|
On November 23 2012 23:01 zalz wrote:
Don't sell your spineless position as anything other than the cowardice that it is. Sovereignty can go to hell when it treads upon the rights of the individual.
So you agree with the wars in the middle east then? And if you disagree with the wars you are a coward, straight out of the George W Bush handbook that one - "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists! " was his exact quote.All those Arab countries gotta be more like 'Murrica! And yet these interventionist policies end up causing far more hardship to the people of those nations than doing nothing does.Pure madness.
|
On November 23 2012 23:07 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 23:01 zalz wrote:On November 23 2012 22:56 jdsowa wrote:On November 23 2012 22:41 zalz wrote:On November 23 2012 21:14 EtherealBlade wrote:
So if there's strong support for it throughout the country what's your deal with it? Let them make their own laws, they aren't a colony. There are other moral standards than Western. I don't care one bit for the sovereignty of nations when violating the rights of the individual. An atrocity here is an atrocity there. No invisible line on a map will change that. there's quite a difference between anti-gay laws and anti-gay-behaviour laws. most laws fall under the latter, i.e. to discourage open homosexuality, because it is simply not practical to enforce the former.
while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive, and let other countries make their own laws. You're not finishing your thought. Explain how you finding something offensive gives you the right to dictate that it must be banned. "I find it offensive" so what? A dozen things offend me on a daily basis, but why is it you that instantly screams for censorship? It's up to each society to determine what's offensive and what should be law. These 'rights' that you speak of are relative to the society that you find yourself in. They are not absolute. I bet you can't walk around naked in the streets of your home country. That's just as much of a 'rights violation' in the sense that you are not simply free to behave however you please in public. It's up to each society to determine what's offensive and what should be law? Says who? It might be the status quo, but it's revolting and ought to be revoked. The truth of that is no more obvious when you see the obscenities that are inflicted upon the people of these nations. I said it before, no invisible line will make something any less horrible. You, and many others, overestimate the importance of sovereignty. You ought to look at humanity from an international position, and you would understand that real human beings will end up having their lives destroyed over this. How morally bankrupt must you be when you cease to care for another human being because of a border? Don't sell your spineless position as anything other than the cowardice that it is. Sovereignty can go to hell when it treads upon the rights of the individual. Well to be honest, if you are arguing on the grounds of sovereignty / basis of law, then just use the basis of law and justice, i.e. fairness and veil of ignorance / concept of precedence in common law against them. If you follow the same ideology then no one should complain for example of the legislation of any faith based or opinion based law - say for example sharia law - in another country, no one should complain about the legislation of a police state or a dictatorship in another country - say for example north korea, and especially no one should complain about the voting in of any political party in another country democratically - say for example Hamas and Hezbollah.
Which is exactly why this notion of sovereignty, and especially the more recent extreme-sovereignty, which argues that nations can't just decide for themselves, but any outcome of that choice is also rightious, is morally bankrupt, and a repugnant position to take.
|
On November 23 2012 23:09 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 23:01 zalz wrote:
Don't sell your spineless position as anything other than the cowardice that it is. Sovereignty can go to hell when it treads upon the rights of the individual. So you agree with the wars in the middle east then? And if you disagree with the wars you are a coward, straight out of the George W Bush handbook that one - "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists! " was his exact quote.All those Arab countries gotta be more like 'Murrica! And yet these interventionist policies end up causing far more hardship to the people of those nations than doing nothing does.Pure madness.
please stick to the topic of gay rights in uganda
|
On November 23 2012 23:09 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 23:01 zalz wrote:
How morally bankrupt must you be when you cease to care for another human being because of a border? Don't sell your spineless position as anything other than the cowardice that it is. Sovereignty can go to hell when it treads upon the rights of the individual. So you agree with the wars in the middle east then? And if you disagree with the wars you are a coward, straight out of the George W Bush handbook that one - "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists! " was his exact quote.All those Arab countries gotta be more like 'Murrica! And yet these interventionist policies end up causing far more hardship to the people of those nations than doing nothing does.Pure madness.
Are you operating on the assumption that the majority of human beings regardless of sovereignty agreed with that war? Because the majority of the world's population didn't and thought that America was the country that was misguided.
|
man's prime survival mechanism is through the action of his reasoning mind.
therefore, physical force between humans ought to be banned by the state.
therefore, jailing homosexuals is immoral.
|
On November 23 2012 23:10 lahara wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 23:09 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 23 2012 23:01 zalz wrote:
Don't sell your spineless position as anything other than the cowardice that it is. Sovereignty can go to hell when it treads upon the rights of the individual. So you agree with the wars in the middle east then? And if you disagree with the wars you are a coward, straight out of the George W Bush handbook that one - "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists! " was his exact quote.All those Arab countries gotta be more like 'Murrica! And yet these interventionist policies end up causing far more hardship to the people of those nations than doing nothing does.Pure madness. please stick to the topic of gay rights in uganda
We are discussing whether it is morally right for one sovereign nation to tell another sovereign nation what it's laws should be.These are relevant examples (Removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan) - This is on topic.
|
On November 23 2012 23:09 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 23:01 zalz wrote:
Don't sell your spineless position as anything other than the cowardice that it is. Sovereignty can go to hell when it treads upon the rights of the individual. So you agree with the wars in the middle east then? And if you disagree with the wars you are a coward, straight out of the George W Bush handbook that one - "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists! " was his exact quote.All those Arab countries gotta be more like 'Murrica! And yet these interventionist policies end up causing far more hardship to the people of those nations than doing nothing does.Pure madness.
Ooh, you really got me there, what a hypocrite am I.
Ooh hang on, I support both the war in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and have done so repeatedly on this forum.
See, I adhere to an actual ideology, rather than say that whatever horrors some foreign government can conjure up, are automatically good. I don't shift positions just so I can spare the sensibilities of third world totalitarian governments.
|
Fuck that documentary is horrifying...
Gays, according to Martin Semper
- actively and deliberately try to undermine the institution of marriage
- use vast financial resources to recruit new gays
- have sex consisting largely of fisting and eating feces
- target children and teenagers and make them gay (?)
The fact that people have to live in fear because some religious asshole has fabricated and propagated a bunch of "facts" about them is so sickening and frightening...
|
On November 23 2012 21:14 EtherealBlade wrote:
So if there's strong support for it throughout the country what's your deal with it? Let them make their own laws, they aren't a colony. There are other moral standards than Western.
So you do not care if people are locked or executed for "crimes" that hurt noone. Moral relativism of your kind is rather disgusting. I suppose if most people decided that you need to be killed you would be ok with that, because majority opinion is determining what is right and what is wrong.
|
On November 23 2012 22:54 lahara wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 22:38 Hairy wrote:On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote:
while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive... I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this. well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
|
Only one who can and should fix this before the bill gets accepted is the Pope.
And Christians could mail him to push him to do that.
|
Yeah i'm also glad that i live in a country that says being gay is fully accepted by the law. This is for me just fucked up. I hope people one day just grows up
|
On November 23 2012 23:22 Zandar wrote:
Only one who can and should fix this before the bill gets accepted is the Pope.
And Christians could mail him to push him to do that.
I doubt the current Pope will ever do something like that.
|
On November 23 2012 23:21 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 22:54 lahara wrote:On November 23 2012 22:38 Hairy wrote:On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote:
while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive... I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this. well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever. And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
|
On November 23 2012 23:22 Zandar wrote:
Only one who can and should fix this before the bill gets accepted is the Pope.
And Christians could mail him to push him to do that.
Pretty ironic for some people to be making the argument that sovereignty excludes people from other countries to act on one country's legislation, while others argue that religious sovereignty transcends national sovereignty and is free to influence one country's politics. I thought we've gone past that point and now base whether or not a cause is just on reason and rationalism.
|
Ah. Sorry for saying this. And I know it's not respectful and so I am the one erring. But I have to laugh. They might as well be starring in a "Muppets tonight" show. I can't take them as real people at face value. Something is off. It's like stupidity is hilarious, and these people are full of it.
Sorry to all those who have to live in this country.
|
hahaha! evillibrarian! welcome! what's up dude! we playing DotA tonight?
On topic, I agree that this is pretty retarded. I just wish the world would grow up already. I don't see what another person chooses to do with his penis has anything to do with anyone let alone get jailed for your sexuality. I can't fathom what it must be like to have to live in that kind of secrecy your whole life and be too terrified to find happiness because it would get you locked up.
This kind of backwards logic has to stop somehow. It just keeps getting more ridiculous. Just when it seems there is some progress some idiot comes along and everything moves in the opposite direction.
|
On November 23 2012 23:24 lahara wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 23:21 mcc wrote:On November 23 2012 22:54 lahara wrote:On November 23 2012 22:38 Hairy wrote:On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote:
while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive... I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this. well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever. And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ? i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r liquidlahara
Homosexuals used to hide their sexuality.
People like you kept drafting their names on lists and publishing them in the newspaper so they would get fired.
Historic record shows that when homosexuals don't flaunt anything, they are still targetted.
|
On November 23 2012 23:27 Cutlery wrote:
Ah. Sorry for saying this. And I know it's not respectful and so I am the one erring. But I have to laugh. They might as well be starring in a "Muppets tonight" show. I can't take them as real people at face value. Something is off. It's like stupidity is hilarious, and these people are full of it.
Sorry to all those who have to live in this country.
It's funny because Christianity was brought into Africa as a means of control and exerting influence from the Western nations while they pillaged the land, who themselves previous and during the colonial period of Africa had the exact same policies discriminating homosexuality in their own countries.
|
On November 23 2012 22:10 sekritzzz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 21:30 EvilLiBraRian wrote:On November 23 2012 21:14 EtherealBlade wrote:
So if there's strong support for it throughout the country what's your deal with it? Let them make their own laws, they aren't a colony. There are other moral standards than Western. I'm guessing a bit of Devil's Advocate here: a fair point. For example, we don't jump up and down about similar situations in numerous Arabic countries, most likely because they don't care and carry huge economic power as a religiously linked group. However, the pragmatist in me wants to prevent another messed up situation if possible. Morality is truly up for grabs globally speaking, but the death penalty for homosexuality (a potential end point)? I feel we have, on average, moved on and up from there. All I wish for is a situation where your private (non-criminal) sexual decisions don't end up with you dangling on the end of a rope. I'm pretty certain he isn't playing devil's advocate. Asked another way, who gave you the right to decide what is right and wrong in the world? 50 years ago moral standards were very different, and 50-100 years from now they will change even more. Every generation has this superiority complex it seems, where they think they are know-it-all but then a mere 50 years is enough to change a societies moral laws upside down.
Ah, but what gave these people the right to murder? Why do they campaign for the right to murder people? Where are the christian morals in this?
I'd argue they have no grasp of the morals they claim to follow. And have been "forced" to take a stance on something based on (christian) morals which they did not make, and don't know how to follow.
Therefore I have decided that this is not correct, this is not right. What they are doing in the name of Christianity is misguided. And could maybe be called wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
