Family Research Council Labeled Hate Group

[HoosierGuy]

Southern Poverty Law Center labels Family Research Council as a hate group.

'Hate' designation irks gay marriage opponents

The Southern Poverty Law Center this week labeled as "hate groups" several political and religious organizations that campaign against same-sex marriage and, the center says, engage in "repeated, groundless name-calling" against gays and lesbians.

And here's the whole list of organizations they put on their hate group list.

18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda | Southern Poverty Law Center

[prisonchaplain]

OKAY...I'll start with the obvious comment--when you group legitimate political lobby groups with those who actually promulgate and perpetuate violence and actionable discrimination then you take away the sting from important labels. When liberal Democrats are labled Commies, and conservative Republicans Nazies, then the Commies and Nazis gradually become less scary. When fundamentalist Christians, with legitimate theological opposition to gay marriage (whether their views should be public policy is the important and on-going debate) become equivalent to those who beat up gays or worse, then "hate group" or "hate crime" loses its meaning.

We are in a season in America in which far too many seek to silence their political opponents by aggressively demonizing them. We do not have to debate, or even interact with "hate groups" on the right. Likewise, conservatives really do not need to engage "traitors" or those who commit treason.

I used to consider myself a conservative. Why do I increasingly feel like a moderate?

[Dravin]

Interesting. Can I call the NCAAP racist then as a compromise? Gotta keep things balanced.

[HoosierGuy]

So you are saying you think the Family Research Council is not a hate group.

My trust is in the Southern Poverty Law Center. They should label more people/groups as

hate groups. They should label nearly all conservative radio talk shows as hate groups.

[Soulsearcher]

OKAY...I'll start with the obvious comment--when you group legitimate political lobby groups with those who actually promulgate and perpetuate violence and actionable discrimination then you take away the sting from important labels. When liberal Democrats are labled Commies, and conservative Republicans Nazies, then the Commies and Nazis gradually become less scary. When fundamentalist Christians, with legitimate theological opposition to gay marriage (whether their views should be public policy is the important and on-going debate) become equivalent to those who beat up gays or worse, then "hate group" or "hate crime" loses its meaning.

We are in a season in America in which far too many seek to silence their political opponents by aggressively demonizing them. We do not have to debate, or even interact with "hate groups" on the right. Likewise, conservatives really do not need to engage "traitors" or those who commit treason.

I used to consider myself a conservative. Why do I increasingly feel like a moderate?

I see your points and concerns, though i had been reading up on a lot of these groups for a while and was just looking through the list again. It's one thing to want to protect lobby groups and political agendas to a degree, but really look at how many of these groups want homosexuals to face the death penalty. How many of them are spreading lies about other faiths and actively trying to say Christians only and if you don't like us we'll put you to death, arrest you or deport you. I find a fine line between groups that are using fact to try and promote their view point while not actively seeking to harm another group and groups like some listed on the hate group list that make it clear it's either their way or you should be dead.

[Dravin]

So you are saying you think the Family Research Council is not a hate group.

My trust is in the Southern Poverty Law Center. They should label more people/groups as

hate groups. They should label nearly all conservative radio talk shows as hate groups.

Yep, and I should label everyone in favor for Affirmative Action racist. I suppose I can call those those against Affirmative Action racist too. Need to find some way to get the fence sitters in there too. Yay! Everyone is racist. We just categorized Obama in the same group as the KKK, what an effective label.

Oooh, actually reading the link they base it on repeated groundless name-calling. Democrats and Republicans form hate groups, as do Console and PC Gaming fans. Don't forget the various sports fans. I never realized just how useful labels were.

Edited November 25, 2010 by Dravin

[Dravin]

It's one thing to want to protect lobby groups and political agendas to a degree, but really look at how many of these groups want homosexuals to face the death penalty.

The Family Research Council has as its goal and/or supports homosexuals being put to death for being such? If that's true then I suppose calling them a hate group isn't overkill.

Edited November 25, 2010 by Dravin

[Soulsearcher]

The Family Research Council has as its goal and/or supports homosexuals being put to death for being such? If that's true then I suppose calling them a hate group isn't overkill.

On the upside the FRC isn't one of the "put them to death" groups they are one of the " need to put them in prison" groups

Edited November 25, 2010 by Soulsearcher

[Dravin]

One the upside the FRC isn't one of the "put them to death" groups they are one of the " need to put them in prison" groups

I imagine most here (or probably most period) aren't aware of such goals. They're mainly going to be familiar with their stance on homosexual marriage and wanting to keep it from being legal. So if one calls them a hate group in front of people who are only aware of that particular goal then it looks like the logic is:

They don't support gay marriage -> they are a hate group.

Which is understandably going to raise a bunch of eyebrows and roll some eyes. And the article (the first one) lists name-calling as the reason*, or at least gives that perception, without much exposition on it. Combined with a lot of knee jerk accusations (such as our very own HoosierGuy's comments about conservative talk shows) it waters down the term.

* Most people when they think a hate group they think cross burnings, lynchings, beatings, mass genocide not name-calling (though part of that may be the terminology, name-calling makes me think of kids on a playground making "Your Momma jokes").

P.S. Reading the article more carefully it quotes someone as saying the behavior should be outlawed. Which is a lot different on the react-o-meter than wanting to outlaw being homosexual period. Is this what you are referring to? Or is actually wanting to make being homosexual itself illegal stated as a goal elsewhere?

Edited November 25, 2010 by Dravin

[Soulsearcher]

I imagine most here (or probably most period) aren't aware of such goals. They're mainly going to be familiar with their stance on homosexual marriage and wanting to keep it from being legal. So if one calls them a hate group in front of people who are only aware of that particular goal then it looks like the logic is:

They don't support gay marriage -> they are a hate group.

Which is understandably going to raise a bunch of eyebrows and roll some eyes. And the article (the first one) lists name-calling as the reason*, or at least gives that perception, without much exposition on it. Combined with a lot of knee jerk accusations (such as our very own HoosierGuy's comments about conservative talk shows) it waters down the term.

* Most people when they think a hate group they think cross burnings, lynchings, beatings, mass genocide not name-calling (though part of that may be the terminology, name-calling makes me think of kids on a playground making "Your Momma jokes").

P.S. Reading the article more carefully it quotes someone as saying the behavior should be outlawed. Which is a lot different on the react-o-meter than wanting to outlaw being homosexual period. Is this what you are referring to? Or is actually wanting to make being homosexual itself illegal stated as a goal elsewhere?

From what i saw as the basis for the designation of hate group SPLC is "anti-gay groups are organizations that go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification"

So not so much name calling as a constant crusade of tearing them down with lies and hate speech. Some of the more common examples are stuff like "all gays are pedophiles" "gays will go after your kids" "Gays were the ones behind the Nazis in WW2" "gays will come to your door and if no one stops them they will steal your child" " AIDS is a just punishment and sent by god to show they are evil." ect ect.

Now i do see your point on the distinction of outlawing being gay and outlawing gay behavior, the question i have is where do they draw the line, what would they see as the middle ground? What would they be ok with before locking someone up or would they just lock up the lot of us?

Now i have no problem in theory with a Christian group fighting same sex marriage with facts. Even quote the bible if they are going to, but making up facts or only telling half truths is something i don't like from either side and when they are doing so just to stir up anger and hate then any group from either side deserves to possibly end up on this list.

If they disagree, great quote the bible and leave it there. Making up stories just to get people to be scared or hate and they deserve what they get, and i mean it from either side. You'll also notice that it looks like one of the leaders was speaking as a supporter for a rally by a group that suggested black people were less than other humans..

Five years later, on May 17, 2001, Perkins gave a speech to the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a white supremacist group that has described black people as a “retrograde species of humanity.” Perkins claimed not to know the group’s ideology at the time, but it had been widely publicized in Louisiana and the nation.

[GeneC]

Southern Poverty Law Center labels Family Research Council as a hate group.

'Hate' designation irks gay marriage opponents

The Southern Poverty Law Center this week labeled as "hate groups" several political and religious organizations that campaign against same-sex marriage and, the center says, engage in "repeated, groundless name-calling" against gays and lesbians.

And here's the whole list of organizations they put on their hate group list.

18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda | Southern Poverty Law Center

There is nothing that leads me to believe that the "Liberty Council" is any more a hate group against homosexuals than is the LDS Church.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm not a voracious reader of the Family Research Council, but it is an off-shoot of Focus on the Family. The group is socially conservative, but generally not inflammatory. So...if this group is now a hate group...worthy of nothing but public censure...no longer even qualified in the market place of ideas, then I would suggest that this a an attempted philosophical coupe de tat. I suspect the effort will fail, and the accusers will lose a lot of influence over this.

