Yes.

Dr. Ablow stated the point (which is Rightwinger's point in the OP) when he said: 

and when he said: 

Those threats of violence against Dr. Ablow were hateful acts not loving ones. The point is the hatred is coming from homosexuals against those who shed light on the truth of the devastating and destructive consequences of the sexual behavior of homosexuality.

Firstly, let me explain to you, Lula, what you appear to have missed. There is a spectrum to all activities - homosexuality is one of them. For several of your previous posts you have stated crimes performed by homosexuals as an attempt to prove that homosexuals are proponents of hatred and malice. May I remind you that the small group of homosexuals who send death threats and cause public violence do not, in fact, represent all homosexuals? Look at it this way - as an atheist involved in certain pressing issues, I know a person who is an atheist and sends death threats and I do not agree with his way of doing things - he is a very disagreeable person. However, I also know plenty of people who are nowhere near as extreme. Classifying these people as wrong, with your only evidence being a minority who send hateful messages and threats, is a gross misevaluation of the truth. Similarly, I also recieve death threats from hardline Christians on occasion, and it can be a particularly unpleasant experience. Would you accept it if you were recognized as being violent and hateful simply because of the actions some other Christians may choose to take? If you would not, then I would kindly request you to stop attempting to do just that to gay people. Thank you.

Secondly, am I correct in assuming that the passage you have quoted above, although appearing to be about homosexuality, does in fact apply to all sins? For I know for certain that many religions contain a multitude of sins in their religious texts that are often ignored or not followed to the letter for matters of convenience, laziness or simply because of a change in beliefs between when the text was produced and the modern day. Take, for example, 2 Peter 2:11, or Jude 9 - look those up and they appear to warn against the very condemnation that you have there. Do you agree that people are allowed to not follow that particular part of the Bible? What about in Genesis, and what it says about marrying your brother's widow? Is it simply that people are allowed to ignore parts of the Bible as they please, except for the parts that modern Christians deem important? I assume that you will tell me that this is not the case and am actually interested to hear your answer.

Finally. I note that you have made several points about the transmission of AIDS. Yes, it is true that gay men are the most common vector through which AIDS is spread. However, let me tell you now that this should not reflect badly on them. Looking at the statistics, although straight people are less likely to get AIDS than gay people, the least likely, and therefore safest, group is in fact that of lesbians. I take it that, in your point of view, that will not make you decide that lesbians are somehow better than straight people - however, if this is so, the converse should also be true and you should not look down on gays because of it either. There are plenty of diseases common among other groups - smokers, the old and the young, people who drink - yet I am sure you do not protest against these groups as vehemently as you are complaining about gays.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/youre-promoting-hate-toronto-police-shut-down-preacher-at-gay-pride-pa

Here is yet another example where criticizing homosexuality is "promoting hate". 

.......................

I'll second that! 

The following article sums it up for me.

Do you actually want to discuss something or are you content to just appear ignorant? You have one lousy book to read from and you cannot even get that right. What do you think the Crusades were for; to promote glasnost and loving relations with other religions? You don’t hate gays as long as they are not allowed to have children, conform to YOUR way of thinking and don’t practice their stuff else it’s off to hell with the rest of the people you don’t hate. These are the actions and demeanor of a proper bigot for sure, but a loving bigot according to you.

Right on Jythier. Thanks. 

It would be nice. 

The Crusades were just wars for the recapture of Christian lands and defense of Christians, not religious imperialism and if they hadn't been called to stop the Muslims from pushing Islam by the sword across Europe, Asia Minor, northern Africa, Egypt and Syria, etc., it's rather safe to say the world would be a different place today as we'd all be bowing down in submission to Allah.  

Check history. Start by understanding the aggressive nature and fanaticism of Islam founded by Muhammad (570-632 AD) who was just as much of a political and military leader as he was a religious one. Within 100 years of Muhammad's death, his followers conquered Arabia, Damascus, Syria, Persia, North Africa, the Holy Land, and Spain. 

The people of these regions faced an escalating spiral of persecution. If they didn't convert or submit (to save their lives), they were killed. Those who submitted had to pay an extra tax and were forbidden to even teach their own children. Brutal subordination, enslavement and violence became the rule for all Christians.  

By 1056, the threats and times got tougher under the rule of the fierce and fanatical Seljuk Turks who swept down from central Asia and conquered all of Asia Minor. In 1076, Syria, in 1077, Jerusalem where they killed 3,000 people and continued to threaten the Christian empire of Byzantium. When it seemed death was imminent at the hands of the Seljuks, the emperor of Constantinople and the Christians of the East appealed to Pope Urban II for help and that's how the First Crusade came about.

When the Pope declared the Crusades in 1095, he declared a just war. They constituted a defensive reaction and one that was long overdue against the Islamic threat and aggression that had been mounted for 400 years and which with the Seljuk Turks grew fiercer than ever in the 11th century. The Crusades were waged to recover the Holy Sepulcher, which had become the target of constant profanation by the Muslims, for the defense of Christian pilgrims, and for the recovery of Christian territory from Islamic rule.

Pope Urban was convinced that the menace of the spread of Islam by the sword threatened the existence of Western civilization and in those medieval times, he alone had the power to organize a large expeditionary force to defend Christianity from the Muslim jihad advance. He called the nobility of Western Europe and hundreds of knights tore up strips of red cloth to form crosses which became the emblem of their service to the Crucified Christ.

 For the medieval man, the Crusades were a means of defending their world, their culture, their religion, and their way of life.

For those who rant and rave against the Crusades, think for a moment about the anger, fear and frustration in all of us on September 11 for it just might make the Crusades more comprehensible. There are parallels...and the sense of what is at stake is nothing less than the survival of Western civilization.

It's true that some Crusaders were out for motives of glory and gain... for the wrong reasons....some nobles wanted to carve out a princedom in the East, some to make fortunes in transporting the troops and selling them supplies, and some peasants were anxious to escape the serfdom.

Lula, I am going all the way back to the 4th century when Constantine nationalized Christianity which was the beginning of the downward spiral towards the inquisitions (the purging of religious competition and malcontents) all the while sequestering or destroying as much of the (known) world’s knowledge base as possible. Continue on to the Crusades which failed to take back lands that were never theirs in the first place, after countless deaths and destruction aplenty of course. Then we get to the 15th century when the papacy decided that the world belonged to Rome and sent their minions to pillaging the non-Christian world. Murdering much of the world’s aborigines and enslaving even more to be shipped back to Europe where they worked the rest of their short lives for European Christian aristocrats and rich and powerful church clergy including the papacy. The only reason you are pacifists today is because your armies of old no longer exist. And probably most are just plain cowards who can only function under a religious shield while they throw insults at and making demands of the world at large and they justify this nonsense by playing the religion-default card whenever and for whatever reason they choose.

I have tried to discuss some of the major problems with Catholicism (amply shown in this clip) and on every instance you made appeasements and excuses for them even going so far as to tote the catholic reasons why they were necessary for the RCC. I am tired of hummm; a few bad apples don’t spoil the barrel or some such saying. Well your bad apples always were and still are at the top and those bad apples do contaminate the whole barrel. The RCC has never and will never sin … my eye. I judge the Roman Catholic Church by the standards they set for themselves when they had themselves convinced they had a god on their side … as well as the processes they entertained to convince everyone else of perfection.

Short History of the Catholic Church http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSD1EW-FQBQ

The sad part is that you believe this nonsense still today; witches, demonic possession, exorcisms, curses and spells and who knows what else. But you don’t believe in science, you have no use for a practical education, you don’t trust modern (evolutionary) medicine and you view everyone without the catholic label as being inferior. You also seem to operate under the impression that mankind as a subspecies (until conversion) has nothing better to do with their collective time than to spend their resources and efforts on trying to destroy the RCC … hahaha. Yea, guess I would see that as hate too for sure … but a self-induced delusion none the less.

Not my kind of thing Lula … I don’t do hate anymore, there are plenty of catholics to carry that torch.

Not that simple Lula. This is just your get out of hell card and your permission slip to do as you please all-in-one. As long as one suckles with your church there is no crime or atrocity that cannot be forgiven for one of the sheeple. But anyone gaining sustenance elsewhere can be forgiven for absolutely nothing. Sounds super bigoted to me???

I am not “men who hate Christ” (call me Michelle if it helps) but these generic answers sure get on ones nerves. I am sure I know how you feel about Jesus … and I am sure you know how I feel about jesus too. It is silly to talk about fictional characters with such emotion (IMO). Homosexuality has been around way longer than christianity and I am not going to involve myself with your homophobic prejudices.

Lula when you promote your cause as the only one possible, a cause you will not even question yourself and one that nobody has any other option (IYO) than to capitulate to it … you had better expect a fight with pretty much everyone you look down upon. Your church doesn’t make friends; they convert people (voluntary or not) or they create enemies (voluntary or not) just because they cannot help it. I don’t have an ounce of sympathy for a church that intentionally provokes the world at large on all matters large and small alike … or the people who blindly follow it.