I get the feeling there's more to it than this."

Go, feel whatever you want. If you it helps you find reason, I'm all for it. I like finding out the reasons given by people who claim special rights are being granted, because it helps me understand the minds and opinions of those who are blinded by their bias.

Anonymous said:
"Yeah, crazy people laugh at, like, random times."

Yeah I'm crazy and I do laugh at the most random things, but this time it was perfectly justified in my crazy mind.

Anonymous said:
"OK, you're a 47-year-old female scientologist named Spiro. What you don't understand is that all of us go through life with things about ourself that others don't like."

Where did get that impression that was something I didn't understand? You obviously want me to not understand so it's easier for you, or you just made another illogical jump.

Anonymous said:
"Some may not get a job because they eat with their fingers or dress like a goth. Some may not get an apartment because they're too young or their kids are obnoxious. People make preferential and irrational and, possibly, unfair decisions. It would be too much of a burden on society to track down every reason and decide whether it's justified so we've decided to leave these things to personal freedom. We can associate and do business and criticize who we want."

If you're going to use "personal freedom" as your reasoning, why bother with discrimination bills at all then? Would you accept discrimination based on age, race, sex, religion and all the other stuff in the name of personal freedom? Sexual orientation isn't the only thing on the bill you know.

Yes it would be too much of a burden to track every little thing, but things come up as time goes on, and laws change.

Anoymous said:
"Gays have now decided they are a special exception. They want people to be forced to associate with them and do business with them and refrain from criticizing them. They want a risk-free social existence that none of the rest of us enjoy. For society to go along with this is illogical."

You see that's a conclusion. Where's the reasoning? You say "gays have now decided they are a special exception", but you don't elaborate. I fail to see how you got to that conclusion. How about all the other stuff on the bill? Sexual orientation (again which also includes heterosexuals) was only just added. By your twisted logic, the discrimination bill is illogical because it forces society to go along with what it proposes. You could say that's a violation of freedom, but it's not illogical.

Now, anything else?

I'll just ask you this question directly (forget about my other questions if you can't make up crap for them): HOW ARE SPECIAL RIGHTS BEING GRANTED EXCLUSIVELY TO HOMOSEXUALS IF THE TERM "SEXUAL ORIENTATION" IS USED IN THE BILL?

(Remember, this is about SB 1441 and discrimination, not the one that was recently vetoed.)

September 09, 2006 11:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"HOW ARE SPECIAL RIGHTS BEING GRANTED EXCLUSIVELY TO HOMOSEXUALS IF THE TERM "SEXUAL ORIENTATION" IS USED IN THE BILL?"

Because they are the ones with a sexual attraction that might be offensive to others. There is no justification for the bill other than to help homosexuals. If you passed a bill, let's say, forbidding discrimination on the basis of cleanliness, it would be giving special rights to slobs because no one is offended by neat people. As it is, there is no reason to grant protection to the characteristic about gays that is likely to offend others. It's the choice of their offensive characteristic above those of others that represents the preferential treatment. They need to take the chance, with the rest of us, that their choices may offend people.

By the way, the choice of the term "orientation" is a kind of bias. It has been redefined in recent years so it has a double meaning but a more precise term would have been preference. There is no scientific evidence that sexual attraction is not a mere preference rather than an innate orientation.

September 09, 2006 4:57 PM  
Anonymous Annoyed said...

So, anonymus, are you saying you don't think people should be treated fairly? You're trying to justify discriminating against a certain group of people?

What I mean to say, really, is WHAT'S YOUR FUCKING POINT, ASSHOLE????

September 09, 2006 8:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:
"Because they are the ones with a sexual attraction that might be offensive to others. There is no justification for the bill other than to help homosexuals."

Whether or not it's offensive to certain people is irrelevant; it doesn't change the fact that the protection is granted to more than just homosexuals. In reality, the bill has a bigger impact on homosexuals yes because opposition to homosexuality exists, but they are not the only ones granted the protection. Again logic has fallen to bias.

It's true that there wouldn't really be much of a difference in impact if the term was specific to LGBT people, but using such a term would mean special rights were being granted. That isn't the case though fortunately, because the term is "sexual orientation" which includes heterosexuals. By only choosing to only acknowledge homosexuality, YOU are one elavating the status of homosexuals.

Anonymous said:
"If you passed a bill, let's say, forbidding discrimination on the basis of cleanliness, it would be giving special rights to slobs because no one is offended by neat people."

Do you not see where your logic is failing? I'll try to make this as clear as possible so your clouded mind can understand.

Let's assume that a bill was passed forbidding the discrimination the basis of cleanliness. Such a bill would probably have a bigger impact on "slobs" because more people are likely to have a negative attitude towards such a characteristic; however, it's because of the culture that this bigger impact exists -- the bill remains completely neutral.

If there was a culture that discriminated against clean people, there would be a bigger impact on the clean people. The bill though, is the same bill from before. The impact is different due to the different culture, but the bill itself is still the same, and neutral.

So, if this one bill was applied to numerous different cultures, then by your logic, its granting of special rights to certain groups of people is dependent on the culture it is applied to. That is completely ridiculous and illogical, because the bill itself is still exactly the same.

Like I said before, YOU are the one elavating the status of homosexuality; the bill is neutral.

Anonymous said:
"As it is, there is no reason to grant protection to the characteristic about gays that is likely to offend others. It's the choice of their offensive characteristic above those of others that represents the preferential treatment. They need to take the chance, with the rest of us, that their choices may offend people."

1. Above?
2. What's considered offensive is subjective to the individual, so if you're going to use that as reasoning, you should question the existence of a discrimination bill.

Anonymous said:
"By the way, the choice of the term "orientation" is a kind of bias. It has been redefined in recent years so it has a double meaning but a more precise term would have been preference. There is no scientific evidence that sexual attraction is not a mere preference rather than an innate orientation."

Irrelevant. Preference or orientation, it's not just homoexuals.

September 10, 2006 4:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And just in case it wasn't clear, a bigger impact on a group of people does not equate to special rights being granted for them, because everyone else also receives those rights.

September 10, 2006 4:29 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home