NYT OP: Gay Marriage and a Moral Minority

[bluedawg12]

Is this a good strategy for opening dialogue? Is the OP on the right track?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/opinion/29blow.html?em

Gay Marriage and a Moral Minority

By CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: November 29, 2008



We now know that blacks probably didn’t tip the balance for Proposition 8. Myth busted. However, the fact remains that a strikingly high percentage of blacks said they voted to ban same-sex marriage in California. Why?

There was one very telling (and virtually ignored) statistic in CNN’s exit poll data that may shed some light: There were far more black women than black men, and a higher percentage of them said that they voted for the measure than the men. How wide was the gap? According to the exit poll, 70 percent of all blacks said that they voted for the proposition. But 75 percent of black women did. There weren’t enough black men in the survey to provide a reliable percentage for them. However, one can mathematically deduce that of the raw number of survey respondents, nearly twice as many black women said that they voted for it than black men.

Why? Here are my theories:

(1) Blacks are much more likely than whites to attend church, according to a Gallup report, and black women are much more likely to attend church than black men.

<snip>

(2) This high rate of church attendance by blacks informs a very conservative moral view. While blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic, an analysis of three years of national data from Gallup polls reveals that their views on moral issues are virtually indistinguishable from those of Republicans. Let’s just call them Afropublicrats.

<snip>

(3) Marriage can be a sore subject for black women in general. According to 2007 Census Bureau data, black women are the least likely of all women to be married and the most likely to be divorced. Women who can’t find a man to marry might not be thrilled about the idea of men marrying each other.

Proponents of gay marriage would do well to focus on these women if they want to win black votes...But gay marriage advocates need to hone their strategy to reach them.

<snip>

First, comparing the struggles of legalizing interracial marriage with those to legalize gay marriage is a bad idea. Many black women do not seem to be big fans of interracial marriage either. They’re the least likely of all groups to intermarry, and many don’t look kindly on the black men who intermarry at nearly three times the rate that they do...

<snip>

Second, don’t debate the Bible. You can’t win. Religious faith is not defined by logic, it defies it.

<snip>
Then, make it part of a broader discussion about the perils of rigidly applying yesterday’s sexual morality to today’s sexual mores. Show black women that it backfires. The stigma doesn’t erase the behavior, it pushes it into the shadows where, devoid of information and acceptance, it become more risky.

<snip>

For instance, most blacks find premarital sex unacceptable, according to the Gallup data. ..the pregnancy rate for black teens is twice that of white teens. They still have premarital sex, but they do so uninformed and unprotected.

<snip>
That leads to a bigger problem. According to a 2004 report by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, black women have an abortion rate that is three times that of white women.

More specifically, blacks overwhelmingly say that homosexuality isn’t morally acceptable. So many black men hide their sexual orientations and engage in risky behavior. This has resulted in large part in black women’s becoming the fastest-growing group of people with H.I.V. In a 2003 study of H.I.V.-infected people, 34 percent of infected black men said they had sex with both men and women, while only 6 percent of infected black women thought their partners were bisexual. Tragic.

<snip>

So pitch it as a health issue. The more open blacks are to the idea of homosexuality, the more likely black men would be to discuss their sexual orientations and sexual histories...And, the more open blacks are to homosexuality over all, the more open they are likely to be to gay marriage. This way, everyone wins.

[nichomachus]

1. Wow -- this has been up for a whole hour and no one has shrieked "scapegoating" yet

In the past, if someone tried to say these same things -- they were accused of racism and scapegoating.

[bluedawg12]

2. Looking at future strategic planning is key - it also says volumes that

no such article has yet appeared (to my knowledge) about how to dialogue with the Churches that funded and fomented the proHate8, possibly because THEY are unwilling to talk or change.

This article represents a helping hand as opposed to the hard core rw haters who never seem to budge.


rev.don

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/756/81/
Using Religion to Justify Discrimination: The Ungodly Work of Rev. Don Wildmon in America and Archbishop Peter Akinola in Nigeria
Written by Mel Seesholtz
Monday, 22 January 2007

[RetiredTrotskyite]

3. Thanks For Posting, Bluedawg!

I read this article and after reading the reply to it, I wrote the following:

Good Evening, All You Pharisees Out There!

Is procreation ALL you people think about? There are over 6 billion people on this planet...I hardly think the human race is in any danger of going extinct--unless we manage to bomb ourselves out of existence.

I beg to differ...there are such things as gay families. I and my spouse are a family. A gay couple with a little child are family. A lesbian couple with children is a family. Many gay people have children from previous marriages or relationships. Who on earth are you to tell them that any of them are not a family. I married in Canada, just to get away from all this nonsense. My husband and I are monogamous and probably live a more righteous life than many so-called Christian heterosexual couples. Look at the divorce rate in this country...that should tell you something.

I wish that one day--just for one day--that you would have to live without all the rights you take for granted and see how you feel. You don't even want us having our spouses with us if we fall seriously ill, nor can we even depend upon a will to let our spouses inherit our property upon death. Sure a will helps, but truly bigoted avaricious family (most of whom are so "Christian") can have a go at taking that away if they are so minded. How would one of you like to be dying and not even have the peace of knowing your loved one will be taken care of.

You people are shameful in your hate and bigotry. Pull out those Bibles that you idolize and rarely READ WITHE UNDERSTANDING! Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!

[kwassa]

13. I don't know if this will serve as a model, but ...

The model I would speak of is the Episcopal Church of the USA, which as a church supports gay rights, and created world-wide consternation among conservative Anglicans when the Episcopal Church elevated openly gay Gene Robinson to be the Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003. The Presiding Bishop, Katherine Jefferts-Shiori has continued to stand fast for gay rights, and yet also continued to engage all parties in conversation on their feelings on the issues. She is a model of how to deal with a broad political constituency.

I know entirely too much about Peter Akinola, the very homophobic Anglican Archbishop of Nigeria. He has been the ringleader of reactionary world-wide reaction against us, and has interfered in the US by appointing bishops from breakaway anti-gay churches in the US. Although small in numbers, they are very vocal and confrontational to the larger church. He has also been instrumental in attempting to create an alternative world-wide conservative Anglican structure, which has not been successful yet. He has attempted, with others, to get the US church kicked out of the Anglican Communion, which has failed mostly to bureaucratic dithering, and the long, slow legislative processes in the Communion, and the lack of centralized power in the Communion.

The Episcopal Church, though, will leave the Communion before giving up it's stand on gay rights, and feelings are pretty strong on that subject.

Good article, by the way.

The way to dialogue might be to find members of the church that already support the gay community, or gays from other Christian faith groups that can speak in the religious terms that these church-goers can understand. Another might be by trying to reach through magazines read by black women such as Essence or Ebony, or other black media outlets, which do talk about social issues. A third way would be to approach the more political black churches that act as a center of black activism in different communities, such as First AME in Los Angeles, that have highly influential pastors. If you can get some of them on your side, that could be a big help, too.

[sui generis]

14. right on!

or they were accused of being **GASP** "white".

Ironic.

[Zhade]

4. So it all comes down to defeating the insanity that is religion.

Well, that's going to be easy!

...

[Eryemil]

5. Good luck with that

The biggest enemy of religion is wealth. Keep the masses poor and they will cling to their fairytales.
If you really think about it all the factors that can be directly associated with secular views lead directly to wealth.

[bluedawg12]

6. That's the nub of it, isn't it? Religion could be useful and for good works

to feed a spiritual hunger, to help those who need a hand up, so many things religion could do.

But, it has been perverted in the name of a false claim about keeping social order by attacking gays on every level.

Gays are not going to lead to the demise of society, however, poverty, ignorance, war, domestic violence, the decimation of our planet, those are important issues that they could focus on instead.

ETA: Added because it just came to mind.

This maybe the way to approach the discussion about religion and organized religion, keep reminding people of what religion could be absent the judgmentalism and bigotry and focus on common areas of concern.

[Eryemil]

7. Except it is not that simple

Because the major religions are based on very specific beliefs, practices and traditions this guarantees that they will always remain behind the current societal paradigm.

Basically any religion started today, even with the best of intentions, using our language and ideas will probably be the cause of strife and suffering a thousand years from now.

In order to endure as institutions they must rally against changes to the status quo. Would the Catholic Church still be the Catholic Church if its hierarchy decided to suddenly change its aims? Really think about the things that define this particular institution. If religion were only about 'love' and 'compassion' there would only be one religion. For all the major religions to suddenly change their tune now, ancient as they are is wholly unrealistic.

The best one can hope for is gradual changes to the way religious dogma is interpreted. This means that queers will someday be fully accepted within churches and mosques. It will also mean that AI entities will have to struggle against the very same bonds that we now struggle against in pursue of their rights a hundred years from now.

[bluedawg12]

9. I don’t think it is going to be simple. :)

I don’t think it is going to be simple.

>>Because the major religions are based on very specific beliefs, practices and traditions this guarantees that they will always remain behind the current societal paradigm. <<
..........

There are certain aspects of Church cannon that are immutable.

For example, for Roman Catholics, a core principle is that Jesus is the Son of God and God.

That cannot change.

But there are other principles that have changed over the years, among them scientific and cultural.

Also, they can change the emphasis away from judgmental words to ones of acceptance.

However, I am not advocating a dialogue with the Holy See and the Cardinal of Rome, but I do see some prospect in academic and journalistic dialogue with theologians and lay people about the changing science around homosexuality and also about the impact of their actions on other human beings and their aggressive lack of tolerance.

It’s not enough, for example that the Catholic Church does not accept homosexual behavior, they had to align with the Moro*ns and raise millions of dollars where by they did not limit their propaganda to theological arguments, they brought out some pretty ugly-fear baiting sh*t and lies.

There may be some room for toning down their rhetoric and activism towards more charitable directions.
....

>>In order to endure as institutions they must rally against changes to the status quo. Would the Catholic Church still be the Catholic Church if its hierarchy decided to suddenly change its aims?<<

I not advocating that the Catholic Church needs to change all of it’s “aims,” but they might change their attitude, as they have changed in many ways as science and the times unfold new realities.


I agree Churches are, for the most part, socially conservative, that is they “conserve” what is, yet, there have been mis-steps ( Inquisitions, Crusades, Copernicus) along the way and course corrections.

The role of the Church in regards to Jews is another example of change, that comes to mind.

.....
>>Really think about the things that define this particular institution. If religion were only about 'love' and 'compassion' there would only be one religion. For all the major religions to suddenly change their tune now, ancient as they are is wholly unrealistic. <<

I don’t envision major religions suddenly changing their tune. I do suggest a line of dialogue that centers more on say, the beatitudes or Sermon on the Mount, than the fire and brimstone that I understand to be a major part of Protestantism.

......
>>The best one can hope for is gradual changes to the way religious dogma is interpreted. <<

Or they can continue to interpret Paul and Leviticus any way they want, but they could soften their hard line attacks from the pulpit. Perhaps, as younger clergy emerge in roles of authority, and as younger lay people see the folly of the gay-hunting, things will quiet down and seem less like gay persecution.

The chief reason I even think about this, is because religion is a kind of lingua Franca of the modern world. There is a fear of atheists and agnostics, not because it’s justified, but because the majority of Americans are Church goers and they understand where a stranger is coming from when they say things like, “I was blessed to have this chance...” Or, “The Good Lord saved my neck that day when the car rolled over...” Or simply, “Bless your heart.” Or worse yet, people tend to go pale if one say’s things like, “The Goddess provides...” etc.

All of those phrases now sound like repug catch phrases, and are hard ro even sputter half heartedly for many that see the hate behind the veil, yet, I do think we humans have a need for spirituality and that religion provides a common, comforting language among people and that language has been co-opted by the hate filled crazy rw and it’s kind of a shame.

Religion has become fossilized and is out of touch and static in a changing world.
Religion calls out our worst and not our better angels.
Religion has become too focused on stigmatizing others, rather than acceptance.
Religion has become too damned political and to damned angry.

.......

>>This means that queers will someday be fully accepted within churches and mosques. It will also mean that AI entities will have to struggle against the very same bonds that we now struggle against in pursue of their rights a hundred years from now. <<

I don’t understand “AI entities.” What do you mean?

.....
Anyway, I am still trying to get my words and thoughts in order about organized religion in the 21st century and gay rights.

It’s too pervasive to ignore.
It’s too simplistic to say that some things can never change.
It’s too cynical that some effort might not be worth it.

Thanks for the conversation, you got me thinking.

Peace-

bd12 :-)

[Eryemil]

11. I could have sworn I had replied to this.

By 'AI entities' I mean all types of sentient, sapient, self-aware minds under the 'Artificial Intelligence' spectrum.
It is of course not a given that such beings will emerge but you can bet your sweet ass that the religious will hate them with a passion.

"Religion has become fossilized and is out of touch and static in a changing world.
Religion calls out our worst and not our better angels.
Religion has become too focused on stigmatizing others, rather than acceptance.
Religion has become too damned political and to damned angry."

You seem to think that all of this is somehow a modern development. I do not believe the situation has EVER been different from this.

[bluedawg12]

12. Super-Toys Last All Summer Long

About AI's, I read the book Super-Toys Last All Summer Long and "felt" for David and Teddy.

Personally, it would be cool if at a certain age when the old bod became worn out, that I could just jack my consciousness into a puter while someone made a nice new version of me from a totipotential cell and then I could download into the new model.

Besides, I have nothing against AI's, I have already admitted in public my crush on grovel bot. ;-)

>>"Super-Toys Last All Summer Long" is a short story by science fiction author Brian Aldiss, first published in 1969. The story deals with an overpopulated world where child creation is controlled, and the artificial superficiality of the American lifestyle has become more pronounced.

The story has three principal characters: David, a preschool boy who struggles to express his feelings to his mother and ponders the question of what is real; his mother Monica Swinton, who struggles to endure the loneliness of her typically isolated lifestyle; and her husband Henry, who is involved in the development of intelligent robots that will be able to serve as social companions for humans. At the end, it is revealed that the couple have been waiting for permission to have a child; David is not a "real" boy.

It was the literary basis for the first act of the feature film Artificial Intelligence: A.I., which was an unrealized film project of Stanley Kubrick, posthumously developed and filmed by Steven Spielberg and released in 2001.<<
..........

"You seem to think that all of this is somehow a modern development. I do not believe the situation has EVER been different from this."

I dunno, I guess you are probably right. It's just that I recall a time, maybe memory is hazy, but when the theme from the pulpit was about love and acceptance and that whole post Vatican II ethos.

[qwlauren35]

8. I Agree 100%.

If you're trying to win someone over, instead of defeat and humiliate them, you approach them from where they are.

This man has explained where we're coming from, and that the best way to approach us on gay issues is to point out that forcing black men to stay in the closet encourages risky sexual behaviors which can lead to STDs and AIDS.

I honestly sense that there is not enough understanding of how many African-Americans see things, and as a result, no one considers that the way to approach us on issues or convinces us to consider things IS ***NOT*** BASED ON A LIBERAL/ PROGRESSIVE POINT OF VIEW.

Just because supporting African-Americans civil rights is considered liberal to white people doesn't make African-Americans liberal.

Some day, enough people around here will understand that. I just don't know how much longer it will take.

[bluedawg12]

10. You said some interesting things, here.

>>If you're trying to win someone over, instead of defeat and humiliate them, you approach them from where they are.<<

Good thing to keep in mind.

..........

For the sake of clarification, I assume by “us” you mean African-Americans and you are speaking as an African-American? For the record, I am white, and speaking as a white person, not as an African-American and I can speak only for myself as one individual.

>>This man has explained where we're coming from, and that the best way to approach us on gay issues is to point out that forcing black men to stay in the closet encourages risky sexual behaviors which can lead to STDs and AIDS.<<

Yes, I have read that too, that forcing black men to stay in the closet encourages risky sexual behaviors which can lead to high rates of STDs and AIDS.

I also learned the term “down low” practices, is that correct? I understood that to mean that men, who might otherwise live lives as gay men, feel social pressure to get married and appear straight, then, still having the urge for same gender loving behavior they place their wives at risk for STD’s/HIV due to extra-marital SGL behavior. Do I understand that concept correctly?

There is another factor about HIV and STD’s and shame surrounding SGL/gay practices and thus, secrecy, namely, there may also be resistence to seeking early medical help, so that opportunities for early diagnosis and treatment are missed.


...........

>>I honestly sense that there is not enough understanding of how many African-Americans see things, and as a result, no one considers that the way to approach us on issues or convinces us to consider things IS ***NOT*** BASED ON A LIBERAL/ PROGRESSIVE POINT OF VIEW.<<

You touch on two subjects here:

Your first comment: “ there is not enough understanding of how many African-Americans see things.”

