|
Even though this article is old, I believe it should be brought up due to the fact that Washington, DC has voted for the second (and final) time on a bill that would make gay marriage legal in the District, which would join us with five other states that allow it as well. Of course, this sort of news is exciting to the gay community, but the one thing that confuses me is how can the Gay Rights Movement be compared to the Black Civil Rights Movement?
NEW YORK - Gay is the new black, say the protest signs and magazine covers, casting the gay marriage battle as the last frontier of equal rights for all. Gay marriage is not a civil right, opponents counter, insisting that minority status comes from who you are rather than what you do. The gay rights movement entered a new era when Barack Obama was elected the first black president the same day that voters in California and Florida passed referendums to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying, while Arizonans turned down civil unions and Arkansans said no to adoptions by same-sex couples. Racism was defanged by Obama's triumph, leaving gays as perhaps the last group of Americans claiming that their basic rights are being systematically denied. "Black people are equal now, and gay people aren't," said Emil Wilbekin, a black gay man and the editor of Giant magazine. "I always have this discussion with my friends: What's worse, being a black man or a black gay man?" "Civil rights have come much further than gay rights," he said. "A lot of people in the gay community have been condemned for their lifestyle and promiscuity and drugs and sex, so it's odd that when they want to conform and model themselves after straight people and have the same rights for marriage and domestic partnership and adoption, they're being blocked." In a cover story for the Advocate magazine titled "Gay is the New Black," Michael Joseph Gross wrote, "These past few years we've made so much progress that we'd begun to think everybody saw us as we see ourselves. Suddenly we were faced with the reality that a majority of voters don't like us, don't think we're normal, don't believe our lives and loves count as much or are worth as much as theirs." Yet even some gay leaders are reluctant to directly tie their fight to the African-American legacy. They acknowledge significant differences in the experiences of gays and blacks, ranging from slavery to the relative affluence of white gay men to the choice made by some gays to conceal their sexual orientation, which is not an option for those with darker skin. "I believe we are very much in a modern-day civil rights struggle," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization. "We liken some of the experiences that we have had and will have to the (black) civil rights struggle. We also are enormously respectful of the differences," he said. "What we are best served doing is when we take lessons from the civil rights experience and apply them to our work." Complicating the issue is the domination of minority politics by blacks and Latinos, who can be less than friendly to gay issues. In the vote on Proposition 8 in California, which repealed gay marriage, about 70 percent of blacks favored the ban, according to an exit poll; Latinos' close vote may have favored it, though the poll's small sample left some uncertainty. In Florida, 71 percent of blacks and 64 percent of Latinos favored a similar ban. Opposition to gay rights often has a religious basis, and blacks and Latinos are more churchgoing than society at large. Twenty-six percent of blacks attend religious services more than once per week, compared with 16 percent of Latinos and 14 percent of whites, according to a 2007 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "I do not consider (gays) to be a minority in legal and adjudicated terms, the same way people who only like to eat broccoli with butter aren't a minority," said the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic .. Christian Leadership Conference. "We can't categorize things according to behavior. It's based on ethnicity, on who we are rather than what we do." "Who am I to say that you weren't born that way ... (but) sexual activity, what you do, who you sleep with, is your business," Rodriguez said. "That's between you, your lover, and the good God Almighty in heaven. I don't want to know. Let's leave sexual activity in the bedroom. The government shouldn't be legislating what we do behind closed doors between two consenting adults. And to compare it to the African-American struggle, to me that's an abomination." So is gay the new black, or did the election define a new and unique set of gay challenges? "The gay fight for marriage has its own integrity, its own background," said Andrew Cherlin, a professor of sociology and public policy at Johns Hopkins University. "The experience of blacks in the United States is very different. ... I don't think it helps the fight for equality to make that claim." Cherlin says that fight began in the 1980s when the AIDS epidemic unfolded. Gay partners had few rights to help their ailing loved ones, visit them in hospitals or inherit their property, which led to the push for civil unions. Today, only Connecticut and Massachusetts permit gay marriage, and a few states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships that grant some rights of marriage. Galvanized by the stinging Nov. 4 defeat in liberal California, the marriage movement is now as much symbolic as practical. "There was a shift in the '90s, from rights to the symbolism of being married," Cherlin said. "This is not primarily a battle about rights now. If it was, all you'd be hearing about is domestic partnerships. Now it's at two levels simultaneously. One is the level of rights; the second is the level of symbols." One symbol that