First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
Gay Rights Movement being compared to the Black Civil Rights Movement?
Posted 12/15/09
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:



Now let's look at the Gay Rights Movement:



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
Posted 12/15/09 , edited 12/15/09
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.
Posted 12/16/09 , edited 12/16/09
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.
1186 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Leading your nigh...
Offline
Posted 12/16/09 , edited 12/16/09

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.
Posted 12/16/09
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.


Posted 12/16/09

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.
Posted 12/16/09

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.
Posted 12/16/09

Gaia93 wrote:



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.
Posted 12/16/09

DomFortress wrote:


Gaia93 wrote:



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?
Posted 12/16/09 , edited 12/16/09

Gaia93 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Gaia93 wrote:



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.
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 12/16/09
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.
Posted 12/16/09 , edited 12/16/09

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.
Posted 12/16/09 , edited 12/16/09

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.
Posted 12/16/09 , edited 12/16/09

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.
So you see, the "I was born gay" is not just a rebuttal, when I said it can be a natural behavior caused by genetic variants even among the wild animal kingdom. It's just that the homosexual behavior variant is very hard to identify due to the nature of genetic variants. Just like how black people can give birth to albinos within their ethnic group, and so can every other racial ethnicity due to human genetic variants.

I say it is time to remove the stereotypes and prejudices caused by the "gay gene" soundbite.
Posted 12/16/09
lol I knew people were stupid, but this is ridiculous. The power of man's stupidity amazes me more & more :3
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.