I agree, as it turns out, the African - American community is not monolithic and is complex and there are aspects of it that I never see, as a white person. So, I feel, as you do, that I have a lack of understanding of another community of which I am not a part.


................

Your second comment, “and as a result, no one considers that the way to approach us on issues or convinces us to consider things IS ***NOT*** BASED ON A LIBERAL/ PROGRESSIVE POINT OF VIEW.”

I have to disagree with the notion that “no one” from the white community considers the best way to approach your community.

My first evidence is my post right here. It is an example of “someone” (me) from my community considering the best, or better, way to approach your community.

Further, all or none statements are generalizations and could lead to unfairness toward an entire group, exactly what you decried when you said: “ instead of defeat and humiliate them, you approach them from where they are.”

Perhaps, it is a question of more conversations with folks like you who take the time to have a dialogue and to educate us, approach us from where you are and understand where we are, in order to educate us. At some point, it has to come from with-in a community that is seeking to be understood and giving the “gift” of information to a group seeking to understand.

For my part, I have tried to educate myself, to understand a community that I am not a part of.

That’s why I have read Jasmine Cannick’s blogs and recently posted on her newer one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=96645&mesg_id=96668

That’s why I have gone to the National Black Justice Coalition and have posted about it.

That’s why I have read and posted about Cleo Manago’s blogs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=95643&mesg_id=96572

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=95643&mesg_id=96506

That’s why I have gone to the Barbara Jordan/ Bayard Rustin Coalition web site.

That’s why I have read article such as:

http://www.blackaids.org/ShowArticle.aspx?pagename=ShowArticle&articletype=NEWS&articleid=168&pagenumber=1

Psst. Homophobia Causes AIDS. Pass it On.
.........

http://thevitalvoice.com/node/988
2008 Black Pride combats homophobia through visibility
By Colin Murphy - Posted on August 8th, 2008
..........
http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/67/1/59

Public Opinion Quarterly 67:59-78 (2003)
© 2003 American Association for Public Opinion Research

Black-White Differences in Attitudes toward Homosexuality and Gay Rights*
GREGORY B. LEWIS
......

Sexualities, Vol. 10, No. 5, 603-622 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1363460707083171

'At Least I'm Not Gay': Heterosexual Identity Making among Poor Black Teens
Carissa M. Froyum
University of Norhtern Iowa, USA, [e-mail]
.........

http://www.thenewblackmagazine.com/view.aspx?index=537

In Search of Notorious PhDs

By Lindsay Johns
.........
That’s what I was saying when I wrote:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=89566&mesg_id=90223

Where we share an orientation
we may be different in our entire out look and talking a completely different language of priorities.

I am trying to understand. This may be helpful for white people, like me, to understand the experience of GLBTQ people of color.

http://www.ifbprides.org/ifbp_news_june_08_irene.php


Black Pride plays an important role in the larger gay rights movement

The growing gulf between whites and blacks, rich and poor can be seen in the HIV/AIDS epidemic that was once an entire LGBTQ community problem and is now predominately a black one.

Another example of our division can be seen in the white gay ghettos that have developed and thrived safely in neighborhoods throughout the country. However, with homophobia in black communities, where most of us reside, we cannot carve out a black queer ghetto within our existing neighborhoods and expect to realistically be safe.

OUR THEMES FOR Black Pride events are different from the larger Pride events. Black Pride focuses on issues not solely pertaining to gays, but rather on social, economic and health issues impacting the entire black community. For example, where the primary focus and themes in white Prides have been on marriage equality, gay people of African descent have used Pride events to focus on HIV/AIDS, other health issues, gang violence and youth homelessness, to name only a few.

..........

>>Just because supporting African-Americans civil rights is considered liberal to white people doesn't make African-Americans liberal.<<

To be sure I understand you, please allow me to rephrase: sharing support for African-Americans civil rights with white people, whom you describe as liberals, does not make African-Americans socially liberal, is how I hear you, is that correct? The key is socially liberal? Or do you mean that in general, the approach of "liberal white" people should "***NOT*** (be) BASED ON A LIBERAL/ PROGRESSIVE POINT OF VIEW," in genral regarding other issues?

