Slog
News & ArtsThursday, December 10, 2009
Homo Developments in Uganda
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 8:24 AM
It looks like "legislators" in Uganda have dropped the death penalty provision from that country's proposed new anti-gay law. (Gay sex is already illegal in Uganda.) These provisions remain...
•Â Criminalize all speech and peaceful assembly for those who advocate on behalf of LGBT citizens in Uganda with fines and imprisonment of between five and seven years.
•Â Criminalize the act of obtaining a same-sex marriage abroad with lifetime imprisonment. This penalty may be reduced in the new version, but the act still appears to be criminalized to some extent.
•Â Add a clause which forces friends or family members to report LGBT persons to police within 24-hours of learning about that individual’s homosexuality or face fines or imprisonment of up to three years.
• Add an extra-territorial and extradition provisions, allowing Uganda to prosecute LGBT Ugandans living abroad.
So family and friends will still have to report a suspected gay person to the authorities under penalty of imprisonment, Ugandans living in other countries could be extradited and prosecuted for marrying a same-sex partner (how on earth would that be enforced?), and—according to this report—gay Ugandans could be forced into the kind of ex-gay treatments programs championed by American evangelicals (in order to "attract errant people to acceptable sexual orientation"). And after initially refusing to take a position on the law, Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren has come out and asked his buddies in Uganda not to kill the gays after the all. And Rachel Maddow continues to expose the connections between American evangelicals, political conservatives, and Uganda's homicidal anti-gay political movement...
1
Why is Rick Warren meddling in Uganda? What a racist!
Shame on him for telling Uganda to not kill gays.
Shame on him for telling Uganda to not kill gays.
3
From the CIA world factbook here are a select few figures:
Median age: 15 years
urban population: 13% of total population (2008)
Religions: Roman Catholic 41.9%, Protestant 42%, Muslim 12.1%
Literacy: female: 57.7%
This is what happens when you have a religious, rural, and uneducated population. Also the outside influence of American Evangelicals is probably really pushing this further forwards bigotry. These people need our help surviving childhood and getting educated so they can grow into rational thinking adults. It disappointments me that they need clean water and schools and we send them bibles with strings attached.
The one figure that stands out is how young the population is. This gives me hope there is a chance they will grow into more tolerance as a country in the future.
Median age: 15 years
urban population: 13% of total population (2008)
Religions: Roman Catholic 41.9%, Protestant 42%, Muslim 12.1%
Literacy: female: 57.7%
This is what happens when you have a religious, rural, and uneducated population. Also the outside influence of American Evangelicals is probably really pushing this further forwards bigotry. These people need our help surviving childhood and getting educated so they can grow into rational thinking adults. It disappointments me that they need clean water and schools and we send them bibles with strings attached.
The one figure that stands out is how young the population is. This gives me hope there is a chance they will grow into more tolerance as a country in the future.
4
Am I supposed to be shocked that the crazies running Uganda are acting like a bunch of crazies?
That country had a chance once, but it has been all downhill since Uncle Idi.
That country had a chance once, but it has been all downhill since Uncle Idi.
5
Sounds like the homophobes over there are using the same tactics as the pot loving congressmen here are.
6
I am so glad to hear that exterminating the gays by legal execution is being striked from the bill, but this is not any better. This is a witch hunt.
To be silent on this issue, is too condone it. We have so called "Christians" condoning this, just like "Christians" turned their back in Germany during WW II.
I think I hit my line in the sand. I don't want to be associated with this type of "Christian love". I'm so very ashamed.
To be silent on this issue, is too condone it. We have so called "Christians" condoning this, just like "Christians" turned their back in Germany during WW II.
I think I hit my line in the sand. I don't want to be associated with this type of "Christian love". I'm so very ashamed.
7
Note that Rachel, followed by Dan, enjoy broad sweeping lead-ins by saying "American evangelicals" and "political conservatives" in the connection with Uganda when the vast overwhelming number of evangelicals or conservatives would NEVER give credence to this horror. But delineations such as “a few” or “some” as qualifying adjectives are too much to ask for, or too granular, for them to add to their keystrokes, or perhaps Rachel and Dan relish every opportunity to impugn Christians or anyone left of center with extreme homophobia. Sigh.
8
@ 7..then the 'vast overwhelming number of evangelicals or conservatives.' and ' christians ..left of center' need to step the fuck up and turn up the volume on their condemnations of this movement..
*..crickets*...
*..crickets*...
9
@7: You take issue with their adjectives but throw in the hyperbole "the vast overhwleming number"? Haha, wow. Did you take a poll? Are you on their mailing list?
10
I think the idea behind trying to prosecute Ugandan's who are in other countries is about silencing opposition. If Ugandan ex-pat's cannot speak out without fear of jail for them or their friends and family at home they might just keep their mouths shut abroad. This means we are much less likely to know what actually happens in the country as fewer Ugandans will want to speak with the foreign media even if they are gone.
11
@3 Wow, what a nasty little thing you are. Guess those 'inferior' Ugandans have so much to learn from such a higher intellectual like you. :s
Still, I'm glad to see the Ugandan government took a more humane approach to this issue, especially since they are going to be open to the same type of counseling that has been reviled and denied here and in western europe.
Still, I'm glad to see the Ugandan government took a more humane approach to this issue, especially since they are going to be open to the same type of counseling that has been reviled and denied here and in western europe.
12
@9 I am sure that the vast overwhelming number would speak out against the execution of gays while still supporting the moral judgment of people that eventually leads to such harsh persecution. This is a great tactic that liberals might want to learn to use as well. In this case they can actually support the Ugandan government's persecution while still maintaining the supposed moral high ground with American liberals.
I think it has been pointed out enough here that not speaking out is almost as bad as the persecution because it is those that keep quiet that make this persecution possible.
I think it has been pointed out enough here that not speaking out is almost as bad as the persecution because it is those that keep quiet that make this persecution possible.
13
@ 7 ...Every single Sunday morning I sit in service, is the topic being addressed? No. If there is an outcry from the pulpit, if there is it's in the form of silent prayer, becauses the subject is being ignored with regard to the body. Never mind that we have missionaries over there, vets and teachers.
Silence = condoning. Making a decision to not speak up, because you don't want to stick your nose into another nations business, is a decision to silently approve.
Silence = condoning. Making a decision to not speak up, because you don't want to stick your nose into another nations business, is a decision to silently approve.
14
@11: You heapum big lies, Squaw-- why you teachum your papooses to say one thing like "we shouldn't meddle in Uganda" but overlook Rick Warren meddling in Uganda?
In time of buffalo, liar who condemn coyote but excuse the wolf were made to live with both. I hopeum you take spirit quest in moccasin of other man.
In time of buffalo, liar who condemn coyote but excuse the wolf were made to live with both. I hopeum you take spirit quest in moccasin of other man.
15
@11 My first attack from Loveschild. I am so proud.
Anyway I never said I was superior. I am however literate unlike many in their country and illiteracy is something I wish on nobody. I also am old enough to realize my politics have changed since I was 15.
I wanted to point out that the people in America who are bigots are the same people in Uganda. Rural, uneducated, poor, and religious. This doesn't have to be a culture war until they assert they are going to execute those not on their side of the culture. If these religious wackos are going to throw down the gauntlet I am going to point out how persecution of LGBT people is a waste of resources at least an morally bankrupt at worst.
Also Loveschild you point out you don't like my style of argument but you went straight to attacking me instead of attacking my position. Care to weigh in with another troll post?
Anyway I never said I was superior. I am however literate unlike many in their country and illiteracy is something I wish on nobody. I also am old enough to realize my politics have changed since I was 15.
I wanted to point out that the people in America who are bigots are the same people in Uganda. Rural, uneducated, poor, and religious. This doesn't have to be a culture war until they assert they are going to execute those not on their side of the culture. If these religious wackos are going to throw down the gauntlet I am going to point out how persecution of LGBT people is a waste of resources at least an morally bankrupt at worst.
Also Loveschild you point out you don't like my style of argument but you went straight to attacking me instead of attacking my position. Care to weigh in with another troll post?
16
Loveschild, funny how you're fine with the anti gay outsiders meddling in Uganda, but you cry foul over people calling for human rights for gays in that country.
20
@15 Your "position" is founded (as most here is) in tha if one is not for believing in the absoluteness and inevitability of homosexual behavior then you are evil, "uneducated" or "bigots".
"This doesn't have to be a culture war until they assert they are going to execute those not on their side of the culture."
They've made it very clear as most African states have that homosexual behavior is not part of their culture. So, i guess you are favoring "war" on them until they are forced to accept your beliefs huh. That makes you at least guilty of a superiority complex Packeteer, and precisely the same thing you seem to despise, a fanatic and a bigot.
"This doesn't have to be a culture war until they assert they are going to execute those not on their side of the culture."
They've made it very clear as most African states have that homosexual behavior is not part of their culture. So, i guess you are favoring "war" on them until they are forced to accept your beliefs huh. That makes you at least guilty of a superiority complex Packeteer, and precisely the same thing you seem to despise, a fanatic and a bigot.
21
They've made it very clear as most African states have that homosexual behavior is not part of their culture.
Hey moron, it's already been explained to you that homosexuality is very much a part of pre-colonial African culture, and that current negative attitudes towards homosexuality in former colonies of Western countries are a product of colonialism. Before they were colonized, 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.
Die, Loveschild, die.
Hey moron, it's already been explained to you that homosexuality is very much a part of pre-colonial African culture, and that current negative attitudes towards homosexuality in former colonies of Western countries are a product of colonialism. Before they were colonized, 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.
Die, Loveschild, die.
22
Can't wait for America's "Christians" to rouse themselves to concern about the Genocide of 900,000 babies each year in our own country.
23
I must first establish some contextual information before speaking. I am a gay man and I am greatly disturbed by this bill. There, is, however, one portion of this bill that still disturbs me even more; it even bothers me more than the now-removed death-penalty provision (and thank heavens that it has been removed, though I would rather see the entire thing scrapped).
The provision I speak of is the one which calls for friends and family members of gays and lesbians to report them as criminals. It proposes a punishment if associates do not report them. By threatening punishment, this clause discourages non-gays from being tolerant of their gay peers and family members. If I were to compare this to another event in history, I would compare it to the Salem witch-hunts, wherein children were encouraged to turn their parents in if they suspected them of witchcraft. Now, do not misunderstand me, lest, in disagreement with my opinion, opponents might think I am saying that these atrocities are of the same kind. No; they are not - but, in my opinion, they are similar in degree and similar in the social phenomena they instigate. I am extremely nervous about that clause in particular for that very reason.
There is a difference between being simply an enemy of the state and being an enemy of the public as a whole. This bill proposes to make gay individuals the modern-day equivalent of lepers. Friends and family will not wish ever to be seen near them for fear of being arrested themselves. Ultimately, the effect is one of social isolation. I think, that even despite our disagreements, even Loveschild could possibly agree with me here when I say that this is wrong.
The provision I speak of is the one which calls for friends and family members of gays and lesbians to report them as criminals. It proposes a punishment if associates do not report them. By threatening punishment, this clause discourages non-gays from being tolerant of their gay peers and family members. If I were to compare this to another event in history, I would compare it to the Salem witch-hunts, wherein children were encouraged to turn their parents in if they suspected them of witchcraft. Now, do not misunderstand me, lest, in disagreement with my opinion, opponents might think I am saying that these atrocities are of the same kind. No; they are not - but, in my opinion, they are similar in degree and similar in the social phenomena they instigate. I am extremely nervous about that clause in particular for that very reason.
There is a difference between being simply an enemy of the state and being an enemy of the public as a whole. This bill proposes to make gay individuals the modern-day equivalent of lepers. Friends and family will not wish ever to be seen near them for fear of being arrested themselves. Ultimately, the effect is one of social isolation. I think, that even despite our disagreements, even Loveschild could possibly agree with me here when I say that this is wrong.
24
@20:
In time of buffalo, before white man, Africa cherishum two-spirit relations. Why you no see anti-two-spirit feeling are from white man? Are you secret white, squaw?
They've made it very clear as most African states have that homosexual behavior is not part of their culture
In time of buffalo, before white man, Africa cherishum two-spirit relations. Why you no see anti-two-spirit feeling are from white man? Are you secret white, squaw?
25
@17.. raindrop,, maybe you could try to talk some sense into loveshild who re-asserts her belief that this is a conflict about culture ( and reassignment therapy ) rather than the sacredness of human dignity or their rights which should be both civil and inalienable.
26
Don't bother Loveschild with facts. The only reason so many African countries are homophobic is from outside meddling, but in Loveschild's mind, that's okay. Only people calling for human rights for gay people are bad.
27
To add, Loveschild is also fine with folks meddling with native African's beliefs, and converting them away from tribal religious beliefs to Christianity.
28
LC,
You really need to lay off the Jesus juice for christ sake, it's killing brain cells at an alarming rate. Oh, it's so much more humane to force Ugandan gays into counseling, maybe it will cure them and maybe their families can live fulfilling lives once their prison sentences are complete because they wouldn't turn in family members they knew had this "affliction".
Yeah that would work, and so would returning you to your home planet in Uranus!
You really need to lay off the Jesus juice for christ sake, it's killing brain cells at an alarming rate. Oh, it's so much more humane to force Ugandan gays into counseling, maybe it will cure them and maybe their families can live fulfilling lives once their prison sentences are complete because they wouldn't turn in family members they knew had this "affliction".
Yeah that would work, and so would returning you to your home planet in Uranus!
29
@23 I do cheerio. I believe that for example if therapies and help to those that seek it are to be provided properly then forcing people to report homosexual behavior will be counterproductive for all and it will ultimately lead to as you said to social isolation. But you better believe that if this constant hounding on the Ugandan people does not stop you may find the previous clauses revived, so if you truly want them to remain off the books, i believe that your side will be better served to lay off from this bill and let them sorted out.
30
@20 I don't completely understand your first sentence. I think you are saying that I accuse someone who does not accept homosexuality as absolute and inevitable is uneducated and a bigot. If that is an incorrect paraphrase let me know but I will respond to this.
I don't think that anyone here including me would consider homosexuality as absolute and inevitable. There is an entire range of sexual identity, nobody claims it to be absolute other than those that claim it is absolutely "sin." Also I will claim that anyone who thinks that homosexuality is not inevitable for some is uneducated.
Let's assume that the ex-gay movement is correct that some people CAN be turned away from homosexuality. This is a dubious claim as many ex-gay's claim they still have the "temptation to sin" but choose god over their homosexual urges. There are very few people who claim you can actually remove "the gay" from a person. Anyone who does think that is possible is absolutely uneducated about the issue. Even if you make a moral judgment that homosexuality is wrong you have to admit that it is inevitable for many.
You accuse me of being a fanatic and a bigot and in one way you are correct. I am fanatically against execution of gays. I simply won't accept it and I refuse to neglect to speak out against it.
I don't think that anyone here including me would consider homosexuality as absolute and inevitable. There is an entire range of sexual identity, nobody claims it to be absolute other than those that claim it is absolutely "sin." Also I will claim that anyone who thinks that homosexuality is not inevitable for some is uneducated.
Let's assume that the ex-gay movement is correct that some people CAN be turned away from homosexuality. This is a dubious claim as many ex-gay's claim they still have the "temptation to sin" but choose god over their homosexual urges. There are very few people who claim you can actually remove "the gay" from a person. Anyone who does think that is possible is absolutely uneducated about the issue. Even if you make a moral judgment that homosexuality is wrong you have to admit that it is inevitable for many.
You accuse me of being a fanatic and a bigot and in one way you are correct. I am fanatically against execution of gays. I simply won't accept it and I refuse to neglect to speak out against it.
31
@29 You mention therapies for homosexuals. Can you please elaborate what therapies you want to provide to the gay Ugandans?
32
@29
I am glad that we can establish that basic point of agreement in spite of our very great degree of disagreement on most other aspects of this issue. Much in the way of constructing a skyscraper, it is important to construct a discussion from solid, level foundations and, from hence, build upward, with each point acting as a support for the next counterpoint; starting from uneven foundations makes a structure fall on both sides.
Quickly addressing your point about "letting them sort it out," I do understand what you are getting at; though, I hardly consider my comments on a Seattle newspaper blog to be a seriously influential. I am, however, interested in continued coverage and civil discussion about the development of this law because, even though I do not live in Uganda, I feel a sense of personal connection to the issue, though it may not concern me directly. Perhaps this is difficult to explain; I don't expect you to feel the same way but I do believe it's worth explaining.
I am glad that we can establish that basic point of agreement in spite of our very great degree of disagreement on most other aspects of this issue. Much in the way of constructing a skyscraper, it is important to construct a discussion from solid, level foundations and, from hence, build upward, with each point acting as a support for the next counterpoint; starting from uneven foundations makes a structure fall on both sides.
Quickly addressing your point about "letting them sort it out," I do understand what you are getting at; though, I hardly consider my comments on a Seattle newspaper blog to be a seriously influential. I am, however, interested in continued coverage and civil discussion about the development of this law because, even though I do not live in Uganda, I feel a sense of personal connection to the issue, though it may not concern me directly. Perhaps this is difficult to explain; I don't expect you to feel the same way but I do believe it's worth explaining.
33
@23, you are absolutely right. Threatening friends and family with jail for not ratting out their gays is far, far worse than the death penalty provision, because it creates an informant society.
This is a pure Pol Pot tactic.It's right out of "1984" as well. What will happen, of course, is people will rat out their friends even though they're not "guilty" of being gay at all, in order to avoid punishment themselves, for anything. We KNOW this will happen; we've seen it happen before. The pressure to use this power is irresistable.
So you will with absolute certainty see a parade of people accused of crimes giving up the names of their friends and families to save themselves, and then those friends and families will in turn give up others. In an informant society EVERYONE IS GUILTY, by definition.
This will allow the government to punish as "gay" whole swathes of the country -- entire ethnic groups, for instance Swahili speakers, for instance. This will bring about the descent into Rwanda-style mass atrocities, just watch.
@3, Uganda is so young partly because the average life expectancy is barely 50 years.
This is a pure Pol Pot tactic.It's right out of "1984" as well. What will happen, of course, is people will rat out their friends even though they're not "guilty" of being gay at all, in order to avoid punishment themselves, for anything. We KNOW this will happen; we've seen it happen before. The pressure to use this power is irresistable.
So you will with absolute certainty see a parade of people accused of crimes giving up the names of their friends and families to save themselves, and then those friends and families will in turn give up others. In an informant society EVERYONE IS GUILTY, by definition.
This will allow the government to punish as "gay" whole swathes of the country -- entire ethnic groups, for instance Swahili speakers, for instance. This will bring about the descent into Rwanda-style mass atrocities, just watch.
@3, Uganda is so young partly because the average life expectancy is barely 50 years.
34
LovesHate Spewed:
What does that even mean? With a delicious irony, that sentence alone proves that you are both uneducated and a bigot.
Gay people exist, LC. They've existed for thousands of years, so they are indeed inevitable. As far as their absoluteness, I really can't parse that one out. It must be some kind of christofascist code. Care to enlighten us?
...if one is not for believing in the absoluteness and inevitability of homosexual behavior then you are evil, "uneducated" or "bigots".
What does that even mean? With a delicious irony, that sentence alone proves that you are both uneducated and a bigot.
Gay people exist, LC. They've existed for thousands of years, so they are indeed inevitable. As far as their absoluteness, I really can't parse that one out. It must be some kind of christofascist code. Care to enlighten us?
35
@30 No it isn't, and it is precisely your type of reluctance to accept people who have left behind homosexuality and are now heterosexuals, the kind of ideology that ticks people who see your intransigency into enacting laws like those that were goin to be enacted in Uganda.
@31 Therapies that can help people in coming out of homosexual behaviors. I know you refuse to believe in that but there are many individuals who have successfully done this with the aid of these therapies. One of the positive outcomes of all of this is that Ugandan government will promote this aid unto those dealing with homosexuality.
@31 Therapies that can help people in coming out of homosexual behaviors. I know you refuse to believe in that but there are many individuals who have successfully done this with the aid of these therapies. One of the positive outcomes of all of this is that Ugandan government will promote this aid unto those dealing with homosexuality.
36
@ 32, LC seems to feel connected to the issue because it's an African country. She can correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm sure, however, that we can stop "hounding" Uganda with our aid (very little of which actually aids the poor of that country I believe - most of it probably ends up in the pockets of corrupt government reps and officials). If we're to continue giving aid to them, then the US certainly has every right to impose conditions on it, such as "don't pass extremely overbearing laws to deal with a social issue." Regardless of the inherent backwardness of any law seeking to end the very natural and intrinsically human condition of homosexuality, even LC ought to agree that Uganda has more pressing issues to address.
I'm sure, however, that we can stop "hounding" Uganda with our aid (very little of which actually aids the poor of that country I believe - most of it probably ends up in the pockets of corrupt government reps and officials). If we're to continue giving aid to them, then the US certainly has every right to impose conditions on it, such as "don't pass extremely overbearing laws to deal with a social issue." Regardless of the inherent backwardness of any law seeking to end the very natural and intrinsically human condition of homosexuality, even LC ought to agree that Uganda has more pressing issues to address.
37
Hey Lovesmoron, why do you ignore posts that contradict your lies?
iHomosexuality is very much a part of pre-colonial African culture, and that current negative attitudes towards homosexuality in former colonies of Western countries are a product of colonialism. Before they were colonized, 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.
iHomosexuality is very much a part of pre-colonial African culture, and that current negative attitudes towards homosexuality in former colonies of Western countries are a product of colonialism. Before they were colonized, 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.
38
37, That's her M.O. What she can't answer, she just ignores. If she considered the facts, her make believe world would fall apart.
39
@35 I believe there are people who have "left behind homosexuality." I personally know people who have had gay sex or relationships before claiming to be completely straight. I would chalk this up to confusion and self exploration and I would also not make a moral judgment because I see nothing wrong that with that exploration. You however would assert they did something wrong and unless they identify as 100% heterosexual they are "bad."
I can also attest that I have personally seen people try to be heterosexual before admitting they are gay and nothing can change that. Again I think that is perfectly ok with me as they are discovering themselves. Again you would judge them for something that i assert is out of their control.
Speakeasy of the ability to control your own sexuality do you really believe this is a choice? You didn't outright say it but you seem to suggest it with your arguments. If it is a choice and if it is so wrong why would peoplee ver choose it? Why would good christian people be in airport bathrooms blowing dudes?
I also want to know a little more specifically what kind of therapies these are. Are these getting together and praying? Are they meeting with a licensed psychologist to discuss behavior modification techniques? Are they meeting with a psychiatrist for medication to change sexual preference?
I am sure you see where I am leading in this. I am fine with someone who is gay getting together and discussing themselves and their orientation with friends or family or clergy or professionals but I worry because there is a history of invasive "treatment" being used on homosexuals. This includes physical or chemical castration, shock therapy treatment and other permanently damaging "therapies." I see the typical slippery slope when you start to try and "treat" something that is not a problem.
More...
I can also attest that I have personally seen people try to be heterosexual before admitting they are gay and nothing can change that. Again I think that is perfectly ok with me as they are discovering themselves. Again you would judge them for something that i assert is out of their control.
Speakeasy of the ability to control your own sexuality do you really believe this is a choice? You didn't outright say it but you seem to suggest it with your arguments. If it is a choice and if it is so wrong why would peoplee ver choose it? Why would good christian people be in airport bathrooms blowing dudes?
I also want to know a little more specifically what kind of therapies these are. Are these getting together and praying? Are they meeting with a licensed psychologist to discuss behavior modification techniques? Are they meeting with a psychiatrist for medication to change sexual preference?
I am sure you see where I am leading in this. I am fine with someone who is gay getting together and discussing themselves and their orientation with friends or family or clergy or professionals but I worry because there is a history of invasive "treatment" being used on homosexuals. This includes physical or chemical castration, shock therapy treatment and other permanently damaging "therapies." I see the typical slippery slope when you start to try and "treat" something that is not a problem.
40
@32 Mine are either cheerio but I do recognize that your views are the most prevalent here on Slog and on a few cities in this nation.
May I ask you, why is it that you say you feel a sense of personal connection to the issue? I only ask this if by "issue" you mean the happenings in Uganda.
May I ask you, why is it that you say you feel a sense of personal connection to the issue? I only ask this if by "issue" you mean the happenings in Uganda.
41
Also in much of the Muslim world homosexual behavior as a child is condoned as they strictly forbid sexual acts between a man and women until marriage. They often see homosexuality as something people just do to get by while they are young. I am certain there are people who are truly heterosexual who engage in homosexual behavior before once again identifying as 100% straight. This shows a great example of people who never were homosexual in the first place and probably account for some of the ex-gay's that actually never engage in homosexual behavior. I don't think the therapy works on people who are actually gay.
42
40, Why do people feel a personal connection when they sponsor children to give them food, clothes, shelter etc, when it's happening in other countries (including Uganda http://www.soschildrensvillages.org.uk/s… )? Why are we meddling in the lives of Ugandan children? Shouldn't their own government take care of it? Oh right, you're only against meddling when it's about human rights for gay people.
Do you ever think things though before you type them?
Do you ever think things though before you type them?
43
@40
To answer your question, there are a few reasons; none of them are completely worthy of being "justification" for feeling the way I do. I chalk a lot of it up to emotions, so I'm not going to attempt to defend them; but if you're curious, I will tell you.
One reason is that I am a member of the gay community, so there is somewhat of a sense of fraternity between myself and others who are also part of it. Not everybody feels this way, but I do; it's a sort of mental connection to people who are like myself, and even if they live far away, I still know I have that one thing in common with them; I know, in a very abstracted sense, how it feels to be gay because I am gay. On that level, I have a great deal of empathy for gay people in Uganda.
I've also had a bit of involvement in a group called "Peace by Piece," which is an organization that raises money to build schools in Uganda. From that, I got a sense of some of the political turmoil in that country, so hearing about this issue connects with that idea.
Thirdly, I'm somewhat of an overly-emotional and overly-touchy-feely person. I tend to become very affected by any semblance of empathy for others; this one in particular, because of it hits so close to home regarding my sexuality, thus feels ten times more poignant still. I just feel a great sadness when I read about it. That, in itself, is so difficult to break down that I couldn't possibly explain it here.
To answer your question, there are a few reasons; none of them are completely worthy of being "justification" for feeling the way I do. I chalk a lot of it up to emotions, so I'm not going to attempt to defend them; but if you're curious, I will tell you.
One reason is that I am a member of the gay community, so there is somewhat of a sense of fraternity between myself and others who are also part of it. Not everybody feels this way, but I do; it's a sort of mental connection to people who are like myself, and even if they live far away, I still know I have that one thing in common with them; I know, in a very abstracted sense, how it feels to be gay because I am gay. On that level, I have a great deal of empathy for gay people in Uganda.
I've also had a bit of involvement in a group called "Peace by Piece," which is an organization that raises money to build schools in Uganda. From that, I got a sense of some of the political turmoil in that country, so hearing about this issue connects with that idea.
Thirdly, I'm somewhat of an overly-emotional and overly-touchy-feely person. I tend to become very affected by any semblance of empathy for others; this one in particular, because of it hits so close to home regarding my sexuality, thus feels ten times more poignant still. I just feel a great sadness when I read about it. That, in itself, is so difficult to break down that I couldn't possibly explain it here.
44
@ 38, her actual MO is to engage new folks UNTIL they defeat her with reason; after that, she only answers those people if she thinks she has some "gotcha" (which, in my case, I've always answered and shown her where she was wrong) but otherwise ignores them.
Every now and then I toy with the idea of registering some new accounts here just so she will answer some point I'd like her to address, but it would end up the same way.
Every now and then I toy with the idea of registering some new accounts here just so she will answer some point I'd like her to address, but it would end up the same way.
45
@33,
And because of population growth. Ever more babies = ever more children and young adults.
The lawmakers who proposed this law are a bunch of fucking idiots. Any country that's not as much of a homo-hating shithole as Uganda would never follow through on that extradition order. And that obviously applies to any country where same sex marriage is legal.
And because of population growth. Ever more babies = ever more children and young adults.
Ugandans living in other countries could be extradited and prosecuted for marrying a same-sex partner
The lawmakers who proposed this law are a bunch of fucking idiots. Any country that's not as much of a homo-hating shithole as Uganda would never follow through on that extradition order. And that obviously applies to any country where same sex marriage is legal.
46
Really, anyone who's literate and considers themselves a Christian should be against executions for anything anywhere.
The Gospel seems pretty clear to me that Jesus isn't a fan of capital punishment.
The Gospel seems pretty clear to me that Jesus isn't a fan of capital punishment.
47
44, Yeah, she long ago stopped responding to me, though every now and then she forgets herself. When her argument gets completely shredded by reason, she quickly remembers why she doesn't speak to me anymore. I love that I've got her so flustered.
48
@43 You know i'm not goin to question your reasons tho they seem a little vague to me. But you say the main reason is because you're gay which is the same reason that Maddow and Savage have given so much coverage to this, but what i don't get is why the same indignation and outright arm-twisting is not show to nations in the eastern european block, or the baltic states (latvia, estonia) or russia? I posted it before and all sorts of lame excuses where posted but it seems to me that as soon as an African nation brings up a gay issue in a way that the west doesn't approve of you get people like the aforementioned ready to jump on them and starting to make all sorts of threats. And to me this is a pattern that is not only shown on this gay thing issue but its systematic of the way in which europe views its relationship with Africa, that being, a paternalistic one, in which they must do as the west say or else.
49
@48, it's been pointed out to you many times that homosexuality is legal in Latvia, Estonia, and Russia. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, AT ALL.
50
why are we discussing reparative 'therapy' when the issues here are the criminalization of orientation. why is the extradition and proscution of gays who don't live there important to them ? why would they not be allowed the right of peaceful assembly ? why would they seek to criminally charge gay ugandans that live elsewhere ? why are they seeking to impose a prison sentence on a family memebr for up to three years for not immediately reporting a family member's orientation - within 24 HOURS after learning of it ?
..and more importantly why is it so hard for anyone to understand or imagine this as part of a ground work for genocide. why does this not seem plain and simple to anyone ?...
... except of course miss loveschild ..
..and more importantly why is it so hard for anyone to understand or imagine this as part of a ground work for genocide. why does this not seem plain and simple to anyone ?...
... except of course miss loveschild ..
51
@48
I don't believe I made any threats. I'm sincerely apologizes if you interpreted my statements as being threatening, because that was never my intent. I was simply answering your question. That being said, I can perhaps assuage your accusation against me. If this were, for example, a story about the same law being enacted in any other country, I would still feel the way I feel now.
Yes, I do tend to bias myself towards stories like this that involve issues of the gay community. My sexuality is important to me; that's all. The issue at large is important to me.
I don't believe I made any threats. I'm sincerely apologizes if you interpreted my statements as being threatening, because that was never my intent. I was simply answering your question. That being said, I can perhaps assuage your accusation against me. If this were, for example, a story about the same law being enacted in any other country, I would still feel the way I feel now.
Yes, I do tend to bias myself towards stories like this that involve issues of the gay community. My sexuality is important to me; that's all. The issue at large is important to me.
52
Loveschild @ 48
Please don't be so blatantly dishonest. You were on the Ex-Gay thread last night at 10:37PM engaging with Uriel. So, you have seen that you were wrong, that no country in the Baltic region has laws that make being gay illegal, let alone sentences them to death or makes it illegal to know a gay person. Multiple people countered your claim. Not just me.
For your own personal integrity, stop it. The fool that I am, I actually worry for you and the lies you keep telling to cover yourself.
"So which nation in the Baltic has laws that exterminate gays and imprison 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 hypocritically turning a blind eye to? It has been awhile since I lived there, but I do not remember any such laws existing.
Posted by kim in portland on December 8, 2009 at 3:54 PM"
Please don't be so blatantly dishonest. You were on the Ex-Gay thread last night at 10:37PM engaging with Uriel. So, you have seen that you were wrong, that no country in the Baltic region has laws that make being gay illegal, let alone sentences them to death or makes it illegal to know a gay person. Multiple people countered your claim. Not just me.
For your own personal integrity, stop it. The fool that I am, I actually worry for you and the lies you keep telling to cover yourself.
"So which nation in the Baltic has laws that exterminate gays and imprison 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 hypocritically turning a blind eye to? It has been awhile since I lived there, but I do not remember any such laws existing.
Posted by kim in portland on December 8, 2009 at 3:54 PM"
53
@48: These countries didn't make it illegal to be gay and didn't actually legitimately consider statutory requirements of death for folks based on their sexuality. They also don't force people to out their neighbors, nor do they give mandate to people who hate a certain sexuality.
If you read any GLBT blogs, you'd catch that they often are the only places where you hear about anti-gay violence in this world, like when Russians severely beat gay pride marchers or when a man from the district of one of the anti-gay NY Senators beat a gay man for dancing with is partner in a club.
Yawn, you noseeum fact, only seeum fiction, Squaw.
If you read any GLBT blogs, you'd catch that they often are the only places where you hear about anti-gay violence in this world, like when Russians severely beat gay pride marchers or when a man from the district of one of the anti-gay NY Senators beat a gay man for dancing with is partner in a club.
Yawn, you noseeum fact, only seeum fiction, Squaw.
54
Hey Lovescunt, why don't you respond?
Homosexuality is very much a part of pre-colonial African culture, and that current negative attitudes towards homosexuality in former colonies of Western countries are a product of colonialism. Before they were colonized, 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.
Homosexuality is very much a part of pre-colonial African culture, and that current negative attitudes towards homosexuality in former colonies of Western countries are a product of colonialism. Before they were colonized, 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.
