Liz Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Well, this bill was proposed a while back (in October, I believe). I haven't seen any topic relating to it in this forum, so I thought that maybe it would be a good thing to discuss. To make a long story short, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill is intended to criminally punish any person in Uganda who engages in any sort of homosexual behavior, going from fines and prison time to the death penalty in certain cases. In case you haven't heard of the bill... Here is the actual memorandum of the bill: http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/anti-homosexuality-bill-2009.pdf Several articles about some of the opponents of the bill: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/10/15/uganda-anti-homosexuality-bill-threatens-liberties-and-human-rights-defenders http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/news/25477-ministry-fights-for-homosexual-freedoms- http://healthdev.net/site/post.php?s=6192 http://www.africafiles.org/article.asp?ID=22260 And Rachel Maddow interviewing Richard Cohen, the author of a book which supposedly fueled the bill by serving as a justification: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34337416#34337416 So... what are your thoughts about this bill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Tarrasque Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 (edited) More of this nonsense? Prohibition of homosexuality should be declared unconstitutional already and not exist in any freaking country. Edited December 10, 2009 by Vergil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candlejack Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Vergil, there will always be retards. Always. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Spoon Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Homosexuals should just be given the same rights as others, if for no other reason than to simply shut-up the homosexuals wanting those rights. Lord knows there won't be anyway of shutting-up the opponents (of giving homosexuals those rights) anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Jar Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 (edited) Uganda is already fucked up enough, who cares if they have a bill to legally approve of what they already do? Of course it's messed up, but even if the bill doesn't pass, it won't change the hatred and violence against gays. Gays should just be given the same rights. It makes no sense to hold them back. Religion and politics should be separate. And anybody who says the don't like (hate) gays because they think it's gross (I've actually heard this argument) is a retard. Edited December 10, 2009 by Rafael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 (edited) The eating of shellfish is an abomination in the eyes of God too. But since that one "doesn't make sense" people don't follow it. Christians pick and choose on how THEY want to worship God, not how God wants them to worship. Edited December 10, 2009 by Santa Snake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 (edited) The eating of shellfish is an abomination in the eyes of God too. But since that one "doesn't make sense" people don't follow it. Christians pick and choose on how THEY want to worship God, not how God wants them to worship. Ever heard of the old and the new covenants? The internet seems to indicate is that Christians view Jesus as having "fulfilled" the old covenant and changed the rules (without the general idea). Even though all food is the creation of god and theoretically safe to eat, there may be times when Christians should not eat certain things, or should not eat anything (fasting). You can't pick any old phrase out of the OT and assume that Christians will go by it. Sometimes, Jesus may have specifically told them not to. There are actually some who view the OT god as a different god from the NT god (the OT god being bad, or cruel). What isn't clear to me is why Christians have freedom of choice for food but not for sex. Edited December 10, 2009 by SeverIan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 The eating of shellfish is an abomination in the eyes of God too. But since that one "doesn't make sense" people don't follow it. Christians pick and choose on how THEY want to worship God, not how God wants them to worship. Ever heard of the old and the new covenants? The internet seems to indicate is that Christians view Jesus as having "fulfilled" the old covenant and changed the rules (without the general idea). Even though all food is the creation of god and theoretically safe to eat, there may be times when Christians should not eat certain things, or should not eat anything (fasting). You can't pick any old phrase out of the OT and assume that Christians will go by it. Sometimes, Jesus may have specifically told them not to. There are actually some who view the OT god as a different god from the NT god (the OT god being bad, or cruel). What isn't clear to me is why Christians have freedom of choice for food but not for sex. Told them not to? That doesn't make sense. The entire Bible is supposed to be the truth. How can one God be "bad"? Furthermore, how can the "son of God" be telling his followers NOT to follow what's in the Bible? If the OT is truly a synonym for garbage why isn't it taken out of the Bible completely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Jar Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 (edited) It isn't to all Christians. The religion I grew up with take both into account and use logic to show what we should or should not do. It's an alright religion, just it has turned into a terrible following and the new ones are lying and skewing the truth (in accordance to the bible). I also don't agree with some of their beliefs, but that's just me. Edited December 10, 2009 by Rafael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zkirsche Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 These boards are as touchy with religion as the FE9 tier list is as touchy with Mist and the RD board with Mia. Anyway, there will always be people who hate on the minorities. And banning this bill won't change that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Jar Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Exactly what I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hero Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 (edited) Severian's post should settle any religious arguments here. There are even some Protestant groups that condone homosexual activities because they don't consider themselves responsible for upholding any of the "Old Law" and they have some pretty decent theological arguments. As for Uganda, I couldn't care less about this bill. It's a small but overpopulated country with a weaker economy than Zimbabwe's and less international influence than Somalia. The final form of the bill is even relatively benign, in comparison to what it originally was. The people of Uganda have much, much more pressing issues to worry about if my impression of the country is correct. It's disgusting that the media focuses on issues like this when so much worse is being done in countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia and even Pakistan. Edited December 11, 2009 by Hero Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 The eating of shellfish is an abomination in the eyes of God too. But since that one "doesn't make sense" people don't follow it. Christians pick and choose on how THEY want to worship God, not how God wants them to worship. Ever heard of the old and the new covenants? The internet seems to indicate is that Christians view Jesus as having "fulfilled" the old covenant and changed the rules (without the general idea). Even though all food is the creation of god and theoretically safe to eat, there may be times when Christians should not eat certain things, or should not eat anything (fasting). You can't pick any old phrase out of the OT and assume that Christians will go by it. Sometimes, Jesus may have specifically told them not to. There are actually some who view the OT god as a different god from the NT god (the OT god being bad, or cruel). What isn't clear to me is why Christians have freedom of choice for food but not for sex. Told them not to? That doesn't make sense. The entire Bible is supposed to be the truth. How can one God be "bad"? Furthermore, how can the "son of God" be telling his followers NOT to follow what's in the Bible? If the OT is truly a synonym for garbage why isn't it taken out of the Bible completely? What he means is that some of the rules were waived by Jesus Christ at some certain points (among a few other points); for example, while it was stated in Leviticus that it was wrong to eat animals without split hoof which chewed cud, Christ later stated that all foods are free game (I can't remember the passage). He is saying that all the portions of the Old Testament as God's word do not necessarily hold into modern times as strict law, that is all. And he is right; the majority of the Christian community holds that with Christ came the "New Covenant". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hero Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 What he means is that some of the rules were waived by Jesus Christ at some certain points (among a few other points); for example, while it was stated in Leviticus that it was wrong to eat animals without split hoof which chewed cud, Christ later stated that all foods are free game (I can't remember the passage). He is saying that all the portions of the Old Testament as God's word do not necessarily hold into modern times as strict law, that is all. And he is right; the majority of the Christian community holds that with Christ came the "New Covenant". That's a decent summarization of what happened, except it was generally after Jesus's death. Jesus himself most likely fully embraced Jewish law as a Jew with Jewish followers. Only years after his death is it decided firmly that gentile followers of Jesus would not be required to follow the 613 Jewish commandments, including circumcision and dietary laws. And even then Jewish Christians were still obliged to keep the old covenant. It took many generations before the doctrine of a new covenant superseding the old one was developed, as the culmination of a dispute with "Judaizing" gentile Christians who insisted that followers of Christ must follow Jewish law as he did. The current form of the New Testament in every significant branch of Christianity reflects this, and the original decision of the Council of Jerusalem that gentile Christians did not have the same obligations as Jews is in Acts. So there's really a strong theological basis for homosexuality to be permitted within Christianity, especially when you consider that the official reasons behind its ban in so many churches are really just assumptions about the unwritten will of God and cultural tradition. But this is getting off-topic. Let's talk about Uganda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quanta Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 That's a decent summarization of what happened, except it was generally after Jesus's death. Jesus himself most likely fully embraced Jewish law as a Jew with Jewish followers. I dunno, Jesus hung out with prostitutes and Roman tax collectors, entered the temple and threw out moneychangers, didn't really care about the exact technicalities of not working on the sabbath, and multiple parables he supposedly told not only condone but sometimes almost encourage ignoring certain elements of tradition (generally you could view it as trying to live up to the spirit of the law (First, love your God; second, love your neighbor as yourself) rather than the letter of the law). For example, the parable of the Good Samaritan has this sort of element. Funnily enough, I checked the wikipedia article on the good samaritan and it's even more similar to what I was thinking than I remembered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Kommissar Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) The general rule with Jesus in reference to old laws seems to have been "follow the old ways )unless I say otherwise,)" I believe he basically says as much on at least one occasion, Matthew 5:18? Edited December 16, 2009 by Der Kommissar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.