martinguerre

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.

__________________
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

Gilda

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

Countries where homosexuality is illegal.

__________________
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

streak_56

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?

maleficent

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.

__________________

martinguerre

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.

__________________
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

Minx

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.

__________________
You've been a naughty boy....go to my room!

martinguerre

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.

__________________
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

feelgood

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.

__________________
Looking out the window, that's an act of war. Staring at my shoes, that's an act of war. Committing an act of war? Oh you better believe that's an act of war

pig

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.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

analog

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.

Cynthetiq

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.

__________________
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.

Gilda

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.

__________________
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

Cynthetiq

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.

__________________
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.

analog

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.

Gilda

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.

__________________
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

flat5

What has happened is terrible!

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

william

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.

Johnny Pyro

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

__________________
"From delusion lead me to truth, from darkness lead me to light, from death lead me to eternal life. - Sheriff John Wydell

Cynthetiq

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.

__________________
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.

cj2112

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.

alansmithee

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.

Cynthetiq

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 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.

Gilda

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.

__________________
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

alansmithee

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?

Cynthetiq

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?

__________________
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.

filtherton

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.

alansmithee

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.

Grasshopper Green

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.

__________________
"They say that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings; steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king"

Formerly Medusa

Rdr4evr

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.

Gilda

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

~Steven Colbert

alansmithee

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]

filtherton

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?

Cynthetiq

[/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.

__________________
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

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.

__________________
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

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?

__________________
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

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.

__________________
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

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.

__________________
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.

Gilda

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.

__________________
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

martinguerre

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...

__________________
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

cj2112

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.