Homosexual Activist: “Hate Group” Charge Doesn’t Require “Hate”

Peter Sprigg, FRC Blog, August 28, 2012

On August 15, a gunman, apparently hostile to our positions on the issue of homosexuality, shot one of my colleagues in the lobby of the Family Research Council headquarters. In the wake of this attack, even liberal journalists,  such as Dana Milbank of The Washington Post and James Kirchick (named Journalist of the Year in 2007 by the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association), have called on the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and other homosexual activists to back off on their inflammatory labeling of FRC as an “anti-gay hate group.”

The SPLC refused. Since SPLC has doubled down on the “hate group” charge, FRC recently posted a brief response to some of the key charges made by SPLC in support of this defamatory label. At the end, the piece addressed what would seem to be the key issue with the following question and answer:

Does FRC “hate” homosexuals?

As a Christian organization, we have an obligation to love our neighbor—including our neighbors who experience same-sex attractions. However, we believe sexual acts between persons of the same sex are objectively harmful to those who choose to engage in them and to society at large, in addition to being forbidden by Scripture. Since the essence of love is to desire the best for a person and act to bring that about, we believe the most loving thing we can do is discourage such self-destructive conduct, rather than affirm it. We are happy to debate those who disagree with us regarding the harms of homosexual conduct, but there is no justification for anyone to impugn our motives with false labels such as “hate.”

One homosexual blogger (and regular critic of FRC) did a detailed critique of the FRC Issue Brief. To this final point, he emphasized that the SPLC “hate group” label is not because of our political positions, but because we support those positions by saying things which (they claim) are untrue.

After reiterating this SPLC definition of an “anti-gay hate group,” the writer then says the following:

Now whether or not FRC hates gays is irrelevant.

Say what?

“[W]hether or not FRC hates gays is irrelevant” (emphasis added) to the question of whether we are an “anti-gay hate group”?

I certainly appreciate the (implicit) concession that FRC may not, in fact, actually hate homosexuals at all.


I think this statement—”whether or not FRC hates gays is irrelevant”—is what lawyers call an “admission against interest.” It shows, quite clearly (albeit perhaps accidentally), that the “hate group” label is not meant to be a description of reality.

That label is, instead, a weapon—merely a tool to be used against certain pro-family groups to cut us out of the public debate on crucial issues. {snip}



Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Dear Mr. Homosexual Activist,

    Today’s “religious right” is, like American society in general, less “homophobic” than their counterparts of a generation ago.  Yet, the SPLC of a generation ago didn’t see fit to add the “religious right” groups of a generation ago to its hit list.

    What say you?

    Unless you’re lost, Mr. (or should that be Ms.) Homosexual Activist, let me  un-lose you:  The SPLC is hurting for money and wants into your wallet (or purse).

  • IanJMacDonald

    A “hate group” is nothing more than a group that the $PLC hates.

  • B

    I guess working to prevent gay couples
    from marrying is not hate so long as you do it with a smile on your face and a
    bible under your arm. Who do these intolerant bible bigots think they are
    fooling? Their god impregnates a 12 year old married virgin without her consent
    and they all stand up and applaud and say yea, I’ll worship that! But two gay
    people who love each other and want to get married freaks them out?

    I will say this to all the race realists
    out there, you have zero credibility complaining about racial equality dogma,
    and it is indeed dogma, if you do so while clinging to religious dogma with your
    other hand. Nothing could be more hypocritical than pointing out the obvious
    flaws in racial equality dogma while embracing the absurd supernatural claims of
    religious dogmas. One either is for or against dogma. It takes no courage to see
    right through and reject the dogmas that don’t personally appeal to you while
    clinging to the flavors of dogma you find appealing and doing so is the epitome
    of hypocrisy.

    • libertarian1234

      “I guess working to prevent gay couples from marrying is not hate so long as you do it with a smile on your face and a bible under your arm. ”

      Almost as strong as the instinct to survive, nature instilled in all living creatures the instinct to perpetuate its species.  Anything in opposition to that is regarded as repulsive.

      The natural revulsion against homosexuality is an inborn trait that has nothing to do with hate.

      And it has nothing to do with religion either.

      Aiding and abetting homosexuality is as naturally disgusting to normal people as aiding and abetting suicide, both of which are traits buried deep within our psyches.

      • B

        Sex and marriage are two unrelated subjects. Both married and single people have sex. Celibate people also get married. Your personal opinions about homosexual sex are irrelevant to the fact that there is no more harm to a consensual gay relationship then there is to a consensual straight relationship and to want to deny gay people the right to marry over nothing more than your hereditary prejudices towards homosexuality is just plain wrong. It is also absurd for you to think you are going to prevent gay sex by preventing gay marriage. The only thing you are “aiding and abetting” is a lack of respect for the feedoms of others unlike yourself in a country founded on personal freedoms. 

        • haroldcrews

          Perhaps you’re referring to a different country, but in the US homosexual ‘marriage’ has never been recognized (except in the last few years) even during the founding period.  So I’m unsure what personal freedoms you speak of that includes homosexual ‘marriage’.

