Right wing hate mongers

[Do Miss America]

Well put, Nathan. Watching it happen and doing nothing about it isn't going to silence what you feel is wrong. The system of democracy is governed by the people.

So are you going to stop everything you think is wrong by legislation? What about divorce, infedelity, you probably think certain religions are wrong you better go after them too.

There are extremists on both sides, and they should be exposed as extremists before their agenda hits the mainstream.

So according to your statement I'm nothing but an extremist that needs to be stopped before I turn everyone gay? Dude you need to be locked up.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I agree with BVS's post, although I often disagree with his politics. But this will lead back to the whole gay marriage debate. Just a forewarning, and all I've seen cited so far is extreme radicals on both sides who use either violence or abusive speech to push their agendas.

What I want to get at is this:

What makes a right wing hate monger?
Are most conservative Christians hate mongers, or not?

I would have to answer in my own personal opinion, that if you use abusive speech that viciously attacks those whom you do not agree with, or if you use violence to push your agenda, you are a hate monger. I don't believe that if you passively disagree with a lifestyle, it makes you one.

I don't believe that most conservative Christians are hate mongers, although there are some so-called "Christians" who viciously attack individuals either in an assembled, verbal, or physical fashion.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

So are you going to stop everything you think is wrong by legislation? What about divorce, infedelity, you probably think certain religions are wrong you better go after them too.

Divorce is often an example that contradicts itself. I don't think the government can force two people to love each other forever. There are no pro-divorce groups, nor are there anti-divorce groups. Without opposition, how can divorce be a political issue? Infidelity is morally wrong, without question. I would not exactly oppose a penalty on those who commit it. I'm not after other religions, they have a constitutional right to practice what they believe. If they believe in something wacky, like spray-painting their symbols on a public building, it is a crime. Cults are a rattled up issue as well. If they can practice their mysticism or whatever in a way that isn't destructive, they are protected by freedom of religion.

So according to your statement I'm nothing but an extremist that needs to be stopped before I turn everyone gay? Dude you need to be locked up.

I didn't say that, nor do I believe that. You're blowing almost every word I say out of proportion.

 

[Do Miss America]

I don't believe that if you passively disagree with a lifestyle, it makes you one.

But banning gay marriage by legislation isn't passively disagreeing, therefore I think a lot of conservative Christians have the approach wrong and their leading by hate rather than by Christ's teaching.

 

[Do Miss America]

Divorce is often an example that contradicts itself. I don't think the government can force two people to love each other forever. There are no pro-divorce groups, nor are there anti-divorce groups. Without opposition, how can divorce be a political issue? Infidelity is morally wrong, without question. I would not exactly oppose a penalty on those who commit it. I'm not after other religions, they have a constitutional right to practice what they believe. If they believe in something wacky, like spray-painting their symbols on a public building, it is a crime. Cults are a rattled up issue as well. If they can practice their mysticism or whatever in a way that isn't destructive, they are protected by freedom of religion.

Well if you are going to allow other religions and you don't feel they are a threat to your religion, then you should allow others to get married and it shouldn't be a threat to your sexuality.

I didn't say that, nor do I believe that. You're blowing almost every word I say out of proportion.

No you didn't say that. But you've said too many are pushing a homosexual agenda, and then in the same context you spoke about how extremist need to be stopped before their agenda becomes mainstream. So what am I supposed to think?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

But banning gay marriage by legislation isn't passively disagreeing, therefore I think a lot of conservative Christians have the approach wrong and their leading by hate rather than by Christ's teaching.

