Silent forevermore
 

from journals at daily kos

**MOD NOTE: No pictures of anyone under the age of 18 are allowed anywhere on the TFP.**

I don't post this as some example of how different other people are...this is the end product of regularizing the same impulses that American society still toys with, the idea that life really would be better without some "them" around. Beyond that, I don't really have anything to say. May God's love hold these two forever.

Unfortunately this is still the norm for much of the world.

Countries where homosexuality is illegal.

Canada just legalized gay marriage, and join the ranks of the Netherlands, Spain and Belgium. So, the world is changing, slowly. I wonder if a marriage certificate in Canada has any legal presidence in the US?

A few years ago, I remember reading a story that absolutely horrified me... Two teenage girls in some middle-eastern country (and this reads like an urban legend, but it wasnt) were out and about and having some fun, and as teenage girls are known to do, they were flirting with some people -- good clean harmless fun.... right? Oh no.. I honestly don't remember if there was sex involved with these girls, but in most countries it wouldn't matter.


It got back to the familes what these girls were doing.... One girls family just punished her in some odd way, the other girls family did what they thought they had to do for dishonoring the family... the killed her. They drowned her in the family swimming pool. I don't believe that the family was ever charged with her murder because honor killings are well... honorable.

(there was also a Law and Order episode that was pretty similar -- pretty much based on what really happens)

It's a different way of life one I don't think that most people in Western cultures will ever understand... I hope it's changing... and by publicising these stories, ... I hope it will bring about more change.

Gladly, i do welcome such news. and while i still have a deep affection for my home here, i do consider living abroad long term if i marry a man. But no, a Canadian marraige that does not comply with US laws would not be recognized. Nobody has tried it yet, but the DOMA Act makes it pretty clear that "full faith and credit" for the laws of another state don't even make a gay marraige legal, much less another country.

unrelated...i would hope that the US would officially go on record condemning these actions...but i won't be holding my breath.

Sad that love (between anyone) can end in death. This is just such sad and tragic news.

And yes, streak_56 Canada did pass the law in the House of Commons that gay marriage is legally accepted. There were a few provinces that were against the idea (unfortunately the one I live in was the harshest critic of same-sex marriage), but it is indeed legal. In fact, Alberta even (relunctantly) legalized s/s marriages. The first happy couple was on the news just this morning.

As far as this story goes.....why cannot people just be allowed to love who they wish to, regardless of the sex. Who were these two boys harming? No one at all, in my opinion.

Minx...i should add that Iranian authorites claimed that the two molested a 13 year old. However, this claim only happens after a year's worth of imprisonment/torture, and the two were never tried or convicted for that offense. Outside observers don't take the claim seriously, but it is part of the story.

As much it's the rights of those who are involved, in those countries where homosexuality is outlawed, they have no rights.

Typical of religious countries.

for all the promise and potential of humanity, we do some pretty aggregiously disgusting things. yet another thing that makes me glad to live where i do. it's not perfect, but at least it's not that.

With much respect to you and your cause, I have to say that the above comment is completely unfounded, and hyperbolic to the point of absurdity.

The Iranian government hanging two young men for being homosexual is in no way, shape, or form anywhere NEAR "the end product of regularizing the same impulses that American society still toys with". YES, what happened was a tragedy. YES, it's another example of a religious state's oppression of it's own people- and YES, you're using this story to freak out and overexaggerate the way "American society" as a whole "toys with" notions of collectively fucking over the GBLTG communities. We have basic human rights laws. They do not, obviously. We're not going to lay two stiff men in the ground because they're gay. Your argument is playing a dangerous game of "slippery slope" without any basis whatsoever for even an elementary lean in the direction of which you speak.

Anyone can champion a cause- but there's a line you cross when people reading are no longer listening/reading because the manner in which you approach it and the rhetoric used is not palpable to them. Not everyone can be preached to in such black and white terms. It is admirable for one to take the concerns of their community under their wing, but you need to find the balance in teaching vs. preaching, or you lose your key demographic: those you can already reach, just by talking. There are far harder people to affect, so starting with those who will listen is best.

Just my $0.02.

A shame that two people were killed for their sexual orientation, while that may be the crux here to martin, it is not to me. IMO it's a baseless crime and would be completely wrong if it was here in the US. Different counties, municipalities, states, and even countries pick and choose what is right or wrong for their inclusive communities. I'm glad that there's a space in the world for people who do believe what they believe and are free to express it as such, and if that means repressing homosexuality or free thinking then that's what it is.

Since this is not the US, and "Iran enforces Islamic Sharia law, which dictates the death penalty for gay sex," it is unfortunate. We don't get to pick where we are born, what family we are born into, what time period, what sex or sexual orientation, body type etc. It is just luck of the draw, and I consider myself quite lucky.

It's called honor killing. In certain countries among people of certain faiths, that a girl remains a virgin until her marriage is vitally important to her family's honor. If she is "unclean", by dint of having had consentual sex, having been molested, or having been raped, the male members of her family can preserve the family honor by murdering her.

This has had the effect, in India and Pakistan, of rape victims coming forward only to be executed while their attackers have gone free.

In Iran last year or the year before, two teenage girls came forth to accuse a man of rape, and were subsequently put to death for disrespecting the magistrate in the case when they objected to their attacker being set free.

Defining a group of people as not being worthy of full rights in a society is the only way things like this are possible.

Cynthetiq: Just for clarity, I'd like to know. This post and those in the Gay Teen in Fundamentalist treatment program thread seem to indicate that you are taking a legalistic approach to morality, ie that whatever a society decides is legal according to their laws defines morality within that society/state/municipality. Is this fair? Or do you believe that there is a morality that exists separate from laws?

I believe that the people in Iran, as elsewhere, have every right to develop and live thier own lives according to their own moral code. I also believe, however, that it is immoral to use force of law to oppress, imprison, torture, or kill others merely because they do not live according to another's moral framework. It is entirely possible to believe homosexuality to be an abombination in the eyes of god, or to render any moral judgement on it without causing harm to those who are homosexual, or who belong to any other undesirable group. That is where I draw the line. You are free to believe whatever you like, and to act according to that belief, until you actions harm another. That's where your right to act according to your moral code ends.

Which is to say that I think executing someone because they are homosexual or a rape victim or rude to a judge is wrong regardless of the laws of the community in which the killing takes place.

In countries that are bound by religious moral codes, yes, I find it legalistic since they have wrapped their religious codes into their legal codes.

However, in countries like the US where everyone is supposed to be equal regardless, some will follow religious morals on top of legal code. Those that are not religious are equally free to follow the moral standards that they decide for themselves on top of the legal code, but it's not as easily seen as example Hassidic morals. A circle within a circle if you will.

What I'd like to make clear is that in order to keep the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech and religion, then I cannot say what they decide for their religious offerings as needing to be changed, to me that's an equal censorship and is offending to fundamentalist or even liberal religious followers. In the Gay Teen in Fundamentalist treatment program thread if it is not allowing the parents to do such an action then IMO their First Amendment rights are being violated.

If this interpretation above means that I'm looking at it from a legalist standpoint then again yes, since the Constitution is supposed to protect those basic rights.

So if their law says that consentual sex before marriage is punishible by death, and that's a law based on their morality... then how are our laws based on morality any different? You argue that laws meant to torture, imprison, or kill the ones who break them are doing so in accordance with only their moral framework. Based on this, it can then be argued that rape, pedophilia, or murder are acceptable here, as long as a person's morality does not conflict with committing the act, simply because they're moral code doesn't find fault in it. In both examples, everyone says "it is this way" and it is... but one you find fault with because of differences in your opinion of proper morality. The real problem is, you can't determine "proper" morality for others. If it's the law there, it's the law there, and vice-versa.

Think of the reverse. By their laws, we're a perverse bunch of sex-mongers. Our women are all filthy whores because they don't wear clothing to clover themselves head to toe. So how do they feel about us? Your argument only accomodates your own viewpoint and opinions on "morality", not everyone's. Theirs is different.

In America, the laws on the books demonize the use of marijuana. It's considered dirty, disgusting, only for people who waste their life in a haze. In holland (and other countries), it's perfectly normal. No one is looked down upon for it, no one is considered a waste of human life just because of it. Because THERE, that's the way it is. To some people here, it's disgusting and shameful that they toelrate it- not to even mention the prostitution. There, it's the law to allow it.

We're not trying to rain on anyone's gay pride parade, but who is right? Not me. Not you. Not them. The area's residents make the law, and that's all there is to it. You can try to educate, you can try to make change, and that's great... but you have to also accept that they live by THEIR moral code, not yours.

They aren't. I would, and do, apply the same standard here.

No. I argued that morality can exist seperately from legality. Speeding isn't immoral, but it is illegal, for arguably practical reasons that have nothing to do with morality. There are things I don't do because I believe them to be immoral, but I would not want them to be illegal.

I suppose that argument could be made. It certainly wasn't the argument I was making. Those things directly harm another person and should be illegal for that reason, not because they are immoral (which I believe they are). In this case, legality does coincide with morality, but this doesn't mean that it always does.

I doubt that everyone in Iran says "it is this way" as regards morality. The two boys who were executed, for example. The women who are honor killed by male relatives for another.

We can and should determine morality only for ourselves, not for others. With that I agree 100%.

I can't argue with that. Laws, do not, however determine morality, even if they do often reflect it.

The difference here being that we don't punish women who wear a burkha. We allow Muslims, and anybody else to live their lives according to their moral code. The same is not true of Iran.

Actually, my argument does accomodate everyone's viewpoint. Let every person determine their own moral code, base on their own moral, religious, and philosophical beliefs, and live their lives according to that moral code without coercion from some outside entity. I absolutely believe that every individual on this earth should be permitted the freedom to do that without interference. You, me, Iranian Muslims, Indians and Pakistanis. I would vehemently defend any individual's right to believe anything they like, to express that belief, and live their lives based on that belief. I extend this to the two boys who were executed. They should have been permitted to establish their own moral code, and live based on that code.

They are indeed more enlightened when it comes to certain personal freedoms in those countries. That the laws in the two places treat the same behavior differently seems to me to indicate that morality is not necessarily the same thing as legality.

Well, that's not exactly true. The laws in Iran are determined by a relatively small group of religious leaders, not by the residents. In any case laws are a measure of popular opinion, or a measure of political power, but not really a measure of morality.

Oh I accept it. I disagree with their actions, but I accept that they live by their moral code. As should everyone. Including those two teenagers, victims of honor killing. Which is, by the way illegal in India, a law that is often not enforced because magistrates and local law enforcement officials disagree with it.

For some 400 years slavery was legal in the United states. That doesn't make it moral. For a good part of that time, it was legal in some places, but not others. In Rwanda in the early 90's genocide was legal. That doesn't make it moral. A society's laws are not the ultimate arbiter of what is moral.

Well, I would say that it's well within our first amendment rights to express disagreement with another's actions. That's what freedom of speech is about. And while it's certainly not illegal for the parents to do what they did, they are interfereing with the boy's being able to make his own moral decisions regarding his sexuality. Again, morality separate from legality.

What has happened is terrible!

Small point. In Holland, marijuana is tolerated, not legal.

Kinda back to the original point - it is tragic, what happened to those two young men. Legal actions often run into conflict w/moral actions. I see it every day in the news, both U.S. and here in SoFL. Dubya justifies his quagmire of a war, and our Congress backs him. A gay couple in my state tried to adoubt a child, and were refused - based on the fact that they were gay. I do not understand why so many people are afraid of someone whom they perceive as "different". Lagality and morality often cross passes. In the U.S. we have protection of the 1st Ammendment, which some say allow a person to desecrate our flag. I believe in that protection. But I also believe that if I see someone doing this, then I have the right of free expression to kick his ass. Legal - Moral? The bottom line, IMO, is that our governments should focus more on the hate in this world, not the love.

Ya, who cares if you gay or straight, love is love. Its scary people are being killed cause of this!

Absolutely!

The crux of the other issue is that the parents are the guardian of the child. The parents speak and act for the child. The law does not recognize the child's rights as an equal citizen until the child is no longer a minor which in this country is 18.

If the child is ready to be challenged as to being an equal in the eyes of the law in order to express his own morality and freedom of speech, then the child will need to go through emancipation to force the state to see him and treat him as an equal.

