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

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.