Africans do not equate to gays in civil rights discussions

Im tired of homosexuals using black people to further their own struggle.  Comparing themselves to us.  Its a completely invalid comparison which doesnt stand the slightest scrutiny.

 

I was shocked when a person I was debating some aspect of homosexual rights with said to me "how can you say then when you're black?".  As if this person thought that simply by my being black I must understand gays and be onside with them.  This person was equating my race to a sexuality issue that is present in all races.

 

This "minority" term I believe has confused people.  We hear "blacks, jews, the disabled and gays" being lumped together as if everybody who isn't a white male is a "minority" and therefore share the same ideals or identify with each other.  Newsflash:  we don't.  Most Africans and many of the descendants are highly conservative in such respects.

 

Here comes the inevitable bit where you call me homophobe as if the mere word will cow me into silence or accepting nonsensical arguments.  It won't.  I'm not a homophobe in the sense that I FEAR homosexuals or their influence.  I fear nobody.  Think of it like hydrophobic oil.  Water and oil don't mix.  The water and oil don't repel each other, just that water (straight people) bonds to water quickly and strongly and leaves oil alone.

 

I ignore gay people because they aren't relevant to me.  I don't wish to intrude on their lives or restrict their rights.  I don't want to stop them doing anything they want to do beyond getting in my face.  What I want people to do is stop this stupid and insulting, YES insulting comparison.  I'll get to that later.  But here's why it's invalid....

 

 

The Rev. Joseph Lowery
"Homosexuals as people have never been enslaved because of their sexual orientation," he argued. "They may have been scorned; they may have been discriminated against. But they've never been enslaved and declared less than human."

The Rev. Jesse Jackson
"Gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution,

 

There was no Gayland from which all homosexuals stem.  Gayland was never raped, the gays never enslaved or brutalised, never lynched, never colonised, never systematically robbed of their gay language, culture or gay ideaology.  Never taught through centuries of brainwashing to hate the appearance of themselves and despise their fellows as assuredly many black folk to this day still do.

 

The major point here is that Africans and their descendants suffered and continue to for WHO they were.  They had to justify WHAT they were and the stigmas remain to this day.  Gays merely were restricted from open behaviours.  They lived like Oscar Wilde and cherished members of their societies.  The cherished civilisations of Europe and Classical Greek and Roman texts are full of heroic and noble gays.  Never animals or goods here.  Not for them.  This is a modern fallacy.

 

Now its too easy to get drawn into a who suffered more discussion so Ill leave that aside for now.  There is a more fundamental reason why this argument of theirs makes no sense.

 

The visual thing is the difference.  Anybody can see Im black.  I can be discriminated against merely on sight.  Silently in somebodys thoughts.  A potential employer, teacher, mortgage advisor, etc etc can SEE Im black.  Sometimes they can use my cultural name or even my voice to judge me.  You can not tell a gay person from a straight one.  Unless they actively want you to know.

 

Therefore its the behaviour of gay people, their extravagant femininity, the extroverted offensiveness that makes them discriminated against.  I worked with two gay people.  One was a she thing and the other was a normal dude.  I could get along with the normal dude.  He didnt feel the need to tell me no nastyness and details he knew that people dont want to hear.  The other dudes at work invite him to the pub he gets on with people... you understand?  This is a homophobic environment Im talking about here.  Everyone knows he is a gay, but nobody gives a shit.

The other muthafcuker now... he is a typical TV Graham Norton sissy little thing.  Nobody likes him, wants to work with hime and he irritates the hell out of people because he is always pushing his nonsense.  "my boyfriend and I this, my boyfriend that" Nobody likes him.  He wears stupid sissy clothes and bops to girly pop music.

Now both of them are gay.  See, the point is not wether gays are gay by choice... that is irrelevant.  However they came to be gay, they both are.  One CHOOSES to be an offensive extrovert and behaves in a socially unnaceptable way and thus, he is unaccepted.  No big drama.  If you wanna be a nasty pervert and sex man, go keep it to yourself.

You can not say well Im calling for gays to compromise their gayness by hiding who they are and not being true to self.  NO.  Because their being gay involves sexing men.  Simple.  It doesnt involve all the dressing as women and acting stupid.  That is fashion culture and it is choice.  I might walk around naked at home and call it being true to myself (I enjoy it) but I wouldnt do it at work because it is not appropriate. 

Now back to the point about insulting.  Somebody in another group asked me why a straight person being called gay is an insult.  It is.  Gays are percieved (largely through their own actions) as sissys and emasculated men.  In the media they portray themselves as effete wannabe girls.  To liken the males of my WHOLE race to such people is a deep insult.