Someone explain to me

[ismnotwasm]

What the fucking difference is, between white homophobic fundamentalist and black homophobic fundamentalist? Explain how one is worse/more influential/more prevalent that the other. Explain how one is more responsible for. or more effective at, hate than the other.

Someone? Anyone? because I'm not getting it, not even a little bit.

What a bunch of complete and total bullshit. Reducing homophobia to race. Nice.

So I talked to my "spiritual" Christan (his words), male gay friend at work explaining some of the disgusting racist shit around here revolving around prop 8. He said this "I sing in a black Pentecostal church, what they say is adversity opens the mind. The black churches I've been too are more open minded that the white ones, probably because no one understands adversity better than black people." (He loves Gospel music and he's an awesome singer)

This is one Gay man's opinion. I could and will add that he's widely traveled, speaks three languages yet was born and raised in Texas. He's been around.

As devastated as he is by the passage of prop 8, He was completely appalled and I don't blame him.

Edit; And while I'm at it, here's a decent article from huff about it



Stop Blaming California's Black Voters for Prop 8


Excuse me? I voted against Proposition 8. I'm among the 30 percent of black Californians that did so. And as much as I can condemn the homophobia and intolerance that drove a portion of the 70 percent of blacks that voted in favor of Proposition 8's ban on gay marriage, it's an outrage to lay its passage at their feet. I've read several editorials already about how the ungrateful blacks betrayed gays right after America gave them their first president. I know there are some wounds and frayed nerves right now, but this type of condescending, divide and conquer isn't going to help at all. And it's a gross oversimplification of what happened.

According to the exit polling, there's enough blame to go around. Don't forget the 49 percent of Asians who voted for Prop 8. And the 53 percent of Latinos who fell in line for it too. And then there is the white vote in support of 8. Slightly under 50% percent of them, a group representing 63% of California voters, voted "Yes" on 8. Last I checked blacks held little sway over all of those groups.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-leon-roker/stop-blaming-californias_b_142018.html

[bliss_eternal]

1. It's a valid question...

...I appreciate your asking it. I'm also sincerely curious.

Over and over again, I've read the claim "...they (blacks) should know better" and "...we expect better from them." Really? Interesting.

Better than the accusers expect from themselves?

Question...
Is the ability of adversity to open the mind, a capacity (and expectation) only for people of color?

A mirror and a reality check...

I wonder how many of the men that have tossed out the "...they should know better" or quotes like this:

"To have the lack of support from the black community is very painful to us. Fifty years from now, I think the black community will be ashamed that they didn't support us."

(Castro District, San Francisco CA)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/07/BAJ6140Q55.DTL&tsp=1

...have also enjoyed this particular form of "entertainment"...at the expense of those "that should know better" , more specifically black women?

http://www.shirleyqliquor.com/

He ONLY plays to gay white clubs, in blackface and a wig--speaking in 'Ebonics.'
He has performances upcoming in Texas and another before the end of 2008 in Palm Springs, CA.

I wonder, how many of the males "outraged" at black people are planning to attend? How many have seen his show before?

The photo of wonder woman looks to be Jasmyne Cannick, glbt activist (whose work has helped take his shows underground). The photo of her on his site, and one time was nude :eyes: (evidenced on Jasmyne's website, long before prop 8 was voted on--btw). Seems a rather disrespectful, inappropriate way too treat a human being (and fellow glbt) for daring to stand up against a situation they feel minimizes and disparages their gender and culture.


article speaking of his appearance in Miami in April of 2008:
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2008-04-17/news/shirley-q-liquor-s-racist-scum/


I posted about this previously. I was reminded of this issue again while reading some articles on this proposition, the polls and comments regarding "supporting" each other. My previous post about this received little attention, and is dropping toward the archives of this forum as I post this.

How are black women supposed to feel about being entertainment for white gay males, while so many place blame at their feet regarding this proposition?

:shrug:

[bliss_eternal]

2. When all else fails...

...I'm falling back on this statement, shared in this thread (by JVS--post #79):

Because being white means never having to explain why you voted the way you did.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4392856#4396742


I seriously wish I could put that on a shirt.

[lightningandsnow]

3. Thank you!

The blaming black people for passing Prop 8 is absurd. Yes, there is homophobia in the black community, and yes, it should be discussed, but this kind of blame and divide-and-conquer really isn't helping anybody.

