Homosexuality is already illegal in the East African nation, and violence against the country's LGBT population has been steadily increasing since the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was first introduced in 2009, according to activists on the ground. When the legislation was first introduced in Parliament, it called for the death of anyone who committed "aggravated homosexuality," which included repeated "offenses," sexual relationships in which either person was HIV-positive, or any encounter that involved a minor.
January 28, 2014
"Unless I have got confirmation from scientists that this condition is not genetic, but a behavior that is acquired..."
... Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni will not sign the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
94 comments:
Hey it's Africa. They kill everybody.
A distinction without a difference. The issue is whether a behavior should be normalized, can be tolerated, or should be rejected. The cause of the behavior is irrelevant. Homosexual behavior can be tolerated when exhibited by a minority of the population.
Uganda's struggling with the Lord's Resistance Army so we should focus on gay-bashing? Get a sense of proportion.
"A distinction without a difference. The issue is whether a behavior should be normalized, can be tolerated, or should be rejected."
No, the issue in Uganda was whether the death penalty was appropriate!
Normalizing is in a completely different place.
Distinction without a difference! That's a hell of a thing to say.
I tend to agree with n. n on this. On the other hand, having heard members of the LGBTQ community claim that homosexuality is a behavior, i.e. their lifestyle choice, then later claim that it is genetic, out of curiosity I would like to know the answer to question as well.
Ann Althouse:
I am criticizing the criteria by which he determines the treatment of those men and women. I did not remark on the actual treatment or classification. I suggest tolerance, which precludes criminalization or undue discrimination, including murder and torture.
RecChief:
If it is an acquired behavior, then the cultural causes must be addressed. If it is genetic, then the environmental factors which cause the mutation must be addressed. However, this is less of an issue, and in fact quite insignificant, when the behavior is exhibited by a stable, minority population. In that case, tolerance is the rule, and treatment is voluntary.
"The cause of the behavior is irrelevant. Homosexual behavior can be tolerated when exhibited by a minority of the population."
1/28/14, 11:55 AM
Wow. When is the threshold as to when it can no longer be tolerated? 10 %, 20%, surely that's a death sentence. And it doesn't matter what the cause is? So let's say society starts believing that schizophrenia a sign of being possessed by demons, and the occurance is above a certain percentage in the population it's OK to kill them?
"homosexuality is a behavior, i.e. their lifestyle choice, then later claim that it is genetic, out of curiosity I would like to know the answer to question as well."
It seems rather obvious that homosexual behavior is a choice, even though there's a good amount of evidence that homosexual orientation is at least partly genetic.
The science question is whether "partly" means 10% or 90%.
But the question in Uganda is whether the behavior will be tolerated and, if not, whether death is the appropriate penalty.
I'd guess most of us believe the behavior should be tolerated (but perhaps not celebrated or even normalized). And surely few think death is an appropriate punishment for the behavior.
Inga:
Have I ever suggested a resolution? No. I suggested that it becomes a concern for human viability when it reaches some threshold. This is merely an observation of the natural order. It is not or should not be controversial.
Before you wander off to other topics, perhaps you should resolve when and by whose determination a human life acquires value.
No, the issue in Uganda was whether the death penalty was appropriate!
OK. I'll bite. From what I can tell, the Ugandan bill provides for the death penalty for statutory rape, homosexual sex when one of the partners has HIV, homosexual sex when one of the parties is a parent or guardian, homosexual sex when one of the parties is an authority figure, homosexual sex when one of the parties is disabled, homosexual sex when one of the parties is drugged, and sex by "serial offenders."
I do not believe any of these warrant the death penalty, although I can see an argument for long prison terms for rape and incest. The "serial offender" provision is shocking.
Peter:
Since homosexual behavior is antithetical to evolutionary fitness, we must assume there is a predisposition to its expression. However, with the assumption of freewill, we must also assume that its practice is voluntary.
Whatever its cause, it does not in and of itself deserve punishment. It is not in the same class as rape, abortion, etc. Any treatment (i.e. correction) should be voluntary when it does not threaten the viability of society or humanity.
Matt:
The offenses and any punitive response should be judged and prescribed independent of a person's sexual preference.
n.n,
Do you seriously think that if the % were to be too high, in which the continuation of the human species would be negatively affected, intervention should be implemented? What should be done? Forced sperm extraction and implantation in females? Again what would that percentage be?
wow, I jsut want to know which is the right answer. I couldn't care less what people in their own homes.
The latest battles regarding same sex marriage seem to me more about recognition by the state and the benefits that accrue because of that recognition. Validation of who you are from the people around you comes regardless of what the state says in most cases. That is, the people around you at work, in your community, in your church accept you for who you are regardless. And if they don't, why waste time on them?
n.n.-
My google search of the Ugandan Penal Code (section 124) shows that rape (defined as carnal knowledge of woman or girl without consent) is punishable by death in Uganda. Incest with an underage person is punishable by life imprisonment (section 149). There's also something about "unnatural offenses" that provides for life imprisonment (section 145). I guess the idea was to create a new category "homosexuality," to fill in the blanks.
I think that's all I want to know about the Ugandan Penal Code. The proposed law is still wrong.
This kind of puts all the silly statements by leftists and the gay mafia in America regarding the "bravery" of gays in perspective, huh?
There was a time when I thought we ought to tolerate homosexual behavior. But since that time, I've seen that when you tolerate it, you are then later forced to accept it, or find that you yourself and your own views are no longer tolerated by society.
It seems that we cannot live together in this way. Either the religious view of homosexuality is accepted and tolerated, or homosexuality is accepted and tolerated.
One will ultimately have to give ground to the other, and I expect more and more persecution of the religious who hold to their views, as homosexuality is encoded into our legal system.
So, if there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality and if a woman finds out through genetic testing that her child is predisposed and wants an abortion because of that predisposition will the pro-abortion folks feel that is an OK reason to have that abortion? Or, will they crucify her for reducing their population?
A genetic cause is not the same as a congenital cause. There is a correlation between people who self identify as homosexual and people who were born of a woman who had previously had a male child. This points to a congenital correlation, not a genetic correlation.
There is no biological test that can conclusively prove that a person will self-identify as a homosexual.
It would be nice if people would actually read what the APA has to say about the origin of homosexuality before they commented on what the 'science' says about it.
paminwi:
It would be an elective abortion and therefore unjustified. But yeah, the population control protocol, including abortion, is designed to remove unwanted people before they are ever a burden on the system. It's the only way for them to make the numbers work.
Charles Taylor had an army of children. They were used to rape other children. After the rape, they cut off the arms of the girls they raped. Charles Taylor didn't get the death penalty for these crimes. He got life imprisonment.......In a better world there would be as much outrage and publicity attached to Taylor's crimes as to those of the Ugandan President.
Inga:
It's a possible but improbable event, and therefore does not merit a comprehensive review. Today, the immediate threat is posed by normalization of abortion and other dysfunctional heterosexual behaviors.
Are you sure you know the meaning of congenital??
It doesn't distinguish between genes and environment. It is something that exists at birth.
Do you seriously think that if the % were to be too high, in which the continuation of the human species would be negatively affected, intervention should be implemented?
In this context, in our culture of relative morality, I assert that any deviation from practices that contribute to survival of our species is immoral.
Whether individuals practicing anti-survial sex deserve execution may be debatable. But in a morally relative world, remember that right and wrong is subjective. What is right for one may not be right for another.
Homosexual behavior is a life style choice?
No.
As a kid, I never wanted to be like my father.
As an adult, I have become my father.
Even my children tell me that.
Of course it's a lifestyle choice, madAsHell. The only way you could possibly deny that logically would be to make an argument that we have no free will.
Eric,
Good lord. If one is homosexual, one should not engage in sex with who one is attracted to and in a way that feels normal to them? Who are we to pass judgment on them because of who they are naturally attracted to and act on it? It sounds a lot like Uganda in this thread.
Do any of you people have any gay relatives? Have they told you they chose to be gay?
"Before you wander off to other topics, perhaps you should resolve when and by whose determination a human life acquires value."
If Inga did not wander we would never hear from her.
Is it gay bashing to state that I am so tired of the LGBT agenda that I am considering hermithood?
Inga wrote:
"Eric,
Good lord. If one is homosexual, one should not engage in sex with who one is attracted to and in a way that feels normal to them? Who are we to pass judgment on them because of who they are naturally attracted to and act on it? It sounds a lot like Uganda in this thread."
To which I respond,
Inga,
Good lord. If one is a pedophile, one should not engage in sex with who one is attracted to and in a way that feels normal to them? Who are we to pass judgment on them because of who they are naturally attracted to and act on it? It sounds a lot like Uganda in this thread.
@Inga,
Yes, I have two cousins who are lesbians.
One, (who is the adopted daughter of my uncle) says she was born that way.
The other, who is the daughter of a different uncle, says she gacve up on men after dating several, shall we say, bad apples.
So which is it? the fact of them being lesbians hasn't interrupted any of the fun we have at family reunions. Almost never comes up as a matter of fact.
The way in which you practice homosexuality is more important than the fact that you are homosexual.
Inga wrote;
"Have they told you they chose to be gay?"
What does this mean, chose to be gay?
We do not choose who we are attracted to. This is obvious. And we've discussed this many times. If we chose who we were attracted to, no one would ever cheat on their spouse, because they would chose to only ever be attracted to their spouse.
On the other hand, what you do about that attraction (engage in intercourse or abstain) is a choice.
Surely you're intelligent enough to understand the subtle difference.
Eric, so you equate homosexuality with pedophilia, got it.
Who is a homosexual hurting in the same way a pedophile hurts children, when a homosexual adult engages in mutual sex with another homosexual adult?
Inga,
Reading comprehension is your friend. If you are unable to see the absurd statement you made, as illustrated by my equally absurd statement, then I can't help you.
Eric, I suggest you never again have sex with your wife to whom you are attracted, see how it may feel to you. Surely you are not so insensitive to not understand this.
Inga wrote;
"Who is a homosexual hurting in the same way a pedophile hurts children, when a homosexual adult engages in mutual sex with another homosexual adult?"
Please re-read your own statement. There is nothing in it about hurting someone else. I'll quote it below as a refresher.
"one should not engage in sex with who one is attracted to and in a way that feels normal to them? Who are we to pass judgment on them because of who they are naturally attracted to and act on it?"
You see? Nothing about hurting others in those two sentences.
Perhaps you'd like to amend them?
Inga wrote;
"Eric, I suggest you never again have sex with your wife to whom you are attracted, see how it may feel to you. Surely you are not so insensitive to not understand this."
I don't see anything wrong with sexual relations with my spouse.
On the other hand, were I attracted to animals, or children, I would abstain.
Surely you are intelligent enough to understand the subtle difference.
No Eric, you made a very absurd comparison, of homosexuals to pedophiles. Own it.
Michael K:
Such is life. The diversity is both a boon and a deficit, but it does ensure it remains interesting.
The LBGTC issue is just one of many that must be addressed, if only because people demand normalization, and the establishment has seen fit to justify it. However, the issue in this thread is the unequal treatment of a population based on, what I would describe as the wrong criteria.
The issue is the criminalization and undue discrimination of men and women based on their sexual preference. The other issues raised are incidental which arise from the improper classification of a dysfunctional yet tolerable behavior.
Inga wrote;
"No Eric, you made a very absurd comparison, of homosexuals to pedophiles. Own it."
I did make an absurd statement, about pedophiles. There was nothing about homosexuals in my statement, at all. It was simply an absurd statement, to equal your own absurd statement.
I was attempting some clarity. By taking your own words to apply them equally to a statement I knew you'd disagree with, in order to help you see just how absurd your own statement was when applied to something you disagree with, namely, pedophilia.
It's a shame you can't see that. Because what's important here, as my favorite radio host would say, is clarity, not agreement.
I don't think for a moment that you and I will agree, Inga. But at least we can be clear on our positions. And your statement was as absurd as mine. Only the word you used was homosexuality, and the word I used was pedophilia, but we both made absurd statements.
Eric, quit digging.
Homosexuals do not engage in sex with animals or children, unless they are weirdo's, such weido's may include heterosexual as well as homosexual.
So you see nothing wrong with sex with your wife, then why is it wrong for a gay person to have sex with their same sex partner? You sound like a hypocrite.
And Eric, do you think that the love and affection and attraction you have for your wife is somehow better than the love, affection and attraction a gay person has for their partner ? You seem to indicate that you and your wife DESERVE to have sexual intimacy, while homosexuals do not. You come across as a bigot.
Inga wrote;
"You sound like a hypocrite."
and
"You come across as a bigot."
Which is why I wrote earlier,
"One will ultimately have to give ground to the other, and I expect more and more persecution of the religious who hold to their views, as homosexuality is encoded into our legal system."
In Inga's world, there is no room for my view. It's hypocritical and bigoted.
And my view is based off of my religious belief's, namely, Christianity. Which prohibits sodomy.
It does not prohobit love, however. And I believe one can love without engaging in sodomy.
that escalated quickly.
A little righteous indignation makes it easier to ignore any opinions not like your own, eh?
Some might want to pay attention to Italy.
Homosexuality is a behavior, whatever it's source.
Liberals are treading on very dangerous ground when they say that a behavior is congenital.
Also. the idea that homosexuality is inborn is not a scientific belief. Empirical evidence does not support this belief.
Maybe the Catholic Church will have some influence in the matter, since it's the largest single religious denomination in Uganda:
"[Pope] Francis’ representative to Uganda has expressed his shock at lawmakers passing a bill that would see people imprisoned for life for having gay sex, reiterating the church’s opposition to the bill."
And it looks as if the Pope himself will make a visit there this year.
Is it ironic (to the liberal mind) that the Vatican may ride to the rescue?
Not ironic at all with this particular Pope. Admirable actually.
If you read the linked article, you'll see the Catholic bishops in Uganda have been opposed to the law since it was first passed in 2009 -- on Pope Benedict's watch.
Is it gay bashing to state that I am so tired of the LGBT agenda that I am considering hermithood
I'm a hermitophile, and I condemn anyone who condemns hermitophilia, those despicable hermitophobes!
Lydia, better yet. That is good to hear.
The argument is that being DNA predisposition makes gayness without blame for making a bad choice.
OK, that has its danger from a society that adopts a social Darwinist bigots view.
But what if we declared gays to be humans too. That should take away the political strife over doing sex wrong.
Not ironic at all with this particular Pope. Admirable actually.
The pope condemned hatred. He also condemned immoral behavior.
He also condemned same-sex marriage.
Love the sinner but hate the sin.
And yes, he is admirable, but I doubt that he is what you think he is.
That should take away the political strife over doing sex wrong.
Bad sex causes political strife? Who saw that coming?
Ah yes ... the Kingston Trio got it right in 1958 when they sang:
"What nature doesn't do to us, will be done by our fellow man."
Looks like Uganda needs more colonialism
Eric,
You're fighting a lost cause with Inga. She is being intentionally obtuse to your argument because it does in fact make perfect sense and is clearly logical. However, the problem is that it runs contrary to her worldview so she immediatlely raises the wall and refuses to engage in a rational and adult manner. And she reinforces that by ascribing specific labels onto you.
If it wasn't so frustratingly annoying, it would be comical.
There's a reason I mentioned Italy.
Didn't anyone read the recent link from Drudge about the guy who got off the pedophilia charge because the 11 year old was "in love?"
Mccullough wrote: "Looks like Uganda needs more colonialism".
Mr. Mccullough, you are not the first person to note that globalism is sometimes hard to distinguish from colonialism.
Perhaps Eric can give us a list of acceptable sexual acts between consenting adults.
The sad thing is that Ann sells the same insane non-argument as Inga does - at least on this issue. Weird.
heyboom said..."Eric, you're fighting a lost cause with Inga. She is being intentionally obtuse to your argument because it does in fact make perfect sense and is clearly logical. However, the problem is that it runs contrary to her worldview so she immediately raises the wall and refuses to engage in a rational and adult manner. And she reinforces that by ascribing specific labels onto you.
If it wasn't so frustratingly annoying, it would be comical."
What if it is both genetic and environmental? I am thinking about the Zulu impis (regiments) which were organized by age. Members of younger impis were supposed to remain celibate and homosexuality was widely practiced. After those in the impi were allowed to marry, they were required to marry women and homosexuality was apparently put aside by most.
I think that you are onto something, trashhauler.
Suppose that sexual behavior of all varieties is partly congenital, partly environmental, and partly a choice? And the ratios of each are different for every person at different times of their lives?
That would make it difficult to propose broad changes in public policies based on any particular aspect of human sexuality.
n..n,
"It would be an elective abortion and therefore unjustified. [emphasis added]"
Did you miss that paminwi was asking what the pro-abortion would be?
Terry:
It wouldn't change anything. Committed, heterosexual behavior would be normalized; while other behaviors, dysfunctional heterosexual, homosexual, etc. would be tolerated when possible; and other behaviors yet, for example pedophilia, rape, etc. would be rejected.
The cause of the behavior is only relevant after the behavior has already been classified. Normal behaviors are not proscribed. Neither are tolerable behaviors, but they are also not promoted. Rejected behaviors are proscribed with prejudice.
Kirk Parker:
I don't think so. Paminwi is pro-life, right?
well, n.n., it would make the belief that homosexual behavior, or any other sexual behavior, is an immutable, in-born thing called 'orientation' no more acceptable a basis for public policy than astrology.
A question, diabetes, cardiac disease and other illnesses are inherited (complex ways). So the fact that a personalty or sex orientation is inherited does not mean that it is normal, natural, or that it should not be treated. Using the logic of the homosexual community, that would mean that we should not treat diabetes as it is natural. So, my question is why do genes indicate that a condition is acceptable?
Diabetes and heart disease are not conducive to health and life. Homosexuality, if genetic or developmental, isn't dangerous to one's health. Why should it be treated? Because it's a different sexual orientation from heterosexuals? Should we consider having gray eyes something that should be treated? Gray eyes are more sensitive to the suns rays, could cause cataracts, or something.
Inga wrote:
" Homosexuality, if genetic or developmental, isn't dangerous to one's health."
You are clearly an ignorant creature, Inga.
Homosexuality is associated with a wide range of pathologies, from less than normal lifespan to alcohol and drug addiction.
"Diabetes and heart disease are not conducive to health and life. Homosexuality, if genetic or developmental, isn't dangerous to one's health. "
Yes, obviously they aren't, he was picking bad things for a reason. Did you seriously completely miss his point?
He made it rather explicitly here:
" So the fact that a personalty or sex orientation is inherited does not mean that it is normal, natural, or that it should not be treated."
Surely you can agree with this? IE: The argument that says, "If it's inherited that doesn't make it normal, natural, or something that should not be treated."
Agree or disagree?
Terry, you sure a a bigot and a hater. There are many different qualities of being human that put humans a risk. Idiot.
Well. That escalated quickly.
Interesting thread till Inga trolled it.
Rev was right. She's an attention troll. "Look at me! Look at me!"
I choose to no longer be part of her therapy.
Adventurous people tend to break bones. Fair skinned people are subject to skin cancer. Fat people have many comorbidities.
A stunning display of stupidity. Really jaw dropping.
The psychologists and psychiatrists who classified homosexuality as a mental disorder (until 1973) did so because it was associated with measurable pathologies, not because they were haters and bigots.
They were men of science, for God's sake. They didn't call it a disorder because the Bible said it was wrong.
Stupid people like Fen sometimes put themselves in danger from people punching them in the mouth, oh well, what ya gonna do? Humans are born with all sorts ot traits that can be dangerous to their health.
Perhaps the Pope should come to the US too.
I honestly don't know how Althouse can stand you people. I have never come across more bigotry and hate as I have read on these threads that deal with homosexuality here on Alhouse. It must turn her stomach.
Sometimes we forget that our problem in communicating with others comes from the simple fact that they are stupid. most of us who work in the world are lucky enough to be surrounded by intelligent and articulate people so when we find ourselves struggling to understand how another person can so miss our points we tend to blame ourselves when the simple reason is that the other is simply dumb. It is not the first thing that comes to mind but is often the correct thing.
Terry:
That's right. Whether it is innate or acquired, it's irrelevant until it's relevant. The world is diverse, with numerous processes and objects. People are diverse, with numerous behaviors and characteristics.
The division of people into classes, other than by organic processes, is not justified. The classification of behaviors is justified and there are three semi-malleable divisions. Unfortunately, there is often an arbitrary and even capricious division of people, typically for purposes of exploiting leverage (e.g. democratic).
"Sometimes we forget that our problem in communicating with others comes from the simple fact that they are stupid."
Awesome. Simply awesome.
However, I think she knows damn well when she is wrong but persists simply because she is loathsome.
I have been wondering if there is a word for a person who misses a point and then continues to purposefully miss the point for their own selfish purposes. If there is not one, then it should be "Ingaramous".
n.n.-
I originally became interested in this thread because it seems odd that we Westerners can condemn the Ugandans for making homosexuality illegal and not call it colonialism. We certainly wouldn't care what the Ugandans thought of any of our laws. Then I realized that the Museveni referred to genetics when he probably should have used the word 'congenital' (or maybe it's a translation problem?). Museveni says he will sign the anti-homosexual bill if he is satisfied that homosexuality is an inborn condition. If homosexuality is an inborn condition, and most liberals believe that it is, what's the problem?
To those of you hating on Inga, allow me to say this.
Most of us have probably been in arguments before with people with whom we would never agree. And during those arguments, we staked out our positions and defended them wholeheartedly.
It usually isn't until later, when you've had time to reflect, that a powerful argument can convince. That is what I have found in my own life. In the moment, while I'm arguing, it's hard to see their side.
But afterwards, when I'm reflecting, and on my own, it's easier to find their arguments more persuasive (Or less so, depending on who and what was being argued).
Inga is just like any other person. She has her position and is trying to defend it. Sure, she uses debate tricks and such, and a lot of non sequiturs, but perhaps later she reflects and finds her position wanting?
Also, don't forget other people read these comments (I lurk a lot more than I write, generally) and it's not just Inga you're addressing, it's the rest of the audience.
Sorry, meant to write that "Museveni says he will not sign the anti-homosexual bill if he is satisfied that homosexuality is an inborn condition"
Terry:
It's not colonialism. It's rhetoric, which expresses an opinion. What the Ugandans do is ultimately their decision. Our rhetorical exchange is conducted in a philosopher's nest. A kind of ivory tower which only a minority of people globally will ever enjoy. It's a self-indulgent luxury that we should exploit while we can to chart our future and to discover our true nature.
The President of Uganda is black, African and non-Western.
Therefore, as the left has informed us for many years, he has "absolute moral authority".
This cannot be questioned, lest you be labeled a racist, or neo-colonialist, or any of a number of other "-ists".
Again, so the left lectures us.
Maybe I should start quoting Camille Paglia who does not think homosexuality is genetic - but an adaptation from the norm. Norm in nature is to reproduce. Science! Guess she is a hater and a bigot too.
And if I looked at the CDC, rates of STDs, domestic and substance abuse, it would tell me, compared to the general population, that the behaviors of many in the gay community is indeed a danger to one's health, esp. within that community. Not opinion - science.
Didn't anyone read the recent link from Drudge about the guy who got off the pedophilia charge because the 11 year old was "in love?"
I thought that was the Duck Dynasty guy, proud bastion of heterosexuality.
So.
Eric.
Were as entertained as the rest of us?
And Inga manages to hijack Althouse again. I come here to see how Ann sets it up and Inga runs away with it.
I wonder, is Inga really Ann's alter ego that she allows this?
Post a Comment