[strawmoose]

The whole hypocritical thing just doesn't get much traction because, wait for it, its not the same.

I don't see how, though.

Both are about telling two people that, due to inborn characteristics over which they had no control, society has arbitrarily decided that they shouldn't be permitted to marry each other.

[la di dah]

I don't see how, though.

Both are about telling two people that, due to inborn characteristics over which they had no control, society has arbitrarily decided that they shouldn't be permitted to marry each other.

Do you want to know how *I* don't think they're the same or the ways in which I've been told they're not the same by black people I've known? Because I really can't imagine anything I want to do less than get into a slapfight on EB about it with the homophobic stances being attributed to me as my personal beliefs, when I am pro-gay marriage myself.

[strawmoose]

Do you want to know how *I* don't think they're the same or the ways in which I've been told they're not the same by black people I've known?

*shrug*

Either-or. I hadn't assumed it was your personal stance anyway.

[Sunnycat]

I remember an episode of Dr Phil, where a group of people were outraged that others would dare suggest there was a comparison between allowing interracial marriage and allowing same sex marriage. They were deeply offended at the notion and the reason they kept citing was that interracial marriage was between a man and a woman. It made sense to them.

A homophobic is a homophobic no matter what their race I guess.

PS I am very pro-gay marriage.

[cinnabubble]

They're just jellis becasue my interracial children are so much better looking than theirs.

[la di dah]

*shrug*

Either-or. I hadn't assumed it was your personal stance anyway.

I think they're pretty dang close, actually. Or if not the same, that doesn't make one okay. Like kicking me in the head and setting me on fire are pretty different but I don't have to sign up for one because its not the same as the other.

Its additionally shaded, IMO, by the fact that the US doesn't even have the de facto relationship protections Australia does - we're really NOT just talking about a piece of paper, there, but a ream of privileges and rights that you don't get if you're not married.

However, many people I knew felt they were distinguishing between a behavior/lifestyle vs. just one set of rules for everyone. Marriage is between a man and a woman but it doesn't matter the background of the man or the woman as long as that's what you are.
Just like its not discrimination to say you have to be a certain minimum age or pass a blood test for diseases, they don't feel its discrimination to have one set of guidelines.

[Guest_starbellied_*]

His speech was amazing, he took the stance on what he believes is right, (not just right politically for himself).

I especially agree with his comments, that you don't need to be gay to support the rights of gay people to marry, just like major legal changes to support the rights of black people in the US were not made by black people (as they didn't hold those positions at the time).


But I support a change to the Marriage Act in Australia (because I have still not heard a good reason why we shouldn't)

[strawmoose]

However, many people I knew felt they were distinguishing between a behavior/lifestyle vs. just one set of rules for everyone. Marriage is between a man and a woman but it doesn't matter the background of the man or the woman as long as that's what you are.
Just like its not discrimination to say you have to be a certain minimum age or pass a blood test for diseases, they don't feel its discrimination to have one set of guidelines.

Oh. So it's basically just a homophobia thing.

I was expecting you to hit me with something that would make me check a privilege I'd never noticed before.

[la di dah]

Oh. So it's basically just a homophobia thing.

I was expecting you to hit me with something that would make me check a privilege I'd never noticed before.

I've really hurt people I know IRL by comparing them before so I have a hard time with it. I'm not black and I don't really like to do direct this-is-like-this because of issues with economic inequality and the ability to pass.

stuff like this

[Saecularis Angel...]

la di dah, that's an interesting article. But I don't think I have the background to understand some of what he is saying.

What does he mean by "the mainstreaming of easily integrated blacks" and how that might relate to "the mainstreaming of conventional-minded gays"? Is there any similarity to the sort of argument in Australia that says that our indigenous people would have no problems if only they would live like whites and take advantage of all the opportunities afforded to them? Because it's ringing that bell for me and I'm reading it with suspicion, but I might be wrong about what he means?