Call for Crackdown on Gays Enclosed in Right to Free Speech?

[thomas t]

thomas, i don't mind if you wish to no longer discuss it with me. but i'm well aware of the TOS. i am not violating it with giving a personal attack. i'm stating a fact that has been verified repeatedly, not just by me. you have misrepresented what lively said on this issue. i have not. 

 

but if you'd prefer not to discuss it further with me, i'll be happy to respect your wishes.

Your formulation was that I was the one misconstructing things. That was getting personal, in my opinion.

I'm not going to restate my opinion, however....

 

 

a bill that (if passed) would make it illegal, but would not go throwing people into jail for it...

 

 

 

if you ever want to be taken seriously with this opinion, please back it up from an independant site saying that that bill would abolish existing prison sentences for homosexuality, instead of further aggravating it. Tsukino and I backed our opinions up citing from two independant sites, btw, you didn't comment on our sources... 

 

Thomas

[Qnts2]

 

thomas, i don't mind if you wish to no longer discuss it with me. but i'm well aware of the TOS. i am not violating it with giving a personal attack. i'm stating a fact that has been verified repeatedly, not just by me. you have misrepresented what lively said on this issue. i have not. 

 

but if you'd prefer not to discuss it further with me, i'll be happy to respect your wishes.

Your formulation was that I was the one misconstructing things. That was getting personal, in my opinion.

I'm not going to restate my opinion, however....

 

 

a bill that (if passed) would make it illegal, but would not go throwing people into jail for it...

 

 

 

if you ever want to be taken seriously with this opinion, please back it up from an independant site saying that that bill would abolish existing prison sentences for homosexuality, instead of further aggravating it. Tsukino and I backed our opinions up citing from two independant sites, btw, you didn't comment on our sources... 

 

Thomas

 

 

Let me just say, you have misread what LadyC is saying.

[thomas t]

Let me just say, you have misread what LadyC is saying.

hmm, I don't think so... but please be specific in what I have misread what she is saying, if you still think I did.

 

 

he supports the bill as it stands now and would like to see this even in our country... a bill that (if passed) would make it illegal, but would not go throwing people into jail for it... what's the point?

 

[...] and thomas, [...]. i am not the one misconstruing things, you are.

 

I think, this time I understood her well.

Thomas

[Qnts2]

 

Let me just say, you have misread what LadyC is saying.

hmm, I don't think so... but please be specific in what I have misread what she is saying, if you still think I did.

 

 

he supports the bill as it stands now and would like to see this even in our country... a bill that (if passed) would make it illegal, but would not go throwing people into jail for it... what's the point?

 

[...] and thomas, [...]. i am not the one misconstruing things, you are.

 

I think, this time I understood her well.

Thomas

 

You have challenged her on the wording of the bill as it stands. She is talking about preferred changes to existing the bill.

 

I'm not sure who is being quoted but here is the quote 'In my opinion, the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill is still too harsh in the letter.  I would prefer something closer to the approach several American states have taken toward marijuana: criminalize it but minimize the penalty and turn a blind eye toward discrete violations.'

 

My words, - If this change was made, like the law against marjuana in some states in the U.S., people smoke marijuana in their homes, and police simply ignore it. So, usually there is no jail time. In states which have a policy to turn a blind eye, if a person smokes in public, the police might suggest they want to put out the joint and go home, and it is only when they refuse and continue blatantly smoking marajuana in public, the police are forced to act.  

 

So you are arguing that the current bill includes jail, and she is saying with these changes, it would not typically include jail.

[thomas t]

You have challenged her on the wording of the bill as it stands. She is talking about preferred changes to existing the bill.

 

I'm not sure who is being quoted but here is the quote 'In my opinion, the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill is still too harsh in the letter.  I would prefer something closer to the approach several American states have taken toward marijuana: criminalize it but minimize the penalty and turn a blind eye toward discrete violations.'

 

My words, - If this change was made, like the law against marjuana in some states in the U.S., people smoke marijuana in their homes, and police simply ignore it. So, usually there is no jail time. In states which have a policy to turn a blind eye, if a person smokes in public, the police might suggest they want to put out the joint and go home, and it is only when they refuse and continue blatantly smoking marajuana in public, the police are forced to act.  

 

So you are arguing that the current bill includes jail, and she is saying with these changes, it would not typically include jail.

 

Nope. Lady C talked about the bill as it is right now, as it can be seen in her original post (or see my quote, also). However, the passage she quoted also contained some thoughts about some hypothetic changes that this person discussed, as well....

 

 

 

In my opinion, the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill is still too harsh in the letter.  I would prefer something closer to the approach several American states have taken toward marijuana: criminalize it but minimize the penalty and turn a blind eye toward discrete violations.  Indeed, this would be my prescription for dealing with homosexuality (and all sex outside of marriage) in the United States.  This would preserve basic freedom of choice for people who choose to inhabit various sub-cultures out of the mainstream, yet provide the larger marriage-based society with the legal power to prevent sex activists from advocating their lifestyles to children in the public schools or to flaunt their sins in “pride” parades through the city streets.

However, since I didn’t write the Ugandan bill and have no power to redraft it on my own terms, and since the alternative to passing this bill is to allow the continuing, rapid, foreigner-driven homosexualization of Ugandan culture, I am giving the revised Anti-Homosexuality Bill my support.

 [bolded and underlined mine].

[Qnts2]

 

You have challenged her on the wording of the bill as it stands. She is talking about preferred changes to existing the bill.

 

I'm not sure who is being quoted but here is the quote 'In my opinion, the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill is still too harsh in the letter.  I would prefer something closer to the approach several American states have taken toward marijuana: criminalize it but minimize the penalty and turn a blind eye toward discrete violations.'

 

My words, - If this change was made, like the law against marjuana in some states in the U.S., people smoke marijuana in their homes, and police simply ignore it. So, usually there is no jail time. In states which have a policy to turn a blind eye, if a person smokes in public, the police might suggest they want to put out the joint and go home, and it is only when they refuse and continue blatantly smoking marajuana in public, the police are forced to act.  

 

So you are arguing that the current bill includes jail, and she is saying with these changes, it would not typically include jail.

 

Nope. Lady C talked about the bill as it is right now, as it can be seen in her original post (or see my quote, also). However, the passage she quoted also contained some thoughts about some hypothetic changes that this person discussed, as well....

 

 

 

In my opinion, the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill is still too harsh in the letter.  I would prefer something closer to the approach several American states have taken toward marijuana: criminalize it but minimize the penalty and turn a blind eye toward discrete violations.  Indeed, this would be my prescription for dealing with homosexuality (and all sex outside of marriage) in the United States.  This would preserve basic freedom of choice for people who choose to inhabit various sub-cultures out of the mainstream, yet provide the larger marriage-based society with the legal power to prevent sex activists from advocating their lifestyles to children in the public schools or to flaunt their sins in “pride” parades through the city streets.

However, since I didn’t write the Ugandan bill and have no power to redraft it on my own terms, and since the alternative to passing this bill is to allow the continuing, rapid, foreigner-driven homosexualization of Ugandan culture, I am giving the revised Anti-Homosexuality Bill my support.

 [bolded and underlined mine].

 

I still think you are mis-reading it.

 

There are 4 possibilities presented.

 

1. Homosexuality results in the death penalty (whoever wrote this opposes a bill which has the death penalty

2. Homosexuality results in jail time, apparently the current bill (whoever wrote this thinks this is too harsh but is better then a death penalty as previous so can ok this one) 

3. Homosexuality is illegal but police will turn a blind eye unless blatant and in public (whoever wrote this prefers this option over all others which would be no jail time)

4. No law against homosexuality (whoever wrote this thinks this is a bad option and would be opposed to no law at all) 

[kwikphilly]

Dear Tsukno ....I don't believe anyone is accusing thomas of anything,really.....Its a very simple question and if thomas does not wish to answer it(which it seems he does not) he does not have to....I would not love him any less either way,he is my brother in Christ,he does not seem to be offended as the question was never intended to offend him.......is there something terribly wrong with asking your brethren if they have an agenda?You asked me...

    I can only speak for myself and I am not confused in the least(since you ask)and I have no hidden agenda.....and why do you demand(or request)  anyone must demonstrate anything in the way of having some foreknowledge or experience with Scott Livelys ministry....will there be a quiz after class(lol)?

    I don't mean to sound sarcastic but here we are discussing freedom of speech and yet 4 people cannot  ask a question out of curiosity without your suggesting it's a lynch mob?Kind of silly....thomas has been very polite and isn't in any way defensive(as you are)he even made a joke out of what I said(and I appreciate his making light with humor)

     I love you as well and I'm not really sure what you are really upset about,if I have offended you in some way then I do apologize.....actually I was not even engaged in any discussion with you- but after all.....you do have freedom of speech and you are free to express your opinion anytime you wish....God bless you

                                                                                                                   With love,in Christ-Kwik

[Guest LadyC]

thomas, NO I DID NOT. i was talking about lively's expressed opinions. about the fact that with the removal of the death penalty from uganda's bill, he will support it, but would still prefer more leniency. now, since you didn't want to discuss what i said WITH me, please stop discussing ABOUT me as though i have no clue what i said. thankfully, Qn2 understands perfectly well what i was saying and what i was referring to. i'm unclear why you aren't understanding it, when i think i stated it plainly a number of times.

 

i've offered to respect your wishes to discuss it no further with you, so now afford me the same courtesy. i would prefer you quit misrepresenting MY comments, as you have done with lively's.

[thomas t]

thomas, NO I DID NOT. i was talking about lively's expressed opinions. about the fact that with the removal of the death penalty from uganda's bill, he will support it, but would still prefer more leniency. now, since you didn't want to discuss what i said WITH me, please stop discussing ABOUT me as though i have no clue what i said. thankfully, Qn2 understands perfectly well what i was saying and what i was referring to. i'm unclear why you aren't understanding it, when i think i stated it plainly a number of times.

 

i've offered to respect your wishes to discuss it no further with you, so now afford me the same courtesy. i would prefer you quit misrepresenting MY comments, as you have done with lively's.

Lady,

actually Q started with me a disussion about me purportedly not understanding your posts, ok?

Accusing me of falsely accusing someone to have supported a bill that would send gays into prison when in fact he did not, this would be quite a strong accusation from your part. So, at the end of the story, I'd like to ask you not to reiterate your false accusation, thank you (hopefully this being a final point of our debate, looking forward to the next).

Thomas

[TsukinoRei]

Dear Tsukno ....I don't believe anyone is accusing thomas of anything,really.....Its a very simple question and if thomas does not wish to answer it(which it seems he does not) he does not have to....I would not love him any less either way,he is my brother in Christ,he does not seem to be offended as the question was never intended to offend him.......is there something terribly wrong with asking your brethren if they have an agenda?You asked me...

    I can only speak for myself and I am not confused in the least(since you ask)and I have no hidden agenda.....and why do you demand(or request)  anyone must demonstrate anything in the way of having some foreknowledge or experience with Scott Livelys ministry....will there be a quiz after class(lol)?

    I don't mean to sound sarcastic but here we are discussing freedom of speech and yet 4 people cannot  ask a question out of curiosity without your suggesting it's a lynch mob?Kind of silly....thomas has been very polite and isn't in any way defensive(as you are)he even made a joke out of what I said(and I appreciate his making light with humor)

     I love you as well and I'm not really sure what you are really upset about,if I have offended you in some way then I do apologize.....actually I was not even engaged in any discussion with you- but after all.....you do have freedom of speech and you are free to express your opinion anytime you wish....God bless you

                                                                                                                   With love,in Christ-Kwik

 

He wasn't asked if he had an agenda, he was told that he had an agenda and asked to reveal what it was.  And yes, there is something wrong with accusing someone who is having an honest discourse with you about having an agenda.  There is also something wrong with then loling at them while requesting that they humour you with the information.  Perhaps you did not intend it so, but it is incredibly condescending.  Note that when I suggested that you were the ones with the agenda it was interpreted as combative?  That's because accusing anyone in an intellectual/philosophical/political discussion of having an agenda outside of what they have already expressed is combative.