          If there is no more harm to homosexual relationships then why are there higher rates of suicide, substance abuse, partner abuse (in male homosexual relationships), lower rates of monogamy (in male homosexual relationships) , more STD’s and a shorter life expectancy?  All these pathologies are found in higher rates among homosexual relationships in contrast to heterosexual relationships.

          • ncpride

            Also Harold, every time same sex marriage has been put to the vote in various states, the people shoot it down and I find it hard to believe they were all Christians. So far, the PEOPLE of this country object to ‘gay marriage’ for many reasons of their own other than religion I’m sure, so these activists need to stop laying all the blame there. I guess we’re just a nation of haters according to them, huh?

          • B

            There is not a single practical reason to oppose gay marriage. There is very  good reason we should never put the rights of minority groups up to majority vote and the prejudice so obvious in the gay marriage issue is a very good example of that. Should men decide if women can vote? Should whites vote on the slavery of blacks?

          • ncpride

            The problem with that logic,B, is that the people of these states that have voted down gay marriage are a diverse group, from Whites, blacks, Asians, mexicans to different religions, no religion, different ideology…and so forth. The people of these states have spoken and said no.

          • mistermark123

            ncpride, we live in a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy, so “the people” don’t have the final word; the courts do, as the Founding Fathers intended.

          • B

            Could the higher rates of suicide and substance abuse be the result of the widespread prejudice and bigotry of so many narrow minded heterosexuals clinging to their irrational hereditary prejudices towards homosexuality thanks in a large part to christian anti-gay dogma?

            As to domestic violence rates, what you claim is false about gays but true about blacks.

          •  The high rates of substance abuse among homosexual men are the result of their own choices.  No fewer than three gay men have told me that in terms of their being frustrated with it.  Many homosexuals live in homosexual-friendly areas, so I don’t know where this “narrow minded bigotry” that supposedly drives them to using drugs would be coming from in their immediate vicinity.  Yet, somehow, many homosexual men in places where there is no overt bigotry against their lifestyle choices are still drug addicts.

        • libertarian1234

          “Your personal opinions about homosexual sex are irrelevant to the fact that there is no more harm to a consensual gay relationship then there is to a consensual straight relationship.”
          Harm?  I’ll be back to you on that one.
          Not many people care what you do to each other,  so long as you stay out of our lives.  And that is not a personal opinion.  It is,  of course, shared by the vast, vast majority which is why you’re having so much difficulty being accepted.  
          The big objections comes from the fact you and other activists by hook or crook, and,  especially via disingenuous propaganda,  use an in-your-face approach to DEMAND acceptance, and you despise anyone who refuses to make you a part of mainstream society as just another lifestyle.
          “It is also absurd for you to think you are going to prevent gay sex by preventing gay marriage.”
          Preventing homosexual perversions?  Sorry, but you’re not comprehending my comments.  Most of us don’t care what you do so long as you keep it to yourselves, but you can’t seem to do that. 
          Too, there’s nothing you’ve written that offers any defense of your deplortable activities or your hate-rhetoric, and by referring to innate instincts as hereditary factors doesn’t address the fact that such traits come from nature itself not family lineage.

          And your claim that you have a “right” to marry the same sex misses the mark a bit as well, because marriage is not a right.  Society has, by virtue of majority opinion, the right to set the mores it believes will best create a stable, well-adjusted community.

          If you prefer a community that allows homosexuality, beastiality or anything else, you DO have the right to move away and start your own nation.

          But you don’t have the right to try to alter human nature to gain acceptance.

          • B

            Get over yourself. Nobody is looking for your acceptance or approval. You see, I can see the hypocrisy and sheer stupidity in supernatural religious beleifs and I even consider taking a young child and blurring the line between fantasy and reality with religious dogma harmul and immoral but that does not mean I have to be in favor of banning this bronze age foolishness for those who feel they need it. I’m just much more of an American than you I guess for you are being very disengenous to argue this is about beleifs and acceptance. You are free to think less of gay people as I am free to think less of those who surrender their mind over to religious dogma but neither of us as Americans should be trying to impose our beliefs onto the others. That’s what America is supposed to be about.

          • libertarian1234

            “Get over yourself. Nobody is looking for your acceptance or approval.”

            Of course you are.  Why else would you go to such an extent to promote your lifestyle?

            However, to be more precise, you’re not “looking” for acceptance, you’re DEMANDING it, and it isn’t just me that thinks so. The vast majority of normal people do not want you flaunting your perversions.  What part of that do you fail to understand?

            If there is a bronz-age foolishness today, it is impositions homosexual activists and far left radicals want to force on others in an attempt to circumvent or nullify human nature.
            Such nonsensical flim flam has no place in the 21st century.

            Instead of trying to change the entire world of multi-billions of people, why don’t you seek help and strive for normalcy?  Homosexuality is akin to beastiality in that both are mental abberrations that have probably came about through some kind of trauma early in life in which same-sex and/or animal attractions have replaced normal, natural inclinations toward humans of the opposite sex.  The trauma usually occurs slowly over a period of time.

            While it has been agreed that a few homosexuals are born with a cross-wiring of sorts, the VAST majority develop mental disorders which subvert normal sexual attractions early in life.

            There are theories which consider that people who have sexual obsession with objects also fall into the category involving homosexuality/beastiality,  because the reasons for their affliction involve basically the same types of causes.

