A number of people in various threads on these boards have made statements to the effect that gay people are asking for “special rights.” I would like for those who believe this to be true to please post here a list of those “special rights” for which gays are asking, preferably with a quote and a link to the source of that request. “Special rights” is defined as a right which gay people seek which straight people either don’t already have or would not also gain were it extended to gay people.
Otto, the only “special right” that I can see from the usual list is inclusion in the “hate crimes” measures.
Philosophically, I am opposed to setting up classes of people and saying that they deserve X. E.g., I dislike affirmative action in the quota sense, though I approve wholeheartedly of ensuring that minorities get an equal shake at employment, minority businesses get a fair share of government contracts, and the like. Practically, with gay bashing a common practice, I suspect that I have to compromise with my philosophical stance to assure that gays get equal protection under the assault laws, etc., in place.
[Sarcastic HAT ON]
Well, they want the right to be gay, don’t they? We don’t have that right.
[Sarcastic HAT OFF]
Lib., I don’t think anybody is stopping you from being gay if you want to be. Of course, Edlyn might have a few choice comments to make on the subject… :rolleyes:
Depends on what state he lives in. In some places, same-sex relations are illegal
1972 GAY RIGHTS PLATFORM
-
Elimination of bars to the entry…and naturalization of [”gay”] aliens.
-
Encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by gay men and women, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle
as a viable alternative to heterosexuality. -
Regulations and legislation banning the compiling, maintenance and dissemination of information on an individual’s sexual preferences…
-
[Public] funding of all programs of gay men’s and women’s organizations designed to alleviate [discrimination]…
-
Immediate release of all gay men and women now incarcerated in …prisons and mental institutions because of sexual offense[s]…
-
Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons; equalization for homosexuals and heterosexuals for the enforcement of laws.
-
Repeal of all state laws prohibiting solicitation for private voluntary sexual liaisons; and laws [banning] prostitution, both male and female.
-
Enactment of legislation prohibiting insurance companies and any other state regulated enterprises from discriminating …
-
Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption, visitation rights, foster parenting, and the like shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status.
-
Repeal all laws prohibiting transvestitism and cross-dressing.
-
Repeal all laws governing age of sexual consent.
-
Repeal all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex
or numbers.
National Coalition of Gay Organizations, Chicago, February 1992.
Boomie, what’s your point? Every point on that agenda falls into two categories: 1) allow homosexual individuals the same rights as all citizens or 2) dcriminalize all consensual sexual activity. Where have you demonstrated any special rights?
Tom~
BTW, Boomer, do you have an actual citation for that list? Or is it another list passed around by Falwell and Wildmon that makes up stuff the way the John Birch Society passes out Communist “agendas.” I ask because most of the list seems reasonable (to reasonable people), but I have never seen an actual broad-based gay rights group espouse number 11.
(And why do you have two separate dates?)
Tom~
FTR, I oppose hate crime penalty enhancements as they’re currently formulated on 1st Amendment grounds. The USSC disagress with me, however.
I am unaware of any jurisdiction which bans “hate crimes” on the basis of sub-categories when it comes to sexual orientation. The statutes read “sexual orientation,” not “homosexuality.” Were a gay person to assault a str8 person because s/he is str8, that would be a “hate crime” under the statute. The only “sub-category” type of classification I’ve ever heard of re “hate crimes” statutes is transgenderism/gender identity. So I don’t think seeking inclusion of sexual orientation under hate crimes statutes qualifies.
Which does not mean it’s illegal to be gay; it means it’s illegal to engage in certain consensual sex acts in private with another adult of the same sex. In I think 11 states the “sodomy” laws apply to str8 oral and anal sex as well.
My impression of the list:
General rights:
1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12.
Everything looks like a special right to me. I would be interested in what other people think of this list. I agree with all of the list items above and I am curious what others think.
You know, doing what is right is easy. The problem is knowing what is right.
–Lyndon B. Johnson
Otto, will ya quit spelling “straight” with an “8”? It’s starting to stink like spelling “Clinton” with a “K”.
