This is interesting (Possible Mankind Divided spoilers)

[Dizchu]

Just because a group doesn't have certain rights don't necessarily mean they are oppressed. To take your example: non-legalisation of marriage don't mean homosexuality is illegal, just that they can't get married. If gays were genuinely oppressed, you would have the situation of say islamic countries. With a constitution it's pretty much impossible for people to be genuinely 'oppressed' simply b/c the legal incentives to do so are lacking. The U.S. is still fairly conservative so society might sway in one way(ie rather no gay marriage), but minority rights are still respected(ie free to poke other men up the bum).

The non-legalisation of gay marriage is state-endorsed discrimination, rights are being withheld based on unfair criteria. The state is enforcing its own highly subjective moral values on citizens and from an outside perspective I think it's hard to argue that preventing consenting adults from obtaining state-recognised privileges based purely on arbitrary biological factors is oppression. A group is being legally recognised by the state as inferior, which prevents a society from being egalitarian. Because these individuals contribute to the state via taxes and don't get the same benefits as everyone else, it is also exploitation. The only thing that differentiates it from things such as prohibitive laws and the death penalty is severity.

 

[stroopwafel]

The non-legalisation of gay marriage is state-endorsed discrimination, rights are being withheld based on unfair criteria. The state is enforcing its own highly subjective moral values on citizens and from an outside perspective I think it's hard to argue that preventing consenting adults from obtaining state-recognised privileges based purely on arbitrary biological factors is oppression. A group is being legally recognised by the state as inferior, which prevents a society from being egalitarian. Because these individuals contribute to the state via taxes and don't get the same benefits as everyone else, it is also exploitation. The only thing that differentiates it from things such as prohibitive laws and the death penalty is severity.

I don't necessarily disagree with those points even if I think you draw the wrong conclusions from the value systems inherited in formality. Yes, gays might not be able to legally marry but not because a group is ''legally recognized by the state as inferior'' but rather because society favors traditionalist conservative values, atleast in a formal sense. Gays are still free to do as they please so even if legislation favors traditionalist values it still doesn't infringe on their constitutional rights, which is what 'oppression' would do. Marriage is eventually just a formality you attribute way too much meaning to.

Again, I don't disagree with what you say and I think gays should be able to marry if they please but defining the issue with words like 'oppression' and 'exploitation' is overblown and devalues those words. I know this is the internet and all but still.

 

[meiam]

I don't necessarily disagree with those points even if I think you draw the wrong conclusions from the value systems inherited in formality. Yes, gays might not be able to legally marry but not because a group is ''legally recognized by the state as inferior'' but rather because society favors traditionalist conservative values, atleast in a formal sense. Gays are still free to do as they please so even if legislation favors traditionalist values it still doesn't infringe on their constitutional rights, which is what 'oppression' would do. Marriage is eventually just a formality you attribute way too much meaning to.

Again, I don't disagree with what you say and I think gays should be able to marry if they please but defining the issue with words like 'oppression' and 'exploitation' is overblown and devalues those words. I know this is the internet and all but still.

Well there's a bunch of law surrounding marriage, like divorce law and what happen when one person in the marriage die with succession and transfer of pension and such. If these right are being withheld from homosexual just because they can't get legally married than I think there's a case to be made that there being oppressed. But if its still possible for homosexual couple to have identical right and protection just without the "married" title, then I don't think there being oppressed.

Race quota are super complicate case, evaluated solely on the letter of the law, they are racist. But at the same time there trying to combat an inherent racism of a system, ie combat racism with racism. But still in that case the right to attend university or job isn't withheld from the group, it's only limited, so calling it oppression might be going to far. (personally I think race quota are a terrible idea and only hurt the minority there trying to protect and instead should be replaced by system to help the minority group like grants or special tax status, but that's for another discussion)

 

[Dizchu]

I don't necessarily disagree with those points even if I think you draw the wrong conclusions from the value systems inherited in formality. Yes, gays might not be able to legally marry but not because a group is ''legally recognized by the state as inferior'' but rather because society favors traditionalist conservative values, atleast in a formal sense. Gays are still free to do as they please so even if legislation favors traditionalist values it still doesn't infringe on their constitutional rights, which is what 'oppression' would do. Marriage is eventually just a formality you attribute way too much meaning to.

Traditionalist conservative values are reliant on hierarchical treatment of different groups, which depending on whether or not you hold such beliefs is either a good or bad thing. When it comes to marriage, "traditionalist" views often means "one man and one woman of the same race" (though if you get even more "traditional" it can apply to polygamy, family alliances and exchange of goods). But let's stick with the "one man and one woman of the same race" thing for now. To believe this one must also believe that same-sex unions and mixed-race unions are either inferior, dangerous or both. Just because the intention may be to idealise one thing rather than explicitly condemn something else doesn't make it much better, as the result is largely the same.

To tie it back into Mankind Divided this is shown in the "human purity" sentiments expressed by characters in-game which itself has parallels to Nazi Germany and their condemnation of "degenerates" and ideals of "the Aryan race". I brought up Wolfenstein: The New Order earlier and it just occurred to me that its protagonist is in the opposite situation to that of Mankind Divided. In that game you are blond-haired and blue-eyed and the Nazis explictly tell you how "ideal" your features are and this makes the protagonist (and the player) very uncomfortable, as well as hammers home the oppressive world of the game. I think Mankind Divided could have worked a lot better had it worked on an inversion of this.

Again, I don't disagree with what you say and I think gays should be able to marry if they please but defining the issue with words like 'oppression' and 'exploitation' is overblown and devalues those words. I know this is the internet and all but still.

Eh, I can sympathise but at the same time I feel like many people avoid the use of such words in scenarios that we have grown too accustomed to. While it could be said that applying such words to systems we are familiar with could "devalue" them, it could also be said that it's necessary to call things what they are and challenge the status quo. After all, many past injustices that we wouldn't hesitate to call "oppression" these days were treated with much milder language at the time, to the point that we find it very disturbing.

Then does white people in England not being allowed to take jobs due to "race quota" is considered oppression?

That's a different matter entirely and requires an entirely different topic to discuss, because we have to establish if any rights are being infringed and why they are being infringed. The pros and cons of affirmative action are complex and I can hardly do them justice without going wildly off-topic, though I can say that my personal feelings towards affirmative action are mixed. I don't think I can give you a satisfying answer on this one.

Like I said in the edit, the no-hope is only need to make the oppression be felt in media, in real life there can be resistance but it needs to be actual underground resistance.

Again, not necessarily. Martin Luther King Jr. fought against oppression but he was hardly "underground" as the March on Washington (where the "I Have a Dream" speech was delivered) was attended by 300,000 people.