From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: NEWSWEEK POLL: Plurality of Americans support GAY RIGHTS
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:00:42 GMT

In article <15191@borg.cs.unc.edu> harris@degas.cs.unc.edu (Trey Harris) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.144120.27773@spdcc.com> rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
>>In article <12194@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>>We don't support homosexuals getting special protection...
>
>>	Everyone I've asked this of can never give an answer to
>>this question.
>
>>	Define "special rights".  Give examples of "special rights".
>>Show how the lack of these rights constitutes equality within our
>>present society and legal system.
>
>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
>harrassing 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.  Now, this country
is literally based on the rights of the individual and these are derived
from natural rights.  We all have a natural right to our lives and bodies 
and what we do with them.  We also have a natural right to our liberty
and what we do with that.  We further have a right to pursue our own
definition of happiness BUT we do not have a right to happiness because
it cannot be attained.

Now, can a group have rights defined in the American sense?  Not really,
there is no such thing as a group body nor can we define group liberty.
Individual rights are defined by the nature of man whereas group rights
are defined by the State.  Such people who choose to have the rights 
defined in terms of groups have capitulated their independency to the
definition of rights as deemed proper by the Government.  Our Constitution
speaks of the rights of individuals alone.

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.  You do not
have the right to adopt children for this implies that we are obligated
to find a child for you to adopt.  To deny you this would be to deny you
your rights.  Do we seriously consider that everyone must be married?

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.  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.

Mike Best
Newsgroups: soc.motss