But what leads you to imagine that the sexual practices of a small cult are comparable to the reality of the lives of queer men and women around the world?
> Because you refuse to face the basic moral question.
I have. In this case, the basic moral question is whether it is moral or immoral to condemn persecution against queers.
> If you explain your moral stance in relation to the atrocities
"we" support through our government and how your opposition
to the Castro regime will lessen the oppression of anybody in the
world, then we will be getting at the nub of the matter.
I am not against the Castro regime in toto; I believe they should be castigated for their persecution of queers. Do you not believe that the regime deserves opprobrium in this area? Or do you defend what they did?
As for lessening queer oppression, I believe that more voices raised in opposition to queer persecution will cause such actions to be increasingly seen as unacceptable Pressure must be kept up. Vigilance is important. Engaging in queer oppression must be seen as being unacceptable.
> But most people in these United States, at times my self included,
can't even "see" our own responsibilities and the atrocities we commit.
I am very clear about my responsibility. What did I write that gave you the impression that I wasn't?
> But as I said in my opinion, in the current state of affairs the only
> enemy
is at home, not in Cuba, or among fundamentalist Muslims, or anybody
else.
As a non-queer you may believe this. Your privilege might be insulating you from seeing the whole picture. But queers have many enemies all over the world.
> The question on the table is where does our moral responsibility lie?
One of my moral responsiblities is to oppose and speak out about the persecution of my queer brethren.
> Are we responsible for the human rights violations of the people we
oppress and violate.
Only if our oppression is the cause of the persecution they practice. As I stated in my previous post, I see no evidence that the Castro regime's persecution of queers resulted from anything done by America. It was there at the outset of the revolution.
> If you face this entry level question then other questions may be faced
afterward, but not without taking into account whether your words and
actions will help to increase or decrease the oppression of others.
The idea is to raise as many voices as possible against queer oppression.
> But also the atrocities were directly sponsored even encouraged by the
U.S. government and its foreign policy intellectuals, among others.
How did the U.S. government encourage Cuba's persecution of queers?
> Until that is done, in this and similar cases, all else is hypocrisy.
Why is it hypocritical to speak against queer oppression wherever it occurs -- either at home or abroad? Being oppressed does not justify subsequent oppression by the party that is originally oppressed. What is hypocritical is to possess non-queer privilege and remain silent when queer oppression occurs so as to maintain your privileged status.
> I set my hypothetical in ancient Rome because I thought the
distance would abstract the situation from current ideological
confusions.
You failed. Comparing the lives of queers to the sexual practices of a cult was repugnant. Your hypothetical had no resonance for my life. It was too abstract and removed from any reality I have experienced.
> All of those who live in the U.S. and criticize human rights in Cuba
are in the same moral and political situation as my hypothetical
Roman.
No, we live in a real world far removed from your hypothetical.
> Human rights intellectuals in the U.S. who cannot even conceive that
criticism of Cuba might actually perpetuate or even increase the atrocities
committed by their own government in Cuba, and elsewhere, are simply
playing games of hide and never seek with reality.
How does criticism of queer oppression increase the US government's oppression in another country?
> their first responsibility is to stop the terrorism that they help to
perpetuate and that they fund.
It may well be the first responsibility, but is it the only one?
> Unless we can understand our own responsibilities and for whom
and for what we are responsible, it is no use taking on the useless
and empty burden of criticizing some foreign government whose
people we are attacking.
Why do you see opposing and speaking against queer persecution as useless and empty?
Brian