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

[JediMB]

The way I see it, the purpose of morality is (or should be) to prevent harm.

If religious "morality" demand that harmless acts should be considered immoral, and that a proper punishment for that is inflicting harm or death, then that cannot be considered morality. It's just a matter of "I don't like this, so anyone else who does it should be punished."

That said, demanding cultural change in exchange for aid is a touchy subject, since it can be used immorally as well. Take a religious organization, for example, offering aid while demanding that the foreign culture accepts their religion. It is also important to educate, so that people understand why the laws need[ed] to be changed.

Spoiler

 

[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.

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?

Well, animals and underage kids are unable to give consent, so that's not entirely the same thing. However, if the governments in question went as far as to torture, mutilate, or execute these people just for being what they are, then I would have the same problem. Even if they can't relate to that person's sexuality, even if it disgusts them, even if (in cases like paedophillia) there's no way these urges can be acted on without breaking the law, they do not deserve to die just because their brains are wired differently to the brains of the majority.

 

[Beryl77]

There is no right answer to this. What we consider to be right or wrong have always changed and will always change. There is no definite right or wrong, they're just the temporary cultural opinions.
So asking, if it's wrong when a culture imposes its rules on a different culture can't be answered correctly.
It all really just depends on what's important to you, of course this is just how I see it, so just another opinion. So I personally think that as long as it helps humans have better lives and doesn't make the lives of others worse, they should do it. In this case it helps the homosexual people to really live how they want to. So I think they should do this.
I think you have to look at something from every side possible. The people who say it's a crime to be gay, are really ignorant, just like the ones this video.

I could never support something like this and it shouldn't be happening in my opinion.
The question is of course where to draw the line, with intervening in other cultures businesses. This again can?t be answered. You should just look at everything individually and then decide whether it's Cultural Imperialism and whether it's morally wrong or right according to your moral believes.

 

[Baneat]

I'm not sure many people are reading the OP correctly or understanding what the poll is, that could confuse the result. It's further confused by there being two loosely related issues and two simultaneous questions posed at the same time.

THE OP IS NOT ASKING IF YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH HOMOSEXUALITY

He's asking if US policies to impose their views on executions and such are imperialistic. I think it is, but not necessarily a bad thing in itself. Maybe you can have good imperialism and bad, the benefit of this imperialism is that a larger imperialism (African dominance over its people) is reduced. The net gain is positive.

Semi-related, Universalism, though that's not to say that US ideals are the universally correct ones, just entertaining the idea that there can be universality in morality. The bill of human rights (Which are being pursued through this) is a good start.

IDK, honestly I don't think this was a particularly clear thread. My guess is a lot of people mistook "CI" to mean "Criminal" of some sort, and some might not even know or care about Relativism, Nihilism, Universalism but they're forced to answer that through the poll.

 

[spartan231490]

as to the first, it is cultural imperialism. Without a doubt, and in your face. You should think it's wrong, but there are a lot of things in life that are wrong.

As to the second, I don't know. I believe that there is an ultimate morality, but I think that what is truly wrong, is a whole lot smaller than the list of things most people think is wrong. I also think that wrong is determined more by intent, than the actual action. And I'm a pretty drunk, so you if you want more than that, it's gonna have to wait till tomorrow.

 

[The Great Purtabo]

In all honesty, I would say being homosexual is not "natural" where it serves no purpose in nature, and is a mutation; while at the same time, I have no quaims with someone of that pursuasion, as I see no issue with non-reproductive sex, as it hurts no-one in society. So in conclusion, I believe everything we see before us is relative; if someone makes a decision without rational pro-con reasoning, (such as the judging of homosexuals in society) as in saying "OH HO MY RELIGEEN SAYS MEN SHODENT BANG" is a hate-filled, moronic piece of filth that doesn't deserve sentient thought. As long as no-one is hurt by the action in question, a person's freedom should not be limited.

 

[DamnedChoir]

(Redacted)

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

**snip**

Poll lacks appropriate option.

Is it cultural imperialism? Yes. Is that a bad thing? NO.

When a culture says that you should be killed for being gay (or having premarital sex, etc) that culture is wrong. It's Ethnic Cleansing - that's a war crime.

If we're pushing our ideas about not killing gay people on to others, then I have one thing to say: "America: Fuck Yeah!"

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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.

I could not disagree more with what you typed. As far as I'm concerned, issues about the climate and the status of the earth take first priority over every other issue, because if the environment get to such a state that it becomes difficult for life to survive, gay rights/economic stability/who has the biggest guns/atheism vs theism will.not.f**king.matter.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Choice of sexuality should be a right given to every human, as a basic right. Whether you're asexual, bisexual, heterosexual, homosexual, transsexual, pansexual, or autosexual, the right should be yours. Do we as a nation have the right to try to coerce change? That depends. We have long been a country that is seen to respect the individuals rights, bar a few hiccups of the last administration. Executing someone for a choice that affects few others but themselves is nothing short of murder. This is not fair governance. Without wanting to really push that envelope, for too damn long our governing bodies used an outdated, primitive, restrictive body of demands by an absentee figure to govern. Now, things are changing--individual liberties and reason are being considered when it comes to law now, not just whether or not an unobservable figure will be slightly peeved by a given set of actions.

As to the other question, personally, I'm a moral relativist. To assume that there is an absolute good, or conversely an absolute evil, in relation to the universe, is beyond selfish. To assume that you, among the infinite cosmos, can ascertain what is right and wrong absolutely and definitively, is phenomenally arrogant. That you are solely fit to judge someone else's life, not knowing the decisions they have faced or the circumstances that led them there, would be the ignorance and arrogance matched only by a malicious theocrat, god-king, or dictator. There is good in context, but without context, there is no way of making a decision.

 

[Vrach]

1) Human rights > cultural bullshit.
2) You'll forgive me if I don't bother to read up on the Universal/Relative/Nihilistic Morality, as my comment will be pretty easily summed up - if it doesn't harm someone, it's not universally wrong. Homosexuality doesn't harm a living soul, so once again, human rights > cultural bullshit.

TLDR: Homosexuality should not be a crime and yes, anyone able to influence someone who thinks otherwise should do it because punishing someone for a lifestyle choice that doesn't harm anyone is nothing short of backwards ass stupidity.

 

[Manoose47]

1) Human rights > cultural bullshit.
2) You'll forgive me if I don't bother to read up on the Universal/Relative/Nihilistic Morality, as my comment will be pretty easily summed up - if it doesn't harm someone, it's not universally wrong. If it harms someone, it's universally wrong unless there's a good justification for it (punishment of criminals and such). Homosexuality doesn't harm a living soul, so once again, human rights > cultural bullshit.

TLDR: Homosexuality should not be a crime and yes, anyone able to influence someone who thinks otherwise should do it because punishing someone for a lifestyle choice that doesn't harm anyone is nothing short of backwards ass stupidity.

this ^^^^

BOOM!

seriously there's right and there's wrong! it's simple as, it's not subjective! it is wrong to persecute someone for their beliefs, so long as those beliefs don't directly harm or incite harm onto others. regardless of what anyone's' upbringing or moral background is, it's called having a conscience! and everyone(who is mentally stable), whether good, bad, educated, rich, poor has one... some people just choose to ignore it because it suits them.

 

[babinro]

The intention is to kill every member of a certain group, I consider this to be an act of genocide. To kill someone for being a homosexual is no better or different than killing someone for being a Jew.

Such acts or laws should be abolished and anyone acting upon them be punished accordingly.

 

[honestdiscussioner]

The problem with this is that it doesn't acknowledge that the basis for a societies belief may be at fault.

Take the Holocaust. Was it wrong to murder millions of innocent people? Of course . . but why was it wrong? Mainly the 'innocent' part . . had they actually been killing a group of individuals solely focused on destroying a country and eating Christian baby blood, perhaps it would have been a smidge more justified . . but that obviously wasn't the case. It happened though because the Germans actually thought that the Jews were the bad guys, wholly evil entities that were the cause of nearly all if not entirely all social ills. Would they have done that if they thought they Jews were innocent? Unlikely.

People in these countries believe homosexuality to be an abomination that it isn't. In one country . . . Nigeria or Kenya . . . I forget, you have some evangelical twat actively convincing people that all homosexuals try to recruit impressionable children into their cult, and that they all eat poop from each other's butts. No exceptions. In this case, the basis for their moral reasoning is faulty, and their culture is imposing penalties on people for being who they are. This isn't cultural imperialism. We're not telling people how to behave, we're telling people not to harm people for what they do to themselves and other consenting adults that does in no way affect the population.