Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jwalsh07
Homosexuals, as a group, have never been enslaved, lynched, equated to 3/5 of a human being or denied rights based on the color of their skin.

First, your statement is a tautology. Since the defining characteristic of "homosexuals, as a group" is not the color of their skin but rather their sexual orientation, of course they have not been oppressed "based on the color of their skin".

I presume that the point you were really trying to get at is that blacks as a group have suffered enormous oppression and harm, unlike homosexuals as a group. I think it's indisputable that blacks have suffered far more harm overall than homosexuals (mostly because it was easier to identify blacks). Still, there have been a significant number of killings of homosexuals because they were discovered to be homosexual, and in the past they have been denied rights and sometimes thrown in jail merely for being homosexual.

Discrimination against homosexuals shares many similarities in kind if not in degree with past discrimination against blacks. (Discrimination has declined drastically for both groups, but blacks have generally been about two or three decades ahead.) And current attitudes about gay marriage can very definitely be analogized to past attitudes about interracial marriage. If that analogy makes you uncomfortable, maybe there's a good reason...

107 posted on 02/17/2004 5:43:41 PM PST by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies ]


To: dpwiener
First, your statement is a tautology

No, my statement was a factually accurate one in all of its components.

Self identified homosexuals are one of the wealthiest sub groups of Americans. They are hardly the "victims" of discrimination.

Now that may make you feel uncomfortable when making fallacious analogies but thats life weiner.

You failed to address my original thesis which succinctly stated id this: No matter what one does with ones genitals, one can get married as long as the marriage contains one from the male column and one from the female column. No discrimination.

You are lobbying for special privileges for a specific sub group of Americans based on what they do with their genitalia.

To be consistent you should, at least, expand your argument to include argue polyamory, polygamy, asexual marriage of convenience. Or do you support discrimination against those choices?

108 posted on 02/17/2004 6:02:12 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson