Scott Lively wants off SPLC hate group list

The Southern Poverty Law Center reports today on Scott Lively’s efforts to get off the SPLC hate group list.

As the U.S. envoy for the international anti-gay hate group Watchmen on the Walls and co-author of The Pink Swastika, a history that falsely asserts gays masterminded the Holocaust, Scott Lively has said some pretty ugly things. But now he says he wants to show the world a kinder, gentler side.

In early February, The North Country Times, a California weekly newspaper, reported that Lively “fervently wants to get off the Southern Poverty Law Center’s [hate group] list,” because the “characterization of him as a ‘hater’ is especially troubling given his profession as a pastor: a Christian shepherd, a man of God.” (The SPLC lists Lively’s Abiding Truth Ministries, in Temecula, Calif., as a hate group.)

“The last thing you want to be called as a Christian is a hater,” Lively said.

Lively chronicles his efforts to negotiate with the SPLC on the blog Hatewatch Watch. As recently as late last month, Mr. Lively contacted the SPLC to complain about Perez Hilton. and a Huffington Post columnist who essentially agrees with him about gays and the Nazis.

So really it is not clear if he wants off the list or just more company.

Stay tuned for more on The Pink Swastika.

Other posts in this series:

May 28 – Scott Lively wants off SPLC hate group list

May 31 – Eliminating homosexuality: Modern Uganda and Nazi Germany

June 3 – Before The Pink Swastika

June 4 – Kevin Abrams: The side of The Pink Swastika

June 8 – A historian’s analysis of The Pink Swastika, part 1

June 9 – A historian’s analysis of The Pink Swastika, part 2

June 11 – American Nazi movement and homosexuality: How pink is their swastika?

June 15 – Nazi movement rallies against gays in Springfield, MO

June 17 – Does homosexuality lead to fascism?

June 23 – The Pink Swastika and Friedrich Nietzsche

List of posts on Uganda and The Pink Swastika

68 thoughts on “Scott Lively wants off SPLC hate group list”

  1. Absolutely not. As long as he continues to spread lies and messages of hatred towards LGBTQ people, Scott Lively’s name and group should never be removed from the SPLC’s hate group list.

    1. Actually, I think he needs to do more than just stop the “lies and messages of hatred”; he must publically retract things he has said that have contributed to the harming of people in places like Uganda. He owes them (or their memory) that.

        1. Reparation required! I know people who have lost a great deal because of his sh*t-stirring.

          1. I’m not sure exactly how he profits actually. I don’t think he is stinking rich (although I don’t know how much money he has). My view is that he is obsessed and deluded, and simply unable to look at things in a balanced and realistic way. It’s rather like those suicide bombers …

            He probably won’t stop, although occasionally people like him do have that ‘Road to Damascus’ moment when they suddenly realize how wrong they are about something. Lively, given the intensity of his obsession, might just be a candidate for such a moment …

          2. I’m not sure exactly how he profits actually. I don’t think he is stinking rich (although I don’t know how much money he has). My view is that he is obsessed and deluded, and simply unable to look at things in a balanced and realistic way. It’s rather like those suicide bombers …

            He probably won’t stop, although occasionally people like him do have that ‘Road to Damascus’ moment when they suddenly realize how wrong they are about something. Lively, given the intensity of his obsession, might just be a candidate for such a moment …

          3. For example his books (ex. “the Pink Swastika”) , he was paid for his “speaking engagements” in Africa and elsewhere. And I’m pretty sure he has some website set up to get “donations” to “keep up the fight.”

          4. I’m sure he has made some money – part of that ‘christian industrial complex’! But I think that the main driver for his behaviour is his disordered personality as manifest in his obsessive rigidity and lack of empathy.

            A few years ago, I actually engaged in dialogue with him, and he seemed fearful of discussing points of view that did not accord with his own.

          5. Still going, I believe … But in the long run the mission won’t get anywhere because L has ‘put his trust in princes’. (cf. Psalm 146 : 3, 4)

          6. I’ve heard of the “The Pink Swastika”. I’ve never read it, and given what it’s about, I have no plans to ever read it.

          7. Years ago Warren had a blog post about it. Unfortunately all the comments on the post were lost.

          8. Not complicated to understand why, because Lively is a homophobe who believes the whole god hates gays nonsense. so he vilifies gays anyway he can.

          9. Don’t count on it. Lively is deeply hateful and deluded. He causes serious damage, especially in areas where such things can cause loss of life.

          10. Tell me about it! I know several people who have been personally affected by his kind’s activity.

            But my point is this: I believe that Lively is an ideologue, not an opportunist. Unlike Trump, for instance. It is perhaps ironic (and morbidly amusing) that Lively idolizes Trump.

          11. I think you are mistaken to assume the 2 (ideologue/opportunist) are mutually exclusive. Quite likely they feed off of each other.

          12. I wasn’t assuming anything really – I was just giving you my view. I have spoken with the guy …

            Perhaps SL is an opportunistic ideologue, but my own feeling is that it is the ideology that is the principal driver in that he would do his nasty thing even if he didn’t make money out of it, in rather the same way that I took in interest in opposing him even though I have done precisely the opposite of making money out of it!

          13. Especially given that he might well be doing some good in his local community – it’s a terrible shame that he obscures all that with contrived ideology and crazy, obsessive nastiness.

          14. I agree. I’ve never understood why Christians think the way they do about LGBTQ people.

          15. There’s a wide range of opinions in Christian circles theses days, even within denominations. For instance, the United Reformed Church in England and Wales allows individual congregations to decide whether to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies in their respective churches.

            I suspect that the ‘traditional view’ has its roots in the time when the Hebrews were a small tribe fighting for survival: procreation was very important, and activity that didn’t lead directly to it was considered anathema. There has been plenty of lazy and defective interpretation of Scripture too: for example, when one reads it carefully, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah clearly has absolutely nothing to do with that friendly and hospitable gay couple next door …

          16. While survival may be a good reason to require male/female sexual intercourse, it’s not always possible. The reasons may vary from person to person, and from tribe to tribe.

          17. And behind that (and IMO part of the cause of it) the pressure we as a species are putting on the environment suggests that wild multiplication is not something we particularly need!

          18. I agree. It’s crazy that there are people like Scott Lively telling the rest of us how to live and who to love. I’ve never understood why they have a problem with same-sex couples in relationships, however loving and caring they may be.

          19. Lively is entitled to his opinions. What he is NOT entitled to do is to behave in a way that leads to the harming of others (or is likely to lead to their harm). His crazy involvement in Ugandan politics, for example, was only ever going to be harmful.

          20. I agree totally. I’ve known people who are devout Christians who insist that gay men are sexual deviants and perverts, which I’ve always thought was full of shit.

          21. And the evidence supports your view: there are no credible data suggesting that ‘out’ gay men are any more likely to abuse minors than straight men. Claims to the contrary are potentially very harmful, and are therefore unacceptable.

            Interestingly, in 2010 the Catholic bishops of England and Wales protested against such a suggestion by a senior Vatican official:

          22. I agree. I’ve never understood where the idea came from that homosexuals are naturally sexual predators. I’m bisexual, I like both men and women, and I have no such interests. I have never, nor would I ever sexually attacked anyone.

          23. I understand your point. The idea that propensity to abuse is linked to sexual preference simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

            People like Lively can have their world view (although we would, for our various reasons, prefer it if they didn’t, of course!), but have no right to lie in order to justify it. The fact that they do lie – and by lying, pose a threat to others – is why they are deservedly on ‘hate lists’.

          24. I agree. I’ve never understood why Lively or people like him use religion to justify their dislike for other people. I’m an atheist, meaning I don’t believe in God. I don’t believe in Jesus Christ. But I’m not going to force my atheism on religious people.

          25. I think it is really quite common for people to use religious or political ideas simply to justify / serve their own preferences or personal beliefs – a misuse of both things IMO.

          26. I agree. I’m not saying that God does or doesn’t exists, nor am I saying that Jesus Christ never existed. I’m just saying that I never believed in God or in Jesus Christ. Nor have I ever worshipped him.

          27. I understand that you are distinguishing between what you believe and what you are qualified to state ‘as fact’. That is a healthy distinction to make.

          28. I understand that you are distinguishing between what you believe and what you are qualified to state ‘as fact’. That is a healthy distinction to make.

  2. So now Throckmo is taking on The Pink Swastika. Who’s teaching his classes at Grove City while he’s fact-checking all these books?

  3. Despite the similarity of her name to the gremlin who ruled and ruined the US at the worst moments for the gay people, Regan seems the most sensible and sensitive person in this virtual space. A university degree, a fancy PhD (or a medical certification -cum an ancient oath taken to “cure” people) does not guarantee that you see things clearly from a balanced perspective, as Dr. Warren T. is “kindly” showing us in his acts backing this pseudo-scientific ex-gay therapy thing. I wonder how much effort has he ever put (or is willing to put) into helping some gay person to fully accept him/herself. I frankly want to learn the exact number of gays he has “helped” that way, not just offering them the psycho-snake-oil treatment he is offering. Medicine and psychology are not as selective as these people claim: for a treatment you need diagnosis and if there is no disease as his Italian pal (spiritually, not in real life, I am guessing of course) is claiming in his song/clip “Luca era gay” (Luca was gay and then understood his mistake…) If it is a mistake to wrongly identify your sexual orientation, it goes both ways: you can come to the understanding that you are not heterosexual. Lo and behold, the pro-ex-gay people do not want to speak about them as an equally valid “choice” (as the person has tried the rest now has seen the best!!). Indoctrinated belief messes up so many bright people’s minds even when it is under the cloak of “tolerance and forgiveness of the sin” kind of sweet talk. If I am constantly burdened to prove my worth to others (therefore constantly questioning my worth all the time), then they’d be better doing it in their own comfortable corner. As the ancient Greek wisdom goes: “Ho anexetastos bios ouk biotos” (an unexamined life is not worth living). We are getting our fill of examining day in and day out, so others who are holier than us olease help yourselves with yours!!! Less Bible study, more self-depth search, lower number of self-tortured, oppressed latent gay anti-gay preachers and more freer souls.

  4. Dr. Lively can be removed from the hate list, when he stops hating. It is as simple as that. His book is a witness to a psychosis among fundamentalists. They see they are losing the battle in creating the social conscience of America. Our children have a clear awareness of fairness towards others, and that includes gays. They are afraid that being marginalized they will not have a purpose, and irrationally even believe that gays will retaliate against them for years of bigotry, hatred, and pain. The best thing to do with Dr. Lively is to forgive him. Again. And again. Assure him that he is in no danger, and that as a society we will do everything possible to protect him and his kind. Hopefully this will keep him calm enough, so that he doesn’t do anything really foolish and harmful. God bless poor Dr. Lively

  5. I’d like to express my respect & admiration for the insightful & informed messages herein. I’m a gay Canadian man living in Vancouver. San Diego was also home for many years. Like many others I have seen the tactics & irrational thinking of the right wing , through the years. This message may not be part of cuurent events , but I do not want what I consider to be a major defining moment for the religious right , to be forgotten or shoved under the proverbial rug. A gay New York writer (whose name escapes me) , said a number of years ago that it will be important to pay attention to the recording of our history , or others will begin to tell us how it happened.

    During the early years of the AIDS epidemic , conservative Christians fiercely & successfully opposed the use of any public funds for HIV research. The subsequent delay in acquring effective treatment options denied thousands even a fighting chance at survival. Through the years I have buried fifty-seven of the finest men you could ever hope to know in life , & have the privilege of calling friends.

    The conservative religious of any faith , are to the milk of human kindness what Josef Mengele was to sound medical research.

  6. Wow, Regan. You say a lot in your post above. Definitely much food for thought there. Some of it is deep. I had to read it several times.

    I agree with you in many regards. The Christian community has overburdened the gay community with the need to prove they are authentic, while many Christians are unaware of their own inauthenticity. Good point. I’m not sure how many of the BTG blogs you looked at. There’s a mountain of stuff to wade through there. But the seed of something deeply meaningful has been planted.

    Perhaps we are seeing the beginnings of a sea change in this whole debate. Clearly, changes need to happen. Both sides have done damage. This is an awfully big ship to turn around, so we will need to be patient.

    I don’t think the church has placed ALL the burden on the gay community. I know of a number of non-gay Christians who have quietly (perhaps too quietly) gone about seeking to build that bridge for a while now. This is not a boulder we will move overnight. Neither, I hope, are we like the mythical Sispyhus, rolling it up the eternal hill, only to see it fall back down again.

    Time will have to tell. I plan to commit much prayer to this effort and do what God speaks to my heart to do. I hope others will commit to doing the same.

  7. Hi Debbie, I came I saw, I read the different entries.

    I remember something I said to some very anti gay people: the difference between myself and them was I listened, I didn’t KNOW everything and was certain of nothing about gay people if it didn’t come directly FROM gay people.

    This situation is treated as if believers have been silent, somehow isolated and never given enough of the floor of the collective societal consciousness to make a difference. As if participating in a life in faith is an alternative to being gay…or even non Christian or non religious.

    No, being a believer is supposed to THE life, and everything else is considered broken and worthless or illegitimate.

