The human rights of lesbian gay

Abstraction

The intent of this paper is to reason that homosexual rights are human rights, non particular rights. In the United States, members of the LGBT ( Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgendered ) community feel as though they ‘re treated like second-class citizens. In legion provinces, their rights are non protected under the jurisprudence, and this endangers the wellbeing of all Americans. If one group is non protected, so all groups are in danger of non being protected. As a state, we have a duty to protect everyone, irrespective of any spiritual or personal feelings.

Focus On Equality: The Fight for Equal Protection in America

On October 12, 2005, Carol Conklin underwent major surgery after a violent auto clang in Colchester, Connecticut. Her spouse of 31 old ages, Janet Peck, was denied the right to see her in the ICU ( Markus, 2002 ) . When Peck informed an ICU nurse that Conklin was her spouse, the nurse merely stated that she did non cognize what that meant. While happenings like these are going less common, it is still non unusual to see cheery twosomes denied trial rights in infirmaries. Harmonizing to some provinces, a same-sex twosome is non seen as a echt twosome. Therefore, to allow them the same rights would be an exclusion.

This is a common perceptual experience amongst many homosexual rights opponents – that homosexuals are demanding particular rights, non civil rights. This term gets thrown around rather frequently when the subject of cheery matrimony is mentioned. The statement that homosexual rights are particular rights frequently sends the message that homosexuals are second-class citizens ; but what precisely is a second-class citizen? Harmonizing to Markus ( 2002 ) : “A second-class citizen is a individual considered inferior in position or rights in comparing with some others” ( p. 13 ) . Sing the fact that homosexuals can non acquire married, file joint revenue enhancement returns, or follow kids in some provinces, it is non a stretch to see how they could experience like second-class citizens. When Conservative groups are confronted with the unfairness of it all, most merely claim that homosexual rights are non civil rights, they are particular rights. A common statement against homosexual rights is that homosexuals are seeking particular rights unavailable to others. This is untrue, but it ‘s rhetorically powerful and sounds converting ( Fetner, 2008 ) . Even though spiritual fundamentalists claim that homosexual rights are particular rights, these rights are important to deriving equal protection under the jurisprudence.

To happen out more about the changing positions on homosexual rights, I conducted three interviews with three different people. I spoke to my priest, Father Needham, my sapphic niece, Anna, and a coworker of mine, Sheryl. Father Needham ‘s positions were right where I expected them to be. He opposes same-sex matrimony and believes that homosexuals can be rehabilitated. He besides believes that homosexuals should non be around kids. My niece, Anna, believes that matrimony is a right that should belong to everyone. She besides believes that homosexuals should be allowed to follow. Sheryl, my coworker, believes that homosexual matrimony should be allowed, but she is unsure about whether or non they should follow. In a nutshell, everyone has different positions on this subject, and it is one that is considered rather controversial.

It has ever been my apprehension that civil rights belong to everyone. They are the warrant that all persons will have equal intervention. When one person ‘s civil rights are violated, I believe that everyone ‘s civil rights are at hazard. Harmonizing to Brodie ( 2009 ) : “When the black civil rights motion wins an progress, it is n’t a black progress, it is an progress for all people. Everyone moves frontward. This is true with homosexuals and tribades, it is true with Hispanics, it is true with adult females, it is true with all of us” ( p. 2 ) . In other words, the civil rights of one group are closely tied to those of another. We are all connected in some manner, and if one group suffers, so another may endure every bit good. If cheery rights are seen as particular rights, so that endangers us all in some ways. It is non a particular right to be able to populate freely. It is non a particular right to be treated reasonably. It is non a particular right to get married the individual you love. These are ordinary entitlements. The right to non be discriminated against is a platitude claim we all expect to bask, and it is a farce when certain people can non bask that. Everyone should be afforded the same rights and privileges. When people are non treated every bit, so society as a whole suffers.

Unfortunately, there are legion grounds as to why Conservatives view cheery rights as particular rights. Harmonizing to Rimmerman ( 2008 ) : “Frequently, when homophiles discuss cheery rights, Conservatives focus on sex, non personal freedoms” ( p. 78 ) . The statement that gays want particular rights reflects the grade to which tribades and homosexuals are seen as untypical ; their claims to ordinary rights seem particular. The focal point on homosexual and sapphic sex happens rather often, and it is most likely done out of ignorance. Gay rights advocators are non contending for the right to hold sex, they are contending for the right to be treated every bit. It is an atrociousness to state a group of people that their desire to hold equal rights is untypical. It is besides a fiction to claim that by being allowed to get married, homosexuals will hold particular rights. Heterosexuals are allowed to acquire married and bask the full benefits that come along with that. How are two people of the same sex acquiring married any more “special” than that? Marriage is matrimony, be it between a adult male and a adult female, a adult male and a adult male, or a adult female and a adult female.

In kernel, what the Conservatives are reasoning is instead hard to understand. Harmonizing to them, no 1 is allowed to get married person of the same sex, but homosexuals can get married people of the opposite sex if they choose to ( Markus, 2002 ) . Therefore, if homosexuals are besides allowed to get married people of the same sex, so they are being given rights non afforded to everyone else. This statement is far from being solid. In fact, it can be used against other involvement groups. For illustration, a Christian is allowed to pattern Buddhism, and yet a Jew is non allowed to pattern Christianity. So do Christians have particular rights non afforded to Jews? It is a hard point to reason, and it is widely believed that one time you start down a slippery incline, it is hard to acquire back to the original statement.

The statement over particular rights is one that has been fought over for many old ages. Harmonizing to Brodie ( 2009 ) : “This is an antique conflict. Gays want an terminal to their particular position, their position as outcast under the Constitution. They want to pull attending off from the sexual aspect” ( p. 2 ) . The sexual facet of homosexual and sapphic relationships is something that many Conservatives focus on. For some ground, they can non see past the physical portion, so they seem to zero in on it. When they look at homosexual rights protagonists, many see persons with perverse sexual behaviours. They focus all their attending on the sexual facets, non the emotional or political 1s. Many Conservatives do n’t see things as they are. They do n’t see cheery parents and their disquieted kids. They do n’t see immature grownups concerned about their hereafters. They do n’t see aged people standing with their spouses. All they see is a group of people who have sexual desires that go against their spiritual beliefs. As Brodie ( 2009 ) writes: “The consecutive bulk acquiesces in the constitutional disenfranchisement of the homosexual minority because tribades and homosexuals have sex with spouses of the same sex and because that goes against the bulk ‘s grain. That, instead than any truth about homophiles, has resulted in the common belief that homosexual rights are about sex” ( p. 4 ) .

Because of all of the attending on sex, many Conservatives have a hard clip sing other facets of the homosexual rights motion. It is a possibility that some Conservatives genuinely believe that matrimony, lodging, and medical attention are particular rights. In their eyes, God condemns homosexual behaviour ; hence, homophiles should truly be treated as second-class citizens. As Alsenas ( 2008 ) writes: “The particular rights rhetoric is truly an effort to pull a line between ‘us ‘ and ‘them. ‘ Typically, anti-discrimination Torahs do no more than prevent homosexuals and tribades from being fired from their occupations and denied lodging or medical attention because they are gay” ( p. 23 ) . And some provinces will non even do that. In 37 provinces, it is still legal under both province and federal jurisprudence to fire person because they are cheery, deny person lodging because of their sexual orientation, or decline to function a sapphic in a eating house. Is it a particular right to be able to work hard and maintain your occupation? Is it a particular right to be able to happen lodging? Is it a particular right to be served in a eating house? The reply to all three inquiries is clear, and it is condemnable that they even need to be asked.

There will ever be divergent sentiments on the subject of homosexual rights, even when they become more commonplace. In order for the tug-of-war to halt, communicating is indispensable. If people can merely sit down and listen to each other without taking things personally, so I believe that apprehension will be the following measure. Unfortunately, many people have a difficult clip interacting with persons who have opposing positions. I am one of those unfortunate persons. In the past, I have had to coerce myself to be civil with people I did non hold with. Looking back on those times, I realize that keeping back was a complete waste of clip. My existent emotions finally came out, and they were much worse after being repressed. As Fetner ( 2008 ) writes: “For most people, emotions seem to hold a life of their ain. Peoples wish they could experience composures when nearing aliens, yet their voices tremble” ( p. 32 ) . The conflict over cheery rights is an emotional 1 on both sides of the statement, and emotions have a manner of overcasting good judgement.

Gay rights, no affair how you look at them, are non particular rights. It is non a particular right to be protected under the jurisprudence or to experience safe keeping your spouse ‘s manus. It is non a particular right to encompass your individualism. Not everybody is white, Conservative, and directly. Not everybody believes that the separation of church and province is unneeded. Not everybody believes that same-sex matrimony is an abomination. With all the ugliness in the universe, why would the subject of love of all time come under fire? If two people love each other, so why ca n’t they do a bond of it? Why ca n’t their love be recognized by their province, by their state? Why ca n’t they show their love without pulling negative attending? If the jubilation of love and individualism is a particular right, so the universe needs to review its nucleus values and seek once more.

Mentions

  1. Alsenas, L. ( 2008 ) . Gay America: Struggle for equality. New York: Amulet Books.
  2. Brodie, K. ( 2009 ) . Why cheery rights are inevitable. CPSR. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from hypertext transfer protocol: /cpsr.org/issues/gayrightsinev.brodie2
  3. Fetner, T. ( 2008 ) . How the spiritual right shaped sapphic and cheery activism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  4. Markus, E. ( 2002 ) . Making cheery history: The half century battle for sapphic and cheery equal rights. New York: Harper Collins.
  5. Rimmerman, C. ( 2008 ) . The sapphic and cheery motions: assimilation or release? . Boulder: Westview Press.