Der Trihs, it’s obvious to you because you have been exposed to certain things, just as it is probably also obvious to you what the equation F=MA means. But to someone who has not been exposed to the facts, the fact that homosexuality is largely outside the person’s volition is not obvious, just as it is not obvious to my father, with his 4th grade education, what the aforementioned equation means.
It should be obvious to anyone at all, even some guy back in the Neolithic with no education at all. People DON’T choose likes and dislikes. Not favorite foods, not favorite songs, and not who they find attractive. Simply being human gives you enough data to figure this out, unless you don’t want to face reality.
I know several people who truly BELIEVE IN THEIR HEARTS that gay people choose to be gay. They are not being dishonest. It’s simply what they believe.
I believe 100% that gays are born that way but it doesn’t make me doubt that other upstanding people believe otherwise. I don’t know why you insist that it’s only dishonesty instead of just ignorance.
By the way, Der Trihs, I notice that you have, for the 2nd time in this thread, removing salient points from material you quote from me. I’ll quote myself again:
You omitted the bolded sentence, which is relevant to the conversation. It is relevant because it is a matter of choice whom one marries. I married a white woman; I could have chosen otherwise, and persons who oppose miscegenation would probably say that she and I should have done exactly that. But such a restriction is unethical because those who oppose interracial marriage do not have the right to impose their morality on others, whether the interracial marriage is a matter of choice or not. Likewise with SSM and homosexuality in general.
This then brings up the question as to why is it not obvious to them? It’s not a complex idea - it’s one that even very young children can understand. A two-year-old can learn that it’s not nice to pull someone’s hair because it hurts - and they know this because it hurt when their sibling pulled their hair. So the question is, are they honestly not smart enough to understand many obvious parallels? No, this isn’t it, so what is it then?
Let’s review the many similarities:
When blacks were enslaved, marriage between slaves was not recognized. Interracial marriage was not allowed or recognized. Likewise, marriage between homosexuals is not allowed or recognized in most places.
Both groups have continually been victims of vicious hate crimes based solely on their minority trait. Black and gays both have been beaten, lynched, and killed for having a trait which others deemed to be unacceptable.
Both groups have faced significant employment discrimination.
Blacks used to be barred from serving in the military alongside whites. Likewise, openly gay people are prohibited from serving in the military.
What else?
Are these people religious? Do they believe this due to their religion? If not, how are these beliefs informed? Do they believe they chose to be straight? What do they think would the motivation be for someone to choose to be gay?
Willful ignorance is a choice, a form of dishonesty. They are denying their own experience when they say that.
I didn’t consider either of those things to be relevant. You said :
I snipped the first, because my disagreement with the first part of the argument made it ( in my eyes ) wrong; I snipped the second because my point is that they are denying reality, not just morality.
Those similarities are all trumped by people believing that gays choose being gay. The analysis starts there. All other parallels afterwards mean nothing until everyone agrees with you that gays are born gay.
You can’t oversimplify down to “motivation” and expect logical answers.
Why do fat people “choose” to be overweight when society is so cruel to fat people?
Why do people “choose” to spend more than they earn even though bankruptcy is embarrassing and stressful?
Why do people “choose” to hit the snooze button when they know they will be late for work?
No, it doesn’t because that claim is not only factually wrong, but is a clear denial of human nature.
You use the word “dishonest” a lot, in many threads.
If someone disagrees with you, you call them dishonest. That’s the common pattern I see.
Coretta Scott King spoke out in favor of gay rights, but detractors said, “To equate a lifestyle choice to racism demeans the work of the entire civil rights movement.”
On my team at work, there is an African American guy and a gay guy. The black guy was bitching about people being racist towards him, how oppressive it is, etc. When the gay guy said, “I know how you feel!” the black guy attacked him, saying, “It is NOT the same thing! You can hide if you want, I can’t!” Not a pleasant conversation to witness, let me tell you.
This seems to be part of the reasoning, outside the religious argument, that I’ve heard used to discount the comparison. To wit, even if being gay isn’t a choice, making people aware that you are gay is a choice, as is engaging in a gay lifestyle. Personally, I find this stance offensive, because my friend should not have to be in the closet, hiding the most salient parts of his life, like who is life partner is, because he wants to avoid other people’s bigotry. Living in the closet out of fear means the world will never change, which I guess is A-OK with some people.
So, to the OP–yes, I think it’s hypocritical and based in ignorance.
In other words, you have no actual counter to my arguments.
Some blacks don’t like gay people. Some gays don’t like black people. Being a member of a minority group doesn’t provide some magic quality that prevents you from being a bigot.
Let’s review.
You said: “Willful ignorance is a choice, a form of dishonesty.”
My ACTUAL COUNTER to that statement is that you label virtually anything you disagree with as a “form of dishonesty.”
Btw, you also use the phrase “form of dishonesty” quite often.
My friends are NOT being WILLFULLY ignorant. They are just being IGNORANT… PERIOD. I disagree with them but I don’t call them dishonest for disagreeing with me.
The “else” you’re looking for is that you examples are US-based. I know that the OP is about US guys, but:
Marriage between slaves has been recognised in many cultures and cross-racial marriage has been illegal in few circumstances around history.
Whites, Asians, Catholics, atheists, rich people, people who did non-physical jobs, etc. have been beaten, lynched, denied things, etc.
Gay marriage as an issue is part of many cultural discussions that do not involve a realtively short period of time of US history.
as to the OP: It could only be hypocrisy if Blacks celebrated and accepted gay marriage in private, but voted against it.
Why is it that “opressed minority status” is supposed to trump everything else?
Why? It could be hypocrisy if you think that blacks should see the parallels between their struggles, and the rights denied them out of ignorance and hatred, and what gays are going through. Wanting equal rights for yourself, despite other people’s strong beliefs that you should not have them, might make a person more sensitive to other people going through similar struggles. Mrs. King thought so; others do not.
This, though, is a good point. If people are against gay rights for strongly held religious reasons, then that might well trump other concerns.
Thank you for answering this more eloquently than I would have.
Isn’t it hypocrisy to expect equal rights for your own oppressed minority group, while actively denying equal rights for another similarly oppressed minority group? Is there maybe a better word to describe this inconsistency?
But haven’t there been numerous instances in human history of discrimination, hatred and bigotry against a group based on religious beliefs? This doesn’t make it any “less bad” than just plain old hatred or ignorance, does it?
I think blacks in general just have a macho culture and they see homosexuality as going against that. I doubt it has as much to do with religion as it does with seeing homosexuality as undignified. I have read some sociological writing to the effect that since black “manhood” was suppressed and demeaned through slavery, blacks as a group have evolved a more macho culture to compensate for that. When you’re poor and treated as a second class citizen, the one thing you can still hold onto is your manhood. Why do you think the ultimate put-down in black urban culture is to call someone “bitch?” Or “punk,” which originally was explicitly a term used to refer to an effeminate homosexual male who was dominated by an older and more powerful man. I think this is a pretty logical theory. If you read about how much more underground homosexuality is among blacks than among whites (they call it the “down low”) it all makes sense. It is not religion at work here, it is the code of masculinity and machismo.
No, I’m kind of with Der Trihs on this: your religious beliefs do not give you the right to deny other people civil rights. The point is, blacks might see their religious beliefs trumping the sympathy they might have for gays as an oppressed minority group. I think a good portion of them do. It’s not “less bad,” it just mitigates the hypocrisy somewhat.
I also agree with with Argent Towers said about machismo being a big factor in African Americans’ homophobia.