Uganda

Stephen Fry did a great documentary last year on gay rights/bigotry across the world. The segment on Uganda is sickening.
He did have a couple of great interviews with openly gay celebrities (NPH and Elton John)that I also felt were interesting and heart warming.

The push back from the zealots and bigots in the US is disturbing and sad. They want to make sure that we take a couple steps backward after making the few strides forward recently.

Can't have background checks on weapons, but by golly you better have one before you fall in love with someone or vote

That's what happens when you want to legislate based on a 2000 year old book. You get to devolve a couple millennium in social laws.

pinchvalve wrote: It is now illegal to be LBGT in Uganda.

NSFW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euXQbZDwV0w

That is all.

N Sperlo wrote: NSFW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euXQbZDwV0w That is all.

He sure seems knowledgeable about the subject....

Merriam-Webster includes includes religious intolerance in the definition of bigotry:

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

Comments about religious zealots and 2000 year old books are unnecessary and bigoted.

I am not advocating what they are doing. I just see no point in the negative bigoted comments on this website against other groups in response (or retaliation) for their actions.

Any chance of us trying to take the high road on this?

In reply to SVreX:

I am intolerant of intolerance. Call me bigoted.

SVreX wrote: ...Any chance of us trying to take the high road on this?

I find your point relevant. Another way to state it, and is applicable to many other things:

It's not the religion that makes the person an a-hole that's the issue. It's the fact that the a-hole is using religion to justify them being an a-hole.

As for Arizona. I think I found a solution to the problem of identification:

• Red triangle—political prisoners: social democrats, socialists, trade unionists, Freemasons, communists, and anarchists.

• Green triangle— "professional criminals" (convicts, often working in the camps as Kapos).

• Blue triangle—foreign forced laborers, emigrants.

• Purple triangle—Jehovah's Witnesses and other Bible Student groups. Pink triangle—sexual offenders, mostly homosexual men but rarely rapists, zoophiles and paedophiles.

• Black triangle—people who were deemed "asocial elements" and "work shy" including: The mentally ill, Alcoholics, Vagrants and beggars, Pacifists, Conscription resisters, Lesbians, Prostitutes, Some anarchists, Drug addicts

• Brown triangle—Roma (Gypsies) (previously wore the black triangle). Uninverted red triangle—an enemy POW, spy or a deserter.

Flight Service wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: NSFW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euXQbZDwV0w That is all.

He sure seems knowledgeable about the subject....

I love that he is showing scat films in church. I think it's pretty progressive, no?

Berkeley.
[This is what I came up with after self-censoring every carefully-worded thought I had in the name of not offending anyone]

aircooled wrote:

SVreX wrote: ...Any chance of us trying to take the high road on this?

I find your point relevant. Another way to state it, and is applicable to many other things: It's not the religion that makes the person an a-hole that's the issue. It's the fact that the a-hole is using religion to justify them being an a-hole.

This, you can practice whatever religion you want, IDGAF. But when you use it to justify oppressing people you don't like, that's messed up.

Uncertain what the low road comment was, did I miss something?

Its never going to be concretely figured out how to not offend someone without offending someone by denying them the right to offend someone. People just need to be nice to each other and we can all get back to our lives and taking care of more important things.

(The preceeding comment was meant to apply to ANY group, not a specific group)

Both the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches have come out against it. So have several Evangelical associations.

So much for the failures of those who believe in a 2000 year old book.

I have know idea of the history or reasoning behind this decision. I am honest enough to say so.

But I do know Uganda has suffered from an incredible HIV pandemic for decades. And I do know part of the legislation is regarding violent homosexual behavior (rape, child rape, etc).

After that, I don't know too much.

I would be very interested in a reasonably intelligent discussion on the matter.

This thread is neither reasonable nor intelligent, and its not much of a discussion.

Apexcarver wrote: Uncertain what the low road comment was, did I miss something? Its never going to be concretely figured out how to not offend someone without offending someone by denying them the right to offend someone. People just need to be nice to each other and we can all get back to our lives and taking care of more important things. (The preceeding comment was meant to apply to ANY group, not a specific group)

Recognizing the situation and expressing concerns is valid.

Adding facts to it would be better.

Blaming religious people without any facts may or may not be true.

Throwing around religious bigotry in defense of one's personal opinion or agenda with no basis in facts is disgusting.

Get it?

SVreX wrote: ...But I do know Uganda has suffered from an incredible HIV pandemic for decades. And I do know part of the legislation is regarding violent homosexual behavior (rape, child rape, etc)....

I remember hearing that one of the rumored "cures" for HIV in Africa, was raping a virgin. Many times of course this would be a very young person... argh...

It's a bit suspicious though that they would try to stop violent sexual behavior by outlawing all forms of that behavior. Perhaps they should just outlaw the violent type? Which they probably already do.

It also sounds a bit like the argument against gay marriage where it would allow people to marry their pets, implying sexual behavior, which of course is already illegal...

SVreX wrote:

Apexcarver wrote: Uncertain what the low road comment was, did I miss something? Its never going to be concretely figured out how to not offend someone without offending someone by denying them the right to offend someone. People just need to be nice to each other and we can all get back to our lives and taking care of more important things. (The preceeding comment was meant to apply to ANY group, not a specific group)

Recognizing the situation and expressing concerns is valid. Adding facts to it would be better. Blaming religious people without any facts may or may not be true. Throwing around religious bigotry in defense of one's personal opinion or agenda with no basis in facts is disgusting. Get it?

SVreX wrote:

turboswede wrote:

Bumboclaat wrote: In reply to mad_machine: It's a really big deal to bigots and zealots.

^+1 Usually the people putting this sort of nonsense forward are sexually repressed in some way.

Way to make a bigotted comment against people you consider bigots.

Um, many psychologists have shown that some of those that target a specific group for being different in some way are in fact doing so because they identify with that group. The closeted gay bigot or gay basher is not unheard of and has been studied (and it isn't just men, its women as well). There's also a factor of ignorance to consider that perhaps they were raised with incorrect information about how people different from them live and instead of being open minded and simply viewing people as people, that we are all different in some way and those differences are what makes the world interesting.

Ultimately, that was what my point was about. I don't care about a person's sexual preference or what they do behind doors as long as it is legal and between consenting adults, have at it. Whether that is practicing their chosen religion or having large group orgy's.

Heck, why not allow multiple marriages? Doesn't impact me. Sure it makes divorce and some paperwork difficult, but honestly who cares? That's their problem, not mine since I won't be partaking. Oh its against your religious rules? Well, then I guess they won't be welcome in your religion and that is a choice granted by allowing people to practice their beliefs separately of the laws in this country.

The bill in Arizona is a prime example of people hiding behind their chosen beliefs and using it to enact laws against those that don't practice their beliefs. It is discrimination against people for being different, which in my view is wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvYYU7ECM_k

As for Uganda, well that is more about human rights in general. While a sovereign nation should be able to govern their own people as they see fit, that doesn't mean that we can't be unhappy about it and refuse to do business with that country or provide asylum to those that wish to leave and provide them a voice to help them make changes in their own country. As for getting directly involved in trying to change their laws? No. The UN can work on the human rights issues through sanctions if it is deemed appropriate, but the people of that country have to choose on their own. Much like Russia, North Korea and other country's that have violated basic human rights and have been sanctioned or embargoed by the UN and other countries.

turboswede wrote: As for Uganda, well that is more about human rights in general. While a sovereign nation should be able to govern their own people as they see fit, that doesn't mean that we can't be unhappy about it and refuse to do business with that country or provide asylum to those that wish to leave and provide them a voice to help them make changes in their own country. As for getting directly involved in trying to change their laws? No. The UN can work on the human rights issues through sanctions if it is deemed appropriate, but the people of that country have to choose on their own. Much like Russia, North Korea and other country's that have violated basic human rights and have been sanctioned or embargoed by the UN and other countries.

It's surprising that we haven't been sanctioned by some European nations for permitting capitol punishment.

Datsun1500 wrote:

turboswede wrote: Um, many psychologists have shown that some of those that target a specific group for being different in some way are in fact doing so because they identify with that group.

It's true. I hate everyone that has strange little cars in pieces in the garage. I'm not sure why, I just do.

See? Science is never wrong!

In reply to PHeller:

Very true. Something about being the "big bully" in the world might have something to do with that. :/

Kenny_McCormic wrote:

aircooled wrote:

SVreX wrote: ...Any chance of us trying to take the high road on this?

I find your point relevant. Another way to state it, and is applicable to many other things: It's not the religion that makes the person an a-hole that's the issue. It's the fact that the a-hole is using religion to justify them being an a-hole.

This, you can practice whatever religion you want, IDGAF. But when you use it to justify oppressing people you don't like, that's messed up.

That makes sense "prima facie," but I've never understood how one can "cherry pick" the book of their Lord and Savior.

Oh well. I'll go with the Homer quote up there, that describes my feelings pretty well.

SVreX wrote: And I do know part of the legislation is regarding violent homosexual behavior (rape, child rape, etc).

Care to clarify? Are you saying rape and child rape is only violent if done by a homosexual? That in Uganda it is only the homosexuals partaking in these acts?

Or are you saying the bill is written in a way that it's OK for heterosexual people to partake in this activity, but not homosexuals?

I didn't say either of those, and you know it darned well.

In reply to z31maniac:

Are you saying I am "cherry picking" scripture?

Please elaborate.

I am pretty sure he is not referring to you.

In general, (using Christians as an example, other are equally guilty), it seems very common to refer the the Bible as "the truth" or something along those lines, and justify things because of that. Yet, there are a number of things (e.g. Old Testament) that they seem to summarily dismiss while fully accepting others (e.g. homosexuality vs having beards / slaves etc. )

As such, this goes back to what I was saying. The "cherry picking" of religious dogma etc. to serve ones personal agenda / believes. Or, an a-hole finding justification for being an a-hole.

(to confirm: its a Religious thing, not a Christian thing. Hey, some people don't even feel the need to justify them being an a-hole!)

I have a pretty good friend who was one of the Aisan families Idi Amin booted in the 70's. Between stories he tells, and other things I have read about Uganda at that time, I think it would take several generations to wear the stupid out of that country.

I'm confident they feel they are doing the RIGHT THING.