Top Anti-Gay Group Attempts Public Meeting Over LGBT Rights

[Arcadonisia]

It has been reported that top anti-gay activists are attempted to hold a public meeting with U.S. Senators in the Dirksen Senate Office Building in D.C. today to discuss the only thing that they can obsess over, their extreme hate for marriage equality in America. The organization holding this event is known as the World Congress of Families, which is infamous for spreading intolerance and hate against the LGBT across the globe.

The leaders of this group have come to seek the aid of U.S. Senators to help repeal laws that legalize gay marriages and civil unions across the states. Further information details that members of this group are indeed responsible for spreading false and misleading propaganda that has lead to widespread accounts of LGBT Hate crimes in Africa and Eastern Europe. Not only do these anti-gay activists seek the repeal of equality, but also demand that the U.S. support and embrace laws similar to the infamous Russian laws that prohibit propaganda supporting "nontraditional sexual relations".

So, yet again the crazies are attempting to hold back the waves of progress being seen here in the U.S. and across the globe. I personally think that they shouldn't even be allowed to hold any meetings or share their ideas at all, as they threaten the civil rights of countless LBGT citizens and their allies. The real question here is how far will they go to push their radical agenda into the legal system, and what can be done (legally) to stop them? What are some of your thoughts on their plans and their attempt of a meeting?

Source

[Uiiop]

It has been reported that top anti-gay activists are attempted to hold a public meeting with U.S. Senators in the Dirksen Senate Office Building in D.C. today to discuss the only thing that they can obsess over, their extreme hate for marriage equality in America. The organization holding this event is known as the World Congress of Families, which is infamous for spreading intolerance and hate against the LGBT across the globe.

The leaders of this group have come to seek the aid of U.S. Senators to help repeal laws that legalize gay marriages and civil unions across the states. Further information details that members of this group are indeed responsible for spreading false and misleading propaganda that has lead to widespread accounts of LGBT Hate crimes in Africa and Eastern Europe. Not only do these anti-gay activists seek the repeal of equality, but also demand that the U.S. support and embrace laws similar to the infamous Russian laws that prohibit propaganda supporting "nontraditional sexual relations".

So, yet again the crazies are attempting to hold back the waves of progress being seen here in the U.S. and across the globe. I personally think that they shouldn't even be allowed to hold any meetings or share their ideas at all, as they threaten the civil rights of countless LBGT citizens and their allies. The real question here is how far will they go to push their radical agenda into the legal system, and what can be done (legally) to stop them? What are some of your thoughts on their plans and their attempt of a meeting?

Source

Let it happen most people wouldn't believe them *Watches with a jar of chicken fingers* this is going to be hilarious.

[The Tovian Way]

It has been reported that top anti-gay activists are attempted to hold a public meeting with U.S. Senators in the Dirksen Senate Office Building in D.C. today to discuss the only thing that they can obsess over, their extreme hate for marriage equality in America. The organization holding this event is known as the World Congress of Families, which is infamous for spreading intolerance and hate against the LGBT across the globe.

The leaders of this group have come to seek the aid of U.S. Senators to help repeal laws that legalize gay marriages and civil unions across the states. Further information details that members of this group are indeed responsible for spreading false and misleading propaganda that has lead to widespread accounts of LGBT Hate crimes in Africa and Eastern Europe. Not only do these anti-gay activists seek the repeal of equality, but also demand that the U.S. support and embrace laws similar to the infamous Russian laws that prohibit propaganda supporting "nontraditional sexual relations".

So, yet again the crazies are attempting to hold back the waves of progress being seen here in the U.S. and across the globe. I personally think that they shouldn't even be allowed to hold any meetings or share their ideas at all, as they threaten the civil rights of countless LBGT citizens and their allies. The real question here is how far will they go to push their radical agenda into the legal system, and what can be done (legally) to stop them? What are some of your thoughts on their plans and their attempt of a meeting?

Source

Your character attacks aside, this is simply a group of people exercising their right to free association.
You should do nothing to stop them, and should not be legally able to do anything to stop them from exercising this right.
If you find you disagree with another's opinion, you should attempt to either dissuade them of it or persuade others of your own.

[Ifreann]

So, yet again the crazies are attempting to hold back the waves of progress being seen here in the U.S. and across the globe. I personally think that they shouldn't even be allowed to hold any meetings or share their ideas at all, as they threaten the civil rights of countless LBGT citizens and their allies.

Nothing says support for equal rights for all people like wanting to deny equal rights to some people.

The real question here is how far will they go to push their radical agenda into the legal system,

As far as they can without shooting themselves in the foot. Mostly.

and what can be done (legally) to stop them?

Wait for them to die.

What are some of your thoughts on their plans and their attempt of a meeting?

I'd much prefer they carry on their anti-gay activities within the bounds of the law than the alternative.

[Bolrieg]

these organisations face two problems
1.tolerance
2.common sense

[Ragnarum]

I'd just remove them.

If free speech defends these people, then fuck it.

[Ifreann]

I'd just remove them.

Happily it's not up to you, and most likely never will be.

[Thaipursia]

After the World Congress of Families have succeeded in banning gay marriage, then they can turn to mixed race marriages, and then mixed religion marrigages, and perhaps to make it "perfect", no mixed ethnic marriages. French-Canadians can only marry French-Canadians, Cajuns only other Cajuns. You know Leviticus "No mixing linen with the hair of goats and sheep..."

