NationStates Jolt Archive

This relates to the other thread about homosexuals and the Islamism thread.

Anyway, my question is - How is homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality dealt with in Muslim Countries? Especially Saudi Arabia and Syria? And what are your views on them?

Well, for one, I believe that a theocracy should not be forced to renounce its state religion because if the majority of the nation's government is Islam, and the state and the mosque are combined, then why tamper with it?

I also believe that whatever the Qu'ran says about homosexuality, then people should deal with it that way because its the religion the state believes in.

Don't get me wrong but I just don't like influence when it comes to politics.

Wait, are you saying you're in favor of theocracy and whatever punishments a theocracy might hand out to homosexuals?

No, I'm saying that if the state religion requires it do (lets say, God forbid, the stoning of homosexuals), then that shouldn't be tampered with because its a religion. Religion should be respected, and most of the population, if not all, in Saudi Arabia and Syria believe in Islam, so changing their government from theocracies to democracies is wrong since you'll be tampering with the Qu'ran itself (which is part of a religion).

Although I am against the death of homosexuals, the Qu'ran does say that governments should be run under it, so your tampering with religion, and I disagree with it.

The population of the Middle East accepts Islam, so whatever the Qu'ran requires doesn't come to their complaints.

just let me sum this up real nice.

if the state religion requires ..the stoning of homosexuals..then that shouldn't be tampered with. ..changing their government from theocracies to democracies is wrong ..

ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR F*ING MIND? i sincerely hope so because if you're not...oh my, i need to cool off. hold on.

Anyway, my question is - How is homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality dealt with in Muslim Countries? Especially Saudi Arabia and Syria? And what are your views on them?
Well, apparently it is punished by law in many places.
Well, for one, I believe that a theocracy should not be forced to renounce its state religion because if the majority of the nation's government is Islam, and the state and the mosque are combined, then why tamper with it?
If anybody is being hanged for no good reason, such as in Iran, that is more than enough reason to force it to at least recognize human rights.
I also believe that whatever the Qu'ran says about homosexuality, then people should deal with it that way because its the religion the state believes in.
What is it that makes it right for the majority to exert its influence?
Don't get me wrong but I just don't like influence when it comes to politics.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that.

Yeesh, this thread is going to end badly.

Frankly, you might have a point. If a country wishes to govern itself by religious teachings, then they should have the right to do so, provided two things:

A) They keep it to themselves. Indeed, even the U.S. of A. could harken unto this commandment. So long as they don't try to extend their religious influence to other countries, then they are within their rights.

B) They allow dissenters to leave. As you mentioned, one of the more gruesome punishments for homosexuality under Islamic law is execution. It occurs to me that, in an issue such as this, a person should have the right to be exiled, rather than murdered for something that is most likely not even of their choosing.

Mind you, no theocracy in history has managed to keep its pious little hands to itself.

No, I'm saying that if the state religion requires it do (lets say, God forbid, the stoning of homosexuals), then that shouldn't be tampered with because its a religion. Religion should be respected, and most of the population, if not all, in Saudi Arabia and Syria believe in Islam, so changing their government from theocracies to democracies is wrong since you'll be tampering with the Qu'ran itself (which is part of a religion).

Although I am against the death of homosexuals, the Qu'ran does say that governments should be run under it, so your tampering with religion, and I disagree with it.

The population of the Middle East accepts Islam, so whatever the Qu'ran requires doesn't come to their complaints.
Theocracy has brought about stagnation and isolation wherever it is found. Better to remove theocracy and replace it with secular democracy. Religion should be tampered with whenever it leads to killing people for no good reason. Stoning gays is not justified.

No, I'm saying that if the state religion requires it do (lets say, God forbid, the stoning of homosexuals), then that shouldn't be tampered with because its a religion. Religion should be respected, and most of the population, if not all, in Saudi Arabia and Syria believe in Islam, so changing their government from theocracies to democracies is wrong since you'll be tampering with the Qu'ran itself (which is part of a religion).

Although I am against the death of homosexuals, the Qu'ran does say that governments should be run under it, so your tampering with religion, and I disagree with it.
Hypothetical situation:
I believe in blood sacrifice of virgins against their will by throwing them into volcanoes. My religion becomes the majority in my country. Would it then be right for me to throw virgins into volcanoes?
The population of the Middle East accepts Islam, so whatever the Qu'ran requires doesn't come to their complaints.
I bet you'd get a different answer if you asked those who are being persecuted.

okay, i'm gonna do a frsh, educated, civilized attempt. lets look at your post again.

..most of the population..believe in Islam..so changing their government from theocracies to democracies is wrong ..

most of the population in the US believes in christianity. we oughta change it into a theocraty or you'll be tempering with religion. we wouldn't want that, now, would we?

The population of the Middle East accepts Islam, so whatever the Qu'ran requires doesn't come to their complaints

the population of the US accepts christianity. so whatever the bible requires ought to be done.

in case you agree with the stuff in italics, i'll not argue no more but spend the rest of my day happily beating my head against a wall. in case you don't, please re-consider your statements.

Hypothetical situation:
I believe in blood sacrifice of virgins against their will by throwing them into volcanoes. My religion becomes the majority in my country. Would it then be right for me to throw virgins into volcanoes?
Might not be right, but it will definately motivate girls to go out and screw!

Might not be right, but it will definately motivate girls to go out and screw!

More motivation was required?

No, I'm saying that if the state religion requires it do (lets say, God forbid, the stoning of homosexuals), then that shouldn't be tampered with because its a religion. Religion should be respected, and most of the population, if not all, in Saudi Arabia and Syria believe in Islam, so changing their government from theocracies to democracies is wrong since you'll be tampering with the Qu'ran itself (which is part of a religion).

I disagree completely...thats just wrong...i'm a Homosexual athiest....i respect religions etc...but if a religion dictates such things and that a government follows such teachings then that religion should, in my view, not be respected at all!

What is it that makes it right for the majority to exert its influence?
*snip*

its called the consensus view of lawmaking.
what makes it wrong?

okay, i'm gonna do a frsh, educated, civilized attempt. lets look at your post again.



most of the population in the US believes in christianity. we oughta change it into a theocraty or you'll be tempering with religion. we wouldn't want that, now, would we?



the population of the US accepts christianity. so whatever the bible requires ought to be done.

in case you agree with the stuff in italics, i'll not argue no more but spend the rest of my day happily beating my head against a wall. in case you don't, please re-consider your statements.


your second argument is based on your first one so.....


the difference is that the ME countries have a state religion whereas the US does not

Frankly, you might have a point. If a country wishes to govern itself by religious teachings, then they should have the right to do so, provided two things:

A) They keep it to themselves. Indeed, even the U.S. of A. could harken unto this commandment. So long as they don't try to extend their religious influence to other countries, then they are within their rights.

B) They allow dissenters to leave. As you mentioned, one of the more gruesome punishments for homosexuality under Islamic law is execution. It occurs to me that, in an issue such as this, a person should have the right to be exiled, rather than murdered for something that is most likely not even of their choosing.


second. I thought exactly the same thing upon reading the original post. Problems begin when

a) The country in question starts thinking how nifty it would be if all the other countries had the same rules.

B) Human rights are being violated.

its called the consensus view of lawmaking.
what makes it wrong?
When it infringes upon the rights of the minority, especially to the extent of death, it needs to go.

More motivation was required?
Not really, but it can't hurt.

its called the consensus view of lawmaking.
what makes it wrong?

Because for the consensus to have any sort of validity, there must be an understanding of the individual in that population having a right to form an opinion. This means that an individual who disagrees with the consensus must be protected from that consensus should the consensus prove unfair or unjust. Thus, there must be protections for dissenters, otherwise the consensus has absolutely no right to hold an opinion in the first place.

Perhaps our friends from wikipedia can resolve this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Islam

the difference is that the ME countries have a state religion whereas the US does not

yes. i know. but s/he validated having a state religion by the mere fact that the majority of the people believed in that faith. which is the case in the US. and i think it's BS to say that whenever the majority of the population believes in X, X should be introduced as state religion and theocracy established.

Well, for one, I believe that a theocracy should not be forced to renounce its state religion because if the majority of the nation's government is Islam, and the state and the mosque are combined, then why tamper with it?

So if a religion reaches a majority in a nation it's wrong to force it out but while it's a small minority it's acceptable to stomp it out? That was the attitude towards Christianity back in Imperial Rome. And look what happened. It took a politically powerful convert (Constantine) to make it socially acceptable.

But a religion should not be exempt from moral and ethical responsibility just because it happens to be in a majority somewhere. Would you like these "religions" to become an accepted and thus immune majority by your standards?

-Aum Shinri Kyo (the wonderful people who spread sarin gas in the Tokyo Subway system.)

-Branch Davidians (the Messiah marries your preteen girls and stockpiles guns while passing rubber checks.)

-Heaven's Gate (Halley's Comet is coming! Cut off your dick and balls if you want to ride on the UFO!!)

-Jonestown (need I say more?)

-Moonies

-Scientology (Any "religion" that requires oodles of money for "spirituality" is suspicious.)

Well, the Government of the Middle East are trying to be loyal to Islam, and trying to influence them not to is wrong.

And the Qu'ran has specific human rights in it -- just not as much as modern day countries.

Well, the Government of the Middle East are trying to be loyal to Islam, and trying to influence them not to is wrong.

And the Qu'ran has specific human rights in it -- just not as much as modern day countries.
Who's to say it's wrong? Changing them into secular democracies (assuming that's even possible) would only help them. People would be free to contemplate different ideas, free to speak their minds, free to live their lives as they choose to.

For far too long the middle east has been stagnant. I read a statistic that fewer books are translated into Arabic each year than the number of books translated from just Spanish to English. That means that Arabs have access to far fewer new books, and by extension new ideas. Arab universities also graduate far too many people with degrees in Islamic studies, and far too few with degrees that are actually usefull. This dwelling on religion and rejection of the outside world isn't healthy. Someone needs to cure them of it.

For far too long the middle east has been stagnant. I read a statistic that fewer books are translated into Arabic each year than the number of books translated from just Spanish to English. That means that Arabs have access to far fewer new books, and by extension new ideas. Arab universities also graduate far too many people with degrees in Islamic studies, and far too few with degrees that are actually usefull. This dwelling on religion and rejection of the outside world isn't healthy. Someone needs to cure them of it.

The statistics are far more worse than that.

The reason is that it is said in the Qur'an that whatever a man needs to know is divinely revealed in the Qur'an. This is taken to the extreme by rejecting knowledge outside the Qur'an.

Theocracy has brought about stagnation and isolation wherever it is found. Better to remove theocracy and replace it with secular democracy. Religion should be tampered with whenever it leads to killing people for no good reason. Stoning gays is not justified.
As usual, I agree with you.

From what I remember Iran grants transexuals full rights as their 'chosen' sex, and even helps with the costs of the operation.

Well, the Government of the Middle East are trying to be loyal to Islam, and trying to influence them not to is wrong.

And the Qu'ran has specific human rights in it -- just not as much as modern day countries.

They should be influenced in any way they can. Look at this picture for a bit... it is from Iran.. the execution of two gay teens... I'm sorry but there are things that can change real fast.

http://direland.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/irangay_teens.jpg

So no I'm sorry but they have no right to execute people over their sexuality.

Anyway, my question is - How is homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality dealt with in Muslim Countries? Especially Saudi Arabia and Syria? And what are your views on them?

Homosexuality in the Middle East is just not talked about, period. The entire society is in denial about its very existence. But I'd leave them alone about this. The Middle East has so many other problems that they don't need to pass some diversity quota or love test imposed by everyone else. They need peace and freedom. Everything else follows.

When it infringes upon the rights of the minority, especially to the extent of death, it needs to go.

Exactly. When religion starts to erode civil rights and hurt people, you have to draw the line. Another reason for the separation of church and state.

