The latest on Marylin Shannon, former Republican state senator, is so repugnant and irresponsible that it’s worth repeating. Here’s what she said: “Two laws created in Salem have established a whole new era in re-verse discrimination, with a new and alien set of moral values that have now been foisted on the people of Oregon. … We’re starting a new effort to gather signatures to repeal these two laws.” That was followed by a statement from State Sen. Gary George to Basic Rights Oregon: “My ad-vice to the gay community is SHUT UP, just don’t talk about it. If you walk around talking about what you do in the bedroom, you should be on the pervert channel.”
Wow! My response to Shannon is that the entire state of Oregon knows that’s a plea of desperation. I would ask Shannon if strip-ping someone of their basic human rights is part of her “set of moral values.” Isn’t that better defined as “immoral”? Measure 36 had nothing to do with domestic partnerships or anti-discrimination; it’s a ruse. As for Sen. George, his comment sounds like what you might hear on an elemen-tary school playground – i.e., juvenile.
The burning question for Shannon and Sen. George is how would they feel if a group of fellow Oregonians was circulating petitions statewide to take away their basic rights, with the only reason being their “disgusting” and “per-verted” behavior in their bedrooms? They would say that’s not a justifiable reason and that it’s nobody’s business. Precisely! That’s my point – strip-ping gays of their basic human rights is not justified for the same reason either. Religion, the Bible, hatred, behavior are all irrelevant and would not hold up in a court of law. Their reasons have no legal basis. It’s pure and simple prejudice of the worst kind – based solely on ignorance.
The readers should also be aware that the effort to repeal the two laws (SB2 and HB2007) is being spearheaded by four elected legislators whose constitutional duty is to protect Oregonians’ rights, not undermine them! This is the first time in our state’s history that such a thing has happened. The desperation becomes obvious. Don’t sign their petitions un-less you want to sink to the same low level.
Bob Bates, Bend
This article appears in May 1-7, 2008.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Bo-b Bate-s: “Stripping gays of their basic human rights…”
It is debatable if there is such a thing as basic human rights. You seem to think they are a product of the two laws that were voted in previously. If so, were they then not part of “basic human rights,” prior to being voted in and therefore created by those two laws? If so, they can be voted out, and then those “basic human rights, ” will no longer exist. Anything that can be voted in can be voted out. If such a thing as basic human rights existed, it is not intellectually prudent to presume simple voting transcends elementary primal causation.
To my knowledge, there is no such thing as basic human rights. The concept is clearly subjective. In any case, imaginary or not, they are not a product of SB2 and HB2007. Were such a thing as basic human rights existent, they would have been around as long as humans have been on the planet and not merely a recent product of Oregon law.
“Religion, the Bible, hatred, behavior are all irrelevant…”
Apparently to you. To many of the rest of us, those are tools, an aid to forming an opinion…and voting is usually a function of opinion, in case you didn’t know.
“based solely on ignorance”
I suggest that you consider the proposition that the concept of basic human rights is philosophical rather than factual. Thus, an adherent of any particular philosophical point of view cannot be more, or less, ignorant, only more or less biased, as you are towards your particular philosophical view. Considering then, that by definition, you are equally ignorant, perhaps you should reconsider using that term, lest you tar yourself with the same brush and risk appearing rather foolish doing so.
All that you managed to prove is that you are a left wing elitist who has a biased opinion.
You get one vote, Bates, just like the rest of us.
C.T.,
Actually, the founders of this country did think that there are basic human rights. Ever hear the following statement:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Stop with all of your “left wing elitist” accusations and try something other than talking points for once.
Cuz: Yeah, I heard that statement. It carries no more weight than the fact that it was the opinion of the man who said it. Your basic human rights in Tibet are where? Your basic human rights in China are where? Your basic human rights in Iran are where? Where is your life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in these places? Under a rock? Your basic human rights are what you are allowed to practice by those that have power and control over you. I could go on ad infinitum, but perhaps with a bit of a struggle, you get my point.
If you can’t access or exercise your basic human rights, you don’t have them. Something that is allowed or not allowed is not by any definition ‘basic.’ Bates himself states that they can be removed by a vote. If they can be removed by a vote… you didn’t have them to begin with, you were temporarily allowed to practice them… by vote.
Anyone with the power of discernment, who follows these threads, knows that Bob Bates is a far left elitist. Facts are not talking points, they are facts.
Wise up, Cuz.
C.T.,
Touchy, touchy. You are the one who made the statement, “All that you managed to prove is that you are a left wing elitist who has a biased opinion.” I am just curious as to how that was proven with his letter.
As for your opinion that the Declaration of Independence carries no more weight than “the opinion of the man who said it”…I don’t really know how to respond to that statement. Should I begin with telling you that more than one man WROTE those words, or is that a waste of time?
Yes, I understand your argument that not being able to excercise a right means that it in effect doesn’t exist. I just don’t agree with you. Maybe with a bit of a struggle, you can understand what Thomas Jefferson and company were trying to say. They were telling the King of England that there ARE basic human rights and no person or country can take them away from any individual. The rights exist regardless of whether or not they are able to be exercised. Maybe you are smarter than the founders of our country, but I kind of doubt it.
Cuz says: “there are basic human rights and no country can take them away from any individual.”
That statement of yours makes Bates letter hogwash then, doesn’t it? He says those he objects to, “will be stripping gays of their basic human rights.” That sounds a lot like, “taking them away from them,” doesn’t it? Hello?
Further, I listed a number of countries that lacked basic human rights above, in the form of questions, that you did not answer. The reason you cannot answer them is obvious. Those countries I listed, and there are many others, obviously have no basic human rights, which makes your statement hogwash as well.
Once again, the concept of ‘basic human rights,’ is philosophical not factual. If basic human rights are a fact… prove it. Show them to me. Facts can be proven, philosophy is a point of view, an opinion.
Our founding fathers, coming from a philosophical point of view, opined that ‘conditions’ should be created to accommodate their philosophy. ‘Conditions’ change. An opinion, no matter how widely shared, or how famous the entity or entities spouting it, is still an opinion.
You need a couple of semesters in fact vs opinion 101.
If you read my first comment, you will see that I had two points, neither of which was directly supporting Bob. The first being that people smarter than both of us believed that basic human rights not only exist, but are self evident. They said nothing about whether or not they can be exercised, only that because they do exist, they are woth fighting for. Your example of countries that are trampling human rights doesn’t weaken that point, so I saw no point in re-explaining myself or the Declaration of Independence. My second point was that your personal attack, using lame right-wing “slurs” was not only inaccurate, but a sign of a weak minded ditto-head.
I’ll give you the last word, since you and your type of thinking are slowing being eliminated from this country..thank God. I’m done with you.
The American, (read Christian) concept of basic human rights is not universal. Many prefer socialism, where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are non-existent. Those billion plus that subscribe to the belief of Islam believe that Sharia Law is the basic human right, where liberty is a limited despised Western philosophy at best and something to be scorned. The title “basic” assumes universality. Clearly not the case across the range of human culture.
If humans are born with basic human rights, it follows that all other critters are born with their basic rights. Are there basic doggies rights? Are there basic rattlesnake rights? Are there basic dung beetle rights? Are there basic salmon rights? Or do these rights only accrue at a certain level of intelligence or awareness? What is that level and who or what decides it? Ridiculous!
We will always have those (like Bates and Cuz) that confuse their opinion with fact. Basic human rights are the desired goal of some, clearly not all, and utter rubbish to others. If we are all born with them, we lose them the instant we leave the uterus.
You deserve and are entitled to nothing.
C.T., I support the principle that there are basic human rights that no government may legitimately take away without due process — in other words, the core founding principle of the American Republic. If that makes me a “liberal elitist” I plead guilty as charged, along with Jefferson, Franklin, John Adams, Samuel Adams, and the 52 other signers of the Declaration of Independence. If you don’t support that principle I suggest you relocate to a country whose government is more congenial to your thinking — Russia, for example.
“You deserve and are entitled to nothing.”
There it is, my friends — the conservative philosophy in a nutshell.
Miller’s suggestion that I migrate to Russia comes as a surprise. Disingenuous and hypocritical of him to adopt the, “love it or leave it,” philosophy that has been used so much against him for his anti-American sentiments. More mind boggling, is the suggestion that I do not love my country. Not one of my remarks can be construed as anti-American by anyone who still has at least a few neurons left firing. Maybe that explains it.
HBM is a bigoted old fogey trying desperately to be hip in a Bend that has long ago left him in the dust.