TFP says because it's effective in exposing hatred among some gay marriage supporters at Brown University.
Do you agree?
Pro-Homosexuals at Brown University Respond to Peaceful TFP Rally with Violence from Brian Brown on Vimeo.
TFP are heros funny that folks like Jim Brochin in our state have nothing to say about the hate from the gays. NOM needs to spotlight Mark Leno and his efforts to teach about gay in the public schools. They want to prevert the kidss they are truly sick.
What do college children know about life? They move from sheltered existence with their parents to sheltered existence on campus. College kids are in a sort of suspended adolescence; clueless about functioning in society. My 4 years of college were great fun, but much of it was a huge waste of time.
They should take back the vote from these children and return the voting age to where it was pre-1971, and maybe consider raising it during conscription (since that's the reason it was raised in the first place).
And, there should be a requirement for children to work full time for at least a year before going to college.
Is that hate speak in you post, 'They want to prevert the kidss they are truly sick.' Tell us how you really feel about homosexuals?
What about TFP claiming (in the video) 'A moral wrong can never be a civil right'. Sounds like hate speech to me. 'Don't Dish it Out if You can't Take It'
"In 2006, there were reports of verbal attacks on gay Latinos by gay whites in The Castro district of San Francisco. John Mendoza, a protest organizer against racism in the Castro, said he was told by a gay white male to "go back to Mexico, you (expletive deleted) wetback, where you belong".
Sounds like hate speech to me. Don't dish it out if YOU can't take it.
Carlos, your definition of hate speech is any sort of speech that you hate. Big difference.
One thing in that video that stuck out in my mind is that woman who wanted to be a civil rights lawyer screaming "It's my stomach!" in reference to abortion.
Someone should tell her that babies grow in the womb, not the stomach. She should also be told that a baby is not a choice, its a life.
It's MYYY stomach!!!11
Sounds like a conspiracy among pro-abortion and pro-SSM advocates for the right to eat babies.
Don - Just goest to show homosexuals can be just like heterosexuals. Thanks for the new report from 2006.
Conserviative NY - How do you know my definition of hate speech, comments I referenced in my post.
You don't think they are hate speech? Feel free to enlighten me.
Wow, all I can say is righteous will triumph over evil.
Oh, I see, "newness" is now an issue. No problem!
"Jamez Smith, a gay black man, says racism is alive in the Twin Cities' gay community"
"He accuses local gay bars of singling him out for harassment because of his race"
"By Bradley Campbell Wednesday, Mar 18 2009"
"In San Francisco, he had felt the sting of racism at a gay bar just blocks away from the spot where Harvey Milk gave a speech for equal rights."
"In another Bay Area incident, a gay co-worker told him to fly back to Africa."
"Smith has a hard time understanding how any gay man can be racist. "They know what oppression feels like. How could they turn around and be this way?" he says. "It's white privilege."
"And to make matters worse, the majority of the racism, sexism, classism, and straight-up cultural insensitivity I've encountered since moving here has come from the gay community."
Let me know if you have a request for something even more recent.
Well, if gays are "just like" heteros in terms of hate speech, then maybe you should shut up about it.
Oh, you want something newer. Happy to accomodate your specific request. How's this?
"Jamez Smith, a gay black man, says racism is alive in the Twin Cities' gay community
If gays are as bad as heteros regarding "hate speech" then maybe you should reconsider it you want to bring up that issue.
If the comments of gays are as bad as those of heterosexuals, Carlos, then why did you bring up the issue?
Ahh the intolerance from the group the group that advocates tolerance for all.
Once again they cannot debate the issues because they cannot the points we bring up. If you cannot refute it, then attack the messenger.
2468 no hate in our state is easier to say than refuting the evidence against their position.
Carlos: He feels that if you beleive in the truth that a moral wrong cannot be a civil right. This is hate speech.
So are you saying that those who find adultery, swinging, stealing, lying, murdering, etc. as moral wrongs that cannot be a civil right, does this mean they were guilty of hate speech?
So there are some racist gays, there a buckets upon buckets of racist heteros. If anything this just shows that gay people are just like straight people. Also that video is biased and filled with selective edits. Besides this is coming from a group who thinks that the Catholic church is filled with Marxists, and they hate Protestants. I'm not sure how much we should be trusting them.8
Why don't all you nom freaks just come out of the closet already and stop acting like an overdramatic high school clique. That's what all of you haters are. Well I have news for you: there's room for all of us at the lunch table. Oh and someone said to raise the voting age. Nah. But what will happen is as soon as another generation or two dies out gays will have all the equal rights in the world... And I think u all know that. Go ahead hang on to your last ditch attempt cause that's what it is.... "me thinks thou dost protest too much."
How often does YouTube ban videos for "selective edits", Ben?
All this video shows is one bunch of people marching around in capes, and another bunch of people giving them the finger. I kinda think the public can handle it.
Don - Thanks again for the news reports. Again, I agree that homosexuals are not perfect and can be racist/prejudice just like heterosexuals. Maybe be hard to believe but just because your the member of a minority you can still have these negative traits
In the 80's there was the Cuban boat lift and Cubans already in Miami nicknamed the new arrivals 'scum'. Shameful.
John - I'm sure homosexuality was the moral wrong referred to by TFP, which is not illegal, accepted in society and arguably not immoral. If anything it is immoral in your religion but not society.
Ironically, enough adulterer's, murder's, thieves, liars and for that matter any criminal can get married.
The practice of homosexuality is abnormal, sexually deviant behavior. You want us to change the definition of marriage specifically so that a group, of less than 3% of the population, which is defined by sexual deviancy and which cannot, without the help of a third party, procreate, can enter into an officially codified and sanctioned relationship which is the core of the American family.
"Ironically, enough adulterer's, murder's, thieves, liars and for that matter any criminal can get married."
Yes, and gays can marry too, Carlos. Sexual orientation does not prevent a person who identifies as gay from participating in marriage on exactly the same terms as everyone else. If you would rather not do that, that's your right. And it's the American electorate's right to refuse to change the definition of marriage to something you might like better.
Lefty and Don:
Doggone it you guys are sharp and brillant. Those posts were going to be my posts to answer Carlos but you guys beat me to it.
I'll just have to say I second your post. Yes Carlos homosexuality is immoral and yes you homosexuals may marry if you obey the law like the rest of us.
Carlos: Answer one more question. Do you have a civil right to disobey any law you please because that is not the way you want the law to be. Make up your own law and claim you only want the same rights as everybody else, and that you only want equallity.
I have this problem. I want to use the library equally like everybody else. But I went in barefoot. They said if I wore shoes then I could like everybody else. I pointed out that here in Massachusetts when it came to marriage homosexuals made up their own laws on marriage and claimed it was their right and that they only wanted equallity. If homosexuals can have this type of equallity then why can't other people have it.
Remember now I was not asking for special rights to use the library. Only looking for equallity. If people with shoes on can go to the library then why can't barefoot people have the same equal rights to use the library?
I await your answer.
Lefty, sorry but sexual orientation DOES prevent homosexuals from participating in marriage exactly like everyone else. Think about it, they wouldn't be marrying that special someone they love or are sexually attracted to. It would not be a true marriage.
These are probably the most important terms/conditions of a marriage and they would be missing.
Don - Your comment above:
'The practice of homosexuality is abnormal, sexually deviant behavior'.
Sorry if I misinterpreted it but but does seems to be based more on your despise of homosexuality than anything else.
In any case, the point here is that while some of those opposed to TFP in the video are being considered as intolerant, so is TFP.
I also get the feeling your level of intolerance is high.
You know what I mean, Carlos. Your sexual orientation is not a legal bar to marriage, even if it happens to make marriage unappealing to you. A polyamorously-oriented person might be just as displeased with marriage's definition with regard to number, as you are with marriage's defintion with regard to gender. How is your displeasure a sufficient reason for redefining the institution -- over the objections of most Americans, in fact?
There you go again, Carlos, telling me what I feel. Telling me that I despise homosexuals. Let's try that the other way around, Carlos, and see how you like it.
"Sorry if I misinterpreted but your comments do seem to be based more on your despise of heterosexuality than anything else."
You get the feeling that my level of intolerance is high? Gee, I get the same feeling about you. Maybe because of things like this:
"The Last Bias: How & Why We Tolerate Gay Anti-Asian Prejudice -- & Its Pernicious Effect on Our Community
by Joseph Erbentraut
Sunday Aug 22, 2010"
"Anti-Asian sentiment remains one of the last prejudices tacitly if not overtly condoned in the gay community. Even more than anti-fat, anti-aging or the other "anti’s" (racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, even geographic snobbery), prejudice against Asians seems to be endemic in the wider community, especially American gay urban affluent men."
Sorry if I misinterpreted but it does seems to be based more on your despise of heterosexuality than anything else.
Yeah, I have the same feeling about your level of intolerance, Carlos. Maybe because of things like this:
Hey, what do you know. NOM is cen-sor-ing my comments again! How about that!
Don, I think the blog might be set up to refer longer comments to a moderator for approval before posting them. Just something I've noticed.
Don, I think Lefty is correct. Some of my comments appear right away, some appear 12 or more hours later, some vanish. I think it's party moderation and partly an occasional glitch in the site. I get the feeling this blog is in inundated with hits, so some comments never make it through the traffic.
OK, Lefty and Barb. I trust what you guys say.
Don - Not sure where you got the impression I may have something against heterosexuals, I've made no such related comment. In fact, all I've done is responded to your comment. If I misinterpreted, feel free to enlighten me.
Again, thanks for the lesson on prejudice within the gay community. Just goes to show homosexuals can have the same ugly face as the rest of society.
John - No one has a civil right to disobey a law if they please, I've not said that and not sure where that even comes from.
Of course, it is not against the law for same-sex couples to get married but instead are denied the right. If a couple from Utah gets married in Vermont, they won't get arrested upon returning home.
As for you analogy with the library, if everyone has to wear shoes, everyone has to wear shoes. Everyone is treated equally. However, if a certain group of people had the privelage to enter without shoes, then there would be a case for discrimination against those that did have to wear shoes.
As for making up a law that homosexuals can get married, that can be argued. With the womens liberation movement, all gender specific roles in a marriage were removed. In reality, this opened the door for SSM. This is why same-sex couples started going to court and started winning. As such, a movement began to exclude homosexuals from getting married. Left on it's own, marriage laws do allow for homosexual marriages but some people didn't like that and decided to put in place laws requiring a marriage be between opposite sex couples.
@ Carlos Speaking of the library, they let some people bring their fancy seeing-eye dogs inside, but I can't bring MY dog. No fair!
There they go again, with their stupid "rational purpose" discrimination. Makes me so mad. I pay taxes too, you know. A dog is a dog. All canine ownership must be treated equally, right?
Lefty - Consider yourself lucky that your not blind and at least have some sympothy for those who are, need a dog to get around and society is willing to accomodate.
Allowing the blind man into the library with his seeing-eye dog, allows him to take advantage of the the benefits the library has to offer. Denying SSM does not allow homosexuals from taking advantage of the benefits of marriage.
What benefit would you get from bringing your dog to the library?
Did everybody read my earlier posts and Carlos response in post #33. He just validated my post.
Carlos said in paragraph one that no one has a right to disobey any law they please. So when homosexuals try to demand same sex marriage where the law says it is one man and one woman, are they not disobeying the law?
In paragraph two he said that it was not against the law for same sex couples to get married. Oh really? In all of those states where marriage is one man and one woman how can same sex couples be obeying the law? He said that they are denied the right. This assumes a right to SSM which is a right that you do not have and assumes that a marriage license is a right when in fact all licenses and benefits are priviledges.
Ahh I just love his answer at paragraph three. He says to enter a library everyone has to wear shoes, they are treated equally. So when marriage is one man and one woman everyone has to obey the law. Everyone is treated equally. However if homosexuals were granted the priviledge of SSM then that would discriminate against those who have to obey the marriage laws. For example the polygamists would have to obey the marriage laws while homosexuals would not. This would be the discrimination he is talking about in the paragraph.
Finally the old gender equality trick. It did not open the door to SSM. Under gender equallity and marriage laws being one man and one woman then all gendors have to obey the law equally.
John - Homosexuals demanding SSM where the law says it is only between a man and women is not the same as disobyeing the law. Simply trying to change the law.
As for SSM being against the law, you seemed to miss the point. If I get married in Vermont and return to my home state, where marriage is defined as only one man one women I will not get arrested. If I walk up to a police officer and advise him of my marriage, show him the license, pictures of the wedding and ring, I won't get arrested. No law has been broken. In fact, these laws typically stipulate that only marriages of one man one women will be performed/recognized. They do not criminalize it.
As for discrimination of polygamist, I can't speak to their position or rational for not allowing. However, you do bring up a point, better not let the polygamist know.