Behavior and prejudice

But they are discriminated against for employment, promotion, attacked, beaten, killed, mocked, denied things such as the right to wed their loved one, and receive the benefits of that based only on their sexual orientation.

There are differences and there are similarities.

But the thing that is stupid is arguing about which group had it worst, instead of arguing against the injustices and discrimination. Maybe after we get that part figured out, then it would be time to discuss which group overcame the most in the U.S.

 

Firstly, by bringing up some "historic atrocity" argument against homosexuals, you are directly comparing the history of atrocities against gay people to the history of atrocities against [x] race people. It just doesn't stack up. To me, handwaving about atrocities against homosexuals is pretty much the same as atrocities against adulterers.

Please. If you think it's socially unacceptable to be openly racist, sexist, or [insert hate-ist type here] in America, you obviously don't know squat. Did you know that it took over 30 years in some parts of Louisiana to desegregate after Brown vs Board of Education(2)? And racism now is child's play compared to what it was 50 years ago yet it is still palpable if you go down there.

 

Next time I see John I will ask him personally. In the meantime we both can speculate in the thread about not going to a kid's birthday party who parents belong to a certain minority group.

There's a reason the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force links the issues of African-American civil rights and gay civil rights: Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther King's widow, told them to.

Those Who Lived the Struggle to End Segregation Now Speak Out for Same-Gender Marriage Equality

Coretta Scott King

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' ... 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."

"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."

"We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny... I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting from her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy."

"Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Georgia, and St. Augustine, Florida, and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions."

"We have a lot of work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say 'common struggle,' because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry & discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination."

"We have to launch a campaign against homophobia in the black community."

"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. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group."

 

I told you I'd accept a transcript of an interview too. Get crackin'.

 

I'll address the polygamy issue. First I think the comparsion between homosexuality and polygamy is appropriate on the level that they are both sexual relationships between consenting adults.

If adults choose to enter into polygamous relationships without coercion, I have no problem with that. I see nothing inherently harmful with a man choosing to have more than one wife, or a woman having more than one husband.

 

History is not brought up to say what happen to _____ is just like what happened to ______. History is brought up to provide context and illustrate principle of oppression—where a dominant group results in mistreatment and devalues members of other groups. Why you choose “adulterers” and not ____ race/ethic group or ____ religious group or ____ gender shows a lot from where you are coming from. It is pretty clear you are try to use some kind of religious foundation, well guess what, people from one religion have been killing and torturing those with different belief systems since religion has been around. Oppression and bigotry isn’t just about racism or sexism.

I don’t have a problem with the last sentence at all—I think it is true. That said if the poster had said I won’t have my daughter go to a part because it is hosted by a mother who is [insert race, insert religion, insert culture, divorced/single, disabled, poor] that poster would have been jumped on nearly universally. Racism and sexist is alive and well, but overt expressions certainly are not tolerated.

By your definition there obviously is no more reason for minority groups of most any kind to engage in civil rights. Many of which have the same protections you describe for gays plus additional ones (e.g., affirmative action, federal oversight boards regarding housing and criminal justice discrimination, broader more wide spread hate crime language—all of which I personally support BTW).

Personally I think you know better. I think you know racism and various forms of bigotry get played out in more than just laws at the top. They get played out in the implementation of federal policy. They get played out everyday at all levels of a society from schools to businesses to housing to medical care (evidence for instance African American women receive less aggressive medical treatment from doctors for the same objective health conditions). That is why I argue civil rights still matter.

It is taboo in many religions to not accept Jesus as lord and savior. It is taboo in others to believe that he is. This has no place a modern free society as a means to develop public policy.

Religion also was used to argue that racial mixing was wrong, and to devalue other groups, that one group had the moral authority to rule. The fact it was a popular view in many part of the South not long ago doesn’t give any moral weight to it, or make it any more defensible. I am not arguing that homophobic based policies/actions is not popular today, if fact I am arguing close to the opposite, and the fact so many clearly educated persons say things like “gays are not oppressed” pretty much slam dunk shows it. The presence oppression of gays in the US and most of the world from the government to social level cannot be reasonably debated. Now some can argue the oppression is appropriate because it violates religious based values, but then at least stick to this if this is your argument, not try to pretend discrimination, torture, hate, ostracization—is not widely practiced by dominant groups on gay persons (including gay kids).

I would never use this logic to characterize the poor African American and poor Latino communities where AIDS is most rapidly growing in the US. Or the fact Africa is and always has been the center for this terrible disease.

Definetly devaluing IDUs also played a role. But AIDS was 1st thought of as a gay disease because that is where the 1st diagnosis came from (later scientists discovered it had been going on in Africa well before). It was because gays were dehumanized and it was thought as a gay disease we slept on seriously addressing it (funding, getting scien of it) a number of years, and everybody paid for it. Had it exploded on the heterosexual college campus population you can bet their parents and societal institutions (media, government, pharm industry) would have jumped on it with full force.

The legal protections are there, right? I guess oppression isn’t happening to any racial/ethnic/religious/gender minority in America any more than then. Because in my mind the most open and blatant forms played out in public policy discussions are around gays (with maybe Muslims, Arabs, and Mexicans up there too). I guess this is better than the argument the only group left getting attacked and oppressed is White heterosexual Christian men—and yes some believe this too.

 

Would you be OK having your kid go to another kids house who is of different race or class or is perhaps Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/Mormon/Jehovah (sp?)/Atheist--if those faiths are different from you and they practice those in open enough ways (say a prayer to x before a meal) that would lead to questions.

Some people work hard to make the environment more insular and homogenous for their kids (surround with similar faiths, similar class, etc). I try not to do that for mine because I believe diversity is both the reality they will have to navigate the world in, and it is enriching to learn about others cultures and experiences. I understand others feel differently--and for instance in the extreme case like the Homish and to lesser but still more than most (from my experience)-- Mormons. For me if another parent's house is safe and loving--I would want my kid to hang out with their kid if he wanted to regardless of race/culture/creed/disability status/sexual orientation differences--and we will see if I ever encounter such a situation, a polygamous family.

So overall I don't have a big problem if you want to be more insular. Not how we try to raise our boys but I get that perspective. What I have a problem with is the position that a same sex couple presents all that different of challenge than any other family with differences from my own—the singling out of gay persons as this different kind of moral or diversity challenge than other forms of differences (culture/race/ethic/gender/faith/creed). But I have a lot of experiences with gay persons, my children knows some, and it is no big deal just to see them as people and certainly hasn’t/won't require a sexual conversation anymore than I'd get into a sexual conversation about what Aunt X and Uncle Y do in their bedroom. A gay couple is like any other couple, two people who love each other and want to build a life together, I wouldn't want my wife and my marriage to be reduced to the perceptions of sexual mechanics others might have for us. That is belittling.

BTW thanks for hearing my out. It does take courage to talk about these things, and to discuss your personal situation on a board like this.

 

WS&C:
I've only read the first page, but I want to offer my thoughts now. I don't want to get into nature vs. nurture....that's another thread on its own.

Onto your concerns directly:
1) Unless the two gay men are complete idiots, they're probably absolutely terrified in regard to how their son will be perceived by others. IMO, you're punishing the son for the ""sins" of the fathers, if that is indeed your point of view, and that just ain't right. If you want this kid to have friends and have as easy a life as is possible, go to the party. Otherwise, that kid will be receiving that "negative treatment" you don't seem to want to give out, even if it is done passively. The gay men will experience the same thing.

2) You may never get the choice about when to explain such things to your daughter. Its not as though two gay men living together is some new or unheard of thing. Hell, all you have to do is watch the evening news (or any other of a million TV shows) to hear something about gays and gay rights. That in and of itself can spur a curious youngster to start asking questions, and unless you lock her in a closet (no pun intended) until you feel she is old enough, odds are you aren't going to have that choice exclusively made available to you. Kids begin asking questions when they are ready to ask them. Its up to us as adults to determine not that they ask those questions, but to determine how we, as adults, answer those questions. By allowing her to attend, you're allowing her the natural progression of her own curiosity, which is coming whether you want it to or not.

