it’s been learned that militant homosexual activists recently made similar online postings to those of Nidal Malik Hasan, threatening additional acts of terrorism against Christians.

You have GOT to be kidding.



So some jackasses made internet forum and/or blog posts threatening nonspecific violence. This is news? We have people on this board that do that.

The conservatives are also really shooting themselves in the foot with the line of reasoning they put forth in this article. By likening homosexual threats to Malik Hasan's rampage, they undermine their own "fundamentalist Islam is bad" argument. Since there's no gay bible that sanctions such things, if gay violence and Islamic violence are similar then it really is just random nutjobs doing both, and Islam has nothing to do with it.

"I am calling about Mr. Mike Heath, the executive of your Christian Civic League of Maine. He thinks that gay people should have our rights revoked that we already have. Well I can tell him this- I'm a gay guy that owns guns, and he's my next target."

You call that nonspecific violence? What exactly would he have to have said for you to call it specific?

Very, I do agree that it was pretty damend specific; but we do have the same kind of threats thrown around here by people regarding shooting officials....

Christians have been ruthlessly oppressed throughout our country's history, ever since Jefferson refused to make the Baptist Church the official religion of the United States.

A number of pro-marriage advocates have also received death threats directly.

Apparently, the oppression of Christianity is synonymous with failure to adopt its version of Sharia Law.

Oh, and point 4) Had this been about Right wing idiots making such threats against homosexuals, the reaction on this board would have been considerably different.

To be fair, there's much more reason to give credence to the threats, were that the case; there's been much more "bigot-on-gay" violence than "gay-on-bigot" violence.

meh why can't it just be a case of "There's a nut in every bag". There are lots of crazy people over there, the only difference between them are who they are affiliated with.

Even your choice of words demonstrates the bias.

I figured your response would be something along those lines. The question of whether or not someone is racist/bigoted/etc. is mercurial, notoriously hard to pin down due to the nature of being a question of motive, which is innately internal. But yes, if someone enacts violence against another for the sole reason of disliking/being offended by/being afraid of a characteristic about them (which is, quite obviously, what I'm talking about above), then yes, that is in fact hard evidence of bigotry.

Does that make the person of discussion in the OP a bigot? Yes. But not illustrative of my point.

But then, why did you not say, "bigot-on-conservative" violence? No, it's "gay-on-bigot", because you show the bias. Had you been unbiased, you'd have said "there's been much more "bigot-on-gay" violence than "bigot-on-conservative" violence".

Not to worry, I expected no different result that I got. I had no expectation that people would examine themselves and their attitudes, and I got exactly what I expected I would get: Bias and double standard from those who demand tolerance from the Right.

Why is it so hard for the Left to criticize the Left's idiots, without tossing out semi-veiled attacks on the Right as though there's some measure of justification?

http://townhall.com/columnists/MattBarber/2009/11/13/gay_jihad

I thought all the hate speech was from conservatives.

You mean you didn't figure out it was just another anti-faggotry thread from the get-go?