Gay Rights Fanaticism

I find that were living in an age where free speech and free opinion is being challenged with regard to 'what your views' are on homosexuals getting married. Suffice to say, the level of concern this society devotes to whether gays can get wedded is bizarre, and almost monomaniacal.

Don't get me wrong. I am FOR any ones right to do what they want in their free time. If gays want to get married, I don't see how the state can interfere without implicitly challenging a basic fundamental right of citizenship. What worries, and disturbs me, however, is the fanaticism with gay marriage. That somehow, there is emerging only 'one' right way to look at it, and this way is increasingly infecting all people left, right and center.

It's fully ok, to use a TV show, such as every other TV show on TV (modern family and the new sitcom, 'couples' sticks out) but if anyone were to express some personal view - which, of course, might be short on the details, say, the person has a metaphysical philosophy which sees homosexuality as aberration of natural law, and, because human beings possess the unique capacity to perceive instances of natural law, they are morally obligated by that knowledge to act accordingly, this person is somehow 'immoral'.

This philosophical perception is perfectly valid, and fully understandable, and yet, I feel like increasingly people look upon this assessment as somehow 'not right'. Why? Because society is inundating us with one general perception? Because collective conditioning makes free thought to constrained to really be free??

Underlying societies attitudes towards homosexuality is a metaphysical 'gnosticism' which abrogates all traditional metaphysical systems which respects, and seeks to imitate fundamental dynamics seen in nature. However, Since science has proven so successful, our social thinkers are applying their 'scientific method' to philosophy, which, is a sort of Promethean flight from all respect for traditional metaphysical insights, which may have enduring validity.

In any case, this is a social issue so I'll stick to the social implications of this prejudice. It is justified - INTELLECTUALLY - for someone, such as myself, for example, to find something awry in a society which advocates and pushes to the degree that this society is pushing it, for the full integration of gays into society as 'equals' in the partnership of marriage.

I'm here to point out that the other perspective is not "based" in "bigotry". Such a notion is blatant lie. True, most people who oppose gay marriage don't know how to properly phrase their opposition, so they come off looking stupid. But for the student of philosophy, what I bring up about metaphysical principles that underlie universal relations - a yin and a yang, a male and a female dynamic - it is FARR from absurd to look at this and see in it a superior wisdom, which, may be advisable for human beings to imitate, not only because it seems to be an underlying order, but because a departure from such an order might lead to the eventual stagnation and eventual disintegration of values which western society has held dear for thousands of years.

Gay marriage seems to me to be a natural corollary to an attack on traditional family constructs, i.e. a husband, wife, and children. I see a society which abandons the idea of attributing importance to particular differences i.e in sex, will in due time go fully in the direction of Plato's republic, or more probably, Huxleys Brave New World, and abandon ideas like family "units", which could be interpreted as "bigoted" and a type of discrimination between oneself and ones own, and other people.

In short, this fanaticism - and it is complete and total fanaticism to be as hung up as people are about, amidst a failing economy, the possibility of a serious war in Iran, etc - for this to be one of the single biggest concerns in our modern era. And it serves to undermine true liberty, which is a persons right to oppose something he has not only a basic right to oppose, but intellectual justification as well (if its worded in a philosophical manner, as I just did; but most people who oppose gay marriage tacitly recognize a principle of an ideal male-female complementarity).

Is there place for those who oppose a gays right to marriage, without being vilified and treated as the most immoral creature to ever walk the earth? Can someone not still 'like gays' as individuals, but disapprove of their lifestyle choice, without being all around condemned as unworthy?

reply to post by dontreally

Gay marriage seems to me to be a natural corollary to an attack on traditional family constructs, i.e. a husband, wife, and children. I see a society which abandons the idea of attributing importance to particular differences i.e in sex, will in due time go fully in the direction of Plato's republic, or more probably, Huxleys Brave New World, and abandon ideas like family "units", which could be interpreted as "bigoted" and a type of discrimination between oneself and ones own, and other people.

This is what I don't understand about folks who believe that gay "marriage" will destroy the family. Uhmmm they are getting MARRIED which connotes (at least it did at one time) a commitment towards a more stable relationship. Increasingly heterosexuals are eschewing marriage and are just "shacking up".. so why aren't the "pro family" people screaming over THAT trend? What happened to the immorality of living together in "sin" ?

Marriage as an institution, however, is increasingly just a legal formality that many people find to be more of a headache than anything. Divorce is continually on the rise and costs people money. Marriage no longer is forever but generally a 1-7 year commitment at most. It is fodder for "reality" tv "who wants to marry a millionaire" etc.. Celebrity marriages etc..

Mate, very interesting issue you put there.

I think that the gay marriage issue is such a fuss mostly because of religious points of view, since then it becomes a much more "important" issue.

Anyway. It's all about people being against people who are against gay marriage.

Society's gone crazy...

reply to post by dontreally


I think it's pretty simple. No matter how you would like to rationalize the opposition to gays and lesbians getting married - religious, metaphysical, whatever - once you restrict them from being able to marry because YOU don't agree with it, you effectively have trampled on their rights to life (with their chosen partner), liberty (to be with and enter into a contract with whomever they chose) and their pursuit of happiness (with the partner they do choose).

And just to use a specific example, a chritians rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are not effected because a secular law allows something their religion does not. Am I trampling on religionists rights when I eat shellfish, shave or wear clothes made of multiple types of fiber?

And finally, if you, you partner and your friends were constantly being called an abomination by another group, simply because something that, for all intents and purposes, comes naturally TO YOU, wouldn't you want to fight back?

On Yin and Yang in Taoism:

Because yin/yang classifications are expressing the qualities of things in relation to each other, then what counts as yin and yang will vary according to the context. What counts as yin depends on what it is being compared with, and under what circumstances. For example, ice is yin in relation to rock, but yang in relation to water. Similarly a man is yang in relation to woman, but may be yin in relation to another man. This is often confusing to people who insist in thinking of yin and yang as irreducible, dualistic opposites.

(The Illustrated Encyclopedia of World Religions. General Editor: Chris Richards. Element: 1997. P. 220.)

Homosexuality and various gender identities were a norm in many pre-colonial cultures.
To say that gender constructions are written in stone, or were ever written in stone is not correct.

Biblically forms of marriage vary widely between polygamy and concubinage and celibacy, and 1 Corinthians 7: 29 advises even married men to be celibate: "It remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none".

Yet virtually nobody today preaches or follows that.

So now they come with a post-colonial superiority won through gun powder and steel, of one religious interpretation, and claim that is the norm, and everything else is a form of heresy.

Meanwhile they preach a form of heresy and a total historical abnormality that represents but a brief moment of tyranny on this planet.

reply to post by dontreally


The problem is that in 2012 we shouldn't be still discussing equality. That's the problem here and this country needs to have equality for all, that's what our forefathers wanted, that's why they came here, that's why they had a separation of church and state included in the constitution.

Something I've noticed, particularly with gay Americans (mainly because same-sex marriage is legal in the UK), is that the more Government says "NO" the more the gay community work themselves into a frrenzy.
Sorry to use a generalisation or stereotype, but most people know gay men as being a bit flamboyant, and gay women to be (sometimes) a little masculine. I've noticed that the increase and sheer volume of gay rights campaigners has gone mental over the last year or so.

People are campaigning harder, brighter, louder. The women are shouting louder, campaigning more agressively, everyone is brightly waving flags, and wearing clothes that would make a legally blind person blink. I can't fault them for wanting to defend their cause, this is their right as a human being to have their relationships legally recognised in the United States of America.

My thoughts are just, at what point does it become fanatical on both sides?

Marriage, Marriage & Religion and Equal rights

Everyone should have equal rights and everyone should have a right to get married.

Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

This should allow the marriages in general

Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Marriage brings security in relationships, also security in society

Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Registered relationships has not been equal to married couples in front of law.

There are many rights which are violated when same sex marriages are denied.
Law and Religion is mingled. Law should be law to all of us and same.
Still we have to respect our rights to religion, when we see this matter. Everyone has right to religion , no matter are you gay or straight but do you have a right to religious marriage meaning wedding at church etc. when you are gay.. according to bible answer is no. Religion like Christianity is very inflexible if you try to bend it to actions what majority of people think is wrong by the bible, then there is again violation of rights.
But there is Civil marriage, i see no reason why to deny it. Church can still give blessing after civil seremony.

reply to post by dontreally

I don't think opposing gay marriage necessarily makes people homophobic.

Perhaps somewhat heterosexist, but so what?

It's just that people who do oppose gay marriage and aren't homophobic have a really hard time rationalizing that view, but ultimately that's their world-view, and it doesn't need to be consistent or moral.

In fact there are some gay people who don't agree with gay marriage.

I'll be quite honest and say I find straight divorced and remarried people who call themselves Christian quite dodgy at first.
I tend to think she's a slut, and he's a philanderer or a wife-beater.

Maybe it was just how some people were raised.

But with a bit of tolerance we can all get along equally.

I think most people really are live and let live, in the long run. However, when it comes to certain fanatic elements in the gay rights community, their actions only make the opposition dig in their heels. Despite the short memories of some, others have a longer memory to back up their concerns.

For example, when ACT UP protested at St. Patrick's Cathedral in 1989, I think most people would have eventually gotten over it had they not entered the church to disrupt the mass. One person even desecrated a communion wafer. Another, more recent example, was when Bash Back disrupted services at Mount Hope Church in Michigan in 2008. While many could get over the protesting outside the church, and even uphold their right to do so without agreeing with them, they went further by disrupting the Sunday service, pulling fire alarms, storming the pulpit, etcetera.

Those actions only solidify an anti-gay stance, and in turn, make those people feel justified in their opposition.

What great responses.

I honestly have nothing more to add.

reply to post by dontreally



I would argue that the concern AGAINST such actions is the bizarre part..

In any case, this is a social issue so I'll stick to the social implications of this prejudice. It is justified - INTELLECTUALLY - for someone, such as myself, for example, to find something awry in a society which advocates and pushes to the degree that this society is pushing it, for the full integration of gays into society as 'equals' in the partnership of marriage.

Of course it's intellectually justified, you have the rights to your own thoughts, opinions and the right to voice those without the fear of being harmed. But being called out as intolerent for having an intolerent view isn't really that suprising is it?

It comes to down to the fact that you are intolerent of gay marriage. Not gays in general, but the marriage part, you are intolerent. The reasons most people carry ( I won't assume in your case because I don't know ) are emotional in nature.

Those arguments aren't really valid when I look at it from the point of societal equality in a system developped by the government. Marriage as a religious institution has the right to marry only men and women, that's perfectly fine.

But the government doesn't have the right to discriminate aganist once citizen vs another. Especially when that discrimination involves legal rights afforded to one party, but not another based on a non issue like sexuality.

As for your metaphysical argument, well sure, it's valid in the whole ying and yang thing, but I think you limit yourself to the actual biological make up of the folks. A person's sex is male or female, however gender is not 'parts specific'.

You can be a women living in a man's body. Physically you are a man, but your gender is female. From a metaphysical standpoing, how do you address this? Do these sorts of people not really exist? Your argument doesn't account for anything outside the 'norm'.

because a departure from such an order might lead to the eventual stagnation and eventual disintegration of values which western society has held dear for thousands of years.

There's been homosexuality for as long as there has been heterosexuality, it didn't just show up. A lot of cultures have been plenty OK with same sex relationships. Denying something on the basis of 'what if' is an awfully spurious way to go about setting societal standards and practices.

The family unit has hardly been traditional nor 'stable' over the last 30 years and not because homosexuals starting immigrating out of their closets either.

That argument is a bunch of hogwash. There is no attack on the traditional family, nobody is forcing people to get divorces and beat their kids and pay more attention to American Idol than the homework due the next day.

The family unit is doing a great job of destroying itself. ( actually a main factor in any NWO plan, but that's a differnet thread)

In short, this fanaticism - and it is complete and total fanaticism to be as hung up as people are about, amidst a failing economy, the possibility of a serious war in Iran, etc - for this to be one of the single biggest concerns in our modern era. And it serves to undermine true liberty, which is a persons right to oppose something he has not only a basic right to oppose, but intellectual justification as well (if its worded in a philosophical manner, as I just did; but most people who oppose gay marriage tacitly recognize a principle of an ideal male-female complementarity).

You're right. It's NONSENSE for people to carry on this attitude that gay marriage is important, considering the present state of things. Why is then that it's only those pushing for gay marriage and not those who oppose it that are taking that blame? Isn't your argument a bit frivolous as you have stated the other side's is?

Aren't there more pressing matters to attend to?

There's no actual logical reason to oppose gay marriage other than as you stated an intellecual, personal and emotional reason.

The gay community argument is not emotional, nor intellectual, it's legal. It's about being afforded rights that others have for no other reason than who they choose to spend their lives with. Personally I'm in favor of allowing ANY form of voluntary association fall under 'marriage' or civil union.

At the end of the day, there is a place for peopel like you who oppose it, you have an important role to play, all opposition members do.

But don't hide behind the morality of the family unit, which has long been defunct and then claim your argument is intellectually tied to metaphysics is intellectually dishonest.

That logic is VERY circular.

~Tenth

reply to post by DarkKnight76

I think it's pretty simple. No matter how you would like to rationalize the opposition to gays and lesbians getting married - religious, metaphysical, whatever - once you restrict them from being able to marry because YOU don't agree with it, you effectively have trampled on their rights to life (with their chosen partner), liberty (to be with and enter into a contract with whomever they chose) and their pursuit of happiness (with the partner they do choose).

I agree. But there's a difference between allowing them that right, and encouraging and normalizing it.

It's as if this society has lost all right to preference, even if that preference is founded on an eternal principle that has been a staple of civilization for literally thousands of years.

So it's a necessary compromise for those people who disagree, because liberal democracy requires it. However, liberal democracy does not require - in fact, vociferously opposes - the megaphoning and obscene politicization of one issue.

For instance, take the Toronto Blue Jay player who had a joke - which used the word gay, or fag - written into his eye black. What the hell is that?? What is this policing peoples right to an opinion? And even in the context, it is clear that he meant that slur as a joke between himself and other latino players, and nothing more. But again, the gay police shows up; and they show up EVERYWHERE, in sports leagues, in TV shows, in highschools, they are virtually restricting any right to a moral viewpoint independent from the one society provides.

I'm personally convinced that there is far more moral weight on my side, than on the other side. But, since people are different, and compromise and extending a 'fig leaf' is apart of being a right minded citizen, we agree to disagree, and allow law to work independently of any one ideology.

But that's the singular problem: law, and public opinion is being HIJACKED by universalist fanatics who want to stuff their moral relativism down other peoples throats. That's an invasion of a right to free thinking; and a violation of the original values meant by the word 'liberal'.

And just to use a specific example, a chritians rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are not effected because a secular law allows something their religion does not. Am I trampling on religionists rights when I eat shellfish, shave or wear clothes made of multiple types of fiber?

The things you mentioned were Jewish orthodox practices

What I'm against is using the media to influence public opinion. Morals, by the way, are not simply 'morals'. There's a basis to morals which students of philosophy understand are predicated in deeper ideas than just a 'whim' of opinion. So, for those who have been trained to look at the world in secular terms, which essentially immunizes them from ever seriously ruminating over different values, or even looking at the subject of metaphysics without a conditioned bias against 'metaphysical principles' - that's a serious offense against a person's liberty.

Fact is, let's look at our media. Anyone who watches our media, Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Comedy Central, etc, can see only one perspective is being inculcated. Fair? Should we just ignore that these media are controlled by a handful of people - the very elites we supposedly want to take a stand against - invested with the power to determines everyone elses beliefs??

This society is a joke. It stupefies the masses in order to train them in their elites pagan values. And now, and increasingly, since about 2008, there's a constant attack on anyone who even intimates that gays shouldn't get married, or that there is something awry in the concept of two men, or two women, uniting; and furthermore, these people want to raise children, who will surely be stamped with a worldview amenable to the ethic the PTB want to train the masses in.

The root problem is their feeding on our lowest instincts. This is how they work upon us; TV, Radio, the proliferation of sex on the internet, this is disabling for people; it purges them of all traditional moral values i.e. a belief in a personal God, a belief in an eternally valid natural law, etc. They can't even reason properly; they can't even recognize a superior value in two people falling in love - with each other - rather than promoting 'types' of people who people can grovel over, and become spiritually enslaved to.

Liberal democracy, in short, has become a joke, because it is only a concept, and not something the powers that be really care to defend. They have an 'ax to grind' against traditional Judeo-Christian morals. They'll claim liberality, but only when liberality serves their particular metaphysical (because lets not forget, the elites of our world are not uneducated people; they work from the principle of metaphysics to ethics, and not vice versa; thus, a general 'principle' is hammered in, for example, of the 'universal' over the 'particular', which in a more mystical point of view, encourages the perception of the 'relativity' and so complete equality, between all things) preferences.

reply to post by halfoldman

For example, ice is yin in relation to rock, but yang in relation to water. Similarly a man is yang in relation to woman, but may be yin in relation to another man. This is often confusing to people who insist in thinking of yin and yang as irreducible, dualistic opposites.

Aye. I'm aware of that. The Tao, of course, is akin to the Hindu concept of Brahma.

But this is the proclivity of the east towards reductionism. External differences are ignored in favor of internal 'similarity', although, I wonder which man would be the yin, and which the yang? See how tautological that system is? It's perfectly useless in any practical sense.

Homosexuality and various gender identities were a norm in many pre-colonial cultures. To say that gender constructions are written in stone, or were ever written in stone is not correct.

So, the possibility of some inner imbalance - which is what homosexuality was regarded before the cult of relativism began influencing the opinions of psychology - is completely impossible?? It's odd, that spiritual imbalances are so much a part of Yoga, and Buddhist practice, and that is can be responsible for an assortment of personal maladies, but somehow, not homosexuality. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a man who has an emotional attraction to a member of another sex.

On another note, I challenge any person, any honest person with self understanding, to honestly say that he or she couldn't generate homosexual feelings. It's a fact of experience. It can be generated by simply creating the elements. For example, you fear insomnia? You will watch yourself try to fall asleep, and in the process, prevent sleep. You fear you may stutter? You hyper-focus on your speech, on the 'how' and not the 'what' you want to say. Same exact dynamic underlies the sexually confused youth who may feel he could be gay; his "fear" draws the very thing he fears. By the time he reaches maturity, this aberration has become a conditioned part of his personality, of his sexual and erotic preferences.

Even the science behind homosexuality is pseudo-science, because it is not "hard-wired" into the brain, because one, the brain is plastic i.e. changeable, and two, there are plenty of people who have overcome their early feelings through therapy and self understanding. Hence why I find it abominable, and a sad state of current affairs, that California has outlawed institutions that try to help youth with homosexual urges. One, it violates their right to self-determination; two, it uses a PSEUDO-SCIENCE to guilt and defame all people who have been successful in reorienting the emotional energies of men or women to the proper sex.

What's even more hilarious, is that many people inclined to a new age philosophy, or to eastern spirituality, which begins from the premise that 'all is consciousness' - these are some of the main people who deny someones ability to correct that emotional imbalance.

Biblically forms of marriage vary widely between polygamy and concubinage and celibacy, and 1 Corinthians 7: 29 advises even married men to be celibate: "It remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none".

Christianity has a generally unhealthy attitude towards sexuality. All psychologists agree that neuroticism develops when someone completely arrests the expression of sexuality. However, society has gone to the COMPLETE OTHER EXTREME, and so has created just as much neurotics as Christianity created.

Yet virtually nobody today preaches or follows that.

The ideal is monogamy between a male and a female.

reply to post by Lulzaroonie

My thoughts are just, at what point does it become fanatical on both sides?

When you have a social agenda - as the social elites have - you can be as fanatical as you want to be.

It's undeniable that there is a 'social' elite, since, how many companies control the worlds media? Just a handful. And how many people are involved in these enterprises? Just a handful. Fact is, a handful of people determine everyone elses views.

It is fanatical because it has now transitioned from 'let everyone be', which had an actual liberal justification to it, to a campaign to train people to see this as a moral viewpoint; it's the old rule of social programming, say it over and over again, and eventually, it will replace whatever old beliefs they had.

The fanaticism now invades our TV's, in a FAR WIDER ratio then the ratio between gays and straights. In sports leagues, you can't even say 'gay', in it's other sense of 'weird', or 'stupid'. The police have somehow infiltrated the NBA, penalizing Kobe Bryant an absurd 100,000 dollars for saying 'fag'! ..As if there were an actual threat to the life of gay people!

reply to post by halfoldman

heterosexist

That is a hilarious term

So I'm something bad, in other words.

It's just that people who do oppose gay marriage and aren't homophobic have a really hard time rationalizing that view, but ultimately that's their world-view, and it doesn't need to be consistent or moral.

Huh? Did you ignore my metaphysical premise, of there being some fundamental 'command' in natural law, between the complementarity between male and female?

In fact, that is fully logical. What is illogical, is what you wrote earlier about Taoism.

In fact there are some gay people who don't agree with gay marriage.

My cousin is gay, and he's one of my closest friends. I hang with him and his boyfriend, I treat him no different than I would anyone else, although he knows my beliefs about the whole idea of gay sex, gay marriage.

To his credit, he at least acknowledges the perversity of gay pride parades. There is something incredibly self defeating in wanting to be treated as mature adults deserving of equal rights, and walking about half naked - in PUBLIC, with CHILDREN present - blowing whistles, sometimes engaging in inappropriate touching and groping.

Also, as for sexual hygiene, gays are the most diseased social demographic. Even my cousin (whom you don't know, so it doesnt matter that I mention this) hasn't be able to avoid Herpes and HPV. Hepatitis C, Aids are also highest amongst gay men. Is it because these people are overly stimulated? I would think so.

As the ancient Greeks knew well, there is something animalistic and dionysiac (flouting the 'boundaries' of nature was a spiritual practice, for many of them) about homosexuality. It seems to encourage an overemphasis on sex and eroticism, and not love (although, of course, love is possible).

reply to post by dontreally


It all comes down to opinion.

The difference is that gay people are not creating laws to silence you, make you sub-Human, control you, restrict you or limit you in any way.

You are free to think and feel whatever you like.

On the opposite side, there are numerous religious groups whose sole intention is control others, dictate law, spread disinformation, limit the rights of others, make others sub-Human...

People can believe whatever they want to believe, the difference is that the anti-Gay lobby are actively trying to control and subjugate others. When there is a gay organization demanding that you be limited and restricted when it comes to equality, freedom and rights, then you have reason to complain. As I see it right now, you have all your freedoms intact. You are not treated as a second-class citizen based on your sexuality, race, gender or religion.

As for the media, I love how some think the inclusion of gay characters is a "conspiracy". It's not, it's just another example of society moving on past these draconian ideas and the religious freaks being left behind and bewildered at a world they cannot comprehend.

There is no "agenda" or "conspiracy" in the inclusion of gay characters on TV and in movies, this is just the world evolving while the religious fanatics are left peaching to each other.

Originally posted by DarkKnight76
And just to use a specific example, a chritians rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are not effected because a secular law allows something their religion does not. Am I trampling on religionists rights when I eat shellfish, shave or wear clothes made of multiple types of fiber?

This is a very important point that is seldom made.

Why is the Christian right-wing in the USA any different from the Taliban or the Muslim clerics in another country? They are both trying to control a population based on their own religious ideals.

How long will it be before Christian fundamentalists in the USA are physically harming people to get their religious laws (like a Sharia equivalent) nationally recognized?

And even if they never get to that extreme, what makes them any better than the same religious extremists in other nations demanding that the whole world live by their rules?

Once again, the religious are all hypocrites and fail to see the insanity of their own demands, or how they are no better than any other extremist religious group forcing their beliefs onto others.

reply to post by LeSigh

For example, when ACT UP protested at St. Patrick's Cathedral in 1989, I think most people would have eventually gotten over it had they not entered the church to disrupt the mass. One person even desecrated a communion wafer. Another, more recent example, was when Bash Back disrupted services at Mount Hope Church in Michigan in 2008. While many could get over the protesting outside the church, and even uphold their right to do so without agreeing with them, they went further by disrupting the Sunday service, pulling fire alarms, storming the pulpit, etcetera.

Completely agree.

They wont settle for a society of 'differentness' , in terms of beliefs. Their interests are radical social change. Hence, they burst into churches etc.

reply to post by dontreally


There is a place for everyone, but we must all remember that freedom of speech is not about being able to say anything, but how you handle what others say, if others will and ideas oppose any threat to any free willed men/women then it is mental slavery, if one is told how to behave then it is physical slavery.

Answer to your question is, we cannot change the world around us, until we change our self's individually.
It is nice to see someone with you perspective, there is no black vs white how we our trained to perceive every brand and tittle, that there is middle ground.