Jay-Z, Gay Marriage: Obama's New Stance Is 'The Right Thing To Do' (VIDEO)

[deuce king]

Originally Posted by lobotomybeats

Deuce King wrote:

 stop comparing suffering and human rights. each case is different

100% Truth.

No one is saying they are exactly the same.  There are parallels. You can't deny that. 



What parallels would that be...................discrimination maybe by chance??
  

 

[vatech733]

Originally Posted by untouchable jc

it was more or less accepted or ar least not frowned upon in Ancient Greece and Rome

what about homosexuals being used a fuel source to burn witches in the 1500 and 1600s?

skip to 4:25....

if video won't load here's the link  

 

[lobotomybeats]

You win

 

[yg716]

^^^^^^^

Yet you call me ignorant and stupid...


No matter how flawed your arguments were, I respected your opinions and thoughts on the subject  until this. Now I just feel ashamed to have tried to have a serious thoughtful conversation with you. What a waste.


Check your blood pressure. You might have a severe case of hypertension with all that saltyness

 

[culturecarnage]

Originally Posted by YG716

Originally Posted by culturecarnage

Originally Posted by YG716

You are absolutely right. However you left out the fact that entails equality. Surely your point is made on the fact that "All men are created equal" therefore protect their rights of minorities as they are equal men as well. (I'll leave out the part about god to help your argument)  but how can you call it equal? They are two different things. No matter how much a gay couple love each other, it could be 100x more than any heterosexual couple, they just cannot do for society what a heterosexual couple can. Why do they deserve the same benefits? Thats like saying the manager of a company is suppose to be paid the same as regular employees cause they are a person just like you. They are a person just like you BUT you don't have the experience or degree or required skills for that position like that person does. When you do then you will be equal and deserve to be a manager too whether you are a minority or not. Same thing. When gay people can make productive memebers of society  like heterosexual couples they can get the same rights.

Lastly your point about emotion driven arguments in the court of law is ridiculous. You think people proving ANY type of case on an emotional point? Emotions/moral reason etc cant prove anything its takes evidence and facts to back up your emotional point. Stop watching tv


And to finally put to rest the Civil Rights comparisons this is the fundamental difference between the two. Black people want to know why they dont have the same rights when they no different from eveybody else. They were capable of doing everything whites could in all aspects but were being denied the same rights. I can have a degree the required skills and everything but you wont give me a job because Im black?? Gay couples cannot do the same as heterosexual couples. No discrimination no injustice here. I rest my case.

are you serious? i dont watch television outside of mad men, true story and you still havent made a case. all you have said is that gay people arent equal which is just  parroting the bigoted remarks you said before.
btw brown v. board of education was won by playing on the emotions of the supreme court using flawed but moving social science to say segregation "created a feeling of inferiority"

but please go ahead...

Thats all you have to say? Its bigoted remarks you say but wont explain how?

I dont know about brown vs board of education but i do know that to suggest a case was won off creating  inferior feelings its suggesting that it was equal and not being treated as such. So you prove my point for me.


btw Mad Men            

                 

you missed the entire part about how it was flawed u thought you might take it upon yourself to do soem research but its pretty clear you dont want to actually know things, so i'll explain it. dr. kenneth clark did the same experiments in harlem in integrated schools and yielded the same results. so the feeling of inferiority wasn't caused uniquely by segregation which was what the case was about and they were arguing for. no idea how you think i proved your point. you live in some kind of alternate universe.

 

[mints]

http://www.metroweekly.co...e-equality-says-pos.html

The NAACP Constitution affirmatively states our objective to ensure the "political, education, social and economic equality" of all people. Therefore, the NAACP has opposed and will continue to oppose any national, state, local policy or legislative initiative that seeks to codify discrimination or hatred into the law or to remove the Constitutional rights of LGBT citizens. We support marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Further, we strongly affirm the religious freedoms of all people as protected by the First Amendment.

 

[allreds]

rofl at the beanz gif

 

[kix4kix]

Lol at people even thinking about putting the two struggles in the same category. See "certain people" can only see life one way, see the gay marriege issue is a totally separate entity from the movements of the 60s.

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by culturecarnage

Originally Posted by YG716

Originally Posted by culturecarnage

are you serious? i dont watch television outside of mad men, true story and you still havent made a case. all you have said is that gay people arent equal which is just  parroting the bigoted remarks you said before.
btw brown v. board of education was won by playing on the emotions of the supreme court using flawed but moving social science to say segregation "created a feeling of inferiority"

but please go ahead...

Thats all you have to say? Its bigoted remarks you say but wont explain how?

I dont know about brown vs board of education but i do know that to suggest a case was won off creating  inferior feelings its suggesting that it was equal and not being treated as such. So you prove my point for me.


btw Mad Men            

                 

you missed the entire part about how it was flawed u thought you might take it upon yourself to do soem research but its pretty clear you dont want to actually know things, so i'll explain it. dr. kenneth clark did the same experiments in harlem in integrated schools and yielded the same results. so the feeling of inferiority wasn't caused uniquely by segregation which was what the case was about and they were arguing for. no idea how you think i proved your point. you live in some kind of alternate universe.

the movement was well orchestrated and targeted the schools for that very reason (emotional), but that is beside the point. The truth is that by the time the kids were old enough to go to school, they had already received millions of social cues pointing to their "inferiority" . Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the same cultural antipathy towards gays . Personally I'm all for the states to decide.

 

[Methodical Management]

You guys can talk about "preferences" and comparisons all day long.  It's just a waste of effort, honestly.

The anti-gay crowd wants to paint LGBT discrimination as a matter of preference - that, for some reason, it's okay to discriminate against same sex couples because they "choose" to engage in same sex relationships. Setting aside, for the moment, the assumption of sexuality as a "preference," as though millions of people around the world are "opting in" to discrimination, hatred, and violence, since when is this a valid reason to discriminate in the first place?

Religion is a "preference," is it not? You're not allowed to pass laws preventing Jewish couples from getting married. Though it's essentially only been legal since 1967, interracial marriages are a matter of "preference."

So, that whole line of defense is an utter waste of everyone's time.

The same is true of the so-called "slippery slope" argument. By that reasoning, no marriage should be legal because heterosexual marriage inevitably opens the door for men to marry sheep/androids/cousins/elm trees... whatever.

It's just petty. Really, that's all it is. Gay marriage bans won't prevent LGBT couples from living together or raising children. It's not going to prevent them from loving each other or even, if you can set aside the third-grade revulsion for a moment, being affectionate. It's just using the denial of marital rights like visitation, joint tax filing, joint parenting, domestic violence protection, inheritance, etc. as a means of sneering at the legitimacy of LGBT relationships. And that's where all of the "pragmatic" rhetoric falls apart. Marital benefits are significant, but not so significant that their denial is going to prevent couples from adoption or cohabitation. Denying marriage rights isn't going to cause anyone to say, "well, the party's over. I guess I'd better be straight." It's just hurting people out of spite.

It doesn't act as a "deterrent" to save our dangerously overpopulated planet from the scourge of same-sex couples. It's not going to "preserve" the sanctity of heterosexual marriage from ever-escalating divorce rates.

Banning gay marriage is an expression of contempt. Nothing more.

Dress it up all you like, it still has all the intellectual rigor of an 7 year old child going, "eeeew."

you missed the entire part about how it was flawed u thought you might take it upon yourself to do soem research but its pretty clear you dont want to actually know things, so i'll explain it. dr. kenneth clark did the same experiments in harlem in integrated schools and yielded the same results. so the feeling of inferiority wasn't caused uniquely by segregation which was what the case was about and they were arguing for.

It's been awhile since I read Clark's original study, but I believe his tests were conducted in two Massachusetts cities, five cities in Arkansas, and Philadelphia. In 2005,a replica of the study was attempted by Kiri Davis, then a film student: http://www.finalcall.com/artman/pub...ew_doll_test_produces_ugly_results_2919.shtml
I think your original point related to Clark's findings inMassachusetts, where students in "non-segregated" schools were actually more likely than students in the segregated Arkansas schools to prefer the White dolls.

If that's the "flaw" you're alluding to, I think it's important to bear in mind that 1) as you know, a good study should always seek to shed light on a question - not manufacture a desired result and 2) the Massachusetts findings were not at all incongruous with Clark's argument.

Many historical treatments of the Brown case tend to gloss over Clark's research and accept, almost on blind faith, its critics' assessment of the study as "emotional" and "flawed," which, in my mind, really does a disservice to Kenneth Clark as a scholar. His research wasn't drummed up, as so many contemporary studies are, just to engineer data for an interest group. Its results didn't fit "neatly" or conveniently with the idea that integrated schools would instantly rectify racism. That was never the point. Of course, if you were a segregationist eager to discount Clark's work, you'd seize on that to try and demonstrate that integration, in and of itself, was unnecessary - that it, in its limited implementation - failed to do what its proponents claimed it was "supposed" to do. You and I both know that's not fair.

Gordon Allport's "contact theory," which is presented in The Nature of Prejudice, suggests that, "prejudice (unless deeply rooted in the character structure of the individual) may be reduced by equal status contact between majority and minority groups in the pursuit of common goals. The effect is greatly enhanced if this contact is sanctioned by institutional supports (i.e., by law, custom or local atmosphere), and provided it is of a sort that leads to the perception of common interests and common humanity between members of the two groups.â€

Simply that these schools were not segregated does not mean that they were not hierarchical. According to contact theory, beneficial interracial contact occurs between equals and enjoys official sanction. Hierarchical interaction reinforces, rather than challenges, White hegemony and racist stereotype. It is entirely reasonable, then, that children of color who encounter Whites within a school environment wherein Whites are favored by teachers, presumed smarter, more able, and more desirable as pupils and as people, would associate white dolls with positive traits, for this is what such schools teach them. What's more, schools don't exist inside of avacuum. An integrated school isn't a magic bubble within which all the White children (and faculty) ignore that society has deemed them "superior" and their Black peers "inferior."

It's not a coincidence that straight people who have LGBT friends, colleagues, neighbors, etc. tend to have a more favorable view of same sex marriage and LGBT rights in general. I don't see many people arguing the inverse: that it's somehow good for LGBT citizens to have straight friends. That's the kind of backwards logic that's been applied to racially integrated schools over the years - that students of color somehow need to study alongside White kids in order to get a good education. The benefits are social: that "equal status contact" better enables us, as a society, to work and live together.

Other critics have seized upon the seeming irregularities in Clark’s findings: that young children could identify the dolls’ races but not their own and that, as children aged, their preference, as a whole, for the white doll lessened. To reconcile this, one need only account for self-image. The younger the children, the more likely they were to prefer the white doll. Thus, to maintain a positive self-image, it is no wonder that these children thought the white doll, to which they attached positive attributes, more closely resembled them. As children age, their conception of race becomes more distinct and its presence in their lives is irrefutable. Respondents could not help, at this stage, but to correctly identify both their own race and the racial category associated with each doll. To maintain a positive self image, then, it seems perfectly logical that some children may demonstrate an increased preference for the brown dolls. Plus, as children age they may have begun to associate negative experiences and characteristics with Whites in a racist society and positive experiences with friends, family members, fellow community members the same race as they, all of which might lead to an increased preference among children of color for the brown dolls.

That this particular study didn't portray interracial schools as some sort of panacea is to its credit. At its core, I don't believe that Clark set out to prove that non-segregatedschools in the 1940's were a safe haven from the psychological effects of racism.

Rather, Clark was arguing that the very existence of segregated schools undermined the status of Black children nationwide - in the minds of both Black AND White Americans:

"A segregated school gives children an indelible impression of the inferiority of a whole group of people – an impression that cannot be neutralized by any amount of classroom indoctrination in the ideals of democracy; nor by the most effective intergroup-relations programs and assemblies; nor by the best teacher-training methods in human relations; nor by the most sensitive and objective textbooks that present the contributions of different races to the growth of American civilization. Democratic ideals taught only through words are abstract; segregated schools are concrete. Children are less likely to learn from abstract teachings than from the concrete realities of their daily experience.




Segregated schools are symbols of discrimination and a mockery of our democratic ideals. The schools set aside for Negroes are almost always inferior both physically and esthetically. The educational standards in these schools are almost always inferior. Both white and Negro children soon learn that the white school is considered superior, and that the Negro children are sent to separate schools because the society in general considers them unworthy of association with other children. Even if the Negro schools were made equal or superior to the white schools, they would remain concrete monuments to the stigma of the alleged inferiority of the Negro; they would in fact be gilded educational ghettos, reflecting undemocratic and unscientific attitudes that are incompatible with the goals of education.




Segregated schools perpetuate feelings of inferiority in Negro children and unrealistic feelings of superiority in white children. They debase and distort human beings. They impair the ability of children to profit from democratic education. Indeed, they make it practically impossible to educate children in the ideals of democracy. Before the schools of America can play an effective role in improving the level of our democracy – before they can prepare children for life in terms broader than mere academic subject matter – the system of segregated schools must be eliminated."

Obviously Court's opinion in Brown bears the imprint of this:

"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [******] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system."




There are arguably two reasons for this: first, the Court had very clear examples of "separate and unequal" facilities in cases like Sweatt v. Painter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, and those cases were cited as precedent. Second, it's quite common for people to misinterpret social research by applying broad-scale probabilities to individuals (committing an "ecological fallacy.") For example, a public health study finding that people who ate red meat experienced a 13% increase in mortality rate does not necessarily mean that any individual plucked at random who eats red meat is more likely - let alone 13% more likely - to die before another individual plucked at random who does not eat red meat. The world is more complicated than that. Theindividualis not the unit of analysis in such studies.

Now, you can look at the attempted replication of Clark's doll study in 2005 and claim that integration wasn't really the cause of children's self-esteem issues. This ignores, however, the simple reality that racism persists to this day and that our schools - especially in urban areas - are MORE segregated today than they were in 1954. This, however, is attributable to San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, Milliken v. Bradley, Dowell v. Oklahoma City, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, etc., as well as segregation within schools due to tracking programs.

Integration only provides the theoretical opportunity for equal status contact - and these opportunities won't erode the racism embedded within broader popular culture or institutionalized in law enforcement, etc.

To reiterate Clark's point, "Children are less likely to learn from abstract teachings than from the concrete realities of their daily experience."

As Dr. King reminds us, "only when people themselves begin to act are rights on paper given lifeblood." With racism still so deeply ingrained in our society, we know all too well that "theoretical equality" isn't the be all, end all in combating oppression. It is, however, a necessary prerequisite.

 

[noskey]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Lol at people even thinking about putting the two struggles in the same category. See "certain people" can only see life one way, see the gay marriege issue is a totally separate entity from the movements of the 60s.

You do know the gay rights issue was a part of the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's, right?

 

[frostythepoptart]

Originally Posted by lobotomybeats

You win

I was wondering why this topic had so many pages. but this is ridiculous. It's like me comparing Jewish rights during the holocaust, to discrimination of salary based on gender. Like what? The picture is absolutely ridiculous. Everyone has been discriminated in America, native americans, irish, asian, name em they've been hated until there was a new target to hate and the snuck into assimilation. So why is the african american movement the easiest and quickest to draw up the venn diagram.

 

[brandon3000]

Lock this up. clearly people can't engage in dialogue without trying desperately for the lulz

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by Method Man


You guys can talk about "preferences" and comparisons all day long. �It's just a waste of effort, honestly.

The anti-gay crowd wants to paint LGBT discrimination as a matter of preference - that, for some reason, it's okay to discriminate against same sex couples because they "choose" to engage in same sex relationships. �Setting aside, for the moment, the assumption of sexuality as a "preference," as though millions of people around the world are "opting in" to discrimination, hatred, and violence, since when is this a valid reason to discriminate in the first place?

Religion is a "preference," is it not? �You're not allowed to pass laws preventing Jewish couples from getting married. �Though it's essentially only been legal since 1967, interracial marriages are a matter of "preference."

So, that whole line of defense is an utter waste of everyone's time.

Meth, do you think that when popular celebrities engage in LGBT activities but are bi-sexual or later return to a heterosexual relationship, it minimizes the or lessens the empathy that people have for gays? (ie. when comparing them to other civil rights movements)

For example, we have Amber Rose, who used to have a girlfriend, then she was with Kanye West and now Wiz Khalifa.  I've known women that have gone back and forth between seeing men and women. 

A Black person can't get tired of dealing with being black and decide try out or experiment being white.  A woman can't get tired of dealing with being a woman and try being a man.  A handicapped person cannot change it or go back and forth.

 

[veintisiete]

^son is really using Amber Rose as a serious example

alot of you are just....not smart.

at all.

 

[veintisiete]

---

---

You win

this couldnt be more dead-on, lets be honest.

 

[wr]

^nahh.


now lame and inappropriate are more like it...

 

[patrick bateman]

Originally Posted by Wr

^nahh.


now lame and inappropriate are more like it...

