moonchain
Guide
It raises a fever of intense apathy.
Posts: 595
|
Post by moonchain on Jan 27, 2006 12:01:17 GMT -5
In an attempt to start up a new conversation that I'm actually interested in, I'd like to bring up this breaking story: United Nations: U.S. Aligned With Iran in Anti-Gay Vote"In a reversal of policy, the United States on Monday backed an Iranian initiative to deny United Nations consultative status to organizations working to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. ... "This vote is an aggressive assault by the U.S. government on the right of sexual minorities to be heard," said Scott Long, director of the LGBT rights program at Human Rights Watch. "It is astonishing that the Bush administration would align itself with Sudan, China, Iran and Zimbabwe in a coalition of the homophobic."" (more in link above) So does anyone else find this wretchingly ironic that the U.S. stands by the governments it has bad relationships with, which are all countries with such wonderful human rights laws </sarcasm>, just to show how adamantly this current administration is against LGBT rights?
|
|
|
Post by cenk on Jan 27, 2006 15:05:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jan 27, 2006 17:17:31 GMT -5
I guess it all comes down to where you draw lines of importance. Those of us who feel that there are morels that are far more wide spread and important than any government or fad would not be overly surprised. I think it is absurd for the UN to force it's version of immorality on another nation.
I don't approve of killing gays or beating them and other such acts, but if they should not be entitled to any special rights and if they feel a little left out or society picked upon life is tuff. Last I check rapist child molesters and people who pick their nose and eat it are not subject to some social dislike.
Way to go U.S.
I do find it interesting that anytime someone does not jump up and shout that’s great when ever the GBLT try something that makes them homophobic. Last time I checked phobias are an unreasonable fear of something not persons who have considered an idea and reject it.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jan 28, 2006 15:47:45 GMT -5
What I find funny is the hypocrasy of it all.
Iran is flat out discriminating against gays, yet continuousy whines about those who are discriminating against Muslims and Iranians in general.
|
|
|
Post by beccagranger on Jan 28, 2006 18:55:51 GMT -5
At the risk of possibly causing an uproar, I would like to give my opinion on this matter. Please remember that what I am about to say is my own personal opinion, and in no way am I putting down anyone else for theirs. With that said, here is what I think: It is really sad that the US would align itself with countries who prefer to discriminate against anything that they deem "unacceptable". However, it really does not surprise me, considering the president that we currently have. Bush is very famous for saying one thing, and doing another. He is adamantly against GLBT, yet instead of keeping his opinion to himself....he uses his "power" to push his beliefs on others. I, myself, support GLBT's. Who am I to tell someone how to live their lives? This whole issue is really just very sad.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jan 28, 2006 23:06:09 GMT -5
There's no need for a disclaimer... everyone knows that what people post with no supporting documentation is just opinion...
|
|
|
Post by cenk on Jan 29, 2006 13:29:46 GMT -5
What I find funny is the hypocrasy of it all. Iran is flat out discriminating against gays, yet continuousy whines about those who are discriminating against Muslims and Iranians in general. The funny thing is that alot of Iranians are homosexual or had homosexual experiences and these are Muslims. Its not as if only of few of them are. So Iran is basically discriminating against Muslim Iranians. So Iran is inself being hypocritical. Anyways just because the current president of the USA has a similar view as the Iranian government on one issue, that need not be a cause for concern. The USA aligns itself with Iran, China and Vietnam in terms of handing out the death penalty. It depends on your view on a issue. One could say that Irans view on gays is a Islamic fundamentalist view coming into play - on the other hand George Bush's view is the fundamentalist Christian view on the same issue. I have to say everyone is hypocritical, the EU recently backed the Turkish ban on women wear headscarfs from entering into high education (ie university) I dont know about you but to me this seems like a gross violation on human rights. This is the EU's hypocracy. teancum rapist child molesters are subject to much more social dislike than a gay ever would (well at least in England this is the case ) Theres a special website called nonce watch which tries to track these pedophiles. (I agree with this but the website is part of Red Watch which tracks down on socialists and this whole website is owned by facists.)
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Jan 29, 2006 15:12:55 GMT -5
The funny thing is that alot of Iranians are homosexual or had homosexual experiences and these are Muslims. Its not as if only of few of them are. So Iran is basically discriminating against Muslim Iranians. So Iran is inself being hypocritical. that doesn't make any sense whatsoever, unless you mean to imply that all muslim iranians are gay. if they only persecuted non muslim, non iranian gays who live in their country then that would be another layer to the discrimination, rather than simply persecuting all gays regardless of their background. there is no hypocrisy in this policy - iran complains that other nations discriminate against iran, the fact that it makes homosexuality illegal is not hypocritical in any way whatsoever. other than that i agree with the rest of your post except i think that "nonce watch" and stuff like it is not a good idea (people shouldn't take the law into their own hands, etc, the people in charge occaisionally make mistakes and end up harrassing a perfectly innocent stranger, eg. mis-reading "paediatrician" as "paedophile", etc, i'm sure you've heard it all before)
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jan 29, 2006 16:12:19 GMT -5
I agree with what I think Littlepea is saying. I personally think that sexual predators should be castrated. This however should be done through the legal process not by a group of vigilantes.
Also wondering the statement by Becca about not telling others how to live their lives. Don’t we all in some way try to tell others how to live their lives? Religon has been doing that since it got started and Governments also do the same although they tend to address different aspects of behavior and their means (most of the time) are different. The entire point of laws is to require others to do or not to do something. If no one had any desire to murder there would be no laws on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by beccagranger on Jan 29, 2006 16:48:17 GMT -5
Teancum, I do agree with you, but I also disagree. There are laws set forth that do tell us what we can and can not do. These laws keep us all safe from those who have no conscience or moral issue with rape, murder, etc. To some degree....we all must be told what to and not to do.
However, telling someone how to live their life by the choices that they make which are not harmful to others (by this I mean consenting adults sharing a mutual like), is...in my opinion....wrong. We all have our differences, it is what makes us unique. We should embrace these things...not shun others because they don't share the "normal" view as put forth by the majority of society.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jan 29, 2006 20:19:00 GMT -5
(by this I mean consenting adults sharing a mutual like) Would this include having illicit affairs? Sharing illegal drugs? Speeding on empty interstates in the middle of the night? Sacrificing animals deep in a forest? "Mutual like" encompasses many things that are harmful to others, potentially harmful to children (should they happen upon the behavior), and definitely harmful to society.
|
|
moonchain
Guide
It raises a fever of intense apathy.
Posts: 595
|
Post by moonchain on Jan 29, 2006 20:50:12 GMT -5
Would this include having illicit affairs? Sharing illegal drugs? Speeding on empty interstates in the middle of the night? Sacrificing animals deep in a forest? "Mutual like" encompasses many things that are harmful to others, potentially harmful to children (should they happen upon the behavior), and definitely harmful to society. I hate to start sounding like Poly here, but you are grasping at straws. Becca was specifically referring to the context of the article and referring to mutual like that *isn't* harmful: specifically sexual or non-sexual love between consenting adults, not including illicit affairs. You are making up arguments that have nothing to do with the context. We are talking about lifestyle choices which are not, in fact, harmful to society, except in societies where they chose to create harm (such as public execution of homosexuals). In other words: Oh *you* know what she meant.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Jan 29, 2006 21:18:54 GMT -5
well, gay men take a much bigger risk of catching aids - if they don't stay with their one partner for the rest of their lives then they risk spreading aids, and there's no doubt that if no-one had gay sex then aids would not be such a big problem (which it is in scotland, if not elsewhere in the UK or USA).
some people see homosexuality as a lifestyle choice and something which we would be better off without - therefore (working backwards) it is harmful to society, in their eyes.
i'm personally not bothered about it on the whole, but i would feel uncomfortable if i became friends with a gay guy and he started telling me about all his relationship problems or started getting off with his boyfriend in public ... i don't like really camp gays either, they just piss me off ... not because they are gay, just because they are embarrassingly feminine and, well, camp ...
laws on the whole should reflect the morality that a country views as ideal, so if in an ideal world everyone would be a virgin when they married at 24 and then lived in a middle class suburb in a big house with 2 cars and 3 kids, then your laws will tend to encourage that kind of life, in my theory (which i'm kind of making up off the top of my head). how your laws work towards that goal depends on the kind of government in power, i suppose (eg. the UK's "nanny state" would give benefits for those with no money but keep suggesting to them that they really want to try and get a job and work their way into middle class, whereas the USA's silly tax system would give tax cuts to those at the top as some kind of incentive for those at the bottom to work their way up, or whatever).
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jan 29, 2006 22:07:17 GMT -5
I would still like to understand where this no harm concept comes from. It has been used to justify a lot of stuff I think it has been used to justify virtual child porn. I however would argue that such things do harm others much in the same way that second hand smoke hurts others. Just because our society does not recognize “moral pollution” at this time does not make it any less real than any other problem that they do recognize.
While our (U.S) society regulates adults less than children it has been recognized that the actions of an adult can impact the rest of society. Seatbelt laws and motorcycle helmet laws are not so much about forcing adults to be safe as they are about not making the tax payer have to pay to scrape your brains off of the highway.
Therefore actions which a society determines to be wrong and harmful can be discouraged and that society is not required to bow down to the wants of a few.
|
|
|
Post by cenk on Jan 30, 2006 12:46:24 GMT -5
I personally think that sexual predators should be castrated. This however should be done through the legal process not by a group of vigilantes. Lol legal castration? I dont think thats ever been done for a punishment. Sounds like a step backwards but will ultimately solve the problem for repeat offenders.
|
|