You obviously want to protect your daughter, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that, but there is a fine line between that desire to protect and fear.

My question to you is this: what is it that you're so afraid of?

I can't imagine the other parents not being present at a birthday party for kids in that age group. You've already said that you respect those men and don't want to treat them or their son poorly. So....what's the problem again?

Edit:
Jesus, 19 pages already? I either need to come in this forum more often or stay out of it entirely. Oh well. I hope this thread doesn't die....I'm late for chemistry tutoring as it is.

 

koko- I actually think drug users are among the most opressed groups in this country. Even if you think somebody brought their victim status upon themselves, it is still wrong to revictimize them by isolating/punishing them for their faults (we all have them).

 

Is your daughter home-schooled? Unless she is, she probably knows a lot more about the birds and the bees than you are giving her credit.

I was in the latter stages of getting dressed last week. My almost-6 YO daughter asked me if I ever showed Mommy my "weiner."

I said "Why do you ask..." She said she just wanted to know.

I said "Why would I want to show Mom my weiner?"

She said something about "Just because!" Quickly followed by an observation that had to come from some playground conversation: "I know you did-- right after you got married..."

I countered, "How do you know? You weren't even born yet."

Her answer: "I was watching from Heaven."

 

Some good, thought-provoking stuff in here. Lemme see if I can't break it down a bit.

Well, there were three reasons I chose adultery instead of race/ethnic/religious/gender group. Firstly, adultery is produced by/is an act of "natural" bodily desire, similar to homosexuality and as such can be treated analogously more equivalent than an outward birth trait such as race or gender, or with a lifestyle or creed like ethnicity or religion (regardless of whatever mainstream "alternative lifestyle" is in vogue at the moment). Secondly, adultery is a "taboo" w.r.t. most religions, as well as homosexuality, yet the vast majority of people are tolerant of it, even if it's anathema. They just figure it's not their business to get involved most of the time. Lastly, adulterers and homosexuals had similar punishments - in the old days, adulterers were stoned or beaten to death - although there is definitely a greater sense of abnormality/unnaturalness to homosexuality in the Christian context, and perhaps a greater amount of persecution.

Regardless, I agree that it's regrettable that religion has been used as an excuse for some cruelty or other, and as a mechanism of public manipulation over the ages, but it cannot be denied that the moral basis of religions do serve as a solid foundation for entire legal systems as well as providing a guiding compass to many compassionate and caring individuals and organizations. One such legal system is ours. That does not mean that morality equals legality, but it does factor in.

Anyway, on to the topic of oppression. In my opinion, oppression starts when one group does not have the power or ability to right the wrongs and injustices visited upon them by another group. A current example of this would be the prisoners at Guantanamo bay. Another would be the refugees in Sudan. Another might be Iraqi civilians vs. american military contractors.
The homosexual lobby in the U.S., on the other hand, is pretty darn strong. Can't cite the source, but I remember reading a study that found that the average homosexual couple's income was more than the national average. And in a system where money basically equals power, I would say that's a good argument towards homosexuality not being oppressed.
I'm not saying injustices haven't occurred, mind you. Just that it's not endemic to the system, nor is it overbearing (granted, it may seem so to the individuals involved).

It depends. In the public arena and national media it's not tolerated, but it is still very much a de facto part of life in good chunks of the south. I mean, I think a great example of this is senator brownback (i think from alabama?). Listen to him and you'll feel like you're listening to a redneck, but he's incredibly tame compared to some places.
And it's not just racism vs. blacks or minorities. Blacks can be some of the most racist people you'll ever come across, just because they've been raised in an environment where you "have to" be.
As to the poster not wanting his child to go to [x] party for [y] reason, I think it's their choice. I may not agree with it and think it's petty, but in that person's mind the reason may be legitimate and I would applaud them for even bringing it up. Most people don't. I'd rather people not jump all over them because they may feel that the abuse isn't worth it and rather than converting the person's view it might actually drive them in the opposite direction.

