SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by financeguy

So, let me get this straight.

Black women are the homophobes and bigots in this scenario?

In the universe of the far left, white men are bigots (and regularly described as such on this forum) and black women are the salt of the earth.

I am not happy at the vote, but permit me a wry chuckle at this finding.

care to toss out any more stereotypes of "the far left" you have in your mind?

i've called the black community and especially black churches out on their homophobia, and i've said that this is the primary reason why HIV is epidemic amongst gay black men.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by yolland

Are you thinking of high single motherhood rates basically?

no. first, it's church. second, it's the stereotype that all the "good" black men are either gay, or married to white women. i'm reminded of a mildly racist and homophobic joke that i don't feel comfortable typing here, but if you PM me, i'll tell it to you.

homosexuality is a convenient scapegoat for a host of social issues and problems.

The most disturbing prospect all this calls to mind for me is the gay or lesbian married couple with young children who may now have to explain to them, "Well, honey, me and your other mom/dad were married, but the people in our state held a vote about families like ours, and they decided we're not worthy of that like your friends' parents are."

Hideous.

hideous?

i thought it was just complicated.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by financeguy

In the universe of the far left, white men are bigots (and regularly described as such on this forum) and black women are the salt of the earth.

Just once I would love to see you try and back this up... You say this shit all the time, but I would just love to see you try and once put your "money" where your mouth is...

Maybe if you say it enough, it becomes true.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Just once I would love to see you try and back this up... You say this shit all the time, but I would just love to see you try and once put your "money" where your mouth is...

Maybe if you say it enough, it becomes true.

Are you seriously suggesting you have never seen a post saying or implying white men are probably bigots on this forum?

[martha]

Originally Posted by yolland

The most disturbing prospect all this calls to mind for me is the gay or lesbian married couple with young children who may now have to explain to them, "Well, honey, me and your other mom/dad were married, but the people in our state held a vote about families like ours, and they decided we're not worthy of that like your friends' parents are."

Hideous.

It's horrible. But the optimist in me see these kids as the ones who stand up and say "No more of this crap!" and then start really changing stuff.

[martha]

Originally Posted by financeguy

Are you seriously suggesting you have never seen a post saying or implying white men are probably bigots on this forum?

Quote one.

[toscano]

Originally Posted by financeguy

Are you seriously suggesting you have never seen a post saying or implying white men are probably bigots on this forum?

Specific white men such as polygon, yes. White men in general, no.

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by financeguy

Are you seriously suggesting you have never seen a post saying or implying white men are probably bigots on this forum?

This whole conversation is based around vague generalities.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by toscano

Specific white men such as polygon, yes. White men in general, no.

Exactly. There's a big difference.

[phillyfan26]

Still 52-48 with 99% now reporting.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by financeguy

Are you seriously suggesting you have never seen a post saying or implying white men are probably bigots on this forum?

Yes, I've never seen a post saying or implying that white men are probably bigots. Would you like to show me one? Just one, that's all I ask...

[MrsSpringsteen]

I'm very sorry to hear that it has won

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally Posted by namkcuR

I am 24.

In my lifetime, the legal right of African-Americans to marry has never been questioned.

In my lifetime, the legal right of an African American to marry a Caucasian has never been questioned.

In my lifetime, the legal right for African-Americans to have all of the same civil rights as anyone else has never been questioned.

In my lifetime, the legal right for African-Americans to be able to vote has never been questioned.

In my lifetime, the legal right for women to be able to vote has never been questioned.

At one time or another in our history, all of these things were questioned by people who were fighting the tide of change, fighting to delay the inevitable.

The goal is that the children of my generation, decades from now, when they are in their twenties, will be able to say, 'In my lifetime, the legal right for gay people to marry has never been questioned.'

Very good post. I do think it is one more element of a tide of change, and like I said here earlier today I do think it's inevitable. MA goes on every day, nothing has crumbled and there are just more loving and officially committed couples. People are living their own lives and focusing on their own marriages, which is how I think things should be.

[financeguy]

Martha and BVS, I will help to jog your memory.

Ok, let's see:

originally posted by Angela HarlemIn theory, AEON, the substitution works almost flawlessly. White men did not want to see it or acknowledge it in the 60s. Now white Christian men do not want to see it in the 2000s.

http://www.u2interference.com/forums...173510-18.html

The above post was in the context of a discussion regarding gay soldiers in the military. The post seems to imply that homophobia is particularly a prejudice held by white men and that the development of homophobic attitudes in society is something specifically tied in with the attitudes held by white men (i.e., the implication seems to be that they are more homopobic than other groups).

Originally Posted by anitram
Yeah, because these feminist women of my Mom's age, who fought to break through the glass ceiling, who fought to have full rights and domain over their reproductive systems, are going to vote for a man who is going to stack the SCOTUS with backwards white men that will set back the women's movement about 40 years.

http://www.u2interference.com/forums...ml#post5200938

Post states that if a future conservative President wished to load the Supreme Court with right wing anti-women bigots, he would specifically choose white male judges in order to do so. Clear implication is that poster thinks white male judges are more likely to hold attitudes seen by the left as bigoted or outdated than judges of other ethnic or gender groups (Are there not African-American and Hispanic conservative judges on the supreme court, or did I imagine that?)

And.....the winner.....

originally posted by anitram Ron Paul is going to siphon votes away from Hillary? His constituency of immigration-hating, quasi-libertarian, anti-tax, pro-life, anti-governmental institutions in general, disenfranchised white men are suddenly going to see the light and vote for him when they would have originally voted for "it takes a village" Hillary?

http://www.u2interference.com/forums...ml#post4864597

This post strongly implies that white men are more likely to vote for Ron Paul, and that they are specifically motivated to do so for racist or bigoted reasons rather than rational reasons of politics or policy. Hence, the post implies that white men are more prone to bigotry than other groups.

(BTW I am not singling out Angela Harlem or Anitram, they are not even the worst offenders. The above posts just happen to catch my eye in doing a quick search. )

[BVS]

financeguy,

I'm shaking my head right now because I honestly don't know what to say...

You're not a big fan of context are you? Maybe you should reread those posts.

Anitram's first post is in the context of ultra right wing judges, not all men. She even qualifies it by saying BACKWARDS white men.

Her second post is within the context of Ron Paul supporters, and you are reversing her logic. She is saying if you are a disenfranchised white male you will more than likely be attracted to Ron Paul's platform.

Angela's post is in the context of the army in the 60's, which was lead by mostly white men. Once again not all white men. White men in the military in the 60's...

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Anitram's first post is in the context of ultra right wing judges, not all men. She even qualifies it by saying BACKWARDS white men.

Yes, but my point is why assume that ultra right wing judges are more likely to be white? Isn't one of the most conservative members of the Supreme Court black? (and I have absolutely nothing against Clarence Thomas, I am just using him an example)

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Her second post is within the context of Ron Paul supporters, and you are reversing her logic. She is saying if you are a disenfranchised white male you will more than likely be attracted to Ron Paul's platform.

Er, yeah. That's precisely my point. The assumption seems to be that these disenfranchised white men are attracted to Ron Paul's agenda BECAUSE OF THEIR PERCEPTION THAT HE IS ANTI-IMMIGRATION. Ergo, they are motivated, possibly, by anti-immigration or even borderline racist perceptions and viewpoints.

(Incidentally, I dispute the notion that Ron Paul is in any way even remotely bigoted, but that's off topic.)

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Angela's post is in the context of the army in the 60's, which was lead by mostly white men. Once again not all white men. White men in the military in the 60's...

That is a legitimate point, but there were also (for example) many African-American soliders in the Army even back then. Why assume that it was just the white guys at the top that were causing the prejudice?

Isn't it just as likely, if not more likely, that this particular kind of prejudice (the generals have their own showers, I assume, and don't need to shower with the ranks) will filter upwards from the lower ranks, which at that time in the Army were, let's face it, more likely to contain large proportions of ethnic minorities than the higher ranks?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by financeguy

Yes, but my point is why assume that ultra right wing judges are more likely to be white? Isn't one of the most conservative members of the Supreme Court black? (and I have absolutely nothing against Clarence Thomas, I am just using him an example)

Given the history of the US, how many non-white, non-male conservative judges have we had in the Supreme Court?

Originally Posted by financeguy

Er, yeah. That's precisely my point. The assumption seems to be that these disenfranchised white men are attracted to Ron Paul's agenda BECAUSE OF THEIR PERCEPTION THAT HE IS ANTI-IMMIGRATION. Ergo, they are motivated, possibly, by anti-immigration or even borderline racist perceptions and viewpoints.

I know you disagree that Ron Paul is a racist but at the time there was much discussion about this and it wasn't just because he was anti-immigration. He had endorsements from racist organizations, excerpts in his books, etc... So at the time there was a lot of evidence that his platform attracted these types of males, that was her only point, it wasn't about white men in general.

Originally Posted by financeguy

That is a legitimate point, but there were also (for example) many African-American soliders in the Army even back then. Why assume that it was just the white guys at the top that were causing the prejudice?

Isn't it just as likely, if not more likely, that this particular kind of prejudice (the generals have their own showers, I assume, and don't need to shower with the ranks) will filter upwards from the lower ranks, which at that time in the Army were, let's face it, more likely to contain large proportions of ethnic minorities than the higher ranks?

Because the higher ranks are the ones that make and enforce the rules. If you know anything about military culture is that the lower ranks do not influence the higher ranks.

[BonosSaint]

I'm sorry. I was hoping it would fail.

[Se7en]

this is a sad and, dare i say, shameful day.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by martha

Because I include gay people in it?

Because the issue is far more complicated than you might like it to be. And just because you don't see it as so, doesn't make it not so.

By the way, I'm saddened because I can see both sides of this issue. I know this situation is complicated, and that there are ramifications on both sides. I am glad that the will of the people was upheld on such a difficult issue, and yes, I'm glad to see traditional marriage upheld, as I think it's important for both families and society (and I'm also glad to see democratic principles upheld), but yes, for some this has ramifications, and that brings me no joy.