Yes, we can.

[Strangler Lewis]

As I see it, when we speak of divisiveness, distractions, etc., we are talking about appealing to people's prejudices to trick them into voting against their true self-interest and/or for the common good. We saw a bit of that in the Democratic primary when race and gender appeals were too common.

But . . . unless you want to say that there are no right and wrong positions on particular issues, you can't say that gays, like blacks of the fifties and sixties, use civil rights issues as divisive issues.

It certainly makes no sense to say that blacks were tricked into voting for pro-civil rights politicians when they should have voted the other way (assuming they could vote at at all).

With gays, conceivably an argument could be made that the "rich gays" with all the disposible income should be voting for lower taxing Republicans, not being distracted by gay marriage. This would only make sense if the overwhelming majority of gays didn't care about gay marriage and hadn't thought about it until a few anti-Republican gay activists with a larger agenda started pulling strings. I just don't think that's the case. This is a deeply felt civil rights issue. Thus, being against it is divisive. Being for it is not.

[scaeagles]

I'm curious, an as long as we're on the subject, I'm wondering why it is (I really have no opinion on it myself) that a large portion of the black does not equate their civil rights issues with gay marriage?

[innerSpaceman]

First of all, and ya know, not speaking from the black perspective ... because, oh yeah, there's NONE of that on the LoT btw ... two things:

1) Some blacks are very pissed off that the gays "equate" their civil rights struggle with that of the famed black variety in the 60's ... not realizing we're not equating the dollar value or other "best"ness ... but rather just the type of struggle. Sheesh.

2) A great many blacks are virulently, violently, backwardly homophobic. Those who were oppressed are, without enough ironic sense, imo, hardly immune to feeling prejudice and bigotry and hatred. Pfft, witness Israel.

[Gemini Cricket]

Hmmm.

This picture is going to appear on the 7/21/08 issue of The New Yorker:
(It's safe for work, but I'll spoilerize it because it's big.)

Spoiler:

I don't know what the corresponding story has to say about the Obamas, but this picture is going to cause a stir... It made me stop in my tracks...

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Hmmm.

This picture is going to appear on the 7/21/08 issue of The New Yorker:
(It's safe for work, but I'll spoilerize it because it's big.)

Spoiler:

I don't know what the corresponding story has to say about the Obamas, but this picture is going to cause a stir... It made me stop in my tracks...

Damn. I might have to subscribe to the New Yorker, just so I can cancel it in protest.

[scaeagles]

You see, I often wonder if it is the same type of struggle.....and not being gay....... because, oh yeah, there's NONE of that on the LoT btw ......(hahahaha), economically, educationally, jobwise....I don't see the same type of discrimination. However, I am perfectly willing to admit since I'm not gay I just may not know.

[wendybeth]

I'm not black, but I can only imagine what kind of crap they have to deal with on a daily basis. Just because I don't experience what they do doesn't make what happens any less valid- and anyone who thinks gay people don't face discrimination, hostility and the like are living in a bubble. I don't see many churches looking to hire gay persons, and in quite a few communities across this land they are routinely denied employment, admittance to social groups, etc. It's not easy for an openly gay person to win public office, and do I even need to to mention the military?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

You see, I often wonder if it is the same type of struggle.....and not being gay....... because, oh yeah, there's NONE of that on the LoT btw ......(hahahaha), economically, educationally, jobwise....I don't see the same type of discrimination. However, I am perfectly willing to admit since I'm not gay I just may not know.

I don't really think it makes much sense to try to rank quality of oppression. Oppression is oppression, just because it manifests in different ways doesn't mean they aren't born of the same thing.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I don't really think it makes much sense to try to rank quality of oppression. Oppression is oppression, just because it manifests in different ways doesn't mean they aren't born of the same thing.

I disagree. I think there are certainly levels of oppression which certainly rank worse than others. I do think slavery is worse and more offensive than denying someone a state sanctioned marriage and am not ashamed to say so. I can think of 100s of forms of oppression that would fall in the same category of being worse than that.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I disagree. I think there are certainly levels of oppression which certainly rank worse than others. I do think slavery is worse and more offensive than denying someone a state sanctioned marriage and am not ashamed to say so. I can think of 100s of forms of oppression that would fall in the same category of being worse than that.

However, the ideals that lead to the end of any form of oppression remain the same. And the methods necessary to get our from under it remain the same. And the passion that engenders from those within it is the same. If you truly believe that you are unfairly being denied equal status as a human being, you're not going to take it well when someone says, "Get over it, my plight was way worse." The relative degree of oppression does not make it any less valid, nor does it negate the "worse" case from being a fair analogy.