Video: Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


nothing personal against pro gay

even tho it may sound that way


its that one certain type of "stereotype" that sooooo many gay people are making true now that is extremely frustrating, ive heard at least 30 other people mention this sort of thing.

turn on any tv station right now, watch that station for 10 minutes, record all those gay stereotypes you see and then try to tell me i must be in a gay bar to have that much around me


like i said though, theres gay people who are normal people they just prefer a different type of lifestyle, theyre still great people

but THEN its the fact that the ones that get soo much attention in the spotlight, the ones who are actually on tv, are the definition of abhorrent its pathetic, it puts a horrible stigma over all the rest of the people in the group in the minds of those outside the group

and its the minds of those outside the group that count

what counts here in the USA is what the majority think

and by what the polls show

many people are in similar agreement to my thoughts on that matter, if not? Why did 8 pass?

it passed because of the bad stigma all the "eccentric" ones are creatiing

one last thing, u mentioned something about wishing you had that much publicity but in this case you dont

theres a old saying any publicity is good publicity

not in this case

in this case

you need good publicity

bad publicity will keep 8 around forever

and all these "fierce" morons and stereotypical rejects who are just pining for their 5 minutes of fame at the expense of a actual movement is just detrimental to the cause and prolonging this fight

and all this fight is doing is acting as the hey look over here trick

while the magician is making the constitution disapear right in his other hand

reply to post by Dramey


I'm just not sure why everything you are describing doesn't equally apply to heterosexuals.

Especially when you say something as broad as the tele

There are bad apples on both sides, to borrow anotha members phrasing.

The bad actions of one doesn't represent the many. The bad actions of many doesn't represent the all. Not for either "side". We are all human. The bad actions just further that point.

reply to post by Dramey


Then the door to door salesmen that are the religious missionaries are an even bigger force of distraction.

I think you are being a little unfair in this respect. Take a step back, look outside of this issue altogether, and we see all sorts of groups of people with agendas, who are being forceful. Since there is more heterosexuals, there is more heterosexuals with agendas that are being advertised on a daily basis... but I am not trying to play sides, or even play with numbers. I am just trying to be realistic and reasonable.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Dramey

 

Then the door to door salesmen that are the religious missionaries are an even bigger force of distraction.

I think you are being a little unfair in this respect. Take a step back, look outside of this issue altogether, and we see all sorts of groups of people with agendas, who are being forceful. Since there is more heterosexuals, there is more heterosexuals with agendas that are being advertised on a daily basis... but I am not trying to play sides, or even play with numbers. I am just trying to be realistic and reasonable.

i definitely understand your viewpoints here and you are correct i may be unfairly judging the situation, but i may reference as my defense the fact that it seems to be one of the most widespread outspoken agendas taking place at the moment, also maybe one of the fastest growing widespread agendas at the moment

i Truley agree in the whole religious aspect of what you mentioned, but thats a whole nother conversation

but in my opinion its definitely these stubborn beliefs and ideologies on the whole that are preventing the big picture from coming together to the peaceful world we should live in (edited to say i dont mean your beliefs or ideologies as in this part of my post i am referring to the widespread media associated ideas and that this wasnt anything against your beliefs as i fully believe you and everyone else are fully entitled to believe what you may, i just didnt want miscommunication to make it seem like im attacking your ideas)

without getting off topic and into a whole nother convo, in my opinion the world could potentially be ALOT better without everyone bickering over religion

we should be all free to believe what we want, be who we are as long as it is peaceful and productive

but it honestly seems in the media, which whether we like it or not completly shapes the world we live in

in the media those stereotypes are the ones focused on, which is the reason myself and others of the heterosexual majority are becoming increasingly frustrated in the situation and is why we are taking steps backwards, the ones mainly focused on are the aggressive in your face im here and im queer stance that turns people against, and even the passive aggressive style some take with how its not cool to not be accepting of gays

if one person wants to believe being gay is wrong, they deserve to have that right just as much as the person who thinks its right deserves to believe its right

whats wrong is forcing these agendas and images down everyones throats which is happening in todays media which in turn is happening on every corner of todays society

but like you said its not just the gay agenda thats working this way, religion, politics, pharmaceuticals etc, its all propaganda advertising

but back on topic, its just sad to see members of ANY group being as ignorant as the ones displayed in this video



[edit on 14-11-2008 by Dramey]

im sorry my last post as i dont feel i can add anything relevant to the topic after this post but

in providing "evidence" for the stance im taking

i reference a unlikely source

a southpark episode

the one about metrosexuals

the whole town turned gay

yea id imagine the episode was offensive

but the ideas behind what the show was talking about made truley good points and arguments

the episode was about everyone acting gay because it was now the cool in thing to do

it was about the queer eye for the straight guy and all those fads and how they are taking over the media and turning a good group of people into a group of monsters because everyones hopping on the bandwagon to look cool

its sad how many similarities there are to that southpark episode and this segment on the news

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Lucid, you know I agree with you. But I can also agree with Dramey. I wrote earlier (somewhere, can't seem to find my quote in the pages upon pages of replies right now) that it is the purpose of the oppressed to make their case and change the status quo, not the purpose of the majority to understand their case. The burden of proof is upon the gay rights side, and this video is an example of how not to go about it.

The door-to-door salesmen you mention come to my door too. There's no secret handshake that we use to identify each other. Of course, I found a way to get rid of them, the same tactic I unfortunately use to get rid of churches I want to go to: I explain the Bible to them. It really works!

While I am more pro-equality that pro-gay (same side on this debate), I am also pragmatic when legal/social matters are involved. And the simple truth is that in order to get equal treatment, which is the purpose of equality under law, one must have some amount of respect in the community. Without that public support, one will be ridiculed for whatever their difference may be. You cannot force respect; you earn respect. You can pass all the laws you can imagine requiring equal treatment, but without respect, there will be discrimination.

I posted this example once before in one of these threads, but I'll post it again: the Civil War. Freeing the slaves was a great idea, but the methodology used was in direct opposition to the public welfare of all. So, decades later, we had more violence to fix the problem with racial discrimination again in the Civil Rights movement. Only today can I see a change in public opinion toward racial differences. Now, do you want equal gay rights in 4 or even 8 years, or do want it to take 120?

Every episode like this sets the timetable back. Every episode like this hardens the will of those who oppose the agenda and pushes more from the fence to the other side. And every time someone in the movement fails to show outrage at the event, it leads to public awareness, correct or not, that they implicitly agree with the violence.

I think that is what Dramey is saying, and I couldn't agree more. I also agree that Christians need to clean up their own as well, but the issue du jour is gay marriage, not Christian rights.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Dramey

but like you said its not just the gay agenda thats working this way, religion, politics, pharmaceuticals etc, its all propaganda advertising

You forgot to add "straight" agenda to your list. We gay people have had to put up with that one being shoved down our throats our entire life.
This response is also directed to some of what Undo has been hammering at for so long. I don't think the power elite can force anyone to be something they are not in terms of sexuality. Bisexuality existed in ancient times not because someone forced them to be that way. It just allowed them to be what is probably the most normal state anyway.
Not such a bad thing in my mind.
I don't think anyone has anything to fear from society evolving to where people are allowed to be as gay or straight or bi as they feel inclined to be.
There would be no losers in that scenario.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by wayno]

This was all an act, imo. Watching that video was JUST LIKE watching a theater production.

reply to post by Sonya610


i don't want to start this argument all over again, especially since it would take the thread off on a tangential course, inevitably. but erm, there ARE verses in the NEW TESTAMENT that speak against homosexuality, but most of them are written by Paul and this is counterbalanced by the concept that sex in general should be a topic of less focus, simply because it is a flesh thing and has nothing to do with the spirit. paul is an awesome guy, very smart and insightful. but he was also a human being. so i just try to bounce his stuff off of what jesus said. if they seem contradictory, i go with jesus. some people don't like that, but i'm not a paulian, i'm a christian.

i probably should clarify what i'm thinking. the impression i get when i read jesus' words and then paul's words, is that paul is like the new testament moses. jesus mentions that moses made some of the laws up himself, to fit the situation, and that they were not all god's laws. some were moses' ideas, doing what he could with the data he had available to him and as a man of his time. in other words, he looked over their situation and drew from his available resource of data concerning god's laws, and reasoned that it must be this thing or that thing. i believe we will find out one day, that paul did the same thing and was speaking as a man of his time, and that this is not definitively applicable to every time after, nor is it necessarily always prophetical (i think that he speaks more as a teacher or preacher and not so much as a prophet), nor is it necessarily what god had intended. the only way to be sure is to compare it to what jesus said.

now jesus was all about not judging others, so i'm going with the idea that it doesn't matter what type of sex that you have or had, but rather love and forgiveness and focusing on what you can become or will become in the future. in other words, i think paul's solutions are often shown to be the ideas of men, whereas jesus' are the ideas of god. these two things do not always agree. sometimes they do. one controls men in human societies. the other is about god's society. where things like intercourse, masturbation, pornography and homosexuality are not even a blip on the radar because they simply aren't part of the experience.

i hope that made sense.

[edit on 15-11-2008 by undo]

You want to know why we're so pissed - why we're fighting mad. Here's why. Watch it and learn it. It's worth your time.

reply to post by WickedStar

A very touching video. And there is no way I can condone murder or hatred.

But that is exactly why I now come down solidly on the side of keeping marriage as it is. I entered this debate, covering several different threads, on the side of neutral. I was the guy who was looking desperately for a compromise to satisfy both sides, in the fervent hopes of preventing more violence and hatred. It took a lot of persuading, but your side has persuaded me.

In return for my posts trying to urge caution, hard work to change public opinion, and a search for common ground, I have been called homophobic, a bigot, a religious persecutor. My religion, my country, my lifestyle, my heritage, and my identity have been attacked, vehemently. I know your next statement already: you did none of that. True, but those who argue on your side did, with full implied agreement by others on your side of the debate who refused to take a stand against bigoted statements made by their side to others. That is not a desire for equality.

I have decided that this is far from a cry for equal rights. The issue at hand (gay marriage) is more about a way to irritate and 'get even' with the Christian religion in general, which so many gay rights activists seem to hate. As I said in the first sentence, I cannot condone hatred.

Therefore I believe marriage should stand as it is, between one man and one woman. I'll be happy to speak out against murder or assault of people for being gay, however.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I have decided that this is far from a cry for equal rights. The issue at hand (gay marriage) is more about a way to irritate and 'get even' with the Christian religion in general, which so many gay rights activists seem to hate. As I said in the first sentence, I cannot condone hatred.

Don't you see you are generalizing people the same way you say you were generalized?

But more importantly, for the people who's rights this issue concerns, it IS about equal rights.

They don't care about your religious views, they just want equal rights.

When hate and prejudice are legitimized by public policy it only makes more conflict.

reply to post by Jezus

Don't you see you are generalizing people the same way you say you were generalized?

Yes, I do. But it appears generalization is the only type of 'logic' that anyone arguing for gay marriage understands. So in a world like that, I protect my own interests.

What is really strange is that your argument is the same one I was trying to get through to people for several days. It hurts when it's turned back on you, doesn't it? Maybe next time, those who want 'equal rights' will be content with equal rights.

Nah, probably not. But it's a nice dream.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Jemison


This woman got exactly the reaction she was trying to get. Don't give me the "poor little old lady" bullcrap, she went down there with the clear intent to make someone angry, and it worked. While there was no call for someone to yank her Roman-era torture device away and stomp on it, it's pretty damn obvious that's exactly why she went down there in the first place.

