• 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
Boo Radley said:
Why are you using words like hard core. You're trying to make a distinction no one else is making. There are levels of opprerssion, and it doesn't have to reach grandiose proportions before we can recognize it for what it is. Everyone doesn't have to be involved for the problem to be real. The fact is that enough people are involved that they count, and things like marriage are imbedded in the system, with large numbers voting against it. This is an oppressive act. You cannot honestly minimalize this to the point of everyday smack talk. I'm sorry, but that doesn't hold up.
Click to expand...

When it comes to government matters, I don't think the government should get involved in any kind of marriage. However, oppression I believe is a strong term to use in this instance. Now if you wanted to say these two gay persons are not able to have a life together, I would feel that is oppressive. The government giveth, and taketh away.
 
JohnWOlin said:
When it comes to government matters, I don't think the government should get involved in any kind of marriage. However, oppression I believe is a strong term to use in this instance. Now if you wanted to say these two gay persons are not able to have a life together, I would feel that is oppressive. The government giveth, and taketh away.
Click to expand...

One moment you argue that oppression is absolute and the next you argue that oppression is relative.

You are playing a semantic game. Nothing more and nothing less.

I don't believe for a second that you take the "get the government out of marriage" position. I think you oppose same sex marriage and same sex adoption but you don't like thinking of yourself as "oppressive" because of those views so you take issue with the term.
 
CriticalThought said:
Gays do not experience the same degree of institutionalized oppression as they do in many African countries. That, however, does not mean they are not oppressed. Many groups have used the government to enforce polices against gays and lesbians. Those policies include same sex marriage bans and adoption restrictions. The government has also, in many cases, not extended protections established for other minority groups such as employment and housing discrimination protections.
Click to expand...

This sucks, however when has anything to do with employment or housing ever asked about if you were gay or not? I do not seriously see marriage bans and adoption restrictions as being oppressive in the purest definition. These are issues that need resolved though.
 
CriticalThought said:
One moment you argue that oppression is absolute and the next you argue that oppression is relative.

You are playing a semantic game. Nothing more and nothing less.

I don't believe for a second that you take the "get the government out of marriage" position. I think you oppose same sex marriage and same sex adoption but you don't like thinking of yourself as "oppressive" because of those views so you take issue with the term.
Click to expand...

Lol ok. You got me! Just because I don't cave to your opinion, I want to oppress gay people. Man I should have known not to get in a debate with people on the internet. They know what my position clearly is. It's all black and white. Of course, having an oppressive opinion mine will be white, yours black or something...
 
I went looking up different definitions of oppressed to see if I could find one that didnt fit with the treatment of homosexuals in this country. I didnt find one.

Oppression | Define Oppression at Dictionary.com

Oppression - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

oppression - the definition you can understand

Heres a good one.

The Social Work Dictionary, ed. Robert L. Barker defines oppression as: "The social act of
placing severe restrictions on an individual, group or institution.

If anyone finds a definition that doesnt fit then please post it.
 
JohnWOlin said:
This sucks, however when has anything to do with employment or housing ever asked about if you were gay or not? I do not seriously see marriage bans and adoption restrictions as being oppressive in the purest definition. These are issues that need resolved though.
Click to expand...

The term "oppressed" was defined in the OP of this thread.

oppressed
Verb:
1.Keep (someone) in subservience and hardship, esp. by the unjust exercise of authority.
2.Cause (someone) to feel distressed, anxious, or uncomfortable: "he was oppressed by worry".
Click to expand...

You don't think that policies that restrict gay people's ability to help their partners and children does not "keep (them) in subservience and hardship" or "cause (them) to feel distressed, anxious, or uncomfortable"?

And your lack of personal experience with employment or housing discrimination towards gay people is not exactly a convincing argument.
 
JohnWOlin said:
Lol ok. You got me! Just because I don't cave to your opinion, I want to oppress gay people. Man I should have known not to get in a debate with people on the internet. They know what my position clearly is. It's all black and white. Of course, having an oppressive opinion mine will be white, yours black or something...
Click to expand...

