Course accreditation crisis in top Ugandan Universities

What is the moral basis of your claim?

 

Dressing it up doesn't change the fact that it's not yours to judge.

 

True. But we are all human beings, with all the good and bad things that entails. And because of this thread, I've learned not to tell Africans what to do. Too many others have been doing that for hundreds of years. So I won't. But I'll tell anyone - from anywhere - what I do. I'll no longer speak for a nation.

I think Bill's comments (with which I agree) were more of an argument with one American on here who has very different views. And I have NO problems telling Americans what I do. Most that I encounter tell me what to do and think, regularly, so ...?

 

I'm really not demonizing the other side. I'm definitely not interested in reading more of your hogwash about how you can dress up your position wrapping it in "palpably ridiculous canard" to justify said hogwash. As Rich so aptly put it.

 

That moral reasoning shouldn't be made through faulty logic.

 

Lol. It's very American to "know" better a lot of times. Well, no society regardless of race should be told what to do. It's the engineering part I don't like. A friend put up a pack of cereal she saw in a store in Jamaica and it had the Dad from Flindtones in a sexual position with another man, we have books for kids now teaching them about intimacy with the same sex. There is a conscious push for this but then they don't want others to consciously protect their kids from it too. I watched a video of a woman challenging a family for always wearing pink clothes for their daughter and that was just crazy. Too many people have been lured into being gay even before they grew old enough to know themselves.

 

And what is the measure of logic that isn't faulty?

 

That's not how sexual orientation works. You can't trick, lure, or force someone to be gay.

 

Fred and Barney? Who knew? Or was the other guy Mr. George Slate, Fred's boss at the gravel pit?

Seriously, I just can't see how that would sell Flintstones cereal, which we, of course, have here. I haven't seen such a pic, but I don't eat the cereal. Could somebody be mistaken as to what the two men were up to? And equally seriously, "luring" of minors, for any kind of sexual contact (or other purpose) is a criminal offence here - and I'm fine with that.

Yes, I believe young people can be enticed by unscrupulous others, temporarily into acts out of their true sexual orientation. straight, gay or whatever. Very confusing, heartbreaking and evil. Those victims need the best help, to recover and to find themselves again. What NOBODY needs is is more "trickery" - amateur attempts by family, clergy etc to "cure" ANYONE by threats, dire predictions or "deprogramming" etc.

As far as the books etc. go - I haven't seen the specific book(s) you're talking about, but that's sometimes a hard call. What should kids know, and when? And what should they hear and see - and what should they not. People have various ideas - and young people themselves are different from each other. Children have some sexual feelings from a very early age, and curiosity, I think, starts at birth.

One thing - NOTHING needs to be blatant or lurid in sex education. One can explain ANY sexual topic without that. Necessary pictures of sexual organs or processes, done right and in the right context are not pornographic either, as I see them. It's a market for professionals to judge - and not for unscrupulous people to engage in, trading some shock value for a few bucks. It's complicated and any one solution doesn't please everyone.

That's all I've got really. I wish it were more.

 

As the brother of a gay sister ( my middle sister for whom both of my siblings, who are girls, as well as myself, love her very very much!), Dustin is correct. We knew when we were small ( my siblings and I). No one tricked, lured or forced her to be gay. She is a happily married woman of almost three years ( to another woman). I have never seen her this happy. I would never fathom taking her happiness away to placate those who feel it is wrong. This is my opinion. Thank you!

 

BTW - how did Wilma (Flintstone) and Betty (Rubble) react, when they heard about their husbands' escapade?

 

Also - I've just discovered, the Flintstones cereal is actually named "Pebbles" after Barney and Wilma Flinstones' daughter. It's been around for 50 years.

The Flintstones characters are used in conjunction with the cereal under special license from Hanna-Barbera, the creators, to Post Consumer Brands. I'm positive neither corporation would allow ANY of the Flintstones to be shown in any sexual position whatsoever.

This HAS to be a serious misconstrual, somewhere along the line OR faked graphics originating from some unknown idiot attention junkie (who probably hates gays.) Only possibilities I can arrive at.

 

Or - worst of all - being compelled to watch videos by Mike Pence.

 

Speaking of "hogwash" Bill, you claimed that most who consider homosexual relations to be a sin believe those who practice such acts are subhuman. You, and especially Rich, make plenty of unsupported assertions. Yet, when faced with a refutation of your assertions (i.e., the biblical doctrine of the imago Dei) you, like Rich, circle the wagon and cling to the echo chamber.

 

Oh right, because judging is immoral? Tell me more as you continue to make...judgments.

 

That must be why erotic liberty is found in our nation's founding documents. Oh, wait... If freedom to commit homosexual sex acts is key to human flourishing, where was it prior to Lawerence v. Texas? Fact is, you're appealing to a novel positive right that is a convention of our time. By the way, precisely who established this right? From whence does this moral law come?

Keep telling yourself that, maybe at some point you'll believe it.

No, all sin bothers me. Including my own. This just happens to be a sin you want to sanctify.

 

I didn't say that. You did. I made no assessment on the act of judging.

 

You are incorrect. What I actually said was that folks that consider LGBTQ+ folks to be sinful or immoral are not looking at them as people. Instead they're thinking about them as sub-human or not giving them any real thought at all.

I don't buy into the belief that your interpretation of the bible proves anything. Over history that interpretation has changed significantly and differs significantly from one group to another in the modern day. Since you don't like the term hogwash let's just call it palpably ridiculous canard.

 

That is interesting because I've read considerable amounts of second temple and patristic literature which is thousands of years old and it says the same thing. Perhaps you ought to reassess your dismissal. Further, if by "interpretation" you mean the plain reading of the Bible, that hasn't changed one bit.

 

Cheers - and kudos to you and your sister - and your entire family. Got a young gay man in the family, myself. Being gay, I don't think, has ever caused him - or his family - one moment of unhappiness. He's inherited his Mom's artistic sense and his Dad's natural aptitude for all things "computery," As a fashion guy, I'm blown away by my grandson's clothes sense and as an old tinkerer, I'm equally amazed by his largely self-taught (with a bit of help from Dad) fluency in Javascript and other languages. Mom and Dad are proud of him and love him - and so do I.