Blacks Object to Gay Marriage Comparison

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/7368264.htm

Links between the two struggles have been made since the state's highest court ruled last week that the Massachusetts constitution guarantees gay couples the right to marry. The court cited landmark laws that struck bans on interracial marriage.

But the Rev. Talbert Swan II said the two struggles are not similar because blacks were lynched, denied property rights and declared inhuman.

"Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle," he said. "I could not choose the color of my skin. ... For me to ride down the street and get profiled just because of my skin color is something a homosexual will never go through."

A poll released by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press on Nov. 18, the day of the ruling, indicated 60 percent of blacks opposed gay marriage.

CHOOSES to be discriminated against. Religion is a choice and we don't allow people to be discriminated against for it either.

It matters not whether it is choice or otherwise. All people deserve the same rights.

eom

Gays DO get profiled when they walk down the street, matthew shepherd was lynched, gays are denied property, and declared inhuman. Where's Mr. Swan been?

("reverend talbert swan the second", indeed...)

Understand?

Comparing the desire for gay marriage rights with what blacks had to go through is insulting to pretty much EVERYbody, especially the blacks.

But in fact a rather minor portion.

In any case, blacks did have to deal with marriage law absurdness, much in the same way that gays do today.

http://cronus.com/agenda

Enjoy :)

Click Here To Find NO MICHAEL JACKSON Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

no matter who the target may be.

It should not be an insult to anyone especially someone who has been the target of discrimination and scapegoating.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You know, the "Yeah, you've got it bad but I had it MUCH worse" thing. Nobody's denying that blacks were (and are) the victims of discrimination. Unfortunately it's been my experience, too, that most blacks feel the gay marriage (or ANY legislation granting gays equal rights) is wrong.

Being a white guy who's had a few advantages in my life, I don't know that I'm really qualified to coment on this, but logic seems to dictate that we ALL do better when we're pulling on the same end of the rope and the best way to make this happen is to make certain that we ALL have equal rights under the law.

Is it simply the fact that many blacks seem to be "religious" or is there something else at work here?

As background, my absolute favorite person to talk politics with happens to be black. He's a Democrat, but not in favor of "gay" legislation. I'm comfortable enough to have asked him "What if I refused to sell you my house or hire you or recognize your marriage because you're black? Would that be O.K.?" He honestly sees the issues as having absolutely nothing to do with each other.

I DO understand the differences. If you're black, everybody KNOWS you're black. You can be gay and have nobody know. Blacks have a much more violent history of persecution than gays. Why, however, wouldn't ONE historically oppressed group that's started to make some headway in the past 30 years offer support (even in spirit only) to ANOTHER oppressed group which is facing some of the same problems?

...hand him this:

Coretta Scott King Links Gay Rights and African-American Civil Rights

And this:

Coretta Scott King on gay rights

.

It's been his for so long, you see.

Click Here To Find NO MICHAEL JACKSON Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

than enjoy legal protections because of your sexual orientation. In other words, so much for "...and the pursuit of happiness."

I guess that inalienable right just went out the window.

I mean honestly!?

When all those "homosexuality is a choice" boneheads say that homosexuality is a choice I completely lose it. It's not logical.

And how dare Talbert Swan claim that gays do not struggle! Look, I know blacks (and all minorities) have struggled, but for him to claim that being gay in America is BETTER than being black just shows an astounding ignorance I simply can't fathom. I'd like to see him grow up gay in America, and see how many more times he gets beat up or contimplates suicide than he did while growing up black.

I really don't think you're qualified to make that assessment.

You could make the comparison if:

You lived through the 50's and 60's.

Were black at the time.

And are gay.

Since Swan's point was twofold:

1) gays don't struggle.

2) only blacks can struggle.

He can fuck off as far as I'm concerned.

...I guess that means you are even less qualified to speak on this issue than any gay person or any black person if we use your "logic".

ground as blacks.

Unless you're both black and gay and lived and demonstrated through the civil rights movement, you really can't make the comparison.

Marriage is after all, a human right.

..African Americans?

We have been denied housing because of sexual orientation.
We have been fired from jobs because of sexual orientation.
We STILL cannot serve openly in the armed services.
It was against the law in many states to engage in homosexual activity in the privacy of your own home until just this year.
We still getting harrassed, beaten, and sometimes lynched for being gay.
We cannot marry our partners.

And we face one disgusting type of discrimination that no other minority has to face: We get discriminated against by our own families a lot of the times. A gay teen who comes out to his family could very easily end up on the street or put into counseling to make him or her straight in a lot of cases.

