Does it make it OK if I think the Latinos and women who don’t support SSM are hypocrites too?
Why should straight white males be immune from accusations of hypocrisy? It’s like saying they’re all bigots by default and we shouldn’t expect anything better of them.
They’re hypocrites if they espouse a belief and then behave in contradiction with it. I happen to think it’s unAmerican to be against gay rights, so I think they’re all hypocrites if they claim to love American and the principles on which it’s founded. If you don’t agree with me that being anti-gay rights is unAmerican, you’d have to have a basis for calling them hypocrites, as people do with minorities. Do you? If so, please articulate it.
The belief they espouse is that marriage should be reserved for straights. Where’s the contradiction in that? In order to get away with calling them a hypocrite, you have to assign a strawman belief to them and then claim they are acting against it.
When determining whether someone is hypocritical, it makes no sense to judge them by what your beliefs and actions are. You have to judge them by their beliefs and actions.
I don’t think anti-SSM has anything to do with hypocrisy, whether we’re talking about whites, blacks, or Latinos. All I’m saying is that it’s unfair to single out blacks when pulling out the hypocrisy card. It’s silly to use that word in regard to this issue in the first place, but when it’s used in a manner that encourages racial divisiness, it’s extra wrong and annoying.
It’s not a straw man belief if they actually hold that belief, and then act against it. I’m not sure why, on its face, “marriage is reserved for straights” is hypocritical.
If you state that you are a patriot, and that you believe in the principles enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, then you should support equal rights for all people, gay or straight. If you say you believe this but behave in a way that goes against it, it’s hypocritical, no?
This thread is examining blacks’ opposition to SSM. We aren’t allowed to talk about that now? If you want to talk about Latinos or women, that seems like fodder for a separate thread. We’ve talked about white people’s issues, and society’s in general, quite a bit already.
Didn’t read all the responses here, but offhand guess:
Blacks tend to be less educated (due to institutionalized racism, etc., etc.), and this is an attitude that is associated with lower levels of education.
How many people do you know go around calling themselves patriots and defenders of the DoI and Consitution? Surely of those few that you may know, you don’t know enough black people who carry on like this to warrant calling their whole ethnic group hypocritical, so I’m really scratching my head over this argument of yours.
In a thread about so-called black hypocrisy it makes plenty sense to argue that it’s unfair to hold blacks to a different standard to other groups of people. You’re as free to talk about what you want to talk about as I am.
You don’t know people who say they’re patriots? OK then. I do, plenty. You don’t have to “carry on like this” to believe strongly in the DoI and Constitution, and to feel as if you’re a patriotic American. I’m not calling black people per se hypocritical. I think it’s hypocritical for any patriotic American to be anti-SSM. Hey, you asked why not call white people hypocrites too, so I gave an example of how they too could warrant that label. I wasn’t singling out blacks with this argument.
They’re not held to a different standard. They disproportionately oppose gay marriage when compared to whites, Latinos, and women. It’s this disproportionality that’s evoking this criticism.
And that’s cool and all, but as far as arguments go, it’s sounds very much like the “Why do you hate America?” canard. Anyone could use this argument to justify calling someone a hypocrite simply for having a difference in opinion. I can easily imagine a opponent of gun control resorting to this. It goes no where.
And that’s as justifiable to me as a kid who scored a 61 on their test criticising the kid who scored a 49. Both of them have F’s, so neither one is in the position to call the other a failure without pointing a finger right back at themselves.
Really? Being called child molestors, having your sexuality compared to beastiality isn’t similiar to being considered subhuman, or an animal? :dubious:
They may not experience the exact same ways of discrimination (being permitted to marry, as opposed to segregation, for example), but it’s still bigotry and a denial of civil rights.
Yeah, you could be really dismissive and say it’s “Why do you hate America?” Or, you could see that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is a foundational principle of the United States, and denying people rights because it clashes with your religious beliefs, for instance, or because it defies your idea of gender roles, isn’t very much in keeping with this idea.
The kid with the 61 is a lot closer to passing than the kid with the 48, so the latter kid has a lot further to go. Is there no merit in talking about why the kid with the 48 needs more help? I would say there is.
Sure there is merit is talking about why there are disparities. Religion. Culture. Socioeconomics. The reasons are the same dang things that come up time and time again, but if people need this repetition, that’s fine.
But can’t you see that’s different than singling one group out as hypocrites? The title of the thread says it all.
Yes, I can see that’s different. You see it as “singling out.” I see it as wondering why a particular group is so much more against something than other groups, and pointing out that it seems odd in light of their own struggles. You seem to want people not to talk about why blacks are so against gay marriage. But, as you said earlier, everyone can talk about whatever they want to, right? It’s not outside the realm of possibility that one could posit some hypocrisy here.
Think of the culture of the average NE DC male. Conducing homosexuality, or even knowledge in general isn’t high on the priority list.
It’s no more mysterious than why people of low SES are disproportionately anti-SSM. Or why people in the South. Or frequent churchgoers.
Focusing on blackness makes no sense when all this other stuff is going on in the background.
But hey, if you want to get off on calling blacks hypocrites, it’s a free country.
Yeah, that’s what I and others in this thread are doing: getting off on calling black hypocrites. :rolleyes: Thanks for that. This, from the person who said:
But it’s OK to try to shame people into shutting up about topics you don’t like. Got it.
Nyctea, the radio segment you mentioned in the OP gave one theory that hasn’t been mentioned. Black culture has long faced the stereotype of the “sex-crazed negro” out to rape white women. As a result, black culture is reluctant to identify itself with any form of sexuality that the mainstream defines as aberrant. I don’t buy it completely, but I do think being oppressed leads to certain forms of conservatism. When you don’t have a lot of power you tend not to challenge internal power structures for fear of weakening the power of the group.
I also think there is big chunk of plain old human nature at work here. Hard times rarely seem to promote sympathy in people. Someone who escapes poverty, even when luck plays a big role, will often look back at his or her former community and say, “See, I could do it! Why can’t the rest of you?” People who were victims of anger and violence often perpetuate the cycle. A father will say to his kids, “You think you have it tough? By God, I’ll show you tough!” On a smaller scale, go up to anyone who has been through a traumatic experience and tell them you know how they feel; see how they react. Or look at the adage about power struggles in academia: the politics there are so vicious because the stakes are so low.
Everyone wants to believe that their own struggles are unique and that no one else can appreciate them. And anyone who has been at the bottom of a power struggle will inevitably see society through that lens and be reluctant to give up any of their own power. People with least power are most jealous of it.
There’s been a lot of discussion of the anti-SSM protests in the Washington Post, mostly in opinion sections. As I recall many/most of the ministers who were publicly opposed to DC recognizing SSM from other jurisdictions were themselves from outside of DC - for example from megachurches in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Maryland as in NOT IN DC! :smack:
The same WashPost column(s) claimed that DC residents, including black DC residents, are statistically much much more likely to favor SSM. Which may be why the DC City Council has been discussing not merely recognizing SSMs from other states, but allowing SSMs to be performed in the District.
I know, I said other “states”. DC is not a state. Congress may quash the idea. Congresscritters seem to think their legal right to contribute to DC’s budget is a requirement to foist any loopy idea of theirs on the DC goverment. :rolleyes:
Re: the OP, I am also disappointed that the black community is less than supportive of the gay community. I can only guess why - I’m neither black, gay, nor a sociologist. But I am in favor of SSM. Call me crazy, but I cannot understand how my gay co-worker marrying his partner of many years would in any way weaken my own marriage of 26 years. That’s another thread, however.
This is second time that you’ve implied someone is trying to shut you up for expressing a disagreeing viewpoint.
Do you know what a debate is? Stay out the kitchen if you can’t handle dissent.
It wasn’t that long ago that homosexuality was considered a mental disorder and was frequently observed with other mental disorders (a syndrome if you will). I think the entire medical community have moved away from this 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.