“I’m for gay rights but…”

September 29, 2009

So for the past few years I’ve been jousting with my family and loved ones around the issue of same sex marriage and repeatedly found my argument falling on deaf ears. In fact what I most often heard was, “I am for gay rights but…” and what would follow would immediately sweep away any indication of actual support for the union of two people from the same sex. As a service to myself and those with whom I will soon have this discussion with, I’ll provide some statements and my rebuttals. Instead of taking our 45 minutes on spinning wheels, let’s work and see and if we can cover some different ground.

1) “I’m for gay rights but … you can’t compare being Black to being gay.”

I feel you, I understand that being Black is different than being gay, but did you realize even in that statement you’re implying that we don’t have Black gay folk? No really, this is the part of the conversation where you keep on throwing out “they” which you might as well then say “those people.” I know you don’t like me bringing that up, because for so long and so often within the dominant White culture of America Black folks are referred to as “they”, “those people” and even recently “that one.” It’s really a process of othering, trying to make a distinction of who is “in” and should receive privileges and who is “out” (pun intended).

2) No, you’re not getting it, I didn’t choose to be Black and I can’t hide being Black.

Touche, you’re probably don’t remember when you chose to be Black, if you ever did. In fact, since we’re talking – heterosexual to heterosexual, I don’t remember when I choose to be straight, but that’s besides the point. The point is that being “Black” and being “gay”, as we sociologists say are both “socially constructed”. Yeah, fancy academic words but definitely important. By socially constructed I mean that we create the boundaries and meanings for these categories. There is a great film that breaks this down and books, but let’s be real, you ain’t gonna pick up a book or watch a movie in the middle of this blog post, so let me do what I can to break it down now. While we’ve come to think of meaning of Blackness as something that can’t be changed, avoided, and pretty much is like gravity, we’ve forgotten that was created. In fact, the dominant images and tropes of “What is Black”, weren’t even our creation. Think about it, how many people who identify as Black, would say “my skin is actually the color of Black.” Very few, in fact, we respond by saying things like “I’m brown, caramel, dark chocolate, etc.” all descriptors that side-step an imposed moniker. Also have we forgotten that for so many years, the oppression of being Black and not having access to rights made many of our ancestors pass? Yeah, that’s right, not all of us are “definitively Black” and certainly what it means to be Black has carried consequences.

3) That’s my point, almost exactly, you can tell when someone is Black usually, but you never know if they’re gay! Well unless they’re really flamboyant or something.

Ah, I get it, if you are gay you don’t have to “look or act gay” and if you don’t act gay, you’ll be fine in society. Yeah, that’s called passing … well actually more appropriately covering. See, as a Black folks, I really hope we think deeply about oppression and how oppressive it must be to not be able to show your love for someone else. If I walk outside and decide to kiss a strange woman in the middle of the street I won’t get many strange glares (other than folks saying “Dumi’s a wild cat”) but if I love someone of the same gender and walk arm-in-arm with them down the street I’m likely to get screw faces down the block. As a result, we, heterosexual folks often say stuff like, “I don’t care what you do behind closed doors but I don’t want to see it.” Interesting… we live in a society were the physical expression of romantic love between people is common, but almost completely forbidden for certain groups. In order to be one’s self we ask people not to express themselves and “pass” or “cover” for straight. That doesn’t sound very equal or liberated to me. Can you imagine a community where love was the norm and hate was not what we used to regulate others behaviors? (that’s rhetorical)

4) Okay, I get that, but doesn’t it piss you off when they use the Civil Rights Movement for their movement?

Once again, what’s up with the us and them type of thinking. Gay Black folks have been around for a long time, to act as if they are not us is to deny part of ourselves. In fact, the most prominent voice and architect of the Civil Rights Movement was Martin Luther King Jr. His work centered on non-violence which he derived from Gandhi but he learned from Bayard Rustin who was a queer Black man. Gay, Lesbian, Bi and Queer Black folks have been at the center of our movement for rights as well as our cultural and social uplift, why try to write them out of history now? Or rather why not acknowledge the central role they’ve played in the collective Black struggle which should include lgbtq brothers and sisters? We can only say gay folks are piggy-backing on the civil rights movement if we don’t acknowledge the contribution of gay folks to the movement. Now has the equal rights movement around sexuality taken on some tropes that came along during the Civil Rights movement, absolutely! But all subsequent movements do that, in fact, a marker of a successful social movement is an adoption of some its techniques. But let’s not forget what the Civil Rights Movement was about! It was fighting to make the 14th and 15th amendments real!!! Those amendments legally gave Black folks equal civil rights but when we looked at how Black people were treated and what they could do, it is seen that it’s unequal. I think we can take a similar look at the Gay Rights movement which is simply fighting for the same rights that heterosexuals have, be it marriage, adequate healthcare, or to live freely in society.

5) I hear what you’re saying but God made “Adam and Eve” not “Adam and Steve”! We’re a Christian country and marriage is a bond before God between man and woman.

Ah, you got me with that one, I didn’t realize a rhyme could break down an entire situation. Oh wait, no it can’t. There is an entrenched myth in this country that marriage is exclusively a religious, often insinuated Christian, practice that the government sanctions. Not true at all, anthropologists have long observed and discussed marriage as beyond Christian and beyond the sanctioning of the state. It is true here that many associate the two, but that does not seem logical that it must also be seen as such. First, the mythos of the United States as Chrisitian nation is based on ignoring that colonies were founded out of the fleeing of religious oppression. How ironic is it that religion would then become the basis for oppression in 2009 and 1619 when non-Christian Africans arrived in captivity and quickly were proclaimed subhuman and savage. If you are going to invoke the credo of a nation, then I’d suggest you invoke the ones of equality and diversity, which means you are welcome to have your beliefs but your beliefs should not be the basis for impinging on other’s rights.

Now I know by this point you likely still don’t agree with me, but I do want you to see there is validity to a discussion about gay rights and the civil rights or more importantly gay rights as civil and human rights! I do want you to see that all to often we neglect and relegate a part of our people to inhumane and unjustified treatments through our active and passive condoning of covering. I do want us all to think about what MLK meant when he said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” I do want us to really grapple with the fact that if Huey Newton in the 1970s could see the connection, we should be able to see it in 2009. I wrote this because I worry about a people’s ability to turn a blind eye to injustice in a world and nation that often has suggested the unjust is just the way it should be. For a people who have fought for existence and rights, it should only be natural to continue that fight with our brothers and sisters.

***this piece is designed to be a primer and conversation starter. there are many more things to say, but wanted to get the ball rolling and get some basic ideas out there***

Filed under: Black Men, Boundaries, Conservatism, General, Masculinity, Protest, Sexuality

http://socialsciencelite.blogspot.com/ Jeremy

great stuff. I agree on all counts, but I think the Civil Rights Movement piece is pretty contentious. Last Fall I was having a conversation with Harvard law professor/almost assistant attorny general Lani Guinier, who expressed disdain about the use of gay rights activists explicitly likening their cause to the Civil Rights Movement. We were talking about Obama, so this part of the convo was pretty tangential, but still….even smart people have a problem with it.
- Anonymous
  
  ownership of movements, from what i have seen in the academy and in the streets stems from historical co-option of intelligence and philosophies. For example, the often times momentary slips into strategic essentialist spaces so as to not have to explain oneself to death. Also, albeit no one wants to admit to it, the exhaustion of those conversations, being the privileged who has to hear it and or the subordinated group/individual who has to speak it. Self-preservation when freedom and the struggle for recognition feels like a leaning towards emotional poverty based on a person’s unashamed and naively comfortable ignorance.
dumilewis

Thanks for the feedback Jeremy. I definitely think smart folks are able to disagree on things and I know that my position on the Civil Rights and Gay Rights is one that is often not shared by many of the folks I look up to. It's make sense to talk about interlocking oppressions to folks, but not to link these interlocking systems in activism are acceptable. In fact, interlocking activism is often perceived as “usurping”, rather than sharing in the struggle. I acknowledge there is some grounds for this perception but in my eyes much more ground for commonality. The language that we, Black scholars and commentators, often offer use around the CRM is one of absolutes and possession. The CRM was neither of those things, it was complex dynamic operating in concert and discord. The very essence of a movement is its diversity and strength brought to bear on a social problem. I say, let's disagree, but let's figure out why we disagree to forge new ground from which we can become common allies.
http://socialsciencelite.blogspot.com/ Jeremy

great stuff. I agree on all counts, but I think the Civil Rights Movement piece is pretty contentious. Last Fall I was having a conversation with Harvard law professor/almost assistant attorny general Lani Guinier, who expressed disdain about the use of gay rights activists explicitly likening their cause to the Civil Rights Movement. We were talking about Obama, so this part of the convo was pretty tangential, but still….even smart people have a problem with it.
- g_531
  
  ownership of movements, from what i have seen in the academy and in the streets stems from historical co-option of intelligence and philosophies. For example, the often times momentary slips into strategic essentialist spaces so as to not have to explain oneself to death. Also, albeit no one wants to admit to it, the exhaustion of those conversations, being the privileged who has to hear it and or the subordinated group/individual who has to speak it. Self-preservation when freedom and the struggle for recognition feels like a leaning towards emotional poverty based on a person’s unashamed and naively comfortable ignorance.
dumilewis

Thanks for the feedback Jeremy. I definitely think smart folks are able to disagree on things and I know that my position on the Civil Rights and Gay Rights is one that is often not shared by many of the folks I look up to. It’s make sense to talk about interlocking oppressions to folks, but not to link these interlocking systems in activism are acceptable. In fact, interlocking activism is often perceived as “usurping”, rather than sharing in the struggle. I acknowledge there is some grounds for this perception but in my eyes much more ground for commonality. The language that we, Black scholars and commentators, often offer use around the CRM is one of absolutes and possession. The CRM was neither of those things, it was complex dynamic operating in concert and discord. The very essence of a movement is its diversity and strength brought to bear on a social problem. I say, let’s disagree, but let’s figure out why we disagree to forge new ground from which we can become common allies.
http://aisha08.wordpress.com/ Aisha

So in writing this piece, I take it you are flirting with all progressive women… including me;-)
I must be frank and say that for a long time, I viewed Gay Rights activism as a foreign movement that had nothing to do with me. At 15, my mother suggested I take the time to think on and define my sexuality. So in a sense, I did choose to be heterosexual. I weighed pros and cons, decided I didn't want to be ostracized, and when I couldn't imagine myself kissing another woman romantically, I decided to come out of the closet as a straight woman.

People see me and want to box me into a racial construct that makes them feel comfortable. They probably do the same with my sexual identity – “just throw her in the 'straight box'”. But I'll bet ppl are quicker to throw us into race and ethnicity boxes than sexuality boxes. So while someone should never be expected to “tone” down their romantic tendencies towards persons of the same sex, it would be naive to act like our society doesn't first categorize you according to race, then ethnic idenity and ultimately sexuality upon interaction and/or further observation. But yea, you're right – we need to do away with these distinctions! injustice and inequality must be vanquished irrespective of who the oppressed is. Whether I consider myself Gay or not, injustice against LGBT persons is injustice toward me.This distinction is what keeps White Feminists from understanding the importance of racial equality as well as gender equality.
A Concerned Reader

I think it is pretty clear that 'gay rights' is a 'civil rights' matter, which is not to say that it is the same as the 'Civil Rights Movement.'

The CRM is a name (yes, a created one) describing a specific movement in American history, adopted so as to add weight and universality to the struggle of Black People in this country. 'Civil Rights' is a broader concept that (IMHO) is an umbrella that includes lots of things — gay rights, disabled rights, Native American rights, etc. It is about someone being treated equal before The Law and in society in general.

Now, Malcolm saw that 'civil rights' may not be a broad enough context for the plight of Black People in this country, and was attempting to have it framed as a Human Rights issue. It is that as well. Just as 'gay rights' may be also argued to be a Human Rights issue.

(BTW: Good catch about the irony of people calling the US a “Christian” country when it was more accurately founded on 'religious freedom' by people who focused more on *whether* one was religious rather than *what* religion they were. A part of US history that's often either forgotten or mis-interpreted.)

It strikes me as either petty or (deliberately?) misleading that people try to conflate the CRM (a political movement) with Civil Rights (as a concept). Gay marriage is a civil rights issue insofar as the *legal* definition of marriage goes. Anyone who's gotten married in this country knows that you ain't married *legally* until the County Clerk says so, regardless of what any minister, pastor, rabbi, chaplain, imam, or whomever had to say. And until that time, you won't have the *legal rights* accorded to married people. That's one civil rights aspect of the 'gay rights' discussion. All this chatter by 'religious people' objecting to gay marriage on religious grounds is an entirely separate issue and one that should be apart from the legal issues associated with “The Institution of Marriage.”
http://aisha08.wordpress.com/ Aisha

So in writing this piece, I take it you are flirting with all progressive women… including me;-)
I must be frank and say that for a long time, I viewed Gay Rights activism as a foreign movement that had nothing to do with me. At 15, my mother suggested I take the time to think on and define my sexuality. So in a sense, I did choose to be heterosexual. I weighed pros and cons, decided I didn’t want to be ostracized, and when I couldn’t imagine myself kissing another woman romantically, I decided to come out of the closet as a straight woman.

People see me and want to box me into a racial construct that makes them feel comfortable. They probably do the same with my sexual identity – “just throw her in the ‘straight box'”. But I’ll bet ppl are quicker to throw us into race and ethnicity boxes than sexuality boxes. So while someone should never be expected to “tone” down their romantic tendencies towards persons of the same sex, it would be naive to act like our society doesn’t first categorize you according to race, then ethnic idenity and ultimately sexuality upon interaction and/or further observation. But yea, you’re right – we need to do away with these distinctions! injustice and inequality must be vanquished irrespective of who the oppressed is. Whether I consider myself Gay or not, injustice against LGBT persons is injustice toward me.This distinction is what keeps White Feminists from understanding the importance of racial equality as well as gender equality.
A Concerned Reader

I think it is pretty clear that ‘gay rights’ is a ‘civil rights’ matter, which is not to say that it is the same as the ‘Civil Rights Movement.’

The CRM is a name (yes, a created one) describing a specific movement in American history, adopted so as to add weight and universality to the struggle of Black People in this country. ‘Civil Rights’ is a broader concept that (IMHO) is an umbrella that includes lots of things — gay rights, disabled rights, Native American rights, etc. It is about someone being treated equal before The Law and in society in general.

Now, Malcolm saw that ‘civil rights’ may not be a broad enough context for the plight of Black People in this country, and was attempting to have it framed as a Human Rights issue. It is that as well. Just as ‘gay rights’ may be also argued to be a Human Rights issue.

(BTW: Good catch about the irony of people calling the US a “Christian” country when it was more accurately founded on ‘religious freedom’ by people who focused more on *whether* one was religious rather than *what* religion they were. A part of US history that’s often either forgotten or mis-interpreted.)

It strikes me as either petty or (deliberately?) misleading that people try to conflate the CRM (a political movement) with Civil Rights (as a concept). Gay marriage is a civil rights issue insofar as the *legal* definition of marriage goes. Anyone who’s gotten married in this country knows that you ain’t married *legally* until the County Clerk says so, regardless of what any minister, pastor, rabbi, chaplain, imam, or whomever had to say. And until that time, you won’t have the *legal rights* accorded to married people. That’s one civil rights aspect of the ‘gay rights’ discussion. All this chatter by ‘religious people’ objecting to gay marriage on religious grounds is an entirely separate issue and one that should be apart from the legal issues associated with “The Institution of Marriage.”
dina b.

i can hear people saying each of those points. great technique to writing this post =)

but i disagree on two points:
1. when someone believes that “you can't compare being black to being gay,” it means “you’re implying that we don’t have Black gay folk.” huh? that was a big leap that i couldnt make even with the explanation that followed, im sorry dumi.

2. i dont know if i read it wrong, but while i agree with the position that “blackness” and “gayness” are socially constructed, i don't agree that they cannot be chosen. or was something else stated?

just like aisha, i chose my sexuality just as i chose my religion just as i chose which part of my identity to push forward foremost, all at this point in life and in every day of my life. i didnt want to succumb to citing my own case study in response to other case studies because it's so circular, but it doesn't take away from the validity of my experiences. at a young age when i realized culture, personality, sexuality were all socially constructed to a certain degree, i began seeking to construct my own identity built upon what felt natural or made most sense to me.

i compared the pros and cons of being bisexual and heterosexual, and found for me heterosexuality to be much more appealing naturally and spiritually gratifying when i found rejectionism exhausting. unlike aisha, i am a rejector of social pressures and i actually saw it as a pro to be bisexual in an age of conformism. but given the equation that i had begun following a spiritual code to bring me closer to the divine, social pressures shrunk to zero importance to me and therefore the desire to make a bold statement by being bisexual became equally less important. even for people who ride either lines, conservative and liberal, it is hard for people to not LABEL or categorize. because a categorized person is easy to understand. we are lazy. we dont want to have to think or process. we just want easy-to-read signals and labels for us to throw into our brains for quick filing.

a bigger point i wanted to make is that sexuality has many, many elements to it. and i think the biggest injustice is to reduce it to a nature versus nurture argument. let's look at it in all its complexes and all its glory!

lastly, forgive me if ive said anything in poor grammar or comprehension. im a bit hopped up on nyquil =)

thumbs up:
“we need to do away with these distinctions! …Whether I consider myself Gay or not, injustice against LGBT persons is injustice toward me”
Fatima

Thank You for writing this Dumi.
Fatima

Thank You for writing this Dumi.
dina b.

i can hear people saying each of those points. great technique to writing this post =)

but i disagree on two points:
1. when someone believes that “you can’t compare being black to being gay,” it means “you’re implying that we don’t have Black gay folk.” huh? that was a big leap that i couldnt make even with the explanation that followed, im sorry dumi.

2. i dont know if i read it wrong, but while i agree with the position that “blackness” and “gayness” are socially constructed, i don’t agree that they cannot be chosen. or was something else stated?

just like aisha, i chose my sexuality just as i chose my religion just as i chose which part of my identity to push forward foremost, all at this point in life and in every day of my life. i didnt want to succumb to citing my own case study in response to other case studies because it’s so circular, but it doesn’t take away from the validity of my experiences. at a young age when i realized culture, personality, sexuality were all socially constructed to a certain degree, i began seeking to construct my own identity built upon what felt natural or made most sense to me.

i compared the pros and cons of being bisexual and heterosexual, and found for me heterosexuality to be much more appealing naturally and spiritually gratifying when i found rejectionism exhausting. unlike aisha, i am a rejector of social pressures and i actually saw it as a pro to be bisexual in an age of conformism. but given the equation that i had begun following a spiritual code to bring me closer to the divine, social pressures shrunk to zero importance to me and therefore the desire to make a bold statement by being bisexual became equally less important. even for people who ride either lines, conservative and liberal, it is hard for people to not LABEL or categorize. because a categorized person is easy to understand. we are lazy. we dont want to have to think or process. we just want easy-to-read signals and labels for us to throw into our brains for quick filing.

a bigger point i wanted to make is that sexuality has many, many elements to it. and i think the biggest injustice is to reduce it to a nature versus nurture argument. let’s look at it in all its complexes and all its glory!

lastly, forgive me if ive said anything in poor grammar or comprehension. im a bit hopped up on nyquil =)

thumbs up:
“we need to do away with these distinctions! …Whether I consider myself Gay or not, injustice against LGBT persons is injustice toward me”
rika_p

Ah, what a great deviation from all the probability and survival analysis I've been doing all week (man, I'm even using common stat words-'deviation'-for my nous! =P). I love social scientists and all the soft parameters that make up their work. Leaves plenty of room for an interesting debate.

Ok, here are some of the thoughts I wanted to address:

1. When Dumi says, “When someone believes that “you can't compare being black to being gay,” it means “you’re implying that we don’t have Black gay folk.””(I believe) he means the former statement implies that being Black and being gay are two mutually exclusive events (God, I'm speaking stat again. Forgive me, though it may act do the trick!) and when you have two mutually exclusive events, there's no overlap btw the two (this is the key part: two mutually exclusive events mean no overlap btw the events), so hence the former statement implies “we don't have any Black gay folk.” (ie: no overlap btw the two events ‘black’ and ‘gay’)
I can clarify this even further: Think of the example of the two mutually exclusive events of being male or being female (now, I didn't say 'man' or 'woman' as those are socially constructed, where are 'male' or female' are biologically constructed- and you also have the third category as 'hermaphrodite'- but let's skip this for simplicity's sake). So when you say, “You can't compare being male to a female (or ‘Black to a gay’)” you're implying that we don't have a male female 'thing' (or ‘Black gay folk’). That's RIGHT! We all know that if you're male, you're def not a female (and vice versa) because there’s no overlap btw these two mutually exclusive events. Get it? I just illustrated here how the statement “You can't compare being black to being gay” is treating 'Black' and 'gay' as two mutually exclusive events, and therefore leaving no room for 'Black gay folk' (the overlap).
Now, keep in mind that everything I just wrote above is under the assumption that Dumi meant the former statement implies that being Black and being gay are two mutually exclusive events. If this isn’t what he meant, then I have no idea what logic he’s using…

2. About the statements that read along the lines “we should do away” w/ categories or distinctions (and similarly statements that call us lazy for making such categories/distinctions in the first place): I don’t think these commentators literally mean we should do away with categories/distinctions, but instead mean that we should REDEFINE the current categories/distinctions we have. This subtle difference (btw “do away” and “redefine”) is important to make because some readers may actually think the process of labeling and categorizing is a bad system. The procedure itself isn’t bad. What’s ‘bad’ is some of the categories/distinctions that have created and put into practice and have infringed upon people’s rights (and, of course, what you label as ‘rights’ here is arbitrary), and it’s these that are disputed (and that the commentators want to ‘do away’ with). So again, human beings can’t process without categories, but since we’re imperfect and have a great tendency to miscategorize (and therefore give rise to ‘bad’ categories), we should be open to redefining our categories (or recategorizing). :)
And to extend this phenomena to the discussion at hand: At the moment we have a lot of categories- gay rights, human rights, civil rights, etc. And I believe as Dumi is suggesting, these rights are NOT mutually exclusive events, and to think so would be detrimental a group of people! Therefore, he writes when considering ‘gay rights’ we should also think about ‘civil rights.’ (Like the connection we’ve done with ‘women’s rights’ and ‘civil rights’.) I agree. (And thumps up on highlighting the historical note that MLK learned from Gandhi who learned from Bayard Rustin- a Black gay man! WOW. Really??)

3. Mad props to ‘Concerned Reader’ for clearly delineating that it’s more accurate to compare gay rights (concept) to civil right (concept) versus gay rights (concept) to the CRM (movement). That is, if you’re going to connect a concept to movement, don’t compare the concept directly to the movement, but compare the concept (gay rights) to the concept (civil rights) that UNDERLIES the movement (CRM). This distinction wasn’t clear from the blog, probably because it seems like an obvious thing to Dumi, but not to an amateur like me!

Anyway, good stuff. Now back to stat. =/
rika_p

Ah, what a great deviation from all the probability and survival analysis I've been doing all week (man, I'm even using common stat words-'deviation'-for my nous! =P). I love social scientists and all the soft parameters that make up their work. Leaves plenty of room for an interesting debate.

Ok, here are some of the thoughts I wanted to address:

1. When Dumi says, “When someone believes that “you can't compare being black to being gay,” it means “you’re implying that we don’t have Black gay folk.””(I believe) he means the former statement implies that being Black and being gay are two mutually exclusive events (God, I'm speaking stat again. Forgive me, though it may act do the trick!) and when you have two mutually exclusive events, there's no overlap btw the two (this is the key part: two mutually exclusive events mean no overlap btw the events), so hence the former statement implies “we don't have any Black gay folk.” (ie: no overlap btw the two events ‘black’ and ‘gay’)

I can clarify this even further: Think of the example of the two mutually exclusive events of being male or being female (now, I didn't say 'man' or 'woman' as those are socially constructed, where are 'male' or female' are biologically constructed- and you also have the third category as 'hermaphrodite'- but let's skip this for simplicity's sake). So when you say, “You can't compare being male to a female (or ‘Black to a gay’)” you're implying that we don't have a male female 'thing' (or ‘Black gay folk’). That's RIGHT! We all know that if you're male, you're def not a female (and vice versa) because there’s no overlap btw these two mutually exclusive events. Get it? I just illustrated here how the statement “You can't compare being black to being gay” is treating 'Black' and 'gay' as two mutually exclusive events, and therefore leaving no room for 'Black gay folk' (the overlap).

Now, keep in mind that everything I just wrote above is under the assumption that Dumi meant the former statement implies that being Black and being gay are two mutually exclusive events. If this isn’t what he meant, then I have no idea what logic he’s using…

2. About the statements that read along the lines “we should do away” w/ categories or distinctions (and similarly statements that call us lazy for making such categories/distinctions in the first place): I don’t think these commentators literally mean we should do away with categories/distinctions, but instead mean that we should REDEFINE the current categories/distinctions we have.

This subtle difference (btw “do away” and “redefine”) is important to make because some readers may actually think the process of labeling and categorizing is a bad system. The procedure itself isn’t bad. What’s ‘bad’ is some of the categories/distinctions that have created and put into practice and have infringed upon people’s rights (and, of course, what you label as ‘rights’ here is arbitrary), and it’s these that are disputed (and that the commentators want to ‘do away’ with).

So again, human beings can’t process without categories, but since we’re imperfect and have a great tendency to miscategorize (and therefore give rise to ‘bad’ categories), we should be open to redefining our categories (or recategorizing). :)

And to extend this phenomena to the discussion at hand: At the moment we have a lot of categories- gay rights, human rights, civil rights, etc. And I believe as Dumi is suggesting, these rights are NOT mutually exclusive events, and to think so would be detrimental a group of people! Therefore, he writes when considering ‘gay rights’ we should also think about ‘civil rights.’ (Like the connection we’ve done with ‘women’s rights’ and ‘civil rights’.) I agree. (And thumps up on highlighting the historical note that MLK learned from Gandhi who learned from Bayard Rustin- a Black gay man! WOW. Really??)

3. Mad props to ‘Concerned Reader’ for clearly delineating that it’s more accurate to compare gay rights (concept) to civil right (concept) versus gay rights (concept) to the CRM (movement).

That is, if you’re going to connect a concept to movement, don’t compare the concept directly to the movement, but compare the concept (gay rights) to the concept (civil rights) that UNDERLIES the movement (CRM). This distinction wasn’t clear from the blog, probably because it seems like an obvious thing to Dumi, but not to an amateur like me!

Anyway, good stuff. Now back to stat. =/
queer reader

Queer people have the right to affirm who they are in public. And to love one another. And they have the right to be happy. Those are their rights, and the rights of all. And only just now are only just some starting to be able to finally claim and utilize those rights.

Straight folks have no idea how much they take those rights for granted.

Seeing queer people of color being themselves in public, and being happy, is a beautiful (but unfortunately rare) sight to see. They are affirming who they are in public, they are in love so they're not repressing themselves, and they are happy.

Also, I am glad you brought up black gay folk. Too often, people compare the struggles of Blacks and Queers and think they're not related. For some reason everything has to be a binary (blackness/gayness, gay/straight, black/white, male/female, etc etc.) People need to realize, that ALL struggles are connected – this is why we have SOLIDARITY.

Anyway, thank you Dumi. You are a true ally. I hope your friends around you will learn from you.
rika_p

Ah, what a great deviation from all the probability and survival analysis I’ve been doing all week (man, I’m even using common stat words-‘deviation’-for my nous! =P). I love social scientists and all the soft parameters that make up their work. Leaves plenty of room for an interesting debate.

Ok, here are some of the thoughts I wanted to address:

1. When Dumi says, “When someone believes that “you can’t compare being black to being gay,” it means “you’re implying that we don’t have Black gay folk.””(I believe) he means the former statement implies that being Black and being gay are two mutually exclusive events (God, I’m speaking stat again. Forgive me, though it may act do the trick!) and when you have two mutually exclusive events, there’s no overlap btw the two (this is the key part: two mutually exclusive events mean no overlap btw the events), so hence the former statement implies “we don’t have any Black gay folk.” (ie: no overlap btw the two events ‘black’ and ‘gay’)I can clarify this even further: Think of the example of the two mutually exclusive events of being male or being female (now, I didn’t say ‘man’ or ‘woman’ as those are socially constructed, where are ‘male’ or female’ are biologically constructed- and you also have the third category as ‘hermaphrodite’- but let’s skip this for simplicity’s sake). So when you say, “You can’t compare being male to a female (or ‘Black to a gay’)” you’re implying that we don’t have a male female ‘thing’ (or ‘Black gay folk’). That’s RIGHT! We all know that if you’re male, you’re def not a female (and vice versa) because there’s no overlap btw these two mutually exclusive events. Get it? I just illustrated here how the statement “You can’t compare being black to being gay” is treating ‘Black’ and ‘gay’ as two mutually exclusive events, and therefore leaving no room for ‘Black gay folk’ (the overlap). Now, keep in mind that everything I just wrote above is under the assumption that Dumi meant the former statement implies that being Black and being gay are two mutually exclusive events. If this isn’t what he meant, then I have no idea what logic he’s using… 2. About the statements that read along the lines “we should do away” w/ categories or distinctions (and similarly statements that call us lazy for making such categories/distinctions in the first place): I don’t think these commentators literally mean we should do away with categories/distinctions, but instead mean that we should REDEFINE the current categories/distinctions we have. This subtle difference (btw “do away” and “redefine”) is important to make because some readers may actually think the process of labeling and categorizing is a bad system. The procedure itself isn’t bad. What’s ‘bad’ is some of the categories/distinctions that have created and put into practice and have infringed upon people’s rights (and, of course, what you label as ‘rights’ here is arbitrary), and it’s these that are disputed (and that the commentators want to ‘do away’ with). So again, human beings can’t process without categories, but since we’re imperfect and have a great tendency to miscategorize (and therefore give rise to ‘bad’ categories), we should be open to redefining our categories (or recategorizing). :) And to extend this phenomena to the discussion at hand: At the moment we have a lot of categories- gay rights, human rights, civil rights, etc. And I believe as Dumi is suggesting, these rights are NOT mutually exclusive events, and to think so would be detrimental a group of people! Therefore, he writes when considering ‘gay rights’ we should also think about ‘civil rights.’ (Like the connection we’ve done with ‘women’s rights’ and ‘civil rights’.) I agree. (And thumps up on highlighting the historical note that MLK learned from Gandhi who learned from Bayard Rustin- a Black gay man! WOW. Really??)3. Mad props to ‘Concerned Reader’ for clearly delineating that it’s more accurate to compare gay rights (concept) to civil right (concept) versus gay rights (concept) to the CRM (movement). That is, if you’re going to connect a concept to movement, don’t compare the concept directly to the movement, but compare the concept (gay rights) to the concept (civil rights) that UNDERLIES the movement (CRM). This distinction wasn’t clear from the blog, probably because it seems like an obvious thing to Dumi, but not to an amateur like me!Anyway, good stuff. Now back to stat. =/
rika_p

Ah, what a great deviation from all the probability and survival analysis I’ve been doing all week (man, I’m even using common stat words-‘deviation’-for my nous! =P). I love social scientists and all the soft parameters that make up their work. Leaves plenty of room for an interesting debate.

Ok, here are some of the thoughts I wanted to address:

1. When Dumi says, “When someone believes that “you can’t compare being black to being gay,” it means “you’re implying that we don’t have Black gay folk.””(I believe) he means the former statement implies that being Black and being gay are two mutually exclusive events (God, I’m speaking stat again. Forgive me, though it may act do the trick!) and when you have two mutually exclusive events, there’s no overlap btw the two (this is the key part: two mutually exclusive events mean no overlap btw the events), so hence the former statement implies “we don’t have any Black gay folk.” (ie: no overlap btw the two events ‘black’ and ‘gay’)

I can clarify this even further: Think of the example of the two mutually exclusive events of being male or being female (now, I didn’t say ‘man’ or ‘woman’ as those are socially constructed, where are ‘male’ or female’ are biologically constructed- and you also have the third category as ‘hermaphrodite’- but let’s skip this for simplicity’s sake). So when you say, “You can’t compare being male to a female (or ‘Black to a gay’)” you’re implying that we don’t have a male female ‘thing’ (or ‘Black gay folk’). That’s RIGHT! We all know that if you’re male, you’re def not a female (and vice versa) because there’s no overlap btw these two mutually exclusive events. Get it? I just illustrated here how the statement “You can’t compare being black to being gay” is treating ‘Black’ and ‘gay’ as two mutually exclusive events, and therefore leaving no room for ‘Black gay folk’ (the overlap).

Now, keep in mind that everything I just wrote above is under the assumption that Dumi meant the former statement implies that being Black and being gay are two mutually exclusive events. If this isn’t what he meant, then I have no idea what logic he’s using…

2. About the statements that read along the lines “we should do away” w/ categories or distinctions (and similarly statements that call us lazy for making such categories/distinctions in the first place): I don’t think these commentators literally mean we should do away with categories/distinctions, but instead mean that we should REDEFINE the current categories/distinctions we have.

This subtle difference (btw “do away” and “redefine”) is important to make because some readers may actually think the process of labeling and categorizing is a bad system. The procedure itself isn’t bad. What’s ‘bad’ is some of the categories/distinctions that have created and put into practice and have infringed upon people’s rights (and, of course, what you label as ‘rights’ here is arbitrary), and it’s these that are disputed (and that the commentators want to ‘do away’ with).

So again, human beings can’t process without categories, but since we’re imperfect and have a great tendency to miscategorize (and therefore give rise to ‘bad’ categories), we should be open to redefining our categories (or recategorizing). :)

And to extend this phenomena to the discussion at hand: At the moment we have a lot of categories- gay rights, human rights, civil rights, etc. And I believe as Dumi is suggesting, these rights are NOT mutually exclusive events, and to think so would be detrimental a group of people! Therefore, he writes when considering ‘gay rights’ we should also think about ‘civil rights.’ (Like the connection we’ve done with ‘women’s rights’ and ‘civil rights’.) I agree. (And thumps up on highlighting the historical note that MLK learned from Gandhi who learned from Bayard Rustin- a Black gay man! WOW. Really??)

3. Mad props to ‘Concerned Reader’ for clearly delineating that it’s more accurate to compare gay rights (concept) to civil right (concept) versus gay rights (concept) to the CRM (movement).

That is, if you’re going to connect a concept to movement, don’t compare the concept directly to the movement, but compare the concept (gay rights) to the concept (civil rights) that UNDERLIES the movement (CRM). This distinction wasn’t clear from the blog, probably because it seems like an obvious thing to Dumi, but not to an amateur like me!

Anyway, good stuff. Now back to stat. =/
queer reader

Queer people have the right to affirm who they are in public. And to love one another. And they have the right to be happy. Those are their rights, and the rights of all. And only just now are only just some starting to be able to finally claim and utilize those rights.

Straight folks have no idea how much they take those rights for granted.

Seeing queer people of color being themselves in public, and being happy, is a beautiful (but unfortunately rare) sight to see. They are affirming who they are in public, they are in love so they’re not repressing themselves, and they are happy.

Also, I am glad you brought up black gay folk. Too often, people compare the struggles of Blacks and Queers and think they’re not related. For some reason everything has to be a binary (blackness/gayness, gay/straight, black/white, male/female, etc etc.) People need to realize, that ALL struggles are connected – this is why we have SOLIDARITY.

Anyway, thank you Dumi. You are a true ally. I hope your friends around you will learn from you.
dina b.

i'm in more disagreement with rika's explanation than with the original post.

how did mutual exclusivity get introduced? this is just an attempt to separate the issues. that one issue is not equal to the other. how does end up meaning you are discounting the overlap?

an example: in public health, you hear about the struggle that people with disabilities go through in demanding their basic rights. and i just read an article essentially stating that “you can't compare being disabled with being black” when comments referred to the fight people with disabilities are in = civil rights movement.

that in NO WAY meant the black disabled population doesn't exist. i don't even see how the logic flow of that can even be made.

the average reader would take away that the author is DELINEATING the issues. making the distinction that the issues (civil rights versus the civil rights movement) are not the same. very eloquently stated by “a concerned reader” below.
dina b.

i’m in more disagreement with rika’s explanation than with the original post.

how did mutual exclusivity get introduced? this is just an attempt to separate the issues. that one issue is not equal to the other. how does end up meaning you are discounting the overlap?

an example: in public health, you hear about the struggle that people with disabilities go through in demanding their basic rights. and i just read an article essentially stating that “you can’t compare being disabled with being black” when comments referred to the fight people with disabilities are in = civil rights movement.

that in NO WAY meant the black disabled population doesn’t exist. i don’t even see how the logic flow of that can even be made.

the average reader would take away that the author is DELINEATING the issues. making the distinction that the issues (civil rights versus the civil rights movement) are not the same. very eloquently stated by “a concerned reader” below.
prence

Not for nothing but I remember choosing to be straight when I saw a set of boobs and was like, “yeah, I can go for that.”
prence

Not for nothing but I remember choosing to be straight when I saw a set of boobs and was like, “yeah, I can go for that.”
Fatima

I find it interesting that straight folks are using this blog to confirm their straightness – which is not something straight folks have to do in the first place. Also, using statistics and logic and attempting to apply it to a discussion where human rights and dignity are at play, is, well frankly, offensive. Or maybe I just didn't get it.
tyronejo

This is a interesting blog but your rebuttals seem to miss the point of some of these popular arguments. Specifically, numbers 1,2, and 4 (and why you thought Rev. MLK got his ‘non-violence’ approach in the Civil Rights Movement from all those people but not Jesus Christ is beyond me! haha)…Points 3 and 5 I can feel you on, only because those arguments are really pointless to, and to be blunt, stupid as hell!

On point 1 and 4: The ‘those people’ statements are obviously wrong when it come to stereotyping a person or a people but what does that have to do with homosexuals comparing their fight for justice with ‘Black Americans’? You’re missing the point of this argument. ‘Black Americans’ were fighting for a whole slew of rights, such as eating at white owned restaurants, using any public bathrooms and water fountains they pleased, being about to get an education at any university they wanted, having the option to vote for their elected officials AND marrying whoever they wanted. Homosexuals and just fighting for the right to marrying whoever they want and that is NOT comparable to the ‘black american’ fight. Homosexuals can eat wherever they want (legally), use whatever public restroom they want and can attend any university they want. The comparisons are just not the same and shouldn’t be considered the same. THEREFORE, you can’t compare the Civil Rights Movement to the Gay Rights Movement.

Point 2: Here I think you lost track of the issue again because when someone makes the argument “I didn’t choose to be Black” the underlining statement is “I was born with this skin complexion.” This argument doesn’t have to do with socially constructed identities, the argument has to do with skin complexion being genetic and sexual orientation not being genetic (at least according to current science) therefore homosexuals have made a choice to be homosexuals when, naturally speaking, a person can not choose their skin complexion, be it yellow, brown, tan, cream, pale, whatever.
- http://about.me/mel_hopkins Mel Hopkins
  
  Abolishing slavery may have been the impetus for acknowledging CIVIL RIGHTS in the US but it goes beyond the once enslaved africans and extends to ALL US citizens. For example, when a person isn’t able to marry because (fill in the blank) it is ruled unconstitutional. The reason why is as follows: you cannot be excluded from doing something that every other US citizen can do because you are (fill in the blank). If you are denied you are denied your civil rights – this has nothing to do with being black – Dr. King simply marched on existing laws because a group of people were being denied their Civil Rights. This particular group just happened to be Black. Here is the definition of Civil Rights to eliminate any confusion in the future:
  From Merriam-Webster
  Civil Rights: First known use -1658 – : the nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially: the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th (and 15th) amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress
Anonymous

This is a interesting blog but your rebuttals seem to miss the point of some of these popular arguments. Specifically, numbers 1,2, and 4 (and why you thought Rev. MLK got his ‘non-violence’ approach in the Civil Rights Movement from all those people but not Jesus Christ is beyond me! haha)…Points 3 and 5 I can feel you on, only because those arguments are really pointless to, and to be blunt, stupid as hell!

On point 1 and 4: The ‘those people’ statements are obviously wrong when it come to stereotyping a person or a people but what does that have to do with homosexuals comparing their fight for justice with ‘Black Americans’? You’re missing the point of this argument. ‘Black Americans’ were fighting for a whole slew of rights, such as eating at white owned restaurants, using any public bathrooms and water fountains they pleased, being about to get an education at any university they wanted, having the option to vote for their elected officials AND marrying whoever they wanted. Homosexuals and just fighting for the right to marrying whoever they want and that is NOT comparable to the ‘black american’ fight. Homosexuals can eat wherever they want (legally), use whatever public restroom they want and can attend any university they want. The comparisons are just not the same and shouldn’t be considered the same. THEREFORE, you can’t compare the Civil Rights Movement to the Gay Rights Movement.

Point 2: Here I think you lost track of the issue again because when someone makes the argument “I didn’t choose to be Black” the underlining statement is “I was born with this skin complexion.” This argument doesn’t have to do with socially constructed identities, the argument has to do with skin complexion being genetic and sexual orientation not being genetic (at least according to current science) therefore homosexuals have made a choice to be homosexuals when, naturally speaking, a person can not choose their skin complexion, be it yellow, brown, tan, cream, pale, whatever.
- http://about.me/mel_hopkins Mel Hopkins
  
  Abolishing slavery may have been the impetus for acknowledging CIVIL RIGHTS in the US but it goes beyond the once enslaved africans and extends to ALL US citizens. For example, when a person isn’t able to marry because (fill in the blank) it is ruled unconstitutional. The reason why is as follows: you cannot be excluded from doing something that every other US citizen can do because you are (fill in the blank). If you are denied you are denied your civil rights – this has nothing to do with being black – Dr. King simply marched on existing laws because a group of people were being denied their Civil Rights. This particular group just happened to be Black. Here is the definition of Civil Rights to eliminate any confusion in the future:
  From Merriam-Webster
  Civil Rights: First known use -1658 – : the nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially: the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th (and 15th) amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress
Fatima

I find it interesting that straight folks are using this blog to confirm their straightness – which is not something straight folks have to do in the first place. Also, using statistics and logic and attempting to apply it to a discussion where human rights and dignity are at play, is, well frankly, offensive. Or maybe I just didn’t get it.
- queer reader
  
  agree.
  
  This is a post about gay rights being civil rights. Not about straightness or straight people. So why do some people feel the need to assert their straightness in the commentary space of this blog post? Its completely unnecessary and unrelated.
  
  Furthermore it is highly offensive and ironic. In a post about gay rights as civil rights, some commentators are saying that sexuality can be chosen, because they chose to be straight. This can lead to thinking that because some chose to be straight, gay rights don’t need to exist as gay people can choose not to exist as being gay – since some of us found it so easy to go straight.
  
  Umm – can folks realize please that not everything is about them and revolves around them? Queer people didn’t choose to be queer – they just are queer. For many of us it’s something that we realized and that came to the surface after many years of repression, and now face oppression. It is NOT a choice. Why the hell would we choose to put ourselves through this? Think about that.
  
  In fact I challenge those commentators to really place themselves in the shoes of queer people. Walk down the street holding hands with a friend of the same sex. Just holding hands. See what it feels like and watch the reactions you get. Then you’ll realize that queer people definitely do not choose to be queer – who on earth would voluntarily choose oppression for themselves?
queer reader

agree.

This is a post about gay rights being civil rights. Not about straightness or straight people. So why do some people feel the need to assert their straightness in the commentary space of this blog post? Its completely unnecessary and unrelated.

Furthermore it is highly offensive and ironic. In a post about gay rights as civil rights, some commentators are saying that sexuality can be chosen, because they chose to be straight. This can lead to thinking that because some chose to be straight, gay rights don't need to exist as gay people can choose not to exist as being gay – since some of us found it so easy to go straight.

Umm – can folks realize please that not everything is about them and revolves around them? Queer people didn't choose to be queer – they just are queer. For many of us it's something that we realized and that came to the surface after many years of repression, and now face oppression. It is NOT a choice. Why the hell would we choose to put ourselves through this? Think about that.

In fact I challenge those commentators to really place themselves in the shoes of queer people. Walk down the street holding hands with a friend of the same sex. Just holding hands. See what it feels like and watch the reactions you get. Then you'll realize that queer people definitely do not choose to be queer – who on earth would voluntarily choose oppression for themselves?
dumilewis

Rich, rich, rich commentary. Couple of thoughts cause i can't respond to everything.
1) On black v. gay and mutual exclusivity, Rika is on the money. I have had countless conversations about “gay people” trying to piggy back on “(black) civil rights”. My point is to suggest that in that constellation gay, bi, trans, les, queer Black folks get written out. The film “Black is, Black ain't” deals with this somewhat, but i think it's important to make sure our brothers and sisters across sexualities are included in our community and struggle. One of the major failings, in my opinion, in our past liberation struggles (e.g. CRM, BPM, BAM, etc.) has been the intentional and unintentional exclusion of our lbgtq community.
2) I am aware that CR and CRM are distinct and my concern is that people think of CRM as the limits of civil rights, thus my strategy of attempting to get folks to expand from a CRM framework to CR and ultimately human rights which Du Bois, Malcolm and other great leaders moved to.
3) I got that MLK non-violent demonstration from King's own words, sorry. Read his biographies and Rustin's work as well.
4) I don't think there is a solution to this “nature v. nurture” conversation and I encourage everyone to check out Covering by Kenji Yoshino. Maria Tucker put me onto it and it's a great book.
5) I can imagine it's really easy to say “I chose to be straight” way more easy than choosing to be gay. The consequences of being hetero are much lower. In fact, the reality that there are consequences demonstrates that choice is not independent of social context or desire thus my suggestion of social construction.
6) Blk folks were fighting for a slew of right that they were supposed to already have, but White continued to deny them through patterns of intimidation and separation. It was Brown v. Board of ed that struck down Plessy v. Ferguson, but the CRM that started to make that decision have real meaning. The alleged rights blk folks had are much like the alleged rights LGBTQ folks have.
7) thank you all for seriously engaging this conversation. it's when the work gets hard is when we're making ground.
rianaelyse

B.B., I don't have too much time to go through the feedback that you received, but did something prompt you to write this – a specific incident maybe? Or just a topic which time had come?
dumilewis

Rich, rich, rich commentary. Couple of thoughts cause i can’t respond to everything.
1) On black v. gay and mutual exclusivity, Rika is on the money. I have had countless conversations about “gay people” trying to piggy back on “(black) civil rights”. My point is to suggest that in that constellation gay, bi, trans, les, queer Black folks get written out. The film “Black is, Black ain’t” deals with this somewhat, but i think it’s important to make sure our brothers and sisters across sexualities are included in our community and struggle. One of the major failings, in my opinion, in our past liberation struggles (e.g. CRM, BPM, BAM, etc.) has been the intentional and unintentional exclusion of our lbgtq community.
2) I am aware that CR and CRM are distinct and my concern is that people think of CRM as the limits of civil rights, thus my strategy of attempting to get folks to expand from a CRM framework to CR and ultimately human rights which Du Bois, Malcolm and other great leaders moved to.
3) I got that MLK non-violent demonstration from King’s own words, sorry. Read his biographies and Rustin’s work as well.
4) I don’t think there is a solution to this “nature v. nurture” conversation and I encourage everyone to check out Covering by Kenji Yoshino. Maria Tucker put me onto it and it’s a great book.
5) I can imagine it’s really easy to say “I chose to be straight” way more easy than choosing to be gay. The consequences of being hetero are much lower. In fact, the reality that there are consequences demonstrates that choice is not independent of social context or desire thus my suggestion of social construction.
6) Blk folks were fighting for a slew of right that they were supposed to already have, but White continued to deny them through patterns of intimidation and separation. It was Brown v. Board of ed that struck down Plessy v. Ferguson, but the CRM that started to make that decision have real meaning. The alleged rights blk folks had are much like the alleged rights LGBTQ folks have.
7) thank you all for seriously engaging this conversation. it’s when the work gets hard is when we’re making ground.
- brittany
  
  and to your number 6: it’s not just about marriage. even if gay marriage was legal, there’d still be a list of injustices to deal with.
  
  thanks for writing, dumi, especially the covering piece. maybe i’ll just get each of your responses printed on business cards and hand them out appropriately.
  
  and by the way, I think there’s alot here that can be applied to other communities of color.
rianaelyse

B.B., I don’t have too much time to go through the feedback that you received, but did something prompt you to write this – a specific incident maybe? Or just a topic which time had come?
duanelavar

Great post mentor. You really took me to the bottom of the ocean with this one… well your posts usually do, so scratch that point, lol.

This may sound dumb.. But what do you mean by gay-rights? Do you mean the right to gay-marriage? The end of crude treatment to people on the basis of their sexual preference? When you use “gay-rights”, it's such a loaded term, I just wanted to be sure that I knew exactly what you meant.

Per this point:
1) “I’m for gay rights but … you can’t compare being Black to being gay.”

I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree. Simply put, I don't think that the issue goes as deep as it appears. It's that when gay folk use the Civil Right's movement as part of their own struggle, it equates the gay struggle with that of the African in America, and that, my old-head, is absurd at best. If these same folks minced words and meant to say that gay rights were civil rights, as opposed to being part of the civil rights movement, then I'd probably respond differently. But they did not then, and often do not today. Thus, here we are.

I can't count how many times I've heard (shout out to Intergroup Dialogue at UMich),”You're black, so you should understand.” Bull-to-the-shit! Understand what?!? I was born a black man, last I checked. I can't hide it coach. It could be a job interview, a rogue redneck cop, whatever. Do my homosexual brethren have that same problem? Can they put on a front when best-served? Absolutely. Can I? I don't think so.

I'd be a fool if I didn't think that my affinity for dating women, especially black women t was not the product of socialization. People are influences by their environment. Sure. I am well aware that the'spirited-banter' I've heard in locker-rooms, barbershops, and from drunk-uncles on major holidays influences my views of what is and is not acceptable… But at the end of the day, its MY choice, just like homosexuality.

As for being Black AND Gay:

I may be missing the memo, but the 'gay rights' movement does not “box-out” gay black folk, nor does our use of language as far as I can see. Using 'them' to describe gays, is an issue absent of color. I think it is safe to say that many people who take issue with homosexuality, do so regardless of whether the person is black, brown, red, yellow, or white. As an aggregate, black folks are terribly homophobic, and thus when we see one of 'our own' is gay, we probably take particular offense. But that's where it ends.

Gay Marriage? Absolutely not. I believe that God intended marriage as a gift between a man and a woman. I am all fine with the idea of a gay person being able to list their partner on their health insurance, as an insurance policy beneficiary. That's all good. But a marital union recognized by law? No sir. No dice.

Gay Bashing? Not cool, in any way, shape, or form. People are entitled to make whatever choice they want, and should be able to do so as consent adults. Agree or disagree, its NEVER cool to threaten to harm, harm, or anything of the sort as result of this choice.

I'm curious what is your opinion about something? What about dudes who have lived a heterosexual lifestyle… three months in the concrete jungle and they suddenly start acting like a stunt-double in Brokeback Mountain?

Long story made short… people should be able to do what they want and shouldn't be persecuted for it… But drawing a parallel between that and ANYTHING black folk have gone through? In the black community, we call that bullshit.
- queer reader
  
  You didn’t choose to be straight – you’ve been conditioned to be straight. There’s a huge difference. Its not choosing – its conditioning. Queer folks are just not conforming to that conditioning – doesn’t mean that we’re choosing to be queer, we just realize we’re sick of pretending to be something we’re not.
  
  I won’t even go into the marriage debate here. Doesn’t seem to be much point.
brittany

and to your number 6: it's not just about marriage. even if gay marriage was legal, there'd still be a list of injustices to deal with.

thanks for writing, dumi, especially the covering piece. maybe i'll just get each of your responses printed on business cards and hand them out appropriately.

and by the way, I think there's alot here that can be applied to other communities of color.
duanelavar

Great post mentor. You really took me to the bottom of the ocean with this one… well your posts usually do, so scratch that point, lol.

This may sound dumb.. But what do you mean by gay-rights? Do you mean the right to gay-marriage? The end of crude treatment to people on the basis of their sexual preference? When you use “gay-rights”, it’s such a loaded term, I just wanted to be sure that I knew exactly what you meant.

Per this point:
1) “I’m for gay rights but … you can’t compare being Black to being gay.”

I understand where you’re coming from, but I disagree. Simply put, I don’t think that the issue goes as deep as it appears. It’s that when gay folk use the Civil Right’s movement as part of their own struggle, it equates the gay struggle with that of the African in America, and that, my old-head, is absurd at best. If these same folks minced words and meant to say that gay rights were civil rights, as opposed to being part of the civil rights movement, then I’d probably respond differently. But they did not then, and often do not today. Thus, here we are.

I can’t count how many times I’ve heard (shout out to Intergroup Dialogue at UMich),”You’re black, so you should understand.” Bull-to-the-shit! Understand what?!? I was born a black man, last I checked. I can’t hide it coach. It could be a job interview, a rogue redneck cop, whatever. Do my homosexual brethren have that same problem? Can they put on a front when best-served? Absolutely. Can I? I don’t think so.

I’d be a fool if I didn’t think that my affinity for dating women, especially black women t was not the product of socialization. People are influences by their environment. Sure. I am well aware that the’spirited-banter’ I’ve heard in locker-rooms, barbershops, and from drunk-uncles on major holidays influences my views of what is and is not acceptable… But at the end of the day, its MY choice, just like homosexuality.

As for being Black AND Gay:

I may be missing the memo, but the ‘gay rights’ movement does not “box-out” gay black folk, nor does our use of language as far as I can see. Using ‘them’ to describe gays, is an issue absent of color. I think it is safe to say that many people who take issue with homosexuality, do so regardless of whether the person is black, brown, red, yellow, or white. As an aggregate, black folks are terribly homophobic, and thus when we see one of ‘our own’ is gay, we probably take particular offense. But that’s where it ends.

Gay Marriage? Absolutely not. I believe that God intended marriage as a gift between a man and a woman. I am all fine with the idea of a gay person being able to list their partner on their health insurance, as an insurance policy beneficiary. That’s all good. But a marital union recognized by law? No sir. No dice.

Gay Bashing? Not cool, in any way, shape, or form. People are entitled to make whatever choice they want, and should be able to do so as consent adults. Agree or disagree, its NEVER cool to threaten to harm, harm, or anything of the sort as result of this choice.

I’m curious what is your opinion about something? What about dudes who have lived a heterosexual lifestyle… three months in the concrete jungle and they suddenly start acting like a stunt-double in Brokeback Mountain?

Long story made short… people should be able to do what they want and shouldn’t be persecuted for it… But drawing a parallel between that and ANYTHING black folk have gone through? In the black community, we call that bullshit.
- queer reader
  
  You didn’t choose to be straight – you’ve been conditioned to be straight. There’s a huge difference. Its not choosing – its conditioning. Queer folks are just not conforming to that conditioning – doesn’t mean that we’re choosing to be queer, we just realize we’re sick of pretending to be something we’re not.
  
  I won’t even go into the marriage debate here. Doesn’t seem to be much point.
- dumilewis
  
  Duane- Glad I took you deep, shall we go deeper? (yeah, i know you’re waiting for a no homo, but that would be very hetero) First, when I say gay rights, I’m talking about marriage, right to insurance, right to share in full partnership under the law, right to live freely in a society. Essentially I’m talking about civil and human rights. Asking me “what exactly do you mean?” is like asking MLK what he meant when he discussed civil rights. Human rights are much bigger and really what we should be discussing but we get mired down in language and history too much to make it there. Second, the gay and civil rights movements have left out Black and Brown folks. I’m not sure how that is debatable if you read in the area. I can give you references if you’d like. And you and I both know if we’re sitting in a Heads meeting and a brotha says “they” the image their conjuring up is likely of a White gay person. Real talk brotha, real talk. Third, you’re absolutely right that being Black doesn’t make you have a social justice orientation, that’s the issue. I wrote about this here. http://www.uptownnotes.com/prop-8-the-left-coast-and-lefty-politics/ Fourth, on gay marriage, did you read the links to anthro association and the actual history of marriage? If not, click the links, read about what marriage has been and what people try to make it out to be now. Seek the knowledge earnestly and if you disagree let’s go there, but I feel like what I’ve provide sufficently addresses that point. Fifth, yeah no one “likes” gay-bashing, but realize that gay-bashing is one outgrowth of homophobic environment. You may not physically assault a gay person but you/we participate in other forms of violence daily. You may not rape women, but you do participate in creating a misogynistic environment where women are limited in there rights and opportunities. When we deal with the little actions, I’ll let you say proudly, “I’m against gay bashing and hetereonormativity” until then, “we don’t believe you, you need more people.” Sixth, on brothas who are MSM in prison, sexuality is constructed brotha, do you need any more evidence? Seventh, I’ve addressed all of these comments directly to you because I love you deeply and know you have accepted the challenge of working on yourself and our community. I pray that we continue to break new ground. Let us disagree in grounded principle but let not our disagreements restrict the lives of others.
dumilewis

Duane- Glad I took you deep, shall we go deeper? (yeah, i know you're waiting for a no homo, but that would be very hetero) First, when I say gay rights, I'm talking about marriage, right to insurance, right to share in full partnership under the law, right to live freely in a society. Essentially I'm talking about civil and human rights. Asking me “what exactly do you mean?” is like asking MLK what he meant when he discussed civil rights. Human rights are much bigger and really what we should be discussing but we get mired down in language and history too much to make it there. Second, the gay and civil rights movements have left out Black and Brown folks. I'm not sure how that is debatable if you read in the area. I can give you references if you'd like. And you and I both know if we're sitting in a Heads meeting and a brotha says “they” the image their conjuring up is likely of a White gay person. Real talk brotha, real talk. Third, you're absolutely right that being Black doesn't make you have a social justice orientation, that's the issue. I wrote about this here. http://www.uptownnotes.com/prop-8-the-left-coas… Fourth, on gay marriage, did you read the links to anthro association and the actual history of marriage? If not, click the links, read about what marriage has been and what people try to make it out to be now. Seek the knowledge earnestly and if you disagree let's go there, but I feel like what I've provide sufficently addresses that point. Fifth, yeah no one “likes” gay-bashing, but realize that gay-bashing is one outgrowth of homophobic environment. You may not physically assault a gay person but you/we participate in other forms of violence daily. You may not rape women, but you do participate in creating a misogynistic environment where women are limited in there rights and opportunities. When we deal with the little actions, I'll let you say proudly, “I'm against gay bashing and hetereonormativity” until then, “we don't believe you, you need more people.” Sixth, on brothas who are MSM in prison, sexuality is constructed brotha, do you need any more evidence? Seventh, I've addressed all of these comments directly to you because I love you deeply and know you have accepted the challenge of working on yourself and our community. I pray that we continue to break new ground. Let us disagree in grounded principle but let not our disagreements restrict the lives of others.
CHULA

i got madddd love for ur commentary here Dumi. Thanks much.

Wanted to share this witya:
http://www.13lovestories.com/

makes me tear up each time i watch the movies: particularly the chicano brothers with twins. ;-)
CHULA

i got madddd love for ur commentary here Dumi. Thanks much.

Wanted to share this witya:
http://www.13lovestories.com/

makes me tear up each time i watch the movies: particularly the chicano brothers with twins. ;-)
Ashwini

I know I'm late to the game, but here are my thoughts. As some of your anthropological links regarding marriage affirm, marriage in most (patriarchal) societies was never about announcing love and commitment. It was a property exchange, and women were the property to be exchanged between two men (or you could take this even further and say that a womans' VIRGINITY was the capital). Obviously, this history has turned off many people from the institution of marriage. Most of the radical queer folks I know care shit about marriage. They don't want to enter into an oppressive institution, where an imperialist government legitimizes a private relationship with another person. Taking this even further, some queer folks will say that fighting for marriage rights dilutes the very nature of queerness as a challenge to heterosexism of all kinds–why should we FIGHT to be a part of such a fucked up institution? We know who we are, why do we need the government to tell us who we are is ok with them?!

And I see that point, and my heart agrees. But–and this is what I always say–I am concerned when state constitutions are being amended to say that certain people are less human than others. Less deserving of the rights that other people have–even if those rights are illegitimate in our eyes! We still should have the right to CHOOSE to participate in that institution. We should have the right, even, to assimilate to heterosexist culture, even if to others of us that notion is distasteful.

Marriage is not the beginning nor the end of the queer struggle for human rights, dignity and self-determination. We need to start earlier. We need to create a culture where no one is judged for the sexual activity they choose to have among consenting adults. I strongly believe that so much of the fear that many women have over being called “sluts” and such is deeply connected to the queer rights struggle–at the end of the day, do we have basic control over our bodies or not? And while I and my peers may not choose to enter into the institution of marriage ourselves, others may take a more pragmatic approach and decide that the “perks” of being married are worth it.

But I worry that when we focus so much on marriage, we will be at a loss once we win that fight (and I know we will win it, in my lifetime for sure). We will still live in a heterosexist, patriarchal culture. When and where does the fight against sexual oppression begin??
Ashwini

I know I’m late to the game, but here are my thoughts. As some of your anthropological links regarding marriage affirm, marriage in most (patriarchal) societies was never about announcing love and commitment. It was a property exchange, and women were the property to be exchanged between two men (or you could take this even further and say that a womans’ VIRGINITY was the capital). Obviously, this history has turned off many people from the institution of marriage. Most of the radical queer folks I know care shit about marriage. They don’t want to enter into an oppressive institution, where an imperialist government legitimizes a private relationship with another person. Taking this even further, some queer folks will say that fighting for marriage rights dilutes the very nature of queerness as a challenge to heterosexism of all kinds–why should we FIGHT to be a part of such a fucked up institution? We know who we are, why do we need the government to tell us who we are is ok with them?!

And I see that point, and my heart agrees. But–and this is what I always say–I am concerned when state constitutions are being amended to say that certain people are less human than others. Less deserving of the rights that other people have–even if those rights are illegitimate in our eyes! We still should have the right to CHOOSE to participate in that institution. We should have the right, even, to assimilate to heterosexist culture, even if to others of us that notion is distasteful.

Marriage is not the beginning nor the end of the queer struggle for human rights, dignity and self-determination. We need to start earlier. We need to create a culture where no one is judged for the sexual activity they choose to have among consenting adults. I strongly believe that so much of the fear that many women have over being called “sluts” and such is deeply connected to the queer rights struggle–at the end of the day, do we have basic control over our bodies or not? And while I and my peers may not choose to enter into the institution of marriage ourselves, others may take a more pragmatic approach and decide that the “perks” of being married are worth it.

But I worry that when we focus so much on marriage, we will be at a loss once we win that fight (and I know we will win it, in my lifetime for sure). We will still live in a heterosexist, patriarchal culture. When and where does the fight against sexual oppression begin??
Ashwini

I know this thread is old now, but just found a wonderful link:

“As young queer people raised in queer families and communities, we reject the liberal gay agenda that gives top priority to the fight for marriage equality. The queer families and communities we are proud to have been raised in are nothing like the ones transformed by marriage equality. This agenda fractures our communities, pits us against natural allies, supports unequal power structures, obscures urgent queer concerns, abandons struggle for mutual sustainability inside queer communities and disregards our awesomely fabulous queer history.”

http://queerkidssaynomarriage.wordpress.com/
Ashwini

I know this thread is old now, but just found a wonderful link:

“As young queer people raised in queer families and communities, we reject the liberal gay agenda that gives top priority to the fight for marriage equality. The queer families and communities we are proud to have been raised in are nothing like the ones transformed by marriage equality. This agenda fractures our communities, pits us against natural allies, supports unequal power structures, obscures urgent queer concerns, abandons struggle for mutual sustainability inside queer communities and disregards our awesomely fabulous queer history.”

http://queerkidssaynomarriage.wordpress.com/
Mitch

Black folks don't have and never have had the resources to keep one group down while at the same time raising themselves up. I believe as soon as we stop instilling hate for others and start building all black people up, the better. Bush had some of us voting for him because we wanted to interfere with what others do in the bedroom or closet: We spent trillions looking for weapons and 'thangz. It's call distractions and 'da Okee-Doke!
Mitch

Black folks don’t have and never have had the resources to keep one group down while at the same time raising themselves up. I believe as soon as we stop instilling hate for others and start building all black people up, the better. Bush had some of us voting for him because we wanted to interfere with what others do in the bedroom or closet: We spent trillions looking for weapons and ‘thangz. It’s call distractions and ‘da Okee-Doke!
Pingback: I’m for gay rights, but… | Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture()
g_531

Thank you for this post; as for the Adam and Eve argument, scholars who critically examine the text argue that the translation of Adam and Eve and that whole story of division has been poorly translated in dominant Christian texts. The argument pretty much being the first person did not have an assigned gender.
As for queer folks of color; what intrigues me about our experiences is how we have to explain them in both ethnic and queer spaces. The extent to which they are writing and some of the arguments of just choosing one–most choose queer–is interesting, especially considering the strong role of aesthetics, and objectification in some queer conversations about sex.
I think the interesting thing is how socially, institutionally, who one has sex with still defines not just their citizenship but also their humanity–even membership within communities. Like you had said about Black queer folk being involved in the Civil Rights movement; why is it that now we learn of Bayard Rustin, what prompted his invisibility back then? MLK Jr's masculinity, homophobia that may have destroyed the movement and its leader?
g_531

Thank you for this post; as for the Adam and Eve argument, scholars who critically examine the text argue that the translation of Adam and Eve and that whole story of division has been poorly translated in dominant Christian texts. The argument pretty much being the first person did not have an assigned gender.
As for queer folks of color; what intrigues me about our experiences is how we have to explain them in both ethnic and queer spaces. The extent to which they are writing and some of the arguments of just choosing one–most choose queer–is interesting, especially considering the strong role of aesthetics, and objectification in some queer conversations about sex.
I think the interesting thing is how socially, institutionally, who one has sex with still defines not just their citizenship but also their humanity–even membership within communities. Like you had said about Black queer folk being involved in the Civil Rights movement; why is it that now we learn of Bayard Rustin, what prompted his invisibility back then? MLK Jr’s masculinity, homophobia that may have destroyed the movement and its leader?
Pingback: Uptown Notes - Precious, CNN on Black Men, Mommy Memoirs, and Gay Rights: Addicted to Race()
http://www.facebook.com/robertlcarrjr Robert Carr

What else can I say but Thank YOU!
http://www.facebook.com/robertlcarrjr Robert Carr

What else can I say but Thank YOU!
http://eyeam4anarchy.blogspot.com/ Kelly W. Patterson

First of all, “God” made Steve too. Secondly, the fight for equality isn't a contest where only the most oppressed group gets to join the club. Nor should our acceptance of prejudice be based on the victims' ability to hide from those who are discriminating against them.

The simple reality is that equality has to apply to everyone. That's pretty much the definition.
http://eyeam4anarchy.blogspot.com/ Kelly W. Patterson

First of all, “God” made Steve too. Secondly, the fight for equality isn’t a contest where only the most oppressed group gets to join the club. Nor should our acceptance of prejudice be based on the victims’ ability to hide from those who are discriminating against them.

The simple reality is that equality has to apply to everyone. That’s pretty much the definition.
http://eyeam4anarchy.blogspot.com/ Kelly W. Patterson

First of all, “God” made Steve too. Secondly, the fight for equality isn't a contest where only the most oppressed group gets to join the club. Nor should our acceptance of prejudice be based on the victims' ability to hide from those who are discriminating against them.

The simple reality is that equality has to apply to everyone. That's pretty much the definition.
gayrights

can u refer me to the books you refer to? i am interested in exploring this topic in greater depth.
gayrights

can u refer me to the books you refer to? i am interested in exploring this topic in greater depth.
Pingback: Friday Funny: Biblical Marriage - Uptown Notes()
VenomousStrawberries

thank you for the information you kinda gave me a boost about my debate I’m fighting with my father in Gay marriage… he pissed cause his little achieving baby girl goes “both ways” which i really don’t mind telling. I’m heres my email if you could help me fight him better off :D thanks bye.
Irockpoetry@yahoo.com
VenomousStrawberries

thank you for the information you kinda gave me a boost about my debate I’m fighting with my father in Gay marriage… he pissed cause his little achieving baby girl goes “both ways” which i really don’t mind telling. I’m heres my email if you could help me fight him better off :D thanks bye.
Irockpoetry@yahoo.com
Pingback: » Playing Oppression Olympics Gets Us Nowhere On the Road to Equity Relando Thompkins, MSW()
Pingback: Playing Oppression Olympics Gets Us Nowhere On the Road to Equity ‹ Social Justice Solutions – Social Work and Social Justice News and Blogs()
Pingback: Friday Funny: Biblical Marriage | My Black Networks® -The Latest News from The African Diaspora()
Pingback: Precious, CNN on Black Men, Mommy Memoirs, and Gay Rights: Addicted to Race | My Black Networks® -The Latest News from The African Diaspora()
Black_Man_Winning

This entry is nothing but propaganda. You can not compare homosexuality with being an African. Being an African encompasses the human traits that make up the African, i.e., brown to black in skin color and African textured hair.

Being a homosexual encompasses a behavior. A behavior that is abhorrent.

Nonetheless, I plan on taking a few “Black Studies” classes at CCNY. I will avoid your lectures.
- dumilewis
  
  “black_man_winning” sorry to hear you’ll miss out on my classes. Enjoy yourself at CCNY.

Uptown Notes

“I’m for gay rights but…”

Popular Posts

Twitter

Support Haiti

About

Links