While prejudice can never truly be eradicated as long as there are different people with different beliefs, this country has taken large steps in the past to reduce bigotry. Many of these steps can be seen within their eras as large movements that shape society, instead of minor rebellions that fade away. With the caveat that one movement follows the next, whats next? If we can assume that America has faced and overcome (or very nearly overcome) discrimination in the past with regards to minorities/immigrants, blacks, gender, and to an extent, children, and are right now in the middle of the gay/bi/transgendered civil rights movement, whats the next one?
Off the top of my head, possibilities are:
Polygamists
Illegal immigrants
Pedophiles
Marajuana/drug users
Mental illness
Terrorists
Obesity
Anorexics
If theres more I cant think of right now. How long before one of these groups are in the streets shouting “We’re people too! Leave us alone!”
With a long history and scattered affiliation in all parts of the world, it would make sense that we could conceivably see polygamists coming out of the woodwork and demanding they be treated equally. After all, at the fundamental level, this, similar to gays, is about people who love each other and want to be together (nevermind that most real world instances amount to slavery of women). The important thing is, the act itself isnt harmful, so why not?
We may already be in a nascent movement, what with the attention paid to the issue in the '04 and '06 elections. The economic downturn probably soured most on helping others when we cant even help ourselves. But welcoming in the poor and the meek is inscribed on the Statue of Liberty and generally is a charitable and virtuous act. Of course, it runs afoul of federal laws, but we dont deny them entrance to the ER, and many places like schools and churches refuse to report them. Plus, they’re already here, its easier to empathize with people you hang out with
Like personal disgust with gays, many people will find that one issue too big to overcome. While people have openly practiced this in the past, the average lifespan was also a lot shorter then too. But we do have legal groups like NAMBLA. Will they make strides into making it more acceptable?
For most of history, doing drugs was a choice. But now with modern medicine and scientific studies, drug users are often seen as victims of their own addiction instead of perpetrators of their own harm. Many programs already call for non-criminal penalties, instead putting them in hospitals instead. Some babies are born addicted because of their mother’s actions. And for most of us, we know people who do drugs on occasion and live perfectly normal and healthy lives. Lastly, arent nicotine and alcohol drugs? How many of us regularly partake of those?
Kind of like the physically disabled, we already grant them wide protections. But right now, most see them as sufferers of an illness, and because of that limit what they can do. Even though many illnesses can be controlled with medication or some form of healthy living, you wouldnt want to trust your baby to a mentally ill babysitter. And saying that you suffer from a mental illness invites stigma and scrutiny. These people are generally seen as innocent victims, but even so, common sense makes most of us shun and fear them
Well ok, kind of a joke entry. But like prisoners, they deserve at least fair trials and a safe jail, dont they? But what politician would willingly stick up for prisoner rights?
7 + 8) Almost like two sides of a same coin. Both are opposite extremes of the norm, and both have health issues that make them dangerous. But you’d be lying if you said you didnt know one healthy fat or skinny guy who lived a long full life. Some people demand that the obese pay for 2 seats on an airplane, and others try to shut down websites devoted to the dangerous, but still legal practice of anorexia. One’s a choice, the other’s classified as an illness. One thing for certain, I would like to be at the parade grounds if either of these groups ever decide to march for rights
Look to the future! Whats our next big rights movement??
I’ll vote for 4) Marajuana/drug users and I’ll go farther and say that it will eventually be for pretty much all recreational drugs. This does not mean that I believe that they will be entirely legal, but that the users will at least be decriminalized. The war on drugs can’t get any bigger, and it seems that it has had no effect on society other than to destroy lives; hopefully not what anyone wants. Drug use is as popular as ever, and along with its many potential negative repercussions, its positive effects on society cannot easily be denied (drug use has been a driver of many of the creative geniuses of our time). With transparency through the Internet, it’s only a matter of time before responsible users unify and demand their right to be free just like everyone else.
Didnt Australia recently settle a court case (or is in the process of one) that, if ruled a certain way, would essentially give a chimp de facto human rights? PETA, I’m sure, would be happy about it. But while most of us wants to protect our beloved family pets or even a wild animal from being tortured and abused, I dont think any of us want to be criminalized from killing a rat. The problem I see with animals is that unlike the other, human groups, the group members cannot speak for itself. They are dependant on others to speak for them and that is a poor substitute for self representation. Animal rights are quite far along in that they’ve had decades to develope, but sans an actual animal speaking in front of the tube for itself, I think ultimately the movement will be doomed
Artificial intelligence is interesting though. I dont think we’re at that level yet, our most advanced AI being only rudimentally capable of ducking behind a crate to avoid your rocket launcher, but sure, in a few hundred years, I can see that
New Beginning, what do you mean by transparency through the internet?
I think it’s polygamists. If they want to marry (without coercion) and split up assets among them, that’s fine with me. Need to figure out child custody issues of course.
When it’s actually a group or 3+ consenting adults, no one has a problem with it. The laws are only enforced when it’s not “consenting adults”.
Personally, I’ll never find it right to have some OT-patriarch-like dude of 40-50, “marrying” his own daughters and some brainwashed daughters of other OT-patriarch-like dude. Meanwhile, all his wives but one are on welfare, supporting his fat pedophile pervert ass.
Is there a fundamentally sound reason for the discrimination in the majority of cases other than social or religious custom?
The larger the group and the smaller the change, the more likely it would be. To go down you list:
Polygamists: I do not know the number, but it is already coming into the “rarely prosecuted when discovered” area. Right now, as long as no rape or coercion occur, most jurisdiction will not prosecute for this. As long all parties have the same legal protections there does not seem to be any reason this shouldn’t be allowed, however there are significant legal challenges to be worked out with regards to property, divorce, consent, and spousal rights. For gays all that was required was to change the wording to make the forms and laws gender neutral and you are done.
Illegal immigrants: This is obviously a large group, but it is not a static group. They are only illegal until the law or their status changes. And until the day we abolish nations, you will always have illegal immigrants. The issues that need to be addressed with this are to rationalize immigration and labor policies and to address the root causes (poverty in Mexico being the biggest).
Pedophiles: This should never happen. Here we are talking about people predisposed to damage others. If someone is just attracted to a prepubescent body type, I suppose simulations could eventually substitute, but normalizing pedophilia would be equivalent to normalizing violent rape. The harm to others is too great to let this be acceptable.
Marajuana/drug users: This is already underway as there is no very little social stigma to having used or even currently using many drugs. Again it is more a matter of rationalizing laws than giving civil rights.
Mental illness: There is a drive to respect the rights of the mentally ill, and attitudes are changing, but mental illness can create a danger to others and render someone incapable of functioning normally. There should be less of stigma, but some people need to be medicated or treated whether they want it or not for the safety of the public at large.
Terrorists There are already many who think that even suspected terrorists should have the same legal rights as everyone else and (hopefully) soon we will return to a nation of laws.
Obesity and 8) Anorexics: These two go together as they both have significant health risks. Obesity can have physical or mental causes and anorexia is a mental illness, but both are dangerous to the individual and should be treated. Also, don’t confuse being skinny with anorexia and being overweight with morbid obesity. They are different things and should be treated differently.
I know you are kidding, but which do you think will happen sooner, a gay president or an atheist president? We are about to have a black president and I remember reading a recent survey that said more people would vote for a Muslim than an atheist.
Atheists like me have consistently been rated as the least trustworthy, least accepted group. I would have to say we’d probably get a gay president at least 50 years before an atheist one. We already have prominent gay politicians and celebrities. Its much rarer to have atheist ones
I wasn’t really talking about atheists being oppressed, I was merely pointing out that it is hard to take Christian oppression by liberal atheists seriously.
Presuming we’re already working on the gay-lesbian-bi-transgender thing, and presuming we don’t lose ground on the freedom-to-worship thing, I would say the next logical step is chimerae. That is, genetic hybrids, genetic adjustments in utero, gene-spliced individuals, fixer-upper custom babies, and so on. Maybe clones, too, it depends.
The technology is almost here and we’re going to have to deal with its consequences very soon. Maybe in 20-50 years when we have [del]licked the gay[/del] overcome our collective biases against LGBTs, it’ll be time to work on our Fear Of God And Tampering With Things Man Was Not Meant To Know complex.
That would be quite interesting. Transhumanism is something I’ve read about and it fascinates me to no end. I wouldnt mind some chimerae running around, so long as they’re not on an island controlled by a mad scientist
I’ve heard Christians cite Transhumanism specfically as the cause for their opposition to LGBT. That if you relax norms so much we’ll be expected to accept anything and we’ll have no real values to speak of.
