Majority of Black Americans reject the idea of GAY right as CIVIL rights..

[Field Marshall Bradley]

I ignore what is unimportant to the argument at hand. You can try and throw in all sorts of nonsense (as you have been doing) it still makes no difference. It doesnt matter who benefits from marriage until you can show that marriage is required for anything natural. You need to meet that threshold before you move on. If you do that, I will destroy the next set of moronic arguments you plan to employ. I'm not one of those guys you can confuse by throwing as much bullshyt as you can out trying to overwhelm whoever youre talking to.

You have to meet your requirement before this moves on...

It aint bullshyt..and you aint never destroyed nothing in your life...

Don't front man

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

And I guaran-fukking-tee you all would support gay marriage if you had a sibling or child who wanted to marry someone they loved and couldn't. It's easy to be so cold and detached when it's something distant and disgusting to your sensibilities. Just look at dikk Cheney. That's the only reason he supports gay marriage. Otherwise he'd be crusading against it.

 

[jadillac]

So because some jerk decides to beat someone up for doing something they choose to do behind closed doors means that I am forced to like said act? GTFOH. Stop trying to paint everyone that doesn't approve of sodomy or gay marriage with the same brush.

Nobody said you have to like it. Do you like everything in the world? You shouldn't...

Let's say you live in Florida...how is it gonna affect you if two gay men in California get married? How is it gonna even affect you in ur own state?

It's not.

And don't ignore the rest of my post. This isn't just a simple, "Wake up I'm gay today, tomorrow....maybe I'll be straight next Tuesday, but then I'll be gay again next Friday" choice.

There's much scientific research behind this. As opposed to your small minded opinion.

Most blacks are more conservative than people think which is why I shake my head at republicans who are too stupid to take advantage of it

Sent from my GNex Sucka!

Black people being conservative is no surprise. We typically don't often take big risks or chances, we're not daredevils, we don't particularly "live on the edge", we don't mess with wild animals, many of us are content with living life and never leaving our block, etc. Most everything about our approach to our lives is conservative in that sense.

BUT

Black people being conservative in those terms ≠ black people being/voting Republican

Stop comparing the gay lifestyle to being black...they are not the same. Who is teaching you this shyt?!

Where were these gay people when MLK was marching through Selma? Now, you want us to jump on board with people that were invisible when we were enslaved and being lynched. Then when brothas do all the heavy lifting...they want to talk about rights. You can't hide when you are black

y'all want to bring up MLK, but you don't bring up his wife Coretta Scott King, who was a champion of gay rights until she died. That's a convenient omission...or maybe you don't know it

Civil rights is civil rights. It's small minded to think that's only exclusive to negroes. It just so happened that black ppl had the biggest piece of it.

Civil Rights ≠ black folks rights, only

 

[Marvel]

And I guaran-fukking-tee you all would support gay marriage if you had a sibling or child who wanted to marry someone they loved and couldn't. It's easy to be so cold and detached when it's something distant and disgusting to your sensibilities. Just look at dikk Cheney. That's the only reason he supports gay marriage. Otherwise he'd be crusading against it.

dikk Cheney is not a good example. His left hand wouldn't trust his right hand if it could speak. We are talking about a man who shot his own friend on a hunting trip

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

dikk Cheney is not a good example. His left hand wouldn't trust his right hand if it could speak. We are talking about a man who shot his own friend on a hunting trip

So you're telling me, if your own brother happened to be gay and wanted to marry, you would tell him no or that he shouldn't be able to do that? If so, that says a lot about you as a person.

 

[ThatTruth777]

Why should black people be concerned with gay marriage when there's plenty of important issues to handle such as employment and education; etc. I could give a fukk about gay marriage that has nothing to do with black people, the issues we need to be riding hard for is what can benefit us as a whole especially in these times. This is nothing but a distraction causing more division over something inconsequential.

Spoiler

[sarcasm] it's a good thing we have a president who got over 90% of our vote and is focusing on measures to promote positive growth of our communities though [/sarcasm]

I'll be the devil's advocate though and say maybe another argument to be made is that if this is legalized, it can be seen as the government recognizing, embracing and promoting this type of behavior by permitting it. Thereby fostering its growth. What's wrong with that one might say but is this type of behavior really conducive to building stronger communities in the future based on the traditional foundation.

 

[intilectual recipricol]

Why should black people be concerned with gay marriage when there's plenty of important issues to handle such as employment and education; etc. I could give a fukk about gay marriage that has nothing to do with black people, the issues we need to be riding hard for is what can benefit us as a whole especially in these times. This is nothing but a distraction causing more division over something inconsequential.

Spoiler

[sarcasm] it's a good thing we have a president who got over 90% of our vote and is focusing on measures to promote positive growth of our communities though [/sarcasm]

I'll be the devil's advocate though and say maybe another argument to be made is that if this is legalized, it can be seen as the government recognizing, embracing and promoting this type of behavior by permitting it. Thereby fostering its growth. What's wrong with that one might say but is this type of behavior really conducive to building stronger communities in the future based on the traditional foundation.

Yall gon have to stop trottin out these weak arguments that small children can see through. All people should be concerned with equality. Personally, I dont think morons should legally be able to use computers, that would cut down a lot of traffic in this thread, but our constitution guarantees equal rights under the law. This isnt a black issue or a white issue, theres gay people in every demographic.

Your second argument is one of the worst ever. If the government recognizing gay couples created more homosexuality it would only prove that there were more gays than previously estimated. Then all you repressed gays that fight so hard against equality to keep your anti-gay facade up can finally be free. The Ted Haggards of the world can finally be their gay selves. If a gay couple can tear down your community then your community isnt strong at all, its actually bytchmade.

@ the idea of government condoning or not condoning something being the reason people do shyt... how has the government NOT condoning elicit drug use worked? If all drugs were legal, you goin out to do some crystal meth today? I kinda hope you would, we need shyt like that to weed out the population.... allow natural selection to take its course.

 

[Dead End]

Not going to read this massive thread. But if the majority of black folk reject gay rights as civil rights, that doesn't mean they aren't civil rights. Part of this reaction is a gut reaction towards the comparison to the black civil rights struggle. I'll admit, there's a part of me that does not like this comparison. But, there are similarities. The marriage thing is just the tip of the iceberg, mostly pushed by white middle class assimilationists in the gay rights struggle. They don't speak for the working class, people of color or trans folk in that community who have different interests such as dealing with violence and poverty. If those issues were pushed more, instead of the issues that scream 'Hey, look at us, we're just like white middle class America!', the opinion of straight people of color would differ quite a bit.

EDIT: Also should add that some of the past figures of the Civil Rights Era, such as the Black Panther Party, the Black Liberation Army, the Young Lords, etc. also had difficulty with seeing gay rights as part of the same struggle, but they (rightly in my opinion) eventually came to that conclusion, after actually considering the violence, poverty, police brutality, and exclusion the LGBT community was on the receiving end of. Let's not forget that the Stonewall riots were started by gay and trans black/Puerto Rican youth within the context of black urban uprisings at the time. They certainly saw correlations.

The history likes to be rewritten by groups such as HRC who represent a certain segment of the LGBT community, but the facts are the facts...Stonewall basically started the LGBT rights movement, so by extension people of color started that movement.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Not going to read this massive thread. But if the majority of black folk reject gay rights as civil rights, that doesn't mean they aren't civil rights. Part of this reaction is a gut reaction towards the comparison to the black civil rights struggle. I'll admit, there's a part of me that does not like this comparison. But, there are similarities. The marriage thing is just the tip of the iceberg, mostly pushed by white middle class assimilationists in the gay rights struggle. They don't speak for the working class, people of color or trans folk in that community who have different interests such as dealing with violence and poverty. If those issues were pushed more, instead of the issues that scream 'Hey, look at us, we're just like white middle class America!', the opinion of straight people of color would differ quite a bit.

EDIT: Also should add that some of the past figures of the Civil Rights Era, such as the Black Panther Party, the Black Liberation Army, the Young Lords, etc. also had difficulty with seeing gay rights as part of the same struggle, but they (rightly in my opinion) eventually came to that conclusion, after actually considering the violence, poverty, police brutality, and exclusion the LGBT community was on the receiving end of. Let's not forget that the Stonewall riots were started by gay and trans black/Puerto Rican youth within the context of black urban uprisings at the time. They certainly saw correlations.

The history likes to be rewritten by groups such as HRC who represent a certain segment of the LGBT community, but the facts are the facts...Stonewall basically started the LGBT rights movement, so by extension people of color started that movement.

Anybody want to try and guess which white-washed c00n said this?

During the past few years strong movements have developed among women and among homosexuals seeking their liberation. There has been some
uncertainty about how to relate to these movements.

Whatever your personal opinions and your insecurities about
homosexuality and the various liberation movements among homosexuals
and women (and I speak of the homosexuals and women as oppressed
groups), we should try to unite with them in a revolutionary fashion.
I say ” whatever your insecurities are” because as we very well know,
sometimes our first instinct is to want to hit a homosexual in the
mouth, and want a woman to be quiet. We want to hit a homosexual in
the mouth because we are afraid that we might be homosexual; and we
want to hit the women or shut her up because we are afraid that she
might castrate us, or take the nuts that we might not have to start
with.

We must gain security in ourselves and therefore have respect and
feelings for all oppressed people. We must not use the racist attitude
that the White racists use against our people because they are Black
and poor. Many times the poorest White person is the most racist
because he is afraid that he might lose something, or discover
something that he does not have. So you’re some kind of a threat to
him. This kind of psychology is in operation when we view oppressed
people and we are angry with them because of their particular kind of
behavior, or their particular kind of deviation from the established
norm.

Remember, we have not established a revolutionary value system; we are
only in the process of establishing it. I do not remember our ever
constituting any value that said that a revolutionary must say
offensive things towards homosexuals, or that a revolutionary should
make sure that women do not speak out about their own particular kind
of oppression. As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite: we say
that we recognize the women’s right to be free. We have not said much
about the homosexual at all, but we must relate to the homosexual
movement because it is a real thing. And I know through reading, and
through my life experience and observations that homosexuals are not
given freedom and liberty by anyone in the society. They might be the
most oppresed people in the society.

And what made them homosexual? Perhaps it’s a phenomenon that I don’t
understand entirely. Some people say that it is the decadence of
capitalism. I don’t know if that is the case; I rather doubt it. But
whatever the case is, we know that homosexuality is a fact that
exists, and we must understand it in its purest form: that is, a
person should have the freedom to use his body in whatever way he
wants.

That is not endorsing things in homosexuality that we wouldn’t view as
revolutionary. But there is nothing to say that a homosexual cannot
also be a revolutionary. And maybe I’m now injecting some of my
prejudice by saying that “even a homosexual can be a revolutionary.”
Quite the contrary, maybe a homosexual could be the most
revolutionary.

When we have revolutionary conferences, rallies, and demonstrations,
there should be full participation of the gay liberation movement and
the women’s liberation movement. Some groups might be more
revolutionary than others. We should not use the actions of a few to
say that they are all reactionary or counterrevolutionary, because
they are not.

We should deal with the factions just as we deal with any other group
or party that claims to be revolutionary. We should try to judge,
somehow, whether they are operating in a sincere revolutionary fashion
and from a really oppressed situation. (And we will grant that if they
are women they are probably oppressed.) If they do things that are
unrevolutionary or counterrevolutionary, then criticize that action.
If we feel that the group in spirit means to be revolutionary in
practice, but they make mistakes in interpretation of the
revolutionary philosophy, or they do not understand the dialectics of
the social forces in operation, we should criticize that and not
criticize them because they are women trying to be free. And the same
is true for homosexuals. We should never say a whole movement is
dishonest when in fact they are trying to be honest. They are just
making honest mistakes. Friends are allowed to make mistakes. The
enemy is not allowed to make mistakes because his whole existence is a
mistake, and we suffer from it. But the women’s liberation front and
gay liberation front are our friends, they are our potential allies,
and we need as many allies as possible.

We should be willing to discuss the insecurities that many people have
about homosexuality. When I say “insecurities,” I mean the fear that
they are some kind of threat to our manhood. I can understand this
fear. Because of the long conditioning process which builds insecurity
in the American male, homosexuality might produce certain hang-ups in
us. I have hang-ups myself about male homosexuality. But on the other
hand, I have no hang-up about female homosexuality. And that is a
phenomenon in itself. I think it is probably because male
homosexuality is a threat to me and female homosexuality is not.

We should be careful about using those terms that might turn our
friends off. The terms “fakkit” and “punk” should be deleted from our
vocabulary, and especially we should not attach names normally
designed for homosexuals to men who are enemies of the people, such as
Nixon or Mitchell. Homosexuals are not enemies of the people.

We should try to form a working coalition with the gay liberation and
women’s liberation groups. We must always handle social forces in the
most appropriate manner.

 

[ExodusNirvana]

A lot of people on this site are full of shyt. They act all militant and hypersensitive about not just systemic racism, but any perceived minor slight to black men, but will insult, trivialize and show outright hostility to the situations of hispanics, asians, Indians, women, gays, or pretty much anybody who isn't a heterosexual black man. It's white male paternalism in blackface.

Dudes will type out these faced polemic calls for justice while calling people cacs, fakkits, bytches, and pakis in the process and get mad when nobody outside the corny e-militant echo chamber takes them seriously.

They not gonna like you for this one

 

[acri1]

Anybody want to try and guess which white-washed c00n said this?

..and on that note, thread closed.

 

[Rekkapryde]

Black people being conservative is no surprise. We typically don't often take big risks or chances, we're not daredevils, we don't particularly "live on the edge", we don't mess with wild animals, many of us are content with living life and never leaving our block, etc. Most everything about our approach to our lives is conservative in that sense.

BUT

Black people being conservative in those terms ≠ black people being/voting Republican

exactly. they had a great opportunity to get blacks on their side, but they got too many clowns in their ranks who have completely alienated and will never get blacks on their side even though they aren't that much different than them.

 

[No1]

Not going to read this massive thread. But if the majority of black folk reject gay rights as civil rights, that doesn't mean they aren't civil rights. Part of this reaction is a gut reaction towards the comparison to the black civil rights struggle. I'll admit, there's a part of me that does not like this comparison. But, there are similarities. The marriage thing is just the tip of the iceberg, mostly pushed by white middle class assimilationists in the gay rights struggle. They don't speak for the working class, people of color or trans folk in that community who have different interests such as dealing with violence and poverty. If those issues were pushed more, instead of the issues that scream 'Hey, look at us, we're just like white middle class America!', the opinion of straight people of color would differ quite a bit.

EDIT: Also should add that some of the past figures of the Civil Rights Era, such as the Black Panther Party, the Black Liberation Army, the Young Lords, etc. also had difficulty with seeing gay rights as part of the same struggle, but they (rightly in my opinion) eventually came to that conclusion, after actually considering the violence, poverty, police brutality, and exclusion the LGBT community was on the receiving end of. Let's not forget that the Stonewall riots were started by gay and trans black/Puerto Rican youth within the context of black urban uprisings at the time. They certainly saw correlations.

The history likes to be rewritten by groups such as HRC who represent a certain segment of the LGBT community, but the facts are the facts...Stonewall basically started the LGBT rights movement, so by extension people of color started that movement.

This is exactly what I said (I know you didn't read through the thread). But more importantly people need to look at the actual question asked. Thread starter is very nearly a troll and worded the title that way for attention. The question basically tried to equate the two, and that's what people rejected. One of the most disappointing things that I see on this message board is the degree to which the thread starter completely influences the debate based on the manner in which he frames the topic. No one ever bothers to look at the primary source. We'd probably be having a different discussion otherwise.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

This is exactly what I said (I know you didn't read through the thread). But more importantly people need to look at the actual question asked. Thread starter is very nearly a troll and worded the title that way for attention. The question basically tried to equate the two, and that's what people rejected. One of the most disappointing things that I see on this message board is the degree to which the thread starter completely influences the debate based on the manner in which he frames the topic. No one ever bothers to look at the primary source. We'd probably be having a different discussion otherwise.

 

[No1]

He was on YOUR podcast once, I give him the benefit of the doubt to that degree