PDA

View Full Version : Those who don't like PoC but fight for our rights anyway....



Lillith1991
04-21-2014, 01:58 PM
This is something that has been bothering me for a long while.

Why don't people acknowledge those who say, marched for civil rights but didn't like black people?Don't they deserve the same respect as those who zealously believed in the cause do? They might not of been doing for love of black people, maybe they did it just because it was the right thing, or because they realized that if the government could mistreat black people legally then them and their families were also fair targets. But they still did the right thing no matter their reason.

Why should white people who like black people and were involved with the civil rights movement be acknowledged more than them?

I feel the same about LGBT rights. I think people need to acknowledge that there are those who do something simply because they think its right, not because they like gay people, black people etc. Movements and progress aren't made by only those who zealously believe in a cause, they're also made up of people just attempting to do the right thing whether they like the group in question or not.

I feel we do ourselves and them a diservice by acting like everyone who was a part of the civil right movement liked African Americans. It's just not true.

kuwisdelu
04-21-2014, 02:09 PM
I guess because I don't really know any non-black people who were involved in the Civil Rights movement, let alone know their motivations for doing so. I only know a few of the major figures, and the ones I know are black.

I know plenty of straight allies when it comes to LGBTQ issues, but I don't really know any who are allies despite disliking non-heteronormative people.

I'm sure they exist. I don't know them. If I did, sure, I'd acknowledge them, I guess.

I'm not totally sure what you mean by "acknowledge"? What should we do?

shaldna
04-21-2014, 02:29 PM
I think, sometimes, people don't want to step outside of the 'perfect' vision of an event. Somehow having people who perhaps don't like PoC, but who still want equality somehow doesn't have quite the same glittery ring to it as marches being entirely PoC and allies.

I guess it's partly because people can't understand why those people might have done that. Maybe it's because they really believed in overall equality depite their own personal attitudes, maybe it was peer pressure, maybe they just got swept up in it, maybe they just did it for shits and giggles. I think sometimes that people don't want to look too closely at it and perhaps find that there were 'supporters' who weren't really supporters, but who's numbers at marches and rallies helped to show the strength of support.

For whatever reason people where there, they helped, whether that was their intention or not.

Lillith1991
04-21-2014, 02:36 PM
When I say acknowledge I mean to simply admit they exist. I don't know what we should do besides that honestly, or that we should do anything more then that. But often events like that are seen only in terms of hatred, or love. Good or bad. And humans aren't that simple.

My maternal grandfather respected black people without liking all of them, but he grew to like my dad and was very annoyed when my parents split according to my mom(he died when I was three). This same man dispite not being the most open when it came to his girls dating outside their race (Ironic considering he was Indian from India and white, and himself married a white Jewish woman) still loved all his grandchildren. Even the ones who's dads weren't white (which was the majority of them), or didn't have any white heritage(also a lot).

And if he hadn't been in the millitary at the time it was happening, he would of marched for civil rights most likely. He would of done it because it was the right thing to do. If he was alive he would do the same type of thing for gay marriage, because it was right. Because he didn't fight so others could be denied rights, whether he liked them or not.

I don't think every person who supports rights for different groups, has to like those groups. Or that people have to like a group as a whole to like a person who is a part of a group.

KarmaPolice
04-21-2014, 02:58 PM
Every historical event gets retouched once it fades from current memory - both deliberately and accidentally.

ap123
04-21-2014, 04:37 PM
Maybe it's a generational thing, but it's acknowledged enough for there to have been a label for the people you describe, "backyard liberals."

ie: Rights, rights, equality, rights...What? Not in my backyard.

KarmaPolice
04-21-2014, 08:09 PM
Well, backyard (or NIMBY) liberals are at least better than the armchair type...

Wilde_at_heart
04-21-2014, 08:24 PM
Every historical event gets retouched once it fades from current memory - both deliberately and accidentally.

Absolutely.

That and the 'great man' view of things, and the fixation on 'leaders' means that the ones who helped their rise are forgotten.


