She probably knew what you meant (it is a pretty common yet simplistic argument) and just disagreed.

It's fairly clear you're going for the gold in mental gymnastics. But please, tell me more about me. Because this Chick-fil-A issue is clearly about you, and me, and my privilege versus your privilege. In fact, I believe the COO actually said that "agzg rules because WHITE LADY! sigmadiva drools because BLACK LADY!"

And as I stated, for me it does.

It just deeply offends me when White gays act like they are the same "type" of minority that they can equate with being Black or Hispanic.

What I see is White gays do a very good job of trying to convince people that just because gays can't get married, then they are a minority that is akin to Blacks with respect to slavery and the after-effects of slavery in this country. I never buy it.

As I stated before, being Black and being gay are not the same thing with respect to being a minority.

Ummm, yeah......:confused:

And that is your problem.

Short list of power minorities:

1. Women--sexism, misogyny, patriarchy
2. Racial and ethnic minorities--racism and discrimination
3. LGBT--heterosexism and genderism
4. People with physical conditions--disability discrimination
5. Age groups (50+ in many contexts)--ageism

Back to the real discussion.

But what about the Black gays? Can the Black gays win the Oppression Olympics? What about the wild card, Black transgendered women?

Exactly. I hope you saw the facetiousness in my comment.

I accept that. Which is why whenever a White gay tries to convince me that we suffer / have suffered the same injustice, I will say no.

Its an issue that I have chosen to take a stand on. Yours may be broader than mine.


I agree with this list.

On a serious note, Black LGBT are a double minority. There are community groups and research about how Black LGBT have double minority statuses. Many feel rejected by the Black community and by the LGBT community.

The Oppression Olympics.

LOL. You are being strange and random. If you agree with my short list, the point you are making is moot.

Yes, they suffer a double 'whammy' - being Black and gay. ;)

LOL. Nah, you have to be more obvious with the facetiousness when discussing power and oppression.

Perhaps....


My point is, in terms of minority, the idea that Whites consider themselves a minority is truly laughable to me me. As a group, they exercise more power and influence than anyone else. So I ask them, 'Where is the suffering?':confused:

If you agree with my short list, your posts are moot. You are chasing yourself around for no reason.

This is all a long way of entertaining myself to the point that there's always someone more oppressed than someone else. And it's a good thing to recognize that. But this discussion does not relate (in current terms) to other minorities.

Here are some comparisons I will let fly in a discussion without calling you an asshole and awarding you a gold medal in mental gymnastics at the 2012 GreekChat Oppression Olympics:

1. Discussions relating to gender inequality and pointing out the intersection between race and gender and its effect on gender equality (in fact, I would have agreed with your comment outlining how Black women get a bum wrap had you left out the douchetastic "pointing out someone else's privilege" angle, which, btw, I'm already aware of, thanks - don't forget that you're probably more privileged than a lot of Black women, as well).

1a. This also goes for discussions relating the experience of being a member of the LGBT community AND either a gender minority (the perception of lesbians versus gay men) OR/AND a racial minority and the effect it has on equality, although that can get confusing (what are we discussing now?).

2. Discussions relating to specific policies directed toward different minorities which could be related - "Stop and Frisk" laws in NYC v. "Show us your papers" laws in Arizona.

3. Discussions drawing comparisons between individual actions/memberships and their speech relating to minorities and individual actions that you may take against them (boycotting them, calling them idiots, whatever), but nothing else about any shared or not shared experiences between minorities.

4. Discussions TBD. I'll determine right now that this discussion does not fall under option #3. And I'll tell you why it won't:

DrPhil made a comment calling the LGBT community (if you can call it that - that's like making the comparison that all gender equality advocates are feminists) are a power minority. This is true. You perceived her to be drawing a direct comparison between the LGBT minority and Black or Hispanic Minorities and their experiences as minorities. I said "What." because that was fucking stupid (you noticed there was no question mark, there, right? I wasn't questioning you. I was calling your post irrelevant). You pointed out my privilege to me and engaged in some athletics to point out that you're clearly more oppressed than me. You continue to do so. If White gay men are saying they have it harder than you, TO YOU, you have my full permission to slap them right in the face. But frankly, harping on and on about it makes me think that you have a problem with gay people.

Do you have a problem with gay people?

Either that or she's Andre Turner. LOL.

On the real, despite how random sigmadiva is being, what she is saying is nothing new. There has always been this ranking and battle of oppressions. Many Black people were and still are tired of other groups saying that they are oppressed/power minority and using the racial and ethnic dynamics as a comparison. When white homosexuals say "we're just like you," it does attempt to make oppressions the exact same rather than just co-existing. It is as annoying as that thread where the people were comparing their circumstances to that of Blacks.

Of course it is. I just find the Oppression Olympics really annoying.

Yeah well we entertained sigmadiva's posts. LOL.

Kinda, sorta no.

What people do in their lives is their business. But, since homosexuality has been turned into a 'hot button' political issue, it is not unreasonable for people to take sides.

Christianity is very deeply rooted in this country. And, in Christianity homosexuality is seen as sinful, along with other acts. So, if you ask me as a Christian, do I have a problem with gays, then yes I do because it does go against the Bible. I strive to live as close to God's word as possible.

But, I'm also wise enough to recognize that not everyone is a Christian. I'm also wise enough to know that people have the right to their own beliefs even though they differ from mine. So, in that respect, then I say live and let live.

Personally, I'm heterosexual. So for me it is hard to comprehend being attracted to someone of the same sex.

If someone says they are not in support of gay marriage, as marriage defined by the Bible, then they have every right to express that openly in the same way that someone would express the opposite view.

Going back to the original point of this thread - I think if the CEO of CFA was not the CEO, but some random guy, then this would not make news. The reason this made news, IMO, is because this was said by someone who runs a multi-billion dollar company. Gays are seen as a political group that exercises its power and influence (read money). So, the idea of someone offending a political group like that ruffled feathers. Bottom line - money is involved. If money was not involved then I don't think anyone would care. Gay, or not.

Thank you! It just prolonged what I need to do - go wash some dishes!

I am also a Christian and I do not consider homosexuality sinful or wrong. I also challenge people who quote the Bible for their stance on homosexuality.

No, you will not end your random posts with a dish washing flounce.

So, yes you do.

Yes you do then.

Did you know that a lot of gay people are also Christian? Also that the Bible has a lot of definitions of marriage?

http://x70.xanga.com/f018463225db828...w224941734.png

You've made that quite clear.

First, which biblical definition of marriage do you mean, here? I'm quite fond of the Man+Wife+Wife+Wife one. Because Lord knows, taking care of a man (clearly my job as a woman, as is spelled out by the Bible) gets tiring sometimes.

OH WAIT THAT'S NOT LEGAL.

It's interesting, though, right? I mean... the status quo right now is that no gay marriage is federally recognized, and only recognized in some states. Super interesting that someone else's "free speech" won out there. At what point does it leave "free speech" and enter "actively working to keep inequality?" Which donation to anti-LGBT groups would that have been?

Of course he wouldn't. Random guys on the street are statistically unlikely to have the dollars (and be willing to give them) to fund side projects that help other groups lobby against gay marriage. No one gives a shit what the toothless white dude with a NASCAR hat thinks about Chick-fil-A and "the homosexicals that are threatnin' traditional marriage!" and has to squeeze a nickel so tight the buffalo poops to make ends meet. His one vote doesn't effect change or uphold the status quo. Now, funding groups to mobilize 3 million toothless white dudes with NASCAR hats on (PrettyBoy is going to come in this thread and bitchslap me for the NASCAR references) DOES make a difference.

Gays are not the only power minority that has money. They're certainly not a power majority that has money. Because people who run multi-billion dollar companies sometimes start charities that fund anti-LGBT groups. But it's cool though - because they're always more privileged than someone, right?

And that is your choice. I do.


Again, that is your choice.



Well, I don't know how your day / week has been, but mine has been full of long hours, so I must go now.

I know from years and years of being on GC with you, this can go on forever and ever. I will have to catch up with this thread again in the morning.

You win. It is apparent that we are not going to convince each other, so to you too, I say goodnight. :)

No shit. You volunteered your opinion and I responded.





Flounce.

You started this. YOU did. Don't blow smoke up your ass.

Oh no, I'd never challenge your gold medal spot on the podium :). Have a good night.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind having someone to help with the housework. :p

Don't tell Live-in, I have him convinced that the only way to run our household is 50/50. He's cooking dinner tomorrow, Friday, and Saturday, since I cooked Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday. If he finds out the Bible says I need to do all the housework he'll start going back to church. Probably with his dad, which would be fine if the pastor wasn't awful.

Bless your heart.

Homosexuality isn't a political issue at all. The political issue comes into play when people like you see homosexuals as second class citizens not worthy of equal protection of rights as heterosexual citizens. Your statements about how a white homosexual male could never be as oppressed as you is quite bold as well. In all seriousness, how the hell do you know? Everyone's journey is different in life and not everyone can "hide under the radar" like you assume they can or even choose to do. I really don't want to get into the Oppression Olympics here but I personally have gay friends that have been disowned from their families, have been forced out of their careers, have been arrested, have been gay-bashed so bad that they were hospitalized all based solely on their sexuality so your comment about how none of these individuals know oppression really ANNOYS me.

The problem is that many people who are Christian are politically forcing their religious beliefs on the rest of the country, and that is what is unacceptable. There has never been one statement, fact, or reason to deny two consenting unrelated adults of the same sex/gender a marriage that doesn't come down to religion, and this is the core of the whole problem and why people are mad about the money donated by ChikFilH8 to influence politics and deny human rights while furthering their Christian beliefs. I'm getting tired that Freedom of Religion is an argument for interfering with the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment by depriving people of equal rights. It wasn't okay with Loving v. Virginia 45 years ago, and it isn't okay now either.

If you ate at Chick-fil-A yesterday, I hope you get salmonella poisoning and die.

I am fascinated by the whole "marriage is religious" thing because, there is no state in this union that requires that a marriage be performed by a religious clergy person. In every state, you need a marriage license from the state and have to be married by someone granted the legal powers to perform a marriage ceremony. "By the power vested in me by the state of ________ I now pronounce you husband and wife". People can choose to have a religious clergy person with those powers perform that ceremony and sign that certificate but people can also choose to not have a religious clergy person perform that ceremony and sign that certificate. In our country, all of these people are equally legally married. And, by the way, that wording can be altered, if someone chooses to use that as an argument against gay marriage. It used to say "man and wife". It could just as easily say "legally married partners".

Tolerance and inclusiveness means that you try to see things with empathy for others who have different circumstances than yours. Just as sigmadiva said she cannot imagine being attracted to someone of the same gender, homosexuals cannot imagine being attracted to someone of the opposite gender. Frankly, I can't choose which men I am attracted to. I can choose whether I act on that attraction or not (if he is married, for example, I can ignore that attraction and not act on it). I just don't think it is fair or logical to ask homosexuals, as consenting adults, to ignore all of their attractions for their whole lives because it doesn't fit into someone else's religious beliefs.

In my belief system, laws should be made to prevent an infringement of rights. If gay marriage is legal, it allows more people to get married. Nobody has to marry someone of the same sex, but they can if they choose. If you don't believe in gay marriage, then you don't marry someone of the same gender. That seems pretty simple to me. It is legal to own a gun. I choose not to. I don't push for laws that ban all guns because others don't have to share my beliefs. If the law said I had to own a gun, that would be a problem. If the law said I couldn't own a gun, that would be a problem. If the law said I had to be married by a religious clergy, that would be a problem. If the law said I couldn't be married by a religious clergy, that would be a problem.

Finally, it isn't that this CEO is expressing his opinion. People do that every day. He is putting corporate funds into his opinion. If people choose to not contribute financially to organizations that fund his opinion, then so what? Consumers speak with their dollars. Those who believe as he does and want to fund those organizations will do so. Those who don't, won't. I'm thankful he has made it known so that we have the knowledge to make that decision.

I'm also thankful that some Christian religions perform gay marriages and allow gay clergy. I'm also thankful we don't have to follow every law put forth in the Bible.

Apparently Chicago Alderman Joe Morena didn't get the memo, because he did say he would try to block Chik-Fil-A from getting a permit to build there.

Just to be clear, those churches that allow gay clergy and same-sex unions would see that as being consistent with the Gospel, not as ignoring what the Bible says.

But yeah, what you said.

Considering gay marriage is now an issue on many state ballots, where one is asked to vote for or against it, then yeah, it got to be pretty political at that point.

It has been a while since I had to take a US history and US government class, but as far as I remember, I never read or came across any moment in US history from the early - mid 1600's to today, where gays were forced into servitude just because they were gay. Nor do I recall any law needing to be passed to allows gays the right to vote because they were denied the right to vote simply because they are gay.

I agree with you on what you said above. Those are examples of oppression. But, when I see White gays hold up banners with pictures from the 1960's Black Civil Rights Movement trying to proclaim that they have suffered the same fate, that I don't buy.

I'm not saying that there have not, and are not, clear instances where someone has been oppressed simply because they are gay. What I'm saying is there has never been in the history of this Nation such a systematic and at a period of time forced by law, oppression of gays to the same extent experienced by Black people in this country.

So systematic oppression is the only oppression that makes you officially oppressed?

This has been happening since Europeans first arrived in this country, so that is nothing new.

And the counterpoint to this is, if the CEO of CFA had come out with a statement completely opposite to what he actually said and decided to donate money to support gay marriage, then some people would still applaud him and others would still be angry.

Its his company. He feels that he can say what he wants about his company. For those who are not familiar with CFA, they are closed on Sundays for the sole purpose to allow their workers to go to church. So for him to come out with this statement should not be much of a surprise.

Also, what a person sees as 'equal rights' is very subjective. The best we can do is what we are doing now - present the issue and give the people the right to vote on that issue.

Actually, Eisenhower's Executive Order 10450 is evidence of sytematic and official oppression.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...91-homosexuals

No. As I've said, my issue comes when White gays try to use images and similarities to the Black Civil Rights Movement as a foundation to push forward their agenda.

I just don't see the two as being the same level, extent, degree of oppression.

Very long lines of very polite, friendly, patient people at my local CFA yesterdday afternoon. Enjoyed my chicken nuggets.

CFA consistently has the nicest employees of any fast food place out there, except on Sundays when you can't get anyone to take your order for love or money.

Raising Cain's has much better chicken, is open on Sundays and has Cain's sauce. One Love!

Why do people keep saying this? Based on how constant these statements have been, it sounds like more than commending a "good company" for "good service" and "good food."

It sounds like the common practice of an attempt at a dichotomy between the politeness of "those God-fearing folks who just wanted to use their First Amendment rights...leave us alone" versus the rudeness of "those other folks."

People are always picking on the polite God-fearing folks. The silent warriors. God has a blessing coming through for them.