Blaming Prop 8

R

RockX

Banned
Lesbian's brutal gang rape investigated in Calif.

By LISA LEFF – 1 day ago

http://tinyurl.com/933cqb - The AP Scrubbed Version

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A woman in the San Francisco Bay area was jumped by four men, taunted for being a lesbian, repeatedly raped and left naked outside an abandoned apartment building, authorities said Monday.

Detectives say the 28-year-old victim was attacked Dec. 13 after she got out of her car, which bore a rainbow gay pride sticker. The men, who ranged from their late teens to their 30s, made comments indicating they knew her sexual orientation, said Richmond police Lt. Mark Gagan.

Authorities are characterizing the attack as a hate crime but declined to reveal why they think the woman was singled out because of her sexual orientation. Gagan would say only that the victim lived openly with a female partner and had a rainbow flag sticker on her car.

The 45-minute attack began when one of the men approached the woman as she crossed the street, struck her with a blunt object, ordered her to disrobe and sexually assaulted her with the help of the other men.

When the group saw another person approaching, they forced the victim back into her car and took her to a burned-out apartment building, where she was raped again inside and outside the vehicle. The assailants took her wallet and drove off in her car. Officers found the car abandoned two days later.



"Anytime there is an anti-LGBT initiative, we tend to see spikes both in the numbers and the severity of attacks," he said. "People feel this extra entitlement to act out their prejudice."



The SFGate Version

http://tinyurl.com/8hqp7d

Snip

The attackers are being sought on charges of assault with a deadly weapon, robbery, kidnapping, carjacking and sexual assault. The charges carry a hate crime enhancement.

Police described the first suspect, believed to be the group leader, as a Latino man in his 30s, who stands 5 feet 6 inches tall, weighs 180 pounds, and has black hair, brown eyes and a mustache.

The second suspect is described as an African American man in his early 20s, about 5 feet 10 inches, 170 pounds with black hair and brown eyes. He is known by the nickname "Blu," police said.

The third suspect is described as Latino, 18 to 20 years old, who is nicknamed "Pato." The fourth suspect is described only as a Latino man 18 to 20 years old.


Normally this brutal crime would not even make the national papers, but I guess once the sexual identity was released it gave the AP a chance to blame those evil liberals in California for passing Prop 8. Notice how they failed to mention that the attackers were all minorities, 3 latino's and 1 black. Wonder if the three are illegal's. San Francisco is a sanctuary city for illegals.
 
What about this story gets you so excited and seemingly happy this Christmas eve morning fella?
 
missed that, thanks.

did they ever stop to think that it is not the anti people, rather it just might be those who are anti christian, anti marriage btwn man and women who are in people's faces causes a backlash...
 
Yurt said:
missed that, thanks.

did they ever stop to think that it is not the anti people, rather it just might be those who are anti christian, anti marriage btwn man and women who are in people's faces causes a backlash...
Click to expand...

Causes a backlash??

First of all, these people wanting to be allowed to marry are not anti anything. Just because they disagree with the christian view of marriage does not mean they are anti christian. I have not seen them campaigning to have christianity outlawed, or to have the christian marriage outlawed.

Second of all, I certainly hope you are not referring to this brutal, violent attack as "backlash"? Those 4 mean should have their gonads removed with a rusty cheese-grater. Backlash? What happened to that woman was an atrocity.
 
Solitary said:
Causes a backlash??

First of all, these people wanting to be allowed to marry are not anti anything. Just because they disagree with the christian view of marriage does not mean they are anti christian. I have not seen them campaigning to have christianity outlawed, or to have the christian marriage outlawed.

Second of all, I certainly hope you are not referring to this brutal, violent attack as "backlash"? Those 4 mean should have their gonads removed with a rusty cheese-grater. Backlash? What happened to that woman was an atrocity.
Click to expand...

they certaintly are anti christian, you obviously haven't been paying attention to the protests, you haven't seen video of a group of christians walking peacefully through SF with signs for prop 8 and a massive group of against prop 8 chased them through the streets with such vile threats of violence of the police were called in as the crowd did get a little violent. open your eyes.

and no, you know i am not. read the thread more carefully and you will see the backlash discussion is more general than just what happened in this instance. you're being a bit myopic.
 
