Gay rights are the new civil rights era?

Yes definately.

In America in the fifties and sixties, the African-American people had to fight for their basic human rights that are supposed to be garunteed to every American in the constitution. The fight for the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans is no different. These are people who face extreme amounts of discrimination and prejudice daily because of something about themselves that they can’t change. Something that society is telling them is wrong because it is different. People say that heterosexual couples are the way it has always been and the way it should always be, but throughout history there have been many great heros and people who we study and idolize now were not entirely, if at all, heterosexual.
66% Voted for by dauer, Third-Evasion, BlindedGrin, newuniverse.
View 5 comments Hide Comments
Please login or register to comment.
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
- right now
  
  Adding your comment:
- jfritzyb
  April 17, 2005
  Edit | Reply
  
  Hmmm...
  Romans 1....Because people did not like to think about God, He let them do what they wanted to do. One of the things mentioned is the gay lifestyle. It's in the Bible--Romans 1. Blacks are different. I fail to see any similarities besides "persecution". Blacks have black skin--that was mainly the only thing that made them the talk of the nation. Gays on the other hand, are a whole different lifestyle--men sleeping with men and ladies sleeping with ladies. "Leaving the natural use...." of one another to engage in shameful activities. We're talking about a disbalance in nature--not a "skin color" issue. There is a difference between lifestyle and skin color. A lifestyle is more of a way of doing something--an issue of the heart that only God can change. And believe me, God DETESTS this kind of stuff. Romans 1 is the chapter to read. In Deuteronomy, God made a law that this kind of activity should NOT happen! So, I detest the activity. Now, I believe that with the Lord's help, they can change. Finally...There are x-gay and x-lesbians that have quit this lifestyle and instead, have turned to Christ. In fact, their are x-homosexuals that marry one another! I know it sounds odd, but it's true. So, they do have the ability to change with the Lord's help... ...Speaking of what God wants us to do, one of the things He required us to do was to keep the Sabbath holy. And right now, it's five in the morning over here. I got a nap in earlier so that's why I stayed up late. However....That is no excuse. This is my day to meditate and ponder about God and how wonderful He is--and best of all, I get to meditate about His love! So, I'll hopefully see you folks later. My hour with God has come, and I don't need to miss it. What better time to read the Bible than five in the morning? You folks need to read Psalms sometime....it's great!
- - Kazrith
    April 18, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    
    so now we are denouncing -lifestyles? now what is the world coming to? next we are going to be prosicuting jewish people for not eating pork! (this _is_ a different lifestyle and if our religion says we should eat pork, does that mean that they are somehow in the wrong?) think about the broader picture, its bigger than a lot of people think
  - newuniverse
    April 23, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    
    Don't you dare bring a book, written by unperfect men, traslated to death for 2000+ years into what certian people want it to be into a debate that is now in a SECUALR America. If homosexuality is biological, are we to denounce people for who they are inside, just as whites thought they were superior to minorities for the last 400 years. Learn abotu the science of homosexuality and perhaps rethink your opinion.
  - BlindedGrin
    May 15, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    
    "There are x-gay and x-lesbians that have quit this lifestyle and instead, have turned to Christ." There are not. True, there are those whom have said that they are "no longer" Gay or Lesbian, and marry someone of the opposite sex. True, they may feel affection for them, but that does not mean that they are still not ATTRACTED to those of the SAME GENDER. Being Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, Bisexual, or Questioning is NOT a choice, it is something you have no will over. It is a common mistake people make, when they say that it is a choice and can be changed; it cannot. When you are Gay or Lesbian it means that you are SEXUALLY ATTRACTED to those of the same sex, and not those of the opposite sex. There is no way you can change this. I didn't just get up one morning and say "Hey, you know, I think I will be attracted to women now." And make a choice as to who I would be attracted to sexually, it was an attraction I always had since my body had started producing hormones; even if I did not realize what it meant until a bit later in my days. Even if I did not want to, because I would be different from many of those around me. It is also a mistake to say that the fight for Gay Rights is unlike the struggle for Equal Rights that the African Americans faced; it's not. Being Gay or Lesbian does not make you any less human, does not make you any lower than any one else. Yet, people make it that way. Those whom are Gay or Questioning are often seen as lower than those who are Heterosexual. JUST AS WE USED TO SEE AFRICAN AMERICANS AS LOWER BECAUSE OF THEIR SKIN COLOUR. You don't hear about any Ex-African-Americans, do you? So in the end, just as what colour of skin we have is not a choice we got to make, our sexuality is not either. Those whom are Lesbian, Gay, Transgender, or Questioning should have every right those whom are Heterosexual have. They should not be discriminated against, but should instead be accepted as humans and no different from anyone else. Why is it so hard for everyone to live on equal level?
  - atrain
    June 29, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    
    While I can believe that some homosexuals are born with an innate attraction to the same sex, I can also believe that some choose this. Either way, I don't think that your argument can work for people who are transgender. Is it not the most obvious biological fact that they were born a man or woman and CHOSE to have a sex change. I am not saying that they should be overtly discriminated against, but this kind of undermines your statement that they didn't choose their orientations.
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
right now

