Uganda's anti-gay law has failed! It looked sure to pass last week, but after 1.6 million petition signatures delivered to Parliament, tens of thousands of phone calls to our own governments, hundreds of media stories about our campaign and a massive global outcry, Ugandan politicians dropped the bill!
It was down to the wire - religious extremists tried to push the bill through on Wednesday, and then convened an unprecedented emergency session of Parliament on Friday. But each time, within hours, we reacted. A huge congratulations to everyone who signed, called, forwarded and donated to this campaign - with our help, thousands of innocent people in Uganda's gay community do not wake up this morning facing execution for whom they chose to love.
Frank Mugisha, a courageous leader of the gay community in Uganda sent us this message:
"Brave Ugandan LGBT activists and millions of people around the world have stood together and faced down this horrendous anti-homosexuality bill.The support from the Avaaz global community has tipped the scales to prevent this Bill going forward. Global solidarity has made a huge difference."
The EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs' Office also wrote to Avaaz:
"Many thanks. As you know, thanks to a very large extent to the intensive lobbying and combined effort of you, other civil society representatives, EU and other governments, plus our delegation and embassies on the ground the Bill was not presented to the Parliament this morning."
This fight is not over. The extremists behind this bill could try again within just 18 months. But this is the second time we've helped defeat this bill, and we'll keep going until the hate-mongers give up.
Transforming the deeper causes of ignorance and hatred behind homophobia is an historic, long term struggle, one of the great causes of our generation. But Uganda has become a front line in that struggle, and a powerful symbol. The victory there echoes across many other places where hope is desperately needed, showing that kindness, love, tolerance and respect can defeat hatred and ignorance. Again, a huge thanks to all who made it happen.
With enormous gratitude and admiration for this amazing community,
Ricken, Emma, Iain, Alice, Giulia, Saloni and the whole Avaaz team.
I couldn't find a thread for this, so I thought I'd spread awareness.
It's monstrous -- thousands of Ugandans could face the death penalty -- just for being gay. On Wednesday, Parliament may pass a law that punishes homosexuality with death – we have 48 hours to act.
We've stopped this bill before, and we can do it again. Ugandan President Museveni is scared of losing valuable international aid from the West -- after a massive international outcry last year, he stopped the bill from coming to a vote. But political unrest is mounting in Uganda, and religious extremists in Parliament are hoping confusion and violence in the streets will distract the international community from a second push to pass this hate-filled law. We can show them that the world is still watching. If we block the vote for two more days until Parliament closes, the bill will expire forever.
With 48 hours to go, every moment counts. Over half a million of us have already joined the call -- let’s get to one million voices against Uganda's gay death penalty in the next 48 hours -- sign now then spread the word about this campaign!
Uganda's currently trying to pass a bill that could punish homosexuality with the death penalty, hoping that they will be too distracted with the violence to stop the bill. I can't believe some countries are still trying to do this. I can't even imagine why they're so desperate to the point where they'll be focusing on homophobia instead of violence in their own country. Just perplexes me.
Anyway, I've linked a petition to stop the bill, which should pass in 48 hours if it's not postponed. Gogogo!
I'm sure the passing of this bill will illicit international sanctions against Uganda, that being said I really doubt that it will be passed as it will simply hurt the Ugandan economy.
Even if it is passed, it's even more doubtful that it will or can be enforced. This is all simply propaganda endorsed by the Ugandan government to feed their population reasons for their poverty.
On May 10 2011 12:28 Highlight wrote: is this serious? jeez death penalty? why aren't the major news networks covering this?
Do they care about Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Nigeria, or Mauritania where there is already the death penalty, or the 93 other countries who punish homosexuals? It just doesn't pop ya know?
The bill appears to be real - and suffered a setback earlier. The wording in the Avaaz posting suggests that this current event is a rush attempt to pass the bill, which would explain why it is not yet reflected on wikipedia.
On May 10 2011 12:38 FinestHour wrote: Signed and posted on fb for more people to sign
I did the same. I really hope this doesn't pass. No matter what peoples' views on homosexuality are, no one should be killed just for being who they are.
Uganda seems to have a background of this kind of thing, anyone else remember the internet meme from that youtube video where the guy says "then they eat da poo poo"? It sickens me to think of it even though it's almost comedic in a childish way.
Never understood homophobia, especially in these most despicable forms. If a man wants to love another man it does no damage to you or anybody else. Let the boys play.
On May 10 2011 12:42 thehorsebecomesking wrote: Is there a statistic somewhere about the amount of homosexuals in Uganda? At least some form of approximation will do.
On May 10 2011 12:42 thehorsebecomesking wrote: Is there a statistic somewhere about the amount of homosexuals in Uganda? At least some form of approximation will do.
On May 10 2011 12:34 On_Slaught wrote: Uganda is more backwards than I thought. This is atrocious.
On May 10 2011 12:44 Red Dust wrote: Never understood homophobia, especially in these most despicable forms. If a man wants to love another man it does no damage to you or anybody else. Let the boys play.
Petition signed.
Yea seriously, I don't like homosexuality but I don't see why their private, consensual activities should be regulated.
This is the kind of thing that warrants strict trade sanctions and international shunning. Countries like Uganda will get the fuck over homosexuality if it means having money for food and other basic necessities.
On May 10 2011 12:44 Red Dust wrote: Never understood homophobia, especially in these most despicable forms. If a man wants to love another man it does no damage to you or anybody else. Let the boys play.
Petition signed.
In Uganda it basically comes from some christian fundamentalists from the US, wasn't there also a Louis Theroux documentary about that stuff? It was something from the BBC, not the one I posted on page1 though, where they got a bit behind the reason for that anti-gay movement.
On May 10 2011 12:44 Red Dust wrote: Never understood homophobia, especially in these most despicable forms. If a man wants to love another man it does no damage to you or anybody else. Let the boys play.
Petition signed.
In Uganda it basically comes from some christian fundamentalists from the US, wasn't there also a Louis Theroux documentary about that stuff? It was something from the BBC, not the one I posted on page1 though, where they got a bit behind the reason for that anti-gay movement.
yea, it's basically what Evangelicals in America want. There's millions of dollars pouring into these African countries from Evangelical preachers in America funding this kind of crap. They figure they can setup a theocracy much easier in Africa and it'll spread to the West.
On May 10 2011 12:53 Samp wrote: signed this, we are in 2011 ffs.. how can ppl be that retarded, its sickening
The whole world is regressing, even in the US. We don't hang gays, but refuse them basic rights and it's getting worse every year. Saying it's 2011 means nothing. There was more religious freedom under the Romans than under Catholicism, despite the progression of 500 years.
On May 10 2011 12:28 Highlight wrote: is this serious? jeez death penalty? why aren't the major news networks covering this?
MSNBC is busy telling Republicans that they didn't do shit to help get Osama. Fox is busy telling Democrats that enhanced interrogations work. CNN is lost in their situation room.
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.
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.
I take it you don't remember when a certain regime would prosecute and execute people for just being Jewish.
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.
If Kofi was still around, he would have blitzkrieged that shit by now.
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.
Even if other nations didn't have the right to 'tell a sovereign nation how to legislate', they can certainly withhold aid as a result of decisions said 'sovereign nation' decides to make.
Is making sure the gays can't eat da poopoo is more important to Uganda than having bread on their dinner tables? Probably not, for most of them.
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.
Because certain things fall under the blanket of human rights. they are not rules that sovereign states can break, they are unalienable rights of all human beings. Murdering gay people is one of those. so is killing civilians involved in peaceful protesting. So is racial genocide.
If you don't understand this concept, you should probably consider reading some Wikipedia entries before posting.
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.
This is an absurd stance. If this was the case bodies like the JCC, or the UN period, wouldn't exist. This is a morally flawed thing to think imo.
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.
Because certain things fall under the blanket of human rights. they are not rules that sovereign states can break, they are unalienable rights of all human beings. Murdering gay people is one of those. so is killing civilians involved in peaceful protesting. So is racial genocide.
If you don't understand this concept, you should probably consider reading some Wikipedia entries before posting.
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.
Because certain things fall under the blanket of human rights. they are not rules that sovereign states can break, they are unalienable rights of all human beings. Murdering gay people is one of those. so is killing civilians involved in peaceful protesting. So is racial genocide.
If you don't understand this concept, you should probably consider reading some Wikipedia entries before posting.
The UN only acts when the outcry is loud enough (eg Rwanda) or vast amounts of money are at stake (eg Libya). Look at Syria, they are absolutely butchering their people far beyond what Qaddfi did and nary a peep is heard from the UN. It's all "slap on the wrist" bullshit. Syria is deploying tanks, shooting into crowds, doing midnight raids on protesters, barring hospitals. But because Syria is not a major exporter of oil and because it's a major enemy of Israel, no one gives a shit. Qaddfi merely had the threat of retaliation against his uprising and the UN jumped on that shit faster than a dog fart clears a room. Syria is actually butchering their people and no one cares.
So yea, the UN is a fucking joke. It's a bunch of self-interested cock suckers kept in check by a bunch of dick-waving WWII winners.
On May 10 2011 12:29 Hawk2 wrote: I'm sure the passing of this bill will illicit international sanctions against Uganda, that being said I really doubt that it will be passed as it will simply hurt the Ugandan economy.
Even if it is passed, it's even more doubtful that it will or can be enforced. This is all simply propaganda endorsed by the Ugandan government to feed their population reasons for their poverty.
Why is that? In Saudi Arabia it's a death penalty too and we trade like crazy with them.
Countries already with it and most have no sanctions
Sudan Saudi Arabia Iran Mauritania Yemen
plus parts of Nigeria and Somalia
Total number of countries where homosexuality is illegal, usually with long term prison sentences: 80
From the 2009 annual report by ILGA (International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Intersex Association)
On May 10 2011 12:28 Highlight wrote: is this serious? jeez death penalty? why aren't the major news networks covering this?
There have been countless horrible things going on in Uganda forever, including genocide and concentration camps, and nobody ever knows about them because the country somehow always flies under the radar of the media. It's a very terrible and saddening thing.
As much as I disagree with the idea/act of homosexuality ((**My own personal opinion**)), this is completely disgusting and I really hope it doesn't go through.
On May 10 2011 14:11 Newtonz wrote: As much as I disagree with the idea/act of homosexuality ((**My own personal opinion**)), this is completely disgusting and I really hope it doesn't go through.
On May 10 2011 14:11 Newtonz wrote: As much as I disagree with the idea/act of homosexuality ((**My own personal opinion**)), this is completely disgusting and I really hope it doesn't go through.
On May 10 2011 12:38 FinestHour wrote: Signed and posted on fb for more people to sign
I did the same. I really hope this doesn't pass. No matter what peoples' views on homosexuality are, no one should be killed just for being who they are.
agreed, like jesus thats just wrong O_O. I think its gross and stuff but I would never wish death or any penalty on it :s.
On May 10 2011 14:11 Newtonz wrote: As much as I disagree with the idea/act of homosexuality ((**My own personal opinion**)), this is completely disgusting and I really hope it doesn't go through.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
What the fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension, not wanting to kiss another guy =/= wanting gay Ugandians (sp?) to die.
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.
Because certain things fall under the blanket of human rights. they are not rules that sovereign states can break, they are unalienable rights of all human beings. Murdering gay people is one of those. so is killing civilians involved in peaceful protesting. So is racial genocide.
If you don't understand this concept, you should probably consider reading some Wikipedia entries before posting.
There is nothing universal/unalienable about it, many countries never signed the universal declaration of human rights not to mention all rights are psychological constructs nothing universal/unalienable about them.
I bet you $1000 if you were raised in Saudi Arabia you'd think it was cool to kill gays. So it's largly indoctrination pro or con.
On a more serious note: holy shit stuff like this is retarded. Do they really not have more serious issues in Uganda than stoning gay people? :/ Their priorities are sooo messed up...
I believe that acting on gay desires is morally wrong, but any sensible Christian can recognize that this law is quite misguided. I really hope it doesn't pass.
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.
Because certain things fall under the blanket of human rights. they are not rules that sovereign states can break, they are unalienable rights of all human beings. Murdering gay people is one of those. so is killing civilians involved in peaceful protesting. So is racial genocide.
If you don't understand this concept, you should probably consider reading some Wikipedia entries before posting.
There is nothing universal/unalienable about it, many countries never signed the universal declaration of human rights not to mention all rights are psychological constructs nothing universal/unalienable about them.
So you're against basic human rights? That's a good way to make enemies :D
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.
Because certain things fall under the blanket of human rights. they are not rules that sovereign states can break, they are unalienable rights of all human beings. Murdering gay people is one of those. so is killing civilians involved in peaceful protesting. So is racial genocide.
If you don't understand this concept, you should probably consider reading some Wikipedia entries before posting.
There is nothing universal/unalienable about it, many countries never signed the universal declaration of human rights not to mention all rights are psychological constructs nothing universal/unalienable about them.
So you're against basic human rights? That's a good way to make enemies :D
I didnt say that. Mearly pointing out one man human right can be opposite anothers.
Wait, soo.. in a country where somewhere between 5-10% of the population is infected with HIV, and gay males are statistically more likely to contract HIV, they're trying to pass a law to criminalize homosexual intercourse? Stop the fucking presses, this shit is out of hand.
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.
I'm in the same boat with the Redunzl on this one.
On May 10 2011 14:34 Moody wrote: Wait, soo.. in a country where somewhere between 5-10% of the population is infected with HIV, and gay males are statistically more likely to contract HIV, they're trying to pass a law to criminalize homosexual intercourse? Stop the fucking presses, this shit is out of hand.
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.
I'm in the same boat with the Redunzl on this one.
We're just signing a petition, we're not bombing them or threatening to at least. All this is intended to do is let the Ugandan government know a large number of people from all around the world feel strongly about this issue.
I have to say Im a little disgusted by the sentiments expressed in this thread. People are acting like you can control whether you are homosexual or not; it's morally wrong to be who you are? But with that aside, this law is absolutely unbelievable, is the UN not stepping in?
And on another note to one of the comments above, why is it only Christians that can see that this is wrong? Everyone else has morals too you know, we dont have to be "sensible Christians" to disagree with this.
On May 10 2011 14:34 Moody wrote: Wait, soo.. in a country where somewhere between 5-10% of the population is infected with HIV, and gay males are statistically more likely to contract HIV, they're trying to pass a law to criminalize homosexual intercourse? Stop the fucking presses, this shit is out of hand.
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.
I'm in the same boat with the Redunzl on this one.
Well they're also failing to pass laws that educate the public on say, proper condom usage and birth control. They're also completely failing to prevent rape, starvation, etc. in many parts of their country.
If it's all about saving lives, Uganda has a lot more important issues to deal with. And even if it was about saving the lives of homosexuals, how would putting them to death even reasonably achieve that goal?
So yeah, stop the fucking presses because this shit is out of hand. It's no different from any of the genocidal campaigns we've seen throughout history beyond it's scale.
On May 10 2011 14:34 Moody wrote: Wait, soo.. in a country where somewhere between 5-10% of the population is infected with HIV, and gay males are statistically more likely to contract HIV, they're trying to pass a law to criminalize homosexual intercourse? Stop the fucking presses, this shit is out of hand.
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.
I'm in the same boat with the Redunzl on this one.
Yes because the death penalty is a completely logical course of action. Do you actually believe that shit? I can't believe someone would actually think that.
I think it's hilarious that because it's a sovereign country it had the right to do whatever the hell it wants. If hitler had been born 60 years later he would apparently get away with killing jewish people because it's a sovereign countrys right to do so.
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.
Because certain things fall under the blanket of human rights. they are not rules that sovereign states can break, they are unalienable rights of all human beings. Murdering gay people is one of those. so is killing civilians involved in peaceful protesting. So is racial genocide.
If you don't understand this concept, you should probably consider reading some Wikipedia entries before posting.
There is nothing universal/unalienable about it, many countries never signed the universal declaration of human rights not to mention all rights are psychological constructs nothing universal/unalienable about them.
So you're against basic human rights? That's a good way to make enemies :D
I didnt say that. Mearly pointing out one man human right can be opposite anothers.
Mind giving me an example? I can't really think of one and nothing you've said so far has any shred of logic in it, leading me to believe you can't either and are just talking out of your ass.
On May 10 2011 14:39 Doorhandle wrote: I have to say Im a little disgusted by the sentiments expressed in this thread. People are acting like you can control whether you are homosexual or not; it's morally wrong to be who you are? But with that aside, this law is absolutely unbelievable, is the UN not stepping in?
And on another note to one of the comments above, why is it only Christians that can see that this is wrong? Everyone else has morals too you know, we dont have to be "sensible Christians" to disagree with this.
I don't think i would agree with signing this petition if they were just trying to ban homosexuality with some sort of non-corporal punishment, but the death penalty is absolutely absurd and a human rights catastrophe waiting to happen.
I'm aware there's a large HIV epidemic in Uganda too, so i think the paranoia might be something related to that as well.
On May 10 2011 14:39 Doorhandle wrote: I have to say Im a little disgusted by the sentiments expressed in this thread. People are acting like you can control whether you are homosexual or not; it's morally wrong to be who you are? But with that aside, this law is absolutely unbelievable, is the UN not stepping in?
And on another note to one of the comments above, why is it only Christians that can see that this is wrong? Everyone else has morals too you know, we dont have to be "sensible Christians" to disagree with this.
Nice try but Uganda in a Christian country.
I dont know what you mean, but Im assuming you are saying that Uganda is a Christian country. But why is it only "Christians" that know what is morally right or wrong? It's common fucking sense.
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.
Because certain things fall under the blanket of human rights. they are not rules that sovereign states can break, they are unalienable rights of all human beings. Murdering gay people is one of those. so is killing civilians involved in peaceful protesting. So is racial genocide.
If you don't understand this concept, you should probably consider reading some Wikipedia entries before posting.
There is nothing universal/unalienable about it, many countries never signed the universal declaration of human rights not to mention all rights are psychological constructs nothing universal/unalienable about them.
So you're against basic human rights? That's a good way to make enemies :D
I didnt say that. Mearly pointing out one man human right can be opposite anothers.
Mind giving me an example? I can't really think of one and nothing you've said so far has any shred of logic in it, leading me to believe you can't either and are just talking out of your ass.
Like I said earlier if you were indoctrinated in Saudi you'd think killing gays was the thing to do. They do it every friday in head chopping ceremonies.
On May 10 2011 14:39 Doorhandle wrote: I have to say Im a little disgusted by the sentiments expressed in this thread. People are acting like you can control whether you are homosexual or not; it's morally wrong to be who you are? But with that aside, this law is absolutely unbelievable, is the UN not stepping in?
And on another note to one of the comments above, why is it only Christians that can see that this is wrong? Everyone else has morals too you know, we dont have to be "sensible Christians" to disagree with this.
Nice try but Uganda in a Christian country.
I dont know what you mean, but Im assuming you are saying that Uganda is a Christian country. But why is it only "Christians" that know what is morally right or wrong? It's common fucking sense.
No one said Christians are the only ones who know morals on any issue. Yes, Uganda is Christian. Yes, they're pushing to execute homosexuals. No, that is not the general consensus among Christians, especially those in the countries TLers live in.
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.
Because certain things fall under the blanket of human rights. they are not rules that sovereign states can break, they are unalienable rights of all human beings. Murdering gay people is one of those. so is killing civilians involved in peaceful protesting. So is racial genocide.
If you don't understand this concept, you should probably consider reading some Wikipedia entries before posting.
There is nothing universal/unalienable about it, many countries never signed the universal declaration of human rights not to mention all rights are psychological constructs nothing universal/unalienable about them.
So you're against basic human rights? That's a good way to make enemies :D
I didnt say that. Mearly pointing out one man human right can be opposite anothers.
Mind giving me an example? I can't really think of one and nothing you've said so far has any shred of logic in it, leading me to believe you can't either and are just talking out of your ass.
I agree with tdt that human rights are not cast in stone. However, i think its safe to say that in this case Uganda is pushing past almost all of the agreed upon ones, namely the right live and let live. If they are not hurting you, why attack them?
also someone brought up the point that this would help any AIDS/HIV problem. it seems to me like education and prevention would be a whole lot better way to stem that problem that doesn't involve the murder of thousands.
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.
Because certain things fall under the blanket of human rights. they are not rules that sovereign states can break, they are unalienable rights of all human beings. Murdering gay people is one of those. so is killing civilians involved in peaceful protesting. So is racial genocide.
If you don't understand this concept, you should probably consider reading some Wikipedia entries before posting.
There is nothing universal/unalienable about it, many countries never signed the universal declaration of human rights not to mention all rights are psychological constructs nothing universal/unalienable about them.
So you're against basic human rights? That's a good way to make enemies :D
I didnt say that. Mearly pointing out one man human right can be opposite anothers.
Mind giving me an example? I can't really think of one and nothing you've said so far has any shred of logic in it, leading me to believe you can't either and are just talking out of your ass.
Like I said earlier if you were indoctrinated in Saudi you'd think killing gays was the thing to do. They do it every friday in head chopping ceremonies.
Do you understand how to use logic? First of all, your statement is absurd and without any citation, but let's ignore that for now.
You basically stated it's a human right to kill people so going against this is also going against peoples' rights. Are you really that retarded? Because if so, I don't want to even begin to comprehend how you were able to turn on your computer.
Thinking "doing xx is the thing to do" doesn't make it your right to do so. That's the dumbest thing I've seen in a long time.
On May 10 2011 14:39 Doorhandle wrote: I have to say Im a little disgusted by the sentiments expressed in this thread. People are acting like you can control whether you are homosexual or not; it's morally wrong to be who you are? But with that aside, this law is absolutely unbelievable, is the UN not stepping in?
And on another note to one of the comments above, why is it only Christians that can see that this is wrong? Everyone else has morals too you know, we dont have to be "sensible Christians" to disagree with this.
Nice try but Uganda in a Christian country.
I dont know what you mean, but Im assuming you are saying that Uganda is a Christian country. But why is it only "Christians" that know what is morally right or wrong? It's common fucking sense.
I take the opposite view , rather than "why is it only Christians that can see that this is wrong" I see it as they think they are doing gods work so Christianity is actually playing a negative role here. That's why I mentioned Uganda was Christian.
Absolutely it's common sense. Killing is the ultimate form of oppression.
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.
Because certain things fall under the blanket of human rights. they are not rules that sovereign states can break, they are unalienable rights of all human beings. Murdering gay people is one of those. so is killing civilians involved in peaceful protesting. So is racial genocide.
If you don't understand this concept, you should probably consider reading some Wikipedia entries before posting.
There is nothing universal/unalienable about it, many countries never signed the universal declaration of human rights not to mention all rights are psychological constructs nothing universal/unalienable about them.
So you're against basic human rights? That's a good way to make enemies :D
I didnt say that. Mearly pointing out one man human right can be opposite anothers.
Mind giving me an example? I can't really think of one and nothing you've said so far has any shred of logic in it, leading me to believe you can't either and are just talking out of your ass.
Like I said earlier if you were indoctrinated in Saudi you'd think killing gays was the thing to do. They do it every friday in head chopping ceremonies.
I don't really consider their opinion when talking about human rights.
Why?
Because people that have friday night head chopping sessions have a bad concept of human rights so I don't really consider them when making a statement about it.
On May 10 2011 14:54 Halcyondaze wrote: The bill won't kill anybody but the martyrs. And Uganda has so many problems, maybe they just want a quick fix?
I am against this, but not going to sign cause it seems too scammy for me.
just do what travis did and use a separate email. it doesnt ask for any other info.
On May 10 2011 12:44 Red Dust wrote: Never understood homophobia, especially in these most despicable forms. If a man wants to love another man it does no damage to you or anybody else. Let the boys play.
Petition signed.
Yea seriously, I don't like homosexuality but I don't see why their private, consensual activities should be regulated.
Ever think that maybe it's the non private stuff they are trying to stop? Are gay pride parades necessary in order to be gay? Is committing sex acts in public places like washrooms, locker rooms where ever else it's possible to do it that's not private property.
I'll say it again, if they want to be gay go ahead. I just don't want to see it. If I wanted to I'd look for it.
FYI I'm against the death issue but I still don't like them.
In Uganda, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, if enacted, would broaden the criminalisation of homosexuality by introducing the death penalty for people who have previous convictions, are HIV-positive, or engage in same sex acts with people under 18 years of age. The bill also includes provisions for Ugandans who engage in same-sex sexual relations outside of Uganda, asserting that they may be extradited for punishment back to Uganda, and includes penalties for individuals, companies, media organisations, or non-governmental organisations that support LGBT rights.
The legislation strengthens the criminalisation of homosexuality in Uganda by introducing the death penalty for people who are considered serial offenders, are suspected of "aggravated homosexuality" and are HIV-positive, or who engage in sexual acts with those under 18 years of age.[13] People who are caught or suspected of homosexual activity will be forced to undergo HIV tests; Ugandans who engage in same-sex sexual relations outside Uganda will likewise fall under the jurisdiction of this law, and may be extradited and charged with a felony. Furthermore, if passed, the bill will require anyone who is aware of an offense or an offender, including individuals, companies, media organisations, or non-governmental organisations who support LGBT rights, to report the offender within 24 hours. If an individual does not do so he or she is also considered an offender and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding 250 "currency points" or imprisonment up to three years
Wait a minute, so this only applies to homosexual statutory rape and deliberate HIV transferal? That makes a lot more sense, but I don't get why they would only target gays.
On May 10 2011 12:44 Red Dust wrote: Never understood homophobia, especially in these most despicable forms. If a man wants to love another man it does no damage to you or anybody else. Let the boys play.
Petition signed.
Yea seriously, I don't like homosexuality but I don't see why their private, consensual activities should be regulated.
Ever think that maybe it's the non private stuff they are trying to stop? Are gay pride parades necessary in order to be gay? Is committing sex acts in public places like washrooms, locker rooms where ever else it's possible to do it that's not private property.
I'll say it again, if they want to be gay go ahead. I just don't want to see it. If I wanted to I'd look for it.
FYI I'm against the death issue but I still don't like them.
You cant seriously try to make an argument with that whole parade thing. Gays arent the only ones that have pride parades. There are marches for equality all over the world all the time, for all sorts of reasons, and I dont see everyone saying equality is gross. As for the sex acts in public places, the majority of acts done in those places are by straight people, so that's not a valid argument either. It's not any more or less appropriate if a straight couple does it.
EDIT: Just fixed a really bad mistake where I said "are" rather than "arent".
On May 10 2011 15:09 Chairman Ray wrote: Wait a minute, so this only applies to homosexual statutory rape and deliberate HIV transferal? That makes a lot more sense, but I don't get why they would only target gays.
On May 10 2011 12:44 Red Dust wrote: Never understood homophobia, especially in these most despicable forms. If a man wants to love another man it does no damage to you or anybody else. Let the boys play.
Petition signed.
Yea seriously, I don't like homosexuality but I don't see why their private, consensual activities should be regulated.
Ever think that maybe it's the non private stuff they are trying to stop? Are gay pride parades necessary in order to be gay? Is committing sex acts in public places like washrooms, locker rooms where ever else it's possible to do it that's not private property.
I'll say it again, if they want to be gay go ahead. I just don't want to see it. If I wanted to I'd look for it.
FYI I'm against the death issue but I still don't like them.
You cant seriously try to make an argument with that whole parade thing. Gays are the only ones that have pride parades. There are marches for equality all over the world all the time, for all sorts of reasons, and I dont see everyone saying equality is gross. As for the sex acts in public places, the majority of acts done in those places are by straight people, so that's not a valid argument either. It's not any more or less appropriate if a straight couple does it.
Theyre having a gay pride parade? To the guillotines and let there be cake!
However well done with the troll you got one.
In the unlikely event it was not a troll, then clearly the better law would have been a crackdown on flaunting sexuality publicly not put to death teh gayz. However remember this is africa, the whole continent has been having an identity crisis for some time now. When humanity left the cradle of civilization, much of africa stopped progressing or atleast very slowly, when reunited with the rest of the world in the modern age they've had to deal with a huge amount of issues bombarding them and things like this are just normal (i didnt say right) traditionalist responses to a rapid changing cultural identity.
On May 10 2011 12:28 Highlight wrote: is this serious? jeez death penalty? why aren't the major news networks covering this?
MSNBC is busy telling Republicans that they didn't do shit to help get Osama. Fox is busy telling Democrats that enhanced interrogations work. CNN is lost in their situation room.
I can't say for sure about all these networks (and I especially doubt FOX has covered it), but several programs on MSNBC have been covering this story for the past year or so. The Rachel Maddow Show in particular has covered it extensively. Maddow, who is gay herself, even had the MP in Uganda who sponsored this bill on her program and showed EXTREME restraint.
The interview is worth watching in its entirety. I think the average viewer will be shocked at some of the outlandish and blatantly false claims that have led to this bill gaining traction.
On May 10 2011 12:44 Red Dust wrote: Never understood homophobia, especially in these most despicable forms. If a man wants to love another man it does no damage to you or anybody else. Let the boys play.
Petition signed.
In Uganda it basically comes from some christian fundamentalists from the US, wasn't there also a Louis Theroux documentary about that stuff? It was something from the BBC, not the one I posted on page1 though, where they got a bit behind the reason for that anti-gay movement.
yea, it's basically what Evangelicals in America want. There's millions of dollars pouring into these African countries from Evangelical preachers in America funding this kind of crap. They figure they can setup a theocracy much easier in Africa and it'll spread to the West.
Pinning it on American Evangelicals at large is a little much, but the connection to powerful Christian interests in the US is important to make.
The bill has an American genesis of sorts, inspired to a large extent by the visits of U.S. evangelicals who are involved with a movement that promotes Christianity's role in getting homosexuals to become "ex-gays" through prayer and faith. Ugandan supporters of the bill appear to be particularly impressed by the ideas of Scott Lively, a California conservative preacher who has written a book, The Pink Swastika, about what he calls the links between Nazism and a gay agenda for world domination, which, by itself, would have raised the anti-colonial sensitivities of Ugandan society.
The interview is worth watching in its entirety. I think the average viewer will be shocked at some of the outlandish and blatantly false claims that have led to this bill gaining traction.
On May 10 2011 12:44 Red Dust wrote: Never understood homophobia, especially in these most despicable forms. If a man wants to love another man it does no damage to you or anybody else. Let the boys play.
Petition signed.
In Uganda it basically comes from some christian fundamentalists from the US, wasn't there also a Louis Theroux documentary about that stuff? It was something from the BBC, not the one I posted on page1 though, where they got a bit behind the reason for that anti-gay movement.
yea, it's basically what Evangelicals in America want. There's millions of dollars pouring into these African countries from Evangelical preachers in America funding this kind of crap. They figure they can setup a theocracy much easier in Africa and it'll spread to the West.
Pinning it on American Evangelicals at large is a little much, but the connection to powerful Christian interests in the US is important to make.
The bill has an American genesis of sorts, inspired to a large extent by the visits of U.S. evangelicals who are involved with a movement that promotes Christianity's role in getting homosexuals to become "ex-gays" through prayer and faith. Ugandan supporters of the bill appear to be particularly impressed by the ideas of Scott Lively, a California conservative preacher who has written a book, The Pink Swastika, about what he calls the links between Nazism and a gay agenda for world domination, which, by itself, would have raised the anti-colonial sensitivities of Ugandan society.
[/QUOTE]
If I didn't barf at the sight of Maddow I might consider watching this. MSNBC is such a joke as well.
While there is no doubt that this bill is absolutely horrible and wrong, I question that an online petition from American netizens would even be noticed in the voting. Let's hope it doesn't pass, and Uganda starts getting its act together.
(On a related tangent, it's kind of sad that we (Americans) don't get fired up all the time about bills that get sent through Congress. We just kind of sit back and bitch about things much more than trying to do anything (And I'm guilty of that as well...).) :-/
Yea, it's basically what Evangelicals in America want. There's millions of dollars pouring into these African countries from Evangelical preachers in America funding this kind of crap. They figure they can setup a theocracy much easier in Africa and it'll spread to the West.[/QUOTE]
If you seriously think Evangelicals as a whole are in favor of this you are more closed minded than you claim Evangelicals to be. I'm sorry for whatever christian, or maybe the media, has led you to feel this way.
To anyone still unsure about this organization: Please take my word for it, Avaaz is an amazing group of people. They've been organizing petitions and other movements like this for years, spreading awareness and promoting human rights. Please support them by signing this petition. Every voice counts.
On May 10 2011 15:32 Halcyondaze wrote: If you seriously think Evangelicals as a whole are in favor of this you are more closed minded than you claim Evangelicals to be. I'm sorry for whatever christian, or maybe the media, has led you to feel this way.
Reason he feels that way is because some idiot evangelical group from over here helped convince a few Uguandan congressmen that such a bill was a good idea.
On May 10 2011 14:34 Moody wrote: Wait, soo.. in a country where somewhere between 5-10% of the population is infected with HIV, and gay males are statistically more likely to contract HIV, they're trying to pass a law to criminalize homosexual intercourse? Stop the fucking presses, this shit is out of hand.
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.
I'm in the same boat with the Redunzl on this one.
Let me get this straight. You're saying that the Ugandans are trying to save gay people from contracting HIV by executing them?
This post has to set some kind of record for sheer stupidity.
On May 10 2011 15:56 TheGreatWhiteHope_ wrote: It's odd they think all homosexuals eat each other's crap. They must have em' mixed up with the Germans.
On May 10 2011 15:47 Citadel.i wrote: Stay out of other countries politics
I would say yes to this policy in general. I would say no to this policy when the country's politics could potentially involve the mass murder of innocents.
Personally, I don't believe that there are such things as universal human rights, and I also don't believe that homosexuality in the abstract is a positive thing. But I'll be damned if I can talk myself out of signing a petition that protects people from being executed for their sexual orientation. I can't conceive of that as anything but an evil to be resisted by any means. I am all for using Western political clout to crush this bill where it stands.
On May 10 2011 15:32 Halcyondaze wrote: If you seriously think Evangelicals as a whole are in favor of this you are more closed minded than you claim Evangelicals to be. I'm sorry for whatever christian, or maybe the media, has led you to feel this way.
Reason he feels that way is because some idiot evangelical group from over here helped convince a few Uguandan congressmen that such a bill was a good idea.
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.
Because certain things fall under the blanket of human rights. they are not rules that sovereign states can break, they are unalienable rights of all human beings. Murdering gay people is one of those. so is killing civilians involved in peaceful protesting. So is racial genocide.
If you don't understand this concept, you should probably consider reading some Wikipedia entries before posting.
There is nothing universal/unalienable about it, many countries never signed the universal declaration of human rights not to mention all rights are psychological constructs nothing universal/unalienable about them.
So you're against basic human rights? That's a good way to make enemies :D
I didnt say that. Mearly pointing out one man human right can be opposite anothers.
Mind giving me an example? I can't really think of one and nothing you've said so far has any shred of logic in it, leading me to believe you can't either and are just talking out of your ass.
Like I said earlier if iyou were indoctrinated in Saudi you'd think killing gays was the thing to do. They do it every friday in head chopping ceremonies.
And to the Saudi "expert" a few posts further up: No, Saudi doesn't have Friday beheading celebrations. Nobody is executed on Friday in fact.
I personally do not believe in supporting gay and lesibians, but if they're wanting to deter homosexuality why not just find other ways to make it inconvenient. Killing people over the choices a person makes in their personal life is not good.
I wonder what exactly their thought process is? They're certainly not the first group of people to kill others for not believing what they believe.
On May 10 2011 14:59 abominare wrote: Well it is uganda...
This is why no one takes africa seriously, the whole continent has been a shit whole for nearly 3 thousand years.
User was warned for this post
Oh so insulting a whole continent of people and being a racist bigot only gets you a warning? Really?
USA and rich european countries exploited Africa for its natural ressources since we first set foot on the continent. We buy their ressources for a cheap price and export them unnecessary goods, just to maintain our lifestyle and have all those petty little things in our lifes, while africans starve to death and no one even cares. They fight for scraps from a table of a system that keeps them oppressed, while we live in infinity.
Were only gonna die of our own Arrogance.
@topic: Ofc its wrong. I signed the petition, also with a spam email account.
This is not something you can look at with a Westernized point of view by the way. I am completely against death and the extradition of "criminals" from other countries. But Uganda is primitive, and they are using the only way that they see to deter homosexuality (which they see as a sin) that they know. HIV is an epidemic in their country. Yes I think this is wrong, but maybe try seeing their point of view
Edit: Also remember that this is a proposal, it is extreme because that is how you negotiate. The Ugandan government officials have said that the death penalty and extradition of people will almost for sure be taken out of the bill, along with many other things.
On May 10 2011 16:04 Halcyondaze wrote: This is not something you can look at with a Westernized point of view by the way. I am completely against death and the extradition of "criminals" from other countries. But Uganda is primitive, and they are using the only way that they see to deter homosexuality (which they see as a sin) that they know. HIV is an epidemic in their country. Yes I think this is wrong, but maybe try seeing their point of view
For Christ's sake, what does HIV have to do with justifying capital punishment for being gay? Yes, I realize that they are probably scapegoating homosexuals for the HIV epidemic. Doing so, however, isn't justifiable on any level.
On May 10 2011 16:04 Halcyondaze wrote: This is not something you can look at with a Westernized point of view by the way. I am completely against death and the extradition of "criminals" from other countries. But Uganda is primitive, and they are using the only way that they see to deter homosexuality (which they see as a sin) that they know. HIV is an epidemic in their country. Yes I think this is wrong, but maybe try seeing their point of view
For Christ's sake, what does HIV have to do with justifying capital punishment for being gay? Yes, I realize that they are probably scapegoating homosexuals for the HIV epidemic. Doing so, however, isn't justifiable on any level.
So who would you blame for the HIV epidemic?
lol Edit again: Im just curious, don't want to come off as an anti-gay. I really am pretty middle ground on the entire issue
On May 10 2011 16:04 Halcyondaze wrote: This is not something you can look at with a Westernized point of view by the way. I am completely against death and the extradition of "criminals" from other countries. But Uganda is primitive, and they are using the only way that they see to deter homosexuality (which they see as a sin) that they know. HIV is an epidemic in their country. Yes I think this is wrong, but maybe try seeing their point of view
For Christ's sake, what does HIV have to do with justifying capital punishment for being gay? Yes, I realize that they are probably scapegoating homosexuals for the HIV epidemic. Doing so, however, isn't justifiable on any level.
So who would you blame for the HIV epidemic?
If you're blaming the HIV epidemic on gay people then how are straight people/women getting it? I'd blame the vatican, among other factors, for actively opposing education on safe sex.
Edit: And what exactly is the middle ground on the execution of gays?
On May 10 2011 16:04 Halcyondaze wrote: This is not something you can look at with a Westernized point of view by the way. I am completely against death and the extradition of "criminals" from other countries. But Uganda is primitive, and they are using the only way that they see to deter homosexuality (which they see as a sin) that they know. HIV is an epidemic in their country. Yes I think this is wrong, but maybe try seeing their point of view
For Christ's sake, what does HIV have to do with justifying capital punishment for being gay? Yes, I realize that they are probably scapegoating homosexuals for the HIV epidemic. Doing so, however, isn't justifiable on any level.
So who would you blame for the HIV epidemic?
You know that gay people are in 99% of cases only infecting other gay people, right? So what's the point of implementing a death penalty to deter these people from infecting each other if you hate the gays so much? AIDs in Africa is already a death penalty..
On May 10 2011 16:04 Halcyondaze wrote: This is not something you can look at with a Westernized point of view by the way. I am completely against death and the extradition of "criminals" from other countries. But Uganda is primitive, and they are using the only way that they see to deter homosexuality (which they see as a sin) that they know. HIV is an epidemic in their country. Yes I think this is wrong, but maybe try seeing their point of view
For Christ's sake, what does HIV have to do with justifying capital punishment for being gay? Yes, I realize that they are probably scapegoating homosexuals for the HIV epidemic. Doing so, however, isn't justifiable on any level.
So who would you blame for the HIV epidemic?
lol Edit again: Im just curious, don't want to come off as an anti-gay. I really am pretty middle ground on the entire issue
Abstinence-only sex ed? The spread of HIV in Africa could have been orders of magnitude less severe if the people had been provided with easy access to and information about condoms. Could still be slowed even now, though I have no idea if they're doing anything in that regard.
On May 10 2011 16:04 Halcyondaze wrote: This is not something you can look at with a Westernized point of view by the way. I am completely against death and the extradition of "criminals" from other countries. But Uganda is primitive, and they are using the only way that they see to deter homosexuality (which they see as a sin) that they know. HIV is an epidemic in their country. Yes I think this is wrong, but maybe try seeing their point of view
For Christ's sake, what does HIV have to do with justifying capital punishment for being gay? Yes, I realize that they are probably scapegoating homosexuals for the HIV epidemic. Doing so, however, isn't justifiable on any level.
So who would you blame for the HIV epidemic?
lol Edit again: Im just curious, don't want to come off as an anti-gay. I really am pretty middle ground on the entire issue
Are you typing these posts from the 1980s? Is the Soviet Union still around over there?
I can't believe that people still think that gay people are somehow responsible for the HIV epidemic. Really, the CDC settled this issue about two and a half decades ago.
And my original point still stands. The HIV epidemic cannot justify capital punishment for gays on any level. It just doesn't make any fucking sense.
On May 10 2011 16:04 Halcyondaze wrote: This is not something you can look at with a Westernized point of view by the way. I am completely against death and the extradition of "criminals" from other countries. But Uganda is primitive, and they are using the only way that they see to deter homosexuality (which they see as a sin) that they know. HIV is an epidemic in their country. Yes I think this is wrong, but maybe try seeing their point of view
For Christ's sake, what does HIV have to do with justifying capital punishment for being gay? Yes, I realize that they are probably scapegoating homosexuals for the HIV epidemic. Doing so, however, isn't justifiable on any level.
So who would you blame for the HIV epidemic?
If you're blaming the HIV epidemic on gay people then how are straight people/women getting it? I'd blame the vatican, among other factors, for actively opposing education on safe sex.
Edit: And what exactly is the middle ground on the execution of gays?
"I am completely against death and the extradition of 'criminals' from other countries." Just thought I would reiterate that. Also, the middle ground comment was meant towards gay as a moral issue, not execution.
Interesting how uganda has so many problems yet they focus on something that isn't even a problem. Where can I find a legitimate source anyway. Are you sure there isn't some translation fail where they mean pedofiles and not homosexuals.
On May 10 2011 16:04 Halcyondaze wrote: This is not something you can look at with a Westernized point of view by the way. I am completely against death and the extradition of "criminals" from other countries. But Uganda is primitive, and they are using the only way that they see to deter homosexuality (which they see as a sin) that they know. HIV is an epidemic in their country. Yes I think this is wrong, but maybe try seeing their point of view
For Christ's sake, what does HIV have to do with justifying capital punishment for being gay? Yes, I realize that they are probably scapegoating homosexuals for the HIV epidemic. Doing so, however, isn't justifiable on any level.
So who would you blame for the HIV epidemic?
lol Edit again: Im just curious, don't want to come off as an anti-gay. I really am pretty middle ground on the entire issue
Are you typing these posts from the 1980s? Is the Soviet Union still around over there?
I can't believe that people still think that gay people are somehow responsible for the HIV epidemic. Really, the CDC settled this issue about two and a half decades ago.
And my original point still stands. The HIV epidemic cannot justify capital punishment for gays on any level. It just doesn't make any fucking sense.
I didn't see an answer to my question in there. Just by asking who you blame does it mean that I believe that it is purely homosexuals? I was just seeking information
Also I see how you would say that, because I said who instead of what. That was a mistype. Its 2AM, not thinking 100%.
On May 10 2011 16:19 Mitchlew wrote: Interesting how uganda has so many problems yet they focus on something that isn't even a problem. Where can I find a legitimate source anyway. Are you sure there isn't some translation fail where they mean pedofiles and not homosexuals.
In my eyes that is what I see, a translation issue. He keeps hitting the point of kids and children, so it seems to me that he means pedophile and not homosexual. (But who really knows)
Edit: By He I mean the Ugandan in the Maddow Video
On May 10 2011 16:19 Mitchlew wrote: Interesting how uganda has so many problems yet they focus on something that isn't even a problem. Where can I find a legitimate source anyway. Are you sure there isn't some translation fail where they mean pedofiles and not homosexuals.
In my eyes that is what I see, a translation issue. He keeps hitting the point of kids and children, so it seems to me that he means pedophile and not homosexual. (But who really knows)
It's a commonly used stereotype of gays by bigots that homosexuals are all pedophiles and want to prey upon your children.
On May 10 2011 16:19 Mitchlew wrote: Interesting how uganda has so many problems yet they focus on something that isn't even a problem. Where can I find a legitimate source anyway. Are you sure there isn't some translation fail where they mean pedofiles and not homosexuals.
In my eyes that is what I see, a translation issue. He keeps hitting the point of kids and children, so it seems to me that he means pedophile and not homosexual. (But who really knows)
Yeah thats why I was getting confused, could be either.
On May 10 2011 16:04 Halcyondaze wrote: This is not something you can look at with a Westernized point of view by the way. I am completely against death and the extradition of "criminals" from other countries. But Uganda is primitive, and they are using the only way that they see to deter homosexuality (which they see as a sin) that they know. HIV is an epidemic in their country. Yes I think this is wrong, but maybe try seeing their point of view
For Christ's sake, what does HIV have to do with justifying capital punishment for being gay? Yes, I realize that they are probably scapegoating homosexuals for the HIV epidemic. Doing so, however, isn't justifiable on any level.
So who would you blame for the HIV epidemic?
lol Edit again: Im just curious, don't want to come off as an anti-gay. I really am pretty middle ground on the entire issue
Are you typing these posts from the 1980s? Is the Soviet Union still around over there?
I can't believe that people still think that gay people are somehow responsible for the HIV epidemic. Really, the CDC settled this issue about two and a half decades ago.
And my original point still stands. The HIV epidemic cannot justify capital punishment for gays on any level. It just doesn't make any fucking sense.
I didn't see an answer to my question in there. Just by asking who you blame does it mean that I believe that it is purely homosexuals? I was just seeking information
Also I see how you would say that, because I said who instead of what. That was a mistype. Its 2AM, not thinking 100%.
Fair enough. There was an earlier post that actually did blame HIV on the gays, so I thought you were like that guy.
I don't think anybody is "to blame" for the AIDS crisis. A toxic combination of high infant mortality rates, low education, and corrupt institutional forces (the Catholic church, for example, and obviously the Ugandan government) has led to the rampant unprotected sex that turned Africa into a breeding ground for the HIV virus.
Given the sheer amount of corruption and ignorance, it's not surprising that homosexuals have been scapegoated by the Ugandan masses. The only solution to this problem is long-term education for the Ugandan people.
On May 10 2011 16:19 Mitchlew wrote: Interesting how uganda has so many problems yet they focus on something that isn't even a problem. Where can I find a legitimate source anyway. Are you sure there isn't some translation fail where they mean pedofiles and not homosexuals.
In my eyes that is what I see, a translation issue. He keeps hitting the point of kids and children, so it seems to me that he means pedophile and not homosexual. (But who really knows)
Edit: By He I mean the Ugandan in the Maddow Video
Nope, that's just a pretty standard bit of homophobic propaganda.
On May 10 2011 16:19 Mitchlew wrote: Interesting how uganda has so many problems yet they focus on something that isn't even a problem. Where can I find a legitimate source anyway. Are you sure there isn't some translation fail where they mean pedofiles and not homosexuals.
In my eyes that is what I see, a translation issue. He keeps hitting the point of kids and children, so it seems to me that he means pedophile and not homosexual. (But who really knows)
Edit: By He I mean the Ugandan in the Maddow Video
Nope, that's just a pretty standard bit of homophobic propaganda.
I agree that it is, in the West. Africa is a different world, and while he may be just another idiot trying to claim homosexuals as a whole as pedophiles, he also might have a translation issue.
On May 10 2011 14:59 abominare wrote: Well it is uganda...
This is why no one takes africa seriously, the whole continent has been a shit whole for nearly 3 thousand years.
User was warned for this post
Oh so insulting a whole continent of people and being a racist bigot only gets you a warning? Really?
USA and rich european countries exploited Africa for its natural ressources since we first set foot on the continent. We buy their ressources for a cheap price and export them unnecessary goods, just to maintain our lifestyle and have all those petty little things in our lifes, while africans starve to death and no one even cares. They fight for scraps from a table of a system that keeps them oppressed, while we live in infinity.
Were only gonna die of our own Arrogance.
@topic: Ofc its wrong. I signed the petition, also with a spam email account.
On May 10 2011 14:59 abominare wrote: Well it is uganda...
This is why no one takes africa seriously, the whole continent has been a shit whole for nearly 3 thousand years.
User was warned for this post
Oh so insulting a whole continent of people and being a racist bigot only gets you a warning? Really?
USA and rich european countries exploited Africa for its natural ressources since we first set foot on the continent. We buy their ressources for a cheap price and export them unnecessary goods, just to maintain our lifestyle and have all those petty little things in our lifes, while africans starve to death and no one even cares. They fight for scraps from a table of a system that keeps them oppressed, while we live in infinity.
Were only gonna die of our own Arrogance.
@topic: Ofc its wrong. I signed the petition, also with a spam email account.
=D
I'm not sure how I'm a racist bigot now, but other than the north eastern portion of the continent which desperately leaps to be claimed as part of the middle east, the continent is by and large a huge freaking wreck. We can go on and on and on about all the problems in africa both from internal issues and external issues but let me ask you this, how quickly would you move to africa? You wouldn't the place is a freaking nightmare, and was even before the western influences came back, the place can literally hold a claim on being the birthplace of slavery.
Since you took such a wonderful leap into calling me a racists, some history. The large tragic movement of slaves brought in from africa were by in large part contracted from actual african residents. Slavery was still going strong in africa (and in some respects in certain areas still very much alive) at the time and most slaves bound for america had been slaves for many years on their home continent. Infact theres a lot of really interesting lectures from prominent black leadership of the reconstruction era expounding on the sort of strange irony they would of been born slaves even in africa.
Of course since I'm such a racist bigot, I opted for all my university history credits to come from African American history studies instead of traditional history classes. So yes, in light of the horrible problems surrounding the continent I was not surprised that Uganda and other nearby countries were willing to put people to death for homosexuality, in fact this goes on in plenty of other african nations we like to forget about. I furthermore still stand on my claim the place is a disaster zone.
Furthermore on the economics of africa as having my degree in finance and opting for my finance electives to have a focus on economies of developing nations in africa, since you know I'm such a fucking white southern hill billy racist. The vast majority of natural resources in africa go largely untouched for various political instability and infrastructure deficiencies. No one sits around and tells them they only get half of what everyone else gets for diamonds/oil/lumber (well in some cases they intentionally have to undercut competition by larger margins since the massive instability of the area makes people uneasy to set up long term contracts), and they can only buy 'unnecessary goods', theres a hole slew of internal corruption and poor societal choices going on here.
By and large the countries here don't even have the means to even extract the complex resources at their disposal and with legislation like this, and the other million problems in the area, few companies are willing to invest in operation theres, thus much of the population relies on low tech production means. Serious agriculture planning issues aside, its not exactly surprising they get paid very little for agriculture products when having to compete with fully modernized farms and actually functioning regulatory systems. Yes theres a few economies here and there that are pushing forward better but its more of a by comparison story.
I'm not saying africa is in the situation it is in on their own merit alone, we certainly didnt help for a long time, and it'll be an even longer time before the place can come to grips with its own identity.
On May 10 2011 16:19 Mitchlew wrote: Interesting how uganda has so many problems yet they focus on something that isn't even a problem. Where can I find a legitimate source anyway. Are you sure there isn't some translation fail where they mean pedofiles and not homosexuals.
In my eyes that is what I see, a translation issue. He keeps hitting the point of kids and children, so it seems to me that he means pedophile and not homosexual. (But who really knows)
Edit: By He I mean the Ugandan in the Maddow Video
Nope, that's just a pretty standard bit of homophobic propaganda.
I agree that it is, in the West. Africa is a different world, and while he may be just another idiot trying to claim homosexuals as a whole as pedophiles, he also might have a translation issue.
I'm just trying not to jump to conclusions
You're really going out of your way to defend the people proposing this bill. First, it's not about HIV. They don't talk about HIV when defending the bill. This is a peripheral issue.
Secondly, this isn't 1900. The people proposing this bill have access to the same information we do. Uganda is a very poor country, but Bhatti and others have received material support from prominent American politicians and Christian leaders. They're propagating the same homophobic lies and misrepresentations we hear from far right figures in the US and Europe. This isn't happening in a vacuum. The whole homosexual=pedophile idea has been a cornerstone of anti-gay movements for a long time. Bhatti is tapping into that narrative.
I understand wanting to take somewhat of a cultural relativistic approach to a lot of international issue, but the killing or long-term imprisonment of innocent homosexuals isn't one of them. That's especially true when such a practice is being sponsored by westerners.
Not that I condone any of these actions, however I think america should focus on itself before we start focusing on other countries. This is already true in many areas, the death penalty for being gay. Why try to save the world when you're slowly shooting yourself in the foot?
Edit; You wanna contribute? set an example and fix yourself.
On May 10 2011 16:19 Mitchlew wrote: Interesting how uganda has so many problems yet they focus on something that isn't even a problem. Where can I find a legitimate source anyway. Are you sure there isn't some translation fail where they mean pedofiles and not homosexuals.
In my eyes that is what I see, a translation issue. He keeps hitting the point of kids and children, so it seems to me that he means pedophile and not homosexual. (But who really knows)
Edit: By He I mean the Ugandan in the Maddow Video
Nope, that's just a pretty standard bit of homophobic propaganda.
I agree that it is, in the West. Africa is a different world, and while he may be just another idiot trying to claim homosexuals as a whole as pedophiles, he also might have a translation issue.
I'm just trying not to jump to conclusions
You're really going out of your way to defend the people proposing this bill. First, it's not about HIV. They don't talk about HIV when defending the bill. This is a peripheral issue.
Secondly, this isn't 1900. The people proposing this bill have access to the same information we do. Uganda is a very poor country, but Bhatti and others have received material support from prominent American politicians and Christian leaders. They're propagating the same homophobic lies and misrepresentations we hear from far right figures in the US and Europe. This isn't happening in a vacuum. The whole homosexual=pedophile idea has been a cornerstone of anti-gay movements for a long time. Bhatti is tapping into that narrative.
I understand wanting to take somewhat of a cultural relativistic approach to a lot of international issue, but the killing or long-term imprisonment of innocent homosexuals isn't one of them. That's especially true when such a practice is being sponsored by westerners.
What I am doing is going out of my way to break single-mindedness. I have not supported this bill in any way in any of my posts.
Well, certain leaders of some countries are mentally deferred and giving them access to the countless possiblities modern technology grants us might not be a good idea (including modern weapons).
Blah. I just don't get homophobia at all. Even when I was under 10 years old and had no idea I might be gay, I was still really bewildered when I found out that Christians were supposed to be against gay people. That may have just been a result of me drawing connections between that situation and the anti-racism education everyone my age received in elementary school, but I just cannot relate to this apparently universal urge to marginalize and hate certain groups of people against all evidence.
Bah, people are dumb, and it seems so hopeless to bother trying to change them.
On May 10 2011 17:00 Vegasminion wrote: Not that I condone any of these actions, however I think america should focus on itself before we start focusing on other countries. This is already true in many areas, the death penalty for being gay. Why try to save the world when you're slowly shooting yourself in the foot?
We give Uganda serious aid. http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan_africa/countries/uganda/ If they opt to carry out violations of basic human rights, it concerns us. It doesn't mean we should start a war or provoke a revolution (like we did throughout Latin American and Africa throughout the last century), but a bill like this should make us seriously consider the nature and extent of our aid to Uganda.
Additionally, the only thing being asked is that you show opposition to this bill, just to let them know how the international community will respond to its passage. That's not really too much to focus on, and shouldn't affect anyone ability to manage other areas of policy.
I openly support gay people o.o; I'm a guy, and straight. It's stupid not to support gay people.
Advantages to supporting gay people.
1.) They date guys, leaving more girls for you. 2.) Having gay friends girls tend to like you more easily knowing you aren't a homophobe. 3.) See rule 1.) and 2.)
If anyone even doubts that this is wrong or wants to put side-notes on this, they are digusting human beings. This is wrong, there is no debate about it.
There is no spectrum for to what degree it is fine to opress homosexuals. Murder is by far the worse but how many would care if it was only jail sentences or forced sterilisation? The vast majority of the world doesn't give a damn about the fate of homosexual. Some people in this topic even grew up in a modern country, yet still their brain is filled with a cancer of hatred.
Homosexuals should be granted equall status in every way. They can have their gay pride parades until everyone just accepts them. No it's not allright to beat up a homosexual because he had the audacity to kiss someone infront of you or hold hands. It's not allright to victimise someone over how they were born.
From the lowly worm that cries that he just doesn't want to see homosexuality to the preacher that takes the money from his community to fund genocide, all of them are wrong. It's not up for debate, i won't compromise over the lives of other people. It's not enough to know history will paint you people as low as racists in a few years, there are still people dying over how they were born because you people can't keep a check on your blind hatred.
Got a problem with gay parades? Then join the line with all the other revolting preachers that put on their false grins as they lie about how they just don't want to see homosexuality. It's all nothing but lies. Did homosexuals get along just fine when they didn't appear in public? Were the stonewall riots due to the fact that police were letting them go about their business?
People hate homosexuals and wanting them to leave the public eye isn't a solution, it's a step towards allowing you to once again start beating them up without anyone giving a fuck. It's easier to oppress people that don't have a voice. So go ahead and join all the 2-faced pastors with their book of peace in one hand and a lynching rope in the other.
What is happening in Uganda is beyond revolting and nothing short of a complete shut down of economical and political ties is called for. Let the people of Uganda rot away as much as they would like to see homosexuals rot away.
Even when this backwards country of Uganda happens to get a glimps of sanity, there will still be many countries left that kill homosexuals. Humanity has a long way to go before the vermin of this world die off and take their sick ideas with them.
On May 10 2011 17:05 matjlav wrote: Blah. I just don't get homophobia at all. Even when I was under 10 years old and had no idea I might be gay, I was still really bewildered when I found out that Christians were supposed to be against gay people. That may have just been a result of me drawing connections between that situation and the anti-racism education everyone my age received in elementary school, but I just cannot relate to this apparently universal urge to marginalize and hate certain groups of people against all evidence.
Bah, people are dumb, and it seems so hopeless to bother trying to change them.
Saying Christians are against gay people is a very vague statement.
I am a christian and in my opinion on the homosexual community is that they are sinning, just like I do everyday when I lie, steal, take God's name in vain, and a vast number of things. I do not look down upon homosexuals at all, just like I don't look down on somebody who I see lie. I have gay friends, and they know I oppose their beliefs, but I do not claim they are going to hell, or are a bad person for who am I to judge? In my opinion God will judge us all on our sins and just as he says no sin is greater than another. I try my best to love all people, but when I don't, and I "hate" someone, I feel I have sinned.
Sin is something that everybody thinks Christians look upon as if they never see it, or experience it. But Christians that I associate with, and the way I believe it is that Christians sin just as much as non-Christians, but we do our best to repent for them and show others that God can take those sins and completely take them away from you.
On May 10 2011 17:10 GertHeart wrote: I openly support gay people o.o; I'm a guy, and straight. It's stupid not to support gay people.
Advantages to supporting gay people.
1.) They date guys, leaving more girls for you. 2.) Having gay friends girls tend to like you more easily knowing you aren't a homophobe. 3.) See rule 1.) and 2.)
That's kind of a narrow view of the subject. There are plenty of homosexual females (I'm not talking about the ones in porn)as well, although this thread doesn't seem to touch on that so much especially with that particular youtube video that was linked.
On May 10 2011 15:32 Halcyondaze wrote: If you seriously think Evangelicals as a whole are in favor of this you are more closed minded than you claim Evangelicals to be. I'm sorry for whatever christian, or maybe the media, has led you to feel this way.
Reason he feels that way is because some idiot evangelical group from over here helped convince a few Uguandan congressmen that such a bill was a good idea.
That is the reason why I said "in a favor of this as a whole". Blaming Evangelicals is like blaming Islam for 9/11. If not even a smaller %
You're talking about a country where almost half the populace thinks gay marriage sends people to hell*. I'm not sure that "radical evangelical" can cover that many people.
Anti-gay people aren't splinter groups, they're endemic.
On May 10 2011 17:05 matjlav wrote: Blah. I just don't get homophobia at all. Even when I was under 10 years old and had no idea I might be gay, I was still really bewildered when I found out that Christians were supposed to be against gay people. That may have just been a result of me drawing connections between that situation and the anti-racism education everyone my age received in elementary school, but I just cannot relate to this apparently universal urge to marginalize and hate certain groups of people against all evidence.
Bah, people are dumb, and it seems so hopeless to bother trying to change them.
Saying Christians are against gay people is a very vague statement.
I am a christian and in my opinion on the homosexual community is that they are sinning, just like I do everyday when I lie, steal, take God's name in vain, and a vast number of things. I do not look down upon homosexuals at all, just like I don't look down on somebody who I see lie. I have gay friends, and they know I oppose their beliefs, but I do not claim they are going to hell, or are a bad person for who am I to judge? In my opinion God will judge us all on our sins and just as he says no sin is greater than another. I try my best to love all people, but when I don't, and I "hate" someone, I feel I have sinned.
Sin is something that everybody thinks Christians look upon as if they never see it, or experience it. But Christians that I associate with, and the way I believe it is that Christians sin just as much as non-Christians, but we do our best to repent for them and show others that God can take those sins and completely take them away from you.
Yeah, I know all of your semantics now, but I'm talking from the perspective of how I was raised and how I perceived these things when I was growing up and being indoctrinated. Regardless, the idea of seeing homosexuality as wrong or dangerous or whatever is still completely foreign to me. I just don't get it, and I don't see how anyone could hold that opinion.
On May 10 2011 16:19 Mitchlew wrote: Interesting how uganda has so many problems yet they focus on something that isn't even a problem. Where can I find a legitimate source anyway. Are you sure there isn't some translation fail where they mean pedofiles and not homosexuals.
In my eyes that is what I see, a translation issue. He keeps hitting the point of kids and children, so it seems to me that he means pedophile and not homosexual. (But who really knows)
Edit: By He I mean the Ugandan in the Maddow Video
Nope, that's just a pretty standard bit of homophobic propaganda.
I agree that it is, in the West. Africa is a different world, and while he may be just another idiot trying to claim homosexuals as a whole as pedophiles, he also might have a translation issue.
I'm just trying not to jump to conclusions
If you read the bill, it specifically mentions homosexual activity with a person under the age of 18 is one of the three ways for it to trigger the death penalty.
It's definitely not a translation error; these people think it is a legitimate issue.
On May 10 2011 17:05 matjlav wrote: Blah. I just don't get homophobia at all. Even when I was under 10 years old and had no idea I might be gay, I was still really bewildered when I found out that Christians were supposed to be against gay people. That may have just been a result of me drawing connections between that situation and the anti-racism education everyone my age received in elementary school, but I just cannot relate to this apparently universal urge to marginalize and hate certain groups of people against all evidence.
Bah, people are dumb, and it seems so hopeless to bother trying to change them.
Saying Christians are against gay people is a very vague statement.
I am a christian and in my opinion on the homosexual community is that they are sinning, just like I do everyday when I lie, steal, take God's name in vain, and a vast number of things. I do not look down upon homosexuals at all, just like I don't look down on somebody who I see lie. I have gay friends, and they know I oppose their beliefs, but I do not claim they are going to hell, or are a bad person for who am I to judge? In my opinion God will judge us all on our sins and just as he says no sin is greater than another. I try my best to love all people, but when I don't, and I "hate" someone, I feel I have sinned.
Sin is something that everybody thinks Christians look upon as if they never see it, or experience it. But Christians that I associate with, and the way I believe it is that Christians sin just as much as non-Christians, but we do our best to repent for them and show others that God can take those sins and completely take them away from you.
Yeah, I know that now, but I'm talking from the perspective of how I was raised and how I perceived these things when I was growing up and being indoctrinated.
Ah, I see.
Sorry for the rant, lol. Just something I am passionate about.
Nowadays Christians have a bad reputation, especially on the internet and the media. I just want to state my way of thinking so people at least know some Christians aren't bigots
On May 10 2011 16:19 Mitchlew wrote: Interesting how uganda has so many problems yet they focus on something that isn't even a problem. Where can I find a legitimate source anyway. Are you sure there isn't some translation fail where they mean pedofiles and not homosexuals.
In my eyes that is what I see, a translation issue. He keeps hitting the point of kids and children, so it seems to me that he means pedophile and not homosexual. (But who really knows)
Edit: By He I mean the Ugandan in the Maddow Video
Nope, that's just a pretty standard bit of homophobic propaganda.
I agree that it is, in the West. Africa is a different world, and while he may be just another idiot trying to claim homosexuals as a whole as pedophiles, he also might have a translation issue.
I'm just trying not to jump to conclusions
You're really going out of your way to defend the people proposing this bill. First, it's not about HIV. They don't talk about HIV when defending the bill. This is a peripheral issue.
Secondly, this isn't 1900. The people proposing this bill have access to the same information we do. Uganda is a very poor country, but Bhatti and others have received material support from prominent American politicians and Christian leaders. They're propagating the same homophobic lies and misrepresentations we hear from far right figures in the US and Europe. This isn't happening in a vacuum. The whole homosexual=pedophile idea has been a cornerstone of anti-gay movements for a long time. Bhatti is tapping into that narrative.
I understand wanting to take somewhat of a cultural relativistic approach to a lot of international issue, but the killing or long-term imprisonment of innocent homosexuals isn't one of them. That's especially true when such a practice is being sponsored by westerners.
What I am doing is going out of my way to break single-mindedness. I have not supported this bill in any way in any of my posts.
I didn't say you supported the bill.
While I'm usually on the side of "breaking single-mindedness," this bill is a pretty cut-and-dry case of homophobic bigotry of the worst kind. The major influences in creating this bill are clear, many of which are western donors. There are a lot of differences between Africa and other regions, but it's not a world apart. We live in a global system. Nothing happens in a vacuum anymore (or ever, depending how you look at it).
The bill has one purpose - to imprison or execute homosexuals in Uganda. Its supporters use a variety of scare tactics to defend (including "protect the children"), but it has been proposed for to marginalize or kill an entire subset of Ugandan society.
It's also important to note that Uganda is already a very tense place for homosexuals. They face a serious threat of violence already. This bill simply gives that violence the authority of the State.
On May 10 2011 16:19 Mitchlew wrote: Interesting how uganda has so many problems yet they focus on something that isn't even a problem. Where can I find a legitimate source anyway. Are you sure there isn't some translation fail where they mean pedofiles and not homosexuals.
In my eyes that is what I see, a translation issue. He keeps hitting the point of kids and children, so it seems to me that he means pedophile and not homosexual. (But who really knows)
Edit: By He I mean the Ugandan in the Maddow Video
Nope, that's just a pretty standard bit of homophobic propaganda.
I agree that it is, in the West. Africa is a different world, and while he may be just another idiot trying to claim homosexuals as a whole as pedophiles, he also might have a translation issue.
I'm just trying not to jump to conclusions
If you read the bill, it specifically mentions homosexual activity with a person under the age of 18 is one of the three ways for it to trigger the death penalty.
It's definitely not a translation error; these people think it is a legitimate issue.
The Translation error was in relation to the Maddow Video and the manner of which the interviewee was speaking not to the bill itself.
On May 10 2011 16:19 Mitchlew wrote: Interesting how uganda has so many problems yet they focus on something that isn't even a problem. Where can I find a legitimate source anyway. Are you sure there isn't some translation fail where they mean pedofiles and not homosexuals.
In my eyes that is what I see, a translation issue. He keeps hitting the point of kids and children, so it seems to me that he means pedophile and not homosexual. (But who really knows)
Edit: By He I mean the Ugandan in the Maddow Video
Nope, that's just a pretty standard bit of homophobic propaganda.
I agree that it is, in the West. Africa is a different world, and while he may be just another idiot trying to claim homosexuals as a whole as pedophiles, he also might have a translation issue.
I'm just trying not to jump to conclusions
If you read the bill, it specifically mentions homosexual activity with a person under the age of 18 is one of the three ways for it to trigger the death penalty.
It's definitely not a translation error; these people think it is a legitimate issue.
The Translation error was in relation to the Maddow Video and the manner of which the interviewee was speaking not to the bill itself.
Obviously if the people making the bill thought it was a big enough deal to make it its own part of the law when sexual activities under the age of 18 are already punishable under other laws, a significant portion of the Ugandan culture probably believes that homosexuals are sexual predators.
That's why he asked the question - and he likely isn't the only one who would.
On May 10 2011 17:05 matjlav wrote: Blah. I just don't get homophobia at all. Even when I was under 10 years old and had no idea I might be gay, I was still really bewildered when I found out that Christians were supposed to be against gay people. That may have just been a result of me drawing connections between that situation and the anti-racism education everyone my age received in elementary school, but I just cannot relate to this apparently universal urge to marginalize and hate certain groups of people against all evidence.
Bah, people are dumb, and it seems so hopeless to bother trying to change them.
Saying Christians are against gay people is a very vague statement.
I am a christian and in my opinion on the homosexual community is that they are sinning, just like I do everyday when I lie, steal, take God's name in vain, and a vast number of things. I do not look down upon homosexuals at all, just like I don't look down on somebody who I see lie. I have gay friends, and they know I oppose their beliefs, but I do not claim they are going to hell, or are a bad person for who am I to judge? In my opinion God will judge us all on our sins and just as he says no sin is greater than another. I try my best to love all people, but when I don't, and I "hate" someone, I feel I have sinned.
Sin is something that everybody thinks Christians look upon as if they never see it, or experience it. But Christians that I associate with, and the way I believe it is that Christians sin just as much as non-Christians, but we do our best to repent for them and show others that God can take those sins and completely take them away from you.
Yeah, I know that now, but I'm talking from the perspective of how I was raised and how I perceived these things when I was growing up and being indoctrinated.
Ah, I see.
Sorry for the rant, lol. Just something I am passionate about.
Nowadays Christians have a bad reputation, especially on the internet and the media. I just want to state my way of thinking so people at least know some Christians aren't bigots
Don't get me wrong - even if you "don't hate homosexuals," I still take very personal offense to anyone that considers homosexuality wrong. Opinions like yours, no matter how passive-aggressive and "loving," serve only to increase the pain that kids growing up gay have to go through. You can't just say "I love them anyway" and act like all of the hurtful consequences of your beliefs go away.
I don't mean to derail the topic, but yeah. You may not be as bad as the folks in Uganda, but you are still hurting people in significant ways.
On May 10 2011 17:21 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Keep out of other countries affairs IMO , let them sort out their own business.
It's pretty easy to argue about whether massive human rights violations by the state is that country's "own business." To me, that sounds like it's everyone's business, especially since the US gives Uganda so much aid.
Either way, didn't you open this thread a couple days ago? Your country tag says Australia, but it's a thread about the US. You had some pretty strong opinions about another country's business then, and the legislation discussed hadn't even been proposed yet (and in all likelihood never will be).
On May 10 2011 17:05 matjlav wrote: Blah. I just don't get homophobia at all. Even when I was under 10 years old and had no idea I might be gay, I was still really bewildered when I found out that Christians were supposed to be against gay people. That may have just been a result of me drawing connections between that situation and the anti-racism education everyone my age received in elementary school, but I just cannot relate to this apparently universal urge to marginalize and hate certain groups of people against all evidence.
Bah, people are dumb, and it seems so hopeless to bother trying to change them.
Saying Christians are against gay people is a very vague statement.
I am a christian and in my opinion on the homosexual community is that they are sinning, just like I do everyday when I lie, steal, take God's name in vain, and a vast number of things. I do not look down upon homosexuals at all, just like I don't look down on somebody who I see lie. I have gay friends, and they know I oppose their beliefs, but I do not claim they are going to hell, or are a bad person for who am I to judge? In my opinion God will judge us all on our sins and just as he says no sin is greater than another. I try my best to love all people, but when I don't, and I "hate" someone, I feel I have sinned.
Sin is something that everybody thinks Christians look upon as if they never see it, or experience it. But Christians that I associate with, and the way I believe it is that Christians sin just as much as non-Christians, but we do our best to repent for them and show others that God can take those sins and completely take them away from you.
Yeah, I know that now, but I'm talking from the perspective of how I was raised and how I perceived these things when I was growing up and being indoctrinated.
Ah, I see.
Sorry for the rant, lol. Just something I am passionate about.
Nowadays Christians have a bad reputation, especially on the internet and the media. I just want to state my way of thinking so people at least know some Christians aren't bigots
Don't get me wrong - even if you "don't hate homosexuals," I still take very personal offense to anyone that considers homosexuality wrong. Opinions like yours, no matter how passive-aggressive and "loving," serve only to increase the pain that kids growing up gay have to go through. You can't just say "I love them anyway" and act like all of the hurtful consequences of your beliefs go away.
Amen. This passive-aggressive religious stuff is infuriating to the extreme.
"Hey, you're doing things that might send you to my personal hell, but I love you anyways" is sanctimonious. And not in the good way.
Gay rights isn't a question of "wrong, but tolerable". It's right or wrong.
On May 10 2011 17:05 matjlav wrote: Blah. I just don't get homophobia at all. Even when I was under 10 years old and had no idea I might be gay, I was still really bewildered when I found out that Christians were supposed to be against gay people. That may have just been a result of me drawing connections between that situation and the anti-racism education everyone my age received in elementary school, but I just cannot relate to this apparently universal urge to marginalize and hate certain groups of people against all evidence.
Bah, people are dumb, and it seems so hopeless to bother trying to change them.
Saying Christians are against gay people is a very vague statement.
I am a christian and in my opinion on the homosexual community is that they are sinning, just like I do everyday when I lie, steal, take God's name in vain, and a vast number of things. I do not look down upon homosexuals at all, just like I don't look down on somebody who I see lie. I have gay friends, and they know I oppose their beliefs, but I do not claim they are going to hell, or are a bad person for who am I to judge? In my opinion God will judge us all on our sins and just as he says no sin is greater than another. I try my best to love all people, but when I don't, and I "hate" someone, I feel I have sinned.
Sin is something that everybody thinks Christians look upon as if they never see it, or experience it. But Christians that I associate with, and the way I believe it is that Christians sin just as much as non-Christians, but we do our best to repent for them and show others that God can take those sins and completely take them away from you.
Yeah, I know that now, but I'm talking from the perspective of how I was raised and how I perceived these things when I was growing up and being indoctrinated.
Ah, I see.
Sorry for the rant, lol. Just something I am passionate about.
Nowadays Christians have a bad reputation, especially on the internet and the media. I just want to state my way of thinking so people at least know some Christians aren't bigots
Don't get me wrong - even if you "don't hate homosexuals," I still take very personal offense to anyone that considers homosexuality wrong. Opinions like yours, no matter how passive-aggressive and "loving," serve only to increase the pain that kids growing up gay have to go through. You can't just say "I love them anyway" and act like all of the hurtful consequences of your beliefs go away.
I don't mean to derail the topic, but yeah. You may not be as bad as the folks in Uganda, but you are still hurting people in significant ways.
And Herein lies our problem. You believe that kids can "grow up gay". While I don't. And what do you expect me to do? Abandon my own beliefs to cater to others? I am as steadfast in my beliefs as you are in yours. In my opinion I am on this earth to share what I know, which I just did. You can take it or leave it, but that is how I feel.
What have I done to hurt these kids, if they do grow up gay as you say? Live my life? I don't walk up to people and insult them for being gay. This argument you have with my beliefs is not with me, but with my religion.
And again, see this from my perspective. If you (in your eyes) had the key to "eternal life", would you not share it?
Edit: "I am not here to make people's lives easier." I took this out, because I reread it and realized that it came off wrong. Didn't mean to say that.
And Herein lies our problem. You believe that kids can "grow up gay". While I don't. And what do you expect me to do? Abandon my own beliefs to cater to others? I am as steadfast in my beliefs as you are in yours. I am not here to make people's lives easier. In my opinion I am on this earth to share what I know, which I just did. You can take it or leave it, but that is how I feel.
You have the right to your thoughts. But you aren't making a good argument for Christianity for being pro-gay rights...more like the "they'll meet my God later" type of "tolerance"...and acceptance it most certainly isn't.
I do know some Christians that do support gay rights, but they've pretty much completely dumped the Old Testament. I think.
On May 10 2011 17:10 GertHeart wrote: I openly support gay people o.o; I'm a guy, and straight. It's stupid not to support gay people.
Advantages to supporting gay people.
1.) They date guys, leaving more girls for you. 2.) Having gay friends girls tend to like you more easily knowing you aren't a homophobe. 3.) See rule 1.) and 2.)
That's kind of a narrow view of the subject. There are plenty of homosexual females (I'm not talking about the ones in porn)as well, although this thread doesn't seem to touch on that so much especially with that particular youtube video that was linked.
I have no problem with them either, I used to have a lesbian friend who played DDR with me o.o; No problems there either.
On May 10 2011 17:05 matjlav wrote: Blah. I just don't get homophobia at all. Even when I was under 10 years old and had no idea I might be gay, I was still really bewildered when I found out that Christians were supposed to be against gay people. That may have just been a result of me drawing connections between that situation and the anti-racism education everyone my age received in elementary school, but I just cannot relate to this apparently universal urge to marginalize and hate certain groups of people against all evidence.
Bah, people are dumb, and it seems so hopeless to bother trying to change them.
Saying Christians are against gay people is a very vague statement.
I am a christian and in my opinion on the homosexual community is that they are sinning, just like I do everyday when I lie, steal, take God's name in vain, and a vast number of things. I do not look down upon homosexuals at all, just like I don't look down on somebody who I see lie. I have gay friends, and they know I oppose their beliefs, but I do not claim they are going to hell, or are a bad person for who am I to judge? In my opinion God will judge us all on our sins and just as he says no sin is greater than another. I try my best to love all people, but when I don't, and I "hate" someone, I feel I have sinned.
Sin is something that everybody thinks Christians look upon as if they never see it, or experience it. But Christians that I associate with, and the way I believe it is that Christians sin just as much as non-Christians, but we do our best to repent for them and show others that God can take those sins and completely take them away from you.
Yeah, I know that now, but I'm talking from the perspective of how I was raised and how I perceived these things when I was growing up and being indoctrinated.
Ah, I see.
Sorry for the rant, lol. Just something I am passionate about.
Nowadays Christians have a bad reputation, especially on the internet and the media. I just want to state my way of thinking so people at least know some Christians aren't bigots
Don't get me wrong - even if you "don't hate homosexuals," I still take very personal offense to anyone that considers homosexuality wrong. Opinions like yours, no matter how passive-aggressive and "loving," serve only to increase the pain that kids growing up gay have to go through. You can't just say "I love them anyway" and act like all of the hurtful consequences of your beliefs go away.
I don't mean to derail the topic, but yeah. You may not be as bad as the folks in Uganda, but you are still hurting people in significant ways.
And Herein lies our problem. You believe that kids can "grow up gay". While I don't. And what do you expect me to do? Abandon my own beliefs to cater to others? I am as steadfast in my beliefs as you are in yours. I am not here to make people's lives easier. In my opinion I am on this earth to share what I know, which I just did. You can take it or leave it, but that is how I feel.
What have I done to hurt these kids, if they do grow up gay as you say? Live my life? I don't walk up to people and insult them for being gay. This argument you have with my beliefs is not with me, but with my religion.
And again, see this from my perspective. If you (in your eyes) had the key to "eternal life", would you not share it?
Why don't you believe that kids can be born gay? Homosexuality is documented in too many animal species for me to list, you can no longer argue that it's not a natural occurrence. You have no evidence that what you believe is true (other than what you read in some ancient book), but people who believe otherwise do. And what you have done to the kids by subscribing to this religious view is that they are inherently 'evil' and that it's their own fault for being gay (and evil).
And Herein lies our problem. You believe that kids can "grow up gay". While I don't. And what do you expect me to do? Abandon my own beliefs to cater to others? I am as steadfast in my beliefs as you are in yours. I am not here to make people's lives easier. In my opinion I am on this earth to share what I know, which I just did. You can take it or leave it, but that is how I feel.
You aren't making a good argument for Christianity for being pro-gay rights, I think.
I do know some Christians that do support gay rights, but they've pretty much completely dumped the Old Testament.
The reasons Christians dump the Old Testament is because in the New Testament, in a general sense, Jesus says to.
Also, I am not trying to make a pro-gay rights argument for Christians. What I am trying to get across is that Christians, or my view of how a Christian should act, should not condone people to hell because that is for God to decide. It seems to me that you are taking what you believe is Christian and applying it to me. I am just trying to show you how I differ from that
On May 10 2011 17:47 Halcyondaze wrote: The reasons Christians dump the Old Testament is because in the New Testament, in a general sense, Jesus says to.
Also, I am not trying to make a pro-gay rights argument for Christians. What I am trying to get across is that Christians, or my view of how a Christian should act, should not condone people to hell because that is for God to decide. It seems to me that you are taking what you believe is Christian and applying it to me. I am just trying to show you how I differ from that
Plenty of Christians still follow rather outdated chunks of the Old Testament. So when I say dump, I mean dump. As in, "almost completely ignore".
And that sort of rhetoric goes back to passive-aggressiveness. Saying "this is wrong, but they'll answer to my God later" isn't an argument for anything at all. It's not accepting, it's condescending.
On May 10 2011 17:05 matjlav wrote: Blah. I just don't get homophobia at all. Even when I was under 10 years old and had no idea I might be gay, I was still really bewildered when I found out that Christians were supposed to be against gay people. That may have just been a result of me drawing connections between that situation and the anti-racism education everyone my age received in elementary school, but I just cannot relate to this apparently universal urge to marginalize and hate certain groups of people against all evidence.
Bah, people are dumb, and it seems so hopeless to bother trying to change them.
Saying Christians are against gay people is a very vague statement.
I am a christian and in my opinion on the homosexual community is that they are sinning, just like I do everyday when I lie, steal, take God's name in vain, and a vast number of things. I do not look down upon homosexuals at all, just like I don't look down on somebody who I see lie. I have gay friends, and they know I oppose their beliefs, but I do not claim they are going to hell, or are a bad person for who am I to judge? In my opinion God will judge us all on our sins and just as he says no sin is greater than another. I try my best to love all people, but when I don't, and I "hate" someone, I feel I have sinned.
Sin is something that everybody thinks Christians look upon as if they never see it, or experience it. But Christians that I associate with, and the way I believe it is that Christians sin just as much as non-Christians, but we do our best to repent for them and show others that God can take those sins and completely take them away from you.
Yeah, I know that now, but I'm talking from the perspective of how I was raised and how I perceived these things when I was growing up and being indoctrinated.
Ah, I see.
Sorry for the rant, lol. Just something I am passionate about.
Nowadays Christians have a bad reputation, especially on the internet and the media. I just want to state my way of thinking so people at least know some Christians aren't bigots
Don't get me wrong - even if you "don't hate homosexuals," I still take very personal offense to anyone that considers homosexuality wrong. Opinions like yours, no matter how passive-aggressive and "loving," serve only to increase the pain that kids growing up gay have to go through. You can't just say "I love them anyway" and act like all of the hurtful consequences of your beliefs go away.
I don't mean to derail the topic, but yeah. You may not be as bad as the folks in Uganda, but you are still hurting people in significant ways.
And Herein lies our problem. You believe that kids can "grow up gay". While I don't. And what do you expect me to do? Abandon my own beliefs to cater to others? I am as steadfast in my beliefs as you are in yours. I am not here to make people's lives easier. In my opinion I am on this earth to share what I know, which I just did. You can take it or leave it, but that is how I feel.
What have I done to hurt these kids, if they do grow up gay as you say? Live my life? I don't walk up to people and insult them for being gay. This argument you have with my beliefs is not with me, but with my religion.
And again, see this from my perspective. If you (in your eyes) had the key to "eternal life", would you not share it?
Why don't you believe that kids can be born gay? Homosexuality is documented in too many animal species for me to list, you can no longer argue that it's not a natural occurrence. You have no evidence that what you believe is true (other than what you read in some ancient book), but people who believe otherwise do. And what you have done to the kids by subscribing to this religious view is that they are inherently 'evil' and that it's their own fault for being gay (and evil).
The reason I don't believe kids can be born gay is because my end all be all source of information is the faith I have in the Bible. You can call me ignorant, or whatever, but that is what I believe. I also don't believe anyone is inherently evil, but that sin is evil and it affects every one of us.
I am not going to get into a debate on whether homosexuality is a natural occurrence or not because that is a black hole of an argument.
When you can prove to me how the world began without a supreme being, then you have changed my mind, but until then, this is my opinion.
On May 10 2011 17:47 Halcyondaze wrote: The reasons Christians dump the Old Testament is because in the New Testament, in a general sense, Jesus says to.
Also, I am not trying to make a pro-gay rights argument for Christians. What I am trying to get across is that Christians, or my view of how a Christian should act, should not condone people to hell because that is for God to decide. It seems to me that you are taking what you believe is Christian and applying it to me. I am just trying to show you how I differ from that
Plenty of Christians still follow rather outdated chunks of the Old Testament. So when I say dump, I mean dump. As in, "almost completely ignore".
And that sort of rhetoric goes back to passive-aggressiveness. Saying "this is wrong, but they'll answer to my God later" isn't an argument for anything at all. It's not accepting, it's condescending.
God deciding who goes to hell or not is a general statement, not meant for gays or thieves, or murderers, or anyone. It is meant for me, and every other human
When you can prove to me how the world began without a supreme being, then you have changed my mind, but until then, this is my opinion.
You cant prove a negative, so this will never happen.
/edit
Oh and as far as i'm concered, people can believe in whatever the hell they like. You dont think people are born gay? Fine by me. It's not like your believe in people not being born gay will oppress gays in any way. So you can believe in whatever you want, but you can't act in every way you like.
And Herein lies our problem. You believe that kids can "grow up gay". While I don't. And what do you expect me to do? Abandon my own beliefs to cater to others? I am as steadfast in my beliefs as you are in yours. I am not here to make people's lives easier. In my opinion I am on this earth to share what I know, which I just did. You can take it or leave it, but that is how I feel.
You aren't making a good argument for Christianity for being pro-gay rights, I think.
I do know some Christians that do support gay rights, but they've pretty much completely dumped the Old Testament.
The reasons Christians dump the Old Testament is because in the New Testament, in a general sense, Jesus says to.
Also, I am not trying to make a pro-gay rights argument for Christians. What I am trying to get across is that Christians, or my view of how a Christian should act, should not condone people to hell because that is for God to decide. It seems to me that you are taking what you believe is Christian and applying it to me. I am just trying to show you how I differ from that
So you're saying that Jesus tells people to ignore what God previously had written because it was wrong? That omniscient God wrote something and then decided to change his mind about it?
Also, to say that a Christian should not condone people to Hell is incorrect, God himself in the Old Testament literally told people to murder sinners (Samuel 15:2-4), I don't think he really minds if you tell them they're going to Hell, in fact he might be mad at you for not killing them yourself. Jesus himself also condones the killing of a sinners bastard children in the New Testament (Revelation 2:22-23), so even if you completely ignore all of the Old Testament, you still have to deal with that.
You say that you "dump the Old Testament" and then say "The reason I don't believe kids can be born gay is because my end all be all source of information is the faith I have in the Bible." Which one is it? You either believe the Bible to be 100% accurate and DO NOT pick & choose what to believe, or you accept that it is not accurate. And if you accept that it is not accurate then you can accept that the parts about homosexuals being immortal sinners is not accurate.
I don't know if I agree with signing this petition - we are not Ugandan, so it's a little odd that we are influencing their domestic policy. On the other hand, it's just so fucked up...
But I can't see a situation where this bill doesn't get passed, and in 10 years Ugandan people say "whew, man we were stupid we almost passed that bill, thank god we didn't pass it and we changed out point of view!" Uganda has been pretty bad for a long time... It just needs to be completely changed, something much larger than a bill.
On May 10 2011 17:55 Halcyondaze wrote: When you can prove to me how the world began without a supreme being, then you have changed my mind, but until then, this is my opinion.
Since when has a religious zealot ever lent credence to empiricism?
On May 10 2011 17:05 matjlav wrote: Blah. I just don't get homophobia at all. Even when I was under 10 years old and had no idea I might be gay, I was still really bewildered when I found out that Christians were supposed to be against gay people. That may have just been a result of me drawing connections between that situation and the anti-racism education everyone my age received in elementary school, but I just cannot relate to this apparently universal urge to marginalize and hate certain groups of people against all evidence.
Bah, people are dumb, and it seems so hopeless to bother trying to change them.
Saying Christians are against gay people is a very vague statement.
I am a christian and in my opinion on the homosexual community is that they are sinning, just like I do everyday when I lie, steal, take God's name in vain, and a vast number of things. I do not look down upon homosexuals at all, just like I don't look down on somebody who I see lie. I have gay friends, and they know I oppose their beliefs, but I do not claim they are going to hell, or are a bad person for who am I to judge? In my opinion God will judge us all on our sins and just as he says no sin is greater than another. I try my best to love all people, but when I don't, and I "hate" someone, I feel I have sinned.
Sin is something that everybody thinks Christians look upon as if they never see it, or experience it. But Christians that I associate with, and the way I believe it is that Christians sin just as much as non-Christians, but we do our best to repent for them and show others that God can take those sins and completely take them away from you.
Yeah, I know that now, but I'm talking from the perspective of how I was raised and how I perceived these things when I was growing up and being indoctrinated.
Ah, I see.
Sorry for the rant, lol. Just something I am passionate about.
Nowadays Christians have a bad reputation, especially on the internet and the media. I just want to state my way of thinking so people at least know some Christians aren't bigots
Don't get me wrong - even if you "don't hate homosexuals," I still take very personal offense to anyone that considers homosexuality wrong. Opinions like yours, no matter how passive-aggressive and "loving," serve only to increase the pain that kids growing up gay have to go through. You can't just say "I love them anyway" and act like all of the hurtful consequences of your beliefs go away.
I don't mean to derail the topic, but yeah. You may not be as bad as the folks in Uganda, but you are still hurting people in significant ways.
And Herein lies our problem. You believe that kids can "grow up gay". While I don't. And what do you expect me to do? Abandon my own beliefs to cater to others? I am as steadfast in my beliefs as you are in yours. I am not here to make people's lives easier. In my opinion I am on this earth to share what I know, which I just did. You can take it or leave it, but that is how I feel.
What have I done to hurt these kids, if they do grow up gay as you say? Live my life? I don't walk up to people and insult them for being gay. This argument you have with my beliefs is not with me, but with my religion.
And again, see this from my perspective. If you (in your eyes) had the key to "eternal life", would you not share it?
You can justify a whole host of offensive beliefs and actions using religion. Racism, sexism, genocide, you name it. And you know what? The responsibility for those beliefs you hold and the actions you take still ultimately falls on you. If I told you that I don't like interracial marriages because they're against my religion, then would you just say "Oh, he's just trying to help people get into Heaven, so that's cool"? Even if I don't necessarily "hate" those couples? I don't think so.
Your beliefs are offensive to me, and I hold you responsible for them, sorry.
I'm not urging you to throw away your beliefs to make others happy; I'm urging you to think critically about your beliefs and come to conclusions rather than throwing all of your responsibilities for free thought onto a 2,000 year old book.
And Herein lies our problem. You believe that kids can "grow up gay". While I don't. And what do you expect me to do? Abandon my own beliefs to cater to others? I am as steadfast in my beliefs as you are in yours. I am not here to make people's lives easier. In my opinion I am on this earth to share what I know, which I just did. You can take it or leave it, but that is how I feel.
You aren't making a good argument for Christianity for being pro-gay rights, I think.
I do know some Christians that do support gay rights, but they've pretty much completely dumped the Old Testament.
The reasons Christians dump the Old Testament is because in the New Testament, in a general sense, Jesus says to.
Also, I am not trying to make a pro-gay rights argument for Christians. What I am trying to get across is that Christians, or my view of how a Christian should act, should not condone people to hell because that is for God to decide. It seems to me that you are taking what you believe is Christian and applying it to me. I am just trying to show you how I differ from that
This is off topic, but I think I should correct you. Paul says to forget the old testament, not Jesus. And depending on which bits you read from Paul, he also says the exact opposite. I can provide specifics if you want, just send a PM. Either way, most of the anti-gay parts of the bible, and all of the explicitly anti-gay parts, are in the old testament. It's kind of hard to say, "the bible tells me it's a sin, but I'm also going to leave out the Old Testament."
The question that's pertinent to this thread is whether it's acceptable to prevent others from engaging in activity that doesn't effect you in any way, even if you think it's bad. I submit that is isn't, and I'd like to hear your case that it is (if you hold that view).
As a side not, I'm not a Christian. I've just read their books.
On May 10 2011 17:55 Halcyondaze wrote: The reason I don't believe kids can be born gay is because my end all be all source of information is the faith I have in the Bible. You can call me ignorant, or whatever, but that is what I believe. I also don't believe anyone is inherently evil, but that sin is evil and it affects every one of us.
I am not going to get into a debate on whether homosexuality is a natural occurrence or not because that is a black hole of an argument.
It's a black hole if reality doesn't exist.
On May 10 2011 17:57 Halcyondaze wrote: God deciding who goes to hell or not is a general statement, not meant for gays or thieves, or murderers, or anyone. It is meant for me, and every other human
Non-sequitur. I see nothing about how or why you choose to classify things as sins or not, nor how you can choose to live a life path without judging others.
Assuming, of course, your god has laws or rules on this stuff. If it's more of an individual path, then that's a whole other can of worms.
On May 10 2011 17:05 matjlav wrote: Blah. I just don't get homophobia at all. Even when I was under 10 years old and had no idea I might be gay, I was still really bewildered when I found out that Christians were supposed to be against gay people. That may have just been a result of me drawing connections between that situation and the anti-racism education everyone my age received in elementary school, but I just cannot relate to this apparently universal urge to marginalize and hate certain groups of people against all evidence.
Bah, people are dumb, and it seems so hopeless to bother trying to change them.
Saying Christians are against gay people is a very vague statement.
I am a christian and in my opinion on the homosexual community is that they are sinning, just like I do everyday when I lie, steal, take God's name in vain, and a vast number of things. I do not look down upon homosexuals at all, just like I don't look down on somebody who I see lie. I have gay friends, and they know I oppose their beliefs, but I do not claim they are going to hell, or are a bad person for who am I to judge? In my opinion God will judge us all on our sins and just as he says no sin is greater than another. I try my best to love all people, but when I don't, and I "hate" someone, I feel I have sinned.
Sin is something that everybody thinks Christians look upon as if they never see it, or experience it. But Christians that I associate with, and the way I believe it is that Christians sin just as much as non-Christians, but we do our best to repent for them and show others that God can take those sins and completely take them away from you.
Yeah, I know that now, but I'm talking from the perspective of how I was raised and how I perceived these things when I was growing up and being indoctrinated.
Ah, I see.
Sorry for the rant, lol. Just something I am passionate about.
Nowadays Christians have a bad reputation, especially on the internet and the media. I just want to state my way of thinking so people at least know some Christians aren't bigots
Don't get me wrong - even if you "don't hate homosexuals," I still take very personal offense to anyone that considers homosexuality wrong. Opinions like yours, no matter how passive-aggressive and "loving," serve only to increase the pain that kids growing up gay have to go through. You can't just say "I love them anyway" and act like all of the hurtful consequences of your beliefs go away.
So one can either agree with you about homosexuality or they are harming children? That sounds to me like an exceptionally poor way to frame the disagreement, one that would be personally offensive to a lot of people.
Disapproving of homosexuality in the abstract does not inhere harming homosexual individuals in practice. There is such a thing as treating someone with respect and kindness even if you don't approve of things about them. I would say the capacity to do so is a cornerstone of emotional maturity and frankly a necessity of getting along with anyone for any length of time.
On May 10 2011 18:06 HULKAMANIA wrote: So one can either agree with you about homosexuality or they are harming children? That sounds to me like an exceptionally poor way to frame the disagreement, one that would be personally offensive to a lot of people.
Yup, I say the same things about racism and sexism too! And I don't care if it offends you, or racists, or sexists.
On May 10 2011 18:06 HULKAMANIA wrote: Disapproving of homosexuality in the abstract does not inhere harming homosexual individuals in practice. There is such a thing as treating someone with respect and kindness even if you don't approve of things about them. I would say the capacity to do so is a cornerstone of emotional maturity and frankly a necessity of getting along with anyone for any length of time.
If you understand that I fundamentally hold heterosexists in any form in the same regard as I hold racists, you will understand my feelings toward them.
I don't mean to make it sound like my entire pro-gay argument stems from comparing people to racists, but it is a good way to simplify the justification for my unconditional disdain for anyone that holds anti-gay sentiments of any kind.
On May 10 2011 17:21 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Keep out of other countries affairs IMO , let them sort out their own business.
It's pretty easy to argue about whether massive human rights violations by the state is that country's "own business." To me, that sounds like it's everyone's business, especially since the US gives Uganda so much aid.
Either way, didn't you open this thread a couple days ago? Your country tag says Australia, but it's a thread about the US. You had some pretty strong opinions about another country's business then, and the legislation discussed hadn't even been proposed yet (and in all likelihood never will be).
OK so what about the USAs use of depleted uranium in Iraq and Afghanistan.Thats a human rights issue.Try sorting out your own affairs before going after others.
As for the topic i made thats going off topic a little here but generally police state policy they bring in in the USA or UK they will try to bring into Australia.They are bringing in TSA style radiation naked body scanners to Sydney airport soon for example.They tried to bring in the road pricing by the mile in the UK but there was over 1.5 million signed a petition against it on number10.gov e-petitions site.There is a continuity of agenda between western governments , it's not comparable to compare that to interfering with 3rd world or developing countries affairs.
On May 10 2011 18:06 HULKAMANIA wrote: So one can either agree with you about homosexuality or they are harming children? That sounds to me like an exceptionally poor way to frame the disagreement, one that would be personally offensive to a lot of people.
Yup, I say the same things about racism and sexism too! And I don't care if it offends you, or racists, or sexists.
On May 10 2011 18:06 HULKAMANIA wrote: Disapproving of homosexuality in the abstract does not inhere harming homosexual individuals in practice. There is such a thing as treating someone with respect and kindness even if you don't approve of things about them. I would say the capacity to do so is a cornerstone of emotional maturity and frankly a necessity of getting along with anyone for any length of time.
If you understand that I fundamentally hold heterosexists in any form in the same regard as I hold racists, you will understand my feelings toward them.
I don't mean to make it sound like my entire pro-gay argument stems from comparing people to racists, but it is a good way to simplify the justification for my unconditional disdain for anyone that holds anti-gay sentiments of any kind.
I couldn't agree more. It's just a golden rule of internet arguing that if you successfully compare something to Hitler or racism you win the argument.
On May 10 2011 14:39 Doorhandle wrote: I have to say Im a little disgusted by the sentiments expressed in this thread. People are acting like you can control whether you are homosexual or not; it's morally wrong to be who you are? But with that aside, this law is absolutely unbelievable, is the UN not stepping in?
And on another note to one of the comments above, why is it only Christians that can see that this is wrong? Everyone else has morals too you know, we dont have to be "sensible Christians" to disagree with this.
You fail so hard. The reason we accept homosexuality has nothing to do with whether the homosexuals can help it or not. Pedophiles can't help their sexual orientation but that doesn't make pedophelia acceptable does it?
No, the reason homosexuality should not be a crime is because it is an act done between free consenting adults that does not harm or infringe on the rights of other people. So we have no right to stop it. Pedophelia on the other hand cannot be consentual(and does harm) so we cannot accept it.
Your basis for defending the rights of gays is completely wrong and hurtful to the gay community because it opens up for the pedophelia argument your hear sometimes.
And Herein lies our problem. You believe that kids can "grow up gay". While I don't. And what do you expect me to do? Abandon my own beliefs to cater to others? I am as steadfast in my beliefs as you are in yours. I am not here to make people's lives easier. In my opinion I am on this earth to share what I know, which I just did. You can take it or leave it, but that is how I feel.
You aren't making a good argument for Christianity for being pro-gay rights, I think.
I do know some Christians that do support gay rights, but they've pretty much completely dumped the Old Testament.
The reasons Christians dump the Old Testament is because in the New Testament, in a general sense, Jesus says to.
Also, I am not trying to make a pro-gay rights argument for Christians. What I am trying to get across is that Christians, or my view of how a Christian should act, should not condone people to hell because that is for God to decide. It seems to me that you are taking what you believe is Christian and applying it to me. I am just trying to show you how I differ from that
So you're saying that Jesus tells people to ignore what God previously had written because it was wrong? That omniscient God wrote something and then decided to change his mind about it?
The 2 verses you quoted. Samuel - that is old testiment and yes that did happen, but that is not Christianity. Christianity = Christ, which is the new testament. Revelation is a book of metaphor, it is not something Christian beliefs stim from. Jesus tells people that he is the way, the New way. The old testament.
I am now on my phone because my computer died. I will comment more in the morning. I cannot explain the entirety of the bible and the corolation between new and old testament on my computer, much less my phone. The Bible is something that must be looked upon in it's entirety if it is going to be used in this type of argument because it is a belief issue, not something specific.
Also, to say that a Christian should not condone people to Hell is incorrect, God himself in the Old Testament literally told people to murder sinners (Samuel 15:2-4), I don't think he really minds if you tell them they're going to Hell, in fact he might be mad at you for not killing them yourself. Jesus himself also condones the killing of a sinners bastard children in the New Testament (Revelation 2:22-23), so even if you completely ignore all of the Old Testament, you still have to deal with that.
You say that you "dump the Old Testament" and then say "The reason I don't believe kids can be born gay is because my end all be all source of information is the faith I have in the Bible." Which one is it? You either believe the Bible to be 100% accurate and DO NOT pick & choose what to believe, or you accept that it is not accurate. And if you accept that it is not accurate then you can accept that the parts about homosexuals being immortal sinners is not accurate.
Wow, when I read the title I thought "No gay marriage? That's awful!" But know I'm truly outraged. How would these assholes be if I passed a bill saying "Bigotry punishable with death"?
On May 10 2011 18:06 HULKAMANIA wrote: So one can either agree with you about homosexuality or they are harming children? That sounds to me like an exceptionally poor way to frame the disagreement, one that would be personally offensive to a lot of people.
Yup, I say the same things about racism and sexism too! And I don't care if it offends you, or racists, or sexists.
On May 10 2011 18:06 HULKAMANIA wrote: Disapproving of homosexuality in the abstract does not inhere harming homosexual individuals in practice. There is such a thing as treating someone with respect and kindness even if you don't approve of things about them. I would say the capacity to do so is a cornerstone of emotional maturity and frankly a necessity of getting along with anyone for any length of time.
If you understand that I fundamentally hold heterosexists in any form in the same regard as I hold racists, you will understand my feelings toward them.
I don't mean to make it sound like my entire pro-gay argument stems from comparing people to racists, but it is a good way to simplify the justification for my unconditional disdain for anyone that holds anti-gay sentiments of any kind.
I couldn't agree more. It's just a golden rule of internet arguing that if you successfully compare something to Hitler or racism you win the argument.
Yes, comparisons to racism are common arguments in internet rhetoric. That doesn't mean they're invalid.
I make that comparison because it should be an effective way of getting you to consider the reasons you hold your own beliefs and thus use your beliefs to better understand my own.
When you understand why you hold people who are racist in any form in low regard, you will understand why I hold homophobic people in any form in low regard. Why it is that I consider homophobia to be morally on par with racism is another argument, one that I am willing to have, but the racism comparison addresses the issue of "why are you so intolerant of people with different beliefs than you."
On May 10 2011 17:21 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Keep out of other countries affairs IMO , let them sort out their own business.
It's pretty easy to argue about whether massive human rights violations by the state is that country's "own business." To me, that sounds like it's everyone's business, especially since the US gives Uganda so much aid.
Either way, didn't you open this thread a couple days ago? Your country tag says Australia, but it's a thread about the US. You had some pretty strong opinions about another country's business then, and the legislation discussed hadn't even been proposed yet (and in all likelihood never will be).
OK so what about the USAs use of depleted uranium in Iraq and Afghanistan.Thats a human rights issue.Try sorting out your own affairs before going after others.
As for the topic i made thats going off topic a little here but generally police state policy they bring in in the USA or UK they will try to bring into Australia.They are bringing in TSA style radiation naked body scanners to Sydney airport soon for example.They tried to bring in the road pricing by the mile in the UK but there was over 1.5 million signed a petition against it on number10.gov e-petitions site.There is a continuity of agenda between western governments , it's not comparable to compare that to interfering with 3rd world or developing countries affairs.
I'm not sure how to argue. You're simultaneously moving the goal post and trying to defend why you're sometimes concerned with the affairs of other countries and sometimes are not.
It's not relevant. All I want to know is your position on this issue.
Are you saying a law that provides the death penalty for homosexuality is something we shouldn't be concerned about?
On a related note, I somehow feel very proud / happy about that real time counter showing both women and men from many different countries and cultures signing this.
Personally, I feel if this gets passed, a neighboring country will provide asylum for any homosexuals fleeing Uganda. I can't imagine them being left there to die.
On May 10 2011 18:06 HULKAMANIA wrote: So one can either agree with you about homosexuality or they are harming children? That sounds to me like an exceptionally poor way to frame the disagreement, one that would be personally offensive to a lot of people.
Yup, I say the same things about racism and sexism too! And I don't care if it offends you, or racists, or sexists.
On May 10 2011 18:06 HULKAMANIA wrote: Disapproving of homosexuality in the abstract does not inhere harming homosexual individuals in practice. There is such a thing as treating someone with respect and kindness even if you don't approve of things about them. I would say the capacity to do so is a cornerstone of emotional maturity and frankly a necessity of getting along with anyone for any length of time.
If you understand that I fundamentally hold heterosexists in any form in the same regard as I hold racists, you will understand my feelings toward them.
I don't mean to make it sound like my entire pro-gay argument stems from comparing people to racists, but it is a good way to simplify the justification for my unconditional disdain for anyone that holds anti-gay sentiments of any kind.
I'll quote myself from earlier this week:
On May 08 2011 15:22 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On May 08 2011 15:20 Uldridge wrote:
Gender and race are not the same thing.
Neither are sexism and racism.
I couldn't agree more. It's just a golden rule of internet arguing that if you successfully compare something to Hitler or racism you win the argument.
How does this support your argument? I make that comparison because it should be an effective way of getting you to consider the reasons you hold your own beliefs and thus use your beliefs to better understand my own.
When you understand why you hold people who are racist in any form in low regard, you will understand why I hold homophobic people in any form in low regard.
I did not quote myself to support my argument, only to point out that the compare-it-to-racism strategy is the new argumentum ad Hiltlerum and that it's just not something I can take very seriously.
As for me, I understand exactly why I hold racism in low regard. But it is important to note that I don't despise racists, which I think is a key distinction between my position and yours. As I said before, there is such a thing as treating people with respect and kindness even if you don't agree with them—even though the more popular course of action is to tolerate that which you find tolerable and embrace a pluralistic diversity of opinion to exact degree with which one is personally comfortable.
On May 10 2011 14:59 abominare wrote: Well it is uganda...
This is why no one takes africa seriously, the whole continent has been a shit whole for nearly 3 thousand years.
User was warned for this post
Oh so insulting a whole continent of people and being a racist bigot only gets you a warning? Really?
USA and rich european countries exploited Africa for its natural ressources since we first set foot on the continent. We buy their ressources for a cheap price and export them unnecessary goods, just to maintain our lifestyle and have all those petty little things in our lifes, while africans starve to death and no one even cares. They fight for scraps from a table of a system that keeps them oppressed, while we live in infinity.
Were only gonna die of our own Arrogance.
@topic: Ofc its wrong. I signed the petition, also with a spam email account.
=D
I'm not sure how I'm a racist bigot now, but other than the north eastern portion of the continent which desperately leaps to be claimed as part of the middle east, the continent is by and large a huge freaking wreck. We can go on and on and on about all the problems in africa both from internal issues and external issues but let me ask you this, how quickly would you move to africa? You wouldn't the place is a freaking nightmare, and was even before the western influences came back, the place can literally hold a claim on being the birthplace of slavery.
Since you took such a wonderful leap into calling me a racists, some history. The large tragic movement of slaves brought in from africa were by in large part contracted from actual african residents. Slavery was still going strong in africa (and in some respects in certain areas still very much alive) at the time and most slaves bound for america had been slaves for many years on their home continent. Infact theres a lot of really interesting lectures from prominent black leadership of the reconstruction era expounding on the sort of strange irony they would of been born slaves even in africa.
Of course since I'm such a racist bigot, I opted for all my university history credits to come from African American history studies instead of traditional history classes. So yes, in light of the horrible problems surrounding the continent I was not surprised that Uganda and other nearby countries were willing to put people to death for homosexuality, in fact this goes on in plenty of other african nations we like to forget about. I furthermore still stand on my claim the place is a disaster zone.
Furthermore on the economics of africa as having my degree in finance and opting for my finance electives to have a focus on economies of developing nations in africa, since you know I'm such a fucking white southern hill billy racist. The vast majority of natural resources in africa go largely untouched for various political instability and infrastructure deficiencies. No one sits around and tells them they only get half of what everyone else gets for diamonds/oil/lumber (well in some cases they intentionally have to undercut competition by larger margins since the massive instability of the area makes people uneasy to set up long term contracts), and they can only buy 'unnecessary goods', theres a hole slew of internal corruption and poor societal choices going on here.
By and large the countries here don't even have the means to even extract the complex resources at their disposal and with legislation like this, and the other million problems in the area, few companies are willing to invest in operation theres, thus much of the population relies on low tech production means. Serious agriculture planning issues aside, its not exactly surprising they get paid very little for agriculture products when having to compete with fully modernized farms and actually functioning regulatory systems. Yes theres a few economies here and there that are pushing forward better but its more of a by comparison story.
I'm not saying africa is in the situation it is in on their own merit alone, we certainly didnt help for a long time, and it'll be an even longer time before the place can come to grips with its own identity.
Ok I apologize for calling you a racist, but your first post made the impression to me like you blame the african people for being poor and making their continent a shithole like you said, which made me thought you think that they are somewhat inferior people, not being able to care for themselves etc. ( you being warned seems like others read it also that way). However this post makes a lot more sense to me and Im glad you dont think the way I thought you were thinking. I guess its a misunderstanding. Please note Im not a native english speaker so maybe my choice of words wasnt the best
What I was trying to say though is, that we inflicted poverty on them first, and out of poverty things like corruption or violence to their own people (like you said with the slavetraders) arise, so maybe Africa would be a totally different continent today if it wasnt colonized and exploited.
I understand the points about economics you were making like most of the continent not being an attractive place to invest for outside companies and that the agriculture simply cant compete with modernized farms and I appreciate your input. But how come, if you say your putting your focus on economies of developing countries in Africa as a job, that you think so low of the continent or why do you put your focus there?
Btw you quoted me twice and Im glad you still make a happyface
On May 10 2011 18:24 AutomatonOmega wrote: Personally, I feel if this gets passed, a neighboring country will provide asylum for any homosexuals fleeing Uganda. I can't imagine them being left there to die.
On May 10 2011 17:05 matjlav wrote: Blah. I just don't get homophobia at all. Even when I was under 10 years old and had no idea I might be gay, I was still really bewildered when I found out that Christians were supposed to be against gay people. That may have just been a result of me drawing connections between that situation and the anti-racism education everyone my age received in elementary school, but I just cannot relate to this apparently universal urge to marginalize and hate certain groups of people against all evidence.
Bah, people are dumb, and it seems so hopeless to bother trying to change them.
Saying Christians are against gay people is a very vague statement.
I am a christian and in my opinion on the homosexual community is that they are sinning, just like I do everyday when I lie, steal, take God's name in vain, and a vast number of things. I do not look down upon homosexuals at all, just like I don't look down on somebody who I see lie. I have gay friends, and they know I oppose their beliefs, but I do not claim they are going to hell, or are a bad person for who am I to judge? In my opinion God will judge us all on our sins and just as he says no sin is greater than another. I try my best to love all people, but when I don't, and I "hate" someone, I feel I have sinned.
Sin is something that everybody thinks Christians look upon as if they never see it, or experience it. But Christians that I associate with, and the way I believe it is that Christians sin just as much as non-Christians, but we do our best to repent for them and show others that God can take those sins and completely take them away from you.
Yeah, I know that now, but I'm talking from the perspective of how I was raised and how I perceived these things when I was growing up and being indoctrinated.
Ah, I see.
Sorry for the rant, lol. Just something I am passionate about.
Nowadays Christians have a bad reputation, especially on the internet and the media. I just want to state my way of thinking so people at least know some Christians aren't bigots
Don't get me wrong - even if you "don't hate homosexuals," I still take very personal offense to anyone that considers homosexuality wrong. Opinions like yours, no matter how passive-aggressive and "loving," serve only to increase the pain that kids growing up gay have to go through. You can't just say "I love them anyway" and act like all of the hurtful consequences of your beliefs go away.
I don't mean to derail the topic, but yeah. You may not be as bad as the folks in Uganda, but you are still hurting people in significant ways.
And Herein lies our problem. You believe that kids can "grow up gay". While I don't. And what do you expect me to do? Abandon my own beliefs to cater to others? I am as steadfast in my beliefs as you are in yours. I am not here to make people's lives easier. In my opinion I am on this earth to share what I know, which I just did. You can take it or leave it, but that is how I feel.
What have I done to hurt these kids, if they do grow up gay as you say? Live my life? I don't walk up to people and insult them for being gay. This argument you have with my beliefs is not with me, but with my religion.
And again, see this from my perspective. If you (in your eyes) had the key to "eternal life", would you not share it?
Why don't you believe that kids can be born gay? Homosexuality is documented in too many animal species for me to list, you can no longer argue that it's not a natural occurrence. You have no evidence that what you believe is true (other than what you read in some ancient book), but people who believe otherwise do. And what you have done to the kids by subscribing to this religious view is that they are inherently 'evil' and that it's their own fault for being gay (and evil).
The reason I don't believe kids can be born gay is because my end all be all source of information is the faith I have in the Bible. You can call me ignorant, or whatever, but that is what I believe. I also don't believe anyone is inherently evil, but that sin is evil and it affects every one of us.
I am not going to get into a debate on whether homosexuality is a natural occurrence or not because that is a black hole of an argument.
When you can prove to me how the world began without a supreme being, then you have changed my mind, but until then, this is my opinion.
Then stop eating shellfish.
They are an abomination. (according to your supreme being)
No prawns, no crabs, no lobsters....... oh so sad.
On May 10 2011 18:06 HULKAMANIA wrote: So one can either agree with you about homosexuality or they are harming children? That sounds to me like an exceptionally poor way to frame the disagreement, one that would be personally offensive to a lot of people.
Yup, I say the same things about racism and sexism too! And I don't care if it offends you, or racists, or sexists.
On May 10 2011 18:06 HULKAMANIA wrote: Disapproving of homosexuality in the abstract does not inhere harming homosexual individuals in practice. There is such a thing as treating someone with respect and kindness even if you don't approve of things about them. I would say the capacity to do so is a cornerstone of emotional maturity and frankly a necessity of getting along with anyone for any length of time.
If you understand that I fundamentally hold heterosexists in any form in the same regard as I hold racists, you will understand my feelings toward them.
I don't mean to make it sound like my entire pro-gay argument stems from comparing people to racists, but it is a good way to simplify the justification for my unconditional disdain for anyone that holds anti-gay sentiments of any kind.
I'll quote myself from earlier this week:
On May 08 2011 15:22 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On May 08 2011 15:20 Uldridge wrote:
Gender and race are not the same thing.
Neither are sexism and racism.
I couldn't agree more. It's just a golden rule of internet arguing that if you successfully compare something to Hitler or racism you win the argument.
Yes, comparisons to racism are common arguments in internet rhetoric. That doesn't mean they're invalid.
I make that comparison because it should be an effective way of getting you to consider the reasons you hold your own beliefs and thus use your beliefs to better understand my own.
When you understand why you hold people who are racist in any form in low regard, you will understand why I hold homophobic people in any form in low regard.
You're taking offense too easily. Just because I don't condone their actions doesn't mean I'm hurting children. Where did you get this from? I treat them with the same respect.
And to answer the second point, I don't care if you hold me in low regard. You're like the woman who yells at me for being sexist after opening the door for her. Again, don't take offense too easily!
On May 10 2011 18:06 HULKAMANIA wrote: So one can either agree with you about homosexuality or they are harming children? That sounds to me like an exceptionally poor way to frame the disagreement, one that would be personally offensive to a lot of people.
Yup, I say the same things about racism and sexism too! And I don't care if it offends you, or racists, or sexists.
On May 10 2011 18:06 HULKAMANIA wrote: Disapproving of homosexuality in the abstract does not inhere harming homosexual individuals in practice. There is such a thing as treating someone with respect and kindness even if you don't approve of things about them. I would say the capacity to do so is a cornerstone of emotional maturity and frankly a necessity of getting along with anyone for any length of time.
If you understand that I fundamentally hold heterosexists in any form in the same regard as I hold racists, you will understand my feelings toward them.
I don't mean to make it sound like my entire pro-gay argument stems from comparing people to racists, but it is a good way to simplify the justification for my unconditional disdain for anyone that holds anti-gay sentiments of any kind.
I'll quote myself from earlier this week:
On May 08 2011 15:22 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On May 08 2011 15:20 Uldridge wrote:
Gender and race are not the same thing.
Neither are sexism and racism.
I couldn't agree more. It's just a golden rule of internet arguing that if you successfully compare something to Hitler or racism you win the argument.
How does this support your argument? I make that comparison because it should be an effective way of getting you to consider the reasons you hold your own beliefs and thus use your beliefs to better understand my own.
When you understand why you hold people who are racist in any form in low regard, you will understand why I hold homophobic people in any form in low regard.
I did not quote myself to support my argument, only to point out that the compare-it-to-racism strategy is the new argumentum ad Hiltlerum and that it's just not something I can take very seriously.
As for me, I understand exactly why I hold racists in low regard. But it is important to note that I don't despise racists, which I think is a key distinction between my position and yours. As I said before, there is such a thing as treating people with respect and kindness even if you don't agree with them—even though the more popular course of action is to tolerate that which you find tolerable and embrace a pluralistic diversity of opinion to exact degree with which one is personally comfortable.
Finding someone's beliefs personally offensive and harmful isn't the same thing as despising the person, so there goes that strawman.
And I'm sure that you have a whole host of beliefs for which you think that the opposing opinion should be eradicated - I won't name "racism" because apparently you use that as an opportunity to write off your opponent's argument without justification, but I'll let you come up with your own examples. There are some issues so blatantly one-sided that they do not deserve a diversity of opinion.
Not to be an asshole but why is this getting so much attention with half a million people signing petitions when the whole continent of africa is a battleground in turmoil. Gay rights aren't exactly the biggest problem they have.
The rest of the world has exploited Africa for hundreds of years and now people are getting on their hind legs about gay rights in a place that has gotten fucked by everyone for centuries. Jesus christ.
On May 10 2011 18:37 Phonics wrote: Not to be an asshole but why is this getting so much attention with half a million people signing petitions when the whole continent of africa is a battleground in turmoil. Gay rights aren't exactly the biggest problem they have.
The rest of the world has exploited Africa for hundreds of years and now people are getting on their hind legs about gay rights in a place that has gotten fucked by everyone for centuries. Jesus christ.
And it's about time something is properly done about it. We may as well start with this, one only hopes it doesn't just go onto the back-burner like so many other things tend to do.
On May 10 2011 18:37 Phonics wrote: Not to be an asshole but why is this getting so much attention with half a million people signing petitions when the whole continent of africa is a battleground in turmoil. Gay rights aren't exactly the biggest problem they have.
The rest of the world has exploited Africa for hundreds of years and now people are getting on their hind legs about gay rights in a place that has gotten fucked by everyone for centuries. Jesus christ.
On May 10 2011 18:06 HULKAMANIA wrote: So one can either agree with you about homosexuality or they are harming children? That sounds to me like an exceptionally poor way to frame the disagreement, one that would be personally offensive to a lot of people.
Yup, I say the same things about racism and sexism too! And I don't care if it offends you, or racists, or sexists.
On May 10 2011 18:06 HULKAMANIA wrote: Disapproving of homosexuality in the abstract does not inhere harming homosexual individuals in practice. There is such a thing as treating someone with respect and kindness even if you don't approve of things about them. I would say the capacity to do so is a cornerstone of emotional maturity and frankly a necessity of getting along with anyone for any length of time.
If you understand that I fundamentally hold heterosexists in any form in the same regard as I hold racists, you will understand my feelings toward them.
I don't mean to make it sound like my entire pro-gay argument stems from comparing people to racists, but it is a good way to simplify the justification for my unconditional disdain for anyone that holds anti-gay sentiments of any kind.
I'll quote myself from earlier this week:
On May 08 2011 15:22 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On May 08 2011 15:20 Uldridge wrote:
Gender and race are not the same thing.
Neither are sexism and racism.
I couldn't agree more. It's just a golden rule of internet arguing that if you successfully compare something to Hitler or racism you win the argument.
Yes, comparisons to racism are common arguments in internet rhetoric. That doesn't mean they're invalid.
I make that comparison because it should be an effective way of getting you to consider the reasons you hold your own beliefs and thus use your beliefs to better understand my own.
When you understand why you hold people who are racist in any form in low regard, you will understand why I hold homophobic people in any form in low regard.
You're taking offense too easily. Just because I don't condone their actions doesn't mean I'm hurting children. Where did you get this from? I treat them with the same respect.
And to answer the second point, I don't care if you hold me in low regard. You're like the woman who yells at me for being sexist after opening the door for her. Again, don't take offense too easily!
"I respect you, but I believe that this intrinsic part of who you are is morally wrong. Don't take offense too easily!"
Okay.
Also, I'm literally laughing out loud that you compare the view of homosexuality as sinful to holding a door open for a woman.
On May 10 2011 18:06 HULKAMANIA wrote: So one can either agree with you about homosexuality or they are harming children? That sounds to me like an exceptionally poor way to frame the disagreement, one that would be personally offensive to a lot of people.
Yup, I say the same things about racism and sexism too! And I don't care if it offends you, or racists, or sexists.
On May 10 2011 18:06 HULKAMANIA wrote: Disapproving of homosexuality in the abstract does not inhere harming homosexual individuals in practice. There is such a thing as treating someone with respect and kindness even if you don't approve of things about them. I would say the capacity to do so is a cornerstone of emotional maturity and frankly a necessity of getting along with anyone for any length of time.
If you understand that I fundamentally hold heterosexists in any form in the same regard as I hold racists, you will understand my feelings toward them.
I don't mean to make it sound like my entire pro-gay argument stems from comparing people to racists, but it is a good way to simplify the justification for my unconditional disdain for anyone that holds anti-gay sentiments of any kind.
I'll quote myself from earlier this week:
On May 08 2011 15:22 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On May 08 2011 15:20 Uldridge wrote:
Gender and race are not the same thing.
Neither are sexism and racism.
I couldn't agree more. It's just a golden rule of internet arguing that if you successfully compare something to Hitler or racism you win the argument.
How does this support your argument? I make that comparison because it should be an effective way of getting you to consider the reasons you hold your own beliefs and thus use your beliefs to better understand my own.
When you understand why you hold people who are racist in any form in low regard, you will understand why I hold homophobic people in any form in low regard.
I did not quote myself to support my argument, only to point out that the compare-it-to-racism strategy is the new argumentum ad Hiltlerum and that it's just not something I can take very seriously.
As for me, I understand exactly why I hold racists in low regard. But it is important to note that I don't despise racists, which I think is a key distinction between my position and yours. As I said before, there is such a thing as treating people with respect and kindness even if you don't agree with them—even though the more popular course of action is to tolerate that which you find tolerable and embrace a pluralistic diversity of opinion to exact degree with which one is personally comfortable.
Finding someone's beliefs personally offensive and harmful isn't the same thing as despising the person, so there goes that strawman.
So what you're saying is that you can disagree with someone without despising them? Preposterous!
And I'm sure that you have a whole host of beliefs for which you think that the opposing opinion should be eradicated - I won't name "racism" because apparently you use that as an opportunity to write off your opponent's argument without justification, but I'll let you come up with your own examples.
I suppose maybe in a way. Personally I'm not really into eradicating opposing opinions. I think performing a sort of dialectic with the other side is a much healthier way to handle difference of opinion than eradication.
On May 10 2011 18:06 HULKAMANIA wrote: So one can either agree with you about homosexuality or they are harming children? That sounds to me like an exceptionally poor way to frame the disagreement, one that would be personally offensive to a lot of people.
Yup, I say the same things about racism and sexism too! And I don't care if it offends you, or racists, or sexists.
On May 10 2011 18:06 HULKAMANIA wrote: Disapproving of homosexuality in the abstract does not inhere harming homosexual individuals in practice. There is such a thing as treating someone with respect and kindness even if you don't approve of things about them. I would say the capacity to do so is a cornerstone of emotional maturity and frankly a necessity of getting along with anyone for any length of time.
If you understand that I fundamentally hold heterosexists in any form in the same regard as I hold racists, you will understand my feelings toward them.
I don't mean to make it sound like my entire pro-gay argument stems from comparing people to racists, but it is a good way to simplify the justification for my unconditional disdain for anyone that holds anti-gay sentiments of any kind.
I'll quote myself from earlier this week:
On May 08 2011 15:22 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On May 08 2011 15:20 Uldridge wrote:
Gender and race are not the same thing.
Neither are sexism and racism.
I couldn't agree more. It's just a golden rule of internet arguing that if you successfully compare something to Hitler or racism you win the argument.
How does this support your argument? I make that comparison because it should be an effective way of getting you to consider the reasons you hold your own beliefs and thus use your beliefs to better understand my own.
When you understand why you hold people who are racist in any form in low regard, you will understand why I hold homophobic people in any form in low regard.
I did not quote myself to support my argument, only to point out that the compare-it-to-racism strategy is the new argumentum ad Hiltlerum and that it's just not something I can take very seriously.
As for me, I understand exactly why I hold racists in low regard. But it is important to note that I don't despise racists, which I think is a key distinction between my position and yours. As I said before, there is such a thing as treating people with respect and kindness even if you don't agree with them—even though the more popular course of action is to tolerate that which you find tolerable and embrace a pluralistic diversity of opinion to exact degree with which one is personally comfortable.
Finding someone's beliefs personally offensive and harmful isn't the same thing as despising the person, so there goes that strawman.
So what you're saying is that you can disagree with someone without despising them? Preposterous!
Uh... you're acting victorious after your strawman was pointed out? Seriously?
Yes, I am saying that, because I was never arguing otherwise. Your style of argument is making my brain hurt.
And I'm sure that you have a whole host of beliefs for which you think that the opposing opinion should be eradicated - I won't name "racism" because apparently you use that as an opportunity to write off your opponent's argument without justification, but I'll let you come up with your own examples.
I suppose maybe in a way. Personally I'm not really into eradicating opposing opinions. I think performing a sort of dialectic with the other side is a much healthier way to handle difference of opinion than eradication.
Do you believe Naziism is an opinion that should exist? (Yes, I know it's a reductio ad Hitlerium and OMG THAT'S AUTOMATICALLY INVALID AND LAUGHABLE, but just answer the question. Humor me.)
i have to say i dislike gayness BUT !!! death penalty ? or even any penalty ? its THEIR lives so sure i sign because thats not human ! and i twitter this hope they stop it
On May 10 2011 18:06 HULKAMANIA wrote: So one can either agree with you about homosexuality or they are harming children? That sounds to me like an exceptionally poor way to frame the disagreement, one that would be personally offensive to a lot of people.
Yup, I say the same things about racism and sexism too! And I don't care if it offends you, or racists, or sexists.
On May 10 2011 18:06 HULKAMANIA wrote: Disapproving of homosexuality in the abstract does not inhere harming homosexual individuals in practice. There is such a thing as treating someone with respect and kindness even if you don't approve of things about them. I would say the capacity to do so is a cornerstone of emotional maturity and frankly a necessity of getting along with anyone for any length of time.
If you understand that I fundamentally hold heterosexists in any form in the same regard as I hold racists, you will understand my feelings toward them.
I don't mean to make it sound like my entire pro-gay argument stems from comparing people to racists, but it is a good way to simplify the justification for my unconditional disdain for anyone that holds anti-gay sentiments of any kind.
I'll quote myself from earlier this week:
On May 08 2011 15:22 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On May 08 2011 15:20 Uldridge wrote:
Gender and race are not the same thing.
Neither are sexism and racism.
I couldn't agree more. It's just a golden rule of internet arguing that if you successfully compare something to Hitler or racism you win the argument.
How does this support your argument? I make that comparison because it should be an effective way of getting you to consider the reasons you hold your own beliefs and thus use your beliefs to better understand my own.
When you understand why you hold people who are racist in any form in low regard, you will understand why I hold homophobic people in any form in low regard.
I did not quote myself to support my argument, only to point out that the compare-it-to-racism strategy is the new argumentum ad Hiltlerum and that it's just not something I can take very seriously.
As for me, I understand exactly why I hold racists in low regard. But it is important to note that I don't despise racists, which I think is a key distinction between my position and yours. As I said before, there is such a thing as treating people with respect and kindness even if you don't agree with them—even though the more popular course of action is to tolerate that which you find tolerable and embrace a pluralistic diversity of opinion to exact degree with which one is personally comfortable.
Finding someone's beliefs personally offensive and harmful isn't the same thing as despising the person, so there goes that strawman.
So what you're saying is that you can disagree with someone without despising them? Preposterous!
Uh... you're acting victorious after your strawman was pointed out? Seriously?
Yes, I am saying that, because I was never arguing otherwise. Your style of argument is making my brain hurt.
And I'm sure that you have a whole host of beliefs for which you think that the opposing opinion should be eradicated - I won't name "racism" because apparently you use that as an opportunity to write off your opponent's argument without justification, but I'll let you come up with your own examples.
I suppose maybe in a way. Personally I'm not really into eradicating opposing opinions. I think performing a sort of dialectic with the other side is a much healthier way to handle difference of opinion than eradication.
Do you believe Naziism is an opinion that should exist? (Yes, I know it's a reductio ad Hitlerium and OMG THAT'S AUTOMATICALLY INVALID AND LAUGHABLE, but just answer the question. Humor me.)
In the interest of sparing you further brain hurt, I'm discontinuing my side of this discussion.
On May 10 2011 18:37 Phonics wrote: Not to be an asshole but why is this getting so much attention with half a million people signing petitions when the whole continent of africa is a battleground in turmoil. Gay rights aren't exactly the biggest problem they have.
The rest of the world has exploited Africa for hundreds of years and now people are getting on their hind legs about gay rights in a place that has gotten fucked by everyone for centuries. Jesus christ.
Well according to what the petition site told me, they actually have a legit shot at convincing whoever signs that bill thing. Signing petitions won't conjure food or find an AIDS vaccine, but it sure can change this guy's mind.
But I get your point. You're trying to be the guy who says "But there are kids starving in africa" when people try to help local homeless people. Regardless, I agree with you, more attention should be directed towards the poverty/war/epidemics in Africa.
On May 10 2011 18:06 HULKAMANIA wrote: So one can either agree with you about homosexuality or they are harming children? That sounds to me like an exceptionally poor way to frame the disagreement, one that would be personally offensive to a lot of people.
Yup, I say the same things about racism and sexism too! And I don't care if it offends you, or racists, or sexists.
On May 10 2011 18:06 HULKAMANIA wrote: Disapproving of homosexuality in the abstract does not inhere harming homosexual individuals in practice. There is such a thing as treating someone with respect and kindness even if you don't approve of things about them. I would say the capacity to do so is a cornerstone of emotional maturity and frankly a necessity of getting along with anyone for any length of time.
If you understand that I fundamentally hold heterosexists in any form in the same regard as I hold racists, you will understand my feelings toward them.
I don't mean to make it sound like my entire pro-gay argument stems from comparing people to racists, but it is a good way to simplify the justification for my unconditional disdain for anyone that holds anti-gay sentiments of any kind.
I'll quote myself from earlier this week:
On May 08 2011 15:22 HULKAMANIA wrote:
On May 08 2011 15:20 Uldridge wrote:
Gender and race are not the same thing.
Neither are sexism and racism.
I couldn't agree more. It's just a golden rule of internet arguing that if you successfully compare something to Hitler or racism you win the argument.
Yes, comparisons to racism are common arguments in internet rhetoric. That doesn't mean they're invalid.
I make that comparison because it should be an effective way of getting you to consider the reasons you hold your own beliefs and thus use your beliefs to better understand my own.
When you understand why you hold people who are racist in any form in low regard, you will understand why I hold homophobic people in any form in low regard.
You're taking offense too easily. Just because I don't condone their actions doesn't mean I'm hurting children. Where did you get this from? I treat them with the same respect.
And to answer the second point, I don't care if you hold me in low regard. You're like the woman who yells at me for being sexist after opening the door for her. Again, don't take offense too easily!
"I respect you, but I believe that this intrinsic part of who you are is morally wrong. Don't take offense too easily!"
Okay.
Also, I'm literally laughing out loud that you compare the view of homosexuality as sinful to holding a door open for a woman.
Sorry I didn't mean to get you so agitated. Let's just disagree with each other. You keep on telling people they are hurting children and I'll keep on with my religious bigotry lol.
Reading through this thread really surprises me. Seems like people are being naive. The west is just a small part of the world and it's great that attention is being brought to this and that people want to do something about it but there're are people being oppressed all over the world.
O and you know you play too much starcraft when you mistype idea idra and then go to fix it but accidentally type idra again.
On May 10 2011 18:37 Phonics wrote: Not to be an asshole but why is this getting so much attention with half a million people signing petitions when the whole continent of africa is a battleground in turmoil. Gay rights aren't exactly the biggest problem they have.
The rest of the world has exploited Africa for hundreds of years and now people are getting on their hind legs about gay rights in a place that has gotten fucked by everyone for centuries. Jesus christ.
come on dude... that's because something like world hunger isn't near as preventable as this
One may not like homosexuality or homosexuals, but that does not give them the right to fucking execute them. This is an atrocity. I hope this bill is buried deep into history.
If you're gay, straight, or anything in between, you should be opposed to this. 100%. If you're not then there is something fundamentally wrong with you.
I cant know for sure what the situation is like in Uganda but Ive done a fair few travels to Ghana where homosexuality is frowned upon if not illegal.
The reasoning for this is actually alot more complicated than some of you guys want it to sound and is definatly not only a sympthom of "backwardsness" or "religious zealotry" - rather it has its roots in western, rich white people who come to these poor parts of Africa for sex with young boys. Anyone whos ever been to rural parts of African countries will know just how desperatly people are in need of cash - much like we know it from Thailand were the sexindustry with very young boys is an ever growing cashcow for some few sick people. Main difference being that its a far less known fact as theres not that many tourist in Africa as there are in Thailand for instance - so less people know about it.
I know this doesnt validate a law to execute homosexuals in any kind and especially not when its two men or women - for that matter - who on even foot decides to be intimate. However, I do hope that you realise that this is part of the reason as to why homosexuality really is viewed upon as a major offence.
A fun slightly unrelated fact is that public display of affection man and wife together is not something you see very much but two men who are good friends more often than not will walk hand in hand
"three days earlier the Vatican legal attaché to the United Nations stated that "Pope Benedict is opposed to 'unjust discrimination' against gay men and lesbians""
On May 10 2011 14:24 0neder wrote: I believe that acting on gay desires is morally wrong, but any sensible Christian can recognize that this law is quite misguided. I really hope it doesn't pass.
I thought people were born gay, how can it be morally wrong? Religion is what is making you confused, and religion is killing innocent people in Uganda.
As ridiculous and narrow minded as this is, democracy is the will of the people. If most Ugandans want this, isnt it their decision? Many countries have laws that are ludicrous to me, is it our responsibility to instill our beliefs on law and order onto these countries? Not in my opinion.
Just for the record, i do not condone this whatsoever. Its medieval in my view.
On May 10 2011 21:52 Calliopee wrote: I cant know for sure what the situation is like in Uganda but Ive done a fair few travels to Ghana where homosexuality is frowned upon if not illegal.
The reasoning for this is actually alot more complicated than some of you guys want it to sound and is definatly not only a sympthom of "backwardsness" or "religious zealotry" - rather it has its roots in western, rich white people who come to these poor parts of Africa for sex with young boys. Anyone whos ever been to rural parts of African countries will know just how desperatly people are in need of cash - much like we know it from Thailand were the sexindustry with very young boys is an ever growing cashcow for some few sick people. Main difference being that its a far less known fact as theres not that many tourist in Africa as there are in Thailand for instance - so less people know about it.
I know this doesnt validate a law to execute homosexuals in any kind and especially not when its two men or women - for that matter - who on even foot decides to be intimate. However, I do hope that you realise that this is part of the reason as to why homosexuality really is viewed upon as a major offence.
A fun slightly unrelated fact is that public display of affection man and wife together is not something you see very much but two men who are good friends more often than not will walk hand in hand
Source that it would be due to sex tourism? Now I can only say I've seen one documentary (not counting the bcc one posted in this thread) and most people in that one, that gave a reason for their homosexuality claimed it went against Christ. So I tend to believe it does have everything to do with religion in this case. Not saying that sex tourism doesn't exist in countries in Africa, cause it most certainly does - just as it does in every poor country (well, most countries in general, not only poor or underdeveloped ones).
On May 10 2011 22:16 Aristodemus wrote: As ridiculous and narrow minded as this is, democracy is the will of the people. If most Ugandans want this, isnt it their decision? Many countries have laws that are ludicrous to me, is it our responsibility to instill our beliefs on law and order onto these countries? Not in my opinion.
Just for the record, i do not condone this whatsoever. Its medieval in my view.
This is why most sensible countries aren't democracies. Look at the US for example. If 99% of them wanted this bill, could it pass? No, because their constitution would forbid it.
On May 10 2011 22:16 Aristodemus wrote: As ridiculous and narrow minded as this is, democracy is the will of the people. If most Ugandans want this, isnt it their decision? Many countries have laws that are ludicrous to me, is it our responsibility to instill our beliefs on law and order onto these countries? Not in my opinion.
Just for the record, i do not condone this whatsoever. Its medieval in my view.
This is why most sensible countries aren't democracies. Look at the US for example. If 99% of them wanted this bill, could it pass? No, because their constitution would forbid it.
Well, i do not know about the US, but most countries are able to change their constitutions with a large enough majority. I believe that for example 2/3 of the parliament need to agree to change the constitution here in Germany. And this is not just a theoretical possibility, i think the last change to the constitution they did was adding in some animal rights.
Whether the bill passes or not is irrelevant. In Uganda certain things can get you killed on the streets or in your neighborhood. Pedophilia for example...if people find out that you engaged in something like that you'll be lucky if they call the cops. More than likely you'll get chopped up and buried.
The opinion you have to change isn't the governments but the peoples. And I don't see that happening anytime soon. I believe most African countries are just like this.
this is sad :/ Though i don't trust this site, i really hope they'll make it out alive. I JUST HATE IT how religion describes homosexuality as a crime or an illness. They are not like the others, okay, the only thing that is different from the heterosexual people is only their sexuality. Please, there are more important factors to judge over a human.
On May 10 2011 21:52 Calliopee wrote: I cant know for sure what the situation is like in Uganda but Ive done a fair few travels to Ghana where homosexuality is frowned upon if not illegal.
The reasoning for this is actually alot more complicated than some of you guys want it to sound and is definatly not only a sympthom of "backwardsness" or "religious zealotry" - rather it has its roots in western, rich white people who come to these poor parts of Africa for sex with young boys. Anyone whos ever been to rural parts of African countries will know just how desperatly people are in need of cash - much like we know it from Thailand were the sexindustry with very young boys is an ever growing cashcow for some few sick people. Main difference being that its a far less known fact as theres not that many tourist in Africa as there are in Thailand for instance - so less people know about it.
I know this doesnt validate a law to execute homosexuals in any kind and especially not when its two men or women - for that matter - who on even foot decides to be intimate. However, I do hope that you realise that this is part of the reason as to why homosexuality really is viewed upon as a major offence.
A fun slightly unrelated fact is that public display of affection man and wife together is not something you see very much but two men who are good friends more often than not will walk hand in hand
I think you deserve a round of applause for how gracefully you managed to blame white people and free the Uganda population of any blame.
How about we just treat African people as equalls and don't pretend like they aren't responsible for their own actions. The truth is that the Ugandese people are incredibly homophobic and this is derived from their religion (christians). Mixed with poor people being more likely to be extreme since there isn't anything to lose and you have a country filled with people that aren't being played or tricked but honestly want to murder homosexuals from their own desire.
"I respect you, but I believe that this intrinsic part of who you are is morally wrong. Don't take offense too easily!"
We say precisely this about many intrinsic traits. In extreme cases such as towards sociopaths and pedophiles, and also more commonly about negative character traits like greed or jealosy.
Despite how horrendous people outside of Uganda may think the belief system of the country, the government would not attempt to pass a bill like this on a whim. It is well documented that the country has very low tolerance for homosexuality. Furthermore I really don't understand why petitions like this type go up on the internet, everyone is so fast to push their moral belief systems on other people its amazing. Whether you agree or not with the bill is irrelevant. Its not OUR country, its Uganda's, people in the 'developed' part of the world really should take a step back and realize that not everywhere has the same moral indicators. And if a country is deemed 'uncivilized' by another country, no one, is forcing them to trade, deal, or otherwise interact with each other.
I fully support Uganda's politics in this matter, and I'm not trolling either. The homosexual orientation is a mental disease that needs to be treated, homosexual acts are crimes that need to be punished.
So this is what happens when a whole country thinks like the Tea Party... Absolutely disturbing, obviously I signed. Now finally there is a guy worthy of beeing compared to Hitler in important aspects.
On May 11 2011 01:52 MrBadMan wrote: I fully support Uganda's politics in this matter, and I'm not trolling either. The homosexual orientation is a mental disease that needs to be treated, homosexual acts are crimes that need to be punished.
Evil can not be tolerated.
Pretty big disconnect in this logic. If it is a mental disease, how can it be so easily considered "evil?"
Also, what constitutes a crime is pretty arbitrary. (i'm going to go on faith and assume you aren't a troll like you say you aren't)
On May 11 2011 01:24 SichuanPanda wrote: Despite how horrendous people outside of Uganda may think the belief system of the country, the government would not attempt to pass a bill like this on a whim. It is well documented that the country has very low tolerance for homosexuality. Furthermore I really don't understand why petitions like this type go up on the internet, everyone is so fast to push their moral belief systems on other people its amazing. Whether you agree or not with the bill is irrelevant. Its not OUR country, its Uganda's, people in the 'developed' part of the world really should take a step back and realize that not everywhere has the same moral indicators. And if a country is deemed 'uncivilized' by another country, no one, is forcing them to trade, deal, or otherwise interact with each other.
Because don't you know that western morals are holy and pure, everything else is barbaric and uncivilized.[/sarcasm]
While this bill isn't particularly nice, I fail to see how people are getting up in arms about a ban on sodomy in a backwater country that will never concern them. Wars, famine, aids, jihad, rape in africa? who cares!
They are banning sodomy in uganda!?!?!?!?! SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!
On May 11 2011 01:52 teekesselchen wrote: So this is what happens when a whole country thinks like the Tea Party... Absolutely disturbing, obviously I signed. Now finally there is a guy worthy of beeing compared to Hitler in important aspects.
How is the tea party even remotely associated with this topic? Their focus has been 99% on economics, and the 1% are loonies you can find in any group. So how is tea party associated with an anti-gay bill?
Oh wait...
On September 27 2010 03:04 teekesselchen wrote: If only America would have better education, at least the Tea Party wing would simply vanish. It takes serious mental damage to support such archaic ideas which specifically oppose everything good the USA ever represented.
What's wrong about Obama isn't Obama but a blockhead opposition (Tea Party... cmon what a bunch of narrow minded idiots - I dislike conservatives anyways but these guys are closer to nazis than just conservatives)
I didn't even suspect it to be satirical after reading the headline. Actually it sounds kinda plausible to a European after having heard of the Tea Party and Bush jr. beeing president two times.
On September 18 2010 05:10 teekesselchen wrote:
Thank god there still are US citizens opposing the tea party.
On May 08 2011 17:41 teekesselchen wrote: Tea party is yelling to just kill people like Julian Assange - who didn't even commit a crime according to U.S. constitution-
On May 11 2011 01:24 SichuanPanda wrote: Despite how horrendous people outside of Uganda may think the belief system of the country, the government would not attempt to pass a bill like this on a whim. It is well documented that the country has very low tolerance for homosexuality. Furthermore I really don't understand why petitions like this type go up on the internet, everyone is so fast to push their moral belief systems on other people its amazing. Whether you agree or not with the bill is irrelevant. Its not OUR country, its Uganda's, people in the 'developed' part of the world really should take a step back and realize that not everywhere has the same moral indicators. And if a country is deemed 'uncivilized' by another country, no one, is forcing them to trade, deal, or otherwise interact with each other.
Because don't you know that western morals are holy and pure, everything else is barbaric and uncivilized.[/sarcasm]
While this bill isn't particularly nice, I fail to see how people are getting up in arms about a ban on sodomy in a backwater country that will never concern them. Wars, famine, aids, jihad, rape in africa? who cares!
They are banning sodomy in uganda!?!?!?!?! SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!
They aren't banning it they are killing homosexuals. You proceed to list off an entire laundry list of problems that you feel need to be adressed.
Yes because since there are wars in Africa, killing homosexuals is allright.
But what if we talk about wars in Africa? Well those are justified because killing homosexuals is a problem.
You don't even understand your own logic. Bad things are oke because other bad things happen? You got stupid and then you got stupid
Despite how horrendous people outside of Uganda may think the belief system of the country, the government would not attempt to pass a bill like this on a whim. It is well documented that the country has very low tolerance for homosexuality. Furthermore I really don't understand why petitions like this type go up on the internet, everyone is so fast to push their moral belief systems on other people its amazing. Whether you agree or not with the bill is irrelevant. Its not OUR country, its Uganda's, people in the 'developed' part of the world really should take a step back and realize that not everywhere has the same moral indicators. And if a country is deemed 'uncivilized' by another country, no one, is forcing them to trade, deal, or otherwise interact with each other.
Very disturbing view of the world. As are all views that embrace violence on this scale.
On May 11 2011 01:52 MrBadMan wrote: I fully support Uganda's politics in this matter, and I'm not trolling either. The homosexual orientation is a mental disease that needs to be treated, homosexual acts are crimes that need to be punished.
Evil can not be tolerated.
u must be trolling but.. you fully support that people suffering a(as you put it) "mental disease" deserve the death penalty?
On May 10 2011 21:52 Calliopee wrote: I cant know for sure what the situation is like in Uganda but Ive done a fair few travels to Ghana where homosexuality is frowned upon if not illegal.
The reasoning for this is actually alot more complicated than some of you guys want it to sound and is definatly not only a sympthom of "backwardsness" or "religious zealotry" - rather it has its roots in western, rich white people who come to these poor parts of Africa for sex with young boys. Anyone whos ever been to rural parts of African countries will know just how desperatly people are in need of cash - much like we know it from Thailand were the sexindustry with very young boys is an ever growing cashcow for some few sick people. Main difference being that its a far less known fact as theres not that many tourist in Africa as there are in Thailand for instance - so less people know about it.
I know this doesnt validate a law to execute homosexuals in any kind and especially not when its two men or women - for that matter - who on even foot decides to be intimate. However, I do hope that you realise that this is part of the reason as to why homosexuality really is viewed upon as a major offence.
A fun slightly unrelated fact is that public display of affection man and wife together is not something you see very much but two men who are good friends more often than not will walk hand in hand
I think you deserve a round of applause for how gracefully you managed to blame white people and free the Uganda population of any blame.
How about we just treat African people as equalls and don't pretend like they aren't responsible for their own actions. The truth is that the Ugandese people are incredibly homophobic and this is derived from their religion (christians). Mixed with poor people being more likely to be extreme since there isn't anything to lose and you have a country filled with people that aren't being played or tricked but honestly want to murder homosexuals from their own desire.
I sincerely apologize if thats how you understood my post - english is not my first language. I'm not trying to relief the population from responsibility. My point was merely that there is more to the homophobia in some african countries than just religious matters.
On the part of "christianity" as the root for this, I highly recommend you dont think of it in absolute truths. In many african nations you will find that rural areas have a ton of different congretations with different preachers and therefore different "truths". Sure they might be derived somewhat from the puritan christanity we in Europe declared death centuries ago, but alot of them are subject to a few select preachers interpretations. Don't get me wrong, I think this law is horrendous but I've always believed that you can't judge people without understanding where they're coming from and all of the emotional socio/economic aspects that would play a part in a matter such as this.
On May 11 2011 01:52 MrBadMan wrote: I fully support Uganda's politics in this matter, and I'm not trolling either. The homosexual orientation is a mental disease that needs to be treated, homosexual acts are crimes that need to be punished.
Evil can not be tolerated.
u must be trolling but.. you fully support that people suffering a(as you put it) "mental disease" deserve the death penalty?
They will not be subject to the death penalty in Uganda, you might want to inform yourself before you voice your opinion.
The homosexual act needs to be punished by law. The act in itself is a crime that needs to be punished. A society that fails to hold its destructive forces in check eventually destroys itself from within.
On May 10 2011 12:26 EtherealDeath wrote: Wtf is this shit, I understand people have varying opinions on homosexuality, but giving it the death penalty is a bit ridiculous.
You can understand that? Really? What opinion other than "there is nothing wrong with being (and practicing) gay" is one that people can understandably have?
Ontopic: I am kind of sceptic about the chances of Uganda caring about such a petition. Let's hope it helps though.
Also isn't being gay punishable by death in a lot of countries? What makes Uganda so special? It wasn't really the go-to place for gays as it was or?
On May 11 2011 01:52 MrBadMan wrote: I fully support Uganda's politics in this matter, and I'm not trolling either. The homosexual orientation is a mental disease that needs to be treated, homosexual acts are crimes that need to be punished.
Evil can not be tolerated.
u must be trolling but.. you fully support that people suffering a(as you put it) "mental disease" deserve the death penalty?
They will not be subject to the death penalty in Uganda, you might want to inform yourself before you voice your opinion.
They will if this bill passes.
On May 11 2011 02:07 MrBadMan wrote: The homosexual act needs to be punished by law. The act in itself is a crime that needs to be punished. A society that fails to hold its destructive forces in check eventually destroys itself from within.
Homosexuality is not destructive. How do you justify the claim that homosexuality in itself is a crime that needs to be punished?
the world is so confusing; i just woke up and this thread is making me want to go back in bed. video games used to be an outlet to shut my brain off - but with SC2 and my finding of TL, thats not really possible anymore. i dont know how you guys manage but props. turning up the music i guess
If he is being truthful, and I see no reason why he might not be despite his quaint mannerisms, then it becomes very understandable, though at the same time very abhorrent. Think of Sharia law. Let's look at two examples which probably seem rather strange and oppressive to many of us - in some Muslim countries, conversion away from Islam and alcoholism are considered hudud crimes and therefore (in certain countries) is punishable by death. This seems pretty insane to us, but that's their opinion and they do it because it is their country, and is probably quite the majority option there.
That's how Bahati works. He is taking a very traditional interpretation of the Bible, which really does suggest that homosexuality is a sin and punishable by death - in fact Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God with all its inhabitants precisely for that reason in the Old Testament. Apparently, according to him, 90% of Ugandan share his religious interpretation and fervor. If so, and their will is to set their temporal laws in accordance with and along the laws which are either prescribed or was at one point enforced by God, then that is their will and it is their country, and so this bill would not seem crazy to them - you wouldn't even have to introduce the whole "save the children" monologue.
Curiously, Bahati says that a lot of the money going into "gay indoctrination" is coming from the West, although the way he describes it makes it sound more like "understanding gay people" rather than "gay indoctrination/recruiting".
Of course, we are free to get our politicians to put pressure on Uganda if we don't agree with them (imo this bill is insane and against human rights, although Bahati says your sexual orientation is not a human right in Uganda and therefore is subordinate to the law). Fuck sovereignty, the world has always been about personal interests counterplaying each other anyways.
p.s. I don't actually think Bahati is crazy or "demonic"/oppressive in any way, in the traditional sense of the world. It's his beliefs that are that way to me, and he acts on them logically more or less like how we act on our own beliefs.
On May 10 2011 21:52 Calliopee wrote: I cant know for sure what the situation is like in Uganda but Ive done a fair few travels to Ghana where homosexuality is frowned upon if not illegal.
The reasoning for this is actually alot more complicated than some of you guys want it to sound and is definatly not only a sympthom of "backwardsness" or "religious zealotry" - rather it has its roots in western, rich white people who come to these poor parts of Africa for sex with young boys. Anyone whos ever been to rural parts of African countries will know just how desperatly people are in need of cash - much like we know it from Thailand were the sexindustry with very young boys is an ever growing cashcow for some few sick people. Main difference being that its a far less known fact as theres not that many tourist in Africa as there are in Thailand for instance - so less people know about it.
I know this doesnt validate a law to execute homosexuals in any kind and especially not when its two men or women - for that matter - who on even foot decides to be intimate. However, I do hope that you realise that this is part of the reason as to why homosexuality really is viewed upon as a major offence.
A fun slightly unrelated fact is that public display of affection man and wife together is not something you see very much but two men who are good friends more often than not will walk hand in hand
I think you deserve a round of applause for how gracefully you managed to blame white people and free the Uganda population of any blame.
How about we just treat African people as equalls and don't pretend like they aren't responsible for their own actions. The truth is that the Ugandese people are incredibly homophobic and this is derived from their religion (christians). Mixed with poor people being more likely to be extreme since there isn't anything to lose and you have a country filled with people that aren't being played or tricked but honestly want to murder homosexuals from their own desire.
I sincerely apologize if thats how you understood my post - english is not my first language. I'm not trying to relief the population from responsibility. My point was merely that there is more to the homophobia in some african countries than just religious matters.
On the part of "christianity" as the root for this, I highly recommend you dont think of it in absolute truths. In many african nations you will find that rural areas have a ton of different congretations with different preachers and therefore different "truths". Sure they might be derived somewhat from the puritan christanity we in Europe declared death centuries ago, but alot of them are subject to a few select preachers interpretations. Don't get me wrong, I think this law is horrendous but I've always believed that you can't judge people without understanding where they're coming from and all of the emotional socio/economic aspects that would play a part in a matter such as this.
Homosexuals are an abomination, so writes the bible. I really wish people could be honest but in their defense of religion they even deny what is written in the holy books themselves. The bible isn't doubtfull in how homosexuals should be treated, they should be killed according to the bible.
This country is 84% christian, but for no other reason then you wanting it to be so, religion isn't to blame. These people follow a book that literally says "kill homosexuals" and somehow it's not that, it's something else.
The church itself remains quiet on the matter. Speaking of peace and love in public whilst permitting murder in reality. The churches opinion would weigh a lot in Uganda, but the church won't speak out.
Religion could show that it's not just a force or destruction and oppression if the vatican condemmed the government of Uganda for passing this. Will they? They won't. They will stop and think to themselves that it's just homosexuals that are getting killed and what does the church give about that? They don't give a damn.
Time to look past the 200 year old fake christian story of love and peace and see what it will do in reality. Today the church can stop this, but if i had to make a bet, they aren't going to do shit. They will let those people die and they won't lose a day sleep about it.
People need to stop pretending that religion doesn't have anything to do with this. Religion has everything to do with this. It is the problem and it could be the cure. But it won't be, because at it's core even a self-proclaimed modern religion like christianity will revel in the murder of homosexuals.
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).
On May 11 2011 01:52 MrBadMan wrote: I fully support Uganda's politics in this matter, and I'm not trolling either. The homosexual orientation is a mental disease that needs to be treated, homosexual acts are crimes that need to be punished.
Evil can not be tolerated.
u must be trolling but.. you fully support that people suffering a(as you put it) "mental disease" deserve the death penalty?
They will not be subject to the death penalty in Uganda, you might want to inform yourself before you voice your opinion.
The homosexual act needs to be punished by law. The act in itself is a crime that needs to be punished. A society that fails to hold its destructive forces in check eventually destroys itself from within.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you saying that not only is homosexuality a mental defect, but also that acts of homosexuality should be punished? Wouldn't the fact of being gay then justify the gay acts by an Insanity Defense, as the person is mentally disables, and therefore not competent to make decisions?...
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).
Yea, I used to be for the whole sovereignty thing, till I realized it never existed anyways unless you had enough power in your country, and even then there was influence. So, /shrug, may as well use it to align the world favorably towards your point of view and hope that the coming and passing of generations enforces it!
On May 11 2011 02:59 BillClinton wrote: i always knew the biggest problem in africa are gay people
.....
Bigger problem if you wanted to look at it medically is lack of condom use. Spread of AIDs is bad. Good thing the Church, which has so much influence in Africa, is taking progressive steps albeit slowly.
On May 10 2011 21:52 Calliopee wrote: I cant know for sure what the situation is like in Uganda but Ive done a fair few travels to Ghana where homosexuality is frowned upon if not illegal.
The reasoning for this is actually alot more complicated than some of you guys want it to sound and is definatly not only a sympthom of "backwardsness" or "religious zealotry" - rather it has its roots in western, rich white people who come to these poor parts of Africa for sex with young boys. Anyone whos ever been to rural parts of African countries will know just how desperatly people are in need of cash - much like we know it from Thailand were the sexindustry with very young boys is an ever growing cashcow for some few sick people. Main difference being that its a far less known fact as theres not that many tourist in Africa as there are in Thailand for instance - so less people know about it.
I know this doesnt validate a law to execute homosexuals in any kind and especially not when its two men or women - for that matter - who on even foot decides to be intimate. However, I do hope that you realise that this is part of the reason as to why homosexuality really is viewed upon as a major offence.
A fun slightly unrelated fact is that public display of affection man and wife together is not something you see very much but two men who are good friends more often than not will walk hand in hand
I think you deserve a round of applause for how gracefully you managed to blame white people and free the Uganda population of any blame.
How about we just treat African people as equalls and don't pretend like they aren't responsible for their own actions. The truth is that the Ugandese people are incredibly homophobic and this is derived from their religion (christians). Mixed with poor people being more likely to be extreme since there isn't anything to lose and you have a country filled with people that aren't being played or tricked but honestly want to murder homosexuals from their own desire.
I sincerely apologize if thats how you understood my post - english is not my first language. I'm not trying to relief the population from responsibility. My point was merely that there is more to the homophobia in some african countries than just religious matters.
On the part of "christianity" as the root for this, I highly recommend you dont think of it in absolute truths. In many african nations you will find that rural areas have a ton of different congretations with different preachers and therefore different "truths". Sure they might be derived somewhat from the puritan christanity we in Europe declared death centuries ago, but alot of them are subject to a few select preachers interpretations. Don't get me wrong, I think this law is horrendous but I've always believed that you can't judge people without understanding where they're coming from and all of the emotional socio/economic aspects that would play a part in a matter such as this.
Homosexuals are an abomination, so writes the bible. I really wish people could be honest but in their defense of religion they even deny what is written in the holy books themselves. The bible isn't doubtfull in how homosexuals should be treated, they should be killed according to the bible.
This country is 84% christian, but for no other reason then you wanting it to be so, religion isn't to blame. These people follow a book that literally says "kill homosexuals" and somehow it's not that, it's something else.
The church itself remains quiet on the matter. Speaking of peace and love in public whilst permitting murder in reality. The churches opinion would weigh a lot in Uganda, but the church won't speak out.
Religion could show that it's not just a force or destruction and oppression if the vatican condemmed the government of Uganda for passing this. Will they? They won't. They will stop and think to themselves that it's just homosexuals that are getting killed and what does the church give about that? They don't give a damn.
Time to look past the 200 year old fake christian story of love and peace and see what it will do in reality. Today the church can stop this, but if i had to make a bet, they aren't going to do shit. They will let those people die and they won't lose a day sleep about it.
People need to stop pretending that religion doesn't have anything to do with this. Religion has everything to do with this. It is the problem and it could be the cure. But it won't be, because at it's core even a self-proclaimed modern religion like christianity will revel in the murder of homosexuals.
Jeez i rest my case - again i was only trying to add some more perspectives to this discussion. By the way, the Vatican has got very little if any impact on societies who arn't ROMAN CATHOLIC.
On May 10 2011 21:52 Calliopee wrote: I cant know for sure what the situation is like in Uganda but Ive done a fair few travels to Ghana where homosexuality is frowned upon if not illegal.
The reasoning for this is actually alot more complicated than some of you guys want it to sound and is definatly not only a sympthom of "backwardsness" or "religious zealotry" - rather it has its roots in western, rich white people who come to these poor parts of Africa for sex with young boys. Anyone whos ever been to rural parts of African countries will know just how desperatly people are in need of cash - much like we know it from Thailand were the sexindustry with very young boys is an ever growing cashcow for some few sick people. Main difference being that its a far less known fact as theres not that many tourist in Africa as there are in Thailand for instance - so less people know about it.
I know this doesnt validate a law to execute homosexuals in any kind and especially not when its two men or women - for that matter - who on even foot decides to be intimate. However, I do hope that you realise that this is part of the reason as to why homosexuality really is viewed upon as a major offence.
A fun slightly unrelated fact is that public display of affection man and wife together is not something you see very much but two men who are good friends more often than not will walk hand in hand
I think you deserve a round of applause for how gracefully you managed to blame white people and free the Uganda population of any blame.
How about we just treat African people as equalls and don't pretend like they aren't responsible for their own actions. The truth is that the Ugandese people are incredibly homophobic and this is derived from their religion (christians). Mixed with poor people being more likely to be extreme since there isn't anything to lose and you have a country filled with people that aren't being played or tricked but honestly want to murder homosexuals from their own desire.
I sincerely apologize if thats how you understood my post - english is not my first language. I'm not trying to relief the population from responsibility. My point was merely that there is more to the homophobia in some african countries than just religious matters.
On the part of "christianity" as the root for this, I highly recommend you dont think of it in absolute truths. In many african nations you will find that rural areas have a ton of different congretations with different preachers and therefore different "truths". Sure they might be derived somewhat from the puritan christanity we in Europe declared death centuries ago, but alot of them are subject to a few select preachers interpretations. Don't get me wrong, I think this law is horrendous but I've always believed that you can't judge people without understanding where they're coming from and all of the emotional socio/economic aspects that would play a part in a matter such as this.
Homosexuals are an abomination, so writes the bible. I really wish people could be honest but in their defense of religion they even deny what is written in the holy books themselves. The bible isn't doubtfull in how homosexuals should be treated, they should be killed according to the bible.
This country is 84% christian, but for no other reason then you wanting it to be so, religion isn't to blame. These people follow a book that literally says "kill homosexuals" and somehow it's not that, it's something else.
The church itself remains quiet on the matter. Speaking of peace and love in public whilst permitting murder in reality. The churches opinion would weigh a lot in Uganda, but the church won't speak out.
Religion could show that it's not just a force or destruction and oppression if the vatican condemmed the government of Uganda for passing this. Will they? They won't. They will stop and think to themselves that it's just homosexuals that are getting killed and what does the church give about that? They don't give a damn.
Time to look past the 200 year old fake christian story of love and peace and see what it will do in reality. Today the church can stop this, but if i had to make a bet, they aren't going to do shit. They will let those people die and they won't lose a day sleep about it.
People need to stop pretending that religion doesn't have anything to do with this. Religion has everything to do with this. It is the problem and it could be the cure. But it won't be, because at it's core even a self-proclaimed modern religion like christianity will revel in the murder of homosexuals.
Jeez i rest my case - again i was only trying to add some more perspectives to this discussion. By the way, the Vatican has got very little if any impact on societies who arn't ROMAN CATHOLIC.
Rome doesn't have a majority, but it is still the largest group (albeit diminishing), with a small lead over the Ugandan Anglican church @ 41%. They definitely have a loud enough voice to put a long term damper on this issue if they so choose to exercise it.
On May 11 2011 03:08 BillClinton wrote: couldnt be meant more ironically, thought it was clear
It was completely unclear until I looked at your posting history, after having a few double takes >< Should at least throw in a spoiler clarifying irony given such a polemic statement >_>
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).
Petitions like this are about giving more rights and choices available to people, as is pro-choice. I don't understand your logic on how thinking that a mother should be able to make decisions about herself leads to you being unable to 'assert' your opinions on others. Or that how giving more rights to people is asserting opinions on/forcing anyone. Wouldn't it be: mothers should be able to make decisions about themselves -> gay people should be able to make decisions about themselves (to engage in a homosexual relationship, for example)?
In any case, I signed it and hopefully the petition will help.
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).
Petitions like this are about giving more rights and choices available to people, as is pro-choice. I don't understand your logic on how thinking that a mother should be able to make decisions about herself leads to you being unable to 'assert' your opinions on others. Or that how giving more rights to people is asserting opinions on/forcing anyone. Wouldn't it be: mothers should be able to make decisions about themselves -> gay people should be able to make decisions about themselves (to engage in a homosexual relationship, for example)?
In any case, I signed it and hopefully the petition will help.
I was thinking along these lines:
Mother makes a choice about, "herself," (including the baby, as part of her, not a seperate victim). No old, white guy sitting up in congress can tell her what to do! It'a her life!
Uganda makes a choice about themselves (the people in it, being part of the county). Who are we to tell them to abide by our morals?
On May 11 2011 03:18 trackd00r wrote: I signed the petition. But honestly, I don't think that a non-government organization will be able to stop this
You'd be surprised. NGOs get their pressure and effect by influencing politicians of various countries in which they have support, and through those channels they can make their effect be felt.
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?
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.
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).
As others have pointed out, human rights trump the democratic rights of nations. Most countries support the use of military intervention to prevent genocide. This situation is no different.
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.
On May 11 2011 03:21 TALegion wrote: I was thinking along these lines:
Mother makes a choice about, "herself," (including the baby, as part of her, not a seperate victim). No old, white guy sitting up in congress can tell her what to do! It'a her life!
Uganda makes a choice about themselves (the people in it, being part of the county). Who are we to tell them to abide by our morals?
As you said. Uganda isn't a single person. Its a large group of people who are capable of different opinions. In this case, some have decided the right thing to do is to tell the others how to behave or face punishment. To me, this is the same the old white guy telling the mother what to do, which you said isn't right. Just because they are in another country doesn't mean they can do that anymore than we can, unless you have double standards.
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.
On May 11 2011 03:08 BillClinton wrote: couldnt be meant more ironically, thought it was clear
It was completely unclear until I looked at your posting history, after having a few double takes >< Should at least throw in a spoiler clarifying irony given such a polemic statement >_>
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
well i was gonna come in and be an anti-gay and preach how its a choice and not something your born with, because i mean get real if you say you realised you were gay one day when you kissed a boy, i say if you hadn't heard about it before you would have stuck it where it was designed to be stuck.
anyways wow a death penalty now thats just overboards.
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.
Err what? How did you arrive at that? I pointed out something obvious and you just reiterate your point. Posting on TL is entirly different to falling in love... Thankfully others do think like me and realised the earth isn't flat.
On May 11 2011 05:54 Brethern wrote: 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.
You don't "want" to be gay, that's not how it works. Unless you mean "not having consuensual gay sex", in which case that's pretty unfair to ask a small minority of people and something you'd never force on a straight person.
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.
Err what? How did you arrive at that? I pointed out something obvious and you just reiterate your point. Posting on TL is entirly dirrent to falling in love... Thankfully others do think like me and realised the earth isn't flat.
I choose to register here. Simple as that. If you don't want to be gay you won't if you want to be gay then you will.
On May 11 2011 05:56 wishbones wrote: well i was gonna come in and be an anti-gay and preach how its a choice and not something your born with, because i mean get real if you say you realised you were gay one day when you kissed a boy, i say if you hadn't heard about it before you would have stuck it where it was designed to be stuck.
anyways wow a death penalty now thats just overboards.
except you just came in and were an anti-gay and preach how its a choice and not something your born with, because i mean get real if you say you realised you were gay one day when you kissed a boy, i say if you hadn't heard about it before you would have stuck it where it was designed to be stuck.
nice try to slip it in there with one on topic sentence though -__- either way i staunchly dissagree
On May 11 2011 05:54 Brethern wrote: 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.
You don't "want" to be gay, that's not how it works. Unless you mean "not having consuensual gay sex", in which case that's pretty unfair to ask a small minority of people and something you'd never force on a straight person.
On May 11 2011 05:56 wishbones wrote: well i was gonna come in and be an anti-gay and preach how its a choice and not something your born with, because i mean get real if you say you realised you were gay one day when you kissed a boy, i say if you hadn't heard about it before you would have stuck it where it was designed to be stuck.
anyways wow a death penalty now thats just overboards.
Yes it's really a choice. People can't wait to be spat on every day by people like you and put to death by people like you with enough like-minded people around.
The choice bullshit is ridiculous and is a desperate last act to justify hating homosexuals. You know that once you admit to the truth, all that is left is a spitefull little person. A bigot.
Who exactly chooses to be hated by the vast majority of humanity and risk execution? For the hell of it? It's present throughout the animal kingdom aswell, it's a natural thing that occurs in all kinds of species. Humans are no exception.
If you want to be a bigot atleast have a pair and be honest about it. This lying about the choice nonesense only shows you are a spineless bigot.
It's a natural thing. High ranked super famous pastors engage in gay sex, risking everything they have in their lives. The natural urge is stronger then anything else.
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.
Err what? How did you arrive at that? I pointed out something obvious and you just reiterate your point. Posting on TL is entirly dirrent to falling in love... Thankfully others do think like me and realised the earth isn't flat.
I choose to register here. Simple as that. If you don't want to be gay you won't if you want to be gay then you will.
So now you show you either stupid or a troll. I chose to register here too. I didn't chose to be straight. It's how I am. I could have sex with a man, but I wouldn't be gay because I wouldn't be attracted to him. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define: homosexual&btnG=Search&meta= It's as simple as. QED
Being Christian I understand that homosexuality is considered morally wrong for us, but regardless, no person gay or not should be killed for what lifestyle they choose. It's just plain wrong and bad...
I've signed and put on facebook for people to see.
I sincerely hope and PRAY that Uganda will not put this bill into law.
On May 11 2011 05:54 Brethern wrote: 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.
You don't "want" to be gay, that's not how it works. Unless you mean "not having consuensual gay sex", in which case that's pretty unfair to ask a small minority of people and something you'd never force on a straight person.
On May 11 2011 05:54 Brethern wrote: 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.
You don't "want" to be gay, that's not how it works. Unless you mean "not having consuensual gay sex", in which case that's pretty unfair to ask a small minority of people and something you'd never force on a straight person.
On May 11 2011 06:20 Soap wrote: That isn't evidence of anything.
So you think most every gay person is just lying to you when they say it wasn't a matter of choice? How about demonstrated instances of homosexuality in multiple animal species? Or the fact that it makes no logical sense for somebody to choose to be a persecuted minority (*especially* in a place like Uganda)?
On May 11 2011 05:54 Brethern wrote: 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.
You don't "want" to be gay, that's not how it works. Unless you mean "not having consuensual gay sex", in which case that's pretty unfair to ask a small minority of people and something you'd never force on a straight person.
Do you have any evidence of that?
I'm gay myself.
I love how I'm here trying to defend your lifestyle choice and then you come in and remove any progress I might have made.
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.
Err what? How did you arrive at that? I pointed out something obvious and you just reiterate your point. Posting on TL is entirly dirrent to falling in love... Thankfully others do think like me and realised the earth isn't flat.
I choose to register here. Simple as that. If you don't want to be gay you won't if you want to be gay then you will.
i don't understand. in that case why do gays still exist? gays get shit on way more than straight people. gays don't want to get shit on. so... BAM TURN STRAIGHT!!?? so it's not that simple.
On May 11 2011 05:54 Brethern wrote: 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.
You don't "want" to be gay, that's not how it works. Unless you mean "not having consuensual gay sex", in which case that's pretty unfair to ask a small minority of people and something you'd never force on a straight person.
Do you have any evidence of that?
I'm gay myself.
I love how I'm here trying to defend your lifestyle choice and then you come in and remove any progress I might have made.
Great job. I'm not even going to bother anymore.
Twilight zone? You're not defending his lifestyle choices by saying being gay is a choice. Acting on gay tendencies, that's a choice. Having those gay tendencies to being with is no choice. Unlike you(I assume) or I, he doesn't yearn for a women to fill his sexual desires, and according the the handful of gay people I know, it doesn't work even if they try.
On May 11 2011 06:18 Bortlett wrote: I'm gay myself.
I love how I'm here trying to defend your lifestyle choice and then you come in and remove any progress I might have made.
Great job. I'm not even going to bother anymore.
Haha, what? Homosexuality isn't a "choice" that needs "defending". It's a fundamental part of who people are that needs to be tolerated, if not accepted.
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.
Err what? How did you arrive at that? I pointed out something obvious and you just reiterate your point. Posting on TL is entirly dirrent to falling in love... Thankfully others do think like me and realised the earth isn't flat.
I choose to register here. Simple as that. If you don't want to be gay you won't if you want to be gay then you will.
i don't understand. in that case why do gays still exist? gays get shit on way more than straight people. gays don't want to get shit on. so... BAM TURN STRAIGHT!!?? so it's not that simple.
Same reason that starcraft is still popular. It gets crapped on more than any other game. From people saying it sucks to people whining about IMBA. It's here because people love it and they choose to support it even with everything that's going on.
On May 11 2011 04:28 Djzapz wrote: [quote] 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.
Err what? How did you arrive at that? I pointed out something obvious and you just reiterate your point. Posting on TL is entirly dirrent to falling in love... Thankfully others do think like me and realised the earth isn't flat.
I choose to register here. Simple as that. If you don't want to be gay you won't if you want to be gay then you will.
i don't understand. in that case why do gays still exist? gays get shit on way more than straight people. gays don't want to get shit on. so... BAM TURN STRAIGHT!!?? so it's not that simple.
Same reason that starcraft is still popular. It gets crapped on more than any other game. From people saying it sucks to people whining about IMBA. It's here because people love it and they choose to support it even with everything that's going on.
On May 11 2011 06:28 Brethern wrote: Same reason that starcraft is still popular. It gets crapped on more than any other game. From people saying it sucks to people whining about IMBA. It's here because people love it and they choose to support it even with everything that's going on.
So when did you make your choice between being straight and being gay?
On May 11 2011 05:54 Brethern wrote: 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.
You don't "want" to be gay, that's not how it works. Unless you mean "not having consuensual gay sex", in which case that's pretty unfair to ask a small minority of people and something you'd never force on a straight person.
Do you have any evidence of that?
I'm gay myself.
That isn't evidence of anything.
Yea, so let´s burn him ! omg i can´t believe u guys are serious ... gay is not a choice, a lot of gay guy realise they like dudes more than girls when puberty kicks in. most of them denies it at first because they dont want to be "different".
a gay friend of me told me he remembers when he was about 12 years old he watched underwear catalogues and the "bulb" on mens underwear was more interesting to him than the boobs of the girls. he didn´t even know what gay is - but he chose to be gay ? yeah, sure.
On May 11 2011 04:35 Brethern wrote: [quote]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.
Err what? How did you arrive at that? I pointed out something obvious and you just reiterate your point. Posting on TL is entirly dirrent to falling in love... Thankfully others do think like me and realised the earth isn't flat.
I choose to register here. Simple as that. If you don't want to be gay you won't if you want to be gay then you will.
i don't understand. in that case why do gays still exist? gays get shit on way more than straight people. gays don't want to get shit on. so... BAM TURN STRAIGHT!!?? so it's not that simple.
Same reason that starcraft is still popular. It gets crapped on more than any other game. From people saying it sucks to people whining about IMBA. It's here because people love it and they choose to support it even with everything that's going on.
i'm wondering, why do people choose to be gay?
They don't, nearly 100% of credible experts agree that being gay is not a choice.
On May 11 2011 06:28 Brethern wrote: Same reason that starcraft is still popular. It gets crapped on more than any other game. From people saying it sucks to people whining about IMBA. It's here because people love it and they choose to support it even with everything that's going on.
So when did you make your choice between being straight and being gay?
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?
Oh I didn't realize you were saying you're for death penalty in those cases. I'm tired. I guess I disagree but that's another debate.
On May 11 2011 06:20 Soap wrote: That isn't evidence of anything.
So you think most every gay person is just lying to you when they say they don't want to be gay? How about demonstrated instances of homosexuality in multiple animal species? Or the fact that it makes no logical sense for somebody to choose to be a persecuted minority (*especially* in a place like Uganda)?
No, while that may be their opinion, that does not constitute a fact. I don't see how other species behavior apply to ours. And sure people do choose to be a persecuted minority, often religious.
I chose to be hetero because I prefer women. But if I happen to fall in love for a man, I would have nothing against pursuing that.
On May 11 2011 06:20 Soap wrote: That isn't evidence of anything.
So you think most every gay person is just lying to you when they say they don't want to be gay? How about demonstrated instances of homosexuality in multiple animal species? Or the fact that it makes no logical sense for somebody to choose to be a persecuted minority (*especially* in a place like Uganda)?
No, while that may be their opinion, that does not constitute a fact. I don't see how other species behavior apply to ours. And sure people do choose to be a persecuted minority, often religious.
I chose to be hetero because I prefer women. But if I happen to fall in love for a man, I would have nothing against pursuing that.
That's the point, they don't prefer women, they prefer men(gay guys of course). Is you gender preference a choice, or does it simply come without thought like mine?
With everyone now agreeing there is no choice involved, that it is all biological, do you not worry that it could become labeled a medical condition or disorder then? Suppose for example that scientists figured out how to prevent or reverse it, would we all oppose the practice from taking place? And if not, what does that say about our attitude towards it?
On May 11 2011 06:20 Soap wrote: That isn't evidence of anything.
So you think most every gay person is just lying to you when they say they don't want to be gay? How about demonstrated instances of homosexuality in multiple animal species? Or the fact that it makes no logical sense for somebody to choose to be a persecuted minority (*especially* in a place like Uganda)?
No, while that may be their opinion, that does not constitute a fact. I don't see how other species behavior apply to ours. And sure people do choose to be a persecuted minority, often religious.
I chose to be hetero because I prefer women. But if I happen to fall in love for a man, I would have nothing against pursuing that.
That's the point, they don't prefer women, they prefer men(gay guys of course). Is you gender preference a choice, or does it simply come without thought like mine?
It comes without a thought. You can't control who you are attracted to. I would love to be gay. I would be well dressed and cultured then plus I wouldn't have to deal with the stress of women. Unfortunately.....guys are ugly.
On May 11 2011 06:20 Soap wrote: That isn't evidence of anything.
So you think most every gay person is just lying to you when they say they don't want to be gay? How about demonstrated instances of homosexuality in multiple animal species? Or the fact that it makes no logical sense for somebody to choose to be a persecuted minority (*especially* in a place like Uganda)?
No, while that may be their opinion, that does not constitute a fact. I don't see how other species behavior apply to ours. And sure people do choose to be a persecuted minority, often religious.
I chose to be hetero because I prefer women. But if I happen to fall in love for a man, I would have nothing against pursuing that.
don´t worry - if you´re really straight you won´t ever fall in love with a guy.
On May 11 2011 06:20 Soap wrote: That isn't evidence of anything.
So you think most every gay person is just lying to you when they say they don't want to be gay? How about demonstrated instances of homosexuality in multiple animal species? Or the fact that it makes no logical sense for somebody to choose to be a persecuted minority (*especially* in a place like Uganda)?
No, while that may be their opinion, that does not constitute a fact. I don't see how other species behavior apply to ours. And sure people do choose to be a persecuted minority, often religious.
I chose to be hetero because I prefer women. But if I happen to fall in love for a man, I would have nothing against pursuing that.
That's the point, they don't prefer women, they prefer men(gay guys of course). Is you gender preference a choice, or does it simply come without thought like mine?
I mean in the same sense I prefer Starcraft over C&C. As far as I can see I'm BW4LIFE, but if EA produces a really good C&C, why not?
It's not that simple to say the preference is from genes, environment, and/or free will.
On May 11 2011 06:20 Soap wrote: That isn't evidence of anything.
So you think most every gay person is just lying to you when they say they don't want to be gay? How about demonstrated instances of homosexuality in multiple animal species? Or the fact that it makes no logical sense for somebody to choose to be a persecuted minority (*especially* in a place like Uganda)?
No, while that may be their opinion, that does not constitute a fact. I don't see how other species behavior apply to ours. And sure people do choose to be a persecuted minority, often religious.
I chose to be hetero because I prefer women. But if I happen to fall in love for a man, I would have nothing against pursuing that.
Other species' behavior is of course relevant to humans - studies are performed on animals all the time to attempt to learn about their brains in an attempt to infer things about ours. It also shows that there is a biological component to homosexuality because most people believe animals don't have free will.
People choose to be a religious minority because for them they believe a certain religion answers many of life's most important questions. What would be the equivalent benefit for choosing to be gay?
Regarding your final point, since you say you chose to be hetero, were you ever sexually attracted to men? If so, did you choose to be sexually aroused by men? When you are sexually attracted to a woman, is that a conscious choice? Could you choose to be sexually aroused by somebody you are currently not attracted to?
On May 11 2011 06:20 Soap wrote: That isn't evidence of anything.
So you think most every gay person is just lying to you when they say they don't want to be gay? How about demonstrated instances of homosexuality in multiple animal species? Or the fact that it makes no logical sense for somebody to choose to be a persecuted minority (*especially* in a place like Uganda)?
No, while that may be their opinion, that does not constitute a fact. I don't see how other species behavior apply to ours. And sure people do choose to be a persecuted minority, often religious.
I chose to be hetero because I prefer women. But if I happen to fall in love for a man, I would have nothing against pursuing that.
Other species' behavior is of course relevant to humans - studies are performed on animals all the time to attempt to learn about their brains in an attempt to infer things about ours. It also shows that there is a biological component to homosexuality because most people believe animals don't have free will.
At best proves they don't give a shit. Perhaps we should too.
On May 11 2011 07:15 Bortlett wrote: People choose to be a religious minority because for them they believe a certain religion answers many of life's most important questions. What would be the equivalent benefit for choosing to be gay
In both cases, because they prefer that answer to that of the majority. Also with nationalist, philosophical, political movements, etc. That was just an example.
On May 11 2011 07:15 Bortlett wrote: Regarding your final point, since you say you chose to be hetero, were you ever sexually attracted to men? If so, did you choose to be sexually aroused by men? When you are sexually attracted to a woman, is that a conscious choice? Could you choose to be sexually aroused by somebody you are currently not attracted to?
Why this obsession with gender? I do hope that we are attracted to human beings, not a vagina or a penis, else I'll look for someone out of puberty to discuss with.
Government: Don't tread on me, and don't ever tell me what to do. But damned if it's not government's job to regulate the behavior of people I don't agree with.
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.
I still find this stuff pretty unreal, though it's Africa I guess. I feel kind of like they've had to advance so, so fast culturally in the last 100 years or so.
On May 11 2011 06:20 Soap wrote: That isn't evidence of anything.
So you think most every gay person is just lying to you when they say they don't want to be gay? How about demonstrated instances of homosexuality in multiple animal species? Or the fact that it makes no logical sense for somebody to choose to be a persecuted minority (*especially* in a place like Uganda)?
No, while that may be their opinion, that does not constitute a fact. I don't see how other species behavior apply to ours. And sure people do choose to be a persecuted minority, often religious.
I chose to be hetero because I prefer women. But if I happen to fall in love for a man, I would have nothing against pursuing that.
Other species' behavior is of course relevant to humans - studies are performed on animals all the time to attempt to learn about their brains in an attempt to infer things about ours. It also shows that there is a biological component to homosexuality because most people believe animals don't have free will.
At best proves they don't give a shit. Perhaps we should too.
On May 11 2011 07:15 Bortlett wrote: People choose to be a religious minority because for them they believe a certain religion answers many of life's most important questions. What would be the equivalent benefit for choosing to be gay
In both cases, because they prefer that answer to that of the majority. Also with nationalist, philosophical, political movements, etc. That was just an example.
On May 11 2011 07:15 Bortlett wrote: Regarding your final point, since you say you chose to be hetero, were you ever sexually attracted to men? If so, did you choose to be sexually aroused by men? When you are sexually attracted to a woman, is that a conscious choice? Could you choose to be sexually aroused by somebody you are currently not attracted to?
Why this obsession with gender? I do hope that we are attracted to human beings, not a vagina or a penis, else I'll look for someone out of puberty to discuss with.
Nice little jab at the end there along with not really answering any of my questions. That's cool though, I don't want to derail this thread any further, we've both made our points. If you want to continue this discussion, feel free to send me a PM .
Whether you think homosexuality is right or wrong is different from this matter. It is putting someone on the death penalty for being homosexual that is the problem.
I also find it funny that there is an ad flying to Uganda on the top of the website.
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?
I'm not even sure this is relevant to to the discussion at hand. If we can't agree that killing people for their person choices (choices which don't effect anyone else), then morality has no meaning.
On the off chance that you're actually curious about Sam Harris' argument, he does a better job explaining it here:
I think there are still some small holes and some reasonable questions we can ask, but its a good starting point. I think he makes a few assumptions about the growth of neuroscience and the corresponding technology, but they seem like reasonable assumptions. Lets not forget that he understands neuroscience much better than we do, and can therefore make more accurate predictions about what it can determine in the near future.
I would give up to 5 years of imprisonment for being gay, but not the death penalty. Though I despise homosexuality in every way, I will still sign the bill as the punishment is too ridiculous. Honestly, I would only punish if it was homosexuality being displayed in public.
Btw I noticed the new update on TL at the top of the page, calling it.
On May 11 2011 10:12 iTzAnglory wrote: I would give up to 5 years of imprisonment for being gay, but not the death penalty. Though I despise homosexuality in every way, I will still sign the bill as the punishment is too ridiculous. Honestly, I would only punish if it was homosexuality being displayed in public.
Btw I noticed the new update on TL at the top of the page, calling it.
I would really like to know how you could justify giving some one five years in prison for being gay, I mean violent criminals in some cases don't get that many years, and being gay doesn't exactly hurt any one else. Really bigoted in my opinion Ontopic: Terrible thing, I signed, and I really hope that Uganda reconsiders.
Personally I don't think the scrapping of this bill will change much in Uganda. It is quite possible, at least in my eyes, that the Uganda government/media will spin the denial of this bill as some kind of conspiracy by the homosexual. I have signed the petition, but the moral values deeply rooted in the minds of Ugandan will not change because of this.
Being gay myself, I am glad to live in such a tolerant society. I have been blessed with little homophobia and many of my friends do not treat me any differently. And when I had to put up with homophobia, it was most the "Just do not hit on me" type of homophobia rather than the violently radical type we see in Africa. As comical as the Eat Da Poo Poo video was, I just feel sick to my stomach that such a man can be taken seriously. Martin Sessma is not only against gay rights, he is against the use of birth control and even burnt a box of condoms to prove how evil it is. Such a backwards man. I cannot imagine how the gays in Uganda, Iran, or many other homophobic nations an put up with this shit.
On May 11 2011 10:12 iTzAnglory wrote: I would give up to 5 years of imprisonment for being gay, but not the death penalty. Though I despise homosexuality in every way, I will still sign the bill as the punishment is too ridiculous. Honestly, I would only punish if it was homosexuality being displayed in public.
Btw I noticed the new update on TL at the top of the page, calling it.
I would really like to know how you could justify giving some one five years in prison for being gay, I mean violent criminals in some cases don't get that many years, and being gay doesn't exactly hurt any one else. Really bigoted in my opinion Ontopic: Terrible thing, I signed, and I really hope that Uganda reconsiders.
Welcome to the world's justice system, that is a bit harsh I guess. Maybe a few months then.
On May 11 2011 10:12 iTzAnglory wrote: I would give up to 5 years of imprisonment for being gay, but not the death penalty. Though I despise homosexuality in every way, I will still sign the bill as the punishment is too ridiculous. Honestly, I would only punish if it was homosexuality being displayed in public.
Btw I noticed the new update on TL at the top of the page, calling it.
On May 11 2011 10:12 iTzAnglory wrote: I would give up to 5 years of imprisonment for being gay, but not the death penalty. Though I despise homosexuality in every way, I will still sign the bill as the punishment is too ridiculous. Honestly, I would only punish if it was homosexuality being displayed in public.
Btw I noticed the new update on TL at the top of the page, calling it.
I would really like to know how you could justify giving some one five years in prison for being gay, I mean violent criminals in some cases don't get that many years, and being gay doesn't exactly hurt any one else. Really bigoted in my opinion Ontopic: Terrible thing, I signed, and I really hope that Uganda reconsiders.
Welcome to the world's justice system, that is a bit harsh I guess. Maybe a few months then.
On May 11 2011 10:12 iTzAnglory wrote: I would give up to 5 years of imprisonment for being gay, but not the death penalty. Though I despise homosexuality in every way, I will still sign the bill as the punishment is too ridiculous. Honestly, I would only punish if it was homosexuality being displayed in public.
Btw I noticed the new update on TL at the top of the page, calling it.
This opinion is indefensible. If you wish to privately hold bigoted opinions, then that is your choice. You are suggesting legislation that would abridge the liberty of a significant group of Americans, bigotry is utterly unacceptable as the justification of that legislation.
On May 11 2011 10:12 iTzAnglory wrote: I would give up to 5 years of imprisonment for being gay, but not the death penalty. Though I despise homosexuality in every way, I will still sign the bill as the punishment is too ridiculous. Honestly, I would only punish if it was homosexuality being displayed in public.
Btw I noticed the new update on TL at the top of the page, calling it.
I would really like to know how you could justify giving some one five years in prison for being gay, I mean violent criminals in some cases don't get that many years, and being gay doesn't exactly hurt any one else. Really bigoted in my opinion Ontopic: Terrible thing, I signed, and I really hope that Uganda reconsiders.
Lol, that's not exactly an opinion... his opinion is the definition of bigotry.
On May 11 2011 10:12 iTzAnglory wrote: I would give up to 5 years of imprisonment for being gay, but not the death penalty. Though I despise homosexuality in every way, I will still sign the bill as the punishment is too ridiculous. Honestly, I would only punish if it was homosexuality being displayed in public.
Btw I noticed the new update on TL at the top of the page, calling it.
I would really like to know how you could justify giving some one five years in prison for being gay, I mean violent criminals in some cases don't get that many years, and being gay doesn't exactly hurt any one else. Really bigoted in my opinion Ontopic: Terrible thing, I signed, and I really hope that Uganda reconsiders.
Welcome to the world's justice system, that is a bit harsh I guess. Maybe a few months then.
Either justify criminalizing homosexuality without resorting to bigotry, or withdraw this opinion.
Even if you're just trolling, there is no excuse for presenting the criminalization homosexuality as a legitimate political stance.
I am not quite sure, but i believe on the last few pages there was some serious trolling going on. At least that is what i choose to believe, because otherwise i would have to accept that people are really like that. And i don't think that is something i want to do.
On May 11 2011 10:12 iTzAnglory wrote: I would give up to 5 years of imprisonment for being gay, but not the death penalty. Though I despise homosexuality in every way, I will still sign the bill as the punishment is too ridiculous. Honestly, I would only punish if it was homosexuality being displayed in public.
Btw I noticed the new update on TL at the top of the page, calling it.
I would really like to know how you could justify giving some one five years in prison for being gay, I mean violent criminals in some cases don't get that many years, and being gay doesn't exactly hurt any one else. Really bigoted in my opinion Ontopic: Terrible thing, I signed, and I really hope that Uganda reconsiders.
Welcome to the world's justice system, that is a bit harsh I guess. Maybe a few months then.
Either justify criminalizing homosexuality without resorting to bigotry, or withdraw this opinion.
Even if you're just trolling, there is no excuse for presenting the criminalization homosexuality as a legitimate political stance.
I fully support what he says. Maybe two months in jail until they straighten out. You ever hear the bible supporting gay marriage? Islam? Judaism?
On May 11 2011 10:12 iTzAnglory wrote: I would give up to 5 years of imprisonment for being gay, but not the death penalty. Though I despise homosexuality in every way, I will still sign the bill as the punishment is too ridiculous. Honestly, I would only punish if it was homosexuality being displayed in public.
Btw I noticed the new update on TL at the top of the page, calling it.
On May 11 2011 10:12 iTzAnglory wrote: I would give up to 5 years of imprisonment for being gay, but not the death penalty. Though I despise homosexuality in every way, I will still sign the bill as the punishment is too ridiculous. Honestly, I would only punish if it was homosexuality being displayed in public.
Btw I noticed the new update on TL at the top of the page, calling it.
I would really like to know how you could justify giving some one five years in prison for being gay, I mean violent criminals in some cases don't get that many years, and being gay doesn't exactly hurt any one else. Really bigoted in my opinion Ontopic: Terrible thing, I signed, and I really hope that Uganda reconsiders.
Welcome to the world's justice system, that is a bit harsh I guess. Maybe a few months then.
Either justify criminalizing homosexuality without resorting to bigotry, or withdraw this opinion.
Even if you're just trolling, there is no excuse for presenting the criminalization homosexuality as a legitimate political stance.
I fully support what he says. Maybe two months in jail until they straighten out. You ever hear the bible supporting gay marriage? Islam? Judaism?
First of all, your argument relies on the assumption that I care what religion has to say on the subject. But to humor you, I'll mention that the Bible condemns a lot of other things that are not illegal. Of the Ten Commandments, the only commandments that are actually coded into our law are 1) don't kill and 2) don't steal. So... yeah. This isn't a theocracy.
(It's interesting how straight religious people that disobey tons of other shit in their respective holy books love to fixate on homosexuality. It's a great way for them to be able to point at someone else and feel superior without having a finger pointed back at them...)
On May 11 2011 11:06 wzzit wrote: Well, this thread has been enlightening. There are a lot more homophobic morons on TL than I thought.
This is what we got with the rise of StarCraft II. But I guess TL is the most gay friendly gaming site in the world. We can be grateful for that.
But you have to feel sorry for homophobes. If you are not gay, it is so hard to understand why anyone wants to be gay. Also, enough with the bigotry about religion causing homophobia. The Soviet Union and Communist China are proof that even with religion, homophobia still exists. But oddly enough, the first modern ruler to give gays protection and remove homosexuality as a mental illness was Lenin.
On May 11 2011 10:12 iTzAnglory wrote: I would give up to 5 years of imprisonment for being gay, but not the death penalty. Though I despise homosexuality in every way, I will still sign the bill as the punishment is too ridiculous. Honestly, I would only punish if it was homosexuality being displayed in public.
Btw I noticed the new update on TL at the top of the page, calling it.
I would really like to know how you could justify giving some one five years in prison for being gay, I mean violent criminals in some cases don't get that many years, and being gay doesn't exactly hurt any one else. Really bigoted in my opinion Ontopic: Terrible thing, I signed, and I really hope that Uganda reconsiders.
Welcome to the world's justice system, that is a bit harsh I guess. Maybe a few months then.
Either justify criminalizing homosexuality without resorting to bigotry, or withdraw this opinion.
Even if you're just trolling, there is no excuse for presenting the criminalization homosexuality as a legitimate political stance.
I fully support what he says. Maybe two months in jail until they straighten out. You ever hear the bible supporting gay marriage? Islam? Judaism?
First of all, your argument relies on the assumption that I care what religion has to say on the subject. But to humor you, I'll mention that the Bible condemns a lot of other things that are not illegal. Of the Ten Commandments, the only commandments that are actually coded into our law are 1) don't kill and 2) don't steal. So... yeah. This isn't a theocracy.
(It's interesting how straight religious people that disobey tons of other shit in their respective holy books love to fixate on homosexuality. It's a great way for them to be able to point at someone else and feel superior without having a finger pointed back at them...)
I follow the bible word for word. I don't know what you're talking about. And why shouldn't religion matter? Ever heard of one nation under "GOD." The president swears on the bible. Need more examples?
On May 11 2011 10:12 iTzAnglory wrote: I would give up to 5 years of imprisonment for being gay, but not the death penalty. Though I despise homosexuality in every way, I will still sign the bill as the punishment is too ridiculous. Honestly, I would only punish if it was homosexuality being displayed in public.
Btw I noticed the new update on TL at the top of the page, calling it.
I would really like to know how you could justify giving some one five years in prison for being gay, I mean violent criminals in some cases don't get that many years, and being gay doesn't exactly hurt any one else. Really bigoted in my opinion Ontopic: Terrible thing, I signed, and I really hope that Uganda reconsiders.
Welcome to the world's justice system, that is a bit harsh I guess. Maybe a few months then.
Either justify criminalizing homosexuality without resorting to bigotry, or withdraw this opinion.
Even if you're just trolling, there is no excuse for presenting the criminalization homosexuality as a legitimate political stance.
I fully support what he says. Maybe two months in jail until they straighten out. You ever hear the bible supporting gay marriage? Islam? Judaism?
First of all, your argument relies on the assumption that I care what religion has to say on the subject. But to humor you, I'll mention that the Bible condemns a lot of other things that are not illegal. Of the Ten Commandments, the only commandments that are actually coded into our law are 1) don't kill and 2) don't steal. So... yeah. This isn't a theocracy.
(It's interesting how straight religious people that disobey tons of other shit in their respective holy books love to fixate on homosexuality. It's a great way for them to be able to point at someone else and feel superior without having a finger pointed back at them...)
I follow the bible word for word. I don't know what you're talking about. And why shouldn't religion matter? Ever heard of one nation under "GOD." The president swears on the bible. Need more examples?
Okay, you're trolling. I'll quit wasting my energy.
edit: meh, just in case you're not trolling - regardless of what you personally do, our law doesn't and has never followed the Bible as a guide. Regardless of some random ceremonial and meaningless nods we give to "God" in our politics because too many stupid religious people would get mad if we didn't.
On May 11 2011 10:12 iTzAnglory wrote: I would give up to 5 years of imprisonment for being gay, but not the death penalty. Though I despise homosexuality in every way, I will still sign the bill as the punishment is too ridiculous. Honestly, I would only punish if it was homosexuality being displayed in public.
Btw I noticed the new update on TL at the top of the page, calling it.
I would really like to know how you could justify giving some one five years in prison for being gay, I mean violent criminals in some cases don't get that many years, and being gay doesn't exactly hurt any one else. Really bigoted in my opinion Ontopic: Terrible thing, I signed, and I really hope that Uganda reconsiders.
Welcome to the world's justice system, that is a bit harsh I guess. Maybe a few months then.
Either justify criminalizing homosexuality without resorting to bigotry, or withdraw this opinion.
Even if you're just trolling, there is no excuse for presenting the criminalization homosexuality as a legitimate political stance.
I fully support what he says. Maybe two months in jail until they straighten out. You ever hear the bible supporting gay marriage? Islam? Judaism?
First of all, your argument relies on the assumption that I care what religion has to say on the subject. But to humor you, I'll mention that the Bible condemns a lot of other things that are not illegal. Of the Ten Commandments, the only commandments that are actually coded into our law are 1) don't kill and 2) don't steal. So... yeah. This isn't a theocracy.
(It's interesting how straight religious people that disobey tons of other shit in their respective holy books love to fixate on homosexuality. It's a great way for them to be able to point at someone else and feel superior without having a finger pointed back at them...)
I follow the bible word for word. I don't know what you're talking about. And why shouldn't religion matter? Ever heard of one nation under "GOD." The president swears on the bible. Need more examples?
Okay, you're trolling. I'll quit wasting my energy.
Who's trolling? Saying that just is just an easy way to get out of a debate. If you don't like my arguments you don't have to reply, this is all just my opinion and I think the majority of Americans would agree with me.
On May 11 2011 10:12 iTzAnglory wrote: I would give up to 5 years of imprisonment for being gay, but not the death penalty. Though I despise homosexuality in every way, I will still sign the bill as the punishment is too ridiculous. Honestly, I would only punish if it was homosexuality being displayed in public.
Btw I noticed the new update on TL at the top of the page, calling it.
I would really like to know how you could justify giving some one five years in prison for being gay, I mean violent criminals in some cases don't get that many years, and being gay doesn't exactly hurt any one else. Really bigoted in my opinion Ontopic: Terrible thing, I signed, and I really hope that Uganda reconsiders.
Welcome to the world's justice system, that is a bit harsh I guess. Maybe a few months then.
Either justify criminalizing homosexuality without resorting to bigotry, or withdraw this opinion.
Even if you're just trolling, there is no excuse for presenting the criminalization homosexuality as a legitimate political stance.
I fully support what he says. Maybe two months in jail until they straighten out. You ever hear the bible supporting gay marriage? Islam? Judaism?
First of all, your argument relies on the assumption that I care what religion has to say on the subject. But to humor you, I'll mention that the Bible condemns a lot of other things that are not illegal. Of the Ten Commandments, the only commandments that are actually coded into our law are 1) don't kill and 2) don't steal. So... yeah. This isn't a theocracy.
(It's interesting how straight religious people that disobey tons of other shit in their respective holy books love to fixate on homosexuality. It's a great way for them to be able to point at someone else and feel superior without having a finger pointed back at them...)
I follow the bible word for word. I don't know what you're talking about. And why shouldn't religion matter? Ever heard of one nation under "GOD." The president swears on the bible. Need more examples?
Okay, you're trolling. I'll quit wasting my energy.
Who's trolling? Saying that just an easy way to get out of a debate. If you don't like my arguments you don't have to reply, this is all just my opinion and I think the majority of Americans would agree with me.
Meh, I added a little tidbit in my previous post to humor you - but let me just say that I find it quite implausible that you follow every ceremonial law of the Old Testament. that is what leads me to think that you're trolling. Also, the fact that you seem to think most Americans would agree with you is just wrong. A quick google turned up this result which suggests that slightly over half of Americans support gay marriage. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/slim-majority-back-gay-marriage-post-abc-poll-says/2011/03/17/ABhMc7o_story.html
On May 11 2011 10:12 iTzAnglory wrote: I would give up to 5 years of imprisonment for being gay, but not the death penalty. Though I despise homosexuality in every way, I will still sign the bill as the punishment is too ridiculous. Honestly, I would only punish if it was homosexuality being displayed in public.
Btw I noticed the new update on TL at the top of the page, calling it.
I would really like to know how you could justify giving some one five years in prison for being gay, I mean violent criminals in some cases don't get that many years, and being gay doesn't exactly hurt any one else. Really bigoted in my opinion Ontopic: Terrible thing, I signed, and I really hope that Uganda reconsiders.
Welcome to the world's justice system, that is a bit harsh I guess. Maybe a few months then.
Either justify criminalizing homosexuality without resorting to bigotry, or withdraw this opinion.
Even if you're just trolling, there is no excuse for presenting the criminalization homosexuality as a legitimate political stance.
I fully support what he says. Maybe two months in jail until they straighten out. You ever hear the bible supporting gay marriage? Islam? Judaism?
First of all, your argument relies on the assumption that I care what religion has to say on the subject. But to humor you, I'll mention that the Bible condemns a lot of other things that are not illegal. Of the Ten Commandments, the only commandments that are actually coded into our law are 1) don't kill and 2) don't steal. So... yeah. This isn't a theocracy.
(It's interesting how straight religious people that disobey tons of other shit in their respective holy books love to fixate on homosexuality. It's a great way for them to be able to point at someone else and feel superior without having a finger pointed back at them...)
I follow the bible word for word. I don't know what you're talking about. And why shouldn't religion matter? Ever heard of one nation under "GOD." The president swears on the bible. Need more examples?
Okay, you're trolling. I'll quit wasting my energy.
Who's trolling? Saying that just an easy way to get out of a debate. If you don't like my arguments you don't have to reply, this is all just my opinion and I think the majority of Americans would agree with me.
Meh, I added a little tidbit in my previous post to humor you - but let me just say that I find it quite implausible that you follow every ceremonial law of the Old Testament. that is what leads me to think that you're trolling. Also, the fact that you seem to think most Americans would agree with you is just wrong. A quick google turned up this result which suggests that slightly over half of Americans support gay marriage. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/slim-majority-back-gay-marriage-post-abc-poll-says/2011/03/17/ABhMc7o_story.html
Okay, well you have me there with the study and all, but I don't follow the Old Testament I follow the New Testament.
On May 11 2011 10:12 iTzAnglory wrote: I would give up to 5 years of imprisonment for being gay, but not the death penalty. Though I despise homosexuality in every way, I will still sign the bill as the punishment is too ridiculous. Honestly, I would only punish if it was homosexuality being displayed in public.
Btw I noticed the new update on TL at the top of the page, calling it.
I would really like to know how you could justify giving some one five years in prison for being gay, I mean violent criminals in some cases don't get that many years, and being gay doesn't exactly hurt any one else. Really bigoted in my opinion Ontopic: Terrible thing, I signed, and I really hope that Uganda reconsiders.
Welcome to the world's justice system, that is a bit harsh I guess. Maybe a few months then.
Either justify criminalizing homosexuality without resorting to bigotry, or withdraw this opinion.
Even if you're just trolling, there is no excuse for presenting the criminalization homosexuality as a legitimate political stance.
I fully support what he says. Maybe two months in jail until they straighten out. You ever hear the bible supporting gay marriage? Islam? Judaism?
Scripture is not and will never be sufficient grounds for legislation.
On May 11 2011 10:12 iTzAnglory wrote: I would give up to 5 years of imprisonment for being gay, but not the death penalty. Though I despise homosexuality in every way, I will still sign the bill as the punishment is too ridiculous. Honestly, I would only punish if it was homosexuality being displayed in public.
Btw I noticed the new update on TL at the top of the page, calling it.
I would really like to know how you could justify giving some one five years in prison for being gay, I mean violent criminals in some cases don't get that many years, and being gay doesn't exactly hurt any one else. Really bigoted in my opinion Ontopic: Terrible thing, I signed, and I really hope that Uganda reconsiders.
Welcome to the world's justice system, that is a bit harsh I guess. Maybe a few months then.
Either justify criminalizing homosexuality without resorting to bigotry, or withdraw this opinion.
Even if you're just trolling, there is no excuse for presenting the criminalization homosexuality as a legitimate political stance.
I fully support what he says. Maybe two months in jail until they straighten out. You ever hear the bible supporting gay marriage? Islam? Judaism?
First of all, your argument relies on the assumption that I care what religion has to say on the subject. But to humor you, I'll mention that the Bible condemns a lot of other things that are not illegal. Of the Ten Commandments, the only commandments that are actually coded into our law are 1) don't kill and 2) don't steal. So... yeah. This isn't a theocracy.
(It's interesting how straight religious people that disobey tons of other shit in their respective holy books love to fixate on homosexuality. It's a great way for them to be able to point at someone else and feel superior without having a finger pointed back at them...)
I follow the bible word for word. I don't know what you're talking about. And why shouldn't religion matter? Ever heard of one nation under "GOD." The president swears on the bible. Need more examples?
Ever heard of separation of church and state?
Being religious isn't a requirement to be president, and swearing on the bible isn't a requirement either.
Religion shouldn't matter because it is one of the least important things in the world, but makes itself the most important because billions of people will swear to their religion and kill others because of it.
On May 11 2011 10:12 iTzAnglory wrote: I would give up to 5 years of imprisonment for being gay, but not the death penalty. Though I despise homosexuality in every way, I will still sign the bill as the punishment is too ridiculous. Honestly, I would only punish if it was homosexuality being displayed in public.
Btw I noticed the new update on TL at the top of the page, calling it.
I would really like to know how you could justify giving some one five years in prison for being gay, I mean violent criminals in some cases don't get that many years, and being gay doesn't exactly hurt any one else. Really bigoted in my opinion Ontopic: Terrible thing, I signed, and I really hope that Uganda reconsiders.
Welcome to the world's justice system, that is a bit harsh I guess. Maybe a few months then.
Either justify criminalizing homosexuality without resorting to bigotry, or withdraw this opinion.
Even if you're just trolling, there is no excuse for presenting the criminalization homosexuality as a legitimate political stance.
I fully support what he says. Maybe two months in jail until they straighten out. You ever hear the bible supporting gay marriage? Islam? Judaism?
First of all, your argument relies on the assumption that I care what religion has to say on the subject. But to humor you, I'll mention that the Bible condemns a lot of other things that are not illegal. Of the Ten Commandments, the only commandments that are actually coded into our law are 1) don't kill and 2) don't steal. So... yeah. This isn't a theocracy.
(It's interesting how straight religious people that disobey tons of other shit in their respective holy books love to fixate on homosexuality. It's a great way for them to be able to point at someone else and feel superior without having a finger pointed back at them...)
I follow the bible word for word. I don't know what you're talking about. And why shouldn't religion matter? Ever heard of one nation under "GOD." The president swears on the bible. Need more examples?
Okay, you're trolling. I'll quit wasting my energy.
Who's trolling? Saying that just is just an easy way to get out of a debate. If you don't like my arguments you don't have to reply, this is all just my opinion and I think the majority of Americans would agree with me.
No dude, the majority of Americans most definitely DO NOT agree that gay people should go to jail for being gay. You're absolutely insane for thinking that your opinion represents anything more than a fringe minority.
On May 11 2011 10:16 durza wrote: [quote] I would really like to know how you could justify giving some one five years in prison for being gay, I mean violent criminals in some cases don't get that many years, and being gay doesn't exactly hurt any one else. Really bigoted in my opinion Ontopic: Terrible thing, I signed, and I really hope that Uganda reconsiders.
Welcome to the world's justice system, that is a bit harsh I guess. Maybe a few months then.
Either justify criminalizing homosexuality without resorting to bigotry, or withdraw this opinion.
Even if you're just trolling, there is no excuse for presenting the criminalization homosexuality as a legitimate political stance.
I fully support what he says. Maybe two months in jail until they straighten out. You ever hear the bible supporting gay marriage? Islam? Judaism?
First of all, your argument relies on the assumption that I care what religion has to say on the subject. But to humor you, I'll mention that the Bible condemns a lot of other things that are not illegal. Of the Ten Commandments, the only commandments that are actually coded into our law are 1) don't kill and 2) don't steal. So... yeah. This isn't a theocracy.
(It's interesting how straight religious people that disobey tons of other shit in their respective holy books love to fixate on homosexuality. It's a great way for them to be able to point at someone else and feel superior without having a finger pointed back at them...)
I follow the bible word for word. I don't know what you're talking about. And why shouldn't religion matter? Ever heard of one nation under "GOD." The president swears on the bible. Need more examples?
Okay, you're trolling. I'll quit wasting my energy.
Who's trolling? Saying that just an easy way to get out of a debate. If you don't like my arguments you don't have to reply, this is all just my opinion and I think the majority of Americans would agree with me.
Meh, I added a little tidbit in my previous post to humor you - but let me just say that I find it quite implausible that you follow every ceremonial law of the Old Testament. that is what leads me to think that you're trolling. Also, the fact that you seem to think most Americans would agree with you is just wrong. A quick google turned up this result which suggests that slightly over half of Americans support gay marriage. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/slim-majority-back-gay-marriage-post-abc-poll-says/2011/03/17/ABhMc7o_story.html
Okay, well you have me there with the study and all, but I don't follow the Old Testament I follow the New Testament.
Well, again, the question really isn't about what you personally follow. As I said in my previous edit: "Our law doesn't and has never followed the Bible as a guide. Regardless of some random ceremonial and meaningless nods that we give to "God" in our politics because too many stupid religious people would get mad if we didn't." Our law doesn't ban adultery, or coveting, or remarriage after divorce, or idolatry, or working on Sundays, etc. These are all laws in the New Testament that are not put into our law.
On May 11 2011 10:16 durza wrote: [quote] I would really like to know how you could justify giving some one five years in prison for being gay, I mean violent criminals in some cases don't get that many years, and being gay doesn't exactly hurt any one else. Really bigoted in my opinion Ontopic: Terrible thing, I signed, and I really hope that Uganda reconsiders.
Welcome to the world's justice system, that is a bit harsh I guess. Maybe a few months then.
Either justify criminalizing homosexuality without resorting to bigotry, or withdraw this opinion.
Even if you're just trolling, there is no excuse for presenting the criminalization homosexuality as a legitimate political stance.
I fully support what he says. Maybe two months in jail until they straighten out. You ever hear the bible supporting gay marriage? Islam? Judaism?
First of all, your argument relies on the assumption that I care what religion has to say on the subject. But to humor you, I'll mention that the Bible condemns a lot of other things that are not illegal. Of the Ten Commandments, the only commandments that are actually coded into our law are 1) don't kill and 2) don't steal. So... yeah. This isn't a theocracy.
(It's interesting how straight religious people that disobey tons of other shit in their respective holy books love to fixate on homosexuality. It's a great way for them to be able to point at someone else and feel superior without having a finger pointed back at them...)
I follow the bible word for word. I don't know what you're talking about. And why shouldn't religion matter? Ever heard of one nation under "GOD." The president swears on the bible. Need more examples?
Okay, you're trolling. I'll quit wasting my energy.
Who's trolling? Saying that just an easy way to get out of a debate. If you don't like my arguments you don't have to reply, this is all just my opinion and I think the majority of Americans would agree with me.
Meh, I added a little tidbit in my previous post to humor you - but let me just say that I find it quite implausible that you follow every ceremonial law of the Old Testament. that is what leads me to think that you're trolling. Also, the fact that you seem to think most Americans would agree with you is just wrong. A quick google turned up this result which suggests that slightly over half of Americans support gay marriage. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/slim-majority-back-gay-marriage-post-abc-poll-says/2011/03/17/ABhMc7o_story.html
Okay, well you have me there with the study and all, but I don't follow the Old Testament I follow the New Testament.
Jesus says listen to his dad/himself.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Means you gotta read the Old Testament too.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Also, the cake is a lie.
On May 11 2011 10:36 iTzAnglory wrote: [quote] Welcome to the world's justice system, that is a bit harsh I guess. Maybe a few months then.
Either justify criminalizing homosexuality without resorting to bigotry, or withdraw this opinion.
Even if you're just trolling, there is no excuse for presenting the criminalization homosexuality as a legitimate political stance.
I fully support what he says. Maybe two months in jail until they straighten out. You ever hear the bible supporting gay marriage? Islam? Judaism?
First of all, your argument relies on the assumption that I care what religion has to say on the subject. But to humor you, I'll mention that the Bible condemns a lot of other things that are not illegal. Of the Ten Commandments, the only commandments that are actually coded into our law are 1) don't kill and 2) don't steal. So... yeah. This isn't a theocracy.
(It's interesting how straight religious people that disobey tons of other shit in their respective holy books love to fixate on homosexuality. It's a great way for them to be able to point at someone else and feel superior without having a finger pointed back at them...)
I follow the bible word for word. I don't know what you're talking about. And why shouldn't religion matter? Ever heard of one nation under "GOD." The president swears on the bible. Need more examples?
Okay, you're trolling. I'll quit wasting my energy.
Who's trolling? Saying that just an easy way to get out of a debate. If you don't like my arguments you don't have to reply, this is all just my opinion and I think the majority of Americans would agree with me.
Meh, I added a little tidbit in my previous post to humor you - but let me just say that I find it quite implausible that you follow every ceremonial law of the Old Testament. that is what leads me to think that you're trolling. Also, the fact that you seem to think most Americans would agree with you is just wrong. A quick google turned up this result which suggests that slightly over half of Americans support gay marriage. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/slim-majority-back-gay-marriage-post-abc-poll-says/2011/03/17/ABhMc7o_story.html
Okay, well you have me there with the study and all, but I don't follow the Old Testament I follow the New Testament.
Well, again, the question really isn't about what you personally follow. As I said in my previous edit: "Our law doesn't and has never followed the Bible as a guide. Regardless of some random ceremonial and meaningless nods that we give to "God" in our politics because too many stupid religious people would get mad if we didn't." Our law doesn't ban adultery, or coveting, or remarriage after divorce, or idolatry, or working on Sundays, etc. These are all laws in the New Testament that are not put into our law.
Actually to be completely specific, those are the 10 commandments.
1st 5 are relating to the Unity of God and the sabbath etc (the weird ones)
last 5 are don't kill etc (the good ones)
And yeah, not really explicitly put down into law (except don't kill). Completely right about that part no matter what other kooks will say.
Either justify criminalizing homosexuality without resorting to bigotry, or withdraw this opinion.
Even if you're just trolling, there is no excuse for presenting the criminalization homosexuality as a legitimate political stance.
I fully support what he says. Maybe two months in jail until they straighten out. You ever hear the bible supporting gay marriage? Islam? Judaism?
First of all, your argument relies on the assumption that I care what religion has to say on the subject. But to humor you, I'll mention that the Bible condemns a lot of other things that are not illegal. Of the Ten Commandments, the only commandments that are actually coded into our law are 1) don't kill and 2) don't steal. So... yeah. This isn't a theocracy.
(It's interesting how straight religious people that disobey tons of other shit in their respective holy books love to fixate on homosexuality. It's a great way for them to be able to point at someone else and feel superior without having a finger pointed back at them...)
I follow the bible word for word. I don't know what you're talking about. And why shouldn't religion matter? Ever heard of one nation under "GOD." The president swears on the bible. Need more examples?
Okay, you're trolling. I'll quit wasting my energy.
Who's trolling? Saying that just an easy way to get out of a debate. If you don't like my arguments you don't have to reply, this is all just my opinion and I think the majority of Americans would agree with me.
Meh, I added a little tidbit in my previous post to humor you - but let me just say that I find it quite implausible that you follow every ceremonial law of the Old Testament. that is what leads me to think that you're trolling. Also, the fact that you seem to think most Americans would agree with you is just wrong. A quick google turned up this result which suggests that slightly over half of Americans support gay marriage. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/slim-majority-back-gay-marriage-post-abc-poll-says/2011/03/17/ABhMc7o_story.html
Okay, well you have me there with the study and all, but I don't follow the Old Testament I follow the New Testament.
Well, again, the question really isn't about what you personally follow. As I said in my previous edit: "Our law doesn't and has never followed the Bible as a guide. Regardless of some random ceremonial and meaningless nods that we give to "God" in our politics because too many stupid religious people would get mad if we didn't." Our law doesn't ban adultery, or coveting, or remarriage after divorce, or idolatry, or working on Sundays, etc. These are all laws in the New Testament that are not put into our law.
Actually to be completely specific, those are the 10 commandments.
1st 5 are relating to the Unity of God and the sabbath etc (the weird ones)
last 5 are don't kill etc (the good ones)
And yeah, not really explicitly put down into law (except don't kill). Completely right about that part no matter what other kooks will say.
Yeah, our country would be a much scarier place if we actually used the Bible as the backbone for our legal system.
On May 11 2011 10:56 DatBoiRijad wrote: [quote] I fully support what he says. Maybe two months in jail until they straighten out. You ever hear the bible supporting gay marriage? Islam? Judaism?
First of all, your argument relies on the assumption that I care what religion has to say on the subject. But to humor you, I'll mention that the Bible condemns a lot of other things that are not illegal. Of the Ten Commandments, the only commandments that are actually coded into our law are 1) don't kill and 2) don't steal. So... yeah. This isn't a theocracy.
(It's interesting how straight religious people that disobey tons of other shit in their respective holy books love to fixate on homosexuality. It's a great way for them to be able to point at someone else and feel superior without having a finger pointed back at them...)
I follow the bible word for word. I don't know what you're talking about. And why shouldn't religion matter? Ever heard of one nation under "GOD." The president swears on the bible. Need more examples?
Okay, you're trolling. I'll quit wasting my energy.
Who's trolling? Saying that just an easy way to get out of a debate. If you don't like my arguments you don't have to reply, this is all just my opinion and I think the majority of Americans would agree with me.
Meh, I added a little tidbit in my previous post to humor you - but let me just say that I find it quite implausible that you follow every ceremonial law of the Old Testament. that is what leads me to think that you're trolling. Also, the fact that you seem to think most Americans would agree with you is just wrong. A quick google turned up this result which suggests that slightly over half of Americans support gay marriage. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/slim-majority-back-gay-marriage-post-abc-poll-says/2011/03/17/ABhMc7o_story.html
Okay, well you have me there with the study and all, but I don't follow the Old Testament I follow the New Testament.
Well, again, the question really isn't about what you personally follow. As I said in my previous edit: "Our law doesn't and has never followed the Bible as a guide. Regardless of some random ceremonial and meaningless nods that we give to "God" in our politics because too many stupid religious people would get mad if we didn't." Our law doesn't ban adultery, or coveting, or remarriage after divorce, or idolatry, or working on Sundays, etc. These are all laws in the New Testament that are not put into our law.
Actually to be completely specific, those are the 10 commandments.
1st 5 are relating to the Unity of God and the sabbath etc (the weird ones)
last 5 are don't kill etc (the good ones)
And yeah, not really explicitly put down into law (except don't kill). Completely right about that part no matter what other kooks will say.
Yeah, our country would be a much scarier place if we actually used the Bible as the backbone for our legal system.
Are you being serious? I think you're the one who's trolling now. If we followed the bible there would be no abortion, their would be less criminals in our prisons, the list goes on and on.
First of all, your argument relies on the assumption that I care what religion has to say on the subject. But to humor you, I'll mention that the Bible condemns a lot of other things that are not illegal. Of the Ten Commandments, the only commandments that are actually coded into our law are 1) don't kill and 2) don't steal. So... yeah. This isn't a theocracy.
(It's interesting how straight religious people that disobey tons of other shit in their respective holy books love to fixate on homosexuality. It's a great way for them to be able to point at someone else and feel superior without having a finger pointed back at them...)
I follow the bible word for word. I don't know what you're talking about. And why shouldn't religion matter? Ever heard of one nation under "GOD." The president swears on the bible. Need more examples?
Okay, you're trolling. I'll quit wasting my energy.
Who's trolling? Saying that just an easy way to get out of a debate. If you don't like my arguments you don't have to reply, this is all just my opinion and I think the majority of Americans would agree with me.
Meh, I added a little tidbit in my previous post to humor you - but let me just say that I find it quite implausible that you follow every ceremonial law of the Old Testament. that is what leads me to think that you're trolling. Also, the fact that you seem to think most Americans would agree with you is just wrong. A quick google turned up this result which suggests that slightly over half of Americans support gay marriage. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/slim-majority-back-gay-marriage-post-abc-poll-says/2011/03/17/ABhMc7o_story.html
Okay, well you have me there with the study and all, but I don't follow the Old Testament I follow the New Testament.
Well, again, the question really isn't about what you personally follow. As I said in my previous edit: "Our law doesn't and has never followed the Bible as a guide. Regardless of some random ceremonial and meaningless nods that we give to "God" in our politics because too many stupid religious people would get mad if we didn't." Our law doesn't ban adultery, or coveting, or remarriage after divorce, or idolatry, or working on Sundays, etc. These are all laws in the New Testament that are not put into our law.
Actually to be completely specific, those are the 10 commandments.
1st 5 are relating to the Unity of God and the sabbath etc (the weird ones)
last 5 are don't kill etc (the good ones)
And yeah, not really explicitly put down into law (except don't kill). Completely right about that part no matter what other kooks will say.
Yeah, our country would be a much scarier place if we actually used the Bible as the backbone for our legal system.
Are you being serious? I think you're the one who's trolling now. If we followed the bible their would be no abortion, their would be less criminals in our prisons, the list goes on and on.
Nice fantasy. If you want reality, check out the Dark Ages to see what happens when you rule based on a holy book. Or look at the Middle East and see how that's working out for them.
First of all, your argument relies on the assumption that I care what religion has to say on the subject. But to humor you, I'll mention that the Bible condemns a lot of other things that are not illegal. Of the Ten Commandments, the only commandments that are actually coded into our law are 1) don't kill and 2) don't steal. So... yeah. This isn't a theocracy.
(It's interesting how straight religious people that disobey tons of other shit in their respective holy books love to fixate on homosexuality. It's a great way for them to be able to point at someone else and feel superior without having a finger pointed back at them...)
I follow the bible word for word. I don't know what you're talking about. And why shouldn't religion matter? Ever heard of one nation under "GOD." The president swears on the bible. Need more examples?
Okay, you're trolling. I'll quit wasting my energy.
Who's trolling? Saying that just an easy way to get out of a debate. If you don't like my arguments you don't have to reply, this is all just my opinion and I think the majority of Americans would agree with me.
Meh, I added a little tidbit in my previous post to humor you - but let me just say that I find it quite implausible that you follow every ceremonial law of the Old Testament. that is what leads me to think that you're trolling. Also, the fact that you seem to think most Americans would agree with you is just wrong. A quick google turned up this result which suggests that slightly over half of Americans support gay marriage. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/slim-majority-back-gay-marriage-post-abc-poll-says/2011/03/17/ABhMc7o_story.html
Okay, well you have me there with the study and all, but I don't follow the Old Testament I follow the New Testament.
Well, again, the question really isn't about what you personally follow. As I said in my previous edit: "Our law doesn't and has never followed the Bible as a guide. Regardless of some random ceremonial and meaningless nods that we give to "God" in our politics because too many stupid religious people would get mad if we didn't." Our law doesn't ban adultery, or coveting, or remarriage after divorce, or idolatry, or working on Sundays, etc. These are all laws in the New Testament that are not put into our law.
Actually to be completely specific, those are the 10 commandments.
1st 5 are relating to the Unity of God and the sabbath etc (the weird ones)
last 5 are don't kill etc (the good ones)
And yeah, not really explicitly put down into law (except don't kill). Completely right about that part no matter what other kooks will say.
Yeah, our country would be a much scarier place if we actually used the Bible as the backbone for our legal system.
Are you being serious? I think you're the one who's trolling now. If we followed the bible there would be no abortion, their would be less criminals in our prisons, the list goes on and on.
Your argument is so full of holes. I fully support using the Bible as a text to support moral codes, but bringing it over to the government violates separation of church and state. So you're saying follow the New Testament, so we should not cut our hair or wear beards either?
First of all, your argument relies on the assumption that I care what religion has to say on the subject. But to humor you, I'll mention that the Bible condemns a lot of other things that are not illegal. Of the Ten Commandments, the only commandments that are actually coded into our law are 1) don't kill and 2) don't steal. So... yeah. This isn't a theocracy.
(It's interesting how straight religious people that disobey tons of other shit in their respective holy books love to fixate on homosexuality. It's a great way for them to be able to point at someone else and feel superior without having a finger pointed back at them...)
I follow the bible word for word. I don't know what you're talking about. And why shouldn't religion matter? Ever heard of one nation under "GOD." The president swears on the bible. Need more examples?
Okay, you're trolling. I'll quit wasting my energy.
Who's trolling? Saying that just an easy way to get out of a debate. If you don't like my arguments you don't have to reply, this is all just my opinion and I think the majority of Americans would agree with me.
Meh, I added a little tidbit in my previous post to humor you - but let me just say that I find it quite implausible that you follow every ceremonial law of the Old Testament. that is what leads me to think that you're trolling. Also, the fact that you seem to think most Americans would agree with you is just wrong. A quick google turned up this result which suggests that slightly over half of Americans support gay marriage. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/slim-majority-back-gay-marriage-post-abc-poll-says/2011/03/17/ABhMc7o_story.html
Okay, well you have me there with the study and all, but I don't follow the Old Testament I follow the New Testament.
Well, again, the question really isn't about what you personally follow. As I said in my previous edit: "Our law doesn't and has never followed the Bible as a guide. Regardless of some random ceremonial and meaningless nods that we give to "God" in our politics because too many stupid religious people would get mad if we didn't." Our law doesn't ban adultery, or coveting, or remarriage after divorce, or idolatry, or working on Sundays, etc. These are all laws in the New Testament that are not put into our law.
Actually to be completely specific, those are the 10 commandments.
1st 5 are relating to the Unity of God and the sabbath etc (the weird ones)
last 5 are don't kill etc (the good ones)
And yeah, not really explicitly put down into law (except don't kill). Completely right about that part no matter what other kooks will say.
Yeah, our country would be a much scarier place if we actually used the Bible as the backbone for our legal system.
Are you being serious? I think you're the one who's trolling now. If we followed the bible there would be no abortion, their would be less criminals in our prisons, the list goes on and on.
I follow the bible word for word. I don't know what you're talking about. And why shouldn't religion matter? Ever heard of one nation under "GOD." The president swears on the bible. Need more examples?
Okay, you're trolling. I'll quit wasting my energy.
Who's trolling? Saying that just an easy way to get out of a debate. If you don't like my arguments you don't have to reply, this is all just my opinion and I think the majority of Americans would agree with me.
Meh, I added a little tidbit in my previous post to humor you - but let me just say that I find it quite implausible that you follow every ceremonial law of the Old Testament. that is what leads me to think that you're trolling. Also, the fact that you seem to think most Americans would agree with you is just wrong. A quick google turned up this result which suggests that slightly over half of Americans support gay marriage. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/slim-majority-back-gay-marriage-post-abc-poll-says/2011/03/17/ABhMc7o_story.html
Okay, well you have me there with the study and all, but I don't follow the Old Testament I follow the New Testament.
Well, again, the question really isn't about what you personally follow. As I said in my previous edit: "Our law doesn't and has never followed the Bible as a guide. Regardless of some random ceremonial and meaningless nods that we give to "God" in our politics because too many stupid religious people would get mad if we didn't." Our law doesn't ban adultery, or coveting, or remarriage after divorce, or idolatry, or working on Sundays, etc. These are all laws in the New Testament that are not put into our law.
Actually to be completely specific, those are the 10 commandments.
1st 5 are relating to the Unity of God and the sabbath etc (the weird ones)
last 5 are don't kill etc (the good ones)
And yeah, not really explicitly put down into law (except don't kill). Completely right about that part no matter what other kooks will say.
Yeah, our country would be a much scarier place if we actually used the Bible as the backbone for our legal system.
Are you being serious? I think you're the one who's trolling now. If we followed the bible there would be no abortion, their would be less criminals in our prisons, the list goes on and on.
I call Poe's Law.
I'm actually now guessing it's a 12-15 year old that is just spouting out things he's been indoctrinated with. The spouting out of random thoughts and mantras that don't really make much sense is quite characteristic of someone who actually hasn't done much independent thinking on their religion. I know because I was in that phase ~5 years ago.
First of all, your argument relies on the assumption that I care what religion has to say on the subject. But to humor you, I'll mention that the Bible condemns a lot of other things that are not illegal. Of the Ten Commandments, the only commandments that are actually coded into our law are 1) don't kill and 2) don't steal. So... yeah. This isn't a theocracy.
(It's interesting how straight religious people that disobey tons of other shit in their respective holy books love to fixate on homosexuality. It's a great way for them to be able to point at someone else and feel superior without having a finger pointed back at them...)
I follow the bible word for word. I don't know what you're talking about. And why shouldn't religion matter? Ever heard of one nation under "GOD." The president swears on the bible. Need more examples?
Okay, you're trolling. I'll quit wasting my energy.
Who's trolling? Saying that just an easy way to get out of a debate. If you don't like my arguments you don't have to reply, this is all just my opinion and I think the majority of Americans would agree with me.
Meh, I added a little tidbit in my previous post to humor you - but let me just say that I find it quite implausible that you follow every ceremonial law of the Old Testament. that is what leads me to think that you're trolling. Also, the fact that you seem to think most Americans would agree with you is just wrong. A quick google turned up this result which suggests that slightly over half of Americans support gay marriage. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/slim-majority-back-gay-marriage-post-abc-poll-says/2011/03/17/ABhMc7o_story.html
Okay, well you have me there with the study and all, but I don't follow the Old Testament I follow the New Testament.
Well, again, the question really isn't about what you personally follow. As I said in my previous edit: "Our law doesn't and has never followed the Bible as a guide. Regardless of some random ceremonial and meaningless nods that we give to "God" in our politics because too many stupid religious people would get mad if we didn't." Our law doesn't ban adultery, or coveting, or remarriage after divorce, or idolatry, or working on Sundays, etc. These are all laws in the New Testament that are not put into our law.
Actually to be completely specific, those are the 10 commandments.
1st 5 are relating to the Unity of God and the sabbath etc (the weird ones)
last 5 are don't kill etc (the good ones)
And yeah, not really explicitly put down into law (except don't kill). Completely right about that part no matter what other kooks will say.
Yeah, our country would be a much scarier place if we actually used the Bible as the backbone for our legal system.
Are you being serious? I think you're the one who's trolling now. If we followed the bible there would be no abortion, their would be less criminals in our prisons, the list goes on and on.
Isn't it fun ignoring valid points from other posters and fixating on posts that you are able to make blanket, polarizing statements against?
I am referring to the wzzit's, wwer's, and a few other people's post.
Many people dislike or disagree with homosexuality. Only extremists / bigots think that homosexuals should be convicted as criminals.
Okay, you're trolling. I'll quit wasting my energy.
Who's trolling? Saying that just an easy way to get out of a debate. If you don't like my arguments you don't have to reply, this is all just my opinion and I think the majority of Americans would agree with me.
Meh, I added a little tidbit in my previous post to humor you - but let me just say that I find it quite implausible that you follow every ceremonial law of the Old Testament. that is what leads me to think that you're trolling. Also, the fact that you seem to think most Americans would agree with you is just wrong. A quick google turned up this result which suggests that slightly over half of Americans support gay marriage. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/slim-majority-back-gay-marriage-post-abc-poll-says/2011/03/17/ABhMc7o_story.html
Okay, well you have me there with the study and all, but I don't follow the Old Testament I follow the New Testament.
Well, again, the question really isn't about what you personally follow. As I said in my previous edit: "Our law doesn't and has never followed the Bible as a guide. Regardless of some random ceremonial and meaningless nods that we give to "God" in our politics because too many stupid religious people would get mad if we didn't." Our law doesn't ban adultery, or coveting, or remarriage after divorce, or idolatry, or working on Sundays, etc. These are all laws in the New Testament that are not put into our law.
Actually to be completely specific, those are the 10 commandments.
1st 5 are relating to the Unity of God and the sabbath etc (the weird ones)
last 5 are don't kill etc (the good ones)
And yeah, not really explicitly put down into law (except don't kill). Completely right about that part no matter what other kooks will say.
Yeah, our country would be a much scarier place if we actually used the Bible as the backbone for our legal system.
Are you being serious? I think you're the one who's trolling now. If we followed the bible there would be no abortion, their would be less criminals in our prisons, the list goes on and on.
I call Poe's Law.
I'm actually now guessing it's a 12-15 year old that is just spouting out things he's been indoctrinated with. The spouting out of random thoughts and mantras that don't really make much sense is quite characteristic of someone who actually hasn't done much independent thinking on their religion. I know because I was in that phase ~5 years ago.
Plus the low post count.
Probably a throwaway account to derail the thread.
On May 11 2011 11:16 DatBoiRijad wrote: [quote] Who's trolling? Saying that just an easy way to get out of a debate. If you don't like my arguments you don't have to reply, this is all just my opinion and I think the majority of Americans would agree with me.
Meh, I added a little tidbit in my previous post to humor you - but let me just say that I find it quite implausible that you follow every ceremonial law of the Old Testament. that is what leads me to think that you're trolling. Also, the fact that you seem to think most Americans would agree with you is just wrong. A quick google turned up this result which suggests that slightly over half of Americans support gay marriage. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/slim-majority-back-gay-marriage-post-abc-poll-says/2011/03/17/ABhMc7o_story.html
Okay, well you have me there with the study and all, but I don't follow the Old Testament I follow the New Testament.
Well, again, the question really isn't about what you personally follow. As I said in my previous edit: "Our law doesn't and has never followed the Bible as a guide. Regardless of some random ceremonial and meaningless nods that we give to "God" in our politics because too many stupid religious people would get mad if we didn't." Our law doesn't ban adultery, or coveting, or remarriage after divorce, or idolatry, or working on Sundays, etc. These are all laws in the New Testament that are not put into our law.
Actually to be completely specific, those are the 10 commandments.
1st 5 are relating to the Unity of God and the sabbath etc (the weird ones)
last 5 are don't kill etc (the good ones)
And yeah, not really explicitly put down into law (except don't kill). Completely right about that part no matter what other kooks will say.
Yeah, our country would be a much scarier place if we actually used the Bible as the backbone for our legal system.
Are you being serious? I think you're the one who's trolling now. If we followed the bible there would be no abortion, their would be less criminals in our prisons, the list goes on and on.
I call Poe's Law.
I'm actually now guessing it's a 12-15 year old that is just spouting out things he's been indoctrinated with. The spouting out of random thoughts and mantras that don't really make much sense is quite characteristic of someone who actually hasn't done much independent thinking on their religion. I know because I was in that phase ~5 years ago.
Plus the low post count.
Probably a throwaway account to derail the thread.
Stop Martin "eat da poo poo" Sempa!
A little digging, and it seems that my theory is correct:
On May 11 2011 07:04 DatBoiRijad wrote: Dad is 5'10", mom is 5'8", I'm 15 years of age at 5'9". My grandpa is 6'1" and great grandpa 6'4". Any estimates on how tall I'll be?
I really thought this forum was full of intelligent people who shared my views on religion and homosexuality, but now I see otherwise. Im disgusted by the lack of understanding people have on either subject. Unfortunately, as humans, we have built in mechanisms that make us keep believing what we want to believe, even when faced with undeniable evidence against or for something. Right now, this thread is getting nowhere. Stop sharing religious and political views, no on is going to change their opinion, AT ALL. To the homophobic people in this thread, what the hell are you doing here? We're trying to raise awareness of a cause that you obviously dont agree with. Let's just try to do as much as we can to raise awareness about this bill and leave it at that (only 24 hours to go anyways...).
On May 11 2011 11:16 DatBoiRijad wrote: [quote] Who's trolling? Saying that just an easy way to get out of a debate. If you don't like my arguments you don't have to reply, this is all just my opinion and I think the majority of Americans would agree with me.
Meh, I added a little tidbit in my previous post to humor you - but let me just say that I find it quite implausible that you follow every ceremonial law of the Old Testament. that is what leads me to think that you're trolling. Also, the fact that you seem to think most Americans would agree with you is just wrong. A quick google turned up this result which suggests that slightly over half of Americans support gay marriage. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/slim-majority-back-gay-marriage-post-abc-poll-says/2011/03/17/ABhMc7o_story.html
Okay, well you have me there with the study and all, but I don't follow the Old Testament I follow the New Testament.
Well, again, the question really isn't about what you personally follow. As I said in my previous edit: "Our law doesn't and has never followed the Bible as a guide. Regardless of some random ceremonial and meaningless nods that we give to "God" in our politics because too many stupid religious people would get mad if we didn't." Our law doesn't ban adultery, or coveting, or remarriage after divorce, or idolatry, or working on Sundays, etc. These are all laws in the New Testament that are not put into our law.
Actually to be completely specific, those are the 10 commandments.
1st 5 are relating to the Unity of God and the sabbath etc (the weird ones)
last 5 are don't kill etc (the good ones)
And yeah, not really explicitly put down into law (except don't kill). Completely right about that part no matter what other kooks will say.
Yeah, our country would be a much scarier place if we actually used the Bible as the backbone for our legal system.
Are you being serious? I think you're the one who's trolling now. If we followed the bible there would be no abortion, their would be less criminals in our prisons, the list goes on and on.
I call Poe's Law.
I'm actually now guessing it's a 12-15 year old that is just spouting out things he's been indoctrinated with. The spouting out of random thoughts and mantras that don't really make much sense is quite characteristic of someone who actually hasn't done much independent thinking on their religion. I know because I was in that phase ~5 years ago.
Plus the low post count.
Probably a throwaway account to derail the thread.
Stop Martin "eat da poo poo" Sempa!
Trolls will always come, but it's nice to know that there are rational people existing on the internet
First of all, your argument relies on the assumption that I care what religion has to say on the subject. But to humor you, I'll mention that the Bible condemns a lot of other things that are not illegal. Of the Ten Commandments, the only commandments that are actually coded into our law are 1) don't kill and 2) don't steal. So... yeah. This isn't a theocracy.
(It's interesting how straight religious people that disobey tons of other shit in their respective holy books love to fixate on homosexuality. It's a great way for them to be able to point at someone else and feel superior without having a finger pointed back at them...)
I follow the bible word for word. I don't know what you're talking about. And why shouldn't religion matter? Ever heard of one nation under "GOD." The president swears on the bible. Need more examples?
Okay, you're trolling. I'll quit wasting my energy.
Who's trolling? Saying that just an easy way to get out of a debate. If you don't like my arguments you don't have to reply, this is all just my opinion and I think the majority of Americans would agree with me.
Meh, I added a little tidbit in my previous post to humor you - but let me just say that I find it quite implausible that you follow every ceremonial law of the Old Testament. that is what leads me to think that you're trolling. Also, the fact that you seem to think most Americans would agree with you is just wrong. A quick google turned up this result which suggests that slightly over half of Americans support gay marriage. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/slim-majority-back-gay-marriage-post-abc-poll-says/2011/03/17/ABhMc7o_story.html
Okay, well you have me there with the study and all, but I don't follow the Old Testament I follow the New Testament.
Well, again, the question really isn't about what you personally follow. As I said in my previous edit: "Our law doesn't and has never followed the Bible as a guide. Regardless of some random ceremonial and meaningless nods that we give to "God" in our politics because too many stupid religious people would get mad if we didn't." Our law doesn't ban adultery, or coveting, or remarriage after divorce, or idolatry, or working on Sundays, etc. These are all laws in the New Testament that are not put into our law.
Actually to be completely specific, those are the 10 commandments.
1st 5 are relating to the Unity of God and the sabbath etc (the weird ones)
last 5 are don't kill etc (the good ones)
And yeah, not really explicitly put down into law (except don't kill). Completely right about that part no matter what other kooks will say.
Yeah, our country would be a much scarier place if we actually used the Bible as the backbone for our legal system.
Are you being serious? I think you're the one who's trolling now. If we followed the bible there would be no abortion, their would be less criminals in our prisons, the list goes on and on.
Feel free to continue if the list is so long. Your claims have no reasonable argument supporting them though, so the list will be pretty worthless.
You have yet to even attempt to justify criminalizing homosexuality.You are now suggesting the adoption of a state religion and failing to justify that as well. Stop. Talking. Shit.
I thought this would be about trying to prevent the spread of HIV or something which would almost be reasonable, but Lol death penalty... don't wear bright colors in uganda :O
Meh, I added a little tidbit in my previous post to humor you - but let me just say that I find it quite implausible that you follow every ceremonial law of the Old Testament. that is what leads me to think that you're trolling. Also, the fact that you seem to think most Americans would agree with you is just wrong. A quick google turned up this result which suggests that slightly over half of Americans support gay marriage. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/slim-majority-back-gay-marriage-post-abc-poll-says/2011/03/17/ABhMc7o_story.html
Okay, well you have me there with the study and all, but I don't follow the Old Testament I follow the New Testament.
Well, again, the question really isn't about what you personally follow. As I said in my previous edit: "Our law doesn't and has never followed the Bible as a guide. Regardless of some random ceremonial and meaningless nods that we give to "God" in our politics because too many stupid religious people would get mad if we didn't." Our law doesn't ban adultery, or coveting, or remarriage after divorce, or idolatry, or working on Sundays, etc. These are all laws in the New Testament that are not put into our law.
Actually to be completely specific, those are the 10 commandments.
1st 5 are relating to the Unity of God and the sabbath etc (the weird ones)
last 5 are don't kill etc (the good ones)
And yeah, not really explicitly put down into law (except don't kill). Completely right about that part no matter what other kooks will say.
Yeah, our country would be a much scarier place if we actually used the Bible as the backbone for our legal system.
Are you being serious? I think you're the one who's trolling now. If we followed the bible there would be no abortion, their would be less criminals in our prisons, the list goes on and on.
I call Poe's Law.
I'm actually now guessing it's a 12-15 year old that is just spouting out things he's been indoctrinated with. The spouting out of random thoughts and mantras that don't really make much sense is quite characteristic of someone who actually hasn't done much independent thinking on their religion. I know because I was in that phase ~5 years ago.
Plus the low post count.
Probably a throwaway account to derail the thread.
Stop Martin "eat da poo poo" Sempa!
Trolls will always come, but it's nice to know that there are rational people existing on the internet
Also, I voted. Good thread.
Can't believe so many of you are calling me a troll when I just have different views then you. Elitist much?
Okay, well you have me there with the study and all, but I don't follow the Old Testament I follow the New Testament.
Well, again, the question really isn't about what you personally follow. As I said in my previous edit: "Our law doesn't and has never followed the Bible as a guide. Regardless of some random ceremonial and meaningless nods that we give to "God" in our politics because too many stupid religious people would get mad if we didn't." Our law doesn't ban adultery, or coveting, or remarriage after divorce, or idolatry, or working on Sundays, etc. These are all laws in the New Testament that are not put into our law.
Actually to be completely specific, those are the 10 commandments.
1st 5 are relating to the Unity of God and the sabbath etc (the weird ones)
last 5 are don't kill etc (the good ones)
And yeah, not really explicitly put down into law (except don't kill). Completely right about that part no matter what other kooks will say.
Yeah, our country would be a much scarier place if we actually used the Bible as the backbone for our legal system.
Are you being serious? I think you're the one who's trolling now. If we followed the bible there would be no abortion, their would be less criminals in our prisons, the list goes on and on.
I call Poe's Law.
I'm actually now guessing it's a 12-15 year old that is just spouting out things he's been indoctrinated with. The spouting out of random thoughts and mantras that don't really make much sense is quite characteristic of someone who actually hasn't done much independent thinking on their religion. I know because I was in that phase ~5 years ago.
Plus the low post count.
Probably a throwaway account to derail the thread.
Stop Martin "eat da poo poo" Sempa!
Trolls will always come, but it's nice to know that there are rational people existing on the internet
Also, I voted. Good thread.
Can't believe so many of you are calling me a troll when I just have different views then you. Elitist much?
Sorry dude, but people aren't calling you a troll because you disagree with them; they're calling you a troll because the shit you're saying doesn't make sense. But it looks like you're actually just thoughtlessly indoctrinated. Spend some time actually thinking about what you believe, and your views won't come off as being so unbelievable.
Okay, well you have me there with the study and all, but I don't follow the Old Testament I follow the New Testament.
Well, again, the question really isn't about what you personally follow. As I said in my previous edit: "Our law doesn't and has never followed the Bible as a guide. Regardless of some random ceremonial and meaningless nods that we give to "God" in our politics because too many stupid religious people would get mad if we didn't." Our law doesn't ban adultery, or coveting, or remarriage after divorce, or idolatry, or working on Sundays, etc. These are all laws in the New Testament that are not put into our law.
Actually to be completely specific, those are the 10 commandments.
1st 5 are relating to the Unity of God and the sabbath etc (the weird ones)
last 5 are don't kill etc (the good ones)
And yeah, not really explicitly put down into law (except don't kill). Completely right about that part no matter what other kooks will say.
Yeah, our country would be a much scarier place if we actually used the Bible as the backbone for our legal system.
Are you being serious? I think you're the one who's trolling now. If we followed the bible there would be no abortion, their would be less criminals in our prisons, the list goes on and on.
I call Poe's Law.
I'm actually now guessing it's a 12-15 year old that is just spouting out things he's been indoctrinated with. The spouting out of random thoughts and mantras that don't really make much sense is quite characteristic of someone who actually hasn't done much independent thinking on their religion. I know because I was in that phase ~5 years ago.
Plus the low post count.
Probably a throwaway account to derail the thread.
Stop Martin "eat da poo poo" Sempa!
Trolls will always come, but it's nice to know that there are rational people existing on the internet
Also, I voted. Good thread.
Can't believe so many of you are calling me a troll when I just have different views then you. Elitist much?
Well...your views are a bit out there even for a homophobe in a 1st world nation (assuming that you are) But if you are serious, it is pretty disturbing to know that you would lock me up should you obtain political power.
On May 11 2011 11:58 SilentCrono wrote: but is the ugandan government even going to look at this online petition? o.O
From what I saw...it seems like Uganda has an exception view of themselves. They are not going to take shit from outside imperial powers.
I honestly don't really care to participate in affecting the legislature of a country that I do not live in and I don't think anyone really should. It's their country, let them rule it. Doesn't mean I agree with this bill. I don't agree with it, but it's not my business to say what they should do.
Don't give me any cold war era communist containment crap, either.
On May 11 2011 12:05 Uhh Negative wrote: I honestly don't really care to participate in affecting the legislature of a country that I do not live in and I don't think anyone really should. It's their country, let them rule it. Doesn't mean I agree with this bill. I don't agree with it, but it's not my business to say what they should do.
On May 11 2011 12:05 Uhh Negative wrote: I honestly don't really care to participate in affecting the legislature of a country that I do not live in and I don't think anyone really should. It's their country, let them rule it. Doesn't mean I agree with this bill. I don't agree with it, but it's not my business to say what they should do.
Uhh Negative, guilty.
1 million people + will disagree with you.
That's fine 1 million people out of 7 billion isn't bad. Like I said, I'm of course against a death penalty for gays, but I don't see how it's my business to decide that for Uganda. Does the whole world need to approve every single bill of every nation?
On May 11 2011 12:05 Uhh Negative wrote: I honestly don't really care to participate in affecting the legislature of a country that I do not live in and I don't think anyone really should. It's their country, let them rule it. Doesn't mean I agree with this bill. I don't agree with it, but it's not my business to say what they should do.
Uhh Negative, guilty.
1 million people + will disagree with you.
That's fine 1 million people out of 7 billion isn't bad. Like I said, I'm of course against a death penalty for gays, but I don't see how it's my business to decide that for Uganda. Does the whole world need to approve every single bill of every nation?
I never said 1 million out of 7 billion - don't you dare mislead people.
On May 11 2011 12:05 Uhh Negative wrote: I honestly don't really care to participate in affecting the legislature of a country that I do not live in and I don't think anyone really should. It's their country, let them rule it. Doesn't mean I agree with this bill. I don't agree with it, but it's not my business to say what they should do.
Uhh Negative, guilty.
1 million people + will disagree with you.
That's fine 1 million people out of 7 billion isn't bad. Like I said, I'm of course against a death penalty for gays, but I don't see how it's my business to decide that for Uganda. Does the whole world need to approve every single bill of every nation?
If the US was in the process of enacting the Anti-Uhh Negative Bill you wouldn't want people signing the petition against it?
On May 11 2011 12:05 Uhh Negative wrote: I honestly don't really care to participate in affecting the legislature of a country that I do not live in and I don't think anyone really should. It's their country, let them rule it. Doesn't mean I agree with this bill. I don't agree with it, but it's not my business to say what they should do.
Uhh Negative, guilty.
1 million people + will disagree with you.
That's fine 1 million people out of 7 billion isn't bad. Like I said, I'm of course against a death penalty for gays, but I don't see how it's my business to decide that for Uganda. Does the whole world need to approve every single bill of every nation?
Well then...so much for individualism. We have no right to intervene in other nation's decisions but we give them the right who lives and who dies.
On May 11 2011 12:05 Uhh Negative wrote: I honestly don't really care to participate in affecting the legislature of a country that I do not live in and I don't think anyone really should. It's their country, let them rule it. Doesn't mean I agree with this bill. I don't agree with it, but it's not my business to say what they should do.
Uhh Negative, guilty.
1 million people + will disagree with you.
That's fine 1 million people out of 7 billion isn't bad. Like I said, I'm of course against a death penalty for gays, but I don't see how it's my business to decide that for Uganda. Does the whole world need to approve every single bill of every nation?
I never said 1 million out of 7 billion - don't you dare mislead people.
I know, but what I'm saying is there are 7 billion people in the world, not every one of them has to be involved in the decision of a country of 30 million. I guess a petition is just a statement of opinion and that's perfectly fine, but if the petition is actually being considered by the country, they should be wary that most of the opinion is coming from people outside the country. As leaders of a country it is your job to act on the behalf of your citizens.
On May 11 2011 12:05 Uhh Negative wrote: I honestly don't really care to participate in affecting the legislature of a country that I do not live in and I don't think anyone really should. It's their country, let them rule it. Doesn't mean I agree with this bill. I don't agree with it, but it's not my business to say what they should do.
Uhh Negative, guilty.
1 million people + will disagree with you.
That's fine 1 million people out of 7 billion isn't bad. Like I said, I'm of course against a death penalty for gays, but I don't see how it's my business to decide that for Uganda. Does the whole world need to approve every single bill of every nation?
Well then...so much for individualism. We have no right to intervene in other nation's decisions but we give them the right who lives and who dies.
So... if people think in Indonesia think our death penalty is wrong, we should do what they say?
On May 11 2011 12:05 Uhh Negative wrote: I honestly don't really care to participate in affecting the legislature of a country that I do not live in and I don't think anyone really should. It's their country, let them rule it. Doesn't mean I agree with this bill. I don't agree with it, but it's not my business to say what they should do.
Uhh Negative, guilty.
1 million people + will disagree with you.
That's fine 1 million people out of 7 billion isn't bad. Like I said, I'm of course against a death penalty for gays, but I don't see how it's my business to decide that for Uganda. Does the whole world need to approve every single bill of every nation?
I never said 1 million out of 7 billion - don't you dare mislead people.
I know, but what I'm saying is there are 7 billion people in the world, not every one of them has to be involved in the decision of a country of 30 million. I guess a petition is just a statement of opinion, but if the petition is actually being considered by the country, they should be wary that most of the opinion is coming from people outside the country. As leaders of a country it is your job to act on the behalf of your citizens.
Screw you. Not valid by a far stretch. I take philosophy at Oxford.
Why does it matter if it's a choice? I'm seriously confused by that.
BTW: Autonomy should probably only be upheld if the leaders are acting legitimately. Even if I don't know precisely what a legitimate action is egregious violations of human rights are almost certainly an illegitimate action
AND: Even if a leader was allowed to do what they wanted, gay people are part of their citizenry too so this is a clear violation of the minimum protections that should be allowed to their citizenry.
On May 11 2011 12:05 Uhh Negative wrote: I honestly don't really care to participate in affecting the legislature of a country that I do not live in and I don't think anyone really should. It's their country, let them rule it. Doesn't mean I agree with this bill. I don't agree with it, but it's not my business to say what they should do.
Uhh Negative, guilty.
1 million people + will disagree with you.
That's fine 1 million people out of 7 billion isn't bad. Like I said, I'm of course against a death penalty for gays, but I don't see how it's my business to decide that for Uganda. Does the whole world need to approve every single bill of every nation?
I never said 1 million out of 7 billion - don't you dare mislead people.
I know, but what I'm saying is there are 7 billion people in the world, not every one of them has to be involved in the decision of a country of 30 million. I guess a petition is just a statement of opinion and that's perfectly fine, but if the petition is actually being considered by the country, they should be wary that most of the opinion is coming from people outside the country. As leaders of a country it is your job to act on the behalf of your citizens.
Is there really anything you can do? Like he said its their country they make their own rules and regulations.
On May 11 2011 12:13 Sight- wrote: Why does it matter if it's a choice? I'm seriously confused by that.
BTW: Autonomy should probably only be upheld if the leaders are acting legitimately. Even if I don't know precisely what a legitimate action is egregious violations of human rights are almost certainly an illegitimate action
Someone who is legitimately straight can't just "choose" to be gay, some people are just naturally attracted to the same sex; forcing someone who is gay to be straight is like forcing someone who is straight to be gay; it just doesn't work. EDIT: Hey! I had no idea that if he edits his post that it changes my quote of I post after he edits; no fair :3
On May 11 2011 12:05 Uhh Negative wrote: I honestly don't really care to participate in affecting the legislature of a country that I do not live in and I don't think anyone really should. It's their country, let them rule it. Doesn't mean I agree with this bill. I don't agree with it, but it's not my business to say what they should do.
Uhh Negative, guilty.
1 million people + will disagree with you.
That's fine 1 million people out of 7 billion isn't bad. Like I said, I'm of course against a death penalty for gays, but I don't see how it's my business to decide that for Uganda. Does the whole world need to approve every single bill of every nation?
I never said 1 million out of 7 billion - don't you dare mislead people.
I know, but what I'm saying is there are 7 billion people in the world, not every one of them has to be involved in the decision of a country of 30 million. I guess a petition is just a statement of opinion, but if the petition is actually being considered by the country, they should be wary that most of the opinion is coming from people outside the country. As leaders of a country it is your job to act on the behalf of your citizens.
Screw you. Not valid by a far stretch. I take philosophy at Oxford.
Oh, that must make you so much better than me.
Listen, I do not want people being killed for being gay! That's terrible! But what I'm saying is, in a democratic republic, such as Uganda, the rulers don't rule based on what the world wants, they ideally rule based on what the people of their country want. Now I'm sure most of the people of that country don't want to kill gays, so they should fight for that! Not me! It's really not my business. Just because, in this age of information, we know about everything going on the world, doesn't automatically mean we are responsible for everything that happens in it. It's just too much. That's what America needs to learn and stop interfering (mostly exploiting) so much with other nations. But that's kind of another topic.
On May 11 2011 12:05 Uhh Negative wrote: I honestly don't really care to participate in affecting the legislature of a country that I do not live in and I don't think anyone really should. It's their country, let them rule it. Doesn't mean I agree with this bill. I don't agree with it, but it's not my business to say what they should do.
Uhh Negative, guilty.
1 million people + will disagree with you.
That's fine 1 million people out of 7 billion isn't bad. Like I said, I'm of course against a death penalty for gays, but I don't see how it's my business to decide that for Uganda. Does the whole world need to approve every single bill of every nation?
I never said 1 million out of 7 billion - don't you dare mislead people.
I know, but what I'm saying is there are 7 billion people in the world, not every one of them has to be involved in the decision of a country of 30 million. I guess a petition is just a statement of opinion and that's perfectly fine, but if the petition is actually being considered by the country, they should be wary that most of the opinion is coming from people outside the country. As leaders of a country it is your job to act on the behalf of your citizens.
Is there really anything you can do? Like he said its their country they make their own rules and regulations.
On May 11 2011 12:13 Sight- wrote: Why does it matter if it's a choice? I'm seriously confused by that.
BTW: Autonomy should probably only be upheld if the leaders are acting legitimately. Even if I don't know precisely what a legitimate action is egregious violations of human rights are almost certainly an illegitimate action
AND: Even if a leader was allowed to do what they wanted, gay people are part of their citizenry too so this is a clear violation of the minimum protections that should be allowed to their citizenry.
Criminals are part of a citizenry also; and they have very minimum rights. (I am NOT comparing gays or relating them to criminals). My point is that Uganda has a different view of gays then the rest of the world, therefore, as you view a criminal they probably feel the same. (i do not agree with this before i get flamed.)
On May 11 2011 12:05 Uhh Negative wrote: I honestly don't really care to participate in affecting the legislature of a country that I do not live in and I don't think anyone really should. It's their country, let them rule it. Doesn't mean I agree with this bill. I don't agree with it, but it's not my business to say what they should do.
Uhh Negative, guilty.
1 million people + will disagree with you.
That's fine 1 million people out of 7 billion isn't bad. Like I said, I'm of course against a death penalty for gays, but I don't see how it's my business to decide that for Uganda. Does the whole world need to approve every single bill of every nation?
I never said 1 million out of 7 billion - don't you dare mislead people.
I know, but what I'm saying is there are 7 billion people in the world, not every one of them has to be involved in the decision of a country of 30 million. I guess a petition is just a statement of opinion, but if the petition is actually being considered by the country, they should be wary that most of the opinion is coming from people outside the country. As leaders of a country it is your job to act on the behalf of your citizens.
Screw you. Not valid by a far stretch. I take philosophy at Oxford.
Oh, that must make you so much better than me.
Listen, I do not want people being killed for being gay! That's terrible! But what I'm saying is, in a democratic republic, such as Uganda, the rulers don't rule based on what the world wants, they ideally rule based on what the people of their country want. Now I'm sure most of the people of that country don't want to kill gays, so they should fight for that! Not me! It's really not my business. Just because, in this age of information, we know about everything going on the world, doesn't automatically mean we are responsible for everything that happens in it. It's just too much. That's what America needs to learn and stop interfering (mostly exploiting) so much with other nations. But that's kind of another topic.
Watch the program that Starfox posted on the first page of this thread, should give you an idea of the Ugandan population's general attitude towards homosexuals.
On May 11 2011 12:13 Sight- wrote: Why does it matter if it's a choice? I'm seriously confused by that.
BTW: Autonomy should probably only be upheld if the leaders are acting legitimately. Even if I don't know precisely what a legitimate action is egregious violations of human rights are almost certainly an illegitimate action
AND: Even if a leader was allowed to do what they wanted, gay people are part of their citizenry too so this is a clear violation of the minimum protections that should be allowed to their citizenry.
Criminals are part of a citizenry also; and they have very minimum rights. (I am NOT comparing gays or relating them to criminals). My point is that Uganda has a different view of gays then the rest of the world, therefore, as you view a criminal they probably feel the same. (i do not agree with this before i get flamed.)
Right, the Westernized world doesn't need to become involved in affairs of every nation.
On May 11 2011 12:13 Sight- wrote: Why does it matter if it's a choice? I'm seriously confused by that.
BTW: Autonomy should probably only be upheld if the leaders are acting legitimately. Even if I don't know precisely what a legitimate action is egregious violations of human rights are almost certainly an illegitimate action
AND: Even if a leader was allowed to do what they wanted, gay people are part of their citizenry too so this is a clear violation of the minimum protections that should be allowed to their citizenry.
Criminals are also citizens; and they have very minimum rights. (I am NOT comparing homosexuals or relating them to criminals.) My point is that Uganda has a different view of homosexuals than the rest of the world.
Sorry I had to correct your fail quote.
Just because a country has a different view, doesn't mean shit if the whole world thinks differently. Our world has a different view. Earth > Country.
On May 11 2011 12:05 Uhh Negative wrote: I honestly don't really care to participate in affecting the legislature of a country that I do not live in and I don't think anyone really should. It's their country, let them rule it. Doesn't mean I agree with this bill. I don't agree with it, but it's not my business to say what they should do.
Uhh Negative, guilty.
1 million people + will disagree with you.
That's fine 1 million people out of 7 billion isn't bad. Like I said, I'm of course against a death penalty for gays, but I don't see how it's my business to decide that for Uganda. Does the whole world need to approve every single bill of every nation?
I never said 1 million out of 7 billion - don't you dare mislead people.
I know, but what I'm saying is there are 7 billion people in the world, not every one of them has to be involved in the decision of a country of 30 million. I guess a petition is just a statement of opinion, but if the petition is actually being considered by the country, they should be wary that most of the opinion is coming from people outside the country. As leaders of a country it is your job to act on the behalf of your citizens.
Screw you. Not valid by a far stretch. I take philosophy at Oxford.
Oh, that must make you so much better than me.
Listen, I do not want people being killed for being gay! That's terrible! But what I'm saying is, in a democratic republic, such as Uganda, the rulers don't rule based on what the world wants, they ideally rule based on what the people of their country want. Now I'm sure most of the people of that country don't want to kill gays, so they should fight for that! Not me! It's really not my business. Just because, in this age of information, we know about everything going on the world, doesn't automatically mean we are responsible for everything that happens in it. It's just too much. That's what America needs to learn and stop interfering (mostly exploiting) so much with other nations. But that's kind of another topic.
Democracies don't exist to execute the will of the majority at the expense of minority rights.
On May 11 2011 12:05 Uhh Negative wrote: I honestly don't really care to participate in affecting the legislature of a country that I do not live in and I don't think anyone really should. It's their country, let them rule it. Doesn't mean I agree with this bill. I don't agree with it, but it's not my business to say what they should do.
Uhh Negative, guilty.
1 million people + will disagree with you.
That's fine 1 million people out of 7 billion isn't bad. Like I said, I'm of course against a death penalty for gays, but I don't see how it's my business to decide that for Uganda. Does the whole world need to approve every single bill of every nation?
I never said 1 million out of 7 billion - don't you dare mislead people.
I know, but what I'm saying is there are 7 billion people in the world, not every one of them has to be involved in the decision of a country of 30 million. I guess a petition is just a statement of opinion, but if the petition is actually being considered by the country, they should be wary that most of the opinion is coming from people outside the country. As leaders of a country it is your job to act on the behalf of your citizens.
Screw you. Not valid by a far stretch. I take philosophy at Oxford.
Oh, that must make you so much better than me.
Listen, I do not want people being killed for being gay! That's terrible! But what I'm saying is, in a democratic republic, such as Uganda, the rulers don't rule based on what the world wants, they ideally rule based on what the people of their country want. Now I'm sure most of the people of that country don't want to kill gays, so they should fight for that! Not me! It's really not my business. Just because, in this age of information, we know about everything going on the world, doesn't automatically mean we are responsible for everything that happens in it. It's just too much. That's what America needs to learn and stop interfering (mostly exploiting) so much with other nations. But that's kind of another topic.
Watch the program that Starfox posted on the first page of this thread, should give you an idea of the Ugandan population's general attitude towards homosexuals.
Well, that is unfortunate. However, it's not my business to say whether their opinion is wrong or right and what they should do about it. Only to disagree or agree.
On May 11 2011 12:13 Sight- wrote: Why does it matter if it's a choice? I'm seriously confused by that.
BTW: Autonomy should probably only be upheld if the leaders are acting legitimately. Even if I don't know precisely what a legitimate action is egregious violations of human rights are almost certainly an illegitimate action
AND: Even if a leader was allowed to do what they wanted, gay people are part of their citizenry too so this is a clear violation of the minimum protections that should be allowed to their citizenry.
Criminals are also citizens; and they have very minimum rights. (I am NOT comparing homosexuals or relating them to criminals.) My point is that Uganda has a different view of homosexuals than the rest of the world.
Just because a country has a different view, doesn't mean shit if the whole world thinks differently. Our world has a different view. Earth > Country.
This logic justifies colonization of Africa
Uganda in general hates gays. It's integrated into society, and unlike what some TLer's believe, there is simply no way to fiat a mindset shift.
On May 11 2011 12:05 Uhh Negative wrote: I honestly don't really care to participate in affecting the legislature of a country that I do not live in and I don't think anyone really should. It's their country, let them rule it. Doesn't mean I agree with this bill. I don't agree with it, but it's not my business to say what they should do.
Uhh Negative, guilty.
1 million people + will disagree with you.
That's fine 1 million people out of 7 billion isn't bad. Like I said, I'm of course against a death penalty for gays, but I don't see how it's my business to decide that for Uganda. Does the whole world need to approve every single bill of every nation?
I never said 1 million out of 7 billion - don't you dare mislead people.
I know, but what I'm saying is there are 7 billion people in the world, not every one of them has to be involved in the decision of a country of 30 million. I guess a petition is just a statement of opinion, but if the petition is actually being considered by the country, they should be wary that most of the opinion is coming from people outside the country. As leaders of a country it is your job to act on the behalf of your citizens.
Screw you. Not valid by a far stretch. I take philosophy at Oxford.
Oh, that must make you so much better than me.
Listen, I do not want people being killed for being gay! That's terrible! But what I'm saying is, in a democratic republic, such as Uganda, the rulers don't rule based on what the world wants, they ideally rule based on what the people of their country want. Now I'm sure most of the people of that country don't want to kill gays, so they should fight for that! Not me! It's really not my business. Just because, in this age of information, we know about everything going on the world, doesn't automatically mean we are responsible for everything that happens in it. It's just too much. That's what America needs to learn and stop interfering (mostly exploiting) so much with other nations. But that's kind of another topic.
Democracies don't exist to execute the will of the majority at the expense of minority rights.
Very true, sir. In this case then, it seems that their government has failed to protect the rights of the minority.
On May 11 2011 12:05 Uhh Negative wrote: I honestly don't really care to participate in affecting the legislature of a country that I do not live in and I don't think anyone really should. It's their country, let them rule it. Doesn't mean I agree with this bill. I don't agree with it, but it's not my business to say what they should do.
Uhh Negative, guilty.
1 million people + will disagree with you.
That's fine 1 million people out of 7 billion isn't bad. Like I said, I'm of course against a death penalty for gays, but I don't see how it's my business to decide that for Uganda. Does the whole world need to approve every single bill of every nation?
I never said 1 million out of 7 billion - don't you dare mislead people.
I know, but what I'm saying is there are 7 billion people in the world, not every one of them has to be involved in the decision of a country of 30 million. I guess a petition is just a statement of opinion, but if the petition is actually being considered by the country, they should be wary that most of the opinion is coming from people outside the country. As leaders of a country it is your job to act on the behalf of your citizens.
Screw you. Not valid by a far stretch. I take philosophy at Oxford.
Oh, that must make you so much better than me.
Listen, I do not want people being killed for being gay! That's terrible! But what I'm saying is, in a democratic republic, such as Uganda, the rulers don't rule based on what the world wants, they ideally rule based on what the people of their country want. Now I'm sure most of the people of that country don't want to kill gays, so they should fight for that! Not me! It's really not my business. Just because, in this age of information, we know about everything going on the world, doesn't automatically mean we are responsible for everything that happens in it. It's just too much. That's what America needs to learn and stop interfering (mostly exploiting) so much with other nations. But that's kind of another topic.
Watch the program that Starfox posted on the first page of this thread, should give you an idea of the Ugandan population's general attitude towards homosexuals.
Well, that is unfortunate. However, it's not my business to say whether their opinion is wrong or right and what they should do about it. Only to disagree or agree.
We as a global citizen have a right to say who is right or wrong. If we think you are wrong, we will kick you out of our lonely planet.
On May 11 2011 12:13 Sight- wrote: Why does it matter if it's a choice? I'm seriously confused by that.
BTW: Autonomy should probably only be upheld if the leaders are acting legitimately. Even if I don't know precisely what a legitimate action is egregious violations of human rights are almost certainly an illegitimate action
AND: Even if a leader was allowed to do what they wanted, gay people are part of their citizenry too so this is a clear violation of the minimum protections that should be allowed to their citizenry.
Criminals are also citizens; and they have very minimum rights. (I am NOT comparing homosexuals or relating them to criminals.) My point is that Uganda has a different view of homosexuals than the rest of the world.
Just because a country has a different view, doesn't mean shit if the whole world thinks differently. Our world has a different view. Earth > Country.
This is the same logic that led to the colonization of Africa
Yeah more like Westernized nations > Africa, but same general concept. Forcing beliefs onto other people.
On May 11 2011 12:05 Uhh Negative wrote: I honestly don't really care to participate in affecting the legislature of a country that I do not live in and I don't think anyone really should. It's their country, let them rule it. Doesn't mean I agree with this bill. I don't agree with it, but it's not my business to say what they should do.
Uhh Negative, guilty.
1 million people + will disagree with you.
That's fine 1 million people out of 7 billion isn't bad. Like I said, I'm of course against a death penalty for gays, but I don't see how it's my business to decide that for Uganda. Does the whole world need to approve every single bill of every nation?
I never said 1 million out of 7 billion - don't you dare mislead people.
I know, but what I'm saying is there are 7 billion people in the world, not every one of them has to be involved in the decision of a country of 30 million. I guess a petition is just a statement of opinion, but if the petition is actually being considered by the country, they should be wary that most of the opinion is coming from people outside the country. As leaders of a country it is your job to act on the behalf of your citizens.
Screw you. Not valid by a far stretch. I take philosophy at Oxford.
Oh, that must make you so much better than me.
Listen, I do not want people being killed for being gay! That's terrible! But what I'm saying is, in a democratic republic, such as Uganda, the rulers don't rule based on what the world wants, they ideally rule based on what the people of their country want. Now I'm sure most of the people of that country don't want to kill gays, so they should fight for that! Not me! It's really not my business. Just because, in this age of information, we know about everything going on the world, doesn't automatically mean we are responsible for everything that happens in it. It's just too much. That's what America needs to learn and stop interfering (mostly exploiting) so much with other nations. But that's kind of another topic.
Watch the program that Starfox posted on the first page of this thread, should give you an idea of the Ugandan population's general attitude towards homosexuals.
Well, that is unfortunate. However, it's not my business to say whether their opinion is wrong or right and what they should do about it. Only to disagree or agree.
We as a global citizen have a right to say who is right or wrong. If we think you are wrong, we will kick you out of our lonely planet.
You have the right to an opinion of right or wrong
Another good topic for some of you to look into is the issue of female circumcision in Africa and western intervention.
On May 11 2011 11:53 Doorhandle wrote: I really thought this forum was full of intelligent people who shared my views on religion and homosexuality, but now I see otherwise. Im disgusted by the lack of understanding people have on either subject. Unfortunately, as humans, we have built in mechanisms that make us keep believing what we want to believe, even when faced with undeniable evidence against or for something. Right now, this thread is getting nowhere. Stop sharing religious and political views, no on is going to change their opinion, AT ALL. To the homophobic people in this thread, what the hell are you doing here? We're trying to raise awareness of a cause that you obviously dont agree with. Let's just try to do as much as we can to raise awareness about this bill and leave it at that (only 24 hours to go anyways...).
I disagree. All I can speak to is my own country but american law is very clear.
The first amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Legally redefining marriage as between one man and one woman, or an explicit legal ban on gay marriage prohibits churches from performing gay marriages. Such a law would therefore be in direct violation of the establishment clause and therefore illegal.
Gay marriage opponents cannot provide a reasonable justification for the opinion that performing gay marriages should be banned and cannot explain how such a ban can possibly be legal when it would CLEARLY prohibit the free exercise of religion. Until they can do this, they must recognize that their opinion is bigoted and not suitable for legislation.
On May 11 2011 12:06 platorepublic wrote: [quote] Uhh Negative, guilty.
1 million people + will disagree with you.
That's fine 1 million people out of 7 billion isn't bad. Like I said, I'm of course against a death penalty for gays, but I don't see how it's my business to decide that for Uganda. Does the whole world need to approve every single bill of every nation?
I never said 1 million out of 7 billion - don't you dare mislead people.
I know, but what I'm saying is there are 7 billion people in the world, not every one of them has to be involved in the decision of a country of 30 million. I guess a petition is just a statement of opinion, but if the petition is actually being considered by the country, they should be wary that most of the opinion is coming from people outside the country. As leaders of a country it is your job to act on the behalf of your citizens.
Screw you. Not valid by a far stretch. I take philosophy at Oxford.
Oh, that must make you so much better than me.
Listen, I do not want people being killed for being gay! That's terrible! But what I'm saying is, in a democratic republic, such as Uganda, the rulers don't rule based on what the world wants, they ideally rule based on what the people of their country want. Now I'm sure most of the people of that country don't want to kill gays, so they should fight for that! Not me! It's really not my business. Just because, in this age of information, we know about everything going on the world, doesn't automatically mean we are responsible for everything that happens in it. It's just too much. That's what America needs to learn and stop interfering (mostly exploiting) so much with other nations. But that's kind of another topic.
Watch the program that Starfox posted on the first page of this thread, should give you an idea of the Ugandan population's general attitude towards homosexuals.
Well, that is unfortunate. However, it's not my business to say whether their opinion is wrong or right and what they should do about it. Only to disagree or agree.
We as a global citizen have a right to say who is right or wrong. If we think you are wrong, we will kick you out of our lonely planet.
You have the right to an opinion of right or wrong
Not only that. I have the right to vote to ban things that I think are wrong.
On May 11 2011 12:08 Uhh Negative wrote: [quote] That's fine 1 million people out of 7 billion isn't bad. Like I said, I'm of course against a death penalty for gays, but I don't see how it's my business to decide that for Uganda. Does the whole world need to approve every single bill of every nation?
I never said 1 million out of 7 billion - don't you dare mislead people.
I know, but what I'm saying is there are 7 billion people in the world, not every one of them has to be involved in the decision of a country of 30 million. I guess a petition is just a statement of opinion, but if the petition is actually being considered by the country, they should be wary that most of the opinion is coming from people outside the country. As leaders of a country it is your job to act on the behalf of your citizens.
Screw you. Not valid by a far stretch. I take philosophy at Oxford.
Oh, that must make you so much better than me.
Listen, I do not want people being killed for being gay! That's terrible! But what I'm saying is, in a democratic republic, such as Uganda, the rulers don't rule based on what the world wants, they ideally rule based on what the people of their country want. Now I'm sure most of the people of that country don't want to kill gays, so they should fight for that! Not me! It's really not my business. Just because, in this age of information, we know about everything going on the world, doesn't automatically mean we are responsible for everything that happens in it. It's just too much. That's what America needs to learn and stop interfering (mostly exploiting) so much with other nations. But that's kind of another topic.
Watch the program that Starfox posted on the first page of this thread, should give you an idea of the Ugandan population's general attitude towards homosexuals.
Well, that is unfortunate. However, it's not my business to say whether their opinion is wrong or right and what they should do about it. Only to disagree or agree.
We as a global citizen have a right to say who is right or wrong. If we think you are wrong, we will kick you out of our lonely planet.
You have the right to an opinion of right or wrong
Not only that. I have the right to vote to ban things that I think are wrong.
Right, that's an opinion. What you think is wrong other people might not think is wrong, and what matters in this case, is what the people of Uganda think is wrong, because the policy affects Uganda.
whites are cool blacks are cool latinos are cool asians are cool fat people are cool skinny people are cool guys are cool girls are cool gays are cool lesbians are cool
stop getting in the way of other people's fucking lifestyles, holier than thou attitudes. All the bigots trying to regulate or change someone's lifestyle and sexual preferences should be the ones bound for "hell" (IF that exists, but that's a different debate) JUST LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE, it doesn't affect you, what's happening behind closed doors of other people, or in public.
On May 11 2011 12:09 platorepublic wrote: [quote] I never said 1 million out of 7 billion - don't you dare mislead people.
I know, but what I'm saying is there are 7 billion people in the world, not every one of them has to be involved in the decision of a country of 30 million. I guess a petition is just a statement of opinion, but if the petition is actually being considered by the country, they should be wary that most of the opinion is coming from people outside the country. As leaders of a country it is your job to act on the behalf of your citizens.
Screw you. Not valid by a far stretch. I take philosophy at Oxford.
Oh, that must make you so much better than me.
Listen, I do not want people being killed for being gay! That's terrible! But what I'm saying is, in a democratic republic, such as Uganda, the rulers don't rule based on what the world wants, they ideally rule based on what the people of their country want. Now I'm sure most of the people of that country don't want to kill gays, so they should fight for that! Not me! It's really not my business. Just because, in this age of information, we know about everything going on the world, doesn't automatically mean we are responsible for everything that happens in it. It's just too much. That's what America needs to learn and stop interfering (mostly exploiting) so much with other nations. But that's kind of another topic.
Watch the program that Starfox posted on the first page of this thread, should give you an idea of the Ugandan population's general attitude towards homosexuals.
Well, that is unfortunate. However, it's not my business to say whether their opinion is wrong or right and what they should do about it. Only to disagree or agree.
We as a global citizen have a right to say who is right or wrong. If we think you are wrong, we will kick you out of our lonely planet.
You have the right to an opinion of right or wrong
Not only that. I have the right to vote to ban things that I think are wrong.
Right, that's an opinion.
And if the majority agrees with me, it becomes a right.
On May 11 2011 12:11 Uhh Negative wrote: [quote] I know, but what I'm saying is there are 7 billion people in the world, not every one of them has to be involved in the decision of a country of 30 million. I guess a petition is just a statement of opinion, but if the petition is actually being considered by the country, they should be wary that most of the opinion is coming from people outside the country. As leaders of a country it is your job to act on the behalf of your citizens.
Screw you. Not valid by a far stretch. I take philosophy at Oxford.
Oh, that must make you so much better than me.
Listen, I do not want people being killed for being gay! That's terrible! But what I'm saying is, in a democratic republic, such as Uganda, the rulers don't rule based on what the world wants, they ideally rule based on what the people of their country want. Now I'm sure most of the people of that country don't want to kill gays, so they should fight for that! Not me! It's really not my business. Just because, in this age of information, we know about everything going on the world, doesn't automatically mean we are responsible for everything that happens in it. It's just too much. That's what America needs to learn and stop interfering (mostly exploiting) so much with other nations. But that's kind of another topic.
Watch the program that Starfox posted on the first page of this thread, should give you an idea of the Ugandan population's general attitude towards homosexuals.
Well, that is unfortunate. However, it's not my business to say whether their opinion is wrong or right and what they should do about it. Only to disagree or agree.
We as a global citizen have a right to say who is right or wrong. If we think you are wrong, we will kick you out of our lonely planet.
You have the right to an opinion of right or wrong
Not only that. I have the right to vote to ban things that I think are wrong.
Right, that's an opinion.
And if the majority agrees with me, it becomes a right.
This is a localized issue. Maybe if you want to talk about persecution of gays on a global basis then your opinion has a weight.
On May 11 2011 12:13 platorepublic wrote: [quote] Screw you. Not valid by a far stretch. I take philosophy at Oxford.
Oh, that must make you so much better than me.
Listen, I do not want people being killed for being gay! That's terrible! But what I'm saying is, in a democratic republic, such as Uganda, the rulers don't rule based on what the world wants, they ideally rule based on what the people of their country want. Now I'm sure most of the people of that country don't want to kill gays, so they should fight for that! Not me! It's really not my business. Just because, in this age of information, we know about everything going on the world, doesn't automatically mean we are responsible for everything that happens in it. It's just too much. That's what America needs to learn and stop interfering (mostly exploiting) so much with other nations. But that's kind of another topic.
Watch the program that Starfox posted on the first page of this thread, should give you an idea of the Ugandan population's general attitude towards homosexuals.
Well, that is unfortunate. However, it's not my business to say whether their opinion is wrong or right and what they should do about it. Only to disagree or agree.
We as a global citizen have a right to say who is right or wrong. If we think you are wrong, we will kick you out of our lonely planet.
You have the right to an opinion of right or wrong
Not only that. I have the right to vote to ban things that I think are wrong.
Right, that's an opinion.
And if the majority agrees with me, it becomes a right.
This is a localized issue. Maybe if you want to talk about persecution of gays on a global basis then your opinion has a weight.
There is no such thing as a localised issue. That's YOUR poor judgement and opinion.
On May 11 2011 12:18 Uhh Negative wrote: [quote] Oh, that must make you so much better than me.
Listen, I do not want people being killed for being gay! That's terrible! But what I'm saying is, in a democratic republic, such as Uganda, the rulers don't rule based on what the world wants, they ideally rule based on what the people of their country want. Now I'm sure most of the people of that country don't want to kill gays, so they should fight for that! Not me! It's really not my business. Just because, in this age of information, we know about everything going on the world, doesn't automatically mean we are responsible for everything that happens in it. It's just too much. That's what America needs to learn and stop interfering (mostly exploiting) so much with other nations. But that's kind of another topic.
Watch the program that Starfox posted on the first page of this thread, should give you an idea of the Ugandan population's general attitude towards homosexuals.
Well, that is unfortunate. However, it's not my business to say whether their opinion is wrong or right and what they should do about it. Only to disagree or agree.
We as a global citizen have a right to say who is right or wrong. If we think you are wrong, we will kick you out of our lonely planet.
You have the right to an opinion of right or wrong
Not only that. I have the right to vote to ban things that I think are wrong.
Right, that's an opinion.
And if the majority agrees with me, it becomes a right.
This is a localized issue. Maybe if you want to talk about persecution of gays on a global basis then your opinion has a weight.
There is no such thing as a localised issue. That's YOUR poor judgement and opinion.
I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. Maybe African nations don't GIVE A SHIT what people from other countries think. You can have all the opinions you want, but at the end of the day they should do what they want to do. They shouldn't do this or that just because some country 1000s of miles away thinks it bad. I'm tired of all this "white love" bullshit assuming the whole world needs to be Westernized.
What if you were a Congressmen voting on a bill and some Mongolians think that bill is the worst thing in the world? You shouldn't even consider it, they aren't your constituents.
On May 11 2011 12:20 jello_biafra wrote: [quote] Watch the program that Starfox posted on the first page of this thread, should give you an idea of the Ugandan population's general attitude towards homosexuals.
Well, that is unfortunate. However, it's not my business to say whether their opinion is wrong or right and what they should do about it. Only to disagree or agree.
We as a global citizen have a right to say who is right or wrong. If we think you are wrong, we will kick you out of our lonely planet.
You have the right to an opinion of right or wrong
Not only that. I have the right to vote to ban things that I think are wrong.
Right, that's an opinion.
And if the majority agrees with me, it becomes a right.
This is a localized issue. Maybe if you want to talk about persecution of gays on a global basis then your opinion has a weight.
There is no such thing as a localised issue. That's YOUR poor judgement and opinion.
I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. Maybe African nations don't GIVE A SHIT what people from other countries think. You can have all the opinions you want, but at the end of the day they should do what they want to do. They shouldn't do this or that just because some country 1000s of miles away thinks it bad. I'm tired of all this "white love" bullshit assuming the whole world needs to be Westernized.
You are misunderstood Period
Edit: And I just realised you are evil deep in your heart. I feel so sorry for you. I will stop arguing now, it wasn't even an argument.
On May 11 2011 12:05 Uhh Negative wrote: I honestly don't really care to participate in affecting the legislature of a country that I do not live in and I don't think anyone really should. It's their country, let them rule it. Doesn't mean I agree with this bill. I don't agree with it, but it's not my business to say what they should do.
Uhh Negative, guilty.
1 million people + will disagree with you.
That's fine 1 million people out of 7 billion isn't bad. Like I said, I'm of course against a death penalty for gays, but I don't see how it's my business to decide that for Uganda. Does the whole world need to approve every single bill of every nation?
I never said 1 million out of 7 billion - don't you dare mislead people.
I know, but what I'm saying is there are 7 billion people in the world, not every one of them has to be involved in the decision of a country of 30 million. I guess a petition is just a statement of opinion, but if the petition is actually being considered by the country, they should be wary that most of the opinion is coming from people outside the country. As leaders of a country it is your job to act on the behalf of your citizens.
Screw you. Not valid by a far stretch. I take philosophy at Oxford.
I teach philosophy at Oxford and can say with certitude that you're incorrect.
On May 11 2011 12:13 platorepublic wrote: [quote] Screw you. Not valid by a far stretch. I take philosophy at Oxford.
Oh, that must make you so much better than me.
Listen, I do not want people being killed for being gay! That's terrible! But what I'm saying is, in a democratic republic, such as Uganda, the rulers don't rule based on what the world wants, they ideally rule based on what the people of their country want. Now I'm sure most of the people of that country don't want to kill gays, so they should fight for that! Not me! It's really not my business. Just because, in this age of information, we know about everything going on the world, doesn't automatically mean we are responsible for everything that happens in it. It's just too much. That's what America needs to learn and stop interfering (mostly exploiting) so much with other nations. But that's kind of another topic.
Watch the program that Starfox posted on the first page of this thread, should give you an idea of the Ugandan population's general attitude towards homosexuals.
Well, that is unfortunate. However, it's not my business to say whether their opinion is wrong or right and what they should do about it. Only to disagree or agree.
We as a global citizen have a right to say who is right or wrong. If we think you are wrong, we will kick you out of our lonely planet.
You have the right to an opinion of right or wrong
Not only that. I have the right to vote to ban things that I think are wrong.
Right, that's an opinion.
And if the majority agrees with me, it becomes a right.
This is a localized issue. Maybe if you want to talk about persecution of gays on a global basis then your opinion has a weight.
Localized in a single country or not, we do have a little thing called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which as a member of the human species we all have a hand in upholding.
On May 11 2011 12:24 Uhh Negative wrote: [quote] Well, that is unfortunate. However, it's not my business to say whether their opinion is wrong or right and what they should do about it. Only to disagree or agree.
We as a global citizen have a right to say who is right or wrong. If we think you are wrong, we will kick you out of our lonely planet.
You have the right to an opinion of right or wrong
Not only that. I have the right to vote to ban things that I think are wrong.
Right, that's an opinion.
And if the majority agrees with me, it becomes a right.
This is a localized issue. Maybe if you want to talk about persecution of gays on a global basis then your opinion has a weight.
There is no such thing as a localised issue. That's YOUR poor judgement and opinion.
I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. Maybe African nations don't GIVE A SHIT what people from other countries think. You can have all the opinions you want, but at the end of the day they should do what they want to do. They shouldn't do this or that just because some country 1000s of miles away thinks it bad. I'm tired of all this "white love" bullshit assuming the whole world needs to be Westernized.
You are misunderstood Period
I don't see how you don't understand? As someone from the United Kingdom, who probably has never been to Uganda, someone who doesn't understand the culture. You aren't qualified to have an opinion that they should consider. You are qualified to have an opinion.
Lol, you judge I am evil in my heart just from reading about me defending Uganda to have their own choices and not have other people who don't understand what is going on interfere? Enjoy your ban.
On May 11 2011 12:05 Uhh Negative wrote: I honestly don't really care to participate in affecting the legislature of a country that I do not live in and I don't think anyone really should. It's their country, let them rule it. Doesn't mean I agree with this bill. I don't agree with it, but it's not my business to say what they should do.
Uhh Negative, guilty.
1 million people + will disagree with you.
That's fine 1 million people out of 7 billion isn't bad. Like I said, I'm of course against a death penalty for gays, but I don't see how it's my business to decide that for Uganda. Does the whole world need to approve every single bill of every nation?
I never said 1 million out of 7 billion - don't you dare mislead people.
I know, but what I'm saying is there are 7 billion people in the world, not every one of them has to be involved in the decision of a country of 30 million. I guess a petition is just a statement of opinion, but if the petition is actually being considered by the country, they should be wary that most of the opinion is coming from people outside the country. As leaders of a country it is your job to act on the behalf of your citizens.
Screw you. Not valid by a far stretch. I take philosophy at Oxford.
I teach philosophy at Oxford and can say with certitude that you're incorrect.
See how this works?
I'm a masters protoss, making me more qualified than anyone else in this thread.
But really, credentials don't mean much given the subjective nature and political implications of the topic presented
On May 11 2011 12:18 Uhh Negative wrote: [quote] Oh, that must make you so much better than me.
Listen, I do not want people being killed for being gay! That's terrible! But what I'm saying is, in a democratic republic, such as Uganda, the rulers don't rule based on what the world wants, they ideally rule based on what the people of their country want. Now I'm sure most of the people of that country don't want to kill gays, so they should fight for that! Not me! It's really not my business. Just because, in this age of information, we know about everything going on the world, doesn't automatically mean we are responsible for everything that happens in it. It's just too much. That's what America needs to learn and stop interfering (mostly exploiting) so much with other nations. But that's kind of another topic.
Watch the program that Starfox posted on the first page of this thread, should give you an idea of the Ugandan population's general attitude towards homosexuals.
Well, that is unfortunate. However, it's not my business to say whether their opinion is wrong or right and what they should do about it. Only to disagree or agree.
We as a global citizen have a right to say who is right or wrong. If we think you are wrong, we will kick you out of our lonely planet.
You have the right to an opinion of right or wrong
Not only that. I have the right to vote to ban things that I think are wrong.
Right, that's an opinion.
And if the majority agrees with me, it becomes a right.
This is a localized issue. Maybe if you want to talk about persecution of gays on a global basis then your opinion has a weight.
Localized in a single country or not, we do have a little thing called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which as a member of the human species we all have a hand in upholding.
It's arguable this doesn't go against this though. We put people to death here in the United States. Definition of a crime punishable by death isn't concrete, I don't think. Anyway, lets not argue about this. There's no point.
On May 11 2011 12:13 Sight- wrote: Why does it matter if it's a choice? I'm seriously confused by that.
BTW: Autonomy should probably only be upheld if the leaders are acting legitimately. Even if I don't know precisely what a legitimate action is egregious violations of human rights are almost certainly an illegitimate action
AND: Even if a leader was allowed to do what they wanted, gay people are part of their citizenry too so this is a clear violation of the minimum protections that should be allowed to their citizenry.
Criminals are part of a citizenry also; and they have very minimum rights. (I am NOT comparing gays or relating them to criminals). My point is that Uganda has a different view of gays then the rest of the world, therefore, as you view a criminal they probably feel the same. (i do not agree with this before i get flamed.)
A) First, I'd dispute whether criminals should have as few rights as they have.
B) I don't care what Uganda thinks? They're wrong.
EDIT: We get that you don't agree with the bill but you're committing the relativist fallacy by "letting it go".
Let me just put this out here. If your best friend's brother or sister died because of this, could those defending Uganda's right to enact this law still hold the same stance? Or, what if the country that friend's sibling lived in another country that enacted the same kind of law, and they became a victim of it?
I'm not trying to say this aggressively, I'm honestly interested in the responses.
This whole thread is... so crazy. Sometimes I wonder how people get their priorities so out of whack. Respecting the Ugandan government is important... yes. Respecting religious autonomy is important... yes. But this government is asking those of us who provide aid to simply accept that they will slaughter half a million gays and lesbians (the proposed number in their country). I fully understand that the world is full of atrocities that have desensitized us to this sort of thing, but if it has gotten so bad that we wont even do such small things to make such a huge difference...
On May 11 2011 12:13 Sight- wrote: Why does it matter if it's a choice? I'm seriously confused by that.
BTW: Autonomy should probably only be upheld if the leaders are acting legitimately. Even if I don't know precisely what a legitimate action is egregious violations of human rights are almost certainly an illegitimate action
AND: Even if a leader was allowed to do what they wanted, gay people are part of their citizenry too so this is a clear violation of the minimum protections that should be allowed to their citizenry.
Criminals are part of a citizenry also; and they have very minimum rights. (I am NOT comparing gays or relating them to criminals). My point is that Uganda has a different view of gays then the rest of the world, therefore, as you view a criminal they probably feel the same. (i do not agree with this before i get flamed.)
A) First, I'd dispute whether criminals should have as few rights as they have.
B) I don't care what Uganda thinks? They're wrong.
EDIT: We get that you don't agree with the bill but you're committing the relativist fallacy by "letting it go".
On May 11 2011 12:13 Sight- wrote: Why does it matter if it's a choice? I'm seriously confused by that.
BTW: Autonomy should probably only be upheld if the leaders are acting legitimately. Even if I don't know precisely what a legitimate action is egregious violations of human rights are almost certainly an illegitimate action
AND: Even if a leader was allowed to do what they wanted, gay people are part of their citizenry too so this is a clear violation of the minimum protections that should be allowed to their citizenry.
Criminals are part of a citizenry also; and they have very minimum rights. (I am NOT comparing gays or relating them to criminals). My point is that Uganda has a different view of gays then the rest of the world, therefore, as you view a criminal they probably feel the same. (i do not agree with this before i get flamed.)
A) First, I'd dispute whether criminals should have as few rights as they have.
B) I don't care what Uganda thinks? They're wrong.
EDIT: We get that you don't agree with the bill but you're committing the relativist fallacy by "letting it go".
Lol, what if they think you're wrong? ^_^
Ok. So your saying all morality comes down to an opinion? We can go down this road.
On May 11 2011 12:51 Velocirapture wrote: This whole thread is... so crazy. Sometimes I wonder how people get their priorities so out of whack. Respecting the Ugandan government is important... yes. Respecting religious autonomy is important... yes. But this government is asking those of us who provide aid to simply accept that they will slaughter half a million gays and lesbians (the proposed number in their country). I fully understand that the world is full of atrocities that have desensitized us to this sort of thing, but if it has gotten so bad that we wont even do such small things to make such a huge difference...
Hmm, well I guess I'm just thinking there has to be a line you draw, where you aren't responsible for the actions of everyone in the world. In today's world the media tries to make us feel responsible for stopping every single bad thing we see in every country, when right at home there are problems you could be spending effort on instead. In fact, it's more efficient to try solve the problems of those around you because it's what you know best, it's your specialty, if you will. The world doesn't need firefighters trying to solve problems that chemists are having. You get what I'm saying? I definitely see where you are coming from too.
On May 11 2011 12:13 Sight- wrote: Why does it matter if it's a choice? I'm seriously confused by that.
BTW: Autonomy should probably only be upheld if the leaders are acting legitimately. Even if I don't know precisely what a legitimate action is egregious violations of human rights are almost certainly an illegitimate action
AND: Even if a leader was allowed to do what they wanted, gay people are part of their citizenry too so this is a clear violation of the minimum protections that should be allowed to their citizenry.
Criminals are part of a citizenry also; and they have very minimum rights. (I am NOT comparing gays or relating them to criminals). My point is that Uganda has a different view of gays then the rest of the world, therefore, as you view a criminal they probably feel the same. (i do not agree with this before i get flamed.)
A) First, I'd dispute whether criminals should have as few rights as they have.
B) I don't care what Uganda thinks? They're wrong.
EDIT: We get that you don't agree with the bill but you're committing the relativist fallacy by "letting it go".
Lol, what if they think you're wrong? ^_^
Ok. So your saying all morality comes down to an opinion? We can go down this road.
Edit: Not trying to be combative.
We all course it does. That's why there will never be some universal moral code that no one ever disputes, ever. That's why its always going to be a debated topic.
On May 11 2011 12:51 Velocirapture wrote: This whole thread is... so crazy. Sometimes I wonder how people get their priorities so out of whack. Respecting the Ugandan government is important... yes. Respecting religious autonomy is important... yes. But this government is asking those of us who provide aid to simply accept that they will slaughter half a million gays and lesbians (the proposed number in their country). I fully understand that the world is full of atrocities that have desensitized us to this sort of thing, but if it has gotten so bad that we wont even do such small things to make such a huge difference...
Hmm, well I guess I'm just thinking there has to be a line you draw, where you aren't responsible for the actions of everyone in the world. In today's world the media tries to make us feel responsible for stopping every single bad thing we see in every country, when right at home there are problems you could be spending effort on instead. In fact, it's more efficient to try solve the problems of those around you because it's what you know best, it's your specialty, if you will. The world doesn't need firefighters trying to solve problems about chemists. You get what I'm saying? I definitely see where you are coming from too.
I have no idea what your saying. Who are the super efficient problem solvers of the world's atrocities? And why isn't the marginal good you do when you donate, or sign better than nothing at all?
On May 11 2011 12:51 Velocirapture wrote: This whole thread is... so crazy. Sometimes I wonder how people get their priorities so out of whack. Respecting the Ugandan government is important... yes. Respecting religious autonomy is important... yes. But this government is asking those of us who provide aid to simply accept that they will slaughter half a million gays and lesbians (the proposed number in their country). I fully understand that the world is full of atrocities that have desensitized us to this sort of thing, but if it has gotten so bad that we wont even do such small things to make such a huge difference...
Hmm, well I guess I'm just thinking there has to be a line you draw, where you aren't responsible for the actions of everyone in the world. In today's world the media tries to make us feel responsible for stopping every single bad thing we see in every country, when right at home there are problems you could be spending effort on instead. In fact, it's more efficient to try solve the problems of those around you because it's what you know best, it's your specialty, if you will. The world doesn't need firefighters trying to solve problems about chemists. You get what I'm saying? I definitely see where you are coming from too.
I have no idea what your saying. Who are the super efficient problem solvers of the world's atrocities? And why isn't the marginal good you do when you donate, or sign better than nothing at all?
I'm saying there is too much focus on "us" (us meaning westernized nations) focusing on "helping" other nations which we know really not much about. It's a completely different culture. So if everyone worked on solving the problems around them, it's much more efficient because you know the full story behind the problems and what needs to be done to fix it. Obviously people need to help eachother but just because we now have the ability to travel 1000 miles to help people doesn't necessarily mean we should do that instead of helping someone a mile down the road, where you are much better suited to helping because of your knowledge of the culture, the intent of the people around you, etc. Basically you are better equipped to help them. Help is better allocated in a way where it'll be used most efficiently. It's pretty crazy how like people in the US see Africa. It's completely different than our perception forged by the media. A lot of people see Africa as NEEDING the US and other countries to help them do everything like they aren't capable of doing anything. This just isn't the case.
On May 11 2011 12:20 jello_biafra wrote: [quote] Watch the program that Starfox posted on the first page of this thread, should give you an idea of the Ugandan population's general attitude towards homosexuals.
Well, that is unfortunate. However, it's not my business to say whether their opinion is wrong or right and what they should do about it. Only to disagree or agree.
We as a global citizen have a right to say who is right or wrong. If we think you are wrong, we will kick you out of our lonely planet.
You have the right to an opinion of right or wrong
Not only that. I have the right to vote to ban things that I think are wrong.
Right, that's an opinion.
And if the majority agrees with me, it becomes a right.
This is a localized issue. Maybe if you want to talk about persecution of gays on a global basis then your opinion has a weight.
There is no such thing as a localised issue. That's YOUR poor judgement and opinion.
I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. Maybe African nations don't GIVE A SHIT what people from other countries think. You can have all the opinions you want, but at the end of the day they should do what they want to do. They shouldn't do this or that just because some country 1000s of miles away thinks it bad. I'm tired of all this "white love" bullshit assuming the whole world needs to be Westernized.
What if you were a Congressmen voting on a bill and some Mongolians think that bill is the worst thing in the world? You shouldn't even consider it, they aren't your constituents.
There's clear western interference here, but it's not where you think it is. American evangelicals helped develop this bill and have funded campaigns to support it. This is a western bill, but its proponents could never hope to get it passed in a western country.
Beyond that, I can't really understand your extreme-isolationist perspective. Sure, we shouldn't care if other countries have different speed limits, drinking ages, legislatures, or judicial systems as us, but there's nothing provincial about killing innocent people by force of law. This is not the sort of issue about which we should be neutral. It's a massive human right's violation. If we don't stand against something like this, where do we stand?
You're looking at this too much from a moral relitivist's standpoint. Even if that's the case, preventing needless loss of life should be high on everybody's priorities.
State sovereignty is important, but that doesn't mean everybody turns a blind eye to other country's actions towards its citizens.
On May 11 2011 12:56 Uhh Negative wrote: We all course it does. That's why there will never be some universal moral code that no one ever disputes, ever. That's why its always going to be a debated topic.
Killing adults because they engage in consensual relationships with other adults should never be against any law.
I think anyone who argues that statement is trying to play devil's advocate. There is no other reason to support it logically.
On May 11 2011 12:24 Uhh Negative wrote: [quote] Well, that is unfortunate. However, it's not my business to say whether their opinion is wrong or right and what they should do about it. Only to disagree or agree.
We as a global citizen have a right to say who is right or wrong. If we think you are wrong, we will kick you out of our lonely planet.
You have the right to an opinion of right or wrong
Not only that. I have the right to vote to ban things that I think are wrong.
Right, that's an opinion.
And if the majority agrees with me, it becomes a right.
This is a localized issue. Maybe if you want to talk about persecution of gays on a global basis then your opinion has a weight.
There is no such thing as a localised issue. That's YOUR poor judgement and opinion.
I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. Maybe African nations don't GIVE A SHIT what people from other countries think. You can have all the opinions you want, but at the end of the day they should do what they want to do. They shouldn't do this or that just because some country 1000s of miles away thinks it bad. I'm tired of all this "white love" bullshit assuming the whole world needs to be Westernized.
What if you were a Congressmen voting on a bill and some Mongolians think that bill is the worst thing in the world? You shouldn't even consider it, they aren't your constituents.
There's clear western interference here, but it's not where you think it is. American evangelicals helped develop this bill and have funded campaigns to support it. This is a western bill, but its proponents could never hope to get it passed in a western country.
Beyond that, I can't really understand your extreme-isolationist perspective. Sure, we shouldn't care if other countries have different speed limits, drinking ages, legislatures, or judicial systems as us, but there's nothing provincial about killing innocent people by force of law. This is not the sort of issue about which we should be neutral. It's a massive human right's violation. If we don't stand against something like this, where do we stand?
I don't know. Is every person responsible for the human rights of the whole world? Something to think about, I guess. I guess it also depends on the definition of "stand against" something. Sure, I'm against it.
On May 11 2011 12:56 Uhh Negative wrote: We all course it does. That's why there will never be some universal moral code that no one ever disputes, ever. That's why its always going to be a debated topic.
Killing adults because they engage in consensual relationships with other adults should never be against any law.
I think anyone who argues that statement is trying to play devil's advocate. There is no other reason to support it logically.
Sure, I am playing devil's advocate here. I'm arguing on principle. It's good to think about.
I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though.
I'll also say one of my cousins is currently in Uganda teaching 5th grade. Not like this matters though. Just kind of interesting I guess.
On May 11 2011 12:25 platorepublic wrote: [quote] We as a global citizen have a right to say who is right or wrong. If we think you are wrong, we will kick you out of our lonely planet.
You have the right to an opinion of right or wrong
Not only that. I have the right to vote to ban things that I think are wrong.
Right, that's an opinion.
And if the majority agrees with me, it becomes a right.
This is a localized issue. Maybe if you want to talk about persecution of gays on a global basis then your opinion has a weight.
There is no such thing as a localised issue. That's YOUR poor judgement and opinion.
I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. Maybe African nations don't GIVE A SHIT what people from other countries think. You can have all the opinions you want, but at the end of the day they should do what they want to do. They shouldn't do this or that just because some country 1000s of miles away thinks it bad. I'm tired of all this "white love" bullshit assuming the whole world needs to be Westernized.
What if you were a Congressmen voting on a bill and some Mongolians think that bill is the worst thing in the world? You shouldn't even consider it, they aren't your constituents.
There's clear western interference here, but it's not where you think it is. American evangelicals helped develop this bill and have funded campaigns to support it. This is a western bill, but its proponents could never hope to get it passed in a western country.
Beyond that, I can't really understand your extreme-isolationist perspective. Sure, we shouldn't care if other countries have different speed limits, drinking ages, legislatures, or judicial systems as us, but there's nothing provincial about killing innocent people by force of law. This is not the sort of issue about which we should be neutral. It's a massive human right's violation. If we don't stand against something like this, where do we stand?
I don't know. Is every person responsible for the human rights of the whole world? Something to think about, I guess. I guess it also depends on the definition of "stand against" something. Sure, I'm against it.
I don't think you have to worry about the US invading Uganda and carpet-bombing cities.
I remember, an episode of the West Wing. A character is asking why the US should give out a loan to the Mexican government, sending out taxpayer's money elsewhere. His response was basically, "There are too many things in the world we can't do. Mexico is on fire. Why help them? Because we can."
The US has the means and ability to help people around the world. We don't make it a priority at all time, but I think attempting to stop the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians shouldn't be avoided just because we have our own problems.
On May 11 2011 12:25 platorepublic wrote: [quote] We as a global citizen have a right to say who is right or wrong. If we think you are wrong, we will kick you out of our lonely planet.
You have the right to an opinion of right or wrong
Not only that. I have the right to vote to ban things that I think are wrong.
Right, that's an opinion.
And if the majority agrees with me, it becomes a right.
This is a localized issue. Maybe if you want to talk about persecution of gays on a global basis then your opinion has a weight.
There is no such thing as a localised issue. That's YOUR poor judgement and opinion.
I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. Maybe African nations don't GIVE A SHIT what people from other countries think. You can have all the opinions you want, but at the end of the day they should do what they want to do. They shouldn't do this or that just because some country 1000s of miles away thinks it bad. I'm tired of all this "white love" bullshit assuming the whole world needs to be Westernized.
What if you were a Congressmen voting on a bill and some Mongolians think that bill is the worst thing in the world? You shouldn't even consider it, they aren't your constituents.
There's clear western interference here, but it's not where you think it is. American evangelicals helped develop this bill and have funded campaigns to support it. This is a western bill, but its proponents could never hope to get it passed in a western country.
Beyond that, I can't really understand your extreme-isolationist perspective. Sure, we shouldn't care if other countries have different speed limits, drinking ages, legislatures, or judicial systems as us, but there's nothing provincial about killing innocent people by force of law. This is not the sort of issue about which we should be neutral. It's a massive human right's violation. If we don't stand against something like this, where do we stand?
I don't know. Is every person responsible for the human rights of the whole world? Something to think about, I guess. I guess it also depends on the definition of "stand against" something. Sure, I'm against it.
On May 11 2011 12:56 Uhh Negative wrote: We all course it does. That's why there will never be some universal moral code that no one ever disputes, ever. That's why its always going to be a debated topic.
Killing adults because they engage in consensual relationships with other adults should never be against any law.
I think anyone who argues that statement is trying to play devil's advocate. There is no other reason to support it logically.
Sure, I am playing devil's advocate here. I'm arguing on principle. It's good to think about.
I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though.
I've thought about it in detail. Moral relativism is wrong. I used to believe in it, though. It's appealing, but ultimately I think once you respect rights, you throw out the ability to be a moral relativist.
On May 11 2011 12:27 Uhh Negative wrote: [quote] You have the right to an opinion of right or wrong
Not only that. I have the right to vote to ban things that I think are wrong.
Right, that's an opinion.
And if the majority agrees with me, it becomes a right.
This is a localized issue. Maybe if you want to talk about persecution of gays on a global basis then your opinion has a weight.
There is no such thing as a localised issue. That's YOUR poor judgement and opinion.
I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. Maybe African nations don't GIVE A SHIT what people from other countries think. You can have all the opinions you want, but at the end of the day they should do what they want to do. They shouldn't do this or that just because some country 1000s of miles away thinks it bad. I'm tired of all this "white love" bullshit assuming the whole world needs to be Westernized.
What if you were a Congressmen voting on a bill and some Mongolians think that bill is the worst thing in the world? You shouldn't even consider it, they aren't your constituents.
There's clear western interference here, but it's not where you think it is. American evangelicals helped develop this bill and have funded campaigns to support it. This is a western bill, but its proponents could never hope to get it passed in a western country.
Beyond that, I can't really understand your extreme-isolationist perspective. Sure, we shouldn't care if other countries have different speed limits, drinking ages, legislatures, or judicial systems as us, but there's nothing provincial about killing innocent people by force of law. This is not the sort of issue about which we should be neutral. It's a massive human right's violation. If we don't stand against something like this, where do we stand?
I don't know. Is every person responsible for the human rights of the whole world? Something to think about, I guess. I guess it also depends on the definition of "stand against" something. Sure, I'm against it.
On May 11 2011 13:16 dcemuser wrote:
On May 11 2011 12:56 Uhh Negative wrote: We all course it does. That's why there will never be some universal moral code that no one ever disputes, ever. That's why its always going to be a debated topic.
Killing adults because they engage in consensual relationships with other adults should never be against any law.
I think anyone who argues that statement is trying to play devil's advocate. There is no other reason to support it logically.
Sure, I am playing devil's advocate here. I'm arguing on principle. It's good to think about.
I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though.
I've thought about it in detail. Moral relativism is wrong. I used to believe in it, though. It's appealing, but ultimately I think once you respect rights, you throw out the ability to be a moral relativist.
Explain this further.
It's interesting to note that morality can never be objective.
It's also interesting to think about how things were different before the Information Age. Does merely the knowledge of information make us responsible for it's outcome?
Just some interesting things to think about. I'm not suggesting anything.
On May 11 2011 13:30 Ftz wrote: Uhh, I have question for you.
Do you believe that morality and religion should should be separate from each other?
i.e. is kicking a baby intrinsically morally wrong or is kicking a baby wrong because Christianity says it is wrong?
That's a good question. I haven't really thought about it before. Regardless of whether they should be separate from eachother, they aren't in any practical way. Religion shapes morality.
It's really hard to know if there is some sort of morality intrinsically without knowing someone who does not even know about the concept of religion and then see if they have morals.
The two are so intertwined it's hard to say. Maybe intrinsic morality has spawned religion, thus the reason most religions are very similar at the core.
On May 11 2011 12:28 platorepublic wrote: [quote] Not only that. I have the right to vote to ban things that I think are wrong.
Right, that's an opinion.
And if the majority agrees with me, it becomes a right.
This is a localized issue. Maybe if you want to talk about persecution of gays on a global basis then your opinion has a weight.
There is no such thing as a localised issue. That's YOUR poor judgement and opinion.
I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. Maybe African nations don't GIVE A SHIT what people from other countries think. You can have all the opinions you want, but at the end of the day they should do what they want to do. They shouldn't do this or that just because some country 1000s of miles away thinks it bad. I'm tired of all this "white love" bullshit assuming the whole world needs to be Westernized.
What if you were a Congressmen voting on a bill and some Mongolians think that bill is the worst thing in the world? You shouldn't even consider it, they aren't your constituents.
There's clear western interference here, but it's not where you think it is. American evangelicals helped develop this bill and have funded campaigns to support it. This is a western bill, but its proponents could never hope to get it passed in a western country.
Beyond that, I can't really understand your extreme-isolationist perspective. Sure, we shouldn't care if other countries have different speed limits, drinking ages, legislatures, or judicial systems as us, but there's nothing provincial about killing innocent people by force of law. This is not the sort of issue about which we should be neutral. It's a massive human right's violation. If we don't stand against something like this, where do we stand?
I don't know. Is every person responsible for the human rights of the whole world? Something to think about, I guess. I guess it also depends on the definition of "stand against" something. Sure, I'm against it.
On May 11 2011 13:16 dcemuser wrote:
On May 11 2011 12:56 Uhh Negative wrote: We all course it does. That's why there will never be some universal moral code that no one ever disputes, ever. That's why its always going to be a debated topic.
Killing adults because they engage in consensual relationships with other adults should never be against any law.
I think anyone who argues that statement is trying to play devil's advocate. There is no other reason to support it logically.
Sure, I am playing devil's advocate here. I'm arguing on principle. It's good to think about.
I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though.
I've thought about it in detail. Moral relativism is wrong. I used to believe in it, though. It's appealing, but ultimately I think once you respect rights, you throw out the ability to be a moral relativist.
Explain this further.
Ugh I'm really tired.
But essentially this is how I think of it:
You prioritize rights of people. Meaning, you set up some sort of moral system which requires a minimum of protection for people. But say someone blatantly violates those. You have two options: you can violate your moral code, which seems to require interference if you value life, or not. But by not interfering you fail to fulfill your own morals. So I don't think the moral relativist position can function, if you believe in positive rights at all. Even if you only believe in negative rights, you should probably have some obligation to ensure that they are protected.
Also it's self defeating. You tell me I can't tell others what to do but that tells me how to prioritize my morals. Which goes against what you're saying in the first place.
On May 11 2011 13:30 Ftz wrote: Uhh, I have question for you.
Do you believe that morality and religion should should be separate from each other?
i.e. is kicking a baby intrinsically morally wrong or is kicking a baby wrong because Christianity says it is wrong?
That's a good question. I haven't really thought about it before. Regardless of whether they should be separate from eachother, they aren't in any practical way. Religion shapes morality.
It's really hard to know if there is some sort of morality intrinsically without knowing someone who does not even know about the concept of religion and then see if they have morals.
The two are so intertwined it's hard to say.
It's not really hard to say. Our sense of morality is evolutionarily necessary to our communal way of life, with or without religion. There are clear examples of altruistic behavior even in the animal kingdom - one example that pops in my mind is certain squirrel species that give calls to warn nearby squirrels about predators, despite the fact that giving the call increases their own chance of getting killed. On top of that, you have the very concrete phenomenon of empathy which contributes to our moral sense.
All signs that I've seen point to a sense of morality not being a direct result of religion in any way.
That works in theory, but what if you cannot interfere with everyone who violates these basic rights. Does it make you responsible for the instances where you didn't interfere, simply because of time constraints, essentially?
I'm not really trying to argue a point, I'm just trying to stimulate thought and discussion.
On May 11 2011 13:30 Ftz wrote: Uhh, I have question for you.
Do you believe that morality and religion should should be separate from each other?
i.e. is kicking a baby intrinsically morally wrong or is kicking a baby wrong because Christianity says it is wrong?
That's a good question. I haven't really thought about it before. Regardless of whether they should be separate from eachother, they aren't in any practical way. Religion shapes morality.
It's really hard to know if there is some sort of morality intrinsically without knowing someone who does not even know about the concept of religion and then see if they have morals.
The two are so intertwined it's hard to say.
It's not really hard to say. Our sense of morality is evolutionarily necessary to our communal way of life, with or without religion. There are clear examples of altruistic behavior even in the animal kingdom - one example that pops in my mind is certain squirrel species that give calls to warn nearby squirrels about predators, despite the fact that giving the call increases their own chance of getting killed. On top of that, you have the very concrete phenomenon of empathy which contributes to our moral sense.
All signs that I've seen point to a sense of morality not being a direct result of religion in any way.
Well religion can't be a direct cause of anything, because to believe in a religion.... you have to have reason to believe in it. But there are aspects of religion that kind of loop back intrinsic moral values, such as God created us with intrinsic moral values, or some idea like that. So yeah, there must be some intrinsic morality. Good point.
This is kind of way off-topic but if you think about it, our logic system is a construction of the mind, and while it appears to be consistent across all humans, who knows if our logic system is merely a small piece of what's actually real, something incomprehensible to us. So basically it's not productive to think about this, but interesting nonetheless.
I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though.
This is your standard Religious argument here:
1) (Things the christian faith considers) sins are immoral. 2) (The christian faith considers) homosexual acts (as) sins. 3) Therefore, homosexuality is immoral.
Here is popularized viewpoint that a majority of atheists, and I'm guessing the majority of TL supports.
1) Actions are immoral because they are intrinsically immoral, lets say they produce overall negative utility (pain, suffering, misery etc) 2) Homosexuality doesn't "hurt" anyone. 3) Homosexuality is not immoral.
TLDR: We(TL) or at least I, fundamentally disagree with homosexuality being "wrong", and challenge anyone to use logical, non-religious reasoning to show that it is.
edit:
I have a question for you: how does this relate to the topic?
If religious people base their morality ONLY on scriptures it is impossible to "argue" with them. And they will just take a relativist position.
I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though.
This is your standard Religious argument here:
1) (Things the christian faith considers) sins are immoral. 2) (The christian faith considers) homosexual acts (as) sins. 3) Therefore, homosexuality is immoral.
Here is popularized viewpoint that a majority of atheists, and I'm guessing the majority of TL supports.
1) Actions are immoral because they are intrinsically immoral, lets say they produce overall negative utility (pain, suffering, misery etc) 2) Homosexuality doesn't "hurt" anyone. 3) Homosexuality is not immoral.
TLDR: We(TL) or at least I, fundamentally disagree with homosexuality being "wrong", and challenge anyone to use logical, non-religious reasoning to show that it is.
You are saying that actions are immoral because they are immoral. That is not logical reasoning. That is an assertion. There is a difference.
I have absolutely no problem with your conclusions. I have no problem with your worldview revolving around a utilitarian calculus of minimizing negative utility. But I'll admit I do have a problem with you suggesting that logic produced your major premise whereas irrationality produced the one you attributed to "the Christian faith."
On May 11 2011 12:25 platorepublic wrote: [quote] We as a global citizen have a right to say who is right or wrong. If we think you are wrong, we will kick you out of our lonely planet.
You have the right to an opinion of right or wrong
Not only that. I have the right to vote to ban things that I think are wrong.
Right, that's an opinion.
And if the majority agrees with me, it becomes a right.
This is a localized issue. Maybe if you want to talk about persecution of gays on a global basis then your opinion has a weight.
There is no such thing as a localised issue. That's YOUR poor judgement and opinion.
I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. Maybe African nations don't GIVE A SHIT what people from other countries think. You can have all the opinions you want, but at the end of the day they should do what they want to do. They shouldn't do this or that just because some country 1000s of miles away thinks it bad. I'm tired of all this "white love" bullshit assuming the whole world needs to be Westernized.
What if you were a Congressmen voting on a bill and some Mongolians think that bill is the worst thing in the world? You shouldn't even consider it, they aren't your constituents.
There's clear western interference here, but it's not where you think it is. American evangelicals helped develop this bill and have funded campaigns to support it. This is a western bill, but its proponents could never hope to get it passed in a western country.
Beyond that, I can't really understand your extreme-isolationist perspective. Sure, we shouldn't care if other countries have different speed limits, drinking ages, legislatures, or judicial systems as us, but there's nothing provincial about killing innocent people by force of law. This is not the sort of issue about which we should be neutral. It's a massive human right's violation. If we don't stand against something like this, where do we stand?
I don't know. Is every person responsible for the human rights of the whole world? Something to think about, I guess. I guess it also depends on the definition of "stand against" something. Sure, I'm against it.
Signing this petition amounts to nothing more than saying "I'm against this bill." If you can say that in public on TL, why can't you articulate this position in the public record? Some of the major arguments employed in support of this bill contradict all of the available evidence. This bill and the arguments supporting it represent a major entry in the public discourse on the issue of gay rights Failure to oppose this bill implies that those arguments are legitimate and fails to dispute the statements this bill makes.
On May 11 2011 12:56 Uhh Negative wrote: We all course it does. That's why there will never be some universal moral code that no one ever disputes, ever. That's why its always going to be a debated topic.
Killing adults because they engage in consensual relationships with other adults should never be against any law.
I think anyone who argues that statement is trying to play devil's advocate. There is no other reason to support it logically.
I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. [/QUOTE]
You are entitled to your bigotry.
On May 11 2011 13:16 dcemuser wrote: I don't think you should be punished by law for it though.
How charitable of you. Money from private US interest groups and US aid helped the creation of this bill. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_%28Christian_political_organization%29#The_Fellowship_and_Uganda) If this law passes US foreign aid money could then be used to enforce it. By failing to publicly oppose this bill, you give it tacit consent.
You are saying that actions are immoral because they are immoral. That is not logical reasoning. That is an assertion. There is a difference.
It's actually impossible to say that something is immoral without making an assertion that you have some basis on which to judge morality. Regardless, the point stands that I/we believe that the rightness of an action is independent of faith-based beliefs, and has something to do with the action in question.
I have absolutely no problem with your conclusions. I have no problem with your worldview revolving around a utilitarian calculus of minimizing negative utility.
Okay.
But I'll admit I do have a problem with you suggesting that logic produced your major premise whereas irrationality produced the one you attributed to "the Christian faith."
EDIT HERE:
1) (Things the christian faith considers) sins are immoral.
But, Why does the christian faith consider these things immoral? /EDIT
Is what God's says right because God says it? OR What God's says is right because it is right.
a) Is what God's says right because God says it? I.e. If god said stealing, rape, murder etc was morally permissible would it be?
If Yes --> Problem of Circular Reasoning. What God says becomes defined as "what is right" and therefore, praising God for his "goodness" is impossible because in actuality you are just praising him for saying anything.
If No ---> What God's says is right because it is right. ----> Morality is independent of religion.
I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though.
This is your standard Religious argument here:
1) (Things the christian faith considers) sins are immoral. 2) (The christian faith considers) homosexual acts (as) sins. 3) Therefore, homosexuality is immoral.
Here is popularized viewpoint that a majority of atheists, and I'm guessing the majority of TL supports.
1) Actions are immoral because they are intrinsically immoral, lets say they produce overall negative utility (pain, suffering, misery etc) 2) Homosexuality doesn't "hurt" anyone. 3) Homosexuality is not immoral.
TLDR: We(TL) or at least I, fundamentally disagree with homosexuality being "wrong", and challenge anyone to use logical, non-religious reasoning to show that it is.
I have a question for you: how does this relate to the topic?
If religious people base their morality ONLY on scriptures it is impossible to "argue" with them. And they will just take a relativist position.
Homosexuality is a genetic or mental defect (you can argue about which, I don't care), but its ultimately harmless. Rejecting gays is like rejecting someone with a birth mark, a small genetic defect that might be unsightly but it doesn't really affect anyone. So in a sense I do think homosexuality is "wrong", I think the world would be better without homosexuals, but I also think the world would be better without cripples. It doesn't mean I hate them, they can't help the way they are.
Also I think this issue is blown way out of proportion because a minority is being targeted.
Since when is homosexuality a genetic or mental defect? Are you just using it as an analogy or are you serious? I see homosexuality as a preference, just like how my favorite type of food is steak or how I prefer it as medium-rare to medium.
On May 11 2011 15:01 Pleiades wrote: Since when is homosexuality a genetic or mental defect? Are you just using it as an analogy or are you serious? I see homosexuality as a preference, just like how my favorite type of food is steak or how I prefer it as medium-rare to medium.
Do you have any proof to this statement? People who are homosexual have a different set of chromosomes, when compared to heterosexual people. This has been known for years.
Have you discussed this with a person who is homosexual? The majority would argue against that statement.
On May 11 2011 15:01 Pleiades wrote: Since when is homosexuality a genetic or mental defect? Are you just using it as an analogy or are you serious? I see homosexuality as a preference, just like how my favorite type of food is steak or how I prefer it as medium-rare to medium.
it's partially a genetic "abnormality", not necessarily a "defect" depending on how you see it i guess. you didn't know this? can't tell if you're ignorant or just misinformed...
anyways, how does having 1mil people signing this prevent the bill? all it shows the prez. is that 1 million people are against it and that's not likely to stop this bill from being passed if they had the fortitude to draft the bill in the first place.
You are saying that actions are immoral because they are immoral. That is not logical reasoning. That is an assertion. There is a difference.
It's actually impossible to say that something is immoral without making an assertion that you have some basis on which to judge morality. Regardless, the point stands that I/we believe that the rightness of an action is independent of faith-based beliefs, and has something to do with the action in question.
I have absolutely no problem with your conclusions. I have no problem with your worldview revolving around a utilitarian calculus of minimizing negative utility.
But I'll admit I do have a problem with you suggesting that logic produced your major premise whereas irrationality produced the one you attributed to "the Christian faith."
1) (Things the christian faith considers) sins are immoral.
But, Why does the christian faith consider these things immoral? /EDIT
Is what God's says right because God says it? OR What God's says is right because it is right.
a) Is what God's says right because God says it? I.e. If god said stealing, rape, murder etc was morally permissible would it be?
If Yes --> Problem of Circular Reasoning. What God says becomes defined as "what is right" and therefore, praising God for his "goodness" is impossible because in actuality you are just praising him for saying anything.
If No ---> What God's says is right because it is right. ----> Morality is independent of religion.
This problem you speak of is called Euthyphro's Dilemma, it was introduced by Plato, in his dialogue "Euthyphro". Here is a link to the wikipedia page if you are interested further. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
You are saying that actions are immoral because they are immoral. That is not logical reasoning. That is an assertion. There is a difference.
It's actually impossible to say that something is immoral without making an assertion that you have some basis on which to judge morality. Regardless, the point stands that I/we believe that the rightness of an action is independent of faith-based beliefs, and has something to do with the action in question.
I agree. So long as you acknowledge that logic produced neither your belief nor the "faith-based beliefs" that you dislike, I'm on your side (but, and this is kind of a minor quibble, would you mind dropping the suggestions that you're speaking for TL? Until I see an official TL spokesperson icon next to your username, of course.)
You are saying that actions are immoral because they are immoral. That is not logical reasoning. That is an assertion. There is a difference.
It's actually impossible to say that something is immoral without making an assertion that you have some basis on which to judge morality. Regardless, the point stands that I/we believe that the rightness of an action is independent of faith-based beliefs, and has something to do with the action in question.
I agree. So long as you acknowledge that logic produced neither your belief nor the "faith-based beliefs" that you dislike, I'm on your side (but, and this is kind of a minor quibble, would you mind dropping the suggestions that you're speaking for TL? Until I see an official TL spokesperson icon next to your username, of course.)
Do we really need a mod to validate a conversation? Let's have some fun!
I have held the position that everyone is, to some extent, a utilitarian, and makes decisions based on utilitarian principles. What differs from traditional utilitarianism is that this view has a flexible, "in group", in that sometimes, you make a utiltarian decision based on the happiness of your family, other times friends on forums, other times yourself. You make a decision based on the amount of happiness, and by extension lessining the reverse of happiness, which is caused to the "in group".
That is how I believe people decide what ought to be considered moral
Here's something to think about: does it matter that we don't approve of another nations laws?Meaning, because they are sovereign. Uganda has the right to make up its own laws, but unless we are a citizen of Uganda do we have any right to influence their laws and policies no matter how different they might be?
Before I am flamed I think that the death penalty for anything other than murder is quite ridiculous and cruel. Then the death penalty for murder in general is iffy in my book, I guess if I had to make a decision I would say that it is needed where it is in our society (in American society, b/c Im from the US).
I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though.
This is your standard Religious argument here:
1) (Things the christian faith considers) sins are immoral. 2) (The christian faith considers) homosexual acts (as) sins. 3) Therefore, homosexuality is immoral.
Here is popularized viewpoint that a majority of atheists, and I'm guessing the majority of TL supports.
1) Actions are immoral because they are intrinsically immoral, lets say they produce overall negative utility (pain, suffering, misery etc) 2) Homosexuality doesn't "hurt" anyone. 3) Homosexuality is not immoral.
TLDR: We(TL) or at least I, fundamentally disagree with homosexuality being "wrong", and challenge anyone to use logical, non-religious reasoning to show that it is.
edit:
I have a question for you: how does this relate to the topic?
If religious people base their morality ONLY on scriptures it is impossible to "argue" with them. And they will just take a relativist position.
Homosexuality is a genetic or mental defect (you can argue about which, I don't care)
Care to support the claim that Homosexuality is a defect?
On May 11 2011 14:57 Disquiet wrote: but its ultimately harmless. Rejecting gays is like rejecting someone with a birth mark, a small genetic defect that might be unsightly but it doesn't really affect anyone. So in a sense I do think homosexuality is "wrong", I think the world would be better without homosexuals.
(you can argue about which, I don't care), but its ultimately harmless. Rejecting gays is like rejecting someone with a birth mark, a small genetic defect that might be unsightly but it doesn't really affect anyone. So in a sense I do think homosexuality is "wrong"
This in a sense arguing that any outlier is "wrong". Does having a "genetic defect" of having two differently colored eyes make me "wrong"? No, merely different.
I think the world would be better without homosexuals, but I also think the world would be better without cripples.
The world wouldn't be better without cripples. We live in the intellectual age where personal value is more defined by one's mind then one's physical ability. While I'm sure there are more examples of this Stephen Hawking specifically has positively contributed to making "the world better".
It doesn't mean I hate them, they can't help the way they are.
Value judgement. You are not superior to a gay person. I am not superior to a gay person. In essence your entire post is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Straight people are not more right or more valuable based on there being more of us or us being the "norm".
Also I think this issue is blown way out of proportion because a minority is being targeted.
Oh my bad on the whole KILLING HALF A MILLION PEOPLE THING.
On May 11 2011 15:11 R3demption wrote: Here's something to think about: does it matter that we don't approve of another nations laws?Meaning, because they are sovereign. Uganda has the right to make up its own laws, but unless we are a citizen of Uganda do we have any right to influence their laws and policies no matter how different they might be?
Before I am flamed I think that the death penalty for anything other than murder is quite ridiculous and cruel. Then the death penalty for murder in general is iffy in my book, I guess if I had to make a decision I would say that it is needed where it is in our society (in American society, b/c Im from the US).
This is a scary route to take. Take any genocide in recent history as an example. This is a human rights violation. We had a problem with the Third Reich, and we did something about it. While this might not be on the same scale, it is a comparable situation.
P.S. I hold the very controversial view that life is not incredibly valuable. Personally, I would prefer death over life in prison. Just thought I'd get that out there.
I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though.
This is your standard Religious argument here:
1) (Things the christian faith considers) sins are immoral. 2) (The christian faith considers) homosexual acts (as) sins. 3) Therefore, homosexuality is immoral.
Here is popularized viewpoint that a majority of atheists, and I'm guessing the majority of TL supports.
1) Actions are immoral because they are intrinsically immoral, lets say they produce overall negative utility (pain, suffering, misery etc) 2) Homosexuality doesn't "hurt" anyone. 3) Homosexuality is not immoral.
TLDR: We(TL) or at least I, fundamentally disagree with homosexuality being "wrong", and challenge anyone to use logical, non-religious reasoning to show that it is.
edit:
I have a question for you: how does this relate to the topic?
If religious people base their morality ONLY on scriptures it is impossible to "argue" with them. And they will just take a relativist position.
Homosexuality is a genetic or mental defect (you can argue about which, I don't care)
Care to support the claim that Homosexuality is a defect?
On May 11 2011 14:57 Disquiet wrote: but its ultimately harmless. Rejecting gays is like rejecting someone with a birth mark, a small genetic defect that might be unsightly but it doesn't really affect anyone. So in a sense I do think homosexuality is "wrong", I think the world would be better without homosexuals.
What makes you think this is true?
This person is taking the Kantian position. Formula of the Universal Laws, taken from wikipedia but the essence is there "Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will" and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself [....]"
Clearly, it could not be that everyone was homosexual and society could continue to function.
The problem with the Kantian world view, is it's black and white perspective. Life is more gray than people realize. Controversial issues are not so cut and dry as Kant would like to believe.
You are saying that actions are immoral because they are immoral. That is not logical reasoning. That is an assertion. There is a difference.
It's actually impossible to say that something is immoral without making an assertion that you have some basis on which to judge morality. Regardless, the point stands that I/we believe that the rightness of an action is independent of faith-based beliefs, and has something to do with the action in question.
I agree. So long as you acknowledge that logic produced neither your belief nor the "faith-based beliefs" that you dislike, I'm on your side (but, and this is kind of a minor quibble, would you mind dropping the suggestions that you're speaking for TL? Until I see an official TL spokesperson icon next to your username, of course.)
Do we really need a mod to validate a conversation? Let's have some fun!
Hahaha. Good point.
But I really don't need a validation for the conversation. What I need some form of validation for is a sub-10-post, sub-5-month user's claim to be speaking for teamliquid as a whole.
On May 11 2011 15:06 HULKAMANIA wrote: I agree. So long as you acknowledge that logic produced neither your belief nor the "faith-based beliefs" that you dislike, I'm on your side (but, and this is kind of a minor quibble, would you mind dropping the suggestions that you're speaking for TL? Until I see an official TL spokesperson icon next to your username, of course.)
1) Yes, obviously I can't even prove moral knowledge even exists or I'd have a Ph.D. 2) Yes, I'm not speaking on TL's part, and I'll refrain from doing that in the future. But as part of the community I felt that someone needed to speak up against such blatant bigotry present in this thread.
But I really don't need a validation for the conversation. What I need some form of validation for is a sub-10-post, sub-5-month user's claim to be speaking for teamliquid as a whole.
Yeh, my bad. I've been lurking for awhile, took seeing some insane posts in threads like these for me to actually get around to registering and posting
This person is taking the Kantian position. Formula of the Universal Laws, taken from wikipedia but the essence is there "Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will" and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself [....]"
Clearly, it could not be that everyone was homosexual and society could continue to function.
The problem with the Kantian world view, is it's black and white perspective. Life is more gray than people realize. Controversial issues are not so cut and dry as Kant would like to believe.
Homosexuality is consistent with the categorical imperative in an awkward heterosexual sex for procreation kind of way.
On May 11 2011 15:06 HULKAMANIA wrote: I agree. So long as you acknowledge that logic produced neither your belief nor the "faith-based beliefs" that you dislike, I'm on your side (but, and this is kind of a minor quibble, would you mind dropping the suggestions that you're speaking for TL? Until I see an official TL spokesperson icon next to your username, of course.)
1) Yes, obviously I can't even prove moral knowledge even exists or I'd have a Ph.D.
I just think that this is an important acknowledgment to make, especially if you're insisting that your opponents produce airtight logical explanations for their moral convictions.
2) Yes, I'm not speaking on TL's part, and I'll refrain from doing that in the future. But as part of the community I felt that someone needed to speak up against such blatant bigotry present in this thread.
Fair enough! Like I said, that was probably quibbling of me. I just felt like the peasant in The Holy Grail, "Well, I didn't vote for him!"
Yeh, my bad. I've been lurking for awhile, took seeing some insane posts in threads like these for me to actually get around to registering and posting
I couldn't sympathize more. Not a day goes by that I don't feel like this guy:
This person is taking the Kantian position. Formula of the Universal Laws, taken from wikipedia but the essence is there "Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will" and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself [....]"
Clearly, it could not be that everyone was homosexual and society could continue to function.
The problem with the Kantian world view, is it's black and white perspective. Life is more gray than people realize. Controversial issues are not so cut and dry as Kant would like to believe.
Homosexuality is consistent with the categorical imperative in an awkward heterosexual sex for procreation kind of way.
I don't understand "categorical imperative in an awkward heterosexual sex for procreation kind of way". Homosexuals clearly know that homosexual sex is not intended for procreation
There have been many studies trying to link homosexuality to genetics, but it hasn't been actually proven to the point to where people can make a consensus on it.
Just using this as an example... What happens when one brother of an identical twin is homosexual and the other is heterosexual? I know that one example isn't enough to disprove those studies, but it would make it interesting.
Hey, IMHO, I'm not comfortable with homosexuals, but I don't think that their relationships is any more wrong as my relationship to my girlfriend. People love different things that seem completely weird to others.
I've got no hard feelings for people saying homosexuality is morally wrong, but criminalizing them because of their personal preference to love someone else is even worse in my eyes.
Just made a post discussing subjective and objective morals if anyone is interested.
I would be very interested to read a study where one brother of an identical twin is homosexual and the other is heterosexual. I'm not exactly sure if it is possible but it doesn't sound out of the realm of possibility.
We need to remember that there are people who think they are homosexual when they are genetically heterosexual. We all have heard of the father of 3 with a house in the suburbs who after 20 years of marriage realized he was gay.
I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though.
This is your standard Religious argument here:
1) (Things the christian faith considers) sins are immoral. 2) (The christian faith considers) homosexual acts (as) sins. 3) Therefore, homosexuality is immoral.
Here is popularized viewpoint that a majority of atheists, and I'm guessing the majority of TL supports.
1) Actions are immoral because they are intrinsically immoral, lets say they produce overall negative utility (pain, suffering, misery etc) 2) Homosexuality doesn't "hurt" anyone. 3) Homosexuality is not immoral.
TLDR: We(TL) or at least I, fundamentally disagree with homosexuality being "wrong", and challenge anyone to use logical, non-religious reasoning to show that it is.
edit:
I have a question for you: how does this relate to the topic?
If religious people base their morality ONLY on scriptures it is impossible to "argue" with them. And they will just take a relativist position.
Homosexuality is a genetic or mental defect (you can argue about which, I don't care)
Care to support the claim that Homosexuality is a defect?
On May 11 2011 14:57 Disquiet wrote: but its ultimately harmless. Rejecting gays is like rejecting someone with a birth mark, a small genetic defect that might be unsightly but it doesn't really affect anyone. So in a sense I do think homosexuality is "wrong", I think the world would be better without homosexuals.
What makes you think this is true?
This person is taking the Kantian position. Formula of the Universal Laws, taken from wikipedia but the essence is there "Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will" and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself [....]"
No he isn't, his position was "I think the world would be better without homosexuals." An argument could be made that Kantian ethics support that position, but he could have any number of other justifications, or none at all. Nothing he said indicated why he thinks the world would be better without homosexuals.
On May 11 2011 15:18 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote: Clearly, it could not be that everyone was homosexual and society could continue to function.
On May 10 2011 15:47 Citadel.i wrote: Stay out of other countries politics
I would say yes to this policy in general. I would say no to this policy when the country's politics could potentially involve the mass murder of innocents.
Personally, I don't believe that there are such things as universal human rights, and I also don't believe that homosexuality in the abstract is a positive thing. But I'll be damned if I can talk myself out of signing a petition that protects people from being executed for their sexual orientation. I can't conceive of that as anything but an evil to be resisted by any means. I am all for using Western political clout to crush this bill where it stands.
Really? Only one person had a response to this? this whole thread is as simple as different cultures different policies. If a middle eastern man with a different religion came to your country saying you couldn't do something simply because he thought it was Immoral, would you continue to do it? What goes on in in Uganda is nothing more then people in Uganda and their cultures business.
All these Americans and people from other countries should stfu because it is their country and their culture. If you wish for Immigrants to respect your culture you need to do the same for them.
I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though.
This is your standard Religious argument here:
1) (Things the christian faith considers) sins are immoral. 2) (The christian faith considers) homosexual acts (as) sins. 3) Therefore, homosexuality is immoral.
Here is popularized viewpoint that a majority of atheists, and I'm guessing the majority of TL supports.
1) Actions are immoral because they are intrinsically immoral, lets say they produce overall negative utility (pain, suffering, misery etc) 2) Homosexuality doesn't "hurt" anyone. 3) Homosexuality is not immoral.
TLDR: We(TL) or at least I, fundamentally disagree with homosexuality being "wrong", and challenge anyone to use logical, non-religious reasoning to show that it is.
edit:
I have a question for you: how does this relate to the topic?
If religious people base their morality ONLY on scriptures it is impossible to "argue" with them. And they will just take a relativist position.
Homosexuality is a genetic or mental defect (you can argue about which, I don't care)
Care to support the claim that Homosexuality is a defect?
On May 11 2011 14:57 Disquiet wrote: but its ultimately harmless. Rejecting gays is like rejecting someone with a birth mark, a small genetic defect that might be unsightly but it doesn't really affect anyone. So in a sense I do think homosexuality is "wrong", I think the world would be better without homosexuals.
What makes you think this is true?
This person is taking the Kantian position. Formula of the Universal Laws, taken from wikipedia but the essence is there "Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will" and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself [....]"
No he isn't, all his position was "I think the world would be better without homosexuals." An argument could be made that Kantian ethics support that position, but he could have any number of other justifications, or none at all. Nothing he said indicated why he thinks the world would be better without homosexuals.
On May 10 2011 12:44 Red Dust wrote: Never understood homophobia, especially in these most despicable forms. If a man wants to love another man it does no damage to you or anybody else. Let the boys play.
On May 10 2011 15:47 Citadel.i wrote: Stay out of other countries politics
I would say yes to this policy in general. I would say no to this policy when the country's politics could potentially involve the mass murder of innocents.
Personally, I don't believe that there are such things as universal human rights, and I also don't believe that homosexuality in the abstract is a positive thing. But I'll be damned if I can talk myself out of signing a petition that protects people from being executed for their sexual orientation. I can't conceive of that as anything but an evil to be resisted by any means. I am all for using Western political clout to crush this bill where it stands.
Really? Only one person had a response to this? this whole thread is as simple as different cultures different policies. If a middle eastern man with a different religion came to your country saying you couldn't do something simply because he thought it was Immoral, would you continue to do it? What goes on in in Uganda is nothing more then people in Uganda and their cultures business.
All these Americans and people from other countries should stfu because it is their country and their culture. If you wish for Immigrants to respect your culture you need to do the same for them.
Sorry I am drunk when I wrote this
My culture has a policy of getting in other cultures' businesses. You can't judge us for that because it is our culture's business. If you're from another country (and drunk) you should stfu because it is our country, and it is our culture to act like this.
I don't understand "categorical imperative in an awkward heterosexual sex for procreation kind of way". Homosexuals clearly know that homosexual sex is not intended for procreation
Homosexuals could engage in Heterosexual sex for the purposes of procreation. Homosexuals could also engage in creative methods for purposes of procreation (turkey baster mode engage!) via teaming up with an opposite gendered pair. So while it may be awkward, yes homosexuality can be successfully universalized.
On May 11 2011 15:18 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote: Clearly, it could not be that everyone was homosexual and society could continue to function.
This is false fyi.
Can you give a reason as to why it is false?
It is impossible for a strictly homosexual species to continue existing after it's first procreation cycle.
If you have a society where marriage and procreation is decided by negotiations between family clans and not by the marriage partners themselves, it does not matter if sexual attraction for a couple is possible, so there is no difference in procreation for heterosexuals and homosexuals in that society.
Really? Only one person had a response to this? this whole thread is as simple as different cultures different policies. If a middle eastern man with a different religion came to your country saying you couldn't do something simply because he thought it was Immoral, would you continue to do it? What goes on in in Uganda is nothing more then people in Uganda and their cultures business.
All these Americans and people from other countries should stfu because it is their country and their culture. If you wish for Immigrants to respect your culture you need to do the same for them.
You are asking us to take a position of cultural relativism.
Cultural relativism has some very serious implications with its acceptance. 1) you can't judge other cultures as morally inferior. Remember Hitler? If you accept Cultural relativism you can't critique that. 2 ) What makes an action right now depends entirely on the standards of the society. Want to punt a baby? Check the societal standards to see if its moral (morality intuitively seems much more complex). 3) Moral progress is called into doubt. If we can't critique other cultures (i.e. Hitler's germany) than we can't critique our own culture. Slavery? Women's Rights? etc.
Moreover you can't argue from is to ought. i.e. You say the morality of an action IS different in different countries doesn't equal that the morality of an action OUGHT to be different in different countries.
On May 10 2011 15:47 Citadel.i wrote: Stay out of other countries politics
I would say yes to this policy in general. I would say no to this policy when the country's politics could potentially involve the mass murder of innocents.
Personally, I don't believe that there are such things as universal human rights, and I also don't believe that homosexuality in the abstract is a positive thing. But I'll be damned if I can talk myself out of signing a petition that protects people from being executed for their sexual orientation. I can't conceive of that as anything but an evil to be resisted by any means. I am all for using Western political clout to crush this bill where it stands.
Really? Only one person had a response to this? this whole thread is as simple as different cultures different policies. If a middle eastern man with a different religion came to your country saying you couldn't do something simply because he thought it was Immoral, would you continue to do it?
I would listen to what he had to say, attempt to understand his moral reasoning. Then I would use my own experience and reason to form my own moral opinion.
On May 11 2011 15:40 Citadel.i wrote: What goes on in in Uganda is nothing more then people in Uganda and their cultures business. All these Americans and people from other countries should stfu because it is their country and their culture. If you wish for Immigrants to respect your culture you need to do the same for them.
Sorry I am drunk when I wrote this
US aid money helped encourage evangelism, bring this legislation about, and will likely help pay for enforcement if this bill pases.
I don't expect everyone to respect my culture and I consider criticisms of my culture a valuable resource for examining my culture and other cultures critically. Major policy decisions make a statement publicly and with the authority of countries that make them. It is perfectly appropriate and often constructive for critical opinions on such decisions to be a part of international discourse.
Even though I am a Christian, a rather traditional Christian at that. This bill horrifies me and it is radically unchristian.
By the same logic those who have sex outside of marriage should also be put to death in that country. Which of course will never happen because really this is a question of homophobia, not religion or God.
I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though.
This is your standard Religious argument here:
1) (Things the christian faith considers) sins are immoral. 2) (The christian faith considers) homosexual acts (as) sins. 3) Therefore, homosexuality is immoral.
Here is popularized viewpoint that a majority of atheists, and I'm guessing the majority of TL supports.
1) Actions are immoral because they are intrinsically immoral, lets say they produce overall negative utility (pain, suffering, misery etc) 2) Homosexuality doesn't "hurt" anyone. 3) Homosexuality is not immoral.
TLDR: We(TL) or at least I, fundamentally disagree with homosexuality being "wrong", and challenge anyone to use logical, non-religious reasoning to show that it is.
edit:
I have a question for you: how does this relate to the topic?
If religious people base their morality ONLY on scriptures it is impossible to "argue" with them. And they will just take a relativist position.
Homosexuality is a genetic or mental defect (you can argue about which, I don't care)
Care to support the claim that Homosexuality is a defect?
On May 11 2011 14:57 Disquiet wrote: but its ultimately harmless. Rejecting gays is like rejecting someone with a birth mark, a small genetic defect that might be unsightly but it doesn't really affect anyone. So in a sense I do think homosexuality is "wrong", I think the world would be better without homosexuals.
What makes you think this is true?
This person is taking the Kantian position. Formula of the Universal Laws, taken from wikipedia but the essence is there "Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will" and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself [....]"
No he isn't, all his position was "I think the world would be better without homosexuals." An argument could be made that Kantian ethics support that position, but he could have any number of other justifications, or none at all. Nothing he said indicated why he thinks the world would be better without homosexuals.
On May 11 2011 15:18 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote: Clearly, it could not be that everyone was homosexual and society could continue to function.
This is false fyi.
Can you give a reason as to why it is false?
It is impossible for a strictly homosexual species to continue existing after it's first procreation cycle.
It has nothing to do w/ accepting or not accepting the idea of same sex couples. It has to do whether or not you are a nosy bastard.
When I see a gay couple kissing, its pretty awkward, but I have no qualms of them choosing to do what they want to do. You can't enforce a rule
Even if you're a hardcore Christian/Muslim/Religious nut who's repulsed by the idea of homosexuality, everyone has the right to do w.e they want, so long as it doesn't affect them. Unless a gay couple is running into your bedroom to have analsex all over your bed, I don't see the problem. (oddly enough the extremely Christian are considered "right wing" and all about "small gov't", I guess its only small, until gay/lesbian couples are involved)
Plus, some of the stuff straight couples do in their bedroom puts to shame the stuff gay and lesbian couples do.
On May 11 2011 16:27 TechniQ.UK wrote: Even though I am a Christian, a rather traditional Christian at that. This bill horrifies me and it is radically unchristian.
By the same logic those who have sex outside of marriage should also be put to death in that country. Which of course will never happen because really this is a question of homophobia, not religion or God.
Yes because killing homosexuals is really un-christian...
"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Leviticus snap.
You shouldn't bother with defending christianity as long as that piece of saw-esque literature i still a part of it. I think there is a certain respectable honesty in admitting mistakes.
I also think there is a sense of spinelessness when you blindly try to wash away all blame for a problem your religion of choice caused. Nothing Uganda is doing is against christianity and to deny that christian homopobia is fuelling this is outright ignorant.
Perhaps you truly don't know any better. Perhaps you spit on the graves of homosexuals in Uganda by being more occupied with freeing your religion of blame. Your religion is responsible for this and to deny this is sick.
On May 11 2011 16:27 TechniQ.UK wrote: Even though I am a Christian, a rather traditional Christian at that. This bill horrifies me and it is radically unchristian.
By the same logic those who have sex outside of marriage should also be put to death in that country. Which of course will never happen because really this is a question of homophobia, not religion or God.
Yes because killing homosexuals is really un-christian...
"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Leviticus snap.
You shouldn't bother with defending christianity as long as that piece of saw-esque literature i still a part of it. I think there is a certain respectable honesty in admitting mistakes.
I also think there is a sense of spinelessness when you blindly try to wash away all blame for a problem your religion of choice caused. Nothing Uganda is doing is against christianity and to deny that christian homopobia is fuelling this is outright ignorant.
Perhaps you truly don't know any better. Perhaps you spit on the graves of homosexuals in Uganda by being more occupied with freeing your religion of blame. Your religion is responsible for this and to deny this is sick.
You sound like a pretty hostile dude to be honest. So he's... what all now? a spineless, sick, homosexual-grave-spitter who's engaged in an outright ignorant denial of Christian homophobia? Did I cover all the salient points there?
On May 11 2011 16:27 TechniQ.UK wrote: Even though I am a Christian, a rather traditional Christian at that. This bill horrifies me and it is radically unchristian.
By the same logic those who have sex outside of marriage should also be put to death in that country. Which of course will never happen because really this is a question of homophobia, not religion or God.
Yes because killing homosexuals is really un-christian...
"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Leviticus snap.
You shouldn't bother with defending christianity as long as that piece of saw-esque literature i still a part of it. I think there is a certain respectable honesty in admitting mistakes.
I also think there is a sense of spinelessness when you blindly try to wash away all blame for a problem your religion of choice caused. Nothing Uganda is doing is against christianity and to deny that christian homopobia is fuelling this is outright ignorant.
Perhaps you truly don't know any better. Perhaps you spit on the graves of homosexuals in Uganda by being more occupied with freeing your religion of blame. Your religion is responsible for this and to deny this is sick.
You sound like a pretty hostile dude to be honest. So he's... what all now? a spineless, sick, homosexual-grave-spitter who's engaged in an outright ignorant denial of Christian homophobia? Did I cover all the salient points there?
His argument is all that matters. If it is sound, regardless of churlish phrasing, it falls to his opponents to attempt a counter. If it is not sound, no amount of polite couching will change this. Tone matters little, if at all.
On May 11 2011 16:27 TechniQ.UK wrote: Even though I am a Christian, a rather traditional Christian at that. This bill horrifies me and it is radically unchristian.
By the same logic those who have sex outside of marriage should also be put to death in that country. Which of course will never happen because really this is a question of homophobia, not religion or God.
Yes because killing homosexuals is really un-christian...
"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Leviticus snap.
You shouldn't bother with defending christianity as long as that piece of saw-esque literature i still a part of it. I think there is a certain respectable honesty in admitting mistakes.
I also think there is a sense of spinelessness when you blindly try to wash away all blame for a problem your religion of choice caused. Nothing Uganda is doing is against christianity and to deny that christian homopobia is fuelling this is outright ignorant.
Perhaps you truly don't know any better. Perhaps you spit on the graves of homosexuals in Uganda by being more occupied with freeing your religion of blame. Your religion is responsible for this and to deny this is sick.
You sound like a pretty hostile dude to be honest. So he's... what all now? a spineless, sick, homosexual-grave-spitter who's engaged in an outright ignorant denial of Christian homophobia? Did I cover all the salient points there?
His argument is all that matters. If it is sound, regardless of churlish phrasing, it falls to his opponents to attempt a counter. If it is not sound, no amount of polite couching will change this. Tone matters little, if at all.
I dunno. Is there nothing to be said for polite disagreement? Is there nothing to be said for decent conversation? I mean I think it's actually very difficult to have a dialogue with someone who treats you with open contempt. So what you're doing in practice by treating your opponent as if he or she was a scumbag is expressing that you don't want to hear what they're saying, that you really just want to browbeat someone.
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.
Because certain things fall under the blanket of human rights. they are not rules that sovereign states can break, they are unalienable rights of all human beings. Murdering gay people is one of those. so is killing civilians involved in peaceful protesting. So is racial genocide.
If you don't understand this concept, you should probably consider reading some Wikipedia entries before posting.
There is nothing universal/unalienable about it, many countries never signed the universal declaration of human rights not to mention all rights are psychological constructs nothing universal/unalienable about them.
I bet you $1000 if you were raised in Saudi Arabia you'd think it was cool to kill gays. So it's largly indoctrination pro or con.
What's the point of even posting about the fact that where you are born has direct influence on what opinions you have? That has nothing to do with whether or not this is a human rights atrocity. If there is nothing inherently a part of you that tells you that this is wrong, and you only think that westerners think this because of cultural norms and preconceptions, then it may be time to reexamine your system of morality.
Whether or not a document declaring universal human rights was ever signed by Uganda has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not this bill is wrong. It is this kind of thinking on the part of people in the First World that allows genocide to happen. Meanwhile, as we sit around and have a conversation on our computers about whether or not Uganda actually signed a human rights document, and whether or not right and wrong are "real" or if they are just abstract psychological constructs (which for all we know, is absolutely everything, a fact which lends NO insight into how we should proceed to lead our lives), there are individuals who are about to be executed for nothing more than their sexual orientation.
"I bet you $1000 if you were raised in Saudi Arabia you'd think it was cool to kill gays." And I bet you if you were raised in Nazi Germany you would think that the Holocaust was a cool plan. But does this hypothetical, even for a moment, actually make you reconsider whether or not it's morally acceptable? If your answer is "Well I would only think that because I'm raised in a society that thinks that..." then you need to seriously ask yourself whether you identify your sense of morality with your nationality, or with your humanity.
On May 11 2011 16:27 TechniQ.UK wrote: Even though I am a Christian, a rather traditional Christian at that. This bill horrifies me and it is radically unchristian.
By the same logic those who have sex outside of marriage should also be put to death in that country. Which of course will never happen because really this is a question of homophobia, not religion or God.
Yes because killing homosexuals is really un-christian...
"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Leviticus snap.
You shouldn't bother with defending christianity as long as that piece of saw-esque literature i still a part of it. I think there is a certain respectable honesty in admitting mistakes.
I also think there is a sense of spinelessness when you blindly try to wash away all blame for a problem your religion of choice caused. Nothing Uganda is doing is against christianity and to deny that christian homopobia is fuelling this is outright ignorant.
Perhaps you truly don't know any better. Perhaps you spit on the graves of homosexuals in Uganda by being more occupied with freeing your religion of blame. Your religion is responsible for this and to deny this is sick.
You sound like a pretty hostile dude to be honest. So he's... what all now? a spineless, sick, homosexual-grave-spitter who's engaged in an outright ignorant denial of Christian homophobia? Did I cover all the salient points there?
His argument is all that matters. If it is sound, regardless of churlish phrasing, it falls to his opponents to attempt a counter. If it is not sound, no amount of polite couching will change this. Tone matters little, if at all.
I dunno. Is there nothing to be said for polite disagreement? Is there nothing to be said for decent conversation? I mean I think it's actually very difficult to have a dialogue with someone who treats you with open contempt. So what you're doing in practice by treating your opponent as if he or she was a scumbag is expressing that you don't want to hear what they're saying, that you really just want to browbeat someone.
Tone matters a great deal.
And you still avoid talking about the issue or his points entirely...
Thanks a lot for being the manners police and nothing else, this conversation really needed it...?
On May 11 2011 16:27 TechniQ.UK wrote: Even though I am a Christian, a rather traditional Christian at that. This bill horrifies me and it is radically unchristian.
By the same logic those who have sex outside of marriage should also be put to death in that country. Which of course will never happen because really this is a question of homophobia, not religion or God.
Yes because killing homosexuals is really un-christian...
"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Leviticus snap.
You shouldn't bother with defending christianity as long as that piece of saw-esque literature i still a part of it. I think there is a certain respectable honesty in admitting mistakes.
I also think there is a sense of spinelessness when you blindly try to wash away all blame for a problem your religion of choice caused. Nothing Uganda is doing is against christianity and to deny that christian homopobia is fuelling this is outright ignorant.
Perhaps you truly don't know any better. Perhaps you spit on the graves of homosexuals in Uganda by being more occupied with freeing your religion of blame. Your religion is responsible for this and to deny this is sick.
You sound like a pretty hostile dude to be honest. So he's... what all now? a spineless, sick, homosexual-grave-spitter who's engaged in an outright ignorant denial of Christian homophobia? Did I cover all the salient points there?
His argument is all that matters. If it is sound, regardless of churlish phrasing, it falls to his opponents to attempt a counter. If it is not sound, no amount of polite couching will change this. Tone matters little, if at all.
I dunno. Is there nothing to be said for polite disagreement? Is there nothing to be said for decent conversation? I mean I think it's actually very difficult to have a dialogue with someone who treats you with open contempt. So what you're doing in practice by treating your opponent as if he or she was a scumbag is expressing that you don't want to hear what they're saying, that you really just want to browbeat someone.
Tone matters a great deal.
When dealing with one who engages in such behavior, is it not thus all the more satisfying to impale him (the active "hers" of this forum can be counted on one hand) upon the cold point of logic and watch as he flounders about, impotent in his rage? I am unconvinced of the virtues of so-called polite conversation; more often than not, the contempt is still there, a putrescent core festering beneath a newly burnished surface. Why not, for expediency's sake, have it just sit in the open? Rather than striving toward civility, we should endeavor toward goals such as soundness or clarity. It would be nice to have them all, I suppose, but if I were to sacrifice one, it would most certainly be the former.
On May 11 2011 16:27 TechniQ.UK wrote: Even though I am a Christian, a rather traditional Christian at that. This bill horrifies me and it is radically unchristian.
By the same logic those who have sex outside of marriage should also be put to death in that country. Which of course will never happen because really this is a question of homophobia, not religion or God.
Yes because killing homosexuals is really un-christian...
"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Leviticus snap.
You shouldn't bother with defending christianity as long as that piece of saw-esque literature i still a part of it. I think there is a certain respectable honesty in admitting mistakes.
I also think there is a sense of spinelessness when you blindly try to wash away all blame for a problem your religion of choice caused. Nothing Uganda is doing is against christianity and to deny that christian homopobia is fuelling this is outright ignorant.
Perhaps you truly don't know any better. Perhaps you spit on the graves of homosexuals in Uganda by being more occupied with freeing your religion of blame. Your religion is responsible for this and to deny this is sick.
You sound like a pretty hostile dude to be honest. So he's... what all now? a spineless, sick, homosexual-grave-spitter who's engaged in an outright ignorant denial of Christian homophobia? Did I cover all the salient points there?
His argument is all that matters. If it is sound, regardless of churlish phrasing, it falls to his opponents to attempt a counter. If it is not sound, no amount of polite couching will change this. Tone matters little, if at all.
I dunno. Is there nothing to be said for polite disagreement? Is there nothing to be said for decent conversation? I mean I think it's actually very difficult to have a dialogue with someone who treats you with open contempt. So what you're doing in practice by treating your opponent as if he or she was a scumbag is expressing that you don't want to hear what they're saying, that you really just want to browbeat someone.
Tone matters a great deal.
When dealing with one who engages in such behavior, is it not thus all the more satisfying to impale him (the active "hers" of this forum can be counted on one hand) upon the cold point of logic and watch as he flounders about, impotent in his rage? I am unconvinced of the virtues of so-called polite conversation; more often than not, the contempt is still there, a putrescent core festering beneath a newly burnished surface. Why not, for expediency's sake, have it just sit in the open? Rather than striving toward civility, we should endeavor toward goals such as soundness or clarity. It would be nice to have them all, I suppose, but if I were to sacrifice one, it would most certainly be the former.
If contempt for the individual with whom you disagree is a given, then you're right, tone is of little importance. It's been my experience, though, that nothing much ever comes of arguments where one person just sets out to bash the other. I mean I suppose if your goal in the first place is to derive satisfaction from impaling your opponent with your pointy logic powers, then bashing is a good way to get your jollies. If that's the case, then bash on, my friend, bash on!
On May 11 2011 16:27 TechniQ.UK wrote: Even though I am a Christian, a rather traditional Christian at that. This bill horrifies me and it is radically unchristian.
By the same logic those who have sex outside of marriage should also be put to death in that country. Which of course will never happen because really this is a question of homophobia, not religion or God.
Yes because killing homosexuals is really un-christian...
"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Leviticus snap.
You shouldn't bother with defending christianity as long as that piece of saw-esque literature i still a part of it. I think there is a certain respectable honesty in admitting mistakes.
I also think there is a sense of spinelessness when you blindly try to wash away all blame for a problem your religion of choice caused. Nothing Uganda is doing is against christianity and to deny that christian homopobia is fuelling this is outright ignorant.
Perhaps you truly don't know any better. Perhaps you spit on the graves of homosexuals in Uganda by being more occupied with freeing your religion of blame. Your religion is responsible for this and to deny this is sick.
You sound like a pretty hostile dude to be honest. So he's... what all now? a spineless, sick, homosexual-grave-spitter who's engaged in an outright ignorant denial of Christian homophobia? Did I cover all the salient points there?
His argument is all that matters. If it is sound, regardless of churlish phrasing, it falls to his opponents to attempt a counter. If it is not sound, no amount of polite couching will change this. Tone matters little, if at all.
I dunno. Is there nothing to be said for polite disagreement? Is there nothing to be said for decent conversation? I mean I think it's actually very difficult to have a dialogue with someone who treats you with open contempt. So what you're doing in practice by treating your opponent as if he or she was a scumbag is expressing that you don't want to hear what they're saying, that you really just want to browbeat someone.
Tone matters a great deal.
When dealing with one who engages in such behavior, is it not thus all the more satisfying to impale him (the active "hers" of this forum can be counted on one hand) upon the cold point of logic and watch as he flounders about, impotent in his rage? I am unconvinced of the virtues of so-called polite conversation; more often than not, the contempt is still there, a putrescent core festering beneath a newly burnished surface. Why not, for expediency's sake, have it just sit in the open? Rather than striving toward civility, we should endeavor toward goals such as soundness or clarity. It would be nice to have them all, I suppose, but if I were to sacrifice one, it would most certainly be the former.
If contempt for the individual with whom you disagree is a given, then you're right, tone is of little importance. It's been my experience, though, that nothing much ever comes of arguments where one person just sets out to bash the other. I mean I suppose if your goal in the first place is to derive satisfaction from impaling your opponent with your pointy logic powers, then bashing is a good way to get your jollies. If that's the case, then bash on, my friend, bash on!
I did not set out to only bash, my post has plenty of solid points.
It is true however that i have little regard for people who's first response at such inhumanity is to rush to defend their religion. If a person cares more about how their religion is perceived and about white-washing it's horrible parts then the lives of other human beings, then such a person barely registers as a human being on my radar.
I also find it somewhat hypocritical to call for polite debate when the opposing side in this case is pro-execution of minorities. It's disturbing to see a person demand to be treated politely whilst their entire point is based around executing homosexuals.
I can engage in polite discussion on plenty of subjects but when it's something like this i don't find the need to sugar coat things. This isn't a tax bracket change it's the lives of innocent people that are being put on the line. And regardless of how i may "bash" my opponents, none of my posts are soley that. I provide arguments, points, all the things for a healthy discussion. At times my loathing for people who trivialize the lives of human beings might shine through but consider it my handicap to not be able to be polite when surrounded by the hatefull, murderous and apologists.
On May 11 2011 16:27 TechniQ.UK wrote: Even though I am a Christian, a rather traditional Christian at that. This bill horrifies me and it is radically unchristian.
By the same logic those who have sex outside of marriage should also be put to death in that country. Which of course will never happen because really this is a question of homophobia, not religion or God.
Yes because killing homosexuals is really un-christian...
"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Leviticus snap.
You shouldn't bother with defending christianity as long as that piece of saw-esque literature i still a part of it. I think there is a certain respectable honesty in admitting mistakes.
I also think there is a sense of spinelessness when you blindly try to wash away all blame for a problem your religion of choice caused. Nothing Uganda is doing is against christianity and to deny that christian homopobia is fuelling this is outright ignorant.
Perhaps you truly don't know any better. Perhaps you spit on the graves of homosexuals in Uganda by being more occupied with freeing your religion of blame. Your religion is responsible for this and to deny this is sick.
You sound like a pretty hostile dude to be honest. So he's... what all now? a spineless, sick, homosexual-grave-spitter who's engaged in an outright ignorant denial of Christian homophobia? Did I cover all the salient points there?
His argument is all that matters. If it is sound, regardless of churlish phrasing, it falls to his opponents to attempt a counter. If it is not sound, no amount of polite couching will change this. Tone matters little, if at all.
I dunno. Is there nothing to be said for polite disagreement? Is there nothing to be said for decent conversation? I mean I think it's actually very difficult to have a dialogue with someone who treats you with open contempt. So what you're doing in practice by treating your opponent as if he or she was a scumbag is expressing that you don't want to hear what they're saying, that you really just want to browbeat someone.
Tone matters a great deal.
When dealing with one who engages in such behavior, is it not thus all the more satisfying to impale him (the active "hers" of this forum can be counted on one hand) upon the cold point of logic and watch as he flounders about, impotent in his rage? I am unconvinced of the virtues of so-called polite conversation; more often than not, the contempt is still there, a putrescent core festering beneath a newly burnished surface. Why not, for expediency's sake, have it just sit in the open? Rather than striving toward civility, we should endeavor toward goals such as soundness or clarity. It would be nice to have them all, I suppose, but if I were to sacrifice one, it would most certainly be the former.
If contempt for the individual with whom you disagree is a given, then you're right, tone is of little importance. It's been my experience, though, that nothing much ever comes of arguments where one person just sets out to bash the other. I mean I suppose if your goal in the first place is to derive satisfaction from impaling your opponent with your pointy logic powers, then bashing is a good way to get your jollies. If that's the case, then bash on, my friend, bash on!
I did not set out to only bash, my post has plenty of solid points.
It is true however that i have little regard for people who's first response at such inhumanity is to rush to defend their religion. If a person cares more about how their religion is perceived and about white-washing it's horrible parts then the lives of other human beings, then such a person barely registers as a human being on my radar.
That's fine. I'll just chime in that I think the habit of personally deciding who registers as a human being and who registers as a barely-human based on how well you approve of their worldview is at the heart of the sort of travesty of policy that necessitated this thread in the first place.
I also find it somewhat hypocritical to call for polite debate when the opposing side in this case is pro-execution of minorities. It's disturbing to see a person demand to be treated politely whilst their entire point is based around executing homosexuals.
The person you opposed yourself to is not "pro-execution" of minorities or homosexuals. The bill, by his own admission, horrified him. He did not "demand" to be treated politely, either. I was the one that suggested your obvious contempt for Mr. TechniQ.UK was a problem.
On May 11 2011 16:27 TechniQ.UK wrote: Even though I am a Christian, a rather traditional Christian at that. This bill horrifies me and it is radically unchristian.
By the same logic those who have sex outside of marriage should also be put to death in that country. Which of course will never happen because really this is a question of homophobia, not religion or God.
Yes because killing homosexuals is really un-christian...
"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Leviticus snap.
You shouldn't bother with defending christianity as long as that piece of saw-esque literature i still a part of it. I think there is a certain respectable honesty in admitting mistakes.
I also think there is a sense of spinelessness when you blindly try to wash away all blame for a problem your religion of choice caused. Nothing Uganda is doing is against christianity and to deny that christian homopobia is fuelling this is outright ignorant.
Perhaps you truly don't know any better. Perhaps you spit on the graves of homosexuals in Uganda by being more occupied with freeing your religion of blame. Your religion is responsible for this and to deny this is sick.
You sound like a pretty hostile dude to be honest. So he's... what all now? a spineless, sick, homosexual-grave-spitter who's engaged in an outright ignorant denial of Christian homophobia? Did I cover all the salient points there?
His argument is all that matters. If it is sound, regardless of churlish phrasing, it falls to his opponents to attempt a counter. If it is not sound, no amount of polite couching will change this. Tone matters little, if at all.
I dunno. Is there nothing to be said for polite disagreement? Is there nothing to be said for decent conversation? I mean I think it's actually very difficult to have a dialogue with someone who treats you with open contempt. So what you're doing in practice by treating your opponent as if he or she was a scumbag is expressing that you don't want to hear what they're saying, that you really just want to browbeat someone.
Tone matters a great deal.
When dealing with one who engages in such behavior, is it not thus all the more satisfying to impale him (the active "hers" of this forum can be counted on one hand) upon the cold point of logic and watch as he flounders about, impotent in his rage? I am unconvinced of the virtues of so-called polite conversation; more often than not, the contempt is still there, a putrescent core festering beneath a newly burnished surface. Why not, for expediency's sake, have it just sit in the open? Rather than striving toward civility, we should endeavor toward goals such as soundness or clarity. It would be nice to have them all, I suppose, but if I were to sacrifice one, it would most certainly be the former.
If contempt for the individual with whom you disagree is a given, then you're right, tone is of little importance. It's been my experience, though, that nothing much ever comes of arguments where one person just sets out to bash the other. I mean I suppose if your goal in the first place is to derive satisfaction from impaling your opponent with your pointy logic powers, then bashing is a good way to get your jollies. If that's the case, then bash on, my friend, bash on!
I did not set out to only bash, my post has plenty of solid points.
It is true however that i have little regard for people who's first response at such inhumanity is to rush to defend their religion. If a person cares more about how their religion is perceived and about white-washing it's horrible parts then the lives of other human beings, then such a person barely registers as a human being on my radar.
I also find it somewhat hypocritical to call for polite debate when the opposing side in this case is pro-execution of minorities. It's disturbing to see a person demand to be treated politely whilst their entire point is based around executing homosexuals.
I can engage in polite discussion on plenty of subjects but when it's something like this i don't find the need to sugar coat things. This isn't a tax bracket change it's the lives of innocent people that are being put on the line. And regardless of how i may "bash" my opponents, none of my posts are soley that. I provide arguments, points, all the things for a healthy discussion. At times my loathing for people who trivialize the lives of human beings might shine through but consider it my handicap to not be able to be polite when surrounded by the hatefull, murderous and apologists.
I have yet to hear of a gay person murdered with Lectivus 18:22/20:13 quoted as the motive. (People can interpret the same message differently : http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh3.htm)
edit: the link doesnt seem to work for some reason, but its important to realise that such a bill would never be sanctioned by any church. Religious christians may frown on homosexuality but they would never actively advocate murder.
That's fine. I'll just chime in that I think the habit of personally deciding who registers as a human being and who registers as a barely-human based on how well you approve of their worldview is at the heart of the sort of travesty of policy that necessitated this thread in the first place
And ill respond that this eternal "everyone has a point" mentality is at the heart of the bystanders that let these horrible things happen.
I dissaprove of certain worldviews and i do so harshly at the more extreme worldviews. I believe when faced with a sickening concept it should be treated as such. If i hear a person advocate nazism i would condem them with both solid criticism and criticism of their person. You can call a bad idea a bad idea, there is nothing wrong with that.
The person you opposed yourself to is not "pro-execution" of minorities or homosexuals. The bill, by his own admission, horrified him. He did not "demand" to be treated politely, either. I was the one that suggested your obvious contempt for Mr. TechniQ.UK was a problem.
True, but this person did proceed to try and remove his religion from the blame whilst it carries much of the blame. I was outraged at that for 2 reasons:
1) Religion has everything to do with it. To pretend that it's not is dishonest. 2) His post was aimed at defending his religion, i would assume a "true" christian would soley be occupied with the suffering of the victims of this law rather then instantly fighting a PR war. As if the church's PR is of equall concern as the lives of innocent people.
I have yet to hear of a gay person murdered with Lectivus 18:22/20:13 quoted as the motive. (People can interpret the same message differently : http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh3.htm)
Yes in ancient hebrew i am sure that abomination translates into "nice person" and killing translates into "be nice to him".
We know what leviticus says, it calls for the murder of all homosexuals. Just because you don't like what it says doesn't mean you get to change it.
edit: the link doesnt seem to work for some reason, but its important to realise that such a bill would never be sanctioned by any church. Religious christians may frown on homosexuality but they would never actively advocate murder.
Who suddenly made you king of the christians? The only requirment to be a christian is to be call yourself a christian.
The bible advocates peace and war. It is a book filled with contradictions wich can be used to justify anything (except abolishing slavery, it loves slavery). Followers can read and take from it what they like because that's what it is, it's a pick and choose book. Reading and embracing the entire bible from start to finish is only really possible if you have a serious case of doublethink.
Religious christians may frown on homosexuality but they would never actively advocate murder.
Ooh well that's good to hear. I am sure this will let all homosexuals in Uganda sleep safe at night.
Are we living in the same world? Christians are pushing this law foreward as we speak. You don't get to wave a magic wand and by divine decree claim these people aren't christian. They are just as much christian as you and their biblical reading is just as legit as yours.
Saying these people aren't christians is about as acceptable a view as saying the USSR wasn't communists. You use a good things glue, bad things rubber, approach. If this was such a violation of christianity i would have assumed the vatican to have spoken out at this point. Seems rather quiet though.
That's fine. I'll just chime in that I think the habit of personally deciding who registers as a human being and who registers as a barely-human based on how well you approve of their worldview is at the heart of the sort of travesty of policy that necessitated this thread in the first place
And ill respond that this eternal "everyone has a point" mentality is at the heart of the bystanders that let these horrible things happen.
I dissaprove of certain worldviews and i do so harshly at the more extreme worldviews. I believe when faced with a sickening concept it should be treated as such. If i hear a person advocate nazism i would condem them with both solid criticism and criticism of their person. You can call a bad idea a bad idea, there is nothing wrong with that.
I never suggested that he had a point. I only suggested that you conceiving of him as "barely human" is suspect. You can take that to imply that I think people deserve to be treated with a modicum of decency regardless of whether or not they have a point. That's a fair assessment of my position.
The person you opposed yourself to is not "pro-execution" of minorities or homosexuals. The bill, by his own admission, horrified him. He did not "demand" to be treated politely, either. I was the one that suggested your obvious contempt for Mr. TechniQ.UK was a problem.
True, but this person did proceed to try and remove his religion from the blame whilst it carries much of the blame. I was outraged at that for 2 reasons:
1) Religion has everything to do with it. To pretend that it's not is dishonest. 2) His post was aimed at defending his religion, i would assume a "true" christian would soley be occupied with the suffering of the victims of this law rather then instantly fighting a PR war. As if the church's PR is of equall concern as the lives of innocent people.
Given your presuppositions, you have every right to hate religion. I just wanted to point out that you were accusing TechniQ of being pro-execution, which he explicitly wasn't and that you were calling him a hypocrite for demanding polite treatment, which he certainly didn't.
I originally said that your contempt for TechniQ was problematic, and you accused him of being pro-execution and demanding and barely human. Then I said that thinking of people as subhuman is a dangerous practice, whereupon you accused me of arguing that everyone has a point. These are non sequiturs, which are possibly yet another pitfall of automatically disdaining those with whom you're in disagreement.
I never suggested that he had a point. I only suggested that you conceiving of him as "barely human" is suspect. You can take that to imply that I think people deserve to be treated with a modicum of decency regardless of whether or not they have a point. That's a fair assessment of my position.
I wich case you were wrong in your assumption.
Given your presuppositions, you have every right to hate religion. I just wanted to point out that you were accusing TechniQ of being pro-execution, which he explicitly wasn't and that you were calling him a hypocrite for demanding polite treatment, which he certainly didn't.
That wasn't to him in particular but to the people on the opposite side of my view, as i stated. He wasn't opposite to my view since he was also anti-execution but wich is why i pointed out i posted to him because of his post on how religion wasn't involved.
I didn't call him pro-execution at all wich would be silly because he literally said he wasn't.
I originally said that your contempt for TechniQ was problematic, and you accused him of being pro-execution and demanding and barely human. Then I said that thinking of people as subhuman is a dangerous practice, whereupon you accused me of arguing that everyone has a point. These are non sequiturs, which are possibly yet another pitfall of automatically disdaining those with whom you're in disagreement.
You pile on the assumptions and miss-reading of my posts wich leads you further and further astray from what i actually said. I can't really say anything at this point because no matter what i say, you will only drift further and further away from what i actually said.
Go back and read what i actually said and stop miss-reading half and assuming the other half. I would preffer it if i did not have to spend more posts dealing with semantics.
I never suggested that he had a point. I only suggested that you conceiving of him as "barely human" is suspect. You can take that to imply that I think people deserve to be treated with a modicum of decency regardless of whether or not they have a point. That's a fair assessment of my position.
Given your presuppositions, you have every right to hate religion. I just wanted to point out that you were accusing TechniQ of being pro-execution, which he explicitly wasn't and that you were calling him a hypocrite for demanding polite treatment, which he certainly didn't.
That wasn't to him in particular but to the people on the opposite side of my view, as i stated. He wasn't opposite to my view since he was also anti-execution but wich is why i pointed out i posted to him because of his post on how religion wasn't involved.
I didn't call him pro-execution at all wich would be silly because he literally said he wasn't.
I originally said that your contempt for TechniQ was problematic, and you accused him of being pro-execution and demanding and barely human. Then I said that thinking of people as subhuman is a dangerous practice, whereupon you accused me of arguing that everyone has a point. These are non sequiturs, which are possibly yet another pitfall of automatically disdaining those with whom you're in disagreement.
You pile on the assumptions and miss-reading of my posts wich leads you further and further astray from what i actually said. I can't really say anything at this point because no matter what i say, you will only drift further and further away from what i actually said.
Go back and read what i actually said and stop miss-reading half and assuming the other half. I would preffer it if i did not have to spend more posts dealing with semantics.
I haven't conducted a statistically significant survey yet, but I think this is where every forum discussion terminates: "you don't understand my posts. read them again."
On May 11 2011 16:27 TechniQ.UK wrote: Even though I am a Christian, a rather traditional Christian at that. This bill horrifies me and it is radically unchristian.
By the same logic those who have sex outside of marriage should also be put to death in that country. Which of course will never happen because really this is a question of homophobia, not religion or God.
Yes because killing homosexuals is really un-christian...
"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Leviticus snap.
You shouldn't bother with defending christianity as long as that piece of saw-esque literature i still a part of it. I think there is a certain respectable honesty in admitting mistakes.
I also think there is a sense of spinelessness when you blindly try to wash away all blame for a problem your religion of choice caused. Nothing Uganda is doing is against christianity and to deny that christian homopobia is fuelling this is outright ignorant.
Perhaps you truly don't know any better. Perhaps you spit on the graves of homosexuals in Uganda by being more occupied with freeing your religion of blame. Your religion is responsible for this and to deny this is sick.
How is Christianity responsible for anti-gay bills?? I'm a conservative Christian and the bible is the Word of God. Yet I don't hate gays and not only that, but I love gay people. Gay people are also made in the image of God and are therefore loved by God and by Christians (the Sons of God). Who am I to pass judgement and condemn another made in the image of God? I am no better as a fellow sinner. What about levitical law? I should be dead by now!!!! (remember the one about rebellious children? I should be stoned to death by now). But I'm still alive - WOW. Does that mean the bible is null? By no means! What then is the purpose of the law? It is to show us the ultimate consequence of sin and the holiness of God. It is our tutor and it teaches us what Sin is. So then - will a Man who sleeps with another Man die? Yes. God will judge him on the last day and he will be punished for his sin. Did God eat his words? No. Did he ask us to deal out justice? No - "for Vengeance is mine", says the LORD.
How is Christianity responsible for anti-gay bills?? I'm a conservative Christian and the bible is the Word of God. Yet I don't hate gays and not only that, but I love gay people. Gay people are also made in the image of God and are therefore loved by God and by Christians (the Sons of God). Who am I to pass judgement and condemn another made in the image of God? I am no better as a fellow sinner. What about levitical law? I should be dead by now!!!! (remember the one about rebellious children? I should be stoned to death by now). But I'm still alive - WOW. Does that mean the bible is null? By no means! What then is the purpose of the law? It is to show us the ultimate consequence of sin and the holiness of God. It is our tutor and it teaches us what Sin is. So then - will a Man who sleeps with another Man die? Yes. God will judge him on the last day and he will be punished for his sin. Did God eat his words? No. Did he ask us to deal out justice? No - "for Vengeance is mine", says the LORD.
Your arrogance is astounding. At what point did you believe yourself to be the highest authority of christianity? The truth is that with a club that has 1.5 billion members the rules vary all across the board. There isn't a minimal requirment to be called a christian other then to identify yourself as such.
Christianity has plenty of anti-gay parts wich is exactly from wich certain christians derive their justification for oppressing homosexuals and even creating laws such as this.
What is the purpose of this law? The law is exactly what it is. It is exactly as it is written down. It isn't designed to "show us the ultimate consequences" or whatever nonesense you fantasize about, it's a law designed to kill homosexuals. It's pretty 1:1.
You proceed to once again ignore one half of the bible and embrace the other. You say that god will judge and humans should not. The problem here is that the bible delivers countless examples of where it very clearly wants you as a follower to judge. The bible swings between only god may judge and you should judge, it does so all the time. The bible contradicts itself wich is too be expected from a piece of literature written by hundreds over even more years.
Christianity is responsible for this anti-gay bill. You need to understand that just because you are religious doesn't mean you get to re-write reality to fit your religion. The people of Uganda are deeply christian and a large portion (84%) of the population is christian. This homophobia is the result of christian doctrine.
This is how the world works. You may have some deluded view of how christianity is picture perfect and doesn't promote violence against anyone but the truth is that even sowing two different kinds of seeds next to each other warrants a stoning.
It's deeply disturbing how people are actively trying to re-write not only reality but even their own faith in order to match it up with how they feel things should be. Christian doctrine is very anti-gay and the people in Uganda are largely motivated by their religion.
Just because you have a different take on a book that provides a million different ways to read it, doesn't mean you are more or less right. Your reading of the bible is just as valid as the Uganda way of reading the bible. Both versions are present in this one heavily contradicting book.
On May 11 2011 12:27 Uhh Negative wrote: [quote] You have the right to an opinion of right or wrong
Not only that. I have the right to vote to ban things that I think are wrong.
Right, that's an opinion.
And if the majority agrees with me, it becomes a right.
This is a localized issue. Maybe if you want to talk about persecution of gays on a global basis then your opinion has a weight.
There is no such thing as a localised issue. That's YOUR poor judgement and opinion.
I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. Maybe African nations don't GIVE A SHIT what people from other countries think. You can have all the opinions you want, but at the end of the day they should do what they want to do. They shouldn't do this or that just because some country 1000s of miles away thinks it bad. I'm tired of all this "white love" bullshit assuming the whole world needs to be Westernized.
What if you were a Congressmen voting on a bill and some Mongolians think that bill is the worst thing in the world? You shouldn't even consider it, they aren't your constituents.
There's clear western interference here, but it's not where you think it is. American evangelicals helped develop this bill and have funded campaigns to support it. This is a western bill, but its proponents could never hope to get it passed in a western country.
Beyond that, I can't really understand your extreme-isolationist perspective. Sure, we shouldn't care if other countries have different speed limits, drinking ages, legislatures, or judicial systems as us, but there's nothing provincial about killing innocent people by force of law. This is not the sort of issue about which we should be neutral. It's a massive human right's violation. If we don't stand against something like this, where do we stand?
I don't know. Is every person responsible for the human rights of the whole world? Something to think about, I guess. I guess it also depends on the definition of "stand against" something. Sure, I'm against it.
Signing this petition amounts to nothing more than saying "I'm against this bill." If you can say that in public on TL, why can't you articulate this position in the public record? Some of the major arguments employed in support of this bill contradict all of the available evidence. This bill and the arguments supporting it represent a major entry in the public discourse on the issue of gay rights Failure to oppose this bill implies that those arguments are legitimate and fails to dispute the statements this bill makes.
On May 11 2011 12:56 Uhh Negative wrote: We all course it does. That's why there will never be some universal moral code that no one ever disputes, ever. That's why its always going to be a debated topic.
Killing adults because they engage in consensual relationships with other adults should never be against any law.
I think anyone who argues that statement is trying to play devil's advocate. There is no other reason to support it logically.
I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc.
You are entitled to your bigotry.
On May 11 2011 13:16 dcemuser wrote: I don't think you should be punished by law for it though.
How charitable of you. Money from private US interest groups and US aid helped the creation of this bill. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_%28Christian_political_organization%29#The_Fellowship_and_Uganda) If this law passes US foreign aid money could then be used to enforce it. By failing to publicly oppose this bill, you give it tacit consent.
[/quote] I can oppose it, but I shouldn't HAVE to go on record opposing it. I shouldn't have to be responsible for every bad thing I see that goes on the world. I don't know what your last point is about. Ok, so US private interest groups funded this bill? Private interest groups that I'm not a part of and don't support in any way, shape, or form? And don't tell me just because I'm a Christian automatically means what every other Christian in this world decides to do I have to magically support. Everyone sins.
And yes, I am entitled to think homosexuality is wrong. Just as much as you are allowed to think it's okay. Nothing wrong with that.
And good job breaking the quote, too many quotes in here to fix it :p
How is Christianity responsible for anti-gay bills?? I'm a conservative Christian and the bible is the Word of God. Yet I don't hate gays and not only that, but I love gay people. Gay people are also made in the image of God and are therefore loved by God and by Christians (the Sons of God). Who am I to pass judgement and condemn another made in the image of God? I am no better as a fellow sinner. What about levitical law? I should be dead by now!!!! (remember the one about rebellious children? I should be stoned to death by now). But I'm still alive - WOW. Does that mean the bible is null? By no means! What then is the purpose of the law? It is to show us the ultimate consequence of sin and the holiness of God. It is our tutor and it teaches us what Sin is. So then - will a Man who sleeps with another Man die? Yes. God will judge him on the last day and he will be punished for his sin. Did God eat his words? No. Did he ask us to deal out justice? No - "for Vengeance is mine", says the LORD.
Your arrogance is astounding. At what point did you believe yourself to be the highest authority of christianity? The truth is that with a club that has 1.5 billion members the rules vary all across the board. There isn't a minimal requirment to be called a christian other then to identify yourself as such.
Christianity has plenty of anti-gay parts wich is exactly from wich certain christians derive their justification for oppressing homosexuals and even creating laws such as this.
What is the purpose of this law? The law is exactly what it is. It is exactly as it is written down. It isn't designed to "show us the ultimate consequences" or whatever nonesense you fantasize about, it's a law designed to kill homosexuals. It's pretty 1:1.
You proceed to once again ignore one half of the bible and embrace the other. You say that god will judge and humans should not. The problem here is that the bible delivers countless examples of where it very clearly wants you as a follower to judge. The bible swings between only god may judge and you should judge, it does so all the time. The bible contradicts itself wich is too be expected from a piece of literature written by hundreds over even more years.
Christianity is responsible for this anti-gay bill. You need to understand that just because you are religious doesn't mean you get to re-write reality to fit your religion. The people of Uganda are deeply christian and a large portion (84%) of the population is christian. This homophobia is the result of christian doctrine.
This is how the world works. You may have some deluded view of how christianity is picture perfect and doesn't promote violence against anyone but the truth is that even sowing two different kinds of seeds next to each other warrants a stoning.
It's deeply disturbing how people are actively trying to re-write not only reality but even their own faith in order to match it up with how they feel things should be. Christian doctrine is very anti-gay and the people in Uganda are largely motivated by their religion.
Just because you have a different take on a book that provides a million different ways to read it, doesn't mean you are more or less right. Your reading of the bible is just as valid as the Uganda way of reading the bible. Both versions are present in this one heavily contradicting book.
Lol so just because other people who call themselves Christians wrote this bill, it automatically makes every single Christian in the world responsible? Give me a break. Maybe I should redefine my religion to "Fascism" and start doing good things in the world to help Hitler's reputation.
This person is taking the Kantian position. Formula of the Universal Laws, taken from wikipedia but the essence is there "Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will" and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself [....]"
Clearly, it could not be that everyone was homosexual and society could continue to function.
The problem with the Kantian world view, is it's black and white perspective. Life is more gray than people realize. Controversial issues are not so cut and dry as Kant would like to believe.
Homosexuality is consistent with the categorical imperative in an awkward heterosexual sex for procreation kind of way.
The categorical imperative tests if making something universal creates a contradiction in the action not if making an action universal
EDIT: You're viewing it as an ends-based hypo-test.
I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though.
This is your standard Religious argument here:
1) (Things the christian faith considers) sins are immoral. 2) (The christian faith considers) homosexual acts (as) sins. 3) Therefore, homosexuality is immoral.
Here is popularized viewpoint that a majority of atheists, and I'm guessing the majority of TL supports.
1) Actions are immoral because they are intrinsically immoral, lets say they produce overall negative utility (pain, suffering, misery etc) 2) Homosexuality doesn't "hurt" anyone. 3) Homosexuality is not immoral.
TLDR: We(TL) or at least I, fundamentally disagree with homosexuality being "wrong", and challenge anyone to use logical, non-religious reasoning to show that it is.
edit:
I have a question for you: how does this relate to the topic?
If religious people base their morality ONLY on scriptures it is impossible to "argue" with them. And they will just take a relativist position.
Homosexuality is a genetic or mental defect (you can argue about which, I don't care)
Care to support the claim that Homosexuality is a defect?
On May 11 2011 14:57 Disquiet wrote: but its ultimately harmless. Rejecting gays is like rejecting someone with a birth mark, a small genetic defect that might be unsightly but it doesn't really affect anyone. So in a sense I do think homosexuality is "wrong", I think the world would be better without homosexuals.
What makes you think this is true?
This person is taking the Kantian position. Formula of the Universal Laws, taken from wikipedia but the essence is there "Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will" and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself [....]"
No he isn't, all his position was "I think the world would be better without homosexuals." An argument could be made that Kantian ethics support that position, but he could have any number of other justifications, or none at all. Nothing he said indicated why he thinks the world would be better without homosexuals.
On May 11 2011 15:18 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote: Clearly, it could not be that everyone was homosexual and society could continue to function.
This is false fyi.
Can you give a reason as to why it is false?
It is impossible for a strictly homosexual species to continue existing after it's first procreation cycle.
The same argument could be made about what would happen to society if everyone was male. However, that does not make it wrong to be male.
Many traits that are okay as one variety of a diverse set would be detrimental/perilous to society if everyone adopted them. If everyone was an astronaut or lawyer, there would be a shortage of food. If a "small" number of people take these professions, that does not lead to a Malthusian catastrophe.
One could even conclude from this logic that strict heterosexuality is bad. If everyone had sex with men and men only, there would be no reproduction (since no man would have sex with a woman). Same if everyone had sex with women and women only. By that criteria, bisexuality is the moral position.
I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though.
This is your standard Religious argument here:
1) (Things the christian faith considers) sins are immoral. 2) (The christian faith considers) homosexual acts (as) sins. 3) Therefore, homosexuality is immoral.
Here is popularized viewpoint that a majority of atheists, and I'm guessing the majority of TL supports.
1) Actions are immoral because they are intrinsically immoral, lets say they produce overall negative utility (pain, suffering, misery etc) 2) Homosexuality doesn't "hurt" anyone. 3) Homosexuality is not immoral.
TLDR: We(TL) or at least I, fundamentally disagree with homosexuality being "wrong", and challenge anyone to use logical, non-religious reasoning to show that it is.
edit:
I have a question for you: how does this relate to the topic?
If religious people base their morality ONLY on scriptures it is impossible to "argue" with them. And they will just take a relativist position.
Homosexuality is a genetic or mental defect (you can argue about which, I don't care)
Care to support the claim that Homosexuality is a defect?
On May 11 2011 14:57 Disquiet wrote: but its ultimately harmless. Rejecting gays is like rejecting someone with a birth mark, a small genetic defect that might be unsightly but it doesn't really affect anyone. So in a sense I do think homosexuality is "wrong", I think the world would be better without homosexuals.
What makes you think this is true?
This person is taking the Kantian position. Formula of the Universal Laws, taken from wikipedia but the essence is there "Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will" and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself [....]"
No he isn't, all his position was "I think the world would be better without homosexuals." An argument could be made that Kantian ethics support that position, but he could have any number of other justifications, or none at all. Nothing he said indicated why he thinks the world would be better without homosexuals.
On May 11 2011 15:18 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote: Clearly, it could not be that everyone was homosexual and society could continue to function.
This is false fyi.
Can you give a reason as to why it is false?
It is impossible for a strictly homosexual species to continue existing after it's first procreation cycle.
The same argument could be made about what would happen to society if everyone was male. However, that does not make it wrong to be male.
Many traits that are okay as one variety of a diverse set would be detrimental/perilous to society if everyone adopted them. If everyone was an astronaut or lawyer, there would be a shortage of food. If a "small" number of people take these professions, that does not lead to a Malthusian catastrophe.
One could even conclude from this logic that strict heterosexuality is bad. If everyone had sex with men and men only, there would be no reproduction (since no man would have sex with a woman). Same if everyone had sex with women and women only. By that criteria, bisexuality is the moral position.
I'm just going to say your last paragraph doesn't make sense. Look up the definition of "heterosexual"
Your arrogance is astounding. At what point did you believe yourself to be the highest authority of christianity?.....
...You proceed to once again ignore one half of the bible and embrace the other. You say that god will judge and humans should not. The problem here is that the bible delivers countless examples of where it very clearly wants you as a follower to judge. The bible swings between only god may judge and you should judge, it does so all the time. The bible contradicts itself wich is too be expected from a piece of literature written by hundreds over even more years...
Christianity is responsible for this anti-gay bill. You need to understand that just because you are religious doesn't mean you get to re-write reality to fit your religion. The people of Uganda are deeply christian and a large portion (84%) of the population is christian. This homophobia is the result of christian doctrine....
It's deeply disturbing how people are actively trying to re-write not only reality but even their own faith in order to match it up with how they feel things should be. Christian doctrine is very anti-gay and the people in Uganda are largely motivated by their religion.
So what? YOU get to decide with whom s/he gets to indentify? Why does s/he have to identify with anyone who declares themselves christian?
I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though.
This is your standard Religious argument here:
1) (Things the christian faith considers) sins are immoral. 2) (The christian faith considers) homosexual acts (as) sins. 3) Therefore, homosexuality is immoral.
Here is popularized viewpoint that a majority of atheists, and I'm guessing the majority of TL supports.
1) Actions are immoral because they are intrinsically immoral, lets say they produce overall negative utility (pain, suffering, misery etc) 2) Homosexuality doesn't "hurt" anyone. 3) Homosexuality is not immoral.
TLDR: We(TL) or at least I, fundamentally disagree with homosexuality being "wrong", and challenge anyone to use logical, non-religious reasoning to show that it is.
edit:
I have a question for you: how does this relate to the topic?
If religious people base their morality ONLY on scriptures it is impossible to "argue" with them. And they will just take a relativist position.
Homosexuality is a genetic or mental defect (you can argue about which, I don't care)
Care to support the claim that Homosexuality is a defect?
On May 11 2011 14:57 Disquiet wrote: but its ultimately harmless. Rejecting gays is like rejecting someone with a birth mark, a small genetic defect that might be unsightly but it doesn't really affect anyone. So in a sense I do think homosexuality is "wrong", I think the world would be better without homosexuals.
What makes you think this is true?
This person is taking the Kantian position. Formula of the Universal Laws, taken from wikipedia but the essence is there "Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will" and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself [....]"
No he isn't, all his position was "I think the world would be better without homosexuals." An argument could be made that Kantian ethics support that position, but he could have any number of other justifications, or none at all. Nothing he said indicated why he thinks the world would be better without homosexuals.
On May 11 2011 15:18 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote: Clearly, it could not be that everyone was homosexual and society could continue to function.
This is false fyi.
Can you give a reason as to why it is false?
It is impossible for a strictly homosexual species to continue existing after it's first procreation cycle.
The same argument could be made about what would happen to society if everyone was male. However, that does not make it wrong to be male.
Many traits that are okay as one variety of a diverse set would be detrimental/perilous to society if everyone adopted them. If everyone was an astronaut or lawyer, there would be a shortage of food. If a "small" number of people take these professions, that does not lead to a Malthusian catastrophe.
One could even conclude from this logic that strict heterosexuality is bad. If everyone had sex with men and men only, there would be no reproduction (since no man would have sex with a woman). Same if everyone had sex with women and women only. By that criteria, bisexuality is the moral position.
I'm just going to say your last paragraph doesn't make sense. Look up the definition of "heterosexual"
A heterosexual man would only have sex with women. However, if everyone in the species only had sex with women, then nobody would have sex with the men. Therefore this man (by this "if everyone did X" argument) should not have sex only with women.
A heterosexual woman would only have sex with men. However, if everyone in the species only had sex with men, then nobody would have sex with the women. Therefore this woman should not have sex with only men.
The fallacy is in judging a trait's goodness by imagining a hypothetical where every individual in the entire species takes the exact same action.
I know what "heterosexual" means, don't assume that because you personally don't understand an argument that it can only be explained by the ignorance of others.
I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though.
This is your standard Religious argument here:
1) (Things the christian faith considers) sins are immoral. 2) (The christian faith considers) homosexual acts (as) sins. 3) Therefore, homosexuality is immoral.
Here is popularized viewpoint that a majority of atheists, and I'm guessing the majority of TL supports.
1) Actions are immoral because they are intrinsically immoral, lets say they produce overall negative utility (pain, suffering, misery etc) 2) Homosexuality doesn't "hurt" anyone. 3) Homosexuality is not immoral.
TLDR: We(TL) or at least I, fundamentally disagree with homosexuality being "wrong", and challenge anyone to use logical, non-religious reasoning to show that it is.
edit:
I have a question for you: how does this relate to the topic?
If religious people base their morality ONLY on scriptures it is impossible to "argue" with them. And they will just take a relativist position.
Homosexuality is a genetic or mental defect (you can argue about which, I don't care)
Care to support the claim that Homosexuality is a defect?
On May 11 2011 14:57 Disquiet wrote: but its ultimately harmless. Rejecting gays is like rejecting someone with a birth mark, a small genetic defect that might be unsightly but it doesn't really affect anyone. So in a sense I do think homosexuality is "wrong", I think the world would be better without homosexuals.
What makes you think this is true?
This person is taking the Kantian position. Formula of the Universal Laws, taken from wikipedia but the essence is there "Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will" and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself [....]"
No he isn't, all his position was "I think the world would be better without homosexuals." An argument could be made that Kantian ethics support that position, but he could have any number of other justifications, or none at all. Nothing he said indicated why he thinks the world would be better without homosexuals.
On May 11 2011 15:18 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote: Clearly, it could not be that everyone was homosexual and society could continue to function.
This is false fyi.
Can you give a reason as to why it is false?
It is impossible for a strictly homosexual species to continue existing after it's first procreation cycle.
The same argument could be made about what would happen to society if everyone was male. However, that does not make it wrong to be male.
Many traits that are okay as one variety of a diverse set would be detrimental/perilous to society if everyone adopted them. If everyone was an astronaut or lawyer, there would be a shortage of food. If a "small" number of people take these professions, that does not lead to a Malthusian catastrophe.
One could even conclude from this logic that strict heterosexuality is bad. If everyone had sex with men and men only, there would be no reproduction (since no man would have sex with a woman). Same if everyone had sex with women and women only. By that criteria, bisexuality is the moral position.
I'm just going to say your last paragraph doesn't make sense. Look up the definition of "heterosexual"
A heterosexual man would only have sex with women. However, if everyone in the species only had sex with women, then nobody would have sex with the men. Therefore this man (by this "if everyone did X" argument) should not have sex only with women.
A heterosexual woman would only have sex with men. However, if everyone in the species only had sex with men, then nobody would have sex with the women. Therefore this woman should not have sex with only men.
The fallacy is in judging a trait's goodness by imagining a hypothetical where every individual in the entire species takes the exact same action.
I know what "heterosexual" means, don't assume that because you personally don't understand an argument that it can only be explained by the ignorance of others.
Well I'm saying heterosexual means sex with a someone of the opposite sex. So if everyone did "X" with X being sex with someone from the opposite sex, it works.
I'm just saying if that action is having sex with someone from the opposite sex, it works.
If woman, have sex with man. If man, have sex with woman.
Your thought is good you just didn't use the best example because you twisted the definition of heterosexual a little bit.
It is true, that society needs heterosexuals to continue to exist in the future.
It is not true, that society needs homosexuals to continue to exist in the future.
This person is taking the Kantian position. Formula of the Universal Laws, taken from wikipedia but the essence is there "Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will" and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself [....]"
Clearly, it could not be that everyone was homosexual and society could continue to function.
The problem with the Kantian world view, is it's black and white perspective. Life is more gray than people realize. Controversial issues are not so cut and dry as Kant would like to believe.
Homosexuality is consistent with the categorical imperative in an awkward heterosexual sex for procreation kind of way.
The categorical imperative tests if making something universal creates a contradiction in the action not if making an action universal
EDIT: You're viewing it as an ends-based hypo-test.
This use of Kant is so stupid and abusive it's actually laughable. I agree with you about Kant being a bit black and white, the problem here is that this is a completely tendentious use of the categorical imperative, to an extent where it doesn't make any sense anymore.
With such reasoning you could very well say that Kant was immoral because he didn't have an active sexual life and that if everybody etc...
Which, I hope everybody would agree with me, is silly.
Yes I gave counterexamples showing "only having sex with men" is bad and "only having sex with women" is bad, to create an argument in favor of bisexuality over either an exclusive preference toward men or an exclusive preference toward women.
I think the fact that "heterosexual" has to be broken down to a different absolute standard for men (have sex with women) than for women (have sex with men) itself shows the fallacy of extending an individual's traits to the entire species. More generally, diversity of traits (and genes) is sometimes a better outcome for the species than having one single trait shared by all individuals.
Regardless, I'm glad we agree that this is not a proper way to evaluate morals/goodness.
Lol so just because other people who call themselves Christians wrote this bill, it automatically makes every single Christian in the world responsible? Give me a break. Maybe I should redefine my religion to "Fascism" and start doing good things in the world to help Hitler's reputation
I never said this. I never included all christians with the people in Uganda. He was trying to pretend that the people of Uganda were not christian. Big difference and a big lie.
So what? YOU get to decide with whom s/he gets to indentify? Why does s/he have to identify with anyone who declares themselves christian?
Identify? Who ever said anything about that. He can identify with whomever he likes.
The point is that the people in Uganda are christians whilst he was trying to remove the blame of christianity by pretending that they aren't "real" christians.
I never said all christians enage in the type of behavour we see from Uganda-chistians. If you want to criticque me it will have to be about what i said, not what you wished i said.
On May 11 2011 23:21 Signet wrote: Yes I gave counterexamples showing "only having sex with men" is bad and "only having sex with women" is bad, to create an argument in favor of bisexuality over either an exclusive preference toward men or an exclusive preference toward women.
I think the fact that "heterosexual" has to be broken down to a different absolute standard for men (have sex with women) than for women (have sex with men) itself shows the fallacy of extending an individual's traits to the entire species.
Regardless, I'm glad we agree that this is not a proper way to evaluate morals/goodness.
I don't really understand your point. Are you saying that genders should be evaluated separately or something? I just don't see what you're getting at really. It's not really a different standard for men and women. If you look at it from an outside all you see is pairs of men-women.
Lol so just because other people who call themselves Christians wrote this bill, it automatically makes every single Christian in the world responsible? Give me a break. Maybe I should redefine my religion to "Fascism" and start doing good things in the world to help Hitler's reputation
I never said this. I never included all christians with the people in Uganda. He was trying to pretend that the people of Uganda were not christian. Big difference and a big lie.
So what? YOU get to decide with whom s/he gets to indentify? Why does s/he have to identify with anyone who declares themselves christian?
Identify? Who ever said anything about that. He can identify with whomever he likes.
The point is that the people in Uganda are christians whilst he was trying to remove the blame of christianity by pretending that they aren't "real" christians.
I never said all christians enage in the type of behavour we see from Uganda-chistians. If you want to criticque me it will have to be about what i said, not what you wished i said.
But see, by placing the blame on "Christianity" you seem to be implying that all Christians are responsible. That's the problem we have with that.
On May 11 2011 23:21 Signet wrote: Yes I gave counterexamples showing "only having sex with men" is bad and "only having sex with women" is bad, to create an argument in favor of bisexuality over either an exclusive preference toward men or an exclusive preference toward women.
I think the fact that "heterosexual" has to be broken down to a different absolute standard for men (have sex with women) than for women (have sex with men) itself shows the fallacy of extending an individual's traits to the entire species.
Regardless, I'm glad we agree that this is not a proper way to evaluate morals/goodness.
I don't really understand your point. Are you saying that genders should be evaluated separately or something? I just don't see what you're getting at really. It's not really a different standard for men and women. If you look at it from an outside all you see is pairs of men-women.
No I'm saying an individual's actions should be judged by their own effects alone. Trying to project them to 100% of the species is invalid. (see: If everybody was an astronaut)
In fact I've seen a study (sorry this was a long time ago, I dont have a source readily available so take my memory with a grain of salt) where herds of sheep that had homosexual males among them had greater reproductive success overall than herds where all males were heterosexual. So despite the fact that a herd where all males were gay would not reproduce, the gay trait being present in some individuals was actually beneficial.
This person is taking the Kantian position. Formula of the Universal Laws, taken from wikipedia but the essence is there "Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will" and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself [....]"
Clearly, it could not be that everyone was homosexual and society could continue to function.
The problem with the Kantian world view, is it's black and white perspective. Life is more gray than people realize. Controversial issues are not so cut and dry as Kant would like to believe.
Homosexuality is consistent with the categorical imperative in an awkward heterosexual sex for procreation kind of way.
The categorical imperative tests if making something universal creates a contradiction in the action not if making an action universal
EDIT: You're viewing it as an ends-based hypo-test.
This use of Kant is so stupid and abusive it's actually laughable. I agree with you about Kant being a bit black and white, the problem here is that this is a completely tendentious use of the categorical imperative, to an extent where it doesn't make any sense anymore.
With such reasoning you could very well say that Kant was immoral because he didn't have an active sexual life and that if everybody etc...
Which, I hope everybody would agree with me, is silly.
Oh, I didn't finish one of my sentences. I meant to say it tests for an internal contradiction NOT that it tests for a bad scenario. So homsexual sex, if extended to everyone, doesn't contradict it's purpose, which is fun, expression of love, etc.
If MAY create a bad scenario (humans dying off in a generation) but that is NOT what the CI tests for. That's a bad consequence, which is not what Kant cares about.
On May 11 2011 23:21 Signet wrote: Yes I gave counterexamples showing "only having sex with men" is bad and "only having sex with women" is bad, to create an argument in favor of bisexuality over either an exclusive preference toward men or an exclusive preference toward women.
I think the fact that "heterosexual" has to be broken down to a different absolute standard for men (have sex with women) than for women (have sex with men) itself shows the fallacy of extending an individual's traits to the entire species.
Regardless, I'm glad we agree that this is not a proper way to evaluate morals/goodness.
I don't really understand your point. Are you saying that genders should be evaluated separately or something? I just don't see what you're getting at really. It's not really a different standard for men and women. If you look at it from an outside all you see is pairs of men-women.
No I'm saying an individual's actions should be judged by their own effects alone. Trying to project them to 100% of the species is invalid. (see: If everybody was an astronaut)
In fact I've seen a study (sorry this was a long time ago, I dont have a source readily available so take my memory with a grain of salt) where herds of sheep that had homosexual males among them had greater reproductive success overall than herds where all males were heterosexual. So despite the fact that a herd where all males were gay would not reproduce, the gay trait being present in some individuals was actually beneficial.
Oh okay I've got it. Makes sense now and I agree. Can't examine something in a vacuum. Everything has to examined in context and practicality.
Lol so just because other people who call themselves Christians wrote this bill, it automatically makes every single Christian in the world responsible? Give me a break. Maybe I should redefine my religion to "Fascism" and start doing good things in the world to help Hitler's reputation
I never said this. I never included all christians with the people in Uganda. He was trying to pretend that the people of Uganda were not christian. Big difference and a big lie.
So what? YOU get to decide with whom s/he gets to indentify? Why does s/he have to identify with anyone who declares themselves christian?
Identify? Who ever said anything about that. He can identify with whomever he likes.
The point is that the people in Uganda are christians whilst he was trying to remove the blame of christianity by pretending that they aren't "real" christians.
I never said all christians enage in the type of behavour we see from Uganda-chistians. If you want to criticque me it will have to be about what i said, not what you wished i said.
Ok sure, I'll talk about how you were completely non-responsive to any of his analysis. You said that the Bible was contradictory so that the Ugandan Christians were real christians too. Then you pointed out he was ignoring parts of the bible, but he wasn't, He specifically said that he failed to follow parts of the Bible but god will judge him.
I'll conced you never said that all christians engage in Ugandan christian behavior. I'm saying that his intent was never to call them un-christian. His point was to say that all christians are not responsible for the Bill. I don't know how the conversation went, but he seems to be saying that the Christians who pushed for the bill are not ones with which he indentifies
According to The Guardian, this bill won't be voted on before their legislative session closes. However, it remains in committee which means expect it to resurface later in the year.
Dissapointed that humans still are fighting over this silly issue. Are we all not born free and have feelings? How is it wrong if someone is gay? As long as they do not bother you and they keep to their business (which for the most part they do) then what right do we have to take that away from them or judge? The world today lacks tolerance, and it is this intolerance and human ego that brings forth stuff like the Wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, and future conflicts.
But see, by placing the blame on "Christianity" you seem to be implying that all Christians are responsible. That's the problem we have with that.
Christianity is made up out of all the written rules and stories. Those are anti-gay. Some christians embrace that part, some don't. I do put the blame on christianity, but your conclusion that this means all christians are responsible is your own flawed reading.
Ok sure, I'll talk about how you were completely non-responsive to any of his analysis. You said that the Bible was contradictory so that the Ugandan Christians were real christians too. Then you pointed out he was ignoring parts of the bible, but he wasn't, He specifically said that he failed to follow parts of the Bible but god will judge him.
I'll conced you never said that all christians engage in Ugandan christian behavior. I'm saying that his intent was never to call them un-christian. His point was to say that all christians are not responsible for the Bill. I don't know how the conversation went, but he seems to be saying that the Christians who pushed for the bill are not ones with which he indentifies.
This just isn't true. This was said by JesusSaviour:
How is Christianity responsible for anti-gay bills??
Is this a realy question? No it isn't. It's how he began his post about trying to weasle christianity out from this mess whilst christianity is central to what is happening in Uganda.
He follows with this:
Gay people are also made in the image of God and are therefore loved by God and by Christians
With this sentence he created the conditions with wich he excludes the Uganda population.
Christians love homosexuals, those who do not love homosexuals are thus not christian. Christians are people that call themselves christians, that's all there is to it.
Ok sure, I'll talk about how you were completely non-responsive to any of his analysis.
You will have to point out who you are talking about. You seem to be fusing TechniQ.UK, JesusOurSavior and Uhh Negative into one person.
On May 11 2011 23:58 BroOkLYnzSouLJa wrote: Dissapointed that humans still are fighting over this silly issue. Are we all not born free and have feelings? How is it wrong if someone is gay?
Good point, so true, but there are way too many things like this, just uncountable..
On May 11 2011 23:58 BroOkLYnzSouLJa wrote:The world today lacks tolerance, and it is this intolerance and human ego oil and weapon business in the US that brings forth stuff like the Wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, and future conflicts.
But see, by placing the blame on "Christianity" you seem to be implying that all Christians are responsible. That's the problem we have with that.
Christianity is made up out of all the written rules and stories. Those are anti-gay. Some christians embrace that part, some don't. I do put the blame on christianity, but your conclusion that this means all christians are responsible is your own flawed reading.
Ok sure, I'll talk about how you were completely non-responsive to any of his analysis. You said that the Bible was contradictory so that the Ugandan Christians were real christians too. Then you pointed out he was ignoring parts of the bible, but he wasn't, He specifically said that he failed to follow parts of the Bible but god will judge him.
I'll conced you never said that all christians engage in Ugandan christian behavior. I'm saying that his intent was never to call them un-christian. His point was to say that all christians are not responsible for the Bill. I don't know how the conversation went, but he seems to be saying that the Christians who pushed for the bill are not ones with which he indentifies.
This just isn't true. This was said by JesusSaviour:
How is Christianity responsible for anti-gay bills??
Is this a realy question? No it isn't. It's how he began his post about trying to weasle christianity out from this mess whilst christianity is central to what is happening in Uganda.
Gay people are also made in the image of God and are therefore loved by God and by Christians
With this sentence he created the conditions with wich he excludes the Uganda population.
Christians love homosexuals, those who do not love homosexuals are thus not christian. Christians are people that call themselves christians, that's all there is to it.
Ok sure, I'll talk about how you were completely non-responsive to any of his analysis.
You will have to point out who you are talking about. You seem to be fusing TechniQ.UK, JesusOurSavior and Uhh Negative into one person.
I'm pretty sure a huge amount of this is communication. When you say Christianity you are saying that PART of Christianity is responsible for the bill. When he says Christianity is not responsible he is saying the MAJORITY of Christianity is not responsible for the bill.
On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote: He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do.
It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist.
On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote: He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do.
It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist.
I disagree.
Maybe you can't share your ideas for fear that they will spawn something sinister?
Maybe I don't like bunnies but I don't think we should kill them and I call myself an "anti-bunnier" then someone comes along and is like, "Let's kill all the bunnies!". Is that my fault?
On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote: He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do.
It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist.
On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote: He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do.
It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist.
Who is this "Islam"? She must be spreading these radical lies! Or are you saying a nebulous religious concept is somehow responsible for the extremists it creates?
On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote: He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do.
It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist.
Who is this "Islam"? She must be spreading these radical lies! Or are you saying a nebulous religious concept is somehow responsible for the extremists it creates?
On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote: He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do.
It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist.
I disagree.
Maybe you can't share your ideas for fear that they will spawn something sinister?
Maybe I don't like bunnies but I don't think we should kill them and I call myself an "anti-bunnier" then someone comes along and is like, "Let's kill all the bunnies!". Is that my fault?
On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote: He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do.
It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist.
No.
It's not.
The sheer existence of Islam makes the world safe for the extremists, the Qu'ran is open for interpretation and there's no demonstrable standard for Islam that all Muslims should follow. Read The God Delusion.
Wow, this has turned into a conversation I want to stay the hell away from o.O Guess I'll just add that I personally find it horrifying that a bill like this could even be considered. Voted, and going to encourage others to vote too.
I'm pretty sure a huge amount of this is communication. When you say Christianity you are saying that PART of Christianity is responsible for the bill. When he says Christianity is not responsible he is saying the MAJORITY of Christianity is not responsible for the bill.
Christianity is the story, the doctrine, the relics, the churches. It is everything about christianity that still exists when all humans are magically zapped away into the sky for rapture. Christians are the people.
Christianity is anti-gay, christians are all across the spectrum. Some reject those passages, some embrace them, some try to twist them. They are still there regardless of how they are read.
He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do.
It almost feels silly to keep explaining when you obviously refuse to understand. I explained it very clearly so you either failed to understand what i wrote or you purposefully ignored it and continued on with this bizare post. I am torn at this point. I either have to call you stupid for not understanding a very clear post or dishonest for understanding it but refusing to adress my actuall point rather then your fantasy version of what i said.
Finally there is a bit of peculiar stuff about Islam. You seem to believe that in a world without Islam there would still be Islamic terrorists. This is both laughable and horribly off-topic. You are derailing this topic enough by intentionally miss-reading posts, don't add going off-topic to that list.
Is this a realy question? No it isn't. It's how he began his post about trying to weasle christianity out from this mess whilst christianity is central to what is happening in Uganda.
christianity is responsible for this anti-gay bill. You need to understand that just because you are religious doesn't mean you get to re-write reality to fit your religion. The people of Uganda are deeply christian and a large portion (84%) of the population is christian. This homophobia is the result of christian doctrine.
You make these assertions failing to understand a simple thing, religion changes over time. You wont find people being burned on the stake for their beliefs, not because the bible has drastically changed but because people understood that one cannot interpret christian beliefs in such a manner.
You can quote Levictus or the insane evangilists that are believed to be responsible for this mess but you'll find that a majority of christians have nothing against homosexuals.The christians in Uganda are doing something that is unacceptable by christian standards (you asked for a statement from the Vatican = http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/vatican-speaks-out-against-uganda-anti-gay-laws ). So blaming the existence of christianinity is like blaming guns for the existence crime.
Please stop arguing about this,as it is more important to concentrate on solving of this mess than on directing the blame on parties that have stated this is not what they believe in.
On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote: He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do.
It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist.
I disagree.
Maybe you can't share your ideas for fear that they will spawn something sinister?
Maybe I don't like bunnies but I don't think we should kill them and I call myself an "anti-bunnier" then someone comes along and is like, "Let's kill all the bunnies!". Is that my fault?
On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote: He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do.
It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist.
No.
It's not.
The sheer existence of Islam makes the world safe for the extremists, the Qu'ran is open for interpretation and there's no demonstrable standard for Islam that all Muslims should follow. Read The God Delusion.
Last time I checked, the Christian Bible is open to interpretation as well. I point to the Westboro Baptist Church. They call themselves Baptists, just as these extremists call themselves Muslim. The American Baptist Association has long ago stated that WBC is not a true Baptist church. The educated Islam community would say the same thing about these extremists. They are not practicing what the Islamic community would call true Islam, and give Islam a bad name.
You could make the same argument for the Crusades btw...
On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote: He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do.
It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist.
I disagree.
Maybe you can't share your ideas for fear that they will spawn something sinister?
Maybe I don't like bunnies but I don't think we should kill them and I call myself an "anti-bunnier" then someone comes along and is like, "Let's kill all the bunnies!". Is that my fault?
On May 12 2011 00:55 Craton wrote:
On May 12 2011 00:53 jello_biafra wrote:
On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote: He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do.
It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist.
No.
It's not.
The sheer existence of Islam makes the world safe for the extremists, the Qu'ran is open for interpretation and there's no demonstrable standard for Islam that all Muslims should follow. Read The God Delusion.
Last time I checked, the Christian Bible is open to interpretation as well. I point to the Westboro Baptist Church. They call themselves Baptists, just as these extremists call themselves Muslim. The American Baptist Association has long ago stated that WBC is not a true Baptist church. The educated Islam community would say the same thing about these extremists. They are not practicing what the Islamic community would call true Islam, and give Islam a bad name.
You could make the same argument for the Crusades btw...
These extremists wouldn't be there at all without the religion itself.
On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote: He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do.
It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist.
I disagree.
Maybe you can't share your ideas for fear that they will spawn something sinister?
Maybe I don't like bunnies but I don't think we should kill them and I call myself an "anti-bunnier" then someone comes along and is like, "Let's kill all the bunnies!". Is that my fault?
On May 12 2011 00:55 Craton wrote:
On May 12 2011 00:53 jello_biafra wrote:
On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote: He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do.
It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist.
No.
It's not.
The sheer existence of Islam makes the world safe for the extremists, the Qu'ran is open for interpretation and there's no demonstrable standard for Islam that all Muslims should follow. Read The God Delusion.
Last time I checked, the Christian Bible is open to interpretation as well. I point to the Westboro Baptist Church. They call themselves Baptists, just as these extremists call themselves Muslim. The American Baptist Association has long ago stated that WBC is not a true Baptist church. The educated Islam community would say the same thing about these extremists. They are not practicing what the Islamic community would call true Islam, and give Islam a bad name.
You could make the same argument for the Crusades btw...
These extremists wouldn't be there at all without the religion itself.
The crusades wouldn't have happened without the existence of Christianity. Which, might I add, caused more deaths then the current extremists. So should we have said that Chrisianity should not have existed? No. Christianity does a lot of good for the community. Islam is the world's fastest growing religion. In countries where it is popular, it fills the same role as Christianity does in the United States and other countries in which Christianity is the majority religion.
I'm pretty sure a huge amount of this is communication. When you say Christianity you are saying that PART of Christianity is responsible for the bill. When he says Christianity is not responsible he is saying the MAJORITY of Christianity is not responsible for the bill.
Christianity is the story, the doctrine, the relics, the churches. It is everything about christianity that still exists when all humans are magically zapped away into the sky for rapture. Christians are the people.
Christianity is anti-gay, christians are all across the spectrum. Some reject those passages, some embrace them, some try to twist them. They are still there regardless of how they are read.
He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do.
It almost feels silly to keep explaining when you obviously refuse to understand. I explained it very clearly so you either failed to understand what i wrote or you purposefully ignored it and continued on with this bizare post. I am torn at this point. I either have to call you stupid for not understanding a very clear post or dishonest for understanding it but refusing to adress my actuall point rather then your fantasy version of what i said.
Finally there is a bit of peculiar stuff about Islam. You seem to believe that in a world without Islam there would still be Islamic terrorists. This is both laughable and horribly off-topic. You are derailing this topic enough by intentionally miss-reading posts, don't add going off-topic to that list.
Resorting to insults is not the way to go about things, sir.
I understand what you are saying. Yes, anti-gay sentiments might not exist without Christianity. And yes, there would be no Islamic extremists without Islam.
BUT!
Causality does not always imply responsibility. That's what I'm getting at.
On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote: He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do.
It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist.
I disagree.
Maybe you can't share your ideas for fear that they will spawn something sinister?
Maybe I don't like bunnies but I don't think we should kill them and I call myself an "anti-bunnier" then someone comes along and is like, "Let's kill all the bunnies!". Is that my fault?
On May 12 2011 00:55 Craton wrote:
On May 12 2011 00:53 jello_biafra wrote:
On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote: He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do.
It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist.
No.
It's not.
The sheer existence of Islam makes the world safe for the extremists, the Qu'ran is open for interpretation and there's no demonstrable standard for Islam that all Muslims should follow. Read The God Delusion.
Last time I checked, the Christian Bible is open to interpretation as well. I point to the Westboro Baptist Church. They call themselves Baptists, just as these extremists call themselves Muslim. The American Baptist Association has long ago stated that WBC is not a true Baptist church. The educated Islam community would say the same thing about these extremists. They are not practicing what the Islamic community would call true Islam, and give Islam a bad name.
You could make the same argument for the Crusades btw...
These extremists wouldn't be there at all without the religion itself.
The crusades wouldn't have happened without the existence of Christianity. Which, might I add, caused more deaths then the current extremists. So should we have said that Chrisianity should not have existed? No. Christianity does a lot of good for the community. Islam is the world's fastest growing religion. In countries where it is popular, it fills the same role as Christianity does in the United States and other countries in which Christianity is the majority religion.
Yes please, a world where religion doesn't exist would be much preferable. The idea that religion is a prerequisite for morality and moral acts annoys me to no end.
It seems the bill has been put on hold due to the large outcry worldwide to try and stop this. A HUGE step towards ending this entire charade. Great job to everyone supporting this and getting the world out. Keep up the good fight!
On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote: He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do.
It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist.
I disagree.
Maybe you can't share your ideas for fear that they will spawn something sinister?
Maybe I don't like bunnies but I don't think we should kill them and I call myself an "anti-bunnier" then someone comes along and is like, "Let's kill all the bunnies!". Is that my fault?
On May 12 2011 00:55 Craton wrote:
On May 12 2011 00:53 jello_biafra wrote:
On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote: He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do.
It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist.
No.
It's not.
The sheer existence of Islam makes the world safe for the extremists, the Qu'ran is open for interpretation and there's no demonstrable standard for Islam that all Muslims should follow. Read The God Delusion.
Last time I checked, the Christian Bible is open to interpretation as well. I point to the Westboro Baptist Church. They call themselves Baptists, just as these extremists call themselves Muslim. The American Baptist Association has long ago stated that WBC is not a true Baptist church. The educated Islam community would say the same thing about these extremists. They are not practicing what the Islamic community would call true Islam, and give Islam a bad name.
You could make the same argument for the Crusades btw...
These extremists wouldn't be there at all without the religion itself.
The crusades wouldn't have happened without the existence of Christianity. Which, might I add, caused more deaths then the current extremists. So should we have said that Chrisianity should not have existed? No. Christianity does a lot of good for the community. Islam is the world's fastest growing religion. In countries where it is popular, it fills the same role as Christianity does in the United States and other countries in which Christianity is the majority religion.
I think that is what he's arguing. That without religion, you wouldn't have evil acts done in the name of religion. It's certainly an argument Richard Dawkins (whom he cites) has made.
The more relevant question is, would things actually be better? I think the mid-20th century makes a case that if people weren't killing in the name of religion, they'd be killing in the name of something else.
On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote: He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do.
It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist.
I disagree.
Maybe you can't share your ideas for fear that they will spawn something sinister?
Maybe I don't like bunnies but I don't think we should kill them and I call myself an "anti-bunnier" then someone comes along and is like, "Let's kill all the bunnies!". Is that my fault?
On May 12 2011 00:55 Craton wrote:
On May 12 2011 00:53 jello_biafra wrote:
On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote: He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do.
It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist.
No.
It's not.
The sheer existence of Islam makes the world safe for the extremists, the Qu'ran is open for interpretation and there's no demonstrable standard for Islam that all Muslims should follow. Read The God Delusion.
Last time I checked, the Christian Bible is open to interpretation as well. I point to the Westboro Baptist Church. They call themselves Baptists, just as these extremists call themselves Muslim. The American Baptist Association has long ago stated that WBC is not a true Baptist church. The educated Islam community would say the same thing about these extremists. They are not practicing what the Islamic community would call true Islam, and give Islam a bad name.
You could make the same argument for the Crusades btw...
These extremists wouldn't be there at all without the religion itself.
The crusades wouldn't have happened without the existence of Christianity. Which, might I add, caused more deaths then the current extremists. So should we have said that Chrisianity should not have existed? No. Christianity does a lot of good for the community. Islam is the world's fastest growing religion. In countries where it is popular, it fills the same role as Christianity does in the United States and other countries in which Christianity is the majority religion.
I think that is what he's arguing. That without religion, you wouldn't have evil acts done in the name of religion. It's certainly an argument Richard Dawkins (whom he cites) has made.
The more relevant question is, would things actually be better? I think the mid-20th century makes a case that if people weren't killing in the name of religion, they'd be killing in the name of something else.
In the end, it seems like there would just be one less scapegoat out of many. Wouldn't have a significant impact, IMO. People will always find a way to try and justify their actions. It's natural.
On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote: He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do.
It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist.
I disagree.
Maybe you can't share your ideas for fear that they will spawn something sinister?
Maybe I don't like bunnies but I don't think we should kill them and I call myself an "anti-bunnier" then someone comes along and is like, "Let's kill all the bunnies!". Is that my fault?
On May 12 2011 00:55 Craton wrote:
On May 12 2011 00:53 jello_biafra wrote:
On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote: He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do.
It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist.
No.
It's not.
The sheer existence of Islam makes the world safe for the extremists, the Qu'ran is open for interpretation and there's no demonstrable standard for Islam that all Muslims should follow. Read The God Delusion.
Last time I checked, the Christian Bible is open to interpretation as well. I point to the Westboro Baptist Church. They call themselves Baptists, just as these extremists call themselves Muslim. The American Baptist Association has long ago stated that WBC is not a true Baptist church. The educated Islam community would say the same thing about these extremists. They are not practicing what the Islamic community would call true Islam, and give Islam a bad name.
You could make the same argument for the Crusades btw...
These extremists wouldn't be there at all without the religion itself.
The crusades wouldn't have happened without the existence of Christianity. Which, might I add, caused more deaths then the current extremists. So should we have said that Chrisianity should not have existed? No. Christianity does a lot of good for the community. Islam is the world's fastest growing religion. In countries where it is popular, it fills the same role as Christianity does in the United States and other countries in which Christianity is the majority religion.
I think that is what he's arguing. That without religion, you wouldn't have evil acts done in the name of religion. It's certainly an argument Richard Dawkins (whom he cites) has made.
The more relevant question is, would things actually be better? I think the mid-20th century makes a case that if people weren't killing in the name of religion, they'd be killing in the name of something else.
I don't care for any religion at all, personally. I think it is not fair, however, to say that the world would be better without Islam, and not say the world would be better off without Christianity. They are so fucking similar!!! lolz Like Hobbes said, was it in Leviathan?, I'm paraphrasing, your personal beliefs are religion, the beliefs that are not similar to yours are superstition.
I agree, religions (as well as ideologies and cultures) should be judged by a consistent metric. You can't blame one for the crimes of its followers while absolving another with some "no true Scotsman" type argument.
You make these assertions failing to understand a simple thing, religion changes over time. You wont find people being burned on the stake for their beliefs, not because the bible has drastically changed but because people understood that one cannot interpret christian beliefs in such a manner.
Ooh, religion changes over time? Well that's great. When was the latest adition made to the bible? What's that? Over a thousand years ago?
The reading of religious scripture changes. The parts that get embraced and ignored changed. What is considered important and not important change but for all the things that change it is christianity itself that does not change.
The books, the stories, the relics, they are what they are. People call it a triangle one day and a square the next but it is what it is. How people read religion changes but the content of the religion itself hardly changes.
Up until the 1960's the anti-jewish movement was a big part of the church, this changed. A different reading was brought forwards for the death of christ and whom was to blame (wich is currently nobody).
As such the anti-gay parts of the bible will move forwards or backwards over time, just like how slavery for example moved in prominence. During the civil war the pro-slavery bible was used as justification for their slavery and infact the south was right. The bible does favour the Confederacy on that subject.
Still we changed our reading of it. But what has changed? Have the pages of the bible magically changed? No they haven't. We read them differently and ignore different parts but the content remains the same.
Individualism has made everyone claim their own version of christianity, many of wich haven't even ever read the bible. Take "transubstantiation" for example. How many catholics honestly believe that the eucharist turns into the physical flesh of jesus when consumed? And still this is the official position of the church.
You can quote Levictus or the insane evangilists that are believed to be responsible for this mess but you'll find that a majority of christians have nothing against homosexuals.The christians in Uganda are doing something that is unacceptable by christian standards (you asked for a statement from the Vatican = http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/vatican-speaks-out-against-uganda-anti-gay-laws ). So blaming the existence of christianinity is like blaming guns for the existence crime.
Majority rule doesn't change what the bible says. As all religious people, christians read through their book of choice with a pick and choose attitude. They focus more on the sermon on the mount and less on the kill gays and have slaves parts. This doesn't change that the bible is still anti-gay and pro slavery.
Please stop arguing about this,as it is more important to concentrate on solving of this mess than on directing the blame on parties that have stated this is not what they believe in.
Again, i haven't blamed all christians. Honestly i can't keep repeating this (altough it seems i have to).
Pointing blame is very important. Solving it more so but nobody here has the kind of influence to achieve anything meaningfull. All we can do is sign a petition and hope people that do have some influence decide to use it to prevent this atrocity.
Ofcourse i am not going to keep pointing to the source of this homophobia. Must we really spare the sensitivity of christians at the costs of the lives of homosexuals? We need to be reminded of what is the source of this homophobia. Just cause you don't like that christianity is responsible doesn't change that we shouldn't forget that it is. That whole "change reality to fit me" position is one you are best off without.
It doesn't matter whether some people who are "christian" embrace gays or not. The idea behind the Old Testament vs New Testament is not that the Old Testament is wrong. The whole bible is correct, but the Old Testament was more specifically for the people back then and certain applications (animal sacrifices, eye for an eye) became dated. Taking someone's life is a heavy burden, it can be a requirement although in this case I don't think it's proper. Ultimately they will be punished for it, and we shouldn't encourage it and more importantly try to save them.
Religions were created to give people light or guidance. Some have less then others, and can be wrong which is why any religion or sect/group who support homosexuality are mistaken/misguided. Picking and choosing isn't how it works either. You either go with it fully, or you're wrong.
Unless an Old Trstament law was specifically thrown out by God later in the Bible, reasoning that some were intended for all time while others were specifically for that time period is picking and choosing.
On May 12 2011 06:29 Signet wrote: Unless an Old Trstament law was specifically thrown out by God later in the Bible, reasoning that some were intended for all time while others were specifically for that time period is picking and choosing.
Eye for an eye vs turning the other cheek. Completely contradictory, both in the bible. New Testament overwrote the old testament in some cases. This isn't picking and choosing rather moving to a higher law.
On May 12 2011 06:29 Signet wrote: Unless an Old Trstament law was specifically thrown out by God later in the Bible, reasoning that some were intended for all time while others were specifically for that time period is picking and choosing.
Eye for an eye vs turning the other cheek. Completely contradictory, both in the bible. New Testament overwrote the old testament in some cases. This isn't picking and choosing rather moving to a higher law.
"Higher law" lol...
So two completely contradictory ideas can apparently be part of the same morality. That makes.... no sense.
The earth was flat in the past, but now it is round. It's not that one belief was false and the other true, we just moved to a "higher" truth.
On May 12 2011 06:29 Signet wrote: Unless an Old Trstament law was specifically thrown out by God later in the Bible, reasoning that some were intended for all time while others were specifically for that time period is picking and choosing.
Eye for an eye vs turning the other cheek. Completely contradictory, both in the bible. New Testament overwrote the old testament in some cases. This isn't picking and choosing rather moving to a higher law.
I love it - if God wanted it to be the case why wouldn't he have just told that to humanity from the start? Preferred to have people for a few thousand years follow a subpar moral code, then decided he wasn't too fond of it?
On May 12 2011 06:29 Signet wrote: Unless an Old Trstament law was specifically thrown out by God later in the Bible, reasoning that some were intended for all time while others were specifically for that time period is picking and choosing.
Eye for an eye vs turning the other cheek. Completely contradictory, both in the bible. New Testament overwrote the old testament in some cases. This isn't picking and choosing rather moving to a higher law.
"Higher law" lol...
So two completely contradictory ideas can apparently be part of the same morality. That makes.... no sense.
The earth was flat in the past, but now it is round. It's not that one belief was false and the other true, we just moved to a "higher" truth.
Mercy and Justice, considered contradictory (they aren't) but both are required and served by God. I don't think I can explain it as well as other people can, justice is fulfilled completely but the Lord still has compassion on us. Makes our burdens light.
On May 12 2011 06:29 Signet wrote: Unless an Old Trstament law was specifically thrown out by God later in the Bible, reasoning that some were intended for all time while others were specifically for that time period is picking and choosing.
Eye for an eye vs turning the other cheek. Completely contradictory, both in the bible. New Testament overwrote the old testament in some cases. This isn't picking and choosing rather moving to a higher law.
That's the gist of what I'm talking about. Although I was more specifically thinking of when the Bible says that it's now okay to eat some foods that had previously been forbidden, ie when some of the ancient laws themselves were revoked. Eye for an eye vs Turn the other cheek is more dealing with how a Christian should respond to transgressions by another person. It doesn't invalidate the existing law; merely instructs the follower not to respond to someone wronging them.
On May 12 2011 06:29 Signet wrote: Unless an Old Trstament law was specifically thrown out by God later in the Bible, reasoning that some were intended for all time while others were specifically for that time period is picking and choosing.
Eye for an eye vs turning the other cheek. Completely contradictory, both in the bible. New Testament overwrote the old testament in some cases. This isn't picking and choosing rather moving to a higher law.
I love it - if God wanted it to be the case why wouldn't he have just told that to humanity from the start? Preferred to have people for a few thousand years follow a subpar moral code, then decided he wasn't too fond of it?
The people then are not the people now. Men are not made equal. He only allows temptation as far as we are able to handle it, setting the bar high won't instantly make them stronger. There's a reason we were let on earth in the order that we are here, and why laws were made at certain times.
It does invalidate the other law though. Just because it's a similar law does not make the previous law correct in this time. You're in the wrong if you slap him back.
On May 12 2011 06:29 Signet wrote: Unless an Old Trstament law was specifically thrown out by God later in the Bible, reasoning that some were intended for all time while others were specifically for that time period is picking and choosing.
Eye for an eye vs turning the other cheek. Completely contradictory, both in the bible. New Testament overwrote the old testament in some cases. This isn't picking and choosing rather moving to a higher law.
I love it - if God wanted it to be the case why wouldn't he have just told that to humanity from the start? Preferred to have people for a few thousand years follow a subpar moral code, then decided he wasn't too fond of it?
Actually that idea isn't too far fetched. The optimal set of laws for primitive people living in small nomadic tribes 3000 years ago probably does differ some from the optimal laws for, say, a Western civilization. I totally get that, thousands of years ago, you might just have to execute a murderer, while today we could keep them in prison for life. Their laws were substandard for us, but our concept of justice might be impractical for them.
On May 12 2011 06:29 Signet wrote: Unless an Old Trstament law was specifically thrown out by God later in the Bible, reasoning that some were intended for all time while others were specifically for that time period is picking and choosing.
Eye for an eye vs turning the other cheek. Completely contradictory, both in the bible. New Testament overwrote the old testament in some cases. This isn't picking and choosing rather moving to a higher law.
I love it - if God wanted it to be the case why wouldn't he have just told that to humanity from the start? Preferred to have people for a few thousand years follow a subpar moral code, then decided he wasn't too fond of it?
Actually that idea isn't too far fetched. The optimal set of laws for primitive people living in small nomadic tribes 3000 years ago probably does differ some from the optimal laws for, say, a Western civilization. I totally get that, thousands of years ago, you might just have to execute a murderer, while today we could keep them in prison for life. Their laws were substandard for us, but our concept of justice might be impractical for them.
Don't buy it in the slightest, in fact, I see it as nothing more than a copout. Idea, to me, is the definition of far-fetched. God's going to change what he allows because he's not sure the people at the time will find what he says "practical"? Bullshit - he didn't seem to spare Sodom and Gomorrah when they were used to their lifestyles.
Absolutely blows my mind, really, that you would suggest God's fine with TELLING us certain laws that he doesn't even want to happen.
On May 12 2011 06:29 Signet wrote: Unless an Old Trstament law was specifically thrown out by God later in the Bible, reasoning that some were intended for all time while others were specifically for that time period is picking and choosing.
Eye for an eye vs turning the other cheek. Completely contradictory, both in the bible. New Testament overwrote the old testament in some cases. This isn't picking and choosing rather moving to a higher law.
I love it - if God wanted it to be the case why wouldn't he have just told that to humanity from the start? Preferred to have people for a few thousand years follow a subpar moral code, then decided he wasn't too fond of it?
Actually that idea isn't too far fetched. The optimal set of laws for primitive people living in small nomadic tribes 3000 years ago probably does differ some from the optimal laws for, say, a Western civilization. I totally get that, thousands of years ago, you might just have to execute a murderer, while today we could keep them in prison for life. Their laws were substandard for us, but our concept of justice might be impractical for them.
Don't buy it in the slightest, in fact, I see it as nothing more than a copout. Idea, to me, is the definition of far-fetched. God's going to change what he allows because he's not sure the people at the time will find what he says "practical"? Bullshit - he didn't seem to spare Sodom and Gomorrah when they were used to their lifestyles.
Absolutely blows my mind, really, that you would suggest God's fine with TELLING us certain laws that he doesn't even want to happen.
Slow down, my argument doesn't involve God, or Sodom or Gomorrah. You stated:
"I love it - if God wanted it to be the case why wouldn't he have just told that to humanity from the start? Preferred to have people for a few thousand years follow a subpar moral code, then decided he wasn't too fond of it?"
Which, at least as it comes across to me, implies that there should be a code that is best for people to follow "from the start" and remains the best code thereafter. I don't think this is the case. I think that the laws needed and practical to effectively govern a fledgling civilization 3000 years ago are different than the laws needed and practical to effectively govern an established civilization today. Note that this argument does not involve the existence of god (whether the laws are actually handed down from heaven or reinforced by a culturally imagined deity is irrelevant to whether they enable the society to function), nor does it imply that the Bible itself contains an optimal set of laws either for Old Testament times or for today. It is a statement that legal code A > legal code B under circumstances X does not imply A > B under Y. I'd make a similar argument about, say, optimal laws in 1790 versus optimal laws in 2011.
"Ugandan MPs will debate a bill calling for gay people to be imprisoned for life on Friday after a walkout by women MPs over an unrelated matter forced parliament's adjournment."
On May 12 2011 09:05 Gofarman wrote: "Ugandan MPs will debate a bill calling for gay people to be imprisoned for life on Friday after a walkout by women MPs over an unrelated matter forced parliament's adjournment."
What did this petition achieve?
So far, nothing.
What does the OP imply it has achieved?
Everything.
If that quote is accurate, then the achievement has been reducing the punishment from the death penalty to life in prison.
Which is still a barbaric thing to do, although less barbaric than the original law.
On May 12 2011 06:29 Signet wrote: Unless an Old Trstament law was specifically thrown out by God later in the Bible, reasoning that some were intended for all time while others were specifically for that time period is picking and choosing.
Eye for an eye vs turning the other cheek. Completely contradictory, both in the bible. New Testament overwrote the old testament in some cases. This isn't picking and choosing rather moving to a higher law.
I love it - if God wanted it to be the case why wouldn't he have just told that to humanity from the start? Preferred to have people for a few thousand years follow a subpar moral code, then decided he wasn't too fond of it?
Actually that idea isn't too far fetched. The optimal set of laws for primitive people living in small nomadic tribes 3000 years ago probably does differ some from the optimal laws for, say, a Western civilization. I totally get that, thousands of years ago, you might just have to execute a murderer, while today we could keep them in prison for life. Their laws were substandard for us, but our concept of justice might be impractical for them.
Don't buy it in the slightest, in fact, I see it as nothing more than a copout. Idea, to me, is the definition of far-fetched. God's going to change what he allows because he's not sure the people at the time will find what he says "practical"? Bullshit - he didn't seem to spare Sodom and Gomorrah when they were used to their lifestyles.
Absolutely blows my mind, really, that you would suggest God's fine with TELLING us certain laws that he doesn't even want to happen.
Slow down, my argument doesn't involve God, or Sodom or Gomorrah. You stated:
"I love it - if God wanted it to be the case why wouldn't he have just told that to humanity from the start? Preferred to have people for a few thousand years follow a subpar moral code, then decided he wasn't too fond of it?"
Which, at least as it comes across to me, implies that there should be a code that is best for people to follow "from the start" and remains the best code thereafter. I don't think this is the case. I think that the laws needed and practical to effectively govern a fledgling civilization 3000 years ago are different than the laws needed and practical to effectively govern an established civilization today. Note that this argument does not involve the existence of god (whether the laws are actually handed down from heaven or reinforced by a culturally imagined deity is irrelevant to whether they enable the society to function), nor does it imply that the Bible itself contains an optimal set of laws either for Old Testament times or for today. It is a statement that legal code A > legal code B under circumstances X does not imply A > B under Y. I'd make a similar argument about, say, optimal laws in 1790 versus optimal laws in 2011.
That's all. The rest is simply you projecting.
I disagree completely 100%, and think the absolute notion is absurd, but really (and I take the blame for this one) I'm only derailing the topic. I hate people who post "this is what I think, but we're derailing so YOU PM ME," so Imma leave it at this.
On May 12 2011 09:05 Gofarman wrote: "Ugandan MPs will debate a bill calling for gay people to be imprisoned for life on Friday after a walkout by women MPs over an unrelated matter forced parliament's adjournment."
What did this petition achieve?
So far, nothing.
What does the OP imply it has achieved?
Everything.
Fixed what I wrote, sorry. I didn't mean we've fixed everything, but postponing the bill for further debate, or even simply drawing publicity is definite victory in my mind.
Someone, pages and pages ago said something about the link between HIV and homosexuals. I just finished up a class on the biology of AIDS, so I figured I would throw out some facts.
If this hasn't been said already, can we all be clear that 85% of the world's transmission of HIV is through HETEROSEXUAL intercourse.
Only between 5-10% of the world's HIV transmission is through homosexual encounters. In America this is much different, almost half of HIV transmission is through homosexual encounters.
The susceptibility of contracting HIV through anal sex is much higher than vaginal sex (by at least an order of magnitude) but the prevalence rate of HIV already in the African population, and the fact that neither contraceptives nor HIV tests are widely used, negate this. Women and men will pass this virus between each other eventually, over many (or just a few) encounters.
Globally, HIV is not a "gay" infection. Punishing gay people for this epidemic is absurd.
On May 12 2011 13:41 Triscuit wrote: Someone, pages and pages ago said something about the link between HIV and homosexuals. I just finished up a class on the biology of AIDS, so I figured I would throw out some facts.
If this hasn't been said already, can we all be clear that 85% of the world's transmission of HIV is through HETEROSEXUAL intercourse.
Only between 5-10% of the world's HIV transmission is through homosexual encounters. In America this is much different, almost half of HIV transmission is through homosexual encounters.
The susceptibility of contracting HIV through anal sex is much higher than vaginal sex (by at least an order of magnitude) but the prevalence rate of HIV already in the African population, and the fact that neither contraceptives nor HIV tests are widely used, negate this. Women and men will pass this virus between each other eventually, over many (or just a few) encounters.
Globally, HIV is not a "gay" infection. Punishing gay people for this epidemic is absurd.
But as you said, in America, massively more likely to get AIDs if you have sex with someone who's gay then straight. But that's because anal supposedly can cause a lot more cuts (easier to infect), and at the same time, guys are always horny, no need to use protection :o
On May 12 2011 13:41 Triscuit wrote: Someone, pages and pages ago said something about the link between HIV and homosexuals. I just finished up a class on the biology of AIDS, so I figured I would throw out some facts.
If this hasn't been said already, can we all be clear that 85% of the world's transmission of HIV is through HETEROSEXUAL intercourse.
Only between 5-10% of the world's HIV transmission is through homosexual encounters. In America this is much different, almost half of HIV transmission is through homosexual encounters.
The susceptibility of contracting HIV through anal sex is much higher than vaginal sex (by at least an order of magnitude) but the prevalence rate of HIV already in the African population, and the fact that neither contraceptives nor HIV tests are widely used, negate this. Women and men will pass this virus between each other eventually, over many (or just a few) encounters.
Globally, HIV is not a "gay" infection. Punishing gay people for this epidemic is absurd.
But as you said, in America, massively more likely to get AIDs if you have sex with someone who's gay then straight. But that's because anal supposedly can cause a lot more cuts (easier to infect), and at the same time, guys are always horny, no need to use protection :o
Well you are massively more likely to get HIV (AIDS and HIV are different things, although fundamentally connected they are not interchangable terms) from someone that has HIV through anal intercourse rather than vaginal intercourse. I know I'm splitting hairs here but I want to be specific.
But we're talking about Uganda here. If anyone in Uganda should be punished, it is those that refuse to get an HIV test or use condoms. Condoms specifically, because other contraceptives don't prohibit transfer of fluids.
Though I don't know if HIV is necessarily linked to this bill, someone brought it up as an argument and I was trying to throw in my two cents.
I find it interesting that the public believes that Christians all accept that the Old and New testament are not compatible with each other and require "excuses" and "interpretation tricks" in order to reconcile the apparent contradictions. And the public claims this, although knowing that there are plenty of Christian people out there who actually read their bible with a brain that is thinking, using up glucose and functioning. That there are Christians out there who are doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists etc who have to use their brain a lot in their respective fields. So what makes you think all of a sudden we read the bible and go "Oh noes - there are contradictions and we don't get it!! Let's just not figure out why there are 'contradictions' because what God has said should never be doubted, NEVER!!!" What we all know from reading his Word in entirety is that there is no contradiction. The God of the OT and the NT are the same God. Or else I'm believing in a lie and you are speaking truth.
On May 12 2011 16:09 JesusOurSaviour wrote: I find it interesting that the public believes that Christians all accept that the Old and New testament are not compatible with each other and require "excuses" and "interpretation tricks" in order to reconcile the apparent contradictions. And the public claims this, although knowing that there are plenty of Christian people out there who actually read their bible with a brain that is thinking, using up glucose and functioning. That there are Christians out there who are doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists etc who have to use their brain a lot in their respective fields. So what makes you think all of a sudden we read the bible and go "Oh noes - there are contradictions and we don't get it!! Let's just not figure out why there are 'contradictions' because what God has said should never be doubted, NEVER!!!" What we all know from reading his Word in entirety is that there is no contradiction. The God of the OT and the NT are the same God. Or else I'm believing in a lie and you are speaking truth.
Your post made fair sense till the last 2 lines, however I am curious as to what makes these contradictions - which you are aware of you say - not valid, and how then you conclude; OT and the NT are the same God.
On May 12 2011 16:09 JesusOurSaviour wrote: I find it interesting that the public believes that Christians all accept that the Old and New testament are not compatible with each other and require "excuses" and "interpretation tricks" in order to reconcile the apparent contradictions. And the public claims this, although knowing that there are plenty of Christian people out there who actually read their bible with a brain that is thinking, using up glucose and functioning. That there are Christians out there who are doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists etc who have to use their brain a lot in their respective fields. So what makes you think all of a sudden we read the bible and go "Oh noes - there are contradictions and we don't get it!! Let's just not figure out why there are 'contradictions' because what God has said should never be doubted, NEVER!!!" What we all know from reading his Word in entirety is that there is no contradiction. The God of the OT and the NT are the same God. Or else I'm believing in a lie and you are speaking truth.
Doubting god isn't exactly something christians get to do. A child molester has more chance of getting into heaven if he confesses his sins then someone who doubts god.
There are christians who are doctors and lawyers and engineers but what exactly would this prove? The more intelligent a person is the less likely they will be atheist.
Being religious doesn't make you stupid and being atheist does not make you smart but being smart does make it more likely to be atheist.
The bible contradicts itself all the time and not just when it comes to rules but even to stories. Nobody who has read the bible can say how Judas came to his demise. One half says he hanged himself, the other says he was smited by god. Some things even say he got stoned by the apostles and yet another says he grew insanely fat and then got run over by a chariot.
The bible contains many contradictions but also many flaws that aren't open to interpretation. Obvious chronological mistakes or differing stories of wich one is without a doubt false (like how Judas died).
I wonder how many people that call themselves christian actually read the bible.
On May 12 2011 16:09 JesusOurSaviour wrote: I find it interesting that the public believes that Christians all accept that the Old and New testament are not compatible with each other and require "excuses" and "interpretation tricks" in order to reconcile the apparent contradictions. And the public claims this, although knowing that there are plenty of Christian people out there who actually read their bible with a brain that is thinking, using up glucose and functioning. That there are Christians out there who are doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists etc who have to use their brain a lot in their respective fields. So what makes you think all of a sudden we read the bible and go "Oh noes - there are contradictions and we don't get it!! Let's just not figure out why there are 'contradictions' because what God has said should never be doubted, NEVER!!!" What we all know from reading his Word in entirety is that there is no contradiction. The God of the OT and the NT are the same God. Or else I'm believing in a lie and you are speaking truth.
Doubting god isn't exactly something christians get to do. A child molester has more chance of getting into heaven if he confesses his sins then someone who doubts god.
On May 12 2011 16:09 JesusOurSaviour wrote: I find it interesting that the public believes that Christians all accept that the Old and New testament are not compatible with each other and require "excuses" and "interpretation tricks" in order to reconcile the apparent contradictions. And the public claims this, although knowing that there are plenty of Christian people out there who actually read their bible with a brain that is thinking, using up glucose and functioning. That there are Christians out there who are doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists etc who have to use their brain a lot in their respective fields. So what makes you think all of a sudden we read the bible and go "Oh noes - there are contradictions and we don't get it!! Let's just not figure out why there are 'contradictions' because what God has said should never be doubted, NEVER!!!" What we all know from reading his Word in entirety is that there is no contradiction. The God of the OT and the NT are the same God. Or else I'm believing in a lie and you are speaking truth.
Doubting god isn't exactly something christians get to do. A child molester has more chance of getting into heaven if he confesses his sins then someone who doubts god.
Where do you come up with this stuff?
One of the foundations of catholic christianity is the confession. You might want to realize that you don't know as much about christianity as you think you do.
As long as you feel sorry for what you did, confessed and did what the priest in question asks of you, you are instantly cleansed of sin and the doors to heaven are wide open. Regardless of what you have done. However if you doubt god's work or even doubt his existence, you could have spent your entire life doing good things but hell awaits you. You have to be a christian to get into heaven, you can't just be a good person.
Honestly you seemed utterly unaware of transubstantiation aswell. Stop pretending like you actually know a damn about christianity.
On May 12 2011 16:09 JesusOurSaviour wrote: I find it interesting that the public believes that Christians all accept that the Old and New testament are not compatible with each other and require "excuses" and "interpretation tricks" in order to reconcile the apparent contradictions. And the public claims this, although knowing that there are plenty of Christian people out there who actually read their bible with a brain that is thinking, using up glucose and functioning. That there are Christians out there who are doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists etc who have to use their brain a lot in their respective fields. So what makes you think all of a sudden we read the bible and go "Oh noes - there are contradictions and we don't get it!! Let's just not figure out why there are 'contradictions' because what God has said should never be doubted, NEVER!!!" What we all know from reading his Word in entirety is that there is no contradiction. The God of the OT and the NT are the same God. Or else I'm believing in a lie and you are speaking truth.
Doubting god isn't exactly something christians get to do. A child molester has more chance of getting into heaven if he confesses his sins then someone who doubts god.
Where do you come up with this stuff?
One of the foundations of catholic christianity is the confession. You might want to realize that you don't know as much about christianity as you think you do.
As long as you feel sorry for what you did, confessed and did what the priest in question asks of you, you are instantly cleansed of sin and the doors to heaven are wide open. Regardless of what you have done. However if you doubt god's work or even doubt his existence, you could have spent your entire life doing good things but hell awaits you. You have to be a christian to get into heaven, you can't just be a good person.
Honestly you seemed utterly unaware of transubstantiation aswell. Stop pretending like you actually know a damn about christianity.
Wow. Again, where are you getting this stuff, exactly? Where was I ever talking about transubstantiation?
On May 12 2011 16:09 JesusOurSaviour wrote: I find it interesting that the public believes that Christians all accept that the Old and New testament are not compatible with each other and require "excuses" and "interpretation tricks" in order to reconcile the apparent contradictions. And the public claims this, although knowing that there are plenty of Christian people out there who actually read their bible with a brain that is thinking, using up glucose and functioning. That there are Christians out there who are doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists etc who have to use their brain a lot in their respective fields. So what makes you think all of a sudden we read the bible and go "Oh noes - there are contradictions and we don't get it!! Let's just not figure out why there are 'contradictions' because what God has said should never be doubted, NEVER!!!" What we all know from reading his Word in entirety is that there is no contradiction. The God of the OT and the NT are the same God. Or else I'm believing in a lie and you are speaking truth.
Doubting god isn't exactly something christians get to do. A child molester has more chance of getting into heaven if he confesses his sins then someone who doubts god.
Where do you come up with this stuff?
One of the foundations of catholic christianity is the confession. You might want to realize that you don't know as much about christianity as you think you do.
As long as you feel sorry for what you did, confessed and did what the priest in question asks of you, you are instantly cleansed of sin and the doors to heaven are wide open. Regardless of what you have done. However if you doubt god's work or even doubt his existence, you could have spent your entire life doing good things but hell awaits you. You have to be a christian to get into heaven, you can't just be a good person.
Honestly you seemed utterly unaware of transubstantiation aswell.
Btw that (justification through actions) is a catholic position that is based mainly on canon law and not solely on the bible. Protestants reject this for that very reason.
Stop pretending like you actually know a damn about christianity.[/
It doesnt seem like you have a much better understanding than most people either.
Wow. Again, where are you getting this stuff, exactly? Where was I ever talking about transubstantiation?
How about you stick to your own subject for once? You asked me "where are you getting this stuff" in regards to confession.
Can you not understand how frustrating it is when you come in here without any knowledge on christianity, proceed to pretend to know everything, and then proceed to argue from a flawed understanding of christianity?
Btw that (justification through actions) is a catholic position that is based mainly on canon law and not solely on the bible. Protestants reject this for that very reason.
Your point? I allready pointed out it's a catholic concept.
What possible use does it have to say that protestants reject is when i allready pointed out that it's a catholic concept?
It doesnt seem like you have a much better understanding than most people either.
Because you just made up a mistake that i never made? Seems like solid reasoning.
Wow. Again, where are you getting this stuff, exactly? Where was I ever talking about transubstantiation?
How about you stick to your own subject for once? You asked me "where are you getting this stuff" in regards to confession.
Can you not understand how frustrating it is when you come in here without any knowledge on christianity, proceed to pretend to know everything, and then proceed to argue from a flawed understanding of christianity?
Btw that (justification through actions) is a catholic position that is based mainly on canon law and not solely on the bible. Protestants reject this for that very reason.
Your point? I allready pointed out it's a catholic concept.
What possible use does it have to say that protestants reject is when i allready pointed out that it's a catholic concept?
Your posts are perfect storms of incomprehensibility and condescension.
That's it? You demonstrate a deeply lacking understanding of even the most basic aspects of christian streams like catholicism and then you go out with some cheap shots and (as is to be expected at this point) avoiding anything i said.
Don't engage in a debate when this is the best you come up with. It's not my mistake when i know things you don't.
In a country where such laws are even debated by politicians and the general public, I would imagine that being sent to prison would only produce slightly higher survival rates than the death penalty...
Your posts are perfect storms of incomprehensibility and condescension.
That's it? You demonstrate a deeply lacking understanding of even the most basic aspects of christian streams like catholicism and then you go out with some cheap shots and (as is to be expected at this point) avoiding anything i said.
Don't engage in a debate when this is the best you come up with. It's not my mistake when i know things you don't.
What you are pointing out is a major flaw within the roman catholic church. Saying it extends as a base to all christianity is ignorant.
What you are pointing out is a major flaw within the roman catholic church. Saying it extends as a base to all christianity is ignorant.
This is what i said:
One of the foundations of catholic christianity is the confession. You might want to realize that you don't know as much about christianity as you think you do.
In what possible way would this ever mean that i extended it to all of christianity? I clearly said catholic.
Zalz, people are avoiding debating you directly because you're acting like a giant, enraged asshole. Bullying your way around debates via condescension is not the way to engage in a debate.
On May 13 2011 02:46 Triscuit wrote: Zalz, people are avoiding debating you directly because you're acting like a giant, enraged asshole. Bullying your way around debates via condescension is not the way to engage in a debate.
Yes it's really my fault that people are intentionally ignoring the fact that i said catholic infront of it.
There is hardly a debate possible when people keep accusing you of mistakes you never made just because they feel like you should have made them.
I can't really care too much what those kind of people think about me. Not a single one of my posts has been without arguments and actuall points relating to the discussions whilst i have had to face dozens that were little more then false accusations or atacks on my person and nothing else.
Someone just said this:
What you are pointing out is a major flaw within the roman catholic church. Saying it extends as a base to all christianity is ignorant.
Something i clearly never said. It's not open for interpretation, you literally cannot draw this conclusion from my post.
I demonstrate this and what do i get? You talking about how much of an asshole you think i am? This is exactly what i have been talking about all the time. People twisting reality to suit their own needs. That guy desperately needed me to generalize on christianity so he made a false accusation against me.
What is really more deserving of criticism? Someone that throws down a passionate defence for the lives of homosexuals or a rather numerous group of posters at this point that continuously make false accusations against me? Nowhere is it more clearly demonstrated then with Manicshock. False claim, proof, done.
Still you don't mind the fact that he made something up in a debate, you are more occupied with still shifting the blame to me. It ain't the first time this happened in this topic and it probably won't be the last. You can think of me what you like because i ain't trying to win a popularity contest and atleast i don't make stuff up in order to argue people.
Zalz - I'm fairly certain at this point that you are accomplishing the opposite of what you initially set out to do. You make those of us who would criticize religions, and in this case Catholicism specifically, look like a bunch of self righteous pretentious assholes. Rather than convincing people, you are ensuring that people immediately disregard your comments.
If your sole purpose is to express yourself, then by all means, that is your right. But if you truly want to get this message across to people, I think you're going about it exactly the wrong way.
Stop treating everyone who disagrees with you, listen to what other people have to say, address their concerns instead of attacking them and you will likely get way more bang for your buck.
I'll admit to missing the catholic part. I mostly was remembering an earlier post, and was catching this:
Doubting god isn't exactly something christians get to do. A child molester has more chance of getting into heaven if he confesses his sins then someone who doubts god.
and then reading between the lines I suppose on the one where you were coming off as holier then thou.
Btw that (justification through actions) is a catholic position that is based mainly on canon law and not solely on the bible. Protestants reject this for that very reason.
Your point? I allready pointed out it's a catholic concept.
What possible use does it have to say that protestants reject is when i allready pointed out that it's a catholic concept?
This right here is basically proof that you are ignorant. "But I said it was catholics, wtf does any other sect of christian have to do with the idea that all of christianity has the exact same flaws." Does that make it any clearer to you what you just said? You're discussing christianity as a whole based entirely on one sect, using ideas within that sect that are not widespread among christianity and tbh are flawed.
Zalz - I'm fairly certain at this point that you are accomplishing the opposite of what you initially set out to do. You make those of us who would criticize religions, and in this case Catholicism specifically, look like a bunch of self righteous pretentious assholes. Rather than convincing people, you are ensuring that people immediately disregard your comments.
I can't recall anyone having taken the time to actually engage in a debate at this point. From my first post the focus was instantly shifted towards ignoring all my points and focussing on style over substance.
This right here is basically proof that you are ignorant. "But I said it was catholics, wtf does any other sect of christian have to do with the idea that all of christianity has the exact same flaws." Does that make it any clearer to you what you just said? You're discussing christianity as a whole based entirely on one sect, using ideas within that sect that are not widespread among christianity and tbh are flawed.
Nothing you pretend i said, did i ever say. If i had actually said anything like that you would have brought the quote in but you didn't. This is exactly what i mean. You can't just make stuff up to suit you in a debate.
As for it being "not widespread" among christianity, that is both incorrect and a peculiar train of reason.
It is incorrect because catholics make up more or less 50% of all christians in the world. Some estimate it slightly above, some slightly below. Regardless of that, still half of the worlds christians embrace those concepts. To call it "not widespead" is simply wrong. In the world of christianity there are no more widespread concepts then those of catholicism.
It is a peculiar train of reason because by saying that you create a condition with wich you can reject every negative or strange thing i bring about regarding christianity. Only catholicism has a majority, all the other sects are minorities.
By your reasoning no matter what any of them do or say, i can't criticise any of them because each one of them doesn't represent the majority. If i am critical of them as a whole you will claim that each sect has a different view and thus i would be generalising. But if i go after the individual sects then they don't represent the majority.
On May 13 2011 16:29 zalz wrote:Nothing you pretend i said, did i ever say. If i had actually said anything like that you would have brought the quote in but you didn't. This is exactly what i mean. You can't just make stuff up to suit you in a debate.
As for it being "not widespread" among christianity, that is both incorrect and a peculiar train of reason.
It is incorrect because catholics make up more or less 50% of all christians in the world. Some estimate it slightly above, some slightly below. Regardless of that, still half of the worlds christians embrace those concepts. To call it "not widespead" is simply wrong. In the world of christianity there are no more widespread concepts then those of catholicism.
It is a peculiar train of reason because by saying that you create a condition with wich you can reject every negative or strange thing i bring about regarding christianity. Only catholicism has a majority, all the other sects are minorities.
By your reasoning no matter what any of them do or say, i can't criticise any of them because each one of them doesn't represent the majority. If i am critical of them as a whole you will claim that each sect has a different view and thus i would be generalising. But if i go after the individual sects then they don't represent the majority.
Sigh. If it looks like a troll, smells like a troll, eats like a troll, then it most likely is one. I thought you might've just been misguided, and perhaps you are in a far deeper case then I am able to contend with. The very quote is just above my summarization of it. If it's going to be about christianity, focusing entirely on things considered fundamental flaws (by other churches) within the roman catholic church is far and away your best option to cover all your bases and then saying that other churchs do not matter at all is icing on the cake.
On May 14 2011 18:58 manicshock wrote:If it's going to be about christianity, focusing entirely on things considered fundamental flaws (by other churches) within the roman catholic church is far and away your best option to cover all your bases and then saying that other churchs do not matter at all is icing on the cake.
Most other Churches originated from the Catholic Church. Protestant Christianity was born from a King who wanted to divorce his wife. Pentecostal Christianity (the majority of mainstream 'non-denominational' American Churches today) evolved from Protestant Christianity. At the end of the day they all largely subscribe to the same Bible, which has in it all its inherent and fundamental flaws, such as archaic views on issues such as homosexuality and the labeling of the practice as a 'sin'.
Sigh. If it looks like a troll, smells like a troll, eats like a troll, then it most likely is one. I thought you might've just been misguided, and perhaps you are in a far deeper case then I am able to contend with. The very quote is just above my summarization of it. If it's going to be about christianity, focusing entirely on things considered fundamental flaws (by other churches) within the roman catholic church is far and away your best option to cover all your bases and then saying that other churchs do not matter at all is icing on the cake.
Do you not consider it strange how you once again refuse to actually debate? All you have done is instantly ignore everything i said and just say
"You are a troll, i win"
Go on and read all these posts and you will find that it is always others that suddenly do something like what you just did. Instantly killing any debate and only dumping a little post that doesn't adress anything and can be summed up as a last-ditch effort to avoid debate and just declare victory.
If you do not wish do debate, do not pretend like you are intrested in doing so. You proclaiming victory from a deluded sense of rightiousness isn't really intresting to anyone but yourself. Here you debate or you don't say anything, it's simple as that.
It's over! I also received an email saying that the bill has been stopped. This is great news everyone! Great job to everyone who signed and a huge thanks to the entire world for such an awesome response when a country is in need
On May 14 2011 18:58 manicshock wrote:If it's going to be about christianity, focusing entirely on things considered fundamental flaws (by other churches) within the roman catholic church is far and away your best option to cover all your bases and then saying that other churchs do not matter at all is icing on the cake.
Most other Churches originated from the Catholic Church. Protestant Christianity was born from a King who wanted to divorce his wife. Pentecostal Christianity (the majority of mainstream 'non-denominational' American Churches today) evolved from Protestant Christianity. At the end of the day they all largely subscribe to the same Bible, which has in it all its inherent and fundamental flaws, such as archaic views on issues such as homosexuality and the labeling of the practice as a 'sin'.
I also just received the email telling me the law has been defeated. This is one of the few times that i feel good about signing a petition and sending it out to friends. Yay power in numbers!
On May 18 2011 03:23 lagmaster wrote: I don't feel as good anymore
Sorry.
My point was more to hope that people didn't get distracted by the win, and then forget that it's far from the end of the fight. It was still a great effort to prevent things getting worse.
Is this a realy question? No it isn't. It's how he began his post about trying to weasle christianity out from this mess whilst christianity is central to what is happening in Uganda.
christianity is responsible for this anti-gay bill. You need to understand that just because you are religious doesn't mean you get to re-write reality to fit your religion. The people of Uganda are deeply christian and a large portion (84%) of the population is christian. This homophobia is the result of christian doctrine.
You make these assertions failing to understand a simple thing, religion changes over time. You wont find people being burned on the stake for their beliefs, not because the bible has drastically changed but because people understood that one cannot interpret christian beliefs in such a manner.
You can quote Levictus or the insane evangilists that are believed to be responsible for this mess but you'll find that a majority of christians have nothing against homosexuals.The christians in Uganda are doing something that is unacceptable by christian standards (you asked for a statement from the Vatican = http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/vatican-speaks-out-against-uganda-anti-gay-laws ). So blaming the existence of christianinity is like blaming guns for the existence crime.
Please stop arguing about this,as it is more important to concentrate on solving of this mess than on directing the blame on parties that have stated this is not what they believe in.
Then that's some major cognitive dissonance, seriously it baffles me how someone can claim to believe a book is the almighty word of God, and then disregard passages. What, was God just not doing his best when he condoned slavery, genocide, and condemnation of homosexuals?
The Pope has blessed Uganda's newly passed "death to the gays" bill.
This is a disgrace to humanity.
Did you actually bother reading the article AND the sources? Or you just trying to start another shitstorm based on terrible sensationalist journalism and little to no facts?
The Pope has blessed Uganda's newly passed "death to the gays" bill.
This is a disgrace to humanity.
Did you actually bother reading the article AND the sources? Or you just trying to start another shitstorm based on terrible sensationalist journalism and little to no facts?
The Pope has blessed Uganda's newly passed "death to the gays" bill.
This is a disgrace to humanity.
Did you actually bother reading the article AND the sources? Or you just trying to start another shitstorm based on terrible sensationalist journalism and little to no facts?
Let's not go too far here in calling the guardian "journalism."
The article derails out of homosexuality and into abortion, birth control, AIDS, and pedophilia. Reads like a pure anti-catholic hit piece in other words.
On May 18 2011 10:08 Cyber_Cheese wrote: I am disappointed it didn't pass, Uganda should have been the start of something more worldwide
You are a mentally deranged person, seek help.
the vast majority of the world seems to agree with him.
Only the dark blues nations have full rights for homosexual couple. And most of Sub Saharan African nations penalize it. With excesses naturally in the Islamic World in Apartheid states such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Mauritania etc,
Hell even moderate Malaysia punishes homosexuality, and we are shocked when a nation like Uganda ( of all places) wanted to kill homosexuals?
On May 19 2011 01:14 platorepublic wrote: Just wanna say moral relativity has its good points, but is usually only used as a tool to illustrate a point rather a useful philosophical argument:
Assumming you are referring to evaluative relativism and not descriptive, besides the inconsistencies that pop up when you analyse it as a position, there are many practical issues that arise when one adopts it in all aspects of her/his life. For instance, assuming that you truly adhere to it, I wonder how you can cope with the belief that you cannot evaluate/criticize the values and acts of the Nazis or Pot's Cambodian massacre. Or for that matter, the fact that killing babies usually seems to nudge a sort of moral intuition that most people appear to possess, regardless of one's culture or age or sex and so forth (excl. cases where biological factors inhibit such thing such as psychopaths).
Anyway, I don't wish to derail this but forgive me since I am always filled with curiosity and somewhat amazement when I meet people that bring up evaluative relativism.
On December 21 2013 03:18 BallinWitStalin wrote: Welp, they just passed a weakened version of the bill that punishes homosexuality with life imprisonment.
"KAMPALA, Uganda -- Ugandan lawmakers on Friday passed an anti-gay law that punishes "aggravated homosexuality" with life imprisonment."
Should first world countries stop giving aid to Uganda as a result of this?
I'm not sure, myself. People in Uganda deserve aid, but when lawmakers do this with the general support of the population.....
At least gay people in Uganda will be able to get genuine refugee status in first world nations now with relative ease.
Stopping aid wouldn't help. It would only punish the gays (they would probably get blamed for it, for one thing) as well as not helping in the long run.
One thing that would help is educating people so that they don't have the same prejudice against gays, and then you can help with equality. Aid includes things like helping with education, either through schools being built/teachers going there, or through other aid which means children aren't required to work from a young age. That means they can be educated and more understanding.
You can't punish the population when arguably one of the big issues is lack of understanding and education. You have to help them understand why we should give people rights.
On December 21 2013 03:18 BallinWitStalin wrote: Welp, they just passed a weakened version of the bill that punishes homosexuality with life imprisonment.
"KAMPALA, Uganda -- Ugandan lawmakers on Friday passed an anti-gay law that punishes "aggravated homosexuality" with life imprisonment."
Should first world countries stop giving aid to Uganda as a result of this?
I'm not sure, myself. People in Uganda deserve aid, but when lawmakers do this with the general support of the population.....
At least gay people in Uganda will be able to get genuine refugee status in first world nations now with relative ease.
Stopping aid wouldn't help. It would only punish the gays (they would probably get blamed for it, for one thing) as well as not helping in the long run.
One thing that would help is educating people so that they don't have the same prejudice against gays, and then you can help with equality. Aid includes things like helping with education, either through schools being built/teachers going there, or through other aid which means children aren't required to work from a young age. That means they can be educated and more understanding.
You can't punish the population when arguably one of the big issues is lack of understanding and education. You have to help them understand why we should give people rights.
According to the OP, wasn't stopping aid from the West one of the main reasons why the President was so reluctant to pass the initial bill?
I'm not entirely sure what 'aggravated homosexuality' means, but if its jailing people for being homosexual, then life imprisonment really isn't much of an improvement over capital punishment, except there's a chance that the law might be reversed. What a sad day. Another example of why how easily religion can twist people's thoughts in evil ways (don't want to start a religious debate, but it seems relevant to point out where most of this hatred stems from).
I don't know if it has been posted and did not have the will to read the 33 pages before. But it seems those laws are strongly supported by rich American evangelists.
On December 21 2013 03:18 BallinWitStalin wrote: Welp, they just passed a weakened version of the bill that punishes homosexuality with life imprisonment.
"KAMPALA, Uganda -- Ugandan lawmakers on Friday passed an anti-gay law that punishes "aggravated homosexuality" with life imprisonment."
Should first world countries stop giving aid to Uganda as a result of this?
I'm not sure, myself. People in Uganda deserve aid, but when lawmakers do this with the general support of the population.....
At least gay people in Uganda will be able to get genuine refugee status in first world nations now with relative ease.
Stopping aid wouldn't help. It would only punish the gays (they would probably get blamed for it, for one thing) as well as not helping in the long run.
One thing that would help is educating people so that they don't have the same prejudice against gays, and then you can help with equality. Aid includes things like helping with education, either through schools being built/teachers going there, or through other aid which means children aren't required to work from a young age. That means they can be educated and more understanding.
You can't punish the population when arguably one of the big issues is lack of understanding and education. You have to help them understand why we should give people rights.
According to the OP, wasn't stopping aid from the West one of the main reasons why the President was so reluctant to pass the initial bill?
I'm not entirely sure what 'aggravated homosexuality' means, but if its jailing people for being homosexual, then life imprisonment really isn't much of an improvement over capital punishment, except there's a chance that the law might be reversed. What a sad day. Another example of why how easily religion can twist people's thoughts in evil ways (don't want to start a religious debate, but it seems relevant to point out where most of this hatred stems from).
But they've passed the bill now. Unless you used the pressure to get them to repeal it, which probably would only be a short term solution, where really you need a longer term one.
On December 21 2013 04:49 Ayaz2810 wrote: Inb4 "It's their culture/country. It's okay for them to be hateful". I hate that fucking argument so much.
Its not that simple. You cannot expect that wast majority of people in one country/culture to accept changing something that has been written in stone for centuries.It takes time for changes to happen. Its ethically wrong to influence ones culture/religion/beliefs just because you dont think they are in right.Those influences only work if they are indirect (one culture changes when in touch with other cultures),otherwise forced influences from outside could make things even worse and have contra effect so bad it can lead to violence.
At least some small progress has been made,no death sentence.
Even in "developed" countries there are large elements of populations which have the same beliefs, they just don't have sufficient influence over the politics of the whole country to manage to do the same thing. I'm sure they with they could though.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i649.photobucket.com/albums/uu216/squizzot/duty_calls.png)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/World_homosexuality_laws.svg/350px-World_homosexuality_laws.svg.png)
