against gays are isolated incidents. I don't believe they're any more
isolated than any other form of baseless prejudice (such as toward
blacks, jews or wiccans). I didn't think I'd implied that you'd said
gays were not discriminated against - my comments were with regard to
what seemed to be a perception that gays are in some way significantly
less persecuted than other groups of people ("isolated" as you say). I
don't think that's the case.
> OFFICIALLY it still exists.
Now you appear to be arguing against his choice of words because you
have a knee-jerk response, rather than discussing the meaning of those
words which were just explained. If you want to get into a debate
about semantics that's fine, but you should be aware that it's not the
same as the conversation we were having before.
It seems to me that you exaggerate persecution of blacks as being
worse than all other forms of prejudice and persecution, while
minimalizing the prejudice and persecution experienced by other groups
such as gays with whom you don't identify. If you want to ask someone
to "spend a month as a 40 yr old black man in any city in America" to
convince them to change the semantic of their statement that racial
prejudice "officially" ended in the 60's then I think you should be
willing to accept that your own statements have minimalized gays in a
way that you wouldn't appreciate if you'd had to spend a month as a
known-to-be gay or bisexual man in an overtly Christian rural area
(much less a concentration camp).
As with all prejudice, there are geographical areas and social circles
that are accepting and those that aren't. There have been plenty of
times I've been uncomfortable just to have white skin. I don't pretend
that it's comparable to the plight of slaves or even blacks in
general, but the experience reminds me that prejudice and its
long-term effects are felt by all people. So attempts to alleviate
prejudice must be applied to all forms of prejudice equally, not only
those I personally identify with.
Please don't think that I'm trying to attack or make light of you or
your situation. I'm just trying to express that my own responses (if
not other list members) are coming from a place of feeling that when I
read your posts, my feelings and in particular my hardships are being
marginalized in favor of yours. Saying that racial persecution
"officially ended" is not an attempt to marginlize you or the plight
of blacks - it was just a statement of the legal historical facts (the
laws were changed). Moreover it seemed to me to be an intentional
attempt to _not_ marginalize blacks because he could have said "racial
persecution ended" and left out the word "officially" which would have
implied a belief that persecution doesn't continue today. Adding the
word "officially" in that sentence implies the belief that a change in
law did not end persecution of blacks; an understanding that
persecution of blacks continues.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 10:16 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Senate rejects move to ban same-sex marriage
> uh, thats why he said "OFFICIALLY". We all know it still
> goes on, but state
> mandated racism is a thing of the past.....ah, unless you
> count affirmative
> action.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Monique Boea
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 9:04 AM
> Subject: RE: Senate rejects move to ban same-sex
> marriage
> >>discrimination based on race officially stopped in the
> >>early 60's.
> WHAT???????
> <snip>
> _____
s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