Yes and no. There are certain groups that I feel could legitimately mount a civil rights movement and call the banner of civil rights to themselves. However I am fairly confident that the gay rights movement isn't one of those.

And as an aside I don't like affirmative action, even if it's necessary. I don't want to see it continue indefinitely, because IMO in some ways it is counterproductive.

I agree with the first part. I disagree with the second part. There is only so much that you can legislate.

I don't believe that defining marriage as one man and one woman leads inevitably to Jesus loves you. Even if the proponents of one happen to be the proponents of the other. Fine line? Maybe. I do think there's a good deal of distinction to be made though.

Hm. That's a tricky argument, that people can legitimately say that gays are not oppressed means that gays are oppressed... I'm not really sure how to counter that one. Dangerously close to circular logic.
Now if you were speaking about homosexuals being oppressed elsewhere in the world, I would agree. I think I would appeal to common sense in the case of America though. The presence of a certain group that wishes gays didn't exist in their perfect Jesusland doesn't imply that gays are being oppressed. Or perhaps Ahmedinijad(sp) felt oppressed by the hundreds of protestors that heckled him at Columbia? Perhaps I would feel differently if I had to deal with such social stigma on a daily basis, but to be honest I just don't see it. Maybe I live in a different social circle than gay people and they live in one where it's a daily nightmare and incredibly awkward every day as people look at you funny when you go in to work and every movement is analyzed as "omg is he hitting on me?" Feel free to enlighten me.

Well, they are victims, mostly of a poor educational system...one which will hopefully change sooner rather than later.

I could definitely see that. I'm not sure, but also at the time weren't homosexuals thought to be an extreme minority of the population? Certainly not the 10% now claimed (although I still feel that's an inflated number). That could have been a factor.

Last part is like some sort of rehash paragraph, hopefully you dont mind if I don't respond.

 

Agree to an extent. We've already had a big drugs thread (the DEA trucker asset forfeiture thread) so I won't rehash it.

 

I don't like the analogy because it tries to reduce homosexuality to physical acts between them. For one, anyone in a marriage (like myself) or in a long lasting partnership knows that it represents more than that, and it would be belittling of commitment (and work) to reduce such a partnership to that. Second, one can be homosexual or heterosexual, and choose not engage in sexual activities at all. A virgin isn't asexual (neither heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual) because they haven’t had sex. Homosexuality in my impression is more about an identity and reflects who they are attracted to and want to build a life with. Third, in some cultures in particular persons can engage in sexual acts with the same sex but very much not consider themselves gay in their larger life. In terms of "abnormality/unnaturalness", I suppose that would apply to all sexual acts between persons (male or female) that wouldn't directly relate to procreation, man that would make things more boring for everybody to prohibit and no I don't think it is a natural human condition (nor does it appear other primates only engage in sex acts or sex rituals solely and exclusively for procreation).

Considering the above I think it is much more reasonable to compare homosexuality (and bigotry associated with it) to other minority cultures or creeds immersed in stronger and more dominant majority influences than to try to compare it to adultery--specific sex acts breaking public and/or legal commitments made. The persecution of those from particular religions (or who don't have a faith at all) in various points of history however is very reasonable basis to contextualize persecution of gays. Women's liberation is another good way to look at it, because after all, most religions/cultures had men/males with more power/rights because of literal/text interpretations and there are still some reactionary movements within various religions that want to return to male dominance.

Seems your standard of oppression is awfully high--the person/groups can't have any power to change the negative influence from a more dominant/powerful group. But if that is how you see it, OK.

From my view gays and many other ethnic/racial minority groups in the US still very much experience oppressive forces from more dominant groups/forces--but I view oppression as mistreatment, hatefulness, and/or disadvantage being played out in society simply because of some kind of minority group characteristic.

As for the issue of gay political power, I don't think it is much, or at least what power there is fairly fragmented. Getting back to the AIDS issue, whatever power they had was dwarfed by the powers that saw gays as a cultural/American/Christianity threat and used the disease as a rallying cry against them. The political ability for member of dominant groups to scapegoat minorities (race/cultural/religion/sexual orientation) for various social plagues and such has almost always surpassed those own groups political influence. It is very convenient and unfortunately very human to blame others you don't identify with, and politicians have effectively used it to office for centuries in around the world and it America too (e.g., the mantra like "Irish and Italian immigrants are threatening the stability and security of America" in Northeast cities in the 1800s--which not surprisingly gave way to the 1st rise of American gangs in response to this oppression).

