Is it appropriate to compare the gay rights movement to the black civil rights movement? (poll, weapon)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll ask the same question I have asked over and over again to countless people. How does two gays getting married affect you and your personal life, Yeledaf?
Why, it depends on how one defines marriage, doesn't it? You are willing to throw out the historical definition of marriage, and its obvious purpose to produce progeny, enjoin families, and contribute to the stability of society; and, on a metaphorical level, to join two loving members of the opposite sex and thus provide a vital metaphorical union of dissimilar, opposite, lives (which for religious people also symbolizes the joining of God and humanity) to serve a recently popularized political movement founded in mockery and public pranks. Other than noting the patent and obvious absurdity of two people of the same sex calling themselves bride and bride or groom and groom, it is certainly not within my purview to deny people the right to make fools of themselves and enlist their associates as supporting actors in a Noel Cowardish bit of light comedy. But demanding that our society and legal system legitimize such absurdities because the majority of people under the age of 25 or so think it's cool is not the way stable societies function and can be equated with putting the inmates in charge of the asylum. And to what purpose?
Like several other posters I have encountered on this tiresome topic, you seem willing to spend hours collecting links which selectively support your point of view and ferreting out obscure examples of exceptions to the vast sum of human social history. You probably would call such efforts "research." I ask that you take a breath, re-read my previous post, and ask yourself why in the face of REAL problems that demand our attention as individuals and a nation, you and your ilk are so fixated on this absurb bit of trivia which so divides our country when we need more than ever to be united?
Just as the naked emperor demanded respect for his sartorial splendor, gay marriage advocates are attempting to bully the rest of us into kow-towing to their mockery of normal human lives and relationships. By all means, go play dress-up, if you wish. It is your right to do so. Just don't demand that we adults participate in your masquerade, and then stamp your little foot and pout when we refuse to do so.
Of course it is appropriate. There are many parallels.
The comparison is not perfect. However, no comparison ever is. We make comparisons when things are similar, not when they are identical; no two things are ever identical.
The comparison is useful when the parallels are noted and when the dissimilarities are also noted.
But it is foolish to claim that no comparison can be made. This is generally done by those who approve of civil rights regarding race (or are at least intelligent enough to understand that they should appear to be so supportive) but are in favor of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Since the parallels between racial equality and orientation-based equality are problematic for such persons, they demand those parallels not be noted.
Of course it is appropriate. There are many parallels.
The comparison is not perfect. However, no comparison ever is. We make comparisons when things are similar, not when they are identical; no two things are ever identical.
The comparison is useful when the parallels are noted and when the dissimilarities are also noted.
But it is foolish to claim that no comparison can be made. This is generally done by those who approve of civil rights regarding race (or are at least intelligent enough to understand that they should appear to be so supportive) but are in favor of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Since the parallels between racial equality and orientation-based equality are problematic for such persons, they demand those parallels not be noted.
That this demand is so feeble says volumes.
Finally, someone gets it.
There is this ridiculous notion that people are only deserving of rights when they have struggled to obtain them when really that is completely irrelevant from a Constitutional perspective. Civil rights are not earned. They are inherent.
No, it is not appropriate, and it is profoundly offensive to Black people to compare them.
John Lewis, who had his skull fractured marching in Selma, isn't offended. Quite to the contrary, he makes the comparison himself.
Quote:
This discrimination is wrong. We cannot keep turning our backs on gay and lesbian Americans. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I've heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred, and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry.
Why, it depends on how one defines marriage, doesn't it? You are willing to throw out the historical definition of marriage, and its obvious purpose to produce progeny, enjoin families, and contribute to the stability of society; and, on a metaphorical level, to join two loving members of the opposite sex and thus provide a vital metaphorical union of dissimilar, opposite, lives (which for religious people also symbolizes the joining of God and humanity) to serve a recently popularized political movement founded in mockery and public pranks. Other than noting the patent and obvious absurdity of two people of the same sex calling themselves bride and bride or groom and groom, it is certainly not within my purview to deny people the right to make fools of themselves and enlist their associates as supporting actors in a Noel Cowardish bit of light comedy. But demanding that our society and legal system legitimize such absurdities because the majority of people under the age of 25 or so think it's cool is not the way stable societies function and can be equated with putting the inmates in charge of the asylum. And to what purpose?
Yeledaf, nobody is asking for the personal ratification of same-sex marriage by every citizen in the country. I couldn't care less what people's personal views are, they have a right to believe what they want. Same-sex marriage proponents are just asking that some citizens not use the guise of "tradition" to restrict the rights of other citizens. By the way, "traditional" marriage is a very fluid concept and the definition of marriage has changed many times throughout history, generally based on what popular opinion was at the time:
Like several other posters I have encountered on this tiresome topic, you seem willing to spend hours collecting links which selectively support your point of view and ferreting out obscure examples of exceptions to the vast sum of human social history. You probably would call such efforts "research." I ask that you take a breath, re-read my previous post, and ask yourself why in the face of REAL problems that demand our attention as individuals and a nation, you and your ilk are so fixated on this absurb bit of trivia which so divides our country when we need more than ever to be united?
Just as the naked emperor demanded respect for his sartorial splendor, gay marriage advocates are attempting to bully the rest of us into kow-towing to their mockery of normal human lives and relationships. By all means, go play dress-up, if you wish. It is your right to do so. Just don't demand that we adults participate in your masquerade, and then stamp your little foot and pout when we refuse to do so.
I wasn't selectively supporting my point of view. I was merely addressing the points you were making.
Why, it depends on how one defines marriage, doesn't it? You are willing to throw out the historical definition of marriage, and its obvious purpose to produce progeny, enjoin families, and contribute to the stability of society; and, on a metaphorical level, to join two loving members of the opposite sex and thus provide a vital metaphorical union of dissimilar, opposite, lives (which for religious people also symbolizes the joining of God and humanity) to serve a recently popularized political movement founded in mockery and public pranks. Other than noting the patent and obvious absurdity of two people of the same sex calling themselves bride and bride or groom and groom, it is certainly not within my purview to deny people the right to make fools of themselves and enlist their associates as supporting actors in a Noel Cowardish bit of light comedy. But demanding that our society and legal system legitimize such absurdities because the majority of people under the age of 25 or so think it's cool is not the way stable societies function and can be equated with putting the inmates in charge of the asylum. And to what purpose?
Like several other posters I have encountered on this tiresome topic, you seem willing to spend hours collecting links which selectively support your point of view and ferreting out obscure examples of exceptions to the vast sum of human social history. You probably would call such efforts "research." I ask that you take a breath, re-read my previous post, and ask yourself why in the face of REAL problems that demand our attention as individuals and a nation, you and your ilk are so fixated on this absurb bit of trivia which so divides our country when we need more than ever to be united?
Just as the naked emperor demanded respect for his sartorial splendor, gay marriage advocates are attempting to bully the rest of us into kow-towing to their mockery of normal human lives and relationships. By all means, go play dress-up, if you wish. It is your right to do so. Just don't demand that we adults participate in your masquerade, and then stamp your little foot and pout when we refuse to do so.
More excellence!
We've lost a whole generation to this nonsense....and what does that mean for our future? I give us 20 or so more years of frittering away every bit of our national time and energy doing nothing whatsoever outside of attempting to belittle the unindocrinated into on-the-knees submission. By that time, we'll be the easiest mark on the planet for a culture that has managed to keep its collective head on straight.
I recognise very little of the above post as being true or matching Reality. For example few are arguing that we call it "moral" but are arguing that there is no reason to consider it "immoral". Also black people have been considered to have ALL kinds of deviancies by people over history, including mental health ones and mental ability ones. Some people even went so far as to think they were not even human but some kind of sub species.
Saying that being black has never been considered anything but a deviation in skin color is simply wrong.
Has being black been considered "immoral" or as a mental health condition? No. Were gays kidnapped and brought over and forced to work for nothing? Families separated and sold? Raped by their "owners"? Not allowed to use the same restrooms as everyone else? (Frankly, I think that would be a great idea though since I have to send my son with special needs alone into the restrooms.) Not allowed to sit in the front of the bus? Segregated in separate schools? Not allowed to eat in certain establishments or stay in certain motels? It is unfortunate that they feel compelled to engage in immoral behaviors to the point of illness, both physical and mental but they have a choice just like everyone else does when it comes to behavior and/or lifestyle. It is unfortunate that the mental health issues involved in the lifestyle are no longer addressed: Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems
Were gays kidnapped and brought over and forced to work for nothing? Families separated and sold? Raped by their "owners"? Not allowed to use the same restrooms as everyone else? (Frankly, I think that would be a great idea though since I have to send my son with special needs alone into the restrooms.) Not allowed to sit in the front of the bus? Segregated in separate schools? Not allowed to eat in certain establishments or stay in certain motels?
No, during the colonial period and early American period gays were arrested and either imprisoned for a long time or executed (all states at one time punished homosexuality by death). Later, they were simply arrested and imprisoned or involuntary committed to mental institutions where they were routinely castrated and lobotomized.
As to who had it worse in America - Blacks or Gays - I'll just call it a toss up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I ask that you take a breath, re-read my previous post, and ask yourself why in the face of REAL problems that demand our attention as individuals and a nation, you and your ilk are so fixated on this absurb bit of trivia which so divides our country when we need more than ever to be united? 
More excellence!