National Organization for Marriage's Brian Brown says that the Family Research Council shooting was “politically motivated” and labeling the organization a hate group is “totally irresponsible.”
Brown says, “All the indications from multiple sources that were there, say the shooter actually came in and started attacking the policies of the Family Research Council.”
He continues, “Everything points to the fact that this was politically motivated…. Groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center which has labeled the Family Research Council, which is a mainstream group, a hate group. That sort of talk… is totally irresponsible and unacceptable and I think this incident makes that clear.”
54 Comments
Pedophiles hurt children, homosexuality doesnt harm anyone, period, end of debate. If you don't agree with it, then don't do it. Easy! Problem solved! Living an entirely celibate life like the pope is NOT healthy and DEFINATELY NOT natural. Otherwise we would all play World of Warcraft.
Thank you Brian. Excellent.
Your natural talent when it comes to standing up against absurd attacks with respect and reasoned truth, and yet at the same time presenting a steadfast refusal to back down or be shied away is always nice, and encouraging and helpful to see.
Protect yourself; protect that (god given) talent.
Now I hope those who label promarriage movements as "hate groups" wil think a little about the outcome of such labeling.
In other words: Let us continue to promote hatred of LGBT people but don't acknowledge it because that promotes hatred of us. You're not the innocent persecuted victim you want the world to see you as, Brian.
Fedele: And I hope that those who make a financial profit off spreading hatred toward the LGBT population will think a little about the outcome of such activism.
@loving -
Both pedophilia and homosexuality involve a mental crossing of the wires, as it were. We call on pedophiles to resist their disordered urges, and it is reasonable to call on homosexuals to do the same.
Male homosexuality and the natural promiscuity of males is a formula for the spread of STDs; this is fact. Some men who commit sodomy with other males also have sex with women, spreading STDs such as HIV/AIDS to the heterosexual community. This is all very dangerous behavior and we should be encouraging research to prevent and/or cure same-sex attraction, not celebrate it.
We all know the hate label is used by the opposition as a desperate attempt to sway opinion, nothing more. They use it b/c they have no positive arguments for redefining marriage.
It's irresponsible and dangerous, and here's your proof.
Good job, Brian. I'm surprised CNN allowed you to talk.
Maggie - If you're reading, please see Overcame's post #6 then tell me that your sude does not harbor animus toward gay people.
Hate. You wanna know what I hate? I hate the fact that HIV/AIDS continues to be spread at alarming rates among men having sex with men and that millions of taxpayer dollars have been diverted to treat/cure this disease, whereas a change in behavior amongst homosexuals could free those dollars up for research on diseases that people get through no fault of their own.
Jake -
That's not animus; that's an observation on my part, based in logic and reason. You use the word "hatred" to describe my post to elicit emotion against that with which you disagree. I don't hate people; but there are behaviors that I do hate.
Loving wrote,
>
> homosexuality doesnt harm anyone, period, end of debate.
What about the "bottom" in male homosexual 'lovemaking'?
Loving wrote,
>
> Otherwise we would all play World of Warcraft.
Should it be illegal to discriminate against people that play World of Warcraft?
Like homosexuals, gamers are defined by what they do, rather than what they are. Gamers make a choice to play World of Warcraft. Homosexuals make a choice to have sex with members of the same gender. Both can change their mind. We're all free to have sex with whomever we like, or not to.
I read comment # 6, and I see nothing of hatred. The Center for Disease Control continues to reccommend the acceptance of blood donations from men who have sex with men (regardless of their sexual orientation). There's a reason for that. There's a reason AIDS is skyrocketing in young males of racial minorities, especially amongst those who claim to be "gay." Mother Nature doesn't care about political correctness or sexual identity politics. The scientific facts are that homosexual behavior is high risk. Period. Only someone who actually hates you wouldn't tell you of the risks, try to warn you, or try to discourage you from enegaging in those dangerous behaviors. Calling that "hate" speech is killing the messanger. For those who acknowledge an attraction to the same sex, AND understand the risks involved in homosexual behavior AND wish to avoid temptation, there should be counseling they can receive to help them avoid those high risk behaviors. That's not hate speech, that's brotherly love. Only someone with a gross misunderstanding of real hate and real love could confuse the two.
Correction: The CDC continues to reccommend AGAINST the acceptance of men who have sex with men...
Third time's the charm: The CDC continues to reccommend AGAINST the acceptance of blood donations from men who have sex with men....
Oh, those CDC haters!
Brian Brown you're a good man but your words fall on deaf ears. The definition of civility and tolerance among the social left is "you must agree with us without question" and if you fail to do that then you are(as Dennis Prager puts it) SIXHRB.
Sexist, Islamaphobic, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Racist and Bigoted.
@Jake4156: when people make assertions, you should NEVER label them as hatred people before checking factual evidence.
For example, the anchorwoman of CNN made a question to Brian which was deliberately aimed to put him in a difficult position.
He resisted, and he resisted on a sound factual basis: in fact, there is a history of positions taken by prominent homosexual leaders and associations who stated that pederasty should have been legalized (for example: Mario Mieli in Italy).
But Brian has been excellent in not recalling such history, and instead he stayed on the point that labelling as "hate group" your political opponents is not only totally unacceptable in a democracy, but also have tragic consequences.
@Jake4156: when people make assertions, you should NEVER label them as hatred people before checking factual evidence.
For example, the anchorwoman of CNN made a question to Brian which was deliberately aimed to put him in a difficult position.
He resisted, and he resisted on a sound factual basis: in fact, there is a history of positions taken by prominent homosexual leaders and associations who stated that pederasty should have been legalized (for example: Mario Mieli in Italy).
But he has been excellent in not recalling such history, and instead he stayed on the point that labelling as "hate group" your political opponents is not only totally unacceptable in a democracy, but also have tragic consequences.
"Pedophiles hurt children, homosexuality doesnt harm anyone, period, end of debate."
>> Except the ones that bring guns into Christian lobbying organizations and start shooting people.
Right?
I am quite used to the hate speech from gay "marriage" activists.
I am simply warning those who promote it that if any more shooters show up there is going to be a math problem for one side of this equation.
I personally believe in the First Amendment, so you can say what you like, and I'll refute it if I disagree.
One step beyond that is where you are increasingly going to want to start going, because you are losing and you can feel it.
I solemnly advise not going the one step beyond.
NOM walks the walk on civility; witness the fact that this blog allows opposing viewpoints to be expressed. Contrast that with the pro-so-called ss"m" sites that censor all opposing comments. Even CNN, a supposed news site, censors comments that disagree with so-called ss"m."
Maybe if the shooter at the FRC spent some time here - or maybe if he heard from some of us on the pro-ss"m" sites- , he'd realize that those of us who support true marriage do so out of a genuine concern for children, society, and sexually-confused individuals, not hatred. And maybe he would have thought twice before dealing with the issue with violence.
And Maggie remains silent while allowing NOM Blig to be used as a forum to for anti-gay bigotry. Spreading the "gay men are disease ridden perverts who are destroying society" ignorance is in fact promoting hatred and bigotry.
@Jake -
Men are, generally, sexually promiscuous and more so than women. Men who are sexually attracted to other men are thus more likely to engage in random acts of sodomy with multiple partners because there are practically no barriers as there are in male-female relationships. Yes, this creates problems for society.
Facts, Jake. No ignorance, no hatred.
The Family Research Council told a malicious lie: that one of the primary goals of the gay rights movement is to normalize the rape of children. *THAT* is hateful, and I'm increasingly disturbed by the inability of NOMers to recognize this kind of ugly smear.
Sadly, Jake, himself, is the one promoting that narrative. It's not too to see the truth Jake.
If Jake's idea of "hate speech" includes the truthful statement that same sex attraction is objectively disordered, then we are going to be at loggerheads.
Same sex attraction *is* objectively disordered.
Terrorism and hate crimes begin when one starts advocating, or practicing, shooting the victims of a given disorder.
Free speech includes the right to tell the truth about the homosexual disorder.
Great posts and comments Overcome.
@Barb #7
CNN let him talk because they feel guilty and responsible for putting good peoples lives in danger by months and months of biased reporting.
Its no longer a theory. Its reality. Brian's life and others are in danger because of how the media is handling this subject. CNN being one of the most irresponsible and culpable on this point. Their trying to cover themselves; by now playing at pretending to calm the situation as if they were neutral.
The way the interviewer posed her question to Brian (she was defending the legitimacy of 'hate' labeling; even trying to get Brian to admit that 'hate' was a legitimate label) shows that they don't plan on playing this game for long (that of balanced reporting), but intend to go right back into the same old thing of biased reporting as soon as they can. Which means tomorrow.
