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.
I am talking about a vocal minority in the homosexual community that IS cult like and jump on anyone or any organisation that disagrees with their views.Remember the chick-fil-a guy that said he supported traditional families and these people called him bigot and whatever else, there was a huge media storm over NOTHING.Other viewpoints in all topics should be allowed to be discussed without being shouted down, if people support traditional families they should be able to say so without being attacked.
Like i say go watch this doco and open your mind a little
On November 24 2012 11:12 Saltydizzle wrote: Good for Uganda, let the people vote and decide.
I don't think it should necessarily work that way in a country full of clearly ignorant and uneducated people.
Ah, so you've got other ideas how their government should work right, because they are clearly ignorant and have no right for self-determination. Lucky for you, you do because you're that much better than them. Who are we to judge?
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.
Then this must apply to blacks and apartheid as well. Must it not? Slavery has long traditions. It's outdated and out of place. But anyone hating blacks or buying slaves can't be called bigots. They aren't necessarily unenlightened.
I'm questioning the validity of such an argument. How many years must pass before we can use the label "bigot"? What do you gain by avoiding this label?
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people.
This is a pretty pathetic straw man.
Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another.
Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code.
This is not the morals we are talking about this is the law initiative that causes outrage. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for homosexual people in Uganda? Yes/No/It's their own business?
And it's their own business. I believe I explicitly stated it's impossible to forcibly change their beliefs.
Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for Jews in Germany in WW2? Yes/No/It was their own (the Germans) business?
Oh, cute, Godwin's Law. Let's go through a few things to show how idiotic this kind of thinking:
1) The situations are in no way analogous. Germany rounded up Jewish people en masse, shipped them to death camps where they murdered millions. Uganda is trying to make homosexuality illegal. I would not recommend trying to equate the two.
2) What stopped the holocaust? Complete occupation of Germany and the absolute collapse of their leadership structure through military destruction, plus the death camps never actually ceased operations until allied forces liberated each one.
3) Anti-Semitic belief was taken to that level because Jewish people were scapegoated for losing WW1, for the economic collapse, for the corruption of the government, etc. Ugandan society believes homosexuality is wrong (which was a view shared by most 1st world nations only a few decades ago).
4) What eliminated Anti-Semitic views in Germany (aside from fringe groups)? Decades of occupation, where it was driven into the population that Germany did horrific things, and that the entire nation was wrong to let it happen. That was followed by decades of education teaching the new generations about exactly what happened and how wrong it was.
And for the person who stated that the Holocaust was democratically decided...Hitler was never elected. He was appointed by a democratically elected government, seized more power, assumed total control, and then created a widespread campaign to push his own agenda.
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.
No, part of being an enlightened person is accepting the fact that you do not have a right to tell someone how to live their life as long as it's within bounds agreed upon by law. People have human rights, and as long as those are trodden upon by people who do not agree with their way of life because of their belief, then yes, they're bigots. I'd prefer to use some other words, but I'll refrain.
Also, if you look into European history a bit further back you'll see that it's socially accepted. May I ask around which period it became a serious breach, and what relegion was in the uprise at that moment?
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.
I am talking about a vocal minority in the homosexual community that IS cult like and jump on anyone or any organisation that disagrees with their views.Remember the chick-fil-a guy that said he supported traditional families and these people called him bigot and whatever else, there was a huge media storm over NOTHING.Other viewpoints in all topics should be allowed to be discussed without being shouted down, if people support traditional families they should be able to say so without being attacked.
I wonder why you bring in traditional families, when confronted with the statement that tolerance is more forward than the discussed topic which is about killing or imprisoning gays.
Would you not say the indoctrination is actually occurring in Uganda?
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.
My point is why does the left go on so much about christian opposition to homosexuality when muslims are far more conservative than christians could ever hope to be.I made a post about it page 2....
I'm not religious but please..... there are FAR more Islamic nations where homosexuality is illegal (some where it is punishable by death) than christian nations where it is likewise.And in my opinion they are fine to make whatever laws they want in their own country so long as they don't try to bring that ideology to the west.We are already starting to see that creeping in with a sharia law party in Belgium winning two seats in the recent elections which should be a big concern for the far left since sharia law is not compatible with their own views on homosexuality.
Anyway just wondering if there are any supporters of affirmative action here and can you explain why affirmative action is not racist as it seems to advantage or disadvantage people based on their skin colour which is my book is the definition of racism?
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.
This is probably one of the most intellectually dishonest posts I've read in the last few weeks. Because two people wrote an article suggesting that abortion should be "extended" to newborns, it means that the hundreds of millions (at least) of people that support a woman's right to choose agree with them?! How the hell do you even come up with nonsense like this? And your claims about Democrats in Detroit have literally nothing to do with the rest of the argument.
What is this weird idea some people have that all "traditional" beliefs are shielded from criticism?
We should all be challenged on our beliefs. We should not exist in some faux-relativist world where, "Oh, well, if that's what you believe, who are we to tell you otherwise?" Well it depends what it is you believe. If you believe that homosexuality warrants prison time, prepare to be "attacked." If you believe in infanticide, prepare your defenses. If you believe in tax increases, tax breaks, are pro-life, are pro-choice, athiest, Christian, prepare to defend your position. We should all be able to logically defend our positions. Those who cannot are exposed as "agenda-oriented," indoctrinated, fearful, hateful, or simply uninformed on all sides.
The word "attacked" is also amusing. It victimizes the oppressors. "I think it's wrong for you to say that traditional families are the only acceptable family unit." "STOP ATTACKING MEEEEE"
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.
You really have no idea how bigotry works do you? Tradition for tradition's sake is moronic. People do not have a right to hate others. And no one is claiming that tolerance is ultimate enlightenment. They're claiming it's decent behavior.
On November 24 2012 11:12 Saltydizzle wrote: Good for Uganda, let the people vote and decide.
I don't think it should necessarily work that way in a country full of clearly ignorant and uneducated people.
Ah, so you've got other ideas how their government should work right, because they are clearly ignorant and have no right for self-determination. Lucky for you, you do because you're that much better than them. Who are we to judge?
Are you honestly trying to defend the murdering of people for being attracted to the same gender?
Who are we to judge? We are people who understand human rights and should not allow something like this to exist in 2012.
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.
My point is why does the left go on so much about christian opposition to homosexuality when muslims are far more conservative than christians could ever hope to be.I made a post about it page 2....
Because christianity is the largest religion in the developed world, one would expect certain christian beliefs to have eroded by now in a modern environment for such a long time in comparison to other religions.
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.
This is probably one of the most intellectually dishonest posts I've read in the last few weeks. Because two people wrote an article suggesting that abortion should be "extended" to newborns, it means that the hundreds of millions (at least) of people that support a woman's right to choose agree with them?!
Uhh these two "people" are highly regarded academics writing for a PEER REVIEWED journal, these are the sort of people who shape the debate - they are the "forward thinkers".If the ideas were so abhorrent why did they get published in the peer reviewed journal of medical ethics?
Here's another tidbit for you, a large number of people hold these views even if they don't fully disclose them in public like the writers of the above article.
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.
This is probably one of the most intellectually dishonest posts I've read in the last few weeks. Because two people wrote an article suggesting that abortion should be "extended" to newborns, it means that the hundreds of millions (at least) of people that support a woman's right to choose agree with them?!
Uhh these two "people" are highly regarded academics writing for a PEER REVIEWED journal, these are the sort of people who shape the debate - they are the "forward thinkers".If the ideas were so abhorrent why did they get published in the peer reviewed journal of medical ethics?
Because in a way they are right, have you read the entire paper?
In the end however, it's just morally deplorable and will never get through, nor will the entire group you blamed agree with it.
On November 24 2012 11:12 Saltydizzle wrote: Good for Uganda, let the people vote and decide.
I don't think it should necessarily work that way in a country full of clearly ignorant and uneducated people.
Ah, so you've got other ideas how their government should work right, because they are clearly ignorant and have no right for self-determination. Lucky for you, you do because you're that much better than them. Who are we to judge?
Are you honestly trying to defend the murdering of people for being attracted to the same gender?
Who are we to judge? We are people who understand human rights and should not allow something like this to exist in 2012.
By your standards of course. Your understanding of human rights has caused suffering for millions aswell. But you refuse to understand that because you have a superiority complex. You cannot comprehend that different regions have different values and if you consider one inferior to the other to the point that you must intervene, then your own human rights house of cards collapses.
I'm sure your country has a ton of laws that would seem outrageous to the people you've just called ignorant and uneducated, but they don't demand you to change them.
On November 24 2012 11:12 Saltydizzle wrote: Good for Uganda, let the people vote and decide.
I don't think it should necessarily work that way in a country full of clearly ignorant and uneducated people.
Ah, so you've got other ideas how their government should work right, because they are clearly ignorant and have no right for self-determination. Lucky for you, you do because you're that much better than them. Who are we to judge?
Are you honestly trying to defend the murdering of people for being attracted to the same gender?
Who are we to judge? We are people who understand human rights and should not allow something like this to exist in 2012.
By your standards of course. Your understanding of human rights has caused suffering for millions aswell. But you refuse to understand that because you have a superiority complex. You cannot comprehend that different regions have different values and if you consider one inferior to the other to the point that you must intervene, then your own human rights house of cards collapses.
I'm sure your country has a ton of laws that would seem outrageous to the people you've just called ignorant and uneducated, but they don't demand you to change them.
... Read the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It may help you in this discussion, as it's got nothing to do with superiority complex.
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.
My point is why does the left go on so much about christian opposition to homosexuality when muslims are far more conservative than christians could ever hope to be.I made a post about it page 2....
Because christianity is the largest religion in the developed world, one would expect certain christian beliefs to have eroded by now in a modern environment for such a long time in comparison to other religions.
I think it is more because of two reasons: first, Christianity in the West has evolved to the point where Christians don't go out and murder people for criticizing Christianity. Second, Christianity is the dominant religion in the developed world and has shaped most of the developed world's culture, so it is familiar and an institution that people feel they can actually do something about in their own communities.
On November 24 2012 11:12 Saltydizzle wrote: Good for Uganda, let the people vote and decide.
I don't think it should necessarily work that way in a country full of clearly ignorant and uneducated people.
Ah, so you've got other ideas how their government should work right, because they are clearly ignorant and have no right for self-determination. Lucky for you, you do because you're that much better than them. Who are we to judge?
People who aren't ignorant and who don't abuse their right to self-determination. That's who we are to judge.
There is no right to self-determination for the purpose of committing crimes against humanity or war crimes, there is no right to sovereignty to do the same. That is the biggest change in international relations since the Peace of Westphalia, and it happened directly as a result of the Holocaust, although the idea was birthed several generations before that.
By your standards of course. Your understanding of human rights has caused suffering for millions aswell. But you refuse to understand that because you have a superiority complex. You cannot comprehend that different regions have different values and if you consider one inferior to the other to the point that you must intervene, then your own human rights house of cards collapses.
Our standards are superior. You want to call it a superiority complex, fine. You want to say that actions taken because of that belief of superiority have caused suffering, they certainly have. But they are worth fighting for. Fighting causes suffering, it is unavoidable. But it is worth it if what you're fighting for is less suffering in the future.
There is a gap in your reasoning; why would our human rights "house of cards" collapse if we consider behavior caused by inferior standards to be so unacceptable that we must intervene?
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.
My point is why does the left go on so much about christian opposition to homosexuality when muslims are far more conservative than christians could ever hope to be.I made a post about it page 2....
Because christianity is the largest religion in the developed world, one would expect certain christian beliefs to have eroded by now in a modern environment for such a long time in comparison to other religions.
I think it is more because of two reasons: first, Christianity in the West has evolved to the point where Christians don't go out and murder people for criticizing Christianity. Second, Christianity is the dominant religion in the developed world and has shaped most of the developed world's culture, so it is familiar and an institution that people feel they can actually do something about in their own communities.
True enough, didn't mean to say it was the only reason. But yes, those do seem more logical and primary.
-Homosexuality is wrong because of your beliefs, and that you have a right to impose them on others -That a definition is more important that the happiness of others -That it's okay for the government to strip away the basic rights of the people on a majority vote -That a single act damns a person to death
You're all complete idiots. I hope that you burn in flames of the hell you believe the people you persecute are going to, because you're neither loving nor forgiving, but imposing upon people the decision when they were granted choice by Christ.
EPT
