What's with all the "gaytred" in the past couple of days?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Sure, if there are parallels that we can all learn from. Why not?

Not PP but I think it takes away from the original fight. For instance, there are LGBT people who do not believe racism is still alive or active today. Then the LGBT minorities begin to argue against racism and racial discrimination because of their experiences. The other side says the minorities are playing the race card and no one agrees. When people are fighting for two causes, one will take a backseat to another. You start to dedicate more time to one than the other, people start to question which is more important to them.

This is a good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Sure, if there are parallels that we can all learn from. Why not?

Not PP but I think it takes away from the original fight. For instance, there are LGBT people who do not believe racism is still alive or active today. Then the LGBT minorities begin to argue against racism and racial discrimination because of their experiences. The other side says the minorities are playing the race card and no one agrees. When people are fighting for two causes, one will take a backseat to another. You start to dedicate more time to one than the other, people start to question which is more important to them.

This is a good point.

I disagree. There may be LGBT people who don't believe racism is still alive or active today. There may be straight people who feel the same way. But I don't see why it's an either/or proposition. In fact, I know it's not, because I'm championing both causes right now.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I took your dislike of the "Victimization Olympics" to not only apply to the PP you quoted, but also to those of whom you spoke in your post at 12:00, when you said "But, there is probably more in common then many posters seem to realize."

My point is that even those who are aware of the horrible, extreme anti-gay violence and hatred such as that you detailed in your post at 12:00 can still dislike the equation of the American Civil Rights Movement with the gay rights movement. Yes, there are similarities. My discomfort with it comes from how dismissive many are of the nuances of both movements. I'm not sure I can articulate it, but 11:42's post demonstrates why it can be hurtful to me and others from my culture.

S/he said "I do not understand how denying gay people the same rights as straight people under the eyes of the law is any different than denying African American the same rights as white people under the eyes of the law. "

The thing is, there are differences. And I'm not interested in playing the Oppression Olympics, but there is a difference. So many people have gone beyond simply making comparisons (which are valid) to equating the two and saying it's the same thing.

Again, I believe we are pretty much in agreement. Just to be clear, I think that many comparisons between the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement exist. I particularly feel that there are more comparisons than some of the earlier posters in this thread appeared to be willing to concede. Does that mean that they are equal or the same? Not at all. They have things in common, but they have differences.

However, regarding the quote comparing the denial of gay rights to the denial of African American rights, I would say this. The rights of African Americans should not have been granted because of the history of African Americans. Those rights should have been granted because those rights are due all Americans and African Americans are Americans. Of course, there is a history of slavery and lynchings and Jim Crow and so on. But even if there had never been a lynching, even if Jim Crow had never existed, African Americans would still deserve the same rights as any other Americans. Gay Americans are also Americans. The fact that history is perhaps not as tragic should not prevent them from having the full rights of Americans.

I want to stress that I am not minimizing the African American experience. The history of African Americans is something for which amends should be made. Similarly the treatment of native Americans is something for which our country has a lot to answer. History is one thing and how that history is addressed is very important. But, history doesn't justify people's rights. Rights are rights and don't need justification.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I took your dislike of the "Victimization Olympics" to not only apply to the PP you quoted, but also to those of whom you spoke in your post at 12:00, when you said "But, there is probably more in common then many posters seem to realize."

My point is that even those who are aware of the horrible, extreme anti-gay violence and hatred such as that you detailed in your post at 12:00 can still dislike the equation of the American Civil Rights Movement with the gay rights movement. Yes, there are similarities. My discomfort with it comes from how dismissive many are of the nuances of both movements. I'm not sure I can articulate it, but 11:42's post demonstrates why it can be hurtful to me and others from my culture.

S/he said "I do not understand how denying gay people the same rights as straight people under the eyes of the law is any different than denying African American the same rights as white people under the eyes of the law. "

The thing is, there are differences. And I'm not interested in playing the Oppression Olympics, but there is a difference. So many people have gone beyond simply making comparisons (which are valid) to equating the two and saying it's the same thing.

Again, I believe we are pretty much in agreement. Just to be clear, I think that many comparisons between the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement exist. I particularly feel that there are more comparisons than some of the earlier posters in this thread appeared to be willing to concede. Does that mean that they are equal or the same? Not at all. They have things in common, but they have differences.

However, regarding the quote comparing the denial of gay rights to the denial of African American rights, I would say this. The rights of African Americans should not have been granted because of the history of African Americans. Those rights should have been granted because those rights are due all Americans and African Americans are Americans. Of course, there is a history of slavery and lynchings and Jim Crow and so on. But even if there had never been a lynching, even if Jim Crow had never existed, African Americans would still deserve the same rights as any other Americans. Gay Americans are also Americans. The fact that history is perhaps not as tragic should not prevent them from having the full rights of Americans.

I want to stress that I am not minimizing the African American experience. The history of African Americans is something for which amends should be made. Similarly the treatment of native Americans is something for which our country has a lot to answer. History is one thing and how that history is addressed is very important. But, history doesn't justify people's rights. Rights are rights and don't need justification.

This is a good point!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Sure, if there are parallels that we can all learn from. Why not?

Not PP but I think it takes away from the original fight. For instance, there are LGBT people who do not believe racism is still alive or active today. Then the LGBT minorities begin to argue against racism and racial discrimination because of their experiences. The other side says the minorities are playing the race card and no one agrees. When people are fighting for two causes, one will take a backseat to another. You start to dedicate more time to one than the other, people start to question which is more important to them.

This is a good point.

I disagree. There may be LGBT people who don't believe racism is still alive or active today. There may be straight people who feel the same way. But I don't see why it's an either/or proposition. In fact, I know it's not, because I'm championing both causes right now.[/wquote]

Because it still splits a community. While there are people who will do both, there are people who will hold a grudge of sorts towards another member of the community for overlooking or not apologizing for what they deemed a racial incident or an incident unfair to the disabled. For many, they cannot patch the hole, close the wound and move on to fight both sides. There is an article in the other thread of a recent LGBT race incident where the line was split. Will some of the people move on and go to the club again? Sure. But will they all? No. But everyone mentioned is still part of the LGBT community. Race and how you view discrimination vs. How Nancy Drew views it will always be a divider.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please don't equate opposition to gay marriage, which until a few short years ago would have been considered an extremely radical social concept, with "gay bashing" and, uh, "gaytred." While I agree that society is moving in that direction, most people aren't there yet, so don't vilify legislators who vote against this agenda. Frankly, because this effects such fundamental social change, it should be put on the ballot as in New Jersey.

And there I believe is one of the most egregious injustices if this is allowed to happen. It is WRONG to allow the civil rights of a minority to be dictated by the majority. This nation was founded on the principle that minorities especially minority religions should have the freedom to practice as they so choose without persecution and without restriction. Why should larger churches have the right to dictate whether smaller churches can legally marry two people of the same gender? Why should any church have that say over people who don't practice any religion? Trying to prevent gay marriages by law is a form of religious persecution and should be fought. And most definitely, civil rights should not be put to a public referendum.

In addition, while many conservatives who are opposed to marriage equality say they do so on the grounds of the definition of marriage, they are fighting the wrong battle. That battle is over the fact that civil marriage and religious marriage, which should be separate entities are not separate in the eyes of the government. It is a requirement of government to treat all citizens equally and to allow them the same benefits regardless of their gender. If the conservatives don't want the definition of marriage to include same sex marriages, then they should be lobbying for all references to marriage in the laws to be changed to civil unions and then there would be no government establishment of any rights tied to marriage. Then governments would grant civil unions along with the rights bestowed to citizens upon such a union and religious institutions would grant the right to marry or be married in the eyes of their institution. However, as long as government has only one word to define a legal union between two consenting adults, then all rights tied to that union MUST be given equally to all citizens who contract such a union. And it is not sufficient to establish a separate civil union for some while still maintaining marriage for others. The problem is that you create a "separate but equal" segregation. While you may be able to make sure that at the time of enactment, all rights granted by a marriage are also granted to a civil union, you cannot establish it that they will always maintain the same rights. There will be legislators who will find ways to grant rights or restrictions to one or the other and they will become unequal again.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
However, regarding the quote comparing the denial of gay rights to the denial of African American rights, I would say this. The rights of African Americans should not have been granted because of the history of African Americans. Those rights should have been granted because those rights are due all Americans and African Americans are Americans. Of course, there is a history of slavery and lynchings and Jim Crow and so on. But even if there had never been a lynching, even if Jim Crow had never existed, African Americans would still deserve the same rights as any other Americans. Gay Americans are also Americans. The fact that history is perhaps not as tragic should not prevent them from having the full rights of Americans.

I agree with this paragraph and also agree that we pretty much on the same page. However, I don't think we're going to see fully eye-to-eye on this.

If it's not about history, why compare the two? If it's only about equal protection under the law for all humans, than you could compare it to any previous legal inequality, including women formerly not having the right to vote.
The US Civil Rights Movement and the current gay rights movement are so often compared because of the similarities they share. However, because the comparisons being made are not just legal ones, but also social and historical ones, of course it's going to lead into comparisons of suffering and trivialization and hurt feelings.

[Anonymous]

Correcting typos of my previous post:

I agree with this paragraph and also agree that we are pretty much on the same page. However, I don't think we're going to see fully eye-to-eye on this.

If it's not about history, why compare the two? If it's only about equal protection under the law for all humans, then you could compare it to any previous legal inequality, including women formerly not having the right to vote.
The US Civil Rights Movement and the current gay rights movement are so often compared because of the similarities they share. However, because the comparisons being made are not just legal ones, but also social and historical ones, of course it's going to lead into comparisons of suffering and trivialization and hurt feelings.

[Anonymous]

A lot of the people that feel that African Americans in particular play a race card of sorts on racial situations are very likely to want to compare these two movements. I think for the satisfaction factor in comparing struggles and it takes away from those who genuinely want to compare the two for reasons of strengthening the gay rights movement and gaining support. The ones who want to watch AA argue about injustice and mock them ruin it for everyone else

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Correcting typos of my previous post:

I agree with this paragraph and also agree that we are pretty much on the same page. However, I don't think we're going to see fully eye-to-eye on this.

If it's not about history, why compare the two? If it's only about equal protection under the law for all humans, then you could compare it to any previous legal inequality, including women formerly not having the right to vote.
The US Civil Rights Movement and the current gay rights movement are so often compared because of the similarities they share. However, because the comparisons being made are not just legal ones, but also social and historical ones, of course it's going to lead into comparisons of suffering and trivialization and hurt feelings.

I don't have a lot of time at the moment, but I'll just throw a bomb out here and run away. One reason that gay rights supporters mention similarities to the civil rights movement is because of the perceived hostility of African Americans to gay rights. There is a feeling that having suffered discrimination, African Americans should be particularly sympathetic to ending discrimination against gay people. My understanding is that this perception regarding African American attitudes about gay rights may not be grounded in reality. But, either way, I think they key issue here is that people making this connection don't understand the resentment African Americans feel about having this expectation placed on them. I would be interested to hear if you think I am on the right track here, or full of it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Correcting typos of my previous post:

I agree with this paragraph and also agree that we are pretty much on the same page. However, I don't think we're going to see fully eye-to-eye on this.

If it's not about history, why compare the two? If it's only about equal protection under the law for all humans, then you could compare it to any previous legal inequality, including women formerly not having the right to vote.
The US Civil Rights Movement and the current gay rights movement are so often compared because of the similarities they share. However, because the comparisons being made are not just legal ones, but also social and historical ones, of course it's going to lead into comparisons of suffering and trivialization and hurt feelings.

I don't have a lot of time at the moment, but I'll just throw a bomb out here and run away. One reason that gay rights supporters mention similarities to the civil rights movement is because of the perceived hostility of African Americans to gay rights. There is a feeling that having suffered discrimination, African Americans should be particularly sympathetic to ending discrimination against gay people. My understanding is that this perception regarding African American attitudes about gay rights may not be grounded in reality. But, either way, I think they key issue here is that people making this connection don't understand the resentment African Americans feel about having this expectation placed on them. I would be interested to hear if you think I am on the right track here, or full of it.

Not PP but I think when talking race between whites and blacks the issue with things is that both sides tend to virw white as "good" and black as "bad". There is the "white is right" phrase that gets tossed in. If it were an Asian or Hispanic rights movement I do not think these issues would come up. I also learned today that in these threads there is an assumption that there are little to no minorities that are gay and where this comes from I assume is the White vs. Black "good vs.bad" thought pattern.

[Anonymous]

AA churches are a driving force against marriage equality, so the "perceived" anti-gay bias among AAs is justified.

I can understand AAs not wanting to feel compelled to support just any "rights" movement that comes down the pike just because they're also a minority.

In my opinion, the reaction among AAs goes a lot further than "fight your own battles" -- many AAs are riding in and even driving the anti-gay bandwagon. That's a whole nuther ball o wax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AA churches are a driving force against marriage equality, so the "perceived" anti-gay bias among AAs is justified.

I can understand AAs not wanting to feel compelled to support just any "rights" movement that comes down the pike just because they're also a minority.

In my opinion, the reaction among AAs goes a lot further than "fight your own battles" -- many AAs are riding in and even driving the anti-gay bandwagon. That's a whole nuther ball o wax.

Would you say this is why AA gays say that they are sometimes discriminated against by other gays of different races?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:race is not the same as gay. Nature and religous doctrine never are against race they are against gay.

There was a time where both "nature and religious doctrine" were used against certain races as well as against interracial marriage.

Yes, where have you been, first pp???!!!! The Bible was used plenty to condemn race mixing.

[Anonymous]

I do think AA gays have a really rough time.

I knew many AA gay men years ago (I used to volunteer with gay youth) and most were not out to their families and/or completely estranged from them. And there was a lot of prejudice against them among white and hispanic gays. I don't know why.