To Anyone Who Thinks We’re Intolerant of the Anti-Gay Side…

The Religious Right loves to say that liberals are intolerant of their bigotry:

“Unfortunately, their response is typical of intolerant homosexual activists,” [Liberty Counsel's Mat Staver] continued. “They will go to any lengths to silence the majority of Americans who believe that children do best when raised in a natural family with one mom and one dad.”

Right, we’re silencing their free speech. We’re taking away their rights. We’re the oppressors.

Slacktivist has a wonderful, simple response to that:

Anybody claiming to believe that the freedom to speak against homosexuality is somehow under threat has to explain how such claims could possibly be compatible with the continuing freedom of the deliberately obnoxious Fred Phelps.

That needs to be posterized.

(via Exploring Our Matrix)

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.

  • http://yetanotheratheist.com/ TerranRich

    To Anyone Who Thinks We’re Intolerant of the Anti-Gay Side…

    You’re damn right we are. Who says we have to tolerate bigotry and hatred?

    • The Other Weirdo

       There are only two things that I hate. People who are intolerant of other people’s cultures, and the DUTCH! :)

      • Tainda

        HA!  You are my fahza

      • nice_marmot

        Small hands, smell of cabbage?

    • machintelligence

      In the immortal words of Tom Lehrer  “It has come to my attention that there are some people who do not love their fellow man, and I hate people like that!

  • Matto the Hun

    I treat the anti-gay side with the same respect the anti-black side… none

  • SJH

     Generalizing is a sign that you are being intolerant. The image you posted is a small percentage of Christianity.  If you are interested in truth and knowledge then lets be honest about the situation so that we can have an intelligent conversation about it.

    • https://agoldstardad.wordpress.com/ Fozzy

      It’s been my experience he VAST majority of Christian agree with Westboro as it relates to homosexuals.. they just hate the venue that they choose. 

      • Tainda

        Yep, if they only picketed homosexual funerals, they would be all for it

        • http://www.facebook.com/don.gwinn Don Gwinn

           WAIT a minute, SJH.  It doesn’t matter how much of Christianity the Westboro Baptist bunch represent.  That isn’t the issue under discussion here.  The issue is whether the anti-gay agitators face censorship from The Gay Agendeers.  Nice try.

    • Brian

      If you were interested in truth and knowledge, perhaps you might read articles accompanying photos. The photo in question does not represent the whole of xianity, just the vocal side whose rights to free speech are “being silenced”.

      • http://www.facebook.com/don.gwinn Don Gwinn

        NOPE.  It doesn’t matter how much of Christianity the
        Westboro Baptist bunch represent.  That isn’t the issue under discussion
        here.  The issue is whether the anti-gay agitators face censorship from
        The Gay Agendeers.  Nice try.

    • Randomfactor

       He’s not generalizing, he’s showing a specific case–a Fred Phelps nutter–and indicating that even that EXTREME idiocy is being tolerated.  Surely if the garden-variety Christian insanity regarding homosexuality were being infringed upon, Phelps’ crowd would have been nuked long ago.

    • Scantilycladoranges

      I’m sorry, how is what you have said relevant to the post? The post is pointing out that despite what some people say, bigots freedom of speech is not being squashed, as evidenced by the continuing efforts of the WBC. You have simply looked for an opportunity to be offended here and taken it. If all you want to do when you read atheist and blog posts critical of religion is cry about how much it hurt your feelings, then perhaps you are not ready for intelligent conversation. Once again, I’ll say, at no point in Hermant’s article  did he generalise or even imply what you have concocted in your head. You are the one not ready for debate and reasonable conversation here. Sorry about repeating myself, but seriously, did you even read the article or just look at the picture and throw your toys out of the pram?

    • The Other Weirdo

       2011 was a watershed year for me in regards to how I view(but not treat) Christianity as a whole. Before the date of Harold Camping’s predictions of the end of the world and rapture had come and gone, Christians were coming out of the woodwork to voice their objection to his prophesies.

      They were upset with him because, “No man knows the day or the hour.” In other words, they were objecting on theological grounds, rather than reality(or even history) based ones.

      I realized then that the only thing separating the likes of Harold Camping from the rest of Christendom is that he was brave enough to make his beliefs publicly falsifiable while they hid behind words in the same book he used to make his predictions. He made several of them over the years. They all failed the test.

      In other words, the difference between Harold Camping and the other Christians is one of degree, not kind. They all believe the same sort of nonsense, it’s just that some of them are willing to put their beliefs to the test.

    • http://www.shadesthatmatter.blogspot.com asmallcontempt

      When you can prove to me that the majority of Christians actually support the right for gays to marry and are vocal about it, then we can talk. 

      I don’t personally know any Christians who would do what Phelps/WBC does and go protest funerals and engage in general douchebaggery and what have you, but they all agree with the sentiment of homosexuality = sin = keep sin out of the world via legislation. Until you can demonstrate that Christians actually don’t believe that, you’re only redeeming quality in this instance is that you fail to act on your bigotry. So, thanks for that, I guess. 

      Don’t gripe about “generalizing” when the generalization is apt. 

      • 3lemenope


        Don’t gripe about “generalizing” when the generalization is apt.

        An important point, and I really like the phrasing. :)

        Though, I will say there are signs that the church is changing on these issues; as one tracks younger one finds within the church a powerful age cohort effect in opinions about issues like gay rights. 

        The true, miserable tragedy of being a social conservative is that the war you fight is inevitably a war fought against your own children. Who, almost always, win, simply by outliving you, and have to shoulder the unfair burden of embarrassment of having had parents who were on the wrong side of moral history.

      • Erp

        @asmallcontempt:disqus
          I assume you aren’t aware that slactivist is a Christian.  

        Personally I know a lot of Christians who are fully in favor of equality for gays and lesbians and are working to have their own churches perform weddings for people of the same sex (unless as in a few cases their churches are already doing so) as well as legal status for such relationships.

        I admit a majority out there are still against equality but the tide is turning.

    • RobMcCune

      Well the article, if you bothered to read it, is about christians being under the false impression that they are losing their right to free speech. What Hemant (actully slacktivist) did was point to some one who’s far more extreme, yet has the right to protest funerals. If you want to have an intelligent conversation about it fine, start by not jumping to conclusions based on a photo.

    • Baby_Raptor

      There’s no conversation to be had. The christians see any progress made by gays towards equality as a direct assault on them, and they will do everything in their power to stop it. What’s there to talk about?

