(December 12, 2014 at 6:11 pm)Alex K Wrote: You may have a point about who represents them as a public face (and atheists can relate, I don't want Richard Dawkins to be the public face of my atheism for instance),
but really - how can you seriously complain that *they* make their sexuality everyones business too much when in recent memory society as a whole was obsessed with it to the point of torturing and shunning them for their sexuality? That's very cynical.
(December 12, 2014 at 5:54 pm)Rob216 Wrote: I kinda feel like that's one of the problems with the gay community though. They make it a point to try to make their sex life EVERYONE'S business. I don't have a problem with somebody being gay, I just think that their activism is executed poorly. One of the reasons that the civil rights campaign finally had success was because MLK was such a great speaker and figure for the cause. When one of the most visible activists for gay rights is Rosie O'Donnell, the cause is bound to have a certain degree of failure. Just my opinion.
My issue is that they literally bring up sex in their activism. Nobody can stop them from performing sexual acts (although I suppose some people do actually try) but they want the same rights as straight married couples. When a sign you are holding up says stuff like "Lick Bush in 2001" it takes away from the message and points the mind towards a sexual act and not the actual issue at hand.