Thread: Uganda to apply death penalty towards homosexuality

Originally Posted by Prof

Gunny:

Oops. Sorry. Not GN.

Prof

I think I've got it. This explains my transposition from GunGrape to GunNut:

Gun = Gun. Grape + Nut = Grapenuts, the cereal. QED.

Prof

Originally Posted by bonehead

Should people in Gay marriages be allowed to circumvent mother nature and be allowed to procreate?

Are you sure that is physically possible given the meaning of Procreate?

Procreate is a pretty specific definition.

You can't cicumvent mother nature because it's to beget & conceive involving 2 individuals.

Allowing same sex couples to procreate in your tense is physically impossible. If we could stop prostituting the word then we may be better off!

Originally Posted by Bigfella

My only interest here is simply to argue that homosexuals get the same rights as everyone else.

I agree on rights but I will not agree on acceptance. I have the right to reject them just as anyone has the right to reject me.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

Your prejudices are your own as far as I am concerned.

Thank you. What I am stating outright is that I have a right to my prejudices. As long as I do not hurt others, I have no obligation and no desire to accept anyone just because they feel they are the wrongful minority.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I agree on rights but I will not agree on acceptance. I have the right to reject them just as anyone has the right to reject me.

Thank you. What I am stating outright is that I have a right to my prejudices. As long as I do not hurt others, I have no obligation and no desire to accept anyone just because they feel they are the wrongful minority.

Looks like we are in agreement.

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.

Great post Pari, though the miniskirt bit sounds a trifle scary .

Originally Posted by Bigfella

Great post Pari, though the miniskirt bit sounds a trifle scary .

Fortunately for the world, AFAIK no pictures exist.

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.

It‘s really good！

JAD,

For convenience I've linked two separate posts. I'm afraid the discussion is reaching unwieldy lengths. I'll try not to let it get too out of hand.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

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.

Creating a definition that conveniently makes something un-exist does not mean that it does not actually happen. Your definition seems to owe more to the 'Clinton school' of definitions than snything I would recognize. Like most pieces of absurdly strict legalism it is a debating tool rather than something that in any way relates to the world we live in.

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."

Again, you are trying to justify making decisions for others based upon a purposely particular & limited set of definitions that attempt to simply make an issue dissapear in a rhetorical flourish.

No one is bor a Democrat or Republican, yet we accord them the right to choose their political allegience.

Using your definition heterosexuals also choose their orientation. They are permitted to marry the adult partner of their choice (provided they are not too closely related).

As for manhood, once again I don't believe that you are trying to offend, but you are succeeding. Homosexuals are no more or less men than anyone else with the requisite genetic makeup. Your personal choice to ring fence a particular definition of manhood does not make it a basis to restrict the rights of others.

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 not going to drag this off into an academic argument on the definition of rights. The ability to marry in our societies is as broadly available as most rights. It is granted to male/female marriage with only restrictions on age/ competence & familial relationship. These are restrictions same sex marriages would cheerfully accept. People guilty of the worst crimes can marry the opposite sex partner of their choice. The state does not step in to say who is an appropriate or inappropriate partner...unless that partner is same sex. Heterosexuals get to treat marriage as a right, homosexuals are told who they can & can't marry.

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

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?

Treating homosexuals as if they have a lesser set of rights (I'm sticking with the term because the vast majority of people see marriage in those terms) has a basis in some form of prejudgement about the value of homosexual relationships.

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?

When the two people involved were the same gender. Again, relying on the 'historical precedent' argument is a poor excuse for ongoing discrimination.

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?

Your first point seems to rest on the assumption that homosexual men (or women) keep their sexuality sufficiently secret thet the first time you find out is when they tell you they are getting married (which they still can't legally do anyway - so that much would surprise me). If I knew the person was gay the answer wouldn't surprise me. If I didn't I would be over it in a nanosecond. A non issue.

When I started at Uni there was a brainteaser involving a boy being taken to hospital by his father. When they get there the doctor proclaims 'I can't operate on this child, he's my son'. We were then asked how this was possible. People tied themselves in the most remarkable logical knots looking for an answer that any child nowadays could give you in a second - the doctor was the child's mother. That was barely 20 years ago. Hardly a rason to stop women doig medicine.

As for 'two types of marriage', how so? There would be only one type - between two adults.

Equal rights for women, respect for religious beliefs and all those things you mentioned are on a higher plane than same-sex marriage

Perhaps to you. Your formulation is also an unfair comparison. The issue here is not 'same sex marriage' so much as 'equal rights for homosexuals'.

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.

It would to them - equality in the eyes of the state.

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.

Equal rights for homosexuals is as clear a goal to me as equal rights for any ethinic, racial or religious minority.

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

True, and that is the point.

Which means that you oppose marriage for infertile heterosexuals? Absent that I fail to understand the point.

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.

Governments should also offer protection for citizens from the majority. Assigning a particular group a lesser set of rights because the majority dislikes or dispproves of them doesn't seem like a cultural norm that should be reflected. That this has frequently failed to happen does not make it any less important a role of government.

Quote: Bigfella
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.

We're not going to agree on this. Homosexuals & heterosexuals are not apples & bananas. They are apples & apples, but with slightly different flavours. What you are proposing is the equivalent of saying that a Delicious isn't really an apple because it tastes a bit differnt to a Granny Smith & is less popular.

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.

Completely & utterly wrong AND completely irrelevant. You are actually classifying as immutable characteristics that are as maleable or more maleable than sexuality. It is an intersting illustration of how you choose to view difference based on sexuality, but once again it is a definition created to serve an argument, not describe a situation accurately.

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?

They aren't telling you who you can & can't marry. They aren't limiting your choice. They aren't putting a fence around how you express your love. They are simply saying that pandering to your personal prejudice is not a sufficiently good reason to deny them what you treat as a right.

In this respect the comparison to miscegenation laws is entirely apposite - should blacks & white have been denied the ability to marry each other because large numbers of people found the concept offensive?

My offence at your view of homosexuals isn't a basis for me to limit your ability to express that opinion. Your offence at the idea that homosexuals might marry each other is not sufficient reason to prevent that from happening. And at this point that is the closest I have seen to an actual reason. The rest has all been appeals to history or definitions that are no more valid than the opposing view.

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.

It will go on just as it does now for the vast majority of people. Traditional marriage will be exactly the same for those who would have been able to choose it anyway. For a small number life will improve.

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

Not many people do.

That is because there isn't an actual problem.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Fortunately for the world, AFAIK no pictures exist.

Lets be thankful for small mercies.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

Lets be thankful for small mercies.

Your post is a little longer but wonderful！)

Originally Posted by Luke Gu

Your post is a little longer but wonderful！)

Thanks Luke. It is an issue close to my heart. I always hope to do it justice when I argue the case.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

Thanks Luke. It is an issue close to my heart. I always hope to do it justice when I argue the case.

It‘s also an issue close to my heart.But you have said words I want to say.So I will just wait for your wonderful posts.