Also, just to be clear, I am not begging anyone for their indulgence, tolerance, acceptance, approval, or their anything at all. It would be nice. But, to be clear, I am not begging anyone for anything.

If people chose to understand fairness, if people chose to understand equal application of rights under law, if people understand that the GLBTQ community is comprised of real live human beings who are entitled to the same rights under law as every other human being, and if people open their minds and hearts to that, then, I welcome it. But I am not begging them for it, nor am I depending on it.

So why bother with any of this?

In the meantime, we live in the real world, of real politics. Our lives may be separated by different communities, but there will come a time when mutual support on many levels including, activism, funding /donations and votes will be beneficial to another, and it will be recalled that political alliances and coalition building is beneficial and that’s why these discusions are important.

What goes around comes around, it would make more sense to get these issues aired out before the next “big thing”, whatever and for whom ever, comes around, because it is good to know who our friends are and who are not. But, to be very clear, I don’t want anyone’s approval of me, my life, or any one of my “liberal causes” unless they chose to give that approval and support because it is the right thing to do.

>>Some day, enough people around here will understand that. I just don't know how much longer it will take.<<
.......

>>“Some day, enough people around here will understand that..”<<

-- I am not sure who those “people around here” are that you refer to?
-- Further, I am not so certain they don’t already understand. Like I said, I can only speak for myself.
........

In general, it will take as long as:
a.) people remain interested in the question and remain interested in continued dialogue between communities.
b.) satisfy themselves as to the answers with self-education
c.) or, quicker, if someone like yourself, or Mr. CHARLES M. BLOW from the NYT explains the variations and prevailing patterns with-in their community to outsiders like me.
.....
Anyway, thanks for your reply and for validating the OP’s POV that was my question:
“Is this a good strategy for opening dialogue? Is the OP on the right track?”

[qwlauren35]

16. You are very kind to talk to me about this.

I did not mean to even be here. I had gone to the Greatest Threads area and was just shooting from the hip when I realized that I was in the GBLT forum.

As someone who goes NUTS when white folks go to Black Voices and mouth off about things they don't understand, I want you to know that as a minority in your space, when I realized that I'd overstepped by coming here with my straight viewpoint, I had simply come back to delete my entire comment.

But you have responded so kindly and openly that I want to take a moment to comment back. In fact, I've read your response a few times! And my first draft of my response doesn't come across as I'd like. So I'm going to try again... heck, even my SECOND response doesn't do you justice. So I'm going to try a third time.

Basics:
- yes, when I say us, I refer to the African-American community of which I am a part, including the black GLBT community, of which I am not a part, and the black militant separatist community, of which I'm not a part, and the "I only date/associate with white folks" community, of which I'm not a part, and the black fundamentalist/born-again Christian/pro-life/homophobic community, of which I'm not a part, and the black anti-feminists who truly piss me off... oh no, we are not a monolith. But, in some ways like your community and the pain of experiencing homophobia, our bond as people who experience racism is often far deeper than our differences.

- when I say "you people" I am refering to the white liberals in DU who seem completely unaware of the overall conservatism (and separatism) of our community, the ones who think that many of us are socially liberal (HAH!) and should champion Proposition 8, despite the fact that a significant minority of us supported Bush in 2004 because of the gay marriage issue.

In answer to your question:
- I honestly don't know how we will bridge the divide between us, except if both groups begin by trying to support our mutually "owned" black GBLT community. I have thought long and hard about your brief note on Black Pride, and it resonated clearly. My community focuses on the practical and pressing before the political. Too many of us are poorer, so many of our men are closeted. More of us, I think, are truly bisexual, or maybe that is true across the board, but bisexuality seems even less understood.

Perhaps that's what it truly comes down to. Being a black gay man is probably unimaginably difficult on the psyche. Men instinctively want no help from anyone, but to be constantly targeted by hatred and even violence from two vastly different directions begs for some level of intervention, and protection.

I cannot imagine an issue so far removed from the white GLBT community as the AIDS epidemic among our women. Caused in many ways by black men "on the down low", in a culture where condoms tend to be scorned by most of our men and unthinkable to use with an unsuspecting wife - especially one that wants to be pregnant.