            Trying to single me out as the lone person objecting to your lifestyle won’t work, as the vast majority of people feel the same way I do which has been demonstrated time after time.

            Even most of the ones who say they don’t object to homosexuals or homosexual marriage say that only to go along to get along.

            Nature inculcates within them the same disgust for unnatural attraction/sex as it does for those who speak out against it.

            There’s nothing you or any other homosexual activist can try to spin to make your illness acceptable to the majority, so your best bet is to quit your in-your-face outrages, because the tactic has made homosexuals more enemies in the last few years than all the prior years combined.

    • razorrare

      Whats the B stand for…Blasphemy?

      • B

        Great spirits have always encountered violent
        opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does
        not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously
        uses his intelligence.– Albert Einstein

        • razorrare

          “Life is too complicated as having been the result of an accident”–Albert  Einstein…

          “Do you think i come to bring peace to the world? No, i tell you,but division”–Jesus Christ…

          minds dont matter, its the soul that matters–God allows for demons to possess great minds–but not the soul…

          I Corinthians 13:12–For now we look through  a mirror darkly,but then face to face…

          The gospel has been spread throughout the world which allows Christs return as foretold in Revelations. 

        • razorrare

          A demon possessed moderator censured my reply to you 😉

        • 5n4k33y3s

           Albert Einstein wasn’t talking about being a politically belligerent f4g.

    • haroldcrews

      If you’re going to criticize Christianity/Christians you ought to know something about it/us.  The Blessed Virgin Mary consented to be the mother of Jesus.  Luke 1: 38 ‘And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word.  And the angel departed from her.’ Additionally traditionally the BVM is believed to have been fourteen at the Annunciation; not twelve.  Don’t expect people to take your criticisms seriously when you have basic facts wrong.

      • B

        Luke writes something about 100 years after the supposed death of Christ claiming his mother 14 year old Mary consented and you just accept that as fact?  Using the dogma to validate the dogma is circular reasoning.

        You can’t expect rational people to take your bible seriously when it is full of absurd claims of supernatural magic that defy the laws of nature.

        • haroldcrews

          As opposed to your claims based on absolutely nothing yes I do expect rational people to accept it.

          • B

            Luke lived after Jesus, he never met his mother. Look it up for yourself I don’t think you will find any disagreement on that.

            You should apply the same level of scrutiny to your supernatural beliefs and you do to things that don’t personally appeal to you for not to do that is hypocritical.

          • David Ashton

                I am not religious but have some knowledge of New Testament criticism and Christian origins.  There would be plenty of disagreement with your bald assertion that Luke never met Mary.  He was a contemporary of Paul who knew leading disciples of Jesus who had met together with his mother according to Luke’s own account (Acts 1.14).  As a doctor, some commentators think, he could well have had a more intimate access to Mary and her reminiscences (e.g. Luke 2:39-51).     

        • 5n4k33y3s

           Atheists ought to praise Jesus Christ. Just take the moral example at face value for a start. You don’t have to believe in supernatural miracles to be a devotee.

    • You would be better off realizing that homosexuality is an abberation of nature much like a birth defect. Just because you have an organization of Juju lawyers who want to further divide white christian society and make money at the same time does not justify what they are doing or what homosexuality stands for.

      Gays have the identical rights of hetero-people. I am straight and I cannot marry someone of the sex nor can a gay. Absolutely equal.

      Gays should not be discriminated against but neither should they be organizing marches and throwing their sexual lifestyles into the public arena for the sake of special privilieges. They would be wise to spend their time keeping their sexual pratices behind bedroom doors like everyone else. If they feel they can’t be rehabilitated, or blend with straight society, or keep their preverted practices to themselves perhaps they should move to Sweden or Amsterdam or some other haven that enjoys the freak show.

      Since the libs love abortion so much maybe they can come up with a pregnancy test to see if a child will be born gay or not and then we won’t need this conversation in the future.

    •  I agree, many of the race realists don’t like homosexuals because of the magic man in the sky.  The gays gentrify neighborhoods and keep the blacks out.

      Another thing about Christianity is that it purports an egalitarian equality that is anathema to race realism.  Christianity is one of the reasons Somalis get dropped into neighborhoods and illegal immigrants are sheltered and defended.

      • Christianity has been perverted by multiculturalism. Christianity does NOT purport egalitarian equality. During the colonial period the Christian nations built schools and hospitals for the locals while making tons of money off of them. They didn’t view them as equals, but still helped them where they could. Only very recently has any Christian tried to say everyone is equal. Traditionally it was understood people and races are different, but all are equally deserving of compassion. Welfare is not charity, any “real” Christian knows this. Charity is face to face and includes expectations.

        Hopefully after the collapse we can get “real” Christianity back. What we have now is some lame PC perversion of scripture.

      • Many cities of any size have a gay district. Most people accept it and even venture there for the ambiance of renovated historic homes.

        Gay communities, or more to the point, white gay communities, are ubiquitous and unquestioned. Few people if any ever question why gays are ‘allowed’ to have their own districts. This, of course, is something that is forbidden for whites.

        FLAG WARS (PBS):

        Shot over a four-year period, Linda Goode Bryant and Laura Poitras’ Flag Wars is a poignant and very personal look at a community in Columbus, Ohio, undergoing gentrification. What happens when gay white homebuyers move into a working-class black neighborhood? As the new residents restore the beautiful but run-down homes, black homeowners must fight to hold onto their community and heritage. The inevitable clashes expose prejudice and self-interest on both sides, as well as the common dream to have a home to call your own. Winner of the Jury Award at the South by Southwest Film Festival, Flag Wars is a candid, unvarnished portrait of privilege, poverty and local politics taking place across America. An Independent Television Service (ITVS) and National Black Programming Consortium (NBPC) co-presentation. A Diverse Voices Project (DVP) Selection.


      • Sherman_McCoy

        RP’s stance does make sense.  

        Yet, my sense is that homosexuals won’t be satisfied until everyone regards homosexuality as normal, and even preferable.  And, as difficult as it might be to believe, many of them do believe in God, and seem to want Him to rewrite Scripture to make homosexuality a Sacrament.  Then, they can be accepted and admired not just societally, but spiritually.

        (With apologies to my atheist fellow racial realists), as far as my RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINT on homosexuality goes, the Bible describes it as sin.  It is no better nor worse than any other sin, in God’s eyes.  My best friend from high school and his partner are coming for a visit, and I have no concerns about their behavior around my family.  They are always welcome in my home, and never behave unseemly around my young children.  If my friend were to be in a different-sex relationship without benefit of clergy, they would still be “living in sin”.  But sin is sin, and I refuse to call it by any other name.  To do so would be to deny my own integrity.  

        The other posters have alluded to an inconsistency in the beliefs of some racial realists. I am honest enough to admit to carrying some conflicting beliefs.  I don’t believe in macro-evolution, and yet, how better to explain the painfully low average IQs of the blacks?  I believe that abortion for the convenience of the parents is murder, except when it is used to reduce the population of a dangerous group of predators.  Christ told His disciples to evangelize the whole world, but I believe that sending money and missionaries to Africa is, at best, a waste, and at worst, casting pearls before swine who cannot possibly understand what is being presented as more than magic.

        Reconciling what I can observe with what I am told from the pulpit is one of the major causes of my internal conflict.

    • The__Bobster

      I see our fudge-packing atheist troll is back.

      What’s the matter? Don’t you like the fact that organized religion opposes your perversion?

      There’s a lot to respond to here.

      By contemporary mores, I would not want my 12 daughter to become pregnant. However, the biological reality is that a human female reaches puberty around that age and can become pregnant which only proves that they are biologically ready to give birth. In nature, an animal doesn’t reach sexual maturity and then wait another four or five years to have sex.

      I’m not advocating sex with underage girls and as I said, I would be homicidal if my 12 year old daughter became pregnant but the biological reality is that nature, not contemporary social mores, drives reproduction.

      Regarding gay marriage.

      I used to live in NYC and I worked with gay men and I was keenly aware of gay politics.
      I would have a gay co-worker come in Monday morning and talk about his new boyfriend that he met over the weekend. He was in heaven and in love. However, these relationships seemed to last about two weeks. After the flaming passion burned out, he was on to his next boyfriend. Boyfriend seemed to be nothing more than a term to describe who he was having sex with this week.

      As for the political side of gay marriage, this was being pushed because of AIDS.

      Gays weren’t pushing for marriage because of love. They were pushing marriage because generally one partner had very good benefits (working in a professional field) while his boyfriend had no benefits because he was working as a bartender or messenger or some other non-professional job without benefits.

      The “absurd supernatural claims of religious dogma” aren’t absurd or supernatural. They are firmly grounded in nature and evolution. Sex between a male and a female is the most natural biological function of reproduction. “Religious dogma” about heterosexual sex is only an extension of biology, evolution, and reproduction.

      Most people know someone who is gay and most people are generally accepting and tolerant. There’s very little violence against gays. The few incidents are hyped for political advantage.

      Most people, on a personal level, accept homosexuals. The problem is that homosexuals want the right to infiltrate and undermine long-standing social norms. Do gay men need to be Boy Scout troop leaders? Should we undermine and destroy an organization just to accommodate any minority?

      Homosexual men have been ‘hooking-up’ for centuries without the legal recognition. Do we really need to change the centuries old and cultural definition of marriage to include two men and two women?

    • razorrare

      Mind explaining Moderatator why this comment was censored…

      Whats the B stand for–Blasphemy?

      Those who tolerate everything  will not stand up to anything.

    • JustaWhiteMom

      Quite frankly, your hysterical posts on this issue illustrate why I don’t trust homosexuals.  Do you think that it is in the best interest of society as a whole to have gay marriage, or just the best interests of gays?

      I will tell you that I do believe in God, and homosexuality seems to violate His Intelligent Design.  I do not want my children to be homosexual.  Gay marriage is an advertisement for homosexuality.  It normalizes it and encourages borderline cases to choose a homosexual lifestyle.

      But much more troubling, it implicitly destigmatizes childlessness, which is the bane of our race and leading us to destruction. 

      If the government wanted to create a tax deduction for children and pay for it with higher taxes on the childless, would you support that?  This is a conflict of interest between homosexuals and racially aware whites.  If you put the good of the white race first, then you would be okay with the tax deduction, right?