You were the person who wanted to play black and white. If gays aren't oppressed at the level that they are in Africa, then they are not truly oppressed. Was that not your argument?

I don't know your views, but from your behavior in this thread of semantic games and rationalizations, it seems perfectly consistent with someone who is uncomfortable with their role as an oppressor.
 
Last edited:
YES! Until we can get married in all states? We are oppressed. Unitl we are no longer denied adoption rights, rentals, etc? We are oppressed. Til we are no longer turned down for jobs simply because a guy may have a bit of a swish in his walk and a lesbian or bisexual female loves to dress kinda like Ellen? We are oppressed. :(
 
CriticalThought said:
The term "oppressed" was defined in the OP of this thread.



You don't think that policies that restrict gay people's ability to help their partners and children does not "keep (them) in subservience and hardship" or "cause (them) to feel distressed, anxious, or uncomfortable"?

And your lack of personal experience with employment or housing discrimination towards gay people is not exactly a convincing argument.
Click to expand...

Neither is yours, you give me anecdotal bs I give you some too. I will admit, I don't know if this is a truth, but I have never seen a box to place a check mark for gay or straight.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Some ASSHOLE decided to try to mess with the poll. I imagine it's the same ASSHOLE who has done this for a few years. I'll be watching the thread and keep changing the numbers back to their rightful place. It's a shame that some people are so pathetic and weak that they have to change the numbers of an internet poll to make themselves feel good.
 
CriticalThought said:
...Fourth, I find it absolutely hilarious given the persecution complex that you and many Christians in America have displayed to take such a disrespectful and dishonest approach towards this discussion with the gay community. Apparently you face terrible oppression as a Christian in a nation that is over 70% Christian but you can't imagine how a sexual minority that equates to 8% of the country could face any degree of oppression. That is laughable.
Click to expand...

katiegrrl0 said:
Why did you make this thread? You failed to hear any of the valid points most of the posters have made. You have stuck to your very simplistic view in framing the OP. If these people aren't being tortured and gassed in chambers they are not oppressed in your view. You have not even given ear to the many ways oppression takes place. You see this stark black and white picture....
Click to expand...

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and suggest that this thread and other threads/posts like it, tells us a lot more than what was intended.
 
Thunder said:
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and suggest that this thread and other threads/posts like it, tells us a lot more than what was intended.
Click to expand...

It certainly does that. It shows how deep the discrimination runs. It also illustrates that it's not even acknowledged by many for what it is. It's a shame really that some have such embedded skewed views they can't even see another's plight.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
It certainly does that. It shows how deep the discrimination runs. It also illustrates that it's not even acknowledged by many for what it is. It's a shame really that some have such embedded skewed views they can't even see another's plight.
Click to expand...

yes, that too.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
It certainly does that. It shows how deep the discrimination runs. It also illustrates that it's not even acknowledged by many for what it is. It's a shame really that some have such embedded skewed views they can't even see another's plight.
Click to expand...
I think that disgusts me the most.
 
Jerry said:
What I said is based on my first-hand experience witnessing what true oppression is.
Click to expand...

Any holocaust survivor could probably say to you that you do not know what "true" oppression is either. Ditto for the cities decimated by Alexander the "Great."

It's not a contest. This thread puts advocates for civil rights for GLBTs (or i'd rather say TGLBs), in the awkward and unfair position of whining about how oppressed they are in America.

I love my country. America is an oasis in time and space of freedom and civil rights. Compared to about any place and any time this is a great place to live. This does not mean that we are perfect and should not treat certain segments of our society differently.

We have our homophobes. We also have great people who happen to think what I am is unnatural. (I'm mtf transsexual who likes women. Does that make me gay?) Others just don't get it.

I'll just go about living my life and showing my humanity which is the best way to persuade. Frankly, I do not care so long as they do not try to do violence upon me or deny me a job.

I'd much rather debate public policy, e.g. should my SRS and HRT be covered by insurance. ;)
 
Gays don't have the full rights that they believe they deserve, and face discrimination due to who they are...not what they do.

that is a form of oppression.
 
Wake said:
Also, it must be said that merely believing homosexuality is a sin, according to Traditional Christianity, is not oppression.
Click to expand...

Traditional Christianity also used to support slavery... Because the church is a living, growing body, it became aware of its own hypocrisy.

When put in historical context, nothing in be bible supports your view. Your bigotry toward homosexuality is quickly becoming a thing of the past. Santorum and all his idiocy will go down in flames (literally) and he will be remembered as the segregationist of our time.
 
JohnWOlin said:
In America certainly not. They may be denied certain freedoms to a degree, but no I do not believe so. In other parts of the world however, specifically parts of Africa they are indeed oppressed.

When a gay couple at work can talk about gay sex and laugh about it, where people can hear (I'm like 5 tables down) in a Kentucky work place and no one gets up and yells at them or beats them or anything, then yeah I would say they got it about as good as anyone else.
Click to expand...

Jerry said:
That's exactly correct. Gays in Iran are executed. Gays in america...can't file taxes together. Aww, must suck having all those first-world problems.
Click to expand...

Once again, TED gives a great response to this argument:


TacticalEvilDan said:
Pretty much anybody can point to somebody else in the world who has it worse than them. Pretty much everybody can point to North Korea. North Korea can point to Somalia. Somalia can point to ... Antarctica?

My point is that telling someone they're not oppressed because someone else has it worse is a bullsh!t argument, because it's perfectly reasonable to complain about your plight or that of someone else when comparing it to the plight of others in the same or a similar society. Done in that way, you're not saying, "I have it worse than anybody else on the face of the Earth" (which is literally true of only one person), you're saying, "Hey, by the standards this society claims to live by, or by the standards of my own awesome society, or by the standards of this awesome society over there, this situation totally blows and needs to change."

Taking the "someone has it worse than you, so STFU" approach is nothing more than an argument in favor of injustice.
Click to expand...

Edit: I just came across something that Huey Newton wrote.

During the past few years strong movements have developed among women and among homosexuals seeking their liberation. There has been some uncertainty about how to relate to these movements.

Whatever your personal opinions and your insecurities about homosexuality and the various liberation movements among homosexuals and women (and I speak of the homosexuals and women as oppressed groups), we should try to unite with them in a revolutionary fashion. I say “whatever your insecurities are” because as we very well know, sometimes our first instinct is to want to hit a homosexual in the mouth, and want a woman to be quiet. We want to hit a homosexual in the mouth because we are afraid that we might be homosexual; and we want to hit the women or shut her up because we are afraid that she might castrate us, or take the nuts that we might not have to start with.

We must gain security in ourselves and therefore have respect and feelings for all oppressed people.We must not use the racist attitude that the White racists use against our people because they are Black and poor. Many times the poorest White person is the most racist because he is afraid that he might lose something, or discover something that he does not have. So you’re some kind of a threat to him. This kind of psychology is in operation when we view oppressed people and we are angry with them because of their particular kind of behavior, or their particular kind of deviation from the established norm.​


More can be read here (http://tmblr.co/ZRRR3yHwc66g)
 
Last edited:
JohnWOlin said:
When it comes to government matters, I don't think the government should get involved in any kind of marriage. However, oppression I believe is a strong term to use in this instance. Now if you wanted to say these two gay persons are not able to have a life together, I would feel that is oppressive. The government giveth, and taketh away.
Click to expand...

By the definition provided, the word is not strong at all. However, I suspect how strong depends on where you sit. Not being allowed to marry your life partner, having to struggle to adopt, even not allowed in some palces, facing the possibility that someone will hurt you if they know your sexuality, or deny you service or employment, facing this day in and day out might make the word oppressed seem not near strong enough. As they used to say in the old days, walk a mile in their shoes before you declare how easy it is.
 
To oppress is to treat unfairly through law and authority, which includes cultural abuse through the institutionalization of intolerance.

Suppression of homosexuals through law is clear, for the purpose of the courts is to ensure non-harm to others, and though same-sex marriage may offend the sensibilities of some, gay-marriage does not harm society. Non-proven accusations of harm to children who are raised by same-sex couples is as equally ideologically-based and non-fact-based as the assertion that the preservation of classical marriage and its values are a necessity for societal stability.

These are attacks on a community of people; they are baseless arguments meant to help rationalize suppression of homosexuality and those who represent it. The terms “in the closet” and “out of the closet” are indicative of oppression in how they connote hiding. As shown by the presence of above phrases in society, homosexuals are culturally influenced to hide their true selves, which is perpetuated through the fear of and the desire to avoid persecution.

Heterosexuals, like homosexuals, do not choose to whom or to what gender they are physically attracted. This is innate and above explanation. Choices are not made to prefer body types, nose configurations, hair colours, sexual fetishes, etc. Despite this, Homosexuals Anonymous exists. It is a group that uses “conversion therapy to change the sexual orientation of homosexual clients”.(1) Though voluntary, the institution depends on cultural and societal and familial pressure to enroll clientele by convincing gay people to change an unchangeable attribute that the institution and its supporters deem immoral and wrong.

The only possible weighty support against homosexuality is a biblical one. The bible and other religious books and teachings outline faiths that can be freely practiced by law in accordance with the USA legal system, but religious institutions of any denomination do not have the right to force their beliefs on others through legislation.

Law and society should wholly be governed by humanitarian principles: that is, "having concern for or helping to improve the welfare and happiness of people."(2) Laws should be based on universal values of good and bad; that is, based in fact and not faith. An improvable harm is harm based on faith. The legal system is dependent on evidence to accuse and imprison; therefore, societal harm must be provable.

Homosexuality is not harmful to humanity. As a matter of fact, more harmful to society are oppressive laws and an oppressive subculture toward those with a same-sex orientation, which not uncommonly results in psychological harm and suicide. Individuals who are legally unequal to the majority and are encouraged to hide based on their sexual orientation are people who are persecuted.


1. Homosexuals Anonymous - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. Humanitarian | Define Humanitarian at Dictionary.com


"Definition of OPPRESS
transitive verb
1
a archaic : suppress b : to crush or burden by abuse of power or authority
2
: to burden spiritually or mentally : weigh heavily upon"

REF: Oppress - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


"op·press
   [uh-pres] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints; subject to a burdensome or harsh exercise of authority or power: a people oppressed by totalitarianism. "

REF: Oppress | Define Oppress at Dictionary.com
 
Last edited:
You put effort into that, shelphs, and I respect that.

While I'm not convinced that the gay marriage issue can be equated to the more known forms of oppression, perhaps there's a grain of truth to the notion that homosexuals are "oppressed." I'm still at odds with that notion, seeing as homosexuals have pretty much everything except marriage. Marriage can be redefined, though personaly I don't think it should; it should be up to the people to decide, state by state, what they want to do, imho.

It's something that merits more thought. I could just join the bandwagon that loosely uses the word "oppression," or I could consider the 15 that voted against it, and garner their arguments. It may be oppression, it may not. How loose do we use "oppression?" Does that apply to everyone save the white, straight, male Christian?
 
Wake said:
You put effort into that, shelphs, and I respect that.

While I'm not convinced that the gay marriage issue can be equated to the more known forms of oppression, perhaps there's a grain of truth to the notion that homosexuals are "oppressed." I'm still at odds with that notion, seeing as homosexuals have pretty much everything except marriage. Marriage can be redefined, though personaly I don't think it should; it should be up to the people to decide, state by state, what they want to do, imho.

It's something that merits more thought. I could just join the bandwagon that loosely uses the word "oppression," or I could consider the 15 that voted against it, and garner their arguments. It may be oppression, it may not. How loose do we use "oppression?" Does that apply to everyone save the white, straight, male Christian?
Click to expand...


It's not a matter of using the term loosely. You are trying to qualitatively measure the definition in accurateness to the homosexual issue. Oppression is not confined to legislative unjustness, though, one could argue it is its most strongest form; rather, it is any individualistic or institutionalized example of persecution, i.e., that being any "cruel or unjust impositions or restraints" of any degree.

The illegality of gay marriage is a big concern, but equally bad is a culture of persecution. This is shown by the mere existence of the "in the closet" and "out of the closet" idioms. If you cannot openly behaviour as others do for fear of beatings, fewer social advantages, etc, and those actions do not harm others, you are oppressed.

On that same notion, Muslims are oppressed in America. For instance, the outcry for a synagogue near the 9/11 attack. Religious freedoms are for all religions. The idea of a synagogue near the attack with the purpose of better representing the Muslim majority and Muslim values to dispel Muslim extremist values, could be a very good thing, and what place better to do that than in the same area where extremists of one's faith hurt people.

Certainly, the claim could be made that such a move could be in bad taste, though I think otherwise as per the above argument, but the debate on that issue didn't revolve around what should or should not be done, it was centered on if Muslims have the right or don't have the right. If the land is legally purchased and proper building permits are gotten, a synagogue can be built.
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
When I stated any non unionized person can be fired for any reason you stated "Not True". It's is true.
Click to expand...

It's not true. See, for instance, Title VII of the civil rights act, which prohibits employment discrimination for several protected classes (race, gender, etc) but not for sexual orientation.


Ockham said:
That's not accurate. Federal Employees are protected from sexual orientation discrimination.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about federal employees (although it bears mentioning that the EEOC doesn't cover sexual orientation discrim), I'm talking about federal law generally. There is currently no federal law protecting employees in private industry from sexual orientation discrimination.

Ockham said:
States have enacted state laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination for both public and private sector jobs in: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. (Source).
Click to expand...

I raised this very point to another poster in this thread a few pages back. I'm aware that about half the states have enacted anti-sexual orientation discrimination statutes, but again, half the states have not, and there are no federal protections. This puts homosexuals in a substantially crappier legal position than any other class of people, nationally speaking. In fact some states (notably Colorado, four or five years ago) attempted to create a constitutional amendment protecting the rights of citizens to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation.

Ockham said:
Not under Federal Law but under state laws there are. You make it sound as if it's open season on gays and that's not the case.
Click to expand...

In some states, yes. Again, I did say that already.


Ockham said:
Even at the federal level, many of the sexual orientation cases are masked under harassment, wrongful termination or other such headings since a specific federal law does not exist for sexual orientation. To claim that they do not exist is misleading.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what "they" refers to in this context. If you're suggesting that I've claimed that there aren't federal harassment laws, I have not. Let's break this down a little:

1- The Constitution

Relevant caselaw (notably Romer v Evans) has established that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation gets the rational basis test (as opposed to strict or intermediate scrutiny). This is, obviously, the lowest possible standard of review used by SCOTUS in 14th amendment cases, and it's only used when SCOTUS has determined that there is no suspect class at issue. So under the constitution, sexual orientation is not considered a protected class.

2 - Federal Statutory Protection - Title VII

As I said above, this law prohibits discriminatory employment practices, but only as applied to one of several protected classes. Sexual orientation is not one of them. SCOTUS reached this conclusion in Desantis v Pacific Telephone.

3 - Harassment Claims

You're correct that people have attempted to use sexual harassment laws to cover sexual orientation discrimination, but 1) that wouldn't work in a wrongful termination context, because harassment requires a pattern of abusive behavior, and terminating an employee wouldn't count, and 2) even where harassment as such has been proven, the courts haven't been very receptive to applying it to sexual orientation cases. The highest level ruling on this issue that I'm aware of came out of the 7th Circuit (certiorari was denied). That case was Spearman v Ford Motor Company, and it held, in essence, that the employee at issue (a male homosexual) was barred from bringing a harassment claim based on sexual orientation. So it's inaccurate to suggest that people have successfully applied harassment claims on the basis of sexual orientation under the relevant federal law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom