home
RSS
September 29th, 2011
11:09 AM ET

My Take: 'Hate' is too big a word to be used with such little restraint

Editor's Note: Jim Daly is president of Focus on the Family and author of Stronger: Trading Brokenness for Unbreakable Strength (David C. Cook, 2010).

By Jim Daly, Special to CNN

(CNN)– We all know the old saying about falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It's a metaphor designed to explain that while free speech is protected in our country, speaking with reckless disregard for the truth and inciting panic is, at best, irresponsibly dangerous, and, at worst, beyond the covering of the First Amendment.

The phrase has its roots in a 1919 opinion by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, but there's a version of it growing increasingly common today: Falsely yelling "hate" in a crowded public square.

A New York Times story over the weekend chronicled how some individuals and organizations eager to see same-sex marriage legalized have stopped trying to win others to their point of view through reasoned argument and have turned, instead, to emotional epithets as their main rhetorical tool.

The most recent campaign is against the Charity Give Back Group (CGBG), an online shopping service that allows consumers to donate a portion of their purchase from a variety of retailers to the nonprofit group of their choice. Gay activists, primarily through online petitions, have pressured several retailers to pull out of CGBG, alleging that the stores are helping fund "hate."

Similar efforts have been launched in recent months against Blake Mycoskie, founder of TOMS shoes, for speaking at a Focus on the Family event; and Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, for agreeing to appear at a leadership conference sponsored by another Christian group, the Willow Creek Association.

These events are a chilling snapshot of what's become of civil discourse in our culture.

The simple truth is, "hate" is far too big a word to be thrown around with such little discretion. It imputes a sinister motive to what, in this case, is a widely and deeply held belief that God's design for human sexuality lies within the lifelong context of one-man, one-woman marriage.

Does Focus on the Family advocate for that definition of marriage to be upheld as the law of the land? Unapologetically. But do we, as Webster's defines "hate," feel "intense hostility and aversion" to gays and lesbians? Do we regard them with "extreme dislike or antipathy"? Unequivocally not.

That is not to say, of course, that there aren't people and groups who do "hate" gays and lesbians.

There are also people and groups who "hate" Christians. But they do not represent the wide swath of either side of the discussion about same-sex marriage.

For the overwhelming majority of those who see the issue as we do, it is a public-policy matter we approach informed by our faith and motivated by what we feel is best for society.

Study after study has indicated the best environment for children to be raised  and nurtured  is the home of their married, biological parents. Same-sex marriage, by definition, creates homes that deprive a child of either a mother or a father.

Those of us who hold these views on homosexuality and same-sex marriage are certainly accustomed to having our beliefs challenged, even vehemently, and often in our own families.

We pray we speak on these subjects in a way that upholds God's truth while demonstrating Christ's heart and love for all people. However, if this effort to intimidate those who hold our views - and even those who may not hold our views but associate with us - continues, it's possible we won't be able to speak about it at all.

In many ways the environment we find ourselves in is not unlike that surrounding Sen. Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Certainly at that point in our history, the threat of communism to our nation was real.

It was right and proper, as most on the left and right agree, that those who did seek to subvert the laws and security of the United States be exposed and brought to justice. But the way McCarthy pursued his anti-communism campaign was, as the Times said in a 1998 editorial, "a menace to the body politic."

He leveled very loud charges very publicly, often with no evidence to support his accusations. Still, the smears stuck even to those he targeted unfairly, who for the rest of their lives bore a stain not caused by their actions, but by his words.

We were a better country than that then, and we're a better country than that now. Ours is a long tradition of turning disagreements into debates, not denigration. Let's keep that tradition going by putting out a real fire – the one caused by overheated, overreaching rhetoric.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jim Daly.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Christianity • Church • Gay rights • United States

soundoff (302 Responses)
  1. ?

    Wake up cnn. coffee breaks over.

    September 29, 2011 at 12:29 pm |
  2. when

    @ William. I agree with your 11:44 post on marriage. I've often had the same thoughts, ie. it opening the doors to ppl marrying their pets, children etc. I commend you on your idea of a "contract that's recognized by Government." However, I grow weary being continually lumped with Catholocism or with ppl assuming all Christians tolerate immoral acts by Priests, Preachers, Pastors etc. They are sick individuals hiding behind their proffesion and it makes my skin crawl to even think of how evil they are! I'm not an arbitrator of morality but I still know the difference between right and wrong. I saw a post one day that stated, "there is no sin." I thought, "yeah, well if you're ever the victim of crime you'll think differently. I can't remember who posted it but it made me wonder who in their right mind could believe that.

