Posted on 12/07/2008 5:15:40 AM PST by reaganaut1
The attitude of white, liberal Hollywood toward African- American churches has long been one of almost participatory respect.
...
It was only recently that the A-list discovered that this love is unrequited. Last month, Proposition 8 passed, making gay marriage illegal in California, and the demographic that lent insult to injury was the state’s African-American voters.
They came to the polls in record numbers to support Barack Obama, and they brought with them a fiercely held and enduring antipathy toward homosexuality: 7 in 10 blacks voted in support of traditional marriage.
...
“It’s their churches,” somebody whispered to one of us not long after the election; “It’s their Christianity,” someone else hissed, rolling her eyes.
...
Comparing the infringement on civil rights that gays are experiencing to that suffered by black Americans is to begin a game of “top my oppression” that you’re not going to win. The struggle for equality — beginning with freedom from human bondage (see: references to the book of Exodus at the Gospel Brunch) — has been so central to African-American identity that many blacks find homosexual claims of a commensurate level of injustice frivolous, and even offensive.
Furthermore — and perhaps even more painfully for those of us who support gay marriage and all that it represents — Christian teaching on marriage is not the only reason so many blacks supported Proposition 8. Although it has come as a shocking realization to many in this community, a host of sociological studies confirm that many blacks feel a significant aversion to homosexuality itself, finding it morally and sexually repugnant.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The whole article is pretty funny. Liberal whites like to congratulate themselves on being supporters of blacks, but environmental and land-use regulations that drive up the cost of living in places like San Francisco tend to drive blacks and Hispanics out, because they are poorer on average.
Great, thier half way there, now they have to be convinced that the liberal rat party has been taking them for suckers for decades.
Black Churches tend to teach the Bible (well, except the black activists churches), which is quite clear on homosexuality. But even still, AIDS and homosexuality is a bigger problem in the black community than elsewhere.
a shocking realization to many in this community, a host of sociological studies confirm that many blacks feel a significant aversion to homosexuality itself, finding it morally and sexually repugnant.
2000 years of recorded history are shocking to someone?
That the laws of nature being respected by human beings is shocking?
The homosexual mafia is going to wish that they had stayed in the closet and basically did what they wanted to to for decades. Thier militanance is starting to piss a lot of people off and the backlash is coming...
It defies logic that they can be so strongly opposed to a liberal fundamental but not see the real forest for the trees. We only can thank our public education system and the liberal DBM to convince an otherwise informed electorate that continuing to vote democrat is a good thing for their cause....
“Liberal whites like to congratulate themselves on being supporters of blacks, but environmental and land-use regulations that drive up the cost of living in places like San Francisco tend to drive blacks and Hispanics out, because they are poorer on average.”
That’s a weirdly narrow example to pick. What about the entire Welfare State, for pete’s sake?
“It defies logic that they can be so strongly opposed to a liberal fundamental but not see the real forest for the trees.”
Do you think they cared about tariffs back when they voted for Republicans? Heck no. They vote for who they vote for. Since Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act, who knows why they switched to Democrats exactly. But once they did, they stuck with their choice.
That's just for starters. It also kills.
The Paradox of Tolerance
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
—”The Paradox of Tolerance,” Karl Popper
So, who’s intolerant: those who oppose gay marriage, or those who favor it? Gay marriage is not about tolerance, or acceptance. It’s about marginalizing those who support tradition; it’s about lumping all who oppose special rights for gays into a group as bigots, who can then be shunned. Paradox of Tolerance, indeed.
It’s easy to see why blacks resent comparisons of their struggle with that of gays: Gays were never enslaved, and they are overrepresented among the educated, among professionals, and in the top 3 quintiles of income.
Uh-oh. What are the libs to do? Two of their favorite “victim” groups are opposed to each other. Well, I think the answer is clear: The libs have always been condescending toward blacks, and are largely responsible for many of the problems in that community (think all the social programs created by liberals that in fact harmed blacks far more than they helped them); thus, the liberals will toss the blacks under the bus in favor of their new hero class: fruits.
Is the notion that many blacks find homosexuality “morally and sexually repugnant” a valid reason to restrict people from living out their constitutionally guaranteed idea of life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness?
What happens when these same enlightened blacks find your way of life “morally and sexually repugnant” should we take away your freedom too?
I laugh every time Barney Frank starts spouting off on camera. He is the perfect spokesperson for the fruity wing of the Dem party. We can only hope he rises to be Majority Leader soon so he gets more airtime.
“What happens when these same enlightened blacks find your way of life “morally and sexually repugnant” should we take away your freedom too?”
Homosexuals are still free to practice their “lifestyle” in California and elsewhere. It’s not freedom they want but for everyone to approve of their lifestyle.
What they always do, when they're out of the camera's frame. Follow the money.
The black vote doesn’t buy into the ‘gay-identity’ crap. Being ‘black’ is something you are: like being Catholic, a miner, a dwarf, whatever. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is defined strictly by ‘behaviour.’
It’s this phony melding of “identity” with “behaviour” that the homosexual activists have been successful in perpetuating all over the place (schools, govt) but NOT in black churches.
But the young blacks don’t go to church. Soon, they, too, will be brainwashed into thinking homo is cool.
I would have to say that 99.9% of blacks do not know that it was the Republicans who were for their equality. They would be down right HORRIFIED to find out that Martin Luther King was a republican.
They tell you don’t feed wild animals because it takes away their survival instincts and makes them dependent, it’s the same with people. Dependence is the Dems lifeline.
These are the same people who prattle endlessly about the "structural" causes of "institutional racism," while at the same time they take a NIMYBY stance toward communities--like SF's Western Addition--where their favored racial groups have lived for generations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.