An Argument.

For Human Rights, I do not believe there can be an opposite opinion. For Human Rights, I will look into your face and tell you that you are wrong. For Human Rights, there are no qualifiers. That’s some pretty radical statement, I know. I know that according to the rules of rhetoric, it is erroneous to say: there can be [no] opposite opinion. Human Rights are worth such extremism.

I am, in fact, a moderate. In the political sense & the ideological. The former speaks for itself. The latter is to say that when someone disagrees with me on, say, a political issue and even one I feel strongly about (i.e. gun control), I partake in the agree to disagree approach. For me, this means that I do not to press or assert my own perspective because I feel compelled not to. (Which is an important distinction. It is not that I control my desire to partake in debate. It is that I am not compelled to partake.) While I believe in my own perspective, I see value in both.

On this issue, the issue of Human Rights, I am an extremist. On the issue of Human Rights–be it women’s rights such as those involved with rape, racial rights such as those involved with segregation, or religious rights such as those involved in The Holocaust–I stand firm. I stand 100%+. I make 0 exceptions for Human Rights. Allow me to defend the assertion.

Rebuttal: To believe genuinely in Human Rights (plural), one cannot pick and choose. One must believe in all underlying principles that construct Human Rights. According to the United for Human Rights website, the definition of the term as well as its component parts are as follows:

A member of the Homo sapiens species; a man, woman or child; a person.

It seems that 3 principles underly the term Human Rights. 1) Human Species. 2) Guaranteed Freedoms. 3) Rights Simply Because you are Human. Hence, if any part of these principles, such as human species, is exempt from your definition of Human Rights, than no, you do not believe in Human Rights. Using the above example, you believe in just religious freedoms.

Gay Rights. Let’s define this. If Gay Rights are Human Rights, then Gay Rights are the rights in the United States of America that extend to every other citizen in the United States of America. Gay Rights are the right to vote, the right to education, the right to EEOC, the right to worship. Gay Rights are the right to marry.

One might counter: Many things. That marriage is religious. That marriage is between one man and one woman. Those, I will not tackle. We have DOMA for that. (Although I will say that in my religion, you can get married. We are of the opinion that Christ is all encompassing. And, The Bible is not meant to be taken literally. If you believe The Bible is, and therefore cannot make allowances for homosexuality, then you also cannot make allowances for any of its preachings, such as its stance on evolution & the heliocentric theory.) I will hone in on the more moderate perspective: I believe gays should have the rights afforded marriage, but I do not believe it should be called “marriage.”

Rebuttal: To label rights differently is to categorize rights separately. Women, imagine if when the 19th Amendment passed and we earned the Right to Vote, it wasn’t called voting, but rather, opining. Words are powerful. Words are canon. Canon is voice, and voice is cannon. The implications are revolutionary. In the above, Suffrage would have taken on the tone, not of formally giving or choosing (voting), but instead, of offering (opining). An opinion. Which then takes on the tone of something weaker, insipid, and passive. The 2 words are separate. The 2 words are not equal. The 2 words characterize an act, differently. Likewise, so would a phrase such as civil union used instead of marriage with which to categorize the rights under the legal partnership of 2 couples who are the same-sex.

Does anyone see a theme developing here? The theme is this. Underlying Principles. While considering and debating Gay Rights, we must ask ourselves: What are my underlying principles? Do not merely examine the off-shoots. Examine the qualifiers as well. Understand what belies your beliefs and look for discrepancies. If you find a discrepancy, then your underlying principles are flawed.

Example. I support people who are gay. But I do not support gay marriage. I do believe in equality.

Underlying Principles. 1) Equality. 2) Supporting a group of people.

Off-Shoot. I support people who are gay.

Qualifier. I do not support gay marriage.

Discrepancy. If not blatantly apparent, identify discrepancies by comparing your off-shoots & your qualifiers to your underlying principles. Does the off-shoot, I support people who are gay align with the underlying principles, Equality and Supporting a group of people? Yes. Does the qualifier, I do not support gay marriage align with the underlying principles, Equality and Supporting a group of people? No. Unequivocally, no. The first indicator being the phrasing, “do not support.” This directly conflicts with the underlying principle #2. The second indicator bno to gay marriage. This directly conflicts the underlying principle #1. If 1 group of people are stopped from or do not have access to a right that everyone else does, then something is not equal. That is that. There are no qualifies. If this were a math equation, it would read: ≠ .

When any part of your underlying principle reaches a discrepancy, your underlying principles are flawed. You can tell yourself and you can tell others that you believe in support, or that you believe in equality. This is a lie. Just because you support one aspect of a group by holding tight to an off-shoot which is mere pretense, does not mean that you genuinely, truly support the group. You can tell yourself you do. You. Do. Not.

1. If I deny a human being all of the rights & dignities afforded marriage, am I adhering to the principles of Human Rights?

2. Do I have the right to deny a human being the rights & dignities afforded marriage, even if my religion says I do?

3. Why would I want to deny a human being the rights & dignities afforded marriage?

4. Would any force-of-pure-good-&-altruistic-love want me to deny any human being any right or any dignity, let alone those involved with marriage?

5. What am I so afraid of?

6. If I have gay friends or family, and I do not support gay marriage, which means all of the rights & dignities afforded marriage, do I truly & genuinely support these friends & family?

7. Do I see any parallels in my beliefs to past injustices upon which we now look as antiquated or ignorant? Think segregation. Think Suffrage. Think oppression of religion.

8. Why am I unable to empathize with these human beings? What does this say about me?

9. Am I being hypocritical? Am I okay with this? Can I admit it?

10. Can I live with my beliefs today?

I say this now, and I say it proud. Gay marriage will be ratified into the constitution of the United States of America. Be prepared to go down in history as having been an oppressor to social progress. As having tried to control someone else’s freedom. Be prepared to bear that.