Calling for the kidnapping children of same sex couples isn’t hateful? Calling for homosexuality to be criminalized and homosexuals to be imprisoned isn’t hateful?
And aside from that yes, opposition to SSM is hateful; there’s no other motive for it than hate. And for all the whining of the apologists about that accusation being unfair or “broad brushed”, they fail consistently to come up with a reason that doesn’t boil down to hatred.
Should groups that encourage all men to secretly tape their sexual encounters with women in case the women accuse them of rape be called classified as “hate groups”?
Such an attitude certainly suggests a huge animosity towards women, but I’m sure you’d object to classifying such groups as hate groups.
In fact, you’ve stated you think that men should do exactly that.
Most reasonable people hearing your views towards women would be horrified and label them misogynistic, but you obviously don’t.
Similarly, people objecting to SSM genuinely don’t believe they’re homophobes even if they hold positions that many would view as homophobic.
In response to women here saying that all men should be treated as potential rapists, and claiming that it’s unreasonable and sexist for men to be offended by that.
And neither of those positions begins to approach calling for all homosexuals to be thrown in prison and their children kidnapped, anyway.
For starters, not a single person on this thread has suggested that it’s not hateful to call for gays to be imprisoned or their children kidnapped, so your ending commenting are exceptionally stupid and intellectually dishonest.
Moreover, I think quite a few women would find your suggestion that they should be secretly taped while having sex quite hateful.
Thirdly, my point was that you don’t consider such a statement hateful but common sense since, in your view, “the typical American woman” hates men, views them as monsters, and men should be afraid of them.
The point is that you hold viewpoints that most reasonable people would find hateful but you don’t.
In short, one can believe that same-sex marriage is wrong or that men should videotape all their sexual encounters because most women are liars out to get men and yet believe one isn’t hateful.
If you disagree with me, please explain why encouraging men to secretly videotape all their sexual encounters is less offensive than objecting to the government recognizing gay marriages.
I see no reason the two of you need to take that discussion from the thread where it’s occurring and have it over here. Please drop this tangent.
Back on topic, listening to Dan Savage’s latest podcast he kicks off the whole thing with a lengthy rant about the person who shot up the FRC offices, pointing out that he was among the first on Twitter to not only condemn the shooting but to say that if relevant (e.g. if he was religiously motivated) the shooter should be charged under hate crime legislation as well.
Savage also lays into the FRC for claiming that the reason it’s being targetted is due to its opposition to SSM rather than some of its more unpleasant practices, but that’s for the other thread.
Perhaps the L. A. Times declines to label the arrested person as a “vandal” because he has not yet been convicted of vandalism.
Had the Christian Post described the person as a “suspected vandal,” your example might have a bit more resonance.
My post wasn’t a moderating instruction, by the way. I was just mentioning it for your reference.
Excellent.
Don’t expect civility from the left. Ever heard of Pyrite?
I’m confused where exactly is the proof that Chik-fil-A president supports Hate groups?
Right here in this thread.
All that work for nothing. Exactly 50 posts ahead of your post is some well-cited proof, provided by a poster as charming as he is devilishly handsome. Did you forget to read the thread before responding to it?
After a quick google; this story talks about it.
A Huffington Post article? Honestly, people, if you wish to reach a broader audience, you’re going to have to start quoting a more broadly accepted source.
I’m even unopposed to gay marriage/gay equal rights in general, but I see something like a Huffington Post article as no “proof” of anything other than left-wing zealotry.
Oh, please; I just grabbed the top google result since you were asking for “confirmation” of a well known fact. Let me guess; the only “cite” you would accept would be something from Fox News. You no doubt didn’t bother to look where Left Hand of Dorkness pointed you; here is the link to the post mentioned on the off chance you actually care.
Are they wrong about any of those facts?
Dude, I am a broadly accepted source. Ask any broad. And post 101 contains specific quotes from a group that Chik-Fil-A supports.
Is this your standard for acquiring information?
What? Where did I imply that if I don’t accept far left-wing blogs as sources of truth, I must only accept Fox News?
When someone is asking a question about a well known fact that could be answered by just googling it if they cared to make the effort themselves, yes.
When you characterized it as some “far left blog”, assumed the information mentioned was false, and apparently didn’t bother to even look at what Left Hand of Dorkness posted.