Does no one see that WBC is the good guy in this story?

It would appear to me that Westboro's viewpoints are flexible. They — or at least, the people at the top — don't seem to truly believe that "god hates fags", but more that they're latching onto the most controversial viewpoint they can find, just to get the protests, in the hope that they can get a lawsuit out of it. They're not protesters; merely lawyers looking for a quick buck.

The possibilities that you present are excuses for an intolerant audience to use in rationalizing the decision to ignore the viewpoint being spoken. For our system of self government to work, all viewpoints must be heard, really heard, and then respectfully, vigorously, and intelligently considered and debated.

For example, Pi zero should concede that I have made my point successfully against his objections. That gesture would show me respect and would cost him nothing. If some other person here then thought that his concession was premature, that person could take up the boxing gloves and continue the attack on my argument.

I am 58 years old and I have spent a lifetime as a student of society. I am also a teacher. There is no shame in debating something with me, or anyone else, and then conceding defeat. For one who is wise, a debate is not really a contest at all; it is a banquet that all participants can, and should, enjoy.

The possibilities he suggests make perfect sense.

Let me present another: You're trolling in a well-mannered fashion; and, do not really, with any sort of conviction, hold the positions you're making a half-assed attempt to defend.

More insults, disrespect, and name calling. Part of your disrespect is that you misrepresent my post. I did not question those possibilities. I asserted that they are irrelevant and are of interest only because they allow an intolerant audience to rationalize dismissing what the speaker (WBC) is saying and to use violence to attempt to silence that speaker so that others cannot hear the viewpoint.

Regarding my sincerity, you can review the 350 pictures on IDEAFARM.COM home page which document the presentation of "An Unfinished Street Essay" in Mountain View, CA, for which I have been imprisoned (house arrest) for what will be two years as of Jan. 14. I am currently fighting for my freedom, for my right to resume presentation of the street essay, and for the rights of my audience to hear what I have to say. All of my speech equipment has been seized unreasonably and without a warrant and I have been gagged by the corrupt, "bought and paid for" local court.

Civil discourse goes both ways. It is interesting that you call the people who are upset about being told that the death of their loved ones is deserved because homosexuals exist in the military intolerant. It is more interesting that you think that the protesters have the right to do the same to people mourning the murder of their children because the state they live in happens to not discriminate against homosexuals. They have the legal right of course, on the other hand everyone else also has the legal right to tell them to shut up and go away. The hacking is simply a more direct way of doing so.

I am happy to debate people with diffrent viewpoints, I honestly find it fun. However, runninbg around with signs screaming at people is not debate, it's being cruel. Their actions cause their viewpoint to be ignored, not other people's intolerance. Also you don't seem to have any argument beyond you should debate all viewpoints, you have yet to address the issue of appropriate venue. They are not people pushed to the extremes by being silenced by the tyrannical majority. They are, well don't know wikinews decency standards so cannot use the correct works, massive jerks who raced to the ends of basic decency and respect because it gets people to pay more attention to them than to the noninsane people on this issue.

The "anti-queer"(choice of wording says quite alot about you) agenda is still going strong, everywhere you going you find people decrying homosexuality. The problem that you seem to ignore is that they are no longer the majority, their viewpoint was considered, debated, and it lost. If they could offer and argument beyond tradition or religion they would probably be more successful. If they have any actual evidence of harm to society they may have a point, but they do not. Tradition only goes back about 4 or 5 generations, if you only include major changes to marrige such as not allowed to marry outside of your race. If you include roles in marriage you only have to go back a 2 generations, if not less. And the religious argument runs into the issue of this is the USA, forcing your beliefs on someone is a rather big deal.

Oh, and just a thing about I noticed about your site. Maybe the courts would be nicer to you if you didn't keep parking illegaly, just a thought. From your demeanor you seem like someone who would 'make a rightous stand against the corrupt courts' and not pay his fines. Also, your last few picture have you set up next to, in front of, and surrounding a fire hydrant. That is also very illegal and tends, rightly, to piss off the fire department and police department.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply and for wading through all of my 350 pictures. In all of my posts here, I am looking at the issue from a First Amendment (freedom of speech) perspective. People are so upset about the "anti-queer" message and are then whipped up even more by the outrageously hurtful speech method employed, that the First Amendment essence seems to be lost in the smoke. My objective has been to encourage you to peer through the smoke to see the First Amendment stakes that are at risk.

Words are powerful. As a speaker, I do not allow my opposition to choose my vocabulary for me. I use "queer" for the same reason that the queer community uses it to refer to itself. "Queer" is the word that most accurately represents the meaning of the LGBT... acronym, which keeps getting longer as new subgroups are embraced.

A "queer" is someone who rejects the "marriage norm", which states the rights and duties of a mated male and female and then goes on to say that all should marry, i.e. that it is morally wrong to not conform.

No one conforms completely to the marriage norm. Masturbation is a nearly universal behavior; only the most disciplined individuals have a chance of dying without ever having done it. Masturbation is queer sexuality; it is prohibited by the marriage norm. So almost everyone is queer; some people are just more queer than others.

Even queers agree that some sexual behavior is perverted. So the issue isn't whether it is wrong to be queer. The real issue is that we need to agree on which sexual behaviors are to be deemed acceptable.

I speak this with authority, because I AM A QUEER.

Queer in regards to sexuality still has fairly negative connotations, it has never meant a regection of marriage norm. The use from the LGBT community is an attempt to 'retake the word,' much like some in the african american community are trying to do to nigger. The problen is that the word does not really apply to the use they have, they are literally trying to change the actual meaning.

Anyway, the reference to the marriage norm assumes such a thing exists, which it does. Problematically, it is diffrent for every subculture. So declaring something as opposing the norm assumes that you know what the norm is and that is is a constant. It evolves as the cultures/subcultures evolve, any declaration of a constant simply shows a lack of understanding of society.

And, honestly, why? Why should we deem certain sexual behaviors acceptable or not? What gives the uninvolved the right to say that that act over there is immoral? As long as the rights of the participants are not being violated, unwillingly, why shouldn't they be allowed to do whatever they like?

Oh, and this is not a First Amendment issue, the Bill of Rights declares that, quoting from wiki, "prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances." Anonymous is not congress, they are making no laws. If congress declared it illegal to picket, then the amendment would be relevent. Unless it would fall under the same provision as yelling fire in a theatre, which in this case it would. If they go to these funerals and hold up their signs and scream about how they deserved this to the parents who have just have their children murdered, they will be attacked. Not with words or mockery, their picketing of anime/gaming conventions gives them plenty of that. But physically assaulted and possibly killed. And, honestly, nobody will mourn for them. If someone walks up to a tiger and kicks it in the head you don't feel sorry for them, you feel sorry for the tiger who may be put down.

My understanding is that queers use the word "queer" to refer to themselves as a community when they want to emphasize apartness or differentness. When they want to communicate the meme "being queer is ok; it's just a lifestyle choice" they use the term "gay" and try to force everyone else to use the term "gay". Both of these considerations lead me to use the term "queer". Forcing everyone to use the term "gay" effectively silences the memes that are communicated by the word "queer". Hate is not one of those memes.

My understanding is that every human culture has defined the rights and duties of a mated male and female and used symbols, stories, and ritual to codify, preserve, and pass this "programming" along from generation to generation. Although there are cross cultural variations, enough is common that it is useful to speak of "the" marriage norm. The norm exists because the need for it was universal; the need springs from the fact that when a male and a female couple, children issue forth. Human groups that developed "mating rules" had a competitive advantage because males would need to spend less energy engaging in sperm competition and defending territory (females) and could thus allocate more energy to production and conquest.

Every reasonable person, including the most queer among us, agrees that some sexual behaviors must be deemed perverted, i.e. unacceptable. Necrophilia and pedophilia come to mind as examples. But the marriage norm is primarily concerned, so my reasoning goes, with imposing order upon male-female couples in order to maximize the competitive strength of the tribe / group.

I am a libertarian, so I am inclined toward your thinking. Also, my vision for the future of the United States is a libertarian one in terms of what you do in the bedroom. But liberty includes the freedom to speak, and the freedom to speak includes the freedom to rebuke. It is through rebuke that the norms of society evolve. It is possible that the best outcome is the abolishment of all norms, i.e. children and adults are told by society that "anything goes". But my opinion is that society needs norms. If society needs norms, then people who choose to violate those norms will have to accept the disapproval of the community. If we retain the norms, we must decide what those norms should be, and we must decide how they will be enforced / promoted.

You raised many interesting points. Regarding your last one, speaking unpopular viewpoints is dangerous and requires courage. Speakers are heroes. Those who silence harm not only the speaker but also all who have a right to hear what would have been spoken. When viewpoints are silenced, the civic conversation is robbed of its vigor, and any consensus that emerges loses its legitimacy. For this reason, no speaker should EVER be silenced. Every viewpoint, no matter how obnoxious, contributes to the vitality and legitimacy of the outcome of the conversation.