Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on May 6, 2009 13:48:43 GMT -5
I second AustinHoyas post.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on May 6, 2009 14:03:40 GMT -5
No, and I realized after posting that my point was somewhere between unclear and nonsensical. But I was too lazy to fix it. I guess a better way of putting my point is that (1) assuming their are non-hypocritical African Americans who support gay rights (and there appear to be 12 on the DC Council), then it is insulting and inaccurate to peg homophobia as an aspect of a "black culture," OR (2) to the extent that homophobia is still a part of African American culture, it shows a serious flaw in that cultureāa downright lack of principle concerning what "equality" should mean. To argue that modern day discrimination against gays is any different than modern day discrimination against blacks is some kind of logical gymnastics that I don't think the average homophobic African American has performed. I think the beliefs are rooted more in ignorance than any kind of logic, or even religious foundation. Good rule! Let's see how else history can make people hypocritical: Polish immigrants who support the Iraq war? Hypocrites. Women who voted against Hillary? Hypocrites. People from the American South who advocate for a stronger federal government? Hypocrites. I think that the views of many black Americans who are against gay marriage have more to do with what their pastors say than with pondering their family history. I am all for laws allowing gay marriage, but let's not pretend everyone against them is blindly homophobic and only holds those views because they have not thought them through. History isn't the thing that makes homophobic African Americans hypocrites. I'm not saying African Americans should believe in gay rights because blacks similarly had to struggle for equality in the past. I think it's hypocritical because I think that many people (whites, blacks, myself included) think that racial equality is something we haven't achieved yet. So how can a black person argue against ongoing racial bias and at the same time support ongoing sexual orientation bias? That is nothing like a woman choosing to vote for who she perceives to be an inferior female candidate. It's nothing like someone in the South abandoning his forefathers' belief in the strong federal government. If the Southerner were personally arguing against a strong federal government, but then supporting a federal government that can regulate private sexual behavior, I would call that hypocritical too. And sure, some people probably do blindly follow their pastor. I'm not sure that's better than blindly doing anything else, but ok. At least there's some kind of basis for the belief. I think a lot of people (black and white) just consider it "disgusting" or "gross" because it's not something they personally understand or want to do. To the extent that it's being deemed a part of black culture, I'm discussing it in that context. But it can apply to whites the same. And I agree that there is no one "black culture." It's terribly over-simplistic, and if I didn't note that before, I should have. But again, it's been tossed out here as an explanation for a crack addict not supporting the rights of others, so that's why I addressed it as such.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,834
|
Post by thebin on May 6, 2009 14:13:45 GMT -5
"And what I'm saying is that there's no "normal" black American position...."
You can pretend you believe that if you like. For example, the "normal" political party for blacks is the Democratic one. That does not mean I just denied the existence of any black republicans does it? Feel free if you like to pretend like a 3rd grade teacher that generalizations are the bane of all evil. I don't play that child's game.
It is a matter of undebatable fact that the black american community is considerably less tolerant of homosexuality in the open than the American white community at large. If you want to pretend that's up for debate, you can go fake argue with yourself. I know you don't believe that. But I also know you've brainwashed into thinking it's actually a substantive argument to point out that generalities are not absolutes, something nobody needs to argue about, and that pointing this out is a great way to distract from real debate when the facts are not on your side.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,663
|
Post by SFHoya99 on May 6, 2009 15:16:15 GMT -5
Austin --
Just because they've thought them through doesn't make their position hypocritical, at least in some aspect of it. You're right in saying it shouldn't be a blanket statement, and that many (most) folks have thought it through, etc., but there is something to a group of people denied rights actively voting to deny rights to another group of people being called hypocritical. In the end, hypocrisy is often in the eye of the beholder.