    September 29, 2011 at 12:28 pm |
    • MarkinFL

      How does allowing any two consenting adult humans to marry open the door for anyone that is not a consenting adult to get married? Allowing gays to marry has zero negative impact on anyone and does not require any civil or legal changes. Perhaps some temporary reprinting costs, that's it. The only argument against it is based on personal prejudice. And if that is good enough reason then you better ban inter-racial and inter-religious marriage since their are still quite a few people that are offended by those. Our country does not base its law on who might be offended. At least it shouldn't, because right now it is.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:46 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Mark

      Two people within arms lenght of me were ORDERED by theri families to marry people they had NEVER met.

      Kids as young as 15 are forced onto marriage EVERY day, so the informed consent argument seems for want of a better term a bit "White Bread"

      Alas, the reality is QUITE different.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:52 pm |
    • Robert

      "Two people within arms lenght of me were ORDERED by theri families to marry people they had NEVER met.

      Kids as young as 15 are forced onto marriage EVERY day, so the informed consent argument seems for want of a better term a bit "White Bread""

      What country are they from? We are talking about the US.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:56 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Robert

      Jews from Crown Heights in NEW YORK CITY!

      I ain't talking third world!

      September 29, 2011 at 1:00 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Wow. You don't live in reality, When. What about consenting adults do you not understand? Are you ignorant or just obtuse?

      September 30, 2011 at 1:18 am |
  3. The Bobinator

    This article is just plain silly. LGBT stating that Christians are spreading hate because they oppose them getting married is not the same as yelling fire in a crowded theatre. One places a set of people in danger of being physically hurt and causing them to panic, the other represents a group's opinion about another.

    Second of all, "In many ways the environment we find ourselves in is not unlike that surrounding Sen. Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Certainly at that point in our history, the threat of communism to our nation was real." is also not a fair comparison. Communism is real and demonstratable. It has concepts that can be referenced in the real world. Your objeciton to gays getting married does not. It has a statment by something that you believe is God and who actually is correct about what is and isn't moral.

    Thirdly, what studies are you referencing? I have not seen any study that directly compares LGBT familes with hetro ones. The fact that LGBT families have only been given rise since the late 1990's with children would mean that most of the children are around 12-15. Not old enough to determine what their effects are.

    To me, this seems like a "waaah, they're claiming we're hating them and we're not." And I agree for the most part (except what's listed above). The LGBT should call a spade a spade and say "You're closeminded bigoted people who base their opinion on something that has never been proven." Because that's far more accurate.

    September 29, 2011 at 12:18 pm |
    • BRC

      I also don't know that I would draw McCarthy into the comparison if I was the church side. McCarthy was a paranoid obsessive you loudly represented an equally paranoid minority as the majority and swayed a lot of otherwise reasonable people into doing very unreasonable things; all while referrencing a higher authority. Whether you agree with or not, that is a very similar criticism made of religions by many non-believers. I know the author wasn't trying to side with McCarthy, but unfortutately that's a very easy step to make in the consideration, I don't know why he would have referenced him at all.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:27 pm |
    • BRC

      who loudly represented, not you loudly represented, sorry.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:28 pm |
  4. Jack

    Atheists are sooooooooooo open minded. How did they get so smart? It's amazing how awesome and smart they are, they also make this world a better place and treat everyone with the utmost respect.

    September 29, 2011 at 12:15 pm |
    • BRC

      I don't know about the smart thing, but I do try very hard to ensure everyone is treated with resect, no matter how I feel about their personnel beliefs. Thanks for noticing.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:29 pm |
    • MarkinFL

      You were absolutely correct until that last statement. Idiot.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:29 pm |
  5. NYC

    Stop forcing your gay agenda down all our throats!!!! I could care less what you do in your own life or behind closed doors but seriously, stop forcing this garbage down our throats. As much as you all bltch and complain about Christians forcing their morality down your throats, you're doing the exact same thing.

    September 29, 2011 at 12:09 pm |
    • Robert

      Hey moron you have your civil rights they don't so they have a right to complain idiot!

