Found this article, what do you think?

[Inviolable]

There is an 800-pound gorilla in the room and no one is allowed to talk about it.

Can we talk about the space that the gorilla takes up?

 

[Andreusz]

It isn't even close. I don't know of anyone who is asking that homosexuals sit at the back of the bus, or go to different schools or eat in different restaurants.

So you've never been to a public school?

 

[Inviolable]

So you've never been to a public school?

You talking about the staff or students?

If it's the "children" then I would hardly consider that to be prejudice.

 

[Andreusz]

^ Both. And clearly you have never experienced prejudice.

 

[Inviolable]

^ Both. And clearly you have never experienced prejudice.

Well, I have experienced public school and as I recall, from high school working back to elementary. This is how it worked.

High school: People separated themselves by their social standards.

Jr. High: people often seperated each other by their social standards through ridicule.

Elementary school: if you didn't understand it it wasn't hanging out with you.

You'd be surprised what I've experienced. Being the person I was I never picked on anyone. I can tell you that in my highschool there were a few homosexuals and they got picked on as much as geeks or nerds... whatever the term.
So, you'd have to classify the torment the geeks and nerds went through as prejudice to be able to qualify the same treatment upon homosexuals as prejudice.

But you're not being to informative. The staff went about separating homosexuals from everyone else because?
They were simply homosexuals?
Doubtful.

 

[Andreusz]

So, you'd have to classify the torment the geeks and nerds went through as prejudice to be able to qualify the same treatment upon homosexuals as prejudice.

I do.

But you're not being to informative. The staff went about separating homosexuals from everyone else because?
They were simply homosexuals?
Doubtful.

I have had experience of teachers who showed open contempt for children who were, or who were assumed to be, homosexual.

 

[Inviolable]

I do.

How do you classify it as prejudice?

 

[Andreusz]

Well, discriminatory behaviour arising from prejudicial attitudes, if you prefer.

 

[Inviolable]

Well, discriminatory behaviour arising from prejudicial attitudes, if you prefer.

To the point of segregation. That's essentially what you're saying.

 

[Andreusz]

Not necessarily. But ostracism is a form of segregation.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Can we talk about the space that the gorilla takes up?

No. Because we'll be reported as flaming.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Well, discriminatory behaviour arising from prejudicial attitudes, if you prefer.

Andy, WHY are there "prejudicial attitudes" about homosexuality AND homosexuals that has spanned human history?

The 800-pound gorilla is in the room.

 

[Psudopod]

Andy, WHY are there "prejudicial attitudes" about homosexuality AND homosexuals that has spanned human history?

For the same reason there have been prejudicial attitudes about women, mentally and physically disabled, foreigners, and any other “people who are not like us” group you care to mention.

Why, what do you think the reason is?

 

[lawtonfogle]

It's a metaphor that represents what the article is saying.
In contrast the wolf is the corruption of the moral status used to generate equal rights for the African American movement that took place in the 60's.

While the three little pigs represent the morality itself as it is in danger of being devoured by the wolf.

Or something like that.

I'd rather go back to the plane crash in the alps.
So while some homosexuals may or may not eat a frozen corpse, would any of them think about taking some frozen corpse to go while they make their way down the mountain in an effort to find help?

Wait, the original question was about people in general, not homosexuals.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Andy, WHY are there "prejudicial attitudes" about homosexuality AND homosexuals that has spanned human history?

The 800-pound gorilla is in the room.

Because they do something different than the norm. But why do you think it is?

 

[wanderingone]

I found this article while researching the thesis that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue in the same vein as the Civil Righes movement of the 60's. I would be interested in your opinions and thoughts on this article from the largest predominantly African American denomination in the U.S.

http://www.cogic.com/highjacking-the-civil-rights-movement.html

No individual group owns civil rights, nobody can "hijack" them unless they are trying to take them away from others by claiming they own them, so basically the authoris of this statement want to hijack civil rights themselves.

 

[wanderingone]

Please note I'm not saying I agree with the article, but I thought it important to seek out what Christian African Americans have to say about the issue.

Mildred Loving was in favor of equal rights for all. My daughter is in favor of equal rights for all. My husband is in favor of equal rights for all, my son is in favor of equal rights for all. Who says the cogic members are all Christian, and who says they get to decide who has a valid claim to equal rights.

Civil Rights apply to everyone, not only one group of people.

 

[Belk]

I found this article while researching the thesis that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue in the same vein as the Civil Righes movement of the 60's. I would be interested in your opinions and thoughts on this article from the largest predominantly African American denomination in the U.S.

http://www.cogic.com/highjacking-the-civil-rights-movement.html

I found the reasoning to be specious at best, and inflammatory at it's worst.

The Civil Rights Movement was born with the establishment of the United States as a slaveholding republic. This extraordinary history included the kidnapping and brutal transport of Blacks from African shores, and the stripping of their language, identity, and culture in order to subjugate and exploit them. It also included the constitutional enshrining of these evils in the form of a Supreme Court decision—Dred Scott v. Sandford—denying to blacks any rights that whites must respect, and the establishment of Jim Crow and de jure racial discrimination after Dred Scott was overturned by a civil war and three historic constitutional amendments.
It is these basic facts that weaken the efforts of apologist for homosexual marriage to exploit the rhetoric of civil rights to advance the interest of a generally privileged group.

Slavery was really bad, agreed. I don't see how that translates into "So because homosexuals where not as persecuted (which is debatable) the two cases are not on equivalent footing. I can look at the two cases and see the parallels. Are they equal? No. But that does not mean they do not deserve equal rights the same as anyone else.

In fact, the campaign for homosexual marriage is, ironically, an assertion of white skin privilege. Frequently, same-sex couples wanting to “marry” are white lesbians who seek the accoutrements if family life, with kids and proverbial white picket fence, without the benefit of a father for the children.

In what way does the fact that SOME of the people looking for rights being white make this about white privilege?

The claim that the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman constitutes discrimination as based on a false analogy with statutory prohibitions on interracial marriages in many states through much of the 20th century. This alleged analogy collapses when one considers that skin pigmentation us utterly irrelevant to the procreative and unitive functions of marriage.

Homosexuals are still capable of procreation and a persons sexual orientation does nothing to change the "unitive" (is this a word?) function of marriage.

It is especially sad and disturbing that the established leadership of the Civil Rights industry has utterly failed to resist the corruption and cooperation by a predominantly white special interest group of the history of the Civil Rights phase of the Black freedom struggle. This failure highlights the need for a regime change in favor of new leadership and a post-Civil Rights conceptual framework for addressing a more complex racial reality.

Correta Scott King thinks that the case of black civil rights and gay civil rights are on the same footing. Apparently she has been corrupted by a white special interest group. How is this not blatantly racist again?

 

[wanderingone]

In what way does the fact that SOME of the people looking for rights being white make this about white privilege?

Strange isn't it? I guess my daughter who is "biracial" and her desire for equal rights is coming at it not as a young lesbian woman of color, but from a point of "white privilege"

 

[keith99]

"No parallels between movements for rights is exact. African-Americans are the only Americans who were enslaved for more than two centuries, and people of color carry the badge of who we are on our faces. But we are far from the only people suffering discrimination -- sadly, so do many others. They deserve the law's protection and they deserve civil rights too. Sexual disposition parallels race -- I was born black and I had no choice. I couldn't and wouldn't change if I could. Like race, our sexuality isn't a preference -- it is immutable, unchangeable, and the Constitution protects us against prejudices based on immutable differences"
-Julian Bond - Chair of the NAACP


It seems that the leaders of the civil rights movement don’t’ support the premise of the essay you linked us to – and they don’t support your desire to use them to justify your own prejudices either

Bolding mine.

What I bolded got me thinking. Other goups have been enslaved. The 200 years part may not be the greatest part of what caused the damage. That may well go to systematic destruction of Black family groups during that time.

A bit ironic in that the gays seem to have suffered that part for a still longer time and are to this day. People are still trying to destroy/prevent gay family groups.