[Ellen Forradalom]

4. I call it a severe misreading of the political alliance

between African-Americans and white liberals. Some folks made assumptions about their allied voters which did not hold up in the booth.

Sharp divergences of opinion and interest between the two groups have been glossed over for 60 years to achieve major political goals such as civil rights, open housing, desegregation, and black political power. The political landscape has changed and this coalition is starting to fracture. Black social conservatives are, in issues such as gay rights, flexing political muscle along the lines of other such conservatives. Time to take that reality into account.

[bliss_eternal]

21. I'm uncomfortable with this...

It seems to be saying an entire group of people owe some sort of debt to another group of people, for various accomplishments and political achievements.

[noiretextatique]

5. the only difference is that the black ones tend to vote democratic

but clearly are not as socially liberal as some people thought.

[BlueIris]

6. I have no idea what's going on with those posts.

No idea how they are not in violation of the rules.

[bliss_eternal]

7. On-line anonymity?

Maybe this plays a role as well? :shrug:



Anonymity opens up split personality zone
Faceless communication online or over phone often turns nice people nasty

By Diane Mapes
msnbc.com contributor
updated 5:50 a.m. PT, Wed., Sept. 24, 2008
One minute, they’re nice, normal people. The next, they’re frothing at the mouse.

--------snip---------

“People who’d never say something horrible in real life will do it again and again and again online. It’s like the behavior of crowds, or those mass beatings where no one gets blamed because everyone’s at fault.”
------snip-----

These days there are a dozen ways to communicate without actually having to look somebody in the eye. As a result, not only have we developed an abrupt, abbreviated way to chat (IMHO), but our technological advances have spawned new psychological terms such as “online disinhibition effect” to explain our tendency to open up — in both good ways and bad — when we’re sitting in front of a screen.

But our split personalities aren’t limited to the Web. They tend to show up whenever no one’s looking.

In a February 2008 study published in the journal Psychological Reports, researchers found that out of four groups of participants, only those in the anonymous group took part in antisocial behavior — in this case defined as violating rules to obtain a reward.

“I definitely believe that anonymity affects the frequency of antisocial behavior among individuals to some extent, even when these individuals have a reasonable sense of morality — so-called ‘ordinary people,’” says study author Tatsuya Nogami of Nagoya University in Japan.

------snip------

McIntyre, the billing specialist from Houston, says the online news forums she’s participated in over the years have led her down many a dark and dysfunctional corridor.

“People get sucked in,” she says. “You can be whoever you want, you can put out there whatever you want, and there are no consequences. I even got sucked in and was mean to people. I consider myself better than that, but I did it too, and that bothers me. I guess it’s just the dynamic.”

-----snip--------

Going public
Interestingly enough, some folks are starting to retaliate.

Surreptitious tape recordings of outrageously bad customer behavior have started to pop up on YouTube in all their profanity-laced glory.

In 2004, comedienne Margaret Cho posted dozens of hateful e-mail messages she’d received in response to a monologue on her Web site, along with each sender’s full name and e-mail address. Shamed — and deluged with their own hate mail from Cho’s fans — some posters sent in abject letters of apology.

-----snip--------


excerpted from:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26837911/?GT1=43001

I think a lot of the flame wars we see on-line are also part of "mob mentality."

[mrreowwr_kittty]

8. The CNN poll is problematic.

Exit polls are good for drawing conclusions about large swaths of voters but notoriously bad when it comes to specific demos. Everyone is fretting over "OMG! 70% of blacks voted for Prop 8!!" but we really don't know if that's the case.

This DailyKos diarist does a good job of throwing doubt on it:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/7/34645/1235/704/656272

[iverglas]

9. a little conflation going on?

Two separate things:

(a) blaming black voters for the fact that Proposition 8 passed
- I assume that even if all black voters had voted against it, or if they had voted in proportions similar to the population as a whole or other groups, it would still have passed. So that's out.

(b) blaming the 70% of black voters who voted for Proposition 8 for their vote
- I don't see much wrong with that. I'd be blaming everybody who voted for the thing. But surely it can't just pass unmentioned that a rather large majority of this particular group voted for it, and that the group in question is one that has been actively and vocally fighting discrimination against themselves for some time.

Myself, I don't give a crap about anybody who acts and speaks only in his/her own interest. Up here, for instance: if you're a Chinese Christian and think the government should apologize for the head tax on Chinese immigrants, and then you worked against the formal legalization of gay marriage (as a large segment of the Chinese Christian community actively did): fuck you. I'll still support the giving of the apology, but fuck you. If you personally suffer discrimination, you won't be hearing much from me.

Obviously one can't separate the individual from the group. The individual is entitled to protection as a member of the group regardless of how despicable s/he is. I just don't have to get real weepy about the despicable ones. Of course I would never support or even stand by in the face of such discrimination. I just wouldn't get weepy.

Why can't the same be expected from them? Why should I judge someone by standards lower than I apply to myself? I wouldn't stand by if some despicable right-wing homophobic misogynist Chinese Christian were denied a job or a service on the basis of his/her ethnicity. Why should I not expect him/her to stand up when a woman or a gay or lesbian person experiences similar discrimination?

Why should women and the GLBT community, for instance, not be able to expect the same solidarity from African-Americans? Why should they stay quiet when they not only receive no solidarity, but are the targets of active efforts to oppress?


Gotta quote that old poster on the kitchen wall of a US draft resister I knew in Toronto many years ago, one more time:

Class consciousness is knowing which side of the fence you're on.
Class analysis is knowing who's there with you.

If nobody says it, nobody's ever going to get it.

Mind you, it's a two-way street, eh?

[ismnotwasm]

10. What's interesting

And OT, Is the the historical ties between women's suffrage and black suffrage. Several court cases after the ratification of the 14 amendment dealt with citizenship acknowledging that while blacks were citizens, the right for blacks to vote didn't happen until the 15th amendment--which specifically denied women the right to vote, while acknowledging that they were indeed, citizens.

Part of what drives homophobia, is historical and current misogyny and sexism. A hypermasculanized culture that saw blacks and women as inferior. I know you don't need me to go into great detail, so I'll just say this, In my veiw, If the black community itself needs to challenge sexism and homophobia and bigotry in it's own community that's one thing. It's entirely another for whites, gay or straight to "blame" blacks for homophobia in their ranks from a position of white privilege. Not only is it counterproductive, it hurts black Gay and Lesbians who have to be suffering incredibly. My personal answer would be to work with as many black voices as possible-- gay and straight willing to speak out against this atrocity, before I do finger pointing. Applying some sort of standpoint theory to the experience of blacks and gays isn't going to work, their experiences aren't the same.

(Did you see Wanda Sykes on this? On Ellen I think. Prior to the vote she was very worried about her black community and in her very funny way she pointed out a profound difference between being Gay and being black "For one think, I didn't have to "come out" black. I didn't have to sit with my mother and say Mom, I've got something to tell you------------- I'm black" She went on to make comparisons using the word black instead of gay, as "black lifestyle" She was hilarious and brilliant.)

Here's something from Dan Savage from The Stranger, a Seattle alternative paper
2008 Black Homophobia

African American voters in California voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8, writing anti-gay discrimination into California’s constitution and banning same-sex marriage in that state. Seventy percent of African American voters approved Prop 8, according to exit polls, compared to 53% of Latino voters, 49% of white voters, 49% of Asian voters.

I’m not sure what to do with this. I’m thrilled that we’ve just elected our first African-American president. I wept last night. I wept reading the papers this morning. But I can’t help but feeling hurt that the love and support aren’t mutual.

I do know this, though: I’m done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out there—and they’re out there, and I think they’re scum—are a bigger problem for African Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their color.

http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/11/black_homophobia

Savage is usually kind of snarky, but here he's obviously in pain. I've read a lot lately on black homophobia, but I'm very careful when it comes to race. I'm anti-racist, anti-sexist and pro-gay rights. I'm also a white, straight female. So I'm also very careful not to apply my own "heteronormative" sexual preference to the experiences of gays. I've never had to feel that kind of pain. Ever.

[bliss_eternal]

11. I'm not sure...

....about the Dan Savage comments. I can and will acknowledge the pain, that much is obvious to me.

What is not is this "homophobia" that so many (including Savage) seems to feel is much more prevalent for "blacks" than other groups. I'm also questioning the fact that so many willingly accept this as true.

I understand many seem to base this on the statistics presented. Statistics created by the same groups that created flawed exit polls in 2000 and 2004, btw (see the link in catburglar's post above http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=341&topic_id=13545&mesg_id=13574).