      September 29, 2011 at 12:12 pm |
    • NYC

      Hey dlckwad you have as much civil rights as anyone else. Should humans be allowed to marry animals also? what about having multiple wives/husbands? Where's the line drawn? Go push your idiot shlt of someone else.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:14 pm |
    • Robert

      "Should humans be allowed to marry animals also"

      Keep proving to everyone how stupid you are and don't understand the definition of homosexulaity. Uh Duh....it's about two consenting adults moron.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:17 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      @NYC,

      If polygamy is allowed between straight couples, it should be allowed between gay couples. That's called "equality." And if you can prove that an animal understands the covenant it's entering into AND that it can consent to that covenant, then sure, marry an animal.

      However, given that I've seen dogs at the dog park not understand the difference between "food" and their own fe.ces, I think it's safe to say they don't understand something as life-changing as a marital union.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:23 pm |
    • J.W

      NYC I would like for you to describe the personal harm it would do to you and your family as well if gays were allowed to marry.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:40 pm |
    • I'm a complete and total moron

      Yes! I totally agree with you NYC. You are so right.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:43 pm |
    • The Bobinator

      > I could care less what you do in your own life or behind closed doors but seriously, stop forcing this garbage down our throats.

      So then logically, you're for gay marriage.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:54 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      1) There is no gay agenda, that would imply that every gay person everywhere all had the same goals. If you ever sat in a large group of gay people, you would know that this isn't true aside from some very simple generic ideas about equality.

      2) No one is forcing anything down your throat. That would imply that they not only want the right to marry and be seen as equals, but that they want the right to force you to participate.

      3) Equality means that everyone has the same rights, privileges and duties. This means the ability to marry those they love, serve in the armed forces, work in their chosen field and walk through their daily life without fear of being beaten to death simply for who they are.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:57 pm |
    • Patrick

      @NYC: How could you "care less"? What does that even mean? Are you implying that you "couldn't" care less? And, how is the gay amd lesbian community forcing this down your throat? Oh, you mean like the women and minorities in this country decades ago forcing their equality down the collective throats of those that disagreed with their right to vote, ride the same bus, eat in the same restaurant, or their right to the freedoms that male, white america had enjoyed for the previous 150 years? You have not taken the time or have the ability for rational thought; you are in fact an anti-intellectual that doesn't grasp the reality that this is not a majority or mob rule issue. Majority in this country does NOT determine who is afforded basic human rights and who isn't. Do you understand now? This is a human rights issue, not political, not anything else. Go read your friggin bible and continue to pass judgement...the american way.

      September 30, 2011 at 11:01 am |
  6. AGuest9

    When so many priests are gay, I think this is a joke.

    BTW, please don't assume that I don't know what I am talking about. One of my best friends left the Trinitarian brothers in Baltimore in the late 80's, because the monastery had turned a blind eye to the large number of brothers who put on street clothes and snuck out to the "the Block" on Friday and Saturday nights to go to gay bars and p0rn shows. Another was the subject of a court case several years ago as a molestation victim of a parish priest.

    September 29, 2011 at 12:08 pm |
  7. Reality

    And Dobson pays Daly $250,000/yr to spew the flaws of Christianity !!! (guidestar.org)

    September 29, 2011 at 12:05 pm |
  8. ?

    Wouldn't that be taking away freedom of speach?

    September 29, 2011 at 12:03 pm |
  9. J.W

    There are many marriages in the Bible that are not one-man one woman.

    September 29, 2011 at 11:59 am |
    • DamianKnight

      Solomon will testify to that. 🙂

      September 29, 2011 at 12:02 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Any women with multiple husbands you can think of?

      September 29, 2011 at 12:03 pm |
    • J.W

      Well I can think of one William the one that Jesus spoke to. It did not mention her name. She told Jesus did not have a husband and Jesus told her she had had five husbands or whatever. But like Damian said some of the powerful men had multiple wives, David being another one.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:08 pm |
  10. Robert

    “Study after study has indicated the best environment for children to be raised and nurtured is the home of their married, biological parents. Same-sex marriage, by definition, creates homes that deprive a child of either a mother or a father.”

    As the social visibility and legal status of lesbian and gay parents have increased, some people have raised concerns about the well-being of children in these families. Most of these questions are based on negative stereotypes about lesbians and gay men. The majority of research on this topic asks whether children raised by lesbian and gay parents are at a disadvantage when compared to children raised by heterosexual parents. The most common questions and answers to them are these:

    Do children of lesbian and gay parents have more problems with sexual identity than do children of heterosexual parents?

    For instance, do these children develop problems in gender identity and/or in gender role behavior? The answer from research is clear: sexual and gender identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same way among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents.

    Do children raised by lesbian or gay parents have problems in personal development in areas other than sexual identity?

    For example, are the children of lesbian or gay parents more vulnerable to mental breakdown, do they have more behavior problems, or are they less psychologically healthy than other children? Again, studies of personality, self-concept, and behavior problems show few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents..

    Are children of lesbian and gay parents likely to have problems with social relationships?

    For example, will they be teased or otherwise mistreated by their peers? Once more, evidence indicates that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with their peers and adults. The picture that emerges from this research shows that children of gay and lesbian parents enjoy a social life that is typical of their age group in terms of involvement with peers, parents, family members, and friends.

    Are these children more likely to be sexually abused by a parent or by a parent’s friends or acquaintances?

    There is no scientific support for fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by their parents or their parents’ gay, lesbian, or bisexual friends or acquaintances.

    In summary, social science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents—concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people—are unfounded. Overall, the research indicates that the children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from the children of heterosexual parents in their development, adjustment, or overall well-being.

    ~~~Interesting note: notice it’s all about prejudice and stereotypes regarding gays and lesbians, typical of Christians brainwashed beliefs.

    September 29, 2011 at 11:59 am |
    • J.W

      Yeah it would have been nice for the author to cite some of these studies instead of us just having to take his word for it.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:05 pm |
    • NYC

      Lol, sorry dude but you're wrong. To say that it doesn't affect a child at all is outright wrong. I'm guessing these studies you posted were straight from a website that wants legalization of gay marriage. It was a valiant effort though. Keep looking for anything to support your belief and dismiss real evidence, all the while accusing Christians of the same.....Ye old hypocrite.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:06 pm |
    • J.W

      OK cite it for us NYC. I want to see all of this evidence that you have.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:09 pm |
    • Robert

      "To say that it doesn't affect a child at all is outright wrong. I'm guessing these studies you posted were straight from a website that wants legalization of gay marriage"

      No moron it's from the American Psychological Association (APA) is a scientific and professional organization that represents psychology in the United States. With more than 154,000 members, APA is the largest association of psychologists worldwide.

      Thanks for proving christians are just brainwashed prejudice people. LOL!

      September 29, 2011 at 12:09 pm |
    • Yup

      NYC is just another dumb christians whose clueless.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:11 pm |
    • J.W

      I am a Christian and I am not brainwashed or prejudice.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:21 pm |
    • pssst

      One *has* a prejudice.
      One *is* prejudiced.

      A person is not "prejudice" for or against something.

      September 29, 2011 at 1:06 pm |
    • Hey

      Hey pssst "A person is not "prejudice" for or against something.

      It might help if you use a dictionary moron. Prejudice is defined as preconceived judgment or opinion : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge.

      LMAO!

      September 29, 2011 at 3:40 pm |
    • pssst

      Hey,.... keep reading, (and I'll thank you not to call me a 'moron'),

      prejudice:
      prej·u·dice
         /ˈprɛdʒədɪs/ Show Spelled [prej-uh-dis] Show IPA noun, verb, -diced, -dic·ing.
      noun
      1.an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

      2.any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.

      It is a PREJUDGMENT of any sort.

      Haven't you ever heard a parent say about their child, "I may be prejudiced, but I think he is the cutest/smartest/nicest one in the class."?

      My main point in my first post, however, was to stop people from saying, "I'm prejudice" or "He's prejudice" when they mean "prejudiced".

      p.s. It is the same shtick with the words 'bias' and 'biased'.

      September 29, 2011 at 6:47 pm |
  11. Reality

    Focus on the family? Of course but don't complicate said families with the supersti-tions of religions.

    To wit:

    Reiterating the obvious:

    Recognizing the supersti-tions, flaws, follies and frauds in the foundations of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Paganism, and Christianity by the "hatters", "bowers", kneelers" and "pew peasants" will quickly converge these religions into some simple rules of life. No koran, bible, clerics, nuns, monks, imams, evangelicals, ayatollahs, rabbis, professors of religion or priests needed or desired.

    Ditto for houses of "worthless worship" aka mosques, churches, basilicas, cathedrals, temples or synagogues.

    September 29, 2011 at 11:57 am |
  12. William Demuth

    I really have nothing better to do. My life sucks 😦

    September 29, 2011 at 11:54 am |
    • William Demuth

      Fake William Demuth

      Ah, no.

      It was your mother that sucks. And from what I hear, not very well, otherwise you would never have been born.

      September 29, 2011 at 11:58 am |
    • William Demuth

      Fake William Demuth? Who you talking about? I'm as real as Demuth's come.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:00 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Fake William Demuth

      As I have said, you are begot from Demuth's come.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:03 pm |
  13. myweightinwords

    While I agree that we are all too quick to throw the word "hate" out at those who disagree with us, and while I also agree that the LGBT community is often using the word to describe what is not, truthfully, hatred as much as it is a firmly held belief that happens to disagree with their own beliefs, that is where my agreement here ends.

    Is it hateful to belief that same gender marriage is wrong, according to your faith? No, I don't believe it is.

    HOWEVER, to take that belief and use it as a means to deny the right of marriage to those who wish to be married, is an act which at the very best inst.
    itutionalizes discrimination, and at worst paves the way to justify hatred and acts of hatred against LGBT individuals.

    September 29, 2011 at 11:47 am |
    • MarkinFL

      Exactly! He argues that hate is an inappropriate term but fails to come up with an honest alternative. How about bigotry and prejudice? How about repressive jerks? How about a bunch of people that would do well to believe whatever they like but leave others alone?
      People are free to believe ANYHTHING they wish, but when you start trying to control other law abiding citizen's lives based upon your personal beliefs you cross the line.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:18 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      MarkinFL,

      I fully support anyone's right to believe as their heart/soul/mind lead, but I also think that their right to believe ends where my rights (or another human being's rights) begin.

      Legislating something that is a matter of faith is not necessarily an act of hate, but it is certainly un-American.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:44 pm |
  14. Doc Vestibule

    Focus on the Family are anti-choice, anti-gay, and against s.ex education curricula that are not strictly abstinence-only.
    It focuses on religion in public schools, but ONLY Christian prayers. No prayer groups that "pray to Allah, Buddha or the goddess Sophia" should be allowed in their world.
    It encourages parents to boycott the PTA and their "liberal agenda".
    They regularly assert the idea that there is a "hom.ose.xual agenda" and associates hom.ose.xuals with pedophilia and recruitment of children as se.x partners.
    It would be almost laughable were they not so powerful with 74 different international ministries including conservative Christian ministries for attorneys, doctors, teachers, and other groups.

    September 29, 2011 at 11:47 am |
  15. when

    I, for one, do not hate gays. I have a close relative that is gay and I love him very much. I've also had many gay friend in my life. So you are free, Tallula 13, to think whatever suits your agenda. As far as "use their religion to discriminate against others," you do it every day.

    September 29, 2011 at 11:47 am |
    • myweightinwords

      You'll notice she said "many" and not "all"...and she isn't wrong. Many do.

      So you aren't one of them. Good for you.

      I am curious about your last statement however. In what way does Tallulah use what she believes to discriminate against others?

      September 29, 2011 at 11:52 am |
    • AGuest9

      I think that tallulah13 made a very accurate statement.

      September 29, 2011 at 11:58 am |
    • NYC

      @myweight – Congrats, you can read a sentence. Here's another: Many atheists are pompous egotistical narcissitc cowards. Not all, but many ofcourse. I surely hope you defend me also.

      September 29, 2011 at 11:59 am |
    • Tallulah13

      Please explain the how's and who's of my discriminatory actions.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:09 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      NYC, of course your statement bears weight as well. Well, up until the coward part anyway. I'm sure some are. Not sure I'd agree with "many" but your mileage may vary.

      BTW, I'm not an atheist. Just for the record.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:41 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Oh, look. "When" has accusations, but when asked for proof, disappears. I think this is just another "christian" who lies and thinks themselves virtuous for doing so.

      September 30, 2011 at 1:21 am |
    • fred

      tallulah13
      Every night you begin your attack on God and the people of God. I fear you are falling into a dark trap that will not spit you out unitll you so bitter that you can no longer find your way back. It is not easy being a Christian. Jesus says we will suffer because the world first hatted Him. Now, few of us really suffer these days in the US for being Christian but we do put up with a lot from those that do not understand what the true word of Jesus really was. You accuse our God of terrible things He did not do, you spit on the Bible, you spit on the church, you attempt to undermine the faith of those that are the weakest of believers.
      Now, if there is a God and the Bible is true one of the worst things a person can do is to "cause one of these little ones to stumble". If there is not a god then it is still a lot of unnessary negative vile cast about which has no positive effect.
      If I understand you correctly you are angry with all Christians because a few hurt you at some time in your life. I wish I knew how to fix that. True forgiveness works for me I hope you find a way out.
      As to hate, we don't hate because we read a Bible that clearly says one thing. I know there are churchs out there like the one in Westboro that are off the deep end and we all condem that kind of behavior but we dont hate them. Jesus said to hate is the same as murder. Our focus is to reflect Gods love not the opposite that does not come from God.
      Anyway, gotta run but I wish you kind and joy filled evening.

      September 30, 2011 at 1:51 am |
  16. tallulah13

    I do think that plenty of christians hate gays. So let's not play games. Actions speak louder than words.

    September 29, 2011 at 11:32 am |
  17. when

    Any time you disagree with immoral practices you will get a certain degree of "hate" thrown back at you. It's just the way our country has become. We've come to a point where "good" is believed to be "bad" and "bad" is believed to be "good."

    September 29, 2011 at 11:31 am |
    • tallulah13

      I think it's entirely immoral for people to use their religion to discriminate against others.

      September 29, 2011 at 11:33 am |
    • William Demuth

      when

      I was unaware you had beome the arbitrator of morality?

      Could you explain, in that capacity, why your religion seems to recruit so many "immoral" priests?

      I am confused by the whole "buggery is bad excepts when a preacher does it" conundrum.

      September 29, 2011 at 11:46 am |
    • JF

      How do you define what is moral? Surely not the Bible? It's filled with immoralities. You like many pick the one verse that supports your prejudice and you call it being moral. Nice.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:11 pm |
  18. Doc Vestibule

    This is like the KKK saying that Jim Crow laws weren't hateful, per se – they just denied certain people their basic human rights.

    September 29, 2011 at 11:29 am |
    • William Demuth

      I am a bit surprised by that one!

      You believe marriage is a basic human right?

      We restrict marriage in THOUSANDS of ways (for example, just try marrying your Beagle, or your Sister, or a dead person)

      I do support gay marriage, but if you make it law its gonna redefine it.

      For example can a bi oriented person marry one of each?

      Unforseen consequences are inevitable.

      Frankly, we should leave "Marriage" to religion, and instead create some contract that is recognized by government.

      An entirely new social covenant.

      September 29, 2011 at 11:44 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Marriage ceremonies are not a basic human right – but the freedom to be a family is.
      They argue that 2 parent, opposite se.x families are the ideal, which may well be true.
      But is it not preferable to have two loving parents, regardless of gender, insetead of just one?

      September 29, 2011 at 12:00 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      @William,

      These are asinine arguments that are unrelated.

      We restrict marrying animals because we because the animal cannot understand the covenant it is entering into, nor can it reasonably give consent to said union.

      Marrying close family members results in birth defects. There's a solid scientific reason for that.

      And the dead person cannot give consent to the marriage, so it cannot make the vows necessary.

      As for the bi person, no. We're not talking about polygamy (yet.) Polygamy isn't legal for straight or gay people.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:08 pm |
    • MarkinFL

      Allowing any consenting adult couple to marry would not require ANY changes to our society. There is no reason to restrict an activity between two consenting adults. Anything involving children or animals clearly do not involve consenting adults. Also, more complex marriage arrangements such as polygamy would have complicated, far-reaching and very difficult to resolve problems. i.e. tax code and health benefits issues to name but two. These problems do not occur with simple gay marriage.
      There is simply no reason besides personal prejudice to keep any adult couple from getting married.

      September 29, 2011 at 12:26 pm |
  19. William Demuth

    Hatred is a legitimate feeling, and I love to hate.

    Only one side wins, and hatred is motivation.

    September 29, 2011 at 11:21 am |
  20. Flanoggin

    This would not be an issue if organizations such as yours were not trying to destroy gay families. And I did not even have to use the "H" word.

    September 29, 2011 at 11:17 am |
1 2 3 4 5
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.