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

[Loonyyy]

I dislike the way homosexuals are treated immensly, and it's clear that not only is it not criminal or morally wrong under any but the most twisted Relativist POV, and that they deserve the same tax, family and marriage rights as heterosexuals, but I've a bigger problem.

What am I? Philosophically, I'm a Moral Nihilist. I wholeheartedly believe, as a Godless-prosletyzing Atheist that this world, this life, is entirely what we make of it. I don't see morality as anything but a societal expectation, a necessary evolutionary reaction, and an artificial system imposed on our thinking. That's not to say I think it's a bad thing. I love morality. Now, I'm more of a Universalist in practice, because I hold to the simple point of view that any action that hurts another is immoral. So to lie maliciously, cheat, steal, or kill, is an immoral act. At the same time though, I believe that each action must be judged on it's intended full consequences, and any others that would result. For instance, attempting to kill someone is morally as bad as killing someone. But killing someone to save someone is morally neutral in my mind, and killing to save someone, when the person you killed was going to perpetrate harm which you prevent is good. It's a different view I find, to most, but it facilitates my main maxim: Live and let Live: If it isn't hurting someone, it isn't wrong. So gays, furries, polygamists, pornographers, drug users and all those, aren't immoral. More to the point, most of their actions in my mind, shouldn't be illegal (Just my POV). Now, I find the decision to commit an immoral act usually comes down to profit/convenience vs punishment/evil. So people judge their actions against what the harm and risks are. So to me, the most moral is the one who is hardest to convince to do something which would hurt someone undeserving.

I can't stand most moral relativism, I can't stand that someone would think that culture or history could make them and their actions right, simply through tradition, or that there isn't anything absolutely against morals (Yes, this conflicts with my Nihilist belief, but I'm of the position of believing morality is an element of conscience and society, the bigger being society in most cases, so I'm happy to categorise harm as the one thing people do not want befalling them (Most of the time).)

A very good Post OP, thanks for putting it up.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

1. Homosexuality should not be a criminal offense (what the fuck is wrong with some people?! No, not you, OP)
2. Um... I believe in Moral University, I guess.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

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.

and /thread at the first post. It probably is morally questionable to deny these countries aid based on their stance on Gay rights. However, on the other hand it is very definitely morally wrong to persecute (or worse) an entire sub-culture of your own society just for being different to you; and when we fund governments, by extension we are funding their beliefs and their actions. So if we are committed to Gay rights we can't associate ourselves with people who actively oppress Homosexuals.

 

[Aurgelmir]

SNIP

I don't think Human Rights should be considered cultural. And I do believe that your sexual orientation is a human right. Therefor it will not be Cultural Imperialism to steer countries towards the betterment of human rights.

At the same time I do not believe culture is a good reason to pass laws that removes human rights, which is EXACTLY what the countries that use religion as an excuse to prosecute gays are doing.

 

[Daverson]

You see, this is my issue with post-modernism.

What would it matter if it were cultural imperialism or not? You could equally argue the same thing about genocide. I mean, who are we, so presumptuous, to try and force our ideas about not committing industrialized hate-murder on the would-be Hitlers of this generation?

And in Malawi, this isn't even a case of "we should stop them from doing this", it's a case of "they're doing this, and we're helping them do this".

 

[Raika]

Anyone who criminalizes homosexuality deserves to die. Anyone who thinks it's wrong also deserves to die, and the fact that these people aren't dead yet is poisonous to society. It's really very simple.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Shortest possible (but incomplete) answer: No. Consensual homosexual acts are great stress relief, don't produce offspring, are therefore climate neutral and a really, really good thing as long as it keeps people happy, safe and healthy. If homosexual acts are not consensual and/or involve minors, yes. But I take it you are not thinking of the latter, are you.

I take offense at the wording of making cultural imperialism look as if it was a "Western" issue. the current influx of the most deadly strain of intolerance and cultural imperialism on the African continent (and its surrounding islands) comes from Islam, which cannot be labelled a "Western" phenomenon, really. Then there's boatloads of Klassenkampf in effect, sometimes twisted beyond recognition.

As with plenty of brainy theories, I think the approach to understanding the issue at hand is flawed, and I find myself unable to tick one "answer" and feel good about it.

Go to any "developing" African nation and try to set up... anything, really. Medical help, educational infrastructure, irrigation, farming or anything that would make sense.

Try to overcome the cultural misunderstandings - this can be done.

Try to overcome the religious or political ideas - you will fail.

So, it is maybe swiftly considered 'best' to steer clear of religion and politics, but they will always come to bite you in the back or shoot you in the head. Then there's the issue with power - both electrical and political. Corruption is a huge problem, and if nothing else will make you fail, this one will, because the costs of running a 'good' project will inevitably explode beyond what good will, pure hearts, steely determination and pockets full of cash can offer. Homosexuality, although omnipresent, is really but a fringe problem in the big picture of the greater mess.

I know of African 'states'/tribes/regions where homosexuality is clearly taboo, but commonplace. One does not talk about it, and no one gets hurt (except for the AIDS complication)... then there are Christian-influenced communities, where homosexuality is frowned upon, but people only get torn to bits by angry mobs for being wizards and witches... yeah, I know. Then there are the newborn Muslim types that will shoot you dead or stone you or topple a wall onto you for being gay - or not being a Muslim - or not doing as they please - or any other random reason, really.

If you approach this BIG issue with Marx in your head and oikophobia in your guts, your assessment of the situation will already be filtered and therefore cannot objective. Your perception will have blind spots. If you do not manage to switch your mind to neutral before making your (mind) trip to the large continent of Africa, your mind will always play three-thought monte with your waking, intellectual and emotional self.

There are many things I would want to have in my very own moral universalism folder, such as not killing, not lying, not taking advantage of my fellow man's weakness etc... a good number of them I find in the bible, and that seems to work for me. But, as with any other intellectual approach, all valid points are turned moot and my adherence to any moral code whatsoever becomes a weakness when someone with a different mindset exploits my striving for harmony or my expecting the best of them. If I treat everyone and everything with the universalist approach, meta-ethical relativism can easily become a deadly threat, and a normative-relativist approach would make me blind to many a danger we should be addressing, but we don't, because we're set to tolerate it.

Take Iran, which considers itself to be the apex of human evolution. Be gay there and you will get hanged or stoned or otherwise feel very stone age for the last couple of minutes of your life. But, you say, Iran isn't even on the continent of Africa? Very well, but the mindset that allows for Iran to be the friendly deadly place where the Shariah has no tolerance for general, suspected or made-up gaydom has long since set foot on the African continent. See it in action in Egypt, Lybia and Algeria... but those are only the more civilized places. See it tear your view of the world to shreds in Eritrea, Somalia or Sudan... there is no tolerance for being different, and anyone with Shariah in their hearts will gladly be judge, jury and instant executioner. If anything, "Western" cultural imperialism would be the better option, but it's not like the people in those regions are asked to tick a box and go their merry way. The struggle for land, the clash of civilizations and the genocide machine are running strong as we speak. Yes, it is an issue that borders were set randomly by evil Western/European imperialists. But the current exploitation and rape of resources/people/tribes/nations is a truly global issue, which would need plenty more attention than, say, "climate change". Alas, this won't happen anytime soon.

 

[Tselis]

All they are trying to do is to stop people from being executed for being attracted to the same sex as they are. I don't believe in CI, because variety is the spice of live. That being said, I also don't believe that it should be a criminal offense to love someone that society deems 'wrong' for you to love. What you do on you own time is for you alone, so long as it is between consenting adults. Honestly, humanity as a whole needs to stop being so fucking nosey. I pose these two questions to all of you who feel homosexuality should be criminalized, and that it is wrong in the eyes of God; 1)How does it hurt you (physically, finalcially, tangibly) for two men, or two women to have sex, and if it doesn't why are you so worked up about it? 2)How do you know what is and isn't 'wrong' in the eyes of God, do you have a direct line (ala Bat phone) to heaven, if not, then how do you honestly know? (And no, you may not point to a moldy, 2000 year old text that has been retranslated and edited so many times that we don't actually know what the original said. Or did you not know why it's called the King James' version?) Okay, so maybe that was more than two, but whatever ..

what you said is all well and good, except one part. " you may not point to a moldy, 2000 year old text that has been retranslated and edited so many times that we don't actually know what the original said. Or did you not know why it's called the King James' version". You do realize that Jews don't necessarily use the same "text" as Christians, right? Also this site [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh2.htm] touches on the subject, but what is most important is at the end where Rabbi Gershon Caudill writes that

"Jews do not obligate any other religion to the observance of the Torah laws, which were given specifically to the Jewish people and their descendants, including converts. This is with the possible exception of the seven Noahide Laws, and there is dispute among the halakhic authorities as to which seven laws non-Jews need observe IF they are indeed required to observe any Torah laws at all."

Here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah] are the laws that the rabbi mentioned that gentiles much follow to be considered good [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ger_toshav].

So seeing as African's are gentiles, they should just chill out, because from a Jewish perspective such laws don't apply to them, only us.

Yes, but I wasn't really pointing that at Jews, as they are a rather quiet community. However, you do make good points, and add good information to the fray. Well done sir.

EDIT: Also, on an unrelated note, I was happy when I saw I had a message in my inbox. Then I was sad that I had been quoted, because I was looking forward to a badge from a quiz I took. Then I was happy you thought I posted something worth quoting. I still want the badge though ...

 

[Something Amyss]

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

Word.

I consider myself to be largely non-interventionist, but when people are being executed, I take a much more aggressive view.

 

[godofslack]

I wouldn't even say it's cultural imperialism, because as far as I am concerned there is only one right moral code and prosecuting gays is not part of it. So, I don't see it as any different than correcting someone who is making a mistake.

 

[dyre]

I'm not a fan of cultural imperialism when it takes the form of "let's invade someone to give them democracy," but withholding foreign aid is using carrots, not sticks. I'm generally uncomfortable with military intervention, since we can use pretty much any excuse ("x country that happens to have oil is committing y moral offense") to push our culture and our economic needs on others. But using economic incentives to encourage people to follow a set of morals can be a good thing (depending on what the morals you're pushing are).

Oh, and I'm a moral universalist and deontologist, but I acknowledge that we (first world and third world nations alike) are probably not going to be able to find that perfect system of morals in a long time. So, our morals may be flawed too, even as flawed or more so than those in Malawi in some ways, but I'm pretty sure jailing people for being gay is indefensible; thus, cultural...encouragement isn't morally wrong in this case.

Also, lol@ half the people in this thread missing the point of the thread, though it's probably OP's fault for using a somewhat misleading title.

 

[Da Orky Man]

I don't see how nayone couldn't be Moraly Relativistic. Moral Universalism would say that murder is always wrong. Even if you kill someone in order to save a thousand others.

 

[dyre]

I don't see how nayone couldn't be Moraly Relativistic. Moral Universalism would say that murder is always wrong. Even if you kill someone in order to save a thousand others.

No, not really. Moral universalism would say "murdering someone simply because they are gay" is always wrong. Or "depriving an individual of a large amount of happiness (ie, by killing them) is wrong," etc, depending on which universalist you talk to. It's just the claim that morality is the same everywhere. Moral relativism would be more like "if this culture (or in more extreme styles, this individual) favors murder of gays, then it is acceptable for a member of this culture to do so."

 

[Naeo]

I believe that homosexuality and gay marriage should be legalized in full in every country on earth. I consider gay rights to absolutely be a human rights issue in the same way that, say, the rights of African Americans in the USA is civil rights.

That being said, I get sick and frustrated with people who say that trying to stop people being imprisoned and executed and unjustly persecuted on account of their sexual orientation is "cultural imperialism" and that we shouldn't do it because "it's okay to do that over there." That's completely beside the fucking point. It's absolutely a human rights violation to persecute/penalize something that is factually not a choice for most people (anyone who says "homosexuality is a choice" is plainly ignorant and an idiot; vanishingly few people can just decide "I'm gay" or "I'm straight" and make it so), and any country with the power to do something about that absolutely should. Cultural imperialism my ass. Because cultural imperialism is the issue when we're trying to stop a country from imprisoning, torturing, executing, lynching, etc gay people (completely against the victim's will, might I add, because who wants to be killed/thrown in prison/etc?) for no reason other than "they're gay," and not the whole "they made homosexuality an executable offense" bit.

As for MR/MU, I lea MU. Certain things definitely fall under MR, like conversational bluntness, how to respond to criticism/attacks on one's character, and so on. A lot of things, though, I see as universal: be respectful, don't be a dick, don't kill people, don't discriminate, etc etc. Trying to say that any form of institutionalized discrimination (in the case of the Africa countries mentioned in the first post, this is taken to the extreme of criminalization and in some cases execution) is acceptable based on "their cultural norms" shows a flagrant disregard for human dignity and decency. The question at hand is not "should we be changing their culture" but "should we be doing what we can to protect the people being discriminated against," which I say is a resounding "yes." Trying to argue that when we have the power to coerce the respective governments into not being little shits with little to no regard for human rights we should never use that power because it's "cultural imperialism" and because "it's okay to do that over there" makes me, frankly, sick.

So in short: homosexuality should not be a crime, and if the US has the power to coerce or to force another country to stop making it a crime (just short of the "let's invade and kill everything" method of diplomacy) we absolutely should be using that power.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

It is silly that it is an offense. Very silly, hardcore silly. Morals are awesome. My morals are shapped by several factors including religion, historical events, and the culture in which I live.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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.

and /thread at the first post. It probably is morally questionable to deny these countries aid based on their stance on Gay rights. However, on the other hand it is very definitely morally wrong to persecute (or worse) an entire sub-culture of your own society just for being different to you; and when we fund governments, by extension we are funding their beliefs and their actions. So if we are committed to Gay rights we can't associate ourselves with people who actively oppress Homosexuals.

would you feel the same way if the African countries were banning bestiality or pedophilia and the West was denying them aid because of the creation of such laws? Wouldn't people who are attracted to children or animals also be an "entire sub-culture of your own society"? Wouldn't those laws be a form of persecution?

 

[jboking]

I feel that the leaders of the western world are viewing this from a morally nihilistic viewpoint where they simply see loss-benefit. Loss of life is always a loss, no matter who it is that dies. What the western world is trying to do is bribe the african countries to stop killing people. They are not asking for the whole country to view Homosexuality as something acceptable, they just want to stop people from dying for no reason.

As for Moral Universalism, It's better tagged as "absolutism" and is extremely problematic, as it is impossible to know what the one correct moral path is. Relativism, while the easy way out, is much easier to swallow. However, it is not without its problems. Because a tenant of Relativism is that you cannot judge those of a different culture by your standards, we lose the ability to judge the actions of other nations, which is extremely important in a global community. Even worse, we have to judge what qualifies a person as of a different or the same culture. Fact is, I am a special little snowflake, and there is no one out there exactly like me. That can very well mean that I am my own culture, which means I can't be morally judged by anyone. While the, "lets not be judgmental" movement seems appealing, the ability to judge others is extremely necessary to a civilized society. Moral Nihilism is the only option that really follows (personally, it just sits right with me). Morality has always seemed like something that is not inherent in any action, but rather an imaginary trait ascribed by others. No action is right or wrong, they just are. Some actions may not be productive or may be selfish, but that does not mean they are wrong.

I feel like I'm trailing off, so I'll just stop now.