{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/25/2013 5:15:39 PM
29
About time the gay community stands up for itself. I've seriously been wondering why no one has done anything like this before now. Even the Civil Rights Movement of the 50's and 60's had the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam to use less peaceful means as a part of the struggle. The anti-gay crowd has become too bold in how and where they protest. Even the triple K would think twice about having a protest at an African American march. Yet the anti gay groups have no problem doing this.
Hopefully there will be a more militant group of gay rights protestors that start policing their rallies and parades keeping these bigots away. If you think about it, to a homophobe, there would be nothing more shameful than having your ass kicked by a gay guy. Maybe the fear of that will keep them away.
English
-
Freedom of speech. Unless you disagree with charlie, then you can't protest anymore and you're a bigot.
-
Nope, they got their say, and the gays who beat them up had the freedom of a reaction. By the way, the "Freedom of speech" these assholes hid behind is from the government. Unless the assailants were city, state or federal employees, they are only guilty of assault.
-
I can't believe how much of a fool you just made yourself out to be. Freedoms do NOT come from government.
-
So you'd feel the same way if gays were protesting a christian gathering and got beat up, right?
-
No. Because that is a false analogy. Gays get beaten up all the time. In fact, its so common that the only stories that get done are when they are bullied into suicide, or die horribly. If there was a story for every time a gay gets called a name, or is physically attacked, there would need to be several channels used to support it. Aside from the riots that led to the modern day Pride Parades, can you name a single incident of gays attacking straights?
-
So just so I'm clear. Its cool when gays assault straight people. But not the other way around? Gotcha.
-
When its protecting themselves, yes, you are correct. People who attack gays do it out of hate and fear. Gays, so far, have attacked to protect themselves and get hate speech out of their parade. If you can't see that, then we are done here.
-
They weren't protecting themselves you fool.
-
Sure they were. The two anti-gay protestors showed up at a gay pride rally. The signs probably had God Hates Fags or other such nonsense, and they were at a minimum telling people what they were was wrong. Gays have been attacked for much less. But, as to defending themselves, they were removing two people who attacked their way of life, and who they were. The US has gone to war for less.
-
That doesn't justify assault, on anyone. Learn what protecting yourself means. They had every right to protest. The fact that tyranny exists isn't an argument or justification for this. Dang, you really love humiliating yourself.
-
So yes, gays are allowed to "get the hate speech out" by beating their ass. But if the situation were reversed and gays were protesting, you'd be up in arms. Seems legit ultra liberal. Nice talking to you bigot.
-
Yeah, we're done here. Though, oddly, my jimmies remain unrustled. Hmm... I must investigate this. Have my jimmies been replaced with a batter brand? Maybe 95% more unrustleable?
-
Oddly, I wasn't trying to rustle any jimmies. I just wanted some consistency from you.
-
[quote]and the gays who beat them up had the freedom of a reaction.[/quote] I really hope you're trolling now
-
They had the right to react, did they not? Sure, they could have asked to talk to them, maybe discuss it over coffee, or such. Do you deny the gay community the right to react? (not just violence, but in any way) The way I see it, is that some people need their asses kicked. Badly. The anti-gay crowd is one such group. I wouldn't think twice about seeing some being handed their ass for what they say. In fact, I firmly believe that they say some of the outlandish shit they do because the gay community hasn't reacted violently yet. Do you think that it would exist for as long as it has if the WBC had "GOD HATES [The N Word]" on its signs? That church would have disappeared years ago had that happened. Its about time there is a less than peaceful response. I hope its organized, and employed everywhere.
-
You never have a right to assault someone, you fool.
-
Sure you do. Defending your body, and sometimes way of life. Would the world be a better place if men didn't use their fists? Yeah. Will that world ever be realized, maybe, but not any day soon.
-
Of course I don't deny gay rights movements "the right to react", but you said that violence was a suitable - even admirable - reaction. That is wrong.
-
Sometimes it isn't wrong. Sometimes it is necessary. Like I said above, the lack of violence, in my opinion, is what led to the extremes of the anti-gay movement. While fear shouldn't be the primary tool used to get what they need, the fringe should be afraid, lest they act out. Let's face it, gays get physically and verbally attacked nearly everyday. It doesn't even make the news anymore, unless they die horribly. Now, I'm not advocating an eye for an eye response, but maybe the WBC shouldn't feel so safe when they show up to a gay pride rally. Maybe they should be at risk.
-
[quote]Sometimes it is necessary. [/quote] I agree with you there, but I'm afraid that in this instance I believe you are quite wrong. When campaiging for an issue which preaches tolerance, you must show tolerance in order to be taken seriously by all. What did the Black Panthers or the NoI really achieve for the civil rights movement? Nothing relative to what was achieved through patience and diplomacy.
-
Which ones are still around? The NoI and BP party still have offices. In fact, they are the only ones left from then. Non-violence works as a strategy, but individuals should act. I keep saying this, the anti-gay movement has grown as bold as it has because it fears no retribution. If more incidents like this happen, maybe it will dampen what they say.
-
The fact that you're a grown man saying this is beyond pathetic.
-
What? That a group stand up for itself? That's what happened here. I could give a shit if you agree or not, but I support communities keeping hate away. You guys mostly applauded Zimmerman killing a 17 year old kid in self defense, yet if a gay guy beats up two hate preachers, then its not OK. By preaching what they were, they were inviting the incident.
-
Assaulting people exercising freedoms is not "standing up for yourself," fool.
-
Your militant ideology is moronic and solves nothing. Frankly it degrades the movement and is counterproductive. The fact that they usually don't commit violence is a testament to their strong will and strengthens their message of tolerance. And Zimmerman has nothing to so with this. You're way too old to be saying dumb things like this on a forum. Time to grow up.
