5 ms·

This is a fun idea, but it's a shame to see them funding the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is quite questionable. John Stossel: The Southern Poverty Law C

• ZeroGravitas 7y ago
  > Another group that the Southern Poverty Law Center smears is the Ruth Institute. The group argues that gays shouldn't have the same rights to adopt. But does that make them haters? No, says founder Jennifer Morse: "I have no problem with gay people. That's not the issue." This quote from your article seems to indicate it's just people who either don't realise they're bigots, or who think their bigotry is acceptable enough to society that they can get away with it complaining about being called out. I'd never heard of the Ruth Institute before, and thought they may be a very focused adoption group based on the article. But I just read the latest thing on their website and I can state clearly that they do have a problem with gay people. In a speech in Uganda she says that the death penalty usually isn't necessary for crimes such as being gay, that gay people hijacked the civil rights movement, that you shouldn't use the word 'gay' as that just plays into their hands amongst other things that have a common theme of a very restrictive view on sexual activity.
  • Chazprime 7y ago
    Telling gay people that they’re “morally unacceptable” is a textbook example of hate. But sure, as long as she claims she has no problem with gay people, she’s probably a wonderful and misunderstood person.
    • deith 7y ago
      The best part of the Republic of Weimar, second only to its demise, was the infighting. Now that we get to see it on Internet forums, I can only be happy to live in this age.
    • loons2 7y ago
      If I inform death penalty advocates that their position is "morally unacceptable," is that also a textbook example of hate?
      • ebg13 7y ago
        There is a subtle (maybe) but important difference that you're eliding. A gay person advocates to be allowed to live their life with exactly as many rights as others, not for you to become gay. Saying that it's morally unacceptable to have equal rights is not the same as saying that it's morally unacceptable to kill someone.
      • ZeroGravitas 7y ago
        The problem with this kind of comment on a tech focused forum is that you can never tell if the person saying it is truly oblivious to context, or if they just think they can win a pedantic argument by pretending they are. Yes, if you campaign to stop death penalty advocates from marrying or adopting children, because you accuse them all of being pedophile rapists that are destroying society and you knew that people were regularly killed for having that belief then your attack on them as being "morally unacceptable" would be textbook hate too.
  • AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    There is a difference between a hate group, i.e. a group engaging in hatred and violence, and some institute whose policy ideas you disagree with. Free speech means other people get to be stupid and say stupid things, and as long as they don't resort to violence, your only recourse is to explain to everybody why they're wrong.
    • ebg13 7y ago
      > There is a difference between a hate group, i.e. a group engaging in hatred and violence, and some institute whose policy ideas you disagree with. Not when the "policy ideas you disagree with" repress individuals for aspects of their personal lives.
      • AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        Are you arguing that it represses people just to say that something is immoral, and try to convince people not to do it of their own volition? Or to publish empirical evidence just because it implies something ideologically inconvenient? Here's a thought experiment. Take it as axiomatic that heterosexual adoptive parents will, all else equal, generally raise more successful children. You're not going to want to do this because it's disadvantageous to a protected class, but there is nothing about the universe that requires all facts to be convenient. So assume for sake of argument that this fact is inconvenient but true. Now, sexual orientation may be a protected class, but so are children, so we've got to balance their interests. We've got to make a choice about which one is more important and when. But you can't even recognize the need to make a choice if nobody is allowed to say the inconvenient fact.
        • ebg13 7y ago
          > Take it as axiomatic that heterosexual adoptive parents will, all else equal, generally raise more successful children Successful at what? Experience says that they won't be more successful at being good to other people. Your line of reasoning also leads one to say that black people shouldn't reproduce because their children are statistically less likely to become wealthy. That doesn't strike me as being an honest ethical framework. The ethical choice would be to advocate for making the world less shitty, not for population cleansing or other acts of repression.
• rozab 7y ago
  All these groups seem pretty bigoted (despite the author's reluctance to include any information on them whatsoever) and I do not see why the word 'scam' is justified or relevant in this case.