Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

UN vote to accept execution of gays Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S129439)
    That's not what I mean.

    I mean the rulings of the UN are made democratically. We expect a democracy in the UK but when democracy doesn't align with our views outside of it we are disgusted. I don't agree with the ruling but unfortunately we have to accept the ruling.
    What the UN did wasn't any form of modern democracy. Certainly nothing like the, albeit still flawed, democracy we have in the UK :facepalm:

    What the UN did was a prime example of a tyrannical majority, the problems it can cause and why any modern/liberal democracy puts in checks and balances to ensure minority rights are protected (See Prop 8 and how it was declared unconstitutional). The UN clearly works on a basis where what the majority says goes regardless, which isn't a true democratic system as it allows for the rights and voices of others to be oppressed, allowing for a tyrannical government, in doing so defeating the point of a democratic system entirely.

    In other words, the UN may call itself a democracy, but it's not the sort of democracy that you or I would want to live under, which makes the vote so unjustifiable.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by taigan)
    No it isn't wrong. Sorry to disagree with practically everyone on this thread, but the fact that this was voted to pass means that the majority of nations in the UN are in favour of it, thus, their opinion is the majority. They are the norm, if you will. I'm not saying that I agree with this, because I definitely do not. However, the fact that you think you can impose your beliefs on people of other cultures is not in spirit of the UK's self-proclaimed multicultural nature. This is no different then countries who ban alcohol, drugs etc.

    OK we'll reintroduce slavery if we get enough votes, are you OK with that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CombineHarvester)
    Well yes it is relatively better, because one is actually what exists in practice today and the other is something which doesn't exist in any state to my knowledge.
    I think you misunderstood my question; I wasn't asking if one was practiced or not; I'm asking is it really any less moral because they aren't punishing homosexuality but the act of sodomy? Better put; they may not be killing homosexuals, but that doesn't mean that killing homosexuals who have sex is good. Both are morally backward. Or are you of the opinion that homosexuals who have sex should be killed?

    The second question is also irrelevant (unsurprisingly unfortunately) because it is also not relevant. Sodomy (not homosexuality because it doesn't apply to females) is prohibited in public property for everyone.
    The rule is not just about public property, in Iran for example, Article 111 of the Iranian Penal Code states that " Sodomy involves killing if both the active and passive persons are mature, of sound mind and have free will." - this is an absolute, not just on public property. Aside from that, its common sense, why not bad sex in public places. The rule is meant to punish homosexuals who have sex. Trying to coat it and make it sounds less backward than it really is doesn't really do anything.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by laut_biru)
    How did this even get put to vote?

    Sigh..
    agreed!! This is pretty basic stuff, y'know, not getting killed for loving someone :P
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Folderol)
    I think you misunderstood my question; I wasn't asking if one was practiced or not; I'm asking is it really any less moral because they aren't punishing homosexuality but the act of sodomy? Better put; they may not be killing homosexuals, but that doesn't mean that killing homosexuals who have sex is good. Both are morally backward. Or are you of the opinion that homosexuals who have sex should be killed?



    The rule is not just about public property, in Iran for example, Article 111 of the Iranian Penal Code states that " Sodomy involves killing if both the active and passive persons are mature, of sound mind and have free will." - this is an absolute, not just on public property. Aside from that, its common sense, why not bad sex in public places. The rule is meant to punish homosexuals who have sex. Trying to coat it and make it sounds less backward than it really is doesn't really do anything.
    Let's leave homosexuality aside because this law only relates to sodomy, I don't think it's very appropriate to refer to the to as if they are synonymous - especially when you consider it applies to heterosexual couples and not lesbians. I think Iran is one of the few states which has punished sodomy in recent times but I don't think sodomy has been punished on private property unless it's been in the presence of multiple persons who object and testify against them. The law you have stated doesn't refer to homosexuals at all so I don't know why you've given the impression it directly refers to them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kolya)
    It might just be me being stupid, but have you considered the possibility that your reasoning might possibly be a little circular?...
    Good spot, typo.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CombineHarvester)
    Let's leave homosexuality aside because this law only relates to sodomy, I don't think it's very appropriate to refer to the to as if they are synonymous - especially when you consider it applies to heterosexual couples and not lesbians. The law you have stated doesn't refer to homosexuals at all so I don't know why you've given the impression it directly refers to them.
    You're just being disingenuous in an attempt to try to make this seem less moral than it actually is. I'm going to try to explain it to you; in European law there is something called an "indistinctly applicable measure" - this is a measure which prima facie applies to both domestic companies and member state companies but there is a greater effect on the member state companies. Sure, the law is directed against sodomy, but for all purposes, and if you're honest with yourself, you know this has a far greater effect on homosexuals. It is a primary way for homosexuals to have sex. I think if you're actually honest with yourself, you'd know that the states who implement these laws are not going after heterosexuals.

    To give you an example; if I were to make a law on something that black people do as an extension of their identity, but not apply to black people but everyone - do you think thats all well and good? Of course it isn't. Just as indistinctly applicable measures aren't seen as non-descriminatory in EU law despite not naming anyone.

    And I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to imply I was making the two synonymous, I am not saying homosexuality = homosexual having sex. In fact, I have made a distinction between the two quite clearly.

    I think Iran is one of the few states which has punished sodomy in recent times but I don't think sodomy has been punished on private property unless it's been in the presence of multiple persons who object and testify against them.
    Unless you can provide evidence for such a claim I'd advise you to please refrain from making them. I could direct you to several human rights reports on the situation for homosexuals in Iran which would quite clearly show the opposite, but I wont patronise you and give you some credit in at least knowing the basic facts about this barbaric act.

    And you keep avoiding this question that I have now asked you twice: do you think homosexuals who have sex should be killed? And before you say "it's irrelevant," - I'm not asking about is relevance, I am asking about what you think as something distinct from everything above. Or, if it helps you: do you think people who practice sodomy (both homosexuals and hetrosexuals) should be killed? Do you think this is a moral practice?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Urgh, the world. FML
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    The UN is basically a useless talkshop which plays host to some of the vilest regimes on the planet whilst preaching universal human rights. It's pretty sad really.
    Indeed. This thread reminds me of a joke Ed Byrne made on Mock the Week:

    'Unhelpful things to say in a crisis'
    Ed: I dunno, why don't we get the UN involved?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The world is not a good place. Simple as that really.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i'm against sodomy and the death penalty, but different countries will always have different values and we need to accept this and get over it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robbo3045)
    No. Because standing up for what is right is being human, and having a heart.
    Should we have just let Hitler keep killing Jews, after all it was his opinion?

    You're wrong wrong wrong.
    Hitler is not a good example because what he did is exactly what you are doing: believing that you have the right to do decide what the norm is for those who don't share your beliefs. If these homosexuals don't agree with the government or 95% of the population, then that's just hard luck. You can't expect decisions to be made that will satisfy absolutely everyone.

    And can I just say, some people here really need to grow up. I can't believe the amount of negative rep I received for just stating an opinion. I even said that I thought homosexuals should NOT be discriminated against!!!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robbo3045)
    No. Because standing up for what is right is being human, and having a heart.
    Should we have just let Hitler keep killing Jews, after all it was his opinion?

    You're wrong wrong wrong.
    You need to actually read what I said. Of course I don't think we should have let Hitler keep killing Jews. It's offensive you would say that. I clearly said I disagree with what happened so to pick me up on it anyway is just retarded on your part. Learn to read.

    What I'm saying is, if the UK decides to be part of the UN, we must accept the decisions it makes because it makes them democratically. We wouldn't complain if our view won the vote would we? But when we agree to take part in a democratic process we ***** and whine when it doesn't go our way. As much as I hate the ruling, that is what has been decided and we have no right to attempt to over rule it. Otherwise we might as well invade every other country in the world because we disagree with what they're doing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If you ever wanted to create a list of parasitic **** holes who offer very little to the human race - here you have it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tieyourmotherdown)
    What the UN did wasn't any form of modern democracy. Certainly nothing like the, albeit still flawed, democracy we have in the UK :facepalm:

    What the UN did was a prime example of a tyrannical majority, the problems it can cause and why any modern/liberal democracy puts in checks and balances to ensure minority rights are protected (See Prop 8 and how it was declared unconstitutional). The UN clearly works on a basis where what the majority says goes regardless, which isn't a true democratic system as it allows for the rights and voices of others to be oppressed, allowing for a tyrannical government, in doing so defeating the point of a democratic system entirely.

    In other words, the UN may call itself a democracy, but it's not the sort of democracy that you or I would want to live under, which makes the vote so unjustifiable.
    Isn't that the idea of democracy? If you go against what the majority want then your acting for the minority. If you try and please everyone then nothing will get decided. And I don't see how that oppressed anybody. The voice of the minority was heard (the losing vote), but the action that was taken was on behalf of the views of the majority which is democracy.

    You wont have a democracy at all if you run by what the minority want. Then the views of even more people will be oppressed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by taigan)
    No it isn't wrong. Sorry to disagree with practically everyone on this thread, but the fact that this was voted to pass means that the majority of nations in the UN are in favour of it, thus, their opinion is the majority. They are the norm, if you will.
    (Original post by YoshiJoshi)
    Democratic principles when it suits you - otherwise your views are supreme and will be forced down the throats of everybody else in the world, whether they like it or not. Very fair students. You'll all hate this and I'll get thumbed-down I know, but you know (deep down) that it is true. So there.
    The very point of the Anglo-American democratic model is that it is not mere majority rule. The protection of minority rights against majority tyranny is central to the existence of the upper chambers, the Bills of Rights in Britain and the U.S., and the idea of checks and balances.

    Nevertheless, true-say that to fetishise and point to the UN's approval whilst ignoring that with which they don't agree is hypocritical. Talking of which, how many resolutions is it now that Iran has ignored?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CombineHarvester)
    Let's leave homosexuality aside because this law only relates to sodomy, I don't think it's very appropriate to refer to the to as if they are synonymous - especially when you consider it applies to heterosexual couples and not lesbians. I think Iran is one of the few states which has punished sodomy in recent times but I don't think sodomy has been punished on private property unless it's been in the presence of multiple persons who object and testify against them. The law you have stated doesn't refer to homosexuals at all so I don't know why you've given the impression it directly refers to them.
    Only you could attempt to act as an apologist for this. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S129439)
    Isn't that the idea of democracy? If you go against what the majority want then your acting for the minority. If you try and please everyone then nothing will get decided. And I don't see how that oppressed anybody. The voice of the minority was heard (the losing vote), but the action that was taken was on behalf of the views of the majority which is democracy.

    You wont have a democracy at all if you run by what the minority want. Then the views of even more people will be oppressed.
    You know, you'd probably get along very well with American Southern whites during the 1960s. Little Rock, Nashville, Brown... damn feds and coons, oppressing our innocent Caucasian majority.

    Oh, wait, don't you agree?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S129439)
    Isn't that the idea of democracy? If you go against what the majority want then your acting for the minority.
    Democracy is going with the majority vote, yes, however in a fully functioning modern democracy there are checks and balances to ensure that the rights of the minorities aren't oppressed. The UK has the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights, and the USA has state and federal constitutions for example. You're confusing democracy with tyranny of the majority (i.e where 51% of the people can do whatever the hell they want), when they are two very different things, and tyranny of the majority is one thing that virtually all democratic systems try to avoid.

    If you try and please everyone then nothing will get decided. And I don't see how that oppressed anybody. The voice of the minority was heard (the losing vote), but the action that was taken was on behalf of the views of the majority which is democracy.
    Again, what happened wasn't modern, fully functioning democracy. Just because the majority want it doesn't make it right, because ultimately if it oppresses somebody it is wrong (Which democratic systems i.e everybody having fundamental rights and privileges, tries to avoid). Also I don't know how you can say nobody is being oppressed, as governments worldwide have just been given the green light to kill gay people and the UN now sees it as acceptable. I don't know about you, but I think losing your life is the ultimate form of oppression.

    You wont have a democracy at all if you run by what the minority want. Then the views of even more people will be oppressed.
    Again, it's not about rule of the minority of oppressing anybody. It's about making decisions according to the majority providing that they don't infringe upon the basic rights of others i.e minorities who are usually susceptible to tyranny of the majority.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by niall c)
    You know, you'd probably get along very well with American Southern whites during the 1960s. Little Rock, Nashville, Brown... damn feds and coons, oppressing our innocent Caucasian majority.

    Oh, wait, don't you agree?
    Hilarious

    I'm absolutely kacking myself. Literally rofl.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.