So it's totally fine that being gay is punishable by death in Sudan? That's sick.
I prefer not to let things like faulty emotional appeals have a part in my logical decision making process.
Besides, punishable by death
does not mean kill them all. I think they should be allowed an opportunity to leave the Sudan if they choose to do so.
So when someone is killed for being gay, as long as it goes against that societies norms, is ok? What about when blacks fought for equality? What us pierced and tattooed weirdos? If society wants to kill us because getting piercings and tattoos isn't fully accepted yet, would that too be ok?
OK, let me make it clear. I am not saying that it is OK to simply kill those who go against society's norms. What I am saying is that I don't see a problem with that
as a last resort.
You have a case of a society that does not accept homosexuality. The society should then offer the person the options to: A. not do it anymore B. not do it in such a way that anyone knows about it C. leave the society D. be put to death.
I do believe the person would have the right to fight against the society with force if they felt it necessary.
The women are a minority and thus have no rights. Certainly it would be fine if all the men got together and ruled that being a woman was punishable by death if they're in the majority.
I wasn't talking to you. And in his example he said they all agreed, which implies that the women did too. Otherwise they
didn't all agree. And women usually tend to outnumber men. Which is why I asked for clarification.
If what you're doing is seeking to provide clarification, then with the parameters you offered I believe the women would have the 4 options I offered above.
But for a nonviolent act?!
Violence isn't the point. The point is a willful display of defiance to the rule of law.
Maybe you don't, but I believe in the rule of the law
above an individual's right to what they want (I believe this because the rule of the law is the collective will of the individuals in a community, or at least the majority of individuals).
You'll have to forgive me here, but after reading about the hanging of gay people in Iran, the stoning of adulterers in another thread, and now this...I'm startin' to get a little creeped out. It amazes me how casual people are about this.
You're getting creeped out because all you're reading is that I think it's OK for a society to put people to death under certain circumstances that you don't agree with. You're not looking at my whole argument.
I do
not advocate a bloodthirsty society that puts people to death willy nilly because the leaders don't like it. I'm advocating that a society has a right to set standards and enforce them. Regardless of what the standard is.
I've been amazed, but it just goes to show how much they hate gay people. I don't want them to keep it quiet. I'd rather them be their true hateful selves, because then at least they're being honest.
The fact that I disagree with your position doesn't mean I hate gay people. I am
far from hatred of gays. I support gay marriage (as of late), and I support the full and equal rights of gay people.
My point is that I also believe and accept that if the majority disagrees, then I, as a minority in a larger society where I want
peace to be maintained, will submit to that. For the sake of peace in the community.
To me, peace and preservation of life is more valuable than anyone's right to do anything. Regardless of how badly the rights are being violated. I would only advocate violence in the instance of someone who outright and resolutely threatens peace, or someone who is seeking to take innocent lives recklessly.
I think a community has the right to impose a death penalty on those who actively and purposefully act against the standards of the community if the person does the acts within the community and refuses to do them in private or outside of the community.
