From: harris@polk.cs.unc.edu (Trey Harris)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: NEWSWEEK POLL: Plurality of Americans support GAY RIGHTS
Date: 12 Sep 92 15:41:23 GMT
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

In article <1992Sep11.170042.13737@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike
Best) writes:
>In article <15191@borg.cs.unc.edu> harris@degas.cs.unc.edu (Trey
>Harris) writes:

>>Would somebody, ANYBODY, tell me what special rights we want?  I know
>>what I want.  I want to be able to love and be loved without anyone
>>harassing me for it.  I want to be able to legitimize a long-term
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^
>>relationship should I wish to do so.  I want to have the option of
>>adopting children.  I want the option of working for the government in
>>a position I am qualified for.
>>
>>Now, really.  Is any of this unreasonable?
>>
>Not at all, and by "we" I trust you mean all Americans.

Actually, no.  All Americans deserve these rights.  But straights
already _have_ them.  You say 'Not at all,' but by everything you say
afterwords, you say that what I am asking _is_ unreasonable.

For instance  (and the reason I emphasized the above quotation):

>There is no such thing as a right to marriage - if real it would then 
>be necessary that someone marry you for it is your right.  

What?  I don't follow your reasoning at all.  I above asked for the
right to LEGITIMIZE a relationship (i.e. marriage).  I did not at all
ask for a husband!  I want the right to that little slip of paper
_straight_ people can get from  a justice of the peace.  The
_government_ has made the decision that I cannot get any of my
relationships legitimized, but straight people can.  You think this is
equal?  Why?  How?

Or perhaps you don't see equality under law as a positive thing.

> Do we seriously consider that everyone must be married?

No.  But we would consider it a travesty if a large segment of the
(heterosexual) population was _denied_ the right to be married IF THEY
WISH.  Why is it any different here?

>You have really specified the problem by describing it as "special
>rights".  On the surface it makes us feel good to say "I'm for Black
>rights" or "I'm for women's rights" but understand well what this 
>really means.  It means that there are several standards, that because
>I am Black or a Woman that my rights are different than yours.  This
>is _wrong_, we should all have the same rights. 
                ^^^^^^ ^^^^ In this last sentence, my dear, I think
you have got it!  :-) But there's one problem with the rest of this:
at this point we _don't_ have the same rights.  You _do_ in fact have
different rights than I.  So to say "I am for women's rights" is simply
shorthand for saying "I am for _equal_ rights based on gender."

> When you start talking
>about special rights then you introduce tribalism into our society.
>People think in terms of the group (or tribe) to which they belong 
>thus causing big societal problems in the long run because people think
>that their group's rights are more important than another group's rights.
>
>There is but one group, humans, and one type of right, individual.

Ooops.  Sorry, hon.  You lost it again.  I would agree with all of the
above IF I AGREED WITH YOUR USE OF THE WORDS "SPECIAL RIGHTS."  We, as
gays and lesbians, are  not attempting to get "special rights." (And
your logic is besides faulty.  Didn't your high school geometry
teacher tell you about the term "circular reasoning?")

If people were in fact getting special rights that the others did not
have, there would be big societal problems.  Some people would think
that their groups' rights are more important than another's.  In fact,
I wouldn't be surprised if the group that thought they had "special
rights" didn't start beating and harrassing and killing the other
group.

I wouldn't be surprised if the people who had the special rights
and were in positions to do so started to deny the ones who didn't
have the special rights more basic rights, such as housing and jobs.
If the ones with special rights had legislative power, I wouldn't be
surprised if they began to legislate more rights away from the ones
who didn't have the special rights.

And if some horrific disease began to ravage the group that didn't
have the special rights, is it possible that the group with special
rights would say that they "deserved it," and would not do anything
to put a halt to the disease until it started to infect them as well?

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?  I ask you, who are the ones with the
special rights?

Trey Harris
--Stranger in a Strange Thread!
Newsgroups: soc.motss