Support NeoGAF

[Prax]

Prax:
I don't think you'll see many Baptist/Methodist/Protestant churches pressing the benefits of critical thinking. Those followers might turn those newly opened eyes to the Biblio and start asking uncomfortable questions.

I know. It's my pipe dream. >___>
The biggest fears for chruches probably is erosion of athority in general through seeding of "doubt" (skepticism/critical thinking).

Is it too much to hope that people in positions of leadership try to empower the people following them so that they may learn to lead themselves instead? (Yes? :l )

You're probably right. Churchy competition for pew-filling and popularity could influence change.. but there's gotta be more alliances made and more brave church leaders to go out and do it.

 

[xavi42]

Hip Hop probably plays a much bigger role than you think, much more than religion.

 

[BuggyDClown]

The time I spent in north east maryland (especially elkton and cecil county) have taught me the area is ripe with racism and homosexuality. You'll be hard pressed to go more than a few days in the area without seeing at least one conferderate flag or hear something homophobic. So happy to have moved.

 

[jaxword]

I think that religion plays a role in homophobic attitudes, but its impact is completely exaggerated. I think that the likelihood of someone being homophobic can loosely be tied to Christianity, but you'll likely hear many blacks condemn homosexuality even if they're not religious.

Well, if you're talking about homophobia in general, that's slightly larger than just acceptance of gay marriage.

Homo and heterosexual attitudes are so twisted and ingrained into our psyches by numerous cultural factors, religion being one of many. And religion really is just a twisted reflection of the current mindset of the culture in any case; if the people want something then God wants it too, which is how it's always been and always will be.

Given how human society has flip-flopped over the centuries as to what the "ideal" sexual image is, it's not really a surprise that the weights are shifting yet again. And eventually homo and heterosexuality will both be accepted as the norm and then things will shift again in 200 years assuming we don't nuke ourselves back to the stone age.

That being said, that's still no excuse to be lazy today and not call out the horrible people when they're being cowardly hypocrites hiding behind their untouchable shield of tradition/religion/etc.

 

[PogiJones]

Fearing that same-sex marriage might lead to a stigmatization of beliefs or normalization won't have anything to do with gay marriage. Even if a constitutional ban on gay marriage was passed federally tomorrow, it wouldn't matter - people are increasingly for gay marriage because their family members and friends are coming out. There is nothing anyone can do about that - gay people are going to come out more, and in turn, people will be more accepting when they realize how close to home the issue is. That is an inevitability that will happen whether or not gay marriage will become legal. It just is at this point

Yes, I agree. But inevitability doesn't mean you should rest on your laurels, right? I mean, I believe gay marriage is inevitable. It's moving in that direction. Yet you still fight, despite its inevitability. I still "fight" too (although I hate that word, because it helps encourage incivility toward the "opponent," who is our brother or sister on earth). I just happen to be on the losing side.

You have a point about some of the ways it could strengthen families. I'm for gay couples being able to adopt, as I think not enough foster kids get the love a real family can give them. But without trying to start an argument, your first point contradicts your last. You imply that gay marriage, rather than promoting gay acceptance, is a symptom of gay acceptance. But then you imply with your last point that gay marriage would promote acceptance among families, who you'd just said are already accepting their gay family members regardless of the law. Anyway, I'm kind of a logic Nazi, so I had to point that out. But I see what you're saying.

I thought this was an interesting perspective.
The only twist seems to be that no one is REALLY barring your right to think the way you think or at (as long as it doesn't hurt others). You are right that intolerance in regards to sexual orientation is increasingly being shunned, and attitudes toward Christian doctrine is not as positive as before (but it's still pretty positive, given how religious America is!).
But barring rights is a whole other level than just being "shunned" for thinking a certain way or living a certain lifestyle. And I know you realize this and see it as unfair.
I am hoping people start understanding that sometimes their fears or insecurities are not as substantial as they feel, and that it shouldn't be used to continue oppressing groups from attaining equality. Just because you share power/raise others doesn't necessarily mean you lose power/become weak.

I think you are good people though. You seem to understand the wider implications and how keeping your moral values to where it counts (yourself) probably works best for everyone.

Yeah, I largely agree. But I think you're underestimating the weight of societal shunning. In fact, I would say shunning is the central aspect being battled in the gay rights movement, and is the biggest reason gay couples want the title "marriage" instead of a "civil union" that gives all the rights of marriage (which I support, btw). I hear much about how they don't want to be second class citizens, which is completely understandable. The only difference between an (ideal) civil union and a marriage is the shape of the ink printed at the top of the page. They can still have lifelong commitments, they can still adopt, they can still have ceremonies... none of their actual, tangible freedoms would be blocked, just as no one can actually change my beliefs. But the SHUNNING is what gets them, the "lesser" perception of a civil union, even if legally it's identical to marriage.

Anyway, I understand completely the gay rights movement and the desire to no longer be shunned. Shunning is a terrible thing. For me, though, the answer isn't within the word "marriage," vs. "civil union," the answer is in empathy. To be able to put yourself in someone else's shoes doesn't mean you go along with everything they say, but it does help you love them and treat them like the human being they are, which we have far too little of in this world.

 

[SmokyDave]

Hip Hop probably plays a much bigger role than you think, much more than religion.

It's all Buju Banton's fault.

(seriously though, isn't it dancehall / reggae that has the overtly homophobic tunes?)

 

[PogiJones]

Why would it matter if you think it's wrong if you're not imposing it on anyone and keeping it to yourself?

You said "I have no right to tell you what do to with your life."

If you actually mean what you say, then you'd have ZERO opinions towards gay marriage being right OR wrong, because what the rest of society does would not impact those values if you're "not imposing it on anyone."

Therefore, by your own argument, you know your opinion on gay marriage should not matter at all to anyone but yourself, and therefore you'd have no objections to it, period.

Hey there, I really am not trying to get into a debate, just sharing thoughts, but to answer your question, I believe in a civil union that has all the rights that marriage does, but marriage retains the traditional meaning that it's held for centuries or more. I explain this in the post above, but no tangible limitations would be put on gay couples in a civil union. They can adopt, they can commit, they can have a ceremony, etc. The only difference is the title of the paper in their filing cabinet. So I don't feel like conservation of the definition of marriage is telling them what they can do with their life. They still have full freedom to do anything, ceremony and all, ring and all.

But like I mention in the post above, I completely understand why they want the word marriage.

 

[beje]

"HAHA! Now that I have some power, it's MY turn to be a huge bigot!".
no. no. no...

Yes. yes. yes...

It's something that still happens and I'm sure all of you know a lot of cases, and it's worth discussing it up.

- The bullied kid that in turn ends up bullying weaker kids when he/she sees the chance.
- Black or Asian people that accuse peers of being "whitewashed".
- And sadly, discrimination (or downright being an asshole) against racial minorities or disabled people inside the gay community. Or the twinks vs. bears issue. Or how you're looked down for not being "gay enough". Or the discrimination against lesbians and transgendered people even though the fight started with all us together.

It's a phenomena that happens way more often than we like to think.

 

[ksan]

Hey there, I really am not trying to get into a debate, just sharing thoughts, but to answer your question, I believe in a civil union that has all the rights that marriage does, but marriage retains the traditional meaning that it's held for centuries or more. I explain this in the post above, but no tangible limitations would be put on gay couples in a civil union. They can adopt, they can commit, they can have a ceremony, etc. The only difference is the title of the paper in their filing cabinet. So I don't feel like conservation of the definition of marriage is telling them what they can do with their life. They still have full freedom to do anything, ceremony and all, ring and all.

But like I mention in the post above, I completely understand why they want the word marriage.

It's ok, you're not much worse than the racists before the civil rights movement advocating separate but equal facilities. At least from an outsiders perspective without serious issues with cognitive dissonance.

 

[Prax]

\Yeah, I largely agree. But I think you're underestimating the weight of societal shunning. In fact, I would say shunning is the central aspect being battled in the gay rights movement, and is the biggest reason gay couples want the title "marriage" instead of a "civil union" that gives all the rights of marriage (which I support, btw). I hear much about how they don't want to be second class citizens, which is completely understandable. The only difference between an (ideal) civil union and a marriage is the shape of the ink printed at the top of the page. They can still have lifelong commitments, they can still adopt, they can still have ceremonies... none of their actual, tangible freedoms would be blocked, just as no one can actually change my beliefs. But the SHUNNING is what gets them, the "lesser" perception of a civil union, even if legally it's identical to marriage.

Anyway, I understand completely the gay rights movement and the desire to no longer be shunned. Shunning is a terrible thing. For me, though, the answer isn't within the word "marriage," vs. "civil union," the answer is in empathy. To be able to put yourself in someone else's shoes doesn't mean you go along with everything they say, but it does help you love them and treat them like the human being they are, which we have far too little of in this world.

True, stigma/shunning/shame is a huge battle. I can't empathize too hard for those in the majority with the power who have insecurities about possibly being future-stigmatized for their seemingly unfair views when clearly the group that needs the empathy more is the currently-heavily-stigmatized one.
Also, empathy is haaaaaard for some people (especially sociopaths haha), so I feel changes to hard laws are the answer first (hopefully political and social leaders are more capable of empathy and use those empathy muscles), and empathy will inevitably come later to those less inclined to engage in empathy until their hands are forced (through law).

Maybe trickle-down economics doesn't quite work, but trickle-down empathy might. :l

Yes. yes. yes...

It's something that still happens and I'm sure all of you know a lot of cases, and it's worth discussing it up.

- The bullied kid that in turn ends up bullying weaker kids when he/she sees the chance.
- Black or Asian people that accuse peers of being "whitewashed".
- And sadly, discrimination (or downright being an asshole) against racial minorities or disabled people inside the community. Or the twinks vs. bears issue. Or how you're looked down for not being "gay enough". Or the discrimination against lesbians and transgendered people even though the fight started with all us together.

It's a phenomena that happens way more often than we like to think.

Maybe he's arguing that's it's not about them relishing the fact that they get the chance at being a bigot now that they have some power for themselves, but that they have always been bigots in their own way, with or without power in the larger society.

That seems accurate as well. People just don't often try to look for bigotry in an oppressed group because you figure they're oppressed and don't have the power to abuse it, but when you do look, it's just as present as anywhere else; people unfairly lording it over others. Figures that they're humans just like the rest of them.

 

[PogiJones]

It's ok, you're not much worse than the racists before the civil rights movement advocating separate but equal facilities. At least from an outsiders perspective without serious issues with cognitive dissonance.

Once again, not trying to get into an argument, but it's doing a disservice to black people who were forced to leave schools and herded into lesser facilities like animals to compare that to the difference of a title on a paper you look at once every 5 years. There is no physical effect.

If you want to get into the similarities with the bullying, that I can stand behind and say that there needs to be some serious reform with regards to how bullies are handled, and the general population needs a serious boost in acceptance and empathy.

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

Poor people tend to be religious. Poor people also have a very different culture from the more well off groups of society. I think an asian or a white person in that same position would have the same opinion to an issue like this.

 

[PogiJones]

True, stigma/shunning/shame is a huge battle. I can't empathize too hard for those in the majority with the power who have insecurities about possibly being future-stigmatized for their seemingly unfair views when clearly the group that needs the empathy more is the currently-heavily-stigmatized one.
Also, empathy is haaaaaard for some people (especially sociopaths haha), so I feel changes to hard laws are the answer first (hopefully political and social leaders are more capable of empathy and use those empathy muscles), and empathy will inevitably come later to those less inclined to engage in empathy until their hands are forced (through law).

Maybe trickle-down economics doesn't quite work, but trickle-down empathy might. :l

Yeah, I don't expect people to sympathize. The thing is, for someone my age, I already am in the minority among my peers. Not that you should sympathize with me, but just pointing it out.

You've got a good point about empathy being hard to pass on. I should sit down and think long and hard about better advice than "increase empathy." I should come up with actual plans to increase empathy. I actually try and do that a lot, by talking to Christians about being more accepting (too many don't follow the whole "love thy neighbor" bit), and by talking to "opposition" to try and explain the other side to them as well. But that is just a drop in the ever-so-dry bucket, so I can see why one would be skeptical of such an approach.

 

[ksan]

Once again, not trying to get into an argument, but it's doing a disservice to black people who were forced to leave schools and herded into lesser facilities like animals to compare that to the difference of a title on a paper you look at once every 5 years. There is no physical effect.

If you want to get into the similarities with the bullying, that I can stand behind and say that there needs to be some serious reform with regards to how bullies are handled, and the general population needs a serious boost in acceptance and empathy.

Are you trying to say that you're a pretty bad person, but not really as bad as those racists?
Or did I misinterpret that?

 

[DR2K]

Once again, not trying to get into an argument, but it's doing a disservice to black people who were forced to leave schools and herded into lesser facilities like animals to compare that to the difference of a title on a paper you look at once every 5 years. There is no physical effect.

Being treated like a second class citizen is the same end result. But there's more to marriage than a piece of paper, there's money, estate, and other rights(such as hospital visits) attatched to a married couple. Do you even know what marriage is do you know how insulting it is to for the state to tell you that your bond isn't valid because of gender? It's no different than being told to drink from another water fountain or sitting on the back of the bus.

The problem is that plenty of African-Americans aren't even aware of their own history nor have they actually been around long enough to be treated as said second class.

 

[PogiJones]

Are you trying to say that you're a pretty bad person, but not really as bad as those racists?
Or did I misinterpret that?

I feel you misinterpreted it, but you're free to feel I'm bad. I feel that the traditional definition of marriage is a thing worth preserving, and that an equal civil union fills all the needs and most of the wants of the gay couples of the nation, and still allows for the preservation of the traditional definition of marriage. But if you'd like to call me pretty bad for that, that's your prerogative.

Being treated like a second class citizen is the same end result. But there's more to marriage than a piece of paper, there's money, estate, and other rights(such as hospital visits) attatched to a married couple. Do you even know what marriage is do you know how insulting it is to for the state to tell you that your bond isn't valid because of gender? It's no different than being told to drink from another water fountain or sitting on the back of the bus.

The problem is that plenty of African-Americans aren't even aware of their own history nor have they actually been around long enough to be treated as said second class.

Like I said, I believe in a civil union that would allow for the money, estate, hospital visits, etc. Lesser civil unions that don't allow for those are a problem, yes, without a doubt.

EDIT: I didn't mean to hijack this thread, guys. I'm sorry. If any of you want to keep talking to me about it, you can PM me. I'll gladly continue discussing it with anyone. But I feel I should let this thread get back to its purpose, so I won't respond here anymore.

 

[Sotha Sil]

Once again, not trying to get into an argument, but it's doing a disservice to black people who were forced to leave schools and herded into lesser facilities like animals to compare that to the difference of a title on a paper you look at once every 5 years. There is no physical effect.

Well, if that's all it is at the end of the day, I fail to understand why you oppose gay marriage.

 

[DR2K]

Like I said, I believe in a civil union that would allow for the money, estate, hospital visits, etc. Lesser civil unions that don't allow for those are a problem, yes, without a doubt.

There's a reason seperate but equel has never worked in the history of the US so far. People don't like being treated like shit.

If it were as simple as that it would be in every state no problem. It isn't just because of the of what you call it, which are only under a marriage license for the US. The rights are an even bigger issue.

Such a shameful time in American history right now, years from now generations are going to look back at this and laugh their asses off.

 

[lenovox1]

But yeah, black people are very religious, so it doesn't come to a surprise that the majority are against gay marriage.

Yes, religion is the center for many blacks, but the same goes for any community I've been a part of as person that's grown up in the south. Why are the white people whose lives revolve around the church more accepting than black people that are the same?

For this issue, I've always maintained that the slightly larger problem is the lack of awareness black people generally have. The LGBT community fails to, by in large, reach out to the black community in any meaningful way. So not only do you have black people not supporting issues like marriage equality, but also you never have black people come out of the closet openly, which leads to ignorance. I can't even begin to tell you some of the hateful, bigoted things some of my cousins genuinely believe about gay people, because I'm probably the only LGBT person they think they know.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Is there a way to market gay marriage to black people better?

other than the systematical dismantling of religion in the black community? not really.

I am also told that it's a strong old/young split within the black community when it comes to gay rights.

this. and it's the old folk who are usually politically involved.

Hip Hop probably plays a much bigger role than you think, much more than religion.

because old folks totally love that rap music!

It's all Buju Banton's fault.

(seriously though, isn't it dancehall / reggae that has the overtly homophobic tunes?)

yep. dancehall is full of anti-gay tunes, what's amazing is they play some of that stuff in gay clubs in NYC (and probably worldwide) and people dance to it!

 

[JGS]

ITT, I learned that white people aren't religious and are thus pro-gay marriage. Who knew?

 

[The Faceless Master]

Yes, religion is the center for many blacks, but the same goes for any community I've been a part of as person that's grown up in the south. Why are the white people whose lives revolve around the church more accepting than black people that are the same?

For this issue, I've always maintained that the slightly larger problem is the lack of awareness black people generally have. The LGBT community fails to, by in large, reach out to the black community in any meaningful way. So not only do you have black people not supporting issues like marriage equality, but also you never have black people come out of the closet openly, which leads to ignorance. I can't even begin to tell you some of the hateful, bigoted things some of my cousins genuinely believe about gay people, because I'm probably the only LGBT person they think they know.

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/01/30/african-americans-top-us-religious-measures-pew/

“While the U.S. is generally considered a highly religious nation, African-Americans are markedly more religious on a variety of measures than the U.S. population as a whole, including level of affiliation with a religion, attendance at religious services, frequency of prayer and religion’s importance in life,” the report says.

black americans are more religious.

 

[Weenerz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fzuXQF_wIU

 

[lenovox1]

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/01/30/african-americans-top-us-religious-measures-pew/



black americans are more religious.

I'm of the opinion that that's due to regional and economic differences (more blacks live in the South, more blacks are poor), so when we're talking about Maryland, I don't think that plays as much of a factor. Religious blacks just seem to look at gay people in a different way that religious non-blacks.

Now religion plays a role of course, but there's has to be a reason why blacks largely oppose gay marriage when practicing Christian whites, Jews, etc. are more open to it.

 

[JGS]

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/01/30/african-americans-top-us-religious-measures-pew/



black americans are more religious.

Doesn't matter

There is a far simpler reason than the pastor said so

 

[The Faceless Master]

Doesn't matter

There is a far simpler reason than the pastor said so

you mean "the bible said so"?

 

[Technosteve]

Tell them Omar is coming

 

[neutralgamer02]

This is my view as a pretty liberal black guy.

While I support gay marriage for equality sake, I have felt ever since the whole prop. 8 failure that gay people seem to take the black vote for granted for their cause. They seem to think that just because most black people vote for democrats, they will support gay marriage since that is the more liberal position. There are several problems with this view.

1. Most black people are not liberal even though they consider themselves democrats, especially in the south. They are more moderate or conservative on social issues and vote democrat on economic issues.

2. Nobody likes their vote to be taken for granted. If someone expected me to do something, I would be less willing to do it. After prop. 8 a lot of gay people were upset because they just expected black people to vote for gay marriage since they are democrats. After hearing this I was less willing to support gay marriage, because they did little outreach and still expected black people to vote on their side. You won't get anywhere with that sort of approach.

3. Then there is the argument of black people used to be second class citizens so they should be more willing to support us since we are second class in terms of marriage. Terrible argument. Many black people today were born after 1964 and don't fully understand what it means to be second class. You can't just expect that they will just take up your cause because of that. I feel sympathy for gay people, but I don't feel any sort of bond between the gay community's just because their plight has a taste for what black people use to suffer. I will assume most black people feel the same. I simply support gay marriage because it is the right thing to do. That is the argument you should be pushing.


The outreach they are doing in Maryland is a start, but I doubt it will result in the passage of the bill. There needs to be a large sustained campaign to get it passed in a state with a 30% black population. Stronger bonds needs to be formed between the gay community and black community. Also, treatment of minorities in the gay community needs to be addressed.

Gay marriage equality will only get harder when things shift into the southern states. There will be less democrats in the south to support the issue and the democrats that are there will not be the same as the ones in the north. I'm not going to say it is impossible to get done in the south, but I will be surprised if I see it during my lifetime. If it can't be done in a more liberal area like Maryland, just forget about it in Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina.

 

[Gaborn]

This is a very frustrating topic. Historically, religion was a tool of moral liberation for enslaved blacks, a way of giving them hope for a better life and a sense of community. If you even look at some spirituals, you see everything from revolutionary music calling for freedom, predicting one day they'd be free, to giving advice to how to escape to music that actually provides a crude map for run away slaves to follow.

Then if you look at whites religion was a tool used both to justify slavery and to oppose it depending on your end goals, and expounded upon passionately by both sides. Of course the abolitionists have the dominant view today but we can't ignore that religion was used by some as a tool of oppression as much as it was seen as liberating to others.

I mean, I get it, I understand historically why religiosity has played such a role in the black community. Historically they literally often had nothing else to cling to so they had a very good reason to be deeply religious to at least believe they would have a shot at a better life now, or after death. I even can see why that would transfer, you would have a vested interest in teaching your children the same, and their children and their children and so on. When you come from that background it's completely understandable why religiosity is an important trait.

I guess, understanding how religion was used both as a liberating tool and a tool of oppression for blacks I do see a level of irony in the strong social conservatism on gay rights within the black community. I COMPLETELY agree the gay community has done a piss poor job of outreach, we DO need to make the case and shouldn't abandon any group, especially when they're a large and crucial voting block in a state, but I don't think it's all on us either. There needs to be some understanding too that ultimately gays deserve the same rights and self respect everyone else does.

I think it really helps and is great that a good man like Al Sharpton is such a strong ally, I know he can be controversial and occasionally tilt at windmills but he's always struck me as thoroughly decent and well meaning. We need more allies of all races and all sexual orientations to be the public face for marriage equality to help humanize the issue and help understanding. Don Lemon is another potential big ally of ours, another person to help make the case. However, ultimately if we go most of the way to reaching out... at some point the black community also has to be willing to reach back and I'm not sure how willing they are.

I think younger blacks are more willing than their parents and grandparents, but we've made inroads with pretty much every age group among whites and other groups (though 65 and older is probably MOSTLY unreachable regardless of race or any other factor) but it seems that older blacks are going to be the most difficult in this regard.

 

[JGS]

you mean "the bible said so"?

Nope.

The reason is very similar to why most countries, Christian or not, don't legalize.

Why on Earth people think that just because black people go to church, that means they somehow follow everything the pastor says (Or that the pastor even discusses gayness in his sermons) considering the problems in black communities is an odd correlation.

Blacks are traditonally conservative minded to begin with but not because the Bible or the pastor says so. It's because it's tradition and traditionally gays people have not been seen as a normal part of society. Further, bolack gay people don't help the cause because they are too scared to come out about it. They have made sure to cloak themselves within the community.

Also, the wrong parts of the article were bolded.

 

[Dark Octave]

Black people + religion = closed minds.

Generally speaking of course.

 

[Wrekt]

Black people + religion = closed minds.

Generally speaking of course.

So white religious people keep open minds?

 

[neutralgamer02]

Black people + religion = closed minds.

Generally speaking of course.

So, most black people are closed minded? Because most black people are religious.

Keep reaching out to the black community with posts like this.

Edit: Not assuming you are gay.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Black people + religion = closed minds.

Generally speaking of course.

Get the fuck out of here with that shit.

But at the end of the day, yes, some of my family tends to lean more toward traditional Christian conservative values.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Yes, I agree. But inevitability doesn't mean you should rest on your laurels, right? I mean, I believe gay marriage is inevitable. It's moving in that direction. Yet you still fight, despite its inevitability. I still "fight" too (although I hate that word, because it helps encourage incivility toward the "opponent," who is our brother or sister on earth). I just happen to be on the losing side.

Yeah, I largely agree. But I think you're underestimating the weight of societal shunning. In fact, I would say shunning is the central aspect being battled in the gay rights movement, and is the biggest reason gay couples want the title "marriage" instead of a "civil union" that gives all the rights of marriage (which I support, btw). I hear much about how they don't want to be second class citizens, which is completely understandable. The only difference between an (ideal) civil union and a marriage is the shape of the ink printed at the top of the page. They can still have lifelong commitments, they can still adopt, they can still have ceremonies... none of their actual, tangible freedoms would be blocked, just as no one can actually change my beliefs. But the SHUNNING is what gets them, the "lesser" perception of a civil union, even if legally it's identical to marriage.

Anyway, I understand completely the gay rights movement and the desire to no longer be shunned. Shunning is a terrible thing. For me, though, the answer isn't within the word "marriage," vs. "civil union," the answer is in empathy. To be able to put yourself in someone else's shoes doesn't mean you go along with everything they say, but it does help you love them and treat them like the human being they are, which we have far too little of in this world.

You must understand that your concept of "shunning" is simply the inherent desire to maintain social privilege. Everything is more desirable if it excludes other people in some manner.

The African American community has often held the gay community in contempt, and there has been very little effort from within to stymie this reputation. Many African American role models in church, sports and entertainment are openly homophobic. To speak out against the church, hip hop music, or black athletes, one runs the risk of being seen as "not black enough" or not supporting the community. Grant Hill and Jared Dudley were in the recent think before you speak campaign, but Hill as you all recall was recently the source of controversy after Jalen Rose implied that he was an Uncle Tom for attending Duke University.

So IMO, I think the efforts have to continue from this minority of outspoken black pastors and notable celebrities. Maybe some can even start calling out some of these artists who are constantly dropping derogatory slurs in their music.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

I think that religion plays a role in homophobic attitudes, but its impact is completely exaggerated. I think that the likelihood of someone being homophobic can loosely be tied to Christianity, but you'll likely hear many blacks condemn homosexuality even if they're not religious.

its not exaggerated, its the ONLY reason it always comes down to when discussing that issue. The words "Moral" and Traditional" are pretty much "God".

Being uncomfortable or just thinking "dat gay shit is nasty yo" attitude plays a part, but people know thats not justification enough, religion provides a justification they can stand on.

 

[nateeasy]

 

[mclaren777]

You mean Washington and Iowa.

I think you just mean Iowa, because the recent decision in Washington will be repealed/overturned by the voters.

 

[Gaborn]

I think you just mean Iowa, because the recent decision in Washington will be repealed/overturned by the voters.

This seems unlikely.

In October, a University of Washington poll found that an increasing number of people in the state support same-sex marriage. About 43 percent of respondents said they support gay marriage, up from 30 percent in the same poll five years earlier. Another 22 percent said they support giving identical rights to gay couples, without calling the unions "marriage."

If a challenge to gay marriage law was on the ballot, 55 percent said they would vote to uphold the law. And 38 percent said they would vote to reject a gay marriage law.

 

[mclaren777]

I think you would be surprised, Gaborn. Actually you're a great person to ask this question to...

Has a vote of the people in any state ever gone in favor of the pro-homosexual camp?

 

[Dash27]

Nothing new. Religion, hip hop, culture in general. I'd also say there's a bit of raised eyebrows when you see gay people using terms like "gay is the new black" or comparing the gay marriage struggle to the civil rights struggles of MLK's day.

I mean, I'm for gay marriage but lets not pretend it's analogous to the civil rights marches.

 

[Omegasquash]

I'm from the Eastern Shore of MD, and I can tell you with near certainty that the delegates representing everything east of the bay are against. It's an unbelievably red area, steeped in conservative, somewhat bigoted (in my opinion), values.

 

[Gaborn]

I think you would be surprised, Gaborn. Actually you're a great person to ask this question to...

Has a vote of the people in any state ever gone in favor of the pro-homosexual camp?

Yes, Arizona in 2006. A similar measure passed in Arizona in 2008 however. I think the tide is slowly turning though. Keep in mind that Washington is a relatively liberal state and national polls consistently show support for marriage equality at or near 50%.

Something to also remember, while some states have passed not just a ban on gay marriage, it used to be possible to pass more expansive laws banning similar unions (see Michigan's absolutely awful amendment). While there are some states that would still support such measures I think the anti-gay lobby would be overreaching to go to that extent in the vast majority of states now and we're at or near the point a state like Oregon will likely repeal their constitutional bans.

 

[backflip10019]

 

[KingGondo]

In a perfect world, marriage would not decreed by the state--it would be a religious thing, and every "marriage" would be viewed as a "civil union" by the state. It would be up to the marrying parties to superimpose their own religious values on it if they want.

But it's not a perfect world, and it is immoral to treat the gay and lesbian community as second-class citizens. Full marriage equality should be deemed a human right by the US Supreme Court, ballot initiatives be damned. Wonder how long school integration would have taken if it had been voted on state-by-state?

 

[Omegasquash]

Wonder how long school integration would have taken if it had been voted on state-by-state?

That's...excellent.

 

[akira28]

I'm from the Eastern Shore of MD, and I can tell you with near certainty that the delegates representing everything east of the bay are against. It's an unbelievably red area, steeped in conservative, somewhat bigoted (in my opinion), values.

Mostly rural/maritime white if I recall correctly, yes?

 

[Mystic Theurge]

Hey Ivysaur, I just wanna say you seem like a really cool guy, reaching out to us religious people. While I don't agree with gay marriage, I do agree that an open dialogue with each other should be started, if for no other reason than civility and understanding, instead of the hate that each side directs at each other.

I'm going to go out on a limb (wherein most of GAF will likely crucify me) and try and explain my side. When birth control became the norm in the '60s, there seemed to be no downside for religious folk: "Religious people don't have to have premarital sex. It just makes it safer for those who do." Now, I'm not against birth control. I use it myself with my wife. But something happened after it became widespread: waiting till marriage is now shunned. You're seen as a prude, an idiot, etc. if you believe in waiting till marriage. Why did this happen? Normalization. It happened because premarital sex, while it had existed before, became the norm. Therefore, people who believed it was morally wrong became shunned. It's scary for me to admit on a forum that I believe in waiting till marriage, for fear of being banned.

Do you actually think you'll be banned if you say you believe in waiting till marriage? If so, you have a serious persecution complex.

Further I doubt anyone has been shunned solely because they believe in waiting. Are they teased? Yes. But shunned is massive exaggeration.

I'm in no way implying that gay marriage would become the norm. No, people's genes won't change just because the law does. But the current status of society is: "You can believe gay sex is immoral, but you have no right to stop someone from doing so." Which I agree with. I have no right to tell you what to do with your life. What people like me fear is that widespread gay marriage would make it wrong to think it's wrong; that we'll be shunned for holding the moral values we currently keep dear, even if we're not imposing it on anyone.

What do you mean by "not imposing it on anyone"? Because saying that someone's love is immoral is an imposition.

It used to be okay to be a virgin till marriage; now it's humiliating (I was one). It is currently okay to think that (without restricting anyone from doing it) gay sex is immoral, a fundamental belief in Christian chastity, but with the legalization of gay marriage that may not be the case.

I would argue against the immorality of gay sex being a fundamental belief in Christian chastity. There are many Christians who believe otherwise.

Also the legalization of gay marriage isn't causing the shift in belief about gay sex. The shift in belief is causing the legalization.

The ironic thing is that we're worried about being shunned in the future, whereas you guys are fighting not to be shunned right now. So I totally get where you're coming from, and why you're fighting the good fight. If nothing else, maybe my explanation of our fears can help you in your endeavors to spread what you feel is good, and to that I wish you all the best luck.

It would take centuries and a prolonged coordinated conspiracy to make Christianity shunned in America. You have absolutely nothing to worry about.

 

[mclaren777]

Yes, Arizona in 2006. Keep in mind that Washington is a relatively liberal state and national polls consistently show support for marriage equality at or near 50%.

Washington is only liberal in certain places, but I'll be really surprised if the recent decision isn't overturned by the people.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

 

[KingGondo]

Mostly rural/maritime white if I recall correctly, yes?

Artist's rendering of a typical male constituent: