Thread: Uganda to apply death penalty towards homosexuality

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

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

That's the point.Some consider marriage to be only this.Some consider it to be more.If we solve this one we solve this whole homo issue.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

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!

Colonel:

This is the first response to any of my stuff from you that I'm aware of. I hadn't intended to immediately get on your bad side. Rats. I'm sorrier than you can imagine if I have. I always read your posts. You're a pretty impressive guy.

On the other hand, some clearing up is necessary. I'm not aware of ever having suggested that anyone, under any circumstances, should be forced to take anyone of any description into their home. That wouldn't fit well at all with my convictions. What I disapprove of is the exclusion of a large class of people from an otherwise universal contractual arrangement with important legal & financial benefits purely on the basis of their sexual behavior.

Prof

Originally Posted by Prof

This is the first response to any of my stuff from you that I'm aware of. I hadn't intended to immediately get on your bad side. Rats. I'm sorrier than you can imagine if I have. I always read your posts. You're a pretty impressive guy.

Doc,

Don't be sorry. You're in pretty good standing with me. We are not going to agree on all things but that doesn't mean that we are not going to challenge each other. Again, I am aware that my bigotry is my bigotry. I have a revulsion to homosexuality. I can control it. I can tolerate homosexuals. What people do behind closed doors is their problem and I should not have anything to do for or against it. But that does not mean that I should allow them to do what they want behind my doors.

The rules say I have to tolerate them. There are no rules that says I have to accept them.

Am I bigot? Yes. But I am allow to be in my own home.

Colonel:

Whew.

Prof

Originally Posted by JAD_333

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. :(

JAD:

The linguistic basis of the anti-gay-marriage basis has always confused me a little.

There seems to be a large number of people who would accept the notion if it weren't called "marriage." As I said before, that's OK by me. Call it "Civil Union." That seems to be the current alternative buzz-word(s). As long as the rights, & by "rights" I mean "rights", not "privileges", are "restored." By "restored" I mean that even though they haven't ever been acknowledged from the git-go in most places they are, in my opinion, still there without any philosophical need for approval by anyone, awaiting restoration.

Practically speaking, every side of every issue has fringe nuts associated who automatically swim to the surface chum-swarming when a compromise is in the offing. Let'em. Although I personally think that "marriage" is just a word, there are plenty of people who would disagree. Fine. Call the newly-minted legal state "Civil Union." Or "Euphemism." As long as it extends legal contractual rights to everyone. Then I'm happy. Make me happy. Anybody who objects at that point doesn't make me happy, be they gay rights organizations or evangelicals. Everyone in the US has the right to equality under the Law, but they don't have naming rights. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck & quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Selah.

I think I have offered a clear defense of same sex marriage & "...a clear condemnation of keeping marriage exclusively for hetero couples" given that the name gets changed. Now, as I said before, (& I don't need to say "in my opinion" here) "A distinction that isn't distinct isn't much of a distinction." However, have it your way. As long as the present legal inequality is done away with.

The rest of your arguments aren't arguments. They're premises, & premises that I don't accept. Enduring qualities? Bah. Harm the institution or its participants? I don't know if I care if the institution is harmed in some way. From whose standpoint? Eye of the beholder stuff. How? Some unknown new form of radioactivity? My marriage? Sure as Hell hasn't harmed it. It's managed to grow to a fine old age, despite the current tendency of heterosexual couples to get divorced at the drop of a hat. And yes, the only aspect of marriage acknowledged by the legal system is the "economic, legal arrangement." If it was only the religious arrangement I could have married my pet llama years ago had I been so inclined. If I had one. Never been much of a success at llama parties.

Prof

Originally Posted by Parihaka

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.

Pari:

I would love to see a demographic of this outfit. So you're of the female persuasion, eh? Good for you. Since non-PCedness is part of my religious creed, I will take the opportunity to say that I strongly approve of fetching miniskirts & lovely bums. On girls.

So you (...I have a more fearsome countenance than I did then...), like Mary, have a look, too?

Here's to the WABits. Strange but lively place.

Prof

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

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?

The point is that there were so few (if any) that sexual orientation was a non issue and as such was not even given a thought then the document was written.

Secondly, It was a long time after the Declaration of Independence was written that women, blacks, native Americans, etc. became equals. It may just be a longer time before we as a nation can stomach homosexuality to be legitimized by marriage. I for one do not equate race with sexual orientation. They are two entirely different, and separate subjects. Lets not forget that even homosexuals are still able to marry someone of the opposite sex if they choose to do so. A marriage of convenience is still employed in this day and age.

Originally Posted by bonehead

The point is that there were so few (if any) that sexual orientation was a non issue and as such was not even given a thought then the document was written.

Secondly, It was a long time after the Declaration of Independence was written that women, blacks, native Americans, etc. became equals. It may just be a longer time before we as a nation can stomach homosexuality to be legitimized by marriage. I for one do not equate race with sexual orientation. They are two entirely different, and separate subjects. Lets not forget that even homosexuals are still able to marry someone of the opposite sex if they choose to do so. A marriage of convenience is still employed in this day and age.

Bonehead:

Now that's an interesting point, & a position I've never heard presented before. A little weird, but new.

It's true that marriages of convenience have been & probably are common. You suggest that queers,or whatever, can avail themselves of long-countenanced legal trickery to get around legal proscriptions & denial of equal rights. Hmm.

Well, legal marriage has legal obligations as well legal benefits. Let's say your hypothetical "deviant" (male), gets married to someone (non-deviant female), for the sake of the benefits, while shacking up with his similarly deviant (male) significant other. What if the gal falls in love with someone else (non-deviant male) & wants to get married herself?

Oops. Not only has the initial deviant (idiot) gotten himself involved in a financially hazardous situation, he has involved his (deviant male sucker) SO. Who's gonna make the alimony payments? Not to mention the fact that all cognizant parties have been involved in at least ethical fraud.

Also, it doesn't answer the "equality before the law" problem. It's all just a goofy, complicated & potentially hazardous lie.

I think we better dodge that one.

Prof

Chunder:

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.

I guess we're just lucky. I positively frolic in marriage, despite my state of near-petrification. Now that we're "empty-nesters" every night is date night if it wants to be, despite my attachment to our daughter. We've already "justified" the state of matrimony with offspring. Jeez. What an idea. Kick out the jams, MF!

Prof

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

Chunder:

Apply to "Field Mess", "Stories!" without delay. Employment opportunities abound.

Prof

Originally Posted by Mihais

That's the point.Some consider marriage to be only this.Some consider it to be more.If we solve this one we solve this whole homo issue.

Thats what we are discussing. The legal aspects of marriage. Marriage doesn't require a religious aspect.

I have been married for 19 years. The wife and I went to the local Judge. he signed the marriage certificate and that was it. I'm just as married as the couple that have some big elaborate service and blessed by a Priest/clergyman.

The only difference I see is that of all my friends who have gotten married. Mine is the only one that lasted.

Now a question for you since Marriage must be something "More". What is the more? Is it acceptance by the church/cult of your choice?

If so Here is a question for you. Real life event that happened in my family.

My sister, raised Southern Baptist, fell in love with and married a good Catholic boy. Because my sister would not go to "Catholic" classes his church refused to marry them. They got married in a Baptist church by a preacher. The Catholic church does not recognize the marriage.

Are they married?

Would the be married, according to you if they had a Justice of the peace/Judge witness the marriage?

Am I married to my wife??



I don't care if any religion recognizes a gay marriage. Or did as the Catholic Church did my sister and refuse to perform the ceremony. I just want everyone to be treated equally before the law.