Can discriminating against Homosexuals be compared to racism?

Here is a better question. Are the ways gays are treated compareable to the way trer races were treated?

 

Ah but you do .. that is what debating is all about, proclaiming something and then providing proof to back up your claims, without proof your claims are nothing more than a personal opinion.

Homosexuality prior to the religious prejudice was actively pursued by a number of great cultures including Sparta and Greece, it was only with the advent of the Christian ideology that homosexuality was deemed immoral - which given the number of homosexual priests is pretty hypocritical. In fact the onslaught of Christian religion made out all types of sexual intercourse to be something that only man and woman in a marriage relationship should indulge in.

Some psychiatrists actually believe that those who are most anti homosexuality are themselves suppressing their homosexual urges.

Having said that I don't think that the government should be able to force any church to perform a marriage ceremony if they don't want to, if the government want to change the law to allow gay marriage in non religious places then that is up to them and the voters.

 

Don't be ridiculous. Marriage is what society as a whole wants it to be. Right now---the majority of society does not see marriage the way you would like it to be seen. The majority of society would like men and women to be encouraged to have and raise children in a stable committed home.

Unfortunately as children become more throw away and as adults become more "all about me" oriented..then gay marriage is prone to be installed. But---we aren't there yet. Sorry. And hopefully we can stay a course ---improve a course--- where our priorities are in order.

 

And still, marriage was limited to heterosexual couples. Only women can become wives and mothers of her husbands children. Young boys were for sexual gratification

 

No, blacks just had a far more public fight. Gays have has to deal with the same violence and mistreatment that blacks had to deal with, they just to not get the press that the movement in the 60's had, nor do they have anyone as great as Martin Luther King Jr. to bring their fight to center spotlight.

 

so you have no problem with homosexuality on the whole, just the homosexual marriges?

Actually you are wrong about the sexual gratification part .. the idea behind encouraging homosexuality was to bolster the fighting spirit of the warrior who would fight harder to protect a fellow warrior he loved.

 

Marriage, what it stands for and why we have it----is simply the opinion of the society. Its an opinion. And the priorities of that society dictates what marriage means and what it is meant for.

So....proof is not relevant.

 

Proof IS relevant when we're talking about the specific laws of a specific country. In the USA, public opinion plays a role in lawmaking, but it doesn't override our Constitution without going through the formal process of amendment. So you can express the OPINION that marriage is only 'one man/one woman', but that opinion is largely irrelevant in a discussion of what the law says, what the law does, and what the law is prohibited from doing by the Constitution.

So stop dodging and provide your 'proofs' already.

 

EXCELLENT question!!! How many white gay men or white gay women do you know were forced to sit at the back of the bus?

Please tell me how I would know that you are gay unless I witnessed you engaging in sex with your partner?

How do I know that the first lady is a black woman?

 

Proof is in the fact that most Americans want to keep marriage traditional for a man and a woman. And I'm sorry...but your choice of as to what you wish to label yourself is not protected by the constitution as equal. As a citizen, you are expected to live with the same rules as everyone else. You are not a separate "special" gender.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

 

Opinions are not proof.

Again, that's just your opinion.

Gee, a "twofer" - strawman and begging the question.

I have not said that I consider myself a "special" gender; I've stated very clearly that I do not. But nice job of ignoring the arguments to continue dodging.

It is not a question of what "most Americans want". It's a question of law, and whether the laws that limit marriage to "one man/one woman" were adopted for a suspect purpose: expressing disapproval of homosexuality. It's also a question of whether same-sex couples are similarly situated to opposite-sex couples, and they are.

If all you have is repetition of your prior assertion, ignoring the points I and others have raised in challenge to it, then there is no more discussion to be had.

 

And the answer supplied by these courts creating gay marriage forms the foundation of their fraud. The absurd proposition that marriage in the US has been limited to heterosexual couples, not because only heterosexual couples procreate, but instead specifically to exclude homosexuals, motivated by animus towards homosexuals. They essentially twisted the facts to make their argument fit with the precedent set in the Roemer case from Colorado.

 

^The ruling was that Proposition 8 sought to take away a right that had already been recognised, that's where the Ninth Circuit's rationale regarding an animus towards homosexuals came into it. Romer was cited to show that SCOTUS has already declared that even the majority cannot take away rights from a minority that have already been established. It is very clear how it fits in and who it was speaking to.

 

What the hell kind of polls are you looking at?! NOM's internal poll???

 

No, they claimed traditional marriage in America is limited to heterosexual couples because of "disappoval" of homosexuals.

The evidence at trial shows that marriage in the United
States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples. The
evidence suggests many reasons for this tradition of exclusion,
including gender roles mandated through coverture, FF 26-27, social
disapproval of same-sex relationships, FF 74, and the reality that
the vast majority of people are heterosexual and have had no reason
to challenge the restriction, FF 43.

 

No, thats what the court looked at and simply assigned their motivations to every california voter who voted for Prop 8

 

And again, for the most part, you can control how much of a "signal" you put out. And you can probably pass in situations where you don't know other people well. And you'll certainly do a better job of passing then a black or a woman. If a black guy walks into a room, everyone instantly knows he's a black guy. In many cases, you can tell a guy is black from his name. If a black guy walks into a store, he can't not be black, he's known instantly. He's followed around the store in many cases. When he drives down the street, he's driving while black, and in fact, if he gets pulled over, he'd better be careful when reaching for his insurance information in the glovebox because a cop could misinterpret that as reaching for a gun and shoot him in "self defense". He can never fall back on "maybe he's not really black". Well Michael Jackson could, but other than that...

And it's the same thing when you apply for a job. LeBron is known to be black from the instant the HR person sees his application. If the black guy shows up to an interview, there's no way he's not the black applicant, with all that entails. If he's interviewing with a person who just plain doesn't like black people, chances are he's in for an uphill battle, because he's obviously black. When he shows up on the first day, he's the black guy in the department. Everyone "knows" he's there on affirmative action, so they "know" he isn't there because he's good.

I'll admit that it's hard to not let that slip after you've worked in a place or lived in a place for a time. But, again, it's not identical, because you can not be the "gay guy" -- or at least not known as such -- until you've been hired. Or you can not be the gay guy when you go shopping. Or house hunting. Or visiting relatives in redneckistan.

I don't think you should have to hide. You shouldn't. What I'm pointing out is that you have that OPTION. Something that black people don't even have the luxury of. Or women for that matter. When a black guy walks into a room, it's obvious. There's no "how can I hide that I'm black" -- it's not remotely possible for any black man to pass for a white man. It's not possible for a woman to pass as a man either. Even if it's hard to do, and yes I believe you that it is hard, it's also something most minority groups couldn't consider doing. I'm female. It's obvious to everyone I meet and there's no way that I can walk into a room and not be instantly known as a woman. It's something that will follow me when I apply for a job, or when I shop for a car, or when I do just about anything. there's no "if I try hard enough, no one will know I'm a woman".

There is such a thing as white privilege (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html), most of which will apply to a white homosexual unless and until HE DECIDES to out himself as not a white heterosexual male.

 

It would appear you're unacquainted with the history of light-skinned black people who have been able to pass for white.

You're also missing a major point: the huge factor that perceptions play. My partner's sister-in-law gets mistaken for being black regularly. She's native Hawaiian. My dark-skinned great-grandfather was called 'the N- word' and faced discrimination even though he wasn't black. He was at best 1/4 Native American, possibly less. My granduncle's side of the family are dark-haired & dark-eyed, and some of them could pass for light-skinned black. My side of the family doesn't share any of these traits, despite the research done on our respective family trees suggesting that my branch are no less Native American than our darker cousins. So far, no black ancestors anywhere in either family tree.

Did you even look at the link I provided? If people can recognize a 'gay face' with statistical significance, then no - that's a 'signal' I can't control. Personally speaking, I'm more apt to recognize another gay person based on speech patterns (and I do NOT mean the bizarre stereotype of having a lisp). Unless I'm going to learn how to talk all over again, then no - that's not a signal that I have much control over.

Of course a black person with dark skin is more obviously black than most gay people are obviously gay. I'm not contesting that. I'm not saying the quality of being black and the quality of being gay are comparable. I am saying the notion that gay people can pass is very highly questionable. It also begets the idea that they should make the effort, which opens a much larger can of worms.