You have no idea what it is like to have lie and hide just to serve your country or fear every day that the wrong person finds out you are gay and ends your career in the military.

You have no idea what it is like to have to put up with your own brother saying "I don't want you around my kids because I don't want them exposed to your lifestyle.".

And somehow, because we can hide and lie you think we somehow have it better than what blacks faced in their struggle for equality?

You don't know what the hell you are talking about.

I don't blame blacks for being offended that gays would compare their struggle for gay marriage with the civil rights movement.

I'm a straight white guy and I'm offended when I hear gays compare the two. Last time I checked, gays could sit anywhere they wanted in the bus, and use the same drinking fountains as everyone else.

However, this guy's quotes are sure to provoke a lot of flames.

That homosexuals have a choice about their sexual orientation?

Maybe the comparison between the struggle for gay marriage and the civil rights movement is overstated (and may I mention that it is the two black candidates for President that made that comparison), but both groups have had to fight for rights, that they should automatically have, because of a natural, genetic difference.

I'm just saying that I can't remember the last time that gays in parades were attacked by water cannons and attack dogs.

I can't remember a KKK against gays, where they would be dragged from their homes and their homes set on fire.

I can't remember gays being enslaved for generations.

Where I live (Los Angeles), and in other cities where I've lived (Austin and Denver) I see gays doing just fine. They seem as well off (or not) as the next guy.

If they're currently kept from having legal rights to hospital visits and sharing in 401k plans due to laws keeping them from legally marrying, well that's fine, that needs to be changed, but I sure don't think it's a major issue facing the nation as a whole.

And they should definitely wait until there's a Dem in power before making a ruckus about it. It sure ain't gonna work now.

I'm saying be realistic and don't think you're the only sacred cow in the world.

And into the rest of the world? I see it quite a bit differently in Montana. Why don't you go to Kenya if you want a REAL rude awakening concerning gay rights.

And btw, gays have been drug from their homes and lynched. Why not too long ago right here in Montana, an arsonist attempted to murder a lesbian couple, simply because they were plaintifs in a lawsuit wanting domestic partner benifets.

It's not exactly the KKK, but murder is murder, isn't it?

I wouldn't live in a place where I didn't feel I belonged, so why are you?

There's a lot of reasons I live in LA but the biggest one is that I feel that there are other people like me here. I sure don't feel that in other places.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Why should an American citizen not be free to live anywhere in this country he damn well pleases?

Do you think that all gays have some kind of desire to live in some West Hollywood Style ghetto?

Or perhaps you think that all gays should only be able to live openly and safely in the LA, New York, and San Francisco? How dare a gay person want to live in Montana instead of living in maggwaggr approved safe ghettos?

even if they weren't gay. You ever been to Abilene?

There are a ton of places across the country where this non-gay guy would never want to live, even if you paid me really well.

Like I said, I've lived in Austin, Denver, and right now LA and there are happy thriving gay communities there. I don't think anyone but you would call them "ghettos".

Sorry if I offended, but as a liberal there are plenty of places where I wouldn't feel particularly safe, and I'm not even gay. So I choose to not live there.

It's common sense.

It doesn't mean slum. It means "a quarter of a city in which members of a minority group live especially because of social, legal, or economic pressure" (according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

Montana is a lovely place. I almost ended up their myself, because I don't want to be ghettoized in some large urbanized area. I was born and bred in rural Georgia and I want to live in a smaller town or in the country.

As an American I should be able to live anywhere in this country I choose without fearing I will have my house burned down or get lynched because I am one of those queers that moved into town.

propably the one city in the entire STATE of Texas where gays are fairly out (they're not in Dallas), Denver likewise (with the exception of Boulder)... there's got to be under 100 places in this country the size of Europe a gay man or lesbian woman can be truly out and not risk getting bashed at the least or murdered at the worst.

I live in San Francisco and in all my years of meeting gays and lesbians I have met only a handful that are actually from here. They are instead from Texas and Ohio and Missouri and Wisconsin and Indiana -- hell, from all over this country, especially that wide stretch of "red" we always see on our election maps.

So, they leave behind family and friends, cherished homes and landscapes they love and they come here because it's one of a few places they can be who they really are without fear. And even sometimes this haven turns on them.

Given their druthers they would MUCH rather be living back in their in Texas and Ohio and Missouri and Wisconsin and Indiana, but they risk to much in doing so.

