What also bothers me about that statement is that it trivializes the struggles of genocides, slavery, lynchings, segregation, Jim Crow laws, etc.–by comparing oneself to the struggles of another people who have been through unspeakable hardships. Especially considering the fact that that gay communities are clearly not ghettos (quite the opposite) and many professions dominated by gays are very desirable (income-wise and otherwise).
“many professions dominated by gays are very desirable (income-wise and otherwise).”
Yeah, like those uppity blacks complaining when a small minority have those high-paying jobs in sports, rap music, soul music and RnB.
“by comparing oneself to the struggles of another people who have been through unspeakable hardships”
Yeah, how dare gays compare the minor punishments for being gays in some places (imprisonment, corporal punishment and the death penalty [in at least five countries]) to anyone else’s hardship. So what if gays were targetted by the Nazis and put in Concentration Camps – they had it easy!
And look at how gays are able to openly serve as politicians, like, erm Barney Frank and, er… Who cares that the gays who have fought and died in the military to protect your lives have up until recently been told they’d be chucked out the forces if anyone found out they were gay – as you say, that’s nothing like being black.
And Alan Turing – it’s not enough that he virtually invented the computer, oversaw the cracking of the Enigma Code, helping bring World War II to a premature end and saving countless lives. None of that is important next to the fact that he was illegally gay in 1950s England, so it’s a fitting end for a pioneering war hero that he got chemically castrated and shortly afterwards killed himself. It’s clearly absurd to say that’s like being black – being black wasn’t illegal. Turing got what he deserved, and how dare anyone compare his persecution to anyone else’s hardships.
As for Dr Baucham’s article – mostly non sequiturs. And as far as I can tell it’s other black people who’ve made the ‘gay is the new black’ argument. And whether or not they make such a reductionist argument themselves, the NAACP, America’s largest and oldest black civil rights group, has announced that it sees gay marriage as a civil right.
Regardless of your complaints against the author of the article, sexual behavior is always a choice made by the people participating in it. (The only exception is rape.) People choose to participate in sex. People don’t choose the color of their skin.
That’s a non sequitur, Josh. I wouldn’t excuse the persecution of a religious faith on the basis that it is voluntary, nor the persecution of left-handed people on the basis that they could always use their right hand. And one could argue against black and white people marrying on the basis that they could always choose someone of their own race to marry – in fact I’m pretty sure exactly that argument WAS advanced. You married someone of a different race yourself. Perhaps you’ll say “Sure, it was a choice”, but I don’t think you’d accept that as a justification in itself to discriminate against you.
“We were talking about people equating sexual behavior with skin color.”
Well with regards to what, if you’re not talking about persecution? That IS what the conversation concerns, isn’t it? Synapt’s very first comment was this:
“What also bothers me about that statement is that it trivializes the struggles of genocides, slavery, lynchings, segregation, Jim Crow laws, etc.–by comparing oneself to the struggles of another people who have been through unspeakable hardships”
Did you respond by saying “Synapt, neither I nor the article were talking about struggles and hardship”. No you said: “Good additions there, synapticcohesion!”
Hmm…
“We were talking about people equating sexual behavior with skin color”
You could say it’s equating gender with skin colour. With a mixed-race marriage it is the difference in skin colour that makes it mixed race, with SSM it is the similarity of gender.
And at any rate, I’ve already explained why it’s a non sequitur either way to say one is a choice and the other is not. So what? Why is that an argument against ‘gay is the new black’? You need to discuss in what way it is the new black first. I can say “Bananas are the new apples”, meaning it has replaced it as the most popular fruit. You could reply “They’re not the same, because apples are crunchy, bananas are not”. While the difference you have pointed out is true, it is a non sequitur with regards to the point being made.
So in what way does sexual behaviour (not sexual attraction, note) being a choice make any difference to the argument?
How does the fact that one is a choice and the other isn’t not make a difference in the argument? If people do things that are against the law, do they have the right to complain when they are fined or sent to jail? Now, we have laws that protect marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. Why should whole of society (US or otherwise) change them for an extremely tiny minority whose behavior is their own choice? And if we change the laws and definition to include them, where do we stop? Can other people take whatever defintion they have of marriage and demand their rights? If so, how can you deny them theirs?
Well put, my friend. To me, the term “gay rights” is really a terrible misnomer. There are no “gay rights” or “straight rights”; just “human rights”. The exercise of certain rights, however, might warrant a certain level of maturity (the right to vote, for instance) and/or a certain unique kind of commitment (such as the right to marry).
“And if we change the laws and definition to include them, where do we stop? Can other people take whatever defintion they have of marriage and demand their rights? If so, how can you deny them theirs?”
You’ve asked some good questions here. I think some additional thoughts that come with your questions (and do correct me if I’m off the mark, brother) are these:
When people say that homosexuals should have their sexual behaviour legalised and that they be included in the definition of marriage, what sets their behaviour up and above other types of sexual behaviour, such as pedophilia? And lest people resort to strawman rebuttals, note that no one here (neither Josh nor I) is suggesting that “gay rights” activists are advocates of pedophilia, beastiality and the likes. We believe that homosexuals condemn these acts as much as we do, and we appreciate that.
But out of curiosity, what exactly is the defining criteria that makes people suggest that gay sexual relations should be legalised and viewed as legitimate marriages, but other types of behaviour – like pedophilia, beastiality, incest and necrophilia – should not?
Josh, I look forward to Andrew Ryan’s reply to your questions with interest. =)
Your comment adds to this discussion, Getic.Apolo, and I agree with its entirety. In fact, your last paragraph hits at exactly the point I was hinting at in my questions.
It seems odd to me, too, that people see marriage laws that promote and defend traditional marriage between a man and a woman in a very negative light. They assume that the laws were written not to promote and protect a particular type of behavior (monogamous heterosexual in a marriage relationship), but to “discriminate” against all others and one in particular (homosexuality).
“Yeah, like those uppity blacks complaining when a small minority have those high-paying jobs in sports, rap music, soul music and RnB.”
The black struggle is supposed to be over for the most part. Try comparing apples to apples. Gays are complaining NOW when their opportunities toward upward mobility, jobs, etc. are as I had explained. Compare this to history where being black meant being relegated to certain types of jobs (sharecropper, janitor, butler, busboy, etc.) that were considered to be “menial” and certainly low-paying–that is, of course, before slavery. But calling others “uppity” in 2012 is indicative that problems still exist unfortunately.
“Yeah, how dare gays compare the minor punishments for being gays in some places (imprisonment, corporal punishment and the death penalty [in at least five countries]) to anyone else’s hardship. So what if gays were targetted by the Nazis and put in Concentration Camps – they had it easy!”
As have blacks living in Germany. Yes, there were blacks living in Germany at the time who met the same fate. Their lives just weren’t worth mentioning by most because they were….(you fill in the blank).
“And look at how gays are able to openly serve as politicians, like, erm Barney Frank and, er… Who cares that the gays who have fought and died in the military to protect your lives have up until recently been told they’d be chucked out the forces if anyone found out they were gay – as you say, that’s nothing like being black.”
<>
Yes, poor Barney Frank that was amazingly able to retain his freedom AND his prestigious job despite running a child prostitution ring out of his home–and despite, of course, the revelation that he’s (gasp) gay!
Compare and contrast that to blacks who were lynched, shot, castrated alive, and/or hung for even LOOKING at a white woman. Yeah I see the parallels; the shared experiences; the shared hardships and struggles.
“And Alan Turing – it’s not enough that he virtually invented the computer, oversaw the cracking of the Enigma Code, helping bring World War II to a premature end and saving countless lives. None of that is important next to the fact that he was illegally gay in 1950s England, so it’s a fitting end for a pioneering war hero that he got chemically castrated and shortly afterwards killed himself. It’s clearly absurd to say that’s like being black – being black wasn’t illegal.”
I’m sure if many blacks black then could have hid their identities so that they could realizes these same opportunities for success, they would have done it in a heartbeat (without the self-pity and suicide). Instead many went off to fight in WWII in segregated units, faced some of the most dangerous and deadly mission, and were relegated to segregated seating areas in mess halls, while enemy German POW ate along side (white) American troops. Yup, cry me a river–Alan Turing’s struggle is unimaginable. No, you’re right–it wasn’t illegal to be black like it was to engage in homosexual activity. It was just often illegal to even LOOK in the direction of certain women–forget about heterosexual relationships and marriage (see miscegenation laws).
“And whether or not they make such a reductionist argument themselves, the NAACP, America’s largest and oldest black civil rights group, has announced that it sees gay marriage as a civil right.”
Your point? How does this making trivializing the struggles of others acceptable?
“I’m sure if many blacks black then could have hid their identities so that they could realizes these same opportunities for success, they would have done it in a heartbeat (without the self-pity and suicide)”
Black suicide rates have historically been pretty high, actually.
” lynched, shot, castrated alive, and/or hung”
Like gays through history too (diff death methods notwithstanding)…
“Gays are complaining NOW when their opportunities toward upward mobility, jobs, etc. are as I had explained. ”
Like gays through history too (diff death methods notwithstanding)…”
You know very well that when I speak of castrations, hangings, lynchings, I mean what happened right here. Here in the “civilized” world and the “Land of the Free.” Gays in America who compare not having a “right” that wasn’t created of defined for them in the first place (and an institution that they used to SHUN not protest for) to the black struggle in this country–during and long after slavery–is laughable and disrespectful. Don’t bother telling me what reportedly went on somewhere else in history. Don’t bother telling me about closed, sectarian regimes. We know what the crazy fringe are always capable to doing to ANYONE for ANY REASON. If you are going to mention these sectarian regimes, you might as well call women the “new black.” It does not make any sense for gays who presumably want to make leeway in this country to point towards other regimes and say that they are being persecuted and discriminated against. Let’s stay focused on what’s happening here and compare apples to apples.
I’m sure that if many blacks back then could have hid their identities so that they could have realized the same opportunities for success, they would have done it in a heartbeat (without the self-pity and suicide). Instead many went off to fight in WWII in segregated units, faced some of the most dangerous and deadly missions, and were relegated to segregated seating areas in mess halls–while enemy German POW ate along side (white) American troops. Yup, cry me a river–Alan Turing’s struggle is unimaginable. No, you’re right–it wasn’t illegal to be black like it was to engage in homosexual activity. It was just often illegal to even LOOK in the direction of certain women–forget about heterosexual relationships and marriage (see miscegenation laws).
“Second, there is a definitional disconnect. The very definition of marriage eliminates the possibility of including same-sex couples. The word marriage has a long and well-recorded history; it means “the union of a man and a woman.” Even in cultures that practice polygamy, the definition involves a man and several women. Therefore, while anti-miscegenation laws denied people a legitimate right, the same cannot be said concerning the denial of marriage to same-sex couples; one cannot be denied a right to something that doesn’t exist.”
Very true.
“Third, there is a historical disconnect. As early as the time of Moses, recorded history is replete with interracial marriages. In our own history, the marriage of John Rolfe and Pocahontas in the 17th century,9 along with the fact that anti-miscegenation laws were usually limited only to the intermarrying of certain “races” of people (i.e., black and white), stands as historical evidence of the legal and logical inconsistency of such laws. Thus, unlike same-sex “marriage” advocates, those fighting for the right to intermarry in the civil rights era had history on their side.”
True. It’s like visitors to an Amish community suddenly asserting that they are being discriminated against because the community traditions and laws specify certain privileges the Amish only. The laws had always existed within the Amish community, yet suddenly “non-Amish advocates” claim discrimination and demand all the same privileges (e.g. food and other resources) without having to become Amish. (Just a hypothetical example.)
“I feel the need to remind the reader that this is a legal decision, since phrases like “gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship” tend to sound out of place in such a document. Further, this is asinine logic. For example, following this line of reasoning, one could argue, “I have the right to join the military, but I am a pacifist. Therefore, I don’t really have the right (since it would be repulsive to me). Therefore, we need to establish a pacifist branch of the military so that I can fulfill both my desire to join, and my desire not to fight.”"
Another great point. Just about anything can be turned into a discrimination claim.
” one cannot be denied a right to something that doesn’t exist”
This sounds straight out of Orwell’s 1984. When women were given the vote, one didn’t have to consult a dictionary for a definition of ‘vote’, one just expanded the circle of people granted that right. It would have been utterly irrelevant if one had previously defined voting as something only men were able to do; it would have been ‘asinine logic’ had that been the case to say women were not being denied anything on the basis that ‘one cannot be denied what doesn’t exist’.
At any rate, gay marriage DOES exist.
“phrases like “gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship” tend to sound out of place in such a document”
Who says? Look in a grounds for divorce document and you’ll probably find discussion of commitment and relationship. Indeed legal documents pertaining to marriage may well make reference to the same.
Synaptic, you state that the black rights issues are supposed to be mostly won already. Perhaps. So it’s very easy for the author of this article, who now has these hard-won rights to argue against others enjoying the same. It’s easy to compare other people asking for the same marriage rights he enjoys to a pacifist wanting to join the army – no-one any longer makes such a comparison about his own rights.
Hmm: “A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.”
This scores two points against your arguments.
1) It compares with the author’s claim: “there is a historical disconnect. As early as the time of Moses, recorded history is replete with interracial marriages”
2) It compares with you pointing out about black people being hung for looking the wrong way at a white women. And quel surprise it was a Christian emperor ordering the execution of gay unions.
The tide turns on public opinion as more people meet gay couples and figure that the relationships they see aren’t do different, if at all, with those of straight couples. Personal experience changes minds, changes hearts. The high profile Conservative supporters like Cheney are the ones with family members in gay relationships. These people figure that the analogies to non-Amish people making outlandish demands simply do not hold water. They think ‘no, I don’t think it’s like that at all’.
Feel free to say you don’t like it, but these arguments give your position no legitimacy, and as the author seems to understand, they’re not going to stop the tide. It’s inevitable, just as the eventual victories for black civil rights were inevitable in the last century, and for pretty much the same reasons.
My guess is that it is not being able to get married that concerns most of these interest groups (because as I had mentioned, you can already hold your own gay marriage ceremony without a problem. Many will probably say that they want to be recognized by the state for “legitimacy” and so that they can get tax breaks. But as was already mentioned, how does one know who is “truly” homosexual and who is just claiming that they are for tax breaks?
It’s ridiculous because the main reason why governments provide these incentives to married heterosexual couples is not because of “discrimination,” it is because it makes economic sense. Only heterosexual couples are able to reproduce and this results in not only more workers to fuel the economy, but it results in more future taxpayers. If the heterosexual couple is married, they are more likely to be able to generate the income to support these children (as opposed to a single mother that has to support her children all by herself). These presumptions of course are not perfect, but it is based on what is expected on average. There is always a driving motivation behind incentives (usually an expectation to get something back)–and thus is no exception.
What on the other hand, would be gained by providing homosexual couples (real or alleged) with these same incentives? Or unattached (real or alleged) heterosexual couples for that matter? Other than causing bleeding and already flawed system dry (the likely protest will be that these special tax breaks cannot be afforded to everyone simply claiming that they are a couple)? Other than forcing–in the name of “equality,” and all or nothing situation? Tax breaks to everyone (which will cause problems) or tax breaks to no one (which will also cause problems for those wanting to raise/create families).
Thanks for adding your thoughts to the conversation here, synaptic. One thing, too, that your comment mentions is children. For homosexual people to have children, they have 2 options: 1) adoption; 2) artificial means. When artificial means (i.e. anonymous sperm donations) are employed to make a woman pregnant, I think its cruel. The child will likely grow up never knowing where they came from or who their father actually was. A heavy burden to pass on to a kid, I think. Any thoughts on this?
Agreed, Joshua. They pay a desperate young woman to be basically their baby-producing object, not thinking about the psychological damage this will do to both mother and child. For their own selfish reasons, they created a difficult situation that never had to be.
There was obviously no such thing as in-vitro fertilization when government created incentives for married couples, but that is irrelevant because this is not a given for homosexual couples. Not all homosexual couples have the means or the desire to have this procedure done. What are you going to do? Mandate that these couples prove that they intend to have children (and have the financial ability to acquire them) before getting tax breaks? This is ridiculous and it convolutes a system that worked just fine the way it was.
As for adoption, the homosexual couple did not produce the child, the child was the result of a heterosexual couple that more than likely received no tax breaks as they were not married. Proof again that is is not about homophobia, it is about providing incentives based on predicted outcomes based on statistical data.
What also bothers me about that statement is that it trivializes the struggles of genocides, slavery, lynchings, segregation, Jim Crow laws, etc.–by comparing oneself to the struggles of another people who have been through unspeakable hardships. Especially considering the fact that that gay communities are clearly not ghettos (quite the opposite) and many professions dominated by gays are very desirable (income-wise and otherwise).
Good additions there, synapticcohesion!
Good point, synapticcohesion.
“many professions dominated by gays are very desirable (income-wise and otherwise).”
Yeah, like those uppity blacks complaining when a small minority have those high-paying jobs in sports, rap music, soul music and RnB.
“by comparing oneself to the struggles of another people who have been through unspeakable hardships”
Yeah, how dare gays compare the minor punishments for being gays in some places (imprisonment, corporal punishment and the death penalty [in at least five countries]) to anyone else’s hardship. So what if gays were targetted by the Nazis and put in Concentration Camps – they had it easy!
And look at how gays are able to openly serve as politicians, like, erm Barney Frank and, er… Who cares that the gays who have fought and died in the military to protect your lives have up until recently been told they’d be chucked out the forces if anyone found out they were gay – as you say, that’s nothing like being black.
And Alan Turing – it’s not enough that he virtually invented the computer, oversaw the cracking of the Enigma Code, helping bring World War II to a premature end and saving countless lives. None of that is important next to the fact that he was illegally gay in 1950s England, so it’s a fitting end for a pioneering war hero that he got chemically castrated and shortly afterwards killed himself. It’s clearly absurd to say that’s like being black – being black wasn’t illegal. Turing got what he deserved, and how dare anyone compare his persecution to anyone else’s hardships.
As for Dr Baucham’s article – mostly non sequiturs. And as far as I can tell it’s other black people who’ve made the ‘gay is the new black’ argument. And whether or not they make such a reductionist argument themselves, the NAACP, America’s largest and oldest black civil rights group, has announced that it sees gay marriage as a civil right.
Regardless of your complaints against the author of the article, sexual behavior is always a choice made by the people participating in it. (The only exception is rape.) People choose to participate in sex. People don’t choose the color of their skin.
Joshua
That’s a non sequitur, Josh. I wouldn’t excuse the persecution of a religious faith on the basis that it is voluntary, nor the persecution of left-handed people on the basis that they could always use their right hand. And one could argue against black and white people marrying on the basis that they could always choose someone of their own race to marry – in fact I’m pretty sure exactly that argument WAS advanced. You married someone of a different race yourself. Perhaps you’ll say “Sure, it was a choice”, but I don’t think you’d accept that as a justification in itself to discriminate against you.
You were talking about persecution, but neither I nor the article were. We were talking about people equating sexual behavior with skin color.
“We were talking about people equating sexual behavior with skin color.”
Well with regards to what, if you’re not talking about persecution? That IS what the conversation concerns, isn’t it? Synapt’s very first comment was this:
“What also bothers me about that statement is that it trivializes the struggles of genocides, slavery, lynchings, segregation, Jim Crow laws, etc.–by comparing oneself to the struggles of another people who have been through unspeakable hardships”
Did you respond by saying “Synapt, neither I nor the article were talking about struggles and hardship”. No you said: “Good additions there, synapticcohesion!”
Hmm…
“We were talking about people equating sexual behavior with skin color”
You could say it’s equating gender with skin colour. With a mixed-race marriage it is the difference in skin colour that makes it mixed race, with SSM it is the similarity of gender.
And at any rate, I’ve already explained why it’s a non sequitur either way to say one is a choice and the other is not. So what? Why is that an argument against ‘gay is the new black’? You need to discuss in what way it is the new black first. I can say “Bananas are the new apples”, meaning it has replaced it as the most popular fruit. You could reply “They’re not the same, because apples are crunchy, bananas are not”. While the difference you have pointed out is true, it is a non sequitur with regards to the point being made.
So in what way does sexual behaviour (not sexual attraction, note) being a choice make any difference to the argument?
How does the fact that one is a choice and the other isn’t not make a difference in the argument? If people do things that are against the law, do they have the right to complain when they are fined or sent to jail? Now, we have laws that protect marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. Why should whole of society (US or otherwise) change them for an extremely tiny minority whose behavior is their own choice? And if we change the laws and definition to include them, where do we stop? Can other people take whatever defintion they have of marriage and demand their rights? If so, how can you deny them theirs?
Joshua
Josh:
Well put, my friend. To me, the term “gay rights” is really a terrible misnomer. There are no “gay rights” or “straight rights”; just “human rights”. The exercise of certain rights, however, might warrant a certain level of maturity (the right to vote, for instance) and/or a certain unique kind of commitment (such as the right to marry).
“And if we change the laws and definition to include them, where do we stop? Can other people take whatever defintion they have of marriage and demand their rights? If so, how can you deny them theirs?”
You’ve asked some good questions here. I think some additional thoughts that come with your questions (and do correct me if I’m off the mark, brother) are these:
When people say that homosexuals should have their sexual behaviour legalised and that they be included in the definition of marriage, what sets their behaviour up and above other types of sexual behaviour, such as pedophilia? And lest people resort to strawman rebuttals, note that no one here (neither Josh nor I) is suggesting that “gay rights” activists are advocates of pedophilia, beastiality and the likes. We believe that homosexuals condemn these acts as much as we do, and we appreciate that.
But out of curiosity, what exactly is the defining criteria that makes people suggest that gay sexual relations should be legalised and viewed as legitimate marriages, but other types of behaviour – like pedophilia, beastiality, incest and necrophilia – should not?
Josh, I look forward to Andrew Ryan’s reply to your questions with interest. =)
Your comment adds to this discussion, Getic.Apolo, and I agree with its entirety. In fact, your last paragraph hits at exactly the point I was hinting at in my questions.
It seems odd to me, too, that people see marriage laws that promote and defend traditional marriage between a man and a woman in a very negative light. They assume that the laws were written not to promote and protect a particular type of behavior (monogamous heterosexual in a marriage relationship), but to “discriminate” against all others and one in particular (homosexuality).
Joshua
“Yeah, like those uppity blacks complaining when a small minority have those high-paying jobs in sports, rap music, soul music and RnB.”
The black struggle is supposed to be over for the most part. Try comparing apples to apples. Gays are complaining NOW when their opportunities toward upward mobility, jobs, etc. are as I had explained. Compare this to history where being black meant being relegated to certain types of jobs (sharecropper, janitor, butler, busboy, etc.) that were considered to be “menial” and certainly low-paying–that is, of course, before slavery. But calling others “uppity” in 2012 is indicative that problems still exist unfortunately.
“Yeah, how dare gays compare the minor punishments for being gays in some places (imprisonment, corporal punishment and the death penalty [in at least five countries]) to anyone else’s hardship. So what if gays were targetted by the Nazis and put in Concentration Camps – they had it easy!”
As have blacks living in Germany. Yes, there were blacks living in Germany at the time who met the same fate. Their lives just weren’t worth mentioning by most because they were….(you fill in the blank).
“And look at how gays are able to openly serve as politicians, like, erm Barney Frank and, er… Who cares that the gays who have fought and died in the military to protect your lives have up until recently been told they’d be chucked out the forces if anyone found out they were gay – as you say, that’s nothing like being black.”
<>
Yes, poor Barney Frank that was amazingly able to retain his freedom AND his prestigious job despite running a child prostitution ring out of his home–and despite, of course, the revelation that he’s (gasp) gay!
Compare and contrast that to blacks who were lynched, shot, castrated alive, and/or hung for even LOOKING at a white woman. Yeah I see the parallels; the shared experiences; the shared hardships and struggles.
“And Alan Turing – it’s not enough that he virtually invented the computer, oversaw the cracking of the Enigma Code, helping bring World War II to a premature end and saving countless lives. None of that is important next to the fact that he was illegally gay in 1950s England, so it’s a fitting end for a pioneering war hero that he got chemically castrated and shortly afterwards killed himself. It’s clearly absurd to say that’s like being black – being black wasn’t illegal.”
I’m sure if many blacks black then could have hid their identities so that they could realizes these same opportunities for success, they would have done it in a heartbeat (without the self-pity and suicide). Instead many went off to fight in WWII in segregated units, faced some of the most dangerous and deadly mission, and were relegated to segregated seating areas in mess halls, while enemy German POW ate along side (white) American troops. Yup, cry me a river–Alan Turing’s struggle is unimaginable. No, you’re right–it wasn’t illegal to be black like it was to engage in homosexual activity. It was just often illegal to even LOOK in the direction of certain women–forget about heterosexual relationships and marriage (see miscegenation laws).
“And whether or not they make such a reductionist argument themselves, the NAACP, America’s largest and oldest black civil rights group, has announced that it sees gay marriage as a civil right.”
Your point? How does this making trivializing the struggles of others acceptable?
“As have blacks living in Germany.”
Right – so apt comparison then!
“I’m sure if many blacks black then could have hid their identities so that they could realizes these same opportunities for success, they would have done it in a heartbeat (without the self-pity and suicide)”
Black suicide rates have historically been pretty high, actually.
” lynched, shot, castrated alive, and/or hung”
Like gays through history too (diff death methods notwithstanding)…
“Gays are complaining NOW when their opportunities toward upward mobility, jobs, etc. are as I had explained. ”
Right, so where are all the gay sportsmen/politicians? Whither gay marriage? Ponder the comparison here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jun/16/gayrights.usa
” lynched, shot, castrated alive, and/or hung”
Like gays through history too (diff death methods notwithstanding)…”
You know very well that when I speak of castrations, hangings, lynchings, I mean what happened right here. Here in the “civilized” world and the “Land of the Free.” Gays in America who compare not having a “right” that wasn’t created of defined for them in the first place (and an institution that they used to SHUN not protest for) to the black struggle in this country–during and long after slavery–is laughable and disrespectful. Don’t bother telling me what reportedly went on somewhere else in history. Don’t bother telling me about closed, sectarian regimes. We know what the crazy fringe are always capable to doing to ANYONE for ANY REASON. If you are going to mention these sectarian regimes, you might as well call women the “new black.” It does not make any sense for gays who presumably want to make leeway in this country to point towards other regimes and say that they are being persecuted and discriminated against. Let’s stay focused on what’s happening here and compare apples to apples.
I had to repost this (too many typos):
I’m sure that if many blacks back then could have hid their identities so that they could have realized the same opportunities for success, they would have done it in a heartbeat (without the self-pity and suicide). Instead many went off to fight in WWII in segregated units, faced some of the most dangerous and deadly missions, and were relegated to segregated seating areas in mess halls–while enemy German POW ate along side (white) American troops. Yup, cry me a river–Alan Turing’s struggle is unimaginable. No, you’re right–it wasn’t illegal to be black like it was to engage in homosexual activity. It was just often illegal to even LOOK in the direction of certain women–forget about heterosexual relationships and marriage (see miscegenation laws).
From the article:
“Second, there is a definitional disconnect. The very definition of marriage eliminates the possibility of including same-sex couples. The word marriage has a long and well-recorded history; it means “the union of a man and a woman.” Even in cultures that practice polygamy, the definition involves a man and several women. Therefore, while anti-miscegenation laws denied people a legitimate right, the same cannot be said concerning the denial of marriage to same-sex couples; one cannot be denied a right to something that doesn’t exist.”
Very true.
“Third, there is a historical disconnect. As early as the time of Moses, recorded history is replete with interracial marriages. In our own history, the marriage of John Rolfe and Pocahontas in the 17th century,9 along with the fact that anti-miscegenation laws were usually limited only to the intermarrying of certain “races” of people (i.e., black and white), stands as historical evidence of the legal and logical inconsistency of such laws. Thus, unlike same-sex “marriage” advocates, those fighting for the right to intermarry in the civil rights era had history on their side.”
True. It’s like visitors to an Amish community suddenly asserting that they are being discriminated against because the community traditions and laws specify certain privileges the Amish only. The laws had always existed within the Amish community, yet suddenly “non-Amish advocates” claim discrimination and demand all the same privileges (e.g. food and other resources) without having to become Amish. (Just a hypothetical example.)
“I feel the need to remind the reader that this is a legal decision, since phrases like “gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship” tend to sound out of place in such a document. Further, this is asinine logic. For example, following this line of reasoning, one could argue, “I have the right to join the military, but I am a pacifist. Therefore, I don’t really have the right (since it would be repulsive to me). Therefore, we need to establish a pacifist branch of the military so that I can fulfill both my desire to join, and my desire not to fight.”"
Another great point. Just about anything can be turned into a discrimination claim.
” one cannot be denied a right to something that doesn’t exist”
This sounds straight out of Orwell’s 1984. When women were given the vote, one didn’t have to consult a dictionary for a definition of ‘vote’, one just expanded the circle of people granted that right. It would have been utterly irrelevant if one had previously defined voting as something only men were able to do; it would have been ‘asinine logic’ had that been the case to say women were not being denied anything on the basis that ‘one cannot be denied what doesn’t exist’.
At any rate, gay marriage DOES exist.
“phrases like “gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship” tend to sound out of place in such a document”
Who says? Look in a grounds for divorce document and you’ll probably find discussion of commitment and relationship. Indeed legal documents pertaining to marriage may well make reference to the same.
Synaptic, you state that the black rights issues are supposed to be mostly won already. Perhaps. So it’s very easy for the author of this article, who now has these hard-won rights to argue against others enjoying the same. It’s easy to compare other people asking for the same marriage rights he enjoys to a pacifist wanting to join the army – no-one any longer makes such a comparison about his own rights.
Hmm: “A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.”
This scores two points against your arguments.
1) It compares with the author’s claim: “there is a historical disconnect. As early as the time of Moses, recorded history is replete with interracial marriages”
2) It compares with you pointing out about black people being hung for looking the wrong way at a white women. And quel surprise it was a Christian emperor ordering the execution of gay unions.
The tide turns on public opinion as more people meet gay couples and figure that the relationships they see aren’t do different, if at all, with those of straight couples. Personal experience changes minds, changes hearts. The high profile Conservative supporters like Cheney are the ones with family members in gay relationships. These people figure that the analogies to non-Amish people making outlandish demands simply do not hold water. They think ‘no, I don’t think it’s like that at all’.
Feel free to say you don’t like it, but these arguments give your position no legitimacy, and as the author seems to understand, they’re not going to stop the tide. It’s inevitable, just as the eventual victories for black civil rights were inevitable in the last century, and for pretty much the same reasons.
Gays are not banned from marrying, by the way. Gays hold marriage ceremonies all the time.
My guess is that it is not being able to get married that concerns most of these interest groups (because as I had mentioned, you can already hold your own gay marriage ceremony without a problem. Many will probably say that they want to be recognized by the state for “legitimacy” and so that they can get tax breaks. But as was already mentioned, how does one know who is “truly” homosexual and who is just claiming that they are for tax breaks?
It’s ridiculous because the main reason why governments provide these incentives to married heterosexual couples is not because of “discrimination,” it is because it makes economic sense. Only heterosexual couples are able to reproduce and this results in not only more workers to fuel the economy, but it results in more future taxpayers. If the heterosexual couple is married, they are more likely to be able to generate the income to support these children (as opposed to a single mother that has to support her children all by herself). These presumptions of course are not perfect, but it is based on what is expected on average. There is always a driving motivation behind incentives (usually an expectation to get something back)–and thus is no exception.
What on the other hand, would be gained by providing homosexual couples (real or alleged) with these same incentives? Or unattached (real or alleged) heterosexual couples for that matter? Other than causing bleeding and already flawed system dry (the likely protest will be that these special tax breaks cannot be afforded to everyone simply claiming that they are a couple)? Other than forcing–in the name of “equality,” and all or nothing situation? Tax breaks to everyone (which will cause problems) or tax breaks to no one (which will also cause problems for those wanting to raise/create families).
Thanks for adding your thoughts to the conversation here, synaptic. One thing, too, that your comment mentions is children. For homosexual people to have children, they have 2 options: 1) adoption; 2) artificial means. When artificial means (i.e. anonymous sperm donations) are employed to make a woman pregnant, I think its cruel. The child will likely grow up never knowing where they came from or who their father actually was. A heavy burden to pass on to a kid, I think. Any thoughts on this?
Thanks!
Joshua
Agreed, Joshua. They pay a desperate young woman to be basically their baby-producing object, not thinking about the psychological damage this will do to both mother and child. For their own selfish reasons, they created a difficult situation that never had to be.
There was obviously no such thing as in-vitro fertilization when government created incentives for married couples, but that is irrelevant because this is not a given for homosexual couples. Not all homosexual couples have the means or the desire to have this procedure done. What are you going to do? Mandate that these couples prove that they intend to have children (and have the financial ability to acquire them) before getting tax breaks? This is ridiculous and it convolutes a system that worked just fine the way it was.
As for adoption, the homosexual couple did not produce the child, the child was the result of a heterosexual couple that more than likely received no tax breaks as they were not married. Proof again that is is not about homophobia, it is about providing incentives based on predicted outcomes based on statistical data.