It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Advice from US: Special rights vs. equal rights

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
I just completed some work on gay/lesbian/transgendered rights. It seems very often sexual minorities are told that they are demanding "special rights". Next, homophobic discourse uses crime rates/stds/Aids and disproportionate spending to argue against equal gay civil rights, like same-sex marriage.
I recently saw footage on the black civil rights campaign in the 1950s/1960s. Here it was also said that "negroes" want special rights, and that crime and venereal disease was endemic in African-American populations.
Why are these tired arguments still used? I mean, can I deny fundamentalist Christians civil rights because they are often obese and heart-attack prone?
How can Native American water rights be seen as "special"? They were there first and signed treaties! Why must water trucks carry water to e.g. the Hopi and Navaho people, when they have a "stolen" river?
I know everyone suffers, but I mean really, aren't we all minorities somewhere in our lives and we all sometimes need "special" rights!




posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
It's crazy, isn't it? Calling equal rights "special rights".

When you think about it, it's straight people who are demanding special rights. If a straight couple can get married and a gay couple can't, then the straight people have the "special rights" .


Sometimes old arguments, no matter how silly, work.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
As far as I can tell, "equal rights" is defined by historical precedents. Gays could not marry in the past, so they can't now. The only reason Blacks got their freedom is because they lobbied so hard.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ShadeWolf
 


Well they have been granted that "right" now, unless those that constantly state that the
government interferes too much secretly enjoy the interference.

Humanity is in a constant state of evolution, this issue is a losing battle for those anti equal rights folks. If a person wants to worship a fridge and it does not impact me, they should go hard out. People talk all this freedom talk and then mandate that freedom
be defined by their own beliefs.

You are free to go hungry, but you are not free to marry who you would like...
I would say in a logical world the first issue is far more pressing~



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman


Homosexuality is a choice. Skin color isn't.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by texastig
 


Although there are few hard facts on homosexuality (and the reseach is very controversial) the overwhelming evidence for me points to a genetic/congenital variation. Even the ex-gay Christian movement has now largely distanced itself from the idea that homosexuality is a consciouce choice. Rather, they would now say, it is something that happens very early in childhood. Some homosexuality is more choice driven (e.g by gay sex by otherwise straight men in prison, assuming it isn't forced or rape). However, I was attracted to the same sex from the earliest memory, and I cannot speak of choice. Gender, or gender identity is also not a choice. Homophobia is certainly a learnt condition, but you can choose to overcome your own prejudices.
Is being black a choice? It depends: what must you do in your wider society to become a respectable black person to the mainstream? Dress white upper class, give up the speech and culture? What about being Jewish? There are many mixed "coloured" people who could pass as white (WASP). So sometimes that is also a choice.
Consider how boarding schools attempted to wipe out Native Americans by destroying their culture: the motto was "kill the Indian and save the man". I believe heterosexual blacks should choose to give up all things black or African to be accepted into white culture as token or "civilized" uncle-Toms (lol). After all, black is just the BORN skin color, and everything else is YOUR CHOICE. Or not, that's your argument?



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Mmm, I find my own above argument slightly regretable. I thought it would be more about finding alliances, common ground amongst minorities. It seems while open racism has turned to the margins of sub-culture, homophobia is still OK. Why would anyone choose to be gay? Please explain that. The argument seems to be that black and gay people experience discrimination (that much is not disputed), it just follows from this that blacks do not deserve discrimination, but gays do because they "choose" to be hated. How peculier?

Anyway, there are still racist, even openly Nazi groups in most Western democracies. They would argue that multiculturalism is evil. In other words, they will accept the odd immigrant and refugee from other cultures, but these must adapt as far as possible to the local culture. And yet to liberal intellectualism it is the racist who is granted "special rights", and is barely tolerated.
In fact, does one have the right to be granted freedom of association, and from forced assimilation? Many whites across the globe would grudgingly say that they are forced to accept other faiths and affirmative action. Yet, Islam does not allow equal minority rights to Christiantity in Saudi Arabia. Why should Europe be tolerant when Islamic countries are often not?
Here in South Africa there is a strain of Africanism that wants all whites to leave (many have already). I usually retort, well then why don't all blacks leave Europe and the UK?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
I wonder:
We certainly do not recognize equal rights in animals compared to those of humans. I recall arguments by Peter Singer on specisim: that is every creature should be allowed to do what it was kinda "designed" for to be happy. However, we have granted some species (like whales or the great apes) more sanctuary and at least sentiment than say, Tuna and sharks. So it is true to say that some species are already in a frame of "special rights" above others. On what basis do we grant this? Perhaps it has something to do with extinction and being on the brink of it. Similarly it became fashionable to romanticize certain peoples (especially native peoples like "Bushmen" or "Indians") after the extermination and frontier wars were over. I'm not saying any humans are "animals", it just appears as if we are setting a precedant that follows historical patterns of threat vs. "guilt after the fact".
Ironically, it is native people like the Makah that now have difficulty in using their native rights to hunt a tiny quota of sustainable whales. It appears that native peoples are no longer seen as "natural" conservationists, and activists stand before difficult choices of whom to support.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by texastig
 


Do you have proof of this? It's an interesting debate to say that people choose to live with less then equal rights. I'd say the idea of whether it is a choice or
else is a straw man argument.

Either you believe that all people deserve the same rights under a law or you do not.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
As far as I can tell, "equal rights" is defined by historical precedents. Gays could not marry in the past, so they can't now. The only reason Blacks got their freedom is because they lobbied so hard.


i really must hope that you are joking there. Blacks got their freedom because they LOBBIED for it????


Are you serious?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Seiko
 


I don't believe homosexuality is a choice to everyone, though i do believe that in our world today - a LOT of people make that choice to get some attention...which doesn't help the cause of someone truly being born gay.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 


Ok say I'm a white woman, and I have a choice of two husbands, one black, and one white. The white one would be more in line with "accepted" historical precedence. The black one is a better man, and would in my mind be a better choice for a mate. Now I have a choice here, as afforded to me by law. It was not always this way.

Now I like two women, one black and one white, I can choose neither of them by law.

So the limits of my choices are dictated to me by the will of what is popularly accepted in the time in which I live. I can not choose openly here, and to say that someone would choose a definition that negates their will and options really offers no"choice".



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Seiko
 


if you're allowing yourself to be FORCED to choose, then thats your own fault, no offense.

There's public pressure to do a lot of things in life, if you allow it to make you choose between happiness and just plain "blah" well...you can't blame anyone but yourself.

You have the right to feel the way you do, and someone else has the right to feel that you're wrong for feeling the way you do. If you allow them to change the way you feel, then they win, and you lose.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Hate crime laws are special rights!

If person A hits person B with a baseball bat, a crime has been committed. The penalty should be the same regardless of the color or sexual preferences of the people involved in the crime.

As soon as you pass a law that says you will be punished more severely if you do a hate crime, then you have a "special" group of people.

I don't think that gay marriage falls into the "special" category.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by halfoldman

Homosexuality is a choice. Skin color isn't.


Did you chose you own homosexuality?

Because I doubt very much you are entitled to an opinion on the subject unless you have first-hand knowledge.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 


My post was saying which choices I am allowed, not what I am forced to do.

If the choices are defined as absolutes, then freedom of choice is not afforded.




top topics



 
1

log in

join