The only thing that stands out to me is the issue associated with marriage and how that pertains to taxation issues and receipt of benefits.
I’m not sure that represents human rights per se, although i think it is stupid to have to define by sexual orientation for what, for all intents and purposes, is a legally binding partnership.
Marriage is a word that has emotional baggage. It was a word that carried some presumptions associated with what was thought to be the way a male and female were defined by their sexual orientations.
This is the problem with law. Law is words and as such need to be very specific. That specificity becomes the challenge and will naturally lead to debate to determine a general consensus on what may be impossible to ascertain based on the perspectives of the debaters.
my opinion. Get rid of the word and start using a common term for ALL partnerships.
I can live with changing our term to Partnerage and adhering to all legal ramifications therin, notwithstanding sexual gratification clauses to be ascertained on an individual, legally binding partnership agreement.
I’m also open to understanding what the other human rights violations my be. I think there are some states where fellatio, cunnilingus, sodomy and bestiality are illegal, but I think judgments against can be taken to the Supreme Court, where the constitutional right of the pursuit of happiness, if that’s your thing, could be easily used to overturned
@spitfire3dc states are ramping up efforts to undermine existing gay marriage laws. Trans people are denied access to bathrooms that are in accordance with their gender identity. trump wants to ban trans people from serving in military. There is the issue f making name changes.Some caterers deny gay couples a wedding cake. There are goods and services denied to this community based on their sexual orientation because there aren’t strong anti-discrimination laws in place.
@Scarlett it seems to me that the real issue is discrimination and as long as “different” exists, discrimination will exist, whether illegal or not.
Thinking in broader terms; old versus young, man versus women, pretty versus ugly, fat/skinny…people may not discriminate on every potential polar extreme, but I’d bet even you could identify something where you have been influenced to discriminate.
In some cases we even celebrate discriminate “taste”
So how do we manage the personal bars that we set in an effort to supposedly indicate to ourselves that we have standards? Law? Been tried and failed. People that respect the law would not need the law in the first place.
Your original question centers on a country that probably has more laws than any country in the world and yet the percentage of your prison population is way out of whack with global averages. Your murder rates are ridiculous in similar comparisons.
It seems that something beyond laws need to be addressed to ensure human rights are a part of the fabric of any society. That “thing” might be to recognize that as any society exists it is not ever “The Best” it always needs to recognize that it has to try harder. If your leaders are not claiming you are the best, its citizens are. It’s a constant song emanating from your country and with some good reason, but best is not always entirely accurate.
I’m going to continue although this is starting to ramble.
Pride is a dual issue. It is good when it is used to motivate towards a set standard and has been achieved. It is bad when it is held up as a flag, metaphorically, to say look at me.
To your original point, Gay Pride has the potential to develop in the second way described. It’s just a natural evolution to the dynamic that is common to all humans.
Humility is the answer. It’s the only answer to eliminate discrimination in the broader context that will filter into the specifics, but in a country that is the epitome of celebrating the Almighty Buck, odds are stacked against you.
@Fletch
If someone doesn’t want to take your money . . . why battle to force them to do it?!
Particularly when there are many others who will gladly take it without the battle!
A more sober and intellectual assessment needs to be made . . . over just what is worth going to war over. Cake? Fish? A label? A symbol? Feelings one cannot master?
@griz seeing a statement like “Some caterers deny gay couples a wedding cake” is silly. Does it happen? I’m 100% sure it does. Just look at the bigger picture, not cake.
“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”
@Fletch
Unless they’re GBLT. Then they’ll sue you, call the human rights people, protest your business and brand you as a “hater”!
There was actually one business in Ontario where the owner politely explained his convictions and that he would rather not print a bunch of gay rights posters; but got on the phone and scored them an excellent deal with someone else.
They petitioned, protested, sued and put him out of business.
@griz this original post bothers me. to throw out this statement is not fair to anyone. who said this? where? proof of this happening, and not just an isolated incident or 2, would be nice.
I am in no way OK with ANYONE being denied human rights, but to blanket this is wrong.
@Fletch
It likely lives in the same zone as the “gender wage gap”.
It’s a construct mostly of bias, but still generally accepted by the public as absolute incontrovertible Truth.
My thought is that we have to accept some very powerful lobbies have expended a lot of time, energy and perhaps even money to make it a viable construct.
I don’t know about you; but I’ve been fooled before. Even unto being dead wrong and petitioning/perpetuating that “wrong”.
Humility is a powerful anti-condemnation tool.
@Scarlett i think gender ‘roles’ are a construct – like, every culture, in time and in the world, has different roles for genders and members of their society. and i guess the term gender in itself is a construct, a creation. but call it what we will, call us who we will, we are something, someone, who falls into roles defined by our cultures times etc… right?
@BelleMadre
It’s just lower human nature (animal nature) to compete with others to constructs of power and superiority over them (survival of the fittest). And not just men arm-wrestling or boxing. Women compete over beauty, accessories, affairs, attention etc.
I was going to say something about gender ROLES being a construct of society but one underpinned in pragmatism as well: but you beat me to it!
Not many have noticed just how deftly (and successfully!) various lobbies and special-interest groups have substituted “gender identity” for “gender role” in the public consciousness.
At the end of the day, gender envy/dysphoria/dissatisfaction is 100% a subjective construct — built entirely of personal feeling. Those feelings can be VERY strong. But even a strong feeling is not always a right or beneficial one over time.
We benefit to accept that some definitions . . . are struck by what is physically manifest. We have the ability to alter what is physically manifest. But my personal opinion is that when it comes to manifest gender, we err and do lasting harm to far more than just the person involved in the long run. Re-assigning gender beyond the first year or so of a child’s life if they are born intersex, seems to me like a very cruel form of child abuse.
Just look at what happened to that Texas teen who wanted to be re-assigned as a boy but still wanted to wrestle and it was unclear which sex group he/she should compete in — as she clearly had considerable advantage over both.
People are trying to adapt to the “new reality” she’s forced upon them, but he’s a pariah.
@griz i think it comes down to how humans treat humans. and i dont see people treating people equally, or well for that matter, and i see a lot of that based on gender identity. which makes me plum sad. why can one wear what one wants but not another?
@BelleMadre
I can wear a frilly pink dress in the toughest truckstop in Scranton PA if I really want to. But there would the risk of consequences.
So why would I want to? I really don’t look good in pink anyways! Is nothing more than “an exertion of ‘myself'”, really worth the possible consequences?? Based on the “inequalities” and “oppressions” from History — and that many still experience today — being able to wear what I want to wear without natural consequence (given lower human nature), really doesn’t seem like a worthy issue to be addressing so much time, energy and fury to.
As I’ve said in another thread, “freedom” doesn’t necessarily mean freedom from any consequence whatsoever. Every action produces reaction. That is an axiom of the physical reality we live in. Freedom of action in any given moment, doesn’t mean the Natural laws will be suspended for lil’ ol’ me.
Add the social reality that Human Beings exist with, playing with and preying upon one another . . . and we might as well say we’ll be plum sad until Humans stop behaving like Humans!
Too many of our modern social movements and pop-mindsets have simply become . . . about our right and freedom to make ourselves sad.
I have two gay sons and I don’t see what rights are denied. They are allowed to marry in California and if my sons were being treated differently I would hear about it.
I find them no more oppressed than anyone who wants to make repeated, loud, conspicuous, public issue/display/contention about what they like to do sexually in private.
The key “oppression” seems to come when the GBLT community wants to “take for themselves” things that are already otherwise “owned” or “assigned”.
The institution of “marriage” for example, already had very functional and well-defined parameters/meaning. It would have been SO easy to just ask for the same civil rights, but call it something like a “civil union” and have it officiated by civil authorities. But they wanted something for themselves (just a title really) that was already assigned. They wanted to force everyone else to change to their pleasure. It seems incredulous that much of this bru-ha-ha isn’t over rights . . . but over a label: “Marriage”.
Much of the contention and “battle” could have been so easily by-passed.
The same happens with the “rainbow flag”. The rainbow already had assigned significance in our culture (and several others). But the GBLT’s wanted it. So they took it. But it wasn’t theirs to take!
Perhaps much of what they want to brand as “oppression” . . . is simply natural reaction to their wanting to take stuff that was already meaningfully “assigned” to something else? Or wanting to control what others were allowed to think or feel, under threat of being called “hateful” and finding their person, their businesses, their beliefs, even their family “under attack”.
They initiated “the push”. Now there is the “push-back”.
The entire situation is one that could have been easily avoided, if there wasn’t such a zeal to take and control things that were not theirs to take and control.
20 responses to “Oppression”
you should ask someone who admittedly denies someone their rights, based on their gender preference.
what specific human rights are you referring to?
I admit I am totally ignorant of the specifics.
The only thing that stands out to me is the issue associated with marriage and how that pertains to taxation issues and receipt of benefits.
