“Why are you purposefully ignoring that kelly and David both discussed the subject of violence?”

I’m not “purposefully ignoring” Kelly and David’s comments. I, in fact, brought up a similar point about the kind of violence that gays suffer. When the article claims that the supposed wealth of gays means that they don’t suffer discrimination, then it’s legitimate to bring up the kinds of discrimination—including violence—that they do suffer. It is, however, irrelevant to bring up the kinds of violence they practice, unless the violence is discriminatory.

“It was her false stereotype of homosexuals as victims, and not only victims, but, even worse, as greater victims than anyone else.”

Are you saying that gays do not suffer threats and acts of violence?

Who on this thread claims that gays are “greater victims than anyone else”?

“Yet kelly’s and David’s comments had as an objective none other than insisting on creating a false stereotype of homosexuals as victims, without ever presenting information of how violent and destructive LGBT people are.”

Exactly how is the violence that SOME gays practice at all relevant to the violence and threats that ALL gays experience?

Gays suffer discrimination as a class of people. They have made dramatic gains over the last half century, enabling them to flourish in ways they haven’t before, but their quest for dignity and respect isn’t over.

The argument of this column reminds me of the situation of Jews in the 1930s. Jewish moguls ran Hollywood and were the engines of popular musical culture, but the Ivies and medical and law schools limited their enrollment. You can be wealthy and hold some of the reins of cultural power and even political power (think Brandeis), but you can still suffer discrimination.

Michael wrote: “If the topic of this column were about violent tendencies among gays, then yes, I would expect any commenter to discuss the statistics, but the topic is wealth, not violence, and so I’m not surprised the subject hasn’t been discussed. ”

Why are you purposefully ignoring that kelly and David both discussed the subject of violence? All people have to do is scroll up and see their comments.

It is clear that you are stating something completely false. kelly first stated that “gays” have a “greater propensity to being victims of violence.”

So the subject of violence was brought up – by kelly – but only to insist on a victimhood stereotype – not on how much violence and harm LGBT people perpetrate.

So it wasn’t exactly the subject of violence itself that she brought up. It was her false stereotype of homosexuals as victims, and not only victims, but, even worse, as greater victims than anyone else. A notion that David tried to further insist on, by posting some “hate” crimes statistics.

Contrary to your clearly false claim, the subject of violence was discussed by both kelly and David – in a thread where you claim it had no place to be discussed, because you say the thread was about “wealth.” (Another point where you are wrong, but more on this further below).

Yet kelly’s and David’s comments had as an objective none other than insisting on creating a false stereotype of homosexuals as victims, without ever presenting information of how violent and destructive LGBT people are. In other words, theirs is a complete distortion of reality.

You see, the original post was highlighting how much LGBT people lie about their victim status, by equating their experience to the horrible experience of blacks, in ways that are completely false. As part of the many false claims LGBT people make, one is that theirs is a politically powerless and oppressed experience like the experience of blacks – they aren’t. They also insist on a stereotype where LGBT people only suffer victimization and never perpetrate violence – that is the “victim” stereotype kelly and david harped on.

Contrary to your claim, the original post was not only or mainly about wealth, it’s main point is how much people with a homosexuality agenda lie and exaggerate various claims of LGBT victimization.

These lies by LGBT people are particularly deplorable, given that there are many individuals and groups in society that suffer great victimization and do not have a voice.

Large numbers of LGBT people, shamelessly, pretend to be great victims when they aren’t, and pretend not to be perpetrators of harm when they are.

And yet you suggest that for me to present clearly information about how much violence and harm LGBT people do in society is equal to me saying that they are more inclined to commit violence.

I confess to not following you here. I’m not aware of any fraction of society whose members don’t commit violence at some level. Some groups (e.g. teenage males generally) definitely commit more violence than other groups (e.g. Amish females).

There are calls to intervene and help prevent teenage males from committing violence; I’ve never hear of a program set up to deter Amish females from committing violence, though. The reason is that one is a much more pressing problem than the other, precisely because teenage males perform a disproportionately large number of acts of violence. There’s no apparent need to draw attention to the problem of gangs of Amish females.

Now, you seem to wish to draw attention to “all the harm and violence LGBT people and their supporters do in the world”. If your point is that “LGBT people and their supporters” do a non-zero amount of “harm”… well, OK, but so do Amish females. That fact by itself isn’t terribly persuasive of anything. I can’t understand why it would be important or distinctive – we’re all human beings.

If you’re claiming that “LGBT people and their supporters” cause a disproportionate amount of harm, that might be different. Then we might have cause for intervention. Is that what you’re claiming?

Of course, even if that were the case, it wouldn’t affect the rights LGBT people have. It’s perfectly true that in many areas black youth commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime. (White males do in other areas, of course.) But black males still have civil rights anyway – and, most people agree, rightly so.

So in an argument about rights, your ‘information’ isn’t really relevant… even leaving aside questions about its reliability.

“As one out of a million other examples, look at kelly’s and David’s posts above. Are they highlighting how much violence and harm LGBT people do in the world?”