Morality obviously evovles before one has is legally responsible for actions, minors get a clean slate once they turn 18 for those infractions of law. But exploring the fact that morality exists even without law, is a good topic for discussion. From my HS morality class I recalled us studying things like Maslow's Heirarchy of needs to help frame and undersand motivation of people's actions.

william, kicking that person's ass isn't an expression of "free speech" that is a violation of someone's physical being. You are free to picket, stand on a box and shout at him, but you are not allowed to touch or assault the offending individual.

My take on this is probably going to be very unpopular but it is my opinion. The law in Iran says that the penalty for participating in homosexual activities is death. these two young men knowingly violated that law, and got caught. I don't think the law is just, but it is the law. I don't see it as tragic, or sad, or anything like that. They made choices and suffered the consequences. If heterosexual activities were illegal in the US and the penalty was death, and I chose to participate in said activities, I'd expect to be put to death if I got caught. I don't think I'd commit the crime knowing I could be put to death for it.

What about a pedophile or serial killer's moral code? Many dont' believe they are actually doing wrong, but society in general looks down upon their acts. Under your view, they would be allowed to kill and have sex with underage children indiscriminately.



You say they are more "enlightened". I could say they are more corrupt. Who says who is right?



But if they really disapproved of the laws in large numbers, why not overthow the small group of religious leaders?



Well then, what is the ultimate arbiter of what is moral? In the absence of that, all we can have is an ultimate arbiter of legality, which is your particular country/city/state/whatever's legal code.

Exactly why I sometimes fall back on legality for some morality since not everyone is under the umbrella of a religious morality.

In some circles it's the church council or elders, which like I said before a circle within a circle since the council/elders have to work within the scope of what's allowed by law. Whereas in Iran and similar faithbased governments, the council/elders are part of the government.

I'd appreciate it if you'd actually read what I wrote and not take it upon yourself to tell me what my view is. You certainly did a poor job of it here.

Exactly. Two different sets of laws regarding the same behavior. That would indicate either that one of these sets of laws is not in line with morality, or that the activities are morally neutral.

I don't believe that there is an ultimate arbiter of morality. This includes laws.

That is what you wrote. Bolded sections mine. You believe that people should be able to follow their personal moral code, and not be interfered in doing so. Where does that leave the pedophile or serial killer with their internal moral codes?


You didn't answer my question.



If morality is a set of behaviors dictating what is right and wrong to do, and there is no abolute way to determine if one morality is right or wrong (no ultimate arbiter), then where lies the value of arguing over if an act is moral or not?

So then the US Supreme Court is recognized as the final legal arbiter of "legal" morality you don't recognize them? Or when they strike down a law you disagreed with to begin with i.e. States barring same sex marriage they are okay?

If i may be so bold as to interject, i believe she also extends her argument to include both children and potential serial killer victims. What she is actually saying is that everyone should be able to live according to their own beliefs without interference.

I don't believe in an ultimate arbiter of morality either. I think ever person defines it for themselves, though many prefer to let someone else- law, religion, tom delay, mikey moore, etc - do it for them. I find certain activities in many cultures to be abhorrent and i don't have a problem with drawing a line in the sand about it, regardless of any cultural reasoning involved.

But when person A's morality comes into competition with person B's, there's a clash. And when you say that A is allowed but B is forbidden, you have acted as a moral authority.

I have no desire to get into the morality/legality of this, I just needed to say this. Those pictures made my heart very, very heavy; when I come back to this thread to read responses, I scroll through them quickly so as not to look at them again. I just can not understand how another human being could do that to another....it really makes me sick.

it's a shame they were executed, but when living under theocratic rule, and being aware of the consequences of homosexuality, is it really worth it to live that lifestyle? they surely didn't deserve death for their actions, (assuming they didn't molest a 13 year old) but they knew the law, and they broke it. either way, humanities capabilities are truly scary, but not surprising.

Asked and answered.

You're right. I didn't.

It helps to inform our ability to form our own moral code, and to examine and modify that code as we analyze the premises upon which it is based. It helps us to identify and form communities of like-minded people for support and reinforcement. It gives us the opportunity to attempt to persuede others to adopt our values, or some aspect of our values, for the purpose of influencing our society to be the kind of society in which we would like to live.

I disagree with your premise. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter, in the United States, of laws in accordance with the Constitution. Not morality.

I believe, as I have already stated, that morality is a separate issue from legality. You don't. I understand that, I just happen to disagree with it.

I've stated my case and explained my beliefs. Repeating the same arguments serves no useful purpose here except to waste my time and energy, so I shall bow out of this debate at this point.

Gilda

I must have missed where, would you mind pointing it out?


I honestly don't understand how someone else's moral code, in the absence of absolutes, can help influence yours (outside of coersion). If I say action X is right and you say action X is wrong (both based on internal moral systems), how could that change? What proof could you give that either position is more right than the other in the absence of an absolute?

And also, with there being no absolutes, isn't it extremely selfish, arrogant, presumptuous, and hypocritical to want to influence others to your moral code? Because there is no proof that it is they who are wrong and you are right-for all we know it is you who should be following their moral code (you in a general sense, not specifically you). That philosophy seems like it would lead toward totalitarianism and conflict (as groups of like-minded individuals come into conflict over which should be the dominant moral code).



I disagree with your premise. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter, in the United States, of laws in accordance with the Constitution. Not morality.

I believe, as I have already stated, that morality is a separate issue from legality. You don't. I understand that, I just happen to disagree with it.

I've stated my case and explained my beliefs. Repeating the same arguments serves no useful purpose here except to waste my time and energy, so I shall bow out of this debate at this point.

Gilda[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you're acting as a moral authority, but that is probably irrelevant. What bearing do morals have in choosing the right tool for the job? You don't need morals to tell you that allowing everyone to do what they want as long as they don't harm anyone else's ability to do what they want is a reasonable way to maximize satisfaction and limit alienation in a particular society. If my personal beliefs require me to fuck children or kill people based on some obscure mechanism that only i understand, is it a moral judgment to not allow me to kill or fuck children? Or is it simply a function of a society who prioritizes various freedom set A over freedom set B because a very persuasive argument can be made as to why freedom set A allows for and encourages a more functional society?

You can call this a moral decision, but to me doing so is about as meaningful as claiming that my decision to use a philips head screwdriver rather than a flathead is a moral decision. Frankly, it misses the point. There is an important qualitative distinction here between "live and let live" and "live and don't judge others for killing or mutilating people for relatively harmless crimes". What i find interesting is that i some people who argue for direct action rather than nonjudgmental understanding when it comes to terrorism turn around and argue for nonjudgmental understanding rather than direct action when it comes to various culturally endorsed atrocities. I guess it all depends on whether the victim is some teenager in iran or some businessperson in new york.


Edit-

Does anyone else see the blatant hypocrisy in trying to convince someone that they shouldn't attempt to impose their values on someone else?

[/QUOTE]

No I agree with you. There is no ultimate arbiter for morality, but I'm trying to understand where someone who doesn't subscribe to any religion or philosophy as to where their morals originate, or at least how we can all live in harmony without having to "wear our morality on our sleeves."

My own morality is a combination of legal, religion, and philosophy studies. I try to find a balance of the 3, and in the absence of religion and philosophy I'm left with only legal as a guideline.

If the SC legalized slavery, would you recognize that? I should think not. There are higher authorities than the law. I would be prepared to accept the force of the law if i chose to break it, but i would not always recognize it to be correct. Anything less than that, IMO, is unthinking obedience. Unless you can concieve of the idea of resisting an unjust law, i think that you have surrendered your moral reasoning to the state.

Rdr4evr: I think it is hard for us to concieve of what it would be like to live in a state that wanted you dead for such a simple thing. If being who you are made you a target of state violence, then i would have to argue that your very idea of survivial would be completely disrupted. if you look to the memoirs of surviviors of other extreme persecutions, they often report that it is in keeping themselves "human" so to speak, to consistantly identify with that that makes them feel alive and good is all that kept them going. this is of course speculation, but i suspect that for a queer person in Iran, the choice of being closeted is much more attractive in that it may allow the person to live, but that it is pyschologically even more costly.

analog. once again, we find ourselves in disagreement. but i'd ask you to attend to what i said a little more carefully. i didn't say that what happened here was close, or a hop skip and a jump away. it is the end of a process, the possible terminus of exclusionist thought. violent exclusion of queer persons in the US is recent history. state violence has been legitimated in living memory. this is not categorically a different matter, and i've described it in very intentional terms. you seem to think that i'm processing everything you say in a unflattering light, but i have to say i'm growing convinced that you're reading everything i say through a lens of "queer militant extremist." What i said was not half as radical as you represent it to be...

in response to your comments to Gilda, i do not believe i am bound to respect a system that provides for the murder of innocents. We call them human rights abuses. We condemn them. When goverments torture and kill people, we call that a problem. Hell, we even invaded a country over this quite recently. Why do you respect systems that kill innocent people? Do you not value those lives? Do you believe in tolerating *everything* without judgement simply because it is the status quo? Do human rights violations in general not concern you?

alansmithee has once again used a classic canard of bringing up pedophilia in relation to queer issues. i seriously wonder why that arguement holds any water anymore, but it's continued use seems to indicate that it has some effect. truly despicable rhetoric that conceals who the real victims are in oppressing queer communities.

No I would not recognize them "reinstituting slavery" that on it's face is absurd. As things go throught the political process I do not sit idle. I contact my representatives on a monthly if not weekly basis to give them my opinion on how I feel they should represent me.

My point to question was to understand Gilda's points of views better.

As far as the pedophilia canard, then why does is NAMBLA allowed to exist at all if it's not a legitimate belief and moral point to hold? Homosexual acts there... pedophilia there... seems to me on it's face it falls into EXACTLY the same square hole your peg fits into.

The basis for all my arguments so far are that if you expect it one way for your group then it has to be balanced for ALL groups.

My favorite straw man argument is the simple freedom of speech arguments. They are all for it until you say that the KKK and the Nazi's have to have the same rights. I'm glad that a judge viewed it as such and allowed the KKK to have a parade here in NYC. While I don't support them they are guaranteed the same rights as everyone else. Even Al Sharpton recognized it and even stated on record that he supported their ability to march. He understood that making it hard for them was going to eventually make it hard for him. Imagine a black man lobbying for the KKK. Whodathunkit?

Understood...and i wrote that i suspected that very response. My reply to that was simply to reaffirm that state sponsored judgments do not cancel the moral responsbility of the individual to decide what laws to follow. the law does not aquire justice simply because it is a law.

I forget the title, but a thread was posted about hetero advocacy groups for incest and child/adult sex. You want me to bring the number of hetero acts of child abuse up every time straight idenity comes up? Or can we both say that child abusers of any orientation are pariahs to civilized society and should be dealt with by the legal and medical system as best we know how? C'mon. Give me a break. You don't really think that there is a link between adult consenual homosexual actions and child molestation? Do you?


I've been a legal observer for clan rallies before...my job was to record and document any state actions that prevented free speech by either the Klan members or the counter protestors. Happily, the cops did their jobs quite well, and arrested only two people who threw bottles against the klan. everyone else was allowed to voice their opinion that day.

with the minimum value of respect for life and peaceful co-existance, i support free speech by all parties. But actions that shatter that, such as state sponsored murder....cannot be tolerated in the same fashion. this is my point about human rights violations. at a certain standard, the idea of toleration is consent for others to commit abuses. and while we might tolerate some level of disagreable actions in the name of respect, there are some that we simply cannot ignore. murder of innocent civilians tends to fit the bill...an action so beyond our conceptions of civilized life that to tolerate is unthinkable.

And if you read in my previous post that I look at morality from all angles that I can see, religious, societal, and government. (if I'm missing one.. please let me know) As Gilda stated and I agreed, there is no ultimate arbiter for morality. It's like the old saying, what is pornography? I know it when I see it. The same statement can be about imorality. What is immoral? I know it when I see it.



No, my point there is that this is an organization that has history of existence. It has history of claiming that it's being squelched for it's beliefs. Our country says 18 is age of consent, but there are other countries where 12-16 is just fine. Again, we butt heads on where the morality comes from....

I don't disagree with you on the murder of innocent civilians, but I disagree with the fact that you feel the need to distinguish an innocent gay person being killed vs. a person being killed. A homosexual being mugged vs someone that was mugged. The only thing that matters really is that an innocent person was minding their own business and was assaulted or killed, not what their skin color is or sexual orientation.

While there are very much so issues with the gay community where there is legitimate gay bashing I deplore the fact that one has put thier agenda and spin. I dislike it when blacks do it here in NYC or any group or location that is using it to gain extra noteriety for their cause or agenda at the expense of someone who was violated or assaulted.

There's so much wrong with comparing homosexuals to pedophiles that I don't know where to begin.

The moral and practical equivilent to consensual homosexual sex among adults or sexually mature teens is consensual heterosexual sex among adults or sexually mature teens.

The moral and practical equivilent to sex between an adult and a child of the same sex is sex between an adult and a child of the opposite sex.

Pedophilia and homosexuality are not in parallel. Even in the absense of an argument about morality, it breaks down on a strictly logical level at the surface.

Laws against child molestation exist to protect children from being harmed by sexual predators. They fall into the same category as laws against rape and other forms of sexual assault, all activities that cause harm to the victim.

Laws against consensual sex between adults for whatever reason--adultery, sodomy, miscegenation, homosexuality--are bans on behavior that causes no harm to the individuals involved.

Homosexual acts harm nobody; child molestation directly harms the child involved.

Society is protecting innocents with laws against child molestation--one of the parties in the activity is being protected by the law. It is protecting nobody with laws against consensual homosexual sex, such laws only do harm to both participants.

People have every right to believe that slavery, or genocide, or sex with children, is acceptible behavior, and to advocate in favor of that activity and for laws that support or decriminilze that behavior. As much as I find those activities repellant, I believe that if we are to have freedom of speech for anyone, that same freedom must apply to everyone. In that way, those who advocate in favor of these things are the same as advocates of homoesexual rights--people should have the right to defend their belief system, regarldess of what that belief system is.

This does not, however, make the actions advocated by those belief systems, and by extension, the belief systems themeselves, equivilent.

It is a society's duty, through enacting laws and enforcing laws, to protect innocents from harm and not to harm innocents.

Laws against pedophilia, when duly enforced, protect innocents from being harmed, while laws against homosexuality harm innocents.

They're nowhere near the same thing.

The US State Department has still refused all comment on this case, and will not condemn it as a human rights violation.

There's a difference here. And i don't think i'm the only one who sees the difference being the queer idenity of the kids involved. Why else would a government that loathes Iran and has highlighted it's human rights abuses fall silent on this one, and this one alone?

I don't suspect this govvernment wishes to follow suit, not in the least. But i do think that they have suspended their normal reaction to avoid conflict with people in this country who believe that execution is not an invalid response to homosexual behavior. if these young fellows had "defamed the Prophet" by preaching evangelical Christianity, i have no doubt that Bush would have done something quite loud by now. that my own government cannot even call a murder a murder....disturbs me.

there is in fact a difference here. and while i share my sorrow with other wrongful executions committed by this regime, that does not diminish the uniqueness of this case. it has implications for queer rights globally, and it has implications for queer rights in this country as well.

a side note...if one doubts that the potential for homophobic violence has dissapated to a safe level...search for this story, and look at the comments posted in blogs. among the usual bluster back and forth is usually a notable minority of approving comments, and requests that Iran continue in it's policies as well as hope that the US might adopt the same laws.

it's a sick sad world sometimes...

I think they've declined comment because we simply son't know whether these young men were executed for participating in homosexual activity (which ic against the law there) or if it's because they raped a child. The truth may never really be known, whther or not they did is strictly speculation. Is the law banning homosexuality unjust? Certainly in our society it would be considered so. However we don't live in that society. I don't have the background to understand the law. But I do have the background to understand that if you break the law, you suffer the consequences. These two young men participated in criminal authority and justly paid the price. It's not tragic, it's not sad, it's as a matter of fact, just.

This is exactly the position where I stand.

Canada is completely ignored on the map.

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

:thumbsup:

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.