      And frankly, there is nothing intelligent about talking about denying people rights. Nor is there any intelligence in the mind of someone who would support such a thing.

  • M Vanroy

    We even have ads for Christian Studies degrees on this page. How’s that for tolerance?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

      Should someone tell them that their ads are being wasted…?

      • Baby_Raptor

        No. 

  • Maevwen

    God hates douchebags.  And you too can get your t-shirt online letting the world know.  

  • http://twitter.com/_mikeweber Mike Weber

    Actually Fred Phelps’ rights have just been restricted http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/honoring-americas-veterans-act-obama_n_1748454.html

    As much as I like the sentiment, there’s absolutely no way the Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 can be constitutional. 

    • Alexandra

       A lawyer friend was explaining it to me.  Free speech is subject to time and space restrictions all the time.  Like, I can’t go running down the street yelling at 2AM and claim that by getting arrested for disturbing they peace, they’re violating my free speech rights. 

      They’re still allowed to express their displeasure, just there’s time and space limitations on that. 

  • Nordog

    Ah, nothing like the smell of false dichotomy in the morning.

    The “dramatic irony” is, as usual, rather thick as well. 

    • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

      If you thought that Hemant was implying that you’re either for gay rights or you take a stance equivalent to Fred Phelps on homosexuality, then you seriously missed the point. Which wouldn’t be surprising, come to think of it.

      • Nordog

        Actually, I didn’t think either of those things.

        Rather, I contend that he has presented a false dichotomy, and that certain posters here demonstrate “dramatic irony” on a regular basis.

        But then, I said that already.

        Missing the point?  You really perfect the art of projection, but then I’ve basically said that already too.

        • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

          Well, to be honest, it’s difficult to know what you mean when you don’t make a lot of sense. For instance, what is the false dichotomy that Hemant presented, and why is it a false dichotomy? You don’t just get to accuse your opponent of a logical fallacy without explaining what it is.

          Similarly, I’m pretty sure you don’t know what “dramatic irony” means. Hint: It doesn’t mean “irony that is overly dramatic.”

          • Nordog

            Fair enough, I guess.

            The false dichotomy in question:

            Either the free speech of all Christians are under threat, or none is.

            Put another way:

            If Fred Phelps is free to be the free speech abusing as that he is, then any claim of threats to the free speech rights of Christians is bogus.

            • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

              That seems to be a straw man. The quotes seem to bear out a different meaning altogether; look first at the Mat Staver quote:

              “[Pro-gay advocates] will go to any lengths to silence the majority of Americans who believe that children do best when raised in a natural family with one mom and one dad.”

              Followed by the Slacktivist quote:

              Anybody claiming to believe that the freedom to speak against homosexuality is somehow under threat has to explain how such claims could possibly be compatible with the continuing freedom of the deliberately obnoxious Fred Phelps.

              In other words, anyone who says that pro-LGBT forces “will go to any lengths to silence” anti-gay voices are overlooking how Fred Phelps is still able to spout his hatred, and it would be realistic to assume that his church would be high on the list. It doesn’t mean that any accusation of anti-gay censorship is illegitimate if Fred Phelps can still be so openly hateful.

          • Nordog

            “Similarly, I’m pretty sure you don’t know what “dramatic irony” means. Hint: It doesn’t mean “irony that is overly dramatic.””

            You really are like one of those pesky ankle biting chihuahau dogs; no substance, just the same hackneyed bark signifying nothing.

            But yes, you are correct, “dramatic irony” does not mean irony that is overly dramatic.  It doesn’t even mean irony that is somewhat dramatic.  That’s why I put the term in quotes; because it has a technical definition that I am applying here. 

            • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

              You accused people of “dramatic irony,” which is a contentless accusation (it’s a literary technique wherein the author makes vital details available to the audience but not to the characters). I corrected you on the substance of your claim. In fact, I can still do so, since your supposition that you are using the “technical definition” is still wrong. And you still haven’t explained what definition you are using, which is a grave failure of communication.

              But go ahead and keep doubling down if you wish.

              • Nordog

                Okay, I understand now.

                Your one of those pedantic types addicted to picking the fly shit out of the pepper and thinking that so doing amounts to some great act of reason (as opposed to the fatuous rationalization that it really represents).

                Now, apparently, being the pedantic tool that you are, it follows that you would be constitutionally incapable or unwilling to allow any use of language bordering on the poetic.  So, simile and metaphor are beyond your ken.

                So, let me explain, language is not math, which is actually good for you since you really suck at language (though you still have that fatuous air about your usage of it).

                Now that you’ve gone to Google to find the textbook definition of “dramatic irony” you have learned that it is a term from literature and or theater.

                You quite correctly note that it is a device by which the author communicates ideas through the characters to the audience, yet those same characters remain in ignorance of the ideas in question.  You described it a bit differently, but essentially the same.

                So, here’s a tip.

                You and others are, to use simile, both the author AND the character, and are demonstrating through your various communications certain facts about yourselves, about which you all remain in total ignorance.

                Those facts include, but are not limited to, a great degree of fatousness, projection, and bigotry.

                Now granted, I don’t know that the bigotry charge applies to you specifically.  I don’t recall you demonstrating that, but it is a bit difficult to keep up with everything everyone says around here.

                In any event, your last post, to which I am directly responding here, is really one of the greatest examples of dramitic irony going.

                The fact that you don’t get that point doesn’t detract from the point, but actually, in an irony of its own, demonstrates the point even more so.

                Double down?  You’re projecting again.

                • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

                  The hilarious and – dare I say it – somewhat ironic thing about your whole diatribe is that I am an English teacher, and so I didn’t have to Google dramatic irony (like you apparently did, given your response): I teach it, along with other literary elements like simile, metaphor, etc.

                  I also know how poetic language works, and it stretches credulity for you to claim that you were using this technical term in a poetic sense to mean something like “lack of self-awareness” (correct me if that’s an unfair interpretation of your puzzling comments). Other people can feel free to give their own opinions, but this “poetic” usage doesn’t strike me as good communication – which is also amusing, given that you accused me of both poor communication and projection.

                  Like I said, go ahead and keep doubling down; the school year starts in a few weeks, and this is good practice in countering ignorance in my subject area. (Fortunately for me, my students are rarely so arrogant as you.)

                • Nordog

                  You teach English?  That explains the rampant functional illiteracy in the country these days.

                  Great “appeal to authority” though.

                • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

                  I didn’t say that I’m right because I teach English; I just happen to know about literature and language because I’m an English teacher. Ergo, no appeal to authority. But nice try since all of the other stuff you threw at me didn’t stick.

                • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

                  Someone is butthurt! :-D

        • vexorian

          “false dichotomy”

          You keep using that expression…

  • AJ

    “The Religious Right loves to say that liberals are intolerant of their bigotry”And they would be correct.

    • Nordog

      But why then are liberals so tolerant of their own bigotry?
       
      I know I know, it’s because they are so narcissistic they can’t see their own bigotry.  Besides, it’s hard to see with all that self righteous and withering scorn flying around.
       
      It’s tough being the Secular Anoitned Ones.  But still, the echo chamber/ghetto has really blinded those who ostensibly so noble.

      • Coyotenose

         Interesting how you have no defense for the bigotry itself, and instead have to whine about being caught and try to change the subject.

        No, sorry, my bad. That isn’t interesting. It’s typical, pathetic, and revolting.

        • Glasofruix

          Don’t bother, explaining something to this guy is like praying to a god, it bears no results.

        • Nordog

          “Interesting how you have no defense for the bigotry itself, and instead have to whine about being caught and try to change the subject.”

          I would never attempt to defend your behavior; I don’t truck with bigots.

          • Coyotenose

             Congratulations: Now you’re trolling. Enjoy the consequences, dimwit.

      • Baby_Raptor

        What bigotry? Not accepting people who want to treat others as subhuman?

        That’s not bigotry. And you wouldn’t see it as such if we were being “bigoted” against someone who wanted to deprive you of your basic rights. 

        Stop being a hypocrite.

        • Nordog

          ROFL!  Ha ha ha!

          Oh, stop, STOP!  It hurts.  The laughter!  It HURTS!

          HA ha ha ha!

          You can’t be serious! Can you?

          Really?

          HA ha ha ha ha…

          It is truly amazing that anyone could be so totally, absolutely, blind to their own bigotted projection.

          Astounding.  Simply astounding.

          Oh, and “hypocrite”?  Really!?

          HA ha ha ha…

          Oh, it burns.

          Maybe, for old times sake, toss out a “homophobe” or maybe a “racist” once or twice.

          Seriously though.  You are to be pitied.

          • amycas

            So when groups start coming out saying that people who belong to (insert ethnic/religious/gender group here) shouldn’t be treated equally under the law, that’s not bigotry. To oppose it would be bigotry?

            • NickDB

               Yes according to their logic.

  • http://www.facebook.com/don.gwinn Don Gwinn

    Without reading the comments, I bet others thought of this immediately, too:

    Simple response:  the pro-gay conspiracy that is attempting to “silence the majority” is only too happy to tolerate the Westboro Baptist Church because it makes that majority of Americans who just want to have 1950′s TV-style marriages like it says in the Bible look even worse.  They’re tolerated BECAUSE they’re so awful, in other words, because they damage their own side and the censorious pro-gays know it.

    In fact . . . . yes . . . . that’s it!  They’re probably agents provocateur working for The Gay Agenda by posing as radical anti-gay bigots and undermining support for the traditional 1950′s TV family.  It’s so crazy that it almost has to be true.

    Someone out there is making this argument in all seriousness right now.  Guaranteed.

    • amycas

       You caught us…

  • Atheisticallyyours

    What would a person be called if they were “intolerant” of INTOLERANCE? Christian? I doubt it! 

  • Guest

    OK, let me get this straight.  So the fact that the ever deplorable Phelps is allowed to continue spewing his slime, despite attempts to stop him, means that nobody should care that elected officials attempted to use their office within the government to ban a company because of the free speech exercised by its CEO?  Uh huh. 

    Oh, and if anything good came of this whole embarrassing issue, it was the number of people who woke up and asked, “So, are you sure that you can call someone a bigot just because they don’t agree with you?  Isn’t that what the old time fundamentalists used to do (only they said things like blasphemer or heathen or had threats of an eternity in Hell of course)?”  That, and the fact that so many gay activists did actually condemn the actions of the mayors (without the following attempts to act like there was nothing to see), makes the whole episode at least a little worth while.

    • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

      That’s not an accurate description of what Hemant was saying. I pointed out as much here.

      • Guest

        Actually, that’s just what everyone is saying.  The problem is, it’s rubbish.  Why would pro-gays go after Phelps?  He’s their dream.  I mean, he doesn’t actually physically harm people, yet it’s hard to think of someone that unites Americans like he does – everyone pretty much thinks he’s scum. And everytime he opens that cut under his nose, pro-gay activists can use the not-so-subtle tactic of ‘see, that’s the type of person who doesn’t think about the issue the way we say he should.’  And, of course, there have been attempts to at least restrict his speech, even if those attempts failed. 

        So the fact that he’s still out there throwing up his verbal excrement, doesn’t mean Christians (or anyone) should suddenly figure there’s nothing to worry about because something else happens over there.  By that logic, anyone could do anything to Christians and you could just say, “Yeah, but Phelps is still around!”  The better, more assuring thing was the fact that most (not all, but most) on the left actually condemned the mayors in question for their flagrant and obvious Orwellian tactics and attitudes.  Now, it should stop there.  The more folks begin to see folks who said they were bothered now restating this or redefining that or just acting like there was never anything to see, then they certainly would be justified in thinking there could be some concern. 

        • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

          No, it isn’t. I’m pretty sure you didn’t read what I wrote if that’s the only response you have.

          And no one has said that you can call anyone who disagrees with you a bigot. Jesus H. Christ, try representing people’s positions truthfully.

          • Guest

            Well, in fairness, I’ve said that before and I’ve been dressed down for it, and told flat out why anyone who doesn’t support homosexuality and gay marriage is a bigot.  I’ve gone to various websites, mainline and private, to say that this whole bigot/homophobe/hate monger rhetoric should stop, and I’ve been smacked down for it suggesting any such thing.  Gay rights activists have time and again said that to do anything other than concede the point regarding homosexuality and gay rights is bigotry.  So that’s as far from the atmosphere as one can get.  

            As for the article, I think the problem is that Christians and conservatives are not saying their rights have been assaulted simply because people disagree with them.  They have said – and rightly so – that their rights were assaulted when government officials publically said they were going to move to ban a company because of the beliefs freely expressed by its CEO.  That is the problem.  I get now what the article is saying, but it’s missing the point.  Those who flocked to CFA did so, as much as not, because of the mayors – something it should be noted that many, many liberals and gay rights activists also agreed stepped over the line.