some see missing from the gay rights movement is a figurehead. There are famous people who are out and proud, such as Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., or Ellen DeGeneres. But "we don't have our Martin Luther King or Malcolm X or Barack Obama," Wilbekin said. Yet the nature of activism has changed since the days when King proposed the idea of a mass march on Washington. The recent nationwide gay protests were instigated by a Seattle blogger who set up a Web page three days after the California vote. And in some ways, gays see Obama himself as a symbol of gay progress - even though he opposes gay marriage. Obama is in favor of civil unions, and during his victory speech, when he included gays in his description of America, it made them feel part of the historic racial milestone. Solmonese said that the election defeats of Nov. 4 have inspired a level of gay activism not seen since the early days of the AIDS epidemic. "That is buoyed by equal parts anger and rage about Proposition 8," he said, "but also hope and inspiration about doing something that for a long time we didn't think possible - like electing Barack Obama as our president." Before we go any further, let’s look back on the history of the Civil Rights Movement: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide The civil rights movement can be defined as a mass popular movement to secure for African Americans equal access to and opportunities for the basic privileges and rights of U.S. citizenship. Although the roots of the civil rights movement go back to the 19th century, the movement peaked in the 1950s and 1960s. African American men and women, along with whites, organized and led the movement at national and local levels. They pursued their goals through legal means, negotiations, petitions, and nonviolent protest demonstrations. The largest social movement of the 20th century, the civil rights movement influenced the modern women's rights movement and the student movement of the 1960s. The civil rights movement centered on the American South, where the African American population was concentrated and where racial inequality in education, economic opportunity, and the political and legal processes was most blatant. Beginning in the late 19th century, state and local governments passed segregation laws, known as Jim Crow laws, and mandated restrictions on voting qualifications that left the black population economically and politically powerless. The movement therefore addressed primarily three areas of discrimination: education, social segregation, and voting rights. The Brown Decision The 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas ushered in a new era in the struggle for civil rights. This landmark decision outlawed racial segregation in public schools. Whites around the country condemned the decision, and in the South such white supremacist groups as the Ku Klux Klan and the Citizens' Council organized to resist desegregation, sometimes resorting to violence. A primary target of supremacist groups was the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Over the course of decades the NAACP had filed a procession of court cases, including Brown, and had assumed the lead in the national struggle against segregated education. The oldest established national civil-rights organization, the NAACP also played an important role at the local level, where blacks across the South organized branches to combat discrimination in their communities. Prompted in part by the work of the Arkansas NAACP and its president, Daisy Bates, one of the first attempts to comply with the Brown decision came in the capital city of >Little Rock in 1957. When the local school board admitted nine black students to the city's previously all-white Central High School, white protests escalated into violence, forcing President Dwight D. Eisenhower to dispatch federal troops to protect the black students. A later high-profile case involved Alabama governor George Wallace, who in 1963 attempted to block black students from enrolling at the University of Alabama. The Challenge to Social Segregation By the time of the Little Rock incident, the nation had already become aware of the heightened struggle in the South. In 1955 blacks in Montgomery, Ala., organized a boycott of city buses in protest of the policy of segregated seating. Lasting 381 days, the boycott, instigated by Rosa Parks, succeeded in integrating the seating. It also led to the formation in 1957 of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), in Atlanta, Ga., as a national organization presided over by a local black minister, Martin Luther King, Jr. As SCLC head, he would later become a central leader in the larger civil rights movement. A major incident in 1960 led to the founding of another important organization and expanded the movement's participants to include college-age blacks. In that year, four students from the all-black North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College initiated sit-ins at a segregated Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro, N.C. Students from other southern black colleges and universities followed with similar sit-ins, bringing about the desegregation of several hundred lunch counters. During the sit-ins the young protesters organized the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. Soon thereafter, many SNCC members joined forces with the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). Founded in Chicago in the 1940s, CORE organized the Freedom Rides of 1961. Black and white Freedom Riders boarded commercial buses in Washington, D.C., and embarked on a route through the South to test the 1960 Supreme Court decision Boynton v. Virginia, which had outlawed segregation in interstate transportation terminals. Although riders were beaten, arrested, and in one instance had their bus burned, the Freedom Rides were ultimately successful, prompting the Interstate Commerce Commission to enforce the ruling in Boynton. The SNCC also organized local campaigns with NAACP branches to win voting rights for blacks and to end segregation in public places. One community that made the national spotlight was Albany, Ga. In 1962, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the SCLC entered the Albany struggle, which failed to gain significant results and branded King with a humiliating defeat. The national spotlight then turned to Birmingham, Ala. Since 1956, the Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights had been leading the struggle against racial discrimination there. For decades, local blacks had faced a staunch segregationist in the person of Eugene "Bull" Connor, the city's commissioner of public safety, who was chiefly responsible for Birmingham's reputation as the "most thoroughly segregated city in the United States." King arrived in the spring of 1963 and with Shuttlesworth led nonviolent demonstrations. Connor's use of police dogs and fire hoses against protesters, an act that remains infamous, helped awaken President John Kennedy's administration to the need for civil rights legislation. Following Kennedy's assassination, President Lyndon Johnson maneuvered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress. Representing a major victory for African Americans, the 1964 legislation outlawed segregation in public places and prohibited racial and gender discrimination in employment practices. Voting Rights By the mid-1960s, however, most eligible black voters in the South remained disfranchised. Following World War II, African Americans initiated local efforts to exercise the right to vote but faced strong and sometimes violent resistence from local whites. Organized initiatives to enfranchise blacks climaxed with the Summer Project of 1964. Popularly known as Freedom Summer, the Summer Project came under the auspices of the Council of Federated Organizations (COFO), which included the SCLC, SNCC, CORE, and the NAACP. Targeting Mississippi, where in many counties no blacks were registered to vote, COFO launched a massive and largely unsuccessful voter-registration drive. White resistance was widespread and tainted by several killings. The effort did, however, capture the attention of many lawmakers, who began calling for federal voting-rights legislation. Such legislation followed events in Selma, Ala., where King and the SCLC went in February 1965, hoping to boost a languishing voting-rights drive that had been organized by the SNCC and local blacks. After two failed attempts, King led an 87-km (54-mi) march from Selma to Montgomery. Three activists lost their lives during the Selma demonstrations, but in August 1965, President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act. Black Power By this time, civil-rights activists were turning their attention to race discrimination in the urban North and West. Many younger activists, discontented with the slow process of change, were also becoming more militant. SNCC, for instance, in 1966 replaced its chairman, John Lewis, with the more radical Stokely Carmichael, who expanded SNCC operations beyond the South and helped popularize the concept of "black power." Advocates of black power favored African Americans controlling the movement, exercising economic autonomy, and preserving their African heritage. Most controversial were the call for racial separatism and the principle of self-defense against white violence, both of which were contrary to the ideals of more traditional activists who favored racial integration and passive resistance. A leading group within the black-power struggle was the Black Panthers. Organized in Oakland, Calif., in 1966 by Bobby Seale and Huey P. Newton, it included among its members the activist and writer Eldridge Cleaver. Probably the best-known figure within the radical wing of the civil rights movement was Malcolm X of the Nation of Islam, also known as the Black Muslims. By the early 1970s, however, black power was all but nonexistent, having never gained the support of the larger African American populace. The Movement Legacy As late as 1969, 15 years after Brown, only 1 percent of the black students in the Deep South states were attending public schools with whites. After a series of legal cases in the late 1960s, the federal courts finally dismantled segregated schools by requiring school districts to implement plans, such as school-district rezoning, that would bring black and white school children and faculty under one roof. In 1971, the Supreme Court upheld school busing as a viable means of meeting integration goals. By this time - after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1968, the rise of black militancy, and discernible gains in black employment opportunities - the civil rights movement had begun losing momentum. Observers maintain that the movement has a mixed legacy. It produced major legislation that reformed American society, and it opened up new political, social, and economic opportunities to blacks. Veterans of the movement, however, lament that it fell short of addressing the economic needs of poor Americans. Now let's look at the Gay Rights Movement: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide One of the biggest social movements currently taking place in the United States right now is the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) rights movement. After years of discrimination and marginalization from mainstream society, queer people (gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered people and other sexual minorities) are fighting discrimination and in some cases seeking marriage rights. The global gay rights movement, which began in Europe over one hundred years ago with the goals of changing the dominant cultural ideas of masculinity and femininity, has had varying degrees of success in different countries. On the whole, the United States has been more receptive to this movement than many other countries, but discrimination and homophobia—the fear of gay people—still dominate many people’s thinking. The American gay rights movement dates back to 1924, when the Society for Human Rights in Chicago became the country’s first gay organization. However, it was not until the 1960s that the movement began to make any real progress. In 1962 Illinois became the first US state to decriminalize private homosexual acts between consenting adults, and the civil rights movement and anti-Vietnam War protests of the ‘60s left many gay activists with the desire to create an organized movement. In 1969 the Stonewall Riots—a three-day protest that took place when gay, lesbian and transgendered patrons resisted a police raid on a New York bar—transformed the movement from the struggle of a few isolated activists to a collective, wide-scale effort. Immediately after Stonewall, a few radical groups were formed. These began fighting against the American Psychiatric Society's classification of gay as a disease, and in 1973 the Association removed homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders. At this time many LGBT's decided to “come out” - to speak openly and proudly about their sexual orientation and make no attempt to conceal it- thus rejecting the old idea of homosexuality as a source of shame. The 1980's saw a difficult moment for the emergence of AIDS, a deadly disease which at first seemed concentrated in the gay male population. This new obstacle changed the focus of the movement for many leaders in the movement and also lead to radicalization. At this time many activists began to see the word “gay and lesbian” as too restrictive and began to use the word “queer” to describe all sexual minorities. The 1990's saw more victories for the LGBT movement. In 1993 the US military instituted the “Don't ask, don't tell policy,” allowing gay people to serve in the military but prohibiting homosexual activity. In 2000 the state of Vermont became the first to permit ¨civil unions¨ between gay and lesbian couples, granting them the same civil rights and benefits as married people yet refusing to call these unions by the name of marriage, which the state has defined as a union between a man and a woman. Since then, such civil unions have become legal in Connecticut, New Hampshire and New Jersey, while actual same-sex marriage has been legalized in Massachusetts and most recently California. Currently the movement has also made gains in securing legislation against workplace discrimination, as has been done in a bill approved by the House of Representatives in 2007. However, while the American LGBT movement has made great progress in meeting its goals of assuring equal civil rights for gay people and deconstructing the common cultural concept of queer people as deviant or abnormal, much opposition remains. Many political and cultural conservatives believe that, by trying to challenge and redefine age-old concepts of marriage and family, the movement is a threat to the very foundations of American society. Some Christian groups, referring to biblical passages that condemn homosexuality, view it as a moral wrong. Thus, opposition to the LGBT movement continues in many parts of mainstream society, particularly in the states where gay marriage and civil unions are banned. Thus, while in the more liberal sectors of American society, the movement has made great gains and is widely accepted, among conservatives it remains controversial. What is my opinion? Well, I believe the two have some things in common, for example: Both had to suffer greatly for their rights. That both wanted to be treated equally in a society that doesn’t except them. There were hate crimes of course and punishment was severe. And that there were many riots and protest for their cause. But when we look back at each of their history most of us will probably comment on the fact that blacks had it worst, which to some degree, might be true, but not mostly since homosexuals have been suffering even as old as Bible times. But when you're gay you usually don't get stared down when you walk into a corner store...just a little humor. So what do you all think? Can the Black Civil Rights Movement be compared to the Gay Rights Movement? Also, check out this YouTube Video: Is Gay The New Black? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uwyO2Tmi8s |
|
|
I'll be back
|
|
|
I don't think any of them can be compared because they're being fought for under different situations. In fact, there's no such things as rights. What we call "rights" are really just temporary privileges that can be taken away at any time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
People always try to draw absurd parallels, especially journalists. And actually, I agree with jandarujora. The circumstances under which these movements came to existence are incomparable.
|
|
|
I said maybe, baby. But I just don't know.
|
|
|
jandarujora wrote: I don't think any of them can be compared because they're being fought for under different situations. In fact, there's no such things as rights. What we call "rights" are really just temporary privileges that can be taken away at any time. Agreed. I think that people love to relate things so that they stir more controversy. The Black civil rights movement is one that stirred a lot of emotions, and because people are fighting for gay rights they automatically relate the two so that there is more of an 'uproar'. The two are very different. |
|
Constantly Inconstant
|
|
|
I hope they don't ban the word gay.
Instead of saying it's retarded or stupid, I mostly say "that's gay" or "you're gay" as a comeback to someone's wise-ass remarks. |
|
|
YAISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSH!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Gaia93 wrote: So what do you all think? Can the Black Civil Rights Movement be compared to the Gay Rights Movement? Throughout the history of human conflicts, we must understand that it all boils down to ideological differences, not biological ones. The roots of this comparative is thereby not about the civil movement of equal rights for "black" or "gay", but a continuous process of can so-on-so individuals be civilized. Regardless of stereotypes and prejudices toward racial ethnicity and sexual preferences created by ignorance and intolerance. Therefore, just like the Black Civil Rights Movement is all about removing the racist stereotypes and prejudices toward that particular ethnicity. The Gay Civil Rights Movement is all about removing the sexist stereotypes and prejudices toward that particular preference. And in that sense, I say they are not just comparable, but it's actually the same civil rights movement. Only this time it's for the homosexual individuals. |
|
|
Strong enough for men, made for women. Anything less will be uncivilized.
|
|
|
DomFortress wrote: Gaia93 wrote: So what do you all think? Can the Black Civil Rights Movement be compared to the Gay Rights Movement? Throughout the history of human conflicts, we must understand that it all boils down to ideological differences, not biological ones. The roots of this comparative is thereby not about the civil movement of equal rights for "black" or "gay", but a continuous process of can so-on-so individuals be civilized. Regardless of stereotypes and prejudices toward racial ethnicity and sexual preferences created by ignorance and intolerance. Therefore, just like the Black Civil Rights Movement is all about removing the racist stereotypes and prejudices toward that particular ethnicity. The Gay Civil Rights Movement is all about removing the sexist stereotypes and prejudices toward that particular preference. And in that sense, I say they are not just comparable, but it's actually the same civil rights movement. Only this time it's for the homosexual individuals. You maybe right, but I just don't care for how they said, "Is Gay the new Black?" It just makes me feel sort of offended. |
|
|
I'll be back
|
|
|
Gaia93 wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Gaia93 wrote: So what do you all think? Can the Black Civil Rights Movement be compared to the Gay Rights Movement? Throughout the history of human conflicts, we must understand that it all boils down to ideological differences, not biological ones. The roots of this comparative is thereby not about the civil movement of equal rights for "black" or "gay", but a continuous process of can so-on-so individuals be civilized. Regardless of stereotypes and prejudices toward racial ethnicity and sexual preferences created by ignorance and intolerance. Therefore, just like the Black Civil Rights Movement is all about removing the racist stereotypes and prejudices toward that particular ethnicity. The Gay Civil Rights Movement is all about removing the sexist stereotypes and prejudices toward that particular preference. And in that sense, I say they are not just comparable, but it's actually the same civil rights movement. Only this time it's for the homosexual individuals. You maybe right, but I just don't care for how they said, "Is Gay the new Black?" It just makes me feel sort of offended. Now that I can relate, especially when I ended up with the same conclusion but from a boarder perspective. |
|
|
Strong enough for men, made for women. Anything less will be uncivilized.
|
|
|
DomFortress wrote: Gaia93 wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Gaia93 wrote: So what do you all think? Can the Black Civil Rights Movement be compared to the Gay Rights Movement? Throughout the history of human conflicts, we must understand that it all boils down to ideological differences, not biological ones. The roots of this comparative is thereby not about the civil movement of equal rights for "black" or "gay", but a continuous process of can so-on-so individuals be civilized. Regardless of stereotypes and prejudices toward racial ethnicity and sexual preferences created by ignorance and intolerance. Therefore, just like the Black Civil Rights Movement is all about removing the racist stereotypes and prejudices toward that particular ethnicity. The Gay Civil Rights Movement is all about removing the sexist stereotypes and prejudices toward that particular preference. And in that sense, I say they are not just comparable, but it's actually the same civil rights movement. Only this time it's for the homosexual individuals. You maybe right, but I just don't care for how they said, "Is Gay the new Black?" It just makes me feel sort of offended. Now that I can relate, especially when I ended up with the same conclusion but from a boarder perspective. It got even worst when I watched this YouTube video. It was basically around the terms of, "Black people have to automatically be buddy-buddy with homosexuals since we share the same hardships." Then the gay rights activist that was actually a guest on the show said, "I thought we were hommies?" What kind of sense dose that make? Native Americans have suffered just like blacks have, they only make up 1% of the population, and the Chinese have been through hell, too. So have Hispanics, Arabs, and Muslims so why just black people? Is it because the Black Civil Rights Movement made a bigger impact? |
|
|
I'll be back
|
|
|
Gaia93 wrote: DomFortress wrote: Gaia93 wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Gaia93 wrote: So what do you all think? Can the Black Civil Rights Movement be compared to the Gay Rights Movement? Throughout the history of human conflicts, we must understand that it all boils down to ideological differences, not biological ones. The roots of this comparative is thereby not about the civil movement of equal rights for "black" or "gay", but a continuous process of can so-on-so individuals be civilized. Regardless of stereotypes and prejudices toward racial ethnicity and sexual preferences created by ignorance and intolerance. Therefore, just like the Black Civil Rights Movement is all about removing the racist stereotypes and prejudices toward that particular ethnicity. The Gay Civil Rights Movement is all about removing the sexist stereotypes and prejudices toward that particular preference. And in that sense, I say they are not just comparable, but it's actually the same civil rights movement. Only this time it's for the homosexual individuals. You maybe right, but I just don't care for how they said, "Is Gay the new Black?" It just makes me feel sort of offended. Now that I can relate, especially when I ended up with the same conclusion but from a boarder perspective. It got even worst when I watched this YouTube video. It was basically around the terms of, "Black people have to automatically be buddy-buddy with homosexuals since we share the same hardships." Then the gay rights activist that was actually a guest on the show said, "I thought we were hommies?" What kind of sense dose that make? Native Americans have suffered just like blacks have, they only make up 1% of the population, and the Chinese have been through hell, too. So have Hispanics, Arabs, and Muslims so why just black people? Is it because the Black Civil Rights Movement made a bigger impact? That the video itself is basically a message made out of racial and sexual "soundbites", which unfortunately are the only type of language that's reaching to those individuals who are ignorant and intolerant. When racial, sexual, and political soundbites became so symbolic, they're acceptable by the masses via mass medias. In other words, messages made of "soundbites" create headlines simply because they are catchy and advertising. And you're right to say that "the Black Civil Rights Movement made a bigger impact" in the Western society, because within the history of civil rights movement, a lot of influential individuals came from the ranks of ethnic minority. However, even at the same time biology is redefining racial science through the study of real genetic human variants caused by racial ethnicity. There are also individuals withholding the same racial stereotypes and prejudices that's based on the old racial science/superiority during the colonization era, are still ignorant and intolerant to that very same paradox. In the end, we can't hind the color of our skin, unless we did a Michael Jackson or Robert Downey Jr. But nobody would know that some of us are homosexual unless they express themselves to be. |
|
|
Strong enough for men, made for women. Anything less will be uncivilized.
|
|
|
Lol this is getting nuts because homosexuals are finding all these civil rights movements/human rights issues that happened in that past and are trying to compare it with what they are going through. This is not a comparison blacks had it much worse. Slavery, beaten, families torn apart. Now after their freedom they were still segregated and not offered the same equal rights like everyone else. See the difference is you are born black. You cannot hide being black. Lol Micheal Jackson tried but even through his white skin he couldn't fool anyone he was still as black as Kuuta Kentay. So yes to discriminate on people who couldn't even choose on what gender, skin color they are when they are born is wrong and unacceptable. I haven't been convinced or seen any type of scientifically evidence that people are born gay nor is there a gene to prove it. Really the whole homosexual thing is how your culture determines what is right and wrong according to their beliefs and how they was raised.
Note: I am not trying to get into a "gay rights" or some type of convincing argument debate so if you insist on it you will be promptly ignored thanks. |
|
Imma' get you Sucka!
|
|
|
drizza wrote: Lol this is getting nuts because homosexuals are finding all these civil rights movements/human rights issues that happened in that past and are trying to compare it with what they are going through. This is not a comparison blacks had it much worse. Slavery, beaten, families torn apart. Now after their freedom they were still segregated and not offered the same equal rights like everyone else. See the difference is you are born black. You cannot hide being black. Lol Micheal Jackson tried but even through his white skin he couldn't fool anyone he was still as black as Kuuta Kentay. So yes to discriminate on people who couldn't even choose on what gender, skin color they are when they are born is wrong and unacceptable. I haven't been convinced or seen any type of scientifically evidence that people are born gay nor is there a gene to prove it. Really the whole homosexual thing is how your culture determines what is right and wrong according to their beliefs and how they was raised. Note: I am not trying to get into a "gay rights" or some type of convincing argument debate so if you insist on it you will be promptly ignored thanks. Just give some time and chance in the study of human genetic variants making breakthroughs, and soon it'll prove that human homosexuality is a natural occurrence like the homosexuality among animals. When animals don't have culture, but they do have genetic variants like we do. |
|
|
Strong enough for men, made for women. Anything less will be uncivilized.
|
|
|
drizza wrote: I haven't been convinced or seen any type of scientifically evidence that people are born gay nor is there a gene to prove it. Though most people would comeback with the, "I was born gay," rebuttal. Let me add a little story: A certain member of my family was heterosexual for 35 years of their life, then the next year decided she was a lesbian, then the next year decided she was bi. Get where I'm going with this? We all choose to be who we want in life. I wasn't born heterosexual, I could've gone either way. Yes I've kissed girls, but I just find men attractive. That's my choice. Being black however, wasn't. Your skin is something you're born with, and until science can prove that homosexuality is a genetic trait than I'm upholding my opinion. That's all. |
|
|
I'll be back
|
|
|
Gaia93 wrote: drizza wrote: I haven't been convinced or seen any type of scientifically evidence that people are born gay nor is there a gene to prove it. Though most people would comeback with the, "I was born gay," rebuttal. Let me add a little story: A certain member of my family was heterosexual for 35 years of their life, then the next year decided she was a lesbian, then the next year decided she was bi. Get where I'm going with this? We all choose to be who we want in life. I wasn't born heterosexual, I could've gone either way. Yes I've kissed girls, but I just find men attractive. That's my choice. Being black however, wasn't. Your skin is something you're born with, and until science can prove that homosexuality is a genetic trait than I'm upholding my opinion. That's all. Well ambiguity in the behaviorism of homosexuality is never my cup of scientific tea, therefore: How do genes influence behavior?(citation) No single gene determines a particular behavior. Behaviors are complex traits involving multiple genes that are affected by a variety of other factors. This fact often gets overlooked in media reports hyping scientific breakthroughs on gene function, and, unfortunately, this can be very misleading to the public. For example, a study published in 1999 claimed that overexpression of a particular gene in mice led to enhanced learning capacity. The popular press referred to this gene as "the learning gene" or the "smart gene." What the press didn't mention was that the learning enhancements observed in this study were short-term, lasting only a few hours to a few days in some cases. Dubbing a gene as a "smart gene" gives the public a false impression of how much scientists really know about the genetics of a complex trait like intelligence. Once news of the "smart gene" reaches the public, suddenly there is talk about designer babies and the potential of genetically engineering embryos to have intelligence and other desirable traits, when in reality the path from genes to proteins to development of a particular trait is still a mystery. With disorders, behaviors, or any physical trait, genes are just a part of the story, because a variety of genetic and environmental factors are involved in the development of any trait. Having a genetic variant doesn't necessarily mean that a particular trait will develop. The presence of certain genetic factors can enhance or repress other genetic factors. Genes are turned on and off, and other factors may be keeping a gene from being turned "on." In addition, the protein encoded by a gene can be modified in ways that can affect its ability to carry out its normal cellular function. Genetic factors also can influence the role of certain environmental factors in the development of a particular trait. For example, a person may have a genetic variant that is know to increase his or her risk for developing emphysema from smoking, an environmental factor. If that person never smokes, then emphysema will not develop. I say it is time to remove the stereotypes and prejudices caused by the "gay gene" soundbite. |
|
|
Strong enough for men, made for women. Anything less will be uncivilized.
|
|
|
lol I knew people were stupid, but this is ridiculous. The power of man's stupidity amazes me more & more :3
|
|
the world is nothing but a intellectual wasteland. 。◕‿‿◕。
|
|
Popular Shows |
Platforms and Devices |
Premium MembershipsLanguage
|
Support |
Crunchyroll |