[AC]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Also hateful. I mean, it says hate right in it. Can't be much more obvious.

Sorry, I missed your initial point. The question you bring up is a valid one, as there is debate over what counts as hate speech.

For example, personalised criticism of homosexuality (e.g., expressing the belief that homosexuality is "immoral" because it conflicts with a person's religious beliefs) is, to some, a valid expression of one's values; to others, however, it is an expression of homophobia and is therefore homophobic hate speech.

Personally, I think when the subject moves from a moral value, to one of a person's lifestyle, specically their sexuality, any form of negative stance is inflamatory and should be deemed as hateful.

Originally Posted by FireFly

*edited to add* also incorrect. I mean, God loves all his children. Love the sinner hate the sin. Says so right in the Bible. Therefore, it's also incorrect and the "God Hates Fags" group is a bunch of liars.. which is another sin that God hates, but He'll forgive them for it, if they ask for it.

But it also says in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin and these people will burn in the depths of hell for it. Why can religious people pick and choose which parts of the bible represent 'true' moral beliefs and what cannot? It seems that people quoting the bible to support such inflamatory viewpoints are as justified in doing so as those who quote the bible in other regards. Frankly, I dont think quoting the bible is a legitimate way of proving something as it is written by men to support a specific viewpoint - especially considering the wide doubt regarding those who wrote it, and historical fact.

Edit: also:

Originally Posted by FireFly

*edited to add* also incorrect. I mean, God loves all his children.

Except the numerous times throughout the bible where god resorts to killing infants, right? Aside from his infanticidal tendencies, he loves his children.