55
Riz @ 50,
Sorry. Several of us are calling it what it is, ground work for genocide. Most of that discussion has been on the Ex-Gay thread. Both Fnarf and Uriel have been very vocal. I'm ashamed to say, I have not been as vocal as I could have been. So, sorry.
Sorry. Several of us are calling it what it is, ground work for genocide. Most of that discussion has been on the Ex-Gay thread. Both Fnarf and Uriel have been very vocal. I'm ashamed to say, I have not been as vocal as I could have been. So, sorry.
56
@51 No, no, I didn't meant you, even tho we completely disagree you've never used any insult in your comments towards me, as opposed to the barrage of racist claptrap being used here by others not so much against me but against African and Caribbean states that don't follow along with their ideology, which shows what they truly think deep down about them.
I meant the threats made by european governments like that of Sweden. You'd believe that before making threats at an African nation over this, they would've done the same with their neighbor russia. But they know better than to take issue with them because they know russia wont put up with it.
57
kim @ 55...
no apology is need from you. your opinions are always well reason and clearly voiced. you communicate your horror of the situation and are never less than willing to continue to represnt the body of christ even when it embarrasses or shames you.. i always look forward to you contributions here...always.. and i look forward to someday meeting you.
i was speaking to those unfortunate newcomers who have wandered into loveschild's web thinking that they're getting honest and lucid discourse from her..not directly speaking to them , but i wanted to steer their thoughts back to the issues at hand.
no apology is need from you. your opinions are always well reason and clearly voiced. you communicate your horror of the situation and are never less than willing to continue to represnt the body of christ even when it embarrasses or shames you.. i always look forward to you contributions here...always.. and i look forward to someday meeting you.
i was speaking to those unfortunate newcomers who have wandered into loveschild's web thinking that they're getting honest and lucid discourse from her..not directly speaking to them , but i wanted to steer their thoughts back to the issues at hand.
58
I've never said anything racist, 56, yet you still refuse to respond to my refutation of your erroneous claim that homosexuality isn't part of African cultures. Why? Because you've been proven utterly, incurably wrong?
60
@56: Which nation has the same or similar laws regarding sexuality as Uganda is proposing? Unless you can prove your theory that Sweden should go after Russia on the same grounds as it's going after Uganda, you're wronnng, Pocodumbass.
61
@58 Do you think you know more than Ugandans about their culture? You really do believe that you do?
64
@56
I'm sure it's possible. Anything's possible. I don't know enough about world politics to make any sort of argument against that. Several others here have pointed out that the Baltic nations have not made laws forbidding homosexuality. I suppose that's possible too. Anything is possible. The truth is that I don't know. As of yet, I haven't read anything on the subject. Perhaps someone could link me to an established academic source such as Encyclopedia Brittanica or a credible non-biased sociological research organization so I can research this for myself.
Although, concerning the above quandary, to me, that is really not the issue I'm here to discuss. As I said before, it matters little to me which nation is making the law; what matters to me is the law itself. I believe this law is wrong - the question is, what is the most appropriate action one can take to try and prevent its passing?
Loveschild has suggested that Uganda's government be left to its own devices and that we should stop involving ourselves. While this may seem workable in interactions between persons or small groups, I believe this does not hold for nation-states. The global polity, being one of authority and not military power, it is important to make it known that legislative actions within a nation-state can still be under the scrutiny of the globe as a whole. Leaving the country alone seems more akin to ignoring the problem in my view; I think if we leave them alone, the law will most definitely pass. I would rather it did not pass.
What are some other options?
I'm sure it's possible. Anything's possible. I don't know enough about world politics to make any sort of argument against that. Several others here have pointed out that the Baltic nations have not made laws forbidding homosexuality. I suppose that's possible too. Anything is possible. The truth is that I don't know. As of yet, I haven't read anything on the subject. Perhaps someone could link me to an established academic source such as Encyclopedia Brittanica or a credible non-biased sociological research organization so I can research this for myself.
Although, concerning the above quandary, to me, that is really not the issue I'm here to discuss. As I said before, it matters little to me which nation is making the law; what matters to me is the law itself. I believe this law is wrong - the question is, what is the most appropriate action one can take to try and prevent its passing?
Loveschild has suggested that Uganda's government be left to its own devices and that we should stop involving ourselves. While this may seem workable in interactions between persons or small groups, I believe this does not hold for nation-states. The global polity, being one of authority and not military power, it is important to make it known that legislative actions within a nation-state can still be under the scrutiny of the globe as a whole. Leaving the country alone seems more akin to ignoring the problem in my view; I think if we leave them alone, the law will most definitely pass. I would rather it did not pass.
What are some other options?
65
I didn't say that now did I. But it's clear I know a lot more about history than you do. Remember that thing called science? People use it when they study the past. And those studies have shown clearly that homosexuality was very much a part of pre-colonial African culture, and that current negative attitudes towards homosexuality in former colonies of Western countries are a product of colonialism.
If you truly were anti-imperialist, you would be arguing for a return to pre-colonial attitudes about homosexuality and gender instead of wrapping your homophobia in a pretty but empty package of support for African self-determination.
If you truly were anti-imperialist, you would be arguing for a return to pre-colonial attitudes about homosexuality and gender instead of wrapping your homophobia in a pretty but empty package of support for African self-determination.
66
And PS #63, the phrase was "do your own fucking homework," and you've yet again missed the point, which here was that there can be no such thing as a "homosexual gathering," because gatherings, as non-tangible, non-living things, cannot be homosexual.
67
@55 oh and kim..through the sojourners website i found some of the dissenting voices i was hoping to hear....
...http://blog.faithinpubliclife.org/Uganda…
...http://blog.faithinpubliclife.org/Uganda…
69
Me? I've never said that (although what's to say I'm not? This is the internet; I could be anything or anyone). But I can read (unlike Loveschild, apparently), and I do know that there is plenty of scholarly evidence that homosexuality and alternate genders had a history of acceptance in Africa in pre-colonial times.
70
why hasn't anyone mentioned Rachel Maddow nailing that guy on her show who authored, "Coming Out Straight"? (he is apparently "cured" of his homosexuality and happily married with 3 children).
and then what about that Steve Lively guy (think that's his name) going over to Uganda earlier in the year and pretty much convinced them that homosexuals are evil based upon stats from "Coming Out Straight"
and then what about that Steve Lively guy (think that's his name) going over to Uganda earlier in the year and pretty much convinced them that homosexuals are evil based upon stats from "Coming Out Straight"
72
@64 I'm telling you, you better chill, that's the best "option" you can resolve to take on this. Because if you don't you (or those you claim to care about) will be treading on thin ice and just as i was sure that the death penalty was going to be removed from the bill if the instigation keeps on I'm positively sure you will see it come back and instituted into law. Don't think for a moment that Ugandans are going to be perpetual pushovers, if they see more attacks on this bill they'll return to the original draft, no matter what anyone says.
73
Loveschild still has not responded as to what kind of therapy is recommended. I try to imagine an ideal world in Loveschild's mind. I am assuming this is one where all homosexuals go to treatment and are cured. Regardless of your beliefs on whether or not that is a good thing I don't know anyone who thinks that is a realistic scenario even if society had absolute support in opposing homosexuality.
Because Loveschild scenario that is presented to us is so ridiculous I fear that there may be a hidden agenda. I am concerned this hidden agenda is actually to lead down the path towards castration, lobotomies, and execution of LGBT people.
Because Loveschild scenario that is presented to us is so ridiculous I fear that there may be a hidden agenda. I am concerned this hidden agenda is actually to lead down the path towards castration, lobotomies, and execution of LGBT people.
74
@70
It's interesting you mention that, because I was just thinking to myself about that guy. I really don't know what to make of him. Personally, I halfway think he may be lying, but I also think he may just be straight. I personally think being gay is not a choice and is, by all intensive means, an immutible characteristic. So, we have, I suppose, a few possibilities here. Either this man is (A) straight and has always been straight, (B) bisexual, and rejects his attraction to men or (C) still gay and extremely unhappy. Personally, I don't really know what sort of science he is basing his views upon. I, perhaps, need to pick up a copy of his book and check out his citations... of course, that means I also need to keep a straight face whilst purchasing that book, which is going to be quite difficult.
@79 - hee hee, you said 69...
It's interesting you mention that, because I was just thinking to myself about that guy. I really don't know what to make of him. Personally, I halfway think he may be lying, but I also think he may just be straight. I personally think being gay is not a choice and is, by all intensive means, an immutible characteristic. So, we have, I suppose, a few possibilities here. Either this man is (A) straight and has always been straight, (B) bisexual, and rejects his attraction to men or (C) still gay and extremely unhappy. Personally, I don't really know what sort of science he is basing his views upon. I, perhaps, need to pick up a copy of his book and check out his citations... of course, that means I also need to keep a straight face whilst purchasing that book, which is going to be quite difficult.
@79 - hee hee, you said 69...
75
@68, all black people are experts on all aspects of African culture. The more bigoted they are, the more authoritative they are. That's Loveschild's view.
Has anyone addressed in this thread yet the fact that it doesn't fucking matter if being gay is a "choice" or not? Being a Baptist is a choice. I don't see anybody lining up to execute Baptists.
Has anyone addressed in this thread yet the fact that it doesn't fucking matter if being gay is a "choice" or not? Being a Baptist is a choice. I don't see anybody lining up to execute Baptists.
77
@72
While I respect the point you make, I would like to propose another possible outcome to the action you propose.
Suppose we stop taking issue with this bill - wouldn't that just allow them to further stipulate it? It seems to me that if we act as if we're okay with this bill, it will simply reinforce the notion that oppression is okay. Without the threat of scrutiny from the international community, will the Ugandan government be at all hesitant to continue proposing laws that take away rights? I suppose, to me, it seems a matter of incentive; if there is no reason for legislators to stop this bill, they won't. Obviously, you disagree. Perhaps you could explain this, however. By what processes can this bill be prevented if everybody simply stopped discussing it and scrutinizing it? By what mechanisms will this bill not pass, if by no others, of its own accord?
While I respect the point you make, I would like to propose another possible outcome to the action you propose.
Suppose we stop taking issue with this bill - wouldn't that just allow them to further stipulate it? It seems to me that if we act as if we're okay with this bill, it will simply reinforce the notion that oppression is okay. Without the threat of scrutiny from the international community, will the Ugandan government be at all hesitant to continue proposing laws that take away rights? I suppose, to me, it seems a matter of incentive; if there is no reason for legislators to stop this bill, they won't. Obviously, you disagree. Perhaps you could explain this, however. By what processes can this bill be prevented if everybody simply stopped discussing it and scrutinizing it? By what mechanisms will this bill not pass, if by no others, of its own accord?
78
Loveschild, you argue that outsiders have no business interfering in Uganda's internal affairs with regard to the anti-gay legislation. What is your opinion regarding other cases of outsider "interference" in the internal affairs of African nations? For example:
"Armed with 70 sworn affidavits from rape victims, an advocacy group [AIDS-Free World] says it has enough evidence to warrant the prosecution of Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe and his ruling party for crimes against humanity.
"The group, co-headed by former United Nations ambassador Stephen Lewis [from Canada], says the sworn testimony is powerful evidence that Mr. Mugabe and his party were responsible for a systematic campaign of rape against opposition supporters in last year's election."
So, Loveschild, do you oppose the "interference" of the Western world in the case of the systematic, state-sponsored rape of Zimbabwean women?
(Unregistered, can't link the story, but google "AIDS-Free World zimbabwe rape" for all the links you'll need.)
"Armed with 70 sworn affidavits from rape victims, an advocacy group [AIDS-Free World] says it has enough evidence to warrant the prosecution of Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe and his ruling party for crimes against humanity.
"The group, co-headed by former United Nations ambassador Stephen Lewis [from Canada], says the sworn testimony is powerful evidence that Mr. Mugabe and his party were responsible for a systematic campaign of rape against opposition supporters in last year's election."
So, Loveschild, do you oppose the "interference" of the Western world in the case of the systematic, state-sponsored rape of Zimbabwean women?
(Unregistered, can't link the story, but google "AIDS-Free World zimbabwe rape" for all the links you'll need.)
79
@72: So basically, if we keep affirming our right to life, Ugandans are the sort of vindictive lot to kill gays out of some skewed principle of self-governance?
I seriously think that if you were a real mother (and as I've maintained, you're not) that you should have no right to care for children. You sound like you'd drown your child for coming out to you, and I sincerely hope the state would step in to prevent a sociopath like you from being anywhere near a kid, given this harsh reality.
God, to think-- there are folks like your persona out there with access to kids.
I seriously think that if you were a real mother (and as I've maintained, you're not) that you should have no right to care for children. You sound like you'd drown your child for coming out to you, and I sincerely hope the state would step in to prevent a sociopath like you from being anywhere near a kid, given this harsh reality.
God, to think-- there are folks like your persona out there with access to kids.
80
Cherrio @ 64,
The following links are by your request. Link number one is an article about the UN declaration to decriminalize homosexuality, which states that all 27 members of the European Union signed the declaration. Link number two is a list of nations that form the European Union, all of the nations in the Baltic are members at present but Russia. So, it stands to say that they do not support the criminalization of homosexuality. Link number three is to the UN, and you will find that Russia decriminalized homosexuality in 1993.
I hope that these suffice, as non biased and legitimate sources. Simply, put although things are not perfect for GLBT members of our human family in the Baltic region, the nations of the Baltic region do not have laws on their books calling for genocide of GLBT individuals and imprisonment of heterosexuals who love, support and work alongside them. Loveschild is in error.
1)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17…
2)http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/…
3)http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6…
Best wishes.
The following links are by your request. Link number one is an article about the UN declaration to decriminalize homosexuality, which states that all 27 members of the European Union signed the declaration. Link number two is a list of nations that form the European Union, all of the nations in the Baltic are members at present but Russia. So, it stands to say that they do not support the criminalization of homosexuality. Link number three is to the UN, and you will find that Russia decriminalized homosexuality in 1993.
I hope that these suffice, as non biased and legitimate sources. Simply, put although things are not perfect for GLBT members of our human family in the Baltic region, the nations of the Baltic region do not have laws on their books calling for genocide of GLBT individuals and imprisonment of heterosexuals who love, support and work alongside them. Loveschild is in error.
1)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17…
2)http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/…
3)http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6…
Best wishes.
82
@80
Those are wonderful, kim! Thank you so much! I really appreciate the effort you put in to making up for my own stupidity, heh. I sometimes feel stupid not knowing some of this stuff. I will definitely check them out. ^_^
Those are wonderful, kim! Thank you so much! I really appreciate the effort you put in to making up for my own stupidity, heh. I sometimes feel stupid not knowing some of this stuff. I will definitely check them out. ^_^
83
some interesting posts here. based on the conservative christians i interact with on a regular basis, i'd like to add the following: (1) i don't personally know any christians who were aware of what was going on; and (2) i have never personally met any christian who has ever, even jokingly, suggested a person should be executed because of their sexual orientation. this includes those who think there should never be "gay marriage."
84
Dear Loveschild,
I think you are doing exactly what you are accusing some of the posters of: you are rather condescending to the "Africans".
First, in every single African country, there are many more nations and cultures than can be found in all of Europe. So, don't, please don't, talk like Africa has one culture.
Second, a lot of Africans of different African countries want to be taken seriously. And that means they criticize Europe and the States, and in turn their countries may be criticized as well. Two weeks ago, I was sitting next to a Nigerian on the train, and we got to talk, and he instigated a political discussion. We didn't agree on everything, and because I took him seriously, I didn't say "that's alright, you've got a different culture", but I said "I happen to disagree because...".
That is how adults who respect each other have discussions. And that is what countries that respect each other should do as well. That's what Sweden did.
I think you are doing exactly what you are accusing some of the posters of: you are rather condescending to the "Africans".
First, in every single African country, there are many more nations and cultures than can be found in all of Europe. So, don't, please don't, talk like Africa has one culture.
Second, a lot of Africans of different African countries want to be taken seriously. And that means they criticize Europe and the States, and in turn their countries may be criticized as well. Two weeks ago, I was sitting next to a Nigerian on the train, and we got to talk, and he instigated a political discussion. We didn't agree on everything, and because I took him seriously, I didn't say "that's alright, you've got a different culture", but I said "I happen to disagree because...".
That is how adults who respect each other have discussions. And that is what countries that respect each other should do as well. That's what Sweden did.
86
@ 70 Biffster - Dan did report on and link to Rachel's deflating of the "ex-gay" author.
I am glad to see that others have begun to address what is, short of the death sentences, the most chilling part of this proposed Ugandan policy - the penalities for friends and family of gays of they protect them or fail to turn them in to the authorities.
Since the majority of the Slog community (with the exception of LC and other trolls) are LGBTQ allies, or are themselves LGBTQ identified, it isn't hard to understand how a number of us are able to put ourselves in the place of our Ugandan analogs and realize how far reaching the negative impact would be.
Also, more than a few of us here are well-read in history and current affairs. Some of us also have social, cultural, or ethnic backgrounds or identities with groups that have been subjected to severe prosecution. As such, we are able to see how the current situation in Uganda can easily playout into at minimum a massacre with the potential to become widescale genocide.
