Cynthetiq

This is exactly the position where I stand.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Leto

Canada is completely ignored on the map.

No no, don't worry. It's okay... we're used to it.

martinguerre

This isn't the first time. In cases where there are no complicating factors, there is still silence. Most incidents of this kind are left out of human rights reports, and statements are simply not made concerning anti-queer violence.

The rest of your post. I don't know what to say to be convincing, but i hope that it is realized that the price of affirming your argument would be that every single law, everywhere would be considered just. This clearly is not the case in my mind. Without resorting to extreme examples, i think history records plenty of laws later seen to be quite unjust in content and application. If a nation banned heterosexual acts under pain of death, would you consider the resulting fatalities to be just?

__________________
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

kangaeru

People should be able to live their lives by their own moral standards, doing what they think is right, AS LONG AS they do not infringe on somebody else's right to do the same.

So for instance, if you kill somebody, they don't have much options for how to live their life anymore. As long as what you're doing doesn't hinder somebody else, fuck how you want, smoke what you want, live however makes you happy. That's how it should be.

__________________
Dont be afraid to change who you are for what you could become

Gilda

Courtesy of Supple Cow from the Daily Wisdom thread from earlier this month:

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Ananas

Perhaps. But this action will have the effect of either forcing people to continue to live in fear or challenge the authority of the theocrats. There is a long list of countries that were founded or changed by people who decided to stand against such cruelty.

From what I understand, the Sharia is not Islamic (religious) law in that it comes directly from the Koran; it is the legal system written by men that could be said to be Islam-inspired or Islam-derived.

__________________
it's gritty

cj2112

If i break a law, no matter how I feel about the law, I feel it is just that I am punished and serve the sentence imposed by said law, even if that means I am to be put to death. If heterosexual acts were to become punishable by death today, and I were to participate in that behavior, yes my being put to death would be just. Do not misunderstand I think the law banning homosexuality under penalty of death is ridiculous,even appalling, I believe that we agree on that point. My point is that these guys knew the risk they were taking and chose to participate anyways. To me, the law itself is disgusting, but these guys being put to death for breaking the law is not sad, unfair, or unjust. They were in my opinion given a perfectly fair and appropriate sentence. If the law said you were to be put to death for eating chocolate, and they ate chocolate I would feel the same way. I could care less what law these guys broke, they knew the penalty for the law they chose to break and they broke it anyway.

Cynthetiq

Thisi is within the same vein as the visas to most SE Asian countries where it's written in red letters: DEATH TO DRUG TRAFFICKERS yet still there are foreigners who seem to think that they are exempt from this rule and think that their home governent should protect and bail them out.

Ask any Singaporean what they think about drugs and almost all of them will say that they are bad and that you will be killed if you are caught. What happens to most Singaporeans who are caught? They get put into rehabilitation, but foreigners? They are put to death or at the minimum life in prison with no chance of parole.

As far as it not making human rights records why should it? They were killed in what can be reported in 2 ways. Police departments here do the same thing to manipulate crime rate numbers.

Again, I state human rights violations are wrong on their face, they don't need to be against queers to be any more or any less wrong.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

martinguerre

I think all the discussion of comparison to drugs, or whatever...is all a smokescreen. Either you think this is wrong, or you think it's right. You can make excuses for the state, or you can stand with the victims. Abdicating the idea of justice to whoever holds enough guns to call themselves a government is not a stand of moral responsbility. And Cyn...your comparisons are getting even worse. First Nambla, now drug kingpins? I'm sorry, but your choices in metaphors are really out of order.

Not making human rights violation reports? That's not an issue? I'm going to ask you to explain before i respond. I'm reading this in a very, very negative light, and i'd like to see if i'm wrong to be perceiving it this way. All i'll say is that the US records human rights violations around the world so that in our dialouge with those nations, we can show concern, and attempt to lobby those governments to change. Significant trade pressure, military assistance, diplomatic attention have brought significant results in many parts of the world. Attention to the treatment of Christians in China is a good example. If they are not recorded by the State Dept. they will not be addressed. This is why i think it's critical. It also affirms to people here that the Gov. takes the situation seriously. Why do you think it's not important?

i think it does matter that it's against queers. picking on anyone is wrong. picking on the one who has no one to defend them is all the more terrible in that they never had a chance, and suffer not just the consequence of oppression but do so believing that they have no allies, no person to stand for them against the force of the state.

__________________
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

Cynthetiq

Martin, LOOK at the CONCEPTS of what I am posting NOT THE EXACT WORDS. Again, you are looking way too close to see the forest for the trees right in front of you.

cj posted that if there is a law that says 'breaking this law = this consequence" that's the POINT I am making with mentioning SE Asia and Singapore again. I am FURTHER stating the LOGIC of that point and showing EXAMPLES where it happens in the world. AGAIN THE CONCEPT not the ACTIONS but the CONCEPT since that is what we are talking about.

I did not say that it's not important. I did not say it's not an issue. Please point out on your monitor where you read that because on mine I don't see where I typed those letters.

I'm stating that FIGURES and STATISTICS are easily manipulated after they are collected, they are even more manipulated during the intial collecting phase. Police departments do it all the time to obfusicate the reality of crimes. Here they clearly have 3 different ways to make a statistic out of it, bias homosexual crime, capital punishment for criminal act, or nothing at all. This isn't a clear cut as Matthew Shepard's situation, but the person keeping the records has choices to make and as a human being can make choices that you or I disagree with.

And I'm going with the BOTTOM paragraph. I am not saying that it doesn't matter that it's against queers, I'm saying that to say,"LOOOK LOOOK how horrible this is because a queer was attacked. This is an outrage" when you don't carry the same outrage for regular people is the challenge.

This is exactly where you and I diverge.

This is exactly where you and I stand on the same spot.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

martinguerre

No need to shout.

I get that. And that's why i'm writing my response. I won't repeat it, i don't expect it to convince you at this point, it seems clear we disagree on this matter. There is not a failure to understand the mechanisms of laws here. My comment is a moral assesment of your attitude towards the relationship of justice and law, not a factual claim on how laws work.

As i said, i was open to the possibility that i was reading too much in to those words, but that those were my concerns. I still would like clarification on your original statement. The idea that statistics are manipulated....well, yes. They are being manipulated to ignore some crimes against certain people. Those human rights abuses are not being effectively confronted in the world community as a result. Thus, my concern.

Don't tell me where my outrage is. i could try to prove this to you, but i don't think it serves anyone to do so.

Where do you get the right to assume that i'm cold to other human rights violations, or that i'm somehow callous to other victims. This is a story that wasn't getting a lot of press, and it was personally meaningful to me. I shared it with this community, to help in my own reflection on it, and to see what other people had to say. i wanted to be grateful that i'm safer in this country than most. i wanted to say i was concerned that people were still being victimized for their orientation.

None of this rules out concern for other cases...and i just don't know where in the blazes you get the idea i don't care. if i knew that another category of human rights abuses was being ignored as systematically, i'd be first in line to make that known, too. i know about this because i have an interest in queer related news, and saw the story. that's why i brought it here...because that was something i could contribute to the collective discussion of this community. why that turns things around so that i have to prove my level of interest in other human rights concerns...wtf?

__________________
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

alansmithee

The dillema arrises because you lack a definition of "right" and "wrong". You make an analogy to tools, but it falls apart because most social situations can't be as easily quantified as mechanical ones can.

And I hope you weren't trying to say I am being hypocritical, because I don't agree that there isn't moral absolutes, nor do I think that people should be able to follow whatever they think is right. I was merely trying to see the reasoning behind someone else's thinking that way.

Cynthetiq

Yes, there is since you don't seem to understand my connections to similar concepts and similar situations, not EXACT and not COMPARISON, just similar.

If you do, then how does this fit in? When I've stated to you that the concepts I've posed are similar and allow me to understand where you find your boundaries in what is acceptable and how via logical exposition and extention.
I've stated it to be wrong.

I make no excuses for any state. Any soverign government is free to make decisions on how it interacts with it's nationals.

No you don't. Becauase as I've stated before I given the mechanisms of my thoughs on morality from a societal, legal, and religious point of view. In the absence to the religious and societal, there's nothing left but legal. You keep insisting that my morality is just legal. I've clearly stated to you and to Gilda as to how my own observations of morality is derived.

Again, WHY SHOULD IT? The person collecting the information for human rights abuses has 3 things to pick from. Is capital punishment for "criminal acts" (because these MA and AM were supposedly paying the price of 2 things, homosexual acts or molesting a 13 year old) considered human rights abuses? According to how I understand the Universal Declaration of Human Rights they seem to be met on their face. Even if it's a kangaroo court, it still met due process tests. Whether they are biased is a different issue.

Again, I state that this is where you and I diverge and is why I feel that you aren't even handed on your belief. All crimes against all people are wrong. Not some select few that feel they should be tracked. Today it's homosexuals, what if tomorrow it's enuchs? What if it's albinos? The awareness you are bringing forth is a good thing, awareness is tantamount to getting the mainstream people to be more sympathetic and understanding to your cause. But again I state that ALL crimes are bad. All abuses should be brought forth to the public, not just one demographic.


Again, not telling you that was your statement, but you see just the words and not the concept behind them.

