Two TBM I know were shocked that some people sent in fake, anthrax laced letters. And they were shocked that people were calling in bomb threats?

I don't and didn't condone violence. But they seem to think that they can shake a hornet's nest and not be stung...

No. I think they have every right to be shocked by that response.

I'm all in favor of gay marriage, but threatening violence is a shocking thing to do in any circumstances. And it does nothing but harm the cause.

nickname Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. I think they have every right to be shocked by
> that response.
>
> I'm all in favor of gay marriage, but threatening
> violence is a shocking thing to do in any
> circumstances. And it does nothing but harm the
> cause.


Well, I'm guessing you're not a part of any oppressed group of people. I know that if I said Mexicans should go back to Mexico or tried to pass laws that relegated them to being second-class citizens, I SHOUDLD expect this kind of backlash.

This country has free speech; we learned it in elementary schools. But free speech doesn't mean free from consequences.

But someone else's speech is never a valid defence for violence. Hate speech is bad and should be prosecuted when applicable, but it is fought through opposing speech. Responding to words with violence doesn't advance a cause.

TSCC also contributes to the culture of violence against gays with its words.

Free speech does not protect threats of violence. That crosses the line. In this case, free speech laws protect the haters, from just this sort of response.

I do not approve of what the Morg is doing, but they have every right to say the things they say without the threat of violence against them.

nickname Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Free speech does not protect threats of violence.
> That crosses the line. In this case, free speech
> laws protect the haters, from just this sort of
> response.
>
> I do not approve of what the Morg is doing, but
> they have every right to say the things they say
> without the threat of violence against them.

No arguments from me.

Let me refocus this thread: Mormons were shocked that the response was as strong as it was. That's the issue.

And what the LDS is saying leads to THIS:

http://www.affirmation.org/suicides/

And they get tax exempt status to preach their hate.

That's exactly right. The Church's anti-gay hate speech led to this:

http://www.affirmation.org/suicides/douglas_stewart.shtml

Steve

Gays have lived with the threat of violence from the religious for a very long time. Mathew Shepard was a victim of such violence from two Mormons. Videos of violence, in the form of torture to try to change gays, has been perpetrated on gays at BYU.

While I do not condone violence, many gays have suffered violence at the hand of the religious and many many more have heard the religious leaders preach violence against gays. Many gays fell that violence back (and the instances described were fake, not real) is as justified as self defense. When one understands the full depth of the issue, they would not be surprised. they may not agree but they would not be surprise.

With the extent of violence from Mormons and the Mormon Church against gays, nobody should be shocked that some people (and we do not know if they were gay) start fighting back with violence.

Violence should be fought with the law, not with more violence. Threatening or excusing threats of violence will only hurt any cause that embraces it.

Tell that to every person that has used violence to protect themselves in the name of self defense.

Often the only response to violence that will work is violence in return. Even our founding fathers knew that. Look how much violence they did in the name of civil rights.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2013 11:06PM by MJ.

That's not even close to the same thing.

Yes, there are some situations where the rule of law breaks down and doesn't protect the people who need protection, and they are left to protect themselves. That is self defense. When there is no other option you can turn to, you are entitled to protect yourself with violence. If the Morg was sending out hit squads to round up gay people and beat them, while the cops stood idly by and watched, then yeah, I'd be all for self defense.

But that's not happening here. The government protects all people equally. If a straight man beats up a gay man, he's thrown in jail. Mathew Shepard is a tragic example, since his murderers are spending the rest of their lives in prison for what they did.

The only difference is that the gay hating christians don't have the full power of the state YET. Hitler used Jews as scapegoats, the religious right uses gays. Hitler passed laws trying to prevent Jews from working, the religious right tried to do similar laws with the Brigs initiative in California.

The only difference is that the gay haters in the USA have not taken over the government the way the Jew hating Germans did.

Well, if they ever do, you can sign me up for your revolution.

But I really don't see that happening. Anti-gay support is probably failing faster than any major movement in American history. The President is a supporter of gay rights. The Democratic party is almost completely behind the cause. And even a sizable (and growing) chunk of the Republican party is starting to change their minds. Even the religious right is starting to back away from the issue.

That is just one more thing you should have learned from the Nazis rather than rather than childishly invoking Goodwin law.

How many gays need to be beaten to death for you to realize that some of it IS HAPPENING NOW?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2013 11:37PM by MJ.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me. -- Martin Niemöller

To just dismiss what the Nazis have done is FOOL HEARTY at best, plain out STUPID in My book. But hey, hide behind goodwins law if it makes you feel better about your dismissing the valid lessons we need to learn from the Nazis.

MJ I get it, I understand what you have said in this and many threads, but you continue to fail to understand that inflammatory rhetoric does not help your cause, especially amongst friends.

You treat things as very black and white, very us vs. them, and advocate violence in response to speech.

Frankly, I can understand why, and forgive the analogy but you behave like a battered dog in a shelter; abused so much it growls and nips even at those who are trying to support it and help it. The problem is nobody adopts that dog, regardless of their compassion for it.

There are no nazis here, and Godwin's law exists because it represents an appeal to emotion and a bogey man rather than a reasonable argument. It also creates no sympathy for the one who makes the comparison. They are not taking over the government, and they will not be in the future.

The tide is turning. We hear of new states legalizing gay marriage all the time, and in time we will see federal legalization. Society is changing too, and most of us here expect that in time even TSCC will change its tune, as we saw happen with the ERA.

This is not a time for advocating violence, it is a time to believe in the rule of law. Those who attack and abuse should be prosecuted and punished, not retaliated against. Don't undo the progress we are seeing by stooping to the level of the abusers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2013 11:40PM by squeebee.

Then you have NO understanding of the gay movement and how inflammatory rhetoric and even violence built the gay rights movement and has helped win many victors. The Gay Pride parade commemorates 3 days of gay violence that helped spark many into action. The gay rights movement is rife with violence.

The Founding Fathers understood this as well. They use a lot of inflammatory rhetoric.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2013 11:52PM by MJ.

nickname Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Violence should be fought with the law, not with
> more violence. Threatening or excusing threats of
> violence will only hurt any cause that embraces
> it.


That's what you're saying from the comfort of your La-Z-Boy, and probably not as a gay individual. It's really easy to offer sage advice when you're not actually involved in it.

I'd imagine blacks living in the 60's were more gung-ho, less patient and less willing to accommodate and acquiesce on their rights than whites who were pro-Civil Rights.

When you're actually in the fray, the issues take an added importance. There's an added sense of urgency. I find anti-gay sentiments and anti-black bigotry abhorrent. And I know I can never feel the strength of the hatred as full as they do.

Telling them how to go about enacting change as a straight, white male and expecting them to act within the law at all times is foolhardy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2013 11:23PM by newcomer.

when you do not have christian preachers saying YOU should be put to death then spend all your life looking over your shoulder in case a christian that believes that preacher is about to kill you.

This is true. I'm not gay, I've never been oppressed. I'm a middle class, white, American man.

But you don't have to take it from me, look at people like Ghandi and Martin Luther King. Even when violence often would have been justified, they responded with non-violence. And it worked. People rallied behind them. Laws changed, and more importantly, people's minds changed.

Violence rarely, if ever, changes anyone's mind. It leads to an "us against them" mentality, where the oppressors band together behind the victims, and use the opposition's violence as an excuse for more killing and oppression.

The violence of the Civil Rights movement was key to MLS success.

nickname Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is true. I'm not gay, I've never been
> oppressed. I'm a middle class, white, American
> man.
>
> But you don't have to take it from me, look at
> people like Ghandi and Martin Luther King. Even
> when violence often would have been justified,
> they responded with non-violence. And it worked.
> People rallied behind them. Laws changed, and more
> importantly, people's minds changed.
>
> Violence rarely, if ever, changes anyone's mind.
> It leads to an "us against them" mentality, where
> the oppressors band together behind the victims,
> and use the opposition's violence as an excuse for
> more killing and oppression.

You're right. There was a Martin Luther King. There was a Malcolm X who terrified bigots even more than King who positioned himself as the "safe black man." Some blacks listened to Malcolm X and others listen to MLK.

Some gay people shook their heads. And some sent in powder-filled envelopes to the morg.

TBMs never expected the extreme reactions and to me that's extreme naivete (and also what this thread was about---not the severity of the reactions).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2013 11:48PM by newcomer.

MLK was the good cop in the good cop bad cop scenario. A scenario that does not work without the bad cop.

Violence scares people and makes them PAY ATTENTION to something they would otherwise ignore.

I was surprised they hadn't done enough research to see that the tide was turning on that issue and that gays were getting organized and getting stronger.

What happened to their New York PR people?

There are crazies on each side of the issue. I am sure there are Mormons that would kill gays if given the chance. Oh, wait, that happened to Mathew Shepard, you know REAL violence not just threats.

And those individuals should be prosecuted. When "an eye for an eye" is used as a gameplan you get a war, and additional deaths. Violent backlash will not win public support.

It is not an eye for an eye, it is to many gays, war.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2013 11:13PM by MJ.

While I support gay rights, I'd expect anyone who commits murder or assault to go to jail for it, gay or straight.

Violence brings condemnation, it does not help the cause. The court will not accept retaliation as a justification, only proven self-defence.

Time to take off your rose colored glasses and deal with reality. Often those that murder gays goes unpunished because the law enforcement agents themselves believe gays should be put to death.

It is a sad commentary but the USA was founded on violence, the gay movement was founded on violence and violence is often the only thing that gets attention.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2013 11:17PM by MJ.

With a gay son and living in Ca, I was at ground zero. What I found hard to believe was the mass incredulity of the members. "What did we do?" (when the anti-church reaction started), they asked on one hand while their leaders thanked them profusely on the other.

brian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> With a gay son and living in Ca, I was at ground
> zero. What I found hard to believe was the mass
> incredulity of the members. "What did we do?"
> (when the anti-church reaction started), they
> asked on one hand while their leaders thanked them
> profusely on the other.


That's what I'm talking about too. Gay, TBM co-worker was actually worried about the Temple in SLC. A) He's gay and should be pro-gay and against Prop. 8. And B) he was genuinely surprised that there were some that took it too far by calling in the threats and sending those envelopes.

Mormonism made him self-loathing and child-like. A man nearing 50 had no idea that there would, could, possibly be backlash against the church for entering politics IN ANOTHER STATE.

When I heard the worry in his voice, I wanted to say: "Wait. You're gay! I don't care if you're married. The church was anti-YOU and you're worried about the church's welfare?"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2013 11:53PM by newcomer.

Somebody wrestle him to the ground and hit the reboot button. It is under his right shoulder blade.

Thanking you in advance.

PS: Godwin's Law was the perfect response.

PPS: violence over prop 8? Utah schools get that many bomb threats in a bad week. Come on. During the Quebec Separatist movement in the 1970s, there were actual bomb going off, and not just one or two. And that was Canada, ferchrissakes. If you can't even rise to the level of Canadian violence, don't get too self-impressed.

I'm sorry, the response to Prop 8 wasn't violent. After a couple weeks, it didn't even qualify as noisy anymore.


damn, I hijacked my own post.
Reset MJ.

Oppression thrives on the notion that the oppressed are "other." Acts of violence are usually portrayed, often rightfully, as proof of otherness.

Mandela triumphed because he forgave. If he had sought justice or vengeance, South Africa would never have progressed as far as it did under his leadership. He followed the one path that could end the inter-communal hatred and permit progress toward equality.

The reason public opinion regarding gender complexity has changed in the United States is because it is no longer possible to treat gays as "other." Prop 8 and the Mormon role in Prop 8 initially brought forth homophobia, but then people sat back and reconsidered the question. They realized that their kid's classmate's two mommies are good people, that the gay couple down the street are honorable and kind neighbors, and then they could not hate any more.

Violence is emotionally gratifying, and occasionally necessary when confronted with extreme uses of state power, but in reasonably stable societies the greater weapon is responsible citizenship. In strictly political terms, peaceful - and open - coexistence is what has made the big change over the last decade.

The founding fathers of the USA thought civil rights were worth getting violent about. They killed a lot of people in the name of human rights.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2013 11:51PM by MJ.

The Founding Fathers thought that THEIR human rights were worth fighting for. But they did not think women should get the franchise and they thought blacks were worth 3/5 of whites.

Barrington Moore might be a good place to start, assuming you care about the accuracy of what you are staying.

A revolution against a white ruling class based in England by a white ruling class based in the United States but thoroughly English in culture and politics. The reason that revolution succeeded without inducing civil war was because it was not a revolution: the institutions of the state remained basically the same, and the people oppressed under the old order were oppressed under the new.

If you believe that social revolution, the promotion of human rights, is a worthy goal, you'd better find an example in which social and economic patterns actually changed.

How ever you try to frame it, it was about rights. "No taxation without representation" is a right we take for granted but one they used violence to win.

Violence was their answer to what they perceived was a violation of their civil rights. Seems violence was required to free the slaves as well.