Ok. Ok. It's not about understanding the problems with such behaviour but why the act should be be avoided without even considering the problems. This is how I see things, anyway. True, but I don't see why people have to be so absolute about these things. In this day and age, one is either a backward, religious person who believes in silly superstitions or an enlightened individual who has discarded such regressive beliefs. Reason and religion can go hand in hand. It all just depends on the circumstances when it comes to applying either. Well this depends on what you mean by 'better' and 'abuses.' And then there is the argument of whether these nations are truly religious. But anyway, I do think some things in certain religions are unnecessary and arcahic. The same can be said about the American Constitution, but that doesn't mean we should discard of it completly. Save for Sweden's highest suicide rate in the world. But I suppose we both have differing views with regards to happiness. Yes, what it all boils down to is the differing reasons that both parties hold for believing they are in the right. Religous extremism (which came much later by the way) and the hatred are by-products of this. Disregard the enmity for now. The fact is that both used their reasoning to come to their conclusions. The point is that conflicts can occur between those who reason differently, just as it can happen between people of differing religions. Yes, but my point was that when it comes to the land, it's more than just a place to live. Rather, it's a home. And both sides believe it is theirs. Of course, there is also the subject of justice and injustice, which also has to do with reason (as well as religion). Demonstrate this using sex with minors as an example. Well this is because you are primarly concerned with what affects you rather than the rest of society. Some people simply don't want to see sexually deviant behaviours become the norm. Having sex with animals or children does not effect you in the slightest, correct? Forget about god and the afterlife. The problem with reason (in some or all cases) is that it does not allow me to determine why something is wrong in and of itself. I am dissatisfied for example with the general argument for why having sex with minors is wrong- 'there is no consent.' Well that doesn't really give me a real answer, as instead of basing the response on the subject of sex itself, it does so on consent. Religion and philosophy allow me to arrive at more...concrete answers. Do you see what I mean? Well this leads me to ask you how you came to the conclusion that said person has any rights at all. Give me some examples of this universal criteria. This only works though with people who use the Constitution as a means of determining that what is being inflicted upon them is done so against their will. But this shows me that you are primarily concerned with yourself. I think when it comes to society however, you are going to need some absolute answers. Thus, instead of determining why drugs are unnecessary and better left alone (at least when the proper time comes) by using yourself as an example, the question of why drugs are intrinsically 'bad' should be answered. Tell me about it. Sure limits are indeed important. But I guess I am a person who feels comfortable and more importantly convinced when I arrive at ethical conclusions that don't rely on the need for limits. Well gay rights don't deserve my notice because I simply don't care about sexual equality or minority issues in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I could care less what two men do in their bedroom. I'm just more concerned with more important and significant issues. Perhaps if proponents of gay rights based their ideas on some sort of concrete principles that I could agree with, maybe then I'd be interested in what they had to say. But regurgitating the same talking points regarding 'rights' and 'oppression' just doesn't do it more me for the reasons mentions above.
The problems are what define if an action should be prohibited. If there is no problem, then there should be no ban. Religion is only a problem when it is used to control others. If a person wants to believe in a religion and keeps it a personal matter without interfering with the lives of others, then that's fine. Abuse might be subjective, but I think the UN Declaration of Human Rights is a pretty good metric for it. Sweden and Czech Republic are pretty far down that list. Lithuania and Greenland are pretty high though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate Sure, I have no argument with that. Again, no disagreement here. When it comes to adults getting intimate with minors, the reasoning used against it is that an adult is in a position to take advantage of a minor through experience and oftentimes authority. A minor is assumed to not have the mental maturity to grant consent for this act with an adult, because the adult has a position of power over them. What is sexually deviant is mostly subjective. Again, sex between adults is entirely different from sex between an adult and a minor. Two adults are generally assumed to have the mental maturity to give consent -- whether they are of different genders or the same. In short, your comparison does not logically hold. The same would apply to animals, although the legality of zoophilia is more up for debate. Most would consider such acts to be animal abuse, but there are valid questions regarding our consistency in animal rights. For example, it's legal to kill a cow for food but illegal to have sex with one. While the reason for this is ultimately tied to diet and culture, it can be logically argued that this presents a moral inconsistency, since killing is normally considered a violation of rights just like rape is. For what it's worth, secular humanism would allow you to determine the same in a more "moral" manner. If the moral imperative is what you seek, that is the simplest one to adhere to without any extraneous cultural prohibitions. Natural rights basically grant the same. Natural rights. That basically is the foundation for having a free society. It's what I discussed in the previous post. Prohibitions are for actions that harm others. It's like how you have the Freedom of Speech here, but it is limited in contexts where speech could lead to something like a stampede. You can't yell fire (falsely) in a theater (or other crowded environment) because doing so could lead to mass injury. If an action (say, gay marriage) has no bearing on harming others, then the prohibition fails logically. At least, this logic is the only one compatible with consistently promoting a free society. For societies that don't want to be free, I guess the logic would be different (but rather disturbing). Perhaps, but give an example of something that wouldn't be covered by natural rights or the Constitution that involves an action that could affect you and should therefore be banned. Drugs aren't intrinsically bad. Unfortunately, our drug policy is a good example of where our logic falls short in this society. A lot of drug prohibitions were pushed forth by paranoia and racism (in the case of marijuana). If we were more consistent in our application of natural rights, they would be legal. There's not much to say. It's just that the ability to afford one group rights is not contingent on the rights of another. The only case I can think of where this is different is with labor rights vs. business rights. Those are rights that are somewhat in conflict, but aside from that.... Well, it would be hard to conceive of a right without any limit at all. Can you give an example? Fair enough, but we clearly are operating from very different perspectives. For me, it's all about natural rights, Constitutionalism, and economic mobility.
That is subjective, so it has to be left to the individual and the society they live in. Yes providing it is not offensive to others and the society in general. If it is, then it should be in private. Germany had a strong hereditary aristocracy and he lessened their power like all demagogues.
When the Nazi party was formed, most of the members were gay. Hitler turned on them later on and gunned them down at some meeting place.
The problem in both instances is NOT religion. The form of Islam practiced everywhere outside the Gulf prior to colonization was often quite open to homosexuality. Of course you couldn't marry a person of the same sex, but open sexual relations with the same sex was not uncommon. The amount of gay love poetry from the Abbasid Caliphate which was openly published would have SHOCKED Christian Europe. Abu Nuwas being the most famous example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nuwas There were open debates among elites over the value of young men vs young women as lovers. In fact, the stereotype of Muslims in Victorian England were of overly sexualized people, whose women were loose and of low moral standing. Now the stereotypes are the exact opposite. Weird.... It is in the post colonial period, when European notions of sexuality were imposed on their colonial subjects, that we see open hostility of homosexual acts really arise. So this is NOT about religion, and is more about the remnants of the colonial past. Remnants which left behind intolerance, sectarianism, violence, etc which were created or exacerbated in the colonial period. The problems of post-colonial countries mostly come from that legacy. Which is why evangelical Christians in the US tend not to burn witches, but evangelical Christians in Western Africa do that reasonably often. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft_accusations_against_children_in_Africa Those are problems of poverty and the social and political destruction of the colonial period, not problems inherent to either Islam or Christianity. PS. People don't seem to realize how widespread homosexuality is in Saudi Arabia. There will be no legal recognition of gay marriage, but the gender segregation of young people in the society, leads to significant amounts of gay sex among young men. This is widely ignored and only becomes a problem if men avoid marriage and attempt to live what would be considered a gay lifestyle the west. If the men get older and marry, even if they continue to have gay sex outside of marriage, that is also something which would be overlooked. Read this http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/05/the-kingdom-in-the-closet/305774/
If you are honestly arguing Chrisitanity as a basis for imprisonment for homosexuality, the the OP is right to discriminate against Christians. Oh those poor Christians, how oppressed they must feel, not getting to HANG THE HOMOS FROM CONSTRUCTION CRANES like they do in Iran. IT'S JUST NOT FAIR!!!!!
It was common in the Near and Middle East for men to have sexual relations with boys as well as women. It was also common in ancient Greece, and later on the Romans adapted the Greek custom so that one Roman nobleman, paid what would be a million today for a good looking slave boy. . This was not homosexuality as it is known today. You keep calling it homosexuality, when it wasn't homosexuality. It was older men having sexual relations with boys as well as women. There were homes of prostitution which consisted solely of boys in all the lands under the Ottoman Empire.
They were sexually mature males. Yes they tended to be teenagers, because then and now, being a "bottom" is seen as unmasculine. So only young males tended to be involved in this, because it would have been very shameful for an older man to do so. Also, you should read that article I posted about Saudi Arabia. Most muslim men who consistently have sex with other men, say they are not gay. That is because in America gay is defined as an identity instead of an act. In Saudi Arabia and in older Muslim societies, having gay sex regularly, would not have led to those men defining themselves by that action. It is only in the west where we do so. So accepting that, you don't have a point. They were males who preferred the company of other males. It was not children either, at least not usually, but young men. How else would that be described? That was openly acceptable. It still is in many Muslim countries. As I said, read the article I posted.
They were always young men concubines, mostly slaves who had no other choice. These are very macho societies and any man with effeminate tendencies would be mocked. They say they are not gay because they are not. Read the article you posted again. Most of them prefer their wives if they are married, and if they are not, it's easier and safer to go with a male than with a female. Can the same preferences towards women be said of 'homosexuals' in the West? I think not.
The bible, their basis for this law, demands execution for their crime. I make no judgement as to the law but ask why gay rights as seen in America should take priority over Christian law as seen by that country. So, why are you right and them, wrong?
Ask the people who edited the bible. Of course, most are dead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea Or God and Moses. Perhaps the dude could only carry ten, they were stone you know; he was probably knackered, having to carry that lot.
But what if it's a problem only because the action itself is considered wrong? Can't the same be said about reasoning? The majority of a population's reasoning dominates that of the minority's, and the minority is expected to adhere to the majority's reasoning. Isn't there control in this case? Well Human Rights is as subjective as you can get. Perhaps bringing up suicide was rather weak on my part. I wouldn't want to live in Scandinavian countries because, well, they seem so lifeless and hedonistic. A friend of mine who recently visited Switzerland for example informed of the numerous teenage moms he witnessed, not to mention all those syringes he found in the forest and the famous mountain peak where many individuals have jumped to their death. These countries are picturesque and well-governed for sure, but there is much more to life than economic success. But why the focus on sex? An adult is always disregarding his/her children's unwillingness to give consent. So you don't regard the homosexual lifestyle as deviant? This is because you're assuming I'm comparing a child's and adult's ability to give consent. It could if you base your position on rights to begin with. Secular humanism and natural rights only do so to a certain extent. Like I said, I'm interested in moral absolutes. So my position on the subjects of love and lust for example can guide me to determine what's good or bad when it comes to things like homosexuality or pedophilia. Natural rights are solely concerned with rights (hence the name), not morals. A free society, yes. But not an ethical society. Although I think one could have both. I can't because natural rights bases it's beliefs on the rights of the individual rather on the moral welfare of a society. I should have made myself clear. By 'bad' I don't mean that they're not 'good for you.' Let me expand on this using marijuana as an example. I believe there are 3 reasons why one would take marijuana: to alleviate/emotional physical pain, to generate ideas, and finally to have fun. Let's ignore physical pain as it's not relevant to this exercise. Now, do you believe humans need marijuana for the reasons mentioned? No, they certainly don't need it. But of course we are humans and many of us (especially the young) do not have the capacity to be happy or generate innovative ideas without its use. Such takes practice and a constant accumulation of wisdom throughout one's life. Having said that, marijuana isn't wrong or immoral...it's simply unnecessary if a person expects to reach true happiness. The answer is not to ban it outright (or even make it legal), but to instil a society with a general set of morals so they can eventually reach a point where they don't need the drug( or not use it to begin with). This is where government come in. People still have the freedom to take the drug, but they are aware of its nature when they do so. I know, I was being rhetorical. Refer to the drug example...once again, it'll not about rights. And for me, it's about attaining true happiness. This is what a society should strive for, at least in my opinion.
Then the perception that it's a wrong action should be suspect. Basically, if no harm is caused to others by the action, then it isn't wrong in a logical sense. There are always limits. One of the benefits to constitutional systems is that they usually have protections for minorities, since the will of the majority is often oppressive if not held in check by basic rights. Sort of... Although again, there are general things that most societies can agree on. Most societies view killing as something that is wrong in most circumstances. To each their own, but I put standard of living above any perceived excitement or spirituality that could be gained by living in a poorer country. That being said, America is rather "exciting" for a First World country, but not always for reasons typically seen as desirable. Sure, but parenting or disciplining a child is entirely different from having sex with one. There are levels of disciplining that can also be seen as abusive, but that's something all societies must draw the line on. On a personal level, I don't think spanking is abuse, but to actually beat a child and leave permanent or long-lasting wounds on him/her is certainly abuse. So, there is some room for debate as to what parents should be allowed to do to their children. If we're defining deviant as "different from the norm", sure, it's deviant. So is choosing never to get married. So is choosing never to have kids. So is marrying outside of your race or religion. A lot of things are "deviant" in that context, but I don't see it as the government's responsibility to enforce conformity. In the context of what you were saying, it seemed like you were. What else would you base it on? Well, morality is relative, not absolute. Killing, for example, could be considered moral in some cases but not in others. In America, it is considered moral to kill in self-defense or in defense of another when the other person is faced with lethal risk. Killing outside of that is considered immoral, with the exception of during war. It would be hard to find a society that is morally absolute about killing. There are various other things I could use to demonstrate this relativity. Moral welfare is entirely subjective. What you see as the government's role is what I see as a private role. Communities have the freedom to influence youth toward more moral behavior, but using the government to pursue "morality" or social engineering is usually asking for abuse or cultural conflict. You seem to trust the government a lot more than I do. I'd rather limit its role to the "traffic controller" as you said earlier. Happiness is a personal pursuit, not a governmental one. Communities can certainly influence happiness, but the key is that it is done voluntarily. Government action usually involves an element of coercion, which is counterproductive to happiness. The only time coercion usually works is in the context of parenting. The government shouldn't treat adult citizens like children, however.
I'll tackle this below. Sure, and I don't see why you can't have religious societies that have certain 'rights' for minorities as well. Yes, but Human Rights goes way beyond those specific taboos that have existed since time immemorial. Of course, individual comfort is important to me as well. You can't expect to philosophise in an uncomfortable and seedy setting. But as the old adage goes, too much of something is a bad thing. I agree, but why do you draw the limit when it comes to sex? It's clearly not about consent, so what is it about? Indeed, but why is it that when it comes to homosexuality relationships, the whole subject of sex is of no concern (the ability to give consent is), though when it comes to sex with minors, it is? Ethics. I used to think that. But I now believe that there certain moral truths which we can use as a template to ascertain specific moral actions and conclude whether said actions are good or not. Well I regard killing as an action, as opposed to a moral. Maybe, the same way the rights of the individual are probably subjective. I see it as both a government and private role. Like I said some posts above, I believe that all citizens should be in involved in politics. And since I define politics as the pursuemamt of an ethical and just society, all members of a society must engage in politics. The problem with each community influencing their youths with their own strand of ethics leads to a society divided among conflicting communities with a narrow mindset. Family politics is quite easy compared to societal politics. I simply trust it to lead the society down the proper path. This needn't result in bureaucracy, or red tape, or oppression...etc. If it fails in this task, then it should be removed. The goal must be for the traffic controller to become redundant in his duties. It certainly is a personal pursuit. A human resource office trains its employees the basics. It's up to the worker to use what he learned to excel in his environment. The HR can't constantly be breathing behind his back, as that would have detrimental effects. I think I've addressed the rest of what you wrote.
Religious societies, yes. Religious governments... not so much. You'll have to be more specific as to what you find contentious among human rights as described by the UN Declaration. Ultimately, it's about harm -- whether we're talking about physical harm or psychological harm. Parenting is understood to require discipline, but there are limits to this that society must decide the specifics. As for the sex thing, there is no discipline aspect to that. That's merely a matter of abuse -- including physical and/or psychological harm. Because it's assumed that adults having consensual sex isn't harming either person, while the child is being harmed by the adult (or being taken advantage of) in the other case. You'll have to elaborate on what these absolutes are. Fair enough, but again, rights are relative to the situation oftentimes in the case of killing. While I definitely see the advantage to having a culturally homogeneous society, it's not really a feasible thing in many Western societies. America, for example, will always face certain difficulties in terms of unity because of its diversity. This isn't something government can or should change. More often than not, when government fails at something, it perpetuates itself rather than removing itself. Government can train people as far as the laws and rights go, but beyond that, I don't see much point to intervention.
"A homosexual is somebody who is abnormal because the normal person was created to be attracted to the opposite sex in order to procreate and perpetuate the human race, Museveni, who is about 69-years old and a Christian, proclaims". And then, if that werent enough, Museveni gets weird. Who creates albinos? Is it not the same god that creates other people Black Africans and Europeans? Do Albinos create themselves? No. Simply, nature goes wrong in a minority of cases, Museveni writes. He then details Ugandan indigenous science to classify these abnormalities. "Albinos are callednyamagoye. Homosexuals are called ebitiingwa or ebisiyiyagyi (Luganda). Epilepsy is called entsiimbo. A barren women [sic] is called enguumba (in the past it was not widely known that men could also beenguumba). There is another abnormality known as epa where a woman does not achieve puberty by not developing breasts (amabeere), pubic hair (enza), hairs in the arm-pit (ebyakyeeri) or menstruate (okuzira). There are Mongols (ebigoori-goori), etc., etc. In Runyankore some of these are called amahano. In the pre-colonial times, I think, some of these were killed, especially epa. So were even lighter cases of, for instances, pre-marital pregnancy, ebinyandaalo. These abnormalities are different from disability, obumuga or oburema. The other is eihano (abnormal) and the other is ekimuga or ekirema(disabled). The difference is that a disabled person is a normal person but who got disabled in some aspect. Eihano is abnormal fundamentally mainly because the hormones malfunctioned." http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.co...osexuality/news/2014/01/17/81921#.UtrkOUko4ic Sounds a bit like some people on PF....what do you think?
This is sickening!! The right-wing womens group Concerned Women for America (CWA) expressed outrage on Sunday that President Barack Obama condemned a Ugandan anti-LGBT bill that would punish homosexual behavior with lifetime imprisonment. According to the Joe My God blog, CWA spokesperson Janice Shaw Crouse said that the presidents arrogance is breathtaking for saying that Ugandan government should stop imprisoning and torturing men it suspects of being gay. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/...r-america-obama-is-trying-to-turn-uganda-gay/
