Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill - resurgence - Page 29

On November 29 2012 12:00 Caihead wrote:
To above spam post: Every point you are making stems from a straw man argument against extremist factions with in the feminism movement which is usually denounced by actual feminists. Nor does it even contribute to the discussion about homosexuals, by your definition is it fine for you to watch a gay pride parade consisting entirely of women because you are physically attracted to women? That's completely arbitrary.

The "think like us" categorization of the gay pride movement is god damn retarded. Do gays force heterosexuals to be homosexual through traumatizing medical / social / psychological experiments? Because the opposite has been true for as long as civilization has existed. Now homosexuals / transexuals / bisexuals finally see the light of day in some areas and you are complaining?

On November 29 2012 12:06 Arighttomorals wrote:


First one, no. If you are a male in our culture, Im sure you've experienced mysandry and sexism against you. I know I have. A lot. It doesn't matter where the ideas come from, what matters is that they permeate the culture, whether consciously or not. Do you know that we Ignore rape statistics for women when we want to talk about them? You should watch those videos is you don't want to remain ignorant.

As to gay pride, it doesnt matter what sex marches in it. For males, it's pride in male on male, for females, it's pride for female on female. Both of these are more acceptable to women in general than male on female.

On November 29 2012 12:06 Arighttomorals wrote:


First one, no. If you are a male in our culture, Im sure you've experienced mysandry and sexism against you. I know I have. A lot. It doesn't matter where the ideas come from, what matters is that they permeate the culture, whether consciously or not. Do you know that we Ignore rape statistics for women when we want to talk about rapists? You should watch those videos is you don't want to remain ignorant.

As to gay pride, it doesnt matter what sex marches in it. For males, it's pride in male on male, for females, it's pride for female on female. Both of these are more acceptable to women in general than male on female.



You're the one straw manning. What you just described is a fallacy of logical reason. Simply because they had it done to them, any repression of heterosexuality is okay so long as it's just snide remarks, or low opinions and even hate speech, and not medical or social experiments? Because thats what's happening, and you just call it "seeing the light of day", a phrase you wont even quality the meaning of.

On November 29 2012 12:15 Klondikebar wrote:


People like you who don't understand the difference between a minority and a majority have nothing to contribute to any sociological discussion. I will give you a quick starter though: An action by the majority will have difference consequences than that same action done by the minority.

Why is this even relevant, I've already said that you are aiming your argument at a straw man instead of having an actual discussion about the legality of homosexuality. This isn't a thread about extreme feminism which I also take personal issue with because it devalues the entire feminist movement.

Nvm I give up. Good bye. I can't be bothered so I automatically lose.

On November 29 2012 12:46 Arighttomorals wrote:


oh, so you resort to stereotyping and tropes?



I suppose you do lose, but not because of what you think. I responded to another person claiming that no heterosexual should be uncomfortable about gay pride parades, and I illustrated WHY heterosexual MALES should be uncomfortable. The implications of our society. Prove me wrong, if you feel like. Start a Hetero Pride parade in San Francisco. Let's see if people start calling your hate crime mongers.

I bolded what I think is the most telling part. You have issue with it, not because it is incredibly hate filled and bigoted like KKK pages or some sort of "hang sluts" website, but because it devalues the feminist movement. So even here, you still do not directly attack the message that's being spread as hate speech, because she's a woman. You instead say that it is devaluing a movement. You won't even criticize her directly for doing the same things that males do, and are directly and harshly criticized for.


It's like a deflection shield made of mental barriers. Even if the woman is totally and utterly in the wrong, spewing the worst stereotypes, generalizations, and sometimes even death threats towards males in general, you won't dare treat her like you would a man. What does that tell you?

As to being forced into homosexual acts; does prison ring a bell? And even among "free" citizens, there have been many rape crimes committed by one sex on someone of the same sex. Remember, rape is about power, not about lust or desire for sexual release. You think there haven't been gays/trans picking up straight guys to drug and rape them? Women also drug and rape guys. google the stats.

On November 28 2012 11:26 mcc wrote:

Yes, and in the same vein all scientific facts/theories are also opinions. Good to know. You fail to differentiate something that is agreed upon, because we decided so based on a whim and something agreed upon, because we are so biologically inclined and in fact never had a decision to make. The second one cannot change without our biology changing and is quite objective. Morality falls under the second kind. And that also goes for your pizza example to some degree. It shows that pizza is made in a way that we find (statistically) delicious, which is also biological and objective, in this sense, category. Of course much smaller percentage of people finds pizza delicious than the number of people that agree on core moral principles. Which is not surprising as there are other foods thus no point in evolution forcing us all into one box, whereas without the specific morality humans share, societies could not exist.