Can't really expect really angry gay people to act much different from really angry straight people.And apparently you can't expect straight people to not put themselves into stupid situations like this chick did.

Hopefully she'll press charges and get the full fifty cent value of her cardbord cross back!

reply to post by TheRedneck


Well, there's really no "middle ground" to start with. Either you're for someone having equal rights, or you're not. There's no "sorta" in the mix.

As for it being gays wanting to thumb their nose at Christians? You're aware that no matter hiow Christian you are, your marriage is still completely up to the state, right? For all intents and purposes, a marriage is a contract made before the government between yourself and your partner. You have the option of involving religion, but marriage is, at its core, completely secular. Want proof?

Go get a priest to marry you without a marriage license, then try to file your taxes as a married couple. That'll learn ya.

Denying homosexuals the rights available to heterosexuals (in this case, the right to engage in a contract with another adult) is inequal protection under the law. Now perhaps some people feel that hteir personal brand of faith gets precedence over the US and California constitutions. Plain fact is, though, that's not the case, and I imagine you'd be hard pressed to defend similar legislation that decides minority rights via majority vote.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Well, there's really no "middle ground" to start with.

You are apparently correct. In this case, anyway, you are either for re-defining marriage and debasing Christianity, or you are for Christianity and against gay marriage. One cannot be for Christianity and for gay marriage at the same time. So, given those restrictions, I come down on the side that the Constitution was legally amended by a vote of the population in California and that is that.

Either you're for someone having equal rights, or you're not.

Oh, I am all for equal rights for everyone. This is not, IMO after listening to both sides of the argument, about equality; it is about revenge against the 'church' for perceived wrongs done in the past. I do not support revenge tactics, nor do I support reparations.

For all intents and purposes, a marriage is a contract made before the government between yourself and your partner. You have the option of involving religion, but marriage is, at its core, completely secular. Want proof?

Go get a priest to marry you without a marriage license, then try to file your taxes as a married couple. That'll learn ya.

A marriage is a public ceremony announcing and commemorating a monogamous union of a man and a woman before society. That marriage license is nothing more than a type of governmental acceptance of the marital status. Want proof?
Source: www.divorceinfo.com...

Denying homosexuals the rights available to heterosexuals (in this case, the right to engage in a contract with another adult) is inequal protection under the law.

The problem is the word 'adult'. I am not homosexual, but the law forbidding marriage to another man applies to me as well. No one has the right you mention.

Now perhaps some people feel that hteir personal brand of faith gets precedence over the US and California constitutions.

Actually, it appears to me that some people think their interpretation of legal documentation gets precedence over majority votes and over others' freedom of religion.

Plain fact is, though, that's not the case, and I imagine you'd be hard pressed to defend similar legislation that decides minority rights via majority vote.

I would hope that other groups would not have as an integral part of their agenda such hatred of others and denigration of those who disagree with the current side issue of intolerance towards religious beliefs (which you helped point out with your disparaging remark about the woman's property).

As I said in another thread, someone let me know when this is about equality and not about revenge.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


How many marriages are built on revenge and spite?

That's a wee bit weird if their main goal is to marry each other just to get back at Christianity for putting them down and stuff.

reply to post by MacDonagh

I'll agree it is weird that someone could be so spiteful to do so, but then again, I don't think there is a limit as to how much hatred of others the human animal can harbor.

Based on the hatred spewing forth from the supporters of gay marriage as a group (discounting the few who have not done so; they should be acknowledged in all fairness) toward any mention of Christianity or symbols thereof, and based on the fact that any suggestion of civil unions, even those that would be exclusive to all couples draws cries of 'bigotry' as well, there has to be some agenda that cannot operate without the term marriage being involved.

I can see no other possible reason beyond revenge that the word would be so critical to their movement. If you can, then by all means, please enlighten me.

TheRedneck