2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Roy Karrde]

What a nonsensical turn. The "special rights" are not those which are specifically for homosexuals. They are the general and absolute rights which homosexuals are being excluded from. You can not set aside such human rights as special without dehumanizing the entire target group.

The issue is not a mandate for affirmative action above and beyond the general marker, which you appear to be arguing against. The discussion begins with an action intended to motivate other jurisdictions to provide equality under the law - a diplomatic approach to persuade other states to actually prevent lynch mob attacks on homosexuals, to change their codified policy and end government-sponsored indefinite detention and torture.

You write, in response to "The right to not be murdered by your government just for existing is not "special", that "They are special rights when you focus on one class of Sexualities but not others". This is incoherent. An anti-discrimination project must focus on one group when it is the group being denied rights through the process of discrimination. The diplomatic action is intended to develop equality for LGBT individuals, its hegemonic opposite being... heterosexuality. This is not a group being systematically denied the most basic rights to life and free association on the basis of their sexuality. Consider a conceptual continuum of access to equality under the law: for LGBT individuals, they are working their way up from 0, not seeking something beyond 1.

The issue the entire time has been the extension of the most basic human rights to a group which has been denied them. This is only special if they are not worthy of human rights - if they are not human. Other groups may also be discriminated against: they would also be at zero, but that has no bearing on whether or not their rights are special, just that their rights must be actualized as well. Any instance of a group (or individual) being excluded from full access to equality under the law is a clear injustice. It is far more disgraceful when performed systematically on the basis of unchangeable personal characteristics.

Human rights are for all humans.

You seem to be missing my argument, for those who suffer from Beastiality, or Pedophilia, or Zoophilia, any number of sexualities, the rights given to homosexuals are in many ways "Special Rights" as they are not persecuted for just having sexual urges while others are. Mind you for those outside Homosexuals, Transgender, Bisexuals, and Heterosexuals, they are persecuted not for the act, but merely to have a urge. For those on the outside looking in, it is a special right.

[kurai]

You seem to be missing my argument, for those who suffer from Beastiality, or Pedophilia, or Zoophilia, any number of sexualities, the rights given to homosexuals are in many ways "Special Rights" as they are not persecuted for just having sexual urges while others are. Mind you for those outside Homosexuals, Transgender, Bisexuals, and Heterosexuals, they are persecuted not for the act, but merely to have a urge. For those on the outside looking in, it is a special right.

You are pushing wildly off-topic. The issue is that remarks were made which classify the promotion of basic human rights as something special. The recognition of basic rights is not a special provision. It is not exceptional when they are provided for any one group. They must be respected for all such groups to attain a just society.

Homosexuals are persecuted for both act and intention (how could they be prosecuted otherwise?). Are you not aware that homosexuality remains punishable by the death penalty in many states? Open discrimination is par for the course in still more. To say that they are not persecuted for their sexuality is uninformed.

Are you attempting to point out that some forms of sexuality would remain criminalized even if LGBT identities and practices were fully accepted? As they are not presently, this is beside the point, and has nothing to do with the event which initiated this discussion. One injustice is being fought against - this is progress. Unfortunately, even if the argument that any injustice disqualifies all other attempts, your examples do not add up: the criminal acts around pedophilia would be sourced in the fact that they violate the human rights of another: the child, unable to consent due to a lack of agency. Bestiality is not even a crime in most jurisdictions - all of this still has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Certainly, it is a concern if other sexualities are persecuted through systematic means beyond the justice system, or if capital punishment is deployed otherwise (this would mean the absence of equality under the law and basic human rights). None of this has anything to do with "special rights", or with the approach that some societies take to LGBT identity at present.

If you contend that the allocation of human rights for any given group is "special", you need to propose an alternative definition of "human right" - your argument appears either naive or monstrous otherwise, denying the basic humanity of some. I suggest you contemplate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What does it mean to have "the right to life, liberty and security of person"? What about "the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law"?