Blacks overwhelmingly against gay marriage - Why such hypocrisy?

[not_alice]

@jayjay

There’s also the perception in the African-American community that homosexuality is not an African phenomenon. Many African-Americans hold the belief that the Europeans brought homosexuality to Africa with them, that it didn’t exist in Africa before the colonial period.

I have never heard that before. Because this board is all about fighting ignorance, and what you say may be helpful to me in my own struggle in CA, can you provide a cite?

Because, you know, having been presented with a claim, and while I am ignorant of it currently, I have volition and must decide to remain ignorant or not now, even though I didn’t plan for this particular event to happen, but I am wiling to see where it leads and I will adjust my thinking accordingly once I find out.

Which is all we can ask of people - that they willingly seek out and consider information and the connections between them. Because when people do that, they have the grounds for a discussion where they can seek out common ground and compromise. Choosing to willfully remain ignorant as Der Trihs put it is not going to impress anyone.

[not_alice]

@Rubystreak

The implication was, if you don’t want to be oppressed, go hide.

Yeah that works. The legacy of Anne Frank would be proud.

When people are forced into hiding who they are to get along, then they are at the mercy of being outed by anyone for any reason at any time.

Not only that, but there are no standards as to identification at that point, and someone could be accused of hiding just for the hell of it. You think straights haven’t been the victims of hate crimes meant to be committed against gays? You think non-Jews e.g. have not suffered the sting of hate when mistaken for Jews?

In the US, and we are talking about the US, we all have inalienable rights: the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is fundamental to our existence as a nation. That one subset of religions is upset about some other group does not change that.

While what a religion does or preaches on its own time is its own business, and so is who they allow as members, what is NOT OK is a subset of religions seeking to impose their non-secular beliefs on the rest of us through secular laws.

Which is contrary to certain other well known fundamental principles in our society, that are especially well-known and well-used to and by blacks historically (and recently in the lifetime of many of us, I might add). This is the dilemma that the OP was getting at.

And BTW, in my little burg here, the same exact thing is true for the local population which is primarily derived from white folks who emigrated from parts midwest during the Dust Bowl, and Hispanics who have come in at least two waves, those who were organized by Cesar Chavez some decades back, and more recently those that have arrived both legally and illegally to work in the fields.

Each of those influx groups have suffered tremendously, doing essentially the same kind of work many black slaves did on farms, for only little more pay and freedom. No doubt about it they were (and for those still in the fields, probably still are) oppressed and discriminated against.

Yet together they and their descendents who have done better for themselves, assimilated and improved their economic situation as is common in America, use the same arguments presented here to oppress other groups perceived as weaker than they are, rather than to recognize the similarities between their own struggles.

Rather than saying “the enemy of my enemy (other oppressed people) is my friend”, they seem to be grasping for justifications for actually acting as though “my enemy (oppression) can be overcome and become my friend if only I can find someone to oppress too”

And that seems so counter-intuitive to what it means to be an American that it is simply maddening to see in action, regardless of the ethnicities involved.

[not_alice]

@you_with_the_face

Latinos currently outnumber blacks, and are struggling with many social justice issues (immigration comes to mind), but for some reason it garners little surprise that as a group they aren’t strong advocates for SSM. Why is that?

Where it matters here in this town, I can assure you there is plenty of surprise and learning in both Latino communities and white communities regarding reflections on what has been done here.

[not_alice]

@you_with_the_face

I
Focusing on blackness makes no sense when all this other stuff is going on in the background.

Of course it does.

Here in CA, we are going to have another vote on prop 8, to repeal it, sooner or later. And again and again until it is done. And we will fight this battle at the Federal level simultaneously, and of course others are fighting in all 49 other states too.

Here in CA, we have learned the lessons of the last election and of complacency. We are already far more organized then last time, and we are aware on a precinct by precinct level how many votes we need to flip or find to change the results.

We have people looking at every angle of demographics, race, ethnicity, location, religion, whatever. No one is choosing to focus only on black voting patterns here, while ignoring anyone else. It is all under consideration you name it, it is being addressed. what is happening now is that we are seeking to understand the reasoning of those who voted against us before, and no one is naive enough to think that everyone who voted against us did so for the same exact reason and is subject to the same exact cultural influences. Once we identify the reasons and cultural influences, we will craft persuasive messages accordingly.

