The Gay Bar Raid in Atlanta

[JasunStrikesBack]

Larry and his partner had the right, during Larry's lifetime, to take whatever precautions necessary to ensure that the wishes of either partner would be followed in the event of death.

Gay people shouldn't have to jump through extra hoops. Sorry you think we should.

 

[HenryReardon]

Henry Reardon, you suffer from severe internalized homophobia.

Bull crap. That's the stock 'talking point' response from the activist crowd, and it amounts to no more than psychobabble.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

'talking point'

You've got a lot of nerve saying "talking point" after the crap you've posted in this thread. Your posts are almost cut and pasted from he Focus On The Family website abou how gay people have he right to marry women or how marriage is so expensive that they're just saving us from having to pay all that money.

I'm amazed that you didn't post "the back of the bus is where all the fun is anyway."

You lost this one on facts alone. Sorry.

 

[White Eagle]

I want to thank whoever posted these links. This is great. On the first one I agree whole hartedly with the protesters! They went about it the right way.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,3827549.story
I agree with the protesters on this one.

In this one, I really don't agree with the red paint but I certainly agree that the church is checked out about who paid what. If a Church donates any monies to a political group they can or should lose their tax exempt status. If the Church thinks they can get by that by telling their congregation to donate personally, they should lose their tax exempt status too as they cannot preach how a political agenda should be voted on. They were double wrong by telling their congregation to donate monies and to vote for prop 8. They should be excommunicated from any religious group. If only that were possible.

http://www.news10.net/news/local/sto...?storyid=50266
This one is good too. They say the Church did not donate but their congregation did. The Church should lose their tax exempt status by preaching from the pulpit to donate to the yes on 8.

 

[HenryReardon]

Pscyho Babble, sure you can get married go find a beard she will love you for it. Yeah, where did you find that talking point at. Lord, do I even want to know.

The black civil rights community call blacks who don't 'toe the line' Uncle Toms.
The gay activists throw the 'self loathing homophobe' crap around with equal abandon.

Both groups are wrong. Dead wrong.

So, go ahead and whine your loser's lament; go ahead and whine about your 'rights.' While you are whining, others are living useful and productive lives - in spite of the damage being done by the activists.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

Henry forgets that if it wasn't for the boat-rockers, he would have to live in fear that he and his partner would be "found out" and have their names published in the news paper, be fired from their jobs, thrown from their houses...

It's because of those damn activists that he can sit in that easy chair and point his finger... I mean.. if i wasn't for the activists, just being on a gay website would probably have been illegal...

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

For that matter, if it wasn't for the "activists" the owners of this site would have most likely been arrested.

 

[JB3]

I want to thank whoever posted these links. This is great. On the first one I agree whole hartedly with the protesters! They went about it the right way.



In this one, I really don't agree with the red paint but I certainly agree that the church is checked out about who paid what. If a Church donates any monies to a political group they can or should lose their tax exempt status. If the Church thinks they can get by that by telling their congregation to donate personally, they should lose their tax exempt status too as they cannot preach how a political agenda should be voted on. They were double wrong by telling their congregation to donate monies and to vote for prop 8. They should be excommunicated from any religious group. If only that were possible.

The Mormon church did not donate any money to the fight against Prop 8. All of the money was donated by individuals.

And you don't understand how tax exempt works; Churches are able to advocate for positions on referendums, such as Prop 8, but are not legally able to voice support for political candidates. They're two very different things. Like I said, I don't agree with the Mormon position and I don't agree with how vocal they've been. But I don't like the fact that so many gays out there have such hateful feelings for them. No one is asking you to like them, but you shouldn't hate them for their beliefs either.

 

[JB3]

So. we are supposed to invite them over for tea and crumpets and discuss the merits of the Book of Mormon with them while they go about their business of destroying any effort we have made in the last 40 odd years. I thought I would never live to see the day when the religious right jumped into bed with the Mormons. Hate makes such odd bed fellows at times.

No one is saying that. How about you just ignore them and continue to work for our rights?

 

[bankside]

You can get married any time you want to do so - just find a female who will accommodate you.

Your logic is like saying the Spanish Inquisition was perfectly fair to Jews because they had an option to convert if they didn't want to be expelled or tortured.

Your logic...isn't.

 

[bankside]

No one is saying that. How about you just ignore them and continue to work for our rights?

Again a lack of logic.

This is like saying "How about you ignore the iceberg and continue navigating the Titanic to shore." Mormon theocratic activism is part of the problem. You don't "work for our rights" by failing to address it.

Next we'll be repaving roads, but going carefully around the potholes...

There is no reason not to expose them for what they are; theocratic haters of liberty who want to impose on the whole society the advice they give each other at a Mormon temple.

 

[JB3]

Again a lack of logic.

This is like saying "How about you ignore the iceberg and continue navigating the Titanic to shore." Mormon theocratic activism is part of the problem. You don't "work for our rights" by failing to address it.

Next we'll be repaving roads, but going carefully around the potholes...

There is no reason not to expose them for what they are; theocratic haters of liberty who want to impose on the whole society the advice they give each other at a Mormon temple.

Your analogy doesn't make any sense. The mormons cannot on their own torpedo gay rights. They have limited funding, and they are certainly not large enough to wage a national campaign against gay rights. What you said might make sense if the mormons were some big cultural edifice that has been in place for centuries, but they're not.

If we ignore them, we change the conversation. We dictate to the world the terms on which this national conversation will be based. Why let bigots and haters control it, when we don't have to?

 

[Red Storm]

Wrong.

Because my husband and I aren't legally married here, he can't get a green card as my spouse. Because of this, when I got a job in America, he had to enter on a T1 work visa and needs to renew it every year.

Any year, they can refuse to renew it and he'll be forced to leave he country. If he loses his job, he loses his visa and he'll have to leave the country.

If we were straight, he'd already qualify for US citizenship.

And he also had to beg to be let into see me at the hospital after my motorcycle accident because he wasn't "family."

We've been together for 17 years.

Thank you Jasun, I was going to post a similar example but you already did.

where is the answer from whoever said

"The only thing marriage grants a couple in this country is the ability to file a joint tax return."

Joint taxes my ass. A gay male or female can not sponsor his/her partner from a foreign country,only heterosexuals. You can't be with the one you love. period.

 

[Kulindahr]

Neither of which you get by prancing down the street wearing a tutu.

Well, in your opinion, maybe.

Except that isn't correct. There's a reason why MLK preached non-violence; because he knew that if they got violent, they would lose any support in the eyes of reasonable americans. He knew that if Americans saw images of black men, women, and children in jail for trying to sit at a lunch counter that their cause would win support. One need only look at Malcolm X to understand why MLK told his followers to stay peaceful.

The civil rights movement is instructive for the LGBT rights movement. What it should teach us is that violence of any sort will not win. Confronting hatred with hatred will not win. As long as we cling to this notion their hatred deserves an equal response, we will not win. Righteous Anger is what MLK and the civil rights movement used. The knowledge that we are right and our opponents are wrong, that we don't have to stoop to their level of hatred and fear, is what should drive us.

No one is suggesting appeasement and no one is suggesting that we just lay down and let them walk all over us. But we can't stoop to their level if we want to win this war.

Spot on!

I read correctly. I didn't make anything up. It's only a "problem" when gays are shrill and obnoxious. The homophobes and haters do it out of ignorance...we do it out of necessity and for our rights. You can't equate them both. We are a suppressed minority that don't have equal rights. So it's not exactly fair to call fighting and demanding rights "shrill" or "obnoxious".
And what are "normal" people? I don't understand. People who don't demand rights or fight for equality? If we sit back and let them treat us equally when they decide, we'll be waiting forever.

Elvin, you're equating activism with being obnoxious and offensive, and equating being respectful and well-behaved with doing nothing.

But as Droid so eloquently related, that's a false dichotomy: MLK and his allies were respectful and well-behaved, and activist at the same time. That's an incredibly powerful combination -- it's what won us the fight over a school dress code when I was in high school, in fact: the argument from the administration was that we kids didn't know how to dress properly for different occasions, so we had to be told. Now, if we'd shown up as student body representatives at the school board meeting in the clothes we would have liked to have been allowed to wear to school, we would have lost (that's the equivalent of being shrill). What we did, though, was show up neatly dressed as for job interviews -- suit, tie, etc. And we could tell from the expressions on the faces of the school board that we had won just by walking in dressed quite appropriately for the occasion.

Part of the idea is to demonstrate that you're folks any sensible person would be proud to have as neighbors, co-workers, etc. Then, when others revile you, most people tell them to shut up.

So Droid800 which version of the Bible and which version of Christianity should we use. Hmm, that is an interesting one. Which branch should we go with? Let's see, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", "Judge not least thee be judged, what is that one if they slap the other cheek present the other one. What about Jonathan and David, Ruth and Naomi, and wasn't that Mary Magdalene a whore. Didn't Jesus preach to the disenfranchised. Seems he spent a lot of time among the undesirables. For that matter what books of the Bible are we including and excluding. Should we go to the original languages the text were written or rely on whatever mistranslation is handy. It seems Jesus' earliest followers were undesirables. And, did the Jewish people spent a great deal of time in slavery and exile. I wonder which version do you suggest. When you find a version the Christians can agree on you get back to me. But, I am guessing I will be waiting another few million years for that happen because they can't. Their is a schism in the Christian Church every day.

Okay, I move that we restrict the debate to those who can read from the original well enough to use it on the spot in a discussion.

Oops -- there went the ReligioPublicans.

Gay people shouldn't have to jump through extra hoops. Sorry you think we should.

While I personally agree with Henry and Obama that marriage is between a man and a woman, I have no more right to dictate that to everyone else than does the Klan to tell someone that marriage is between two people of the same color. At the same time, the federal government has no right to have something like 1600 laws & regulations granting special distinction to a certain narrow class of people -- and it is immoral to do so.

Henry, when a government requires some people to jump through extra hoops to get the same things others get by merely saying "I do", it's called discrimination. It's also immoral and un-American... a point at which Alfie's constant accusation of hating America begins to sound reasonable.

So, Henry, why do you hate America? Why do you want to keep us shackled to the very thing the Declaration of Independence set as the cornerstone of its argument, that "all men are created equal"? What are you an authoritarian, who opposes liberty?

 

[frankfrank]

Because my husband and I aren't legally married here, he can't get a green card as my spouse. Because of this, when I got a job in America, he had to enter on a T1 work visa and needs to renew it every year.

Any year, they can refuse to renew it and he'll be forced to leave he country. If he loses his job, he loses his visa and he'll have to leave the country.

If we were straight, he'd already qualify for US citizenship.

And he also had to beg to be let into see me at the hospital after my motorcycle accident because he wasn't "family."

We've been together for 17 years.

This may be the best post I've ever seen, addressing the topic of JUST WHY THIS DISCRIMINATION MUST END!!! [I'd only add one thing to it, though - that your marriage is a legal Canadian marriage, and despite the fact that the U.S. fully recognizes "STRAIGHT" Canadian marriages, you aren't legally married here under federal law.]

I wish your post was part of the Congressional Record - though I fully realize that the bigots and those who wish harm or death to us still won't budge.

(This is my first CE & P post in, I think, MONTHS!!)

 

[Kulindahr]

This may be the best post I've ever seen, addressing the topic of JUST WHY THIS DISCRIMINATION MUST END!!! [I'd only add one thing to it, though - that your marriage is a legal Canadian marriage, and despite the fact that the U.S. fully recognizes "STRAIGHT" Canadian marriages, you aren't legally married here under federal law.]

I wish your post was part of the Congressional Record - though I fully realize that the bigots and those who wish harm or death to us still won't budge.

(This is my first CE & P post in, I think, MONTHS!!)

Why can't we at least have the law recognize the domestic partnerships, marriages, etc. of other countries?