Blogs Dec 8, 2009 at 10:38 am

Comments

1
Further ties between Loveschild's beliefs and political activism, and state murder.

The bit about going to prison for not turning other people in is actually even more worrisome than the death penalty for gays, because it opens the door to widespread blackmail and false accusations (which will be accepted at face value). There is a 100% certainty that this will lead to non-gay people being put to death as well. It's a Nazi and especially Soviet technique, making a society of informants.

Boycott Uganda now. The US should pull its embassy today.
2
Dan - As a Christian myself, I agree that we must put the xtian conservative asshole's feet to the fire on this and force them to denounce the outrageous proposed bill. But as an editor, you really should have included the next sentence in your quote:

"The measure was proposed in Uganda following a visit by leaders of U.S. conservative Christian ministries that promote therapy for gays to become heterosexual. However, at least one of those leaders has denounced the bill, as have some other conservative and liberal Christians in the United States."

There will be an international outcry on this, and the vast, vast majority of Christians will oppose it.

3
Ex-gay is as real as Michael Jackson's bleached skin made him an ex-black.
4
Waiting for Rick Warren and the other douche-bag pyramid scheme leaders to speak out on this one.

So far, 'we don't meddle in other people's business' seems to be the line they're taking. Seems pretty rich, as to my mind they make a business of messing with other people's private business.
5
@2: Oh, that totally makes it alright.

I wonder what's the most christian way to kill a gay? Will they go biblical and stone them? How about gas chambers? Those worked. And how about this open-ended "aggravated homosexuality" thing? That's pretty effective, since it means you can't get treated for HIV if you are suspected of being gay. Men in general won't get treated for HIV and women can accuse those who infected them of being gay. HIV rates go up, average lifespan goes down.

I think this is a win-win. Shows how evil the fundamentalist right is and it quickly wipes out thousands upon thousands within a nation that nobody really cares about.
6
I'm so ashamed, so very ashamed.

We can't cut off humanitarian aid, the vulnerable need help. But, we can't stand in silence and let this happen, either.

I'm depressed.
7
There's a history of Christians doing evil in post-colonial Africa. Pat Robertson is up to his eyeballs in diamond and gold mining and the civil war in Congo. He's still a vocal supporter of Charles Taylor, too. He's never really explained where in the Bible the use of narcotics to persuade eight-year-olds to go into battle, and kill their parents with machetes or machine guns is justified; maybe his pal Loveschild can tell us.

Jesus = Death on the African continent.
8
@6
On the contrary, Kim, we CAN cut off all aid to Uganda because the simple fact is they will use the money to kill Gay people. They may say otherwise, but that is the truth. Our government should make it very simple; if this bill passes, you get nothing.
9
There are two things we shouldn't forget about the Religious Right:

A) They want a theocracy.
B) They lie.
10
I agree with crazycatguy, Kim. This is so far beyond the pale. If this passes and we continue to send aid to
Uganda, it is inevitable that at least some of that money will go toward the state-sponsored murder of Ugandan gays and lesbians. There's no way around it.
11

I wonder what the most Christian way to kill a Christian is. Do you think it's still alright to feed them to the lions?

12
All religion will lead to this. They always killed people who have refused to bow to their beliefs. If they aren't constrained by law but are the law unto themselves they have lead to murder, even mass murder.
13
Saudi Arabia pretty much has similar laws, right? We send them billions of dollars in arms each year. That doesn't come up nearly enough.
14
Next up: New Jersey.

The best speaker I heard was 13 year old Jessie Petrow-Cohen describing how her family deals with being second class citizens. She has two mothers who have been together for 22 years.

Her story highlights how disgusting it is that her parents cannot legally marry.

http://maplewood.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/…
15
This is such old news, how many times will Slog rehash this storY?

Today in OH a man convicted of murder was executed, yes he was a killer but still a human being none the less, where are these so called 'appalled' western nations concerning this?

Or is the meddling is only limited to African nations?
16
I see your point gentlemen, and I don't disagree. There is truth to your words. Unfortunately, I think if we remove humanitarian aid then another country will step in, perhaps one whose human rights record is far worse than ours. In doing so this evil law will still be in force, and we will have lost the ability to model compassion and to engage the government about change. If we leave the vulnerable to the hands of monsters, then they will grow to become monsters themselves. Imagine a country filled with "Westboro Baptists" minded individuals. Plus, I fear leaving our GLBT family memembers without our help, it is better to be arrested for protecting them, then to leave them to suffer alone.

I hope that makes sense.
17
Um Lovechild, I realize your knowledge is quite limited, so Google Bosnia. (It's one of many examples.)
18
@1 And you know damn well who is doin the 'blackmail' extortion here. Only a fool believes that by intimidating a nation and livelihood of its people you can secure acceptance for the actions of a few, very poor strategy.

FYI: I'm pretty sure that Uganda as the rest of the African Continent will do just fine without the likes of you barking orders at them.
19
18, What about the rape crisis in Africa. Should we stay out of that? And what about apartheid? Was it wrong for us to get involved with that?
20
Loveschild, your attitude towards genocide appears to be "yawn"
You realize you'll have to answer for that at the pearly gates, right?
21
@15: Spare me.

Whenever someone points out bias crimes in the US, you flinch and run away with your ears covered. Or you wave your hands and say "oh, but what about crimes against christians" or some useless claptrap like that.

Let's not forget that in most cases, you first accuse the victim when they're gay.

