Gay Patriot Header Image

Bloodshed and Invective in the District of Columbia

We here at GayPatriot have never been fans of the Family Research Council (FRC).  And much as we disagree with many of that social conservative organization’s policies, particularly its narrow (and often inaccurate) portrayal of gay Americans, we disagree as well with those, including the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center, who dub FRC a “hate group.”  As John Hinderaker puts it, “gay activists and their allies have consistently smeared the Family Research Council as a ‘hate group’ because it supports traditional marriage.

Support for traditional marriage does not, however, necessarily mean hatred of gay people.

Yet, given that the man who shot a guard at the Family Research Center in Washington, D.C. yesterday had volunteered at a local gay and lesbian center, we need to ask if a different climate of hate , a climate that exists within all too many gay organizations and which we read on some gay left blogs, spurred him on.  Indeed, there are reports that the shooter  “made statements regarding [FRC's] policies, and then opened fire with a gun striking a security guard“.

It is, to be sure, facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Democratic or LGBT activists. But it is legitimate to hold gay organizations and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the a good number of threats against advocates of traditional marriage, setting the nation on edge. Many on the gay left have exploited the arguments of division, reaping media favor by demonizing Mormons (and other Christians), or social conservatives, or Republicans. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that social conservatives are not just misguided, but the enemy of the people.

And despite these arguments of divisions, to their credit, a number of gay and lesbian organizations released a joint statement yesterday condemning the shooting:

The motivation and circumstances behind today’s tragedy are still unknown, but regardless of what emerges as the reason for this shooting, we utterly reject and condemn such violence.  We wish for a swift and complete recovery for the victim of this terrible incident.

These groups need to do more than just condemn the attack; they should also examine how their harsh rhetoric may have contributed to it.

Some, however, just can’t seem to shake this “hate” rhetoric. Within hours of the shooting, Anne Sorock reports at Legal Insurrection, the Huffington Post “promoted on its front page” a piece by  an “’LGBT rights activist’ referring to the Family Research Council as an ‘extreme right-wing group’ and a ‘hate group’.”

Extreme (and misguided), some of FRC’s views may be, but the group promotes neither hate nor violence.  Will editorialists who attempted to link recent shootings to conservatives link this one to anti-social conservative invective on the gay left?  Will gay organizations (and gay left bloggers) examine their own readiness to define as “hate” any opposition to issues they support?

RELATED: I Blame Rachel Maddow!

Share

172 Comments

  1. Of course the hateful rhetoric so prevalent and tacitly approved by the press has whipped this shooter up to the point of action. Fortunately the shooter didn’t succeed in killing anyone and hopefully the guard will recover from his wound. It’s my opinion that chaging the definition of the word marriage from one that set a standard to one that sets no standard has laid a wreath of unintended consequence on society we will all live to regret.

    Comment by Richard Bell — August 16, 2012 @ 5:20 am - August 16, 2012

  2. “Support for traditional marriage does not, however, necessarily mean hatred of gay people.”

    In the left’s minds, it does, as hate is all they have. If there is no “other” to demonize, their arguments fall apart.

    Comment by alanstorm — August 16, 2012 @ 7:44 am - August 16, 2012

  3. “The motivation and circumstances behind today’s tragedy are still unknown…”

    “These groups need to do more than just condemn the attack; they should also examine how their harsh rhetoric may have contributed to it.”

    Don’t hold your breath – they don’t seem to even want acknowledge that the shooting was related to the policies they advocate.

    The left went from name calling to glitter bombing to vandalism without a noticeable effect on public support for their position. It really wasn’t surprising that the next step after property damage would be bodily damage. It’s just fortunate that he chose a lightly populated business lobby instead of the dining room at a Chick-fil-a 2 weeks ago.

    Comment by AndyN — August 16, 2012 @ 9:04 am - August 16, 2012

  4. Sources told Fox News that after guard took away his gun, the suspect said, “Don’t shoot me, it was not about you, it was what this place stands for.”

    If this reporting is accurate then the shooter was on a seemingly ambivalent mission. He used a gun on the guard, but he wants forgiveness for using it as he has “nothing personal” about the man he shot.

    What I see incubating is an Alice in Wonderland type of logic which says the FRC is so hateful that it drove a gentle man to shoot an innocent guard and the shooter feels just awful about it. That is how hateful the FRC hate group is.

    Frankly, I think the shooter is touched in the head and he got his motivation from hearing and possibly engaging in the passion against the FRC.

    After all, commenters on other threads at GayPatriot tell us that if you oppose gay marriage you hate gays. I believe they believe that. I also believe that somewhere among them is a poor sad sack fueled by such beliefs who will act violently.

    You really can’t have it both ways. When the FRC is branded as a hate group, what exactly is the resolution being sought? What was the shooter going to do with his gun at the FRC? Was he a man with a plan?

    Comment by heliotrope — August 16, 2012 @ 9:35 am - August 16, 2012

  5. It is… facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Democratic or LGBT activists.

    Yes. And that doesn’t stop some on the Left, who even in this instance, find ways to attribute the violence to the Right. Example: Yesterday, Talking Points Memo had this headline: Family Research Council Shooter Allegedly Motivated By Group’s Anti-Gay Stances. What a construct. Not “motivated by his own, over-the-top hatred of…” But “motivated BY…” – I think that’s called, blaming the victim.

    Many on the gay left have exploited the arguments of division, reaping media favor by demonizing Mormons (and other Christians), or social conservatives, or Republicans.

    … while somehow, always leaving out Muslims, who in today’s world are the real gay-haters and the true anti-gay threat. I wonder why?

    I am glad to see the gay groups’ joint statement condemning violence; although…

    The motivation and circumstances behind today’s tragedy are still unknown

    …isn’t what they were saying on other recent shootings, that they hoped (incorrectly, of course) could be pinned on the Right.

    And if the motivations were/are so “unknown”, then why did they feel the need for that statement?

    And, notably absent from the statement’s list of signers at the time of this writing: the NGLTF.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 16, 2012 @ 9:46 am - August 16, 2012

  6. What I see incubating is an Alice in Wonderland type of logic which says the FRC is so hateful that it drove a gentle man to shoot an innocent guard and the shooter feels just awful about it. That is how hateful the FRC hate group is.

    Yup, see the example I cited.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 16, 2012 @ 9:52 am - August 16, 2012

  7. I think how the media covered this story is interesting.

    Now one caveat is that nobody died and the media often likes stories with lots of death in them, but overall the media ignores the story and when they did report it, they were willing to give the shooter all the benefit of the doubt they could, while in the Batman shooting ABC reporters were blaming an innocent man who just happened to share the same name and was a member of the tea party.

    Of course Palin was blamed for the actions of the ARizona shooter (who turned out to be extremely mentally ill).

    But in this case the media is mostly mum, and more than willing to wait to see just why this guy walked into the FRC and started to shoot.

    Comment by Just Me — August 16, 2012 @ 10:01 am - August 16, 2012

  8. Local newspaper liberal commented : “the guard deserved it for working at such a hateful place”.

    Isn’t that the same as : “she deserved it for wearing a short skirt or removing her burka in public”

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — August 16, 2012 @ 11:01 am - August 16, 2012

  9. This “Submit to Gay Marriage or Die” campaign is obnoxious, anti-democratic and oppressive.

    I am glad GLBT is out of the closet so people can see what the movement is really all about.

    And how come this “Submit to Gay Marriage or Die” campaign was not waged against President Obama when he-up until two months ago-believed marriage meant a union between a man and a woman?

    Isn’t it interesting the just after Obama evolved to get Big Gay Campaign Money-a short two months ago- is when Gay activist ramped up their HATERS.

    Lastly; how are the Gay activists on the right going to rein in their fellow activists on the Left?

    Comment by syn — August 16, 2012 @ 11:19 am - August 16, 2012

  10. Words do matter, if you hear enough of a hateful message it will get through and some will take action.
    Interesting how Palin’s bullseye caused 6 people to be murdered by Loughner. But all the violence in movies or all the H8 coming out of Gay Inc. have no influence whatsoever.

    Comment by Leah — August 16, 2012 @ 11:25 am - August 16, 2012

  11. Of course.

    And the real hilarity; bigots Dan Savage and Joe Jervis spent all day yesterday whining and sniveling that words don’t cause violence….while insisting that a billboard statement means you want to kill the President.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 16, 2012 @ 11:34 am - August 16, 2012

  12. Everyone here should be able to recognize that if we’re keeping score, gays have suffered far more abuse and violence at the hands of Christians and conservatives than vice versa. Gays are justifiably angry, this is not the same as exploiting or inciting hatred, which the Republicans are all too happy to do every time they need help in an election. Oh sure, they’ve cleaned up the language now, and have all the conservatives dutifully sticking to this ‘I support traditional marriage’ script, but the underlying premise of their position is completely insidious and appeals to a very dark impulse some of us have to loathe and fear ‘the other.’ Gay people are physically attacked all the time in this country, and that atrocity is only compounded by televangelists going on TV and blaming gays for 9-11, or by arguments that gay marriage will lead to legalized pedophilia, or by the incessant bitching about how homosexuality is ruining the American family. That’s the kind of language that incites people to violence, particularly when you express it in religious terms to a religious audience.

    So this hand-wringing about the ‘gale of anger’ and how gay groups are ‘setting the nation on edge’ is completely absurd, coming as it is from a homosexual who routinely overlooks and excuses the far more egregious policies, language, and behavior of the people he agrees with politically. To be fair, I would say that stupidity and self-absorption are the motivating characteristics behind most people’s opposition to gay marriage, but straight-up, old-fashioned hatred plays a big role, too, and I don’t think gay groups are in the wrong to call them out on it.

    Answer these questions honestly – which side of the debate trades in hateful rhetoric? Which half of the debate is more frequently assaulted or killed by the other? Which group is going out of its way to interfere in the private lives of strangers they’ll never meet?

    Comment by Levi — August 16, 2012 @ 11:37 am - August 16, 2012

  13. Answer these questions honestly

    Of course, Levi.

    which side of the debate trades in hateful rhetoric?

    Easy: The Left.

    Which half of the debate is more frequently assaulted or killed by the other?

    Easy: People on the Right are more frequently assaulted by people on the Left. Examples: the shooting under discussion here; the legendary ‘union thug’ violence of recent years; and more.

    NOT examples: the Arizona shooting that in fact was NOT motivated by Palin; the recent shooting that in fact was NOT done by any Tea Partier; etc.

    Which group is going out of its way to interfere in the private lives of strangers they’ll never meet?

    Easy: the Left, which wants to enslave everybody, downtown the size of the sodas they drink. You yourself, Levi, have proclaimed repeatedly on GP that our only hope forward lies in having the largest government possible.

    You shall, of course, now proceed to show us that you did not want ‘honest’ answers at all; rather, that you only wanted agreement with your bigoted, fascist misconceptions.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 16, 2012 @ 11:49 am - August 16, 2012

  14. “Everyone here should be able to recognize that if we’re keeping score, gays have suffered far more abuse and violence at the hands of Christians and conservatives than vice versa. ”

    poor baby, so go on and mass murder everybody so your precious ego is saved

    Comment by Susan — August 16, 2012 @ 11:51 am - August 16, 2012

  15. … while somehow, always leaving out Muslims, who in today’s world are the real gay-haters and the true anti-gay threat. I wonder why?

    I feel like I’ve been seeing this around here more frequently as of late, this bizarre insinuation that American gays/liberals/Democrats/progressives/atheists only dislike Christians and have some kind of enthusiasm and appreciation of Islam. Like we’d be happy to trade all the Christians for Muslims, like we’d prefer living under an Islamic theocracy over a secular democracy.

    Do you really wonder why? Gee, I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that in America, there are lots of Christians, that Christianity has a unique role in the culture as the predominant religion, and that virtually every political leader in the country, at every level, is a Christian? Meanwhile, there are almost no Muslims. Hmmm….. Could that have anything to do with it?

    No, no, no, of course not, better just hurl some innuendo about liberals loving Islam because that’s how you win arguments, right? All that ever needs be done is just kind of make an association and ask ‘Is there anything there? I wonder?’ – this is better than thinking, don’t you know.

    The Muslims of the world aren’t holding up gay marriage in this country. The Muslims of the world aren’t standing outside abortion clinics with giant banners in this country. The Muslims of the world aren’t commanding this country’s armed forces to go around invading the third world. But Christians do all those things, and so they get the criticism. Is that really difficult to understand? Is that unfair, somehow? If I’m complaining about some stupid policy of George Bush’s, you really think it’s necessary for me to throw in that I don’t like the Islamic plan any better?

    Throw this piece of crap argument in the scrap heap please, or at the very least articulate it with some balls. If you think we’re all just so enthralled by Islam, let me know why you think that is. Anyone, anyone at all?

    Comment by Levi — August 16, 2012 @ 11:52 am - August 16, 2012

  16. Of course, Levi.
    which side of the debate trades in hateful rhetoric?
    Easy: The Left.
    Which half of the debate is more frequently assaulted or killed by the other?
    Easy: People on the Right are more frequently assaulted by people on the Left. Examples: the shooting under discussion here; the legendary ‘union thug’ violence of recent years; and more.

