I support gay marriage, I'm offended by Warren at the Inaugural BUT these comparisons to RACE are BS

And quite FRANKLY OFFENSIVE.

Before I get into it I will also state my passionate support for LGBT rights, repeat that I support gay marriage and am offended by Rick Warren participating in the inauguration.

I understand why folks feel the need to draw moral equivalencies but realistically they are unnecessary and do a disservice to the struggles of any identity group. Who has it worse? Blacks? Gays? Women? Jews? Hispanics? Asians? Middle Easterners? People with disabilities? Do you really want to be the judge of that? The only thing we have in common is that we are dealing with bigotry and need our civil rights protected BUT THE STRUGGLES ARE DIFFERENT.

Can we learn from each others experiences? ABSOLUTELY!

The LGBT experience as it relates to discrimination and civil rights is completely different to the Black experience when it comes to the same issues. More importantly I don't need to think its the same to know that bigotry and discrimination against ANYONE is wrong.

When you consider the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow as well as issues like crime, education, racial profiling, the criminal justice system, jobs, economic redlining, home ownership, economic development, etc. would you say that Black struggles and the LGBT struggles are the same? And lots not forget the African Americans who also happen to be part of the LGBT community. I would assume that within the LGBT community their are different struggles based on gender, race, religion and gender identity.

During the primary we used to go back and forth about what is worse: racism or sexism. Again they are both bad and the issues are different. The struggles of racism and sexism do not need to be compared because they are different. Who has it worse a Black man or a white woman?

When talking discrimination and bigotry we often find ourselves establishing a hierarchy of suffering when in reality its all about and should not be tolerated.

Typo in headline...

LOL thanks for catching it.

Titter ye not at the afflicted.

The struggles are all different. There is no apples to apples comparison.

But they're all the same in some ways also.

One thing I have learned is that when a LGBT person tells me that something is offensive, to take his/her word for it and adjust my delivery because even though I may not "get it," that doesn't mean that the grievance expressed isn't real. People have different experiences based on their life experiences. I can never know exactly what a gay person goes through (except by what friends and associates tell me); and a white person can never fully comprehend what it is like to be black. And of course, many people have no idea what it's like to be both gay and black.

Meanwhile, so many blacks have said that while the gay rights movement and civil rights movement are alike in many ways, the comparison fails at many levels. It is not a view made out of spite or hate--or a view held to diminish the struggle of gays in this country, it's just an opinion that many of us hold.

These past few days, I've seen phrases that come across as full blown mockery. House gay? Seriously? Gay Uncle Tom? It might seem funny to say things like that but it just serves to divide us even more. I think there are some apt comparisons though--like the interracial marriage example. Not a perfect comparison but it's an example of something many Americans don't do, but yet still feel should be legal.

I think you're describing a stalemate on offensiveness.

If you tell someone something is offensive and it's something they have no investment in, they're more likely to accommodate.

But what you've got is one group saying the struggles are analogous, and another saying they're not, and both sides offended with each other. Each has a claim to feeling offended, so you've got a stalemate.

It's something that could be discussed very tenderly by people willing to put their own perspective on a back shelf for the purpose of discussion. But I can't see that happening in a public forum like this.

neck to know someone else had it 'harder'. When everyone isn't free, no one is. Yes, they are comparable because they all thwarted the lives, dreams and aspirations of people. The same consequences to blacks during Jim Crow applied to gays- fired, violence, not getting a chance for a job- and people died for shit that doesn't matter. I hate all discrimination. God help us all. IMHO of course.

I used it once because I felt it was an apt description and I couldn't think of a better, more succinct phrase to use. If it works to diminish the black struggle, then I am sorry about that and will be more cognizant of this in the future. I do think that complaining about it is being overly sensitive and inflammatory.

Doesn't that go both ways? You accuse Black folks offended by the use of "Gay Uncle Tom" as being overly sensitive, are there any issues in which the LGBT community is overly sensitive?

where he said "I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman" to rousing applause, I was willing to overlook this as his way of citing his own personal belief in order to appeal to evangelicals. Others were more sensitive to it, but I always tried to defend Obama's reason for doing this. Now that he has chosen Warren for a position of honor, it has crossed the line for me.

Warren is being called the "Pastor for America". If Obama is thinking about uniting America under the Christian leadership of an oppressive Evangelical, then I will fight this every step of the way. Any gay person who goes along with this I view as being willing to live under threat of oppression. Certainly not the same type of oppression as black slavery, but there are valuable parallels.

Both have a longstanding history of oppression, both are having to fight many of the same oppressors in this country. Are there differences, certainly. But I do think that the parellell between the two is strong and are valid in comparison with each other.

Who is more likely to own a home? A gay couple or a Black couple?

. . .and we should fight it, BUT we should acknowledge that one type of discrimination is not like the other.

You get that, right?

. . .right to a quality education regardless of race or gender, right to get married regardless of sexual orientation, etc.

I am strongly on "your side" when it comes to the discussion racial profiling, education in the inner cities, and the issues of racial minorities. However, I am also strongly of the belief that human rights need to include our LGBT brothers and sisters as well. They are NOT a protected class and are excluded from over 1300 federal benefits that most of us are not. We should fight for them all.

Be honest.

against. This isn't about which is worse, homophobic bigotry or racial bigotry, they are both bad. But human rights and civil right are rights, and gays don't get them all, whereas African Americans do.

The civil rights struggle of gays IS comparable to the civil rights struggle of blacks. Period.

. . .here I am trying to bring folks together by showing that NO ONE group has it worse than others but you want to use this thread in your effort to divide us more.

Here I am saying that I don't need to think that LGBT struggles are the same as African American struggles to understand that the LGBT community is entitled to their their GOD GIVEN civil rights but that is not good enough.

divided anyone.

I've never given into the hierarchy of who's struggle has been worse. Never. I've always said they're each unique, and you can poinnt to ways in which any can be described as worse.

from discrimination? A straight black man or a gay white male?

because s/he is black, or hispanic - in theory it is against the law, but it is still common place. It shouldn't be a one is worse than the other - it should ALL be an outrage!

Let's work with the shared outrage!

Drive by comment much?

Where you implied it's more likely for a gay white male to be unemployed than for a straight black male to be unemployed.

Since it's legal to fire someone because they're gay, but not if they're black, it's likely that the gay white male would have a tougher time being employed.

Every day someone does not get a job because she is a woman. It is never stated that is the reason, just like it is never state that race is the reason, but both happen every day.

I think, though that it is probably also true that men may be excluded if they appear to be too "effeminate", because then - surely they are gay!

"Who has it worse? Blacks? Gays? Women? Jews? Hispanics? Asians? Middle Easterners? People with disabilities? Do you really want to be the judge of that?"

And I do agree that economic justice is important. No question.

But it's a myth to say that all gay white men are flush with cash or have fabby jobs. I've known many gay men who are working class, some who are barely making it like everyone else in this economy. And for a very butch woman or a very effeminate man there's most definitely discrimination in the workplace and lack of upward mobility. And we can be fired in many states from our jobs simply for being gay.

get a job than it would be for a straight black male.

Many times rejected by their community as well.

A straight black person or a gay person of any color?

Who is more likely to have their parental rights taken away from them?

A straight black person or a gay person of any color?

Who is more likely to commit suicide as a teenager?

A straight black person or a person of any color who is questioning their gender identity?

Who is condemned by many churches?

A straight black person or gay person of any color?

Who can get married and gain all the benefits, financial and social, that accrue to a married couple?

A straight black person or a gay person of any color?

Who pays taxes on their partner's health care benefits?

A straight black person or a gay person of any color?

Who has universal legal "hate crime" protection and who is out of luck in many places in the U.S.?

A straight black person or a gay person of any color?

Who has universal legal nondiscrimination protection and who is out of luck in many places in the U.S.?

A straight black person or a gay person of any color?

Who is subject to public insults ("that's so gay") that are deemed acceptable by a large part of society while racial remarks are condemned by most of society?

A straight black person or a gay person of any color?

The bottom line is, it is considered socially, morally and politically offensive to express animosity towards straight black people. That's not the case for the GLBT community in many parts of our society today.

case closed.

Recently in Brooklyn, two brothers were attacked and one died, all because the attackers PRESUMED they were gay. So the danger is twofold, in a sense.

Some gays are closeted and pass as straight. That's a whole other hell to go through.

It just contributes to isolation and fear, which fuels the other problems.

What are you trying to ask people with that question? Are you playing the "we had/have it worse than you had/have?

I didn't see the OP as anything but explicatory. The OP wasn't saying the GLBT experience is not as bad or not as worthy.

. . .the reaction to the OP is puzzling.

but comparing it to Civil Rights (in caps) for blacks is BS.

Who's playing the "we've had it worse than you" card here?

...and somewhat more noble. What a shallow thought. Did you read past the OP to this gem?

>>12. Who is more likely to be unemployed? a straight Black man or a gay white male?

Who is more likely to own a home? A gay couple or a Black couple?<<

To boil gay existence down to economics is, in the OP's words, offensive and bullshit. Each group has faced struggles that have tried the soul. The OP and the follow-up trivialize the pain and struggle of a solid base of Democratic supporters.

All are to smile and be happy, or to the hole with you.

Them's the rules. Must. be. unified.

No. anger. ever.

Take the offense outside.

they were pretty similar.

Aren't there governmental benefits for married people as opposed to individuals? If so, and I think there are a lot, it's a no-brainer.........not allowing any two individuals of legal age to marry because of sex is sexual discrimination, pure and simple.

but worse in that way.

Having your rights protected by law is an advantage not everyone has.

There are other advantages, and other burdens, that every group faces.

That's one reason why the game of who has it worse is a waste. Every group can point to some advantage some other group has over their own.

in some cases. For example, do people get stopped for "driving while gay" the way black people do for "driving while black"? Are they followed in stores or denied jobs or apartments offered over the phone? (I realize gay couples may be denied just like interracial or black couples.) These are just a few examples of things that happened to my brother in law. He has RIGHTS to NOT have these things done to him but they are done anyway. And I won't even get into my OWN experiences as a disabled person. My only point being "protected rights" doesn't necessarily mean "equality."

Do black kids get kicked out of their homes because they're black? Do Jewish kids comprise 40% of homeless teens? Are Latino husband prohibited from their wives in the hospital?

Like I keep saying, each struggle is unique, but all are analogous.

With regard to your specifics, protected rights may not mean equality, but they're a fallback that can be used, and I'd rather have them than not have them.

Black Americans of any sexual orientation have had it like very few groups in the Western World.

. . .I should just shut up and be happy.

up by claiming who has it worse, along with a few others.

. . .you read it as I say one group has it worse just because I point out what some folks have to deal with.

:kick:

And I don't know of any posts here saying LGBT people's struggles have been worse than others.

I know they're all different. And I resist the hierarchy of who had it worse.

I also know you've so far agreed with one poster here who DOES describe a hierarchy.

. . .I support LGBT rights without equivocation, but I guess that is not good enough.

:hi:

The equivalence there is fairly precise and constrained. Anyone opposed to same sex marriage has to explain why that decision does not apply and why their explanation is not flush with bigotry.

so similar.

In most cases you can just change out the descriptor.

I think Loving does have plenty of comparisons but considering plenty of black people aren't exactly pro-interracial marriage who is it going to sway? I honestly think you don't need to make comparisons, just make the argument that they shouldn't be afraid of something that doesn't affect their life whatsoever.

First of all you need to provide a link for that claim before I am going to accept it. Secondly, not being 'pro-interracial marriage' does not for one minute mean that black people, even those who would prefer that black men only marry black women would like to see Loving v Virginia overturned and miscegenation laws put back on the books. You can prefer that men only marry women all you want, I have no problem with your preferences. I have a huge problem with laws that give that preference legal status.

of those who disapprove of interracial marriage.

"may marriage" instead of "gay marriage".

You make some good points. The black experience and the gay experience are both filled with trauma, but they are different experiences.

:kick:

Unless you were married in May, and if that is the case, I completely understand.

On a boat, between two bodies of land, let the captain do it around sunset.

Awesome!

and then go on to compare the two in much the same way many others here have.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

I'm trying to say that when we try to compare the struggles of African Americans, just like the struggles of LGBT folks, struggles of Jews, struggles of Hispanics, etc. to struggles of other groups we do them a disservice.

When talking discrimination and bigotry we often find ourselves establishing a hierarchy of suffering when in reality its all about and should not be tolerated."

You have succeeded in doing exactly what you say should not be tolerated.

For instance, the victims of natural disasters - Hurricane Andrew vs Hurricane Ivan - Ivan victims compared to Katrina, Katrina to Rita, Katrina to Ike.

As a Katrina survivor, I didn't want the Ivan survivors, who were still dealing with their struggles, to detract from the MS Gulf Coast struggles. Hell, we had the NOLA vs. rest of the Gulf Coast Katrina struggles, NOLA was getting all the media coverage and to many, it is the only area impacted by Katrina.

We were all victims of natural disasters, we all have/had basically the same needs and very similar experiences - for all we shared, we didn't like being compared - hell, even to have Ivan talked about when talking about Katrina caused us problems and great concern.

We hurricane survivors didn't want to be overshadowed, we didn't want the focus taken off of our particular suffering.

So it would appear that it is human nature to not want the subject changed when that subject involves what we are dealing with - with the suffering and struggles we are individually facing. We don't want to be overshadowed and forgotten.

Historically and legally, the struggle for blacks is different in the US and that cannot be denied because of one very basic legal distinction - the US Constitution.

The document we all rely on to say that equality should be afforded to all, did not provide for equality for slaves, it sanctioned slavery and established slaves as less than whites.

When Obama was asked if he supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Obama said he did not "because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution." He said that knowing that the Constitution did condone and sanction slavery in our new nation.

Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808.

Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

Because of those provisions, slaves were not afforded the rights we all perceive to be guaranteed to us - they were not equal - hell, for population purposes (relative to representation in congress) they were only considered 3/5ths of a person.

That is why the 13th and 14th amendments were necessary.

Yes, discrimination is wrong, whether it be based on race, ethnic origin, age, sex, etc. And the hierachy of suffering is as human as it can be divisive.

The hierachy of suffering does exist because we are humans and because we don't want to be overshadowed. Because of the legislative history of our nation - the laws allowed for discrimination. Our laws not only recognized and provided protection for the practice of slavery, but they also reflected the views of the society norms. Women were less than men and had no rights, were not allowed to serve on juries or vote in elections, they were merely chattle and couldn't even own property. As our society evolved, as the individual needs emerged, so too have our laws but not without struggles. It is human nature to resist change.

What we all seem to forget is that the GLBT community is comprised of a variety of people all of whom have faced the struggles of discrimination because of their race and gender. They know that discrimination and, sadly, in addition, they are not lawfully allowed to love and marry and commit to the person of their choosing - they are denied their right to pursue happiness.

Unlike the struggles of blacks and women, they are not struggling to have Constitutional Amendments passed to recognize their rights, they are struggling to prevent the passage of Constitutional Amendments which deny them their rights, which separate them from their rights.

They have the rights, those rights need to be legally acknowledged - they, the GLBT community, need to be recognized as a people that is being discriminated against and they need the government, whether by legal decision or legislation, to declare them as a group that is entitled to equal protection under the law.

So the heirachy of suffering is real as it is human nature to not want to be forgotten or overshadowed. And, as much as the struggles are the same, they are different. The first step to ending discrimination is to recognize the struggles and differences. Because we are human and full of flaws and fearful of change we will always know these struggles.

Recognizing the differences does not make one struggle more important than the other - they are of equal import. However, recognizing the differences does help in understanding the struggles and in fighting to end them. The important thing is to never give up, to keep fighting for what it right and fair. I, for one, will continue to fight so that others can know the freedom and enjoy the rights as I do.

Discrimination is wrong, all forms of it. That is something we all agree on.

"What we all seem to forget is that the GLBT community is comprised of a variety of people all of whom have faced the struggles of discrimination because of their race and gender."

It does seem to be a forgotten aspect of these discussions and needs to be addressed. I'm glad you brought it up and hope everyone read your post which, frankly, deserves to stand alone.

They struggle together to battle the disease - they unite in their struggles and their suffering.

And discrimination is a cancer of our society.

I am glad my post made sense, I'm often fearful that my posts only make sense to me. thank you for your kind words and understanding.

Thank you, for a very apt analogy.

analogies, metaphors and other forms of comparison can be both totally legitimate and highly effective.

However, trying to decide who's had it worse is divisive to no productive purpose and unlikely to change minds. Further, it benefits only WASP males who prefer oppression to equal rights. That is not a group I wish to aid and abet. Let's just all work for equal rights for everyone always.

Finally, I keep trying to understand why so many posters here try to control the posts of others by starting threads telling poeple what to post or to stop posting. I have been posting for five years on mixed boards (meaning Pub and Dem on one board.) I and have not seen that on any other board.

I have been trying to understand it, but I can't. Nor can I understand why it happens so much on a Democratic board when Democrats are supposed to be more pro free speech than anyone else.

Something in the water here perhaps?

But I think when you look in total, there is no apples to apples comparison to be made.

The only fair conclusion I think can be made is that everyone deserves the same rights.

And that was the point of the OP.

I *AGREE* with your sentiment about that.

I *AGREE* that every struggle is different.

My read from your posts - and I will be happy to be wrong - is that though you say there shouldn't be a hierarchy you seem to also be establishing one.

. . .I'm not supposed to think you are trying to antagonize me.

I pointed out issues that African Americans face to show that for many of us they are just as important as gay marriage.

I can do about it.

GLBT issues are not limited to marriage, and I don't know why so many here suggest that is the case.

For someone who claims to agree with the very point I'm making, you certainly seem angry.

I wrote "Before I get into it I will also state my passionate support for LGBT rights" just because I didn't mention the other specific issues doesn't mean I was limiting the discussion to marriage.

struggles can be compared in the spirit that they are all struggles for equality, is that suitable to your thinking?

apples and oranges are most close to round, both fruits, both contain calories and natural sugars, etc. But, saying who had it worst in the past is divisive and rarely, if ever, changes minds. Bsides, what is the point? Does it make one group any freer if its members prove to be the biggest victims of them all?

Comparisons are useless if the things being compared are identical. The very purpose of, say, an analogy is to use similar qualities as a springboard to draw conclusions about other qualities.

That is the whole point. Why the hell would we need to draw comparisons between identical things?

most part, I would say that I walked away with the sense that the OP was using tortured logic.

There are some similarities, but the two struggles are inherently more different than they are the same, thus I believe analogies comparing the two usually fall flat for me.

. . .for the struggles of others.

I don't know of these claims.

. . .to justify you reasons for having an issue with this thread and ignoring or misrepresenting my intent.

I don't understand how comparing struggles shows a "lac of appreciation" for the struggles of others.

When one says we have similar struggles, that doesn't make either struggle lesser, as far as I can see.

people who have marched and voted and did every thing they could too help
the black folks get as far as they have, many of those people have been
LGBT.

and I agree that the issues are individual and highly nuanced. Where is the link to the posts you speak of? I've made no such postings. I've read none. I guess you have.
Tell me this. These moral equivalencies that bother you so, do they bother you more or less than the moral equivalencies that Warren draws between pedophilies and gay people? That one seems to have the spotlight of the media, and you don't seem to be bothered by that one at all. Just by folks on a website who think that discrimination against any group has much in common with discrimination against all other groups. Folks you can not quote, only characterize in general vauge terms in which your words are used as if they were their words. If someone has a point, and you can refute it, do so. But this thing of making up a version of what you inferred from the words of othes as if that is the same as the words themselves, well, that is what it is. It is not a quote. It is an opinion, your opinion.

Your priorities seem out of whack. Wanting to establish a top dog of discrimination is tawdry. All discrimination is wrong. All humans should have equal rights. Who suffered the most? I'll tell you who.

Our ancestors.

. . .Did I say one was worse than the other? Or did you read some of my examples of what African Americans deal with and just assume that I was saying one was worse than the other.

To your point that "do they bother you more or less than the moral equivalencies that Warren draws between pedophilies and gay people" I must say that Warren MAKES ME FUCKING ILL. So again, I don't know what you are trying to imply.

How are my priorities out of whack? I'm just saying that when we try to compare discrimination and bigotry we do ourselves no favors. We should just acknowledge that everyone is entitled to their civil rights.

because no one here is saying what you claim is being said, at least not me, and yet Warren is saying what he is saying. You are retelling in your own words something you say you read, and then asking people to comment on that. I am commenting on your comment. Not on the subject matter. I just wonder who you are addressing. Who is saying what you claim is said? What are the exact words they use? What you infer is not necessarily what they said. That is why quotes are needed for such posts as yours. An abstract group of 'posters' said something that you interperate, then ask us what we think. I think you are not making your case in the sort of way such a case demands, which is with repsect and intellectual honesty. Quote for quote.
It is easy to rewrite what others say, then hold it up for ridicule. Harder to answer specific words and specific thoughs.
This is a vital and valuable subject. It should be approached with honesty, clarity and without characterizations or paraphrasing. It is too important to play word games with or about. Both civil rights struggles, and the common struggle they comprise with others, are worthy of utterly open faced discussion, free from agenda making and hyperbole, devoid of editorial gamemanship.
I think if you are going to bring up such issues, it must be done with love and with honesty, and to use one group against another to try to prove some point is a diservice and disrespect to all involved. And never should these issues be used to make a personal score or some wild over reaching point about a faceless 'them' or 'they'.
Does that make sense to you?

I'm sure there's a joke somewhere in there, but right now, I'm not finding it very funny.

will win over others to their point of view. Go figure.

I agree with your OP. K&R!

. . .not a lot of folks agree with me on this.

but feel it is buried in some poorly chosen tactics. I'd say that each specific story of oppression and liberation is unique, and the differences and similarities serve to teach us in more profound detail why such oppression is always wrong.
Such issues as these are not unique to America, and it is not always a story told by the groups as they exist here. So, it is possible to understand the underlying principles outside of the specific groups and histories you speak of. That can be elucidating.
I try never to speak about anyone as if another's words are theirs. And if I have an issue with words, I will be quoting those words, if the issue is important, not paraphrasing and speaking in general terms about 'some' or 'many' or whatever.
Hard issues take hard work. No place for lazy ways. As Polonius says in Hamlet, 'comparisons are odorous'. And worthless. But common ground is the theme of teh day. And while there is no comparison one to the other, there is great common ground, and that is what we should try to find.

