The Speaker of the Ugandan Parliament announced that the infamous "Kill the Gays Bill" will comes as a "Christmas gift to the nation" this year. The bill will makes the crime of "aggravated homosexuality" (which can be being convicted of homosexuality more than once) punishable by death.
The Speaker of the Ugandan Parliament announced that the infamous "Kill the Gays Bill" will come as a "Christmas gift to the nation" this year. The bill will make the crime of "aggravated homosexuality" (which is being convicted of homosexuality more than once) punishable by death.
I don't understand this article. First it says that the Speaker said "the bill, which originally prescribed the death penalty for certain homosexual acts, will become law this year", but the AP article quote says "The speaker then promised to consider the bill within two weeks", not pass it. Is there a big difference between politics in Uganda and politics in the US that is making this confusing?
and this is why some places need a "Refresh" button. I can't say what they should or shouldn't do... it is their country after all. But I can say that this is pretty disturbing. We're all just people, love is love etc.
The killing of people for expressing their feelings towards each other is sickening really...
Killing people because of their sexuality? Really?
It's not like if they chose to be gay, they were born like that.
That's pretty much barbaric. I could probably bet that in the middle age, they didn't even do these kind of stuffs.
This is a prime of example of why there is to be separation of church state. While I do not deny their ability to hate people of other sexuality... I simply profess the belief that they should do it walled up in their buildings with their supporters. They can preach and teach whatever they want... but there must be an end in putting such theories to practice when it infringes upon the rights of others. That being said... this isn't America. They don't have the same liberties and protections that are fundamental to American political thought. And without those... it's much more pertinent to argue against the mass killing of people simply for being people, regardless of such things as sexuality. I imagine they'd sooner acquit a person than a homosexual. So by that conclusion... it'd be in the best interest to argue them as valued human lives as opposed to arguing for their right of sexuality.
Being wrong isn't "bad", failing to admit that you are, is.