No one should be forced to make that choice.

Bigotted statements come from bigots, in my humble yet extensive experience.


Click Here To Find NO MICHAEL JACKSON Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

Sorry, but I can't understand your position.

This Rev Swan is an idot, he starts with saying homosexuality is a choice, and that's a truly ignorant position.

Yeah, but can openly gay people have the same options as you do, as a straight white male? No, because there are too many bigoted people out there.

You make it sound as if blacks are the only people in the history of mankind who have been discriminated against.

the point is that it's a major stretch for homosexuals to compare their plight to that of blacks pre-civil-rights era.

I live and work with a ton of gay folks, and they seem to be having a fine ol' time. They can make as much money as they want, they can live where they want, they can go where they want.

I'm all for equal rights, and I think if gays want to marry, more power to 'em, but to make this a big issue for the 2004 election is a big mistake.

I'd say of all the problems facing the world, and the United States with Bush in power, on a scale of 1 to 10, the issue of "gay marriage" ranks about a 2.

As a Colored, Negro, Black, now African American who lived through the civil rights movement, who remembers when people like me couldn't go in some stores, neighborhoods, use public facilities, etc... I cringe to hear gay rights compared to civil rights because the difference is huge.

Yes, gays are demonized and morphed by the religious wrong into pedophiles and other menaces to society, but they have not been subjected to centuries of degradation, dehumanization and discrimination.

I don't begrudge or belittle the desire for civil unions or gay marriage, but as you have so well articulated above, we as Dems must choose our battles carefully and right now this one is being used a wedge issue to hurt Dems. The war against Bushco is formidable enough without us falling into squabbling camps about something that will come to pass surely and shortly. Let's just get through 11/2/2004
victorious.

I think the minister could have phrased his response differently. Wordsmithing is an art, and I am not talking about being politically correct but rather being honest in a heartwarming, not brutal, way. He definitely DOES NOT speak for many Black people and probably not even his own followers.

PS: like your posts

the main reason I even posted in the first place is because I deplore the tactics that the right-wing is using, baiting us with the gay marriage issue. I think it's a loser for 2004, and that it should be pressed when there's a chance of passing something, like when we have either a Dem president of a Dem congress.

I seriously think this issue could kill us in 2004. If you say "who cares, let's make it an issue anyway!" ...... well, I honestly don't see how that's a realistic approach to take.

Hell, my pet issue is the environment, but I'll take just getting Shrub out of office, so he'll quit killing people and bankrupting the country first.

Then I'll worry about the environment.

that's what they said when Truman wanted to intergrate the military--knowing that it would lose the south for the Democrats

that's what they said when LBJ championed the Voting Rights Bill in 64. They knew that the southern Democrats would fillabuster the bill

this is a battle for basic human rights. I want the right to marry my partner if I so choose.

no, this isn't a pressing issue for straight people. they have the right to get married.

push this faggot and I'll push back. I'll be damned if I'm going to be a second class citizen in my own damn country.

"Yes, gays are demonized and morphed by the religious wrong into pedophiles and other menaces to society, but they have not been subjected to centuries of degradation, dehumanization and discrimination"


I seem to recall that homosexuals were rounded up and gassed by the Nazis. Maybe that is not far enough back for you, but with the exception of ancient Greece, I doubt homosexuality was ever accepted anywhere. In fact I would bet that most remained in the closet or were very very secretive because of the consequences of being open. Nowadays they can still be fired from many workplaces just for being gay. Some states have laws protecting them from that but by no means all. You can't fire someone because of race or gender.

This is sort of a silly argument anyway. It seems to me that clearly in many quarters there is still a lot of bigotry. So perhaps we should all agree that we need to work on ensuring that everyone has the same rights regardless of skin color, orientation or anything else.

Apparently you are completly unaware of the persecution mankind has vehemently delivered for millenia against gay people. The history of black persecution is much shorter although certainly no worse, or "better" for that matter.

Black people have and do persecute gay people, and have done for just as long as white people have persecuted gay people. Your claims are therefore inaccurate, and appear self-serving.

Keep on reading and try not to let your phobias get too much in the way. You might learn something from this thread.

Click Here To Find NO MICHAEL JACKSON Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

Just off the top of my head, we had the Nazi persecution of homosexuals, the Communist persecution of homosexuals, the widespread Middle Eastern persecution of homosexuals (remember those Friday night beheadings in Saudi Arabia?), the British persecution of homosexuals, and the history of the persecution of homosexuals here in the U.S. that continues today.

Does Stonewall bring back some memories?

Today in easily 90% of the country Gs&Ls still cannot walk down the street and show any sign of attachment to their partner without risking getting the crap beat out of them.

Every day there are beatings and murders. I had two friends in Redding CA who were murdered a few years back because they were homosexual. These were quiet people who were very, very private about their lives -- as discrete as they tried to be, they were still murdered in their home because someone decided they didn't like queers in Redding. We recently lost a transgendered teen to murder in the South Bay. Our own Left Coast has been dealing with drive by attacks of his house -- and he lives in that liberal bastion of San Francisco.

After a showing of the Matthew Sheppard story on MTV, they scrolled the names and stories of gays and lesbians who had been killed across the country because they were homosexual.

That list would have made you think twice about saying they don't have the "credentials" to lay claim to the civil rights mantel.

...marry their partners, and until this year could be arrested for having sex in the privacy of our own homes in many states in the country.

And still one of most reported hate crimes is gay bashing.

Don't you dare try to make the claim the discrimation gays and lesbians face in this world is somehow "better" because we don't GAY tatooed on our foreheads and are assumed straight. The moment we come out we become a target of bigotry.

any better when it is denied to certain people?

Marriage is a fundimental human right (see article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948). The denial of rights to certain groups of people is wrong, no matter who those people are.

For you (and Swan) to claim some specialness about the struggle of blacks is both ignorant and offensive to all others who have struggled.

So that's what it comes down to? And what about the people who are perceived to be gay but are not? Should they also have to live with the attacks, the shooting, the lynchings, the draggings, the beatings as well?

That's an incredibly shallow argument you made there. I think you might be in the wrong party.

Oh, and try sitting on a bus next to a huge jock and tell him you're gay during conversation. See what happens and come back with your report.

Click Here To Find NO MICHAEL JACKSON Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

blacks were brought here as slaves because they couldn't escape and assimilate into the white population.

Blacks were kept as slaves, and bred as such, against their will, for generations.

There was institutionalized discrimination and segregation based on the color of their skin.

When they tried to fight for their rights, they were killed, their houses burned down, and the police attacked them en masse with water cannons and dogs.

When blacks were lynched, big crowds would turn out to participate and watch and cheer.

I just don't see how gays compare to this.

And why would you tell a big jock sitting next to you on the bus that you were gay? Are you stupid? I wouldn't tell some big ass mean looking dude in a USA T-shirt next to me that I'm a die hard Democrat and hate republicans. I don't get it.

Not everybody loves me either, and I'm a white straight male.

During that same time gays were killed and lynched. Perhaps you've heard of a man named Hitler. He was very bad. He rounded up all sorts of people and killed them in factories. He specifically rounded up gays for this purpose.

For you to ignorantly pontificate on how gays haven't suffered is completely unimaginable.

because that's the discussion, not Hitler's treatment of anyone.

it's obvious that according to you, no one could ever ever suffer as much as black Americans, so I won't bother continuing this. Gays have suffered here, and elsewhere for centuries, and for you to claim they haven't and continue not to suffer is just plain biggoted.

My point is that to compare the plight of gays in America in 2003 to the plight of blacks in America circa 1960 is just downright silly and insulting to those who hit the streets in the 60's.

God knows I wouldn't want to be gay. I was close enough to suicide in my teen years (and years thereafter) just because I was "different" in so many other ways. I was a freak in a small town and was ostracized even by the kids who were also ostracized.

My right wing Dad and his nutcase right wing fundie wife talk about this and I tell them that nobody in their right mind would ever choose to be gay. Somehow they think it's a choice. I've actually convinced them, but then they realize they're about to change their mind and they go back to the "well all I know is what the bible says, and the bible says ....." routine.

So whoeever it is already has a history of posting ignorant stuff, IMHO, and I've taken care of it since I never see their posts.

You might want to consider that yourself. It's impossible to educate some people.

Click Here To Find NO MICHAEL JACKSON Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

Let's talk discrimination:

percentage of gays living in poverty
percentage of gays in prison falsely or for minor drug offenses

OR

Who does society portray most negatively: the gay male or the Black male? Think Susan Smith and the Black man who "abducted" her children or Charles Stuart and the Black man who "shot" him and "killed" his wife. Think of Bowling for Columbine's depiction of America's fear (pre 9/11) as embodied by the infamous Black male in the lead crime stories of any given day all across the USA.

People readily accepted those false stories and all other negative stereotypes about Blacks because of centuries of discrimination. Being gay or Black is not a choice but, as you have pointed out mw, there is a vast difference in the historical, societal treatment of the two groups; and regarding the discrimination, there is no comparison.

I was starting to feel a little lonely there. :)

"I think there's very little to be gained by trying to create a hierarchy of oppression," {Rev. William} Sinkford {a black man who is president of the Unitarian Universalist Association} said.

But on the other hand, how many Blacks have you ever heard of who have been involuntarily committed to psychiatric hospitals to force them "to change?"

None, I would venture.

Drinking Product X is a choice, and only a small portion of the population drink it; it's available nationwide, but there's not really a huge demand for it.

Oh, there's one other thing: product X renders all of your potential children male, forever. You can't regain your capacity to bear female children.

To combat this nationwide scourge, legislation is introduced that would not make producing or using Product X illegal, but will bar users of Product X from ever marrying, because if they are allowed, the nation will be flooded with a generation of only men.

It is a choice to consume Product X.

Discuss.

(this post is intended to illustrate the total absurdity of the choice argument)

Oh, hey, str8 men on here who think being gay is a choice: I'm a gay man, 28 years old. I've never, ever once been physically attracted to any woman. PERIOD.

Explain that with your uninformed bullshit 'choice' arguments. GGRRRR!!!

Both Al Sharpton and Carol Mosley-Braun compared the two movements. And so has Coretta Scott King.

Do they offend you? Or is it only when the comparison is made by gays that you get offended?

... but then I'm sure he didn't choose to be stupid.

"Choosing" to be homosexual? Too bad Matthew Shepherd didn't "change his mind" before he was killed?

A victim of bigotry, or one from a class of people who are historically victims of bigotry, may himself be a bigot.

"Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle," he said. "I could not choose the color of my skin. ... For me to ride down the street and get profiled just because of my skin color is something a homosexual will never go through."

Homosexuality has genetic causes. It is not a lifestyle. One does not choose to be a homosexual. With all the formal and informal sanctions placed by modern society on homosexuality, one would think that if homosexuality were a choice it would have been stamped out by now.

(B)lacks were lynched, denied property rights and declared inhuman.

How is this different from some of the assaults gays face or have faced? People have been killed simply because they are gay (a loose but perfectly acceptable application of the term lynching). Gays have faced discrimnation in the market place, thus denying them the right to own property. As for declared inhuman, I don't think it would be too hard to find examples. Surely, many have used Biblical justifications for discrimination against gays; the idea that a judgmental God is ready to forsake gay people comes pretty close to denying their humanity.

Who would want to choose to become a pariah, and to be treated as second class citizen, and to be forbidden to love or to marry those one loves?

Saying that "homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle" is as ridiculous as saying that slavery was "a chosen lifestyle."

Being gay is NOT a 'choosen lifestyle'
Homosexuals ARE profiled
Homosexuals ARE discriminated against.
Homosexuals ARE treated as 2nd class citizens.

This "I'm offended" crap seems to be nothing but a backhanded way to indulge in homophobia.

"Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle," he (Rev. Talbert Swan II) said. "I could not choose the color of my skin. ... For me to ride down the street and get profiled just because of my skin color is something a homosexual will never go through."

soo?
i can name a whole lotta things a 'blackman' will never go through.

Seriously, I'm an extremely empathetic person. I'd like to hear your stories.

Teasing from classmates that is not stopped by teachers.

And here's the big one:

Non-supportive family. If you're black, your family is too. But if you're gay, you stand to lose EVERYTHING: your life, your home, your friends, and your family. I am sure that the Reverend Swan never had to deal with being thrown out homeless and pennyless by his family simply for being black, did he?

...for being a black person.

I can however tell you I have met any number of gay people who haven't spoken to their family in years because their family doesn't accept them for being gay.

which is something I hadn't thought of.

I do, however, still feel that to make comparisons between gay rights and the civil rights movement is a big mistake.

I think it's apples and oranges and will backfire on the gay community.

I mean, I'm a liberal white guy, and look how I reacted.

...when it comes to understanding the civil rights struggle of gays. The fight for civil rights is the fight for civil rights. Whether it's the right to serve openly in the military and live free without fear of harrassment and lynching or whether it's the end of segregation. You don't understand or know what gay people go through and have gone through.

