Does SPLC encourage hate? - Page 3
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Does SPLC encourage hate?

  1. #21
    Community Host wlillie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    6,469

    Default

    this is another example of what's wrong with the us today. wtf did the "resolution" get time/money/resources spent on it when we have issues they Should be dealing with that actually can be fixed if the idiots would just concentrate? and putting crap in there they know people won't sign off on so they can advertise that the group wants homosexuals to get the death penalty? shame on them.

  2. #22
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default

    Shame on Congress for writing a resolution condemning Uganda for passing a law that threatens homosexuals with the death penalty????
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  3. #23
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default

    Here is the text of the Resolution that they were lobbying against.

    Right Now - Family Research Council lobbied against resolution condemning Uganda anti-homosexuality law

    A RESOLUTION

    Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the `Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009' under consideration by the Parliament of Uganda, that would impose long-term imprisonment and the death penalty for certain acts, threatens the protection of fundamental human rights, and for other purposes.

    Whereas, on September 25, 2009, legislation was introduced in the Ugandan Parliament entitled the `Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009' to strengthen and expand existing anti-homosexuality laws to prohibit any form of sexual relations between persons of the same sex;

    Whereas the legislation would severely punish `homosexual behavior' and individuals who `attempt' homosexual acts, including by life in prison or the death penalty;

    Whereas the legislation creates offenses and penalties for Ugandan citizens and other individuals who fail to report `homosexual behavior' within 24 hours of acquiring such knowledge, and imposes stiff fines and up to three years imprisonment for community members who fail to report suspected cases of homosexuality;

    Whereas the legislation creates an offense of `aggravated homosexuality' that would impose the death penalty for certain same-sex acts, including acts in which the partner is HIV-positive;

    Whereas the proposed legislation could severely curtail the ability of public health institutions and nongovernmental organizations to address effectively HIV/AIDS among vulnerable groups such as men who have sex with men (MSM), by subjecting such institutions to the revocation of their registration, certificates, and their directors to seven-year prison terms;

    Whereas the proposed legislation would nullify any international treaties, conventions, protocols, agreements, and any other legal instruments signed by Uganda whose provisions `are contradictory to the spirit and provisions enshrined in the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009', such as those that protect the rights of individuals regardless of sexual orientation;

    Whereas the legislation provides for jurisdiction of Ugandan courts in cases of homosexuality, including extra-territorial jurisdiction to cover Ugandan citizens outside of the geographic boundaries of Uganda, an extreme measure that currently only applies to severe criminal offenses in Uganda's penal code, including treason and terrorism;

    Whereas the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Five Year Strategy released on December 1, 2009, asserts that `PEPFAR's prevention strategies must be responsive to the drivers of the epidemic and address the needs of most-at risk populations', and specifically prioritizes MSM as an at-risk `strategic population' in need of prevention, care, and treatment programs that are free from stigma and discrimination directed towards clients;

    Whereas under PEPFAR, Uganda received approximately $91 million in fiscal year (FY) 2004, more than $148 million in FY2005, approximately $170 million in FY2006, $237 million in FY2007, $284 million in FY2008, and $286 million in FY2009 to support a comprehensive HIV/AIDS prevention, care, and treatment program;

    Whereas United States assistance to Uganda to combat HIV/AIDS has resulted in 145,000 individuals receiving antiretroviral treatment as of September 2008, 393,200 HIV-positive individuals receiving care and support, 754,000 orphans and vulnerable children (OVC) served by an OVC program, 2,076,300 pregnant women receiving HIV counseling and testing services for the prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission (PMTCT), 104,000 HIV-positive pregnant women receiving antiretroviral prophylaxis for PMTCT, 20,043,400 counseling and testing encounters in FY2008, and 6,256,800 individuals reached with community outreach HIV/AIDS prevention programs that promote abstinence or being faithful and condom use;

    Whereas, according to the American Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR), in low- and middle-income countries, MSM are 19 times more likely to be infected with HIV than the general population;

    Whereas the United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) identifies elevated risk of HIV infection among MSM as one of the 6 key, overarching themes identified in the 2009 AIDS Epidemic Update, and asserts that `programmes to prevent new infections among these key populations must constitute an important part of national AIDS response';

    Whereas a 2009 joint report by the Uganda AIDS Commission and UNAIDS specifically called for a review of legal impediments to the inclusion of most-at-risk populations in the national AIDS response;

    Whereas countries whose laws do not criminalize homosexuality are generally regarded as better able to curb the transmission of the virus, and the ability to more effectively address HIV was a pivotal factor in the recent decision of the High Court of New Delhi to repeal section 337 of the Indian penal code outlawing sodomy;

    Whereas both Democratic and Republican United States lawmakers have called on President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda to oppose the proposed `Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009' and, in a December 2009 letter, several Congressional leaders stated that the legislation is antithetical to the foundational belief in the `inherent dignity and worth of all men and women';

    Whereas Champions for an HIV-Free Generation, a group of former African Presidents and other influential persons, has called for the withdrawal of Uganda's `Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009';

    Whereas a broad range of religious leaders, including Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and Evangelical leaders, have condemned publicly the proposed legislation;

    Whereas the Catholic Bishops of Uganda have described the bill as `at odds with the core values of the Christian faith';
    Whereas President Barack Obama has stated that he `strongly opposes efforts, such as the draft law pending in Uganda, that would criminalize homosexuality and move against the tide of history';

    Whereas in December 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke out against the bill stating that `law should not become an instrument of oppression';

    Whereas the United States has declared its commitment to working internationally to end violence, detention, and execution based on sexual orientation; and

    Whereas the proposed legislation violates the spirit of Article 2 of the African Charter of Human and People's Rights adopted in 1981 and entered into force in 1986 that states, `Every individual shall be entitled to the enjoyment of rights and freedoms recognized and guaranteed in the present Charter without distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group, color, sex, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national and social origin, fortune, birth or other status': Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
    (1) strongly believes that--

    (A) all people possess an intrinsic human dignity, regardless of sexual orientation, and share fundamental human rights;

    (B) the `Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009' introduced in the Ugandan Parliament, which includes the extreme penalties of death and life in prison, poses a serious threat to the life, liberty, and security of the person and, if enacted, would set a troubling precedent for other countries; and

    (C) the requirement that individuals report suspected homosexual individuals to the Ugandan Government could undermine Uganda's efforts to combat HIV/AIDS, and interfere with care and counseling by family members, doctors, pastors, teachers, and others; and

    (2) calls upon the President and the Secretary of State to--

    (A) impress upon the Ugandan Government the United States belief in the intrinsic human dignity of all Ugandans, regardless of sexual orientation;

    (B) express unequivocal United States opposition to the `Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009' introduced in the Ugandan Parliament; and

    (C) ensure that resources committed to the global HIV/AIDS response are utilized in a manner that is efficient, effective, and appropriate to the local epidemiology of the disease, including in Uganda.
    ETA: I don't see anything in there that a reasonable person (i.e. one not rabid with hatred) would object to. It doesn't say anything particularly pro-gay except that they, like all people, have intrisinsic human dignity and worth. Extreme!
    Last edited by Alissa_Sal; 09-03-2012 at 03:23 PM.
    boilermaker likes this.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  4. #24
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal View Post
    Here is the text of the Resolution that they were lobbying against.

    Right Now - Family Research Council lobbied against resolution condemning Uganda anti-homosexuality law



    ETA: I don't see anything in there that a reasonable person (i.e. one not rabid with hatred) would object to. It doesn't say anything particularly pro-gay except that they, like all people, have intrisinsic human dignity and worth. Extreme!
    The law in Uganda was only intended for someone who rapes children in the first place. I'm not so sure they don't deserve the death penalty.

    Where is the Congressional resolution against countries like Iran that actually do kill people just for being gay?
    Four alleged gay men sentenced to death in Iran

    It doesn't exist because it is all political.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  5. #25
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    The law in Uganda was only intended for someone who rapes children in the first place. I'm not so sure they don't deserve the death penalty.
    .
    That's just not true. Here is the content of the law (my comments in red)

    PART II — HOMOSEXUALITY AND RELATED PRACTICES.
    2. The offence of homosexuality (Note that the crime of homosexuality carries a life sentence) .
    (1) A person commits the offence of homosexuality if-

    (a) he penetrates the anus or mouth of another person of the same sex with his penis or any other sexual contraption;

    (b) he or she uses any object or sexual contraption to penetrate or stimulate sexual organ of a person of the same sex;

    (c) he or she touches another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality.

    (2) A person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.

    3. Aggravated homosexuality. (Aggravated homosexuality carries the death penality)
    (1) A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the

    (a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years; (this law makes no effort to sort out examples where, for example, we are talking about an 18 year old having consentual sex with a 17 year old. Even in more extreme cases, let's say a 30 year old having consentual sex with a 16 year old, while that should be a jailable offense, can you really say that you would advocate for the death penality? You might agree with the death penality in the case of child rape, but would you really feel the same way about someone in their late teens having consentual sex with someone who is over 18?

    (b) offender is a person living with HIV; This law makes no differentiation for if the partner knows that the person is HIV positive and chooses to take the risk anyway, or if the person is unaware that they themselves are HIV positive. And again, we are talking about the death penalty. This law makes it that much more likely that people will not seek medical treatment and testing for HIV, because if they are found to be positive, they can be put to death for having sex with a willing partner.

    (c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed; This comes closest to what you were talking about, but I'm still not certain that the death penality is appropriate. Then again, I'm anti-death penalty in general, so I admit I may be biased about this one.

    (d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed; Again, they both could be consenting adults. Position of authority is very vague; it could be something as simple as a boss beginning a relationship with an employee. That may not be the best of work ethics, but yet again, the death penalty????

    (e) victim of the offence is a person with disability; Doesn't specify what kind of disability, and whether the disabled person is able to give consent. For example, I would think that a blind person or a deaf person, or a person in a wheelchair, as long as they are mentally "able", would be able to give consent just fine.

    (f) offender is a serial offender, or AKA someone who has gay sex more than once, aka ANY gay person who wishes to act on their sexuality, just as you or I act on ours by sleeping with our significant others more than one time.

    (g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by enable any person to have unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex, I would agree that getting someone drunk and having sex with them when they are unable to consent is rape, but I don't know about the death penalty unless you believe we should enforce the death penalty on all rapists.

    (2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.

    (3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status
    http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/...-bill-2009.pdf



    I would be just fine with it if Congress wrote a resolution against people being sentensed to death in Iran for being gay. What do you bet FRC would lobby against that one too?
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  6. #26
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal View Post
    That's just not true. Here is the content of the law (my comments in red)

    http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/...-bill-2009.pdf

    I would be just fine with it if Congress wrote a resolution against people being sentensed to death in Iran for being gay. What do you bet FRC would lobby against that one too?
    I doubt it

    There are many laws that the wording is not perfect even in the U.S. That does not change the intent of what the law was for. They already had a law requiring the death penalty for rape of females under 18 and no one has created a resolution against that. Why Not?
    I wonder if anyone is going through the exact wording on that law?
    Isn't it a good thing that they are trying to protect young boys in the same way girls are protected?

    Homosexuality was already illegal in Uganda long before this bill came up.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  7. #27
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    I doubt it

    There are many laws that the wording is not perfect even in the U.S. That does not change the intent of what the law was for. They already had a law requiring the death penalty for rape of females under 18 and no one has created a resolution against that. Why Not?
    I wonder if anyone is going through the exact wording on that law?
    Isn't it a good thing that they are trying to protect young boys in the same way girls are protected?

    Homosexuality was already illegal in Uganda long before this bill came up.
    I agree that it's good to try to protect children. I disagree that "protecting children" is the only thing this law is trying to do, since only 2 of the bullet points in the law even really deal with protecting children.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  8. #28
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal View Post
    I agree that it's good to try to protect children. I disagree that "protecting children" is the only thing this law is trying to do, since only 2 of the bullet points in the law even really deal with protecting children.
    It all has to do with rape in various forms except for the HIV part, even in the U.S. we have laws where people have been sent to jail for knowingly exposing people to HIV. The fact that the wording is vague says more about the failure in writing of the bill than the intent. I am curious if the legal language in all the other bills in Uganda are much better and don't provide the same vagueness.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  9. #29
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default

    It doesn't all have to do with rape. The "serial offender" thing alone is enough to send every single actively gay person in Uganda to the chair (or whatever they use there) The rest of it says nothing about consent, which is what would make it "all about rape."

    I can't believe you're defending this law. My mind is seriously blown.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  10. #30
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal View Post
    It doesn't all have to do with rape. The "serial offender" thing alone is enough to send every single actively gay person in Uganda to the chair (or whatever they use there) The rest of it says nothing about consent, which is what would make it "all about rape."

    I can't believe you're defending this law. My mind is seriously blown.
    I am defending the intent of the law. I agree it was poorly written. I don't know how well most of the laws in Uganda are written do you? I doubt most of their laws are up to our legal standards. I think it has been seriously overblown for political reasons by gay activitsts. As I said, where is the outrage for female rapists that could be put to death, or the resolutions to congress for Islamic countries where gay people are killed just for being gay. It is all a political game. Wierd how everyone says we need to keep out of other countries business except when something like this comes up.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions