• 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:
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).
Click to expand...

From what I can relate from my mother:

when she came out she lost all of her friends, she was forced from her church and no other church in the community would allow her to join or attend, she was fired from her job. She was asked to leave some stores. She was denied a lease. She was denied a car loan. She eventually had to leave her hometown and move to a big city so that she could live in relative anonymity. This is just what I know of, I also know there are things she has not told me.
 
Ockham said:
It is dissimilar in the levels, quantity and prevalence of violence, ie., the degrees I've been talking about.
Click to expand...

I agree that the levels are different re: violence. But violence against black people wasn't legal back in the 60's either, it was just acceptable. With respect to the substantive legal and political issues, there are more similarities between the civil rights movement and modern gay rights as an issue than there are differences.
 
digsbe said:
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).
Click to expand...


Then you haven't been paying attention. No one has attempted to string you up and beat you to death with rocks (a la Matthew Shepherd). No one has attempted to prevent you from joining the military. No one has been able to legally fire you for being Christian. I've read cases involving 12-13 year old kids being driven to clinical depression and suicide by being mercilessly teased for their sexuality while school authorities ignored the problem and told the victim they were asking for trouble by being out. That doesn't happen to evangelical Christians. This is just the tip of the iceberg, by the way.
 
Aderleth said:
I agree that the levels are different re: violence. But violence against black people wasn't legal back in the 60's either, it was just acceptable. With respect to the substantive legal and political issues, there are more similarities between the civil rights movement and modern gay rights as an issue than there are differences.
Click to expand...

I can agree to political issues... legal? No - the Jim Crow Laws were so prevalent. Accommodation has been made on civil unions and in some states "marriage", which eases issues around hospital visits, death and dying, but all that could have legally been done without a civil union or "marriage" by other legal means. Certainly more difficult that way but do able.
 
Redress said:
From what I can relate from my mother:

when she came out she lost all of her friends, she was forced from her church and no other church in the community would allow her to join or attend, she was fired from her job. She was asked to leave some stores. She was denied a lease. She was denied a car loan. She eventually had to leave her hometown and move to a big city so that she could live in relative anonymity. This is just what I know of, I also know there are things she has not told me.
Click to expand...
I know many gays who suffered the same indignities.
 
Ockham said:
I can agree to political issues... legal? No - the Jim Crow Laws were so prevalent. Accommodation has been made on civil unions and in some states "marriage", which eases issues around hospital visits, death and dying, but all that could have legally been done without a civil union or "marriage" by other legal means. Certainly more difficult that way but do able.
Click to expand...

I'm mostly not talking about the marriage issue (although as I mentioned, it directly parallels the anti-miscegenation debate so there's definitely a legal argument there as well). As I've said several times now, it's perfectly legal in about half the country for employers to refuse employment and/or fire people for their sexual orientation. This is a level of legal discrimination that no one in this country has experienced since the civil rights act was passed.
 
Aderleth said:
I'm mostly not talking about the marriage issue (although as I mentioned, it directly parallels the anti-miscegenation debate so there's definitely a legal argument there as well). As I've said several times now, it's perfectly legal in about half the country for employers to refuse employment and/or fire people for their sexual orientation. This is a level of legal discrimination that no one in this country has experienced since the civil rights act was passed.
Click to expand...

Employees who are non-unionized can be fired for any reason - gay or not gay. Nothing so far has assuaged my view that a comparison between LGBT "oppression" and the civil rights movement is anything but ridiculous. Now that I've stated that 3 times I don't feel like stating it a 4th time. No one seems to have any new information or better arguments so...
 
Ockham said:
Employees who are non-unionized can be fired for any reason - gay or not gay.
Click to expand...

Not true. If a firing is racially or gender motivated (also, to a lesser extent, age related) there are federal legal protections that kick in that will allow the employee to sue (many or possibly all states have similar state-level protections). Granted this is sometimes hard to prove, and employers engaging in such actions will absolutely attempt to hide behind "at will" employment contracts; but the point is that there are federal legal provisions in place that prevent discriminatory hiring/firing practices related to race and gender, but absolutely no such provision as related to sexual orientation. At will employment was equally in place in the 50's. That doesn't mean that black people weren't being oppressed by unfair hiring practices, or that the Civil Rights Act didn't significantly improve their rights regarding employment.
 
Ockham said:
Employees who are non-unionized can be fired for any reason - gay or not gay. Nothing so far has assuaged my view that a comparison between LGBT "oppression" and the civil rights movement is anything but ridiculous.
Click to expand...
LGBT people have certainly not experienced oppression at the levels of blacks by any stretch of the imagination, but there are still enough similarities in their experiences to denote a completely reasonable comparison. Both groups have faced discrimination in the workplace, the housing market and so on. Both groups have faced discrimination from the government in terms of marriage and adoption. Both groups have faced socially accepted cruel violence. Both groups have been alienated by large sects of society. And there are even more similarities.

In the end, blacks and LGBT people have faced systemic oppression (though at varying levels) because of undue meaning society has placed upon one of their attributes. The comparison is far from ridiculous.

Now that I've stated that 3 times I don't feel like stating it a 4th time. No one seems to have any new information or better arguments so...
Click to expand...
Nobody's forcing you to repeat yourself.
 
Aderleth said:
Not true. If a firing is racially or gender motivated (also, to a lesser extent, age related) there are federal legal protections that kick in that will allow the employee to sue (many or possibly all states have similar state-level protections). Granted this is sometimes hard to prove, and employers engaging in such actions will absolutely attempt to hide behind "at will" employment contracts; but the point is that there are federal legal provisions in place that prevent discriminatory hiring/firing practices related to race and gender, but absolutely no such provision as related to sexual orientation. At will employment was equally in place in the 50's. That doesn't mean that black people weren't being oppressed by unfair hiring practices, or that the Civil Rights Act didn't significantly improve their rights regarding employment.
Click to expand...

I speak not from reading but from experience. Employers can claim performance issues, produce reams of documentation supporting their claim. They have corporate lawyers, you have a lawyer you must pay out of pocket while your unemployed. And what does the lawyer say? In most cases you will not win, you have no documentation to back up your claim and even if you could win, you will go broke before ever getting it before a judge. It happens all the time... especially where the company who fired you is large and has money. The best you can get is maybe a little lost pay and unused vacation time pay.

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the firing is sexual orientation or age related. Not easy to do, not easy to prove unless your lawyers is really good and works pro bono. Good luck with that.
 
Ockham said:
I speak not from reading but from experience. Employers can claim performance issues, produce reams of documentation supporting their claim. They have corporate lawyers, you have a lawyer you must pay out of pocket while your unemployed. And what does the lawyer say? In most cases you will not win, you have no documentation to back up your claim and even if you could win, you will go broke before ever getting it before a judge. It happens all the time... especially where the company who fired you is large and has money. The best you can get is maybe a little lost pay and unused vacation time pay.

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the firing is sexual orientation or age related. Not easy to do, not easy to prove unless your lawyers is really good and works pro bono. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

As I said in the last post, such claims can be hard to prove. As I also said in the last post, that doesn't mean that there aren't legal protections in place for people fired by reason of race/gender. By contrast, there are no such legal protections in place for gay people. Again, this puts them in the same position, with respect to the law (which, as you'll recall, is the only issue I'm talking about) as black people were prior to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act.

Put another way, there are tons of cases on the books involving (e.g.) a black person or a woman winning all kinds of money due to having been terminated/not hired/not promoted for reasons of race/gender due to provisions of federal law. By contrast there aren't any such cases, and in fact there currently cannot be any such cases, with respect to gay people fired for being gay, because they have no such legal protections under federal law.
 
Wake said:
But then definition #2 could be applied to pretty much anyone in America, including Christians, given any plausible reason.
Click to expand...

Not really. The degree is clearly much larger for homosexuals than Chrisitans. There is next to no stigma attached to being Christian. CHristians can marry and are not denied employment or service like can happen to homosexuals.
 
Ockham said:
You agree that LBGT are oppressed at the same level as say 1966-1968 blacks in Atlanta? Or Tennessee?
Click to expand...

Is the same level required? We have seen homosexuals killed and beaten, would they be dismissed if the level is not exactly the same?
 
Since this thread was (I believe) initiated because of this post, I feel the need to weigh in on this issue.

I don't deny that homosexuals are treated unfairly by many people in our society, especially so by Christians who ought to know better. I also don't deny that some homosexuals, especially young ones, are actively persecuted by Christians, who again should know better.

None of this unfair treatment is a matter of law, and neither is the persecution. And I deny that it is widespread. Attitudes certainly still have to change when it comes to seeing homosexuals as children of God worthy of respect and proper treatment. It is a poverty that Christians would still not heed Jesus' call to first remove the plank in our own eyes before removing the mote in our neighbors eyes. As a Catholic, I know that I am just as culpable for my own sin as a homosexual is for his/hers.

I believe that words have meaning, and for any communication to be possible, we have to have strict rules regarding what words mean. And to me, if the systematic genocide of Jews in WWII and political opposition to SSM in the U.S. are both oppression, then the word no longer has any meaning.
 
ChuckBerry said:
Since this thread was (I believe) initiated because of this post, I feel the need to weigh in on this issue.

I don't deny that homosexuals are treated unfairly by many people in our society, especially so by Christians who ought to know better. I also don't deny that some homosexuals, especially young ones, are actively persecuted by Christians, who again should know better.

None of this unfair treatment is a matter of law, and neither is the persecution. And I deny that it is widespread. Attitudes certainly still have to change when it comes to seeing homosexuals as children of God worthy of respect and proper treatment. It is a poverty that Christians would still not heed Jesus' call to first remove the plank in our own eyes before removing the mote in our neighbors eyes. As a Catholic, I know that I am just as culpable for my own sin as a homosexual is for his/hers.

I believe that words have meaning, and for any communication to be possible, we have to have strict rules regarding what words mean. And to me, if the systematic genocide of Jews in WWII and political opposition to SSM in the U.S. are both oppression, then the word no longer has any meaning.
Click to expand...


It is a matter of law. In a couple of important ways. I've commented on that extensively, so take a look back over the last couple of pages.
 
ChuckBerry said:
Since this thread was (I believe) initiated because of this post, I feel the need to weigh in on this issue.

I don't deny that homosexuals are treated unfairly by many people in our society, especially so by Christians who ought to know better. I also don't deny that some homosexuals, especially young ones, are actively persecuted by Christians, who again should know better.

None of this unfair treatment is a matter of law, and neither is the persecution. And I deny that it is widespread. Attitudes certainly still have to change when it comes to seeing homosexuals as children of God worthy of respect and proper treatment. It is a poverty that Christians would still not heed Jesus' call to first remove the plank in our own eyes before removing the mote in our neighbors eyes. As a Catholic, I know that I am just as culpable for my own sin as a homosexual is for his/hers.

I believe that words have meaning, and for any communication to be possible, we have to have strict rules regarding what words mean. And to me, if the systematic genocide of Jews in WWII and political opposition to SSM in the U.S. are both oppression, then the word no longer has any meaning.
Click to expand...

Both can be oppression, but genocide is another word that applies to jews and not homosexuals, . . . here. Perhaps the problem is not elevating homosexuals to oppression, but limiting the holocost to mere opression.
 
Alright, let's try a different tack. Put yourself in their shoes, Wake (if you are even capable of having any empathy).

Imagine a world run by gay people, where straights are a minority, say 5-8% of the population. You are looked down upon because your sexual proclitivities and orientation are in direct contradiction to the morals of the majority. You are viewed as sinful, disgusting, and evil because of who you are. You are not capable of marrying the person you love because the majority has deemed that providing such a legal privilege to you would be "legitimizing and validating your disgusting nature/behavior and lifestyle," despite the fact that who you choose to love and spend the rest of your life with is none of their damn business. You face employment and housing discrimination, and all the while people on the street give you nasty looks for holding hands with your significant other. You cannot visit your loved one in the hospital when she is sick, because you are not considered to be next of kin. If you die, your life insurance policy will not be passed on to your loved ones or your children, if society even allows to have children.

Would you deny that you are being oppressed, or no?
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Both can be oppression, but genocide is another word that applies to jews and not homosexuals, . . . here. Perhaps the problem is not elevating homosexuals to oppression, but limiting the holocost to mere opression.
Click to expand...
The Holocaust is both oppression and genocide. It started with Nazis systematically oppressing Jews, preventing them in law from doing many things other citizens had the right to do. I should have been more specific and parsed the Holocaust out more to make sure my point was understood.
 
ChuckBerry said:
Since this thread was (I believe) initiated because of this post, I feel the need to weigh in on this issue.

I don't deny that homosexuals are treated unfairly by many people in our society, especially so by Christians who ought to know better. I also don't deny that some homosexuals, especially young ones, are actively persecuted by Christians, who again should know better.

None of this unfair treatment is a matter of law, and neither is the persecution. And I deny that it is widespread. Attitudes certainly still have to change when it comes to seeing homosexuals as children of God worthy of respect and proper treatment. It is a poverty that Christians would still not heed Jesus' call to first remove the plank in our own eyes before removing the mote in our neighbors eyes. As a Catholic, I know that I am just as culpable for my own sin as a homosexual is for his/hers.
Click to expand...

It is a matter of law. What in the world do you think DOMA is? How about laws preventing gays from adopting? Moreover, oppression does not have to be legal and institutional in nature. It can exist on a societal level. I provided an above example where I said that I believe that hardcore evangelical Christians are oppressed on certain college campuses, due to social ostracism and alienation. That is a form of oppression that is not legitimized by rules or laws, but exists nonetheless.

If oppressive laws don't exist, oppressive social norms certainly can.

I believe that words have meaning, and for any communication to be possible, we have to have strict rules regarding what words mean. And to me, if the systematic genocide of Jews in WWII and political opposition to SSM in the U.S. are both oppression, then the word no longer has any meaning.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree. Just because definitions are broad does not make them meaningless. Think of the words "fighting" or "combat." They still retain their meaning, despite the fact that they can equally apply to nations engaged in full-fledged total war, or two individuals participating in a wrestling match.
 
Last edited:
ChuckBerry said:
The Holocaust is both oppression and genocide. It started with Nazis systematically oppressing Jews, preventing them in law from doing many things other citizens had the right to do. I should have been more specific and parsed the Holocaust out more to make sure my point was understood.
Click to expand...

Yes, but oppression is somethign different, and with degrees. The holocost started with mere oppression, a belief that one was less than another. We're not close to that here concerning homosexuals, but oppression still applies.
 
Wake said:
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.
Click to expand...


Jews can also be multi-millionaires and own their own businesses. It doesn't mean they aren't oppressed in other spheres. You seem to forget that the nazis weren't exactly nice to homosexuals either.


There is no hierarchy of oppression. Oppression occurs in overt and covert ways, and the oppression of gays is no more or no less wrong than the oppression of Jews, blacks, women or the left handed.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Alright, let's try a different tack. Put yourself in their shoes, Wake (if you are even capable of having any empathy).

Imagine a world run by gay people, where straights are a minority, say 5-8% of the population. You are looked down upon because your sexual proclitivities and orientation are in direct contradiction to the morals of the majority. You are viewed as sinful, disgusting, and evil because of who you are. You are not capable of marrying the person you love because the majority has deemed that providing such a legal privilege to you would be "legitimizing and validating your disgusting nature/behavior and lifestyle," despite the fact that who you choose to love and spend the rest of your life with is none of their damn business. You face employment and housing discrimination, and all the while people on the street give you nasty looks for holding hands with your significant other. You cannot visit your loved one in the hospital when she is sick, because you are not considered to be next of kin. If you die, your life insurance policy will not be passed on to your loved ones or your children, if society even allows to have children.

Would you deny that you are being oppressed, or no?
Click to expand...

Permit me to give my response, even though you did not ask for it.

If humans sexually reproduced with male pairs or female pairs, then I would completely agree that it made no sense for government to sanction opposite sex marriage. Were I heterosexual in such a society I wouldn't demand that the mainstream of society change itself for my decidedly minority proclivities.

I would, however, push for civil unions, or something like it, so that I could have the rights you refer to when it came to my spouse.
 
Aderleth said:
As I said in the last post, such claims can be hard to prove.
Click to expand...
When I stated any non unionized person can be fired for any reason you stated "Not True". It's is true.

Aderleth said:
As I also said in the last post, that doesn't mean that there aren't legal protections in place for people fired by reason of race/gender. By contrast, there are no such legal protections in place for gay people. Again, this puts them in the same position, with respect to the law (which, as you'll recall, is the only issue I'm talking about) as black people were prior to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act.
Click to expand...
That's not accurate. Federal Employees are protected from sexual orientation discrimination. 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).

Aderleth said:
Put another way, there are tons of cases on the books involving (e.g.) a black person or a woman winning all kinds of money due to having been terminated/not hired/not promoted for reasons of race/gender due to provisions of federal law. By contrast there aren't any such cases, and in fact there currently cannot be any such cases, with respect to gay people fired for being gay, because they have no such legal protections under federal law.
Click to expand...
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.

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom