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

[thomas t]

 

 

That’s not true either. He merely said that he thinks the bill would be too harsh in the letter, please read closely again. The existing laws already allow policemen to arrest homosexuals (wikipedia).

 

Thomas

 

 

 

I will not refrain from saying it, when it is true.  You clearly say that the man was calling for homosexuals to be arrested.  He never once said that in the article you linked to, so that is dishonest.  And you continue to misrepresent what he said.  This is a direct copy and paste of the portion in question:

 

Your accusation of me being dishonest, here once again, is horribly false. However, I refuse to state my statement once again to get off the merry go round here.

Thomas

 

[Guest LadyC]

 

 

 

sorry thomas, but you're way off the mark on all counts.

 

 

Good morning Lady C,

I stay with my opinion, Lady.

 

 

and i must ask, do you REALLY think that a person's sexuality is the sum of his identity? or even the largest part of the pie of one's identity?

 

actually I don't. I just think that sexuality is part of one's identity just like profession or religion.

 

Thomas

 

and i stand by what i said. a person's identity, particularly if they claim to be christian, should be a reflection of who they are in Christ Jesus. a new creation in Christ. and any Christian with an ounce of spiritual maturity should be careful to always reflect to the unbeliever the new creation that person can become through Christ Jesus. homosexuality should not be a part of that reflection. period. and if a christian is not reflecting that (in a loving way) then i would say they still have some growing up (in Christ) to do.

[thomas t]

and i stand by what i said. a person's identity, particularly if they claim to be christian, should be a reflection of who they are in Christ Jesus. a new creation in Christ. and any Christian with an ounce of spiritual maturity should be careful to always reflect to the unbeliever the new creation that person can become through Christ Jesus. homosexuality should not be a part of that reflection. period. and if a christian is not reflecting that (in a loving way) then i would say they still have some growing up (in Christ) to do.

 

 

The question I was asking here is what happens to those people that don't live up to these standards. Should somebody among us call for them to be treated according to a bill that sends them to prison? And should his statements be backed up by us?

 

Thomas

[Qnts2]

 

and i stand by what i said. a person's identity, particularly if they claim to be christian, should be a reflection of who they are in Christ Jesus. a new creation in Christ. and any Christian with an ounce of spiritual maturity should be careful to always reflect to the unbeliever the new creation that person can become through Christ Jesus. homosexuality should not be a part of that reflection. period. and if a christian is not reflecting that (in a loving way) then i would say they still have some growing up (in Christ) to do.

 

 

The question I was asking here is what happens to those people that don't live up to these standards. Should somebody among us call for them to be treated according to a bill that sends them to prison? And should his statements be backed up by us?

 

Thomas

 

Tom,

 

What about countries which have the laws given by God in the Mosaic covenant?

 

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with man, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

Compared to that law, sending a person to jail for a period of time would be more merciful. A christian in a country which puts man who lies with man to death, might view jail time as a merciful option they could argue for?

[thomas t]

Tom,

 

What about countries which have the laws given by God in the Mosaic covenant?

 

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with man, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

Compared to that law, sending a person to jail for a period of time would be more merciful. A christian in a country which puts man who lies with man to death, might view jail time as a merciful option they could argue for?

 

Good morning Q,

for this question, a agree with poster flameoffire: if you want to have one law out of the Mosaic covenant, you need to have all of them. This covenant makes sense in its entirety only, I think.

We souldn't show any favoritism.

Thomas

[Qnts2]

 

Tom,

 

What about countries which have the laws given by God in the Mosaic covenant?

 

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with man, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

Compared to that law, sending a person to jail for a period of time would be more merciful. A christian in a country which puts man who lies with man to death, might view jail time as a merciful option they could argue for?

 

Good morning Q,

for this question, a agree with poster flameoffire: if you want to have one law out of the Mosaic covenant, you need to have all of them. This covenant makes sense in its entirety only, I think.

We souldn't show any favoritism.

Thomas

 

 

I agree that picking and choosing laws from the Mosaic covenant is wrong from a Christian perspective. That is why I specified a Christian in a country might argue for a more lenient punishment of jail time. I do not believe there is such a thing as a Christian country at this time.  With that being true, the New Covenant does not have the same laws as the Mosaic covenant, as the Mosaic covenant included laws of government, to run a country, along with a court system of judges.

 

There are countries which claim authority from the Mosaic laws. In those countries, the sexual act between a man and man is punishable by death. Equally, adultery carries the same penalty of death.

 

Many countries where the bible is not used as the basis of the laws of the land, do allow man and man relationships. Rome allowed homosexual relationships until it was declared a Christian country.

[thomas t]

I agree that picking and choosing laws from the Mosaic covenant is wrong from a Christian perspective. That is why I specified a Christian in a country might argue for a more lenient punishment of jail time.

 

 

First, let me tell you that the Ugandan bill in question here supported by that person would not prescribe more lenient punishments. On the contrary, it would further aggravate the situation for LGBT people in Uganda prescribing life sentences. I would go even one step further estimating that the mere discussion of this catastrophic bill in the Ugandan parliament already aggravates the situation for them - your neighbours by the way.

 

Further, in my interpretation of what you have said, this covenant is still used by you to justify "lenient" prison sentences for gay people, in the first place. (Did I misunderstand you? This can be possible) There shouldn't be any prison sentences for people solely for the sake of their identity, I think.

 

Thomas

[Guest LadyC]

 

and i stand by what i said. a person's identity, particularly if they claim to be christian, should be a reflection of who they are in Christ Jesus. a new creation in Christ. and any Christian with an ounce of spiritual maturity should be careful to always reflect to the unbeliever the new creation that person can become through Christ Jesus. homosexuality should not be a part of that reflection. period. and if a christian is not reflecting that (in a loving way) then i would say they still have some growing up (in Christ) to do.

 

 

The question I was asking here is what happens to those people that don't live up to these standards. Should somebody among us call for them to be treated according to a bill that sends them to prison? And should his statements be backed up by us?

 

Thomas

 

you won't like my answer. but here it is. the person has the right to say whatever he wants to say, no matter how much it offends anyone. whether you, i, or joe blow down the street thinks about what the person has said or called for is irrelevant. we absolutely should support his right to say it.... because that is what free speech means.

 

i understand that's not what you are driving at. you want us to oppose the content of what he said. if it becomes a bill in congress, THEN (and only then) do we have  the right to support or oppose it. until then, the issue is ONLY about free speech. 

 

oh wait. that's not truly the issue in the first place. it WOULD be the issue, if you hadn't totally made up the premise in the first place. but since you misrepresented the entire article and what the man said, as cobalt pointed out. rather than cracking down on gays as you accuse, he advocated leniency.

 

why is this of any concern to you anyway, since you don't even live in the US? is there an agenda here? to stir up a hornets next because you are sympathetic and supportive of gay rights and unsympathetic to the US and conservative christianity?

[Guest LadyC]

let me point out for those who have not read the link you posted, and who are assuming that anything you say about it is even the least bit accurate:

 

 

Lively has previously stated on his website that he supports Uganda's recently revised "Anti-Homosexuality Bill," which dropped the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality" and criminalizes homosexual acts in the country.

 

"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," Lively wrote in a Dec. 2012 post.

 

"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," Lively added.

 

Uganda's "Anti-Homosexuality Bill" has reportedly received a wide amount of support among local residents and is due to pass in the near future.

Read more at http://global.christianpost.com/news/scott-lively-says-acceptance-of-homosexuality-sign-of-end-times-88134/#k4Fm84DwQdYcsEUi.99 

 

i hope you will re-read the article. and i hope that those who think you're even representing anything from the article accurately will read it.

 

the man (lively) does not do any of the things you accuse him of. he doesn't call for anything you say he calls for. he supports the fact that the death penalty was dropped from the ugandan bill but still believes that it is much too harsh. under the circumstances and given the alternative, he supports the bill, but he has reservations about it. those reservations are that he believes it is still too strict, and that he believes it should turn a blind eye to gays who exercise discretion. furthermore, he doesn't call for ANYTHING, since he didn't write the bill and has no authority or power to change it. that is the exact opposite of what you have stated.

 

he has as much right to say what he said as you have to say what you have said in this thread. his opinion is as valid as yours is.

 

and since you are neither in america, nor in uganda, why does it matter to you WHAT the man thinks? exactly what the heck are you trying to pull here, thomas? i would like to think that you just have totally misunderstood what you read, but i know that since cobalt has already clarified it and yet you still make the accusations, you really did read it correctly. so please answer my questions. 1) what are you trying to pull? and 2) what is your agenda?

[MorningGlory]

 

 

 

and since you are neither in america, nor in uganda, why does it matter to you WHAT the man thinks? exactly what the heck are you trying to pull here, thomas? i would like to think that you just have totally misunderstood what you read, but i know that since cobalt has already clarified it and yet you still make the accusations, you really did read it correctly. so please answer my questions. 1) what are you trying to pull? and 2) what is your agenda?

 

I would be interested in knowing the answers to those questions myself.  Free speech becomes restricted speech if it is curtailed in ANY way.