Why are the "No on 9" protestors not protesting in black neighborhoods

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
A

AgentDrazenPetrovic

Anyone But the Lakers
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Messages
7,779
Likes
34
Points
48
I don't see why the "No on 8" groups were protesting in Mormon temples. 70% of blacks voted for the measure.

Also, a lot of blacks, at least on call in shows are offended as to the parallels between the "No on 9" propaganda linking it to the same civil rights violations during segregation.

I'd love to see them try to block off Figueroa, between Slauson and Manchester. That would be comedy. Instead, they are blocking a lot of neighborhoods that were likely against Prop. 9....why is that. Westwood, West Hollywood, Long Beach and Silverlake.

Come to Compton, South Central, etc etc etc. What do you think would be the end result? Shouldn't they be opening the eyes of the group that they see as bigoted (i.e. blacks)?
 
Last edited:
http://www.freep.com/article/20081109/NEWS07/811090386/1009

Opponents of Proposition 8 appealed to voters to reject the measure as discriminatory and unconstitutional.

But messages that opponents hoped would strike a chord with minority voters -- and remind them that interracial marriage once was banned -- collided with traditional religious views.

"You listen to the African-American pastors, they do not buy that argument," Dietrich said. "They do not believe at all that there is a correlation between civil rights vis-À-vis blacks and rights for gays."
Click to expand...
 
Xericx said:
I don't see why the "No on 8" groups were protesting in Mormon temples. 70% of blacks voted for the measure.

Also, a lot of blacks, at least on call in shows are offended as to the parallels between the "No on 9" propaganda linking it to the same civil rights violations during segregation.

I'd love to see them try to block off Figueroa, between Slauson and Manchester. That would be comedy. Instead, they are blocking a lot of neighborhoods that were likely against Prop. 9....why is that. Westwood, West Hollywood, Long Beach and Silverlake.

Come to Compton, South Central, etc etc etc. What do you think would be the end result? Shouldn't they be opening the eyes of the group that they see as bigoted (i.e. blacks)?
Click to expand...

Because the Mormon church was a big backer of the prop.
 
He has no point whatsoever, just because a certain percentage of people vote a certain way doesn't mean that they voted in larger numbers. Besides at what point do demographics become irrelevant? If 99% of lefties (left-handed, not liberals), vegans, or members of the top 1% economically voted against the measure should they be targeted for doing so?
 
Jurassic said:
He has no point whatsoever, just because a certain percentage of people vote a certain way doesn't mean that they voted in larger numbers. Besides at what point do demographics become irrelevant? If 99% of lefties (left-handed, not liberals), vegans, or members of the top 1% economically voted against the measure should they be targeted for doing so?
Click to expand...

Do you think more mormons versus blacks, in California voted "yes on 8"?


I would think that there are SIGNIFICANTLY more black voters than mormon voters in California. But that's just rampant speculation.

Why don't they protest in black neighborhoods if they really want to get their message across? Again, blacks voted 70% in support of Proposition 8.
 
Blacks votes 70% because blacks traditionally come from strong christian backgrounds. This is a religion issue, not a race issue. Don't try to confuse the two.
 
hoojacks said:
Blacks votes 70% because blacks traditionally come from strong christian backgrounds. This is a religion issue, not a race issue. Don't try to confuse the two.
Click to expand...

So that excuses their vote?

Let's just ignore it all? IMO, the protestors should protest the groups and communities which they feel didn't support the measure, not the ones that did! What good is that gonna do?

And I don't buy that "religion" BS. I think its more cultural than religious, personally.
 
Generally we (Americans) don't protest against voters.
Anti-war protesters didn't march outside the homes of those who voted for Bush, for example.
Probably because it isn't very effective to target individual voters unless you are very well funded (see, e.g., the Obama campaign).

barfo
 
barfo said:
Generally we (Americans) don't protest against voters.
Anti-war protesters didn't march outside the homes of those who voted for Bush, for example.
Probably because it isn't very effective to target individual voters.

barfo
Click to expand...

Isn't it more effective to do it that way? I would think that protesting in the middle of Figeroua street in the hood would get more coverage than ever! might be some violence...but oh well!


They need to change!
 
Xericx said:
So that excuses their vote?
Click to expand...

No, it mearly explains it.


IMO, the protestors should protest the groups and communities which they feel didn't support the measure, not the ones that did!
Click to expand...

So, you want the people protesting to protest themselves? What the hell are you talking about?


What good is that gonna do?
Click to expand...

I was about to ask the same question to your previous nonsensical statement.


And I don't buy that "religion" BS. I think its more cultural than religious, personally.
Click to expand...

Religion is a rather large and overbearing part of the vast majority of cultures. It has everything to do with this issue.
 
hoojacks said:
Religion is a rather large and overbearing part of the vast majority of cultures. It has everything to do with this issue.
Click to expand...

I believe that there is a culture of anti-homosexuality in the black culture, not rooted in religion. It was this whole "on the down low" phenomenon a few years back. I think that they are very anti-gay and are for Proposition 8. Go to black neighborhoods and find out. I would guess they are very intolerant, as a whole, and it has very little to do with religion or their religious views on marriage.
 
hoojacks said:
No, it mearly explains it.


I was about to ask the same question to your previous nonsensical statement.
Click to expand...

sorry, i typed too fast...i meant that they should protest groups and neighborhoods that were FOR the measure. They should come out and criticize blacks, much like they criticized Mormons. But they won't. Do you know why? they're afraid to.
 
Xericx said:
sorry, i typed too fast...i meant that they should protest groups and neighborhoods that were FOR the measure. They should come out and criticize blacks, much like they criticized Mormons. But they won't. Do you know why? they're afraid to.
Click to expand...

That makes more sense.

And it's true, it's not PC to point out negatives about black culture, unless you're talking about hip-hop. However, I'm not sold on there being an inherent disdain for homosexuals in black culture, I think it has to do with American culture more generally.

But really, why are you advocating we go after the black community? They make up less than 10% of the population of California.
 
I would just like to see what happen when these protesters clash with gang members trying to move down the road versus little lame-asses on the westside.
 
Xericx said:
I would just like to see what happen when these protesters clash with gang members trying to move down the road versus little lame-asses on the westside.
Click to expand...

So you're trying to demonize a particular group of voters in order to try and get people who stand for gay rights shot by gang members.

Stay classy, Eric.
 
barfo said:
Ah, the view from Los Angeles.

barfo
Click to expand...

and New Jersey ;)

"They do not believe at all that there is a correlation between civil rights vis-À-vis blacks and rights for gays."
Click to expand...

That's one of my biggest pet-peeves. Like, wtf people.
 
GMJ said:
and New Jersey ;)



That's one of my biggest pet-peeves. Like, wtf people.
Click to expand...

again, if actual rights were being taken away, maybe. but to compare the term "marriage" to being forced to piss in "negro-only" bathrooms is insulting to blacks, and they have voiced this concern.
 
X, you say too many ridiculous things in this thread that I don't even know where to begin...besides all of your gross assumptions and weak parallels, what are your true objectives/points?!
 
This is an opinion thread.

I think the No on 9 protesters should protest against a group that was shown, by a huge margin to be opposed to them and not just against the mormons.
 
Xericx said:
This is an opinion thread.

I think the No on 9 protesters should protest against a group that was shown, by a huge margin to be opposed to them and not just against the mormons.
Click to expand...

9 or 8?
 
Xericx said:
again, if actual rights were being taken away, maybe. but to compare the term "marriage" to being forced to piss in "negro-only" bathrooms is insulting to blacks, and they have voiced this concern.
Click to expand...

A right has been taken away, the right to get married.
 
Xericx said:
no, its just the "term" marriage is different.

a domestic partnership is exactly the same as marriage, which is for a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

...don't confuse "marriage" with "traditional marriage" as this is not a black and white definition :tsktsk:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top