At the center of it all
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
?
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
MrBishop said:
If the people deem that gays are not a minority group (they aren't), then gays do not deserve 'special' treatment under the law. As for your words 'Gay-Bashing', am I deluded for saying that
? No, I'm not. You are delusional if you think this problem is bigger than 2 or three morons per square mile who have no respect for their fellow human beings. Does the term 'out of proportion' mean anything to you? Fact is, that there aren't as many violent acts as you've been led to believe. The media has a habit of focusing on one, or two, cases of something extreme, and it looks like everybody is doing it.Gato said:
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
PuterTutor said:
A crime is a crime. Assault and Battery is Assault and Battery. Murder is Murder. The ends don't justify the means any more than the means justifys the ends. What you're comparing is apples to oranges. I'll explain this one last time. How do you know if a person is homosexual? They tell you. No racism required. That person, if faced with said morons, has made themselves a statistic. How do you know if a person is non-white? All you have to do is look. Nothing has to be said/done/hinted at.
Ok, Gato. Apparently you don't know what Gay-bashing is. I'll tell you about it. In Kansas City, there is a place where gays hang out. I can't remember the name of the place at the moment, probably come to me about 10:30 tonight when I'm trying to go to sleep. Anyway, it is considered good fun by some groups to go to this place, and beat the living snot out of someone because they are gay. Now, I doubt they go up and ask the person if they are gay beforehand, rather they assume they are gay by the way they look, and the fact that they are at this location. So, tell me the difference again?
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
Gato_Solo said:
I say it again...they're not asking for special treatment...or minority status...they're asking for equality.
As PT pointed out, it's not the proportion that matters so much...it's a single group being singled out because of a single or multiple aspects of their being, called inferior, treated inferior and being physically attacked or verbally abuse because they aren't like everyone else.
Let's avoid the more obvious physical differrences and talk religion. Anti-semetic acts. Beyond the more obvious clues (certain styles of clothing worn by the more orthodox Jews) .. there are no immediate ways of looking at someone and saying "They're Jewish". Yet Jews are preyed upon by certain groups (far out of proportion to the norm)...
Should Jews denounce their religion in order to avoid this type of persecution? Isn't their religion a choice?
as for the 2-3 morons per square mile statement - that's fits the bill if you're talking about violence (outright)..but not when you're talking about descrimination, hateful or fearful stares, verbal abuse etc... then you're talking about a far larger portion of the population.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
MrBishop said:
So now you bring religion into the picture? Same thing. If you don't tell someone your religion, and your religion is one that has no visible clothing or appearance covenants, then you blend quite well into the society at large. You have to tell someone in order to become a statistic. As for whether the groups that hate you target your place of worship, then you have a right to retaliate while such nonsense is going on. Especially if there are witnesses while such nonsense is going on. Outnumbered or otherwise, the right to self-defense is still a viable option. There are some that espouse the pacifist view. That is their right, and the responsibility to protect those folks is encumbent on anyone else who is in the area...
Thulsa Doom
New Member
damn it! i hate it when im given an easy challenge but i come long after others have knocked it out of the park a half a dozen times.
*walks away dejected*
*walks away dejected*
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
Gato_Solo said:
I'm trying to draw a parallel between invisible minorities which are being attacked or treated unfairly. and before you jump on the term 'minority'..I'm using it in the statistical aspect. Less than 50%.
Homosexuals have few defenders and few people who would come to their rescue IRL or otherwise. If this thread is any indication...gays have fewer support than I had suspected and far more detractors.
Situation: You don't strike me as a pacifist, who would let someone be beaten up without acting, or the kind who would see a store-front being vandalized without at least calling the police.
would you afford the same consideration if you knew that the person being assaulted was gay, and/or if the storefront in question was a 'gay-café' in the village? Would you opinions that homosexuality was a choice affect your choice? Would you feel encumbant to help?
Now..please...I am not trying to make any statement regarding your values towards humans or humanity in general...I am trying to see if you are willing to treat homosexuals as you would heterosexuals and if so, why this would be any different in such a case(s) and not so when it comes to other rights/freedoms/equality.
I respect your opinion and your intellect Gato...but I fail to see why a person's sexuality or lack thereof has any part in this discussion...or any other discussion when we are talking about rights/freedoms/equality.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
MrBishop said:
Answers to your scenario questions are, in order,
yes.
no.
yes.
In answer to your bottom statement, I have this to say. If what you're doing has been deemed illegal, and you do it anyway without first challenging the legality of the law, then you deserve whatever punishment the law decides. If you have done the basic steps neccesary to make the changes, and nothing has changed, then, as long as nobody elses rights are violated, you have a responsibility towards civil disobedience.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
Gato_Solo said:
Is homosexuality illegal or merely immoral? I understand that in some states that anal-intercourse is illegal even with consenting adults, but I don't think that this is what you're driving at.If it is, the lesbian relationships(which does not use this practice) is perfectly legal. In addition, not all gay-male couples use anal intercourse, and SOME heterosexual couples do.
If it is, I put to you that the homosexual populace has tried to make the changes through the necessary paths but without responce and what we're seeing now (in the media) is civil dsobedience in the form of gay-marriages being performed in San Francisco (to name one location where they're being performed).
As for the violation of others rights...I don't see how one person's marriage affects anyone else's...unless it's bigamy, of course. Gay marraige does not reduce or affect the rights of heterosexual couples to get married IMHO.