NJ Approves Gay Marriages

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
<div class="quote_poster">THE DREAM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">there hasn't been 100% proof that it's genetic (and there never will be)...there ARE gay people who seek counseling and turn back to being straight....seems a lil odd that that would happen if it was "genetic"



bingo......Gays have marches for the term "marriage"...a term....you're acting like I'm denying that they don't get discriminated against....the rights they're fighting for are small in comparison in what blacks have been and are still fighting for today....that's why grouping the two together and comparing them is silly and idiotic and in some sense a "slap in the face" to the black community.



I speak out against homophobia to...I think everyone should be treated equally and fairly....BUT I'm talking about the "comparison"....so this point is irrelevant.</div>

no there hasn't been 100% proof but as a dude who hedges his bets- gays were born that way or at the very least according to some anthropologists- we are born sexually neutral (gay nor straight).

nevertheless, are u reading the same words i'm typing? did i ever compare? All i did was establish the obvious- there are a whole bunch of disadvantaged groups, not once did i imply differing degrees in disadvantage (i.e. gays have it just as worse as blacks). my argument has been consistent- blacks and gays together have political synergy to get stuff done.

your arguments on the other hand are riddled with logical inconsistencies. lets take your position that marriage as a political gripe holds nothing against what black americans are fighting for. u do realize blacks can marry and homosexuals can't. besides not being able to marry is a huge gripe in modern societies, cause married couples are afforded tax benefits, legal recognition which is meaningful in cases of death or disability and planning for retirement is a whole lot easier for married couples.
 
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">no there hasn't been 100% proof but as a dude who hedges his bets- gays were born that way or at the very least according to some anthropologists- we are born sexually neutral (gay nor straight).
</div>


there are also many scientists, anthropologists, etc. that would disagree with that notion also.....there has been research that shows "coorelation", but not "causation", because ultimately it is a decision....you should really look into the studies, because even scientists who are trying prove it's genetic, aren't sure that there is a 100% causation.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">nevertheless, are u reading the same words i'm typing? did i ever compare? All i did was establish the obvious- there are a whole bunch of disadvantaged groups, not once did i imply differing degrees in disadvantage (i.e. gays have it just as worse as blacks). my argument has been consistent- blacks and gays together have political synergy to get stuff done.
</div>

in some senses you did compare


<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">nevertheless, i don't know how familiar u are with the civil rights movement in the states -its enduring legacy was identifying the symbiosis of all oppressed people. to that end, segregation wasn't ended in the southern united states without the cooperation of jews and women, hopefully gays and lesbian can be included to enhance the continuing struggle that Dr. King spoke so eloquently about. to me linking gays and lesbians to the ongoing black struggle for civil rights is politically astute for blacks.
</div>

...we're both fighting for rights, but the rights we're fighting for are different...there is no "coming together" politically because there isn't that many things that we can come together on.....I will not be tending any pro black/gay parades anytime soon, because our struggles aren't similar.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">your arguments on the other hand are riddled with logical inconsistencies. lets take your position that marriage as a political gripe holds nothing against what black americans are fighting for. u do realize blacks can marry and homosexuals can't. besides not being able to marry is a huge gripe in modern societies, cause married couples are afforded tax benefits, legal recognition which is meaningful in cases of death or disability and planning for retirement is a whole lot easier for married couples.
</div>

I realize that there are benefits that come with being "married", BUT it is not what black people are fighting for.....I have no problems "uniting" for something if their is actual "unity" in our problems.......it's common to see latinos and blacks "uniting" on a lot of issues, because our communities share A LOT of the same problems....not the same with gays, that is why there have been numerous black leaders and black people in general who feel the same way as I do.
 
<div class="quote_poster">THE DREAM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">there are also many scientists, anthropologists, etc. that would disagree with that notion also.....there has been research that shows "coorelation", but not "causation", because ultimately it is a decision....you should really look into the studies, because even scientists who are trying prove it's genetic, aren't sure that there is a 100% causation.



in some senses you did compare




...we're both fighting for rights, but the rights we're fighting for are different...there is no "coming together" politically because there isn't that many things that we can come together on.....I will not be tending any pro black/gay parades anytime soon, because our struggles aren't similar.



I realize that there are benefits that come with being "married", BUT it is not what black people are fighting for.....I have no problems "uniting" for something if their is actual "unity" in our problems.......it's common to see latinos and blacks "uniting" on a lot of issues, because our communities share A LOT of the same problems....not the same with gays, that is why there have been numerous black leaders and black people in general who feel the same way as I do.</div>

the example u cited was me reiterating the political need for organized action, i wasn't comparing at all. and it isn't about attending gay/black rallies, although, i'm certain those kind of things go on. what i'm speaking to his strengthening the organizational capacity and structure of black activism, e.g. jesse jackson lends his support for gay marriage, elton john reciprocates the gesture by donating $100, 000 to the rainbow coalition.

latinos? did u know in the last national election- hispanics voted overwhelmingly republican, while blacks were steadfast once again in their support for the democrats at 90%. countenance is deceiving and can be a fatal flaw if your trying to build a rights-based campaign predicated on such a superficial thing.

btw- black leaders and black america thank u for speaking for them on JUSTBBALL.COM. U do realize thats a foolish assertion?
 
What the hell, deception? Did you ever attempt to read DREAM's actual objection or were you content with putting words into his mouth and then arguing against that? This is what he's objecting against (as well as me):

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The Plessy court couldn’t have said it better: separate railway cars for blacks are fine, as long as they are just as nice as the ones for whites. Don’t bother about that curtain between the black and white cars. “Marriages,” “civil unions,” “two guys shacking up with a lot of All-Clad cookware”—does the term really matter?</div>

There is a legitimate greivance for the gay community. But in this piece of writing, the author is drawing parallells to a historically well known era to curry support for his own viewpoint. There are a couple of things we have objected against:

1. It dismisses the uniqueness of the gay movement, by placing it in the context of past events

2. It disrespects the importance of the civil rights movement, by using its' emotional impact as an argumentative tool.

You've continued to bring him away from his original point, arguing over irrelevant issues. With each additional post, you've brought up more extensive statisitics/facts that disprove small details in DREAM's post, while ignoring the main crux of his argument. Genetics, black exclusivity, racial politics, political synergy, etc. None of them have had anything to do with his original objection. You complain that his stance changes from post to post, but that's only because you've brought the discussion more off topic with every post.
 
<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">What the hell, deception? Did you ever attempt to read DREAM's actual objection or were you content with putting words into his mouth and then arguing against that? This is what he's objecting against (as well as me):



There is a legitimate greivance for the gay community. But in this piece of writing, the author is drawing parallells to a historically well known era to curry support for his own viewpoint. There are a couple of things we have objected against:

You've continued to bring him away from his original point, arguing over irrelevant issues. With each additional post, you've brought up more extensive statisitics/facts that disprove small details in DREAM's post, while ignoring the main crux of his argument. Genetics, black exclusivity, racial politics, political synergy, etc. None of them have had anything to do with his original objection. You complain that his stance changes from post to post, but that's only because you've brought the discussion more off topic with every post.</div>

let me clarify the article for u- the court ruling was used as an analogous legal case, maybe in the spirit of legal precedents. the court ruling in NJ was seen by the author as analogous to the "Separate but Equal" plessy court ruling; i.e. separate railway cars for blacks and whites and two definitions of marriage for gay and straight people. he wasn't comparing their histories, nor their beef but the disturbingly bigoted tone of the rulings.

i'll tell u, like i told "the dream"- re-read the thread and u'll see he pushed the black exclusivity thing so hard- he starting to sound like a separatist. to that end, i was merely pointing out to him that the only strategies that ever worked for black folks was a broadbased one. although, i'm sure the dream appreciates u sticking up for him , in spite of it being a case of the blind leading the blind.


<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">
1. It dismisses the uniqueness of the gay movement, by placing it in the context of past events "

2. It disrespects the importance of the civil rights movement, by using its' emotional impact as an argumentative tool.
</div>

past events? all things are rooted in history, particularly struggles, and their is a continuum attached to it. the legal wrangling over gay marriage is a benchmark just like the 60s was for civil rights. fyi- the civil rights movement also included gays and lesbians.

emotional impact? no it gives perspective, if your suggesting it desensitizes us to history and the ongoing hardships confronted by black people in acquiring housing, sending their kids to well fund schools, etc.- u are wrong. it renews our vigour to build a more inclusive society for all, e.g. the new jersey court ruling could be leveraged by another disadvantaged group to get their struggle heard and recognized, hence the continuum
 
<div class="quote_poster">deception Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">lame? gays and blacks as a political force have more utility than women, jews and blacks. cause blacks and gays are fighting for divergent rights, i.e marriage for homosexuals (socio), whereas blacks are mostly engaged today in the struggle for economic justice.
</div>

First off, from a realistic stand point, this whole "gay and black" unity movement you keep referencing in your posts is not likely to happen anytime soon. I haven't gone through every single one of yours and the Dream's posts, but I will simply say this; it's two different issues.

Discrimination can take place in many forms but racism and prejudice in comparison to neglect towards fully embracing something (gays) is two different topics. Blacks are generally accepted, much more than gays. And although I don't mean to put words into every black person's mouth, I will have to say that most of the black people (NOT ALL, I'm not speaking for everyone; I'm saying this based on my experiences) I have talked to (regardless of what age) are homophobic to an extent or simply against gays. I will admit I have not met highly positioned blacks (i.e- CEO'S or professors), and I'm sure they approach homosexuality in a more understanding or intellectual manner, but do you really think unity is possible when many blacks themselves are opposed to homosexuality in the first place?

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">
btw- u mentioned that homosexuals choose to be gay, curious observation since modern genetics as well as psychology have dismissed it has folklore</div>

I'm not sure about the biological standpoints, but as far as psychology goes; it is still up for debate whethere nature makes one homosexual or nurture molds them into one. I know of a gay dude in my school, and he definetly wasn't "born gay". Sexuality is a preference IMO, you either feel someway towards a gender or you don't.
 
deception, you obviously seek to be a persuasive writer and thinker - this goal is undermined by your writing style which comes off to me, and I'll bet other, as arrogant and dismissive....
 
<div class="quote_poster">phunDamentalz Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">deception, you obviously seek to be a persuasive writer and thinker - this goal is undermined by your writing style which comes off to me, and I'll bet other, as arrogant and dismissive....</div>

fair enough.
 
<div class="quote_poster">Junoon Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I know of a gay dude in my school, and he definetly wasn't "born gay". Sexuality is a preference IMO, you either feel someway towards a gender or you don't.</div>

Was he "born straight"?

And of course it's a preference -- that doesn't mean it's a willful choice. How many young teenagers commit suicide because they're being harassed for being gay? If it was just a matter of choice, I'd think they'd take the easier, low-risk route.

All the hundreds of species of animals where homosexuality has been observed ... you think those animals are making a willful choice?
 
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Was he "born straight"?

And of course it's a preference -- that doesn't mean it's a willful choice. How many young teenagers commit suicide because they're being harassed for being gay? If it was just a matter of choice, I'd think they'd take the easier, low-risk route.

All the hundreds of species of animals where homosexuality has been observed ... you think those animals are making a willful choice?</div>

junoon's post isn't worth replying to- he explicitly says that black people are homoaphobic, correction, except black professors and ceo's
 
<div class="quote_poster">deception Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">let me clarify the article for u- the court ruling was used as an analogous legal case, maybe in the spirit of legal precedents. the court ruling in NJ was seen by the author as analogous to the "Separate but Equal" plessy court ruling; i.e. separate railway cars for blacks and whites and two definitions of marriage for gay and straight people. he wasn't comparing their histories, nor their beef but the disturbingly bigoted tone of the rulings.

i'll tell u, like i told "the dream"- re-read the thread and u'll see he pushed the black exclusivity thing so hard- he starting to sound like a separatist. to that end, i was merely pointing out to him that the only strategies that ever worked for black folks was a broadbased one. although, i'm sure the dream appreciates u sticking up for him , in spite of it being a case of the blind leading the blind.</div>
I understood all that. And I got the impression that he was comparing the significance of both cases. At least to me, when he said "20 years down the road, we will be looking at this in the same way...." he was equating their potential historical significance. Two distinctly different movements, with two very different legal rulings. I did not think of it in terms of comparing the "bigoted tone" of both rulings, though, and I suppose that's another valid interpretation of it. I suppose it just rubbed me the wrong way.

And, I didn't disagree with you about a broadbased strategy to injustice (racial, sexual, or otherwise). I just felt it was irrelevant to this topic.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting deception:</div><div class="quote_post">past events? all things are rooted in history, particularly struggles, and their is a continuum attached to it. the legal wrangling over gay marriage is a benchmark just like the 60s was for civil rights. fyi- the civil rights movement also included gays and lesbians.

emotional impact? no it gives perspective, if your suggesting it desensitizes us to history and the ongoing hardships confronted by black people in acquiring housing, sending their kids to well fund schools, etc.- u are wrong. it renews our vigour to build a more inclusive society for all, e.g. the new jersey court ruling could be leveraged by another disadvantaged group to get their struggle heard and recognized, hence the continuum</div>
You stated what I feel is the only motivation for that type of argument in your last sentence. The author simply wants to be heard and recognized. Now there's nothing wrong with that goal. But, this form of comparison (describing one form of oppression in terms of another one) is always built on exaggeration. And, IMO, it goes down a slippery slope to the type of comparisons and arguments that truly do trivialize issues and desensitize people.

And in regards to everything being rooted in the past, perhaps my disagreement arises from a hate for generalizations and the arguments that are built on them. Every form of oppression is unique and should be treated as such. Generalizing and describing one in terms of another, at least IMO, are underhanded ways of gaining support for one's cause. They do little to create open discussion, provide legitimate criticism, or seek a solution.


(btw, Could you give a little more detail about homosexuals in the civil rights movement. I've never heard anything about that before.)
 
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Was he "born straight"?</div>

I don't know if he was "born straight" or not but the fact that he just "figured out" that he's gay a year ago is quite telling in itself.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">If it was just a matter of choice, I'd think they'd take the easier, low-risk route.</div>

You can't just force yourself to be something you're not, regardless of if it's the "low-risk route" or not. Sexual preferences obviously matter a lot in life and it's not that easy to surpress your desires. As for gay teenagers however, I do agree that they may find the route to admitting to others of thier homosexuality a dangerous one, as many "normal" teenagers tend to be homophobic IMO.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">
junoon's post isn't worth replying to- he explicitly says that black people are homoaphobic, correction, except black professors and ceo's
</div>

laugh.gif
Shut the hell up about my post not being worth replying to. That's quite a comment coming from someone who's esentially spent the last page or so of this thread arguing over things that tend to stray away from the more imperative arguements.

Agreed that maybe my post came across the wrong way so let me correct it and perhaps make it more understandable for you. Hopefully you find it "worth replying to" this time. Sorry that I didn't use the most difficult words in the English language to get my points across like you must have perferred.

Anyway, I don't explicitly say that black people are homophobic. Let's take a look at what I wrote, shall we?

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">
And although I don't mean to put words into every black person's mouth, I will have to say that most of the black people (NOT ALL, I'm not speaking for everyone; I'm saying this based on my experiences) I have talked to (regardless of what age) are homophobic to an extent or simply against gays.
</div>

Re-read what I said and then you can reply to my post. I clearly state that I'm not speaking for all black people, I am saying that my opinion is based on the people I have talked to.

Infact, to make it even more clear for you, I will say that most of the people I have met and talked to in life, REGARDLESS of what race they are, are homophobic to a degree. If they're not full-fledged homophobic, they are still the types that have no problem with gays being gay but find the lifestyle to be quite bizzarre.

The reason for me posting what I said previously has to do with the fact that your basis for unity between gays and black is simply ridiculous. It's two different forms of discrimination (people against gays and people against blacks). How do you expect black people to unite with gays in the first place when there are numerous levels of anti-gay support in the black community (or ANY community for that matter)?

In almost EVERY community, there is anti-gay support. Yes, there might be support for gays, but in most of the cases, the support is overidden by the amount of anti-gay support that is present. My point is that as long as there is a majority support in terms of people being anti-gay, whether it be in the black, brown or white community, your idea of "unity" will not come into fruition.

And I didn't say black CEO's or professors are the only ones that are not homophobic. I stated that since I don't know any "highly postioned" black figures, and I haven't spoken to any, I can't state thier stance on the issue of homosexuals. I know I'm not entitled to speak for the black community as a whole and I obviously wasn't doing that so quit trying to twist my points and just read what I wrote. I clearly said my opinion was formed based on the indaviduals I have met and interacted with. Next time read my posts before making the assumption that I'm "explicitly" saying something I didn't say.

For the record, use common sense as well; would I really come in and try to argue with you that I believe ALL black people are homophobic? That would be a ridiculous assumption and I am not ignorant to that degree.
 
The Million Man March featuring members of the Gay Parade, I don't know deception, it's just not very catchy.
 
<div class="quote_poster">Junoon Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I don't know if he was "born straight" or not but the fact that he just "figured out" that he's gay a year ago is quite telling in itself.</div>

Because of societal norms, it probably takes a while for people with homosexual inclinations to come to terms with it. Also, one's sexual preferences don't fully develop until late in adolescence.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">You can't just force yourself to be something you're not, regardless of if it's the "low-risk route" or not. Sexual preferences obviously matter a lot in life and it's not that easy to surpress your desires. As for gay teenagers however, I do agree that they may find the route to admitting to others of thier homosexuality a dangerous one, as many "normal" teenagers tend to be homophobic IMO.</div>

So you agree it's not a willful choice. As you say, "you can't force yourself to be something you're not." Sounds to me that you agree it's biological.
 
<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">


(btw, Could you give a little more detail about homosexuals in the civil rights movement. I've never heard anything about that before.)</div>

<div class="quote_poster">shapecity Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">The Million Man March featuring members of the Gay Parade, I don't know deception, it's just not very catchy.</div>

Read This

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">On March 28 1969 in San Francisco, Leo Laurence (the editor of Vector, magazine of the United States' largest homophile organization, the Society for Individual Rights) called for "the Homosexual Revolution of 1969," exhorting gay men and lesbians to Join the Black Panthers and other left-wing groups and to "come out" en masse </div>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Liberation
 
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">
So you agree it's not a willful choice. As you say, "you can't force yourself to be something you're not." Sounds to me that you agree it's biological.</div>

I meant that ("you can't force yourself to be something you're not") in response to them taking a low-risk route to avoid confrontation. I'm saying that even if they do choose to take the "low risk route" and hide thier sexuality, sexual preference is something that is hard to surpress, atleast in the society we live in, so it will end up coming out sooner or later.

I don't think it's biological at all. I doubt there is a genetic code in the human genome that contains DNA for being a homosexual. There could be a family bloodline of all straight people and a person from this generation could still turn out to be gay. Again, it's a preference and a molding of how we grow up in societies.
 
<div class="quote_poster">Junoon Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I don't think it's biological at all. I doubt there is a genetic code in the human genome that contains DNA for being a homosexual. There could be a family bloodline of all straight people and a person from this generation could still turn out to be gay.</div>

Maybe ... but how would that prove it's not biological, or that people aren't biologically predisposed to being gay? I don't recall anyone arguing that homosexuality is hereditary.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Again, it's a preference and a molding of how we grow up in societies.</div>

I don't think so. Homosexuality exists in pretty much all societies. You can't completely control a person's sexual preferences by their environment. You think all of your sexual preferences were developed through nurture and not your nature?

As I see it, most people aren't strictly straight or gay. Rather, people have homosexual tendencies to varying degrees (which is pretty much determined by their biological makeup). Their environment (e.g. societal norms, "family values") can dictate the extent to which they suppress or express those tendencies, and perhaps to a limited extent can introduce new tendencies.
 
<div class="quote_poster">deception Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">from what i gather, the nation of islam has no credibility since they assassinated malcolm x.</div>
Maybe not to the mainstream public, but they do still hold considerable influence in the African American community.
 
<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Maybe not to the mainstream public, but they do still hold considerable influence in the African American community.</div>


since most african americans aren't muslim, u would be hard pressed to find any salient impact. when i used credibility, I was referring to the african american community as well. since malcolm x defected from the nation- the organization has been struggling to get a foothold into the community. as for the million man march- they never had a million MEN, in fact if i remember correctly it is was around the 400, 000 mark and most of the attendees despised the nation of islam- it was more of a media spectacle than anything, besides what did the march do for black people anyways? well there was that kick arse spike lee film called "get on the bus" that i highly recommend but other than that, nothing. Fyi- black separatist and ?go back to Africa? movements promoted by the nation haven?t been popular in the black community since the days of marcus garvey
 
<div class="quote_poster">deception Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">since most african americans aren't muslim, u would be hard pressed to find any salient impact. when i used credibility, I was referring to the african american community as well. since malcolm x defected from the nation- the organization has been struggling to get a foothold into the community. as for the million man march- they never had a million MEN, in fact if i remember correctly it is was around the 400, 000 mark and most of the attendees despised the nation of islam- it was more of a media spectacle than anything, besides what did the march do for black people anyways? well there was that kick arse spike lee film called "get on the bus" that i highly recommend but other than that, nothing. Fyi- black separatist and ?go back to Africa? movements promoted by the nation haven?t been popular in the black community since the days of marcus garvey</div>

So then you agree the Million Man March, or 400,000 Man March wouldn't work with the Gay Parade?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top