Thread: Uganda to apply death penalty towards homosexuality

Hey. Well, they seem sanguine in committing national hari kari by AIDS for their convictions. If more of them die, wouldn't that mitigate global warming?

Find the "respect for soverignty" chant from loonie states idiotic and grating. As if they are entitled to developmental aid/food packages/funds....

JAD,

Though I feel we have been here before, your comments deserve a more though out reply than my one sentence dismissal in an earlier post. Others have tackeled these to differning degrees, I'll try not to repeat too much.

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.

I still don't understand the idea that because a prejudice or practice is deeply rooted in history that it is therefore justifiable in the modern world. We are continually assessing & re-assessing our attitudes in the light of new understanding of the world around us.

The truth is that the 'ancients' would struggle to understand societies where women had equal rights to men, repect for the religious beliefs of others was the norm, the equality of racial/ethnic 'outsiders' was accepted as the norm, slavery was illegal & governments were elected by universal suffrage. Using the 'wisdom' of the past none of these events would have happened, yet they have immeasurably strengthed our societies. The past may inform the present, but it can never be used to justify it. The present must be able to justify itself in its own terms.

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.

I understand that you mean this in good faith, so I'll accept is as such. I know, however, that you are old enough to remember a time when people made such statements about blacks (perhaps some still do). In neither case was it necessarily meant to sound patronizing, but it does. Ultimately what homosexuals want is not your approval, but for you to see them as equals in every way.

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.

That should read 'fertile hetero unions' I assume. Otherwise I can't see what point you are making.

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.

That is all well & good in theory, but we don't live in a theoretical world. In our practical world governments have been involving themselves in the establishment & alteration of social norms for as long as we have records. America is no different in that respect. Indeed, at establishment the US government essentially decided that a whole class of humans - slaves - had no real rights worthy of the term, while over half the adult white population had circumscribed rights...and so forth on to the modern day.

Reality trumps theoretical social models, and in our reality citizenship confers equal rights.

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?

Banning slavery & child labor or giving women the vote all altered powerful social norms. The social norm you describe is discriminatory in the same way that miscegenation laws were discriminatory - it says that two adults who love each other cannot marry.

The value of this is that it treats us all as equals. It values loving adult partnerships equally. It tells homosexuals that their society does not regard them as a lesser class of person.

It is interesting that you only offer a binary choice to the overall effect on society. Perhaps in the grand scheme of things it makes our societies neither weaker nor stronger. I would argue that to this point the expansion of tolerance has made our societies immeasurably better. I don't see why this would reverse that trend.

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.

Again, this could be used to justify holding up any number of social advances. I am prepared to bet that identical arguments were deployed against giving women the vote.

This decision will directly impact a tiny percentage of the population. I am yet to see an actual reason why this will have a negative impact on society. it will no doubt upset some people, as no doubt did the repealing of miscegenation laws. That didn't devalue white marriage & it didn't weaken society. I don't see how gay marriage can devalue heterosexual marriage or weaken society.

I was going to meander on some more, but TTL & BF said about everything I had to offer. I'll repeat myself, though: It would be better if everyone learned to keep their noses trained inboard & pretty much keep'em there in the absence of physical assault, theft of property & state usurpation of those three individual "unalienable" rights.

Prof