As that is against the rules and I would hope such filth is summarily banned as well.

Cite the posts. Then we can all alert on them together.

to illustrate why separate but equal is not equal, for those who seem to have "sincere questions" about why gays can't have the same rights, but just call them something different.

I haven't tried to say one history is better or worse than another, I haven't compared them in that way.

But I do see folks here who believe they have good points to make about why gays can have a "separate" sort of marriage that appeases bigots by not really being a marriage. That way both sides can "compromise."

The reasoning of why separate but equal is not equal is in them, but they can't seem to apply it to this situation because discrimination against gay marriage is so socially acceptable. Other types of discrimination have become (rightfully) demonized to the point where we have a strong gut understanding of how wrong it is. I'd like to see discrimination against gays demonized to the same point, and I do see an advantage of forcing them to make those associations. In other words, it's not comparing the struggles of blacks against the struggles of gays against the struggles of women against the struggles of any other group, so much as it's comparing the mindset of bigots against the mindset of other bigots so they can check themselves if they are following the same thought patterns. (Pattern recognition)

One of the ways to get people to apply existing knowledge to new situations is to tap into what they already know and understand.

Your OP is dangerously devoid of understanding.

Yup.

criticize Dear Leader. they are pulling out all stops now, the gloves are OFF. get those NUCLEAR GAYS!11

I see you are as successful as I am at staying away from DU this A.M. :P

. . .if you look at the threads I have started over the past few days you will see I was highly critical of him.

So your assessment of my motivation is pure and simple BULLSHIT.

:thumbsup:

They are all the same, and can never be any less or any more than each other, because they are One. Dr. King understood that.

:thumbsup:

The same?

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

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

Tsk tsk -- you are the one who doesn't know their history. And, your resulting to personal attacks shows it. What a big boy you are.

For starters: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/world/americas/24jamaica.html
http://www.thegully.com/essays/gaymundo/031103_lgbt_jamaica_bashin.html
And this is what is happening NOW. Still.

Or you can take a look at how they deal with gays in the arab world. I sure as heck wouldn't like to be crushed by a stone wall. Or heck, go look up what the pink triangle means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual


The deep red spots is where being gay carries the death penalty.

And this is why playing the 'who is more oppressed' game goes no where and is stupid. You pull something out, and then I'll pull something out. It's a never ending cycle that detracts from the actual argument that is trying to be made.

I am ashamed I was dragged down to this level but disgusted you would say that the gay civil rights struggle is inferior.

as I support you and your community, so please take my response from that spirit.

Not to minimize the horrific (and preventable) crimes and deep losses represented by the beautiful faces you post, only the last picture is comparable in one major sense. The public nature of the murder - indicating widespread support (and in some of the lynching photos - even a sense of public celebration) is very different. Thankfully lynchings of African Americans are no longer a part of our contemporary history, and thankfully public lynchings of members of the GLBT community are not - to my knowledge - a part of our contemporary history.

What I read is great pain (and anger/frustration/exacerbation) at the minimizing of the horrendous oppression experienced. And sadly I read it from members of both communities posting on this thread.

It is as if each valid point made from either perspective can be read (and is being read) as a "ya, but... there you go minimalizing/marginalizing us..." and perpetuates the talking past each other due to sensing that one has just, again, had a needle stuck into the skin from the other one.

I love you and your community, just as I love WindyCity, Hamdenrice and their community. I see the pain and am outraged by our society that has developed in a way that severly oppresses others. Freedom. Isn't that what we are supposed to be about as a society? The bigots keep control and dispicable folks like Warren keep giving a pretty face and cover to the bigotry that perpetuates the policies, laws and social behaviors that rob citizens of some of the most basic civil and human rights. Sorry, I diverge. I pray that some steps forward are being made - but I am grossly aware of all of the steps backwards that also keep being made (societally and politically speaking). :cry:

Got it.

I am always able to recognize my own ignorance. I find the history of lynchings and the public joy exceptionally disturbing and always have as it points out an extremely disturbing lack of humanity and evilness that exists in people and can be brought out and amplified in public. If there is also a history of this against GLBT, my heart cries there as well, for the exact same reasons.

Please do not judge me for that which I have not yet been exposed to - but instead on how I might respond to such information when I receive it.

Peace.

the post with the homophobic and transphobic violence was deleted because it included a clear personal attack against a poster in the subject line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coretta_Scott_King#LGBT_equality

"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."

Or how about this?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Jamastiene/74

Now of course the distinct struggles themselves ARE different in what each minority group goes through - some instances will be more applicable than others in comparisons. But the grander point is equality for all.

Thanks for posting that.

I mean, like, she wasn't on DU or anything.

:sarcasm:

As a Black person who is staunchly for same-sex marriage and gay rights, I had been burned by the nastiness that erupted after the Prop. 8 vote. I was extremely offended and aghast at what has been said about Black people, even when a lot of Black DU-ers came out in support of the GLBTQ community and told them personally that we did not support such drivel being proposed and put up for a vote. And what did we get for our trouble?

We got ignored and called names. We got our support thrown back into our faces.

As a result, I steered clear of the entire Warren issue on DU because I was afraid of what might come out of it. And judging from what I read of the threads, the worst has happened in terms of the ugliness.

(For the record, I am against the Warren invite. Warren is an ignorant fool and a carnival barker.)

I understand the notion that people are operating out of a sense of anger. But, shouting down people and forcing them to take a side is not how anger is used productively. Furthermore in this vein, I hated the mob mentality, the self-congratulatory posts and the often negativity that took the place of rational, passionate discussion.

What I found of great worth was reading the back story about Warren and why he should have never been picked. That aspect, was rightfully and highly productive. That was much better than the "oppression olympics" that keeps on going thread after thread. What especially bothered me is the continuous comparisons to the civil rights struggles of Black Americans and the mocking tone of how "we should understand" the struggle of others as if we are expected to.

Are white people, GLBTQ or straight, expected to "understand" anything?

In fact, the tone in the last few days has been of the "oppressed" turning into the "oppressors". That aspect alone saddened me--especially when it clouded over some threads calling for discussion and reason.

That is why in light of saying that civil rights must be continually fought until all people do not suffer under the yoke of oppression, that we must stop the relativism of the struggles of disenfranchised groups. Our struggles took place in different aspects of history and society. Therefore, when describing them, they must stand apart so that we can learn how they started and what to make of them so that there is more fruitful work in conquering such disenfranchisement and disparity in the future. Furthermore, they should be dissected and studied so we can understand why we must fight for each other. Each of our struggles are unique. In that light, they must stand on their own and get the appropriate respect.

Sorry for such a long response. But in short, I appreciate you bringing up this topic.

First off, I speak not merely as a supporter of LGBTQ but as someone in that "category" myself. Again, I agree w/the OP's support of these rights.

But scanning all the responses, there is enormous denialism on the part of many LGBTQers here, and it is this:

The issue of African Americans and gay rights, and of race & gay rights issues is a delicate one, with many different nuances and of course oversensitivies in various different quarters that are at issue. When advocates of LGBT rights, for example, as is commonly done, say that "Gay Rights are THE Civil Rights Issue of Our Time", this false statement and various other statements of the kind of sentiment of this oft-repeated falsehood spark unnecessary resentment and opposition. When organizing to win various rights, it behooves us to recognize another parrallel to the Civil Rights movement of the 60s: the leadership and movement were, certainly up through the passage of the key legislation of 64-5, overwhelmingly careful about joining forces as broadly as possible, and not treading on the sensibilities of white supporters and potential supporters of Civil Rights. Whites may of course, not realize this, but it is there in the history, and it is key. Indeed, it was SO central, that it was a major force in engendering a backlash, including within the Civil Rights movement, particularly starting in the mid-60s.

It is a falsehood to suggest that "gay rights" (LGBTQ rights) are THE civil rights issue of our era. They are A MAJOR issue, one of the foremost in our era, but are NOT the only or the single foremost issue. To suggest that it does, while for example, police killings and profiling still cast a pall over America and nonstatehood for New Columbia (which they've voted through -- how many other prospective states have been denied statehood) remains the reality, and in race-based political agenda-mongering by white elites, New Orleans still languishes in the wake of Katrina, and the relative % income of the median African American is basically no higher than it was 35 years ago, it is AN INSULT to say that LGBTQ rights are THE or THE FOREMOST civil rights issue of our era. It is also unnecessary and counterproductive.

Now, there is a LOT of anti-gay sentiment in all communities, and the vote of African Americans (exit polls in CA suggesting 70% of African Americans voting on it supported Prop 8) IS definitely an issue, as Obama rightly addressed during the election campaign in a key speech, much slighted-by-ignoring, in Atlanta. Clearly the supporters of Prop 8 and of LGBTQ rights need to address this issue, especially by mobilizing black leaders who support LGBTQ rights to address them, including, as Obama did, from the pulpit.
As one quip has about the Communists in East Germany has it -- you can't dissolve the public and select a new one. If there are problems, it is up to organizers to organize and address them to the maximum effective degree possible. This is NOT to in any way excuse or diminish ANYONE'S bigotry, whether anti-gay, or whatever.

Again, there are issues of oversensitivity and of over-reaction on all sides of this very sensitive issue. But the key onus is on the organizers of Civil Rights to address issues that build up larger unity, and much that is said, both in demonization and in gross insensitivity (as in the THE Civil Rights issue canard) are something that the LGBTQ rights movement simply has to rise above, and fast.

Btw, Out FM reported yesterday that the 70% support poll was a red herring and that AA support for Prop 8 was in line with other communities.

You can google "Out FM" and listen to yesterday's show.

You said it better than I ever could.

it's being used to blame LGBT people for something.

and this statistic did not suprise me. I find a great deal of homophobia emanating from religious social institutions that surround my kids. Those that are at the age where they are questioning their sexuality are among the most conflicted and troubled kids that I work with, and I work with some very troubled kids. So one of the few social institutions that work to support their impoverished community, is preaching to them and all of their family members about how sinful homosexuality is - I fear for these kids both for their mental health (and am thankful that I have not as yet lost one to suicide), and for their physical safety. I can't even describe how vulnerable these kids are to predators - and I think they are most vulnerable not because there are more sick predators in one community or another - but because they are so alienated and psychologically conflicted (imo largely due to the teachings of their preachers) that they become easier marks. Perhaps this degree of vulnerability is universal and is not part of the urban poor (esp African American) and it probably is. I am just commenting that I see the results daily of the religious based homophobia and it is amplified where it comes from the major social institution these kids experience. And thus I wouldn't say that pointing out the California results is racist. Nor do I find the stats suprising. I do find them (the stats) as tragic, on an individual as well as a societal level.

Wow was that a nonsequitor. Sorry about that. I probably just accomplished offending everyone. But at least I gave voice to a very silent minority whose hurdles of getting through adolescence let alone having a shot at a full and free adulthood are exceptionally high.

when the 70% was discussed here there was an uptroar that went something like "You're blaming blacks, and besides that number is totally unreliable anyway!"

But when people want to say LGBT people are offending blacks then the number comes out again and now it's okay.

and would have posted the same way on those threads. It is only due to a short holiday lull (from work) that I find the time to post. So on that front I guess I have walked into the middle of an ongoing "argument" per having missed act I. Thanks for the response.

the post I raised wasn't to "blame" myself and others, but to point to a path of an optimal strategy.

A fact is not merely a "fact", but depending on its context can also imply a point of view and various value/analytical judgments

to it was considered to automatically = blaming (to say nothing of believing a stat that wasn't supposed to be reliable.)

you want to emphasize that you support GLBT rights, though you disagree with the comparisons to the Black experience. Stating that you find these comparisons "frankly offensive" (in caps yet) sends a different message though--it's one thing to disagree with the comparisons between the movements, but being offended by these comparisons implies that you think one is inferior to the other.

conversations. I could be wrong but I think the two conversations are about feeling that certain arguments and/or responses to arguments are minimizing to the other. I read the OP as being supportive of full Rights (Marriage and more) for the GLBT community - but that using the comparison of equivalency to the AA civil rights experiences seem to minimize some of those issues and realities. And frankly I can see/understand that. However, Simultaneously there is a response that suggests that by listing out the examples of 'differences' there is an attempt to minimize the GLBT concerns by inferring (or stating outright) that the pre-civil rights era conditions (and current on-going struggles) are/were worse and thereby diminishing the very real harms suffered by the GLBT community. And frankly I can see/understand this as well.

Sadly much of what I read of the exchanges in this (and other similar threads) only seem to amplify the messages that are recieved as minimizing to the receiver (both LBGT and AA). The conversations still seem to be talking past each other - and I don't see that changing in this thread save for a few posts. Thus the unintentional (or not) inflicting of pain per minimalization continues in both directions. *sigh*

On the other hand, whether or not one wants to read sincerity of expressions, I have seen both types of responses also affirm and recognize the importance for Real and Full civil and human rights for both (and all) communities.

. . .I was trying to provoke discussion and you reasoned response is appreciated.

they have the attitude of "you blacks owe us b/c we helped you" minimizing the struggle that took over 100 years and is still not finished. Also, it seems to hold blacks to a higher standard than the rest of the general population, which is nothing new, it happened with Obama as well. Civil rights was a slow process and it seems like people don't realize the intense effort it took by blacks to slowly get our rights, and to then get our rights enforced. The tactic that I've seen some take by telling a black person that being gay right now was like being black during Jim Crow or anything close to slavery is just asking for anger and makes people not even want to listen to their POV. This is not necessarily related to the Warren stuff, I saw it more blatantly after Prop 8 passed.

But I do feel that a large part of pur community is being highly hypocritical on this issue and very few people are speaking to that issue. I believe that. I believe it strongly. I have to laugh to myself when this issue is brought up on Black talk radio and you get the inevitable flood of callers who say that "Gay marriage is wrong because the Bible says so" I think too often the attitude in our community is that if you didn't attain the level of suffering that we did than your struggle is less than....

Using religion to justify bigotry was a key component in the discrimination we faced. And it is the height of hypocrisy to know use that as an excuse to deny another group their rights. You can dress it in fancy language but it's still hypocrisy.

generally speaking no one seems to be interested in listening to the black community unless it's about black issues (because apparently we don't know jack about anything else) or to discuss us in terms of pathology. (In which case I'm not inclined to discuss a damn thing with such a person because I am more than the perceived extra pathological tendencies of my community.) Frankly, people gave a damn about what or how our community thinks they'd figure out what needs to be done instead of assuming they knew how the community thought because they think they know our history.

And lumping all of us in the group is particularly helpful. I always like when the sins of others are addressed at me. Don't you? :sarcasm:

Regards

Learn a little history.

"they get offensive when" You then go on to write about actions of individuals. I want to no why the basic comparison itself is offensive. Please, enlighten me.

i'm talking about the overall tone after prop 8 passed. I think most people find it offensive b/c unless you have lived the life of a black person, you cant really understand how hard it can be even today. The only person I feel can truly make that comparison is a person who belongs to both groups, and on DU and other places, the black gay people even fees like they cant really be compared. Many posts and other comments across the internet since prop 8 came off as equating the two and holding blacks to some higher standard than whites, who in a much larger number oppose gay marriage across the country. That is what angered me. In many ways I have often had to work twice as hard to get the same recognition as my white counterparts and I am sick of being held to that higher standard.

but face it if gay people got equal marriage rights in 10 or 20 years from now it will have taken far less time than minorities and women. When people get so angry that its not happening all right now I just want them to put it into perspective.

Or they enjoyed full rights before that? They didn't have to hide who they were from pretty much everyone? Family? I didn't know there was a gay utopia in the US before I was born. Thanks for the history lesson.

I'm talking about the length of time it took once we as minorities and women actually began a movement. I was just trying to put things into perspective. The gay rights movement is not all that old when compared to other movements. Movements take time, I and plenty of other DU'ers understand that. But it seems you would rather keep throwing your poor me pity party than working for actual change so go right ahead.

I told you to learn some history before and obviously you didn't listen.

Pity me? No. Fortunately for me I have my full civil rights but unlike you I care about the rights of my GLBT brothers and sisters.

I'm talking about the length of time there has been a significant organized movement. It seems like you want to get into a who has suffered the longest argument. Its pointless and trust me you wont win on that one.

Edit Double post.

I mean really. Would you be happier if gays were being killed like our folks were during the the era of Jim Crow?

At it's very core, the struggle is the same to me: a group of Americans have been relegated to a second class status for no good reason in a country where it shouldn't be happening. Sure we can argue about which group faced more hostility of had it worse but that's just mental masturbation to me. It still all boils down to "Separate but Equal" And this intellectualizing about comparison just serves to muddy what should be a very simple premise: Consenting adults should not be treated as second class citizens because they happen to love someone of the same sex.

Sometimes it pays to KISS.

:toast:

Nothing is exactly the same, but there are parallels. The civil rights movement was successful - there may be more to do.

But MLK led, he persisted, he helped make major leaps forward - he knew he was on the edge of change and accepted the reality he lived in at the moment. He is a good example for making progress. He did not post on DU about how horrid Johnson was, he went out there and did what was best to do at that time.

Giving up on Obama over this Warren thing is something King would never have done. Something that petty and dumb and just plan foot-stamping ill tempered was beyond him. Those who operate that way will meet with no success.

I'm glad this was brought up. I recently heard someone say this and was stumped. I was baffled as to how and when this happened. Can this be true that "gay is the new black?" How?

See, here's my thing, Gays should be afforded all rights that other citizens have. However, it is simply untrue, misleading and foolish to say gay is the "new" black. Black has never gone away. Blacks still have a suffrage movement. To say that gay is the new black diminishes both the black suffrage movement and the gays suffrage movement.

Black gays catch hell. To assert that gay is the new black or that gays have the same struggle as blacks asserts that black suffrage has ended. This means that the black gay carries no black burden and only gay burden. Any black homosexual will say that they still carry both. Why? Because they are not the same. Gay suffrage has not replaced black suffrage.

There are gay racists (who are racist against blacks), like there are black homophobes. If gay were the "new" black and have the same struggle as blacks, then there could be no gay racist against blacks. Why? Because this could only occur if black suffrage were still in place.

So, this statement is cheap and wrong. Gay isn't the new black. Gay may, however, be the new gay. I don't know how that works, but it is is more plausible than it being the "new" black.

The idea of say the two struggles are the same sort of devalues both. When the fact of the matter is that both struggles are equally valid and worth fighting because of the terms of the suppression both groups face. It's a mistake to say they are the same or Gay has become the "new black struggle." It's simply untrue.

:kick:

thank you for posting such an insightful post.

The comparison (and the contrast) is useful in figuring out how each / both are used to control people, for one thing.

To get involved in arguing who has it worse is just to miss the point of the comparison and to redirect attention away from how both groups are marginalized by "mainstream" American culture. You're arguing about labels at that point, not about the real experience of real people or real communities.

This is not an argument about who has it worse. It clearly isn't. Instead it is a position that they are not the same and to say that they are the same takes broad and sweeping liberties with the truth. The fact that race, gender and orientation are three different things, simply knocks the argument of the all being the same out of the water. One could now more say "gay are the new woman" or "gay is the new Irish catholic" than could they say "gay is the black." It simply doesn't jive. And to assert that this argument is simply about label, you under are in essence diminishing the experience that goes on in each suffrage movement. You are saying that a person's identity matters not. So, you're attempting to diminish one's experiences and also strip them of their identity.

any comparison always necessarily evokes a contrast.

Labels are about identity. So, if a person's label isn't important or valid (good or bad) then the person's identity and how they are identified by others has no validity. This type of thought would be one that allows racist, sexist, homophobic attitudes to go unchecked, because personal identity politics are all thrown out. You've taken a person's power to negotiate with themselves and and the world away. Don't eat the jive.

And they have no inherent validity, right? Remember "truth in labeling"? :)

A label is not the same as an identity I choose. A label is a way to manipulate me. My own self-identity is part of my personal power to manage my life and the culture I move in.

They're two different critters and they get collapsed all the time because that's how you manipulate people. You capture their (self) identity.

So, there are no self-identifying labels? That is simply untrue. Labels are given from within groups and from without them. This is something that you know is true. And if you do not know it is true, then you need only look at familial language with kindred circles. And if labels mean nothing (regardless of from where they come) then call a Puerto Rican a Dominican. Call a Jamaican a Haitian. Call a Englishman an Irishman. Call an Italian a Greek. The only way your argument works is by stripping parts of a person's or group's identity. People don't like it. Once again, don't the jive. Beat back the jive.

identity for insiders. We may be arguing at cross purposes here. But most insiders don't run around calling themselves or each other by the labels imposed on them. They don't need to. I don't greet my friend, "Hi there, radical Latina!" -- I usually just use her name. lol

Kinship terms belong to the realm of group identity, not of labels imposed from the outside either. I don't greet my mother, "Hi there, Beth's maternal parent!" -- I call her "Mom".

Maybe we just mean two different things when we say "label".

Simply knowing that there are both positive and negative names that people in their own ethnic groups call each other allow us all to know that labels and labeling occur within groups. And the assertion that all labels are bad stands to no reason at all. Calling a person good or bad is a label. The "good" young man is no less labeled than the "bad" young man.

To the point that identity is for insiders is a bit false as well. If I call young ladies whore, and they begin to identify themselves as whores, then I am an outsider that created a label for a group of women. It doesn't make me a woman because they identified with the label I gave them. Dominicans weren't Dominican until they "made" Dominican. There were no "Negros" until africans were labeled Negros. Does this make their colonizers "Negro" because the group of labeled them "Negros?"

I don't think I can be clearer than that. :)

The more clear you become, the more wrong you become. You assert that labels come only from outside one's socially identifying group, yet I've made it clear that labels can come from inside. But by even making an argument about the internal workings of social identity you undercut your entire premise. If social identity (and self identification) comes from within a group, then you can't make the argument that all suffrage is the same. Why? Based on self-identification and labels placed by outsiders, who will see the contrast between themselves and others, the complexion of individual suffrage movements will have variance. And because each group has very specific injustices that are created by their contrast to others, they cannot be the same. And the reason different groups are discriminated against is not because of their similarities to each other, rather what they have in contrast. So, when the gay and the black get lynched, they may have been treated similarly, it was their differences that were being played on.

Does this mean the groups can't aid each other based on their similarities? No. But is surely does not mean that they are the same. The result of being kicked in the and falling into a door knob may yield similar results, but that does not mean the being kicked in the face and falling into a door knob are the same.

This is so untrue it is ridiculous. For-goodness-sake, people have the ability to label themselves. People do it all the time. SO, to say that the definition of a label is purely based on an outsiders point of view is ridiculous. If this is true than humans have no species type. If this it true than people who designated races didn't designate one for themselves. If this is true, then "righteous people" didn't call themselves "righteous" while calling others vile. What you are saying is a ignorant at best and a lie at its worst.

You'd be hard pressed to find working definitions that specify labeling as simply something placed on groups by "outsiders." Now, if you'd like to write your own definition, then you are free. But I can assure you that it wouldn't get great circulation.

The GLBT community would like the same legal protections as the black community, that is true. What is wrong with that? And we deserve them, and will remind EVERYBODY that coddling bigots is unethical, immoral and, yes, impolitic.

Repeat: We will NOT go away, if anything, our voices will grow LOUDER. Even if that means criticizing the choices of a president-elect WE HELPED TO ELECT and who REPRESENTS US.

Implying that we have full rights because a few of us own homes or make decent incomes is OFFENSIVE and SHALLOW and says a lot about the lack of sensitivity or knowledge of the person who makes the argument.

Are our issues exactly the same? No! But, as one poster wisely said, logical people can draw analogies and see differences in all movements. The core principal -- that we all advance to afford every person equal rights and dignity -- should be unwavering.

"Can we learn from each others experiences? ABSOLUTELY!"

"I don't need to think its the same to know that bigotry and discrimination against ANYONE is wrong."

I'm only offended by the easy dismissal implied by phrasing such as "BUT THE STRUGGLES ARE DIFFERENT." Comparisons are very useful, and should give us the common ground you seem almost ready to accept in the struggle. Is there really a point to looking for differences in personal experiences, when what we're fighting against is the common, ugly root of all that hatred?

Gay people don't suffer the same indignities that blacks did and still do, but it doesn't mean that the sufferings many gay people endure aren't very dehumanizing and depersonalizing as well.

How many black teenagers have committed suicide because they were black?

How many black youngsters have been thrown out of their homes by their parents because they were black?

How many black youngsters were told daily by their parents, teachers, and clergymen that they were diseased and were going to hell because they were black?

How many blacks have been beaten up for being black and couldn't even tell their families, because their families would beat them up again and maybe throw them out of the house just for being black?

How many black kids grew up knowing they were black, but thinking they were the only ones, knowing no other black people, and having no role models?

How many black kids were sent by their families to psychiatric treatment facilities to get electroshock therapy to "cure" them of being black?

How many black kids have to sit around the house and hear their parents tell repulsive jokes about black people -- or putting them down when they appear on TV.

How many blacks have had to lead two lives -- pretending at home and at work that they were white -- while trying to have a social life with other blacks?

How many black mothers have said -- on finding out their child was black -- "I wish you had died at birth" (as the mother of a gay friend of mine said to him)?

Is being gay exactly the same as being black? No. Absolutely not. But, as terrible as it was for blacks to endure what they did, at least they had a support system -- families, churches, friends. Many gay youngsters grow up with absolutely no support whatsoever. In fact, it sometimes seems as if everyone in their life -- family, friends, church, school, government, everyone -- is against them. I can tell you from personal experience that is something you carry with you for the rest of your life. That kind of loneliness and isolation can suck the soul right out of you.

When I was growing up and knew I was attracted to men, there were only two people in town I knew were gay. We didn't use the word then. It was "fuckingqueer" (one word). They were over-the-top, nelly faggots with bouffant hair, scads of jewelry and fuscia angora sweaters, and their feet never really made solid contact with the ground. Those were my role models. I thought I was one of them -- and I hated myself.

When I first started experimenting with sex, I had to go to confession on Saturday and, of course, confessed my "sin" so I wouldn't go to hell. The priest started screaming at me at the top of his lungs, telling me I was a pervert and that I was going to ruin the lives of everyone with whom I came in contact. He yelled so loud, you could have heard him a block away. After about five minutes of that, I had to slink out of the confessional, in front of about 50 people who lived in my neighborhood. They were ostensibly waiting to go to confession, but they were really all just waiting to see who the local pervert was. I was 14, and on the way home, I seriously considered the pros and cons of just stepping in front of an oncoming car.

It turns out I was too much of a coward, but that day was the first step in my separation from the Catholic Church.

Not all the questions are addressed, but I hope that this can be a start.

I hope that others will find their own answers to increase their understanding of Black culture. I would also encourage people to do the same for the GLBTQ community. Both struggles deserve to be researched in order to find a way to fight the larger civil rights battle so that there are equal rights for all.



How many black teenagers have committed suicide because they were black?

http://www.healthyplace.net/communities/Depression/minorities_7.asp">The Truth About Black Teen Suicide


How many blacks have had to lead two lives -- pretending at home and at work that they were white -- while trying to have a social life with other blacks?

http://www.post-gazette.com/lifestyle/20031026stain1026fnp2.asp">Passing: How posing as white became a choice for many black Americans


How many black youngsters were told daily by their parents, teachers, and clergymen that they were diseased and were going to hell because they were black?

http://www.newarkmetro.rutgers.edu/reports/display.php?id=245">"Look! They're Going Into the School!"
http://chronicle.com/news/article/2296/conservative-magazine-harassed-black-students-tufts-u-panel-says">Conservative Magazine Harassed Black Students, Tufts U. Panel Says

Although this is in South Africa, it still caters to Black people being harassed in a societal institution:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE5D6103DF930A25757C0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all">At Afrikaner Schools, a Backlash Against Blacks


How many blacks have been beaten up for being black and couldn't even tell their families, because their families would beat them up again and maybe throw them out of the house just for being black?

N/A. Black people can't hide their skin color.

How many black kids grew up knowing they were black, but thinking they were the only ones, knowing no other black people, and having no role models?

N/A. But, there are some Black folks who have been isolated in communities in which they were the "only" Black family in a given location. The kids in that type of location only dealt with mostly white people. They also have to endure the harassment of white students, teachers and a staff that holds their prejudices on their sleeve. Furthermore, in almost every segment of society Black people have to deal with an all-white situation in some part of their lives--even those that live in all-Black neighborhoods and communities. It's inevitable in a lot of cases.

(note: I am not saying that this experience is the same for a lot Black folks. I'm just putting it out here)


How many black mothers have said -- on finding out their child was black -- "I wish you had died at birth" (as the mother of a gay friend of mine said to him)?

"Skin bleaching" has http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/alltherage/2008/08/black-women-and.html">been found in communities of color. The Tyra Banks show had an episode of black mothers who not only bleached their skin, but their babies' skins as well.

I think that amounts to one being ashamed of themselves and their babies, to the point of wishing the erasure of one's identity.


And then, there are the stories from the Middle Passage. Slave mothers would throw their children overboard because they didn't want them to endure a life of slavery.

