When dissent becomes hate
I’ve got a couple of questions: First, Is there a difference between who a person is, and what a person does? I ask this question because I see a growing trend in American culture. If I object to a behavior or disagree with someone, I am told that I am insecure in my beliefs; that I am intolerant; that my dissent is a cloak for bigotry. In its extreme form, this view says that my objections belie an intense hatred for those with whom I disagree.
The logic seems to be: you object to my behavior, therefore, you hate me. Does that line of reasoning seem rational to you? Let’s give it a test drive. I object to the behavior my children sometimes exhibit and I am quick to correct it, but ask anyone who has seen me with my children and they will tell you the love we have for one another is obvious. In fact, the correction of my children is evidence of my love for them. So the “hatred” scenario doesn’t really hold water when speaking of objecting to a particular behavior, at least in my case.
Why am I getting into this? Because there are a number of people in this country (some of them professing “Christians”) whose inflammatory rhetoric belies a hatred for homosexuals. That extreme view has become the rule and standard by which some in the gay movement judge anyone who believes the gay lifestyle is wrong.
Social liberals have picked up on this and used this tactic to minimize anyone who attempts to enter the debate. In the process, Christians who openly dissent are vilified as hateful, bigoted, unloving, etc. The campaign has been amazingly effective in intimidating Christians, (or anyone else who disagrees) and bolstering a negative stereotype for those who dissent. The message is loud and clear: “Christians hate gays!” For that matter, anyone who objects to the gay lifestyle (or by extension gay marriage) hates gays.
What about you? Perhaps you object to my moralizing about homosexual behavior. Maybe you think I’m wrong to hold these views. Should I be as the extremists are and decide that because you object to my views, your objection means that you hate me? How does objecting to a behavior, or disagreeing about what is right and wrong become hate? To accuse you of hating me because you think my view of homosexuality is wrong would be an extreme form of hyperbole on my part. Yet that is precisely the auspices under which the radical gay movement and the cultural “elite” are operating.
Popularity: 3% [?]
Chad, it is evident that you are in fact a gay-basher. You can hide behind your cloak of being accused of hiding behind your cloak, but the way you comb your hair tells everyone one distinct thing: you hate gays!
Don,
Your reason is impeccable, snotty. With logic like that, I’m sure you could come to the conclusion that Lincoln shot Booth, instead of the other way around.
Anyway, thank you for your petulant, predictable, and pruniferous comment. Next time use a spoon. Otherwise, you might hurt yourself.
Snotty? Really? Why don’t you just make my point for me?
Your conceit and inaccuracy readily uncovers your bigotry. I disagree with you, and you call me names? You are such a hypocrite. Do people really listen to you?
Don,
Why should Chad give you any further explanation. Two things are abundantly clear from your very first comment. (A) You have no ability to think in logical categories and (B) you are an idiot….oh, and yer dumb too. Just so you don’t misunderstand, when I use the terms “idiot” and “dumb,” I’m not using them as Chad would. Chad always maintains that people can be very intelligent and still be dumb, stupid, foolish, etc. When I use the terms, I mean that you are intellectually deficient, with the intelligence of a piece of okra. (Ref: “okra” is a vegetable, Don)
D.M.
“Snotty?”: yes
“Really?”: yes
“Why don’t you just make my point for me?”: I don’t have to. Every time you open your mouth you do that better than I ever could, though the point is unintentional. (Please see Santiago’s comment for further clarification)
As for name calling, if you don’t believe in it, then don’t do it. Especially don’t call me a conceited gay bashing, bigoted hypocrite, like you did in your comments.
Do people really listen to me? Yes, Don. The reasonable ones do.
See you next time.
Hey, is this a roll-call for gay bashers? Sign me up!
I hate gays. I hate fornicaters. I hate vegetarians. I hate liberals.
Do I care if anyone hates me? Heck no. We’re all entitled to our opinions. Or at least we should be. as long as I don’t act on my hatred, what’s the problem?
Butt no…. the gay, salad-eating, liberal ho’s want to complain about my hatred of their lifestyles, lamenting how I should respect their opinions… all the while they dis mine.
Just started reading again, I go to college, and while I hold both conservative and Liberal values I tend to lean a little bit in the conservative end of the spectrum. So last week in class we were discussing Gay marriage. Everyone agrees with the issue, and wanted it to pass in our state. I prop out and say that Marriage is a religious institution(this is a big trigger word) and that I would prefer to have Heterosexuals legally be under a civil union and then we would all be happy and equal, and then marriage could be reserved for ceremony. To me this sounded like a middle ground, but it was not for them.
After that they actually argued that the government should force my church (catholic) to allow gay marriage in their churches. I guess mingling of church and state is fine when it is in their favor.
excuse the bad editing. I am really tired.
Can love exist without hate?
I mean, pretty is defined as “not ugly.” Hot is “not cold.” So again, can there be love, if there is no hate?
Just simmering on that one.
No worries, John. Good to have you back.
Sorry to hear about your run-in with the “educated” mob. These folks are so high on their own “smug” they can’t even spot their own, hypocrisy, intolerance, and hate.
That’s a very interesting proposition you mention in your comment, however. And your peers’ response underscores their intellectual dishonesty. I think it also highlights a mob mentality where anything goes as long as I agree with it. If I have to ride roughshod over your freedoms, etc. then so be it. Institutions of higher learning my conservative arse. More like spawning grounds for the worst kind of neofascist liberwockism on the planet. When these kids finally grow up, they’ll be conservatives…or else they’ll stay perpetually pubescent from a mental standpoint, and go to work in the re-education camps formerly known as colleges.
See you next time.
Ron,
Are you asking the question concretely? That is, hate as a palpable thing outside of human thought or as something internalized either by human beings or other beings?
It’s a philosophical question, Chad. I’m speaking on the relativity that we humans use to define ideas. I’m not speaking intrinsically, just pondering whether or not “humans” could define love without hate. I think I’ll write a post about this.
BTW, is this Don guy for real?
The answer is “yes”; you can have love without hate. In fact, you can have anything without it’s opposite, provided you have a closed universe operating under conditions without choice. That would mean, inside that environment choice does not exist. However, outside that “closed” universe choice would have to exist, because the grand architect would have to make a decision between a universe with choice and a universe without choice, a world with autonomous beings living in it and a world with automaton subjects existing in it. A crude example of this, on a micro level, would be a robot, which has only been programed with a single set of unconditionally branched directives. This also brings with it the idea of self awareness, and if you want to track back to “The Fall,” whether or not sin existed prior to the fall of Satan. Christian theology doesn’t allow for spiritual darkness to exist prior to that “moment” in time. Therefore, evil could not exist prior to that time, even though goodness was present and as the scriptures state, “in Him was no darkness at all.”
As for self awareness, the question must be raised: Can hate exist if we have no awareness of it? I think, again, the answer is “yes.” But getting back to your original question, if that were true, we would have an inability to define it. Once again, part of the problem is it’s a matter of awareness. We could quantify the traits of “hate.” But without “love” we wouldn’t know it as such, unless the concept were hardwired-in, or programmed-in from the get-go.
In the world we live in, you couldn’t have one without the other because of choice. Even if people ceased to hate and therefore to act out. The concept would still exist as a meme in the collective psyche of the human race.
That’s my opinion, anyway.
Concerning “Don,” depends on how you define “real.”
LOL
Thanks for the bloviated response, Chad. My question was more rhetorical, so to speak.
I too have made the same assertions that you spake of, yet, I was posing a question for others to “chew on.”
I first went through this in college, when I studied philosophy, and the question was raised, “if there is a God, then how do we account for evil, if He is omnipotent?” Without counsel, I concluded that we as humans will ALWAYS define things and actions in a relative manner. Therefore, we as humans cannot imagine a world without hate and evil. I definitely will share my thoughts in a future post.
But, thanks for being you, blatherskite!
I actually talked to one of my friends who is extremely liberal this weekend, and while we don’t agree on very much from a political standpoint we still remain close friends. We were discussing the new administration, and I asked her what she thought about the AIG bailout. She told me she didn’t even know about it. I don’t really watch the news very much. I get most of my news from the patriot network on sirius, which I sometimes find ridiculous. Most of the time I listen to NPR, which I find gives pretty legitimate of most issues, although they tend to lean left. Both of these covered the AIG scandals pretty well.
So I have a question for you guys, how did the liberal media cover AIG? I ask this since a lot of liberals I talked to have no Idea about it.
I am just going to avoid the discussion of philosophy for the moment, and save it for the latter post.
Glad I didn’t disappoint:)
I think the liberal media did a fair job as far as what they actually ran their angles on. But they missed a lot, which means they’re long on their agenda and short on balance. I’m wondering why they didn’t hit Mr. O and Tim Geithner harder during the press conferences. I’m also wondering why they allowed both Geithner and Obama (and apparently a whole lot of other losers) to claim they were surprised by this AIG business, when all along it was Obama’s administration who brokered the AIG bonus deal behind closed doors.