So don't pretend like you caaaaaare and you're compaaaaaasionate.
22
@ 20 - Gay people dying makes Loveschild happy. And as far as she's concerned, gays are dirty scum who aren't human anyway, so she can persecute us all she wants, and it won't impact her access to Heaven at all. Loveschild - putting the "fun" in fundamentalist zealot.
23
@20 No, my attitude for human life is the same here as it is for the rest of the world. Unlike european governments, i don't pick and choose where to direct my indignation and implementation of economic extortion and even tho your use of the term "genocide" is a very erroneous one within this context, i do not wish to see anyone's life taken away for what they engage in, but regulations of social and moral behavior however is a matter for Ugandan society to take on, not for Swedish nor any European nation to dictate to them. Those days are long gone.

24
@ 11: PETA will boycott that.
25
@15 and of course the execution of a convicted murderer is the complete equivalent of rounding up teh gays and anyone that might hide and/or support them and killing them all. Ah Christian logic...
26
@23: How is it not genocide when they are selecting a single group for an arbitrary death sentence based on something that by any means cannot be successfully traced or defended in court?

Are you so criminally stupid that you think that this won't be used to kill ANY gay men seeking treatment for HIV or to create witch hunts around HIV infection?

Wait, don't answer that one.

Here's a write-up on what the law says:
Homosexuality is already illegal in Uganda, but the proposed act would mandate a seven-year prison term for anyone who has gay sex or "attempts to commit the offense" of homosexuality, and anyone who fails to report homosexuals within 24 hours of discovering their behavior can be punished by up to three years in prison. Those who commit what is called "aggravated homosexuality" -- defined as having gay sex with disabled people or anyone under 18, or when the accused is HIV-positive -- could be executed.


Basically, you will go to jail for 7 years for:
-Being gay
-Being accused of having gay sex
-Being accused of coming onto someone of the same sex

You can go to jail for 3 years for:
-Not reporting a family, friend or neighbor for having gay sex, being gay, or attempting gay sex

You can be sentenced to death for:
-having gay sex with a minor (rightfully illegal, but when it's MF sex, the sentence is not death, and requires no jailtime if the male is an adult)
-having gay sex with someone who has a disability (painfully vague, since they have no standing laws regarding the definition of what constitutes a disability)
-being HIV positive and being suspected or accused of having gay sex

So basically, you're going to jail or getting put to death if you're gay in Uganda.

How do you couch that in any other way? And how can you in good conscience say "well, let them deal with their own business"? You would leave your own brothers and sisters to death because you hate them?

Good job.
27
Apparently, our friend @23, needs some help from the dictionary.

gen⋅o⋅cide  /ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/ [jen-uh-sahyd]

–noun the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Origin:
1940–45; < Gk géno(s) race + -cide

Now, I'm off to teach young minds from Latin America and the "Motherland" how to read and write in English, and to multiply fractions. Hoping to model grace, compassion, and justice and inspire them to become live long learners. The way to fight the fear is to educate, so they don't fall victims to the bullies of fundamentalism.
28
@ 26: I certainly do not want to side with Loveschild but a genocide is aimed at an ethnic, racial, religious or national group, which the homosexuals are not.
So, it really is just about semantics. Just because it technically isn't a genocide doesn't make killing homosexuals right, though.
29
@ 27 and @ 26: Sorry, I was apparently wrong. Or a bit old-fashioned in the definition area.
30
Loveschild unambiguously supports murder, as long as its against her most hated minority.

Look away, she says. Do nothing. It's nobody's business but the murderers and their victims. Please, she begs, just let it happen.
31
Where are the Western Nations in decrying the death penalty?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penal…

"The use of the death penalty is becoming increasingly restrained in retentionist countries. Singapore, Japan and the U.S. are the only fully developed countries that have retained the death penalty. The death penalty was overwhelmingly practiced in poor and authoritarian states, which often employed the death penalty as a tool of political oppression. During the 1980s, the democratisation of Latin America swelled the rank of abolitionist countries. This was soon followed by the fall of communism in Central and Eastern Europe, which then aspired to enter the EU. In these countries, the public support for the death penalty varies but it is decreasing.[41] The European Union and the Council of Europe both strictly require member states not to practice the death penalty (see Capital punishment in Europe)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_pun…

"The death penalty has been totally abolished in almost all European countries (48 out of 50[1])."

They're certainly not in the American "we'll kill you back" boat...
32
@29: Lemkin initially defined genocide as means of removing a group or shared identity. Lemkin is also one of the first academic sources for information on the genocide of gays in nazi germany. I am certain that etymologically speaking, sexual orientation would fall under the definition. In practice, however, the only prior genocide of gays was in the 40s and as such, it is not particularly noted when defining the term for the sake of brevity and clarity.

Genocide, as a term, is only about 6 decades old.
33
@26

You're choosing to read it as it suits to further your personal agenda of acceptance not within the context of Ugandan society.

"Those who commit what is called "aggravated homosexuality" -

"defined as having gay sex with disabled people or anyone under 18" - We have laws here also that protect minors against predators, and those laws differ state from state. That's the aim of the Ugandan government concerning this.

"or when the accused is HIV-positive" - Given the higher incidences of contracting HIV thru homosexual copulation, there's a legitimate concern on placing a further burden within the nation and of further spreading this infection and the myriad of others that come from gay sex by promoting (even if it is tacitly) male to male sexual encounters. Even Dan has admitted to that in his podcast, when he has affirmed that gay sex carries with it increased health problems.

They're not inventing these realities, be it illneses or losening of moral conduct within the confines of society, that are too often acompanied by such high risk behaviors. And they have every right to decide for themselves within the context of a democratic society such as theirs is, what social behaviors they want to promote and which they want to keep on the fringes.

I DO NOT SUPPORT executions of any sort, unless it concerns pedophiles or rapists, but neither you nor I have any right to place our believes or "model" our image and ideology upon Ugandan society. Because we are not above them morally nor intellectually.

African morals, values and social norms have existed for thousands upon thousands of years before there where any humans on the european continent, and i believe it reeks of arrogance to believe that the same nations who committed and funded unspeakable atrocities in later years now have moral standing and knowledge to teach and force upon the nations of Africa.
34
@ 23 - "... not for Swedish nor any European nation to dictate to them." Ah, got it. Well, I guess the easy fix for that is for Sweden (and all other European countries) to stop doling out money to Uganda, in any form, for any reason, IMF-sourced or not. If Uganda doesn't want to be "dictated" to, they can damn well start supporting themselves.

I guess we can assume if African nations start murdering fundamentalist Christians like yourself, that you'll be fine with that, too. After all, it's up to them to "regulate social and moral behavior", right? Hello?
35
Loveschild, you are still totally ignoring the most pernicious part of this law: the creation of an informant society. All I have to do to get rid of you and your lying bullshit in Uganda is call up the authorities and tell them I saw you having gay sex. Boom: you go to jail, maybe to the gallows. It DOESN'T MATTER if it's true or not.

And it will be trivial to bully people into reporting their friends as gay, because you'll go to jail if you don't.

If you can't see the problem with that, you're even stupider and eviller than I thought.

I repeat: the vast majority of people who will be jailed under this law will NOT BE GAY.
36
"national, racial, political, or cultural group."

And does homosexual behavior fall under any of such categories?

Not a nation, not a race, not a political (politics are something of a double edge sword since it is not an intrinsic trait but..) nor cultural.
37
@2: I'd just like to point out that that sentence has an apologetic bias to it:

However, at least one of those leaders has denounced the bill, as have some other conservative and liberal Christians in the United States.

It could just as easily say this:

Only one of those leaders has denounced the bill, along with some other conservative and liberal Christians in the United States.

Same info, only has a different punch to it, doesn't it? But lets look at it stated neutrally:

One of those leaders has denounced the bill, as have some other conservative and liberal Christians in the United States.

What stands out here are the facts: one of those leaders, but not all, have denounced the bill, and some, but not all, American Christians have as well. That in itself is telling. I know there are decent Christians out there who condemn this, but the American Christian establishment is hardly making an outcry about it. I'd really like to hear an unqualified apology from the rest of those leaders for going to Uganda and playing with hellfire so thoughtlessly.
38
Yet another example of religious fearmongers and bigots scapegoating homosexuality to their own despicable ends.
39
Loveschild, read what Lemkin originally said when he coined the term and his rather scathing and detailed history of the crimes of the nazi party.

Lemkin strongly disagreed with such limitations such as those you propose and stated plainly that genocide is the removal of one national group (that is, a group within a nation and not a group of nationals anywhere) via various methods. In this case, as Lemkin would well agree, a nation has identified a group within the nation for removal via law and the death penalty.

This is genocide. Your outright ignorance and elementary argument ignores the fundamental truth of what genocide is. Locking people up for being gay and killing them on arbitrary grounds is no better than the genocide Lemkin railed against. In fact the term has roots in the extermination of several groups that included gays. The man who invented the term makes this clear.
40
Morals and ethics are principally taught in the home by parents in the formative years of kids, not by those outside the nuclear family who seek to promote their own set of beliefs and ideology.
41
@3- well said, Rob.

@16 - indeed, cutting off the aid will have unintended bad consequences.Would be ideal if it was a barganing deal - we won't give you aid, unless the law is not passed/or reversed. And, btw, watch out for any hate crimes against gays, if you can't control those, there goes the aid..

But for that we need a major outcry coming from true Christian leaders, not the bastards we have now, like that puke dick Warren. 52-80, where is that hungry lion of yours? i got some lunch for him.Nice fat piece of ass..
42
@38 You're opting for you convenience, to overlook, that there's a history of subjugation, impositions, by the same who are now making threats against this nation. There's no moral authority to go about pointing fingers much less threatening.
43
@38 You're opting for your convenience, to overlook, that there's a history of subjugation, impositions, by the same who are now making threats against this nation. There's no moral authority to go about pointing fingers much less threatening.
44
I don't get genocide in this case -- gays cannot be exterminated. Even if they could round up and execute every single one, in 20 years a new crop would reach adulthood. I guess they don't realize this because they think somehow gays create other gays.
45
Loveschild wrote: You're opting for your convenience, to overlook, that there's a history of subjugation, impositions, by the same who are now making threats against this nation. There's no moral authority to go about pointing fingers much less threatening.

Nobody could be a stupid as you make yourself seem. I do not now, nor have I ever denied that there is a history of colonialism in the West vis-a-vis Africa. What that has to do with this particular issue, however, you have never actually explained (hint: merely repeating that there's a history of colonialism isn't an explanation for your claims).

As has been explained to you many times already, any human being who supports basic human rights gets to speak out when governments pass or try to pass laws that violate them, even when they're not our governments.

Any country that is a signatory to the UN Declaration of Human Rights is obliged to speak out when other governments pass or try to pass laws that violate human rights.

Any government of a Commonwealth country has an obligation to speak out when a member of the Commonwealth passes or tries to pass laws that violate the laws, ideals and responsibilities Commonwealth countries share.

Any country that provides aid to another country gets to withdraw that aid if said country passes laws that violate the tenets of basic human rights.

This is not colonialism; it's the shared responsibility of all human beings. That's what the world is like today, you insufferable moron.

46
As an early commenter, I have returned post-lunch to add a bit. I am a member of the United Church of Christ which tends to have liberal progressive congregations and which has an active LGBT section:

http://www.ucc.org/lgbt/

As part of Global Ministries, the UCC wrote a scathing letter to Uganda on October 28th denouncing the proposed law:

http://globalministries.org/news/africa/…

I agree that more Christians need to be active in this area - we are working on it, and I am embarassed by those who use their so-called "Christianity" for evil.

(not sure if I know how to create links here, so sorry if it didn't work)
47
"or when the accused is HIV-positive" - Given the higher incidences of contracting HIV thru homosexual copulation, there's a legitimate concern on placing a further burden within the nation and of further spreading this infection and the myriad of others that come from gay sex by promoting (even if it is tacitly) male to male sexual encounters.


Then explain why the main victims of HIV/AIDS in Africa are women, Loveschild? This law is basically like saying "well, dig up patient zero, cut off his head and then set him on fire". HIV positive people are not vampires, you can't start killing gay people in order to stop it from spreading, it won't work. Gay people cannot be staked, and there's no lead gay person akin to a vampire queen or master of vampires.

And your reply @43 in no way comes close to excusing the actions this country is undertaking. They have stated quite clearly (and you've reaffirmed) that they believe they can get rid of gay people and end HIV/AIDS by threatening the entire subpopulation with imprisonment and a death penalty.

If you start to equivocate and say "it's not my place to say no" you throw your principles into question. Do you support extermination? If not, why do you feel you can't have an opinion? From your answers, you seem to put a lot of weight on the actions of previous generations, appealing to tradition by saying "we did them wrong, we can't tell them what to do". If members of my tribe dragged your family in East Texas out into the streets and beat them with reeds, would you say "oh, it's okay, they're in a tribe that's been abused by Texans since Cabeza de Vaca showed up"? Probably not.
48
Loveschild supports moral (and cultural) relativism. Lovely.
49
I have re-read the UCC letter to Uganda @46 and must admit that it is far from "scathing" - probably because liberal ministers don't like yelling at people - but it does show there are many, many Christians who believe in LGBT rights and who oppose the proposed Uganda law (remember, it is pending). I do wish more highly visible Christians would kick some ass on this, though.
50
@42, and YOU'RE overlooking that anti-gay hysteria and these laws are being promulgated by the very people who made that subjugation possible: YOUR people. The Christians. YOU are the colonizer, cuntface. Not me. YOU are the murderer. YOU are the destroyer of Uganda.

You know nothing about colonialism or Uganda.
51
To jump on the Loveschild hate-wagon for a mo (it's so easy), I love how you try and accuse your dissenters of being racist/imperialist/colonialist because we are trying to "impose our ideas of morality" on an African nation, asserting that

"African morals, values and social norms have existed for thousands upon thousands of years before there where any humans on the european continent."

Which, if I'm going to be honest, makes you sound a bit like a drooling, fire-breathing racist yourself. Are you trying to say that genocide is an inherent component of African morals?

Furthermore, if morals are something learned individually within nuclear families, and no one person can impose their morals on anyone else, how come you're CONSTANTLY trying to shame people for being gay? I don't know/give a shit about you, but in my 2-parent nuclear family household, we learned being gay was A-Okay.

YOU'RE the one being unbelievably arrogant. Like, brain-explodingly so.
52
I don't see what I do as just a behavior... I don't just lust for my boyfriend... I love him. Do I get murdered for loving? Or is it just the sex they don't like? What about cuddling? What if two men hug in public or kiss? What if they just love one another and they're secretly together but never have sex for fear of being killed? Aren't they still gay?

Also... I noticed, loveschild, that you compared the killing of criminals in this country to the killing of gays in Uganda. I guess I just disagree with you about that. I don't think that countries should treat these two groups of people the same... Like, I'm against the death penalty, but at the same time, I don't think the damage caused by some crimes, like murder or rape, is in any way on the same level as my love for my boyfriend. I just don't get what you're saying here... In your eyes, am I truly a criminal? I guess I'm just looking for clarification... I get angry reading your posts sometimes but I think maybe that's because there's an air of ambiguity to what you're saying and I may be misinterpreting. So I suppose it would be best to ask for clarification here...
53
loveschild--this is the first and last time i will ever address you: you are seriously mentally ill, and i wish you would shut the fuck up and blow away. the meme you perpetuate is a sick madness in the heart of humanity. go away. thank you.
54
@23 - I would happily see the same tactics used against any Western nation. But Western nations don't implement the death penalty for homosexuality. Funny, that.

But for a more mild case, I would happily see there be some consequences for Switzerland's minaret ban. It is also discriminatory and against human rights. But there is quite a bit less urgency, as the Swiss aren't killing Muslims, or even Muslims who build minarets.

Sweden is under no obligation to send any money to Uganda. Sweden had only a fleeting history of colonization (not one lasted more than 8 years) in the 1600s. Sweden had nothing to do with Uganda. So if Sweden wants to say they're not going to keep sending money to Uganda, that's their business. If you don't like it, then fuck off, you can't tell Sweden what to do. The only sad thing is that there aren't more Swedens in the world.

And yes, Sweden's government is above the Ugandan government. The Ugandan government is full of corruption. Sweden's government is one of the most respected in the world on issues of competence, fairness and commitment to human rights, the environment, etc.

As for the death penalty, Sweden doesn't have one, so it's irrelevant.
55
@47 African women don't go on propagating sexually transmitted diseases, they are the victims of promiscuity and the infections that come with it. It is the male population that is mainly responsible for the spreading of such diseases. While we may argue about the level upon which the goverment needs to implement it, it's understandable that the Ugandan society seeks to keep it's population from engaging in sexual behaviors like m & m encounters that are medically known to lead to an increase in HIV infections, and that could end up placing more burdens in the general population by way of the new strains that are different from the African variation found currently.

And I have First Nation blood running thru my veins also Bacon (trust me i take little solace in knowing you might also), no matter how much you despise that fact. I have an aunt who still lives on the rez, so please, the spanish could have well killed one of my ancestors and taken their land, as they did all thru whats now TX as well as enslaved my African side.
56
Ohh, Loveschild, there you go again, making all African women out to be victims with no agency!! Not that there aren't certainly victims of rape and equally horrendous crimes everywhere in the world - however I think you're complicit in the phenomenon Gayatri Chakravorti Spivak would call "white women saving brown women from brown men."

I'm just assuming you're white since you bleed privilege, btw.
57
Oh, my bad, had to vom before finishing your comment. Pretty sure mine's still totes relevant tho.
58
@52 I'm sorry if you got the wrong impression from that comment cheerio. Of course you're not a criminal. I don't agree with your lifestyle but I in no way compare what you have described in your comment with homicide. All I was trying to state was that it seems hypocritical, more than hypocrisy, a sort of personal vendetta by the usual western groups to get all indignant and bossy in the happenings of African nations or those in the Caribbean while not dealing first with all the atrocities that occur in their own borders and in neighboring states. For example, you don't see the same threats coming from sweden concerning russia or its baltic neighboring states, most of whom have way harsher penalties for homosexuality. No, they rather cross the pond miles upon miles away to go on and give orders to an African nation.
59
@58 How would *you* know what Sweden's policies are towards Russia and its Baltic neighbors? Ever been there? (You apparently thought this was relevant to opinions on Uganda.)

But no, your characterization is not accurate. Homosexual sex is legal in Russia and the Baltic states. Some of those countries also have limited anti-discrimination laws. There is plenty of homophobia in those countries, but it's laughable to claim that there are harsher penalties for homosexuality in those countries. There are no legal punishments for homosexuality in those countries, much less anything harsher than life imprisonment and execution (which are pretty hard to get harsher than).

Even so, I don't believe that Sweden is sending aid to its Baltic neighbors, so withholding aid is not something they could do.
60
So which nation in the Baltic has laws that exterminate gays and imprision heterosexuals who help gays?

As far as I am aware the following nations in the Baltic region do not have any such law on the books: Russia, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Aland, Danmark, Germany, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania.

So, who am I missing? Which nation is Sweden so hypocritcally turning a blind eye to? It has been awhile since I lived there, but I do not remember any such laws existing.
61
And what atrocities does Sweden have to answer for, might I ask?

I'm curious, as someone who's lived in Sweden and is in fact a citizen of Sweden.

You probably don't know *shit* about Sweden, but you just knooooow that their concern for whether African gays are murdered is rooted in imperialism and hypocrisy.

We already know that your claims about Russia and the Baltic states being worse about homosexuality were just pulled directly from your ass.
62
Wow, Loveschild. Your ignorance truly knows no bounds.

First, to claim as you do that African women are merely passive victims of HIV-spreading men is both to ignore the reality of the AIDS epidemic in that part of the world and to trivialize the lives of women.

Second, your claim that homosexuality in Africa is a product of colonialism is indicative of your utter ignorance of history. In fact, current negative attitudes towards homosexuality in former colonies of Western countries are a product of colonialism. Historically, many of these places had socially sanctioned same-sex activities and relationships including marriages, cross-dressing, role reversal, and premarital peer homosexuality, or honoured same-sex attracted or transgender individuals with special positions in society, such as female kings and transgendered spiritual leaders.
63
But again, i ask - what is the crime exactly? Suppose two men love one another and are in a relationship but decide not to have sex because they might be killed? Then what? They're still gay - not having sex doesn't change their love for one another. Does that mean they still committed a crime? How can you make "being gay" a crime in itself? How can you make "being" anything a crime in itself?

And if this has to do with certain sex acts between people of the same gender, what happens in the case of rape? Does the person who was raped get put to death as well?

I don't get it! It makes no sense to me how this can be done to innocent people!
64
@55: Yeah, and most of our 10,000 plus member tribe's council is related to me, so I'm going to have to say that your non-answer is pretty stupid. More than that, I'm going to have to take your racist backflip and turn it on you by assuming your aunt is an adoptee and exempt from blood quanta via a connection to the Dawes rolls. Thanks for proving that you're the kind of racist "I totally have an indian in the family but I'm not indian and choose to have ties-in-theory to them" trash that has basically decimated our (not your) population through neglect, effed-up laws (we can't regulate alcohol, tobacco or unhealthy food sales even though they're killing us? and then they go untaxed in a lot of places in prices that outcompete nutritious items? What.) and base stupidity.

As to the first portion, no, even the CDC points to heterosexual contact as being the lead cause of infection. By your logic, gay men shouldn't be to blame for our own epidemic, it should be those in contact with primates way back before HIV/AIDS came to america and became sexually-transmitted.
65
Jaymz @46, I thought that letter from the United Church was so good it's worth quoting at length.

Loveschild, you need to read this. It is a Christian response addressing concerns about the legislation:

It is our humble opinion that the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 violates the rights of God's children in Uganda. It punishes the free association and expression that is necessary for a flourishing civil society, and creates a climate of fear and hostility which undermines the citizenship and solidarity of all Ugandans. We agree with Sexual Minorities of Uganda (SMUG) that this bill will "set a dangerous precedent and send a signal that any Ugandan's privacy is unguaranteed—all of our civil society could be put under attack. If this bill is passed into law, it will clearly endanger the work of all human rights defenders and members of civil society in Uganda."

Because the bill also prohibits any organizing around sexual orientation, it will make it difficult, if not impossible, to do effective HIV prevention activities in Uganda, which rely on an ability to talk frankly about sexuality and provide condoms and other safer-sex material. "The proposed bill also support stigma and discrimination against HIV-positive people, and would undermine years of effort to tackle the epidemic, " according to Solome Nakaweesi-Kimbugwe, a human rights activist, and Frank Mugisha, co-chair of SMUG. Further, we believe this bill would criminalize the legitimate work of national and international activists and organizations working for the defense and promotion of human rights in Uganda. It would also put major barriers in the path of effective HIV/AIDS prevention efforts. Discrimination aimed at people who are most affected by HIV drives people underground which research consistently shows facilitates the spread of HIV

We request that you consider the concerns raised in this letter, which are also the concerns of many throughout world who are committed to creating a community of peace with justice for all of God's children.

Sincerely,

Rev. David Vargas - Co-executive of Global Ministries

Rev. Cally Rogers-Witte - Co-executive of Global Ministries
66
Loveschild, this is genocide in Uganda. There's no gray area.

Personally, I'm against genocide. Sadly, you can't say the same.
67
The whole fucking point of this post was that AMERICAN LEGISLATORS TRAVELED TO UGANDA TO PROMOTE THIS LEGISLATION.
If you are against commie pinko faggots telling Uganda to avoid gay genocide then YOU MUST be against the American Taliban TRAVELING THERE, MEETING WITH THE KING, AND USING THEIR INFLUENCE to get his legislation passed.
68
@64 Trash, reread the garbage you posted there. And look up the word racist. Not that it should matter, but yes, my aunt is a citizen by blood. I posted it before and I'll do it again, you Bacon personify in part (aside from european involvement) the reason why First Nation Peoples are on the rez in the first place. And the more like you there are the more tribes disappear. I can see whatever tribe you have blood connections with dreading any visit from your ilk, your presence would be an albatross upon any people trying to forge a path forward against the viciousness shown by being fruitful and proud of the heritage. You would hamper all resistance both physical and spiritually until extinction prevailed.

May the Creator keep all of His beautiful, brave, proud children from your ilk.
69
Loveschild, HIV is primarily spread by HETEROSEXUAL contact, not homosexual. Particularly in Africa, where ALMOST ALL HIV is spread by straight sex, not gay. The vast majority of the MILLIONS of African women who have HIV have never had gay sex, nor have they ever had sex with someone who has had gay sex. HIV in Africa is primarily spread by men having sex with female prostitutes or other sexually promiscuous women, and then having sex with their wives; and those countries -- including Uganda -- that have adopted sensible prevention strategies, involving promotion of condoms and encouragement of marital fidelity, have seen great reductions in their HIV rate.

Until now. Now they are using a wholly imaginary gay-sex epidemic, prompted by gay panic and incredibly stupid anti-American bullshit, to demonize people who have very little to do with the problem at hand. That's because this ultimately isn't ABOUT the problem at hand; it's about control in a time of chaos, as Uganda faces a degree of hopelessness that threatens the government. Gays are just the scapegoat.

None of this has anything to do with your insane lies and mischaracterizations. Nobody in Uganda gives a shit about your bullshit reasoning. But we do; we care that you are so hateful and so dishonest and so fearful of your fellow man that you'll stand behind a dictator as he commits mass murder.
70
Loveschild, are you meaning to say that the intentional eradication of gays within a province is outside the definition of genocide? That seems to be what you are inferring.

Is it your intention, thus, to say that the systematic execution of gays, or any given group, is condonable?

Looking at typical parents in the United States, Loveschild, do you believe the teaching of ethics and morality to children should be solely the responsibility of their respective parents, and not the community around them?

It's an interesting thought. I wouldn't agree with it. I'm also not sure its relevance. Neither do I believe homosexual orientation or behavior are inherently amoral, which you seem to be implying

And I assume, Loveschild, you do not honestly believe the women of Africa are blameless for the propagation of sexually transmitted diseases. Do you mean to imply women in Africa never consent to sex with anyone other than a single exclusive partner? On what do you base this? Links, please.
71
Oh lord, reading that article makes me sick to my stomach. It's so hard for me to believe there are still people out there who believe gays are "recruiting" school children. Gay people are no more prevalent now than they were 50 years ago, we're just seeing more of them now that it's OK to come out. Here in the US, you don't have to force yourself permanently into the closet, have children with your opposite sex spouse, and convince yourself that you're wrong for having the desires you have. This is just so sad and sickening.

Needless to say, I am so thankful to have been born in the northern part of the United States at a time when being gay is more and more acceptable (as it always should have been) every day. Thank you, Lord, for giving me the gift of being born into the northern US.
72
A little friendly advice, Loves.

You're "I have First Nation blood running thru my veins" is offensive. Parading your proclaimed ethnicity on this post is off topic. No-one here cares that you have an aunt who lives on the rez. What do you want us to do, get up and clap our hands or bow down to you, because you think your superior? So what if you claim to be First Nation and African American, it means nothing, dear, this is the internet. You can pretend to be anything you want.

And another thing, attacking someone's proclaimed ethnic background is racist. So, if Baconcat is racist, then so are you. Pot meet kettle.
73
67- FTW

Uganda is a playground for Christian dominionists, some of which are members of congress operating under the auspices of The Family - the dominionist power broker in DC. They're just trying out some ideas there that they'd like implement here.

I'll see their heads removed from their bodies if they ever try it!
74
#58 None of the Baltic states outlaw homosexuality.

#54 Estonia and Latvia spent over a century under Swedish control, although Latvia itself (which back then was called Courland) colonized Tobago (of Trinidad & Tobago) in 1654. Thus today one can find "Great Courland Bay" in Tobago and a restaurant in the Latvian city of Jelgava named "Tobago."

Everybody's got a tangled history. This is 2009.

Prevent genocide in Uganda.
75
Well, if you want to get liberal with definitions, Loveschild, gays could qualify under a "cultural" group. Gays have their own culture, do they not? So how would killing gay people NOT qualify as genocide? Being gay isn't something you can change about yourself. It isn't something your parents raise you to be. You're going to be attracted to the gender your brain wants. It is whether you choose to act on those desires or not that is a choice, not the attraction or desires themselves.

For example (and yes, I know this is trite, but stay with me), I am white. That is something I cannot change. I can wear dark make-up, tan, fake-bake, whatever to make myself look like a different color, and speak a different way that doesn't immediately out me as a white person, but I am always going to be a white person. I can't change that, and trying to change that is detrimental to my health and sense of self. Should I be shamed for being white? Should the color of my skin cause me to be put in jail? It isn't something I can change, just like being gay.

I know there are people who won't like me simply for the color of my skin, but that shouldn't be a reason for me to be discriminated against. Let us not forget: Jesus taught love and acceptance. This kind of crap is anti-Christian. The only thing out homos are teaching school children is that it is OK to be yourself. Isn't that something they should be taught? Forcing people into the closet forever will not stamp out gay people forever. There always has been and always will be homos roming the earth, so long as there are humans. The entirety of the Animal Kingdom has homosexual activity. It is not unnatural to be gay anymoreso than it is to be hetero.
76
PS - I personally didn't learn anything about being gay or straight from my single-parent mother. I came to the conclusion that it wasn't wrong all by myself considering my social-Christian background and personal distaste for intolerance. I don't know of any teacher outing him/herself as gay when I was in school. Nor do I recall any teachers spouting opinions one way or the other on issues of homosexuality. What is everyone so worried about? My gay friends being gay do not affect me or my relationship in any way. What makes the magical word "marriage" so sacred anyway that it can't be redefined once again to include two adults of the same gender? Is the country really so strapped for cash that it can't extend marital rights to DP's of federal employees?
77

@70 Welcome back Uriel, i sorta missed your calm posts here....

My point was that the term genocide does not apply in this case because homosexuality does not fit in any of the aforementioned categories that define said term.

Yes Uriel, the primary teaching of morality, values and ethics in the formative years starts and ends in the home. Not in a classroom as ms Kim would like you all to believe. The community can play a very important role so long as the values the community imparts are in line with those that are taught in the home. But even so the main responsibility lies with the parents, that's why the nuclear family is so important and that's why those that want to create a false reality know that in order to achieve their goal they must first dismantle it as in the case of marriage.

This is five years old but sadly it still rings true in Africa:

http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afre…
78
That's why i commented that it is understandable that Ugandans would seek to avoid further problems by adding more to their plate with behaviora like male to male sex which have a higher incidency of resulting in HIV/AIDS infections, they just don't need that added to an already periled population.
79
Sex between men does NOT have a higher incidence of transmitting HIV in Africa you fucking idiot. And criminalizing the behaviour via this bill will not eliminate it; it will only result in more deaths, except via execution rather than illness.

80
Wait, Loveschild... let's back up here. I really think it's unfair to claim that this isn't a form of genocide... It certainly seems that way to me; that is, I believe this IS genocide. I realize that you think that homosexuality is a choice and all, but... well... I'm not going to try and prove otherwise to you because I doubt you'll be willing to hear it. Though... I mean, gosh; to say something like what you said... that is just... it's kind of cruel. We're talking about killing mass amounts of people who really don't deserve to die here. Shouldn't we consider this, at the very least, worthy of being called morally reprehensible, even if you're unwilling to assign the term "genocide" to it? What's going on here is... it's wrong.

I guess I really just want to hear you say what you really think about all of this. There's so much implication in what you're saying and I it's difficult to read the things you say without taking away some sort of belief that you truly think these people SHOULD die. I suppose I just want to hear you actually say whether or not you do... At least then, I could actually read what you're really getting at here.

I mean... do you think homosexuals deserved to be killed? That's all I want to know. Take the entire issue out of the equation and just answer that one question for me. Please. I would really appreciate it because sometimes I don't know how to interpret the things you say.
81
Seriously, Loveschild you have a problem. You need to get over your obsession with me. I am not your whipping boy. It is not my fault people take issue with your comments and your attitudes. Grow up and take responsibility for what you write.

"Yes Uriel, the primary teaching of morality, values and ethics in the formative years starts and ends in the home. Not in a classroom as ms Kim would like you all to believe."

1) This is total BS. I have never said that. I help children not get lost in the school system as they acquire skills in English, that is giving those children a future. An education unlocks many a doors, and all children deserve an education.

2) Who in the heck made you the authority of all things? Nobody, get over yourself.

3) You get your opinion, but that is it. It's your opinion, and no law says any person has to agree with you. There is no moral obligation for any of us to agree with you.

Once again, get over yourself. You are not a fountain of morality here. Nor are you a fountain of valued information, wisdom, and authority. Your just someone with an inflated opinion of yourself.
82
Looks like I'll be seeing you in Hell, Loveschild. I'll enjoy watching Satan rape you :)
83
Whether or not the term genocide is applicable to the massacre of gays as a group, Loveschild, I would assert it is as heinous a crime against humanity, hence any reason to nitpick that the latter does not qualify as the former is moot. I would also say that this is debating what is merely a poor interpretation of the word: genocide as a term should apply to any massacre.

Regarding the primary teaching of morality, values and ethics in the formative years, and regardless of Kim's opinion, I would disagree with you. Teaching morality, values and ethics to children and teens is the responsibility of every adult with whom they come into contact. Very often adolescents spend more time with adults other than their parents, such as teachers, coaches and older friends. Teens are frequently in the process of establishing their own identities, and hence their values will often diverge from those of their parents.

In pre-adolescence, parents or guardians will typically have the most contact with their own children, but once custody is relinquished to another (say, a childcare facility, a sitter or a teacher) responsibility also transfers. Consider that children are learning the basics such as no hitting, or treat others as you would be treated. They're less concerned about whether they owe fealty to the Christ, or whether gays, rock-and-roll and Dungeons & Dragons are amoral.

It also, hence follows, Loveschild, that children should be taught the values and ethics of the society in which they live, not merely those values or ethics the parents regard as pertinent. Citizens of the US have the right to bear children, but there are already restrictions about how they can be raised (e.g. not in a cage in the basement). When it comes to the respect of gays, as a judge put it, diversity is the hallmark of our nation. Children in the US should be raised to expect and respect that they live in a plurality; one that includes sexualities other than straight vanilla.

Incidentally, it has not yet been evidenced, Loveschild, that children are best served by being raised in a nuclear family, or by their own parents, or by heterosexual parents. Nor is there anything to suggest that parents are the best authorities on what values to teach children. Indeed, we've seen plenty of published news to indicate they are not. Interestingly, both sides of the gay rights issue have presumed these to be truths in absence of data to reflect this is the case, a concession I would argue that has cost the equality sector time and success in their efforts.

Regarding women in Africa, I would make the assumption that African women are of the same hominid species that women are here in the US and in Europe, and are hence as much collaborative participants in sexual relations over there as here. I understand that rape occurs much more often per capita in Africa than it does here in the US, but that's a far cry from saying all, or even most sex in Africa is rape.

Loveschild, regarding your comments about the Ugandan situation, mortality risk is not the basis on which behavior is outlawed. Otherwise drinking, smoking, driving, skydiving and rock-climbing would be outlawed far sooner than gay sex.
84
Loveschild: neither you nor I have any right to place our believes or "model" our image and ideology upon Ugandan society. Because we are not above them morally nor intellectually.

AHHHHHHH, actually (at least in this regard), WE ARE. Or should I say-everybody besides you in this thread.

It's clear you think you can wiggle your way out of criticism for your poorly veiled homophobic & draconian views...but you're mistaken, AGAIN. "Moral" and/or "intellectual superiority" is EXACTLY what we have over the proponents of this legislation...that's the whole point of the conversation.

-DUH.
85
@ 78 and 79: You two talk about different things, I think.
Anal sex is riskier than vaginal sex. Fertile women are more susceptible than men because their immune system is downregulated so that it won't reject sperm/ and or the fetus.
Even if all homosexual sex is anal, and all heterosexual sex is vaginal, just by the sheer number of heterosexuals versus homosexuals, women are at a higher risk. And killing the gays won't help them.
But that is not the point: Killing people is wrong. Killing people for consensual sex is even wronger.
86
BTW:
I've just read that "the US Presidential Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief has insisted that every recipient of international aid money must sign a declaration expressly promising not to have any involvement with sex workers" (p. 190, Ben Goldacre "Bad Science").
How is this less imperialistic than Sweden's retraction of aid money? It certainly is more malicious.
Wouldn't it protect women more from HIV if female prostitutes were educated and empowered to insist on condoms than if all the gays were eradicated?
87
Loveschild, What about all the right wing, Christian American politicians who have been meddling in Uganda to get this policy enacted? Will you speak out against them?

I thought not.
88
79
Homosexual men are 1.7% of the population but 59% of all new AIDS cases in America.
89
@ 88: AIDS demographics are different in developing countries than in the States.
AFRICA is not AMERICA
90
@68: The difference, here, is that you hide behind your aunt as proof of being indian or having ties to us in order to rebuff a metaphor. On the other hand, I actually am indian, and the record shows pretty clearly that many in the tribe that know me actually love me. I know my tribal roll number, I speak the language enough to talk to the old folks who don't speak very good english, the last living son of our greatest chief gave me the name of one of our ancestors when I was a child, and I've been lost in the backwoods of Oklahoma trying to find the Anadarko events center.

So, call me a racist all you want, but your holier-than-thou attitude toward arbitrating cultural relations is pretty much on display here.

As a gay person, I find your attitudes toward us insulting, basically saying "it's okay, you don't have a say". As an indian, I find your attitudes toward us insulting, basically saying "it's okay, you don't have a say."

Feelings that are completely foreign to you, eh? :)
91
OK, seriously: Why is anyone on slog arguing (or for that matter showing the courtesy of using the persons screen name) with someone as batshit crazy as that one poster who is totally the batshit craziest?

Can't we just agree on a "@(postnumber): ISB [Ignore Stupid Bitch]" policy and be done with it?

Example:
@78: ISB

Done.
Save your well reasoned arguments for reasonable people here, you will never convince that drooling troll!
92
@91
not a bad idea! what's the abbreviation if its a male poster ?:)
93
#91 Because it's a nice little stress reliever :)
94
I think people just get tired of agreeing with each other all the time and need a regular, registered troll to hash out their arguments with now and then.
95
How about instead, ISFW: Ignore Stupid FuckWit?
96
Or Ir in this case, ISEFW: Ignore Stupid, Evil FuckWit?

Or since we're dealing with one specific, awful troll, just save time and go with ILC?
97
If they kill all the gays in Uganda they will have no more conservative Christian leaders.
98
#78-To argue that the Ugandans are a burdened population and the proposal is understandable is so ethically bankrupt it is almost embarrassing to respond. I hate to use a Nazi analogy, but such an immoral rationalization that apologizes for such an evil proposal takes a certain mindset. Your rationale reminds me of a friend’s mother back when I was in high school. She told us how Germany was suffering badly before "the war" and the Jews were making it worse. She then said something about cutting cancer out of the body. I had to leave. There was no point in listening anymore. Lovechild you are truly an awful person.
99
@83 "Teaching morality, values and ethics to children and teens is the responsibility of every adult with whom they come into contact. Very often adolescents spend more time with adults other than their parents, such as teachers, coaches and older friends."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/09…
100
Uriel, i believe that your argument, especially when it concerns to teachers (tho, I'm sure that examples of "coaches" and most certainly "older friends" can be found) has been proven false. It's sad because there used to be a time when your statement was true, but it is no longer, at least for now.

Perhaps as the false ideology of sexual libertinism is shown for the shallow and vain pursue that it is, and as more people grow out of it, we can return to those days in which teachers and coaches were truly respectable and outstanding citizens that aided parents in bringing forth into adulthood productive and ethical persons.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.