Discussion: Gay Rights II [Archive] - Page 29

spideyboy_1111

07-02-2009, 10:13 PM

This really doesn't have much to do with gay rights per say.. But for some reason i feel like this is the best place to bring it up.

yesterday I was listening to Ryan Seacrest on the radio, and some guy called in about his wife constantly asking him if he's gay... he has a slight femininity to his voice and simply just doesn't act like a stereotypical male. Well the topic (which i sort of found offensive anyway) was Is this guy gay or not? Ryan had callers call in and basically state there opinion. Mounds of women called in and was like "this guy is gay.. whether he knows it or not", "he's definately gay, he's got a lil femininity about him in his voice", yaddda yadda... Then this guy calls in and makes some points that honestly made me want to get out of my car and applaud....

this straight guy calls in, and says he believes this guy in question, is indeed straight. He says his wife every once in a while, as well asks him if he's gay... why? because he cleans up around the house, and does things for her. He's into taking care of himself (like skin care) and is aware of dressing nice... He assured everyone he's not gay, loves women, and loves his wife. And His point that made me want to applaud is that what honestly are men suppose to do? Women always say they want a guy who can take care of them, don't treat them like crap, are some what sensitive, and they love gay guys and very often fall for gay guys for this reason... But when they get that from a straight guy... they argue with him and call him gay? When they don't get that.. and get a guy who treats them like crap, comes off as a douchebag, doesn't clean up after themselves ... they complain about wanting exactly what this guy was was.

So It really brought to my attention how much of a mental "gay witch hunt" many straight people are even bringing upon themselves. I mean seriously... the Male sex has it pretty rough... if you don't fit into a certain mold these days (noticeably even more so among the black community) people automatically jump on you and think "because I don't blatantly talk about wanting to tap that girl from behind", "i'm into fashion", "im into taking care of myself", "I like doing things for my gf and wife" that they're automatically gay now?

any mature person who truly understands anything... knows that the only thing that makes anyone gay.... is whom there emotionally and sexually attracted to.

anywho... just wanted to share that... I found it kind of enlightening.

Marx

07-02-2009, 10:23 PM

spideyboy_1111

07-02-2009, 10:29 PM

I'm surprised the guy is staying with this girl.

well, i'm not aware of the situation as much with the first guy... I'm assuming it's pretty serious to a degree for it to be a radio show topic... but the guy who called in standing up for the guy in question did say he's told his wife "if it's that big of a problem then why are you even with me?" i mean my guess is she does it playfully... but being called gay all the time when you're not will really kinda wear a guy down... especially if its his wife...

Marx

07-02-2009, 10:38 PM

well, i'm not aware of the situation as much with the first guy... I'm assuming it's pretty serious to a degree for it to be a radio show topic... but the guy who called in standing up for the guy in question did say he's told his wife "if it's that big of a problem then why are you even with me?" i mean my guess is she does it playfully... but being called gay all the time when you're not will really kinda wear a guy down... especially if its his wife...

Exactly.

Sloth7d

07-03-2009, 02:05 AM

Really? I know this girl who calls me gay all the time, but it doesn't change the fact that I want to have sex with her.... I'm a dude, btw.

Kelly

07-03-2009, 02:36 AM

Exactly.

I've seen the opposite as well.....kids at school are ruthless sometimes. They are very understanding and tolerant when a kid comes out, much more than most adults I know.....at least in my experiences at my school, which is a predominantly hispanic population. But, damn, the girls are ruthless with the "I can turn ya back"...."You're not really gay, one date with me will take care of that..." It's nuts.....

When I was coaching, I had to get after a couple of girls who did that to a male cheerleader who was gay, and I had to threaten sexual harrassment before they stopped. *shakes head*

spideyboy_1111

07-03-2009, 03:52 AM

Really? I know this girl who calls me gay all the time, but it doesn't change the fact that I want to have sex with her.... I'm a dude, btw.

you're minds also on the sex... not the love. You take things alot more to heart when you're emotionally invested in someone...

spideyboy_1111

07-03-2009, 03:53 AM

I've seen the opposite as well.....kids at school are ruthless sometimes. They are very understanding and tolerant when a kid comes out, much more than most adults I know.....at least in my experiences at my school, which is a predominantly hispanic population. But, damn, the girls are ruthless with the "I can turn ya back"...."You're not really gay, one date with me will take care of that..." It's nuts.....

When I was coaching, I had to get after a couple of girls who did that to a male cheerleader who was gay, and I had to threaten sexual harrassment before they stopped. *shakes head*

yeah... people really are ruthless... I also find it disgusting when other people try to tell someone else there sexual orientation. Let people decide that for themselves.

Sloth7d

07-03-2009, 09:13 AM

you're minds also on the sex... not the love. You take things alot more to heart when you're emotionally invested in someone...

I kinda had crush on her for years, even when I was with other girls. To be honest, I think I just liked the abuse, so I guess I'm a special case anyway.

Hmmm, that looks even worse typed out than I thought.

Lightning Strykez!

07-07-2009, 08:42 PM

Really? I know this girl who calls me gay all the time, but it doesn't change the fact that I want to have sex with her.... I'm a dude, btw.

She calls you gay because she likes you. Just like when little boys treat girls like crap...it's because they actually like them. Didn't you know?

:dry:

Sloth7d

07-08-2009, 09:21 AM

Can't tell if you're being serious or not.
But I don't think she likes me. Least not in that way.

BlackLantern

07-08-2009, 09:24 AM

I saw a thing on Current about gay gun owners....its apparently a growing group...a gay couple talked about how they avoided a serious gay bashing because one of them was carrying...

Ion Kenshin

07-08-2009, 09:25 AM

"We're here. We're queer. And we'll bust a cap in your ass!"

Sloth7d

07-08-2009, 09:30 AM

I saw a thing on Current about gay gun owners....its apparently a growing group...a gay couple talked about how they avoided a serious gay bashing because one of them was carrying...

Sometimes ignorance will only respond to force. Can't reason with everybody. At least this will make anyone willing think twice before assuming gay people can't defend themselves when need be.

BlackLantern

07-08-2009, 09:35 AM

"We're here. We're queer. And we'll bust a cap in your ass!"

catchy....make up the t-shirts

Sometimes ignorance will only respond to force. Can't reason with everybody. At least this will make anyone willing think twice before assuming gay people can't defend themselves when need be.

I agree

Bathead

07-08-2009, 09:41 AM

"We're here. We're queer. And we'll bust a cap in your ass!"

You might wanna rephrase that...

Ion Kenshin

07-08-2009, 09:42 AM

You might wanna rephrase that...
:lmao:

Marx

07-08-2009, 02:09 PM

MASSACHUSETTS SUES FEDS OVER 'DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090708/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage

Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, sued the U.S. government Wednesday over a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act interferes with the right of Massachusetts to define and regulate marriage as it sees fit, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said. The 1996 law denies federal recognition of gay marriage and gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Boston, argues the act "constitutes an overreaching and discriminatory federal law." It says the approximately 16,000 same-sex couples who have married in Massachusetts since the state began performing gay marriages in 2004 are being unfairly denied federal benefits given to heterosexual couples.

Besides Massachusetts, five other states — Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Iowa — have legalized gay marriage. Gay marriage opponents in Maine said Wednesday that they had collected enough signatures to put the state's new law on the November ballot for a possible override.

The Massachusetts lawsuit challenges the section of the federal law that creates a federal definition of marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

cerealkiller182

07-08-2009, 02:14 PM

Good!

I remember reading when NEw Hampshire was going through the motions that even though the states recognize it the federal government doesnt have to and thought what a waste.

Lightning Strykez!

07-08-2009, 02:18 PM

Can't tell if you're being serious or not.
But I don't think she likes me. Least not in that way.

I was totally being sarcastic. :cool:

Marx

07-08-2009, 04:49 PM

NEW EFFORT UNDERWAY TO PUSH FOR REPEAL OF 'DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/08/new-effort-under-way-to-push-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/

Rep. Patrick Murphy, an Iraq war veteran, Wednesday kicked off a new push to convince Americans that the president should repeal "don't ask, don't tell" — the policy that prevents openly gay troops from serving in the U.S. military.

Murphy, D-Pennsylvania, appeared along with several gay, lesbian and straight service members to launch the initiative.

"We can not afford to wait any longer" for the repeal of "don't ask don't tell," Murphy said at an event at the National Press Club in Washington.

"Now is the time to change this, when our military is stretched so thin" with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A "Voices of Honor" tour, sponsored by The Human Rights Campaign, will travel across the country sharing stories of gay, lesbian and straight service men and women in hope of garnering support for the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would repeal the law that established the policy and allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve openly in the military.

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese issued a statement saying, "We must repeal this discriminatory policy and ensure that our military can recruit and retain the best and the brightest troops regardless of their sexual orientation."

President Barack Obama has said he wants Congress to repeal the law, but gay rights groups have been angered that the president has not done more to hasten the change.

Since Obama took office, 287 service members have been discharged for being gay, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which supports the repeal.

The bill, introduced by Colin Powell in 1993 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, ended the protocol requiring servicemen and women to state their sexual orientation.

But Powell now says the time has come to review whether the policy is still necessary.

"Sixteen years have now gone by, and I think a lot has changed with respect to attitudes within our country, and therefore I think this is a policy and a law that should be reviewed," Powell said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union with John King."

Shameful.

Schlosser85

07-08-2009, 09:09 PM

How petty do you possibly have to be to think someone's sexual orientation is more important than them serving their country with honor?

This is a completely dishonorable practice.

Marx

07-09-2009, 08:17 PM

GAY MARRIAGE OPPONENTS REACH SIGNATURE GOAL IN MAINE
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/northeast/view/20090708gay_marriage_foes_reach_signature_goal_in_ maine/srvc=home&position=recent

Gay marriage foes in Maine say they’ve collected enough signatures to stop the new law from going into effect and to force a statewide vote in November.

Mark Mutty from the Stand for Marriage Maine coalition says it took only four weeks to gather the more than 55,087 signatures necessary to put gay marriage to a vote. But he says signature gathering will continue to ensure there’s more than enough petitions.

The law that’s scheduled to go into effect on Sept. 12 will be put on hold after the signatures are submitted and certified by the secretary of state’s office.

General Fury

07-10-2009, 04:43 AM

spideyboy_1111

07-10-2009, 04:47 AM

even though my (and other people's) religious beliefs my talk against it, i do not think it's right to take someone else's happiness away cause it doesn't go with Your opinion

after all most buddhists believe it's wrong to drink alcohol, but they dont try to make a law against it. And of course anyone can have their own opinion even if it's not from religious beliefs, but what people need to understand is that weather or not you think it is wrong, all in all, you wouldn't want someone trying to make laws against something that staked your way of life on it, at least that's my opinion

well said... more people need to share you're opinion. the world would be a much happier place

Nivek

07-10-2009, 06:45 AM

GAY MARRIAGE OPPONENTS REACH SIGNATURE GOAL IN MAINE
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/northeast/view/20090708gay_marriage_foes_reach_signature_goal_in_ maine/srvc=home&position=recent

And now around that vote time Maine will be over run with Fred Phelps types who will try to convince the good God fearing people there that Gay's are "SIIIINNNEERRRRSSS!!!" and that Maine must repent or be cast down blah blah blah blah blah praise Heyzues.

Ion Kenshin

07-10-2009, 08:08 AM

I loved how Salem Witch Hunt like these "events" are. It kinda makes me wanna go to these things and start pointing at people and accusing them of being gay and watch as the crowd turns on them. It'd be like watching The Crucible in person. :hehe:

What a bunch of idiots :rolleyes:

BlackLantern

07-10-2009, 08:17 AM

even though my (and other people's) religious beliefs my talk against it, i do not think it's right to take someone else's happiness away cause it doesn't go with Your opinion

after all most buddhists believe it's wrong to drink alcohol, but they dont try to make a law against it. And of course anyone can have their own opinion even if it's not from religious beliefs, but what people need to understand is that weather or not you think it is wrong, all in all, you wouldn't want someone trying to make laws against something that staked your way of life on it, at least that's my opinion

My dad and I have had a few discussions on gay marriage as we have gay family members....he's traditional, and being a Baptist doesn't believe in gay marriage, but if it is something that is recognized by law then fine...he gets that you can't legislate based on religious belief

BlackLantern

07-10-2009, 08:19 AM

NEW EFFORT UNDERWAY TO PUSH FOR REPEAL OF 'DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/08/new-effort-under-way-to-push-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/

Shameful.

it is, but thousands have been discharged under 3 separate Presidents now....Clinton, W, and Obama...I think what is happening now is that as the gay rights movement becomes a larger issue as time passes, more and more of our soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen are deciding to come out

Marx

07-10-2009, 11:29 AM

even though my (and other people's) religious beliefs my talk against it, i do not think it's right to take someone else's happiness away cause it doesn't go with Your opinion

after all most buddhists believe it's wrong to drink alcohol, but they dont try to make a law against it. And of course anyone can have their own opinion even if it's not from religious beliefs, but what people need to understand is that weather or not you think it is wrong, all in all, you wouldn't want someone trying to make laws against something that staked your way of life on it, at least that's my opinion

I like you. Welcome to the boards! :yay:

I loved how Salem Witch Hunt like these "events" are. It kinda makes me wanna go to these things and start pointing at people and accusing them of being gay and watch as the crowd turns on them. It'd be like watching The Crucible in person. :hehe:

What a bunch of idiots :rolleyes:

....

:lmao:

Ion Kenshin

07-10-2009, 11:30 AM

^^ Glad you liked it. You wanna come with me to the Witch Hunts lol

General Fury

07-10-2009, 01:37 PM

I like you. Welcome to the boards! :yay:

thank you very much :yay:

Hobodeluxe

07-10-2009, 02:17 PM

I think what the military is up against is

legal issues. if guys come out and then are harrassed then you've got a bunch of litigation going on for sexual harassment etc. some guys will refuse to shower with them. just a bunch of crap like that.
and there's a pretty strong contingent of religious people in the service. Especially it seems at the pentagon.

BlackLantern

07-10-2009, 02:18 PM

Hobodeluxe

07-10-2009, 02:27 PM

all that being said I do think DADT needs to go away. There will be some rough transitioning maybe but eventually it'll all work out. those who have problems with it and can't deal will soon be out. which is probably a good thing.

Marx

07-11-2009, 12:51 PM

GAY COUPLE DETAINED AFTER KISSING NEAR MORMON CHURCH
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/11/gay-couple-detained-after_n_230016.html

A gay couple say they were detained by security guards on a plaza owned by the Mormon church and later cited by police, claiming it stemmed from a kiss on the cheek.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said that the men became argumentative and refused to leave after being asked to stop their "inappropriate behavior." The men say they were targeted because they are gay.

Matt Aune said he and his partner, Derek Jones, were walking home from a concert nearby on Thursday night, cutting through the plaza near the Salt Lake City Mormon temple.

Aune, 28, said he gave Jones, 25, a hug and kiss and that the two were then approached by a security guard, who asked them to leave, telling them they were being inappropriate and that public displays of affection aren't allowed on the property. He said other guards arrived and the men were handcuffed.

"We asked what we were doing wrong," Aune told The Associated Press.

Church spokeswoman Kim Farah said in a statement Friday that the men were "politely asked to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior _ just as any other couple would have been."

"They became argumentative and used profanity and refused to leave the property," she said. The church did not immediately respond to a request for more comment.

Police later arrived and both men were cited with misdemeanor trespassing, Salt Lake City Police Sgt. Robin Snyder said.

"It doesn't matter what they were asked to leave for," Snyder said. "If they are asked to leave and don't they are ... trespassing."

The church has been the target of protests over its support of a ban on gay marriage in California.

Marx

07-11-2009, 01:04 PM

GLAAD SLAMS 'BRUNO'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/11/glaad-slams-bruno_n_229975.html

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation said Friday that "Bruno," the new film starring Sacha Baron Cohen, reinforces negative stereotypes and "decreases the public's comfort with gay people."

GLAAD president Jarrett Barrios, who saw the film Friday, said that "the movie was a well-intentioned series of sketches _ some hit the mark and some hit the gay community pretty hard and reinforce some damaging, hurtful stereotypes."

In a style similar to his popular Borat character, Baron Cohen brings Bruno, a flamboyantly gay Austrian fashionista, into ridiculous situations with unsuspecting everyday people.

Universal Pictures, which released "Bruno," sought GLAAD's input on the film and invited staff members to advance screenings, Barrios said.

The organization "shared a number of concerns, and unfortunately, the scenes that we had the biggest concerns about remained in the film," Barrios said.

spideyboy_1111

07-11-2009, 04:54 PM

GLAAD SLAMS 'BRUNO'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/11/glaad-slams-bruno_n_229975.html

:o:whatever: The movie didn't bother me at all.. if anything it flipped a stereotype and made the people who make fun of them look like idiots. The film did a good job of making homophobes look like retards.

Kelly

07-11-2009, 05:10 PM

So exactly who are you putting down in your post...

the mentally challenged, or homophobes?

BlackLantern

07-11-2009, 05:11 PM

mentally retarded homphobes??

moraldeficiency

07-11-2009, 06:29 PM

The film did a good job of making homophobes look like retards.

retards? Do you see the irony in you saying this?

spideyboy_1111

07-11-2009, 07:47 PM

retards? Do you see the irony in you saying this?

:whatever: when i put retards next to homophobe... and once you see the homophobes in the movie... it'd all make sense. Many look inbred. And that i can make fun of :o

Marx

07-11-2009, 07:50 PM

I tend to agree with GLAAD. From what I have seen of the previews, and the media that Cohen has done, Bruno does seem to reinforce negative stereotypes. I'll wait to catch it on HBO.

moraldeficiency

07-11-2009, 07:56 PM

:whatever: when i put retards next to homophobe... and once you see the homophobes in the movie... it'd all make sense. Many look inbred. And that i can make fun of :o

I guess it's just using a term like retards which is insulting from someone that would most certianly not like gays to be insulted by being called other names that sticks out a bit hypocritical. The robot devil laughs.

spideyboy_1111

07-11-2009, 08:18 PM

I guess it's just using a term like retards which is insulting from someone that would most certianly not like gays to be insulted by being called other names that sticks out a bit hypocritical. The robot devil laughs.

words are just words to me though... they don't get under my skin. They only have power if you let them be.

hippie_hunter

07-11-2009, 08:54 PM

:whatever: when i put retards next to homophobe... and once you see the homophobes in the movie... it'd all make sense. Many look inbred. And that i can make fun of :o

Except with Bruno, even people who aren't homophobic would be disturbed by him. It was just one big bash fest making fun of gay culture and homophobia.

spideyboy_1111

07-11-2009, 09:42 PM

Except with Bruno, even people who aren't homophobic would be disturbed by him. It was just one big bash fest making fun of gay culture and homophobia.

meh, i didn't view it as bashing gay culture.... I thought if it was bashing anything it would be gay people who purposely put themselves out there to an extreme. I didn't find the movie offensive to me at all.

