Removing “sexual orientation” from the anti-execution resolution

Cleon said:
Symbolically, this is repugnant...But realistically, will anything really change? The policy, as written, wasn't stopping countries like Iran from executing homosexuals if they felt like it. I mean, we're basically talking about changing the wording of a toothless document.
Click to expand...

The journey of a thousand miles...

You gotta start somewhere.
 
I suggest removing the first eight amendments from the US Constitution.

The ninth amendment says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So if we just strike out, say, the first amendment, it will not mean that right no longer exist.

Therefore, no harm done, right?
 
kerikiwi, no harm done, right? Nothing to fear?
 
Fat chance getting an answer from the usual apologists, I see.

"UN condemns country X for human rights violations" means, morally speaking, "country X hasn't executed enough gays lately".
 
By the way, I wonder what these "no big deal" folks would have said if the USA had supported this resolution.

Somehow I doubt it would have been "so what, it's just for literary reasons", as we see here.

Talk about pathetic excuses!
 
We have to respect exotic cultures and learn from them, haven't you heard of moral relativism?
 
Infoexcavator said:
We have to respect exotic cultures and learn from them, haven't you heard of moral relativism?
Click to expand...

You understand there's a difference between "There are no moral absolutes, therefore all moral choices are culturally and personally based" and "We can't try to influence people to come around to our way of thinking based on our time as a nation which has moved beyond superstitions to varying degrees, therefore let them do what they like".

Moral relativism merely states there is no absolute morality. Indeed, the states that execute homosexuals are closer to moral absolutists and those that consider homosexuality to be perfectly fine are more like moral relativists.

But nice attempt to demonise moral relativism.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
But nice attempt to demonise moral relativism.
Click to expand...


The problem is:

1) We have an opinion on whether executing people for being gay is right or wrong.

and

2) We are part of the UN, and this ruling therefore is (in part) in our name.

Moral relativism or not, the fact that this ruling is made in the name of an organization of which we are members (and has the loftiest of western goals in its founding charter) means that we certainly have the right to criticize it.
 
Giz said:
The problem is:

1) We have an opinion on whether executing people for being gay is right or wrong.

and

2) We are part of the UN, and this ruling therefore is (in part) in our name.

Moral relativism or not, the fact that this ruling is made in the name of an organization of which we are members (and has the loftiest of western goals in its founding charter) means that we certainly have the right to criticize it.
Click to expand...

I quite agree.

In fact, that was my whole point. :p
 
Good news indeed, and what a surprise, the wicked "West" has brought sense back to the whole process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom