NOM BLOG

The National Organization for Marriage Decries Continued Use of Terms "Hate Group" And "Anti Gay" Against Those who Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 6, 2013

Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)


Southern Poverty Law Center list of organizations served as target list for would-be killer

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today called on media outlets, reporters and activist groups to pledge to cease labeling organizations that oppose gay 'marriage' as "hate groups." The call came in response to an admission by would-be killer Floyd Corkins that he used a list of so-called "hate groups" prepared by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to target his victims for murder.

"For far too long, media outlets and reporters have allowed activist groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center to label opponents of same-sex 'marriage' as 'hate groups' and regularly describe organizations that hold traditional Judeo-Christian views of sexual morality as 'anti gay,'" said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "But words have consequences, and we know that allowing such inflammatory terms to be used in media reports describing those who object to redefining marriage can lead to harassment and even violence against members of those organizations."

Would-be killer Floyd Corkins today pled guilty to a variety of charges relating to his shooting of a security officer at the offices of the Family Research Council (FRC). Corkins, a gay activist, reportedly admitted that he used a list of so-called "hate groups" prepared by the SPLC to create a target list for his campaign of terror.

"Standing up for traditional marriage does not make anyone 'anti gay' and it is deplorable that some reporters covering this issue allow mere opposition to redefining marriage to be labeled as such," Brown said. "It is even more reckless for news reports to allow the charge of 'hate group' to be applied to any organization because their beliefs affirm a traditional Judeo-Christian view of marriage and sexual morality. We hope that media organizations will seriously reflect on these issues knowing that irresponsible 'hate group' charges nearly led to a massacre at the Family Research Council."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Jen Campbell (x145), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

54 Comments

  1. Quinn
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    that won't stop the supporters of the radical gay agenda on this website.

  2. Clark
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

    So if you're not anti-gay, how do you explain the post (two down from this one) proclaiming victory over the Boy Scouts' decision?

  3. Chris
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

    http://www.nomblog.com/32989/#comment-152230

    "Now; until you folks change the definitions of the words Depravity, Morality, Corrupt, Selfish, Decadent, Miscreant, Pdfvert, and the like I will address you and your ilk accordingly."

    Referring to gays as "deprave" "corrupt" "decadent" "perverts" and "Miscreants" doesn't qualify at hateful?

  4. Garrett
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

    Speak it, Chris!

  5. Posted February 6, 2013 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    Typo at: "The call came in response to an admission by would-be killer Floyd Corkins that he used "

  6. Posted February 6, 2013 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

    Chris believes some words will be taken out of the dictionary...

    From the time of the SCOTUS Lawrence vs. Texas decision, there is no legal significance to the word "pervert".

    From a religious point of view, there might be significance, but it would be in "the eyes of the beholder".

    The courts won't punish for moral perversion because there's no legal basis. But people might withhold association with someone who they believe has perverted either sexuality or the concept of marriage, and they are in their right to do so.

    Legality doesn't necessarily make unlikable behavior acceptable. Getting drunk with alcohol is legal (though immoral for Christianity), but driving a vehicle in that state of mind is highly punishable under the law. Christianity puts a stop to it before it has become an action. It is the wisdom of Christianity, but anyone can predict what happens if you decrease your mental function. It's elementary.

    Hate, as an emotion, is not illegal nor can it be illegal. Because it is an emotion, it is not measurable or provable. But "hater" is the answer to 'pervert' in an opposing camp. Of course, many types of crimes can follow from hate, as well as perversion. But it is the action resulting from hate or perversion that is penalized, because the effect of such action can be measured or proven in court (or on a personal based if someone is vindictive).

    But, i believe the issue of SSm and such civil unions is one of semantics vs. professional statistics. The word 'marriage' has been perverted, not by unhappy 'gays', but by most everyone. Government only mirrors what society is like. It is because civil marriage is already weakened that SSm sees an opportunity to capitalize on the confusion.

    The verb 'to per-vért' comes from 'thoroughly' + 'to turn' (Latin). It contrasts with 'to per-fect' ('thoroughly' + 'bring to completion', again from the Latin). Since 'to pervert' meant originally 'to turn thoroughly' from the Christian moral dogma (emphasis on thoroughly, for we all at some point are immoral in that respect, yet we do not pervert it), it preserves its association with a moral code, specially Christianity's.

    The noun form 'pérvert' is now used more like an ineffective insult in the general public. So, it is only effective within the group from which the perversion resulted.

    'Pérvert' used to make a better insult than it does today, maybe because it has similar meaning to the word 'radical', which can have even a positive association today.

    There is a sense that pérvert has to do with sexual perversion, and is how it is used today. For instance most of us would consider the pedophile's action of taking advantage of the sexual innocence of a child as a perversion, and would call him or her a pérvert (in this case gender doesn't matter); but we wouldn't call the parent of the child who almost beat to death the pedophile a pérvert. We would call such parent a criminal, but not a pérvert - though he/she also departed from the generally accepted moral code.

    Such insults only have the desired effect within the particular group which wouldn't like to be called a 'pérvert'.

  7. Quinn
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    you can add "abnormal" to that list as well.

  8. Quinn
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

    actually, there are few other words I would like to add, but they wouldn't get pass the filter :)

  9. Randy E King
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

    To save you the trouble:

    Decadent:

    1: marked by decay or decline

    2: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the decadents

    3: characterized by or appealing to self-indulgence

    Deprave:

    2: to make bad : corrupt; especially : to corrupt morally

    Corrupt:

    1a : to change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions; also : bribe

    b : to degrade with unsound principles or moral values

    2: rot, spoil

    3: to subject (a person) to corruption of blood

    4: to alter from the original or correct form or version

    Miscreant:

    1: unbelieving, heretical

    2: depraved, villainous

    Heathen:

    2: strange, uncivilized

    Merriam Webster

    You folks spent the last couple of years working on bastardizing the adjective "Gay" into a noun, but you failed to recognize the gaggle of words that remain which show you in the proper light.

    The Emperor still has no clothes and continues to insist that everyone else should turn a blind eye and ignore this self evident truth.

  10. Son of Adam
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

    NOM is motivated to protect marriage as a union between a man and a woman for the sake of the well being of children. You cannot blame them for their concern for kids spilling into other arenas.

  11. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

    Pseudo-marriage advocates, from the president on down, have embraced the most ancient technique in the book. Lacking any cogent argument in favor of redefining marriage, they resort to demonizing their opponents. Their rhetoric and labels incite violence, which appears to be exactly what they want. They wouldn't shed a tear if we were all wiped out.

    Marriage unites children to their mother and father. Pseudo-marriage severs that link.

  12. Chris
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

    Barb -

    Excuse me, but does referring to gays as "corrupt" "immoral" "Miscreants" "decadents" "selfish" not count as demonizing? Do these not incite violence against gays?

  13. Randy E King
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

    @Chris,

    Referring to decadent, immoral, corrupt, and selfish perverts as "Gays" incites violence against those who refuse to accept that sexual depravity turns you into a species of man unto yourself.

    If you truly believed your proclivity were justifiable you would not be here insisting its practitioners be declared to be that which it was incapable of ever becoming.

    In your quest to create willing victims who affirm the appropriateness of the crimes perpetrated against them you failed to notice the fact that right minded folks cannot help but see you for who you really are.

  14. Randy E King
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

    @Quinn,

    When occupying the moral high ground, as traditionalists do, you see no point in lowering yourself to your tormentors level.

    You are demanding we change to accommodate your refusal to take responsibility for your crimes against humanity; this is a fight you will surly lose.

  15. Mark
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    Well, the FBI defines hate groups as those whose "primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization."

    The Southern Poverty Law Center defines a hate group as having beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people.

    Hostility is defined as "a hostile state, condition, or attitude; enmity; antagonism; unfriendliness."

    So, if you want to stop being called a Hate Group, stop being one.

    I'm sorry your offended by the title you've earned yourselves. But it's easy to fix.

    Stop maligning and being antagonistic toward an entire class of gay people.

  16. Posted February 6, 2013 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

    By its "standards," the SPLC should also be listing the Boy Scouts of America on this map, but I guess hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. Gutless wonders.

  17. john
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

    From past practice the gay lifestyles would seen to be the biggest hate group out there in the I.E.

  18. Daniel Birkholz
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

    We all know exactly how all this controversy is going to end. Gays will be able to marry just like everyone else. Being gay is not a crime and it is not a sin. Stop using God and children to justify your prejudice. Religion is about loving one another. You're just looking for and excuse to hate.

  19. flanoggin
    Posted February 7, 2013 at 12:27 am | Permalink

    t's so very sad that NOM is being vilified as a hate group.....Um---yeah-....no hate here (unless, of course, one has the ability to read)

  20. timothy rookey
    Posted February 7, 2013 at 1:09 am | Permalink

    Homosexual marriage is anathema to Almighty God. His wrath will surely be upon us if we accept this sinful concept. Gays must be treated with love and respect as Jesus would command. But we will face His judgement if we endorse sin and call it justice.

  21. Bobby
    Posted February 7, 2013 at 1:14 am | Permalink

    Brian - It is rather simple - Stop the hate. Maggie comments here from time to time but I have never seen her reject the hateful comments of LonesomeRhodes, Randy E and others who would gladly watch as everyone born gay is executed. And what does the Boy Scouts ending a practice of discriminating against those born gay as members or the repeal of DADT which also discriminated against those born gay have to do with "protecting marriage? Yet NOM regularly posts articles on these issues in a way that demonizes those born gay and call for them to be discriminated against. I deplore violence and the despicable actions of Mr. Corkins. But I also deplore those who use lies and fear to justify their hatred of their gay brothers and sisters in the Lord.

  22. Susan Rosenthal
    Posted February 7, 2013 at 1:40 am | Permalink

    If you don't want to be called a hate group then stop demonizing gays. Why would you oppose gays in the Boy Scouts unless you were convinced that gays were harmful to kids. You did not care about sexual abuse in the Boy Scouts until the Scouts started discussing the gay issue. if the safety of Boys Scouts and the promotion of timeless values was so important to you, why didn' you take a stance and criticize the Scouts for the atrocious way the oganization handled this problem, which has occurred during a time when gays are banned from the organization.

  23. LonesomeRhoades
    Posted February 7, 2013 at 6:40 am | Permalink

    People who choose to live a homosexual lifestyle have an easy fix: stop doing what is first, against nature, and second what is against God.

  24. LonesomeRhoades
    Posted February 7, 2013 at 6:58 am | Permalink

    To Bobby #10: you are an example of why the homosexuals are intellectually vacuous in their obsessive quest for acceptance. NEVER has ANYONE called for the execution of ANYBODY!
    You are a liar and one who inflames.
    Here's some hate for you: go study an anatomy and physiology text book and you will find that anatomically and physiologically man was made for woman and woman made for man. How's that for hate!
    Here's some more hate for you: marriage in very early dictionaries, in England, then later ones in America always define marriage as a relationship between a MAN and a WOMAN. Never is marriage referred to in homosexual relationships.
    Here is more hate; having a desire, a yen, a need, does not validate its being acted upon. There are lots of things that lots of people want to do but social mores, laws, restrict those actions.
    Actually homosexuals have done a good job at numbing American society. Constant "coming out", television, movies etc have created an atmosphere of tolerance. But, No! Not enough for homosexuals. They perverted the word "gay'. They hate those who ascribe to certain moral and traditional values and are currently attacking marriage. They hate the way the Boy Scouts have fought for tradition, values, morality and disregarding the thoughts of others have infiltrated the Scouts with the intend of destroying it. Who has the hate? You do Bobby! Go look in the mirror and think "compromise" a word that the homosexual community has no concern for.

  25. Good News
    Posted February 7, 2013 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    @Mr. Homosexual and friends,
    Any and all children can be taught to enjoy homosexual sex.
    It is not that we are not concerned about those “born that way”; but it is that we are at this time more concerned for those “not born that way”. The 90 to 98 percent of our children who can be taught to go that way, try that way, be confused by that way, or have to struggle more because of media, commercial and culture suggestions offering and tempting that way.
    Of course this brings up the statement, “well, what is wrong with everyone enjoying whatever sexual relationship that they might grow to have a taste for”. Or rather, “why should heterosexual sex be considered better for the education of our children than homosexual sex, that would be prejudiced.”
    So again, our concerns are not so much for those who have the strength and peace in knowing that they were “born that way”; but rather for all the other children who can be taught to have a homosexual appetite; you know, like an appetite for McDonalds or Coca Cola etc.
    And this is where the word itself of Marriage is so important. The children will be educated not in the knowledge that there is no difference between the opposite-sex union and the same-sex union – but that there is “absolutely” no difference between the two. We cannot help but feel that this is a lie, and a lying to our children. An unjust lie onto our own children that will effect them and our community on a more profound and lasting level than, lets say, stories of Santa Clause.
    Sex is much too powerful a tool to be freely handed over to the commercial world and or those who would use it as a form of manipulation and control of the people.
    Have a little awareness of the power that you have.
    And try to understand why people will be worked up about such a subject; they are literally concerned for their very own children. Not for their children who might be born that way; but for everyone of the other 90 to 98 percent who are “not born that way”.
    Don't play so lightly with the power of sex and homosexuality. Have a little respect for the larger community.
    Which brings up the idea that maybe its better for a society to keep such "pleasures" in the bedroom, if not in the closet. Nothing against those “born that way”, just an acknowledgment of the influential power of their actions and words.
    Still one of the most effective tools that most parents have in the practical education of their children, (as is with a community teaching its people) is the word “no”. “But why?” “Because its not good for you.” “But why?” “Because I said so”. This comes not from hate.

  26. Andrew
    Posted February 7, 2013 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    Nice try. But when the shoe fits...

    A much more sensible response to the disgusting shooting at FRC would be gun control legislation AND enforcement. And if FRC stopped spewing garbage "science" to support hateful ends, that would be nice too.

  27. zack
    Posted February 7, 2013 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    I can't speak for everyone, but it does do the left a disservice to label anyone who opposes their world view as "hateful". All it is is a ploy to shut down debate.

  28. zack
    Posted February 7, 2013 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    @Bobby

    "Stop the hate. Maggie comments here from time to time but I have never seen her reject the hateful comments of LonesomeRhodes, Randy E"

    Why is it her job to decide the content of what gets posted? Sure they have guidelines but obviously you get people who slip through the cracks. I just as easily say the same about a few leftists who use to post here who would insult my intelligence rather than engage in a civil debate.

    " and others who would gladly watch as everyone born gay is executed. "

    That is only your assumption. Knock off the "born gay" talking point already. No one is born gay.

    "And what does the Boy Scouts ending a practice of discriminating against those born gay as members or the repeal of DADT which also discriminated against those born gay have to do with "protecting marriage?"

    Upholding American Values has everything to do with Marriage. You can't have a society that embraces Marriage if the Judeo-Christian Values and the institutions that promote them are in decline.

    The Boy Scouts are adhering to their convictions, which are not rooted in hatred(really it's a ploy to end debate and not rooted in any moral or logical reasoning). I don't hear the left screaming about the BSA not admitting girls into their troops. They are a private group and are free to exclude whomever they want. You are trying to separate religious institutions(i.e. Marriage) and create the same thing but with secular view point as if the two can coexist...they can't because society recognizes one but not the other for obvious reasons.

    "Yet NOM regularly posts articles on these issues in a way that demonizes those born gay and call for them to be discriminated against."

    How are these articles "demonizing" homosexuals? NOM puts in their own opinion. They are a Conservative organization and they have every right to do so. I have yet to hear anyone on the left denouncing the New York Times or the Huffingtonpost for posting articles that demonize Christians. You aren't special.

    "But I also deplore those who use lies and fear to justify their hatred of their gay brothers and sisters in the Lord."

    You're fooling yourself if you think anyone fears homosexuals.

  29. zack
    Posted February 7, 2013 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    @Bobby

    "Stop the hate. Maggie comments here from time to time but I have never seen her reject the hateful comments of LonesomeRhodes, Randy E"

    Why is it her job to decide the content of what gets posted? Sure they have guidelines but obviously you get people who slip through the cracks. I just as easily say the same about a few leftists who use to post here who would insult my intelligence rather than engage in a civil debate.

  30. zack
    Posted February 7, 2013 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    " and others who would gladly watch as everyone born gay is executed. "

    That is only your assumption. Knock off the "born gay" talking point already. No one is born gay.

    "And what does the Boy Scouts ending a practice of discriminating against those born gay as members or the repeal of DADT which also discriminated against those born gay have to do with "protecting marriage?"

    Upholding American Values has everything to do with Marriage. You can't have a society that embraces Marriage if the Judeo-Christian Values and the institutions that promote them are in decline.

  31. zack
    Posted February 7, 2013 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    The Boy Scouts are adhering to their convictions, which are not rooted in hatred(really it's a ploy to end debate and not rooted in any moral or logical reasoning). I don't hear the left screaming about the BSA not admitting girls into their troops. They are a private group and are free to exclude whomever they want. You are trying to separate religious institutions(i.e. Marriage) and create the same thing but with secular view point as if the two can coexist...they can't because society recognizes one but not the other for obvious reasons.

    "Yet NOM regularly posts articles on these issues in a way that demonizes those born gay and call for them to be discriminated against."

    How are these articles "demonizing" homosexuals? NOM puts in their own opinion. They are a Conservative organization and they have every right to do so. I have yet to hear anyone on the left denouncing the New York Times or the Huffingtonpost for posting articles that demonize Christians. You aren't special.

    "But I also deplore those who use lies and fear to justify their hatred of their gay brothers and sisters in the Lord."

    There is no fear nor hatred of people who are homosexual.

  32. zack
    Posted February 7, 2013 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    There's probably going to be a few double posts....I apologize for them.

  33. zack
    Posted February 7, 2013 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

    another thing I forgot that. You can't have a society that embraces marriage when our judeo-Christian values and the institutions that promote them are in decline.

  34. Stephen
    Posted February 7, 2013 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

    Stating the truth about the homosexual lifestyle is not endorsing violence against them. This is unlike the attitude of many homosexuals who threaten death to anyone who does not agree with their lifestyle.

    It is true that homosexuality is morally corrupt just the same as adultery or fornication or any other sexual behavior outside of marriage between a man and a woman is. A vital difference is that we don't see adulterers in society trying to get everyone to endorse their behavior and to glorify it like the homosexual community is trying to do.

    It is also true that homosexuality is a perversion of God's design for sex. Again, so is adultery and fornication and other types of sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman.

    The same argument would apply to the words decadent and depraved. The fact is that homosexual practiced as a lifestyle is outside of God's design for sex. Therefore all of the adjectives apply the same as they apply to other forms of sexual behavior outside of God's design.

    I know many people who agree that homosexuality is all of these but the same people do not hate the individual who thinks he is a homosexual or is living that lifestyle. They do not want to go out and kill them. They do not endorse violence against homosexuals like a growing number of homosexuals who endorse violence against everyone who will not bow down and worship their lifestyle. No matter how people try to twist or pervert God's word, the truth is that homosexuality is an abomination in God's eyes the same as any other sexual behavior outside of His design. His plan from the beginning when He designed marriage is one man and one woman.

    By the way if someone wants to bring up the fact that people in the Old Testament had multiple wives, they do not understand the fact that God allowed it but never designed it that way. In every case where there were multiple wives there were serious problems that were the result of that arrangement. Yes, God designed marriage as one man and one woman for life. He created Eve for Adam. That was the model. Man has been in the process of messing it up for centuries.

  35. Bobby
    Posted February 8, 2013 at 1:49 am | Permalink

    For a second I thought Stephen was Stefan - one of the most intelligent posters on this website - until I read the 2nd line of his post and realized he is another Randy E., LonesomeRhoades, m.jones type. As for Zack and your 7 posts of nonsense, firstly we do you always use the term leftist to describe those who believe in equality? Famed leftist like Dick Cheney and Ted Olson may not agree with you nor would the "Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry". I consider myself to be a political moderate but rather conservative on fiscal issues. I was a Boy Scout in a troop where 40 years ago we all assumed the Scout master was a gay man. It was no big deal. We were never told a Scout had to be heterosexual. As for my comments about Maggie, I respect Ms. Gallagher's intelligence and merely pointed out that she must read the comments sections as she periodically posts comments. If her organization really believes that gay people are free to live their lives but cannot call their relationships marriage, for the sake of her organization, why does she not challenge those who make hateful comments against gay people. Zack, for a person who claims to be nonreligious, you certainly write a lot about Judeo-Christian values, As a Catholic who is fortunate enough to have been educated by the Jesuits, I cherish our Judeo-Christian values. It greatly troubles me to see these values distorted by some who believe discrimination is one of these values.

