• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Homosexuals Oppressed?

Are Homosexuals oppressed in America?

  • Yes, homosexuals are oppressed in America.

    Votes: 44 69.8%

  • No, homosexuals are not oppressed in America

    Votes: 19 30.2%

  • I don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    63
digsbe said:
The thing though, is that many in the homosexual rights camp want to toss around "oppression" and "bigotry" labels to mirror some Civil Rights movement and to try and milk out some emotional response.
Click to expand...

We in this thread have made it clear that such comparisons are ridiculous, but certain parallels and similarities do exist.

Homosexuals are not oppressed, and It's shameful to claim so or to make homosexuals out to be some poor persecuted minority at the hands of those who have differing marital morals.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry digs. The rights of the minority are being deprived at the hands of a majority. And I view the ability to legally consummate a relationship with the person that you love (and who loves you) is a fundamental civil right. Just because gays are not being jailed or sent to labor camps or being "sexually cleansed," or vicitims of genocide, does not mean that oppression isn't occurring. Now I wouldn't necessarily say that gays are being "persecuted," but the point that some level of oppression still exists remains.
 
Ockham said:
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

It's not even close in comparison.

Many things? I'd beg to differ... time has a way of pasting over how bad the civil rights era members had it. Gays can call the police and not get worried about being beaten or shot or dragged behind the car tied to the bumper. And I'm not talking some backwater Louisiana swamp either, this was in major cities and towns across the U.S.

It's an INSULT to blacks and like I said, I who have no skin in the game as a straight white male, am embarrassed by such a comparison. Yes you're biased and have LGBT skin in the game as a lesbian... you might want to not be so quick to make the comparison.
Click to expand...

You are considering all of the aspects of oppression to the last degree. I'm sorry that I have known gays who were beaten by police and left or jailed afterward. An anecdote is my own knowledge but there are recorded incidents of this as well. In ways there are many similarities among all the groups that were discriminated against. I could easily say that the blacks really had it easy while 6million Jews were being alienated. But the blacks suffered there own oppression just as the gays do. They are all different and to negate the similarities because a class didn't experience the worst of it is foolishness at best. You didn't suffer as badly as we did so it doesn't could. That is an attitude used by children on a play yard.
 
Krhazy said:
Gays are redefining "oppression" as well.... LOL

This is such a stupid argument. I can't walk down the street holding hands with my bf of 3 years without getting nasty looks from people. In many states, I couldn't marry him, adopt a kid with him, or see him in the hospital were he to get sick. To his colleagues at work, I don't exist because he is afraid that if people know he is gay, he might get fired. I don't care whether it qualifies as "oppression" or not. It's needlessly cruel and morally wrong.
Click to expand...


To me, in my opinion, were you to be oppressed you would not just get dirty looks, you're very lives would be threatened - constantly. You'd have death threats... constantly. You would be segregated from society. If you dared march in a gay parade, the beatings may come from the government, from the police, from on lookers. You wouldn't be allowed to eat in the same places everyone else was. You'd be isolated, in danger, and live in fear. You'd be seen as not only a secondary citizen, you'd be seen as less than human. Oppression isn't just physical acts it's mental as well.

As with all things there are degrees - yes I can agree that on some level gays in some areas are not looked upon as being "normal". Segregated? No. Commonly threatened and or killed with little or no justice? No. But certainly there is a stigma and a view that is not oppression but is more akin to a level of discrimination.
 
Ockham said:
You agree that LBGT are oppressed at the same level as say 1966-1968 blacks in Atlanta? Or Tennessee?
Click to expand...
Were those blacks as oppressed as the Jews who lost everything they had and were being killed by the millions? Please lets have a grown up debate.
 
Wake said:
By your logic Christians are oppressed because they aren't allowed to express their religion in public schools, etc, because you seem to think every degree matters.

If there is even one instance of Christians not having a freedom that others have, then by your logic they are oppressed. Are Christians given grants for being Christian, unlike homosexuals who receive such grants?
Click to expand...

Christians are absolutely allowed to express their religion in public schools. Try again.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
You are considering all of the aspects of oppression to the last degree. I'm sorry that I have known gays who were beaten by police and left or jailed afterward. An anecdote is my own knowledge but there are recorded incidents of this as well. In ways there are many similarities among all the groups that were discriminated against. I could easily say that the blacks really had it easy while 6million Jews were being alienated. But the blacks suffered there own oppression just as the gays do. They are all different and to negate the similarities because a class didn't experience the worst of it is foolishness at best. You didn't suffer as badly as we did so it doesn't could. That is an attitude used by children on a play yard.
Click to expand...


Yes, we agree on degrees ... Jews had it worse than blacks who had it worse than LGBT today. My only comment and point is that a comparison between civil rights level oppression and current LGBT is ridiculous. I stand by that statement.
 
Also, it must be said that merely believing homosexuality is a sin, according to Traditional Christianity, is not oppression.
 
Ockham said:
Yes, we agree on degrees ... Jews had it worse than blacks who had it worse than LGBT today. My only comment and point is that a comparison between civil rights level oppression and current LGBT is ridiculous. I stand by that statement.
Click to expand...

(I posted this about a page back. I'm repeating it now)

There are many parallels to the civil rights movement in the 60's. With respect to the marriage equality issue, the legal arguments made re: anti-miscegenation laws in the 50's-60's (see for example Loving v. Virginia) are functionally identical to the legal arguments made re: gay marriage now. Similarly, as I said about a page back, there is currently no federal law prohibiting an employer from firing a gay person for being gay. This is not dissimilar to the position black people were in re: employment discrimination prior to the civil rights movement.
 
digsbe said:
The thing though, is that many in the homosexual rights camp want to toss around "oppression" and "bigotry" labels to mirror some Civil Rights movement and to try and milk out some emotional response. Homosexuals are not oppressed, and It's shameful to claim so or to make homosexuals out to be some poor persecuted minority at the hands of those who have differing marital morals.
Click to expand...

He failed to make that point, and the fault is entirely his. He chose the definitions of oppression to be used for this thread.
 
Krhazy said:
Gays are redefining "oppression" as well.... LOL

This is such a stupid argument. I can't walk down the street holding hands with my bf of 3 years without getting nasty looks from people. In many states, I couldn't marry him, adopt a kid with him, or see him in the hospital were he to get sick. To his colleagues at work, I don't exist because he is afraid that if people know he is gay, he might get fired. I don't care whether it qualifies as "oppression" or not. It's needlessly cruel and morally wrong.
Click to expand...

Wow, gays control the dictionary now too.
 
StillBallin75 said:
We in this thread have made it clear that such comparisons are ridiculous, but certain parallels and similarities do exist.



I'm sorry digs. The rights of the minority are being deprived at the hands of a majority. And I view the ability to legally consummate a relationship with the person that you love (and who loves you) is a fundamental civil right. Just because gays are not being jailed or sent to labor camps or being "sexually cleansed," or vicitims of genocide, does not mean that oppression isn't occurring. Now I wouldn't necessarily say that gays are being "persecuted," but the point that some level of oppression still exists remains.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think that marriage, as a social contract and in regards to sexuality, is allowed to be voted on by people who have their equal belief that homosexuality does not fit the definition of marriage. A state, and it's people, should be allowed to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman as husband and wife. I support SSM, but I don't support taking away the rights of others within society who have voted according to their moral beliefs just like others have. I just disagree with the premise that many want to push off that homosexuals are some bitterly oppressed minority group at the hands of those mean old social conservatives/Christians.

Socially homosexuals may be oppressed. People may be disgusted or not approve of homosexual affection or whatnot, but any group of people can receive this kind of treatment. I've been cursed out, judged, threatened with violence, and lost friends over my Christian beliefs and social stances. People in this world are intolerant of many views and lifestyles, and it may be "oppression" to a certain level, but I don't think it's fair to call homosexuals oppressed as a distinct minority group.
 
Wake said:
Also, it must be said that merely believing homosexuality is a sin, according to Traditional Christianity, is not oppression.
Click to expand...

But telling gays about their sinful nature can and would lead to fulfilling your second defintion. Again, you supplied the definitions.
 
Redress said:
He failed to make that point, and the fault is entirely his. He chose the definitions of oppression to be used for this thread.
Click to expand...

Other definitions apply, not just the one in the OP. [Also, definition battles are tiresome.] I figured the general Google definition would suffice. Other definitions/augmentations, like digsbe's, are able to be used as well.
 
Aderleth said:
(I posted this about a page back. I'm repeating it now)

There are many parallels to the civil rights movement in the 60's. With respect to the marriage equality issue, the legal arguments made re: anti-miscegenation laws in the 50's-60's (see for example Loving v. Virginia) are functionally identical to the legal arguments made re: gay marriage now. Similarly, as I said about a page back, there is currently no federal law prohibiting an employer from firing a gay person for being gay. This is not dissimilar to the position black people were in re: employment discrimination prior to the civil rights movement.
Click to expand...

It is dissimilar in the levels, quantity and prevalence of violence, ie., the degrees I've been talking about.
 
digsbe said:
I disagree. I think that marriage, as a social contract and in regards to sexuality, is allowed to be voted on by people who have their equal belief that homosexuality does not fit the definition of marriage. A state, and it's people, should be allowed to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman as husband and wife. I support SSM, but I don't support taking away the rights of others within society who have voted according to their moral beliefs just like others have. I just disagree with the premise that many want to push off that homosexuals are some bitterly oppressed minority group at the hands of those mean old social conservatives/Christians.

