I’m No Victim

I’m puzzled at the lack of reading comprehension by internet pundits.  There are a few stories popping up – in The Advocate and one or two on HuffPo on a recent Google alert — claiming I’m playing “the victim card” over here on my blog. However, anyone who actually read my post would know that I simply made two claims:

1.  Those who claim to be loving and tolerant certainly are hateful and bullying.

2.  But despite their efforts at name-calling and even their threats, I won’t be deterred from speaking out.

Here’s what I said:

“Here’s a news flash, guys.  Your hate and bullying don’t work.  People see through it, and they don’t like to be pushed around.  You think it’s completely obvious that you’re right, but this younger generation is more pro-life than their parents, and voters just keep defending traditional marriage.  Why?  Why would we if you’ve been telling us what to think for all these years?

Because we think for ourselves.  And we’ll keep thinking for ourselves no matter what you call us.  So keep sending the hate, but realize that hate doesn’t win arguments.”

So, this is what professional pundits are calling “playing the victim?”

To paraphrase The Princess Bride: that word does not mean what you think it means.

You might also enjoy:

Connect with me further by:

  • Lisa Sajna

    While I do not share your political views, and I am not q fan of your mother’s, I hav always liked you. You seem to have common sense and are a “normal” young person who makes mistakes, doesn’t whine about them, LEARNS from them, and moves on. I also wanted to say that I appreciate the fact that you leave critical comments up on your blog. That takes courage and sense. There are blogs and Facebook pages that do not leave any critical comments, giving the false impression that all comments are positive. Keep up the good work, kid.
    A liberal democratic Grandma
    Lisa S.

  • John

    Dear Bristol

    I loved reading your post! You are indeed a very smart and courageous young woman!

    Have you ever visited Hillbuz?

  • kate

    Well done Miss Bristol. You go girl!

  • bellagrazi

    These people are obviously intellectually lazy. And intellectually dishonest. Keep that fighting spirit, Bristol. We’ve got your back.

  • Eileen

    You’re stereotyping all people who support gay rights as bullies. Those death threats you received were a VERY small minority of the comments. You received plenty of well-thought-out and polite responses that were giving counter-arguments to your post yet you chose to ignore those. People would respect you a lot more if you engaged in debate and discussion with those who disagree with you, instead of just pointing to a few extreme comments and claim the other side of hypocrisy.
    As someone who supports gay rights, I can say that those people you received death threats from are not at all representative of what we stand for, and we despise them just as much as you do.

  • blackbird

    Bristol Palin a victim… LMAO!!! Have any one noticed Bristol wielding a shotgun with mom and dad supervising… LOL!!! Victims don’t drive their pickup from Alaska to California they blame ATM’s for 9% unemployment.

  • blackbird

    Bristol I think we know each other at least you know my comment history pretty good for me to offer an invitation to you to join me over at http://palin4america.com anytime that is convenient.

    I know you are a very busy mom with a handful of joy there so please don’t feel pressured, just know we would love to have you join us, if just to say hello or your dad, mom, brother, aunt, boyfriend you can let them all know… come on over.

    • Lavender Pitt

      She will never love you the way you love her.

  • MattZuke

    “but this younger generation is more pro-life than their parents, and voters just keep defending traditional marriage.”

    NO ONE can be pro-life and against gay marriage since at present, children go unadopted. You see, gay marriage would open millions of homes to children. The demand would be so great, not only would it cover people like you who were not taught how to use birth control, but gays who want kids would have to adopt from over seas, children slated for infanticide. People like yourself promote a philosophy these children are better off dead than being raised by gays, which is pro-death, not pro-life.

    And respectfully you ARE playing the victim card rather than addressing valid criticism like you having no evidence gays make inferior parents, inferior to single parents like yourself, or the core issue is are children better off dead? You also assert only a bible based marriage as being valid, where polygamy was actually the norm in the bible

    • Georgia

      Matt Zuke — Unfortunately you failed to mention that because of the homosexual rhetoric that that they are fit to raise the children of others, Catholic adoption agencies were forced to close. No one is suggesting that children are better off dead than being adopted by homosexuals (more homosexual think in action here). Adjusted adults are suggesting that putting a child, in the hands of homosexuals, those who cannot function normally with the opposite sex for one dysfunction/disordered reason or another, instead of offering them a home with a mother and father, which is necessary for a child to understand the dynamics between the normal male and female relationship, are forcing children out of the frying pan and into the fire.

      • MattZuke

        “No one is suggesting that children are better off dead than being adopted by homosexuals”

        That’s exactly what’s being suggested. So long as children go unadopted, domestically and overseas where infanticide is practiced, not allowing gays to get married and adopt is making an objective choice for abortion and death.

        “instead of offering them a home with a mother and father”

        That’s not the proposition being presented. 80,000 children go unadopted each year in the US, children created by people just like Bristol. Gays getting married can provide homes to these children, a viable option for unplanned pregnancies, and infants and children overseas who otherwise would be killed.

        “opposite sex for one dysfunction/disordered reason or another”

        You’re just being a bigot here. Gay is not a dysfunction, nor a disorder. Gay has utility in our society in promoting love with population control. Gays in this context actually resolve a social problem of girls like Bristol who are not educated about the merits of birth control. So long as people like yourself promote philosophies that lead to unwanted pregnancies, we either need abortions or homes for these children.

        “forcing children out of the frying pan and into the fire.”

        The evidence would suggest there is no real difference between a gay household and a straight one, yet you still CHOOSE to let children die than be raised by gays. You’d need some SOLID evidence that children are better off dead than raised by gays.

        • Georgia

          As I stated in my earlier reply, all children deserve to be raised by a mother and a father, which is a normal family unit. What makes homosexuals actually believe they they are capable to raising children properly? Children mostly do as their parents/caregivers do, Matt. How are homosexuals going to explain to a child that having sex with one’s own gender is dysfunction/disordered behavior, while they engage, in the practice.

          I am not a bigot. I do not care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, as long as they do not break the law. However, I do care that homosexual organizations are attempting to force homosexual behavior (just another life choice) on OUR children in government schools and are attempting to equate marriage, which is exclusively the union between one MAN and one Woman, with homosexual pairings.

          There is no proof, whatsoever, that homosexuality is innate/genetic. NONE! Even the APA had to change the wording of its pamphlet, on the subject, a few years ago, to reflect that fact. In addition, Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head of the Human Genome Project and one of the world’s leading scientists who works at the cutting edge of DNA, has concluded that “Homosexuality is not hardwired.”

          The issue is that homosexuals should not adopt the children of others, without their approval, and should have no influence on government school children. Having sex with your own gender is chosen behavior by those who cannot function normally with the opposite sex, for one disordered reason or another.

          Adoption in the case of homosexuals ought to be a moot issue.

          Perhaps you and others may want to find out why homosexuality was ACTUALLY removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

          http://narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf

          Have a nice day, Matt.

          • Mrs. Sixx

            “There is no proof, whatsoever, that homosexuality is innate/genetic. NONE! ”

            Absolute garbage. There are NUMEROUS studies which indicate that gays are born that way. Homosexuality also occurs naturally in over 1500 animal species. The doctor you linked to is on the fringes of psychiatry. He has been vastly panned by the psychiatric community for his writings on homosexuality. In addition, homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder, which is why it is no longer found in the DSM.

            Secondly, homosexuals no more want to force their children to be gay, than any other parent does. They have no need to explain to their children that same homosexual sex is dysfunction/disordered behavior because it is NOT! It is two human beings loving each other, just as they will love their children.

            I certainly hope you do not have children, because you are an absolute bigot who should not be allowed to shape little minds.

            Why don’t you stop listening to the organizations with agendas, and actually read about the UNBIASED studies that have been completed.

          • MattZuke

            “all children deserve to be raised by a mother and a father, which is a normal family unit.”

            Yet they are not, 80,000 go unadopted every year in the US alone. You also ignore single parents where the spouse has died, or unplanned pregnancies where one partner left. It’s sort of 50/50 whether a marriage will end in divorce.

            “What makes homosexuals actually believe they they are capable to raising children properly?”

            What makes you think they’re not. There are already valid citations that illustrate there is little difference by others, and again, you’re being dishonest about the proposition. The proposition is there ARE NOT ENOUGH male/females in partner ships willing to accept someone else’s child.

            “How are homosexuals going to explain to a child that having sex with one’s own gender is dysfunction/disordered behavior,”

            It’s not dysfunctional/disordered behavior. You actually concede this by citing the APA. But here is how you explain it, “I’m a man, I date men, that’s because I’m gay”.

            “I am not a bigot.”

            You are a bigot. You would rather children die than be raised by gays. We’re not talking abortion here, we’re talking about infanticide. This is the very thesis of a bigot, you would use death of children to preserve your point of view rather than accept positive change.

            “There is no proof, whatsoever, that homosexuality is innate/genetic. NONE!”

            Strawman alert. Science doesn’t do proof. Further, you’re being dishonest asserting genetic is the only determining factor regarding development before birth. It’s been established hormones play a role in the development of a child before birth. So you just conceded to being ignorant.

            “Homosexuality is not hardwired”

            If you actually READ the related study you’d observe the assertion that homosexuality is biological, but not hardwired. In any case it’s intellectually dishonest to assert a definitive over a disputed topic. In any case, thanks to the bible and other sources, we know it’s social norm for a certain percent of the population. There IS evidence people are born gay, even if a gay dad isn’t likely to produce gay kids. But research by David Featherstone (University of Illinois) suggests the opposite. Though genetic manipulation, they’re able to produce gay/bisexual fruit flies. This is useful as gay flies making love produce no offspring, thus we can produce insects to pollinate without risks of making a mess. It also kind of disproves YOUR assertion that genetics plays no role what so ever.

            “The issue is that homosexuals should not adopt the children of others, without their approval”

            So children should go unadopted, and kids in China should be killed. But wait, it’s not an issue giving up your Chinese daughter to two gay dudes in China from the parents perspective. It beats hitting her in the head with a rock, and it’s not very likely to be a sex slave. All they need to be is married, which you are opposed to, and you support infanticide.

            In any case, the proposition proposed is children whose parents GAVE UP THEIR RIGHTS AS PARENTS. This is major intellectual dishonesty. You’d rather children who have been REJECTED BY THEIR PARENT(S), go UNADOPTED or MURDERED than raised by gays.

            “Having sex with your own gender is chosen behavior by those who cannot function normally with the opposite sex”

            This is just the bigot talking. They CAN’T function with the opposite sex because THEY ARE NOT PHYSICALLY ATTRACTED TO THE OPPOSITE SEX, THEY ARE FUCKING GAY. That’s what it means to be gay. The Sears catalog is the litmus test when you hit puberty. If you’re a boy and like looking at boys underwear, you’re likely gay. It’s typically not polar. Being gay is perfectly normal for roughly 10% of the population.

            You’re just a bigot dude. Even if you accept two guys raising a kid is less preferred than a man and a woman, which is better the state, or two men. Which is better, two men, or dead. You actually support infanticide OVER two gays in a loving relationship taking on a kid.

        • Georgia

          MattZuke, do you suggest that those who are not readily adopted ought to be farmed out to transvestites, transgenders, those who like to play baby, drink from one-liter baby bottles, soil their diapers and like to be changed by a pretend mommy? How about offering innocent and malleable children to those who have sex with shoes? Whatcha think? None of those behaviors are genetic either, Matt. They are the behaviors of severely damaged human beings. Like homosexual behavior, those behaviors, and other sexual dysfunctions, are chosen behaviors by those who cannot function or cannot function satisfactorily, with the opposite, sex because they are damaged human beings.

          By the way Matt, you need fresh homosexual talking points. Yours are rather stale. As follows:

          Fifty percent of American marriages are not ending in divorce. It’s fiction. A myth. A tragically discouraging urban legend.
          http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm
          It is my opinion that homosexuals are not capable of raising children because they are seriously disordered and dysfunctional human beings.

          I did not cite the APA. I shared that even the homosexual-heavy and homosexual supportive APA had to change its pamphlet to reflect the truth, that there is no proof, whatsoever, that homosexual behavior is innate/genetic. There is nothing to explain. You are trying to convince yourself. Those who cannot function normally with the opposite sex are disordered. Period. It’s not rocket science, Matt.

          Anyone that does not support your beliefs regarding your sexual choices is a bigot to you, Matt. The nature of the beast.

          “There is no proof, whatsoever, that homosexuality is innate/genetic. NONE!”

          Proof Matt. Let’s see the proof that hormones create homosexuals.

          Homosexuals have been attempting to prove that homosexuality is genetic for over a generation and ALL of the studies have been debunked, Matt. ALL of them. Let’s see. Is bisexuality genetic, too? How about those who engage in shoe fetishes? Do ya think that there is a transvestite gene, too. Proof Matt. Let’s see the proof.

          The fact that homosexuality is not hardwired is the proof. The behavior is not genetic. There is nothing to dispute.

          If you want to use fruit flies and monkeys and other beasts and insects to prove your “imaginary” case, please consider that insects often eat their mates, directly after mating, most are not monogamous, and mammals commit infanticide, on a regular basis and of course they eat their own feces. We’re talking about human beings here, Matt. Not beasts but if you want to equate yourself with beasts, so be it. Comments like “…kinda disproves…” are adolescent and mean nothing.

          No child ought to be killed, here, in China or anywhere but that does not mean it is okay to hand a child off to a dysfunctional and disordered adult to fulfill some sort of insane social engineering project or political correctness.

          Homosexuals are not attracted to the opposite sex, because they are severely damaged, fractured, disordered and dysfunctional human beings. End of story.

          Do all homosexuals have to play “shock jock” and use foul language to make their points?

          As I stated, I am not a bigot. I simply do not agree with your foolish rhetoric, which is commonly spewed by homosexuals without a shred of proof. Have a good day, Matt.

          • MattZuke

            “As I stated, I am not a bigot”

            You are a bigot.

            “MattZuke, do you suggest that those who are not readily adopted ought to be farmed out to transvestites, transgenders, those who like to play baby, drink from one-liter baby bottles, soil their diapers and like to be changed by a pretend mommy?”

            If you claim to not be a bigot one more time, I’ll have to put rub your nose in the soiled dipper. Do you have evidence this is typical courtship for gay men, you’d still be a bigot. This is just a cheap scare tactic because you’re promoting infanticide over gays adopting a kid. Besides, AFAIK this is a hetrosexual thing AFAIK.

            Gay just means someone is attracted to the same gender, that’s all. The only promotion is allowing kids to be adopted into stable households.

          • MattZuke

            So let’s review, hetrosexuals can marry, pretend to be babies, shit in dipers, and eat it, and ADOPT A KID, but a homosexual can not, even if they don’t pretend to be a baby. In fact, is sexual morality even adopting criteria for hetrosexuals?

            This makes you a bigot.

            “The fact that homosexuality is not hardwired is the proof. The behavior is not genetic. There is nothing to dispute.”

            Again, you assert genetics is the ONLY factor in per term development, which we know to be FALSE. Further, I already cited cases with fruit flys being forced to be gay with genetic manipulation.

            “If you want to use fruit flies and monkeys and other beasts and insects to prove your “imaginary” case, please consider that insects often eat their mates, directly after mating, most are not monogamous, and mammals commit infanticide, on a regular basis and of course they eat their own feces. ”

            Okay, how can an insect like a praying mantis, where the male only mates once before death, be anything but monogamous. We accept serial monogamy in cases where one spouse dies as monogamy, so you’re jumping the shark here.

            This is what we call moving the goalposts, a form of intellectual dishonesty. Your assertion was homosexuality is NOT genetic. There is evidence to the contrary. “But they’re not human” doesn’t really count for much since IF homosexuality was NEVER genetic, then we wouldn’t be able to tweek the DNA of fruit flies to make them gay.

            All your diatribe applies to humans as well. Humans are not monogamous, commit infanticide, eat their own feces and you already conceded to. In any case, this is an appeal to an extreme, which doesn’t apply since YOUR standard of evidence was genetic. Your assertion is falsified, homosexuality has been observed to be a genetic trait that can be triggered.

            No wonder you jumped the shark. Your bigotry is based entirely on the idea that homosexuals are NOT born that way, an assertion that is not an objective fact. If it’s a choice, homos are perverts, and killing children is preferred to a pervert adopting one. But if homosexuality is natural, you’re just a inhuman bigot. The evidence leans toward homosexuality is natural, and has utility in population control.

          • MattZuke

            “No child ought to be killed, here, in China or anywhere but that does not mean it is okay to hand a child off to a dysfunctional and disordered adult to fulfill some sort of insane social engineering project or political correctness.”

            This is just passive aggressive speak for murder kids, better than raised by gays.

            We need to look NO further than Ms. Palin here. She’s uneducated, dysfunctional, and a single parent. She has the right to breed even though she has NO ability what so ever to take care of a child. This is counter to your assertion that kids have the right to a mom and a dad.

            Unless you can provide objective evidence that a stable gay couple, with a stable income, is inferior to a woman like Ms. Palin who can’t even figure out birth control, I’ll support gay marriage and gay adoption.

            “Homosexuals are not attracted to the opposite sex, because they are severely damaged, fractured, disordered and dysfunctional human beings. End of story.”

            Evidence? Oh wait, you’re just a bigot. You promote hate philosophy that justifies murdering of gays, and you tell yourself it’s okay because they’re not people. You don’t have any evidence homosexuals are sum humans worthy of nothing but extermination.

            “As I stated, I am not a bigot. I simply do not agree with your foolish rhetoric, which is commonly spewed by homosexuals without a shred of proof.”

            I’m not the bigot who proposes gays like to dress up as babies and poop in diapers. That’s just bat-shit crazy.

            Anyhow the current area of research in regards to homosexuality is
            1) Genes
            2) Hormones
            3) Birth order

            As far as genes go, we have twin studies that show that if one twin is gay, the other twin is gay 70% of the time. If genetics was a null factor, there would be little difference over the general population. The evidence is stronger for genes playing a role in sexual preference than being right or left handed.

            Birth order plays a role, the more boys a woman bears, the higher the odds that boy will be gay.

            There is a lot more evidence supporting BORN that way than your assertion of being a sub-human pervert.

            So yeah, you are a bigot.

          • MattZuke

            “How about offering innocent and malleable children to those who have sex with shoes? Whatcha think? ”

            This is allowed already. This is not an issue. Sexual behavior is NOT a criteria for adoption or procreation. You can have as much sex with as many shoes as you like. I’ve never heard of such a thing, but I’ll leave it to the Extremist Christians to be experts in deviant behavior. Shoe sex is not even covered in Levitician Law, and they are quite specific.

            But I think you’re confusing having sex with shoes with shoe fetishism, which is actually not unusual to some degree. You are just a bigot :P

  • Pingback: Bristol, Please Stop Talking… « Lefty on the Left

  • Dillinger

    The only negative side effect to a child growing up with two same sex parents is other people’s bigotry.

    • Georgia

      Dillinger — No disrespect intended, however, your statement is not necessarily true. Keep in mind, that homosexuals represent a mere 3% of the US population, while you digest the following information.

      Administration Funds New HIV Prevention Initiative Targeting Gay and Bisexual Men | The White House

      “..The impact of the epidemic on this group is staggering. Last August, CDC released preliminary estimates showing that gay and bisexual men were 50 times more likely than all other risk groups to contract HIV. Although gay and bisexual men represent approximately three percent of the United States population, they account for 53% of new HIV infections…”
      http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/02/07/administration-funds-new-hiv-prevention-initiative-targeting-gay-and-bisexual-men

      Google: Americans for Truth » Man-Boy Sex and the Murder of 10 Year Old …

      Google: The tragic story of Jesse Dirkhising How confused 13-year-old died brutal death as a sex toy

