LGBT News CDC survey says less than 3% of population is gay or lesbien.

You always hear though straight people saying "why should such a small minority receive attention?" "special privileges" etc. The first answer in my mind is always: "because you owe us massively".

After systematically imprisoning, torturing, murdering and abusing gay people in the last century the very least the heterosexual majority can do is yield to some minor requests like gay marriage by way of apology.

And thats even before looking at the human rights/equality arguments for doing so.

 

How is having the same rights as straight people 'special treatment' exactly?

 

I was just trying to say (probably in a poor manner) that particularly given the severity of oppression in the past it is simply unacceptable for straight people to obstruct or delay granting equal rights by using arguments like "that is giving them special privileges" or "they are a minority, it isn't important". I was trying to point out the ignorance of still a great number of people to the damage that has been done in the past and continues to be done today due to their actions.

To clarify, I don't believe gay people should receive special privileges, I do think we deserve equality.

 

In reference to LGBTs being accorded "special rights" (an oft-repeated toxic pair of words heard mostly from LGBT opponents), here's a quote on "The Big Lie" from Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda from Germany's National Socialist Party (aka Nazis):

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

It is NOT "special rights" or "special privileges" we want EQUAL rights.

 

Fair enough. As Greatwhale points out, the claim is often made by anti-LGBT people and groups that we are trying to gain 'special rights' of some kind. They never seem to specify exactly what rights they are referring to, however. As such, you will perhaps understand why many LGBT people (myself included) are a bit touchy about those kinds of terms.

Regarding the 'special rights' that you reference above - what rights are these people specifically advocating for that everyone else would not have?

Todd

 

Simple. They see LGBT as having less value in society, and therefore deserving of less rights, so by demanding the same rights for being in an "inferior" group, we're seen as overstepping boundaries and asking for "too much".

"You mean they want marriage, representation, anti-discrimination laws, and their own special clubs? They've gone too far!"

 

That was the point I was trying to get at.

I'm sorry if I created any confusion, I'm not the most eloquent writer.

 

Exactly. This is also why word choice is important, as it ensures people understand that the goal is equality, not special rights.

I don't like the term "gay marriage" because it implies that there is something legally different between gay/lesbian, married couples and straight, married couples.

"Marriage equality" is the best term to use because it makes the point clear. We want the same rights, no more no less.

 

The crazy thing I've seen lately is straight people have been using this to put lgbt people down by saying your a minority and acting as if they are superior when I see this l feel like punching them in the face , I've mostly gotten this comment from straight men. They act as if people don't lie on surveys.

 

I think a better question is why it matters in any way whether or not we are a minority or how numerous we are?

Is there some magic population number that people need to hit before they are to be accorded equal rights? Is the total pool of 'rights' some kind of finite resource and if we use it all up granting rights to minorities we'll run out at some point in the future? Or by granting rights to one group we are somehow taking them away from others?

No?

Then all attempts to dictate the validity of people's rights as a function of how numerous they are are infinitely invalid by definition, and all arguments based on same are infinitely invalid by definition.

In point of fact, the people trying to argue this way just don't like LGBT people and will say ANYTHING to try and put a principled gloss on a position utterly lacking in principle.

Todd

 

3% is still 3 out of 100. And it's probably closer to 4 or 5% if you include bisexuals, which is 1 out of 20 to 25. That's actually not that small of a minority for the United States.
And honestly I wouldn't care how small the minority was if they were being persecuted for being a minority. No human deserves to be treated as unequal simply because they are a minority. Part of the reason we have a Constitution is to protect the rights of minorities.

 

Isn't it obvious? Whenever you have a minority group, it's easier to overlook their wants and needs, at least in comparison of those of the majority group. Should it be that way? No, but there's power in numbers, and if the cis hets were the 5% or whatever, we'd probably have something similar going on with them.

And yeah, granting equal rights for everyone *would* make some people uncomfortable, initially, since they'd have to adjust their own perceptions and behaviors from that point forward. People can be selfish creatures of habit, and if there's no apparent "gain", they'll resist changes, since it seems more effort for nothing.

If they're educated, different story, but how many people bother to learn about the struggles of those who are worse of than they are? I mean, serious research and advocating, not just a quick skim over popular issues when they come up. And when a group starts making strides, that brings out awareness and fears from bigots, unfortunately.

 

The thing is that it really isn't 'ignorance' in the sense of simply not being aware of something as an issue so they don't think to address it. It is learning of an issue and then deciding (with no apparent concrete basis) that it is a problem and that you don't like a whole group of people for something that doesn't impact you in any material way.

Really, for all,the talk about the sanctity of marriage being destroyed, have we seen mass divorces or separations among straight people in the countries and states where marriage (not that straights were really respecting the institution to begin with, of course)? Of course not. So the arguments are just poorly rationalized nonsense. And no one has a right to oppress other people for the sake of emotional complacency.

Todd

 

1 in 20 people sounds reasonable.. But the method of the test is very questionable.. you wont get 100 percent honesty. In the end those numbers dont mean much.. Too many integrity factors.

 

What about trans' folk??

 

Anyone else think that maybe whoever did this study wants to make straight people look like the majority ?