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.

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

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

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

“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/

“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/

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??

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??

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. ;-)

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. ;-)

I won’t even go into the marriage debate here. Doesn’t seem to be much point.

I won’t even go into the marriage debate here. Doesn’t seem to be much point.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. =/

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. =/

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.

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. =/

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. =/

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”

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”

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.”

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.

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.”

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.