Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
marriage is murder... duh
ethnographic findings reveal that
marriage is still a violent racist, misogynist and classist instution
even if you're gay!!! whoa!
marriage is still a violent racist, misogynist and classist instution
even if you're gay!!! whoa!
Marriage is Murder
on the discursive limits of matrimony
So what is wrong with gay marriage?
In order to answer that question we must first understand what this thing called marriage is. Marriage is essentially a financial and legal contract that allocates the movement of property, power and privilege from one person to another. Historically it has been a way of consolidating family power amongst and between men, through women. In more recent times marriage in the United States has functioned to solidify the American middle class. Marriage does this through concentrating wealth and power through family lines and inheritance (both in terms of money and power). Because of marriage's ability to discipline class structures it is now, and always has been a primary structure of a capitalist economy. In reality most people marry within their own socioeconomic class. Marriage, earlier through miscegenation laws, and currently through racist values also contains wealth through racist ideologies of matrimony. Because of these realities there has been a long history of critique of the institution of marriage launched by feminists of color, white feminists, and queer people among others.
What about gay marriage? Isn't gay marriage going to change all of this?
NO. The current push towards gay marriage is, in fact, not going to subvert the systems of domination we all live through. Ironically, the gay marriage movement is standing on these same legacies of brutality for their slice of the wedding cake. Take for example the Freedom to Marry stickers created by the freedom to marry organization. Not only are these stickers falsely equating the intervention of the State into ones life (marriage) with freedom (when was the last time the State helped you to become more free?) they are trying to work this idea through horrifying star-spangled stickers. Instead of critiquing the ways US imperialism has rendered most transgender people, queer people, people or color etc. as expendable through its countless wars here and abroad, the Freedom To Marry stickers simply disguise these histories and reproduce this red-white-and-blue national theme for every married gay and guilt filled liberal to wear with PRIDE.
If straight people can marry why should gay people not have the same privilege?
What we are calling for is an abolishment of State sanctioned coupling in either the hetero or homo incarnation. We are against any institution that perpetuates the further exploitation of some people for the benefit of others. Why do the fundamental necessities marriage may provide for some (like healthcare) have to be wedded to the State sanctioned ritual of terror known as marriage?
Won`t gay marriage help couples stay together where one person is not a US citizen?
The way immigration is being used by the gay marriage movement is not only un-thought-out but also relies on racist notions of the white man saving his brown lover. Although it is true that because of the US policies on immigration some lesbian and gay couples may be split, gay marriage does not at all question these systems that allow some people into the country( white) while excluding others (people of color). Where are the gay marriage activists when the INS is actively raiding and deporting whole families ?(such as it is currently doing just blocks away from the Castro in San Francisco's Mission District). Also missing from the picture of immigration that gay marriage advocates are painting is the reality that there are queer couples in the US where neither person is a US citizen. How will gay marriage help them stay in the US if that is what they want to do? Gay marriage will not challenge citizenship but simply place some bodies within its grasp while holding others out.
I agree with your argument, but isn't gay marriage a step in the right direction?
This liberal model of progression is one of the primary ways many of us are ideologically trapped into a reformist way of thinking. To understand how gay marriage, like voting, will never lead to liberation we can look to the histories of many social justice movements that only address oppressions on a level of the symptomatic. Gay marriage and voting are symbolic gestures that reinforce structures while claiming to reconfigure them. This scheme will undoubtedly become apparent with marriage equality advocates. As they have positioned gay marriage as the last great civil rights battle, will they continue to fight after the Honeymoon?
Won't gay marriage help get health care to more people?
It may help some people get healthcare but for the vast majority of Americans with NO healthcare it will do nothing. And within the rhetoric of the gay marriage movement working towards healthcare for all (people and animals) is nowhere to be found. This argument also relies on the false assumption that one person would already have healthcare.
So if you are against gay marriage then you are allying with the Christian Right and the GOP!
NO. This is amongst the most troubling aspect of this current epidemic of gay marriage. The way the marriage movement is framing any critique of their precious institution is either you are one of us (gay married) or you are one of them (homophobe). This helps to silence the much needed debate and public discourse around such issues. It seems as if everyone has been shamed into submission and subsequent silence by the marriage movement. Even in allegedly progressive circles any mention of the implicit links between marriage, misogny, and racism in the U.S. gets shutdown by a gay married. Ironically, if you look at the rhetoric of the freedom to marry movement and the Republican Party their similarities are frighteningly apparent. In their ideal world we would all be monogamously coupled, instead of rethinking the practice of coupling. They want us working our jobs not working towards collective and self-determination, remembering anniversaries not the murder of trans-people, buying wedding rings not smashing capitalism. The vision of the future the republicans and the gay marriage movement has offered will render most of us already in the margins of the picture (trans-people, sex workers, queers of color, HIV positive people, non-monogamous people etc) as the new enemy of the regime of married normalcy they hope to usher in.
Gay Shame: a virus in the system
on the discursive limits of matrimony
So what is wrong with gay marriage?
In order to answer that question we must first understand what this thing called marriage is. Marriage is essentially a financial and legal contract that allocates the movement of property, power and privilege from one person to another. Historically it has been a way of consolidating family power amongst and between men, through women. In more recent times marriage in the United States has functioned to solidify the American middle class. Marriage does this through concentrating wealth and power through family lines and inheritance (both in terms of money and power). Because of marriage's ability to discipline class structures it is now, and always has been a primary structure of a capitalist economy. In reality most people marry within their own socioeconomic class. Marriage, earlier through miscegenation laws, and currently through racist values also contains wealth through racist ideologies of matrimony. Because of these realities there has been a long history of critique of the institution of marriage launched by feminists of color, white feminists, and queer people among others.
What about gay marriage? Isn't gay marriage going to change all of this?
NO. The current push towards gay marriage is, in fact, not going to subvert the systems of domination we all live through. Ironically, the gay marriage movement is standing on these same legacies of brutality for their slice of the wedding cake. Take for example the Freedom to Marry stickers created by the freedom to marry organization. Not only are these stickers falsely equating the intervention of the State into ones life (marriage) with freedom (when was the last time the State helped you to become more free?) they are trying to work this idea through horrifying star-spangled stickers. Instead of critiquing the ways US imperialism has rendered most transgender people, queer people, people or color etc. as expendable through its countless wars here and abroad, the Freedom To Marry stickers simply disguise these histories and reproduce this red-white-and-blue national theme for every married gay and guilt filled liberal to wear with PRIDE.
If straight people can marry why should gay people not have the same privilege?
What we are calling for is an abolishment of State sanctioned coupling in either the hetero or homo incarnation. We are against any institution that perpetuates the further exploitation of some people for the benefit of others. Why do the fundamental necessities marriage may provide for some (like healthcare) have to be wedded to the State sanctioned ritual of terror known as marriage?
Won`t gay marriage help couples stay together where one person is not a US citizen?
The way immigration is being used by the gay marriage movement is not only un-thought-out but also relies on racist notions of the white man saving his brown lover. Although it is true that because of the US policies on immigration some lesbian and gay couples may be split, gay marriage does not at all question these systems that allow some people into the country( white) while excluding others (people of color). Where are the gay marriage activists when the INS is actively raiding and deporting whole families ?(such as it is currently doing just blocks away from the Castro in San Francisco's Mission District). Also missing from the picture of immigration that gay marriage advocates are painting is the reality that there are queer couples in the US where neither person is a US citizen. How will gay marriage help them stay in the US if that is what they want to do? Gay marriage will not challenge citizenship but simply place some bodies within its grasp while holding others out.
I agree with your argument, but isn't gay marriage a step in the right direction?
This liberal model of progression is one of the primary ways many of us are ideologically trapped into a reformist way of thinking. To understand how gay marriage, like voting, will never lead to liberation we can look to the histories of many social justice movements that only address oppressions on a level of the symptomatic. Gay marriage and voting are symbolic gestures that reinforce structures while claiming to reconfigure them. This scheme will undoubtedly become apparent with marriage equality advocates. As they have positioned gay marriage as the last great civil rights battle, will they continue to fight after the Honeymoon?
Won't gay marriage help get health care to more people?
It may help some people get healthcare but for the vast majority of Americans with NO healthcare it will do nothing. And within the rhetoric of the gay marriage movement working towards healthcare for all (people and animals) is nowhere to be found. This argument also relies on the false assumption that one person would already have healthcare.
So if you are against gay marriage then you are allying with the Christian Right and the GOP!
NO. This is amongst the most troubling aspect of this current epidemic of gay marriage. The way the marriage movement is framing any critique of their precious institution is either you are one of us (gay married) or you are one of them (homophobe). This helps to silence the much needed debate and public discourse around such issues. It seems as if everyone has been shamed into submission and subsequent silence by the marriage movement. Even in allegedly progressive circles any mention of the implicit links between marriage, misogny, and racism in the U.S. gets shutdown by a gay married. Ironically, if you look at the rhetoric of the freedom to marry movement and the Republican Party their similarities are frighteningly apparent. In their ideal world we would all be monogamously coupled, instead of rethinking the practice of coupling. They want us working our jobs not working towards collective and self-determination, remembering anniversaries not the murder of trans-people, buying wedding rings not smashing capitalism. The vision of the future the republicans and the gay marriage movement has offered will render most of us already in the margins of the picture (trans-people, sex workers, queers of color, HIV positive people, non-monogamous people etc) as the new enemy of the regime of married normalcy they hope to usher in.
Gay Shame: a virus in the system
For more information:
http://www.gayshamesf.org/
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
I wonder if Palestinians support equal civil rights for gay Americans?
Not an issue for them? Well why not? Clearly Gay Shame has connected the two issues.
If I'm expected to suffer second-class citizenship and drop my own cause for theirs, no questions asked, then why can't I ask them to do the same for me?
Oh, that's right--because gays take a back seat to *ALL* other groups, right Gay Shame?
Not an issue for them? Well why not? Clearly Gay Shame has connected the two issues.
If I'm expected to suffer second-class citizenship and drop my own cause for theirs, no questions asked, then why can't I ask them to do the same for me?
Oh, that's right--because gays take a back seat to *ALL* other groups, right Gay Shame?
So let me see if I understand this: because gay marriage doesn't solve all problems of class, race, immigration and violence, then gay marriage is all bad and must be stopped?
I don't see how opposing gay marriage solves any of those problems either, so why oppose equal rights for gays if the result is the same?
Oh, and it only flatters Gay Shame to put them in the same league as the religious right, who actually have the power to oppress gay people. Gay Shame just WISHES it had the power to oppress gay people.
I don't see how opposing gay marriage solves any of those problems either, so why oppose equal rights for gays if the result is the same?
Oh, and it only flatters Gay Shame to put them in the same league as the religious right, who actually have the power to oppress gay people. Gay Shame just WISHES it had the power to oppress gay people.
Why on earth is anyone paying attention to these clowns? They speak for themselves and no one else. I'll never understand the ability of these fools to link themselves with whatever trendy cause is around from day to day. This time it's the Palis. Earth to Mary - as a gay man, let me personally convey my deep and unqualified disinterest in the self-inflicted problems of the Palis. Last time I checked, being gay had nothing to do with Arabs, and Arabs certainly have nothing to do with my being gay. However, Arab society in general is perhaps the most homophobic and violent toward gay people of any society of earth. So you will excuse me if I kindly ask that you shut the fuck up about it...mkay? Good, glad that's clear.
Gay Shame has a point. We all need to put aside this post-modernist belief that there is no "hierarchy of oppression". If gay people (or anyone who advocates for them) are suggesting that their inability to legally marry is on par with men, women, and children being blown apart by weapons paid collectively for by our tax dollars and dropped on them by leadership that supposedly represents us, then I must say you are extremely deluded. Only in a society as comfortable and privileged and comfortable as ours would you find people who hold that opinion. This quote from Ward Churchill summarizes my point very well:
"We have to strip away a whole lot of illusions and confusions and self-interests and beliefs, in order to see that there is a hierarchy of oppression, in order to get back to the fact that there are actual children starving and bleeding and that takes priority over whether or not you're getting groped at the water fountain.
I am not making an argument that groping somebody at a water fountain is permissible activity. Not at all. And yes it is oppressive. It is oppression. But yes there does exist a hierarchy of oppression. Genocide is more consequential than sexual harassment, for example. Or being gouged on your rent. Or getting paid a little less than you should on the assembly line or the repair shop. Those are not inconsequential issues but they are not comparable issues either.
We have got to understand that we are up against a hierarchy and a hierarchy, by definition, will act in a hierarchical manner. The hierarchy's oppression of course is going to be hierarchical. We need to understand that and establish a prioritization of where we put our limited energies so we can accomplish the most bang for our buck.