I find it more interesting to see the number of people who claim a libertarian aspect and will protest taxes but won't protest gay marriage bans.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,834
|
Post by thebin on May 6, 2009 15:28:01 GMT -5
Most people who claim to be libertarian are nothing of the sort. I really mean it. If you want to see your average self-confessed libertarian sweat, asking them to tell you why they think prostitution, drugs and/or gay marriage should be banned by the state.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 6, 2009 15:34:17 GMT -5
It's a large and illogical step to say that anyone who is against gay marriage is homophobic. Being against gay marriage is, well, being against gay marriage. Guess it makes it easier to call a person a name if he/she doesn't agree with you on an issue. Guess diversity doesn't apply to differing opinions.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on May 6, 2009 15:52:11 GMT -5
It's a large and illogical step to say that anyone who is against gay marriage is homophobic. Being against gay marriage is, well, being against gay marriage. Guess it makes it easier to call a person a name if he/she doesn't agree with you on an issue. Guess diversity doesn't apply to differing opinions. When your reason for opposing the marriage is "fear that they will 'destroy the institution,'" then it is based on the same phobia that makes people think blacks are dangerous in their swimming pools and gays are threats to their children. The institution of marriage is in a sorry state right now, gays or no gays. So you can't just mask intolerance with nonsense about "protecting the institution" and pretend its anything other than thinly veiled intolerance.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on May 6, 2009 16:01:25 GMT -5
There's really only one line of reasoning whereby one can say that they're both against gay marriage and not homophobic: if one believes the only legitimate purpose of marriage is reproduction.
Obviously, this would expand anti-marriage sentiment to any union where reproduction is not possible, like, say, where one person is sterile or post-menopausal.
At least in this narrow case, the reasoning is purely based on biology and not some form or other of bigotry.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on May 6, 2009 16:16:20 GMT -5
"And what I'm saying is that there's no "normal" black American position...." You can pretend you believe that if you like. For example, the "normal" political party for blacks is the Democratic one. That does not mean I just denied the existence of any black republicans does it? Feel free if you like to pretend like a 3rd grade teacher that generalizations are the bane of all evil. I don't play that child's game. It is a matter of undebatable fact that the black american community is considerably less tolerant of homosexuality in the open than the American white community at large. If you want to pretend that's up for debate, you can go fake argue with yourself. I know you don't believe that. But I also know you've brainwashed into thinking it's actually a substantive argument to point out that generalities are not absolutes, something nobody needs to argue about, and that pointing this out is a great way to distract from real debate when the facts are not on your side. Bin, what the hell is your point with all this? You call me pedantic for pointing out your generalizations, but that's all you've freaking done in this thread. I've already acknowledged that opposition to gay marriage is a position the majority of African-Americans hold, but that's apparently not enough, apparently now I have to agree that African-Americans are inherently bigoted or something. I have no idea what the hell you're trying to get at. Your original post on this matter seemed to insinuate that DC blacks were going to go ballistic over this or something, a point I disputed by noting their elected representative were overwhelmingly for gay marriage. You're taking national preferences of all American blacks and trying to argue that these numbers will hold up when you're talking about just DC blacks. I argue that who they elected is a much better data set, and I don't see how your abuse of statistics is anything but ridiculous. Seriously, bin, WTF is your point here, because I certainly have no idea what it is.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on May 6, 2009 16:27:07 GMT -5
I think it is over-simplistic and strange to claim that the African American experience is parallel with that of homosexuals. I don't recall homosexuals being forcibly imported into our nation, enslaved, bred and traded like chattel, denied the vote, segregated from society, brutalized by the state, and generally treated like animals.
To be clear, I think it is beyond question that homosexuals have been treated horribly by society, but the parallel to African Americans, well, I think its a stretch. Homosexuals to their credit generally enjoy higher education, income, stability and civic power than African Americans and have for several generations. Hell, we've most likely already had a homosexual president or two. The better comparison would be gender discrimination. That is a much closer parallel.
Furthermore, why would you ever hold African Americans to a higher standard of tolerance than other groups? Just because they've been discriminated against in the past...they should be more understanding? Um, right. So, should Jews be more sensitive to ethnic or faith based exclusion? Asians in California? Catholics in country clubs? I mean, every single group in US history has faced and overcome some level of discrimination, no single group should be more understanding than any other. I think it's patronizing and perverse to demand more from one segment of society because they've struggled more. We should all be held to the same standard. It's on all of us.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on May 6, 2009 17:01:20 GMT -5
To be clear, I think it is beyond question that homosexuals have been treated horribly by society, but the parallel to African Americans, well, I think its a stretch. Homosexuals to their credit generally enjoy higher education, income, stability and civic power than African Americans and have for several generations. Hell, we've most likely already had a homosexual president or two. The better comparison would be gender discrimination. That is a much closer parallel. Furthermore, why would you ever hold African Americans to a higher standard of tolerance than other groups? Just because they've been discriminated against in the past...they should be more understanding? Um, right. So, should Jews be more sensitive to ethnic or faith based exclusion? Asians in California? Catholics in country clubs? I mean, every single group in US history has faced and overcome some level of discrimination, no single group should be more understanding than any other. I think it's patronizing and perverse to demand more from one segment of society because they've struggled more. We should all be held to the same standard. It's on all of us. 100% agree with the first paragraph here. Gays have not been treated as badly as blacks. The gender comparison is more apt. The difference between blacks and Catholics, Jews, Asians, women, etc. is that (for the most part) Catholics, Jews, Asians, women, etc. do not still fight for equal treatment at the same level as blacks still do. If Catholics were still being persecuted and claiming rights to more fair treatment than they currently receive, I would say that it is hypocritical for the same Catholics to reject the equal treatment of any other disadvantaged group of people. The fact that those groups are now comfortably treated as full members of society just means that most have short memories b/c their arguments for equality were in the past. Blacks are being hypocrites. Everyone else formerly of a disadvantaged group is being forgetful.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on May 6, 2009 17:37:30 GMT -5
To be clear, I think it is beyond question that homosexuals have been treated horribly by society, but the parallel to African Americans, well, I think its a stretch. Homosexuals to their credit generally enjoy higher education, income, stability and civic power than African Americans and have for several generations. Hell, we've most likely already had a homosexual president or two. The better comparison would be gender discrimination. That is a much closer parallel. Furthermore, why would you ever hold African Americans to a higher standard of tolerance than other groups? Just because they've been discriminated against in the past...they should be more understanding? Um, right. So, should Jews be more sensitive to ethnic or faith based exclusion? Asians in California? Catholics in country clubs? I mean, every single group in US history has faced and overcome some level of discrimination, no single group should be more understanding than any other. I think it's patronizing and perverse to demand more from one segment of society because they've struggled more. We should all be held to the same standard. It's on all of us. 100% agree with the first paragraph here. Gays have not been treated as badly as blacks. The gender comparison is more apt. The difference between blacks and Catholics, Jews, Asians, women, etc. is that (for the most part) Catholics, Jews, Asians, women, etc. do not still fight for equal treatment at the same level as blacks still do. If Catholics were still being persecuted and claiming rights to more fair treatment than they currently receive, I would say that it is hypocritical for the same Catholics to reject the equal treatment of any other disadvantaged group of people. The fact that those groups are now comfortably treated as full members of society just means that most have short memories b/c their arguments for equality were in the past. Blacks are being hypocrites. Everyone else formerly of a disadvantaged group is being forgetful. I guess maybe I'm being dense here, but I just don't see why there would be any special solidarity between African Americans and homosexuals. I mean, I can see why someone would project that solidarity onto the two groups, drawing long historic arching parallels regarding the legal obstacles to marriage. But, objectively that is a pretty abstract notion from which to expect some sort of special solidarity by either group. Remember, but for the overt racism on the extreme right end of the party, I'd wager that most African Americans would feel much more at home (and were historically) within the folds of the GOP's ideology on taxes, federal power, morality, etc. To be surprised that a segment of the population that is generally more socially conservative and religious than the general American population is not supportive of homosexual rights seems naive.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on May 6, 2009 17:52:57 GMT -5
I guess maybe I'm being dense here, but I just don't see why there would be any special solidarity between African Americans and homosexuals. Are you white, heterosexual, and male? Well the solidarity comes from the fact that they all joined the special "not you" society and not even by their doing! The "not yous" hang out together and have a drink and talk about how they were opressed by the yous. No really this happens. I saw them at a bar in Chelsea. It was the gays turn to pay.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on May 6, 2009 17:57:32 GMT -5
I guess maybe I'm being dense here, but I just don't see why there would be any special solidarity between African Americans and homosexuals. Are you white, heterosexual, and male? Well the solidarity comes from the fact that they all joined the special "not you" society and not even by their doing! The "not yous" hang out together and have a drink and talk about how they were opressed by the yous. No really this happens. I saw them at a bar in Chelsea. It was the gays turn to pay. I was wondering where all my office mates disappeared to...
|
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on May 6, 2009 18:04:47 GMT -5
It's a large and illogical step to say that anyone who is against gay marriage is homophobic. Being against gay marriage is, well, being against gay marriage. Guess it makes it easier to call a person a name if he/she doesn't agree with you on an issue. Guess diversity doesn't apply to differing opinions. It's a large and illogical step to say that anyone who is against interracial marriage is racist. Being against interracial marriage is, well, being against interracial marriage. Guess it makes it easier to call a person a racist if he/she doesn't agree with you on an issue. Guess diversity doesn't apply to differing opinions. Same logic. I agree with coast2coast that the only non-homophobic argument for being against gay marriage is if you believe the ONLY purpose of marriage is reproduction. But that's never the argument I hear from the far right...
