: So what about the homosexuals in Zimbabwe? That's the way that culture feels about sexual perversion. Why do you insist on cramming your version of right and wrong down their throats? How are you any different from those you so heartily condemn for being intolerant? Who gave you the authority to judge and decide what should be acceptable and what shouldn't be acceptable in this culture, or any culture?
Knowing that Nikhil believes in 'universal', ahistorical rights, he can only (consistently) take the position that he PERSONALLY has access to what such rights are. This is akin to the religious man's one-on-one relationship with his god---even as it contradicts another man's one-on-one relationship with the (possibly) SAME god. And. . . the same problem of INTERPRETATION applies to human nature (the new, equally recondite god).
: If homosexuals have a 'right' to express their sexual orientation, do other sexual minorities also have that 'right'? For example, why should society condemn multiple marriges, or incest, and for that matter, pederastry? If traditional barriers are to be smashed for the sake of homosexuals, why should other traditional barriers not also be smashed? What is the rational for deconstructing barrier A, but not barrier B?
Ah, the postmodernist's dilemma.
Once we return to reasonable Marxist theory and acknowledge that rights are dialectical, contextual, and historical, predicated upon the level of culture that the dominant mode of production engenders, then (and only then) can we set aside any abstruse claims that any one person has special access to EXACTLY WHAT 'universal' rights ARE, and begin to look into the social processes that determine rights. A fine place to CHANGE them, if need be.
And we will have also brought the issue back down to earth as well.