Your job is to show how its irrelevant. If it’s so ridiculous, this should be a breeze.
If blacks were just as supportive of SSM as whites, the fact that they fought for civil rights would leave them just as open to charges of hypocrisy as they are now. It’s disingenuous to portray this issue as just being a numbers game. Blacks are targets because of their history; not just because they are disproportionately against SSM.
It’s not surprising if you take off the racial blinders and see blacks as what they are: people who are disproportionately poor, disproportionately uneducated, disproportionately religious, and disproportionately Southern. Would anyone be surprised if a poor white Baptist who didn’t go to college and lived in the Bible Belt expressed dissapproval for SSM? Why should we surprised when the races are changed?
I’m really interested in hearing an answer to this question. If a black person can draw equvalencies between race and sexuality, so can a white person. But you’re expecting blacks to be better at it than whites because blacks fought for civil rights. The latter doesn’t follow from the former, though.
It’s not a stretch…to someone who is already enlighted enough to see homosexuality as a natural human condition. People who fail to see this are ignorant and unenlighted. But no more hypocritical than anyone who thinks masturbation leads to hairy palms and porn is from Satan.
The urgency I sense comes from people’s insistence in using a word to describe their opponents in a villifying manner rather than a honest, accurate one. Opinions have nothing to do with it. It’s more of a question of logic and appropriate use of the English language.
American blacks are more likely to be evangelical Christians than American whites. Evangelical Christians are more likely to oppose homosexuality and gay rights than people who aren’t evangelical Christians. So, I wouldn’t say it should be surprising.
Well, sure, you can accuse somebody of anything you want. But if you want to be honest instead of just smearing them, you should only accuse people of things that you know to be true.
Can’t fail to notice the thread has partly become a debate on the meaning of the word “hypocrisy” (and thank goodness we have not seen much of the wrong spelling)
Sounds good to me. Let’s call it ignorance. Call it cultural insularism. Call it bigotry. Call it a “I got mine, now f**k you” attitude. Call it flat out wrong.
Once you overcome the ignorance and insularism so the other person can no longer honestly argue “but, but gay is different!”, then it becomes hypocritical to continue to insist on discriminatory treatment.
But ISTM that the mere adjective “hypocrite” is being misused as some sort of flag that if we can get to stick on the other side first, we win.
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.
That’s the point, though. If they’re genuinely ignorant, they aren’t a hypocrite, because being a hypocrite requires knowledge. Hypocrisy doesn’t just mean having wrong beliefs, it means having wrong beliefs and knowing they’re wrong. If someone holds an ignorant belief about homosexuality, they aren’t a hypocrite, because they don’t know they’re wrong - that’s what makes them ignorant.
Please let me know when any of the “minorities” you previously mentioned are actively protesting to gain the civil rights they are being denied.
You’re obviously distorting the concept of an oppressed minority. That’s why it’s ridiculous and irrelevant.
I assume you’ve read the title of the thread.
This is just a rephrase that’s already been dealt with. I’d say any white Christian who claims to support equal rights and denies SSM is an equal rights issue is a hypocrite as well, but that’s not the topic here.
Why do people keep insisting that you have to be aware of your hypocrisy before you’re actually a hypocrite? Yes , their justification comes from not only being ignorant, but stubbornly clinging to their ignorance in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. I also think many conservative evangelical Christians are hypocrites for claiming to place a high value on truth and then denying solid evidence that contradicts their traditional beliefs.
Speaking of use of the English language, your use of urgency and vilify puts you in a position of reading the minds of posters who disagree with you. You can’t so I’d suggest you refrain. It’s a simple disagreement of the use of a term and nothing more. Noting a form of hypocrisy is no worse than noting willful ignorance based on religious belief. I can note someone’s hypocrisy and still think they’re fine people in other areas.
As another poster just mentioned, it seems to come down to a definition of hypocrisy. You seem to insist that hypocrisy requires someone being knowledgeable that they are contradicting their stated beliefs with their actions. What is your basis for this detail of definition? Can you support it?
I maintain that hypocrites rarely acknowledge their own hypocrisy and can often be sincerely unaware of it because they cling to their justification.
So, while “being gay is a choice” and “being gay is a sin” may be the religious justifications and seen as sincere beliefs those same people can also be realistically considered hypocrites if they claim to support equal rights but use such a justification to deny those rights.
A good argument. Why do you think hypocrisy requires knowledge of the hypocrisy. Why is the use of the word inappropriate because the hypocrite is convinced of their justification?
I support equal rights for minorities.
and
I oppose SSM
can be seen as contradictory and hypocritical
“I don’t see SSM as an equal rights issue”
may be a part of the equation but it doesn’t change the contradiction of the first two.
Were whites in the old south hypocrites when they used all sorts of inane justifications to deny equal rights to blacks?
Machismo and male bravado are somewhat more apparent in Afro-Americans than in Whites/Asians. They seem less secure in their manhood in a way. It may have something to do with the subjugation their people have endured over the centuries and the resultant need to ‘compensate’. Hence the way many tend to treat their women I suppose.
It doesn’t surprise me that the Black demographic would be less amenable to the idea of, what is essentially, gay equality than their White counterparts.
So let me get this straight. Are you saying that a protest is required before the hypocrisy card becomes relevant? If children started lobbying for the right to vote, then any black person who said “no” would then become a hypocrite?
Well I guess blacks better hurry up and get on the right side of the issue then, lest they be called hypocrites. How bizarre.
What defines an oppressed minority to you? Do you think blacks have always been considered by a society to be an “oppressed minority”? They haven’t and neither have homosexuals. This is a term given to groups by people are who sympathetic to that group’s cause. Ask Israelis whether Palestinians are an oppressed minority and most will probably say “no”. Ask liberal Americans and most will probably say “yes”. Children aren’t called oppressed minorities precisely because our society as a whole doesn’t view them that way. That means very little though in terms of whether there’s a case to be made for their rights (and I’'m not saying there is).
And this is just more disingenuousness. If the operative factor is religiousity, it’s wrong to make it about race. If it’s about ignorance and insularity that comes with undereducation, there’s no reason to make it about race. It’s like starting a thread about how whites are hypocrites for supporting an illegal war, when the main issue is not their race but their political affiliation. Oh and then saying, “I think black Republicans who support this war are hypocrites too, but that’s not the topic here!” :dubious:
Ignorance is hard to eradicate, as this board shows. People believe a lot of stupid things. Most of us take for granted that homosexuals are normal people because we’ve been exposed to them and are well-read, but many people aren’t as lucky because either they don’t know any gays or they only know gays who are closeted. Or the gays they know haven’t accepted themselves and go to absurd lengths to show they are “cured”. That’s an important distinction between race and sexual orientation: because you can’t hide race, exposure goes a longer way in changing people’s perceptions. Gays have to work harder because the regular joes can be invisible, leaving only the dysfunctional to appear as prototypical examples of the “gay lifestyle”. Factor in the indoctrination of machismo and religion, and you’re left with a tug of war between bigotry and open-mindedness.
No definition of hypocrisy I know is based on being stubborn. The word bigotry suffices. Seriously, there are other words in the dictionary that work just fine. Not knowing what there is to gain in using a word that doesn’t fit.
I don’t think they need to know they are contradicting their beliefs. Only that they need to be contradicting their beliefs. It’s interesting that you mention mind-reading, because that’s exactly what you’re trying to do when you call anti-SSMers hypocrites. If someone believes equal rights apply to people who meet X, Y, and Z criteria, it’s wrong to call them hypocrities because they don’t think people who meet A criteria are entitled to what X, Y, and Z get. It’s a shoe that doesn’t fit.
Well, I disagree for the reasons that I pointed out. “Equal rights” has never meant that everyone in society is treated exactly the same. More importantly, there’s no evidence that the people you’re calling hypocrites believe that “equal rights” extends to all without restriction. And yes, I think that’s an important detail before you can call someone a hypocrite.
If you take the statement, “I support equal rights for minorities” at face value, then anyone who says it is going to be a hypocrite, because there’s always going to be some minority whom you think it is justifiable to exclude. Convicted criminals are a minority, for example. I don’t think convicted criminals should have equal rights to the rest of us. For one thing, they should be in jail, which is a pretty major curtailing of their rights. And I don’t object to them losing their right to vote for committing a felony, either. If I were to say that I supported equal rights for minorities, I don’t think I could justifiably be called a hypocrite because of my feelings about criminals.
Similarly, while I support same sex marriage, I oppose pedophiliac marriage. I don’t think a grown man should be allowed to marry a young boy, for reasons that I feel are perfectly obvious. That doesn’t make me a hypocrite, because I feel there are pretty significant differences in the two types of relationships, that make it necessary to oppose one, even though I support the other. If someone else believes that there are significant differences between gay marriage and straight marriage, such that it’s necessary to oppose one, even though they support the other, that is not hypocrisy. It’s wrong. It’s stupid. It’s bigoted. But it’s not hypocritical.
Because blacks are more likely to be evangelical Christians than whites, and evangelical Christians are more likely to be anti-gay than people who aren’t.
It IS that simple. The poor african americans in the ghettos are no different from the poor in the slums in other countries. If there is a higher criminality among them, it’s because they live in poverty and because the african american leaders have failed them - it’s not because of racism. They are not denied anything under the law. They are not denied anything in terms of capital, education, etc.
They have been the beneficiaries of those who fought for and maintain the idea that all men are created equal. To have them NOT fight for the right of marriage for another group, if not hypocritical, is despicable no matter what excuse they have.
Or you could read this one sentence over and over again.
The topic of “Why do blacks do X?” is a perenial favorite on this board. Haven’t yall noticed by now that the answers are almost always the same? When the mystery of black folks seem too hard to negotiate by yourself, take a wild ass guess that the source of the enigma boils down differences in socioeconomics, education, and/or religo-cultural and you can never fail.
No that’s not what I’m saying. Let’s not waste time on this nonsense. Your link is a joke.
I’m not interested in these rhetorical games. There’s no valid reasonable comparison between the groups you mentioned and the kind of prejudice and suffering visited upon blacks and gays in their struggle for equal rights and you know it.
I didn’t make it about race. I answered a question in a thread title that I didn’t start. Did anyone say they are hypocrites because they’re black? I know I didn’t. The point is only that their hypocrisy and it’s higher percentage as a group makes it more surprising because of their own history of being the victims of prejudice and the civil rights issue, specifically, marriage.
<snipped>
What makes you think it has anything to do with gain? Are you arguing your premise because you have something to gain? How bizarre!
No, it’s not mind reading to express an honest opinion about the definition of hypocrisy.
I understand what you’ve explained but I still maintain that hypocrisy can and does exist within the two conflicting beliefs.
In order to not see or acknowledge the hypocrisy people create justification as to why “this is different” In this case it’s the spreading of the falsehood that being gay is a choice. That falsehood is not a religious belief btw. There’s ignorance and then there’s willful ignorance. The data to dispel this falsehood is readily available to anyone who cares enough to look. If you claim to care about equal rights and refuse to even consider the evidence that qualifies as hypocrite. It’s not blatant hypocrisy but something more subtle. Hypocrisy nonetheless.
I didn’t claim any of that so it’s a wasted argument.
I don’t want to get to far off topic and arguing details I don’t think are very relevant. Please read my recent post. Even when people sincerely believe whatever justification they have I still think it’s a subtle hypocrisy. Two beliefs contradict each other. I support equal rights and I oppose SSM.
The necessary justification is the religious belief that being gay is a sin and the non religious belief that being gay is a choice. How sincerely someone asserts their willful ignorance doesn’t remove the hypocrisy.