  36. Spray
    Posted February 8, 2013 at 6:58 am | Permalink

    Stephen,

    Please cite evidence for your claim that homosexuals have issued death threats. Please bear in mind that as soon as you do, I will point to many death threats from anti-gays, and then UNLIKE YOU I will point to cases where those threats were made real.

  37. Spray
    Posted February 8, 2013 at 6:59 am | Permalink

    Wow, you're just such a victim, Stephen. Glenn Beck much?

  38. Rover Serton
    Posted February 8, 2013 at 9:03 am | Permalink

    The Boy Scouts have every right to decide who is in their private organization. They don't currently allow Gays or Atheists. No problem. Churches often sponsor troops with similar goals.

    The sponsors though, business people, want more customers not less. They have the right via the purse strings to make inclusiveness a goal and to remove dollars if the goals of the company aren't advanced.

  39. M. jones
    Posted February 8, 2013 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    @ Bobby, What happened at the FRC may be considered by some as marriage terrorism taken to the extreme. Violence is never the answer.

  40. Chairm
    Posted February 8, 2013 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    The SPLC's inflammatory rhetoric is a tool it uses to raise funds so that it can profit from contentious issues.

    The SSM campaign has used this rhetoric, calmly and deliberately, in court rooms for the sake of demanding that gay identity politics supersede marriage itself.

    So we have the SPLC perverting public discourse; we have the SSM campaign perverting the law; and then we have the various pro-SSM commenters here (small fish really) who have learned their rhetoric from the likes of these bigger voices.

    And a gunman takes shots at people in the office building of an organization that the SPLC and SSMers have targeted -- deliberately, and repeatedly, and even in the aftermath of that violent attack.

    Here they excuse but forget their own culpability.

  41. Posted February 8, 2013 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    Daniel Birkholz: "We all know exactly how all this controversy is going to end. Gays will NOT be able to marry just like brothers and their sister, fathers and their daughter, minors, and blood-relationships cannot marry either."

    1. Gays are not a gender (prove it).

    2. Friendship alone is not grounds for marriage, or marriage becomes simply friendship.

    Think about it. You are blatantly incorrect, and don't know it.

  42. Sammy
    Posted February 8, 2013 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

    @ Chairm - Funny, the "inflammatory rhetoric" posted by the SPLC is directly quoted from the very organizations that you're defending.

  43. Posted February 9, 2013 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    Bobbie is telling us now who is intelligent and who is not. He should talk. . .

  44. Chairm
    Posted February 10, 2013 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    Sammy, I referred to the inflammatory rhetoric authored by and used by the SPLC -- and the leading voices of the SSM campaign in courtrooms and so forth, as per my previous comment. They are a 'hate group' by their own stated standards.

  45. Bobby
    Posted February 10, 2013 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    Little Man - Do you have a problem with me expressing my opinion? I happen to think Stefan and Will Fisher offer some of the best responses to so much of the animus towards those born gay that regularly makes it was to this site. Feel free to list your top 10 posters here.

  46. zack
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:15 am | Permalink

    "Please cite evidence for your claim that homosexuals have issued death threats. "

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/05/23/16-year-old-conservative-girl-receives-death-threats-after-posting-gay-marriage-youtube-video/

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9845185/Tory-MP-gets-death-threats-over-gay-marriage-opposition.html

    http://www.womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=12672

    They are activists...but since most gay activists happen to be gay themselves, I believe this makes the point that disagreeing with gay marriage is always met with violence from the intolerant left.

    "Please bear in mind that as soon as you do, I will point to many death threats from anti-gays, and then UNLIKE YOU I will point to cases where those threats were made real."

    Dramatic much?

  47. zack
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:16 am | Permalink

    Bobby, there is no evidence that suggests homosexuals are born gay. You are free to believe that if you must, but it makes you sound desperate.

  48. zack
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:29 am | Permalink

    @Bobby

    "As for Zack and your 7 posts of nonsense, firstly we do you always use the term leftist to describe those who believe in equality?"

    Because most of the support for redefining Marriage comes from the social and cultural left. And there's nothing "equal" about same-sex marriage. The two unions are fundamentally different and for that alone, they already separate and equal. Trying to apply the term Marriage to a same-sex couple is misleading in that you are saying they can do the same things male/female couples can, which they cannot. Two men can't be a mother and two women can't be a father. By your own wording, you are indirectly admitting that gay-marriage is separate but equal by calling it "Marriage Equality".

