Proposition 8 Has Officially Passed

[Kulindahr]

... so how many people did they gas and throw into ovens then?

That comes if they ever take control of the nation.

 

[Spensed]

That comes if they ever take control of the nation.

What nonsense.

No one's condoning their behavior. The people in the crowd reacted angrily to a publicity seeking and passive aggressive provocateur, who deliberately baited them into the response she got.

But you're trying to inflate the whole thing into an anti-gay nazi scenario completely out of proportion to the scale of the incident or how rarely these incidents occur.

I know, I know, you'd rather be a straight and happy evangelical. Then everything would be OK.

 

[bluepheonix]

They behaved like Nazi thugs.

Lol what is it with Americans and throwing around the nazi insult. How exactly did they behave like Nazi thugs? I dare say banning people from marriage based on their gender or what they do in their bedroom smacks more of totalitarianism than broadening civil rights.

 

[MystikWizard]

The comments left by some (or most) people on there made my cry. This is what people think of us? They want us dead?

If Gays want to take the War to these types of people, what they did in that video was completely the wrong way to go about doing it. It enflames hatred towards us, even more, when people conduct themselves in the matter they are.

The woman was an elderly woman, and here people are pushing her around, taking the cross out of her hand by force and stomping on it. When this is doing is giving media outlets like FOX fodder, and then their viewers, who I dare say a majority of which are Evangelicals, see this type of thing go down ... and become further motivated to keep us down.

The way to deal with Christians is to talk to them on their level in a calm, rationale manner. By doing so, incidents like this can't be blasted all over the Media.

 

[Spensed]

^ That's perfectly true.

But, as badly as they behaved, the guys in the crowd were being human beings in the face of a preplanned and deliberate provocation.

The woman's post incident comments indicate that she had pre-cleared with the police that she could could do what she did and that she's proud that was putting herself in danger by baiting an emotionally charged crowd.

So she was as responsible for what happened as they were and, unfortunately, she achieved exactly the media coverage and responses she wanted, right down to the let's-exaggerate-an-isolated-incident-to-attack-the-nasty-gay-guys posts on this forum.

 

[Kulindahr]

Lol what is it with Americans and throwing around the nazi insult. How exactly did they behave like Nazi thugs? I dare say banning people from marriage based on their gender or what they do in their bedroom smacks more of totalitarianism than broadening civil rights.

Abusing the elderly and destroying their property is "broadening civil rights"?
What a strange notion!

 

[Kulindahr]

So she was as responsible for what happened as they were and, unfortunately, she achieved exactly the media coverage and responses she wanted, right down to the let's-exaggerate-an-isolated-incident-to-attack-the-nasty-gay-guys posts on this forum.

Rubbish.

She doesn't own them. She didn't brainwash them. She didn't drug them or hypnotize them. She proceeded in a peaceful manner to do what she had come to do.

They own themselves: they made the decisions, they raised their voices, they commanded their bodies.

If you're going to get into political demonstrations, you have to be ready for anything at all, and no matter what comes, keep your cool. If you aren't ready to stand there and be nice, you don't belong out there. If you're going to be in a protest aimed at achieving a political gal, when reaching that goal means getting votes, you have to be ready to stand there while people toss dog crap at you, and smile at them.

This is war by different means. You don't take children to war -- the abuse we saw of that elderly woman shows what happens when you do: you lose.

 

[Backlum-Chaam]

If you aren't ready to stand there and be nice, you don't belong out there.

Dissent has never been about "being nice".

Apparently it's perfectly fitting to literally take up arms against your own government (as you have alluded in several other posts) when YOU feel that YOUR rights are violated. But if it involves the rights of a community your'e afraid to identify with, it's suddenly time to shut up and "play nice". Ask permission to revolt.

That's not how revolt works.

Nothing those men did or said to that woman is uglier than what her vote did to me.

 

[Spensed]

Rubbish.

She doesn't own them. She didn't brainwash them. She didn't drug them or hypnotize them. She proceeded in a peaceful manner to do what she had come to do.

They own themselves: they made the decisions, they raised their voices, they commanded their bodies.

If you're going to get into political demonstrations, you have to be ready for anything at all, and no matter what comes, keep your cool. If you aren't ready to stand there and be nice, you don't belong out there. If you're going to be in a protest aimed at achieving a political gal, when reaching that goal means getting votes, you have to be ready to stand there while people toss dog crap at you, and smile at them.

This is war by different means. You don't take children to war -- the abuse we saw of that elderly woman shows what happens when you do: you lose.

The woman tried to stage a counter-demonstration and a video interview in the middle of an emotionally charged crowd. It's the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded room. Obviously, individuals in the crowd behaved badly and counter-productively. But they didn't injure her physically or cause any significant damage other than to their own cause.

No one's condoning what happened. But to try to inflate the incident with nazi language and ignore the old woman's role in baiting the crowd is a one-sided and distorted assessment of what occurred.

If she had been some gay guy flaunting a pro-gay sign in the midst of an evangelical gathering, you'd be upset about his lack of respect.

 

[bluepheonix]

Abusing the elderly and destroying their property is "broadening civil rights"?
What a strange notion!

Only strange if you're being intentionally obtuse. As many have stated the actions used by the protesters went too far, however there intent and the cause for which they were fighting was seeking to broaden their civil rights. The yes-8 is the only authoritarian side i can see. I notice you dont refute your misuse of the term nazi was simply a straw wall intented to emotionally slander the no on 8 protesters.

 

[Kulindahr]

The woman tried to stage a counter-demonstration and a video interview in the middle of an emotionally charged crowd. It's the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded room. Obviously, individuals in the crowd behaved badly and counter-productively. But they didn't injure her physically or cause any significant damage other than to their own cause.

No one's condoning what happened. But to try to inflate the incident with nazi language and ignore the old woman's role in baiting the crowd is a one-sided and distorted assessment of what occurred.

If she had been some gay guy flaunting a pro-gay sign in the midst of an evangelical gathering, you'd be upset about his lack of respect.

1. That's exactly what Backlum-Chaam doesn't care about. He apparently believes that since he feels oppressed, he and others on his side can behave any way they want, and they're still entitled to the votes of the people they're insulting and abusing.

2. Baiting is irrelevant. The point of this campaign is to win -- and those guys handed a victory to the opposition.

3. You are so good with fantasies.... and you can't keep your mind on the subject.

 

[Kulindahr]

Only strange if you're being intentionally obtuse. As many have stated the actions used by the protesters went too far, however there intent and the cause for which they were fighting was seeking to broaden their civil rights. The yes-8 is the only authoritarian side i can see. I notice you dont refute your misuse of the term nazi was simply a straw wall intented to emotionally slander the no on 8 protesters.

I can "intend" to clean my kitchen floor, too... and stupidly wear muddy boots while pushing the mop. Intent is about as helpful as a snot rag in fighting for a cause like this.

"Emotionally slander"? No -- it was meant to characterize their behavior is being just like that of the brown shirts when the Nazi party didn't have control of the nation yet, but still wanted to stomp out all opposition.

 

[Kulindahr]

Dissent has never been about "being nice".

Mahandas Ghandi.
Dr. Martin Luther King.

Apparently it's perfectly fitting to literally take up arms against your own government (as you have alluded in several other posts) when YOU feel that YOUR rights are violated. But if it involves the rights of a community your'e afraid to identify with, it's suddenly time to shut up and "play nice". Ask permission to revolt.

That's not how revolt works.

Yes, there's a right of insurrection -- any American ought to know and celebrate that. The conditions are sketched out in a document called "The Declaration of Independence", as well as being found argued before SCOTUS in the Amistad case.

For the rest of that paragraph -- enjoy your fantasies; I'm not going to play there.

Nothing those men did or said to that woman is uglier than what her vote did to me.

 

[Backlum-Chaam]

That's exactly what Backlum-Chaam doesn't care about. He apparently believes that since he feels oppressed, he and others on his side can behave any way they want, and they're still entitled to the votes of the people they're insulting and abusing.

Another strawman. This isn't about whether I'm "entitled" to no-votes on Prop 8. It's about the fact that the ban is unconstitutional and therefore should never have been on the ballot in the first place. Your presumption that gays only "feel" oppressed is a clue to your evangelical bias. You see gay equality as a fake construct, less worthy than the superstitious construct that has been employed to strip me of my rights.

I also find it interesting that you assume I want to "behave any way I want", and yet you have no comment on the fact that the religious community hopes to "behave any way they want" with my constitution. It's the BAN that is insulting and abusing - The victims of that ban are simply responding in kind.

Yes, there's a right of insurrection -- any American ought to know and celebrate that.

Well gee wiz, Kuli - y'think your "right" of insurrection may have been founded on the notion that justice can't always come by "being nice"?

It's comforting to know that you have appointed yourself the judge of which causes should be met with violence, vs. which causes we should keep our mouths shut about. Are the "rights" of a tyrannical majority also something to celebrate? Apparently gay rights aren't as high up on that list.

I would also advise you to do some homework beyond your white-washed gradeschool images of MLK and Ghandi.

 

[Spensed]

....2. Baiting is irrelevant. The point of this campaign is to win -- and those guys handed a victory to the opposition.

3. You are so good with fantasies.... and you can't keep your mind on the subject.

Of course, baiting is relevant. It's can be just as aggressive as a direct response and it's why the old loon now carries on her counter-protest, where she should have been in the first place, separated away from the pro-gay demonstrators.

Sure the incident was a win for the opposition. But it was an explicable and isolated, or almost isolated occurrence, that the mainstream news channels seem to have seen as such and barely reported. Whereas you seem predisposed and determined to exaggerate what happened with your "Nazi thugs" vision.

What you're calling a fantasy is a direct analogy: a gay guy with a large pro-gay sex sign intruding in an evangelical group. In one of your past posts, you actually said that you found this profoundly disrespectful. But here, when it's the other way round, you find the intrusion wholly appropriate.

 

[Kulindahr]

Backlum-Chaam: if you're going to fill your posts with fantasies you've spun instead of reality, I'm not going to bother responding.

 

[Kulindahr]

Of course, baiting is relevant. It's can be just as aggressive as a direct response and it's why the old loon now carries on her counter-protest, where she should have been in the first place, separated away from the pro-gay demonstrators.

Sure the incident was a win for the opposition. But it was an explicable and isolated, or almost isolated occurrence, that the mainstream news channels seem to have seen as such and barely reported. Whereas you seem predisposed and determined to exaggerate what happened with your "Nazi thugs" vision.

What you're calling a fantasy is a direct analogy: a gay guy with a large pro-gay sex sign intruding in an evangelical group. In one of your past posts, you actually said that you found this profoundly disrespectful. But here, when it's the other way round, you find the intrusion wholly appropriate.

No, baiting isn't relevant, any more than any other distraction that might make your protesters do anything to weaken their case. Baiting is a distraction, to be paid less attention than a rain shower or a fire truck going by.
But if you're like Backlum-Chaam, then acting like immature juveniles is fine as campaign strategy; offending the voters and treating them disrespectfully is a good thing.

I'll take a moment to correct your bit of fantasy here: nowhere did I say the presence of the old lady was appropriate. Its appropriateness is irrelevant; what's relevant is how gay protesters should respond. That response should be no different than if she were a fat guy in a gorilla suit, or a little kid dripping ice cream from a too-big come: smile, and be nice.

 

[Spensed]

^ So, when in one of your previous post, the gay guy intruded in the evangelical group, the appropriateness of his behavior must have been irrelevant too. But curiously that's not how you saw things, when the roles were reversed. LOL.

Maybe all demonstrators should ignore all provocations and maybe not. But you're out of touch with reality, if you think they all will. The old woman herself has said she knew she was placing herself in danger. She wasn't injured and, my guess is, that she got exactly what she wanted.

In any event, your calling the pro-gay demonstrators "Nazi thugs" for shouting at and jostling someone, who was being intrusive and disrespectful to them, remains a gross exaggeration.

 

[Spensed]

Backlum-Chaam: if you're going to fill your posts with fantasies you've spun instead of reality, I'm not going to bother responding.

And you're going to take your toys and go home. LOL

 

[Backlum-Chaam]

I'll take a moment to correct your bit of fantasy here: nowhere did I say the presence of the old lady was appropriate. Its appropriateness is irrelevant; what's relevant is how gay protesters should respond. That response should be no different than if she were a fat guy in a gorilla suit, or a little kid dripping ice cream from a too-big come: smile, and be nice.

Classic turnspeak. Ignore the first punch, and then blame the one who punches back for starting a fight.