If the topic of this column were about violent tendencies among gays, then yes, I would expect any commenter to discuss the statistics, but the topic is wealth, not violence, and so I’m not surprised the subject hasn’t been discussed.

For example, you haven’t said a word about the amount of violence done by straights, Christians, or conservatives, and yet we know that each of these groups is violent. In fact, I can’t think of a single group that hasn’t been violent.

“On the contrary, they are insisting on a victim stereotype – one which is false”

Are you saying that gays have not been attacked by straights?

“Second, LGBT people do harm to everyone else, not exclusively to other LGBT people as you seem to claim”

I claimed no such thing.

“I am simply pointing out how inclined people who normalize homosexuality are to dismiss, omit, or outright lie about how much harm and violence LGBT people do in society”

Perhaps you could also explain how much good they do.

“And yet you suggest that for me to present clearly information about how much violence and harm LGBT people do in society is equal to me saying that they are more inclined to commit violence”

So you’re saying that they are NOT inclined to be more violent? Is that right? Then why bring up the subject in a conversation about wealth?

Of course they do. And it’s not just them, most people who are pushing to normalize homosexuality do it too.

As one out of a million other examples, look at kelly’s and David’s posts above. Are they highlighting how much violence and harm LGBT people do in the world?

On the contrary, they are insisting on a victim stereotype – one which is false.

Second, LGBT people do harm to everyone else, not exclusively to other LGBT people as you seem to claim.

The purpose of my statement, which is quite simple, is to expose the kind of “victim” stereotyping David and others constantly engage in. I’m not sure why you seem to have a complaint there. Surely you want to be aware of all the harm and violence LGBT people and their supporters do in the world, don’t you?

I am simply pointing out how inclined people who normalize homosexuality are to dismiss, omit, or outright lie about how much harm and violence LGBT people do in society.

In other words, with my comment, we have a much more realistic picture of LGBT people than with yours or David’s or kelly’s.

And yet you suggest that for me to present clearly information about how much violence and harm LGBT people do in society is equal to me saying that they are more inclined to commit violence.

So if you were truthful about how much violence LGBT people perpetrate, you would also be saying that they are more inclined to commit violence? Is that why you systematically either omit, dismiss, or trivialize information about all the ways in which they are violent, and the damage they do in society?

Secondly, wouldn’t you agree that it’s important to know if people who have a homosexuality problem are more inclined to do any kind of harm? For example, to know whether they are more inclined to lie and cover up harm or violence that other LGBT people do.

To keep silent about violence is quite harmful, don’t you agree?

“They never examine the number of violent acts perpetrated by homosexuals and present these numbers side by side. The number and type of all kinds of crimes perpetrated by people with a homosexual or bisexual problem must always be hidden or dismissed”

I first learned about violence among gays from a gay activist just as I first learned about women committing domestic abuse from a feminist activist. In other words, gays don’t hide their problems from themselves or others.

But I’m still not sure what to do with your assertion that gays can be violent. Why should that fact make me any less horrified that some people beat up gays when they come across them? You seem to be suggesting that gays are incline toward violence, but we have been presented with big numbers about the violence perpetrated by young black men. What do you recommend that we do about them?

Nickol wrote: “The FBI last week issued its 2011 Hate Crime Statistics”

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

To note: “Hate crime” is a dubious concept, especially in the context of sexuality.

Furthermore, “hate” crimes are only a tiny category of all types of violence that are perpetrated in society.

In other words, the ranking of hate crime categories does not tell us who is most likely to be a victim of violence.

Moreover, I doubt that there is any use in claiming that one category of people is more likely to be a victim, taking into account every single violent action ever committed.

To state that homosexuals are more likely to be victims of violence only serves propaganda purposes as it relates to promoting a homosexuality agenda. It’s purpose is to insist on a false victim stereotype of people taking on the LGBT labels.

Certainly by raw numbers, people with a homosexual problem would rank very lowly as victims of crimes. Would it be whites? Women? Children/youth? The poor? I don’t know.

And it mostly doesn’t matter unless we are focusing on a particular type of crime – especially one which is not an artificially labeled crime – as most “hate” crimes involving homosexuals are.

Lastly, it is worth repeating once again the manipulation that homosexuality agenda folks attempt with the claim of “more likely to be victims of violence.” They never examine the number of violent acts perpetrated by homosexuals and present these numbers side by side. The number and type of all kinds of crimes perpetrated by people with a homosexual or bisexual problem must always be hidden or dismissed.

The FBI last week issued its 2011 Hate Crime Statistics

Racial bias ranked first (2,917 incidents)

Bias based on sexual orientation ranked second (1,293 incidents)

Religious bias ranked third, with 1,233 incidents
• 771 of those were anti-Jewish;
• 157 were anti-Islamic;
• 67 were anti-Catholic;
• 44 were anti-Protestant;
• 4 were anti-Atheist or Agnostic.
• Fully 130, however, involved bias against other religions.

What better environment to raise children?