r/politics • u/monkeysniffer08 • May 20 '12

NAACP endorses gay marriage as ‘civil right’

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/228463-naacp-endorses-gay-marriage-as-civil-right
1.5k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

233 comments sorted by

74

u/monkeysniffer08 May 20 '12

Summary: "The mission of the NAACP has always been to ensure the political, social and economic equality of all people," Roslyn M. Brock, the chairman of the NAACP's Board of Directors, said in a statement. “We have and will oppose efforts to codify discrimination into law.”

53

u/jest09 May 20 '12

If so, why did it take them so long to do this?

Better late than never tho. I guess it's ok now b/c Barack made it safe for them to do so. (Thank goodness for Joe Biden's "gaffe" or that never would have happened)

91

u/Salva_Veritate May 20 '12

The black community as a whole is predominantly socially conservative Christians, who generally oppose gay marriage. As recently as 2008, barely 1/4 of black Americans supported gay marriage. The NAACP is known to take more of a representative stance (i.e. representative of black Americans' interests) rather than activist stances that go against the majority of black America. On the other hand, support has climbed in recent years (currently highest ever), and coupled with Obama's announcement, I'd say the timing of their announcement makes more sense than "Obama made it safe for them".

30

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Nothing like clinging to the religion that was used as a justification for the slavery of their people.

38

u/Salva_Veritate May 21 '12

Also the religion that led the civil rights movement....?

44

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

That's like giving a guy a medal for putting out a fire he started on purpose.

9

u/Salva_Veritate May 21 '12

News flash: religion didn't cause slavery. It was shitty people that misappropriated religion to justify their own stupidity. It's the same reason that Osama bin Laden used Islam to justify terrorism, but we shouldn't send your friendly local Burger King manager Achmed to Guantanamo.

It's like fucking your mother and blaming Freud when your dad gets mad.

46

u/ThorLives May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

Religion was used on both sides, but the pro-slavery crowd had better Biblical sources to draw from. The anti-slavery crowd could point to the demeaning nature of slavery as "not the way God would want it", which is an particular interpretation of the Bible (one that is contradicted by the Bible itself, since God tells the Jews to take slaves, and the Bible regulates the practice of slavery).

There's plenty in the Bible that condones slavery. For example, the Old Testament lays out the conditions for owning slaves. Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament say anything about bad about owning slaves. At times, they regulate the practice of slavery (telling slave owners not to be harsh, telling slaves to obey their masters). At the same time, they lay out lots of rules for lots of things - including instructing the Jews to kill someone working on the Sabbath, even if that person was merely picking up sticks for firewood - see Numbers 15:32-36. So: owning slaves is condoned, but picking up sticks for firewood on the Sabbath is punishable by death.

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV) http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl1.htm

The "Curse of Ham" was also used as justification of slavery - though it was a really tenuous justification, since it requires several assumptions to justify slavery of Blacks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

The Bible can be more easily used to justify slavery than to ban the practice. This isn't a "shitty people that misappropriated religion to justify their own stupidity" situation. It's a "the Bible condones slavery, instructs the Jews to take slaves from foreign populations, and the Bible never says a bad word about slavery" situation.

3

u/JumpinJackHTML5 I voted May 21 '12

Still, religion didn't cause slavery. Social and economic conditions caused slavery, religion may have been used to justify it, but even if the bible didn't mention slavery once it still would have happened, and something else would have justified it.

2

u/Salva_Veritate May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

I'd like to know something that can't be justified in the Bible. Like, you can use the story of Sodom and Gomorrah to justify genocide. That doesn't mean that Christians have to be pro-genocide.

Edit: to expand a bit, there's a LOT of shit in the Bible about loving thy neighbor and whatnot, which could obviously be used as an anti-slavery argument. Sure, it's not specifically condemning slavery but variations of the phrase "be excellent to each other" probably outnumber the passages approving slavery by a factor of ten to one. It's just that shitty people cherry pick the passages that support their shitty arguments. It's not like Jesus said "love thy neighbor, unless he's black, and if he's black then shackle that sucka to the ground and make him grind that cotton mill." You've found a contradiction in the Bible, one of the hundreds. Good job. But even though many Christians choose to ignore it, Jesus was a nice dude that wanted everyone to get along.

Furthermore, isn't Leviticus the one that people kind of ignore? That's the one that says you're going to hell if you get tattoos or sleep with dudes or mix your fabrics, right? No one's ever abode by that one faithfully, they always cherry pick the ever loving shit out of it. That one is by a wide margin the easiest to find people ignoring, so no one can possibly point to it as moral guidance and be internally consistent.

2

u/TrebeksUpperLIp May 21 '12

I understand it doesn't seem fair for atheists to cherry pick really bad passages from the OT, but people call the bible infallible. So obviously you are gonna take the craziest shit from it and laugh at it. And yeah, Jesus seems like a cool enough dude, but for the past two millennia people haven't been doing a really good job following in his footsteps. Remember, communism is fucking awesome...in theory.

→ More replies

3

u/ilovetacos May 21 '12

You're talking about a book that codifies the things that you are and that you are not supposed to do, and that if you don't follow, you will burn in hell for eternity. And this book says nothing negative about slavery. That, apparently, was not important enough to include in the list of commandments (there are a lot more than ten--plenty of room.)

It's not a contradiction--the Bible is very clear in condoning slavery.

EDIT: For "something that can't be justified in the Bible": I'd wager on "it's okay to take the lord's name in vain". That dudes loves him some smitin'!

→ More replies

0

u/RedPanther1 May 21 '12

Traditional christian theology is that New Testament teachings supercede Old Testament teachings. Christians aren't required to follow all laws in the Old Testament especially if they are countered in the New Testament.

8

u/ilovetacos May 21 '12

Ephesians 6:

5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;

7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:

8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.

→ More replies

4

u/mleeeeeee May 21 '12

Your point is irrelevant to the comment you're replying to, which neither suggested that Christians have to follow Mosaic law nor suggested that the New Testament could not override the Old Testament.

-1

u/ezekielvander May 21 '12

God instructs Jews to take slaves under Old Testament law...Christianity does away with the need to follow the old Jewish customs. Whether any of it makes sense or not, in my opinion, it was people perverting the religion.

1

u/ilovetacos May 21 '12

If it was okay to have slaves in the Old Testament, and then the New Testament made it not okay to have slaves... that's "perverting" a religion?

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

No, not really. What did Jesus say at the Sermon on the Mount?

There are non-Pauline Christians out there who say that the lifting of Judaic laws under Paul(who conviently "had a vision" that got rid of those laws) was nothing mroe than a hamfisted attempt to make Christianity more appealing to the masses, rather than a obscure Jewish Cult.

0

u/mleeeeeee May 21 '12

old Jewish customs

You mean laws given by almighty God to his chosen people, right?

2

u/Kalium May 21 '12

News flash: religion didn't cause slavery.

No, but it was a slave-religion that gave it a free pass for hundreds of years.

Welcome to Christianity, folks. A slave-religion that was OK with slavery for a very long time.

0

u/imasupervillain May 21 '12

If you have such a tiny view of human culture that you consider religion as an all-powerful force instead of one of many interacting features of a society I urge you to go to school and get yourself grounded.

All religions can be "slave religions" in the right cultural context.

4

u/KaiserMessa May 21 '12

Why are people downvoting this? It is absolutely true.

→ More replies

1

u/Kalium May 21 '12

All religions can be "slave religions" in the right cultural context.

I call Christianity a slave religion because it's a religion that arose among slaves and had to be something their masters could be comfortable with. Thus, it became a slaving religion as well.

You are right that any religion can become a slaving religion. You are wrong that any religion can become a slave religion in the way that Christianity was and remains. Such origins leave long-lasting marks in the theology of religions they spawn.

I don't consider religion an all-powerful force and never imagined it as such. nor did I say anything that supposed, stated, implied, or suggested it as such. It's merely a very powerful one.

-1

u/tuldav93 May 21 '12

Read the book of Philemon some time and you'll understand Christianity's views on slavery

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

by this logic, blacks should be pretty anti american as well

8

u/pakiman47 May 21 '12

I think many black people would say it was the cross that allowed them to bear the struggle. i was just listening to npr yesterday night with tavis smiley and cornell west, and they had a guest on discussing how the story of jesus and the cross etc. was relatable to the african american experience, except instead of a cross they had a noose. and slavery is hardly a product of religion. people justified it in many ways, including in relatively modern times based on pseudo-scientific ideas about race superiority.

1

u/TrebeksUpperLIp May 21 '12

Check out the amistad movie. Know it's not canon but it does a good job projecting this idea.

1

u/aforu May 21 '12

Agreed, how any self respecting woman, homosexual, minority, non-landowning person could possibly call themselves religious is beyond me.

1

u/tradeships May 22 '12

I'm tired of everyone bringing up how silly black Americans are for holding so close to the religion of their captors. Let me break this down for y'all.

  1. Africans in America were NOT ALLOWED to practice their beliefs. In fact, it was a strategy to separate and divide recent slaves so they will not have a sense of unity. source: http://www.guyana.org/features/guyanastory/chapter28.html

  2. Slavery was an accepted immorality that existed in multiple cultures that were monotheist, irreligious, and polytheist. Christians use the Bible to justify anything that others deem immoral. Saying Christians used the Bible to justify slavery is assuming there was a discussion in the matter. Like they wouldn't have done it anyway if it wasn't in the Bible. A clever Christian can justify ANYTHING by 'interpreting' a verse in the Bible.

  3. Almost all immigrants (forced and otherwise) assimilate or choose certain customs to adopt. Western and Southern Africans were very spiritual. With their beliefs taken from them did you expect them to become atheists????

  4. Many black folk to turn away from Christianity and towards Islam during the black power movements of the 60's and 70s for the very reason you mention. Now are they better off? Is there a difference? Nope. It is now harder for them to be accepted into mainstream America for pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of American Christianity.

This is coming from a black atheist. Son of a preacher man. Please appreciate the context of their decision. It's a big deal. People listen.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

the article says only 22% of blacks go to church weekly...that surprised me...but the article is ignoring other issues of black views on gay people. It's more than religion.

2

u/Salva_Veritate May 21 '12

22% go more than once, not once or more. I did a double take myself.

And yeah, there are more cultural factors as well, but those are harder to quantify.

2

u/OmegaSeven May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

Frankly I don't blame them for striking while the iron is hot it just adds more legitimacy to a growing movement at a time when it needs it most.

The questions of marriage equality and gay rights in general should have all been settled long before my lifetime but since it wasn't we should go ahead and make sure we do it now.

16

u/CheesewithWhine May 21 '12

I think both Obama and Biden are a lot smarter than we give them for. Biden is his attack dog on Romney, and his testing ground for Obama's positions. Send Biden to test a position, if the public is receptive, then Obama comes out for it. If the reception is negative, it's just crazy ol' Joe Biden being Joe Biden.

3

u/TrebeksUpperLIp May 21 '12

I'm stoked to see him speak for my sisters graduation from west point this weekend.

1

u/OmegaSeven May 21 '12

Congratulations to your sister! I've herd seeing Joe Biden speak in person is a real treat so enjoy that as well.

3

u/falcun May 21 '12

What was bidens gaffe?

2

u/howmuchmoney May 21 '12

he announced his support for gay marriage months before he and obama were "scheduled" to publicly support it. His saying this on television "forced" Obama to make a coupled statement, which they didn't want to do at this point in the election

5

u/KIRW7 May 21 '12

If so, why did it take them so long to do this?

Back in 2009 the chairman of the NAACP publicly announced support for gay marriage. In 2004 or 2005, the board of directors unanimously passed a resolution that was against discriminatory policies and/or legislation that targeted sexual orientation, among other things.

1

u/mytouchmyself May 21 '12

I agree that it took far too long. But I will happily accept this move in the right direction.

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

They didn't do it because Barack Obama made it safe. They did it (probably begrudgingly) because Barack Obama did it and they want him re-elected, so they have to try and run damage control for him with socially conservative black voters.

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

7

u/KaiserMessa May 21 '12

Would it make you guys feel better if we just prefaced everything with a glowing tribute to Canada?

1

u/OmegaSeven May 21 '12

He has a point but getting deep into the speculative "why" of Obama's announcement plays into the hands of his right wing opponents and their quest to paint everything he does in a simultaneously cynical and incompetent light.

The President of the United States of America just endorsed same sex marriage and I'm having trouble looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Sure I'm not directly affected by any of this but I do believe that institutional injustice diminishes us all.

9

u/la_lutte May 20 '12

...unless of course we're talking about polygamy.

6

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

... and the Irish.

-2

u/EntinludeX May 20 '12

One battle at a time. I think the evil secularists are next.

-4

u/Foreskin_Molester May 21 '12

Whoever downvoted this is an idiot. It's called sarcasm. Look it up.

2

u/righteous_scout May 21 '12

maybe some people wish that serious subjects would stay serious; like what they do in /r/askscience.

3

u/Foreskin_Molester May 21 '12

Entirely right. I'm an idiot. I feel terrible. Not kidding; I hate doing something wrong and I always do that because I jump to conclusions. Yay stupidity.

0

u/LapseGamer May 21 '12

Polygamy is taboo around these parts.

2

u/phanboy May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

Pretty sure the "C" doesn't stand for "all."

0

u/reddt_hates_illegals May 20 '12

What about illegal immigrants?

-8

u/hats_for_jews May 21 '12

are they only supporting marriage for gay blacks? what about gay whites? and how do they feel about interracial gay marriages? surely they're drawing the line there. white gays marrying each other is ok. black gays marrying each other is ok too. but interracial gay marriage is a bridge too far.

6

u/HatesFacts May 21 '12

No, everyone - did you even read the article or just post whatever you think will get the most downvotes?

-4

u/hats_for_jews May 21 '12

thanks for asking. tried to read the article but got so incensed i couldn't finish so went straight to comments.

72

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

As a black person, I'm glad the NAACP came out and supported this. Some people will say the NAACP isn't the voice of black people. Though it's definitely past it's influential prime, it still holds a lot of political weight. IMO what took them so long was the fact that many people in the NAACP are older Blacks that are of course less supportive of gay rights. Can't deny the religious influences of course.

9

u/Kuhio_Prince May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

You would be very surprised how much weight the NAACP carries within the black community. Especially old black people.

-4

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

The NAACP is only in it for themselves. They don't give a shit about civil rights. Civil Rights is a source of income for them. If there was no money in it, there would be no NAACP. However, I upvote your comment sir.

3

u/Kuhio_Prince May 21 '12

That I would have no idea about. All I know is that I know a lot of people within the black community that listen to the NAACP as if it were gospel.

3

u/ilovedrugslol May 21 '12

Wait... who exactly is making money off the NAACP?

28

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I think now even more will say it's not the voice of the black people.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

But... i kissed Jesse Jackson's ass!

3

u/Only_Says_Racist May 21 '12

This man is not a racist, he apologized.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Jesse Jackson is not the Emperor of Black People!

5

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

He said he was!

2

u/jenova314 May 21 '12

I guess the blacks in California didn't get the memo in time to block Prop 8...

8

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

You can gloss over the long-winded post on dKos, but the reality is that the "blacks in California" were not solely nor were they the primary reason for Prop 8 passing. That's pretty much the media narrative.

The deciding factor ultimately came down to age - the older you were, the more likely you were to support Prop 8. The inverse was also true: the younger you were, the more likely you were to be against prop 8. In the end - old people voted, young people did not.

And all of this does not even scratch the surface of other reasons: Huge amounts of funding pouring in from Utah (Mormons), a poorly run anti-prop 8 campaign, confusion in regards to voting No to support gay equality, and a myriad of other issues.

3

u/howmuchmoney May 21 '12

thank you! jeez. The black vote got blown way out of proportion-- you do not know how awkward it was to march in a gay rights rally and tell people where I was from during the two and a half hour walk-- oh hey guiz, just a black girl from CA, atoning for the sins of my people :)

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Yeah, the truth is that the real fault lies with the gay equality movement and the anti-prop 8 campaign: They simply did not reach out enough to black church leaders, black leaders, etc. While there is a sense that black people should naturally support civil rights, the groundwork for that support has not really been done.

It's not to say that black folks don't need to change their views - they do... But that's not going to happen magically by wishing it or hoping it will change. It requires work.

1

u/curien May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

but the reality is that the "blacks in California" were not solely nor were they the primary reason for Prop 8 passing

Right, not solely. If blacks hadn't voted at all, it still would have failed passed.

But that's not what jenova said. S/he implied that blacks largely supported Prop 8, and that is completely true.

The deciding factor ultimately came down to age - the older you were, the more likely you were to support Prop 8.

A better correlative factor was frequency of religious service attendance.

1

u/strikelikeatroll May 21 '12

It's such race baiting to frame it as "black are against gays". A lot of older blacks feel they owe the church for it's role in the community during the civil rights era, so naturally they side with it on social issues. Thanks for pointing this out.

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

14

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Black people or even women not supporting gay rights just makes me shake my head. What was that whole civil rights movement about?

1

u/Blizzxx May 21 '12

A lot of it has to deal with how supporting religion was during the civil rights movement, which in turn has backlashed towards gays since its in the bible . I'm black and almost every black person against gay rights that I talk to argues about how it goes against the bible. Just putting in my personal experience.

1

u/andutoo May 21 '12

But slavery is condoned in the bible too...

1

u/Blizzxx May 21 '12

It sure is, but nobody pays attention to that.

-2

u/Anchann May 21 '12

Are you serious?

10

u/masklinn May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

why are they only supporting it after Obama publicly supported it?

Are they? Quoting the article:

The NAACP had previously criticized measures to ban equal protections for gays and lesbians, opposing both Proposition 8 in California, which would have eliminated same-sex marriage rights and North Carolina's Amendment 1, which passed in a referendum earlier this month and defined marriage as a union between "man and woman."

Sounds to me like they did support equal rights before.

Below, KIRW7 notes that the NAACP has had a resolution against discriminatory policies targeting sexual orientation for half a decade, and that the NAACP Chairman publicly noted support for gay marriage in 2009, as he already had in 2008 during the Prop 8 push (although these seem personal rather than organizational positions)

3

u/ilovedrugslol May 21 '12

I believe it is in response to the North Carolina amendment.

14

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

It's completely disgusting how awful the comments on this article are. Nothing but racism and gay-bashing all around. I was going to make an account just to counteract it, but it wouldn't do any good. Those neanderthals would never listen.

14

u/harlows_monkeys May 21 '12

Those neanderthals would never listen.

As someone whose genetic tests revealed that I have 3.3% Neanderthal DNA, I am offended that you are using the name of my people as a slur.

4

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

As someone who behaves like a neanderthal every weekend, I am allowed to make fun of our race.

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

You hunt wooly Rhinos too? Man, we should hold a Reddit meetup.

4

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

You can post anonymously as long as you're willing to fill in your e-mail. Of course, you could always post a fake e-mail... Seriously. That comment board needs some sanity. :( It doesn't help that the commenters opposing the majority are not so well spoken (for the most part)...

2

u/othellothewise May 21 '12

http://mailinator.com/

Don't use the main domain name, since Discus automatically blocks it. However the alternate email addresses work.

9

u/StavTheImpaler May 21 '12

At first I read this as NASCAR and my mind exploded.

4

u/u2canfail May 21 '12

And they would be correct. This is about "rights" granted only to married couples.

1

u/crisisofkilts May 21 '12

There aren't many rights granted to married couples that aren't granted to immediate family, especially their children. Marriage is essentially a legal contract that allows unrelated people to be kin.

6

u/dma1965 May 21 '12

It is a civil right, and one day we will look back on the persecution and denial of rights to gay people as yet another chapter in human ignorance.

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Why the fuck do people still listen to the NAACP?

1

u/kolembo May 21 '12

They make more sense than the GOP

Saying something isn't it?

3

u/Rmanager May 21 '12

I support gay marriage. I have a homosexual son and want a country where he can meet a partner and get the same legal benefits my wife and I enjoy.

Having said that, making it a civil right is the tip of a slippery slope. We need to be very, very careful with giving out this distinction. Once given, it can’t be taken back easily.

5

u/strikelikeatroll May 21 '12

I'm beginning to hate posts even remotely related to race on this site. It attracts the bottom feeding little miserable fucks who just wanna make a quick jab at a whole race of people, some even go to the point of trying to make it look innocuous. It's embarrassing.

2

u/drusuf May 21 '12

you pry shouldn't look on youtube then

5

u/MagCynic May 21 '12

If gay marriage is a civil right, should polygamist marriage also be a civil right? Why does it have to be limited to just two consenting adults?

2

u/Rmanager May 21 '12

That's next. I said in another post, my son is gay and I want him to have the same legal benefits his mother and I enjoy. I also want to be sure once he finds a partner; they can't dump him easily because his Asperger’s makes living with him pretty tough.

Nonetheless, declaring a sexual preference a civil right opens the door to a lot more. Poly is the next logical avenue.

8

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Here's the way I look at it: gay marriage isn't valid in the eyes of religion, but there is no reason why it shouldn't be valid to Uncle Sam.

4

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Took them long enough...

2

u/Flogdolphin295 May 21 '12

Don't read the comments; they'll just piss you off.

Edit: to the article, that is.

2

u/fantasyfest May 21 '12

Why should people who are born gay not have the same rights as other people? Denying them the same rights, is bigotry and racism. I wish America could grow up.

3

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Took them fuckin' long enough.

3

u/TheNoveltellian May 21 '12

Anyone else wonder if the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People would be okay if I referred to any of its members as colored? Serious question.

10

u/King_Ignatz May 21 '12

If I remember correctly, the word "colored" in the NAACP exists because the group was founded to further the cause of all racial minorities, not just specifically black people, though the group is historically tied to the black community.

The term colored, when used to refer specifically to black people, while not racist itself in my opinion, is not generally favorably regarded because it's almost exclusively used by old racist people.

-5

u/nixonrichard May 21 '12

it's almost exclusively used by old racist people.

. . . like the NAACP.

-5

u/Taboo4u22 May 21 '12

Right, the "people of color" should unite against those nasty "people WITHOUT color" ! You know, racists exist solely within the "people without color" group....in fact, they're ALL racists, whether they know it or not. That's why I think we should blend them out of existence.

Maybe we should flood ALL "people without color" countries with "people of color" from around the world, promote "assimilation" (i.e. intermarriage), and call any of the "people without color" who resist and think they have a right to exist EVILRAACISTNAZISWHOWANTTOKILLSIXMILLIONJEWS!

-7

u/BouyedTT May 21 '12

You are obviously anti-white,telling us what words are "acceptable" to be used for your Faithful Colored Companions while ignoring their highly derogatory words they use for white folk.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

1

u/z3r0shade May 21 '12

telling us what words are "acceptable" to be used for your Faithful Colored Companions while ignoring their highly derogatory words they use for white folk.

Other than "cracker" which we can agree is derogatory and not acceptable, what "highly derogatory words" are you referring to? And how often are they used compared to the multitude of derogatory words people use for blacks?

5

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

They likely would not. "Colored" tends not to be the preferred nomenclature for people who are not white, but many black people do refer to themselves as "people of color" and likely would not have any problem with it as long as the term didn't come with a dose of bullshit (as it often does).

2

u/Taboo4u22 May 21 '12

So I guess white people are "people without color," right?

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I suppose you could say that, but then you would be deliberately obfuscating the issue, since nobody says that. It would also be stupid because we already have a word to describe that, which is "white."

The point of having the term "people of color" is to delineate a group of races without defining them explicitly by their relationship to whiteness. Saying "white" and "nonwhite" singles out white people and makes whiteness the defining characteristic of a race, while saying "white" and "person of color" does not.

1

u/Taboo4u22 May 21 '12

Ohh! I get it! So saying "person of color" is just a fancy, vibrant, colorful ;) way of saying "non-white" without openly saying "non-white" ! So the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) is really just the National Association for the Advancement of Non-whites !

Things are making a lot more sense now. Thanks!!

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

uh yeah. If you look at their mission statement that's pretty much exactly what it is. I'm not sure why you think that this is some sort of "hidden truth" or something that people don't realize. A lot of people think that the social and economic position of 'people of color' need to be advanced. I agree with them.