[Ragnarum]

I'd just remove them.

Happily it's not up to you, and most likely never will be.

Good for you. Enjoy that.

[The Tovian Way]

I'd just remove them.

If free speech defends these people, then fuck it.

Surely you're not advocating denying people their free speech protections if they happen to disagree with your own views?
I may have misinterpreted your comment, and if so I apologize, but I thought you might want to clarify.

[Ragnarum]

I'd just remove them.

If free speech defends these people, then fuck it.

Surely you're not advocating denying people their free speech protections if they happen to disagree with your own views?

Of course I am.
Plenty of less blunt ways of putting it, but hey.

[Totalise]

i have always wondered something........ why is it ok for people who like the LGBT to protest and try to further their agenda, while it is the worst possiable event for someone to oppose them and further theirs.
why am i supposed to be tolorant of you but not you of me. hipocracy at its finest.

[The Tovian Way]

Surely you're not advocating denying people their free speech protections if they happen to disagree with your own views?

Of course I am.

And would you then accept as legitimate someone in power denying your free speech protections if you happen to disagree with their views?

[Ragnarum]

i have always wondered something........ why is it ok for people who like the LGBT to protest and try to further their agenda, while it is the worst possiable event for someone to oppose them and further theirs.
why am i supposed to be tolorant of you but not you of me. hipocracy at its finest.

Because your opinion can change, but their sexuality cannot.

Rather simple.

Of course I am.

And would you then accept as legitimate someone in power denying your free speech protections if you happen to disagree with their views?

I'd leave the country and go elsewhere if I didn't like their policies or way of governance.
Probably Sweden.

[Liriena]

i have always wondered something........ why is it ok for people who like the LGBT to protest and try to further their agenda, while it is the worst possiable event for someone to oppose them and further theirs.
why am i supposed to be tolorant of you but not you of me. hipocracy at its finest.

Atrocious English aside, it's perfectly fine for bigots to spew their bigotry and try to socially and legally bully LGBT people into submission. It's also perfectly fine for LGBT people and their allies to call bigots on their bullshit and criticise them and their beliefs for treating their fellow human beings as lesser creatures and whining about their millennial privileges being challenged by people who currently have far less rights than them.

There's no hypocrisy there.

[Avenio]

why am i supposed to be tolorant of you but not you of me. hipocracy at its finest.

To quote Karl Popper;

"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

[Totalise]

i have always wondered something........ why is it ok for people who like the LGBT to protest and try to further their agenda, while it is the worst possiable event for someone to oppose them and further theirs.
why am i supposed to be tolorant of you but not you of me. hipocracy at its finest.

Because your opinion can change, but their sexuality cannot.

Rather simple.

tis a choice is it not?
and why should i change my oppinion to suit what you think is right? i have every right to it, just as you do. i also have every right to let my voice be heard

[Blasveck]

i have always wondered something........ why is it ok for people who like the LGBT to protest and try to further their agenda, while it is the worst possiable event for someone to oppose them and further theirs.
why am i supposed to be tolorant of you but not you of me. hipocracy at its finest.

Because the people who oppose them are harming members of society for no logical reason.

Granted, they can spread hate all they want. They're in their full right to do so.

But they shouldn't act suprised when they get shit for it.

[Liriena]

why am i supposed to be tolorant of you but not you of me. hipocracy at its finest.

To quote Karl Popper;

"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

Thanks for reminding me why I love Popper. :3

[The Treorai]

I personally think that they shouldn't even be allowed to hold any meetings or share their ideas at all, as they threaten the civil rights of countless LBGT citizens and their allies.

7th Grade Civics: You Need It.

[Ragnarum]

Because your opinion can change, but their sexuality cannot.

Rather simple.

tis a choice is it not?
and why should i change my oppinion to suit what you think is right? i have every right to it, just as you do. i also have every right to let my voice be heard

No, its not a choice, thats a very well established fact.

Because like I said, opinions can change.

[The Tovian Way]

And would you then accept as legitimate someone in power denying your free speech protections if you happen to disagree with their views?

I'd leave the country and go elsewhere if I didn't like their policies or way of governance.

No doubt, in that situation that would be only rational. But would the actions of that person in power be, in your view, legitimate? That is to say, do you believe it is always a legitimate exercise of political power to deny free speech protections to those who disagree with the views of those in power?

[Jormengand]

tis a choice is it not?

Sexuality? No. When did you choose to be straight? Could you (for experimental purposes, of course) choose to be gay?

No. No you couldn't.

That said, I'd let you have every right to say what you want. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, and all that.

[Totalise]

i have always wondered something........ why is it ok for people who like the LGBT to protest and try to further their agenda, while it is the worst possiable event for someone to oppose them and further theirs.
why am i supposed to be tolorant of you but not you of me. hipocracy at its finest.

Because the people who oppose them are harming members of society for no logical reason.

Granted, they can spread hate all they want. They're in their full right to do so.

But they shouldn't act suprised when they get shit for it.

how is it harm? i see no harm in being against something i find moraly wrong.
prove that they spread hate. i believe that homosexuality is wrong, that dosen't mean i hate homosexuals.

[Totalise]

tis a choice is it not?

Sexuality? No. When did you choose to be straight? Could you (for experimental purposes, of course) choose to be gay?

No. No you couldn't.

That said, I'd let you have every right to say what you want. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, and all that.

so its genetic then?