On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I feel sorry for all the people over there that will be at risk with this new "ideology". Gays are a part of society and have been as far as mankind can remember. The gay people are needed in society as a way to help curb the worlds overpopulation issue. As for the AIDS issue that is a completely different subject/topic altogether. Though there have been studies showing that the majority of new AIDS cases are from homosexual men specifically. So with that all being said I hope this bill doesn't pass as I believe it violates their overall quality of life over there. Nobody should be shunned or jailed just because whom they choose to love.
On November 24 2012 07:41 Tewks44 wrote: Problems with Uganda -High levels of corruption -Poor economy -destructive policies -Child Trafficking -Illiteracy
These are just a few problems with Uganda I was able to find via a quick look at their wikipedia page. And to think they're wasting their time on banning homosexuality.
On the plus side they have their own space program.
On November 24 2012 11:08 bK- wrote: I feel sorry for all the people over there that will be at risk with this new "ideology". Gays are a part of society and have been as far as mankind can remember. The gay people are needed in society as a way to help curb the worlds overpopulation issue. As for the AIDS issue that is a completely different subject/topic altogether. Though there have been studies showing that the majority of new AIDS cases are from homosexual men specifically. So with that all being said I hope this bill doesn't pass as I believe it violates their overall quality of life over there. Nobody should be shunned or jailed just because whom they choose to love.
That's the case in developed countries. In africa however it's overshadowed by loads of other reasons, such as:
-Female circumcision, thus resulting in a higher chance of exchange of blood. -Denial by major African leaders of HIV -> AIDS link. -Refusal of the church to condone condom use. -Medical suspicion, thus less likelyhood of checking yourself out. -Likelyhood of resorting to sex related work due to poor economy, natural disasters and conflict. -Brain drain, the highly educated leave the worst stricken african countries towards more prosperous countries. -Corruption and infrastructure problems. -Contaminated needles. -Mother to unborn baby transfer.
And of course, plain heterosexual intercourse without a condom is the largest culprit.
On November 24 2012 11:08 bK- wrote: The gay people are needed in society as a way to help curb the worlds overpopulation issue.
The economic collapse will 'solve' the worlds overpopulation issue.I wouldn't want to see kids 'educated' to think that becoming gay is somehow better for the earth than not, if kids discover they are homosexual through their own free will that is fine with me but this whole agenda in the classrooms is disturbing.
On November 24 2012 11:08 bK- wrote: The gay people are needed in society as a way to help curb the worlds overpopulation issue.
The economic collapse will 'solve' the worlds overpopulation issue.I wouldn't want to see kids 'educated' to think that becoming gay is somehow better for the earth than not, if kids discover they are homosexual through their own free will that is fine with me but this whole agenda in the classrooms is disturbing.
To be frank, that you even think that there is an "agenda" seems far more disturbing. If you think homosexuality is something that can be subversively "taught" than you don't have a clue in regards to that which you are describing.
On November 24 2012 11:08 bK- wrote: I feel sorry for all the people over there that will be at risk with this new "ideology". Gays are a part of society and have been as far as mankind can remember. The gay people are needed in society as a way to help curb the worlds overpopulation issue. As for the AIDS issue that is a completely different subject/topic altogether. Though there have been studies showing that the majority of new AIDS cases are from homosexual men specifically. So with that all being said I hope this bill doesn't pass as I believe it violates their overall quality of life over there. Nobody should be shunned or jailed just because whom they choose to love.
That's the case in developed countries. In africa however it's overshadowed by loads of other reasons, such as:
-Female circumcision, thus resulting in a higher chance of exchange of blood. -Denial by major African leaders of HIV -> AIDS link. -Refusal of the church to condone condom use. -Medical suspicion, thus less likelyhood of checking yourself out. -Likelyhood of resorting to sex related work due to poor economy, natural disasters and conflict. -Brain drain, the highly educated leave the worst stricken african countries towards more prosperous countries. -Corruption and infrastructure problems. -Contaminated needles. -Mother to unborn baby transfer.
And of course, plain heterosexual intercourse without a condom is the largest culprit.
Don't forgot to mention the virgin cure. Many men in Africa with HIV believe having sex with a virgin will cure them.
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
A slippery slope argument followed by the idea that we should grandfather in bigotry. Your post contributed a lot to this thread.
On November 24 2012 11:08 bK- wrote: The gay people are needed in society as a way to help curb the worlds overpopulation issue.
The economic collapse will 'solve' the worlds overpopulation issue.I wouldn't want to see kids 'educated' to think that becoming gay is somehow better for the earth than not, if kids discover they are homosexual through their own free will that is fine with me but this whole agenda in the classrooms is disturbing.
To be frank, that you even think that there is an "agenda" seems far more disturbing. If you think homosexuality is something that can be subversively "taught" than you don't have a clue in regards to that which you are describing.
Kids can be indoctrinated into pretty much anything.Examples : Hitler youth, Westboro baptist church type hate groups. I just finished watching a documentary called 'Indoctrinate U' - full version is on youtube, have you seen it? It might open your mind.
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
As already said, that's a slippery slope argument. Though, to add onto it. There's pretty much no argument to make against condoning homosexuality other than those stemming from religion or personal.. well.. bigotry. However, there's loads of arguments to make against condoning cannibals and pedophiles. I think your argument (if we can call it that) is in really poor taste as homosexuality shouldn't even be linked to either of the two.
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
hahahaha
what??
It's ok to kill homosexuals, but not eat them? Glad to see you drawing a line.
Being free doesn't strike you as the more preferred option?
On November 24 2012 11:08 bK- wrote: The gay people are needed in society as a way to help curb the worlds overpopulation issue.
The economic collapse will 'solve' the worlds overpopulation issue.I wouldn't want to see kids 'educated' to think that becoming gay is somehow better for the earth than not, if kids discover they are homosexual through their own free will that is fine with me but this whole agenda in the classrooms is disturbing.
To be frank, that you even think that there is an "agenda" seems far more disturbing. If you think homosexuality is something that can be subversively "taught" than you don't have a clue in regards to that which you are describing.
Kids can be indoctrinated into pretty much anything.Examples : Hitler youth, Westboro baptist church type hate groups. I just finished watching a documentary called 'Indoctrinate U' - full version is on youtube, have you seen it? It might open your mind.
In light of all this hate, you fear homosexuals, why?
On November 24 2012 11:08 bK- wrote: The gay people are needed in society as a way to help curb the worlds overpopulation issue.
The economic collapse will 'solve' the worlds overpopulation issue.I wouldn't want to see kids 'educated' to think that becoming gay is somehow better for the earth than not, if kids discover they are homosexual through their own free will that is fine with me but this whole agenda in the classrooms is disturbing.
To be frank, that you even think that there is an "agenda" seems far more disturbing. If you think homosexuality is something that can be subversively "taught" than you don't have a clue in regards to that which you are describing.
Kids can be indoctrinated into pretty much anything.Examples : Hitler youth, Westboro baptist church type hate groups. I just finished watching a documentary called 'Indoctrinate U' - full version is on youtube, have you seen it? It might open your mind.
Homosexuality is nothing like any of the things you listed, it is not some cult or culture of indoctrination, and Hitler Youth? Are you serious? How you can compare power structures and belief based manipulations with being gay befuddles me to no end.
On November 24 2012 11:08 bK- wrote: The gay people are needed in society as a way to help curb the worlds overpopulation issue.
The economic collapse will 'solve' the worlds overpopulation issue.I wouldn't want to see kids 'educated' to think that becoming gay is somehow better for the earth than not, if kids discover they are homosexual through their own free will that is fine with me but this whole agenda in the classrooms is disturbing.
To be frank, that you even think that there is an "agenda" seems far more disturbing. If you think homosexuality is something that can be subversively "taught" than you don't have a clue in regards to that which you are describing.
Kids can be indoctrinated into pretty much anything.Examples : Hitler youth, Westboro baptist church type hate groups. I just finished watching a documentary called 'Indoctrinate U' - full version is on youtube, have you seen it? It might open your mind.
So then teaching children not to hate boys that play with dolls or girls that play sports is indoctrinating them into homosexuality? wtf are you talking about?
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
The 'forward thinkers' who support abortion now actually now claim that 2 year old babies are not 'people' and should be allowed to be aborted also.The sad fact is many on the far left spectrum are simply eugenicists, 54% of black babies are aborted but now they clamour for abortions up to age 2.... Meanwhile in Detroit which has been under democrat council control since 1964 the situation continues to deteriorate and we are still fed this lie that the left will make things better for minorities? please..... pass the sick bag.
Stating that newborn babies ‘aren’t people’ and it is therefore acceptable to kill them, two ‘ethicists’ writing for the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics are now calling for after-birth abortions. The writers, who worked with Australian universities in the construction of their paper, say that newborn babies simply do not have a “moral right to life.” Furthermore, the paper goes on to state that the babies have no right to live as they do not offer “at least basic value” that would represent a loss.
Back to Uganda, if what they are doing is so abhorrent why no sanctions against them from the UN? I know Iran has sanctions against it but these are mostly due to the nuclear power issue and not to do with homosexuality being punishable by death in Iran correct? Any sanctions against Saudi Arabia? if not why not.
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
The 'forward thinkers' who support abortion now actually now claim that 2 year old babies are not 'people' and should be allowed to be aborted also.The sad fact is many on the far left spectrum are simply eugenicists, 54% of black babies are aborted but now they clamour for abortions up to age 2.... Meanwhile in Detroit which has been under democrat council control since 1964 the situation continues to deteriorate and we are still fed this lie that the left will make things better for minorities? please..... pass the sick bag.
Stating that newborn babies ‘aren’t people’ and it is therefore acceptable to kill them, two ‘ethicists’ writing for the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics are now calling for after-birth abortions. The writers, who worked with Australian universities in the construction of their paper, say that newborn babies simply do not have a “moral right to life.” Furthermore, the paper goes on to state that the babies have no right to live as they do not offer “at least basic value” that would represent a loss.
Back to Uganda, if what they are doing is so abhorrent why no sanctions against them from the UN? I know Iran has sanctions against it but these are mostly due to the nuclear power issue and not to do with homosexuality being punishable by death in Iran correct? Any sanctions against Saudi Arabia? if not why not.
What exactly are you saying?
Up until the part where you ask that since Muslims kill homosexuals, why can't Christians, I really don't understand one bit.
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
As already said, that's a slippery slope argument. Though, to add onto it. There's pretty much no argument to make against condoning homosexuality other than those stemming from religion or personal.. well.. bigotry. However, there's loads of arguments to make against condoning cannibals and pedophiles. I think your argument (if we can call it that) is in really poor taste as homosexuality shouldn't even be linked to either of the two.
Not my argument, in my opinion all three are very different. But if you look into European history at least, all three were among the most serious breaches of moral conduct. You can't call people bigots, or use some even worse epithets we've already seen in this thread because they prefer to stick by their customs. Even when a certain standard feels a bit out of place or outdated, that doesn't mean that going by the opposite is some kind of ultimate enlightenment.
EPT
