Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Gays a minority status?  (Read 6370 times)

NathanB

  • Guest
Re: Gays a minority status?
« Reply #20 on: July 26, 2005, 09:26:06 AM »
Interesting little bit of information there...

ThePerfectSoldier

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 151
    • AOL Instant Messenger - SuzukiAkira138
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Gays a minority status?
« Reply #21 on: July 28, 2005, 07:30:34 PM »
I don't know whether they are, but they shouldn't be.  Someone's PREFERENCES shouldn't make them a minority.  By that same logic(or lack thereof) baseball players should have minority status.  Let's be real, here, political correctness can't even rationalize this one.

NathanB

  • Guest
Re: Gays a minority status?
« Reply #22 on: July 28, 2005, 09:47:10 PM »
Well, in saying that you are making the assumption that being gay is a choice.  Just out of curiosity, did you make the decision to be straight?

I don't know whether they are, but they shouldn't be. Someone's PREFERENCES shouldn't make them a minority. By that same logic(or lack thereof) baseball players should have minority status. Let's be real, here, political correctness can't even rationalize this one.

InVinoVeritas

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5550
  • Fine! I shall also fix zee hobo suit!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - NVinoVeritasChi
    • View Profile
Re: Gays a minority status?
« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2005, 09:48:04 PM »
I don't know whether they are, but they shouldn't be. Someone's PREFERENCES shouldn't make them a minority. By that same logic(or lack thereof) baseball players should have minority status. Let's be real, here, political correctness can't even rationalize this one.

 ::) ::)

ThePerfectSoldier

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 151
    • AOL Instant Messenger - SuzukiAkira138
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Gays a minority status?
« Reply #24 on: July 29, 2005, 12:11:50 AM »
How relevant is choice on the matter?  Let's be real - there are plenty of things that we choose to do and don't choose to do that wouldn't have us classified as minorities.  And why do you assume that I'm straight?

NathanB

  • Guest
Re: Gays a minority status?
« Reply #25 on: July 29, 2005, 02:43:21 AM »
1.  I just made an assuption that you are straight.  Am I incorrect?

2.  I think you are proving my point.  You're right, choice does not = minority status.  Thus why I said that homosexuality is not a choice, but biological just like being born black, hispanic, or native american, etc.

3.  So out of curiosity, how would you define "minority"?

How relevant is choice on the matter? Let's be real - there are plenty of things that we choose to do and don't choose to do that wouldn't have us classified as minorities. And why do you assume that I'm straight?

ThePerfectSoldier

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 151
    • AOL Instant Messenger - SuzukiAkira138
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Gays a minority status?
« Reply #26 on: July 29, 2005, 06:07:00 AM »
No, you were not incorrect in assuming I'm straight.  I was just curious as to whether or not you were of the opinion that only a straight person could think that way.  It's not all that germane to the topic at hand, just out of curiosity.

On the current topic, let's assume that homosexuality is biological.  How does this, in any way, make it any more likely to give someone minority status?  People with green eyes aren't as common as those with brown, black, or blue - this is biological, yet it doesn't grant minority status.  Some people are naturally athletic and others naturally unhealthy.  Some people are born with tastes for certain foods.  Some people are born with mental disabilities or born savants.  Are any of these groups "minorities"?  I wouldn't say so.  Biologics, then, aren't the deciding factor.

NathanB

  • Guest
Re: Gays a minority status?
« Reply #27 on: July 29, 2005, 08:48:31 AM »
Well, Dictionary.com defines minority like this:

a. An ethnic, racial, religious, or other group having a distinctive presence within a society.
b. A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society.

People with certain eye color or a proclivity to being fat aren't necessarily a "group" - they don't really group together, and don't consider themselves a subculture.  It is different with gay people - they are indeed a distinct group, and are a subculture in many regards.

And while you could make an argument that people with green eyes do not have significant social power, they also have not really sought it and are not denied rights on the basis that they have green eyes.  Again, this is different than gays.

And I still want to hear your definition for what a minority is.

lincolnsgrandson

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 160
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Gays a minority status?
« Reply #28 on: July 29, 2005, 08:56:04 AM »
answer:
a minority, for our purposes, is whatever is part of the NALP diversity chart.  "Openly gay" is.

ThePerfectSoldier

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 151
    • AOL Instant Messenger - SuzukiAkira138
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Gays a minority status?
« Reply #29 on: July 29, 2005, 04:16:17 PM »
Well, Dictionary.com defines minority like this:

a. An ethnic, racial, religious, or other group having a distinctive presence within a society.
b. A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society.

People with certain eye color or a proclivity to being fat aren't necessarily a "group" - they don't really group together, and don't consider themselves a subculture.  It is different with gay people - they are indeed a distinct group, and are a subculture in many regards.

And while you could make an argument that people with green eyes do not have significant social power, they also have not really sought it and are not denied rights on the basis that they have green eyes.  Again, this is different than gays.

And I still want to hear your definition for what a minority is.

Notice that being a distinctive group is sociological and not at all biological?  Your definition just proved my point.