|
@qwyn
"Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
"
sooo... people now can't marry because some people BELIEVE (yeah, i mean the word "believe", not "know") that it is wrong?
fuckin dipshit
like srsly
I think it's a bit wrong that religious people view themselves in a position to pacify all gays over the world because their fuckin believe and those people can't be who they really are, not just "believe they are gay"
this shit is so silly i will travel str8 to the mars colony if it will be made before i die
|
On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote:
Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Except to say that: it is what it is.
Oh yeah. Cause allowing the law to murder you because you are gay is such a valid viewpoint. Let's all consider being dead for a while. Only appropriate to consider both sides.
Almost sickening?
|
''I am here to insure that sodomy and homosexuality....NEVER see the light of reality!''
|
On November 24 2012 03:14 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 02:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 24 2012 01:53 marvellosity wrote:On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote:
Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Except to say that: it is what it is. All these gosh-darn lefties with their beliefs that people should be equal! I demand that we consider treating certain segments of society as 2nd class citizens instead! Unless you're white and/or rich. Then you gotta pay. I agree, life is really hard as a rich straight white man, it's so totally the same !
He was making a caricature through implication, so I did the same. The left expressing glee at the relative demographic decline of whites and the prospect of 'punishing' the rich is just as much a caricature as wanting certain people to be second class citizens is a caricature of the right.
|
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.
|
Freedom of religion is what they are using. They like religion, religion doesnt like gay people then its only natural for their society to then say being gay is illegal. Cant stop something majority in a society is against.
|
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.
|
good for Uganda
homosexuality spreads AIDS
africa has enough aids problems already, with the red cross giving pregnant mothers infected needles
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On November 24 2012 07:52 Coraz wrote:
good for Uganda
homosexuality spreads AIDS
africa has enough aids problems already, with the red cross giving pregnant mothers infected needles
Not using condoms does, homosexuality in itself doesn't. Actually, may I say that the church spreads AIDS by denying the use of condoms?
|
On November 24 2012 07:52 Coraz wrote:
good for Uganda
homosexuality spreads AIDS
africa has enough aids problems already, with the red cross giving pregnant mothers infected needles
the red cross gave pregnant mothers needles infected with HIV?
|
Ok for people thinking they've got a liberal point of view here is the question: should cousin (first, second, third) marriage be allowed?
|
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.
I get the idea that you are somewhat contradicting yourself. On one side you are praising personal freedom and on the other hand you are against it as you have no trouble with people who harm noone being jailed and discriminated by the state. Because the gays there won't be able to blow the others off, they will be jailed and lynched. Nice of you to be ok with that.
Btw, most people here are not trying to say we should invade Uganda and force them to do something.
And to a larger point, there are no different moralities when it comes to people being made to suffer for harmless behaviour, there is the moral and ethical code and the evil and immoral one. No relativity here, no "their morality is as valid as ours". The proposed laws are evil, universally.
|
On November 24 2012 08:01 Cheerio wrote:
Ok for people thinking they've got a liberal point of view here is the question: should cousin (first, second, third) marriage be allowed?
Yes, I see no reason why not other than possible complications with genetics. However, marriage doesn't automatically mean babies, so I see no valid reason.
|
On November 24 2012 08:03 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +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. I get the idea that you are somewhat contradicting yourself. On one side you are praising personal freedom and on the other hand you are against it as you have no trouble with people who harm noone being jailed and discriminated by the state. Because the gays there won't be able to blow the others off, they will be jailed and lynched. Nice of you to be ok with that. Btw, most people here are not trying to say we should invade Uganda and force them to do something. And to a larger point, there are no different moralities when it comes to people being made to suffer for harmless behaviour, there is the moral and ethical code and the evil and immoral one. No relativity here, no "their morality is as valid as ours". The proposed laws are evil, universally.
I don't agree with these laws being proposed by Uganda, but as you say yourself, no one is advocating an invasion of Uganda. We are welcome to disagree with these Ugandan laws, but if that's all we're doing... what's the point? Just to go "rabble rabble rabble!" online, and then go to sleep feeling good about yourself for being a progressive member of society? I have to agree with StarMoon to an extent. Sure I don't agree with what Uganda is doing, but what can we do about it?
|
On November 24 2012 08:08 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 08:03 mcc wrote: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. I get the idea that you are somewhat contradicting yourself. On one side you are praising personal freedom and on the other hand you are against it as you have no trouble with people who harm noone being jailed and discriminated by the state. Because the gays there won't be able to blow the others off, they will be jailed and lynched. Nice of you to be ok with that. Btw, most people here are not trying to say we should invade Uganda and force them to do something. And to a larger point, there are no different moralities when it comes to people being made to suffer for harmless behaviour, there is the moral and ethical code and the evil and immoral one. No relativity here, no "their morality is as valid as ours". The proposed laws are evil, universally. I don't agree with these laws being proposed by Uganda, but as you say yourself, no one is advocating an invasion of Uganda. We are welcome to disagree with these Ugandan laws, but if that's all we're doing... what's the point? Just to go "rabble rabble rabble!" online, and then go to sleep feeling good about yourself for being a progressive member of society? I have to agree with StarMoon to an extent. Sure I don't agree with what Uganda is doing, but what can we do about it?
Doing nothing is always worse than doing something, as miniscule as it may seem, the eventual effect is unknowable. Even if it doesn't change the situation in Uganda (which of course this thread will not), it may change or educate various other people reading this thread.
|
On November 24 2012 07:52 Coraz wrote:
good for Uganda
homosexuality spreads AIDS
africa has enough aids problems already
ok this is officially the dumbest post I have read on TL in at least a month. It's not the homosexuality that spreads AIDS, it's the sex with infected people. So you propose to ban homosexuality so that they don't have sex? Why stop at homosexuals only? Lets ban sex between all people! AIDS problem will be solved as soon as all infected people die out.
|
On November 24 2012 07:27 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 03:14 corumjhaelen wrote:On November 24 2012 02:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 24 2012 01:53 marvellosity wrote:On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote:
Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Except to say that: it is what it is. All these gosh-darn lefties with their beliefs that people should be equal! I demand that we consider treating certain segments of society as 2nd class citizens instead! Unless you're white and/or rich. Then you gotta pay. I agree, life is really hard as a rich straight white man, it's so totally the same ! He was making a caricature through implication, so I did the same. The left expressing glee at the relative demographic decline of whites and the prospect of 'punishing' the rich is just as much a caricature as wanting certain people to be second class citizens is a caricature of the right.
Problem is, he was caricaturing the poster he was responding to and not the right, whereas you completely out of nowhere , by some knee-jerk I assume, brought it into American politics territory. He was responding to someone who was bitching about lefties as the only people who could be against discrimination of gays, I have no idea where did you see the jab at the right. Unless you were just going completely on the non-related tangent.
He might have been caricaturing the right, but there is no way you can deduce it from his post and it is definitely not worded so, it more seems like too much time in US presidential election thread makes people see jabs where there are none 
|
On November 24 2012 08:01 Cheerio wrote:
Ok for people thinking they've got a liberal point of view here is the question: should cousin (first, second, third) marriage be allowed?
What does it has to do with this thread ?
|
On November 24 2012 07:52 Coraz wrote:
good for Uganda
homosexuality spreads AIDS
africa has enough aids problems already, with the red cross giving pregnant mothers infected needles
Could you provide us with evidence for those accusations.
|
On November 24 2012 07:50 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +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.
On November 24 2012 08:01 Cheerio wrote:
Ok for people thinking they've got a liberal point of view here is the question: should cousin (first, second, third) marriage be allowed?
Biologically, cousins are far enough removed that genetics are not an issue. Legally, most nations in the world allow it. Morally, there isn't any reason that wouldn't apply to childhood friends or children of close family friends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
