Whether or not you agree on if this is good foreign policy or not, we can all agree this guy is a tool at best. Actually bud, there is a growing international consensus on gay rights and it is something you are born with.
On the flip side, it's ironic Obama advocate for this abroad yet still will not a propose a national same sex marriage law.
Oh noes, the gay agenda?!?!?! Seriously, what the hell is the gay agenda? to be treated fairly (maybe it's code for take over the world?)
If that guy were to squint his eyes any closer together, he'd be a cyclops.
Okay, I'm all for gay rights, gay marriage, etc., here where it's my business. I think we go too far when we try to impose our ethics on other jurisdictions. Imagine, for example, that instead of us, Israel was the most powerful country on earth and they wouldn't give AID to any country that didn't observe Kosher dietary laws and allowed business to be conducted between sundown on Friday and sundown on Saturday. Wouldn't we feel they were unjustifiably interfering in our business and trying to impose their culture on ours? Or, let's take a human rights example. Suppose a fundamentalist Muslim country was the most powerful country, and many other countries, including the US, depended on their foreign aid. Now, suppose they decided to withhold AID to any country which allowed women to drive.
Anyway, isn't it a bit arrogant of us to impose our perception of right on other societies and cultures? I'm assuming that most of the time we're talking about money we feel would do some good (e.g., fight diseases, build schools). We believe in gay rights, but is it right of us to withhold money which might fight disease or improve education in another country because we don't see eye to eye on the gay issue?
So unseen, how would you feel if we continued to give aid money to countries where atheists could be killed if anyone found out they were atheists? I think if we are giving aid, then we get the right to set reasonable terms, e.g. the aid must not be diverted to pay for weapons, or enrich the ruling classes. It must not be used to buy torture implements, and so forth. If you don't like the conditions, don't accept the aid. International aid serves at least two purposes - it hopefully does some good, but is also a diplomatic lever, and one that is way better than military action if it can be used effectively.
America the gay loving country, home of the biggest imperialists worshipers of capitalism whom ironically got screwed by their own system but insists this is what the rest of the world needs, whoever agrees is their ally whoever disagrees is the enemy, no middle ground when you are nothing but a fascist.
@KaraC "So unseen, how would you feel if we continued to give aid money to countries where atheists could be killed if anyone found out they were atheists? I think if we are giving aid, then we get the right to set reasonable terms, e.g. the aid must not be diverted to pay for weapons, or enrich the ruling classes. It must not be used to buy torture implements, and so forth. If you don't like the conditions, don't accept the aid. International aid serves at least two purposes - it hopefully does some good, but is also a diplomatic lever, and one that is way better than military action if it can be used effectively."
We give money to countries that oppress people according to their local belief systems. It might be atheists or it might be people who visit Western news sources.
It's not our job to turn every other country into a carbon copy of us.
As I often say, there are only two kinds of rights: legislated and imaginary. So, there's no such thing as human rights unless you want to pretend (using the aforementioned imagination) that there are.
We have enough things to attend to at home without getting on a high horse to dictate what other countries should do. For example, here in Ohio the legislature is considering a pro-life law that would make it illegal to even purchase a health insurance policy with one's own money, that would cover an abortion.
"How the FUCK does being gay hurt others?! How do two men holding hands hurt you in any way shape or form?"
Without agreeing with this view at all (of course), if a person views homosexuality as an abomination, he might find the presence of homosexuality as an imperfection he finds distressing and therefor psychologically painful. We can understand a position while at the same time rejecting it.
...Really? We can see a rational basis for such a position, (even though due to the shortness of the video we were unable to hear why he thinks so) but that doesn't mean we "understand" it.
A father gets drunk and beats his children - I see the rational basis for it but I don't really understand it. A woman commits suicide because of financial instability - again, the reason is there, but I don't understand that position. A man...well, you get the idea.
In cases like these of extreme positions, I think one of the main reasons why it might be so hurtful and enraging is because of not being able to fully, really embody the position and understand it. The fact that there might be a rational connection in it somewhere, that's probably just going to increase the rage and hurt.
Worried that, if we turn round to people like these and say "Okay, I understand where you're coming from..." we might as well start donating to the Westboro Baptists.
Obama "insert anything here"; Christians Angry
Join Think Atheist
Welcome toThink Atheist
Get Started Nowor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Started by D L in Small Talk Nov 17.
Started by Gregg RThomas in Small Talk Oct 27.
Started by Violetta Fay in Small Talk. Last reply by Violetta Fay Nov 1.
Started by Jimmy in Neuroscience, Cognitive Science, Psychology Sep 25.
Started by D L in Small Talk Sep 19.
Sunday School May 28th 2017
Sunday School May 21st 2017
Sunday School May 14th 2017
Posted by Muhammad ali on August 5, 2017 at 9:27am
Posted by Brad Snowder on July 9, 2017 at 1:08am
© 2017 Created by Rebel.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.