    NOT examples: the Arizona shooting that in fact was NOT motivated by Palin; the recent shooting that in fact was NOT done by any Tea Partier; etc.
    Which group is going out of its way to interfere in the private lives of strangers they’ll never meet?
    Easy: the Left, which wants to enslave everybody, downtown the size of the sodas they drink. You yourself, Levi, have proclaimed repeatedly on GP that our only hope forward lies in having the largest government possible.

    You shall, of course, now proceed to show us that you did not want ‘honest’ answers at all; rather, that you only wanted agreement with your bigoted, fascist misconceptions.

    Needless to say, I disagree with all of that, but we don’t need to get into all of that. I didn’t think I’d have to spell out that I was talking about gay issues specifically, but that’s what I get for taking conservative reading comprehension for granted. Care to try again?

    Comment by Levi — August 16, 2012 @ 12:11 pm - August 16, 2012

  17. Translation (from the original bullsh*t, to English): I scored. Thanks, Levi :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 16, 2012 @ 12:15 pm - August 16, 2012

  18. All I can say to our resident libtrolls is to be very, very careful – the days of “Battered Republican Syndrome” are over:

    http://news.investors.com/article/622378/201208151858/biased-press-ignores-debased-obama-campaign.htm

    We are sick and tired of being dehumanized in the press, and we’re not taking it anymore. We will take the fight to you. And Obama. And Biden. And Reid. And Pelosi.

    Just sayin’ is all.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 16, 2012 @ 12:19 pm - August 16, 2012

  19. (continued) If we are only going to talk about ‘gay issues’ (which, needless to say, *I* was not; talk about reading comprehension!) – then again: the people in today’s world who call for the death of gays, and who actually proceed to kill gays, etc. are Muslims. Not Christians. Not Mormons.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 16, 2012 @ 12:20 pm - August 16, 2012

  20. Translation (from the original bullsh*t, to English): I scored. Thanks, Levi

    Well damn, what can you do with that? Someone goes off on a wild tangent because they can’t follow an obvious logical theme, the other person tries to get them back on track, and the first person claims a point?

    I guess I know a little bit more about how seriously to take you, ILC.

    Comment by Levi — August 16, 2012 @ 12:22 pm - August 16, 2012

  21. So, Levi, if we pony up for a roundtrip and a week at the Dearbornistan Hilton complete with upscale meals, will you go tell the Muslims to get their heads straight about gays?

    Or, are you a sensible chickensh*t who would rather sit in your basement and go on the net to trash all the namby-pamby, turn the other cheek Christian fairy-tale believers?

    Comment by heliotrope — August 16, 2012 @ 12:31 pm - August 16, 2012

  22. North Dallas Thirty: “bigots Dan Savage and Joe Jervis spent all day yesterday whining and sniveling that words don’t cause violence”

    I haven’t been able to find any such statements from them yesterday. Could you please link to those comments?

    Comment by walker — August 16, 2012 @ 12:35 pm - August 16, 2012

  23. I guess I know a little bit more about how seriously to take you, ILC.

    Levi, Aesop has a fable just for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes#The_fable

    Since you can’t have my agreement, you’re saying that you wouldn’t wait it anyway. Just as I predicted, you have no interest in honest answers to your questions. You only wanted answers that would agree with your bigoted, fascist preconceptions.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 16, 2012 @ 12:35 pm - August 16, 2012

  24. Sorry typo, “you’re saying that you wouldn’t -have wanted- it anyway”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 16, 2012 @ 12:35 pm - August 16, 2012

  25. Anyone who does something like this is obviously unstable regardless of the motivation.

    I do find it rather ironic that some gay activist felt the need to condemn this act. Maybe they did it to blunt the criticism they would have received had they not. But we all know that if this was the other way around there would be accusations of bigotry thrown around seconds after it happened.

    It’s good that they did condemn this man’s action but this one indent doesn’t make up for all the times they stayed silent (or worse partook in the blame game).

    Comment by MV — August 16, 2012 @ 12:43 pm - August 16, 2012

  26. Levi @ #15:

    Like we’d be happy to trade all the Christians for Muslims, like we’d prefer living under an Islamic theocracy over a secular democracy.

    Levi, can you show us where anyone here ever implied that you and yours would “be happy to trade all the Christians for Muslims, like we’d prefer living under an Islamic theocracy over a secular democracy.

    I know you can’t. So, you throw out an incredible existential conclusion that makes your other rantings look logical by comparison. Sorry, but your discovery fails to have a bloodhound locating it.

    We know full well that you stay away from the literal and extreme threats of radical Islam because you know you will be castrated, have your bones crushed and end up dead if you were to leap into that nest of vipers.

    You selectively attack the religions of peace in your atheism and stay safely silent about the religion that will do the Nick Berg “conversion therapy” on you. Cowards are like that. Drown the kittens, but avoid the rabid tigers.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 16, 2012 @ 12:44 pm - August 16, 2012

  27. Shorter Levi,

    “It’s ok that this happened, because of all those evil Christians.”

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 16, 2012 @ 12:45 pm - August 16, 2012

  28. Just as heliotrope predicted: “The FRC is so hateful that it drove a gentle man to shoot an innocent guard and the shooter feels just awful about it. That is how hateful the FRC hate group is.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 16, 2012 @ 12:50 pm - August 16, 2012

  29. FTR: A few left-wingers have indeed said that they would prefer to live under an Islamic theocracy. Gay, or not. (I don’t believe Levi is gay.)

    There was that busload of Europeans who wanted to serve Saddam Hussein as “human shields”. (And yes, contrary to popular belief, he was a devout Muslim – so devout that he daily wrote extracts from the Koran in his own blood – and he was beginning to turn Iraq in an Islamist direction.)

    And who was that lesbian, a couple years back, who wrote online about her crush on Ahmadinnerjacket?

    Many other leftists don’t say it, but they act it out. By focusing on offenses of Christians which are minor (or in too many cases, imaginary) rather than the real threat to gays, they will *end up* “trading all the Christians for Muslims”. Whether or not it was what they really wanted.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 16, 2012 @ 1:00 pm - August 16, 2012

  30. @ILC,

    One thing I’ll give Kevin Smith credit for is his honesty. He said that Islam needs a ‘Dogma II’ but he wouldn’t make it because he has an aversion to being killed.

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 16, 2012 @ 1:08 pm - August 16, 2012

  31. “The Muslims of the world aren’t holding up gay marriage in this country. The Muslims of the world aren’t standing outside abortion clinics with giant banners in this country. The Muslims of the world aren’t commanding this country’s armed forces to go around invading the third world. ”

    Christians have been kicked out from some areas of former yugoslavia, Hindus have been kicked out from Kashmir, Buddists in Thailand have been kicked out from Pattani province, Russians have been kicked out of chechenya. So the muslims of the world ARE going around invading the world, it is mentally crippled gay leftists like yourself that do not pay attention.

    Secondly, islamic immigration in places like the netherlands have de facto made life of the gay people less secure

    http://ezralevant.com/2010/10/gaybashing-in-amsterdam.html

    http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Persecution_of_Homosexuals_(Netherlands)

    But please do not let facts get in the way of your convulsed narrative and remember this: in due time when the shit will hit the fan I truly hope the ‘christians’, remembering how merciful and fair you have been to them will NOT move a finger for gays like yourself. I sincerely hope they will let the muslims take good care of you.

    Comment by susan — August 16, 2012 @ 1:22 pm - August 16, 2012

  32. There will always be deranged people who will use any excuse to kill people. Should no one ever use any sort of inflammatory rhetoric because doing so might give those deranged people the urge to kill? As much as I would like to live in a more civil world, I’m sure everyone here (except the trolls) knows that the left will not comply with their own demands for civility. So it makes me kind of uncomfortable to acknowledge that the left’s hateful rhetoric is at all to blame here (even if it actually is). It just seems too reminiscent of the left’s often used tactic to guilt conservatives into shutting up. If both sides are doing that, it seems kind of like we’re going down the road to suppressing freedom of speech.

    I didn’t think I’d have to spell out that I was talking about gay issues specifically

    What is the distinction? The “gay community” is just one of the “oppressed victim” groups that the left exploits for political gain. The “gay community”/gay left is essentially the same as the left as a whole. They have the same methods, the same goals, and the same basic ideology.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — August 16, 2012 @ 1:25 pm - August 16, 2012

  33. But please do not let facts get in the way of your convulsed narrative

    But Levi was only talking about America. Why should he be concerned about anything that happens in the rest of the world? That doesn’t help him advance his narrative at all.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — August 16, 2012 @ 1:30 pm - August 16, 2012

  34. Shorter Levi: “I’m not saying I approve of violence, but if the gunman had iced a few people, it would be partial payback for the disrespect FRC has shown to LGBQT.”

    He’s like The Most Predictable Leftist in the World, “I don’t always excuse violence, but when I do, it was committed against Christians or Conservatives.”

    Comment by V the K — August 16, 2012 @ 1:40 pm - August 16, 2012

  35. FTR: A few left-wingers have indeed said that they would prefer to live under an Islamic theocracy. Gay, or not. (I don’t believe Levi is gay.)

    Is that supposed to mean something to me? Do you think that so many left-wingers have said they’d prefer to live under Islamic theocracy that you can just assume we all do?

    There was that busload of Europeans who wanted to serve Saddam Hussein as “human shields”. (And yes, contrary to popular belief, he was a devout Muslim – so devout that he daily wrote extracts from the Koran in his own blood – and he was beginning to turn Iraq in an Islamist direction.)

    And who was that lesbian, a couple years back, who wrote online about her crush on Ahmadinnerjacket?

    Many other leftists don’t say it, but they act it out. By focusing on offenses of Christians which are minor (or in too many cases, imaginary) rather than the real threat to gays, they will *end up* “trading all the Christians for Muslims”. Whether or not it was what they really wanted.

    ?

    Act it out in what way? What common activity do you see the gay left or any other liberal constituent engage in that would make you say something so stupid?

    Again – and this is not difficult to understand – Christians are the threat to the gays in this country, not Muslims. Christians are the ones in power in this country, not Muslims. Christians are the impediment to gay marriage in this country, not Muslims. I am concerned for the gays in Islamic countries as well and it’s important to show solidarity with them, but unfortunately there’s not a whole lot to be done for them at the moment. As a matter of fact, the best thing we could possibly do to help them is to legalize gay marriage and end the religious stigmatization of gays in America.

    Comment by Levi — August 16, 2012 @ 1:42 pm - August 16, 2012

  36. Dan,
    The original post implies that ‘hate group’ has been ascribed to the FRC solely because of their stand on gay marriage. However, as Levi has already alluded to, the decision to label them the such had to do with so many more elements, including advocating the deportation of gays, outlawing homosexuality, and insinuating pedophilia as a main component of gay rights, among other reasons.

    I posted links backing this up two weeks ago on GP. Perhaps you missed that, Dan. But, I would really appreciate if you took the time to read up on this matter before posting about it and reasserting Hideraker’s misleading quote, “gay activists and their allies have consistently smeared the Family Research Council as a ‘hate group’ because it supports traditional marriage.” You are leaving out a huge part of the equation.

    Regards,
    Cinesnatch

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 1:42 pm - August 16, 2012

  37. Close to four years ago after Barak Obama was elected, the left started worrying that some right winger would assassinate America´s first black president. I have to wonder if the Republicans hold or add more to the House, retake the Senate, and the White House, that I should start worrying that some crazed leftwing nut will assassinate a Presidnet Romney. The hate from the left has become more pronounced and more violent after Barak Obama´s and Nancy Pelosi´s imprimatur on the OWS. Oakland is an example of hate and violence run amok yielding anarchy.

    Comment by Roberto — August 16, 2012 @ 1:45 pm - August 16, 2012

  38. North Dallas Thirty: “bigots Dan Savage and Joe Jervis spent all day yesterday whining and sniveling that words don’t cause violence”

    I haven’t been able to find any such statements from them yesterday. Could you please link to those comments?

    Comment by walker — August 16, 2012 @ 12:35 pm – August 16, 2012

    Read their Twitter feeds. @joemygod and @fakedansavage , respectively.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 16, 2012 @ 2:01 pm - August 16, 2012

  39. Dan Savage Twitter from 8/15: Keeping guard shot today at FRC HQ in my thoughts. No one should be targeted with violence for political/religious beliefs or associations.

    Joe My God Twitter from 8/15: If you (even jokingly) wish violence against ANY person for ANY reason, unfollow me NOW because I’ll block you no matter your politics.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 2:08 pm - August 16, 2012

  40. Like Walker, I don’t see any such statements. Could you please cite specifically which comments you are talking about ND30?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 2:09 pm - August 16, 2012

  41. Meanwhile, what did happen on 8/15 in Dan Savage’s home is that he met with NOM’s Brian Brown.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 2:10 pm - August 16, 2012

  42. Vince @ #36 links to links he provided in another thread.

    I have a basic problem with those links. They do not lead to anything related to clear Family Research Council policy, nor do they succeed in producing a rabid hater frothing his contempt.

    The fact of the matter is that the remarks are neither damning nor defensible as they are little more than cat and mouse games of “gotcha.”

    Now if you want to use such blurry stuff for high dudgeon outrage, be my guest. In my world, outrage should be based on clearer, sterner stuff.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 16, 2012 @ 2:12 pm - August 16, 2012

  43. Helio > Hate speech is hate speech. If Peter Sprigg had been talking about outlawing blacks, exporting blacks, and likening blacks to pedophiles, the FRC would be considered a hate group. If he was talking about Christians, he would be considered a hate group, just like the Westboro Baptist Group is considered a ‘hate group.’ They engage in ‘hate speech.’

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 2:17 pm - August 16, 2012

  44. So according to cinesnatch and levi, the methods to use to counterfeit an association that asks for deportation of gays is to gun them down.

    Good luck guys, you will regret your thoughts when all christianity will be wiped out and you will remain with your muslims overlords (that will surely outnumber all the atheists like your leftists friends).

    Then you will realize gay marriage is the least of your problems.

    Comment by susan — August 16, 2012 @ 2:27 pm - August 16, 2012

  45. Helio,
    Peter Sprigg is a representative of FRC. As long as people like him say the things they do from a place of authority, they will be considered, rightly, a hate group. If the FRC wants legitimacy as a non-hate-group and be taken seriously on the matter of marriage, then, they should structure their administration accordingly.

    It’s strange on GP how, according to some, Gay, Inc. must assume the decades-old baggage of NAMBLA, yet, the FRC, gets a free pass on members who espouse recent views that would welcome the extermination of gays, whom they essentially believe to be all pedophiles at their base core. Sprigg isn’t engaging in any ‘reverse Alinksky’ behavior here. He earnestly speaks of what he believes and is pushing incredibly damaging beliefs about the gay population that engender hatred in others toward the group as a whole. That is not free speech. That is hate speech.

    And, Helio,

    Regards,
    Cinesnatch

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 2:28 pm - August 16, 2012

  46. you will regret your thoughts when all christianity will be wiped out and you will remain with your muslims overlords

    Susan, Call me when the shuttle lands.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 2:31 pm - August 16, 2012

  47. Regards,
    Cinesnatch

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 2:31 pm - August 16, 2012

  48. “Hate group” is a loaded term, and FRC’s designation as such has provided an opening for social conservatives to complain that gay rights groups are the ones who are intolerant. But the SPLC did not bestow that dishonor on the group just because it opposes gay marriage. Instead, it lists decades worth of efforts by the group to oppose equal protection under the law for gays and repeated attempts to connect homosexuality with pedophilia. The group relies on politically biased pseudo-science and still subscribes to the widely debunked notion that gays can — and should — be “converted” to heterosexuality.

    Those ideas are as false as they are hurtful. But despite the group’s influence with some conservative politicians, its has also been left behind by the nation’s laws and culture. The Supreme Court has struck down laws against homosexual conduct. The medical establishment has recognized that homosexuality is a natural, inherent and immutable characteristic of a certain percentage of the population. Gay characters and themes in popular culture have become unremarkable, gay public officials are becoming increasingly common, and millions of American families openly love and accept their gay friends and neighbors. The question now is not whether views like those the FRC espouses will prevail — or whether they should even be considered a valid part of the public dialogue — but whether the great multitudes who believe gays should be treated fairly and equally can overcome the last, persistent vestige of legal inequality: marriage.

    The analogy between the current gay rights movement and the civil rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s is imperfect, but it does provide a useful guide for marriage equality advocates in how they should deal with groups like the FRC. In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail,Martin Luther King Jr.wrote that “the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice.” He continued: “Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”
    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-family-research-council-shooting-20120816,0,206712.story

    Comment by rusty — August 16, 2012 @ 2:31 pm - August 16, 2012

  49. I am concerned for the gays in Islamic countries as well and it’s important to show solidarity with them, but unfortunately there’s not a whole lot to be done for them at the moment.
    Comment by Levi Little Brownshirt — August 16, 2012 @ 1:42 pm – August 16, 2012

    Yeah, that’s right: not much can be done by whiny nail-biting, foot-stomping, pants-pissing, lying cowards like you.
    You could get together with your boyfriends, ‘show solidarity’ (another ‘Marxism’ from you….who’da thunk it?) and picket in front of a mosque, but any sentient being already knows whether or not you’ll accept THAT challenge.
    Answer: you WOULDN’T DARE.
    Refer to the first sentence in this post for the reason why.

    Comment by jman1961 — August 16, 2012 @ 2:36 pm - August 16, 2012

  50. You could get together with your boyfriends

    Levi is straight, genius.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 2:43 pm - August 16, 2012

  51. Levi is straight, genius.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 2:43 pm – August 16, 2012

    Can’t you get it through you’re thick f**king skull that virtually EVERYONE here is sick to death of you and your ‘passive-aggressive’ routine.
    F**k off, you little twerp.

    Comment by jman1961 — August 16, 2012 @ 2:44 pm - August 16, 2012

  52. rusty, I sure can agree that ideas which “connect homosexuality with pedophilia… rel[y] on politically biased pseudo-science and… subscribe[] to the widely debunked notion that gays… should… be ‘converted’ to heterosexuality”, “are as false as they are hurtful.” But let’s have everyone solve it in the marketplace of ideas. As FRC does, in their own way.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 16, 2012 @ 2:45 pm - August 16, 2012

  53. With great deference to you, Heliotrope, but surely you must be able to see by now that you efforts in mentoring CineTurd are utterly wasted?

    Comment by jman1961 — August 16, 2012 @ 2:46 pm - August 16, 2012

  54. F**k off, you little twerp.

    Get your facts straight, so to speak.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 2:49 pm - August 16, 2012

  55. CineTurd-

    Clean the shit out from your skull cavity….so to speak.

    Comment by jman1961 — August 16, 2012 @ 2:49 pm - August 16, 2012

  56. Heliotrope, but surely you must be able to see by now that you efforts in mentoring CineTurd are utterly wasted?

    Jman1961, I’m guessing Helio is wise enough to know what he’s doing. I have doubts he is in need of a pit-bull watch-dog. Maybe you should watch after yo’ self.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 2:51 pm - August 16, 2012

  57. CineTurd-

    Try taking up a hobby….start with growing up and becoming a man.

    Comment by jman1961 — August 16, 2012 @ 2:52 pm - August 16, 2012

  58. Jman1961,
    I would recommend you take up a therapist, but your sudden tirades are marginally entertaining. I”m glad you have outlets like GP to focus your anger instead of shooting up a group of people.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 2:57 pm - August 16, 2012

  59. I”m glad you have outlets like GP to focus your anger instead of shooting up a group of people.

    More emotional and psychological projection from CineTwat.

    Comment by jman1961 — August 16, 2012 @ 2:58 pm - August 16, 2012

  60. Yes ILC, the marketplace of ideas. . .That is very Scarry for Perkins, and fund development folk at FRC (and NOM)

    Like when they see this

    REI is taking a position in support of marriage equality—an issue that is important to the co-op as an inclusive organization and a welcoming place to work and do business. A referendum on this issue will come before Washington State voters in November after passage through the Washington State Legislature earlier this year; marriage equality is also gaining momentum nationally. Why is this important to the co-op? Let me begin my answer with a personal perspective. A few weeks ago, my husband Warren and I celebrated our 34th wedding anniversary. We’ve been on a journey through life together since our first date on my 18th birthday, raising our two children, changing jobs, moving to various places, and witnessing the challenges and joys of our relationship and those of our parents, three of them through end-of-life.

    For heterosexual couples, it is very easy to take for granted the legal and societal benefits of marriage—health care benefits, retirement benefits, insurance, death benefits, healthcare decisions, child-rearing and custody, and many more, not to mention the meaning of the commitment of marriage that was so vivid to us as we introduced each other as husband or wife for the first time. As executrix of my mother’s estate, the legal benefits of marriage in estate and health issues became even clearer to me over the past year. Marriage equality is important to the co-op because the benefits, legal clarity and societal understanding that Warren and I have enjoyed these past 34 years should be available to any two people who want to express their love and make a permanent commitment to each other that is so clearly provided for in the legal definition of marriage.

    Comment by rusty — August 16, 2012 @ 3:15 pm - August 16, 2012

  61. OK, I’ll buy this if you buy that Michele Bachmann and Steve King and Anne Coulter and Jennifer Rubin are all directly responsible for the shooting in Wisconsin by virtue of their anti-Islamic fervor. Dude, at this point, you are becoming a self-parody. You will bitch and moan and whine the minute ANYONE complains that, you know, hate from the GOP might have some repercussions, and now you post this bile? If someone shoots up a bunch of people, you know who is responsible? Not the liberal media, not the crazy right gay and muslim hating lunatics who have increasingly taken over the GOP, not people who protest against Chick-fil-et or hate people who want to dengy them equal rights. No, is it the crazy shooters who are responsible for the evil they represent, and nothing else. You’d be, rightfully, mocking and dering and bitching about a liberal who made precisely the argument yo uare making now. So why not take a look in the mirror and look how, frankly, idiotic your argument looks to anyone with even a scintially of common sense and/or objectivity?

    Comment by Jeff — August 16, 2012 @ 3:18 pm - August 16, 2012

  62. REI, NIKE, Microsoft, Starbucks and Amazon are all stepping up to support Marriage Equality.

    Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and his wife have donated $2.5M to help Washington state’s marriage equality movement.
    With the gift, the couple have doubled the money available to the proponents of Referendum 74, which would legalize same-sex marriage in the state by affirming a law that passed the Legislature this year. Courts or lawmakers have declared gay marriage legal in six other states, but backers of such measures have never succeeded at the ballot box. Proponents of the effort in Washington State called it a game-changing gift that gives them a fighting chance in November. “To get this from a straight, married couple sends a powerful message that marriage is seen as a fundamental question of fairness,” Zach Silk, the campaign manager for Washington United for Marriage, said Thursday in an interview.
    The New York Times reports that the donation came about after a former Amazon employee who is a lesbian mom of four directly emailed Bezos.
    In the e-mail, Ms. Cast described in detail the pain she endured as a young adult and the difficulties she faced publicly acknowledging her sexuality. At the end, she pointedly asked him to donate between $100,000 and $200,000 to the referendum cause. “Jeff, I suspect you support marriage equality,” she wrote. “I beg you not to sit on the sidelines and hope the vote goes our way. Help us make it so.” She hit “send” and waited. Two days later, on Tuesday, she received a reply while in a car with her family. Recalling that moment, she said she had to read it out loud twice to make sure she had read it right. “Jen,” the e-mail said, “this is right for so many reasons. We’re in for $2.5 million. Jeff & MacKenzie.”

    Comment by rusty — August 16, 2012 @ 3:19 pm - August 16, 2012

  63. Like the editorial out of BaltimoreSun noting MLK

    In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
    Martin Luther King Jr.
    US black civil rights leader & clergyman (1929 – 1968)  

    Comment by rusty — August 16, 2012 @ 3:21 pm - August 16, 2012

  64. In fairness, here’s where I shredded Vince’s quotes and sources. Vince of course didn’t like that and pouted further down.

    Oh, and more shredding of the SPLC, via William Jacobson.

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 16, 2012 @ 3:24 pm - August 16, 2012

  65. But Levi was only talking about America. Why should he be concerned about anything that happens in the rest of the world? That doesn’t help him advance his narrative at all.

    Well, yes. I was talking about America. I mean, if two Americans are having a discussion about economic policy, does anyone ever feel the need to loudly declare that they’re not referring to Mongolian economic policy? That isn’t to say that Mongolian economic policy is insignificant, it’s just that it’s happening on the other side of the world.

    You can shout all you want about how vicious the Muslims are towards gays until you’re blue in the face – this does nothing to counter the point that Christians in America are promoting discriminatory and backwards policies that are destructive to gays individually and the citizenry as a whole.

    Comment by Levi — August 16, 2012 @ 3:30 pm - August 16, 2012

  66. Jeff’s rant amuses me given his comments here and here He honestly believes that Republicans want to deport gays. Very amusing Jeff.

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 16, 2012 @ 3:36 pm - August 16, 2012

  67. And the reason there is “not a lot to be done about” brutality against gays in Muslim countries is because 1. Those countries are run by people the Mahogany Marxist Messiah is sucking up and bowing down to, and 2. Only “deranged right wing Muslim haters like Ann Coulter and Michele Bachmann” ever criticise Muslims, and libs would rather be on the side of Muslims who butcher gays than risk agreeing with Michele Bachmann.

    Comment by V the K — August 16, 2012 @ 3:40 pm - August 16, 2012

  68. “The Muslims aren’t holding up gay marriage in America.”

    Calypso Louie was unavailable for comment.

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 16, 2012 @ 3:40 pm - August 16, 2012

  69. [...] Bloodshed and Invective in the District of Columbia [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Of Shootings and Double Standards — August 16, 2012 @ 3:54 pm - August 16, 2012

  70. The_Livewire (by the way, Mötley Crüe always jumps into my head whenever I see your handle and takes me back to my youth), if by shredding you mean taking a potato peeler to a rock, yeah, you shredded. And that bit about asserting that I “endorce buggering children” was some real master debating, sport.

    Rusty,
    Thank you for discussing the marketplace in terms of businesses that actually contribute to it. Not sure how groups like the FRC generate goods that people buy.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 3:55 pm - August 16, 2012

  71. While I am amused by walker and Cinesnatch attempting to spin for their bigot friends Dan Savage and Joe Jervis, we should remember that both have wished for death for their political opponents.

    We should also remember that both Jervis and Savage have demonized conservatives as Nazis and traitors.

