How can there be compromise on basic human equality?

[Mike 03]

First, I do think Obama will be a fantastic president. I haven't given up home on that at all. And, there are a couple points being made in these debates in GD-P that I agree with:

Obama is a politician.

We have to expect him to compromise.

But the rest of the argument makes little sense to me. How can there really be compromise on GLBT rights anymore than "compromise" worked in getting civil rights for African Americans? It's like being a little bit pregnant: Either you are treated equally--in accord with the Constitution--or you are not. It's not good enough to say, "Some of you need to sit in the back of the bus, but some of you can up to the front seat," or "You are just as good as everybody else, but we still need you to sit at this counter, not that one, while you drink your milkshake."

My problem with this "compromise" or "this is a victory you will win in increments" argument is that this is okay for issues where there is a legitimate gray area--gun control, maybe, would be one example. But I don't see how there can be a "gray" area at all when you dealing with equal treatment for people.

It is either equal--100% equal--or it's unequal. There's no such thing as partially equal.

Is my logic wrong? Am I missing something obvious?

[Maven]

1. There cannot be. Your logic is completely spot on, and the Obama response to this is dishonest.

There can be no "disagreement" about whether an entire group of human beings should be treated with dignity and afforded equal rights. There is only hate and acceptance. Choose one.

Some things really are an either/or.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

8. I agree. Obama is being insincere in this. He really is going somewhere I do not like nt

[lapfog_1]

2. A separate equality

as in, separate but equal.

Because, you know, that has worked so well in the past.

:sarcasm:

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. ... is the exact same inequity

And Obama should know this.

[atreides1]

3. That's Pretty Much on the Money

There can be no partial equality for any American citizen. But it seems that it's acceptable to some that having some rights is better then no rights at all.

[yardwork]

4. Your logic makes sense to me.

Compromising human rights got the United States in the fix we're in now. Every time our leaders signal that human rights don't matter and we go along with it, we put another log on the fire that's burning the constitution.

[T Wolf]

5. You are completely right. I would say that compromise (tho I hate it) is usually the only way

on issues like "how best to cut unemployment" or other, very complicated questions.

But civil rights? In a complicated world, this is one of those things where there is an absolute right and wrong.

It should not be compromised or incremented into existence.

[pinto]

7. I'm glad you brought up the incremental aspect of change.

Change for black Americans has been incremental and difficult, with set backs. There was no fell swoop of equality.

Change for women the world over has been incremental and difficult, with set backs. Again, no sudden enlightenment to equality.

Change for us will likely follow the same pattern, imho, incremental and difficult, with set backs.

The goal is absolutely clear, for all, yet there have been and will be places along the way between inequality and equality.

just my 2 cents.

:hi: