Probably because the girls had been in a happy relationship for 5 months.

According to the NCAVP's statistics on anti-"gay" violence, 83 percent of all violence committed against "gays" is carried out by other "gays" in domestic situations. This does not even count "gay-on-gay" violence committed outside the home

NoMad - Please don't state silly "statistics" without proof to back them up. What in the world are you talking about? Get a life and grow up!

Please educate yourself and look for the information. I gave you the "NCAVP", I'm sorry it was not a Pro-Gay site. I know it's funny how that works.

I looked it up. The NCAVP is a pro-gay site, yet I found nothing on the statistics you sited. Care to show us the link?

Well said; agreed. Very sad.

An analysis of FBI statistics on hate crimes committed against homosexuals during the time period 2000-2008 shows that the probability of any individual homosexual being the victim of a hate crime during his or her entire life span is slightly more than one percent. Interestingly, "gays" are more likely to commit hate crimes against "straights" than "straights" are to commit hate crimes against "gays." According to the FBI, there are 3.98 hate crimes committed by each million heterosexuals annually against homosexuals, and there are 4.44 hate crimes committed by each million homosexuals annually against heterosexuals.

Thank you, "NoMad", for offering a few facts to leaven an otherwise emotion laden "discussion" (if that term can be applied to ideologues yelling at each other), with specific references to your posts at Msg. #26.2, 26.4, and 28.1. As I noted in my own commentary, the motive for these shootings has not been discerned, and it is perfectly possible that the murdered young woman was shot because she was "there" and not because she was anything else.

NoMad, you should learn how to do research. None of your statistics came from the FBI; they came from conservative websites (probably anti-gay).

Here is information from the FBI:

Sexual-orientation bias

In 2010, law enforcement agencies reported 1,470 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias. Of these offenses:

• 57.9 percent were classified as anti-male homosexual bias.
• 27.4 percent were reported as anti-homosexual bias.
• 11.4 percent were prompted by an anti-female homosexual bias.
• 1.4 percent were the result of an anti-heterosexual bias.
• 1.9 percent were classified as anti-bisexual bias.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses

Looks like you're completely wrong about who's more likely to attack others, and for what reason.

Thanks for the real stats Erin. It was obvious that NoMad was quoting right wing propoganda "stats." II have never in my life heard about a single incident of gays attacking straights for being straight. The out and out lies on the right are incredible enough but even when you point out that they are lies the knuckle dragging righties just carry on.

Im not republican, I just want to point out that your stats do not prove NoMad wrong. His stats are for every million gay people, and for every million straight person. Of course there are more hate crimes committed against gay people from straight people. This is because there are far more straight people than gay people. Thats like saying more North Koreans die in North Koreans than South Koreans, but who do you think it would be more dangerous for? His stats say that gay people are more likely to do hate crimes against straight people than the other way around, not that more hate crimes are committed by straight people. Please take a stats class so you can know the difference. I dont know if he is right or wrong, but you proved nothing besides the fact you dont know what he was talking about.

Actually ErinNJ, your stats did not prove NoMad wrong at all. His stat was was that gay people are more likely to carry out a hate crime based on percentage, not number. Of course more hate crimes are carried out against gays by straights. There are more straight people in the world, so they are going to commit more crimes. It does not mean a gay person is not more likely to commit the crime. Look at it like this, more North Koreans die in North Koreans than South Koreans, but who do you think it would be more dangerous for to be in the country? So gay people can be more likely to commit a hate crime than a straight person, while still having more hate crimes committed against gays as a whole. Please learn about statistics before you try to call someone wrong, and prove your own ignorance.

leroy, no lies here, just 2 guys who dont know what they are talking about

NoMad may be wrong btw, idk, just pointing out that the 2 stats are not contradictory

P.S. I support gay rights, I just dont like ignorance on either side

Woops, thought my comment hadnt posted, so I retyped it. My bad

MrBurns, NoMad's stats are incorrect, and there is absolutely no evidence to support them. The stats I provided mention "anti-heterosexual bias," but they do not say that homosexuals committed those crimes.

YOU need to learn to interpret statistics, as well as reading comprehension.

Really, you know they are incorrect based on what exactly. Your stats also never mention that heterosexuals committed the crimes against the homosexuals, so whats your point. Im merely pointing out that you discredit his statistic, with a statistic that says something completely different. Sorry, its not me that needs better reading comprehension.

Wait a moment, please.......read your post. It sounds as though you have some issues with ignorance and hatred yourself..LOL You paint with a very broad brush, madinsb.

Hear Hear!! Its two young high school women shot down. Thats all that needs to be said. Prayers out for the families!

Not all religions are based on hate. The religions that are are the ones that are not good for mankind.

You all realize that this person is trolling, correct?

Ignorant comment...

NoMad, your posts make no sense. Therapy may help!

No, I think differently. Homosexuals have been on this planet for centuries. They have been treated in some societies as outcasts. However, modern society is reviewing these views and seeing this as cruel and unwarranted. These people are human beings too. So let's treat them as such plus the talk that Like the homosexual marriage affects a heterosexual marriage is nothing but a lie.

Or perhaps they need to realize that we live in a country which has a separation of church and state, where "traditional values" are not necessarily enshrined in "law". And that tolerance dictates allowing that difference when there is no direct harm caused by someone else violating your "traditional values".

Tell me how gay marriage (or abortion, for that matter) actually harms anyone, and I'll reconsider. Until then, I see no reason it should be illegal... regardless of anyone's religious beliefs.

And PS... I learned about the Constitution and the separation of church and state in a Catholic school. The position of the Church, or my own religious beliefs on the subject, or YOURS, is entirely beside the point when it comes to a discussion of whether or not it should be illegal in the United States.

The homosexual agenda is just to be allowed to live as citizens with equal rights as everyone else. You're the @!$%#s who want special rights: to enshrine your own bigotry in law. That is not a right you have.

NoMad,

Your posts are ignorant and damaging. Stop bullying two children and using their trajedy as a pulpit for your misinformation and hate.

Whitestar <><><> I agree with you that gay marriage probably does not harm straight marriage. However, your contention that--QUOTE "Tell me how...abortion...actually harms anyone, and I'll reconsider." UNQUOTE, is rediculous. Abortion harms the unborn baby who is aborted. Call it a fetus if you wish, but it is the same entity and it is human. That it is a human is an undesputable fact, acknowledged by scientists and also by the Supreme court in Roe v. Wade. After acknowledging the fetus's humanity, the SCOTUS squirmed out of its inconsistent position by drawing a difference between a "human" and a "person," In this their honors ("but, then, they are honorable men. So are they all, all honorable men" W. Shakespeare) did not plow new ground. The Supreme Court had used the same device more than a century before in upholding slavery. In any case, person or not, the baby/fetus, who is personally absolutely innocent of ANY crime against humans or sin against God and is utterly defenseless, is killed by agonizingly painfull means.

That it is a human is an undesputable fact, acknowledged by scientists and also by the Supreme court in Roe v. Wade.

WRONG. In fact, the Supreme Court was very careful NOT to make any determination about when life begins, because as they said

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973)

In any event, a fetus is a fetus, with no rights as a person -- those are conferred after the fetus emerges from the womb and draws its first unaided breath. It is not an "unborn baby".

ErinNJ <><><> If the Supreme Court was careful NOT to make any determination about when life begins----then that means the Supreme Court DID NOT determine that life begins at birth, or even viability. Please read that last sentence again>>>>>s l o w l y. My original contention still stands. Despite your and the Supreme Court's word manipulation, there was general agreement among "those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology" that the fetus was human life until Roe v. Wade. There was a certain amount of disagreement on the nature and quality of that life, but that it was human was not doubted. In law, there was a certain recognition that the fetus had certain rights. It could inherit. If her/his father had died previous to its birth, his estate, in the name of the unborn could bring to court, all factors which the father could have if still living. Almost everywhere, a pregnant woman could not be executed because this would cause the death of the child. Indeed, while I do not doubt that it occasionally took place, I know of no place anywhere on Earth that it is written in law that a woman can be executed even if she is pregnant. There are several cases widely known in which a pregnant woman survived when males were executed, but sentiments had changed by the time of the baby's birth, thus saving the mother's life and usually, even her freedom. Physicians, in those days, may have among themselves spoken of the fetus, because doctors, when talking together tend to speak doctorese, but they seldom---if ever---called the unborn anything but baby, or unborn baby, when speaking to the mother or other family or even in speaking to the public. All this changed after Roe v. Wade when abortion supporters made a deliberate unilateral decision to downgrade the child in order to make the ex-posto facto claim the baby wasn't human. IN ANY CASE, even if you, Erin, are right, it is still true that the aborted baby, fetus if you will (The word 'fetus', comes from Latin and in that language it means "child."), still---whatever it is---suffers agony during an abortion. Abortion supporters have disputed that last statement. They have claimed the baby feels no pain. They have NEVER been able to prove what they claim, that the child/fetus doesn't feel pain tell it reaches a certain point in development. It is true that prolifers cannot, at this point, prove the preborn does feel pain, but the prochoicers EQUALY CANNOT prove that is does not feel pain.

Actually, Matilda, you're still wrong: personhood was never conferred on the unborn, even prior to Roe v. Wade:

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, 2, cl. 2, and 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54 [410 U.S. 113, 158]

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. 55 This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented. McGarvey v. Magee-Womens Hospital, 340 F. Supp. 751 (WD Pa. 1972); Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 31 N. Y. 2d 194, 286 N. E. 2d 887 (1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-434; Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730. Cf. Cheaney v. State, __— Ind., at ___, 285 N. E. 2d, at 270; Montana v. Rogers, 278 F.2d 68, 72 (CA7 1960), aff'd sub nom. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961); Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 3d 619, 470 P.2d 617 (1970); State v. Dickinson, 28 [410 U.S. 113, 159] Ohio St. 2d 65, 275 N. E. 2d 599 (1971).

Roe v. Wade, 419 US 113 (1973)

Furthermore, according to that same ruling:

It is undisputed that at common law, abortion performed before "quickening" - the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy 20 - was not an indictable offense. 21 The absence [410 U.S. 113, 133] of a common-law crime for pre-quickening abortion appears to have developed from a confluence of earlier philosophical, theological, and civil and canon law concepts of when life begins. These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became "formed" or recognizably human, or in terms of when a "person" came into being, that is, infused with a "soul" or "animated." A loose consensus evolved in early English law that these events occurred at some point between conception and live birth. 22 This was "mediate animation." Although [410 U.S. 113, 134] Christian theology and the canon law came to fix the point of animation at 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female, a view that persisted until the 19th century, there was otherwise little agreement about the precise time of formation or animation. There was agreement, however, that prior to this point the fetus was to be regarded as part of the mother, and its destruction, therefore, was not homicide. Due to continued uncertainty about the precise time when animation occurred, to the lack of any empirical basis for the 40-80-day view, and perhaps to Aquinas' definition of movement as one of the two first principles of life, Bracton focused upon quickening as the critical point. The significance of quickening was echoed by later common-law scholars and found its way into the received common law in this country.

Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973)

You might want to learn how to do research before you post.

Ah, the dreaded "homosexual agenda".
I have to laugh every time someone brings it up.

Don't necessarily disagree with you, but the hatred is usually directed at gay males more than lesbians.

I'll wait for the investigation. I don't think it will go unsolved.

Great? And would it bother you less if they were not HOTTTTT?????