Gay Rights a Civil Rights Movement?

[AllahBePraised]

I have for a long time heard proffessors and various people say something like this:

" Today we see those people that hosed down Black protestors in the South as s, I do not want people to see myself that way by trying to deny people rights."

Do you agree with this statement (that Gay people today are being denied the same rights other minorities in the US were denied and that when they eventually get them the people that attempted to deny them were seen as, pardon my language, dicks?)

I personally have a varied opinion, so please state why you agree or disagree and why.

[ivan_the_terrible]

In my opinion it's quite a stretch. Gay people can sit on the same benches, drink from the same fountains, go to the same schools, as straight people. They can also ride in the front of a bus and don't live in fear of being lynched and are not treated like second-class citizens.

This is strictly my opinion, but comparing the minor inconveniences that gay people face in some places to what black people in the USA had to go through is a huge exaggeration at best, and an insult at worst. But that's just me; some may disagree.

[Pontifex Maximus]

In my opinion it's quite a stretch. Gay people can sit on the same benches, drink from the same fountains, go to the same schools, as straight people. They can also ride in the front of a bus

You know, blacks were denied the right to marry in The United States until the 1870s. They've only been allowed to marry for ~50% of the USA's existence.

don't live in fear of being lynched and are not treated like second-class citizens.

Homosexuals are routinely lynched in places like Iran. There are also sporadic cases of lynchings in the US, but its far more likely you will see hate crimes in the form of beatings or gay students being barred from attending their senior prom with a same sex date. So, really, if you turn your back to the facts and don't want to see what goes on, you can. Unfortunately too many people see things like you do and that's why change is so slow in coming.

[PoleCat]

You know, blacks were denied the right to marry in The United States until the 1870s. They've only been allowed to marry for ~50% of the USA's existence.

Actually it wasn't until Loving vs. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws were completely ended in the US and that wasn't until 1967. There were laws on the books that also barred white-Asian marriages in the country far later than they should have been allowed to stand. So the idea of actual true rights for all is a relatively recent invention in the US.

Homosexuals are routinely lynched in places like Iran. There are also sporadic cases of lynchings in the US, but its far more likely you will see hate crimes in the form of beatings or gay students being barred from attending their senior prom with a same sex date. So, really, if you turn your back to the facts and don't want to see what goes on, you can. Unfortunately too many people see things like you do and that's why change is so slow in coming.

True enough but it has gotten better these last ten years or so. The last real egregious homo-killing was the Matthew Sheppard murder a while back. Mostly now it's just small minded fundamentalists that try any and every legal method available to stall any kind of gay rights movement. But better does not equal where it should be. Still too much close-minded hate on the social conservative side.

The goal of gay rights activists isn't nearly of the same extent as that of, say, blacks or women, and anybody who tries to frame it as such is being hyperbolic, but that doesn't mean there isn't a legitimate cause there. Gays are still denied some key benefits granted to others by the state merely by virtue of having a different physiology.

I agree - the extent that homosexuals are treated these days doesn't equal what blacks or Asians went through at the worst for those groups. But it wasn't until the '70s that anyone actually took gays seriously - the Stonewall riots changed that.

If any of you believe in equal rights for all Citizens then you will support Gay Marriage - anything else only serves to create another "Equal but Separate" class of citizens....

[Pontifex Maximus]

True enough but it has gotten better these last ten years or so.

It got better when we abolished slavery. It wasn't great until the 1960's.

[ivan_the_terrible]

You know, blacks were denied the right to marry in The United States until the 1870s. They've only been allowed to marry for ~50% of the USA's existence.

That's not really a good comparison. A gay man, for instance, can still marry, just not another man. By the same token, a straight man can't marry another man. So they have the same 'rights' or lack there of, where as in your example a black man couldn't marry a woman while a white man could.

Of course you could frame it in a different way; both the gay man and the black man can't/couldn't marry their de facto 'partner'. To me which frame is correct is a matter of personal opinion.

Homosexuals are routinely lynched in places like Iran. There are also sporadic cases of lynchings in the US, but its far more likely you will see hate crimes in the form of beatings or gay students being barred from attending their senior prom with a same sex date. So, really, if you turn your back to the facts and don't want to see what goes on, you can. Unfortunately too many people see things like you do and that's why change is so slow in coming.

Well, since the OP referred to the Civil Rights Movement, I assumed the discussion was in the context of the USA. I can see that a comparison of how gays are treated in Iran with how blacks used to be treated in the USA is valid. But the beatings, from what I know, are nothing like what befell black people.

As for the prom date: however distressful it may be to the students, I think we can agree that's nothing like not allowing black people to attend that school, let alone the prom.


While I can see that gay people might face more issues than straight people, I find it absurd to draw any kind of meaningful parallels with the Civil Rights Movement. That's my opinion.

[Copperknickers II]

That's not really a good comparison. A gay man, for instance, can still marry, just not another man. By the same token, a straight man can't marry another man. So they have the same 'rights' or lack there of, where as in your example a black man couldn't marry a woman while a white man could.

Don't be ridiculous, that's like saying Hitler killed 6,000,000 Christians in the Holocaust, albeit ones who only followed the first half of the bible and who were ethnically Semitic. A homosexual man cannot marry the person they love, a heterosexual one can, and that is the only purpose of marriage in most cases in the West. That is not equality by anyone's definition.

As for the prom date: however distressful it may be to the students, I think we can agree that's nothing like not allowing black people to attend that school, let alone the prom.

