Gay Activists to Protest

[tellner]

....heck, some black people argue that Barack Obama isn't "black." :lol:

The only reason you laugh is the because you've been brought up to believe the old racist "drop of blood crap" that was at the core of the *spit* Confederate slave holder *spit* ideology. When the disgusting trade in human flesh started in North America there was a serious problem. The filth engaged in it enjoyed raping their victims.

There's nothing quite like tail that's absolutely powerless to stop you and can be tortured or killed at your whim. I happen to think it's repugnant, but a lot of guys seem to have been excited by the idea. The problem is that these women sometimes got pregnant which left a troubling problem. What do you do with the babies? You couldn't think of them as human beings. Why, that would mean that a darky's sprog was just as good as a White Child and might inherit or use its legal status to get itself and its mother out of slavery. Heaven forfend.

The solution was straightforward. White women having sex with Black men became the ultimate betrayal of the Race. It was unthinkable which led to an awful lot of Strange Fruit hanging from trees later on and the subject of an awful lot of porn to this day. In much the same way the insatiable Jew-slut was a staple of Nazi stroke books. White men having sex with Black women was fine as long as it was done discreetly.

The babies were dealt with by the simple expedient of saying that the tiniest bit of African genetic material made a person Black. Hence the "drop of blood" name. In some places this led to complicated systems of mulattoes, quadroons, "high yellow" and so on. But basically, the point was to ensure the purity of the White Race by denying the humanity or at least the privilege of being White to anyone with a trace of slave ancestry.

In South America it was different. White, Black and Indian are much looser and more defined by social roles than skin color with most people considering themselves vaguely mixed. I have a friend who spent eight years in Brazil doing Capoeira. He is paler than I am which is quite an accomplishment. But because of the kind of Portuguese he spoke, the job he had, his friends, neighborhood and the way he dressed he was Black by local standards.

In Muslim countries the important thing was Islam. The children of a Muslim slave owner and his non-Muslim slave were generally raised as Muslims and freed because of it.

There's just as much justification in saying that Obama is a White man with a Black father as saying that he's a Black man with a White mother. Your perception is the result of a very specific time in American history and no more obvious or natural than any other primitive taboo.

 

[elder999]

The only reason you laugh is the because you've been brought up to believe the old racist "drop of blood crap" that was at the core of the *spit* Confederate slave holder *spit* ideology. .

I don't think so, but that's okay....."black" is a construct, I'll agree-hence my use of quotation marks around the very word in the preceding paragraph-as well as the preceding paragraph itself:

Well, I'm black-I kind of have a choice...maybe 'cause I'm kind of black. I have a kind of African name, genetically confused hair, and peanut-butter colored skin. I've been taken for black, American Indian and Polynesian (Samoan, Hawaiian, etc...) all correcty. Labels like "black" should mean less and less all the time.....and apparently do.

He "looks" more "black" than I do, and we both have African names.....in the end, in the America that we both have to walk around in the skins that we live in, it's how we look ....

 

[Tez3]

I shall continue to apply my skin moisturiser however every night, you know the one, it makes my skin darker day by day.
http://www.myshopping.com.au/PR--255782_Dove_Summer_Glow_Body_Lotion_Fair_To_Normal_Skin_250ml (Many other brands available of course as getting darker is very popular.

Funny that isn't it? I would sit in the sun but we don't have a lot of it in North Yorkshire.

 

[tellner]

Right Wingnuts love to prattle on about "protected categories" and "protected classes" without ever saying what that means or why it might be a good or bad thing. To hear them say it it means that everyone will undergo mandatory sodomy or gangsta rapping while the Communists pollute their precious bodily fluids and steal their jobs.

If you look a little more closely the basic idea makes sense. Civil rights protections are only necessary when someone's are being violated. Gays, lesbians and let's not even get onto the subject of the transgendered are subject to harassment, vandalism, beating, rape and murder at the hands of their fellow citizens solely on the basis of their sexual orientation, what they do in their private lives and people's perception of those facts. That certainly cries out for some kind of special attention to their plight.

The attempt to redefine women, Jews and Africans as human beings has not been completely successful. But great strides have been made. A lot of it required busting down old barriers and passing laws that wouldn't allow people to deny them a seat at a table, a job, a place in school or a home based on their sex, their ancestry or the color of their skin.

The same people who bleat in terror at the thought of two women getting married are the quickest to turn rabid in defense of the special privileges of their own unnatural chosen lifestyle. Religion, just to take a not at all random example, is a choice, not a condition you are born with. There's no gene which compels you to kneel and guzzle spoiled grape juice or chant "Hare Krishna". People change their religious orientation all the time. There is no move on the part of Conservatives to strip the churches of their tax-exempt splendor or stop them from recruiting and indoctrinating innocent children into their bizarre rituals.

 

[CuongNhuka]

If you look a little more closely the basic idea makes sense. Civil rights protections are only necessary when someone's are being violated. Gays, lesbians and let's not even get onto the subject of the transgendered are subject to harassment, vandalism, beating, rape and murder at the hands of their fellow citizens solely on the basis of their sexual orientation, what they do in their private lives and people's perception of those facts. That certainly cries out for some kind of special attention to their plight.

The attempt to redefine women, Jews and Africans as human beings has not been completely successful. But great strides have been made. A lot of it required busting down old barriers and passing laws that wouldn't allow people to deny them a seat at a table, a job, a place in school or a home based on their sex, their ancestry or the color of their skin.

After reading these two posts I wounder as to your views on affrimative action. And, if in favor, should it be expanded to include members of the LGBT community.

 

[Empty Hands]

There's just as much justification in saying that Obama is a White man with a Black father as saying that he's a Black man with a White mother.

The people Elder is talking about didn't see Obama as "not black" because of his heritage. They saw him as "not black" because he didn't share the cultural upbringing of black America. Debra Dickerson made this argument explicitly.

 

[tellner]

After reading these two posts I wounder as to your views on affrimative action. And, if in favor, should it be expanded to include members of the LGBT community.

The rationale for affirmative action goes something like this:

Certain groups of people have been disenfranchised socially and economically. Over many generations their ancestors have been denied the chance to achieve and compete in society. If this has been systematic the effects are worse. In effect, they have been taxed and penalized.

Affirmative action is an attempt to quantify that penalty and provide something that counter its effect. Sometimes it has been done well. Sometimes it has been done poorly. In essence it says "We realize that we have systematically taken from you what was or should have been yours. We wish to elevate you not to what you might have been but to the point where some of the effects of that theft are mitigated and you have close to the same shot at proving yourself that anyone else has."

Aboriginal peoples who have had their treaty-guaranteed lands, mineral wealth, water rights, health care and religion stolen should certainly be entitled to the value that was taken from them and the financial benefits they could have reasonably expected to get. An old proverb goes "He who sells what isn't his'n must buy it back or go to prison". That's why, with every new Administration there's the ritual holding of the Secretary of the Interior in contempt of Court when he or she fails to provide an accounting for Indian water, timber, uranium, oil leases and the Indian Health Care Service.

For four hundred years people almost all people of African descent were unable to profit from their own work. The fruits of their labor were systematically stolen from them. They were denied the right to the education, homestead land and other things by which people of European descent bettered their position. Even with the end of slavery there was more than a century of discrimination as official policy. To this day there is an abiding distrust of Africans in this country that stems from those policies to the point where mere skin pigment makes people question a man's ability to hold high government office. Affirmative Action for Africans was supposed to make up for that stolen wealth and allow entry where old methods of social control place an extra burden on them.

By any measure women have been subject to universal systematic discrimination in pretty much every sphere. It has cut across all economic, ethnic, religious and social classes. There are plenty of people alive today who lived in a time when women could not vote. In some parts of the country they could not own property, hold most jobs, enter into contracts or - again - all those other things which men enjoyed and which allowed men to manage their own affairs to their own benefit and accumulate the wealth that would naturally accrue from their work.

When I was a child I remember serious discussions as to whether a woman should be allowed into the professions if she were married, should female welders be considered welders or simply prostitutes and if it were proper for an unescorted woman to eat in a respectable restaurant. Until certain Supreme Court decisions and other laws married women were not permitted to own anything in their own names. In fact, they were considered extensions of their husbands for all legal purposes. There were and still are undeniable barriers to the entry of women into many fields and positions based solely on their gender. The point of Affirmative Action is to provide them not with everything that they might have had, but some reasonable approximation that allows women today a just chance to compete on the basis of their actual abilities rather than the unquestioned assumption of male superiority.

Various groups of immigrants have suffered greater or lesser discrimination. "Man Wanted: No Irish Need Apply", The Anti-Chinese Society, questions about whether "Papists" could be loyal Americans and so on have all had their season. Once long ago I read old debates about the Sullivan Act. One of them which has some traction was the contention that it would keep guns out of the hands of "Jews, Italians and other criminals".

My father and grandfathers were denied jobs and subject to educational quotas based on being Jewish. In those days "quota" meant that no more than a certain number of Jews was admitted to a university. The systematic effects of that oppression were really did not last more than forty years. And from the beginning Jews had access to intra-ethnic support and the ability to open legitimate businesses which they could own in communities which were permitted to support them. Capital was more difficult to acquire, but there were not artificial and official barriers to them gaining and using it.

In almost all cases it was short-lived. The people on the receiving end had their basic civil rights and could hold legal jobs, own property, enter into contracts, open businesses without legal restraint and accumulate and invest their property and labor as they saw fit. I would say, therefore, that Affirmative Action would not apply. These people were certainly sinned against, but it was transient and did not affect all of them collectively in a long-term systematic fashion.

Glebits - my own collective term for the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered - have certainly been on the receiving end of some pretty harsh treatment including imprisonment, execution, medieval torture disguised as medical treatment, rape, beating, vandalism and murder. But there is a difference. There have not been the same sort of multi-generational structures that steal the fruits of the labor of anyone who wasn't a Tab A in Slot B kind of person and all of their great-to-the-nth grandcestors. The children of Glebits do not suffer the effects of six or seven generations of inability to function in society, to benefit from their own work and so on taken away from them. The Glebit Tribe has never had its reservation lands taken and been forced to walk from Florida to Oklahoma at bayonet-point.

So I would say no. Affirmative Action as it has been traditionally understood would not be appropriate as a collective remedy for issues surrounding sexual orientation. Protections against current discrimination in housing, public accommodation, employment and firing, military service, marriage, adoption and a number of other things are only just. And insofar as Glebits are subject to all of these as a group it's only acknowledging reality to recognize and deal with it the same way.

Ensuring that people are treated no worse or differently than anyone else is not the same as mandating that they be treated differently. The "Special Rights" that make the Family Values Crowd mindlessly screech about in terror are pretty reasonable . The queers want the right to marry free competent adults whom they choose to marry. They want the right to serve their country in the Armed Forces. They want to be able to take a job, rent an apartment, adopt a child, buy property or settle a spouse's affairs without the feat that should their membership in the Glebit Tribe become public knowledge it will be taken away.

Compare that to just a few of the Special Rights that their strongest detractors enjoy and arrogantly demand as their natural due:

• The right to decide who gets married to whom
• Tax Exempt status for their meetings, their buildings and their attempts to indoctrinate people into their beliefs
• The right to introduce their agents into the military at the country's expense and to proselytize soldiers
• The right to stick both trotters into the Federal trough through the Office of Faith Based Initiatives including the right to use that money to lobby the government
• The right to impose their beliefs on people who are seeking to buy medicine
• The right to remove science from science classes and replace it with their un- and usually anti-scientific propaganda
• The right to put people in jail for teaching science (cf. Scopes)
• The right to put people in jail for expressing alternative beliefs - There are still blasphemy laws on the books in several places although they have been ruled unenforceable
• The right to give their sexual taboos the force of law
• The right to force people to stop their legal business and private affairs on some arbitrary days. Yes, there are still Sunday Closing laws in parts of the country
• The right to dictate choices about divorce, hair style, clothing, and the suitability of other religions to enjoy the same status that they do

I could go on. If that's what they consider their natural due you can see why they fear "Special Rights". Fortunately, the Glebits aren't interested in that. They just want what regular non-Glebit citizens already have. If they try force through laws that make all single straight men subject to summary interior decoration and wardrobe consultation I will fight them to the last. We don't seem to be anywhere near that point :shrug:

 

[CuongNhuka]

I thought of the justification as being more along the lines of "it's our only to repay you for 240 odd years of slavery and everything that went along with". And really, every group to come to the U.S. has dealt with some pretty serious issues with discrimantion and pseudo-slavery.

But, you do provide a few good justifactions for why to not include members of the LGBT community.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Why does it have to be Christian right?

Black Americans, who if understood as a group, are far from being on the right of the political spectrum. But, if they are Christian, they would be just as much against gay marriage as any Republican, or as some like to term them, right-wringers.

Love the little rhetorical shots though. They show where someone is really coming from.

Oh yeah, where is that?
sean

 

[Touch Of Death]

I agree Don. What a load of crap your comment here is. Ignorance and Stupidity in one small phobic package. How convenient of you.

No big deal but, there is a difference between behavior and race.
Sean

 

[jim777]

The first thing that popped into my head when seeing this thread was Mr. Show. Been there, done that!

[yt]lFo8NGO4nTA[/yt]

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Oh yeah, where is that?
sean

It is an attempt, in this instance and by some, to show that the right are always on the wrong side of politics, while convienently ignoring that there are large segments of the political left who are against gay marriage as well.

It is an attempt to demonize the right, while ignoring others that hold a similar view, those who, on many other issues, hold the same ideas as the ones doing the demonization.

 

[Touch Of Death]

It is an attempt, in this instance and by some, to show that the right are always on the wrong side of politics, while convienently ignoring that there are large segments of the political left who are against gay marriage as well.

It is an attempt to demonize the right, while ignoring others that hold a similar view, those who, on many other issues, hold the same ideas as the ones doing the demonization.

Well I for one am making no attempt to demonize anybody. You have to realize that parents are aware of the simple MONKEY SEE MONKEY DO factor and want to limit there childs exposure to subcultures to which they don't approve. Calling them ignorant is... well... ignorant.
Sean

 

[punisher73]

I have heard the whole "no choice or born gay" argument. I think it is a more complex issue than choice.

I have met many girls who thought being with another girl is the cool thing to do like on TV. Are they gay?

I have met a few people who were abused as children (one of the theories out there) and are now gay. Were they born that way, or did the abuse cause a severe trauma and "turned them gay" (I know the phrase isn't the best, it's the one I always hear in this scenario)?

I have also met people who just like sex anyway they can get it and would have it with both sexes. Are they gay?

My thoughts on it. I have friends that are gay, doesn't affect me at all. I like them for who they are, and as they are. Last time I checked, no one had died and left me charge. So, if it is not hurting me, my family/friends or other people who am I to judge them? If I am right and there is something else on the other side and we are responsible for what we do here on earth. What happens to each person as they are judged does not involve me. But, what DOES involve me, is how I treated people here on earth. Did I show them kindness? Did I treat them as if they were children of God, like me? That is all I have to be concerned about.

 

[JBrainard]

What a load of crap. Black people have NO CHOICE in whether people notice they are black. Gay people do. That, alone is a HUGE difference...

Sit right back and I'll tell you a tale...
My wife's best friend. She was raised fundamentalist Christian and remains one to this day. I have had many discussions / debates with her about Christianity over the years and I want to point out that she is strong in her convictions and faith, does not follow the "sheep" mentality of some churches, and is not a hypocrit when it comes to the teachings of Christ.
That's the set-up. The twist is that she is a lesbian. She has always been a lesbian. Being a very strong believer in her Church's views on homosexuals, she has gone through so much heartache over the years that it depresses me as I type this. This is not something she chose. She has always hated this part of her. So, a few years ago, she started to go to one of those "we'll turn you strait" Christian groups. She proclaims that she is now cured. The problem is that she isn't attracted to men, which makes it very hard to have a relationship with one. She will not admit to herself or to us that she is still, deep down, a lesbian. But it is so sadly obvious to anyone who knows her well. She has not had a relationship of any kind now for two years, and she is becoming suicidaly depressed. If anyone doesn't want to be a homosexual, it's her. After seeing all the pain and self hatred she has gone through, and the sad failure of her "turning strait," I find the opinion that homosexuals can "turn strait" offensive, insulting, and mean-hearted.
I'm sure there are people out there who are experimenting with their sexuality, calling themselves gay, and then, what do you know, being "turned strait" through Christ works. If that's what makes them happy, more power to them.
But, sorry folks, I've seen it with my own teary eyes, a true homosexual can't be unmade.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

You can "cure" the ones who are playing at it. You might be able to "cure" the ones who like both genders but lack a real preference. I don't believe you can cure someone who is genetically wired that way.

I'm wired straight. You can't "turn" me gay. I make the jokes about "well, maybe Legolas", but if you really think about it, it's a "girly man", not "Russ the Randy Roofer". I'm just not 'wired' into being turned on by facial hair, a fuzzy chest, big pecks, and a body by Adonis.
I've got a friend who on the other hand, likes all that and wish him well in finding it.

People need to realize that after all their fears, bigotry, hatred, and well meaning but misguided attempts to help, that in the end, you're dealing with another human being, with feelings and pain and heartbreak, just like us. Maybe the world would be a better place if people stopped worrying about being right, and just worried about being.

 

[Cryozombie]

I'm wired straight. You can't "turn" me gay. I make the jokes about "well, maybe Legolas", but if you really think about it, it's a "girly man", not "Russ the Randy Roofer". I'm just not 'wired' into being turned on by facial hair, a fuzzy chest, big pecks, and a body by Adonis.

Why do you have all those Russ The Randy Roofer Videos under your bed then?

But seriously... I think their may be elements to this that go beyond genetics like Punsisher said above, but I won't completly discount genetics as playing a role... although we do try and blame Genetics for just about everything nowadays... Genetic pre-disposition to crime, genetic pre disposition to sexual gender preference, genetic predispostion to suicide: one has to wonder if everything really is genetic. If so, could we not be genetically pre-dispositioned to Murder, and in that case, if its no longer a choice we can make should we be punished for it? Or if you want to take it back into the realm of sexual preference, Could only being attracted to having sex with minors be genetic, and if so, again, should those people who are "wired" that way be punished? Obviously Murder, child abuse etc, have Victims, which simply having same-sex intercourse does not, but it does beg the question, how much of our behavior is truly genetic, and if it IS, how responsible should we be for it?

 

[Kacey]

Why do you have all those Russ The Randy Roofer Videos under your bed then?

But seriously... I think their may be elements to this that go beyond genetics like Punsisher said above, but I won't completly discount genetics as playing a role... although we do try and blame Genetics for just about everything nowadays... Genetic pre-disposition to crime, genetic pre disposition to sexual gender preference, genetic predispostion to suicide: one has to wonder if everything really is genetic. If so, could we not be genetically pre-dispositioned to Murder, and in that case, if its no longer a choice we can make should we be punished for it? Or if you want to take it back into the realm of sexual preference, Could only being attracted to having sex with minors be genetic, and if so, again, should those people who are "wired" that way be punished? Obviously Murder, child abuse etc, have Victims, which simply having same-sex intercourse does not, but it does beg the question, how much of our behavior is truly genetic, and if it IS, how responsible should we be for it?

You cannot choose who you are attracted to; that's determined by a genetic response to pheromones - that's why "chemistry" still plays such a big role in relationships, and why, no matter how carefully you are matched, people have to meet people they are intellectually attracted to when using dating services, to see if they are really attracted to each other. Homosexuality appears to have a genetic component - you can fight it, if you choose, and have intercourse with a heterosexual partner, certainly - but that won't change your response to pheromones. In addition, homosexuality has been seen widely throughout the animal kingdom, as in this article from National Geographic:

But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.

Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.

...
"The homosexual behavior that goes on is completely baffling and intriguing," says National Geographic Ultimate Explorer correspondent, Mireya Mayor. "You would have thought females that want to be mated, especially over their fertile period, would be seeking out males."
...
Other animals appear to go through a homosexual phase before they become fully mature. For instance, male dolphin calves often form temporary sexual partnerships, which scientists believe help to establish lifelong bonds. Such sexual behavior has been documented only relatively recently. Zoologists have been accused of skirting round the subject for fear of stepping into a political minefield.

I seriously doubt that such behaviors (and there are more examples in the article) are cultural, or are the result of abuse or other actions in the animals' pasts - so to me, at least, it seems that there is a genetic component as well, which means there must be some kind of evolutionary payoff, or such seemingly counter-reproductive behavior would rapidly die off... or the species would.

As far as genetic predisposition to the other socially unacceptable behaviors you mention - that is what makes human society different from animal society; human society promotes rules that may run counter to individual predispositions, for the (supposed) good of society. Whether or not the ultimate outcome of this is for the good of society is a topic for another thread.

 

[tellner]

I'm reminded of a farmer with a prize rooster.
At least he used to be a prize rooster. He was getting on a bit, so the farmer decided to bring in some new blood.

The next day he came home with a big, bright, aggressive cockerel.

"Out of my way, Old Bird," said the new one, "I'm the rooster around here."

"Mebbe," came the reply, "But if you want those hens you'll have to prove you're better than me. What say we raise once around the farmyard?"

"You're on!"

And with that they were off. The first rooster started off fast, but the youngster started catching up. The older bird put on a burst of speed squawking and crowing.

The farmer came out of the house, blasted the younger bird with a shotgun and said

"I just can't figure it out. That's the fourth gay rooster I've brought home this year."

 

[tellner]

And then, of course, there was the rabbit and his son. French Lops they were.

The young buck was all about getting to the does as quickly as possible with nothing more than a "Yippee!"

His father said "Ah, mon fils. It is not enough to have the does. You must make love to the does. Make them feel wanted. Make them passionate. And always be polite."

The younger rabbit was well brought up and respected his elders. So as the does lined up to be bred he added a little conversation....

"Bonjour Madame, Merci Madame. Bonjour Madame, Merci Madame. Bonjour Madame, Merci Madame. Bonjour Ma PARDON PAPA! Bonjour Madame, Merci Madame. Bonjour Madame, Merci Madame...."