• 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
s in there. Hint: look for where I discuss what type issue it is.

I find it funny you cannot answer the question. :popcorn2:

Restate it for me or cut & paste if you must. Just so there's no miscommunication.
 
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.

The quote quite specifically says the "majority vote of the electoral college" which is majority rule. Could it be you don't know what the definition of "majority" is?
 
That is not a majority of the people and is not considered majority rule. It is possible that the president elected may have less than a majority of the peoples votes. That is not majority. You're playing with words and it's not working.


I never said majority of "people"... nor did you. Fact is, majority rule of electoral college votes elects the President and Vice President.
 
The quote quite specifically says the "majority vote of the electoral college" which is majority rule. Could it be you don't know what the definition of "majority" is?
You are wrong that is not majority rule three people have stated the same as I have. You are playing with words. You're back to the school yard games you were playing earlier and derailing the thread as you do so.
 
@ Redress and katiegrl0


Let me know when we get to the portion of the thread where you start arguing the definition of "is" will ya? Thx. :lamo
 
As much sense as having majority rule for everything else... except this... just as nonsensical.
As has been said, the majority does not rule on everything else, so you're still not making any sense.
 
You are wrong that is not majority rule three people have stated the same as I have. You are playing with words. You're back to the school yard games you were playing earlier and derailing the thread as you do so.

MAJORITY RULE
n.
A doctrine by which a numerical majority of an organized group holds the power to make decisions binding on all in the group.


Read more: majority rule: Definition from Answers.com


Now please dispense with YOUR word games. It helps if you actually know what the definition of the words you are using mean.


Want to try again? I'm having FUN!
 
I never said majority of "people"... nor did you. Fact is, majority rule of electoral college votes elects the President and Vice President.
Omg, you are failing with words and backtracking as far as you can go. This is embarrassing.
 
I'm not behind on anything. This conversation started with my post and in my post, I was talking about the majority of American citizens voting on the rights of a minority. It shouldn't happen and the majority does not rule on "everything else" no matter how you swing it. That's all you need to know. Your word games and backtracking are irrelevant to the discussion.
 
I'm not behind on anything. This conversation started with my post and in my post, I was talking about the majority of American citizens voting on the rights of a minority. That's all you need to know. Your word games and backtracking are irrelevant to the discussion.

So maybe you can answer where Redress failed...


And this is different because ... ????
 
Can you write in complete coherent sentences?

So you haven't been following the thread then... tell me when you catch up. I'm interested in the answer!
 
And bans on gay adoption and housing discrimination and workplace discrimination ...

Gay adoption happens. I understand your point but I had heterosexual friends get denied while homosexual ones were accepted. Workplace discrimination happens to everybody and I have never know anybody that was denied buying a house when they had the money to pay for it.
 
I love it when society deems and decides except when society shouldn't...

Society is determining it either way. Just like Brown vs. Board, gay marriage will probably be an issue resolved by the Supreme Court first. The civil rights of the minority are protected under the Constitution (supposedly), but sometimes society itself takes awhile to recognize those rights. Under these situations sometimes the court system will more progressively than the general population.

So bottom line, there's a distinct difference between "let the people decide," and "let the courts decide." But either way, society is determining it. I just don't believe that something that I view as a fundamental right should be put up to a majority vote.
 
Last edited:
Gay adoption happens. I understand your point but I had heterosexual friends get denied while homosexual ones were accepted.
There's a difference between a heterosexual couple being denied by the adoption service and state bans on gay adoption. The former happens on an individual basis. The latter is institutional discrimination whereby one class of people is made subservient to another - the definition of oppression in the OP.

Workplace discrimination happens to everybody
I'm not sure what you mean by "workplace discrimination happens to everybody" since I'm pretty sure that's not true on its face.

and I have never know anybody that was denied buying a house when they had the money to pay for it.
HUD Addresses LGBT Housing Discrimination | The White House
 
So you haven't been following the thread then... tell me when you catch up. I'm interested in the answer!
It's impossible to "catch up" to someone who's backtracking.
 
Society is determining it either way. Just like Brown vs. Board, gay marriage will probably be an issue resolved by the Supreme Court first. The civil rights of the minority are protected under the Constitution (supposedly), but sometimes society itself takes awhile to recognize those rights. Under these situations sometimes the court system will more progressively than the general population.
Before a SCOTUS gets involved, the process must be worked through. That requires votes usually by states assembly's or if Federal, via the Congress. In my state for example, the assembly passed a gay marriage bill but the Governor decided to veto it and put the issue up for referendum. That's what we're talking about here. If put up for a referendum, the people have a majority rule vote on the subject. If that majority rule vote passes or does not pass, only then can the issue be challenged.

What is being said in this thread is that such a majority rule should not occur - it should be summarily passed; of which I disagree. The process must be followed and if challenge yes, it may end up in the SCOTUS where again... let me point out... a majority of Federal Supreme Court Judges will vote on a decision. In that decision... a majority will rule. So when I say, majority votes in our society are prevalent and apply to all things... I mean it. Certain members decided to play like they knew better and challenged me on it yet, each and every rabbit hole we go down discussing this issue - there is always a majority vote. Whether it's passing a law, voting on a bill, voting by the public, voting for whatever --- even the electoral college. It's a a majority which over rules the minority. Each and every SCOTUS case is determined by a majority vote.

So bottom line, there's a distinct difference between "let the people decide," and "let the courts decide."
One always comes before the other, especially when there is a disagreement. But even within letting the people decide or letting the courts decide - in the case of the SCOTUS it's a majority vote, just like it's a majority vote with society and the people.

But either way, society is determining it. I just don't believe that something that I view as a fundamental right should be put up to a majority vote.
Society does determine it ultimately - we agree. But I disagree in this case (not all cases) and society must be a willing partner in such a decision as this one.


And let me go out of my way SB to thank you for your post and as always... addressing the issue concisely and plainly without playing games; unlike other posters in this thread who cannot or are unwilling to be honest. I certainly and will always appreciate your candor even when we don't agree.
 
Last edited:
It's impossible to "catch up" to someone who's backtracking.


Read SB's post. This is how an honest person who isn't into playing forum games addresses an issue.
 
Gay adoption happens. I understand your point but I had heterosexual friends get denied while homosexual ones were accepted. Workplace discrimination happens to everybody and I have never know anybody that was denied buying a house when they had the money to pay for it.

House approves bill outlawing workplace discrimination against gays
By David M. Herszenhorn
Published: Thursday, November 8, 2007

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill granting broad protections against discrimination in the workplace for gay men, lesbians and bisexuals, a measure that supporters praised as the most important civil rights legislation since the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 but that opponents said would result in unnecessary lawsuits.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/world/americas/08iht-congress.4.8252596.html

Gay and transgender Americans may be discriminated against in renting or buying housing due to antigay or transphobic landlords and property managers. Health care providers, too, may harbor animus toward gay and transgender individuals and consequently deliver suboptimal care or even refuse to see patients who identify as such. And gay and transgender individuals may experience an outright refusal of services when attempting to access a host of public accommodations including restaurants, parks, hotels, libraries, buses, museums, and elsewhere simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Unfortunately, no federal law currently exists to shield gay and transgender individuals from this type of discrimination. A patchwork of state and local laws offers some of these protections to gay and transgender Americans. But the lack of a comprehensive federal law means that a restaurant owner in El Paso, Texas can kick a gay couple out of his establishment simply because the couple shared a kiss with one another. A landlord in West Virginia can decline to show a property to a lesbian couple. And a doctor in Indiana can deny service to a patient based on her gender identity.
Gay and Transgender Discrimination Outside the Workplace
There are still cases of job and housing discrimination against gays. They are far more limited than they once were. Jobs have been more normalized due to legislation.
 
This thread could be a case example in Semantics 101. Some equate oppression with persecution. Others want to put oppression on a scale of 1-10, with the Holocaust at a 10 (thereby inevitably fulfilling Godwin's law).

I believe a minority can be oppressed without being persecuted. I do not automatically dismiss as liars the Christians who say, "love the sinner, hate the sin," with the sin in this instance being homosexuality. They may be acting for good motives. In ancient Islamic states, Jews and Christians were given pretty good treatment but did not enjoy all of the same rights as Muslims. Persecution? No. Oppression? Probably, even if it is with a perceived "good intent."

Of course, you can argue the Nazi's thought they were right too. Ditto for the slave owners. However, such claims really defy reality.

The gay young person getting the snot beat out of him in a gym bathroom is being persecuted, as were the gays killed by the Nazi's. Gays denied the right to solemnize their loving monogamous relationships are, to my mind, being oppressed. The legislatures perpetuating this oppression think they are acting with good intent - to save the culture, save marriage, etc., but oppression is occurring.

To put it anywhere on a scale with the holocaust is silly. Worse, it trivializes the holocaust and makes comparisons difficult.
 
Back
Top Bottom