Uganda's New Anti-Gay Law Could Undermine AIDS Prevention
The new law dictates a life sentence for anyone caught having gay sex and the death penalty for anyone convicted of "aggravated homosexuality."

Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni this week signed into law his country's most aggressive assault yet on the rights of Uganda's LGBT community. The Anti-Homosexuality Bill dictates a life sentence for anyone caught having gay sex and the death penalty for anyone convicted of "aggravated homosexuality," a term that encompasses sex with minors or sex that results in the transfer of sexually transmitted infections, such as HIV. Furthermore, the law says anyone who "promotes homosexuality" be sentenced to up to 20 years in prison in a "vaguely worded" provision that puts activists and public health advocates at risk.
One of the most severe anti-gay bills in the world, it marks the culmination of years of legislative efforts to set sentencing requirements for those convicted of same-sex relations. A similar bill passed in 2014 but was ruled unconstitutional by a Ugandan court on procedural grounds.
Same-sex relations have been illegal in Uganda since British colonial times under sections in the penal code discussing "unnatural offenses" and "indecent practices," but now the Parliament has solidified harsh penalties.
The law conveys Uganda's desire to protect the traditional family by "strengthening the nation's capacity to deal with emerging internal and external threats to the traditional, heterosexual family," mirroring rhetoric that portrays same-sex relations as unnatural and a threat to tradition.
Museveni painted homosexuality as a "deviation from normal" and told policy makers to not fall prey to "imperialist" pressure. One member of Parliament suggested that "if we don't stand our ground as a country… then we will completely have ceded our sovereignty." The Parliament speaker welcomed the provision, stating, "We have stood strong to defend the culture, values and aspirations of our people."
The bill was first passed in March, but Museveni returned it to Parliament to be amended to offer help, and not punishment, to "those who will have come out," a reform encouraged by the American religious and anti-LGBT group Family Watch International.
Before the 2014 bill (which had the same provision) was struck down, Ugandan police raided the offices of the U.S.-funded Makerere University Walter Reed Project, a project that offers AIDS services to gays. Police said the facility was "training youths in homosexuality."
For activists, the law's provisions put their life and work at risk. "[The Anti Homosexuality Act] poses a serious threat to the lives and wellbeing of LGBTQ individuals in Uganda by criminalizing their sexual orientation, exposing them to violence, discrimination, and stigma," says Steven Kabuye, a human rights activist in Uganda and co-founder of Truth LGBTQ. "The law also limits access to HIV prevention, care, and treatment services, resulting in adverse public health outcomes, including higher rates of HIV/AIDS among the LGBTQ community in Uganda."
Uganda has had success in countering HIV and AIDS in the past, with 89 percent of Ugandans living with HIV knowing their status and 92 percent of those people receiving antiretroviral therapy, according to a press release from UNAIDS. The group says the new law threatens that progress. "The stigma and discrimination associated with the passage of the Act has already led to reduced access to prevention as well as treatment services."
The law has drawn bipartisan condemnation from the United States. President Joe Biden issued a statement calling it a "tragic violation of universal human rights," and Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) declared it "grotesque & an abomination" on Twitter. Biden said the U.S. would consider sanctions on Ugandan officials and review Uganda's eligibility for the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which provides countries with "duty-free access to the U.S. market."
As the White House press release proclaims, "No one should have to live in constant fear for their life or being subjected to violence and discrimination." That includes people whose sexual identity and preferences you may disagree with.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is in Uganda. It's their business.
Why the fuck is this article in Reason?
I have made $18625 last month by w0rking 0nline from home in my part time only. Everybody can now get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow details here..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://www.apprichs.com
Was Auschwitz "Germany's business"? If not, where do you draw the line between what is and what is not?
Join this most awesome and cool online home based job and start earning everyday more than $500 per day. i made $18521 last month, this is amazing and irecommend you to join and start your money making source from home.
.
.
Now Here ——————————————->> https://Www.Coins71.Com
You realize, by your own analogy, you're asserting that the Judaism can be conclusively linked to an infectious disease, right?
I am Jewish and I would never have interpreted that comment as anti-Semitic.
It’s WAY worse than an infectious disease. Clearly you have never read the talmud.
Despite the hysteria and misrepresentation, this isn't Auschwitz. It's not good, but it's also not new.
Nobody gave a fuck when it was only Brunei, China, Kuwait, Bangladesh, Iran, North Korea, Mauritania, the United Arab Emirates, Libya, Palestinian Authority, Fiji, Rwanda, Chechnya, Myanmar, Dominica, Granada, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Malaysia, Samoa, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera... where you could be killed, imprisoned or persecuted for hooping a penis.
Besides, unlike racial persecution this can be easily avoided by not sucking a dick. You couldn't stop not having Jewish or Gypsy ancestry. To compare the two is ridiculous.
If anything, gay laws are like religious persecution, which I'm reasonably sure that you don't give a flying fuck about. Practicing Buddhism in Libya and North Korea, or Christianity in China, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan will get you similar results.
Nobody gave a fuck when it was only Brunei, China, Kuwait, Bangladesh, Iran, North Korea, Mauritania, the United Arab Emirates, Libya, Palestinian Authority, Fiji, Rwanda, Chechnya, Myanmar, Dominica, Granada, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Malaysia, Samoa, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera… where you could be killed, imprisoned or persecuted for hooping a penis.
OK. I’ll see you and raise you. Fuck all of these Gay-hating Hellholes!
Besides, unlike racial persecution this can be easily avoided by not sucking a dick. You couldn’t stop not having Jewish or Gypsy ancestry. To compare the two is ridiculous.
Well, both Genocide and anti-LGBTQ* persecution existed under Nazism, so fuck Godwin! If a comparison to Nazism is true, then let Godwin withdraw himself from the discussion and let the rest of us continue.
If anything, gay laws are like religious persecution, which I’m reasonably sure that you don’t give a flying fuck about. Practicing Buddhism in Libya and North Korea, or Christianity in China, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan will get you similar results.
All true. And fuck those tyrannies too!
I am pleased to see that you recognize the difference between legitimate religious persecution and simply not getting a “harrumph!” from others who may disagree.
"anti-LGBTQ* persecution existed under Nazism"
True, but every single one of the gays in the camps were ex-SA who were swept up in the Night of the Long Knives. They were in the camps as political prisoners and only ostensibly because they were gay. It was the excuse, not the reason.
Up until then most of the Nazi leadership were gay. The Nazi second in command, Ernst Röhm, was gay. The whole upper echelons of the Brownshirts were gay. The men who planned and enacted Kristallnacht were gay.
And Hitler and the rest of the Nazi's were absolutely fine with it until they needed a reason to remove them for getting too powerful.
"so fuck Godwin!"
Dan S. invoked Auschwitz. Not me.
There were 100.000 Gay men arrested for homosexuality, 50,000 convicted, and 60 percent died or were murdered in captivity under the Nazis from 1933 to 1945,
Also, the Nazi approval of the anti-Gay Paragraph 175 of the German Criminal Code was done even before they came to power, much less before "The Night of the Long Knives.." The Nazis said that even thinking about Gay love should be a crime, so unless the Gay Nazi leadership was deeply closeted, Gays did not pervade Nazi leadership.
Also, the closing of Gay clubs, the burning of Gay books, and the arrest of Gay men all began in the years before "The Night of the Long Knives." Moreover, Gay men were persecuted by the Nazis not only in Germany, but in Nazi-occupied lands.
Thus, Gay men subject to this persecution could not possibly have been entirely in Röhm's SA.
In fact, Heinrich Himmler didn't think the Nazis persecuted Homosexuals enough. Also, interesting to note, Gay men were stigmatized and persecuted both by the Nazis and by Left-Wing and Communist Antifa of the time.
Persecution of Homosexuals in Nazi Germany--Wikipexia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany
You'll definitely want to research more on this subject. Someone has sold you a pig in a poke about how many Gay Nazis there really were.
Sounds like they were doing The Lord’s work.
Oh, and most important, anti-Gay persecution took place after the SA were suppressed with "The Night of the Long Knives" and the Nazis' persecution of Gays was fully supported by the Catholic and Protestant clergy whom you hold as victims of Nazism.
And there we have it. Godwin's law proven correct in mere seconds.
Congratulations. Not counting bots, it took 1 comment to hit Godwin's Law.
Well, to start with, Auschwitz wasn't in Germany, it was in (occupied) Poland, which would suggest one reason why it wasn't "Germany's business" under a "This is in Uganda. It’s their business." standard.
Second, well over 90% of those killed at Auschwitz were not residents of Germany, which would be a second line to draw as to why Auschwitz wasn't just "Germany's business". Uganda isn't proposing to kidnap gay people from other countries.
A third reason would be that, of course, Auschwitz was in the business of slaughtering people, while Uganda here isn't; the death penalty under this law is limited to people abusing minors and spreading HIV.
A fourth would be that there was no way for people to avoid being of Jewish or Gypsy ancestry, while it's reasonably easy to not engage in sex acts with a member of the same sex.
So, if you wanted to actually pick a salient analogy, Auschwitz is a pretty fucking bad choice.
A much better one? The post-Stalin gulag, which was located in the Soviet Union, mostly held Soviet citizens, was not in the explicit business of slaughtering people, and which could generally be avoided by not doing things everybody knew the Soviet government would punish.
A third reason would be that, of course, Auschwitz was in the business of slaughtering people, while Uganda here isn’t; the death penalty under this law is limited to people abusing minors and spreading HIV.
+1 Exactly.
Edit: The other way as well. Uganda isn't LA or San Francisco where every homosexual with HIV lives out their own victarvi commercial either. Uganda doesn't have a world reserve money printer going brrrr... and probably never will. They actually have to deal with balancing the costs of healthcare with the costs of food and infrastructure rather than just cranking the money printer up and shouting "I can't hear you!"
Again, you would think that people who, less than two years ago were going, "Should we deny healthcare to the unvaccinated?" would understand this. Instead, they only confirm that their calls for amnesty were rightly called out as horseshit.
Can't wait for Bill Kristol to have found a new place to invade after Trotysky (Zelinsky) flees the wreckage of Ukraine.
You are free to join the Harvey Milk Brigade and invade Africa..not for America to go abroad and find monsters to destroy..and Hitler declared war on the US...we did't declare war first did we?
Oy vey! This is just like anudda shoah!
You couldn't ask a question without using foul language, but I'll answer it anyway: Because the act is a violation of freedom and individual liberty – all of which is Reason’s “business”. We must stand for freedom around the globe, not just your right to carry a gun.
Except they don't give a shit about that in the US, just pushing leftist causes and narratives, often at the cost of personal liberty and freedom.
Unless you plan on both killing and dying for other people's freedom, all else is useless signalling.
And if push ever came to shove we'd all find out that the vast majority of people are in the useless signaling category
Part of the problem is a stand up fight or duel has fallen out of style and been replaced by far more insidious and evil forms of passive aggression. Even if you were/are willing to fight to the death, they'll take friends, family, business partners, etc., etc., as hostages. To the incredulous point that even IRS Agents are cracking under the weight of their conscience with regard to Hunter Biden's protection itself, let alone comparing it to the treatment of Sandmann and Rittenhouse (and Perry and Penny).
^
Passive-aggressiveness is much more destructive than direct violence.
Passive-aggressiveness is completely unrestrained, insidious, and allows the perpetrator to disassociate from his/her acts. It's easy.
Physical violence not so much. The perpetrator has to deal with what he/she has done directly.
This is a HUGE shortcoming of the non-aggression philosophy.
Unchecked dishonesty plus mass communication is a fatal disease for any society.
Izzat chu, Misek?
Your conflation of “completely unchecked” with “completely oppressed” isn’t even stupid enough to offend Misek.
He didn't use either of your quotated phrases, so what color is the grass in your world? And if you see Misek in your world, tell him I said to "Fuck Off, Nazi!"
Does contracting COVID unvaccinated and surviving count as dying?
Nobody survived covid. If you caught it you died. And it was the fault of the guy who didn't wear his mask. That's why the hospitals were overrun, and the giant tent hospital and hospital ships in New York.
In fact, I bet you died. At least once.
A lot of people DID die. Contrary to the COVID disinformationists.
I died from covid at least a dozen times if not more.
This isn't a civil rights or liberties argument, it's a 'I don't like your beliefs, so I get to interfere in sovereign states' affairs' argument. What policies, actions, laws are you suggesting be implemented? And at what point does the telling other people how to live their lives depart from what you claim is an individual liberty issue? Mass censorship? Mass murder? Prim dislike for profanity and 2A?
So, liberty can't include people choosing to live in ways that might not allow your preferred freedoms?
I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart ......
SITE. ——>>> dollarseller11.com
Uh, no.
While the solution most likely isn't military intervention, of course, there is no such thing as freedom of a society to exercise tyranny. Supporters of Libertarianism certainly should, however, support all people who fall afoul of tyrannies such as Uganda, be their voice when they cannot speak, and where possible, support efforts to free the victims of tyranny.
Not defending tracerv, but you can use foul language in the Comments section.
There is no "we" here. You can go fight there but don't be sending American boys to die in some third world hole
Sorry, you don't get freedom to butt rape children, invalids, or people you drugged, nor do you get freedom to spread your filthy faggot diseases.
"Why the fuck is this article in Reason?"
Because it is an example of a totalitarian government? Maybe because there are some who live in the USA who no-doubt sympathize with this action, and it therefor stands as a warning to rational people if those folks get political power... or maybe just because the law is barbaric? Why do we read still read "Nineteen Eighty- Four?"
https://twitter.com/Babygravy9/status/1664988800248938496?t=UmS-_gGOmw1ln8kwipruRw&s=19
This says a great deal about the qualities required of a CIA officer.
[Link]
'Since colonial times.' I haven't heard much from reasonmag staff or commentariat on the issue except for the last few years. I will agree that there are some in the US who no doubt are sympathetic to this law. So? The whole freedom of expression, freedom to believe even stupid and ugly shit seems to be a problem for some folks. I'll give you a steer: given bs w/ media, govt, covid & same and DEI it seems far more likely that people advancing an argument for denial of individual rights due to not adhering to left-leaning standards is more likely.
you seem to be laboring under the delusion the comment section of this cess pit of a website is inhabited by Libertarians.
In reality there are people who still cling to the Libertarian name but in actuality are simply too feckless or weak to finally realize what they are, Nazis, and fuck off from this site and instead post on the Stormfront forums, a place where they make zero pretense of having to respect anyone else’s rights.
Shut up, sissy.
Shut up, nazi.
Being a nazi these days is so easy, you just have to believe the US has borders and that raping children is wrong.
I don't know whether you are an actual Nazi or not but you are definitely a hatemonger who has no compassion for people persecuted by totalitarian regimes. You certainly are no libertarian.
That could be true, but you say that like it's a bad thing.
At least they aren't filthy degenerate sodomites like youself.
" . . . it marks the culmination of years of legislative efforts . . . "
No doubt about it, totalitarian as all get out.
Well said.
And, of course, Reason has always commented on threats to Liberty in other nations besides the U.S.. and in fact once had writers for specific regions of the world. That would be great to bring back for local flavor.
Why the fuck is this article in Reason?
Because "Don't Say Gay" didn't work against DeSantis, so they figure if they punch down on some filthy Ugandans it will make them look virtuous to their cocktail party friends.
Personally, Reason's reporting on the law tells me that it's a good thing. I have a very valid conception of what constitutes "aggravated homosexuality" that fits well within libertarian notions of aggression and self-ownership. Very much akin to rape, something that a government absolutely should be defending against. The fact that Reason pretends these don't exist or that they're vague tells me everything I need to know.
Just another article from Reason "Mostly peaceful aggravated homosexuality (Don't Say Gay!)" Magazine.
"tells me everything I need to know."
Come, come. You don't really need to know anything to support these laws.
Or attack Uganda...
First the LatinXs aren't on board... now the UgandXns... when are all these black and brown people going to shut up and realize how enlightened we are when we appoint a SCOTUS Justice who can't answer the question "What is a woman?"
"who can’t answer the question “What is a woman?”
I read Judith Butler's Gender Trouble recently. She tells us that the question is never answered fully. Man and women is more a matter of becoming than being, if you don't mind me going all Spinoza on you. Such process philosophers like Whitehead, Deleuze and Bergson reject fixed and timeless essences like male and female, much to the chagrin of Platonists, and contemporary conservatives who are wrapped up tightly in a particular identity.
A woman is a biological entity, not a philosophical question.
A woman is an adult female human who inherited a pair of X chromosomes, one from each parent. If healthy and intact a woman is capable of pregnancy and giving birth from puberty until menopause. If healthy and intact her anatomy is distinguished from male anatomy by having a reproductive system, which includes the ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, vagina, and vulva. An adult woman generally has a wider pelvis, broader hips, and larger breasts than the average adult man.
Stop deliberately deceiving yourself, M4e.
There's more than biology involved. There seem to be an increasing number of cases where people who don't meet the criteria you lay out claim to be women. They perform as women, in the terms Butler would use, and that's the decisive factor, rejecting the notion of biology as destiny. Men perform too. We use the expression "man up!" or "s/he's got balls" not as comments on a person's biological makeup but to comment on their performance and its compliance with societal expectations. This is where philosophy enters the picture.
"There’s more than biology involved."
No.
There really isn't, you crank. It's purely biological.
Even if there is more than biology involved if you can't parse the facts from the theory, you've got no business being on the bench.
Really, the lack of an answer sends a clear signal of distrust. If she can't answer what a woman is, then she, by the precepts within the gray box, must have a philosophical issue with Sandra Day O'Connor and RBG.
"It’s purely biological."
Only if you ignore human experience. Why are you so dismissive of others?
"must have a philosophical issue with Sandra Day O’Connor and RBG."
I would hope that every judge in the court has some philosophical issue with every other judge. I don't see how justice could be delivered if they were all in philosophical lockstep agreement with each other. I don't think there's anything wrong with having a judge who seems to be familiar with the latest ideas (1970s onward) coming from academia.
"There seem to be an increasing number of cases where people who don’t meet the criteria you lay out claim to be women. They perform as women, in the terms Butler would use, and that’s the decisive factor, rejecting the notion of biology as destiny."
Basically this is, "I win the argument, if you accept my premises", when whether those premises are valid is at the heart of the argument.
"when whether those premises are valid is at the heart of the argument."
I'd say lived experience rather than premises. Who is to determine the validity of the lived experience of others?
personally I'd assume leftist logic applies here and since they're attacking Africans they must be racist. If they're going to court leftists and push leftist narratives they can be held to the standards leftists hold for others.
Uh, rape is wrong regardless of the sexuality of the aggressor. No need for separate categories of rape.
Fine. Go live there in Uganda and you won't be subject to "aggravated homosexuality"... except, of course, by a closeted prison guard or member of The Lord's Resistance Army. You'll be begging to get bludgeoned to death by a hammer as prisoners were in the good ol' days of Idi Amin Dada.
Uh, rape is wrong regardless of the sexuality of the aggressor. No need for separate categories of rape.
Setting aside the fact that you’re such an oblivious white supremacist that you can’t conceive of a time when women’s suffrage or slave’s suffrage was distinct and the law brought their suffrage into parity in this country. This "No need for separate categories" notion isn’t even valid by your own country’s hate crime laws. To wit, you aren’t arguing for justice, you’re arguing that because you’re white and you don’t approve of who the Ugandans hate and how, they're wrong.
And your penultimate sentence makes no sense. It seems less like you understand the conversation that’s happening around you and more like you’ve slipped into your own fantasy and are trying to project it onto others.
One, Abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass supported both suffrage for freedmen and women's suffrage, so that's proof you can support both.
Two, how the fuck do you know what the fuck I am as far as my heritage? And why does it matter in whether one can oppose violations of Individual Rights, such as Uganda's anti-LGBTQ tyranny?
He's obviously not White. He's clearly jewish.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
.
.
.
Just open the link————————>> http://Www.pay.hiring9.com
DON’T TALK ABOUT UGANDA!!!
"DON'T CRITICIZE THE NARRATIVE!!!"
Why the fuck is this article in Reason?
The USA assists Uganda with aid and favorable trade terms. It's appropriate for there to be some strings attached. Not being evil, for example.
Doing that with China is bad.
But with Uganda, apparently, a necessity.
Ah, good vs evil. Now tell us which ideology you belong to and how you judge homosexuality.
OK, but just to be clear about definitions first, please be explicit about how homosexuality is intrinsically affected by a ban on sex with minors and people who knowingly transmit HIV, first. You should probably go on to explain how political propagandizing is intrinsic to homosexuality as well but lets start with the simple science/objective definitions first.
So, go ahead… explain how someone can’t be homosexual without having sex with children, spreading HIV, or political propagandizing.
Edit: Like I said above, you don't even have to call out the evil. It's a hilarious, if it weren't so sad, schizophrenic "With friends like these..."/"tell a man by the company he keeps" clown show. Nobody else *has* to judge you, you people pretty openly judge yourselves. As I've pointed out before, many even *need* others to judge them in order to derive any sense of worth.
"please be explicit about how homosexuality is intrinsically affected by a ban on sex with minors and people who knowingly transmit HIV, "
Hasn't sex with minors already been criminalized long ago? Have homosexuals been exempt from these laws until now?
That was a weird point to include in the article. You'd think he would just not include that part rather than glossing over it. I don't particularly have a problem with putting down rabid dogs.
Which countries should Reason report on?
"Which countries should Reason report on?"
All 195 of them... when relevant. And "relevancy," of course, is subjective.
South Africa just passed laws that restrict access to water based on race.
That's quite a bit worse than a law about gays.
But that's good racism!
The ones that NYT thinks it should be reporting on.
"Why the fuck is this article in Reason?"
https://twitter.com/aimeeterese/status/1665012272006307840?t=wufOv98EQM01NBuL03TKLQ&s=19
sodomy as the US' state religion
[Link]
Which is why it's okay to burn an American flag, but blasphemy to burn an 2SLGBTQQ+ one.
Finally. Embrace the asymmetry of social morality, and "freedom" based on selective privilege.
"Which is why it’s okay to burn an American flag..."
It's perfectly proper to burn a flag, ANY flag. Assuming you are the one who purchased said flag.
Obviously you're not paying attention to the case in NY or you're lying to run cover for the agenda.
"It’s perfectly proper to burn a flag, ANY flag."
You'd think so, but...
It’s only illegal to burn the flags of the left.
Have you seen the [NSFA! *Trigger warning* Link contains as-described video] black homeless man who took a shit on a pride flag and then wiped his ass with another and is being charged with a hate crime?
It reminds me of the scene from Demolition Man where Sandra Bullock’s character is moralizing against Dennis Leary’s character for carrying around weapons of violence and mass destruction (simple handguns and small arms) and Dennis Leary replies to the effect of “Destruction? Lady I use these to shop for groceries!”
Is anything and everything every homeless person everywhere shits on a symbolic hate shitting or is it only the pride flag where shitting intrinsically becomes speech that has to be done away with?
I think the only way the story could get better is if the homeless guy claimed he was a woman.
Whatever happens to you from some brutal tyranny is on your side of Cyberspace. Not our business.
Why the fuck are you in the Comments section of Reason?
Why? Because cornholery is one of Reason's most cherished subjects, along with illegal migrants, pot and food trucks.
Or just teach Ugandan men not to stick their pecker in another man's ass. That would prevent not only a lot of aids, but monkeypox too! Is that anti-gay too?
IDK, but it's DEFINITELY anti-semetic.
Terrible law, of course.
Unfortunately supporters of the law can point to other countries and make this case:
The worldwide LGBT community doesn't merely want 'tolerance.' They don't want to 'just be left alone.' They want all of society to actively celebrate their behavior. They want stores, restaurants, and even sporting events to constantly remind us how wonderful they are. And if you allow them marriage rights, they won't stop there. Within a few years they'll call you a bigot if you don't believe men can get pregnant. They'll expect you to cheer for mediocre male athletes who decide to start competing against women. They'll demand men convicted of rape should be moved to a women's prison if they adopt she / her pronouns post-conviction. They'll invent new pronouns and try to punish you if you refuse to say them.
^ And that won't be the "slippery slope logical fallacy." It'll be an accurate picture of what LGBT activists have already done to plenty of countries, and want to do to the entire world.
Like every three year old: LOOK AT ME!!!
"Biden said the U.S. would consider sanctions on Ugandan officials and review Uganda's eligibility for the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which provides countries with "duty-free access to the U.S. market.""
Not to worry. China will step right in. They don't judge you. They only want the money (and resources).
"Not to worry. China will step right in."
China is already assisting Uganda in plans to become Africa's 2nd or 3rd or 4th country with a nuclear power capacity. South Africa has had this for some years already, and Uganda, Egypt and Kenya are slated to join the club over the next decade. All with Chinese and/or Russian assistance.
Uganda has abundant uranium reserves and the president is determined to exploit them for domestic development.
Not to worry. China will step right in. They don’t judge you. They only want the money (and resources).
Russia fully supports Uganda’s efforts and since the Ukrainians blew up NS1&2* and NATO decided to take their side, Russia’s got some extra resources laying around that it could let go of cheap.
*According to current best evidence and intelligence.
https://twitter.com/catturd2/status/1664642465721098242?t=3B42PGhrj_eg6EqeGcC2Kg&s=19
Outrageous! Children's Choir Stopped Mid-Performance While Singing National Anthem at US Capitol, Capitol Police Claims it is a Prohibited Form of Protest (VIDEO)
[Link]
Yup. Get a load of that fat nazi woman guard yanking the congressional aide and forcing him to tell the choir director to stop.
Now the Capcops are lying about it,
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/06/02/exclusive-childrens-choir-director-responds-capitol-police-claim-they-did-not-stop-kids-singing-national-anthem/
THE TRUTH IS WHAT WE SAY IT IS!
At least none of the kids got shot. You never know what the Capitol Police will consider a mortal threat.
The brave capitol police were just preventing a right wing paramilitary group from overthrowing the government by singling a fascist song!
https://twitter.com/FrankDeScushin/status/1664629319749062656?t=hYc01hkZSJkrc38jDObKAw&s=19
Leftists fumed at “China virus” because it implicated Asians.
Leftists renamed Monkeypox “Mpox” to avoid racist stigma.
Yet Leftists call all opposition “white supremacy” because they want to stigmatize and implicate Whites — the group to whom they want Leftists to focus blame.
[Link]
Like with all tribal ideologies, morals are asymmetric.
Uganda enacts draconian anti gay laws, yet it's you who's the victim.
Also, interestingly, I was told that we shouldn't associate monkey pox with gay men, because it absolutely had nothing to do with them, and was coincidental. I was also told that gay men should be allowed to donate blood unrestricted and irrespective of their lifestyle choices of taking 20 cocks in the ass in a weekend, and we shouldn't consider them high risk for STD's and AIDS specifically.
So...what does AIDS have to do with gay people now? I was told we are all at equal risk.
Remember when we were all supposed to panic about monkey pox and then it turned out it is mostly spread around at gay orgies and then some kids started getting monkey pox and then we never heard about monkey pox again?
I do.
I sure hope Obama is ok.
Leftists renamed Monkeypox “Mpox” to avoid racist stigma.
Oblivious, of course, to the fact that only a racist would think of Black people on seeing the word "monkey".
They should have renamed it the gaypox. That's what I call it.
So, no Disney Kampala?
https://twitter.com/Travis_in_Flint/status/1664696727796953088?t=18lXaUa16CiQdTM13pUXjA&s=19
Happening Now:
An Indiana youth group will be hosting an LGBTQ youth carnival next week and are asking parents not to attend, but will allow adult LGBTQ members who are 18-20 with no children.
In 2020 the same group launched Prism to help LGBTQ youth who’s parents are supportive find a new home. This group specifically targets children.
Would you be comfortable dropping your kids off at a carnival with adults who’s entire identity is based on their sexual preferences?
[Link]
So, what, exactly, would be your solution? Deny people their first amendment rights to free association and assembly? Force them back into their closets where you won't have to see them? Or just shoot them on sight?
"would be your solution?"
He has no solution. He's happy to wallow in resentment and victimhood.
"He has no solution. He’s happy to wallow in resentment and victimhood."
Please... no assistance with answering the question... I'm sure he can figure it out.
Not wanting children to be abused is victimhood now?
Fuck off.
Fucking groomer.
Not your business by your own admission. Move on...
Yes. Shoot anyone who interprets the 1A as "the right to associate with other people's kids without their knowledge" on sight. Especially given the other parts of Federal Law that refuse this ability to the Government itself, much less grant it or protection for it unequivocally. The interpretation openly demonstrates a disregard for the good faith interpretation of the amendment as well as an intent to disregard the rights of others and their interpretation. Even if others choose to grant it, no quarter is owed for such maliciousness.
And if it were a Klan rally inviting non-Klan kids without their parents and Klan parents without kids, I would defend anyone taking a gun to Klansmen willfully and dishonestly misinterpreting the 1A in such fashion just the same.
"'Yes. Shoot anyone who interprets the 1A as “the right to associate with other people’s kids without their knowledge” on sight."'
Interesting. Perhaps you should consider emigrating to Uganda. You won't be missed here.
Poor groomer.
Maybe just stop talking to other people's prepubescent children about sex, you fucking pervert.
"Poor groomer."
LOLOL
Thanks, NARDZ. I predicted you might come back with something like that. Do you have any idea how "predictable" you are? It does make for a chuckle now and then.
That wouldn't excuse your perversion
Maybe it’s predictable, but it has the advantage of being true.
The perversion is being obsessed with other people’s sex lives. Are you an Incel?
Interesting. Perhaps you should consider emigrating to Uganda. You won’t be missed here.
So you don't disagree with what I said, just that I'm able to say it?
?
Au contraire. I completely disagree with your "solution." In spite of that, I fully support your right to speak of it.
So then I don't need to consider a move to Uganda and you proposing it was just you, what, lying to yourself out loud about what you think I should/would/could do?
The 1A is not the end-all be all of human law, not even internal to itself. Even if it were, it doesn't protect illegal and immoral non-speech action any more than the 2A protects threatening people with a knife. And your retarded interpretation assumes that it is. I wouldn't wish you on Uganda, your idiotic bullshit went out with taking children away from their parents, raising them in the temple, and sacrificing them to God-kings in the pre-Columbian Era (on this Continent).
"So then I don’t need to consider a move to Uganda and you proposing it was just you, what, lying to yourself out loud about what you think I should/would/could do?.... etc., etc., etc.
Oh please. Grow up.
"Oh please. Grow up."
Oh please. There is nothing more childish than an asshole who pretends to want more details ("So, what, exactly, would be your solution") and then just throws around a bunch of one line rejoinders when people take them up on the offer.
Oh please. Grow up.
You're the one who thinks you'll get to keep your 1A after you redefine it to protect criminal acts. You or I going to Uganda won't solve the problem that stupidity generates. So, don't go away mad because the adults won't listen to you little Jeffy, just go away.
Speaking of, Uganda's Christian terrorist organization The Lord's Resistance Army kidnaps children and brainwashes them into being child fighters.
Lord's Resistance Army--Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army
Since the LRA first started fighting in the 1990s they may have forced well over 10,000 boys and girls into combat, often killing family, neighbors and school teachers in the process.[79] Many of these children were put on the front lines so the casualty rate for these children has been high. The LRA have often used children to fight because they are easy to replace by raiding schools or villages.[80] According to Livingstone Sewanyana, executive director of the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative, the government was the first to use child soldiers in this conflict.[81]
Uganda and indeed that entire region is hardly a place for children if you are planning to go there to live out your childish fantasy world.
According to Livingstone Sewanyana, executive director of the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative, the government was the first to use child soldiers in this conflict.
It's, yet again, a real life example of the "exterminate a million Jews and kill one clown" joke/parody.
I've told him as much. Wanna set up a GoFundMe for his one-way ticket? 😉
People haven't had free association rights since the 1964 Civil rights act.
Poor NARDZ. So put-out.
You have neither the spine nor the integrity required to acknowledge reality.
Ahh. More comedy from the peanut gallery!
Thanks!
Brilliant rebuttal.
Well, it's not like he can argue the merits or constitutional legitimacy of the CRA
More precisely from the racist gallery.
Libertarianism in the US has long had a substantial racist segment.
"So, what, exactly, would be your solution? Deny people their first amendment rights to free association and assembly? Force them back into their closets where you won’t have to see them? Or just shoot them on sight?"
Any event for kids where parents are verboten should not be permissible.
Of course, kind of plays into the whole "groomer" thing that some folks with to deny is happening.
My favorite "groomer" mask slipping moment is still when the pride parade in Florida was canceled because kids woulndt be attending.
Do you recognize any legal differences between children and adults, and any unique status for parents?
"Do you recognize any legal differences between children and adults, and any unique status for parents?"
Of course there are differences. And, when it comes to children, their age is also often factor. If a parent chooses not to let their 14-year-old attend a meeting, any kind of meeting, well, that's between the parents and the kids. If they can't agree, hell, the kids can take the parents to court, or vice-versa. Shooting the people who sponsor the meeting? Hmm.... not so much a "solution."