Think about it: Just this year it was illegal for me to engage in sexual intercourse with my partner in many states and that's after two decades of fighting in the legislature and in the courts to get those laws repealed.


A little over a decade ago, Clinton promised to allow gays to serve their country openly in the armed forces, but we ended up with such a shitstorm from the right we had to settle for the piece of bigotted filth known as "don't ask, don't tell" which really isn't any different than it was before.

And the whole modern gay civil rights movement began because of the Stonewall riots in NYC. Prior to Stonewall, police raids on gay bars and nightclubs were a regular part of gay life in cities across the United States. Commonly the police would record the identities of all those present, which would be subsequently published in the newspaper, then load up their police van with as many gays as it would hold. Kissing, holding hands, or even being in a gay bar at all were used as grounds for arrest on indecency charges at that time.

People's lives and livelihood's have been ruined and in many cases taken from them altogether as in the case of Matthew Sheppard.

To claim that the fight for equality and equal protection under the law is insulting to the last minority is not only wrong, but it is a primary characteristic of those who are clinging to their own prejudices.

Think of being denied visitation rights/the right to make (life and death) health care choices if your partner is hospitalized.

Being thrown out of your own home and losing your property if a deceased lover's family decides to do dispossess you.

Or--if you have children from a previous marriage--think about losing custody and visitation rights because you constitute an "immoral" influence on your children!

Or how about being forcibly hospitalized and subjected to shock treatment/aversion therapy and other horrors of modern "medicine"! (Gays were once castrated in America as a "cure"; lesbians were lobotomized.)

How about being viewed as a threat to young children because being gay is mistakenly associated with pedophilia? How about being denied access to your nieces, nephews, and younger cousins because you could "contaminate" them?

There are endless stories documenting such discrimination. There are, in fact, DUers who have experienced some of these things personally.

If you have "never thought of such things," you've never thought about what it means to be gay in America, so rather than reacting superficially, you might try a little introspection.

I came to this thread sympathetic to this Rev. postion on the subject. Your post on this thread caused me to do much reconsidring of my view. I will add that many people don't view gay rigths as serious because of the view that Gays are not serious. And unlike you many Gays, esp. Gay men help and contribute to that view. What i am talking about here is that that most of America see Will and jack, Queer Eye-just Gays having fun. By living in a large city in Califorina, Mugugwar sees much of the same thing.

And a question here to muggawar:
Would you have told Carolina to move from Georgia, Miss, Bama, SC, NC, Florida, LA, Ark, Kentucky back in the 50s? As you suggested that one gay poster leave Montana.

And the open mind. The road we are traveling may be a bit different from those who struggled in the African-American community, but the destination and direction is the same.

And THEY compare gay marriage to black marriage and interracial marriage. Here are their comments from the Iowa debate aired on MSNBC on Nov. 24:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/997908.asp

MOSELY BRAUN: I believe this is a civil rights issue. My relative, my aunt, married a white man in the 1950s when their marriage was illegal in half the states of this country.
Indeed, my uncle, had he taken his wife across the wrong state line would have been guilty of a criminal violation.
It seems to me that if people want to marry a person of a different race that’s no different than somebody wanting to marry someone of the same sex.
And, indeed, we should be celebrating the fact that these people are talking about forming solid relationships, families, because families, in the end, will keep the community stable and are the basis upon which our country has been built and will survive.
And so I think rather than allowing the panderers to fear and division to use this as a wedge issue in this election, I think, and I believe the American people will rise to a level of saying, “Wait a minute, it’s no skin off my back in terms of the law if somebody marries the person they love and that person is of the same gender.” I think the religious issue is different, of course, than the issue before the government.
And civil unions falls short. It’s not the same thing. It doesn’t give the same rights. We ought to allow people of the same sex to legitimate their relationships.

SHARPTON: I think it’s a human rights issue.
When I’m asked, “Do I support a gay marriage?” Do I support Greek marriages? Do I support Latino marriages? Do I support black marriages?”
Are we prepared to say that gays and lesbians are less than human? If we’re not prepared to say that, then how do we say that they should not have the same human rights and human choices of anyone else?
Even if you have a disagreement with it in terms of your own personal life, you cannot limit the humanity of others unless you’re prepared to say they are less than human.
And not only were people of different races one time-at one point in this country were people of different races may be illegal if they married, people of the same race, when we were slaves, couldn’t marry.
I would not support any limitations on human and civil rights for anyone in the country. Whatever my view is, I think my view I have the right to personally. I do not have the right to impose that on others.

Or Brandon Teena, the young transsexual woman played by Hilary Swank in the movie "Boys Don't Cry", who was brutally raped and murdered by a gang of male "friends."

"It is an outrage to align something so offensive as this with the struggle of a fallen man, a great man such as Martin Luther King," said Massie, who writes for WorldNetDaily.com.

I'm sure Clarence Thomas would be proud

WTF kind of twisted bullshit is this. I don't recall making a choice on being straight. What makes this nincompoop think that he has any understanding on the human condition when he obviously does not even have a grasp on the most basic. And this idiot is a Rev.? He is supposed to help people.

All i can say is WOW!!! God help us from his followers.

Homosexuals haven't been killed, denied property rights, and declared inhuman?

on all of the above.

I was questioning one of the claims made in the article.

But the Rev. Talbert Swan II said the two struggles are not similar because blacks were lynched, denied property rights and declared inhuman.

gays have killed, fired, denied apartments, declared perverts, etc by the phobes--the two struggles are nothing alike

dumbass

It's important that gays receive equal treatment but to throw blacks into the comparison is outrageous.

what in the hell are you talking about?

the choice to be gay?

let me tell you something, I don't remember sitting down and deciding that I was gonna be gay.

did you sit down and decide to be straight

As the article states: "Carol Moseley Braun and the Rev. Al Sharpton declared support for gay marriage. Both compared it to past discrimination against blacks." Are you calling these highly respected Black leaders outrageous?

And what about Coretta Scott King? She also "threw blacks into the comparison."
See http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/825/825_king.asp

I chose to be denied an apartment because Paul and I are gay. (And to sit with the housing commission in court to have these people outed as the homophobes they are.)

I chose to not have a family because of the way my children would be treated in school to find out they have 2 dads.

I chose to have heartache with my family when they found out I was gay and a father who (although eventually came to terms) didn't want to speak with me because of who I am.

Would I change now if I had a 'choice'? No. Why? Because I have love and I have a supportive family.

Ask many gay teens if they would choose to change and you'd have a line of them around the block because of how they are treated.

For ANYONE, especially a liberal, to say that homosexuality is a 'choice' is just as bad as being racist.

Obviously, you consider it a choice.

Therefore, you are, potentially, homosexual.

"Even BLACKS are overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage", just like the time they said "even BLACKS think it's okay to profile Arabs".

I can count this as one of those times I'm partially ashamed to be black.

Even blacks can support bigotry and intolerence when it's not directed at them.

It is more important to realize that this is a question of civil rights for everyone. It would be a fair argument that some people choose to conduct their lives in such a manner that it leads to disability in themselves or their children. Should they be denied the right to marry and live happily because they "chose" to be disabled, or through their choices, produced disabled offspring?(This is assuming that you believe the idea that homosexuality is a choice.)
What about people who "chose" to be poor? Obviously, those who do not have as much as someone else chose not to work hard enough to get it. Shouldn't they be denied the right to marry or have benefits with their partners because they "chose" the impoverished lifestyle?
The whole idea that people choose homosexuality is silly to me, but even if they did, why should that prevent them from being treated like everybody else in this one area of life?

As a black man myself, I am insulted by anyone who compares gay marriage to interracial marriage. If you cannot see the difference, you must be a racist!

End of story!

because I don't see any difference

getting legally married to the person you love--no matter what color and/or sex?

don't see it

But consider this:

"My husband, Martin Luther King Jr., once said, 'We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny…an inescapable network of mutuality.… I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be.' Therefore, I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."
- Coretta Scott King

I'm curious to know, are you really suggesting you would have preferred--for reasons of politically expediency--that JFK and LBJ "lay low" and ignore the demands of the civil rights movements in the 60s?

And did you read the article?

<snip> Not everyone objects to the comparison, however. In Wednesday's Democratic presidential debate, black candidates Carol Moseley Braun and the Rev. Al Sharpton declared support for gay marriage. Both compared it to past discrimination against blacks.

The Rev. William Sinkford, a black man who is president of the Unitarian Universalist Association, said the struggle for gay civil rights is this generation's great challenge, just as equality for blacks was the last generation's.

"I think there's very little to be gained by trying to create a hierarchy of oppression," Sinkford said.

Emory College professor David Garrow said the legal histories of the two movements have abundant parallels, including the arguments that marriage between the races and same sexes is unnatural and against God's law. Homosexuals have also seen similar bias in the workplace when they've made their sexual orientation known, he said. </snip>

just curious because she has come out in favor of gay marriage

I think that I would listen to her before I would listen to a lot of these self-appoint African-American leaders

Check the links, and call the speaker a racist.

Speaking before nearly 600 people at the Palmer House Hilton Hotel,
Coretta Scott King, the wife of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Tuesday called on the civil rights community to join in the struggle against homophobia and anti-gay bias. "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood," King stated. "This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group." - Chicago Defender, April 1, 1998, front page

End of story?? Really??

:)

Case closed.

Click Here To Find NO MICHAEL JACKSON Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

Exactly HOW does this insult you? What part of my equality interferes with YOUR quality of life?

You're insulted are you?

Your words sound to me like something that a homophobic bigot would say. Perhaps you didn't think it through carefully enough.

I'd be interested in reading your response to my questions above.

-- Allen

Well, I guess I must be a racist, care to explain what the difference is?

it's a wrong comparison, and if they want to purport that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle, they had better be able to back that up with expert testimony. that particular comment is opinion. being a nudist is a chosen lifestyle (without much scientific argument to the contrary)... and just because it offends most people, should nudists not be allowed to marry? after all, standing around nude offends a majority of the population even though secretly nudists would like to be nude all the time... and in a parallel fashion, many gays would like to feel free to express their lifestyle more openly but feel pressured to hide it. why should we allow nudists to marry? if they breed, God forbid, they may have more nudist offspring... at least gays don't breed. on the contrary, they adopt, which is a social positive. but of course, this concept is offensive to a lot of people too... but keep in mind, a gay person can adopt whether or not that person is married and whether or not they have revealed to anyone that they are gay. so the idea of the threat married homosexuals adopting and "corrupting" children is rended rather moot... they can do it without marriage. the idea of protecting married homosexuals IS ONLY OFFENSIVE TO THE RIGHT WING FUNDAMENTALLY FOR ONE REASON. BECAUSE IT PUTS FURTHER SOCIAL BURDEN ON BIG BUSINESS. THAT'S IT. it's a hidden rationale, but that's the key reason why they've adopted the stance. that, and it gets them votes from the far-right religious wackos.

i'm all for open discussion of the intensely divisive issue of homosexual marriage, and i'm all for comparisons that make sensible arguments, but there is scientific evidence available and any discussions had better include it. the current administration has fueled an endless number of emotion-based and opinion-based arguments about things that really belong in the realm of science. they are the new galileo-era catholic church.

as far as dragging comparisons to color into it, why not compare them to native americans, who have certainly suffered too much and might be more difficult to profile at a glance. it's just as much nonsense.

stick to the subject at hand, and trust science to tell the truth about the nature of such things. freakin' wingers... all-knowing, all-seeing, all-full-of-shit. "we don't need no stinking science. we KNOW." freaking meddling idiots.

Jesus H. Christ. You're like a bunch of goddamn children, arguing about who's the bigger victim. For God's sake, cut the crap. Prejudice is prejudice and hate is hate and, yes, a lot of people like to work the semantics of this thing dead into the ground, arguing over whether you're hated for "who" you are or "what" you are or whatever. If you're seriously stupid enough to believe whether it matters that you've been *more* or *less* oppressed than some other group, then you're a sorry excuse for a human being. This whole thread is full of disingenuous bullshit propogated by a handful of arrogant wankers who have a twisted attachment to (and pride in) suffering. Guess what? Suffering SUCKS. It sucks no matter who you are. If you want to sit here and debate the varying degrees of suckage, then you're a petty jerk. Start treating people like human beings instead of statistics from your favorite group. If you jackasses would like to continue on with this ridiculous one-upmanship nonsense, then I've got a couple of hundred million starving, raped, and murdered Africans and Asians that I'd like to introduce you to.

No wonder the Republicans are taking over this country. What a load of crap.

-y

but I agree in spirit with what you say.

This is the most ridiculous argument - who is the biggest victim of our society? The good Reverend in this article is a bigot. I'm sure he doesn't speak for many black people in America.

It was Carol's brightest moment in the campaign,

1) It's not "chosen"
2) It's not a "lifestyle"

instead, it's

a) innate
b) the core of my very being

than gays, to deny that is silly.

being disowned by their families because they're black.

*swish*

In some respects yes, but in some respects no. To claim that no one can suffer as much as blacks is absurd. Hate is hate, murder is murder, you should be on the side of justice, not on the side of suffering.