      Google: Boy slaughtered because he would not call moms lesbian lover Daddy

      Google: Police arrest lesbians for ‘torturing’ boy, 5

      Google: Lesbian Couple Drug, Torture and Starve Seven-Year-Old Boy

      Google: Lesbian teacher Amanda Thompson

      Google: Lesbian teacher rapist off hook no jail

      • SimplicityComplex

        Well, that pretty much settles it. Apparently, given the compelling evidence you’ve provided, gays and lesbians are capable of abusing children, and they’re never fit to be parents because this means they must all be depraved and abusive. I guess that means that because of the likes of Riley Choate and Kimberly Kubina, Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz, Robert L. Gaskill, Larry and Carri Williams, Latoya Jackson and Jose Meza, Alexander and Lyudmila Kozlov, and Jason Dunikowski and Andreia Huffman, just to name a handful of heterosexual-identified horrific monsters, all heterosexual people should be kept from adopting or reproducing. Traffic’s going to be much more tolerable once the population starts thinning down. Oh yeah, there’s also the 2004 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study where biological (therefore presumably heterosexual) parents were the abusers in 77% of the confirmed cases of child abuse and neglect. I think that trumps the potential for negative side effects within 3% of the population, as you state the American homosexual population to be. Of course, an orphanage is much preferable to the horrors of a well-decorated home anyway. May your children grow to be better than you.

        • Georgia

          SimplicityComplex, I never said “all”. There are homosexuals that would never hurt a child but there are many homosexuals that have and do, and homosexuals represent only 3% of the population. Staggering. Surely you are aware of NAMBLA and other like-minded groups? You may find this interesting:

          ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL DECIDES NOT TO GRANT CONSULTATIVE STATUS TO INTERNATIONAL LESBIAN AND GA http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/ECOSOC6004.doc.htm
          *** International Lesbian and Gay Association is the largest homosexual organization in the world.

          • SimplicityComplex

            Pedophilia of any kind is no more relatable to homosexual identity as it is to heterosexual identity. Saying that gays shouldn’t have access to kids because of groups like NAMBLA is like saying that Christians shouldn’t have access to kids because of the pedophilic atrocities of the Catholic clergy. It’s a hugely overreaching and repugnant generalization. I don’t know what brought you to feel so condemnatory to gays as abnormal and dysfunctioned, but I hope you don’t have the misfortune of being damaged in a similar fashion as the way this condemnatory mentality damages so many innocent people. Good day.

        • Georgia

          SimplicityComplex, Regarding your comment about the Catholic Priest scandal, you appear to be poorly informed. Again, since homosexuals represent a mere 3% of the population, the number of sex crimes perpetrated on children by homosexuals is staggering.

          I agree that the Catholic Church priest scandal was reprehensible! However, you missed a point somewhere along the line. Regarding the results of the John Jay Study conducted commissioned by America’s bishops (from 1950 forward) — found that 80 percent of the alleged victims were MALE! Did you get that SimplicityComplex? ALL Catholic priests are MALE. Since the John Jay Study presented its results, the Pope has made it clear that homosexuals may no longer serve as priests.

          As I shared earlier, I do not care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, as long as they do not break the law. Good day to you, as well.

          • Sky

            Would you call a male who is attracted to 8 year old little girls, heterosexual? No? Then why would you call a male who is attracted to 8 year old little boys, homosexual?

            Homosexuals and heterosexuals are attracted to sexually mature adults.

            Pedophiles are attracted to CHILDREN.

            A pedophile will either have same-sex attraction or opposite sex attraction, sometimes both. But again, they are *neither* gay nor straight, THEY ARE PEDOPHILES.

            It is intellectually dishonest to try to compare pedophilia with homosexuality.

      • Lavender Pitt

        You’re disgusting.

      • MattZuke

        “Keep in mind, that homosexuals represent a mere 3%”

        So, because the Jews only represent a .22% world demographic, they have no entitlements? What about Native Americans, they only represent .9% in the US.

        “Surely you are aware of NAMBLA and other like-minded groups?”

        And surely YOU are aware that pedos in NAMbLA are married, make kids, and diddle them?

        This is where you get disturbed. Homosexuals are defined as those who are attracted to sexually mature people of their own gender. What you’re talking about are pedophiles. Pedophiles are threatened by secondary sexual attributes. I don’t fully understand pedophilia but you’re addressing your bigotry toward grown men, or women, who choose to share a bed with consenting adults. Being able to function sexually with an adult on a regular basis kind suggests they’re not a pedophile.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X