      Don’t get me wrong.  There are pro-white gays whom I support, but they put their white maleness first.  Look into Jack Donovan.

    • Sam Spade

      I would suggest that Christians are the least of your problems. In the UK, over 90% of gay clubs and bars have closed down due to the growing Muslim population there. The London borough of Tower Hamlets is now so heavily Islamified, GBLT residents have literally fled for their lives. A gay pub, the George & Dragon, was raided by a gang of 30 young Muslim men who smashed up the interior and beat up the patrons within. The East London Pride event was cancelled in 2010 so as not to inflame tensions with local Muslims. Every major city in England now has Sharia patrols that target women who are “improperly dressed”, to non-Muslim men carrying alcohol to their homes, to gays and lesbians who still live in those neighbourhoods. Muslim parents in the UK have successfully removed books from junior schools that promote same sex parenting, and Muslim schools are springing up everywhere in that country. Do you think that they are teaching “tolerance” and “inclusiveness’ when it comes to GBLTs?

      The situation is no better in Europe, as gay author, Bruce Bawer, has seen and experienced this problem up close. Across the continent—in Amsterdam, Oslo, Copenhagen, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, and Stockholm—he encountered large, rapidly expanding Muslim enclaves in which women were oppressed and abused, homosexuals persecuted and killed, “infidels” threatened and vilified, Jews demonized and attacked, barbaric traditions (such as honor killing and forced marriage) widely practiced, and freedom of speech and religion firmly repudiated.

      Even in peaceful, goody-two-shoes Canada, the situation is getting worse. During the 2010 mayoral elections in Toronto, Canada’s biggest city, the local Muslim population weighed in when the front runner (George Smitherman) an open homosexual appeared on local television kissing another man he called his “husband.” The local Muslim population put out posters stating; “Should a Muslim vote for he who calls another man his wife?” Indeed, even a local Tamil radio station got in on the act and ran ads (in Tamil) in which two men were talking about voting for Rob Ford (Smitherman’s rival) because “his wife is a woman!” When it came to the votes, Africans, Asians, Muslims, West Indians and other “minority” groups voted for Rob Ford, giving him the biggest majority win in the history of Toronto’s mayoral elections. had these campaigns against Smitherman been run by a local Baptist church, the pastor would have been arrested and tried on hate crimes charges. Not once did we see GBLTs protest outside a mosque or Tamil place of worship.

      Think about it. America and Canada are filling up with immigrants from countries where homosexuals are vilified and even put to death. The immigrant vote is now well and truly being felt here. In 30 years from now where do you think you will feel safer in such as society? A mosque or a church? That is, if any churches are left open.

  • Church_of_Jed

     A “hate group” is anyone with whom the SPLC disagrees,

    and we should all be proud of our lifetime membership in the Best Haters in AmRen Club, of which the new membership rules require that we prove our commitment to fighting for White privilege by nominating ourselves to the SPLC Hate Watch list.

  • libertarian1234

    “If FRC says things that other people find offensive, such people should say, “That offends me” (but those same people should also then listen to the explanation).”

    Homosexual activists wouldn’t anymore listen to an explanation of criticism to their lifestyles than a person addicted to drugs and alcohol would.

    Like people with addictions, activists refuse to seek help.  Unlike other addictive people, however, they insist on an in-your-face approach to DEMANDING full acceptance into the mainstream, and they erroneously see Christianity as the biggest obstacle to such acceptance.

    Note that, even with the acceleration of Muslim numbers in this country increasing  by millions, not one word is EVER uttered against Islam even though most Muslims interpret Sharia law as giving a nod to killing homosexuals by stoning or hanging.

    Which leads many people to believe that homosexual actvists truly hate Christianity…..not the other way around. 

    • Spot on libertarian1234. I seriously doubt that homosexuals would denounce Muslims for their anti-gay beliefs, not even if the following scenario happened:

      A group of Muslims coerce a homosexual into taking a stroll with them in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park. They then jump him, pummel him, shout anti-gay slurs and finally kill him and hang his corpse from a tree bough in the park.

      Gays would blame this on Christianity, since all religions that came after Christianity are seen as a backlash against it. 

  • The SPLC knows very well that hate = money!

  • Sherman_McCoy

    No.  But if someone were to force you to swallow things you dislike ad nauseum, you’d likely begin to hate them.

    • B

      Just curious as to were you live. I never heard about any advocates for forced gay marriages.

      • Sherman_McCoy

        I am not sure my meaning was correctly stated.  Sorry about that.

        There are a great many beliefs that are forced upon us these days in the name of political correctness.   Over time, one begins to hate those things.  

  • razorrare

    Pro Gay Reflects Liberal Jewish Bias…


    I have heard that in some european  countries Christians are not allowed to adopt children because they are deemed bigotted & hateful…soon coming to the u.s…re-education camps for the White male Christians…    

  • Sloppo

    It is refreshing to see someone from that side admit that the word “hate” has been redefined.  That word is one of many.  I believe the most prolific liars are the people who redefine words.  Often the new definitions are close to the opposite of the old ones.  Today, we learned that love is now hate.  The word “gay” used to mean “cheerful”, but today it is a person who is about 4 times more likely to commit suicide than members of the general population.  The word “liberal” used to describe a person who tended to share his own wealth generously.  Today a liberal is a person who wishes to share other people’s wealth.  Last month, adherents of a religion of “peace” carried out 260 jihad attacks in 23 countries killing 1209 people and critically injuring 1910 others.  

  • razorrare

    Pro Gay Shooter Gets Special Rights…

    On August 15th a pro-homosexual activist, Floyd Lee Corkins, shot a guard at
    the offices of the Family Research Council in Washington DC. He was yelling “I
    don’t like your policies!” This was a textbook example of a bias-motivated hate

    Yet a hate crime charge was not added to the “assault with intent to kill”
    indictment against FRC shooter Floyd Lee Corkins last week. This is not because
    the D.C. justice system agrees with FRC director Tony Perkins that hate crimes
    charges are superfluous. Perkins believes all assaults should be treated as
    assaults – nothing more. I agree.

    Much more likely, hate crime charges are absent because Corkins is a
    pro-homosexual activist, possibly gay. Homosexuals possess special rights not
    afforded most Americans because they are a federally protected minority under
    all state and federal hate crimes laws.

    The originator of such twisted statues is the Anti-Defamation League. ADL
    boasts: “Our legal experts pioneered hate laws and work to implement them” (from
    the ADL annual report “From Problems to Solutions,” pg. 3,). ADL
    facilitated hate laws in all western countries to prosecute bias-motivated
    “crimes” by whites and Christians against specially favored groups. These
    include blacks, Jews, Latinos, Muslims, etc. Hate laws emphatically do not give
    special protection to whites and Christians against bias-motivated assaults by
    members of the above protected groups.

    Yes, ADL loudly advocated last week that Corkins be charged with a hate
    crime. But that’s a smoke screen. ADL, through 25 years of instructing law
    enforcement and the liberal justice establishment worldwide, has firmly laid
    down the unwritten rule that members of specially protected groups are never to
    be charged with a hate crime. Instead, if prosecuted at all, they will be
    indicted with much lighter conventional charges of assault, trespass, etc.

    Thus, if a white Christian FRC intern invaded the gay and lesbian center
    where Corkins volunteered, shouting, “I hate your values!” and shot a staff
    member, there is absolutely no question he would immediately be charged with a
    hate crime, mandating triple penalties. This would mean not just the 40 years
    Corkins may face, but 120. In such a case, the state would not be deterred in
    making a hate crimes indictment because of questions regarding the intern’s
    mental stability. Such could be resolved later in court. But Corkins shoots a
    guard at FRC yelling, “I don’t like your policies!” and prosecutors waffle about
    Corkins’ rationality, possibly contributing to no hate charges.

    Corkins’ exemption from a hate indictment was clearly provided for in testimony by U.S. Attorney General
    Eric Holder in Senate Judiciary hearings in 2009. He indicated that the
    federal hate law, just like state hate laws, was designed to prosecute white,
    male, Christian “haters” – not homosexuals, Jews, and other minorities who might
    express their hate through violence.

    The double standard of the Washington, D.C. justice system in not immediately
    enforcing the D.C. hate law thus underscores the outrageous partiality of hate
    crime laws. I’ll say it again: There is no equality of hate law protection in
    approximately 60 countries where ADL hate laws rule. All hate statutes
    deceptively give the impression of hate crime protection for all, regardless of
    race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. In truth, they blatantly
    discriminate against the majority, giving special rights to a privileged few who
    are viewed as historic victims of perhaps centuries of abuse and discrimination
    by the white, Christian, male power structure.

    Meanwhile, 16 Amish men and women are indicted under the federal hate crime
    law, awaiting trial. The government alleges they are guilty of the hate crime of
    forcibly shaving hair off the faces and heads of their Amish theological rivals.
    Each could receive up to life in prison under Ohio’s ADL hate law (See Amish Arrests Reveal Hate Law Bias Against Christians
    ). As white, predominantly male Christians, they are exactly the target
    that the anti-Christian Jewish ADL envisioned hate laws to harass and destroy.

    Hate Laws are Unconstitutional

    When a law discriminates against some and favors others, it is
    unconstitutional. It violates the most fundamental premise America was founded
    on: equal justice for all. For this reason, all hate laws should be

    Attorneys for the indicted Amish haircutters will be strongly making the case
    in court that the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Statute should be ruled
    unconstitutional and the government’s hate crimes charges against the Amish
    defendants thrown out.

    I hope the clear evidence of favoritism by D.C.’s hate law toward Corkins
    will add fuel to a growing bonfire of righteous indignation against hate laws
    everywhere—in the U.S., Canada, Britain, Australia, etc. It is time to destroy
    ADL’s hate laws, the most twisted, discriminatory, and unjustly punishing
    statutes ever conceived in the history of evil men – before they destroy freedom
    and the Christian civilization that gave liberty to the world.


  • Your logic is flawed. You are confusing a gender issue with a racial issue. Apples and oranges.  Although to answer your question NO, I don’t personally support or advocate interracial marriage.

