the boy deep
U don't gotta be a Christian to find the agenda bullshyt and sickening,if its an agenda of sexual freedom,and being able to have sex with and marry whoever or whatever you want becuz it doesn't define you....why not run your platform on that?oh becuz what some people do in they bedrooms is disgusting to you and you think partnering with them will hold u back?that don't sound like u about freedom..... comparing yaself to the civil rights movement
?Its the homo arrogance that has to get the
the song touched on this very well
If you thought what blackslash said was "deep"....
Huey Newton said:We must not use the racist attitude
that the White racists use against our people because they are Black
and poor. Many times the poorest White person is the most racist
because he is afraid that he might lose something, or discover
something that he does not have. So you're some kind of a threat to
him. This kind of psychology is in operation when we view oppressed
people and we are angry with them because of their particular kind of
behavior, or their particular kind of deviation from the established
norm.
Remember, we have not established a revolutionary value system; we are
only in the process of establishing it. I do not remember our ever
constituting any value that said that a revolutionary must say
offensive things towards homosexuals, or that a revolutionary should
make sure that women do not speak out about their own particular kind
of oppression. As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite: we say
that we recognize the women's right to be free. We have not said much
about the homosexual at all, but we must relate to the homosexual
movement because it is a real thing. And I know through reading, and
through my life experience and observations that homosexuals are not
given freedom and liberty by anyone in the society. They might be the
most oppresed people in the society.
And what made them homosexual? Perhaps it's a phenomenon that I don't
understand entirely. Some people say that it is the decadence of
capitalism. I don't know if that is the case; I rather doubt it. But
whatever the case is, we know that homosexuality is a fact that
exists, and we must understand it in its purest form: that is, a
person should have the freedom to use his body in whatever way he
wants.
That is not endorsing things in homosexuality that we wouldn't view as
revolutionary. But there is nothing to say that a homosexual cannot
also be a revolutionary. And maybe I'm now injecting some of my
prejudice by saying that "even a homosexual can be a revolutionary."
Quite the contrary, maybe a homosexual could be the most
revolutionary.
This is an actual civil rights leader speaking here, who has not only compared women and gay liberation movements to his own, but has motioned to include them under the umbrella of civil rights overall.
I'd say his opinion on the validity of such a comparison holds more weight than a nikka named Bizzle.