[Soulsearcher]

I'm not a voracious reader of the Family Research Council, but it is an off-shoot of Focus on the Family. The group is socially conservative, but generally not inflammatory. So...if this group is now a hate group...worthy of nothing but public censure...no longer even qualified in the market place of ideas, then I would suggest that this a an attempted philosophical coupe de tat. I suspect the effort will fail, and the accusers will lose a lot of influence over this.

From what I'm seeing it's all about who takes the lead. Some of these groups started horrible then a change in leadership seems to have evened them out a bit, and in other cases they were doing great then the wrong leader took charge and changed the tone a great deal.

[Soulsearcher]

There is nothing that leads me to believe that the "Liberty Council" is any more a hate group against homosexuals than is the LDS Church.

If you actually read the comments directly from the guy in charge i think you might notice a great deal of difference between them and The leadership of the church.

From sourcewatch about Matt Barber

• From a January 2007 column on gays in the military: "Move over National Guard and Green Berets – make way for the avant-garde and Lavender Berets."[12]
• A March 2007 column bashed "left-wing storm troopers" and referenced a "6-foot-4-inch homosexual linebacker who likes to wear lipstick and high-heels."[13]
• A May 2007 WorldNetDaily article quoted Barber describing cross-dressers as people who "get their jollies from wearing a dress, high heels and lipstick."[14]
• Barber wrote of the birth of the child of Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter, Mary Cheney, and her lesbian partner: "[T]he conditions under which Ms. Cheney has chosen to bring this child into the world are to be condemned."[15]
• Barber asserted that former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey "admitted in his memoirs that he fancied doing the toilet bowl tango with strange men at truck stops."[16]
• In a column, Barber told the story of a "burly truck driver" who "got twitterpated by the way pantyhose felt against his skin and eventually made the self-determination that he was, in fact, a woman trapped in a man's body," which somehow means that "parents may well be forced to explain to Junior why Ms. Johnson at parochial school has a five o'clock shadow, calves like Schwarzenegger, an Adam's apple the size of a golf ball and is stuffed into a miniskirt like a 10-pound turkey in a 5-pound bag." He further asserted that a federal ban on discrimination against gays and transsexuals means that female employees will be "forced to share bathroom facilities with any male employee who got his jollies from wearing a dress."[17]
• Barber called the idea of gays in the military "radical San Francisco-style social experimentation," adding: "If the bleeding-heart lefties over at CBS News and the SLDN [servicemembers Legal Defense Network] really want to do something to support our troops and help the military, they should abandon their attempts to radically alter and undermine the armed forces, pipe down, put a cork in it and let our brave fighting men and women win this war on terror."[18]
• Barber claimed that homosexuals want to "[r]epeal all laws governing the age of sexual consent," adding, "It would legally allow pedophiles, and homosexuals who were so inclined, to access your children and teens for their own predatory sexual gratification - so long as those children 'consented' to having sex."[19] In fact, advocacy groups such as the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force have denounced sexual abuse of children.[20]
• Barber called for "a fitting redefinition of so-called 'homophobia,' that being 'Homophobia: the rational fear that 'gay sex' will kill you!' " Barber added: "The fact that we don't have mandatory surgeon general warnings on the side of condom wrappers is a testament to the power and influence wielded by the radical homosexual lobby."[21]

Not sure I've heard language like that from the prophets in a while now. Also pretty sure the church hasn't preached that all gays are pedophiles going after your kids, not that i have seen recently and i have been looking. Edited November 25, 2010 by Soulsearcher
ignore the links in the quotes, wasn't able to track them all down and while i think they are ok i'm not 100% sure.

[GeneC]

This is directly from the SPLC web site:::

Active U.S. Hate Groups

The Southern Poverty Law Center counted 932 active hate groups in the United States in 2009. Only organizations and their chapters known to be active during 2009 are included.

All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.

This list was compiled using hate group publications and websites, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports.

Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing. Websites appearing to be merely the work of a single individual, rather than the publication of a group, are not included in this list. Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity.

So now we have THOUGHT POLICE! Just like Satan wanted in the pre-existence (and now).

Violence or lawlessness is not a criteria to be labeled a HATE group (according to the SPLC) but maligning, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, or distributing leaflets or publishing (all protected by our sacred Constitution) is enough to be LABELED as a HATE GROUP.

I for one am not on the POLITICALLY CORRECT bandwagon as I refused to think like a robot or zombie as the PC would have me do.

My opinion is that PC is nothing more than satan's tool.

[Soulsearcher]

This is directly from the SPLC web site:::

Active U.S. Hate Groups

The Southern Poverty Law Center counted 932 active hate groups in the United States in 2009. Only organizations and their chapters known to be active during 2009 are included.

All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.

This list was compiled using hate group publications and websites, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports.

Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing. Websites appearing to be merely the work of a single individual, rather than the publication of a group, are not included in this list. Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity.

So now we have THOUGHT POLICE! Just like Satan wanted in the pre-existence (and now).

Violence or lawlessness is not a criteria to be labeled a HATE group (according to the SPLC) but maligning, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, or distributing leaflets or publishing (all protected by our sacred Constitution) is enough to be LABELED as a HATE GROUP.

I for one am not on the POLITICALLY CORRECT bandwagon as I refused to think like a robot or zombie as the PC would have me do.

My opinion is that PC is nothing more than satan's tool.

Notice there is no action to actually limit their free speech, just calling a spade a spade. They aren't forcing these people not to rally or march or give out pamphlets, but they are commenting on the content. Also while it doesn't imply these groups are violent or committing crimes it also doesn't say for sure they aren't. Just because you are free by law to say something doesn't mean it's not hateful. By law the KKK can do all those things you fully support, doesn't end up making them warm and fuzzy as long as they stick with in the law, it just means they aren't breaking the law of the land, still means most would see them as hate mongers.

[bytor2112]

So you are saying you think the Family Research Council is not a hate group.

My trust is in the Southern Poverty Law Center. They should label more people/groups as

hate groups. They should label nearly all conservative radio talk shows as hate groups.

Yes....and most of the Democrats in Congress.

[Dravin]

"Gays were the ones behind the Nazis in WW2"

But the Nazi's threw gays into the camps along with the political dissenters, the mentally deranged, the insane and the Jews and Roma. Not sure if homosexuals were top of the list but you'd think if homosexuals were behind it all they'd have been a little gentler to those of like inclination. It'd be like blacks being behind the KKK, sure I can see pointing it at the Jews but your own people?

If they disagree, great quote the bible and leave it there. Making up stories just to get people to be scared or hate and they deserve what they get, and i mean it from either side.

I agree. I don't really see Christ starting a smear campaign, the truth should be sufficient for any cause.

[Soulsearcher]

But the Nazi's threw gays into the camps along with the political dissenters, the mentally deranged, the insane and the Jews and Roma. Not sure if homosexuals were top of the list but you'd think if homosexuals were behind it all they'd have been a little gentler to those of like inclination. It'd be like blacks being behind the KKK, sure I can see pointing it at the Jews but your own people?

I agree. I don't really see Christ starting a smear campaign, the truth should be sufficient for any cause.

That's the thing with a lot, if not all, of the groups on the list. They exist to sell the lies. They want to win at all costs, and the truth really doesn't play a part. They know they might lose using just the truth so they sell their souls hoping to be forgiven because they did it for the greater cause. I'm not sure why the logic works but it does. I feel sorry for these groups because at the end of they day, even if they win, they've lost.

[prisonchaplain]

Notice there is no action to actually limit their free speech, just calling a spade a spade. They aren't forcing these people not to rally or march or give out pamphlets, but they are commenting on the content.

Considering that Homeland Security has actually used research from this prestigious group, you may be soft-balling this a bit. Traditionally, SPLC has gone after KKK types. That the organization would take an active social-political issue like this, and demonize one side, suggesting that their opinions are beyond the pale--equivalent to Jim Crow racists is truly sad. :::sigh::: Apparently no one wants to investigate and report anymore--eveyone wants to advocate and pontificate.

Also while it doesn't imply these groups are violent or committing crimes it also doesn't say for sure they aren't.

Because of what the SPLC is, the implication is indeed there. Historically, that is exactly what the center has been about--implicating those who advocate or threaten violence against groups. This organization has had tremendous clout. Hopefully this pathetic effort, probably meant to garner controversy and raise funds, will backfire, and we can eventually return to civil discourse on the matter.

Just because you are free by law to say something doesn't mean it's not hateful. By law the KKK can do all those things you fully support, doesn't end up making them warm and fuzzy as long as they stick with in the law, it just means they aren't breaking the law of the land, still means most would see them as hate mongers.

If you are equating public opposition to gay marriage with the KKK, I'm truly saddened.

[GeneC]

If you actually read the comments directly from the guy in charge i think you might notice a great deal of difference between them and The leadership of the church.

