GAY SHAME OPPOSES MARRIAGE IN ANY FORM

Bad news, honey...no one cares.

just ignore the little rascal.

with all your members out there in SF one of you must know some one who might be willing to help out
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/update/index.php

>>>"gay shame assistance needed
by Angie Saturday, Aug. 28, 2004 at 12:50 AM"

This is a forgery.

I'm not a troll, sweetie. YOU just don't like what I say. Deal.

perhaps if you -had- something to say, little bunhead.

this is the best, most concise statement yet on the shameful assimilationist-agenda marriage "issue."

keep up the fabulous work, gayshame!!

sincerely, --just another admirer-from-afar

Gay Shame wants a world in which they control our relationships, a coercive control indifferent to the desires and needs of the gay community, a coercive control enforced by physical violence.

Just how many Gay Shamers were arrested for physically attacking the mayor of San Francisco, 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.

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.

rage on rage queens. the gay community taht you hate so much isn't going to support you if you attack the mayor and you get what is coming to you for it.

So we are supposed to believe the same people who tell gay married couples their "marriage is murder" that they didn't really attack the mayor and get arrested? We are supposed to believe these liars on blind faith alone? That's a laugh.

Gay Shame has zero credibility outside their own rabid little cabal.

i let people commit political violence for me? right, because i am in control of the sfpd. right. it was my call. lol.

now dont get me wrong, I do not mind if gay shame gets their asses kicked.

gay shame gets from me and others in the pro-gay marriage community exactly the same level of support and sympathy that they provide.

violent: a lie.
rage for its own sake: a lie
don't like the mayor: well there's a fact. dont we have camps or something for people who dont like the govt? isn't that a crime now under the patriot act?
oh, right: it's their personalities. yup, slap em all down. lies lies lies, yeah, that'll do.

hey newsom queen: do youself a favor, stop lying to yourself, and go campaign for bush. or maybe kerry, he's been soo good on your pet issue.

where *is* the vitriol for anti-gay-marriage kerry? oh right, you're a hypocrite: you don't have to be consistent.

ps: yes, police violence is your fault. it happens with your consent.

It is entirely unremarkable that liberals and radicals would part ways over support of the police state.

But it stretches credulity to the breaking point to see a pro-police state liberal try to wedge between gay radicals and other radicals over the charade of support for the police state and its institutions, as somehow being radical, and supporting the assertion that the radicals are actually reactionaries with a string of smears and lies.

It is truly amazing. Do you really think people on this site are buying your lies? Or is this some kind of therapy for you, salve on the sting of your own hypocrisy? Making yourself believe your own lies by repeating them to others...

Are you on smack? Is that how you do it?

lies indeed. anyone interested in gay shame's violent crimes can look it up for themselves--do not take my word for it. or theirs, for that matter.

as for being personally blamed for the violence of the sfpd--that is just another of gay shame's many lies.

not that i feel bad for them if, when they turn violent, they are then treated with violence, because i do not feel for the.

no support for gay shame here. and no sympathy. peddle your lies and violence to your straight bigot fan base, maybe they will rush to your aid when you get yourselves in trouble.

First thing's first: you do not debate. You polemicize. You throw around smears, lies and ad hominem attacks until someone bashes back, and then you lay the full force of your "rage queen" thing on them. When, however, you are debated into a corner, you ignore it and restart the mud-flinging.

Fair enough. But it is not a debate, it is a polemic. So, let's see where the poles are.

You: insist that your right to marry is rightfully at the head not only of the gay community agenda, but also of the more general progressive one vis a vis what people owe in support to gays.

Counter to this is a critique of marriage as a bourgeois institution of property maintenance and transferrence, that is at root elitist and exclusivist, for reasons related to the class system.

You: are violently against any questioning of your agenda or your right to assert it. Not that you yourself are; rather, you openly call here for the use of the police to silence internal opposition within the gay community. You deride, ridicule and attack anyone daring to break lockstep on the issue, in an attempt to isolate them and render them more vulnerable to such violence.

Counter to this is the assertion that other things matter more to the struggle for human liberation, including gay liberation, than the right to marry. Freedom from state violence, access to healthcare, and rights like dissent and free association within and beyond the confines of marriage all spring to mind, in addition to the universal need to resist creeping fascism in america.

You: ultimately assert a majoritarian right to squelch all such dissent, and as if it were a wedge issue, come on here and demand that "other" radicals owe allegiance to your agenda, and solidarity against gay-community dissidents.

Okay, fair enough, your claim is staked. I counter that you are part and parcel of the system any good radical is resisting, and you deserve to be treated like the reactionary cretin that you are. You are at best an apologist, and at worst an instigator of police violence against public dissent. You are a hipocrite, artfully dodging questions like your probable support for Kerry, despite his anti-gay-marriage stance, while equating support of same with endorsement of the entire agenda of the current San Francisco mayor-- and calling for police violence against those controverting that corporate agenda. Last but not least, you perpetuate apologetic lies in justification of police brutality against public dissent within the gay ghetto-- including the incidents at the gay pride parade and in front of the gay "community" center when Newsom was running a pro-corporate campaign against a grassroots-populist contender from the left, and police gratuitously bashed loud but nonviolent dissent with the collusion of an acquiescent press and the silent assent of the local gay elite.

In short, you, sir, are a reactionary. All those in favor should line up behind you.

The rest of us should take note, that this polemic has worked itself out and made itself perfectly clear. The rest is just banter, wedge-issuing and sanctimonious lies of the dominant class dressed up like victims.

And that, my friends and foe, is that.

You're inventing a straw man which you then attack. It would be great if you actually believed your own lies, because you'd be so far from the truth as to be entirely ineffectual in the community.