And if we are not successful this time, we will do it all again. The outcome here is preordained frankly, because older people are the ones voting with hate and prejudice, and their kids and grandkids don’t care. The longer this goes on, the more old people die and stop voting, and the more their kids and grandkids reach voting age and replace their one vote against with multiple votes for.

What this is really about is how much resources we will be forced to waste pushing through the inevitable when this energy could be better spent on issues that we ALL agree on that need work. Sad really. It distracts from our overall ability to do good stuff as a nation when we have to fight these battles that should be unnecessary.

[not_alice]

@Damuri_Ajashi

but you will still find disarmingly high levels of homophobia in the medical community and these guys are fairly well educated, but then again they are also largely Republican.

Cite on all of these remarkable claims?

[Miller]

@cosmosdan

I’m not sure how that applies to this conversation. We’ve discussed a lot of aspects here on the SDMB and so far nobody has raised any rational, believable, fact based, argument opposing SSM. What other factors are you talking about that don’t present the same problem.

If at this point you still don’t understand the difference between being wrong, and being a hypocrite, I’m not sure what to say to you.

[Captain_Amazing]

@not_alice

Thus, I can not let the quoted claim go unchallenged, as it is at the heart of the material I have been providing to our elected officials recently, as recently as last night. The difference is NOT small, as someone alluded above, there are 1139 State and Federal rights and obligations that are attached to marriage that are not attached to a CA domestic partnership.

Here is a link that describes the categories of those differences and similarities in a table form, so you can see simply where rights align and where they are different.

Looking at that chart, the differences between marriage and domestic partnership in California aren’t all that much…an inability to file joint state tax returns, inability to get property tax benefits as a veteran’s spouse, lack of exemption from the gift tax, lack of mandatory reporting for conflict of interest laws, and it can be dissolved without a court proceeding. There are, of course, numerous differences under federal law, but even if California allowed gay marriage, the federal government still wouldn’t grant the federal rights.

[not_alice]

@Miller

The easiest example is convicts: we’re depriving them of their inalienable right to liberty, because we’ve decided that it’s harmful to society to allow criminals to run around scot-free. It’s not at all hypocritical to support the DoI and to support the incarceration of criminals.

But you uinderstand why that is, right? because it is a principle deeply embedded in English Common law dating back to the Magna Carta.

When I hear people talk about “traditional marriage” and :“how marriage has always been that way” I actually expect that there will in fact be some dicussion of law that can be traced back to English Common law and the principles of the Magna Carta.

That would in fact be a rational argument, or at least the basis for a sound discussion, as you correctly claim it is for the matter of liberty and convicts. It is a matter of our “social contract” with each other if you will, with 100 years of documented legal history at the foundation.

Instead, whenever “traditional mariage” is raised, it is not a legal argument at all, but a religious one, in fact a subset of that, it refers to the collective beliefs of some religions, certainly not all present or past.

I for one would love to see an English Common law argument against SSM, regardless of if it claims that there is a parallel to the idea of imprisoning criminals or something. I think that comparison would be absurd myself, but IANAL. Maybe there is such a beast in a law journal somewhere, or even summarized on some anti-SSM web site. Has anyone ever seen an argument where there was an attempt to define “traditional marriage” and forbid SSM on the basis of English Common law that is the basis of our legal system?

I would like to see it, but I bet it doesn’t exist, and not because no one has had the time or ability to write such an article, but rather because there is no point to be made there.

And so it is with the quoted claim - if you are going to suggest that there is a basis for anti-SSM in the same roots of our legal system that allow imprisonment of convicted criminals, then I ask you to produce a cite that makes the case fully or else to back off of such folly.

[not_alice]

@ITR_champion

All of which might well generate some resentment among some blacks towards the rest of society.

But also all of which might drive the willingness to make political bedfellows if you will, with groups who you perceive to be members of the power elite, yet who see themselves as having more in common with you.

Really.

Think about it

[Miller]

@not_alice

And so it is with the quoted claim - if you are going to suggest that there is a basis for anti-SSM in the same roots of our legal system that allow imprisonment of convicted criminals, then I ask you to produce a cite that makes the case fully or else to back off of such folly.

Wow. You’re so far off from the point I was trying to make, you couldn’t spot it with the Hubble telescope.

