Are homosexual civil rights equal to African-American rights?
Are both separate but equal?
The same argument was used by whites against blacks. But is this argument applicable here?
Is it ok for African Americans to discriminate against homosexuals but not expect discrimination towards themselves? Is it ok for any minority to use this argument really?
Does a failure to recognize solely "Human Rights", and not African-American rights, Caucasian-American rights, Latino-American rights, etc, automatically mean you are adhering to a separate-but-equal position? Would it be fair to hold this position against others, but then retreat to saying
that white rights are no different from black rights, and the idea of a difference is a construct?
When I ask many folks if they are against gay marriage, many will say yes. But they will also say they are ok with people having the right to same-sex marriage and such. However, when immediately following this question with whether or not they would be willing to protest for the rights of same sex couples, they automatically say no.. When asked why they answered no, they quite often predictably say "because I am not gay". This is an automatic retreat to the position of S-B-E.
It's very convenient. But unsafe. This is proven by asking another few simple questions: "Would you expect whites to stand up for your rights (if blacks were suffering discrimination similar to pre-civil rights movement) if they supposedly claimed to respect you? Would you feel they deserved respect if they continued paying tax dollars to a system which trampled on your rights?"
Again, the answers are predictable: The answer to the first is usually yes, and the answer to the second is usually no.
Does this indicate a serious flaw in the understanding of human/civil rights?
Is it hypocritical, and something sinister, which leads to harm for not just those discriminated
against, but the doing the discriminating as well? Is it a safe system in a democracy to uphold?
Until the day comes when we no longer see black or white, and gay or straight, there will always be discrimination. Until we all truly see each other as equals there will always be hate in the world.
That's why I am highly offended by those that flaunt their race (B.E.T., NAACP, Black Panthers) or there sexual orientation (Gay Pride etc). You don't see me flaunting my sexual orientation or making out with my fiancee in public, or attempting to advance my European race.
I have many friends that are of different races, and sexual orientations that feel the same way. They just want to blend in and continue the mixing of the melting pot we call the USA. The more people that extravagantly flaunt and shove agendas down others throats the more opposite push back they will receive.
Its like Newton's third law, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Whoaaaa whoa whoa....let's not ignore the difference between being a semi-militant KKK/Black-Panther "flaunting" their agenda, and two gay men kissing in public.
I think we can agree that there is a reasonable difference here, with one group being possibly pro-violence to achieve it's aims, and the gays simply trying to force people to realize they are harming no one. Period. It's like exercising free-speech. Am I wrong to "FLAUNT" my right to "Free-Speech"? No. Should I exercise that right not only to show I can, but to strengthen it? Yes.
Tyrants hate free-speech. Bikers in bars hate free-speech. People can get violent over other people having free-speech. And oddly enough, the quieter people become, the more bullies feel they are correct for silencing the weak, and further ingrains the idea that the weak are EVEN LESS deserving of the right of free speech.
Free-speech is one of those use-it-or-lose-it rights. Failure to exercise it leads to a "rigid" society that does not communicate properly. As communication breaks down, as society rigidifies, people become less willing to take risks to fight for civil rights. As people fight less, the tyrants gain more power, and it becomes even more difficult to reverse what has come about, not only because of the threat of physical danger, but because the very right to free-speech to discuss the issue (like whether or not violence is in fact legitimately required to protect oneself) has been stomped out.
Gays are not (USUALLY) promoting violence. Peaceful gays who kiss in public are simply trying to show people that they are gay no matter what society tries to do to marginalize them. They are
actively making people aware of gays, and the issues surrounding them.
Russia has banned public LGBT protests:
You know why? Because not being able to speak is a form of psychological warfare, being used not only against the LGBT activists themselves, but the citizens who don't support them as well.
By enticing people to hate gays, you create pressure on the minority who support them, making them less willing to speak or act. The reasons you attack the LGBT groups does not matter. Maybe
you truly hate them, or maybe they are just a useful political playing card, a scape goat, similar to how Hitler's cronies (Not all were actually racist. Some just "wanted a place on top".) played the Jews off the German populace.
By claiming that Jews were "flaunting" their wealth, the German populace was stirred up, and provoked by the Nazi's into attacking the Jews. Afterall...those god damned "uppity, know-it-all Jews"
were rubbing the Germans' faces in their success...they had it coming obviously. That's what they get for being so snobbish. For "FLAUNTING" their spirit and having a good time. :\ Wow. Do you see how easily that works? Human psychology is a mother-f. Do not get on it's bad side.
You literally have to sometimes shock people with peaceful, non-violent protest that offends the norm. It's like turning a bed-ridden patient every now and then to avoid bed-sores. A cranky patient may not appreciate you inconveniencing them, even hurting them, but they NEED IT. Otherwise, they, and you, will have a much bigger problem. That's a bit different from hanging someone.
Don't you agree?
Also, to address your point about blow-back from public exhibition of gay affection...
The same could be said for blacks who held women's hands in the 1950's while walking
down the street of an anti-AA neighborhood. Even if the couple knew it would cause blow-back, is that still an excuse for opposing it? No. This is a crazy argument, the idea that if something offends, you need to avoid doing it in public, otherwise you create opposition. That's bull. Inexperience/ignorance with a subject breeds hate and opposition. By bringing it to the forefront, by
walking down the street in a protest and getting attacked by police dogs and fire-hoses, you show
exactly who is made of what.
Again. Let's not ignore the difference between violent, militant hate groups, and minorities just trying to make a PEACEFUL stand so majorities understand the minority is not going to be marginalized.
I think it's comparing two different things. One one side, you're looking at people that are physically different in appearance while the other group is a sexual preference. Moreover, the two may overlap meaning you can have a homosexual african american. I don't think it's a fair comparison.
Asking if one should be support more than the other isn't something that should be asked unless if you're arguing that all people should be treated equally no matter what their background and ideology is. In which case, it would be far better to say you advocate human equality than picking one group over another.
My personal stance is that I'd support either one since I advocate equal rights for all groups. I may not like certain groups personally, but I tolerate them as long as it doesn't hurt or affect me and others. A line must be drawn somewhere after all. That line I believe are groups that cause harm to others through violence or break general rules of morality. It is subjective what is right and wrong, but usually most people have a good sense of it should be. Anything in the grey area, should just be left to the justice system as broken as it may be.
They are NOT different things. Both skin color and sexual "preference" are determined by genetics.
It's like comparing the civil right's of orange tigers vs albino tigers, and straight vs gay tigers.
In the end, they are both tigers, and nature determines, via genetics, the bodily structure and function of both.
Other than that, good post. But you mention a "grey line"...
What exactly do you feel defines the grey line. How should others reach a determination for what falls in the grey line? Some have a diff grey line because of books, others have grey lines inspired by drugs...
The trouble here is that while me and you most likely agree on what kind of criteria to use in reaching a conclusion about what is white-black-grey, not everyone else will.
That grey line I speak of is set by the general public and lawmakers. It doesn't necessarily mean it is the absolute pinnacle of what is right and wrong. It just sets the general base for what should or should not be allowed as dictated by the representatives and the general public (at least that's how I believe it should work barring corruption, money, and special interests). It continuously changes as the generations of people change their positions or stances on certain issues. No single person draws this line, but it is continuously fought over and changed depending on which has the most support at the time.
That was vague. I asked what YOU personally feel the grey line is though. You help make up the majority, contributing your opinion. What exactly is your contribution?
That's the same argument that was used by racists during segregation and homophobes today. So you're saying that black people should have just asked for their rights and they would have received them? Forming these groups wasn't necessary? Homosexuals can just ask for their rights and they'll receive them? These groups aren't necessary?
Why do Americans call black people African Americans?
Yea...I have actually thought about this...
I had considered, while I was in the Army, walking around using the phrases "European American",
"Latin American", "Indian-American" ("Indian" as in from INDIA), etc...
It's kinda of odd...only certain groups of minorities are ever referred to in this pattern (at least commonly):
Other minorities (at least in the places I have been...) are not usually referred to in this way:
Those from South-America, India, any and all places in Europe, Australia, the Philippines, etc.
In fact, the only peoples I have not EVER heard referred to like this are Filipinos and those with ancestors, or directly from India...
Afaceinthematrix- While I don't think you can get something just by asking like you say, but I also don't think being obnoxious helps anyone's cause.
JoryrFerrill- I agree kissing in public doesn't = powerful violence promoting groups. However they both are trying to change the public conscience and in that they have unity.
Sexual orientation isn't always determined by genetics. Two lesbian cousins of mine decided to be gay after being disenfranchised by many male suitors, because it would just be easier and better to be gay than have to deal with a-hole men any more.
I get grossed out when I see a heterosexual kissing on the street as much as I do a homosexual couple. So for me it has nothing to do with sexual orientation I think P.D.A. is just disrespectful.
Maybe people use my arguments to promote discrimination it doesn't make my points invalid however. The same as my views on abortion which I fully support btw, however that being said as a biologist I also have to acknowledge that it is a form of murder and is taking the life of a human being.