NJ Approves Gay Marriages

<div class="quote_poster">deception Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">let me clarify the article for u- the court ruling was used as an analogous legal case, maybe in the spirit of legal precedents. the court ruling in NJ was seen by the author as analogous to the "Separate but Equal" plessy court ruling; i.e. separate railway cars for blacks and whites and two definitions of marriage for gay and straight people. he wasn't comparing their histories, nor their beef but the disturbingly bigoted tone of the rulings.

i'll tell u, like i told "the dream"- re-read the thread and u'll see he pushed the black exclusivity thing so hard- he starting to sound like a separatist. to that end, i was merely pointing out to him that the only strategies that ever worked for black folks was a broadbased one. although, i'm sure the dream appreciates u sticking up for him , in spite of it being a case of the blind leading the blind.</div>
I understood all that. And I got the impression that he was comparing the significance of both cases. At least to me, when he said "20 years down the road, we will be looking at this in the same way...." he was equating their potential historical significance. Two distinctly different movements, with two very different legal rulings. I did not think of it in terms of comparing the "bigoted tone" of both rulings, though, and I suppose that's another valid interpretation of it. I suppose it just rubbed me the wrong way.

And, I didn't disagree with you about a broadbased strategy to injustice (racial, sexual, or otherwise). I just felt it was irrelevant to this topic.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting deception:</div><div class="quote_post">past events? all things are rooted in history, particularly struggles, and their is a continuum attached to it. the legal wrangling over gay marriage is a benchmark just like the 60s was for civil rights. fyi- the civil rights movement also included gays and lesbians.

emotional impact? no it gives perspective, if your suggesting it desensitizes us to history and the ongoing hardships confronted by black people in acquiring housing, sending their kids to well fund schools, etc.- u are wrong. it renews our vigour to build a more inclusive society for all, e.g. the new jersey court ruling could be leveraged by another disadvantaged group to get their struggle heard and recognized, hence the continuum</div>
You stated what I feel is the only motivation for that type of argument in your last sentence. The author simply wants to be heard and recognized. Now there's nothing wrong with that goal. But, this form of comparison (describing one form of oppression in terms of another one) is always built on exaggeration. And, IMO, it goes down a slippery slope to the type of comparisons and arguments that truly do trivialize issues and desensitize people.

And in regards to everything being rooted in the past, perhaps my disagreement arises from a hate for generalizations and the arguments that are built on them. Every form of oppression is unique and should be treated as such. Generalizing and describing one in terms of another, at least IMO, are underhanded ways of gaining support for one's cause. They do little to create open discussion, provide legitimate criticism, or seek a solution.


(btw, Could you give a little more detail about homosexuals in the civil rights movement. I've never heard anything about that before.)

 

<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Was he "born straight"?</div>

I don't know if he was "born straight" or not but the fact that he just "figured out" that he's gay a year ago is quite telling in itself.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">If it was just a matter of choice, I'd think they'd take the easier, low-risk route.</div>

You can't just force yourself to be something you're not, regardless of if it's the "low-risk route" or not. Sexual preferences obviously matter a lot in life and it's not that easy to surpress your desires. As for gay teenagers however, I do agree that they may find the route to admitting to others of thier homosexuality a dangerous one, as many "normal" teenagers tend to be homophobic IMO.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">
junoon's post isn't worth replying to- he explicitly says that black people are homoaphobic, correction, except black professors and ceo's
</div>

Shut the hell up about my post not being worth replying to. That's quite a comment coming from someone who's esentially spent the last page or so of this thread arguing over things that tend to stray away from the more imperative arguements.

Agreed that maybe my post came across the wrong way so let me correct it and perhaps make it more understandable for you. Hopefully you find it "worth replying to" this time. Sorry that I didn't use the most difficult words in the English language to get my points across like you must have perferred.

Anyway, I don't explicitly say that black people are homophobic. Let's take a look at what I wrote, shall we?

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">
And although I don't mean to put words into every black person's mouth, I will have to say that most of the black people (NOT ALL, I'm not speaking for everyone; I'm saying this based on my experiences) I have talked to (regardless of what age) are homophobic to an extent or simply against gays.
</div>

Re-read what I said and then you can reply to my post. I clearly state that I'm not speaking for all black people, I am saying that my opinion is based on the people I have talked to.

Infact, to make it even more clear for you, I will say that most of the people I have met and talked to in life, REGARDLESS of what race they are, are homophobic to a degree. If they're not full-fledged homophobic, they are still the types that have no problem with gays being gay but find the lifestyle to be quite bizzarre.

The reason for me posting what I said previously has to do with the fact that your basis for unity between gays and black is simply ridiculous. It's two different forms of discrimination (people against gays and people against blacks). How do you expect black people to unite with gays in the first place when there are numerous levels of anti-gay support in the black community (or ANY community for that matter)?

In almost EVERY community, there is anti-gay support. Yes, there might be support for gays, but in most of the cases, the support is overidden by the amount of anti-gay support that is present. My point is that as long as there is a majority support in terms of people being anti-gay, whether it be in the black, brown or white community, your idea of "unity" will not come into fruition.

And I didn't say black CEO's or professors are the only ones that are not homophobic. I stated that since I don't know any "highly postioned" black figures, and I haven't spoken to any, I can't state thier stance on the issue of homosexuals. I know I'm not entitled to speak for the black community as a whole and I obviously wasn't doing that so quit trying to twist my points and just read what I wrote. I clearly said my opinion was formed based on the indaviduals I have met and interacted with. Next time read my posts before making the assumption that I'm "explicitly" saying something I didn't say.

For the record, use common sense as well; would I really come in and try to argue with you that I believe ALL black people are homophobic? That would be a ridiculous assumption and I am not ignorant to that degree.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Junoon Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I don't know if he was "born straight" or not but the fact that he just "figured out" that he's gay a year ago is quite telling in itself.</div>

Because of societal norms, it probably takes a while for people with homosexual inclinations to come to terms with it. Also, one's sexual preferences don't fully develop until late in adolescence.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">You can't just force yourself to be something you're not, regardless of if it's the "low-risk route" or not. Sexual preferences obviously matter a lot in life and it's not that easy to surpress your desires. As for gay teenagers however, I do agree that they may find the route to admitting to others of thier homosexuality a dangerous one, as many "normal" teenagers tend to be homophobic IMO.</div>

So you agree it's not a willful choice. As you say, "you can't force yourself to be something you're not." Sounds to me that you agree it's biological.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">


(btw, Could you give a little more detail about homosexuals in the civil rights movement. I've never heard anything about that before.)</div>

<div class="quote_poster">shapecity Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">The Million Man March featuring members of the Gay Parade, I don't know deception, it's just not very catchy.</div>

Read This

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">On March 28 1969 in San Francisco, Leo Laurence (the editor of Vector, magazine of the United States' largest homophile organization, the Society for Individual Rights) called for "the Homosexual Revolution of 1969," exhorting gay men and lesbians to Join the Black Panthers and other left-wing groups and to "come out" en masse </div>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Liberation

 

<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">
So you agree it's not a willful choice. As you say, "you can't force yourself to be something you're not." Sounds to me that you agree it's biological.</div>

I meant that ("you can't force yourself to be something you're not") in response to them taking a low-risk route to avoid confrontation. I'm saying that even if they do choose to take the "low risk route" and hide thier sexuality, sexual preference is something that is hard to surpress, atleast in the society we live in, so it will end up coming out sooner or later.

I don't think it's biological at all. I doubt there is a genetic code in the human genome that contains DNA for being a homosexual. There could be a family bloodline of all straight people and a person from this generation could still turn out to be gay. Again, it's a preference and a molding of how we grow up in societies.

 

<div class="quote_poster">shapecity Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Read this ...

Activists Condemn 'Lesbians' Sermon

Minister?s fiery anti-gay sermon riles activists

The Million Man March was organized by the Nation of Islam, not the Black Panthers. From what I can gather the Nation of Islam is anti-gay.</div>

from what i gather, the nation of islam has no credibility since they assassinated malcolm x.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Junoon Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I don't think it's biological at all. I doubt there is a genetic code in the human genome that contains DNA for being a homosexual. There could be a family bloodline of all straight people and a person from this generation could still turn out to be gay.</div>

Maybe ... but how would that prove it's not biological, or that people aren't biologically predisposed to being gay? I don't recall anyone arguing that homosexuality is hereditary.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Again, it's a preference and a molding of how we grow up in societies.</div>

I don't think so. Homosexuality exists in pretty much all societies. You can't completely control a person's sexual preferences by their environment. You think all of your sexual preferences were developed through nurture and not your nature?

As I see it, most people aren't strictly straight or gay. Rather, people have homosexual tendencies to varying degrees (which is pretty much determined by their biological makeup). Their environment (e.g. societal norms, "family values") can dictate the extent to which they suppress or express those tendencies, and perhaps to a limited extent can introduce new tendencies.

 

<div class="quote_poster">deception Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">from what i gather, the nation of islam has no credibility since they assassinated malcolm x.</div>
Maybe not to the mainstream public, but they do still hold considerable influence in the African American community.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Maybe not to the mainstream public, but they do still hold considerable influence in the African American community.</div>


since most african americans aren't muslim, u would be hard pressed to find any salient impact. when i used credibility, I was referring to the african american community as well. since malcolm x defected from the nation- the organization has been struggling to get a foothold into the community. as for the million man march- they never had a million MEN, in fact if i remember correctly it is was around the 400, 000 mark and most of the attendees despised the nation of islam- it was more of a media spectacle than anything, besides what did the march do for black people anyways? well there was that kick arse spike lee film called "get on the bus" that i highly recommend but other than that, nothing. Fyi- black separatist and ?go back to Africa? movements promoted by the nation haven?t been popular in the black community since the days of marcus garvey