I spent some time yesterday thinking about this post and the response, which I think on the whole, can be summed up as follows--"Nigger, what?" I guess I now have to explain that I don't mean nigger in the sense of an old Southern racist, but the way Kenyatta might look at me after I attempted to make an argument for polygamy. I guess I also have to add that I've never made an argument for polygamy. Everything on the internets must be explained down to every painstaking detail, less people think the Atlantic has hired a Klansman to blog. Or a polygamist.
[MORE]
The post "Understanding black anti-gay marriage sentiment" does not
fall into that category. When you have the mic, and you aren't
broadcasting clearly, the temptation is to beat-down the sound-man, or
blame the listeners, to berate them for their oversensitivity, to tell
them to toughen up. But that's stupid anger. It never got anybody
anywhere. We've talked quite a bit about gay marriage on this blog, but
not a lot about kids in gay households. In not smacking down that whole
"growing up in a gay household" deal, I not only left room for
misunderstanding, I lept right past the most jarring part of the
comment. I assumed that, on its face, that the comment was absurd--that
it couldn't be logically defended, but perhaps the key to understanding
lay at the end of the comment. We get a little too comfortable in our
socially liberal cocoon and assume a level of familiarity and comfort
that isn't really ours. You can't assume that everyone will
automatically see the absurdity of that comment at this moment in
history. That was myopic--and ultimately wrong--of me.
That said, I do my share of righteous condemnation, but I hope, by and
by, to do less. I've written about why people might like Sarah Palin,
why white people roll up their windows, why black people would like
Wal-Mart, why black men should be grateful to cops, why cops shouldn't
be prosecuted for police brutality and so on. I don't write those sorts
of things to affect some fake-ass contrarian pose (I'm not up for being
that black writer) but because I'm genuinely curious. I know what I
know. I'm fairly certain and confident in what I believe, and I find it
boring to rewrite the same old denunciations day after day after
fucking day. More interesting to me are the following--1.) What am I
missing? 2.) What is the logic at work in the people I so vehemently
dismiss.
When Cosby made his speech back in 2004, I took a bat
two him--twice. I got a lot of kudos from my like-minded buddies and I
felt really good--for about a month. And then came this gnawing sense
that I was missing something. I didn't think I was wrong, but I thought
that maybe I wasn't fully grappling with what was going down. When i
went back to actually do that grappling, I didn't so much change my
mind, as I came to see what other people saw. I understood so much
more.
One of the more unfortunate things about being black is that if you
expect to go out and function in the world, you don't really have the
luxury of existing in the space of constant condemnation. There are
black people who do this. I tend to avoid them. They give me
chest-pains. More useful is to try to get a handle on where white folks
are coming from. You don't have to agree with it, in the spirit of
Barack, you can support Affirmative Action and still understand why
poor whites might resent it.
I know what I think and believe.
The basics aren't going to change much--though my view on tactics
might. Now I want to know what people outside of my circle think.
Condemnation isn't exactly rare on the internet. I do my share of
adding to the noise. But every once in a while, it's nice to also cut
through the noise. Who knows what you'll find on the other end.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Long time reader, first time commentor.
I just got done risking my job at work reading your thrice-updated post "Understanding black anti-gay marriage sentiment." As I reloaded your main page I saw this post.
I understand your need to defend yourself and your views on your blog. However, I fully understood the point you made in the original post.
Sun Tsu said it best "know your enemy." I've often used this to explain why I enjoy posting on various internet message boards, and risking my job debating politics at work. If you believe in something you need to KNOW and UNDERSTAND the counter-argument. And that's what I got from your original post. That post seemed to be to be an honest attempt to step back and see where the other side is coming from.
One of the things I appreciate about this blog is your effort to wrestle with difficult questions in the open, and, more importantly, your effort to use a historian's imagination to understand the positions of others.
The problem, in some ways, lies in accustoming people to responding to unedited thought, both about your own position, as well as your efforts to think into the minds of other people.
And, all too often, commenters neglect the implicit disclaimer that might be edited in -- "the opinions explored here do not necessarily express the opinions of the writer."
As to the previous point, I had the honor of seeing a friend 'marry' her girlfriend -- the scare-quotes are there because the wedding occurred 'off the (legal) books' in Georgia. A sweet but bitter ceremony because it reflected much of the African-American community's internal conflict about gay marriage -- the laminate symbolism to 'jumping the broom' was quite raw.
I think this is actually just straight-up true for such a short-form, episodic medium as a blog post. I think a blogger who's spent a lot of time at it definitely builds up a context for his or her words, and as time goes on can assume more of his or her opinions as understood. But even then there are going to be misunderstandings if too much is assumed. Especially in the cases when we're trying to suss out where the other side is coming from, and especially when the other side is saying something as nasty as gay parents raising a kid is bad and perverse. Sure, it's ass-covering, to an extent, but it's also... I don't know, courteous, I guess. Due dilligence in the blogger/reader relationship.
[Deep chuckle.] B'leedat.
Carry on.
It's early here so my head may be fuzzy but I don't understand this, particularly re the remainder of the paragraph. Or I may just be dense.
Coates
This isn't an indictment at all but a real question. Do you think you would have as many posts up about gay marriage if you didn't work with Andrew Sullivan?
I think that gay marriage is a very important topic especially in terms of the black community and how we have been "outed" as having voted in great percentages against gay marriage in california. But a gay marriage ban was also passed in Florida and Arizona but nobody ever talks about the "black vote" in those states. And its funny because ill bet the percentages of black voters in each state is roughly the same (probably lower in AZ). I think prop 8 was wrong and hope the courts overturn it sooner rather than later, but I am just wondering if we are getting into over kill territory.
I once met a man who tried to explain to me how he saw gayness as similar to his attraction to teen women and felt a sort of empathy for the gay community because of it. Needless to say, as a gay man, I didn't agree with him even in the remotest sense, although intellectually I understand where he was coming from, I just wouldn't want to be associated with what he is about.
In the same vein, I wonder if comparing the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement is equally unsettling for many black americans, especially when it is coupled to some of the accusations hurled at that community we have seen lately. I realize the comparison I am making isn't that pleasant but also think it may illustrate a flaw in the approach the gay community has taken in reaching out to the black community.
TNC, i just don't know that you should beat yourself up about this. it's good that you question all things, even, maybe especially yourself. but one of the things that makes you interesting to read is that you bring a personality as well as an intellect to your work.
it is fair, i think, for you to believe that people who are reading your blog have done so before. working on that fair assumption, you should not have to preface every post with an explanation of what you believe and then, finally, get to the point. you write well; writing well involves taking some chances, stylisitcally and rhetorically. i say keep it up, and keep up your self-review. but don't beat yourself up.
i think too that there is an important flip side. if a reader who is unfamiliar with you comes across a post like yesterday's s/he should look for context, not just to jump in to excoriate you or score points. i had no trouble understanding the point of your post yesterday, but that's, in part, becuase i've become familiar with your thoughts and style. i've missed a point or twenty over the months, but i've learned to question my reading when i react strongly to your, or anyone else's writing. what might i be missing, i ask. and i often find my reaction to be different upon rereading or thinking about it in context. sometimes, i even realize i've been played.
so be cool, be considerate, but don't go bland on us, cause some offense might get taken where maybe it shouldn't be
Meh, we're not getting bland. In about an hour I'll have a post up discussing white people who roll up their windows in black neighborhoods. Seriously.
Though I wonder if anyone even does that anymore...
Ah. I get it. It is early.
Meh, we're not getting bland. In about an hour I'll have a post up discussing white people who roll up their windows in black neighborhoods. Seriously.
I think you have to live in a place where people drive around with their windows down in order for them to roll them up. Although I do live in south Florida, where the temperature is usually such that anyone who has AC has it cranked most of the time, so my experience probably isn't all that common.
I think Andrew Sullivan will probably lay off blacks and Prop 8 for a while. He's currently too busy fighting with Ezra Klein about universal health care.
Oohh, goody, another fight about universal health care. It feels like the 90's again. I guess now that Sullivan is not editing a magazine, he can't publish another dishonest takedown of Democrats health care plan. But I'm sure he's planning lots and lots of blog posts about the evils of universal health care and how Americans should be grateful that we don't live like those poor Brits in his home ocuntry with their horrible, horrible NHS.
They might not roll the window up but they still put a death grip on their purse in the elevator.
Oh, this white people rolling the window up thread should be good. Just last week, my girlfriend was driving through Northeast DC with her window down. While stopped at a light, a gentleman came up to her car, punched her repeatedly in the face and tried to grab her iPod from the seat. This is not the first friend this has happened to. Although my girlfriend is not white, this is the biggest reason white people roll up their windows. It's a pretty damn good one too.
Preaching to the converted is silly. Hurling brickbats at the die hard opposition is often counter-productive. I'm a big believer in trying to cross the gap, of trying to reach reasonable and well-meaning people on the other side of the question. When I've made films about "trying to make the world a better place" I've made them with the good-hearted cynic in mind. When I've made films about faith, I've made them with good-hearted agnostics and atheists in mind.
But when you work this way, you will always find yourself confronted with the question; when do I call it out? When do I say "I don't care what your reasons are for thinking it's right to keep your boot on another human being's neck; you are wrong. You are just plain wrong."
In the micro, I think Sullivan is conterproductive, but in the macro, who can know? Conversely, I think TNC is asking the right questions in the right way.
But in the macro who can know. In the long arc of history who can know what idea, what provocation will be the catalyst for change? This is why I am so passionate about the idea of Liberty being a necessary precondition for meaningful equality.
That's the answer to "why bother", or at least it's my answer. Get the ideas out there and let them get knocked around, because you just don't know which ones are going to catch and why.
Which bring me to this:
I haven't wanted to bring it up, because I feel like I lack standing, but since I haven't read about it anywhere else, here it goes.
In the sex education community it is taken as a given that on the whole African American have more conservative attitudes about sex, are less open about sex, are less (for lack of a better word) "adventurous" in their sexual practices and habits. (Gimme a day or two and I'll come up with citations.)
Among sex educators, this conservatism and generally lower willingness to engage in open discussion about sex is cited as an obstacle to education on all sorts of things; birth control, STI prevention, domestic violence, etc.
It is also understood that this conservatism is seen as having multiple roots; poorer people have more conservative attitudes, African Americans are disproportionately poor; less educated people have more conservative attitudes, AA's disproportionate less educated, etc.
My point is, if we're going to talk about AA attitudes about homosexuality, a discussion about AA attitudes about sexuality might be a good starting place. (The "ick" factor isn't just about a man putting his penis in another man's anus.)
For that matter, if we want to talk about homophobia at large, it wouldn't hurt to talk about the erotophobia that pervade are culture. We have a sitting Supreme Court justice who thinks the state has the constitutional power to outlaw masturbation (and homosexual intercourse too.) Is it any surprise vast numbers of our citizenry, black, white, and other, think they have the right to outlaw gay marriage?
This is a difficult subject to grasp. I agree with Carrington Ward, that in turn, it is difficult for readers to get their arms around unedited thought, esp. as you admit, you left some things unsaid. So be it. This discussion is work in progress for all of us.
Perhaps it would be useful to gather the posts you've written on the subject and provide a link so your readers can see how your thoughts have developed on the topic over time. Not trying to create more work for you, though. Just an idea.
One quick word and I'll shut up for the rest of the day, I promise!
T-NC, I don't see why you're beating yourself up over that post. The conversation in the comments section may have been a bit contentious, but it was largely civil and struck me more as forum where I had the pleasure at hearing a lot of good opinions I had not previously be privy to. Unless there were a lot of highly objectionable comments that I did not see (and were subsequently deleted); I thought people handled themselves quite admirably, given that this is a very touchy subject for all sides.
I do think that TNC devotes too much time on certain topics. Not even black gay people I know spend much time thinking about gay marriage and Prop 8. Most people I know are a heckuvalot more interested in stuff by the economy and pocket-book issues. But its his blog.
This is exactly why I've spent the past two months attempting to force everyone I know to read you.
Thank you. Thank you.
@Tony Comstock:
Ooh, now THAT'S an interesting subject, and one I haven't seen explored. This might not be the right place to do it, but you bring up interesting points. I had no idea that black people were seen as sexually conservative as a group.
I'm in total agreement with Kalbi for Lunch; this conversation could've gotten a lot uglier somewhere else.
And yeah, religion, Puritanism and erotophobia are part of this mix too.
Tony Comstock and Christina
Maybe 10 years ago I was having a conversation with a buddy of mine and the subject of interracial dating came up. And I said something that I think is true and is pertinent to the "black folks are conservtive when it comes to sex" argument. Back in the day (and even sometimes now) you would hear some black guys say "I date white women because they are freakier in bed" but the funny thing is you would also hear from some white guys who dated black girls that they did so because "black girls are wilder in bed". Its the same thing with some white women and the "mandingo" factor contributing to why they date black men. And you hear some black women who say they date white men because they are "freakier". I think its all bullsh!t. No race has a monopoly on being kinky. I think the only thing conservative about black folks is that we didn't used to be as open and honest about what goes down in our bedrooms. I took a straw poll after the conversation and all of my female black friends did all of the things that some people say black women never do. I asked my dogs and they all did the thing that Juvenille and DMX claim they don't do. So I think its all propaganda.
Dang we are getting way off topic.
One more thing, Ta-Nehisi...I was wondering when you said you were closing comments, because the discussion was going nowhere, was it really that the discussion wasn't going in the direction you envisioned? Don't get me wrong, it's your perogative, your blog, so you'll do what you think is right. I'm just curious.
I felt like it was just us repeating the same thing over and over. It was depressing to read. That doesn't make it right.
Also, I'm not beating myself up. This is the process, no?
Thanks for writing this post. You know I'm a fan of the room, but I came to the last post late (as usual), didn't understand where you were going, and then read 87 comments to figure it out. I actually didn't think they were that contentious, though I saw the emerging strand of "how could black folks do this to us" and "how can you compare our struggle to yours" so maybe it was fixin to get too heated.
I think I know what you personally believe, but I'm still not sure what you wanted to say about the comment you quoted. Maybe you'll revisit at some point when your thoughts come together. Meanwhile, I admire your intellectual honesty. It is far more introspective than most bloggers, pundits or writers, which is why I bother to read your site and your comments.
In the same vein, I wonder if comparing the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement is equally unsettling for many black americans, especially when it is coupled to some of the accusations hurled at that community we have seen lately. I realize the comparison I am making isn't that pleasant but also think it may illustrate a flaw in the approach the gay community has taken in reaching out to the black community.
I will only say that the comparison goes absolutely nowhere for folks of my mother's generation. They're simply not having it. To be honest, because they see White gay folk trying to make this analogy, and folks roll their eyes.
When Black folks have tried to make the analogy, the blunt response - ' Nigger, please'.
I'm a post-civil rights baby, and to be honest, I'm not feeling the comparison either.
I do, however, want everyone out who's gay. The closet is killing Black folks - my Black Sistas - and I want it to stop.
One of the reasons I read this blog, as well as post, is because the tone isn't like that of other blogs or political media. The term tends to get overused, but there is much more nuance here than in the land of Dittoheads and Kossacks. So much of that is crap like Mike Savage claiming liberalism is a mental disorder or the left stating that people are only conservatives because they are too uneducated to realize they are progressive. These are gross stereotypes and would be laughed off or condemned if said about a race of people.
