Monday, September 12, 2011

Another Transgender Woman Shot in DC

Is anybody noticing a trend here?

Channel 9 News has the story:
6:29 AM, Sep 12, 2011 DC Police are investigating another violent crime involving a transgender person.

Police tell 9 NEWS NOW a transgender woman drove herself to the 7th District police station in the 2400 block of Alabama Avenue in Southeast around 2:00 a.m. after being shot in the neck. Police say investigators have determined the shooting actually occurred in the 2300 block of Savannah Street a short time earlier.

Officers say the victim was conscious and breathing when she was transported to a local hospital. Her current condition is unknown at this time.

Police are looking for a dark complected man known as "Tyrone". The suspect was last seen wearing dark pants and a tan shirt. Transgender Woman Shot In Southeast DC

There is video posted with this story but it looks like the wrong version, there is video of police cars and street scenes and background sounds but no narrator talking. Hopefully Channel 9 will figure this out and get the fully edited story published.

There have been a lot of recent shootings of transgender people in DC. It is impossible to theorize about any connections among the incidents, except to note that gender identity is something that some people get extremely upset about. One assailant was caught, a drunk DC cop, the others seem to leave little to go on.

One thing. These are shootings we are reading about, somebody fires a gun at another person -- that is some serious violence. The lesser assaults do not get reported in the media, but you know they happen; Crissy Polis' beating only came to light when it became a viral YouTube video, most of these things are never mentioned in the press. It is really alarming that these violent gun crimes have become so frequent.

The police are looking for a "dark complected man known as 'Tyrone'" somewhere in Washington DC. I am thinking they might need more of a lead than that.

82 Comments:

Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And of course in bad anonymous's warped mind there's no way any of these attempted murders could be motivated by hatred of trans people and this attack is yet more proof of his claimed belief that trans people can take care of themselves.

September 12, 2011 2:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

nasty Priya, you have no idea what a sick, wicked and violent society we have down here

like the wild west, people are shooting each other right and left

trans just happen to be people

in addition to the violence, a lot of other wicked stuff is going down: homosexuality, atheism, drug use, self-mutilation, X-rated pride parade floats, socialism, egalitarianism, et al al al al al...

it's hard to imagine unless you're physically present

btw, I thought you weren't gonna post comments anymore

September 12, 2011 2:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

tomorrow, according to polls, New Yorkers will vote in a special election to replace Anthony "Look at Me" Weiner that will preview the 2012 election and will give a seat that has been Democratic for ages to the Republican Party

that's right people, in New York

September 12, 2011 3:11 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "I thought you weren't gonna post comments anymore".

I never said any such thing.

Bad anonymous said "you have no idea what a sick, wicked and violent society we have down here".

I know perfectly well what a sick, wicked and violent society you live in - you live there after all and you've contributed mightly to the sickness and violence with your hateful rhetoric.

Bad anonymous said "in addition to the violence, a lot of other wicked stuff is going down: homosexuality, atheism, drug use, self-mutilation, X-rated pride parade floats, socialism, egalitarianism, et al al al al al...".

You don't know what the meaning of wicked is, it isn't "stuff I don't like". Only that which is harmful to others is wicked, none of the things you listed are harmful to others and thus by definition all are moral acts. Particularly demonstrative of your evil nature is your hatred of equality, you think you deserve special perks above all others. That's most certainly not the case.

Last time I checked the hate crime statistics gays were 14 times more likely to be victims of a hate crime than people were because of their religion or race. If I remmeber correctly, about one person in 10,000 is transexual and your suggestion that its coincidental that all these trans people are victims of assault and murder doesn't pass the smell test.

Hate crimes against LGBTs are vastly underreported because we have often been re-victimized by the police when reporting crimes against us and many LGBTs don't want to draw attention to the fact that we are LGBT. Thus the hate crimes statistics are the tip of the iceburg with LGBTs perhaps being up to 100 times more likely to be a victim of violent crime than would be expected by random chance.

But of course being the heartless thug that you are you don't want to see anything done about that, you like it that way. You claim to believe trans people "aren't porceline dolls", that somehow we aren't hurt by guns, knives, punches, and kicks and that we can "take care of ourselves" despite being attacked with weapons, or by multiple attackers, or the fact that trans women aren't known for our fighting abilities.

No, like the scumbag you are you falsely claim in one breath that trans people don't deserve "special protections" (aid in seeing we aren't attacked any more frequently than anyone else) while in another breath you advocate for special protections for children and the elderly who are the least likely to be victims of violent crimes and for whom there are already additional laws protecting them above everyone else.

The priority has to be where the biggest problem is and no group is more vulnerable and likely to be a victim of hate crimes than LGBTs, but in your depraved mind that's a good thing and shouldn't be changed.

September 12, 2011 3:24 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Note also how bad anonymous doesn't include the assaults and murders of trans people in his list of purpotedly wicked things - very telling of his true feelings and thinly veiled hatred.

September 12, 2011 3:28 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

Sad that we still live in such a hateful place, especially when minorities are attacking other minorities.

September 12, 2011 6:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I never said any such thing."

sure, you did

"I know perfectly well what a sick, wicked and violent society you live in"

well, you must know then that people get killed all the time- trans are not exempted from society and take the same risks as everyone else

"you've contributed mightly to the sickness and violence with your hateful rhetoric"

oh, that's a lot of crap from the crapmeister

as everyone who reads here knows, I use dialogue and moral suasion to express my views

if you're going to say expressing disagreements, in and of itself, is promoting violence, you'd have to include yourself, for one thing, but also you would be siding with all of history's totalitarians who use this as a pretext to suppress open discussion

"You don't know what the meaning of wicked is, it isn't "stuff I don't like"."

oh, I wasn't basing my examples on my personal preferences

"Only that which is harmful to others is wicked, none of the things you listed are harmful to others and thus by definition all are moral acts."

morality is more complicated than that

but, all those things are harmful nonetheless

"Particularly demonstrative of your evil nature is your hatred of equality,"

typical vaguery to divert attention

if you mean equality of worth for all before God or human rights, you're wrong, I support those

"you think you deserve special perks above all others"

haven't the foggiest notion to what you're referring

"Last time I checked the hate crime statistics gays were 14 times more likely to be victims of a hate crime than people were because of their religion or race"

all these stats are unreliable for a number of reasons, as you've conceded here before

"If I remmeber correctly, about one person in 10,000 is transexual"

well, they appear to engage in risky behaviors, like roaming in marginal downtown areas late at night, in proportions greater than the average person

"and your suggestion that its coincidental that all these trans people are victims of assault and murder doesn't pass the smell test"

really? because it's probably true

"Hate crimes against LGBTs are vastly underreported"

really? can you prove that?

"because we have often been re-victimized by the police when reporting crimes against us"

really? can you prove that?

"and many LGBTs don't want to draw attention to the fact that we are LGBT."

really? if they weren't drawing attention to themselves, how does anyone know about their sexual preferences and pratices?

"Thus the hate crimes statistics are the tip of the iceburg with LGBTs perhaps being up to 100 times more likely to be a victim of violent crime than would be expected by random chance"

really? can you prove that?

September 12, 2011 7:04 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "sure, you did".
If I had you would have quoted me. You didn't because I didn't say any such thing.

Bad anonymous said "well, you must know then that people get killed all the time- trans are not exempted from society and take the same risks as everyone else".
I never said otherwise.
However anyone (like you) who thinks the regular attacks on trans people despite our relative rarity is a coincidence is profoundly ignorant or a liar, or like you, both.
Bad anonymous said "as everyone who reads here knows, I use dialogue and moral suasion to express my views".
LOL, you don't know what moral suasion is. You use insults, demonization and hateful rhetoric to express your views.

Bad anonymous said "if you're going to say expressing disagreements, in and of itself, is promoting violence, you'd have to include yourself, for one thing, but also you would be siding with all of history's totalitarians who use this as a pretext to suppress open discussion".
I've never said any such thing. Its your demonization of LGBTS and false accusations of the destruction of society that promote violence and give attackers justification.

I said "You don't know what the meaning of wicked is, it isn't "stuff I don't like"."

Bad anonymous said "oh, I wasn't basing my examples on my personal preferences".
LOL, we're not stupid, your personal preferences in your list were obvious and very familiar to readers of this blog.

September 12, 2011 7:45 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "Only that which is harmful to others is wicked, none of the things you listed are harmful to others and thus by definition all are moral acts."

Bad anonymous said "morality is more complicated than that".
Only to people who wish to justify their oppression of harmless and innocent people.

Bad anonymous said "but, all those things are harmful nonetheless".
None of what you listed harms anyone else. People own their bodies, they have a right to "mutilate" them as they please and there is nothing immoral about doing whatever you want with your body as long as you do not harm others.

I said "Particularly demonstrative of your evil nature is your hatred of equality,"

Bad anonymous said "typical vaguery to divert attention".
Nothing vague about it. You said you think equality is wicked, that's the belief of a selfish, evil person.

Bad anonymous said "if you mean equality of worth for all before God or human rights, you're wrong, I support those".
Obviously you don't. The rights you have that you wish to deprive others of (such as marriage) you simply claim aren't rights, which makes no difference because even then people deserve the same opportunity to have those things and you oppose that as well.

I said "you think you deserve special perks above all others"

Bad anonymous said "haven't the foggiest notion to what you're referring".
For a change your playing dumb doesn't fly. You think you deserve the perk of being able to marry the one person you love most, you think you deserve the perk of being protected by hate crimes, you think you deserve the perk of "freedom of religion" that is defined as your right to oppress LGBT people.

I said "Last time I checked the hate crime statistics gays were 14 times more likely to be victims of a hate crime than people were because of their religion or race"

Bad anonymous said "all these stats are unreliable for a number of reasons, as you've conceded here before".
I've never said any such thing. It was you who said "hate crime statistics are inherently reliable". I merely agreed with you:
http://vigilance.teachthefacts.org/2011/08/drunk-cop-arrested-for-transgender.html#1914040973368874653
Note your comment at August 27, 2011 3:49 PM.

Bad anonymous said "well, they appear to engage in risky behaviors, like roaming in marginal downtown areas late at night, in proportions greater than the average person".
Really, can you prove that? There's no evidence to support such an assertion or rational reason to believe it.

I said "and your suggestion that its coincidental that all these trans people are victims of assault and murder doesn't pass the smell test"

Bad anonymous said "really? because it's probably true".
Given that trans people are probably 100 times more likely to be assaulted than one would expect by random chance only an idiot and liar such as yourself would suggest such a thing.

I said "Hate crimes against LGBTs are vastly underreported"

Bad anonymous said "really? can you prove that?".
Go check out the GLSEN web site. They have surveys that show most LGBT vicitims of assaults don't report it.

I said "because we have often been re-victimized by the police when reporting crimes against us"

Bad anonymous said "really? can you prove that?".
Check out the case of Brandon Teena. He was raped after after the men he was hanging out with found out he had a vagina. He reported the rape to the police who angrily blamed him for the rape and refused to investigate and charge the assailants who subsequently killed Brandon. This sort of thing is typical.

September 12, 2011 7:46 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

said "and many LGBTs don't want to draw attention to the fact that we are LGBT."

Bad anonymous said "really? if they weren't drawing attention to themselves, how does anyone know about their sexual preferences and pratices?".
Many gays and lesbians have stereotypical mannerisms and dress that make it obvious to assailants such as yourself that they are LGBT. Many transwomen have masculine features that make it clear they weren't born female. Its no coincidence that its transwomen being attacked rather than transmen who are rarely mistaken for women once they have been on hormone treatements for a year or so

I said "Thus the hate crimes statistics are the tip of the iceburg with LGBTs perhaps being up to 100 times more likely to be a victim of violent crime than would be expected by random chance"

Bad anonymous said "really? can you prove that?".
Of course. Go to GLSEN, I'm not doing your homework for you.

September 12, 2011 7:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But of course being the heartless thug that you are you don't want to see anything done about that, you like it that way"

about hate crimes?

to the extent they are actual crimes, they should be prevented, solved and prosecuted

hating someone is not illegal, nor should it be

"You claim to believe trans people "aren't porceline dolls","

why, are you claiming they are?

btw, why don't take spellcheck for a test drive?

"that somehow we aren't hurt by guns, knives, punches, and kicks and that we can "take care of ourselves" despite being attacked with weapons, or by multiple attackers,"

you aren't harmed by those things any more than anyone else would be

if you are threatened by any such things, the resources of the law are at your disposal, just like they are for everyone else

you don't need special laws making crimes against you more serious than those against others

"or the fact that trans women aren't known for our fighting abilities"

pathetic

then, stay out of dangerous situations

"No, like the scumbag you are you falsely claim in one breath that trans people don't deserve "special protections""

OK, that's one breath

"while in another breath you advocate for special protections for children and the elderly"

never advocated for that

I said are less able to protect themselves than people whose defining characteristic is sexual deviance

"who are the least likely to be victims of violent crimes"

that's because their caretakers don't allow them to be in dangerous situations

if you're that pathetic, sign up as a ward of the state- or have you already?

"and for whom there are already additional laws protecting them above everyone else"

nope

"The priority has to be where the biggest problem is and no group is more vulnerable and likely to be a victim of hate crimes than LGBTs, but in your depraved mind that's a good thing and shouldn't be changed"

the priority should enforcing the law and protecting all citizens, not just those who behave in disagreeable ways

"Note also how bad anonymous doesn't include the assaults and murders of trans people in his list of purpotedly wicked things"

spellcheck, Nasty

use it

I included violence

giving sexual deviants special protection above everyone, including vulnerable populations, would be another wicked thing

"Sad that we still live in such a hateful place, especially when minorities are attacking other minorities"

yes, Drick, you dork

why can't socialists and atheists learn to get along?

September 12, 2011 8:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"anyone who thinks the regular attacks on trans people despite our relative rarity is a coincidence is profoundly ignorant or a liar, or like you, both."

you aren't from our area and know nothing about whether these people were engaging in dangerous behavior by being where they were when they were

as Drick interestingly pointed out, you continually try to equate racial minorities with sexual deviants but areas of town where racial minorities dominate seem to be where these attacks are taking place

kind of inconvenient that the groups you so desperately want to identify with are much more opposed to the gay agenda than the general population, which is basically unenthusiastic bit nonchalant about it

"you don't know what moral suasion is. You use insults, demonization and hateful rhetoric to express your views."

coming from someone who consistently calls me "bad anonymous", this statement is ridculous

it's also beside the point since I was addressing your statement accusing me of inciting violence

"I've never said any such thing. Its your demonization of LGBTS and false accusations of the destruction of society that promote violence and give attackers justification."

my characterization of homosexuality is accurate and I've made no false accusations against anyone

"we're not stupid, your personal preferences in your list were obvious and very familiar to readers of this blog."

we?

no, you're stupid

"Only to people who wish to justify their oppression of harmless and innocent people."

and to anyone with half a brain

do you have at least a half, nasty Priya?

"None of what you listed harms anyone else. People own their bodies, they have a right to "mutilate" them as they please and there is nothing immoral about doing whatever you want with your body as long as you do not harm others."

this is ignorant

we have moral obligations and connections that transcend the pursuit of self-interest

all those things mentioned are harmful to individuals and society in numerous ways

"Nothing vague about it. You said you think equality is wicked, that's the belief of a selfish, evil person."

what's vague is what tyoe of equality you are talking about

I never said equality was wicked although I think I said egalitarianism is

do you know what "egalitarianism" is?

"The rights you have that you wish to deprive others of (such as marriage) you simply claim aren't rights, which makes no difference because even then people deserve the same opportunity to have those things and you oppose that as well."

everyone has the same right to marry an individual of the opposite gender

there is no one who doesn't have this right

"For a change your playing dumb doesn't fly."

well, glad to hear it usually flies

September 13, 2011 6:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Transgender person shot in D.C.; 3rd such attack this summer
By Maggie Fazeli Fard

Police are investigating the shooting of a transgender person early Monday morning in Southeast D.C.

The shooting took place just before 2 a.m. in the 2300 block of Savannah Street SE, police said. The attack appears to be non-fatal; the victim was conscious when transported to the hospital.

This is the third reported shooting of a transgender person in the District this summer, officials said.

The two earlier attacks — one of which was fatal — occurred one block and 11 days apart in Northeast Washington.

On July 20, 23-year-old Myles Mclean was shot about 4:30 a.m. in the 6110 block of Dix Street. Police said two men approached Mclean and one asked a question. Then, before waiting for an answer, one of the men pulled out a semiautomatic handgun and opened fire. Mclean, who was also known by friends as Lashay, was killed.

On July 31, at about 2:45 a.m., a man approached a transgender person in the same neighborhood, asked for change and pulled a semiautomatic handgun without waiting for a response.

The man shot the gun, but missed the victim, police said. That attack was in the 6200 block of Dix Street NE. Police said they were investigating the shootings as a “potential emerging pattern.”

Transgender rights have been in the spotlight in the region since April, when a 22-year-old transgender woman was brutally attacked at a suburban Baltimore McDonald’s.

It is unknown whether Monday’s shooting is related to the earlier shootings. Stay with PostLocal.com as more details become available.

September 13, 2011 7:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting that the Post doesn't mention the drunk cop who fired at some transgender people last month.

September 13, 2011 7:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You think you deserve the perk of being able to marry the one person you love most"

this inane line of reasoning is often used by the lunatic fringe so let's put it to rest right now

let's say, theoretically, that I like driving my car but nasty priya likes driving her neighbor's car

do laws against car theft allow me the right to drive the car I like while denying nasty priya of that same right?

ridiculous

"you think you deserve the perk of being protected by hate crimes,"

no, as I've stated repeatedly, I oppose hate crimes laws

"you think you deserve the perk of "freedom of religion""

now, she's calling freedom of religion a "perk"

"that is defined as your right to oppress LGBT people."

ther's no oppression going on against LBGTers

September 13, 2011 8:20 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon blathered:

“giving sexual deviants special protection above everyone, including vulnerable populations, would be another wicked thing”

Anon, you’ll need to come up with another pejorative for trans people so at the very least we can distinguish between your rants about the gay and those about trans folks. You frequently use “sexual deviants” for gay people, but this is not a particularly descriptive, much less appropriate epithet for trans folks, as many of us are either straight or non-sexual (like myself).
I understand however, that “non-sexual deviant” doesn’t convey the derision you like to exude in your demeaning commentary. So I encourage you to be creative and come up with a more accurate accusatory appellation, preferably one that the average transwoman hasn’t already heard 8.463 million times before, so we can at least be amused at the novelty of the name.

Anon ranted

“in addition to the violence, a lot of other wicked stuff is going down: homosexuality, atheism, drug use, self-mutilation, X-rated pride parade floats, socialism, egalitarianism, et al al al al al...”

Well I’m not involved with any of the other stuff you mentioned, but I wish I had known about your disgust for egalitarianism before. This encourages me to go out and perform random acts of egalitarianism and relish them all the more knowing I’m annoying any nearby conservative that might witness such dastardly behavior.

Maybe I’ll perform one down in DC this weekend. Let’s hope I don’t get shot for it.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

September 13, 2011 10:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I've never said any such thing. It was you who said "hate crime statistics are inherently reliable". I merely agreed with you"

exactly

you agreed that hate crime stats are unreliable

so that's saying "such a thing"

"Really, can you prove that? There's no evidence to support such an assertion or rational reason to believe it."

the areas are well-known for high rates of crime

you really don't know what you're talking about

"Go check out the GLSEN web site. They have surveys that show most LGBT vicitims of assaults don't report it."

gee, they wouldn't be biased, would they?

"Check out the case of Brandon Teena. He was raped after after the men he was hanging out with found out he had a vagina."

how did they find that out?

"He reported the rape to the police who angrily blamed him for the rape and refused to investigate and charge the assailants who subsequently killed Brandon. This sort of thing is typical."

typical? really? can you prove it?

"Many gays and lesbians have stereotypical mannerisms and dress that make it obvious to assailants such as yourself that they are LGBT."

OK, so the sterotypes are valid, then?

"Many transwomen have masculine features that make it clear they weren't born female."

maybe that's because they are really male, despite the way they've been feelin'

ever consider that?

"Its no coincidence that its transwomen being attacked rather than transmen who are rarely mistaken for women once they have been on hormone treatements for a year or so"

yes, well the best advice I could give them is if they are really a guy but dress in girls' clothing, they should avoid places where hillbillies, rednecks or inner city thugs and delinquents hang out

all the laws in the world won't prevent those types from attacking people who act like weirdos

"Of course. Go to GLSEN, I'm not doing your homework for you."

actually, it's not my homework

you're the one making these ludicous claims

it's your burden to prove them

September 13, 2011 10:52 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "let's say, theoretically, that I like driving my car but nasty priya likes driving her neighbor's car

do laws against car theft allow me the right to drive the car I like while denying nasty priya of that same right? ridiculous".
That certainly was ridiculous. Allowing gays to marry doesn't deprive anyone else of the right to marry. The appropriate analogy is that you like driving your car and you want the law to deny me the right to drive my car.

I said "you think you deserve the perk of being protected by hate crimes,"

Bad anonymous said "no, as I've stated repeatedly, I oppose hate crimes laws".
No you don't. You've never complained about christians or white people being protected by hate crimes laws. It was only when it was proposed to give sexual orientation the same protection you suddenly decided you were against hate crime laws.

"you think you deserve the perk of "freedom of religion" that is defined as your right to oppress LGBT people.".

Bad anonymous truncated that quote after the word religion and said "now, she's calling freedom of religion a "perk"".
There's your typical dishonesty, I said no such thing. I called your "right" to oppress LGBT people a perk, not freedom of religion.

Bad anonymous said "ther's no oppression going on against LBGTers".
You're pathetic. LGBTs are denied the right to marry, the right to adopt, we are fired from our jobs and evicted from our homes for who we are, we are physically attacked at a rate far exceeding any other group in society, bigots like you demonize us, lie and say we are destroying society and do everything you can to create an atmosphere that leads to violence and opppression against us.
I said "I've never said any such thing. It was you who said "hate crime statistics are inherently reliable". I merely agreed with you"

Bad anonymous said "exactly you agreed that hate crime stats are unreliable".
Agreeing that hate crime statistics are reliable is not in any way agreeing that hate crime statistics are UNreliable you willful idiot.

September 13, 2011 12:45 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "the areas are well-known for high rates of crime you really don't know what you're talking about".
No, you don't know what you're talking about. About 1 person in 10,000 is transexual and about 10 times that many are transgender and identified with the sex they weren't born with. There have been 3 murders and attempted murders of trans women in about a 2 month period. For this to have been just random chance there would have had to be 2997 murders and attempted murders of non-trans people in the same time frame. I'm not familiar with Washington crime statistics but I know no where even remotely near that number of murders and attempted murders took place in that time frame. The conclusion is obvious and inescapable - trans people are being targetted for murder because they are trans, not because "its a dangerous place".


I said "Go check out the GLSEN web site. They have surveys that show most LGBT vicitims of assaults don't report it."

Bad anonymous said "gee, they wouldn't be biased, would they?".
None of their statistical surveys has ever been demonstrated to be biased.

I said "Check out the case of Brandon Teena. He was raped after after the men he was hanging out with found out he had a vagina."

Bad anonymous said "how did they find that out?".
I don't remember, I have a vague recollection that they watched him urinating - go check it out yourself if its that important to you.

I said "He reported the rape to the police who angrily blamed him for the rape and refused to investigate and charge the assailants who subsequently killed Brandon. This sort of thing is typical."

Bad anonymous said "typical? really? can you prove it?".
Of course, there are dozens of such accounts on Pam's house Blend, I get sick of it reading about it over and over and over. Go check it out, I'm not doing your homework for you.

September 13, 2011 12:46 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "Many transwomen have masculine features that make it clear they weren't born female."

Bad anonymous said "maybe that's because they are really male, despite the way they've been feelin' ever consider that?".
Irrelevant. You claimed they were attacked because they were drawing attention to themselves otherwise no one would know they are trans - that was a false statement.

Bad anonymous said "yes, well the best advice I could give them is if they are really a guy but dress in girls' clothing, they should avoid places where hillbillies, rednecks or inner city thugs and delinquents hang out".
Violent bigots often hang out at gay bars and attack people in them or coming out of them based on the likely probability that such people are LGBT. We don't have to stay indoors just because you'd like it that way, we have just as much right to be in public as you. When we are disproportionately singled out for attack the solution is not to hide LGBTS, its to take steps to prevent the attacks in the first place.

Bad anonymous said "all the laws in the world won't prevent those types from attacking people who act like weirdos".
If that was true there'd be no point in having any laws. Laws have an effect, that's why we have them.

I said "Of course. Go to GLSEN, I'm not doing your homework for you."

Bad anonymous said "actually, it's not my homework you're the one making these ludicous claims it's your burden to prove them".
These are widely accepted facts. No amount of proof would be satisfactory to you, if I said the sky was blue you'd claim it was red. That you would never accept the truth doesn't magically make the truth false.
I said "But of course being the heartless thug that you are you don't want to see anything done about that, you like it that way"

Bad anonymous said "about hate crimes? to the extent they are actual crimes, they should be prevented, solved and prosecuted".
You pay lip service to the idea but you don't really believe it. Actions speak louder than words and when action is proposed to prevent solve and prosecute hate crimes you oppose it.

September 13, 2011 12:47 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "hating someone is not illegal, nor should it be".
I never said it was or should be. Hate crimes laws don't punish anyone for hating, they punish people for assaults and terrorizing the community the victim belongs to.

I said "You claim to believe trans people "aren't porceline dolls", that somehow we aren't hurt by guns, knives, punches, and kicks and that we can "take care of ourselves" despite being attacked with weapons, or by multiple attackers, or the fact that trans women aren't known for our fighting abilities.".

Bad anonymous truncated my quote after dolls, putting a period where there was a comma and said "why, are you claiming they are?". This is typical of his dishonesty and dodging of the issues. He doesn't want to admit he suggested trans people are impervious to assault so instead ludicrously pretends I was suggesting trans people are porceline dolls.

I said "that somehow we aren't hurt by guns, knives, punches, and kicks and that we can "take care of ourselves" despite being attacked with weapons, or by multiple attackers,"

Bad anonymous said "you aren't harmed by those things any more than anyone else would be".
I never said we were, what I said was this shows they lie you told when you claimed "trans people can take care of themselves".

Bad anonymous said "if you are threatened by any such things, the resources of the law are at your disposal, just like they are for everyone else".
You earlier said trans people can take care of themselves, you don't want the law to protect us. And as numerous cases like Brandon Teena showed the resources of the law often work against us rather than helpping.

Bad anonymous said "you don't need special laws making crimes against you more serious than those against others".
Hate crimes laws don't make crimes against us more serious than those against others. Under a hate crime law if anyone is attacked for being heterosexual they are given the exact same protection as someone who is attacked for being gay.

I said "or the fact that trans women aren't known for our fighting abilities"

Bad anonymous said "then, stay out of dangerous situations".
Useless advice. Its impossible to avoid all dangerous situations. We have a right to be in public, we don't have to hide indoors just because you don't want to do anything about the disproportionate targetting of trans peple for violence.

September 13, 2011 12:48 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "No, like the scumbag you are you falsely claim in one breath that trans people don't deserve "special protections" while in another breath you advocate for special protections for children and the elderly"

Bad anonymous said "never advocated for that".
Liar, you said "the eledrly and children deserve special protection becaus they're vulnerable" in this thread
http://vigilance.teachthefacts.org/2011/08/drunk-cop-arrested-for-transgender.html#1914040973368874653
at Aug 27, 2011 5:06PM

I said "and for whom [children and the elderly] there are already additional laws protecting them above everyone else"

Bad anonymous said "nope".
Your ignorance of the law doesn't count as fact. There are all manner of laws protecting minors from sexual abuse, parental abuse, requiring that they be given health care, food and shelter by their parents. Similarly there are all manner of laws against elder abuse.

I said "The priority has to be where the biggest problem is and no group is more vulnerable and likely to be a victim of hate crimes than LGBTs, but in your depraved mind that's a good thing and shouldn't be changed"

Bad anonmous said "the priority should enforcing the law and protecting all citizens, not just those who behave in disagreeable ways".
No one is advocating laws that just protect those who behave in disagreeable ways. What I'm advocating is that steps be takent to further protect the most vulnerable and targeted and assaulted group. If this was christians you'd be screaming for that.

I said "Note also how bad anonymous doesn't include the assaults and murders of trans people in his list of purpotedly wicked things"

Bad anonymous once again is afraid to address the issue and his heartlessness and so replies "spellcheck, Nasty use it"

Bad anonymous said "giving sexual deviants special protection above everyone, including vulnerable populations, would be another wicked thing".
No one is advocating giving sexual deviants protection above everyone else. Gayness is a normal, healthy, and natural variant of human sexuality. Gays are the most vulnerable group in the U.S and laws protecting them will equally protect heterosexuals.

Bad anonymous said "why can't socialists and atheists learn to get along?".
We get along famously. Its bigots like you who are trying to force groups such as LGBTS to stay indoors to avoid the violence you demand not be addressed.

September 13, 2011 12:49 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "anyone who thinks the regular attacks on trans people despite our relative rarity is a coincidence is profoundly ignorant or a liar, or like you, both."

Bad anonymous said "you aren't from our area and know nothing about whether these people were engaging in dangerous behavior by being where they were when they were"
I don't need to be from your area to know that if this was due to random violence there would have been 2997 murders and attempted murders of non-trans people in the same two month time frame in Washington. Obviously and inescapably trans people are being targetted for who they are. Your baseless assertion that they were engaging in dangerous behavior doesn't change that.

Bad anonymous said "as Drick interestingly pointed out, you continually try to equate racial minorities with sexual deviants but areas of town where racial minorities dominate seem to be where these attacks are taking place kind of inconvenient that the groups you so desperately want to identify with are much more opposed to the gay agenda than the general population, which is basically unenthusiastic bit nonchalant about it".
False, irrelevant, false and false. There are similarities between the oppression of blacks and the oppression of LGBTS, no one ever said the experiences were identical or that LGBTs identify with blacks (other than the black ones) And I never said anything about sexual deviants. The majority of the general public now fully supports gay equality and that number grows every year. You're dying out, dinosaur.

"you don't know what moral suasion is. You use insults, demonization and hateful rhetoric to express your views."

Bad anonymous said "my characterization of homosexuality is accurate and I've made no false accusations against anyone".
LOL, and the sky is red. You repeatedly claimed I had assaulted gays. You falsely claimed I said hate crime statistics were unreliable after I showed you the quote where you called them reliable and I agreed. You said AIDS was higher in gays because of anal sex which is an obvious lie, there is no risk of AIDS in a monogamous relationship regardless of how much anal sex takes place. You claimed gays are sexual deviants when in fact gayness is a normal, natural and healthy variant of human sexuality, you've claimed gays are destroying society and that that is their goal. It goes on and on and on. Your claiming you've accurately characterized gayness and haven't made any false accusations is just another one in your long list of lies.

I said "None of what you listed harms anyone else. People own their bodies, they have a right to "mutilate" them as they please and there is nothing immoral about doing whatever you want with your body as long as you do not harm others."

Bad anonymous said "this is ignorant we have moral obligations and connections that transcend the pursuit of self-interest".
Straw man - I never said we didn't, in fact I specifically said we must not harm others to be moral.

September 13, 2011 12:50 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "all those things mentioned are harmful to individuals and society in numerous ways".
None are harmful to society and its questionable that any are harmful to individuals which is irrelevant in any case because there is nothing immoral about an individual harming him/herself.

I said "Nothing vague about it. You said you think equality is wicked, that's the belief of a selfish, evil person."

Bad anonymous said "what's vague is what tyoe of equality you are talking about I never said equality was wicked although I think I said egalitarianism is do you know what "egalitarianism" is?".
Egalitarianism is the belief in equality of all people. You don't believe in that, you don't believe in equality, you are selfish and wicked.

I said "The rights you have that you wish to deprive others of (such as marriage) you simply claim aren't rights, which makes no difference because even then people deserve the same opportunity to have those things and you oppose that as well."

Bad anonymous said "everyone has the same right to marry an individual of the opposite gender there is no one who doesn't have this right".
Irrelevant. That doesn't matter any more to marriage equality than the fact that everyone has the right to vote. What matters is that in most U.S. states John can marry Alice, but Betty cannot marry Alice - Alice does not have the same rights as John.

I said "For a change your playing dumb doesn't fly."

Bad anonymous said "well, glad to hear it usually flies".
Yes, generally we have no problem whatsoever believing your comments are made out of stupidity.

September 13, 2011 12:50 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I see there's actually been 4 shootings of transgendered women in DC since July. That would mean if it was true as bad anonymous suggests that this was merely random violence there would have had to have been 3996 murders or attempted murders of non-trans people in DC in this two month time period. Obviously the idea is proposterous that this is just random attacks and trans people are no more likely to have been attacked than anyone else. Trans women are being hunted and something needs to be done.

September 13, 2011 12:56 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I missed this the first time through:

Bad anonymous said "areas of town where racial minorities dominate seem to be where these attacks are taking place kind of inconvenient that the groups you so desperately want to identify with are much more opposed to the gay agenda than the general population,".

Bad anonymous has conceded the argument - he admits that these people were attacked because the attackers are opposed to gays, they weren't just victims of randomn violence.

September 13, 2011 1:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But of course being the heartless thug that you are you don't want to see anything done about that, you like it that way"

about hate crimes?

to the extent they are actual crimes, they should be prevented, solved and prosecuted

hating someone is not illegal, nor should it be

"You claim to believe trans people "aren't porceline dolls","

why, are you claiming they are?

btw, why don't take spellcheck for a test drive?

"that somehow we aren't hurt by guns, knives, punches, and kicks and that we can "take care of ourselves" despite being attacked with weapons, or by multiple attackers,"

you aren't harmed by those things any more than anyone else would be

if you are threatened by any such things, the resources of the law are at your disposal, just like they are for everyone else

you don't need special laws making crimes against you more serious than those against others

"or the fact that trans women aren't known for our fighting abilities"

pathetic

then, stay out of dangerous situations

"No, like the scumbag you are you falsely claim in one breath that trans people don't deserve "special protections""

OK, that's one breath

"while in another breath you advocate for special protections for children and the elderly"

never advocated for that

I said are less able to protect themselves than people whose defining characteristic is sexual deviance

"who are the least likely to be victims of violent crimes"

that's because their caretakers don't allow them to be in dangerous situations

if you're that pathetic, sign up as a ward of the state- or have you already?

"and for whom there are already additional laws protecting them above everyone else"

nope

"The priority has to be where the biggest problem is and no group is more vulnerable and likely to be a victim of hate crimes than LGBTs, but in your depraved mind that's a good thing and shouldn't be changed"

the priority should be enforcing the law and protecting all citizens, not just those who behave in disagreeable ways

"Note also how bad anonymous doesn't include the assaults and murders of trans people in his list of purpotedly wicked things"

spellcheck, Nasty

use it

I included violence

giving sexual deviants special protection above everyone, including vulnerable populations, would be another wicked thing

"Sad that we still live in such a hateful place, especially when minorities are attacking other minorities"

yes, Drick, you dork

why can't socialists and atheists learn to get along?

September 13, 2011 3:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"anyone who thinks the regular attacks on trans people despite our relative rarity is a coincidence is profoundly ignorant or a liar, or like you, both."

you aren't from our area and know nothing about whether these people were engaging in dangerous behavior by being where they were when they were

as Drick interestingly pointed out, you continually try to equate racial minorities with sexual deviants but areas of town where racial minorities dominate seem to be where these attacks are taking place

kind of inconvenient that the groups you so desperately want to identify with are much more opposed to the gay agenda than the general population, which is basically unenthusiastic bit nonchalant about it

"you don't know what moral suasion is. You use insults, demonization and hateful rhetoric to express your views."

coming from someone who consistently calls me "bad anonymous", this statement is ridculous

it's also beside the point since I was addressing your statement accusing me of inciting violence

"I've never said any such thing. Its your demonization of LGBTS and false accusations of the destruction of society that promote violence and give attackers justification."

my characterization of homosexuality is accurate and I've made no false accusations against anyone

"we're not stupid, your personal preferences in your list were obvious and very familiar to readers of this blog."

we?

no, you're stupid

"Only to people who wish to justify their oppression of harmless and innocent people."

and to anyone with half a brain

do you have at least a half, nasty Priya?

September 13, 2011 3:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"None of what you listed harms anyone else. People own their bodies, they have a right to "mutilate" them as they please and there is nothing immoral about doing whatever you want with your body as long as you do not harm others."

this is ignorant

we have moral obligations and connections that transcend the pursuit of self-interest

all those things mentioned are harmful to individuals and society in numerous ways

"Nothing vague about it. You said you think equality is wicked, that's the belief of a selfish, evil person."

what's vague is what tyoe of equality you are talking about

I never said equality was wicked although I think I said egalitarianism is

do you know what "egalitarianism" is?

"The rights you have that you wish to deprive others of (such as marriage) you simply claim aren't rights, which makes no difference because even then people deserve the same opportunity to have those things and you oppose that as well."

everyone has the same right to marry an individual of the opposite gender

there is no one who doesn't have this right

"For a change your playing dumb doesn't fly."

well, glad to hear it usually flies

Police are investigating the shooting of a transgender person early Monday morning in Southeast D.C.

The shooting took place just before 2 a.m. in the 2300 block of Savannah Street SE, police said. The attack appears to be non-fatal; the victim was conscious when transported to the hospital.

This is the third reported shooting of a transgender person in the District this summer, officials said.

The two earlier attacks — one of which was fatal — occurred one block and 11 days apart in Northeast Washington.

On July 20, 23-year-old Myles Mclean was shot about 4:30 a.m. in the 6110 block of Dix Street. Police said two men approached Mclean and one asked a question. Then, before waiting for an answer, one of the men pulled out a semiautomatic handgun and opened fire. Mclean, who was also known by friends as Lashay, was killed.

On July 31, at about 2:45 a.m., a man approached a transgender person in the same neighborhood, asked for change and pulled a semiautomatic handgun without waiting for a response.

The man shot the gun, but missed the victim, police said. That attack was in the 6200 block of Dix Street NE. Police said they were investigating the shootings as a “potential emerging pattern.”

Transgender rights have been in the spotlight in the region since April, when a 22-year-old transgender woman was brutally attacked at a suburban Baltimore McDonald’s.

It is unknown whether Monday’s shooting is related to the earlier shootings. Stay with PostLocal.com as more details become available.

"You think you deserve the perk of being able to marry the one person you love most"

this inane line of reasoning is often used by the lunatic fringe so let's put it to rest right now

let's say, theoretically, that I like driving my car but nasty priya likes driving her neighbor's car

do laws against car theft allow me the right to drive the car I like while denying nasty priya of that same right?

ridiculous

"you think you deserve the perk of being protected by hate crimes,"

no, as I've stated repeatedly, I oppose hate crimes laws

September 13, 2011 3:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"you think you deserve the perk of "freedom of religion""

now, she's calling freedom of religion a "perk"

"that is defined as your right to oppress LGBT people."

“in addition to the violence, a lot of other wicked stuff is going down: homosexuality, atheism, drug use, self-mutilation, X-rated pride parade floats, socialism, egalitarianism, et al al al al al...”

This encourages me to go out and perform random acts of egalitarianism.

Maybe I’ll perform one down in DC this weekend.

"Oh, I wouldn't be surprised to hear you are performing, cinco psycho

September 13, 2011 3:43 PM  
Anonymous telegram sam said...

"I've never, never, never said any such thing. It was you, you , you who said "hate crime statistics are inherently unreliable". I merely agreed with you"

exactly

you agreed that hate crime stats are unreliable

so that's saying "such a thing"

"Really, can you prove that? There's no evidence to support such an assertion or rational reason to believe it."

the areas are well-known for high rates of crime

you really don't know what you're talking about

"Go check out the GLSEN web site. They have surveys that show most LGBT vicitims of assaults don't report it."

gee, they wouldn't be biased, would they?

"Check out the case of Brandon Teena. He was raped after after the men he was hanging out with found out he had a vagina."

how did they find that out?

"He reported the rape to the police who angrily blamed him for the rape and refused to investigate and charge the assailants who subsequently killed Brandon. This sort of thing is typical."

typical? really? can you prove it?

"Many gays and lesbians have stereotypical mannerisms and dress that make it obvious to assailants such as yourself that they are LGBT."

OK, so the sterotypes are valid, then?

"Many transwomen have masculine features that make it clear they weren't born female."

maybe that's because they are really male, despite the way they've been feelin'

ever consider that?

"Its no coincidence that its transwomen being attacked rather than transmen who are rarely mistaken for women once they have been on hormone treatements for a year or so"

yes, well the best advice I could give them is if they are really a guy but dress in girls' clothing, they should avoid places where hillbillies, rednecks or inner city thugs and delinquents hang out

all the laws in the world won't prevent those types from attacking people who act like weirdos

"Of course. Go to GLSEN, I'm not doing your homework for you."

actually, it's not my homework

you're the one making these ludicous claims

it's your burden to prove them

thar's no oppression goin' on against LBGToos

September 13, 2011 3:45 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous just made up a quote and falsely claimed I said "I've never, never, never said any such thing. It was you, you , you who said "hate crime statistics are inherently UNreliable". I merely agreed with you".

What I actually said was "I've never said any such thing. It was you who said "hate crime statistics are inherently RELIABLE". I merely agreed with you:".

Here is where Bad anonymous said hate crime statistics were reliable and I agreed with him:

http://vigilance.teachthefacts.org/2011/08/drunk-cop-arrested-for-transgender.html#1914040973368874653

Note his comment at August 27, 2011 3:49 PM.

Bad anonymous then said "exactly you agreed that hate crime stats are unreliable".

I never said any such thing as the record shows. It was you who said hate crime statistics were RELIABLE and I agreed with that.

Like the childish loser bad anonymous is he can't admit when he's wrong despite the record making it painfully obvious he lied.

The rest of bad anonymous's last five comments were repeats of the drivel I previously dispatched with. Like the childish loser he is instead of responding to the destruction of his arguments he just stamps his feet and repeats "I'm right!".

September 13, 2011 4:20 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "let's say, theoretically, that I like driving my car but nasty priya likes driving her neighbor's car

do laws against car theft allow me the right to drive the car I like while denying nasty priya of that same right? ridiculous".
That certainly was ridiculous. Allowing gays to marry doesn't deprive anyone else of the right to marry. The appropriate analogy is that you like driving your car and you want the law to deny me the right to drive my car.

I said "you think you deserve the perk of being protected by hate crimes,"

Bad anonymous said "no, as I've stated repeatedly, I oppose hate crimes laws".
No you don't. You've never complained about christians or white people being protected by hate crimes laws. It was only when it was proposed to give sexual orientation the same protection you suddenly decided you were against hate crime laws.

"you think you deserve the perk of "freedom of religion" that is defined as your right to oppress LGBT people.".

Bad anonymous truncated that quote after the word religion and said "now, she's calling freedom of religion a "perk"".
There's your typical dishonesty, I said no such thing. I called your "right" to oppress LGBT people a perk, not freedom of religion.

Bad anonymous said "ther's no oppression going on against LBGTers".
You're pathetic. LGBTs are denied the right to marry, the right to adopt, we are fired from our jobs and evicted from our homes for who we are, we are physically attacked at a rate far exceeding any other group in society, bigots like you demonize us, lie and say we are destroying society and do everything you can to create an atmosphere that leads to violence and opppression against us.
I said "I've never said any such thing. It was you who said "hate crime statistics are inherently reliable". I merely agreed with you"

Bad anonymous said "exactly you agreed that hate crime stats are unreliable".
Agreeing that hate crime statistics are reliable is not in any way agreeing that hate crime statistics are UNreliable you willful idiot.

September 13, 2011 4:25 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "the areas are well-known for high rates of crime you really don't know what you're talking about".
No, you don't know what you're talking about. About 1 person in 10,000 is transexual and about 10 times that many are transgender and identified with the sex they weren't born with. There have been 3 murders and attempted murders of trans women in about a 2 month period. For this to have been just random chance there would have had to be 2997 murders and attempted murders of non-trans people in the same time frame. I'm not familiar with Washington crime statistics but I know no where even remotely near that number of murders and attempted murders took place in that time frame. The conclusion is obvious and inescapable - trans people are being targetted for murder because they are trans, not because "its a dangerous place".


I said "Go check out the GLSEN web site. They have surveys that show most LGBT vicitims of assaults don't report it."

Bad anonymous said "gee, they wouldn't be biased, would they?".
None of their statistical surveys has ever been demonstrated to be biased.

I said "Check out the case of Brandon Teena. He was raped after after the men he was hanging out with found out he had a vagina."

Bad anonymous said "how did they find that out?".
I don't remember, I have a vague recollection that they watched him urinating - go check it out yourself if its that important to you.

I said "He reported the rape to the police who angrily blamed him for the rape and refused to investigate and charge the assailants who subsequently killed Brandon. This sort of thing is typical."

Bad anonymous said "typical? really? can you prove it?".
Of course, there are dozens of such accounts on Pam's house Blend, I get sick of it reading about it over and over and over. Go check it out, I'm not doing your homework for you.

September 13, 2011 4:26 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "Many transwomen have masculine features that make it clear they weren't born female."

Bad anonymous said "maybe that's because they are really male, despite the way they've been feelin' ever consider that?".
Irrelevant. You claimed they were attacked because they were drawing attention to themselves otherwise no one would know they are trans - that was a false statement.

Bad anonymous said "yes, well the best advice I could give them is if they are really a guy but dress in girls' clothing, they should avoid places where hillbillies, rednecks or inner city thugs and delinquents hang out".
Violent bigots often hang out at gay bars and attack people in them or coming out of them based on the likely probability that such people are LGBT. We don't have to stay indoors just because you'd like it that way, we have just as much right to be in public as you. When we are disproportionately singled out for attack the solution is not to hide LGBTS, its to take steps to prevent the attacks in the first place.

Bad anonymous said "all the laws in the world won't prevent those types from attacking people who act like weirdos".
If that was true there'd be no point in having any laws. Laws have an effect, that's why we have them.

I said "Of course. Go to GLSEN, I'm not doing your homework for you."

Bad anonymous said "actually, it's not my homework you're the one making these ludicous claims it's your burden to prove them".
These are widely accepted facts. No amount of proof would be satisfactory to you, if I said the sky was blue you'd claim it was red. That you would never accept the truth doesn't magically make the truth false.
I said "But of course being the heartless thug that you are you don't want to see anything done about that, you like it that way"

Bad anonymous said "about hate crimes? to the extent they are actual crimes, they should be prevented, solved and prosecuted".
You pay lip service to the idea but you don't really believe it. Actions speak louder than words and when action is proposed to prevent solve and prosecute hate crimes you oppose it.

September 13, 2011 4:26 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "hating someone is not illegal, nor should it be".
I never said it was or should be. Hate crimes laws don't punish anyone for hating, they punish people for assaults and terrorizing the community the victim belongs to.

I said "You claim to believe trans people "aren't porceline dolls", that somehow we aren't hurt by guns, knives, punches, and kicks and that we can "take care of ourselves" despite being attacked with weapons, or by multiple attackers, or the fact that trans women aren't known for our fighting abilities.".

Bad anonymous truncated my quote after dolls, putting a period where there was a comma and said "why, are you claiming they are?". This is typical of his dishonesty and dodging of the issues. He doesn't want to admit he suggested trans people are impervious to assault so instead ludicrously pretends I was suggesting trans people are porceline dolls.

I said "that somehow we aren't hurt by guns, knives, punches, and kicks and that we can "take care of ourselves" despite being attacked with weapons, or by multiple attackers,"

Bad anonymous said "you aren't harmed by those things any more than anyone else would be".
I never said we were, what I said was this shows they lie you told when you claimed "trans people can take care of themselves".

Bad anonymous said "if you are threatened by any such things, the resources of the law are at your disposal, just like they are for everyone else".
You earlier said trans people can take care of themselves, you don't want the law to protect us. And as numerous cases like Brandon Teena showed the resources of the law often work against us rather than helpping.

Bad anonymous said "you don't need special laws making crimes against you more serious than those against others".
Hate crimes laws don't make crimes against us more serious than those against others. Under a hate crime law if anyone is attacked for being heterosexual they are given the exact same protection as someone who is attacked for being gay.

I said "or the fact that trans women aren't known for our fighting abilities"

Bad anonymous said "then, stay out of dangerous situations".
Useless advice. Its impossible to avoid all dangerous situations. We have a right to be in public, we don't have to hide indoors just because you don't want to do anything about the disproportionate targetting of trans peple for violence.

September 13, 2011 4:27 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "No, like the scumbag you are you falsely claim in one breath that trans people don't deserve "special protections" while in another breath you advocate for special protections for children and the elderly"

Bad anonymous said "never advocated for that".
Liar, you said "the eledrly and children deserve special protection becaus they're vulnerable" in this thread
http://vigilance.teachthefacts.org/2011/08/drunk-cop-arrested-for-transgender.html#1914040973368874653
at Aug 27, 2011 5:06PM

I said "and for whom [children and the elderly] there are already additional laws protecting them above everyone else"

Bad anonymous said "nope".
Your ignorance of the law doesn't count as fact. There are all manner of laws protecting minors from sexual abuse, parental abuse, requiring that they be given health care, food and shelter by their parents. Similarly there are all manner of laws against elder abuse.

I said "The priority has to be where the biggest problem is and no group is more vulnerable and likely to be a victim of hate crimes than LGBTs, but in your depraved mind that's a good thing and shouldn't be changed"

Bad anonmous said "the priority should enforcing the law and protecting all citizens, not just those who behave in disagreeable ways".
No one is advocating laws that just protect those who behave in disagreeable ways. What I'm advocating is that steps be takent to further protect the most vulnerable and targeted and assaulted group. If this was christians you'd be screaming for that.

I said "Note also how bad anonymous doesn't include the assaults and murders of trans people in his list of purpotedly wicked things"

Bad anonymous once again is afraid to address the issue and his heartlessness and so replies "spellcheck, Nasty use it"

Bad anonymous said "giving sexual deviants special protection above everyone, including vulnerable populations, would be another wicked thing".
No one is advocating giving sexual deviants protection above everyone else. Gayness is a normal, healthy, and natural variant of human sexuality. Gays are the most vulnerable group in the U.S and laws protecting them will equally protect heterosexuals.

Bad anonymous said "why can't socialists and atheists learn to get along?".
We get along famously. Its bigots like you who are trying to force groups such as LGBTS to stay indoors to avoid the violence you demand not be addressed.

September 13, 2011 4:27 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "anyone who thinks the regular attacks on trans people despite our relative rarity is a coincidence is profoundly ignorant or a liar, or like you, both."

Bad anonymous said "you aren't from our area and know nothing about whether these people were engaging in dangerous behavior by being where they were when they were"
I don't need to be from your area to know that if this was due to random violence there would have been 2997 murders and attempted murders of non-trans people in the same two month time frame in Washington. Obviously and inescapably trans people are being targetted for who they are. Your baseless assertion that they were engaging in dangerous behavior doesn't change that.

Bad anonymous said "as Drick interestingly pointed out, you continually try to equate racial minorities with sexual deviants but areas of town where racial minorities dominate seem to be where these attacks are taking place kind of inconvenient that the groups you so desperately want to identify with are much more opposed to the gay agenda than the general population, which is basically unenthusiastic bit nonchalant about it".
False, irrelevant, false and false. There are similarities between the oppression of blacks and the oppression of LGBTS, no one ever said the experiences were identical or that LGBTs identify with blacks (other than the black ones) And I never said anything about sexual deviants. The majority of the general public now fully supports gay equality and that number grows every year. You're dying out, dinosaur.

"you don't know what moral suasion is. You use insults, demonization and hateful rhetoric to express your views."

Bad anonymous said "my characterization of homosexuality is accurate and I've made no false accusations against anyone".
LOL, and the sky is red. You repeatedly claimed I had assaulted gays. You falsely claimed I said hate crime statistics were unreliable after I showed you the quote where you called them reliable and I agreed. You said AIDS was higher in gays because of anal sex which is an obvious lie, there is no risk of AIDS in a monogamous relationship regardless of how much anal sex takes place. You claimed gays are sexual deviants when in fact gayness is a normal, natural and healthy variant of human sexuality, you've claimed gays are destroying society and that that is their goal. It goes on and on and on. Your claiming you've accurately characterized gayness and haven't made any false accusations is just another one in your long list of lies.

I said "None of what you listed harms anyone else. People own their bodies, they have a right to "mutilate" them as they please and there is nothing immoral about doing whatever you want with your body as long as you do not harm others."

Bad anonymous said "this is ignorant we have moral obligations and connections that transcend the pursuit of self-interest".
Straw man - I never said we didn't, in fact I specifically said we must not harm others to be moral.

September 13, 2011 4:28 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "all those things mentioned are harmful to individuals and society in numerous ways".
None are harmful to society and its questionable that any are harmful to individuals which is irrelevant in any case because there is nothing immoral about an individual harming him/herself.

I said "Nothing vague about it. You said you think equality is wicked, that's the belief of a selfish, evil person."

Bad anonymous said "what's vague is what tyoe of equality you are talking about I never said equality was wicked although I think I said egalitarianism is do you know what "egalitarianism" is?".
Egalitarianism is the belief in equality of all people. You don't believe in that, you don't believe in equality, you are selfish and wicked.

I said "The rights you have that you wish to deprive others of (such as marriage) you simply claim aren't rights, which makes no difference because even then people deserve the same opportunity to have those things and you oppose that as well."

Bad anonymous said "everyone has the same right to marry an individual of the opposite gender there is no one who doesn't have this right".
Irrelevant. That doesn't matter any more to marriage equality than the fact that everyone has the right to vote. What matters is that in most U.S. states John can marry Alice, but Betty cannot marry Alice - Alice does not have the same rights as John.

I said "For a change your playing dumb doesn't fly."

Bad anonymous said "well, glad to hear it usually flies".
Yes, generally we have no problem whatsoever believing your comments are made out of stupidity.

September 13, 2011 4:28 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I see there's actually been 4 shootings of transgendered women in DC since July. That would mean if it was true as bad anonymous suggests that this was merely random violence there would have had to have been 3996 murders or attempted murders of non-trans people in DC in this two month time period. Obviously the idea is proposterous that this is just random attacks and trans people are no more likely to have been attacked than anyone else. Trans women are being hunted and something needs to be done.

I missed this the first time through:

Bad anonymous said "areas of town where racial minorities dominate seem to be where these attacks are taking place kind of inconvenient that the groups you so desperately want to identify with are much more opposed to the gay agenda than the general population,".

Bad anonymous has conceded the argument - he admits that these people were attacked because the attackers are opposed to gays, they weren't just victims of randomn violence.

September 13, 2011 4:29 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous just made up a quote and falsely claimed I said "I've never, never, never said any such thing. It was you, you , you who said "hate crime statistics are inherently UNreliable". I merely agreed with you".

What I actually said was "I've never said any such thing. It was you who said "hate crime statistics are inherently RELIABLE". I merely agreed with you:".

Here is where Bad anonymous said hate crime statistics were reliable and I agreed with him:

http://vigilance.teachthefacts.org/2011/08/drunk-cop-arrested-for-transgender.html#1914040973368874653

Note his comment at August 27, 2011 3:49 PM.

Bad anonymous then said "exactly you agreed that hate crime stats are unreliable".

I never said any such thing as the record shows. It was you who said hate crime statistics were RELIABLE and I agreed with that.

Like the childish loser bad anonymous is he can't admit when he's wrong despite the record making it painfully obvious he lied.

The rest of bad anonymous's last five comments were repeats of the drivel I previously dispatched with. Like the childish loser he is instead of responding to the destruction of his arguments he just stamps his feet and repeats "I'm right!".

September 13, 2011 4:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"bad anonymous's last five comments were repeats of the drivel I previously dispatched with. Like the childish loser he is instead of responding to the destruction of his arguments he just stamps his feet and repeats "I'm right!""

actually, I made some editing changes to perfect the comments for posterity, which nasty Priya apparently didn't detect

nasty Priya may think she "dispatched" my comments but, the truth is, I didn't see anything worthy of response

my points remained perfectly valid and self-evidently correct

so I spared the blog the return banter

but I see, despite her objection to what she thought I did, that she responded likewise

isn't that very, very, very hypocritical?

I think, think, think so

September 13, 2011 4:45 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I'm just putting the comments back in the order they were made, you tried to fool people into thinking I hadn't responded. Nothing hypocritical about what I did, however your dishonesty and childishness is blatantly obvious.

September 13, 2011 4:55 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 13, 2011 4:58 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And any rational reader with an IQ above 70 will see I've utterly shreaded your absurd arguments and lies. You didn't respond because you're incapable of rebutting what I've said.

September 13, 2011 4:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Bad anonymous just made up a quote and falsely claimed I said "I've never, never, never said any such thing. It was you, you , you who said "hate crime statistics are inherently unreliable". I merely agreed with you"."

why, why, why would nasty Priya post the same comment thrice?

this is getting embarassing

nasty Priya, let me explain the difference between egalitarianism and equality

equality is when insane people like you have the opportunity to hire a psychiatrist to figure out what's wrong with them

egalitarianism is when we're all forced to chip in and pay for it

here's Abraham Lincoln:

“We do not propose any war upon capital, but instead our objective is to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.”

see, Honest Abe was not wicked

just don't ask anyone below the Mason-Dixon line

September 13, 2011 5:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And any rational reader with an IQ above 70 will see I've utterly shreaded your absurd arguments and lies."

spellcheck, nasty

use it

what exactly do you know about people with IQs above 70?

stick with what you know

September 13, 2011 5:11 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "why, why, why would nasty Priya post the same comment thrice?".

Actually I posted it twice, the second time in response to your repetition of the comment I originally responded to.

Bad anonymous, egalitarianism is first and formost a belief in the equality of all people:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/egalitarianism

You don't believe in gays right to marry, you don't believe in equality.

Bad anonymous said "spellcheck, use it".

LOL, your comments are rife with spelling errors, take your own advice moron. Unlike yours, my comments stand on their own merit and I don't need to point out other people's trivial spelling errors like you do in a vain attempt to pretend that somehow trumps the points I've made.

Grow up you big baby.

September 13, 2011 5:21 PM  
Anonymous abe said...

wow!

looks like nasty Priya followed my instructions and used her spellcheck

she objects, but she complies

there are worse things

now, she's arguing about how many posts she's made

isn't that just a liiiiitttle silly?

let's just say it's ALOT of 'em

egalitarianism, nasty, is the idea that everyone deserves the same circumstances regardless of their talents or efforts

that's just wicked

Marx famously said that "property is theft"

actually, egalitarianism is theft

that's how Obama wants to pay for his jobs bill

steal money from innocent rich people

such as people who make a mere $200K a year

that's as ridiculous as you thinking you should have the same right as me to drive any car you like just because I like driving my own

ridiculous

September 13, 2011 5:45 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "now, she's arguing about how many posts she's made isn't that just a liiiiitttle silly?".

You should know, you brought it up. Somehow its silly if I discuss it, but not you - typical of your psychotic worldview.


Bad anonymous said "that's as ridiculous as you thinking you should have the same right as me to drive any car you like just because I like driving my own".

As I previously pointed out, that's a false analogy. Gays having the same right to marry doesn't deprive anyone else of their marriage. The proper analogy is that you want the law to deny gays the right to drive their car because you like driving your car.

As the dictionary shows, egalitarianism is first and formost the belief in the equality of all people, you don't believe in that and you've admitted it. You've done everything you can to deny gays the same right you have to marry the person they love most - you despise equality.

September 13, 2011 5:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'm just putting the comments back in the order they were made"

do tell

how much time did you waste on that?

"As I previously pointed out, that's a false analogy."

it's true that you previously had an erroneous objection

"Gays having the same right to marry doesn't deprive anyone else of their marriage."

Gays already have the right to marry

your objection is that since they want to marry someone who doesn't qualify to be married to them and straights want to marry those that qualify to marry them, they don't have equal rights unless change the qualifications for marriage

this is similar to saying that if you want to drive your neighbor's car, which you are not entitled to do, and I want to drive my own car, which I'm entitled to do, we don't have equal rights unless laws are changed to allow you to steal your neighbor's car

otherwise, I would have the right to drive the car I like and you wouldn't have the right to drive the car you like

just like straights want to marry a compatible partner and so have the right to marry who they want while gays don't want to marry a compatible partner so they don't have the right to marry who they want

as usual, homosexual advocates are playing games with words

"The proper analogy is that you want the law to deny gays the right to drive their car because you like driving your car."

no, I want you not to change the meaning of "your" just like I want you not to change the meaning of "mariage"

"As the dictionary shows, egalitarianism is first and formost the belief in the equality of all people, you don't believe in that and you've admitted it."

historically, the term is meant to connote entitlement to equality of circumstance

that's wicked as Elphaba

"You've done everything you can to deny gays the same right you have to marry the person they love most - you despise equality."

just like I don't want to thieves to have the same right as I to drive the car they want

life has rules, nasty

get over it

September 13, 2011 7:20 PM  
Anonymous livin' large said...

I guess that shut her up!!

September 13, 2011 7:49 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Gays marrying doesn't deprive someone else of their marriage. Your false analogy involves you driving your car and someone stealing someone else's car. The correct analogy is you driving your car and wanting the law to prevent someone else from driving their car.

Gays want to marry a compatible partner, its you absurdly claiming they should only be allowed to marry an incompatible partner.

Bad anonymous said "no, I want you not to change the meaning of "your" just like I want you not to change the meaning of "mariage".

Spell check, bad anonymous, use it.

See how that works?

I never changed the meaning of "your", nor "marriage" - look it up in the dictionary, marriage means any close union.

Bad anonymous said "Gays already have the right to marry".

Its just as irrelevant that they can marry an opposite sex partner as its irrelevant that they have the right to vote. The inequality is that they don't have the right to marry the same person a heterosexal does. As the Republican appointed Chief justice said of the precedent setting Massachusetts ruling on marriage:

“The right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice.”

Justice demands that gays be allowed to marry the person of their choosing. That is their right.

You oppose equality, you insist on denying gays the right to marry.

September 13, 2011 7:51 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "I guess that shut her up!!".

LOL, I've easily disposed of your lies and specious arguments. But by all means continue with your fatuous displays, you're always good for a laugh.

September 13, 2011 7:53 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

By the way, Bad anonymous, your "argument" against gay marriage is the same one bigots once used against interracial marriage, claiming "everyone has the right to marry a person of their own race". The U.S. supreme court slammed the absurdity of that bigotry in Loving Versus Virginia by affirming the obvious discrimination entailed in that idea.

Your bigoted "argument" isn't going to fare any better once marriage equality gets to the U.S. supreme court.

September 13, 2011 7:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"your "argument" against gay mariage is the same one bigots once used against interracial mariage, claiming "everyone has the right to marry a person of their own race"

that's not my argument

my argument is that mariage means a union between two unrelated individuals os the opposite gender

it has always been this way and both genders need to be represented to call a relationship a mariage

gay "mariage" is an oxymoron

"Your bigoted "argument" isn't going to fare any better once mariage equality gets to the U.S. supreme court"

my argument isn't bigoted, it's irreducible

a relationship with both genders is what mariage is

you ought to read up on the current members of the Supreme Court

"Spell check, bad anonymous, use it"

if we have equal rights, I should be able to spell mariage the way I want if you have the right to spell mariage how you want

"by all means continue with your fatuous displays, you're always good for a laugh"

I will continue but, you know, I'm not detecting laughter between the lines of your endless rants

it's more like you are enraged

"Justice demands that gays be allowed to marry the person of their choosing"

homogayables can marry any person of their choosing that would make their relationship a marriage

in order for it to be a marriage, it has to have the representaion of all genders

sorry if you don't like that but that's the way it is

"Gays marrying doesn't deprive someone else of their marriage"

I've never said anywhere at anytime that it did

this is the straw man that lunatic fringers beat all the time

poor guy

"Your false analogy involves you driving your car and someone stealing someone else's car. The correct analogy is you driving your car and wanting the law to prevent someone else from driving their car."

well, you're misunderstanding the analogy, or, at least, you claim to

you're saying that if someone wants to do the right thing and someone wants to do the wrong thing, they are unequal unless they are both are allowed to do what they want

that's wrong

they are equal because the same rule applies to both

it doesn't matter that one wants to do wrong and one wants to do right

"Gays want to marry a compatible partner, its you absurdly claiming they should only be allowed to marry an incompatible partner"

by definition, only an opposite gender partner would be compatible for marital purposes

you brain, nasty

use it

September 13, 2011 9:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, well that concludes that topic for today

marriage must have the representation of all genders to be called "marriage"

not much else to be said

September 13, 2011 10:41 PM  
Anonymous Anon Makes It Up said...

According to who, anon? Are you the one who decides what marriage is for everyone else? Is divorce ok? What about arranged marriages? What about places where people have multiple wives, do you know something they don't?

September 14, 2011 8:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no, I don't make it up

37 states have voted to not make this definitional change

none have voted to do it

in most of the world and throughout history, there has been no question that marriage is a relationship with all genders represented

so, no, it's not me that decides

question is: why do lunatic fringe gay advocates think they have the right to change it to fit their whim?

September 14, 2011 9:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes, why do they think whimmery is a constitutional right?

that's just nuts!!

September 14, 2011 9:03 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

I’m sure I’m not the only one who finds it amusing and ironic that someone who can’t even spell “marriage” is getting their knickers all in a twist about how it might be defined.
“marriage must have the representation of all genders to be called "marriage"”
“in most of the world and throughout history, there has been no question that marriage is a relationship with all genders represented”

Then I must be a marriage all unto myself, considering that some people think I’m a man, others think I’m a woman, some are sure I’m neither and yet others think I’m a little bit of both. It’s amazing how many different genders people think I am.

Interesting concept though… I don’t know of many marriages where Kleinfelter’s syndrome (XXY), CAIS (Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrom), or CAH (Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia), much less the far more common genderqueer folks are included right along with the more common genders. That seems to be a lot of people for just one marriage if you ask me.

“37 states have voted to not make this definitional change”

A lot of states voted not to end slavery, another biblically condoned activity. That didn’t go very well for them.

“by definition, only an opposite gender partner would be compatible for marital purposes”

That definition depends on what state or country you’re in. Governments have been in the business of defining marriages for centuries. That’s why you have to go to a court and fill out paperwork, register, and sign a bunch of forms. In some places you even have to get blood tests.
This helps limit the number of biblically condoned marriage forms like polygamy, which as we’ve seen in the Warren Jeff’s case, promotes pedophilia, marrying your slave, marrying your sibling (which is what Adam and Eve’s children had to do) or marrying your cousin (what Noah’s grandchildren had to do).
Fortunately science and evolutionary theory has granted us the understanding of why marrying our relatives is a very bad idea, otherwise, religious people all over the planet would be emulating some of these biblical forms of marriage far more frequently.
Fortunately, marriage has become a secular institution for many, and in a country that espouses freedom of religion, eventually we will have to acknowledge that some religion’s rights to marry gay people can no be trumped by other religious groups who think that gay people should not be allowed to marry. Otherwise we have to concede that we really DON’T have freedom of religion.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

September 14, 2011 10:58 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "that's not my argument".
Yes it is. You argue that gays have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex so there's no injustice. That's exactly the same as the argument the racists used to oppose interracial marriage - "Everyone has the right to marry someone of their own race, so there's no injustice". Like the racists you'll be increasingly looked upon with scorn and disgust by all good people.

Bad anonymous said "my argument is that mariage means a union between two unrelated individuals os the opposite gender".
That's not an argument, that's circular logic "Its male/female because its male/female".

Bad anonymous said "it has always been this way and both genders need to be represented to call a relationship a mariage".
False. Same sex marriages have been done throughout history, including by the Catholic church hundreds of years ago. Same gender relationships are called marriage all over the world.

Bad anonymous said "gay "mariage" is an oxymoron"

There's that circular logic again - you know that's a fallacy, don't you?

I said "Your bigoted "argument" isn't going to fare any better once mariage equality gets to the U.S. supreme court"

Bad anonymous said "my argument isn't bigoted, it's irreducible".
Your argument is bigoted and circular logic "Marriage is this because marriage is this".

Bad anonymous said "a relationship with both genders is what mariage is".
Many places throughout the world disagree, in the next 10 years or so so will the entire U.S.

September 14, 2011 12:29 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "you ought to read up on the current members of the Supreme Court".
LOL, you should take a look yourself. Remember it was a Republican appointed chief justice that ruled for marriage equality in Massachusetts and a republican appointed judge that overturned Prop 8 in California. The majority of Americans favour marriage equality and by the time this gets to the U.S. supreme court a large majority will favour marriage equality and the court will vote according to popular opinion.

I said "Spell check, bad anonymous, use it"

Bad anonymous said "if we have equal rights, I should be able to spell mariage the way I want if you have the right to spell mariage how you want".
But with all your admonitions about my spelling you want to deny me the right to spell words how I want. Once again, you demand rights for yourself you'd deny to others - you're a bigot.

I said "by all means continue with your fatuous displays, you're always good for a laugh"

Bad anonymous said "I will continue but, you know, I'm not detecting laughter between the lines of your endless rants it's more like you are enraged".
LOL, you never were very good at detecting reality, you live in a delusion.

I said "Justice demands that gays be allowed to marry the person of their choosing"

Bad anonymous said "homogayables can marry any person of their choosing that would make their relationship a marriage".
So, we agree, gays must be allowed to marry the person of their choosing.

Bad anonymous said "in order for it to be a marriage, it has to have the representaion of all genders".sorry if you don't like that but that's the way it is".

False, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of same sex marriages around the world. Your refusal to recognize reality won't make it cease to be.

September 14, 2011 12:30 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "Gays marrying doesn't deprive someone else of their marriage"

Bad anonymous said "I've never said anywhere at anytime that it did".
Yes you did, you equated gays marrying to a person stealing a car.

I said "Your false analogy involves you driving your car and someone stealing someone else's car. The correct analogy is you driving your car and wanting the law to prevent someone else from driving their car."

Bad anonymous said "well, you're misunderstanding the analogy, or, at least, you claim to you're saying that if someone wants to do the right thing and someone wants to do the wrong thing, they are unequal unless they are both are allowed to do what they want".
I never said any such thing. Allowing gays to marry is the right thing to do. What is wrong is that which harms others, the gay couple down the street getting married has no effect on Bob and Alice's marriage.

Bad anonymous said "they are equal because the same rule applies to both".
The same rule does not apply to both. John is allowed to marry Alice, but Betty is not allowed to marry Alice. Betty does not have the same rights as John, that's sex discrimination and should be and will be illegal across the U.S.

I said "Gays want to marry a compatible partner, its you absurdly claiming they should only be allowed to marry an incompatible partner"

Bad anonymous said "by definition, only an opposite gender partner would be compatible for marital purposes".
You've demonstrated with your claim that "reliable" means "unreliable" that you don't know how to define words. Reality is only same sex partners are compatible for gays for marriage puposes. Mixed orientation marriages are disasters waiting to happen, producing broken families and children without two parents. And interestingly, In the thread below you claimed you don't advocate that gay men marry women. You don't even believe your own B.S. you know gay men aren't compatible with women for marriage purposes and yet you advocate for that anyway because if some woman's life is destroyed by marrying a gay man it doesn't matter to you, the only thing that matters is denying equality to all.
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2007/01/tomorrow-we-get-to-see-it.html#comments
At January 04, 2007 9:01 PM bad anonymous said "I do not advocate that woman should married gay men far from it.".
Bad anonymous is just paying lip service to his own irrational argument that gays are free to marry any opposite sex partner they choose - he's against that and against equality.

Bad anonymous said "you brain".
Yes, I am a brain, too bad you don't have one.

September 14, 2011 12:31 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "marriage must have the representation of all genders to be called "marriage"".

The marriages of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of gays falsifies that statement. You never were any good at reality.

Bad anonymous said "37 states have voted to not make this definitional change".

Which changes nothing. Gays couldn't marry in those states before and can't marry in them now. Bigotry hasn't made any progress while on the other hand equality grows year after year with an ever growing number of jurisdictions legally recognizing same sex relationships.

Have fun living in the past Bad anonymous, pretty soon that's all you'll have. An ever increasing marjority supports marriage equality - you've already lost but you're too angry to admit it.

September 14, 2011 12:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

a moron wrote:

"According to who, anon? Are you the one who decides what mariage is for everyone else?"

to which I patiently replied:

"no, I don't make it up

37 states have voted to not make this definitional change

none have voted to do it

in most of the world and throughout history, there has been no question that mariage is a relationship with all genders represented

so, no, it's not me that decides"

to which, cynthia hisses:

"A lot of states voted not to end slavery, another biblically condoned activity."

and nasty priya belches:

"Which changes nothing. Gays couldn't mary in those states before and can't mary in them now."

hisser and nasty,

I was simply replying to the accusation that I was trying to make up the definition of mariage all by my lonesome

nothing could be farther from the truth

it was all ordained long ago

and that is acknowledged by the vast majority of global inhabitants today and throughout history

"equality grows year after year with an ever growing number of jurisdictions legally recognizing same sex relationships"

I've heard of counting your chickens before they're hatched

but this imaginary event hasn't even been laid

"Have fun living in the past Bad anonymous, pretty soon that's all you'll have. An ever increasing marjority supports mariage equality - you've already lost but you're too angry to admit it."

your imagination is going to lead you to alot of disappointment

September 14, 2011 6:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I’m sure I’m not the only one who finds it amusing and ironic that someone who can’t even spell “mariage” is getting their knickers all in a twist about how it might be defined"

I'm guessing that a side-effect of SRS is brain damage from having your oxygen cut off during surgery

"Then I must be a mariage all unto myself, considering that some people think I’m a man, others think I’m a woman,"

you've got to get on one side or the other

sorry, mariage requires two individual and must have a representative from each gender

and, no, two characters of your split personality don't qualify as individuals

"some are sure I’m neither and yet others think I’m a little bit of both. It’s amazing how many different genders people think I am"

I have a funny feeling that people don't think about you as much as you imagine

they really don't want to

"Interesting concept though… I don’t know of many marrriages where Kleinfelter’s syndrome (XXY), CAIS (Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrom), or CAH (Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia), much less the far more common genderqueer folks are included right along with the more common genders. That seems to be a lot of people for just one mariage if you ask me."

no problem, just go to a doctor

he can tell you what gender you are and recommend a therapist

"A lot of states voted not to end slavery, another biblically condoned activity."

condoned?

the Bible advises slaves to gain their freedom if they can

Jesus told his disciples to pay taxes to Caesar but that doesn't mean he "condoned" the Roman Empire

Christianity transcends personal circumstances

armed insurrection is not the biblical solution to change the world

"That didn’t go very well for them."

well, the resistance to changing the definition of mariage is going great

"Fortunately, marrriage has become a secular institution for many, and in a country that espouses freedom of religion, eventually we will have to acknowledge that some religion’s rights to mary gay people can no be trumped by other religious groups who think that gay people should not be allowed to marrry. Otherwise we have to concede that we really DON’T have freedom of religion."

any religion can have any ceremony they want

that doesn't mean the government has to recognize it

"Have a nice day"

yeah, fly to Canada and look at Priya (ugh!)

September 14, 2011 9:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You argue that gays have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex so there's no injustice"

that's true

homosexuals have the right to particpate in mariage if they want to

"That's exactly the same as the argument the racists used to oppose interracial marriage"

they never said the that marrriage is defined as two people of the same race

nice try at a lie

"Like the racists you'll be increasingly looked upon with scorn and disgust by all good people"

get back to me when that happens

"That's not an argument, that's circular logic "Its male/female because its male/female""

you're right

it's not an argument

it's a fact

"Same sex marriagges have been done throughout history, including by the Catholic church hundreds of years ago"

please

your ilk found some isolated documents that could be loosley interpretted that way

beware of believing only what you want to believe

that will mess ypu up

not that there's much more you can do to mess yourself up than you already have done

"Same gender relationships are called marreage all over the world"

reality, nasty

use it

"circular logic again - you know that's a fallacy, don't you?"

that mariagge is defined as male-female

no, it's a fact

"circular logic "Marriaje is this because mariagge is this""

this is not some logic puzzle

the definition of merriage is no different than other definitions that way

"Many places throughout the world disagree,"

not any voting publics

"you should take a look yourself"

here's a lyric from a Keith Green song:

"Lord, it's so hard to see

when my eyes are on me"

September 14, 2011 9:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The majority of Americans favour marrriagge equality and by the time this gets to the U.S. supreme court a large majority will favour mariaggge equality and the court will vote according to popular opinion"

that's not the way it works here

"But with all your admonitions about my spelling you want to deny me the right to spell words how I want. Once again, you demand rights for yourself you'd deny to others - you're a bigot"

that was actually friendly advice

see your therapist about the delusional paranoia

"there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of same sex marriajes around the world"

no, there aren't

September 14, 2011 9:41 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "37 states have voted to not make this definitional change none have voted to do it".
LOL, keep repeating that. Soon living in the past is all you'll have. A majority and every increasing percentage of Americans favour marriage equality.

Bad anonymous said "in most of the world and throughout history, there has been no question that mariage is a relationship with all genders represented so, no, it's not me that decides"
In most of the world and throughout history there were no planes, cars, computers and effective health care. Society progresses - get used to it.

:

Cynthia said "A lot of states voted not to end slavery, another biblically condoned activity."

I said "Which changes nothing. Gays couldn't mary in those states before and can't mary in them now.",

Bad anonymous said "I was simply replying to the accusation that I was trying to make up the definition of mariage all by my lonesome nothing could be farther from the truth".
It is the truth. You're assuming to define marriage for all the world - hint moron, you don't.

Bad anonymous said "it was all ordained long ago".
Nonsense. Marriage gradually arose as a custom throughout the world when couples decided to share their lives together. Your imaginary sky buddy had nothing to do with it.

Bad anonymous said "and that is acknowledged by the vast majority of global inhabitants today and throughout history".
The vast majority of global inhabitants today and throughout history once acknowledged the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it. People grow moron - get used to it.

I said "equality grows year after year with an ever growing number of jurisdictions legally recognizing same sex relationships"

Bad anonymous said "I've heard of counting your chickens before they're hatched but this imaginary event hasn't even been laid".
Your denial of realtity won't make it cease to exist. This is fact. an ever growing number of jurisdictions have legally recognized same sex marriages - it happened and is happening - get used to it.

September 15, 2011 1:13 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "Have fun living in the past Bad anonymous, pretty soon that's all you'll have. An ever increasing marjority supports mariage equality - you've already lost but you're too angry to admit it."

Bad anonymous said "your imagination is going to lead you to alot of disappointment".
LOL, and people are going to go back to living in caves and smearing blood on the entrance to prevent disease. Every year I get a new gift of progress around the world, I'm extremely happy, the disappointment is all yours and always will be.
Bad anonymous said "I'm guessing that a side-effect of SRS is brain damage from having your oxygen cut off during surgery".
No, but its clear from you that a side effect from rage over social progress is dimentia

Bad anonymous said "sorry, mariage requires two individual and must have a representative from each gender".
False, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of same sex marriages around the world. Your pretending reality doesn't exist won't make it go away.

Cynthia said "Interesting concept though… I don’t know of many marrriages where Kleinfelter’s syndrome (XXY), CAIS (Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrom), or CAH (Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia), much less the far more common genderqueer folks are included right along with the more common genders. That seems to be a lot of people for just one mariage if you ask me."

Bad anonymous said "no problem, just go to a doctor he can tell you what gender you are and recommend a therapist".
I did, he verified I'm female, no therapist though, that's what you need.

Cynthia said"A lot of states voted not to end slavery, another biblically condoned activity."

Bad anonymous said "condoned? the Bible advises slaves to gain their freedom if they can".
You obviously don't know your bible. The bible makes gives no such advice. In fact Paul advises slaves to be good slaves and not attempt to gain their freedom. Go to Skeptics Annotated Bible - there are dozens of passeges condoning slavery.

Bad anonymous said Jesus told his disciples to pay taxes to Caesar but that doesn't mean he "condoned" the Roman Empire".
No, he meant he condoned paying taxes to Caser, just as the bible condones slavery over and over and over.

September 15, 2011 1:14 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "Christianity transcends personal circumstances".
LOL, christianity means the vast majority of people who every lived are eternally tortured for thought crimes - its a disgusting religion

Bad anonymous said "armed insurrection is not the biblical solution to change the world".
LOL, you really are an idiot! Anyone who's read even a fraction of the bible knows the god character commaned the Israelites to war on their neighbours, not make peace with them and to utterly destroy them.

Cynthia "That didn’t go very well for them."

Bad anonymous said "well, the resistance to changing the definition of mariage is going great".
LOL, I love the way you live in a delusion. Resistance to marriage equality is dropping away steadily and now a majority of americans favour marriage equality. Every year more jurisdictions legally recognize same sex relationships - the bigots have utterly failed to turn back the tide of progress.

Cynthia said "Fortunately, marrriage has become a secular institution for many, and in a country that espouses freedom of religion, eventually we will have to acknowledge that some religion’s rights to mary gay people can no be trumped by other religious groups who think that gay people should not be allowed to marrry. Otherwise we have to concede that we really DON’T have freedom of religion."

Bad anonymous said "any religion can have any ceremony they want that doesn't mean the government has to recognize it".
The religious bigots argue that their freedom of religion demands that the government not recognize same sex marriages - it works both ways, if that's true then freedom of religion also demands that the government recognize the marriages other churches want to do.

I said "You argue that gays have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex so there's no injustice"

that's true

"bad anonymous said "homosexuals have the right to particpate in mariage if they want to".
They do not have the right to the same marriages heterosexuals do, that's discrimination.

I said "That's exactly the same as the argument the racists used to oppose interracial marriage"

Bad anonymous said "they never said the that marrriage is defined as two people of the same race".
They most certainly did, their entire argument against interracial marriage was based on that. Your argument is the same one the racists used, you'll fail at denying justice just as they did.

I said "Like the racists you'll be increasingly looked upon with scorn and disgust by all good people"

Bad anonymous said "get back to me when that happens".
Its already happened. Polls show the majority of people think evangenlical christians are anti-gay bigots.

I said "That's not an argument, that's circular logic "Its male/female because its male/female""

Bad anonymous said "you're right it's not an argument it's a fact".
Its circular logic and thus a fallacy. Your denial of reality won't make it go away.

I said "Same sex marriagges have been done throughout history, including by the Catholic church hundreds of years ago"

Bad anonymous said "please your ilk found some isolated documents that could be loosley interpretted that way beware of believing only what you want to believe".
LOL, yes, two people committing to love and care for each other and live together, sealed with a kiss, that's just "loosely" interpreted as marriage". Your desperate denial of relaity is a gas.

September 15, 2011 1:14 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "Same gender relationships are called marreage all over the world"

Bad anonymous said "reality, nasty use it".
I recognize reality - you deny it.

I said "circular logic again - you know that's a fallacy, don't you?"

Bad anonymous said "that mariagge is defined as male-female no, it's a fact".
In an ever growing number of jurisdictions marriage is defined as any two persons. Get used to it.

I said "circular logic "Marriaje is this because mariagge is this""

Bad anonymous said "this is not some logic puzzle".
I never said it was, I was just pointing out that your logic is fallacious

Bad anonymous said "the definition of merriage is no different than other definitions that way".
Right, definitions change with usage. People are increasingly referring to marriage as a union of two people - get used to it.

I said "The majority of Americans favour marrriagge equality and by the time this gets to the U.S. supreme court a large majority will favour mariaggge equality and the court will vote according to popular opinion"

Bad anonymous said "that's not the way it works here".
LOL, like most republicans you don't know your country as well as the typical Canadian does.

I said "But with all your admonitions about my spelling you want to deny me the right to spell words how I want. Once again, you demand rights for yourself you'd deny to others - you're a bigot"

Bad anonymous said "that was actually friendly advice".
No, it was a pathetic attempt to use an insult in place of rational arguments you don't have.

I said "there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of same sex marriajes around the world"

Bad anonymous said "no, there aren't".
LOL, your denying reality won't make it get away. You're going to be universally viewed as a lunatic when you're an old man.

September 15, 2011 1:15 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Slavery in the Bible: Passages from the Christian Scriptures

Old Testament

Exodus 20:17"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's."

Deuteronomy 5:21"Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.

Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."

Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."

Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."

Deuteronomy 15:12-18: "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him."

Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)

September 15, 2011 1:18 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Leviticus 25:48-53: "After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself. And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubilee: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him."

Exodus 21:8: "If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money."

Leviticus 19:20-22: "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him."

Leviticus 25:39: "And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee: And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl1.htm

September 15, 2011 1:19 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 15, 2011 1:19 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

New Testament

Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."

Mark 14:66: "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:"

Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."

1 Timothy 6:1-3 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;"

September 15, 2011 1:20 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Public support for same-sex marriage has grown since the 1990s. In 1996, just 25% of Americans supported legalization. Analysis of the polling trends in 2010 and 2011 show that support for same-sex marriage may now outstrip opposition, although the difference is within the error limit of the analysis.[79] On May 20, 2011, Gallup reported majority support for gay marriage by a margin that exceeded the poll's margin of error.[80] In June 2011, two prominent polling organizations released an analysis of the changing trend in public opinion about same-sex marriage in the United States, concluding that "public support for the freedom to marry has increased, AT AN ACCELERATING RATE, with most polls showing that a majority of Americans now support full marriage rights for all Americans.".

September 15, 2011 1:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

nasty Priya has carpet-bombed so much ignorance that I won't bother with most of it, which basically consists of her abrcadabra logic

here's a false statement she made that I will counter, however:

Cynthia hissed:

"A lot of states voted not to end slavery, another biblically condoned activity."

Mr. Brilliant said:

"condoned? the Bible advises slaves to gain their freedom if they can".

nasty Priya belched:

"You obviously don't know your bible. The bible makes gives no such advice. In fact Paul advises slaves to be good slaves and not attempt to gain their freedom. Go to Skeptics Annotated Bible -"

the Bible says:

"Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so."

the reference is:

1 Corinthians 7:20-22

to explain, the biblical view is not materialistic so it works within the social structure as is, emphasizing spiritual values

interestingly, in early churches, when a slave and master were both Christians, the slave would sometimes have authority over the master in the church

slavery back then wasn't quite the vicious phenomenom back then that it became in America

btw, after going through those comments by nasty priya, I have but one thing to say:

spellcheck, nasty

use it

now that we settled that society has always required representation by both genders to recognize a relationship as a marrriage, we can later discuss why you can't extrapolate the entire population to prove that trans that stroll through southeast DC at two in the morning are victims of hate crimes when attacked

when we do, I think nasty Priya is going to be a liiitttlle embarassed!

September 15, 2011 3:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Go to Skeptics Annotated Bible"

this explains a lot about NAsty PRiya

as the old adage goes: GIGO

September 15, 2011 3:30 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

LOL, nice try bad anonymous. Another lie through ommission:

The whole passage actually says:
Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. 21 Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. 22 For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave.

In other words if you are a slave then remain a slave but if the slave owner is willing to set you free use it.

Bad anonymous quotes from the "New International Version" of the bible, a version that's been rewritten from the original meanings to fit with fundamentalist political goals. It is not a valid translation of the original meanings.

The actual Corinthians passage is in congruence with 1 Timothy 6:1-3:
"Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;"

In other words if you're a slave accept it and honour your master until and if he chooses to set you free.

Bad anonymous said "interestingly, in early churches, when a slave and master were both Christians, the slave would sometimes have authority over the master in the church".

LOL, just like to you "reliable" means "unreliable".

Bad anonymous said "slavery back then wasn't quite the vicious phenomenom back then that it became in America".

Typical of an anti-gay christian, trivializing the barbarionism of his bible.

Bad anonymous said "now that we settled that society has always required representation by both genders to recognize a relationship as a marrriage,".

LOL, we've established that marriage is the union of two persons as hundreds of thousands, if not millions of same sex marriages prove. Reality bad anonymous, get used to it.

Bad anonymous said "we can later discuss why you can't extrapolate the entire population to prove that trans that stroll through southeast DC at two in the morning are victims of hate crimes when attacked".

As I've proven it is statisitically impossible that none of these were hate crimes. Statistics bad anonymous - learn them. You'll give up just like you did before when you're hopelessly overwhelmed with the facts. Why don't you repost the same old comments I already dispatched with - that'll show 'em!

Bad anonymous said "when we do, I think nasty Priya is going to be a liiitttlle embarassed!

LOL, yes, sure! Just like reliable means unreliable and there are no same sex marriages and somehow you're going to magically change the tide of public opinion in which the majority supports marriage equality at an ever accelerating rate!

September 15, 2011 4:48 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "marrriage....liiitttlle".

Bad anonymous also said "priya, I have but one thing to say spellcheck, nasty use it".

LOL, take your own advice loser.

September 15, 2011 4:53 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home