Gays in a civil rights movement?

[greenpartyTX]

I have some gay friends who compare the current gay rights movement to the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 60's.

Is this a valid comparison?
On what levels?
Does this comparison offend other minorities?
Should we have a federal decision on this issue?

Thanks for your input,
gpTX

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

Homosexuals are legally hanged in some parts of the world, to this day. Further, history has many examples of homosexuals being tortured and killed for their "crimes" as part of the legal code. Even England's Kings were not safe from such.
.

I do recognize that homosexuality is punishable by death in several middle-eastern and north-African countries. My original statement was admittedly a bit too broad, so but there is still little in the way of discriminatory legislation against homosexuals in the United States (many states have gay marriage bans, but I can't think of anything beyond this). In this case, the United States is the relevant area, as the OP is from the U.S., and I assume his gay friends are.

can see where some would think your take to be "more correct" but I'm not willing to retract or cede my contentions yet.
A group that is forced "into the closet" must surely feel safe in that closet for a reason.

Yes, there is undoubtedly homophobia and discrimination in the U.S., which is why many in the U.S. remain in the closet to this day, but at least gay people can choose to stay in the closet. Black people cannot easily hide their race. They cannot hide in the closet and pretend they are white. The fact that black people had such an obvious (albeit irrelevant) difference also made them easier to discriminate against and caused them to receive much more widespread discrimination than gay people. Before the civil rights movement, blacks were banned from countless places, from bathrooms to water fountains to restaurants throughout much of the country. They were given sub-par and separate schools and were consistently denied countless opportunities and positions of power (although I don't think there was any legislation regarding this).

Bans on gay marriage. Bans on homosexuals serving in Federally Chartered organizations (i.e. Boy Scouts). "Blacklisting" of homosexuals for jobs (it is legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation at least here in Georgia, USA). The list goes on and on.

All of those things certainly constitute discrimination, but the discrimination simply wasn't as widespread. I admit there are similarities between the civil rights movement and the fight over gay marriage and adoption rights (mainly that a large group of Americans was being unfairly discriminated against in each), but it seems to me that discrimination against homosexuals isn't as severe as the blatant racism towards and oppression of black people before (and even after to a lesser degree) the civil rights movement.

[Bio-logical]

Yes, there is undoubtedly homophobia and discrimination in the U.S., which is why many in the U.S. remain in the closet to this day, but at least gay people can choose to stay in the closet. Black people cannot easily hide their race. They cannot hide in the closet and pretend they are white. The fact that black people had such an obvious (albeit irrelevant) difference also made them easier to discriminate against and caused them to receive much more widespread discrimination than gay people. Before the civil rights movement, blacks were banned from countless places, from bathrooms to water fountains to restaurants throughout much of the country. They were given sub-par and separate schools and were consistently denied countless opportunities and positions of power (although I don't think there was any legislation regarding this).

Are you aware of the "not a drop" rule and after that 1/8th blood? The entire case of Plessy V. Ferguson was due to a man going onto the white car of a train who looked entirely white but it was known that his family lineage contained black blood, therefore making him "black" and not allowed on the white car. He was a closeted black man and he established the entire "separate but equal" doctrine by being such.

[palmera]

There have been a few posts that speak about "hiding" your sexual orientation as a means to escape persecution; but doesn't this also translate into giving up the ability to be helped. Being in the closet is not necessarily a safe place. It can be a personal hell in which there is no perceived source of or reason for succor and assistance. Skin coloration can be a visible mark of identification for both good and ill. Having the ability to hide one's tabooed identification can both protect you from harm while at the same time serve to alienate you from others and yourself.

Also, what difference does degree of persecution/oppression make? For the sake of argument, let's assume that Americans of African descent have undergone far worse oppression than homosexuals of today: does that in any way diminish the LGBT struggle for civil rights? Both arguments seem like red herrings to me.

More later.

[palmera]

More Later.

I think the "hiding" issue and the degree of discrimination argument miss the point because every movement in which a group within society, marginalized and treated as second class citizens, fights for equal rights under the law is a civil rights movement.

While the historical details of exactly how a group was marginalized and oppressed are germane to how the movement is framed, the difference in degree of persecution doesn't make any one group's oppression more true than another. While there was an urgency to fight for justice in the Civil Rights Movement that we don't see today, LGBTs are still fighting for rights that are fundamentally necessary for their status as equal citizens in the U.S.A.

Whether or not other minorities are offended doesn't really matter in so much as their opinions help/hinder the validation of the current civil rights movement- though I imagine said offense would hinge on whether or not a person supports (or not) LGBT communities in the first place.

Banning civil unions between consenting adults is legalizing discrimination for a number of reasons while banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. Though it is deeply embedded in religious ritual, marriage has, until recently, been sufficiently infused into American cultural norms and practices to be secularized. The recent re-sanctification of the term "marriage" has brought into relief a glaring problem with the way government treats unions.

On the religious side, the state has no business whatsoever telling churches who they can/can't marry. Period.

However, in the secular sphere, the state actions are discriminatory on a few fronts. For one, the state has no business whatsoever in performing marriage rituals or recognizing the marriage ritual of one sect over that of another --within reason of course... human-goat "marriages" obviously shouldn't result in tax breaks for the lovely couple ... unless that goat actually starts paying taxes to help fix potholes.

Yet the government reserves the right to join to people in matrimony, and to bequeath happy and unhappy hitched couples alike the everlasting wedding gift of federal rights, protections and tax exemptions making life a lot easier, if not happier, holier, or more meaningful.

Civil unions are important for this reason. While state recognition of your couple-ship is fine and dandy, the fact that Government reserves tax incentives et.al. for some life partners and not others for no other reason than a quasi religious ickiness factor is outright discrimination. Until government can meaningfully justify [spoiler alert: it can't] this great divide, it actively participates in discriminatory practices against part of its population.

Also, as in California, basic civil rights should never be subject to the opinions of the majority. We live in a republic, not a pure democracy for this very reason.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

Also, what difference does degree of persecution/oppression make? For the sake of argument, let's assume that Americans of African descent have undergone far worse oppression than homosexuals of today: does that in any way diminish the LGBT struggle for civil rights? Both arguments seem like red herrings to me.

No it doesn't, and I don't intend to diminish their struggle. The argument I am making is not that the gay civil rights movement has no legitimacy, only that they were not as oppressed as African Americans were before the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's. This topic is a comparison of the two movements, and, while I recognized similarities between them, I pointed out that blacks were much more oppressed and had more to fight for. That does not in any way lessen the current struggle for gay rights.

[palmera]

The argument I am making is not that the gay civil rights movement has no legitimacy, only that they were not as oppressed as African Americans were before the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's. This topic is a comparison of the two movements, and, while I recognized similarities between them, I pointed out that blacks were much more oppressed and had more to fight for. That does not in any way lessen the current struggle for gay rights.

Yes, but to what end?

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

The argument I am making is not that the gay civil rights movement has no legitimacy, only that they were not as oppressed as African Americans were before the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's. This topic is a comparison of the two movements, and, while I recognized similarities between them, I pointed out that blacks were much more oppressed and had more to fight for. That does not in any way lessen the current struggle for gay rights.

Yes, but to what end?

To the "end" of proving that gays were not as oppressed as blacks. That is the only point I'm trying to make. I'm not trying to use such a point to justify further oppression of homosexuals through gay marriage and adoption bans, nor am I trying to say that this civil rights movement is not valid.

[puddleglum]

There are some major differences between the civil rights movement and the current gay rights movement.

To begin with racial differences are a normal part of the human race. Sexual orientation is a departure from normal. The design of the sexual organs and the fact that heterosexual activity is necessary for the continuance human life show this. We should not discriminate against gays any more that we should discriminate against someone born with a physical handicap, but we should not pretend that their condition is normal.

One of the most controversial issues is whether to legalize same sex marriage. Marriage was established by God as a union between a man and a woman, and nearly all cultures have accepted this. Allowing people of the same sex to marry is not the same as allowing people of different races to marry, but is in fact a change in what marriage means.

It is also necessary to distinguish between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity. A person cannot choose how he feels about sex but he can and should choose how he acts. In this respect there is no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. All of us are tempted to do things that are wrong. Different people are tempted in different areas. God will not condemn us for being tempted, but he will judge us if we yield to these temptations. But he is also willing to help those who want to resist and is willing to forgive us for oup past failures.

Here are two good sources of help for anyone who wants to learn more about this subject:
http://exodus-international.org

http://pfox.org

[Goat]

There are some major differences between the civil rights movement and the current gay rights movement.

To begin with racial differences are a normal part of the human race. Sexual orientation is a departure from normal. The design of the sexual organs and the fact that heterosexual activity is necessary for the continuance human life show this. We should not discriminate against gays any more that we should discriminate against someone born with a physical handicap, but we should not pretend that their condition is normal.

One of the most controversial issues is whether to legalize same sex marriage. Marriage was established by God as a union between a man and a woman, and nearly all cultures have accepted this. Allowing people of the same sex to marry is not the same as allowing people of different races to marry, but is in fact a change in what marriage means.

It is also necessary to distinguish between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity. A person cannot choose how he feels about sex but he can and should choose how he acts. In this respect there is no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. All of us are tempted to do things that are wrong. Different people are tempted in different areas. God will not condemn us for being tempted, but he will judge us if we yield to these temptations. But he is also willing to help those who want to resist and is willing to forgive us for oup past failures.

Here are two good sources of help for anyone who wants to learn more about this subject:
http://exodus-international.org

http://pfox.org

From http://exodus.to/content/view/161/56/



The following is used by permission, Bob Davies, copyright 1991, Exodus Standard, Vol. 8, No. 1. Edited by Stephen Black.


Two men who helped organize the first Exodus conference now claim that ex-gay ministries are a fraud, which promote "homophobia and self-hatred." Their comments have appeared in gay newspapers across North America. In the mid-1970s Michael Busseee and Gary Cooper were calling themselves "ex-gay." They were both married with children and working at EXIT, the "EX-gay Intervention Team" at Melodyland Hotline Center in Anaheim, California.

Both men helped organize the first Exodus conference, held in Anaheim in September 1976. Unknown to their co-workers, Bussee and Cooper were struggling with strong sexual attraction to each other. "I kept praying and hoping that some day I would develop normal sexual attraction to my wife." Bussee told The Standard. "Gary had three kids by this time, and I had one daughter."

Finally, in late 1978, Bussee and Cooper began a secret adulterous relationship. They quit EXIT and two years later; both men divorced their wives and began living together. "I was ripped apart by the pain," recalled Ann Busse at the 1985 Exodus Conference. "I could not believe Mike had been unfaithful."

To himself, Bussee justified his homosexual activities. "I couldnt understand how loving somebody could be sin, just because they had the wrong genitals." Today Bussee is convinced that sin is not "obedience to a list of dos or donts. Its a question of motive"whether an action is motivated by a genuine concern for the other person." But president Joe Dallas says Bussees interpretation of the Scriptures is faulty. "The Bible doesnt teach that love is a sin," Dallas says, "but it DOES put restrictions on sexual activity." He says that Gods Word defines what love is"not our feelings. "The Old Testament says that, when everyone did what was right in his own eyes, there was confusion."

[McCulloch]

There are some major differences between the civil rights movement and the current gay rights movement.

That is what we are debating.

To begin with racial differences are a normal part of the human race. Sexual orientation is a departure from normal. The design of the sexual organs and the fact that heterosexual activity is necessary for the continuance human life show this. We should not discriminate against gays any more that we should discriminate against someone born with a physical handicap, but we should not pretend that their condition is normal.

Except that their condition is in no way a handicap, therefore we should have less reason to discriminate them than those with physical or cognitive handicaps.

One of the most controversial issues is whether to legalize same sex marriage. Marriage was established by God as a union between a man and a woman, and nearly all cultures have accepted this. Allowing people of the same sex to marry is not the same as allowing people of different races to marry, but is in fact a change in what marriage means.

You cannot claim that marriage was not established by God without evidence that God exists. Yes, marriage has been established, but whether by God is still an open question. Allowing a woman to own property independently from her husband changed what marriage means. The question is not whether this changes the meaning of marriage, but whether such a change is a good thing.

It is also necessary to distinguish between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity. A person cannot choose how he feels about sex but he can and should choose how he acts. In this respect there is no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. All of us are tempted to do things that are wrong. Different people are tempted in different areas. God will not condemn us for being tempted, but he will judge us if we yield to these temptations. But he is also willing to help those who want to resist and is willing to forgive us for our past failures.

Except apparently your God forgot to provide a legitimate outlet for those with homosexual feelings ...