• ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 month ago

    The same thing that already happens to most of them now, I suppose: their basic rights are protected by the Constitution but if they want to live in a community that welcomes them then they might need to move. In the specific situation this article is about, the queer people in eastern Oregon would have to deal with the same issues that the queer people in Idaho already deal with.

    In general, I sympathize with the desire to rescue people from the customs of their community, but I don’t think that doing so by imposing our customs on their community is a good idea except in the most extreme cases. It violates the golden rule: I wouldn’t want outsiders imposing their customs on me, even if someone in my community was being mistreated according to the customs of those outsiders. It also doesn’t seem to work very well in practice. It has failed in extreme cases like the US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and I fear that it is currently failing in the USA.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Do you realize that you are comparing the crappier parts of the US to Afghanistan? It’s like you’re shitting on yourself. You can move to Afghanistan if you like that culture. We’re not going to give away human rights to protect your feefees.

    • HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      “Don’t kill queer people,” is outsiders imposing their opinion. A constitution that applies to everyone doesn’t necessarily follow what locals are going to want to do.