Homosexuality

[JaketheGr3at]

See: Denmark, the first country to legalize same-sex unions. In 1989. Over 20 years before it was even considered in the US.

Good for Denmark, I guess?

[lolDeath]

I really do like how I don't even have to respond to certain things anymore, and other people just say what I would have.

Yeah, good for Denmark though. See, that comment makes this post on topic. I think. It better.

[Celice]

I am perfectly okay with Gays of any kind and am perfectly okay with them getting married. I believe the also should have the right to get married any way they want. You can't oppress your views into someone and hope they'll change like Americans always do. Also with Dan on not understanding why America is still clinging to Christian views and incorporation them into our laws but that is what our country was based of off so I understand why it still happens. But I honestly don't understand why people hate Gays so much. Stop worrying about other peoples business and deal with your own shit.

The U.S. was not based on Christianity. The majority of founding fathers were openly critical, observing men, who embraced and partook in numerous cultural backgrounds.

If anything, the only real "came from Christianity" argument possible is the Protestant basis in a large number of settlers who found themselves here and laid the foundation for colonies to invade. This is a version of Protestantism, however--not Christianity.

:/

[Caliban of Sycorax]

That's not even relevant. He said we're better than some places, not everywhere on the planet.

Yeah, if I were saying that Denmark was worse. I wasn't.

[JaketheGr3at]

The U.S. was not based on Christianity. The majority of founding fathers were openly critical, observing men, who embraced and partook in numerous cultural backgrounds.

If anything, the only real "came from Christianity" argument possible is the Protestant basis in a large number of settlers who found themselves here and laid the foundation for colonies to invade. This is a version of Protestantism, however--not Christianity.

:/

The vast majority of the population and many influencing founding fathers were very Christian, as were many of our believes were based of off Christian views.

[Esau of Isaac]

Yeah, if I were saying that Denmark was worse. I wasn't.

You're still missing the point. He was saying that United States, while not the best, is certainly better than many other places when it comes to homosexuals.

[lolDeath]

maybe my points are too dull. i need a graph or something.

[Phoenix Wright]

maybe my points are too dull. i need a graph or something.

You're avatar might have something to do with it.

I'm scared...

:)

Edited April 13, 2011 by Phoenix Wright

[lolDeath]

didn't i used to argue with you on this subject because you opposed the equal rights of it? i'm pretty sure that was you.

[Snowy_One]

Just because you've aimed the question at a specific person doesn't mean no one else can respond, ESPECIALLY when the question really is very general and hardly personal at all.

I would normally agree, except that I did also ask in a later post that he be the one to respond. Granted, I didn't make it clear that I wanted only him to respond, but still...

There isn't much more too it though. Gay civil unions and straight marriages are not an easy out, and I explained why they are flawed. Everybody should get the same thing, either the one or another, and it has little to do with "culture" (though opposition to it might, but seriously, fuck everyone opposed to it), and more to do rights.

*sigh* You should probably be quiet on this matter. As I said, even if, tomorrow, gays were granted every legal right and law they needed to be considered 'equal' (ignoring the question of what equal is), and it passed through all fifty states without problem, gays would still not find themselves 'equal' in reality just because the culture had not changed. They will still be discriminated against, treated unfairly (sometimes by well-meaning people who don't know how to handle the situation), and it will take generations for them to become truly equal even with full rights.

Did you not notice the "I'm a Buddhist so I don't care" statement? I don't want a Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Whatever wedding. I DON'T.

That doesn't mean others don't either.

So your own personal desires should control how the entire gay rights issue is handled?

I second this. It also cures some of the immediate association of marriage in a church with a pastor/priest, which is biased towards Christians. I mean seriously, why is America still so strongly clinging to Christianity as a kind of unofficial national religion in this day and age? I understand it back in the early days of the civilization (Pilgrims and such), but for a country that claims freedom of religion (and from religion), we sure do like putting christian principles into our laws.

If you did this, you would immediately make enemies of the vast majority of couples planning/hoping to get married, already married, people hoping to be married, or people whom have been married all their lives and are now widowed via death. If they realized that this had been done to try and help the gay rights movement, it would probably spell the end for it as a lot of people of different backgrounds come to hate it.

I am going to go out on a limb here and wager that a decent portion of you in support of gay marriage are non-religious or atheist. It would likely help your cause for you to seek out a church and become involved in its activities. No, I'm not saying you should be saved or anything like that. What I am saying is that you should learn how it functions so that, when it comes to dealing with religious folk, you will have a leg-up on them and can communicate with them better. And no 'I went to church as a kid' does not count. Try to find multiple churches and go to the places of worship for multiple religions if you can; but be sure to actually learn and not cynically dismiss everything that happens.

[Phoenix Wright]

didn't i used to argue with you on this subject because you opposed the equal rights of it? i'm pretty sure that was you.

Yeah, it was at the forum you were a mod on. I was just arguing religious mumbo-jumbo. I've done pretty much a complete "180," if you haven't noticed already, since then.

I thought I was the only one that remembered that.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Phoenix Wright

[lolDeath]

Nah, now that I'm sure it's you I remember it fairly clearly. It was only memorable because I saw the 180 begin, hahah.

Good job! Feels amazing to have one less thing in life to be stupid about.

[Phoenix Wright]

Nah, now that I'm sure it's you I remember it fairly clearly. It was only memorable because I saw the 180 begin, hahah.

Good job! Feels amazing to have one less thing in life to be stupid about.

Thanks. And yes, it does.

It's the reason I get a little angry when people say "it's the internet no one will change their opinion." I'm sure I'm not one in a million. At least I hope not...

[DDDDAAAAAANNNNNN]

If you did this, you would immediately make enemies of the vast majority of couples planning/hoping to get married, already married, people hoping to be married, or people whom have been married all their lives and are now widowed via death. If they realized that this had been done to try and help the gay rights movement, it would probably spell the end for it as a lot of people of different backgrounds come to hate it.

I am going to go out on a limb here and wager that a decent portion of you in support of gay marriage are non-religious or atheist. It would likely help your cause for you to seek out a church and become involved in its activities. No, I'm not saying you should be saved or anything like that. What I am saying is that you should learn how it functions so that, when it comes to dealing with religious folk, you will have a leg-up on them and can communicate with them better. And no 'I went to church as a kid' does not count. Try to find multiple churches and go to the places of worship for multiple religions if you can; but be sure to actually learn and not cynically dismiss everything that happens.

Oh I understand! Just like how blacks and whites used to not be able to marry, but because we had to try and help civil rights movement everybody is able to marry regardless of race. What a gosh-darn shame, guess we shouldn't get married.

And, Christian marriages are not the only marriages out there, and I don't feel like that's what we should immediately turn to for marriage. How can the U.S. decide for itself how to define marriage when other religions define it differently? They ended up picking a Christian definition of one man one woman (go figure). If we are going to base an entire law on one religion, which America has a tendency to do, we should just make it our national religion. I feel the first amendment is fairly clear on freedom of religion and seperation of church and state.

And, don't preach about Christianity to me, I'm lutheran and literally just got home from Wednesday night Lenten service. I'm very spiritual when using Christianity as a guideline to life, but I don't feel the need to push my religion on people (even though the bible tells me to... whatever). I feel that people should make up their own mind about religion and don't want to interfere. This is the same reason I don't yell at people who don't say the pledge of alliegance because it says God. I often get angry at my own religion because we are too damn pushy (i.e. Crusades), and that has led to a decline in following. Its the biggest flaw, and by being stubbornly conservative, we aren't bringing in much of young folks anymore.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I would normally agree, except that I did also ask in a later post that he be the one to respond. Granted, I didn't make it clear that I wanted only him to respond, but still...

Yes, I know you asked for him to respond. And I'm saying that I felt the question was not specific or personal enough to only be answerable by one person, and felt it was disingenuous to only have one person answer.

*sigh* You should probably be quiet on this matter.

And you should probably not assume I'm fucking retarded.

As I said, even if, tomorrow, gays were granted every legal right and law they needed to be considered 'equal' (ignoring the question of what equal is), and it passed through all fifty states without problem, gays would still not find themselves 'equal' in reality just because the culture had not changed. They will still be discriminated against, treated unfairly (sometimes by well-meaning people who don't know how to handle the situation), and it will take generations for them to become truly equal even with full rights.

I am fully aware of this, and it doesn't affect my point in the slightest.

If you did this, you would immediately make enemies of the vast majority of couples planning/hoping to get married, already married, people hoping to be married, or people whom have been married all their lives and are now widowed via death. If they realized that this had been done to try and help the gay rights movement, it would probably spell the end for it as a lot of people of different backgrounds come to hate it.

Would they though? I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. All they are proposing from what I understand is to change the technical and legal term to Civil Union, more or less.

I am going to go out on a limb here and wager that a decent portion of you in support of gay marriage are non-religious or atheist.

*snigger*

It would likely help your cause for you to seek out a church and become involved in its activities.

No. Certainly not a bigot church like you seem to be recommending.

No, I'm not saying you should be saved or anything like that. What I am saying is that you should learn how it functions so that, when it comes to dealing with religious folk, you will have a leg-up on them and can communicate with them better. And no 'I went to church as a kid' does not count. Try to find multiple churches and go to the places of worship for multiple religions if you can; but be sure to actually learn and not cynically dismiss everything that happens.

Here's an idea, you stop talking down to people and making baseless assumptions about them. Contrary to what you may believe, I, and many athiests I know are completely capable of communicating with religious people, and can do it very well when necessary.

PS. I don't mean to be short with you here, and perhaps this is unintentional, but what you say comes off as pretty pretentious and condescending, perhaps just because of phrasing, so I'm not really encouraged to be polite. 8[

Edited April 14, 2011 by ZXValaRevan

[Phoenix Wright]

*sigh* You should probably be quiet on this matter. As I said, even if, tomorrow, gays were granted every legal right and law they needed to be considered 'equal' (ignoring the question of what equal is), and it passed through all fifty states without problem, gays would still not find themselves 'equal' in reality just because the culture had not changed. They will still be discriminated against, treated unfairly (sometimes by well-meaning people who don't know how to handle the situation), and it will take generations for them to become truly equal even with full rights.

*sigh* You should probably understand why your point doesn't matter.

The RIGHTS are fucking important. The point of an "equality law," which is what I'll label it as, is to recognize that a discriminated party has rights, and also to force the stupid bigots to change. It doesn't always work completely, but the recognition of rights is, I think, pretty damn important. Way more important than the thoughts of a bigot.

[Celice]

It's both. The direct placement of a law protecting the rights of people (or in this smaller case, of individuals who call themselves homosexuals) establishes a sort of concrete defense. It's protection. But that law doesn't necessarily mean homosexuality will readily be accepted.

What it does mean, if properly executed, is that it follows the path of a taboo. When people no longer believe a thing to be taboo, it ceases to be. The law will hasten the closing of discrimination based on sexuality. It just doesn't guarantee it. But it's a good step, especially when people continue to believe homosexuality is not a good thing.

Of course, there's something wrong with a lot of groups which advocate free-sexuality. They misconstrue, often, sexuality as a gender role, with emphasis on qualities which are defined as masculine, feminine, or whatever the trope is--rather than advocating free-sexuality itself. It's just boggling to see what should be an advocation against discrimination as an advocation for it, by aligning individuals with these tropes we define ourselves. It's trying to say, "I want to be self-dynamic," but instead, most advocates want "I want to be able to call myself by what others will recognize me as."

[Caliban of Sycorax]

So your own personal desires should control how the entire gay rights issue is handled?

Too bad that's not how I feel. I'm not that awful of a person where I believe my personal desires control the HRC. Next time try not putting words in my mouth.

[Snowy_One]

*sigh* People trying to hand me the idiot ball again.

Oh I understand! Just like how blacks and whites used to not be able to marry, but because we had to try and help civil rights movement everybody is able to marry regardless of race. What a gosh-darn shame, guess we shouldn't get married.

Congrats on completely missing the point. If any group, be they gays, liberals, conservatives, or the national konga line association, tried to change the union between a man and a woman from a marriage to a 'civil union', even if the rights remained the same, lots of people on all sides would immediately develop a strong ire for that group.

And, Christian marriages are not the only marriages out there, and I don't feel like that's what we should immediately turn to for marriage. How can the U.S. decide for itself how to define marriage when other religions define it differently? They ended up picking a Christian definition of one man one woman (go figure). If we are going to base an entire law on one religion, which America has a tendency to do, we should just make it our national religion. I feel the first amendment is fairly clear on freedom of religion and seperation of church and state.

I am perfectly aware that there are non-Christian marriages out there. First-off, in America, the Abrahamic religions are by far the majority religions. If we are to be going by a religious definition, it would be the one used by those three.

Secondly: The first Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere in there does it say that there is to be a separation between church and state; just that Congress is not to make a law concerning a religious establishment or prohibiting the exercise there-of.

And, don't preach about Christianity to me, I'm lutheran and literally just got home from Wednesday night Lenten service. I'm very spiritual when using Christianity as a guideline to life, but I don't feel the need to push my religion on people (even though the bible tells me to... whatever). I feel that people should make up their own mind about religion and don't want to interfere. This is the same reason I don't yell at people who don't say the pledge of alliegance because it says God. I often get angry at my own religion because we are too damn pushy (i.e. Crusades), and that has led to a decline in following. Its the biggest flaw, and by being stubbornly conservative, we aren't bringing in much of young folks anymore.

I was unaware that asking people to go to a church so that they could seek to understand the culture that is refusing them so that they could better-understand it and thusly have improved intercultural communication with said culture on the matter of gay marriage constituted 'preaching'.

Yes, I know you asked for him to respond. And I'm saying that I felt the question was not specific or personal enough to only be answerable by one person, and felt it was disingenuous to only have one person answer.

The question was directed at him and meant only to be responded to by him. I can't make this any clearer. If two people were talking and one asked the other about his view on Obama, would you interrupt them just to state your own?

And you should probably not assume I'm fucking retarded.

I did not assume this in any way. The only thing I assumed, which seemed fairly clear to me, is that you did not understand what I said.

Would they though? I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. All they are proposing from what I understand is to change the technical and legal term to Civil Union, more or less.

There is a lot to be said for a name. The legality of the situation doesn't matter, and that is the point I've been trying to constantly make. It's the cultural aspect that is the problem. If the name were to be changed, you would hurt the culture immensely as many couples would feel invaded, offended, that the government was bending over (both figuratively and literally), and making a drastic change in order to accommodate the homosexual groups. The gays would have their governmental protection, and they would need every last bit of it as the vast majority of people whom had been in a marriage before the redefinition would be furious at them. There may be many paths to attaining the goal of equal gay rights and gay marriage. The one suggested here is most certainly not one of them.

No. Certainly not a bigot church like you seem to be recommending.

Like it or not, they are the people you need to convince that gay is okay if you want to have equal rights/marriage. You won't win this fight through legality. You will need to manage to shift the entire culture to become accepting, and one of the best ways to do this is to become more understanding of the people you will need to work with in order to obtain it.

Here's an idea, you stop talking down to people and making baseless assumptions about them. Contrary to what you may believe, I, and many athiests I know are completely capable of communicating with religious people, and can do it very well when necessary.

PS. I don't mean to be short with you here, and perhaps this is unintentional, but what you say comes off as pretty pretentious and condescending, perhaps just because of phrasing, so I'm not really encouraged to be polite. 8[

I apologize if I am, because what I am suggesting is that, if you want a change, you will need to go out and shift the culture. I don't care if you are Atheist or not. Any success your group is to have in the long run will need to not be legal, but cultural. One of the strongest steps you can make towards this victory is learning how your opponent thinks and functions so that you can work with them better for your goal.

The RIGHTS are fucking important. The point of an "equality law," which is what I'll label it as, is to recognize that a discriminated party has rights, and also to force the stupid bigots to change. It doesn't always work completely, but the recognition of rights is, I think, pretty damn important. Way more important than the thoughts of a bigot.

So you would force someone to give up their right to be PO'ed at you so that you can have your right to say 'We're queer and we're here and you better get used to it"?

Too bad that's not how I feel. I'm not that awful of a person where I believe my personal desires control the HRC. Next time try not putting words in my mouth.

It seems people already enjoy putting words into my mouth. However, I did not put the words into yours intentionally. I simply followed what you were saying to the conclusion that seemed appearant to me. You care only for the rights, the legality, and not for the shift in culture or backlash. You have kept silent on how such rights are to be obtained beyond simple whining as to how 'marriage' is getting in your way of doing so. I would consider that a strong sign of letting your personal beliefs control how the rights are handled. I am not seeking to accuse you though or frame you as guilty, only seeking to confront you with your own problems and offering a solution towards your goal.

Forget about rights. They will come with time and a shift in how the culture perceives you. What matters is changing that perception first. This cannot be done through being loud and vocal, as that will make you seem like whiners. Instead, improve yourselves first. When other people notice the change, negative stereotypes will stop. As they cease, the road will become easier. Make peace with your enemies, and the resistance will lighten.

[Celice]

Forget about rights. They will come with time and a shift in how the culture perceives you. What matters is changing that perception first. This cannot be done through being loud and vocal, as that will make you seem like whiners. Instead, improve yourselves first. When other people notice the change, negative stereotypes will stop. As they cease, the road will become easier. Make peace with your enemies, and the resistance will lighten.

That's the most fucked-up thing I've heard said in some time.

[ReformBlade]

Make peace with your enemies, and the resistance will lighten.

you should follow your own advice, bro.

[Dark Sage]

Forget about rights. They will come with time and a shift in how the culture perceives you. What matters is changing that perception first. This cannot be done through being loud and vocal, as that will make you seem like whiners. Instead, improve yourselves first. When other people notice the change, negative stereotypes will stop. As they cease, the road will become easier. Make peace with your enemies, and the resistance will lighten.

I attempted to find the proper words to express my rage and shock at that profoundly stupid and obnoxious statement.

Instead, I will not even attempt to dignify that paragraph with my words and post this instead.

Edited April 17, 2011 by Dark Sage

[-Cynthia-]

I am perfectly aware that there are non-Christian marriages out there. First-off, in America, the Abrahamic religions are by far the majority religions. If we are to be going by a religious definition, it would be the one used by those three.

Secondly: The first Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere in there does it say that there is to be a separation between church and state; just that Congress is not to make a law concerning a religious establishment or prohibiting the exercise there-of.

Many uninformed people operate under the assumption that all governing principles are present in the Constitution. Looking at actual history, other things like Supreme Court rulings have proven important in goverment and The U.S. Supreme Court has voted in favor of seperating church and state in many cases.

I was unaware that asking people to go to a church so that they could seek to understand the culture that is refusing them so that they could better-understand it and thusly have improved intercultural communication with said culture on the matter of gay marriage constituted 'preaching'.

It is not preaching, but you are operating under a series of false assumptions. One, that supporters of gay marriage are not Christians themselves. Two, that athiests/agnostics cannot understand Christianity without going to church first. This study may be relevant here, religious knowledge would certainly be a part of Christian culture.

There is a lot to be said for a name. The legality of the situation doesn't matter, and that is the point I've been trying to constantly make. It's the cultural aspect that is the problem. If the name were to be changed, you would hurt the culture immensely as many couples would feel invaded, offended, that the government was bending over (both figuratively and literally), and making a drastic change in order to accommodate the homosexual groups. The gays would have their governmental protection, and they would need every last bit of it as the vast majority of people whom had been in a marriage before the redefinition would be furious at them. There may be many paths to attaining the goal of equal gay rights and gay marriage. The one suggested here is most certainly not one of them.

How is the legality not important? Ignoring the fact that it serves as a symbol of equality, obtaining equal gay rights is the end goal for many activists.

Will there be people who discrimate? Sure, there are still people who discriminate against blacks too. Legal victories have meaning, despite how many people agree with the end result. Perhaps *you* are more concerned with the cultural backlash, but I would not speak for all advocates if I were you.

Like it or not, they are the people you need to convince that gay is okay if you want to have equal rights/marriage. You won't win this fight through legality. You will need to manage to shift the entire culture to become accepting, and one of the best ways to do this is to become more understanding of the people you will need to work with in order to obtain it.

I apologize if I am, because what I am suggesting is that, if you want a change, you will need to go out and shift the culture. I don't care if you are Atheist or not. Any success your group is to have in the long run will need to not be legal, but cultural. One of the strongest steps you can make towards this victory is learning how your opponent thinks and functions so that you can work with them better for your goal.

There will always be bigots and not all of them will be convinced. That being said, I personally suspect gay marriage will become legal in a matter of decades anyway. Polls like this indicate that views on gay marriage are highly linked to age. So it may not be the case that the gay rights movement somehow needs to acquiesce to its opponents, but rather that the culture needs to change to accept gay marriage...and polls indicate that it may already have.

So you would force someone to give up their right to be PO'ed at you so that you can have your right to say 'We're queer and we're here and you better get used to it"?

The right of a gay couple to get married should be valued more highly than the right of someone to deny that's couple's rights because they dislike it. They are still allowed to dislike it, that's freedom of thought and all, but their opinions are ultimately meaningless on whether people are getting married or not. As should be the case, not their wedding, not their decision.

It seems people already enjoy putting words into my mouth. However, I did not put the words into yours intentionally. I simply followed what you were saying to the conclusion that seemed appearant to me. You care only for the rights, the legality, and not for the shift in culture or backlash. You have kept silent on how such rights are to be obtained beyond simple whining as to how 'marriage' is getting in your way of doing so. I would consider that a strong sign of letting your personal beliefs control how the rights are handled. I am not seeking to accuse you though or frame you as guilty, only seeking to confront you with your own problems and offering a solution towards your goal.

Forget about rights. They will come with time and a shift in how the culture perceives you. What matters is changing that perception first. This cannot be done through being loud and vocal, as that will make you seem like whiners. Instead, improve yourselves first. When other people notice the change, negative stereotypes will stop. As they cease, the road will become easier. Make peace with your enemies, and the resistance will lighten.

Bringing up rights everyone else has that you do not hardly qualifies as "whining" in my book, but I digress. Are you actually claiming here that gay activists should not be vocal about the issues? Let me give you a brief history lesson:

Martin Luther King Jr. ended segregation and a lot of legal discrimation against blacks...by being vocal about the issue.

Nelson Mandela ended apartheid...by being vocal about the issue.

Gandhi obtained independence for India...by being vocal about the issue.

Social changes do not happen by sitting on your ass and waiting for the people in power to come to an epiphany. The message has to get out that there is current dissatisfaction with the system and change is needed. If you qualify that as 'whining' so be it, but you're calling a lot of men and women considered to be great people whiners in the process.

[Phoenix Wright]

So you would force someone to give up their right to be PO'ed at you so that you can have your right to say 'We're queer and we're here and you better get used to it"?

It seems people already enjoy putting words into my mouth. However, I did not put the words into yours intentionally. I simply followed what you were saying to the conclusion that seemed appearant to me. You care only for the rights, the legality, and not for the shift in culture or backlash. You have kept silent on how such rights are to be obtained beyond simple whining as to how 'marriage' is getting in your way of doing so. I would consider that a strong sign of letting your personal beliefs control how the rights are handled. I am not seeking to accuse you though or frame you as guilty, only seeking to confront you with your own problems and offering a solution towards your goal.

Forget about rights. They will come with time and a shift in how the culture perceives you. What matters is changing that perception first. This cannot be done through being loud and vocal, as that will make you seem like whiners. Instead, improve yourselves first. When other people notice the change, negative stereotypes will stop. As they cease, the road will become easier. Make peace with your enemies, and the resistance will lighten.

Through law, yeah (it has happened before, by the way). Things like Prop 8 in California will be brought to the Supreme Court eventually, and maybe our judicial system will finally realize the unconstitutionality of prohibiting same-sex marriage. I wouldn't have the right to say that, though. :P

Just to be clear, I think it's up to an individual church on whether they'll hold a wedding ceremony for marriages or not.

Well, yeah, first you gotta give 'em the rights, then change comes. It's usually not the other way around. Booker T. Washington gave gradualism a shot, and it didn't work. There was cultural backlash after Brown v. Board, but things eventually changed. Would things have changed if that case never happened?

I thought about a rebuttal to that...statement, but I'll just say I agree with the above posters.

Edited April 17, 2011 by Phoenix Wright

[Caliban of Sycorax]

Forget about rights. They will come with time and a shift in how the culture perceives you. What matters is changing that perception first. This cannot be done through being loud and vocal, as that will make you seem like whiners. Instead, improve yourselves first. When other people notice the change, negative stereotypes will stop. As they cease, the road will become easier. Make peace with your enemies, and the resistance will lighten.

Cool, bro.

I'm pretty sure the other side is doing worse. Have you seen some of the propaganda they throw our way? It's disgusting, sickening filth that people make up in order to promote homophobia and bigotry. And by us trying to peacefully fight for our rights, and they still throw this fucking waste at us? Clearly we cannot let this go by without being a little vocal.

Or is it that you ENJOY watching people like the Westboro Baptist Church throwing this shit at us?