            • amycas

               If somebody disagrees and doesn’t think gay people should be married and fights against gay rights being defined into law, then they are denying a group of people equal protection under the law. That is bigotry. If however, somebody says “I think being gay is a sin, so I’m just not going to engage in gay sex or get married to someone of the same gender*, but they should still have the legal right to live their own life,”–then that person is not a bigot. See how one is a personal opinion effecting an entire group of people, and the other is a personal opinion effecting only the individual?  While both positions can arguably be seen as bigoted, only the former is intolerable.

              *this type of thing happens all the time with people who won’t admit, for one reason or another, that they are gay. I’m not saying they will necessarily be happy in that life, or that being gay is necessarily a choice.

        • amycas

           Holy crap, Don Gwinn predicted this response.

    • Baby_Raptor

      Missing the point like a boss! 

      Fred addressed the Right’s attitude in general that their rights are being attacked because people are speaking up against them. He did not single out any one thing, nor did he handwave the situation you mention. 

      • Guest

        I think I get the problem.   The problem is that the right, conservatives, Christians, whoever, were not yelling ‘being attacked’ simply because others disagreed.  What set this off, and what was the basis for the whole CFA eat-in, was a reaction to the mayors who did overstep the line, and did invoke what could only be described as censorship tactics.  Most liberals and gay rights supporters agreed actually, and that was a good thing.  Heck, nobody is more passionate in advocating for gay rights than Andrew Sullivan, and he jumped all over the mayors.  The problem is now, there seems to be a sort of backtracking by some who initially condemned the mayors’ actions.  Not by saying they changed their minds about it.  But by redefining what happened, as if somehow those conservatives and Christians were only bothered because people ‘attacked them’, when everyone knew and admitted that they were justly bothered by a gross and flagrant assault on freedom of speech by elected government officials.  One that should not be aimed at anyone: gay rights advocates or gay rights opponents.  The day I say “I don’t care if it happens to them” is the day I ensure that it will eventually happen to me.

  • Gunstargreen

    It’s like they don’t understand that while we have freedom of speech, there are consequences regarding how you use it and not everyone will agree with you.

    • RobMcCune

      It’s their opinion and you don’t have to like it, unless of course you say you don’t like it.

  • Rwlawoffice

    Liberals are intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them.  You are sugar coating it to say you are only intolerant of alleged bigotry.  We know that because
    the standard reply when anyone disagrees with the left on this issue is “you are a bigot”.  “You are hateful”.  It is not on the whole- your position on this issue is wrong or hateful.  It is a personal attack.

    Nordog is right when he says that this is a false comparison.  The mere fact that Fred Phelps can spew his statements does not mean that there is no attempt to silence those that oppose gay marriage.  In fact there have been plenty of efforts to stop him, that is why he sues people when his first amendment rights are violated. But there are numerous examples of how there is an attempt to silence others- name calling, boycotts, threats of not being allowed to do business, jailing a father for asking for his son to be allowed to opt out of class when homosexual issues are discussed in school among others. 

    • eonL5

      “Most people are intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them.”
      There. FTFY.

    • 3lemenope

      If we were to speak very broadly, I’d say that there is a grain of truth in the notion that liberals are not tolerant of people who disagree with them, but the giant caveat is twofold: they act this way really only on what they view are core values, and in that they are no different than conservatives or anyone else; the only difference is what those core values happen to be.

      You can’t expect people to be all peaches and cream and indoor voices when others attack something as fundamental to their deeply cherished political outlooks as diversity and equality are to liberals. Conservatives, by-and-large, are not particularly temperate on many issues, and yet I don’t see you making sweeping claims about their inability to play well with others, but then I imagine that might be because you are one and so perhaps either don’t notice or don’t care. 

      From one conservative to another, my advice would be to look to one’s own (or one’s own sides’) sins before casting stones haphazardly at other glass houses. Liberals disagree with you. Some liberals are intemperate. Some of those get in front of loud microphones. Some of those try to change policies in unwise directions. So what. You can do a find & replace of any named ideology there and it reads just as true. So be vigilant against what you think are the worst excesses, and then politely disagree with everything else while voting for (and donating money towards) politicians you agree with and causes you believe in. Making sweeping lopsided statements that start by declaring that “Liberals are…” is just going to weaken your critique.

      If, on the other hand, you are in earnest arguing that somehow liberals are categorically worse than conservatives in their treatment of their ideological adversaries, or that their efforts towards, say, policing language  in pursuit of their larger ideological goals are significantly different from the disgusting tendency of some on the right to do the same by throwing around accusations of being unpatriotic and un-American simply for dissenting from a course of action like war, I’ll just laugh at you now and save you the trouble.

      • Rwlawoffice

         I don’t disagree that people can misbehave on both sides of this debate. But I stand by my statement that liberals, particularly when it comes to this issue, claim to be the ones that are tolerant and attempt to take the moral high ground, when in reality they are just as bigoted and intolerant as they claim those that oppose them are.  That is why I stated that liberals are only tolerant when you agree with them.

        • 3lemenope

          Mm. I agree that liberal superciliousness about the moral high-ground can be damned annoying. But here’s where in this particular case your criticism goes right off the rails:

          Many of these liberals are Christian.

          Support for gay marriage is pretty strong among mainline Protestants and lay American Catholics. 

          Hence, it would be odd indeed to accuse them, en masse, of being intolerant or bigoted towards Christianity. I’m sure they don’t base their position on gay marriage on intolerance of or bigotry toward their own religion. There is a struggle going on withing Christendom about just what being Christian means in the context of many social issues, if anything at all.

          When a Christian who supports gay marriage calls a people who opposes, for religious reasons, gay marriage a bigot, it is more likely that they are just calling it like they see it. After all, from their point of view, there is nothing essential about Christianity that requires a person to take the position social conservatives do, and so they must (perforce) be motivated by something other than their religious affiliation. And to be perfectly frank, it is awfully hard to come up with a plausible reason besides, well, they just don’t like gay folk that much.

          It doesn’t at all help that social conservatives cling like a life preserver in the North Atlantic to conceptions of homosexuality that evidence and investigation have long left behind. So when someone says that they believe that homosexuality is a personal lifestyle choice, they are relinquishing the right to demand that their opinion be taken seriously because their claims don’t match with what is plainly observable. Much as we don’t countenance seriously people who demand to be taken seriously when they claim the Earth is flat or six-thousand-and-change years old.

          • Nordog

            “Many of these liberals are Christian.”

            Yeah, there’s a term for that…

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

            • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

              As opposed to useless idiots like you.

              • Nordog

                Well, we can’t all be legends in our own minds like you.

                But we get by.

                At least I have the consolation of knowing  that you find me useless.

          • machintelligence

            Wow! You are so reasonable that I’m surprised that you haven’t been run out of the Republican party.

            • 3lemenope

              I’m not a member of the Republican party. If I were, I’d have been run out by now. :) 

              To be a conservative in the Eisenhower/Goldwater(/Oakeshott/Burke) mold is, at least to me, to have an incremental approach towards social change, a fundamental skepticism of top-down solutions until other approaches have been  attempted or otherwise shown to be unworkable, a lack of a belief in the perfectibility either of society or of humans in general, a stance of moral non-relativism, and a belief in the principle of subsidiarity.

              Conservatives like me haven’t really had a home in the GOP since the late ’80s. As I pointed out today on another thread, I actually voted for Obama in ’08 as the more conservative choice, as McCain showed himself to be fundamentally irresponsible (not least with the choice of Palin for VP, among other wild position swings) and the party he was leading had already gone far off the rails, and the third party choices were uninspiring. For assorted reasons I don’t really want to get into right now, I probably won’t be voting for Obama in ’12 (I’ll say only that for the most part it isn’t because of the Affordable Care Act), and I definitely won’t be voting for Romney. I see a protest vote for Gary Johnson in my future.

          • Rwlawoffice

             Cite please for the notion that a vast majority of mainline protestants and American Catholics agree with same sex marriage.

            The rest of your post appears to be a longer way of saying its okay to call people who disagree a bigot.  The fact that others can’t see the basis for the opinion just shows how intolerant they are. 

            As for your statement that homosexuality is not a personal lifestyle choice, can you please explain why there are so many examples of people switching back and forth from homosexual relationships to heterosexual ones? For them it appears to be a choice.

            Not saying it is that way for all people and I don’t think simply calling them bi solves this problem.  Because if bi people can choose which gender they want to have a sexual relationship with then approving same sex marriage is allowing marriage for same sex genders based upon choice at least for those that are bi sexual.

            To my knowledge they haven’t found a genetic connection to being homosexual.  Have they found another biological connection?  That is is sincere question by the way.

            • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

              As for your statement that homosexuality is not a personal lifestyle choice, can you please explain why there are so many examples of people switching back and forth from homosexual relationships to heterosexual ones? For them it appears to be a choice.

              This is actually very simple to explain: some people who are gay have been brainwashed into thinking that they are broken, and so they try to have heterosexual relationships. These inevitably fail because they are not in fact broken or “disordered,” and so they return to normal relationships (i.e. ones that match their actual orientation).

              The ex-gay movement is a crock, and it has never been shown to be anything other than harmful to LGBT individuals.

              • Rwlawoffice

                 Here is an interesting article that shows there is more of a question to this than you may want to believe.  It seems that there is some growing evidence that sexual orientation is more fluid than gay activists want to admit.

                http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/08/gay-choice-science-sexual-identity

                 

                • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

                  Hahahahaha. It references the Spitzer study, which Spitzer has himself retracted. That’s what you get for using a five-year-old article.

                • Rwlawoffice

                  Lol. Way to typically ignore the rest of the article. I am familier with spitzer.

                • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

                  There is very little else to suggest that sexuality is so fluid that one can change it at will, which is what the ex-gay movement presupposes.

                • Stev84

                  The whole concept of sexual fluidity isn’t based on choice at all. For some people sexuality can change over their lifetime, but that in no way means that this change can be actively induced

                • Coyotenose

                   “I am familiar with explanations as to why the Soviet Union fell, but maintain that it still exists because I have an encyclopedia from 1980.”

                  Ta da! Moron.

                • Houndentenor

                  So what?  I don’t remember ever choosing to be gay.  But let’s say I did.  Why isn’t it my right to chose?  What’s it to you?

                • amycas

                   I don’t understand why people on either side of this issue insist on debating whether or not it’s a choice. Religion is also a choice (by most standards), but we still have freedom of religion. A commenter on wwjtd said it best:


                  Let’s assume for a moment that sexual orientation is a choice (it’s not; I never chose to be straight). Does that actually make it different from the civil rights movement?
                  What if race were a choice? What if we had a pill that a
                  black person could take in the evening that would make them wake up a
                  white person? A pill that would change their skin color, their features,
                  their hair, erase their memories of their parents’ culture and the
                  experience of growing up black in America, and implant false memories of
                  white culture and experience?
                  If such a pill were available, would that make it morally permissible
                  to roll back the civil rights movement, reinstate Jim Crow laws, etc.?
                  Is racial equality something white people condescend to extend to
                  non-whites because, poor dears, they just can’t help being what they
                  are? Or is it an inherent right of all people, because being a person of
                  colour is an equally worthy way of being human as being white?”

              • amycas

                We bisexuals also exist. So there’s that. My siblings are a little confused. For a while they thought I was a lesbian, but now I live with a man and we plan to get married (eventually, probably). They thought I “switched sides,” but I had to explain that I’m bisexual. A person’s sexual orientation doesn’t change just because they are with a different person. Otherwise, anybody practicing celibacy would be considered asexual. I was not a lesbian when I was with a woman and I’m not heterosexual now: I’m bisexual.

            • 3lemenope

              Where on Earth did I say “vast majority”? I wouldn’t have even said “majority”! I said “many”, which is accurate, and “pretty strong”, which is a qualitative assessment in line, I think, with raw numbers in the millions, and an inarguably substantial portion of each group.

              TCC covered the other part.

              • Rwlawoffice

                 You are correct, you did not say “vast majority”  you said “pretty strong”.  My bad.  With this clarification, I still ask for a cite.

                • 3lemenope

                  Here’s a very recent Gallup poll. And I was wrong to be timid about the claim: it is a majority of American Catholics (51%) who support same sex marriage. Also 39% of Protestants altogether; they didn’t separate out the mainliners from the evangelicals, which I bet you dollars-to-donuts would give similar percentages amongst mainliners as Catholics.

            • TiltedHorizon
              • Rwlawoffice

                Thank you.

            • Houndentenor

              If you think that some class of people is less entitled to the full rights of citizenship in our country, then yes you are a bigot.

        • Coyotenose

           Since you’re apparently too stupid to actually read, let’s try this again:
          Intolerance of bigotry is not a flaw. That you equate it to one tells us that you’d have fit in well among those who made apologies for Segregation and claimed it wasn’t about race-hate.

