Opinions on LGBT rights

[Emily]

Hardly an inundation. One thread with two pages?

[chaki]

Dang, I thought this was the one place I could go online and not be inundated by this ridiculous subject.

wahhhh why cant i keep my head in the sand!

So, if one tires from the overkill, one's head is in the sand?  Project much?

the civil rights of a maligned minority isnt something that one typically gets exhausted of or describes as a "ridiculous subject" without sounding like a gross bigot, just sayin.

[Marty Castillo]

To answer the original question:

- There are decade old anecdotes. Safe to say their feelings and actions could be described as of the times.
- Recently, it seems only Brian has shown any type of public support via Facebook.

That pretty much sums it up, no? Anything else would be speculation or beating on them for beliefs held many years ago.

[bonnevillemariner]

Dang, I thought this was the one place I could go online and not be inundated by this ridiculous subject.

wahhhh why cant i keep my head in the sand!

So, if one tires from the overkill, one's head is in the sand?  Project much?

the civil rights of a maligned minority isnt something that one typically gets exhausted of or describes as a "ridiculous subject" without sounding like a gross bigot, just sayin.

Self-righteous social justice warriors are so adorable.

[alf wiedersehen]

Dang, I thought this was the one place I could go online and not be inundated by this ridiculous subject.

wahhhh why cant i keep my head in the sand!

So, if one tires from the overkill, one's head is in the sand?  Project much?

the civil rights of a maligned minority isnt something that one typically gets exhausted of or describes as a "ridiculous subject" without sounding like a gross bigot, just sayin.

Self-righteous social justice warriors are so adorable.

We're pretty good in bed, too.

[Douchepool]

Dang, I thought this was the one place I could go online and not be inundated by this ridiculous subject.

wahhhh why cant i keep my head in the sand!

So, if one tires from the overkill, one's head is in the sand?  Project much?

the civil rights of a maligned minority isnt something that one typically gets exhausted of or describes as a "ridiculous subject" without sounding like a gross bigot, just sayin.

Self-righteous social justice warriors are so adorable.

It's one thing to have an opposing argument, but antagonizing right off the bat is not going to win any hearts or minds.

[Emily]

Dang, I thought this was the one place I could go online and not be inundated by this ridiculous subject.

wahhhh why cant i keep my head in the sand!

So, if one tires from the overkill, one's head is in the sand?  Project much?

the civil rights of a maligned minority isnt something that one typically gets exhausted of or describes as a "ridiculous subject" without sounding like a gross bigot, just sayin.

Self-righteous social justice warriors are so adorable.

It's one thing to have an opposing argument, but antagonizing right off the bat is not going to win any hearts or minds.

I love that you defy my expectations and weaken my prejudice. That's awesome. And I'm not being sarcastic.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

Dang, I thought this was the one place I could go online and not be inundated by this ridiculous subject.

wahhhh why cant i keep my head in the sand!

So, if one tires from the overkill, one's head is in the sand?  Project much?

the civil rights of a maligned minority isnt something that one typically gets exhausted of or describes as a "ridiculous subject" without sounding like a gross bigot, just sayin.

Self-righteous social justice warriors are so adorable.

Ive encountered REAL Social Justice Warriors. They are some of the most stuck-up, judgemental, holier than thou assholes on the internet. Anyone who dares suggest that Black Lives Matter might be going about their goals in the wrong way is racist, anyone who says that word "crazy" (even saying a situation is crazy) is "ableist," and even trans men who say theyve had it bad are accused of "taking their new male privlidge for granted" and other such nonsense. Trust me, nobody here is a SJW. Youre just an asshole.

[Pretty Funky]

Oh dear.....

[The Cincinnati Kid]

Dang, I thought this was the one place I could go online and not be inundated by this ridiculous subject.

wahhhh why cant i keep my head in the sand!

So, if one tires from the overkill, one's head is in the sand?  Project much?

the civil rights of a maligned minority isnt something that one typically gets exhausted of or describes as a "ridiculous subject" without sounding like a gross bigot, just sayin.

Self-righteous social justice warriors are so adorable.

Ive encountered REAL Social Justice Warriors. They are some of the most stuck-up, judgemental, holier than thou assholes on the internet. Anyone who dares suggest that Black Lives Matter might be going about their goals in the wrong way is racist, anyone who says that word "crazy" (even saying a situation is crazy) is "ableist," and even trans men who say theyve had it bad are accused of "taking their new male privlidge for granted" and other such nonsense. Trust me, nobody here is a SJW. Youre just an asshole.

I don't think calling chaki a SJW was right, but it wasn't necessary for chaki to say Bonneville had his head in the sand, either.  This string of comments I think is an example of why some of thought this was a bad idea for a thread.  I view it in the same way as I viewed the thread that asked if Bruce was divorced; I don't know and I don't care.

[Micha]

antagonizing right off the bat is not going to win any hearts or minds.

Yes it is!

[sockittome]

The OP did ask for opinions.....

[Douchepool]

"Who cares?"

Seriously. This should be the only response to the question posed in this thread.

I'm sure the Beach Boys are much more concerned about their careers than about taking sides in a social justice debate which (like many before it) has brought out the best and the worst from many on both sides. After the Bruce debacle during the reunion tour, I'm not surprised that they keep their traps shut; some jackoff somewhere is going to choose to be offended over what the band members think about this when their beliefs are beyond irrelevant in the long run anyway.

For one, this is among the most minute and peripheral of topics to be discussing in the context of the band's history; Jack Rieley's sexuality notwithstanding, of course. But at the end of the day, even then, does it REALLY have any bearing on the band's story? It shouldn't matter what the band thinks of LGBTQI* people; if it does and you find yourself in disagreement with their thinking, by all means use your own conscience and modify your listening habits accordingly. It'd be sad to deprive yourself of such great art because of a difference of opinion, but hey. That's life, eh? Can't listen to music if the creators think even a smidge differently than we do, now, can we?

Maybe in the long run true equality will lead to little more than apathetic responses to questions like these; personal business remains the domain of the people involved. Time will tell if said apathy will become a widespread reaction. It should.

*Apologies in case I have triggered/microaggressed/used incorrect pronouns/declared war on Christianity/(insert your reason to choose to be offended here) against anyone by forgetting another part of the ever-expanding LGBT acronym.

[alf wiedersehen]

It'd be sad to deprive yourself of such great art because of a difference of opinion, but hey. That's life, eh? Can't listen to music if the creators think even a smidge differently than we do, now, can we?

Not a single person in this thread has said this.

[Douchepool]

It'd be sad to deprive yourself of such great art because of a difference of opinion, but hey. That's life, eh? Can't listen to music if the creators think even a smidge differently than we do, now, can we?

Not a single person in this thread has said this.

I have not implied that it was said here, either.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

"Who cares?"

Seriously. This should be the only response to the question posed in this thread.

I'm sure the Beach Boys are much more concerned about their careers than about taking sides in a social justice debate which (like many before it) has brought out the best and the worst from many on both sides. After the Bruce debacle during the reunion tour, I'm not surprised that they keep their traps shut; some jackoff somewhere is going to choose to be offended over what the band members think about this when their beliefs are beyond irrelevant in the long run anyway.

For one, this is among the most minute and peripheral of topics to be discussing in the context of the band's history; Jack Rieley's sexuality notwithstanding, of course. But at the end of the day, even then, does it REALLY have any bearing on the band's story? It shouldn't matter what the band thinks of LGBTQI* people; if it does and you find yourself in disagreement with their thinking, by all means use your own conscience and modify your listening habits accordingly. It'd be sad to deprive yourself of such great art because of a difference of opinion, but hey. That's life, eh? Can't listen to music if the creators think even a smidge differently than we do, now, can we?

Maybe in the long run true equality will lead to little more than apathetic responses to questions like these; personal business remains the domain of the people involved. Time will tell if said apathy will become a widespread reaction. It should.

*Apologies in case I have triggered/microaggressed/used incorrect pronouns/declared war on Christianity/(insert your reason to choose to be offended here) against anyone by forgetting another part of the ever-expanding LGBT acronym.

Some people are curious. Ive laid out why I dont care too much either way and how I think the answer is pretty much settled. But by asking this question we found out that story of Mike in the 90s which certainly lessened my opinion of him (again, not for being homophobic so much as being abusive and borderline insane about it to a total stranger) and depending on someone's views that could be very important to know. I see what youre saying "just ignore the messy politics and enjoy the music" but to a lot of people this isnt just politics it IS in fact a human rights issue. Itd be like learning someone you admire is racist or something. Sure, even ol' Honest Abe was "racist" for his time by thinking the black man was inherently inferior to the white man and should be sent back to Liberia after the war, but there's a difference between that "product of the times" thinking and someone nowadays (or in the 90s I guess) going around calling people the N-word after they just met. What Im getting at is it could be a revealing look at their true characters for some people. Personally I think the question has been pretty well-answered by this point so Im not sure what else there is to be said either way, unless we get some more insight into Al's views I guess

[bonnevillemariner]

Ive encountered REAL Social Justice Warriors. They are some of the most stuck-up, judgemental, holier than thou assholes on the internet. Anyone who dares suggest that Black Lives Matter might be going about their goals in the wrong way is racist, anyone who says that word "crazy" (even saying a situation is crazy) is "ableist," and even trans men who say theyve had it bad are accused of "taking their new male privlidge for granted" and other such nonsense. Trust me, nobody here is a SJW.

"the civil rights of a maligned minority..."

I don't know who the hell chaki is, and I realize those are pretty tame words around here, but they sound SJW enough to me to merit the jab.  For what it's worth, I take the libertarian approach to all this.  I really don't care who you dig and I think the government should get out of marriage all together.  I do have family members affected, who rejoice in the recent SCOTUS decision.  So no, my head's not in the sand, nor do I think my annoyance with the movement permeating every nook and cranny of culture like a bad Taylor Swift song warrants the bigot label.  That said...

Youre just an asshole.

Not gonna argue with you there. 

[MarcellaHasDirtyFeet]

Ive encountered REAL Social Justice Warriors. They are some of the most stuck-up, judgemental, holier than thou assholes on the internet. Anyone who dares suggest that Black Lives Matter might be going about their goals in the wrong way is racist, anyone who says that word "crazy" (even saying a situation is crazy) is "ableist," and even trans men who say theyve had it bad are accused of "taking their new male privlidge for granted" and other such nonsense. Trust me, nobody here is a SJW.

"the civil rights of a maligned minority..."

I don't know who the hell chaki is, and I realize those are pretty tame words around here, but they sound SJW enough to me to merit the jab.  For what it's worth, I take the libertarian approach to all this.  I really don't care who you dig and I think the government should get out of marriage all together.  I do have family members affected, who rejoice in the recent SCOTUS decision.  So no, my head's not in the sand, nor do I think my annoyance with the movement permeating every nook and cranny of culture like a bad Taylor Swift song warrants the bigot label.  That said...

Youre just an asshole.

Not gonna argue with you there. 

See? This thread has yet to implode and incinerate any onlookers. Even when inflammatory, insulting language is used, posters are able to step back and explain themselves rationally and use some humor to defuse a potentially explosive situation. Hooray for SmileySmile! Now lock this thread.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

Ive encountered REAL Social Justice Warriors. They are some of the most stuck-up, judgemental, holier than thou assholes on the internet. Anyone who dares suggest that Black Lives Matter might be going about their goals in the wrong way is racist, anyone who says that word "crazy" (even saying a situation is crazy) is "ableist," and even trans men who say theyve had it bad are accused of "taking their new male privlidge for granted" and other such nonsense. Trust me, nobody here is a SJW.

"the civil rights of a maligned minority..."

I don't know who the hell chaki is, and I realize those are pretty tame words around here, but they sound SJW enough to me to merit the jab.  For what it's worth, I take the libertarian approach to all this.  I really don't care who you dig and I think the government should get out of marriage all together.  I do have family members affected, who rejoice in the recent SCOTUS decision.  So no, my head's not in the sand, nor do I think my annoyance with the movement permeating every nook and cranny of culture like a bad Taylor Swift song warrants the bigot label.  That said...

Youre just an asshole.

Not gonna argue with you there. 

I def agree the government shouldnt be involved. Whatever occurs between two consenting adults shouldnt be anyone elses business. It shouldnt have taken a supreme court decision to make that so, but unfortunately we have a lot of overly moralistic religious factions with sway in this country. And they needed to be reminded that the Constitution, not the Bible is the law of the land.

[Douchepool]

Some people are curious. Ive laid out why I dont care too much either way and how I think the answer is pretty much settled. But by asking this question we found out that story of Mike in the 90s which certainly lessened my opinion of him (again, not for being homophobic so much as being abusive and borderline insane about it to a total stranger) and depending on someone's views that could be very important to know.

It's one of many dumb remarks made by Michael in the past. I highly doubt there was any overbearing anti-gay prejudice on his part apart from that which was "of the times."

I see what youre saying "just ignore the messy politics and enjoy the music" but to a lot of people this isnt just politics it IS in fact a human rights issue.

It was always a human rights issue and I don't think anyone has disputed that.

I def agree the government shouldnt be involved. Whatever occurs between two consenting adults shouldnt be anyone elses business. It shouldnt have taken a supreme court decision to make that so, but unfortunately we have a lot of overly moralistic religious factions with sway in this country. And they needed to be reminded that the Constitution, not the Bible is the law of the land.

Are we assuming that Christians are the only people who have a bone to pick with the behavior of consenting adults? Be careful with how you lump people into a box.

[37!ws]

All I'm going to say on this issue is this:

Thinking back to an earlier comment that said that if LGBT issues affects your enjoyment of the music, there's a problem...just want to add to that:

If Beach Boys' attitudes toward LGBT issues affects music but none of the real sh*t that went on affects your attitude toward the music, there's an even bigger problem.

[Magic Transistor Radio]

I just want to say that there are a lot of hypocrites out there who will cast stones. While I believe in the moral standard of the bible, neither I nor anyone else has ever been able to live up to it. Which is why we all need forgiveness. If you don't believe in the bible I can totally understand why your moral views may be different about certain things. Someone else may feel it is immoral to kill and eat animals. I disagree, but I respect your views so long as you don't enforce that on me. This is what freedom is all about isn't it?

[KDS]

Ive encountered REAL Social Justice Warriors. They are some of the most stuck-up, judgemental, holier than thou assholes on the internet. Anyone who dares suggest that Black Lives Matter might be going about their goals in the wrong way is racist, anyone who says that word "crazy" (even saying a situation is crazy) is "ableist," and even trans men who say theyve had it bad are accused of "taking their new male privlidge for granted" and other such nonsense. Trust me, nobody here is a SJW.

"the civil rights of a maligned minority..."

I don't know who the hell chaki is, and I realize those are pretty tame words around here, but they sound SJW enough to me to merit the jab.  For what it's worth, I take the libertarian approach to all this.  I really don't care who you dig and I think the government should get out of marriage all together.  I do have family members affected, who rejoice in the recent SCOTUS decision.  So no, my head's not in the sand, nor do I think my annoyance with the movement permeating every nook and cranny of culture like a bad Taylor Swift song warrants the bigot label.  That said...

Youre just an asshole.

Not gonna argue with you there. 

I def agree the government shouldnt be involved. Whatever occurs between two consenting adults shouldnt be anyone elses business. It shouldnt have taken a supreme court decision to make that so, but unfortunately we have a lot of overly moralistic religious factions with sway in this country. And they needed to be reminded that the Constitution, not the Bible is the law of the land.

I think what people get confused with this issue is that the Supreme Court ruling made it so that same sex couples can obtain a marriage license, and legally tie the knot in the eyes of the law.

However, what the zealots forget, or choose to ignore, is that individual places of worship can still choose to not marry a same sex couple if it doesn't go with their belief system. 

So, you're right the law is with the Constitution and the Supreme Court say.  If churches choose to do so, they can go to the Bible for guidance.

From a purely cynical view, money is likely the main motivator as any couple needs to pay for a marriage license.  Giving same sex couples the right to marry (which I should point out is something I support) brings in revenue. 

[MarcellaHasDirtyFeet]

Lock it lock it lock it lock it lock it lock it this is going to get worse lock it lock it lock it

[Magic Transistor Radio]

Jesus once said if you hate your brother, it is murder. If you lust after someone, it is adultery. He also said, he who has no sin let him cast the first stone. According to these standards we are all guilty.
So as a Christian I want to agree with Mujan on this. I don't thing the constitution ever intended the USA a Christian nation. Other wise there wouldn't be freedom of religion.