I make the assumption from our entire exchange. Whenever I say it has to be even handed regardless of creed, color, sexual orientation, you say that it's more important because they are queer.

In the same vein as to why I have to explain my understanding of morality and law, I've stated time and time again to explain that it has to be even handed for all, you're only starting to address this? Again, IMO because you feel "them being queer" is more important than basic human rights.

Again, we differ in the fact that you want to tell people what they should be doing, from individuals to soverign states, whereas I want them to be left alone to their own choices and decisions as allowed by morality vis a vie religious community, society, and law.

Please let me state again, that it does not mean that my passiveness in any way supports their belief, to which you've stated something to the equivalent of silence is acceptance.

Gilda's reminder to me underlines this best. You want to revoke or suppress some individuals rights in achieving your own agenda. Am I wrong in my understanding of your position?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

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

*Nikki*

I know what it is like to feel so strongly about an issue that it encompasses everything you are.

Cynthetiq

As I stated before one cannot know whethere something is moral or immoral without context. Killing a crying baby on it's face is immoral, killing a crying baby which saves the rest of the tribe or family who is hiding from attack by invading force, moral or immoral? That's the point of order for my situations and similar situations.
No I don't do so in my own head. I support causes as I can.
This situation the government is theocratic, religious morality wrapped around legal morality. So the masses of Iran agree to the fundamentalist direction and you find it unjust, then they are now instruments of tyrrany and evil?
You asked why it's not recorded as such. That's the reason why, I'm not hiding behind anything, again, I have stated to you that I do deplore the fact that these two people were killed for their sexual orientation.
You are free to post as you wish, but again, if you post in one vein and one vein only, that's all that people will see of you and base their opinion, which is how I've based mine.
A human being should live without fear of violence as a basic human right.


You want to possibly take away my right of raising my child as I see fit. Again, if the parent chooses to raise someone biased and prejudiced that is their freedom. If you say it's because it's sexual orientation that it's okay, then who's to say that "bad behavior" is also not okay, since the child is obvsiously just expressing themselves? Or parents who are vegan who think that it's their best interest for the child? Christian Scientists who don't want any medical treatment for their sick child? What you are recommending and advocating is taking away those rights.

Please see my above paragraph.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

martinguerre

awww... crap.. i clicked on the edit button instead of the quote button.

my apologies. I have put the appropriate text back that I could via my email.
Non-sequiter. Iran didn't kill these kids to save itself from danger. You'll say i'm being over literal. I say you're being obtuse.


Without getting into issues of consent in totalitarian regimes, i think it's pretty clear that a people can consent to a government that is not moral. Castro came to power under popular support, yet jails political prisoners on a routine basis. Pinochet had great support, yet order the dissapearings/murders of thousands. Robespierre had the support of the masses right until he lost his own head. I won't Godwin this further than i have to (i've been trying quite hard to avoid that material as examples), but i think you get the point. That the masses consent to evil does not make evil good. The individual is always, always responsible for wither dissenting or assenting to the world around them. That individual either accepts responsbility for what is happnening, or that person acts to disrupt that pattern.



Then call a spade a spade. State for the record that you believe that killing a person for their orientation is wrong, and should be considered a human rights abuse.


This is one of the few threads i've ever started. I've posted on threads relating to the Darfur, Iraq, Afganistan, prisoner treatment in context of the war on terror, prison rape in US prisons, mental health issues, sexual assault, and that's off the top of my head. One vein? Yeah. Human rights.


Yes. One category of human beings who do not live without fear of violence is queer persons in many nations and regions. These people have been historically overlooked, and there is not enough action taking place to remedy the situation. It's like saying that people shouldn't get shot. If Bob, Steve, Jill and Jane are standing around, and Mr. Evil comes and puts a gun to Steve's head, do you shout:

A) Shooting people in general is wrong!

or

B) Don't shoot Steve!

I'm shouting the equivalent of B, not becuase i want Bob, Jill and Jane to get capped, but because a gun is currently aimed a group. There is other advocacy to be done, and i do my best to work in concert with that, and to support it. But this happens to be an issue where i can find my energy and passion. I hope to support others who have that same energy and passion for their causes. I start where i can because to do everything is too much. Maybe someone who is empowered by queer rights campaigning will become the most brilliant advocate ever for third world development, and end world poverty. Maybe someone will find inspiration in this work and do work for the rights of women, or providing health care in wor torn places.

That is my philosophy. I do what i can because i'm in a position to do it. I do what i can, hoping that others join me. I do what i can because it is what i can do. Please don't tell me when i do something to save the world that i'm not saving all of it. I know that. I grieve what i cannot do, and i do what i can.




I won't assume you just reposted this. Was there material that you mean to respond to there?



If someone liked to beat their kid because they were red headed...

This is all thread jack. This is the only place where you and i have a dissent on a legal basis, and it's already been hashed out to hell and back. If you want to bring up the original thread, that's fine. But despite our strong feelings on this particular issue, this is concealing a broader point. Forest for the trees if you will. beyond this specific issue, our conception of the legal rights of individuals are largely the same. yet, the accusation persists that i'm all about taking rights away. A disagreement on the definition of child abuse is not a philosophy of the removal of indivual rights. You are willing to suspend parental rights for what you believe to be child abuse, no? So am i. We simply disagree on what child abuse consists of.

/ end thread jack. if we need to discuss this particular issue more, please move this to other thread.

__________________
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

Cynthetiq

Quote:

Originally Posted by cynthetiq my apologies. I had selected EDIT instead of QUOTE and ended up overwriting your post by accident. I have taken your text from the subscription email and pasted it back there. My sincerest apologies.

No it's not non-sequiter, it's pertient to the why. I asked you how your viewpoints are formed. You've come up with a deliniated outline as to your philosophy, but there are shades of grey that infest our world, which is why I felt my point is germane.

I have called a spade a spade.

Since you again need to see it since you aren't understanding it from my posts:
I believe that killing a person for thier orientation is wrong and is abuse against basic human rights.

My statement is DON'T SHOOT because there are others that may be unintentionally hurt because I did not act enough. You stop at your interest. I try to think about the rest of the people around, just limiting it to Steve doesn't help the individual behind him that was shot because the person still felt like pulling the trigger. Again, this is where we diverge.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

martinguerre

you've got PM, but i'll say it here too...it's not a problem.

Indeed, the ability to recognize moral ambiguity is not just a nice thing, but clearly necessary in this world. However, i don't think that really enters in to my considerations here. It is my obligation to understand why this is happening, and why people support these measures so i can try to deconstruct that, but i don't really feel that i need to give the morality of such killings a serious consideration. i am aware from my own experience, and the experience of those around me that sexual orientation is not a choice, and that executing a person based on that makes as much sense as lopping off the heads of all the left-handers or something like that. It's asinine and grotesque on it's face, and i have yet to see an argument that makes the situation more gray.

I appriciate this. My question reverts to the earlier post. If this is a human rights abuse, and the US government is not counting them like other human rights abuses are...and not confronting them as other human rights abuses are, is this not a problem and one that deserves attention? If there is a specific problem, is specific advocacy not a reasonable response?

I don't quite know what to say. I have tried to make it clear that specific advocacy is not in conflict with general principles. I don't think people would say oncologists are bad doctors because they just focus on cancer. I try to place my specific work in the broader context and framework of human rights advocacy. I have specific interest in several regions of this work, but have been most active in this one. My specialization is not a threat to the broader movement, but an asset. In co-operation with other specialists (and generalists, too), the movement as a whole has a better chance than if everyone were a generalist.

__________________
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

tspikes51

Agreed. There are a few people out there that might think that it would be better without homosexuals, but the majority of the American populace doesn't care that much. I'm a firm believer in the "why are the people that say they want to move to Canada still here???" Honestly, I'd much rather you not be here bitching about the way things are run. The United States may have a great deal of things wrong, but we have basic human rights, and past that, things are the way we like them.

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

martinguerre

first...the US doesn't have "basic" human rights in terms of being free to be a person of queer sexual orientation. While the SCOTUS did affirm a right to privacy, including the sphere of who you go to bed with, the make up of the court is changing.

secondly, any equal rights legislation on the books nationally does not include orientation.

none of this means i think the lynchings are coming tomorrow. indeed, the discussion stays (largely) within the civil sphere. which is why i stay here in the frozen north of minnesota, and not a few more miles north.

the point i was trying to make is that this execution was politics of exclusion. ills, real or imagined, are cast on to a group or individual. that individual is removed from the sphere of group participation by a variety of means. here, the mechanism is usually ostracism and discrimination. there, it's loop of rope.

important, and indeed critical differences in practical effect. but the problem i see is that we're not removed from that situation in kind. According to leading figures in the American political right, "the gays" this and "the gays" do that...and all the while i have to wonder what the average person thinks of queers as a gut reaction.

in this thread we've seen comparisions of adult consensual sex to pedophilia, analogies involving drug trafficking, and a whole host of canards that are told about queers to make them seem less human. while we have largely removed homocidal violence from the vocabulary of the opposition, queer rights advocates have legitimate reason to worry that we're being perceived as a threat and a menace, something that needs to be cast out of American life.

__________________
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