Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on February 25, 2014, 12:05:55 pm
-
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/after-anti-gay-law-is-signed-uganda-tabloid-publishes-list-of-the-countrys-top-homosexuals/article17077554/
Just in case anyone missed it.
-
Arizona, Uganda, Nigeria - proud company!
-
wow, these guys are a little nuts aren't they?.
-
The list included prominent Ugandan gay activists such as Pepe Julian Onziema, who has repeatedly warned that Uganda’s new anti-gay law could spark violence against homosexuals. A popular Ugandan hip-hop star and a Catholic priest are also on the list.
Pretty sure this isn't the way the government isn't jailing its opposition /sarcasm
wow, these guys are a little nuts aren't they?.
The right words are "Oppressive", "Totalitarian", "Fascist", etc. Not nuts, just downright evil and machiavellian.
-
Nuts. "Conspiracy to commit homosexuality?" Come on, that's just moronic, Machiavelli probably just turned over in his grave :) . I hate when people make a big deal of sexual preferences. Someone prefers men to women. So what? About half the population does this, so why a few thousand people more or less are a big deal? TBH, as long as noone is getting hurt, I don't mind if someone takes a liking to goats, or maybe is aroused by trains. It's not my business unless I'm trying to hook up with the person in question.
-
Yeah, but if you square that with the ousting of the "top 200 closeted gays" in the country, I see that more like a power move against the populace.
Don't get on the bad side of the government now. They can squeal to the newspapers you're gay and bam you get thrown in jail.
This is totalitarianism 101.
-
Arizona, Uganda, Nigeria - proud company!
Timely: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/change-name-arizona-douchelandia/JjMqgwGP
-
This is totalitarianism 101.
totalitarianism - a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)
Actually, this is democracy 101. The law enjoys widespread popular support.
-
Actually, this is ochlocracy 101, and that tends to develop into totalitarianism (more often than I feel comfortable with, anyway).
Granted the line between ochlocracy and democracy tends to be more rhetoric than anything else in the real world, but I'd say a democracy has enough responsibility to not make discriminating laws, while ochlocracy can do anything to please and agitate the masses as long as it ostensibly needs the crowd's support. Populism is the first step from democracy to ochlocracy. When the leaders in ochlocracy become powerful enough, they no longer need support from anyone else and will act however they please, at which stage the country becomes totalitarian.
At any rate, inventing an enemy class of people is a pretty classic move and for what it's worth I think it might be a good time to cut all official diplomatic ties and economical support to the governments of Nigeria, Uganda and Arizona. If the people in these countries need food, shelter and medication, it should be provided directly by organizations like Red Cross or the like. For governments to associate themselves with this type of discrimination is shameful and disgusting - and clearly, these governments cannot be trusted to deliver the provided assistance equally to all people.
-
Actually, this is democracy 101. The law enjoys widespread popular support.
You fail at definitions. Nowhere in "totalitarianism" is stated that the laws aren't to be popular. The totalitarian gist of it does not stem from its unpopularity.
-
Don't be a gay in Uganda or Nigeria.
Be a gay somewhere else.
Problem solved.
-
This is not the topic for stupid jokes.
-
This is not the topic for stupid jokes.
It's not a joke. It is highly NOT recommended to be a gay in Russia, for example.
-
You do realize that your suggestion is borderline trolling and not actually realistic, right?
The "If you don't like it here, just move away!" "solution" assumes a level of mobility the people whose problems you want to solve may in many cases not possess.
-
You do realize that your suggestion is borderline trolling and not actually realistic, right?
The "If you don't like it here, just move away!" "solution" assumes a level of mobility the people whose problems you want to solve may in many cases not possess.
I think the most important in this case, the fact that people in both Uganda and Nigeria have more significant problems, gays or not.
At least here in Russia, we do have :)
So... Let's say it's not the worst issue.
And by the way I don't like all that "gay" and "tolerate" stuff.
I don't want my children became gay. But if they eventually will... I will not shoot them. But again, I want less gay propaganda and that's it.
-
I think the most important in this case, the fact that people in both Uganda and Nigeria have more significant problems, gays or not.
At least here in Russia, we do have :)
So... Let's say it's not the worst issue.
And by the way I don't like all that "gay" and "tolerate" stuff.
I don't want my children became gay. But if they eventually will... I will not shoot them. But again, I want less gay propaganda and that's it.
Yeah, sorry to tell you this, but that is not going to happen. Tolerance towards homosexuals is not optional around here, and if you believe that you can't do that, then HLP is not the place for you.
-
Like The E said...
Also, if it's not a joke, that makes it even worse. Recommendations are made on things you can make some kind of choice on.
You can't choose your country of birth, and you can't choose your sexual orientation.
Only a very small minority of world's population can choose their country of residence, and even less can choose their nationality.
Your suggestion can be interpreted in two ways: Gay people in Uganda/Nigeria/Russia should stop being gay (which is impossible) or leave their home country (which, for the majority, is also impossible).
So you're making a "suggestion" that is, generally, impossible to comply with. Not only is it not a solution at all, it's basically offensive too. Do you have any other clever insights? Maybe a suggestion that if North Koreans are unhappy with their leader they should leave the country or start an uprising to depose the Kim dynasty?
I think the most important in this case, the fact that people in both Uganda and Nigeria have more significant problems, gays or not.
I disagree. Legal persecution in any form is, or quickly becomes, probably the worst problem any country can possibly have.
At least here in Russia, we do have :)
So... Let's say it's not the worst issue.
What, then, do you think are the "worse issues" than legally sanctioned persecution of a particular group of people?
And by the way I don't like all that "gay" and "tolerate" stuff.
No one's saying you have to like things. You just have to accept that homosexuality is a naturally occurring thing in human species. It shouldn't be something to be "tolerated". How does someone being homosexual affect your personal existence negatively?
I don't want my children became gay. But if they eventually will... I will not shoot them.
A person does not "become gay" any more than they "become a male" or "become a female".
If you expect some kind of sympathy points for the noble compromise of not killing someone different, you'll be sorely disappointed.
But again, I want less gay propaganda and that's it.
See, the problem is you don't seem to understand the difference between "propaganda" and "education".
Propaganda is politically motivated and usually aimed to spread false information against a particular ideology or group of people.
Education's aim is to spread correct information so that people can make decisions without being influenced by propaganda and other misinformation.
In this case, for example, I'll educate you of two things:
1. Homosexuality is not a matter of choice, nor is it a "disease you can catch"
2. "gay propaganda" does not cause or spread homosexuality. It's not a mental disease to catch.
-
So... Let's say it's not the worst issue.
Really? Life in prison for gay sex is not the worst issue? I think it is one of the worst issues possible, it is a huge violation of basic human rights.
This is the kind of stuff that if enforced in practice could justify military intervention to stop them, IMHO.
Russia or Arizona have some issues with gay rights but this is on a completely different level.
-
Knights Templar are back, and they return for more blood!
While I don't agree with gay marriages, you just can't do that and go around killing people. Righteousness must be tempered with compassion. Without compassion, you are going to be more sadistic than communist governments.
-
I think the most important in this case, the fact that people in both Uganda and Nigeria have more significant problems, gays or not.
At least here in Russia, we do have :)
So... Let's say it's not the worst issue.
I'm gonna agree here. Gay rights are one thing, but those countries have a lot of problems which affect all people, gay or not. What's the point talking about gay rights if they can't even get human rights right? There's also hunger, poverty, government corruption, thinly veiled totalitarianism and enormous crime rates. I'd say, those all take precedence over any equality issues. If you gave a gay man a choice between a law that will give him sexual freedom and a law that will give him bread, I think the choice is obvious. So let's make sure a common Ugandan or Nigerian man has basic freedoms, food and shelter before fighting for minority rights.
-
I think the most important in this case, the fact that people in both Uganda and Nigeria have more significant problems, gays or not.
At least here in Russia, we do have :)
So... Let's say it's not the worst issue.
I'm gonna agree here. Gay rights are one thing, but those countries have a lot of problems which affect all people, gay or not. What's the point talking about gay rights if they can't even get human rights right? There's also hunger, poverty, government corruption, thinly veiled totalitarianism and enormous crime rates. I'd say, those all take precedence over any equality issues. If you gave a gay man a choice between a law that will give him sexual freedom and a law that will give him bread, I think the choice is obvious. So let's make sure a common Ugandan or Nigerian man has basic freedoms, food and shelter before fighting for minority rights.
You're talking as if sexual orientation is something that is somehow not vital to a person's being, or somehting that can just be put aside.
You're very much wrong. The right to not be persecuted for something you simply cannot change is as fundamental as the right to not get stabbed in the night.
-
What the ****?
Gay rights ARE human rights. Minority rights ARE human rights. They ARE basic freedoms.
You're not thinking this through either. Human rights issues have no relation on whatever problems of wellbeing a country in general is suffering.
In fact, if a country is starving and they decide that it's OK to legally persecute a certain part of population, do you expect food to be distributed in a fair and equal manner?
If a country has issues of food and water and shelter availability, that's bad.
If a country has issues with basic human rights, that's worse.
If it has both, we're going to be looking at a damn genocide pretty soon. Or whatever you want to call it.
-
I'm gonna agree here. Gay rights are one thing, but those countries have a lot of problems which affect all people, gay or not. What's the point talking about gay rights if they can't even get human rights right? There's also hunger, poverty, government corruption, thinly veiled totalitarianism and enormous crime rates. I'd say, those all take precedence over any equality issues. If you gave a gay man a choice between a law that will give him sexual freedom and a law that will give him bread, I think the choice is obvious.
So let's make sure a common Ugandan or Nigerian man has basic freedoms, food and shelter before fighting for minority rights.
How about no. There is no such choice to be made. Gay rights and other issues are orthogonal, they dont "take precedence" over each other and the right approach is to try to solve all of them simultaneously. Just because country is poor doesnt excuse other human right abuses in any way.
Not to mention that hunger and crime is quite hard to solve while this particular issue could be simply solved by NOT MAKING THIS STUPID LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE. So it is a low hanging fruit and if anything should be top priority because of that.
-
It frankly boggles my mind that this is even an issue. This does not take time and significant expenditure of resources to reverse. The solution to this does not take away in any way, shape, or form from any other problem's solution that might arise.
It is, quite simply, the act of assembling a group of people who are already assembled for the purpose of enacting laws, and getting them to agree that this is not an issue and saying so on paper.
Apparently we're still not quite at that stage yet.
-
When a government is such a complete and utter failure, they start prosecutions in a ditch attempt at redirecting the hate of the populace from the government to the Minority of Choice. It has happened a thousand times and it will happen a thousand more. It is the populace that needs to see through the lies they are fed and know who to hate and act against. But who is going to do that when you live in fear of a gullible public being told your existence is a sin against mankind?
-
How about no. There is no such choice to be made. Gay rights and other issues are orthogonal, they dont "take precedence" over each other and the right approach is to try to solve all of them simultaneously. Just because country is poor doesnt excuse other human right abuses in any way.
Not to mention that hunger and crime is quite hard to solve while this particular issue could be simply solved by NOT MAKING THIS STUPID LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE. So it is a low hanging fruit and if anything should be top priority because of that.
I'm not saying it excuses them of anything. Quite the contrary, it's just a symptom of how rotten this place has become. My point was, focusing on gay rights pretty much amounts to ignoring the bigger picture. And there is a much bigger picture.
You're very much wrong. The right to not be persecuted for something you simply cannot change is as fundamental as the right to not get stabbed in the night.
Well, I'm going to tell you, the records about "right not to get stabbed in the night" (or broad daylight, for that matter) are not stellar in those places, either. And what I was talking about is that this one affects a whole lot more people than gay rights. The way I see it, we're discussing gay rights, but hardly mention other, larger scale issues. The people there are hungry, poor and oppressed, but the moment gays (a comparatively small minority) start being discriminated, we suddenly scream bloody murder. What we should be discussing is government corruption and destitute state of those countries, which is the reason they passed this stupid law, and countless others noone bothered mentioning. And if this was the "last straw", then it shouldn't have been, because the line was crossed long ago. Also, access to food and water is definitely more important than ability to proclaim your sexual orientation. Simply because you'll die a horrible death without the former, and the latter can be lived without (however miserable such life might be, at least you're not starving to death or dying from drinking what amounts to sewage).
-
Your argument is a subcase of the 'oppression olympics' fallacy in which no problem should be addressed so long as 'larger' problems are extant. It's predicated on the fundamentally erroneous belief that attacking these problems is a zero-sum game. You use or when you should be using and.
Moreover, your argument implies a shared etiology between these problems in which economic scarcity or failure of rule of law are somehow superordinate to brutal oppression of gay people and stem from the same root issue. This is logically and factually false - like saying that a man bleeding to death from a bullet wound cannot be treated until the fire in his house has been put out.
Combating and reversing this homophobic, oppressive legislation is an independent effort from fixing other structural issues. You call this 'ignoring the bigger picture'. It's not. It's looking at another picture, one with its own etiology and its own solutions. Your framing of the matter marginalizes and ignores both the suffering here and the way to solve it.
-
can i just point out that in this case the ugandan government is actively dedicating resources to persecuting gays, so all the 'bigger problems' arguments here really don't make any actual sense
-
Yeah, I think it's very hard to support an argument that combating homophobic oppression detracts from the larger picture. There's no fixed reserve of outrage or pressure that has to be spent like points, and the Ugandan government didn't decide to **** over hundreds of thousands of its own citizens because the economy was rough or they had a crop failure. This kind of concern-caveat 'but what about the REAL PROBLEM' argument comes up in nearly every class of humanitarian crisis and it fundamentally misunderstands where this kind of problem comes from: an oppressive government making an actively oppressive, malicious decision.
The solutions that will fix [mass starvation] or [political instability] or [structural issue] are not the solutions that will fix 'we should jail gay people'.
-
Heart disease is the biggest killer of humans. Therefore all medical resources should be dedicated to this problem at the exclusion of all others.
-
I'm gonna agree here. Gay rights are one thing, but those countries have a lot of problems which affect all people, gay or not. What's the point talking about gay rights if they can't even get human rights right? There's also hunger, poverty, government corruption, thinly veiled totalitarianism and enormous crime rates. I'd say, those all take precedence over any equality issues. If you gave a gay man a choice between a law that will give him sexual freedom and a law that will give him bread, I think the choice is obvious. So let's make sure a common Ugandan or Nigerian man has basic freedoms, food and shelter before fighting for minority rights.
Or you could argue that since food and shelter is so scarce, why are the governments of these countries wasting time on laws against gay people when they have bigger problems. You could argue that making a stink about what you claim are minority issues is a way of saying "Stop dealing with the bull**** small issues and fix your ****ing country!"
-
can i just point out that in this case the ugandan government is actively dedicating resources to persecuting gays, so all the 'bigger problems' arguments here really don't make any actual sense
Gay rights ARE human rights. Minority rights ARE human rights. They ARE basic freedoms.
I'm just going to quote these for truth real quick and duck back out.
-
O'k. Looks like I need to be perfectly clear on my statements:
1) I don't want to insult any HLP gay from Uganda or Nigeria. Are there any, btw? I mean are there any HLP members from Uganda or Nigeria?
2) I don't want to insult any HLP gay member.
Frankly, even the whole HLP were consist of gays only (!) I still would love you guys for what you have done for FSO.
So feel free to be a gay if you're gay.
3) Yes, gays are not being gays by their free will. However nobody knows exactly what causes gay people to be gay.
4) Nigeria and Uganda have more important issues then gay rights, remember HIV rates, poverty and the fact that it is third world countries.
I doubt that many those peole can have a computer, internet connection or play FSO or be insulted by my posts.
5) I never hated or insulted any gay, and I don't have anything against them. Just I don't care about gay problems at all.
There are always bigger problems, after all.
And that's it.
If my post seems to be insulting, then please re-read carefully. And I'm really sorry if my words hurted someone.
In this case you can read my first post as "gays, please don't go to Nigeria or Uganda for your safety"
You can ban me, if this can do you happier, this won't stop me from playing FSO (11 campaigns so far, and I hunger for more... :) )
But... If I get banned, then it means that there's some prosecution on HLP :)
P.S. Looks like used "gay" word in this post more then I used to say it during my whole life before :)
-
In this case you can read my first post as "gays, please don't go to Nigeria or Uganda for your safety"
Your wording was rather off, but fair enough IMO.
-
THis shizzle has been going on for a while already. Half a year ago I fixed the laptop of an Ugandese refugee who was forced to flee the country, after he had been accused of being gay - he was part of an HIV-Awereness campaign :blah: (Because some idiot decided to link HIV to gayness *sigh*). In light of recent events, the dutch have opened their borders for gay refugees from these countries (Although I am not very sure how they tell).
-
Like has been discussed, the material, physical issues like lack of resources or general ****tyness of things does not have any relevance to issues like minority rights.
I'll grant that there are "more important" things than legislation that legalizes persecution of homosexuals or other minorities.
The bigger problem is the pervasive attitudes that exist not only in Uganda and Nigeria, but most of sub-saharan Africa in general. Legislation or not, it is unfortunately a very, very bad place to be openly homosexual in because the risk of getting lynched, burned to death with your house, or just crippled if you're lucky, is staggeringly high.
This lynching mentality is the real problem for improving minority rights, and that will consume some amount of human resources and funding because the best way to fix that is education. General education, mind you, not some kind of "gay propaganda" as the Russian legislators are keen to use the term.
However, making more laws to discriminate against gay people is a made up problem and takes resources to implement. It's true that the legislators have wide support to this law. But that doesn't mean they should be enacting it. They are still responsible to international courts about committing crimes against humanity. Sadly, far too few countries actually acknowledge the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and choose to act in accordance with that document... and enforcing it would not actually affect the underlying problem.
The problem of getting Ugandans educated enough to reduce homophobic attitudes is made more difficult by certain religious organizations in the area who are determined to prevent education from polluting the minds of their recruiting pool. Groups like Boko Haram are a stellar example of this. Their terror campaign is specifically against western education. Even the name of the group means "Books are Forbidden", where "book" is symbolic for western or non-islamic education.
They are literally murdering school children who dare educate themselves with materials that aren't from the 7th century CE (or otherwise authorized by the local medicine man).
So yes, there are problems that affect more people than just gay population of Uganda, Nigeria, and nearly the whole sub-saharan pit of despair.
But consider this - if you happened to be a member of a persecuted minority, would other issues in your country be more or less important than that? Like... if you can get killed or imprisoned for making a public appearance, is that higher or lower on your list of concerns than where you might get food today?
It is quite insulting to say that solving food problems or water problems or shelter problems before trying to improve the rights of minorities.
"gays, please don't go to Nigeria or Uganda for your safety"
This is a more sensible statement and I definitely agree with it. Not that it isn't some supreme Captain Obvious material, but still.
Also, the point -Joshua- brought up is also very much relevant. How do you tell if someone's a gay or not?
This kind of legislation is not only dangerous for homosexuals, but anyone in the population that somehow stands out or makes enemies with wrong people.
There are also larger issues such as having to prove your innocence rather than the prosecution proving your guilt. Because, y'know, how do you prove someone to be homosexual, or how do you prove you're not homosexual? It's always easy enough to get eyewitnesses for witch hunt trials, and they're always fixed so that once you get accused, your life is basically ruined forever.
Which, by the way, is a real problem too in sub-saharan Africa. Witch hunts in the 21st century. God damn, get some education to these people already... :(
-
So feel free to be a gay if you're gay.
WELL GEE THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH YOU'RE OH SO GENEROUS!
3) Yes, gays are not being gays by their free will. However nobody knows exactly what causes gay people to be gay.
Why is this even remotely relevant for any of this? Who cares what "causes" people to be gay if we all agree it's not their "choice"?
4) Nigeria and Uganda have more important issues then gay rights, remember HIV rates, poverty and the fact that it is third world countries.
This is an insanely irrelevant remark. So there are more important, pressing issues. Guess what, YOU are RIGHT! So why the ****, why the **** does this government think this is a pressing issue in order to make a ****ing despicable law against gays?
I'll tell you why. Because it's a very homophobic country, the law is actually *popular*, it deflects people from discussing the real issues that the gov doesn't fix and makes a scapegoat out-group to which you can blame the country's problems (oh the bad morality of these people have degraded our country!). It also is the perfect law to oppress, persecute anyone the Power doesn't like.
I doubt that many those peole can have a computer, internet connection or play FSO or be insulted by my posts.
Irrelevant. Your posts bother me for I am a human being part of this thing called humanity.
5) I never hated or insulted any gay, and I don't have anything against them. Just I don't care about gay problems at all.
There are always bigger problems, after all.
So why are you here discussing a problem that you don't care for?
But... If I get banned, then it means that there's some prosecution on HLP :)
You mean persecution? I hope you don't get banned, but if you would be don't take it as persecution. HLP has little patience for bigotry, that's all.
-
4) Nigeria and Uganda have more important issues then gay rights, remember HIV rates, poverty and the fact that it is third world countries.
And yet they are spending money and tying up their law enforcement on persecuting gays. Simply stop doing that and bam, they're closer to solving these 'more important issues', and they're making progress on gay rights.
-
Larceny is the biggest percentage of crime. Therefore all law enforcement resources should be dedicated to this problem at the exclusion of all others.
-
3) Yes, gays are not being gays by their free will. However nobody knows exactly what causes gay people to be gay.
The evidence that sexual orientation is biologically-determined (as opposed to learned) is pretty conclusive. It's also fairly well-established that sexual orientation and identity are not hereditary, which limits the role that genetics plays in that determination. The most convincing evidence seems to point to epigenetic modification (the changes that everyone's DNA undergoes at the point of gamete fusion) and/or hormone dosage in utero.
4) Nigeria and Uganda have more important issues then gay rights, remember HIV rates, poverty and the fact that it is third world countries.
I doubt that many those peole can have a computer, internet connection or play FSO or be insulted by my posts.
Important issues, yes. More important... well even if this were true, if anything that speaks to the insanity of passing a law and dedicating public attention and resources to the persecution of a minority based on the genitalia of the consenting adults they want to sleep with. That's idiotic.
5) I never hated or insulted any gay, and I don't have anything against them. Just I don't care about gay problems at all.
There are always bigger problems, after all.
The trouble with not caring about the legal and unjustified persecution of one minority is that, from a purely selfish perspective, you can always be part of another minority that the majority suddenly describes to persecute too. This is why human rights are so important - if anything, standing up for the rights of someone with whom you don't agree is MORE important than standing up for the people you do agree with.
-
I've become a little uncomfortable with the biological argument for gay rights - even if it were purely a matter of choice, being gay is so harmless it shouldn't matter - but it seems to connect with a lot of people who otherwise won't listen, so it's at least tactically useful.
-
I've become a little uncomfortable with the biological argument for gay rights - even if it were purely a matter of choice, being gay is so harmless it shouldn't matter - but it seems to connect with a lot of people who otherwise won't listen, so it's at least tactically useful.
Precisely.
Unfortunately, opposition to gay rights often correlates with religious belief against what religions see as a choice; by pointing out that sexuality is not a choice, you confront these arguments with the uncomfortable realization that this doctrine goes against other teachings of their religion - typically love and acceptance of who people are.
I also particularly like the tactic of asking opponents to rights recognition for homosexuals (in particular) how other people being gay affects their lives, but that isn't a particularly useful tactic in this discussion.
-
"tactically useful"?
Temporarily, perhaps. Not in the long run. Imagine that we find that no, that in fact gaydom is something not "biological" (everything's biological but let's stick with this definition), and that with a proper 21st century "treatment" we can get gays to become hetero.
What then of your arguments? They just backfire. It's like the racist argument on how science "says" that the "races" (of course it's not races, it's ethnics) are not different in what comes about intelligence, etc., therefore racism is false. Well, the obvious problem with this argument is that Science is a harsh mistress and it could potentially actually find the opposite to be true (I am not saying it will, I know it even to be really improbable to do so), and so what would that entail, that racism is a scientific justifiable position??
This is the kind of stuff that makes me appalled whenever someone brings up science to prove their moralities. No, thanks I don't need science to tell me that gaydom is a "hardcoded" phenomena for making me respect gays and their rights, just as I don't need Science to disprove racist theories of intelligences and whatever to just disregard the whole Racist stuff altogether from the start.
Don't even give them that ground "well Science says this so", because then these crooks will find ways for science saying "otherwise" and then you are left with a bag of nothing.
-
The point is, Luis, that some people don't respond to reason unless its predicated on an appeal to authority. And the very interesting thing about human psychology is that if you do change a person's view after an appeal to authority (science, religion, politics, etc), they often become as ardent defenders of their changed view as they were of the original one. Hence the "born-again Christian" phenomenon.
Reasonable people are going to recognize human rights on the principles of equality, liberty, and harm, but for everyone else, additional tactics are required.
-
Well then, never complain to me that science is politicized and what not!
It's not as if these things have no consequences.
-
"tactically useful"?
Temporarily, perhaps. Not in the long run.
That's exactly what 'tactical' means in this context.
-
I've become a little uncomfortable with the biological argument for gay rights - even if it were purely a matter of choice, being gay is so harmless it shouldn't matter - but it seems to connect with a lot of people who otherwise won't listen, so it's at least tactically useful.
That's a good point, although as a known fact it is still useful as a counter-argument to people who demand gays should choose not to be gays in order to conform to whatever authority demands so (whether it's religious authority that says gays are evil, or just the general attitude of the population).
But you're right anyway - even if it were a choice, so what. Religion is much more of a choice - there's no biological argument for choosing any particular religion or none at all (although there's some suggestions that there may be biological basis for how probable it is for a person to be religious or non-religious and that may affect their choices in life).
-
"tactically useful"?
Temporarily, perhaps. Not in the long run.
That's exactly what 'tactical' means in this context.
Right.
-
While being gay is not a choice, acting on it (gay sex and the like) is a choice, and that is often the main target of anti-gay activists. So thats another reason why "its not a choice" is not a very effective argument to defend gay rights.
-
That said, any and all claims that being gay is a choice should be shot down immediately. Simply from a scientific point of view, you should not allow stupid misconceptions to propagate.
-
Having sex seems like it might not be a choice, in any way that matters, to a vast swath of people. I don't know if you could argue that seeking sexual relations is more of a choice than anything else we mammals do, like eat, defecate, and pair-bond. Yes our conscious minds have some ability to delay these things, but our genes aren't still around for no reason.
-
Seriously if someone actually accepted that sexual preference is not a choice, but then went on to demand that they remain single and celibate that person would need to be punched in the kidneys.
-
Don't be so astonished, that's the position of most conservatives out there. They will say that this "lust" is an abhorrent one and should not be condoned by the state, etc.
-
Seriously if someone actually accepted that sexual preference is not a choice, but then went on to demand that they remain single and celibate that person would need to be punched in the kidneys.
Personally, I'd aim lower and hit harder. Give them a taste of their own prescription.
-
https://twitter.com/mattstat/status/439132921874485248
-
Word, Luis
-
The word Celibacy brings me back to the word church. :nervous:
-
Ironic cause the word is largely misused from its original (and still valid) meaning, which is to remain unmarried. You can say you are celibate and then spend all day ****ing. As long as you don't get married. Which you can't do if you're gay in Uganda anyway. So complaining that gay people should be celibate is somewhat strange if you deliberately read it to mean the older rather than newer meaning of the word. :p
They should be complaining about their lack of chastity. :p Of course no one does that because you can't hear chastity without thinking of chastity belt and being reminded how medieval the whole concept is. :p
-
The word Celibacy brings me back to the word church. :nervous:
Ironic cause the word is largely misused from its original (and still valid) meaning, which is to remain unmarried. You can say you are celibate and then spend all day ****ing. As long as you don't get married. Which you can't do if you're gay in Uganda anyway. So complaining that gay people should be celibate is somewhat strange if you deliberately read it to mean the older rather than newer meaning of the word. :p
They should be complaining about their lack of chastity. :p Of course no one does that because you can't hear chastity without thinking of chastity belt and being reminded how medieval the whole concept is. :p
If tolerance of homosexuals is required on HLP, why is tolerance of Christians optional?
I'm not attacking homosexuals in this post, I'm simply pointing out that there's a double standard here. If it's wrong to chew people out for their sexual orientation, it should be equally wrong to insult people or call them names because of their religious views. This came out in the Ham/Nye thread as well, where we got a lot of "Religious people are idiots and here's why" posts. This goes against the very principles that were discussed in the forum guidelines.
-
Who said anything about attacking Christians? I can't even see where I mentioned Christianity in my post at all.
I'm attacking anyone who says "everyone should follow the sexual orientation I say they should". It's one thing for someone to choose to give up sex and be chaste, it's completely different for someone to point at someone else and say "you should be chaste." The point I was making is that that sort of idea is as medieval as the chastity belt. A device designed for saying "You should be chaste because I say so."
And like the chastity belt, the idea is to limit sexual expression in others, but never yourself. I doubt the idea of saying "Gays shouldn't have sex" would be anywhere near as popular if everyone saying it also had to give up sex themselves.
-
He's talking about smth else, about the double standards where homossexuals (and the idea of homossexuality) should be tolerated but that there's no such demand for christians (or christianity).
I can understand where he comes from.
-
@Karajorma: I'm a little confused by your post, but I assume your intentions are good, in which case your answer seems to be "sorry my post came out wrong". In which case, I'm sorry for misinterpreting your post. My point still stands regard yuezhi.
@Luis: Precisely.
-
For better or worse, GD currently is predominantly on the rationalist/science side. Anyone wanting to discuss Creationism will get a considerable amount of pushback from those of us most willing to discuss these topics, and that means that the multitude of flaws that particular doctrine has on every level are open to debate.
-
The_E that was very much not what InsaneBaron implied. I think it's obvious that creationism and any sets of ideas should be questioned and criticized. Hell, I was well known for doing just that against religious views myself a couple years ago (not fondly!). The point is that while any hint of something said against homossexuals and homossexuality is rightly shut down immediately, while it is probably the case that if people are going like "those *stupid religious* people" they'll be perfectly fine, despite the fact that there are a considerate number of religious people in the HLP community.
E: Having said this, I think that this grudge should be dealt with in the general regulation thread for discussion if one deems it important to state it. My advice is that InsaneBaron posts in there a good summary of the perceived problem, if there is one he feels to be unadressed.
-
True, there is that.
-
I like Luis's suggestion. I'm going to bring this up- respectfully- in the Ruleset revision discussion.
-
As far as I see it, any one of any faith is allowed to believe whatever they want to believe. However, any one of any faith is not allowed to disparage or otherwise refer to a group of people in a derogatory or malicious fashion. I'm not saying that you or anyone else has yet done that, but please keep it in mind before automatically assuming that there is a double standard in place.
Truthfully speaking there probably is a little bit of one. That said, it's neither deliberate on the part of any part of the moderation staff, nor is it malicious. Please, please, please feel free to report or otherwise appropriately respond if you think something like that has happened, but also be aware that discussion of "The Church" or any one of a number of intolerant groups or decisions within the religious community is not necessarily a condemnation of that religion or anyone within it who is a non-bigot.
tl;dr it's not religion it's the people in it.
-
As far as I see it, any one of any faith is allowed to believe whatever they want to believe. However, any one of any faith is not allowed to disparage or otherwise refer to a group of people in a derogatory or malicious fashion. I'm not saying that you or anyone else has yet done that, but please keep it in mind before automatically assuming that there is a double standard in place.
Truthfully speaking there probably is a little bit of one. That said, it's neither deliberate on the part of any part of the moderation staff, nor is it malicious. Please, please, please feel free to report or otherwise appropriately respond if you think something like that has happened, but also be aware that discussion of "The Church" or any one of a number of intolerant groups or decisions within the religious community is not necessarily a condemnation of that religion or anyone within it who is a non-bigot.
tl;dr it's not religion it's the people in it.
This. Oh so much this.
Moreover, religion is a choice. Like any choice, I have the right to discuss it and debate it. I can question someone's views or choices without questioning that person's existence. This doesn't apply to traits. I can no more question someone's sexuality as I can their gender, skin colour, etc.
So is there perhaps a perceived double standard? Sure - but emphasis on perceived. Choice, religious or otherwise, do not deserve the same level of protection from critique/debate as a person's very identity. I can respectfully debate your choices, but its inappropriate to do that with traits.
-
400% agreed.
And I question why any person who genuinely believes in a creed of compassion and tolerance would want to protect the right to condemn compassion and tolerance - to actively defend an event in which intolerance and hate were enshrined in law.
People will be killed in these nations. They will be gang raped. Their heads will be caved in and their bodies will be left in ditches. These are not disconnected events: they are a direct result of a culture and legislature willing to condone violence against gay people. These things happen in America too, and we've been working to stop them. That effort has to be global.
-
Same page here as all of you, just a minor correction.
It has been implied that religion isn't part of the "identity itself" of the person. Well allow me to disagree on that point. Religious people often time *do* feel as if this identity is fundamental to their person. It's something so deeply ingrained and so much of their lives revolve and depend on their religiosity that it is innacurate to state that it is merely a "choice" or an "idea" that they can dismiss with just some facts or observations or arguments, etc. It's something emotionally attached to the person in such a way that any attempt to "take it out" can become extremely painful.
I've learned (from my mistakes, obviously) to respect these attachments a lot more, and especially in HLP I try to be as little confrontational as I can be about these subjects. Just bringing them up upsets some posters here, and I understand why.
-
That's definitely something to examine. Religious uptake is largely determined by environment of upbringing, and we now have a good understanding of how and why religiosity spreads and why people choose the religions they do.
I'd argue it's still a separate class of trait, though, but that's probably a matter for its own thread. More importantly, unlike the other traits MP-Ryan outlined, religion can dictate how you think about the moral status of OTHER PEOPLE. It's very important to interrogate and criticize this aspect of belief, and it certainly deprives it of the right to be protected in the same way.
Intolerance is wrong. Tolerance of intolerance is too.
-
Battuta, I'm not sure if your comment was aimed specifically at me, but I'm as opposed to lynching, jailing, and anti-gay violence as you are. The type of thing is wrong, whoever it's aimed at.
-
@battuta,
Oh come on, you do have some kind of a guideline of morality, are you going to tell me you never morally judge anyone else? We always judge other people. The problem is not structural at that level at least. Everyone is entitled to judge. The problem is more one of how wrong these morals are, and how to persuade them they hold these wrong ideas. It's something incredibly difficult for these beliefs are ingrained in tradition and dogma, and those move oh so slowly.
-
Instead of repeating myself, I'm just going to point you all back over to Site Support where I've addressed this in some detail.
-
Everyone judges. But I think there's a sharp divide between beliefs that constrain the freedom of others, and beliefs that constrain the freedom to constrain.
Baron, my point is mostly that that kind of violence doesn't come out of nowhere. I would argue that anti-gay violence is the product of anti-gay attitudes, and that defeating these attitudes requires real examination of every social prescription about homosexuality.
-
Respecting someone's beliefs should be a given. I'm not particularly offended that someone chooses to believe something that cannot by definition be proven either true or false, although it does seem very alient to me.
However, religiously motivated intellectual dishonesty is a different thing altogether. That is what most religious factions (christian or otherwise) do with their position on the rights of sexual minorities. Specifically the dishonest argument is that marriage originates from religion and thus religion (and usually one particular religion) should have the right to determine what marriage should be and who's qualified to marry.
Of course this is false - humans pair-bond with or without religion. In the societies of olden days, churches were not just religious institutions but also fulfilled the role of magistrates and census was regularly done based on parish upkeep. They also kept note on who were the parents of a child, etc. With such important functions in historical context, of course churches also officiated marriages in most cultures. It's just that the three Abrahamic religions tend to be so obsessed with sexuality that they all pretty much decreed that you should only have sex after given permission by the church - ie. after being married (although this is not exclusive to Judaism, Christianity and Islam - it seems to be a common trend with patriarchal societies in general).
In the modern society, no one needs to ask the church's permission to have sex. Instead, marriage tends to have more of a legal function, and refusing that from certain types of couples is against the principles of equality. And before someone brings up the slippery slope argument again; no, granting marriage right to same-sex couples doesn't mean you should allow any kind of relationships to be registered as marriage. Just all relationships between two consenting adults.
Another good examples of religiously motivated intellectual dishonesty would be creationism, "intelligent design" and abstinence-only sex education. Since these often are advocated by very religious christians, it can often seem like "christians are not tolerated", and since this suits the propaganda purposes of the ultrareligious organizations, they like to repeat it as often and as loudly as possible, and if you object you're not only satan's servant but also an oppressive person persecuting people who just want to practice their religion...
I would have the same contempt toward anyone who wished to bring complete, falsified nonsense to public education as part of official curriculum, regardless of their reasons for it.
What would your reaction be if schools started teaching that maybe NASA didn't send people to Moon after all, just because some uneducated people don't understand how it's possible and present some arguments based on incorrect premises that "prove" that it's either impossible to go to Moon, or even if it were possible, the pictures are still fake...
Or how about teaching Aristotles' Theory of Impetus as an "alternative" to Newton's mechanics?
Because these are exactly on the same category as teaching creationism or intelligent design as "alternatives" to evolution as the source of diversity of life, or cosmology as the origins and structure of universe.