Censored (The American Conservative – Dreher – WaPo: ‘Error Has No Rights’)- Denials and more denials of levels of LGBT violence

Another day, another ignorant commenter throwing out ad hominem attacks when faced with the ugly reality of LGBT violence. This reply was censored at the American Conservative thread. Ignorant liberal who knows nothing about the subject questions my “mental sanity” for presenting data that his lack character cannot acknowledge.

The censored comment below:

Heather said: If you think that having 40% of homosexuals and bisexuals perpetrating intimate violence, plus an equally large number of them perpetrating sexual harassment of heterosexuals and others is “being treated as equals,” you certainly have a very flawed concept of equality.

Franklin Evans says:    Zero credibility and some concern for your mental well-being if you can’t provide citations for those claims, Heather. And I assure you, offering a religious indictment as your citation will get you nothing but derision… and as you might imagine, I don’t expect you to provide anything but that.

Franklin, calling other people mentally ill is rather low in a debate.  I don’t think throwing out such cheap ad hominem attacks demonstrate an ethical frame of mind.

But since you would like to make this a competition about who is more mentally disturbed, let’s see, then, first all, how your mental well-being is doing. What stats do you have for intimate violence and where do they come from?

Why don’t we ask Thomas Andrews? I’d love to see his answer first of all. And then we can judge who is more mentally disturbed, more fanatical, and more ignorant – the crowd on TAC which normalizes homosexuality or the ones who don’t.

Or are you questioning my “mental well-being” based on nothing more than your imagination? If so, that would make yours a very foul imagination – and your attacks irrational. Irrational attacks are not exactly the domain of the sane, you understand.

So let’s see what is the knowledge base that you operate from. What data do you have that makes you stoop down to saying that I would be  “mentally unwell” if I couldn’t  provide citations?


Unfortunately, since Rod Dreher censored my comment, Franklin Evans will not have to answer to the questions I asked him above.


Censored (The American Conservative -Dreher- What’s The Big Deal, Anyway?): Another case of a bisexual woman engaging in sexual misconduct

Censored (The American Conservative -Dreher-What’s The Big Deal, Anyway?): http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/whats-the-big-deal-anyway/

I recently came to know of another case of sexual misconduct, which I think highlights how egregious liberal attitudes about sex and sexuality are.

A white woman, who is married, is one of the spouses of a missionary couple. Now these are the kinds of missionary who raise money to go abroad (to very posh places) on an “evangelizing” mission, and basically get a paid vacation to do very little real work – something I am getting quite fed up with how often it happens.

Now this couple sets up a Bible study group once a week and it’s basically all the “work” they do on their vacation disguised as mission. They are professedly a member of a conservative denomination, against gay marriage, adultery, etc.

The missionary woman then proceeds to make sexual advances to one of the women in the Bible study group. Now, this isn’t any monstrously aggressive behavior. But that’s the problem. It’s not because it’s not extreme that it doesn’t do real harm.

The misconduct included a few instances of touching arms and shoulder, a couple more forcefully, under the guise of friendliness. This was accompanied by some weird insinuations, which then were complemented by looking the woman’s body up and down, and lasciviously staring at her chest a few times in her face, ignoring that the targeted woman was by this time angrily staring back at the harasser.

I would like to highlight first of all, how disingenuous liberals are when they say that LGBT people are a minority and are equivalent to other victimized groups in society.

There is nothing about this woman that makes her a victim in any way. She is piece of bisexual crap who goes around sexually harassing other women. This is exactly the profile of so many LGBT individuals: privileged and doing harm with impunity. She is a self-called Christian, white, well-educated, and belongs to the comfortable middle-class.  She is part of so many majorities we lose count. Yet, liberals call her a sexual “minority” – a minority, as in oppressed, disadvantaged, or ex-member of slavery – it’s ridiculous. And if we consider that a majority of individuals in society either do harm or are negligent about harm in the area of sexuality, then she is also part of this sexual majority. Also, the liberal claim that this bisexual woman was born with a perverted mind and can’t help it nor be accountable for anything is also hogwash.

Regarding the violations, the bisexual woman violates the relationship with the targeted woman. The targeted woman would have never wanted to have any contact with this woman had she known what she was like, because she was looking for a real Bible study. Neither would she have consented to any form of touching. So there is also the violation in respect to grabbing the other women’s body with a perverted goal in mind, and without the consent of the other woman, in order words, complete sexual objectification. This kind of touching  is a sort  of symbolic rape because of the level of humiliation  and appropriation by deceit. It concerns how she attacks the dignity of the targeted woman. But from a liberal perspective, people do not have a right to their dignity.

Then there is the violation in respect to her marriage and her husband- which liberals don’t care about either. And last, but not least, there is the violation in respect to  what she professes to be doing (teaching the word of God) and what her perverted mind is actually perpetrating. But it is too late.

Today, people are subjected to pernicious and humiliating experiences by LGBT people constantly, and many liberals think what this bisexual woman did is normal and everybody should put up with this. Just like Cardinal O’Briens’ behavior, which also mirrors the disgusting homosexual character in Downton Abbey, who the Lord jumped to protect while minimizing the sexual harassment he had engaged in. “He’s just like us,” was the disgusting line.

I have counseled the targeted woman not to take formal action, given how many ugly experiences I know of when people do make formal complaints for this level of misconduct. The sexual harasser has no qualms about what they did and they will do everything to deny the wrong-doing and protect their reputation. The religious organization the missionary couple is mildly linked to does not inspire any confidence, and I imagine for them, the institution comes first. It would be very hard for the facts to be believed. It’s the victim making the accusation who can be easily maligned in the fight – being harmed twice in the end, and obtaining no redress.


LGBT individuals are beaten largely by LGBT individuals and who think there is nothing wrong with being “gay” – not by social conservatives

The last paragraph (in bold) was censored at The American Conservative – in a thread this week -Feb 17-23 2013 – can’t remember which. Rod said the topic is a thread hijacker…  Ah a thread hijacker! Liberals shooting off their mouths that homosexuals are mostly beaten up by conservatives, as they falsely claim, because conservatives have not normalized homosexuality, as they falsely claim again, obviously is not considered “a thread hijacker…” The liberal narrative full of lies about LGBT violence is always welcome!

Jane says:  If ‘gay rights dogma’ prevails, the worst thing that happens is that you have to put up with gay people.

Correction: If ‘gay rights dogma’ prevails, the worst thing that happens is that you have to put up with gay people- and all the violence and harm they and their homosexuality agenda people currently carry out – which will logically only increase (perverse and perverted sexual attitudes and behaviors in social interactions and as sexual harassment in education and workplace, intense levels of cover ups in sexual abuse and exploitation, lavender mafias everywhere, epidemic levels of STDs, promiscuity and porn as normal (including all the destructive attitudes and behaviors they reinforce), the persecution and marginalization of anyone who questions any aspect of the homosexual sexual agenda, no freedom of speech, religion, or research.

Jane says:  “If ‘traditional dogma’ prevails, and it is still currently prevailing, despite the optimistic outlook for gay rights, the worst thing that happens is that gay people end up beaten up, jobless, and homeless, while the wider society either looks the other way or justifies it, which is bad for gay people’s lives and bad for wider society’s souls. “

Correction: If ‘traditional rights dogma’ prevails, the worst thing that happens is that people are going to be told they are accountable for their psychological problems regarding sexuality and relationships, they need to investigate them and resolve them. There will be freedom of speech, religion, research, and a promotion of a much more wholesome and healthy society regarding sexuality, without normalizing destructive and debasing views about sexuality that include homosexuality, porn, promiscuity, abortion on demand, etc.

There are literally millions of cases of LGBT people doing interpersonal violence to LGBT people (in addition to any violence they do to others) – and these people have internalized the “gay rights dogma.” LGBT are being largely beaten by LGBT people, not by people who believe in “traditional rights dogma.” The majority of these violent LGBT people are never charged because we live in a society where “gay rights” is dominant, and harm committed by LGBT individuals is largely swept under the rug.

Just a thought (that doesn’t lie about reality).


Edited after posting:  slightly tweaked the beginning on 19/9/2013.

Censored (The American Conservative – Why Natural Law Arguments Fail By Rod Dreher): 14 Main Reasons Why Lefties Want Gay Marriage

Censored comment at The American Conservative – Dreher thread (basically the only writer I like at TAC – in any case, the only one I regularly read):

Why Natural Law Arguments Fail By Rod Dreher

Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart contends that natural law arguments have no traction in public debate today.

Dreher says: What I mean is this: I don’t believe that natural-law arguments against same-sex marriage, however internally coherent and formally valid (and remember, a valid argument is not the same thing as a sound argument), carry any real weight in the world in which we live.

First, the comment the propelled me to write mine:

Matt says: February 20, 2013 at 4:04 pm

I find the topic strange. Natural law arguments fail-to do what? Persuade people of something about marriage? This would presume that lefties and other gay marriage supporters were running around seeking to be “persuaded” of something. They are not, but rather trying to impose their vision on the rest of society. There are thousands of little lefties making “arguments” on blogs and websites, true, but these “arguments” are BS and none of these people are actually remotely sincere about them. It doesn’t matter in the slightest whether anything “works” or “makes sense”, but only that it gets us to the goal of gay marriage.

I mean, really, can you imagine any circumstance in which some “argument” is proffered and a whole bunch of lefties suddenly change their minds? Good God, how utterly laughable.

Lefties want gay marriage for two reasons.

1. Gays are to be the new model minority–the “black” thing didn’t work out and “hispanics” are incomprehensible.
2. Maybe if gay people get married, they’ll stop doing some of that weird freaky anonymous sex stuff that they’re known for and settle down to behave like nice SWPLs

So there you have it, notice that at no time there were we concerned with the “nature of marriage” or any such silliness. This is a battle, like everything else in contemporary America, and if you treat it like a parlor room discussion you will always lose. Seriously, how many times do we have to play this game?


Lefties want gay marriage for two reasons.

1. Gays are to be the new model minority–the “black” thing didn’t work out and “hispanics” are incomprehensible.
2. Maybe if gay people get married, they’ll stop doing some of that weird freaky anonymous sex stuff that they’re known for and settle down to behave like nice SWPLs (even though in every country where homosexual was legalized only 2% of homosexuals got “married” – the rest is obviously too dysfunctional to do so)


3. It gives them an excuse to go into denial about how deformed so many liberals are regarding sexuality – going on a homosexual marriage crusade allows them to continue to be negligent and harmful regarding all the problems they foment: promiscuity, epidemic levels of STDs, perverted sexual attitudes, porn, adultery, interpersonal violence, etc. Liberals can’t go on chest-beating sprees about their attitudes and behaviors regarding anything else, because they are such a failure, so there is “gay marriage” to let them pretend they are actually “good” people, while being deplorable in so many other aspects regarding sexuality. Moreover, focusing on allowing homosexual marriage takes away the spotlight on focusing on why 98% of homosexuals do not want to get married and are incapable of it

4. Liberals like to pretend that homosexuality isn’t a gross parody of heterosexuality

5. Plastering postcards of the “loving” homosexual couple makes them feel good and helps forget just how many homosexuals sexually interact without love, including the sexual harassment and molestation of heterosexuals. It also serves as an image to promote the other cornerstone of their homosexual agenda- that “homosexuals are just like us” – but not because of the fact that if they resolved their underlying psychological problems that cause them to have dysfunctional homosexual dynamics, they would be normal heterosexuals

6. Homosexual marriage also functions as a nice red herring to take attention away from their “homosexuality is normal” fallacy, since it presumes this. Thus instead of people debating how unfounded is the claim that homosexuality is normal, and denying how much it is dysfunctional, people spend time arguing if just the simulacrum of “marriage” should be formally written in legal terms

7. It helps them reinforce the lie that people are born homosexual

8. It allows them hammer away with the claim that having laws against homosexual marriage is *just like* laws against interracial marriage – and their equating of sexuality with color of skin/race, even though their is no rational way these two phenomena can be equated

9. It lets them go on a morality crusade, promoting themselves as progress and *the* authority regarding sexuality in society

10. It lets them call anyone who disagrees a bigot and a hater – and given that name-calling is one of their favorite pass-times in life, this one scores big points on their emotional scale – usually followed by “I’m so glad people like you will soon die off”

11. They use it  to claim that it will have no impact on heterosexual marriage and that no one will be forced to do anything – while lying about all the cases of social conservatives being persecuted for wholesome views of sexuality, which do not normalize homosexuality

12. Lets them pretend that this is an issue of “civil rights” – and not another attempt to feel better about their psycho-sexual dysfunctions, by claiming everything with them is normal

13. It’s a major, major ego-trip – they almost have the illusion they are just like the first liberators that arrived at the German concentration camps during WWII – it’s on that level of Self bloatedness

14. Hey, and last but not least, another chapter in the Victim tale – it’s one of their favorite chapters in their “homosexual as society’s major victim”  narrative – a kind of collective hysteria they greatly enjoy being delusional about



This small comment was also censored in this thread:

Modern Problems by Rod Dreher


Then there was this:


“Gay” adult brother incest

You already know what the APA said about it…


CENSORED (What Same-Sex Marriage Means by Andre Archie- The American Conservative Blog ): debate on homosexual marriage

CENSORED: My comment debating the promotion of homosexual marriage at The American Conservative.

I have not read the book; it sounds quite good. My critique regarding Corvino’s position is that it is based on a larger move to normalize homosexuality, a grave mistake. That in itself invalidates any position to promote homosexual marriage through same-sex marriage. People should be accountable for dysfunctional psychologies regarding sexuality; they should investigate their psychological problems and resolve them. American society largely tells people they should either normalize their psycho-sexual problems or ignore them. That is why we see so much promotion of promiscuity, porn, infidelity, abortion on demand, and homosexuality/bisexuality as normal, and so much cover up of instances of sexual abuse, exploitation, and harassment.

Another point, although called “same-sex” marriage, this is a mis-nomer, because the relationship in question is not designed for two sisters who want to care for each other (in a non-incestuous relationship). It’s not same-sex marriage that is being discussed, it’s homosexual marriage.

“Corvino defines marriage as involving a “couple’s commitment to each other and to society that they are each other’s main line of defense in the world, for life. It [marriage] is an exclusive commitment, not in the sense a spouse doesn’t care for other people (children, friends, parents), but in the sense that only one person can be your Number One Person.”

So many things are wrong with the above, including the fact that this would be the type of relationship that two sisters could have. And if marriage is something “for life,” then there can be no divorce… Exclusive means no infidelity or multiple partners, and we know just how American society behaves in that respect, especially the people who want to legalize homosexual marriage… it goes on and on…

CENSORED (The American Conservative – Counterculture Conservatism – Bacevish): Social conservatives should sell out – NOT

The American Conservative – Counterculture Conservatism – Bacevish

How to revive the flagging fortunes of the Republican Party might matter to some people, but it’s not a question that should concern principled conservatives. Crypto-conservatives aplenty stand ready to shoulder that demeaning task. Tune in Fox News or pick up the latest issue of National Review or the Weekly Standard and you’ll find them, yelping, whining, and fingering our recently reelected president as the Antichrist.


So forget about dismantling the welfare state. Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and, yes, Obamacare are here to stay. Forget about outlawing abortion or prohibiting gay marriage. Conservatives may judge the fruits produced by the sexual revolution poisonous, but the revolution itself is irreversible.


My CENSORED comment:

Laying claim to the flagging cause of raising children to become responsible and morally centered adults. Apart from the pervasive deficiencies of the nation’s school system, the big problem here is not gay marriage but the collapse of heterosexual marriage as an enduring partnership sustained for the well-being of offspring.
But if people are told that they should never take responsibility for their psychological problems related to sexuality, that is fundamentally the same message they get told about relationships.

The big problem isn’t exclusively “homosexual marriage.” Trying to legalize homosexual “marriage” is part of a larger movement to normalize homosexuality. And what is the move to normalize homosexuality part of? A larger liberal movement to normalize basically all kinds of dysfunctional attitudes and behaviors related to sexuality (porn, hookups/promiscuity, prostitution, spreading STDs, abortion on demand, etc.). That is, these are all ways that deform and degrade sexuality and people. That is the *big* problem. Not to mention all the issues related to sexual violence, molestations, harassment, etc.

You cannot preach about marriage if you are telling people at the same time that having dysfunctional ways to relate on an intimate sphere are fine and represent progress. That is neither responsible nor moral.

Liberal ideology is about denial of how profound and widespread problems with sexuality are in society. Instead of holding people accountable and telling them they need to resolve their sexuality problems, they normalize them all. At the basis of sexuality, there are relationships. Dysfunctional and harmful attitudes about relationships is what is being normalized by liberals when they normalize homosexuality, porn, promiscuity, etc.

The liberal recipe to be negligent about every problem related to relationships and sexuality is a disaster for society. It’s popular, it gets votes, but it is a disaster. Social conservatives need to sell their views better, not pimp themselves out for a couple more corrupt votes.

Censored (at the American Conservative): Post talking about homosexuals perpetrating violence

The Unmitigated Gall Of Cardinal Mahony

Censored at the American Conservative – by Rod Dreher:

Thomas wrote: “Just as we do not equate a man abusing a girl with heterosexuality, so it is incorrect to equate a man abusing a box with homosexuality.”

Indeed, I don’t know of many people who equate a man “abusing a box” with homosexuality. What happens in reality, though, is that many people with a homosexuality or bisexuality problem abuse, harass, exploit, and denigrate others in sexual contexts. In other words, by saying that no one should equate homosexuality with abuse, you want people to think that homosexuals never abuse, harass, etc. Or you largely minimize and deny the bulk of cases. And that’s the greatest lie liberals currently promote in society. So, every time we point out just how much abuse and harm LGBT people do, liberals say that we are trying to pin all abuse on LGBT people. The objective is none other than make everyone dismiss or trivialize the real incidents.

It is a fact that there are homosexual activists who abuse babies and adolescents and adults, and sometime torture them to death. It is highly dishonest to want to cover this reality up, but that’s the approach liberals take to sexuality. And that in addition to all the LGBT perpetrators who aren’t “activists.”

According to liberals, we can only talk about abuse perpetrated by so-called heterosexuals, because then nobody is accused of trying to “pin abuse on heterosexuals.” Then it’s fine. Then there’s no problem in the “approach.”

Another problem is how people use the word heterosexuality. A man can be sexually perverted towards females of any age. If a man has a sexually perverted mind towards adult women, most people call him a “heterosexual,” but if he is perverted towards a girl, then he gets another label (pedophile). And if he is perverted towards adolescents, then most lay people don’t even label that as anything specific (“heterosexual”), or they might throw him in the “pedophile” category, if there is assault involved.   In other words, the aspect of how sexually perverted an individual is is usually only highlighted by common vocabulary if it relates to children. This is partly explained by the fact that society (people with privilege) does not care much about sexual perversion if it’s on an adult level.