Nice illustration of the approach. "We shouldn’t criminalize the sexual behavior or preferences of consenting adults" opens this from salvo to conversation. It also helps us understand our own views better.
What if you really just want to express your outrage without opening room for dialog? Do you recommend always thinking through the declaration and then deciding which way to run?
1) We're assuming that "moral superiority" is even possible -- we're not moral relativists. I'm on board with that, but it is an assumption. And I suspect that most historical homophobia came from moral absolutists. That's not necessarily a good argument, but it's the sort that's often used ("<X> is bad because in the past group <Y> used <X> to oppress group <Z>")
2) I'll raise your "extreme case". What about prostitution (assuming an ideal world where there's no coercion)?
I think that playing semantics with governmental polices that kill people is pretty academic and impotent. By that I mean, I think most people think that criminalising consensual sex is hateful and barbaric.
I find it much more important acknowledge the roots of anti-gay policies: religious bigotry. Kristof notes this in the NY Times about Ugandan anti-gay policy:
“American conservative Christian groups with records of fighting L.G.B.T.Q. rights have poured millions of dollars into African countries, according to a 2020 report. Some American evangelicals have been known to encourage anti-L.G.B.T.Q. legislation in countries such as Uganda. “
In the US we need to be thinking about why Christian fear gay people and criminalise anti-gay policies and actions
Nice illustration of the approach. "We shouldn’t criminalize the sexual behavior or preferences of consenting adults" opens this from salvo to conversation. It also helps us understand our own views better.
What if you really just want to express your outrage without opening room for dialog? Do you recommend always thinking through the declaration and then deciding which way to run?
Two things come to mind:
1) We're assuming that "moral superiority" is even possible -- we're not moral relativists. I'm on board with that, but it is an assumption. And I suspect that most historical homophobia came from moral absolutists. That's not necessarily a good argument, but it's the sort that's often used ("<X> is bad because in the past group <Y> used <X> to oppress group <Z>")
2) I'll raise your "extreme case". What about prostitution (assuming an ideal world where there's no coercion)?
I think that playing semantics with governmental polices that kill people is pretty academic and impotent. By that I mean, I think most people think that criminalising consensual sex is hateful and barbaric.
I find it much more important acknowledge the roots of anti-gay policies: religious bigotry. Kristof notes this in the NY Times about Ugandan anti-gay policy:
“American conservative Christian groups with records of fighting L.G.B.T.Q. rights have poured millions of dollars into African countries, according to a 2020 report. Some American evangelicals have been known to encourage anti-L.G.B.T.Q. legislation in countries such as Uganda. “
In the US we need to be thinking about why Christian fear gay people and criminalise anti-gay policies and actions