Many of us take the traditional institution of man and wife very seriously. It doesn't mean we are hateful, it just means that we want to uphold the monogamy between man and wife under law.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage

marriage

was instituted in Paradise when man was in innocence (Gen. 2:18-24). Here we
have its original charter, which was confirmed by our Lord, as the basis on
which all regulations are to be framed (Matt. 19:4, 5). It is evident that
monogamy was the original law of marriage (Matt. 19:5; 1 Cor. 6:16). This law
was violated in after times, when corrupt usages began to be introduced (Gen.
4:19; 6:2). We meet with the prevalence of polygamy and concubinage in the
patriarchal age (Gen. 16:1-4; 22:21-24; 28:8, 9; 29:23-30, etc.). Polygamy was
acknowledged in the Mosaic law and made the basis of legislation, and continued
to be practised all down through the period of Jewish histroy to the Captivity,
after which there is no instance of it on record. It seems to have been the
practice from the beginning for fathers to select wives for their sons (Gen.
24:3; 38:6). Sometimes also proposals were initiated by the father of the
maiden (Ex. 2:21). The brothers of the maiden were also sometimes consulted
(Gen. 24:51; 34:11), but her own consent was not required. The young man was
bound to give a price to the father of the maiden (31:15; 34:12; Ex. 22:16, 17;
1 Sam. 18:23, 25; Ruth 4:10; Hos. 3:2) On these patriarchal customs the Mosaic
law made no change. In the pre-Mosaic times, when the proposals were accepted
and the marriage price given, the bridegroom could come at once and take away
his bride to his own house (Gen. 24:63-67). But in general the marriage was
celebrated by a feast in the house of the bride's parents, to which all friends
were invited (29:22, 27); and on the day of the marriage the bride, concealed
under a thick veil, was conducted to her future husband's home. Our Lord
corrected many false notions then existing on the subject of marriage (Matt.
22:23-30), and placed it as a divine institution on the highest grounds. The
apostles state clearly and enforce the nuptial duties of husband and wife (Eph.
5:22-33; Col. 3:18, 19; 1 Pet. 3:1-7). Marriage is said to be "honourable" (Heb.
13:4), and the prohibition of it is noted as one of the marks of degenerate
times (1 Tim. 4:3). The marriage relation is used to represent the union
between God and his people (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 3:1-14; Hos. 2:9, 20). In the New
Testament the same figure is employed in representing the love of Christ to his
saints (Eph. 5:25-27). The Church of the redeemed is the "Bride, the Lamb's
wife" (Rev. 19:7-9).

 

[deep]

mar·riage Audio pronunciation of "marriage" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

 

[neutral]

No you didn't say that. But you've said too many are pushing a homosexual agenda, and then in the same context you spoke about how extremist need to be stopped before their agenda becomes mainstream. So what am I supposed to think?

I'm still trying to figure out what this homosexual "agenda" (talk about tired rhetoric) is, exactly.

 

[Do Miss America]

Many of us take the traditional institution of man and wife very seriously. It doesn't mean we are hateful, it just means that we want to uphold the monogamy between man and wife under law.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage

marriage

was instituted in Paradise when man was in innocence (Gen. 2:18-24). Here we
have its original charter, which was confirmed by our Lord, as the basis on
which all regulations are to be framed (Matt. 19:4, 5). It is evident that
monogamy was the original law of marriage (Matt. 19:5; 1 Cor. 6:16). This law
was violated in after times, when corrupt usages began to be introduced (Gen.
4:19; 6:2). We meet with the prevalence of polygamy and concubinage in the
patriarchal age (Gen. 16:1-4; 22:21-24; 28:8, 9; 29:23-30, etc.). Polygamy was
acknowledged in the Mosaic law and made the basis of legislation, and continued
to be practised all down through the period of Jewish histroy to the Captivity,
after which there is no instance of it on record. It seems to have been the
practice from the beginning for fathers to select wives for their sons (Gen.
24:3; 38:6). Sometimes also proposals were initiated by the father of the
maiden (Ex. 2:21). The brothers of the maiden were also sometimes consulted
(Gen. 24:51; 34:11), but her own consent was not required. The young man was
bound to give a price to the father of the maiden (31:15; 34:12; Ex. 22:16, 17;
1 Sam. 18:23, 25; Ruth 4:10; Hos. 3:2) On these patriarchal customs the Mosaic
law made no change. In the pre-Mosaic times, when the proposals were accepted
and the marriage price given, the bridegroom could come at once and take away
his bride to his own house (Gen. 24:63-67). But in general the marriage was
celebrated by a feast in the house of the bride's parents, to which all friends
were invited (29:22, 27); and on the day of the marriage the bride, concealed
under a thick veil, was conducted to her future husband's home. Our Lord
corrected many false notions then existing on the subject of marriage (Matt.
22:23-30), and placed it as a divine institution on the highest grounds. The
apostles state clearly and enforce the nuptial duties of husband and wife (Eph.
5:22-33; Col. 3:18, 19; 1 Pet. 3:1-7). Marriage is said to be "honourable" (Heb.
13:4), and the prohibition of it is noted as one of the marks of degenerate
times (1 Tim. 4:3). The marriage relation is used to represent the union
between God and his people (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 3:1-14; Hos. 2:9, 20). In the New
Testament the same figure is employed in representing the love of Christ to his
saints (Eph. 5:25-27). The Church of the redeemed is the "Bride, the Lamb's
wife" (Rev. 19:7-9).

