Persecution in Uganda/ "Aggravated Homosexuality"

[Cearbhall]

Oh please!

So there are various recent cases where consent to murder , to cannibalism and even various Satanic rituals was given freely and people died as a result.

If consent is the foundation of law then these things are not morally problematic in your view.

No, because there are people who are mentally unfit to give consent. Are you suggesting that all people who approve of sexual activity between members of the same sex are clinically insane?

And oh please. How can you compare the level of harm in those situations to the harm of an average romantic or sexual relationship?

 

[mindlight]

No, because there are people who are mentally unfit to give consent. Are you suggesting that all people who approve of sexual activity between members of the same sex are clinically insane?

And oh please. How can you compare the level of harm in those situations to the harm of an average romantic or sexual relationship?

There are many kinds of death. the socalled sexual revolution had its pluses and minuses. The big cost has been the destruction of marriage and therefore of the stable, secure family background that was most peoples experience of childhood before the 1960s. The costs of this are still being worked out but in essence represent the death of a culture with wounded and broken individuals moving into ever more serious and damaging liasons and sins.

The affirmation of homosexuality is merely the end of a long process of decay that began with the adulteries of the war eras by people who had seen hell and could no longer distinguish a womans embrace from a heaven they were no longer sure about. The sexual permissiveness of the sixties, the relaxing of abortion and divorce laws are all a preamble to the current era.

The substitution of moral thinking for considerations of psychological health and dubious definitions of what constitutes sanity are also a part of this trend.

A persons choices are not undermined by that persons "mental insanity" if they are the right choices. Morality not mental health is the criteria by which the acceptability of decisions are to be assessed. There is no foundation to morality without the Christian God. There is only the illusion of personal choice if ones religion places oneself on the throne of God. In practice the transcendence and therefore authority that lends credibility to those choices is not a product of an individuals psychology.

 

[jazzflower92]

There are many kinds of death. the socalled sexual revolution had its pluses and minuses. The big cost has been the destruction of marriage and therefore of the stable, secure family background that was most peoples experience of childhood before the 1960s. The costs of this are still being worked out but in essence represent the death of a culture with wounded and broken individuals moving into ever more serious and damaging liasons and sins.

The affirmation of homosexuality is merely the end of a long process of decay that began with the adulteries of the war eras by people who had seen hell and could no longer distinguish a womans embrace from a heaven they were no longer sure about. The sexual permissiveness of the sixties, the relaxing of abortion and divorce laws are all a preamble to the current era.

The substitution of moral thinking for considerations of psychological health and dubious definitions of what constitutes sanity are also a part of this trend.

A persons choices are not undermined by that persons "mental insanity" if they are the right choices. Morality not mental health is the criteria by which the acceptability of decisions are to be assessed. There is no foundation to morality without the Christian God. There is only the illusion of personal choice if ones religion places oneself on the throne of God. In practice the transcendence and therefore authority that lends credibility to those choices is not a product of an individuals psychology.

Yeah, but the thing is that taking draconian measures didn't help in the past as well.

 

[mindlight]

Yeah, but the thing is that taking draconian measures didn't help in the past as well.

Marriages which survived for fear of poverty, male violence or legal sanction, where no one spoke to each other authentically and where the womans choices did not count were far from ideal - yes. That state of affairs may also be to some extent a myth created to justify the excesses of the modern era and in ignorance of the challenges faced by previous generations.

Law does have a value in restraining evil and for Uganda and Russia is not yet too late to use it. Some people do not listen to arguments from reason and love and simply need to be terrified of the consequences of doing wrong.

1 Timothy 1 v 8-10

"Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine"

 

[Cearbhall]

The big cost has been the destruction of marriage and therefore of the stable, secure family background that was most peoples experience of childhood before the 1960s.

One of the great falsities of our age. Most people who had the privilege to write history had a stable family background. Domestic and child abuse went unchecked, mortality rates were higher at every age, orphans were left to their own devices which meant child labor or prostitution...

 

[jazzflower92]

Marriages which survived for fear of poverty, male violence or legal sanction, where no one spoke to each other authentically and where the womans choices did not count were far from ideal - yes. That state of affairs may also be to some extent a myth created to justify the excesses of the modern era and in ignorance of the challenges faced by previous generations.

Law does have a value in restraining evil and for Uganda and Russia is not yet too late to use it. Some people do not listen to arguments from reason and love and simply need to be terrified of the consequences of doing wrong.

1 Timothy 1 v 8-10

"Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine"

Yeah, because God never gave people another chance. The way of thinking you are subscribing to could just be turned on Christians as well. I believe in some things the law is the wrong choice in dealing with moral issues. Homosexuality is one of those things. The physical law will never change a person's for good. The spiritual law is the real thing that makes people change.

 

[Cearbhall]

Some people do not listen to arguments from reason and love and simply need to be terrified of the consequences of doing wrong.

If you have to manufacture a consequence, how wrong can it be?

 

[Marius27]

This is very sad. Just proves that some sects of Conservative Christianity are no better than Radical Islam.

 

[mindlight]

Yeah, because God never gave people another chance. The way of thinking you are subscribing to could just be turned on Christians as well. I believe in some things the law is the wrong choice in dealing with moral issues. Homosexuality is one of those things. The physical law will never change a person's for good. The spiritual law is the real thing that makes people change.

Law cannot change a persons heart but it can prevent someone from acting on things in their heart. It is a signpost to right and wrong and it is a means of restraint and ideally also can serve the purposes of truth and justice. But it is a relationship with God that transforms a person.

Too many Christians who have supported gay marriage have confused their personal friendships with people who just happen to be gay and whom they wish to see saved with the civic responsibility of Christians to seek righteous laws and governance. They are different things.

 

[MrLuther]

So you're against freedom of speech, press, and assembly? What if we eventually decided that hate speech backed up by the Bible is too harmful to society to allow it in public spaces?

The Church would survive, as it has before. And it would expose that "tolerance"-claim as the hypocritical bovine manure it is.
Also, it would be wildly unconstitutional in the US, as far as know.
Furthermore: The only ones spewing ACTUAL hate speech backed up by the Bible, is a small familiy church in Westboro. I don't know of anyone else, anyway.
I do know of many who say that homophilia is a sin, but that's not hate-speech! And "hate-speech" is overused to the point of being meaningless these days.

How is it not a free speech issue? The idea that it's evil is a religious opinion, not a "clear case." It has no rational justification. Feel free to hold that opinion, but don't try to force your personal restrictions on others..

If that's the way you reason, then NO viewpoint has a "rational justification"

Do you have a legal argument that would hold up in a fair court?

What is your definition of "fair"?
"Agrees with me"?

You seem to think that your personal discomfort matters when it comes to passing laws

Look in the mirror for an example of someone like that
You want Uganda's law changed because you are not comfortable with it (as many who are opposed to the active and aggressive promotion of homophilia also are not comfortable with, myself included...)

I think you do not understand the zeal with which the dark lord seeks your personal spoiling and destruction. You just have to click your fingers, so long as you remember that the price, for whatever Faustian bargain you seek, is your very soul.

Uhm...dude....don't buy the folklore ("You can make a deal with the devil!")-nonsense.
Good stories for proving moral points....not objective reality. I thought any adult knew this.

No, because there are people who are mentally unfit to give consent. Are you suggesting that all people who approve of sexual activity between members of the same sex are clinically insane?

And oh please. How can you compare the level of harm in those situations to the harm of an average romantic or sexual relationship?

Your main point was consent. That argument was proven ridiculous, by these acts of consent. If "consent" is THE criterion to you, you cannot condemn these actions, because they were consensual.
And saying: "Uhm....but these weren't fit to give consent!" is also a non-starter, because the same could be said about your own examples. Who are you to say who is fit to give consent and who isn't? Are you a medical professional and did you examine the persons in question before the acts, finding them clinically insane?

 

[Ishraqiyun]

The "I am gay bumper" sticker is on a par with "I have sex with animals and I am proud of it". Or "support my right to kill my baby" stickers

I don't see how it's even remotely similar but I would also support free speech regarding the later two bumper stickers as well. I wouldn't be suprised if you find some black metal bumper sticker with something like that on it. If the person actually did kill babies that of course would be illegal though and rightly so.

Allowing such things is to allow a pollution of the environment in which genuine concerns can and should be raised.

It's precisely views that some consider wrong, polluting, etc., that need protection. Views that readily meet public standards of political correctness or religious correctness would need no protection. No sense in even having freedom of speech then.

Everyones ability to speak freely is diminished if such soiled expressions are allowed.

In what way? How is the right of the gay person to speak their mind not diminished by prohibiting them from speaking their mind on the issue? Here in the US it's readily accepted by millions of people , probably the majority , that individuals should be able to say "I"m gay" in public and you would be silencing all those people by outlawing such speech. Not sure what the poll results would be in Russia but at the very least you are forbidding millions of people from speaking their mind on a religious, political, and moral issue. The fact that you might imply from it that they also have sex with members of the gender they are attracted to (which is what sexual identity references) isn't the same as them having sex in public.

Freedom is not anything goes and gay sex is over the border line of common decency.

If you are talking about having sex in public then many would consider that over the line of common decency even in a more socially liberal country like the US. Noting, or letting out, that you are heterosexual by say wearing a wedding ring or gay by having a "I"m gay- support gay rights" sticker isn't having sex in public though and is a totally different matter.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

So there are various recent cases where consent to murder , to cannibalism and even various Satanic rituals was given freely and people died as a result.

Obviously killing someone and mentioning that you are gay in public are pretty much in the exact same category. One results in a dead person whereas the later results in a person with an added piece of knowledge they didn't have before.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

When a person says they are gay all that means is they are attracted to members of the same sex. It doesn't even necessitate having sex with members of the same sex. Same thing with the term heterosexual. The idea that it should be illegal for someone to mention this fact about their life is absurd and tyrannical. You can't tell anyone how you feel or risk prison?

 

[Cearbhall]

Also, it would be wildly unconstitutional in the US, as far as know.

Yes, it would be. So would the current law in Russia that bans gay "propaganda." That's my point.

If that's the way you reason, then NO viewpoint has a "rational justification"

How do you figure? "The Bible says so" is the farthest thing from a rational justification. I'm asking for something more, or we might as well legislate Sharia law while we're at it.

 

[MrLuther]

Yes, it would be. So would the current law in Russia that bans gay "propaganda." That's my point.

Would this also be the case regarding a law banning public acts of hardcore BDSM, or one of the other perversions outthere ( Rule 34 of the Internet ), or would this be "like tolly diffrentz 'n stuffz" because those people do not have cool sit-com characters as PR-agents?

How do you figure? "The Bible says so" is the farthest thing from a rational justification.

Not to a Christian.
Also: I pointed out that if things were as you said, then no rational explanation exists for anything.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

The New Testament doesn't contain a requirement that states make it illegal for people to communicate their sexual identity. There is no "the Bible said so" here in the first place. This is just an example of a corrupt government trying to focus attention on a scapegoat minority and away from their own corruption. Tyrants always need their boogie men whether it's homosexuals in Uganda, Jews in Nazi Germany, African Americans in the segregation era South, or some other minority group that can fill the role for them. It's just sad that Christians set up the environment that would allow such a tactic to work. We should be working to end bigotry and scapegoating. Working to ameliorate the suffering of all people not just those in our favored in group.

 

[MrLuther]

The New Testament doesn't contain a requirement that states make it illegal for people to communicate their sexual identity.

The Bible is clear on the matter of homophilia. Your ridiculous argumentum ad Hitlerum doesn't change that.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

The Bible is clear on the matter of homophilia.

I wasn't talking about being friendly to gay people. I was talking about a requirement that the state outlaw the discussion of ones sexual identity. You wont find one of those in the Bible. If you think it's there I would challange you to post the verse. The idea that it should be illegal to communicate a fact about yourself is absurd. Even if one were to consider same sex attraction a mental illness what country would be tyrannical enough to make it illegal to discuss the presence of the said "mental illness"? You want people to go to jail for committing the speech crime of describing a fact about their psychology? Maybe we should jail people for saying they feel the urge to over eat because gluttony is sinful too?

 

[Cearbhall]

Would this also be the case regarding a law banning public acts of hardcore BDSM, or one of the other perversions outthere ( Rule 34 of the Internet ), or would this be "like tolly diffrentz 'n stuffz" because those people do not have cool sit-com characters as PR-agents?

That's the second time you've used Valleyspeak to imitate me. Your pathetic tactics don't merit a response, sorry.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Public acts of hardcore BDSM? I'm fairly certain there were already laws against performing sexual acts in public with or without bondage gear. The law in Russia makes it illegal to even mention the fact that you identify as gay. That's not the same thing as sex in public by a long shot. Saying you are gay is no more "having sex in public" then wearing a wedding ring is.