America has taken a leap forward, just to stumble back again

Posted On Nov 05, 2008 at 10:21 am
6 Comments

Constituion of the united states of america This country was founded on the principle that all men are created equal and that every one of us is endowed with unalienable rights. Every American has heard these words and felt pride to be in a nation of freedom; but what is freedom, and how much of it do we really have?

Since the beginning of our country, the meaning of these words have taken on considerably different meaning. If you travel back to the 18th century, you would find that these unalienable rights only applied to straight white land-owning men. You indeed had rights, so long as you fit the description.

For the first century of our country we enslaved blacks, controlled our women and shunned tolerance. It was strongly protested and generally understood that white men were right in their superiority over blacks. Blacks simply did not deserve the same rights. With great friction and opposition, slavery was finally abolished in 1865. We however continued to treat anyone who were not ideal humans - white men - as being greatly inferior.

In the early 20th century, women started a movement for equality. It was strongly protested and generally understood that white men were right in their superiority over women. Women simply did not deserve the same rights. With great friction and opposition, women finally gained the right to vote in 1920, the first step in becoming socially equal. We however continued to treat women with great prejudice which still resonates today.

In the mid 20th century, blacks started a movement for equality to end segregation and extreme prejudice. It was still strongly protested and generally understood that whites were right in their superiority over blacks. Blacks simply did not deserve the same rights. With great friction and opposition, segregation was finally abolished by law in 1964. Prejudice and hate continued regardless and still resonates today.

In addition to segregation of public fascilities, tranport, jobs and others between black and white people, it was also against the law for different races to get married. Once again, it was generally understood that whites were better and our "sanctity of marriage could not be compromised." With great friction and opposition, the interracial marriage ban was finally abolished in 1967.

There is a reason I have chosen to write this very repetitively, and that is because through our history, every time there is an issue of extending these unalienable rights to people who were created equal, there has been extreme opposition and continued resentment afterwards. Every time this country takes a leap forward, it is followed by a stumble backwards.

With every successive generation, people become less suppressed in this country and its on the path of being the free country that so many people claim it to be; but we are not there yet. There are still groups of people in this country that are not being treated equal. Not only in social standards, but in our legal system. How can it be, that in the 21st century, we still live in a world where people have the ability to withhold basic human rights from others simply because they do not agree? I am of course talking about gays.

We just witnessed a historic election that broke all expectations envisioned even 10 years ago. We elected a black president with a name that sounds completely un-American - if there truly even is such a thing as an American name. As a straight white male living in the south - the very stereotype where so much hatred in our history has come from - I was filled with happiness to see the final barrier of race has been broken. A leap forward indeed.

That pride was quickly dampened when I found out this morning that some minorities are still not being embraced as equal Americans. Of course the final verdict is not yet in, but looking at the current ballot measures from CNN, the odds are highly stacked in favor of setting precedence AGAINST gays which will influence further suppression for many years to come. Arkansas, Florida, California, and Arizona had public voting to decide on the legal suppression of Gay marriage and Gay adoption. So far every single state is voting in majority against equal rights. That leap forward doesn't seem so grand anymore.

So why does it matter to an average person if two other consenting adults get married? Who are they to think that their own personal opinion is so much better than anybody else, that they have the right to suppress them? The most common answer in this country is that the bible says homosexuality is wrong. If you believe that, you're absolutely free to do so; nobody is forcing you to be a homosexual.

Someone's ability to get married should not be a matter of popularity. Marriage is a very basic HUMAN RIGHT, and it should not be within anybodies power to say otherwise. Despite these same oppressors claiming pride of freedom, they are truly fascist. They do not like freedom. They like control. The bible says homosexuality is wrong, and they want to FORCE other people to abide by their silly rules. The bible also says that women are not equal and it promotes slavery- are they still holding onto those ideals too?

The historic nature of our elections aside, today is a sad day.

This topic has the following tags:

Comments (6)

Scott Klarr's Avatar
Reply To This

Scott Klarr Nov 05, 2008

I don't want to be presumptuous about concluding your personal opinions of gay adoption, but If i were to take a guess perhaps you are concerned for the psychological well being of the child? I think thats one of the common legitimate arguments made against gay adoption.

I can understand people's concern about the psychological effects a child of gay parents may have - thats a completely legitimate reason to be critical of gay adoption before concluding a final opinion. However if you look at the research done of the last 30 years, it has been shown that children raised by gay couples do not have any negative effects as a result of the parents being gay. They are more likely to be an open minded liberal though which might make conservatives flinch, but there is really no issue of the parents sexuality causing harm to the child.

Its not as if children are involved with their parents sex lives. In fact, just for a moment imagine your (assumedly straight) parents having sex. Pretty scary thought right? That reaction would not be any different if they were gay; but people assume that because they have sex a different way, its going to somehow harm the child. The fact is, any normal child is going to find their parents sexuality disturbing lol.

The only negative consequence I can imagine would be the societal effects of others showing prejudice against the children. This of course would not be a problem if our society did not have such a harsh view of gays. If we break the taboo and dogma against gays, so breaks the harmfulness of allowing it.

I personally think any person should be allowed to raise a child regardless of their sexuality so long as they are capable of proper parenting. Adoption evaluation should be very critical of the applicants to ensure the child will have good parents.

As always, thanks for commenting Nick :)

Thin king man's Avatar
Reply To This

Thin king man Nov 06, 2008

A very sad day indeed, friend. I found your article on Digg, and I thought it was well done.

If I may, I'd like to address your sensible question, asked at the end of the first paragraph above:

Freedom is the absence of coercion.

Nothing will change that. That's what freedom is.

And coercion is any act of force.

Nobody has the moral right to seek his own advantage by force. That is the one unalterable, inviolable condition of a true society. Whether we are many, or whether we are few, we must learn only to use the weapons of reason, discussion, and persuasion.... As long as men are willing to make use of force for their own ends, or to make use of fraud, which is only force in disguise, wearing a mask, and evading our consent, just as force with violence openly disregards it - so long we must use force to restrain force. That is the one and only one right employment of force ... force in the defense of the plain simple rights of property, public or private, in a world, of all the rights of self-ownership - force used defensively against force used aggressively (Auberon Herbert, The Principles of Voluntaryism, 1897).

As he notes, force can be direct, as in assault and rape, or indirect, as in fraud or extortion.

In answer to the second part of your question, we do not, and have never, possessed total freedom. The right to life and property have never been recognized in full, and government bureaucrats have always, at one time or another, in one way or another, felt justified in expropriating and suppressing. It is a sad testament indeed, but the first step in rectifying it is in defining rights properly, a task that is so far removed from the brains of our current politicians that it's scary.

Thank you again for the smart article.

Post Comment

You are replying to cancel reply

Your email address will not be visible to the public

Avatars by Gravatar. Join Gravatar for free to have your avatar shown everywhere you post.