Gay Marriage

Nigeria Bans All Things Gay

An answer to the question, "Has anybody ever actually been arrested for gay marriage?"

|

Credit: laverrue / Foter.com / CC BY

Not to be outdone by Russia or India or Uganda, Nigeria's president has signed a law criminalizing same-sex relationships, and arguably even worse, stripping gays of any sort of freedom of association with each other. Reuters reports:

Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan signed a bill on Monday that criminalizes same-sex relationships, the presidency said, defying pressure from Western governments to respect gay and lesbian rights.

The bill, which contains penalties of up to 14 years in prison and bans gay marriage, same-sex "amorous relationships" and membership of gay rights groups, was passed by the national assembly last May but Jonathan had delayed signing it into law.

Two similar bills have been proposed since 2006 but failed to make it through parliament.

Sodomy is already illegal in Nigeria, so the actual criminalization of gay marriages, while reprehensible, shouldn't be much of a surprise. Really, the country's attacks on free speech and association should be much more of a concern right now:

Any person who registers, operates or participates in gay clubs, societies and organizations or directly or indirectly makes public show of same-sex amorous relationship in Nigeria commits an offence and shall each be liable on conviction to a term of 10 years in prison.

That's some scary stuff right there. Much like Russia's ban on "gay propaganda" making it next to impossible to legally advocate for gays having the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts, this part of the law essentially criminalizes any sort of organizational efforts to ultimately overturn the law or attempt to change public opinion so that Nigerians don't see homosexuals as enemies.

Meanwhile, here in the states, Indiana is considering a constitutional ban on recognizing same-sex marriage. Were it to actually move forward and be approved by voters in November, it would be the first time since North Carolina did so in May 2012 that voters rejected recognition.

NEXT: Ted Cruz Faults Obama for Not Imposing Marijuana Prohibition on States That Have Rejected It

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

206 responses to “Nigeria Bans All Things Gay

  1. I hear President Jonathan is just trying to keep Tony away.

    Seriously though. He’s an ass. But they have a Republic in Nigeria, so I’m sure Tony won’t complain about this particular outcome of majority rule.

    1. Which is what I keep telling proggie friends. Smugly talking about the virtues of majority rule while their team is in power will bite them in the ass once the power balance shifts.

      1. Everyone smugly talks about the virtues of majority rule while their team is in power, and laments the tyranny of the majority when their team isn’t – that’s democracy.

        1. No, some of us are grownups and realize that freedom doesn’t mean we get our way all the time. The only alternative to democracy (of some form) is tyranny, so explain how it would be better for gays in Nigeria if they were under an autocrat.

          1. It would be infinitely better for gays in Nigeria if they were under a gay autocrat.

          2. Actually, freedom does mean you get your way as long as you don’t infringe on the freedom of others. In other words, no one is free.

            Just because democracy is the best of some bad options, that doesn’t mean we should stop trying to create new, better options.

  2. Ted Cruz Faults Obama for Not Imposing Marijuana Prohibition on States That Have Rejected It

    Nigeria Bans All Things Gay

    Oh boy. We got a weed article. We got a gay marriage article. All we need is an abortion article. I’ll check the 24/7 feed.

    LIBERTOPIA!!!!

    1. Nigeria banning all things gay isn’t a gay marriage article, Captain Obsession. Maybe you should read better.

      1. I understand. But it seems increasingly that “Free Minds and Free Markets” is being replaced by the libertarian triumverate: Weed, Gays, Abortion.

        1. So you’re complaining that a magazine that you don’t own and you don’t write for is writing articles about:

          1) weed legalization which is happening right now in two states, including the first rollouts of legally sold pot, with issues of federalism swirling about it
          2) gay marriage which is again something that is happening right now in some states and not others, and has issues surrounding it including free association
          3) when was the last time there was an abortion thread?

          Not to mention that the third article down is about Obamacare, then gambling, then volunteerism. So what is it you’re complaining about again?

          1. In regards to #2, it is worth noting that Nigeria banning TEH GHEY is not particularly noteworthy to U.S. libertarians. That is to say, I’m sure there are a number of far from libertarian laws passed in African countries on a daily basis. A focus on domestic issues involving TEH GHEY may be slightly more relevant.

        2. So, rights which aren’t that important to you, or which you don’t believe are actual rights, are receiving attention; and your favorite causes not so much. Got it.

          1. Nope. I think gays should have equal rights, weed should be legal, and abortions should be legal. It seems like Reason hammers these three issues as proof the the country is turning more libertarian. And, sure maybe my favorite causes aren’t covered enough. Which is why I’m commenting.

            1. I agree with one thing–we’re not remotely becoming more libertarian. We have an opportunity now, with a little more disenchantment with Leviathan lately, but that’s happened before without us really altering our evolution into a total state.

              1. Yep. The cosmos are thinking that the embrace of TEH GHEY is proof of a libertarian growth in the country. But the reality is much different.

                Progz support gay rights because they think TEH GHEY is the mostest awesomest thing ever, its subversive to traditional Christianity, its a minority rights position, and its a community that was once targeted for attack and ridicule, thereby earning the forever sacrosanct victim status.

                Libertarians support gay rights, and some may do so for genuine embrace. Others may find TEH GHEY to be morally sinful, utterly distasteful, biologicially suicidal, etc. But they support the notion that free people should be able to do whatever they damn well please so long as it doesn’t stop them from doing the same.

                The two positions may result in the same policy prescriptions, but result from such diametrically opposite worldviews.

                1. COSMOS!!!

            2. Reason has been slacking on the food truck coverage lately.

              1. Thanks for lighting the TulpaSignal…

              2. I’m hungry,

        3. But it seems increasingly that “Free Minds and Free Markets” is being replaced by the libertarian triumverate: Weed, Gays, Abortion.

          How can anyone be free if they can’t get an abortion from a gay doctor who smokes a joint while he fucks his husband in the ass?

          1. The Bible says that a man who lays with a man shall be stoned.

            1. Oh, great. Another pot thread.

        4. the libertarian triumverate: Weed, Gays, Abortion.

          I thought it was deep dish pizza, circumcision and Sarah Palin.

          1. Oh, so now Sarah Palin is more important than Star Trek?

            1. NutraSweet can fix this with some Sarah Palin/Star Trek mashup slashfic. I know he can!

              1. Picard banging Palin in some Chicago Deep Dish establishment?

                1. Rule #34 tells me that can be found on Epi’s computer.

              2. “I can see The Neutral Zone from my house!”

                1. Too little, too late. Why do you disappoint me? Second by second, you waste my time.

      2. “Sodomy is already illegal in Nigeria, so the actual criminalization of gay marriages, while reprehensible, shouldn’t be much of a surprise.”

        FTFA, maybe you should stop being such a stupid asshole.

  3. But my left-wing acquaintances tell me that all cultures are equally valid and I should respect them all!

    -jcr

    1. And my left-wing acquaintances tell me that only bigots believe in protecting freedom of association.

  4. Nigeria is a back-ass African Country. Who cares ???

    I say we stay out of it.

    1. Obligatory: derp.

    2. Nigeria is one of the most highly developed countries in Africa, with probably the oldest functioning civilization south of the Sahara. It tends to get watched as an indicator of where sub-Saharan Africa might be headed generally speaking. It is not simply a randomly chosen “back-ass African country.”

  5. That ought to solve Nigeria’s problems.

  6. So does this mean the Nigerian Broadcasting Company is going to have to ban the Will & Grace marathon it had scheduled?

    1. If you hadn’t let the cat out of the bag!

  7. Well, that’s the last time I help their damn prince, that’s for bloody sure!

    1. No worries – I have a couple of Hong Kong bankers lined up and waiting!

  8. Cue Noam Chomsky to tell us how this superior society has been corrupted by corporations. if it were not for the corporations, they would be just like everybody in the East Village or San Francisco.

  9. Can someone explain to me what the hangup is about gays? I don’t personally know anyone who opposes gay marriage/sex/interior decorating, so I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around the objections to the continued existence of gay folks. Why do some people care so much about who other people are screwing?

    1. The major reasons people seem to care so much (which I also find absurd) seem to be religion (their religion says homosexuality is wrong), simple bigotry (homos are weird and different), and closeted homosexuality (why can’t I stop thinking about those dirty, dirty homos and their dirty, exciting sex?!?). Those seem to be the main reasons.

      But yeah, it’s just absurd how much so many people get worked up about 3% of the population doing their own thing.

      1. Sure, I get that people object to it due to religion/ick factor/self-loathing. I think they’re wrong, but I understand that they object. What I don’t understand is their level of objection. I don’t like beets, for example, so I just don’t eat them. I don’t try to make beets illegal and burn down the farms where they’re grown and threaten other farmers with jail time and censor movies which contain references to beets and generally freak the fuck out about it.

        1. Dude, I am right there with you; I don’t get it either. But I guess if your religion told you beets were the fruit of the devil, or you really, really wanted to have sex with beets but society and religion said that was wrong, that you might get more exercised about beets.

          Oh wait, oh man, I forgot you were a vegisexual. My bad, I shouldn’t have used that as an example. I know that’s one of your triggers.

          1. Yeah, my vegisexuality is how I lost my last job.

            1. Panel two is for you.

              Also, this.

              1. Wow, that’s some incredibly weak copy protection. Have they never heard of the PrtScn key?

              2. I think I saw that cat at VA meeting.

          2. or you really, really wanted to have sex with beets

            What? Stop looking at me!

