From an American Conservative thread:

Turmarion wrote:
The problem is, as I pointed out several threads ago, is that among the segment of the population that opposes SSM, present company excepted, there seems an unwillingness on the part of an awful lot of them not only to repent, but acknowledge that there’s anything even to repent of. Sharon Astyk wrote eloquently of getting beaten up because her parents were gay, and M_Young immediately said he had a hard time believing that because he had kin in the public schools and they hadn’t seen such a thing. I told the story about the acquaintance who used to go with his buddies who hung around gay bars to beat up gays, specifying that he was from Louisville, and Beyng fell barely short of calling me a liar outright since there are no gay bars in rural Appalachia! Thursday posted links to charts and articles that he misrepresented in order to argue that Southern Fundamentalists were no worse as gay bashers than anyone else. A couple other commenters basically went tu quoque by posting extensive lists of all the evil things gays do.


I was one of them, I suppose. And that is the point to be made again and again. Why aren’t liberals repenting about all the evil things liberals do? Aren’t you against evil? LGBT individuals are mostly a subset of liberals, why aren’t they repenting about all the virulent, perverted, violent attitudes and behaviors they have and endorse?

Why should we talk about some homosexual bar in some boon-dock where some homosexual got beat up, and not the millions of violent LGBT people all over America? Why not talk about how often they batter, insult, demean, harass, murder, rape, and exploit others, both heterosexuals and the rest (conservative or not), including children?

You know why? Because people with a homosexuality agenda could care less about human suffering, injustice, and the horrendous violence so many people suffer. They only care about an issue if they can finger-point a conservative. It’s the “we are good; you’re bad” that they are after. It’s the “we’re enlightened; you’re stupid,” the “we’re nice; you’re haters,” the “I’m the victim of violence; you’re the perpetrator of violence,” the “we aren’t accountable for any of the destruction we cause; you, on the other hand, must be tarred and feathered for any little thing that we don’t like.” That’s the narrative they just love.

This litany is not about any humane concern from liberals, because people with a homosexuality agenda are not concerned about the common good; what they have is a need to vilify conservatives and to posit that their normalization of homosexuality is to be the law and the only acceptable viewpoint in society.

LGBT people suffer much more violence from LGBT people than from any Christian or conservative group; see the stats on IPV and infesting society with HIV and syphilis, for example.

Deal with it.

And none of these people who normalize homosexuality ever goes on a homosexuality agenda blog and starts making speeches to that audience for them to “repent” about being such destructive, uncaring, insensitive people regarding the millions of cases where the perpetrator or person causing harm is a homosexual or bisexual. Why don’t you go convince them to take responsibility for being so psychologically disoriented and dysfunctional that they can’t have a healthy relationship with the opposite sex and at least try to resolve it?

Liberal ideology is not about people dealing with how they are psychologically deformed about sex and relationships; it’s about saying everything is permissible, should be pursued, and the ogres of the world are the people who are concerned about wholesomeness and ethics, because they live by standards and limits, something liberals often hate.


EngineerScotty says:    “There’s a difference between being fired because you are Christian and conservative, and being fired because you are an a**hole who happens to be Christian and conservative.”

Since by liberal definition, anyone who does not normalize homosexuality is an a**hole, then every social conservative is an a**hole and must be persecuted, have all their fundamental rights trampled on, with impunity, because that’s what they justly deserve.

For people who normalize homosexuality, democracy only exists for them. In other words, they favor a dictatorship, where they are free to respect other people rights only when they feel like it. And why? It’s because they are “good,” and anyone who disagrees with their ignorant views on homosexuality are “bad.”

As we all know, bad people shouldn’t have a right not to be discriminated against in employment and education, while good people should. Bad people deserve to be vilified, while good people need to be put on a pedestal. Bad people must be expelled from any influence or participation in the public sphere, while good people should be dominant.

Curiously, this description fits every racist and dictatorial regime that has ever existed, if you substitute “good” for the ones who grabbed power.


EngineerScotty said: “Nowhere is it permitted (ministerial exceptions notwithstanding) to fire someone because you don’t like their religion, in many places it remains perfectly legal to discharge someone solely because they are gay.”

People are refused jobs because of their religious views all the time. I know of several cases. Not only that, in many environments controlled by liberals, and public academia is a prime example, social conservatives need not apply for plenty of jobs.

Just because no university administrator is stupid enough to declare on paper and sign underneath they aren’t hiring someone because they object to their social conservative/religious views, it doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

Similarly, people in work environments know very well how to fire someone they don’t like because of their religion without formally declaring it. Many corporate administrators are nasty, but not stupid.

The Dixon case is simply appalling. What is the claim? An HR woman can be fired because she said that people with a homosexual problem have not experienced anything comparable to what blacks did under slavery. Why should she be fired for doing her own personal, historical analysis of any group in society? Because, say liberals, this means she is not capable of treating people with a homosexuality problem according to the law of employment. But up until she expressed her views, she had proved she was capable. And after she expressed her views, she continued to be capable. Oh, but reality doesn’t matter when you are going on a witch hunt.

The fact that she is capable of treating people with a homosexuality problem according to the law is irrelevant to liberals. Theirs is a false accusation all the way. If she questioned any precept of the homosexuality agenda narrative, she must be punished. Threat of unemployment is a form of speech (and ideological) control, as Hitchens so superbly pointed out. Dixon must be accused of treating people with a homosexual problem unfairly, even though she never has. If she never has, well, let’s accuse her of perhaps, one day, without any proof, of doing it. The important thing is to punish and persecute anyone who questions the homosexuality agenda narrative. This narrative is largely false and morally corrupt, so we just can’t have anyone exposing the fact; they must be shut down.

On a related note, here’s a very interesting article relating to the question of speech  control (noted by Hitchens), and the trampling of the 1st Amendment, in colleges:

Why do several college administrators severely discipline  individuals for constitutionally protected expression?

“One reason is that college administrators don’t fear First Amendment lawsuits very much. If a state university violates the First Amendment, often it pays nothing for the violation. The Eleventh Amendment protects a state university from having to pay any monetary damages for such a violation.

Once upon a time, the Supreme Court spoke of free speech as having a preferred position among legal rights, saying that “freedom of speech” and “freedom of religion are in a preferred position,” and that a “preferred place” and “priority” are “given in our” constitutional “scheme to the great, the indispensable democratic freedoms secured by the First Amendment.” (See Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 115 (1943), West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 639 (1943), and Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 529 -30 (1945).)

Sadly, the legal community no longer feels the same way today. Free speech is the disfavored stepchild of the law.”

by Hans Bader on December 20, 2012


Thursday says: In short, there don’t seem to be a lot of patterns for anti-gay violence that would implicate Evangelical culture.

On the other hand, there is a lot of “gay” culture patterns that result in all sorts of violence.

But the homosexuality agenda narrative loves to lie about this glaring, but very real fact.


Clamdigger: I’ve complimented your readers frequently because whether one agrees with them or not, they are intelligent, write cogent posts, and seem ‘agreeable’. I’m not sure how many folks would consider Heather ‘agreeable”. Provacative, in-your-face, sure of herself and her beliefs, yes. Of course, that could describe all sorts of zealots of many persuasions and religions, and is not a compliment.

Oh my, I’m glad no homosexuality or liberal activist is ever provocative, in-your-face, sure of themselves and their beliefs.

Or are these only bad things when it’s from people question your homosexuality agenda?

The overwhelming majority of people who normalize homosexuality are quite the zealots – especially given how much they are anti-science and fanatically endorse attitudes and behaviors about sexuality because they are self-serving and because it guarantees them with no accountability.

If you come here and talk about how a homosexual was beaten up in Appalachia, I suppose you think that it is not “in everyone’s faces.” But if I talk about the millions of cases where homosexuals and bisexuals beat up others, somehow it is? You talking about some homosexual beat up in Appalachia is a nice thing, but when I depict the real occurrence of millions of violent acts committed by LGBT people, that’s nasty? Excuse me?

Moreover, do you ever criticize anyone with a homosexuality agenda for being provocative? Sure of themselves?

We know you don’t. How much time do you spend on blogs talking about the little homosexual beat up in Appalachia compared to the millions of other victims beat up by LGBT people?

What I want to highlight is how much you are distorting reality. Reality includes both the incident in Appalachia with the millions and millions of victims of LGBT perpetrators.

I can understand why that would not be agreeable to you. Because facing how deformed, dysfunctional, and perverse LGBT people are is a no-no for people who normalize homosexuality.

Clamdigger: You know what? I grew up fairly conservative, voted Republican from Reagan in 1980 through Bush in 2004. But, to Heather, gays aren’t conservative. Gays don’t care —we’re only against conservatives.

Clamdigger – I don’t know if you are incapable of interpreting correctly what I write or if it wasn’t clear to you or if you are purposefully lying about what I think.

Whatever the reason, this is a good opportunity to clarify labels. To me, and in my writing, there are different major groups that can be called “conservative” in contemporary US. There are fiscal conservatives, foreign policy conservatives, and social conservatives, and maybe that’s not even the full main list. But these three are certainly three key ones. It is not because a person is one type of conservative, that they are conservative in all three ways. Many Republicans are not socially conservative. I believe most people who know a lot of Republicans know this – it’s plain to see.

I usually take care of writing explicitly “social conservative” and not merely “conservative” – because the latter is  a very broad umbrella term, that can include, as I just explained, people who are not socially conservative. Sometimes, when the context is clearly “liberal versus conservative,” I don’t employ “socially conservative” and shorten it to “conservative” because it seems evident what the ideological opposition is.

People who have socially conservative views, in my usage of the term, are in favor of real marriage (one man, one woman), no “homosexual civil unions”; they do not normalize homosexuality, porn, promiscuity, hookups, prostitution, adultery, abortion (especially in the sense of abortion on demand), cohabitation, to name several of the most important positions.

So, yes, according to Heather, if you normalize homosexuality, i.e., you have a “gay” ideology, you cannot be socially conservative. You can be Republican, you can be conservative (depending on how you define the label), but you are not socially conservative.

And most of the time, people like you, meaning those that have your homosexuality agenda, will work against socially conservative people, and attack them (as you are doing on this blog), and undermine every effort to make the Republican party socially conservative and to promote a beautiful, wholesome, violence-free, socially conservative society.


Heather wrote: ” Because people with a homosexuality agenda could care less about human suffering, injustice, and the horrendous violence so many people suffer. They only care about an issue if they can finger-point a conservative.”

Clamdigger wrote: “Rod, this commenter (and others, as pointed out by Turmarion) think the stories (episodes) we have posted are lies, are false, could never happen, or who cares about podunk KY? “

No, this commenter is not saying that the one case of violence you mentioned is false. We don’t know for sure, but I didn’t assume it was a lie in any case.

What I am highlighting is that for every such case you mention, we can mention thousands of cases where the perpetrator is LGBT. You know why? Because there are millions of cases of violence perpetrated by LGBT people in society.

Where is the outpour of outrage due to all violence and harm that LGBT people do in the world? If violence is bad when done in some corner of Appalachia, why isn’t it bad when it’s done all over American and the perpetrators are LGBT people?

Don’t you care enough to talk about it, and rail against it, and denounce all this violence, and make efforts to bring the guilty to justice? The majority of violence and harm perpetrated by LGBT people is granted total impunity.

Isn’t this horrible? Aren’t human rights violations bad when the perpetrator is LGBT? Isn’t harm bad if the person doing it is LGBT?

So, Rod, that’s the kind of homosexuality agenda people we have to put up with. Is Clamdigger railing against all the violent LGBT people in society – confirmed by multiple research studies and testimonies and lawsuits – or is he railing against the commenter who brings the issue to light?

Clamdigger loves to call other people nasty, and I could call him nasty too, but isn’t that descending into a mere exchange of insults? It’s also a way for Clamdigger not to deal with all the issues I’m raising. Thirdly, I can bet his next move will be to continue to avoid addressing the issues I have raised and up the volume on the way he maligns me.


Clamdigger wrote: “My comments were directed to Heather, who metaphorically accused liberals of wishing Catholics dead in the river in Paris, whereas there is indeed a history of gays being killed, just for being gay.”

In case you are quite unaware of world history, there is indeed a history of Catholics being killed, just for being Catholic. In fact persecution, either individual or based on groups, is nothing new in the world or exclusive to people with a homosexuality problem. And, closeted or not, LGBT people have persecuted and murdered others throughout history as well.


Clamdigger says:  we’re “bloodthirsty”, eh? “As bloodthirsty as Matt Barber who claims that homosexuals are worthy of death (and means it)?”

Matt Barber, AFAIK, said, “Homosexual behavior is self-destructive. Ask the CDC.”

This is very different than saying that homosexuals should be put to death, which is what “bloodthirsty” actually means.

Has Matt Barber argued that he should murder all homosexuals? Unless he did, you’re plainly lying and smearing him with the charge.

The CDC, in case you didn’t know, concerns itself with disease. Men who have sex with men infest society with HIV and syphilis in countries where homosexuality has been largely normalized. This means they are criminally responsible for transmitting deadly diseases in large numbers, and in much greater proportions than any other group. But they currently have total impunity to be so destructive and perverted.

That is not only self-destructive, but socially destructive as well.

Lastly, they then extort billions of dollars from the State in health care costs for the respective treatments, hogging resources that could otherwise go to help so many other victims that never did anything criminal or destructive, like abused children.

In other words, these people think that they are not accountable for their perverted sexual attitudes and behaviors, and that they State must pick up the tab for any destruction they cause.

And then, they want to throw every Catholic in the river. Metaphorically, of course.


Beyng wrote: I’m a bit late to this thread–and it seems to have taken a somewhat comical direction (are we really debating which identity-group has committed the most acts of violence against the other?)–


Actually discussing how distorted the homosexuality agenda narrative is about who commits what kind of violence in the world is no humorous subject. And is there some reason why we can’t talk about violence or we can only talk about one type of perpetrator? Isn’t violence something people need to be aware of and to deal with? Or debate?

Contrary to your claim that this is comical a subject, it is an issue that American society fails in bringing sufficient attention to. What we currently have in society is an identity group positing itself as being non-violent and full of victims of social conservatives, while they perpetrate millions of violent acts consistently – including against LGBT people.

It is a glaring fact that the overwhelming majority of violence committed against LGBT individuals is perpetrated by LGBT individuals. When a socially conservative heterosexual bullies an LGBT individual, all social conservatives are accused of being bullies and haters in their hearts – not because of this invidual – but  because they do not normalize homosexuality. But when a LGBT individual bullies, batters, rapes, or exploits another LGBT individual, they are never called out for being a hater, not even a bigot- and certainly not as an identity group.

Where is anyone complaining about how violent LGBT people are? The only complaint I see here is about some redneck profile, who is violent only at times.

But, in reality, if we look at statistics, LGBT people are much more violent to LGBT people than any redneck.

So who is backwards and uncivilized, or full of hate? Why are liberals at liberty to call conservatives such derogatory labels, but not the other way around? Well, the group doing the most violence for sure to LGBT individuals is the group which normalizes homosexuality. And it’s time for society to realize and start talking about how violent LGBT people are.

What I am pointing out is how certain labels like “backwards” and “hater” and “non-evolved” are applied only to social conservatives or “rednecks,” not to LGBT people. If rednecks can be generalized to be violent against “gays,” LGBT folks are profoundly more so. (Not to mention that normalizing homosexuality is quite backwards).

The homosexuality agenda narrative is that if any other group does some acts of violence against LGBT people, this is a hater’s group. But if the very group of LGBT people does millions of acts of violence against LGBT people, more so than anyone else, they are not a hater group. This is nothing but name-calling to malign people who do not normalize homosexuality.

Clamdigger: Heather tells us quite nicely “Deal with it” a several of her posts. … So Heather: we’ve had years of dealing with you and people who believe as you do. Over the years, we’ve advanced in what is ‘allowed’. More and more, we *are* mainstream. Over 50% of America is now ‘with us’. Quite honestly, Heather, it is time for *you to deal with it*.

As you may not be able to see, I am dealing with “it.” At least the “it” I was referring to in my post.  Let me undistort what you are distorting above. This is what I wrote:

“LGBT people suffer much more violence from LGBT people than from any Christian or conservative group; see the stats on IPV and infesting society with HIV and syphilis, for example. Deal with it. ”

What “it” is this? It seems very clear to me, although by your post, you clearly misunderstood or misinterpreted it. This is what I was referring to: “LGBT people suffer much more violence from LGBT people than from any Christian or conservative group.” There is no comparison. LGBT people are much more violent than social conservatives towards LGBT individuals.

I don’t see society questioning this current state of affairs. It is a fact that LGBT people largely have a green light to do violence and harm with impunity.

What we have seen advance in the last 50 years, is quite rightly, the level of violence and harm that LGBT people do in terms of IPV, sexual harassment (to everyone), and spread of serious STDs – and this is not an exhaustive list. The increase is huge and current levels of harm and violence are terrible.

There has been an advancement in what is allowed, a measured increase in serious harm in society done by LGBT people. It is not only allowed, but allowed with almost total impunity. Yet, I would never be aware of this, by listening to people with a homosexuality agenda, who only talk about the comparatively few cases where the perpetrator is a social conservative. I believe that not only you, but everyone needs to deal with how violent and harmful LGBT people are.

And, as you can see, I am quite dealing with it. I don’t lie about it, I don’t minimize it, and I don’t trivialize it.

I think no group in society should have a green light to do harm, simply because they feel the urge to or because they titillate a large group with certain sexual practices. Whether it is a sexual or non-sexual urge, it doesn’t matter. Doing violence in mass numbers, as LGBT people do, is a horrible thing.

It’s time society started to hold LGBT people accountable for the harm they do.