Exactly. When religion starts to erode civil rights and hurt people, you have to draw the line. Another reason for the separation of church and state.

I know.. and gay people can love just as much as heterosexuals.. it is just about love... I love a guy, and I know that'll probably never be fully accepted everywhere, at last in my life time.

Exactly. When religion starts to erode civil rights and hurt people, you have to draw the line. Another reason for the separation of church and state.

It's kinda interesting that the person who started this thread hasn't replied to this already. Look, people, destruction of our human rights does not mean destruction of their human rights. We can't prove our rights are in any way superior. Thus, though what they do is harmful according to us, it is not harmful according to them.

A much better argument is that for a consensus to exist it must be nearly unanimous. If there are homosexual people in the middle east that believe that it would be wrong to execute themselves then a consensus does not exist and the basis for making execution of gays the law of the land falls flat.

As to the decline in books translated into Arabic, that's especially ironic given that it was books translated into Arabic that allowed the Renaissance to happen. Perhaps we have some obligation to help the region that got us this far rise to its former glory.

I know.. and gay people can love just as much as heterosexuals.. it is just about love... I love a guy, and I know that'll probably never be fully accepted everywhere, at last in my life time.

A noble sentiment, but one connected to the topic?

I am writing from Morocco this moment. As most of you know this is a muslim state. Now what I see here is foreigners coming here from the middle east, Europe and the Americas coming here as sex tourists. There is one specific place that is known for the sex trade which is Agadir. One gentleman seated next to me on the flight over from NY was coming here for 4 days only going to Agadir to see a "friend". It was very clear by his mannerisms that he was gay. Two Europeans riding in my compartment on the train to Marrakech were also heading south to Agadir. They to were in my mind and the wifes that they to were gay. So it seems the gay and straight sex trade is still alive and well here in Morocco. Now recently they have cracked down on prostitutes. Alot of middle eastren men have been thrown from the country because of it. One thing though only mentioned on the news is a crackdown on straight prostitution. Not a word about gay prostitution mentioned on state tv. However my brother in law is in law enforcement here in Morocco. He has brought the subject of a crackdown on both types of prostitution.
Which after just a basic look at the situation here I believe that the public has there collective heads in the sand about gay issues. It is a bit of an odd thing to me still but I believe its going to be a long time if ever gay issues will be adressed in this nation. First thing that has to happen is for the public to actually admit there is a portion of society that is gay in the first place. That to me is going to be a major undertaking.

Anyone who advocates anything that can lead to the death of innocent men and women because of their sexual preference is a sad ignorant bastard.
That photo made me feel sick. If your for people getting punished because of that, you are the one who deserved to be hung. I've been kicked out of home and rejected by a lot of my friends for my sexual preference, but the second someone throws a rock at me for it, i'm getting out my guns.
heh. if no ones guessed, i am a gay atheist, and openly biased against non-democratic government systems.

Nobody should mess with another country's internal politics. Imposing our form of democracy onto another culture, with differing beliefs, values etc. smacks of cultural colonialism to me. I don't think it's right for gays to be persecuted, but at the same time, that is my cultural belief, not theirs. If they want to start executing LGBT persons in my country, then I'll suggest that we reeducate them as to our cultural beliefs, and thank them to stay out of my country's internal affairs.

BTW: LGBT can seek asylum status on grounds of persecution because of sexuality, I believe. Does anyone know if this is true?

P.S. guys: USA-style democracy is not the only form, nor is it necessarily the best form, of democracy. It is a culturally biased version of democracy, relevant to the US context only.

Nobody should mess with another country's internal politics. Imposing our form of democracy onto another culture, with differing beliefs, values etc. smacks of cultural colonialism to me. I don't think it's right for gays to be persecuted, but at the same time, that is my cultural belief, not theirs. If they want to start executing LGBT persons in my country, then I'll suggest that we reeducate them as to our cultural beliefs, and thank them to stay out of my country's internal affairs.

BTW: LGBT can seek asylum status on grounds of persecution because of sexuality, I believe. Does anyone know if this is true?

P.S. guys: USA-style democracy is not the only form, nor is it necessarily the best form, of democracy. It is a culturally biased version of democracy, relevant to the US context only.

While it may be wrong to impose our culture on another culture, the fact that there are homosexuals in the middle east who don't want to die means that there is no such thing as "Middle East Culture". What we're dealing with is a contest between at least two cultures, and majoritarianism is a patently stupid way to adjudicate between them. We can't use a value only one culture holds to judge the other. We need to use some sort of intercultural code to judge which view should hold, and the only code like that that exists today is the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. If we need to decide who wins, the theocratic culture or the gays that think they have a right to stay alive culture, we look to the UNDHR.

And the UNDHR is about as culturally biased document as you can get. The Human Rights enshrined in that document come from a Western cultural perspective, and have no relevance to a majority of cultures. We don't like it (or at least I don't) when Muslim men in Western countries suggest that Western women deserve to be raped, or rape Western women because of their (Muslim) cultural belief. We don't accept their cultural belief as a reason to break the laws of our country. We do not allow fathers to murder their daughters for dishonouring family. We do not allow FGM to occur, because it is against our laws, which are born out of our cultural heritage. Why should another country be forced to do what we will not, simply because their beliefs are different to our own?

And the UNDHR is about as culturally biased document as you can get. The Human Rights enshrined in that document come from a Western cultural perspective, and have no relevance to a majority of cultures. We don't like it (or at least I don't) when Muslim men in Western countries suggest that Western women deserve to be raped, or rape Western women because of their (Muslim) cultural belief. We don't accept their cultural belief as a reason to break the laws of our country. We do not allow fathers to murder their daughters for dishonouring family. We do not allow FGM to occur, because it is against our laws, which are born out of our cultural heritage. Why should another country be forced to do what we will not, simply because their beliefs are different to our own?

First, you totally ignored the point of my post that we're not going against some monolithic "Middle East Culture", you're intervening on behalf of one middle eastern culture against another. The only way to choose between them is to use a code to designed to adjudicate between different cultural values. Biased though it may be (and its not as biased as you think) the UNDHR is the ONLY intercultural code available to us to use. You may not like it, but its all we have to go on.

well, no one said US style democracy was the only type. Im just saying, a theocracy definately isnt one, and a dont think anyone should be killed for anything less than murder or rape and the like. If a gay guy was hung for rape, I'd agree with that, but a gay guy being hung for being gay is pretty unfair. Death or severe punishments should be reserved for actual crimes.

First, you totally ignored the point of my post that we're not going against some monolithic "Middle East Culture", you're intervening on behalf of one middle eastern culture against another. The only way to choose between them is to use a code to designed to adjudicate between different cultural values. Biased though it may be (and its not as biased as you think) the UNDHR is the ONLY intercultural code available to us to use. You may not like it, but its all we have to go on.

No I didn't. I drew an analogy to the fact that in the West, we impose our own cultural values on another culture that exists within our own Western culture. We don't allow Muslim men of certain cultural backgrounds to rape Western women, because their cultural belief says it's ok. Why should we expect Muslim countries to allow people to break their laws, because the subculture of the lawbreakers says it's ok?

well, no one said US style democracy was the only type. Im just saying, a theocracy definately isnt one, and a dont think anyone should be killed for anything less than murder or rape and the like. If a gay guy was hung for rape, I'd agree with that, but a gay guy being hung for being gay is pretty unfair. Death or severe punishments should be reserved for actual crimes.

But a lot of people in this thread are attributing characteristics of US democracy to the concept of democracy in general.

That's your cultural belief (Which I happen to agree with). Not the belief of the culture in question.

Well, the Government of the Middle East are trying to be loyal to Islam, and trying to influence them not to is wrong.

And the Qu'ran has specific human rights in it -- just not as much as modern day countries.


So you're saying that trying to convince them to change their ways is somehow more wrong than letting homosexuals get murdered? Suck my balls.

Nobody should mess with another country's internal politics. Imposing our form of democracy onto another culture, with differing beliefs, values etc. smacks of cultural colonialism to me. I don't think it's right for gays to be persecuted, but at the same time, that is my cultural belief, not theirs. If they want to start executing LGBT persons in my country, then I'll suggest that we reeducate them as to our cultural beliefs, and thank them to stay out of my country's internal affairs.

Using that logic, we should not of got ourselves involved in WWII, because Germany should be allowed to do its own internal politics. I'm sorry but your suggestions of cultural colonialism is nonsense. These are peoples lives we are talking about. People like myself. Your talk is isolationist and not acceptable. For example, we should of also done something with Rwanda in 1993-1995.


P.S. guys: USA-style democracy is not the only form, nor is it necessarily the best form, of democracy. It is a culturally biased version of democracy, relevant to the US context only.

How the fuck is a country that executes gay people, being close to any form of democracy?

Well, apparently it is punished by law in many places.

If anybody is being hanged for no good reason, such as in Iran, that is more than enough reason to force it to at least recognize human rights.

What is it that makes it right for the majority to exert its influence?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that.


well keep hating the states and supporting our common enemy(theocratic,neo con,islamaturds)and you will get exactly what you wish for....an intolerant group that will stone you for your sexuality.at least in the usa we just make fun of you...not stone you...and i am bi sexual...so i will take the usa over any islamacrat society anyday.

not to sound like a flamebaiter but please..i read daily all sorts of people writing how bad the us is..but if the theocrats ever had there way...look out...fuckin nutcases and intolerance is not a strong enough word for there ideas..but the us is the bad guy..wake up :headbang:

Who's to say it's wrong? Changing them into secular democracies (assuming that's even possible) would only help them. People would be free to contemplate different ideas, free to speak their minds, free to live their lives as they choose to.

For far too long the middle east has been stagnant. I read a statistic that fewer books are translated into Arabic each year than the number of books translated from just Spanish to English. That means that Arabs have access to far fewer new books, and by extension new ideas. Arab universities also graduate far too many people with degrees in Islamic studies, and far too few with degrees that are actually usefull. This dwelling on religion and rejection of the outside world isn't healthy. Someone needs to cure them of it.


i kinda hoped we were doing that with the war...no one really thought it was about wmd's really?

I do not believe any person in a different culture or different country is any less capable of voting, and living free democratic lives. Whether it is someone in Lebanon, Iran or China. I feel they all could be free, living in secular republics that respect their own sense of beliefs but alos protecting minorities.

Mescatela, I have already stated that I think it is wrong for anyone to be persecuted because of who they choose to love. But to suggest that we should impose our beliefs about right and wrong on another country is culturally imperialist.

Furthermore, everyone in every nation is capable of voting. But some people don't want to. Several of my friends are Asian, and have no interest whatsoever in voting. Their argument: it is against our culture. Voting means putting our own interests ahead of the majority.

And how the fuck dare you tell me what is and is not acceptable talk? I can say whatever I like, as long as it isn't against the law.

Furthermore, everyone in every nation is capable of voting. But some people don't want to. Several of my friends are Asian, and have no interest whatsoever in voting. Their argument: it is against our culture. Voting means putting our own interests ahead of the majority.

And how the fuck dare you tell me what is and is not acceptable talk? I can say whatever I like, as long as it isn't against the law.

Interesting...so all the people living under dictatorship or in a theocratic dictatorship are allowed to actually vote...let me get this right, we are from the same planet? This strange green-blue globe floating in the middle of nowhere? Where have you been the last...say 20.000 years?

And for manners of speech and acceptable talk...read thread policies. I didn´t use the evil f... word or like stuff, right. Though sometimes I feel a strong urge, like now... :rolleyes:

CK: I never said that anyone under a dictatorship etc. could vote. I'm not an idiot. I just suggested that we place a value on voting that people from some cultures don't.

And I was referring to Mescatela who told me that what I had said previously regarding my belief that we should stay out of other nation's internal politics when it comes to issues like this was unacceptable.

No, I'm saying that if the state religion requires it do (lets say, God forbid, the stoning of homosexuals), then that shouldn't be tampered with because its a religion. Religion should be respected, and most of the population, if not all, in Saudi Arabia and Syria believe in Islam, so changing their government from theocracies to democracies is wrong since you'll be tampering with the Qu'ran itself (which is part of a religion).

Although I am against the death of homosexuals, the Qu'ran does say that governments should be run under it, so your tampering with religion, and I disagree with it.

The population of the Middle East accepts Islam, so whatever the Qu'ran requires doesn't come to their complaints.I take it you wouldn't have opposed the human sacrifices the Aztecs made because they were for religious reasons either...

CK: I never said that anyone under a dictatorship etc. could vote. I'm not an idiot. I just suggested that we place a value on voting that people from some cultures don't.



Okay, though it seems kind of hairsplitting to me...yes, you said everyone in every country has the capability to vote, but this is like saying everyone can get a job, everyone has the capability to move everywhere freely...if it´s just hypothetical, then it makes no sense at all

Using that logic, we should not of got ourselves involved in WWII, because Germany should be allowed to do its own internal politics. Um... Germany declared war on the US first, so that refutes the idea that the US got involved in "German internal politics". Second, WWII was about the German attack on Poland. Now if you consider Poland part of Germany, as Hitler did, then yes, Great Britain and France involved themselves in German internal politics. I'd disagree.
How the fuck is a country that executes gay people, being close to any form of democracy?Judicial systems may reflect the political system but aren't equatable with it. The United States, for instance, executes gay people. Not for being gay, mind you, but it does. Technically speaking, however, the last instance of two gays being executed I heard of was about them being "child-molesters" (which was a bullshit claim, but they were not officially executed for being gay).

Don't get me wrong but I just don't like influence when it comes to politics.


Unless a theocracy pursues nucleear weapons to kill the infidel... :)

Might not be right, but it will definately motivate girls to go out and screw!

I laughed out loud at that. That deserves a sig quote!

*sighs and buries his head in his hands* I am an advocate of the 'no-touchy' type of policies, where allowed to do what you want (withing reason) provided it doesnt interfere with what other people want.
eg I want to stay alive, they want me dead : I win
I want to kill them, they want to live: i lose
I want to have a relationship with someone who wants to have a relationship with me: both win, its not hurting anyone
I want to sleep with someone who doesnt want to: Lose, the persons right to not sleep with them is greater then my right to sleep with them.
See? everyone's happy and minding their business. I hate most government types anyway. Australia is all for cristian values, which sucks. (In a bad way.)
Our media studies class is Very anti American values right now, just to prove its not just eastern countries that are antiamerican. it gets hysterical. We were shown videos of american citizens who had just given their (negative, america-centric,rather cliched) views on a certain country that had been in the news get asked to point to it on a map with all the countries save america mislabeled. they pointed to australia as the island they'd been talking about, despite the fact it wasnt even in the right area at all. Not that that has anything to do with anything. I think what i meant to say is that i hate being hurt, ihate seeing other people get hurt. The rest of 'culture' can go hang, so long as my internet stays connected and i have a packet of cheap biros to draw with.

ehh just read my last post and it makes no sense. I like a culture that counts people as equal. there. thats what i meant. Its the same to say that they can persecute gays as to say that "their culture says they can rape women, so they can do that in their country"
well, hate to say, while it is that countries 'culture' It sure as hell isnt a minority group disadvantaged with women, its half the population. and im sure that the women arent going around thinking "Sure, i'll be stoned if my virtue is soiled, but my culture says there allowed to rape me, so I dont mind"

Nobody should mess with another country's internal politics. Imposing our form of democracy onto another culture, with differing beliefs, values etc. smacks of cultural colonialism to me. I don't think it's right for gays to be persecuted, but at the same time, that is my cultural belief, not theirs. If they want to start executing LGBT persons in my country, then I'll suggest that we reeducate them as to our cultural beliefs, and thank them to stay out of my country's internal affairs.

BTW: LGBT can seek asylum status on grounds of persecution because of sexuality, I believe. Does anyone know if this is true?

P.S. guys: USA-style democracy is not the only form, nor is it necessarily the best form, of democracy. It is a culturally biased version of democracy, relevant to the US context only.
Some cultures are better than others when measured by what really matters. Liberty, justice, and prosperity are what matter. By those measures the middle east SHOULD be culturally collonized. Any form of democracy, whether it's one of the European types, one of the asian types, or one of the N. American types would be far better than the tyrants who rule their people out of fear and appeals to religion.

And the UNDHR is about as culturally biased document as you can get. The Human Rights enshrined in that document come from a Western cultural perspective, and have no relevance to a majority of cultures. We don't like it (or at least I don't) when Muslim men in Western countries suggest that Western women deserve to be raped, or rape Western women because of their (Muslim) cultural belief. We don't accept their cultural belief as a reason to break the laws of our country. We do not allow fathers to murder their daughters for dishonouring family. We do not allow FGM to occur, because it is against our laws, which are born out of our cultural heritage. Why should another country be forced to do what we will not, simply because their beliefs are different to our own?
Because that's how progress happens. Our values are better. Not just different, but better because we respect the life and liberty of others. We're better because we DON'T rape women legally as a punishment or think they deserve to be raped. Therefore our women are free to express themselves as a whole person without fear. I'd be very pleased if we could spread our values all over the world and stamp out the repressive and barbaric parts of those other cultures.

Judicial systems may reflect the political system but aren't equatable with it. The United States, for instance, executes gay people. Not for being gay, mind you, but it does. Technically speaking, however, the last instance of two gays being executed I heard of was about them being "child-molesters" (which was a bullshit claim, but they were not officially executed for being gay).

Laerod, don't mess with my words. You know what I'm saying... especially when related to this topic. The US executes people for murder in the first degree.

Mescatela, I have already stated that I think it is wrong for anyone to be persecuted because of who they choose to love. But to suggest that we should impose our beliefs about right and wrong on another country is culturally imperialist.

Culturally imperalist? What are you on? That's just wrong. We have to hold thse nations accountable for their crimes against humanity. Somebody has to do it.

And the UN is not capable:

http://www.brokenpromisesmovie.com

A nation should not be executing gay people because they are gay. AT ALL. FUCKING AT ALL. NEVER.



Furthermore, everyone in every nation is capable of voting. But some people don't want to. Several of my friends are Asian, and have no interest whatsoever in voting. Their argument: it is against our culture. Voting means putting our own interests ahead of the majority.

Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan.. shall I go on? Not compatible with their own culture... hah. Look at Japan.. they have better turn-out then we do.

Laerod, don't mess with my words. You know what I'm saying... especially when related to this topic. The US executes people for murder in the first degree.And if you go by that, Iran executes people for child molestation. Now I'm not arguing that the United States executes gays by using false accusations, but I'll wager Iran isn't the only country where the justice system lashes out against people because of whom they love (at local levels more likely).
If anything, take my response as a hint to work on posts to avoid misconceptions ;)

And if you go by that, Iran executes people for child molestation. Now I'm not arguing that the United States executes gays by using false accusations, but I'll wager Iran isn't the only country where the justice system lashes out against people because of whom they love (at local levels more likely).
If anything, take my response as a hint to work on posts to avoid misconceptions ;)

No. I won't take any hints from you. Why? Because I think I Was very clear on what I was trying to say. You on the other hand.. well.. you have a tendency of trying to distort what I said quite clearly.

Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan.. shall I go on? Not compatible with their own culture... hah. Look at Japan.. they have better turn-out then we do.United Arab Emirates...

United Arab Emirates...

united arab emirates is in Asia? Have you had a little too much to drink?

united arab emirates is in Asia? Have you had a little too much to drink?The United Arab Emirates are here (http://www.sitesatlas.com/Maps/Maps/MEast.htm). Here is also referred to as Western Asia in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East). I hypothesize that the UAE are in Asia and shall remain so until here splits off of Asia in a massive earthquake.