The old adage about "Think globally. Act locally." has other translations. We understand that there's a whole panoply of problems out there but we cannot address all of them all the time. Sometimes someone insisting that their oppression is as consequential as everybody else's obstructs the focus of energy to attack the key points to bring the structure, the hierarchy -- the whatever-you-want-to-call-it -- to its knees so we can get rid of all this god-damned oppression.
A little less enlightened self-interest and self-privileging, and a little more political consciousness and focus would go a whole long way toward actualizing the principles articulated in the Constitution, in terms that we would want to embrace and understand them and in the traditions of some indigenous peoples from whom they expropriated them. The model of how their implementation could occur, exists."
taken from "Perversions of Justice", a talk given in Oakland (2/22/03)
There is NO equivalency (moral, ethical, or otherwise) between confronting imperialism and securing the right to marry for homosexuals. I've always wondered how those issues somehow became combined in the lefty/progressive agenda. That has to stop. It does not serve the greater purpose of establishing justice and basic human dignity for those suffering in the world - especially since the OVERWHELMING majority of those people find homosexuality morally repugnant and unacceptable on all grounds. It's nothing more than selfishness and self-indulgence, plain and simple.
"We have to strip away a whole lot of illusions and confusions and self-interests and beliefs, in order to see that there is a hierarchy of oppression, in order to get back to the fact that there are actual children starving and bleeding and that takes priority over whether or not you're getting groped at the water fountain.
I am not making an argument that groping somebody at a water fountain is permissible activity. Not at all. And yes it is oppressive. It is oppression. But yes there does exist a hierarchy of oppression. Genocide is more consequential than sexual harassment, for example. Or being gouged on your rent. Or getting paid a little less than you should on the assembly line or the repair shop. Those are not inconsequential issues but they are not comparable issues either.
We have got to understand that we are up against a hierarchy and a hierarchy, by definition, will act in a hierarchical manner. The hierarchy's oppression of course is going to be hierarchical. We need to understand that and establish a prioritization of where we put our limited energies so we can accomplish the most bang for our buck.
The old adage about "Think globally. Act locally." has other translations. We understand that there's a whole panoply of problems out there but we cannot address all of them all the time. Sometimes someone insisting that their oppression is as consequential as everybody else's obstructs the focus of energy to attack the key points to bring the structure, the hierarchy -- the whatever-you-want-to-call-it -- to its knees so we can get rid of all this god-damned oppression.
A little less enlightened self-interest and self-privileging, and a little more political consciousness and focus would go a whole long way toward actualizing the principles articulated in the Constitution, in terms that we would want to embrace and understand them and in the traditions of some indigenous peoples from whom they expropriated them. The model of how their implementation could occur, exists."
taken from "Perversions of Justice", a talk given in Oakland (2/22/03)
There is NO equivalency (moral, ethical, or otherwise) between confronting imperialism and securing the right to marry for homosexuals. I've always wondered how those issues somehow became combined in the lefty/progressive agenda. That has to stop. It does not serve the greater purpose of establishing justice and basic human dignity for those suffering in the world - especially since the OVERWHELMING majority of those people find homosexuality morally repugnant and unacceptable on all grounds. It's nothing more than selfishness and self-indulgence, plain and simple.
I also need to make it clear that I'm not advocating for Gay Shame as an organization or movement, either. I'm agreeing with the point being made, but I (along with alot of people who consider themselves progressive) am not down with the whole parading of the gay cause. What you do in your bedroom with whomever you choose is your choice and none of my business. I couldn't care less. But don't try to force me to accept your life style to be anything other than what it is - deviant. Your lifestyle has nothing to do with being progressive or enlightened or anything else remotely related.
As I said before - that needs to be removed from the progressive/anti-imperialist agenda. It simply obfuscates the real issue of truly brutal oppression being perpetrated in the world and de-legitimizes progressive/anti-imperialist efforts in the eyes of people who may very well be our allies otherwise.
recognize...
As I said before - that needs to be removed from the progressive/anti-imperialist agenda. It simply obfuscates the real issue of truly brutal oppression being perpetrated in the world and de-legitimizes progressive/anti-imperialist efforts in the eyes of people who may very well be our allies otherwise.
recognize...
hmmm...I was with you until you started spouting some homophobic drivel about queer rights holding back an anti-imperialist agenda. what newspaper-pushing bunch of clowns are you fronting for, anyway? and besides, if even the RCP can get themselves into the present moment, you can too.
moving right along...well, pretty much everything I could say was articulated by reality check (despite their laughable attitude towards queers). there ya go.
and as far as sfres goes: folks like you are always around the movement: first, you ignored lesbians (when you weren't busy ridiculing us), then you ignored bisexuals (ditto), then you doled out the same treatment for transgender folks -- and you *still* act as if people outside of your favorite table at Starbucks (18th and Castro, of course, seen and be seen, blah blah) don't even exist. How many Matthew Shepards does it take for you to wake up and realize that, as Audre Lorde put it so well, your silence is *not* going to protect you? you need to smell the bacon before its your ass on the griddle.
moving right along...well, pretty much everything I could say was articulated by reality check (despite their laughable attitude towards queers). there ya go.
and as far as sfres goes: folks like you are always around the movement: first, you ignored lesbians (when you weren't busy ridiculing us), then you ignored bisexuals (ditto), then you doled out the same treatment for transgender folks -- and you *still* act as if people outside of your favorite table at Starbucks (18th and Castro, of course, seen and be seen, blah blah) don't even exist. How many Matthew Shepards does it take for you to wake up and realize that, as Audre Lorde put it so well, your silence is *not* going to protect you? you need to smell the bacon before its your ass on the griddle.
Why waste your time telling queers that we are merely deviants, that our cause is unjust and unworthy? Seriously--only the tiny minority of Gay Shamists buys into that whole guilt trip.
The rest of us here in the LGBTI/Queer section of Indybay just see right through your bigotry--you can dress it up anyway you want--oh, you only care about doing good in the (straight) world!--but the fact is, you think straights are inherently better and more worthy people.
No wonder you support Gay Shame's means and ends. Like you, they work to weaken gay ties and channel gay energies to any issue but gay issues.
Hierarchy? You rank high up in the hierarchy of "progressive" straight supremacists.
The rest of us here in the LGBTI/Queer section of Indybay just see right through your bigotry--you can dress it up anyway you want--oh, you only care about doing good in the (straight) world!--but the fact is, you think straights are inherently better and more worthy people.
No wonder you support Gay Shame's means and ends. Like you, they work to weaken gay ties and channel gay energies to any issue but gay issues.
Hierarchy? You rank high up in the hierarchy of "progressive" straight supremacists.
I'm not advocating for the brutal repression of homosexuals - if you want to bring up Matthew Shepard, or anyone else that has been a victim to those types of violent attacks. But, I make the same argument against heterosexuals who feel the need to grope each other and exhibit whatever sexual what-have-you comes to mind in public. That's nobody else's business. On the whole, we need alot less self-indulgence and "exhibitionist, look-at-me, world" type of behavior and alot more dignity, discipline, intelligence, strategic & tactical thinking, sacrifice, self-restraint, and focus. Sexual and gender politics is something that people who are WAY too comfortable and privileged engage in. And it's inexcusable - especially for people who are all too aware of the kind of violence being brought down on people's heads all over the world (and right here at home) - to allow these types of issues to take away from the sense of urgency this very real violent oppression and repression needs to be effectively confronted.
Otherwise, this WHOLE activism thing is a charade...nothing more than a cruel joke. In fact, it would in some ways make you worse than the perpetrators of the violence, because those folks are very honest about what they intend to do.
Just do everyone a favor and declare your self interest and advocate for it without confusing the issue at hand...
Otherwise, this WHOLE activism thing is a charade...nothing more than a cruel joke. In fact, it would in some ways make you worse than the perpetrators of the violence, because those folks are very honest about what they intend to do.
Just do everyone a favor and declare your self interest and advocate for it without confusing the issue at hand...
Heterosupremacist wrote: "On the whole, we need alot less self-indulgence and "exhibitionist, look-at-me, world" type of behavior and alot more dignity, discipline, intelligence, strategic & tactical thinking, sacrifice, self-restraint, and focus."
And you lump activist gays in as the kinds of people "we" don't need, and not as the kind "we" do. That is pre-judging--that is prejudice. Ego isn't a function of sexual orientation--nor is efficacy, nor talent.
Heterosupremacist wrote: "Sexual and gender politics is something that people who are WAY too comfortable and privileged engage in."
Again, pre-judging. There is a movement for gay equality and freedom in China, in Iran, in Brazil--nations where gays are less than comfortable fighting for their rights, and certainly not privileged. You purport to "know" much that you really don't--you have never really critiqued your own heterosupremacist programming, have you?
In any case, if one is comfortable and/or privileged--and some will always be--there are far worse things for such persons to choose than political activism with the goal of expanding civil rights. Even if you don't personally like the people who might gain those civil rights.
Heterosupremacist wrote: "And it's inexcusable - especially for people who are all too aware of the kind of violence being brought down on people's heads all over the world (and right here at home) - to allow these types of issues to take away from the sense of urgency this very real violent oppression and repression needs to be effectively confronted. "
Inexcusable that people organize to gain for themselves the rights they seek? Hogwash. If queers don't do it ourselves, nobody will--which may work just fine for a straight bigot, but it doesn't work for us. You prioritize hetero over homo, and all else flows downhill from there.
Heterosupremacist wrote: "In fact, it would in some ways make you worse than the perpetrators of the violence, because those folks are very honest about what they intend to do. "
We have a winner! I mean, I thought the Gay Shamists' "Marriage is Murder" title was going to win--but no! Now we have a heterosupremacist wondering if activist gays aren't really just the worst possible kind of human--worse even than those who murder children! Why? Well, because child-killers are "honest" and gays supposedly aren't!
With a foe like you, I can rest well tonight. Seriously. You're a fucking loon.
Heterosupremacist wrote: "Just do everyone a favor and declare your self interest and advocate for it without confusing the issue at hand..."
You are the one who is confused. Like millions of other queers, I'm down with most of the progressive movement and will continue to blend my own struggle with those of others so that the world--the real one, not this arrogant projection of your ego--will be a better place when we leave it.
And you lump activist gays in as the kinds of people "we" don't need, and not as the kind "we" do. That is pre-judging--that is prejudice. Ego isn't a function of sexual orientation--nor is efficacy, nor talent.
Heterosupremacist wrote: "Sexual and gender politics is something that people who are WAY too comfortable and privileged engage in."
Again, pre-judging. There is a movement for gay equality and freedom in China, in Iran, in Brazil--nations where gays are less than comfortable fighting for their rights, and certainly not privileged. You purport to "know" much that you really don't--you have never really critiqued your own heterosupremacist programming, have you?
In any case, if one is comfortable and/or privileged--and some will always be--there are far worse things for such persons to choose than political activism with the goal of expanding civil rights. Even if you don't personally like the people who might gain those civil rights.
Heterosupremacist wrote: "And it's inexcusable - especially for people who are all too aware of the kind of violence being brought down on people's heads all over the world (and right here at home) - to allow these types of issues to take away from the sense of urgency this very real violent oppression and repression needs to be effectively confronted. "
Inexcusable that people organize to gain for themselves the rights they seek? Hogwash. If queers don't do it ourselves, nobody will--which may work just fine for a straight bigot, but it doesn't work for us. You prioritize hetero over homo, and all else flows downhill from there.
Heterosupremacist wrote: "In fact, it would in some ways make you worse than the perpetrators of the violence, because those folks are very honest about what they intend to do. "
We have a winner! I mean, I thought the Gay Shamists' "Marriage is Murder" title was going to win--but no! Now we have a heterosupremacist wondering if activist gays aren't really just the worst possible kind of human--worse even than those who murder children! Why? Well, because child-killers are "honest" and gays supposedly aren't!
With a foe like you, I can rest well tonight. Seriously. You're a fucking loon.
Heterosupremacist wrote: "Just do everyone a favor and declare your self interest and advocate for it without confusing the issue at hand..."
You are the one who is confused. Like millions of other queers, I'm down with most of the progressive movement and will continue to blend my own struggle with those of others so that the world--the real one, not this arrogant projection of your ego--will be a better place when we leave it.
you're absolutely right - i am a "Heterosupremacist", as you say,if you are suggesting that i don't believe homosexuality to be on par with heterosexuality. Case in point - neither you or i nor anyone else who posts to these boards would exist if it weren't for us "Heterosupremacist". So i make no apologises for having that view. Like i said earlier - this whole postmodernist BS that everybody's worldview is equally valid is ridiculous and has no basis in anything real. Perception is not reality and at the end of the day what you perceive and the sanctity of your (or my) opinion means absolutely nothing if it doesn't accord to Ultimate Reality - which operate independently of our personal views. Think about the person who believes they can fly and tries jumping of building - the physical laws of the universe dictate otherwise. There's no reason to believe the laws of metaphysics behave otherwise.
Just because there are gay movements in other parts of the world doesn't mean in any way, shape, form or fashion that the overwheling majority of people in those places think it's a way of being that ought to be celebrated or promoted. It's your right, it's your choice, to live that life. i am not suggesting that you not be given the ability to make that choice - that isn't for me to say. But i will oppose it tooth and nail being shoved in my face, insisting that i accept it and put it on par with a global fight against imperialism and corporate hegemony. That is utterly ridiculous, and if you can't see that, then you blinded by your own self-interest. It cannot be equated with racism, either. As a person of color, I find that just downright offensive and disrespectful of those who've fought and died all over the world to address that most heinous of human defects.
Just because there are gay movements in other parts of the world doesn't mean in any way, shape, form or fashion that the overwheling majority of people in those places think it's a way of being that ought to be celebrated or promoted. It's your right, it's your choice, to live that life. i am not suggesting that you not be given the ability to make that choice - that isn't for me to say. But i will oppose it tooth and nail being shoved in my face, insisting that i accept it and put it on par with a global fight against imperialism and corporate hegemony. That is utterly ridiculous, and if you can't see that, then you blinded by your own self-interest. It cannot be equated with racism, either. As a person of color, I find that just downright offensive and disrespectful of those who've fought and died all over the world to address that most heinous of human defects.
Well there we have it--a heterosupremacist, and proud of it. Open bigotry never looked so "progressive!"
There we have a kindred spirit with Gay Shame.
There we have one who thinks he speaks for the progressive movement, for straights of all nations, and really for all of the world--he knows the ultimate reality (you know, because thinking you are equal to straights is crazy like thinking you can fly!), unlike the rest of us here in the LGBTI/Queer section of Indybay--you know, we're "blinded" by our "deviant" orientation, we hurt the movement, are unequal to straights, and are worse than those who deliberately murder children.
Yep--that's a Gay Shame supporter right there. Reality Chuck is the REAL face of Gay Shame.
Power to queer people.
There we have a kindred spirit with Gay Shame.
There we have one who thinks he speaks for the progressive movement, for straights of all nations, and really for all of the world--he knows the ultimate reality (you know, because thinking you are equal to straights is crazy like thinking you can fly!), unlike the rest of us here in the LGBTI/Queer section of Indybay--you know, we're "blinded" by our "deviant" orientation, we hurt the movement, are unequal to straights, and are worse than those who deliberately murder children.
Yep--that's a Gay Shame supporter right there. Reality Chuck is the REAL face of Gay Shame.
Power to queer people.
> Reality Chuck is the REAL face of Gay Shame.
How do you figure that? Criticizing marriage as an institution is not the same as homophobia. Have you actually ever had a conversation with someone from Gay Shame?
How do you figure that? Criticizing marriage as an institution is not the same as homophobia. Have you actually ever had a conversation with someone from Gay Shame?
there is a problem in this thread that needs to be addressed before we move on, specifically the homophobia. that is not something that should be ignored, regarldess of differences about marriage issues. it is wrong to think gays are inferior to straights.
what if everybody were to stop the world and address every concern of the queer community? national - no, world - queer appreciation day. every major city in the world bring out their queers to parade around, making love in the streets, gettin' their "crunk" on...forget about palestine & israel, iraq, afghanistan, chechnya, kashmir, sudan - any and every trouble spot in the world you can think of...they couldn't care less about queer issues, anyway - let 'em rot, right? i mean, most of those folks are just a bunch a swarthy muslim darkies, anyhow...why should they get all the attention? queers are just as important and just as oppressed. why all the bellyaching over bulldozed houses and depleted uranium, or 5,000 lb bombs getting dropped on your heads, or starving sick little kids and old people or any of that garbage? queer issues are just as (if not more) important. after all, you're telling me queer people can't marry legally? what kind of world is this? screw those people getting blow apart - they're not down for me, anyway. i'll pick up their issues when they pick up mine - mine are just as urgent. why doesn't anyone understand that?
that's the litmus test for how "progressive" you are, right? whether or not your down for queers?
flag all that hetero bs. who needs those knuckleheads?
that's the litmus test for how "progressive" you are, right? whether or not your down for queers?
flag all that hetero bs. who needs those knuckleheads?
There is nothing "progressive" about trying to drive a wedge between queer and straight activists on Indybay. Have a prejudice against queers? Get some help.
"We have to strip away a whole lot of illusions and confusions and self-interests and beliefs, in order to see that there is a hierarchy of oppression, in order to get back to the fact that there are actual children starving and bleeding and that takes priority over whether or not you're getting groped at the water fountain....
We have got to understand that we are up against a hierarchy and a hierarchy, by definition, will act in a hierarchical manner. The hierarchy's oppression of course is going to be hierarchical. We need to understand that and establish a prioritization of where we put our limited energies so we can accomplish the most bang for our buck.
The old adage about "Think globally. Act locally." has other translations. We understand that there's a whole panoply of problems out there but we cannot address all of them all the time. Sometimes someone insisting that their oppression is as consequential as everybody else's obstructs the focus of energy to attack the key points to bring the structure, the hierarchy -- the whatever-you-want-to-call-it -- to its knees so we can get rid of all this god-damned oppression...."
i couldn't have said it any better...you can be as queer as the day is long. just don't expect that issue to be the rudder that guides the ship 'cause it's really not that important. no one's stopping you from living your life as a queer person, but there really are people who are unable to leave their houses without the possibility of getting shot or blow-up - and it either involves our government or people our government supports. if stopping that doesn't trump a queer person's ability to get married or get insurance (or whatever) then you've got serious cognitive problems...
We have got to understand that we are up against a hierarchy and a hierarchy, by definition, will act in a hierarchical manner. The hierarchy's oppression of course is going to be hierarchical. We need to understand that and establish a prioritization of where we put our limited energies so we can accomplish the most bang for our buck.
The old adage about "Think globally. Act locally." has other translations. We understand that there's a whole panoply of problems out there but we cannot address all of them all the time. Sometimes someone insisting that their oppression is as consequential as everybody else's obstructs the focus of energy to attack the key points to bring the structure, the hierarchy -- the whatever-you-want-to-call-it -- to its knees so we can get rid of all this god-damned oppression...."
i couldn't have said it any better...you can be as queer as the day is long. just don't expect that issue to be the rudder that guides the ship 'cause it's really not that important. no one's stopping you from living your life as a queer person, but there really are people who are unable to leave their houses without the possibility of getting shot or blow-up - and it either involves our government or people our government supports. if stopping that doesn't trump a queer person's ability to get married or get insurance (or whatever) then you've got serious cognitive problems...
You didn't like queers long before you found some "hierarchy" that you could use to justify your prejudice that gays are unimportant and detrimental "deviants."
You have zero credibility in demanding that any of us place allegiance anywhere. It is precisely the kind of thinking that you exhibit in this thread--"Group X is the least important of all, and even worse than child-killers!"--that has created the situation you decry in the Middle East. You are part of the problem, not a part of the solution.
You have zero credibility in demanding that any of us place allegiance anywhere. It is precisely the kind of thinking that you exhibit in this thread--"Group X is the least important of all, and even worse than child-killers!"--that has created the situation you decry in the Middle East. You are part of the problem, not a part of the solution.
i'm talking about people getting killed using U.S. tax dollars (provided by US) and you people are still harping about your supposed oppression. who's being arrogant and pig-headed here? who's being selfish? especially, in light of what's happening in the REAL WORLD outside of your self-absorption....
please, wake-up...
"But yes there does exist a hierarchy of oppression. Genocide is more consequential than sexual harassment, for example. Or being gouged on your rent. Or getting paid a little less than you should on the assembly line or the repair shop. Those are not inconsequential issues but they are not comparable issues either.
We have got to understand that we are up against a hierarchy and a hierarchy, by definition, will act in a hierarchical manner. The hierarchy's oppression of course is going to be hierarchical.
Sometimes someone insisting that their oppression is as consequential as everybody else's obstructs the focus of energy to attack the key points to bring the structure, the hierarchy -- the whatever-you-want-to-call-it -- to its knees so we can get rid of all this god-damned oppression."
this will sink in eventually...i really do believe that...
please, wake-up...
"But yes there does exist a hierarchy of oppression. Genocide is more consequential than sexual harassment, for example. Or being gouged on your rent. Or getting paid a little less than you should on the assembly line or the repair shop. Those are not inconsequential issues but they are not comparable issues either.
We have got to understand that we are up against a hierarchy and a hierarchy, by definition, will act in a hierarchical manner. The hierarchy's oppression of course is going to be hierarchical.
Sometimes someone insisting that their oppression is as consequential as everybody else's obstructs the focus of energy to attack the key points to bring the structure, the hierarchy -- the whatever-you-want-to-call-it -- to its knees so we can get rid of all this god-damned oppression."
this will sink in eventually...i really do believe that...
The gay marriage debate is largely a debate on whether homophobic discrimination is okay. Will gay people have second class status or not in the United States?
Gay shame has its head up its idealogical ass, which is why they digress into an irrelevant critique of marriage. Thats why millions of everyday homos LOVE Gavin Newsome and NOT them.
While Gav was kicking the Christian right in the fuckin balls!!!!!!! ---- gay shame was whining that fags should be able to fuck in public.
Sure Newsome is just another (capitlalist) politician but he was smart and did a move that both advanced his career and the struggle for gay freedom.
Gay shame has its head up its idealogical ass, which is why they digress into an irrelevant critique of marriage. Thats why millions of everyday homos LOVE Gavin Newsome and NOT them.
While Gav was kicking the Christian right in the fuckin balls!!!!!!! ---- gay shame was whining that fags should be able to fuck in public.
Sure Newsome is just another (capitlalist) politician but he was smart and did a move that both advanced his career and the struggle for gay freedom.
i want it to be said that i love everyone here because they are human beings, like myself, just trying to live their lives - hopefully with some dignity and self-respect. we are brothers and sisters in our humanity first and foremost.
but i shouldn't be made to have to find your behavior or lifestyle acceptable. i personally find it repugnant, and feel it has no place being placed on the same platform or in the same category as struggles against truly violent oppression and repression. i'm not denying the fact that there are queer people who do experience violent attacks - but anyone making the suggestion that it's some widespread phenomena or rises to the level of that experienced by people of color, or poor people, or Muslim people, etc. is simply out of their right mind and living in some alternate universe, only being able to see their own selfish concerns.
Anyone objectively looking at the world, and using some semblance of the intelligence and good sense The Creator gave them will see that there are some crises which are much more critical and urgent than others. If you see a man or woman being physically attacked - and it's very clear that attacked person needs some help - are you going to stand there and whine about some personal slight you feel people need to pay attention to or do you help the person on the ground who's got a boot on their neck with somebody smashing them in the face? What if that person was you?
Like I said, I in no way wish to prevent people from living their private lives as they see fit. That's none of my business. but if you insist on jamming this down the throat of people, don't be suprised when folks stop being polite. I don't have to like what you do. I don't have to find it acceptable.
but i shouldn't be made to have to find your behavior or lifestyle acceptable. i personally find it repugnant, and feel it has no place being placed on the same platform or in the same category as struggles against truly violent oppression and repression. i'm not denying the fact that there are queer people who do experience violent attacks - but anyone making the suggestion that it's some widespread phenomena or rises to the level of that experienced by people of color, or poor people, or Muslim people, etc. is simply out of their right mind and living in some alternate universe, only being able to see their own selfish concerns.
Anyone objectively looking at the world, and using some semblance of the intelligence and good sense The Creator gave them will see that there are some crises which are much more critical and urgent than others. If you see a man or woman being physically attacked - and it's very clear that attacked person needs some help - are you going to stand there and whine about some personal slight you feel people need to pay attention to or do you help the person on the ground who's got a boot on their neck with somebody smashing them in the face? What if that person was you?
Like I said, I in no way wish to prevent people from living their private lives as they see fit. That's none of my business. but if you insist on jamming this down the throat of people, don't be suprised when folks stop being polite. I don't have to like what you do. I don't have to find it acceptable.
> I don't have to like what you do. I don't have to find it acceptable.
well, there is always not engaging in the debate if you find it so offensive...
well, there is always not engaging in the debate if you find it so offensive...
You don't have to like what gays "do" or find our "lifestyle" acceptable (and we all know you mean to paint the world's gays and lesbians, uniformly, as deviant freaks when you say "lifestyle")--and we don't have to buy into your lies, your bigotry and your denial.
"reality check" is just more proof that it's still fun for bigoted straight men to pick on faggots...and that Gay Shame's hateful politics aids and abets homophobia in general.
"reality check" is just more proof that it's still fun for bigoted straight men to pick on faggots...and that Gay Shame's hateful politics aids and abets homophobia in general.
So "reality check" comes to Indybay's queer section to opine that queer political activism--equality or liberation, take your pick--is bunk. Why? Because we queers are intrinsically selfish, deviant, decadent creatures--worse even than child-murderers!--wallowing in our useless la-la-land of ignorance about The Creator and The One Truth and the Hierarchy of Oppressions.
Why does he do this?
Does he seek to guilt-trip queers into channeling our energies into those causes he espouses, like a warped recruiter? At first it appeared so.
But as he blathered on about how queers actually damaged the progressive cause (how? prejudiced majorities don't like us, so we set back the cause and are thus bad!), it became clear that there wasn't anything constructive about his "critique."
No, "reality check" came to denounce gay people, deny our worth as human beings and as a part of the progressive cause only as a gratuitious indulgence in prejudice, plain and simple. It makes him feel good about himself to have someone "inferior" to pick on. He said it himself--he doesn't think we queers are the equivalent of straight people (we are lesser beings), and doesn't want us on his side.
He's merely preaching that Old Time Religion that straights are superior beings, by right of birth, and that we pathetic queers should shut up and hide from sight. Or at least defer to the dignity and wisdom of our superiors, our masters--you know, people like "reality check."
Yeah--well fuck that.
Why does he do this?
Does he seek to guilt-trip queers into channeling our energies into those causes he espouses, like a warped recruiter? At first it appeared so.
But as he blathered on about how queers actually damaged the progressive cause (how? prejudiced majorities don't like us, so we set back the cause and are thus bad!), it became clear that there wasn't anything constructive about his "critique."
No, "reality check" came to denounce gay people, deny our worth as human beings and as a part of the progressive cause only as a gratuitious indulgence in prejudice, plain and simple. It makes him feel good about himself to have someone "inferior" to pick on. He said it himself--he doesn't think we queers are the equivalent of straight people (we are lesser beings), and doesn't want us on his side.
He's merely preaching that Old Time Religion that straights are superior beings, by right of birth, and that we pathetic queers should shut up and hide from sight. Or at least defer to the dignity and wisdom of our superiors, our masters--you know, people like "reality check."
Yeah--well fuck that.
if that's the way you want to take it...i said nothing about having a witch hunt for queer people or denying queers the right to be queer or controlling people's bedrooms or any of that...
you're gonna see what you want to see...you're going to read into it what you want. if you want to start crying about how you're getting picked on, go ahead...
you can lobby for your right to marry and all the rest of it...this is amerikkka and you can do that sort of thing.
my point was that there are situations in the world that are considerably more pressing and deserving of attention...this is an issue (gay marriage) that can wait - and people who consider themselves to be liberal, progressive, high-minded (whatever you want to call it) should have enough sense to see that. queers are supposedly progressive, right? enlightened, high minded individuals, right? stoping folks from being torn to shreds (on our dollar) would seem to be more pressing than you not being able to marry, i would think...i could be totally wrong on this one...
hetero & homo (BOTH, not just one) - leave the sexual politics at home long enough to stop folks from getting ripped apart on our dollar. can we agree on that?
you're gonna see what you want to see...you're going to read into it what you want. if you want to start crying about how you're getting picked on, go ahead...
you can lobby for your right to marry and all the rest of it...this is amerikkka and you can do that sort of thing.
my point was that there are situations in the world that are considerably more pressing and deserving of attention...this is an issue (gay marriage) that can wait - and people who consider themselves to be liberal, progressive, high-minded (whatever you want to call it) should have enough sense to see that. queers are supposedly progressive, right? enlightened, high minded individuals, right? stoping folks from being torn to shreds (on our dollar) would seem to be more pressing than you not being able to marry, i would think...i could be totally wrong on this one...
hetero & homo (BOTH, not just one) - leave the sexual politics at home long enough to stop folks from getting ripped apart on our dollar. can we agree on that?
GAY SHAME OPPOSES MARRIAGE IN ANY FORM
Whatever happened to the time when being queer was an automatic challenge to the disgusting, oppressive, patriarchal institution of holy matrimony? Now, it seems that queers are so desperate to get their taste of straight privilege that they'll camp out in the rain with the hopes that the state will finally sanction their carnal coupling.
We are now faced with the spectacle of thousands of gay men and lesbians rabid with longing for any shred of acceptance from a violent, hypocritical establishment that really wants us dead. Don't forget-marriage is the central institution of that misogynist, racist system of domination and oppression known as heterosexuality. Don't get us wrong-we support everyone's right to fuck whomever they want-we're just not in favor of supporting the imperialist, bloodthirsty status quo.
Local, national and international-conservative and liberal-corporate and grass-roots media have all swarmed around City Hall as if Gavin Newsom is the vanguard leader of gay civil rights. Gavin Newsom came to power by aggressively pandering to the privileged gay vote with a message criminalizing poor people in a city wracked by years of greedy hyper-development. Now, he's giving back to the gays who got him elected. These are the same sellouts who have for years promoted gay marriage as the penultimate achievement on the road to "equality," yet they are now willing to bestow full credit upon Gavin Newsom for their own misguided work.
Newsom is using gay marriage as a wedge issue in order to get national press, and further his megalomaniacal quest for national power. What is depressing is that gay people are so blinded by their desperation for "rights" that they'll promote a cynical, closet-fascist as the messiah.
Whatever happened to the time when being queer was an automatic challenge to the disgusting, oppressive, patriarchal institution of holy matrimony? Now, it seems that queers are so desperate to get their taste of straight privilege that they'll camp out in the rain with the hopes that the state will finally sanction their carnal coupling.
We are now faced with the spectacle of thousands of gay men and lesbians rabid with longing for any shred of acceptance from a violent, hypocritical establishment that really wants us dead. Don't forget-marriage is the central institution of that misogynist, racist system of domination and oppression known as heterosexuality. Don't get us wrong-we support everyone's right to fuck whomever they want-we're just not in favor of supporting the imperialist, bloodthirsty status quo.
Local, national and international-conservative and liberal-corporate and grass-roots media have all swarmed around City Hall as if Gavin Newsom is the vanguard leader of gay civil rights. Gavin Newsom came to power by aggressively pandering to the privileged gay vote with a message criminalizing poor people in a city wracked by years of greedy hyper-development. Now, he's giving back to the gays who got him elected. These are the same sellouts who have for years promoted gay marriage as the penultimate achievement on the road to "equality," yet they are now willing to bestow full credit upon Gavin Newsom for their own misguided work.
Newsom is using gay marriage as a wedge issue in order to get national press, and further his megalomaniacal quest for national power. What is depressing is that gay people are so blinded by their desperation for "rights" that they'll promote a cynical, closet-fascist as the messiah.
For more information:
http://www.gayshamesf.org/
You can't debate idealogues like dimwit Mary because they can only use big words their teachers over at New College approve of. If they actually tried tried to dialogue with everyday people (including everyday homos) they'd either get laughed at or punched.
Gavin Newsome loved having opposition like Gay Shame because if you disagree with their absurd rhetoric you're a fascist, yuppie, homophobe or some combination of the three. Gay shame used to post here calling, gay marriage hero (millions of working class gays support him), Gavin Newsome a homophobe, which illustrates what typical identity politics bozos they are.
Gavin Newsome loved having opposition like Gay Shame because if you disagree with their absurd rhetoric you're a fascist, yuppie, homophobe or some combination of the three. Gay shame used to post here calling, gay marriage hero (millions of working class gays support him), Gavin Newsome a homophobe, which illustrates what typical identity politics bozos they are.
I think it's interesting to watch the local gay so-called "community" unite to target its internal opponents, pushing them so far to the margin that they become caricatures of themselves tryin to be heard against the media spin against them-- like happened to ACTUP here when they wouldn't play along with all the pharmaceutical money that bought out most local opposition to itself.
And then, the "community" uses that as "proof" that it's "mature" enough to be assimilatable, arguing in the same breath that America should "celebrate" "diversity" instead of trying to squelch it.
And long term, the truth of this hypocrisy indeed hurts the gay cause of human sexual freedom, again and again and again.
Good call, "truth hurts." Maybe next time, you could try a little ar-tic-u-la-tion.
Buh-bi.
And then, the "community" uses that as "proof" that it's "mature" enough to be assimilatable, arguing in the same breath that America should "celebrate" "diversity" instead of trying to squelch it.
And long term, the truth of this hypocrisy indeed hurts the gay cause of human sexual freedom, again and again and again.
Good call, "truth hurts." Maybe next time, you could try a little ar-tic-u-la-tion.
Buh-bi.
Gay Shame is nothing more than a gaggle of powerless, emotionally-crippled "through-the-looking glass" extremists who have become as anti-gay as the religious right. And as puritanical, sanctimonious and doctrinaire as the religious right is, for that matter.
It's all the same old shit with both Gay Shame and the religious right--they want to run your life, and if you don't follow their orders, then they ragefully denounce you and try to hurt you any way they can--like when several Gay Shame members were arrested for physically attacking Mayor Newsom during the 2003 SF Gay Pride parade. Apparently, the world they want to create includes politically-motivated, person-on-person violence.
It shouldn't be a surprise that nobody wants to buy what they're selling.
It's all the same old shit with both Gay Shame and the religious right--they want to run your life, and if you don't follow their orders, then they ragefully denounce you and try to hurt you any way they can--like when several Gay Shame members were arrested for physically attacking Mayor Newsom during the 2003 SF Gay Pride parade. Apparently, the world they want to create includes politically-motivated, person-on-person violence.
It shouldn't be a surprise that nobody wants to buy what they're selling.
...with absolutely no factual basis. This is not debate, this is "the politics of personal destruction."
Four legs good, two legs baaaaaaaaaaad...
Four legs good, two legs baaaaaaaaaaad...
Ad hominem my ass.
Just how many hateful, violent Gay Shamers were arrested for assualt and battery on the mayor, anyway?
Just how many hateful, violent Gay Shamers were arrested for assualt and battery on the mayor, anyway?
GS blocked the mayor's float. The police attacked them in response and then blamed them for the violence, just like the police always do. Sanctimonious dimwits like you just believe what you're told by a compliant press, and that somehow makes it fact.
Anyone who knows anything about protests knows better.
Anyone who knows anything about protests knows better.
Why did the cops beat GS protesters bloody when they demonstrated against a Newsom campaign appearance at the "community" center?
And why aren't you denouncing *that* violence against gays?
I think it's because you are a hypocrite with an ideological agenda. You just let others to commit your political violence for you, in these instances the police, and then you cover it up with this sort of blame-the-victims bullshit, thinking no one will notice.
And why aren't you denouncing *that* violence against gays?
I think it's because you are a hypocrite with an ideological agenda. You just let others to commit your political violence for you, in these instances the police, and then you cover it up with this sort of blame-the-victims bullshit, thinking no one will notice.
gay shame has no business asking their political targets for the kind of support or sympathy that gay shame refuses to extend to us.
want to mock, attack, and defeat our politics, our personal relationships, our lifestyles? fine. nobody can stop you. just do not expect any support or sympathy from your targets. if you turn violent and get your ass kicked on the way to jail, then deal with it. without us.
want to mock, attack, and defeat our politics, our personal relationships, our lifestyles? fine. nobody can stop you. just do not expect any support or sympathy from your targets. if you turn violent and get your ass kicked on the way to jail, then deal with it. without us.
well, better than trusting "friends" like newsom and kerry. good luck with the little red riding hood schtick.
of course, your kind of smugness is easy behind a police cordon. it's that you act so surprised that people aren't supporting you supporting the police state. but then, that's typical of hipocrites like you.
there are none so blind as those who will not see.
of course, your kind of smugness is easy behind a police cordon. it's that you act so surprised that people aren't supporting you supporting the police state. but then, that's typical of hipocrites like you.
there are none so blind as those who will not see.
yes, we have seen this all before from the gay shamists. anyone who disagrees with them is demonized. literally.
according to the gay shamists, it is impossible to support equal marriage rights without supporting murder, police abuse, etc.
that is a lie, and the gay community at large knows it.
according to the gay shamists, it is impossible to support equal marriage rights without supporting murder, police abuse, etc.
that is a lie, and the gay community at large knows it.
most gays are still in the closet because they can't afford to leave their family and social network to move to a gay ghetto. in short, they're in the closet because they can't afford the privilege of being openly gay.
but you, a proven reactionary, can't be expected to understand that, or much of anything, really.
nice try though.
but you, a proven reactionary, can't be expected to understand that, or much of anything, really.
nice try though.