But I don't think you are as stupid as you appear in your posts. I think it's just a tactic.

You demonize any opposition to your extremist agenda. Hell, I don't think the word is strong enough--you are trigger-happy for character assassination. "Marriage is murder?" "If you disagree with Gay Shame you are calling for police violence?" Yeah, right. I don't think even *you* believe that crap.

I know the rest of the community sure doesn't. Or didn't you notice?

"Oh, if you don't think like I do you are a murderer!" "If you disagree, you call for political violence!"

is demonized as the equivalent to murder. Or in this case, any opposition is violent. Same thing:

I know I am.

Nice dodge, by the way. It's like your very own reset button. Round and round, cornered and reset.

The polemic stands.

As a model of your debating style, no doubt. Noted.

"There You Go Again"

Please get over the use of polemic, even if you have to make something up on your own...if possible.
.

...is the insistence by the "gay marriage" :"crowd" on adherence to their party line. Opposition to it is effectively polemic because no middle ground is allowed on the part of the "orthodoxy enforcers" here.

Enforced-unanimous opinion? Yup, bullshit, reactionary bullshit-- particularly when masquerading as "radical" "progressivism," and even more so when left unchallenged by those who should know better.

Do have a nice day.

"The polemic, my dear...is the insistence by the "gay marriage" :"crowd" on adherence to their party line."

And is your polemic that no one, anyone at all, should have the right to marry, should they so choose?

What is your dispute with the concept of marriage/committment? Do you have the same problem with domestic partnership? Say my parter (married or otherwise) of 50 years dies? What rights would I have in your polemical world?

My question is similar. Does Gay Shame argue that queers shouldn't marry, or that queers shouldn't be legally -allowed- to marry?

is that gay shame thinks marriage is an oppressive institution, and not a worthy goal to strive for.

rather, they think everyone should be free to make whatever relationships they want, and all these should be inherently, socially valid. furthermore, social rights should not depend on such an (ahem) status such as whether or not you're married.

that doesn't mean don't marry. only fundamentalist thinking would reduce the critique to that. but what are married gays going to do for those of us who aren't or don't??

do i have to marry into healthcare? inheritance rights? children? or may those be freely contracted through whatever voluntary association free people care to forge?

GS doesn't believe in marriage, healthcare, or children. They don't believe in the government, the church or communty. They just want to destroy, just for kicks.

These people are dangerous. They are the wreckers of civilization. They should all be taken out and.... bought drinks.

They are an asset to the dialogue as long as the dialogue remains civil to other human beings who don't happen to make the same choices. Still waiting to hear, as a previous writer said, if gay shame feels that "queers shouldn't marry" or "queers shouldn't be legally -allowed- to marry?" That states the question fairly I think.

There are so many ways to personalize this, through human circumstances of death, divorce, parents, children. So many potential issues that a legal recognition of a relationship nips in the bud. I know that brings in the issue of state sanctification but it also is mere legal recognition and the rights that pertain to that for people who, let's face it, are basically being screwed over by our government. Our government who has screwed over so many, and is a work in progress that needs serious work!

He's being canonized and I feel people need to examine more closely the reasons why he did what he did. He has an agenda, and he knows this will ultimately pass in this country. He can get a lot of political credit for his savvy political smarts on this issue. Not now, but in the not to distant future in national politics.

This guy (yes that's what I think) is attacking GS for opposing marriage, but is supporting Kerry, who not only opposes gay marriage, but also has the social power to achieve or block gay marriage, unlike GS. Textbook hypocrisy.

Incidentally, it's also the same reason Newsom gets the credit for embracing someone else's campaign: because support for him just happens to coincide with the campaign to rid the Castro District, and the rest of the City, of undesirable underclass-types.

This is apparent hypocrisy, because we "celebrate diversity" (right?), but it is internally consistent in terms of class-based economic interests. It is dressed up in all sorts of rationales, and then marched out in sanctimonious bluster. This agenda supports the use of police brutality to silence visible dissent in the gay ghetto, blaming the victims of the violence for the violence.

I mean, what about this is hard to understand? and which side are you on?

(PS: How well did the "Freedom to Serve" campaign work? dont ask dont tell? and that was under Clinton, who at least gave lip service to supporting the demanded the right to serve in places like um Iraq with pride, which is more than Kerry will even give the marriagists....)

Marriage equality is a just cause. Marriage equality will bring more good to more people than the status quo does--many gay couples want to marry--and no person or group of persons is hurt merely by the extension of equal marriage rights to gay couples.

or are you publicly proclaiming your hypocrisy here?

Don't dodge, let us hear from you.

Also, do you support or condemn police violence against Gay Shame protestors?

Like gays in the military, it's not a particularly progressive one.

So why all the hubris against those who disagree with its prioritization?

I could explain, but the reasoning would be lost on you. I will say this: I intend to join others in pushing Kerry to the left, as far as we can, after we help him get elected.

As for whether or not I'm a hypocrite, that's ad hominem.

Please stick to the issues.

We know Gay Shame opposes gay marriage and gays in the military.

What we don't know: does Gay Shame support the discriminatory status quo in which gays are not legally allowed to make decisions about marriage and military service for themselves?

Does gay shame support legal discrimination if it aids their agenda, or do they oppose discrimination even if it that would mean eventually allowing individuals to make personal decisions for themselves that Gay Shame doesn't want them to make?

blind, so very very blind........

Yes, Unfortunately
by Kerry Supporter Thursday, Sep. 02, 2004 at 11:43 AM

I could explain, but the reasoning would be lost on you. I will say this: I intend to join others in pushing Kerry to the left, as far as we can, after we help him get elected.

As for whether or not I'm a hypocrite, that's ad hominem.

Please stick to the issues.