Originally Posted by
Investigator
My thoughts on human rights is that there are primary (base freedoms) and secondary rights:
Definition: Primary rights are rights given to preserve equality between physical differences (I know that sounds superficial, but bare with me). This would include rights pertaining to equality of race, gender, physical capabilities (equality for people with physical disorders, or other physical deficiencies), age, etc. Basically anything I can assign to a person based on looking at them (Assuming I have good vision).
Definition: Secondary rights are less obvious rights pertaining to secondary properties of a human like religion, sexuality, beliefs, nationality etc. Equality here is okay from the government's perspective as long as they don't conflict with base freedoms. For example, it can't be my belief I should be the only human alive so everyone must be "destroyed." We already see this kind of restrictions in our own governments ( the outlawing of pedophilia). So obviously the rights given to secondary properties of a person should be "looser" than the rights given to primary properties.
The reason why minorities get mad at liberals is that they lump sexuality into the category of primary human differences when I can't look at someone and correctly conclude "their gay." However, you can easily look at someone and tell if their "brown" or if they have have reached a senior age. No disputes are born when defining what someone's primary properties are and what rights should be put into place to preserve equality, but the same can't be had for secondary properties. So it is easy to say issues pertaining to primary rights are much more important that issues pertaining to secondary rights. We can't force people to agree on things pertaining to secondary differences nor can we say discrimination of secondary properties is on the same level as discrimination of primary properties (not saying discrimination of secondary properties should be disregarded, just saying it is not clear cut).
On the matter of homophobia; first off this is bad use of language. I have never met a person who was afraid of gay people, especially not on the same level as someone with arachnophobia is afraid of spiders. The word has been used to hash people who don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle as primitive people who's social status is that of a racist which is simply crazy if you ask me. People are allowed to disagree with your lifestyle, but still accept you. I can never disagree with the "black lifestyle", because there is no "black lifestyle." However if someone disagrees with someone being gay, they still need to support their voting rights, their right to live safely, etc.
The only matter to be cared for in regard of gay people is the preservation of their basic/primary rights. Gay people should not be physical harmed because they are gay nor should they be denied work because they are gay nor should they be bullied in general because they are gay. However, it is a secondary property as such you can be denied secondary services (services that are not primary services, like finance, medical aid, food, water, physical living conditions, security, education, transportation, etc) for this property. Owners of businesses pertaining to secondary services like those who accommodate special events (weddings, parties, performances) do have the right to deny service. I mean it is in their best financial interests to accept everyone anyways, but it is still their choice since their beliefs don't conflict with the primary rights of the person they are denying.
Are also would like to comment on something. If Christian's "punish" people for being gay, they are not acting on Christian principles, as the bible tells them precisely *not* to do that.
Reply With Quote