So that's you whole argument, tradition. That's how it's always been so that's how we're going to keep it?

Well you should have kept interracial marriage illegal, women from voting, or slaves those were all traditional too.
And you know what people used Bible quotes for those too.

But your still not getting it!!! Why are you basing some laws on the Bible and not all? You are picking and choosing. This society is not about to make infedelity against the law, so why the hell gay marriage?

You are singling us out and that's what makes it hateful. If you tried and make your whole interpretaion of the Bible law then I would say OK, you're crazy but your not hateful. But you choose to pick on us because if honour thy mother and father were law or infedelity it would affect yourselves.

 

[Do Miss America]

I'm still trying to figure out what this homosexual "agenda" (talk about tired rhetoric) is, exactly.

Me too. I didn't know I had an agenda.

 

[nathan1977]

I find it interesting that a topic that started out fairly neutral in terms of socio-political biases has quickly become so...

How quickly do (certain) post-ers turn into the haters they decry...

 

[Do Miss America]

I find it interesting that a topic that started out fairly neutral in terms of socio-political biases has quickly become so...

How quickly do (certain) post-ers turn into the haters they decry...

Can you explain?

 

[Irvine511]

I'm still trying to figure out what this homosexual "agenda" (talk about tired rhetoric) is, exactly.

since you seem nice, i can invite you to the monthly meetings. i'll send you the super-secret email that all professed homosexuals get detailing the time and meeting place -- it usually takes place in NYC, LA or SF, since homosexuals don't exist anywhere else other than these coastal urban centers.

the meetings are fun. we open with some show tunes, usually a drag queen will start with some standards from "Oklahoma" or "Mame" until some of the more lithe gayboys wearing silver haltertops and tight jeans bring us into the modern day with "Les Mis" and then we all clasp hands and sing that "5,2100600 minutes" song from Rent. by that time, the bartender has made all the Cosmos, and we can get drunk and down to business.

usually first on the agenda is the "homosexual recruitment" drive -- our goals for the month. i usually volunteer to set up a table at the local jr. high and ask people if they've ever thought about becoming a homosexual. after that, we agree upon the year's "big issue," which in 2004 has been the systematic destruction of any and all heterosexual marriages. it's amazing how the image of two men holding hands, kissing, or even relating to each other in a forum that doesn't involve football or bowling will cause two married heterosexuals to view each other in a different light. sometimes, they stop in their tracks, look at each other, realize their union isn't quite so special, and hurl their rings to the ground, shaking their heads in confusion. what fun!

we then curse the name of Jesus and God, rip pages out of the bible and use them as rolling paper for marijuana cigarettes, and that's usually the cue for Satan to video conference in. he gives us many pointers and helpful hints to help us seduce as many heterosexuals as possible. who knew that heterosexuals were so easy to convert? all it takes is a single night of passion, followed by breakfast-in-bed of seasonal fruit and european cheeses and a ldiscussion on current men's fashions. and poof! a newly minted homosexual you have.

after Satan, the orgy begins.

so, if you're interested, and want to know more about the "agenda," let me know.

 

[joyfulgirl]

You're in good form today, Irvine.

But don't you also discuss the memo about which celebrities are gay?

 

[Irvine511]

:
But don't you also discuss the memo about which celebrities are gay?

honey, they're already AT the meeting! we all know who they are.

 

[drhark]

I'm still trying to figure out what this homosexual "agenda" (talk about tired rhetoric) is, exactly.

I guess the push for gay marriage doesn't constitute an agenda?

 

[Irvine511]

I guess the push for gay marriage doesn't constitute an agenda?

insomuch as the push for civil rights for African-Americans in the 1960s was an agenda, yes.

 

[joyfulgirl]

honey, they're already AT the meeting! we all know who they are.

 

[drhark]

so, if you're interested, and want to know more about the "agenda," let me know.

I do a pretty great Karaoke Freddie Mercury, but by agenda, I don't mean what you do in meetings but the public policy which is advocated and fought for on the political front

 

[drhark]

"agenda" is a neutral word. Some good, some bad. There isn't enough time for me to discuss the differences between the civil rights movement and the push for gay marriage. I'm sure lots of people take offense to your comparison

 

[Irvine511]

I do a pretty great Karaoke Freddie Mercury, but by agenda, I don't mean what you do in meetings but the public policy which is advocated and fought for on the political front

i think "agenda" has such a clinical term to it -- and to label something as the "homosexual agenda" implies a consensus that simply isn't there. there are many homosexuals who don't want to get married, don't care about equal marriage rights, and that's fine. organizations like the HRC and GLAAD may have agendas of varying degrees, but such agends are held by members of those organizations, not by all homosexuals. true, most members of HRC and GLAAD are homosexuals, but most homosexuals are not members of either organization. also, there are many far left gay organizations that do things that even a majority of gay people disagree with -- one example is the public outing of anti-gay politicians.

basically, organizations have agendas; groups of people who are lumped together on the basis of a certain social distinction do not. they are as diverse as any other group and couldn't possibly agree on any agenda -- homosexuals come from every imaginable background in America, of all creeds, colors, races, and socio-economic backgrounds.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm sure lots of people take offense to your comparison

and i would welcome that discussion.

 

[drhark]

Thanks for clarifying. I was indeed referring to political groups such as GLAAD, not the entire subset of society that happens to be gay. Political groups have a defined agenda and seek legislation (or court judgements) to further that agenda. That being said, I could be way out of line assuming that gay marriage is on the official agenda for GLAAD or HRC

 

[Irvine511]

That being said, I could be way out of line assuming that gay marriage is on the official agenda for GLAAD or HRC

you're 100% correct about the HRC. that's pretty much it's main focus these days. GLAAD i don't know much about, but they tend to focus on media representation (or misrepresentation) of gays and lesbians. they're the ones who get all up in arms about Eminem (and this is a homo who thinks Em's a genius ... his use of the word "homo" and his near obession with homosexuality that is in all his records is *fascinating* but subject for another discussion).

but it's much easier to think that all members of a group are like-minded robots. it serves an anti-gay agenda to characterize all homosexuals as some kind of clandestine operatives who are insular, clannish, and secretly powerful -- come to think of it, this sounds just like Jews were regarded in much of pre-WW2 Europe ...

 

[drhark]

Now, in this spirit could someone identify the names of specific political groups that would constitute the bogeyman umbrella term "Religious Right"? and give your opinion on relatively how much political power they actually hold? Let's say, compared to the ACLU.

 

[namkcuR]

I am tempted to say yes, right-wingers do often use hate to further their agendas/interests. However, I don't really want to say that because it would be hypocritical. I mean, it would be lie to say that I've never said even mildly hateful things about the right.

However, I don't hate right-wingers. What I hate is the mindset of the religious-right. What I mean by that is, I sometimes feel like the most devout of religious people get to a point where all of their opinions about the most important things in life are based on a book(bible in this case), and what really bothers me is when these people sometimes actually compromise thinking for themselves in favor of letting the book think for them. And that mindset is what I get really annoyed at.

I don't know if that fits your mold of using hate to further my agenda, but if it does, then I can't very well say the right wing does so without being a hypocrite.

 

[Irvine511]

Now, in this spirit could someone identify the names of specific political groups that would constitute the bogeyman umbrella term "Religious Right"? and give your opinion on relatively how much political power they actually hold? Let's say, compared to the ACLU.

firstly, i think it's wrong to place these groups in the same category as the ACLU, or to pit them against each other as if they performed the same work just from different sides of the political spectrum. it's like apples to oranges.

Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America are the two loudest that come to mind. i went on the CWA website, and these were just half the links they had:

Sanctity of Human Life

The Ultimate Pro-Life Resource List
Shake the Nation Campaign
Life News
Priests for Life
Pregnancy Centers
Care Net
prolife.about.com
Precious Lives
Post-Abortion Counseling: Project Rachel
Abortion and Breast Cancer:
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer,
(562 KB RealVideo commercial);
Dr. John Kindley;
Dr. Joel Brind
Americans to Ban Cloning


Abstinence

Real Love Productions (Mary Beth Bonacci)
Straight Talk with Pam Stenzel
Power Choices (Howard Flaherty)
Pure Freedom Retreats (Bob and Dannah Gresh)
RSVP America Campaign expose Kinsey fraudulence —
the basis for sex education and AIDS prevention programs



For Abused Women

My Sister's Keeper International
Esther Ministries


Education

Alliance for the Separation of School and State (Marshall Fritz)
Christian Teachers in Public Schools
Black Alliance for Educational Options (Kaleem Caire)
National Parents Commission (Peg Luksik)
Home School Legal Defense Association (Michael Farris)
Home Education Network (Vicky Brady)
The Mel Gablers' Educational Research Analysts
Gateways to Better Education (Eric Buehrer)
Veronica Karaman Ministries
Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham)
Google Directory: Homeschooling in the U.S., School Choice


Entertainment

Parents Television Council
Reel 2 Real Ministries (Eric Holmberg)
Movieguide (Ted Baehr)
Challenger Films, Inc.


Pornography Addiction

Setting Captives Free
Pure Life Ministry
Christian Alliance for Sexual Recovery
Faithful and True Ministries
Christians for Sexual Integrity
National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families


Ex-Homosexual

Exodus International
Stephen Bennett Ministries
International Healing Foundation (Richard Cohen)
Mission: America (Linda Harvey)
Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays


U.S. Congress

Whipping Post
Values Action Team
House Republican Study Committee

Government

Project Vote Smart
State Legislature links
Google Directory: State Government


Biblical Worldview

Summit Ministries
Bryan College
InspiredLeadership.com (Jeff Myers)
Probe Ministries


and that's just a start.

 

[BVS]

I find it interesting that a topic that started out fairly neutral in terms of socio-political biases has quickly become so...

How quickly do (certain) post-ers turn into the haters they decry...

I notice you barely have 70 posts and you haven't been in FYM very long yet you can call out "certain posters" already as haters.

 

[BVS]

the original reason for starting this thread was to discuss why one political group would attach a human emotion such as hate and use it as an umbrella to describe members of another group. An example was given of segregationists. To this I would say that they were, to a degree, self admitted haters. The so called Chirstian Right would not describe themselves as haters. But because they oppose the political agenda of the well organized gay lobby they are called haters. I just see it as two opposing visions for society. Let them duke it out and present their cases to the public.

This is a pretty simplistic way to look at the issue.

You have one group that in essence wants to opress another group by not allowing them equal rights. And why? Based on their interpretation of one or two lines in the Bible. Not because someone's being harmed, not for constitutional reasons. They choose to ignore so many other pieces of the Bible. Doesn't sound like a simple two sides of the story to me sounds like hate.

 

[drhark]

I've heard of Focus on the Family. Not sure how much political power Dr. Dobson has or if he's even active in Washington. Maybe he is. Never heard of the others. There has to be more to the powerful religious right than that.