Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gender, race and sexual orientation...

Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 4:46:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
... are not equivalent.

Sorry, I couldn't fit it all in the title.

People often lump gender, race and sexual orientation in together, as if how we treat one affects how we treat the others. This is an argument from analogy, as the three variables are independent and very different from each other.

Sexual orientation is not like race. One is behavioral, the other is physical. You can hide the fact that you're gay, but you can't hide the fact you're black. Not practically, at least.

Race is not like gender. Racial characteristics are superficial and can be swapped around in the gene pool, while gender differences are fairly constant and fundamentally impact every aspect of a person's existence.

Gender is not like sexual orientation. Men can be gay or straight, but they're still men. What gender you are is a whole different issue.

I understand that I've probably stepped on some toes, but I needed to say this. I'm sick of people treating all these issues as if they're the same, because they're not and saying they are just leads to logical fallacies.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 8:58:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
True.

Also, why are they being intolerant and bigot (by their standards)?
If we are not to judge, who are they to judge us for judging?
If we are intolerant, they too are intolerant for not tolerating our lifestyles, which includes telling the truth in which that we believe homosexuality is harmful and not good for society.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 9:04:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sexual orientation is an impulse, and not a behavior. You are not responsible for sex, race, or sexual orientation. Discrimination as a result of these is thus discrimination for factors that are beyond one's control.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 9:05:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 8:58:21 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
True.

Also, why are they being intolerant and bigot (by their standards)?
If we are not to judge, who are they to judge us for judging?
If we are intolerant, they too are intolerant for not tolerating our lifestyles, which includes telling the truth in which that we believe homosexuality is harmful and not good for society.

They aren't judging you for judging. They're just telling you that your judgment cannot bear influence on how other people behave if those behaviors do not violate your rights. You have no standing in these cases.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 9:25:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 9:04:08 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Sexual orientation is an impulse, and not a behavior. You are not responsible for sex, race, or sexual orientation. Discrimination as a result of these is thus discrimination for factors that are beyond one's control.

So then it's wrong to discriminate against rapists, pedophiles, animal lovers, incest, and all other sexual "impulses", right??
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 9:58:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sexual orientations or impulses may or may not be a concious choice. But thoughts and feelings are not a caliber to compare. We are all equal to that standard.

But sexual conduct is a different story. Behaviours or lifestyles are not morally neutural, they are a concious choice.

We are not incriminating because they have harmful urges, we are incriminating because they act upon these urges.
We can't do anything to a self admitted pedophilia if he never acts upon these urges.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 11:00:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 9:58:52 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
But sexual conduct is a different story. Behaviours or lifestyles are not morally neutural, they are a concious choice.

I agree. But pedophilia, incest, and zoophilia are illegal for good reasons--basically, it's rape. The first two of them have power dynamics that you simply can't ignore, and those power dynamics mean that there is an element of coercion. Zoophilia, meanwhile, makes it impossible to know whether the animal consented or not, because it can't testify.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 12:02:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 11:00:42 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 7/27/2013 9:58:52 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
But sexual conduct is a different story. Behaviours or lifestyles are not morally neutural, they are a concious choice.

I agree. But pedophilia, incest, and zoophilia are illegal for good reasons--basically, it's rape. The first two of them have power dynamics that you simply can't ignore, and those power dynamics mean that there is an element of coercion. Zoophilia, meanwhile, makes it impossible to know whether the animal consented or not, because it can't testify.

On what grounds can you legalize acting on one impulse but make the others illegal. If it's ok to act on impulses and the impulses aren't their fault, then saying one is ok while the other is illegal is just discriminating in the same way that you claim we're discriminating. Married people aren't consenting to have marriage redefined so in essence you're raping those that are already married, under the normal definition. Little kids can't consent to being raised in a freakshow with 2 dads or 2 moms which everyone knows is nothing more that homosexuals trying to play house like real parents. So why is consent important when you want it to be, but unimportant when it works against you??
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 1:19:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 12:02:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 11:00:42 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 7/27/2013 9:58:52 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
But sexual conduct is a different story. Behaviours or lifestyles are not morally neutural, they are a concious choice.

I agree. But pedophilia, incest, and zoophilia are illegal for good reasons--basically, it's rape. The first two of them have power dynamics that you simply can't ignore, and those power dynamics mean that there is an element of coercion. Zoophilia, meanwhile, makes it impossible to know whether the animal consented or not, because it can't testify.

On what grounds can you legalize acting on one impulse but make the others illegal. If it's ok to act on impulses and the impulses aren't their fault, then saying one is ok while the other is illegal is just discriminating in the same way that you claim we're discriminating.

I think this was sufficiently explained. For pedophilia and zoophilia, there is no informed consent. For homosexuality or straight sex, consent is given by both parties. There is no discrimination here, since it is being consistent.

Married people aren't consenting to have marriage redefined so in essence you're raping those that are already married, under the normal definition.

Please tell me how "redefining" marriage directly affects married couples in a negative way.

Little kids can't consent to being raised in a freakshow with 2 dads or 2 moms which everyone knows is nothing more that homosexuals trying to play house like real parents. So why is consent important when you want it to be, but unimportant when it works against you??

They can't consent to being born, for that matter. Or to be raised by their biological parents. And from what I've seen, most children being raised by same-sex couples are perfectly fine with their current situation. Also, you must once again prove that these children are worse off than they would be in an orphanage (I forget how far we got last time I brought this up... didn't it get to something about you saying that less "liberal" policies would lead to less children in orphanages, despite the fact that some people have their parents die and sometimes situations arise where a couple is suddenly unable to take care of their children, and that such policies wouldn't help in those cases?)
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 7:07:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@ royalpaladin

Being attracted to a certain sex is probably involuntary, though you can train yourself to respond differently. Child sexual abuse sometimes causes this, as children learn that homosexual behavior is normal and thus re-enact it in adulthood.

Your lifestyle, however, is a choice. You can be gay, yet choose to act as if you're straight. Many people did this back when homosexuality was still illegal.

@ medic0506

Laws are made to eliminate behaviors which are harmful. Rape, pedophilia, incest and bestiality cause harm to the non-consenting partner. Consensual homosexual acts, while gross and immoral by some people's standards, do not harm either party. Or at least, the partners being the same sex doesn't factor.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 11:30:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 12:02:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
On what grounds can you legalize acting on one impulse but make the others illegal.

A utilitarian basis. You haven't shown harm from homosexuality--and I mean actual harm, not 'think of the children' or 'OMG OUR MORALS ARE DETERIORATING'.

Married people aren't consenting to have marriage redefined so in essence you're raping those that are already married, under the normal definition.

That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Rape is a specific crime--forcefully having sex with someone.

Little kids can't consent to being raised in a freakshow with 2 dads or 2 moms which everyone knows is nothing more that homosexuals trying to play house like real parents.

*yawns* They also can't consent to being raised by moronic fundamentalist Christians. We don't choose our parents.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 1:47:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 9:25:38 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 9:04:08 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Sexual orientation is an impulse, and not a behavior. You are not responsible for sex, race, or sexual orientation. Discrimination as a result of these is thus discrimination for factors that are beyond one's control.

So then it's wrong to discriminate against rapists, pedophiles, animal lovers, incest, and all other sexual "impulses", right??

Rape causes harm, pedophilia causes harm, animal loving is dangerous and doesn't allow consent, incest is dangerous and unnecessary.

Homosexual sex isn't like any of those kinds.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 3:08:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 1:19:40 PM, drhead wrote:
At 7/27/2013 12:02:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 11:00:42 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 7/27/2013 9:58:52 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
But sexual conduct is a different story. Behaviours or lifestyles are not morally neutural, they are a concious choice.

I agree. But pedophilia, incest, and zoophilia are illegal for good reasons--basically, it's rape. The first two of them have power dynamics that you simply can't ignore, and those power dynamics mean that there is an element of coercion. Zoophilia, meanwhile, makes it impossible to know whether the animal consented or not, because it can't testify.

On what grounds can you legalize acting on one impulse but make the others illegal. If it's ok to act on impulses and the impulses aren't their fault, then saying one is ok while the other is illegal is just discriminating in the same way that you claim we're discriminating.

I think this was sufficiently explained. For pedophilia and zoophilia, there is no informed consent. For homosexuality or straight sex, consent is given by both parties. There is no discrimination here, since it is being consistent.

There is no discrimination in marriage either, all citizens have the same rights.

Married people aren't consenting to have marriage redefined so in essence you're raping those that are already married, under the normal definition.

Please tell me how "redefining" marriage directly affects married couples in a negative way.

