.
 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
General discussion
Gay rights.
david williams
Discussion is locked
31 - 60 of 64 Posts
- Collapse
- Collapse -
can do exactly that, and has done so.
Governments write the laws, courts interpret specific actions in terms of those laws. Where the elected representatives don't like the interpretations, they can amend the laws.
What does happen here is that a law being presented to alter a court decision gets a LOT of media nd public attention, and the people indicate whether they support or otherwise the change in the law.
Where the law interpretation relates to Australia's Constitution, it requires a referendum to overturn the court's decision. For a referendum to pass, a majority of States must vote to pass it, as well as a majority of all the people.
Take the MABO decision, wherein Australia's High Court decided that the British assumption that Aboriginals had no rights of land ownership when the invading people took over was incorrect (called "terra nullius"). Governments tried to nullify the High Court ruling. A public outrage arose, in favour and against almost any position on the issue.
It even gave rise to our first "Racism First" political party: First Nation, which got about 10% of the vote.
Years of discussion with representatives of the Aboriginal peoples, various governments, university gurus, political representatives of the polticial parties, a group of directly elected representatives of the people, all got together over several years. The issues went into courts, back to parliaments, ad infinitum.
Eventually a workable compromise was reached, that respected the history of the country and the peoples who'd lived here for 40,000 years, the rights of people who'd acted in good faith in purchasing property, and the interpretations of the law and the constitution.
That WAS democracy in action. It was not a simple majority vote.
Ian
- Collapse -
Why doesn't the UN make an explicit condemnation against anti-Gayism? Reading about how many homosexuals are being attacked or mistreated all over the world, I think it is about time that would be done!
- Collapse -
Is usually miles apart.
If the U.N vote was dependent on countries which were deeply religious, then the vote would be against gays.
- Collapse -
probably beacuse they are too busy screwing up occupied countries where they have intervened.
david williams
- Collapse -
The times that so called UN peace keepers have failed dismally, and American or UK troops have gone to their rescue has happened far too may times I.M.O.
Food distribution has been witnessed on the television as a pure farce, with the distributors being ambushed by massive numbers of people. The result of which means that many innocent and starving people have gone without, and that is a total disgrace.
Steve
- Collapse -
What about Somalia Ian - you haven't attempted to describe your point.
http://www.africaonline.com/site/Articles/1,3,47469.jsp
Do you mean that?
- Collapse -
- Collapse -
But the agenda should be the same, if any group in society is being persecuted they deserve some protection, and support.
- Collapse -
Hi Steve,
if any group in society is being persecuted they deserve some protection, and support.
Where do we draw the line here? It seems there has been an awful lot of scorn against countries who try to impose their values on other societies. We in the West see the culture of the Taliban or even Saudi Arabia as wrong and particularly oppressive to women, while many in those cultures see Western civilization with it's sexual freedom, children deliberately conceived out of wedlock, and open homosexuality as decadent.
I don't think it is realistic to expect the cultures of every Islamic nation to conform to the view of homosexuality as normal and to be celebrated as it is by the secular humanists in the West. So, personally, I think that we could expect or apply pressure on such cultures to at least not persecute those who ARE discrete in their behaviors, rather than to give preferential treatment based on the notion that they would be persecuted if indiscrete in their behavior.
Sexuality is not an identity like gender or race. It is a behavior -- homosexuality, polygamy, adultery, prostitution, pornography, pedophelia, incest, .... I mean, consider the pedophile -- and I'm not throwing up a red herring here -- there are people who don't consider sex between a 30 y.o. and a 12 y.o. improper, and yet even the prison population does not treat the pedophile well (probably worse than society at large). Some don't consider marriage to a first cousin to be improper. Just some examples of things that are or could be persecuted in certain countries. But, you might counter, those things are illegal so prosecution is not persecution. Well, in countries governed by Sharia law, so too participating in homosexual acts, so thus in those countries we are also talking about prosecution and not persecution. (Please don't get me wrong, I am not one who believes in criminalizing homosexuality although I can see some rationale for criminalizing certain sexual acts.)
I suppose one could argue that religion and political beliefs are also "behaviors", but I think the protections re: asylum for persecutions on this basis are for a different reason and probably misapplied to homosexuality. For the most part, children are raised in a religious belief and all of the major religions have some sort of "preservation" doctrine in their culture to preserve the religion. I'm not aware that yet parents are raising their children homosexual. I believe the political belief refugee status is generally applied to dissidents from oppressive totalitarian regimes, and I think it's a stretch to include a homosexual lifestyle in that. JMO. Jerry Lee Lewis was somewhat marginalized by the mores of American society, families have "excommunicated" members for all sorts of things (drug use, adultry -- gasp! some people still care not to associate with people who disrespect their husbands/wives by fooling around on them!, etc.). They went to Austrailia to escape ridicule from their families and it is unsure what the deal was with the sexual assault charges etc. So to return, there is no evidence that Bangladeshi government has any charges they can bring based on past behavior.
So just because persecution is perceived by some "minority", I don't think it necessarily rises to the level of necessitating protection and support. Prostitutes are persecuted in the name of justice globally. This is a very reasonable comparison. Most people really don't care to see prostitutes prosecuted, I among them, for gaining financially from a transaction between consenting adults. Blanket laws outlawing this are every bit or more persecutorial and discriminatory. But many like me who believe there is no reason to criminalize all prostitution, do object to the lifestyle openly displayed, as in soliciting on street corners, etc., and do favor criminalizing and/or zoning of various "business practices". Discrete prostitution could legally be engaged in, IMO, without any detriment to society or participants. I see no difference for homosexual acts between adults.
Evie 
- Collapse -
But protection and support is necessary for the Jews, despite the fact it is included in the Human Rights Chart?
- Collapse -
Hi, Evie.
>>Sexuality is not an identity like gender or race<<
The pigs just landed with a thud. Sexuality may not be as readily identifiable to others as race, but I'd say it's a much bigger component of one's personal identity -- who (s)he is -- than race. Racial identity is mainly cultural; gender and sexual identity is IMCO innate.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
- Collapse -
We quite simply cannot draw a line which is acceptable to all countries. The line is obviously different between what
is acceptable as far as terrorism is concerned. The Islamic religion is going to be far more sympathetic to the bomber,
who sacrifices his/her life in the name of Islam. We certainly aren't sympathetic to the bomber for obvious reasons,
so the line is again different between some Arab countries, and the West.
I don't think it is realistic to expect the cultures of every Islamic nation to conform to the view of homosexuality as normal and to be celebrated as it is by the secular humanists in the West. So, personally, I think that we could expect or apply pressure on such cultures to at least not persecute those who ARE discrete in their behaviors, rather than to give preferential treatment based on the notion that they would be persecuted if indiscrete in their behavior.
Being realistic, I doubt that we could ever change a whole race of people to view homosexuality in any other way.
- Collapse -
Hi Steve,
Yeah ... got a little carried away
Being realistic, I doubt that we could ever change a whole race of people to view homosexuality in any other way.
Words of wisdom there IMO Steve and I agree.
I see your analogy to terrorism in the name of Islam, but I think there's much more unity across religions and cultures regarding murder. Family structures, gender roles, cultural observances, sexual behavior, etc., I think we are in agreement will never have global norms.
Unfortunately not everyone can pick where they are born or live. So we have exceptions to immigration laws only for extenuating circumstances. I wonder how many homosexuals in Islamic sharia-controlled lands will now flee to Austrailia now that their refugee status has been granted by the courts there.
I do think that the best we can do -- and it's too bad the UN can't do this CONSISTENTLY -- is put pressure on the legitimate governments of various lands to extend the basics of human rights to their populations. I'm MUCH more concerned with the plight of the Korean in a gulag, the Christian girl enslaved in Sudan, the forced abortions and killing of female infants in China and India, or the Kurds and Shi'ites tortured and murdered by Saddam than I am with the plight of a homosexual couple in Bangladesh who could lead a quiet life if led discretely. It's a "pick your battles" thing.
Evie
- Collapse -
These things really are inhumane and should get top priority by the UN, but as usual they couldn't organise a chimpanzee's party.
- Collapse -
I wouldn't classify homosexuality as simply a behaviour, but the rest in the list I would,
Ok there may be some men who for reasons of perversity will take part in sexual union with other men, but there are men who are natural homosexuals because of their genetic make up. They are known as genetic homosexuals and do not belong in the list because they simply cannot help it. Loving another man is as natural to them as we love the opposite sex.
- Collapse -
... you got two more replies in while I was answering the first!
I agree that there may be a portion of the population for whom this is innate. But the expression of this is just as much a behavior. I'm referring to the Oz court's rejection of the difference between discreet and non-discreet homosexual. Seems if they carried on discreetly, they had little to fear in terms of persecution. I've been searching around the web for links to prosecutions for homosexual acts. Is it any wonder that this is often a charge leveled at political enemies or democracy advocates in totalitarian regimes? It seems the charges may often be legit, but would never had been brought against a quite homosexual just trying to live a loving and peaceful life.
Evie
- Collapse -
I think you are right there. It does seem to be a great shame that people who view their actions to each other as perfectly normal have to lock themselves away, in fear of the laws of a very totalitarian society.
Things get even sicker when people make political points out of the actions of people who happen to have homosexual leanings, especially when they have been programmed by their genes to be like that.
- Collapse -
there is a huge difference between seuality and sexual preference and homosexuality along with heterosexuality is just that.
a sexual preference, and, by definition no different from pedophilia, bestiality or sado-masochism.
now the question can be put as to whether or not the Courts in Australia will grant political asylum of sorts to a pedophile who could get hurt if he/ she returns to the place where the sexual preference was displayed and practised.
or, for that matter, grant refugee status for any other sexual preference.
I mean ludicrous as it may sound I know of straight people who have been beaten badly in a gay nightclub.
david williams
- Collapse -
Did the heterosexuals do anything to provoke that bad beating, or was it simply that they were not homosexuals. I know two homosexuals personally although I am not a homosexual and they have never shown the slightest malice towards me, so I am very very sceptical that the heterosexuals didn't do something to warrant that treatment.
- Collapse -
To some extent what is accepted by society very much depends on which country we are talking about.
I personally find pedophilia the most obnoxious of acts. Having said that, what about in Africa where a child of twelve is looked upon as child rearing age. The lines have changed between countries on pedophilia. In England the man having sex with a twelve year old would be a pedophile, in Africa he wouldn't be.
- Collapse -
If a pedophile fled your country for one where the age of consent decriminalized his act, should he get refugee status because he would be prosecuted -- thus PERsecuted -- for an act that is considered lawful there? It's kinda sad when you do a search on ages of consent. Some of the countries with low age limits are Japan (13 in some locales), Holland (12!!!), etc. Even our own Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has advocated lowering the age of consent to 12! Considering what convicted pedophiles face in your prison system, I think a Brit might well fear "persecution" if returned to your country after having been found to have engaged in sexual activity considered consensual in another country.
Quite a dilema!
Evie
- Collapse -
Hells Bells you are right - what a dilema
Some of the countries with low age limits are Japan (13 in some locales), Holland (12!!!), etc. Even our own Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has advocated lowering the age of consent to 12! Considering what convicted pedophiles face in your prison system, I think a Brit might well fear "persecution" if returned to your country after having been found to have engaged in sexual activity considered consensual in another country.
I think we have prosecuted someone for underage sex in Bangcock (sorry SP), so I wonder how the legalities were formulated to allow this. Something else to check up on sighhh!.
- Collapse -
Again homosexualism is not a life style in some cases, but a simple way of life that seems natural to them, even if it doesn't to us.
- Collapse -
I wonder if it's the religion that they are "preserving" or is it their very existence.
No children would be born to two homosexual males, and surely that would be enough to make some people fear about future generations, which would never happen, if everybody turned to homosexuality.
- Collapse -
If you were to ask someone who has been on the receiving end of a rapist, and mentioned the possibility that the person may not have raped her had he been able to see a prostitute who would have "professionally" relieved him of his pent up emotions, what do you think that victim would say? They wouldn't appreciate someone who makes prostitution difficult to find.
- Collapse -
I've been on the receiving end of a rapist, and it's about control and power over another person, not sex. There are enough prostitutes about (legal or not) that if rape were about sex, it would be no more. Lots of rapists have willing wives and girlfriends, but it doesn't stop them from raping. It's a whole different thang.
Cindi
- Collapse -
Hi Cindi,
I must admit I did have doubts on what I said.
That same thing came to mind about the "Control" aspect, and I guess it was garbage 
It is widely known that prostitutes often allow their clients to partake in acts which their wives and girlfriends find abhorrent, but I guess simulated rape wouldn't be one of them, or even if they allowed such it wouldn't satisfy a real rapist.
CNET Forums
Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Roadshow Autos
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic