Talk:Special rights/Archive 4

message: Bhuck, this edit, not only includes the Libertarian text, but you keep adding the section equating "gay rights" and "equal rights". This is debatable and not neutral. Your paragraph:
:Special rights is a political term originally used by libertarians to refer to laws granting rights to one or more groups which are not extended to other groups, such as affirmative action or hate crime legislation with regard to ethnic or religious minorities. More recently, social conservatives have begun to use the term to refer to laws that guarantee equal rights for minority groups that already exist for the majority, almost always with reference to sexual minorities (e.g. prohibitions of discrimination based on sexual orientation, same sex marriage, etc.).''
Here is my recommended edit to remove the POV wording.
:Special rights is a political term originally used by libertarians to refer to laws granting rights to one or more groups which are not extended to other groups, such as affirmative action or hate crime legislation with regard to ethnic or religious minorities. More recently, social conservatives have used the term to refer to laws that extend rights homosexuals, such as same sex marriage, or legal recognition of homosexuals as a minority group that should be protected from discrimination.
Please comment or accept. DavidBailey 17:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with you that that was POV wording, but I think your suggestion has certain other improvements which make it worth consideration--the question of anti-discrimination legislation is tricky, since that is a "special right" in the libertarian usage, and while libertarians question applying it to any group, social conservatives seem to only question applying it to sexual minorities.  The "legal recognition" to which you refer is not really "as a minority group" but "as a group that should be protected".  But I find it extremely unwieldy to discuss edits this way, so I will first make your edit, and then I will edit your edit, and that should make things clearer, I think.  If there is something unclear about my motivations, just ask.  Generally, I think it is preferable to follow the AP style guide and write "gays and lesbians" instead of "homosexuals", though there are certain contexts in which I would deviate from that principle.  This is not one of them, however.--Bhuck 11:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with gays and lesbians vs. homosexuals. Trying to find neutral wording in this area is rather challenging at times. DavidBailey 10:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why editing in the discussion vs. editing in the article is desired is that the alternative to discussion and consensus between editors who disagree is to edit war. By refraining from making edits to the disputed section, it allows both sides to retreat from the warring and agree to not make edits until a consensus is agreed upon. Suggestions about what the disputed section can be read and commented on "in-line" within the discussion page. Once the consensus is agreed upon, users can put their name into the discussion under the consensus paragraph stating they will support the text as it is edited. This can be referred to at a later date when future edit wars may start. This is why I would greatly prefer that you insert your text here, where it can be commented on and where new revisions can be suggested, rather than editing the article and then discussing it here. DavidBailey 10:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening paragraph

message: OK well I guess the intro remains.  Lets do this sentence 
;David
:More recently, social conservatives have used the term to refer to proposed laws that extend specific rights to gays and lesbians, such as same sex marriage or extend anti-discrimination protections which have traditionally referred to Constitutionally-protected minorities, such as race or gender, to include sexual minorities.
;Al and Bhuck
:More recently, social conservatives have used the term to refer to laws that either extend rights that already exist for heterosexuals to gays and lesbians, such as same sex marriage, or extend anti-discrimination protections that exist for other minority groups to sexual minorities as well.
;Issues
* proposed laws vs. laws (I don't understand why there is passion here, could someone explain?) jbolden1517Talk 11:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is just me trying to be more accurate. It is partially a problem of laws that have been passed, and partially an issue related to discussions of laws that should pass. There is probably a better way to state this. I'm trying to both be accurate and keep it terse and succinct. DavidBailey 10:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This one I do understand.  Al, what non constitutionally protected minority (retarded, children, refuges) rights do you believe are being aimed for?  In other words what is factually incorrect about David's clarification as to the nature of the rights?  
* David do you have any evidence that it is constitutional rights (like right to vote, equal protection) that are being debate rather than state statute (right to marry, right to survival benefits..)? jbolden1517Talk 11:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm. I'm not sure what you're asking here. I don't know that those that claim "gay rights" can claim any constitutional category, unless they claim the equal protection clause, which, to my knowledge, has never been used in this way before, and therefore it would be a new reading of it. There are certain groups which are protected in the Constitution (and amendments) in certain ways. Gays and lesbians are not one of these categories. DavidBailey 10:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then the question becomes why insist on mentioning constitutional rights vs.  Bhuck and Al's version which focus on rights granted by statute?  jbolden1517Talk 00:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In a US context, it is true that the Constitution protects against racial discrimination (at least by the State...not clear how much the Constitution can apply to whether private people discriminate, for example by refusing to rent to Navajos).  The Constitution does not guarantee the equality of women with men, only the right for both sexes to vote.  The Constitution forbids the State to establish a religion, but does not forbid religious discrimination on the part of third parties.  And the Constitution does not even mention sexual orientation.  Outside the purely US context (and there are anti-discrimination regulations (and the accompanying discussions) in the EU, for example), the Constitution is not particularly relevant.  I am not sure why we should use the term "Constitutionally-protected" in the first sentence, in which we are being very general, have not established that we are only talking about the US context (which, as far as the whole article is concerned, we are not, though we might want a subsection on the US situation), etc.  With regard to "laws" vs. "proposed laws", I have suggested a more general term, which should hopefully form the basis for a consensus.--Bhuck 10:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: We can't use these terms and these ideas.  Virtually every paragraph becomes a problem (for example for most of the world the "right to bear arms" is not a civil right).  Is there anybody participating in this who is not from the USA?  I don't think we can do this for other countries.  Luckly this is about an English language term but that still doesn't shrink scope enough; I mean we can probably wing it for English or Australia but what about  Belize, Liberia?  Is there anybody participating in this who understands European, Asian, African... law?  jbolden1517Talk 14:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a German citizen and resident (native speaker of English, though), who has closely followed the debate on anti-discrimination legislation here.  EU legislation also applies in the United Kingdom, which is known to be English-speaking.  The general lines of the conflict (whether you call them "Sonderrechte" or "special rights" just depends on what language you're speaking) are not confined by linguistic boundaries, though of course the strength of the various parties to the debate will vary from one society to the next.  The German constitution does, for example, guarantee the equality of men and women, though the ERA in the US was rejected in the 1970s.--Bhuck 14:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had thought about the issue of internationalism as well, but frankly, I don't feel qualified to discuss it in such terms. Also, it appears that a great deal of the debate is being carried out in the United States, but that may also be that I am uninformed about the debate around the world. DavidBailey 10:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there really debate about whether heterosexuals have the right to marry a partner to whom they are sexually attracted?  I wasn't aware that these rights did not exist for heterosexuals--I always thought that they did.  Extending this right to homosexuals is something that social conservatives see as "special rights", if I am correctly informed, but if gay marriage is not considered a special right, then we can drop its mention from the article.  I also fail to see any legitimate debate about whether ethnic minorities are protected from discrimination (see the Public Accomodations clauses of US civil rights legislation, or EU Guideline 2000/43) -- I think it is quite clear that they are.  Are you saying that homosexuals are not arguing that they also need this protection?  You are certainly correct to point out that there is debate over the question of whether homosexuals should consitute a legally-protected minority group, but I don't see that my suggested phrasing denies that this debate exists--indeed that is exactly what it does say: it is about extending the legal protections to a group which does not currently enjoy them.--Bhuck 12:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, yes. That is framing the debate in a way suitable to pro-gay activists views. Marriage has long been both a religious and legal tradition within society dating back many, many years, at least to biblical times. Check out all the rules that the Old Testiment had regarding marriage. It's a lot more than just "you can marry anyone you want". For instance, even heterosexuals sometimes cannot marry a first cousin or immediate family member, have to be a specific age, and have to be of the opposite sex. By reducing this to a brief sentence leading off that this whole debate is about rights that homosexuals want that heterosexuals have, you are conveniently side-stepping this whole issue, but it is over-simplifying and is quite gay-centric-POV. While it can be discussed in the article, it cannot be NPOV and be stated as it is in the opening paragraph. DavidBailey 11:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The old testaments has lots of rules involving marriage that they don't believe apply, mamzer for example.  Now wukk everyone will agree that heterosexual couples have rights that homosexual couples do not?  I'm thinking that might offer a way around the problem.  jbolden1517Talk 22:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heterosexual couples can marry.  Homosexual ones, with one limited exception, cannot.  Looks like the former have an extra right.  Actually an extra few thousand, since marriage comes up again and again in the law, bringing with it many additional rights and responsibilities. Al 00:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Absolutely, I was just illustrating that marriage is a complex topic that doesn't really fit the mold of Bhuck's assertion that heterosexuals can marry anyone they're sexually attracted to. DavidBailey 00:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Al, try and be polite in your responses.  I'm rephrasing.  There is a question above you still need to answer.  jbolden1517Talk 21:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe your rephrasing was at all necessary, as my comment was polite and civil, despite being blunt. Al 00:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Al, Christianity does not own the concept of marriage, but from a historical perspective, Judaism and Christianity have a long history of both marriage tradition and law. DavidBailey 00:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's one tradition out of many.  Good thing we're not bound by religious tradition when making civil law, eh? Al 00:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a lack of respect for religious and societal traditions that throws society into chaos. The result is disease and moral decay, and a lack of civility or respect for the sacred. I find it saddening. DavidBailey 02:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What you call progress, I call a degradation of morals. However, regardless of the fact that you enjoy calling names, at least I'm willing to admit that I have a POV. You claim your POVs to be NPOV. I find that amusing. DavidBailey 04:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is that you cannot see your own POV-bias and apparently make no effort to. Instead, you claim that everyone else's POV conform to yours. I can at least admit to a POV-bias and compromise. This is something I have not seen you do. DavidBailey 11:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You're right, I tend to get overly heated at times. Thanks for the reminder. I apologize if I offended or agitated you Alienus. DavidBailey 22:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro Sentence

message: Tell me if the following compromise phrase could be inserted and represents everyone's opinions fairly:
: More recently, social conservatives have used the term to refer to laws that either extend rights that already exist for heterosexuals couples to homosexual couples in particular same sex marriage
jbolden1517Talk 11:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that "either extend rights", or what? The sentence needs some editing. DavidBailey 11:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's just the opening phrase, it would continue with or extend anti-discrimination protections and we have to mediate from then on.  jbolden1517Talk 12:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  heterosexual couples 

message: For anyone who is interested in assisting, I am gathering information related to an RfC for Alienus. If you are interested in participating, you can do so here. Thanks. DavidBailey 11:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Alienus

message: I've decided to leave wikipedia User:Jbolden1517#I'm done.  You may need to find another mediator.  Good luck in resolving this and remember try and be nice to each other and build up general principles from easily resolvable facts.  jbolden1517Talk 21:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to see you go. Take care. DavidBailey 01:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaving wikipedia