are very religious. That said, it is a slow process accepting Gays. Most Southern Blacks feel the same way.

seeing one oppressed group doing the same to others

Is still bigotry.

came from the mouth of a middle aged African American man who proclaimed he'd personally take the life of his son if he found out he was gay.

of white homophobes that are just as hateful. The white homophobes have a home in the Republican Party. Since like 90% of black people are Democrats, that means we have the black homophobes in our party.

but to note that, yes, there are very homophobic African Americans.

have rather he have leukemia.

My ex's devoutly Southern Baptist grandmother told me that she'd accept her son if he had killed someone but would disown him if he were gay.

equal terms. After all, historically, gay people could hide their sexual preference, as a matter of social survival at one time, and even now, of convenience. Most of us non-gays have not been educated about the struggle for gay rights. To the extent that the issue is studied in schools,
it is a new development.

Even those students introduced to the European holocaust are often not aware that gays were a
target to be eliminated.

Slavery is a big deal. We are talking about mass suffering, family separation, death, torture...A common history in historic inequality and oppression that was inescapable, being treated as less than human, not based on any behavior or desire, but on a purely external matter—skin color.

It is not disgusting that one group may fail to identify with another’s plight. Jews who immigrated to slave-holding states, persecuted in their native countries, did become slave owners.

Yes, it is too bad that all oppressed groups don’t necessarily unite, but not disgusting!

were the Kapos - fellow inmates, including Jews, who were chosen as overseers.

Once saw an interview with a survivor who stated that there were times when the German guards were more humane than the Kapos.

Homophobia that emanates from from any shade, any race, any corner is HATE!

and also

wtf, now you are playing the Jew card??? Blacks owned slaves too! Does that mitigate a goddamn thing?

SO WRONG

Last edited Thu Oct 24, 2019, 01:59 AM - Edit history (1)

oppressed do not always identify, and thus unite in solidarity, with each other. In fact, one oppressed group can find, ironically, other groups they feel superior to, denying them rights in similar ways to how they suffered injustice, maltreatment, disenfranchisement. We have only to look at the history of religious persecution to find this universal paradox.

I am not playing any ethnic card here. The irony of Jewish immigrants owning slaves and feeling, pre-civil war, that they were not immoral and “disgusting” for doing so has been a subject of discussion for both Jewish and Black descendants as we grapple with tough issues in our past. In fact, it has been written about both inside and outside of genealogical circles.

So the plight of Ethiopian Jews welcomed in Israel, some rescued from civil war by Mossad, has been likewise discussed and debated as a matter of genealogical research, sociology, politics, contemporary Middle Eastern issues...These Jews seem to be historically the most close to the original Hebrew Tribes, yet they have felt that they have not been fully embraced, rather that they have even been discriminated against in their new homeland.

Simply denouncing what is often a failure in exposure and education does not seem to change attitudes. Bringing people together can. As a teacher, I have certainly seen how students can, in a safe environment, learn from each other’s experience, come to challenge their own stereotypes, to identify with other groups’ struggles. I don’t see that happen in angry, recriminatory situations, not when learned attitudes can be unlearned—not when people of good will, but socially restricted viewpoints, are concerned. I am not talking about neo-Nazis, gay bashers.

I have respect for the validity of your experiences and how they inform you. I also have experiences, through which I might have developed a different take.

Last edited Thu Oct 24, 2019, 10:22 PM - Edit history (1)

deeply ingrain their history and as a result feel compassion for any other group that is oppressed. With LGBTQ people, there is the notion among some in society that LGBTQ people can chose not to disclose their sexuality - in many cases, based upon my personal experiences as a heterosexual male, I know that notion is pure bullshit, there were classmates that I knew were gay from the moment that I first met them, how can they have been able to "hide" that?

and this

sexuality is an ignorant notion, but I have heard lots of otherwise reasonable people expose it. Personally, based upon experience, I know that the claim is bullshit and I point that out every chance that I get.

I will re-word part of my previous post because the wording gave the wrong concept once I reread it.

I was one of the supremely lucky ones, as I had a wonderful, tolerant family that already had 2 older siblings of mine who came out earlier, and I lived in an extremely cosmopolitan area (West London), that whilst far from perfect, was still streets beyond a myriad number of other places on our planet where even the most microscopic hint of being LGBTQ can end your life.

That is why as a society, we need to educate the young to accept people's sexuality for what it is. There are plenty of character traits that a person choses that can be used as markers of what they are as people, sexuality isn't one of those nor should it be.

later I draw conclusions once I see more. Some of my classmates were LGBTQ, I didn't know it at the time, but meeting people and observing more caused me to realize that some people weren't straight like I was.

I recounted life experiences, if you or someone else want to read something in it that isn't there, that is your problem, not mine.

her.) We are both pretty comprehensively soft femme (I have zero problems with the term lipstick lesbian being applied to me, my wife is a bit more testy on that) in terms of appearance and manner, with almost no gender fluidity other than dressing in high end street-wear at times (but we are both alpha in personality, lolol) and almost never go to stereotypical 'gay' places or events. We are both also fairly apolitical when it comes to most all community-based LGBTQ political activity, other than we strive to be generous in terms of financial support of organisations and causes that we feel are compelling. Oh, and we do sometimes, if our schedule permits, do do Pride.

When people express literal homophobia - that is, discomfort with learning that a person is gay and say things like "that's too much information" and worse - they aren't thinking about relative experiences of oppression.

Some people are homophobic, period.

All through history, the oppressed have often become oppressors when their circumstances changed. Hence, Jewish people who were oppressed becoming slave owners.

It's not an issue with most progressive DUers but we're not the general voting public.

Last edited Thu Oct 24, 2019, 02:22 AM - Edit history (1)

should also witness that, more recently, more liberal black churches have played a role in shedding a light on gay struggle, in encouraging acceptance of sexual orientation diversity as have black political leaders and pundits.

Social conservatism can be found in many groups and is not always an expression of virulent anti-gay feeling, but may be, rather, discomfort with people not familiar to one, lack of challenge to social stereotypes, simple lack of knowledge when traditionalists in a group have not encountered
members of the LGBT community, or members feel they must hide their diversity.

Certainly, those South Bend black voters who are traditionalists are not the only group in America to have not yet embraced gay marriage. Most older immigrants are not “gay-friendly,” as much as some younger descendants can shake off the more narrow attitudes. And ye olde fought in the war of independence descendants, DARs, are probably the most bigoted about all whom they deem “other.’

Buttigieg’s issues with some more conventionally attuned members of the South Bend black community should not be reduced to his being open about his identity, his marriage, though it is not far-fetched to think that might play some part. With his Frederick Douglass Plan, it’s clear he has been reflecting on the full complexity of his relationship to black community.

Many, many times.

Second time posting this response.


I won't say anything negative about Pete but I've been saying for a while his problem isn't homophobia in the black community.

From the poll.

That by itself should indicate that the survey was performed with such a small sample that the results would have a large margin of error and/or insufficient sample size to leave some doubt about the generalizations gathered from the sample. However, even focus groups can provide some insight as to what a group of people might be thinking even if it doesn't pass with a confidence level or MOE that most statisticians would take comfort with. To obtain a statistically valid sample of uncommitted black voters would most likely require a sample of several hundred black voters which would be expensive.

As for posting or not posting the thread, the article was published by McClatchy which is considered Left-Center as far as media bias is concerned: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/mcclatchydc/

I don't believe that there is any requirement that DU members have to delve into the details of any poll to hunt for any statistical bias or check population samples so I'll continue posting articles that aren't from right-wing sources. You are welcome to offer your criticism, but please don't tell me what I can and cannot post.

The sample size of the study is way too small.

It should not be surprising to anyone except the extremely naive. Mayor Pete knows what a steep obstacle he has to climb.

We do live in America. Homophobia didn't just disappear because Mayor Pete is running.

um....no

because ONLY JOE can win

such a RINGING endorsement

absolute nonsense

no INDEED

this thread is so dispiriting for me as lesbian of colour

I am sure the same tenor and tone was used by many as to why Obama, in 2007/8 was a huge risk or even simply undetectable due to his racial makeup, albeit probably not (maybe i am wrong, I was 11 and 12 in 2007 and 2008) as open, as casual homophobia was and is far more tolerated than implied or causal racism, even though they are the SAME THING, BIGOTED HATE against us because of our innate biology.

none of these "folk" can be president, will EVER be president, if we all stick to the fear-mongering script that only an old straight white guy can win.....it is nonsense

1000 times!

they said a POC could not be president, until one was....they said a woman could not be elected, until one was (it was STOLEN from er).....now we hear the same shit about gay people, Jewish people, black women.......ENOUGH already

He has the resources, and it's an important early state. This info is too old to be useful, really.

Buttigieg is a great candidate.

Buttigieg is a brilliant young man and I admire his courage to face such ignorance in our country.

And we probably won’t read about it but individual attitudes will change or at least evolve as a result of Buttigieg’s candidacy, which is historic. You also have to respect the campaign workers on the ground who are doing outreach. This is how progress happens.

isn't the same as being the main problem and definitely isn't the same as being the problem. I am sure his being openly gay is part of his problem with South Carolina voters as a whole (this state is still underwater on marriage equality) and that would include black ones. But he is also unknown to them, very young, has had some issues with law enforcement in his city, and is facing a candidate who has pretty large AA support. The only way we would wind up knowing if he can overcome all of the problems (save the candidate who has pretty large AA support) is for Biden to not make it to SC or to be not viable by then and then have the primary. I still think, Buttigieg would not get huge support there especially if Harris or Booker were viable at that point. His only prayer would be him, Sanders, and Warren and that they would split it fairly equally. Neither of those are even close to for sure.

The writer makes a lot of assertions, but the examples provided in the article barely support the assertions being made. SMH. It's almost as if the writer had already formed his/her own conclusions and tried to force/frame the participants' comments to match. Just my opinion!

I remember back in the 1980’s in a political science course, we were asked this question:
What will happen first?
A black President
A female President
An openly gay President
An openly Atheist President