hiro_antagonist: Black Clergy and Gay Marriage 'Well, civil rights only apply to *some* sorts of people'

Hiro Antagonist (

hiro_antagonist) wrote,
@ 2009-05-15 06:05:00

Entry tags:

contemplation, discourse, ethics, humanity, philosophy

Black Clergy and Gay Marriage 'Well, civil rights only apply to *some* sorts of people'

So NPR airs this bit about how odd it is that the same black pastors that led the civil rights movement are against gay marriage.

It's fine by me if someone doesn't hold with something. I personally don't believe people should be screwing outside of marriage, regardless of gender. But any people that are capable of loving each other getting married seems like it can only be a good thing.

So why would a group of people who led the civil rights movement in the 60's be against what is essentially more of the same? One of the black pastors who'd been in the civil right's movement was recorded saying "If anybody can get married, that devalues marriage".

I sat there, stunned for a second. This was quite possibly the most stupid thing I'd heard in a long time, not to mention quite possibly the worst argument I'd ever heard.

Because, as we all know, 'If anyone could have civil rights, that'd devalue civil rights!'

The thing is, basic rights belonging to all human beings cannot be devalued by letting all humans exercise them. Rights are not like gold in the sense that the more everyone else has, the less your own supply is worth.

I'm not sure which I hate more, hypocrisy or people who make stupid arguments that aren't logically sound.

(46 comments) - (Post a new comment)

	wannabemandi 2009-05-15 11:21 am UTC (link)
	Wow. (Reply to this)

	bellasusana 2009-05-15 01:08 pm UTC (link)
	Epitome of hypocrisy. You would think after those words were uttered, there was a serious "what was I thinking?" moment. (Reply to this) (Thread)

flw
2009-05-15 02:52 pm UTC (link)

I talked to alot of people on the phone during the fight against Prop 107 in Arizona, and it doesn't seem like hypocrisy at all to black people. To them, it's a matter of "waiting in line". They aren't opposed to equal rights, it's just to them, it seems like a frivolous issue. It almost immediately evokes a victim competition. And... you can't "win" that sort of thing. Many of the people I talked to had a notion of "one thing at a time". It was as if you "gave" rights to one group of people, they would be taken away from another group. When Obama was running for President it almost guaranteed that a greater proportion of African Americans would abandon gay marriage as an issue... it's a circling the wagons mentality. They wanted Obama to be President so badly, that they couldn't sort of "spread out" their passion. It was like voting against Prop. 8 (in CA) would somehow lessen their voting power. This is how many, many people think. It is not exclusive to African Americans, it is just an odd circumstance that pops up rarely.

People say "If only 20% of African Americans who voted for Prop. 8 had voted against it, it would not have passed." Now, a mere 4% of white voters going the other way would have accomplished the same thing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	schpydurx 2009-05-15 04:20 pm UTC (link)
	So are you saying that whites on the whole are racist, sexist, bigoted homophobes? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	flw 2009-05-15 04:25 pm UTC (link)
	I can only speak for myself. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	schpydurx 2009-05-15 05:27 pm UTC (link)
	So what are you doing to NOT be a racist, sexist, bigoted homophobe? Simply voting for things you aren't comfortable with may relive your guilt but at the end of the day you're still a racist, sexists bigoted homophobe. (Reply to this) (Parent)

flw
2009-05-15 01:09 pm UTC (link)

We learned this very early in the fight against Prop 107 in Arizona. People display what is called "diminishment thinking". They think there's only so much "rights" to go around, like it's a big pie. If you "spend" your "rights" on the gays then you are therefore taking away rights from some other group. This is why blacks came out in favor of Prop 8 in California. The never expressed logic is that if people spent their vote on defending gays, it would have cost Obama the election. There is only so much reform that can happen at once.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	hiro_antagonist 2009-05-15 05:05 pm UTC (link)
	How strange... It seems so illogical. Then again, humans don't put a lot of stock in being logical. Logic, maybe. Being logical? Sigh. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

flw
2009-05-15 07:05 pm UTC (link)

Well, this is an example of an overused heuristic. In most things in life there are limits. How many students get into Stanford? How much money is in your bank account? How many bricks are in the store? How many tea bags are in the pantry? So, people are inclined to think in terms of "balancing choices". You can have a marshmallow now, or two marshmallows later. So, it only follows that to a group for whom "rights" are a very tangible thing... Say, to someone who knew someone who was murdered by the Police (whether true or not, case by case, it is hard to find a black person who doesn't know someone who was at least brutalized or wrongly imprisoned). It follows that rights being tangible, they must also be fungible. In other words, there's only so much to go around.

And from that perspective, it is understandable that someone might consciously or intuitively perceive this as a tradeoff. So, among many black people, when you say, "Support Civil Rights for Gay Marriage, Yay!" they hear, "Let's throw a party and take away YOUR rights." And then they respond, "Are you saying that MY GRANDFATHER, who marched to Tennessee in 1962, and was arrested and imprisoned, and put in a chain gang... and the guards IGNORED his kidney disease, and he died of dehydration and the guards let him lie in the sun for three hours as he cried out in pain..." and so on. There's no retort to that. And it gets into that victim competition thing. Or it can. None of this is ever said out loud, of course. It just seems SILLY to black people.

To them, Civil Rights means NOT BEING LYNCHED. So, when you compare it to a big, frou-frou San Francisco party with streamers and hats and belts and jewelry and EVERYONE will be there and it will be FABULOUS... it is offensive.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	hiro_antagonist 2009-05-15 09:49 pm UTC (link)
	Or it could just be a heavy fundamentalist presence in the black community puts them more at odds with homosexuality than the overwhelmingly secular white folks. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	kayang 2009-05-15 01:09 pm UTC (link)
	That angers me so much. I'm all for gay marriage. I like that you said "But any people that are capable of loving each other getting married seems like it can only be a good thing." I mean, I don't think people even need "marriage" to acknowledge their love to eachother (gay or straight). But, if you can love, then you should have the right to marry. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	hiro_antagonist 2009-05-15 05:07 pm UTC (link)
	It seems (in its nature) like one of those inalienable rights the founders talked about. (Reply to this) (Parent)

peristaltor
2009-05-15 01:26 pm UTC (link)

Thank you. I've been saying this for years now. The number of times I get shouted down is amazing, usually by black folks who get very bent out of shape about gay issues in general.

This issue came up twenty or so years ago here in Seattle. King County was officially changed to Martin Luther King County. Someone pointed out that the county was originally named for Vice President William King, quite possibly the first gay VP. Wasn't changing the name of the county from one oppressed minority representative to another demeaning to that first representative?

The invective flew with enough venom to force the media covering the "debate" to cower. I was appalled.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	hiro_antagonist 2009-05-15 05:07 pm UTC (link)
	People get weird like that, I've noticed. Humans are exceptionally skilled at hating things. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	swingthevote 2009-05-15 02:01 pm UTC (link)
	Well, considering that most of those who make the stupid arguements that aren't logically sound are actually hypocrits, I think it's safe to hate them both equally. Edited at 2009-05-15 02:01 pm UTC (Reply to this) (Thread)

	hiro_antagonist 2009-05-15 05:08 pm UTC (link)
	Stupid people are annoying, but hypocrites are worse, as they have the ability to know better, while stupid people don't. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	deathnomiko 2009-05-15 02:53 pm UTC (link)
	I completely agree with you. I never understood why people are so hell bent on knowing other people's lives or live choices that have nothing to do with their own. (Reply to this)

absinthexfaery
2009-05-15 03:59 pm UTC (link)

Hah...hypocracy. Fun stuff.

Time and time again, what is good for one person doesn't mean that they want someone else to have it too.

I've noticed this with, in general, a lot of Jewish people I know. Half my family is Jewish and while some of them are kinda liberal minded, most are pretty close minded. They don't believe in same sex marriage or equal rights and yet, they were, for years, discriminated against...you'd think that since they had experienced such horrible discrimination that they would be all for giving others rights...

Just like with the civil rights pastor who made that statement.

Granted, there are people in all parties who thing gay rights are important, but the ones who are most outspoken seem not to be.

And like you, I hate that sort of stance.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	hiro_antagonist 2009-05-15 05:09 pm UTC (link)
	The discriminated against soon become the discriminators. Meet the new boss, same as the old. Funny how that works. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	absinthexfaery 2009-05-15 05:49 pm UTC (link)
	Mm indeed ~nods~ (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Sad, but no surprise wulfthorson 2009-05-15 04:35 pm UTC (link)
	Few people choose their views according to a consistent set of principles. Most people have principles, but these principles sometimes conflict. Cognitive dissonance is part of the human condition. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Sad, but no surprise hiro_antagonist 2009-05-15 05:03 pm UTC (link)
	Human nature makes any monster from horror movies pale by comparison. It has its shinning moments, but they're rare. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	cleverisall 2009-05-15 04:56 pm UTC (link)
	the "sanctity" of marriage. what a joke. i thought straight people were doing a great job with that, you know, witht the 50% divorce rate and all. and then remember when britney spears got married and then unmarried in a matter of 12 hours, that was fun. i cant be bothered with peoples ignorance. especially ones who believe that gay people are not born gay. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	hiro_antagonist 2009-05-15 05:10 pm UTC (link)
	It is pretty appalling :/ (Reply to this) (Parent)

	j_d0e 2009-05-15 05:04 pm UTC (link)
	Rights are not like gold in the sense that the more everyone else has, the less your own supply is worth. Amen. That's probably the best thing I've heard in ages. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	hiro_antagonist 2009-05-15 05:11 pm UTC (link)
	Glad you liked it, it made sense when I thought of it. (Reply to this) (Parent)

aikurushii
2009-05-15 07:04 pm UTC (link)

If you open up marriage as an inalienable right, doesn't that open the door for bigamy? And marriage to children? Marriage between children? Animals? People and objects?

Of course not, but therein lies the rub. I have had arguments with completely sane, rational, logical people who seem to run under the presumption that if we allow "the gays" to marry, we'll be giving bigamists and pedophiles the ammunition they need to get their "deviance" recognized by the state as legal, being as homosexuality was once treated as a mental illness (like pedophilia is now.)

It's pretty awful, but gay rights are probably at least 15 - 20 years away. When the kids who are in grade school now are old enough to vote and influence government, it'll change.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	hiro_antagonist 2009-05-15 09:51 pm UTC (link)
	The 'slippery slope' argument is one that doesn't make sense, when you break it down. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	aikurushii 2009-05-15 10:24 pm UTC (link)
	Agreed infinitely. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	patji 2009-05-15 09:43 pm UTC (link)
	To each their own... as long as they don't go shoving their views down my throat and everyone else. Sorry for not commenting in forever >.<;; (Reply to this) (Thread)

hiro_antagonist
2009-05-15 09:55 pm UTC (link)

Unfortunately, some have it in their heads that to each their own, threatens their own, in a fascinating leap of logic.

If you don't hold with something, sure, that's one's right. However, when one argues that one's own rights are infringed by someone else exercising the rights one already enjoys, it's not an argument that holds water, so to speak.

Others voting does not infringe on my ability to vote. Or bear arms. Or to assemble. Etc. You'd think it would be an obvious concept :/

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	cinnamonbite 2009-05-15 09:56 pm UTC (link)
	So if you're black and gay, you're fucked? Or only half fucked? Hmmmmm, I guess it depends on how good looking ya are! LOL (Reply to this) (Thread)

	hiro_antagonist 2009-05-15 09:58 pm UTC (link)
	Certainly in the eyes of your peers. Or if you're a Mormon that drinks. Etc. At least one can change the fact that they're a Mormon... :/ (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	cinnamonbite 2009-05-15 10:06 pm UTC (link)
	Well, since the 80s, you can be black and a mormon, but you can't be gay. Unless you prefer electroshock therapy. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	hiro_antagonist 2009-05-15 10:10 pm UTC (link)
	Black, gay, AND Mormon? Oy! Talk about a tough path in life! (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	cinnamonbite 2009-05-15 10:18 pm UTC (link)
	Now THAT'S a serious masochist. And I'm reminded of the The Man With No Soul in the movie, Amazon Women on the Moon. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	nostradamus 2009-05-15 10:18 pm UTC (link)
	"If there was absolute freedom, people would run over babies and charge admission." - Lenny Bruce The reasoning to voice the right to exclude in this case for black heterosexuals makes sense as each equality movement must be discriminated from another. Reality of human nature > logical arguments. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	hiro_antagonist 2009-05-15 10:24 pm UTC (link)
	Indeed, sad. (Reply to this) (Parent)

I also find it retarded..

tricstmr
2009-05-16 12:03 am UTC (link)

... but it's not everyone. One can note that the Washington DC city council--just voted 12-1 to grant recognition to gay marriages performed elsewhere (and are looking to change things there..). Of course the one anti-vote was from black former-mayor former crack-smoking Marion Berry--but then again-- 7 of the 13 council members were black--and all other black council members obviously voted for recognition..

In any case--if you think about it--most of these civil rights leaders are OLD OLD OLD--and RELIGIOUS RELIGIOUS RELIGIOUS--if you went and asked a bunch of old religious white people their opinions--it would be very much the same...

For a good example of someone fighting the good fight on this issue--read Ta-Nehisi Coates blog at the atlantic.com . His father was a black panther, and he has an awesome blog that deals with all kinds of racial issues in an intelligent and workmanlike way..

(Reply to this)

	siredurado 2009-05-16 01:27 am UTC (link)
	Well said, and brilliant cartoons. I hope you don't mind, I've reposted the 2nd cartoon :) (Reply to this) (Thread)

	hiro_antagonist 2009-05-16 04:09 am UTC (link)
	Haha, not at all, it says it all so perfectly :) (Reply to this) (Parent)

	drwhatever 2009-05-19 08:56 pm UTC (link)
	I like your point. Not to forget leading up to the civil war, ministers against slave freedoms qouted certain parts of the bible that mad the ministers sound good. like they do now for gay marriage. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	hiro_antagonist 2009-05-19 10:35 pm UTC (link)
	The bible, like pretty much any other book out there apparently, can be quoted to support just about anything if the person quoting it is selective, or just good at making something sound like something it's not :/ (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	drwhatever 2009-05-20 01:02 am UTC (link)
	What about using the bible to promote donkey kung fu militias? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	hiro_antagonist 2009-05-20 01:43 am UTC (link)
	Fairly sure Marion Barry could pull it off! (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	drwhatever 2009-05-20 04:55 am UTC (link)
	I am intrigued (Reply to this) (Parent)

(46 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs