Before you make your summer plans to visit the Outerbanks ofNC

[Anonymous]

Spare me. Obama will come out today and say he supports same-sex marriage and the convention will still be in NC.

He is pretty good at pandering to all sides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you start equating the struggles of gays with the struggles of blacks, your condescension bothers me and I care less. Especially when you hold up the opinion of a black comedian as proof that one is harder than the other.


I'm pro-gay marriage and think they're separate but equally important issues. I'm not the only person I know who's turned off by this tactic, but if it's the approach you want to take, by all means, continue.

What a truly unfortunate (and telling) word choice.

No, not unfortunate or telling. As I typed it, of course I was aware of the significance of the phrase "separate but equal."

You don't agree that they are separate issues? It's just a matter of fact. They are equally important, though.

As I said, continue to equate the CRM with the GRM. It's fine, but in doing do you alienate many AAs who are pro-gay marriage. In other words, it may harm your cause. You don't have to take my word for it, but if you're not AA, I'm assuming I have more insight into the community than you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you start equating the struggles of gays with the struggles of blacks, your condescension bothers me and I care less. Especially when you hold up the opinion of a black comedian as proof that one is harder than the other.


I'm pro-gay marriage and think they're separate but equally important issues. I'm not the only person I know who's turned off by this tactic, but if it's the approach you want to take, by all means, continue.

What a truly unfortunate (and telling) word choice.

No, not unfortunate or telling. As I typed it, of course I was aware of the significance of the phrase "separate but equal."

You don't agree that they are separate issues? It's just a matter of fact. They are equally important, though.

As I said, continue to equate the CRM with the GRM. It's fine, but in doing do you alienate many AAs who are pro-gay marriage. In other words, it may harm your cause. You don't have to take my word for it, but if you're not AA, I'm assuming I have more insight into the community than you do.

Please explain to me how they are separate issues. Both groups have been denied rights and discriminated against. I don't choose to be black any more than my neighbor chooses to be gay.

[Anonymous]

They are separate issues in the literal sense of the word. The fight for women's rights in the US is a separate issue from the fight for women's rights in Venezuela. Of equal importance, but they are separate issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not gay. I'm a woman married to a man - however, the thought that a friend or a coworker would not have the same rights to marry or visit a loved one that I would. I wonder how many of these people who voted against equal rights would have voted against rights for African Americans? Would have voted against rights for women? To me it is the same thing - equal rights for everyone - or for nobody.

Please don't bring black people into this discussion. I HATE it when folks make this comparison. It's short-sighted and stupid.

Love this quote by Wanda Sykes, because it's so freakin' true:

“To a certain point, yes. I believe [it's harder to be gay than black]. I’m not talking about the history of African-Americans. Today. I’m talking about at this point right now. I don’t know of organizations and groups like Focus on the Family and such anti-gay organizations who are putting so much money, millions and millions of dollars, into stopping me from being black or telling me that I can’t exercise my blackness or whatever. So it is. There’s no equality, there’s no equality for the LGBT community.”

And another:


"It’s harder being gay than being black. There’s some things that I had to do as gay that I didn’t have to do as black. I didn’t have to come out black. I didn’t have to sit my parents down and tell them about my blackness...Mom, dad I have to tell ya’ll something…I hope you still love me. Mom- dad I’m black."

Absolutely terrible quotes to pick. I guess because Wanda is black, you think her opinion carries some sort of weight?

But yeah, comparing coming out and/or anti-gay groups to the hundreds of years of degradation of a race is...................short-sighted, at best.

Yes, I believe that Wanda's opinion as a gay AA woman carries some weight. I'm AA, by the way.

Let me guess, you're a straight white woman?

No, straight black woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is marriage off limits? For a long time marriage was about combining families of a certain pedigree, obtaining property, etc. What does it matter to me personally that 2 men or 2 women marry? It doesn't affect me.

it affects others. some people take sacraments seriously.

What a horrible rationale. Your sacraments - your religion - get to dictate what other people do???? If this is a sacramental issue for you then fine, abide by YOUR sacraments. Don't get gay married. Why should anyone else have to follow your god?

And since you take your sacrament so seriously I imagine you never had premarital sex. Right?

What if we end up with a majority religion in this country which decides that all women have to wear burquas? Let's say they tell you, "it's a sacrament (or other religious priority). Why do their religious beliefs get to impact your life or mine?

This country has an extremely long and complex history of religious beliefs affecting social behavior, accepted norms and laws. The foundation of our country, as well as the current view of the majority of us, is one of a moral belief system. As that belief system begins to shift, we encounter these types of clashes. However at this point in time, the majority of us still have a Judeo-Christian foundation, so it is certainly still going to filter into our laws and decision making processes. Which some people, like myself, will be happy about; while others, like yourself, will fight against. Either we find a way to work it out in a reasonable way that minimally satisfies all of us, or we fight like crazy -- which may or may not work out for some of us in the end.

A moral belief system is fine. A government interfering in the personal lives of citizens, not so much. I simply cannot understand how someone else's gay marriage is your problem, or NC's problem, or the country's problem.

And you didn't answer the question. What would you do if the majority religion changes or evolves such that it dictates laws that are morally objectionable to you?

Some cultures seem to be based on a moral belief system with a Muslim foundation which includes, for example, severe restrictions on women and extremely harsh punishment for crimes, including moral crimes. So are you OK with a governmenet using religion as a basis for curtailing the rights of citizens, or otherwise dictating how they conduct their personal lives?

Be careful about endorsing "sacraments" as a basis for law.

Do you seriously belief that our government does not interfere in our personal lives?! The power of the state is used all the time to legislate and enforce morality, and much of that morality has its foundation in a religious belief system. Allowing gay marriage is a certain morality. Disallowing gay marriage is a different morality. Either way, a belief system is at play and the government, hopefully at least by the will of its governed people, dictates our laws.

By the way, I'm not the one who brought "sacraments" into this discussion. There are many of us who do not agree with gay marriage, as evidenced by the millions of people across this country who continue to vote against it. As I've said before, if the gay-rights movement would focus on the rights of partners, they would achieve those rights much more quickly as enough of us agree with that to pass those laws. Instead, they continually try to legitimize their lifestyle by pushing these marriage laws, and the unfortunate outcome is that they fail to gain certain privileges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are separate issues in the literal sense of the word. The fight for women's rights in the US is a separate issue from the fight for women's rights in Venezuela. Of equal importance, but they are separate issues.

That is the very definition of a distinction without a difference.

Less than 50 years ago, marriage between blacks and whites was illegal. I'm hard-pressed to see how laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are materially different. If you can explain it to me, I'm all ears.

[Anonymous]

Reposting this from the "gaytred" thread:

I think you’re right. I do believe that some gay people make the connection between the US Civil Rights Movement with the gay rights movement in an attempt to show a common ground. I also think that some people are misguided in their attempts and use the comparisons to try to “shame” black people into support of gay rights, which doesn’t work.

I am AA, and while I of course can't speak for my entire ethnic group, I've seen three general reactions of black people to the comparison of the US CRM with the GRM. These are just generalizations and don't cover everyone, of course:

1. Very anti-gay people (who are also often very religious) who respond to the comparison with vitriol towards gay people. The comparison only serves to offend, although they wouldn’t be accepting of homosexuality even if the comparison were not made.

2. Pro-gay rights people who agree with the comparison, but they would be pro-gay rights even if there weren’t similarities to the CRM.

3. Pro-gay rights people who are offended by the comparison and/or the way some people go about making the comparison (and the latter is the issue most of the time). It doesn’t lessen their support for gay rights, but it does cause them to side-eye the “gay community.” Also, as you can see from some of the PP’s posts, many people placed the blame for Prop 8 passing on the “black community.” It turned out later that reports of AA support for Prop 8 were greatly exaggerated (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/06/BANB154OS1.DTL), but it did stir up ugly racial sentiment within the gay community and the larger liberal community. It turned out that the gap between black support for Prop 8 and non-black support for Prop 8 was much smaller than was first (and widely) reported, and of course black people alone could not be responsible for its passage. The resentment towards blacks after the passage of Prop 8 served to make gay black people feel alienated within their own community. Additionally, pro-gay rights black people do not like their struggle for civil rights to be equated with the fight for gay rights when they are also made the scapegoat. Basically, don't say "Hey, our struggle is the same!" AND "You're the reason for my oppression!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When you start equating the struggles of gays with the struggles of blacks, your condescension bothers me and I care less. Especially when you hold up the opinion of a black comedian as proof that one is harder than the other.


I'm pro-gay marriage and think they're separate but equally important issues. I'm not the only person I know who's turned off by this tactic, but if it's the approach you want to take, by all means, continue.

Thank you. x1000000000000000000

I would, though, encourage folks NOT to take this tactic. If your argument is strong enough, it does not need a crutch to stand on its own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are separate issues in the literal sense of the word. The fight for women's rights in the US is a separate issue from the fight for women's rights in Venezuela. Of equal importance, but they are separate issues.

That is the very definition of a distinction without a difference.

Less than 50 years ago, marriage between blacks and whites was illegal. I'm hard-pressed to see how laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are materially different. If you can explain it to me, I'm all ears.

11:43 here (but not pp).

Interracial marriage has no connection to gay marriage. One redefines marriage, the other does not. Just because both were, at one point, illegal does not mean they are the same.

[Anonymous]

Is there a reason for being against gay marriage that does NOT involve religion? I can't think of one, but I'm also not the best person to ask.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this from the "gaytred" thread:

I think you’re right. I do believe that some gay people make the connection between the US Civil Rights Movement with the gay rights movement in an attempt to show a common ground. I also think that some people are misguided in their attempts and use the comparisons to try to “shame” black people into support of gay rights, which doesn’t work.

I am AA, and while I of course can't speak for my entire ethnic group, I've seen three general reactions of black people to the comparison of the US CRM with the GRM. These are just generalizations and don't cover everyone, of course:

1. Very anti-gay people (who are also often very religious) who respond to the comparison with vitriol towards gay people. The comparison only serves to offend, although they wouldn’t be accepting of homosexuality even if the comparison were not made.

2. Pro-gay rights people who agree with the comparison, but they would be pro-gay rights even if there weren’t similarities to the CRM.

3. Pro-gay rights people who are offended by the comparison and/or the way some people go about making the comparison (and the latter is the issue most of the time). It doesn’t lessen their support for gay rights, but it does cause them to side-eye the “gay community.” Also, as you can see from some of the PP’s posts, many people placed the blame for Prop 8 passing on the “black community.” It turned out later that reports of AA support for Prop 8 were greatly exaggerated (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/06/BANB154OS1.DTL), but it did stir up ugly racial sentiment within the gay community and the larger liberal community. It turned out that the gap between black support for Prop 8 and non-black support for Prop 8 was much smaller than was first (and widely) reported, and of course black people alone could not be responsible for its passage. The resentment towards blacks after the passage of Prop 8 served to make gay black people feel alienated within their own community. Additionally, pro-gay rights black people do not like their struggle for civil rights to be equated with the fight for gay rights when they are also made the scapegoat. Basically, don't say "Hey, our struggle is the same!" AND "You're the reason for my oppression!"

Fantastic post. I am in Group 3 and know many people who feel the same way. Again, great post.

[Anonymous]

Many people compare the fight for gay marriage with the ENTIRE fight for black civil rights. Come on. A more appropriate comparison would be with the fight for interracial marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are separate issues in the literal sense of the word. The fight for women's rights in the US is a separate issue from the fight for women's rights in Venezuela. Of equal importance, but they are separate issues.

That is the very definition of a distinction without a difference.

Less than 50 years ago, marriage between blacks and whites was illegal. I'm hard-pressed to see how laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are materially different. If you can explain it to me, I'm all ears.

11:43 here (but not pp).

Interracial marriage has no connection to gay marriage. One redefines marriage, the other does not. Just because both were, at one point, illegal does not mean they are the same.

Again, that's a distinction without a difference (which is, by the way, a logical fallacy). The current laws prohibit a person from marrying another based on immutable characteristics. Anti-miscegenation laws did precisely the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Do you seriously belief that our government does not interfere in our personal lives?!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Of course not. But government should try to interfere in our lives as little as possible. Isn't that one of the central tenents of being a Republican? But when it comes to sex - abortion, homosexuals - you want to legislate everyone one to make them just like you (or at least, like your ideals). To me it is insane.

My freedom ends where yours begins. That's why I shouldn't be able to smoke in a restaurant, for example, where you have to breathe the air. But whom I have sex with or marry does not involve you or anyone else except the two consenting adults. I just cannot understand why your party goes to such great lengths to try to restrain the sexuality of others.

And I am straight BTW.