Thread: Uganda to apply death penalty towards homosexuality

BF, Prof,

And here is where BOTH of you get into trouble. BF, we have this conversation before, and you've still refused to understand my point and then try substituting a red herring for the real arguement.

I will accept gays in my workforce, I will accept gays in my neighbourhood, I will accept gays in my extended family BUT I will never accept gays in my home!

BF, you've substuted blacks instead of guys?

So freaking what! My home is my home and my predijuces is my predijicue and I will be damned if I allow the government tell me what I should or should allow in my home!

I don't want gays in my home. I will tolerate them at work. I will even accept them at work but don't you dare tell me what I should or should not accept at my home! I don't allow the government to do it AND I certainaly will not allow you to do it.

Are we clear! And that was not a question and there is a reason why it is not a question.

I respect your opinion but don't you dare tell me how to act in my own house!

I don't understand how people can rant and rave about The Founding Fathers believed , and our country is founded on the belief that All men are created equal.

Jefferson said it as the first line of the Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Later Lincoln reaffirms it

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal

If the conversation is about minority quotas or government entitlement programs, they will throw that little bit of info out as justification to shut those programs down.

But seem to overlook it when its about something they disagree with.

Gays want their relationships to have the same legal and social standing as heterosexuals. I don't understand how, or why anyone would be against that. Its the founding principal of our country.


When Howie and Eddie got married in Maryland Gun Grapes marriage did not crumble. Nor did it mean any less. No harm was done to my or anyone elses marriage. Why deny an act that causes no harm and rights an inequality?

Originally Posted by Prof

Gunny:

Sailors don't count. We don't fight, but we dwell comfortably, coast along & blow shit out of things.

Prof

Give yourself some credit. You Gator Navy guys are the best taxi service the Marine Corps has.

Don't forget, sailors do make the best coffee in the world.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

1) Why impossible?

I am going by long held definitions here. A marriage is deemed consummated when the married couple has sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse by definition cannot take place between two people of the same sex.

2) Because homosexuals are born with the same rights as everyone else, not just those rights they are granted by the grace & favour of others when they don't feel in an overly discriminatory mood.

You probably don't mean what you're saying. No one is born a homosexual. When you look at all the newborns through the window of the maternity ward, you're never going to hear someone remark, "Oh, look at that cute little homosexual." Homosexuality is an acquired taste, sometimes compelled by a natural attraction for persons of the same sex, sometimes for other reasons. It doesn't matter to me how one comes to CHOOSE a homosexual lifestyle. But it does matter to me that a man might choose not to be a man in the full sense of the word (if he could be) and yet demand to be recognized as such in every respect, including marriage. What this man is asking for is simply a redefinition of the legal meaning of the term, "marriage."

I think you mean all people are born with the same rights, and they don't lose them if they choose a homosexual lifestyle. Rights are not the same everywhere. The rights of US citizens are spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and state constitutions. There are not many rights; there don't need to be many. People often confuse rights with entitlements, permissions and privileges. Rights cannot be taken away except in rare instances, e.g. if one is convicted of a felony. Entitlements can be take away or limited to certain people, e.g., welfare.

The notion that everyone has the right to marry whomever they wish regardless of sexual gender is false. There is no such right. The Constitution is silent concerning marriage, and, therefore, as allowed under the 10th Amendment, the states are free to regulate marriage, which they do. For example, a legal marriage requires a license. Rights can't be licensed.

I'm still waiting to see a good reason why not, as opposed to the mountain of bad ones I see regularly.

Seems we're in the same waiting room but waiting for opposite things. I have yet to see one good reason why we should usurp the age old meaning of marriage to placate people who don't want, whether or not for good reasons, a conventional marriage.

I have a family friend who is a homosexual. He lived with the same partner for decades until the said partner passed away, after which he financially supported his diseased lover's parents. It certainly has every appearance of being a loving, lasting relationship. More than many heterosexual couples that I know of.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

I don't understand how people can rant and rave about The Founding Fathers believed , and our country is founded on the belief that All men are created equal.

Jefferson said it as the first line of the Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Later Lincoln reaffirms it

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal

If the conversation is about minority quotas or government entitlement programs, they will throw that little bit of info out as justification to shut those programs down.

But seem to overlook it when its about something they disagree with.

Gays want their relationships to have the same legal and social standing as heterosexuals. I don't understand how, or why anyone would be against that. Its the founding principal of our country.


When Howie and Eddie got married in Maryland Gun Grapes marriage did not crumble. Nor did it mean any less. No harm was done to my or anyone elses marriage. Why deny an act that causes no harm and rights an inequality?

How many gay marriages were there in Philadelphia when Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

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.

And I just replied to your "dismissal."

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.

Right off the bat you're labeling it a prejudice. Is one prejudiced in assuming a word means what it has always meant and preferring that it remain so? When in your lifetime or at any time before did it ever occur to you that when people said they were getting married or were married that it might be to someone of the same sex?

The classic question asked to most every man who says he's getting married is, "Who is the lucky girl?" When were you no longer surprised to hear him reply, "Bill"? I am not making a joke here. This push for calling a same sex unions a marriage, if successful, will create two extralegal classes of marriage, although legally there may be just one. What is the good in that?

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.

Equal rights for women, respect for religious beliefs and all those things you mentioned are on a higher plane than same-sex marriage. Homosexuals who wish to live together as life partners and wish to have all the legal rights of heterosexual married couples can have all that by act of law. They would gain nothing of substance if the traditional meaning of marriage was changed to include them.

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.

Yes, I remember the black-white confrontations over equal rights. I was one of a few lonely white faces in the crowd at the Lincoln Memorial when Rev ML King gave his "I have a dream speech." Racial equality is a very clear goal. Civil protections for same sex unions is very clear also. But marriage for same sex couples is not a protection nor a question of equality; it's a quality.

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

True, and that is the point.

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.

Our government is a reflection of our culture and social norms. Yes, the government can change them to the extent the majority permit. But no one should underestimate the power of public opinion.

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.

Not so. Two adults of the opposite sex can marry because that is what marriage is. You are trying to redefine marriage to include two people of the same sex and accusing me of discrimination. Well, I am discriminating, just as would between a banana and an apple.. Find a different name for same sex unions and the controversy is over.

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.

Not a lesser class, just a different class. And not really a class, but a group. A black man can't be a white man and vice versa. An Italian can't be an Irishman and vice versa. But a homosexual can be a heterosexual anytime he chooses, and whichever he chooses determines his options.

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.

Tolerance of the homosexual lifestyle is one thing; tolerance of the demands of those who choose that lifestyle, on those who don't, is another thing. Why should I yield to all the demands of gays just because they love each other? What about my view of marriage? Why don't they yield to it?

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.

Yeah, but it's still a good point.

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.

Wrong. It will impact the whole population. No doubt life will go on, but go on, where? That's the big question. Traditional marriage never threatened anyone.

I don't see how gay marriage can devalue heterosexual marriage or weaken society

Not many people do.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

Yet that is the company in which you have placed homosexuals. I was being polite.

I can defend my pov anytime it pleases you.

Originally Posted by Prof

Captain:

This was apparently submitted innocently & without any thought that there might be something wrong with it.

Originally Posted by JAD_333
That's my question. To consummate a loving relationship? Impossible. To get survivor and next-of-kin (spousal) rights? Pass laws. Why are we allowing same-sex marriage? Because some people want it. Can anyone offer a better reason?

There are a number of folks, including you, who gave it a pass. Why?

I know that there are some others here who take exception to the pair of odd assertions in it. I certainly do.

In the first place, the "To consummate a loving relationship? Impossible." business is beyond outrageous. Sez who? Certainly Howie Cruse, the cartoonist, & his boyfriend Eddie, who are old friends of ours, wouldn't agree. They've been non-consummating their non-loving non-relationship for three decades now. They finally did get married when Massachusetts straightened itself out. The world didn't cave in.

Second, "Why are we allowing same-sex marriage? Because some people want it. Can anyone offer a better reason?" TTL answered that fine, but I'll try again. Sounds good to me. Why would anyone want to offer a better reason? Is wanting to do something, no matter what, as long as the person desirous doesn't want to mess with anyone else, an unworthy desire? And, if it is, so what?

Prof

Prof:

So far, you haven't offered a clear defense of same sex marriage nor a clear condemnation of keeping marriage exclusively for hetero couples.

Marriage was gradually adapted to the heterosexual couple over hundreds of years. It's expectations, it's potential and its enduring qualities can only be fulfilled by the coming together of people of the opposite sex.

So I ask again, how does admitting same sex couples to this institution benefit them or the institution itself.

The day we allow same sex marriage is the day we strip the institution of its meaning. IMO, this tinkering with an elemental building block of society will cost us dearly in time. What are we telling our youth? That marriage is just an economic, legal arrangement? I don't know. Maybe I hold marriage in too high esteem. I'm going to have a drink and think about something else. :(

Originally Posted by Triple C

I have a family friend who is a homosexual. He lived with the same partner for decades until the said partner passed away, after which he financially supported his diseased lover's parents. It certainly has every appearance of being a loving, lasting relationship. More than many heterosexual couples that I know of.

3C:

I'm glad you mentioned that. I also have some gay friends, some of whom have partners. They're just like average people when it comes to responsibilities, interests and problems. And I agree: Some of them have better relationships than hetero couples. I built a house for a lesbian couple two years ago, both military and hunters. Never had more fun building a house.

Originally Posted by Prof

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

I got your irony the first time

Originally Posted by Prof

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?"

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

''I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. ''

Sir,with all the respect,we're not during an exam here.We're both equal and anonymous.All we know about each other are opinions.However,you as well as anyone else has the right to dislike or despise me based on my views,lifestyle,job,etc...Because I give this right to others I also reserve it for myself.I also can assure both you and our common friend BF of my utmost respect.

I don't claim any universality,I only asked for decency in a public space.If that's restriction of freedom,so be it.Personally I include here many other groups than only blatant homo's.And,yes,I'll interfere or at the very least I'll condemn anyone who breaks that decency.
Regarding the situation you want me to put myself in,the answer is obviously ''yes''.Anyone who answers ''no'' is most likely a liar.The difference is that I also consider my duty to abstain from pursuing my intents.So do others comrades of mine.Otherwise there would be a lot of dead politicians.In my part of the world at least.
Speaking of duty,our ''subjects'' as a group refuse to do theirs for the future of the society.Hetero marriages by definition exist for that.There may be accidents that prevents that,individuals who choose to remain childless for whatever reasons,but these are just that,exceptions.So,while I may respect their individual rights to do whatever they please,why should I respect them as a group?Why should hetero marriage,that enjoys rights for doing a useful thing for the society be considered identical with homo unions that exists only for 2 individuals sake?

p.s Heck,Jad also addressed some of points while I was writing.

Originally Posted by Triple C

I have a family friend who is a homosexual. He lived with the same partner for decades until the said partner passed away, after which he financially supported his diseased lover's parents. It certainly has every appearance of being a loving, lasting relationship. More than many heterosexual couples that I know of.

Heh I've been living with one for the past 2 years now - I'm hetero don't get that confused. He has absolutely no real compunction on the issue one way or the other. On might say he doesn't give a damn. I've previously tied myself in all sorts ot knots and got ridiculed for it (rightly so) In essence, when say in this state when the Marriage Act came of age, Homosexuality wasn't acknowledged at all or contemplated when writing the law. (Those were late Victorian times). An absence of specification in law As far as I understand it is 'thalt shall not' but that is corporations law and not common law, even if they are interlinked.

Of course Im heavily biased, When I grew up I was taught that Marriage was for having kids (essentially) I do recognise to this degree that it isn't what I feel exactly comfortable with. But do acknowledge there is genuine feeling there and its a way of life. Having said that, and this is a welcoming and reasonably social household, it has always befuddled me just why so many of his mates have such an obsession with the anatomy and love to describe it all the time. To me that seems obsession about the anatomy and not about the relationship. None of them have been, to the best of my knowledge in any long term relationship as they enter their 50's, thats why I'm here I suppose. I am absolutely terrified of ever making the decision to get married, because of the examples set before me. I myself, cannot see the point in marriage because of the potential misery it brings, so am serious about commitments and character personalities. I don't think any of his mates exibit that.

All this is of course sentimental, I acknowledge that, but I have a fundamental thing about treating the concept with some sort of respect. If one word described me it would be reticent. I hope that this is genuinely respectful of the principle of marriage. I have doubts because what is presented to me. I have problems with several columnists in the paper advocating it after leaving their wives for men in light of their own adultery. I think that this is slightly hypocritical to say the least. But again I acknowlege this is by no means a likely norm.

But regardless of how commitments seem to have cheapened that doesn't mean that the rest of us would like to get it right, no matter how stupid we are for not listening to everyone else NOT to get married and not to be a prisoner of the wife. Having said that it's bloody hard as is when you've got so many filters not to cut yourself off, and i guess the same applies to not realiing your doing the same to the gay rights movement and their sincerity.

End of the day I'd much rather people be happy and would notlike to be seen advocating for a cause when Im not sure about the sincerity.

Im not sure the Arguments against Homosexual unions are sincere as they are perhaps phobic.
Im not sure that the Gay rights movements does not contain a sizable proportion who are little for sincerity as opposed to carping on about another form of oppression against their sexual persuasion.
But I am sincere about marriage. It is right to give people the right to formalise their sincerity of relationship even if we have come to witness just how tacky or apparently sincere marriages came not to be so sincere through personality conflicts....

None of this has any tendancy for myself to hold the highest regard of an individual regardless of persuasion - this is what needs to be understood.

I do have a very funny story that happend just this last week actually about the present living arrangements.

I'm at a loss to understand where all these raging poofters are. All the queers I know hold down jobs and pay mortgages and apart from the odd unfortunate habit of slightly lisping certain words (is that genetic?) seem just like you and me, although I do have doubts about that guy over there.

When I first moved to this city I did happen to flat with a couple of licentious faqqots and as a consequence got a ticket or two to some of the more outrageous parties that were happening around that time, and yes, not only did I have my bum pinched but infact had it outrageously fondled.

Hardly surprising really since
1: I'd snorted rather good quality opiates (tried injecting but found snorting far more conducive to socialising)
2: They were parties for gays, lesbians and their friends (that's me, the last one)
3: I was wearing a rather fetching miniskirt at the time and
4: I did have a spectacularly lovely bum

I was raised in a matriarchal family.
My dad was, because of the inept nature of his father, a hopeless dad. I honour both of them as my forbears and attempt to learn from their mistakes.
As a consequence of this matriarchal environment, with two older sisters and no brothers while living in a rural environment, I could at the age of twelve dive for pawa on the lava reefs, hunt, shoot, fish, climb and ski, and could also tell you the exact shade of foundation to best suit your skin tone and blusher to match your hair. I also had good diction and effeminate mannerisms. (still do, but I have a more fearsome countenance than I did then)

Because of those habits and knowledge I found myself often accosted by various people who decided I was a f*ckn poofter and that I should have my head beaten in.
As a consequence I quickly learnt the best ways of putting them off that notion, and developed an appreciation of what it was truly like if you were actually gay. I learnt that it didn't matter whether you were gay or straight, black or white, left handed or right handed, all that mattered was whether you were a good person or bad. The good people I got on with regardless of what aspect they took, and the bad people I either ignored or if neccessary left lying in the dust.

Homos are homos, hetros are hetros, people are people and whether they are good, bad or indifferent has nothing to do with whether they like to suck dicks or not.

Originally Posted by bonehead

How many gay marriages were there in Philadelphia when Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence.

About the same number as mixed race marriages. Whats your point.

Jefferson and Lincoln didn't say all men are created except for those guys over there.

Since the time those were written, we have righted many of the wrongs that were social and legal norms way back then.

Blacks can be citizens, as can American Indians and Chinese,

Women have the same rights as men.

Heterosexuals can now legally marry anyone of the opposite sex regardless of that persons race or religion.

Marriage is a binding legal contract. Why would you exclude someone from entering into a contract that is over the age of consent?