        2. I don’t like beatniks, and I do freak the fuck out about it.

        3. I nearly fainted after eating this really good beet main course my wife had made me. I’ve eaten beets all of my life, but never in that quantity. Thought I was pissing blood later and figured it was all over. Nah, just beets.

        4. I don’t like beets, for example, so I just don’t eat them. I don’t try to make beets illegal and burn down the farms where they’re grown and threaten other farmers with jail time and censor movies which contain references to beets and generally freak the fuck out about it.

          But if we don’t burn down the beet farms, little children may be subjected to beets!1111!!1!!!!!1!11

        5. They’re scared of teh gays because that leads to fewer new members being born.

      2. …closeted homosexuality (why can’t I stop thinking about those dirty, dirty homos and their dirty, exciting sex?!?).

        I’ll just leave this here

        1. Wow! That could be my story!

      3. I think that religion is a pretext rather than a reason. The same people have no difficulty “interpreting” away any part of their religion that cramps their style or otherwise conflicts with what they wanted to believe anyway.

        1. Yeah, that’s my impression too. So does that just leave us with them finding gay sex soooo icky and soooo exciting that they lose their marbles over it? Actually, I think I could also see some one-upmanship involved where everyone escalates their disgust to avoid being the least disgusted person in the group.

          1. The least disgusted is automatically gay! That’s you! You gay!

            “It’s OK, Shake, because whoever you decide that you are, I still gonna love you. But just not in a gay way, because God makes all people in different sizes and shapes and problems, but he only makes the people he hates gay. That’s you. You it, boy. You gay!”

        2. Exactly – from the way the anti-gay crowd goes on, you’d think every page of the Bible has “KILL GAYS” in bold at the top of it.

          In point of fact, there are approximately two kind of vague references in the middle of a bunch of regulations about whether your food animals can have a cloven hoof and also chew cud.

          I don’t see a lot of bible thumpers running around trying to get people to stop eating pigs. . .

      4. It’s not getting worked up about 3% of the population doing their own thing, its 3% of the population demanding that 97% of the population alter their behavior so that 3% of the population can feel good about what they do in the privacy of their own homes.

        Why change the definition of marriage for 97% of the population when less that 3% of the population will ever be affected by that change?

        1. LOL

          How is your marriage being altered by a pair of gay guys calling themselves married?

          Can you please bring an argument that is less retarded than a preschool level one to the discussion?

          That’s all I ask; just try to argue no dumber than a first grader. It’s a low bar.

          1. Because that’s the talking point, tarran. It’s even dumber than a first grader, it’s at the level of a parrot.

          2. It’s the same argument that is used when one suggests that there should not be a ban on peanuts because a small minority of the population is allergic to peanuts.

            1. It’s the same argument that is used when one suggests that there should not be a ban on peanuts because a small minority of the population is allergic to peanuts.

              That maybe true in the debates you get into with your fellow retards parrots.

              But around here you really should bring arguments that are less retarded. Read Tony’s comments. Now he’s pretty stupid and makes very stupid arguments. All you need to do is to get your arguments up to a level where they are approximately as stupid as his. Again, it’s not hard; the bar is achievably low.

              1. tarran, you’re not really responding, are you? You’re just calling it retarded and slapping yourself on your back in celebration of your ‘wit’.

                I don’t care who fucks, marries or whatever with whatever. I think I’ve made that pretty plain in other posts.

                The only reason I responded at all was Epi’s remark about where disgust with homosexuality comes from.

                I tried to think of a reasonable objection–something not based in religion, bigotry, or ashamed tittilation.

                And the miniscule nature of the affected population seems a reasonable point–one not based on any bigotries. In fact, I use this very point to argue the other side of the argument–namely that if every single gay person was completely out, married and lived a happy gay life, their small numbers would mean that they would have no effect on the greater mass of non-homosexual life.

                But it can work both ways.

                The small numbers mean that there is no real need here. One way or the other.

            2. Huh?

              I’m deathly allergic to shellfish, so what do I do? I don’t eat shellfish. End of story.

              If one is offended by the thought of icky gay sex, then don’t engage in it. End of story.

    2. Piping up about it means you have feelings. Of course, everybody has feelings but the correct feelings are more important.

    3. Sodom and Gomorra? Also it’s different than my sexual preferences and thus is gross and should be illegal. Think of some weird porn fetish you don’t like, then imagine yourself as a statist that wants to use power to make that go away. It helps if you stick an ice pick in your ear and damage the logic center in your brain. Then you’ll get it.

    4. You’ll have a tough time getting them to admit it but the huge, overwhelming majority of people with anti-gay hangups are very religious people. They used to simply state that gay people were an abomination, but they have recently learned that that position is a non-starter in light of medical discoveries and societal acceptance, so they couch their objections in other terms.

      And I honestly don’t know what their objection is unless they are afraid that their god(s) will punish them for allowing homos to exist.

      1. As a religious person, I dont get it either.

        If a member of my church was gay, I might (depending on circumstances) have a duty to say something to them.

        But if they arent a christian or are outside my church? Not my problem. If they convert, then its my problem.

        1. Why would it be your problem?

          1. Because that is, as I understand it, the procedure.

            Hypothetical:
            Tonio joins my church. I know he is gay but he hasnt announced it publicly. It would be my responsibility to take him aside, in private, and tell him he needs to change his sinful behavior. If after some appropriate time (no idea what this would be), he has either stated or clearly showed thru his actions that he has no intent to quit, it would then be my responsibility to escalate the issue up to church leadership. At that point, not my problem any more.

            If I understand correctly, the pastor or deacon or whoever would do the same thing I did. If, once again, Tonio ignored us, then it would be brought before the congregation and he could be expelled.

            Of course, before that happened, he would just switch to a denomination more gay-friendly, unless he was just being a trolling ass, and then good riddance.

            1. quit

              Just to clarify: quit having gay sex, not quit being gay.

            2. Why would your sexual preferences come up in church?

              I’ve never met anyone at church who said Hi I’m Jim and only do it doggy style or anything like that.

              1. Answer #1: It probably wouldnt, which is why it usually takes a member who finds out to start the procedure.

                Just like with adultery situations. Or etc.

                Answer #B: Maybe your church is more boring than mine. 🙂

            3. FWIW, I don’t know of any gay person who would join a congregation he knew to be hostile to gays. Yes, it could happen, but the gays know who their enemies are.

              Now, it is possible that a person who had been attending a given church his entire life might want to try to stay closeted within his church.

    5. Disgust. It’s a disgusting thing.

      1. That depends on the participants (and their genders). Fat straight people having sex is also disgusting, but for some reason there’s no movement to ban that.

        1. Says who? I woould like to see that kind of freak show banned….

          /joke

    6. Religion, mostly, but also the basic human need to belong to a group and hate other groups. Homos are a small and relatively powerless group, so they trigger the murderplunder instinct.

      1. I have channeled all my basic human need for tribalism and hate into a football team. No need to despise people for any other reason, certainly not any immutable ones.

        As a Chiefs fan, it is easy for me to hate everyone. Except maybe Buffalo, Detroit, and Cleveland as they too know the pain of failure all too well.

        1. FUCK BALTIMORE

          1. So, how are your guys’ football seasons going?

            (looks at NFL schedule, laughs)

            1. I’m actually rooting for your Seahawks at this point because: 1) Peyton Manning is the incarnation of all that is evil on planet earth 2) Fuck Jim Harbaugh and 3) My ex-wife is a Pats fan, I guess cheaters deserve eachother.

            2. I don’t even understand the rules of football. I just like having an excuse to hate everyone and everything.

              “…And that’s the third goal on 8th down this pitch!”
              “FUCK ART MODELL!”

            3. runs sobbing from the room

            4. Mine was great until yesterday. Fuck Jim Harbaugh right through his khaki pants. Also, someone tell Kaepernick that he’s not super jacked or anything so he should never kiss his bicep again.

              1. Although, Clemson did beat ohio state, so that was nice.

              2. Also, someone tell Kaepernick that he’s not super jacked or anything so he should never kiss his bicep again.

                He was mocking Cam Newton.

                1. The “superman” thing was mocking Cam Newton. The biceps kiss thing is his own patented derpitude.

                  Neither can be a real man like Alex Smith who scores, does a jump-bump with one of his teammates, and then proceeds to walk to the sideline like nothing even happened.

                  1. Alex Smith of course being he of the highest active playoff passer rating in the NFL.

                2. What Sudden said, I think Cam’s first down celebrations are also incredibly irritating.

        2. TO HELL WITH GEORGIA

      2. “the murderplunder instinct”

        great techno band?

      3. Homos are a small and relatively powerless group

        That explains why I can go to jail for not hiring one or for failing to come up with an adequately plausible excuse for not taking their work, or for not serving them in my restaurant, etc.

        Maybe someday they’ll be able to acquire the kind of abusive state power that those hetero bigots have.

  10. My name is Shtoko Ngambe, I have received this email address from friends who say you are a trustworthy person. I am the President of the National Alliance for Homosexuals in Nigeria and I need you help getting my money out of the country. I have 1.21 million dollars and only need to access your bank account to deposit the money…

    /derp off

    So – 419 scammers, they don’t bother. Picking on gay people though is A-OKAY in their book. I guess they weren’t bringing in enough money.

    1. Obviously, Nigerian princes have more rights than Nigerian queens.

  11. Not to be outdone by Russia

    You mean that country where it’s legal to be gay, unlike the 76 other countries that one hardly ever hears the lavender lobby complain about where it is actually illegal? How about the five countries, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Mauritania, Sudan, where it is punishable by death?

    1. Nigeria would still be outdone by those five. Also Russia was just in the news on this issue. If you said “not to be outdone by Kyrgyzstan” people would only be confused.

      1. If you said “not to be outdone by Kyrgyzstan” people would only be confused.

        It would be terrible to confuse people who think that Russia is terribly persecuting gays but have no idea that Saudi Arabia simply puts them to death.

        The point is that Russia has constantly been in the news about this whereas countries that treat gays much worse get a pass because it is not PC to criticize them.

        1. Well, criticizing Russia still kind of reflexive. Though it think you’re right that there’s a level of “civilized world” chauvinism involved.

          Yeah, okay, being gay is legal in Russia, but it’s on the level of it being legal in Nazi Germany to be 1/4th (or was it 1/8th?) Jewish.

          1. Yeah, okay, being gay is legal in Russia, but it’s on the level of it being legal in Nazi Germany to be 1/4th (or was it 1/8th?) Jewish.

            No, it’s not. It is legal and there are many gay clubs in Russia, I know people who live there and have been to them. I’ve been to Russia myself, didn’t see anyone forced to wear rainbow stars.

        2. Everything Russia does is bad because Russia was our sworn enemy almost 30 years ago. Saudi Arabia is an ally so we look the other way.

          1. Alternate interpretation: The Russian issue arrivedon the media scene shortly after Snowden found asylum there. It was a perfect opportunity for the statists in the media to blackball Russia for one thing and thus taint the man who would bring down the statist security apparatus via association.

            1. The Winter Olympics is also driving a lot of the scrutiny.

              1. How can a country that is about to host male figure skating actually ban activities that promote homosexuality with a straight face (pun intended)?

                1. How can a country that is about to host male figure skating actually ban activities that promote homosexuality with a straight face (pun intended)?

                  Not only that, but a country with an aweful lot of medalists over the years.

            2. I think ti is much more simple than even that. It’s not like the Russians will saw off reporter’s heads if they piss them off like people from some of these countries that kill gays would… know what I am saying?

        3. Saudi Arabia simply puts them to death

          It’s amazing that there’s anyone left in that country.

          1. They leave the country to do all the things a good, ascetic Wahhabi should not.

            The sunny beaches of Spain, the UAE, and Bahrain (to a lesser extent) serve as safety valves for the haram activities.

          2. Well they get of on a technicality.

            remember, it’s not gay if it is done in the name of Jihad

        4. Russia is also criticized because there’s at least a slim chance their government could be persuaded. It’s like getting into an argument with your sister during Thanksgiving dinner, but ignoring weird Uncle Joe and his tentacle porn obsession.

        5. The point is that Russia has constantly been in the news about this whereas countries that treat gays much worse get a pass because it is not PC to criticize them.

          I think it’s less about being PC than it is about how quickly Russia has gone off the rails wrt gay rights. While Russian society has probably always had some homophobic tentendcies (which the government is simply exploiting), their government went from being fairly tolerant or at least ambivilent about gays to being openly hostile in a very short period of time. Those other countries, though, have always been backwards hellholes.

        6. Really? Is anybody unaware that sex crimes are punishable by death in most fundamentalist Islamic countries?

          Hasn’t every single media outlet in the country been reminding us of that at least on a weekly basis for the past twelve years?

          1. Hasn’t every single media outlet in the country been reminding us of that at least on a weekly basis for the past twelve years?

            No. Next question.

    2. This. Russia is a very homophobic society and their government reflects that, but they are nowhere near as backwards and awful as many Islamic countries.

      In Nigeria, Islam and Christianity are roughly equal in demographic shares of the population. Uganda is the only country with notoriously extreme anti-gay laws that is majority Christian.

      1. Important to remember, too, that sub-Saharan Christianity resembles American Christianity to about the same degree that sub-Saharan Islam does.

    3. I think the “lavender lobby” are more concerned about countries where there was some degree of tolerance and who are now becoming more intolerant. Islamist hellholes like SA, Yemen and Iran are a lost cause.

      And there is a difference between sodomy being illegal, and it being illegal to BE homosexual.

      Also, the well-documented efforts of US evangelicals to try to convince Nigeria and Uganda to ratchet up the hate and misery provide a quite reasonable cause for action in those countries and their US supporters.

  12. How long until gays begin an armed rebellion in Nigeria? Hell, everyone else in Africa has an army.

    1. I imagine their uniforms will be fabulous.

    2. And give Boko Haram a new target, I should think not.

  13. making it next to impossible to legally advocate for gays having the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts…

    Uh, what “rights” don’t gays have that heteros do? Freedom of speech, right to bear arms, due process? Please define “rights.” I will sit back and enjoy all the contradictory positions that are taken.

    Sodomy was illegal in many places for all sexes. And if you’re speaking of state recognized marriage, why would a libertarian care anyway what the state honors or ignores? And again, marriage laws are not defined in the Constitution since they aren’t within the enumerated powers of the FedGov.

    1. I’m speaking of rights in ‘Merica — not Nigeria. I see the same huffing and puffing anytime a gay “right” is threatened here.

      1. Well in America, gays do have the right to associate freely with each other. In Nigeria, they don’t, so wtf is the point of complaining about the passage you cite? Or is freedom of association not a right to you? Why would you pull out this passage and demand people comment on it as if it were placed in a context completely different from the one at hand?

        1. It’s very simple, Nikki, and you’d understand if you weren’t the worst. You see, the homos use their immaculate skin and ripping torsos to make us truck-driving American real men feel very uncomfortable in our pants, so someone has to do the right thing and make those fat cats in Washington protect us from the Gay Menace. To our underwear.

        2. It was the way the article was written Nikki — it flowed from Nigeria to the states in a sentence or two and seemed to conflate the two different scenarios each country faces with respect to “gay rights” as one-in-the same. That’s I read it at first.

          My only point was that in our country, I don’t want to see gayness be conferred a strict scrutiny protected class, such as is given to race, religion, etc. To hold gayness to be a fundamental right would thwart other unalienable rights such as freedom of speech and religion.

          It’s a shame that Epis-whatever denigrates those who hold different views than herself/himself, even though we most likely stand for almost identical versions of liberty.

          1. That line was actually about Russia. I don’t think it takes very much reading comprehension to understand that that comment was not talking about the United States.

            1. Sockpuppets don’t do “reading comprehension”.

          2. To hold gayness to be a fundamental right would thwart other unalienable rights such as freedom of speech and religion.

            Bull. Shit.

    2. And sodomy was selectively enforced to be essentially exclusively against gays. Do you have a point other than to be retarded? We already know you’re retarded, you don’t have to prove it yet again.

      1. You have nothing useful to say EVER except personal attacks. Please go back to your comic books where your IQ can be fully utilized.

        1. This coming from the guy who has nothing useful to say EVER except for…nothing. Please go back to your Jack Chick tracts where your masturbation hand can be fully utilized.

          1. Who is Jack Chick?

            1. This may help you out

      2. And sodomy was selectively enforced to be essentially exclusively against gays.

        Cite sources. You may hate all things Judeo-Christian since they have no bearing on science fiction, but the fact is that many western laws come from ancient Jewish laws regarding property, torts, criminal acts, etc. And religious freedom is THE most important fundamental right an American has. Period.

        Oh, and there’s this thing called the democrat process whereby people can vote and put in place laws you may hate or like. But I guess you can’t respect that either. You’d rather just show your childish nature and whine.

        1. Oh, and there’s this thing called the democrat process whereby people can vote and put in place laws you may hate or like.

          So if tomorrow the democratic process outlaws Christianity and freedom of religion you’d be okay with that, right?

          Of course you’d hate it, but at least it was approved by the majority.

          1. Sorry, but 50.001% of us have voted to kill all you Jebus freaks.

            Democracy!

            1. See First Amendment. You guys are not furthering the cause of liberty. You hate Christians more than anyone I have ever met that disagreed with being gay. By. Far.

              And I have gay friends. But I don’t think they have special rights that superseded religious freedoms to disagree with their behaviour.

              But all of that involves deep thinking and analysis. Something you don’t get from comic books and Star Trek conventions.

              1. You know, Duke, you’re really not a very good sockpuppet. Your range is far too limited. Nice try, though.

                1. Him and Tony need to have a deathmatch

                  1. I think that would be the intellectual equivalent of a cripple fight.

          2. That’s a non-sequitur and distorts what I wrote. But is typical from what is a childish minority that dominates these threads.

            We do have a democratic republic. People vote and certain rights are unalienable. I just wrote that religious freedom was unalienable. You can’t read?

            1. It’s not that he can’t read, it’s that you can’t think. I’d tell you to think about that, but…you can’t. It’d be sad if you weren’t such a colossal douchebag.

              1. a colossal douchebag.

                Keep it coming sci-fi dork.

                1. See, I agree with this. After all, “dork” is a slang term for “penis,” and Episiarch’s is reputedly “science fiction.” Well, maybe science fiction/horror.

            2. I just wrote that religious freedom was unalienable.

              Sez who? Religions has been persecuted down through time immemorial. We’re voting on shit that we want to impose on the minority, whether they like it or not.

              You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.

            3. I just wrote that religious freedom was unalienable

              Says who, asshole? The Constitution can be amended and it can be amended democratically.

              I see no reason why practicing a religion is more of a right than engaging in homosexual acts or relationships. Neither is harmful to society in of itself.

              1. I see no reason why practicing a religion is more of a right than engaging in homosexual acts or relationships. Neither is harmful to society in of itself.

                You would be in disagreement with some of the bravest, greatest and most enlightened people who have ever lived. Bravo, sir!

              2. I see no reason why practicing a religion is more of a right than engaging in homosexual acts or relationships.

                And this is why I always argue that religious freedom is not a fundamental right. It is part of the general right (which should be unalienable in a just society) to do what you will as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. If people are generally free, then religious freedom follows.

                1. And this is why I always argue that religious freedom is not a fundamental right. It is part of the general right (which should be unalienable in a just society) to do what you will as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else.

                  Behold, degeneration.

                  1. How is that? I fully support religious freedom and I think I made that clear. Or do you think that being able to do and say what you want is not a fundamental right when not done in a religious context? If that’s the case, I’m sorry I bothered as you don’t believe in freedom at all.

            4. I just wrote that religious freedom was unalienable.

              But there is a democratic process spelled out in the constitution which could be used to eliminate the guarantee of religious freedom. So not so inalienable by your standard.

              1. Nope. Unalienable rights cannot be taken away. Not even by a constitution. Read Declaration of Independence for the expression of such ideas.

                The Constitution sets out what FedGov can do. And as a side note, the Amendments seek to enumerate, if you will, what rights the people retain against all powers.

                So there is even tension between those two documents and concepts. I believe that some rights can never be taken away, democratically or otherwise.

                1. Unalienable rights cannot be taken away.

                  Literally? No.

                  The practice of? Sure thing. You might want to consult all of history.

                2. Conveniently for Duke, unalienable rights includes his right to practice Christianity, but of course doesn’t cover the right of the evil homos to have sex with each other.

                  1. of course doesn’t cover the right of the evil homos to have sex with each other.

                    Maybe they should start a religion of buttsex. Then it would be a fundamental right.

                  2. but of course doesn’t cover the right of the evil homos to have sex with each other.

                    Such a right is not deeply rooted in our nation;’s history and tradition. Washington v. Glucksberg, Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 at 720-721 (1997)

                3. So how do you figure that religion is one of those rights but buttfucking isn’t? What is so damn special about religion that doesn’t apply to other voluntary activities people might choose to engage in?

                  I am absolutely for religious freedom. I think that religious freedom is not protected enough in the US today. And I think that the best way to protect it is not to treat religion as a special case. Otherwise what you end up with is some government agent whose job it is to decide whether or not something is a religious belief or activity.

                4. there is no inalienable right to religion, unless I’m just missing it. That seems limited to things like life and liberty, self-defense, freedom of association, and other things that flow just from being. Simply being alive does not imply belief in any religion or that the rest of a society has to go along with that belief.

                  1. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are specific instances of the broader fundamental right of freedom of thought aka freedom of consciousness. Just as the fundamental right of self-ownership is meaningless without the ability to own property, enter into contracts, etc, the fundamental FOT/FOC is meaningless without the right to do and say things which others find offensive as long as you’re not harming others.

                5. You are aware that ‘amendments’ are changes to the Constitution? And that the First Amendment–the one that guarantees religios freedom–can be as easily amended as the rest?

                  The unalienable rights you keep referring to are in the Declaration and they are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No religious freedom at all.

            5. Fucking the consenting adult of your choosing is also a basic right in this country, so sayeth the Supreme Court. And it’s a lot more practically relevant to people’s lives than the right to have the imaginary friend of one’s choice.

          3. I think a law requiring all the inhabitants of the United States to perform a sacrifice and burn some incense praying for the Gods to bless the reign of Obama to protect the safety of the country, would be a great idea.

            Anyone who refused to perform the sacrifice would be a traitor who risked bringing down the wrath of the Gods, and should be punished by execution. I’m sure Duke wouldn’t object were such a reasonable law put into practice. 😉

            1. tarran jokes, but I could see a civic religion arising from hyperpartisanship. We already have a weird blending by some parts of society of lukewarm Christianity and worship of the state disguised as mere patriotism.

              What is the real difference between what the Progressive welfare state wants to turn the social contract into and the Covenant between the Israelites and Jehovah?

              1. Takei: With pleasure. You see, the show was banned after the Star Trek wars.

                Zapp: You mean after the vast migration of Star Wars fans?

                Nichols: No, that was the Star Wars trek. [Some mechanical hands come out of her jar, pick up a video tape and put it in the VCR.] By the 23rd century, Star Trek fandom had evolved from a loose association of nerds with skin problems into a full-blown religion.

              2. Obama is neither omnipotent or omniscient.

                Otherwise, not a lot.

                1. Obama is neither omnipotent or omniscient.

                  Neither was Jehovah at the time. He wasn’t even the only god, just the only one the Isrealites were supposed to worship as per the Covenant.

                  Henotheism

            2. I surprised that some progs haven’t yet proposed such a law.

        2. and there’s this thing called the democrat process whereby people can vote and put in place laws you may hate or like. But I guess you can’t respect that either.

          You can’t be real. Not even Tulpa is this much of a chump.

          1. No, he can’t be. Too sockpuppetty. Or should I say…cockpuppety?

            1. NARCISSIST

              MAKE THE PUPPETS DANCE

          2. Not even Tulpa is this much of a chump.

            Yes he is.

            1. Well, fine. But he’s not a blatant sockpuppet like this mongoloid. And that’s the highest praise for Tulpa you’ll ever hear from me.

              1. Warty and Tulpa sittin’ in a tree…

                1. “Hold still, Tulpy. Warty’s gonna give you a peanut butter baby.”

        3. religious freedom is THE most important fundamental right an American has. Period.

          I disagree. I wouldn’t even call it a fundamental right. If you have the right to free speech and free association and assembly, then religious freedom is covered. It doesn’t need to be an explicit right at all. Any law that infringes on religious freedom also infringes on freedom generally. Carving out special legal exemptions for religion is bad for everyone.

          1. Freedom of religion is freedom of thought. Without it you have nothing.

            1. unless we’re truly Orwellian, wouldn’t it be the expression of thought that would be the freedom here?

              1. Of course, PC. A right isn’t a real right unless one is free to exercise it.

            2. Isn’t that what I said?

              Perhaps stated a bit differently. Freedom of religion is part of freedom of thought, plus freedom of speech and association.

          2. I tend to think of freedom of religion as also applying to my freedom to not be forced to participate in someone else’s religion via the government doing things like passing laws that ban things because some particular religion disapproves of it, or using my money to erect big monuments to someone else’s religion on public land, or forcing my kid to pray to someone else’s god in the public schools.

            1. What does religion have to do with that?

              Shouldn’t you be free from the government creating victimless crimes, regardless of if it’s to appease religious people?

              Shouldn’t you be free from the government spending money to erect big monuments, regardless of if they are religious in nature?

              Shouldn’t you be free from the government forcing everyone to pay for everyone else’s school, regardless of if there is prayer or not?

              1. 1) Everything.

                2) Yes.

                3) No.

                4) No.

                1. You do realize that those monuments and schools are indeed religious in nature, don’t you?

                  Their religion is statism, and their god is government.

                  1. You have stripped the word “religious” of all meaning.

                    1. You have stripped the word “religious” of all meaning.

                      Unwavering faith in a higher power that can do magic. Doesn’t matter if that higher power is called Jesus or government, it’s all religion to me.

    3. I will sit back and enjoy all the contradictory positions that are taken.

      No, you will sit back and enjoy all these delicious mental images of gay sex that you just…can’t…get out of your head. “Why do all these homos keep sucking my cock???”

      1. He doesn’t hate homos, Warty. He just hates how they make him feel. In his penis.

    4. Uh, what “rights” don’t gays have that heteros do?

      See hier.

      You can argue that these are state-granted privileges, but I have no problem calling them rights, legal rights, in this case.

  14. “Meanwhile, back in the states…”

    Nice attempt at moral equivalence. Even if Indiana refused to recognize SSM, it would still be a highly desirable location for Nigerian gays fleeing *real* persecution in their homeland.

  15. The nice thing about libertarianism is that we can find each others’ personal views, acts and mores to be completely disgusting and vile and still be in complete political agreement.

    1. Well, no. I think we can all agree that Bronies such as yourself are vile scum who should be eradicated from this earth. Get him, boys (and girls)!

      1. Wait, I thought you were the Brony and CN was the ichnophile.

        1. I had to look it up but — fair cop.

      2. Bronies are awful, but essentially harmless. It’s the circus midgets you gotta watch out for.

        1. You know what pisses me off? How the Cosmos are always lobbying for special rights for circus midgets.

          1. That’s because they are cheap drunks and you can fit a lot more of them into a DC penthouse. It’s all about the cocktail parties with those guys.

            1. Oily: Bender from Bending State Bender? Wow, you’re a legend around here!

              Fatbot: I heard that in one single night you drank a whole keg, streaked across campus and crammed 58 humans into a phone booth.

              Bender: (modest) Yeah, well, a lot of ’em were children. Anyway I should get going.

        2. Fine, just let the Juggalos off the hook then!

  16. Africa, the cradle of civilization.

  17. But remember folks, it’s the USA, especially the South, that’s a festering cauldron of hatred and persecution of homosexuals.

    For old time’s sake: DEY EAT DA POO POO!

    1. Well, not just the South, but yeah. And sure there are worse places, ie Saudi Arabia. However there is more likelyhood and advantage to me to try to change things domestically rather than internationally.

  18. “So, what are you ladies fagging off to?”

Comments are closed.