Maybe, but it's not so much because they're black. It's because they're not completely on board with their politics. There is an argument that minorities should be more sympathetic toward their arguments though.
As the whirlwind of racial strife still whirs, even a full month after the George Zimmerman verdict, Bill O'Reilly, Don Lemon, Oprah Winfrey, and Al Sharpton are overlooking something.
The most blatant contempt toward black Americans I've seen recently has come from none other than the organized leadership of the LGBT lobby.
People need to realize that while some may be "born" gay, it doesn't mean all are. Some may very well be gay for other reasons. We have no evidence of a gay gene (although I am open minded to the idea since so many have tried to be straight and felt they couldn't).
Donnie McClurkin, an award-winning musician, was supposed to perform at the fiftieth anniversary of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on Washington. McClurkin is a black Christian who has come forward with an inspiring life story. He was molested as a boy and developed homosexual behaviors, possibly as a result of the trauma. Later his faith helped him to overcome his homosexual desires and live a more biblical life.
Under pressure from gay power activists in Washington such as Phil Pannel, the mayor of Washington, D.C., Vincent Gray, decided to drop McClurkin from the concert. McClurkin was humiliated. LGBT activists felt that someone who had called homosexuality a "sin" could not perform at a concert commemorating the life and work of a black Christian reverend.
There has been a string of global clashes between LGBT activists and black Christians -- not only in the U.S., but abroad. African-American Christian Angela McCaskill nearly lost her job at Gallaudet University for signing a petition about gay marriage, even though it wasn't clear that she was signing in protest against it.
Always try to stay away from politics at work if you can. I'd like to hear more details about the firing before making a judgment call. It's like Ms. California. They say she lost her crown because she was against gay marriage when there was more to the story.
If she could, then should she? Probably not. The issue comes down to people believing homosexuality is wrong, not whether one is born with it. And no, people can't "wake up" and be straight. It's not that simple, and that's the problem.
was an African-American administrator in Toledo who authored a rebuttal against someone who'd accused the University of Toledo of economic discrimination against homosexual couples. Dixon said, "I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman." She went on to clarify the illegitimacy of the economic comparison:
What would a conservative analysis be of this if this was about blacks and any other minority? I don't believe the gays are keeping blacks from becoming more successful. Look at the Hispanics. They're often very successful and pretty religious. Now, a person can hide their homosexuality and therefore have an easier chance of getting hired for a job from where blacks can't hide it.
Economic data is irrefutable: The normative statistics for a homosexual in the USA include a Bachelor's degree: For gay men, the median household income is $83,000/yr. (Gay singles $62,000; gay couples living together $130,000), almost 80% above the median U.S. household income of $46,326, per census data. For lesbians, the median household income is $80,000/yr. (Lesbian singles $52,000; Lesbian couples living together $96,000); 36% of lesbians reported household incomes in excess of $100,000/yr. Compare that to the median income of the non-college educated Black male of $30,539. The data speaks for itself.
I'm going to guess that she didn't want to council a woman about being more accepting of her homosexuality or on getting others to. She had a moral problem with it and wanted another counselor to take it. It sounds like Julea wasn't the best person to do that type of counseling anyway. To fire for that is to suggest one needs to be liberal to be a counselor. There actually is a place for more conservative thinking counselors (not on the gay subject so much as others).
Julea Ward was a graduate student at Eastern Michigan University. She asked to refer a client to a different counselor, based on the fact that her religious beliefs disallowed her from affirming an unchaste homosexual relationship. As Jeremy Tedesco points out:
Her objection is to providing counseling on certain topics, not to counseling any particular group.
So the claim that Julea refused to see clients who identified as gay is patently false.
Suppose somebody went to a counselor wanting help on how to get their family to accept their more traditional ideas and it was a liberal counselor who wanted them referred to somebody else. Should that liberal counselor be fired?
The actual facts are that Julea faced a values conflict when a potential client sought counseling about a homosexual relationship. Recognizing the likely values conflict with the client, she asked her professor whether she should refer him before any meeting took place and was instructed to do so. But the University charged Julea with "imposing values" on the potential client, and disobeying ethical rules that apply to counselors. It then expelled her from the program, even though she was a stellar student who was carrying a 3.91 GPA.
The ideology of the activists (not all gays or even most gays), but the major activists are that if you're not with them, you're against them. It's not just people with a religious objection. They've been known to come down on people who are bi-sexual. Apparently, they're not gay enough.
What is the ideology of the LGBT lobby, by the way? And why does it seem to clash so incessantly with the views of black people, who are -- with the notable exception of Jason Collins, Barack Obama, and Obama's die-hard followers -- unimpressed with the comparison between their lives and the claims of the LGBT lobby?
To be fair, some people have earned the name homophobe. They look down on gays as people and hold them to standards that they refuse to hold other sinners up to. Religious beliefs themselves are not homophobic.
Not quite that simple. It's that if they have a romantic relationship, they want it with the same gender. These very people might find the idea of being with the opposite gender to be nauseating.
People who love the same sex come with many different agendas and experiences. The peculiar ideology of the LGBT lobby, however, seems fashioned perfectly to inflame the rage and resistance of African-Americans. First, the ideology is based on biological determinism. The repeated appeals to the Fourteenth Amendment depend upon the notion that homosexuals are born with their orientation in the same way black people are born with dark skin. This isn't the most inviting way to start a comparison: "Hi, I'm a guy who loves playing with other men's genitals, and that's just like you being black!"
BTW, racism isn't just because they're black. People will discriminate because a black person's hair isn't straight enough, their name isn't white enough, etc. People will make judgment calls before even getting to know a black person. So, it could be argued that the black person could in fact do more to stop discrimination. The question is should they or are other cultures just having a stick up their butt? Thus, how far should gays have to go in order to be guaranteed the right not to be discriminated against in the workforce?
I've never wanted laws outlawing this because where else will parents be told what to do? At the same time, from what I've read, success usually comes with those who actually want the treatments. A minor being forced doesn't want the treatment and probably won't benefit from it. I also have concerns about patients getting suicidal because of it. I don't it's good to force it on a minor. I do think those who want it can benefit from it.
There is an added dimension to this dangerous form of essentialism, however. The LGBT lobby is driven by the belief that people whom they classify as "born homosexuals" must engage in the actual acts of sexual gratification with the same sex, or there is something wrong with them. Within this logic, it is impossible to go from homosexual activity to non-homosexual activity. So convinced are LGBT activists of this rejection of free will and self-control that they have moved to make it illegal in California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts for counselors to help minors cease or avoid sexual activities with the same sex.
I think this is a crappy argument. People purchase treatments to have a biological child. It's not the same as purchasing children. Are you going to accuse all the heterosexual couples who do the same thing of purchasing children because that's exactly what the writer is doing here. Then afterwords, it's not about being forced to be with those people through the state enforcement. It's done the same way it's done in heterosexual homes. The parent and his/her partner nurture the baby. They feed him/her, put him/her to bed at night, sing them songs, and basically be a parent. While families ran by homosexual parents are not traditional, I doubt you'd find many of those children saying they want to leave. In fact, they'd probably speak out against it if somebody tried to take them away.
The LGBT lobby also demands that same-sex couples have the right to be parents. Here is where the movement becomes utterly irreconcilable with black history, regardless of how much Melissa Harris-Perry may enjoy her repartee with Thomas Roberts. For same-sex couples to become parents, they must purchase children. They won't call it that, of course. But buying sperm from a sperm-bank or renting a woman's womb both entail the exchange of money for ownership of a child. The state is then embroiled in the arrangement as an enforcer of the contract, compelling the child and third parties to respect the authority of two adults, one or both of whom are unrelated to the child, and both of whom came into possession of a dependent human being through money. (Those high incomes that Crystal Dixon pointed out among gay couples come in handy.)
I think it makes sense to say to stop treating gays like savages, but to let people have their own religious convictions.
How does this sound for a race of people who came out of slavery? Do you think it makes sense to tell black people, who were treated as chattel and stereotyped as savages incapable of self-control, that they ought to jump on board?......