Mister Sinister

07-14-2009, 06:04 PM

Bill Clinton now supports same-sex marriage

Former President Bill Clinton has come out in support of same-sex marriage.
The former president's reversal is the highest-profile one to date. It may also have political implications for the future of the Defense of Marriage Act.

After speaking at the Campus Progress National Conference in Washington, DC, on July 8, the former president was asked if he supported same-sex marriage. Clinton, in a departure from past statements, replied in the affirmative.

Clinton opposed same-sex marriage during his presidency, and in 1996, he signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which limited federal recognition of marriage to one man and one woman. In May of this year, Clinton told a crowd at Toronto's Convention Centre that his position on same-sex marriage was "evolving."

Apparently, Clinton's thinking has now further evolved. Asked if he would commit his support for same-sex marriage, Clinton responded, "I'm basically in support."

This spring, same-sex marriage was legalized in Iowa, Vermont, Connecticut, Maine and New Hampshire. In his most recent remarks on the subject, Clinton said, "I think all these states that do it should do it." The former president, however, added that he does not believe that same-sex marriage is "a federal question."

Asked if he personally supported same-sex marriage, Clinton replied, "Yeah." "I personally support people doing what they want to do," Clinton said. "I think it's wrong for someone to stop someone else from doing that [same-sex marriage]."

The former president joins a string of prominent Democrats who have recently switched their position on the issue, including former Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean, New York Senator Charles E. Schumer, New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine and Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd.

"Bill Clinton joins other important public figures in stepping solidly into the twenty-first century in support of same-sex marriage equality," said the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's executive director Rea Carey. "We certainly hope other elected officials, including President Obama, join him in clearly stating their support for equality in this country. Same-sex couples should not have to experience second-class citizenship."

Clinton's reversal is the highest-profile one to date. It may also have political implications for the future of the Defense of Marriage Act. President Obama has pledged to repeal the law, but in June, the Justice Department filed a brief in federal court defending the law's constitutionality.

A recent Gallup poll found that a majority of Democrats favor same-sex marriage.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090720/tracey

Sloth7d

07-14-2009, 07:53 PM

Except with Bruno, even people who aren't homophobic would be disturbed by him. It was just one big bash fest making fun of gay culture and homophobia.

It didn't mock gay culture. It mocked people who actually carry the stereotype of this being what gay culture is about. That's how I saw it at least.

BlackLantern

07-14-2009, 07:58 PM

I agree with Sloth...if you're not in on the joke, it would seem offensive...

Kelly

07-14-2009, 08:14 PM

I didn't go see either movie, so I can't comment. The previews were enough for me...

spideyboy_1111

07-14-2009, 08:40 PM

meh, I think people are too uptight personally. A friend of mine got into an argument with a fellow gay guy who was completely upset with the movie, and said it reinforces a stereo type upon impressionable people. And after actually seeing the movie... I can say that can't be farther from the truth, 1) homophobic a-holes aren't going to see the movie anyway 2) it was soooooo outlandish and extremely exaggerated to the point where it was making fun of the way homphobes view the gay community. (it essentially was like a homophobes fictional nightmare) 3) he went out of his way to personally stick the character Bruno, into situations and communities that carry these stereotypes with the gay community (blacks, middle eastern, southern states, "converters", the army, and anti-gay protesters).

I can see where some people would be upset, but I think there getting upset for no reason at all...

Marx

07-14-2009, 09:23 PM

Bill Clinton now supports same-sex marriage

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090720/tracey

That's good news! http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

hippie_hunter

07-14-2009, 10:20 PM

It didn't mock gay culture. It mocked people who actually carry the stereotype of this being what gay culture is about. That's how I saw it at least.

It took both homophobia and gay culture to the extreme.

And while it was hilarious, it did a poor job mocking homophobia because

a) Even a heterosexual who was in complete support of gay rights would be uncomfortable being hit on by a guy like Bruno. I would not want to be hit on by a man like Bruno (and I would admit I would feel a tad bit awkward being hit on by any man, just like I would feel being hit on by a woman I am not attracted to).

and

b) Bruno's actions on the homophobic men he hit on were reinforced their homophobia instead of making them look like idiots. Homophobic people like my father think that pretty much any gay man is going to want to hit on them simply because they have a penis and that is what Bruno did. The hillbilly hunters that Bruno hit on had a right to be pissed off.

Sloth7d

07-14-2009, 10:44 PM

It took both homophobia and gay culture to the extreme.

And while it was hilarious, it did a poor job mocking homophobia because

a) Even a heterosexual who was in complete support of gay rights would be uncomfortable being hit on by a guy like Bruno. I would not want to be hit on by a man like Bruno (and I would admit I would feel a tad bit awkward being hit on by any man, just like I would feel being hit on by a woman I am not attracted to).

I agree and that's the point. The point of Bruno was to paint the picture of the most stereotypical gay person any homophobe could come up with and bring it to life. That image would be the kind of person that noone would like, and once you realize that the majority of gay people aren't like that, maybe it'll set your homophobia at ease. I don't think the movie degraded gay culture since the whole point was to show that gay people aren't like this. Even homophobes should realize that.

and

b) Bruno's actions on the homophobic men he hit on were reinforced their homophobia instead of making them look like idiots. Homophobic people like my father think that pretty much any gay man is going to want to hit on them simply because they have a penis and that is what Bruno did. The hillbilly hunters that Bruno hit on had a right to be pissed off.

Yeah, but I doubt any movie is going to make the prejudice any less prejudice. Though it's interesting to see filmmakers try. I'm pretty sure the racists who saw American History X were still racist by the movies end, maybe even more so due to the ending itself.

Tally Man

07-14-2009, 10:55 PM

It took both homophobia and gay culture to the extreme.

And while it was hilarious, it did a poor job mocking homophobia because

a) Even a heterosexual who was in complete support of gay rights would be uncomfortable being hit on by a guy like Bruno. I would not want to be hit on by a man like Bruno (and I would admit I would feel a tad bit awkward being hit on by any man, just like I would feel being hit on by a woman I am not attracted to).

and

b) Bruno's actions on the homophobic men he hit on were reinforced their homophobia instead of making them look like idiots. Homophobic people like my father think that pretty much any gay man is going to want to hit on them simply because they have a penis and that is what Bruno did. The hillbilly hunters that Bruno hit on had a right to be pissed off.

http://www.slate.com/id/2222553/

Here's an article from slate which does attempts to flesh out some of the reasons why Cohen did what he did. The article makes a pretty interesting point when it says:

But Brüno is, in more than one sense, beyond gay. Is any viewer really going to think that this hyperbolically crass and ridiculous narcissist—who wears mesh tops and eye-searing lederhosen, refers to his adopted African baby as a "dick magnet," and drops faux-Teutonic vulgarities about his waxed arschenhaller—represents "the mainstream of the gay community," as one troubled Hollywood "gay insider" put it (http://www.thewrap.com/article/exclusive-criticism-gay-insiders-led-bruno-reshoots_3721?page=2)? And are the gays who anxiously anticipate the mocking, hostile reactions of the unenlightened really that blind to Brüno's obvious counteroffensive strategy, which is to make that mocking, hostile idiocy the subject of his film? The beauty—and perhaps even the moral logic—of Baron Cohen's method is that those who're not in on his joke are invariably the butts of the joke.

spideyboy_1111

07-14-2009, 11:39 PM

Marx

07-16-2009, 10:48 PM

PART OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S NAACP SPEECH
L2epf5G3v3o

cerealkiller182

07-16-2009, 11:36 PM

In regards to the movie Bruno. NO ONE should be safe from comedy. Comedy is basically taking every facet of life and humbling it, even though some people might use the world humiliate. Every joke needs a "butt" and no one should be safe from their turn.

BlackLantern

07-17-2009, 06:58 AM

Ion Kenshin

07-17-2009, 10:37 AM

LDS Security Detains Affectionate Couple on Plaza
http://www.kutv.com/content/news/local/story/LDS-Security-Detains-Affectionate-Couple-on-Plaza/dDPAkZRcvEajlCOQ4gBDNg.cspx

A gay couple says their public display of affection got them banned from LDS church property and cited for trespassing.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says the incident had nothing to do with the couple being gay ,and all had to do with crossing the line of public affection.

Matt Anue and Derek Jones live in Salt Lake City and have been partners for five years. They were walking home from an event at about 10:30 on Thursday night.

They say they were walking through the LDS church plaza located on Main Street between North and South Temple, when Matt publicly displayed his affection for Derek.

"I stopped I said something I put my arm around him and I kissed him on the side of the cheek," said Anue.

That's when they say several LDS Security officers approached them and asked them to leave because of inappropriate behavior.

"I immediately put my arm around him {Derek} and said what were we doing wrong? What were we doing wrong?" said Anue.

"It came out {from the officers} what we were doing was just plain wrong, it was inappropriate, it was gross," said Jones.

When they refused to leave, that's when they say security converged upon them and handcuffed both of them.

When asked why they didn't just leave Jones said, "We didn't leave because we didn't feel we had to…we did nothing more wrong then anyone else yet we where forced on the ground handcuffed."

"I knew they were targeting us because we are gay and I was trying to get it out of them," said Anue.

Salt Lake City police where called and Jones and Anue were cited for trespassing.

The LDS Church released a statement by spokesperson Kim Farah saying, "Two individuals came on Church property and were politely asked to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior-just as any other couple would have been. They became argumentative and used profanity and refused to leave the property. They were arrested and then given a citation for criminal trespass by SLPD."

The City of Salt Lake sold the portion of Main Street to the LDS church back in 2003, under a very controversial sale.

According to law, the church has every right to decide who can be on that property and who can't.

"They are the owner of that property and they have a say as to what is allowed on that property. If someone is on that property that they don't want them and they ask them to leave and they refuse then they are trespassing," said Sgt. Robin Snyder with the Salt Lake City police department.

Jones and Anue are not allowed on LDS church property for six months. Their citations are class C misdemeanors.
:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

BlackLantern

07-17-2009, 10:55 AM

it's the Mormons...is anyone really surprised??....if a Mormon is marrying a non-Mormon, the other family can't even attend the wedding if its held in a Mormom church...they're like a country club....no black people, no gays, no outsiders

Marx

07-17-2009, 10:04 PM

LDS CHRUCH DEFENDS ARRESTS AT PLAZA
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705317606/LDS-Church-defends-arrests-at-plaza.html

In the wake of one "kiss-in" protest carried out last Sunday and ahead of another one planned for this Sunday, the LDS Church issued a statement Friday defending its Main Street Plaza property rights and its actions involving a pair of men cited there last week for their public displays of affection.

Echoing previous comments made by a church spokeswoman following the July 9 incident, Friday's statement said the pair were asked "to stop engaging in behavior deemed inappropriate for any couple of the plaza," which was "more involved than a simple kiss on the cheek."

"They engaged in passionate kissing, groping, profane and lewd language and had obviously been using alcohol," the statement continued. "They were politely told that the plaza was not the place for such behavior and asked to stop. When they became belligerent, the two individuals were asked to leave church property."

The two — Derek Jones and Matthew Aune — were detained by church security, cited by Salt Lake police for trespassing, an infraction of city ordinances, and later released.

The police report stated Aune said the two had been drinking earlier at the Gallivan Center. After leaving and passing through the plaza, they sat down and he kissed Jones. Aune told police that when the two were confronted by church security and asked to leave, he refused and he was slammed to the ground as security detained the pair with handcuffs.

Pink Ranger

07-18-2009, 08:38 AM

Kelly

07-18-2009, 08:40 AM

Looks to me like ya got a normal he said/ she said, confrontation....not much can be done with that until its taken to court, with witnesses.

BlackLantern

07-18-2009, 09:11 AM

That's not a country club. That's a cult.

there's a difference??

Marx

07-19-2009, 06:24 PM

'KISS-IN' PROTEST AT MORMON TEMPLE LEADS TO CONFRONTATION
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/19/mass-kissin-protest-at-mo_n_240265.html

A mass-kissing protest near the Mormon church temple Sunday drew a shouting match between gay activists and a group of faithful Mormons.

For the second consecutive weekend, about 100 people gathered to stage a "kiss-in" to protest the treatment of two gay men cited for trespassing July 9 after they shared a kiss on the plaza owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Both gay and straight couples exchanged kisses during the protest.

Demonstrators were greeted at the south entrance by a group of faithful Mormons carrying large signs that denounced homosexuality, prompting a heated verbal exchange.

Police say no one was arrested or cited, despite a large group exchanging kisses by a reflecting pool at the plaza's center.

StorminNorman

07-19-2009, 07:06 PM

I think these people need to pick their battles better.

spideyboy_1111

07-19-2009, 11:30 PM

'KISS-IN' PROTEST AT MORMON TEMPLE LEADS TO CONFRONTATION
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/19/mass-kissin-protest-at-mo_n_240265.html

haha :up: now that's a pretty awesome protest

StorminNorman

07-20-2009, 12:14 AM

Marlboro Man

07-20-2009, 12:32 AM

Assimilation is definitely the way to go. I was at a pride event last month, and I was a bit disturbed at what I saw. The displays were disturbing and highly sexualized. I understand the gay rights movement is built on sexual orientation, but to run around dressed in S&M gear while making obscene sexual gestures in public is not going to impress people who have a negative view of gay culture. What happened at that Mormon temple may have set the gay community's attempts to convert Mormon perceptions of homosexuality back.

Jager X

07-20-2009, 12:33 AM

spideyboy_1111

07-20-2009, 12:48 AM

No, it is not. It in no way helped their cause. They can't win this battle, because it was on church property and the church has it's own rules and regulations. But this is exactly the sort of defiant, flamboyant event that only emboldens your enemies and feeds stereotypes when the goal should be focusing on how you are the same.

Assimilation, not a demand to be accepted, will do better for the gay cause.

im not even gonna bother...... they staged a peaceful protest. I'm sorry but i don't believe in sitting back and taking it. If you wanna live your life and be who you are, you shouldn't have to tone it down or restrict yourself to get equal rights. On paper it sounds good and smart, but emotionally it's not at all.

Marlboro Man

07-20-2009, 01:02 AM

spideyboy_1111

07-20-2009, 01:13 AM

Public displays of affection are not going to win the masses over. You achieve more by showing everyone that you are like every other functioning member of society. Kissing and dancing in the streets half-naked won't help your cause, because it will offend people who already have a radical view of homosexuality. If you keep offending these people, then you won't achieve anything. You have a better chance of convincing ordinary people that homosexuality isn't something to be feared by keeping things "PG." Don't rub their noses into perverse displays.

trust me.. there's far more heterosexual PDA then there is ever homosexual PDA. If straights are allowed to kiss, makeout, hold hands, and hug in public.... so should gays. I don't really care if it offends people or not. I think as is, the US and world have become much more gay friendly then even 10 years ago... and we haven't changed the formula yet... people protest in there own ways. As long as people don't get hurt, then i'm fine with it. And any form of slap in the face to the mormon church i'll stand by. People just need to learn if you don't like something, don't subject yourself to it. Don't push you're feelings or beliefs on others. Let them do what they want. If you don't like it, don't be a part of it. Nuff said.

Marlboro Man

07-20-2009, 01:20 AM

Sometimes, people cannot choose to not be a part of it. Those gay protesters gathered on the property of a church which opposed homosexuality.... and then displayed their affections for one another. If I was a Mormon, I would be offended because this organized display was not done to be productive. It was done to offend.

Many gays feel that "if the public doesn't like it, they don't have to be a part of it." Yet, if gays are forcing certain displays on others, they aren't giving those people a chance to not be a part of it. All they are doing is ruffling the feathers of those who disagree with them. They aren't achieving anything. They are just fanning the flames and it doesn't work.

spideyboy_1111

07-20-2009, 02:15 AM

Marlboro Man

07-20-2009, 02:23 AM

It may keep both parties happy, but it also keeps them separate. And as long as the two groups are separate, they will be unable to accept one another.

spideyboy_1111

07-20-2009, 02:27 AM

It may keep both parties happy, but it also keeps them separate. And as long as the two groups are separate, they will be unable to accept one another.

people who believe in blind faith are never going to accept us... end of story with that. They're going to side with there religion. We've been winning over more and more people gaining acceptance over the years by the people that do matter.. not those that will always oppose based on religious beliefs. And we didn't have to change who we are in order to do that.

So i see nothing wrong. People will always sadly hate though what they refuse understand.

Marlboro Man

07-20-2009, 02:41 AM

spideyboy_1111

07-20-2009, 02:53 AM

Religious people can be pursuaded. They have been pursuaded. Catholics and Episcopalians, for example, are becoming more and more accepting. Some evangelical churches are as well. So I disagree that religious people are a lost cause. And I do think your best bet is to focus more on why gays are average, contributing members of society than it is to make organized efforts to offend those who don't approve of the lifestyle.

i didn't say religious people in general... i said ones who refuse to accept the rest of the world. The ones who follow there faith blindly, and never question. There's a difference. The people in which i speak of refuse to have an open mind.

Marx

07-25-2009, 09:19 PM

MARK LEDUC: GAY ATHLETE, OLYMPIC MEDALIST, ACTIVIST FOUND DEAD
http://www.thestar.com/sports/article/671345

Mark Leduc was not what people expected from an Olympic boxer.

Not only did the 1992 Barcelona silver medallist come into the world weighing only about a kilogram; Leduc was a gay athlete in a profession where homophobia ran deep.

The former light welterweight boxer was expected to fail because he wasn't recognized like other "star" contenders were, said Leduc's brother-in-law, Mark Johnson. "They thought he would be the worst (on the Canadian team), but he knew how to hit people and not get hit."

And blocking the hits was what the Canadian boxer would continue to do throughout his 47 years.

Leduc died at St. Michael's Hospital Wednesday night after he was found unconscious in a local hotel sauna early Sunday morning, Johnson said, adding doctors believe Leduc suffered a heat stroke that damaged his internal organs.

"We were shattered, disoriented, almost in disbelief. We just kept waiting for a miracle to happen," said Johnson, who had attended Leslie Street Public School with Leduc. "He's much too young."

CaptainClown

07-25-2009, 09:25 PM

No, it is not. It in no way helped their cause. They can't win this battle, because it was on church property and the church has it's own rules and regulations. But this is exactly the sort of defiant, flamboyant event that only emboldens your enemies and feeds stereotypes when the goal should be focusing on how you are the same.

Assimilation, not a demand to be accepted, will do better for the gay cause.
qft. Even I get annoyed when my homosexual and Heterosexual friends just have insane amounts of PDA. People don't care or want to see that. I hate seeing couples at the mall making out and i hate seeing homosexual couples doing it just to stir a buzz. If I don't care for it and I am for gay rights then i can only imagine someone who is against gay rights would be thinking

Marx

07-27-2009, 01:10 PM

GILLIBRAND: DADT TO GET SENATE COMMITTEE REVIEW
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/27/dont-ask-dont-tell-to-get-senate-committee-review-senator-says/

A key U.S. Senate committee will hold a hearing on the military's controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays and lesbians, according to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat.

The Senate Armed Services committee will hold the hearing in the fall, she said in a written announcement.

A committee spokeswoman confirmed that there will hearings, but that no specific legislation is under consideration.

"Don't ask, don't tell" is the policy that prevents openly gay troops from serving in the U.S. military.

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton instituted it in 1993 as a way of loosening restrictions on gay men and lesbians serving in the armed forces — the policy ended the requirement that servicemen and women state their sexual orientation. But its opponents say it does not go far enough.

"'Don't ask, don't tell' is an unfair, outdated measure that violates the civil rights of some of our bravest, most heroic men and women," Gillibrand said in her statement. "By repealing this policy, we will increase America's strength — both militarily and morally."

Marx

07-29-2009, 03:28 PM

BOMBING DISRUPTS 'OUTGAMES' EVENT
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=94294

A Seattle-area athlete needed medical treatment Tuesday after small bombs were thrown onto the track at the start of a relay run at the World Outgames. This attack is the second to take place against on attendees since the global LGBT multi-sport event opened last weekend. Three men have been detained as a result of the incidents and police said they are looking for a fourth suspect.

It was not known at press time whether the attacks were related or what the motives were, but police were treating the weekend incident, in which two Danish men reportedly punched and kicked three men from the United Kingdom, Sweden and Norway in a gay-bar district in Copenhagen as they returned from the opening ceremony on Town Hall Square.

Dean Koga of the Seattle Frontrunners team was in the starting block for the 4x200-meter relay on Tuesday afternoon in the newly opened Østerbro Stadium when one or two explosive devices were hurled over a wall at the athletes on the track. No other athletes were injured. Koga’s right hand was injured and required medical personnel to remove shrapnel and stitching, according to his teammates. Koga told his teammates he expected to be able to run in the meet Wednesday.

Less than an hour after the first bomb, another explosion rocked the stadium and a man was seen fleeing a nearby church building, believed to be the site where the bombs were thrown from. Police said they apprehended a 31-year-old Danish man and were looking for a second suspect.

With uniformed and plain clothes police more visible following the incident, the athletes elected to continue after a 90-minute delay from the first bomb.

Marx

07-30-2009, 03:42 PM

OBAMA TO HONOR HARVEY MILK WITH MEDAL OF FREEDOM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/30/medals-of-freedom-obama-h_n_247864.html

The medals are the first to be awarded by Obama and they represent the country's highest honor for a civilian. Obama will present the awards at a ceremony on Aug. 12.

Harvey Milk

Harvey Milk became the first openly gay elected official from a major city in the United States when he was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977. Milk encouraged lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) citizens to live their lives openly and believed coming out was the only way they could change society and achieve social equality. Milk, alongside San Francisco Mayor George Moscone, was shot and killed in 1978 by Dan White, a former city supervisor. Milk is revered nationally and globally as a pioneer of the LGBT civil rights movement for his exceptional leadership and dedication to equal rights.

Marlboro Man

07-31-2009, 12:57 PM

OBAMA TO HONOR HARVEY MILK WITH MEDAL OF FREEDOM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/30/medals-of-freedom-obama-h_n_247864.html

Why? What did Harvey Milk do that was so amazing? He didn't do all that much in his career. I think this could go to someone more deserving.

Marx

07-31-2009, 02:22 PM

Why? What did Harvey Milk do that was so amazing? He didn't do all that much in his career. I think this could go to someone more deserving.

:dry:

Marlboro Man

07-31-2009, 02:46 PM

:dry:

It's true. So he was the first gay politician elected in the United States. From San Francisco. He really didn't break any barriers, didn't accomplish much while he was in office, and is now the face of the gay movement because he was shot and killed.

We never gave the Medal of Freedom to the first African American elected to Congress, or the first woman elected to Congress, but we're giving this medal to the first gay man elected supervisor in San Francisco. I think it could go to someone more deserving.

Ion Kenshin

07-31-2009, 02:47 PM

Like whom?

Marlboro Man

07-31-2009, 02:54 PM

Like whom?

Like Jeanette Rankin or Joseph Rainey, who broke more important barriers, or someone who actually accomplished something.

Marx

07-31-2009, 11:14 PM

I think Harvey Milk is very deserving of this award.

Marx

08-01-2009, 01:12 PM

SUSPECT IN GAY SAILOR'S DEATH COMMITS SUICIDE
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/01/california.sailor.dead/index.html

A sailor accused of killing another sailor was found dead in his cell in a southern California military jail, officials said Friday.

Petty Officer Jonathan Campos was found dead in the brig at the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in San Diego, a military statement said.
The cause of death was self-inflicted asphyxiation, according to the statement.

Campos had been charged with murder in the June 30 shooting death of Seaman August Provost.

Provost was killed while he was standing guard as a sentry for the Assault Craft Unit 5 compound at Camp Pendleton, officials said. Authorities also said Provost's body was set on fire at his guard post.

Provost's family believed that he was killed partly because of his sexual orientation.

However, a spokesman for Camp Pendleton, where the shooting took place, said there was no indication early in the investigation that the killing was a hate crime.

Along with the murder charge, Campos was facing charges of drug use, larceny, burglary, theft, arson and unlawful handling of a deceased individual.

spideyboy_1111

08-01-2009, 05:19 PM

I think Harvey Milk is very deserving of this award.

me too, a very deserving icon. I don't care what anyone's personal feelings are against him or how they view him, but he's an icon to the gay community, and that's all that matters in my eyes. He may not have been the first, nor done as much as others have for the community and go un-sung, but he's not less deserving.

Marlboro Man

08-02-2009, 01:03 PM

me too, a very deserving icon. I don't care what anyone's personal feelings are against him or how they view him, but he's an icon to the gay community, and that's all that matters in my eyes. He may not have been the first, nor done as much as others have for the community and go un-sung, but he's not less deserving.

And that's the problem. He's an icon to the gay community and really the gay community only. This medal seems to be Obama's way of trying to show how gay-friendly he is by honoring an American who didn't do anything to inspire those outside his own ranks. He's not like MLK or any other black civil rights leader, whose inspiration and actions benefited the entire country.

If we're justing handing out these medals based on whose an icon to the gay community, then next year Diana Ross and RuPaul will be honored.

spideyboy_1111

08-02-2009, 03:16 PM

And that's the problem. He's an icon to the gay community and really the gay community only. This medal seems to be Obama's way of trying to show how gay-friendly he is by honoring an American who didn't do anything to inspire those outside his own ranks. He's not like MLK or any other black civil rights leader, whose inspiration and actions benefited the entire country.

If we're justing handing out these medals based on whose an icon to the gay community, then next year Diana Ross and RuPaul will be honored.

wow... and the award to most ignorant post in this thread goes toooooo...

sorry, but you just proved your very biased. i could find you several straight people who would consider Milk a hero.... :o

BlackLantern

08-02-2009, 03:21 PM

spideyboy_1111

08-02-2009, 03:32 PM

a random selection of several straight people or just straight people in L. A.?? Im not trying to be an ass, but Marlboro has a bit of a point...I could stop 10 people on the street here in Connecticut and ask them who Harvel Milk is and 2 or 3 might actually know who he has as opposed to "that Sean Penn movie"

i dont really see that much of a difference. If they know him from watching the movie or in general research. Both did spread his awareness. Now if they just said "now wasn't that a movie?" then yeah.. that wouldn't count.

and regardless there's hero's and icons that alot of people haven't heard of who get awards each year. And Harvey Milk is definately known enough and deserving enough.

Marlboro Man

08-02-2009, 04:17 PM

wow... and the award to most ignorant post in this thread goes toooooo...

sorry, but you just proved your very biased. i could find you several straight people who would consider Milk a hero.... :o

Where? In California? New York City? San Francisco? :huh:

How about Alabama? Where most people don't know or care about who Harvey Milk is? Sure, you have clusters of people all around the country who know who he is and consider him a hero, even a few in the south. But what heroic things did he do for ordinary Americans? What makes him so worthy of this award? He was gay and elected to office? He fought an anti-gay ordinance and won? Big deal, that stuff happens all the time, and it would have happened without him.

That's what I don't get. Harvey Milk isn't comparable to Martin Luther King. He wasn't a leader whose inspiration stretched across all sides of the political spectrum. Harvey Milk was a very selfish, arrogant politician who felt he was the voice of the gay community. If he hadn't been shot, I doubt he'd be remembered as such a great man. But that's what happens: Gay guy gets elected, gets killed, and then he's a martyr and everyone who feels sorry for him takes his life story and twists it into something greater than it was.

BlackLantern

08-02-2009, 04:18 PM

and Sean Penn does the movie to get an Oscar....essentially using Milks legacy to further his own career and validation

spideyboy_1111

08-02-2009, 04:19 PM

Where? In California? New York City? San Francisco? :huh:

How about Alabama? Where most people don't know or care about who Harvey Milk is? Sure, you have clusters of people all around the country who know who he is and consider him a hero, even a few in the south. But what heroic things did he do for ordinary Americans? What makes him so worthy of this award? He was gay and elected to office? He fought an anti-gay ordinance and won? Big deal, that stuff happens all the time, and it would have happened without him.

That's what I don't get. Harvey Milk isn't comparable to Martin Luther King. He wasn't a leader whose inspiration stretched across all sides of the political spectrum. Harvey Milk was a very selfish, arrogant politician who felt he was the voice of the gay community. If he hadn't been shot, I doubt he'd be remembered as such a great man. But that's what happens: Gay guy gets elected, gets killed, and then he's a martyr and everyone who feels sorry for him takes his life story and twists it into something greater than it was.

hardly any modern day "hero" is comparable with MLK... why are you even attempting to argue that? heroes are heroes and they deserve awards, Harvey Milk is more comparable imo to rev al sharpton, in my eyes... he's not a hero to me but respect that he is one for the black community.

BlackLantern

08-02-2009, 04:23 PM

Al Sharpton has constantly used the racial divide to stay relevant, hardly the best example

Marlboro Man

08-02-2009, 04:24 PM

hardly any modern day "hero" is comparable with MLK... why are you even attempting to argue that? heroes are heroes and they deserve awards, Harvey Milk is more comparable imo to rev al sharpton, in my eyes... he's not a hero to me but respect that he is one for the black community.

Harvey Milk wasn't a hero. He was in politics for his own gain. Even the movie hinted at that. He became a hero because people felt sorry he was shot to death.

I do think Milk is comparable to Al Sharpton, but for the wrong reasons, I'm sure. Like Sharpton, Milk was incredulous, and he took credit for advancements in civil rights which weren't of his doing.

Matt

08-02-2009, 04:24 PM

As far as civil rights leaders go, Milk is fairly underwhelming as he didn't do much at all for his cause.

Schlosser85

08-02-2009, 05:07 PM

Harvey Milk is more comparable imo to rev al sharptonhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=310683&page=218#), in my eyes

Ummm....is that supposed to be a positive thing? Because Al Sharpton is far from an admirable figure to me or a lot of other people. He's a phony self-promoting attention whore, just like "Reverend" (:whatever::whatever::whatever:) Jesse Jackson.

Nivek

08-02-2009, 06:49 PM

Why even bring up Al Sharpton like that? He is not a very positive person, he is a grandstander.

Matt

08-02-2009, 07:00 PM

Some will argue Milk was the same. A politician who embraced his sexuality only for self-gain. The fact is, the gay community has not yet had a true champion. It has had some good crusaders, but not a real champion like MLK.

BlackLantern

08-02-2009, 07:09 PM

even today, the gay community really doesn't have a clear cut leader

Marx

08-02-2009, 10:00 PM

Does the gay community really need a 'clear cut' leader? Public opinion is turning for the better without the gay community having a 'leader'.

spideyboy_1111

08-02-2009, 10:28 PM

Does the gay community really need a 'clear cut' leader? Public opinion is turning for the better without the gay community having a 'leader'.

i agree, i think were doing just fine, and i think our community is to diverse to agree on anything anyway. some believe in assimilation, others don't. Some can't stand queens, others hate the term "straight acting gay", while others accept the diversity. I think it's impossible for us to have a true leader, and i don't think we really need one right now. One in the past would have surely sped things up, but i feel like we are definately at a cusp of getting our rights. But it's always darkest before the dawn.

If however, we were to have a leader, i think the best, and most noble of those would be the soldiers who are kicked out due to DADT.

BMM

08-03-2009, 01:06 AM

Does the gay community really need a 'clear cut' leader? Public opinion is turning for the better without the gay community having a 'leader'.

I agree. After the fallout of the passage of Proposition 8, people seemed keen on noting that the Gay Rights Movement is not equivalent to the Civil Rights Movement, so I don’t see why the Gay Rights Movement necessarily needs to take the same approach insofar as a clear cut leader is concerned.

spideyboy_1111

08-03-2009, 01:18 AM

I agree. After the fallout of the passage of Proposition 8, people seemed keen on noting that the Gay Rights Movement is not equivalent to the Civil Rights Movement, so I don’t see why the Gay Rights Movement necessarily needs to take the same approach insofar as a clear cut leader is concerned.

that's debatable too though, ive saw more people say the opposite as well after prop 8 passed. either way though, there not the same, but share many comparable things as well. You can relate it, just not say it's equal in my book. Both are different, yet the same. regardless though, it spread awareness.. and that awareness caused many to choose a side. I don't feel like we need a leader though, I think we've won alot of people over in the last 10 years.

Schlosser85

08-03-2009, 08:26 AM

the Gay Rights Movement is not equivalent to the Civil Rights Movement

It's the present equivalent.

BlackLantern

08-03-2009, 08:30 AM

It's the present equivalent.

I'm not seeing gay people getting beat in the streets, having dogs turned on them or being sprayed with fire hoses, I'm not seeing any gay people get lynched and burned in the street for simply being accused of raping a white person....so no, its NOT the equivalent

spideyboy_1111

08-03-2009, 11:19 AM

I'm not seeing gay people getting beat in the streets, having dogs turned on them or being sprayed with fire hoses, I'm not seeing any gay people get lynched and burned in the street for simply being accused of raping a white person....so no, its NOT the equivalent

depends on how your comparing it... because world wide, even nation wide, it's happening. Just not in the middle of a protest.

a gay club for youths in Tel Aviv just had a shooting at it and was deemed a hate crime. Hell a few weeks ago a bar i think in Texas was it? I think there was a police raid of some sort at a bar where they honestly had no reason to do so. Few weeks prior to that a naval soldier was murdered, his accused killer just recently committed suicide. A few months prior to that a lesbian was raped by 4 guys (whom i believe were never found) in San Fransisco.

So I suggest you check your facts. Or actually read the news.

Marx

08-03-2009, 11:41 AM

The Gay Rights Movement has similarities to the Civil Rights Movement. I do not think it's wise for anyone to suggest the two struggles are entirely equal.

BlackLantern

08-03-2009, 11:46 AM

depends on how your comparing it... because world wide, even nation wide, it's happening. Just not in the middle of a protest.

a gay club for youths in Tel Aviv just had a shooting at it and was deemed a hate crime. Hell a few weeks ago a bar i think in Texas was it? I think there was a police raid of some sort at a bar where they honestly had no reason to do so. Few weeks prior to that a naval soldier was murdered, his accused killer just recently committed suicide. A few months prior to that a lesbian was raped by 4 guys (whom i believe were never found) in San Fransisco.

So I suggest you check your facts. Or actually read the news.

I am aware of those events, except for the one in Tel Aviv, Ill read up on that....and you keep sassing me that way, that duct tape over your mouth will become literal instead of just a political statement:oldrazz:

The Gay Rights Movement has similarities to the Civil Rights Movement. I do not think it's wise for anyone to suggest the two struggles are entirely equal.

thank you Marx, you put it perfectly.....people shouldn't use it as a reason for the minority communities to be on their side...we had to fight for our equality and 400 years later are still fighting....the gay community has to fight for theirs

spideyboy_1111

08-03-2009, 12:11 PM

The Gay Rights Movement has similarities to the Civil Rights Movement. I do not think it's wise for anyone to suggest the two struggles are entirely equal.

agrees, well said :up:

spideyboy_1111

08-03-2009, 12:20 PM

I am aware of those events, except for the one in Tel Aviv, Ill read up on that....and you keep sassing me that way, that duct tape over your mouth will become literal instead of just a political statement:oldrazz: the Tel Aviv one just happened either yesterday or the day before I believe... or at least when I first heard about it on the news.

thank you Marx, you put it perfectly.....people shouldn't use it as a reason for the minority communities to be on their side...we had to fight for our equality and 400 years later are still fighting....the gay community has to fight for theirs

I dunno, I still get mixed emotions about this. I think people should settle there differences and use the commonalities to support each other. But alas, this is not a perfect world. It's a selfish one.

BMM

08-03-2009, 12:53 PM

It's the present equivalent.

By that, I mean both struggles stem from the same place, but they do not face the same obstacles in exactly the same manner.

StorminNorman

08-03-2009, 12:57 PM

OBAMA TO HONOR HARVEY MILK WITH MEDAL OF FREEDOM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/30/medals-of-freedom-obama-h_n_247864.html

They really should give this award to Sean Penn. Without his performance, without that movie - Milk doesn't get this award.

Does the gay community really need a 'clear cut' leader? Public opinion is turning for the better without the gay community having a 'leader'.

I think the Gay Community is doing a great deal of harm to their agenda by refusing to focus on what makes them the same as heterosexuals and instead playing on flamboyant sterotypes. Examples like the ridiculous H8 tape over mouth art thing and the "Kiss In" protest at the Mormon building are incredibly...stupid.

The Gay Community should be focused on ASSIMILATING into American culture - not fighting for acceptance of their culture. While that sounds harsh and cruel and intolerant and whatever - if you look at American history the communties that have best conquered prejudices were communities that didn't look to make waves and instead took pride in being like everyone else.

Marx

08-03-2009, 01:00 PM

I think the Gay Community is doing a great deal of harm to their agenda by refusing to focus on what makes them the same as heterosexuals and instead playing on flamboyant sterotypes. Examples like the ridiculous H8 tape over mouth art thing and the "Kiss In" protest at the Mormon building are incredibly...stupid.

The Gay Community should be focused on ASSIMILATING into American culture - not fighting for acceptance of their culture. While that sounds harsh and cruel and intolerant and whatever - if you look at American history the communties that have best conquered prejudices were communities that didn't look to make waves and instead took pride in being like everyone else.

Overly-sexed 'Pride' festivals and Perez Hilton do not represent the majority of the gay community. You and I both know that the most vocal minority gets the most attention.

Ion Kenshin

08-03-2009, 01:01 PM

There is nothing wrong with taking pride in being like everyone else but shouldn't that involve getting all the same rights as everyone else.

spideyboy_1111

08-03-2009, 01:04 PM

They really should give this award to Sean Penn. Without his performance, without that movie - Milk doesn't get this award.

I think the Gay Community is doing a great deal of harm to their agenda by refusing to focus on what makes them the same as heterosexuals and instead playing on flamboyant sterotypes. Examples like the ridiculous H8 tape over mouth art thing and the "Kiss In" protest at the Mormon building are incredibly...stupid.