My opinions:
*1. Elimination of bars to the entry…and naturalization of [”gay”] aliens. * No problem. If a person is going to be a good citizen, his sex life should not be a bar to that. If not, keep him out, same as a straight undesirable alien. (I.e., If a gay Australian or Zimbabwean wants to come here for any reasonable cause, no sweat. If somebody is a drug smuggler and ought to be kept out anyway, the fact that he’s a gay drug smuggler should not be used as a cause celebre to let him come in.)
2. Encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by gay men and women, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle
as a viable alternative to heterosexuality. Huh? Teaching kids the facts at the appropriate time, including that some people are gay through no fault of their own, and have no true choice in being gay, strikes me as a good idea. I have a distinct problem with teaching somebody that “homosexuality [is] a valid, healthy preference” since it is not a preference. And, of course, when we’ve gotten a good definition of “the gay lifestyle” I’ll consider commenting on that.
*3. Regulations and legislation banning the compiling, maintenance and dissemination of information on an individual’s sexual preferences… * Or any other damn governmental nosiness into private affairs. I’m for it.
*4. [Public] funding of all programs of gay men’s and women’s organizations designed to alleviate [discrimination]… * News to me. I assume public=governmental. If an anti-discrimination organization wants to raise money publicly, I have no problem with that.
*5. Immediate release of all gay men and women now incarcerated in …prisons and mental institutions because of sexual offense[s]… * As I asked slythe on another thread, what sexual offenses? If those child molesters in Arkansas are in fact gay, keep 'em locked up. Rapists, forcible sodomists, ditto. If somebody is incarcerated for a consenting adult sex act that his/her state still lists as a crime, let him/her out.
*6. Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons; equalization for homosexuals and heterosexuals for the enforcement of laws. * Insert “adult” at the appropriate place, and I’m for it.
*7. Repeal of all state laws prohibiting solicitation for private voluntary sexual liaisons; and laws [banning] prostitution, both male and female. * I don’t have a problem with part 1, and need to think over part 2. My only concern would be public health, and while that’s a valid concern, it does not presuppose violating people’s right to private conduct. I suspect there might be some need for a legal mechanism to prohibit unwanted solicitation. That’s a bridge to be crossed later.
*8. Enactment of legislation prohibiting insurance companies and any other state regulated enterprises from discriminating … * Absolutely necessary. No problem.
*9. Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption, visitation rights, foster parenting, and the like shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status. * On target. I think the obvious point that pedophilia would remain a ban may need to be made. (And, no, I’m not equating the two, just noting that there is a small minority of pedophile gays.)
*10. Repeal all laws prohibiting transvestitism and cross-dressing. * Why the heck not? Gary Bauer is a bigger threat to the American way of life than RuPaul ever thought of being.
*11. Repeal all laws governing age of sexual consent. * Uh, are we on the same planet? I’ve seen articles by teenaged gays getting extremely peeved because the “gay activist establishment” refuses to push for lowering the age of consent. Somehow, I think this clause crawled in from under some rock.
*12. Repeal all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex
or numbers. * Haven’t seen anything about “numbers” seriously advanced, except a few semi-ironic remarks about polyamory. Other than that, I’m very much for it, at least as a civil marriage right, along with those churches who are willing to bless a same-sex marriage. Let me take a rain check on polygamy for now. (Flinx? Did you sneak this in? :D)
I see no “special” rights except in #5, which after the slanted verbiage is corrected is simply asking that persons who violated unnecessary and offensive laws and were jailed for it be released. The fact that the laws target gays only is inconsequential, but probably makes this a “special” right.
Sorry about posting without the citation.
In February 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations met at the
Armitage Avenue United Methodist Church in Chicago. The demands I posted above are the result of this meeting, and probably the beginning of the radical activist ‘in your face’ homosexual movement we are witnessing today.
The strategy was later published point by point in the late 80’s. I will locate the cite on this and post it.
Boomer, that may very well be the case. But in my reading, the only place I’ve seen the term “homosexual lifestyle” is in right-wing anti-gay publicity. And, as noted, I have never seen anyone call for the eradication of the age of consent.
Esprix? Otto? Are you aware of something I’m not on this particular question?
I think I would be very skeptical of the source here. (Which is true on the other side, as well: The story that Jerry Falwell called Tinky-Winky gay is still circulating, despite the truth of the matter, which was that one of his staffers threw that into an article the staffer signed, in Falwell’s magazine, as a speculation without Falwell’s knowledge of its publication until after the fit hit the shan.)
