• 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?

  • I don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    63
Speaking as a transgendered ftm, I say yes but not as much as in other countries. In America, at least I have a chance to live my life and not be stoned to death. So I guess I should be grateful that my biggest problem is not getting beat up and finding a job.

I also think that my generation is much more accepting of the diversity of our species than previous generations. I have a loving community and, at least with more educated and intelligent people, there is a growing understanding that either (i) there is no God who would damn me or (ii) if there is a God, he isn't that preoccupied with my sexual orientation or identity.

Is not being able to get married, "oppression?" If so, it certainly a much milder form of oppression than was shown to African Americans or any nation conquered more than a few hundred years ago. The word is a bit too strong.

I would just say that we have made a lot of progress but have a ways to go.
 
I tend to place a higher standard on oppression, like the Jewish oppression at the hand of the Nazis, or my great-grandparents under slavery.

If homosexuals can be multi-millionaires, own their own businesses, say what they want, where they want, when they want, among other things, then I don't see that as oppression.

You didn't qualify the oppression. If they don't have the same rights they are oppressed. Your thinking that it's not really that bad, doesn't change the facts.
 
Do you live there? Is that the nation we are discussing? OH how were gays treated in Nazi Germany by the way?

I live in the South Pacific.

I am fairly sure that gays had it pretty good in Nazi Germany during the war and that they flourished after the war...
 
Last edited:
Now, as for the absurd and frankly fascist practice of engaging in the masturbatory exercise of "Oppression Olympics", in which people raise all manner of silly claims where it is implied or stated that only the worst example or at least the Really Really Harsh examples of oppression count as REAL oppression:

*****hit.

If someone goes out and murders ten thousand Jews (just because they're Jewish), and someone else goes out and murders ten thousand AND ONE left-handers (for being left-handers), both cases are still oppression. The dead Jews wouldn't magically be any less dead or any less oppressed just because of the existence of one or more examples of a group that had or has it worse off.

Oppression is not a god damn scarce resource; there is (sadly) plenty of it to go around and it's not like recognizing one oppression takes away -- at all -- from the recognition of another.

Indigenous people generally face more oppression than settler populations...does that mean no one among settler populations is oppressed? Of course not.

This implied scarcity mindset, in which somehow there is posited a limited supply of accurate recognition and/or intellectual dishonesty, really needs to be retired.
 
Just don't misuse words to elicit emotional appeal.
Right....so when you start a thread totally based on a subjective phrase (ie: "oppression"), you are not going for the "emotional appeal"....?!?

Got it.
 
Last edited:
What Wake is likely missing (I say likely because I can't see his posts directly) is that being privileged on one axis may ameliorate oppression on another, but it doesn't NEGATE the oppression. The scientific principle of isolating the variable under study applies here.

Someone may be gay (and thus oppressed on the axis of orientation) and rich (and thus privileged on the axis of class), and therefore use some of their privilege to counteract some degree of the mistreatment they face as a gay person...but the fact remains that they are still worse off that someone who was/is hetero and rich. The fact that a gay rich person may successfully counteract some of their oppression with some of their privilege...doesn't mean they still don't face such oppression.

Also, some forms of oppression simply don't lend themselves to such counteraction from privilege at all. If someone lives in a state where a gay couple's marriage is not legally recognized, then no amount of money can directly counteract that law. If one lives in a social context where there is a real risk of targeted assault against gays and lesbians, no amount of money can bring a murder victim back to life. Privilege MAY help against some things, but it is not a cure-all, and in any case it is still worse than the situation would be WITHOUT having to face oppression.
 
I live in the South Pacific.

I am fairly sure that gays had it pretty good in Nazi Germany during the war and that they flourished after the war...

Did you read the link. They were one of the classes persecuted. I guess your fairly sure meter needs adjusting.
 
Are homosexuals forced into slavery, not allowed to speak, could be killed at a whim, killed in gas chambers, not allowed to own property, or enter/leave the country?

Why is marriage such an aspect of oppression? Why is it that if you can't redefine marriage, you're suddenly oppressed? And even then, there are states in America that allow gay marriage.

You realize gay people were victims in the holocaust right?

Pink triangle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dont really understand what that has to do with oppression in America however.

In this country gay people have been put through some pretty terrible things in history. Its much better today but LGBT people still dont have the same rights or respect as most other groups so yes I would say yes we are oppressed to some extent.
 
Right. Marriage has been wrong for thousands of years. Let's correct the church as well, since it's been wrong for thousands of years as well.

Marriage has been different for thousands of years. It used to be between one man and many women however that has now changed. It used to be more of a business contract but that has changed. It used to be between kids younger then 18 but now that has changed as well. This idea that marriage has never changed is completely wrong.
 
Did you read the link. They were one of the classes persecuted. I guess your fairly sure meter needs adjusting.

No I didn't read the link since that information is irrelevant...
 
Marriage has been different for thousands of years. It used to be between one man and many women however that has now changed. It used to be more of a business contract but that has changed. It used to be between kids younger then 18 but now that has changed as well. This idea that marriage has never changed is completely wrong.

Facts that are easily and regularly over looked or ignored by those debating against SSM. Good points.
 
As much sense as having majority rule for everything else... except this... just as nonsensical.

We do not have majority rule on everything else.
 
You realize gay people were victims in the holocaust right?

Pink triangle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dont really understand what that has to do with oppression in America however.

In this country gay people have been put through some pretty terrible things in history. Its much better today but LGBT people still dont have the same rights or respect as most other groups so yes I would say yes we are oppressed to some extent.

Other than SSM they are not oppressed... I knew a ton of gay people that were rich, went where they wanted, said what they wanted, etc. They just couldn't get married and were treated poorly some but many thought probably less than people who were black simply because you can't see gay.
 
We do not have majority rule on everything else.

Referendums are majority rule. Congress is majority (or better) rule, politics is majority rule, jury system is majority (or unanimous) rule. Our system is built on public opinion of the majority.

This is different because.... ?
 
Referendums are majority rule. Congress is majority (or better) rule, politics is majority rule, jury system is majority (or unanimous) rule. Our system is built on public opinion of the majority.

This is different because.... ?

OK, I do not know why this is complicated, but if this is a constitutional issue(it probably is), then like every other constitutional issue, majority rule is not enough to over rule. See, not everything is subject to majority rule. The majority cannot vote to overturn any constitutional right.
 
OK, I do not know why this is complicated, but if this is a constitutional issue(it probably is), then like every other constitutional issue, majority rule is not enough to over rule. See, not everything is subject to majority rule. The majority cannot vote to overturn any constitutional right.

What's not complicated is answering the question:

This is different because.... ????
 
You made a statement and it is relevant to your words. So your statement was relevant as well. Fine and dandy.

My statement was a JOKE. I have already stated that and that is why the rest of it is irrelevant.
 
Other than SSM they are not oppressed... I knew a ton of gay people that were rich, went where they wanted, said what they wanted, etc. They just couldn't get married and were treated poorly some but many thought probably less than people who were black simply because you can't see gay.

I agree. The level of oppression today isnt nearly as bad as what black people went through or what gay people used to go through. But to a small extent it is there.
 
What's not complicated is answering the question:

This is different because.... ????

Read the ****ing post!

It's in there. Hint: look for where I discuss what type issue it is.
 
Which is in point of fact not majority rule. The majority of people can vote for a person and they still lose. It has in fact happened.

I was just going to go there. Thanks...

...and going even further. The Electoral Voter doesn't even need to cast their vote for the person that there section wished to vote for.

And that has happened too.
 
Back
Top Bottom