It is very important to understand why people think a certain way and not to dismiss it to plain bigotry, insanity, greed, decadence, cowardice, fear and so on. Those things may play parts, but the world isn't so simplistic.
I understand wanting to take respondsibility for the message and how it is all the blogger can control, but I also see a respondsibility to the readers and commentors to better understand the message.
I read too many things where the writer believes his ideas are the one true religion, the only opinion that matters and everyone who disagrees just "doesn't get it" and is lacking something, empathy, intellect, or morality.
Everything on the internets must be explained down to every painstaking detail, less people think the Atlantic has hired a Klansman to blog. Or a polygamist.
Or a polygamist Klansman, who buys 10-packs of sheets at Costco.
Ta...are you a Libra by any chance? You seem to have that obsessive drive to analyze points even (or even especially) if you don't agree with them that characterizes us. :-D It's totally why I'm addicted to this space. It's like coming home.
I am very loyal reader, who happens to be a white gay man with a straight black girl as a best friend. I really must say to THANK YOU. No more no less, a very sincere and heartfelt thank you. You and Mr. Sullivan have led to some of the most enraging, thought provoking and amazing discussions between my best friend and I.
Thank you.
Honestly, I do believe that it is the reader's responsibility to learn the context of a blog in its entirety before jumping to conclusions. Blogs are so much more than the sound bite culture of television. I don't like it when a blogger explains every detail of what they mean on top of adding footnotes and glossaries. It's great if you want to attract a diverse crowd but I think that readers who may not get it, need to take the time to study you until they get it, or just move on. I recognize that you are far more patient than me but you will wind up writing lengthy essays if you try to write for everybody. Just do you. And... some people arent' taking things the wrong way at all, they just want to make the discussion about something else. Commenting allows us to vent.
Ps. I very much appreciate you challenging yourself and me to see things from other points of view.
Ta-nehisi
I'd like to thank you for this discussion. after the election and the positive prop 8 vote I had a longing to understand.. why? not who but why. the who discussion is the bad one for me in this context and you have given great arguments as to why.
But you have been able to help me even further in a recent post. My first instinct was to blame homophobia. But the longing for stability and not perceived anarchy lies even more at the core. not among blacks per se but among those groups who fear a loss of social security (and I do not mean in the government sense). these people I believe do not necessarily have to be poor or even uneducated (although most are).
Thanks to you - it all suddenly made sense and seemed pretty clear if not simple. If I were a prop 6 activist in CA - I'd now know how to go about it... tactically. the strategy has not changed much as you say...
Cheers again and sorry to hear how much emotional investment this discussion has taken. for me - it was wort it.
Pete at 10:30:
Interesting point, and frankly, I’m impressed to see those two paragraphs written in such a clear and simple way without accidentally being offensive in several ways at once.
And you didn’t even have to go into "painstaking detail."
"So I think its all propaganda."
@sgwhiteinfla
1) I am generally suspicious of sex surveys because people are notorious untruthful when answering them
2) This "untruthfulness" is well recognized in the area of sexuality research and eduction, so one would hope that acedemics/researchers/educators have ways to account for it in their work
3) Like yours, my knowledge of this is largely anecdotal, mostly from casual conversations with people who are acedemics/researchers/educators. Anecdotal data is subject to self-selection bias. That is to say, we tend to hang out with people who agree with us and tell us what we want to hear (see also: echo chamber)
4) I'll see if I can find some well-documented research. Maybe what I think I know is out of date, or was never true in the first place.
It's because Civil Rights has come to mean only those issues having to do with accidents of birth and equality, ie it's nobody's fault they were born black, so it's not right to make blacks ride on the back of the bus.
FWI, the SCoC has in recognizing homosexuality as a "suspect class" drawn comparisons, not to race, but to religion; ie in issue of writing discrimination into law, doesn't matter whether or not a person chooses to be a homosexual, or whether or not a person can conceal their being a homosexual; just as it doesn't matter whether or not a person chooses to be a baptist or can conceal being a baptist.
TNC--you're doing great. I only caught the last post after it was closed.. but you appear to be the most honest and open blogger on here--you admit mistakes and engage with others. Although I've found Sullivan interesting--I've also realizied that he is quite, shall we say, bitchy and unanalytical when it comes to certain topics--and he will often resort to poor, emotional argumentation when confronted with facts that disagree with his ideology.
I find this sad for his blog..but getting back to the point.. this is why I like your blog more and more.. you don't use this blog as a lectern so much as a place for intelligent dialogue (with you as the converstation starter and moderator...)
I salute you for this..
Sean H
I know you directed this question to Rikyrah but I wanted to chime in. Its not that gay marriage isn't a civil rights issue. But moreso that the civil rights movement was more than one issue. No matter how you come down on gay marriage one thing is true, a gay person and conceal the fact that they are gay, a black person can never conceal that they are black. And just based on skin color black people were restricted from doing every day things that gay people have never and probably never could be restricted from doing. Things like going to their public school of choice, staying in their hotel of choice, sitting where they want to sit on public transportation, dining where they want to dine or even drinking water from whichever water fountain they want to drink from. Its inconcievable to a lot of younger people today, but imagine a McDonalds where black people could work but never dine. Think about all the hotel rooms that are being sold in VA in advance of the inaguration and how many of those same hotels wouldn't have even allowed Barack Obama spend his good money to sleep in one of their rooms a little over 40 years ago.
Now I know this may come off as trying to make it seem as if black folks struggles were harder than gay folk struggles. Well if it comes off that way its because its the truth. Don't get me wrong, gay people have been discriminated against, had hate crimes committed against them, and had civil rights withheld from them. I don't agree with any of that. But you simply can NOT compare what they have had to go through as a group with what black people had to go through as a people. There was no "closet" for black folks to hide the color of their skin so as to blend in with white folks and enjoy the same freedoms they did. With gay people many times there were already laws in place protecting their freedoms which had to just be enforced such as their right to not be discriminated against in the work place. On the flip side the Jim Crow laws were actively put in place to prevent Black people from EVER enjoying the rights guaranteed in the Constitution and to foster the sense that Black people were not as human as white people. Elected officials in the south were card carrying members of the Klan and participated in brutality and murders against black folks and were not only never prosecuted but also re elected many times over.
Now black people should stand with Gay people when their civil rights are being infringed upon or taken away, but the LGBT movement will never be analagous to the Civil Rights movement because the differences in the oppresion and struggles that black people went through and gay people have gone through in this country are just too big to go unnoticed.
Here is a history of Jim Crow laws broken down by state. I think if you read it you will get the picture.
http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/geography/geography.htm
The civil rights movement is the crowning glory of black politics over the last century that I imagine to be a major point of pride and solidarity within black America.
I would suspect taking the painful, difficult, long fight for civil rights off the high pedestal on which it rightly sits, to support the fight for gay rights is seen by at least some black Americans to almost tarnish the civil rights movement, especially among those who are religiously opposed to further gay inclusion.
Maybe it would be better to talk a little more about how the two experiences and movements are different, instead of trying to line two things that aren't exactly like up next to each other (if you are black people will wait until you have left to tell black jokes but if you are gay people will tell gay jokes to your face until they find out you are gay after which they will wait until you have left the room) but I'm a white guy living in a rural small town so maybe I'm not the best to advise.
Not offered as tit for tat, but in the spirit of education; sodomy laws, by state, prior to Lawrence v Texas.
http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/usa.htm
Hey pete,
indeed you bring up a good point:
I once met a man who tried to explain to me how he saw gayness as similar to his attraction to teen women and felt a sort of empathy for the gay community because of it. Needless to say, as a gay man, I didn't agree with him even in the remotest sense, although intellectually I understand where he was coming from, I just wouldn't want to be associated with what he is about.
are you saying you are not into teen boys? i am not asking if you are acting out on it but if you could be attracted to them ala ancient Greece (where apparently otherwise straight men were into young boys?). I think we, straights and gays, are all the same...
the really bad thing about this man's comment, obviously is, that he thinks that one can choose gayness. that is where everybody loses me. I wished that i could chose who i am attracted to but - per definition - I cannot. there is even a funny interracial marriage bill that supports this legally (if common sense, science and religion cannot agree on this).
there the real homophobia kicks in.. not that you might be attracted to somebody - but the implication that you are gay. being attracted to young girls does not make you a child molester. but the idea that one might be attracted to the same sex, or at least some individuals,.. bang... labeled for good. your idea of a "family" - gone. when have you seen a president that was not married and a religious - our role model? family means more than being in love and married to most. here homophobia (aka fear of being gay oneself) and longing for stable relationships become one and the same emotion and thought.
this would be different if gays were socially, politically accepted and could eg mary. wait a minute... this all feels circular?
people want to feel save. save socially and privately. in an ideal world I can do whatever I want and everybody does as I please. how do I move from here to the reality of relationships? people who long for stable relationships have to confront their fears and realize that the feeling of security has nothing to do with sexual orientation or skin-color per se. they create these artificial, not-thought-through fears in order to distract themselves from their real ones (the ones they are responsible for and not god, the church or the government. of the fear of loss of a higher authority and cosmic punishment to guide us).
Gays have the same fears of unstable relationships and that their spouse might cheat on them as do straights. again, it should be easy to show that the ability of couples to commit and thrive in relationships has nothing to do with sex, color, religion, etc. in fact - I somehow feel that gays might be great supporters of more education regarding stable marriage and relationships. they have to learn the process the same way as the poor black community for example and they are actually in the same boat.
when somebody is very similar to you - it is easier for the brain to spot the differences...
Tony Comstock
You just proved my point
You point out sodomy laws but guess what, sodomy includes oral sex with straight folks. That means that law in theory also discriminated against black folks whether they were gay or straight.
Laws against black people going to the same school as white people didn't discriminate against even one white person.
i just figured you know, the two groups have something in common, that they've both been oppressed and discriminated against and that, knowing what its like, they wouldn't want to impose that on anybody else.
I realize the comparison I am making isn't that pleasant but also think it may illustrate a flaw in the approach the gay community has taken in reaching out to the black community.
I will only say that the comparison goes absolutely nowhere for folks of my mother's generation. They're simply not having it. To be honest, because they see White gay folk trying to make this analogy, and folks roll their eyes.
This. This. THIS.
Regarding that first comment -- The problem is, no, they don't know what it's like. Nor do you know what it's like for them. Nor should either party be expected to. Nor does this make either experience invalid, or worth more or less. It is simply not shared. And that's OKAY. It's simply not the same experience, and there's no reason it should be. There are a myriad ways to be oppressed and discriminated against -- to think otherwise is reductive, and to assume automatic empathy is counterproductive in the extreme. You have to explain yourself; we all do, it simply cannot be taken for granted. Correct or not, no one responds well to that. Communication has to happen, and all assumption ever does is block that flow. This goes for everyone, everyone who wants to be understood.
(If we need specifics, start from, for example "ability to pass if desired" versus "born with an automatic, built-in support structure of people you already know are similar you in culture and experience" and build from there, if you like. Or better yet, chime in. Everybody start sharing! er, I don't mean here, since it's not my blog.)
It just doesn't work. It's not a question of what's fair, or kind, or how the world should be, or anything like that -- it is excessively theoretical and frankly doesn't matter, if the discussion is going to be about results. It's a question of what is pragmatic. What gets results. This doesn't. It just doesn't.
(And, I will say again since I'm not Ta-Nehisi and have no right to expect to be recognized, I wholeheartedly support gay marriage, was shocked and am incensed at the passage Prop 8, and do not get the ick factor at all, nor why anyone thinks their own private "ick" should matter to me in the slightest if I am not coming to their house to "ick" them. Also I am black and female and straight, and have been agnostic since my early 20s.)
Thanks, guys. I think you both covered different reasons I have trouble really understanding this. I've always believed people are born straight/gay/bi and frankly I'm really suprised at the "suspect class" treatment under the law. Apparently the gay-by-choice belief is a lot more widespread than I'd assumed so, although I disagree, that's pretty straightforward to understand.
I think the way the degree of oppression and particularly being able to pass make a difference in people's minds is trickier. Going to take a lot more time and thought before I feel like I have any kind of handle on it, if ever. Anyway, thanks to all of you. Lots to think about there.
Lets just say he had a police record to back up his attraction.
Personally, I find the attraction of an adult of my age to a teen to be obscene and more than a little creepy. I understand the underlying biology that might motivate such an attraction, but I still would not want the fight for gay rights compared to some such.
The funny thing about gayness being a choice is that it was politically popular in many circles on the left in the 90s; its my choice its my business so buzz off (especially because it was very inclusive of bisexuals who seem to no longer exist). When the fight for gay marriage began, and popular support was required, this changed more or less to; its not my fault, its biology.
Just some thoughts of questionable merit, because I live in a 99.99% white town I thought this might be a good forum on which to bounce them.
This is one of the most thoughtful posts I've read in awhile, and I think you managed to put into words what I've always thought to myself when I read dissenting comments on sensitive posts like that one. It is so hard to accept that for the most part, no one holds the opinions they do because they are simply full of blind hatred. The fact that Prop 8 passed in CA--a state more liberal than most--in 2008 clearly shows that the anti-gay marriage sentiment is not something that can be written off as thoughtless, ignorant homophobia with no basis other than "yuck." I never get why some of your dissenters think it's a betrayal of your own opinion to consider where a person with a different opinion may be coming from. How can a problem ever be solved without looking at the complicated roots? You could write a million posts examining different reasons behind anti-gay marriage sentiment in the black community and still never cover all the endless, tangled, and ultimately inexplicable reasons behind it. There is not ONE ANSWER, or one ideology in "the black community." It's as if all the black Americans get together once a week and talk about "our ideology" or something. It's not that simple. I applaud you for looking at the long painful history that many black people in this country have faced since even before the welfare debate (though that certainly highlighted it in modern times)--the insecurity that comes from being denigrated as a fatherless community, bereft of all family values. It's right for dissenters to point out something you may have missed (all of the bases can't be covered all the time after all), but to outright reject your discussion just because you are trying to understand an unpopular opinion is not just wrong, but it is counterproductive to actual change. People with opinions like the one you quoted are real, and devastatingly numerous. I think they represent the majority in this country, honestly, and it's important to pinpoint why they believe what they believe. No one is born with the historical understanding necessary to completely quash personal, knee-jerk revulsion at the idea of gay marriage or children being raised by gay parents, if that is in fact a revulsion that one feels. To reject these people outright is to let them be complacent in their opinions. To understand them and engage them in a discussion, starting from where THEY are, is the first step to change.
I wonder if there are some black gay/bi/genderqueer people here who would be willing to share how they have experienced blackness versus gayness/etc? If it can even be separated that much. (I apologize -- I recently read a quote by an entertainer on this topic, but I can't share it before publication or I might be traced and terminated. *shifty eyes*)
SeanH
The whole gay/bi/straight being a choice or a "born" into situation is always going to be a tricky one. What do you say about the guy/girl who goes to jail and has gay sex for the first time? What about the kid who is molested by a person of the same sex then eventually lives a gay lifestyle? What about a man or woman who lives a life one way and then changes? I would think that a belief that someone could be bisexual would be inherently at odds with a belief that people are born gay or straight. I raised this conversation weeks ago and the blow back was nothing nice so I will end here but I will say again that it is a very very slippery slope.
sgwhiteinfla, Galleymac, SeanH, .. all,
just to get you right.. do you feel that you, personally, can chose if you are attracted to somebody or not?
i am talking about the emotional, sexual aspect and not the rational one (oh.. she is a mankiller or oh he is flaky or oh so young etc). Do you feel that you can chose who your type is?
PS: again, i am also not interested in a free-will discussion here. of course it is always nurture vs nature and TV, tv, church, TV, rape, self-worth, etc i am interested in your personal feelings regarding your sexual attraction based on who you are here and now. "if I had grown up not watching baywatch but rather in an african village then I can imagine that..." not that.
I actually thought the most egregious part of the original comment was when the commenter wrote: "Courts take away parental right for that (swinging and promiscuity) kind of behavior." It was the most shocking to me because it is the one thing he said that is demonstrably, factually incorrect. My father is an attorney in juvenile/delinquency court. For twenty years he's represented children taken from their homes by the state, or parents who have had their kids taken away. I spoke to him and he assured me that not one time in those two decades has the given reason of the state for intervention been: "Swinging" or "Promiscuity". The state only removes children in cases of frank abuse or neglect, and the parents personal sexual behavior cannot qualify.
So I guess that kind of reverses that guy's point. Since the courts allow swinging and sleeping around in parents, it's got to allow homosexuality as well. Right?
Hugo Pottisch
For me I would say yes. For instance have you heard of the term "beer goggles"? If not its when at the end of the night at the club and you haven't come up on what you want, you leave with what ever is left. I have done that a time or two in college. Not necessarily proud of it but hey it happens. I have also changed my idea of whats attractive and what is not. As a matter of choice I have never dated a white woman even though I thought/think many of them were hot.
At one point my "type" was a high yella short chick, then in my "militant" phase I wanted the darkest of dark skinned sistas, after I matured I came to see beauty in all different sizes and shapes of black women. Literally if you could see pictures of all of the women I have dated you would go crazy trying to come up with my "type".
Was there a point to this?
@Hugo Pottisch
Me personally?
Ultimately, I don't care. I actually don't think "choice" should be a factor in the realization of gay people's civil rights, like a pity pat on the head because "they can't help it." (Or wouldn't we get the wacky fun situation where gays can marry because they can't choose, poor dears, but bisexual people have options and so must be forced to marry "properly"?)
For me it's a function of separation of church and state, for starters, and of minding one's own business if one is not being harmed, and the absurdity of consensual "crime" in an ostensibly free society. It's the one thing I'd go so far as to call myself libertarian about. (I am not a libertarian.)
For my own self I know what I like in theory, or the traits I would list or look for on a dating site or whatever (beliefs and cheekbones, baby ;-D), but that instant, visceral POW of attraction is just POW, whatever formative factors might influence it. (I've experienced this more in the negative, though -- you can't force yourself to be attracted to what you're not into. You're probably able to learn to feel strong affection for it?)
But this doesn't really have to do with what I was getting at (the differing and/or similar experiences of prejudice, and the searching for rather than assuming common ground). For the record, I do think there's some common ground, but that's after listening to a lot of folks talk for a lot of years.
This in a nutshell is maybe the biggest reason I read your blog.
I spent a few weeks during the GE in The Ed Morrisey Show chat room. I really wanted to try to understand what makes those folks tick. Most of them, I felt, were generally good people (not that I really thought otherwise) but basically everyone could not give me more than just rhetoric as to why they opposed Obama & why they are GOPers. It was actually quite disappointing. But my struggle to understand the other side goes on.
sgwhiteinfla
i am aware that we can all sometimes follow ambiguous feeling, eg go with someone you do not fancy that much (beergoggles) or the other way around as in your case with white women (for whateva reason, right?).
but without wanting to be difficult - that is not what I have been asking for. i am also not surprised that you might not have "one" but "many" types. I do too although I've started off with only one type. I see this as a general pattern among my friends that as we grow older.. god I had a fetish for white skinned girls when I was a teen. don't know why. didn't matter if they were blond or brunette - a white girl with a suntan was a turn-off at the time for me - insane. (i also liked all other colors but not as a mind-stealing fetish). this has all changed since then for me too etc etc etc.
but.. I did not feel at the time as if I could choose and that I could somehow will myself into being attracted to say sumo ringers. and i do not get the "can choose" vibration from my gay friends or my bisexual relatives (this does sound somehow... weird but funny). I know of "who the fuck am i" moments, especially in youngsters.. but that is because they cannot chose everything? and are apparently on some journey... there might be a "let's tease everything that moves" phase for some of us (again for whateva reason we do not want to explore here) etc... but, again, that is not what I am referring to.
in the context outlined above, sgwhiteinfla, can you chose who you are attracted to? maybe it would help if i added that, again, i do not mean that you acted out on your attractions or dislikes.
PS: the point of this argument, btw and maybe obviously, would be that if you can't chose and do not harm anybody in the process (rape or child molesting like some priests practice it) - why punish you or anybody for it?
another way of asking could be: why does it seem as if gays have apparently existed always and everywhere (oppressed like in Iran or free like in SF)?
Eddy,
Sorry - I should have pointed out clearly that I too do not think that gay marriage should be about the "can gays choose" per se. i think the "stable relationships" aspect, or better fear, is even stronger among many voters and/or other forms of homophobia. What i am interested to understand is why people have voted yes. if some people believe that gays are somehow not really gay and that therefore..
pete brought it up as a real argument from a potential voter. pete described a guy who fancies young girls and sees a parallel in this to homosexuality (no idea how young the girls are and i do not want to know).
i'd be good to ask ourselves all sorts of other questions, of course:
why do i think are stable relationships at risk? how is it really related to homosexuality for myself? how do i feel about homosexuality and why... etc. the "can i choose who i am attracted to sexually" question is really just one of several reasons that yes voters have uttered... but an amusing one after pete's great story.
Galleymac, Eddy
Sorry - I was obviously replying to Galleymac and not Eddy. and my absolute favorite outcome would also be the separation of church and state. finally. that - btw in itself is a good reason why many do not vote for gay marriage? voter are afraid of this separation. how does a minority convince them that they are wrong to mix it up?
the irony, as you well know, is that conservatives who tend to defend individual- before group-rights are also fundamentally religious. how do you talk to these? how do you talk to a pro-lifer who supports the death penalty?
sgwhiteinfla,
I don't see why there should be blow back. It sure seems like a conversation worth having and while I'm pretty set in my beliefs on this, I'll be the first to admit I don't know and I don't have any issue with anyone who disagrees with me. I'll gladly explain where I'm coming from on this.
If I see a hot woman walk into a room I will have an immediate and involuntary sexual response. I can choose how I moderate that response like keeping my cool or going gaga or flirting or repressing it entirely, but in my experience I don't have any choice at all whether or not that sexual interest will be sparked in the first place. Something about the way my mind is wired causes an attractive woman to generate that response while an attractive man does not. Something in the make up of my wife's mind causes the opposite response.
I don't see any contradiction between bisexuality and innate sexual preference because I don't see any reason to think that whatever mental wiring causes attraction to each gender is mutually exclusive. Both the human brain and fetal development are incredibly complicated. I figure there's some physical process as my brain was developing that configured it to be attracted to women when I matured and some process that did the same for my wife's mind toward men. I'm no expert on biology, but it seems perfectly plausible to me that the triggers for those two proceses could be imperfectly tied to a baby's sex causing either preference to be wired up. Maybe the only difference between bisexual folks and straight/gay folks is that the processes aren't mutually exclusive and they got both sets of wiring instead of one or the other.
Like I don't think attraction to either sex is mutually exclusive, I don't think it's an either on or off thing either. I can see how a man might be born with a strong attraction to women and a weaker attraction to men. In that case I could see how that weaker attraction to men could emerge when the guy was cut off from women.
The molestation would be irrelevant to later sexual preference. We would expect victims of both hetero and same-sex abuse to sometime be straight and sometimes gay which is the case in real life.
Oppression, religious beliefs, etc. being what they are there's plenty of social pressure against homosexuality. Say there's a guy wired up the opposite of our prison example with a strong same-sex and weaker hetero preference. In the face of strong social pressure I think it would be understandable for someone like that to cling to that tiny (or even non-existent) glimmer of hetero attraction while repressing the same-sex attraction and then one day accepting that they just aren't the person they've been pretending to be.
Hugo Pottisch,
No, I don't believe it's a choice at all.
ok - since we are at it. what if an implication of "can you choose" is that one is also attracted to.. to what one loves (and not just the other way around)? and then what? obviously - this would then be a strong argument in favor of gay marriage, not against it.
but this was not, I believe, pete's context regarding the child molester.
I would find this "can you choose" discussion silly too.. but i recall yearly, yet very real fears of my own regarding my identity and I therefore believe that homophobia and relationship fears can stem from it.
Tony Comstock: "For that matter, if we want to talk about homophobia at large, it wouldn't hurt to talk about the erotophobia that pervade are culture. We have a sitting Supreme Court justice who thinks the state has the constitutional power to outlaw masturbation (and homosexual intercourse too.)"
Although erotophobia plays a role, it's not the dominant factor here.
Many politicians and citizens believe the proper function of the state is to outlaw/regulate cigarettes, fatty foods, video games, colored contact lenses (for cosmetic, not vision correction purposes), spinning hubcaps, butterfly knives and cheese aged less than 30 days.
In such a climate, why would it be a surprise that they also consider regulation of sex an appropriate function of the government?
Or, consider the converse if activities happening in private between consenting adults is not the business of the government (as alleged by most gay activists), what does that say about minimum wage laws or other such regulations of private conduct?
(Note: I'm not advocating regulations on gay sex. I oppose regulations of gay sex, minimum wage laws, and young cheese. Just pointing out that regulating gay sex is hardly inconsistent with prevailing views on both the left and right.)
Hugo Pottisch
Maybe you missed this quote of mine from above.
You see to me the born/choice argument in the gay marriage discussion is unproductive. I can make just as serious an argument for choice as you can for birth right. But what it boils down to is that regardless, nobody should be discriminated against for their sexual preference.
Thats why I say that the Miscengation laws are so applicable to or I should say analagous to the gay marriage ban because they both involve the government intervening in who you want to marry. I don't think the people back during the Loving Supreme Court case had to argue that the particular white man involved in that court case was born attracted to black women in order to get the law overturned nor to get support from the country at large for getting the law getting overturned. He chose a black woman for marriage nothing was wrong with that. And similarly gay people should be able to choose who they want to marry whether people believe they were born gay or chose to be gay. But if you try to use the "born" argument with someone who doesn't believe it to convince them that gays should be allowed to marry then odds are they will start equating the argument of choice/born with the argument of whether banning gay marriage is right/wrong. And thats a very high stakes game to be playing and I personally don't think its necessary.
It is always good to know WHY somebody opposes something but it doesn't mean its smart to try to convince them they are wrong by challenging that belief.
Oh, oh, Hugo -- I think the VAST MAJORITY of our fellow citizens (okay, I just assumed U.S. there, sorry :-D) have a grossly imperfect understanding of the separation between church and state and how it protects them.
As for what "makes" someone gay (I guess this is in addendum to Sean H? Or just general), again, I don't care, but I've found one of the more convincing arguments to be the bell curve -- not THAT bell curve! -- maybe about 10 percent of the populace is born utterly gay, and 10 percent utterly straight, and the rest fall on a continuum of possibility, whether or not there is a situation in which it manifests.
SeanH
I just want to point out that none of your arguments are backed up by facts and are by in large your own opinion. I am not saying that in a bad way so I hope you don't take it that way. My point is another person can come right behind you and voice their opinion as the exact opposite off yours and there would be no way to say who was right and who was wrong. By the way the one thing I can dispute that you said is that the statistics say the number of boys who are molested by men growing up to be gay is a LOT higher than boys who are molested by women growing up to be gay. But again the fact that either side of the argument can be debated in an intelligent fashion to me says that there is no black and white on the topic. Therefore its probably best to avoid trying to use it as a justification for gay marriage. See also my previous post to this one.
sgwhiteinfla
yo... I know that everybody here is supporting gay rights and that there are good arguments for it and I am not challenging you personally at all. we all agree that sexual orientation should not.. what about those who do not agree with us and even less that the church and the state should be separated. but freak... I still do not know if people, including yourself, think that they can choose or not.
yes.. there is hidden point i wanted to come to in all this - namely the act of anthromorphising and also the opposite of it. when it comes to animals - I have met people who claim that they do not have sex like we human animals do. some say they only do it to reproduce and not because they enjoy it. others say that it is the other way around and that we humans are different because we can also do it only for reproduction (like the bible..). both are non-sense. we straight humans are normal animals. gays are normal animals.
but this point is hidden insofar as I know that one could not use it to take away the fears of a religious homophobe who fears for his family and children.
Galleymac
I am not asking what makes somebody gay. i know that we all here would support gay rights - so it does not matter to us (if it is choice or not). but it does matter to those yes-voters. they are, seriously I believe, thinking that they are losing perfectly fine and normal grand-daughters and sons to this rockn' roll, hustler nonsense fade...
I have read here that mothers and fathers want to learn more about homosexuality in case their own children happen to be gay. it works the other way too - parents wanting to protect their children and themselves from it in fear that... knowing if one can actually choose or not would... again - not for us.. but for yes-voters, help.
I actually think that many parents of gays do not want to hear and know that their son or daughter does not choose. i'd be so much easier to see it as a rebellion of some sort etc?
(i am not talking about a statistical bell curve that you have mentioned where one can show how many percent are straight, bi or gay.. what good is that in this context?)
but my guess is that we are all a tad sexually insecure, straights and gays.. that makes it messy and also fun. Here some old Socrates on why women should have rights (The Republic by Plato, Book V).
socrates was serious about equality - to the dot (being able to serve in the military and nakedness. where are women oppressed the most today and what do they wear? and why are there feminists out there who are actually against women showing flesh like men do?). some good arguments I reckon that have nothing to do with: could a woman choose to be a woman and not a man. still - it took about 2300 years... again never mind.
Oh, agreed. I certainly don't feel like I'd be at all justified telling anyone they're wrong for believing differently and don't think any less of anyone who thinks I'm full of it. I take your point on not using it as a justification for gay marriage, but I think it works fine as a partial explanation for why I'll never agree with anything short of full gay marriage rights.
I'd never heard that, but I don't doubt it. I don't mean to give the impression that I believe our preferences are set in stone by nature from birth. Our brains continue developing until adulthood so there likely are plenty of childhood influences that affect preferences later in life. No way is there some kind of gene or fetal development change that gives someone a fetish for women's shoes for instance, so it can't all be nature with no nurture component.
I guess I'm just saying that however I became a straight man, I don't feel I have any concious choice about whether or not Salma Hayek or George Clooney engage my interest sexually and I don't believe a gay man has any more choice about it than I do.
SeanH
Just read your posts and I am with you on this one. obviously it differs from individual to individual what your ratio to male/female is. I have read of research that claims that the bell curves, that Galleymac was referring to, are opposite for women and men. Ie most men are either straight or gay and most women are bi. but i do not quite believe it that females and males are that different (the research was done by men only..).. it and it is also irrelevant.
i am attracted mainly to women and have always been. there are men who I find attractive and sexy. however, when it comes to thinking about a sexual act with another men who I find attractive - I struggle, as so many do. i have not come to a stage in my imagination where it does not get gross for me at some point. which is strange - as I do not mind anal sex with women at all (and no - not all the time but....). as you say - who knows what could happen in prison. still - not my choice. nor is the choice of mainly gays... nor the choice of those who are mainly bi. maybe gays would sleep with women too if they ended up in the female tracts of prisons?
to sgwhiteinfla's point about boys who have been molested later turning out gay. I suppose the majority of gays and lesbians have first tried it with the opposite sex and were not all raped? at least I hope so - as this would represent a far bigger problem than the one we are discussing.
It is rare not to encounter some homosexual experiments in English boarding schools for example. there are some real open and closet gays among them later but most boys do not turn out homosexual or bi. despite the pink shirts they like to wear.
Hugo says
Check out how easily I can turn this around.
So if the contention is that you are born gay which obviously confirms the converse that you are also born straight, wouldn't that mean that you would NEVER want to experiment? If you were straight wouldn't experimenting with homosexual activity totally repulse you at your core? And if you were born gay could it ever truly be considered "experimenting"
Now as to what I assume is snark about boys who are molested, shouldn't it hold firm that if you are born straight (confirmed again by the born gay contention) you will NEVER choose to be gay no matter what kind of abuse is done to you? Same premise for being in jail. If you are born straight doesn't that presume that even in the total absence of the opposite sex you will never even consider same sex relations?
These are the kinds of opposite views that make the choice/born argument to me just an exercise in futility for anybody actually trying to advance their belief on the situation. Unless science comes up with a gene or something (which I actually think will cause more trouble than anything else) that is connnected to homosexual behavior the argument will go on and on.
Rikyrah, would you (or anyone else) mind giving a quick explanation of why? I'm a straight, white, non-religious guy so from my total outsider's perspective they both so obviously seem to be civil-rights issues that I just can't quite wrap my brain around rejecting the comparison.
It's the whole, well, if you have to, you can hide that you're gay. Nobody asks you to check off gay on any application.
When a White man who went to jail has a better chance of getting a job than a Black man who didn't, please understand that I'm not, nor will I ever believe that being White and Gay is remotely comparable to being Black in this country. This isn't to wrap myself in any ' victim' cloak - it's just being blunt about United States History.
I've had open Black gay friends since high school. But, when we've been stopped by the police, had nothing to do with them being gay. It had to do with DWB. When we're followed around in department stores, has nothing to do with them being gay. It's SWB.
I know that I can seem sort of strident, but I'm just trying to be honest.
This is the best post you have written. I had to read it a couple of times and sit and think about how you articulated what the real threat is; residual fear in the African American community of rights taken or not given
One day we as whole will get past this. It is just a matter of conquering fear.
sgwhiteinfla
i think you got something wrong here. I do agree with SeanH that there are different flavors among us all (for genetic and environmental reasons as with everything). some mainly straight and some mainly gay, some both. experimenting is not like liking (you do recall your own beergoggle argument).
but I still do not get you. are you saying that you can somehow force yourself into feeling attracted to anybody? are you saying that you can see yourself being attracted only to men for a lifetime if you wished.. but you just don' want to?
that indeed would be impressive sgwhiteinfla - unless you simply call yourself "bi"? apprently you have no choice but to "be able" to like both sexes fully? I wished i had your skills - i imagine the supply of people who can be sexually attractive to you is virtually limitless..
it's all good with me except for some slight envy. I am for gay rights (and bi rights. my sister is too. but she does not use the term: force/trick/rape herself to like both men and women... she usually tries to force herself to not-like somebody and she usually struggles..)
rikyrah
I do not think that there is a competition going on about who has been oppressed more or worse. No doubt - in this country, the US, it has been animals and blacks who have seen their natural needs and rights infringed the most. But let me guess - you do not want to be compared to an animal - even though they are suffering to the literally limit of what constant antibiotics can support.
but in this day and age - blacks can choose who they want to marry. they can marry blacks and whites or brown or.. unless of course they are black and gay.
if you are a black gay then you cannot marry your loved one. how stupid is that? black gays do not choose to be attracted to other men any more than tiger woods "chooses" to fancy blonds.
given the homophobia among blacks and whites - why on earth would any black man choose to be gay? what they WOULD CHOOSE is to remain unhappy, frustrated closet gays - but not the other way around. really - where does this idea originally come from? I posted a letter by Huey P. Newton who admits to have been brainwashed by this "just a choice" idea and who questions its merits...
without full equality for gays - the implication is that you cannot hope, that one day, you will see a publicly gay president. all presidents in this day and age have to be married and religious. period - these are the two main criteria. preferably with children.
and you are telling me - only because you think that blacks have suffered more - that gay rights are not comparable to women, black or say animal rights?
do you know that Hitler had actually order the murder of quite many Germans. Germans who actually supported the Nazis and their ideas... only problem was that they reminded Adolf of his own inner nature... nobody wants a mirror if it only reminds you that you need constant make-up? Adolf was short and dark - yet he wanted to weed out all who were not tall and blond.. enough said.
NO! it is insane enough that we had to go through this step-by-step instead of universally. First men get rights - then and only then white women - then and only then blacks, then and only then gays.. then... this is sad.
we have the ultimate test - still waiting for us. everything so far has been preparation foreplay according to the ancient books. we coming closer to the roots of all our problems according to zeus, gandhi and exodus... heaven on earth or hell?
I didn't read the comment thread on that last post, or this one, for that matter, but I'll just say that I thought your original point was clear enough. Maybe you didn't do enough CYA for writing on the internet--someone who didn't know your writing might get confused or whatever. But you're always going to have people misrepresenting what you write, and you can't write well if you're trying to make it impossible for them to misread. Eventually, you just have to have confidence that you've made a point, and that readers who take time will see it.
Hugo
I am simply giving you a valid argument against being born gay. And again I gave you specific examples. If someone is born gay straight or other then thats what they are, there is no experimentation. I was born black, I will never get to switch to white or chinese. Thats the only situation where there would be inflexibility. If someone believes being gay is a choice that gives them tons of flexibility. It means you get to choose who you are attracted to not that being attracted to someone is demanded as it would be if you were born one way or another. There is no way to make a definitive argument either way and I think I have proven that. I like women, always have always will so this isn't about me. It is what it is.
I never said that I didn't believe folks weren't born gay. I said it's something, that, if necessary, you can hide.
I can't hide being Black. Even if everything happens over the phone, as it has done for me sometimes in terms of employment, housing, business opportunities, sooner or later, I have to show up. My Black self had to show up, and it was a crap shoot as to whether the opportunities were still there once I arrived in person, for I ' sound White' on the phone.
To go back a ways I think the difference in California is that the black vote was noticeably different than the white vote. In Florida 60% of whites, and 71% of blacks, voted for banning gay marriage according to CNN's admittedly unreliable exit polls. Still I'm betting it is true a significant majority of Florida whites voted for the ban. Californian whites are much less churched, and much less socially conservative, than average for American white people. This doesn't mean they're all stereotyped Californian liberals, but I think white Californian conservatism is more in other areas. Like national defense, prison sentencing, immigration, anti-socialism, etc.
On a difference with black civil rights gay people are not discriminated at from birth and can "pass for straight" in most cases. In the Jim Crow era a black child who spoke with a thoroughly white Midwestern accent would still have faced all the standard discriminations. A gay child probably won't face any legal discrimination. Also before "Loving v Virginia" several states would imprison blacks for marrying whites, but so far as I know none of the bans on Same-sex marriage come with legal punishments. If a Justice of the Peace Same-sex marriages you in Florida I don't think you can go to jail, but if they interracially married you in Florida circa 1960 you could go to jail.
sgwhiteinfla
ok I think that now I got you. you cannot chose. you were born straight. You like women, always have and always will. but you also know of valid arguments against being born straight. that means you also know of valid arguments for having been born non-straight, aka gay. "straight" gays like men, always have and always will. it is about them. but we get to decide so it is about you and me too.
we are on the same page then with you and SeanH. That is what we have been saying all along.
there are definitely different flavors out there. some straight like us (you, SeahH, and me). one solid color. and some non-straights like pete here. another, yet different, solid color. pete would not want to be associated with this discussion i guess. for him, I guess, things are as simple as for you and me. he likes men as much as we do women. then there definitely are some sexual muds like my dear sis. not a solid color.
when a gay is attracted to anther man - this other man is as much male as you, sgwhiteinfla, are black. there is the same inflexibility in changing that as the king of pop had when it comes to changing skins. you can try to hide your sexual intercourse but that does not change the fact that a gay sleeps with another black.. eh man.
let's call it the nature component in addition to culture. otherwise, if it were mere culture/nurture, there would be no gays in say Iran or.. everybloodywhere since the beginning of ape history. In fact - there have been gays long before the first white human has emerged.
right now - we straights, black and white, hold the voting majority and can prevent pete from practicing the bonding rituals that he has been taught since childhood for various reasons. lasting social progress also requires some social stability and we all long for stable and reliable relationships as an ideal. the interesting point here, to me, is that in the light of social stability - people voted against gays being able to practice more stability. why? what twisted arguments have been used to convince people that voting against more family stability is pro family stability?
It really is a lose-lose for everybody once you think about it. why then have people really voted against social progress AND more stability and conservatism? is homophobia in the end still stronger than the family aspect per se? or is it really simple religion at work - defending its rotten turf everywhere. i am changing my mind constantly regarding the influence of the different fears in this cocktail (hehehe... cock-tail, cock.. tail... get it, get it? WHAT? shut up!) . certainly is interesting.
Hugo
You keep talking but you are in an echo chamber right now. You are saying what YOU believe with no basis in fact to back it up. I am trying to show you how someone who doesn't believe the way you do can come to their own conclusion. Again just because YOU believe it doesn't make it a fact. You can type until you get carpel tunnel but I have already shown how a person can make as credible an argument for choice as you make for birth. So have fun with it brah. I am not the one who needs to be convinced anyway lol
re: gay rights and civil rights movement
I think the language used is a matter of audience.
The civil rights language may be positively motivating for white and non-black allies, who do see gay rights as part of a series of historical changes to extend first class citizenship to blacks, women, gay folk.
The language is clearly alienating to many black folk who feel that their struggle is unique, and who can fault them?
The issue is similar to using the holocaust as an analogy to genocide. Some/Many Jewish people are offended by any comparison to ethnic mass-murders elsewhere, and who can fault them? These people will stop listening to a Darfur appeal that mentions the holocaust.
Different arguments are needed to motivate different groups of people.
sgwhiteinfla
I am sorry. you are right. I was taking off in the wrong direction in our dialogue. what i perceived as clarification from my side in the heat of the moment was in fact convincing and probably preaching to the chore. yes - you have shown how a person can make an argument for choice. i think i was at times confused if you are speaking for yourself or the hypothetical yes-voter and his sentiments regarding choice who you were portraying. I will try to be more careful.
thank you nevertheless for the discussion - albeit i might have made it difficult and repetitive for you. ciao.
@Hugo -- my bell curve yadda yadda wasn't directed at you. I was riffing on Sean's statements on choice.
Adina,
You make a good point. it is different when a white person calls gay rights a civil rights issue compared to a black one. but I am sure we can all agree that it is a human rights issue. nobody owns that universal title... except humans of course.
One of the reasons I value your blog is the privilege of observing your process of understanding both the world and your response to it. It a marvellous experience.
Thank you for responding personally to me in yesterday's comments, and for clarifying the part of the quoted post to which you were responding. Once you bolded it, and got me to see where you were starting from, it made entire sense.
In not smacking down that whole "growing up in a gay household" deal, I not only left room for misunderstanding, I leapt right past the most jarring part of the comment.
I really love you for writing this, not just because it helps explain where my own confusion came from, but because it's a really grown-up thing to say (I couldn't figure out a way for that not to sound patronizing, so please just take it as read).
Thank you--for your thoughts, and your self-examination, and your respect for your readers and yourself. I really look forward to your words each day.
I never said that I didn't believe folks weren't born gay. I said it's something, that, if necessary, you can hide...I can't hide being Black. Even if everything happens over the phone.... My Black self had to show up, and it was a crap shoot as to whether the opportunities were still there once I arrived in person, for I ' sound White' on the phone.
Your comments have all been specific to your personal experience and that's highly valuable to the vast majority of white gays, who don't have a close relationship with any Black person. So applause for explaining this concept--how these struggles are different-in simple and direct language. That's why I keep coming around here.
However, this particular one shines a light on one of the similarities that is being underused (e.g not used) in the framing of gay civil rights for people of color. You know exactly what it's like for gay folks to interact with a prejudiced world.
You sound White on the phone, which means that many times you get to make a hard and painful choice: Do I go to the interview/look at the apartment having closeted the fact of my Blackness until we're face to face? Or do I signal my race beforehand?
Because I don't believe that you have nothing on your resume, or no verbal symbolism, that would allow you to signal your race to avoid the confrontation with prejudice, I ask you to consider that feeling and that choice in the light of, That is what gay people have to do with their own parents. Teachers. Bosses. Coworkers. Friends. Decide whether to avoid or confront.
I'm not suggesting that this deeply personal choice, whether to violate your own right to access everything out there just as if you were White and not the target of prejudice, or risk having your rights violated up close and personal, is The Same Thing as Jim Crow. I'm suggesting that I think you know exactly, personally, emotionally, what the price is for gay people to exercise that easy option to hide.
I'm not sure how to package this for political consumption. All I know is, passing only works for those few who can cut off all their support from their community and live in fear of being 'outed' --that's as true for mixed race people as for gay people.
And many, many people of color have been told that they would have more opportunities if only they would cover up what makes them distinct. Dreadlocks are outside the dress code in many, many workplaces. So straighten that hair and stop complaining that we're prejudiced! is a position that American Airlines took to a Federal appeals court and WON with. Seriously.
I think there are common threads here.
Regardless, I will keep my sacred vow to dope-slap the next rich white gay man who tells me he's just like Rosa Parks. Because that is beyond annoying and racist and entitled.
TNC-
In not smacking down that whole "growing up in a gay household" deal, I not only left room for misunderstanding, I leapt right past the most jarring part of the comment.
Except the point was symbolized by that comment. There are Black folks who will happily take the point position in the fight to destroy gay families being waged in 48 states by religious bigots, wrapped in the armor of Black history and oppression.
So maybe I missed it, but I thought your point was: So how does one engage with that history effectively? How do we acknowledge the assaults on family integrity that this person (if he's old enough) and his ancestors have survived, while disputing his conclusions about what's right for the state to do?
And bluntly, that's an important issue that gay folks who insist on getting rights by persuasion are going to need to deal with.
Cosby grew up in an urban neighborhood that wasn't terrible just because it was working-class poor. He wrestles with the changes he has seen there and elsewhere in the context of his own history, which is a long history. This is more commendable then sitting back and enjoying his money.
with hispanics now the largest minority, the democrats can begin pandering to hispanics and not paying so much attention to blacks. politically active Asians, for some reason, seem to veer Republican.