The Gay Bar Raid in Atlanta

[HenryReardon]

http://www.365gay.com/opinion/letter-from-atlanta-whats-happened-since-the-gay-bar-raid/

Who would have thought some 40 years after Stonewall this b.s. would still be going on. Anti-gay violence is creasing at an alarming rate it seems in recent months, but where are elected officials, and why are they not speaking out. And, it is such a shame for the victims that so many of them get a slap on the wrist then facing the punishment they should.

The backlash has begun, thanks largely to the 'in your face' activist crowd and their shrill demands for 'gay marriage.'

It will get a lot worse before it gets better.

 

[opinterph]

There is some useful background information and related discussion about this incident in a separate thread (Hot Topics):

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5395151#post5395151​

 

[HenryReardon]

Wow, way to blame those wanting equality, why not blame the bigots that preach hate, the bigots that send their kids to pray away the gay camps, and to those who think that anything that is okay to hate anything that is different than you. Gay men and women have been on the frontlines of every major civil rights issue and hell on the frontlines of every major war this country has ever fought, and when we decide we want a piece of the pie this is the thanks we get.

We have all the equality every American has, and if the activist crowd hadn't squandered their political capital on the marriage issue, we might well have civil unions by now that are recognized in all states. This was discussed at length in an earlier thread.

Yes, I blame these fools for all the damage they are doing.

I remember what it was like when there were no rights and real discrimination existed.

Most people who lived through the seventies see the glass as more than half full - sadly, too many people still see the glass as more than half empty.

 

[JB3]

Wow, way to blame those wanting equality, why not blame the bigots that preach hate, the bigots that send their kids to pray away the gay camps, and to those who think that anything that is okay to hate anything that is different than you. Gay men and women have been on the frontlines of every major civil rights issue and hell on the frontlines of every major war this country has ever fought, and when we decide we want a piece of the pie this is the thanks we get.

There's a difference between those that seek equality rationally and peaceably and those that do so in the manner Henry described. If we want equality, what good do we do for our movement if we allow our people to behave just as shrill-ly and just as obnoxiously as our opponents?

Like it or not, normal people only have a limited tolerance for the shrill-ness and insanity from either side.

 

[JB3]

So, who exactly are we using to define normal? Surely you can't mean the hell fire and brimstone Baptist Type. If that is normal then pack me up and send me to the nut house.

I'm talking about normal, moderate americans that aren't rigidly ideological and keep relatively open minds about most things.

 

[JB3]

Who, where are these people, when do they speak, when do they vote, and why don't they shut out the extremes? If they are there at all they quietly sit at home. Those who say and do nothing at all are as guilty as those who commit the actions.

You have those people to thank for Barack Obama being elected. They make up the majority of voters and are willing to hear out both sides before making up their minds. The problem, is that these people are also easily scared away by obnoxiousness and shrill-ness, which has not helped our cause.

 

[hotatlboi]

I wonder where we would all be right now if blacks hadn't gotten angry and DEMANDED their rights.

Quite true. I mean, it took a century after slavery was ended for black people to just be treated equally.

It wasn't until they made a national movement out of their injustice that things began to change.

 

[HenryReardon]

And imagine if Rosa Parks had just appeased. No, she got angry and she didn't take shit...she DEMANDED to be treated equally.

.

If you would take the time and effort to look into the situation, you would find that Rosa Parks later said that in reality, she was too tired to get up. It wasn't a protest at all.

 

[HenryReardon]

So it all comes down to the same things. Equality and respect.

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

 

[andysayshi]

If you would take the time and effort to look into the situation, you would find that Rosa Parks later said that in reality, she was too tired to get up. It wasn't a protest at all.

To coin your own phrase, Henry, bovine excreta!

I think it's hilarious that you would try to support this myth when, even at the time of her action, Parks was secretary of the Montgomery chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and had recently attended the Highlander Folk School, a Tennessee center for workers' rights and racial equality.

From Rosa Park's autobiography:

People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in.

And from Wikipedia:

By Parks' account, Blake (the bus driver) said, "Y'all better make it light on yourselves and let me have those seats."[12] Three of them complied. Parks said, "The driver wanted us to stand up, the four of us. We didn't move at the beginning, but he says, 'Let me have these seats.' And the other three people moved, but I didn't."[13] The black man sitting next to her gave up his seat. Parks moved, but toward the window seat; she did not get up to move to the newly repositioned colored section.[14] Blake then said, "Why don't you stand up?" Parks responded, "I don't think I should have to stand up." Blake called the police to arrest Parks. When recalling the incident for Eyes on the Prize, a 1987 public television series on the Civil Rights Movement, Parks said, "When he saw me still sitting, he asked if I was going to stand up, and I said, 'No, I'm not.' And he said, 'Well, if you don't stand up, I'm going to have to call the police and have you arrested.' I said, 'You may do that.'"[15]
During a 1956 radio interview with Sydney Rogers in West Oakland several months after her arrest, when asked why she had decided not to vacate her bus seat, Parks said, "I would have to know for once and for all what rights I had as a human being and a citizen."