I’m not sure that represents human rights per se, although i think it is stupid to have to define by sexual orientation for what, for all intents and purposes, is a legally binding partnership.
Marriage is a word that has emotional baggage. It was a word that carried some presumptions associated with what was thought to be the way a male and female were defined by their sexual orientations.
This is the problem with law. Law is words and as such need to be very specific. That specificity becomes the challenge and will naturally lead to debate to determine a general consensus on what may be impossible to ascertain based on the perspectives of the debaters.
my opinion. Get rid of the word and start using a common term for ALL partnerships.
I can live with changing our term to Partnerage and adhering to all legal ramifications therin, notwithstanding sexual gratification clauses to be ascertained on an individual, legally binding partnership agreement.
I’m also open to understanding what the other human rights violations my be. I think there are some states where fellatio, cunnilingus, sodomy and bestiality are illegal, but I think judgments against can be taken to the Supreme Court, where the constitutional right of the pursuit of happiness, if that’s your thing, could be easily used to overturned
@spitfire3dc states are ramping up efforts to undermine existing gay marriage laws. Trans people are denied access to bathrooms that are in accordance with their gender identity. trump wants to ban trans people from serving in military. There is the issue f making name changes.Some caterers deny gay couples a wedding cake. There are goods and services denied to this community based on their sexual orientation because there aren’t strong anti-discrimination laws in place.
@Scarlett it seems to me that the real issue is discrimination and as long as “different” exists, discrimination will exist, whether illegal or not.
Thinking in broader terms; old versus young, man versus women, pretty versus ugly, fat/skinny…people may not discriminate on every potential polar extreme, but I’d bet even you could identify something where you have been influenced to discriminate.
In some cases we even celebrate discriminate “taste”
So how do we manage the personal bars that we set in an effort to supposedly indicate to ourselves that we have standards? Law? Been tried and failed. People that respect the law would not need the law in the first place.
Your original question centers on a country that probably has more laws than any country in the world and yet the percentage of your prison population is way out of whack with global averages. Your murder rates are ridiculous in similar comparisons.
It seems that something beyond laws need to be addressed to ensure human rights are a part of the fabric of any society. That “thing” might be to recognize that as any society exists it is not ever “The Best” it always needs to recognize that it has to try harder. If your leaders are not claiming you are the best, its citizens are. It’s a constant song emanating from your country and with some good reason, but best is not always entirely accurate.
I’m going to continue although this is starting to ramble.
Pride is a dual issue. It is good when it is used to motivate towards a set standard and has been achieved. It is bad when it is held up as a flag, metaphorically, to say look at me.
To your original point, Gay Pride has the potential to develop in the second way described. It’s just a natural evolution to the dynamic that is common to all humans.
Humility is the answer. It’s the only answer to eliminate discrimination in the broader context that will filter into the specifics, but in a country that is the epitome of celebrating the Almighty Buck, odds are stacked against you.
“Some caterers deny gay couples a wedding cake” – um, really? This is the issue that’s plaguing our society? No cake?
There must be bigger fish to fry. That is unless gays are denied fish too.
“Thou shall be cake for some, but not all” – Fletch 9:14
@Fletch
If someone doesn’t want to take your money . . . why battle to force them to do it?!
Particularly when there are many others who will gladly take it without the battle!
A more sober and intellectual assessment needs to be made . . . over just what is worth going to war over. Cake? Fish? A label? A symbol? Feelings one cannot master?
@griz seeing a statement like “Some caterers deny gay couples a wedding cake” is silly. Does it happen? I’m 100% sure it does. Just look at the bigger picture, not cake.
“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”
@Fletch
Unless they’re GBLT. Then they’ll sue you, call the human rights people, protest your business and brand you as a “hater”!
There was actually one business in Ontario where the owner politely explained his convictions and that he would rather not print a bunch of gay rights posters; but got on the phone and scored them an excellent deal with someone else.
They petitioned, protested, sued and put him out of business.
@griz this original post bothers me. to throw out this statement is not fair to anyone. who said this? where? proof of this happening, and not just an isolated incident or 2, would be nice.
I am in no way OK with ANYONE being denied human rights, but to blanket this is wrong.
@Fletch
It likely lives in the same zone as the “gender wage gap”.
It’s a construct mostly of bias, but still generally accepted by the public as absolute incontrovertible Truth.
My thought is that we have to accept some very powerful lobbies have expended a lot of time, energy and perhaps even money to make it a viable construct.
I don’t know about you; but I’ve been fooled before. Even unto being dead wrong and petitioning/perpetuating that “wrong”.
Humility is a powerful anti-condemnation tool.
… as opposed to LGBTQ non-humans?
i think there are some who cant ‘allow’ others to be on equal ground because their doctrines define some as less than others? i struggle to understand
@BelleMadre Do you believe gender is a social construct?
@Scarlett
More of a subjective construct . . . because it is based entirely upon feelings.
@Scarlett i think gender ‘roles’ are a construct – like, every culture, in time and in the world, has different roles for genders and members of their society. and i guess the term gender in itself is a construct, a creation. but call it what we will, call us who we will, we are something, someone, who falls into roles defined by our cultures times etc… right?
@BelleMadre
It’s just lower human nature (animal nature) to compete with others to constructs of power and superiority over them (survival of the fittest). And not just men arm-wrestling or boxing. Women compete over beauty, accessories, affairs, attention etc.
I was going to say something about gender ROLES being a construct of society but one underpinned in pragmatism as well: but you beat me to it!
Not many have noticed just how deftly (and successfully!) various lobbies and special-interest groups have substituted “gender identity” for “gender role” in the public consciousness.
At the end of the day, gender envy/dysphoria/dissatisfaction is 100% a subjective construct — built entirely of personal feeling. Those feelings can be VERY strong. But even a strong feeling is not always a right or beneficial one over time.
We benefit to accept that some definitions . . . are struck by what is physically manifest. We have the ability to alter what is physically manifest. But my personal opinion is that when it comes to manifest gender, we err and do lasting harm to far more than just the person involved in the long run. Re-assigning gender beyond the first year or so of a child’s life if they are born intersex, seems to me like a very cruel form of child abuse.
Just look at what happened to that Texas teen who wanted to be re-assigned as a boy but still wanted to wrestle and it was unclear which sex group he/she should compete in — as she clearly had considerable advantage over both.
People are trying to adapt to the “new reality” she’s forced upon them, but he’s a pariah.
@griz i think it comes down to how humans treat humans. and i dont see people treating people equally, or well for that matter, and i see a lot of that based on gender identity. which makes me plum sad. why can one wear what one wants but not another?
@BelleMadre
I can wear a frilly pink dress in the toughest truckstop in Scranton PA if I really want to. But there would the risk of consequences.
So why would I want to? I really don’t look good in pink anyways! Is nothing more than “an exertion of ‘myself'”, really worth the possible consequences?? Based on the “inequalities” and “oppressions” from History — and that many still experience today — being able to wear what I want to wear without natural consequence (given lower human nature), really doesn’t seem like a worthy issue to be addressing so much time, energy and fury to.
As I’ve said in another thread, “freedom” doesn’t necessarily mean freedom from any consequence whatsoever. Every action produces reaction. That is an axiom of the physical reality we live in. Freedom of action in any given moment, doesn’t mean the Natural laws will be suspended for lil’ ol’ me.
Add the social reality that Human Beings exist with, playing with and preying upon one another . . . and we might as well say we’ll be plum sad until Humans stop behaving like Humans!
Too many of our modern social movements and pop-mindsets have simply become . . . about our right and freedom to make ourselves sad.
I have two gay sons and I don’t see what rights are denied. They are allowed to marry in California and if my sons were being treated differently I would hear about it.
I find them no more oppressed than anyone who wants to make repeated, loud, conspicuous, public issue/display/contention about what they like to do sexually in private.
The key “oppression” seems to come when the GBLT community wants to “take for themselves” things that are already otherwise “owned” or “assigned”.
The institution of “marriage” for example, already had very functional and well-defined parameters/meaning. It would have been SO easy to just ask for the same civil rights, but call it something like a “civil union” and have it officiated by civil authorities. But they wanted something for themselves (just a title really) that was already assigned. They wanted to force everyone else to change to their pleasure. It seems incredulous that much of this bru-ha-ha isn’t over rights . . . but over a label: “Marriage”.
Much of the contention and “battle” could have been so easily by-passed.
The same happens with the “rainbow flag”. The rainbow already had assigned significance in our culture (and several others). But the GBLT’s wanted it. So they took it. But it wasn’t theirs to take!
Perhaps much of what they want to brand as “oppression” . . . is simply natural reaction to their wanting to take stuff that was already meaningfully “assigned” to something else? Or wanting to control what others were allowed to think or feel, under threat of being called “hateful” and finding their person, their businesses, their beliefs, even their family “under attack”.
They initiated “the push”. Now there is the “push-back”.
The entire situation is one that could have been easily avoided, if there wasn’t such a zeal to take and control things that were not theirs to take and control.