  • B

    When I refer to dogma I refer to falsehoods like the claim that the races are equal when all evidence points in the other direction, or the claim we can live after we die when we know for a fact that consciousness is brain function and not an entity unto itself. I was not referring to subjective issues of good and bad.

  • B

    Yes, if you want to prevent others from eating them.

  • B

    If marriage was available to only those who can have children you would have made a valid point. Celibate people can marry, elderly can marry, infertile people can marry.

    • 5n4k33y3s

       Chick fil A! Chick fil A! Chick fil A!

  • Sherman_McCoy

    “Your comments are draconian, homophobic and misguided.”

    Coming from such as you, that is high praise indeed. That said, I don’t think that you know what the word draconian means, especially as I force no one else to believe as I do. Or is this 1984 and I am guilty of a “thoughtcrime?”

    • Screamin_Ruffed_Grouse

      Angela (the reply button is missing on your post, for some reason)-

      You rest your case on what?

      You are, by your own admission,  a teacher of a pseudo-science non-subject, and you have in fact demonstrated you don’t understand the meaning of the word “draconian.”

  • guest

    Hi Linda, the divorce rate may be even a little higher, but heterosexual relationships still compare quite favorably to homosexual male relationships…which barely even exist. 

  • Whammo

     A comment can be none of those things. Anything beyond true or false and why is mere inference or more likely, projection.
     Logic and reason being a racist, white male, paternalistic concept doesn’t preclude it’s application.

  • loyalwhitebriton

    whether or not FRC hates gays is irrelevant

    So why not remove the word “hate” from “anti-gay hate group”, and just be left with “anti-gay group”?

    But then the SPLC would say “If you’re an anti-gay group, it must be because of your “hate.””

    lwb: “But you tell me that “hate” is irrelevant”

    SPLC: “”Hate” is irrelevant, unless it’s, er, relevant…..oh go away!”

    Liberals always want it both ways (and not just in the bedroom, either).

  • haroldcrews

    Suicide Among HomosexualsLesbians are two times more likely to attempt suicide than straight women.Attempts by gay and lesbian youth account for up to 30% of all completed suicides.Gay teens are 3 times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers.Gay youth are 4 times more likely to make a suicide attempt requiring medical attention.Gay men are six times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers.
    From The Trevor Project – http://www.thetrevorproject.org/

  • B

    No, we do indeed know for a fact that consciousness is brain function. It why you will lose it when you get hit over the head but don’t when hit in the leg.

    Morals are simply the rules of group co-operation and are based upon human wants and needs. They are not universal. If you were a cow, eating beef would be the sin and humans murdering each other would be irrelevant to you, get it?

    “The idea that everyone should live and let live is not just a personal belief; it’s a universal one”

    Then explain why humans have exploited virtually every animal on this planet to use as they see fit, if live and let live is universal. You see, we only apply that to our species because morals are not unversal they are tailored to human wants and needs, nothing more.

    • libertarian1234

      “No, we do indeed know for a fact that consciousness is brain function. It why you will lose it when you get hit over the head but don’t when hit in the leg.”
      But that isn’t true consciousness. That’s a consciousness for this plane of existence,  which is referred to by researchers on the subject as “false consciousness.” True consciousness is what is referred to as the “subconscious mind.” 
      Hypnosis is a process of setting aside the concious mind in order to acces the subconscious which remembers everything as accurately as any computer ever made.
       I’m agnostic, but I think there is much evidence that there is a universal consciousness, much like what is taught by Buddahism, which details reincarnation as part of its belief system. It was also once a part of Christianity until the concept was removed by the church in 553 A.D.
      Dr. Ian Stevenson has done a HUGE  amount of work in this area and wrote a book outlining his research entitled, “Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation,”  in which he travelled to many parts of the world interviewing, recording and evaluating information from cases in which verification was obtained in response to people.
      If anyone reading these case studies, plus other unbiased, authentic accounts of reincarnation,  and then comes away from it as skeptical as he began, he’s not comprehending what he has read.
      Basically, religions that include the reincarnation concept, believe that humans are instilled with a soul entity that is introduced to this plane of existence in order to improve itself via paying karmic debts and advancing in other ways.
      Homosexuals are soul entities who owe karmic debts, which can be paid only via a homosexual life on this plane of existence, which means improving themselves.
      If they don’t learn their lessons, they’ll be reintroduced as a homosexual in the next life for as long as it takes to continue beyond the point where the problem lies, then go on to a more advanced state of consciousness in the next life.
      What you are doing is resisting your karmic debt by continuing on as you have.  Until you get it right, your next life will be as miserable as this one. 
      And the next…..

    • B

      libertarian1234 , agnosticism deals with knowledge not belief, look it up. Technically we are all agnostics for no person has any actual knowledge of any gods.  

      “What you are doing is resisting your karmic debt by continuing on as you have. ”

      So since I am straight, what are you telling me?
      Your reincarnation nonsense is just another flavor of unsupported death denying foolishness.                   

  • B

    Actions speak louder than words, no?

  • Oil Can Harry

    You’re correct that the $PLC has more moolah than they’ll ever need but to them it’s never enough.

    It’s like a gangster who’s made enough millions to support himself for life but won’t retire, risking prosecution and death in search of ever more money and power. 

  • anarchyst

    I don’t care what homosexuals do and am quite able to “live and let live”. 
    That being said, the “in your face” attitudes and demands for acceptance do much more to stifle tolerance than just about any other action. 
    “Tolerance” does not mean “acceptance”.  One can tolerate a particular class, race, or what have you without accepting their behavior. 
    Homosexuals would be better off if they crafted “civil unions” (contracts” instead of insisting on “marriage”.
    The “nature vs. nurture” arguments will be with us for a long time. 
    It is refreshing to see the backlash from black groups decrying the “homosexual community’s” use of the old, tired, worn-out “civil rights” canard. 
    As a group, homosexuals are more affluent than just about any other “group”.  It would seem that they have very little to complain about . . .
    However, homosexuality and pedophilia are inextricably linked.
    “Chicken hawks” (pedophilic predators) target pre-teen BOYS for “grooming” and introduction to homosexual behavior. It is well-known that pre-teen boy’s sexual mores are not set in stone; they can be easily influenced to “come over to the dark side” of homosexual perversion and predation. Hence, the cycle continues . . .
    The so-called Catholic priest “child sex abuse scandal” was actually homosexual pedophilia recruitment in action.
    Of course our “mainstream media” did not want to label this predatory behavior for what it was.
    What better cover for homosexual pedophilic individuals than to be a Catholic priest?   The “lavender lobby” in the Catholic seminary system made sure that qualified heterosexual candidates for the priesthood were discouraged from pursuing their vocation.
    Authority figures tend to be trusted. . . there are MORE public school teacher pedophile homosexuals than Catholic priests.

    • B

      “However, homosexuality and pedophilia are inextricably linked.”

      You are wrong. Pedophiles are attracted to children. Most pedophiles never have any heterosexual or homosexual relationship with another adult. It is not the sex of the child that attracts them it’s the fact they are a child. 

      • anarchyst

        I would agree with you if the distribution of pedophiles were evenly split between girls and boys.  The homosexual pedophile priests did not go after girls–only boys.  That fact in itself is proof that pedophilia and homosexualy are inextricably linked.
        Best regards . . .

        • That might help explain why no gay groups denounced Jerry Sandusky’s crimes, and were also silent when Michael Jackson told the world he loved sleeping with children – all boys, as it turned out.

          Homosexuals have no problem screaming “homophobia!” against what they see as gay slurs against on of their own. But notice how they STFU when the sordid details of Sandusky’s acts became publicized?

          They dared not defend Sandusky publicly, by saying those who hated what he did, were “homophobic”- they knew it would cause a tremendous backlash against them.

    • libertarian1234

      “However, homosexuality and pedophilia are inextricably linked.”

      They are indeed and that fact is supported by much data on the subject.

      It is the same sex that attracts homosexuals to children, not their age so much; however, many homosexuals prefer children because,  in authority roles like priests,  scoutmasters, etc.,  it is far easier for them to psychologically break down a child’s resistance than an adult. 

      The case involving the homosexual Jerry Sandusky is a good example.  Homosexuals like him use their positions to take advantage of children and they often marry women to cover for their homosexuality in order to give themselves a bit of respectability to the world.

      Many believe mass investigations should be conducted to determine if homosexuals who adopt same sex children are doing so for the purpose of sexual abuse.  I strongly favor that.   And, if found guilty,  I also favor public hanging.

      Homosexual adoptions of innocent little children are the great evils of our times, right along with the crooked, corrupt politicians who allow them just in order to get a few more votes.

  • anarchyst

    Celibacy for Roman Catholic priests is NOT a doctrinal mandate, but was a financial decision and a way to keep church property from being willed to descendants of priests and bishops.  In the middle ages, church property was routinely willed to those descendants of priests and bishops.  The Catholic Church lost property as a result.
    There is NO REASON for Roman Catholic priests to be celibate.  Converted Episcopalian priests are allowed to be married as well as priests in other Catholic rites.  Celibacy would eliminate the need to “recruit” homosexuals for the priesthood.

  • 5n4k33y3s

     Conflating gender issues with racial issues is what the progressives do.

  • 5n4k33y3s

    Liberal arts… Sociology… Women’s Studies… All of these “disciplines” have less academic merit than Astrology. You’re a drain on the university.

  • mistermark123

    haroldcrews, of course gays have higher suicide rates.  It’s views such as yours that drive them to that point.  What are you saying – that homosexuals are naturally bad people who don’t deserve compassion?

  • mistermark123

    It’s really a shame that this site is now bashing homosexuals.  Ah, well.  At least you all know you’re on the losing side of history.

    • ncpride

      Since there was no reply tag for your comment to one of my posts, I’ll answer here. You say that we are a Constitutional Rebublic, and ‘the people’ don’t have a the final say on same sex marriage. Then you should respect the states who have made amendments to their constitutions banning gay marriage…… Voted on and PASSED by the people.

      And as for your remarks to Harold about our ‘views’ causing high suicide rates among gays, it’s beyond contemptible. If they are that thin-skinned, perhaps they should keep their sexuality to themselves. From what I’ve seen and heard from they gay lobby, they could care less what others think of them,  and often have that in your face, accept us or else attitude, so that excuse doesn’t fly and you know it.