What about some sort of penalty for people who invite kids and deliberately shield what happens from parents?
Shooting the people who sponsor the meeting? Hmm…. not so much a “solution.”
It's not a solution to the straw problem you proposed where the disagreement is between the 14 yr. old and their parents. It is a solution to the disagreement between the meeting's sponsors who overtly discouraging the parents' attendance and the parents. It's also a solution to the problem of the people who would dishonestly conflate the will of a minor with the will of adult pedophiles in opposition to the parents.
I recognize that it is not your business how other parents raise their children. Not the government's business either. If a parent wants to take their child to a theatrical performance with cross dressing it isn't your business.
"Your parents can't come to this event" is miles away from free association and assembly.........
Reason 2019: What social implications to the non-100%-safe-and-effective vaccinated carry to reduce the risk of infection to those around them?
Reason 2021: Why can't gay people rely on the government to get their monkeypox vaccines before this weekend's gay orgy? Government failure.
Reason 2023: The crime of "aggravated homosexuality" in a country where HIV is a problem is unconscionable.
Commentariate: Really the problem with the LGBTQIA+ community is that the BTQIA+'s are schizophrenic, Munchausen-by-proxy, socially-needy, science-denying, morons that the LG community really needs to sever ties with.
For this to be true it would have to mean gays are more promiscuous and risky than straights. And that would be bigoted to say. So this cant be true.
If it were possible to actually study that question, I suspect it would be found that there is a minority of men of homosexual orientation, and who live in major cities with large gay communities, who are very promiscuous, while the majority of gay men live outside those communities and have a lot less sex and with fewer partners than typical heterosexuals. Of course, no researcher will dare to study this.
Actually, your assertion doesn't have to be studied IRL because it's a statistical/rhetorical fallacy, a la, The *Lone* Gunm*e*n. A pairwise-if-not-pairwise oxymoron bordering on, if issued by anyone with half a brain, a lie.
The only way your assertion makes sense is if the definition of "promiscuous" is utterly meaningless, the promiscuous minority is only a slim minority *and/or* that the less promiscuous majority is only slightly less promiscuous. It's the same stupid notion that in a closed (or globally open), strictly heterosexual population, men are more promiscuous than women, except you do away with sexual binary and just assume it's all gay men.
The further association to "typical heterosexuals" makes it even more absurd. Essentially driving towards saying 1,000 or 10,000 or even 100,000 people in the world are having more sex with more other people than the other 7B combined.
Sorry, I don't speak gibberish.
I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart ......
SITE. ——>>> dollarseller11.com
Actually, you do, you just think that because you use English words when you do it, it’s not gibberish and should supersede basic English definitions and mathematical concepts.
You’re rather essentially stating that the minority of the minority accounts for a larger portion of the average than the majority, which is mathematically impossible. So there must be some biological or methodological definition to rectify the math but the only ones that would rectify that math are sort of nonsense where one person sleeping with the same person every week is more promiscuous than someone sleeping with a different person every year.
Essentially, it boils down to a rather literal false dichotomy: no one can be promiscuous by themselves, they need a partner. Further, no one can be more or less promiscuous than their partner without an additional partner. Further still, no one can be more or less promiscuous than all their partners. Ultimately, a minority, *any* minority, definitively cannot make up a majority of sex partners among the larger group inclusively.
I could run through the math for you, it’s really simple, but I worry as you seem to be struggling with the plain English. Maybe you’re just one of those “special” people who should stick to insisting you’re the opposite gender and convincing others to use your own pronouns.
Your own gibberish is here:
large gay communities...while the majority of gay men live outside those communities
If the majority of gay men live outside the communities, then they definitively aren't large gay communities, unless you invoke some oxymoronic or nonsense (one drop?) definition of "community" that is something like "more than 5-gays/sq. mi." or "10 gays per 100K population per sq. mi."
And you can do math in gibberish, too. Impressive.
I’m getting the impression that you either don’t know what the words “English”, “math”, or “gibberish” mean or there’s no depth of self-inflicted stupidity to which you won’t stoop for… whatever reason.
Just because you say “gibberish” to facts you don’t like doesn’t make them false. And if you honestly can't keep up with what I posted in the two posts above, it really does put you at toward the bottom of the shit stupid barrel, even for these forums. My 10 yr. old understands "math" above this level.
I've dealt with narcissists before. You're nothing special.
"English", "math", "gibberish", "narcissist", and "special". I haven't claimed to be anything special and the facts I've laid out, that you keep dodging, have nothing to do with me. If anything, you're the one who appears to be taking this personal when it's really not.
So typical...
Why is that an oxymoronic definition? A "community" often defined as "a large number of similar people in a relatively small geographic area". If the average density of gays outside these places is 100 / 100k and the density inside these places is 75k / 100k, but the total population of that second community is only 20k people, in a country with 350M people, the high density community only has 15k people total, while the total gay population of the country is 350k. But they're spread across a much larger geographic area than just the Castro neighborhood of the San Francisco peninsula. Obviously these numbers are made up whole cloth.
Would you likewise balk at saying New York has a "large Jewish community" or that Minneapolis has a "large Somali community"? That last one might be a poor example, because there might well not be more Somalis in the rest of the country than in Minneapolis, but I suspect there are more Jews outside of New York than in.
See, your brain works normally.
In Africa it is probably the opposite. AIDS is mostly transmitted through heterosexual sex.
We've all seen the statistics AIDS infected gay boi. You're not fooling anyone.
AIDS, like COVID, was a fake pandemic. Especially in Africa, where ELISA tests aren't done and people are diagnosed with AIDS based on symptoms alone, which are the same symptoms associated with many of the many diseases found in Africa.
“AIDS, like COVID, was a fake pandemic.”
Do you have a newsletter we can subscribe to?
Well, Fauci was a fake doctor with fake solutions for both.
Can we get back to conducting medical experiments on orphans?
Perhaps the answer to Uganda's legislative controversies would be to open their borders and receive a few million immigrants that take a different view.
Reason assures us that would result in an economic and cultural renaissance in Uganda.
I await "more immigration is the fix for this problem" articles.
in Uganda's case, as well as many african nations, this is actually probably true. immigration can do nothing but help those places.
"With its opportunities for gorilla trekking and world-class safari options, along with the adventure hotspot of Jinja and the bustling capital of Kampala, Uganda has more than earned its place as one of Africa’s top travel destinations. From buzzing nightlife to traditional villages to rugged wilderness, this is a country that has something for everyone. And the relative stability and well-developed tourism infrastructure make it a safe and accessible place to visit."
Perhaps.
At this point, I’m pretty convinced that I should’ve attempted the ‘Hey! How are you!’-“punch assassination” sucker punch on *far* more people who asked for COVID Amnesty.
Ackshuyally, Ugandan dictator Idi Amin Dada reduced his nation to poverty and ruin when he expelled 60,000 Indians and Pakistanis and confiscated their businesses to give to Amin's cronies who knew nothing about business. So, yes, yes immigration of business-saavy immigrants could do Uganda and many nations in Africa good.
Let's send them South Americans! Just build an airport right on the southern border. "Welcome to America! Here's your ticket to Uganda! Plane's over there."
'For activists, the law's provisions put their life and work at risk.' Erm, no, for the activists, choosing to break the law's provisions may put their life and work at risk. Does every single article here have to read like it was written by a teenager? I know this piece is by an intern, but damn it, it comes off like a crappy social media affirmation quest. Yes, the law is crappy, but laying out some possible L/libertarian solutions might be more interesting than the typical emoting. I'd still point out: this isn't a new law or policy in Uganda, where some of my extended fam have lived for generations. It's also not limited to Uganda, and that civil liberties types generally don't include telling other people how to go about their business in the libertarian school of thought. Are we going to see pieces on the egregious lack of female personal hygiene products in men's restrooms in Algeria? Or the 3.6ish million current slaves in China? Will there be 'arguments' in the comments about why US State Dept propaganda prior to the wars in Viet Nam and Korea were in line w/ libertarian thought because those two nations didn't respect gay folks enough?
"Are we going to see pieces on the egregious lack of female personal hygiene products in men’s restrooms in Algeria? "
I doubt it. We may see something about what's happening in Senegal though. The leader of the opposition has been sentenced to 2 years in prison for corrupting the youth after being cleared of rape charges. At least 15 have been killed in fighting between supporters and police, and the government has suppressed social media.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/6/3/un-au-call-for-calm-as-death-toll-in-senegal-violence-rises
Yes, the law is crappy, but laying out some possible L/libertarian solutions might be more interesting than the typical emoting.
Repeal the law and Free Uganda, you dumb son-of-a-bitch!
Lethal Weapon II] South African Embassy Scene Very Funny
https://youtu.be/OkJnc0mlhIw
I for one am going to applaud Uganda's leadership in trans-friendly policy. Outlawing same-sex contact but making it legal if one of the participants identifies as male and the other identifies as female makes the solution to this perplexity perfectly obvious. Sex-reassignment surgeons must be making a killing in Uganda. (Although I do wonder why sex-reassignment seems to invariably be M2F or F2M and none of the other 82 sexual identities are ever involved in this binary choice of which sex you want to be.)
Identifying other than your biological sex is a crime there too. Either way, if you are a man pretending to be a woman it doesn't make you not gay when another man injects his gaypox into your rectum.
For activists, the law's provisions put their life and work at risk.
You know what other Ugandan put people's lives at risk?
Tarzan?
Is he the one Benny Hill spoofed in blackface, with metals all over his jacket and metals all over his shirt underneath? 🙂
Wow. Just wow.
So, I'm going to bookmark these comments, and the next time someone from Team Red tries to claim "we want to restrict what teachers say to little kids about 'sexual content' in the classroom because we don't want teachers to be 'sexualizing children'", this is going to be Exhibit A about why their stated position might not be their true position.
https://twitter.com/sesamestreet/status/1664644095434715136?t=qElShf2Ym4-gP9kz0nxy2g&s=19
This #PrideMonth, let's celebrate diversity and unity and spread love and acceptance. Together, we can make the world a kinder place for all. [Rainbow hearts]
[Pic]
^found the groomer
WTF are you talking about chomo?
Uganda is so homophobic because of the actions of US Evangelicals https://theworld.org/stories/2013-11-15/how-american-evangelicals-made-life-unbearable-gays-uganda
Remember fifty years ago when Idi Amin ruled Uganda and fed Christians and homosexuals to crocodiles? That was obviously the fault of American evangelicals twenty-five years in the future.
I'll say it bluntly. Your article (and I've seen it pushed before) is a flat-out lie aimed at infuriating midwit American establishment progressives against an American enemy for propaganda purposes.
Most of the African continent, including Uganda, has, and has always had, male homosexuality as taboo. Whether there were laws on the books or not.
No clever, wicked evangelicals tricking gullible, child-like natives are needed to make it so.
Most of the humanity has, and has always had, male homosexuality as taboo.
Good or bad, this much is true.
A Libertarian wouldn't say "Good or bad" but "This is bad. Let's change this."
Hmm?
It's actually rather famous that the late 19th century King of Buganda (the core of modern Uganda) and his cronies regularly had sex with the (male) pages in the court. When some of those pages converted to Christianity, they started refusing the king's sexual demands, and they were executed for it. The victims are now remembered as the Uganda Martyrs.
I'm not sure which is a more hilarious 'own goal'; that *you* conflated homosexual rape and sexual abuse with homosexuality more broadly or that you blamed the victims of the rape, who were executed, for the current state of affairs where homosexuality is seen as bad.
Er, mad.casual? It helps if you keep track of who's saying what before you start claiming a post is an "own goal".
All I did was point out that one of the practices that this Ugandan legislation makes punishable by death was, less than a century and a half ago, a practice of the Bugandan royal court, which seems to be pretty solid proof that there has, in fact, been a change in the way it's been perceived in Uganda.
If people like "The Glibertine Party" want to blame Christianity for that, well, I'd expect actual Christians to proudly say, "Yes, indeed, Christianity is why adult men screwing adolescent boys went from accepted elite practice to severe crime in Uganda!"
I mean, as an atheist, I admit to some difficulty in predicting what Christians would do. But "Christians ended social acceptance of the rape of boys in Uganda" looks to me like something they'd like to put on a victory banner, alongside "Christians abolished slavery", "Christians abolished forced marriage", and similar things.
less than a century and a half ago, a practice of the Bugandan royal court, which seems to be pretty solid proof that there has, in fact, been a change in the way it’s been perceived in Uganda.
I mean, as a libertarian, do you have any difficulty conflating the behavior of the royal court with the social norms of the populace? Was 2016-2020 the era when it was acceptable to grab women by the pussy or was it the era where it would likely get you punched in the face or worse?
Because there’s a lot of “High society elites throughout history used to rape boys (and girls and first siblings…), ergo homosexuality was celebrated and is normal.” revisionist history that’s gone around in the gay rights movement.
Treachery within treachery within treachery.
It was still taboo in Buganda and you're (purposefully) conflating pederasty with homosexuality, which are two very different things. The king of Buganda was raping effete boys, specifically his pages. Definitely not adult men.
The Classical Greeks had a similar practice of fucking boys and still thinking adult male homosexuality was gross. As do modern Afghanis with their Bacha bazi.
This practice appears in every culture that regards woman as equal to animals and polluting, and hides them away from society, so men turn to the next closest thing. Afghanistan does this right now, Classical Greece did it, and the Bantu kingdom of Buganda did it.
So sorry Jeff, unless you're willing to include boyfucking in your 2SLGBTQQ rainbow, adult male homosexuality was still taboo.
Given the people complaining about this legislation are also complaining about the death penalty for pederasty in it, I'd suggest that they've done all the conflating necessary.
And I've been posting in Reason comments long before chemjeff slithered in here, so please do not conflate me with that asshole, okay?
"Given the people complaining about this legislation are also complaining about the death penalty for pederasty in it, I’d suggest that they’ve done all the conflating necessary."
I'm not getting what you're saying here, can you clarify?
The royal courts have never represented the general population, not in Africa, not in Asia and not in Europe. Supposedly we don't have royal courts in the US, but the Clintons and the Bushes (as close as we have) hardly represent the regular population either.
Your article (and I’ve seen it pushed before) is a flat-out lie aimed at infuriating midwit American establishment progressives against an American enemy for propaganda purposes.
soooo... like half the 'articles' in the MSM?
Only half? LOL, 98%! And the 2% honest ones are only retractions after they got caught lying.
America is so anti-Science just a couple years ago they killed some 15,000 elderly people in NYC alone by locking them in their homes.
If they had killed them by locking them in their homes that would have been something defensible.
They killed them by locking them in nursing homes and forcing people infected with Covid to move in with them.
(Bonus, we are now learning that it is possible that the major driver of mortality was forcing people onto ventilators as the recommended treatment)
More people have died from COVID in Florida. And the official stats understate the carnage from DeSantis because tourists who contract COVID in Florida but die in their home states get charged to their home states. DeSantis encouraged normal spring break debauchery as the virus was spreading like wildfire.
And while Cuomo's cover up of the stats was as bad as DeSantis's, nobody has come up with a suggestion as to where those COVID patients should have been sent to. The hospitals were about to start turning ambulances away.
And the ventilator thing is a lie.
Give it up loser. No one cares about your fake pandemic anymore.
No they aren't homophobic. They don't have a fear of degenerates like you irrational or otherwise. They just think you are disgusting.
President Museveni made that pretty clear in 2014.
https://twitter.com/ph2t3r/status/1665079773201039361?t=7vsZc3vHO5C_npcg4xeohA&s=19
Many know "A Clockwork Orange," but few have read Burgess' other dystopian novel, "The Wanting Seed" -- in which the state encourages homosexuality as a means of population control.
Here are some disturbingly accurate ways Burgess nailed this month's propaganda topic.
[Thread]
"Encouraging" homosexuality might enjoy some success with women, but men's sexual orientation is much more fixed. For the most part, men are either Gay or they're not—no "encouragement" is going to get very far.
Some guys are homosexual from childhood, but many guys get bored and tired of all the regular porn that's easily available and start searching for novelty. This leads them down all sorts of creepy paths - dickgirls, fursuits, kids, animals, amputees, violence, homosexuality, vore, scat, tentacles, My Little Pony, pissing, etc.
Human sexuality is far more fluid than the narrative would pretend.
My Little Pony?
Geez man, there are some lines that shouldn't be crossed.
There's a few weirdos out there, but for the most part men have a sexual orientation that's fixed at an early age.
I was trying to make the distinction between homosexuality as an orientation and homosexuality as a paraphilia.
If the guy leaves his wife of thirty years and starts chasing twinks and Thai ladyboys it's definitely a paraphilia rather than an orientation.
Human sexuality is far more fluid than the narrative would pretend.
I think conceptualizing it as anything other than non-Newtonian is a false analogy.
“Encouraging” homosexuality might enjoy some success with women, but men’s sexual orientation is much more fixed. For the most part, men are either Gay or they’re not—no “encouragement” is going to get very far.
Same shit, different day Vernon. Your definition of "encourage" is exceedingly narrow and pretty strictly oriented to yourself. The government doesn't necessarily have to encourage *you* to convert directly. They encourage enough women to avoid you and enough men to disregard your rights and from there it doesn't really matter what you personally consider your orientation to be. Further, even if *we* avoided it, it would/could still have an effect applied socially over several generations. There have been some pretty fucked up social norms accepted throughout history.
I can't say for certain now one way or the other, but as a kid, I'd probably wait until I saw my Mom, Dad, or brother kicking around a severed human head like a soccer ball before I decided it was OK to kick a severed human head around like a soccer ball.
This article is incompetent at best. We discussed this days ago in the comments. There are nearly 70 countries where homosexuality is illegal, and this includes most of Africa.
The libertarian view is obviously that these laws are wrong…. but the libertarian news story is “why is the US establishment suddenly focusing on this issue and Uganda”.
If you were paying any attention at all, you would notice that the US has been pushing for a change in government in Uganda, and Uganda has been forging ties with China.
Actual libertarians have been talking about CIA action in Uganda for the last couple of years.
But even if you were going to write this article leaving out the talk of CIA work toward regime change I’m Uganda, leaving out the larger context (in which Uganda is neither the worst offender nor the most extreme outlier) is irresponsible.
If you guys are going to follow the mainstream narrative, at least be responsible and professional and add the larger context that is missing from the propaganda machine narrative. Without that level of journalistic professionalism, exactly what value is added by rewriting the same article from CNN, NPR and MSNBC? The NYT already wrote this same article days ago… why not take that extra time to research the larger trend, rhe forces behind these changes and the dynamics of US – Uganda relations?
The libertarian view is obviously that these laws are wrong….
The laws that initiate aggression are wrong.
The lumping together and declaration of “wrong” removed from any context is actually really AWFL if not straight up white supremacist. It’s the same stupid bullshit of “Why can’t America just adopt New Zealand’s gun laws?” or “Why can’t America just adopt Japan’s or Canada’s immigration laws?”, except instead of trying to push foreign culture on Americans, they’re trying to push Hunter Biden/Jeffrey Epstein/”Grab them by the pussy”/TN school shooter American values, ethics, and mores onto people for whom they may make no sense.
Yeah, tossing people off of roofs is bad but if TN, in the wake of the school shooting said, "We want to pause the distribution of all LGBTQIA educational material for '2 weeks' to be sure we aren't spreading a violent social contagion." a *lot* of people including some exceedingly libertarian ones, if they had principles or shame, would have trouble refuting it from all kinds of angles. And that's just the cultural divide between TN and other parts of the US, not an entirely separate people, continent, culture, and history.
As if putting a stop to butt sex and this degenerate LGBT culture of deviancy and sexual promiscuity is going to INCREASE aids or something. ROTFFLMFAO!