Is hating 'haters' hateful ?

May 2008 AFA JOURNAL pg. 11

* My comments in red between stars. *

Hate has a pretty bad name in the world today. No one wants to be called a hater, especially Christians, which is probably why we get accused of it all the time by our opponents. Homosexuals are especially fond of calling people haters. They even invented the word homophobia, which means hate and fear of homosexuals, envisaged as a mental illness. (A phobia is an anxiety disorder.)

I hate being called a homophobe. It has such an ugly connotation. It's especially unpleasant because, as a Christian, I'm supposed to have a reputation for loving people, not hating them. So I've worked really hard over the years to try to get the homosexuals to stop calling me a homophobe. I've pointed out the difference between hating people and hating their behavior (loving the sinner but hating the sin). They hated that.

Then I tried "walking my talk" by taking an ex-gay man who was dying of AIDS into my family. My wife and I and our children loved and cared for him during the last year of his life. They hated that even more.

Then I began asking for guidance from homosexuals themselves. "Tell me, where is the line between homophobia and acceptable opposition to homosexuality?" I asked. "What if I just agree with the Bible that homosexuality is a sin no worse than any other sex outside marriage?"

"No, that's homophobic," they said.

"Suppose I talk only about the proven medical hazards of gay sex and try to discourage people from hurting themselves?"

"No, you can't do that," they said.

"How about if I say that homosexuals have the option to change if they choose?"

"Ridiculous," they answered.

* Of COURSE this is a truth they will deny. They don't want us to know that there are more EX "homosexuals" than there are "homosexuals." To recognize this fact is to admit that "homosexuality' is nothing but a perverse sexual practice. *

"Maybe I could just be completely positive, say nothing about homosexuality, and focus only on promoting the natural family and traditional marriage?"

"That's really hateful," they replied.

After awhile, I realized that the only way I could get them to stop calling me a homophobe was to start agreeing with them about everything. But here's my dilemma: I honestly believe the Bible, which says that homosexuality is wrong and harmful and that all sex belongs within marriage. I've also read the professional studies and know that gay sex hurts people because it goes against the design of their bodies. And I'm friends with a number of former homosexuals who are now married and living heterosexual lives. Do I have to give up my religion? Ignore scientific facts? Betray my friends? Is that the only way to avoid being called a hater and a homophobe?

* Which is why "homosexuals" are making such a ruckus about the wonders of atheism and saying any and EVERYTHING to make Christians seem evil. Which is why "homosexuals" fight FOR any issue concerning "separation of church and state." Which is why "homosexuals" want Americans to forget Americas history, that America was founded by Christians on Christian principles. *

There's no escape. A homophobe is anyone who, for any reason, disapproves of homosexuality in any way, shape, manner, form or degree. This leaves me with just two choices: agree that everything about homosexuality is natural, normal, healthy, moral and worthy to be celebrated or be labeled as a mentally ill, hate-filled bigot.

Am I wrong? Is there any way to openly disapprove of homosexuality without being a homophobe? Gay leaders, please set me straight on this.

* No, you're not wrong.

Accept "homosexuality" as natural, normal, healthy, moral and worthy to be celebrated or you will be called a mentally ill, hate-filled bigot.

No worries. Remember it's mentally ill, hate-filled bigots CALLING you these things. This is a common practice. True racist haters usually call OTHERS racist haters. *

Because if I'm right, that means the gay agenda is to stop everyone from following the Bible regarding sexual matters. It is, after all, their stated goal to "stamp out homophobia." No more religious freedom. It's also to suppress scientific research that has reached conclusions they don't like, especially if it helps people to change their homosexual orientation back to a heterosexual one. (Ask the doctors and scientists at NARTH Home Page what they've had to endure.) If it discourages homosexuality, even by implication, it's homophobic and can't be used.

* They do everything they can to suppress ANYTHING, ANYONE and any FACTS and history that shows "homosexuality" for what it is. *

There's a queer reasoning behind all of this. Homosexuals call me names like bigot and homophobe, condemn my religion, mock my rational conclusions about social issues, impugn my motives, display intense hostility toward my actions and curse my very existence, all under the justification that I'm a hater. But if I'm a hater for civilly opposing what they do, why aren't they haters for uncivilly opposing what I do? Such a double standard, in the context of a public debate on civil rights, is not just hypocritical, it is surreal.

* But not surprising considering the nature of the people it's coming from. *

I admit I have some hate. I hate watching people kill themselves with preventable diseases like AIDS. I hate seeing children being steered toward unhealthy lifestyles. I hate having my pro-family views distorted by dishonest journalists, politicians and academics. And I hate seeing my God being treated like a homophobe for what He teaches in His Bible.

So if you're not going to stop calling me a hater for wanting homosexuals to be saved and healed or for opposing their political agenda, let's at least see a little more of that famous "American sense of fair play" in the public debate on this issue. Hatred of haters is hateful, too.

__________________
You cannot control your emotions and be self-seeking and ambitious at the same time.

I believe this pretty much captures your attitude. Am I correct in my understanding that you believe being gay or not being gay is a choice?

Well, see, there is one big problem with this striahgt off - it generises- big time. It should read, every time 'some homosexuals' I know some of them who are like that - can't stand them myself. I have often, also on here, said that thinking my homosexuality is a sin, or disaproving of it, is not being homophobic. Callingme names, or mentally ill, or gay bashing me (also verbally), or withholding my human rights and human dignaty from me, is homophobic.

There are other wrong assersertions, for instance - the wrongfull idea implied in the atricle that AIDS is a gay diseses, the wrongfull idea implied in the article that gays are not Christian, and the wrongfull idea that scietific research on homosexuality proofs anything either way.

And on the ex-homosexuals - as I believe that there are different reasons for people being homosexual, sure, I can beieve that there will be 'ex-gays' (never met one myself, funny in my line of work). But more ex-gays than gays, yeah, sure.. I would like some proof of that one, hard factual credible proof mind you.

AH

__________________
"A man is not defeated by his opponents but by himself."
"Not Wilson, but humanity failed at Paris."

Jan Smuts

This article kind of reminds me of back when conspiracy theorists were talking about how blacks were content with being second class citizens until those damn commies got them all riled up. Seriously though there are plenty of double standards with gays vs straights. I'll write a list.

Gays don't need to get married because virtually everything straight people can do through marriage gays can do through other means.

If that is a valid argument then why do we have marriage for straight people?


Gays choose their sexual orientation.

When was the last time a straight person choose their sexual orientation?

Allowing gays to marry would be giving them special rights.

No because straight people would be allowed to marry members of the same sex too just as gays can marry members of the opposite sex. It's not a special right if anyone can do it.

Being gay is unhealthy.

Having sex with different people is unhealthy. Lesbians are actually less likely to contract STDs then straights and gay men are more likely to because they as men are willing to have more open relationships and women aren't involved in gay couples obviously.

__________________
Proof of media bias? A mistake by the major networks they don't want you to know about. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media...als_04-24.html

On another note I don't see that much of a distinction between hating people and their behavior. Most people hate others because of their behavior. If you hate it when someone practices a certain religion like Catholicism or Islam, you may very well hate them. That isn't always the case, but if you aren't capable of giving a logically consistent explanation for hating their behavior then you are what we call a hater.

__________________
Proof of media bias? A mistake by the major networks they don't want you to know about. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media...als_04-24.html

Comparing sexual perversion issues to skin color and race issues doesn't work. Minority groups share unchangeable, benign, non-behavioral traits such as race, ethnicity, disability, or national origin. Homosexuals are the only group to TRY to claim minority status based on behavior.

Gays DO choose to engage in their perverse desires of same sex sex. That's what this is about. Sex. As has been repeatedly proven, there are more EX "gays" than there are "gays."

The negative health consequences of homosexual behaviours is very well documented.

We're not talking about "allowing gays to marry." That isn't necessary at all.

The difference between a male and a female

or a male and a male

or a female and a female

is as clear and obvious as the difference between a cube and a sphere

or a sphere and a sphere

or a cube and a cube.

Calling completely different human relations the same thing makes no sense.

If they want special rights they need to fight for special rights. Why are they wasting their time and energy over a WORD if their real goal isn't to completely devalue the institution of marriage for EVERYBODY ?

The word should mean little to them. They want rights, fight for RIGHTS.

That's not what this is really about though.

__________________
You cannot control your emotions and be self-seeking and ambitious at the same time.

Can you relate for us the process you went through when you decided to not be gay?

I can. It's the same process when I go to fix myself a sandwhich. I go to make myself a sandwhich. There's a knife on the counter. I could use the knife to spread some mayonnaise on my sandwhich, or I could use it to stab myself in the leg. I choose to use it to spread the mayonnaise. When I see my male friends, I could ask them to go and shoot some pool with me or I could ask them if they want to fuck me up the ass. I choose to go shoot pool or see a movie or go out drinking and choose not to ask them to fuck me up the ass.

__________________
"Of course the fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn't prove that he's a communist...but it certainly makes you look twice, doesn't it? You can't get away from the fact that racial equality is part of the communist line." - Joseph McCarthy

Political Forum Diplomacy Game Map (In Progress)
Current Diplomacy thread

Perhaps I should explain. Your article reminded me of back when people thought that disparaging, ridiculing, lying, demeaning, mocking, smearing, demonizing and antagonizing a group of people could be done without being considered a bad person. This is what the writer of this article is trying to say, that he should not be called a hater are expect any form of retaliation for hating someone or their lifestyle because of the negative connotations with the word hater. He wants to possess the attributes of a bigot without being called one. Kind of like how anti-semites want to be able to mock Jews without being called such.

Really? Where did you find that? This article proves nothing. The Psychiatric Center says otherwise, that sexual orientation cannot be actively changed and I'd believe people who actually went to school for 8 years to study human behavior over someone who possesses as much bias as you and whoever wrote this article does.

But it really doesn't matter if it's a choice or not. Religion is a choice as has been proven with people changing their religion. I don't see how that would condone bigotry to any particular religious group because they refuse to change it.

The negative consequences of constant sex is very well documented regardless of who our having sex with. As I said Lesbians are less likely to get STDs then straight couples a point that you deliberately ignored. So being a Lesbian actually makes you safer from STDs then being straight.

Its an example of double stands on the topic of gays so it fits perfectly into the discussion.
REALLY? ARE YOU ****ING FOR REAL? THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING.

I didn't say a gay and straight relationship was the same.

Didn't I just explain the nature of special rights? Their only special if they are limited to certain people. Why would you call it special? If you aren't gay it isn't really all that special of a right now is it?
You could have fooled me.

__________________
Proof of media bias? A mistake by the major networks they don't want you to know about. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media...als_04-24.html

What if men just gave each other oral sex? You can't get AIDS that way, and it doesn't go against the design of the human body. And straight people do it. Is that okay with you?