The shooting of a security guard Wednesday at the Family Research Council (FRC) has spurred a torrent of heated accusations from both sides of the gay rights debate about claims that the conservative organization is a “hate group.”
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), one of the nation’s leading opponents of same-sex marriage, told The Hill the shooting was a direct result of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s decision in 2010 to place the FRC on its list of hate groups for its rhetoric on gays.
Brian Brown, the president of NOM, pointed to a recent blog post by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), one of the largest gay-rights groups in the country. The post, “Paul Ryan Speaking at Hate Group’s Annual Conference,” called attention to the vice presidential candidate’s scheduled appearance at the FRC’s national summit next month.
“Today’s attack is the clearest sign we’ve seen that labeling pro-marriage groups as ‘hateful’ must end,” Brown said in a statement issued following the shooting.
“For too long national gay rights groups have intentionally marginalized and ostracized pro-marriage groups and individuals by labeling them as ‘hateful’ and ‘bigoted.’”
17 Comments
But so many of you are. What do you expect? Read the posts here....with an open mind.
We not only read them with an open mind, we have rejected yours from an informed conscience, Rich.
Your problem consists in attempting to describe opinions with which you do not agree as "hate speech".
I happen to believe in the First Amendment, and could care less whether your side wishes to attempt to run its utterly discredited "bigot" meme up the flagpole, despite its having lost you thirty three straight elections.
The real issue is here is a tendency among some in the gay rights movement to encourage acts of violence against supporters of traditional marriage.
That needs to stop.
Rick, I'm not at all surprised that you would so quickly align the actions of one shooter with every gay person who disagrees with you. You, in particular, are just like that very man who pulled a trigger in the FRC. He used a bullet, your denigration of gay people and your choice of hurtful, hateful characterizations to numerous to list are your bullets. His bullet almost killed. No telling which of the many gays who are threatened and sometimes killed were the result of your ease with firing your own bullets.
Rich, you are aware, aren't you, that statistically, a "gay" person is much more likely to be the victim of domestic violence from another "gay" person, than from a straight person, right?
"You, in particular, are just like that very man who pulled a trigger in the FRC."
>> You are demonstrably insane. Words do not equal bullets, except in the unbalanced mind of the victimhood-pimping radical Alinskyites- and then of course the correspondence is entirely one-way:
The words of my enemies are bullets.
The bullets of my friends are words.
It is truly appalling to consider what our nation would become were we to hand the power4 to rewrite the marriage laws to minds capable of such foundational dishonesty.
Daughter of Eve: Cite your source but make it a legitimate one, not a specifically anti-gay lobbying group that calls gays developmentally disordered and disease ridden.
In other words, Eve, you are only allowed to use sources that agree with your opponent's position.
This is what passes for "debate" in the minds of the pseudo-marriage advocate.
DoE and Rick, statistically, your combined comments on this site have served to demonize and vilify gays more than almost any other bloggers I have ever encountered. You two simply hate gay people; this is no surprise to everyone who enters this site. Rick is absolutely blatant in his animosity...witness the post above and DoE, you are right there with him albeit you try, unsuccessfully, to rationalize the issue by throwing out sheer nonsense about a topic with which you have no experience including, I think, marriage. It's truly laughable but also scary because, as Rick alluded, insanity, or an unbalanced mind, can be equated with victim hood and, for the two of you, victim hood would appear to be your raison d'être.
Rich, please state the objective criteria for the designation of "hate group". No, do not rely on the gay context. I would like the criteria whereby all organizations can be assessed including those that are advocates of the various items on the gay agenda.
If you are not equipped to state these criteria, then, you might want to hold off making more of the sort of remarks you have made here.
@#8 Rich:
"DoE and Rick, statistically, your combined comments on this site have served to demonize and vilify gays more than almost any other bloggers I have ever encountered."
>> Let me translate from gayspeak:
"DoE and Rick, we don't like the fact that you persistently defend traditional marriage on this site dedicated to traditional marriage."
I respond:
Tough.
"You two simply hate gay people; this is no surprise to everyone who enters this site."
From the original gayspeak:
"You simply cannot be intimidated by our 'pro marriage equals hateful bigot' meme. It is obvious to everyone who enters this site."
I respond:
It is an honor to defend marriage against the dark, violent, and increasingly fascist-tending pseudo-marriage movement.
"Rick is absolutely blatant in his animosity...witness the post above"
>> From the original gayspeak:
Please don't witness the post above, since it says nothing remotely approximating what I allege."
I respond:
Please read post #7 above. If that is what you consider "hate", may I say we will have to agree to disagree
I will leave the rest of the pizza for DoE.
LOL, I'm still amused by the assertion I know "nothing" about marriage. My hubs & I will celebrate 19 years this winter, w/ our large family.
The fact that that I support a gay person's right to get married, and have said so, dozens of times, is driving you bonkers, isn't it Jake. Expect me to call you out on your consistent inconsistencies. Expect me not to cave to your name calling, your putting words in my mouth, your manufacturing of imagined slights, followed by your righteous indignation and vehement protestations. Expect me to demand you provide evidence for your claims. And, fair warning--I've dealt w/ a lot of childish tantrums; yours don't scare me.
I don't know where we'd be without NOM.
Homosexual monies flow to homosexual special rights lobbyists like the Human Rights Campaign. As long as that money keeps flowing, groups like the HRC will continue to fight -- and something tells me that this money will continue to flow forever.
Enter NOM.
Suddenly, there's an organization for marriage supporters to send money to. The money can flow to NOM every bit as long as the money is flowing to the HRC.
The SSMers continuous fight has now been met with a continuous resistance.
In the absence of NOM, the marriage redefinition movement could only make progress (in the absence of significant opposition).
Plus, NOM came out immediately with truths that homosexual journalists in the media don't want to publish, right after the shooting. Brian hammered home his simple point on CNN.
Comment awaiting moderation. In the meantime,
"I'd like to thank the Academy..."
Nobody was paying any attention to SPLC, so they made the decision to jump on the marriage corruption bandwagon in hopes of becoming relevant. It's pretty simple. There's a lot of that going around.
The real problems they could address are just too darn hard to deal with. But just look at all the press and, presumably, money they get with their self-appointed credentials. They declared themselves the experts on hate.
Two days later and Rich has not responded to the query I made:
Rich, please state the objective criteria for the designation of "hate group". No, do not rely on the gay context. I would like the criteria whereby all organizations can be assessed including those that are advocates of the various items on the gay agenda.
Is there no SSMer capable of citing the objective criteria whereby all organizations, including those that are explicitly pro-gay, can be assessed for hate?
Four days ... and counting.
Chaim: Is Rich (or any of the trolls) able to answer Rick D. & Bman's more basic question below from a couple of threads ago?
"Are you accusing people of hating gays just because they support 1M1W marriage?"
He hasn't responded to that one either and I'd really like to hear the answer also.