[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]Bingo.[/color]

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by VeintiSiete

^son is really using Amber Rose as a serious example

alot of you are just....not smart.

at all.

It is obvious from this response and the one below it that you are just trolling the thread and have nothing of value to add to the discussion.

 

[veintisiete]

you guys dont even know what values are

 

[Methodical Management]

Meth, do you think that when popular celebrities engage in LGBT activities but are bi-sexual or later return to a heterosexual relationship, it minimizes the or lessens the empathy that people have for gays? (ie. when comparing them to other civil rights movements)

For example, we have Amber Rose, who used to have a girlfriend, then she was with Kanye West and now Wiz Khalifa.  I've known women that have gone back and forth between seeing men and women.  

A Black person can't get tired of dealing with being black and decide try out or experiment being white.  A woman can't get tired of dealing with being a woman and try being a man.  A handicapped person cannot change it or go back and forth.

If you're suggesting that they're somehow faking it for attention, then I don't see why that should reduce our empathy for our LGBT peers.  Ted Danson was a celebrity and wore blackface.  Should that have minimized national empathy toward racial inequality?  Again, that assumes you think the whole thing is some sort of publicity stunt and, in that case, why should a form of exploitation succeed in making us care less about the exploited group?  
If, on the other hand, you're just talking about celebrities "experimenting" with their sexuality, and we interpret this as genuine, then honestly I think that's their right.  Amar'e Stoudamire has the right to convert to Judaism.  Dave Chappelle, Snoop Dogg, Muhammad Ali, Michael Jackson, and so many others converted to Islam.  Various celebrities have renounced their religion entirely.  That simply demonstrates our religious freedom.  I'm grateful for that. 

Privilege and oppression are multifaceted.  Patricia Hills Collins refers to this as the "matrix of domination."  We can be heavily discriminated against due to one of our attributes, yet relatively privileged in another.  Though ugly, it's important for us to remember the widely alleged sexism within the SCLC during the 1950's and 1960's.  Today, men and women of color often find themselves marginalized within LGBT rights organizations - just as it's been assumed, in this thread, that LGBT issues are a "White thing."  

I think what we're actually seeing is that straight people - regardless of race - possess a certain degree of majority privilege associated with their sexuality, and some are very protective of that - just as preserving "masculinity" and male privilege is very important to some men.  

I like to quote from Dr. King's final Sunday sermon, entitled The Drum Major Instinct, to illustrate how this plays out.

"I always try to do a little converting when I'm in jail,â€

 

[an dee 51o]

Originally Posted by Noskey

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Lol at people even thinking about putting the two struggles in the same category. See "certain people" can only see life one way, see the gay marriege issue is a totally separate entity from the movements of the 60s.

You do know the gay rights issue was a part of the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's, right?

Please respond.

 

[ill legal operation]

Originally Posted by lobotomybeats

You win

!+%% you.

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by an dee 51o

Originally Posted by Noskey

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Lol at people even thinking about putting the two struggles in the same category. See "certain people" can only see life one way, see the gay marriege issue is a totally separate entity from the movements of the 60s.

You do know the gay rights issue was a part of the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's, right?

Please respond.

I was talking about African American civil rights.......Just as the women's rights piggybacked off of the movement. As did gays, my point still stands.

 

[kix4kix]

"

Though ugly, it's important for us to remember the widely alleged sexism within the SCLC during the 1950's and 1960's.  Today, men and women of color often find themselves marginalized within LGBT rights organizations - just as it's been assumed, in this thread, that LGBT issues are a "White thing."  
I think what we're actually seeing is that straight people - regardless of race - possess a certain degree of majority privilege associated with their sexuality, and some are very protective of that - just as preserving "masculinity" and male privilege is very important to some men".  
"This right here is the golden nugget which I have been trying to break down, and excellent point meth. While I won't doubt that sexism took place within the organizations such as the sclc and others similar, one cannot deny that women were still given an incremental part of the movement, in Large part due to them being far less intimidating to whites as opposed to black men. The overall theme I am trying to make is the same issue you highlighted, that there is struggle within the struggle.

As far as with the privilege itself regards to straight couples, I can't deny I benefit from that, but I remember having a conversation with a friend of mine (who is gay) about white privilege and he went up in arms. that of course is one example, but in my opinion solidified that even within the oppressed group of gays, blacks were still "different".