Hey sigma...I kinda get what you mean about not really seeing other instances of discrimination being proposed for similarities. But, what I find on this issue is that a lot of people (of both orientations) propose to me that the gay rights issue is like the civil rights issue because I'm black. It's their way of trying to establish a common ground with me, connect with me on an emotional level, etc. I imagine there's lots of examples of other groups they could use and probably do with those other groups. I think, as it's the "most recent American experience" it is presented a lot to Americans in general (more than Native Americans and Jews anyway), but moreso with us in particular. Do you think there might be a possibility that this issue seems to crop up way more with you for the same reason as it does for me?

I don't know what your reasons are.

The only reason this issue cropped up for me was because I took offense at the picture KSig RC used. Like I said above, it was just propaganda to illicit a response.

If people want to be gay - fine. I will not ever try to stop them. I just draw the line at gay marriage. I will not support that based on a moral issue.

If they want civil unions / domestic partnerships, I'm actually okay with that.

But, don't claim, or imply, that they have been discriminated against in a manner in which they have not. Like I said, my parents and older relatives truly lived separate but equal lives. I grew up in Texas, I understand what that means. Gays have not been treated in the same type of separate but equal way as American Blacks were, which we have already established.

Ooops. Sorry. I'm usually pretty good about keeping you two fraternal twins straight, but every now and then . . . . :o

LOL. Me either. And thanks, a.e.B.O.T. Sounds like a very odd system to me for an appellate court to take original jusrisdiction in a case like this, with no record developed below, but hey -- if it works for them, who am I to argue?

I understand your argument now. Thanks for the clarification.

I agree with this part.

However, I do acknowledge that being denied an ability to live your life without fear of mistreatment based on sexual orientation is salient in some contexts. As heterosexuals, we take for granted the ability to be able to hold hands in public without people staring or threatening bodily harm. We take for granted the right to marry and receive whatever economic, political, and social benefits from that. We take for granted the ability to have everything catered to a two-sex couple. We take these things for granted for the same reason any other majority group takes things for granted. We don't have to think about it because our existences are dominated by majority ideals. That still doesn't make this stuff all the same.

Remember when that girl and her girlfriend were thrown out of a baseball game for "making out inappropriately?"

Granted, the girl had been on Shot at Love so there's a possibility for some lewdness... but I've never heard of a heterosexual couple being thrown out of a sporting event for making out.

Without knowing the full context, hetero couples have been admonished for doing things that shock others' sensibilities. A lot of us don't want to see heteros tonguing(?) each other down.

I agree with your general point, though. I'm also glad to see this turn to being about heterosexual (majority) and homosexual (minority) rather than being a "whose oppression is it, anyway" gameshow. :)

Oh no, I get that. I was responding to your statement (probably some pages ago by now) that people constantly compare gay rights to Blacks/civil rights and not to American Indians, Jews, etc. (BTW, "Dr. Phil", I loved the way you summed up the "similar but not same" post, very well-written!) That's why I said that people do that all the time with me because I'm black and that's their attempt to make the issue more personal with me (i.e., eliciting emotion from me as part of their persuasion). It's not that I'm only hearing it frequently because of bias or whatever, people have actually admitted to doing so for that reason. I wanted your thoughts on the possibility that you might be experiencing the same thing when you say that the civil rights comparison is the one that you seem to hear all the time. Did I say that a little better? I know sometimes I talk in circles so I hope that wasn't too confusing. :o

ETA: I'm not sure who posted this, but someone mentioned a gay couple being legally allowed to attend prom some 30 years ago. Did I read that right? Did that apply solely to public (government controlled) schools or to all schools? Because I know there was a big ruckus at my high school around prom time because it was a CLEAR rule that same-sex couples wouldn't be allowed to attend. They wouldn't even be sold tickets. If you came to prom, it had to be with a date of the opposite sex. A friend of mine burst into tears hearing that because she couldn't find a date so she'd planned to go with her best friend who hadn't been asked either. (Sidenote: at first, singles weren't allowed either. Anyone going to prom had to have a date but, with the boy/girl ratio being what it was, there were so many girls left dateless that they had to change it. Yeah, my school was awesome, right? :rolleyes:). But it was a private school, so was that what made the difference? Back then, it never occurred to me that something like that could possibly be illegal.

cool....;)

There's a possibility it has happened, but a hetero couple being thrown out wouldn't make national news. I've never seen people (hetero or homo) making out at a baseball game, anyway, though. And I know I would, because I hate baseball, so there's no way I'm not using my binoculars to people watch.

"No! Let's go to a baseball game!"
"But I hate baseball."
"Come on, let's go, the Pirates are playing the _______!"
"But I hate baseball."
"Let's go!"
"But I'll get a sun burn!"
"I'll give you sunscreen, let's go!"
"You're buying me a hot dog."

Stupid baseball nut friends.:mad:

Oh, okay, I got ya! ;)

Well, no not really. I don't hear it in the context that people are trying to relate it to me because I'm Black. I think using images and relating it to the Civil Rights movement is just their way to tie into an already known event, as opposed to creating their own.

If the issue of gay marriage is so compelling, then it is an issue that can stand on it's own. It does not need 'help' from another major issue. Does that make sense?

That depends. I'm sure it made national news for reasons beyond sexual orientation.

And I'm glad I missed the national news blurb on this one.

Definitely. I do agree that it's a issue compelling enough to "stand on its own" but I also know that people will always try to make their argument stronger by attempting to back it up with precedents (even if the association is "loose" at best). This applies no matter who the people or the argument.

I wish I could find it again, but Googlenews isn't working for me like it usually does.

I think it was out west somewhere. They talked about it on the Shot at Love reunion show.

Which I only watched because... because... no I don't really have an excuse for that one.

It does, and I'm understanding your point much better now too. Thanks.

I think there are two frameworks at play here simultaneously. One is a (for lack of a better word) "societal" framework -- the gay rights movement as a whole, whether it be about gay marriage, gay couples at the prom, violence against gays, equal employment opportunities, etc. I think if you look back to Stonewall (and before), you find a movement that, while some parallels with the Civil Rights Movement as well as other historical movements are indeed drawn, is a movement that stands on its own and that makes its own arguments. It was from this framework, I suppose, that I kept insisting that the gay rights movement doesn't compare the struggle of gays to the struggle of Blacks only.

There is also the legal framework, and that is how the gay marriage issue is framed in California and elsewhere that legal challenges have been brought. In the legal framework, it is to be expected that those who claim that constitutional equal protection guarantees include a right to same-sex marriage will cite and rely on the "separate-but-equal" cases and cases like Loving v. Virginia that interpreted and applied the same or similar constitutional provisions, while opponents will seek to distinguish those cases. That's how the courts work, by looking to precedent.

Sometimes the "societal" and legal frameworks overlap. Sometime the legal framework is used to force changes in the societal framework.

I hope this makes how I've been looking at this make more sense as well.