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 6, 2009 18:37:55 GMT -5
It's a large and illogical step to say that anyone who is against gay marriage is homophobic. Being against gay marriage is, well, being against gay marriage. Guess it makes it easier to call a person a name if he/she doesn't agree with you on an issue. Guess diversity doesn't apply to differing opinions. It's a large and illogical step to say that anyone who is against interracial marriage is racist. Being against interracial marriage is, well, being against interracial marriage. Guess it makes it easier to call a person a racist if he/she doesn't agree with you on an issue. Guess diversity doesn't apply to differing opinions. Same logic. I agree with coast2coast that the only non-homophobic argument for being against gay marriage is if you believe the ONLY purpose of marriage is reproduction. But that's never the argument I hear from the far right... I am opposed to gay marriage because I believe gay sexual activity is immoral. It's a religious belief. You may not agree with my religious beliefs but don't call me a homophobe. I also do not believe the ONLY purpose of marriage is reproduction. If you have trouble reconciling what I have just said, that's your problem.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on May 6, 2009 18:48:13 GMT -5
It's a large and illogical step to say that anyone who is against interracial marriage is racist. Being against interracial marriage is, well, being against interracial marriage. Guess it makes it easier to call a person a racist if he/she doesn't agree with you on an issue. Guess diversity doesn't apply to differing opinions. Same logic. I agree with coast2coast that the only non-homophobic argument for being against gay marriage is if you believe the ONLY purpose of marriage is reproduction. But that's never the argument I hear from the far right... I am opposed to gay marriage because I believe gay sexual activity is immoral. It's a religious belief. You may not agree with my religious beliefs but don't call me a homophobe. I also do not believe the ONLY purpose of marriage is reproduction. If you have trouble reconciling what I have just said, that's your problem. I believe it is morally ok to own slaves. I also believe it is immoral to treat women as equals in the workplace. Oh man, that was easy. So I guess I've just provided arguments for the US to drop those pesky Amendments?
|
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on May 6, 2009 18:49:13 GMT -5
I am opposed to gay marriage because I believe gay sexual activity is immoral. It's a religious belief. You may not agree with my religious beliefs but don't call me a homophobe. I also do not believe the ONLY purpose of marriage is reproduction. If you have trouble reconciling what I have just said, that's your problem. Again... "I am opposed to interracial marriage because I believe interracial sexual activity is immoral. It's a religious belief. You may not agree with my religious beliefs but don't call me a racist." And yes, religion was used to justify THAT argument as well. www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2004_fall/forde.htm
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,663
|
Post by SFHoya99 on May 6, 2009 19:57:47 GMT -5
You can believe something is immoral and still not believe it should be illegal, right? I mean, that's a distinction here, isn't it?
There's a lot of things I find immoral and that would never do, but din't believe should be illegal. I guess where I have an issue is the line drawn that because I would not do something (or think it is right), I need to apply that to everyone else.
That's why opponents draw the up the ridiculous argument of "weakening the institution of marriage." Because they actually need where it harms them.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on May 6, 2009 22:28:04 GMT -5
History isn't the thing that makes homophobic African Americans hypocrites. I'm not saying African Americans should believe in gay rights because blacks similarly had to struggle for equality in the past. I think it's hypocritical because I think that many people (whites, blacks, myself included) think that racial equality is something we haven't achieved yet. So how can a black person argue against ongoing racial bias and at the same time support ongoing sexual orientation bias? Fair enough -- your earlier post did say 'modern discrimination.' Still, it seems to me that your argument is that it's unfair for a group to participate in groupthink because of the (generalized) status of the group. But if the same group would just think about their (generalized) status, then they would believe in the right kind of groupthink, which happens to be the groupthink you agree with. And SF -- I don't disagree that an argument can be thought-out and hypocritical at the same time. I objected more to strummer's characterization of such arguments as 'based on ignorance.'
|
|