OK, Rick - good to know that you know more than every single major psychological organization in America. You're so smart. For a geocentrist, I guess.
@DN,
Psychology is a pseudo science that has lost all credibility since its trade unions were taken over from within by the "LGBT" and everybody knows it.
DN:
If every single major psychological organization in America wishes to support the demonstrably insane notion that Moms are not female and Dads are not male, then they are- all of them- completely refuted on those grounds alone.
All of the sheepskin in the world cannot help them, if their "research" requires us to logically accept such an absurdity.
Thanks for the kind words, I would suspect I am rather high on the intelligence scale for geocentrists, since we are few just now
OK, Rick, whatever you say.
Since you know so much, I've got a stubborn stain in my chenille sofa. Any advice?
Isn't conflating being an LGBT individual with being a pedophile and using discredited research to spew false information about LGBT also irresponsible? Because the FRC has definitely done that.
@DN #27:
Hydrogen peroxide, maybe
"Isn't conflating being an LGBT individual with being a pedophile"
>> Evidence?
"and using discredited research to spew false information about LGBT"
>> Evidence?
also irresponsible?
>> It were irresponsible to advance such claims without the evidence to prove them, yes.
"Because the FRC has definitely done that."
>> Evidence?
Perkins repeated the FRC’s association of gay men with pedophilia,[29] saying that "If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children."
Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute is an “expert” cited by groups like the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and the American Family Association, among others in the Religious Right. While his claims have been consistently discredited, Cameron is still a favorite of opponents of gay rights.
Rick, you can go hunting for my responses, if you even read them. NOM will evidently not allow said responses to be published here.
Alex:
Thanks just the same, I have already done so.
You have had two opportunities to post evidence in support of your accusations.
You have provided none.
Next.
Statistically, the G in LGBTQ is more likely to molest boys than the L, T, B, or Q, when compared to males who don't title themselves as G, who molest kids. United Families International has a lot of stats on the issue. Great question, Alex.
Daughter of Eve: More lies and distortions. You are helping BOM earn its hate group status, congrats. The truth is that the "S" (straight) man is statistically far more likely to molest children. Yet you continue to promote the idea of those with the straight political identity raising as many children as their female partner is capable of popping out. Why us that. Last I checked, Jerry Sandysky was in the "S" column.
Chick-Fil-A is related to this shooting by material evidence. One FRC staff member was shot in the arm as he stopped (unarmed) the killer. He's no sissy.
Let's take a look at the sissy who needs a mob mentality to confront an issue: The guy who took a free water from Chick-Fil-A, and then proceeded to complain to 'Rachel' at the Chick-Fil-A drive-thru window about something she had no doing in, felt justified in videoing her and insulting her personally because allegedly "Chick-Fil-A gives money to hate groups":
Starts at minute 1:20 in the following video link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Jg-jzlWcc0E
He goes on to claim money is given to hate groups 'just because people want to kiss another guy'. That's his exaggeration.
His mob mentality seeking support in the pack (number of persons): Minute 0:45 "I really hope those students over there...are going to do a sit-in - I think they are... - it just makes sense." (To him anyway, at the moment.)
Minute 1:40 "I totally understand... I'll take MY water.... I'm glad i can take a little money from Chick-Fil-A, and maybe less money [sic.] to hate groups."
Minute 1:50 He makes the accusation personal: "I don't know how you can live with yourself. This is a horrible corporation, with horrible values. You deserve better.... You deserve better... Rachel, you deserve better.... I'm a nice guy, by the way..."
Minute 4:08 of his public video apology - substantiating his mob mentality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qihe0_4xSfQ&NR=1&feature=endscreen
"I felt purpose in standing up against Chick-Fil-A's funding of anti-human-rights groups. I felt like it was the right thing to do - the human thing to do. ... For me, (and at that moment) the main goal of [sic.] supporting the gay community out-weighed the collateral damage that Rachel became. And i literally just saw Rachel as collateral damage."
Minute 5:35 - "if people can get this passionate about a guy being rude to a girl in a drive-thru, how much more passion can we have for our fellow human beings, whose BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS are being threatened by corporations like Chick-Fil-A..."
Bottom line: if people can be rude to us or shoot at us, we have a legal right to be rude to them, and to shoot back at them. Is that how it is going to be? We just need to know. It's mob mentality - very dangerous - because it appears to justify actions which we would later regret.
