Quote :

"The African nation of Uganda is poised to pass a bill that will criminalize--and severely punish--being gay, under a new class of crime labeled "aggravated homosexuality." Infractions such as homosexual contact with a minor or a disabled individual would be punished with the death penalty under the bill; so would transmitting HIV to another person or having repeated sexual encounters with members of the same gender. Individuals knowing of gay relationships but not turning in the people involved would be criminally liable, even if they were not gay themselves. Sexually propositioning a person of the same gender would also be a criminal offense."

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=99689

Charmingly enough, this extreme anti-queer sentiment apparently has its roots in the work of European missionaries in nineteenth century. Current religious institutions both inside the country and around the world offer varying levels of support. There's even some fuss about Rick Warren's role in the new law. Is this the vision evangelicals have for America?

12/5/2009 12:44:04 AM

or The Family which is a group that american congressman are in (see all the C St people that have recently been caught having affairs, etc) and is based in america:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_%28Christian_organization%29

hooray for fundamentalist christians!

12/5/2009 12:48:06 AM

Fundamentalist Christians and Fundamentalist Muslims: United we stand when it comes to being hateful motherfuckers.

12/5/2009 12:50:28 AM

Rachel Maddow has been all over this. I highly suggest checking out the segments from her show's site to learn more about this and the connection to the previously mentioned The Family. Scary stuff in the 21st century.

12/5/2009 12:53:23 AM

NC's gay newspaper had a piece on this earlier in the week regarding the NC politicians involved:

http://www.q-notes.com/4480/nc-shuler-mcintyre-connected-to-anti-gay-the-family/

Quote :

"N.C.’s Shuler, McIntyre connected to anti-gay ‘The Family’ Two U.S. House members from North Carolina have been connected to a secretive, conservative organization with ties to Ugandan leaders pushing for a new law making gay sex a capital offense. Jeff Sharlet, author of “The Family,” an expose of the group, told NPR’s Tony Gross that Democratic Reps. Heath Shuler (NC-11) and Mike McIntyre (NC-07) are connected to the group. Other high-profile politicians with ties to the organization include Nevada Republican U.S. Sen. John Ensign and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford. “The Family” has been tied to Ugandan politician David Bahati, who introduced the Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009. The bill would make gay sex punishable by death. Leaders across the world, including Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have condemned the anti-gay bill and other draconian laws discriminating against LGBT people. Clinton addressed the issue at a press conference on Nov. 30. “Obviously, our efforts are hampered whenever discrimination or marginalization of certain populations results in less effective outreach and treatment. So we will work not only to ensure access for all who need it but also to combat discrimination more broadly,” she said. “We have to stand against any efforts to marginalize and criminalize and penalize members of the LGBT community worldwide.” Equality North Carolina (ENC) is calling on their members to contact Shuler and McIntyre and ask them to denounce their association with “The Family.” “As members of this group, Shuler and McIntyre have a moral obligation to speak out against [the Uganda bill],” Ian Palmquist, ENC executive director, said in an email message Tuesday. “It’s time for them to stand up to The Family and publicly denounce this bill and any attempt to criminalize homosexuality.”"

Heath hasn't been making a lot of friends lately with his support of the Stupak anti-abortion amendment to the health care bill, followed by still voting against the health care bill.

12/5/2009 2:12:42 AM

I like McIntyre. If every democrat has his financial conservative sense and blue dog approach to politics then the GOP would never really stand a chance.

12/5/2009 1:49:51 PM

lol. the only "agenda" that homosexuals have is to live their daily lives. and to ask for equal opportunities to enjoy things that heterosexuals take for granted (and squander), like marriage. i love how the word "agenda" is applied to a group of people asking for equal rights, specifically in order to dehumanize them.

12/5/2009 2:10:39 PM

a man and a man can not by definition be married. Even if they could; churches are not obligated to perform the ceremony (as some homosexual couples have sued over).

If they want to play butt pirates and want to spend their entire life with their civil union partners than so be it. The issue over marriage is partially a veil for the economic benefits of a marital union. Homosexual couples should not have the same tax benefits as a normal heterosexual pair. These tax benefits are designed as a way to promote and offset the costs of having children. Obviously two men will not be making babies.

12/5/2009 3:03:51 PM

So I don't deserve the same rights as you? If you want to say that a homosexual deserves fewer opportunities than you do, you might at least check to see if you're saying that directly to a gay man.

[Edited on December 5, 2009 at 3:07 PM. Reason : dumbass]

12/5/2009 3:06:40 PM

^ he only said that churches are not obligated to marry you (and they are not... homosexual couples should have civil unions, and those should be legal), and that you shouldn't have tax breaks from the government (because you won't be making babies).

he didn't say anything about any other rights.

12/5/2009 3:41:08 PM

creating a separate class of marriage for gay people is no different than installing separate water fountains for black people. separate but equal has been proven time and again to be an ineffective and demeaning way to solve society's problems.

12/5/2009 3:43:01 PM

it is the government that should provide equal rights. private individuals and organizations have the right to deny a particular service to a particular group. the church should not be forced to marry same sex couples. that goes against their beliefs and scripture. there might as well be no church if they are forced to go against their own beliefs.

the government should provide the right to same sex couples to get married in civil marriages, just like it provides that right to heteros. otherwise, it is discrimination.

12/5/2009 3:59:35 PM

Quote :

"Homosexual Sterile couples should not have the same tax benefits as a normal heterosexual child-bearing pair. These tax benefits are designed as a way to promote and offset the costs of having children."

Quote :

"Homosexual Elderly couples should not have the same tax benefits as a normal heterosexual young pair. These tax benefits are designed as a way to promote and offset the costs of having children."

you see how dumb that argument is?

also, gay couples can adopt children.

also, there's nothing requiring churches to perform these ceremonies. people sue over all sorts of things. you can't get married at plenty of churches if you aren't a member. i don't see any reason why churches couldn't discriminate against people in all sorts of ways. the gov't does should not have that luxury though.

[Edited on December 5, 2009 at 4:06 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on December 5, 2009 at 4:06 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2009 4:04:04 PM

just to set the record straight... i don't know about the tax benefits argument.

i do agree with HUR about not forcing a group with a particular set of beliefs they derive from what they say is a divine book, to go against their beliefs. (marrying a same sex couple)

12/5/2009 4:06:03 PM

but that argument is a red herring. that is not what is being pushed.

12/5/2009 4:07:19 PM

^^Churches aren't really obligated to marry anyone they don't want to are they?

I know in MA for example there are many churches who chose to marry gay couples, some of those couples have adopted children, in a state that has decided to recognize such marriages. I can't think of a single state that has passed such marriage laws that has taken away churches rights to make their own decisions. I mean atheists get married, agnostics get married, people of many different religions get married, infertile couples get married, old couples get married who can't have children, and churches aren't being forced against their will to do any of those marriages, so I'm not sure why church obligations is a part of this facet of the discussion. Taking from wiki on the Episcopalian Church : "the church's General Convention passed resolutions that allowed for gay and lesbian marriages in states where it is legal" which only further goes to show that church will can pass all the civil laws we want relating to marriage, but the churches still decide whether or not to add their blessing & recognition.

Quote :

"Individuals knowing of gay relationships but not turning in the people involved would be criminally liable"

But I think we can all agree that this is taking it to insane levels?


http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_117521_ENG_HTM.htm

Quote :

"The Episcopal Church joins many other Christians and people of faith in urging the safeguarding of human rights everywhere. We do so in the understanding that "efforts to criminalize homosexual behavior are incompatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ" (General Convention 2006, Resolution D005). This has been the repeated and vehement position of Anglican bodies, including several Lambeth Conferences. The Primates' Meeting, in the midst of severe controversy over issues of homosexuality, nevertheless noted that, as Anglicans, "we assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship" (Primates' Communiqué, Dromantine, 2005). The Episcopal Church represents multiple and varied cultural contexts (the United States and 15 other nations), and as a Church we affirm that the public scapegoating of any category of persons, in any context, is anathema. We are deeply concerned about the potential impingement on basic human rights represented by the private member's bill in the Ugandan Parliament. In the United States and elsewhere, we note that changed laws do help to shift public opinion and urge a more humane response to difference. The Hate Crimes Act recently passed in the United States is one example, as are the many pieces of civil rights legislation that have slowly changed American public behavior, especially in the area of race relations. We note the distance our own culture still needs to travel in removing discriminatory practice from social interactions, yet we have also seen how changed hearts and minds have followed legal sanctions on discriminatory behavior. We give thanks for the clear position of the United States government on human rights, for the State Department's annual human rights report on Uganda, which observes that the existing colonial-era law on same-sex relations is a societal abuse of human rights, and for the State Department's publicly voiced opposition to the present bill. We urge the United States government to grant adequate access to the U.S. asylum system for those fleeing persecution on the basis of homosexuality or gender identity, to work with other governments, international organizations, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to provide adequate protection for these asylum seekers, and to oppose any attempts at extradition under a law such as that proposed in Uganda. Finally, we note that much of the current climate of fear, rejection, and antagonism toward gay and lesbian persons in African nations has been stirred by members and former members of our own Church. We note further that attempts to export the culture wars of North America to another context represent the very worst of colonial behavior. We deeply lament this reality, and repent of any way in which we have participated in this sin. We call on all Episcopalians to seek their own conversion toward an ability to see the image of God in the face of every neighbor, of whatever race, gender, sexual orientation, theological position, or creed. God has created us in myriad diversity, and no one sort or condition of human being can fully reflect the divine. Only the whole human race begins to be an adequate mirror of the divine. We urge continued prayer for those who live in fear of the implications of this kind of injustice and discrimination, and as a Church, commit ourselves anew to seek partnerships with the Church of Uganda, or any portion thereof, in serving the mission of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That Gospel is larger than any party or faction. It is only in mutual service and recognition that we will begin to mend our divisions. We are grateful for the willingness of the Anglican Communion Office and Lambeth Palace to hear this plea on behalf of all God's people, and urge their continued assistance in seeking greater justice. We note the impediments this legislation would pose to the ability to continue a Listening Process in which all of the Anglican Communion is currently engaged. The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori Presiding Bishop The Episcopal Church"

[Edited on December 5, 2009 at 4:17 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2009 4:08:35 PM

^ People make churches a part of it because:

(a) they don't realize that the only part of marriage that matters is the legal benefits it offers
(b) because there are some evangelicals and religious nuts that don't know how to separate church and state, or their own hate from reality

12/5/2009 4:13:02 PM

Quote :

"but that argument is a red herring. that is not what is being pushed."

sorry, i was discussing HUR's post, not the OP.

12/5/2009 4:27:09 PM

how about we take government out of marriage entirely and make every marriage, gay or straight, a civil union

12/5/2009 4:33:27 PM

because it's about as politically viable and socially acceptable as getting rid of gender definitions?

12/5/2009 4:36:42 PM

Quote :

"the only "agenda" that homosexuals have is to live their daily lives."

That depends. I personally have an ambitious agenda for erasure of the gender distinction itself, though I'm well-aware most queers don't share my views.

12/5/2009 4:36:54 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_(Christian_organization)#Publicized_extra-marital_affairs_of_Fellowship_members

Quote :

"Publicized extra-marital affairs of Fellowship members In 2009, the Family received a spate of media attention when three prominent Republicans associated with the Fellowship were reported to have engaged in extra-marital affairs. Two of them, Senator John Ensign and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, were considering running for President in 2012 and their affairs were known to the Family several months before becoming public. The affairs of Ensign and then-Congressman Chip Pickering, R-Miss., took place while they were living at the C Street Center. All three voted to impeach Bill Clinton; Ensign and Sanford had called for Clinton to resign over his affair with Monica Lewinsky.[59][60]"

That whole page is fucking scary.

[Edited on December 5, 2009 at 4:43 PM. Reason : ]

12/5/2009 4:43:17 PM

Quote :

"sorry, i was discussing HUR's post, not the OP."

i know and hur was using the old ant-gay standby of "OH NO!!! CHURCHES WILL BE FORCED TO PERFORM GAY WEDDINGS!!!" which isn't true.

12/5/2009 5:13:30 PM

Sorry if this breaks the horizontal scroll for you, but it'll save us a lot of time and effort.

12/5/2009 8:02:22 PM

Most of those sound sadly familiar. Trying to argue with an evangelical is like trying to argue with a hot tub... doesn't get very far, but you sure enjoy getting inside one.

12/5/2009 10:05:06 PM

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/12/episcopal-diocese-la.html

Quote :

"Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles elects openly gay bishop The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles today elected the first openly gay bishop since the national church lifted a ban that sought to bar gays and lesbians from the church's highest ordained ministry. Clergy and lay leaders, meeting in Riverside for their annual convention, elected the Rev. Canon Mary D. Glasspool, 55, who has been in a committed relationship with another woman since 1988. Another gay candidate, the Rev. John L. Kirkley of San Francisco, withdrew late Friday. Glasspool’s election to fill one of two openings for bishops of the diocese followed the selection Friday of the Rev. Canon Diane Jardine Bruce, 53, the rector of a San Clemente church. The two became the first women elected as bishops of the diocese in its 114-year history. But it was the endorsement of Glasspool that riveted much of the convention as well as the worldwide Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch. Glasspool is the first openly gay priest to be elected bishop since the ordination of the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire in 2003."

Yet another bishop that is gay, and she's a woman, I don't know which one is worse

[Edited on December 6, 2009 at 12:04 AM. Reason : .]

12/6/2009 12:04:37 AM

If she were a transsexual, that'd be the trifecta right there.

(I'm hoping she isn't, because that's going to be a load of problem already)

12/6/2009 12:32:58 AM

Quote :

"i know and hur was using the old ant-gay standby of "OH NO!!! CHURCHES WILL BE FORCED TO PERFORM GAY WEDDINGS!!!" which isn't true."

I never said it was true but there have been lawsuits in the news about churches being sued in places where like MA and CA (where it was legal in some municipalities before the vote referendum)
where a church would refuse to wed a homosexual couple or back out of an agreement after finding out that the marriage arranged
was for two men.

12/6/2009 7:08:20 PM

how have those lawsuits ended? i could go out today and sue my church for beaming 90's saturday morning cartoons into my visual cortex while i was trying to sleep if i wanted to.

12/6/2009 7:12:39 PM

^^ That proves nothing at all. Sue a church because they have a wobbly step. Big deal. You're solving the wrong problem by talking about the church.

12/6/2009 8:15:39 PM

HIV prevalence in 13-19 year old boys, Uganda


HIV incidence in Uganda

I'd say that the Uganda government is taking necessary actions to get rid of what accounts for 50% of deaths in their country.

12/6/2009 8:17:05 PM

I know you're not accusing homosexuals of spreading HIV/AIDS.

12/6/2009 8:19:57 PM

of course I am. you can deny it all you want, but the numbers show that homosexuality is still by far the leading cause of HIV transmission. homosexual sex is still the leading means of transmission in 1st world countries, with injection drug use being a distant second. Are you going to try to argue that people in Uganda are abusing injectable drugs at a higher rate than we are here? They don't even have money for needles, let alone drugs.

12/6/2009 8:28:19 PM

[Edited on December 6, 2009 at 8:34 PM. Reason : numbers don't always appeal to feel-good arguments]

12/6/2009 8:32:47 PM

Fine. Am I your villain now? We're back to AIDS being "the fag disease."

12/6/2009 8:45:32 PM

the US never had 25% of it's population infected with HIV, so it's never been the crisis here that it was in Uganda.

I don't have any problems with gay people, but there's no way in hell that I'm going to deny the facts because some people don't like to hear them. stop taking everything so personal.

12/6/2009 9:06:44 PM

Fine. The problem with your argument is that Uganda isn't looking at it through a lens of statistics or disease, although that's a side-effect of it.

Quote :

"The author of the Spero News item, who is based in Uganda and Kenya, offered insight into the Ugandan psyche. "In Africa life and fertility are sacred; anything that stunts or blocks them, such as sterility or unnatural acts, like homosexuality, are considered a curse," wrote Martyn Drakard. "Most Ugandans are Christians, with a minority of Muslims. Both faiths support the value of life and family. End of the story. Ask any Ugandan in the street: university professor, lawyer, building-site worker or the woman sweeping the street. It is non-negotiable.""

They're treating this as a matter of "unnatural acts." It's rooted in religion and fear. Pure and simple.

And even if the intent is to cut the rate if HIV infection, are you saying that they should demonize and prosecute gay men and lesbians? Suddenly this is about striking fear into people, not about cutting disease.

At the end of the day, there's two ways to rid the world of sexually transmitted disease: (1) education/research and physical precautions/awareness, (2) isolate infection and let it burn itself out. Are you in favor of HIV-infected persons being removed from civil society?

[Edited on December 6, 2009 at 9:17 PM. Reason : .]

12/6/2009 9:17:07 PM

Quote :

"the US never had 25% of it's population infected with HIV, so it's never been the crisis here that it was in Uganda."

You can teach safe sex, monogamy, & honesty about sexuality, which I imagine the US has done more of than Uganda, or you can incarcerate and in some cases put to death your own citizens. My bet is that in the long run its going to be a lot cheaper to teach people to use a condoms & not pursue a "down low" life style. Not to mention that eugenics against gay people wont work for that long because it is too dispersed of a characteristic. When it comes to a doomed to fail, human rights violating, expensive for society policy versus sex ed, it should be a no-brainer even if it means overcoming some backwards norms.

12/6/2009 9:41:13 PM

you're talking about a country where people use machetes and machine guns to keep people from practicing religions they don't agree with. using the death sentence to stop the spread of AIDS doesn't seem that far off.

your argument about why the law is being done is based on an opinion from a journalist. maybe, just maybe, he's sensationalizing one side of the story and not listing all the facts. If you'd validate the topic of the thread with a simple google search, you'd notice that the death penalty is only being handed out to homosexuals who are also HIV positive. Your argument about why gays are being imprisoned at all would have a leg to stand on based on the cultural homophobia of Uganda, but the decision to execute gays who are HIV positive is just another effort to reduce the HIV infection rate in the country.


^Uganda has been the poster child of the world for reduction of HIV infection. They were 25% in the eighties and have succeeded in reducing that rate to near the current US rate. I'd say that they are MUCH more successful in their tactics than ours. Most education programs in this country were ineffective in that they severely overestimated the rates of heterosexual transfer instead of trying to focus on the gay community and prostitutes.

education/awareness doesn't do shit when a quarter of your population is infected. They'll just continue to fuck and spread their disease like normal. They still quarantine people with leprosy in parts of the world with inadequate available treatment.

[Edited on December 6, 2009 at 10:00 PM. Reason : education is worthless if you're teaching the wrong things.]

12/6/2009 9:52:27 PM

and they still prosecute witches in certain parts of Africa, as well. what's your point?

educate people. give them access to doctors, healthcare and treatment. don't vilify and cast them out.

you're substituting people for statistics.

12/6/2009 9:55:13 PM

^ don't be gay spunky

12/6/2009 10:01:28 PM

in this thread Optimum tries to teach us that being gay has absolutely no consequences and provides no evidence to back up anything he says.


why don't you find some information regarding the success rate of education on HIV/AIDS and report back with some actual facts. Good luck finding something that actually verifies your skewed perception of reality.

12/6/2009 10:02:31 PM

^^ don't be stupid, popped-collar

[Edited on December 6, 2009 at 10:03 PM. Reason : ^ rawr rawr rawr]

12/6/2009 10:02:38 PM

^waah waah waah

just be thankful you live in a country as tolerant as ours that isn't being decimated by a lethal disease.

12/6/2009 10:05:51 PM

^ You have a very interesting way of interpreting what I said earlier. So you're in favor of Uganda committing state-sanctioned genocide against gay people? Do you support HIV-infected people, gay or otherwise, being kept away from the rest of society?

Quote :

"in this thread Optimum tries to teach us that being gay has absolutely no consequences and provides no evidence to back up anything he says."

I have no reason to provide "evidence" for such a thing, when I've claimed no such thing. I'm TRYING to point out that vilifying gay people is no more correct than executing people because they have a disease. Your claim is that literally destroying the gay population of the country will eradicate the problem of HIV infections and transmission. You're deadly wrong about that.

[Edited on December 6, 2009 at 10:08 PM. Reason : fuck you for suggesting state-sponsored genocide.]

[Edited on December 6, 2009 at 10:09 PM. Reason : genocide. much better word.]

12/6/2009 10:07:50 PM

I agree with that ^ post. good work, mang

12/6/2009 10:20:40 PM

it would have eradicated the problem in the US in the eighties if we had gone that route.

I personally don't give a shit about Uganda protecting the future of their country by killing a group of people who are going to die anyway. you can't spread a disease if you get rid of the people spreading it. it's not like HIV is treatable.

I'm starting to think you're just looking for approval of your lifestyle instead of trying to address the real issues here.

12/6/2009 10:20:47 PM

You're either deeply confused, eleusis, or attempting to hide your homophobia behind a veil of science. The fact that you would speak up in defense of such horrific oppression undermines the claim that you don't have any problem with gay people. If you hate us queers, just come out and say it.

Martin Ssempa, a major figure behind the new law, is famous for burning condoms in the name of Jesus. The dude's not out to stop HIV by any means necessary. He's fighting a culture war based on religion. If you read the actual text of the law you'll see this. It says nothing about preventing AIDS, but rather focuses on preserving the family and so on. An actual attempt to stop HIV transmission by draconian measures would only punish high-risk sex acts. (And even that would be idiotic.)

12/6/2009 10:24:25 PM

^^ That post sums things up nicely. I'm done with this topic, since you've just provided all the evidence needed to conclude that you'd like to see gay people murdered. But don't let me stop you from hating gay people, since that's pretty much the only thing you've proven through this discourse. I hope you're proud of it.

[Edited on December 6, 2009 at 10:25 PM. Reason : .]

12/6/2009 10:25:04 PM

Quote :

"you'd notice that the death penalty is only being handed out to homosexuals who are also HIV positive."

Wrong. "Aggravated homosexuality" also includes anyone previously convicted of homosexuality and committing a homosexual act with someone under eighteen.

12/6/2009 10:30:30 PM