From sourcewatch about Matt Barber

Not sure I've heard language like that from the prophets in a while now. Also pretty sure the church hasn't preached that all gays are pedophiles going after your kids, not that i have seen recently and i have been looking.

From the Liberty Council

http://www.lc.org/media/9980/attachments/hatecrimes.pdf

Therefore, the Hate Crimes Bill must be viewed from the perspective of those who believe they must actively oppose the homosexual lifestyle. Care should be taken to distinguish those who advocate bodily harm and even death for those who participate in the homosexual lifestyle from those who hold a sincere religious belief that they can

do nothing to promote or accept the homosexual lifestyle, and indeed, must actively, though legally, oppose such lifestyles. The latter, and not the former are the subject of this memorandum as it is never justifiable to inflict bodily harm on another especially if the only justification for the harm is simply because an individual does not agree with another’s lifestyle. The Hate Crimes Bill must be assessed in its legal impact on this latter group who attempt to peacefully and lawfully live out their religious beliefs and advocate against what their religious beliefs prohibit.

CONCLUSION

Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are distinctively American. These two principles, among others, are what set us apart from the rest of the world as a beacon of freedom. These two freedoms are the most cherished freedoms. Indeed, they are the basis of a democratic society.

Freedom cannot flourish if speech and religion are squelched and set aside in the name of tolerance and acceptance. A free citizenry is essential to the good-working of government. While the purpose behind the Hate Crimes Bill may be admirable, the immediate impact on ministers and religious organizations as described above as well as the future impact of the Bill justify its defeat. Because Americans hold freedom of religion and freedom of speech so dearly, and because they form the basis for democracy, every effort must be taken to guard against even the slightest threat to their full and unhindered existence. The Hate Crimes Bill, while admirable in purpose is duplicative of local laws, intrusive into local law enforcement processes, unnecessary, and is a threat to ministers and religious organizations in the ways described above. Religious individuals are normally the first to stand and decry acts of violence and murder no matter the motivation behind the act. This is even true when it is clear that the motivation for the act is based upon sexual orientation. The government should not enact a law that would cause these individuals to make a choice between following their religious beliefs or following the governmental laws. Punishing hate crimes is good and has been

accomplished since the beginning of civilization through general criminal principles. Hate Crimes legislation is unnecessary and dangerous in its implications to religious organizations and clergy.

But nice try. The debate isn't apples and oranges it was whether or not LC or LDS are hate groups. They both fought prop 8 and both stated that Homosexuals can be rehabilitated, President Packer said, “Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?”

Just because the Church might says it nicer doesn't make the LC a Hate group, but just a group exercising their Freedom of rights just as you and I are

[prisonchaplain]

That's the thing with a lot, if not all, of the groups on the list. They exist to sell the lies. They want to win at all costs, and the truth really doesn't play a part.

Or, perhaps SPLC has chosen to resort to cherry-picking extreme lines, certainly without context, to demonize a particular viewpoint. One of the OP's articles quoted an activists expressing very much the view that opposition to gay marriage is and of itself hate speech, not qualified for public discourse.

FRC has a long history of social conservative commentary. You might strain the millions of words it has produced, and find some juicy quotables that make it seem extreme...but then would you not be doing the very thing you accuse the Right of?

[Soulsearcher]

If you are equating public opposition to gay marriage with the KKK, I'm truly saddened.

That's the thing though, these groups aren't just saying they disagree with Gay marriage because god doesn't want it. The list of things they stand for goes well beyond that.

I have no problem with both sides saying " we don't like what you stand for, here are legitimate reasons" but these groups aren't even close. While i disagree with some of the tactics the church has been linked to with prop 8, i find it very different that telling people "gays are going to steal your kids" or "gays really are out just to destroy the world". I could care less that these groups don't like gay marriage, it's how they are using their power to spread lies and portray them as facts that makes me liken them to the KKK.

[prisonchaplain]

That's the thing though, these groups aren't just saying they disagree with Gay marriage because god doesn't want it. The list of things they stand for goes well beyond that.

I have no problem with both sides saying " we don't like what you stand for, here are legitimate reasons" but these groups aren't even close. While i disagree with some of the tactics the church has been linked to with prop 8, i find it very different that telling people "gays are going to steal your kids" or "gays really are out just to destroy the world". I could care less that these groups don't like gay marriage, it's how they are using their power to spread lies and portray them as facts that makes me liken them to the KKK.

I won't comment on the cherry-picked quotes, because they are out of context. Family Research Council has not been about jailing gays, or criminalizing sodomy. It has opposed gay marriage, and probably gay adoptions of heterosexual children (though I'm not even sure of that).

As for the going after kids line, that usually refers more to public school indoctrination that there are no moral issues surrounding gay and lesbian practice. The controversy over "Sally Has Two Mommies" has been around for decades. It's those types of efforts that lead to the "They're after our kids" rhetoric.

One more area that gets traditional marriage activists in trouble is the "what's next?" line. Gay marriage today...what's next? The answer to that usually leads to the false accusation that traditionalists are equating SSA with some truly abberrant stuff.

So again I say...do we really want to wipe all nuance out between the KKK and the Family Research Council? If so, some members of this board might fear that their church is indeed next on the hit list.

[Soulsearcher]

From the Liberty Council

http://www.lc.org/media/9980/attachments/hatecrimes.pdf

Therefore, the Hate Crimes Bill must be viewed from the perspective of those who believe they must actively oppose the homosexual lifestyle. Care should be taken to distinguish those who advocate bodily harm and even death for those who participate in the homosexual lifestyle from those who hold a sincere religious belief that they can

do nothing to promote or accept the homosexual lifestyle, and indeed, must actively, though legally, oppose such lifestyles. The latter, and not the former are the subject of this memorandum as it is never justifiable to inflict bodily harm on another especially if the only justification for the harm is simply because an individual does not agree with another’s lifestyle. The Hate Crimes Bill must be assessed in its legal impact on this latter group who attempt to peacefully and lawfully live out their religious beliefs and advocate against what their religious beliefs prohibit.

CONCLUSION

Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are distinctively American. These two principles, among others, are what set us apart from the rest of the world as a beacon of freedom. These two freedoms are the most cherished freedoms. Indeed, they are the basis of a democratic society.

Freedom cannot flourish if speech and religion are squelched and set aside in the name of tolerance and acceptance. A free citizenry is essential to the good-working of government. While the purpose behind the Hate Crimes Bill may be admirable, the immediate impact on ministers and religious organizations as described above as well as the future impact of the Bill justify its defeat. Because Americans hold freedom of religion and freedom of speech so dearly, and because they form the basis for democracy, every effort must be taken to guard against even the slightest threat to their full and unhindered existence. The Hate Crimes Bill, while admirable in purpose is duplicative of local laws, intrusive into local law enforcement processes, unnecessary, and is a threat to ministers and religious organizations in the ways described above. Religious individuals are normally the first to stand and decry acts of violence and murder no matter the motivation behind the act. This is even true when it is clear that the motivation for the act is based upon sexual orientation. The government should not enact a law that would cause these individuals to make a choice between following their religious beliefs or following the governmental laws. Punishing hate crimes is good and has been

accomplished since the beginning of civilization through general criminal principles. Hate Crimes legislation is unnecessary and dangerous in its implications to religious organizations and clergy.

But nice try. The debate isn't apples and oranges it was whether or not LC or LDS are hate groups. They both fought prop 8 and both stated that Homosexuals can be rehabilitated, President Packer said, “Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?”

Just because the Church might says it nicer doesn't make the LC a Hate group, but just a group exercising their Freedom of rights just as you and I are

Starting with the Elder Packer talk it was actually clarified to state that he wasn't saying they can't be born gay, just that they don't have to be slaves to that desire, again not saying they can be cured, just that they can control The church as a whole has taken quite a large step back from "i'm promising a cure and focusing on control", but that's been debated way too much on this site many times. Second please find the current quotes from the church that state that a) all gays are pedophiles. b) gays are out to steal your kids. c) gays should face execution for either engaging in homosexual activity or for some of the groups just being gay. we'll go with those for starters.

The issue here isn't the stance against gay's or gay marriage, it's the words used. It's the tactic and language used. The church has focused only on the biblical and religious and yes that's 100% protected, these groups haven't. They have resorted to things that have no basis in current theology( i find very few who still support a religious foundation for executing gays) or even current fact. Most have been called out or denounced because of their tactics or studies because they've either been dis proven or made up out of thin air.

The difference is the church doesn't set out to strike at gays, it takes a stand and doesn't go after anyone. these groups actively go on the attack. They actively go outside their group to spread lies and try to rally people using those lies. I'd like to think the Church has a much higher moral code.

Edited November 25, 2010 by Soulsearcher