Republican politician's moving speech in favor of gay marriage.

[MrFun]

I saw this clip yesterday; it is, indeed, terrific.

Kudos.

[Tuberski]

She's a mother with a gay child, why the surprise?

ACK!

[Zevico]

I too don’t want to wag my finger at anybody about which way you should vote on this. It’s certainly an issue of conscience to me, and certainly one that I have been weighing very heavily for the last few weeks.

Finger-wagging sure is a terrible thing.

Hopefully more Republicans will come to realize that gay people are human beings.

Oh dear. One of those finger-waggers has come to lecture us. Whatever shall we do with this example of intolerance?
Haven't enough Christians you told that they hold to the "love the sinner, condemn the sin" doctrine? I've seen it upheld in these forums. I personally disagree with it but it's fairly obvious what it means-that those Christians think you're a human being. You're projecting a fantasy--a necessary lie--so you can tell yourself how persecuted you are. That way lies madness.

[Boris Godunov]

She's a mother with a gay child, why the surprise?

ACK!

Lots of parents of gay children still disown them and treat them like garbage.

[Boris Godunov]

You're projecting a fantasy--a necessary lie--so you can tell yourself how persecuted you are. That way lies madness.

Uh, no. There is a sizeable number of Christians and other religious folks (and I'd guess a few non-religious, I guess, although I've never encountered such) who don't "love the sinner." Physical violence against homosexuals in the U.S. is still inordinately high.

[Hauldren Collider]

I think you'll find that most, however, simply disapprove of the behavior, which is substantially more benign.

[Elok]

What counts as an non-inordinately (ordinately?) high level of anti-gay violence?

[Hauldren Collider]

I presume he's going to say "any at all", but if he's holding out for universal tolerance, I think we're gonna have to reduce our expectations a tad.

[Boris Godunov]

I think you'll find that most, however, simply disapprove of the behavior, which is substantially more benign.

A not-inconsiderable number of religious conservatives objected to the striking down of anti-sodomy laws or want to ban gay behavior entirely. That's not in any way "benign."

[Boris Godunov]

What counts as an non-inordinately (ordinately?) high level of anti-gay violence?

A bad word choice, to be sure. But anti-gay attack rates significantly exceed those of other minority groups.

And non-violent expressions of hate that exceed "mere" disapproval aren't exactly hard to find. Take the recent flap over Ellen DeGeneres being selected as the JC Penny spokesperson. Despite the fact that the job will have NOTHING to do with her sexuality, religious conservatives got up and arms and demanded she be fired. Insisting that a company fire someone just because she's gay is far more significant than "disapproval," I believe.

[MrFun]

Haven't enough Christians you told that they hold to the "love the sinner, condemn the sin" doctrine? I've seen it upheld in these forums. I personally disagree with it but it's fairly obvious what it means-that those Christians think you're a human being. You're projecting a fantasy--a necessary lie--so you can tell yourself how persecuted you are. That way lies madness.

"Loving the sinner, hating the sin" is just a politically correct code for, "I hate ******s."

Using your "logic," the "Christian" goons who picket funerals of veterans to protest gay people do not necessarily hate gay people - they just hate the behavior of gay people.

And by the way, to say that one is opposed to the behavior of gay people is to demand that gay people deny themselves their own conscience and to have gay people deny themselves a chance to have a meaningful, romantic, loving relationship with a soul mate. So really, to say you're opposed to the behavior of gay people is just as bad as simply to say that you hate gay people.

[DinoDoc]

A bad word choice, to be sure. But anti-gay attack rates significantly exceed those of other minority groups.

Of the 6,624 single bias incidents, 47.3 percent were motivated by a racial bias, 20.0 percent were motivated by a religious bias, 19.3 percent were motivated by a sexual orientation bias, and 12.8 percent were motivated by an ethnicity/national origin bias. Bias against a disability accounted for 0.6 percent of single-bias incidents. - FBI Releases 2010 Hate Crime Statistics

I would be interested in seeing your support.

[Boris Godunov]

Of the 6,624 single bias incidents, 47.3 percent were motivated by a racial bias, 20.0 percent were motivated by a religious bias, 19.3 percent were motivated by a sexual orientation bias, and 12.8 percent were motivated by an ethnicity/national origin bias. Bias against a disability accounted for 0.6 percent of single-bias incidents. - FBI Releases 2010 Hate Crime Statistics

I would be interested in seeing your support.

Apparently you can't do math.

Racial minorities = ~40% of the population, and account for 47.3% of the incidents
Gay people = ~5% of the population, and account for 19.3% of the incidents.

What does that tell you about the rate at which anti-gay incidents take place relative to their size of the population as opposed to racially-motivated attacks (and that's assuming no significant number of those were anti-white attacks, of course)? Or is it that you didn't understand the difference between "rate" and actual numbers of attacks?

[Elok]

Using your "logic," the "Christian" goons who picket funerals of veterans to protest gay people do not necessarily hate gay people - they just hate the behavior of gay people.

This isn't the best example you could have picked, as those people explicitly say they hate homosexuals (as does God, supposedly), not homosexual conduct. They're just about the only major group who DON'T say "love the sinner, hate the sin."

[Elok]

I like how I'm not actually contributing to the discussion, just pointing out minor flaws in various arguments. This is an excellent use of my time. I think I'll go play SMAC now.