Just because a problem is smaller than another one that doesn't mean it is completely unimportant. Rights for black people is an unimportant issue compared to most of the black population of New Orleans, LA and New York being submerged by rising sea levels as a direct result of global warming caused by CO2 emissions (arguably), does that mean we should just ignore it?

[motiv-8]

The goal of gay rights activists isn't nearly of the same extent as that of, say, blacks or women, and anybody who tries to frame it as such is being hyperbolic, but that doesn't mean there isn't a legitimate cause there. Gays are still denied some key benefits granted to others by the state merely by virtue of having a different physiology.

OR

Gay rights is just a way for the liberals to force homosexuality upon our unsuspecting children.

[Corvis]

OR

Gay rights is just a way for the liberals to force homosexuality upon our unsuspecting children.

I think it's this. It just makes more sense. Also it's more convenient.

[Armenum]

Government should have no say in Gay Rights. It crosses the line of secularism which governments have to adhere to in the strictest sense.

[AllahBePraised]

Government should have no say in Gay Rights. It crosses the line of secularism which governments have to adhere to in the strictest sense.

I agree, however one must also keep in mind many politicians who oppose gay marriage do so because of their religious beliefs... so?

[Armenum]

I agree, however one must also keep in mind many politicians who oppose gay marriage do so because of their religious beliefs... so?

Politicians have an obligation to leave their religious beliefs at home when they go for government service. So if they are doing so they are breaking the most important ideal of Western Society and Governments....

[Manco]

Government should have no say in Gay Rights. It crosses the line of secularism which governments have to adhere to in the strictest sense.

What do gay rights and secularity have to do with each other?
The only thing that comes even remotely close is same sex marriage, and the gay rights movement isn't talking about religious marriage but civil marriage.

[redhammer]

I wholeheartedly agree. Separation of Church and State is essential for proper functioning of a country. This is especially true in multicultural societies where there is no single "the Church". However, how can government have no say in Gay Rights? Do you mean that Gay rights should be covered under international law? Keep in mind that I say this in no sarcastic way but am genuinely curious.

[Armenum]

I wholeheartedly agree. Separation of Church and State is essential for proper functioning of a country. This is especially true in multicultural societies where there is no single "the Church". However, how can government have no say in Gay Rights? Do you mean that Gay rights should be covered under international law? Keep in mind that I say this in no sarcastic way but am genuinely curious.

Public society should be blind to sexual orientation. I don't understand why a corporation, for example, should care what the employee does during his free time. In the current state of politics it may be difficult to see this, but gay rights should be like the right to wear whatever you want. There should be a mutual, cultural understanding that in public secular society this is a personal part of a person does shouldn't affect what he does in this public sector.

[wilpuri]

"For the lesbian and gay movement, then, cultural goals include (but are not limited to) challenging dominant constructions of masculinity and femininity, homophobia, and the primacy of the gendered heterosexual nuclear family (heteronormativity). Political goals include changing laws and policies in order to gain new rights, benefits, and protections from harm."

-Mary Bernstein

Cultural bolshevists use such minorities to further their own political agendas.

[xcorps]

I wholeheartedly agree. Separation of Church and State is essential for proper functioning of a country. This is especially true in multicultural societies where there is no single "the Church". However, how can government have no say in Gay Rights? Do you mean that Gay rights should be covered under international law? Keep in mind that I say this in no sarcastic way but am genuinely curious.

Rights shouldn't be denied any person for any reason. The best way to protect the rights of individuals is to shrink government. In the case of gay marriage, remove the government from marriage completely. Any two persons should be able to walk in front a person who has the authority to witness the binding of the marriage contract and get married. Get rid of marriage liscence, blood tests, etc. All you should need to prove marriage is a certificate that has been signed by a recognized witness. (justice of the peace, judge, minister, ships captain, etc.)

I agree, however one must also keep in mind many politicians who oppose gay marriage do so because of their religious beliefs... so?

Don't make the mistake of thinking politicians do anything for any reason other than influencing a vote.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

Yes, although the discrimination they face is not anywhere near as sharp as the persecution other minorities faced. Gays have in the past been treated as bad as other minority groups, these days however, they are for the most part tolerated if not accepted.

[♔Goodguy1066♔]

" Today we see those people that hosed down Black protestors in the South as s, I do not want people to see myself that way by trying to deny people rights."

So what he's saying is that we're denying Gay people from being considered s?

[the Black Prince]

I think its fair to say that gay people perhaps haven't had the mass statutory discrimination appluied against them that black people had. Afterall, the US Constitution originally valued black people as only two-thirds of a person. A white gay person was at least a full citizen.

Buts its also worth noting that the position of gay people today is significantly better than it was in the 60s. Gay people have never had the mass civil rights movement that the black community had, but Stonewall and the events that followed were significant.

Gay people, if anything, have only had an easier ride of it because its easier to hide being gay than it is to hide being black. But that doesn't make the discrimination any less wrong. To say to someone you're not discriminated against because you can pretend to be straight doesn't make it any less discrimination. It amazes me that the UK Government had to have that spelled out to them by the Court of Appeal recently... (or was it the UK Supreme Court, can't recall off the top of my head)...

Do I agree with the statement in the OP? No, not really, because even the US has made great progress. The situation that led to Stonewall does not exist anymore. The laws that led to Stonewall have been struck down by the US Supreme Court and cases like Lawrence v Texas are unlikely to be overturned anytime soon.

Do gay people still face discrimination and violence in their lives? Yes, undoubtedly. Are they worse than off black people? Yes, because racism is well identified as being wrong whereas many institutions still seem to feel that homophobia is tolerable.