Poll: Should homosexuality be considered a criminal offense/act? Also, what's your view on Morality?

[Sark]

It could be argued that Homosexuality is comparable to other non standard sexualities, and so should be treated as such. Claiming that, if we society as a whole was to promote acceptance of homosexuality, would it be fair to still demonise other non standard sexual tastes?

Necrophilia, zoophilia and paedophilia are all what can be considered non standard, but widely unacceptable practices. In the same countries that ban homosexuality, these are banned as well. This isn't to say that I approve of anyone partakeing in any of these, but it makes it easy to understand how people can believe homosexuality is morally unacceptable, as it is viewed in the same light as those mentioned above. So, if you believe that acting out your sexual desires is a bad thing, then surely all should be discriminated against equally.

Of course this doesn't take into account age of consent and is disregarding the act of rape entirely.

 

[Vault101]

Im sorry, I really am...but are you fucking serious? (I really do apoloigise for that but I feel its the only way to adequetly express what Im thinking)

its going to happen...you cant stop it

people should be able to love who they please without the fear of death/discrimination...its that simple

 

[Astoria]

Why else would we have them? And just because we do have them it doesn't mean people have to follow them, people break laws all the time. I also said meant to, most laws I don't think are actually in place for that reason. But if you think about it, things like murder aren't illegal because it's immoral, it's illegal because if people were allowed to kill others they wouldn't be working towards making society work but their own preservation. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with society and how it works but I think that's how it should work. Also, I understand that inevitably morality will influence peoples opinions but I don't think it should be the only reason why they want to make some legal/illegal.

You'll actually find that morals are the main driving force behind laws, and for good reason.

If people do not morally agree with a law, they will not follow it. If they do not follow it, what is the point of it? They can't enforce it if nobody believes in it, nobody will help them in it.
If all the people in a country thought killing was the right thing to do, to take your own example, then if a law was there that made it illegal, it would be ignored. As such, to stay in favour with its people, the government would have to reflect their moral views and make killing legal, or else risk becoming a pointless government, listened to by no-one.

Admittedly, there are some governments that will ignore its people and enforce what will make the country better (Or in many cases, their own life better), but these are usually known as dictatorships, and most Westerners see these as bad.

True but I do not believe morals should be the only driving force for a law. You can't satisfy everyone if you're going on morals alone because everyone has different morals. Not even everyone believes murder is immoral under certain circumstances. If you want to have a law there should be a reason as to why something has a negative impact, not just it being wrong.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

NOTE: For the poll answers, CI stands for Cultural Imperialism, MU stands for Moral Universalism, MR stands for Moral Relativism, an MN stands for Moral Nihilism.

That's not the question you've asked though. You've asked whether Homosexuality is illegal and whether Moral Universalism exists.

Your question is whether Cultural Imperialism should be applied and whether you believe in Moral Universalism.

That's an entirely different set of standards.


Homosexuality should be criminal for people who like it that way. For the rest of us, it's as legal as hetero.

 

[tzimize]

-snip-

Well god damnit. This post was a lot more coherent and thought out than I was expecting

I voted no and MN. I dont believe in morals. Its just an abstract that is invented by humankind. I do however believe that morals can be a useful idea. For example I dont think its "right" or that there is any good reason for homosexuals to be executed because they are homosexuals. As far as adults go I believe they should be able to make their own sexual (and other) choices, without anyone else getting in their business so to speak. As long as their decisions do not hurt others.

I dont believe in anarchy, and I do believe laws are required to keep society afloat, even if I do not always agree with them fully. Any laws that allow persecution and execution of a certain kind of people that are guilty of crimes that have nothing to do with hurting other people in any way...is bogus. Good thread op, good opening post. Interesting stuff. I might write more later if I dont forget.

 

[Vivi22]

Is it wrong for western nations to try to manipulate others so that they agree with the social norms of western culture?

If this was just about using aid money to manipulate countries into doing what you want, like enacting trade laws that favour you, or that sort of thing, then sure I'd probably disagree with it to some extent. But when we're talking about trying to get countries to decriminalize something that absolutely should not be a criminal offense anywhere, and stop persecuting innocent people, then we're talking about a matter of fundamental human rights, not simply prevailing social norms. To interact with these countries on any level politically without trying to convince them to stop abusing the rights of a minority would be immoral since you only support a regime with no respect for the sorts of freedoms that most first world nations supposedly hold as sacrosanct.

People of Escapist, do you believe in Moral Universalism, Moral Relativism, or Moral Nihilism?

As someone who believes absolutely that it is immoral to infringe on the freedom of others under any circumstances, save for when an individual chooses to infringe on the freedom of others (ie: it's fine to imprison someone for murdering someone, thereby infringing on their right to live as they choose because they ignored someone elses right to live), I can't believe in moral relativism in the sense that there is no objective right or wrong, merely subjective beliefs based on our shared history and culture. Nor can I reconcile my belief in freedom with moral nihilism since I do not believe there is no such thing as an act which is objectively moral or immoral. A hell of a lot of grey areas, sure, and there is certainly nothing inherent in the laws of the universe which could objectively suggest a universal morality. But I do believe there is something inherent in the human condition, probably a result of our evolution as social creatures, which defines right and wrong for all of us, even given the existence of conditions like psychopathy which can obfuscate it for some.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

I don't believe in absolute morality and I definitely don't believe morality should have any relation to law.

Laws exist to maintain and protect the social system of which they are a part. They're for keeping things running smoothly, not expressing any kind of universal truth.

That they should be used for that purpose is simply your personal belief. Why is basing it on the idea that it should keep things running smoothly any better than some moral ideology? As far as I can tell that's just you injecting your personal values into it.

Well, yeah, obviously.

What other perspective can you really approach something this abstract from?
I mean, it's not like measuring the composition of a rock or something, this is all stuff that only exists in peoples' heads, as far as anyone can tell. I thought the whole point of this thread was to express our beliefs and opinions on the issue. The fact that I don't have a giant neon sign that says "this is my opinion" after every sentence doesn't mean that I think I'm handind down some kind of cosmic truth. I don't have a giant wall of text arguing for my position because I feel like it would be outside the original point of the thread.

 

[Batou667]

Where was the poll option for "I tried to understand the acronyms but then I took an arrow to the knee and accidentally the whole thread?"

Back OT: No, homosexuality shouldn't be a criminal offence. Should we enlightened bourgois Whiteys have the jurisdiction to tell Africans how to run their countries? That's a much thornier issue, and blurs the line between must, should and ought. (If you won the lottery, to say that you must give some of your winnings to the poor and needy is unreasonable. Even the claim that you should makes all kinds of quite concrete value judgements on the issue. But by any reasonable standard you probably ought to help people.)

At what point would we feel compelled to intervene? Probably around the same point that you'd call the police if you heard your neighbours arguing: a disagreement is normal, even a full-blown argument is completely within their rights, but when you hear gunshots and screaming then suddenly "just minding your own business" is no longer the moral thing to do.

It would set an awkward precedent, though. Would we be as brazen in condemning a country that has different attitudes toward, say, treatment of women? What about a country whose age of consent is lower than ours, are they disgusting savages who need to be educated? What about when something that is legal in one country is unlawful in another: should the UK be putting embargoes on the US because of the existence of the US Death Penalty?

It's a tricky one. Personally, I think the West takes its role as World Police a little too earnestly. We should by all means denounce what we see as barbaric practices, but we need to remember that these are sovereign nations and we have no jurisdiction there - not in practice, or theory.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

It could be argued that Homosexuality is comparable to other non standard sexualities, and so should be treated as such. Claiming that, if we society as a whole was to promote acceptance of homosexuality, would it be fair to still demonise other non standard sexual tastes?

Actually, within those cultures that have regarded homosexuality, they've also regarded other paraphilias. The general understanding is that what is done between participating, consenting adults should be acceptable[footnote]Within limits. You cannot consent to your own murder, though you can consent to leaping out of a plane to have sex in freefall, risking an uncontrolled impact with a planet. Breath control is legal but regarded by many as dangerously stupid.[/footnote]. Homosexual relationships are usually entered into by consenting adults. Pedophilia and Zoophilia[footnote]Each of which are topics that fill volumes[/footnote] if acted upon with their target of choice involve a subject with rights and the inability to consent as a human adult. While we cannot necessarily legalize either, we do seek to support them by encouraging them to find safe, legal means to indulge their fantasies, ergo, age-play and animal-play. It's not the most perfect solution (sex-bots made to order?) but it is one we have now that frequently works.

To Volf99 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.336935-Poll-Should-homosexuality-be-considered-a-criminal-offense-act-Also-whats-your-view-on-Morality?page=3#13610915], regarding Noah's Law, I'd have to agree with Bill Maher as he addressed the ten commandments in Religulous, the ones specifying don't kill and don't steal seem like good ones (really, they're derivative from the ethic of reciprocity), but the others get into some shady disastrously interpretable grey zones. I'm sure that my notion that religion is dangerous and should be scrutinized critically would be regarded by many faiths as blasphemous, and that I should therefore be put to death. Even don't steal establishes absolute property rights, which should not apply so absolutely to the desperate, the famished and the ill.

238U

 

[poundingmetal74]

Cultural imperialism doesn't matter when people are being KILLED for being gay.

 

[Robert Ewing]

All countries and regions in which homosexuality is openly accepted are thriving love epicenters of the world. Should it be an offence? Fucking no, this is some seriously, SERIOUSLY middle-aged thinking that has been dead for years. The only nations that still believe in that shit is crazy assed religion driven organizations and countries.

Take Africa for example, the middle east, you can get executed for being gay. And you can get executed for protecting a gay. They are being treated like animals! I hate to compare this to Nazi Germany... But I fucking will... Because it's what us westerners relate to the most I suppose.

Homosexuality was perfectly fine before the major religions of today religion hit the world the way it did. Take the Greeks, the Romans, The Persians, Egyptians, Celts, The Chinese Dynasties (Most of them), The Mongols, all of these really great, inventive, influential, philosophical, advanced ancient civilizations didn't fucking care about gender orientation, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Fact of the matter is, the only way we can progress toward world peace or something vaguely similar is to start fucking re-accepting homosexuality among other things as being a thing that just fucking happens. There is nothing wrong with it, there has never been anything wrong with it, and there never, EVER will. It's just a load of religion influenced bullshit telling you to be afraid of anything that doesn't correspond with your out-dated religious book of choice.

 

[everythingbeeps]

It's not even immoral. Of course it's not a criminal offense.

It's simple: anyone who, for any reason whatsoever, believes or says that homosexuality is bad, is flat out wrong. I don't care what your beliefs are. If your beliefs tell you homosexuality is bad or immoral, your beliefs are wrong.

 

[Soviet Steve]

The view from the west is that we ought not to be paying countries to have laws that go against the human rights. If they're fine without being on life support due to their incompetence, passiveness and internal hostilities then that's excellent, we pull the plug and they sail in their own lake. If we're paying for the music we're setting the tune however.

 

[MasterOfHisOwnDomain]

The very ironic thing about homosexuality in Africa is that before Imperialism and Christianity arrived there wasn't such a hatred of it. They are abiding by our outdated views of homosexuality, while we have moved on.

I'm a moral nihilist in theory (morality is not in accord with fact or reality), but in practice you have to say that there is a base line across which people should not step. Killing others for something over which they have no choice is quite objectively wrong.

 

[GoddyofAus]

How about a deal; we'll make Homosexuality illegal if Religion is made illegal as well.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

We're providing them with the aid to stay afloat, they better do what the fuck we tell them to do.

 

[sinterklaas]

People in at least one african nation are in danger of being fucking executed for being gay.

I have very little problem with the idea of cultural imperialism for the purposes of preventing the institutionalized murder of thousands.

This.

There is nothing more to be said. People are being executed for doing something which doesn't harm anyone. I'd say it's morally corrupt if we didn't utilise cultural imperialism.

 

[Floggo]

I strongly agree with this, I don't see why homosexual's should be oppressed for expressing their views publicly, they have the same rights as anyone in this world, and so with those rights, are willingly able to express them in their own way without challenge.

 

[Russian_Assassin]

Moral nihilist and I don't believe it is wrong to manipulate other people's cultures. Why? Because I don't believe in the objective importance of observer-dependent facts. Although I agree that this is CI, I don't think it is necessary to characterize it.

Though I reckon my opinion on this doesn't matter, since I am as far away from such countries as possible and I can't say I had any future plans to reside in any of them. I'm pretty sure the term "bisexual" would sound synonymous with their beloved hate figure to them.