The Gay Community should be focused on ASSIMILATING into American culture - not fighting for acceptance of their culture. While that sounds harsh and cruel and intolerant and whatever - if you look at American history the communties that have best conquered prejudices were communities that didn't look to make waves and instead took pride in being like everyone else.

sorry but this is incredibly condescending considering the fact "American culture" is unable to "assimilate" to. It's so ridiculously diverse, and what you're really trying to say is "gay people should just change and become what "i'm" use to". every community in America is diverse from the other, from race, to culture, to gender, to location. Your attitude of "be like us, or we will always treat you different" so incredibly ridiculous and the very thing that hate and discrimination stems from. We've been fighting a long time, and I've only seen progression, so not exactly sure how were being "hurt" maybe delayed in the long run, but i'd rather fight for a longer time, without sacrificing others integrity then force people to become what there not in order to get it over quicker.

BlackLantern

08-03-2009, 01:05 PM

I dunno, I still get mixed emotions about this. I think people should settle there differences and use the commonalities to support each other. But alas, this is not a perfect world. It's a selfish one.

...now you're coming around:hehe:

StorminNorman

08-03-2009, 01:22 PM

Overly-sexed 'Pride' festivals and Perez Hilton do not represent the majority of the gay community. You and I both know that the most vocal minority gets the most attention.

No they do not represent the majority - but they do represent the majority of gay coverage. That's the problem. The gay community has the responsibility of DENOUNCING their most vocal minority.

There is nothing wrong with taking pride in being like everyone else but shouldn't that involve getting all the same rights as everyone else.

If gay rights advocates would stop making the gay marriage issue one of accepting the perception of "gay culture" and more about simply earning rights for Americans not unlike their straight counterparts, they would fine less tension. Feeding into admittingly ignorant sterotypes does nothing beneficial for their cause.

sorry but this is incredibly condescending considering the fact "American culture" is unable to "assimilate" to. It's so ridiculously diverse, and what you're really trying to say is "gay people should just change and become what "i'm" use to". every community in America is diverse from the other, from race, to culture, to gender, to location. Your attitude of "be like us, or we will always treat you different" so incredibly ridiculous and the very thing that hate and discrimination stems from. We've been fighting a long time, and I've only seen progression, so not exactly sure how were being "hurt" maybe delayed in the long run, but i'd rather fight for a longer time, without sacrificing others integrity then force people to become what there not in order to get it over quicker.

The attitude of "be like us, or we will always treat you different" may be ridiculous - but it's also factual. Again, lets cut the PC bull and get right to the heart of the matter - the average American is intimidated/irritated/afraid/whatever of the HOMOSEXUAL STEROTYPE. Now there is also a portion of the very fundamental religion American that sees gays as sinners doomed to damnation or whatever - but they aren't the average American and really aren't to blame for the failure of gay rights. If the church's opinion was enough to influence domestic policy, issues like abortion and other "christian" issues would be different.

If you want to fight a war for acceptance of your culture - fine. But you are going to lose because people can't be forced to accept your culture.

Ion Kenshin

08-03-2009, 01:27 PM

If gay rights advocates would stop making the gay marriage issue one of accepting the perception of "gay culture" and more about simply earning rights for Americans not unlike their straight counterparts, they would fine less tension. Feeding into admittingly ignorant sterotypes does nothing beneficial for their cause.
The stereotypes are not going to go away. Just because someone is a stereotypical homosexual does that mean that they should not get the proper rights?? I dont need gay culture to be accepted. I really dont. Love me or hate me I dont give a damn just give me the right that everyone deserves. People don't various stereotypical miorities but they still get all their rights.

spideyboy_1111

08-03-2009, 01:33 PM

No they do not represent the majority - but they do represent the majority of gay coverage. That's the problem. The gay community has the responsibility of DENOUNCING their most vocal minority.

we have.... :o, people and many groups publically flamed Perez

The attitude of "be like us, or we will always treat you different" may be ridiculous - but it's also factual. Again, lets cut the PC bull and get right to the heart of the matter - the average American is intimidated/irritated/afraid/whatever of the HOMOSEXUAL STEROTYPE. Now there is also a portion of the very fundamental religion American that sees gays as sinners doomed to damnation or whatever - but they aren't the average American and really aren't to blame for the failure of gay rights. If the church's opinion was enough to influence domestic policy, issues like abortion and other "christian" issues would be different.

If you want to fight a war for acceptance of your culture - fine. But you are going to lose because people can't be forced to accept your culture.

and your attitude of coming off like a closet homophobe is getting beyond ridiculous as well. Sure i may not agree with every "type" of person in our community... and agree some spread stereotypes... but I think assimilation is insulting and ridiculous. that's like telling the black community to stop acting "gangsta" in order to be accepted more... basically what your saying is act like a straight white person or be ridiculed. That is not what this country is about, and if you honestly have that believe you need to take a step back and realize how that sounds.

and we've honestly shown no signs of losing even with prop 8's passing over the last 10 years... its been alot of progression. So.... keep being a pessimist. Losing at this point essentially means losing all our rights, and being witch hunted, and put into prison and killed. That would be losing... a step back is not losing the war, just a minor battle.

Marlboro Man

08-03-2009, 01:36 PM

Overly-sexed 'Pride' festivals and Perez Hilton do not represent the majority of the gay community. You and I both know that the most vocal minority gets the most attention.

And that's the problem. The gay community as a whole doesn't do anything to silence the loud, crazy types. Many of these gay activists are just as extreme as the religious fanatics. Both groups are trying to force their beliefs on everyone else and they leave out everyone in the middle. The gay activists leave out the gay people who don't spend their weekends strung up on ecstasy at local clubs or dance around half-naked in front of children, and the religious fanatics leave out the people who don't believe we should be condemning gays to death for their lifestyles.

No one has come out to say "hey, we're not all like that." So the message we all get is "everyone should do whatever they want without consequences and you should accept us because you should." And then gay people scratch their heads and get angry when average Americans don't want to support their cause, and then they turn around and say everyone is "ignorant" or "hateful" when many times that isn't the case.

spideyboy_1111

08-03-2009, 01:37 PM

spideyboy_1111

08-03-2009, 01:41 PM

And that's the problem. The gay community as a whole doesn't do anything to silence the loud, crazy types. Many of these gay activists are just as extreme as the religious fanatics. Both groups are trying to force their beliefs on everyone else and they leave out everyone in the middle. The gay activists leave out the gay people who don't spend their weekends strung up on ecstasy at local clubs or dance around half-naked in front of children, and the religious fanatics leave out the people who don't believe we should be condemning gays to death for their lifestyles.

No one has come out to say "hey, we're not all like that." So the message we all get is "everyone should do whatever they want without consequences and you should accept us because you should." And then gay people scratch their heads and get angry when average Americans don't want to support their cause, and then they turn around and say everyone is "ignorant" or "hateful" when many times that isn't the case.

actually alot of people say "were not all like that" you're just not looking for it. I've seen plenty of christians come out and say how ridiculous there faith is acting, and ive seen many a gay come out against the "stereotype". I for one also have never seen the gay community press there beliefs on anyone... demanding rights is not a belief, were not trying to force people to be gay or go to pride festivals.

people really need to hit more news sources then there local tv or this thread *rollseyes*

Marlboro Man

08-03-2009, 01:59 PM

exactly... there's always going to be flaming queens, always going to be asians who for the life of them can't pronounce R's and L's correctly, inbred white trailer trash, gang banger blacks, lazy mexicans, canadians who say "don't cha know", diversity is what america is about... and its about letting people live the way they want to (As long as it doesn't harm others, or take away others rights). Asking any group that is not your own to assimilate is incredibly insulting.

I'm sorry but the examples you provided are irrelevant. If this was about skin color, or not being able to pronounce things correctly, then gays would have had their rights decades ago. This whole movement is based on sexuality and the sexualization of our culture. It is the reason why people are pushing for gay rights and why people are pushing against it.

I think most Americans don't care what two consenting adults do in their own homes, as far as sex goes. But I do think people from all walks of life don't want to see it in public. So when you have scantily-dressed gays making lewd gestures in public during "pride" events, you are perpetuating many stereotypes about gays that hurts your cause. And you can't just say "well live with it" or "youre ignorant" because I do think people offended by those displays have a valid point. Yeah, their fears are totally irrational, but they are not without base. I think the gay community fails to seriously examine some of the arguments being made by the other side. They just chalk those arguments up to pure ignorance and intolerance and go about their ways.

I think gays need to stop with some of the lewd displays, whether it is in pride events or on church property. Because all their doing is offending people and not achieving anything. You can sit back and laugh at the ignorance of those who don't understand what you're doing, and the whole community can be proud of pissing everyone off, but in the end, the people who are offended are the ones who win because there are more of them in the world than there are you, and their voices are heard tenfold on election day.

StorminNorman

08-03-2009, 02:18 PM

The stereotypes are not going to go away. Just because someone is a stereotypical homosexual does that mean that they should not get the proper rights?? I dont need gay culture to be accepted. I really dont. Love me or hate me I dont give a damn just give me the right that everyone deserves. People don't various stereotypical miorities but they still get all their rights.

But it IS about being accepted - because this is a political issue and politics is all about PERCEPTION and nothing to do with reality. Gay stereotypes will always exist - just as Jewish, German, Italian, etc. stereotypes exist - but most of those stereotypes, while still acknowledged and joked about, no longer isolate those communities because they are no longer the most vocal aspects of those communities.

we have.... :o, people and many groups publically flamed Perez

Not loudly enough. You must steal the spot light from Perez Hilton, not simply criticize him.

and your attitude of coming off like a closet homophobe is getting beyond ridiculous as well. Sure i may not agree with every "type" of person in our community... and agree some spread stereotypes... but I think assimilation is insulting and ridiculous. that's like telling the black community to stop acting "gangsta" in order to be accepted more... basically what your saying is act like a straight white person or be ridiculed. That is not what this country is about, and if you honestly have that believe you need to take a step back and realize how that sounds.

I have no problem coming off as a closet homophobe because the reality is about as opposite as I can. I have many gay friends, I have flamboyant gay friends, I feel absolutely comfortable being in gay bars. I have nothing but the utmost respect to even the most out-of-norm members of the gay community. But I also know that I am very unique, I do not represent America as a whole and thus my own personal tastes are almost completely irrelevant.

I also am perfectly aware of how bad it sounds - but, again, if you look at the cultures that have had the best success gaining acceptance, it's the ones that act, as you describe it, like "white straight Americans".

BlackLantern

08-03-2009, 02:19 PM

spideyboy_1111

08-03-2009, 02:39 PM

I'm sorry but the examples you provided are irrelevant. If this was about skin color, or not being able to pronounce things correctly, then gays would have had their rights decades ago. This whole movement is based on sexuality and the sexualization of our culture. It is the reason why people are pushing for gay rights and why people are pushing against it.

I think most Americans don't care what two consenting adults do in their own homes, as far as sex goes. But I do think people from all walks of life don't want to see it in public. So when you have scantily-dressed gays making lewd gestures in public during "pride" events, you are perpetuating many stereotypes about gays that hurts your cause. And you can't just say "well live with it" or "youre ignorant" because I do think people offended by those displays have a valid point. Yeah, their fears are totally irrational, but they are not without base. I think the gay community fails to seriously examine some of the arguments being made by the other side. They just chalk those arguments up to pure ignorance and intolerance and go about their ways.

I think gays need to stop with some of the lewd displays, whether it is in pride events or on church property. Because all their doing is offending people and not achieving anything. You can sit back and laugh at the ignorance of those who don't understand what you're doing, and the whole community can be proud of pissing everyone off, but in the end, the people who are offended are the ones who win because there are more of them in the world than there are you, and their voices are heard tenfold on election day.

1) public sexuality they can help, but some stereotypical gay men or women would argue they can't act non "flamey" or "butch" which is the part im arguing. Also, these sexual acts are 99% of the time in areas and communities where it is deemed "safe" and some would argue "allowable". There's a difference imo of a guy walking around half naked in west hollywood or boystown then walking around like that in a suburban mall in ohio. public sex in general i frown upon though.

2)lewd displays tend to happen in a closed off area, where you have to actually pay to get in, or in there self contained bars (Which is the owners choice or not to allow). One must remember there's a decent number of nude beaches and topless festivals in the US as well (believe it or not). So imo if you say gay's can't, then I suggest these places be given the same treatment. Now again, i wouldnt agree with public sexual acts being done in the middle of suburban america out in public. That is indeed an invasion of other peoples rights and i don't support that. (not saying i support lewd acts in general, but as long as it's in a restricted or private area, or "safe haven" where the amount of people who would accept it out number those who wouldn't.... then well i wont fight or argue it. It's those who are offended's fault for walking into that.

3) well thats actually debatable too.. the mormon church put alot of money in campaigns which were based on lies. things were in our favor until the lie about "kids being taught about gay marriage in school" was put out.

BlackLantern

08-03-2009, 02:42 PM

and people believed those lies......and not to mention the anti - 8 movement did almost no outreach in minority neighborhoods...why not do an anti-8 protest on Crenshaw??

spideyboy_1111

08-03-2009, 02:45 PM

and people believed those lies......and not to mention the anti - 8 movement did almost no outreach in minority neighborhoods...why not do an anti-8 protest on Crenshaw??

yeah, those lies really bothered me.

personally i think a place like crenshaw would do more anger then support.... I think door to door works better for an area like that, but cities that are on the fence i think a protest could work. Just not ones that are clearly against us already.

Marlboro Man

08-03-2009, 02:54 PM

1) public sexuality they can help, but some stereotypical gay men or women would argue they can't act non "flamey" or "butch" which is the part im arguing. Also, these sexual acts are 99% of the time in areas and communities where it is deemed "safe" and some would argue "allowable". There's a difference imo of a guy walking around half naked in west hollywood or boystown then walking around like that in a suburban mall in ohio. public sex in general i frown upon though.

The sexual displays/ gay pride events may happen in places that are deemed "safe" to gays but guess what? The media covers these events all the same, so while John Smith in Huntsville, AL may have no intention of ever setting foot inside West Hollywood during pride week, he may be exposed to it through TV.

2)lewd displays tend to happen in a closed off area, where you have to actually pay to get in, or in there self contained bars (Which is the owners choice or not to allow). One must remember there's a decent number of nude beaches and topless festivals in the US as well (believe it or not). So imo if you say gay's can't, then I suggest these places be given the same treatment. Now again, i wouldnt agree with public sexual acts being done in the middle of suburban america out in public. That is indeed an invasion of other peoples rights and i don't support that. (not saying i support lewd acts in general, but as long as it's in a restricted or private area, or "safe haven" where the amount of people who would accept it out number those who wouldn't.... then well i wont fight or argue it. It's those who are offended's fault for walking into that.

I consider men who dance half-naked on floats, grinding against each other, to be a lewd display. Last time I checked, city streets are public property, and many of the displays which gay people partake in at these festivals are considered "lewd" by law.

3) well thats actually debatable too.. the mormon church put alot of money in campaigns which were based on lies. things were in our favor until the lie about "kids being taught about gay marriage in school" was put out.

So what? They may have put out lies (in your opinion), they may have said that if gay marriage passed all gays would turn into 1500 foot tall radioactive monsters who would feast upon the souls of children... but guess what? Their strategies still worked, because the mormons were able to capitalize on fear.

Gays didn't portray themselves as everyday people during that campaign, the activist sect of the gay community was out in full force. Extremism fought the battle on both sides, and the religious extremists ultimately won.

BlackLantern

08-03-2009, 03:04 PM

yeah, those lies really bothered me.

personally i think a place like crenshaw would do more anger then support.... I think door to door works better for an area like that, but cities that are on the fence i think a protest could work. Just not ones that are clearly against us already.

I agree fully, but not even that was done....now with the Proposition in place, what is the next step as it comes to legal recourse?? will there be another vote to remove it next term or what??

Marx

08-03-2009, 03:22 PM

No they do not represent the majority - but they do represent the majority of gay coverage. That's the problem. The gay community has the responsibility of DENOUNCING their most vocal minority.

And that's the problem. The gay community as a whole doesn't do anything to silence the loud, crazy types. Many of these gay activists are just as extreme as the religious fanatics. Both groups are trying to force their beliefs on everyone else and they leave out everyone in the middle. The gay activists leave out the gay people who don't spend their weekends strung up on ecstasy at local clubs or dance around half-naked in front of children, and the religious fanatics leave out the people who don't believe we should be condemning gays to death for their lifestyles.

No one has come out to say "hey, we're not all like that." So the message we all get is "everyone should do whatever they want without consequences and you should accept us because you should." And then gay people scratch their heads and get angry when average Americans don't want to support their cause, and then they turn around and say everyone is "ignorant" or "hateful" when many times that isn't the case.

You are never going to be able to silence a vocal minority. (And you both know that.)

StorminNorman

08-03-2009, 04:02 PM

You are never going to be able to silence a vocal minority. (And you both know that.)

It has nothing to do with SILENCING the minority - it has everything to do with VOCALIZING the majority and, more importantly, VOCALIZING the majority AGAINST the minority.

After all, isn't that what we all want the GOP to do with the fringe right?

Marx

08-03-2009, 04:06 PM

It has nothing to do with SILENCING the minority - it has everything to do with VOCALIZING the majority and, more importantly, VOCALIZING the majority AGAINST the minority.

After all, isn't that what we all want the GOP to do with the fringe right?

You act as though the majority of the gay community has stood by and said nothing. That's not true.

As far as your GOP comparison...anyone who speaks out against the fringe right ends up apologizing for it shortly thereafter.

StorminNorman

08-03-2009, 04:11 PM

You act as though the majority of the gay community has stood by and said nothing. That's not true.

Saying the right things mean nothing if no one listens. Which is what I am saying - until Mary Suzie Homemaker can hear the majority of the gay community over the sounds of Perez Hilton, the gay rights cause is has a gigantic hill to climb.

As far as your GOP comparison...anyone who speaks out against the fringe right ends up apologizing for it shortly thereafter.

That's because the line politicians walk is far narrower than issue advocates.

Marx

08-03-2009, 04:16 PM

Saying the right things mean nothing if no one listens. Which is what I am saying - until Mary Suzie Homemaker can hear the majority of the gay community over the sounds of Perez Hilton, the gay rights cause is has a gigantic hill to climb.

Mary Suzie Homemaker should realize that the most vocal idiot does not represent the majority. That is true with anything.

That's because the line politicians walk is far narrower than issue advocates.

...and that still does not make it acceptable.

spideyboy_1111

08-03-2009, 04:44 PM

The sexual displays/ gay pride events may happen in places that are deemed "safe" to gays but guess what? The media covers these events all the same, so while John Smith in Huntsville, AL may have no intention of ever setting foot inside West Hollywood during pride week, he may be exposed to it through TV.

I consider men who dance half-naked on floats, grinding against each other, to be a lewd display. Last time I checked, city streets are public property, and many of the displays which gay people partake in at these festivals are considered "lewd" by law. sorry ive never seen the media cover a "real" lude act... go go boys and girls are at both strait and gay bars and clubs these days. And don't consider that lude, considering you see alot more of girls half naked in movies and tv doing the same. many? last time I checked "grinding" wasnt against the law... :o

So what? They may have put out lies (in your opinion), they may have said that if gay marriage passed all gays would turn into 1500 foot tall radioactive monsters who would feast upon the souls of children... but guess what? Their strategies still worked, because the mormons were able to capitalize on fear. In my opinion? dude, wtf? you honestly think elementary schools are going to teach about marriage? let alone GAY marriage? it's not just "my opinion" its actually been proven fact.

Gays didn't portray themselves as everyday people during that campaign, the activist sect of the gay community was out in full force. Extremism fought the battle on both sides, and the religious extremists ultimately won.
o really? looks like you only saw the after... not the before. The anti-prop 8 adds were very much reflective upon the the straight society and how "normal" we are.

BkhhD6Gqz34 This one was actually VERY affective, but couldn't compete after the "school" lies that were spit out 2 months before the election.

spideyboy_1111

08-03-2009, 04:46 PM

I agree fully, but not even that was done....now with the Proposition in place, what is the next step as it comes to legal recourse?? will there be another vote to remove it next term or what??

actually it may have been done. Just because we didn't hear about it, doesn't mean it wasn't done... i know there was alot of door to door activity in some areas, i just don't have a map of what. And yeah it's going to elections again next fall i think?

Marlboro Man

08-03-2009, 04:46 PM

It has nothing to do with SILENCING the minority - it has everything to do with VOCALIZING the majority and, more importantly, VOCALIZING the majority AGAINST the minority.

After all, isn't that what we all want the GOP to do with the fringe right?

Exactly. The extremists always get more attention, because their views or lifestyles are more radical and interesting to cover. But, if the majority stands up and works behind the scenes to denounce the majority, or simply does more to prove that not everyone is sitting on the fringe, then they have a better chance at convincing people in the center to jump on their side of an issue. It is up to the gay community to convince people in the center that they deserve the rights they want. They have to show people who may be "freaked out" by homosexuality that not all homosexuals are flamboyant cartoon characters. In some parts of the country, that's just how they come across, and that's why gays may never expand their rights in the deep south or the southwest.

spideyboy_1111

08-03-2009, 04:49 PM

It has nothing to do with SILENCING the minority - it has everything to do with VOCALIZING the majority and, more importantly, VOCALIZING the majority AGAINST the minority.

After all, isn't that what we all want the GOP to do with the fringe right?

unfortunately you can blame the tv media on that one. You'd be surprised what you can find on better news sources like huffington post. The Tv media will always cover the more "shocking" and outlandish no matter how hard or how much the opposing side denounces it.

Marlboro Man

08-03-2009, 04:53 PM

sorry ive never seen the media cover a "real" lude act... go go boys and girls are at both strait and gay bars and clubs these days. And don't consider that lude, considering you see alot more of girls half naked in movies and tv doing the same. many? last time I checked "grinding" wasnt against the law... :o

Bars are private places. If people don't want to encounter that sort of thing, then they don't have to walk into a bar. However, nothing prevents them from seeing two half-naked men frotting in the middle of the street, a public place, during a pride parade/ festival.

In my opinion? dude, wtf? you honestly think elementary schools are going to teach about marriage? let alone GAY marriage? it's not just "my opinion" its actually been proven fact.

Anything is possible. I think gays really have no leg to stand on when they say "they won't teach about gay marriage in schools," because who knows if that's true. Also, kids ask questions all the time, if a kid asks about gay marriage to a teacher then it is possible the teacher will discuss it with students.

o really? looks like you only saw the after... not the before. The anti-prop 8 adds were very much reflective upon the the straight society and how "normal" we are.

BkhhD6Gqz34 This one was actually VERY affective, but couldn't compete after the "school" lies that were spit out 2 months before the election.

The "school" ads ran two months before the election, right? Why didn't the anti-8 activists spend those two months hammering down on those ads? Why didn't they do more to convince the people in the center to vote against the proposition? There were polls out that showed this proposition going down in flames months before the vote took place. I think it is stupid to blame the Mormons or homophobes when it looks like this defeat was a total failure on the behalf of pro-gay activists.

Kelly

08-03-2009, 04:56 PM

Also, kids ask questions all the time, if a kid asks about gay marriage to a teacher then it is possible the teacher will discuss it with students.

I had a gay student ask about gay marriage when we were talking about the campaign last Fall....we talked about it......

I'm not gay, it was question....and we discussed as a class.

spideyboy_1111

08-03-2009, 05:05 PM

I had a gay student ask about gay marriage when we were talking about the campaign last Fall....we talked about it......

I'm not gay, it was question....and we discussed as a class.

yes but it wasn't curriculum. And was discussed regardless of gay marriage passing or not.

Kelly

08-03-2009, 05:07 PM

yes but it wasn't curriculum. And was discussed regardless of gay marriage passing or not.

It's policy, so that is curriculum in my class.....

spideyboy_1111

08-03-2009, 05:26 PM

Bars are private places. If people don't want to encounter that sort of thing, then they don't have to walk into a bar. However, nothing prevents them from seeing two half-naked men frotting in the middle of the street, a public place, during a pride parade/ festival. people just don't stumble upon a pride festival... :o and second, no one would complain if they were women walking around in bikinis...

Anything is possible. I think gays really have no leg to stand on when they say "they won't teach about gay marriage in schools," because who knows if that's true. Also, kids ask questions all the time, if a kid asks about gay marriage to a teacher then it is possible the teacher will discuss it with students. like i said before... the fear was that it would be TAUGHT, as in curriculum.

The "school" ads ran two months before the election, right? Why didn't the anti-8 activists spend those two months hammering down on those ads? Why didn't they do more to convince the people in the center to vote against the proposition? There were polls out that showed this proposition going down in flames months before the vote took place. I think it is stupid to blame the Mormons or homophobes when it looks like this defeat was a total failure on the behalf of pro-gay activists. Well truth be told, it was a last ditched effort by the prop 8 supporters. i can't answer that question, but i do know the prop 8 campaign got extra money in the end from supporters of the mormon church... when the anti-8 campaign may have run low on money... who knows?

spideyboy_1111

08-03-2009, 05:28 PM

It's policy, so that is curriculum in my class.....

really? you're schools policy is to answer whatever question the student asks as a full class discussion, no matter what that question may be? I find that a little hard to believe considering most schools these days still send out permission slips for sex ed classes... :o

Marlboro Man

08-03-2009, 05:34 PM

people just don't stumble upon a pride festival... :o and second, no one would complain if they were women walking around in bikinis...

1) If there are businesses in the area, then yeah, some people must wander though those festivities to get there.

2) I think that claim is without base, and that's not the issue anyway. Don't turn this into "straight is more acceptable," because that's not what I'm arguing.

like i said before... the fear was that it would be TAUGHT, as in curriculum.

It very well could be. If it is a policy course like kel said, it could be taught as curriculum. If it is a home ec course, it could be taught as part of the curriculum. Since the gay community likes to be offended by their lack of inclusion, I wouldn't be surprised to see gay parents demand that gay marriage and single-sex family planning is taught in schools.

Well truth be told, it was a last ditched effort by the prop 8 supporters. i can't answer that question, but i do know the prop 8 campaign got extra money in the end from supporters of the mormon church... when the anti-8 campaign may have run low on money... who knows?

Then it was their responsibility to get more money and use that to their advantage, or figure out more cost-effective ways to campaign for their cause. Not sit around and hope that the proposition would be defeated, then wage a holy war against the mormon church because it passed.

spideyboy_1111

08-03-2009, 05:52 PM

1) If there are businesses in the area, then yeah, some people must wander though those festivities to get there.

2) I think that claim is without base, and that's not the issue anyway. Don't turn this into "straight is more acceptable," because that's not what I'm arguing. If you're use to working in the "gay" area... your probably use to seeing worse... and no matter what festivity.. most people don't have to go through it to reach where they need to go....

2) it's still true. i don't see what the big deal is.. if you don't want to see guys in speedos, don't go to the beach either.

It very well could be. If it is a policy course like kel said, it could be taught as curriculum. If it is a home ec course, it could be taught as part of the curriculum. Since the gay community likes to be offended by their lack of inclusion, I wouldn't be surprised to see gay parents demand that gay marriage and single-sex family planning is taught in schools.
why? straight marriage isn't taught in schools either, and even if it was it'd be taught in 11th and 12th grade were you learn about government and civil rights.

Then it was their responsibility to get more money and use that to their advantage, or figure out more cost-effective ways to campaign for their cause. Not sit around and hope that the proposition would be defeated, then wage a holy war against the mormon church because it passed.
[/QUOTE] Sorry... but its politics, you can't always be prepared for everything. I love how you act like it's so easy to just pull money out of a hat. They didn't "sit around" Please speak after looking at facts, not hear say.

Marlboro Man

08-03-2009, 06:01 PM

If you're use to working in the "gay" area... your probably use to seeing worse... and no matter what festivity.. most people don't have to go through it to reach where they need to go....

2) it's still true. i don't see what the big deal is.. if you don't want to see guys in speedos, don't go to the beach either.

Sometimes, there aren't "gay areas" of a city where these events take place. There aren't real gay districts in Huntsville or Memphis or Birmingham and there are gay pride festivals. Not every city is San Francisco or New York, they don't designate neighborhoods as gay districts, so sometimes there are places where two opposing groups clash.

Also, when you go to the beach, you usually don't see men perversely rubbing their bodies on other people or making out or essentially promoting sex every second in broad daylight. You see that at pride events. You see men and women dressing in drag, you see them making out and promoting sex.

You have conservative people who really don't like seeing that stuff being forced to see it sometimes, or stumbling across it on the news, and that's the image they automatically get of the gay rights movement. That it is all about sex. Kids see that stuff too, they ask questions, parents have to address it. I think people in general are against a highly sexualized culture.

why? straight marriage isn't taught in schools either, and even if it was it'd be taught in 11th and 12th grade were you learn about government and civil rights.

It may not be taught in schools but it becomes a part of the discourse as early as kindergarten. Kids want to know about marriage, they read stories about marriage, they play 'house' at recess and they ask questions to their teachers. Innocent questions, yes, but if a kid asks if two men can marry, what is the teacher going to say? If it is a foreign concept to these kids, then they are bound to ask more questions, get into other details, and essentially they get a lesson in gay marriage. Then, the kid goes home, tells the parents, and some parents might become concerned. Therefore, I think it is a legitimate point.

[/quote] Sorry... but its politics, you can't always be prepared for everything. I love how you act like it's so easy to just pull money out of a hat. They didn't "sit around" Please speak after looking at facts, not hear say.[/quote]

It was easy for the Mormon Church to pull all that money out from nowhere in a short amount of time. Why couldn't the gay community do it?

StorminNorman

08-03-2009, 07:50 PM

Mary Suzie Homemaker should realize that the most vocal idiot does not represent the majority. That is true with anything.

What the world SHOULD be is irrelevant - in politics you have to account for what the world IS. The Gay Rights movement does itself great harm in acting on how they view the would should be.

spideyboy_1111

08-03-2009, 08:03 PM

What the world SHOULD be is irrelevant - in politics you have to account for what the world IS. The Gay Rights movement does itself great harm in acting on how they view the would should be.

? how exactly are we acting as if the world should be? I really don't think acceptance of others and equality is to much to ask. How you have gay friends like you claim is beyond me. Because you really have a hard time coming off respectful to us.

Marlboro Man

08-03-2009, 08:22 PM

? how exactly are we acting as if the world should be? I really don't think acceptance of others and equality is to much to ask. How you have gay friends like you claim is beyond me. Because you really have a hard time coming off respectful to us.

The gay community thinks people should see their way or else their ignorant, homophobic, prejudiced, etc. That's not always the case. You expect people to give up their traditions and beliefs because you want them to. You aren't giving them any real reason to see your side of the debate, because you fail to see theirs. That's the sort of arrogance that is setting the gay rights movement back. It has steam now in liberal states, but like I said, once you start moving south and west you're going to have a hard time convincing people that you have the best argument if you keep the same attitudes.

redfirebird2008

08-03-2009, 08:25 PM

The gay community thinks people should see their way or else their ignorant, homophobic, prejudiced, etc. That's not always the case. You expect people to give up their traditions and beliefs because you want them to. You aren't giving them any real reason to see your side of the debate, because you fail to see theirs. That's the sort of arrogance that is setting the gay rights movement back. It has steam now in liberal states, but like I said, once you start moving south and west you're going to have a hard time convincing people that you have the best argument if you keep the same attitudes.

Segregation was a tradition. I guess blacks should have been sensitive to the delicate sensibilities of that tradition instead of speaking out against it.

Marlboro Man

08-03-2009, 08:31 PM

Segregation was a tradition. I guess blacks should have been sensitive to the delicate sensibilities of that tradition instead of speaking out against it.

Segregation and the gay rights movement are incomparable. Gays are allowed to go about their daily business like everyone else. They're allowed to work pretty much anywhere, go to school wherever they want, eat wherever they want, and they're allowed to go home and have sex with whoever they want - all of that within the law. They're fighting for gay marriage, gay adoption, hate crime laws, being able to serve openly in the military, etc.... gays have it pretty good compared to the blacks 40 years ago. So I don't see the comparison or how that snide comment is relevant here.

StorminNorman

08-03-2009, 08:37 PM

? how exactly are we acting as if the world should be?

Look at Marx's and my exchange and it should help you realize the context.

I really don't think acceptance of others and equality is to much to ask. How you have gay friends like you claim is beyond me. Because you really have a hard time coming off respectful to us.

That's because you completely misunderstand what I am saying. Which is completely understandable - I am coming purely from a place of politics where as this issue is significantly more than just politics to you. It is personal, as it should be.

cerealkiller182

08-03-2009, 08:38 PM

edit

spideyboy_1111

08-03-2009, 09:15 PM

The gay community thinks people should see their way or else their ignorant, homophobic, prejudiced, etc. That's not always the case. You expect people to give up their traditions and beliefs because you want them to. You aren't giving them any real reason to see your side of the debate, because you fail to see theirs. That's the sort of arrogance that is setting the gay rights movement back. It has steam now in liberal states, but like I said, once you start moving south and west you're going to have a hard time convincing people that you have the best argument if you keep the same attitudes.

sorry but logically speaking... how isn't anyone who wants to deny others rights and equality not ignorant bigots? If they weren't ignorant they'd be smart enough to know how to seperate there religious beliefs from others. I'm fine if you wanna follow your faith and thus not care for gays, but don't use that belief to force me to live by your religious law.

spideyboy_1111

08-03-2009, 09:20 PM

Segregation and the gay rights movement are incomparable. Gays are allowed to go about their daily business like everyone else. They're allowed to work pretty much anywhere, go to school wherever they want, eat wherever they want, and they're allowed to go home and have sex with whoever they want - all of that within the law. They're fighting for gay marriage, gay adoption, hate crime laws, being able to serve openly in the military, etc.... gays have it pretty good compared to the blacks 40 years ago. So I don't see the comparison or how that snide comment is relevant here.

things are indeed less segregated now... but to say there's no segregation is ridiculous. we don't have equal rights that's a part of segregation right there.... same with "civil union vs marriage" its the same damn thing as "white (good drinking fountain) vs black (bad/2nd rate) drinking fountain" yes things arn't as literally segregated as it was in the 60's but.... to say gay's arn't segregated is a tad bit arrogant on your side. Hell one of my best friends on here last night just had to quit his job due to the fact he was so disheveled over one of his co-workers the first night calling him "queer-boy".

Marlboro Man

08-03-2009, 09:23 PM

sorry but logically speaking... how isn't anyone who wants to deny others rights and equality not ignorant bigots? If they weren't ignorant they'd be smart enough to know how to seperate there religious beliefs from others. I'm fine if you wanna follow your faith and thus not care for gays, but don't use that belief to force me to live by your religious law.

They want to deny you privileges, all of which aren't rights. Nowhere in our constitution does it say that people have a right to marriage. It doesn't say that people have a right to have or adopt children, it doesn't say people have a right to employment, etc. You want privileges heterosexuals have enjoyed passed on to you, which isn't a bad thing to want legally, but you are not fighting for rights. Therefore, you can't say that people are ignorant or bigoted for not wanting to afford you those privileges. They DO have the right to not see eye to eye with you on who should get these privileges.

And I don't think those people are being bigoted, I think many of them feel marriage, adoption, etc. are heterosexual traditions and always have been, and they don't feel like changing those traditions because it has always been that way.

Marx

08-03-2009, 09:24 PM

What the world SHOULD be is irrelevant - in politics you have to account for what the world IS. The Gay Rights movement does itself great harm in acting on how they view the would should be.

I'm fully aware of that man. I'm just saying that there are some people who will not be swayed no matter what you do. No amount of information or awareness will change some people's opinion. There will always be some amount of ignorance in this country.

Marlboro Man

08-03-2009, 09:31 PM

things are indeed less segregated now... but to say there's no segregation is ridiculous. we don't have equal rights that's a part of segregation right there.... same with "civil union vs marriage" its the same damn thing as "white (good drinking fountain) vs black (bad/2nd rate) drinking fountain" yes things arn't as literally segregated as it was in the 60's but.... to say gay's arn't segregated is a tad bit arrogant on your side. Hell one of my best friends on here last night just had to quit his job due to the fact he was so disheveled over one of his co-workers the first night calling him "queer-boy".

That's not segregation. So you can't get married? Big deal. You don't need to be married. You aren't experiencing daily misery because you can't get married. You aren't walking into a store, getting called "***" and "queer" because you can't get married. You don't have your separate water fountains, restaurants, schools, churches, buses, etc. In fact, as far as civil unions you go, you are basically granted the same rights and liberties under civil unions as you are marriage. You're just angry that heterosexuals get to be "married" while you have to settle for something you feel is "less."

This is all quite ridiculous really. You don't have it as hard as blacks, you don't have it anywhere close to blacks or any other ethnic group who has struggled here.

Your friend got called "queer boy?" Why didn't he file a complaint with the union? Why didn't he go to his boss? Why didn't he hire a lawyer or do something to file a discrimination complaint? He has legal rights afforded to him. He wasn't fired for being gay, he wasn't denied employment because he was gay... hate to break this to you, but people down in the south still call black folks "******s" too... the name calling and the slurs aren't going to end because the law changes.

cerealkiller182

08-03-2009, 09:39 PM

That's not segregation. So you can't get married? Big deal. You don't need to be married. You aren't experiencing daily misery because you can't get married. You aren't walking into a store, getting called "***" and "queer" because you can't get married. You don't have your separate water fountains, restaurants, schools, churches, buses, etc. In fact, as far as civil unions you go, you are basically granted the same rights and liberties under civil unions as you are marriage. You're just angry that heterosexuals get to be "married" while you have to settle for something you feel is "less."

You have clearly stated that you think its no big deal that gays can't get married. Than why is it such a big deal if they do get married?

And if I remember correctly, a marriage has more benefits than a civil union. Basically what is happening is a smaller community of US citizens are not being granted these benefits because they cannot participate in marriage because they are not the same as the rest of the population. Thats the definition of discrimination and makes a hypocrisy of the equality USA says they stand for.

Marx

08-03-2009, 09:40 PM

I would strongly urge everyone to keep this discussion civil and respectful.

Schlosser85

08-03-2009, 09:41 PM

In fact, as far as civil unions you go, you are basically granted the same rights and liberties under civil unions as you are marriage.

Not every state allows civil unions.

You don't have it as hard as blacks, you don't have it anywhere close to blacks or any other ethnic group who has struggled here.

Don't, as in present tense? If you're talking about the overall struggles of blacks vs. that of gays, I'd agree, but gays are currently legally less equal than blacks. There is no law against blacks getting married, adopting children, or donating blood for that matter, even though straight black women are the largest HIV infected group in America, pretty much exposing the ban on gay blood donors as less to do with a legitimate "concern" and more to do with discrimination.

spideyboy_1111

08-03-2009, 09:48 PM

They want to deny you privileges, all of which aren't rights. Nowhere in our constitution does it say that people have a right to marriage. It doesn't say that people have a right to have or adopt children, it doesn't say people have a right to employment, etc. You want privileges heterosexuals have enjoyed passed on to you, which isn't a bad thing to want legally, but you are not fighting for rights. Therefore, you can't say that people are ignorant or bigoted for not wanting to afford you those privileges. They DO have the right to not see eye to eye with you on who should get these privileges.

And I don't think those people are being bigoted, I think many of them feel marriage, adoption, etc. are heterosexual traditions and always have been, and they don't feel like changing those traditions because it has always been that way.

when one group is given a "privilege" the other is not... thats no longer a "privilege"... that's an f'd up way of saying one group is better then the other. and we have the god given right to be treated equal.

and those people are miss-informed. homosexuality, marriage, adoption, etc.. date back before there idea's of "traditions" even began.

fact of the matter is, when religion is the "excuse" and you use it to set your judgments on the rest of the world... you oppress those other people by forcing your religious beliefs on them. Intelligent people know the truth behind separating religious beliefs with political. And sorry, but that's how i feel about it. I'm fine with a christian condemning me to hell, as long as they understand there religion does not govern me.

spideyboy_1111

08-03-2009, 09:51 PM

here's a really good article my friend posted on facebook today about a decently known, deeply religious christian musician. And i found what he had to say very intelligent and respectful.

Reposting this from a friend, from whom I never heard back about permission to repost, but I can't keep it in much longer! Hopefully, he has no issues with it.

---------

"where I stand"

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 10:27pm
This is a reply I owe an old friend of mine. This is in response to a link I posted about the Episcopal churches recent decision to allow the ordination of gay / lesbian priests / bishops / deacons.

The reason I don't often come right out and speak up on this is mostly because I don't wish to hurt anyone. There is so much anger and hate in this topic and the only side I am angry at are the ones who use this as an excuse to hate other people.

You are so right about organized religion. There are so many who do what they do out of superstition or just plain habit. I've found that there is a much smaller population who want to follow Christ's teachings vs those who want to be a part of a church. Not that I am perfect at this. mind you, but I want to and keep trying to improve at it. The organized church is littered with fights over this kind of thing going back to the split with the Roman Catholic and Anglican church. None of those things that the church has fought over are in any way as important as the WORK Jesus taught us to do. Jesus said it best (of course) when he said that the most important commandment was to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind and the second to this was to love your neighbor as yourself. Following these two, you follow all the rest as well by default.

This is a difficult issue for me. I have a ton of gay/lesbian friends from both my time in the theater world as well as my time in NY. I think as human beings and as citizens of our country, everyone is created equal and is entitled to equal justice under the law. My personal opinion on all the legal issues is that there should be equal acknowledgement by the government of everyone's right to love whomever they choose. This is where I part ways with MANY of my fellow Christians.

My beliefs on many issues are a matter of faith. My faith tells me that the Bible gives you a roadmap, or a users manual if you will, for how to live in a way that will be most beneficial for you as well as will please God the most. I break this roadmap all the time and as such, I am no different from anyone else who does as well. The truth is that the life it lays out is damn hard to live! It's rare that I make it into work in the morning without breaking it and if I make it that far, it's not long before I'm off the track at work. I can't look at anyone who doesn't live up to that standard any differently than I look at myself. We're in the same boat.

Since this is a matter of faith for me though, I can't, under a democracy where all men are equal, tell someone else that they can't live the way they want to based solely on my faith. Now, there are plenty of times when my faith lines up with our law but that is based on reasons other than my faith. Murder is wrong in my faith but it is also wrong in my country because my freedom ends where yours begins. If I take your life than I am denying you your pursuit of life, liberty, etc.

When it comes to matters of faith though, I have a bad taste in my mouth for both sides of this issue. There is a new album by a guy named Derek Webb who addresses this stuff head on. The start of one of his new songs says,

"You say you always treat people like you want to be
I guess you love being hated for your sexuality."

That's aimed squarely at segments of the church. We tend to lead off with hate, something Christ NEVER taught, rather than love. You find it in issues other than this one as well. In both cases, it's not what Christ taught.

The other side of that coin though is that my understanding of what the Bible teaches is that the gay lifestyle is not the ideal, the roadmap, that God has laid out for us. Divorce isn't as well. Neither is turning our backs on 50,000 who die each day from starvation or tossing out a cutting, biting remark at someone who has just done the same to us. Can I be a Christian and do these things on a regular basis? If not, then I am not a Christian! It's only through the ultimate presidential pardon that God gives me that I can even speak to Him. If I think though that I am somehow better or more Holy than someone who struggles with ANY other sin, I am blind to the truth and don't understand what Jesus taught.

This is why I struggle so much with this issue. I don't want to be lumped in with the Fred Phelps of the world. My opinions and beliefs, hell, even my God, are vastly different from his. I'd rather be identified with the 'sinner's' he rails against because I am more like them than him. I know that my faith based beliefs though will be hurtful to people who I love. That fact really bothers me. By talking about it though, I hope to show that I truly am speaking from a place of love and not hate and as such, I hope to present a different voice than is heard more commonly on this issue.

Whew! I hope that explains it. I REALLY hope that no one is hurt by anything I've said. If there is any question in your mind with my intentions, I'd ask you to just give me the benefit of the doubt. As I have write this, I flash in my mind to all the faces of my friends, past and present, who I love deeply who would certainly disagree with me on this. All of them deserve the right to live as they see fit and none deserve the hate they have faced all too often. My prayer is that both sides will hear the words of Jesus and that all will love their neighbor as they love themselves.

Marlboro Man

08-03-2009, 10:09 PM

Not every state allows civil unions.

No, they don't, but the argument was that gays are granted less rights under civil unions and that means that gays are somehow just as persecuted as blacks once were.

Don't, as in present tense? If you're talking about the overall struggles of blacks vs. that of gays, I'd agree, but gays are currently legally less equal than blacks. There is no law against blacks getting married, adopting children, or donating blood for that matter, even though straight black women are the largest HIV infected group in America, pretty much exposing the ban on gay blood donors as less to do with a legitimate "concern" and more to do with discrimination.

Marriage and adoption aren't rights afforded to people under the constitution or really by any governing document in the united states. So gays do have the same rights as blacks. They don't have the same privileges though. As for the blood ban, I agree it's unnecessary, but there was a reason for it originally and if gays don't want to be prohibited from donating blood, then they don't have to tell the Red Cross that they are gay or engaged in gay acts.

Marx

08-03-2009, 10:17 PM

Marriage and adoption aren't rights afforded to people under the constitution or really by any governing document in the united states. So gays do have the same rights as blacks. They don't have the same privileges though. As for the blood ban, I agree it's unnecessary, but there was a reason for it originally and if gays don't want to be prohibited from donating blood, then they don't have to tell the Red Cross that they are gay or engaged in gay acts.

The fact remains that laws have been passed in this country that strictly prohibit gays from adopting.

Marlboro Man

08-03-2009, 10:19 PM

when one group is given a "privilege" the other is not... thats no longer a "privilege"... that's an f'd up way of saying one group is better then the other. and we have the god given right to be treated equal.

We're not a nation that governs based on god-given rights. We are a nation that is governed based on the constitution, and nowhere does it say that all groups should have equal access to privileges.

That's the whole basis for privileges - it is a privilege to make a lot of money. It is a privilege to go to a private university. It is a privilege to get married, adopt children, serve in the military, vote, etc. Who has access to these privileges is determined by law, but it doesn't make them rights.

That's what the gay community doesn't understand. Rights - basic human rights - are already laid out for us in the constitution. Gays are have all the same legal rights as blacks, hispanics, heterosexuals, etc. They don't have the same privileges though. Now they want these privileges. That's a far tougher sell, and I don't think people buy it when you say "marriage is a right" because most people know it isn't a right.

and those people are miss-informed. homosexuality, marriage, adoption, etc.. date back before there idea's of "traditions" even began.

These aren't legal traditions that have a long history in the United States. For the better partof our history homosexuality was a crime or a mental illness as defined by law. Gay marriage was never heard of, gay adoption was never heard of. Now in less than 40 years people are being hit with all of these new concepts. Some people can't accept change that rapidly. Some people have ideals that supercede how this generation has approached these issues. You have a responsibility to convince them to change their minds. You have to show them how your ideals are comparable to their ideals. If you can't do that, you can't win. And you aren't winning, because you're going out and doing all the wrong things to support your cause.

fact of the matter is, when religion is the "excuse" and you use it to set your judgments on the rest of the world... you oppress those other people by forcing your religious beliefs on them. Intelligent people know the truth behind separating religious beliefs with political. And sorry, but that's how i feel about it. I'm fine with a christian condemning me to hell, as long as they understand there religion does not govern me.

Tell me something: Are you not oppressing the religious by telling them that their beliefs are worthless and unimportant? The gay community and the religious fanatics are different sides of the same coin. You want to press your views on everyone else and force them to accept you. That doesn't work. You just piss people off doing that. Acceptance and tolerance cannot be forced.

Marlboro Man

08-03-2009, 10:23 PM

The fact remains that laws have been passed in this country that strictly prohibit gays from adopting.

That still doesn't make adoption a right. A straight couple can't walk into an adoption agency and demand they get a kid. Adoption is a privilege afforded to couples who qualify. In some states, the legislature or the people don't feel gay couples can raise a child. That's their prerogative. They aren't taking any rights away from anyone; they're saying that the privilege does not extend to them. Yeah it sucks but that's how it is.

Marx

08-03-2009, 10:28 PM

That still doesn't make adoption a right. A straight couple can't walk into an adoption agency and demand they get a kid. Adoption is a privilege afforded to couples who qualify. In some states, the legislature or the people don't feel gay couples can raise a child. That's their prerogative. They aren't taking any rights away from anyone; they're saying that the privilege does not extend to them. Yeah it sucks but that's how it is.

Legalized discrimination is not a 'perogative'. It's a travesty.

Marlboro Man

08-03-2009, 10:41 PM

Legalized discrimination is not a 'perogative'. It's a travesty.

Sure it is. But the law does not guarantee adoption as a right to anyone, and that's my point. It is an expendable privilege.

StorminNorman

08-03-2009, 11:24 PM

I'm fully aware of that man. I'm just saying that there are some people who will not be swayed no matter what you do. No amount of information or awareness will change some people's opinion. There will always be some amount of ignorance in this country.

Yes, but we were not talking about bastions of intolerance, we were talking about hypothetical Suzie Homemaker. I see no reason to believe that the average American who doesn't hate gay people, but are off put by flamboyant stereotypes, can't be won over to the proper side of gay marriage.

Like marijuana law reform, there is a clear and obvious side in the gay marriage debate. When looked at calmly and rationally, there can be little dispute in that. The question then is why these issues are not altered. The answer is that the campaigns themselves are poorly run. They both have MAJOR issues on perception due to stereotypes (the worthless stoner and well...Bruno). The climb for gay rights is steeper than marijuana reform due to perjudices so deeply routed in certain communities (minorities), though both share a common enemy in fundamentalist Christians.

The biggest hurdle both issues have is to ACKNOWLEDGE the problem in perception. If they are willing to acknowledge that the perception of their communities HURT them, they can actually take steps to improve that image. Instead the gay community - even the rational, well meaning, honest members of it like spideyboy - fail to acknowledge that kissing protests and overly dramatic artistic demonstrations DO NOTHING TO FORWARD THEIR CAUSE.

Kelly

08-03-2009, 11:53 PM

Tally Man

08-04-2009, 12:01 AM

Perception is people's truth......and some groups can't seem to learn that very important lesson.

Instead of changing the perception, they simply beat the people over the head with...."your truth is wrong". That doesn't change the perception in the end, only strengthens it, therefore the truth is not changed either.

Change cannot occur if people's perceptions are not challenged. And sometimes that requires making people uncomfortable and bringing out things which rock the boat. Progress is not made by those that simply seek to conform to the majorities' views of how they think they feel or act.

StorminNorman

08-04-2009, 12:26 AM

Change cannot occur if people's perceptions are not challenged. And sometimes that requires making people uncomfortable and bringing out things which rock the boat. Progress is not made by those that simply seek to conform to the majorities' views of how they think they feel or act.

Progess is made by tactfully addressing the perception, now beating others over the head.

Kel summed up my own thoughts perfectly and in far fewer words - I find an enourous comfort in feeling that this is not a very rare occurance.

hippie_hunter

08-04-2009, 01:06 AM

spideyboy_1111

08-04-2009, 02:45 AM

Tell me something: Are you not oppressing the religious by telling them that their beliefs are worthless and unimportant? The gay community and the religious fanatics are different sides of the same coin. You want to press your views on everyone else and force them to accept you. That doesn't work. You just piss people off doing that. Acceptance and tolerance cannot be forced.

No i am not. There's freedom of religion and i respect that, but our constitution states the separation of church and state. If you're religious beliefs are denying me rights.. when I'm not even a member of your religion, i consider that pretty unconstitutional.

spideyboy_1111

08-04-2009, 02:49 AM

But that doesn't challenge those perceptions. They reinforce them.

reinforces what? that homosexuals will make out and defy you if you defy them? I don't think giving people what they fear is always a bad thing. Because quite honestly, I think the Mormon church didn't expect such a backlash, and instead just assumed we sit quite and light candle vigils.

spideyboy_1111

08-04-2009, 03:01 AM

Yes, but we were not talking about bastions of intolerance, we were talking about hypothetical Suzie Homemaker. I see no reason to believe that the average American who doesn't hate gay people, but are off put by flamboyant stereotypes, can't be won over to the proper side of gay marriage.

Like marijuana law reform, there is a clear and obvious side in the gay marriage debate. When looked at calmly and rationally, there can be little dispute in that. The question then is why these issues are not altered. The answer is that the campaigns themselves are poorly run. They both have MAJOR issues on perception due to stereotypes (the worthless stoner and well...Bruno). The climb for gay rights is steeper than marijuana reform due to perjudices so deeply routed in certain communities (minorities), though both share a common enemy in fundamentalist Christians.

The biggest hurdle both issues have is to ACKNOWLEDGE the problem in perception. If they are willing to acknowledge that the perception of their communities HURT them, they can actually take steps to improve that image. Instead the gay community - even the rational, well meaning, honest members of it like spideyboy - fail to acknowledge that kissing protests and overly dramatic artistic demonstrations DO NOTHING TO FORWARD THEIR CAUSE.

The thing is, you look at the small things that you personally don't like or that doesn't sit well with you, and assume that it's hurting the movement extremely bad, with little to no proof backing it up. Where as my side, hasn't really changed a formula much over the years... and do have proof that shows we have been winning over people in the long run. Hell I was reading a study on high school-ers, and majority of the up and coming generation had a large majority in favor of gay rights and marriage. That says alot. The percentile also of those who were in favor of gay marriage this time around at the polls was much higher then the last time they voted upon it. So you can see why it's kind of annoying when once or twice a month out of the blue you just pop in here and say "gays need to stop being "loud" and need to assimilate, and are going about it all wrong" What is that doing other then venting you're repetitive opinion over and over in this thread? you have the write to speak what you wish... but you're not exactly preaching to the right people. There's more straight people that visit this thread then gay (least it seems) and none of us who are gay are "in charge" so what you're saying honestly wont change anything anyway. IF you want to push your opinion, write to some of the actual gay rights groups.

And ive stated several times, as long as a protest is peaceful, I don't have a problem with it. Any awareness... is good awareness in my eyes.. it gets people talking. And personally the gay "kiss in" was hardly covered news wise... and very little people ive even run into have heard about it... I thought it was clever and peaceful, so how this "damages" us is simply based on your own opinion, because you have no proof of such.

BlackLantern

08-04-2009, 06:59 AM

Kels point about truth and perception is the most productive post on this whole page

hippie_hunter

08-04-2009, 09:40 AM

reinforces what? that homosexuals will make out and defy you if you defy them? I don't think giving people what they fear is always a bad thing. Because quite honestly, I think the Mormon church didn't expect such a backlash, and instead just assumed we sit quite and light candle vigils.

Making out in front of churches reinforces homophobes fear that homosexuals are nothing but a bunch of Brunos. I should also point out that it is also incredibly rude and disrespectful and the gay rights movement should be taking the moral high ground like Martin Luther King Jr.'s movement, not doing stupid stuff like that and not being disrespectful.

hippie_hunter

08-04-2009, 10:02 AM

The thing is, you look at the small things that you personally don't like or that doesn't sit well with you, and assume that it's hurting the movement extremely bad, with little to no proof backing it up. Where as my side, hasn't really changed a formula much over the years... and do have proof that shows we have been winning over people in the long run. Hell I was reading a study on high school-ers, and majority of the up and coming generation had a large majority in favor of gay rights and marriage. That says alot. The percentile also of those who were in favor of gay marriage this time around at the polls was much higher then the last time they voted upon it. So you can see why it's kind of annoying when once or twice a month out of the blue you just pop in here and say "gays need to stop being "loud" and need to assimilate, and are going about it all wrong" What is that doing other then venting you're repetitive opinion over and over in this thread? you have the write to speak what you wish... but you're not exactly preaching to the right people. There's more straight people that visit this thread then gay (least it seems) and none of us who are gay are "in charge" so what you're saying honestly wont change anything anyway. IF you want to push your opinion, write to some of the actual gay rights groups.

And ive stated several times, as long as a protest is peaceful, I don't have a problem with it. Any awareness... is good awareness in my eyes.. it gets people talking. And personally the gay "kiss in" was hardly covered news wise... and very little people ive even run into have heard about it... I thought it was clever and peaceful, so how this "damages" us is simply based on your own opinion, because you have no proof of such.

Except take a look at where your victories are occurring, the Northeast and pretty much just that. Yeah, younger people are going to have different views, but that is because times change and younger people reflect that, but in terms of actual results and trying to get people on board instead of staying on the fence, the current methods aren't working. You would think that Proposition 8 would have taught some people that.

Tally Man

08-04-2009, 05:45 PM

Progess is made by tactfully addressing the perception, now beating others over the head.

Kel summed up my own thoughts perfectly and in far fewer words - I find an enourous comfort in feeling that this is not a very rare occurance.

I hate to keep bringing up the civil rights era but its somewhat relevant to such a discussion. Do you think the sit ins or freedom rides were considered tactful by the South during that civil rights era?

But that doesn't challenge those perceptions. They reinforce them.

Depends on whose perceptions your trying to change. I highly doubt those demonstrations are aimed at changing the minds of older white christian Americans. What they are trying to do is from what I can gather show how they aren't going to let themselves be pushed around and made to be invisible by the majority. How exactly is that a bad thing?

Making out in front of churches reinforces homophobes fear that homosexuals are nothing but a bunch of Brunos. I should also point out that it is also incredibly rude and disrespectful and the gay rights movement should be taking the moral high ground like Martin Luther King Jr.'s movement, not doing stupid stuff like that and not being disrespectful.

I guarantee you if a straight couple were to walk in front of a church or anywhere else and engage in a show of public affection such as a kiss no one would bat an eye. Yet when two men or women decide to express their affection for each other the default reaction is to call it shameful and tell them to keep it in the house. Why is it disrespectful when a straight couple could do the same thing and nothing would come of it? Seems to me that addressing such a double standard by showing that their affection isn't something to be ashamed of and is just as legitimate as straight couples is a fairly straightforward thing.

Marx

08-04-2009, 05:50 PM

I hate to keep bringing up the civil rights era but its somewhat relevant to such a discussion. Do you think the sit ins or freedom rides were considered tactful by the South during that civil rights era?

A gay 'kiss-in' protest at a church plaza that kicked a couple out for kissing is not the same thing as a black woman refusing to give up her seat on a bus.

One is blatantly offensive to those in the church. The other is causing no harm at all.

Marlboro Man

08-04-2009, 05:51 PM

I hate to keep bringing up the civil rights era but its somewhat relevant to such a discussion. Do you think the sit ins or freedom rides were considered tactful by the South during that civil rights era?

The difference is, those protesters were sitting in restaurants and businesses, while these protesters are groping each other and making out on the steps of church property.

Marlboro Man

08-04-2009, 05:56 PM

I guarantee you if a straight couple were to walk in front of a church or anywhere else and engage in a show of public affection such as a kiss no one would bat an eye. Yet when two men or women decide to express their affection for each other the default reaction is to call it shameful and tell them to keep it in the house. Why is it disrespectful when a straight couple could do the same thing and nothing would come of it? Seems to me that addressing such a double standard by showing that their affection isn't something to be ashamed of and is just as legitimate as straight couples is a fairly straightforward thing.

But the gay protesters weren't simply walking in front of a church, exchanging affection... they were deliberately on church property, deliberately making out, as a part of their protest strategy... and that is shameful, because they really aren't doing anything to help their cause aside from pissing people off.

Tally Man

08-04-2009, 05:57 PM

A gay 'kiss-in' protest at a church plaza that kicked a couple out for kissing is not the same thing as a black woman refusing to give up her seat on a bus.

One is blatantly offensive to those in the church. The other is causing no harm at all.

Really because the way it was back in those days a black woman refusing to give up her seat was blatantly offensive to white people there. Do you really think that people were accepting of those tactics at that time? They were furious and were completely offended by such tactics. But that was the point.

But the gay protesters weren't simply walking in front of a church, exchanging affection... they were deliberately on church property, deliberately making out, as a part of their protest strategy... and that is shameful, because they really aren't doing anything to help their cause aside from pissing people off.

Or perhaps they are trying to show that their affection is just as legitimate as the next and is not something which should be kept in doors while straight couples are allowed to do so freely out in public. By deliberately putting such a display in the face of the church they are forcing them to react. And if they react in a closed minded or bigoted way then that's going to get shown in the media which would be one such goal of such a protest.

Marx

08-04-2009, 06:00 PM

Really because the way it was back in those days a black woman refusing to give up her seat was blatantly offensive to white people there. Do you really think that people were accepting of those tactics at that time? They were furious and were completely offended by such tactics. But that was the point.

The difference is that this gay 'kiss-in' was done on church property.

Sloth7d

08-04-2009, 06:01 PM

But the gay protesters weren't simply walking in front of a church, exchanging affection... they were deliberately on church property, deliberately making out, as a part of their protest strategy... and that is shameful, because they really aren't doing anything to help their cause aside from pissing people off.

Anyone who gets annoyed at the sight of two people kissing has serious issues anyway. It only proves to objectional observers how sensitive the anti-gay crowd really is.

Sloth7d

08-04-2009, 06:04 PM

The difference is that this gay 'kiss-in' was done on church property.

But a lot of resturaunt sit ins were down in private property so a comparison can be made.

Tally Man

08-04-2009, 06:05 PM

The difference is that this gay 'kiss-in' was done on church property.

The difference is, those protesters were sitting in restaurants and businesses, while these protesters are groping each other and making out on the steps of church property.

And the sit ins were done in private property where they were deliberately discriminated against. I fail to see the difference between the civil rights protests at areas which deliberately kicked them out or worse and the kiss in protest at the church property where the kicking out was done.

Marx

08-04-2009, 06:09 PM

Truth be told, I just think the 'kiss-in' was a bad idea. You do not respond to intolerance with more intolerance.

Tally Man

08-04-2009, 06:10 PM

Truth be told, I just think the 'kiss-in' was a bad idea. You do not respond to intolerance with more intolerance.

Do you think that the civil rights protesters should have been tolerant about the white southerner's views about them?

Marx

08-04-2009, 06:15 PM

...

Tally Man

08-04-2009, 06:16 PM

...

I'm serious. Why should a minority that is being discriminated against be tolerant of the majorities discrimination? Why should they defer to the majorities wish that they simply don't make a scene and leave things the way they are?

spideyboy_1111

08-04-2009, 06:17 PM

Except take a look at where your victories are occurring, the Northeast and pretty much just that. Yeah, younger people are going to have different views, but that is because times change and younger people reflect that, but in terms of actual results and trying to get people on board instead of staying on the fence, the current methods aren't working. You would think that Proposition 8 would have taught some people that.

actually ive seen alot of improvement first hand over the midwest as well.. not just coastal areas :o

spideyboy_1111

08-04-2009, 06:18 PM

I hate to keep bringing up the civil rights era but its somewhat relevant to such a discussion. Do you think the sit ins or freedom rides were considered tactful by the South during that civil rights era?

Depends on whose perceptions your trying to change. I highly doubt those demonstrations are aimed at changing the minds of older white christian Americans. What they are trying to do is from what I can gather show how they aren't going to let themselves be pushed around and made to be invisible by the majority. How exactly is that a bad thing?

I guarantee you if a straight couple were to walk in front of a church or anywhere else and engage in a show of public affection such as a kiss no one would bat an eye. Yet when two men or women decide to express their affection for each other the default reaction is to call it shameful and tell them to keep it in the house. Why is it disrespectful when a straight couple could do the same thing and nothing would come of it? Seems to me that addressing such a double standard by showing that their affection isn't something to be ashamed of and is just as legitimate as straight couples is a fairly straightforward thing.

all well said and very good points :up:, i honestly don't think straight people can even comprehend what we see everyday, and how much they get away with the very things that they have huge problems with us doing. And you're very right, that protest wasn't to change minds (quite frankly the mormon church will never do so), it was retaliation for arresting a couple who did share a kiss, and we said "hey, were not going to sit back and let you do that". Not every protest is about changing minds. And neither was all the actions during the civil rights movement either.

Marlboro Man

08-04-2009, 06:18 PM

Or perhaps they are trying to show that their affection is just as legitimate as the next and is not something which should be kept in doors while straight couples are allowed to do so freely out in public. By deliberately putting such a display in the face of the church they are forcing them to react. And if they react in a closed minded or bigoted way then that's going to get shown in the media which would be one such goal of such a protest.

And what's the church suppose to do? The gay protesters knew that the mormons opposed homosexuality, and they wandered onto mormon property and engaged in this perverse display. The mormon church is allowed to believe whatever it wants. It is allowed to abide by whatever rules and regulations it wants. If it opposes homosexuality, that's the church's prerogative. The problem is, gays seem to have turned this protest into a war against the mormon church. They know full and well what the church thinks, but they are engaging in this behavior on church property anyway.

And, I'm willing to bet that if a mass crowd of straight protesters started to make out on church grounds, the same reactions would have been apparent. The gay community had better choose its battles wisely, or else they are all going to look like a bunch of idiots in the end, and they will lose support where it counts.

Marx

08-04-2009, 06:21 PM

I'm serious. Why should a minority that is being discriminated against be tolerant of the majorities discrimination? Why should they defer to the majorities wish that they simply don't make a scene and leave things the way they are?

I really have nothing more to say. I am a huge advocate of equal rights...but the 'kiss-in' was not a good idea.

Marx

08-04-2009, 06:23 PM

Marlboro Man

08-04-2009, 06:24 PM

And the sit ins were done in private property where they were deliberately discriminated against. I fail to see the difference between the civil rights protests at areas which deliberately kicked them out or worse and the kiss in protest at the church property where the kicking out was done.

The sit ins were peaceful demonstrations, where the only provocation was the simple presence of blacks where they were not allowed. The black protesters didn't grope white patrons, they didn't make out with each other, they didn't engage in perverse displays - all they did was be where they weren't supposed to be. The gay protesters engaged in perverse displays on church property, however, they weren't just standing in the church. Because the protesters probably knew that the mormons wouldn't have kicked them off the property if they were just there, so they organized an offensive protest to trigger that sort of response. And really, the church was right to act the way it did. They shouldn't have to deal with deliberate attempts to offend them, for the sake of not offending the gays.

Tally Man

08-04-2009, 06:24 PM

And what's the church suppose to do? The gay protesters knew that the mormons opposed homosexuality, and they wandered onto mormon property and engaged in this perverse display. The mormon church is allowed to believe whatever it wants. It is allowed to abide by whatever rules and regulations it wants. If it opposes homosexuality, that's the church's prerogative. The problem is, gays seem to have turned this protest into a war against the mormon church. They know full and well what the church thinks, but they are engaging in this behavior on church property anyway.

See this is what is interesting. Why is it a perverse display? Why do you label these people's affection as something with such language?

And, I'm willing to bet that if a mass crowd of straight protesters started to make out on church grounds, the same reactions would have been apparent. The gay community had better choose its battles wisely, or else they are all going to look like a bunch of idiots in the end, and they will lose support where it counts.

And I'm willing to bet that if it was a straight couple that did the kissing in the first place there would be no protest. That in the end is the whole point. To tell gay couples to keep their shows of affection confined to their private homes while straight people can go about in public doing the same thing is ridiculous. Its a double standard and the Mormon church deserves all the flak it gets for taking such a stance.

Ion Kenshin

08-04-2009, 06:24 PM

As a gay man even I partly feel that the whole kiss-in was a poor idea. The solution to being kicked out for kissing was to get a hundred some odd people to go back and make out in defiance. Kind of childish in my opinion. It didn't really change anything. I'm sure they will still kick people out. No one at the church is thinking man if we tell another gay couple to leave then 200 will show up tomorrow...let's not do that again. Would it have happened if it was straight couple ...no one can. Could you tell a straight couple to go make out there and see if they get told to leave. Yes but what would probably end up happening is that the church tells them to leave just to show face and prove they are not being selective. There had to be a better way to get the point across

spideyboy_1111

08-04-2009, 06:25 PM

The difference is, those protesters were sitting in restaurants and businesses, while these protesters are groping each other and making out on the steps of church property.

excuse me? I read the reports, i saw no word "grope" just because gays kiss, does not mean there suddenly was a massive orgy... :o:whatever:

spideyboy_1111

08-04-2009, 06:28 PM

The difference is that this gay 'kiss-in' was done on church property.

well... if you wanna get technical it wasn't just a normal church property.. it was a massive compound that owns alot of land that blends in and what many would deem as semi public property as well... the mormons church owns alot of land in SLC.

Marlboro Man

08-04-2009, 06:29 PM

See this is what is interesting. Why is it a perverse display? Why do you label these people's affection as something with such language?

Because by its very definition, the display was perverse - adjective - arising from or indicative of stubbornness or obstinancy.

And I'm willing to bet that if it was a straight couple that did the kissing in the first place there would be no protest. That in the end is the whole point. To tell gay couples to keep their shows of affection confined to their private homes while straight people can go about in public doing the same thing is ridiculous. Its a double standard and the Mormon church deserves all the flak it gets for taking such a stance.

You can't really make that judgment considering there wasn't a straight gathering which engaged in similar behavior on that church's property. However, I would assume, given the strictness of the mormon church, that a straight gathering which engaged in similar conduct would have been kicked off as well.

Sloth7d

08-04-2009, 06:30 PM

Tally Man

08-04-2009, 06:31 PM

The sit ins were peaceful demonstrations, where the only provocation was the simple presence of blacks where they were not allowed. The black protesters didn't grope white patrons, they didn't make out with each other, they didn't engage in perverse displays - all they did was be where they weren't supposed to be. The gay protesters engaged in perverse displays on church property, however, they weren't just standing in the church. Because the protesters probably knew that the mormons wouldn't have kicked them off the property if they were just there, so they organized an offensive protest to trigger that sort of response. And really, the church was right to act the way it did. They shouldn't have to deal with deliberate attempts to offend them, for the sake of not offending the gays.

Last time I checked kissing in public was not against the law. And once again to think that what black protesters did during the sit ins was not offensive or considered something huge back in that day is simply wrong. The sit ins were intended to trigger a response because of the stigma associated with what they were doing.

I really don't understand how people can think that what was done in the civil rights era was something that wasn't a huge deal back then. To talk about it as if they did something which was normal fails to appreciate the risks they took and the state of the culture which they lived in.

I really have nothing more to say. I am a huge advocate of equal rights...but the 'kiss-in' was not a good idea.

I can understand people disagreeing with tactics. That's fine. But this is something which has to be confronted head on. Such gains for rights were not made because people followed the rules laid out by those who perpetrated the discrimination. Confrontation over views is inevitable in such a struggle and frankly its necessary in order to create progress.

Because by its very definition, the display was perverse - adjective - arising from or indicative of stubbornness or obstinancy.

So under your definition the civil rights displays were perverse? Because they definitely arose from or were indicative of stubbornness or obstinacy by a community which refused to take the discrimination which they constantly dealt with..

You can't really make that judgment considering there wasn't a straight gathering which engaged in similar behavior on that church's property. However, I would assume, given the strictness of the mormon church, that a straight gathering which engaged in similar conduct would have been kicked off as well.

Oh I can definitely make the judgment that if a straight couple was in the gay couple's situation I doubt that this whole incident would have happened. Do you really think that a straight couple kissing at the church would have dealt with the same set of circumstances?

spideyboy_1111

08-04-2009, 06:32 PM

I really have nothing more to say. I am a huge advocate of equal rights...but the 'kiss-in' was not a good idea.

it honestly did no real harm other then piss off mormons (which they already were anyway). People fail to see what the mormon church did to us... because they got "god" on there side :whatever:.. so instead look at it as gays are attacking religion as a whole.

One of my friends last night just got into a huge fight with some of his family, because they said gay atheists are no better then hitler... :whatever:

spideyboy_1111

08-04-2009, 06:35 PM

Because by its very definition, the display was perverse - adjective - arising from or indicative of stubbornness or obstinancy.

you know... if you wanna get technical with wording, there's alot of things the mormon church and nearly every walk of life has done past and present that'd fit into that definition.... and perversion varies in the eye of the beholder anyway. When applying the word it's always opinion, never fact. Wouldn't any form of sit in no matter what the cause be "perverse" due to arising from "stubbornness". :whatever:

Marlboro Man

08-04-2009, 06:35 PM

Kissing apparently isn't a peaceful demonstration now a days.

Also, I'm pretty sure the only reason they kissed was to let it be known that they were gay in a property where gays weren't wanted, while black people wouldn't have to do that to let it be known that they are black.

No, see, gays like to exaggerate the amount of discrimination they actually face. They know well and good that the mormon church has no way of knowing that they are gay unless they show it.

See, this is why the comparisons between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement are flawed. People know if someone is black; you can see that right away. Therefore, all the blacks had to do in their protests was show up where they were unwanted, and they would provoke ignorance immediate. Gays, on the other hand, have to actually show people that they are gay. And this is why the protest at that church was wrong : Instead of carrying signs outside to inform the parishioners that they are, in fact, gay, they felt it necessary to make-out and engage in conduct which is already strictly prohibited by the mormon church between its heterosexual followers on church property.

Ion Kenshin

08-04-2009, 06:37 PM

Marlboro Man

08-04-2009, 06:39 PM

Oh I can definitely make the judgment that if a straight couple was in the gay couple's situation I doubt that this whole incident would have happened. Do you really think that a straight couple kissing at the church would have dealt with the same set of circumstances?

No, you can't make that judgment because no incident like this happened with a straight group. You really don't know much about the mormon church if you don't think they would have turned those protestors away if they were straight.

Marlboro Man

08-04-2009, 06:41 PM

you know... if you wanna get technical with wording, there's alot of things the mormon church and nearly every walk of life has done past and present that'd fit into that definition.... and perversion varies in the eye of the beholder anyway. When applying the word it's always opinion, never fact. Wouldn't any form of sit in no matter what the cause be "perverse" due to arising from "stubbornness". :whatever:

We aren't talking about the history of the mormon church though, we're talking about this protest.

spideyboy_1111

08-04-2009, 06:41 PM

for those of you who are interested in facts... here's a list of all the places in federal law where married couples have some kind of legislated benefit... these are marriage "rights" not "privileges"... as stated by law.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

civil unions do not cover all of these, and there rights and power very from state to state.

Tally Man

08-04-2009, 06:42 PM

No, see, gays like to exaggerate the amount of discrimination they actually face. They know well and good that the mormon church has no way of knowing that they are gay unless they show it.

Oh I see your an expert on how much discrimination gays actually face. Could you please inform us of where you get your information from?

And why should a show of affection by gays matter? See this is the point. There is a double standard when it comes to public shows of affection by a straight couple and a gay couple. Just because such a double standard is based on a sexual orientation's doesn't make it any less offensive then if it was based on someone's skin color.

See, this is why the comparisons between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement are flawed. People know if someone is black; you can see that right away. Therefore, all the blacks had to do in their protests was show up where they were unwanted, and they would provoke ignorance immediate. Gays, on the other hand, have to actually show people that they are gay. And this is why the protest at that church was wrong : Instead of carrying signs outside to inform the parishioners that they are, in fact, gay, they felt it necessary to make-out and engage in conduct which is already strictly prohibited by the mormon church between its heterosexual followers on church property.

Discrimination is discrimination whether or not the trait being discriminated against is something which is outwardly shown such as race or something less based on appearance such as sexual orientation. They shouldn't have to hide who they are because people are offended by that. And once again that is the whole point.

No, you can't make that judgment because no incident like this happened with a straight group. You really don't know much about the mormon church if you don't think they would have turned those protestors away if they were straight.

I'm not talking about the protests now. I'm talking about the original couple and how if it was a straight couple who were originally kissing on the property this situation would never have occurred. Hence the double standard issue. Perhaps instead of trying to question my judgment you could read my posts a bit more closely.

spideyboy_1111

08-04-2009, 06:43 PM

We aren't talking about the history of the mormon church though, we're talking about this protest.

and im talking about the word you chose. You can't say what we did was perverse, yet ignore everything else. You backed that up horridly.

Marlboro Man

08-04-2009, 06:45 PM

Marlboro while I agree alot with some of the posts you've made but there are still plenty of people who get beat up on the assumption of being gay alone. Whether that person is gay or not only that person knows. Just saying

you're just talking about general ignorance there. people act idiotically all the time and attack people for a variety of wrong reasons. But, how can someone attack someone and know, truly, that the victim is gay?

I have a gay friend down in Alabama, if he walked into a business people wouldn't know if he was gay. They wouldn't turn him away, or force him to pay more for a product. He would either have to tell them that he's gay or he'd have to show it. And even then who knows if that discrimination is with base.

Blacks though... you can tell if a guy is black, you'll have no question that he's black when you first meet him. that's what separates the two movements and makes the gay rights movement more challenging.

spideyboy_1111

08-04-2009, 06:45 PM

No, see, gays like to exaggerate the amount of discrimination they actually face. They know well and good that the mormon church has no way of knowing that they are gay unless they show it.

See, this is why the comparisons between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement are flawed. People know if someone is black; you can see that right away. Therefore, all the blacks had to do in their protests was show up where they were unwanted, and they would provoke ignorance immediate. Gays, on the other hand, have to actually show people that they are gay. And this is why the protest at that church was wrong : Instead of carrying signs outside to inform the parishioners that they are, in fact, gay, they felt it necessary to make-out and engage in conduct which is already strictly prohibited by the mormon church between its heterosexual followers on church property.

WTF? sorry, you lost all little credibility and respect you could have mustered in this discussion right then and there. You can't tell a persecuted minority that there "exaggerating"

spideyboy_1111

08-04-2009, 06:47 PM

Marlboro while I agree alot with some of the posts you've made but there are still plenty of people who get beat up on the assumption of being gay alone. Whether that person is gay or not only that person knows. Just saying

there's been alot of highschool kids killed in the last 2 years too...
hell a kid recently "accused" of being gay, was raped by 4 boys in the locker room by using a broom stick.

Sloth7d

08-04-2009, 06:50 PM

No, see, gays like to exaggerate the amount of discrimination they actually face.

I don't think things like "Don't Ask Don't Tell" , "Prop.8", "Anti-gay adoption bills", ect. are exaggerations. That there was a time where there were laws against sodomy, against being a gay teacher, and laws against gays giving blood because they were all thought to have AIDs tells me they're probably understating their position.

They know well and good that the mormon church has no way of knowing that they are gay unless they show it.

See, this is why the comparisons between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement are flawed. People know if someone is black; you can see that right away. Therefore, all the blacks had to do in their protests was show up where they were unwanted, and they would provoke ignorance immediate. Gays, on the other hand, have to actually show people that they are gay. And this is why the protest at that church was wrong :

In the end they both had to show the other side what they were whether it could be shown by default or manually. In that sense, I don't see a difference. The entire point was to let it be known you are somewhere you aren't accepted. In both cases that's what happened.

Instead of carrying signs outside to inform the parishioners that they are, in fact, gay,

The black protestors could have done the same thing. You're being unequivical in your comparison. The black protestors never had to go inside the establishment.

they felt it necessary to make-out and engage in conduct which is already strictly prohibited by the mormon church between its heterosexual followers on church property.

What difference would it make whether they went inside with signs(which I'm sure is prohibited as disorderly conduct as well), or whether they kissed? Regardless of whatever method they used, they would have been kicked out the instant it was known they were gay protestors. At least in this case the church didn't have to clean up protests signs and the like afterwards.

Marlboro Man

08-04-2009, 06:56 PM

Oh I see your an expert on how much discrimination gays actually face. Could you please inform us of where you get your information from?

What, do I have to be gay to have an opinion in this issue? Really, the gay discrimination issue is ballooned. Gays have legislative discrimination, but even that isn't comparable to the discrimination other minorities have faced.

Gays can walk into a store and get served, because there are protections there that prevent businesses in most states from refusing business based on sexual orientation.

Gays can get housing, because there are protections in place which refuse housing discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Gays can go to pretty much any university in the country, because there are protections in place which not only protect them from discrimination, but puts them towards the top of the list for acceptance because you identify as gay.

Gays have more protections now than the blacks ever had during the civil rights movement. When gays get kicked out of a restaurant, a school, a business, or any public facility simply because you're gay then you can claim how 'awful' discrimination is against them. But really, gays can't walk down an aisle and get married or deal with people having different views of homosexuality, so automatically that means the gay community has it just as bad as the blacks did? Please, that's really quite insulting to the hundreds of black people who lost their lives during the civil rights movement.

And why should a show of affection by gays matter? See this is the point. There is a double standard when it comes to public shows of affection by a straight couple and a gay couple. Just because such a double standard is based on a sexual orientation's doesn't make it any less offensive then if it was based on someone's skin color.

Because the gay protestors were deliberately trying to offend the mormon church, because they were engaging in conduct on church property which goes against the church's regulations. They were not being pro-active, they were trying to piss people off.

Discrimination is discrimination whether or not the trait being discriminated against is something which is outwardly shown such as race or something less based on appearance such as sexual orientation. They shouldn't have to hide who they are because people are offended by that. And once again that is the whole point.

Again, if a gay man walks into a store, what are they hiding? Unless they go around saying "hi, I'm Fred, and I'm a homosexual," no one has any way of knowing that they're gay. I am of the opinion that all displays of affection should be reserved to the home. And if the gay protestors want to draw attention to themselves by engaging in public displays of affection that annoy rather than do anything productive, that's their prerogative, but I don't have to accept their actions and I certainly don't have to believe that the mormons acted 'bigoted' or anything like that.

Marlboro Man

08-04-2009, 06:59 PM

WTF? sorry, you lost all little credibility and respect you could have mustered in this discussion right then and there. You can't tell a persecuted minority that there "exaggerating"

What "persecution" did you face?

Marlboro Man

08-04-2009, 07:05 PM

I don't think things like "Don't Ask Don't Tell" , "Prop.8", "Anti-gay adoption bills", ect. are exaggerations. That there was a time where there were laws against sodomy, against being a gay teacher, and laws against gays giving blood because they were all thought to have AIDs tells me they're probably understating their position.

I'm pretty sure that is false.

As for Prop 8 - marriage isn't a right, it's a privilege, so I personally don't view it as discrimination, but rather society defining what constitutes marriage.

Same thing with gay adoption laws. Adoption isn't a right. Having children isn't a right. It's society deciding who should qualify to adopt.

In the end they both had to show the other side what they were whether it could be shown by default or manually. In that sense, I don't see a difference. The entire point was to let it be known you are somewhere you aren't accepted. In both cases that's what happened.

There's a big difference. They knew that what they were doing was going to piss the mormons off. But, they also engaged in behavior that the mormons already oppose regardless of sexual orientation. The mormon church had a right to kick those people off their property. They weren't kicked off for being gay, they were kicked off for engaging in sensual acts.

The black protestors could have done the same thing. You're being unequivical in your comparison. The black protestors never had to go inside the establishment.

And a lot of the times, they didnt.

What difference would it make whether they went inside with signs(which I'm sure is prohibited as disorderly conduct as well), or whether they kissed? Regardless of whatever method they used, they would have been kicked out the instant it was known they were gay protestors. At least in this case the church didn't have to clean up protests signs and the like afterwards.

There have actually been protests on or in front of mormon property that didn't end in calling the autorities. So I'd say that the gay protesters here really screwed themselves over, by their own merit.

Tally Man

08-04-2009, 07:06 PM

What, do I have to be gay to have an opinion in this issue? Really, the gay discrimination issue is ballooned. Gays have legislative discrimination, but even that isn't comparable to the discrimination other minorities have faced.

I never said you had to be gay to have an opinion. However I did question your assertion that gays exaggerate the discrimination they face. To trivialize or to try to lessen what they deal with just because they haven't faced as much as blacks is ridiculous. Discrimination is still discrimination regardless of what day or age it is in and should be dealt with.

Gays can walk into a store and get served, because there are protections there that prevent businesses in most states from refusing business based on sexual orientation.

Gays can get housing, because there are protections in place which refuse housing discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Gays can go to pretty much any university in the country, because there are protections in place which not only protect them from discrimination, but puts them towards the top of the list for acceptance because you identify as gay.

Gays have more protections now than the blacks ever had during the civil rights movement. When gays get kicked out of a restaurant, a school, a business, or any public facility simply because you're gay then you can claim how 'awful' discrimination is against them. But really, gays can't walk down an aisle and get married or deal with people having different views of homosexuality, so automatically that means the gay community has it just as bad as the blacks did? Please, that's really quite insulting to the thousands of black people who lost their lives during the civil rights movement.

All of this is completely irrelevant to the discrimination they have faced or continued to face. Just because their discrimination is different from that faced by African Americans during the civil rights era does not mean they do not suffer from discrimination. Once again to try to trivialize what they deal with because it is not on the magnitude of the suffering African American's endured is just plain ridiculous. In the end it is the person making that argument who is doing the disservice to those who lost their lives in the civil rights movement.

Because the gay protestors were deliberately trying to offend the mormon church, because they were engaging in conduct on church property which goes against the church's regulations. They were not being pro-active, they were trying to piss people off.

And what exactly do you think civil rights protesters were doing? They were deliberately offending white business owners who propagated discriminatory policies.

Again, if a gay man walks into a store, what are they hiding? Unless they go around saying "hi, I'm Fred, and I'm a homosexual," no one has any way of knowing that they're gay. I am of the opinion that all displays of affection should be reserved to the home. And if the gay protestors want to draw attention to themselves by engaging in public displays of affection that annoy rather than do anything productive, that's their prerogative, but I don't have to accept their actions and I certainly don't have to believe that the mormons acted 'bigoted' or anything like that.

Your belief that gay people's discrimination is something that is only if they publicly show it is clearly unfounded. What do you think antisodomy laws did? To sit here and say that just because gay's aren't different because of a physical characteristic such as skin color and therefore are somehow responsible for the discrimination they face because of their actions is ridiculous.

spideyboy_1111

08-04-2009, 07:11 PM

What "persecution" did you face?

I was called "f@g", "homo", several times in highschool... before they even knew. I've been kicked out of a pool for swimming with a guy i was dating (while a black straight couple were not), i've had friend get his legs run over by a car by classmates, i've had a guy i was seeing get sent to a baptist therapy session to change him, in which his parents dissowned him and he ran away. I've had 2 friends who've been fired for jobs due to them being gay. I've lost friends for the fact that I'm gay. I've been subjected to ridiculous accusations and offensive assumptions... because i'm gay. I've also been judged and looked at strange with my friends... and i've also been denied my rights to marry.

Marlboro Man

08-04-2009, 07:14 PM

I never said you had to be gay to have an opinion. However I did question your assertion that gays exaggerate the discrimination they face. To trivialize or to try to lessen what they deal with just because they haven't faced as much as blacks is ridiculous. Discrimination is still discrimination regardless of what day or age it is in and should be dealt with.

The gay community really does exaggerate the discrimination they face. If discrimination of homosexuals was half - or even a quarter - as bad as what blacks faced, you would see violence erupting at these protests, people being arrested simply for being gay, murders and lynchings occuring at a far greater rate than they have. None of that has happened. So I'm comfortable in my assertion that gays have it far better than any other minority group has ever had, and that the public really disagrees with some of the discrimination claims gays have made.

Your belief that gay people's discrimination is something that is only if they publicly show it is clearly unfounded. What do you think antisodomy laws did? To sit here and say that just because gay's aren't different because of a physical characteristic such as skin color and therefore are somehow responsible for the discrimination they face because of their actions is ridiculous.

Antisodomy laws were rarely enforced, and they no longer exist. So the gays are actually far more privileged than blacks ever were in the course of their civil rights movement.

BlackLantern

08-04-2009, 07:16 PM

there is the socio economic aspect of it...a majority of people see the gay community as well off, well educated, financially secure...and its tough for a regular person to feel bad about someone saying they are being persecuted and then driving off in a brand new Mercedes

ChrisBaleBatman

08-04-2009, 07:19 PM

But...weren't both actions done in protest?

Marlboro Man

08-04-2009, 07:20 PM

I was called "f@g", "homo", several times in highschool... before they even knew.

Yeah, kids do that all the time. That's not 'persecution' or 'discrimination,' that's kids acting stupidly.

I've been kicked out of a pool for swimming with a guy i was dating (while a black straight couple were not)

I have a hard time believing they kicked you out only because you were swimming with that other guy.

i've had friend get his legs run over by a car by classmates

It's illegal to do that, regardless of your sexual orientation or the motive behind the attack.

i've had a guy i was seeing get sent to a baptist therapy session to change him, in which his parents dissowned him and he ran away.

He didn't have to attend that therapy session, and he obviously didn't need his parents.

I've had 2 friends who've been fired for jobs due to them being gay.

In many states it is against the law to be fired for being gay. File a civil suit.

I've lost friends for the fact that I'm gay.

Then those friends were ass holes and you didn't need them anyway. Then again I don't really see how that is discrimination; people can choose who they want to be friends with regardless of the reasons.

I've been subjected to ridiculous accusations and offensive assumptions... because i'm gay.

Yeah, that happens. It's called 'stereotyping' and you can't change it. Blacks still deal with it. I deal with it because I have an accent and am from the south.

I've also been judged and looked at strange with my friends...

So have I...

and i've also been denied my rights to marry.

Tell me, where in the Constitution does it say people have the right to marry? Because last time I checked, that wasn't defined as a right all Americans have.

ChrisBaleBatman

08-04-2009, 07:21 PM

See, this is why the comparisons between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement are flawed. People know if someone is black; you can see that right away. Therefore, all the blacks had to do in their protests was show up where they were unwanted, and they would provoke ignorance immediate. Gays, on the other hand, have to actually show people that they are gay. And this is why the protest at that church was wrong : Instead of carrying signs outside to inform the parishioners that they are, in fact, gay, they felt it necessary to make-out and engage in conduct which is already strictly prohibited by the mormon church between its heterosexual followers on church property.

I get it.

They just have to act not gay.

Makes sense.

If only those racists could have given the same advice to 'the' blacks...

Tally Man

08-04-2009, 07:22 PM

The gay community really does exaggerate the discrimination they face. If discrimination of homosexuals was half - or even a quarter - as bad as what blacks faced, you would see violence erupting at these protests, people being arrested simply for being gay, murders and lynchings occuring at a far greater rate than they have. None of that has happened. So I'm comfortable in my assertion that gays have it far better than any other minority group has ever had, and that the public really disagrees with some of the discrimination claims gays have made.

Just because gays do not deal with the same treatment that blacks deal with during the civil rights era does not mean they exaggerate the discrimination they face. But please if you have the facts to show how they are exaggerating the discrimination they face and not the discrimination African Americans faced please do show us.

Antisodomy laws were rarely enforced, and they no longer exist. So the gays are actually far more privileged than blacks ever were in the course of their civil rights movement.

Once again how exactly does the fact that the gay community does not face discrimination to the degree that the African American community did in any way invalidate their claims of discrimination?

Ion Kenshin

08-04-2009, 07:22 PM

I can't deal with the thread right now...it's rather maddening. Let me know when all the ignorance is gone

Marlboro Man

08-04-2009, 07:26 PM

I get it.

They just have to act not gay.

Makes sense.

If only those racists could have given the same advice to 'the' blacks...

Your completely twisting my words. The fact is, you can't tell when someone is gay unless they blatantly show it off. That means discrimination against gays is a far less widespread problem to nail down than it was for blacks or other minorities. Your talking about sexuality vs. looks here, and I doubt many people can tell who's gay and who isn't simply from looking at someone.

Tally Man

08-04-2009, 07:28 PM

Your completely twisting my words. The fact is, you can't tell when someone is gay unless they blatantly show it off. That means discrimination against gays is a far less widespread problem to nail down than it was for blacks or other minorities. Your talking about sexuality vs. looks here, and I doubt many people can tell who's gay and who isn't simply from looking at someone.

Explain to me how the discrimination faced when police used to regularly raid gay bars is attributable to their blatant behavior?

In the end your words aren't really being twisted. What your essentially saying is that if gays didn't act gay they wouldn't have to worry about being discriminated against. And if you can't see how that is incredibly wrong I don't know how this discussion can continue.

Marlboro Man

08-04-2009, 07:28 PM

I can't deal with the thread right now...it's rather maddening. Let me know when all the ignorance is gone

If someone doesnt see eye-to-eye with you on an issue, that makes them ignorant? That's really going to help your cause, if you call people ignorant when they aren't.

ChrisBaleBatman

08-04-2009, 07:31 PM

So...they should "dress" like straight people?

They should...what, deepen they're voices? Grow a goatee?

What stereotypes should they try and go opposite to?

It's the same deal with when those angry kids in Long Island killed a man for being mexican.

Even though he wasn't mexican.

As if just because people can't prove someone is gay, they won't descriminate against that person is a little far fetched.

Marlboro Man

08-04-2009, 07:32 PM

Explain to me how the discrimination faced when police used to regularly raid gay bars is attributable to their blatant behavior?

I don't think police have regularly raided gay bars since the 1960s.

In the end your words aren't really being twisted. What your essentially saying is that if gays didn't act gay they wouldn't have to worry about being discriminated against. And if you can't see how that is incredibly wrong I don't know how this discussion can continue.

No that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that your belief that anti-gay discrimination is so widespread or even comparable to discrimination against other minorities is false, because you can't easily tell when someone is gay. Therefore, the discrimination is on a totally different level, but, that level is far lower than any other group that has encountered discrimination in the U.S.

Ion Kenshin

08-04-2009, 07:32 PM

Yes some of your comments in this thread have been somewhat ignorant. Especially the comment about the kid who did not have to go to this therapy. Most don't have a choice in the matter. This happens to some when they are quite young Some dont even know they are going to this "therapy" until they wake up there in the morning. It's not as cut and dry as it seems or at least as you seem to think.

Tally Man

08-04-2009, 07:41 PM

I don't think police have regularly raided gay bars since the 1960s.

Just because one form of discrimination which occurred is now no longer in practice does not take away from the fact that said discrimination occurred or that other discrimination still occurs.

No that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that your belief that anti-gay discrimination is so widespread or even comparable to discrimination against other minorities is false, because you can't easily tell when someone is gay. Therefore, the discrimination is on a totally different level, but, that level is far lower than any other group that has encountered discrimination in the U.S.

I have never said that the discrimination that gays have faced is the same as what African Americans have. And I have never tried to trivialize what gays or African Americans have gone through just because they have gone through something different. You cannot say that just because gays face discrimination that is different from African Americans that the discrimination they face is somehow less of a form of discrimination.

And once again I want an answer from you on how exactly does the level of discrimination faced by the gay community in comparison to the black community in any way, shape or form deal with the fact that there is actual discrimination against the gay community?