I saw people immediately start in on "black homophobia"--before any polls were released, and before 30% of the count was in. (I can provide a link, I was here election night). It's where I see people go everytime one asshole, (who happens to be black) says something cruel and hateful (and yes homophobic). Suddenly it's no longer an issue of this one ignorant person, it's "well, you know they ALL hate gays." :puke:

On a board where people have said repeatedly,"the main stream media in all forms is generally full of shit, and riddled with lies" I see people buying into crap like this and I want to know why? Why is it that so few consider the possibility of bias, from an entity (mainstream media) that creates terms like, "black on black crime"?

Why do so many, so willingly accept the ideas the media feeds them about black people (and frequently any other ethnic minority group)? But the same people would have shit fits if the same sort of information was released blanketing their entire cultural group, sex, gender, etc..

[ismnotwasm]

12. Which goes right back to my original question

Why are homophobic blacks somehow in a special category? Off the survey of a few hundred people, yet? Why did so many buy right into that bullshit? Why was it so easy to believe, to embrace? Why can't I call it racism when it was an over the top perceptual reaction based on the color of skin?

I do take notice that the protests aren't outside Black churches.

What I've been doing lately is rereading a textbook from a sociology class I took a few years back. It's called "The Meaning of Difference" and it covers racism, sexism and bigotry of all kinds. Including homophobia and treatment of the disabled.

My favorite essay--one I've used part of in this group, is called "The Possessive Investment in Whiteness" I wish I could find a link because it's a stunning summary of racist policies before and AFTER the civil rights movement, involvement FHA loans, Urban "renewal" development involving the corrupt HUD policies that destroyed housing for poor minorities, while encouraging white flight to the suburbs, and selling previously residential land for shopping centers and high end housing. Strategic freeway placement, what neighborhood toxic wastes were settled in, what neighborhoods had the most pollution.(The ones with minorities) The inequities in prison sentencing for drug charges between blacks and whites.

How these same policies prevented the traditional transfer of wealth between generations, and created a vicious cycle of poverty that blacks and other minorities are still overcoming with tenacity and courage. The election of a black president isn't going to reverse the damage of these policies, but damn it's a stunningly incredible success story once one takes time to review history.

[bliss_eternal]

14. Yes--it does return to your original question, doesn't it?

;)

I've had to bow out of much of the prop 8 discussion. Some say they want to discuss the issue, but clearly not all aspects.
Some get insulted when their divisive comments are called into question. "How dare you call me a racist?!"...is the general response. They don't seem to recognize that there's a difference between calling someone a racist, and saying they are participating in behavior that seems racially insensitive.

Even among progressives, who should know better (yeah--I said it)--there's this idea that all racists look like they do on television--Archie Bunker-ish, slur spewing, racial epithet loving, affirmative action hating, lawn cross burning, kkk apologist types. As such, anyone that doesn't obviously fit this description isn't racist, nor should they be called on insensitive comments, preconceived ideas, blanket statements or stereotypes based on media manipulation.

As if to say, someone can't merely be insensitive based on lack of exposure,or unaware, or a bit clueless regarding the issues of some groups of people? It seems among progressives, it's either all or nothing.

If there weren't degrees and variations of insensitivity, and little to no racial intolerance today (as many try to say) would this woman's art project achieved such a major response?

http://www.rent-a-negro.com/negroabout.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1274172


Oh and I need the book you spoke of, sounds like a great resouce! Please share the author (here or pm me).

[iverglas]

16. how about

http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/

Don't miss "Your Letters". ;) Otherwise, you might respond by saying the whole thing is just a tad ooobvioooouus.

My favourite:

this is some funny stuff. I don't know how people could offended by it. I don't even see how they could get anything serious out of it either, it's just a funny page.
-Sean
a black man at Penn State
ps- are you Canadian

It's that unfamiliar self-mocking dry humour ...

Oh no, there's another one! --

This isn't meant to be rude or metaphorical or anything in particular--it's just something I've been curious about ever since I discovered your website. I cannot help but wonder: Are Sally and Johnny Canadian?

Oh, and:

The persons who respond with curses and damn your {often “fag-ish”*} “racism” are the ones who should be implicated for perpetuating racism {and a whole lotta other ‘isms, apparently}. Denying anyone a forum to reflect life – for all it’s facets, faults and flaws – in a sincere and concerned, and, yes, even humourous way, is like ignoring the elephant (political party metaphors unintended) in the middle of the room and not only not talking about it, but letting it stink up the place and trample everyone in its path. I find it amusing to read who people assume narrated the site. That is, in itself, an interesting reflection of the way people think (particularly, for one person, about Canadians…).

... That harangue out of the way… Thanks for not only making me laugh but also for sending off a few more rounds of synapses this morning!

Best of luck, your new friend ~
Jalissa
*oh, the dangerous sort of irony!

[iverglas]

13. I just dunno

And I'm an outsider of course, although the Chinese-Christian situation here has some similar overtones.

If Obama had been white and had done a white churchy tour (say, Episcopalian evensong services, or Quaker meetings, around the northeast), and had stood on stage with an ignorant white homophobic bigot, would he have got away with it? Would it even have been considered? Episcopalians and Quakers themselves wouldn't have tolerated it, of course. So maybe we should say white Southern Baptists or something.

There were smart people running that show; was it some kind of accident that the asshole in question was included in the tour? I didn't think so.

The double standard strikes me as going the other way. Obama, in that instance, got let off a hook that no straight white candidate would have got let off. The thing is, who can even imagine a straight white male progressive politician doing such a thing??

I just don't know what the explanation for that act is supposed to be. A calculated, deliberate choice to include a popular homophobe in the tour, even when the predictable and completely justified protests were raised. Just plain odd.


If I may kill two birds with one stone -- as for the earlier comment about not having to "come out" as black: women have the same, er, advantage. There are advantages and disadvantages to both situations. A gay man can pass where a woman and black person cannot. However, women and black people aren't put in the very damaging position of having to deny their identity. I don't think there are any perfect analogies, but I don't think it serves a lot of purpose to say that people in the GLBT community have it better simply because they can pass.

[bliss_eternal]

18. Totally agree.

Every single person that was hurt, angry, offended (and any other feeling I fail to name) was justified as far as I was concerned, and I don't recall being particularly shy about saying so.

I also agree, that there's no way a president elect could have appeared on stage w/a caucasian male bigot.
I'll be honest and say I don't know what to say about it, rather than just saying nothing at all (or not addressing the issue).

[ismnotwasm]

20. No it doesn't serve any purpose

----That last part 'passing'-- Reminds me of the 'one drop' rule from the old Jim Crow laws. Sykes was pointing out bigotry with her marvelous sense of the ridiculous.

Why should Gays have to "pass"? I think part of the problem is Gays are associated with sexual acts in a society that likes to keep sex 'dirty'. Gays are simply human beings who should have basic human rights. It should be a no brainer. It should be. But still Gay children every day go to school and are threatened with violence. Gay men and women get called names and are harassed even in areas of high gay population. Still gays are being murdered in what are, to me acts of terrorism.

What I think happened is that fundamentalist bigotry grabbed to big pieces of constituency. Churches, not just black churches or Mormons, but the newer "mega-churches"--some of which scare the shit out of me, spoon feed or cherry pick parts of the bible to keep their particular congregation outwardly docile and internally conflicted to the point of psychological damage. Saddleback is one of those churches I dislike intensely. I was very surprised at the interview with the candidates being held there. There is some evidence that these fundie churches with Ministries in Africa for "Aids" children have filtered government funding, a bit tin foil, but I understand there is a money trail.

All of our politicians with very few exceptions have given a nod to these groups, with carefully phased words, and vague descriptions of faith and it's place in society. They do the same thing with abortion, using "late term abortion" as a safe procedure to get all moral about despite most of them are NOT physicians and not qualified to make any determination at all.

I did appreciate Obama using the words "Gay, straight" in his acceptance speech. Hopefully that is a sign of a more open policy and acceptance.

[iverglas]

15. actually ...

My understanding of women's and black suffrage in the US, from way back in my early feminist days, is that some woman suffragists used the fact of black suffrage as a talking point in arguing for woman suffrage: that the votes of white women were needed to outweigh the votes of black men. That racism is in fact documented.

Certainly in Canada, early feminists -- the Famous Five, the women who took their legal challenge all the way and won the right to sit in the Senate, as "persons" -- were overwhelmingly racist. Again, the rough parallel is Chinese immigration: the Chinese men who came to work on the railways and so on, and had to pay a special tax for the privilege, and had a hell of a time bringing their families here, were their targets. Some of the things the local feminists of the day had to say about them would make your hair stand on end. (And the damned thing is that those who think about it today know that a community composed largely of men without partners or extended families, for supportive relationships and to fill emotional needs and provide social controls, is likely to have markedly higher rates of criminality, as the early Chinese immigrant community, with its opium and gambling, undoubtedly did. The racist immigration policies caused the problem, just as inherently sexist immigration policies have in more recent times.)

This is a bit of an age-old problem. Everybody wants to be equal to the ones at the top -- straight white men -- and not to be associated with / equal to the "others", the denigrated ones.

Individuals do it within their own denigrated groups, try to distinguish themselves from the group and by disclaiming its denigrated characteristics. Women who want to be not like other women (that was one of the most perturbing things I was told so often by suitors back in that 1970ish time -- I didn't want to be like the bimbos on campus with their green eyeshadow and witlessness, but I also did not want "womanness" to be denigrated). Oreos, bananas, all them.

For one oppressed group to identify with another, it's not an easy thing, any more than it is for an individual within the group to identify with it when s/he is trying to distinguish him/herself in order to escape the oppression.

It doesn't work for all but a few individuals. You can act as male or white or straight as you like, and everybody knows you're really female or black (or you yourself live with the conflict of knowing you're gay/lesbian), and you live with the consequences of those facts no matter how hard you try to distinguish yourself.

It calls for a fairly high degree of sophistication and internal confidence to embrace the identity as a member of an oppressed group, as an individual, or a member of the community of oppressed groups, as a group. It involves giving up the privileges that one might gain by rejecting the group, or the community of groups -- to be recognized by the oppressor as different and deserving of better (never actually equal) treatment. Women can make it to the boardroom and still be excluded from the golfing parties. Black people, ditto. Gay men and lesbians can do it only by denying who they are. Oppressed racial and ethnic minorities can (even if only very implicitly) claim superiority to sexual minorities (GLBT people, as actual minorities; women, as having minority status ascribed) ... and vice versa ... and seek recognition as equals that way.

It's damned easy to say "give us women the vote and we'll help you outvote the dangerous black people", as a group, or "appoint me to the board and don't bother about that corporate child care centre", as an individual. It's a lot harder, as an individual, to say that you'll only join that board if the company starts doing something about the working conditions of the lowest-paid women, in terms of both the material benefits you give up and the self-image you have to embrace, as one of "them" -- the oppressed who didn't manage to haul themselves up by their bootstraps and demonstrate their worthiness -- and their imposed identity of a group composed of individuals who are less intelligent, less ambitious, less dependable, etc. And, as a group, to say that you are going to use that vote to improve the living conditions of racial and ethnic minorities, thus embracing, as a group, the imposed identity of less intelligent, deserving, etc., group.

That's even without the plain old racism among woman suffragists, and feminists and GLBT activists. And plain old homophobic bigotry among racial and ethnic minorities.

[bliss_eternal]

17. On Wanda Sykes...

...who I adore! I missed her appearance on Ellen. But I may have found it. Is this the one you were referring to?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5M3iS2O0Es

:hi: Your description of this made me laugh aloud, but seeing it? Even funnier!

Here's another one, also sharing her support of gay marriage (and pointing to the silliness of straight people saying it's a threat to hetero marriage):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IHdaJOZe7E&NR=1

(unfortunately, the tracking is a bit off:( )

She also has a bit (o/t) about pro-choice not being the same as pro-abortion.
She says something to the affect of imagining a scenario of sitting around w/your girlfriends, bored--when someone says,"...I know what we should do! Let's all get abortions....awwww yeah, Let's!"

[ismnotwasm]

19. Yes that's the one

"Discrimination is Discrimination, and you're going to vote for discrimination to get in the constitution?"

Even though I feel the Black experience is different than the Gay experience, and the Black Gay experience has to have it's own set of challenges both within and without the Gay community, all groups have experienced the horrible results of bigotry. I wish with all my heart that all people could understand how bigotry and racism hurts everyone, slows our maturation, the road to say "self actualization" (or whatever) of the HUMAN race. This "Us and Them" or the concept of "the other" that is so prevalent, is so damaging to society it's like a disease.