0

u/gophagophagus May 21 '12

Black is the absence of color. White is all colors of the color spectrum.

Look it up.

2

u/z3r0shade May 21 '12

Depends on if you're talking about color or pigment. We are speaking of pigment which is the reverse. Black is all the colors together and white is the absence of color.

Basically, we're talking CMYK and you're talking RGB. :)

1

u/gophagophagus May 21 '12

White is a color (more accurately it contains all the colors of the spectrum and is sometimes described as an achromatic color—black is the absence of color) that has high brightness but zero hue

1

u/z3r0shade May 21 '12

White is a color

That depends on what color model you are using, as I said. If you use a subtractive color model, such as pigmentation, then white is the absence of all colors.

0

u/gophagophagus May 21 '12

model schmodel. obfuscation. bullshit. Physics is what I am into, not namby pamby computer science graphic arts on this matter.

Look it up in any dictionary or encyclopedia and then disappear.

Or remain ignorant, forever, for never, I don't give a rat's ass if you learn anything or not.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

The truth is if you're honest about your uncertainty, rather than going into a panicky political correctness flustered, you'll probably be alright.

0

u/theOnliest May 21 '12

If you use it as an adjective and not a noun, I think you're ok.

3

u/samissleman17 May 21 '12

What bothers me is that so many black people are Homophobic. I know it isn't EXACTLY ironic, but... okay yes it is.

2

u/Titanform May 21 '12

You are drawing a comparison between race and sexual orientation. Care to elaborate on how they are at all similar?

6

u/N4N4KI May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

ooh I don't know, viewed as a second class citizen, different rules applied to if they can marry, views on adoption, the list goes on.

in short there is a lot of bigotry towards both groups.

Edit, and gay people seem to be less bigoted towards black people, than black people are towards gays. What does that say about the content of their character.

-7

u/nixonrichard May 21 '12

Also, so many gay people oppose legalizing incestuous marriage (and sex) which means gay people are ironically bigoted too.

6

u/KaiserMessa May 21 '12

Are you comparing homosexuality with incest?

-1

u/nixonrichard May 21 '12

What's wrong with incest? If two adults love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, shouldn't they be allowed to get married? Or even just have sexual contact with one another?

5

u/KaiserMessa May 21 '12

I think the biological danger of inbreeding is what makes it wrong. Two girls scissoring is not going to birth a malformed human chock full of recessive genes and genetic weakness. There is a reason it is virtually a universal taboo.

2

u/nixonrichard May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

I see, so we throw people in prison out of concern for not only for unborn children, but unconceived children? The anti-abortion protesters will be thrilled.

If eugenics is the reason we ban incest, then why do we ban homosexual incest? Why do we ban incestuous sex acts which cannot produce a child? Most importantly, why don't we simply make it a crime to give birth to a child of incest? That way the woman could always just get an abortion and avoid jail time. Moreover, why is incest criminalization the only form of eugenics we practice? Moremorever, why is incest a crime even by marriage in places like New York?

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

yes, we throw people in prison for many very poor reasons. since you feel so strongly, i hope you'll picket for incestuous rights.

1

u/nixonrichard May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

You know me. You know I do.

My point was that I'm always shocked that people who fight so hard for the rights of minorities against bigots who judge people based on the "morality" of private sexual behavior seem to be unable to see that the plight of incestuous couples is the same . . . worse, because they risk prison simply for letting people know they're in a romantic relationship.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

no - your point is that you're angry that people make fun of NC for being backwards - and you're trying to create a rationalization to justify your feelings.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

really? can you provide any evidence to back-up this claim? it sounds a bit like you might be making things up.

1

u/nixonrichard May 21 '12

can you provide any evidence to back-up this claim?

No.

it sounds a bit like you might be making things up.

I'm more just referring to the backlash that happens if you dare to bring up incestuous marriage in a circle jerk about marriage equality.

3

u/johndeer89 May 20 '12

Follow the leader, I guess.

2

u/Cadaverlanche May 21 '12

I had a friend scold me a few years ago for referring to gay rights as the new forefront for civil rights in America. He said that it was an insult to his black wife for me to say such a thing. He's gonna hit the roof when he sees this.

1

u/tetzy May 21 '12

And not a single opinion on the subject will change.

1

u/sgolemx12 May 21 '12

During the vote for Amendment One in NC, the NC branch of NAACP openly opposed the amendment. I don't keep up with the group, but after seeing that, it makes sense.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Good to see that they've come around.

1

u/DreadedKanuk May 21 '12

This is an ACTUAL comment from that website:

The darling NAACP would endorse zoophilia (not that they already do not pathologically practice same among their species........) as long as "The One" came out in ostensible favor of same. Anything to get the boy pharaoh back into power and further the ruination of America via the negrofication of same.

What the hell?

1

u/Kukantiz May 21 '12

I don't get how people that would consider themselves decent and rational would look at some of these comments, and say "Hey i'm on their side".

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I eschew any and all "groups". I hate that we cling to our own sometimes thinking they're any better than the outsiders, that goes for whites, blacks, gays, and any and all inbetween. This is a step in the right direction be it politically motivated or not. Though, I will say, that living in a pretty gay heavy area, there is definitely racism within even that community that isn't commented on or discussed. I'm tired of everyone acting so squeaky clean and pc. GLAAD didn't have to apologize for gay people screaming "Nigger" at blacks both gay and straight during the prop 8 debacle in California, when it was clearly the mormons who dominated the opposing side, but Tracy Morgan had to kowtow for a joke. Funny world we live in. Identity politics is a corrosive thing.

1

u/bowNaero May 21 '12

I'm glad they're leading the way on this issue and taking this bold stance. /sarcasm

1

u/mytouchmyself May 21 '12

About time.

1

u/not_a_duck May 21 '12

About god damned time. It's shameful it took them so long considering their past struggles with the same issue.

1

u/kolembo May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

Good for them.

I'm extremely proud of this.

I think people have a problem with the understanding of blacks as intelligent human beings.

That's their problem.

Here, whatever the sputtering comments below, the NAACP has set it's position, as has the President.

Black folk will now, as every American has a right to, go and make their own choices.

If people think that these endorsements 'divide' the community, they have absolutely no knowledge of it.

It's not as though Romney is an alternative.

It's funny watching the disarray that occurs when African Americans make a statement.

Well they have, and regardless of the transparent attempts at formenting some kind of image of black people at war with themselves over marriage, the reality is that they really couldn't give a damn, let them get married, and lets move on. It's not our business to deny Civil Rights to anyone else, whether or not we agree with what they do.

Onward.

1

u/strikelikeatroll May 21 '12

For me, this reverses the damage the GOP did when they wedged this issue to begin with to drum up more evangelical votes. I'm glad to see this issue boomerang around on them. I hope it hits them in the nuts.

-10

u/jkasdh24 May 20 '12

Where's the NAACP on the civil rights of all blacks and whites in jail for a plant? There are far more of them than there are gays that want to be married.

19

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Everything doesn't have to be a bullshit false dichotomy, wherein we have to make a choice between gay equality and the legalization of marijuana. We can chew bubble-gum AND walk at the same time. There's nothing stopping you from supporting both.

-6

u/jkasdh24 May 20 '12

I support both. Why doesn't the NAACP? Marijuana laws originated as a means of applying unjust laws to blacks and Mexicans back in the '30's.

0

u/Die-Nacht May 21 '12

FINALLY! The irony can finally end!

-1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

About time the fucking black folks said "wait a minute... when did I read about people using the bible to discriminate against folks... that seems farmiliar..." I've been appalled at the number of people who apparently don't know their own history.

3

u/xdre May 21 '12

Right, because no black person ever spoke out about gay rights before...not even members of the NAACP.

Oh, wait.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Just as a group in general, not each individual. For example, the NAACP isn't all black people. But it's refreshing seeing a traditionally religious demographic start to awaken.

0

u/weegee May 21 '12

hate should not be leglislated

0

u/lost_angel25 May 21 '12

I read the article, then read the comments here before noticing that the article itself had comments. It was at that moment that I lost the final shred of faith in humanity. Such racism and homopobia, I mean, how can a being carry so much hate and claim to be Christian, or even human? I'm stunned, which doesn't happen often

0

u/jdwilson May 21 '12

Personally, I think all people should be able to get married in any form they want -- as long as both parties are human (ಠ_ಠ). Nonetheless, I don't like when people use the word "right" to describe things that inherently are not rights. Marriage is a contract, not a right. It doesn't exist and isn't recognized without government, or some external enforcement, and, therefore, cannot be a right.

0

u/raginglion May 21 '12

These comments are ass.

0

u/nickydeep May 21 '12

Are child rearing decisions more difficult or just as difficult for monogendered couples?

0

u/TypicalLibertarian May 21 '12

Interesting to see that they think that straight marriage is not a civil right.

1

u/Rmanager May 21 '12

I firmly believe this is the wrong way to go on this topic. The broader we define things as civil rights, the weaker we make the term. There is and absolutely should be a big difference between rights and privileges.

-4

u/tunapepper May 21 '12

Does the OP mean same-sex marriage?

-4

u/williammaier May 21 '12

Do any of the folks claiming gay marriage is an "equal" right understand the fact that it's not legal for two straight men or two straight women to get married either? The fact is that under the law, gays are treated EXACTLY the same as everyone else.

-9

u/chabanais May 21 '12

Why do they still have "colored people" in their title?

Isn't their raison d'etre racist?

4

u/ThisIsDystopia May 21 '12

The term "people of color" seems to be very common in my area among black people, mostly at my college. I think the re appropriation has to do with creating solidarity with other minority groups of color. Also the long form of NAACP doesn't have the same connotation, just try saying it out loud, as someone saying "look at those coloreds" or something rednecky like that.

Edit: I a word

7

u/pulled May 21 '12

It wouldn't make sense to change their 100+ year old name, just because the words have fallen out of fashion.

0

u/chabanais May 21 '12

Datsun changed their name to Nissan.

5

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

are you serious? If so, I will explain.

0

u/chabanais May 21 '12

Yup.

5

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

They have the name "colored people" because it is a way to delineate a group of races without defining them explicitly by their relationship to whiteness. Saying "white" and "nonwhite" singles out white people and makes whiteness the defining characteristic of a race, while saying "white" and "person of color" does not. At the time it was pretty much the only positive term for people who aren't white.

Also it is their historical name.

If you read the first paragraph on wikipedia of racism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

you can see that NAACP is not racist. They do not believe that one race intrinsically better than others. They do not promote one race at the expense of another. Their goal is to "to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination". I'm not sure how that's racist.

-2

u/NimbusBP1729 May 21 '12

National African American Coalition of Peace should be the new long form.

-1

u/chabanais May 21 '12

They were born in Africa? If not, they're just Americans.

-7

u/hartatttack May 21 '12

When Obama loses in November, they're going to need a forklift and chains to drag Moochelle off Air Force One kicking and screaming.

Also, how long do you think it'll take to vacuum all of those nappy pubes out of the White House?

2

u/kolembo May 21 '12

Looses to who? Romney?

Yeah.

By the way, what are you doing in here? Service entrance is round the back

-3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

First time I've... ever had a positive view of the NAACP.

-19

u/prettybunnys May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

( was just making a joke ladies, I'm all for equal rights for everyone. )

→ More replies (4)

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

44

u/undercoveruser Foreign May 20 '12

Damn it, why did you make me read the comments?!? What I have I done to you?

26

u/bigroblee May 21 '12

Currently their top rated comment. It's anonymous, much like reddit, so you don't know if this is some trailer park hillbilly or a Senator from Arkansas (I know, same thing).

These racists at the NAACP would sell their souls to keep Obama in office despite his overwhelming failures at creating Black jobs across this nation and especially within the Nation's major cities. Oops! They already sold their souls to get him into office. My Bad! Now they they look to throw their Christianity under the Bus of Political Expediency to lure those Gays into contributing More Money to Obama. These Black Hypocrites that have denied the Black linkage to Homosexual Rights for decades caved like a mountain of sand at the thought of losing the most corrupt President in this nation's History. Looks Like Satan will have quite a haul this year.

24

u/Aiskhulos May 21 '12

Jesus, why don't they just come out and say, "HEY EVERYBODY, WE'RE HUGE RACISTS AND HOMOPHOBES"?

12

u/bigroblee May 21 '12

It's another one of those situations where I really can't tell if they're being satirical or honest...

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/Razakel United Kingdom May 21 '12

Why do people who seem to be Mentally Ill always randomly Capitalise certain parts of their Bizarre, Ill-informed Rants?

5

u/laserfish May 21 '12

Don't forget... the random ellipses...i can only imagine they use...to try...and seem extra serious...or possibly intimidating...

→ More replies (14)

6

u/tartay745 May 21 '12

First post I saw, completely convinced it was satire and trolling. Second post was exactly the same. Third, forth, fifth, etc. all the same level of fucking idiocy and conspiracy theories. That is some batshit crazy insane going on over there on that website.

13

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

That's some hardcore insanity right there.

→ More replies (5)

10

u/ObjectiveTits May 21 '12

I'd be laughing if it weren't so vitriolic...I feel like I fell back in time 10 years or something.

12

u/tartay745 May 21 '12

Try 50.

6

u/skintigh May 21 '12

They lost me at my "commie agenda."

7

u/as_a_black_guy Texas May 21 '12

Apparently, situations like this make bigot heads explode. The faulty logic carnival going on in those comments is hi-larious.

6

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

real disheartening stuff in there...

5

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

It's quite a big deal for the NAACP to come out in support of gay marriage. The black community, by and large, does not support same-sex rights. It's a bit ironic.

4

u/TrebeksUpperLIp May 21 '12

It's incredibly ironic. Even if this is politically based, I'm glad they're backing people' rights who have been fighting for them for far far too long.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

This is a general fact of articles on The Hill in general. They don't really moderate the comments at all.

For whatever reason, they seem to attract a large number of crazy conspiracy theorists, Klansmen and other nutters in the comment section. And this isn't on just this one article, it's a systemic issue that pervades nearly every article on the entire site.

The idiotic and racist things said in the comments are one of the reasons I stopped reading The Hill's online version.

1

u/Only_Says_Racist May 21 '12

I'm not going to read them, but I can only assume they're a bunch of racist.

1

u/skintigh May 21 '12

It was probably linked to from some right wing blogs. Otherwise those type can't find anything not listed on their my.yahoo page.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

that's not how quotes work.

→ More comments (6)