    That reaching the consciousness of the very people who CREATED homophobia is a burden placed on the wrong party.

    I think we can learn a lot, if this synchroblog is sincere about bridging gaps is to mind not only the children and how they go about things, but to let those children teach us.

    Children, unadulterated by intense scrutiny of their own peers, will be direct about their curiosity and much more fearless.

    They will love who is kind and good to them, and they don’t care what that person is or looks like.

    For the most part, the control and deprivation expected towards gay people is called love, and yet, faith communities are upset when gay people reject it. Especially when they are confronted with loving, connected couples and families who don’t have make ANY of the sacrifices a gay person is expected to.

    There is a commercial running now showing a man and two little girls at a table. He asks one if she’d like a pony and he hands her a tiny plastic one. He asks the other little girl the same question and a live, beautiful pony is brought into the room. Leaving the other little girl to look at the plastic replica with disappointment.

    The tag?

    “Even children know when something isn’t equal.”

    There are all kinds of hypocritical and contradictory messages sent out with regard to the lives of gay people and who threatens who and who is more suspicious.

    At least in the commercial, those children have an opportunity to compare. We are conditioned in faith communities to take the word of an intangible entity, yet disavow what a flesh and blood gay person says or does right in front of us.

    A bridge assumes an opportunity for both sides to visit each other. Perhaps somewhere in the middle.


    But so far ALL the effort has been on gay people for far too long.

    Defending gay folks is about undoing a lot of damage…and if there is a sea change here, neither party will have to defend themselves at all.

    That IS the point, right?

  8. Hell YES, I’m laboring with this, Debbie!

    Your belief that you’re not negating the existence of happy gay people isn’t the point. You can’t negate the existence of anyone.

    But the QUALITY of that existence certainly is. You must know how exhausting it is to justify who, what and why gay people are here.

    And at the expense of the very peace you say you have living in a sort of non active limbo.

    There is a difference between wanting to live whichever way you want, and actually having the freedom to choose.

    And gay folks just don’t have that choice and can’t afford what you’re doing.

    You cost THEM.

    Perhaps this is why those who believe as you do come off extremely (yes, extremely) self involved and only because of what you cost others.

    This is about a lot more than ‘upsetting an apple cart’.

    Even KIDS are dying out there because no one will LISTEN to what they need as GAY people.

    What YOU want to be, have decided to be…is what their clueless, even cruel social networks expect.

    And YOU hand that network EVERYTHING they need to continue to do what they want, and the gay kid just has to deal with it while YOU go on.

    One of my neighbors came to be a few weeks ago to help her with a 15 year old boy whose family is Catholic. That boy had a break down so severe at school he had to be taken to a hospital. His family is doing serious harm to him because they believe people like YOU.

    And will hold out hope until the other dies that kid will become exactly what YOU are.

    How can this be a comfort to HIM?

    How can this change what people ALREADY believe?

    If you’ve found comfort, good. But please don’t behave as if the price wasn’t IMMENSE and that what you’re doing keeps you shielded from or absolves you in keeping the price too high.

  9. Regan, maybe you would do well to go read some of the blog entries being offered today by some 60 folks who are participating in something called the Bridging the Gap Synchroblog. It’s an effort to have more fruitful, common-ground conversations between the gay community and the Christian community and is put together by New Direction Ministries out of Canada. I am one of the blogging participants. You’ll find the links to all the blogs here. If you click on my name here you’ll find my own entry for today. I am happy to discuss this with you more after you’ve seen that. OK?

  10. I see that the burden is still much heavier, and isn’t lightened one bit by by what is supported by Dr. T.

    Good intentions are misinterpreted here by the public at large. As long as they are validated by a gay person NOT living as one, a gay person never can be.

    I can see you are really laboring with this, Regan. As a woman, I know there is greater fluidity within the female SSA population. So, that may make it a bit easier to accept change for some. But I don’t believe gays have to believe that people who desire change or who seek not to be ruled by their SSAs are negating the very existence of others who are happy being gay.

    Of course, you have defined the conundrum. Those claiming to be ex-gay do fly in the face of the homosexuality-is-immutable mantra, and that upsets the apple cart. But, as you say, we all deserve the freedom to live either way. So, there has to be a time to live and let live and either not threaten our counterparts or feel threatened by them. Don’t know what else to say. Is tolerance possible?

    It’s interesting that the Riddle Scale of Homophobia places acceptance and tolerance on the negative side. So, maybe that answers my question.

  11. I appreciate your comments Debbie and Mary. Please understand when I say, it’s because of the tradition of distrust of gay people and silencing them that concerns me.

    You know that much of the public makes their belief that gay people deserve civil rights and equality contingent on what they believe to be a mutable characteristic.

    I would agree this was a matter of diversity, but without the duress and harsh conditions and expectations gay people are subject to.

    Gay children are especially vulnerable to this duress and don’t have the option of revealing their orientation without serious risks to themselves.

    So how can anyone ex gay (or not living as gay) NOT exacerbate this LONG HELD belief and expectation that gay people are and should be REQUIRED to change?

    I see that the burden is still much heavier, and isn’t lightened one bit by by what is supported by Dr. T.

    Good intentions are misinterpreted here by the public at large. As long as they are validated by a gay person NOT living as one, a gay person never can be.

    Do you understand?

    I know you believe that you should be able to make whatever choice you want and live the way you feel is best for you. And I agree, you do.

    It helps YOU.

    But it destroys any credibility gay people have to struggle for and without the mitigating personal epiphanies YOU have come to, it sets back much needed progress regarding how hetero people are educated in the matter.

    It silences gay children all over again.

    I’m dealing with several high school students right now who believe that being gay is a choice. A BAD choice that has to be corrected and should be.

    High school is where a great deal of serious bullying occurs and puts teens at risk of suicide.

    They won’t interpret what you believe in the correct way, because they’ve ALREADY been taught what YOU agree with as well.

    They are a new crop of people who have been conditioned to think this for decades.

    You know what’s riding on this. What makes you think this is a BALANCED situation?

    How could you possibly think that? Balanced with WHAT?!

  12. I think he does about as good ja ob

    “Ja ob” is supposed to read “a job.” How it came out that way is a mystery. I have typing dyslexia, I think.

  13. I thank Dr. Warren for his efforts.

    I still have trouble reconciling how he can be an effective person, when his personal and professional activity is in part, ALSO the elimination of homosexuality (so therefore homosexuals), but in a gentler way.

    What difference does it make if it’s done violently, or gently?

    It’s still a diminishing of a group of people already rare.

    I appreciate your observations, Regan.

    As for Warren’s “professional activity,” I think he does about as good ja ob as one can of keeping a balanced perspective. But he is entitled to his worldview, and his opinions are based on a lot of research into the various issues surrounding homosexuality. He talks to people on both sides of the issues and tries to bring some sanity into the debate.

    For his efforts, he gets lambasted by folks on both sides sometimes. He’s probably laughing as he reads this because he knows I also have given him a hard time. I don’t see him as trying to eliminate homosexuality but rather to help folks recognize that plenty of SSA people are not happy living that way. And they are entitled to help if they desire it.

    As Mary says, when we cannot reconcile or make sense of what either school (happy, well-adjusted gays or unhappy ones seeking change) is desiring, we can choose to accept them as fellow travelers and move on.

  14. Regan,

    You don’t have to reconcile it. To truly live in diversity means accepting somethings you don’t understand. My friends come from a variety of backgrounds, cultures, experiences etc… We keep learning from eachother to be more open and genuine in our living without imposition on the other.

  15. Debbie, you make an excellent point. Lively has invested so much in denouncing gays and making up his own theories about the Holocaust, being wrong bothers him more than WHY the SPLC has them on their list.

    BTW, they aren’t the only ones. I am a member and volunteer at the Simon Wiesenthal Center/Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles.

    They keep an extensive amount of research and information on hate groups and their pattern of speech, activity, who they want to reach and how they do it. Lively has been in their sights for a long time. Especially because of his distortion of the Holocaust and the MOT is a Holocaust archive.

    TownHall is coming close to having the same thing happen because of their chronic anti gay articles.

    Anyway, when you have incidents like what happened at the Holocaust Museum in D.C. and how LONG Von Brunn had been in trouble with the law, his explosion was no surprise.

    I am friends with several people who were victims of the Jewish Community Center shootings here TEN YEARS ago, and believe me, the trauma of hate NEVER goes away.

    But of course, it’s NEVER people like Lively’s life that is on the line.

    I thank Dr. Warren for his efforts.

    I still have trouble reconciling how he can be an effective person, when his personal and professional activity is in part, ALSO the elimination of homosexuality (so therefore homosexuals), but in a gentler way.

    What difference does it make if it’s done violently, or gently?

    It’s still a diminishing of a group of people already rare.

  16. I guess that by my age I know hatred when I see it, even when it’s passed off as “concern for the family” and gilded with pseudo-Christian sentiments. If Watchmen on the Walls isn’t a hate organization then, as my late father would have put it, “I’m a Chinaman.”

  17. Were I Lively, I think I’d be more concerned about re-examining what I am actually saying and doing than in worrying about some hate list the SPLC puts out. You’ve gotta have thick skin to swim in this shark tank.

  18. It isn’t hard to start thinking that the other guy is my enemy and therefore I’m justified in being heinous towards him.

    Very true Timothy

  19. Timothy,

    Don’t become the beast you are fighting. Lively and his kind are cruel and malignent creatures.

  20. Mary,

    Quite true. And as much as we like to think of ourselves as better than that here in the US, our history isn’t all that clean. Not only do we have the stain of slavery, but it was only 67 years ago that my home state of California played host to internment camps for those who were rounded up and assumed to be a danger to others because of their Japanese heritage. And I’m sure some Native Americans would assert that we based our nation on a policy that isn’t much different from genocide.

    It isn’t hard to start thinking that the other guy is my enemy and therefore I’m justified in being heinous towards him.

  21. What scares me, Timothy, is that maybe, deep inside, Lively doesn’t know what he is doing is evil.

    Hi support of criminalization of gays is equal to the support of criminalizing Jews. Soon there are accusations about a person’s activities and his friendships and all relationships become suspect – kind of a similar scenario – isn’t it?

    I don’t care if he is considered a hater or bigot etc…. I do care that there are some good people who are taking him seriously. That’s dangerous. We have seen this scene too many times in history from the ethnic cleansing in Croatia and Serbia etc…, to the murdering of certain African tribes to the gasing of Jews. This is insanity.

  22. From the Huffington Post Article cited by Scott Lively:

    “It was Rohm who first spotted the potential of a soap-box ranter called Adolf Hitler. He saw him as the demagogue he needed to mobilize support for his plan to overthrow democracy and establish a “soldier’s state” where the army ruled untrammelled. He introduced the young fascist to local politicians and military leaders; they knew him for many years as “Rohm’s boy.” Gay historian Frank Rector notes, “Hitler was, to a substantial extent, Rohm’s protégé.” Rohm integrated Hitler into his underground movement to overthrow the Weimar Republic.

    Rohm’s blatant, out homosexuality seems bizarre now, given the gay genocide that was to follow. He talked openly about his fondness for gay bars and Turkish baths, and was known for his virility. He believed that gay people were superior to straights, and saw homosexuality as a key principle of his proposed Brave New Fascist Order. As historian Louis Snyder explains, Rohm “projected a social order in which homosexuality would be regarded as a human behaviour pattern of high repute… He flaunted his homosexuality in public and insisted his cronies do the same. He believed straight people weren’t as adept at bullying and aggression as homosexuals, so homosexuality was given a high premium in the SA.” They promoted an aggressive, hypermasculine form of homosexuality, condemning “hysterical women of both sexes”, in reference to feminine gay men.”

    1. The HuffPo article demonstrates that bad historical analysis does not cause or is not caused by one’s sexual orientation since a gay and a straight have come to similar strange conclusions.

  23. Poor Scott Lively,

    He can’t distinguish between calling someone “a b**ch” and writing a book that falsely accuses a specific segment of the population of the most heinous crime of recent history and which uses this false claim to seek civil punishment against that group. Which, I guess, is why he’s on the SPLC list.

    But he illustrates an interesting phenomenon. It seems that all of those spend their time and effort as anti-gay activists are most offended when anyone points out that their desire to deny one segment of the population with rights is, at it’s core, biased and based in animus.

    Those who engage in the most obvious of homophobia, who’s bigotry is blatant, who have no limits to the noxious and vile accusations, characterizations, and demonization of gay folk become absolutely enraged if anyone calls them a homophobe.

    They usually start with, “homophobe really means afraid of homosexuals and I’m not afraid”. When that doesn’t work they move on to, “I’m not a hater. I bring the TRUTH in love”. When that one is laughed at, they switch to, “I’m a victim. The homosexuals want to shut me up and censor me and if I don’t they’ll call me nasty names like Bigot”.

    It’s funny, really. You’d think that if they are proud of their anti-gay attitudes, positions, and activism that they’d wear the badges of Homophobe, Bigot, and Hater with pride.

    At least the skinheads admit that they are racists and haters.

    It makes me suspect that deep inside folks like Lively know that what they are doing is evil. And they can only keep telling themself that they are noble and good for so long as others agree.

Comments are closed.