I agree and also applauded him for talking about it. But of course it is reasonable to examine and challenge the basic assumption. We don't just publicly let persons express any opinion they want without challenging that opinion. Otherwise we can go around saying women should not work outside the home and minorities should stick to janitor jobs (largely the conditions in America what 90 years ago), and retreat from debate or from examining that fundamental belief by simply saying, "well, it is just my opinion and I have a right dismiss any challenges to it".

I don't see how it is different than the arguments many decades ago against women's suffrage (Biblical/"natural law" interpretations that the women's place is in the home and the political inference the man represents all that needs to be represented in a home), segregation/interracial marriage ("god wants us to breed with our own"), or against other faiths (burning off witches/Jews and countless other cases of religious persecution in Western societies). All of these cases were made from members of dominant faith groups and I cannot honestly draw line where it is different today concerning gay rights. (This is not to say some from the dominant faiths/groups of the day were not progressive--many were and helped enable the change, just like many heterosexuals like myself support what is viewed as the gay rights agenda)

From gay persons I have talked to, and my sense (but I could be wrong) is maybe you have got to know many and that is why it doesn't register on your radar as oppression, I have pretty clear indication of their oppression. Same with other racial/ethnic minority, and religious minority, friends. Now does it mean oppression might at times be exaggerated or been used to interpret negative events more often than is probably the reality, possibly because I think it often comes with various minority identities/persecuted groups, but that is kind of besides the point because it doesn't dismiss that such oppression is happening and surely too often correctly perceived. (sorry for rambling this last sentence, but since I already wrote it I'll leave it just in case you or another gets something out of it)

It terms of broad societal levels they will tell you lots of cases of abuse ranging from playground stuff and insults to physical assaults outside of gay bars and torture. Even in our common language, a very good indication of where society is at, gay slurs to demean persons are one of the most prevalent you still hear. Now granted, I, like you, see little that policy or legislation can do about this (certainly short term--though measures like hate crime language and changes like that below might help change the climate over the longer term the way the climate towards groups like African Americans and women have changed to a large, though agreed incomplete, degree), but nonetheless is certainly is an indication of persecution/oppression/dehumanizing a minority group--whatever you want to call it.

Further at the most basic legal and policy level, an adult person who wants to share decisions and resources with their most trusted partner can't to the same degree of other pairs of adults simply because they are the same sex. Many of them have been ostracized from their families, and yet they (their families) would have legal protections stilted to them over their partner (concerning the handling of remains, life and death medical decisions, access to their resources) if some unfortunate event happened to them. There are many other very real and practical implications as well (e.g., adoption). It wasn't long ago women and ethnic/racial minorities also didn't have the same top level legal rights, marriage rights, and/or equality in legal marriage--just like the case with gay couples today.

So basically from the top (Federal legal/policy) to the ground level (slurs- language, disproportionate abuse) gays certainly meet my definition for an oppressed group.

Personally, I think the simplest solution is to leave marriage to religions institutions to self-determine as they wish, and have legal partnerships carry the weight in civil matters. Clean, fair and simple.

That's fine, and I have to say I am real pleased with how this discussion went though were clearly have some disagreements, thanks kokopuffs for the exchange.

 

So, my kids are attending their first gay wedding this weekend. Should be a fun time.

 

My band just played a wedding gig this past weekend for a gay couple. Our set list included lots of Village People and we closed the night with Gloria Gaynor's " I will survive ".... the guests tore up the dance floor. Business is booming, if you can't beat them, might as well....

 

Not sure why you bumped this thread to note this event - where does it come from?.

Does this mean it's their second and you were lying - again?

 

I hear Broyles is starting some coloreds at defensive halfback this weekend. Probably need to keep the cheerleaders in the stands just to be safe.