> Poverty is not the best condition for sexual liberation, and
the country is blockaded.
But is poverty an excuse for permiting queer persecution?
> The demand that Cuba adapt itself to the moral outlook of
San Francisco when its people are hungry and impoverished
seems a bit egotistical to me.
I do not think that the right to sexual self-expression and bodily freedom can be reduced to the "moral outlook of San Francisco." For me, it is a basic human right that should be fought for. Why do you see it as being merely a San Francisco thing?
>From Jerry:
> "_Under what conditions do the citizens (mostly privileged
intellectuals) of an aggressor nation gain moral warrant to criticize
the nation or regime _their_ nation is committing war crimes and
terrorist acts against?_ "
As I was having lunch, I was thinking about our differences, and it occurred to me that we disagreed about premises, and I returned to the office to find that you have put it in words better than I could have.
For you, the question is how does a human being earn the right to criticize. For me, the question is how does a person lose it.
As a queer, I have a right to criticize queer oppression when it occurs. If I were to champion of other forms of oppression, my moral ability to criticize would be impaired. But since I do not, then I retain the right.
The model you work from reminds me of the old argument of how does one get into heaven -- through good works or belief in Jesus as savior. It just does not work for me. In my eyes, everybody is already saved.
And we still have the issue about criticism of queer persecution from someone who does not live in a country oppressing Cuba. Where do you stand on that? Does such a person have the right?
You also write:
> If the person at hand has done everything that he or she can do,
as far as organizing, speaking out, protesting, etc. to try to stop the
aggression, atrocities, and terrorism of his/her own country, then that
person _approaches_, but has not yet earned, the moral warrant to
offer some caveat criticisms of the nation or regime his/her country
is devastating.
I think this is just nonsense. You set the bar high so that it cannot be achieved, so you can then force silence upon those who wish to speak out against queer persecution. Suddenly, the issue is not whether or not queer oppression is a moral wrong, but whether or not a queer happens to live in the right country so she can speak out against oppression.
> Finally my, response to you in re to Reagan's use of Cuba's AIDs
policy was because you said that the_ kind_ of criticism you offer was
never used in the context of U.S. aggression against Cuba.
Not that kind of criticism, but the specific criticism of Cuba's persecution of queers was what I was talking about.
> If you can find some common ground, because I am having trouble
finding it myself, then we can move on from there.
Common ground will be difficult since you impose this weird purity test that no one can pass. We start from different positions.
Brian