Notice Rachel and many counter employees are easily accessible to the general public.
The abuse was abusive because it wasted time at the drive-thru without a purchase, and was cowardly towards an employee who has no power to change the corporation policies, instead of towards the owner of the corporation, or the corporation itself. This sorry guy now feels "sorry" (because he lost his job as a backslash) for acting out his mob mentality.
Rachel, at the window, could have been shot by a similar activist as in this post, influenced by unsound arguments and mob mentality. Drive-thru's are a convenience to every customer, and are only possible if people are courteous as they are courteous towards. Compare Rachel's drive thru to a bank's drive thru.
You can point with a gun, if you can point with a cell phone (Minute 1:00 in first video link: "Here I go...") Drive-thru window employees don't know the risk they take.
This guy was prophetic in "Here I go". He was let go by his employer, and now he admittedly has lots of time to post videos of his mob mentality.
How trite... After the massively successful Chik-Fil-A Buy-cott...some gay dude gets all jazzed up and buys twelve sandwiches and takes his gun to FRC..
Why...because the FRC is a "hate group"..
Every time Chik-Fil-A was in the news they would mention that donation and the fact that SPLC had labeled it a "hate group"
So this gay guy was given license to shot up the FRC because there in the same list with the KKK..
And its as simple and obvious as that..
Since when did facts become hate speech? Don't shoot the messenger.
It is the particular form of child abuse involving indoctrination in homosexualist anti values that is most relevant.
The recent piece on Canadian enforced mind-control role playing exercises for pupils, involving "six genders", is an example of this sort of child abuse.
Under gay "marriage" laws, neither children nor parents would have the slightest legal recourse.
Same sex "marriage" must be defeated.
For the sake of our children.
Jake4156 wrote,
>
> In other words: Let us continue to promote hatred of LGBT people but don't acknowledge it because that promotes hatred of us.
You're declaring that animus is the only conceivable motivation for people to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia?
Do you actually believe this, or are you just trying to further the SSM "opinion cascade"?
> You're not the innocent persecuted victim you want the world to see you as, Brian.
Neither are homosexuals.
I forget the link to the op ed that explains the "opinion cascade."
Jake4156 wrote,
>
> Fedele: And I hope that those who make a financial profit off spreading hatred toward the LGBT population will think a little about the outcome of such activism.<
Wow. It took exactly five posts to take a story about a gay activist shooting someone at the FRC, because the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled the FRC as a hate group, and moved the subject into " spreading hatred toward the LGBT population."
Thinking behind this: the shooting is justified because all you bigots hate us, so it works two ways?
I have a disquieting feeling that quite a few "gay marriage" activists are privately quite content that this happened.
opinion cascade
http://washingtonexaminer.com/same-sex-marriage-and-the-manufacture-of-consent/article/2504807#.UC2v_6NWJN5
Jake, can you produce studies to back your claims? I can produce studies which back my claims:
http://unitedfamilies.org/downloads/Sex.pdf
If you're going to call someone a liar, you should be able to offer proof of your claim.
Hey Daughter of Eve,
Here's a link to backup my claim that NOM endorses violence against gay people - they are "worthy to [sic] death."
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2011/05/video-noms-carefully-edited-bronx-rally.html
@DN, you are a piece a work! Gays will do anything to push their agenda. Fortunately, their strategy is failing. Chick Fil A awakened the dragon; gays have worn out their welcome. Time to go back in the closet. BTW, why don't you stop buying gas since a lot of the oil come from hate mongering countries.
Spencer @24: "The Family Research Council told a malicious lie: that one of the primary goals of the gay rights movement is to normalize the rape of children. *THAT* is hateful, and I'm increasingly disturbed by the inability of NOMers to recognize this kind of ugly smear."
--- Well if it's a smear, it came from your side first. The Homosexual Manifesto from the 1970's stated that it wanted the age of consent lowered. Now why would they want that if they don't have any interest in children. And why did they ever let NAMBLA march in their sick parades if they didn't accept people with those inclinations. All the gay rights blather is one banana peel down the slippery slope. Pandora's box of evils opened and let loose. No hate just facts.
@leehawks: in Italy too a leader in the '70s of the so called homosexual movement was arguing that pederasty should have been legalized (Mario Mieli).
The Canadian advocates for SSM proposed reducing the age of consent for same-sex sexual behavior.