    "Famed leftist like Dick Cheney and Ted Olson may not agree with you nor would the "Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry"."

    Being liberal on one issue doesn't make one a leftist.

    " I was a Boy Scout in a troop where 40 years ago we all assumed the Scout master was a gay man. It was no big deal."

    No one ever said being gay was a big deal. I have no problem with the person's homosexuality. This is where you start to confuse or wrongly assume my position (which is what social/cultural leftists tend to do). My problem is putting a man who favors people of the same-gender in a position where he is alone with young men/boys. The fact that he may or may not be a pedophile is irrelevant. I wouldn't trust a grown man with a group of young girls. Why would those concerns dissipate with a gay man supervising young men?

  49. zack
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:30 am | Permalink

    @Bobby

    "As for Zack and your 7 posts of nonsense, firstly we do you always use the term leftist to describe those who believe in equality?"

    Because most of the support for redefining Marriage comes from the social and cultural left. And there's nothing "equal" about same-sex marriage. The two unions are fundamentally different and for that alone, they already separate and equal. Trying to apply the term Marriage to a same-sex couple is misleading in that you are saying they can do the same things male/female couples can, which they cannot. Two men can't be a mother and two women can't be a father. By your own wording, you are indirectly admitting that gay-marriage is separate but equal by calling it "Marriage Equality".

    "Famed leftist like Dick Cheney and Ted Olson may not agree with you nor would the "Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry"."

    Being liberal on one issue doesn't make one a leftist.

    " I was a Boy Scout in a troop where 40 years ago we all assumed the Scout master was a gay man. It was no big deal."

    No one ever said being gay was a big deal. I have no problem with the person's homosexuality. This is where leftists start to confuse or wrongly assume my position (which is what social/cultural leftists tend to do). My problem is putting a man who favors people of the same-gender in a position where he is alone with young men/boys. The fact that he may or may not be a pedophile is irrelevant. I wouldn't trust a grown man with a group of young girls. Why would those concerns dissipate with a gay man supervising young men?

  50. zack
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 1:30 am | Permalink

    There might be a double post again...sorry again

  51. Bobby
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 9:07 am | Permalink

    Zack - Where is your evidence that people are not born gay - that everyone is born heterosexual? I have lived in 3 continents - North America, Europe and Asia. I have met gay people in all of these places none of whom claim their homosexuality orientation is something that they chose.

  52. zack
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    So what if you have met gay people? I have too, but that doesn't mean they're born that way. It IS a choice! Goodness gracious, there isn't this unwritten rule that because you have an attraction that you should act on it. That's where the choice lies. If that were the case, rape would be substantially higher than it is now. All the research done have concluded that no such gene has been found and that nurturing, the environment one grows up in, and life experience are the driving factors. And besides even if it wasn't a choice, that doesn't justify redefining Marriage.

  53. Chairm
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    Gay is a socio-political construct. T is a group identity. No socio-political identity is inborn.

    Same-sex sexual attraction might be inborn, or not. Same-sex sexual behavior is not inborn.

    At the Prop 8 trial in CA, the SSM side's expert witness testified about his own research which suggested that one in five of the homosexual persons he surveyed had chosen. Of the four plaimtiffs in the case, one had been married (union of husband and wife). The hockers of gay identity politics conflate sexual attraction and sexual behavior under the political label, gay. Ay is not a scientific term. It is merely a euphemism.

    Of late, the new notion is that sexual orientation is not based on the person's sex but on the sex of the object of sexual attraction. So homo-sexual would not fit the man who feels attracted to men, if he thinks himself a woman or if the object of his desire is a man who thinks himself a woman. We are to think in terms of male attraction or female attraction.

    This means that marriage is the integration of male and female sexual attractions AND the integration of man and woman AND is not defined by identity politics (such as white supremacy or gay supremacy).

    SSM is very different.

  54. Posted February 14, 2013 at 3:28 am | Permalink

    Here's Bobbie expressing his/her opinion :) at comment #46

    "...those born gay that regularly makes it was to this site."

    Who has anything against a good joke? :) Tell me another one. . .