Adding your reply:
Your Comment:

yes

i find it hard to believe it has taken this long for gays to fight for equal rights. first we had african americans, we had women and it is their turn to get equal rights with the rest of us, we are all human and all dfferent. they are americans as well and deserve the rights we ourselves have!

_Ash

33% Voted for by dauer, ohsweetie2788.

View 19 comments

right now

Adding your comment:
ExistentialTheist
April 17, 2005
Edit | Reply

O I didnt realize that gays didnt have right to vote, were looked upon as less qualified for jobs or had to use separate restrooms. Equating the gay rights movement to the others mentioned sickens me.
- crimsonsharpie
  August 12, 2005
  Edit | Reply
  
  They may have more rights than african americans did during the civil rights movement, but they still don't have equal rights. And just because the rights homosexuals are fighting for are not the same as the blacks were, does not mean that they are not as important. There are other similarities between the two concerning the bible. Both segregation and the leaglity of homosexuals marrying are based on arguments out of the bible. Yet the "children of ham" argument used to justify segregation back in the 1960's was dropped, so people obviously did not agree with it that strongly in the first place. I often wonder what happened to this argument. And so it makes me think that in the future the homosexuality argument out of the bible will also be dropped. History does have a way of repating itself.
newuniverse
April 23, 2005
Edit | Reply

Gays are begin persecuted for who they are, something that they cannot change, just as previous groups were, and the theory hold the same.
ExistentialTheist
April 23, 2005
Edit | Reply

In order to consider gays persecuted you would have to put one heck of a twist on the verb. Although admittedly I am one who adheres more to Christian ethics, Im often not a big adherent to enforcing beliefs by law, nor do I dislike gays as people (I consider homosexual acts wrong, but I also consider smoking, cussing, lying, teasing, etc. to be wrong, several of which I am guilty and therefore do not consider myself above gays nor anyone else on any level). I do, however, think there is FAR less at stake in the gay rights movement and frankly do not agree that in most cases sexual preference is as etched in stone as gender or skin color (gay gene research is sham science according to all of my friends going into the medical/biological field, a couple of whom are gay themselves). I have infinite respect for the other civil rights movements mentioned. I considered them very necessary for the welfare of these groups and their patriarchs/matriarchs to be great American heroes, and I think it is extremely disrespectful to these two movements to equate them to a fight for what? Official recognition within a single institution that frankly has very little effect on their welfare but a little pocket change? I must wonder what "theory" holds the same, what postulate or cause could weave these three movements together without hacking down the far more serious nature of these other two movements.
- newuniverse
  April 23, 2005
  Edit | Reply
  
  Matthew Sheperd wasn't serious, that's very interesting to hear.
ExistentialTheist
April 23, 2005
Edit | Reply

Matthew Sheperd was a hate crime. Those still exist regarding every race or creed regardless of whether there is a civil rights movement going on or not. Now if were going to debate thats one thing, but do NOT put words in my mouth and make ridiculous inferences to attack my character like that. Matthew Sheperd's death was not taken more lightly by society when they learned that he was gay. If it were a black person during their civil rights movement, however, it WOULD have been looked upon as less serious than if a white person were killed and therein lies the difference. Now considering your entire post was devoted to fallaciously putting words in my mouth and not really making a valid point, why dont you try again. In the cases of the other civil rights movements, African-Americans and women were protesting practices that society as a whole deemed acceptable. Matthew Sheperd's death certainly was a tragedy and no one here is seeking to take away from that, but to equate his death with the main focus of the gay civil rights movement is completely fallacious. I would indeed side with a gay organization that sought to promote tolerance and prevent hate crimes from happening, but this IS NOT the norm. I do not put much stock in gay civil rights groups that puppet the issues they do but then are equated by others to civil rights movements of decades past.
Kazrith
June 18, 2005
Edit | Reply

"this IS NOT the norm?" what is that supposed to mean? that this issue isnt as important as black or asian or any other kind of person? Matthew Sheperd died tied to a fence and it was the first big shock and awe on the gay topic. each person has rights, and they are just as important as anyone elses. you cannot say that it isnt as important. you are obviously not gay or lesbian so you do not know what it is like to be on the other side of the street. this is what i got from your post, it is the way you wrote it, and it is how i read it. hate crimes are important, no matter when or who or how. its just the person who decides if it is important enough for them. and it obviously wasnt important enough for you
ExistentialTheist
June 24, 2005
Edit | Reply

Umm no.... way to person number 2 on this post to put words in my mouth. Cant get enough of that. If you noticed I equated civil rights movements with government policies. I think a hate crime is a hate crime, no matter who it is committed against and I am equally in uproar over it as the next guy. However, the government reacted to it as it should have, and gays enjoy the same rights as the rest of us. Before you paint me as some insensitive member of the religious right, take into consideration that I have had many gay friends and have always treated them as any other friends-- I disagree with homosexuality but I also disagree with many things I and everyone else does. My position is not that I despise gay people, it is that I dont consider gay civil rights movement to be as important for gay welfare as the relevant ones were for women and African-Americans. If it is the person who decides if it is important enough for them, then they sure better have some good reasons behind the movement's purported significance. Equating Sheperd's death with a civil rights movement is a fallacious connection. His murderers were twisted individuals, not hands of Johnny Law. The fact is this tragedy is often manipulated to hold up completely unrelated issues, which truly angers me as well, for it puts Sheperd's death in the background (obviously referring to gay marriage here). The only argument I've been offered by both of you is essentially "how could you demean Matthew Sheperd like that-- so insensitive"? You might want to take a look at this alleged civil rights movement and see who is really making a profit from this tragedy.
- Kazrith
  June 27, 2005
  Edit | Reply
  
  so what you are essentually saying is that if i really didnt think that the female suffage was important then it really wasnt improtant. and if didnt like black people that they are not important either? everything is important in the grand scale, weither you want it to or not.
ExistentialTheist
June 29, 2005
Edit | Reply

No I believe I gave very concrete reasons why one was more important than the other. Reread all my posts please.
- Kazrith
  June 30, 2005
  Edit | Reply
  
  so how do you classify something as important? do you have a scale somewhere that you use to measure such a thing with? or is it one or the other? immortatant or not.
ExistentialTheist
June 30, 2005
Edit | Reply

Heh....speaking in generals eh? Since the attempt at an argument you just made is so ridiculous.... Yes I have an importance ruler that I measure everything with. Its made of wood but its always objective and about 90 percent of the time it reads within the nearest level of significance (it rounds down).
ExistentialTheist
June 30, 2005
Edit | Reply

To take the issue seriously and without mockery, as you seem so inclined to initiate, it depends on the situation as to how i gauge importance, and I leave it to you to argue with what I have said in my posts. Instead you seem to have given it the good old culturally relativistic retreat and regurgitated that stale old formula: "That's just your interpretation". Instead of doing so, I suggest in the nature of worthwhile debate that you tell what precisely is wrong with my analysis.
- Kazrith
  June 30, 2005
  Edit | Reply
  
  well, for starters no matter what argument i give you, you will will deny you being that way so i will not waste any more of my time trying to explain something to a brick wall.
- - ExistentialTheist
    July 2, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    
    Awww dont be angry because your attempts to demean my argument by attacking my person have failed ;) . In doing philosophy take an argument for its word rather than considering the speaker. Just some advice.
ExistentialTheist
July 2, 2005
Edit | Reply

O and out of curiousity where was an argument from your end? For the most part it looked to me as though you werent really making an argument, but that you were attempting to characterize me. I am a very open-minded person and have many friends that have belief systems opposite to my own. The reason you may feel as though your "arguments" fall on deaf ears is because you are spending too much time trying to attack me rather than my argument or opinion, which of course is something that someone trying to engage in DEBATE cannot stand.
- Kazrith
  July 4, 2005
  Edit | Reply
  
  too much time attacking you? never have i once attacked you. i stated my cmmment that nothing should be classified as the "norm" there is no such thing as a "norm" give me an exmple of something that is of "norm" then. besides, you are trying to say things are not as important as they really are. try to stick with your original argument.
ExistentialTheist
July 5, 2005
Edit | Reply

Okay well here's an example of something that is the norm: multiracial restrooms. This is the norm. Decades ago this was not the norm. I believe that it is important that this became the norm. Do you disagree or should nothing be the norm? Regarding Matthew Shepherd's death, however, this was not the norm, nor will it be following the so-called gay civil rights movement. I can present you with a number of things that were at stake in both the womens' and African-Americans' civil rights movements that are not present in the gay civil rights movement. Furthermore, the former were based on purely physical traits in people whereas the latter is based at the very least partially on action. For reasons stated among others that would be far too exhaustive to get in to I believe the other civil rights movements in question brought about much more noticeable and necessary progress than the gay civil rights movement possibly could, regardless of what side you are on. In no way have I deviated from my argument at any point, although you might want to stop hiding behind that good old relativistic retreat that is the suicide of philosophy as by this point the burden of proof is most certainly on you. Patiently waiting your response.
- Kazrith
  July 7, 2005
  Edit | Reply
  
  well present away and then i will tell you what i think. norm is a debased derived word of normal. and nothing is normal. that was a required change. but it is a physical thing and a physical difference is easier for people to except because they can see it. there are two reasons why homosexual acceptance is hard to come by. do you know what they are?

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free

A Question On The Matter

I am by no means prejudiced against or hateful of homosexuals; I even know a few myself. But there is an important thing I had read once that requires clarification, if any of you can help me.

I had read once that there was some psychological and biological research into homosexuality, and that the prevailing opinion was that homosexuality is caused by something like a hormonal imbalance. I even recently saw an article saying that homosexual men's brains reacted to scents in the same way a female brain would. That quite intrigued me that homosexual men were basically wired to be women; the chemistry of the brain was all wrong.

So my question is: if homosexuality is largely caused by a chemical imbalance of the brain (like many mental disorders - for instance, depression), could we really consider homosexuality to be almost a seperate "race" of people? Certainly, I have never heard of Depressed People's Rights, or a March for Schizophrenic Rights.

And if this is indeed the reason homosexuality exists, are we required ethically/morally/legally/whatever to asisst in helping these people correct the imbalance, as in any other illness? Should we be developing hormonal medical treatments and possibly psychiatric help, or, since such an imbalance causes no harm, do we just "leave them be" if they do not wish it?

View 1 comment