Agree to Disagree, Separately: Human rights isn’t the same thing is politics, and it’s okay to avoid a friendship with someone if you have differing views on human rights

Whether it’s written in a condescending tweet or advised by a family member, we’ve all been hearing it lately –– “You should be able to be friends with people who have different political views than you, and if you can’t, you’re immature!” 

Sure, it’s reasonable for two people to argue over foreign policy or tax adjustments. But politics and human rights are on different planes of existence, and the true reason why many liberals and conservatives are hostile towards each other is because they disagree about moral issues beyond political quarrels. Debating whether a person’s rights are valid based on their religion, race, sexual orientation or any other affiliation is unreasonable –– and easily getting along with someone whose views oppose yours on rights is an unrealistic expectation. 

Yes, people who belong to different political parties can be friends –– but human rights isn’t a political issue. They aren’t something to agree or disagree with, and if that’s the case then we can separate ourselves from each other. 

Democrats and Republicans squabble back and forth about how immature it is to cut ourselves off from each other over different opinions, and while you can have different opinions on immigration or government interference, there shouldn’t be opinions about whether a person should have the same equal rights we’re all entitled to. Believing we can befriend people with different moral values than us what’s actually immature and ignorant. 

These basic human rights, like who we identify as or freedom from mistreatment because we look different, are called natural rights. They’re bestowed to us by nature and are not granted by the government, but are to be protected by the government, whereas policy and legislature fall under the government’s jurisdiction to manipulate.

Imagine you’re a member of the LGBTQ+ community closeted by a friend group that constantly disrespects your existence and debates your rights as if they could be taken away. No one should feel obligated to remain friends with people who degrade their rights.

We can’t be friends if one of us thinks putting people and children in cages at the border is inhumane and the other believes we’re doing what needs to be done to keep the border safe because that’s a human rights concern, conflicting with the American ideals of freedom and justice. We can be friends if one of us thinks taxes should be lowered for wealthy Americans and the other thinks they should be raised –– this is a political issue and free for debate.

“You can’t handle when people have different opinions? Ha, snowflake!”

No, what we can’t handle is debating over someone’s right to get married to the person they love in their state, or someone’s right to control their own body, whether you agree or not. We shouldn’t be disputing over whether certain people should or shouldn’t have basic liberties and freedoms, so in the case that someone thinks differently than you about human rights, it ceases to be a difference in politics –– it’s a difference in virtue. 

We shouldn’t be expected to buddy-up with people disagreeing with us on human rights, issues that affect our own lives, the lives of people in our communities or the lives of people we care about. It can’t be acceptable for a person with privilege –– whether you’re white, straight, wealthy, etc –– who doesn’t have to worry about the protection of their rights to use it as an excuse to be disrespectful towards people who are denied their basic rights. 

“If you stop being friends with someone because they have different opinions than you, you’re shallow.”

Some people feel the need to unfollow others, even friends, on social media if they disagree politically or think that their opinion is stupid –– and there’s nothing wrong with that. But you also have a right to unfollow when someone has different intrinsic values than you, especially when it comes to human rights. You don’t have to feel compelled to ignore or be friendly with a person on social media who decided to say that Hitler was actually a smart leader. 

We can be friends if one of us believes that a private, patient-centered healthcare system would help lower the cost of healthcare and the other believes that public, government-centered healthcare will adequately provide healthcare for all Americans. We can’t be friends if one of us believes that transgender people shouldn’t have rights because it’s a threat to women and children and the other believes that having mismatched gender and sex doesn’t make you a mistake or a potential threat. 

We can be friends if one of us believes that every American is entitled to own guns for their own protection and the other believes that there should be more gun control when it comes to more aggressive weapons. We can’t be friends if one of use thinks it’s more important to preach All Lives Matter while the other believes Black Lives Matter is the prominent issue. 

Just because friendships can be put at risk when opposing on topics doesn’t mean we should stop discussing these issues. We can separate ourselves and disagree until we can end the war with ourselves by agreeing on natural rights.