6 ms·

> Almost all of Asia and Africa accepts that requiring conformity in voluntary lifestyle and personal expression is legitimate. Everyone has a right to not be

by blintz 6y ago

> Almost all of Asia and Africa accepts that requiring conformity in voluntary lifestyle and personal expression is legitimate. Everyone has a right to not be executed or go to jail for their sexual orientation or gender identity. This is sadly not the case in many countries. The sand trap of moral relativism is not the point - people in the 'west' are making the normative claim that this is a fundamental human right. New information about possible genetic determinants of sexual orientation (or lack thereof) is not fundamental to determining if this is in the "realm of human rights". What is key is: people who are LGBT emphatically cannot choose to 'convert' to some other sexual orientation or gender identity. Thus, any private or public policy that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is wrong.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 6y ago
You and I agree it’s a human right, and the reason why. I said its a human right because it's a "characteristic that cannot easily be changed." You said it's because "people who are LGBT emphatically cannot choose to 'convert' to some other sexual orientation or gender identity." If there's a difference between that phraseology, I don't mean it to be substantive--I agree with what you said. It's OP who rejects that premise.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  Even if it were an easily changeable characteristic, we should consider it wrong for any society to threaten harm or punishment or ostracization for this. That the characteristic is or isn’t easily changed is not relevant. It’s not a question of moral relativism. You’d have to argue that any behavior is a crime in order for it to be legitimate for perpetrators to suffer consequences. Otherwise, it is wrong that someone should suffer consequences, all else equal. I like nachos. Tomorrow I might not like nachos. It is wrong in any society if my liking or disliking of nachos results in me being killed, bullied, shamed, etc. Any society that claims a right of legitimacy to impose social norms in this way on the liking or disliking of nachos is a morally wrong society. There’s no debate about this. You can either argue convincingly that nacho preference is a crime, or else any attempt to treat it like a crime is wrong.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - KMag 6y ago
    > You’d have to argue that any behavior is a crime in order for it to be legitimate for perpetrators to suffer consequences. Okay, but there was a time when homosexuality was a crime in the majority of Western countries, and in some places around the world, it still is a crime. What then/there? Moral reasoning based on current law is partially circular reasoning, and also tends to ossify current law/state of moral progress.
    - jancsika 6y ago
      > Okay, but there was a time when homosexuality was a crime in the majority of Western countries, and in some places around the world, it still is a crime. What then/there? One easy place to start-- are the laws are based on kinds of dubious claims that our own social and scientific history has rejected? And at least in Africa, Western evangelicals have spent a lot of time and effort exporting their same stupid ideas about homosexuality. So our Western approaches should be pretty easy to copy-paste there. :)
  - droopyEyelids 6y ago
    Here we're getting into another weird issue where you say "we should consider it wrong" Why should we consider the moral choices of a culture to which we do not belong wrong? What benefit comes to the people affected, or to us through this mental finger wag?
  - asiachick 6y ago
    I'm mostly on your side. I agree that choice or not, it should not matter. But, if I wanted to try to push back, ... your nachos require cheese. Cheese requires cows. Raising of cows are a major source of greenhouse gas etc... Therefore you should not be allowed to eat nachos as it's bad for society at large and you should be forced to stop eating them. (substitute beef or whale meat or whatever it takes to see the point).
  - ridaj 6y ago

by blintz 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 6y ago

You and I agree it’s a human right, and the reason why. I said its a human right because it's a "characteristic that cannot easily be changed." You said it's because "people who are LGBT emphatically cannot choose to 'convert' to some other sexual orientation or gender identity." If there's a difference between that phraseology, I don't mean it to be substantive--I agree with what you said. It's OP who rejects that premise.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
Even if it were an easily changeable characteristic, we should consider it wrong for any society to threaten harm or punishment or ostracization for this. That the characteristic is or isn’t easily changed is not relevant. It’s not a question of moral relativism. You’d have to argue that any behavior is a crime in order for it to be legitimate for perpetrators to suffer consequences. Otherwise, it is wrong that someone should suffer consequences, all else equal. I like nachos. Tomorrow I might not like nachos. It is wrong in any society if my liking or disliking of nachos results in me being killed, bullied, shamed, etc. Any society that claims a right of legitimacy to impose social norms in this way on the liking or disliking of nachos is a morally wrong society. There’s no debate about this. You can either argue convincingly that nacho preference is a crime, or else any attempt to treat it like a crime is wrong.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- KMag 6y ago
  > You’d have to argue that any behavior is a crime in order for it to be legitimate for perpetrators to suffer consequences. Okay, but there was a time when homosexuality was a crime in the majority of Western countries, and in some places around the world, it still is a crime. What then/there? Moral reasoning based on current law is partially circular reasoning, and also tends to ossify current law/state of moral progress.
  - jancsika 6y ago
    > Okay, but there was a time when homosexuality was a crime in the majority of Western countries, and in some places around the world, it still is a crime. What then/there? One easy place to start-- are the laws are based on kinds of dubious claims that our own social and scientific history has rejected? And at least in Africa, Western evangelicals have spent a lot of time and effort exporting their same stupid ideas about homosexuality. So our Western approaches should be pretty easy to copy-paste there. :)
- droopyEyelids 6y ago
  Here we're getting into another weird issue where you say "we should consider it wrong" Why should we consider the moral choices of a culture to which we do not belong wrong? What benefit comes to the people affected, or to us through this mental finger wag?
- asiachick 6y ago
  I'm mostly on your side. I agree that choice or not, it should not matter. But, if I wanted to try to push back, ... your nachos require cheese. Cheese requires cows. Raising of cows are a major source of greenhouse gas etc... Therefore you should not be allowed to eat nachos as it's bad for society at large and you should be forced to stop eating them. (substitute beef or whale meat or whatever it takes to see the point).
- ridaj 6y ago