On May 11 2011 02:54 TALegion wrote: Don't get me wrong, I signed the petition, but:
I just thought of something. In a debate against abortion, one of the arguments is that only a person should be allowed to make decisions about herself (in this case, I refer to the child as part of the mother, without its own rights). So, if you're pro-choice, how can you eb against this? It isn't your country. It doesn't affect you. You don't know what's best, and you shouldn't try to assert your opinions on others, more or less force them.
Like I said, I signed the petition, but I find it mildly hypocritical. I support Gay Rights (imo, they have just as much right to be happy as anyone else), but I don't like the idea of trying to force my beliefs/opinions/culture onto another group of people, when I also claim to be pro-choice (where people make independent choices for themselves).
I disagree. An individual's freedom of choice must be protected. Fundamentally speaking, no majority should be able to take away a minority's ability to choose how to act or behave. There is clearly a standard of right and wrong. Objectively speaking, "right" morals, values, decisions etc. are ones that promote human advancement, reduce suffering and oppression, and maximize one's perceived happiness about the world.
Civilization cannot stand for ethical systems which are suboptimal, ones that restrict freedom of choice and cause suffering among the people who are subject to them.
I find it reprehensible to not make a stand against oppressive laws and regimes. We must actively expose logical loopholes in people's reasoning, reasoning derived from religiously fueled hatred, and undermine their actions to cause harm to others. Would you not agree?
Plainly, there are cases where it is the completely right thing to tell others what to do.
Don't you think it's a little problematic to assume that one's own worldview is the one that is objectively, incontrovertibly right?
I mean I'm with you on this issue. I signed the petition, but I don't see how the values you proposed are objective in any meaningful sense.
For better or worse that's how human rights and the morality of Enlightenment works. The United States Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." not "We find the following statements have been gaining popularity in recent years in our culture."
Of course different cultures have different moral codes. It just happens that our moral code includes the rule that we should expect everyone else to follow it (at least the part about respecting basic human rights). Every moral relativist should appreciate this and let us try to force our own, superior morality on others.
And no, I don't mean this sarcastically, I do this respecting basic human rights is morally superior to ignoring them.
I understand that that's how human rights morality works. But I think it's important to recognize how it works rather than subconsciously assuming that one is dealing with objectively derived givens.
On May 11 2011 02:54 TALegion wrote: Don't get me wrong, I signed the petition, but:
I just thought of something. In a debate against abortion, one of the arguments is that only a person should be allowed to make decisions about herself (in this case, I refer to the child as part of the mother, without its own rights). So, if you're pro-choice, how can you eb against this? It isn't your country. It doesn't affect you. You don't know what's best, and you shouldn't try to assert your opinions on others, more or less force them.
Like I said, I signed the petition, but I find it mildly hypocritical. I support Gay Rights (imo, they have just as much right to be happy as anyone else), but I don't like the idea of trying to force my beliefs/opinions/culture onto another group of people, when I also claim to be pro-choice (where people make independent choices for themselves).
I disagree. An individual's freedom of choice must be protected. Fundamentally speaking, no majority should be able to take away a minority's ability to choose how to act or behave. There is clearly a standard of right and wrong. Objectively speaking, "right" morals, values, decisions etc. are ones that promote human advancement, reduce suffering and oppression, and maximize one's perceived happiness about the world.
Civilization cannot stand for ethical systems which are suboptimal, ones that restrict freedom of choice and cause suffering among the people who are subject to them.
I find it reprehensible to not make a stand against oppressive laws and regimes. We must actively expose logical loopholes in people's reasoning, reasoning derived from religiously fueled hatred, and undermine their actions to cause harm to others. Would you not agree?
Plainly, there are cases where it is the completely right thing to tell others what to do.
Don't you think it's a little problematic to assume that one's own worldview is the one that is objectively, incontrovertibly right?
I mean I'm with you on this issue. I signed the petition, but I don't see how the values you proposed are objective in any meaningful sense.
You're right, when it comes down to my phrasing, there is subjectivity involved. I hope you get the general idea of what I'm trying to say though - that there is an optimal set of ethics and morals for society.
To be objective, moral facts must be evaluated scientifically. I think the question of "what is good" can be answered by neuroscience, psychology, and other scientific fields
This explains everything much better than I:
Actually, I don't think that video explains much.
You'll notice that Mr. Harris never derives his moral values from science, he never objectively arrives at a moral statement. What he does is use science to evaluate moral claims that are already in play. He has already decided "what is good," he's just advocating using objective methods to decide just how good.
Can you explain how, for instance, neuroscience might answer the question of "what is good"? Or how one might use the scientific method to discover an optimal set of ethics and morals?
Hmm, you bring up an interesting point. Harris is considering the moral values that are existent, so in a sense we can only answer "is X value good". For the situation at hand, this is enough. But we do not know all of the values encompassing an optimal set. It seems we are forced into a compromise, because human perception has so far been limited to a domain of morality, but this does not prevent us from using what we currently know and have perceived to form a constrained optimum. We still can use science to evaluate what is on the playing field, and cherrypick the ones that are good.
3. Aggravated homosexuality. (1) A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the
(a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years;
(b) offender is a person living with HIV;
(c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;
(d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;
(e) victim of the offence is a person with disability;
(f) offender is a serial offender, or
(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by enable any person to have unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex,
(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.
(3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.
That part of the bill I'll fully support. That covers rape, molestation, sex with people who may not be able to say no. Read ones who may be deaf unable to speak and blind. and finally scum bags who don't tell the other person they are HIV positive.
That part of the bill should be applied to everyone straight and gay. Right now pedos get slap on the wrist sentences ten years in prison and their name on the sex offender list for ten years.
Seriously that's a joke. The only part that works is that fact that others in the neighborhood vilify that person.
Why would you support that part of the bill, those are not laws, they're just an extension of the "crime" which adds "aggravated" to it. They already have laws in place against those crimes though they're not related to homosexuality.
A backer of Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill has told a parliamentary committee he does not support the proposal of the death penalty for some homosexual acts.
But Pastor Martin Ssempa urged MPs to pass the legislation, which tightens laws against homosexuality.
MP David Bahati has said the death penalty clause is likely to be dropped
That said, LGBT rights would still be in an awful place in Uganda even if the whole bill was scrapped somehow.
3. Aggravated homosexuality. (1) A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the
(a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years;
(b) offender is a person living with HIV;
(c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;
(d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;
(e) victim of the offence is a person with disability;
(f) offender is a serial offender, or
(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by enable any person to have unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex,
(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.
(3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.
That part of the bill I'll fully support. That covers rape, molestation, sex with people who may not be able to say no. Read ones who may be deaf unable to speak and blind. and finally scum bags who don't tell the other person they are HIV positive.
That part of the bill should be applied to everyone straight and gay. Right now pedos get slap on the wrist sentences ten years in prison and their name on the sex offender list for ten years.
Seriously that's a joke. The only part that works is that fact that others in the neighborhood vilify that person.
Why would you support that part of the bill, those are not laws, they're just an extension of the "crime" which adds "aggravated" to it. They already have laws in place against those crimes though they're not related to homosexuality.
Tell me where is a law that provides a death penalty to someone who rapes a child? I don't recall seeing one. Or where is one that helps protect people without HIV from getting infected from someone with HIV?
Supposed I went to a bar I met a gay guy and said early in the evening that I wanted to try it. I got drunk and he decided that a condom was not necessary. All the while not telling me that he has HIV?
Don't say it doesn't happen. 90% the spreaders of STD's are males. Getting HIV is a death sentence to someone who may have been curious about a way of life. Why should the infector get away with it?
On May 10 2011 12:54 Redunzl wrote: How about you stay away from Uganda if you don't like this. Who are you to tell a sovereign nation how to legislate.
Who are we NOT to tell a sovereign nation how to legislate? The homophobia behind this bill is based on shitty moral reasoning, junk science, and backwards religious values. Why is a bill that the developed world would certainly protest in our own countries suddenly beyond criticism when passed in another country? This is the kind of hyper-liberal cultural relativism that permits genocide and the legislation of discrimination. An immoral action, whether performed in the US or in Canada or in Uganda, is STILL immoral. Why does it matter WHERE the immoral action is being performed? Gahh.
3. Aggravated homosexuality. (1) A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the
(a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years;
(b) offender is a person living with HIV;
(c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;
(d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;
(e) victim of the offence is a person with disability;
(f) offender is a serial offender, or
(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by enable any person to have unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex,
(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.
(3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.
That part of the bill I'll fully support. That covers rape, molestation, sex with people who may not be able to say no. Read ones who may be deaf unable to speak and blind. and finally scum bags who don't tell the other person they are HIV positive.
That part of the bill should be applied to everyone straight and gay. Right now pedos get slap on the wrist sentences ten years in prison and their name on the sex offender list for ten years.
Seriously that's a joke. The only part that works is that fact that others in the neighborhood vilify that person.
Why would you support that part of the bill, those are not laws, they're just an extension of the "crime" which adds "aggravated" to it. They already have laws in place against those crimes though they're not related to homosexuality.
Tell me where is a law that provides a death penalty to someone who rapes a child? I don't recall seeing one. Or where is one that helps protect people without HIV from getting infected from someone with HIV?
Supposed I went to a bar I met a gay guy and said early in the evening that I wanted to try it. I got drunk and he decided that a condom was not necessary. All the while not telling me that he has HIV?
Don't say it doesn't happen. 90% the spreaders of STD's are males. Getting HIV is a death sentence to someone who may have been curious about a way of life. Why should the infector get away with it?
I have heard a case where a man who knowingly spread hiv to several women was taken to court. I don't remember what happened though, shall look it up. If it is shown they spread it intentionally then they shouldn't get away with it. If it was unintentional, then they need telling they have it/educating about how to live with it.
I would like to know where your 90% figure came from. Also you make it sound like being gay is a choice.
edit: did a quick google search for "man taken to court for spreading hiv" and found several news stories as well as a wiki page about 'Criminal Transmission of HIV'
On May 11 2011 02:54 TALegion wrote: Don't get me wrong, I signed the petition, but:
I just thought of something. In a debate against abortion, one of the arguments is that only a person should be allowed to make decisions about herself (in this case, I refer to the child as part of the mother, without its own rights). So, if you're pro-choice, how can you eb against this? It isn't your country. It doesn't affect you. You don't know what's best, and you shouldn't try to assert your opinions on others, more or less force them.
Like I said, I signed the petition, but I find it mildly hypocritical. I support Gay Rights (imo, they have just as much right to be happy as anyone else), but I don't like the idea of trying to force my beliefs/opinions/culture onto another group of people, when I also claim to be pro-choice (where people make independent choices for themselves).
I disagree. An individual's freedom of choice must be protected. Fundamentally speaking, no majority should be able to take away a minority's ability to choose how to act or behave. There is clearly a standard of right and wrong. Objectively speaking, "right" morals, values, decisions etc. are ones that promote human advancement, reduce suffering and oppression, and maximize one's perceived happiness about the world.
Civilization cannot stand for ethical systems which are suboptimal, ones that restrict freedom of choice and cause suffering among the people who are subject to them.
I find it reprehensible to not make a stand against oppressive laws and regimes. We must actively expose logical loopholes in people's reasoning, reasoning derived from religiously fueled hatred, and undermine their actions to cause harm to others. Would you not agree?
Plainly, there are cases where it is the completely right thing to tell others what to do.
Don't you think it's a little problematic to assume that one's own worldview is the one that is objectively, incontrovertibly right?
I mean I'm with you on this issue. I signed the petition, but I don't see how the values you proposed are objective in any meaningful sense.
For better or worse that's how human rights and the morality of Enlightenment works. The United States Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." not "We find the following statements have been gaining popularity in recent years in our culture."
Of course different cultures have different moral codes. It just happens that our moral code includes the rule that we should expect everyone else to follow it (at least the part about respecting basic human rights). Every moral relativist should appreciate this and let us try to force our own, superior morality on others.
And no, I don't mean this sarcastically, I do this respecting basic human rights is morally superior to ignoring them.
I understand that that's how human rights morality works. But I think it's important to recognize how it works rather than subconsciously assuming that one is dealing with objectively derived givens.
Maybe, but does it really matter? In the end every philosophical system will include axioms, which can ultimately be questioned. I guess it's nice to recognize that it's true for your own moral code too (if it's even logically consistent).
3. Aggravated homosexuality. (1) A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the
(a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years;
(b) offender is a person living with HIV;
(c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;
(d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;
(e) victim of the offence is a person with disability;
(f) offender is a serial offender, or
(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by enable any person to have unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex,
(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.
(3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.
That part of the bill I'll fully support. That covers rape, molestation, sex with people who may not be able to say no. Read ones who may be deaf unable to speak and blind. and finally scum bags who don't tell the other person they are HIV positive.
That part of the bill should be applied to everyone straight and gay. Right now pedos get slap on the wrist sentences ten years in prison and their name on the sex offender list for ten years.
Seriously that's a joke. The only part that works is that fact that others in the neighborhood vilify that person.
Why would you support that part of the bill, those are not laws, they're just an extension of the "crime" which adds "aggravated" to it. They already have laws in place against those crimes though they're not related to homosexuality.
Tell me where is a law that provides a death penalty to someone who rapes a child? I don't recall seeing one. Or where is one that helps protect people without HIV from getting infected from someone with HIV?
Supposed I went to a bar I met a gay guy and said early in the evening that I wanted to try it. I got drunk and he decided that a condom was not necessary. All the while not telling me that he has HIV?
Don't say it doesn't happen. 90% the spreaders of STD's are males. Getting HIV is a death sentence to someone who may have been curious about a way of life. Why should the infector get away with it?
I have heard a case where a man who knowingly spread hiv to several women was taken to court. I don't remember what happened though, shall look it up. If it is shown they spread it intentionally then they shouldn't get away with it. If it was unintentional, then they need telling they have it/educating about how to live with it.
I would like to know where your 90% figure came from. Also you make it sound like being gay is a choice.
Right now I'm a canadian gun owner. A minority. There's people out there that think anyone who owns guns should have a lobotomy. As they have to be mentally disabled to want guns.
There's people who want gays to have lobotomies as well because clearly no one mentally sound would want to have sex with a man.
They are humans and they are born with free will. If they want to do a man I can't stop them. But I can do whatever it takes to ensure others have the choice as well.
On May 11 2011 02:54 TALegion wrote: Don't get me wrong, I signed the petition, but:
I just thought of something. In a debate against abortion, one of the arguments is that only a person should be allowed to make decisions about herself (in this case, I refer to the child as part of the mother, without its own rights). So, if you're pro-choice, how can you eb against this? It isn't your country. It doesn't affect you. You don't know what's best, and you shouldn't try to assert your opinions on others, more or less force them.
Like I said, I signed the petition, but I find it mildly hypocritical. I support Gay Rights (imo, they have just as much right to be happy as anyone else), but I don't like the idea of trying to force my beliefs/opinions/culture onto another group of people, when I also claim to be pro-choice (where people make independent choices for themselves).
I disagree. An individual's freedom of choice must be protected. Fundamentally speaking, no majority should be able to take away a minority's ability to choose how to act or behave. There is clearly a standard of right and wrong. Objectively speaking, "right" morals, values, decisions etc. are ones that promote human advancement, reduce suffering and oppression, and maximize one's perceived happiness about the world.
Civilization cannot stand for ethical systems which are suboptimal, ones that restrict freedom of choice and cause suffering among the people who are subject to them.
I find it reprehensible to not make a stand against oppressive laws and regimes. We must actively expose logical loopholes in people's reasoning, reasoning derived from religiously fueled hatred, and undermine their actions to cause harm to others. Would you not agree?
Plainly, there are cases where it is the completely right thing to tell others what to do.
Don't you think it's a little problematic to assume that one's own worldview is the one that is objectively, incontrovertibly right?
I mean I'm with you on this issue. I signed the petition, but I don't see how the values you proposed are objective in any meaningful sense.
You're right, when it comes down to my phrasing, there is subjectivity involved. I hope you get the general idea of what I'm trying to say though - that there is an optimal set of ethics and morals for society.
To be objective, moral facts must be evaluated scientifically. I think the question of "what is good" can be answered by neuroscience, psychology, and other scientific fields
You'll notice that Mr. Harris never derives his moral values from science, he never objectively arrives at a moral statement. What he does is use science to evaluate moral claims that are already in play. He has already decided "what is good," he's just advocating using objective methods to decide just how good.
Can you explain how, for instance, neuroscience might answer the question of "what is good"? Or how one might use the scientific method to discover an optimal set of ethics and morals?
Hmm, you bring up an interesting point. Harris is considering the moral values that are existent, so in a sense we can only answer "is X value good". For the situation at hand, this is enough. But we do not know all of the values encompassing an optimal set. It seems we are forced into a compromise, because human perception has so far been limited to a domain of morality, but this does not prevent us from using what we currently know and have perceived to form a constrained optimum. We still can use science to evaluate what is on the playing field, and cherrypick the ones that are good.
You're right. I think science is particularly good at evaluating, even if it's not that good at value-ating in the first place. See what I did there?
On May 11 2011 02:54 TALegion wrote: Don't get me wrong, I signed the petition, but:
I just thought of something. In a debate against abortion, one of the arguments is that only a person should be allowed to make decisions about herself (in this case, I refer to the child as part of the mother, without its own rights). So, if you're pro-choice, how can you eb against this? It isn't your country. It doesn't affect you. You don't know what's best, and you shouldn't try to assert your opinions on others, more or less force them.
Like I said, I signed the petition, but I find it mildly hypocritical. I support Gay Rights (imo, they have just as much right to be happy as anyone else), but I don't like the idea of trying to force my beliefs/opinions/culture onto another group of people, when I also claim to be pro-choice (where people make independent choices for themselves).
I disagree. An individual's freedom of choice must be protected. Fundamentally speaking, no majority should be able to take away a minority's ability to choose how to act or behave. There is clearly a standard of right and wrong. Objectively speaking, "right" morals, values, decisions etc. are ones that promote human advancement, reduce suffering and oppression, and maximize one's perceived happiness about the world.
Civilization cannot stand for ethical systems which are suboptimal, ones that restrict freedom of choice and cause suffering among the people who are subject to them.
I find it reprehensible to not make a stand against oppressive laws and regimes. We must actively expose logical loopholes in people's reasoning, reasoning derived from religiously fueled hatred, and undermine their actions to cause harm to others. Would you not agree?
Plainly, there are cases where it is the completely right thing to tell others what to do.
Don't you think it's a little problematic to assume that one's own worldview is the one that is objectively, incontrovertibly right?
I mean I'm with you on this issue. I signed the petition, but I don't see how the values you proposed are objective in any meaningful sense.
For better or worse that's how human rights and the morality of Enlightenment works. The United States Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." not "We find the following statements have been gaining popularity in recent years in our culture."
Of course different cultures have different moral codes. It just happens that our moral code includes the rule that we should expect everyone else to follow it (at least the part about respecting basic human rights). Every moral relativist should appreciate this and let us try to force our own, superior morality on others.
And no, I don't mean this sarcastically, I do this respecting basic human rights is morally superior to ignoring them.
I understand that that's how human rights morality works. But I think it's important to recognize how it works rather than subconsciously assuming that one is dealing with objectively derived givens.
Maybe, but does it really matter? In the end every philosophical system will include axioms, which can ultimately be questioned. I guess it's nice to recognize that it's true for your own moral code too (if it's even logically consistent).
Is it nice to recognize that one's own moral code is not a natural law that can be independently deduced by science? Personally I think so.
3. Aggravated homosexuality. (1) A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the
(a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years;
(b) offender is a person living with HIV;
(c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;
(d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;
(e) victim of the offence is a person with disability;
(f) offender is a serial offender, or
(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by enable any person to have unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex,
(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.
(3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.
That part of the bill I'll fully support. That covers rape, molestation, sex with people who may not be able to say no. Read ones who may be deaf unable to speak and blind. and finally scum bags who don't tell the other person they are HIV positive.
That part of the bill should be applied to everyone straight and gay. Right now pedos get slap on the wrist sentences ten years in prison and their name on the sex offender list for ten years.
Seriously that's a joke. The only part that works is that fact that others in the neighborhood vilify that person.
Why would you support that part of the bill, those are not laws, they're just an extension of the "crime" which adds "aggravated" to it. They already have laws in place against those crimes though they're not related to homosexuality.
Tell me where is a law that provides a death penalty to someone who rapes a child? I don't recall seeing one. Or where is one that helps protect people without HIV from getting infected from someone with HIV?
Supposed I went to a bar I met a gay guy and said early in the evening that I wanted to try it. I got drunk and he decided that a condom was not necessary. All the while not telling me that he has HIV?
Don't say it doesn't happen. 90% the spreaders of STD's are males. Getting HIV is a death sentence to someone who may have been curious about a way of life. Why should the infector get away with it?
I have heard a case where a man who knowingly spread hiv to several women was taken to court. I don't remember what happened though, shall look it up. If it is shown they spread it intentionally then they shouldn't get away with it. If it was unintentional, then they need telling they have it/educating about how to live with it.
I would like to know where your 90% figure came from. Also you make it sound like being gay is a choice.
Right now I'm a canadian gun owner. A minority. There's people out there that think anyone who owns guns should have a lobotomy. As they have to be mentally disabled to want guns.
There's people who want gays to have lobotomies as well because clearly no one mentally sound would want to have sex with a man.
They are humans and they are born with free will. If they want to do a man I can't stop them. But I can do whatever it takes to ensure others have the choice as well.
It sounds like you trying to say that because people can choose to do certain things like own a gun, they can choose all aspects of their life. Just like you can choose what foods you like/dislike and who you fall in love with.
Personally, I don't believe in free will. The brain is just a chemical structure which has to obey rules like everything else. If it didn't, it wouldn't work. There is no room for free will there. If there is then apple has free will too. It's just atoms and energy too. Adjust someones brain and they act differently. It's been shown in several cases with rats where they changed markers on the rats dna. They could change the rats from being loving attentive parents who paid lots of attention to their pups into parents who ignored their children, and vice-versa.
That being said, the idea that I have freewill is hard wired into me and despite what I just said, I act as though I and everyone else have it. I wouldn't know how not to. It's a concept currently required by society. You can't just say he had no choice to do x because of his brain structure and so he isn't responsible because then you could do anything and not be held accountable.
The point is that there are some things we don't have control over and who we fall in love with is one of them. Yes, we can chose to ignore it, but thats it. So would you say gay people should just ignore that entire part of their existance and a live alone?
On May 11 2011 03:22 ZerGuy wrote: As far as I know and read, they don't give death penalty for being gay. What I found said they give it for having gay sex when being ill for AIDS, or having an homo intercourse with an underaged person. Can you link me to sources claim that Uganda bill plans death penalty for being gay?
2. The offence of homosexuality. (1) A person commits the offence of homosexuality if-
(a) he penetrates the anus or mouth of another person of the same sex with his penis or any other sexual contraption;
(b) he or she uses any object or sexual contraption to penetrate or stimulate sexual organ of a person of the same sex;
(e) he or she touches another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality.
(2) A person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.
3. Aggravated homosexuality. (1) A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the
(a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years;
(b) offender is a person living with HIV;
(c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;
(d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;
(e) victim of the offence is a person with disability;
(f) offender is a serial offender, or
(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by enable any person to have unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex,
(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.
(3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.
Presumably a "serial offender" is somebody who has sex with people of the same gender multiple times, which is going to be true for any gay person with an active sex life. Even if it's just once, you're imprisoned for life, which isn't much better.
If someone gets caught so many times they'd consider him a serial offender... I mean, if it's illegal, they probably do it in secrecy... Dunno about the serial offender part...
Anyway, it seems to me that telling that it gives death penalty for just being gay is misinformation. Someone should add the part Bortlett quoted to the OP. I think people deserve to know what are they asked to sign.
This is inhuman. The mental pain it causes saying that what you love is sick and wrong. This mentally exhausting and the offspring of the worst thing this universe and mankind has created - religion.
On May 10 2011 12:27 CheAse wrote: wow I can't believe this is real I'll sign.
The world is a pretty fucked up place. Take Pakistan, for example. In Pakistan they have a anti-blasphemy law, stating that if you commit blasphemy or believe in a different religion than the state-sponsored one, you can be thrown in jail and/or put to death. There have been several instances of young people being condemned to death already.
3. Aggravated homosexuality. (1) A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the
(a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years;
(b) offender is a person living with HIV;
(c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;
(d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;
(e) victim of the offence is a person with disability;
(f) offender is a serial offender, or
(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by enable any person to have unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex,
(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.
(3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.
That part of the bill I'll fully support. That covers rape, molestation, sex with people who may not be able to say no. Read ones who may be deaf unable to speak and blind. and finally scum bags who don't tell the other person they are HIV positive.
That part of the bill should be applied to everyone straight and gay. Right now pedos get slap on the wrist sentences ten years in prison and their name on the sex offender list for ten years.
Seriously that's a joke. The only part that works is that fact that others in the neighborhood vilify that person.
Why would you support that part of the bill, those are not laws, they're just an extension of the "crime" which adds "aggravated" to it. They already have laws in place against those crimes though they're not related to homosexuality.
Tell me where is a law that provides a death penalty to someone who rapes a child? I don't recall seeing one. Or where is one that helps protect people without HIV from getting infected from someone with HIV?
Supposed I went to a bar I met a gay guy and said early in the evening that I wanted to try it. I got drunk and he decided that a condom was not necessary. All the while not telling me that he has HIV?
Don't say it doesn't happen. 90% the spreaders of STD's are males. Getting HIV is a death sentence to someone who may have been curious about a way of life. Why should the infector get away with it?
I have heard a case where a man who knowingly spread hiv to several women was taken to court. I don't remember what happened though, shall look it up. If it is shown they spread it intentionally then they shouldn't get away with it. If it was unintentional, then they need telling they have it/educating about how to live with it.
I would like to know where your 90% figure came from. Also you make it sound like being gay is a choice.
Right now I'm a canadian gun owner. A minority. There's people out there that think anyone who owns guns should have a lobotomy. As they have to be mentally disabled to want guns.
There's people who want gays to have lobotomies as well because clearly no one mentally sound would want to have sex with a man.
They are humans and they are born with free will. If they want to do a man I can't stop them. But I can do whatever it takes to ensure others have the choice as well.
It sounds like you trying to say that because people can choose to do certain things like own a gun, they can choose all aspects of their life. Just like you can choose what foods you like/dislike and who you fall in love with.
Personally, I don't believe in free will. The brain is just a chemical structure which has to obey rules like everything else. If it didn't, it wouldn't work. There is no room for free will there. If there is then apple has free will too. It's just atoms and energy too. Adjust someones brain and they act differently. It's been shown in several cases with rats where they changed markers on the rats dna. They could change the rats from being loving attentive parents who paid lots of attention to their pups into parents who ignored their children, and vice-versa.
That being said, the idea that I have freewill is hard wired into me and despite what I just said, I act as though I and everyone else have it. I wouldn't know how not to. It's a concept currently required by society. You can't just say he had no choice to do x because of his brain structure and so he isn't responsible because then you could do anything and not be held accountable.
The point is that there are some things we don't have control over and who we fall in love with is one of them. Yes, we can chose to ignore it, but thats it. So would you say gay people should just ignore that entire part of their existance and a live alone?
If they don't want to be gay they won't be gay. Same reason as I'm here posting. Just because I own SC2 and play it that does not automatically mean I have to come and support teamliquid.
Thankfully others don't think like you do otherwise we would still be thinking the earth is flat.
EPT
