In an interesting new article, Sherry F. Colb discusses the animal rights movements as compared to the gay rights movement.  It’s a fascinating look at the similarities of each and what we can learn from both.

Here’s a snippet:

“The first thing to note is that there is a risk in analogizing the struggle for gay rights with the struggle for animal rights. The danger that concerns me is not, as some might think, that of offending people. People were (and some continue to be) offended by comparisons between struggles against racial oppression and struggles against homophobia, but it is precisely the resistance to an unfamiliar claim (especially a claim that implicates one’s own behavior) that makes it seem “offensive.”

If inflicting terrible suffering and death on nonhuman animals who can feel pleasure, pain, and a wide range of emotions represents a real harm – and most people acknowledge, at some level, that it does – then no one should be offended by the suggestion that this harm must stop, just as other harms, once taken for granted as permissible, are now almost universally condemned.

The risk, though, is that of missing the real connection. The proper analogue to a gay person seeking gay rights is not a nonhuman animal, for the latter is not able to seek justice for herself (except by appearing, occasionally, in the public consciousness and awakening rare pangs of conscience and empathy). The proper analogue to the gay person struggling for gay rights is, instead, the vegan struggling for animal rights.

When I use the word “animal rights” here, I mean something very basic – an entitlement to have one’s interests seriously considered in people’s decision-making process. No one, to my knowledge, is advocating that nonhuman animals be permitted to vote, hold public office, or receive scholarships to state colleges, any more than one would advocate similar entitlements for a three-year-old human. But if a being’s interests are taken seriously, then surely one may not inflict torture, misery, and slaughter on that being simply to satisfy one’s culinary and fashion preferences.”

The first thing that strikes me about Colb’s article is her attention to the opposition.  She purposefully makes it clear who she is speaking about, and debunks some of the more ridiculous rebuttals (when the opponent is downplaying the animals right to life by means of human domination) that non-vegans will attempt to use during discussions with vegans.  It’s unfortunately necessary, but highly refreshing.

Colb goes on to say:

“Ethical vegans face related challenges. By living as we do, we implicitly communicate to others a critique of the status quo and, necessarily, a critique of the behavior of those who follow it. Vegans suggest – without necessarily saying anything explicitly – that people ought to examine their consumption decisions, rather than accept the notion that eating animals and animal products is inevitable or natural for human beings. Despite increasingly available information about how unhealthy and toxic the consumption of animal proteins (including fish, and especially dairy and eggs) is for human wellbeing – at both the individual and the global levels – many non-vegans insist that people were simply meant to eat animals. Of course, the parallel within the gay rights struggle has been the claim by anti-gay advocates that people were simply meant to be straight and that anything else is “unnatural.””

And ends with an intelligent…

“As we have seen over the last decades, however, visibility is a useful antidote to ignorance and fear. As people learn – from vegans who are “out and proud” – that farming animals causes unspeakable suffering, destroys the planet, and contributes to diseases of affluence (including cancer, heart disease, and diabetes), they will likely become more open to questioning the false proposition that meat, dairy, or eggs are necessary to a pleasurable and fulfilling human life.”

Be out.  Be Proud.  Be unapologetic, but respectful.  Make a difference, go vegan.

via writ.news.findlaw.com