Uganda Criminalizes Homosexuality

[Whitefox789]

 

 

You've raised an excellent question but no this isn't the same thing. There are times where intervention from other countries is necessary in Africa even if Africa doesn't want it. This is about human rights and the dignity of certain groups that become the victims of discrimination. You can't expect foreign aid and then treat your citizens in a way that is abhorrent to those countries giving the aid. That's just not the way it works

 

Exactly, what good will come out from singling out a group? Nothing it only solidifies the interests of those that are against it. Which in the end will only breed more hatred over the years and more violence inflicted upon the group.

[Malcador]

Probably more hate against them too if the Western pressure succeeds in its aims, which is a shame.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Malcador

[TrashMan]

 

I reject your assessment around the point that "there is no such thing as morally wrong". And certain actions and decisions are absolutely justified

 

 

Of course...from your point of view.

[Walsingham]

 

 

But if law is against moral code of other countries that are getting involved, then that itself works as their justification to get involved as you said all justifications are based on some sort of moral code.

 

 

So at the end of day everyone has justification for their actions that are based on their moral values but questions is that which values are most dominant and which parties have most resources or/and will to push their values to be the dominant ones. 

 

 

Precisely.

Everyone is convinced he is in the right and justified. Everyone has reasons why they think/believe what they do.

Everyone operates on the same basic principles.

 

It basicly boils down to "my views and morals are better than yours".

 

I'm just being honest here.

I don't call the intervention good, even if it's result would be good.

Two wrongs may make a right, but it's still two wrongs.

 

If I had to kill one person to save ten, I'd do it. But I wouldn't go around saying that specific action was a "good" and "moral" thing.

I don't even think those words apply anymore to such complex things.

 

 

And I put it to you that your slackened 'morality' is just your last ditch attempt to bolster your senss of cognitive dissonance. You can't justify your position but you refuse to abandon it?

 

Have you never tried to dissuade someone from pursuing a course of absolute idiocy?

 

If you have, what possible authority can one use apart from brute force, if not logic?

[213374U]

Have you never tried to dissuade someone from pursuing a course of absolute idiocy?

 

If you have, what possible authority can one use apart from brute force, if not logic?

 

Oh, I don't know. How about leading by example?

 

"Authority"? What authority do you have over anyone?

Edited March 2, 2014 by 213374U

[Malcador]

Guns. Lots of guns.

[Orogun01]

 

Have you never tried to dissuade someone from pursuing a course of absolute idiocy?

 

If you have, what possible authority can one use apart from brute force, if not logic?

 

Oh, I don't know. How about leading by example?

 

"Authority"? What authority do you have over anyone?

 

In my experience you cannot force people without having some might backing you up, it easier to trick them into inaction and redirect their efforts into fruitless pursuits. But those tactics only buy time, not solve the problem.

[Walsingham]

 

Have you never tried to dissuade someone from pursuing a course of absolute idiocy?

 

If you have, what possible authority can one use apart from brute force, if not logic?

 

Oh, I don't know. How about leading by example?

 

"Authority"? What authority do you have over anyone?

 

 

Classically there are three types of authority: pragmatic, charismatic, and traditional. I guess we just covered two of those.

 

My point was that it's a bit ...argh, no time!

[213374U]

My point was that it's a bit ...argh, no time!

 

Haha, I hate when that happens!

[Orogun01]

 

 

Have you never tried to dissuade someone from pursuing a course of absolute idiocy?

 

If you have, what possible authority can one use apart from brute force, if not logic?

 

Oh, I don't know. How about leading by example?

 

"Authority"? What authority do you have over anyone?

 

 

Classically there are three types of authority: pragmatic, charismatic, and traditional. I guess we just covered two of those.

 

My point was that it's a bit ...argh, no time!

 

But what about my divine right to rule?

[Valsuelm]

 

But what about my divine right to rule?

 

[TrashMan]

 

 

Precisely.

Everyone is convinced he is in the right and justified. Everyone has reasons why they think/believe what they do.

Everyone operates on the same basic principles.

 

It basicly boils down to "my views and morals are better than yours".

 

I'm just being honest here.

I don't call the intervention good, even if it's result would be good.

Two wrongs may make a right, but it's still two wrongs.

 

If I had to kill one person to save ten, I'd do it. But I wouldn't go around saying that specific action was a "good" and "moral" thing.

I don't even think those words apply anymore to such complex things.

 

 

And I put it to you that your slackened 'morality' is just your last ditch attempt to bolster your senss of cognitive dissonance. You can't justify your position but you refuse to abandon it?

 

Have you never tried to dissuade someone from pursuing a course of absolute idiocy?

 

If you have, what possible authority can one use apart from brute force, if not logic?

 

 

So you postulate that if I'm not declaring my moral code from the top of the tallest building, if I'm not vigorously imposing on others, that I don't really have one?

 

My morality is "slackened"?

If I were to throw myself into battle to enforce my morals, strapped with TNT, what would that make me?

How far must I go with it in order for it to be acceptable to you? Where do you draw the line?

 

 

And if my moral beliefs are that I must not force my morals on others, how does that work then? How can I stay true to my morals if I enforce them?

It's an oxymoron. Like fighting for tolerance by not tolerating anyone who isn't as tolerating as you. Ideals ultimatively cannot survive untouched in this world.

 

But I digress.

While I may personally believe in objective morality, I fail to see how can that stop me from discussing things from different viewpoints.

[BruceVC]

https://za.news.yahoo.com/ugandan-court-rules-anti-homosexuality-law-unconstitutional-104837549.html

 

 

Guys some good news, the appalling law that was passed a few months ago in Uganda that criminalized homosexuality has been overturned. Let it not be said that economic pressure from Western countries cannot be effective and well done the Uganda constitutional court  for doing the right thing

[HoonDing]

Excellent. Now to solve global hunger.

[BruceVC]

Excellent. Now to solve global hunger.

 

Oh no there  are still loads of blatant cases of extreme homophobia in Africa, so we still have loads of work to do before we can move onto world hunger. But I appreciate your commitment to another SJ cause

[Orogun01]

 

Excellent. Now to solve global hunger.

 

Oh no there  are still loads of blatant cases of extreme homophobia in Africa, so we still have loads of work to do before we can move onto world hunger. But I appreciate your commitment to another SJ cause

 

Maybe one is the solution to the other?

[Chairchucker]

To be clear, is it illegal to be sexually intimate with someone of the same sex, or does the law actually stretch to merely being attracted to someone of the same sex, as well?

 

Because if the latter, how the hell do you police that?

[BruceVC]

To be clear, is it illegal to be sexually intimate with someone of the same sex, or does the law actually stretch to merely being attracted to someone of the same sex, as well?

 

Because if the latter, how the hell do you police that?

 

Good question, the abhorrent  bill that was passed, and now overturned,  was criminalizing the act of consensual same sex. Not the idea of being attracted to someone of the same sex which as you mentioned would be impossible to enforce

[Chairchucker]

Oh, I missed the overturning bit because I was too lazy (and pressed for time, but mostly the lazy thing) to read all 8 pages of this thread. Well, the bill's gone, cool, good chat.

 

How about consensual polygamy, what's the legal status of that one, while we're here?

 

EDIT: While, not which. That wouldn't even make sense. Gosh, Chairchucker, get your head in the game.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Chairchucker

[Elerond]

 

 

How about consensual polygamy, what's the legal status of that one, while we're here?

 

 

 

Polyamory (relationships with multiple partners at same time) is legal in most of the countries in world if people in such relationship don't try to make their relationship official, being illegal only in those countries that forbid sex outside of marriage and don't recognize polygamous marriages, although most countries that recognize polygamous marriages actually only recognize polygynous (one man and more than one women) marriages. Uganda is one of those countries that has legal status for polygynous marriages. Polygynous marriages have legal status in more countries than same-sex marriages. Polygynous living arrangements are against law (usually anti-bigamy laws) in fewer countries than same-sex partnership living arrangements, although in Western countries this is vice versa.

 

Polyandry (one woman and more than one man) and group marriage (more than one member of each/both genders), don't have legal recognition in any country in world, but in some areas polyandry is practiced because it is part of tradition.

[Chairchucker]

Interesting, actually didn't know there'd be distinct laws for polygynous and polyandrous relationships, but that probably should've been obvious if I'd thought about it. Thanks Elerond, I feel enlightened!

[BruceVC]

Interesting, actually didn't know there'd be distinct laws for polygynous and polyandrous relationships, but that probably should've been obvious if I'd thought about it. Thanks Elerond, I feel enlightened!

 

Yeah Elerond summarized it nicely, by the way Elerond you know a lot about polygamy..how many wives do you actually have ?

[Elerond]

 

Interesting, actually didn't know there'd be distinct laws for polygynous and polyandrous relationships, but that probably should've been obvious if I'd thought about it. Thanks Elerond, I feel enlightened!

 

Yeah Elerond summarized it nicely, by the way Elerond you know a lot about polygamy..how many wives do you actually have ?

 

 

Why do you presume that they are (only) wives?

 

I researched subject little bit when helped with equal marriage civil bill campaign in here Finland, because allowance of polygamy marriage is thing that always rises on surface when one speaks about allowance of same-sex marriage, so I though it's probably better know at least little bit about subject.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Interesting, actually didn't know there'd be distinct laws for polygynous and polyandrous relationships, but that probably should've been obvious if I'd thought about it. Thanks Elerond, I feel enlightened!

 

Yeah Elerond summarized it nicely, by the way Elerond you know a lot about polygamy..how many wives do you actually have ?

 

 

Why do you presume that they are (only) wives?

 

I researched subject little bit when helped with equal marriage civil bill campaign in here Finland, because allowance of polygamy marriage is thing that always rises on surface when one speaks about allowance of same-sex marriage, so I though it's probably better know at least little bit about subject.

 

 

In South Africa our constitution allows same sex marriages but we call it civil unions, but its basically the exact same thing. Its one of the things I am very proud of as a South African because we have  lots of other social issues we need to deal with

In Finland do you guys allow same sex marriages?

[Elerond]

 

 

 

Interesting, actually didn't know there'd be distinct laws for polygynous and polyandrous relationships, but that probably should've been obvious if I'd thought about it. Thanks Elerond, I feel enlightened!

 

Yeah Elerond summarized it nicely, by the way Elerond you know a lot about polygamy..how many wives do you actually have ?

 

 

Why do you presume that they are (only) wives?

 

I researched subject little bit when helped with equal marriage civil bill campaign in here Finland, because allowance of polygamy marriage is thing that always rises on surface when one speaks about allowance of same-sex marriage, so I though it's probably better know at least little bit about subject.

 

 

In South Africa our constitution allows same sex marriages but we call it civil unions, but its basically the exact same thing. Its one of the things I am very proud of as a South African because we have  lots of other social issues we need to deal with

In Finland do you guys allow same sex marriages?

 

 

Currently in Finland it is possible for same-sex couples to register themselves to be in civil union, such unions don't have all the same rights (some economical things, changing sure name to your spouse's needs separate application [which isn't free], adoption rights as couple, etc.) as civil marriages, which is why there was campaign for civil bill that would make all civil unions to be same in eyes of law. Bill is currently in Finnish Parliament, which will vote about bill in September.