Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What does that have to do with equating race and sexuality?
Which, again, I've answered your question.
Now, what does your question have to do with applying rights equally, which is where the comparison between the 60's civil rights movement and the modern civil rights movement -actually- comes from?
so you don't really want a discussion, or you would be addressing the very real responses you have gotten from a number of posters already, which, since they didn't answer as you demand, get a zero from you. Why start a thread if you refuse to engage with people who are attempting to comment on why they believe your question in your op was flawed?
No need to respond, we all get it. You wanted to rant about gays. Mission accomplished.
You know, the same kind of "critical thinking" comes up when people complain about someone using a handicapped parking spot when they have no visible handicap. They could have heart or lung problems, but no, only visible orthopedic problems, or maybe the use of oxygen count to these critical thinkers who think they are oh, so clever in setting up a trap that to catch people in.
I think it's quite clear that to the OP, if she can't see it, it doesn't exist.
Your "test" presupposes that because homosexuality isn't always visible, gays should not be entitled to the same kinds of protection that visible minorities receive.
But a trait doesn't have to be "visible" in order for people possessing it to be explicitly protected from discrimination.
Many advocates of the redefinition of marriage equate homosexuality with the way blacks were treated for many years. That infuriates many people of color for a multitude of reasons. I thought long and hard about this and devised a very simple test, here it is:
You enter a room full of people, say 20-25; all are sitting silently in matching jeans and a plain white t-shirt. In the room are black people, white people, Chinese and homosexuals. With your eyes, which of these four groups can you identify?
Fine, I'll bite.
I can identify the whites, the Chinese and the blacks.
Does that mean the homosexuals are less deserving of rights? No, it doesn't.
Therefore, it's a really stupid question.
I don't know where you're going with this or what you're trying to prove.
It depends on the person. Sometimes they wear their sexuality on their sleeve, sometimes they don't. If everyone is "wearing the same clothes, the only difference being color", then yes, it would be harder to tell who is gay and who isn't.
Now, the question being, what does that matter?
Not in the op it doesn't. You were explicitly told that there were blacks, whites, Chinese and homosexuals, not racially ambiguous people or flamboyant homosexuals; and all were sitting silently and wearing the same plain clothes.
But, you're the first person to attempt to actually answer the question, and I thank you for that.
It doesn't matter to me at all because I don't identify people by the color of their skin or their sexual preferences, but for those that equate race with sexuality, it matters.
Race (likely) and sex would (likely) be more visible vs. sexuality.
Now, you tell us, how visibility matters when it comes to civil rights, or factors in to the equation when discussing innate characteristics?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
