Gay Rights Movement and the Civil Rights Movement

As much as some want it to be, Homophobia isn't the bastard cousin of racism and it's incredibly shallow to compare the two. Yeah bigotry is bigotry and all that jazz, but the circumstances, history and consequences couldn't be any more different. Oh sure, there are plenty of people who don't like gays. Plenty of people who spout ignorance and hate at them, but by and large, their aversion to "queers" isn't legally backed up. So don't act like gays are now in the same boat that people of color were in before, oh, 1970. No one can deny that social attitudes towards gays have been atrocious, and still sometimes are. However, legally, gays have never faced the same extreme aversion black people once did (and still do, even if covertly.) At least not in the US. Besides marriage, the few instances that have existed like being denied to serve in the military could have (and has been) easily be slid up under by John Gay simply shutting up about it. Not saying it's right, but at least he had the option to play cloak and dagger. Could John Black do the same thing? One guy might have been fired for it being discovered that he was gay, but the other guys application immediately went into the discard file when the bigoted manager saw that he was black.

Gays face social repression. Blacks face social oppression. Two very different things. Just because two people both know what it's liked to be kicked doesn't mean that they somehow relate to each other. Today a rich gay white man will be more likely to be let into the exclusive country club in the Hamptons than a rich black man.

Nhaiyel wrote:The short version is...

- They're not the same
- They're both equally important
- Neither one is finished
- It's neither one's fault that the other hasn't achieved it.

As for comparisons, I think the plight for Gay Equality actually has more in common with the Women's Rights Movement of the early 1900s than the Civil Rights Movement of the '50 and '60s.

Very well said.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:What makes them radically different is that they are not the same. They don't share any true similarities and thus they are different. Not seeing similarities doesn't make somebody a bigot, it makes them the owner of a different viewpoint.

They are/were both minority groups that are/were discriminated against and pursecuted by the majority through laws and latent bigotry, both groups have fought at some point to change the definition of marriage, both groups have fought for equal rights within the military and both groups eventually formed a coalition of similarly oppressed people (NAACP/GLAAD) in which to express grievences and to serve as a platform to instigate positive changes. I see many similarities that you are apparently either blind to or intentionally chose to ignore. Your opinion that there are no similarities is "noted" but until you can actually justify that with something of substance (other than reiterating that it is your opinion), you'll forgive us if we call you a bigot! Because that is the only motivation you could possibly have for saying something so ridiculous, especially if you aren't going to back it up with anything.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:(As for being left-wing being bad, people here have lamented the right-wing just as hard.)

That wasn't my question. My question is why should the "left-wing" who according to you supports special interest groups that further civil rights be considered BAD?

Forgiveness_Man wrote:Um no, that is not what bigotry is and suggesting that sharing a different viewpoint on gay rights is bigotry is a bigoted idea in it of itself.

You basically just said that calling someone a bigot is bigotry! Ridiculous. If you are prejudice against gays, then like it or not you are in fact a bigot! No matter which way you want to spin it so that it doesn't sound like bigotry, at the end of the day that's what it is, sorry. And the more I read your comments, the more I'm convinced that's exactly what you are because you are doing nothing to help your cause. The KKK also has a "different viewpoint" concerning black people. Is called a racist viewpoint, just like yours (different as it may be) is a homophobic viewpoint!

Forgiveness_Man wrote:So much for tolerance...tolerating YOU but if anybody disagrees with you(on this issue at least), call them a bigot.

You know what, spinning this into a me vs you argument is pretty lame. If your argument had anything of substance behind it, you'd be able to back it up. I just asked you to do that, simple enough. And yes, until you justify your comment that is clearly bigoted in nature, that's exactly what me (and indeed everyone else on here) is going to think about you. You did it to yourself! So either grow some balls and back up your position by proving to us that your position (saying homosexuals shouldn't kiss in public but heterosexuals can) isn't an example of blatent homophobia! Simply saying that it's a "different viewpoint" doesn't cut it!

