In searching through different news sites, watching news programs, and reading newspapers, it is evident that Gay Civil Rights is a widely discussed and debated issue. Much of the underlying controversy stems from marriage laws, “Don’t ask, don’t tell” in the military, and adoption regulations. These restrictions against homosexuals all form from underlying assumptions about them, and are undeniably transgressions of their basic human rights. Being able to publicly and officially demonstrate one’s love through marriage, being able to express one’s self to others, and being able to have children are rights which all heterosexual men and women can enjoy, so how can we deprive others of those same liberties due to their sexuality? Unfortunately, some people perceive homosexuals solely upon their sexual orientation and not upon their morals, ethics, opinions, personality, etc. Hopefully through meaningful discussion, those who misunderstand and are prejudiced against homosexuality can learn to be more open and accepting.
The civil rights issues dealing with gay people are so prevalent in our society, and we should take it upon ourselves (whether we are strait or gay) to advocate for their equal treatment. It is unjust and unfair, in a country where “all men are created equal,” to decide who can live freely and enjoy civil liberties and who cannot. Regardless of any person’s sexual orientation, we are all human beings and deserve to be treated with the same respect, kindness, and compassion as we, personally, would wish to be treated with.
Here is a video in which President Obama talks about Gay Civil Rights.
4 comments:
I think you have selected an undoubtedly controversial and important issue to write about. I completely agree that we, as humans, cannot and should not control the sexual preferences of others, simply because they are different. According to the Constitution of the United States, every person is entitled to certain inalienable rights; among these rights are freedom of expression and religious freedom. Also, it says that no one (particularly the government) can infringe on these rights unless the enacting of those rights is directly endangering the lives of others. Homosexuality does, in no way, endanger the life of another so I also have trouble understanding where the controversy comes in to play. However, since this is such an involved and heartfelt issue for most, we must try to avoid bias as much as we can. Simply commenting on the immorality and wrongfulness of limiting gay rights does not present the entirety of the issue and could be considered somewhat biased. I think it is commendable to take on such a worthy issue. I think your blog has taken great form thus far and will be very thought provoking and influential as it progresses.
I agree with humanmachine in saying that this is an extremely controversial debate; it seems that many people have exceedingly polarized views on the topic as well which causes even more tension. I, however, am in the middle with slightly mixed feelings. Family members of mine are gay and I have no problems with homosexuality. I believe they should be able to be whomever they want to and marry whoever they want to; homosexuals should have the same amount of respect and compassion like you said. However, I still think there should be limits to how far and fast this transition moves; only due to the fact that many Americans are blatantly against homosexuality and the situation could become tense. Humanmachine said that homosexuals should have all the rights we should because no one, not even the government, can “infringe on these rights unless the enacting of those rights is directly endangering the lives of others.” I believe that one of the reasons the government set up “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” is to protect the homosexual military personnel. Especially in the military, there are many people who hate homosexuals and if they were assigned a bunk with an openly gay person, there could be drastic consequences; therefore, to avoid all this the government simply said if your gay its fine, just don’t be blatantly open about it. I have no problems with gay rights and marriage but there needs to be some restrictions because of the rest of the public’s possible reactions.
I, too, commend you for choosing a very debatable and controversial topic to write your blog on. I believe that you have started off your blog very strongly and clearly explained your beliefs on the issue. I have many friends who would place themselves in the LGBT group, therefore I would assume we share the same beliefs on the topic. No man or woman should ever be shorted of rights due to their sexual beliefs. If we were discussing the issue of the death penalty or life sentencing towards people in prison I would have an opposing viewpoint. However, these are people who are simply gay. What harm have they cause to anyone? I do believe in "Don't ask, Don't tell," but I disagree with Houston Brown in that we must have restrictions because of the populations reaction. Yes, many are opposed to homosexuality, but who are they to decide what the LGBT community can do or say? I find your statement to be very shallow. It should not be based on what the population has to say about it, it should be based on the happiness of the individuals involved.
I look forward to reading more of what you have to say on this topic, I'm interested to learn more on the issue at hand.
In rebuttal to Lavenderblonde, maybe my post was a tad confusing or something so I’ll clear it up for you. I never used the word “restrictions” that is too strong; I said, “There should be limits to how far and fast this transition moves.” My point in that comment was that if homosexuals were just given the right of marriage like “Bam! There you go!” people will be immensely irate. It would spark a fuse in multiple people who are blatantly against gay rights; however, if rights came at a slower pace there wouldn’t be that initial spark that sets these people off; therefore, they would be more likely to be accepting of it in the future and the likelihood of animosity would be greatly narrowed.
Shallow? Not at all, it was almost shallow on your part by calling this shallow and not examined my comment’s depth. Just because I believe America shouldn’t just drastically give rights and they should take it slow doesn’t mean I’m shallow, it’s actually the complete opposite. On a first date do you just jump into things? No that’d be shallow you take it slow and get to know the person just like many Americans should do with homosexual people. If we gave it time I feel that many people would learn to accept homosexuality but maybe I’m just too optimistic and America should just piss off a large amount of its citizens by radically giving everyone rights one day.
Hope this cleared things up
Post a Comment