TV Tropes Org

Forums

On-Topic Conversations:
US to support gay rights abroad
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [122]  1  2  3  4
5

US to support gay rights abroad:

 101 USAF713, Fri, 9th Dec '11 1:18:36 PM from the United States
I changed accounts.
People who are talking about how the US needs to get gay marriage first are missing the point so entirely I have no words to describe the absurdity.

Examine your situation for a moment:

In the US, gay people cannot get legally married.

In parts of Africa/the Middle East/Asia, gay people are executed.

And you want the US to fix itself first instead of attacking the second problem, or, furthermore, you assume the US cannot do both.

Both are civil rights travesties, but the second is so far out of the first's league it's not even remotely comparable. I think I can honestly say that I would take a world where gay people could never get married if it meant that they would never be executed or otherwise physically harmed simply by virtue of being gay. It's that much of a skewed balance to claim that gay marriage in the US is more important than the execution of gays in other countries.

And again, the assumption that we cannot do both is simply insulting. We have a gigantic military and economy, I'm sure we can work something out.
I am now known as Flyboy.
 102 Polarstern, Fri, 9th Dec '11 7:01:55 PM from United States
Okay people. Never did I equate the killing of people with not letting people marrying.

I stated that legalizing gay marriage across the board would be the best way for America to advance itself farther. I also brought it up as an example of how it's not equal degree, but it is still a form of dehumanizing.

Take my segregation example. Let's say America was still practicing segregation at the time Saddam Hussein was killing off the Kurdish people in Mass Graves. I would applaud people for condemning the genocide of a people in a heartbeat. But as soon as they say that they are human to, I'll also be quick to say "So are the African American's you force to sit on the back of the bus."

It's one of those, be a good person. But even the best of people can be hypocrites at time and the simple reminder of that in my opinion, only propels greater good. It never hinders it.

WHARRGARBL
Some countries execute people for being gay.

The US does not execute people for being gay.

The US is telling those countries to please stop executing people for being gay.

Not really seeing the hypocrisy here.

 104 Inhopelessguy, Sat, 10th Dec '11 5:12:29 PM from Birmingham, Greater Europe Relationship Status: Gonna take a lot to drag me away from you
Psych Lad
Yeah, come to think of it...

I'd rather have one million non-married gay people, than one million non-married, and non-living gay people.

I'm sure in the US (I hope tongue) that killing a person for his sexuality is a hate crime.

I'm sure in these nations, the killing of a person for his sexuality is considered a non-crime.
There are so many things that I could say.

But they might come out all wrong.

Just that... you're something I can't replace.
Uncle George
The united states also unlawfully imprisons people suspected of terrorism, breaks geneva convention, executes minors (only in Texas, folks), and in many ways, flies in the face of international legistaltion.

This doesn't mean they can't pull funding of a country that commits genocide and systematic political opression.

That also doesn't mean they will do it, not naming any country, but most will probably know which state of illegal occupation I'm referring to.

[ed.] Also, I might note that my home country, Finland, has a black mark on its human rights record. We have political prisoners; you can, and will, still be put in jail for six months if you refuse both military, and civillian service. While that law is almost always broken with clear intent (only a handful of people have ever been convicted of improper service). Amnesty International recognizes this as an infringment against the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

This however doesn't mean Finland should pull it's UN Peace Keepers, or not help negotiate peace (Martti Ahtisaari won a Nobel Peace Prize, Pekka Haavisto was an agent in helping South Sudan secede).

edited 10th Dec '11 6:26:21 PM by JethroQWalrustitty

This love so bold goes undeclared/a joy unseen, a world unknown/a love that dare not speak its name/hidden treasure, precious stone
 106 USAF713, Sat, 10th Dec '11 6:31:03 PM from the United States
I changed accounts.
...executes minors...

What did Texas execute them for, and on what evidence...? 0_o
I am now known as Flyboy.
名無しさん
Whether it's a good moral cause or not, this is more or less cultural imperialism via blackmail. If the countries in question are to expect aid at all, it should be non-discriminatory. Aid shouldn't be used as a bargaining tool for an international values-crusade, undermining national sovereignty.

He must be talking about that 17-year-old who killed a federal appeals judge.
 
 109 USAF713, Sat, 10th Dec '11 6:41:47 PM from the United States
I changed accounts.
Whether it's a good moral cause or not, this is more or less cultural imperialism via blackmail. If the countries in question are to expect aid at all, it should be non-discriminatory. Aid shouldn't be used as a bargaining tool for an international values-crusade, undermining national sovereignty.

This would be a valid argument if those countries had any right to foreign aid, instead of it being the handout that it is. If we're going to attach strings to giving out our money, that's our own choice, and they don't get a say in the matter. Take it or leave it, but beggars can't be choosers.

@Disaster Grind,

Oh, that's not even a minor, really, and if he's doing stupid shit like that, he should be executed.

But I digress.
I am now known as Flyboy.
名無しさん
[up]I understand the "beggars can't be choosers" thing - using aid to manipulate may well be less acceptable than simply giving no aid at all, is the consideration.

edited 10th Dec '11 6:56:59 PM by ekuseruekuseru

 111 USAF713, Sat, 10th Dec '11 7:00:06 PM from the United States
I changed accounts.
Well, at the end of the day, I agree that non-interventionism is almost always the best policy, all things considered.

I make an exception for genocide, though, and that's what this is. If anything, I would be asking for a UN invasion of these kinds of states, not just playing carrots-and-sticks with the aid. Genocide/ethnic cleansing is unacceptable (as is forced relocation of large populations).
I am now known as Flyboy.
 112 Excelion, Sat, 10th Dec '11 7:01:21 PM from The Fatherland
This would be a valid argument if those countries had any right to foreign aid, instead of it being the handout that it is. If we're going to attach strings to giving out our money, that's our own choice, and they don't get a say in the matter. Take it or leave it, but beggars can't be choosers.

With this logic you can also justify exploitation in third world countries. Yeah, beggars can't be choosers, now stop complaining and go back to your 12 hour job in the quarry for which we will pay you 10 dollars per week.
 113 Rocket Dude, Sat, 10th Dec '11 7:01:50 PM from AZ, United States
This hat doesn't fit!
Granted, aid money apparently doesn't help that much.
Tumblr | "Hipsters: the most dangerous gang in the US." - Pacific Mackerel
 114 USAF713, Sat, 10th Dec '11 7:13:21 PM from the United States
I changed accounts.
With this logic you can also justify exploitation in third world countries. Yeah, beggars can't be choosers, now stop complaining and go back to your 12 hour job in the quarry for which we will pay you 10 dollars per week.

No, because you just said, that's not aid, that's exploitation.

Although ultimately, yes, you could justify exploitation with it. I wouldn't want to, though, nor would I agree with someone who tried.
I am now known as Flyboy.
 115 L Mage, Sat, 10th Dec '11 7:15:11 PM from Miss Robichaux's Academy Relationship Status: Brewing the love potion
Swamp Witch
[up] What he said

[up][up][up]

To be fair explotation in third world contries if fueld by greed and selfishness, this action on the part of US is fueld by human respect and a desire for equal rights. I think that marks the difference.

edited 10th Dec '11 7:16:03 PM by LMage

"You are never taller then when standing up for yourself"
名無しさん
I'm not sure that genocide is the best word (although the definition used by the UN would include homosexuals as a "genocidable" group, we all know that the UN is silly).

I do agree in principle, however, that if the affairs of a nation are to be interfered with, it should be done above the table, so to speak. If the US wants to change things, they shouldn't be pussyfooting about. In discussion of this particular matter, however, the need for intervention is taken as premises.

[up][up][up]Indeed, this is another thing to think about. Many times, the very factors that allow for policies of the type to prompt such selective distribution of aid, are also going to prevent it from going to those who need it. If something must be done, it seems reasonable to "fix" the fundaments, where applicable, before giving aid. Of course, situational analysis needs to weigh up the net effect of such intervention on the people of any given nation.

edited 10th Dec '11 7:20:00 PM by ekuseruekuseru

 117 USAF713, Sat, 10th Dec '11 7:25:39 PM from the United States
I changed accounts.
I'm not sure that genocide is the best word (although the definition used by the UN would include homosexuals as a "genocidable" group, we all know that the UN is silly).

I would define genocide simply as "the mass killing of a specific group for an arbitrary, unjustifiable reason." "They're gay" is not a justifiable reason to execute them en masse.

Also, speak for yourself on the UN. It's not very effective, nor is it often useful in military matters, but it's not silly. Just an inadequately-sized organization given an impossible task.

I do agree in principle, however, that if the affairs of a nation are to be interfered with, it should be done above the table, so to speak. If the US wants to change things, they shouldn't be pussyfooting about. In discussion of this particular matter, however, the need for intervention is taken as premises.

I'd rather just embargo the fuck out of nations that do stupid shit like this and ask for UN intervention, but ultimately I won't shed a tear if we interfere with them to stupid ridiculous bullshit like this, so long as we do so in an intelligent fashion (i.e. not like Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam).

I am now known as Flyboy.
Uncle George
I'm not sure that genocide is the best word (although the definition used by the UN would include homosexuals as a "genocidable" group, we all know that the UN is silly).

So, how small/how narrowly defined a minorty has to be, for mass murder of them to stop being a crime against humanity?

Foreign aid is already held hostage for many human rights issues, the Obama and Clinton declaration just extends LGBTetc human rights in the protected category.
This love so bold goes undeclared/a joy unseen, a world unknown/a love that dare not speak its name/hidden treasure, precious stone
名無しさん
[up]This is going to go off topic if it keeps up for long. Etymologically, it doesn't seem to make sense to include "mass-killing of homosexuals" as "genocide", and that's why I wouldn't identify it as such. That does not mean that I think it to be an even remotely acceptable policy. It's simply a question of definition. And, for that matter, the idea of "crimes against humanity" is nebulous at best.

Regarding withholding of foreign aid on "moral" grounds - it's bad, regardless of what the "morals" happen to be, to punish those people who are in need of aid, for problems with their government. This thread, however, is specifically about that issue in relation to homosexuality.

edited 10th Dec '11 8:40:48 PM by ekuseruekuseru

 120 USAF713, Sat, 10th Dec '11 8:43:25 PM from the United States
I changed accounts.
Well, by the original definition of genocide, but as I understand it the definition has been widened officially, so the contention is moot and pointlessly pedantic.

Mass killings is mass killings, regardless of what term you'd like to name it by.

And, if it's damned if you do, damned if you don't—aiding countries that do this versus potentially letting people starve; also, that assumes they even use the aid properly—I'd rather at least be morally and principally superior by not aiding genocidal manics and idiots...
I am now known as Flyboy.
 121 Rocket Dude, Sat, 10th Dec '11 8:44:57 PM from AZ, United States
This hat doesn't fit!
Granted, I think wanting LGBT people to not get killed for being LGBT falls more under human rights/ethics rather than morality.
Tumblr | "Hipsters: the most dangerous gang in the US." - Pacific Mackerel
 122 Inhopelessguy, Sat, 10th Dec '11 8:47:02 PM from Birmingham, Greater Europe Relationship Status: Gonna take a lot to drag me away from you
Psych Lad
Does the US dole out foreign aid based on other human-rights factors, or just LGBT?
There are so many things that I could say.

But they might come out all wrong.

Just that... you're something I can't replace.
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.
Total posts: 122
 1  2  3  4
5


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy