Michael Eric Dyson calls gay marriage critics “sexual rednecks”…does he think name-calling is going to change hearts and minds?


President Obama took a bold stand last week when he endorsed gay marriage. He said that over the years his opinion has evolved. Some in the black community do not agree with the president and they have been equally verbal in their opposition. On MSNBC The Ed Show last week Michael Eric Dyson decided to call out three opponents by name: Sophia Nelson, Roland Martin and Rev. Jamal Bryant. I am sure Dyson’s comments were embraced by the gay community, but is this what we have come to? If you don’t agree with the president you are somehow backwards? You are worthy of disdain and public rebuke? This is not productive. Was the president a “sexual redneck” prior to his Wednesday statement? share your thoughts.

SOPHIA NELSON’S RESPONSE TO DYSON’S STATEMENTShttp://www.prlog.org/11873404-author-columnist-political-pundit-sophia-nelson-responds-to-msnbcs-prof-michael-dyson-rant.html

About these ads
Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

Comments

  • irwinchusid  On May 14, 2012 at 11:51 am

    Obama’s expressed support for same-sex unions was a shameless ploy to open the fundraising floodgates. Millions in potential contributions were waiting on the sidelines. He made his bundlers happy. Now he can cash their checks. If you don’t like his position, his henchmen will finger you as a homophobe.

    http://tinyurl.com/74xodu8

    As for your query about whether Obama himself was a “sexual redneck” before his announcement, that’s a very interesting question. But don’t expect an answer.

  • Spanish Inquisitor  On May 14, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    I’m going to avoid the question by saying that I think we spend far too much time worrying about being “called names” and far too little time worrying about how we treat our fellow man.

    Sometimes the things we learn in the schoolyard are the best lessons. Remember “Sticks and stones will break my bones…”?

    It’s a metaphor people. Not an ad hominem. Get over it.

    And as for the “shameless ploy” to raise funds, if we had some campaign finance laws in place, and if the Citizens United Supreme Court decision hadn’t effectively opened the floodgate of corporate political money, I doubt any politician, Dem or Rep, would need any ploys.Unfortunately, we need the very politicians who benefit from all that money to pass legislation to stop it.

    Like that’s going to happen…

  • Mo Rage  On May 14, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    I doubt he thinks he’ll change any hearts or minds, no.

    Besides, they’re not “sexual rednecks”, actually, I don’t believe. They’re social rednecks, societal rednecks. In our society, these people are against people with same-sex attraction having equal rights. That’s fairly redneck, socially, societally.

    • irwinchusid  On May 14, 2012 at 5:51 pm

      People who oppose SSM (and I’m not one) aren’t opposed to “equal rights” for those with same-sex attraction. They are opposed to a redefinition of the institution of marriage. Big difference. Marriage is not a civil right, and it is not absolute. There will always be restrictions on who can get married and to whom. A society (e.g., state, nation) determines its definition of marriage. That’s what this debate is about.

      • Spanish Inquisitor  On May 14, 2012 at 7:32 pm

        There will always be restrictions on who can get married and to whom. A society (e.g., state, nation) determines its definition of marriage. That’s what this debate is about.

        Well, yes, I think I agree, as long as you insert the words “traditional notion” in there, as in “They are opposed to a redefinition of the traditional notion of the institution of marriage.” But what is traditional today wasn’t always traditional. Mo Rage cited on his blog that the Catholic Church used to have marriage ceremonies for same sex unions in the Middle Ages.

        I understand that society can restrict granting legal rights to people under the guise of marriage, by restricting who can marry who. But there needs to be a legitimate public purpose in doing so. The state can’t discriminate without a legitimate, overriding public rationale, one that is more important than the lost rights of the individuals involved.

        For instance, in my state, you need a court order to marry if you are 15 or younger, but if you get that court order, the Judge has deemed the marriage worthy, and the marriage can proceed.

        WhatI can’t figure out is, what is the legitimate public concern the state has that it would need to intervene to prevent gays from marrying? In my example, the state acts in loco parentis for the rights of a minor, to make sure the minor is not being taken advantage of, that it is in the minor’s best interests. Usually it involves pregnancy and the order is granted. But with gays, who are we protecting from being taken advantage of? What legitimate state reason allows us to deny marriage to some individuals and not others? If the state can do this, it can, for instance, deny gays the right to access to the “institution of banking”, by decreeing that no gays may open bank accounts. You say that’s a silly example? I agree, but then so is the whole opposition to gay marriage, and equally so. After all, we don’t have a “right” to open bank accounts.

        Sorry, but in my opinion, this concern for the “institution of marriage” is just a dog whistle for the imposition of one sector of society’s personal prejudice against homosexuality on another, because granting a marriage license to gays has absolutely no impact on the “institution” as it’s applied to heteros. I’m sure the institution will survive the horrendous imaginings of a small sect of bigots.

        And since when did marriage become an “Institution”? That’s just semantics, used to give it far more gravitas than it deserves. Most people don’t think marriage is all that important. Especially those that talk so highly about it, like Rush Limbaugh (4 wives) and Newt Gingrich (3).

        Irwin, by opposing this so-called (yet invisible) threat to our “sacred” institution, you are, in effect, opposing “equal rights” to people who ask for them, the exercise of which will have no effect whatsoever on the institution of marriage, except in the minds of people that cannot suppress their inherent and god-given bigotry. You can say it’s not about equal rights, but de facto, it is, both in intent and in application.

        Why we are still arguing about this in the 21st century is beyond me. That train has left the station.

        Joni. I have to apologize for being so long winded. It’s a hazard of my trade. ;)

      • Spanish Inquisitor  On May 14, 2012 at 7:57 pm

        Oh, And Irwin, by “you”, I mean the generic, impersonal you, not the personal you. I know you were describing others’ rationale for opposing SSM.

    • irwinchusid  On May 16, 2012 at 1:16 am

      Mo Rage wrote: “They’re social rednecks, societal rednecks. In our society, these people are against people with same-sex attraction having equal rights.”

      Does “societal redneck,” by your definition, include the large majorities of blacks and Latinos who supported Prop 8?

  • irwinchusid  On May 14, 2012 at 8:50 pm

    Thanks for the postscript clarification. I’m not gay, not married, and not heading in either direction. My opinion on gay marriage is … I don’t have one. I find any discussion of homosexual issues boring. Next topic?

    • Spanish Inquisitor  On May 15, 2012 at 5:07 pm

      I wish the rest of the country would find it equally boring, especially all those good Christians who seem so preoccupied by “affairs of the crotch”.

      About as boring as who I’m sleeping with. That’s the way it should be.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 409 other followers

%d bloggers like this: