4 ms·

It's naive to think western liberal cultural change is a one-way street. This is the kind of thing that comes in waves. Just look at the radical transformation

It's naive to think western liberal cultural change is a one-way street. This is the kind of thing that comes in waves. Just look at the radical transformation of the pre-colonial Kingdom of Buganda into present-day Uganda with its sodomy laws and internet meme pastors, perhaps ironically catalysed by the west, a west that has since flipped the complete opposite direction. It's only a matter of time before the tables turn again. LGBT is at its core a small minority interest. It's an unstable system, it all depends on what the majority population happens to be interested in in this particular century.

nextstep 8y ago
I think you are wrong. There are minor setbacks and reactions to liberalization of society, but ultimately the trend over the past many hundreds of years has been generally toward a more equitable and accepting society almost everywhere in the world. Also, LGBT is definitely not a small minority interest and the more accepting society becomes, the more people realize that these issues are incredibly mainstream.
- gdfasfklshg4 8y ago
  I think you should study history related to gay rights over the last few centuries. Whilst we are currently in a better situation in many western countries the course of change has been anything but a smooth set of improvements.
  - majewsky 8y ago
    Where did you see GP implying a "smooth set of improvements"? They're explicitly talking about the big picture.
    - gdfasfklshg4 8y ago
      I would hardly call the introduction of this law that has finally been overturned a "minor setback". Nor would I call chemical castration which happened in the UK in the 20th century a "minor setback". These are both pretty big picture.
- oytis 8y ago
  We'll probably consider freedom and equality good things int the next centuries, but our ideas of what to call freedom and equality seems to be changing drastically from time to time. Not so long time ago people were fighting for more sexual freedom, it was even possible to produce a film about sexual love between underaged people (with underaged actors) for instance. Today we're introducing more rules about how people should sexually approach each other and paedophilia is an absolute taboo. And we consider this change a step towards freedom and equality again. So I wouldn't be surprised if our definition of freedom would deny homosexuality at some later point.
krapp 8y ago
The modern definition of "LGBT" is, for the most part, a cultural construct. Behavior we in the west would consider "homosexual" today, including the act of sex between persons of the same gender, was considered perfectly normal between "heterosexual" people in certain contexts and pre-Christian cultures. It wasn't that long ago that men kissing one another on the lips was a common practice of platonic affection. If you look beyond the rather limited filter of "western liberal cultural change" you'll see that, while yes politics and societies shift over time, acceptance of same-sex relationships has been the norm in many cultures more often than your comment might suggest.
- majewsky 8y ago
  > It wasn't that long ago that men kissing one another on the lips was a common practice of platonic affection. This comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_God,_Help_Me_to_Survive_This_Deadly_Love https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_God,_Help_Me_to_Survive_Thi...
- M_Bakhtiari 8y ago
  >acceptance of same-sex relationships has been the norm in many cultures That's what was the case in Buganda. The Ugandan martyrs rebelled against that and were killed for it. Lauded by the west for their resistance at the time, with their spiritual successors demonised by the same west today.
shripadk 8y ago
> It's an unstable system, it all depends on what the majority population happens to be interested in in this particular century. It doesn't work that way. Take Nazism for example: The NSDAP won the 1933 election with 43.9% votes. Literally 43.9% of the German people believed and supported the Nazi policies of Hitler. To think that the Germans would again revert back to Nazism would be insane. What happened was an aberration at best. Any form of extremist thinking is what is considered an unstable system. Sure extremism will have it's day but not always. It's always the moderate values and living that triumphs and continues to provide stability. So what you say is exactly opposite to what the reality is. Aberrations don't provide stability.
- ams6110 8y ago
  In a historical context, tolerance of homosexuality is the aberration. And civilizations devolving from liberal/free to tyrannical has been a constant. Things seem good now because the vast majority of people have food and most other basic needs met. If that ever changes, things like equity for gays and transgenders will not even be on the radar. In the case of your Nazi example, people supported Nazism because the economy was in a shambles. When you're not eating, you don't really care as much about the Jews.

nextstep 8y ago

I think you are wrong. There are minor setbacks and reactions to liberalization of society, but ultimately the trend over the past many hundreds of years has been generally toward a more equitable and accepting society almost everywhere in the world. Also, LGBT is definitely not a small minority interest and the more accepting society becomes, the more people realize that these issues are incredibly mainstream.

gdfasfklshg4 8y ago
I think you should study history related to gay rights over the last few centuries. Whilst we are currently in a better situation in many western countries the course of change has been anything but a smooth set of improvements.
- majewsky 8y ago
  Where did you see GP implying a "smooth set of improvements"? They're explicitly talking about the big picture.
  - gdfasfklshg4 8y ago
    I would hardly call the introduction of this law that has finally been overturned a "minor setback". Nor would I call chemical castration which happened in the UK in the 20th century a "minor setback". These are both pretty big picture.
oytis 8y ago
We'll probably consider freedom and equality good things int the next centuries, but our ideas of what to call freedom and equality seems to be changing drastically from time to time. Not so long time ago people were fighting for more sexual freedom, it was even possible to produce a film about sexual love between underaged people (with underaged actors) for instance. Today we're introducing more rules about how people should sexually approach each other and paedophilia is an absolute taboo. And we consider this change a step towards freedom and equality again. So I wouldn't be surprised if our definition of freedom would deny homosexuality at some later point.

krapp 8y ago

The modern definition of "LGBT" is, for the most part, a cultural construct. Behavior we in the west would consider "homosexual" today, including the act of sex between persons of the same gender, was considered perfectly normal between "heterosexual" people in certain contexts and pre-Christian cultures. It wasn't that long ago that men kissing one another on the lips was a common practice of platonic affection. If you look beyond the rather limited filter of "western liberal cultural change" you'll see that, while yes politics and societies shift over time, acceptance of same-sex relationships has been the norm in many cultures more often than your comment might suggest.

majewsky 8y ago
> It wasn't that long ago that men kissing one another on the lips was a common practice of platonic affection. This comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_God,_Help_Me_to_Survive_This_Deadly_Love https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_God,_Help_Me_to_Survive_Thi...
M_Bakhtiari 8y ago
>acceptance of same-sex relationships has been the norm in many cultures That's what was the case in Buganda. The Ugandan martyrs rebelled against that and were killed for it. Lauded by the west for their resistance at the time, with their spiritual successors demonised by the same west today.

shripadk 8y ago

> It's an unstable system, it all depends on what the majority population happens to be interested in in this particular century. It doesn't work that way. Take Nazism for example: The NSDAP won the 1933 election with 43.9% votes. Literally 43.9% of the German people believed and supported the Nazi policies of Hitler. To think that the Germans would again revert back to Nazism would be insane. What happened was an aberration at best. Any form of extremist thinking is what is considered an unstable system. Sure extremism will have it's day but not always. It's always the moderate values and living that triumphs and continues to provide stability. So what you say is exactly opposite to what the reality is. Aberrations don't provide stability.

ams6110 8y ago
In a historical context, tolerance of homosexuality is the aberration. And civilizations devolving from liberal/free to tyrannical has been a constant. Things seem good now because the vast majority of people have food and most other basic needs met. If that ever changes, things like equity for gays and transgenders will not even be on the radar. In the case of your Nazi example, people supported Nazism because the economy was in a shambles. When you're not eating, you don't really care as much about the Jews.