Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill

Post Reply New Topic

A bigot is an obstinately-intolerant and/or prejudiced individual.
A non-moderate position on a binary left/right political spectrum is not bigotry,
nor is a diet. (Not that veganism is remotely synonymous with an "eating way" or diet, but whatevs.)
I think you're confused.

I agree that those who espouse bigotry would never call it such themselves.

Personal perception.

Bigotry is usually in the eye of the beholder. Doesn't help that opponents have had the 'bigotry' label slapped on them so often, we've stopped listening.

Denotations are by definition not "personal".


Who qualifies as bigoted and who does not is subjective. What bigotry IS, is not.



If you've a link to a source on an opponent of this disgusting proposed policy being called a bigot, I'd be interested.

Very, very subjective, I can tell you that.



No, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. If you raise an issue that is sensitive to the establishment here, you're called a bigot. If you disagree with them, you're called a bigot, a racist, a homophobe and an Islamophobe even more. In this way, these words lose their meaning. If everyone is being called these words from the leader of the governing Conservative Party to outright neo-Nazis, what does it mean?

So people stop listening to the establishment.

Yes:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjnrLt3VuSM[/youtube]

Uganda is a loo in general, but their government does have extenuating circumstances in this case.

Sort of.

http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/april/virgin.htm

A remaining problem, after we have recognized this fact, is that they don't seem to recognize the fact that homosexuality in itself is not even related to this problem. The higher prevalence of HIV among gay people is generated to a large extent by the surrounding culture. Being deep in the closet is a primary motivation for seeking out anonymous sex, and gay men only tend to engage in certain sexual practices because of the stereotypes of gay people being spread by the heterosexual majority.

Well, if a truly well-meaning member of the Ugandan government wanted to do something positive about the problem, he or she would focus on rehabilitating the gay community and changing these behaviors. This would require gay men and women to come out of the closet, though. This bill will do no such thing.

Also, a truly problematical part of this bill is that it could foster a sense among heterosexual men and women that they are effectively invulnerable to becoming infected with HIV. This is not the place for creating scapegoats. It can only contribute to the problem and lead to more tragedy.

Unfortunately, Westerners really have to embrace the fact that the people of Uganda are in a lot of ways victims of their own ignorance. This situation is tragic, and I have felt anger over it. However, anger will not resolve anything in a situation in which many of those culpable are well-meaning. Before we can go after the bad guys in this, we have to get the good guys to pull their heads out of their butts and realize that what they're trying to do right now to fix things ain't gonna freakin' work.

And then we can hunt down those folk who just like being jerk-offs toward anyone who doesn't look, act or think in the way that they do, and we can place their severed heads neatly on display on a quiet beach somewhere.

Last edited by WilliamWDelaney on 11 May 2011, 8:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

And just who is going to stop it? Uganda is a bloody dictatorship ruled by African savages.

ruveyn

But those bloodthirsty African savages are Christians, and ...



... you're right. There's no hope.

Last edited by Fnord on 11 May 2011, 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

The word being overused as a shaming tactic to stifle discourse in the First World doesn't justify abolishing it altogether-
if it doesn't apply to those who favor execution for the crime of being gay, it applies to no one.

As a demonstrative sample of the type of individuals and policy advocacy we're discussing, here's a relevant video of how people even SUSPECTED of violating Christian fundamentalist beliefs are dealt with in Uganda's neighboring Kenya.<

The rhetoric parrallels, quite closely, crap said by American Christian Fundies. AmeroFundies have been instrumental in ensuring "defending the family unit" and "homosexuality" is atop the Ugandan Agenda (It really seems funny how such rhetoric can be transplanted to Uganda so easily, as from my understanding the "family unit" isn't the nuclear family but the extended family in Uganda.. Uh well.). And, while I'm sure there's a lot of vote rigging and corruption, Uganda does have parliamentary democratic institutions. A Member of Parliament introduced this as a Private Member's Bill.

David Bahati is a repulsive man who should know better, given his University of Wales MA.

It's been dropped anyway.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma ... gay-people

Or is it?

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/ur ... 5/11/19919

And don't believe the crap about the death penalty being dropped. The Member of Parliament has said numerous times that he'd consider removing the death penalty clause, he never has.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... i-gay-bill

Damn. Close, but no cigar.

I disagree. The OED is quite clear on the three meanings of bigot:



Where you might bring a subjective lens to the question is whether you agree that a particular person's belief is obstinate, intolerant or strongly partisan, but this does not render subjective the definition of bigot (and by extension bigotry), but rather the observer's attempt to distinguish another's conduct.



Bigotry cuts both ways. Progressive's who excoriate people of faith are just as much bigots as the people of faith who seek to deprive GLBT people of their civil liberties. The issue here is not that people are misusing the word bigot, but rather, that one side is leaving the the word to the uncritical use of the other.