Again, help me to understand why Blacks can't be anti gay marriage

[Anonymous]

The Jews you see out there who are anti-gay marriage are ultra-orthodox. The vast majority of Jews have a live and let live attitude, which may take the form of not engaging in the debate or supporting gay rights.

These ultra-orthodox sects also have disturbingly "traditional" views regarding women's rights and other things- did you see the piece in the NYT about how abuse is covered up in ultra-orthodox communities?

For the record, plenty of ultra-orthodox Jews mind their own business too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Jews you see out there who are anti-gay marriage are ultra-orthodox. The vast majority of Jews have a live and let live attitude, which may take the form of not engaging in the debate or supporting gay rights.

These ultra-orthodox sects also have disturbingly "traditional" views regarding women's rights and other things- did you see the piece in the NYT about how abuse is covered up in ultra-orthodox communities?

For the record, plenty of ultra-orthodox Jews mind their own business too.

Yea, but again, many are openly anti gay marriage, and many of those are mainstream orthodox, not just "ultra". Even so, the gas chambers were open to both gays and ultra orthodox Jews. Lets start a thread about how they are hypocrites. Let's deny them their religious freedom and tell them that a man should indeed lie with another man (because we say so) and that marriage is between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Also, let's tell their kids that in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Jews you see out there who are anti-gay marriage are ultra-orthodox. The vast majority of Jews have a live and let live attitude, which may take the form of not engaging in the debate or supporting gay rights.

These ultra-orthodox sects also have disturbingly "traditional" views regarding women's rights and other things- did you see the piece in the NYT about how abuse is covered up in ultra-orthodox communities?

For the record, plenty of ultra-orthodox Jews mind their own business too.

Yea, but again, many are openly anti gay marriage, and many of those are mainstream orthodox, not just "ultra". Even so, the gas chambers were open to both gays and ultra orthodox Jews. Lets start a thread about how they are hypocrites. Let's deny them their religious freedom and tell them that a man should indeed lie with another man (because we say so) and that marriage is between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Also, let's tell their kids that in school.

I think you really misinterpreted my post. For the record, I am a straight woman who believes that defending the rights of minority groups to which I do not belong is an essential part of preserving rights and establishing equality and freedom for all people. I am just saying that the majority of Jews would agree- and the ones who are against marriage equality are extremists. Every group has crazies, but generally Jews are very socially liberal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Jews you see out there who are anti-gay marriage are ultra-orthodox. The vast majority of Jews have a live and let live attitude, which may take the form of not engaging in the debate or supporting gay rights.

These ultra-orthodox sects also have disturbingly "traditional" views regarding women's rights and other things- did you see the piece in the NYT about how abuse is covered up in ultra-orthodox communities?

For the record, plenty of ultra-orthodox Jews mind their own business too.

Yea, but again, many are openly anti gay marriage, and many of those are mainstream orthodox, not just "ultra". Even so, the gas chambers were open to both gays and ultra orthodox Jews. Lets start a thread about how they are hypocrites. Let's deny them their religious freedom and tell them that a man should indeed lie with another man (because we say so) and that marriage is between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Also, let's tell their kids that in school.

I think you really misinterpreted my post. For the record, I am a straight woman who believes that defending the rights of minority groups to which I do not belong is an essential part of preserving rights and establishing equality and freedom for all people. I am just saying that the majority of Jews would agree- and the ones who are against marriage equality are extremists. Every group has crazies, but generally Jews are very socially liberal.

I don't think that I misinterpreted you. But I am sorry if it seems that way.
I don't see it as a sin to be socially conservative. I don't see a person who is against homosexuality as a crazy. I see them as unrealistic because in MY OPINION, homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexuality.
I just think that socially liberal people also need to be more tolerant and allow people their own religious freedom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Everybody should know better. But the fact is that the victims of persecution are seldom ennobled by it, and we should not be surprised that intolerance can take hold in any group of people.

I think we have to take a step back on the issue of the black vote on gay marriage. The primary reason this made the news is not because blacks owe some special duty to equality, above and beyond that of another group. It is because there is this paradox for liberals in 2008 and maybe 2012. Obama energized the black vote in 2008 and that had an ironic side effect on gay marriage referenda. The better he does at mobilizing them, the more votes he will likely bring against any other issue. That's it, really.

I agree with all of your post except the part in bold. Black people were not the deciding factor in the passage of Prop 8. In fact, if not a single black person had voted in the election, Prop 8 still would have passed.

I think what was really glossed over was that blacks make up only ~6% of California's population.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/12/01/081201taco_talk_hertzberg?printable=true#ixzz1uU12iBzv
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/issues/egan_sherrill_prop8_1_6_09.pdf

[Anonymous]

Because of No Homo

[Anonymous]

Yep, 00:22, that's totally it.

I'm not even going to get into why people who take their political influence from the likes of Cam'ron aren't likely to hold much clout in the elections...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yep, 00:22, that's totally it.

I'm not even going to get into why people who take their political influence from the likes of Cam'ron aren't likely to hold much clout in the elections...

I can see it now, are you going to Vote Obama, pause, no homo

[Anonymous]

No one is arguing that blacks don't have a right to their own religious beliefs. Anyone can believe anything they want.

I am arguing that no one has a right to institutionalize their religious beliefs by passing laws that oppress another group. If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't get gay married.

And quit quoting Leviticus unless you're prepared to pass laws banning shellfish consumption, masturbation and capital punishment for anyone who has an affair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one is arguing that blacks don't have a right to their own religious beliefs. Anyone can believe anything they want.

I am arguing that no one has a right to institutionalize their religious beliefs by passing laws that oppress another group. If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't get gay married.

And quit quoting Leviticus unless you're prepared to pass laws banning shellfish consumption, masturbation and capital punishment for anyone who has an affair.

People are arguing the point in bold, though. I agree with the rest of your post, but you must have missed the numerous threads where posters argue that all black people have to be for same sex marriage, not because it's the right thing to do, but because black people have suffered discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, 00:22, that's totally it.

I'm not even going to get into why people who take their political influence from the likes of Cam'ron aren't likely to hold much clout in the elections...

I can see it now, are you going to Vote Obama, pause, no homo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Everybody should know better. But the fact is that the victims of persecution are seldom ennobled by it, and we should not be surprised that intolerance can take hold in any group of people.

I think we have to take a step back on the issue of the black vote on gay marriage. The primary reason this made the news is not because blacks owe some special duty to equality, above and beyond that of another group. It is because there is this paradox for liberals in 2008 and maybe 2012. Obama energized the black vote in 2008 and that had an ironic side effect on gay marriage referenda. The better he does at mobilizing them, the more votes he will likely bring against any other issue. That's it, really.

I agree with all of your post except the part in bold. Black people were not the deciding factor in the passage of Prop 8. In fact, if not a single black person had voted in the election, Prop 8 still would have passed.

I think what was really glossed over was that blacks make up only ~6% of California's population.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/12/01/081201taco_talk_hertzberg?printable=true#ixzz1uU12iBzv
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/issues/egan_sherrill_prop8_1_6_09.pdf

I don't see how that makes the black vote any more or less right. Plus you are essentially making an argument that black voters don't matter because they aren't a big enough constituency, which is not a position that benefits the black community.

In fact every voter matters. Each of us shares responsibility for the outcome.

[Anonymous]

So where are the countless threads about why white people will defeat the gay marriage bill in X state?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with all of your post except the part in bold. Black people were not the deciding factor in the passage of Prop 8. In fact, if not a single black person had voted in the election, Prop 8 still would have passed.

I think what was really glossed over was that blacks make up only ~6% of California's population.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/12/01/081201taco_talk_hertzberg?printable=true#ixzz1uU12iBzv
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/issues/egan_sherrill_prop8_1_6_09.pdf

I don't see how that makes the black vote any more or less right. Plus you are essentially making an argument that black voters don't matter because they aren't a big enough constituency, which is not a position that benefits the black community.

In fact every voter matters. Each of us shares responsibility for the outcome.

I think the PP was not saying that black voters are unimportant, but that their votes did not determine the outcome in California, and that it's silly to make a fuss about "the black vote" on gay marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with all of your post except the part in bold. Black people were not the deciding factor in the passage of Prop 8. In fact, if not a single black person had voted in the election, Prop 8 still would have passed.

I think what was really glossed over was that blacks make up only ~6% of California's population.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/12/01/081201taco_talk_hertzberg?printable=true#ixzz1uU12iBzv
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/issues/egan_sherrill_prop8_1_6_09.pdf

I don't see how that makes the black vote any more or less right. Plus you are essentially making an argument that black voters don't matter because they aren't a big enough constituency, which is not a position that benefits the black community.

In fact every voter matters. Each of us shares responsibility for the outcome.

I think the PP was not saying that black voters are unimportant, but that their votes did not determine the outcome in California, and that it's silly to make a fuss about "the black vote" on gay marriage.

No, it's not silly. It's a big deal. Your argument that it is "silly" is based on the belief that the black community did not have the numerical superiority to change the election. Any bigot on the planet can look at his vote the exact same way. If you are gay and black, it is a big deal. If you stood for black civil rights in the 60's and now you see that community turning its back on you, it's a big deal. Maybe the Faux News talking points are wrong, but homophobia in the black community needs to be discussed and addressed. It's hard enough to be black sometimes. You shouldn't also have to deal with rejection from your own people.