As for liberals not being aware of this. All I can say is, there are a lot of folks on both sides who are uninformed. Though, I’m not the least bit surprised that many of your more liberal friends are in the dark about AIG. I think now that The Great One is in, there are more than a few liberals and so-called moderates who are willing to just hand over the reins and “behave” like good little automaton droids. The same is true of a good majority of party liners on the conservative side. I think the mentality is kind of like, “Hey we won! Now, we can go back to obsessing about the entertainment section of the newspaper, Judge Judy, and Jerry Springer. You know, it’s the ostrich syndrome: head in the sand, ass in the air.
But that’s just my opinion, which means it’s probably wrong.
Have a great day, John.
Okay Chad, what’s this “grand architect” stuff ?
I want to know if you guys “hate” gays (the person) or if you’d be better to say “hate” gays (the behavior) ? If it is the person, even if a murderer, prostitute, or other …..I challenge you to one simple thought:
Who else creates human life, beside god Almighty, or does His creative Supremacy no longer exist (post-Adam of Eden) ? If the latter, than He is sitting back , prob on vacation in the Bahamas until we ignorant humans are finished killing each other off.
One can only know a defined term by its opposite. Without hate there would exist no love, but only in the terms by which we humans have defined love. So how can both even exist from origin, but that our God is both, one and the same. Hate and evil did not come to “exist” of and by itself by the mere human capability of “choice” (Divinely chosen or man-made?), lest we believe also that “good and right” (a.k.a. God) came to exist of its own by some immaculate Big Bang.
Is our Creator both “good and evil” , just allowed the “created” to have the option of choice ? In our world there is both in all things, even beyond us “intelligent” human beings.
Personally, I love all peoples just hate the attitudes and behaviors. For gays, I know too many that became gay by mental and physical duress. From that origin has begotten today’s social problem where being gay is almost becoming an “accepted” way to be, not that it’s how someone really wants to be. Then again, a peoples without God are , well…….a peoples without God. What are you going to do, start another “Hebrew slaughter” of opposing peoples to establish God’s Kingdom (by Divine right) ? Maybe that’s why the Man had to come to stop the madness……..Love thine enemy as thyself.
Like the nasty Liberal attitude has bred this “new age” of thinking and belief………..so too shall this attitude of hate. Hate breeds nasty, nasty things from those who are too weak-minded to control and understand the meaning of the word. Or in the hands of the wrong fool, to produce those ghastly deeds by his minions.
John, I know it must be hard to hold conservative views in Looniversity, but I have come to a very interesting conclusion.
Years ago, if a person did not want to be ridiculed and persecuted, they would have to keep their homosexual choices “in the closet.” Well, after years of fighting for “civil rights,” it is now not only OK to be gay, but in some cases celebrated.
Here is where it gets interesting. Liberal “activists” in academia have long preached to “stop the hate,” concerning gays. But, in their quest to “liberate” gays, they have vilified conservatives. It’s quite amusing to watch the hypocrisy of those that preach against hate. Just watch any libtard celebrity talk about conservatives, they truly “hate” us.
So as it turns out, John, you are now “in the closet.” If you were gay, your colleagues at Looniversity would call you a hero. But, to avoid ridicule and persecution, you have to hide in “the closet,” and say things like, “I hold both conservative AND liberal values.”
So, just come out John, you’re conservative. It may not be popular, and you may be chastised, but stand up and say, “I like girls, and guns, and free-market capitalism!” Maybe you could start a civil rights movement on your campus to “stop the hate” of the oppressed conservatives. After all, you were born that way, right?
I hate people who are gay. I hate the behavior. Butt if someone considers themselves “gay” that means they are engaging in the behavior. I wouldn’t hate a formerly-gay person. I’d actually take pride in them getting their head on straight and want to be their friend. Accomplishment is always to be celebrated.
And I gots to disagree with you Ron on the libtards villifying “conservatives”. They never do that. No, they condemn “the Right” and “Right Wing (fill in the blank)”. I honestly can’t ever recall a Devilcrat condemning conservatives. That’s because there are conservative Demos. Can’t drive away your own folks, can you?
I didn’t say in name, did I? I’m talking about everything we stand for. The Constitution, guns, earning your way, suffering from your bad choices, keeping the money you make, having sex only with your wife/husband (of opposing gender), telling the truth, believing in God, etc.