Socially homosexuals may be oppressed. People may be disgusted or not approve of homosexual affection or whatnot, but any group of people can receive this kind of treatment. I've been cursed out, judged, threatened with violence, and lost friends over my Christian beliefs and social stances. People in this world are intolerant of many views and lifestyles, and it may be "oppression" to a certain level, but I don't think it's fair to call homosexuals oppressed as a distinct minority group.
Click to expand...

You have never been subect to even 1/10th what gays went through as little as 20 years ago. Probably not 1/100th.
 
Redress said:
But telling gays about their sinful nature can and would lead to fulfilling your second defintion. Again, you supplied the definitions.
Click to expand...

Oh come on.

So merely opining that it's a sin is oppressive? OMFG. I suppose prostitutes are oppressed as well because some believe it's a sin.

Give me a break.
 
Wake said:
Other definitions apply, not just the one in the OP. [Also, definition battles are tiresome.] I figured the general Google definition would suffice. Other definitions/augmentations, like digsbe's, are able to be used as well.
Click to expand...

The general google defintion absolutely does suffice. The problem is that by that definition, gays are oppressed. The fault is entirely yours for supplying those definitions and then not liking the clear answer that results from those definitions.
 
Ockham said:
Yes, we agree on degrees ... Jews had it worse than blacks who had it worse than LGBT today. My only comment and point is that a comparison between civil rights level oppression and current LGBT is ridiculous. I stand by that statement.
Click to expand...
Throughout the thread I have stated oppression is in degrees. Just as gays are not experiencing today what they experienced in the years prior to say 1980. It is far better than it used to be. It will be better tomorrow and hopefully in five years there will not be threads like this any longer.
 
Redress said:
You have never been subect to even 1/10th what gays went through as little as 20 years ago. Probably not 1/100th.
Click to expand...

What exactly did they go through 20 years ago? To be truthful from what I've seen, I don't think gays today have gone through half of what I've had to go through as a socially conservative Christian (especially when I was opposed to SSM).
 
Wake said:
Oh come on.

So merely opining that it's a sin is oppressive? OMFG. I suppose prostitutes are oppressed as well because some believe it's a sin.

Give me a break.
Click to expand...

Prostitution is a career, being gay is something you are. You can stop being a prostitute, you cannot stop being gay(needed caveat since Wake will try and latch on this...the vast majority of gay people, maybe not all). That is also but one example.
 
digsbe said:
I disagree. I think that marriage, as a social contract and in regards to sexuality, is allowed to be voted on by people who have their equal belief that homosexuality does not fit the definition of marriage. A state, and it's people, should be allowed to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman as husband and wife.
Click to expand...

People should not be allowed to vote such a law into existence for exactly the same reason they're not allowed to vote to create a law preventing women from owning property. We have a constitution in this country. The purpose of a Constitution is precisely to prevent the majority of a voting block from enacting laws that violate fundamental principles enshrined in that constitution. If this is a violation of rights, than having a constitution is a violation of rights.

digsbe said:
Socially homosexuals may be oppressed. People may be disgusted or not approve of homosexual affection or whatnot, but any group of people can receive this kind of treatment. I've been cursed out, judged, threatened with violence, and lost friends over my Christian beliefs and social stances. People in this world are intolerant of many views and lifestyles, and it may be "oppression" to a certain level, but I don't think it's fair to call homosexuals oppressed as a distinct minority group.
Click to expand...

Once again, these are distinguishable situations. I've said this twice in the last few pages of this thread, but it apparently bears repeating: Currently it's perfectly legal under federal law for an employer to fire someone for being homosexual (about half the states have state laws preventing such a thing). It is not at all legal under federal law for employers to fire someone for being (e.g.) female, black, Christian, etc. This puts gays in a worse position in terms of legal protection than any other class of people today.
 
I love subjective arguments involving semantics, it creates wild, wide ranging discussions that go nowhere.

If the OP asked an objective question like: "Are Homosexuals discriminated against?", the answer is quite clear.
But then, the thread would be short...and that wouldn't do much for some egos.
 
Redress said:
Prostitution is a career, being gay is something you are. You can stop being a prostitute, you cannot stop being gay(needed caveat since Wake will try and latch on this...the vast majority of gay people, maybe not all). That is also but one example.
Click to expand...

That is still under discussion. It is not fact that homosexuals are born gay, or can change their orientation.

My point still stands. You think that merely opining homosexuality is a belief is oppression. Christians also believe prostitution is a sin, so you would have to think that's oppressive as well.
 
Wake said:
Also, it must be said that merely believing homosexuality is a sin, according to Traditional Christianity, is not oppression.
Click to expand...

It matters not that you think it is a sin. It is the action that stems from that belief that is what makes gays life different. Because people think it is a sin in a religious sense we can't marry. It is because preachers teach about the evils of being gay that hatred builds. It's what a person does with what they believe that makes the problem. You may hate the sin but not the sinner. In many though the hate extends beyond the sin to the sinner as well. Isn't that what your bible tells you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom