I've never been able to choose who I'm attracted to. I'm either attracted to a man or I'm not. I've never been able to make that chemistry happen if it isn't there and I've not been able to turn off the attraction if it is. While in divorce court, when my first husband walked into the court room, I still felt that intense physical attraction even though he was abusive jerk and I had grown to hate him. Therefore, I don't believe that gay people have that ability either. I cannot believe that someone would choose a lifestyle that has such a stigma and puts such limitations on their lives. In fact, most gay people I know tried very hard to meet and fall in love with members of the opposite sex before realizing that it wasn't going to happen and accepting that they were in fact gay.

I'm a white heterosexual who agrees with the "separate but equal" argument. I don't understand why anybody would deny someone the opportunity to commit to their life soul mate in a public, spiritual and legal way.

It makes about as much sense to me to do away with it as it does to expand it. Once we move away from what's been traditional, for lack of a better word, in marriage it becomes a whole lot easier for me to question the value of state endorsement of the whole institution.

It's not a question of wanting to exclude gay people because same sex marriage really doesn't bother me, but once you start to examine the whole institution and how it's practiced or not practiced, it's hard to figure out why it ought to be perpetuated.

It's not regarded as essential for having and raising children. It's not regarded as especially permanent. What's the point anymore really? (If you have a good marriage, it's not really the state endorsement that gives it meaning probably.)

I don't think anyone believes people should marry for health benefits or tax breaks, so why would they be a good reason to perpetuate the institution?

Don't most of us operate that way?


As I've said on this topic before - one can be as gay as one wants to be. Live and let live. I just don't accept the argument that gay rights are the same / similar to civil rights with respect to racial equality.

If gay people want to support gay marriage - fine. Just because they support it does not mean I have to agree with it. Just don't usurp what Blacks have had to deal with as an equal comparison to gay rights. To me the two just don't carry the same weight.

Becuase there are people who feel very strongly that homosexuality is a choice. Is there a gay gene that some people are born with? I don't know.

Because some people feel very strongly that homosexuality is immoral.

I feel that it is immoral, but I'm not going to try and stop someone from being gay. That is not for me to do. But, if given the opportunity to express my opinion on the matter of gay marriage by a vote, then I would not support gay marriage.

No, not really. :p

I just find it very insensitive that the Black experience in America can get so trivialized.

So, Sen, let me ask you - would you as a Black gay man find the issue of gay marriage more compelling if it is compared to the Holocaust that Jews experienced?

Gays, just as the Jews, were singled out for being 'different'.

Gays, just as Jews, were / have been persecuted for having practices and beliefs that were / are not accepted by the 'norm'.

Gays, just as the Jews, had property vandalized because they are not part of the 'majority'.

Gays, just as the Jews, are subject to ridicule just for being who they are.

So do you think the gay marriage argument would have more support if we compared it to the Jewish experience seeing as that both groups have been persecuted in the same way?:confused:

It's even more telling that you think I was "trivializing" the black experience by utilizing the historical and moral lessons that are directly drawn from the mistreatment of blacks in the United States to further human rights.

It's not "trivializing" the black experience - it's hoping that we never repeat the same horrific mistakes ever again. But hey - take it how you will.

Also, that's fine if you feel homosexuality is a choice, or that it's immoral. However, even if you want to dodge the church/state separation issue (I presume you do), I'm sure you'll agree that even immoral people (who do not break a law) deserve proper and equal treatment under the law.

Because of the positive connotation (and stigma) associated with the term "marriage," we walk a difficult path when we even begin to introduce terms such as "civil union" - it's eerily similar to how "separate-but-equal" was really anything but, even when we acknowledge the scale is dissimilar. We should be more enlightened than to simply pretend terms or institutions have no meaning or can be used interchangeably - they can't.

It's sad that you feel that by viewing the issue of gay marriage as a civil rights issue that it somehow trivializes the black experience. MY black experience is enhanced by being able to acknowledge that it's all part of the same movement.

I don't need to find the issue of gay marriage any more compelling for me than it already is -- it's my life.

I feel very strongly about this issue, enough to end friendships with people just like you who do not believe in my equality. I WILL NOT respect any person, religion, or opinion that does not stand with me for equal rights.

So point out to me where gays have experienced the exact same mistreatment as Blacks? As I asked earlier, were there or are there separate water fountains for gays?


It is trivializing the Black experience. Have gays in this country been forced into slave labor? Were gay families broken up and sold as property? Have gays been denied the right to vote soley because they were gay?


I feel that homosexuality is a choice because it has not been proven otherwise, i.e. a gay gene.

I dodge the church/state issue because for me it is an impass. I don't think one side will ever convince the other, so why discuss it.

Again, gay people have not been mistreated under the law. Gay people don't get longer jail time or have to pay higher taxes just because they are gay.

I agree with this and I bolded the part of the point I'm trying to make.

If you want to make the argument for gay marriage do so - just find a different basis than 'separate but equal'. Separate but equal sought to restore and give rights to Blacks where those rights were taken away. Nothing has been taken away from gays.

What planet are you on? The right to marry has been taken away, the very same right that Loving -v- Virginia stated was a basic human right.

And gay people have been mistreated under the law, until very recently in some states it was a crime punishable by jail time for a gay couple to make love.

You need for there to be a "gay" gene for it to be proven that being gay isn't a choice? Well, there is no "black" gene, so being black must be a choice, right?

My point is why do gays always have to point to the Black experience as a justification to gain their rights - what ever they may be. Why can't gay people just say that many groups have been persecuted for one reason or another based on some aspect of their being, so why should they (gays) be persucuted for how they are.

For you personally, I'm sure that is true. I think if more people had a more visceral feeling towards the Black experience then they would be a bit more sensitive (understanding?) to wanting to compare their experience to ours.

I have parents and family members as I am sure you do, who lived through the experience of the civil rights movement. Who did truly live a 'separate but equal' life under segregation. When my parents and older family members relate their experiences to me I just don't see the comparison to gay rights.

Wow, you're a real love me or leave kind of person, eh?

I don't agree. How can something get taken away if you never had it in the first place?
If at some point gays did have the right to marry, then it was taken away, okay, I see your point. But, like I said, gays never had the right in the first place.

Yeah, and those states took that law of the books too.

I think you are making an assumption that is not true. Being black in terms of skin pigmentation is very different than being Black by culture.

And no, being black is not a choice (unless you are Michael Jackson :p). I was born with a good deal of pigmentation in my skin as I was born to parents who have a good deal of pigmentation in their skin.

Now, by culture, I do identify with the Black race. But, as we know, you really don't have to be born Black to be Black. Just ask Eminem (?sp).

And btw kstar, whose sock puppet are you?

No one claimed that these were true - however, these things are neither necessary nor sufficient for a comparison to be made.

Maybe our impasse is one of being far too literal. To use the phrase "separate but equal" is simply to reference the fact that, in practice and in theory, any sort of bifurcation or double standard has been shown to be unlawful and discriminatory. Does that make more sense?

No one is claiming any of these things - we're only claiming that, for years, the court system in the United States has determined that the right to marry is, indeed, a constitutionally-given right - as is the right to vote, the right to liberty and property, and a host of others.

I believe someone smarter than me once said that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - this is the part you're missing when you view my comparison, to my mind.

Nope, they just earn less, get fired more, get targeted for crimes based on their minority status, and lack fundamental rights under the law. So yeah - if you're comfortable with that, there's no discussion to be had.

This is the same logic that was used to prevent blacks from voting decades ago.

Actually, you've validated the comparison implicitly - banning gay marriage is "restoring" a right to gays that has been unilaterally denied under false pretense. I've never owned a gun, but that doesn't mean I forfeit my Constitutional right to do so.

That is because to claim that gays have suffered the exact same as Blacks in this country is a weak argument, at best.

You're the one who's trying to make it literal by posting the picture that you did. And again, I disagree. I don't see where there is any double standard here.


Again, you're not going to convince me that this is a valid argument.

I don't see the injustice. I just don't.

Not from my perspective. The gays I know seem to earn more and get fired less. Where do you live? Maybe you should move. ;)

Blacks were denied the right to vote because in part we were seen as 'less than human, lacking the mental capacity to make important decisions'. I've never gotten the feeling that gays have had to suffer that type of injustice.

This isn't about scorecards... the group that gets the most discrimination will receive their rights first... The only comparison to the black struggle that was trying to be made is, that this country has a history of LEGALLY suppressing the rights of individuals based on race, gender, religion and sexuality, with the African American struggle being the most prevalent by means of recency and severity. Now, in every national battle, both sides of the argument will say things they shouldn't say, things that cross the line. You shouldn't hold that against the other side as a whole. There are ignorant people on both side of the issue.

Gays are being told that they couldn't vote because they are immoral, confusing to children, and will upset church practice. No, that is not as severe as "less than human, lacking the mental capacity to make important decisions" as Sigmadiva put it. No, gays probably aren't being treated bad as African Americans. There were 3 times as many race-related crimes to sexual orientation related crimes. However, gays are being told they do not deserve the rights of everyone else. They are being told that they can not marry the one that they love. They are being told that they are not capable of raising healthy children. ETC... There is a difference between the way the government is benefiting straight people and gay people. That IS discrimination, even if it is not as bad as slavery or the right to vote, it still is discrimination.

Two days ago Moses Cannon was shot for being gay in Syracuse, New York. Again, I am not saying the gay struggle compares, but the struggle is definitely there and relevant... and tolerance will not come until our government fully accepts us.

1. Good, then stop trying to make implicit comparisons to the struggle of Blacks in this country to gay rights. I'm glad that you have recognized that the weight of the two are not the same.

2. I personally in no way condone violence against anyone based on how they are.

3. People (the government) will have a hard time accepting you because to do that would be to support a lifestyle that they may find immoral.

My experience tells me that some (certainly not all) couples do indeed chose to marry rather than simply live together precisely for reasons such as these.

The close-minded certainly do. I try not to.

You do know, don't you, that thousands of German homosexuals were also sent to the concentration camps and to German jails? Many were forcibly castrated, used for hormone experiments and/or killed. They had to wear pink triangles instead of (or in addition to) the yellow Star of David as a badge.

After the liberation of the concentration camps, the German goverment often re-imprisoned those gay prisoners; some remained imprisoned for years after being "liberated," all because they had been convicted of being gay, which the Nazi government had made a felony.

Sock puppet? I've been on GC for longer than you. (by 10 days, but regardless...)

You say being black is not a choice, then you say that it is? That doesn't even make sense. Being gay is not a choice, in fact, if you ask most homosexuals, they will tell you that they tried to be straight, but couldn't. The heart loves who it loves.

It doesn't matter if homosexuals had the had the right taken away or denied the right from the beginning, it is their right. Blacks didn't have the right to vote taken away from them, they didn't have it from the beginning, so they shouldn't have been all up in arms about not having the right? I don't think so. Nor did they have the right to marry who they chose, but a black woman fought and had her innate right recognized. From the decision of Loving -v- Virginia, "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," .... To deny this fundamental freedom ..., is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law... Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person ... resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." Yes, this decision was about interracial marriage, but I don't see how you can argue that interracial marriage is okay, because those people loved each other, and homosexual marriage is not. It is an innate right to marry who you want, and to deny that seriously makes you seem like a bigot.

Even if the laws were struck down, these people are NOT getting equal protection under the law. They cannot see their partner when they are in the hospital or make medical decisions for them, they cannot see their children if they are not the ones on the adoption papers or the biological parent, they can't adopt in some states. Hate crimes against homosexuals aren't even declared hate crimes in some states, since the laws only cover gender or racially motivated crimes. How is that equal protection?

Now, I have to ask, why can you not see that the struggle for civil rights and equal rights for one group is the same as any other struggle for civil rights? It doesn't matter if the crimes perpetrated against one group were better or worse, they were still crimes. You want to compare gay rights to the Holocaust struggle, I could say that is ridiculous since the Holocaust was about depriving people (including homosexuals, not only jews) of their life, not their rights, and the black rights movement of the mid-twentieth century was about rights.

Separate but equal was used to justify segregation, in this case people are calling for civil unions as opposed to marriage, saying that it is the same thing (equal) but different terminology (separate). You are really saying that you don't see how separate but equal is the same type of struggle as separate but equal?

Ok, like I said before... there are going to be things said on both sides of the argument that are unjust and ignorant. That will not change. I can't change that. There however, is a difference between the struggle... i.e. saying that gays have had it as bad as blacks... and the arguments for the suppression... such as the Loving v. Virginia case mentioned here earlier... people found it immoral, and at that time, even after the case, a majority found it immoral. People find this immoral, but government isn't about morals. The government is about fairness, or at least should be. You want morals, go to church, believe that God doesn't approve of gays... that is all fine and dandy, and you have every right to do so. However, the government is about fairness... so the question is, is gay marriage fair? Loving V. Virginia is totally just in the argument for gay marriage as the grounds of the victory was based on the fourteenth amendment, which re-affirms the equal protection clause. The basis for that case were that Loving was protect under that clause as a citizen of the U.S... well, gays are protected under that clause as well. So there is grounds for bringing up that case as well as grounds for arguing discrimination.

hahahahaha

;)



Yes, I do. My point was to illustrate that not only have Black Americans been ostracized, others have also. So, why do gays choose to compare their struggle to Blacks only? Why not compare their struggles to other groups.

Who said they are comparing their struggles only to those of Blacks?

okay.....


No, you said that being Black is a choice. I said that being Black by pigmentation is not a choice. I inherited genes from my parents that cause me to produce more melanin than what we consider white.

Being Black by cultural identification is a choice. Yes, one can be Black by "color", but one can choose to identify with a particular culture.

Your argument assumed that Black skin automatically equals Black culture. Or that is how I interpreted what you said.

Blacks had the right taken from them when they entered this country as slaves. They were not given the same and equal constitutional rights as a free (white) person. Blacks were being denied the right to be seen and treated as a human being in all aspects of living. Gays have not had the same treatment. Again, some people see homosexuality as a moral issue, not really a human / civil rights issue.

And, people can love who they want to. I just personally won't vote to allow gays to marry.

Same is true for everyone else. Just because a heterosexual couple lives together, they too are not treated as a married couple.

And, with racial hate crimes, it has become harder to prove. I mean, just look at the Jena-6.

Because as I've said, for me it is a moral issue, not a human rights issue. And, just as you think it is ridiculous to make a comparison to the Holocaust, I think it is ridiculous to make a comparison to the civil rights struggle of Blacks in this country.

Again, for me it is a moral issue, not a rights issue. But that is how I see it.

They are. That is the comaprison they keep bringing up as a justification for their cause. I'm just responding to what has been said / posted. Did you not see the picture KSigRC posted?

Because people have a funny way of letting their morals seep into laws. ;)

Of course I did. The fact that Separate-but-Equal is brought up indicates two things:

-- that the Civil Rights Movement is the most recent example of an American movement seeking equality for citizens, and

-- that the court decisions in cases such as legalized gay marriage and said that providing for civil unions was not sufficient relied heavily on the reasoning of cases that struck down the Separate-but-Equal.

But your question was:
So my question wasn't "who said they were comparing their struggle to the struggle of Blacks?"; it was "who said that they were comparing their struggle only to the struggle of Blacks?" The picture that KSigKid posted =/= the entirity of the discussions being had and comparisons being made on this issue.

Hands down, one of the best posts of the entire year. I love you, AGDee. :D

Honestly, I think part of it is the romanticism of the thing. Even if all the rights were exactly equal, it still wouldn't be enough. No one (of any orientation) wants to dream of that one day in the future that their little girl will grow up, put on a pretty white dress, and go get "partnered." It's the societal connotation that KSig mentioned (though I won't even touch the other stuff in that post :rolleyes:).

FYI, I'm neither gay nor a spokesperson for gay rights.

Gays are free to compare their plight to whomever they want - but in a situation where some are pretending that a "civil union" is the same thing as "marriage," I'm going to compare that to pretending that "separate facilities" is the same thing as "equal facilities" . . . since, in a literal sense, they're identical.

Oh - by the way . . . no one can convince you that marriage is a right? Look up the Supreme Court decisions that say just that, maybe? This isn't a religion or "me" thing - it's a legal thing. Obviously, you're free to disagree with the Court's decisions, and if that's the case then we'll just have to agree to disagree on some level - but I think that would help you understand where I'm coming from, and it would fully explain the connection to past events that have paved the way for others to gain rights as well.

It's a good thing.

ehh...I still think the connection is weak.

Because that is the reference that is continually brought up by their side.

It's really not. It's all you see because you're prejudiced.

I agree and agree;)

It's not being prejudiced, it's all I "see" because it is a historical aspect of me - where I come from. I see prejudices in a lot of places. I'm just more likely to speak up about Black history / culture because that is what I am a part of.

That Holocaust argument is really bothering me.

The Jews, Catholics, Homosexuals, Gypsies, etc., were all rounded up and persecuted. Not only them, but people who helped them, or liked them, sometimes people that were really only neighbors. Poles were persecuted, just by nature of being from Poland. Why does everyone forget this stuff?

Just because there are some logical fallacies involved in comparing separate but equal for Blacks/Whites, does not mean that it is not the most appropriate comparison to the Gay Marriage issue.

Unless the next step is not only to deny marriage rights, but then to round up all the Gays, friends of Gays, neighbors of Gays, people that know Gays, people that employ Gays, etc, then just to make a topper on it, people with red hair, and throw them in the gas chamber.

The two are not really comparable. Add on top of that that the Holocaust was a European experience (yes I know that many Americans were affected by it, but after the fact or they left before it happened), while the Black/White issue, as it's being discussed here, was an American experience.

Perhaps a closer comparison might lie in the Japanese internment camps. Except we're not rounding up every homosexual and making them live in camps because we're afraid of espionage.

I agree, this makes the most sense!

I think it's kind of funny that the pro-marriage camp feels that having MORE people getting married will ruin the institution. If you were really interested in making lifelong commitment a more well-adhered to cultural practice, wouldn't you be excited that more people were interested in monogamy? It's like having a bunch of people agree with you!

Not to mention the benefits of disease control that come from the encouragement of long-term monogamous relationships.

I had not thought about that, but now that you bring it up the public health interest in encouraging monogamy as a safe sex practice is fairly large.

All of which is irrelevant to your unfounded (and unsupportable) claim that the Civil Rights Movement is the only reference or connection being made by "their" side.I agree with much of what you said. But since it did get brought up, I think it is useful for illustrating that there isn't any group that has a monopoly on being discriminated against, and there are lessons to be learned from all instances of discrimination.
Not really, because from the "pro-marriage" side, those advocating for gay marriages are not agreeing with you. The two sides are operating from a fundamental disagreement about what the word "marriage" means, with the "pro-marriage" side believing that a same-sex union cannot, by definition, be a marriage. Whether others disagree with them doesn't make their opinion go away. Hence, the impasse. But I think this explains why polls show that many people who are not comfortable with gay marriages (because they are convinced that a marriage, by definition, can only exist between a man and a woman) are willing to support civil unions.

Good. Now you know how I feel when people try to make comparisons of gay rights with Black American struggle for civil rights - there is no comparison.

But, if the gay rights issue wants to align themselves with other people who have been persecuted, then why not the Jews too? Why not American Indians? Why not the Japanese in the US during WWII?

If gays feel that they are being maligned for what ever reason, then I don't think they should just base their argument on one group. There are plenty other groups out there too.

So, instead of just showing a White only / Black only water fountain, why not depict Jews being rounded up a forced to live in one area, and the same for American Indians.

I think you're missing my point, which was at least they're drawing on an AMERICAN experience.

What help would it be to compare themselves to European Jews, when we are not European? Furthermore, IT WAS NOT JUST THE JEWISH POPULATION THAT WAS AFFECTED BY THE HOLOCAUST.

I'll give it to ya, the African American experience in the United States has been bad, very bad. Yes, it was worse than homosexuals have been treated.

But when fighting an American fight, doesn't it stand to reason to draw from the American experience? I'm not black, nor am I gay, but the experiences of both of these groups have become part of the general American conscience, as well, myself included.

The Holocaust? Sad, sad occurrence. I'm sure people that were distant distant relatives were affected. But it doesn't affect my daily conscience.

Since you seem to keep refusing read the memo, I'll say it one more time. They aren't.

And to be clear, they're not basing any arguments on any "groups." They are comparing what they see as current injustices and discriminations to past injustices and discriminations.

Because the separate-but-equal accomodations reference (made by a straight poster) is much more analogous to the issue at hand than is forcing people to live in ghettos or reservations.

I feel like this is an argument that just doesn't make a lot of sense when you consider the institution in the abstract. It also proves to an extent that a lot of this debate is centered in prejudice.