Same-sex marriage approved by the state of New York.

Yes there are similarities. Why does that make it wrong to compare black civil rights and gay civil rights in an analogous way?

The reason why Nazi analogies which may hit on similarities are thought to not be good is a couple of different reasons - the context Nazis now have in cultural discussions, and the overuse of the Nazi comparison (comparing Obama to Hitler etc.).

Why are you bothered when two struggles for civil rights are used in an analogy? Especially when everyone has no problem acknowledging they are not exactly the same. It baffles me.

 

Without full equal rights, including legal gay marriage, homosexuals do not have secure custody of their children. It does not get more fundamental than that.

 

I'm sure there were some doctors that were willing to break the law because they deemed it to be unjust. I'm sure there were also people in positions of authority that broke the law in favor of blacks for the same reasons. But the fact remains that, until Obama very recently changed it, it was the law. As such, on this issue, gays were not equal under the law.

I find it telling that you chose to address this but left out the list of serious ways in which GLBT are still discriminated against as a matter of law. The reasons are exactly the same as they were with blacks, as you described them: the people that oppose equal rights for GLBT are trying to keep that group of people down and trying to maintain positions that make them less than equal under the law.

You should be against that and you should be loud about it. Instead all you can say, again and again, is that the experience of blacks was different than the experience of gays. Duh. We all know that. Nobody is arguing that point with you so it makes little sense that you keep arguing that point with others. It also makes little sense that, due to the fact that those experiences are not exactly the same, you regard equal rights for GLBT to be a "fringe" issue.

That is a shameful position to take, pgabs. I fully expect you to see the light eventually and to be sorry for ever taking that position. You're too good a guy not to.

 

The difference is INCLUSION versus EXPANSION.
Interracial Marriage was more an inclusion into marriage . . which was still one woman and one man. It was about including black folx as Women and Men [and not 3/5ths man]
Whereas
Gay Marriage is an EXPANSION of what marriage means. .. i.e. dissolving the MAN AND WOMAN and reducing it to PERSONS.

In the visiting a loved on dying. . . it was a rule .. that caught up most Gay folx . . .but it was no meant to be exclusively deny gay folx. if denied ANY NONE FAMILY MEMBER . . Whether they are Gay or straight. So to allow Gay folx to be with their loved ones. . .we now have to EXPAND the meaning of FAMILY to include a NON-FAMILY MEMBER LIFE PARTNER OF THE SAME SEX

It is like coming to 0 . . . from -1 and from 1 . . . .
Trying to reach a similar point .. but from different directions

Rocket River

 

Why does it bother folx to use the Nazi's analogy?

Rocket River

 

Of course it does. What is your point?

 

I don't understand?
If they are the biological . . .they get custody rights
If you are not . . . gay or straight . .it is extremely difficult

Rocket River

 

which "serious ways" are you talking about. I've had jobs where gays are in charge. there are openly gay lawmakers. i've never seen a gay person booted from a restaurant.

 

How weird that you would ask that question in direct response to a post that answered it. But I am not bothered by the Nazi analogy. It is a proper one. So why are you so bothered by the considerably less hot-button analogy between the denial of basic rights to blacks and gays?

 

But you told me it didn't . . .remember?

Rocket River

 

I listed the serious ways and you chose to ignore those parts of multiple posts in which I've done so. Here they are again: employment, housing and adoption. Regardless of your anecdotal experiences (anecdotes being the most unreliable metric for studying a situation), it remains legal in most parts of our country to fire someone for being gay, to deny housing to a gay person, to deny adoptions, to deny legal recognition of marriage. That is THE LAW. Your experiences don't make it less so. It is an unjust law and it needs to change. And it will. Hopefully, when it finally does, your callous position will as well.

 

I told you that, as you had laid it out, it was not an analogy. Go re-read my post. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to analogies being drawn between Jews under Nazis and gays under today's American laws. Those sorts of analogies are entirely appropriate. Why? Not because they are the SAME situation but because they are different situations with similarities.

I don't expect you to understand this as you demonstrate with every post that you don't actually understand what an analogy is. You and pgabs need to spend some time with a dictionary.

 

but bats, the law needs to change no doubt. but the point is there aren't a bunch of random firing of gays from jobs.

I mean the freakin mayor of this southern bible belt city is gay with an adopted kid. but i know, its just anecdotal

 

Why is it considerably less hot-button analogy?
Why comparison to Jews and Nazi's a hot-button analogy?
Is it because . . . that situation is worse, more serious, and more important than the plight of the African American in America?
In that statement. . .you are every bit as dismissive of a people's situation as you state PGabs is. . . . .

When someone makes an analogy about your people . . it is a hot-button analogy
but
When it is an analogy about my people. . . it is a considerably less hot-button analogy

Rocket River

 

That is incorrect.

I have an adopted daughter. My custodial rights and my wife's are rock solid and exactly the same as if she were our biological daughter.

If we were a gay couple that would not be the same in many states.

 

At least this time pgabs just came out and admitted the bias and bigotry. The faux "me no understand analogy" thing was annoying.

 

oooo weee . . . anecdotal . . . . one of those dictionary words I hear so much about . . .

"YOU BEEN READING!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!??! Get a rope!" - America Circa 1860

Rocket River

 

Everybody knows that anything involving Nazis is especially incendiary, as FranchiseBlade clearly spelled out for you. You are being willfully ignorant and obstinate.

You are also ignoring the fact that I see both analogies as being wholly reasonable and equally appropriate.

 

rhad you have officially turned into ATW with your random musing in threads judging posters as if you are the ultimate judge. thanks for playing, i will make sure to make my opinions more satisfactory to your concerns next time. btw, keep me on ignore till i do, like most of the human race, i'm not worthy

 

It maybe anecdotal (Thanks PGabs)
My experience has different.

Rocket River