martinguerre

No, there isn't. I'm going to read what you have to say, all caps or not. But i appriciate respectful tone.

I don't entirely follow here. Best guess at what you were asking for. My boundaries come from a framework of belief in the right of the human being to be self-determining, and the conviction that we are responsible (to God) for what we do with that freedom. To kill another human being is to damage the image of God, given to all of us in creation (Gen 1:27). To kill someone for no other reason than you don't like who they are...is an even colder and more serious violation of that sacred image.

For this, for other reasons, i am willing to call laws unjust. In a situation where civil disobedience will not result in immediate death, i would advocate that a person break laws or policies they feel to be unjust (i'm thinking sitting at white only lunch counters) and to accept punishment. But in a society that is hell bent on killing a category of people...i simply reccomend that these people choose to survive in such a way that they celebrate their dignity as humans, and if they must go to death to do so proudly. I label those deaths unjust because there is no reasonable fashion to oppose them and not be killed. It isn't a matter of "they tried to escape the law" but rather "the law was insane and genocidal" from the get go.

And we as a nation are free to do what we can to put international pressure on that government to change. Or we could silently assent to these murders. I find your calls for toleration to be functionally equivalent to assent. If you oppose a moral wrong, but only do so in your own head...then i don't know that you've actually accomplished anything by that. This is one of the points at which we differ...i don't expect you to suddenly radicalize, but explaining why i'm not satisfied with that model of advocacy.


Yes. When morality is just legal, i beleive it to be capable of being profoundly unjust. That is my point on that matter, in it's entirety. I don't believe that using solely a legal framework is sufficient to produce a moral actor. The law can be a very positive influence, but without personal judgement to moderate it's activities or to evaluate it's goals...it can be equally terrifying and murderous. The law gives us the Magna Carta and the Equal Voting Rights Act, the 14th Ammendment, and Title 9. It also has given us or carried out the Aryanization of property, Jim Crow, limited franchise, and Stalin's purges. The rule of law is paramount to a free and good society. But that rule of law represents the collective momentum of that soceity, and if that soceity does not adequately judge the direction of it's laws, they become the instruments of tyrrany and evil.

My God, that's sick. You're going to hide behind the fact that the UN Declaration doesn't mention orientation to justify not counting it as a human right's abuse? They were executed for one charge. Being gay. This isn't the first case, and my heart is sickened it won't be the last. The sum results of all these deaths. International silence. Consent that it is okay for governments to slaughter their citizens who are queer. I feel that we've been sitting on our hands in relation to Darfur, but at least we said something...we put some pressure on, and i hold hope that Rice's trip may bring some results. Again...even the act of standing up and saying something is important. It is the beginning of resistance to evil, the conscious break with the status quo. That even that small step cannot be taken in this case disheartens me. And so i write.


I knew about this because i read to find this stuff out. If you want me to start posting more human interest stories, the BBC does a good job of featuring different cases. They did a biopic on a woman doing foresic identification in Serbia a few weeks ago, i might find that to post, and a set of interviews with rape victims in the Darfur. I posted this because it really hit me personally and i knew not many folks would see it otherwise. but if you want threads every week on genocide, i can arrange for that to happen. Any time, any where, when people in power use that power to abuse the helpless, i will be concerned. Eunichs, blue skinned folk, whatever. In this case, it's even more powerful to me because of my orientation. But the bonds of empathy have more to do with common human idenity than anything else.

Because they are currently standing alone in much of the world. Because they are the group that the US won't stand up for in human right's dialouge. Because the silence is right now killing them. Because of anti-queer sentiments at home, and more broadly in the international community (note the lack of orientation as part of the UN declaration) the response produced on this specific issue is ineffective and silence to the point of assent. Along with several other groups and situations, anti-queer violence is the issue of the day. My energy is there because so few other people seem to care. That's why i say it matters.

Being queer without fear of violence is a basic human right. It isn't being recognized. Thus, i write.

Because to do nothing is to accept responsibility. If you watch a murder happen and do nothing to aid the victim, you are responsible for that death along with the one who performed the original violence. In the face of violence, it is our responsbility to find ways to resist it. Non-violently if at all possible, and with in the bound of the civil contract (free speech protesting vs. vandalism or intimidation.) Promoting change is preferable to legislating it, etc. In the face of evil, our job as human beings is to do our best to not participate in it, but to form community that is dedicated to living in just relationship. I will not idly stand by and watch a lynching. It is not in my character to do so. And i believe that the price of standing by is that one will feel that they cannot do anything, they might feel that why should they bother, they might feel it's none of their business...it's the other guy getting persecuted. And someday, they may find that what made them human, the ability to relate to others with love, has been rotted away by their apathy in the face of evil.

The only place where you have any point, and even then not really, is in relation to the treatment of minors. I believe that minors should be accorded more legal recognition, to prevent the power of parent/guardians from being used to coerce them in terms of their sexual orientation. In line with the statements from the AMA and APA, I believe that reparative therapy not a legitimate theraputic response to queer idenity. I believe that harmful medical treatment is child abuse, and should be treated as such: appoint a guardian at litem who will see to the child's best interests and make decisions to ensure the well being of the child.

Other than that, my advocacy is as defined above. In cases where violence is not imminent, or can be absorbed without loss of life (i would rather be struck and not strike back if i can do so) i believe in non-violent resistance. I believe that protest of evil affirms our humanity, and promotes just relationship. I don't file lawsuits. I start conversations and arguments. I don't put guns to people's heads. I stand without force when i demand equal rights.

you tell me. What rights am i taking away from people? The right to feel okay about participating in a homophobic society? The right to be comfortable with silence on human rights abuses? The right to ignore the ills of heterocentrism and homophobia? I talk. That's what i do.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16