Filmed from Dr. James Dobson's American Family Association website, this shows how hate of homosexuals is alive and well in some mainstream Christian groups. I just sifted Hitler's 'Triumph Of The Will', and I realize that some propaganda techniques never die. This time it's the gays who are persecuting God-fearing Christians instead of Jews. Think about the children!

posted by CaptWillard 6 years 10 months 2 weeks ago • 11,065 views
blankfist says...

Hate-mongering at its finest. Wow, and look at the spin in that video. AFA is remarkably stupid.

"...activist that hate everything you stand for." (cue picture of the bible)

"Once homosexual activists get into power, they're not that tolerant of other people." (not so tolerate of people trying to fuck them.. um, I mean, fuck them out of their rights.)

"They're coming to your town." (as if there could be sleeper cell queers! FTW!)

Oh, wow... great post, PirateWillard!

Fjnbk says...

This is sickening. As long as the American Family Association is going to do this, why don't they follow the commandment of Leviticus 20:13 and execute all the gays? People like these jerks make me angry.

raven says...

I love the ads that are spawned whenever there is a gay video sifted... its only time we get beefcake on this site rather than bimbos in wet t-shirts!

8756 says...

They're already in my town !! (Paris - France)

The mayor is one of them ! Oh god, we are doomed ...

Seriously, don't you have laws against "community hate propaganda" like we have here ? It may look like a "liberticide" law, but it preserves us from this crap.

quantumushroom says...

It's never about "equal" rights with activists, it's always about "special" rights, quotas, privileges, funding. Not just gays. Any activists.

It's not enough that murder is illegal, it has to be deemed EXTRA HORRIBLE 'cause the victim was ______ in addition to being human.

Bigotry against Christians is now tolerated and even encouraged. Not so with the poo-pushers and their homophilia-at-gunpoint.

FishBulb says...

It's never about "equal" rights with activists, it's always about "special" rights, quotas, privileges, funding. Not just gays. Any activists.

Agreed.

It's not enough that murder is illegal, it has to be deemed EXTRA HORRIBLE 'cause the victim was ______ in addition to being human.

Agreed.

Bigotry against Christians is now tolerated and even encouraged.

Agreed.

Not so with the poo-pushers and their homophilia-at-gunpoint.

Agr.. Wait. What?

jonny says...

It's not enough that murder is illegal, it has to be deemed EXTRA HORRIBLE 'cause the victim was ______ in addition to being human.

ok QM, I'll bite and fill in the blank:

1) a police officer
2) a child
3) raped and beaten
4) tortured to death
5) killed in an act of mass murder
6) killed in an act of genocide
7) killed in an act of treason
etc.

Yeah, we handle all sorts of exceptional crimes in exceptional ways.

9728 says...

It's never about "equal" rights with activists, it's always about "special" rights, quotas, privileges, funding. Not just gays. Any activists.

It's not enough that murder is illegal, it has to be deemed EXTRA HORRIBLE 'cause the victim was ______ in addition to being human.

Bigotry against Christians is now tolerated and even encouraged. Not so with the poo-pushers and their homophilia-at-gunpoint.

------------------------------------------------

Okay, seriously what the hell?

The reason the crime is treated as "EXTRA HORRIBLE" is because of something called a hate crime. Attacking a black person simply because he/she is black is deemed to be "EXTRA HORRIBLE" by our society, hence the hate crime laws.

Now, as for the other "special" rights, I ask you what are they? The right to get married to the person you love? The right to adopt children? The right to open and freely talk about your family in the work place, and to be able to put pictures of them on your desk without fearing you will be ostracised? You need to reevaluate what you think is "special" and what is "fundamental".

Now as for bigotry against Christians being tolerated, I think you are seriously mistaken. I only have a problem with those who force their religion onto others, but I would never be bigotted against them. Christianity is the most popular religion in the United States, so I hardly see how it would be tolerated to be bigotted against it. Also, the whole reason for any kind of activists for things like homosexuality is to promote equality, fairness, and the ideal that no one should be discriminated against, so anyone who would discriminate against Christians are hypocrits.

bamdrew says...

... nobody else noticing the electro nightclub dance music in the background?

They're already in your town and they're producing your internet videos! Ooh-nooos!

bamdrew says...

As an aside, I felt like a fool when I realized my (awesome) highschool english teacher was gay, a full year after I left.

Turns out it doesn't mean they're freaks... who knew!

xxovercastxx says...

I'm 100% on board with FishBulb's response to QM.

The reason the crime is treated as "EXTRA HORRIBLE" is because of something called a hate crime. Attacking a black person simply because he/she is black is deemed to be "EXTRA HORRIBLE" by our society, hence the hate crime laws.

A crime is a crime. Hate crime laws just reinforce the same racism and bigotry they're supposed to punish. See the following South Park episode.

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/UEj2ihisKU0/

eric3579 says...

dystopianfuturetoday, how does this comment make someone a racist? The reason youve concluded hes a racist from his comment is, your just not very bright.

It's never about "equal" rights with activists, it's always about "special" rights, quotas, privileges, funding. Not just gays. Any activists.

This is the perfect example of why hate crime laws are bad.

dystopianfuturetoday says...

Eric, you probably aren't tuned into racist culture, but qm's comments (whether he knows it or not) are some of your most basic wedge, talking points.

Did Martin Luther King, Cesar Chavez or Ghandi want special privileges? No, they just wanted to be treated like everyone else.

You've bought into racist propaganda.

When a hate crime is committed, there are two things that happen: The actual crime and an attempt to intimidate a group of people.

Example: A gang member tags his name on a Jewish temple. A KKK member tags 'Die fucking Jews" on the side of a Jewish temple.

Are you seriously going to tell me that those are the same crimes?

BTW, I would never call you stupid for disagreeing with me.

Capiche?

choggie says...

"hate crime" ....inflammatory rhetoric, meaningless phraseology,...newspeak

what you are talking about are a particular monkey's filter, and their ability to process information, and express their damaged imprints, and how this relates to perceived acceptable, societal norms.

People are fucking idiots, if you give them the room-not just Christains, not just gays, everybody's process is defiled. Everyone's opinion, is on equal footing in this thread....only those who chose to find what is laughable in such masturbation, came out ok-

When one is able to understand the motivations behind perspectives, they may then perhaps have a valid opinion based on objective observation-

MycroftHomlz says...

In principle, I might initially agree with you, but the reality is that what is right and wrong is not so clear cut.

Dystopianfuture has some excellent points should you actually choose to think about it logically.

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

Hate crimes are intended to intimidate a group in addition to the victim. In fact, some of the most well known hate crimes were actually more directed at the group than the individual. A great example is the death of Emmett Till, if you don't know this, then here is a link.

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

So, you can see. The crime is actually beyond the simple infringement of the law, it is additionally a crime against the group. The social contract we make when we become a part of a society dictates that this is a separate event and should be punished accordingly.

In the case of gay people, they want the basic rights granted to other social groups. Ask yourself,

Is there a secular(e.g. non-religion) based answer for why gay people should not be able to marry?

My guess is you can't. And if you can't, then it should be legal. To be frank, I think marriage has a religious connotation, and as a result the state should only be allowed to grant civil unions regardless of your race or sexual preference. If your problem is with the word, then you are just arguing semantics, and you are failing to see my point.

I hope you see that there are nuances to these issues, and you are willing to make compromises.

eric3579 says...

The comment I made, was my way of trying to make a point that you shouldnt call people "not bright" or "racist" based on a few lines written in a comment box. Quatums comment, "never about "equal" rights", was over the top. Groups fighting for equal rights,I believe, want just that. Yes, quatums name calling was ugly, and seemed to me to be made in anger. These comments however dont make him racist, and calling him one, Is as offensive, as any racial slur. Its obvious I did a poor job of trying to convey my point, and for that I offer my apology.

choggie says...

but not all crimes labeled by media as "hate crimes" have your criteria there mycroft....semantics and agenda become the issue, not the intent of the criminal-folks use these things to their own whim, perhaps why most people are dim-witted idgits, when it comes to what they think they believe and do not believe......Look at Jessie Jackson.....Look at Code Pink.....look at the most vocal and obnoxious gay rights sirens, and you get the idea-These people snake-oil sales folks, with no solid sensibilities worth banking on-their goal is to not create understanding and tolerance, but to stir up rabble, and get sound-bited.....

quantumushroom says...

ok QM, I'll bite and fill in the blank:

1) a police officer
2) a child
3) raped and beaten
4) tortured to death
5) killed in an act of mass murder
6) killed in an act of genocide
7) killed in an act of treason
etc.

Yeah, we handle all sorts of exceptional crimes in exceptional ways.


That's true, but in these cases we don't second guess the motivation behind the crimes in order to make the punishment "worser".

Hate crime = thought crime. Please do not pretend otherwise "for the good of the community".

quantumushroom says...

Oh yeah. "Poo-pusher" is a term used by Lisa Lampanelli during celebrity roasts. If you've watched any celebrity roasts where Andy Dick is involved you're just as "guilty" as me as laughing. And if Andy was truly insulted, he wouldn't keep showing up!

xxovercastxx says...

Hate crimes are intended to intimidate a group in addition to the victim. In fact, some of the most well known hate crimes were actually more directed at the group than the individual. A great example is the death of Emmett Till, if you don't know this, then here is a link.

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

So, you can see. The crime is actually beyond the simple infringement of the law, it is additionally a crime against the group. The social contract we make when we become a part of a society dictates that this is a separate event and should be punished accordingly.

I just read the entire article on Emmett Till and I don't see how those guys deserve more severe punishment than someone who tortured and beat a white kid to death.

Equality applies in both directions. A black man or woman should have all the same rights and freedoms as my pasty, white ass. But likewise, someone who commits a crime against said black man or woman should not be punished more severely than if it was me they had targeted.

Hate crime laws aren't so different from affirmative action. What you end up with is reverse discrimination, not equality.

MycroftHomlz says...

Think of it this way, if I torture and murder a member of a given group as a means to intimidate and coerce that group into a given behavior my crime is not just against the individual, but also the group. The crime against the group in this case is coercion, which is against the law. Hence, there are indeed two separate crimes being committed, which is why they are treated as such under the auspices of the law.

If you think that there isn't a crime being committed against the group, then we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Currently, however, the legal consensus of the United States agrees with the perspective that I have attempted to frame.

dystopianfuturetoday says...

You're wrong about King, who wanted all kinds of special rights.
And Ghandi hated Black people. I can't believe you admire such racists! For SHAME!


Wow. If you aren't down with King and Ghandi, then you most definitely have issues with race. This isn't a personal attack, but rather an observation.

Instead of flinging hasty retorts, why not take an embarrassing moment in a videosift thread and use it as a catalyst for positive change in your life?

I can tell by the words you use that these ideas are not your own (which is a good thing). These are regurgitated talking points from political talk radio and message boards.

Do you really want other people to do your thinking for you? I hope not.

Why not wrestle with these ideas yourself? Maybe you will come to different conclusions than those Fox News has taught you.

I know these comments are a bit forward, but they are genuine and intended to engage you, not insult you.

PS: I apologize for calling you a fucknut.

quantumushroom says...

Is there a secular (e.g. non-religion) based answer for why gay people should not be able to marry?

Yes. Gay "marriage" lessens the societal value of the system/tradition that's worked for centuries for the effective passing on of genetic code (creating life) and the legal inheritance of property to offspring in an orderly manner.

Without technology, two men or two women are incapable of creating their own offspring, therefore it's only a hedonistic union, not a functional one. It's not a question of "love" or "commitment" (what government contract is?) but the proven ways by which society has flourished.

I'm for civil unions for gays (a framework of legal rights) and I think committed gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.

I believe marijuana should be legal for all, but most people still don't. That's majority public opinion at work. I can work to change it, but I have no right to change society overnight to suit my needs via illegal opinions by activist judges or crying about how marijuana (and these days, tobacco) smokers are an "oppressed minority" (though they are). Aren't homosexuality and marijuana smoking both behaviors and choices, influenced, I might add, by chemicals in the body? These are not issues to be taken lightly. Changing public opinion is a glacial process. It should be. Society is the way it is because of centuries of trial and error. If gay "marriage" has any merit, it will survive the deserved resistance against it.

quantumushroom says...

Wow. If you aren't down with King and Ghandi, then you most definitely have issues with race. This isn't a personal attack, but rather an observation.

I believe your earlier "racism" barb was the personal attack. By now I'm used to it. As I've said to any and all, if you want to pleasantly debate an issue in depth, stop on by!

As for King and Gandhi, I don't dispute their contributions to the world. However, while you and I are entitled to our opinions of these men, we are not entitled to our own facts. They were flawed, imperfect men...using them as billy clubs on a less knowledgable individual might have worked, but facts is facts, and as this is the internet, no one cares anyway.

I can tell by the words you use that these ideas are not your own (which is a good thing). These are regurgitated talking points from political talk radio and message boards.

In my younger years I was a liberal and then an anarchist. The libs are still spewing the same emotionally charged half-truths they were a decade ago, and decades before that. They never change their tune.

My later experience combined with new understandings led to my present belief system ("conservatarian") which includes facts and historical learnins where possible. It is a grave error to think righties have their brains switched off; we have to live with facts, including knowledge of our limitations; they are often depressing and often no fun.

The main difference between left and right? The left is forever selling impossible (and costly) solutions while the right illuminates the tradeoffs between one way of doing things and another.

dystopianfuturetoday says...

It is a grave error to think righties have their brains switched off

Cute how you try to deflect my criticisms onto others, but I didn't say righties. These comments were custom tailored for you, mushroom.

Most 'righties' as you call them, are not rhetoric-spewing politicos.

MarineGunrock for example, is a reasonable, rational thinker. I might not always agree with him, but his opinions are always thoughtful, often unpredictable, and most importantly, they never sound like warmed-over Hannity.

I realize I'm wasting my life talking to you, so I'll let you have the last word.

MycroftHomlz says...

In reply to "Gay "marriage" lessens the societal value..."

Fortunately, saying something doesn't make it true. In this case, I don't think saying that inheritance and 'the passing on of genetic code' are impeded by alllowing gay marriage or civil unions, are logical reason why gay marriage should not illegal.

Homosexuals should be allowed the same rights to inheritance, and other societal benefits as other members of other groups in our society. Tax benefits, insurance, etc. should all be guaranteed under our constitution.

Second, marriage is not necessary for 'the passing on of the genetic code'. We are the only species that I know of that marries. Putting it in old testament terms, Adam and Eve weren't married, but had two boys. So, you see your second reason is not logical.

If you are for civil unions, then for you it is the religious connotation of the word 'marriage'. In this case, would you agree that states should not be allowed to grant marriages?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

berticus says...

Gay "marriage" lessens the societal value of the system/tradition that's worked for centuries for the effective passing on of genetic code (creating life) and the legal inheritance of property to offspring in an orderly manner.

There is a system that has worked for much longer than centuries for the effective passing on of genetic code. Modern day western marriage has little to do with property inheritance. The purposes of the ritual have changed dramatically even within the past hundred years, with a strong emphasis now on a romanticised emotional bond. This argument (which doesn't appear to be yours, anyway) also doesn't explain how gay marriage "lessens" the societal value of marriage.

Without technology, two men or two women are incapable of creating their own offspring, therefore it's only a hedonistic union, not a functional one.

Is this part of an argument against gay marriage, too? That only a man-and-woman partnership capable of and intent on creating a child naturally should be able to marry, because their relationship is "functional" (i.e. makes babies)? If so, why? What about male-female partnerships that cannot or do not want to reproduce? What about male-female partnerships that reproduce but aren't married? What about male-male or female-female partnerships that use technology to produce children? If marriage is only a culturally enforced process for ensuring reproduction naturally, it sounds ridiculous. I don't think anyone believes modern day western marriage serves this purpose anyway, it has come to be a symbolic ritual representing a romantic union between people who are then afforded legal and social rights.

I'm for civil unions for gays (a framework of legal rights) and I think committed gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.

I'm glad to hear that, though frankly civil unions make little sense. The question becomes "What is the difference between a civil union and a marriage?", and I've yet to encounter an answer that wasn't absurd.

Ryjkyj says...

I am so tired of christians acting like they have it so tough. America is 70% christian. SEVENTY PERCENT!!!! Not only is whining like this becoming annoying but it's becoming dangerous for the rest of us. You know, the left over small percentage groups. What happens when christians only have 60% of the country! I'll tell you what happens. The same thing that happens when large groups of Muslims feel persecuted for their beliefs. So you get critisism from people for your beliefs. DEAL WITH IT! THE REST OF US HAVE TO! And we don't have a 70% majority!

jonny says...

That's true, but in these cases we don't second guess the motivation behind the crimes in order to make the punishment "worser".

Hate crime = thought crime. Please do not pretend otherwise "for the good of the community".


Let me put this more explicitly. Many crimes are treated differently due to aggravating circumstances. A particular motive can be an aggravating circumstance. For instance, if I kill someone who is going to testify against me in another criminal trial, that motive is used to prosecute me for a crime with a much tougher sentence than if I had killed the person in a bar brawl. That motive has to be proven though, just like the act of the crime itself. In other words, there is no second guessing of motives, they must be proven when used as a legal basis for a tougher sentence. In the case of hate crime laws, it's not enough to demonstrate that the defendant hates a particular group of people in general. The prosecution must show that the defendant's hatred specifically motivated the crime in question. Same thing for DFT's vandalism example above. The motive for the crime (intimidation, harassment, etc.) is an aggravating factor in the crime and thus cause for more severe punishment. The thoughts behind the act are not themselves a crime, but when criminal acts are committed based on ideas that society finds repugnant, the crime is considered worse.

choggie says...

Look hard for that 70%, most self-proclaimed Christians, have not the first clue of their own spirituality.....

Fielding the question from a mob-rules standpoint, the issue of gay marriage put to U.S. states had the majority voting a resounding NO. The majority in societies throughout history that we know of, the same, if it was EVER put to a vote. Anything goes, yes, in societies headed the way of decay, and ruin, which...HELLO, anyone take a good look lately, at the retrograde paradigm?

The demographics of gay to straight, are one of many barometers we as a societal species have to gauge our so-called progress or digress. Does the reader perhaps notice, that we do not buy the bill of goods, that imprints, parents, and sensibilities, have nothing to do with someone's sexuality?? It is not solely the crap-shoot of genetics that determines a person's predilections-environment plays a major role.

Marriage? Religions decide. The construct has it's roots and origins there....it is a matter of "This establishment reserves the right to refuse", and the homosexual who wants a piece of it, must whine, scream, kick, that much harder-Who said life was easy?

Besides, the argument of what benefits are unavailable to gay couples as opposed to a married couple, is weak-Insurance? Another construct in which people believe what they are told they need to avail themselves of. Tax breaks? Get creative. There are more holes in that system, more easily maneuverable than any, poor me, convince the world that what I demand I deserve-said it before, and will say it again, "Fuck gay marriage." No stranger here to dysfunctional, ego-addicted brats, gay or straight.

choggie says...

oh btw....a down vote for this viddy is the same as a down vote for any such voyeurism, pep-rally, or Atheist rant, that rant in particular, I am happy to say, has been put to bed here on the sift for the most part-Atheists and Christians, argue from the same emotional, egotistical center.

xxovercastxx says...

Think of it this way, if I torture and murder a member of a given group as a means to intimidate and coerce that group into a given behavior my crime is not just against the individual, but also the group. The crime against the group in this case is coercion, which is against the law. Hence, there are indeed two separate crimes being committed, which is why they are treated as such under the auspices of the law.

By your own words you would have committed multiple crimes (murder, assault, coercion) and would be punished for each. A hate crime law is not necessary for that to happen. Chief Justice William Rehnquist said "bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest." Translation: we pander to the victim's peers to keep them appeased by increasing the punishment over the norm.

videosiftbannedme says...

There seems to be a huge mixup between the ideas of "acceptance" and "promotion". No homosexuals are actively promoting the idea that you should go boink someone else in the ass, etc. No homosexual parents or peers raise their kids that they should be interested in the same sex; nor do they promote that idea. They only foster acceptance. They just want the right to fulfill their sexual desires like everyone else does and not be criticized for it.

It's like the Evolutionist vs. the Creationist argument. These are two completely different concepts, people. Abiogenesis vs. Creation; now you have an argument.

Imagine what we could get accomplished if we were all tolerant and didn't have to squabble over what we have no control over? Damnit, I could be in a virtual reality foursome with Anna Faris, Rachel McAdams and Melissa Theuriau by now...

jwray says...

Jefferson's views on Christianity are nearly mainstream nowadays.
It's socially acceptable to ridicule the geocentric universe, the virgin birth, or the resurrection, but many moderate Christians don't believe in those things. Don't conflate religion with race, ethnicity, or some inherited trait -- religion is a conscious choice, like choosing to believe in the invisible pink unicorn.

berticus says...

Marriage? Religions decide. The construct has it's roots and origins there....it is a matter of "This establishment reserves the right to refuse", and the homosexual who wants a piece of it, must whine, scream, kick, that much harder-Who said life was easy?

The problem is that marriage has legal and social implications that go beyond a religious ceremony. Either you separate the law from the ceremony and give everyone this replacement or you live in a theocracy.

Besides, the argument of what benefits are unavailable to gay couples as opposed to a married couple, is weak-Insurance?

Whether you agree with the rights afforded to the married is a separate issue. This argument is about why a certain group should be barred from access to those rights. The value of those rights may be negligible to you, but that is no reason for them to be denied to same-sex couples.

smibbo says...

choggie, with all due respect, the rights afforded married couples in America is near 1000. Yes ONE THOUSAND, ranging from tax exemptions to shared debt to child custody to living will and power-of-attorney. some of those can be afforded through private contracts but some cannot (such as survivors benefits). even if all could be done contractually, that's nearly a thousand documents and contracts to draw up.

spoco2 says...

I truly don't have the time to read all the comments here, I've just read a few.

But serious downvotes to quantumushroom (although I have not actually downvoted it, because, hey, he was expressing his point of view) for a completely non thought out load on nonsense, and big upvotes to berticus for clearly pointing out the ridiculous assertions in qm's post.

To try and suggest that 'marriage' is something that is purely the right of men and women, and letting 'teh gays' marry will somehow bring down the whole fabric of our community is just a complete case of fear and misunderstanding.

choggie says...

Rights afforded and/or denied is an issue apart from whether or not a society agrees to unions of same sex couples, and calls it marriage-This becomes a simple matter of will and responsibility, when you approach it from this angle.

Do what you will, when you will, with whom you will, and accept the responsibility which comes with your chosen path of action, within the paradigm you find yourself in. If I wanted to feel like the world was a fair place for m,yself and my gay lover, I would probably move away from a society that tried to stone me, or otherwise made life miserable for me. You must navigate the planet in whatever place in time and space you find it in. If you wanted to worship your idea of God contrary to that of the Vatican's in the 1500's, you dis so in a closet, or you faced them defiantly in public....AND ACCEPTED CONSEQUENCES

You want to own fully-automatic weapons in the United States? Do so, but be ready to accept the responsibility that comes with discharging it and having some idiot report you.

You want to keep all the money you earn, and pay no Federal Income Tax, fine. Don't be a idiot, and leave yourself no outs, if the IRS catches up, yer fucked.

Why, the marriage of homosexuality and Christianity is only a boar's hair away from reality. The devout of every religion take care of their member's needs in the form of a community of pooled resources....Start a gay church, 501. C. 3 status is granted, and adopt as your by-laws that a portion of tithes go to a fund to offset the horrifying inconvenience of not having the full checklist of bennies that hetero couples get. Or stay single on paper fer crissakes, and give it a whine elsewhere-If you wish to see a city liberated from the bonds of a nation's social convention, free to express themselves openly, all manner of human aberration resides in San Francisco, a bunch of flakes with no internal compass whatsoever, a truly lovely city, a fucked city government, crime crawling up it's ass from all the "tolerance" their state, and their city legislatures drizzle.....lived there-saw that-would not wish it on a country......

Oh and berticus-not everything on that wiki list is exclusive rights and privileges for married couples only, and inflammatory rhetoric like "either or...live in a theocracy" is horseshit-there is no divine ruler recognized in any country on earth, that type of nonsense semantic exercise is tactic used by the most vocal of the homosexual rights advocates, of religious nut-bags, and brown-shirt Nazi assholes.....

Lessee....back in the 18's, Joe Smith left a bunch of heathens and started his own, superior religion, that has grown into one of the most successful cults in the world....even got their own state, and their own presidential candidate...it doesn't mean they had it easy.....

NadaGeek says...

Ok, every one forgot the first rule of teh intarweb,, DON'T FEED TROLLS .
and if i may point out that the definition of hate crimes is the same as that of terrorism. guess we dont like to think that they are us too . and as for intolerance of christians , puh-leeze perceived american christianity has both parties begging to service them . was there ever a time that this could honestly be said about the lbgt community ? ever ? ever-ever ?

quantumushroom says...

Cute how you try to deflect my criticisms onto others, but I didn't say righties. These comments were custom tailored for you, mushroom.

Your "criticisms" were adequately addressed. In my own words. In spades.

MarineGunrock for example, is a reasonable, rational thinker. I might not always agree with him, but his opinions are always thoughtful, often unpredictable, and most importantly, they never sound like warmed-over Hannity.

I don't seek to polarize, but as my sincere words fill others with rage or glee, then I'm doing it right. Hannity, O'Reilly, Maher, Stewart, Stern, Limbaugh, Kucinich, Nader...people either love them or hate them, but they state their case in high definition. That's all I'm doing here. If I'm upsetting someone with an admitted dystopian worldview, what then do I represent?

I realize I'm wasting my life talking to you, so I'll let you have the last word.

"You lose". --Chuck Norris, Missing in Action 2

snoozedoctor says...

When a robber shoots a store-clerk in the head, is that a "hate" crime? It sure scares the hell out of all the other store clerks. You can say, "he didn't shoot him because he was a store clerk." It doesn't matter. Ask the night clerks at the 24 hour marts what they are most scared of. Every new "crime against store clerks" scares them even more. This guy in the news this very week was killing hikers on the trail. Is that a hate crime against nature lovers? It sure makes a whole subset of people who like to hike nervous. If we want to make every person on this planet an equal person in the eyes of God and man, every crime should be a hate crime. If you want to keep reinforcing stereotyping and prejudice, keep tilting the scales of justice to one group or the other. Makes no sense to me.

As for same sex-unions. Let's at least acknowledge a social contract. If 2 people join together in life's endeavors, one makes money while the other makes it possible for the partner to make money, and they have an agreement they are sharing the fruits of the collective labor, the rights of each partner should be protected by law. If 2 people want to sign on the dotted line that they want to share their endeavors, why shouldn't they be able to do so? Without the social contract, one stiffs the other and the stiffee has no recourse. Not fair.

MycroftHomlz says...

Store clerks aren't recognized a social group.

Secondly, there currently is no case record of coercion on social groups, to my knowledge, but I am not a legal expert. I believe this is why it is included in the 'hate crime' legislation. If coercion of groups had a legal history, then it would be redundant with current laws.

MycroftHomlz says...

I take that back... sort of.

If you kidnapped a 711 clerk, and then killed him in such way as to intimidate other 711 clerks into leaving there jobs, then it would be a hate crime.


We play these hypothetical games all day, but at the end of the day the law sides against you. If you really have a problem with it, you should write your congressman.

MaxWilder says...

Bottom line is that here in the US, where the founding fathers wanted the church separate from the state, there is absolutely no logical reason for the state to be involved in granting or forbidding marriage. If our representatives think it wise to grant special rights to couples married in a church or joined in a secular civil union, those rights should be identical. And since there are plenty of churches who are willing to marry gay couples this whole conversation should be moot.

The one and only reason this conversation is happening, is because there is rampant homophobia in this country. Your lame arguments are only accepted by others who are as homophobic as you.

I'm as straight as they come, but the idea of somebody trying to tell me who I could or could not marry just pisses me off to no end.

quantumushroom says...

To the pro-anything-goes folks:

Society has failed you. First, it raised you without giving you the gift of being able to respect anything outside of your "self-esteem".

God, country, religion, patriotism, sacrifice, ethics, tradition, values, history...all just empty words on the screen. You have been cheated.

The second, more lethal way society has failed you is downplaying and outright hiding the very real consequences of personal and societal folly.

There are very serious consequences to living the homosexual "lifestyle" that have nothing to do with Straightey "being mean". Rampant promiscuity, AIDS, expensive medical treatments, loneliness, both fear of aging AND dying young.

In your eagerness to throw the life preserver of "marriage" to gays, is it possible you don't notice the ship is sinking?

Society is the way it is because of centuries of trial and error. If gay "marriage" has any merit, it will survive the deserved and necessary resistance against it.

eric3579 says...

QM, how many people whom read this do you think are pro-anything goes folks? My guess is zero.

Does anyone think the words: God, country, religion, patriotism, sacrifice, ethics, tradition, values, history are just empty words? I dont think anyone would think they are empty. All of them have quite a bit of meaning. What that meaning is, I think, is different for everyone. I think more importantly many people have been cheated by their families to fully understand and feel love, kindness, empathy, honesty, fairness, and the ability to forgive.

Promiscuity, AIDS, expensive medical treatments, loneliness, fear of aging and dying young are all concerns many people have.

I dont know about any sinking ship, but I do think discriminating between who can and cant get married is based on fear, religion and ignorance more than anything else.

It will take some time, but marriage will one day be legal for all of us.

gorillaman says...

Important to remember if gay people were in the majority they'd behave exactly the same way toward straight people. There's really no difference between one miscellaneous group and another, oppressed and oppressor, accidentally in the right or accidentally in the wrong. The world is populated and run almost exclusively by retards; unless they can be forced, beaten, herded into accepting a code of ethics derived solely from reason, these outrages will continue to flourish in perpetuity.

snoozedoctor says...

I agree with Eric, I do believe those who promote "hate crime" legislation probably do so with the best intentions. Every law passed should stand the test of hypothetical scenarios, within reason of probability. Hypothetical games are what make us reasoning humans. If you don't play them, you are a blind man. Public opinion, or the laws that get passed from such aren't always morally right. That's what this very discussion is about. I'm not committing myself either way, but the majority in this discussion are trying to argue that laws against gay marriage are wrong. "So at the end of the day, the law sides against you. If you have a problem go write your congressman." (from several posts back) That's a cop out.
The Germans made that terrible mistake a few decades back when they embraced the "laws" against Jews and Jewish businesses. Don't blindly put faith in laws. They have all the flaws of humans.

I hear unequal justice spouted on my TV every night. Almost every story on a crime against a minority ends with, "authorities are investigating whether this may have been a hate crime." I've yet to hear that moniker attached to a crime against a majority, and don't be naive enough to think that racially motivated crimes don't go both ways. You would never suspect that from my local media. Whether it's for noble cause or not, it gives the perception of unequal justice.

snoozedoctor says...

"Time out."
Thanks to all of you who post. As a manager of people, I encourage questioning the fairness of any policy or procedure, as long as one doesn't impugn the character or morals of a co-worker. Truth be told, despite being in a high tech field, participating in these kind of debates on Videosift are one of the most intellectually stimulating things I get to do all day.

MycroftHomlz says...

SnoozeDoctor,

Unfortunately, I think you have missed my point. I regret that you took my statement out of context, because in the context of your comment it seems to me that I was something entirely different from what I actually was.

To reiterate: if you really want to do something about legislation that you disagree with, then there outlets for you to do so.

I believe I did attempt to answer your hypothetical scenario. Likewise, I think effectively showed how it was not an example of a hate crime and explained how it could be made into a hate crime.

I do not believe I said we should not question laws. However, 'playing hypothetical game' doesn't really accomplish anything on a desirable scale. Finally, I would like to remind you that if you truly disagree, then you should seek a more productive avenue.

For example, you could:

1) Email your congressmen.
2) Bring a legal case against it.

However, the second, often more productive approach, is going to be difficult with the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court weighed decidedly against your position. Hence, 1) is really only your effective option.

Furthermore, to my imperfect knowledge, there is no judicial precedence for coercion of groups by an individual outside of the 'hate crime' legislation, which is why, as I have stated, it is lumped into this legislation.

Done.

snoozedoctor says...

Very well stated. Your first sentence is correct, I think I did miss your point.

While not trying to diminish the repugnant nature of bigotry;

Your third paragraph possibly illustrates one of my main concerns about hate crime legislation. That is when you "explained how it could be made into a hate crime." Clearly the States have explained them in different fashion as illustrated by their differing statutes. Some states have declined to define them at all, (albeit a significant minority). My "store-clerks" analogy, was attempting to illustrate, (not very effectively), the dilemma of who gets the right to be included in the definition and who doesn't.

Another troublesome feature for me is the focus on motive, which would seem to distort the traditional rules of criminal law. In the past, criminal law was interested in a defendant's mental state only to the extent that it would reveal whether the defendant had engaged in deliberate conduct. As a general rule, the motive of a crime has never been considered an element that must be proved at trial. Whether a person robbed a bank to buy food for a family or to pay back a gambling debt is considered irrelevant. The key state-of-mind question is whether the person intended to rob the bank.

The statutes place an extra burden of proof. We not only have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that this is the perpetrator of a crime, but we also must prove, beyond reasonable doubt what his motivation was.

Should justice treat differently a man who loudly shouts his intention of committing a "hate" crime, so that everyone agrees they heard it and can "prove" the motivation, as opposed to the individual who is quietly thinking it and whose private thoughts can never be entered into evidence. A real dilemma that is.

Krupo says...

I downvoted the "don't feed the trolls" comment because it's naively out of place in this thread. This thread has featured some of the most level-headed and intelligent comments from all three sides of the issue I've seen in ages, on the sift, and in general. And anyone who's been at the Sift any time knows that I don't dispense praise towards q-shroom lightly, but his points were ultimately well made and I'm rather ashamed of the amount of downvotes his initial comment received.

I've experienced and witnessed all sorts of prejudice, and it all sucks hard.


"What is the difference between a civil union and a marriage?"

Funny, I was thinking of mentioning that in Polish, a marriage is a marriage, a "Ślub". The legal "civil marriage" is a "Ślub cywilny".

Run a google search on 
46;lub koscielny
(Church Marriage), however, and the links plummet - because adding anything else to "Ślub" is pointless because it's ASSUMED in that Polish society that you're referring to the church service if you're not qualifying it with the "civil/civilian" adjective.

This theory holds true if you swap out "marriage" for "wedding" and conjugate the words appropriately.

So what's the point of my Polish linguistics lesson? Consider the rest of the world where reducing a wedding to some abstract contract rather than a holy union blessed by God is like talking about a recipe for baked goods that does not reference any food whatsoever in its ingredients list. It's madness.

[The truly clever punster/geek will now somehow elegantly append "Sparta" to that last paragraph... and then make some reference to the way those boys swung both ways.]


"I am so tired of christians acting like they have it so tough. America is 70% christian. SEVENTY PERCENT!!!! Not only is whining like this becoming annoying but it's becoming dangerous for the rest of us. "

Yeah, are they really real' Christians. And by that I mean "love your neighbour types". The crazy nutjobs who claim to pray daily but then bomb the poor and execute minorities by the busload don't count in my books.

Tofumar says...

"However, 'playing hypothetical game' doesn't really accomplish anything on a desirable scale."

Bullshit. The examining of hypotheticals serves as the backbone of any good philosophical thought experiment. It is just these experiments that allow us to test our moral/legal beliefs against the standards of clarity and consistency, and often expose their unforseen, unintended, and unjust consequences.

MycroftHomlz says...

By desirable scale I think it is clear I mean have an impact on the legislation, which in this case I think I am correct. Again, I never said hypothetical scenarios don't serve a local purpose, but if you want to have global effect I don't think an internet forum is the most effective venue.

Tofumar, I very surprised you of all people would use profanity in a rebuttal.

eric3579 says...

One example of how hate crime laws are being used.

11 people in Philadelphia were arrested simply for holding signs and reading passages out of the Bible during a gay pride festival downtown.

Though by all indications their protests were conducted peaceably, and with proper restraint, these men and women were forcibly detained, unceremoniously dragged down to the police station, and eventually charged with a total of three separate felonies and five misdemeanors

What, exactly, was the nature of their crimes? Well, according to the police, their charges included "possession of instruments of crime" (a bullhorn), "ethnic" intimidation (reciting a Biblical passage), and "inciting a riot" (again, reading verses from the Bible). All told, the protesters faced more than $90,000 in fines and court costs, and the very real prospect of facing as many as 47 years in prison.

snoozedoctor says...

Coming to Mycroft's defense here. He went realist on us. I was in the middle of a theoretical debate and he said, Hey, this is your reality. Kind of threw me there cause I didn't get it. You can't argue reality. It is what it is.

Back to theory; Eric's example clearly points out what many fear about hate crime laws, the overly broad interpretation of offense.

What should also be acknowledged is that hate-crime legislation does have something to do with "deterring retribution." The explicit goal is to send the message that prejudiced intimidation or violence is unacceptable, something all ethical people know. An implicit goal is to lessen the risk of violent retribution, i.e. rioting or equivalent, and thus preserve social order. It's practical, and at the same time stereotyping, i.e. you anticipate possible reactive criminal behavior on the part of the offended social group. The implicit can be viewed as appeasement, (from the dictionary: appeasement; to yield or concede to the demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.)

I won't deny that a study of history would suggest appeasement, in the practical sense, is beneficial for social order in a mixed society.

MycroftHomlz says...

Eric,

If what you say is true and occurred in the manner you describe, then I would not be surprised if they were acquitted.

I would agree that the fact that they were charged does indicate that some police departments are not accurately interpreting the hate crime legislation. However, I argue that your example does not a priori invalidate the legitimacy of the hate crime legislation, rather your example calls into question the application of law by civil servants, which is not the same thing.

I am also certain that there are enumerable examples in the judicial record that fit definition I have tried to outline. Fortunately, the legal philosophy in this country, in principle though not always in practice, attempts to minimize the likelihood of someone being wrongly convicted.

jwray says...

Throughout history, conventional wisdom and tradition have been wrong and people have adopted a slightly better ways of doing things, again and again. It would be supreme arrogance to presume that process has reached its end.

No government has the right to outlaw an activity unless it harms a person without his informed consent.

History is filled with injustice, and only by change do we improve.

It is neither beautiful nor glorious to die for one's country.

No man owes his loyalty to anything but truth and and justice.

Patriotism is as parochial and illogical as sports-team loyalty. Both are folly.

Obedience must be constrained by reason. Undue deference to authority has been a cause of most of the horrors of our history. Epistemological arguments from authority, such as religion, are the root of much evil.

snoozedoctor says...

I like the simplicity of "No government has the right to outlaw an activity unless it harms a person without his informed consent." In a relationship of 2 people, that works fine. When you add the third person into the mix, the question becomes "Do I outlaw or punish an activity by Citizen A, that might cause Citizen B to murder Citizen C, without his consent."

That's where the government interference gets to be a problem. In Eric's example, people are being told they can't express their non-violent philosophy. (Limiting freedom of speech.)
However, I do hope I can call the cops to intervene if someone is in my front yard exhorting a crowd to kill me because of something I have said. (I'd better check to see if they're already there.)

It's a tough call, but I think most of us would rather have some personal responsibility in the equation. Just because someone exhorts you to kill another doesn't mean you have to do it. In this world of imperfects, it increases the chances they will, (as evidenced by every suicide bomber that detonates), and therein is the compromise, practical versus ideal.

siftbot says...

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, January 7th, 2008 6:52am PST - promote requested by Issykitty.

Xax says...

So sad. These people don't like being called hateful bigots, but that's exactly what they are. They're the very definition of it.

Desviada says...

wow, this vid makes us sound like zombie invaders. I can't speak for other gays of course, but the last thing I feel like doing is infiltrating a small town full of people I think may hate me. Maybe I haven't been properly briefed on the gay agenda. Any hot lesbians want to fill me in on the mission?

playlists with this video:
who bookmarked this post:

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon

 • view
 • view
 • view