I didn't see any mention of hating anyone in that.
that was more a general statement and overall attitude-
I should have said what you are for rather then what you are against.
It seems to me that of all the things going on in the world- this issue seems to be on the bottom of priorities to me- there could have been so much better uses of that ad money that good have gone towards helping instead of oppressive preaching and preaching to the choir as no one apart from the
mind set of those that made the ad would ever listen or buy any of that- IMO.
It is a remark on the overall feeling that most religious people focus more on the negatives- what not to do- what isn't right- what you oppose- judgement- hellfire- legalism
I wish that christianity and religious people in general were known for
what they were excited about and be excited about- mercy- objectivity- helping those in need- bringing sunshine and joy to the world- understanding and kindness- standing for civil rights in an objective manner and not oppressing your moral values onto others who do not share them.
I think people would like to be inspired rather then scared- I think that fear only leads to temporary following and support leading eventually into permanent resentment and hurt.
Or like someone else stated- a rational comprehensive argument instead of preying completely on emotions.
I don't get why same sex marriages are so offensive, or why people are so emotionally invested in something that has nothing to do with them? How does it affect their personal freedom?
It doesn't affect their personal freedom (except indirectly if gay marriage is instituted by judicial fiat rather than through the legislative arena, but I think your question was about desired ends rather than means). Simply put, they subjectively believe that homosexual relations are wrong and detrimental to individuals and society (especially when parentage is involved) and/or that marriage between a man and a woman should be celebrated and officially acknowledged as the essential foundation of family and society (many among this latter group are generally supportive of equal benifits for "civil unions"-they basically just want concrete institutional reasurrance that their personal values are considered the societal norm).
I think either basis for opposing gay marriage is morally and logically untenable in light of the principles that liberal democracy is based on (I actually have partial sympathy for the second group, I just think its an insufficient basis for effectively violating the spirit of equality under the law, thereby potentially limiting the capacity of some people to pursue personal happiness), but I find the tendency for some to dismiss such people (who I think form a-rapidly declining-majority of the population) as hatemongers to be more than a little off-putting.