As for the rest, you again demonstrate that you do not understand what you read. You are talking about definitions being wrong after I repeatedly told you definitions are not wrong or right. They cannot be. Definitions are tautologies/naming conventions. So I never said Ugandan definition is wrong.

Your original point was trying to argue there is inconsistency between allowing homosexuality and not allowing incest/bestiality. People explained to you why there is no inconsistency. That is why you changed your argument to include the whole marriage discussion, even though it has no relevance to the topic, because it was the only way how you can salvage your refuted argument.

There are only three ways for you to argue your original point.
1) Try to argue that there is only one criteria to judge ethical scenarios.
You attempted this first by claiming the supposed inconsistency. That inconsistency of course does not exist if you actually understand that ethical decisions are reached using multiple criteria and so just because two actions share one/few attributes (sex/love/..) they all do not have to fall into the same ethical category. And people pointed out that you are wrong as there is no issue with having multi-criteria to decide ethical considerations.

2) Claim that morality is relative.
After that you moved to claim that morality is relative. So please do not lie that you do not want to argue about objective morality.

3) Move the topic from actual ethical calculus, to the murky waters of human language and its meanings.
But since the cases of bestiality vs homosexuality was so clear for most people, you moved into this final argument, which is completely irrelevant to original topic. Of course you picked it because it is easier to create confusion and argue whatever nonsense by saying that definitions of the words are arbitrary and so on. It is complete derailing of the thread as your point can easily and clearly be formulated without the whole marriage thing as I have easily shown few paragraphs above. But of course without the marriage thing, you would have to confine yourself to ethical discussion and that does not allow so much bs. So you moved it to semantic games over word marriage.

This was the last thing I am going to write about your tangent on marriage. Either argue your original point, where your only option is to claim that morality is relative to extremely big extent. Or continue with your word games, but without me.

On November 29 2012 12:53 Klondikebar wrote:


Again, the actions of a majority have different consequences than the actions of a minority. A heterosexual pride parade is not the same as a homosexual one.

On November 29 2012 12:55 Arighttomorals wrote:


So when a majority takes pride in itself, it's a shameful and disgusting thing, and when a minority does, it is empowering?
So if you are part of the majority, you should be ashamed of it and hide it?

On November 29 2012 13:03 Klondikebar wrote:


Aye caramba you sound so emo. I usually loathe explaining this on the internet because I usually find myself stepping into a pit of ignorance that I could never hope to fill but here goes:

A heterosexual pride parade is silly and redundant because everything about society already celebrates heterosexuality. Everything from chick flicks, to commercials, to frat parties, to mother fucking weddings are celebrations and announcements of heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is the majority and it society already empowers it and takes pride in it. A parade would be a waste of time because everyone already knows heterosexuals can express their sexuality and still find a place in society. It'd be like celebrating having permission to go to the bathroom...no fucking duh you can do it.

A homosexual pride parade is actually important because homosexuals have historically been told to hide, to be ashamed, and that they have no place in society. A gay pride parade is a way of saying that homosexuals don't have to hide anymore, or be ashamed anymore, and that society will let them participate. AND it finally gives them a chance to celebrate their sexuality instead of having to watch chick flicks, or go to frat parties, or play best man at yet another wedding. It gives a voice to an otherwise silent minority.

When a minority FINALLY gets a place in society, they are happy about it and they celebrate it. The majority was never not a part of society and their place in society has NEVER been threatened. Celebrating a heterosexual place in society is a waste of time at best, at worst it comes off as a mockery of what homosexuals have had to endure and what they've finally earned.

On November 29 2012 13:09 Arighttomorals wrote:



And what makes you think heterosexuals are a majority? I know more "bi" girls than straight girls.

And is that all gays want? A few parades to celebrate instead of the whole year, like heteros? Or are they just rubbing our faces in it.

Additionally, you're playing fast and loose with the word "celebrate". Does the existence of something inherently celebrate itself? like the existence of weddings? If gays get wedding rights, then you wouldn't be able to pull that particular straw man out. Its as if you're talking about basic life, attaching "heterosexual" to it, and then saying "so there". On the other hand, if the public acceptance IS equal to celebration as you have determined it is for "heterosexual things", then gays are being celebrated daily just as heterosexuals, and thus, by your logic, pride parades are redundant.

On November 29 2012 12:46 Arighttomorals wrote:


oh, so you resort to stereotyping and tropes?



I suppose you do lose, but not because of what you think. I responded to another person claiming that no heterosexual should be uncomfortable about gay pride parades, and I illustrated WHY heterosexual MALES should be uncomfortable. The implications of our society. Prove me wrong, if you feel like. Start a Hetero Pride parade in San Francisco. Let's see if people start calling your hate crime mongers.

I bolded what I think is the most telling part. You have issue with it, not because it is incredibly hate filled and bigoted like KKK pages or some sort of "hang sluts" website, but because it devalues the feminist movement. So even here, you still do not directly attack the message that's being spread as hate speech, because she's a woman. You instead say that it is devaluing a movement. You won't even criticize her directly for doing the same things that males do, and are directly and harshly criticized for.


It's like a deflection shield made of mental barriers. Even if the woman is totally and utterly in the wrong, spewing the worst stereotypes, generalizations, and sometimes even death threats towards males in general, you won't dare treat her like you would a man. What does that tell you?

As to being forced into homosexual acts; does prison ring a bell? And even among "free" citizens, there have been many rape crimes committed by one sex on someone of the same sex. Remember, rape is about power, not about lust or desire for sexual release. You think there haven't been gays/trans picking up straight guys to drug and rape them? Women also drug and rape guys. google the stats. I put this here, not to legitimize hate against a whole population, like you would claim. I put this here, because by your emphasis, you imply that homosexuals, trans, etc, cannot be criminal like heterosexual males. In other words, they lack agency, or hetero males are just so bad, that only they deserve mention in such crimes.

remember that pedophilia (of the homosexual nature) was around in ancient Greece, and they had codes for how to do it. It was seen as teaching men not to rely on women, a bit ironically like that Vagina Monologue part involving a 13 year old female getting drunk by a much older female and forced into sex, recalling it as "if it was a rape, it was a good rape", in later memories.

As to saying "yes but it was a majority oppressing a minority, therefore your argument is invalid", you're stereotyping and skirting the issue. Congrats on your own bigotry towards others. What people did in the past may have been right or wrong, and if we view it as wrong, then who committed it? Those in the past. Not those here. But go ahead and stereotype me.

On November 29 2012 13:20 heliusx wrote:
This thread has gone wayyy off course. The crux of it is homosexuals aren't equals in the current situation of most countries. All this bullshit some of you are spewing about parades and feminism is so irrelevant I don't know why people are still discussing it with you.

It's really fucking simple, do you support gays having equal right or do you not? All this dancing around the real issue is stupid. If you think gays shouldn't have all the privileges you as a straight male do just be a man and say it. No need for mental gymnastics to avoid admitting you're bigoted against gay people.

On November 29 2012 13:23 Arighttomorals wrote:


Do you believe in democracy? If the majority of Uganda signs the idea into law, will you still complain? After all, it was democratically decided for.

On November 29 2012 13:09 Arighttomorals wrote:



And what makes you think heterosexuals are a majority? I know more "bi" girls than straight girls.

On November 29 2012 12:06 Arighttomorals wrote:


First one, no. If you are a male in our culture, Im sure you've experienced mysandry and sexism against you. I know I have. A lot. It doesn't matter where the ideas come from, what matters is that they permeate the culture, whether consciously or not. Do you know that we Ignore rape statistics for women when we want to talk about rapists? You should watch those videos is you don't want to remain ignorant.

As to gay pride, it doesnt matter what sex marches in it. For males, it's pride in male on male, for females, it's pride for female on female. Both of these are more acceptable to women in general than male on female.



You're the one straw manning. What you just described is a fallacy of logical reason. Simply because they had it done to them, any repression of heterosexuality is okay so long as it's just snide remarks, or low opinions and even hate speech, and not medical or social experiments? Because thats what's happening, and you just call it "seeing the light of day", a phrase you wont even quality the meaning of.

On November 29 2012 13:09 Arighttomorals wrote:


And what makes you think heterosexuals are a majority? I know more "bi" girls than straight girls.

On November 29 2012 13:09 Arighttomorals wrote:
And is that all gays want? A few parades to celebrate instead of the whole year, like heteros? Or are they just rubbing our faces in it.

On November 29 2012 13:23 Arighttomorals wrote:


Do you believe in democracy? If the majority of Uganda signs the idea into law, will you still complain? After all, it was democratically decided for. If you think it's gone way off course, you've read half of the last page. I covered both the content and the ad hominems of "homophobia and fear" directed at myself. Others kept driving those points, and I responded solely to those, as they ignored my OT points.

On November 29 2012 13:09 Arighttomorals wrote:



And what makes you think heterosexuals are a majority? I know more "bi" girls than straight girls.

And is that all gays want? A few parades to celebrate instead of the whole year, like heteros? Or are they just rubbing our faces in it.

Additionally, you're playing fast and loose with the word "celebrate". Does the existence of something inherently celebrate itself? like the existence of weddings? If gays get wedding rights, then you wouldn't be able to pull that particular straw man out. Its as if you're talking about basic life, attaching "heterosexual" to it, and then saying "so there". On the other hand, if the public acceptance IS equal to celebration as you have determined it is for "heterosexual things", then gays are being celebrated daily just as heterosexuals, and thus, by your logic, pride parades are redundant.