Doctor Don Boys is entirely correct that mere criticism of homosexuality on a number of fronts does constitute hatred and while I can make the argument (and occasionally have) that homosexuality is destructive to consenting willful homosexuals and equally destructive to Americans and people of other belief-sets and lifestyles, especially politically, there are ways to make these arguments that are less offensive than others.  That is to say there are ways and manners to argue the point so as the only reason that people are offended is because they chose to take offense. Just as there are ways that are of the nature that people can be offended without any effort at all.  There are graceful ways to deliver truth and there are harsh ways to deliver truth and I cannot blame any agnostic, homosexual, or moral relativist or even the moral-spectrum  version of a multiculturalism advocate for misconstruing an advocacy of better health for people, however loving, as hateful.

My friend, colleague, Ryan Sorba, for example, is someone I hesitate to call either.  However much truth he speaks he has abandoned all the grace the Lord has commanded us to muster and so we in speaking truth fail to communicate truth for people have been pressed away from receiving it.

Dr. Boys writes both directly of the condition of homosexuality and he writes in meta-fashion as to the reception and he criticizes social mores in that way.  Certainly hostility to criticism of homosexuality has grown to inappropriate levels so that any man with the earnest spirit is treated like a genocidal madman. On the other hand this is not only the result of left-wing post-modernist propaganda (not with a homosexual or homosexualist agenda) but the politically correct agenda akin to the nation described within Fahrenheit 451. The other cause if men like Ryan Sorba that unwittingly propagate the stereotype of the critics as hateful and increase resistance to the cause.  I will not condemn Ryan Sorba but I will condemn his methods.  If he adopted other methods he can contribute to the cause but I believe that like Joe McCarthy he only hurts the cause for which he purportedly works.  He only hurts the cause.  There is a possibility that in his quest to rid the country of an unhealthy lifestyle he genuinely hates, perhaps has come to hate those who live that lifestyle and their defenders/proponents. In that case I condemn his feelings and his motivations and perhaps his very cause if his cause is not what he purports it to be.

I still cannot condemn the man himself for his sins. That is my mandate however I wish to condemn a man I cannot.

In this way I come close.  Far worse than the people that condemn my beliefs are the ones that announce their orthodoxy in my beliefs for an agenda of open hostility.

The deep down thing is that while Don Boys asks if criticism of homosexuality proves hatred, at least in the article title he never really attempts to answer the question.  The answer is that hatred cannot be proven.  Hatred is of the heart.  I suspect he never chose the article title.  This is his thesis:

I am weary of Christians and Conservatives who are so politically correct that they permit their critics to get away with accusing them of being haters because of their opposition to homosexuality. Only non-thinking fanatics make such obviously untrue, unfair, and unscriptural assertions. After all, critics of perversion have history, the Bible, and most national cultures in their support.

He is correct in all ways in those three sentences.

There is such a thing as ideological bigotry.  I tend to think of homosexualism in terms of relgion, religious faith, and ideology.  I see actual homosexuality in the same way.  However one is misled in his own mind or heart or whatever genetic predilections influence a man it is his choice to live a life as he lives it, to indulge in desires no matter how odd or disgusting or destructive or to take a priority and worship as he will.  I claim the Holy Spirit influences me where free will does not take hold on its own and there are people that claim homosexuality is a genetic trait, a sort of dead-end racial attribute that must be inherited from people that obviously did not give their lives over to homosexual desire in all things.  Even assuming a biological drive on his behalf or a spiritual push into mine our choices are our own and so the personal responsibility.

Certainly Andrew Shirvell is not a hateful individual. He expresses his beliefs in hurtful ways, however, is deeply bent in an ideological bigotry towards homosexuals and abortionists.  He is a bigger threat to the cause of the right than Harvey Milk or Truman Capote could ever be.  I have encountered him at numerous occasions and every time I wish I had not.  He means well and does not wish to be destructive.  Unlike many I doubt he truly has that same narcissistic streak which holds true in most of the Conservatives falsely accused of being racists,  He is also outspoken, irritating, overzealous, unthinking, and for an attorney quite stupid.  He is no bully but he is not anyone I would ever defend for every time I notice his behavior his behavior is embarrassing or vicious.

I cross my own lines; people are hypocrites and as I am a person I will use vicious language.

Conservatives and social critics of the post-modern morally relative lifestyles and deathstyles should never back down but when confronting the perverts of the world more loving language should be adopted because our words describing their actions are not only important but our motives are vital and their knowledge of our motives are wholly important not for our own social salvation but for their spiritual salvation.