 

[bankside]

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

You'd be surprised what odd frocks will work for priests.

Yours is the country that said "These are our rights; take it or leave it" and not "Dear King George, could we pretty-please have maybe slightly less oppression under your insane direction, if it isn't too much trouble? No? Okay then. Sorry to trouble you. We'll just go over here and act straight and sing God Save the King."

Henry, you are spectacularly wrong.

Everyone else, if you want equality, Try Canada. If you don't want to move here, then expect nothing less of your own country.

 

[ColorSlaughter]

Wow.
I always thought gay conservatives were self-loathing closet cases.

Turns out I was right.

 

[andysayshi]

We have all the equality every American has, and if the activist crowd hadn't squandered their political capital on the marriage issue, we might well have civil unions by now that are recognized in all states. This was discussed at length in an earlier thread.

Based on your statement above, Henry, it seems that Rosa parks had "all the equality every American has", so long as she was prepared to stand at the back of the bus when a white man wanted her bus seat.

Nobody wins the recognition of their rights with silence or capitulation. You don't have to be angry or violent, but you have to stand up and make your voice heard. Loud and proud.

 

[JB3]

But it's ok for homophobes and haters to be as shrill and obnoxious as they please? Gimme a break.

Where did I say that? If you're going to make shit up, at least try and be creative.

 

[JB3]

And imagine if Rosa Parks had just appeased. No, she got angry and she didn't take shit...she DEMANDED to be treated equally.

I have no patience or tolerance for those who want to appease and blame hatred on those being hated upon.

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.

 

[JB3]

It reads to me that what is being asked for here is that the gay guys who are overly "gay acting" should leave their heels at home and act like men so as to not bother anyone when they fight for their rights.

So you're OK with people fighting for your rights as long as they do it on your terms. No flaming gays allowed. Manly gays only. That way nobody looks bad.

So refreshing to know your battle for equality doesn't even include everyone in your own community.

You're reading something that isn't there.

No one said anything about the more effeminate gays. What we're talking about is the shrill type of protest that those on the other side of the debate have become known for. The nonsense-filled, hate-filled, rallies where nothing is shown to the public except the face of hate.

 

[JB3]

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 a 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.

When I refer to normal people I refer to those that either do not align themselves with a political party, or are willing to shift their opinion when presented with facts. These are the people that can be convinced, as well as the people that can be turned off if the demonstrations are too in-their-face. I am referring to it only in the context of political and ideological affiliation.

And you still seem to be missing the point. There is a line that is crossed too often (and almost always on the other side as well) where demanding our rights crosses from righteous anger to hatred for the other side. There's a point where we cease to be fighting for our rights and start displaying hate for the other side instead. That makes us no better than them. It certainly doesn't help convince anyone on the fence why our rights should not continue to be curtailed.

There is nothing wrong with being angry, and there is nothing wrong with taking our fight to the people that sit in the political middle (the normal people). But when it crosses that line into hate, into hating the other side instead of fighting for our rights, we lose.

 

[JB3]

When was the last time that gays were accused of violence or hatred? When was the last time you saw a gay group carrying guns or a gay militia? All I've seen are candles and signs. I serioulsy can't recall any bashing or rioting from our side.

It is plain to see in the way Mormons have been treated after Prop 8 passed. There is a fairly large contingent of the gay community that displays a hatred for them that is quite sad. You can disagree with their stance (and its fair to say that everyone here, including myself, does), but it is quite sad when you stoop to their level and hate them for their beliefs.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-protest7-2008nov07,0,3827549.story

http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=50266

 

[JB3]

Problem with your theory is that most politicians and most Americans are what you call "normal" who don't believe we deserve rights.



When was the last time that gays were accused of violence or hatred? When was the last time you saw a gay group carrying guns or a gay militia? All I've seen are candles and signs. I serioulsy can't recall any bashing or rioting from our side.



Homophobia is hate. Demanding rights and equality are not.

Yes, but demanding rights and equality and in the process hating a religion for their beliefs is.

See above for examples.

 

[JB3]

Religion has no place in this debate. They have used the Bible to justify slavery, denying women equal rights, and any number of other horrors. If they are going to use religion in this debate what branch. Quaker, Buddhist, Msulim, Hindu, Neo-Pagan, and so on and so fourth. Which version of the bible should we base it on. And, before you bring the founding fathers into this take a good look at the extremes the went to make sure that Church and State were not one. Look at what Jefferson wrote. Don't do the quote mining routine go to the text themselves.

Do yourself a favor and read Washington and Patrick Henry. READ what they wrote on the subject of religion and the state. It should be very enlightening to your unenlightened mind.