BTW Tomndeb & Otto:
If no ‘special rights’ are sought here, why is special legislation required? If the civil rights of homosexuals are being violated, why is the U.S. Attorney not prosecuting??
Boomer, you are actually asking several questions:
-
Are they asking for “special rights” or “equal rights”?
-
If “equal rights,” why do they need legislation?
-
Why is not the U.S. Attorney pursuing the enforcement of their rights?
My response would be, first, they are seeking equal rights. Second, many groups of people have been deprived of equal rights in the past. Legislation was in general required to assure them of their rights. My grandmother could remember receiving the right to vote. I can remember when women were subject to wage differentiation as a general rule. I was in second grade when Brown v. Board of Education made school segregation illegal. And Loving vs. Virginia threw out miscegenation laws within the last 30 years. I suspect that you are not seriously suggesting that we go back to any of those days. I urge upon you that from a broader perspective, the issue here is much the same: a group with a particular “handicap” in legal status is seeking to have that handicap removed. Albeit their interest involves a sexual practice you may not approve of, in the last analysis, how does this differ from a man of 1901 questioning whether blacks are really the equal of whites, or women really the equal of men. After all, they did have their place, and ought to know it and stay in it. All this radical stuff was totally unnecessary.
Radical gays are not making noise for the privilege of having anal intercourse. They’re making noise because they have, without intention on their part, a sexual orientation that they can either keep hidden or have discriminated against. If they are tired of living a lie, they can expect receive public putdowns and discrimination, and they want that stopped. What Joe Schmoe may do behind closed doors makes no difference to how well he can do his job, and nobody should judge his employment status on it. What your religion or your personal taste may say about Joe and his partner’s lasting interest in each other should bear no relationship to whether they can commit to each other for the rest of their lives, same as I have done with my wife and you have or can with yours (depending on whether you’re married yet).
The job of the U.S. Attorney is to enforce the laws that do exist, not to scout around for rights that have not been legally recognized as such yet. In 2100, I can guarantee you that if the U.S. is still in existence in its present legal status (which I would assume it will be), there will be U.S. Attorneys out protecting rights secured by the Civil Rights Act of 2083 or found by the Supreme Court to inure in the Ninth Amendment, none of which you or I can identify as such today.
In 1901, a U.S. Attorney who did not act in accordance with Plessy vs. Ferguson was in error. In 1961, he would be in error if he did. The laws changed. And they will again.
I presume you are not going on the basis that we only have the rights the government gives us. If you care to argue otherwise, I have a friend who would be glad to discuss the issue with you. 
Polycarp:
First,please be disabused of the notion that ‘the government gives us rights.’ I refer you to the Declaration of Independence - "endowed by ** our creator ** with certain unalienable rights. In other words we are all created with certain rights. In a free society, we then loan those rights to our government. Rights are not the government’s either to give or withhold.
Second, you are confusing so-called ‘gay rights’ with civil rights. The core of the activist homosexual strategy is to align themselves with blacks, women, the handicapped and any other oppressed minority whose plight they can exploit.
There is a very significant
difference between the condition vis-a-vis the behaviour of an individual. Homosexuals already have all the ‘rights’ the rest of us have, but they want more. They want acceptance of their deviancy.
I simply do not agree with anyone who asserts that it is necessary to create a special priveleged class for sodomites.
I see. The right to hold a job or rent an apartment without having their boss or landlord deny them because of their sex life, for example? The right to marry the person they love? We are talking about condition, not behavior here. The already have the right to have gay sex in most of the country. What the activists are seeking relates to their lives as human beings, not to their desire for sexual gratification.
I agree. The State of Israel, IMHO, should treat them the same as Bethelehemites, Tel Avivites, and so on. Or were you using the Marquis of Queensberry construction? I think your thesaurus is not Y2K-compliant, in that case; it is operating on 1900 usage.
Boomer, you have still faileed to indicate any special rights, even in your list that I seriously doubt was created by any gay group. (In other words, it appears that even the people who hate gays and lie about what they really want seem to have expressed the desired effect as simply civil rights.)
What is a special right in your list?
Tom~