___________________________________________________

These answers are for FYI purposes only.

Thanks for sharing.

THE VERY CONCEPT of being black AND gay seems to be lost on you, with your bulging knapsack, and points, ONCE AGAIN, to the inherent racism in the white GLBT community. Obviously you find NO COMMON GROUND with those who have been subjected to the prejudice YOU'VE experienced AND WORSE. Black/gay are NOT mutually exclusive. Replace "because they were black" with BECAUSE THEY WERE GAY in your rant and maybe you'll get a clue. If THAT fails, I offer THIS:

But I don't think they should be ALLOWED to marry Asian women. And to call that RACISM is BS!!

it's ok to go ahead and throw gays and lesbians under the bus for the sake of celebrating an African-American presidency.

Really, you can make a drive by comment like that, stick around and back it up.

you are saying that civil rights related to race are more important to focus on than civil rights related to gays and lesbians?

Step-by-step

I still disagree, however. There are legal arguments citing the overturn of miscegenation laws in defending gay marriage. There are also racially-based civil rights groups who are very concerned about Prop 8 and have actually filed suits against Prop 8 purely because it sets a dangerous precedent with relation to civil rights in general. Its simply not fair to say that we can't compare GLBT rights to others' civil rights struggles because, in fact, we can and there are very rational reasons for doing so.

. . .do you know there are folks in the Black community who call slavery and Jim Crow the Black Holocaust? As a Black man I take just as much offense to that. There are no moral equivalencies. The reality is the fight for equality and the fight against discrimination and bigotry against anyone is something we should all fight for regardless.

across all lines.

As far as being the same struggle, they are not identical, but they are "parallel."

some people call AIDS our second holocaust.

In my posts I often stress that the reason I'm pushing gay marriage so strongly in the Warren case (besides selfish reasons) is because I see it as part of a much larger struggle against the Religious Right for everyone. In that sense, I agree with you, but I'm not going to put that in every post I make supporting gay marriage in the Warren case.

Edit to add: "part of"

And I completely understand what you're saying. Also, I think I found the thread that started this one and it lent some clarity as to what you're saying as well.

I would never go around saying I'm living under a gay version of the Jim Crow laws because I simply am not. And I personally would never make that leap because it's foolish and inherently wrong. In fact I never have even thought to use that because it has no bearing on what I as a gay woman am fighting for here in the US.

I wouldn't use things like Intifada, Apartheid, Holocaust, Know Nothing Movement or Diaspora either for what is currently going on in the struggle for our civil rights. Although maybe a case could be made for a Gay Diaspora for the ones that move from states without gay civil unions or marriage to ones with (or even moving from unfriendly red states to the friendly blue states). That's because the gay civil rights movement is unique in and of itself just as all the others that came before it. Also, co-opting names for things that came before doesn't work in the long run. We need to have our own identifiers so that years from now, when this is studied in the history books it has it's own context that is specificially about our struggle.

I will, on the other hand, use case law that is applicable like the Loving v. Virginia ruling when fighting for our rights. I do expect there to be distinct case names that pertain specifically to our struggle when it is all said and done so it is historically remembered for what it was just as Loving v. Virginia should always be known as the case that brought down the ban on interracial marriage.

Just a case of missed context, sorry about that! And let me know if I am missing anything still, but I'm pretty sure I got it now!

And may I also say, this thread has been absolutly interesting and I'm glad that you brought it up because it was very informative and I had my own journey of knowledge because of it. Thank you! :hug:

On Edit: Actually, now that I think about it more, Gay Diaspora does seem rather appropriate but is it justified in its use? We do also have people here that will move to Canada and other countries that have full legal rights for us. Hmmm. If anyone has any thoughts on this let me know!

in the book What's Left of Theory? (ed. Judith Butler et al) and she makes a persuasive case that he "like race analogical structure is not the most felicitous. She makes a complicated argument I cannot remember adequately here, but it seems to me that her argument is both serious and informed and is kind of must reading for a serious, informed discussion.

Some people reject the argument that because one kind of bigotry has different specifics, that it makes another kind of bigotry more tolerable and less important.

If civil rights are a valid struggle, then, that struggle is valid for all people who suffer from discrimination.

and I think we should have respect for progressive theorists instead of accusing them of parsing words, but that's just me. Nobody disagrees that civil rights are valid to struggle for or that particular kinds of bigotry are less important (at least, neither Prof Halley nor I have claimed this); she is merely suspicious of the too-facile deployment of analogical structures about things that might not be analogous at all. I'm sure one can find experts of her essay "'Like Race' Arguments" online if one wants to encounter her fairly and reasonably rather than inferring what she might have said and making straw man arguments.

If you want to start another thread about the facile use of analogies go ahead.

In the meantime your erudite discussion about best fit analogies have nothing to do with the validity of a civil rights claim and injustice.

The struggles are real and the fight is real.

and I am pointing out a respected queer scholar who says the same thing.

You can have your discussion about the OP and I can have mine.

"When talking discrimination and bigotry we often find ourselves establishing a hierarchy of suffering when in reality its all about and should not be tolerated." - OP

The sentence is a little confusing, that's why I asked what he meant.

It seems to me it reads:

"When talking discrimination and bigotry we often find ourselves establishing a hierarchy of suffering when in reality its ... not be tolerated."

I also agree with the OP, it is not necessary to have identical characteristics between groups in order to make the argument that..."bigotry and discrimination against ANYONE is wrong."

"More importantly I don't need to think its the same to know that More importantly I don't need to think its the same to know that bigotry and discrimination against ANYONE is wrong." -OP

Your quote: "she is merely suspicious of the too-facile deployment of analogical structures about things that might not be analogous at all..."

If we are talking about gay civil rights and other civil rights movements, then they are not identical, but they share similarities viz a viz: minority groups subject to legal discrimination.

Those are analogous, our if you prefer: parallel.

I agree with you when for example another thread here on DU makes a too facile comparison between discrimination against Jews, Blacks, Gays and skinny people, among others.

Three of the four are analogous in regards to discrimination, one is not.

"these comparisons to race are BS."

That's called an analogy. Again, I would direct anyone who is sincerely interested in this to prominent queer theorist Janet Halley's excellent essay, "'Like Race' Arguments," which deals with this question intelligently and subtly--too subtly, probably, for those who think the results of discrimination make all versions of discrimination analogous.

FWIW, I think it goes without saying that I believe bigotry to be wrong. I also believe in discussing it without collapsing everything into a hall of mirrors that eventually makes everything the same or, on the other hand, creating a hierarchy of oppressions.

That's what a civil rights struggle is about. Legal rights.

I am sure you are aware of that.

The argument is that the quest for rights is "parallel."

The historic attributes and chronlogy of various groups may differ.

However, the impact of inequality is not different, especially when it comes to the legal status of marriage.

When families are torn apart, when children suffer, when there is institutionalized discrimination by the Federal Government preventing it from extending rights to same sex couples even when States like Mass. actually pass laws legally allowing marriage.

When the Federal Government insitutionalizes job and training discrimination by denying opportunities to gay people via a position in military, then, if we ignore these issues, we take our eye off the prize.

When we become embroilled in parsing the words "facile analogy" and forget that the real story is about rights of any oppressed minority and that analagy is not facile, it is hard and real.

The issues that gays and lesbians face today are different from the issues that were faced by African-Americans under Jim Crow. That doesn’t mean, though, that there aren’t parallels in the sense that legal status is not equal. And that has to be fixed.