Forgiveness_Man wrote:Nobody in the movement is pointing out truth; they are just pointing fingers.

And which truth would that be (according to you). Because I've just mentioned several truths concerning gays as it relates to civil rights and you claimed to not see those truths. You think that gays are not discriminated against? You think that gays enjoy equal rights? What do YOU consider the TRUTH in this matter?

Forgiveness_Man wrote:It only makes me come off as a bigot if you are of the belief that I have to share your views in order to be considered not a bigot, as if your views are somehow the one and only anti-bigotry.

No, what makes you come off as a bigot is when you suggest that homosexuals should not have the same rights as heterosexuals while simultaneously criticizing gay rights activists. THAT is what makes you come off as a bigot. Whether you share my viewpoint or not is completely irrelevant!

Forgiveness_Man wrote:And excuse me but what's to explain about the statement? Saying that you have to see gay rights and civil rights in the same light or you are a bigot, THAT to me comes off as the bigoted statement since you are invalidating a viewpoint simply because you don't like it.

You are still confused. It's not about what I like or what I don't like. It's about your ability to justify your statement. You said that gay rights is very different from the civil rights movement. I'm asking you HOW exactly? It's a simple question that for some reason you can't (or don't want to) answer. And your inability to back up your position makes you come off as homophobic! What part about that do you not understand?

Forgiveness_Man wrote:There's nothing TO explain about the statement. Some people just do not see gay rights movements and civil rights movements in the same light. Labeling them bigots because of them just makes you a hypocrite for preaching tolerance but practicing it only selectively.

Well, guess what, you are wrong! And until you can justify such a position, you ARE a bigot and I'm sure I'm not the only one who's going to see it that way. I am flat out calling you a homophobic bigot. You don't have to agree with me but unless you grow a spine and prove to me otherwise by justifying your comments, regardless of what anyone else on here thinks of me, YOU are going to walk away from this argument looking like a homophobic bigot. I therefore leave the ball in your court!

I hate broken up quotes, too timely to respond to so I'll read the last one and hope it sums it up well enough for my response.

"You are wrong!" What are you in 4th grade? I honestly don't care if you get others to agree with you; it doesn't make it correct. Go ahead, slap labels on me for not sharing your views. That makes you the bigot, not me. I'm not the only one here who has seen differences between the two, guess I ain't the only bigot here then.

Bigot - n - a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

Not seeing two movements as equal does NOT make me intolerant of any ideas other than my own. But, you saying that I am a bigot because of that makes YOU more in line with the definition than that. Words have meanings; they aren't characters you define. So you know what? Grow up. I'm no bigot, and most people see that unless they want to see otherwise. I don't hate on anybody, and I am not the one here intolerant of anybody else's ideas. I suggest you look in the mirror before you start casting stones.

And I honestly don't care what people label me anymore. You're the one casting stones and making labels, not me. Yet I'm the bigot because I disagree with your views on a comparison? You're just seeing what you want to see. There's really nothing more to say to you on the issue.

JM130ELM wrote:As much as some want it to be, Homophobia isn't the bastard cousin of racism and it's incredibly shallow to compare the two. Yeah bigotry is bigotry and all that jazz, but the circumstances, history and consequences couldn't be any more different.

Nobody is saying that they are identical, only that there are similarities. Do you deny this?

JM130ELM wrote:Oh sure, there are plenty of people who don't like gays. Plenty of people who spout ignorance and hate at them, but by and large, their aversion to "queers" isn't legally backed up.

It's ILLEGAL for gays to get married in most states. It's ILLEGAL for gays to serve openly in the military.

JM130ELM wrote:So don't act like gays are now in the same boat that people of color were in before, oh, 1970.

Nobody has said that.

JM130ELM wrote:Besides marriage, the few instances that have existed like being denied to serve in the military could have (and has been) easily be slid up under by John Gay simply shutting up about it.

With all due respect, are you fucking kidding me? Are you really going to use this as part of your argument?

JM130ELM wrote:Not saying it's right, but at least he had the option to play cloak and dagger. Could John Black do the same thing? One guy might have been fired for it being discovered that he was gay, but the other guys application immediately went into the discard file when the bigoted manager saw that he was black.

I think you're missing the point. Your argument is more a question of "degree" not similarity.

JM130ELM wrote:Gays face social repression. Blacks face social oppression. Two very different things.

Actually it's not. In reality a matter of semantics and clever word play! The fact is, I'm black AND gay and I have faced more discrimination for being gay than for being black. Now this is my own personal experience so I can't speak for everyone else. What I do know is that it is much easier to get away with open discrimination towards gays because it is so commonly accepted. You can call someone a faggot in school or in the military and it's no big deal, but if you use the "N" word, the perpetrator is swiftly dealt with! It's a double standard that allows homophobia to prevail where racism no longer can. Again, nobody is saying that the gay rights movement is equal to the civil rights movement, but there are similarities in that both center around minority groups who are persecuted (legally and otherwise).

JM130ELM wrote:Just because two people both know what it's liked to be kicked doesn't mean that they somehow relate to each other.

And just because one person is kicked in the shin and the other is kicked in the balls doesn't mean they don't either.

JM130ELM wrote:Today a rich gay white man will be more likely to be let into the exclusive country club in the Hamptons than a rich black man.

Only provided that this rich, white, gay man remains in the closet. He has that option while the black man doesn't, just like Jews have that option. But saying that there are no similarities between the two movements is rather shortsighted.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:I hate broken up quotes, too timely to respond to so I'll read the last one and hope it sums it up well enough for my response.

Well, unfortunately that's where you are going to fail because I addressed everything you did individually. If you want to hide behind text and pick and choose your way out of this debate, by all means do so. But until you can answer actually give a response that justifies your positions, I'll rest my case here!

JM130ELM wrote:Not seeing two movements as equal because I do not see equal similarities in the struggle does NOT make me intolerant of any ideas other than my own.

Well, now you just changed your argument. First you say "I think the two are so radically different it's laughable to even compare them" and "What makes them radically different is that they are not the same. They don't share any true similarities and thus they are different." NOW you are saying that you don't see the two movements as equal (which is basically what EVERYONE ELSE on here has said). If you had said that from the beginning then we wouldn't be having the argument, but that's not what you said. There is a big difference from saying that something is not equal to saying that they are so radically different that they can't be compared (especially when you can't back that statement up with anything of substance).

JM130ELM wrote:But, you saying that I am a bigot because of that makes YOU more in line with the definition than that.

Yeah, but the fallacy in your logic is that I didn't say that "because of that". I said it because what you ACTUALLY SAID (the first time) came off as bigoted (particularly with your holding hands and kissing comparrison).

JM130ELM wrote:I'm not a bigot, and most people see that unless they want to see otherwise.

Hey, whatever you need to tell yourself to feel good is fine by me. I really don't care if you are or aren't. All I'm saying is that IF you in fact think that gays don't deserve the same rights as straights, you ARE a bigot (and that's according to your own definition). Again, you've done NOTHING to convince anyone otherwise.

JM130ELM wrote:And I honestly don't care what you say about me anymore. You're the one casting stones and making labels, not me.

Nope, you did it to yourself. If you really wanted to convince someone all you had to do was justify your comment. You failed and you also failed to even remotely hint that gays should have equal rights (which I gave you many oppertunities to do). So until then, I think what I think and if you really "don't care", then there is no skin of my sack! Later...

I think gays should have equal rights. I just have different ideas on what is and is not a right. I didn't do anything to myself. I don't care to convince you. You are believing what you want to based on your own prejudices. I don't care if you belueve your lies about me or not. I meet no real definition of a bigot.

I do not see big similarities between the two because I do not consider sexuality and race to be synonymous. If you disagree, I don't care. I can tolerate it. If you wanna label me, that's your business. Now I'm returning to discussing with those who don't base their entire case on namecalling.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:I think gays should have equal rights. I just have different ideas on what is and is not a right.

Do you think that marrying another consenting adult of your choice is a right that gays should have? Do you think that serving in the military without lying or hiding who you are is a right that gays should have?

Forgiveness_Man wrote:I don't care to convince you.

Evidently not.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:You are believing what you want to based on your own prejudices.

I have no prejudices towards you. I simply hold that if you have prejudices towards gays, you are a bigot. It's not bigotted for me to point that out.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:I meet no real definition of a bigot.

That remains to be seen!

Forgiveness_Man wrote:I do not see big similarities between the two because I do not consider sexuality and race to be synonymous.

No shit Sherlock! Nobody has suggested that they ARE synonymous. Catholic and Anglican aren't synonymous either but they do have similarities. Two things don't have to be synonymous in order to have similarities worthy of comparrison!

Forgiveness_Man wrote:Now I'm returning to discussing with those who don't base their entire case on namecalling.

COPOUT! But when/if you find those people on this thread, I'd be quite amused to see the end result of that.

captainbryce wrote:Nobody is saying that they are identical, only that there are similarities. Do you deny this?

There are blanket "similarities" between the social struggles of all minority (blacks, gays, women, handicap, immigrant, etc.) groups. So what is it about the civil rights movement that black community endured fifty years ago that is so attractive to gay people that makes so many want to foist a lazy parallel to it? My guess is it is because the Black civil rights movement was so significant and historical that it's both easy and gluttonous to parallel the two for personal gain.

captainbryce wrote:It's ILLEGAL for gays to get married in most states. It's ILLEGAL for gays to serve openly in the military.

...and what else?

Is it ILLEGAL for gays to live in certain areas?
Is it ILLEGAL for gays to drink out of heterosexual water fountains?
Is it ILLEGAL for gays to vote?
Is it ILLEGAL for gay kids to go to school with straight kids?

Has it ever been ILLEGAL for gays to do any of these things?

Marriage rights and military acceptance are arguably the last two legal hurdles the gay community has in the U.S., and both will likely be nationally permitted within the next ten years. So my position stands. The gay rights movement is, and always has been, more about enlightening social attitudes so that people who are gay won't be as communally isolated. The civil rights movement concerning people of color that began just prior to Lincoln freeing the slaves to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. was about enlightening social attitudes...and...overcoming tyranny, martial law and sectarian torment. Basically it was about survival. Gays were considered sick, Blacks were considered less than human. Are we really comparing the two?

captainbryce wrote:Nobody has said that.

People say it when they arbitrarily remark "This is just like in the '50s, when Blacks had to sit at the back of the bus" in regards to the problem others have about tolerating the presence of gays.

captainbryce wrote:With all due respect, are you fucking kidding me? Are you really going to use this as part of your argument?

Yes, I am going to use it. And it's valid. Right or wrong, gays have the option of camouflaging in ways that can completely avert the minority status that their sexual orientation puts them in. By comparison, few black people can play Imitation of Life.

captainbryce wrote:I think you're missing the point. Your argument is more a question of "degree" not similarity.

It all falls in line. If the two struggles were as similar as you seem to think, then the "degree" would be be closer. As I mentioned, a gay white man can circumvent immediate bigotry a lot easier than a black man.

captainbryce wrote:Actually it's not. In reality a matter of semantics and clever word play!

Actually it is. Repression and Oppression are two different things, and generally result in two different outcomes. It isn't semantics or wordplay.

captainbryce wrote:The fact is, I'm black AND gay and I have faced more discrimination for being gay than for being black. Now this is my own personal experience so I can't speak for everyone else. What I do know is that it is much easier to get away with open discrimination towards gays because it is so commonly accepted. You can call someone a faggot in school or in the military and it's no big deal, but if you use the "N" word, the perpetrator is swiftly dealt with! It's a double standard that allows homophobia to prevail where racism no longer can. Again, nobody is saying that the gay rights movement is equal to the civil rights movement, but there are similarities in that both center around minority groups who are persecuted (legally and otherwise).

Let's not pretend that there is some kind of huge disconnect in this regard. From a legal standpoint, the same actions that can be taken against someone in a position of power (an employer, merchant, teacher, etc.) for hurling a racial slur can be taken against them for using a gay slur. On the other hand, a racist walking down the street is just as free to call a black person a nigger as a homophobe could a gay person a faggot. Society as a whole may shun the former more than the latter, but both extremes generally have the same legal push and pull.

captainbryce wrote:And just because one person is kicked in the shin and the other is kicked in the balls doesn't mean they don't either.

Being kicked in the balls and being kicked in the shin are two different experiences, so I'd disagree with that.

captainbryce wrote:Only provided that this rich, white, gay man remains in the closet. He has that option while the black man doesn't, just like Jews have that option. But saying that there are no similarities between the two movements is rather shortsighted.

I didn't say that there were no similarities. I said that the blanket similarities are too vague and weren't compelling enough to create a significant parallel, and that the gay community needs to stop trying to hitchhike to Utopia on the back of the black Civil Rights Movement. Meanwhile, I'd sooner bet on an exclusive country club letting in out homosexual (and jewish) billionaire David Geffen with less trepidation than they would billionaire Bob Johnson.

captainbryce wrote:Well, now you just changed your argument. First you say "I think the two are so radically different it's laughable to even compare them" and "What makes them radically different is that they are not the same. They don't share any true similarities and thus they are different." NOW you are saying that you don't see the two movements as equal (which is basically what EVERYONE ELSE on here has said). If you had said that from the beginning then we wouldn't be having the argument, but that's not what you said. There is a big difference from saying that something is not equal to saying that they are so radically different that they can't be compared (especially when you can't back that statement up with anything of substance).

I didn't change any of my arguments. You put my name on Forgiveness_Man quotes.

JM130ELM wrote:There are blanket "similarities" between the social struggles of all minority (blacks, gays, women, handicap, immigrant, etc.) groups.

That's the point that I am making.

JM130ELM wrote:So what is it about the civil rights movement that black community endured fifty years ago that is so attractive to gay people that makes so many want to foist a lazy parallel to it? My guess is it is because the Black civil rights movement was so significant and historical that it's both easy and gluttonous to parallel the two for personal gain.

I agree with you about the significance of the civil rights movement making it an easy target for comparrison. I don't however see where you are going with this personal gain. It's a simple comparrison that you can either agree with or disagree with.

JM130ELM wrote:...and what else?

Is it ILLEGAL for gays to live in certain areas?
Is it ILLEGAL for gays to drink out of heterosexual water fountains?
Is it ILLEGAL for gays to vote?
Is it ILLEGAL for gay kids to go to school with straight kids?

Has it ever been ILLEGAL for gays to do any of these things?

No. But again, that's besides the point. You keep making this a quantity issue. It's not! The fact is, no other minority group today is discriminated against legally in this sense. It is not unreasonable to make comparison to another minority group that was discriminated against legally in the past. I'm not arguing that gays have faced EQUAL legal discrimination as blacks did in the 50's so why do you keep bringing this up?

JM130ELM wrote:Marriage rights and military acceptance are arguably the last two legal hurdles the gay community has in the U.S., and both will likely be nationally permitted within the next ten years.

Only time will tell. Regardless, they are two legal hurdles that remain and until they are a thing of the past, the civil rights movement is the only thing that it could be compared to. Why does this bother you so much?

JM130ELM wrote:So my position stands. The gay rights movement is, and always has been, more about enlightening social attitudes so that people who are gay won't be as communally isolated. The civil rights movement concerning people of color that began just prior to Lincoln freeing the slaves to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. was about enlightening social attitudes...and...overcoming tyranny, martial law and sectarian torment. Basically it was about survival. Gays were considered sick, Blacks were considered less than human. Are we really comparing the two?

I'm not disagreeing with you on any of this. As I said, the comparison is valid being that these were the two most recent minority groups that were discriminated against legally.

JM130ELM wrote:
People say it when they arbitrarily remark "This is just like in the '50s, when Blacks had to sit at the back of the bus" in regards to the problem others have about tolerating the presence of gays.

Well nobody has said that HERE, so why do you keep harping on this. Everyone here so far is in agreement that blacks faced more hurdles during the civil rights movement than gays today. Frankly I don't understand what your argument is.

JM130ELM wrote:
Yes, I am going to use it. And it's valid. Right or wrong, gays have the option of camouflaging in ways that can completely avert the minority status that their sexual orientation puts them in. By comparison, few black people can play Imitation of Life.

Just because gays have the option of being in the closet doesn't detract from the fact that they face more discrimination than any other minority group today. Jews usually have the option of being "in the closet" about their religion as well, yet they were slaughtered during the holocaust. Why don't they exercise that option now? Because they shouldn't have to (and neither should gays).

JM130ELM wrote:
It all falls in line. If the two struggles were as similar as you seem to think, then the "degree" would be be closer. As I mentioned, a gay white man can circumvent immediate bigotry a lot easier than a black man.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this point.

JM130ELM wrote:From a legal standpoint, the same actions that can be taken against someone in a position of power (an employer, merchant, teacher, etc.) for hurling a racial slur can be taken against them for using a gay slur.

Sorry but that is simply NOT the case. If a student hurls a gay slur at a fellow student, in 99% of the cases there is no disciplinary actions at all. If that same student threw out the "N" word and it got out he would A) get his ass kicked by all the black students and B) been subjected to suspension for racial slurs. Homophobia is not dealt with as harshly as racism in this day and age and that is the simple truth. Furthermore, as I've already indicated, there are very few avenues for a gay military member to take when confronted with blatent homophobia. In this, I speak from personal experience. I assure you, nobody would DARE use the "N" word in my presense, but people have no hesitation at all about using "faggot" or "queer" whenever they see fit. Why? Because they can and nobody is going to give a shit! If I complained about such behavior, I have not only alienated co-workers and lowered morale, but I have also potentially outed myself as well.

JM130ELM wrote:On the other hand, a racist walking down the street is just as free to call a black person a nigger as a homophobe could a gay person a faggot. Society as a whole may shun the former more than the latter, but both extremes generally have the same legal push and pull.

Down the street is down the street. I've given some other practical examples where the end results are vastly different!

JM130ELM wrote:
Being kicked in the balls and being kicked in the shin are two different experiences, so I'd disagree with that.

Again, we'll agree to disagree! I believe it is simply a matter of degree that represents the difference. Otherwise, they are comparable.

JM130ELM wrote:I didn't say that there were no similarities.

And I didn't say they were identical. But others on here HAVE suggested there were no similarities, so I'll simply direct this response to them instead.

JM130ELM wrote:I said that the blanket similarities are too vague and weren't compelling enough to create a significant parallel,

That's your opinion, which you are entitled to. I respectfully disagree. And as someone who is both black AND gay, I honestly feel that I'm a little more qualified to be the judge of that than you are.

JM130ELM wrote:and that the gay community needs to stop trying to hitchhike to Utopia on the back of the black Civil Rights Movement.

Why? And what makes you think its any kind of Utopia?

Funny seeing Ann Culter on the side of black people.

femme fatale wrote:

Funny seeing Ann Culter on the side of black people.

Ann Culter is ignorant and delusional (and that's if SHE even believes what she is saying, which I'm not certain of). And even though I don't know her personally and have only this clip to judge her, I feel pretty confident in assuming that she's probably also a bitch too!