I guess because I don't really know any non-black people who were involved in the Civil Rights movement, let alone know their motivations for doing so. I only know a few of the major figures, and the ones I know are black.

I know plenty of straight allies when it comes to LGBTQ issues, but I don't really know any who are allies despite disliking non-heteronormative people.

I'm sure they exist. I don't know them. If I did, sure, I'd acknowledge them, I guess.

I'm not totally sure what you mean by "acknowledge"? What should we do?

Loads of Jewish people, whites, etc were part of the civil rights movement and went on the marches and so on.

As for the OP, my own answer is that I don't care what people like or dislike; it's how they act that matters.

shadowwalker
04-21-2014, 08:25 PM
I think there are a lot of people who absolutely believe in the old "I may hate what they say but I'll defend to the death their right to say it". It doesn't matter what one's personal beliefs about any particular group, it's a matter of believing in the rights of the individuals within that group.

Hapax Legomenon
04-21-2014, 10:31 PM
I think a lot of people do not think that supporting civil rights and then turning around and telling your daughter you don't want her dating outside her race is completely contradictory. Believing that people have rights is one thing and not having biases in your personal life are two very different things.

kuwisdelu
04-21-2014, 10:46 PM
Loads of Jewish people, whites, etc were part of the civil rights movement and went on the marches and so on.

I know that. I just don't know their names.

cornflake
04-21-2014, 10:58 PM
I know that. I just don't know their names.

Kennedy, Johnson...

Lillith1991
04-21-2014, 11:35 PM
I think what I'm trying to get at is, why is it considered more nobel to support a cause because you like a group, than supporting a cause because you believe in equality whether you like the group or not? How is it more nobel to support gay, black, Native American causes when you like those groups as a whole? Isn't it equally nobel to say, I don't like you because you're black, Native American etc., but your rights as a human matter to me?

Hapax Legomenon
04-21-2014, 11:38 PM
I don't think it's a matter of liking or not liking a group, I think it's more about acknowledgement that a group is comprised of individuals. Rather than assuming certain things about your daughter's boyfriend because he's a part of a group, you decide whether you are okay with him based on whether or not he's a jackass, for example.

cornflake
04-21-2014, 11:38 PM
I think what I'm trying to get at is, why is it considered more nobel to support a cause because you like a group, than supporting a cause because you believe in equality whether you like the group or not?

Where do you get the idea that it is?

kuwisdelu
04-21-2014, 11:41 PM
I think what I'm trying to get at is, why is it considered more nobel to support a cause because you like a group, than supporting a cause because you believe in equality whether you like the group or not?

More noble? I don't know.

Racism is still racism, and citizenship and freedom and equality of rights were really only a first step.

A giant leap of a step, but a first step nonetheless. We're still fighting racism.


How is it more nobel to support gay, black, Native American causes when you like those groups as a whole? Isn't it equally nobel to say, I don't like you because you're black, Native American etc., but your rights as a human matter to me?

More noble when fighting for rights? I don't think it necessarily is.

But we're fighting for more than that, now. It's not all done and good.

We still need to combat the stereotypes and prejudice that foster those attitudes.

kuwisdelu
04-21-2014, 11:46 PM
Though I do want to point out that there are reasons besides racism to want to marry inside your race.

Hapax Legomenon
04-21-2014, 11:47 PM
Also, liking/supporting someone because they are a part of a group can make people in that group very uncomfortable and put them in a very difficult position.

Lillith1991
04-21-2014, 11:47 PM
Where do you get the idea that it is?

From the general lack of people I've come across so far in my life being able to actually admit you don't have to like a group to support their rights. So far AW is the only place I haven't really encountered the someone has to like a group to support their rights mentality. That's not to say its not there, just that I've seen a lot less of it here than I do in real life.

ellio
04-21-2014, 11:49 PM
Sorry, the whole concept of this is ridiculous to me. If I heard someone tell me 'I hate you because you're black but you do deserve equal rights' I'm not going to give them recognition for being noble. C'mon now. I'd tell 'em help a cause if you want to but don't expect your racist ass to get brownie points for it.

Lillith1991
04-21-2014, 11:53 PM
Though I do want to point out that there are reasons besides racism to want to marry inside your race.

This, I'm glad you pointed this out. It can also be a cultural thing. Sometimes a culture considers the child whatever its mother is.

kuwisdelu
04-21-2014, 11:55 PM
From the general lack of people I've come across so far in my life being able to actually admit you don't have to like a group to support their rights. So far AW is the only place I haven't really encountered the someone has to like a group to support their rights mentality. That's not to say its not there, just that I've seen a lot less of it here than I do in real life.

I think whether it's noble and whether it's possible are different questions.

Of course, it's possible. That's the whole libertarian schtick.

But civil rights are only one aspect of fighting racism and sexism and homophobia and genderism, and if they're not going to support the rest of the struggle, it's hard to see them as true allies.


This, I'm glad you pointed this out. It can also be a cultural thing. Sometimes a culture considers the child whatever its mother is.

If your race is endangered and you don't want it to die out, you're going to think hard about this stuff.

Like I've said before, I don't believe in blood quantums myself, but that's the reality we live in.

Lillith1991
04-21-2014, 11:59 PM
Sorry, the whole concept of this is ridiculous to me. If I heard someone tell me 'I hate you because you're black but you do deserve equal rights' I'm not going to give them recognition for being noble. C'mon now. I'd tell 'em help a cause if you want to but don't expect your racist ass to get brownie points for it.

I'm not saying they are nobel. I'm asking why society treats supporting the rights of a group because you like said group as more nobel.

shakeysix
04-22-2014, 12:02 AM
My white parents signed petitions and participated in the Civil Rights Movement because they believed in the movement. They refused to shop at businesses that were segregated and had no problem telling people why. My dad was a small businessman himself and he lost business because of his liberal political views.

Did they like minority people? You have to remember that Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s dealt with Jewish, Catholic, Hispanic, Native Americans and Buddhist people as well as people of color. Not all f these people agreed or even tried to agree on every point. Most did respect the other groups in a 1960 sort of way. Many of these people, at the time, regardless of race or religion, would have refused to consider marching for gay rights or even for women's rights. Women teachers did not even earn the same salary as their male counterparts. That was the way the world was in 1960.

Did my parents like minority people? It was a small town. We knew very few Jewish people, no Asians in our town. Mexican Americans were the majority of the minorities and believe me, in a small Kansas town they suffered plenty. My folks had several close African American friends. Their friendships dated back to schooldays. They were of the same small town middle class with working class parents who sacrificed for their educations, just like my grandparents did for my parents. A couple of those friendships I might call love.

Like is such an insipid, kid word. Respect works better for your argument. How many people marched and protested out of respect for their fellow Americans? More than they will ever be able to convey in two or three textbook pages.

It was a huge movement, an exciting, vivid, if sometimes frightening time to be alive. There was a new feeling of power, pride, anger, frustration, guilt, a sense of fairplay that had been denied too long and weariness with a system that was revealing itself to be as bitter and false as it was broken. Like I said, the movement can never be squeezed into a textbook lesson but "like" does not touch the sentiments of that era. --s6

cornflake
04-22-2014, 12:09 AM
From the general lack of people I've come across so far in my life being able to actually admit you don't have to like a group to support their rights. So far AW is the only place I haven't really encountered the someone has to like a group to support their rights mentality. That's not to say its not there, just that I've seen a lot less of it here than I do in real life.

I don't think I've ever come across 'you have to like a group to support its rights,' as a thing. In fact, my entire life, I've heard the opposite. You've never heard anyone say they hate KKK (or whatever hate group members) but will go defend their right to spew their crap? I've heard that as long as I can remember.


I think whether it's noble and whether it's possible are different questions.

Of course, it's possible. That's the whole libertarian schtick.

But civil rights are only one aspect of fighting racism and sexism and homophobia and genderism, and if they're not going to support the rest of the struggle, it's hard to see them as true allies.

If your race is endangered and you don't want it to die out, you're going to think hard about this stuff.

Like I've said before, I don't believe in blood quantums myself, but that's the reality we live in.

Libertarian? See above - this is basic American, Constitutionally-based thinking where I come from.

Civil rights are only one aspect of fighting those things? What's the rest of the struggle? I don't understand.


I'm not saying they are nobel. I'm asking why society treats supporting the rights of a group because you like said group as more nobel.

I still don't get this - can you give an example of this dichotomous treatment or something?

Lillith1991
04-22-2014, 12:31 AM
But civil rights are only one aspect of fighting racism and sexism and homophobia and genderism, and if they're not going to support the rest of the struggle, it's hard to see them as true allies.

I wish more people I've come across expressed themselves the way you did. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's a toleration vs acceptance thing. People don't want to be tolerated or for their rights to be tolerated, but to also be accepted. Which I understand, and agree with completely. Its only acceptance that truly breaks down seemingly imovable barriers. Some have already broken down those barriers in their thinking, and some people just aren't at that stage yet, and may never be.




If your race is endangered and you don't want it to die out, you're going to think hard about this stuff.

Like I've said before, I don't believe in blood quantums myself, but that's the reality we live in.

This, and it can also apply to wanting to share culture with someone and life experiences with someone. Black people aren't endangered, but many black and mulatto people want the other bilogical parent of their children to be black.

Hapax Legomenon
04-22-2014, 12:42 AM
Marrying in your group can also be about making sure that the person you're marrying "gets it".

Lillith1991
04-22-2014, 12:44 AM
Marrying in your group can also be about making sure that the person you're marrying "gets it".

I agree.

RichardGarfinkle
04-22-2014, 01:34 AM
The biggest problem with this question isn't the lack of liking; it's the lack of respect and human regard. People who hold others in personal contempt, yet help them out of a theory of rightness are unlikely to listen to the real needs of those people. The people acting from a theory or more likely to define what those needs had to be and try to bring those about and expect gratitude from those they "helped."

A number of movements through the 19th and 20th centuries had such partial aids: the abolitionists, the suffragists, the early zionists. The aid they were given was based on the liking and theories of the givers, not on the needs of those given to.

kuwisdelu
04-22-2014, 01:41 AM
Civil rights are only one aspect of fighting those things? What's the rest of the struggle? I don't understand.

The Civil Rights movement was never just about civil rights.


I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

That is a much stronger dream than equality of rights.

Equality of rights does not guarantee equality of opportunity.

It does not eradicate racism. It does not return prosperity to the underprivileged communities across this country or undo the inherited hardships of our ancestors. It does not change the hearts hardened by lies.

It was a victory, but it is not the victory, because the dream has not yet arrived.


I wish more people I've come across expressed themselves the way you did. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's a toleration vs acceptance thing. People don't want to be tolerated or for their rights to be tolerated, but to also be accepted. Which I understand, and agree with completely. Its only acceptance that truly breaks down seemingly imovable barriers. Some have already broken down those barriers in their thinking, and some people just aren't at that stage yet, and may never be.

There is a time for putting aside our disrespect and working toward a greater goal.

There is a time for dragging the bigots kicking and screaming into a more just world.

There is a time for dialogue to dispel the stereotypes and dismantle prejudice.

Lillith1991
04-22-2014, 02:23 AM
The Civil Rights movement was never just about civil rights.



That is a much stronger dream than equality of rights.

Equality of rights does not guarantee equality of opportunity.

It does not eradicate racism. It does not return prosperity to the underprivileged communities across this country or undo the inherited hardships of our ancestors. It does not change the hearts hardened by lies.

It was a victory, but it is not the victory, because the dream has not yet arrived.



There is a time for putting aside our disrespect and working toward a greater goal.

There is a time for dragging the bigots kicking and screaming into a more just world.

There is a time for dialogue to dispel the stereotypes and dismantle prejudice.

This, all of it. I agree completely, I'm perfectly willing to discuss my life with someone who holds prejudice but is respectful. Or someone who is on the fence about something that effects me. Maybe I will be a catalyst for them changing their mind for the better.

At the same time, I want to drag those people who feel I don't have the right as a female of color to be paid the same as a white man, and those who try to use religion as a way to say I shouldn't be able to marry my gf kicking and screaming into this millenium.

Kashmirgirl1976
04-29-2014, 06:47 AM
Did they like minority people? You have to remember that Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s dealt with Jewish, Catholic, Hispanic, Native Americans and Buddhist people as well as people of color.6

Are you saying that these people helped? Yes, they did. However, the Civil Rights Movement was largely about the rights of blacks with other groups benefiting from the strife and costs of said movement. They, in turn, encouraged themselves to hold their movements.

Roxxsmom
05-03-2014, 08:13 AM
I think whether it's noble and whether it's possible are different questions.

Of course, it's possible. That's the whole libertarian schtick.

But civil rights are only one aspect of fighting racism and sexism and homophobia and genderism, and if they're not going to support the rest of the struggle, it's hard to see them as true allies.



I'm not sure I've run into any people who actively dislike people from various groups who also spend a lot of time and energy campaigning for their rights. I know some people in my mom's generation (including my own mom, who is in her 70s) who are not haters but who are not completely comfortable with people from some other groups, but who still vote to support equal rights and who think discrimination is horrible.

I will give her and others credit for overcoming that visceral "fear of the other" response that seems to have been programmed into them from a young age so they could make rational, informed decisions how people should be treated, vote against hateful legislation and politicians, and it's especially nice that they could raise kids with fewer prejudices than they had.

nighttimer
05-03-2014, 02:15 PM
I know that. I just don't know their names.


Kennedy, Johnson...

Viola Liuzzo (http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/08/12/209595935/killed-for-taking-part-in-everybody-s-fight). Among the many martyrs of the Civil Rights era (http://www.splcenter.org/civil-rights-memorial/civil-rights-martyrs) she was the only White woman to die for the rights of Black people. Murdered by the Klan. Slimed by the FBI. Forgotten by everybody else.


In an obscure corner of Detroit, there's a battered playground honoring a civil rights martyr. It has an overgrown baseball field, some missing swings and on a broken fence, a worn, wooden sign.

"It's all tore up and definitely could use at least a paint job," says Sally Liuzzo-Prado. She is referring to the sign with her mother's name on it.


Liuzzo-Prado was 6 when her mother, Viola Liuzzo, was killed by Ku Klux Klan members following a voting rights march in Alabama in 1965. Liuzzo was the only white female protester to die in the civil rights movement.


The housewife and mother of five had been an active NAACP member in Detroit and was horrified at the violence she saw inflicted upon black protesters on television. So when she heard of a four-day, 54-mile walk from Selma to Montgomery, Ala., to support voting rights, she packed a bag. Liuzzo told her husband: "It's everybody's fight." She kissed her children goodbye and began the drive south.


Led by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., Viola Liuzzo and thousands of other marchers walked to Montgomery, where King spoke on the Capitol steps, telling the crowd that freedom was imminent: "How long? Not Long! Because no lie can live forever. How long? Not long!" King said in a now-famous speech.


That night, Liuzzo, tired but exhilarated, shuttled local marchers back to their homes. A car filled with Ku Klux Klan members tried to force her off the road. Finally, they pulled alongside Liuzzo's car and shot her in her head. The 39-year-old died instantly.


King attended Liuzzo's funeral and comforted her family, but not everyone agreed that she was a hero. A group of people tried to break down the Liuzzos' door, and a cross was burned on their lawn. What Sally Liuzzo-Prado remembers most vividly is the morning she returned to first grade after her mother's death.


She was wearing her saddle shoes, which her older sister, Penny, had polished.


"It was pouring rain that day. And I looked down at my saddle shoes and the white polish was coming off," she says. "These people grown-ups lined the street and were throwing rocks at me, calling me 'N-lover's baby.' I didn't know what that meant. I thought it was because of my shoes."

Then, there were the rumors: After Viola Liuzzo's death, there were newspaper reports that Liuzzo had gone south to meet and have sex with black men. Another rumor claimed she was a drug addict. And the July 1965 issue of The Ladies' Home Journal published a poll that asked if readers thought Liuzzo was a good mother. Fifty-five percent didn't. ("I feel sorry for what happened," said one woman in a focus group convened to talk about the Liuzzo story, "but I feel she should have stayed home and minded her own business.")


The family couldn't figure out why anyone would say such things. Then, when the Klansmen were put on trial for Liuzzo's death, they learned that a key witness was a paid FBI informant who had been in the Klansmen's car. Years later, the family sought to have Liuzzo's FBI file opened. They finally succeeded, and that's when they discovered that the rumors about her had come directly from J. Edgar Hoover. The family believes the FBI director was desperate to divert attention from the agency by smearing her.


The smears took an awful toll. Anthony Liuzzo became a heavy drinker and later died. The Liuzzo children all moved away.

Sally Liuzzo-Prado, the youngest, was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety. But two years ago, Liuzzo-Prado elected to return to her hometown.


"The older I got, the more I realized there was a lot of work to be done in Detroit still," she says. "And, you know, it's not so much just for her to have recognition. It's to right the wrongs done to her by J. Edgar Hoover."
Did Viola Liuzzo love or even like Black people? Was she a naive liberal do-gooder, a dizzy "nigger lover" who abandoned her husband and children to trek South driven by a bad case of jungle case?

Why does it matter why she did it? Why should it matter why someone does the right thing? Isn't it enough they see what is wrong and instead of ignoring it and leaving it up to someone else, they stand in the fire and in some cases lay down their lives?

If I had the talent to write a screenplay, I'd write one entitled Everybody's Fight: The Viola Liuzzo Story, somehow get it to Meryl Streep's agent and if she's tired of playing British prime ministers, fashionistas and guilt-wracked Polish Holocaust survivors, here's a part sure to get her yet another Academy Award Best Actress nomination.


Tell a story of an unsung hero. Inform people. Unhide history. It's all good.



What's like got to do with it? :Shrug:

Lillith1991
05-03-2014, 08:40 PM
I'm not sure I've run into any people who actively dislike people from various groups who also spend a lot of time and energy campaigning for their rights. I know some people in my mom's generation (including my own mom, who is in her 70s) who are not haters but who are not completely comfortable with people from some other groups, but who still vote to support equal rights and who think discrimination is horrible.

I will give her and others credit for overcoming that visceral "fear of the other" response that seems to have been programmed into them from a young age so they could make rational, informed decisions how people should be treated, vote against hateful legislation and politicians, and it's especially nice that they could raise kids with fewer prejudices than they had.

I like this post quite a bit, especially the bolded.

Ketzel
05-03-2014, 09:21 PM
This is something that has been bothering me for a long while.

Why don't people acknowledge those who say, marched for civil rights but didn't like black people?Don't they deserve the same respect as those who zealously believed in the cause do? They might not of been doing for love of black people, maybe they did it just because it was the right thing, or because they realized that if the government could mistreat black people legally then them and their families were also fair targets. But they still did the right thing no matter their reason.

Why should white people who like black people and were involved with the civil rights movement be acknowledged more than them?

I feel the same about LGBT rights. I think people need to acknowledge that there are those who do something simply because they think its right, not because they like gay people, black people etc. Movements and progress aren't made by only those who zealously believe in a cause, they're also made up of people just attempting to do the right thing whether they like the group in question or not.

I feel we do ourselves and them a diservice by acting like everyone who was a part of the civil right movement liked African Americans. It's just not true.
The premise of this argument is not so clear to me. First, as a grizzled veteran of the civil rights movement, the feminist movement and the marriage equality movement, I have to point out the obvious - people who are racist, sexist or homophobic are unlikely to be deeply involved in the struggle to protect and expand the rights of the disliked category.

I am wondering if you can identify by name or conduct, some of these people are who are prominently supporting LGBT rights while not liking LGBT people, in such a way as to make them genuine allies of their cause. By that I mean not just individuals who will vote for marriage equality, but would really prefer to never attend a same-sex wedding, but who are actively furthering the struggle in some visible way. Because, while I would applaud those people for rising above their own prejudices, even if they took only a small step up, I wouldn't see any real reason to do them honor.

Especially, I would not honor them above those people who work for a cause because they both believe in equal rights and genuinely consider the group they are supporting to be their social equals. Many of those people have died for the rights of others. Just for example, try googling "martyrs of the civil rights movements." Come to think of it, I don't know anyone I would honor above those people.

Lillith1991
05-03-2014, 09:50 PM
The premise of this argument is not so clear to me. First, as a grizzled veteran of the civil rights movement, the feminist movement and the marriage equality movement, I have to point out the obvious - people who are racist, sexist or homophobic are unlikely to be deeply involved in the struggle to protect and expand the rights of the disliked category.

I am wondering if you can identify by name or conduct, some of these people are who are prominently supporting LGBT rights while not liking LGBT people, in such a way as to make them genuine allies of their cause. By that I mean not just individuals who will vote for marriage equality, but would really prefer to never attend a same-sex wedding, but who are actively furthering the struggle in some visible way. Because, while I would applaud those people for rising above their own prejudices, even if they took only a small step up, I wouldn't see any real reason to do them honor.

Especially, I would not honor them above those people who work for a cause because they both believe in equal rights and genuinely consider the group they are supporting to be their social equals. Many of those people have died for the rights of others. Just for example, try googling "martyrs of the civil rights movements." Come to think of it, I don't know anyone I would honor above those people.

Prominent? No. I personally don't think any public figure would admit they don't like such and such group, but support their rights. That would be social suicide. I'm sure some exist, but I also don't think those people are the kinds we think of as racist, homophobic, sexist etc. They aren't shouting their dislike, so how would we know they feel that dislike?

Personally? As a mullato lesbian I have met more than one black pastor while growing up who felt my sexuality a sin, but still supported equal marriage. One was a verteran of the civil rights movement if I recall. For that indiviual, they saw the civil rights movement being mirrored in the movement for marriage equality. That they saw a correlation was enough for them to support it.

Now, whether they're a good pastor would be up for debate to some.

Ketzel
05-03-2014, 09:56 PM
Prominent? No. I personally don't think any public figure would admit they don't like such and such group, but support their rights. That would be social suicide. I'm sure some exist, but I also don't think those people are the kinds we think of as racist, homophobic, sexist etc. They aren't shouting their dislike, so how would we know they feel that dislike?


Yes, well, that does make it quite a bit harder to acclaim them as "noble," doesn't it? Is that, perhaps, the answer to your original question? If someone tells me I secretly support your rights as long as no one knows about it, it's hard, for me at least, to call them noble. In fact, "hypocrite" or "coward" tends to come more easily to my tongue.

Roxxsmom
05-04-2014, 09:50 AM
Personally? As a mullato lesbian I have met more than one black pastor while growing up who felt my sexuality a sin, but still supported equal marriage. One was a verteran of the civil rights movement if I recall. For that indiviual, they saw the civil rights movement being mirrored in the movement for marriage equality. That they saw a correlation was enough for them to support it.

Now, whether they're a good pastor would be up for debate to some.

I'd say these guys are at least several steps about the people who say they have nothing against LGBT folks, even claim some of their best friends are gay or lesbian, but who support discriminatory laws.

Ketzel
05-04-2014, 06:48 PM
Personally? As a mullato lesbian I have met more than one black pastor while growing up who felt my sexuality a sin, but still supported equal marriage. One was a verteran of the civil rights movement if I recall. For that indiviual, they saw the civil rights movement being mirrored in the movement for marriage equality. That they saw a correlation was enough for them to support it.

I'd say you've met some extremely unusual pastors, if they were both willing to call out your sexuality as a sin and also believed God would bless your union in marriage with another lesbian.

Lillith1991
05-04-2014, 11:55 PM
I'd say you've met some extremely unusual pastors, if they were both willing to call out your sexuality as a sin and also believed God would bless your union in marriage with another lesbian.

They were strange, that's certainly true. People are extremely odd and fickle.