[not_alice]

@JRDelirious

And it would be so if for many the claim were of supporting equal rights absolutely, universally and indiscriminately. ** However** in my experience it tends to look like for a large portion of Black Americans, in their minds their struggle for equality was (is) NOT a “universal” struggle, but their struggle, one for equality across racial “Black” v. “White” lines… and other applications of equal rights would be separate subjects and do not automatically get shared standing. Add the strong religious component that drives home that “this is different!” and you have cultural insularity at work, with people utterly convinced that it’s absolutely different and nowhere comparable.

This is definitely worth considering.

With regards to the Latino leadership here in town, they are signaling to me that educating them on the similarities could be a good way to bridge the gap. show us how your struggle is similar to our struggles they seem to be saying.

The white guys though, they are increasingly dug in, and while it might not be that they have nothing to tie it to in their personal stories, they do, they might not be wiling or able to see a bigger collective picture in their individual stories.

Similarly maybe such strategies can be refined to reach out to the black community.

[not_alice]

@Miller

Wow. You’re so far off from the point I was trying to make, you couldn’t spot it with the Hubble telescope.

Heh. As one of the earliest employees of the Hubble Telescope (known just as “Space Telescope” at that time) I might be in a better position to assess that claim than you

Snark aside, what was your point then if not to suggest that there is a related basis in law for denying SSM as there is for (I know this was jsut an example, so choose another if you want, denying liberties to criminals)?

Do you realize the historical basis, in OUR legal system for such denials of liberties? They are in English Common Law. so, if you are going to make the claim that there is a parallel, let’s walk all the way back to the beginnings of the lines and see if they are in fact parallel, OK?

Now, if you didn’t know the real source of such matters before making your claim, that is OK, not everyone does. It is OK to learn that maybe what you thought to be a reasonable position is not so reasonable because the roots are deeper or located differently than you thought.

Not everyone knows that our legal system was not cut out of whole cloth starting with the Declaration of Independence. But any discussion of the nature of liberty, which you most certainly did bring up, has to account for that. So I asked you or others if you were aware of any argument in favor of “traditional marriage” that takes that into account, since, again ISTM, that you are equating such claims with the basis of why we can (again, for example) imprison criminals. I for one would like to see the actual basis of that argument.

[not_alice]

@Miller

I agree. But you’re missing the point. I think homosexuality is harmless. You think homosexuality is harmless. But that guy over there thinks that homosexuality will draw down God’s wrath on us all, and so he votes against giving equal rights to gays. Now, the premise that God is going to smite us for allowing gays to marry is obviously ridiculous, but if one accepts that premise, than it is absolutely sensible to oppose gay marriage. And if your entire world outlook revolves around not getting smote by God, then opposing gay marriage isn’t hypocritical at all: it is entirely in line with your professed belief system. Your belief system may be based on several deeply flawed premises, but a flawed premise is not hypocritical.

But no one in America can rightfully calim that their entire world outlook rests solely on their relgius beliefs.

We live in a heterogeneous, diverse society, governed by secular laws. Not every countryin the world is like that. But this one most certainly is, and there is no one alive that has contact with our educational system that doesn’t know it.

Now, they may be exposed to it, they may know it on some level, yet their extensive time in church is spent listening to deep profound explanations of why this is not as important (“god family country self” or something like that) and that can indeed be persuasive to lots of people.

But that doesn’t make it right, and it does not change the underlying fact that our society is secular in its laws, and that as a country and society, we do work hard to keep it that way.

People are allowed to be influenced and they can pull the lever for whatever reason they so choose, but they can not say, no matter their numbers, that our society is now, ever was, or ever will be, governed by non-secular principles.

Everyone knows that, even if they don’t realize it or internalize it front and center like others do.

[not_alice]

@Captain_Amazing

Looking at that chart, the differences between marriage and domestic partnership in California aren’t all that much…an inability to file joint state tax returns, inability to get property tax benefits as a veteran’s spouse, lack of exemption from the gift tax, lack of mandatory reporting for conflict of interest laws, and it can be dissolved without a court proceeding. There are, of course, numerous differences under federal law, but even if California allowed gay marriage, the federal government still wouldn’t grant the federal rights.

Then work to repeal the extra benefits that married couples have, if you think they will find them not so important or necessary.

Let married couples live not knowing if anytheir rights will survive the mere act of crossing state lines.

Then, once that is successful, at least you would have an honest claim to having Separate but Equal regimes in the State. And we all know how persuasive Separate but Equal is in our society.
Yeah, married couples everywhere, in CA and across the US, if they are known for anything, it is for standing up and saying “We don’t value the rights we have, why don’t we get rid of them!” :rolleyes:

[Miller]

@not_alice

Snark aside, what was your point then if not to suggest that there is a related basis in law for denying SSM as there is for (I know this was jsut an example, so choose another if you want, denying liberties to criminals)?

My point was that it’s possible to say you support the concept of equal rights, but still feel that there are some classes of people who, for whatever reason, should be accorded fewer rights than the mainstream society, without being hypocritical. The reasoning behind restricting those rights was immaterial to my point.

Do you realize the historical basis, in OUR legal system for such denials of liberties? They are in English Common Law. so, if you are going to make the claim that there is a parallel, let’s walk all the way back to the beginnings of the lines and see if they are in fact parallel, OK?

Did you miss the part in my last post where I said that wasn’t my point? It’s kind of hard to believe, because that’s pretty much all I said in my last post.

[Miller]

@not_alice

But no one in America can rightfully calim that their entire world outlook rests solely on their relgius beliefs.

We live in a heterogeneous, diverse society, governed by secular laws. Not every countryin the world is like that. But this one most certainly is, and there is no one alive that has contact with our educational system that doesn’t know it.

Now, they may be exposed to it, they may know it on some level, yet their extensive time in church is spent listening to deep profound explanations of why this is not as important (“god family country self” or something like that) and that can indeed be persuasive to lots of people.

But that doesn’t make it right, and it does not change the underlying fact that our society is secular in its laws, and that as a country and society, we do work hard to keep it that way.

People are allowed to be influenced and they can pull the lever for whatever reason they so choose, but they can not say, no matter their numbers, that our society is now, ever was, or ever will be, governed by non-secular principles.

Everyone knows that, even if they don’t realize it or internalize it front and center like others do.

Are you even reading my posts before you respond to them?

[cosmosdan]

@Miller

If at this point you still don’t understand the difference between being wrong, and being a hypocrite, I’m not sure what to say to you.

So, you can’t be both?
If at this point you seriously think that’s the problem then it’s better if you don’t say anything.

[not_alice]

@Miller

Are you even reading my posts before you respond to them?

Of course. the phrase “Entire world outlook” came from you. It is pretty grandiose, but if that is what you want to talk about, so be it. I know you got bogged down in some other aspect of the discussion, but that is not the aspect of what you said that I am interested in.

[not_alice]

@Miller

My point was that it’s possible to say you support the concept of equal rights, but still feel that there are some classes of people who, for whatever reason, should be accorded fewer rights than the mainstream society, without being hypocritical. The reasoning behind restricting those rights was immaterial to my point.

Maybe maybe not. It is a pretty remarkable claim, and if you want to use it support of any argument, I think it is fair on this board for people to ask you for a cite or to explain yourself, as it is not a trivial claim you make as though you are saying the sky is blue on sunny days. Consider yourself so asked.

You don’t have to answer, but consider the credibility of the entire point you were making apparently rests on whether that leg of the table you built is really there or not.

It may be there, I don’t think so, but hey, you brought it up, so I suppose you can support it. I always give a chance anyway, hence my other thread about seeking rational arguments in support of Prop 8.

By now I shouldn’t be surprised when arguments don’t hold up under even light scrutiny I suppose, but yet I still am and so I always ask expecting it to be different the next time

Did you miss the part in my last post where I said that wasn’t my point? It’s kind of hard to believe, because that’s pretty much all I said in my last post.

Nope, I saw it, but while it may not have been your point, it was part of your choice to explain your point using that sub-point, and I don’t find it (the sub-point) to persuasive, although I would like to hear how you came to it if in fact it is more reasoned out then I suspected.

I am willing to have my ignorance fought by finding out your claim is in fact true, that you didn’t make it up out of whole cloth. Whenever you are ready

[levdrakon]

Can someone start a thread “Are Africa Americans assholes about the whole gay thing?”

This hypocrisy train ride has gotten tiring.