And yet, this is the cross-over point where our commuity is suffering from this compendium of black and gay issues.

Perhaps we could start there, and work forward.

Sincerely,

Lauren

[bluedawg12]

17. Hi Lauren! Glad you came over! :)

Once again, food for thought! :-)

>>I did not mean to even be here. I had gone to the Greatest Threads area and was just shooting from the hip when I realized that I was in the GBLT forum.

As someone who goes NUTS when white folks go to Black Voices and mouth off about things they don't understand, I want you to know that as a minority in your space, when I realized that I'd overstepped by coming here with my straight viewpoint, I had simply come back to delete my entire comment.<<

I’m glad you didn’t delete anything, your post was good as it was because it opened dialogue and was thought provoking. Also, I am glad you came back to post.

We all need to be talking to each other as human beings or else we will not progress in society.

I really hate these cultural and political divisions, yet they exist.

And you’re right to ask, what the heck do we, as white folk, know about experience of AA’s with regard to gays and also, of the experience of AA’s within their community.

That’s why I brought out some of the things I read and discussed, as I know did others here , because I was uninformed and did not live in the life of others.

I honestly can’t think of a time when I was ever harassed or felt bigotry from African - Americans, and so when this all came percolating to the surface after November 4th I was puzzled and wanted to learn. Keep in mind, I don’t live in California, nor a big city, so I realized that there were some political points of view that have to do with things that are specific to that region, such as local neighborhood politics, feelings of inclusion and exclusion, local political figures vying for leadership...you know, the usual consequences of human political activity. LOL.


>>Basics:
- yes, when I say us, I refer to the African-American community of which I am a part, including the black GLBT community, of which I am not a part, and the black militant separatist community, of which I'm not a part, and the "I only date/associate with white folks" community, of which I'm not a part, and the black fundamentalist/born-again Christian/pro-life/homophobic community, of which I'm not a part, and the black anti-feminists who truly piss me off... oh no, we are not a monolith. But, in some ways like your community and the pain of experiencing homophobia, our bond as people who experience racism is often far deeper than our differences.<<

Yup! That’s what I finally figured out. It only took a few weeks! LOL.

>>Perhaps that's what it truly comes down to. Being a black gay man is probably unimaginably difficult on the psyche. Men instinctively want no help from anyone, but to be constantly targeted by hatred and even violence from two vastly different directions begs for some level of intervention, and protection. <<

I can’t imagine. Well, I can intellectually understand, but I don’t have that gut clenching emotional feeling, as someone does who has faced that prejudice and has seen those eyes staring back.

My closest experience comes from an ill conceived decision of mine to go apply for a job in a small town in Georgia years ago, based on my fantasy vision of a charming town in the sun belt, ala Steel Magnolias, where my partner and I showed up together.

My partner is Jewish, and was tan and some guy actually did the skin blanche test to see if that was a sun tan!

Some ass hat dropped his trousers in front of me, during an interview, on the pretext of showing me his knee surgery scar. Nice, huh? Geesh.

They went ape shit and through gritted teeth told me/us to go to a big city like Savannah, I guess where they figured us gays congregate. It was a tense night in a Holiday Inn and I had just watched “Ghosts of Mississippi” before the trip and was sleeping with one eye opened and the motel room door barricaded!

BTW- there are some good peer reviewed journal studies out regarding how bigotry does have a negative impact on the psyche and soul, for all people, gay and straight and of any ethnic background. A double whammy is probably exponentially more difficult.

I discussed this here, for gay folks, but the same principles apply:
........
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x89114

Because it's normal to feel this way. Looks like there have been some studies on this and it's pretty common reaction.
.........

>>I cannot imagine an issue so far removed from the white GLBT community as the AIDS epidemic among our women. Caused in many ways by black men "on the down low", in a culture where condoms tend to be scorned by most of our men and unthinkable to use with an unsuspecting wife - especially one that wants to be pregnant.<<

The topic may be removed from our current political focus, but not from our consciousness and not so that we wouldn’t care, or understand and not so we wouldn’t want to be aware of it and discuss it and support efforts, in any we can, for those of us on the outside of your community.

For example, three days after Nov4, I was grappling with this issue of understanding and wrote a bit about it.

One of the hopeful conclusions came from the NBJC

“ Why is the Black Church Summit important? Why should my media outlet cover it?
The factors of HIV, anti-gay violence and emotional depression are rampant within the Black gay community. Often the Black Church is ill equipped to adequately address these issues which are often swept under the societal rug.

This year's event will once again attract nationally prominent clergy, civil rights leaders, and many opposed to and also affirming of homosexuality. Our goal is to assist the Black Church on how to embrace their lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender friends, neighbors, family, and members of their congregations.
http://blacknews.com/pr/black_church_summit101.html ”

I mentioned that summit and Rev. Dr. Michael Eric Dyson Headlines National Black Church Summit With a Gay Affirming Focus.
........
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=88425&mesg_id=88425
From hope to fear to hope again.
...........

>>And yet, this is the cross-over point where our commuity is suffering from this compendium of black and gay issues.<<

I can see where that is a major concern and that is where our two communities do intersect.

Now, allow me to say something else on that topic. We do intersect here but there is much more to it.

There are gay women of from all communities and not to be forgotten.

There are gay men and women who want to live in a long term, committed monogamous relationship and do.

There is much to be taught about safe sex - for all concerned, across all lines.

There are gay men and women who don’t want to marry and suppress their sexuality and then go out on the sly. That would be a reason to address homophobia as an issue that can end up with men denying their sexual identity if: they were truly gay to start with, or, it could be seen as men who are bi-sexual and committing to marriage with a woman and then stepping outside of that commitment. That is a commitment issue and not particularly unique to gays.

Also, keep in mind that there are many different types of relationships, even here in this forum we have gays folks and bi-sexuals and folks in open relationships. Having said that, my chief caveat is openness between two consenting adults, as opposed to the secret sexual activity on the side that can bring unwanted hurt and illness.

Also, gays (GLBTQ/SGL) are not monolithic either and before I put my big paw in my mouth and someone flames for sticking my snout in their private relationship issues without having tact or knowledge, keep in mind that we, in the gay community, come from a variety of different arrangements. Mine is a relationship of 22 years, faithful and monogamous. That’s our agreement, it is what I need for my sanity and so does my partner. So, there is a great variety of household set ups out there.

One thing positive about the legal recognition of marriage for gays is that it does promote a stable, socially accepted and to some extent socially supported and recognized relationship, in addition to legal rights and property, it does tend to give social support for the same values as straight marriage: monogamy, fidelity, committment longevity.

The starting point will vary for each of us. For you, the concerns about bringing home STD’s from outside the relationship is a good one. I support you on that. It is a violation of trust, reckless and selfish. The right to step out on your wife and have gay sex is not what I am fighting for, in fact, supporting gay marriage would be the opposite. Respecting a commitment to be faithful and monogamous with one's partner is exactly what we want when we fight for gay marriage rights. We can accomplish that without the legal status, and many of us have, which just goes to show you how socially conservative some gays are! ;-)

Peace and come back anytime - good chatting with you!

Bd12

[sui generis]

15. We pay taxes, fight wars, give birth

live, breathe, fuck and die just like any other American.

UNTIL "hetero-privileged" people start paying my fucking taxes or paying my mortgage or pay to raise my kids, they DON'T get to make decisions about my life or my property or what I do with my pink parts.

This is about property and assets, first, last and always. Without the ability to determine who you legally consider family, your blood relations have more right to your life decisions and property than you do yourself.

We don't need to soft sell anybody on anything. It's our property, we will do with it what we god damn well want, and if America doesn't like that then there are a hundred more ways to hang America with its own rope, legally speaking.

If you want to appeal to any minority community, talk about property. Ask them how they would feel if their cousin three times removed had greater right to claim their property than their spouse. Ask them how they would feel if a clinically "white" person made a law about their property on the basis of their minoritishness.

Ask them what they would do if a hospital kept them out of their spouse's visitorship. Ask them how they would feel if they knew that Arkansas could remove their children from custody at a traffic stop, merely because Arkansas doesn't recognize minority marriage and therefore does not recognize guardianship or adoption.

Then tell them every time you vote against a minority of ANY kind, you vote against yourself, against your right to your own property, against your own family and your own marriage, because if you can do that to someone for an idea like gayness, you can do it for an idea like skin color, or eye color or religion or culture of origin.