View Full Version : Difference between racism against gays and minorties.
07-17-01, 03:54 PM
Racism is has its roots in the appearance of other groups, weather racial, or religious. In some situation every different ethnic group has experienced racism, even whites. Some religions can be easily identified by the casual observer, Muslim women wear headdresses in America. Since different races can be ID'd by physical appearance, or accents this makes them relatively easy to identify and therefore discriminate against.
Homosexuals and lesbians are different. Though there are stereotypical physical, or attitudes projected by gays. Few gay men or women can be tagged by physical appearance. Homosexuality occurs in every race that I can currently think of, so therefore it separates it from other groups to be hated.
My basic point: Is racism against gays, different than against minorities (i.e. the way they are identified, treated, and protected). I've been thinking about this for a while, and want to get a lot of replies.
07-18-01, 01:20 AM
umm...you cant be racsist against gays. You can be discriminatory towards them, or display hatred, but racism is a racial distinction.
But back to what I think was your intended subject, no, hatred towards homsexuals is no different then other types of hatred.
Yes, I realize that homosexuality is a "chosen" behavior as opposed to a genetically defined reality, but hatred is hatred, and it is always wrong.
Now, I do believe there is a difference between disliking gays versus disliking other groups. But when you display your dislike through discrimination and intolerance, it is the same.
Yes, I realize that homosexuality is a "chosen" behavior as opposed to a genetically defined reality, but hatred is hatred, and it is always wrong. Though it's not my intent today to argue your definition of chosen, Hudson, I did feel the need to comment. You have raised a very important point with the perspective.
* Some folks who feel homosexuality is chosen feel differently about intolerance than you have expressed. Bearing that in mind ...
* Is religious faith not chosen?
The reason I ask this is that it affects many of the reasons why some people are intolerant and will show themselves as anemic in this perspective. If we consider the Intolerants of the past, they include groups like the OCA, Colorado for Family Values, Phyllis Schlafly's organization (can't remember the name, but it advocated that public school textbooks should be selected according to Christian criteria), 700 Club, and others. To then look at the things these groups say about homosexuality demonstrates the paucity of their arguments.
To take the OCA, for instance: their constant issue is that homosexuality is dangerous to children. This danger arises from two primary fears: A) That one's child will prefer the company of the same gender, B) That a pervert will molest one's child. To stick to the latter, which is exceptionally relevant, a number of possible juxtapositions arise.
* Add up the number of crimes against children: I am willing to wager good money that the majority of the perpetrators believe in God and draw their primary theology from Christianity.
* Should we then demonstrate the danger of Christianity to children, mark its danger as its revocation of constitutional rights, and fire every Christian state employee? Should we, upon demonstrating the danger of Christianity, remove all literary references from public libraries that don't condemn it? This is what bigots choosing this paradigm said about the homosexual choice. Considering the evidence of the detriment caused by the two choices ....?
Whatever standard we apply to homosexuals for their "choice" is a standard we must apply to ourselves; if we see harm in a "chosen" paradigm such as whom to sleep with, then what of those paradigms that have no biology behind them, and are sheerly elective?
And that's the problem. Homosexuals are as human as the next person, and what deviations from interpersonal propriety a homosexual takes bear no greater weight than if that homosexual was heterosexual. A molested child is a molested child, and it matters not how the molester thinks of their self.
We further encounter the problem in this juxtaposition of what people believe about the homosexual "choice": I'm aware that you aren't the OCA's Phillip Ramsdell, but I've always wondered if anyone, Christian or not, homophobe or not, can explain to me how it works, according to Mr Ramsdell's argument, that gay men commit 95% of the sexual offenses against young girls.
This is the kind of stereotype that leads to bigotry against homosexuality.
This topic is a compelling issue, and my official answer to the question is that No, there is no difference, and I base this upon an a principle I've given greater attention lately--and this is written with the religious objections to homosexuality in mind: I do not understand where people like the OCA's Mabon or Ramsdell, or any bigot in the name of religion, found the temerity to demand that people be something other than that which God made them. It seems a contradiction of principles, which illustrates the human authority which compels people to bigotry instead of honoring God's creation.
That I focus on religious anti-gay sentiment should not be surprising: I just didn't hear the atheist segment of Oregon pounding the table for the ostracism of homosexuality.
Anyway ... my thanx to both Curly for the topic and Hudson for such a thought-provoking perspective; take care, all ....
07-18-01, 04:23 PM
Let me be clear, I'm not going to debate weather or not racism is different against gays, or minorities.
But I will argue that homosexuality isn't necessarily a "choice". Because if homosexuality was a choice, that means on the other side of the spectrum heterosexuality is a choice. I didn't pick myself to be heterosexual, though I am content with my sexual preference. I've heard many gay people, men and women that they always kind of knew that they were gay. I would assume that they meant from a fairly young age, meaning that this couldn't be a choice. Most people that are young (under age 10) haven't heard the word "gay", or knows what constitutes being gay.
Weather this a genetic phenomenon is another story. Until we find the gene, there isn't any proof supporting that claim.
Maybe its a cross between genetics and society. Say that there is a certain chemical or process that makes heterosexuality or homosexuality more prevalent. If there was an increase or deficiency in this chemical, coupled with society and upbringing then maybe that's a reason why people are gay. At the end, homo or heterosexuality I think is something that God created.
Tiassa, I also believe that homosexuals should be treated as any other human being, because there is very little that separates groups from the whole of humanity. Maybe when the public at large learns this society will function a lot better.
Thanks for replying both of you.
07-18-01, 05:34 PM
I put the word choice in quotation marks to avoid this debate ...:)
I also believe that homosexualty is not chosen, but I really don't want to start a debate with anti-homosexual zealots.
07-18-01, 06:28 PM
I'll take your word for it.
07-18-01, 07:47 PM
I think the homosexual movement has tried to attach itself to the civil rights movement because of the political momentum of the civil rights movement. The lopsided studies trying to show a "gay gene" (you can find common genetic code for almost any group of individuals--the genome is just too big) and other things like that were to try and help reenforce that idea. The main problem with this is that the civil rights movement is then minimalized because the vast majority of people believe that homosexuals should have equal rights anyway--which was definitely not the case before the civil rights movement in the south.
Also, advocating that homosexuality is not a choice has a downside to it. The good side is of course, that it stifles much of the hatred towards homosexuals themselves. If they can't choose it then who are we to cast blame? I would argue, who are we to cast blame anyway? Our primary intrest should be to keep people from harm. The downside, however, is that if it is not a choice (or habit, or addiction), then what hope do those have who want to get out of a homosexual lifestyle? We could just say that they should accept who they are, but then what about the medical hazards that come from practicing homosexuality? Surely someone could say that they do not want to be in the lifestyle for those reasons.
07-18-01, 08:05 PM
All of your points were pretty good, to the point I have little or no problems that I wish to concern. Except for two...
If there was a gay gene discovered, I would have heard about it by now. This would be a MASSIVE story. I hope there isn't a gay gene because of the simple reason, it may be nullified before birth by parents, which would create a pre-natal genocide of gays who would be raised with straight parents. This brings a ton of debate which can be explored later, for the sake of time and space.
Number two, what medical dangers are there from homosexual activity, i.e. sex versus heterosexual sex? Just because different body openings and parts are being used, doesn't mean there is an increased risk of getting an STD. Even though AIDS may be slightly more previlant in gay society.
07-21-01, 07:45 AM
discrimination of people or beings that is not founded in the act of
symbiotic evolution is founded purely in a form of mental dissability and should be treated as such!
most of us want to be considerd better than what most define as an animal...
HOWEVER most are incapable of seperating their animalistic impulses to avoid predjudice!
chew that over and c if it helps to sift some of the mud from the water.
groove on all :)
07-21-01, 05:58 PM
I disagree, my reason is in the older post named "Racism". Besides that, this was more of a thread on RACISM, not prejudice, which are close but distinctly different.
07-21-01, 06:36 PM
OF HOMOSEXUALS WERE YOU SHOWING PREDJUDICE ABOUT?
THE BLICK ONES?
OR JUST THE CHRISTIAN EUROPEAN GAY MEN?
please enlighten us!
groove on all :)
07-22-01, 06:49 AM
I was refering to all non minorty homosexuals, and to race I was talking specificly about minorities. Your right which types can alter the way this thread can be replied too. Sorry for the lack of details.