Sorry in advance for the wall of text. I am writing more than usual to explain myself very clearly because I feel like the quoted poster is dancing around my words. I do not plan to write anything this long for the rest of the thread:
Hunahan said:
You seem to like comparing yourself to Martin Luther King Jr. That's a very bold analogy to carry.
I was not referring to me whatsoever, and I have to believe that you are able to determine that I wasn't. I'm nobody.
What I
was doing was comparing all civil rights struggles to each other; the struggle for gay equality has many similarities to the struggle for racial equality. That's not to say it's identical (such an argument trivializes the nuances and spirited expressions of both movements and their unique merits), but yes--I do believe that when gays ask for rights (thus also asking to suppress those who would deny them rights) it is directly analogous to when Martin Luther King asked for rights (thus also asking to suppress those who would deny him rights).
To be more blunt; when miscegenation prohibitions were dropped and when racial segregation was dropped, continued racists were alternatively sued (if they were acting in a legal capacity), sternly taught, and protested/ostracized. The truly stubborn have still not changed, and they have been marginalized by society with near-unanimous consent. To be more clear; you bolded me writing that "[people] should/must [consider gay relationships as equal"--a result of the civil rights movement was that people should/must consider coloured Americans as equals. The parallel is explicit.
If you feel like the two struggles are not comparable in that respect, feel free to explain to me how they are not.
You also seem to be making quite a few assumptions about who I am, what I represent, and what I am disagreeing with. I wouldn't be nearly as certain as you seem to be that any of those assumptions are correct.
I have not made any assumptions about you at all. I have no idea who you are, what your beliefs are on gay rights in general. When you say that "cracking down on intolerance" or "being intolerant against intolerance" or "being racist against racism" or whatever terms you choose to use, I feel you are wrong, no matter who you are--straight or gay, progressive or regressive, American or not.
All civil rights struggles in history have involved suppressing through law, changing minds through education and isolating dissenters through social ostracism. Hell, all social movements period work this way--the campaign against drunk driving also shares these features.
You have not explained why you disagree. Alternatively, might you suggest a civil rights movement that did not involve the suppression of dissenting views?
As I said earlier, as soon as you start telling other people what they should think, you are almost always heading towards problems.
You said this with reference to Animal Farm. As I mentioned earlier, the issue with Animal Farm was not the suppression of dissent, it was the suppression of dissent for incongruous reasons to the ideology of revolutionary struggle (IE the pigs were compromising the idea they fought for), and to reward nepotism and maintain in power (IE the pigs wanted power at any cost).
The analogy is not valid because the struggle for gay rights is based on, as I've elaborated many times, freedom for people to be the way they are while not hurting people. Suppressing actions that do hurt people is not hypocritical and does not undermine the ideals of the movement. Moreover, even assuming the existence of a "gay lobby" and assuming that they are "victorious" and "in power" in countries like my own, where gay people have full legal rights, such a movement would not sell itself out to give power to the hypothetical leaders.
If you want an exact citation from the book, the closing paragraph from which you quote follos the page where Orwell writes about the specific suppression that was occurring:
George Orwell said:
Hitherto the animals on the farm had had a rather foolish custom of addressing one another as 'Comrade.' This was to be suppressed... His visitors might have observed, too, the green flag which flew from the masthead. If so, they would perhaps ave noted that the white hoof and horn with which it had previously been marked had now been removed... Napoleon was only now fo rthe first time announcing it--that the name "Animal Farm" had been abolished. Henceforward, the farm was to be known as "The Manor Farm"--which, he believed, was its correct and original name
Orwell's point is not that there's something wrong with suppressing or ostracizing dissent, it was the specific way in which the USSR suppressing and ostracized dissent and the ends to which they did it.
If you read Orwell's point as being some sort of radical libertarian suggestion that everyone should mind your own business, you have gravely misread Animal Farm.
You accused people who hate religion and support gay RIGHTS of hypocrisy. In light of one group actively trying to withhold rights from the other whereas that's clearly not the case for the other 'side', I'd say the two are hardly equatable.
