So what’s the problem then?? Just don’t go to Jamaica…?? You can eat dog in some parts of Asia… Does every culture in the world have to have the exact same values as North Americans (who can’t even agree on what those are…?)
The problem is that innocent people are being hurt and killed because of anti-gay bigotry. And yes, the hatred of homosexuality should be eliminated everywhere on Earth. If local, traditional values hold that homosexuality is evil, then those who hold such values are evil, because that’s an evil value to have. If unprovoked malice upon the innocent isn’t evil what is ?
You do get that what we’re talking about here is how Jamaica treats its own citizens, right? They’re not importing fags to murder in the street. They’ve got their own domestic stock to work with.
Yes, every part of the world needs to have the value that it’s not okay to kill someone just for being gay. That doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.
Jtagain, you’re still not getting this whole “free country” thing. Freedom has no meaning if you think that the only behavior that should be allowed is that which is already approved of by your traditional culture.
Moral absolutist!
But innocent people are killed every day for all kinds of reasons. Perhaps it’s just as evil to judge another culture based on our own values and call whatever we don’t agree with ‘evil’…?
Yes, their own citizens. What position are any of us non-Jamaicans in to pass judgment on their culture?
It’s not unreasonable to you because you’re not Jamaican, so it’s easy for you to pass judgment. If you were Jamaican, perhaps you’d see the situation as being a little more complex…?
You’re kidding, right? We pass judgement on other countries and cultures with regard to human rights violations all the time. Wars get fought over that stuff. Should we let AIDS run rampant through Africa? Female genital mutilation? Without at least nagging them about it a bit?
“Their own” citizens include gays and lesbians who I’d bet if you asked them, would rather not be beaten & killed. Who speaks for them, when they can’t safely speak for themselves?
Valteron
Do you know what the position is in the other islands, especially those with Test Cricket grounds? I’d like to take a trip reasonably soon, but would like to keep my conscience at least somewhat intact.
And Ouroboros, is there no degree of abuse that a nation can heap upon segments of its own population before you are willing to claim that it might be “unreasonable”?
A morally superior position, given that I’m not assaulting or oppressing anyone. Bigotry against homosexuality is evil, and so are those who hold such opinions.
Slavery was justified with religious beliefs. Womens’ lack of rights and laws against interracial marriage were also justified with religious beliefs. What was the “tipping point” when those religious beliefs were finally deemed wrong? Religious followers would do well to analyze what was wrong with their prior misguided beliefs and get a clue.
Our position as human beings, of course. That’s all the authority any one of us needs to know right from wrong, and to denounce the wrong and praise the right.
All else being equal, I’d still be a gay Jamaican, so no, I’d probably not be seeing a whole lot of shades of gray in the issue.
You’ve taken an interesting position here, Ouroboros. I wonder how far you extend it, in a couple of directions. How far up can we scale human rights abuses before you take an interest in what other cultures are up to? And how far down can we scale the concept of a society while maintaining your indifference to human suffering? Is the Holocaust a big enough atrocity that we can point and judge? Is the house next door to you a seperate enough culture that you could comfortably look the other way while someone was brutalized inside? How close, exactly, do I have to be to a person to consider him a human being? And as a human being, how can I look away when one of my own is ostracized, attacked, and murdered?
Good thing we didn’t waste any time trying to change human rights in South Africa, huh?
Exactly, but is this right? Isn’t this the attitude that creates animosity and gets innocents killed? This attitude seems to create more enemies than friends…?
Isn’t it their own prerogative to fight any injustice they are facing in their own country? Should the minds of the oppressors be changed by the military might of a foreign superpower, or by the internal pressure of their own society?
According to your morals, it is. However, according to the morals of others, homosexuality is evil. Is it the responsibility of the members of that society to change it, or is it our responsibility to change every society to be more like ours?
I don’t know what’s being done there. The only way I can find out is to personally go there and live among the people, in which case, I can see what’s being done and also understand the culture in which it occurs. However, I am most likely not going to do this, so why be enraged by something I cannot change, do not understand and doesn’t affect me…? Let their citizens change their nation.
But what is right and wrong? Is it wrong to make women wear a veil on their head? Some in the West believe it is, but if they tell those in the Middle East such a thing, problems arise. We can surely denounce what is wrong in our own society, however, outside of that require a larger understanding of right and wrong.
I beg to differ. Since you are not part of their culture and don’t feel the pressures of their society, you can’t really say how you would feel. How do you think a gay Jamaican would be treated if the US were to step in and change their laws. Do you think he would be welcomed and magically free of persecution because a foreign power stepped in and saved the day? Or would there be even more animosity towards him and to the US as a whole?
We do it every day. Someone is always being ostracized, attacked and murdered unreasonably. However, we only express outrage when it appears on the news, and when it is something we can relate to.
But you are being told what is being done there. Now you don’t have to believe that; but what you are doing here is shrugging your shoulders and not disputing what is happening, but isntead acting like it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t affect you.
It is perfectly possible to find out what is happening in places without living there, directly seeing it, or even understanding the culture in which it occurs. Understanding the culture may tell you why something happens, but it doesn’t tell you what is happening.
And you also have avoided answering the question. Is there any degree of abuse a country can heap upon a segment of its own population that you might claim is unreasonable?
Just to nitpick here, but it was more complicated than that. Sodomy was punishable by death in the late Classical period, but, with the exception of Visigothic Spain (which maintained the death penalty), there really weren’t laws against sodomy in the early Middle Ages. It was seen as a sin, and there was canon law against it (although, of course, canon law didn’t have the death penalty), but it wasn’t punishable by secular law.
You don’t see states start criminalizing sodomy until the 13th century, when it got linked with heresy, and in a lot of the places that do criminalize sodomy in the late middle ages (northern Italy, for instance), it was punishable by the death penalty in theory, but not usually in practice. Usually the sentence would be commuted to a fine, or in some cases, the judge would just refuse to convict.
So, your statement “It was punishable by death in the middle ages” needs to be qualified as, “It was theoretically punishable by death in some parts of medieval Europe at some times.”
You clearly implied by your own statement that voluntarily chosen behaviors need not be respected. Religious affiliation is a voluntarily chosen behavior. Ergo, quityerwhinin.
Forcing women to wear veils is also wrong. I’m perfectly comfortable in making that assertion. However, as human rights abuses go, it’s pretty small time, and most of the countries that have such laws on the books have so many other abusive practices (many of them aimed at women) that worrying about veils is kinda silly.
Incidentally, how can we denounce wrongs in our own society, if we can’t tell what’s right and what’s wrong? If your neighbor is beating his wife with a lead pipe every night, how can you say he’s wrong to do that? Maybe he just comes from a different culture, and how can you judge another culture, right? That is your point here, is it not? What makes it okay to judge your wife-beating neighbor, but not a gay-bashing Jamaican?
Last time I checked, Jamaicans were a part of the human species, and I think it’s a fair generalization to say that humans, on the whole, do not like being chased by angry, violent mobs. I feel secure in the assumption that Jamaican humans are no different in this regard.
Who the fuck has been calling for military intervention over this? We’re talking about a economic boycott, and once again, I feel reasonably secure in saying that Jamaican homosexuals would be grateful to learn that there are actually some people in the world who give a shit about how they’re treated. We had a much larger boycott going when South Africa was operating under apartheid, and I haven’t heard too much resentment coming from South African blacks over it.
Yes, it is difficult to express outrage over events you haven’t heard of. You’ve really nailed me with your insightful analysis on that score. :rolleyes:
Since you avoided my question earlier, allow me to restate it in a more direct fashion: when the Nazis were rounding up all the Jews, Gypsies, gays, and handicapped in Germany and stuffing them into ovens, did the rest of the world have any right to judge them for that? Not even intervene, but just to say, “Hey, that’s really messed up and evil, and you shouldn’t do that?” Or should they have minded their own business, because hey, they weren’t a part of that culture, and maybe the Jews didn’t mind it so much?