ok, so I'm bracing myself for the neg rep.
I also realize that my thoughts may hurt others. double
However, I still think that in any quest for real understanding, in order to discuss differences, each side will hear arguments they disagree with or think is hurtful - even if that isnt the intent - so I'll take this moment to express that hurting or offending others is by no means my intention: (1) because being out to hurt others is just wrong at base, (2) because I totally love Sexy Celebrity
and all the guys on here that are happily gay, and (3) because I love and even occassionally look up to my older brother who is happily gay in Miami.
And I'm commenting, not because I HAVE to (I even wasnt going to respond), but because I think it would be a failure of
real discourse if those opponents refused to even discuss why they disagree for fear of abuse, or if everyone is afraid to even come to table to talk about why they dont agree because they feel they wont be listened to or even attempted to be understood, merely railroaded and shutdown without real discussion.
I dont know. I have that fear, which is why I typically avoid these discussions on this particular forum, but I was thinking that at some level - even if it happens, its only fair that someone speak up for the opposition (because we clearly exist in a majority), if only to give you all the target you so dearly seek.
That said, understand that there is a difference between
Hate and
Belief. At least there is from
my vantage point, so even if you do not agree with this statement, you can at least understand why I think the way I do.
About Hate.
It would be ridiculously wrong and fundamentally hypocritical to hate anyone - even gays. Its a preposterous thought, and anyone, gay or straight that points out
hatred in the "christian" opponents of gay marriage is correctly pointing out the hypocrisy of supposed "christians." We agree on that.
About Belief.
People clearly believe many things. Religion, for some, shapes their belief (and value) system. Others, not so much. However, we do have the ability (and right, so far anyway), to believe what we want. We could spend hours debating religion and whether there even is a God (and I do, with some people), but for atheists, its a moot point - there is no God, and these religious people are CRAZY. We already know you feel this way. If the decision we make to
Believe in a Higher Power is not worthy of respect, its horribly hypocritical of Proponents of Gay Marriage to demand respect for their
"Belief" that religious people should be forced to respect Gay Marriage.
I could ramble on here forever, so I'm going to stop myself and make it point-based. There is much to be said about this part, but if it comes to it, the details of the points can be fleshed out later:
Belief Point #1:
Homosexuality and some religions will NEVER coincide. That needs to be accepted by everyone, so we can move on. Some religions or sects will envelop gays with open arms - some will not. Gays have GOT to get beyond this hangup. You cant make someone like you - even Black people understand that.
Belief Point #2:
It is inappropriate (I think), for gays to use the law as a hammer on religion. Specifically this: to force religious groups who feel their existence is a sin before God to marry them. Marrying gays for some religious groups is ANTITHETICAL to their religion. I dont care whether one agrees with the religion or not - that is a another debate in its own right. The POINT is that is insincere to "demand" respect for one's individual rights to "love a person of the same sex," while simultaneously disrespecting the individual right of religious belief/worship.
IN SUM: I think it is terribly wrong of the LGBT lobby to try to force religious groups of any kind to recognize them, and to arm-twist them or make their beliefs a "breaking of the law."
Now I believe we can all agree with this extreme hypothetical: if a religion calls itself a religion and openly teaches harming gays. <--that is insane. Anyone who harms anyone, goes to jail. We agree on that.
Belief Point #3:
Legalese Blather: The Church and State are not separate, because the State protects the individual's rights, and yet the State also protects
individuals rights to
religion. A church is nothing more than a congregation of individuals who all believe the same things - the sticks and bricks can change constantly.
Belief Point #4 and a Question For Us All:
Stop blaming religion. Because what the above essentially means is that
individuals - a vast majority of
individuals (and contrary to tramp's post, they cant all be black and mexican
because there arent enough of us voting to have carried the day), do not agree that people who do not agree with SSM should be forced to marry them. I dont agree with SSM, but I'm also not going to get myself tied in a knot if it happens. Marriage does have sanctity (at least I think so), but it would be incredibly hypocritical of me to suggest that Heterosexual Couples are holding marriage in the appropriate esteem. SSMs, the next person that suggests to you that Marriage Is Sacred - ask them why they are divorced. That
may shut them up. You never know.
So we are left with many questionsabout how to fix this, but chief among them is how the State can respect both religion and homosexuality. I am always amazed at the seeming "religious fervor" (if I may make that pun) of pro-Gay Marriage lobbyists, because I feel that if everyone stepped back - they would see the irony on both sides.
However, as a black woman, I can understand the underlying hurt, resentment and anger when someone refuses to accept you for who you are, and so I will move on to my beef with tramp's post.
The Black Experience DOES NOT EQUAL The LBGT Experience
And I, and a LOT of Black people seriously resent the suggestion that it should. Rather than be offended at tramp's post (which I could be), I presume the comment is made from a lack of understanding, rather than out of sheer racism. This is the only reason I'm even responding to it, and not completely ignoring it.
Now - a whole group of people here seem to be studied in the law, and if I hearken back to the good ole school days even
I can remember some concepts of Constitutional Law. Mainly these: all groups protected under the Consitution in a "protected class" had to meet stringent requirements. One of the most stringent requirements to become a protected and therefore insular group in the eyes of the law (with all the rights/standing/privileges that go with being in a protected class), was that one be
BORN INTO that protected group. The
BORN INTO requirement means very seriously that
you could not have chosen otherwise - you are stuck, you had no say in the matter - this is the lot that befell you, whether it be woman, minority, etc.
Having said that - isnt it highly interesting that one man posited an (unproven, yet highly accepted if I remember correctly) theory that one "could not help" being gay; that one was
"BORN GAY." Volia! Gays are now a protected class, with all the political might that comes therewith.
I promise you that the whole
"Blacks should understand" argument is not only ignorant, its insulting, for no other reason than that it presupposes that hearer first
agree that Homosexuality was NOT a choice. But what the speaker does not understand is that there is HUGE segment of society still out there that still believes that homosexuality was a choice.
Personally? (And forgive me if this is found insulting - I think I am somewhat worked up over the "Blacks should understand" comment) I think the "BORN THIS WAY" is nothing more than a political tool, and a very GOOD ONE at that. I am constantly amazed and horrified when people posit the theory.....and mean it! I would much rather laugh over the watercooler at the evil mastermindedness of using the protected class status - I could accept that, even smile at it.
But to suggest that they were born as a minority is an insult of a heinous quality.
What makes it even MORE insulting to Blacks is that if they are morally opposed to homosexuality or gay marriage, it is to almost suggest (albeit backwards-ly), that by nature of association (i.e. being black), they too, are intrinsically amoral BECAUSE they are Black.
I dont know if the above even makes sense you guys, and I it would take an entire religious argument to explain it, so I'll leave it at saying just this: for Blacks, christian religion anway - there was never any Biblical support for hatred of anyone, nor is there any longer any Biblical support for slavery, for treating men - or women - as second class citizens. Therefore, God was never "OK" with the treatment of minorities in this country, regardless of how this country tolerated it.
Homosexuality, on the other hand -there is. And again, I'm not trying to turn this religious (far be it from me), but what separates skin color from sexual preference from a religious standpoint is the instance of
CHOICE.
And one of the great fears I have when I watch the LBGT lobby is that they, too, will fall into a sad trap that has plagued Blacks for a long time: respondent hatred, bitterness and anger. And I fear that that anger is not at all non-violent or pacifist, because it is so often the anger of white males - a group who we all know is not accustomed to occupying a second-class or "looked-down upon" status.
If you do the legal research (and people I know have and its been the subject of great discussion round these parts), you'll find that out of all the protected classes under the Constitution, the only class that has obtained any recent favoring decisions from the courts and the Supreme Court has been the class most occupied by white men: the Age Class. Its really the only reason the Gay Lobby is getting any movement at this point.
Explain that one. Oh right. Racism and sexism dont exist anymore.
Anyway, when I was in California in Sep, I saw this:
Not to be funny, but I was very impressed. And I'm snagging those vids Adi posted because they are so cool.
)
Closed Thread