If you haven’t heard any of them vilifying that, then your cave must be messing with your TV reception. Or maybe we just define conservative differently.
So Trog is the only one who beat around the bush to say he hates the behavior of the person (not actually the person) . Sure, I hate the behavior too, pretty much because it’s absolutely 210% wrong. I have family (sorry) who are gay. I don’t hate them, they can be good people, but I don’t even like at all the lifestyle they live. I make choices to avoid those situations where I don’t want to be a part of. I WON”T HATE THEM as peoples.
Ron : no answer (for Chad, I know he’s extra busy) but, hey you are sooooooooooo frieking right, I laughed. That’s what’s wrong with our nation, the tide has turned and the wrong has become right; the white has become black (geez, even the Presidency) . The Conservative and the like-minded who built the country are now the minority. We are now becoming the slave to society.
I just think we would not have all this mess without all the extremist thinking, on both sides. I can still be Conservative without being an extremist . They can win out “there” ; they have no control over me, my mind, my being.
Maybe my definition of Conservative is different from yours.
To me, conservative is holding things in its place. It’s usually only when I get “weak” or had a 1-too-many when I blast out in my tirade of “my way of thinking or else”. It is always easier/better to stop and watch than to be the leader. We need leaders, yes, but we need leaders who also follow. Sometimes when the mouth is running , the ears just don’t work.
Some day I’d hope to meet you……..see what makes your clock tick……….share some thoughts. We’d prob disagree on several things, but hell, I’d still love ya’. Would you still love me is what I ask myself.
Dave,
I wanted to respond to your comment, but well…you know how it is. I am almost completely swamped right now and I want to give your comment some more thought and offer a reasonable response. Glad to see you’re in the coliseum, though. Keep it up, and keep the faith my friend.
Talk to you soon.
All’z good with the “hood” , Chad, my friend. Personally, you told me you were pretty busy.
I really look forward to your response, and too, Mr. Ron McClure Jr.’s . I think I stepped on his toes a bit elsewhere also, but he needs to accept me for who I am if I am to accept him for who he presents himself to be. I’d like to know what kind of cave he is living in.
Regardless all this, Dave does not proclaim he is the one who is right, just how he believes in the situation at hand. Chad already knows Dave is opposed to extremist thinking. Dave is an extremist in his own right (as we all really are) by believing his way is right…….he just refuses to impose his will upon other people. He knows he is only ultimately responsible for his own soul, not his neighbor’s, brother’s or friend’s. Dave is who he is, by the walk he has walked, the road he has traveled, and the Fate God has allotted him.
Oh yes, I would reject one of your spur-of-the-moment gibberish rants anyways. We should all give our responses good thought, and respond reasonably.
hehehe–I didn’t realize my rants were of the “gibberish” kind…LOL:)
They’re not, Chad. Personally, I’ve read a lot of prose in my day, both the blogging and literary kind. You, my friend, are a brilliant, word-smithing, literary, thespian to the 33rd degree. Witty and comprehensible, you’re one of the greats and don’t let anyone tell you different.
P.S.
Yer grammar ain’t bad neither:)
I was kidding.
Jerk!
Now come on Dave, we’re supposed to be on the same side, right?
I don’t “hate” anyone. I might dislike some, but that’s because of things they have done to me personally.
I’ve had several gay friends in my lifetime. None that I was really close to, because we obviously had different opinions on morality.
If I read well, I believe that blaspheming of the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin. Also, as much as I would like for people to believe, I’m not God. Actually Dave, God is the ultimate CEO, isn’t He? I mean, He just sits back while we suffer, right?
Dave, you said, “Dave does not proclaim he is the one who is right, just how he believes in the situation at hand.”
My friend (I mean that), you told me on another thread that I indeed “was wrong.” That would mean that you KNOW what “right” is.
I is who I is, I DON”T present myself to be otherwise.
P.S. Santiago has a crush on Chad
But then, could Santiago love Chad as much as Chad does? Now that is a very interesting question.
I feel I must chime in here as a credible source. I almost certainly know I heard that Santiago has pictures of Chad ALL OVER his room.
Beatrice AKA inbred mutant ninja turtle,
Only the envious ones say that.
Ron,
Some have even insinuated that Chad and I are so close,we must be the same person. That’s a notion I categorically deny. I’m not funny or anything, but if I were he, I would say he’s certainly one of the most gifted and handsome men I’ve ever had the pleasure of being acquainted with. And I know “funny”; I’m a clown fish.
Dave,
I don’t hate homosexuals themselves, but I do hate homosexual behavior because it is harmful to those who engage in such behavior on multiple levels. It’s also harmful to those who don’t engage in homosexual behavior, which means homosexuals not only have an obligation to themselves, but to society to refrain from engaging in this lifestyle choice.
“Hate” is not always a bad thing. For example I hate it when something terrible happens to someone else. I hate it when innocent people suffer. I hate corruption, I hate it when people needlessly hurt themselves, etc.
Concerning your comment about God, I agree. He is the one who creates life. I don’t believe He is the one who created evil. I do believe he is the one who gave us the potential for evil in our freedom of choice. However, in order for there to have been a choice, there must’ve been at least the concept of evil in God’s thinking lexicon. My question when I reach that point is always the same: Could evil exist without God? The answer is, “no.” Could the concept of evil exist without evil being actualized anywhere in or out of time? Absolutely. Other than that, I probably won’t debate much about God as far as these questions go, because I think it’s a dead end to do so. The fact is, we’ll never know this side of existence what those answers are and you know how I am, Dave. I hate uncertainty. I like things to fit into nice little categories or boxes…even God. All I know is what makes sense to me. Everything else is up in the air. I guess I could explain what makes sense to me. But then unless I’m arguing absolutes or epistemology, I always find holes in my own arguments and fallacies in my own logic…especially when I tell people I believe things, with no principles, logic, facts, or hard evidence undergirding them. That makes no sense at all. But there it is. What can I say? I’m an enigma, even to myself.
As for being right. I have only one question. If you’re not proclaiming you’re the one who is right, then why proclaim anything?
And with that, I must be off this morning. And to think I haven’t even had my coffee, yet. (ZZZZZZZZZZZ) Anyway, hi-ho, hi-ho, it’s off to work I go, Dave. Gotta get it done before the kids wake up.
So you guys know (I believe you already do, I’ll just say it anyway) ……..my intentions are not to form any debate, let’s just say peaking thru the crack in the cave to get a look-see before The foot does.
Thanks !!!!!!!!!!! for responding to my inquiries.
For everyone : The reason I brought this up is a simple sentence Chad stated = “Christians hate gays!”
Now I just ask you look at it from this perspective, like I try to do in all things. (TRY!!!) There are 3 types of people in this world: friekazoid brainiacs like Chad , simple-minded less intelligent but sustainable souls like myself, and idiots who have no clue and always fall for anything “sold” to them. I will just say that I believe the majority of us fall into the latter category, prob why the Libs love the American society they will fall for anything.
Now, if the Libs “sell their BS” to the ignorant masses, it’s because they fall into Cat3 and Cat3 will look at such a statement and think “Christians hate gays!” . From their Lib molding (and propagandized lies) it is assumed that Christians actually hate gay people. They just got hit with 9/11 and are “propagandized” by the (actual and true) belief that Muslim terrorists “hate” America and they succeeded in killing a whole bunch of us folks. They (ignorant masses) are not intelligent enough to discern between the “hate” of 9/11 and the “hate” of MTW blog and so the Lib-fest feeds off of the fire raging even bigger than at first.
I try to look at all things open-minded (try) and when I read the posted story, what STUCK OUT!!! was that simple little sentence, “Christians hate gays!”. I am a Christian and I don’t hate gays. It took me to ask and get your responses to know for sure you meant only the “behavior” and not “gays”.
This lack of communicating a true belief is what creates conflict in our world. I’ve read the article 10 times and can’t establish a “belief” other than that imposing sentence, and I know the idiots out there are using that sentence against your own belief. You are the “enemy” because they think you said something you did not.
To my “friend” Ron
, the article says “Christians hate gays!”. I actually know “Christians” who literally hate gays, just like those supposed “Christians” who inflict harm (and death) at abortion clinics. Word association on the title “Christian”. Even still “Christians” who despise and bitterly abuse (physically and mentally) gay peoples. Is that Christian?
Nice point!!! God is indeed the ultimate CEO, but I tried to explain I am not hounding the “CEO title”, rather the person behind the title. I know the CEO’s you stated did actually (well supposedly) work for $1/yr, but we all know they could afford to do so also. Can you ? Didn’t think so, yet, the reasons they can directly relate to the inflated values that actually brought the economic system down. Sure the realtors made tons of cash from the “booming” market and are “suffering now”. Who the $%*# cares !!! I personally know (my line of work) it is directly related to them driving the price up. The inflated values beyond worth. The Cat3 people of society (see above) bought in by their own ignorance. Look at the mess now.
Corporate system is established as “company” and actual person being two separate entities. “Company” can go down the tubes, while actual company person can strike it rich, that’s the beef I have. And yes, Corporate America owes a responsibility to America , too. America made them wealthy, they have a responsibility to provide the product/service they so-claim to sell. When the shit hits the fan, the execs all keep their share (legally) while the service/product and everyone else goes to pot.
Yes, Ron , I said you were wrong. I also state I am not claiming to be right. This answer will only defined in your cave of sorts, not on here. Not that this may matter in this circumstance, but just imagine holding strong ground on an issue, then One Fine Day finding out you were actually wrong or at least off base and led some 27 other poor souls down the wrong road and they touched 385 other lives and…….well, see how the whole damn thing can turn into the mess we have now?
Finally, Ron, we are indeed on the same page, excluding one thing : Chad and Santiago, you know more than I care to ask
Chad: ‘ole buddy , ‘ole pal……long road we’ve traveled and much we have learned.
First and foremost: you OWE!!!!!! me on the “grand architect”.
Your “gibberish” rants refer to the lavish intelligent defensive mode you get into when debating some fool who opposes your ideas. I call it talking magnificent circles around a rock. You are so extravagant and smooth, yet your respondent is but a mere rock. Hope you pat yourself on the back and enjoy your little self-glorification rant about how “learned” you are. I (much less “learned” than you) would have to get out the Dictionary or go on Wiki, to comprehend half of some of these rants you get into……..but, yes, I understand, that’s the whole point, isn’t it ? When all the “lesser” folks don’t understand the vocabulary you use, then yes, it’s gibberish. Now, don’t get me wrong, it’s great to be as you, but their is a time and place to be as you…….reminds me of the Indiana Jones movie……”choose wisely”……..you must realize what your motive for “use” actually is in “choosing wisely”.
Hate = hate the sin, even within yourself, that is the motivation to quit the sin. Never hate the person, yet (see above) my perception from this site of how the “world” can misconstrue the intention presented.
The only reason you believe I must “proclaim” something is because you need the “crutch” to lean on and I don’t. Here are your own words:
“The fact is, we’ll never know this side of existence what those answers are and you know how I am, Dave. I hate uncertainty. I like things to fit into nice little categories or boxes…even God. All I know is what makes sense to me.”
You “need a reason to believe” and I don’t. You need “proof” and I don’t. Your “proof” comes in your intellect and reasoning, mine comes by blind faith. I don’t need “certainty” to believe in the very same Faith you profess. He has already “proclaimed” what is right……..I don’t need to, I need to follow His Directive and not the “religion” set in place behind Him.
I can easily sit back and “proclaim” what I believe in, but not “proclaim it to be right” because I am not Him, nor the “Vicar of Christ” of the earth………I am not that “intelligent”. Only the religious aspirations of kings and popes and the elect choose to “proclaim” for themselves to actually know the right of God. The Libtards (is that right?) proclaim said “truth” of which you are opposed to, yet, you “hate” them also. Good reason, yet, look in the mirror first.
In the “Red Letter” , Jesus spoke………..and then the religion spoke for Him, in their terms.
All in all, I said my peace (yes it is peace).
If ever I rant this long again, ban me from this site as this ain’t even right. At least now, you can actually “agree to disagree” , that’s a white-washed term to say: “I’ll hear, just won’t listen”.
Choose wisely my friend, and so will I.
Man, I can’t believe I’m about to do this, but here goes!
I have to stick up for our fickle friend on this one. I think it is quite clear that Chad is inferring that “liberals” draw a fallacious conclusion that “all Christians hate gays.” I don’t think he minced any words, it is abundantly clear to me that he is saying that he is tired of being “labeled” as a gay-hater, just because he thinks the behavior is wrong. Notice how he points out the “tactic” used:
“liberals have picked up on this and used this ‘tactic’…The message is loud and clear: “Christians hate gays!” For that matter, anyone who objects to the gay lifestyle (or by extension gay marriage) hates gays.”
The only way he could’ve been any more clear is if he would have said, “THEIR message is loud and clear…” But still, Chad’s intent was and is clear to me every time I read it. Maybe you are just overly sensitive, or jealous that Santiago doesn’t idolize you the way he does Chad. I don’t know.