Last night, one of my good friends, and I had an extremely long discussion about whether it would be appropriate to equate the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement. In both movements, each party is (or was) fighting for the right to equality, and both parties have people who oppose their right to live free from discrimination. Ultimately, the two classes have different fights, but their bottom line goal was (and still is) to convince their counterparts that they have the right to be treated fairly. Gay people are attempting to convince some heterosexuals, while blacks convinced some whites that their being discriminated against was unfounded and unfair.
My friend, who I will refer to as “John”, believed that the civil rights movement was extremely different, in context – which I agree. Our disagreement stemmed from whether the movements were the same sort of lobbying. I presented several analogies. One of the basic: if I’m told to dig a hole in Atlanta, and you’re told to dig a hole in Dallas – no matter where we’re digging holes at, at the end of the day – we both dug holes. John believed that black people were discriminated based on what a person could see – the color of their skin. And he is absolutely correct. Gay people are discriminated based on their sexual preference, whether you can immediately recognize a gay person would be based on a case by case analysis; however, each group is being discriminated against.
I was really taken back by how he could not see that they were both fighting for different rights, but yet both fighting for rights. Because of the extremely sensitive content, race and sexual preferences, our conversation quickly turned from whether they were both “equal rights” to whether gays should even have rights at all. Again, we differed. Our entire discussion began with a marquee from a church in Texas that read: “Gays right are not civil rights”. And I wholeheartedly disagree with this pastor’s opinion and personal assessment. This pastor can morally choose to disagree with a gay person’s lifestyle; however, it becomes extremely absurd when he beings to advocate denying certain people the right to equality. Neither should he use the pulpit as a punching bag to seclude a particular group of people. Being rooted and grounded in one’s personal beliefs does not exempt one from treating people fairly or cautious of their feelings.
John believed that gays should refrain from causing uproar because being gay is a preference, whereas being black is not an option. On the contrary, I expressed that individual classes should be able to live without lawmakers setting parameters within their freedom to choose. Whether one falls within the pool of diversity of being physically disabled, male or female, rich or poor, young or old, white or black – we as people should have the liberty of expressing ourselves as unique and different individuals. After all, this is what makes us the great melting pot of groups, ideas and citizenships.
By surrounding myself with people who come from different backgrounds than me, with those who have ideas that does not always align with mine has taught me that at the end of the day, we have something in common – we just want to be happy and free of worries. Because we sit in different sections of the aisle does not mean we cannot find that uniting bond that holds us together. While my atheist friend is guided by his personal convictions and my Muslim friend’s lifestyle are shaped through her ideologies, we are able to create civil discourse and merge our differences and ultimately realize that we are one.
