Thread: Uganda to apply death penalty towards homosexuality

Originally Posted by JAD_333

In a way, the reasons why homosexuality has been resisted through the ages is more important than newly-minted, modern attitudes. Afterall modern attitudes are just a reaction to old proscriptions.

It's fair to ask why so many ancient civilizations had it in for poor buggers who were dealt a few genes from the opposite sex or for otherwise normal people who just like coming at things from the wrong end?

I suppose practical logic had something to do with a bit of it. For example, man plus man or woman plus woman does not equal babies.--Halt-stop-do not pass Go---Then perhaps the latter submerged into religious logic, for example, what appears unnatural must be anathema to the gods and therefore must be forbidden by them.

Personally, I believe there's room in the world for homosexuals and that they deserve neither ostracism nor punishment, and they can fight in wars or run banks, etc. I can speak with and socialize with them without the slightest qualm. I also accept them as serious people.

But it rings hollow when they try to rearrange my thinking and get me to accept their politically correct agenda, especially the idea that homosexuals and heterosexuals are co-equals in the fabric of society...Of course, that's utter nonsense. Hetero unions contribute to society what homosexuals unions cannot.

I haven't been able to dig up much on what ancient wisdom saw either good or bad in homosexuality. For now I am relying on social theory. For example, the flaw in this idea of co-equality is that it is rooted in the principle of legal equality, not in the social compact which gave rise to it and on which it depends for its viability. Under the social compact system, people agree to found a limited government for their defense and welfare, not to empower it to alter their social norms.

Instituting gay marriage would alter a heretofore powerful social norm, not in any way discriminatory, that marriage is between a man and a woman. What is the social value of accommodating same-sex couples within this norm? Does it make our society stronger? Or would it make it weaker?

Well, this much is certain: If we count ourselves as a strong society, it cannot be despite this norm; it must be due in part to it. So, I think homosexuals and heterosexuals who support gay marriage should keep that in mind until we can figure out what's best for society.

It was common for 13 yr olds to get married till very recently. Does that mean it's unnatural theyt cannot now? Polytheism was and is very common and results in children. Does that mean it is unnatural to outlaw it now? Homosexulity is observed in other mammals. Doesn't that speak to a very longwe history than recent human civilization. Ancient civilizations were big on slavery it doesn't make it right? Actually ancient civilizations were more often tolerant. Arranged marriage wasvery common if not the norm till recent history yet we'd never tolerate it in our society. Living in a nation based on individual liberty and equal oppurtunity means much of what societys did or sisn't do would be unacceptable to our principles.

How have major civilizations of the last two millennia treated people who were attracted to their own sex? In a narrative tour de force, Louis Crompton chronicles the lives and achievements of homosexual men and women alongside a darker history of persecution, as he compares the Christian West with the cultures of ancient Greece and Rome, Arab Spain, imperial China, and pre-Meiji Japan.

Ancient Greek culture celebrated same-sex love in history, literature, and art, making high claims for its moral influence. By contrast, Jewish religious leaders in the sixth century B.C.E. branded male homosexuality as a capital offense and, later, blamed it for the destruction of the biblical city of Sodom. When these two traditions collided in Christian Rome during the late empire, the tragic repercussions were felt throughout Europe and the New World.

Louis Crompton traces Church-inspired mutilation, torture, and burning of "sodomites" in sixth-century Byzantium, medieval France, Renaissance Italy, and in Spain under the Inquisition. But Protestant authorities were equally committed to the execution of homosexuals in the Netherlands, Calvin's Geneva, and Georgian England. The root cause was religious superstition, abetted by political ambition and sheer greed. Yet from this cauldron of fears and desires, homoerotic themes surfaced in the art of the Renaissance masters--Donatello, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Sodoma, Cellini, and Caravaggio--often intertwined with Christian motifs. Homosexuality also flourished in the court intrigues of Henry III of France, Queen Christina of Sweden, James I and William III of England, Queen Anne, and Frederick the Great.

Anti-homosexual atrocities committed in the West contrast starkly with the more tolerant traditions of pre-modern China and Japan, as revealed in poetry, fiction, and art and in the lives of emperors, shoguns, Buddhist priests, scholars, and actors. In the samurai tradition of Japan, Crompton makes clear, the celebration of same-sex love rivaled that of ancient Greece.

Sweeping in scope, elegantly crafted, and lavishly illustrated, Homosexuality and Civilization is a stunning exploration of a rich and terrible past.

this notable monograph, impressive for its breadth and readability, an early pioneer of gay and lesbian studies attempts the Herculean task of chronicling the history of homosexuality in Europe and parts of Asia from Homer to the 18th century. In a series of short vignettes, Crompton, emeritus professor of English at the University of Nebraska, relates the "rich and terrible" stories of men and women who have been immortalized, celebrated, shunned or executed for the special attention they paid to members of their own sex. Two chapters on China and Japan are a welcome addition to the usual Eurocentric focus. Crompton's comparative study reveals just how anomalous Judeo-Christian aversion to homosexuality seems in the context of world history. On the battlefield with Alexander the Great, in the highest ranks of the Han dynasty in China, in the "bisexual" poetry of Arab Spain and among the samurai in Japan, same-sex male love flourished (lesbianism, Crompton admits, is harder to find). Even among Christian rulers of European countries, homosexual attachments weren't unheard of. Crompton surmises that in 1610, "one `sodomite,' James I, ruled England, Scotland, and Ireland; another, Rudolph II, presided over the Holy Roman Empire; and France had its second homosexual king within a generation." Crompton's vivid and sobering accounts of the persecution of homosexuals under Christian regimes throughout the centuries emerge as the book's undeniable focus. Throughout, Crompton's great intellectual nemesis is the late Michel Foucault, whose History of Sexuality, Volume I emphasizes the difficulty of reconstructing the sexual ethos of another culture or historical period and who has inspired a generation of historians, literary scholars and cultural critics to grapple with sexuality in their work. By contrast, Crompton interprets his evidence quotes liberally from primary sources. Read as an anthology of those sources, Crompton's work will be valuable to scholars of all stripes.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc. [/quote]w.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/CROHOM.html
Amazon.com: Homosexuality and Civilization (9780674011977): Louis Crompton: Books

I can still remember having my knuckles rapped repeatedly for the crime of writing with my left hand. There's still many places in the world that would regard me using my sinister hand as a gross insult. Human beings are not logical.

Originally Posted by Prof

Mihais:

I'm a little shocked by your post. Didn't expect it.

I doubt if this'll do much good. Evidently you have piles of emotion invested in this topic. I don't, apart from the strong emotional component within my personal investment in the preservation of freedom & liberty in the US. I'll give it a shot, anyway.

It hasn't been so long since I was sort of creeped out by homosexual relationships. I've had enough prostate exams to still be baffled by them, or at least the male/male sort. However, even 'way back before that I didn't see any sense in the many, many laws prohibiting them. The marriage business hadn't even made it onto the radar at that point.

OK. The relationships exist. There isn't any point in arguing that, surely. I found out when I was in college that they were more common than I had previously thought, & that some of the practicioners, male & female, were some pretty nice folks, despite their "perversion." There was a bunch of sexual promiscuity associated (qua promiscuity, rather than the sort of promiscuity in a vague pursuit of monogamy more common in heterosexual relationships) that had some bad downstream consequences, but at the time the worst of those consequences were yet to be discovered. In addition, that "vague pursuit of monagamy" wasn't an available option for "homos."

By the time the gay marriage business began to crank up, I had grown up some. In the first place, I had gotten myself married. 'Way back, in Oct '67 or June '70, depending on how you're counting.

I don't want to be maudlin, but it didn't take me long to realize that marriage wasn't wasn't merely about sex, Nature's best designed recreation, but that loving companionship & friendship were more important components. I suppose I was lucky, but I also think that that's the way things are supposed to be. Along with all that homosexual promiscuity I also saw plenty of committed & lasting relationships. I would have been stupid not to have acknowledged them. They were right there in front of me, year after year.

These folks weren't afforded the option of conventional, legalized monogamy. It was unavailable, as were the many legal advantages marriage afforded. As far as I'm concerned, that didn't, & doesn't, make a lick of sense.

When the "Gay Marriage" business began to crop up the Religious Right here began to respond with such things as "Defense of Marriage" laws. Let me tell you something, son. My ~40yo heterosexual marriage is not endangered by Sam + Joe or Alice + Irene marriages. Nor are the marriages between heterosexual Southern Baptist couples violently opposed to gay marriage, even though their success rate is statistically dismal. Southern Baptists have the highest divorce rate in the country. They don't need to worry about queers, having their own issues to deal with, whatever those might be.

As for the "Holy institution" of this or that, I don't swing ())that way.

Try to set aside your strong emotional response & see it as an issue involving freedom. You may find their behavior distasteful, but they aren't doing anything to you by getting married. You, however, are doing something to them by trying to prevent that. If you try really hard, you might find other issues more congenial to your sympathy in which other people are trying to prevent you from engaging in activity you think is, or ought to be, legitimate.

It's generally a good idea to keep that nose trained inboard unless you're talking about behavior that involves theft of property or physical assult.

Prof

My apologies for being a rude and emotional.

Sir,my violent language aside,my point was that they might enjoy their freedom in their own home.Myself and the rest of the ''majority''have the right not to be disturbed by public manifestations.Just as I have the right not to be disturbed by ostentatious football fans or political sympathizers while being in public.Just as I don't disturb others with whatever crosses my mind.I don't consider it a restraint on freedom,but mere decency.
Agreed,marriage is much more than sex.But it is also inseparable from children.At least this is how it has always been in my family and the world around me.It's instilled in the fabric of our society.And while I'm not frightened by their relations(more women for me), I don't know why they don't admit they are different.Their whole effort afterall was to prove they are different,but at the same time that they are equal in regard with human rights.In this light,I consider their whole marriage campaign hypocritical. Name their formalized relations ''unions of the same sex'',make these equal in front of law with heterosexual marriages and be done with it.Otherwise tomorrow we can all claim a status which we don't deserve,because we didn't pay the price to earn it.

p.s Examining my emotions,I think I found another limit for my tolerance.Gays now join the black list along with commies and islamists.

Let's try with the colorful stuff for quotes.

My apologies for being a rude and emotional.

Sir,my violent language aside,my point was that they might enjoy their freedom in their own home.Myself and the rest of the ''majority''have the right not to be disturbed by public manifestations.Just as I have the right not to be disturbed by ostentatious football fans or political sympathizers while being in public.Just as I don't disturb others with whatever crosses my mind.I don't consider it a restraint on freedom,but mere decency.

No apology necessary. In this case I think, well, no, I know, that you're wrong. I strongly suspect from the good sense you've shown in previous posts that youth is the culprit. As always, unfortunately, that is permanently attached to its own remedy. As to your argument; you can't enjoy anything if its practice is forcibly confined to your home. I'm not talking about random copulation on the streets or rape or something like that, but if you're merely objecting to unseemly behavior, get over it. You'll live longer. You'll certainly never have any fun in New Orleans. These folks aren't doing anything but stuff that creeps you out. Let'em be. Maybe you're doing stuff that they don't approve of but are too polite to let you know.

Agreed,marriage is much more than sex.But it is also inseparable from children.At least this is how it has always been in my family and the world around me.It's instilled in the fabric of our society.And while I'm not frightened by their relations(more women for me),...

Underlined parenthetical above: My intentionally taking advantage of that aspect was largely responsible for me grabbing my wife in the first place. See? The glass is half full...

I don't know why they don't admit they are different.Their whole effort afterall was to prove they are different,but at the same time that they are equal in regard with human rights.In this light,I consider their whole marriage campaign hypocritical. Name their formalized relations ''unions of the same sex'',make these equal in front of law with heterosexual marriages and be done with it.Otherwise tomorrow we can all claim a status which we don't deserve,because we didn't pay the price to earn it.

Suits me. If you'd prefer the term "Civil Union" or something like that, as long as the same legal rights are insured, so be it. Although, If you'll pardon me, personally I think that's sort of dumb. A distiction that isn't distinct isn't much of a distinction. "A rose (or whatever) by any other name..."

p.s Examining my emotions,I think I found another limit for my tolerance.Gays now join the black list along with commies and islamists.

Well, the 2nd & 3rd in that list will flat kill you if they take over & disapprove of your behavior. The 1st is just likely to just mince away in a huff. Which do you prefer?

The Prof

I was having this same discussion on another board a couple weeks back.

And someone else posted this.He grabbed all the arguments against Homosexual marriage that had been given and gave reasons

He has a sense of humor


I thought it was great.

So I stole it and am posting it here. It applies here just as it did there

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Marriage is valuable because it produces children, which is why we deny
marriage rights to infertile couples and old people.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents
only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage, such as Britney Spears' 55-hour escapade, will be less
meaningful if gay marriage is allowed.

5. Marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all: women are property, matches are arranged in childhood, blacks can't marry whites,
Catholics can't marry Jews, divorce is illegal, and adultery is punishable
by death.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because
majority-elected legislatures have historically protected the rights of
minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the
values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have
only one religion in America.

8. There is no separation between religious marriage and legal marriage,
because there is no separation of church and state.

9. Devout, faithful Anglicans should never accept same-sex marriage, because
it is an affront to the traditional family values upheld by Henry VIII and
his wife, Catherine of Aragon, and his wife, Anne Boleyn, and his wife, Jane
Seymour, and his wife, Anne of Cleves, and his wife, Catherine Howard, and
his wife, Catherine Parr. They all knew the meaning of marriage and none of
them lost their heads over the matter.

10. Married gay people will encourage others to be gay, in a way that
unmarried gay people do not.

11. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy
behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because dogs have legal
standing and can sign marriage contracts.

12. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to legislative change in
general, which could possibly include the legalization of polygamy and
incest. Because we don't know what comes next, we should never change our
laws.

13. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at
home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

14. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual
marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new
social norms because we haven't adapted to things like suburban malls and
tupperware parties.

15. Legal marriage will inspire gays to mimic the straight traditions of
spiritual commitment ceremonies and celebratory parties, which is currently
impermissible for them to do and which they have never done before.

16. Marriage is designed to protect the well-being of children. Gay people
do not need marriage because they never have children from prior
relationships, artificial insemination or surrogacy, or adoption.

17. Civil unions are a good option because "separate but equal" institutions
are always constitutional. In fact, compared with marriage, civil unions are
so attractive that straight people are calling dibs on them.

18. A man should not be able to marry whomever a woman can marry, and a
woman should not be able to marry whomever a man can marry, because in this country we do not believe in gender equality.

19. If gays marry, some of straight people's tax dollars would end up going
to families whose structure they may find morally objectionable. Clearly, it
is more just to continue taking gay people's tax dollars to support straight
families, who are going to heaven regardless of what anyone else thinks of
them.

20. Gays should hold off on the marriage question until society is more
accepting of them, because they are not part of society.

21. The people's voice must be heard on this issue. Therefore, we must have
a referendum on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, because we can't think of any other way to discuss the issue.

22. Each state should decide for itself whether gay marriage will be
recognized, because there is no "full faith and credit" clause that requires
states to recognize each other's institutions.

23. Gay marriage attempts to replace natural heterosexual instinct with a
cultural institution. Morality demands that we subordinate institutionalized
commitment to raw, unfettered, biological impulse.

24. Gay marriages could very well suffer maladies like domestic violence and
substance abuse. That's why we invented the Quality Control department to
pre-approve the righteousness of all marriage applicants, such as convicted
serial killer Richard Ramirez who married a woman while on Death Row.

25. Those who support gay marriage aim to overthrow the dominant culture, as evidenced by their enthusiasm to participate in it.

26. The country can't afford to provide benefits for married gay couples.
That's why Bush would never consider spending $150 million on programs that
encourage more straight people to get married.

27. Gay couples do not deserve marriage because, if everyone on earth
limited themselves to same-sex sexual behavior, humanity would soon be
extinct. Based on the same concern, we also deny marriage rights to the
biologically childless and to those who have borne only one child. (We are
also considering denying marriage rights to those who have borne three or
more children, because if everyone copied them, the world population would
shoot through the roof.)

28. Marriage was created in the Bible as a bond between a man and a woman.
The people who lived prior to the writing of the Bible, such as the Chinese,
sat around in confusion for many years until the Mesopotamians finally came
around and invented the family unit.

Pardon me, but:

Shriek, scream, lose lunch guffaw, blark, HOOT! wriggle, fall down, get up, fall down again, Completely lose it.

I beg your pardon.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

I was having this same discussion on another board a couple weeks back.

And someone else posted this.He grabbed all the arguments against Homosexual marriage that had been given and gave reasons

He has a sense of humor


I thought it was great.

So I stole it and am posting it here. It applies here just as it did there

Outstanding post Gunny. Humour truly is the best weapon.

Oh, and don't feel bad about stealing it. Something like this has been bumping around the net for a few years now, so I suspect the last guy borrowed it too.

Originally Posted by Mihais

p.s Examining my emotions,I think I found another limit for my tolerance.Gays now join the black list along with commies and islamists.

Examining my emotions I have found a limit for my tolerance. You now join my blacklist along with fascists, commies & islamists (see if you can work ouot what you have in common).

Originally Posted by Bigfella

Examining my emotions I have found a limit for my tolerance. You now join my blacklist along with fascists, commies & islamists (see if you can work ouot what you have in common).

Aww, come on, BF. He's just doing some youthful hindbrain thinking. Time is the cure. Exposure to this joint won't hurt, either. I'd like to see more of the more leftward out there dropping in to at least lurk, too. Give'em a chance to see how all these "primitive, Nazi" military types really think. Give'em someone besides nutso social conservative talkshow monkeys to contend with & a bit of an inferiority complex at the same time.

Prof

Originally Posted by Bigfella

Examining my emotions I have found a limit for my tolerance. You now join my blacklist along with fascists, commies & islamists (see if you can work ouot what you have in common).

Sorry,I don't belong to a death cult.If you see it that way,so be it.

Originally Posted by Prof

Aww, come on, BF. He's just doing some youthful hindbrain thinking. Time is the cure. Exposure to this joint won't hurt, either. I'd like to see more of the more leftward out there dropping in to at least lurk, too. Give'em a chance to see how all these "primitive, Nazi" military types really think. Give'em someone besides nutso social conservative talkshow monkeys to contend with & a bit of an inferiority complex at the same time.

Prof

Prof,a certain ''primitive Nazi'' didn't come to the views he has by some ''hate hour'' indoctrination program.He arrived there by going full circle,looking at everything and keeping what he considered to be a logical and constructive view( I avoid using the term ''best'').Among others things he likes a certain quote from Voltaire(for the ''hindbrain'' stuff I won't tell you which one,but let you guess )

Now back to business.Did you really have to use pink?
Such behaviour as you describe is what I'm talking about,but we arrive at different conclusions by using the same data.If I do something that disturbs someone I apologize and move on,trying not to repeat it.I'm not ashamed of it and I don't see as a restriction on my freedom.But I ask others the same.Just because drinking is allowed doesn't mean I have to walk dead drunk in the park.Plenty of others places to kill my last neuron

With all the respect for experience,I don't think their formalized unions are a rose by other name.In my lil' part of the world a marriage is,at its essence the commitment of 2 individuals to raise a family(of their own,I should add).It goes well beyond the mere legal aspects,although those are obviously included.A homo union can have mutual affection,it can have all the legal rights,it can even have adopted children,but it cannot have that commitment,for biological reasons.Mother nature made that discrimination,not me.

Milhais:

Prof,a certain ''primitive Nazi'' didn't come to the views he has by some ''hate hour'' indoctrination program.

You weren't the "primitive Nazi" I was talking about. (Advice: Avoid all people who suggest that you, personally, are the focus of conversation. Even if those people are you.) The "primitive Nazis" I was referring to are those estimable WABits who collectively are an excellent example of why the Left's automatic sub rosa implication that "military thinking (well, OK, Intelligence) is to intelligence is as military music is to Music" is utter bullshit.

He arrived there by going full circle,looking at everything and keeping what he considered to be a logical and constructive view( I avoid using the term ''best'').Among others things he likes a certain quote from Voltaire(for the ''hindbrain'' stuff I won't tell you which one,but let you guess )

I'm stumped. Illuminate me.

Now back to business.Did you really have to use pink?

I used magenta. If lavender had been an option, I would have used it. We'll try "plum."

Such behaviour as you describe is what I'm talking about,but we arrive at different conclusions by using the same data.If I do something that disturbs someone I apologize and move on,trying not to repeat it.I'm not ashamed of it and I don't see as a restriction on my freedom.But I ask others the same.Just because drinking is allowed doesn't mean I have to walk dead drunk in the park.Plenty of others places to kill my last neuron

With all the respect for experience,I don't think their formalized unions are a rose by other name.In my lil' part of the world a marriage is,at its essence the commitment of 2 individuals to raise a family(of their own,I should add).It goes well beyond the mere legal aspects,although those are obviously included.A homo union can have mutual affection,it can have all the legal rights,it can even have adopted children,but it cannot have that commitment,for biological reasons.Mother nature made that discrimination,not me.

Face it. What you really want is a consensus approval of what actually amounts to an individual prejudice. Look around & reflect. Rush or Mother Jones would be more amenable venues. You assert universality. It isn't there, & even if it were, it wouldn't matter all that much. The key to this are the questions:

a) "Are THEY (whoever) trying to interfere with your behavior or or YOU trying to interfere with theirs."
b) "Is there a critical need for any sort of interference in either direction based on immediate public safety or denial of rights?"

Now, you were given a question to answer earlier. You missed it. Let's try again & see if you can make the intellectual hop.

Is there some other similar controversy that's more congenial to you; where you think that others are unjustly preventing you from pursuing behavior you think to be legitimate? Is there any relationship between that & the current discussion? Grade depends on it.

Prof

Tarek,first of all I'm sorry to hear about your medical condition.I hope the modern science will find a cure,or at the very least offer you and the woman you'll love the joy of having kids by artificial means.

that still does not anser my question: do you, or anyone else who uses the argument that gays should not marry since they can't produce kids also believe that I should not have the right to get married?

Right now all the options I have to get a kid would be the same a same sex couple would have, so there is no logic reason if you stay by your argument, to allow me to get married.

Agree with JAD.