Yurt said:
they certaintly are anti christian, you obviously haven't been paying attention to the protests, you haven't seen video of a group of christians walking peacefully through SF with signs for prop 8 and a massive group of against prop 8 chased them through the streets with such vile threats of violence of the police were called in as the crowd did get a little violent. open your eyes.

and no, you know i am not. read the thread more carefully and you will see the backlash discussion is more general than just what happened in this instance. you're being a bit myopic.
Click to expand...

There was the initial post, and then there was the post in which Damocles quoted the article saying there are always spikes in the number and the severity of attacks after an anti-LGBT initiative. That was talking about attacks on gays and lesbians, and referred to the idea that "People feel this extra entitlement to act out their prejudice.".

So I am certainly not being myopic. Perhaps you misunderstood. I was asking to make sure, and also expressing my disgust at the attack.




They did not start out as anti-christian. But when any organization speaks out calling you perverse, disgusting or even worse, there is a tendency to respond.



Yurt, why is it that you call the anti-gay acts "backlash", thereby putting the responsibility on the gays, but you call the gays "anti-christian"??

If the christians had not attacked the gays (and that has certainly been going on for a long, long time) they gays would not have been responding.

And they are not responding with anti-christian attacks per se. They are trying to get the christians to mind their own business and not use THEIR religious views to legislate everyone else's lives.
 
Solitary said:
There was the initial post, and then there was the post in which Damocles quoted the article saying there are always spikes in the number and the severity of attacks after an anti-LGBT initiative. That was talking about attacks on gays and lesbians, and referred to the idea that "People feel this extra entitlement to act out their prejudice.".

So I am certainly not being myopic. Perhaps you misunderstood. I was asking to make sure, and also expressing my disgust at the attack.




They did not start out as anti-christian. But when any organization speaks out calling you perverse, disgusting or even worse, there is a tendency to respond.



Yurt, why is it that you call the anti-gay acts "backlash", thereby putting the responsibility on the gays, but you call the gays "anti-christian"??

If the christians had not attacked the gays (and that has certainly been going on for a long, long time) they gays would not have been responding.

And they are not responding with anti-christian attacks per se. They are trying to get the christians to mind their own business and not use THEIR religious views to legislate everyone else's lives.
Click to expand...

fair enough for checking...no i do not condone the act...

why is it you call this attack "backlash?" do you have proof it is backlash for anything? maybe it is a bunch of sick fucks who want to show a lesbian what a dick is. rapes have been going since the early dawn of man for various sick reasons, virgin, captive, whatnot...

how are christians attacking gays? maybe you think christians are attacking murderers as well??? how about thieves? the bible is clear on its stance regarding the ACT of homosexuality. to claim that christians are attacking gays by standing by their beliefs is an incorrect and unfair characterization of the situation.

gays are using their views to legislate, why is it christians do not also have that right? so if you are christian you do not have a right to get your beliefs legislated? that is BS.
 
Yurt said:
fair enough for checking...no i do not condone the act...

why is it you call this attack "backlash?" do you have proof it is backlash for anything? maybe it is a bunch of sick fucks who want to show a lesbian what a dick is. rapes have been going since the early dawn of man for various sick reasons, virgin, captive, whatnot...

how are christians attacking gays? maybe you think christians are attacking murderers as well??? how about thieves? the bible is clear on its stance regarding the ACT of homosexuality. to claim that christians are attacking gays by standing by their beliefs is an incorrect and unfair characterization of the situation.

gays are using their views to legislate, why is it christians do not also have that right? so if you are christian you do not have a right to get your beliefs legislated? that is BS.
Click to expand...

The gays want their lives to be recognized as equal to everyone else's.

And the US Constitution forbids the government from recognizing any religion as the official government religion. This means that laws cannot be made from the beliefs of an individual religion's beliefs.

If christians do not condone homosexuality, then they should not practice it or allow homosexuals to join their church. That should be the extent of their power. But they insist on trying to create legislation that backs THEIR beliefs.

Gays are not trying to create legislation that forces their beliefs on anyone. If you don't agree with same sex marriages, then you shouldn't marry someone of the same gender.
 
Solitary said:
The gays want their lives to be recognized as equal to everyone else's.

And the US Constitution forbids the government from recognizing any religion as the official government religion. This means that laws cannot be made from the beliefs of an individual religion's beliefs.

If christians do not condone homosexuality, then they should not practice it or allow homosexuals to join their church. That should be the extent of their power. But they insist on trying to create legislation that backs THEIR beliefs.

Gays are not trying to create legislation that forces their beliefs on anyone. If you don't agree with same sex marriages, then you shouldn't marry someone of the same gender.
Click to expand...

i think the government should get out of marriage, period. all government unions should be civil unions. a biblical marriage is not a government marriage. a government "marriage" is by definition a contract, as such, the state has no right to prevent gays from marrying. on that we agree.

with that said, if all have equal rights, then would you grant a brother and a sister the right to marry?

btw, gays forcing the marriage issue on christians is an attack on their beliefs. while the government may not establish or infringe on a religion, it is well settled law that tradition, even if from a religious tradition, can be accepted without violating the 1st amendment. christians have a valid POV for arguing that marriage is between a man and a women. for not only is it a religious POV, it is has traditionally been that way in virtually every culture regardless of religion. just because you are a christian DOES NOT mean you have to check your beliefs at the door. you are advocating the silencing of POVs simply due to religious beliefs.

i suggest you study the establishment clause some more because your beliefs are dangerous to the fundamental concepts of this country.
 
Yurt said:
i think the government should get out of marriage, period. all government unions should be civil unions. a biblical marriage is not a government marriage. a government "marriage" is by definition a contract, as such, the state has no right to prevent gays from marrying. on that we agree.

with that said, if all have equal rights, then would you grant a brother and a sister the right to marry?

btw, gays forcing the marriage issue on christians is an attack on their beliefs. while the government may not establish or infringe on a religion, it is well settled law that tradition, even if from a religious tradition, can be accepted without violating the 1st amendment. christians have a valid POV for arguing that marriage is between a man and a women. for not only is it a religious POV, it is has traditionally been that way in virtually every culture regardless of religion. just because you are a christian DOES NOT mean you have to check your beliefs at the door. you are advocating the silencing of POVs simply due to religious beliefs.

i suggest you study the establishment clause some more because your beliefs are dangerous to the fundamental concepts of this country.
Click to expand...

If you could say that ALL religions viewed marriage as only between a man and a woman, I might accept the argument that religious tradition can be accepted without violating the 1st amendment. But there are religions that accept gay marriages. I know that Wicca does. So, if the government does not sanction a wiccan marriage between two men or two women, are they not deciding that judeo-christian beliefs are more valid? And isn't THAT a clear violation of the 1st amendment?

I agree that all government benefits should be granted to civil unions, and religious ceremonies should not garner any tax breaks, legal breaks or authority at all.
 
Solitary said:
If you could say that ALL religions viewed marriage as only between a man and a woman, I might accept the argument that religious tradition can be accepted without violating the 1st amendment. But there are religions that accept gay marriages. I know that Wicca does. So, if the government does not sanction a wiccan marriage between two men or two women, are they not deciding that judeo-christian beliefs are more valid? And isn't THAT a clear violation of the 1st amendment?

I agree that all government benefits should be granted to civil unions, and religious ceremonies should not garner any tax breaks, legal breaks or authority at all.
Click to expand...

i would not say that because all religions view marriage as btwn man and women that marriage should be btwn man and woman, that is still solely religious based and IMO this might violate the establishment clause, though i can see a strong argument that it would not as this does not really establish any "one" religion. i would say that the vast majority of people, both religious and non-religious, have viewed marriage as solely between man and woman for millennia. that is the tradition i speak of.

do you support a brother and a sister right to marry?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top