"Most gays are in the closet?"
Prove it.
Prove it.
dont get out of the bay area much, do we?
btw, the polemic stands.
btw, the polemic stands.
So it's time to smear the skeptic!
Let me guess--asking for proof of a claim is tantamount to "murder!" Oh, wait--today, disagreement is... "police violence!"
Let me guess--asking for proof of a claim is tantamount to "murder!" Oh, wait--today, disagreement is... "police violence!"
most people don't live in america. they are not middle class. they dont enjoy your privileges.
if you dont understand that, it's not mine to prove, you should provide your own education.
of course, the lack of need to do so in order to survive is, indeed, a privilege. thanks for noting your awareness of that fact.
btw, the polemic stands.
if you dont understand that, it's not mine to prove, you should provide your own education.
of course, the lack of need to do so in order to survive is, indeed, a privilege. thanks for noting your awareness of that fact.
btw, the polemic stands.
Violent extremists like Gay Shame have nothing to offer these people in other lands of which you speak, who would never live to see another day if they adopted your rhetoric and your tactics. Attack the local mayor? Yeah, you're real role models for people living under truly oppressive governments.
The polemic stands on the head of a pin. I'm guessing you're a Spartacist.
The polemic stands on the head of a pin. I'm guessing you're a Spartacist.
address it or step down.
i mean, you quote reagan.... *chortle*
i mean, you quote reagan.... *chortle*
Address the straw man? I already did. You invented a convenient target for your rage--murderer, police abuse capo, reactionary--and then set the straw man on fire. It probably felt good, but left burn marks: even San Francisco's gay community refuses to buy what you're selling.
Gay Shame wrote that it was "dancing on the grave" of a deceased gay newspaper editor with whom they disagreed politically. That's Gay Shame.
Gay Shame physically attacked Mayor Newsom and several members were arrested on the spot. That's Gay Shame.
Gay shame employs character assassination against any person who disagrees with their extremist agenda to continue legal discrimination against gays who seek marriage equality, claiming dissent from their agenda is morally equivalent to "murder" and "violence." That's Gay Shame.
I oppose Gay Shame and its extremist agenda. I will not condemn any person or entity for similarly opposing Gay Shame.
Gay Shame wrote that it was "dancing on the grave" of a deceased gay newspaper editor with whom they disagreed politically. That's Gay Shame.
Gay Shame physically attacked Mayor Newsom and several members were arrested on the spot. That's Gay Shame.
Gay shame employs character assassination against any person who disagrees with their extremist agenda to continue legal discrimination against gays who seek marriage equality, claiming dissent from their agenda is morally equivalent to "murder" and "violence." That's Gay Shame.
I oppose Gay Shame and its extremist agenda. I will not condemn any person or entity for similarly opposing Gay Shame.
Be what you are! defy the shame!
Next tell me something about not holding my youth and inexperience against me, or maybe Gay Shame could be the next Evil Empire? Will you begin bombing in 5 minutes? Can you win one for the Gipper?
You're certainly not shy about your politics of destruction. Get it right out there! Let people know whereof they choose.
I'm just fine with that. These are after all, polemic times....
Next tell me something about not holding my youth and inexperience against me, or maybe Gay Shame could be the next Evil Empire? Will you begin bombing in 5 minutes? Can you win one for the Gipper?
You're certainly not shy about your politics of destruction. Get it right out there! Let people know whereof they choose.
I'm just fine with that. These are after all, polemic times....
Why do you suppose the gay community in general disagrees with your means and your ends, and embraces Gavin Newsom?
the answer is probably related to why so many of them are about to vote for a publicly-avowed opponent of gay marriage.
riddle me that one, o riddler.
riddle me that one, o riddler.
You always sound so personally offended by Gay Shame. Do you have a personal beef with them, which you're covering with all this pseudo-progressivist political crap in hopes of being taken seriously?
What did they ever do to you? Why are you really so angry with them? Why is it so personal for you? I wonder because discussion of any issue always comes back to your hatred for GS. No other thread is followed or returned to by you.
Whassup with that?
What did they ever do to you? Why are you really so angry with them? Why is it so personal for you? I wonder because discussion of any issue always comes back to your hatred for GS. No other thread is followed or returned to by you.
Whassup with that?
Most American gays will vote for Kerry, whose positions on the war, on the Patriot Act, and gay marriage absolutely suck because we believe Bush is worse for us than Kerry is.
But then, American gays tend to support things like marriage equality, and voting, and private property. Does that help you understand?
But then, American gays tend to support things like marriage equality, and voting, and private property. Does that help you understand?
and likewise, Gay Shame makes sense because its alternatives are so much worse.
Why is hating them such a personal thing for you? Lead me to the light.
Why is hating them such a personal thing for you? Lead me to the light.
It's all fun and games to mock and attack and attempt to defeat other people's marriages--but surely you can't be surprised that your targets don't like you?
you can't expect to just flamethrow all those you trample in pursuit of your own personal well-being, without some resistance.
btw, politically attacking poor people for not supporting your agenda, while politically supporting rich people who do not support that very same agenda? that's hypocrisy. some might even sense some class warfare in that, and move to defend themselves from it. your sanctimony over it is crocodile tears at best.
you keep calling me polemica or whatever, thinking to contain me by naming me. but you *are* the polemic, you would be the very wedge between gay and other radicals, essentially attempting to surplant the agenda of the former with your own. you are doing this by polemicizing against GS. I'm just calling you on it.
But you do a lot of blaming of others for your own characteristics, there's a lot of stones coming out of that glass house. You call it a strawman, but anyone can go back and read your very own words calling for police repression of dissent within the gay ghetto to the benefit of your personal agenda, and claiming some kind of silent-majority sanction to do so. a nearly-perfect Reaganite act. You even slipped and said it.
That's why i love this forum so much. You can do all the roundabout you want, hit that reset, ignore the corners you're painted into, pretend the conversation didn't go where it went and show what it did. But I have demonstrated the reactionary nature of your intervention here for all who care to simply scroll back and see. Not a bad day's work. You call it whatever you will.
Good luck finding anyone to work with in the real world, round these parts anyways. You're gonna need it, Gipper. Good night.
btw, politically attacking poor people for not supporting your agenda, while politically supporting rich people who do not support that very same agenda? that's hypocrisy. some might even sense some class warfare in that, and move to defend themselves from it. your sanctimony over it is crocodile tears at best.
you keep calling me polemica or whatever, thinking to contain me by naming me. but you *are* the polemic, you would be the very wedge between gay and other radicals, essentially attempting to surplant the agenda of the former with your own. you are doing this by polemicizing against GS. I'm just calling you on it.
But you do a lot of blaming of others for your own characteristics, there's a lot of stones coming out of that glass house. You call it a strawman, but anyone can go back and read your very own words calling for police repression of dissent within the gay ghetto to the benefit of your personal agenda, and claiming some kind of silent-majority sanction to do so. a nearly-perfect Reaganite act. You even slipped and said it.
That's why i love this forum so much. You can do all the roundabout you want, hit that reset, ignore the corners you're painted into, pretend the conversation didn't go where it went and show what it did. But I have demonstrated the reactionary nature of your intervention here for all who care to simply scroll back and see. Not a bad day's work. You call it whatever you will.
Good luck finding anyone to work with in the real world, round these parts anyways. You're gonna need it, Gipper. Good night.
You still don't get it, do you? Most gays support marriage equality, even if few are active in that movement, because we want the freedom to choose marriage, to choose for ourselves how we will set up our own lives and families.
You can keep telling us we're not important enough to pursue our own agenda--but we know that is a lie.
You can keep insisting that you know what is best for us--but we know that is a lie.
You can keep making excuses for marriage discrimination--but we know all of them are lies.
You can keep demonizing us, assassinating your opponents' character, blaming us for deliberately causing all the woes of the world--we know you are telling lies, lies, lies.
You can keep your lies. They are of no use to gays who support marriage equality--which is to say, to *most* gays and lesbians.
You can keep telling us we're not important enough to pursue our own agenda--but we know that is a lie.
You can keep insisting that you know what is best for us--but we know that is a lie.
You can keep making excuses for marriage discrimination--but we know all of them are lies.
You can keep demonizing us, assassinating your opponents' character, blaming us for deliberately causing all the woes of the world--we know you are telling lies, lies, lies.
You can keep your lies. They are of no use to gays who support marriage equality--which is to say, to *most* gays and lesbians.
and on the other hand, maybe most folks just don't care that much.
sad, innit?
sad, innit?
a majority seems to think saddam hussein bombed the world trade center.
repeating a lie long enough does make it seem truth to a majority of americans. it might even work with your marriage = freedom lie. maybe not.
either way, it's not much to brag about-- and all your name calling won't change the fact of the poverty of your vision. in fact, it's further proof. you can't defend your agenda on its merits, so you attack.
you reactionary.
repeating a lie long enough does make it seem truth to a majority of americans. it might even work with your marriage = freedom lie. maybe not.
either way, it's not much to brag about-- and all your name calling won't change the fact of the poverty of your vision. in fact, it's further proof. you can't defend your agenda on its merits, so you attack.
you reactionary.
How hypocritical is it to decry someone's supposed "namecalling," only to write "you reactionary" a few words later. Not that your words matter a whole lot.
Nor does your reasoning. Whether or not Saddam Hussein bombed the WTC is a matter of fact. Whether marriage equality is right or wrong--that is a matter of opinion. Stop equivocating.
Or don't--it doesn't matter. Nothing you write does.
Nor does your reasoning. Whether or not Saddam Hussein bombed the WTC is a matter of fact. Whether marriage equality is right or wrong--that is a matter of opinion. Stop equivocating.
Or don't--it doesn't matter. Nothing you write does.
I don't have the gaping chasms and contradictions in my position that you do. You go vote for Kerry, and best of luck getting your marriage validated by him.
Snicker.
Snicker.
consistency is an arfificial construct and it is better to let the mind run free in occasional contradiction than it is to tamp it down with a dogmatic hammer to bring it into conformity with some unnaturally straight line or other
so let gay shame run free, it's ultimately good for the cause.
if you would have peace, make it.
if you would have peace, make it.
i guess i should start by laughing for ten minutes in confusion.
before you read any further, it might be helpful to know that in writing this, i don't expect to make a difference, or set the record straight, or change anyone's mind... it's merely an exercise in personal expression, which might be somewhat useful here in context, because i'm an actual gay shame participant...
so first, for myself, i just would like to publically state something that i know to be true...
gay shame never attacked the mayor. otherwise we'd all be in jail. for life. police violence is a real thing. if you're a cop you can shoot someone in front of a hundred people (or discredited witnesses) and get away with it. i was talking to dennis williams, who got up and spoke at the last district 5 meeting with the mayor and who witnessed the police murder of cammerin boyd in this same district, and got hushed and rushed off the mike by the mayor's goons before he could even mention anything about it. the mayor has yet to issue the family an apology for police misconduct. the family believes the officers that killed cammerin came from parkside station because of a police report that's been released with the names of the officers at the scene. the station has not publicly announced who the killer was yet.
you can beat the shit out of someone on tape and get away with it. there was another police beating this june in los angeles caught on tape that was in the media rodney king style after a "high speed chase." hmm. the pigs say cammerin boyd also took them on a high speed chase. you can do a search online, but i can't even track down his name. not to give NPR any credit, but i was somewhat taken aback on their usage of the word "apparently" in this sentence: TV news cameras film Los Angeles police officers apparently beating a suspect held on the ground. did they ask the suspect? what's the suspect's name? where is the suspect?
i'm taking a segue from this discussion on the "violent activists" for "violent police" popular reversal to foreground law enforcement violence and police terror against people who aren't activists. since it's difficult to describe beating suspects like rodney king or target practice like cammerin boyd "violent," blatant police misconduct mysteriously gets overlooked in the popular imagination. a video of a cop kicking the shit out of somebody becomes "officers apparently beating a suspect." the law recognizes videotape evidence of and bruises from rodney king getting stomped as grounds for acquittal. of course, activists can be characterized to those who have never taken part in a political demonstration according to the media as violent and causing whatever injuries they incur during "clashes with the police."
i've been to a great deal of protests, and i've never seen anyone pick a fight with police. it just doesn't happen. which is not to say that it can't happen. i've never really seen it though. except that footage of the dude getting unarrested in the documentary about the weather underground. or, i think i saw footage of a demo somewhere in south amerikkka of protesters getting in fistfights with cops, or maybe even rushing them with sticks or something. but that doesn't happen in the bay area. i remember seeing jack bay, this thin punk kid, getting dogpiled by nine cops and thrown into an armored transport. that's usually what happens. go to a protest. check it out. it's fresh.
but most protesters already know that. i guess i'm doing something that's not as interesting as i thought it'd be now: it's a connection between these difference faces of police terrorism that could be misconstrued as me trying to say that activists and black motorists are all one big happy beatdown family... but i don't want to. there are significant differences between the terrain where these beatings occur. the one point is that i'm trying to make is about how the police state is allowed to do all this shit right in front of your face like it ain't nothin... whoever the state wants to eliminate always is made to appear that it deserves to be eliminated. i mean, in case that wasn't obvious.
okay, but this is the really interesting and annoying thing to me: how we, the ones getting terrorized seem to sort of accept it. a lot of people i talk to say that they don't want to participate in gay shame because we are violent protesters. i've heard this from a lot of different people from different places and varied experiences. this a state's characterization to justify what it does, which of course is similar to how it justifies violence against the grand mythic speeding black motorist at the end of a frantic police pursuit.
is that because now the fags aren't passively consuming marriage and military service or just drinking themselves into un-fun sex with each other, but instead doing direct action that they're considered violent? which is really the violent behavior: quietly participating in the status quo or resisting it?
dennis williams asked gavin newsom (or maybe it wasn't dennis, maybe it was another person in line) why are the police so mean to us? he talked about how he had grown up in district 5 and had seen how there was more and more caucasians entering the panhandle. anyone who stands against the state's agenda, whether it be disrupting the status quo with a protest in the streets, or by slowing down gentrification by living in a house and being black in the middle of their bulldozer's path, is expendable.
we all have different relationships to the state. cal students held a symposium on "is marriage racist?" at new college and from it i took away that really neat axiom. when i walk down the street one of the ways i generally tend to annoy whomever i'm with is by identifying the presence of police vehicles in the vicinity. i'm not a drug dealer, i'm not a drug user, i'm not a gang member, nobody in my family is in a gang, well except my asshole cousin who's like some kind of weird suburban tag-banger idiot that threatened to beat me up when i told him i was gay... does that count? and yet, i have a morbid ultra-sensitivity to whenever police are in the area. i remember once when i was walking along the side of parked cars, not disrupting traffic at all, on memorial day in chinatown, when the crash barrier thing that they put on patrol car bumpers blocked my path. i screamed at the police officer when he told me to get back on the sidewalk. all around me people were jaywalking. to avoid any further confusion, let me just make it clear that i hate the police. i'd even so far to say that it's probably an irrational mistrust for the state and all they stand for. i mean, i should be able to trust the postal service, but i don't even trust that. i'm always worried that the letter will get returned or lost or something. but beyond smaller concerns than postal delivery, this land is stolen, the people with the most power are sadistic lying greedy assholes, etc. and it really freaks me out. police fuckin scare me. i don't matter to them. i'm expendable. but this is not breaking news, and barely notable, to be sure. hold on, i'm getting to the point. i tell people about the memorial day arrest, and i always get the same response. why did you yell at the police officer? my question, my source of suffocating saddening confusion, is why it is that more wouldn't yell?
seriously. i mean i get naive and stupid, but hey i *am* an activist. maybe i'd be a speeding black motorist if i drove. maybe not. or maybe it'd just say "speeding black motorist" on my headstone. i don't get why that doesn't bother more people. i mean the whole police state thing. i can't deal with it. others do a better job. is the key to their success in acceptance linked to the type of mentality that believes in these violent activists that i've never seen at any of these protests that i've been at? believes that videotape of a man getting stomped by four officers is something that could only be "apparently" happening in some grainy dogme 95 alternate universe? whens the blur on the ground going to grab the flashing 0 out of the timecode and use it as a lasso and tie the police up with it?
i don't trust this country because i think, well, i'm experiencing a bit of a divergence from their hiring policies and the decisions they've been making in staffing has not been inspiring any, well... i just don't feel like we're seeing eye to eye on a lot of things... sure police personnel is one little area, but i think the whole genocide and usurpation thing... well, how can i say this nicely, it doesn't really... it's not... it's not really working for me. i think the police could be downsized just a little. maybe down to zero. i need to see walking papers. then i could maybe be down with it. then, you might be able to make me an appealing offer. it really shocks me that marriage has become such a big issue for the gays. i keep thinking that it'll fall in on itself, what with the whole queer thing about being a homosexual and all. but most gays want to assimilate into this state. do wedding rings block bullets? let's ask ralowe a hypothetical marriage. ralowe? yes. we all know what an utter tragic mess you are. we all know it. yes we do. say you finally found another tragic mess and got hitched. would you toss some of your tragic ways (i.e., yelling at cops) to preserve the grander tragedy that you two would share? answer: no. well, how long do you think it would last? it wouldn't. of course, this is not my attempt to say that all relationships are co-dependent disasters that require discarding one's responsibilities to their principles for the sake of guarding their one responsibility to "the unit," but i don't think it could work. which is not to say that we can't make it work. who knows, i might be able to manage this working for a short while. but i know that my root nature is to get pissed off when patrol car bumper crash barrier thingies break my stride on my day off from work. and some things are hard to change. a thing like that in particular is deeply grounded in a sense of who i am in this world, passed down from an awareness of what those like me have had to put it with since the longest, from this state. i don't think any relationship, any marriage could help me forget that. i might as well marry the patrol car bumper crash barrier thingie. if i married it, would it stop breaking my stride on work holidays? could i forget what it was and how all these things were connnected? could i trust getting married by gavin newsom, the same man who won't talk to cammerin boyd's family, the cammerin boyd that was murdered by his own police officers, to keep his own streets, as mayor of san francisco, safe? safe from "speeding black motorists?" perhaps, like myself, if i ever learned how to drive. (HEY I PASSED MY TEST! IT'S TIME TO CELEBRATE! HEY, WANNA TAKE THE POLICE ON A HIGH SPEED CHASE?)
i guess my relationship to the state is different than others. to be honest, we're not talking.
i'm sorry if this sounds like michael moore... it just came out that way...
before you read any further, it might be helpful to know that in writing this, i don't expect to make a difference, or set the record straight, or change anyone's mind... it's merely an exercise in personal expression, which might be somewhat useful here in context, because i'm an actual gay shame participant...
so first, for myself, i just would like to publically state something that i know to be true...
gay shame never attacked the mayor. otherwise we'd all be in jail. for life. police violence is a real thing. if you're a cop you can shoot someone in front of a hundred people (or discredited witnesses) and get away with it. i was talking to dennis williams, who got up and spoke at the last district 5 meeting with the mayor and who witnessed the police murder of cammerin boyd in this same district, and got hushed and rushed off the mike by the mayor's goons before he could even mention anything about it. the mayor has yet to issue the family an apology for police misconduct. the family believes the officers that killed cammerin came from parkside station because of a police report that's been released with the names of the officers at the scene. the station has not publicly announced who the killer was yet.
you can beat the shit out of someone on tape and get away with it. there was another police beating this june in los angeles caught on tape that was in the media rodney king style after a "high speed chase." hmm. the pigs say cammerin boyd also took them on a high speed chase. you can do a search online, but i can't even track down his name. not to give NPR any credit, but i was somewhat taken aback on their usage of the word "apparently" in this sentence: TV news cameras film Los Angeles police officers apparently beating a suspect held on the ground. did they ask the suspect? what's the suspect's name? where is the suspect?
i'm taking a segue from this discussion on the "violent activists" for "violent police" popular reversal to foreground law enforcement violence and police terror against people who aren't activists. since it's difficult to describe beating suspects like rodney king or target practice like cammerin boyd "violent," blatant police misconduct mysteriously gets overlooked in the popular imagination. a video of a cop kicking the shit out of somebody becomes "officers apparently beating a suspect." the law recognizes videotape evidence of and bruises from rodney king getting stomped as grounds for acquittal. of course, activists can be characterized to those who have never taken part in a political demonstration according to the media as violent and causing whatever injuries they incur during "clashes with the police."
i've been to a great deal of protests, and i've never seen anyone pick a fight with police. it just doesn't happen. which is not to say that it can't happen. i've never really seen it though. except that footage of the dude getting unarrested in the documentary about the weather underground. or, i think i saw footage of a demo somewhere in south amerikkka of protesters getting in fistfights with cops, or maybe even rushing them with sticks or something. but that doesn't happen in the bay area. i remember seeing jack bay, this thin punk kid, getting dogpiled by nine cops and thrown into an armored transport. that's usually what happens. go to a protest. check it out. it's fresh.
but most protesters already know that. i guess i'm doing something that's not as interesting as i thought it'd be now: it's a connection between these difference faces of police terrorism that could be misconstrued as me trying to say that activists and black motorists are all one big happy beatdown family... but i don't want to. there are significant differences between the terrain where these beatings occur. the one point is that i'm trying to make is about how the police state is allowed to do all this shit right in front of your face like it ain't nothin... whoever the state wants to eliminate always is made to appear that it deserves to be eliminated. i mean, in case that wasn't obvious.
okay, but this is the really interesting and annoying thing to me: how we, the ones getting terrorized seem to sort of accept it. a lot of people i talk to say that they don't want to participate in gay shame because we are violent protesters. i've heard this from a lot of different people from different places and varied experiences. this a state's characterization to justify what it does, which of course is similar to how it justifies violence against the grand mythic speeding black motorist at the end of a frantic police pursuit.
is that because now the fags aren't passively consuming marriage and military service or just drinking themselves into un-fun sex with each other, but instead doing direct action that they're considered violent? which is really the violent behavior: quietly participating in the status quo or resisting it?
dennis williams asked gavin newsom (or maybe it wasn't dennis, maybe it was another person in line) why are the police so mean to us? he talked about how he had grown up in district 5 and had seen how there was more and more caucasians entering the panhandle. anyone who stands against the state's agenda, whether it be disrupting the status quo with a protest in the streets, or by slowing down gentrification by living in a house and being black in the middle of their bulldozer's path, is expendable.
we all have different relationships to the state. cal students held a symposium on "is marriage racist?" at new college and from it i took away that really neat axiom. when i walk down the street one of the ways i generally tend to annoy whomever i'm with is by identifying the presence of police vehicles in the vicinity. i'm not a drug dealer, i'm not a drug user, i'm not a gang member, nobody in my family is in a gang, well except my asshole cousin who's like some kind of weird suburban tag-banger idiot that threatened to beat me up when i told him i was gay... does that count? and yet, i have a morbid ultra-sensitivity to whenever police are in the area. i remember once when i was walking along the side of parked cars, not disrupting traffic at all, on memorial day in chinatown, when the crash barrier thing that they put on patrol car bumpers blocked my path. i screamed at the police officer when he told me to get back on the sidewalk. all around me people were jaywalking. to avoid any further confusion, let me just make it clear that i hate the police. i'd even so far to say that it's probably an irrational mistrust for the state and all they stand for. i mean, i should be able to trust the postal service, but i don't even trust that. i'm always worried that the letter will get returned or lost or something. but beyond smaller concerns than postal delivery, this land is stolen, the people with the most power are sadistic lying greedy assholes, etc. and it really freaks me out. police fuckin scare me. i don't matter to them. i'm expendable. but this is not breaking news, and barely notable, to be sure. hold on, i'm getting to the point. i tell people about the memorial day arrest, and i always get the same response. why did you yell at the police officer? my question, my source of suffocating saddening confusion, is why it is that more wouldn't yell?
seriously. i mean i get naive and stupid, but hey i *am* an activist. maybe i'd be a speeding black motorist if i drove. maybe not. or maybe it'd just say "speeding black motorist" on my headstone. i don't get why that doesn't bother more people. i mean the whole police state thing. i can't deal with it. others do a better job. is the key to their success in acceptance linked to the type of mentality that believes in these violent activists that i've never seen at any of these protests that i've been at? believes that videotape of a man getting stomped by four officers is something that could only be "apparently" happening in some grainy dogme 95 alternate universe? whens the blur on the ground going to grab the flashing 0 out of the timecode and use it as a lasso and tie the police up with it?
i don't trust this country because i think, well, i'm experiencing a bit of a divergence from their hiring policies and the decisions they've been making in staffing has not been inspiring any, well... i just don't feel like we're seeing eye to eye on a lot of things... sure police personnel is one little area, but i think the whole genocide and usurpation thing... well, how can i say this nicely, it doesn't really... it's not... it's not really working for me. i think the police could be downsized just a little. maybe down to zero. i need to see walking papers. then i could maybe be down with it. then, you might be able to make me an appealing offer. it really shocks me that marriage has become such a big issue for the gays. i keep thinking that it'll fall in on itself, what with the whole queer thing about being a homosexual and all. but most gays want to assimilate into this state. do wedding rings block bullets? let's ask ralowe a hypothetical marriage. ralowe? yes. we all know what an utter tragic mess you are. we all know it. yes we do. say you finally found another tragic mess and got hitched. would you toss some of your tragic ways (i.e., yelling at cops) to preserve the grander tragedy that you two would share? answer: no. well, how long do you think it would last? it wouldn't. of course, this is not my attempt to say that all relationships are co-dependent disasters that require discarding one's responsibilities to their principles for the sake of guarding their one responsibility to "the unit," but i don't think it could work. which is not to say that we can't make it work. who knows, i might be able to manage this working for a short while. but i know that my root nature is to get pissed off when patrol car bumper crash barrier thingies break my stride on my day off from work. and some things are hard to change. a thing like that in particular is deeply grounded in a sense of who i am in this world, passed down from an awareness of what those like me have had to put it with since the longest, from this state. i don't think any relationship, any marriage could help me forget that. i might as well marry the patrol car bumper crash barrier thingie. if i married it, would it stop breaking my stride on work holidays? could i forget what it was and how all these things were connnected? could i trust getting married by gavin newsom, the same man who won't talk to cammerin boyd's family, the cammerin boyd that was murdered by his own police officers, to keep his own streets, as mayor of san francisco, safe? safe from "speeding black motorists?" perhaps, like myself, if i ever learned how to drive. (HEY I PASSED MY TEST! IT'S TIME TO CELEBRATE! HEY, WANNA TAKE THE POLICE ON A HIGH SPEED CHASE?)
i guess my relationship to the state is different than others. to be honest, we're not talking.
i'm sorry if this sounds like michael moore... it just came out that way...
sorry for writing so much. i don't really have an outlet. i shouldn't be apolozing... i should take initiative and find other places to talk. but everyone says i'm crazy. maybe i am crazy.
here's one of the crazy things:
marriage equality is a direct contradiction in terms.
i need to really get over the michael moore thing, because it's really bugging me. it's just that it's so hard to say that. i mean really. others in gay shame feel this sort of frustration. i guess. i mean, that's my impression. everyone in the group seems confused and annoyed. it's like we laugh, like we don't get what the problem is. there's an episode of twilight zone, the new ones, not the new-new ones, but the ones that were remakes... i mean, i think this was a remake, but it may have been a new twilight zone... in color... where the guy is trying to talk to people but they all talk this strange syntax, and he can't figure it out. that doesn't sound like a very interesting idea for an episode, and it's certainly a pretty weak analogy, but that's how it feels. maybe it's accurate. because it all seems to be based on something that doesn't feel fully plausible, like the twilight zone episode. i always fantasize that there are like, illuminati think tanks that come up with things like blockbuster movies and national intrigue. maybe the same guy that wrote this new episode of the twilight zone in color came up with the gay marriage thing.
the architecture looks so flimsy. has the world always been like this? i have this bizarre ache when i watch it all unfold, like have people always been this easy to manipulate? have completely improbable movements always been this easy for cointelpro or the illuminati or the trilateral commission or whatever to take something that makes no sense and make it real? are they imagineers? i think the same group is responsible for the california recall schwarzenegger thing. okay this is becoming banal... heh.
but we here at gay shame have got pretty good documentation on the reiteration of the oppressive patriarchal dream in gaylandia. so, in that sense marriage does seem to fall into a predictable pattern, i mean, after all the muscles and penis stuff. but to be clear, the muscles and penis stuff is an exaggerated end point from what may have been, at some point before i was born another definition of queer... or was the formation of the gay identity simultaneous with it's positionality within a field of what's the most patriarchal part of a vaster spectrum of classifiable and non-classifiable gender possibilites?
i have a weird romantic nostalgia for the 70s in san francisco. i wasn't here then. i keep thinking that there were more freaks and shit here. just more random shit in general. of course, these people didn't probably consider themselves to be "gay." maybe the idea hadn't been born yet. people still to this day get all caught up on the name of our group. to me it is clear that the usage of "gay" and "shame," (no matter how academia may try to fabricate their own private nonce-taxonomies) was intended to be a critique of how "gay" was manifesting itself in the world today, that is a consumer identity more than anything else. did "gay" perhaps always mean this? was it always meant to be a marketting tool? was it ever used it to stand up to someone who had used the same word as an epithet? was it ever a battle cry, a call to action? anything? or is it only a fashion statement, a pattern of consumption, a statist classification to flag the sales team?
i use the word queer instead of gay sometimes, because i've kind of gotten used to it. i always understood queer to mean... well... like something being somewhere it's not supposed to be... a sense of disorientation, dissociation. there have been numerous social opportunities in my life to experience this. queer in comparison to gay, to study the... um, taxonomy of the nonce, well, queer would seem to be more troublesome than gay... i mean queer means diffrerent and gay just means happy, right? i've been talking about this for too long. my question is, what is queer different from? what tension is becoming created between the queer thing and everything else? what does the tension feel like? is it like walking down the street sometimes, and everyone's looking at it and trying to figure it out? i can relate to how that feels. that's one reason why i've grown attached to some idea of being queer rather than being gay. god this is such a peurile and dismal paragraph.
anyway, it always seemed obvious to me that the tension "queer" had with the rest of the world is something to do with sexuality, maybe with the way in which sexuality was understood by society as a whole, that is a patriarchal control system. that just seems obivous to me. "queer" was trying to take it apart and look at it. how did people come to inventing this? i'm not a super-academic historian or anything, but i think the timeline follows in reverse successsion starting from queer to feminism, and to feminism from the civil rights struggle. i guess i could go back further, but these struggles have a big resonance with me, and in particular seem to have shaped a lot of how i find my self situated in an activism against the most bothersome of institutions i see around me.
okay, marriage... what is a marriage? under law, it's two people, usually heterosexual people, who share property, rights, etc. well, share... okay i made that up. looking back for as far as i can see, marriage seems to be about some form of... well, regulation. like some monogamous relationships. like, i'm sleeping with you and you're sleeping with me and that's it. looking at my parents, they controlled me... well they tried to... they clothed and fed me, sure. but there were rules. like, i couldn't leave the block when i was young. well they told me that. i'm sure i could've left it if i wanted to. but i didn't. so it worked. my mother... i think she managed the house income. i know my father made it. i mean, they got along well. better than most families do, i'm sure. but it seemed mostly to be a financial arrangement. a way that they could both afford to live in the white neighborhood. my dad was a bus driver, and my mom was a nurse. i'm sure they could've afforded a nice apartment respectively for their single selves, but together, they were able to have this grand suburban house, and a kid... things that would have been a bit more difficult on their own. and that was about it. i don't think they were super into each other's company too much. and i don't think they ever really had sex. and for fun, they used to go to the mall. a friend of one of my ex's said that my parents are so cute. i never get how someone could look at something that's an act of financial desperation (with a kid (spoiled: braces and damaged and/or destroyed furniture around the house, and/or the house itself)) spread out over decades with someone you can't really talk to as cute. but all marriages are different. and like i said, i don't think my parent's marriage is as bad as most.
their marriage was based on a fundamental inequality... not being able to talk to the other person in the marriage is evidence of this... therefore, a marriage of equality, or an equality of marriages, is something completely outside of anything i've ever heard of... maybe marriage equality is a movie with really realistic muppets in it like the dark crystal... except i think crystals are real...
queer is fun! er, well... um... okay, okay. the idea of being this nutty queer person having sex in the bushes is fun to me. sometimes, it actually isn't though. aids, the internet and most recently marriage have contributed to destroy this fun-to-me part of queer culture... you know, the whole sex in the public bathroom thing is dying off... one thing gay shame has talked about... (did we make a flier about it? i can't recall...) is how the marriage frenzy seemed to coincide with the closure of this leather bar in soma called "my place." remember my place? i had a friend who moved through the whole soma scene who said that they weren't especially enamoured with my place. i mean it was what it was. but i did enjoy getting my cock sucked there once... or i think i did... i mean, the whole soma "no women" thing is tired, for sure, but it's kind of like a whole planet going out of business. it's not really my "home" planet, per se, but it is an absence worthy of some acknowledgment... like you're at work and you're like, hey, what happened to that guy in the corner who used to play with himself all the time and hated women? i don't mean to be disrespectful. i guess.
i like this freaky gay cruising culture. sure it mostly exists for men, nowadays, like most things in our society, but it was an importance fringe bastion of a certain sensibility from where you could create a larger ideology of resistance, starting with sexual norms to corporate domination, and also because i didn't feel like i could fit in with the whole heterosexual marriage and unhappiness thing. what is the point of being a fag if you're going to be just like a straight person. well, it would seem that a lot of people like the idea of being like a straight person all of a sudden. well, it's not all of a sudden. people had been working that direction with their weird adoption and military service agendas. i don't want to be a cop, a fireman, a soldier or a parent. to cops beat their children if they step outside the stated and clearly delineated area of their prescribed movement? of course they do. senseless. none of this makes sense to me.
i think i had a goal in mind when i started writing this. i think i wanted to offer a quick and impenetrable shut-down statement for every conceivable pro-marriage argument. or maybe i just wanted to address one very basic one, and from where i get my inspiration to lablel the genesis of gay marriage equality uprising as improbable. it's just because it flies in the face of what i consider to be queer. i mean the whole thing with the marriage again. like i don't consider my parents queer. i think they do the same thing that a lot of folks do. queer means creating alternatives to me (doesn't that just sound like fun?) and having the courage to really ride them out and let them manifest as they are. there could be nothing queer about a contract binding two people in the eyes of a ravenous bloodthirsty state. something queer would be the exception to the rule... ha ha, i could even get really cagey and say the "to the rulers..." and then say "...as it were," so i could seem to be taken aback by my own affinity for the platitude... if you're confused about my antagonism with the state, please see my post above...
so i'd like to close with another public assertion that just for myself... a private proclamation shared...
there's nothing queer about a state-sanctioned marriage
here's one of the crazy things:
marriage equality is a direct contradiction in terms.
i need to really get over the michael moore thing, because it's really bugging me. it's just that it's so hard to say that. i mean really. others in gay shame feel this sort of frustration. i guess. i mean, that's my impression. everyone in the group seems confused and annoyed. it's like we laugh, like we don't get what the problem is. there's an episode of twilight zone, the new ones, not the new-new ones, but the ones that were remakes... i mean, i think this was a remake, but it may have been a new twilight zone... in color... where the guy is trying to talk to people but they all talk this strange syntax, and he can't figure it out. that doesn't sound like a very interesting idea for an episode, and it's certainly a pretty weak analogy, but that's how it feels. maybe it's accurate. because it all seems to be based on something that doesn't feel fully plausible, like the twilight zone episode. i always fantasize that there are like, illuminati think tanks that come up with things like blockbuster movies and national intrigue. maybe the same guy that wrote this new episode of the twilight zone in color came up with the gay marriage thing.
the architecture looks so flimsy. has the world always been like this? i have this bizarre ache when i watch it all unfold, like have people always been this easy to manipulate? have completely improbable movements always been this easy for cointelpro or the illuminati or the trilateral commission or whatever to take something that makes no sense and make it real? are they imagineers? i think the same group is responsible for the california recall schwarzenegger thing. okay this is becoming banal... heh.
but we here at gay shame have got pretty good documentation on the reiteration of the oppressive patriarchal dream in gaylandia. so, in that sense marriage does seem to fall into a predictable pattern, i mean, after all the muscles and penis stuff. but to be clear, the muscles and penis stuff is an exaggerated end point from what may have been, at some point before i was born another definition of queer... or was the formation of the gay identity simultaneous with it's positionality within a field of what's the most patriarchal part of a vaster spectrum of classifiable and non-classifiable gender possibilites?
i have a weird romantic nostalgia for the 70s in san francisco. i wasn't here then. i keep thinking that there were more freaks and shit here. just more random shit in general. of course, these people didn't probably consider themselves to be "gay." maybe the idea hadn't been born yet. people still to this day get all caught up on the name of our group. to me it is clear that the usage of "gay" and "shame," (no matter how academia may try to fabricate their own private nonce-taxonomies) was intended to be a critique of how "gay" was manifesting itself in the world today, that is a consumer identity more than anything else. did "gay" perhaps always mean this? was it always meant to be a marketting tool? was it ever used it to stand up to someone who had used the same word as an epithet? was it ever a battle cry, a call to action? anything? or is it only a fashion statement, a pattern of consumption, a statist classification to flag the sales team?
i use the word queer instead of gay sometimes, because i've kind of gotten used to it. i always understood queer to mean... well... like something being somewhere it's not supposed to be... a sense of disorientation, dissociation. there have been numerous social opportunities in my life to experience this. queer in comparison to gay, to study the... um, taxonomy of the nonce, well, queer would seem to be more troublesome than gay... i mean queer means diffrerent and gay just means happy, right? i've been talking about this for too long. my question is, what is queer different from? what tension is becoming created between the queer thing and everything else? what does the tension feel like? is it like walking down the street sometimes, and everyone's looking at it and trying to figure it out? i can relate to how that feels. that's one reason why i've grown attached to some idea of being queer rather than being gay. god this is such a peurile and dismal paragraph.
anyway, it always seemed obvious to me that the tension "queer" had with the rest of the world is something to do with sexuality, maybe with the way in which sexuality was understood by society as a whole, that is a patriarchal control system. that just seems obivous to me. "queer" was trying to take it apart and look at it. how did people come to inventing this? i'm not a super-academic historian or anything, but i think the timeline follows in reverse successsion starting from queer to feminism, and to feminism from the civil rights struggle. i guess i could go back further, but these struggles have a big resonance with me, and in particular seem to have shaped a lot of how i find my self situated in an activism against the most bothersome of institutions i see around me.
okay, marriage... what is a marriage? under law, it's two people, usually heterosexual people, who share property, rights, etc. well, share... okay i made that up. looking back for as far as i can see, marriage seems to be about some form of... well, regulation. like some monogamous relationships. like, i'm sleeping with you and you're sleeping with me and that's it. looking at my parents, they controlled me... well they tried to... they clothed and fed me, sure. but there were rules. like, i couldn't leave the block when i was young. well they told me that. i'm sure i could've left it if i wanted to. but i didn't. so it worked. my mother... i think she managed the house income. i know my father made it. i mean, they got along well. better than most families do, i'm sure. but it seemed mostly to be a financial arrangement. a way that they could both afford to live in the white neighborhood. my dad was a bus driver, and my mom was a nurse. i'm sure they could've afforded a nice apartment respectively for their single selves, but together, they were able to have this grand suburban house, and a kid... things that would have been a bit more difficult on their own. and that was about it. i don't think they were super into each other's company too much. and i don't think they ever really had sex. and for fun, they used to go to the mall. a friend of one of my ex's said that my parents are so cute. i never get how someone could look at something that's an act of financial desperation (with a kid (spoiled: braces and damaged and/or destroyed furniture around the house, and/or the house itself)) spread out over decades with someone you can't really talk to as cute. but all marriages are different. and like i said, i don't think my parent's marriage is as bad as most.
their marriage was based on a fundamental inequality... not being able to talk to the other person in the marriage is evidence of this... therefore, a marriage of equality, or an equality of marriages, is something completely outside of anything i've ever heard of... maybe marriage equality is a movie with really realistic muppets in it like the dark crystal... except i think crystals are real...
queer is fun! er, well... um... okay, okay. the idea of being this nutty queer person having sex in the bushes is fun to me. sometimes, it actually isn't though. aids, the internet and most recently marriage have contributed to destroy this fun-to-me part of queer culture... you know, the whole sex in the public bathroom thing is dying off... one thing gay shame has talked about... (did we make a flier about it? i can't recall...) is how the marriage frenzy seemed to coincide with the closure of this leather bar in soma called "my place." remember my place? i had a friend who moved through the whole soma scene who said that they weren't especially enamoured with my place. i mean it was what it was. but i did enjoy getting my cock sucked there once... or i think i did... i mean, the whole soma "no women" thing is tired, for sure, but it's kind of like a whole planet going out of business. it's not really my "home" planet, per se, but it is an absence worthy of some acknowledgment... like you're at work and you're like, hey, what happened to that guy in the corner who used to play with himself all the time and hated women? i don't mean to be disrespectful. i guess.
i like this freaky gay cruising culture. sure it mostly exists for men, nowadays, like most things in our society, but it was an importance fringe bastion of a certain sensibility from where you could create a larger ideology of resistance, starting with sexual norms to corporate domination, and also because i didn't feel like i could fit in with the whole heterosexual marriage and unhappiness thing. what is the point of being a fag if you're going to be just like a straight person. well, it would seem that a lot of people like the idea of being like a straight person all of a sudden. well, it's not all of a sudden. people had been working that direction with their weird adoption and military service agendas. i don't want to be a cop, a fireman, a soldier or a parent. to cops beat their children if they step outside the stated and clearly delineated area of their prescribed movement? of course they do. senseless. none of this makes sense to me.
i think i had a goal in mind when i started writing this. i think i wanted to offer a quick and impenetrable shut-down statement for every conceivable pro-marriage argument. or maybe i just wanted to address one very basic one, and from where i get my inspiration to lablel the genesis of gay marriage equality uprising as improbable. it's just because it flies in the face of what i consider to be queer. i mean the whole thing with the marriage again. like i don't consider my parents queer. i think they do the same thing that a lot of folks do. queer means creating alternatives to me (doesn't that just sound like fun?) and having the courage to really ride them out and let them manifest as they are. there could be nothing queer about a contract binding two people in the eyes of a ravenous bloodthirsty state. something queer would be the exception to the rule... ha ha, i could even get really cagey and say the "to the rulers..." and then say "...as it were," so i could seem to be taken aback by my own affinity for the platitude... if you're confused about my antagonism with the state, please see my post above...
so i'd like to close with another public assertion that just for myself... a private proclamation shared...
there's nothing queer about a state-sanctioned marriage
For more information:
http://www.gayshamesf.org/
thrice-hearted, gay shame. love, love, unto a little wetness.
sincerely, thanks *so* *much!* see ya round...
sincerely, thanks *so* *much!* see ya round...
Assimilation versus separatism.
Reform versus revolution.
Gay versus queer.
GS and its supporters prefer separatism, revolution, queerness.
How GS treats those who choose assimilation, reform and gayness is the measure of its worth to people who fuck people of the same gender, though, and so far on this site, GS and its supporters have been abusive of those who make those other choices for themselves.
Reform versus revolution.
Gay versus queer.
GS and its supporters prefer separatism, revolution, queerness.
How GS treats those who choose assimilation, reform and gayness is the measure of its worth to people who fuck people of the same gender, though, and so far on this site, GS and its supporters have been abusive of those who make those other choices for themselves.
assimilation = death (e.g., colin powell, condoleeze, bill cosby, the borg) ...like say, a jew trying to pass for german during hitler... you might save yourself, but at the cost of countless others. which is more important?
reform = there is no such thing. the status quo is a project that only worsens the state of its subjects in order to function. a classic example of "reform" would be the slave emancipation. it did not occur as an act of amerikkkan spiritual benevolence, a moment of governmental transcendence... it was a financial move. holding labor im a state of perpetual debt and dependence is infinitely more wise economically than being bound by law as property to give them room and board. to believe in reform is to believe that the descendents of slaves are really any more free now than their ancestors. what people like you call reform is merely a misrecognition of the ways in which oppression changes shape so as to continue oppressing but not in the same ways. change from the inside is impossible. again, ask colin powell, condolezza, et al.
gay = a consumer identity, like hip hop, dot-commer, metrosexual, post-dot-commer, generation y, angry indie skateboarder, etc. no gay community exists. it's just a bunch of people drawn to a certain set of mannerisms with no real meaninful connection; personal histories are expendable at the price of performing a social aesthetic. perhaps at one point before i was alive it might have meant something, but as an isolated adjective unto itself, it really has no relevance. for example, as a "gay person of color," going to a gay space, e.g. the castro, would the person of color stay at home? does this make sense? does identity function that way? does identity function period? does identity exist? identity is an idea, and is only useful in concert with other ideas. one cannot exist in the world as just, say, a "man..." (if even such a thing can be understood as real or useful outside of a very very clumsy language, or process of awkward communication) ...there has to be an infinite number of other attributes one could apply, and you still would only have an infinitessimally limited picture of existing in the world...
reform = there is no such thing. the status quo is a project that only worsens the state of its subjects in order to function. a classic example of "reform" would be the slave emancipation. it did not occur as an act of amerikkkan spiritual benevolence, a moment of governmental transcendence... it was a financial move. holding labor im a state of perpetual debt and dependence is infinitely more wise economically than being bound by law as property to give them room and board. to believe in reform is to believe that the descendents of slaves are really any more free now than their ancestors. what people like you call reform is merely a misrecognition of the ways in which oppression changes shape so as to continue oppressing but not in the same ways. change from the inside is impossible. again, ask colin powell, condolezza, et al.
gay = a consumer identity, like hip hop, dot-commer, metrosexual, post-dot-commer, generation y, angry indie skateboarder, etc. no gay community exists. it's just a bunch of people drawn to a certain set of mannerisms with no real meaninful connection; personal histories are expendable at the price of performing a social aesthetic. perhaps at one point before i was alive it might have meant something, but as an isolated adjective unto itself, it really has no relevance. for example, as a "gay person of color," going to a gay space, e.g. the castro, would the person of color stay at home? does this make sense? does identity function that way? does identity function period? does identity exist? identity is an idea, and is only useful in concert with other ideas. one cannot exist in the world as just, say, a "man..." (if even such a thing can be understood as real or useful outside of a very very clumsy language, or process of awkward communication) ...there has to be an infinite number of other attributes one could apply, and you still would only have an infinitessimally limited picture of existing in the world...
For more information:
http://www.gayshamesf.org/
as opposed to consensual militarism.
um, yeah. right.
um, yeah. right.
stop speaking Bay Aryan...
what the fuck is "consensual militarism"?
is this lyndie england? are we doing another shoot?
what the fuck is "consensual militarism"?
is this lyndie england? are we doing another shoot?
it was a reply to the previous post, not yours. we replied at the same time, is all.
i am deeply offended that dissent is categorized as violence while military service is categorized as a lifestyle choice. i think that's hypocritical at best, and more than a little delusional...
i am deeply offended that dissent is categorized as violence while military service is categorized as a lifestyle choice. i think that's hypocritical at best, and more than a little delusional...
Right. Reform isn't just a different approach that some people choose to adopt, it is, literally, DEATH!
Drama queens are fun at parties. Not so much here.
Drama queens are fun at parties. Not so much here.
call the roit squad
You can't debate idealogues like dimwit Mary because they can only use big words their teachers over at New College approve of. If they actually tried tried to dialogue with everyday people (including everyday homos) they'd either get laughed at or punched.
Gavin Newsome loved having opposition like Gay Shame because if you disagree with their absurd rhetoric you're a fascist, yuppie, homophobe or some combination of the three. Gay shame used to post here calling, gay marriage hero (millions of working class gays support him), Gavin Newsome a homophobe, which illustrates what typical identity politics bozos they are.
Gavin Newsome loved having opposition like Gay Shame because if you disagree with their absurd rhetoric you're a fascist, yuppie, homophobe or some combination of the three. Gay shame used to post here calling, gay marriage hero (millions of working class gays support him), Gavin Newsome a homophobe, which illustrates what typical identity politics bozos they are.
you quoted yourself verbatim, from:
"Mary Marginaldummy
by the truth hurts Friday, Aug. 27, 2004 at 8:55 PM"
As if no one else can scroll back and see your hypocrisy plain as day. As if anyone else gives a shit about maintaining it, let alone calling it progessive and writing letters (or whatever) to support it.
Denounce Gay Shame and vote for Kerry, for holding essentially the same position. The only difference is rhetorical style.... and the social goals. One wants to free you, despite yourself (and I'm not sure I agree with that goal either, fwiw). The other only wants your campaign contribution.
Only you, you alone, are blind to that, you dimwit. Oh indeed, the truth hurts-- call out the cops! Shut em up, shut em down.
Make it personal. Call them names. Dont forget to call them names. It says so little-- which is the very scope of your vision.
"Mary Marginaldummy
by the truth hurts Friday, Aug. 27, 2004 at 8:55 PM"
As if no one else can scroll back and see your hypocrisy plain as day. As if anyone else gives a shit about maintaining it, let alone calling it progessive and writing letters (or whatever) to support it.
Denounce Gay Shame and vote for Kerry, for holding essentially the same position. The only difference is rhetorical style.... and the social goals. One wants to free you, despite yourself (and I'm not sure I agree with that goal either, fwiw). The other only wants your campaign contribution.
Only you, you alone, are blind to that, you dimwit. Oh indeed, the truth hurts-- call out the cops! Shut em up, shut em down.
Make it personal. Call them names. Dont forget to call them names. It says so little-- which is the very scope of your vision.
Once again, it is the height of hypocrisy to call someone out for name-calling and then address the person as "you dimwit."
especially as long as you hang out around here. like we used to say: get used to it.
you reactionary.
you reactionary.
"Take it as long as you hang around here." Sounds like a threat of harrassment. Gonna pull another attack like you did on Newsom?
actually, this time when i attack newsom, i'm going to use my flying crane style...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$140.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network