I remember posting once on a friend's wall that while I appreciated her passion in supporting gay rights, I couldn't help but think gay rights parades were obnoxious and hurting the cause.
That's exactly the position that King's letter rebuts. Where do you think his reasoning starts to go wrong?
The reasoning goes wrong when the parades become less about a bunch of sincere people campaigning for their rights, and becomes more a grotesque parody of what that group looks like in the public eye.
I go to a school where there are more gay people than straight people, so I know straight-up how awesome gay people are. I also live in a very conservative town, and I know that a lot of homophobia stems from people not knowing gay people. The more you know, the more you realize they're just like us.
So when you're somebody who knows nothing about gay people or gay rights, the right way to get attention is to have more casual protests. Get a large block of people that look normal to peacefully march through a city, looking like everyday citizens. You do not want people in tight leather humping 30-foot-tall dildos, because then they look like freaks and people will lose sympathy for them.
My irritations during this argument with this kid were furthered when he claimed that the dildo-humping was essential because gay people are over-the-top like that. I mean, if you're going to protest against unfair depictions of you, don't perpetuate the stereotypes yourself.
That's exactly the position that King's letter rebuts. Where do you think his reasoning starts to go wrong?