    So if Cinesnatch and walker were to be consistent, they would immediately condemn both as bigots who are inciting violence — and then also condemn Obama, who endorsed and supported them. Indeed, since both Jervis and Savage accused a group of calling for Obama’s assassination based on a billboard, as I pointed out above, their own calls for violence against Christians and conservatives are far more direct and thus more actionable. Both Jervis and Savage, as well as Cinesnatch, called for Sarah Palin to be ostracized and punished for the Giffords shooting; at minimum, since all of these have made even worse attacks on the FRC, they should be similarly treated.

    But again, neither is consistent. They are simply desperate leftists without value or principle who are trying to shut up conservatives. They need to be held to their own rules and standards such as they have tried to impose on others here.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 16, 2012 @ 4:13 pm - August 16, 2012

  72. OK, I’ll buy this if you buy that Michele Bachmann and Steve King and Anne Coulter and Jennifer Rubin are all directly responsible for the shooting in Wisconsin by virtue of their anti-Islamic fervor.

    Comment by Jeff — August 16, 2012 @ 3:18 pm – August 16, 2012

    And you said they WERE responsible, Jeff.

    So by your standards, the LGBT community is guilty of inciting violence.

    Either say they are or be exposed as a hypocrite. Since you want all these people silenced, imprisoned, and punished, apply the same rules to your bigot leaders like Dan Savage and Joe Jervis.

    Screaming brat, can you live by your own rules? Or are you going to whine and cry and scream and demand that conservatives live up to standards that inferior people like you won’t and can’t follow?

    Just state that conservatives are superior and that liberals are inferior. Just state that gays and lesbians like yourself are inferior and can’t possibly live up to the standards you demand of heterosexuals.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 16, 2012 @ 4:18 pm - August 16, 2012

  73. Levi @ #35:

    (…) Christians are the threat to the gays in this country, not Muslims. Christians are the ones in power in this country, not Muslims. Christians are the impediment to gay marriage in this country, not Muslims.

    Whoa!!!!

    “Christians are the threat to gays in this country” ….. because ….. “Christians are the impediment to gay marriage…..”

    That’s it? That’s the big old boogie-man behind every tree Christian threat to gays?

    Gay marriage? That’s it? That is your forest fire of rage and the substance of your rallying cry: Christians oppose gay marriage….!?!

    You rattle on and on about hate and hate crimes all over some opposition to gay marriage? Darn, Levi, you need to read up on Nick Berg and Danny Pearl and the holocaust and Pol Pot and Idi Amin and Stalin’s pogroms and Mao’s Great Leap Forward and the starving Armenians and save some of your moral outrage for the really big stuff.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 16, 2012 @ 4:18 pm - August 16, 2012

  74. Dallas, can we assume your response means that you can’t substantiate your claim that “bigots Dan Savage and Joe Jervis spent all day yesterday whining and sniveling that words don’t cause violence”?

    If it’s not something you just made up, then please cite the quotes from yesterday.
    Otherwise…what led you to do that?
    If

    Comment by walker — August 16, 2012 @ 4:18 pm - August 16, 2012

  75. Levi’s comment might have made some sense around… oh… 1978. He seems to be stuck in the wrong century.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 16, 2012 @ 4:23 pm - August 16, 2012

  76. Vince @ #36:

    The original post implies that ‘hate group’ has been ascribed to the FRC solely because of their stand on gay marriage. However, as Levi has already alluded to, the decision to label them the such had to do with so many more elements, including advocating the deportation of gays, outlawing homosexuality, and insinuating pedophilia as a main component of gay rights, among other reasons.

    Vince, your links do not categorically support the charge that FRC: 1) advocates the deportation of gays; 2) (advocates) outlawing homosexuality; 3) insinuat(s) pedophilia as a main component of gay rights.

    You can not get to any one of those three claims through the links you provided.

    If you have go better stuff, put it up. If this is it, stuff it.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 16, 2012 @ 4:27 pm - August 16, 2012

  77. 74.Dallas, can we assume your response means that you can’t substantiate your claim that “bigots Dan Savage and Joe Jervis spent all day yesterday whining and sniveling that words don’t cause violence”?

    Comment by walker — August 16, 2012 @ 4:18 pm – August 16, 2012

    Nope.

    What we can assume is that you don’t have the balls to deal with the fact that your bigots Joe Jervis and Dan Savage have demonized Christians, demonized conservatives, demonized Republicans, AND called for them to be killed.

    And we can also assume that you won’t answer why they claimed this billboard is a call for assassination, but their worse statements towards FRC are not.

    So you’re screaming and crying and demanding of me standards to which you demonstrably WON’T hold your bigot Savage and your bigot Jervis.

    Which makes you a hypocrite, bigot, and exploiter. Trash like you think you can manipulate the fact that conservatives actually have standards to your advantage. But you and your sockpuppet friend Cinesnatch are nothing more than inferior, disgusting creatures with no principles and no values who abuse others’ tolerance, civility, and politeness for your own personal advancement.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 16, 2012 @ 4:28 pm - August 16, 2012

  78. I have a news flash for Levi and his fellow barking moonbats: you don’t have a “right” to marriage. As for the legal aspects, you can deal with those fairly easily by consulting an attorney, with the notable exception of Social Security benefits. But those aren’t going to be around much longer anyway, so they’re not worth worrying about. Do the math.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — August 16, 2012 @ 4:32 pm - August 16, 2012

  79. Also, we should remember that, in Chicago, where Levi’s Obama Party rules, they are openly and blatantly discriminating in government on the basis of religious belief while simultaneously promoting and endorsing Obama-approved groups.

    So Levi, we have direct proof that you and your fellow “progressives” are working directly with Muslim groups that oppose gay marriage, want criminalization of homosexuality, and call for the murder of gay people.

    Your lies are exploding. Your hate for Christians is now blatantly and completely obvious. You are a bigot.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 16, 2012 @ 4:34 pm - August 16, 2012

  80. So apparently your accusation that “bigots Dan Savage and Joe Jervis spent all day yesterday whining and sniveling that words don’t cause violence” is purely an invention. In other words, a lie. You can distract people — or try to — by responding with a whole NEW round of accusations, but that strategy is pretty transparent. Why you love to make up stuff again and again is a mystery, but the effect you have on the discourse here is simply sad.

    Comment by walker — August 16, 2012 @ 4:45 pm - August 16, 2012

  81. ND30: “neither is consistent.” If you were consistent, you would actually address people calling you out on your claims like in Post #39. But, as you demonstrate in Post #77, you cannot back up your claim that “bigots Dan Savage and Joe Jervis spent all day yesterday whining and sniveling that words don’t cause violence.” Anyone on here want to back up ND30′s claim that “bigots Dan Savage and Joe Jervis spent all day yesterday whining and sniveling that words don’t cause violence”? Your silence and/or inability to do so will be noted that he’s barking out lies. Because, he’s having some difficulty backing himself up.

    Helio: Peter Sprigg is an authoritative member of FRC. As an official representative of their group, his views reflect on them. If they do not want to be considered a hate group, perhaps it is Sprigg who needs to “stuff it.”

    Bastiat Fan: DOMA is unconstitutional. Do the math. The guy who wrote it has.

    Comment for Everyone: GP sure has ND30 to thank for all of the traffic he generates for them by redirecting readers/commenters to past GP posts.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 4:46 pm - August 16, 2012

  82. Vince, you linked @ #36 to a link you put on another thread: Sprigg also expressed a preference for exporting homosexuals from the country.

    As a neutral reader who is interested in the “evidence” I followed your link. What comes up is a 29 second clip (without any context whatsoever) of Sprigg saying he would rather “….export homosexuals out of the United States rather than import them into the United States.”

    What, do you suppose preceded that comment that elicited the comment? Can you reasonably conclude that Sprigg wants homosexuals rounded up and exported? Really? With all the press that the LGBT activists garner how is it possible that a ranking officer in FRC could have such a stand and the entire country does not know about it?

    Could one reasonably conclude that this tiny snippet is so carefully crafted that seeing more of the whole context would not serve the purpose enraging small minds?

    Comment by heliotrope — August 16, 2012 @ 4:48 pm - August 16, 2012

  83. So apparently your accusation that “bigots Dan Savage and Joe Jervis spent all day yesterday whining and sniveling that words don’t cause violence” is purely an invention. In other words, a lie.You can distract people — or try to — by responding with a whole NEW round of accusations, but that strategy is pretty transparent. Why you love to make up stuff again and again is a mystery, but the effect you have on the discourse here is simply sad.

    Comment by walker — August 16, 2012 @ 4:45 pm – August 16, 2012

    Actually, the problem is in your own blindness and bigotry. As we see, you are depraved enough to defend and support Jervis and Savage calling for murder, so your inability to accept the facts presented about their hypocrisy is hardly surprising.

    For you, a person who supported the FRC shooter and insists that the FRC shooting was justified, to attempt to claim the moral high ground is beyond laughable. You cannot have it, nor will I give it to you. Both you and your sockpuppet Cinesnatch are deplorable moral relativists and cowards who will say and do anything to get what you want.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 16, 2012 @ 4:53 pm - August 16, 2012

  84. ND30: “neither is consistent.” If you were consistent, you would actually address people calling you out on your claims like in Post #39. But, as you demonstrate in Post #77, you cannot back up your claim that “bigots Dan Savage and Joe Jervis spent all day yesterday whining and sniveling that words don’t cause violence.” Anyone on here want to back up ND30′s claim that “bigots Dan Savage and Joe Jervis spent all day yesterday whining and sniveling that words don’t cause violence”? Your silence and/or inability to do so will be noted that he’s barking out lies. Because, he’s having some difficulty backing himself up.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 4:46 pm – August 16, 2012

    Silly Cinesnatch. Everyone else here has seen you go around and around with people who presented facts and evidence, only for you to ignore them. Like your sockpuppet walker, the problem is not the lack of evidence; it is your own blindness and unwillingness to see it.

    You cannot have the moral high ground, trash. Both you and your sockpuppet identity walker are pathetic, filthy bigots who will say and do anything to get what you want. Your screaming and ranting is nothing more than a temper tantrum on your part because Dan has completely and thoroughly tricked you and your bigot friend Levi into revealing your fundamental hypocrisy and bigotry.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 16, 2012 @ 4:57 pm - August 16, 2012

  85. That, people, is the point.

    Cinesnatch and his new sockpuppet “walker” are nothing more than lying, desperate trash who are trying to get out of having to follow the very rules they demanded be imposed on conservatives.

    The only moral high ground they have is that which we choose to give them. Realize that they are desperate, compulsive liars who will say and do anything to get their way, and they depend on peoples’ trust and willingness to be polite and civil to do it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 16, 2012 @ 4:59 pm - August 16, 2012

  86. Can you reasonably conclude that Sprigg wants homosexuals rounded up and exported? Really? … [Or,] Could one reasonably conclude that this tiny snippet is so carefully crafted that seeing more of the whole context would not serve the purpose enraging small minds?

    Wouldn’t be the first time, that’s for damn sure.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 16, 2012 @ 5:03 pm - August 16, 2012

  87. Whoa!!!!

    “Christians are the threat to gays in this country” ….. because ….. “Christians are the impediment to gay marriage…..”

    That’s it? That’s the big old boogie-man behind every tree Christian threat to gays?

    Gay marriage? That’s it? That is your forest fire of rage and the substance of your rallying cry: Christians oppose gay marriage….!?!

    You rattle on and on about hate and hate crimes all over some opposition to gay marriage? Darn, Levi, you need to read up on Nick Berg and Danny Pearl and the holocaust and Pol Pot and Idi Amin and Stalin’s pogroms and Mao’s Great Leap Forward and the starving Armenians and save some of your moral outrage for the really big stuff.

    I’ll agree that there are far more egregious crimes against humanity than the conservative-driven opposition to gay marriage. I’m interested in gay marriage because even though it may be a comparatively small issue, it could be fixed easily, overnight really, like flipping a switch. There’d be nothing but benefits and absolutely no ill consequences at all. You can’t solve Palestine or Syria or Sudan that easily and that’s a shame. But this is still an injustice, and something about how pointless the opposition to it is makes me all the more enthusiastic about fixing it.

    Comment by Levi — August 16, 2012 @ 5:04 pm - August 16, 2012

  88. Dallas, you can clear this up by quoting the comments made by Jervis and Savage yesterday. Your failure to do so is revealing.

    Seriously: “bigots Dan Savage and Joe Jervis spent all day yesterday whining and sniveling that words don’t cause violence” — just quote these comments from yesterday and link us to where they were made.

    Comment by walker — August 16, 2012 @ 5:11 pm - August 16, 2012

  89. But this is still an injustice, and something about how pointless the opposition to it is makes me all the more enthusiastic about fixing it.

    Well, Levi, you have no regard whatsoever for religious faith and to reach the ground you stand on, you require the social engineering of the Judeo-Christain ethic as if it were some sort of little committee vote like adding a bicycle path down the middle lanes of an interstate.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 16, 2012 @ 5:13 pm - August 16, 2012

  90. Let’s be clear: Dallas makes up a lie, and when he’s asked to substantiate it, he goes on a huge ranting culminating with:

    “Cinesnatch and his new sockpuppet “walker” are nothing more than lying, desperate trash… they are desperate, compulsive liars who will say and do anything to get their way, and they depend on peoples’ trust and willingness to be polite and civil to do it.”

    Wow. Talk about projection. I don’t know which is scarier: the idea that you aren’t aware of it Dallas, or the idea that you are and just don’t care.

    Comment by walker — August 16, 2012 @ 5:16 pm - August 16, 2012

  91. But this is still an injusticeimpediment to me and my boyfriends getting what we want, and something about how pointlesstruly unthreatening the opposition to it is makes me all the more enthusiastic about fixing it (as opposed to picketing a mosque here in this country, where I might end up having my pansy-ass stomped into the pavement, or, GULP!, staging a similar protest in the Arab World, where I might end up being hog-tied and videotaped as my pathetically empty f**king head is sawn off).

    Comment by Levi Quivering Heap of Gutlessness — August 16, 2012 @ 5:04 pm – August 16, 2012

    Comment by jman1961 — August 16, 2012 @ 5:24 pm - August 16, 2012

  92. I know I know, pointing out the continued celebration of Harry Hay so doesn’t discredit the perception that the gay left has nothing to do with paedophiles… like Harry Hay.

    Why, that’s absurd.

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 16, 2012 @ 5:29 pm - August 16, 2012

  93. Helio >> When asked flat out if we should outlaw gay behavior, Sprigg responded with a resounding, “Yes.” That means, he believes 1) practicing members should be thrown in jail or 2) Thrown out of the country. Logic would dicate that given the choice of importing and exporting gays, he would choose exporting. Unless, of course, he had an underlying penchant for prison populations bursting at the seams.

    Me thinks he has something about to burst, at any rate.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 5:30 pm - August 16, 2012

  94. Let’s just hope that GLAAD, HRC and other gay organizations will see that tolerance is not a one way street.

    Comment by MV — August 16, 2012 @ 5:44 pm - August 16, 2012

  95. Dallas, you can clear this up by quoting the comments made by Jervis and Savage yesterday. Your failure to do so is revealing.

    Comment by walker — August 16, 2012 @ 5:11 pm – August 16, 2012

    Actually, the problem is in your own blindness and bigotry. As we see, you are depraved enough to defend and support Jervis and Savage calling for murder, so your inability to accept the facts presented about their hypocrisy is hardly surprising.

    Of course, since you can’t answer that, you then try a smear:

    Let’s be clear: Dallas makes up a lie, and when he’s asked to substantiate it, he goes on a huge ranting culminating with:

    “Cinesnatch and his new sockpuppet “walker” are nothing more than lying, desperate trash… they are desperate, compulsive liars who will say and do anything to get their way, and they depend on peoples’ trust and willingness to be polite and civil to do it.”

    Wow. Talk about projection. I don’t know which is scarier: the idea that you aren’t aware of it Dallas, or the idea that you are and just don’t care.

    Comment by walker — August 16, 2012 @ 5:16 pm – August 16, 2012

    Your concern trolling is hilarious, especially since it’s in defense of two people who have aneurysms over a billboard that says less than they have and who have openly wished for death for those with whom they disagree.

    I laugh at moral inferiors and degenerates like yourself who presume to lecture those of us who you call Nazis and tell to commit suicide. The only power you have here is that which we choose to give you, and we choose to give you none.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 16, 2012 @ 5:46 pm - August 16, 2012

  96. I’ll agree that there are far more egregious crimes against humanity than the conservative-driven opposition to gay marriage. I’m interested in gay marriage because even though it may be a comparatively small issue, it could be fixed easily, overnight really, like flipping a switch. There’d be nothing but benefits and absolutely no ill consequences at all. You can’t solve Palestine or Syria or Sudan that easily and that’s a shame. But this is still an injustice, and something about how pointless the opposition to it is makes me all the more enthusiastic about fixing it.

    Comment by Levi — August 16, 2012 @ 5:04 pm – August 16, 2012

    Actually, no, Levi; as I’ve proven, you’re just an anti-Christian bigot.

    You’re trying to spin and pretend to be reasonable, but everyone here has seen your hypocrisy and your rationalization for the attempted murder of Christians.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 16, 2012 @ 5:49 pm - August 16, 2012

  97. Lovely Rita, me-ter maid, lovely Rita, me-ter maid.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 5:53 pm - August 16, 2012

  98. Helio >> When asked flat out if we should outlaw gay behavior, Sprigg responded with a resounding, “Yes.”

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 5:30 pm – August 16, 2012

    And the gay and lesbian community has called for the execution and murder of political opponents.

    Furthermore, the Obama Party and the LGBT community fully endorse and support other religious leaders who call for criminalization.

    So your argument, Cinesnatch/walker, implodes under the weight of your own hypocrisy. You scream and cry, but refuse to apply the same rules to your fellow gays and lesbians OR to your fellow Obama Party members.

    Unless, of course, you want to acknowledge that Obama supporters, liberals, and LGBTs are inferior individuals and cannot be expected to live up to the same standards they demand of others.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 16, 2012 @ 5:54 pm - August 16, 2012

  99. The_Livewire … There are fans of Braveheart who haven’t abandoned the film and celebrate it as one of their favorites regardless of the personal behavior and words of the star/director Mel Gibson.

    8.4 on the IMDb scale … Not. Too. Bad.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 6:01 pm - August 16, 2012

  100. Dallas, your moral posturing doesn’t change the fact that you have once again been caught in a lie. And the more you posture, the worse it gets. Even if you conclusively show that I and anyone who disagrees with you is a villain (which you haven’t) it still wouldn’t change this simple fact:

    Once again, you have been caught in a lie.

    Comment by walker — August 16, 2012 @ 6:09 pm - August 16, 2012

  101. Vince @ #93:

    Helio >> When asked flat out if we should outlaw gay behavior, Sprigg responded with a resounding, “Yes.”

    Actually, the link you provided has this:

    >> do you think that we should outlaw gay behavior?

    >> well, i think, certainly –

    >> i’m just asking you.

    >> — it’s possible.

    >> should we outlaw gay behavior.

    >> i think that the supreme court. overturned the sodomy laws in this country was wrongly decided.

    >> so we should outlaw gay behavior?

    >> yes.

    >> okay. thank you very much, peter sprigg, we know your position. it’s a clear one.

    If you think that not letting a person speak his mind and make his case is a fair way to debate, fine.

    Now, just for amusement, what does “outlaw gay behavior” mean to you? That phrase means to me that we should call the cops if we see anything that remotely resembles gay behavior such as football players smacking each other on the butt.

    The exchange you linked and upon which you hang your hat is specious at best and but darned weak in any case. Sprigg holds a strong religious view that places gay sex as immoral. But you need for him to be a villain who would export gays, imprison gays and claim pedophilia is a main component of gay rights.

    With all the press that the LGBT activists garner how is it possible that a ranking officer in FRC could have such stands and the entire country does not know about it? Why hasn’t your liberal MSM torn this guy and the FRC to shreds?

    Comment by heliotrope — August 16, 2012 @ 6:11 pm - August 16, 2012

  102. Helio >> Sprigg DID make the claim that pedophilia is one of the primary components of realizing gay rights.

    “Why hasn’t your liberal MSM torn this guy and the FRC to shreds?” You’ll have to ask them. However, gay activists had been targeting the FRC for Sprigg’s hate speech for years, as well as Chick-Fil-A’s financial support of the organization. Why is it that the media boiled down matters to a recent off-handed remark about traditional marriage in some interview with CFA CEO? I have no idea. Maybe because the average American likes their news canned.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 6:18 pm - August 16, 2012

  103. 1) Sodomy laws: That’s anti-gay. (I mean, literally.)
    2) Opposing gay marriage: Not so much.
    3) Advocating and/or practicing a ‘death penalty’ for gay people: That’s REALLY anti-gay, a good deal worse than (1).
    4) Peacefully advocating for (1), but not (3), in the public square – the marketplace of ideas: Acceptable.
    5) Opening fire on people who peacefully advocate for (1) and/or (2): Not so much.
    6) Opening fire on people who have come to do (3) on you: Self-defense.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 16, 2012 @ 6:29 pm - August 16, 2012

  104. If you think that not letting a person speak his mind and make his case is a fair way to debate, fine.

    Hello, previous instances at GP of providing very specific context has been lost on deaf ears. If the energy I put into something is going to be completely ignored, experience dictates that said energy isn’t worth dispensing. However, seeing how you have been very thoughtful during our interactions in the past, I apologize for not being more thorough here (for you, only), and will try to be more detail-oriented in the future.

    That being said, Sprigg’s answer was “yes” and not “no’ to Chris Matthews’ (whom, granted, is a big douche-bag himself) question. Anyone who thinks that homosexuality should be outlawed is not engaging in free speech, they are engaging in hate speech, regardless of the “moral” foundation they claim to draw from. They are targeting a minority whom the government has unconstitutionally engaged in discriminating against (DOMA).

    One of the reasons many people write-off Sprigg is because he targets gays. Unlike being a woman, black, Hispanic, handicapped, gays are a minority group who are discriminated against not because of their physical being, but their behaviors, which are just as natural to them, as having a vagina is to a woman, or whatever color of skin a person may have. Am I worried about him personally? No. Do I find the sentiment he engenders in our culture disgusting? Yes. It is hate speech, from a seemingly innocuous group, that helps support the resolve one might feel in supporting active or passive discrimination against gays.

    Want to be against marriage equality? Fine. Want to compare gays to pedophiles? You’ve crossed a clear line.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 6:37 pm - August 16, 2012

  105. I wish Democrats were as open and honest about their plans to impose socialism as Sprigg was about his views. I prefer honest debate to bs.

    Comment by V the K — August 16, 2012 @ 6:50 pm - August 16, 2012

  106. Dallas, your moral posturing doesn’t change the fact that you have once again been caught in a lie. And the more you posture, the worse it gets. Even if you conclusively show that I and anyone who disagrees with you is a villain (which you haven’t) it still wouldn’t change this simple fact:

    Comment by walker — August 16, 2012 @ 6:09 pm – August 16, 2012

    Which is why you have to keep screaming it over and over again in hopes that it sticks. :)

    Meanwhile, you have been shown to be a sick piece of trash who will justify anything, including calls for murder and shooting people, in pursuit of power and to avoid having to hold your fellow LGBTs accountable.

    Which would and does include you lying about me being a liar. :)

    That’s what you don’t get. People here are not blinded by your LGBT status; instead, they are doing what you have no experience whatsoever with, which is judging you by your character and actions.

    And your actions include defending and supporting people who call for and rationalize the murder of Christians.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 16, 2012 @ 7:34 pm - August 16, 2012

  107. Great Dallas, go ahead and use the Standard Dallas Procedure I previously identified: deflect attention from your lie by issuing a new round of (lying) allegations. None of which — even if they were true — would change the fact:

    You’ve been caught in a lie.

    At this point, I’ll stop. Either you’re lying without remorse, in which case you don’t deserve any more attention, or you genuinely don’t know you’re lying — and that would be far, far more disturbing. You’d be worthy of sympathy and prayer rather than argument.

    Comment by walker — August 16, 2012 @ 7:40 pm - August 16, 2012

  108. ND30 HAS been caught in a lie, because when asked to support his assertion, “bigots Dan Savage and Joe Jervis spent all day yesterday whining and sniveling that words don’t cause violence,” he does not and cannot provide concrete proof. Notice how none of his allies are coming forward and providing proof or criticizing him. Please, ND30, provide proof to back up your claim. Any other response (or no response) is your admission that you can’t.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 7:53 pm - August 16, 2012

  109. Of course not, Cinesnatch.

    There is no way to prove to you and your sockpuppet walker anything, just as there is no way to prove to Fred Phelps that gays are not evil.

    You and your sockpuppet walker are nothing more than gay Fred Phelpses whose fixation is that conservatives are evil, that calling for their murder is justified, and that being hypocritical and lying, such as Jervis and Savage were in their whining and bawling yesterday that words don’t cause violence, is perfectly OK.

    Want proof of that?

    Here you go:

    Any other response (or no response) is your admission that you can’t.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 7:53 pm – August 16, 2012

    See? There is no correct response. No right answer that you will accept. You’ve convicted and demonstrated yourself to be complete bigots, prejudged everything, made it clear that you are not rational or willing to listen to reason, and you didn’t even realize it.

    LOL.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 16, 2012 @ 8:17 pm - August 16, 2012

  110. THIS is what I (and I imagine Walker and anyone else on God’s green earth) will accept as proof of your statement, “bigots Dan Savage and Joe Jervis spent all day yesterday whining and sniveling that words don’t cause violence” on “their Twitter feeds”:

    “Whining and sniveling” about “words don’t cause violence” on “their Twitter feed,” “all day yesterday” (8/15).

    There you have it. By your own words, ND30. I, and probably anyone else, will accept ‘”Whining and sniveling” about “words don’t cause violence” on “their Twitter feed,” “all day yesterday”‘ as proof of your statement “bigots Dan Savage and Joe Jervis spent all day yesterday whining and sniveling that words don’t cause violence.”

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 8:22 pm - August 16, 2012

  111. Lol….so you’ve made it clear that you will only accept exactly what you want to hear, Cinesnatch, and nothing else.

    Just like Phelps only wants to hear “God hates fags,” and accepts nothing else.

    :)

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 16, 2012 @ 8:45 pm - August 16, 2012

  112. I will accept what probably 7 billion people, including just about anyone who reads this site, would accept as proof per Post #110.

    You lied, yet again, ND30, backed up by your silent chorus of enablers.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 8:50 pm - August 16, 2012

  113. And once again, Cinesnatch, you insist that unless people do exactly what you want, they’re bad.

    Power trip, not principle. Lol.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 16, 2012 @ 9:04 pm - August 16, 2012

  114. Asking someone to back up a false claim is not a power trip. Not willing to admit your wrong is.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 10:01 pm - August 16, 2012

  115. Vince at 104,

    I really appreciate your patience with me and I hope you will, in fact, not be so eager to go for the jugular and to be bit more retrospect about your sources.

    Clearly, we disagree about gay marriage. So what? I am sure that we share many areas of agreement on social issues. Just try to keep from taking the short cuts to absolutism. In my world, gay sex is a moral lapse, but that is paralleled by gluttony, hetero lust and lots of other stuff that screws up the perfect virtue merit badge. Surely, we can all strive to be better in fighting our vices.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 16, 2012 @ 10:09 pm - August 16, 2012

  116. OK, I’ll buy this if you buy that Michele Bachmann and Steve King and Anne Coulter and Jennifer Rubin are all directly responsible for the shooting in Wisconsin by virtue of their anti-Islamic fervor.

    The victims of the shooting in Wisconsin were Sikhs, not Muslims. Why should anyone be held responsible for people being stupid enough to confuse Sikhs with Muslims (other than the person responsible, of course)?

    No, is it the crazy shooters who are responsible for the evil they represent, and nothing else.

    Agreed, but I read this post as mocking the leftists who blame Sarah Palin et al. I don’t know, maybe I read it wrong. Also, I wonder if Jeff said anything like this after the other shootings where people like Sarah Palin were being blamed.

    Only “deranged right wing Muslim haters like Ann Coulter and Michele Bachmann” ever criticise Muslims, and libs would rather be on the side of Muslims who butcher gays than risk agreeing with Michele Bachmann

    Heh.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — August 16, 2012 @ 10:24 pm - August 16, 2012

  117. I am sure that we share many areas of agreement on social issues

    Helio, I imagine our agreements go beyond just social issues. And, while there are some very important points we do differ greatly, I expect and respect you enough to set me straight when I’m out of line, so to speak.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 11:27 pm - August 16, 2012

  118. Re: Spriggs comments.

    “Co-founder of the Mattachine Society and the Radical Faeries, longtime Los Angeles resident Harry Hay would have turned 100 years old on Saturday, April 7. He is widely regarded as the father of the American gay rights movement.”

    So when a paedophile is ‘widely regarded as the father of the American gay rights movement’ and an article on him doesn’t even mention that ‘troubling’ aspect of his life, you’re saying that Spriggs is making it up?

    Really.

    And Vince, if you’re going to take offense at my statement that the ‘father of the American gay rights movement’ believed buggering children was fine, you might not want to make an ass of yourself by taking quotes from Africa as an example of “Christians wanting to kill gays.” After all, if you’re going all the way to Africa to find support for your argument, and I can stay right here at home, then clearly I can ask you why you support buggering children as you’re a supporter of the ‘American gay rights movement’.

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 17, 2012 @ 8:03 am - August 17, 2012

  119. All the commenters here and elsewhere who keep saying “just because FRC supports traditional marriage does not make them a hate group” are leaping on their keyboards to retort before they even have the whole story.

    The FRC is listed as a hate group because it KNOWINGLY and systematically spreads false and denigrating propaganda about gay citizens and not, as they claim, because it opposes marriage equality. They continually push the notion that gays are a danger to children, liken them to bestiality, proclaim them demonic and worse. They’ve even recently advocated for the criminalization of homosexuality. Their animus towards gay citizens is well documented and goes far beyond “simply defending traditional marriage”.

    The SPLC criteria for designating a hate group is freely available on the SPLC website. If it was simply because of a difference of politics their list of hate groups would be much much longer.

    Comment by RJ — August 17, 2012 @ 10:03 am - August 17, 2012

  120. you’re saying that Spriggs is making it up?

    Never said such a thing and if you can actually provide evidence of the such, please do. Sprigg asserted that pedophilia is one of the primary goals of gay rights … something someone who believes NAMBLA is alive and well and part of Gay, Inc. would say.

    And, yes, I’m going to take offense that you insinuated, cheekily or not, that I endorse buggering children. It’s in poor taste–consistent with your character, but offensive none-the-less. And the lack of reaction from your fellow conservatives at GP is unsurprising.

    You said:

    I know I know, pointing out the continued celebration of Harry Hay so doesn’t discredit the perception that the gay left has nothing to do with paedophiles… like Harry Hay.

    Sprigg discredits himself by going on record to say that pedophilia is one of the primary goals of Gay, Inc.

    Really, The_Livewire, the long jump you’ve made from what I’ve said is astounding. You should have tried out for the London Olympics.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 17, 2012 @ 10:28 am - August 17, 2012

  121. Shorter Vince “Stop bringing up celebrating Harry Hay! It completely screws up my “American Rights have no connection to paedohpiles” argument!”

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 17, 2012 @ 11:05 am - August 17, 2012

  122. Well, Levi, you have no regard whatsoever for religious faith and to reach the ground you stand on, you require the social engineering of the Judeo-Christain ethic as if it were some sort of little committee vote like adding a bicycle path down the middle lanes of an interstate.

    Modern morality on the West is based on enlightenment values that explicitly rejected religious authoritarianism and magical wish-thinking. I suppose that in some way you could argue that the moral depravity and stubbornness of the Judeo-Christian ethic instigated this revolution, but to praise it for that would be like praising Adolf Hitler for lifting the American economy out of the Great Depression.

    None of the institutions that make our kind of government and civilization possible, things like freedom of speech and due process and the right to vote, are derived in any way from Judaism or Christianity. We had to get out from under the thumb of religious domination to invent those things.

    Comment by Levi — August 17, 2012 @ 11:38 am - August 17, 2012

  123. And, yes, I’m going to take offense that you insinuated, cheekily or not, that I endorse buggering children. It’s in poor taste–consistent with your character, but offensive none-the-less. And the lack of reaction from your fellow conservatives at GP is unsurprising.
    Comment by Cinesnatch TwatWaffle — August 17, 2012 @ 10:28 am – August 17, 2012

    Hey, let me have a go at this:
    And, yes, I’m going to take offense laughing at your prodigious hypocrisy that you insinuated stated, cheekily or not, that I endorse buggering children (you’re) glad (I) have outlets like GP to focus (my) anger instead of shooting up a group of people. It’s in poor taste–consistent with your character, but offensive none-the-less not surprising to any sane person who has had to suffer your presence here. And the lack of reaction from your fellow conservatives leftist assholes at GP is unsurprising.
    One more thing, Glitter Queen, stop pole vaulting (btw, how did YOU do at the Olympic trials?) 3 miles above your grammatical paygrade with the shithead formulation ‘and the such’. You’re too ignorant to attempt to sound erudite. Is this a by product of that ‘Speshul Edumakation’ that you’ve told us all about?

    Comment by jman1961 — August 17, 2012 @ 11:44 am - August 17, 2012

  124. This new meme of ‘oh, we don’t hate gay people, we just don’t ever want them to be able to legally marry,’ is complete crap.

    The very notion that heterosexuals are somehow ‘above’ gay people or that they even feel they hold the power to deny rights to them – that’s hate. Plain and simple. If it’s not, please tell me what that is.

    Then again, I guess you’d have to be on the receiving end of having a complete stranger come up to you and your spouse and your children and call you fa**ots while simultaneously spouting about Jesus to even remotely understand this.

    I hope you never do.

    But that appears to be the difference between gay and straight people.

    We respect your civil rights. We don’t attack you. We allow you to live in peace.

    And we simply seek the same.

    What reason, besides hatred, could POSSIBLY exist?

    Comment by Bill — August 17, 2012 @ 11:45 am - August 17, 2012

  125. None of the institutions that make our kind of government and civilization possible, things like freedom of speech and due process and the right to vote, are derived in any way from Judaism or Christianity. We had to get out from under the thumb of religious domination to invent those things.

    Comment by Levi — August 17, 2012 @ 11:38 am – August 17, 2012

    But they were expressly stated in a document, written by Christians and Deists, as rights granted by God.
    Another stellar FAIL for you, f**ktard.
    We like the ‘invent’ part, too: ..’basic human rights’, inventions on a par with the internal combustion engine and the lightbulb…
    Now the countdown ’til your boyfriends CineDouche and Richard Raunch proclaim the great wisdom and insight of your latest ‘contribution’.

    Comment by jman1961 — August 17, 2012 @ 11:53 am - August 17, 2012

  126. Asking someone to back up a false claim is not a power trip.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 10:01 pm – August 16, 2012

    Ah, so you’re screaming that the claim is false even before you have proof or evidence.

    Bigot.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 17, 2012 @ 12:25 pm - August 17, 2012

  127. Jman1961, I can run a marathon in 3 hours flat. It ain’t the olympics, but I bet I’d smoke your ass. ;)

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 17, 2012 @ 12:30 pm - August 17, 2012

  128. None of the institutions that make our kind of government and civilization possible, things like freedom of speech and due process and the right to vote, are derived in any way from Judaism or Christianity. We had to get out from under the thumb of religious domination to invent those things.

    Comment by Levi — August 17, 2012 @ 11:38 am – August 17, 2012

    Which is why you and your so-called “enlightened” progressives are openly practicing discrimination by government based on religious belief and freedom of speech in total denial of due process.

    “Progressives” represent a slide back into the Dark Ages. Their fascist hatred and support for violence as a method of solving problems, as we see with the screaming bigot Levi’s justification of the FRC shooting, is contrary to human progress. They are violent thugs, just like Levi, who will use any means to obtain power. They are racist, classist bigots who believe in their own superiority and believe that they have the right to rule over others without their consent.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 17, 2012 @ 12:32 pm - August 17, 2012

  129. ….but I bet I’d smoke your ass

    You should hope our paths never cross, or it’ll be YOUR sorry ass that gets smoked.
    Genius.

    Comment by jman1961 — August 17, 2012 @ 12:33 pm - August 17, 2012

  130. And it figures, Snatchmobile, that you once again avoid the point of the post when it shows you for what you are; a petulant, foot-stomping, pants-pissing little queen.
    It’s a riot seeing you lecture ANYBODY about ‘class’, you vile little POS.

    Comment by jman1961 — August 17, 2012 @ 12:37 pm - August 17, 2012

  131. We respect your civil rights. We don’t attack you. We allow you to live in peace.

    Comment by Bill (and his histrionics) — August 17, 2012 @ 11:45 am – August 17, 2012

    Of course, you’re saints (or if not, then worthy of canonization). Sorry we haven’t pick up on that.
    Look Bill, it’s important that you stick to the very carefully crafted regimen of anti-hallucinogenic medications which the medical staff drew up for you.
    We really do care about your well being, you know.

    Comment by jman1961 — August 17, 2012 @ 12:49 pm - August 17, 2012

  132. Jman1861, my, my. If you’re interested in smoking my ass, i hope you’re packing. I’m a bit of a size queen.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 17, 2012 @ 1:20 pm - August 17, 2012

  133. RJ @ #119: Here is the Family Research Council official stance on their web site-

    Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed. It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects. While the origins of same-sex attractions may be complex, there is no convincing evidence that a homosexual identity is ever something genetic or inborn. We oppose the vigorous efforts of homosexual activists to demand that homosexuality be accepted as equivalent to heterosexuality in law, in the media, and in schools. Attempts to join two men or two women in “marriage” constitute a radical redefinition and falsification of the institution, and FRC supports state and federal constitutional amendments to prevent such redefinition by courts or legislatures. Sympathy must be extended to those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions, and every effort should be made to assist such persons to overcome those attractions, as many already have.

    I do not see how they could make themselves any clearer in expressing their belief system.

    The Southern Poverty Law Center uses this criteria to establish a group as a hate group:

    All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.

    Excuse me? Are pedophiles an entire class of people? How about arsonists? Rapists? Serial killers?

    No, I did not go there: I am not comparing homosexuality with pedophilia, arson, rape or serial murder. But, I will bet that the SPLC will use the “aberration” loophole to explain why they don’t brand groups which oppose pedophilia, arson, rape, serial murders as “hate” groups even though they fit the SPLC definition.

    Back to the FRC. Can you “prove” that homosexual conduct is not harmful to persons who engage in it and to society at large? Now ask this same question down through the list of “indictments” the FRC makes.

    What occurs to me is that you hate each and every “indictment” which the FRC makes in their official stance on homosexuality.

    What further occurs to me is that you equate your hate for the FRC with what you assume is their equal “hate” for you. You hate what they say and you hate their stand and therefore, they are “haters” because they arouse so much hate in you.

    Then you project this into concentration camps, rounding up gays, arresting gays, bringing the force of the state down on gays. Just as if gays were equal to pedophiles, arsonists, rapists, serial murderers, etc. In this respect you seem to make the leap of subconsciously lumping homosexuality with arson, pedophilia, etc.

    Projection, pure projection. Especially when the FRC says: “every effort should be made to assist such persons to overcome those attractions, as many already have.

    That bit of Christian love arouses the greatest hate among gay activists.

    Gay activists want to bring the force of government down on those who consider homosexuality to be unnatural, physically and psychologically damaging, and say so. Gay activists want to punish free speech against homosexuality by criminalizing it as a “hate crime.” The SPLC is leading the charge in this respect.

    Your fear and loathing of the FRC says far more about you than it does about the FRC. Ignoring the FRC will not make it go away, but paying it a lot less heed and angst might make you a happier person.

    Keeping hate alive is enervating.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 17, 2012 @ 1:49 pm - August 17, 2012

  134. I’m a bit of a size queen

    Vince, are you running against Jman 1961 for the title of GayPatriot Poet Laureate?

    Comment by heliotrope — August 17, 2012 @ 1:51 pm - August 17, 2012

  135. Levi, full of excrement as usual. Freedom of speech and other rights are direct descendants of the Judeo-Christian tradition; which distinguishes itself from.other belief systems in that value individual lives and teach that we are children of divinity. The notion of being endowed by Our Creator with inalienable rights is a product of this belief system.

    But, regressives believe our rights come from governments; and like Levi are completely ignorant of religious teachings.

    Comment by V the K — August 17, 2012 @ 1:52 pm - August 17, 2012

  136. @heliotrope, #133

    Can you “prove” that homosexual conduct is not harmful to persons who engage in it and to society at large? Now ask this same question down through the list of “indictments” the FRC makes.

    I am a gay man. So I can speak from experience—can you? I turn 50 this year. I was not molested as a child. At no point in my life did I make a choice to be gay. Why would anyone do that? I grew up in the 60′s and 70′s where “gay” was not something you’d hear about. There were no gay TV characters, no “out” actors, singers, or politicians to influence me. No gay people in my family or school (that I knew about). I was inundated with heterosexuality and heterosexual influences. I had no idea what gay was, how could I choose it?

    I have never had a sexually transmitted disease. I am not promiscuous. I have never had sex in a public washroom or in a park. I’ve never been to a gay bathhouse. I am not and have never been attracted to children. I do not drink, smoke or do drugs. I workout 3 times a week, try to watch what I eat and am pretty healthy for a guy my age. I work, I pay taxes. I have a cat. I am well-liked and respected by friends, neighbors, and co-workers. I live a quiet, peaceful life and treat others with respect. I do not struggle with my identity and never have. Of course I get offended, and even angry, when groups like FRC go around associating me with “negative physical and psychological health effects” when they don’t know me or my life. Wouldn’t you? There is no “gay lifestyle”. Gay people or not monolithic. We don’t all look, think, act, and believe the same. We’re just as diverse as our hetero counterparts and actually have a lot in common with them, and the straight people in our lives can clearly see that because THEY KNOW US. I am not an anomaly in the gay community. Most live normal, responsible, non-threatening lives, but they’re not the ones the FRC wants to talk about.

    You go over everything I just told you about myself and point out exactly where I’m harming myself or society at large. FRC believes that homosexual conduct is harmful. So what? The vast majority of psychologists say otherwise. FRC says it is by definition unnatural. Again, so what? Gay people exist—always have, always will, whether it’s natural or not. What would you like to do with us? I could point out that pacemakers, plastic surgery, prosthetics, even dying your hair and wearing makeup are all unnatural. SO WHAT. And the jury is still out on whether it’s genetic or not.

    As far as what FRC says on their website, well, they can say whatever they want to make themselves look noble (like they’re doing with this shooting), but I’ve seen interviews and read quotes by Tony Perkins and others of that ilk and they say very different things when they’re preaching to the choir, so to speak.

    Comment by RJ — August 17, 2012 @ 3:04 pm - August 17, 2012

  137. Livewire #118

    Access NAMBLA and you´ll find Harry Hay listed as a founder. Your point is well taken.

    Comment by Roberto — August 17, 2012 @ 3:07 pm - August 17, 2012

  138. Levi, full of excrement as usual. Freedom of speech and other rights are direct descendants of the Judeo-Christian tradition; which distinguishes itself from.other belief systems in that value individual lives and teach that we are children of divinity. The notion of being endowed by Our Creator with inalienable rights is a product of this belief system.

    But, regressives believe our rights come from governments; and like Levi are completely ignorant of religious teachings.

    You’re getting it backwards – the important bit there is the recognition that humans have inalienable rights. That was the breakthrough, and it was a rejection of thousands of years of religious supremacy that said that humans didn’t have inalienable rights. When religious leaders were heads of state, there was no freedom of religion or freedom of speech. Human beings were still sold into slavery, pestilence and misfortune were attributed to witches who were burned at the stake only after they were tortured until they named their conspirators. You were free until the church said that you weren’t.

    Sure, the American revolutionaries credited the creator with having bequeathed those inalienable rights, but take into account the time they lived in, when science was in its infancy and Darwin’s theory was still a century away. The alternative explanation for our origins hadn’t yet arrived, and so the authors defaulted to the deliberately vague phrasing ‘Our Creator.’ They wouldn’t have written it that way even a hundred years later, and it’s utterly insignificant and tangential to the main thrust of the sentence.

    Comment by Levi — August 17, 2012 @ 3:40 pm - August 17, 2012

  139. RJ @ #136:

    FRC believes that homosexual conduct is harmful. So what?

    My sentiments exactly.

    but I’ve seen interviews and read quotes by Tony Perkins and others of that ilk and they say very different things when they’re preaching to the choir, so to speak.

    What happened to the “so what” in this instance?

    Your projection at #119 is vastly different:

    The FRC is listed as a hate group because it KNOWINGLY and systematically spreads false and denigrating propaganda about gay citizens and not, as they claim, because it opposes marriage equality. They continually push the notion that gays are a danger to children, liken them to bestiality, proclaim them demonic and worse. They’ve even recently advocated for the criminalization of homosexuality. Their animus towards gay citizens is well documented and goes far beyond “simply defending traditional marriage”.

    Do you have the need to hate or can you just be the man you describe in #136 and walk away from it? In other words, are you actually comfortable in your own skin or do you seek and/or need validation?

    It is not my need to know the answer to this question. I am a total stranger and have no need or even right to meddle in your life. But it appears that you have a need to know whether you can live a life not fueled by the stress you seem to gather from the FRC. Just how much of a threat do think the FRC is?

    The fact is, some guy got wound up enough about the FRC to go there and end up shooting a person. Some people might project that the FRC “had it coming.” Really? How very Nazi of them.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 17, 2012 @ 3:41 pm - August 17, 2012

  140. Levi ignores the fact that scientific, rational, atheistic regimes (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim) butchered far more human beings than any of the Christian heads-of-state he so despises. And they did so with great efficiency.

    Also, he ignores that the Enlightenment and all of the scientific progress he so adores are products of a Western Civilization rooted in the Judeo-Christian ethical tradition. It was not an accident that the Enlightenment didn’t happen in Africa, Arabia, India, or Eastern Asia.

    Comment by V the K — August 17, 2012 @ 3:49 pm - August 17, 2012

  141. RE: #139, heliotrope

    I believe I acknowledged that “I get offended, and even angry, when groups like FRC go around associating me with “negative physical and psychological health effects” when they don’t know me or my life.”

    I also asked, “Wouldn’t you?” You didn’t answer.

    By “so what” I was inferring that just because the FRC believes a certain way doesn’t make it true. I didn’t mean “so what” as in it doesn’t affect me.

    …are you actually comfortable in your own skin or do you seek and/or need validation?

    Seriously, dude. “Validation”? Gay people are bombarded with insulting, offensive rhetoric every single day. Many are physically attacked on the street. Anti-gay groups seek to diminish our civil rights and relegate us to second-class status, if not criminals. A lot of them do this by “KNOWINGLY and systematically spread[ing] false and denigrating propaganda” about us in order to gain political support against us. We’re fighting back, and justifiably so, as anyone would. (Again, wouldn’t you?) You diminish that to seeking/needing validation? (And by “fighting back”, I wasn’t referring to shooting anyone, lest your mind go there. I was referring to the fight for equality in general).

    Comment by RJ — August 17, 2012 @ 4:14 pm - August 17, 2012

  142. Levi ignores the fact that scientific, rational, atheistic regimes (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim) butchered far more human beings than any of the Christian heads-of-state he so despises. And they did so with great efficiency.

    A common trope. But nothing about any of those regimes was scientific, rational, or atheistic. Being forced to pray to an invisible super being and being forced to pray to a human or government is the same thing. The authoritarian mechanics of those dictators’ governments were materially no different than the authoritarian mechanics of religious dictators’ from centuries past. Not one of those people was motivated by an allegiance to atheism or science or reason, they were motivated by greed and power and ego, and they co-opted. They created new religions with themselves at the center. That’s not progress and nothing about science, reason, or atheism indicate that’s the way route we should take.

    Also, he ignores that the Enlightenment and all of the scientific progress he so adores are products of a Western Civilization rooted in the Judeo-Christian ethical tradition. It was not an accident that the Enlightenment didn’t happen in Africa, Arabia, India, or Eastern Asia.

    Actually, it is mostly accident. The physical geography of the world has more to do with the modern theological landscape than the theologies themselves.

    Comment by Levi — August 17, 2012 @ 5:03 pm - August 17, 2012

  143. I believe I acknowledged that “I get offended, and even angry, when groups like FRC go around associating me with “negative physical and psychological health effects” when they don’t know me or my life.”

    I also asked, “Wouldn’t you?” You didn’t answer.

    Comment by RJ — August 17, 2012 @ 4:14 pm – August 17, 2012

    The reason Heliotrope asks, RJ, is because he is surrounded by gay people on this site daily who don’t.

    And I believe he genuinely wants to know what issues you have that require you to go so far as to bring down the force of law to ban and punish those who publicly espouse their beliefs.

    Especially since you so eagerly support those who actively and regularly say far worse about gay and lesbian people than the FRC ever did.

    I have my own theory, which is that you are a vengeful and malevolent little bigot who will justify anything, including the abrogation of civil rights and violence, as long as it attacks the people who you blame for all of your problems in lieu of taking responsibility for them yourself.

    And I would add to that cowardice, because you know that criticizing the Nation of Islam would not only result in physical violence, but would also lead to punishment from the Obama Party and media. So you attack Christians instead.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 17, 2012 @ 5:32 pm - August 17, 2012

  144. Seriously Dude, where does this take place:

    • Gay people are bombarded with insulting, offensive rhetoric every single day.

    • Many are physically attacked on the street.

    • Anti-gay groups seek to diminish our civil rights and relegate us to second-class status, if not criminals.

    What “equality” are you “fighting” for?

    You state that (anti-gay groups are) “KNOWINGLY and systematically spread[ing] false and denigrating propaganda” about us in order to gain political support against us. What is this false and denigrating propaganda and where do I run into it?

    I believe I acknowledged that “I get offended, and even angry, when groups like FRC go around associating me with “negative physical and psychological health effects” when they don’t know me or my life.”

    However, are you not actually stating that your gay self is being negatively affected psychologically by the FRC’s opposition to homosexuality?

    Why do you empower the FRC and let them get under your skin and offend you and make you angry and roil you up so much that you want to prevent them from their right to free speech?

    So, you have established that you have a Joan of Arc sort of crusader’s objective of righting the FRC wrongs. You have volunteered your body and mind to being infested and infected with what the FRC reports. Am I correct that as a gay activist that you go looking for the anti-gay offending stuff? That you feed on it? That it is part of your being?

    You ask if I would do the same. Why would I? What do I want with tilting at windmills and staying bitter about things?

    I am not gay. I have gays in my family and a long time gay friend and business partner and many gay friends. All of them are extremely well grounded people and none of them would waste a minute looking for ways to get his system in an uproar over the FRC or something that some flaming ideologue like nearly anyone on MSNBC spews to a miniscule audience of misanthropes who need to feel the hate.

    I pity you. You really don’t know the meaning of “so what?”

    Comment by heliotrope — August 17, 2012 @ 5:37 pm - August 17, 2012

  145. Meanwhile, as for a few other points:

    Pedophilia has biological markers, which would make it an “immutable characteristic” — meaning that, according to liberal logic, laws against pedophilia and child marriage are unconstitutional.

    According to the CDC, gays have exponentially higher rates of HIV and other potentially-lethal infections.

    And this pretty well summarizes the rest.

    So here’s a thought, RJ; if you were a parent, wouldn’t you see a problem with your child engaging in a behavior that carries 44 TIMES the risk of them ending up with a disabling and deadly disease?

    If you were someone who was concerned about public health, wouldn’t you see a problem with people engaging in a behavior that has sickened, disabled, and killed literally MILLIONS of people?

    If you were budget- or business-inclined, wouldn’t you see a problem with people engaging in a behavior that has resulted in hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars in health care, welfare, and productivity being destroyed and drained from the economy and businesses?

    And if you were charitably-inclined, wouldn’t you see a problem with a completely-avoidable disease that has sucked up billions of dollars that could have been spent on easing hunger and poverty elsewhere?

    Once you take off the blinders of gay-sex liberalism and start to look past your minority status, you’ll recognize something; to the outside world, gays and lesbians look a whole lot like self-absorbed narcissistic idiots who refuse to even take basic responsibility for their behavior and who demand that society pay their way.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 17, 2012 @ 5:50 pm - August 17, 2012

  146. Gay people are bombarded with insulting, offensive rhetoric every single day. Many are physically attacked on the street.

    RJ, what place and decade do you live in? Or are you just one of those neurotically hypersensitive types for who considers “I ate at Chik-Fil-A for lunch” to be insulting, hateful rhetoric?

    As for being physically attacked in the streets… um… that happens to straight people, too. Especially ones who wander around in bad neighborhoods after dark.

    Comment by V the K — August 17, 2012 @ 8:09 pm - August 17, 2012

  147. Well, gay people do seem to be getting physically attacked at an increasing frequency in Amsterdam.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — August 17, 2012 @ 8:42 pm - August 17, 2012

  148. gay people do seem to be getting physically attacked at an increasing frequency in Amsterdam.

    EXACTLY.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 17, 2012 @ 8:42 pm - August 17, 2012

  149. Well, gay people do seem to be getting physically attacked at an increasing frequency in Amsterdam.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — August 17, 2012 @ 8:42 pm – August 17, 2012

    Wow, really?
    I wonder who the attackers could be?
    Let’s see……….American tourists? Uh, no.
    Bored and aimless Northern and Central Europeans? Nope, not them.
    Oh, wait! I got it now………..it’s ______________ (maybe one of the brave leftists will do us all a great big favor and fill in the blank).
    Don’t hold your breath, though.

    Comment by jman1961 — August 17, 2012 @ 9:08 pm - August 17, 2012

  150. I am sure Levi, RJ, and Vince will now explain that since Amsterdam is in the Netherlands, which is a “Christian” country, that obviously Christians are responsible for the attacks on gays there. Vince and Levi will add, “Who cares, Amsterdam is, like, over in Europe or whatever.”

    Comment by V the K — August 17, 2012 @ 9:21 pm - August 17, 2012

  151. Vince and Levi will add, “Who cares, Amsterdam is, like, over in Europe or whatever.”

    Along with this: “(I)t’s important to show solidarity with them, but unfortunately there’s not a whole lot to be done for them at the moment.” (posted by Duke Nukem, Heroic Tough Guy….errr, Levi — August 16, 2012 @ 1:42 pm)

    Comment by jman1961 — August 17, 2012 @ 9:27 pm - August 17, 2012

  152. They might be too offended by the FRC to be able to fight a two front war. Let the Dutch take care of their own problems by equipping their gays with helmets and air bags.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 18, 2012 @ 7:16 am - August 18, 2012

  153. A little civics lesson: The 1st Amendment is a restraint on government limitations on free speech. The SPLC and those who agree with its assessment of the FRC as a hate group have nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. (Though I do find it interesting that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies use SPLC resources to prosecute various crimes.) Speech does not exist in a vacuum. Those who speak publicly about issues relating to minority groups should be well aware that their speech is subject to analysis and criticism.

    More American gay people were assaulted and murdered in 2011 than during any other year that statistics have been kept. (Source: FBI) This does not include unreported assaults.

    Here’s why they are considered a hate group. Note that these statements are in direct contradiction to their stated policy, as posted by Heliotrope:

    “[A]llowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military would likely result, for the first time, in heterosexuals being forced to cohabit with those who may view them as a potential sexual object.”
    — Peter Sprigg, “Homosexual Assault in the Military,” 2010

    “[W]elcoming open homosexuality in the military would clearly damage the readiness and effectiveness of the force – in part because it would increase the already serious problem of homosexual assault in the military.”
    — Peter Sprigg, “Homosexual Assault in the Military,” 2010

    “Since homosexual conduct is associated with higher rates of sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, mental illness, substance abuse, and domestic violence, it too qualifies as a behavior that is harmful to the people who engage in it and to society at large.”
    — Tony Perkins, “Christian compassion requires the truth about the harms of homosexuality,” Washington Post, 10/25/2010

    “We believe the evidence shows … that relative to the size of their population, homosexual men are more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are heterosexual men.”
    — Peter Sprigg, “Debating Homosexuality: Understanding Two Views.” 2011.

    “Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.”
    — Robert Knight, FRC director of cultural studies, and Frank York, 1999

    “[Homosexuality] … embodies a deep-seated hatred against true religion.”
    — Steven Schwalm, FRC senior writer and analyst, in “Desecrating Corpus Christi,” 1999

    “One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order.”
    -1999 FRC pamphlet, Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex with Boys.

    “[T]he evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners.”
    — Timothy Dailey, senior research fellow, “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse,” 2002

    “While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a homosexual problem.”
    — FRC President Tony Perkins, FRC website, 2010

    They can’t really walk this one back. It’s disgusting and defamatory. Not worthy of shooting the place up – nothing is. But blaming the SPLC for this is a lot like a school bully blaming the class nerd for finally snapping and punching him in the face.

    Finally, North Dallas 30 and Jman1961 seem to be a trifle screamy, at the expense of their credibility.

    Comment by Lon — August 19, 2012 @ 8:07 am - August 19, 2012

  154. Lon, nothing in the quotations you offer from the FRC folk suggests they are a hate group. Everything though does suggest a narrow, inaccurate and jaundiced, even loopy, views of a gays.

    You’re right; it’s wrong to blame the SPLC for this. But it’s also wrong to call FRC a hate group.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 19, 2012 @ 12:06 pm - August 19, 2012

  155. Oh, Lon, you and yours amuse me.

    We can break this down rather easily.

    In regard to children:

    Here are gays and lesbians demanding the age of consent stay low.

    Here are gays and lesbians dressing children as sexual objects and taking them to a sex fair.

    And here is a full listing from NAMBLA of all the resolutions passed in support of them by the ILGA, representing the international gay and lesbian community.

    You can’t walk those back, Lon. The FRC repeated what you yourself and your fellow gays and lesbians are saying.

    You’re throwing a fit and blaming them for actually taking the gay community at its words.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 19, 2012 @ 12:33 pm - August 19, 2012

  156. And now, Lon, in regard to disease and sexual promiscuity:

    The rates of sexually transmitted diseases are exponentially higher among gay men.

    The rates among children and teens in the United States are double that of sub-Saharan Africa.

    And the overall statistics speak for themselves.

    So if you repeat what the CDC has scientifically determined and proven, you’re a “hate group”.

    That sounds a lot like you screaming and trying to shift responsibility instead of manning up and taking the blame for the values and actions you and the rest of the gay and lesbian community endorse and practice.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 19, 2012 @ 12:38 pm - August 19, 2012

  157. And as far as homosexuality and religious belief being incompatible, ask Dan Savage, Chai Feldblum, and Evan Hurst, all of whom make it clear that homosexuality is anti-religion.

    Again, why do you blame people for taking your statements at face value?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 19, 2012 @ 1:30 pm - August 19, 2012

  158. Hey, Lon, let’s try it this way:

    Finally, I’m seeming to be a trifle screamy, at the expense of my credibility.

    Comment by Lon(g) on Hysterics and Exaggeration, Short on Facts’ — August 19, 2012 @ 8:07 am

    Do you leftists EVER grow up and stop sounding like spoiled and bratty 6 year old girls?

    Comment by jman1961 — August 19, 2012 @ 1:54 pm - August 19, 2012

  159. No, asshole, YOU learn how to read … you POS … I don’t need YOUR permission, you obnoxious little pr**k … you little bitch … You better watch yourself, a-hole. Reckless little c*nts like you can wind up getting hurt … grow the f*ck up … Captain Asshole … Steaming Pile of S**t … Petulant Little Prick … dumbf*ck … bon appetit!

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 19, 2012 @ 3:42 pm - August 19, 2012

  160. CS, those comments seem like Jman, but I could be wrong ;)

    Comment by rusty — August 19, 2012 @ 4:37 pm - August 19, 2012

  161. Although, that quote would be more appropriately assigned to a sassy, yet foul mouthed, middle schooler. . .after a disappointing Beiber concert.

    Comment by rusty — August 19, 2012 @ 4:43 pm - August 19, 2012

  162. Oopsy Bieber. . .

    Comment by rusty — August 19, 2012 @ 4:44 pm - August 19, 2012

  163. B. Daniel said, “Lon, nothing in the quotations you offer from the FRC folk suggests they are a hate group.”

    It seems that your highest priority is to be well liked by raging bigots rather than stand up for yourself. If, on the off-chance that they actually do like you a little bit, it would be because you always remember your place.

    Comment by Richard R — August 19, 2012 @ 5:50 pm - August 19, 2012

  164. Rusty, when you wrote bieber concert, I first read breitbart convention.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 19, 2012 @ 6:46 pm - August 19, 2012

  165. Comment by Cinesnatch — August 19, 2012 @ 3:42 pm – August 19, 2012

    Poor CineTwat, you must have worked for hours to come up with that.
    And this says what exactly? That YOU are a paragon of class and virtue? That YOU established the paradigm that everyone here should follow when commenting?
    Not all of those that you posted were directed at YOU, but they might just as well have been; they fit you to a tee. And you’ve definitely brought put the best in other posters here. Should I compile the catalog of ‘sweet hossanahs’ that they’ve sent your way?
    No, I didn’t think so……….
    I see you brought along Rustard. How nice for you, a cheering section of one.
    What happened to your girlfriend Levi?

    Comment by jman1961 — August 19, 2012 @ 7:34 pm - August 19, 2012

  166. hours

    Minutes. It all came from mostly one thread and I’m pretty quick with the keyboard.

    And this says what exactly?

    Whatever you want it to mean, gayman1961.

    Should I compile the catalog of ‘sweet hossanahs’ that they’ve sent your way?

    Don’t bother. I saved you the trouble. Here’s a recent oldie, but goodie from the archives:

    “Go f*ck yourself. Your comments are passive-aggressive – often enough that probably you are, too. Typical leftie evasion. Lobbing stink bombs like a junior high schooler trying to get even. Why not just openly be a bitchy left-wing troll. We all know that in your heart, you are one. You don’t fool anybody, with your periodic shows of “reform” that last all of ten seconds. You do fool some well-meaning people. [You] mis-represent … actual views and actions. Passive-aggressive, lying, narcissistic. You are so……. completely…… full of it. You’re up to at least two lies now. Pathetic.”

    Take a guess.

    xoxo,
    Regards,
    Cinesnatch

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 19, 2012 @ 8:41 pm - August 19, 2012

  167. Here’s another one for your ‘Library of Mean and Nasty Comments That Other People have Posted About ME, ME, ME’:
    It’s too bad that you’ve wasted all of the time that Heliotrope (and everyone else ) has spent on you, you obnoxious little fairy.
    How does that one rate in with the others in that vast library of your’s, Perpetual Victim CineQueer?

    Comment by jman1961 — August 19, 2012 @ 9:01 pm - August 19, 2012

  168. Or, Vince the Vacuous, is it that your trolling here for boyfriends has resulted in ZERO interest in you? Is that why you’re angry?
    You know, it’s a good thing you have this place (GP) to vent that anger, “rather than shooting up a group of people”.
    Can you guess who wrote that, asshole?
    Pathetic little CineSnot: no one who’s approval he so desperately desires will waste the time to affirm his meaningless existence.
    How sad.

    Comment by jman1961 — August 19, 2012 @ 9:11 pm - August 19, 2012

  169. Jman, There you go again judging how helio is spending his for him. Just a guess, but the man can make decisions for himself. But you’ve already been told that once. Helio has earned my respect over the last two years and though he has come down on me in the past (sometimes justifiably), He has never come close to acting in your knee-jerk emotional style. Wisdom with age, etc, i imagine, but my guess Is that he has carried himself with dignity his whole life. But, hey, maybe he agrees with your opinion of me. Perhaps it would assuage your ego if he came out right and sang your praises, as you’re demonstrating, his opinion of me is very important to you.

    is it that your trolling here for boyfriends has resulted in ZERO interest in you?

    you’ve also demonstrated yourself to be quite literal and dense, so this comment doesn’t surprise me. No, not looking for boyfriend on Internet or GP. But, yes, I have generated some interest here on that front through my associations with this blog. So feel free to place that in your pie hole. Either end, your choice. But, you sound like you might benefit from one more than the other.

    What’s sad is how easy it is to pick you apart. Perhaps kind of sad is that one bothers with someone with crosshairs stamped on their chest.

    Perhaps if you just stop trying to one up me as you bury yourself, you won’t hear a peep out of me. Or keep trying to have the last word. Eventually, I’ll get bored with you and move on.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 20, 2012 @ 1:08 am - August 20, 2012

  170. And, Cinesnatch makes YET ANOTHER thread… about himself.

    Hint: Nobody holds a gun to your head and forces you to respond to… anybody. Or even to read them.

    The quote collections, Cinesnatch, are particularly narcissistic. Since you clearly assemble them with care, adding bits over time, carefully stripped of context (i.e. of your poor actions which inspired them), so that you may feel the more persecuted.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 20, 2012 @ 1:57 am - August 20, 2012

  171. @ILC,

    Given the times when I’ve used Levi’s own words to damn him, including the links so he can’t scream about ‘out of context’, should I take Vince’s pale, flawed attempts to do the same as a form of flattery?

    I know I’m flattered when my 10 year old godson tries to emulate my painting style on minis.

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 20, 2012 @ 8:08 am - August 20, 2012

  172. Heh :-) Problem is, TL, that you really don’t strip Levi’s quotes of context. (And do provide links, etc.) So imitation is still flattery, but the right comparison is less to a kid imitating your efforts in joy; more to a vandal trying to deface or pervert your efforts in malice.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 20, 2012 @ 9:26 am - August 20, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.