The only way I can describe these statements is 'clueless'. I was once actually told in an interview that "we don't hire homosexuals". It was admittedly one of the more bizarre interview experiences I've had. At no time had I mentioned anything that should have tipped off the interviewer. I was dressed appropriately/conservatively. It seems to have arisen in the interviewers' mind by connecting the dots of my age and my not being married. Needless to say, I did my best to escape from that interview as quickly as I reasonably could, without making any admissions as to my orientation.

As for shopping, if my partner and I shop together, we get unfriendly stares. Not because we're flamboyant or doing anything to call attention to ourselves, but because we're two middle-aged men. We don't fit the stereotype of being college roommates or young working bachelors. Anyone casually overhearing us consult with each other with questions of "do we have any such and such at home?" will likely get the clue pretty quickly. In fact, I'd say that anyone with half a brain can easily recognize us as a couple even if we aren't doing anything to overtly express that, based on the matter of personal space and body language. Two straight guys are likely going to unconsciously give each other more space and their body language toward each other will be noticeably different.

And I'm pointing out that you frankly don't know what you're talking about. I'm the one here who has experience as a gay man. Maybe try asking me what my life is like instead of telling me what my life is like.

Well, you're wrong about that. Black isn't just skin color. There can be considerable variance even within families. Is one black person less black than another based on their skin color? Ridiculous.

You're also very wrong about that, too. Many trans-identified people are quite adept at passing as the opposite sex. And it's not a recent phenomenon. My father worked as a hired hand on a farm as a young man with a woman who presented as a male. We're talking back in the early 1940s here. One of the new hires had no idea that she wasn't a man, and "whipped it out to take a whiz" out in the back 40 where there were no toilets nearby. My dad cued him in later as to the facts, advising that next time he should find a tree for some privacy.

My grandmother was a nurse. When this same woman in the example above was hospitalized, one of the younger nurses was complaining that she didn't know what to do with her; to which my grandmother informed her that this patient was to be accorded the same respect and dignity of any other. (My tiny grandmother was a firebrand, and she didn't put up with any nonsense from anyone). I knew this woman only as a product of the foregoing stories, until I had occasion to meet her at my other grandmother's funeral. I can tell you, if it weren't for the fact that my mother had already identified her to me in the crowd, I would not have known she was a woman.

So don't tell me you can't pass for being a man. It can be done. The lives of many trans people depend on being able to pass well. In fact, I would say you have as good a chance if not better to pass as a man than I do of passing for straight.

There's no "if I try hard, no one will know I'm gay", either.

There's such a thing as white privilege even if one is an out white homosexual.

Seriously, telling a gay person how they can pass is rather insulting. Some clearly can. For many of us, it depends not so much on what we do, as on how perceptive others are. A lot of us may not be as obvious a dark-skinned black man, but we are recognizable to those who care to notice.

 

Discrimination against LGBT people is akin to racism unless the discrimination is directed against such folks who are members of this forum. Those folks are just plain queer in a really bad way.

 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_Spartan_warriors_practise_homosexuality

 

One problem with this post, is that the poster is assuming that everyone is as racist as blacks, and as sexist as women.

 

Perriquine, my post wasn`t meant to be offensive, just a balanced observation. I`m just a friend out in cyber space saying "hey brother / sister, you are going the wrong way". Life conditions white people expect a racist attitude from black people, for the most part, if given enough opportunity to do so, we try to rise above the natural reactionary response of counter agression, and attempt to reconcile the situation. This is one side of the equation that doesn`t get much mention, but if we are to acheive our potential, we need to have a fully balanced outlook.

The same can be said for sexism, and all the other "isms" and discriminatory labels on the planet. No harmony can be acheived with double standards, all parties have to come to the negotiation table with a genuine agenda of acheiving harmony, not using labels and accusations as a battering ram, an outlet for their own ahteful agenda. We ALL need to have open, balanced minds .

 

Well, in one instance (racism) you're arbitrarily discriminating against people for their ethnic background; prejudice, essentially. In other (homophobia) you're punishing deviance and encouraging 'social subordination' to a normative standard. So not a direct parallel, no. Not sure what implications that is supposed to have, at any rate.

 

Homophobia is not racism per se, but it is discrimination. It is wrong to judge another based on the color of their skin just as it is wrong to judge on sexual orientation. I bet many men who claim to be anti gay, would not look away if two beautiful women were going at it in front of them.

Its kind of like prohibition... when some of the very men who passed the law... then spent their evenings in speakeasies imbibing the very substance they made illegal.