Intersectionalism reaching full madness?

[Galloism]

It's a pretty major step forward because it means the republican party will commit to it, and if the democrats take them up on it, then it's a fait accomplis since most of the major powers in the world will back the decision, save for perhaps China.

Just because Trump and his administration is committed to it doesn't mean all the Republicans will commit to it, especially those with a strong evangelical base which have reacted very negatively to the proposal. Heck, Roy Moore only narrowly lost in Alabama and he openly called for the criminalisation of homosexual sex nationwide.

I think you’ll find even most republican voters tend to disapprove of a “hang the gays” policy when exposed to it.

Keep in mind, this isn’t an effort to make homosexual marriage legal, or trying to get them adoption rights, or business anti discrimination laws.

It appears to be about literally stopping the hangings.

Even among republicans, “hang the gays” is very much a minority position.

[The South Falls]

Just because Trump and his administration is committed to it doesn't mean all the Republicans will commit to it, especially those with a strong evangelical base which have reacted very negatively to the proposal. Heck, Roy Moore only narrowly lost in Alabama and he openly called for the criminalisation of homosexual sex nationwide.

I think you’ll find even most republican voters tend to disapprove of a “hang the gays” policy when exposed to it.

Keep in mind, this isn’t an effort to make homosexual marriage legal, or trying to get them adoption rights, or business anti discrimination laws.

It appears to be about literally stopping the hangings.

Even among republicans, “hang the gays” is very much a minority position.

"Make Gay Private Again" is a more common stance.

[Galloism]

I think you’ll find even most republican voters tend to disapprove of a “hang the gays” policy when exposed to it.

Keep in mind, this isn’t an effort to make homosexual marriage legal, or trying to get them adoption rights, or business anti discrimination laws.

It appears to be about literally stopping the hangings.

Even among republicans, “hang the gays” is very much a minority position.

"Make Gay Private Again" is a more common stance.

Correct. But if that’s your stance (which I find deplorable mind you), Iran is still in the wrong here. Even by their own ethics and positions of the Republican party members at large.

[Ifreann]

It'll be better than nothing if it accomplishes something.

Even if it accomplishes nothing, and even if it is a cheap domestic political trick, I'd rather have a US government that at least pays lip service to promoting LGBT rights on the international stage than one that doesn't.

Even as they ban trans people from the military, even as some Republicans support criminalising homosexuality in the US, at least they pretend to care about LGBT rights when they can use that to bash Iran?

[Galloism]

Even if it accomplishes nothing, and even if it is a cheap domestic political trick, I'd rather have a US government that at least pays lip service to promoting LGBT rights on the international stage than one that doesn't.

Even as they ban trans people from the military, even as some Republicans support criminalising homosexuality in the US, at least they pretend to care about LGBT rights when they can use that to bash Iran?

I mean, at least at hanging they draw the line.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Even if it accomplishes nothing, and even if it is a cheap domestic political trick, I'd rather have a US government that at least pays lip service to promoting LGBT rights on the international stage than one that doesn't.

Even as they ban trans people from the military, even as some Republicans support criminalising homosexuality in the US, at least they pretend to care about LGBT rights when they can use that to bash Iran?

Why are you painting a picture that Republicans are just as bad as Iranians. Its not like they literally kill them.

Perhaps Republicans value the fact that needless bloodshed is bad.

[Farnhamia]

Even as they ban trans people from the military, even as some Republicans support criminalising homosexuality in the US, at least they pretend to care about LGBT rights when they can use that to bash Iran?

Why are you painting a picture that Republicans are just as bad as Iranians. Its not like they literally kill them.

Perhaps Republicans value the fact that needless bloodshed is bad.

Needless bloodshed does need to stop but the Republicans seem to think this gets them a pass on their domestic policies toward LGBT people.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Even as they ban trans people from the military, even as some Republicans support criminalising homosexuality in the US, at least they pretend to care about LGBT rights when they can use that to bash Iran?

Why are you painting a picture that Republicans are just as bad as Iranians. Its not like they literally kill them.

Perhaps Republicans value the fact that needless bloodshed is bad.

Then why do they push so often for bombing places?

[Kowani]

Why are you painting a picture that Republicans are just as bad as Iranians. Its not like they literally kill them.

Perhaps Republicans value the fact that needless bloodshed is bad.

Then why do they push so often for bombing places?

Gotta fight communism protect the nation fight for human rights get those oil dollars.

[Bear Stearns]

Trying to end the criminalization of homosexuality globally is stupid.

And Trump is stupid for even suggesting we should use military force to achieve this.

[Purgatio]

Just because Trump and his administration is committed to it doesn't mean all the Republicans will commit to it, especially those with a strong evangelical base which have reacted very negatively to the proposal. Heck, Roy Moore only narrowly lost in Alabama and he openly called for the criminalisation of homosexual sex nationwide.

I think you’ll find even most republican voters tend to disapprove of a “hang the gays” policy when exposed to it.

Keep in mind, this isn’t an effort to make homosexual marriage legal, or trying to get them adoption rights, or business anti discrimination laws.

It appears to be about literally stopping the hangings.

Even among republicans, “hang the gays” is very much a minority position.

I seem to remember when Hillary Clinton did nothing more than simply say "Gay Rights are Human Rights and Human Rights are Gay Rights" on a global stage, many GOP voters reacted with outrage and disgust that she was even trying to promote immoral and un-Christian values around the globe. If even that highly-ambiguous statement alone was enough to anger GOP voters and evangelicals, I shudder to think what the average evangelical voter thinks of attempts to specifically decriminalise and remove sodomy legislation around the globe.

[Anantpura]

I know this won't be popular, but this is a hegemonic decision that undermines the sovereignty of many nations and national self-determination. Why should a guy in the opposite end of the globe decide the internal policies of my nation??

As far as I can tell, the policy is aimed at promoting LGBT rights and equality by encouraging and pressuring countries to change their laws and protect LGBT rights. That isn't hegemonic. It's not like Trump is saying he will invade countries that breach LGBT rights and install pro-LGBT puppet governments or anything like that.

Also, I should probably point out this absolutist approach implies that international law should have nothing to say about genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and what not. Maybe that is the position you take, who knows.

Would you like it if the leader of a foreign power, with an alien culture and moral values, decides to interfere in your nations affairs by promoting an ideology suitable to its culture, influencing your elections and disrupting profitable trade?

[Purgatio]

As far as I can tell, the policy is aimed at promoting LGBT rights and equality by encouraging and pressuring countries to change their laws and protect LGBT rights. That isn't hegemonic. It's not like Trump is saying he will invade countries that breach LGBT rights and install pro-LGBT puppet governments or anything like that.

Also, I should probably point out this absolutist approach implies that international law should have nothing to say about genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and what not. Maybe that is the position you take, who knows.

Would you like it if the leader of a foreign power, with an alien culture and moral values, decides to interfere in your nations affairs by promoting an ideology suitable to its culture, influencing your elections and disrupting profitable trade?

As an LGBT person who doesn't live in the West, I appreciate any attempt by a foreign leader to promote basic human decency. This isn't about promoting some controversial economic or trade or commercial policy that reasonable people will disagree on - sodomy laws are immoral and cannot be justified on any sensible or logically-coherent basis. Only truly corrupt and morally-bankrupt people think the criminalisation of an entire sexual minority is morally-justifiable. I think it's pretty rich for a nation that actively persecutes a vulnerable and helpless minority for how they were born to turn around and play the victim, pretending they are the ones 'suffering' the persecution of an outside power. Get over yourself. You are not the victim here, you seriously need to get some perspective.

[Anantpura]

Would you like it if the leader of a foreign power, with an alien culture and moral values, decides to interfere in your nations affairs by promoting an ideology suitable to its culture, influencing your elections and disrupting profitable trade?

As an LGBT person who doesn't live in the West, I appreciate any attempt by a foreign leader to promote basic human decency. This isn't about promoting some controversial economic or trade or commercial policy that reasonable people will disagree on - sodomy laws are immoral and cannot be justified on any sensible or logically-coherent basis. Only truly corrupt and morally-bankrupt people think the criminalisation of an entire sexual minority is morally-justifiable. I think it's pretty rich for a nation that actively persecutes a vulnerable and helpless minority for how they were born to turn around and play the victim, pretending they are the ones 'suffering' the persecution of an outside power. Get over yourself. You are not the victim here, you seriously need to get some perspective.

Hmm... Actually thinking about it, you are not wrong. You have changed my mind on this issue. However, it is wrong to call sodomy laws not controversial. Afterall, they were made for a reason...

[Purgatio]

As an LGBT person who doesn't live in the West, I appreciate any attempt by a foreign leader to promote basic human decency. This isn't about promoting some controversial economic or trade or commercial policy that reasonable people will disagree on - sodomy laws are immoral and cannot be justified on any sensible or logically-coherent basis. Only truly corrupt and morally-bankrupt people think the criminalisation of an entire sexual minority is morally-justifiable. I think it's pretty rich for a nation that actively persecutes a vulnerable and helpless minority for how they were born to turn around and play the victim, pretending they are the ones 'suffering' the persecution of an outside power. Get over yourself. You are not the victim here, you seriously need to get some perspective.

Hmm... Actually thinking about it, you are not wrong. You have changed my mind on this issue. However, it is wrong to call sodomy laws not controversial.

I guess it depends on what one means by controversial. People generally use the word in two senses. One sense is to mean that people on the planet vigorously disagree on the topic. The second sense is to mean that the topic or issue isn't factually in dispute.

To give an example, if I say "the theory of evolution or anthropogenic climate change as scientific fact is not controversial at this point", I'm using the word controversial in the second sense rather than the first. Obviously, evolution and human-caused climate change remains very much contested by many people in the world, but the statement is intended to mean that the facts, logic and reason clearly support only one position on the matter.

So when I say "the immorality of sodomy laws is not controversial", I'm using the word in the same sense. Of course, lots of people disagree about whether homosexuality should be illegal, but I'm saying on any reasonable or rational argumentation, only one side of the issue is logically and morally coherent, and the other is discordant, inconsistent, irrational and based entirely on emotion.

[Anantpura]

Hmm... Actually thinking about it, you are not wrong. You have changed my mind on this issue. However, it is wrong to call sodomy laws not controversial.

I guess it depends on what one means by controversial. People generally use the word in two senses. One sense is to mean that people on the planet vigorously disagree on the topic. The second sense is to mean that the topic or issue isn't factually in dispute.

To give an example, if I say "the theory of evolution or anthropogenic climate change as scientific fact is not controversial at this point", I'm using the word controversial in the second sense rather than the first. Obviously, evolution and human-caused climate change remains very much contested by many people in the world, but the statement is intended to mean that the facts, logic and reason clearly support only one position on the matter.

So when I say "the immorality of sodomy laws is not controversial", I'm using the word in the same sense. Of course, lots of people disagree about whether homosexuality should be illegal, but I'm saying on any reasonable or rational argumentation, only one side of the issue is logically and morally coherent, and the other is discordant, inconsistent, irrational and based entirely on emotion.

Actually, it is pretty controversial, logically speaking. The factors that lead to sodomy are self-perpetuating and often cause emotional and mental anguish, that carries over the generation. The slippery slope factor and increased risk of suicide. That is a different topic perhaps, so I shouldn't de-rail the conversation.

I do agree that countries that continue heinous practices of hanging should have some incentive to stop that, even if this is not the best for international sovereignty.

[Purgatio]

I guess it depends on what one means by controversial. People generally use the word in two senses. One sense is to mean that people on the planet vigorously disagree on the topic. The second sense is to mean that the topic or issue isn't factually in dispute.

To give an example, if I say "the theory of evolution or anthropogenic climate change as scientific fact is not controversial at this point", I'm using the word controversial in the second sense rather than the first. Obviously, evolution and human-caused climate change remains very much contested by many people in the world, but the statement is intended to mean that the facts, logic and reason clearly support only one position on the matter.

So when I say "the immorality of sodomy laws is not controversial", I'm using the word in the same sense. Of course, lots of people disagree about whether homosexuality should be illegal, but I'm saying on any reasonable or rational argumentation, only one side of the issue is logically and morally coherent, and the other is discordant, inconsistent, irrational and based entirely on emotion.

Actually, it is pretty controversial, logically speaking. The factors that lead to sodomy are self-perpetuating and often cause emotional and mental anguish, that carries over the generation. The slippery slope factor and increased risk of suicide. That is a different topic perhaps, so I shouldn't de-rail the conversation.

I do agree that countries that continue heinous practices of hanging should have some incentive to stop that, even if this is not the best for international sovereignty.

Actually, whether sodomy laws are justifiable or not is 100% relevant to this forum topic, and as part of that discussion it is natural for homophobic individuals to bring up long scientifically-debunked, pseudo-scientific ideas about how homosexual behaviour is apparently self-destructive.

All I'm going to say is I love it when anti-gay bigots cite high suicide rates amongst LGBT individuals as somehow 'evidence' that homosexuality is self-harming, unnatural or self-destructive. Gee, that seems the obvious inference to draw, I mean its not like living in a society that hates you, wants to criminalise you, believes you a perverse abomination that is a danger to their children, and constantly drills the message into your head that you are going to go to hell and your entire community is a repugnant moral aberration, can't possibly contribute to the high suicide rates amongst LGBT young people in particular. No, clearly there's just something inherently abominable about a guy liking another guy that is so biologically-aberrant that, devoid of any social conditions and prejudices, drives someone to suicide. There's just something inherent and intrinsic about a guy's lips touching another guy's lips that renders one suicidal in a way a girl's lips magically don't (for....you know....reasons...which are never explained).

Just face it, the case for sodomy laws is not only morally-bankrupt, its so shockingly logically-incoherent and factually-contradictory and capricious that its honestly surprising so many people support it (perhaps evidence of those persons' lack of mental faculties of basic reasoning and critical examination of their ideas and inclinations).

[Anantpura]

I'm not stating that anti-sodomy laws are correct. After all, from a rational standpoint, these laws waste law-enforcement resources, tax-paywr money and manpower. That it leads to killing of persons for their personal choice is even worse. Citizens should have as many rights as long as it doesn't obstruct someone else. One cannot say that sodomy, however degenerate one may consider it to be, obstructs him/her.
All I am saying is that your viewpoint is not completely justified logically, as there are certain downsides to it.
Following your example, if I say that we should do something to mitigate climate change, that would be a good policy, but does have some drawbacks, thus is controversial.

[Galloism]

I think you’ll find even most republican voters tend to disapprove of a “hang the gays” policy when exposed to it.

Keep in mind, this isn’t an effort to make homosexual marriage legal, or trying to get them adoption rights, or business anti discrimination laws.

It appears to be about literally stopping the hangings.

Even among republicans, “hang the gays” is very much a minority position.

I seem to remember when Hillary Clinton did nothing more than simply say "Gay Rights are Human Rights and Human Rights are Gay Rights" on a global stage, many GOP voters reacted with outrage and disgust that she was even trying to promote immoral and un-Christian values around the globe. If even that highly-ambiguous statement alone was enough to anger GOP voters and evangelicals, I shudder to think what the average evangelical voter thinks of attempts to specifically decriminalise and remove sodomy legislation around the globe.

I don't remember them acting with outrage and disgust at that, but Hilary has said a lot of things.

Hell, she said that women are the primary victims when men are literally killed. That didn't get a lot of outrage though.

[Ifreann]

Even as they ban trans people from the military, even as some Republicans support criminalising homosexuality in the US, at least they pretend to care about LGBT rights when they can use that to bash Iran?

I mean, at least at hanging they draw the line.

If that bar was any lower it'd be infringing on the territory of the Kingdom of the Mole.

---

Even as they ban trans people from the military, even as some Republicans support criminalising homosexuality in the US, at least they pretend to care about LGBT rights when they can use that to bash Iran?

Why are you painting a picture that Republicans are just as bad as Iranians.

Pointing out that Republicans are bad does not mean that I'm saying they're as bad as Iran.

[Purgatio]

I'm not stating that anti-sodomy laws are correct. After all, from a rational standpoint, these laws waste law-enforcement resources, tax-paywr money and manpower. That it leads to killing of persons for their personal choice is even worse. Citizens should have as many rights as long as it doesn't obstruct someone else. One cannot say that sodomy, however degenerate one may consider it to be, obstructs him/her.
All I am saying is that your viewpoint is not completely justified logically, as there are certain downsides to it.
Following your example, if I say that we should do something to mitigate climate change, that would be a good policy, but does have some drawbacks, thus is controversial.

I should really know better by now, I've been on NSG way too long to make this rookie mistake, but I can't help it, so I'm gonna bite:

What on Earth are the "drawbacks" of there being gay people in the world, exactly?

[Anantpura]

I'm not stating that anti-sodomy laws are correct. After all, from a rational standpoint, these laws waste law-enforcement resources, tax-paywr money and manpower. That it leads to killing of persons for their personal choice is even worse. Citizens should have as many rights as long as it doesn't obstruct someone else. One cannot say that sodomy, however degenerate one may consider it to be, obstructs him/her.
All I am saying is that your viewpoint is not completely justified logically, as there are certain downsides to it.
Following your example, if I say that we should do something to mitigate climate change, that would be a good policy, but does have some drawbacks, thus is controversial.

I should really know better by now, I've been on NSG way too long to make this rookie mistake, but I can't help it, so I'm gonna bite:

What on Earth are the "drawbacks" of there being gay people in the world, exactly?

Uh...
Christians don't like it? Its unnatural? Its degenerate and corrupting? Accidents in the back seat don't result in children? It normalises sexual deviants and pedophilia? Children exposed to sodomy are traumatized for their life? It leads to high suicide rates?

I dunno, these are the popular concerns raised by those against sodomy. I guess most of it is wrong, but it is unnatural (though marriage and Reese Cups^TM are unnatural too), it does not give the joy of children to a couple (we are created to have children, so it is a valid one) while homosexuals who become hetero can have children, and sexual minorities do have higher suicide rates, how much inherent to their condition is not determined.

[Galloism]

I mean, at least at hanging they draw the line.

If that bar was any lower it'd be infringing on the territory of the Kingdom of the Mole.

The mole people are a proud people, with traditions stretching back to antiquity and a rich and diverse culture.

[Sicaris]

Even if it accomplishes nothing, and even if it is a cheap domestic political trick, I'd rather have a US government that at least pays lip service to promoting LGBT rights on the international stage than one that doesn't.

Even as they ban trans people from the military, even as some Republicans support criminalising homosexuality in the US, at least they pretend to care about LGBT rights when they can use that to bash Iran?

You can’t try to paint them as the bad guys by saying some Republicans want to criminalize homosexuality. Someone could easily rebound back and say that some Democrats want abortion available at every point in a pregnancy, for example.

It’s simply not wise.

As for banning transgender people from the military; 1, they are a very small percentage of the population in the first place, and an even smaller percentage of this already small percentage will go into the military. It’s not a very impactful law, and it’s not only for their safety to an extent (the military isn’t known for being friendly) but also due to the fact that their treatments, if they are undergoing them, could put them at risk.

[Andsed]

I should really know better by now, I've been on NSG way too long to make this rookie mistake, but I can't help it, so I'm gonna bite:

What on Earth are the "drawbacks" of there being gay people in the world, exactly?

Uh...
Christians don't like it? Its unnatural? Its degenerate and corrupting? Accidents in the back seat don't result in children? It normalises sexual deviants and pedophilia? Children exposed to sodomy are traumatized for their life? It leads to high suicide rates?

I dunno, these are the popular concerns raised by those against sodomy. I guess most of it is wrong, but it is unnatural (though marriage and Reese Cups^TM are unnatural too), it does not give the joy of children to a couple (we are created to have children, so it is a valid one) while homosexuals who become hetero can have children, and sexual minorities do have higher suicide rates, how much inherent to their condition is not determined.

Christians don't like it

Well to bad their feelings are not more important than others right.

Its unnatural

No it´s not.

Its degenerate and corrupting

How?

Accidents in the back seat don't result in children

Ever heard of adoption or vito fertilization?

It normalises sexual deviants and pedophilia

no it does not. To compare homosexuality to pedophilia is insulting.

Children exposed to sodomy are traumatized for their life

Two people of the same gender kissing is not traumatizing.

It leads to high suicide rates

Maybe people telling them they are corrupt and degenerate and that their going to hell might have something to do with that?