Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS San Francisco)   Old controversy: gays in the military. New controversy: Military at the gay pride parade   (sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com ) divider line 61
    More: Strange, Chelsea Manning, LGBT pride, San Francisco LGBT, National Guard, LGBT, San Francisco, military secret, Espionage Act  
•       •       •

3352 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Jun 2014 at 11:09 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



61 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-17 09:22:53 AM  

Smackledorfer: ohsoferrety: I'm farking TIRED of these gay prides and their manufactured controversies. Prides now are just business events, PR for politicians, and great places to find a mouth for the night. SERIOUS FARKING BUSINESS, YO.

shiat DOWN AND SHUT UP, HOMOS.

/tired of it all
//ghey

I bet you go pretend to be ack and biatch about affirmative action too.


Some of my best friends are ack, though I really don't get what the Anglican Church of Kenya has to do with a gay pride parade in San Francisco.
 
2014-06-17 09:24:46 AM  

dv-ous: Well, on one hand, I'm sure there are plenty of gays who are somewhat leery of the military, current official stance or not. If I were the personal embodiment of the army, I would probably want to give history a chance to shake itself out before I started showing up to my former victims' parties and expecting a warm welcome.

On the other hand, it does seem like the SF GLBT people are choosing to take a political stance which is not, strictly speaking, relevant to their mission. (It would be one thing if Chelsea Manning were in prison because she was a transsexual, but she's in prison for espionage.)


I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet that this is the most rational post that this thread will see.
 
2014-06-17 09:27:05 AM  

fusillade762: ohsoferrety: shiat DOWN AND SHUT UP, HOMOS.

shiat down? Is it possible to shiat up?  Even for a homo?


Peristalsis is a wonderful thing.
 
2014-06-17 09:44:06 AM  

studebaker hoch: If you treated gays like normal people they'd shut up the same day.


Hah.

No, some of us gays humans just love being victims waaaay too much to ever shut up.

Jim_Callahan:
Gay guy: We have so much in common, and work's done, let'shiat the bar.

Believe it or not this is actually frowned upon in most bars, gay or straight...
 
2014-06-17 09:44:41 AM  

studebaker hoch: Gays fight and sometimes die in our military, and always have.

They do it so we can have freedom.

What's wrong with honoring them?


People clamoring for tolerance, are the most intolerant jerks ever.  It's an age old adage.
 
2014-06-17 09:50:20 AM  

ciberido: Some of my best friends are ack


Syns are far more fun to have as friends...

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-06-17 09:56:25 AM  
Fine, but maybe they should also ban the military because it's a primary agent of imperialism. It would be like if everyone was cool with Charles Manson coming because, well yes he did all those horrible things, but he's bisexual so
 
2014-06-17 10:52:57 AM  

Firethorn: dv-ous: Well, on one hand, I'm sure there are plenty of gays who are somewhat leery of the military, current official stance or not. If I were the personal embodiment of the army, I would probably want to give history a chance to shake itself out before I started showing up to my former victims' parties and expecting a warm welcome.

You do realize that the ban on gays was forced onto the military by congress and the president, right?  Worst case the military cared about gays before that was considering them a security risk if they were 'in the closet'.  Why?  Because their being gay could theoretically be used to blackmail them into giving up military secrets.  Same deal with gambling debts, infidelity, etc...

Oddly enough, despite the overall extreme anti-gay feelings of the day, that meant that you weren't a security risk if you were flamboyantly open about it.  Though you experienced negatives about that as well, seeing as how society as a whole wasn't too accepting back then.

BTW, my commander is openly gay.  He must of gotten married within a week of DOMA being shot down.


And a happy marriage to your commander.

While I am aware that DADT was a congressional rule, I am also aware of the kind of BS that goes down at the USAF Academy. While there are plenty of good and decent people in uniform, there is also a lot of pockets of homohobia, like it or not, and until recently the solution was to punish the victims.
 
2014-06-17 02:16:55 PM  

RanDomino: Fine, but maybe they should also ban the military because it's a primary agent of imperialism.


"Imperialism" isn't an issue that has anything to do with gay rights.  You can be gay and anti-imperialism, or gay and pro-imperialism, or gay and have no opinion whatsoever about imperialism.  A group that exists specifically to promote gay rights ought to steer clear of any issue that isn't specifically related to gay rights.
 
2014-06-17 06:09:43 PM  

ciberido: RanDomino: Fine, but maybe they should also ban the military because it's a primary agent of imperialism.

"Imperialism" isn't an issue that has anything to do with gay rights.  You can be gay and anti-imperialism, or gay and pro-imperialism, or gay and have no opinion whatsoever about imperialism.  A group that exists specifically to promote gay rights ought to steer clear of any issue that isn't specifically related to gay rights.


And that's terrible. Why should they expect anyone to support them if they won't support anyone else?
 
2014-06-18 10:48:12 AM  

RanDomino: ciberido: RanDomino: Fine, but maybe they should also ban the military because it's a primary agent of imperialism.

"Imperialism" isn't an issue that has anything to do with gay rights.  You can be gay and anti-imperialism, or gay and pro-imperialism, or gay and have no opinion whatsoever about imperialism.  A group that exists specifically to promote gay rights ought to steer clear of any issue that isn't specifically related to gay rights.

And that's terrible. Why should they expect anyone to support them if they won't support anyone else?


As so often happens with Fark, I can't tell if you're trolling or not.  But I'll go with the assumption you're entirely serious for the moment

When you get a large group of people together to do something, you have to focus on the one thing you all agree on.  If I get 100 people who love video games together for a LAN party, and just as everyone is getting their computers hooked up together, one guy goes, "Hey, guys, you know what would be awesome?  If we went CAMPING together!" that's just not going to work.  And I really shouldn't have to explain this to anyone, but that's because not everyone who enjoys video games likes to go camping, and vice-versa.  So I have my video game tournament this weekend, and if you want to play, then come play but leave the tent at home.  And next weekend I might go camping with you, and I promise not to bring my desktop with me.

The same holds true for any kind of political activism.  Just because we agree on gay marriage doesn't mean we agree on taxes or imperialism or any other issue, even though I know many people who argue that all the various social justice issues are interrelated.  Sure, they're interrelated, but that still doesn't mean that everyone who's willing to march for gay rights is going to agree with you about EVERY political issue.  So when you have a big group, asking them all to march for some OTHER issue that they don't even agree with is selfish and unrealistic.

Additionally, even if every single person there DID feel the same way about imperialism (or whatever issue), it would STILL be a bad idea to try to make a protest march or other political event about two different things, because it diffuses the message.  And if Occupy Wall Street taught us anything, it's the importance of sending a clear, focused message when being politically active.  If the opposition can say "They don't even know what they're agitating for!" and make others believe it, it's crippling.
 
Displayed 11 of 61 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report