It changes the contract after it's already signed.

Little kids can't consent to being raised in a freakshow with 2 dads or 2 moms which everyone knows is nothing more that homosexuals trying to play house like real parents. So why is consent important when you want it to be, but unimportant when it works against you??

They can't consent to being born, for that matter. Or to be raised by their biological parents. And from what I've seen, most children being raised by same-sex couples are perfectly fine with their current situation. Also, you must once again prove that these children are worse off than they would be in an orphanage (I forget how far we got last time I brought this up... didn't it get to something about you saying that less "liberal" policies would lead to less children in orphanages, despite the fact that some people have their parents die and sometimes situations arise where a couple is suddenly unable to take care of their children, and that such policies wouldn't help in those cases?)

See video
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 6:07:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 3:08:38 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 1:19:40 PM, drhead wrote:
Please tell me how "redefining" marriage directly affects married couples in a negative way.

It changes the contract after it's already signed.
It changes a contract, but not the one the heterosexual couple signed. If I sign a phone contract and that phone contract is enforced, it doesn't matter if the phone company comes up with a new contract and gets the next batch of people to sign that, my contract doesn't change. Unless you believe exclusivity is somehow in the marriage contract and intrinsic to it. I would be very interested to know how many people agree with you.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 6:59:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 6:07:56 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/28/2013 3:08:38 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 1:19:40 PM, drhead wrote:
Please tell me how "redefining" marriage directly affects married couples in a negative way.

It changes the contract after it's already signed.
It changes a contract, but not the one the heterosexual couple signed. If I sign a phone contract and that phone contract is enforced, it doesn't matter if the phone company comes up with a new contract and gets the next batch of people to sign that, my contract doesn't change. Unless you believe exclusivity is somehow in the marriage contract and intrinsic to it. I would be very interested to know how many people agree with you.

I wouldn't agree with that.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 9:28:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 6:07:56 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/28/2013 3:08:38 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 1:19:40 PM, drhead wrote:
Please tell me how "redefining" marriage directly affects married couples in a negative way.

It changes the contract after it's already signed.

It changes a contract, but not the one the heterosexual couple signed.

Thank you. You just admitted that there is a difference between the two concepts and that marriage becomes something different once homosexuals are included. Therefore it is not wrong to discriminate against those who don't qualify.

If I sign a phone contract and that phone contract is enforced, it doesn't matter if the phone company comes up with a new contract and gets the next batch of people to sign that, my contract doesn't change. Unless you believe exclusivity is somehow in the marriage contract and intrinsic to it. I would be very interested to know how many people agree with you.

Not quite the same. Those are separate contracts negotiated with those individuals. Marriage is marriage, and those who are already married, agreed to be married under the old terms. Once you change what marriage is though, those people who signed on for one thing are still held legally liable under the new terms even though they never agreed to those terms. Would it still have been worth the legal responsibility that they took on, given the new meaning?? That is a rhetorical question for you, because you can't answer for those people.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 9:47:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 9:28:47 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/28/2013 6:07:56 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/28/2013 3:08:38 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 1:19:40 PM, drhead wrote:
Please tell me how "redefining" marriage directly affects married couples in a negative way.

It changes the contract after it's already signed.

It changes a contract, but not the one the heterosexual couple signed.

Thank you. You just admitted that there is a difference between the two concepts and that marriage becomes something different once homosexuals are included. Therefore it is not wrong to discriminate against those who don't qualify.
No, this is not how I view it at all. The concept that we refer to as marriage does not change, the word marriage refers to something different (or takes on two meanings). If I use doughnut to refer to the tasty things with holes in them, and then the government says that for legal purposes doughnuts will include both these and fish, then this doesn't change what a doughnut is. A doughnut is still a doughnut, and I can refer to either doughnuts or fish with the word 'doughnut'. And if no rights or obligations were added or taken away from doughnuts in the process of including fish in the 'legal' definition, then for the doughnut, nothing changes. Words are tools used to refer to concepts, nothing more. And legislation does not determine the meanings of words, only the effect of legislation. So yes, the meaning of the word changes, the relationship (which is the concept associated with the word) does not.

If I sign a phone contract and that phone contract is enforced, it doesn't matter if the phone company comes up with a new contract and gets the next batch of people to sign that, my contract doesn't change. Unless you believe exclusivity is somehow in the marriage contract and intrinsic to it. I would be very interested to know how many people agree with you.

Not quite the same. Those are separate contracts negotiated with those individuals. Marriage is marriage, and those who are already married, agreed to be married under the old terms. Once you change what marriage is though, those people who signed on for one thing are still held legally liable under the new terms even though they never agreed to those terms. Would it still have been worth the legal responsibility that they took on, given the new meaning?? That is a rhetorical question for you, because you can't answer for those people.
No I can't, but that's not the point. Can you give me an example of some legal protection or liability which would no longer exist or is added for heterosexual couples by the currently proposed amendments to allow homosexual marriages. If none exist then by this standard nothing has changed. You are arguing against allowing homosexual marriage 'in principle' which means that to support your position you would have to argue that there is no suitable change of legislation that could possibly take place to allow homosexual relationships the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual ones that would not infringe on these same rights and responsibilities. Can you explain why this is the case?

In other words, would you still oppose a copy of the marriage act using a different word 'homiage' to refer to homosexual relationships that included all the rights and responsibilities that are attached to marriage. Surely you cannot argue that this alters the 'contract' that married couples entered into? In which case, what's in a name?
TUF
Posts: 21,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 4:02:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 9:04:08 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Sexual orientation is an impulse, and not a behavior. You are not responsible for sex, race, or sexual orientation. Discrimination as a result of these is thus discrimination for factors that are beyond one's control.

Well said royal.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
TUF
Posts: 21,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 4:10:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 12:02:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Married people aren't consenting to have marriage redefined so in essence you're raping those that are already married, under the normal definition.

How does physically effect straight people?

Little kids can't consent to being raised in a freakshow with 2 dads or 2 moms

They don't consent to freakshows with one mom and one dad either. Poor fvcked up little kids...

which everyone knows is nothing more that homosexuals trying to play house like real parents.

Of course, everyone knows. This isn't a fallacy.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 6:53:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 4:46:46 AM, Jack212 wrote:
... are not equivalent.

Sorry, I couldn't fit it all in the title.

People often lump gender, race and sexual orientation in together, as if how we treat one affects how we treat the others. This is an argument from analogy, as the three variables are independent and very different from each other.

Sexual orientation is not like race. One is behavioral, the other is physical. You can hide the fact that you're gay, but you can't hide the fact you're black. Not practically, at least.

Race is not like gender. Racial characteristics are superficial and can be swapped around in the gene pool, while gender differences are fairly constant and fundamentally impact every aspect of a person's existence.

Gender is not like sexual orientation. Men can be gay or straight, but they're still men. What gender you are is a whole different issue.

I understand that I've probably stepped on some toes, but I needed to say this. I'm sick of people treating all these issues as if they're the same, because they're not and saying they are just leads to logical fallacies.

I agree 120%. For example when people compare the struggle of homosexuals to slavery. Apple and oranges.
TUF
Posts: 21,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 10:23:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 6:53:21 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:46:46 AM, Jack212 wrote:
... are not equivalent.

Sorry, I couldn't fit it all in the title.

People often lump gender, race and sexual orientation in together, as if how we treat one affects how we treat the others. This is an argument from analogy, as the three variables are independent and very different from each other.

Sexual orientation is not like race. One is behavioral, the other is physical. You can hide the fact that you're gay, but you can't hide the fact you're black. Not practically, at least.

Race is not like gender. Racial characteristics are superficial and can be swapped around in the gene pool, while gender differences are fairly constant and fundamentally impact every aspect of a person's existence.

Gender is not like sexual orientation. Men can be gay or straight, but they're still men. What gender you are is a whole different issue.

I understand that I've probably stepped on some toes, but I needed to say this. I'm sick of people treating all these issues as if they're the same, because they're not and saying they are just leads to logical fallacies.

I agree 120%. For example when people compare the struggle of homosexuals to slavery. Apple and oranges.

Different categories doesn't mean people do not discriminate for the same reasons.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 11:55:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 10:23:06 PM, TUF wrote:
At 7/29/2013 6:53:21 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:46:46 AM, Jack212 wrote:
... are not equivalent.

Sorry, I couldn't fit it all in the title.

People often lump gender, race and sexual orientation in together, as if how we treat one affects how we treat the others. This is an argument from analogy, as the three variables are independent and very different from each other.

Sexual orientation is not like race. One is behavioral, the other is physical. You can hide the fact that you're gay, but you can't hide the fact you're black. Not practically, at least.

Race is not like gender. Racial characteristics are superficial and can be swapped around in the gene pool, while gender differences are fairly constant and fundamentally impact every aspect of a person's existence.

Gender is not like sexual orientation. Men can be gay or straight, but they're still men. What gender you are is a whole different issue.

I understand that I've probably stepped on some toes, but I needed to say this. I'm sick of people treating all these issues as if they're the same, because they're not and saying they are just leads to logical fallacies.

I agree 120%. For example when people compare the struggle of homosexuals to slavery. Apple and oranges.

Different categories doesn't mean people do not discriminate for the same reasons.

Your right, but the struggle of slaves vs homosexuals differ greatly. Reasons beside, slaves have suffered more.
TUF
Posts: 21,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 12:01:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 11:55:20 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 7/29/2013 10:23:06 PM, TUF wrote:
At 7/29/2013 6:53:21 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:46:46 AM, Jack212 wrote:
... are not equivalent.

Sorry, I couldn't fit it all in the title.

People often lump gender, race and sexual orientation in together, as if how we treat one affects how we treat the others. This is an argument from analogy, as the three variables are independent and very different from each other.

Sexual orientation is not like race. One is behavioral, the other is physical. You can hide the fact that you're gay, but you can't hide the fact you're black. Not practically, at least.

Race is not like gender. Racial characteristics are superficial and can be swapped around in the gene pool, while gender differences are fairly constant and fundamentally impact every aspect of a person's existence.

Gender is not like sexual orientation. Men can be gay or straight, but they're still men. What gender you are is a whole different issue.

I understand that I've probably stepped on some toes, but I needed to say this. I'm sick of people treating all these issues as if they're the same, because they're not and saying they are just leads to logical fallacies.

I agree 120%. For example when people compare the struggle of homosexuals to slavery. Apple and oranges.

Different categories doesn't mean people do not discriminate for the same reasons.

Your right, but the struggle of slaves vs homosexuals differ greatly. Reasons beside, slaves have suffered more.

Nothing I said had anything to with slaves though
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 9:45:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 12:01:28 AM, TUF wrote:
At 7/29/2013 11:55:20 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 7/29/2013 10:23:06 PM, TUF wrote:
At 7/29/2013 6:53:21 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:46:46 AM, Jack212 wrote:
... are not equivalent.

Sorry, I couldn't fit it all in the title.

People often lump gender, race and sexual orientation in together, as if how we treat one affects how we treat the others. This is an argument from analogy, as the three variables are independent and very different from each other.

Sexual orientation is not like race. One is behavioral, the other is physical. You can hide the fact that you're gay, but you can't hide the fact you're black. Not practically, at least.

Race is not like gender. Racial characteristics are superficial and can be swapped around in the gene pool, while gender differences are fairly constant and fundamentally impact every aspect of a person's existence.

Gender is not like sexual orientation. Men can be gay or straight, but they're still men. What gender you are is a whole different issue.

I understand that I've probably stepped on some toes, but I needed to say this. I'm sick of people treating all these issues as if they're the same, because they're not and saying they are just leads to logical fallacies.

I agree 120%. For example when people compare the struggle of homosexuals to slavery. Apple and oranges.

Different categories doesn't mean people do not discriminate for the same reasons.

Your right, but the struggle of slaves vs homosexuals differ greatly. Reasons beside, slaves have suffered more.

Nothing I said had anything to with slaves though

No, but what I said did. Were you not commenting on my post about slaves and homosexuals?
TUF
Posts: 21,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 1:07:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 9:45:25 AM, Df0512 wrote:
Nothing I said had anything to with slaves though

No, but what I said did. Were you not commenting on my post about slaves and homosexuals?

Slaves shouldn't really have been brought up though. Most of the relevancy here should apply to the discrimination that blacks received long after slavery was abolished. That is what is similar to the discrimination gays receive.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 3:41:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Look at it this way -

What if only some people were allowed to get married and have children - maybe the ones born with "desirable" traits like appearance, strength, intelligence, etc. - and the rest weren't even allowed to have sex because of the risk of conceiving children or because only sex to have children is considered moral, etc. If someone who is not chosen to have a kid falls in love, has sex, etc, they risk being fired from work, thrown in prison, beaten, or killed. Maybe they are allowed to marry and have sex with the same sex, since they can't have children that way, but straight people feel that is deeply unfair.

This is kind of how gays have felt in our society for centuries up until now (and still do in many places). Their attractions were not allowed to be consummated by having sex or a relationship with the people they fell in love with. If they are discovered acting on their attractions, they risk having their lives ruined or ended.

Yes, gays can hide their sexual orientation, and yes, gays can avoid lots of discrimination by remaining celibate, but that does not mean that the discrimination the have faced is not egregious and enough to drive many to suicide.

Since anyone of any race, gender, or class can be gay, being gay has not been associated with slavery or poverty, although quite a few gays, especially ones that are economically disadvantaged to begin with, are paid less then their straight counterparts for the same work.

Have slaves as their descendants suffered more than gays? I don't know and I do not think it is relevant. Any discrimination that can lead gays to be among the groups targeted by the Holocaust is horrible enough that is not not worthwhile asking whether or not it is as bad as some other kinds of discrimination. The point is, it must stop.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 3:54:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 1:07:21 PM, TUF wrote:
At 7/30/2013 9:45:25 AM, Df0512 wrote:
Nothing I said had anything to with slaves though

No, but what I said did. Were you not commenting on my post about slaves and homosexuals?

Slaves shouldn't really have been brought up though. Most of the relevancy here should apply to the discrimination that blacks received long after slavery was abolished. That is what is similar to the discrimination gays receive.

My point was not to highlight the similarities. It was to highlight the differences. That is the difference between black people and homosexuals. What you are saying totally defeats the purpose of mycomment. You point is valid but opposite of mine.
TUF
Posts: 21,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 4:12:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 3:54:48 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 7/30/2013 1:07:21 PM, TUF wrote:
At 7/30/2013 9:45:25 AM, Df0512 wrote:
Nothing I said had anything to with slaves though

No, but what I said did. Were you not commenting on my post about slaves and homosexuals?

Slaves shouldn't really have been brought up though. Most of the relevancy here should apply to the discrimination that blacks received long after slavery was abolished. That is what is similar to the discrimination gays receive.

My point was not to highlight the similarities. It was to highlight the differences. That is the difference between black people and homosexuals. What you are saying totally defeats the purpose of mycomment. You point is valid but opposite of mine.

So ultimately if you saw the same discriminatory comments made at black people, made towards gays, you would say that it qualifies as the same discrimination?
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 4:40:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 4:12:02 PM, TUF wrote:
At 7/30/2013 3:54:48 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 7/30/2013 1:07:21 PM, TUF wrote:
At 7/30/2013 9:45:25 AM, Df0512 wrote:
Nothing I said had anything to with slaves though

No, but what I said did. Were you not commenting on my post about slaves and homosexuals?

Slaves shouldn't really have been brought up though. Most of the relevancy here should apply to the discrimination that blacks received long after slavery was abolished. That is what is similar to the discrimination gays receive.

My point was not to highlight the similarities. It was to highlight the differences. That is the difference between black people and homosexuals. What you are saying totally defeats the purpose of mycomment. You point is valid but opposite of mine.

So ultimately if you saw the same discriminatory comments made at black people, made towards gays, you would say that it qualifies as the same discrimination?

@rockwater

I humbly disagree. Knowing the difference is very important. Maybe not to you, but my grandfather will tell you different. I do not mean to look down on gay rights. I think it has been a tough fight and the gay community deserve equal rights. No one deserves to be treated less than any other person. But the difference is to great to ignore. And I dnt really you have a good understanding of just how much slaves suffered because there is no question that slaves suffered more. And thats just a fact. I dont need to have an opinion on the matter to come to that conclusion. Gay rights should be treated seperately and handled separately and not compared to any other struggle. It is a struggle all on its own no need to bring others into it.

@TUF

If the black person was gay yes. Wouldnt it technically be the same. If the black person wasn't gay im not sure what i would think. I am not saying that as of today calling me a nigger is worse then calling me a f*g. Im sure it stings just as much. I am specifically talking about slaves. That was what my original comment was about. Not black people today. I pesonally see the similarities between ion the discrimination but someone older, who has lived through the worst of it, may disagree.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 4:43:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Heres something interesting. My post originally had f a g in it but the filter wouldn't let me post it. Nigger didnt seem to trigger the filter however. Does anyone think that holds any significance?