The people advocating these harsh penalties (by this I am referring to the people in the US who are helping the Ugandans to promote this) would be all too glad to see the same penalties enacted in other countries. While they may not successfully export the full bill, they would be content with some of the "lighter" aspects of the persecution being codified elsewhere.
What is happening in Uganda sends a message that emboldens others who are anti-gay or anti-LGBTQ into thinking that their poisonous thinking is okay, and that crimes against those deemed to be "less than worthy of protection under the law" are not only to be tolerated but to be encouraged.
I am glad to see that others have begun to address what is, short of the death sentences, the most chilling part of this proposed Ugandan policy - the penalities for friends and family of gays of they protect them or fail to turn them in to the authorities.
Since the majority of the Slog community (with the exception of LC and other trolls) are LGBTQ allies, or are themselves LGBTQ identified, it isn't hard to understand how a number of us are able to put ourselves in the place of our Ugandan analogs and realize how far reaching the negative impact would be.
Also, more than a few of us here are well-read in history and current affairs. Some of us also have social, cultural, or ethnic backgrounds or identities with groups that have been subjected to severe prosecution. As such, we are able to see how the current situation in Uganda can easily playout into at minimum a massacre with the potential to become widescale genocide.
The people advocating these harsh penalties (by this I am referring to the people in the US who are helping the Ugandans to promote this) would be all too glad to see the same penalties enacted in other countries. While they may not successfully export the full bill, they would be content with some of the "lighter" aspects of the persecution being codified elsewhere.
What is happening in Uganda sends a message that emboldens others who are anti-gay or anti-LGBTQ into thinking that their poisonous thinking is okay, and that crimes against those deemed to be "less than worthy of protection under the law" are not only to be tolerated but to be encouraged.
87
No one will be extradited, unless from Saudi Arabia or other bullshit countries where being gay is already illegal. Most countries--maybe all--won't extradite someone for a crime that isn't also a crime in the extraditing country. Do you think for an instant any sensible country would say, oh, yes, you got gay married in [Canada], off you go back to Uganda?
These people are as legally brain dead as they are stupid
These people are as legally brain dead as they are stupid
88
@82 cheerio, when your done reading Kim's half truths, take a look at how the russian government really deals with homosexual gatherings:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0…
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0…
89
You'd think that the swedes (as do the rest of europe) would be jumping at chance of flexing their muscles to model russian behavior in their image.... silly me, sweden knows better, they're not stupid. They only push around African nations.
90
Actually, Loveschild, to the contrary, gay happens regardless of culture. That is, some people are going to develop attractions to others of their own sex. Some people will grow up with attractions to both sexes.
Culture is not about whether gay happens, but how it is regarded. The same is true for religious schisma, psychic powers, rock-and-roll and or any other deviation from the norm. Contemporary Uganda, like its evangelist benefactors, favors conformity over individualism to the point of persecuting deviants. Contrast to the peaks of civilization where individual liberty is so prized that naked people can roam the street in otherwise clothed communities, and religious groups reserve the right to get stoned on controlled substances as part of their spiritual practice. And gays can kiss in public without harrassment.
Now, from one standpoint, this will demonstrate the savagery of the nation. During the era of the Bloody Code, British jurists had a tendency to minimise offences to prevent the execution of those petty criminals who didn't really deserve death. The Ugandans may refuse to turn in their neighbors, and the police may refuse to enforce the informant laws. On the other hand, if the Ugandans gleefully report their fellows, and the police readily process all those who don't, this will, assuredly be cited by the mighty whiteys as an example of the barbarism of the Ugandan peoples (and all dark-skinned peoples by proxy) in comparison to the civilized Western world. (Fallaciously so: the Germans were a lawful folk and sadly but dutifully sent their neighbors to the gallows when commanded.)
More...
Culture is not about whether gay happens, but how it is regarded. The same is true for religious schisma, psychic powers, rock-and-roll and or any other deviation from the norm. Contemporary Uganda, like its evangelist benefactors, favors conformity over individualism to the point of persecuting deviants. Contrast to the peaks of civilization where individual liberty is so prized that naked people can roam the street in otherwise clothed communities, and religious groups reserve the right to get stoned on controlled substances as part of their spiritual practice. And gays can kiss in public without harrassment.
Now, from one standpoint, this will demonstrate the savagery of the nation. During the era of the Bloody Code, British jurists had a tendency to minimise offences to prevent the execution of those petty criminals who didn't really deserve death. The Ugandans may refuse to turn in their neighbors, and the police may refuse to enforce the informant laws. On the other hand, if the Ugandans gleefully report their fellows, and the police readily process all those who don't, this will, assuredly be cited by the mighty whiteys as an example of the barbarism of the Ugandan peoples (and all dark-skinned peoples by proxy) in comparison to the civilized Western world. (Fallaciously so: the Germans were a lawful folk and sadly but dutifully sent their neighbors to the gallows when commanded.)
91
@88
Well, that may be true, loveschild. However, the question of whether or not such legislation as is now being proposed in Uganda also exists in Russia has been answered; it does not. While it is true that the Russian government might still not treat homosexuals very well, there is still no law that imprisons them for being gay. In Uganda, there may be in the near future.
Well, that may be true, loveschild. However, the question of whether or not such legislation as is now being proposed in Uganda also exists in Russia has been answered; it does not. While it is true that the Russian government might still not treat homosexuals very well, there is still no law that imprisons them for being gay. In Uganda, there may be in the near future.
92
Incidentally, Loveschild, here's a thought experiment you might want to consider:
What if we could cure your blackness?
At a nominal cost (after assistance from the government) the US will put you, your loving husband and beautiful kids through a three-year process that will permanently bleach your (and their) skin, straighten and lighten your hair and teach you how to speak, think and behave like your happy Anglo-Saxxon neighbors (with about an 87% success rate), at which point you, too, will understand the correctness of the White American lifestyle and why it is enforced in the United States. Granted, we've had a few cases of recitivism; even some of our successes have yearned to better understand and return to their backward ethnic roots, but nearly all of these have been able to return to proper whitehood through follow-up treatment.
I should mention returning to your savage ways is not only wrong, but criminal. Corrections include forced imprisonment and rehabilitation. But when you're done, you'll be happy you did. You'll love the new you!
Would you agree to go through this process, Loveschild? Would you willingly put your family through it? It is compulsory, after all. Would you please list your black friends so that we can make sure they're not illegally subsisting while black?
Offended? Disgusted? Outraged? That's how gays feel when told they need to be cured. That's how all of us social deviants feel when our differences from the mainstream norm are interpreted as diseases.
Next century, we'll cure you of your femininity.
What if we could cure your blackness?
At a nominal cost (after assistance from the government) the US will put you, your loving husband and beautiful kids through a three-year process that will permanently bleach your (and their) skin, straighten and lighten your hair and teach you how to speak, think and behave like your happy Anglo-Saxxon neighbors (with about an 87% success rate), at which point you, too, will understand the correctness of the White American lifestyle and why it is enforced in the United States. Granted, we've had a few cases of recitivism; even some of our successes have yearned to better understand and return to their backward ethnic roots, but nearly all of these have been able to return to proper whitehood through follow-up treatment.
I should mention returning to your savage ways is not only wrong, but criminal. Corrections include forced imprisonment and rehabilitation. But when you're done, you'll be happy you did. You'll love the new you!
Would you agree to go through this process, Loveschild? Would you willingly put your family through it? It is compulsory, after all. Would you please list your black friends so that we can make sure they're not illegally subsisting while black?
Offended? Disgusted? Outraged? That's how gays feel when told they need to be cured. That's how all of us social deviants feel when our differences from the mainstream norm are interpreted as diseases.
Next century, we'll cure you of your femininity.
93
I feel so sorry for you, Loveschild.
I wish you peace, I hope your mind and heart will open up someday. There is so much beauty you are missing out on, so many wonderful, unique people who could bless your life, and it is all lost to you right now. It is such a shame, there is nothing to fear from love, love casts out all fears. I hope you find freedom from your fears, the world is a colourful place
I wish you peace, I hope your mind and heart will open up someday. There is so much beauty you are missing out on, so many wonderful, unique people who could bless your life, and it is all lost to you right now. It is such a shame, there is nothing to fear from love, love casts out all fears. I hope you find freedom from your fears, the world is a colourful place
94
If you think Uganda's so perfect, Loveschild, why don't you go live there? In fact, I say we rescue all the gay people from that shithole and dump idiots like Loveschild and the homophobe faux christians there
95
Remember how wildly inaccurate Nazi comparisons were all the rage in certain circles recently?
Well...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution…
Well...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution…
96
@92 huh?... what have you been smoking?
So race and gender is the same as behavior in your mind? And please explain to me how does soneone like you who agrees with all sorts of 'freedoms' can advocate to deny to those that seek therapy, form straight relationships and form a family the opportunity to do so? Don't you think that by doin so you're te one engagin in cruelty against them?
So race and gender is the same as behavior in your mind? And please explain to me how does soneone like you who agrees with all sorts of 'freedoms' can advocate to deny to those that seek therapy, form straight relationships and form a family the opportunity to do so? Don't you think that by doin so you're te one engagin in cruelty against them?
97
@ 96: Most people in this thread don't want to deny treatment to people who want treatment. Just the opposite: they don't want gay people to be forced to accept treatment that these gays don't want nor need.
And the main problem with the Ugandan law is not the treatment, it's the imprisoning of gays, and the punishment of their relatives and friends, if they don't turn them in.
And the main problem with the Ugandan law is not the treatment, it's the imprisoning of gays, and the punishment of their relatives and friends, if they don't turn them in.
98
I'm sorry, Loveschild do you not understand what a thought experiment is? Can you not see a similarity with the scenario I proposed and the anti-gay legislation in Uganda? Maybe I was too vague in my description. Did anyone else have difficulty making the comparison?
Why do you ask what have [I] been smoking, Loveschild? Call me crazy (others have) but it doesn't take intoxicants to activate my imagination. From what I've read of your posts, you seem irrationally discriminatory against gays, hence I figured a similar scenario, though involving a minority with whom you can identify, would lend you some perspective. This is a commonly used device in rational discussion. If you are the sort to require chemical assistance to see the applicability of a fictional scenario to a real one, it could be I overestimated your capacity to comprehend and learn. I still hope not.
Regarding how a liberal like me can deny therapy to those who might want it, I don't, on the assumptions that:
a. The subject is making the change willingly, i.e. will not be persecuted (imprisoned or executed) based on her decision.
b. The subject understands the nature of the change and is choosing to make it for her own personal well being, i.e. not because her present nature is stigmatized, not because she's pressured by parents or society, and...
c. The subject is fully informed of the nature of the treatment, it's effectiveness and its risks.
This is not descriptive of the application of Richard Cohen's conversion therapy as it may be applied in Uganda, or as it is applied here in the US. All forms of Reparative therapy, like Deprogramming, Recovered Memory Therapy or Scientology Auditing are not based on peer-reviewed test studies. Nor are those who are subjected to them typically informed of their (low) effectiveness rates or the (significant) potential of harm caused by the treatment.
So, yes, I think folks should be free to engage in what treatments they desire, and I think gays shouldn't be subject to reparative therapy as it currently exists.
Regarding the whether race and gender [are] the same as behavior in my mind, the intent of the question on its own is rather vague, but let me offer you this: Say I was a despot of a small country and I hunted down and enslaved all Christians in my nation (based on their worship behavior, and on compulsory informants). Would that be more or less heinous a crime against humanity than if I enslaved all dark-skinned persons, or all women?
I think the difference in these crimes is moot. Does that answer your question, Loveschild?
In the meantime, Loveschild I'd like you to answer the questions I posed, so that I can understand with clarity your own position.
More...
Why do you ask what have [I] been smoking, Loveschild? Call me crazy (others have) but it doesn't take intoxicants to activate my imagination. From what I've read of your posts, you seem irrationally discriminatory against gays, hence I figured a similar scenario, though involving a minority with whom you can identify, would lend you some perspective. This is a commonly used device in rational discussion. If you are the sort to require chemical assistance to see the applicability of a fictional scenario to a real one, it could be I overestimated your capacity to comprehend and learn. I still hope not.
Regarding how a liberal like me can deny therapy to those who might want it, I don't, on the assumptions that:
a. The subject is making the change willingly, i.e. will not be persecuted (imprisoned or executed) based on her decision.
b. The subject understands the nature of the change and is choosing to make it for her own personal well being, i.e. not because her present nature is stigmatized, not because she's pressured by parents or society, and...
c. The subject is fully informed of the nature of the treatment, it's effectiveness and its risks.
This is not descriptive of the application of Richard Cohen's conversion therapy as it may be applied in Uganda, or as it is applied here in the US. All forms of Reparative therapy, like Deprogramming, Recovered Memory Therapy or Scientology Auditing are not based on peer-reviewed test studies. Nor are those who are subjected to them typically informed of their (low) effectiveness rates or the (significant) potential of harm caused by the treatment.
So, yes, I think folks should be free to engage in what treatments they desire, and I think gays shouldn't be subject to reparative therapy as it currently exists.
Regarding the whether race and gender [are] the same as behavior in my mind, the intent of the question on its own is rather vague, but let me offer you this: Say I was a despot of a small country and I hunted down and enslaved all Christians in my nation (based on their worship behavior, and on compulsory informants). Would that be more or less heinous a crime against humanity than if I enslaved all dark-skinned persons, or all women?
I think the difference in these crimes is moot. Does that answer your question, Loveschild?
In the meantime, Loveschild I'd like you to answer the questions I posed, so that I can understand with clarity your own position.
99
I used to think Loveschild was fun. I thought "She's a hateful bigot, sure, but she's OUR hateful bigot." It made me feel good to know, every day anew, that I was better than her. Smarter, kinder, more honest.
I don't feel that way anymore. Her comment, #72, was the straw that broke my back.
No matter what I try to imagine she was thinking when she wrote that, I still feel . . . too upset to even feel angry. I no longer feel any love for her, and I've realized I cannot feel angry with someone I don't love at all.
I know that evil exists in this world, but I don't think I can seek it out and try to talk with it. I think I'm going to stop reading her comments. I'm done with her.
I don't feel that way anymore. Her comment, #72, was the straw that broke my back.
No matter what I try to imagine she was thinking when she wrote that, I still feel . . . too upset to even feel angry. I no longer feel any love for her, and I've realized I cannot feel angry with someone I don't love at all.
I know that evil exists in this world, but I don't think I can seek it out and try to talk with it. I think I'm going to stop reading her comments. I'm done with her.
100
Uriel @ 98,
I had no difficulty making the comparison, but I usually don't have problems with reading comprehension. And, I've always found thought comparisons fascinating and enlightening as to what I truly believe.
I had no difficulty making the comparison, but I usually don't have problems with reading comprehension. And, I've always found thought comparisons fascinating and enlightening as to what I truly believe.
101
@98 Your thought experiment was a poorly devised one Uriel, for the reason I explained: intrinsic traits like race and gender which is what i believe you meant by "femininity" are not something people do.
Concerning therapy, its quite telling to me that you can state that you have no problem with someone seeking it while at the same time basically rebuffing as discredited all the therapies available for them. Let me remind you Uriel that the reason most therapies in this country are not based on "peer-reviewed test studies" as you say, is because those professional investing their knowledge, efforts, and in most cases life experiences in this medical field have been ostracized and in many cases kicked out from those organizations that bestow your favored peer reviewed recognition. And you know the reason for that, you know it is because associations like the American psychiatric association have deemed that anyone whith a different view from the one they arrived at 1973 is to be deprived of all medical recognition. Sadly that tactic on their part has meant that many homosexual seeking to change their behavior have had to go underground to the wrong places with people who most often don't have the medical knowledge to help them. At least I'm confident that in places like Uganda that won't be the case because the government has been careful to seek professionals in this field to help them.
As for the answer to your questions, I can summarize it on one simple answer. I do not want anyone to be harmed. I'm glad the death penalty was taken off.
I just wished that people, at least those representative of the ones here on Slog, felt the same about not wanting to harm others who disagree with them. But that's not the case because while they decry people like me for urging for a more cautious and respectable approach to a sovereign nation like Uganda, they call on for boycotts, cutting aid, disrupting their government and even bombing them. Which leads me to conclude that if given the opportunity they would indeed inflict all harm they could to a nation like Uganda regardless of the consequences. And also leads me to be certain that if those they say they seek to 'rescue' like @94 comments, would ever be brought to live among them, sooner or later they would the recipients of the same disdain and condescension (that gay groups here and in europe boldly claim to have for Ugandans and most African nations and the governments that they have put in place) when they for some reason start to not toe the line. Which when you think of about it makes perfect sense, because if homosexuals in the west are able to show so much vitriol for their (Ugandans) country and culture and their Continent, then those Ugandans dealing with homosexuality really should not expect to be treated any differently.
More...
Concerning therapy, its quite telling to me that you can state that you have no problem with someone seeking it while at the same time basically rebuffing as discredited all the therapies available for them. Let me remind you Uriel that the reason most therapies in this country are not based on "peer-reviewed test studies" as you say, is because those professional investing their knowledge, efforts, and in most cases life experiences in this medical field have been ostracized and in many cases kicked out from those organizations that bestow your favored peer reviewed recognition. And you know the reason for that, you know it is because associations like the American psychiatric association have deemed that anyone whith a different view from the one they arrived at 1973 is to be deprived of all medical recognition. Sadly that tactic on their part has meant that many homosexual seeking to change their behavior have had to go underground to the wrong places with people who most often don't have the medical knowledge to help them. At least I'm confident that in places like Uganda that won't be the case because the government has been careful to seek professionals in this field to help them.
As for the answer to your questions, I can summarize it on one simple answer. I do not want anyone to be harmed. I'm glad the death penalty was taken off.
I just wished that people, at least those representative of the ones here on Slog, felt the same about not wanting to harm others who disagree with them. But that's not the case because while they decry people like me for urging for a more cautious and respectable approach to a sovereign nation like Uganda, they call on for boycotts, cutting aid, disrupting their government and even bombing them. Which leads me to conclude that if given the opportunity they would indeed inflict all harm they could to a nation like Uganda regardless of the consequences. And also leads me to be certain that if those they say they seek to 'rescue' like @94 comments, would ever be brought to live among them, sooner or later they would the recipients of the same disdain and condescension (that gay groups here and in europe boldly claim to have for Ugandans and most African nations and the governments that they have put in place) when they for some reason start to not toe the line. Which when you think of about it makes perfect sense, because if homosexuals in the west are able to show so much vitriol for their (Ugandans) country and culture and their Continent, then those Ugandans dealing with homosexuality really should not expect to be treated any differently.
102
you guys have no chance arguing against Loveschild....
she's "on a mission from God"
so, uh, when's the band gettin' back together, Loveschild?
she's "on a mission from God"
so, uh, when's the band gettin' back together, Loveschild?
103
No, Loveschild, the thought experiment was right on target.
Being gay isn't something you do, it is who you are. That basic fact continues, whether deliberately by choice or because of an abhorrent lack of comprehension, to allude you.
So, if you could be made to be forcibly or willingly stripped of the melanin in your skin, how would you feel about it? Your what 10-12% of the population, some sick fool could institute it down the road if the science became available.
We all know you would hate it. I would not stand for it, I'd speak out against it, I wouldn't want you to be forced to change who you are. There's the difference between the two of us.
Me: I accept you for who you claim to be, that your stated ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation are you. I accept that you didn't choose your ethnicity. You did not choose your gender. And, that you did not choose your sexual orientation. You can be simply summed up as a heterosexual, African American (with some First Nation blood) woman. All that about you is wonderful, intrinsic to who you are, and worthy of civil justice and equality. I extend the same to every human, and can embrace the differences and value them. Why? Firstly, because I myself did not chose my ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. Secondly, because their is no empirical scientific evidence to support that someone can choose their ethnicity, gender or their sexual orientation. Thirdly, because as a follower of Jesus and his social politics, I understand that every person is precious and is worthy of full equality and equal protection.
You: Gays choose to be gay. Being gay is something they do, it's a behavior. Therefore, although you won't call for their execution. So, very magnanimous of you. You will support gays being forced to change an intrinsic part of them. You will support their suffering. You will support their being denied equal civil justice and equality. Why? I'm only guessing based off of your numerous posts. Firstly, they choose to be gay and by choosing their proclivities they are therefore unworthy of equal protection and equal treatment under the law. Secondly, your scared of people who are different of you. Thirdly, your church and your Bible reading (which you are dependent on English translations that are frequently altered - the words sodomy, homosexual, all English words that didn't exist when the books that form the Bible were written, there are no ancient Hebrew, ancient Greek or Aramaic equivalents to be found) tell you it's okay to deny people equal treatment and humanity under the law because their gay. But, it the Bible and you have to follow every law, yet all but three of the 600+ Levitical laws are presently ignored by the church, slavery is no longer considered moral and legal, polygamous marriages are know longer the norm and legal, people are permitted to divorce (a concession given to the Israelites) and aren't labeled as adulterers, women can own property and become ministers in their church, murders are no longer stoned to death, adulterers are no longer stoned to death, women who are raped within city limits are no longer stoned to death, etc., etc., etc. In reality no person or church follows the Bible 100%, because it has always been in a state of alteration from the first secretary started taking notes of the sermons being made. Fourthly, you choose to ignore the empirical scientific evidence that shows one can not choose their ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation, and while you do that you choose to ignore the empirical evidence that shows that ex-gay therapy is exceedingly harmful. To the ex-gays who commit suicide, you ignore that statistic, it could not be because they knew they weren't straight and the therapy failed. To the ex-gay who relapses, you burden with guilt that they didn't try hard enough, or pray the gay away.
And while you parade your opinions here day in and day out, you demand that we accept that your proclaimed ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation are intrinsic to who you are. That you be treated with full equality and protection under the laws. You expect us to protect your freedom and right to life. And, to stand up for you if Uriel's thought experiment ever became a reality.
Your creative defense mechanism is impressive. You readily convince yourself that your words and actions here are benign, you seem to easily rationalize yourself into believing that by claiming your support for the "sovereign nation of Uganda" that you are not really (technically because you claim to not wish harm on others) supporting human rights atrocities against the Ugandan people. What a dark soul you have, Loveschild. I wish you well on your future adventures with Mr. Warren and the Westboro Baptists, you deserve your future together.
More...
Being gay isn't something you do, it is who you are. That basic fact continues, whether deliberately by choice or because of an abhorrent lack of comprehension, to allude you.
So, if you could be made to be forcibly or willingly stripped of the melanin in your skin, how would you feel about it? Your what 10-12% of the population, some sick fool could institute it down the road if the science became available.
We all know you would hate it. I would not stand for it, I'd speak out against it, I wouldn't want you to be forced to change who you are. There's the difference between the two of us.
Me: I accept you for who you claim to be, that your stated ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation are you. I accept that you didn't choose your ethnicity. You did not choose your gender. And, that you did not choose your sexual orientation. You can be simply summed up as a heterosexual, African American (with some First Nation blood) woman. All that about you is wonderful, intrinsic to who you are, and worthy of civil justice and equality. I extend the same to every human, and can embrace the differences and value them. Why? Firstly, because I myself did not chose my ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. Secondly, because their is no empirical scientific evidence to support that someone can choose their ethnicity, gender or their sexual orientation. Thirdly, because as a follower of Jesus and his social politics, I understand that every person is precious and is worthy of full equality and equal protection.
You: Gays choose to be gay. Being gay is something they do, it's a behavior. Therefore, although you won't call for their execution. So, very magnanimous of you. You will support gays being forced to change an intrinsic part of them. You will support their suffering. You will support their being denied equal civil justice and equality. Why? I'm only guessing based off of your numerous posts. Firstly, they choose to be gay and by choosing their proclivities they are therefore unworthy of equal protection and equal treatment under the law. Secondly, your scared of people who are different of you. Thirdly, your church and your Bible reading (which you are dependent on English translations that are frequently altered - the words sodomy, homosexual, all English words that didn't exist when the books that form the Bible were written, there are no ancient Hebrew, ancient Greek or Aramaic equivalents to be found) tell you it's okay to deny people equal treatment and humanity under the law because their gay. But, it the Bible and you have to follow every law, yet all but three of the 600+ Levitical laws are presently ignored by the church, slavery is no longer considered moral and legal, polygamous marriages are know longer the norm and legal, people are permitted to divorce (a concession given to the Israelites) and aren't labeled as adulterers, women can own property and become ministers in their church, murders are no longer stoned to death, adulterers are no longer stoned to death, women who are raped within city limits are no longer stoned to death, etc., etc., etc. In reality no person or church follows the Bible 100%, because it has always been in a state of alteration from the first secretary started taking notes of the sermons being made. Fourthly, you choose to ignore the empirical scientific evidence that shows one can not choose their ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation, and while you do that you choose to ignore the empirical evidence that shows that ex-gay therapy is exceedingly harmful. To the ex-gays who commit suicide, you ignore that statistic, it could not be because they knew they weren't straight and the therapy failed. To the ex-gay who relapses, you burden with guilt that they didn't try hard enough, or pray the gay away.
And while you parade your opinions here day in and day out, you demand that we accept that your proclaimed ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation are intrinsic to who you are. That you be treated with full equality and protection under the laws. You expect us to protect your freedom and right to life. And, to stand up for you if Uriel's thought experiment ever became a reality.
Your creative defense mechanism is impressive. You readily convince yourself that your words and actions here are benign, you seem to easily rationalize yourself into believing that by claiming your support for the "sovereign nation of Uganda" that you are not really (technically because you claim to not wish harm on others) supporting human rights atrocities against the Ugandan people. What a dark soul you have, Loveschild. I wish you well on your future adventures with Mr. Warren and the Westboro Baptists, you deserve your future together.
105
Loveschild wrote: intrinsic traits like race and gender which is what i believe you meant by "femininity" are not something people do.
Actually, you mean race and sex are not something people do. Gender, on the other hand, is very much something that people do.
most therapies in this country are not based on "peer-reviewed test studies" as you say, is because those professional investing their knowledge, efforts, and in most cases life experiences in this medical field have been ostracized and in many cases kicked out from those organizations that bestow your favored peer reviewed recognition. And you know the reason for that, you know it is because associations like the American psychiatric association have deemed that anyone whith a different view from the one they arrived at 1973 is to be deprived of all medical recognition. etc etc etc
Of course, this is all utter bullshit. The APA is not by about 10,000 miles the only scientific organization with the same views on homosexuality. All reputable oraganizations agree that sexuality is not changeable by prayer, counselling or other intervention, and they agree because that's what the science says, and science is dispassionate. Nobody has ever been able to do a credible study showing otherwise.
while they decry people like me for urging for a more cautious and respectable approach to a sovereign nation like Uganda, they call on for boycotts, cutting aid, disrupting their government and even bombing them. Which leads me to conclude that if given the opportunity they would indeed inflict all harm they could to a nation like Uganda regardless of the consequences.
Your problem is that you don't listen. Just because a nation is sovereign does not mean that other nations must completely ignore what they do. It does not mean that other nations may not voice their opposition. And it certainly does not mean that other nations cannot place conditions on their provision of aid.
More...
Actually, you mean race and sex are not something people do. Gender, on the other hand, is very much something that people do.
most therapies in this country are not based on "peer-reviewed test studies" as you say, is because those professional investing their knowledge, efforts, and in most cases life experiences in this medical field have been ostracized and in many cases kicked out from those organizations that bestow your favored peer reviewed recognition. And you know the reason for that, you know it is because associations like the American psychiatric association have deemed that anyone whith a different view from the one they arrived at 1973 is to be deprived of all medical recognition. etc etc etc
Of course, this is all utter bullshit. The APA is not by about 10,000 miles the only scientific organization with the same views on homosexuality. All reputable oraganizations agree that sexuality is not changeable by prayer, counselling or other intervention, and they agree because that's what the science says, and science is dispassionate. Nobody has ever been able to do a credible study showing otherwise.
while they decry people like me for urging for a more cautious and respectable approach to a sovereign nation like Uganda, they call on for boycotts, cutting aid, disrupting their government and even bombing them. Which leads me to conclude that if given the opportunity they would indeed inflict all harm they could to a nation like Uganda regardless of the consequences.
Your problem is that you don't listen. Just because a nation is sovereign does not mean that other nations must completely ignore what they do. It does not mean that other nations may not voice their opposition. And it certainly does not mean that other nations cannot place conditions on their provision of aid.
106
Loveschild, do you really mean to imply persecution or oppression of a people based on behavior is a lesser crime than persecution of a people based on race or sex? You lost me there. Would you care to explain how the qualifications by which a group is oppressed affects the severity of the crimes against them? This is not axiomatic to the rest of us, Loveschild.
Perhaps if my thought experiment was about the compulsory deprogramming of Christians, rather than the bleaching of non-whites, it would make more sense to you Loveschild. Does it? Can you imagine such a scenario? The Soviets could. Heck, here in the US and in Europe, our military and security sectors are considering methods of deprogramming Muslims. How does that make you feel? Religion is, after all, choice and behavior, i.e. something people do.
Kim, thank you for the feedback.
Perhaps if my thought experiment was about the compulsory deprogramming of Christians, rather than the bleaching of non-whites, it would make more sense to you Loveschild. Does it? Can you imagine such a scenario? The Soviets could. Heck, here in the US and in Europe, our military and security sectors are considering methods of deprogramming Muslims. How does that make you feel? Religion is, after all, choice and behavior, i.e. something people do.
Kim, thank you for the feedback.
107
Regarding reparative therapy, you genuinely think there's a conspiracy of behavior scientists to quash any therapy that might cure gayness? Is this like the conspiracy of geologists to push anthropogenic climate change, or the conspiracy of biologists to dispel Intelligent Design Theory? I'm sorry, Loveschild, but having spent more than twenty years in the psychiatric sector, I know that's simply absurd. I've explained to you why. Either you didn't understand it, or you chose to ignore it. Reparative therapy is not only dangerous, but treats as an illness personal traits that are not, which is unethical. And as reparative therapy will be used in Uganda, it's not voluntary. If you stand by your statement that you do not want anyone to be harmed, you wouldn't wish reparative therapy on anyone.
108
Regarding our fellow SLOGgers and the vitriol they might express Loveschild, I suspect much of their wrath comes from the fact that crimes against humanity are occuring while we have little ability to change the fact. We've already not only witnessed in history the terrors governments can inflict on their less-represented people, but have also seen it can (and does) happen here. And we've witnessed how easily attrocities are committed with benign intent.
Your own hatred of gays has been palpable since I've been on SLOG, Loveschild. You've dismissed, even advocated, treatment of gays you wouldn't tolerate for any other group, especially any one to which you would belong, yourself, commonly with the justification that homosexuality is a behavior. It appears that behavior is, to you, a code for something else, since nothing else, even those things that are actually behaviors, seem to qualify. You've proposed that gays are not a community, yet they are a conspiracy with an agenda that seeks to tread on the rights of others, yet you deny that their own rights are commonly violated, or that they have rights at all. Ultimately, due to an inability to reason, or advance your own position to include reason, you've ostracized almost everyone else on SLOG.
You need to figure out what this issue is you have with gays or with homosexuality in general. The issue itself isn't serving you, and is only causing you further grief. The sooner you can come to terms with it and move beyond it, the sooner you might be respected again, and the happier you might be.
Or, as the case may be, not.
Your own hatred of gays has been palpable since I've been on SLOG, Loveschild. You've dismissed, even advocated, treatment of gays you wouldn't tolerate for any other group, especially any one to which you would belong, yourself, commonly with the justification that homosexuality is a behavior. It appears that behavior is, to you, a code for something else, since nothing else, even those things that are actually behaviors, seem to qualify. You've proposed that gays are not a community, yet they are a conspiracy with an agenda that seeks to tread on the rights of others, yet you deny that their own rights are commonly violated, or that they have rights at all. Ultimately, due to an inability to reason, or advance your own position to include reason, you've ostracized almost everyone else on SLOG.
You need to figure out what this issue is you have with gays or with homosexuality in general. The issue itself isn't serving you, and is only causing you further grief. The sooner you can come to terms with it and move beyond it, the sooner you might be respected again, and the happier you might be.
Or, as the case may be, not.
109
I love that Loveschild wrote that race and gender are BEHAVIORS (@96). Funny, I thought I was born white and female. Didn't realize I was just behaving that way.
110
June, to clarify, Loveschild was asking if I equated race and gender with behaviors, i.e [are they] the same as behavior in [my] mind.
And to reiterate, I don't regard discrimination against a group due to behavior as less heinous than discrimination due to race or sex (or gender). It's all discrimination. It's all preferential treatment. It's all bigotry.
Or to put it in a hierarchical fashion:
Discrimination against Goths is as bad as...
discrimination against kinksters, which is as bad as...
discrimination against gays, which is as bad as...
discrimination against neopagans, which is as bad as...
discrimination against Christians, which is as bad as...
discrimination against Arabs, which is as bad as
discrimination against women.
Loveschild appears to disagree.
And to reiterate, I don't regard discrimination against a group due to behavior as less heinous than discrimination due to race or sex (or gender). It's all discrimination. It's all preferential treatment. It's all bigotry.
Or to put it in a hierarchical fashion:
Discrimination against Goths is as bad as...
discrimination against kinksters, which is as bad as...
discrimination against gays, which is as bad as...
discrimination against neopagans, which is as bad as...
discrimination against Christians, which is as bad as...
discrimination against Arabs, which is as bad as
discrimination against women.
Loveschild appears to disagree.
111
@Uriel-238
You refuse to acknowledge that there are people like Mr. Cohen who have dealt with homosexuality and have come out of it and are now living heterosexual lives and have families. You just deny that it can be done because you want to perpetuate the myth that homosexuality is something irreversible. That's what's truly dangerous my friend Uriel. Would you keep on denying their existence? Even in the face of more people like Mr. Cohen, that's what i don't get about you, you say you're for differences but if the difference is contrary to what you deem to be an absolute truth you label it as "absurd" Why? Are you goin to keep denying the opportunity to those that are dealing with homosexuality and want to have heterosexual relationships the right to seek help? If you do, why?
Lets leave aside for a moment your "twenty years in the psychiatric sector", and lets say Mr. Cohen who is as much of a professional as you, is in front of you along with many others and they're telling you they had homosexual feelings in the past but upon therapy they no longer have had them and they show no indication of having had any homosexual relations for years but have had and find themselves currently in heterosexual relationships, with families and kids, how do you explain that? And most importantly than that how do you deny their experience and feelings? If you're gonna, aren't you the one who in reality is practicing or advocating for discrimination?
If Uganda wants to seek these professional in order to help those in their population who might be dealing with this issue, I see that as a very positive turn on their part and way more humane than the biased (all or nothing) pro-homosexual methods that after '73 have had a silencing grip in this nation, and that do not allow any room for people like Ms. Charlene E. Cothran and Mr. Alan Chambers among many, to properly provide help to those that have gone thru what they did. Again, answer me, are you going to deny their experience and their feelings?
There will be nations like the Netherlands and places like Las Vegas or The Castro in which fringe social behaviors will be the norm and people will chose to go there to live or experience such behaviors but that does not mean that those behaviors should be forced upon other places, nation, societies to be the norm, especially not by foreigners, at least not to the point of not allowing others who have shown corrective methods for said behaviors to exercise their insight and help those that need it.
More...
You refuse to acknowledge that there are people like Mr. Cohen who have dealt with homosexuality and have come out of it and are now living heterosexual lives and have families. You just deny that it can be done because you want to perpetuate the myth that homosexuality is something irreversible. That's what's truly dangerous my friend Uriel. Would you keep on denying their existence? Even in the face of more people like Mr. Cohen, that's what i don't get about you, you say you're for differences but if the difference is contrary to what you deem to be an absolute truth you label it as "absurd" Why? Are you goin to keep denying the opportunity to those that are dealing with homosexuality and want to have heterosexual relationships the right to seek help? If you do, why?
Lets leave aside for a moment your "twenty years in the psychiatric sector", and lets say Mr. Cohen who is as much of a professional as you, is in front of you along with many others and they're telling you they had homosexual feelings in the past but upon therapy they no longer have had them and they show no indication of having had any homosexual relations for years but have had and find themselves currently in heterosexual relationships, with families and kids, how do you explain that? And most importantly than that how do you deny their experience and feelings? If you're gonna, aren't you the one who in reality is practicing or advocating for discrimination?
If Uganda wants to seek these professional in order to help those in their population who might be dealing with this issue, I see that as a very positive turn on their part and way more humane than the biased (all or nothing) pro-homosexual methods that after '73 have had a silencing grip in this nation, and that do not allow any room for people like Ms. Charlene E. Cothran and Mr. Alan Chambers among many, to properly provide help to those that have gone thru what they did. Again, answer me, are you going to deny their experience and their feelings?
There will be nations like the Netherlands and places like Las Vegas or The Castro in which fringe social behaviors will be the norm and people will chose to go there to live or experience such behaviors but that does not mean that those behaviors should be forced upon other places, nation, societies to be the norm, especially not by foreigners, at least not to the point of not allowing others who have shown corrective methods for said behaviors to exercise their insight and help those that need it.
112
@Uriel-238
You refuse to acknowledge that there are people like Mr. Cohen who have dealt with homosexuality and have come out of it and are now living heterosexual lives and have families. You just deny that it can be done because you want to perpetuate the myth that homosexuality is something irreversible. That's what's truly dangerous my friend Uriel. Would you keep on denying their existence? Even in the face of more people like Mr. Cohen, that's what i don't get about you, you say you're for differences but if the difference is contrary to what you deem to be an absolute truth you label it as "absurd" Why? Are you goin to keep denying the opportunity to those that are dealing with homosexuality and want to have heterosexual relationships the right to seek help? If you do, why?
Lets leave aside for a moment your "twenty years in the psychiatric sector", and lets say Mr. Cohen who is as much of a professional as you, is in front of you along with many others and they're telling you they had homosexual feelings in the past but upon therapy they no longer have had them and they show no indication of having had any homosexual relations for years but have had and find themselves currently in heterosexual relationships, with families and kids, how do you explain that? And most importantly than that how do you deny their experience and feelings? If you're gonna, aren't you the one who in reality is practicing or advocating for discrimination?
If Uganda wants to seek these professional in order to help those in their population who might be dealing with this issue, I see that as a very positive turn on their part and way more humane than the biased (all or nothing) pro-homosexual methods that after '73 have had a silencing grip in this nation, and that do not allow any room for people like Ms. Charlene E. Cothran and Mr. Alan Chambers among many, to properly provide help to those that have gone thru what they did. Again, answer me, are you going to deny their experience and their feelings?
There will be nations like the Netherlands and places like Las Vegas or The Castro in which fringe social behaviors will be the norm and people will chose to go there to live or experience such behaviors but that does not mean that those behaviors should be forced upon other places, nation, societies to be the norm, especially not by foreigners, at least not to the point of not allowing others who have shown corrective methods for said behaviors to exercise their insight and help those that need it.
More...
You refuse to acknowledge that there are people like Mr. Cohen who have dealt with homosexuality and have come out of it and are now living heterosexual lives and have families. You just deny that it can be done because you want to perpetuate the myth that homosexuality is something irreversible. That's what's truly dangerous my friend Uriel. Would you keep on denying their existence? Even in the face of more people like Mr. Cohen, that's what i don't get about you, you say you're for differences but if the difference is contrary to what you deem to be an absolute truth you label it as "absurd" Why? Are you goin to keep denying the opportunity to those that are dealing with homosexuality and want to have heterosexual relationships the right to seek help? If you do, why?
Lets leave aside for a moment your "twenty years in the psychiatric sector", and lets say Mr. Cohen who is as much of a professional as you, is in front of you along with many others and they're telling you they had homosexual feelings in the past but upon therapy they no longer have had them and they show no indication of having had any homosexual relations for years but have had and find themselves currently in heterosexual relationships, with families and kids, how do you explain that? And most importantly than that how do you deny their experience and feelings? If you're gonna, aren't you the one who in reality is practicing or advocating for discrimination?
If Uganda wants to seek these professional in order to help those in their population who might be dealing with this issue, I see that as a very positive turn on their part and way more humane than the biased (all or nothing) pro-homosexual methods that after '73 have had a silencing grip in this nation, and that do not allow any room for people like Ms. Charlene E. Cothran and Mr. Alan Chambers among many, to properly provide help to those that have gone thru what they did. Again, answer me, are you going to deny their experience and their feelings?
There will be nations like the Netherlands and places like Las Vegas or The Castro in which fringe social behaviors will be the norm and people will chose to go there to live or experience such behaviors but that does not mean that those behaviors should be forced upon other places, nation, societies to be the norm, especially not by foreigners, at least not to the point of not allowing others who have shown corrective methods for said behaviors to exercise their insight and help those that need it.
113
Loveschild,
Your ability to fool yourself to believing that you come on SLOG everyday for altruistic purposes, and that by defending the right of Uganda to arrest people for being gay or knowing gay people is evidence that you are no longer able to recognize the depth of your own cruelty. You have a fabulous and very intricate psychological defense mechanism that allows you to retain this benign impression of yourself, and to continue to holding to the idea that being homosexual is a behavior, is part of a despicable fringe, or is abnormal, despite the contravening facts that disprove you.
Uriel is not the one who is cruel here. No, that description belongs to you.
You support the use of the following:
1)aversive conditioning involving electric shock
2)aversive conditioning involving nausea-inducing drugs,
Even though, there effectiveness are unsupported by empirical evidence. This is torture, are you aware that you are advocating that Uganda torture it's people?
I am happy for those who feel that they have been "cured of teh gay". I only wish them happy, fulfilling lives. But, your presence here is a testament that the ability of the human mind to lie to itself is amazingly strong. Mr. Cohen is welcome to believe that he has cured himself, just as you are welcome to believe that you are here for love. Those of us not living in your delusion will continue to see you as you truly are.
Thus, we will not accept your creative rationalization, that you care for the Ugandan people in the face of your support of the criminal acts their legislature proposes. In short, your continued support of this bill under the guise of "national sovereignty" is evidence that you are in support of: false imprisonment, torture, murder and genocide.
Indeed, the cruel person is you.
More...
Your ability to fool yourself to believing that you come on SLOG everyday for altruistic purposes, and that by defending the right of Uganda to arrest people for being gay or knowing gay people is evidence that you are no longer able to recognize the depth of your own cruelty. You have a fabulous and very intricate psychological defense mechanism that allows you to retain this benign impression of yourself, and to continue to holding to the idea that being homosexual is a behavior, is part of a despicable fringe, or is abnormal, despite the contravening facts that disprove you.
Uriel is not the one who is cruel here. No, that description belongs to you.
You support the use of the following:
1)aversive conditioning involving electric shock
2)aversive conditioning involving nausea-inducing drugs,
Even though, there effectiveness are unsupported by empirical evidence. This is torture, are you aware that you are advocating that Uganda torture it's people?
I am happy for those who feel that they have been "cured of teh gay". I only wish them happy, fulfilling lives. But, your presence here is a testament that the ability of the human mind to lie to itself is amazingly strong. Mr. Cohen is welcome to believe that he has cured himself, just as you are welcome to believe that you are here for love. Those of us not living in your delusion will continue to see you as you truly are.
Thus, we will not accept your creative rationalization, that you care for the Ugandan people in the face of your support of the criminal acts their legislature proposes. In short, your continued support of this bill under the guise of "national sovereignty" is evidence that you are in support of: false imprisonment, torture, murder and genocide.
Indeed, the cruel person is you.
114
Loveschild, Richard Cohen is not by any definition "professional." He's the opposite of professional, having been kicked out by every reputable scientific organization.
So yes, if Uganda wants to force its citizens to undergo Cohen's brand of dubious "therapy" to cure them of homosexuality, a type of therapy that has been deemed dangerous and ineffective by every reputable professional organization, not just in the US but the world over, then yes, that is wrong, it's unethical, and it's a violation of human rights.
So yes, if Uganda wants to force its citizens to undergo Cohen's brand of dubious "therapy" to cure them of homosexuality, a type of therapy that has been deemed dangerous and ineffective by every reputable professional organization, not just in the US but the world over, then yes, that is wrong, it's unethical, and it's a violation of human rights.
115
To the contrary, Loveschild, it's not that I don't acknowledge Cohen's transformation so much as I don't buy the simplicity of his explanation that he has been cured straight where he was once homosexual. Dan's blog has crossed this scenario so many times that I'm surprised you don't recognize it yourself: it's far more plausible that Cohen is bisexual and has chosen to abstain from sex with men. Considering that he makes a lot of money on the promise to gays that they can change, and cheating on his family would have consequences, he has strong incentives to pretend to be straight, and yet, still he couldn't help but recidivate, himself. I would wager that in the absence of all other incentives, he'd return to a gay, or at least bisexual, lifestyle.
Your accusation angers me that I label absurd anything that doesn't match my absolute truth. You must not know me as well as I'd expect, considering the length of time we've both been on SLOG. I don't believe in absolute truth, and have expressed this before. Is this your blanket response to those who don't agree with you?
I never denied there have reparative success stories; we've heard one now and again here on SLOG. But the failure rate and the harm rate for reparative therapy are so much higher by magnitudes that it's plainly not worth the risk. Regarding people like Cothran and Chambers, it's a) inappropriate to generalize their experiences as typical and b) naïve to take their public stories as verbatim. And I'd gleefully say this to their faces, given the opportunity to do so. Feel free to present statistics from a valid source (not news articles of a single incident) that show evidence otherwise. I doubt it's there, since I've searched myself.
But the success rate of Cohen's treatment (or any available reparative therapy method) continues to be irrelevant to my argument, which is there is no indicator that homosexuality makes one less functional as a human being. Loveschild, you've been assuming all this time there was, which indulges petitio principii. Not only is it spurious to presume there is something wrong with homosexuality, but it's bigoted and offensive to do so. So please stop.
It's also offensive and rather heartless for you, Loveschild, to suggest we deviants should be content to keep to our ghettos. It's also hypocritical, considering how much you've flaunted your own minority heritages. Neither you, nor the bible nor the President of the United States nor the Pope get to decide what is normal or acceptable in society, and what is deviant. Nor is there a universal truth on which you can lean. Bigotry is a specter that will return to haunt you and your kind, if you let it fester when it doesn't.
In the meantime, we live in a plurality, which means that we, as Americans, exercise tolerance of those around us. I, for one, would appreciate it if you would begin doing so now.
More...
Your accusation angers me that I label absurd anything that doesn't match my absolute truth. You must not know me as well as I'd expect, considering the length of time we've both been on SLOG. I don't believe in absolute truth, and have expressed this before. Is this your blanket response to those who don't agree with you?
I never denied there have reparative success stories; we've heard one now and again here on SLOG. But the failure rate and the harm rate for reparative therapy are so much higher by magnitudes that it's plainly not worth the risk. Regarding people like Cothran and Chambers, it's a) inappropriate to generalize their experiences as typical and b) naïve to take their public stories as verbatim. And I'd gleefully say this to their faces, given the opportunity to do so. Feel free to present statistics from a valid source (not news articles of a single incident) that show evidence otherwise. I doubt it's there, since I've searched myself.
But the success rate of Cohen's treatment (or any available reparative therapy method) continues to be irrelevant to my argument, which is there is no indicator that homosexuality makes one less functional as a human being. Loveschild, you've been assuming all this time there was, which indulges petitio principii. Not only is it spurious to presume there is something wrong with homosexuality, but it's bigoted and offensive to do so. So please stop.
It's also offensive and rather heartless for you, Loveschild, to suggest we deviants should be content to keep to our ghettos. It's also hypocritical, considering how much you've flaunted your own minority heritages. Neither you, nor the bible nor the President of the United States nor the Pope get to decide what is normal or acceptable in society, and what is deviant. Nor is there a universal truth on which you can lean. Bigotry is a specter that will return to haunt you and your kind, if you let it fester when it doesn't.
In the meantime, we live in a plurality, which means that we, as Americans, exercise tolerance of those around us. I, for one, would appreciate it if you would begin doing so now.
116
Dingo, I think Cohen counts as a professional in that people pay him, the way that some folks pay life coaches for counseling, but yes, you're correct that he's not licensed in any way, and would count at best as alternative medicine, and at worst as quackery.
117
Uriel, given that he promotes therapies that are unproven and even discredited, I wouldn't even call him an alternative practitioner (which would place him in the same category as, for instance, acupuncturists, for whose practices there is significant evidence of efficacy). Richard Cohen is at best a quack and a charlatan. At worst he's a dangerous fraudster who may some day be responsible for the suicide of one of his unfortunate "patients."
118
@112 and 117:
To see if a treatment works, you cannot rely completely on how the treated feel afterwards. Any treatment will lead to some positive results if you treat a large enough group, especially if there are some who believe in that treatment.
That's why placebo treatments are needed as a comparison. And to fake a placebo in acupuncture studies is difficult. Usually they prick patients in the "wrong" places, and find that "right" and "wrong" acupuncture works about the same.
So take a thousand homosexuals, and split them into two groups, one with treatment and one without. In every other respect, they need to be the same: same average age, same ratio women/ men, same willingness/unwillingness to be treated, same socio-economic background, probably in this context also same religious background.
After ten years, it is very likely, that in both groups there will be people who don't live "the homosexual lifestyle". Why? Because some of these people might have been bisexuals, others might have a very low sex drive and just not live any sexual lifestyle, and others again will have other very big incentives not to express their homosexuality anymore. So, without having an untreated control group it is completely meaningless, scientifically speaking, that there are people who were treated against their homosexuality and "feel" now that they aren't homosexual anymore. Because you don't know, how many of the untreated feel that way.
To see if a treatment works, you cannot rely completely on how the treated feel afterwards. Any treatment will lead to some positive results if you treat a large enough group, especially if there are some who believe in that treatment.
That's why placebo treatments are needed as a comparison. And to fake a placebo in acupuncture studies is difficult. Usually they prick patients in the "wrong" places, and find that "right" and "wrong" acupuncture works about the same.
So take a thousand homosexuals, and split them into two groups, one with treatment and one without. In every other respect, they need to be the same: same average age, same ratio women/ men, same willingness/unwillingness to be treated, same socio-economic background, probably in this context also same religious background.
After ten years, it is very likely, that in both groups there will be people who don't live "the homosexual lifestyle". Why? Because some of these people might have been bisexuals, others might have a very low sex drive and just not live any sexual lifestyle, and others again will have other very big incentives not to express their homosexuality anymore. So, without having an untreated control group it is completely meaningless, scientifically speaking, that there are people who were treated against their homosexuality and "feel" now that they aren't homosexual anymore. Because you don't know, how many of the untreated feel that way.
119
@115
I beg to differ Uriel, concerning this topic, there is a natural universal way for humans to conduct themselves in this world and that's on our genes and that is heterosexuality. And since homosexuality lacks this basic principle, homosexuality, cannot be attributed to being something genetic nor by the same reasoning to be something intrinsic.
I meant no offense to you Uriel but i simply stated what seems to me to be intransigence on your part to acknowledge the experiences of others who are no longer dealing with same-sex attractions. And I believe that further evidence of this intransigence on your part is how you dismiss them by simply sayin that their ability to have done so (no longer have homosexual feelings) is due to them havin been bisexual in the first place.
I do believe that there are people with homosexual feelings, I do not deny that, but I also know that there are people who have successfully worked thru those feelings with the help of therapies and professionals and no longer have them. I accept both scenarios to be true Uriel. You on the other hand refuse to acknowledge the later, and that my Slog friend does not make you the tolerant individual that you present yourself as.
I hope you do not take offense on what I have responded Uriel, I do believe you are a good person. I just think that you are refusing to take the blinders that you have put on yourself for ideological reasons concerning this topic, and that maybe if you were more willing to take them off for a while you could see and hear what people like Mr. Cohen have to say about how they have arrived at where they currently are in life.
I guess seeing your current comments I shouldn't even ask you if you got to see the movie that I brought to your attention, but I'm hoping you will get to see it at some point.
More...
"Nor is there a universal truth on which you can lean."
I beg to differ Uriel, concerning this topic, there is a natural universal way for humans to conduct themselves in this world and that's on our genes and that is heterosexuality. And since homosexuality lacks this basic principle, homosexuality, cannot be attributed to being something genetic nor by the same reasoning to be something intrinsic.
I meant no offense to you Uriel but i simply stated what seems to me to be intransigence on your part to acknowledge the experiences of others who are no longer dealing with same-sex attractions. And I believe that further evidence of this intransigence on your part is how you dismiss them by simply sayin that their ability to have done so (no longer have homosexual feelings) is due to them havin been bisexual in the first place.
I do believe that there are people with homosexual feelings, I do not deny that, but I also know that there are people who have successfully worked thru those feelings with the help of therapies and professionals and no longer have them. I accept both scenarios to be true Uriel. You on the other hand refuse to acknowledge the later, and that my Slog friend does not make you the tolerant individual that you present yourself as.
I hope you do not take offense on what I have responded Uriel, I do believe you are a good person. I just think that you are refusing to take the blinders that you have put on yourself for ideological reasons concerning this topic, and that maybe if you were more willing to take them off for a while you could see and hear what people like Mr. Cohen have to say about how they have arrived at where they currently are in life.
I guess seeing your current comments I shouldn't even ask you if you got to see the movie that I brought to your attention, but I'm hoping you will get to see it at some point.
120
@118 Fief, I believe there is some truth in what you state here. The problem is that those that want to assert that homosexuality is something intrinsic that cannot be changed will not allow for the unbiased research that you propose. They have basically used the 1973 declassification by the American psychiatric association as the ultimate scientific say, to forbid any honest and careful study, supervised by those on both sides, that could end the inconclusive knowledge that we currently have on this.
121
Sorry, Loveschild.
You failed at SLOG. You know the rules, you can not site biased Christian websites facts. There is a difference between scientific reproducible fact and opinion. This reality also seems to allude you.
Please site empirical reproducible evidence on how you chose your sexual orientation.
While your at is also site how you choose what you sexually desire.
You might want to remember that homosexuals are equipped to reproduce. Although, you frown about it and disapprove, they do it all the time. Human reproduction does not require sexual desire or attraction. Even before science made it possible it obtain conception in a petri dish, homosexuals reproduced. No love is required, just sufficient amount of friction to obtain ejaculation and a sufficient number of sperm to dissolve the outer membrane of the egg, so that a single sperm can penetrate the oocyte so the chromosomes can be transferred. Voila reproduction has occurred.
You might also want to stop offending those here who have parents who are homosexuals. Indeed they do exist throughout the world and therefore here on SLOG, too. Some joined their families via adoption, and some share genetics with their families. Either way your "natural universal way" was dismissed.
Try and remember it's only your opinion, not fact. And, that your as deviant as they come, we all are dear. Welcome to the human race, aspects of you are viewed as abnormal, offensive, freakish, and fringe worthy by others. Shall we have you studied and find out if your obsession here is intrinsic or a behavior you choose? Because, if being gay was a behavior one chooses by being exposed to gay people, you would be gay as the day is long.
You failed at SLOG. You know the rules, you can not site biased Christian websites facts. There is a difference between scientific reproducible fact and opinion. This reality also seems to allude you.
Please site empirical reproducible evidence on how you chose your sexual orientation.
While your at is also site how you choose what you sexually desire.
You might want to remember that homosexuals are equipped to reproduce. Although, you frown about it and disapprove, they do it all the time. Human reproduction does not require sexual desire or attraction. Even before science made it possible it obtain conception in a petri dish, homosexuals reproduced. No love is required, just sufficient amount of friction to obtain ejaculation and a sufficient number of sperm to dissolve the outer membrane of the egg, so that a single sperm can penetrate the oocyte so the chromosomes can be transferred. Voila reproduction has occurred.
You might also want to stop offending those here who have parents who are homosexuals. Indeed they do exist throughout the world and therefore here on SLOG, too. Some joined their families via adoption, and some share genetics with their families. Either way your "natural universal way" was dismissed.
Try and remember it's only your opinion, not fact. And, that your as deviant as they come, we all are dear. Welcome to the human race, aspects of you are viewed as abnormal, offensive, freakish, and fringe worthy by others. Shall we have you studied and find out if your obsession here is intrinsic or a behavior you choose? Because, if being gay was a behavior one chooses by being exposed to gay people, you would be gay as the day is long.
122
Loveschild, your understanding of genetics is deficient to say the least.
And you certainly have balls calling someone else intransigent while simultaneously repeating the same repeatedly disproven claptrap about the APA.
And you certainly have balls calling someone else intransigent while simultaneously repeating the same repeatedly disproven claptrap about the APA.
123
And yet they 'unanimously' recognize a woman's right to an intact clitoris: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/12/…
124
Loveschild, why do you presume the sole function of sexual intimacy is reproduction, or that sexual intimacy must satisfy this function in order to be valid? Indeed, sex serves humankind (and other primates) as mechanism of social bonding as well as entertainment, and is frequently used to fulfill some of these functions without the others.
To the contrary of what you suggest, while homosexuality may not be hereditary† it still recurs within a noticeable segment of each generation. This implies that it is, in fact, intrinsic to the human species. Our observation of nature has shown homosexual activity is intrinsic to many other species in the animal kingdom as well.
† At least not directly. I don't believe we have any studies that have revealed a genetic line in which no incidents of homosexuality or bisexuality has occurred, but stigmatic conditions are seldom the topic of unbiased studies. Perhaps when homosexuality is no longer stigmatized, we'll be able to study the phenomenon more thoroughly.
To the contrary of what you suggest, while homosexuality may not be hereditary† it still recurs within a noticeable segment of each generation. This implies that it is, in fact, intrinsic to the human species. Our observation of nature has shown homosexual activity is intrinsic to many other species in the animal kingdom as well.
† At least not directly. I don't believe we have any studies that have revealed a genetic line in which no incidents of homosexuality or bisexuality has occurred, but stigmatic conditions are seldom the topic of unbiased studies. Perhaps when homosexuality is no longer stigmatized, we'll be able to study the phenomenon more thoroughly.
125
Regarding the FFFA article, to which you referred, Loveschild I'd think you'd know by now that, in contrast to Christianity, science is not a revealed religion, and as such is not dictated from on high by divine proclamation through scripture, saints and bishops. Since Nathan Tabor describes science as espoused by the disciples of Charles Darwin, the prophet of evolution, even if he were speaking in metaphor (which he does at peril to his own veracity), it's clear he doesn't understand the nature of how scientific knowledge is advanced. Rather, Tabor has constructing an effigy of what he imagines an evolutionary anthropologist might say, rather than actually consulting one, or studying enough of evolution and of anthropology to understand how it works. I'd say he hasn't studied enough critical thinking to be able to deduce logical conclusions from facts, either.
What Tabor fails to recognize is that human beings as a species successfully produce more offspring with each generation despite that many specimens fail to breed, whether such failures are due to a disinclination toward reproductive sex, an active choice by individuals to control their own reproduction, or a dysfunction in the physical capabilities of some to reproduce. Those who are breeding not only replace themselves, but those that don't for whatever reasons. It is, thus, not necessary for all humans to successfully reproduce; the species as it is thrives and is successful, and this allows for some of the population to have a disposition towards same-sex partners.
Because it would have been simple enough for Tabor to examine the world as it is (i.e. The human race does flourish and simultaneously boasts a significant gay population), I speculate his argument was not for the sake of those of us who understand the scientific method, but is meant to sway his less-educated readership into believing his opinions are scientifically sound when they are not.
More...
What Tabor fails to recognize is that human beings as a species successfully produce more offspring with each generation despite that many specimens fail to breed, whether such failures are due to a disinclination toward reproductive sex, an active choice by individuals to control their own reproduction, or a dysfunction in the physical capabilities of some to reproduce. Those who are breeding not only replace themselves, but those that don't for whatever reasons. It is, thus, not necessary for all humans to successfully reproduce; the species as it is thrives and is successful, and this allows for some of the population to have a disposition towards same-sex partners.
Because it would have been simple enough for Tabor to examine the world as it is (i.e. The human race does flourish and simultaneously boasts a significant gay population), I speculate his argument was not for the sake of those of us who understand the scientific method, but is meant to sway his less-educated readership into believing his opinions are scientifically sound when they are not.
126
Crap. Rewind...
Tabor has constructed an effigy of what he imagines an evolutionary anthropologist might say...
Tabor has constructed an effigy of what he imagines an evolutionary anthropologist might say...
127
QualiaSoup explains well enough on YouTube why I might seem intransigent to you, Loveschild. In short form, I am quite open to new ideas, but it would be naïve of me to simply accept such ideas as truth without a degree of evaluation, such as making sure they agree with the laws of nature, and that conclusions logically follow from one step to the next.
This doesn't make me closed-minded, intransigent or any other synonym of dismissive you may choose to throw at me. In fact, Loveschild, I did concede there may have been reparative successes. I also explained why I still distrust reparative therapy. Considering I've explained myself (to a fault) all the way through this thread, I simply don't understand why you don't get it.
I consider what you have to say and I don't expect you to wittingly deceive, but as has been demonstrated above, you do sometimes choose sources of information that are, at very least, misinformed. And you do seem to then take them unquestioningly as truth. I am, thus, in the habit of critically assessing the sources you provide, or speculating skeptically what those sources might be that bring you to your conclusions.
In the meantime, you might consider if you are intransigent, yourself. You've already been dismissive of me in this thread.
More...
This doesn't make me closed-minded, intransigent or any other synonym of dismissive you may choose to throw at me. In fact, Loveschild, I did concede there may have been reparative successes. I also explained why I still distrust reparative therapy. Considering I've explained myself (to a fault) all the way through this thread, I simply don't understand why you don't get it.
I consider what you have to say and I don't expect you to wittingly deceive, but as has been demonstrated above, you do sometimes choose sources of information that are, at very least, misinformed. And you do seem to then take them unquestioningly as truth. I am, thus, in the habit of critically assessing the sources you provide, or speculating skeptically what those sources might be that bring you to your conclusions.
In the meantime, you might consider if you are intransigent, yourself. You've already been dismissive of me in this thread.
128
@Uriel,
I do not "presume", I have arrived at my conclusions as others also have thru simple observation. An observation that has been made since humans have been on Earth. Reproduction may not be the "sole function" of why we mate but it is the primary or better said, driving force in our subconscious that makes us seek sexual intimacy. On the contrary the cases you cite from the animal kingdom in most instances have been observed either in captivity or during extreme cases conducive to disorientation in those species. This idea of crass individualisation (which you seem to always bring up) has gone to such extreme that we are currently failing as a society to recognize that we have a responsability unto our communities when it comes to moral behavioral conduct. Coz if previous generations had embraced you ideology Uriel, neither you nor I would be here. The formation and rearing of families is a greater good to provide for society, more so than the hedonistic individualism you seem to champion. In fact, families are the basic human foundation, without them there is no society. And that's why any outside behavior opposite to that fundamental pillar needs to be carefully studied by unbiased professionals before it is deemed normal. That sadly has not been allowed in this country and that's why we find ourselves still confused about it.
So if i understood you correctly, based on this QualiaSoup video, if you use a completely preposterous scenario like you did at 92 that makes it scientific. But if I make use of well reasoned points like those made by Mr. Tabor which he bases on scientific theories like those of Darwin, you dismiss them simply because you don't like Mr. Tabor and that he is a Christian. It also surprises me that you might've taken offense at my description of your behavior concerning this topic, which seems to me has been not only accurate but very temperate and reasoned when compared with the absurd scenario you threw at 92, something that in all honesty I'd expected from a racist mess like Baconcat (who claims to be an indian who doesn't look ethnically like one but at the same time expresses a deep seated hatred for those of blacks of mixed indian ancestry) whenever an honest question arises on the inherent validity of homosexual behavior arises, but not from someone like you.
My description of you, however, was in no way meant to offend you, friend, but it is as i previously mentioned an accurate description of what you have shown here. You dismiss any fairly researched arguments that i point to as being no more than a straw man. If you're going to label all opposing analysis as such then what am I to believe but that you're unwilling to accept what others with opposing views to yours on this are saying even when done within the scientific and philosophical context that you say you favor.
More...
I do not "presume", I have arrived at my conclusions as others also have thru simple observation. An observation that has been made since humans have been on Earth. Reproduction may not be the "sole function" of why we mate but it is the primary or better said, driving force in our subconscious that makes us seek sexual intimacy. On the contrary the cases you cite from the animal kingdom in most instances have been observed either in captivity or during extreme cases conducive to disorientation in those species. This idea of crass individualisation (which you seem to always bring up) has gone to such extreme that we are currently failing as a society to recognize that we have a responsability unto our communities when it comes to moral behavioral conduct. Coz if previous generations had embraced you ideology Uriel, neither you nor I would be here. The formation and rearing of families is a greater good to provide for society, more so than the hedonistic individualism you seem to champion. In fact, families are the basic human foundation, without them there is no society. And that's why any outside behavior opposite to that fundamental pillar needs to be carefully studied by unbiased professionals before it is deemed normal. That sadly has not been allowed in this country and that's why we find ourselves still confused about it.
So if i understood you correctly, based on this QualiaSoup video, if you use a completely preposterous scenario like you did at 92 that makes it scientific. But if I make use of well reasoned points like those made by Mr. Tabor which he bases on scientific theories like those of Darwin, you dismiss them simply because you don't like Mr. Tabor and that he is a Christian. It also surprises me that you might've taken offense at my description of your behavior concerning this topic, which seems to me has been not only accurate but very temperate and reasoned when compared with the absurd scenario you threw at 92, something that in all honesty I'd expected from a racist mess like Baconcat (who claims to be an indian who doesn't look ethnically like one but at the same time expresses a deep seated hatred for those of blacks of mixed indian ancestry) whenever an honest question arises on the inherent validity of homosexual behavior arises, but not from someone like you.
My description of you, however, was in no way meant to offend you, friend, but it is as i previously mentioned an accurate description of what you have shown here. You dismiss any fairly researched arguments that i point to as being no more than a straw man. If you're going to label all opposing analysis as such then what am I to believe but that you're unwilling to accept what others with opposing views to yours on this are saying even when done within the scientific and philosophical context that you say you favor.
129
Even if reproduction is the driving force behind sexual intimacy, Loveschild, how does that invalidate non-reproductive sex? How does that invalidate the other functions that sexual intimacy serves? Your conclusion does not logically follow from your observation. We are not now, nor ever have been in any danger of extinction due to lack of breeding; war, famine and plague - common natural counters to a surplus population - have always been the threats to our species.
Your dismissal of zoological homosexuality seems a bit imprudent. Links to verifiable studies, please. And while you're at it, you might want to update the Wikipedia article appropriately.
So if I understand you correctly, Loveschild, you took my thought experiment, which I clearly claimed to be a thought experiment, which I predicated with the phrase what if... and you took it to be a claim of a valid scientific theory. Did I get that right? Furthermore, you dismissed it as a pipe dream, called it poorly devised on the basis (of your opinion) that persecution of behaviors (such as religious practice) is different than the persecution of race or sex. And then you topped it off by calling the thought experiment absurd, though it seems that until now, you could recognize the difference between a valid scientific theory (i.e. what is) and a thought experiment (what if). Did your mind slip? What was the intent of this exercise? Please elaborate so I don't have to assume you were simply trying to deface me, rather than my arguments.
And how, exactly, was my thought experiment absurd? Offensive, yes. It was meant to be. Improbable in the current political clime, potentially. But we already subject women to worse mutilation to get them to conform to local ideals. Procrustean levels of conformity, even through surgical means, is not a new idea. All that would be needed is another wave of white supremacist sentiments to become popular before non-whiteness is regarded as a (treatable) disease.
Also, Loveschild, after I clearly cited Nathan Tabor's logical failings in the article to which you linked, you dismissed that as you don't like Mr. Tabor and that he is a Christian. Nonsense. I have no animosity towards Christians as a people, nor did I know about Mr Tabor before I read his article. I go through the efforts to make a proper critique of this editorial, and all you get from it is that I don't like the author? I'm very disappointed, Loveschild, I'm beginning to see how the others on SLOG imagine you unintelligent or delusional or (considering the shift in your spellings, this last thread) a false personality devised in mischief by multiple miscreants.
More...
Your dismissal of zoological homosexuality seems a bit imprudent. Links to verifiable studies, please. And while you're at it, you might want to update the Wikipedia article appropriately.
So if I understand you correctly, Loveschild, you took my thought experiment, which I clearly claimed to be a thought experiment, which I predicated with the phrase what if... and you took it to be a claim of a valid scientific theory. Did I get that right? Furthermore, you dismissed it as a pipe dream, called it poorly devised on the basis (of your opinion) that persecution of behaviors (such as religious practice) is different than the persecution of race or sex. And then you topped it off by calling the thought experiment absurd, though it seems that until now, you could recognize the difference between a valid scientific theory (i.e. what is) and a thought experiment (what if). Did your mind slip? What was the intent of this exercise? Please elaborate so I don't have to assume you were simply trying to deface me, rather than my arguments.
And how, exactly, was my thought experiment absurd? Offensive, yes. It was meant to be. Improbable in the current political clime, potentially. But we already subject women to worse mutilation to get them to conform to local ideals. Procrustean levels of conformity, even through surgical means, is not a new idea. All that would be needed is another wave of white supremacist sentiments to become popular before non-whiteness is regarded as a (treatable) disease.
Also, Loveschild, after I clearly cited Nathan Tabor's logical failings in the article to which you linked, you dismissed that as you don't like Mr. Tabor and that he is a Christian. Nonsense. I have no animosity towards Christians as a people, nor did I know about Mr Tabor before I read his article. I go through the efforts to make a proper critique of this editorial, and all you get from it is that I don't like the author? I'm very disappointed, Loveschild, I'm beginning to see how the others on SLOG imagine you unintelligent or delusional or (considering the shift in your spellings, this last thread) a false personality devised in mischief by multiple miscreants.
130
This idea of crass individualization as you put it, or respect for the individual, as I might put it, is a principal on which our nation was constructed, but more than that, serves the ethic of reciprocity, which is the moral conduct we have a duty to enforce in our communities. And this includes respect for each others idiosyncracies which, can include homosexual interests and activity, and which can include (but is not limited to) hedonistic lifestyles.
And our communities aren't failing in this regard, it's our industrial sector and our legislation that have morally failed us.
Regarding your claim that families are a basic human foundation, or that society would cease to exist without them, I have my doubts, as we delve deeper into the information age, that our views of traditional families are necessarily valid. Indeed some archaic civilizations were based on structures other than the family, and the nuclear family is extemely new and conspicuously fragile. But contrary to your suggestion that we need to study non-familial structures before allowing them, I'd say that in a free society like ours, we'd need strong evidence a given structure was significantly dangerous before we proscribed it.
As I tried to make clear so far, you enjoy the privilige of falling enough within the mainstream that your rights aren't being as continuously violated as those within other groups that are regarded as more deviant. In different eras (assuming you are who and what you've claimed to be) you would be on this side of the argument. I just happen to realize that there will always be devience, and rather than securing rights for specific sects, one at a time, we need to ultimately establish rules that cover all oddities. The standard within the psychiatric sector, harm to yourself or others, is that rule. Neither homosexual activity nor behavior are intrinsically harmful to one's self or others. Therefore they should be allowed within and respected by society.
I should remind you that homosexuality is not an ideology. It's a natural phenomenon that has affected a notable part of human society since the dawn of civilization, and we are still here. So your speculation that we would have died out if we hadn't squelched homosexuality is just plain wrong.
More...
And our communities aren't failing in this regard, it's our industrial sector and our legislation that have morally failed us.
Regarding your claim that families are a basic human foundation, or that society would cease to exist without them, I have my doubts, as we delve deeper into the information age, that our views of traditional families are necessarily valid. Indeed some archaic civilizations were based on structures other than the family, and the nuclear family is extemely new and conspicuously fragile. But contrary to your suggestion that we need to study non-familial structures before allowing them, I'd say that in a free society like ours, we'd need strong evidence a given structure was significantly dangerous before we proscribed it.
As I tried to make clear so far, you enjoy the privilige of falling enough within the mainstream that your rights aren't being as continuously violated as those within other groups that are regarded as more deviant. In different eras (assuming you are who and what you've claimed to be) you would be on this side of the argument. I just happen to realize that there will always be devience, and rather than securing rights for specific sects, one at a time, we need to ultimately establish rules that cover all oddities. The standard within the psychiatric sector, harm to yourself or others, is that rule. Neither homosexual activity nor behavior are intrinsically harmful to one's self or others. Therefore they should be allowed within and respected by society.
I should remind you that homosexuality is not an ideology. It's a natural phenomenon that has affected a notable part of human society since the dawn of civilization, and we are still here. So your speculation that we would have died out if we hadn't squelched homosexuality is just plain wrong.
131
One final note about the Tabor article, Loveschild. I've had my own arguments called straw man by people who didn't understand what a straw man argument was. I don't refer to logical fallacies lightly. By misrepresenting the evolutionary position, Tabor was really constructing a straw-man argument. I'm surprised you couldn't see it, yourself, Loveschild.
132
Uriel your "thought experiment" was absurd simply because it equated skin color and ethnicity (both physical traits) with a behavior (men engaging in intimate sexual acts with other men) like homosexuality. It's that simple yet that difficult for you to understand because you seek to legitimize socially behavior by conflating it with morally just causes like the Civil Rights struggles in the sixties in this nation. Problem is that those of us who are the inheritors of those who fought against the aberration of racial discrimination will not sit idly while our ancestors memory is defiled by those who want to make the types of comparisons or "thought experiments" that you have.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles…
So, as this articles brings to our attention, if homosexual behavior was genetically determined as you're trying to imply Uriel, don't you think that it would've been extinct long ago as an intrisic human trait?
Also:
http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.htm…
Do you believe that rape, cannibalism, infanticide all rampant in the animal kingdom, is something that we humans need to emulate in the same numbers and frequency as them? In other words do we need to also legalize those behaviors? since it's something animals also do.
It's quite telling Uriel, that you have chosen to skip the main argument in my previous response to you, perhaps I should make it more easy for your understanding and phrase it along the lines of the questions I have framed above:
Based on his theory of evolution and his observations, what would be Darwin's conclusion about homosexuality, Uriel?
More...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles…
So, as this articles brings to our attention, if homosexual behavior was genetically determined as you're trying to imply Uriel, don't you think that it would've been extinct long ago as an intrisic human trait?
Also:
http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.htm…
Do you believe that rape, cannibalism, infanticide all rampant in the animal kingdom, is something that we humans need to emulate in the same numbers and frequency as them? In other words do we need to also legalize those behaviors? since it's something animals also do.
It's quite telling Uriel, that you have chosen to skip the main argument in my previous response to you, perhaps I should make it more easy for your understanding and phrase it along the lines of the questions I have framed above:
Based on his theory of evolution and his observations, what would be Darwin's conclusion about homosexuality, Uriel?
133
Wow! Loveschild, you really are presenting yourself as an intolerant vicious person. So great is your hatred that you can't accept someone telling you that their sexual orientation is not a choice, that it isn't a behavior, it's who they are.
And, apparently you are unable to comprehend the article you linked. It doesn't prove your point, that being homosexual is a choice. You cherry pick a single sentence and claim your point has been made. Nope, your failed. It doesn't prove your point, it says that more study has to be done and caution is needed in interpreting the results. It offers tentative acceptance, that there is a genetic link.
What you also seem to fail to understand is the impact of hormones on the fetus, which is really of greater importance. Put it to you this way, simply, all fetus are female even if they have the XY chromosomes and will remain feminized if the proper hormones do not secrete at the proper time and in the proper amount. Your husband has both a penis and testes, because he received the proper hormonal triggers at just the right time and in the exact amount necessary to develop fully functional penis and testes, if it hadn't happened you would be with an individual whose genitalia looked a lot more like your own, or looked right on the outside but wasn't wired correctly on the the inside, or looked externally male but might appear more effeminate than your liking and/or wasn't at all interested in bedding you.
And, as to your Darwin post. It's petitio principii and an utter waste of time. Tabor hypothesizes what he thinks Darwin would say and Darwin isn't here to answer. Therefore, there isn't an answer. Your question is a load of bollocks.
Bottom line, all your arguments amount to nothing. Homosexuals have children, biological children, and therefore some of their genes are passed on. They live to see their biological grandchildren, nieces, and nephews as well. They don't die out, despite your wish for them to do so. They serve and evolutionary purpose as adult care takers, not everything and every creature exists purely to pass their genes on, even when they retain the ability to be fully capable to pass their genes on.
You really are a broken record. You can't defend your opinion, and that would truly be fine (at least as far as I'm concerned), except that you insist that your opinions are fact. They aren't facts, you can't back them up, have some integrity and just accept that you don't like gays and therefore you don't want them to be treated equally under the laws. And, you compound the problem with your inability to understand that no-one is morally obligated to accept your opinion as fact, and then you bring out the insults to list a few: "What are you smoking", "He/She is a racist", "Your being intransigent ", "Your intolerant", "Your a closet atheist", "Your a closet Republican","She's parading her education", etc.
I'll make it really simple, preschool simple, everyone gets their own opinion. Got it! Since, you insist on being here, learn that many here are educated and are critical thinkers. Therefore, they are not inclined to accept any individual's comments as gospel truth. If you state your opinion is a fact, then you must back your opinion up with facts, and even then they aren't morally obligated to accept your opinion as fact. If you can't back your opinion with reason and fact, be prepared to be dismissed. If you can't accept this, then try and understand that your intolerance and subsequent name-calling and previous threats of violence will cause you to be seen as close minded and perhaps even bigoted. Certainly, it will cause people to see you as hopelessly entrenched in your views.
Why don't you go find a blog that shares your views? One that will welcome your contribution, and one where you wouldn't consciously choose to inflict pain and hurt on others. Your behavior is appalling here, and your choosing it! Are you so blind and heartless that you fail to recognize that you have been asked numerous times by others as to why you hate them? Are you blind to the number who write that they will never enter a church or consider a life of faith, because of the hatred and intolerance you project and they name you not the Westboro Baptist folks. You claim to be a follower of Christ. And, you are so anti-Christ-like that you've become a joke here. In the name of Christ and his love, go find a proper outlet for your vitriol and hatred and one where you hopefully will be liked. This isn't a healthy place for you, your hatred will consume you from the inside.
More...
And, apparently you are unable to comprehend the article you linked. It doesn't prove your point, that being homosexual is a choice. You cherry pick a single sentence and claim your point has been made. Nope, your failed. It doesn't prove your point, it says that more study has to be done and caution is needed in interpreting the results. It offers tentative acceptance, that there is a genetic link.
What you also seem to fail to understand is the impact of hormones on the fetus, which is really of greater importance. Put it to you this way, simply, all fetus are female even if they have the XY chromosomes and will remain feminized if the proper hormones do not secrete at the proper time and in the proper amount. Your husband has both a penis and testes, because he received the proper hormonal triggers at just the right time and in the exact amount necessary to develop fully functional penis and testes, if it hadn't happened you would be with an individual whose genitalia looked a lot more like your own, or looked right on the outside but wasn't wired correctly on the the inside, or looked externally male but might appear more effeminate than your liking and/or wasn't at all interested in bedding you.
And, as to your Darwin post. It's petitio principii and an utter waste of time. Tabor hypothesizes what he thinks Darwin would say and Darwin isn't here to answer. Therefore, there isn't an answer. Your question is a load of bollocks.
Bottom line, all your arguments amount to nothing. Homosexuals have children, biological children, and therefore some of their genes are passed on. They live to see their biological grandchildren, nieces, and nephews as well. They don't die out, despite your wish for them to do so. They serve and evolutionary purpose as adult care takers, not everything and every creature exists purely to pass their genes on, even when they retain the ability to be fully capable to pass their genes on.
You really are a broken record. You can't defend your opinion, and that would truly be fine (at least as far as I'm concerned), except that you insist that your opinions are fact. They aren't facts, you can't back them up, have some integrity and just accept that you don't like gays and therefore you don't want them to be treated equally under the laws. And, you compound the problem with your inability to understand that no-one is morally obligated to accept your opinion as fact, and then you bring out the insults to list a few: "What are you smoking", "He/She is a racist", "Your being intransigent ", "Your intolerant", "Your a closet atheist", "Your a closet Republican","She's parading her education", etc.
I'll make it really simple, preschool simple, everyone gets their own opinion. Got it! Since, you insist on being here, learn that many here are educated and are critical thinkers. Therefore, they are not inclined to accept any individual's comments as gospel truth. If you state your opinion is a fact, then you must back your opinion up with facts, and even then they aren't morally obligated to accept your opinion as fact. If you can't back your opinion with reason and fact, be prepared to be dismissed. If you can't accept this, then try and understand that your intolerance and subsequent name-calling and previous threats of violence will cause you to be seen as close minded and perhaps even bigoted. Certainly, it will cause people to see you as hopelessly entrenched in your views.
Why don't you go find a blog that shares your views? One that will welcome your contribution, and one where you wouldn't consciously choose to inflict pain and hurt on others. Your behavior is appalling here, and your choosing it! Are you so blind and heartless that you fail to recognize that you have been asked numerous times by others as to why you hate them? Are you blind to the number who write that they will never enter a church or consider a life of faith, because of the hatred and intolerance you project and they name you not the Westboro Baptist folks. You claim to be a follower of Christ. And, you are so anti-Christ-like that you've become a joke here. In the name of Christ and his love, go find a proper outlet for your vitriol and hatred and one where you hopefully will be liked. This isn't a healthy place for you, your hatred will consume you from the inside.
134
Loveschild, your cheap shot cost you my respect for the rest of the year. You don't even know what a straw man argument is or isn't.
Do not bother writing back to me, as I will not see your posts. If you want to send me a message, you can have one of the other SLOGgers relay it to me.
Loveschild, your assignment for January 1st, 2010: Find the first straw man argument in this article.
Do so, and we can resume dialog in January.
Do not, either by lack of ability, or lack of willingness, and I will conclude: negotiating with Loveschild is not worth my time, and your block will remain in place.
Have a good holiday season, Loveschild.
Do not bother writing back to me, as I will not see your posts. If you want to send me a message, you can have one of the other SLOGgers relay it to me.
Loveschild, your assignment for January 1st, 2010: Find the first straw man argument in this article.
Do so, and we can resume dialog in January.
Do not, either by lack of ability, or lack of willingness, and I will conclude: negotiating with Loveschild is not worth my time, and your block will remain in place.
Have a good holiday season, Loveschild.
135
@134 Likewise, I wish you the best. May the Almighty provide you with his all illuminating guidance and understanding.
136
It is good to know that what I have been told by my elders and experts holds true. In the end if there's something I've learned from this thread is that proving the erroneous 'intrinsic' argument that has been made by many with an agenda and that has gone unchallenged for too long in this nation, will not be done thru religious teachings, but rather thru the secularist's own religion of evolutionary science. For it is in his own (ideology) religion that the secularist will find himself at odds with his ideology's own dogma (evolution).
Tonight I can sleep soundly, no matter what has been imposed in D.C, I know that as more people in the general population learn the scientific thruth all impositions will soon be reversed and more states will seek to secure themsleves.
Tonight I can sleep soundly, no matter what has been imposed in D.C, I know that as more people in the general population learn the scientific thruth all impositions will soon be reversed and more states will seek to secure themsleves.
137
Nope, Loveschild, you're wrong.
All you showed is that a man with a biased Christian website can have an opinion, attempt to hypothesize what a long dead anthropological scientist may have said on a subject, and present it to his uneducated readers as fact.
You just showed yourself to be both gullible and uneducated. And, intransigent to any opinion that doesn't accept your version of "facts".
Sleep well. Hope the Almighty provides you with some sorely needed guidance and understanding.
All you showed is that a man with a biased Christian website can have an opinion, attempt to hypothesize what a long dead anthropological scientist may have said on a subject, and present it to his uneducated readers as fact.
You just showed yourself to be both gullible and uneducated. And, intransigent to any opinion that doesn't accept your version of "facts".
Sleep well. Hope the Almighty provides you with some sorely needed guidance and understanding.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (137) RSS