        • Kodie

           When you go outside of your realm of control to dictate whom other people should and shouldn’t be allowed to marry, then you will be moved back to your own fucking side. That’s not intolerance of your kind, it’s intolerance of your kind in everyone else’s business. You’re obviously so intolerant of others to get in their business, making what you do the rest of our business. If you would stay in your own business, no one would have any business intolerating you.

      • amycas

         Can you define what you mean by “equality-of-position” and “equality-of-opportunity?”

        • 3lemenope

          If I had to sum it up, it is the distinction between formal equality (such as, say, equality before the law, or the fact that everyone’s vote has equal weight) and actual equality (possessing or having practical access to the same or equivalent means to achieve one’s ends as everyone else).

          Very roughly generalizing, conservatives tend to care more about formal equality, and liberals tend to care more about practical equality. They can often overlap, but are often antagonistic when the starting position of the people at issue are very dissimilar. 

          For example, a conservative will extol the fact that the law formally treats rich people and poor people equally; both a rich person and a poor person are entitled to due process, both can sue for redress of harm and can expect the court to respect their claims to personal and real property. A liberal might point out that this formal equality doesn’t matter very much since in order to take full use of the law as a tool, you need to hire a lawyer (which a rich person can afford but a poor person cannot) and you need to be educated as to what your claims under the law might be (which a rich person, on balance, is more likely to have than a poor person because of different social emphases on what information is important). A conservative might then respond that while those are problems, any proposed solution to remedy the fact that the rich person and the poor person start in different places as to access to the law would destroy the formal equality that makes the law valuable in the first place (namely, its claim that once a matter is before the court, it treats everyone alike), and so the liberal might argue that it is more important to sacrifice that value in service to remedying the practical reality in viewing that formal equality is a fiction if people can’t actually realize it, and round and round we go.

          This wiki article and this one have much more detail on the general topics and much more besides. Equality is a slippery concept.

          • amycas

             Ah, that’s what I was thinking you were referencing, but I wasn’t sure. Just wanted clarification. Carry on then. :-)

    • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

      jailing a father for asking for his son to be allowed to opt out of class when homosexual issues are discussed in school among others

      Oh, you mean this?

      In several conversations by phone, mail and e-mail, Parker asked teachers and officials at the school to notify him any time the subject of homosexuality was discussed in class.

      “When affirmation and normalization of these lifestyles come up, parents want to know about [it] and have the option to opt out,” he said.

      Dr. Paul Ash, superintendent of Lexington Public Schools, said the school tried to be accommodating.

      “The school department said, ‘Look, we’ll work with you, but we cannot assure you what a child is going to say and that we can immediately stop a discussion that you find objectionable,’” said Ash. “One of the central units in kindergarten is the discussion of families and we show families of all different types.” Ash says the discussions “ended up in an irreconcilable difference.”

      After one meeting in April, Parker refused to leave the school without that assurance. He was arrested and, after refusing to post the $40 bail, he spent the night in jail.

      The school board then obtained a restraining order to keep him off school property.

      In other words, this nutter was harassing the school about it until they had to involve law enforcement. Not exactly an example of the liberal Stasi sending off an innocent man to the gay gulags.

      • Stev84

         Rwlawoffice lying about the facts again? I’m shocked!

        • Piet

          Oh, he has a wide range of what he calls ‘facts’, depending on wether these facts supports his point or not.

      • Rwlawoffice

         Spin it however you want but that is the case I was referring to.  As a further example of the attempt to silence those who disagree, you provide another example- a parent who was requesting, at first nicely and then with insistence to the point of peaceful resistance is called a “nutter” . The bigger issue in this case however, is not the arrest, but the overall refusal of the board of education to provide the opt out and their position that homosexual families are not a discussion of homosexuality.  

        • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

          Asking a school district to notify you and allow your child to opt out of any discussion that references homosexuality is entirely unreasonable (although that’s not why I called Parker a “nutter,” particularly). If you’re so worried about sheltering your child from the reality that gay people exist, then you should really consider private or home schooling. No school should be forced to concede to those kinds of demands.

          • Rwlawoffice

            Why should kindergarteners be taught anything about sex to begin with? The only reason that this is done for children that young is to start to not just tell them that gay people exist, but to impress upon them that it is morally equivalent. And your response is that if this tax payer disagrees with it he should put his child in private school.

            Under Mass. law parents have the right to allow their children to opt out of discussions involving sexuality. The administrator and the department of education took the position that discussing homosexuality in the form of talking about same sex couples getting married was not a discussion of sexuality and thus no opt out was needed.  That is what is unreasonable- what makes someone a homosexual is their sexual desire for a member of the same sex yet to discuss this is not the same as discussing sexuality.  It is a word game in the name of diversity.

            What this also shows is that when same sex marriagae is approved in a state the cost includes a loss to the religious liberties of those that disagree.

            • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

              Talking about homosexuality ≠ talking about sex. The fact that you would equate the two says a lot about your thought processes.

              Discussions involving homosexual couples are no more sexual than discussions involving heterosexual couples. It’s your side that has decided that talking about two mommies or two daddies is going to devolve into graphic descriptions of scissoring and fisting.

              • Rwlawoffice

                 I guess you are correct only if we conveniently ignore that the reason they are homosexual at all is because of their desire to have a sexual and romantic relationship with a member of the same gender.

                So when we discuss to kindergartners that two men fall in love with each other and get married and kiss, to you  it is not saying that is talking about attraction for the same sex. 

                • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

                  And when you talk about Sleeping Beauty falling in love with Prince Charming, you’re not talking about attraction to the opposite gender? That’s just a double standard.

                • Nordog

                  It’s not a double standard.  It’s being normal.

                  The fact that normal sexuality is in fact normal accounts for why heterosexuals are not overcome with a compulsion to overcompensate for their condition and proclaim “PRIDE!” in the fact that they are, well, in fact, normal.

                  http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vgqJCO-5t6w/UB1CAlpktlI/AAAAAAAAAU8/3Jh4IhU8Z0o/s1600/The+Struggle.jpg

                • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

                  I’m not sure if your problem is reading or following an argument. If talking about homosexual couples is all about sex but talking about heterosexual couples isn’t, then that’s a double standard practically by definition. The only difference between the two is which genders are involved, which isn’t inherently sexual. This is easy logic to follow.

                  And your question is like asking “Why don’t we have White History Month or Men’s Studies?” If you have to ask the question, you are incredibly oblivious to your own privilege.

                • amycas

                   So because it’s no the “normal” family arrangement, those kids who have two moms or two dads must be excluded from discussions about families because some parents find it objectionable? The correct response is to say they are a public school and must include all children. No child should be forced to feel like they must keep their family life invisible from all the other children. That’s downright callous and bigoted.

                • Nordog

                  “No child should be forced to feel like they must keep their family life invisible from all the other children.”

                  Agreed.  That’s why (you may notice) I didn’t say that.

                • amycas

                   That’s what Rw has been advocating for this whole time, and you seemed to support Rw. By saying we shouldn’t talk about sex in any way with kids and then turning around and saying that the mere mention of homosexuality, even in the context of talking about another student’s family life is talking about sex–mean that these children would have to stay quiet about their family life. Or that the teacher would not be allowed to acknowledge some families, which in the minds of six-year-olds can be quite damaging.

                • Rwlawoffice

                  The purpose  of exposing five and six year old children homosexual couples getting married is to teach them that it is morally acceptable. Some parents do not think that is the case and should be able to have their kids excused from the discussion.  The failure to do so is a violation of the religious liberties of the parents and their children. That deserves to be protected.  If you don’t think that exposing kids to two men falling in love, kissing and getting married raises questions in kids minds  then you must not have children.  If you do, then you know that I am correct.

                • Kodie

                  It violates my religious freedom to have my children exposed to stupid children who have to be excessively shielded from reality. If you don’t want your kids outside, lock them in the fucking house.

                • Rwlawoffice

                  Tell me what religion that would be?

                • Kodie

                  The one that says ignorant people are an abomination unto the lord.

                • P. J. Reed

                  Other types of families that are not normal: single-parent households, mixed-race couples, and couples who waited 10+ years to have children.  Should we also avoid mentioning them?

                • amycas

                   Exactly.

                • Rwlawoffice

                  Of course we are. Which is why that is what it is the other way around.

                • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

                  In case you are saying that talking about opposite-sex couples is much a discussion of sexuality as talking about same-sex couples (difficult to tell with these damned nested comments), then why aren’t you advocating for the discussion of any couples, opposite-sex or same-sex, from public schools?

                • amycas

                   Then talking about heter-couples is also inherently sexual and we don’t want those kids to learn anything about sex ever. So I guess they can’t talk about their families at all. Even mentioning that I have biological parents implies that something of a sexual nature happened between them at some point in the past, so it would be inappropriate to mention it in front of children.

                • Houndentenor

                  You clearly spend a lot of time thinking about gay people having sex.  Hmmm.

                • Nordog

                  You know, that is a devastatingly clever rejoinder.  How ever did you come by it?  Let me guess.  Study hall, 8th grade?

                • amycas

                   I’d say it’s because anytime this issue comes up somebody has to come in and boil down all homo-couples to only sex, yet they refuse to see how the same can be said for heter0-couples.

                • Nordog

                  Well that’s probably because, whether gay or straight, the attempt to marry is an attempt to mate, and mating basically boils down to sex sooner or later.  Shocking, I know.

                  And also, probably because a man and a woman mating is, well normal, and two men or two women mating is objectively disordered.

                  So there’s that.

                • amycas

                  Marriage is not for the sole purpose of procreation. Humans procreate with or without marriage and they get married with or without procreation. You know this.

                  I can’t tell what you mean by “mating.” Are you referencing the actual act of sex, or are you trying to say that homo-couples actually try to naturally procreate? Sex isn’t all about mating for humans. In fact, most sex between humans does not lead to and does not have the intention of procreation.

                • Miss_Beara

                  Of course he knows it, we have written about it enough! 

                  If it is just about “mating”, I guess infertile couples and elderly couples can’t get married since they can’t procreate. 

                • Coyotenose

                   That you think that healthy adults who want to marry other adults they love and who love them is “disordered” tells anyone everything they’d ever need to know about how sick you really are.

                • amycas

                  ” the reason they are homosexual at all is because of their desire to have
                  a sexual and romantic relationship with a member of the same gender.”

                  You could say the same thing about hetero-couples: the only reason they are heterosexual at all is because of their desire to have a sexual and romantic relatioship with a member of the opposite gender.

            • amycas

               Learning that another child in the class has two daddies or two mommies is not teaching about sex. Why is it that kids can learn that Kathy has a mom and dad, and nobody compares that to talking about sex, but if Kathy has two moms, then suddenly it’s all about teh gey seks?!

              • Stev84

                Kids don’t even think in terms of intimacy. If you tell them what goes on between straight couples, they’ll say “Ewwww! Gross!” too. They do however understand love and companionship. And they can easily pick up on a same-sex couple being more than friends if they just observe them for some time. So explaining it to them can easily be done in terms they understand.

                • amycas

                   It doesn’t even need real explaining. Just say “Oh they are Kathy’s parents” and the kids get it. No need to talk about sex.

            • Coyotenose

               “Families” and “Sex” aren’t the same thing. God you’re desperate for something to be riled about.

            • Miss_Beara

              What about the “religious liberties” of the Christians that think they should get married? Aren’t they losing their “religious liberties” since they agree?

          • Nordog

            “Asking a school district to notify you and allow your child to opt out of any discussion that references homosexuality is entirely unreasonable…”

            And there you have it.

            It is “entirely” unreasonable.  Not just a bit unreasonable.  Not even contentious, or controversial.  But “entirely” unreasonable.

            Entirely unreasonable for a parent to insist on informed consent regarding what his child is taught in the government school.

            To proclaim this father “entirely” unreasonable really smacks of being entirely intolerant of any opposing view on the matter.

            And I bet you still don’t “get” dramatic irony.

            • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

              Saying that a parent has the right to “insist on informed consent” on anything their child is taught is absolutely unreasonable (does that adjective work any better for you?). If you want to micromanage your child’s education like that, homeschool them.

              • Nordog

                Yes, of course, the state will have no opposition.

                I’m curious though, if it is so unreasonable, that is, unreasonable to the point of being absolutely so, why then allow homeschooling?

                Do you really want to tolerate homeschooling?

                You know, I really find it astounding to consider the possibility that you really have not clue to the fact that each one of your posts actually confirms what I’ve written about you.

                • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

                  Yes, “the state” will have no opposition in teaching that gay people exist. Maybe in Bizarro World, that is a bad thing, but not here in RealityLand™.

        • RobMcCune

          The bigger issue in this case however, is not the arrest, but the overall refusal of the board of education to provide the opt out and their position that homosexual families are not a discussion of homosexuality 

          Maybe you should have stated it that way then, rather making false claims about the reason he went to jail.

        • amycas

           It’s a public school that most likely has children form all different kinds of families…even ones you would classify as “homosexual.” Is the teacher supposed to tell Jonny who has two mommies that he can’t talk about his parents because Stephen’s dad doesn’t want any discussion of homosexuality? Even though they are not discussing sex in any way but merely including children who come from different family backgrounds. It was a ridiculous request and the school district handled it correctly.

        • Coyotenose

           The only one spinning is you, Known Liar. Why do you continue to believe, despite evidence, that you aren’t easy to see through?

          Your entire complaint about your ilk being called out for bigotry is identical to that of a rapist who claims that the police are kidnapping him when he gets arrested.

      • Nordog

        Yeah, where Mr. Parker erred was in the marketing.

        He shoulda called himself “Occupy Lexington Public Schools” and mentioned repeatedly that he represented the 99% of people who were normal and didn’t agree with the schools program.

        Of course, the 99% part would not have been true, but it would not have been any less true than the same 99% used by the OWS crowd to describe themselves.

        Had Parker gone this route, he would not have been pilloried as being some kind of “nutter” but rather exhaulted for speaking truth to power and having the strength of his convictions to go to jail instead of compromising with “The Man.”

        • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

          The uprightness of civil disobedience depends on whether the cause is just or not. I doubt we would think “Letter from Birmingham Jail” such a great work if it had been written by George Wallace in jail for fighting school integration.

    • Baby_Raptor

      Remind me again why I should tolerate people who actively go out of their way to keep me a second class citizen? Because that’s what your much hated Left doesn’t tolerate: The actions. We don’t give a rat’s ass what anyone believes; it’s when they start trying to force those beliefs on others that we get loud. And yes, trying to deny someone basic rights because of your personal religion IS hateful and bigotry. I’m sorry that bothers you.

      Also, you really need to brush up on the First Amendment. It states that the government cannot make laws constricting free speech. A citizen suing Phelps for emotional damages does not violate his First Amendment rights. Conservatives really seem to have issues with hits. 

      Also, why are boycotts, name-calling, ect only okay when the Right does it? 

      • Miss_Beara

        Rainbow Oreo – BOYCOTT OREOS OMGZ THEY R ANTI FAMILY!!!1111

        Chik-fil-a – INFRINGING ON MY FREE SPEECH OMGZ!!1111 

        • 3lemenope

          It is a rather painfully clear hypocrisy, isn’t it?

          • Miss_Beara

            It is. And, it was a rainbow Oreo that didn’t even exist! 

    • Houndentenor

      The problem is this whole concept of  “tolerance”.  What does that mean to you?

      Everyone has their own rights.  So long as you aren’t interfering with my rights I really don’t give a crap what you believe, what you “tolerate” or how you feel.  That’s your business and none of mine.  The problem isn’t that people aren’t “tolerant” of gay people.  It’s that a segment of our country wants to pass LAWS to restrict the rights of gay people.  That’s a problem. 

      I don’t care if you are tolerant of gay people or not.  Being tolerated is not much of a life goal.  But I refuse to accept that I am any less a citizen of this country than anyone else because I’m gay.  If you think I am less a citizen then we have a big problem.  Big.

      So stop with all the tolerance talk.  I don’t care what your religion teaches.  You can care and live your life according to whatever religion you believe in, although I find that most religious people don’t live according to their own rules, but expect the rest of us to anyway.  But you have NO right to force me to live the way you want me to based on a belief that I do not hold.

      Tolerance shmolerance! 

  • Margaret Whitestone

    Funny how they can say “you’re filthy degenerate perverts who are destroying society” and spend millions to keep us from having the rights they enjoy they’re  just “expressing their deeply held beliefs”.  When we respond with “that’s bigoted and discriminatory” we’re “silencing them” and being “intolerant” of them.    

    The KKK and Neo-Nazis and other hideously bigoted organizations exist.  They have websites where they post vile, bigoted trash about other people.  They gather together and use their First Amendment right to vent their hatred of non-white, non-Christian people.   Hate-groups dedicated to demonizing LGBT people and keeping them second-class citizens do the same. 

    Anti-gay people have the right to free speech, just like racists.  The don’t, however, have the right to consequence-free speech.   Until recently they did, just like until a few decades ago the racists blustering used to go unchallenged.   That’s what’s causing all of this whining about being “silenced” and “intolerance’.   LGBT people and their allies are finally speaking back, and saying anti-gay bigotry is not acceptable.  The bigots don’t like having their bigotry called out for what it is, and being criticized rather than praised for it. 

    Too bad for them. 

  • Coyotenose

    Hemant, you may want to check out Nordog on this thread. He/She is now actively trolling.

    • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

      Eh, Nordog’s not worth that. All you’d do is create a persecution complex. It’s not like we can’t handle it here.

    • Nordog

      Oh great, so now you’re the comments section version of the Hall Monitor.

      Please, don’t tell teacher.

    • Stev84

      How is that news?

    • Nordog

      Every single day the chirping from the Left becomes more strident, and this in inverse proportion to the rhetorics efficacy.

      I should have included “troll” with those other benchmarks of hackneyed terms “homophobe” “bigot” and “racist” that have been drained of any real meaning through overuse.

      • 3lemenope

        Strident chirping? How exactly does that work?

      • amycas

         Actually “homophobe,” “bigot,” and “racist” do still have real meaning, as well as lots of literature in psychology and sociology studying the affects of such attitudes. Now, I kind of agree with you about calling somebody a troll. Unless they admit they are trolling, you can’t really tell the difference. Almost like Poe’s Law applies to it…

    • Glasofruix

      He’s also unusually aggressive, he’s using a lot more names. Does’nt change the fact that his “arguments” are still pretty shallow.

  • Michael Corry

    “one mom and one dad” who at the same  time are a step mom and a step dad and an ex mom and ex dad who need to label the children “hers”, “his” and “ours” so as to avoid confusion on parental visitation days.
    Incidentally, long term studies in Europe have shown that, on a number of criteria from educational achievement to emotional intelligence and even job prospects, children do best when they are brought up in a stable atmosphere with two parents who remain together until the child leaves home.
    There is no appreciable difference between those raised in such circumstances by opposite sex or same sex couples.
    Children of “blended” families (his hers and ours) fare little better than children of single parent families.
    The majority of Americans may believe otherwise but they are believing against the evidence.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X