We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

Rob T • 9 years ago

Linda, given your recent lies on this site about the the original Uganda anti-gay law, why should we take anything you say seriously?

ThisOldSpouse • 9 years ago

Name and document the lie, or shut your yap.

Rob T • 9 years ago

Sure. In her article, "State Department sacrifices children for gay imperialism," Harvey writes:

All Out is one of the groups behind the hysteria that falsely labeled a proposed law in Uganda, the “Kill the Gays” bill.

The original Uganda legislation to counteract the influence of outside homosexual activist groups did include the death penalty, but it was for homosexual molestation of minors, or for knowingly infecting a person with HIV.

But of course this was not a false labeling of the proposed law, which also imposed the death penalty on people convicted multiple times of having gay sex, even it was between two consenting adults uninfected with HIV.

ThisOldSpouse • 9 years ago

I fail to see where you identified a lie in her statement. Perhaps "lie" is simply means to you something you don't like.

Rob T • 9 years ago

Perhaps you missed where I explained, "But of course this was not a false labeling of the proposed law," as Harvey dishonestly claimed.

Guest • 9 years ago
Rob T • 9 years ago

I sure do. I'll post it in a moment, but because the comment will contain a link, it'll be held up in moderation. You might be able to open the message anyway, though, so be sure to check back.

Guest • 9 years ago
Rob T • 9 years ago

No, the video is absolutely correct.

A person would not have to be in life imprisonment, as you mistakenly assert. Remember, a serial offender is “a person who has previous convictions of the offence of homosexuality or related offences,” and many of those related offenses carry much shorter prison terms.

Furthermore, the video actually points out and discusses the "authority" issue in detail. There's no deception there.

It's quite simple:

1. The death penalty applies to anyone convicted of “aggravated homosexuality.”

2. Aggravated homosexuality includes all “serial offenders.”

3. A serial offender is “a person who has previous convictions of the offence of homosexuality or related offences.”

4. Related offences (Part III of the bill) include not ratting out your gay friends (if you are a person of religious, political, economic, or social [!] authority).

Obviously, then, what I've written is true, and what Harvey has written is false. Furthermore, as for getting the death sentence just for touching someone on the shoulder, look at what the definition of homosexuality covers: A person is guilty if "he or she touches another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality," and:

“touching” includes touching—

(a) with any part of the body;

(b) with anything else;

(c) through anything;

and in particular includes touching amounting to penetration of any sexual organ. anus or mouth.

In other words, penetration "in particular" but not just penetration. You could be found guilty of homosexual touching merely for passing your phone number to someone without even making skin contact. "He touched me! With a note! Through my glove!" And god forbid you pat someone on the shoulder or shake their hand.

And if you're convicted more than once, you're guilty of aggravated homosexuality and subject to the death penalty.

Guest • 9 years ago
Rob T • 9 years ago

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. You keep undercutting yourself. You've established that if someone with any degree of authority over someone else fails to rat out a friend (note that the law doesn't say they only have to rat out those they have power over), and is convicted of this more than once, then they can get the death penalty.

Your GLAAD example shows that Linda Harvey was completely dishonest about the death penalty aspect. No HIV or contact with minors is in any way necessary.

You keep saying that the "touching" aspect is ridiculous, but you don't say why. I've quoted the law. You've quoted -- nothing. And of course, that destroys your entire argument about gays and life imprisonment. I can see why you keep denying it, then, but I certainly don't see why you think you can be persuasive when you deny it without presenting reasons why the law doesn't mean what the law clearly says. You just keep offering unsubstantiated denials.

Meanwhile, you haven't even considered what you happen if someone got multiple convictions of homosexuality in quick succession, but that's a whole different point.

Finally, I did call it something similar to what you want me to call it. The link I sent you to actually called "Uganda's Kill-Everyone Law: A Video Tour" (which you acknowledge you saw) and elsewhere on that blog you'll find an article called ""Uganda's Kill-the-Straight-Friends-of-Gays Bill."

You keep digging yourself deeper. The more you try to make your case, the more you destroy it.

Guest • 9 years ago
Rob T • 9 years ago

You're just so very desperately wrong. First, apparently you don't know that men do have sex in prison. You act as if this is some mysterious question we can never know the answer to, but it's widely known to happen.

But I haven't focused on that because you're wrong in so many other ways. For instance, if someone is convicted multiple times of putting their hand on someone's shoulder with the intent of committing homosexuality, they are a serial offender, thus guilty of aggravated homosexuality, thus subject to the death penalty.

Also, I've pointed out that the video does deal with the "authority" question, yet you continue to ignore what it says about that.

The law does not treat straight men more harshly than homosexuals.As the video points out (another thing you keep ignoring) the video treats straight men who are friends of gays harshly, and that it treats gay men as harshly or more harshly.

Finally, as for your gay sex during life imprisonment, that just ignores what's in the bill. Let's suppose you're convicted of laying your hand on someone's shoulder with the intention of committing homosexuality. And then you're convicted of having gay sex. Now you're a serial offender, thus guilty of aggravated homosexuality, thus subject to the death penalty.

Suppose you're convicted of homosexuality. And while serving time in prison, you're convicted on a second count that occurred before you were imprisoned. Now you're a serial offender, thus guilty of aggravated homosexuality, thus subject to the death penalty.

It's a shame. Your need to disagree with gay people at all costs is wrecking your intellectual integrity. Such a shame.

Guest • 9 years ago
Rob T • 9 years ago
The narrator in the video concludes, without justification, that those with “social authority” would be a “friend” or a “partner.”

The video says no such thing -- no such thing at all. This is what I mean when I say your antipathy for gay people has wrecked your intellectual integrity.

Meanwhile, you've ignored most of what I said in my post. Probably because it's most convenient for your argument, which falls apart if one merely looks at what the law actually says, and what I've pointed out about it..

We can go back and forth on this forever, but we've already said enough to establish your complete wrongness on the issue, so I'm fine with giving you the last word and having people decide for themselves.

Meanwhile, I'll be back every time Linda Harvey tries to present herself as a credible analyis.

Rob T • 9 years ago

It's clear that when truth offends, the first person is offends is you.

Rob T • 9 years ago

Here is a link to the bill:

http://www.publiceye.org/pu...

Here's a video walk-through showing how the death penalty works:

http://wakingupnow.com/blog...

Guest • 9 years ago
Rob T • 9 years ago

Thanks, Jeanette, so you know I'm correct in my description of the law. As of this moment, BarbWire still hasn't taken my post with the link out of moderation.

Rob T • 9 years ago

And I've shown that his reply is completely incorrect.

Progressive Patriot • 9 years ago

One always has the choice to "not attend." Freedom means freedom of choice.

The world advocated by the author is DEVOID of choice and freedom. She advocates all, believer and non-believer, to be subjected to the theocratic jackboot of religionist diktat. Hardly sounds like freedom.

Obviously, the author missed the memo on pluralism and coexistence. Guess her interpretation of diversity is that Americans are free to choose : her religionist views, or her religionist views, or perhaps, for variety, HER RELIGIONIST VIEWS. Nothing else. Wow, just the overflowing "freedom" in such choices. Hard to find the words. So ... "touching."

Guest • 9 years ago
Jeffrey Robinson • 9 years ago

What do you expect from an ignorant, fear filled bigoted coward?

These types write with an emotion of certainty thinking that such emotion itself is validating for their views, having no clue what "research," even is.

Kinda like the chimps they think - no wait, believe - are not their cousins.

Guest • 9 years ago

Linda Harvey's last article on here was entitled, "12 Ways Homosexual Adults Endanger Children." It was, as usual, riddled with the falsehoods and fear-mongering rhetoric that have become a right-wing staple. Thanks to Linda's relentless martyr complex, it is still a mystery to her how anyone could consider such a thing to be incendiary or hateful.

ThisOldSpouse • 9 years ago

Linda, I'm surprise that letter wasn't delivered with a brick, as Scott Lively's was.

Guest • 9 years ago
Guest • 9 years ago

I know you're already aware of this, but I just want to reinforce it. Not all Christianpeople are hate-spewing bigots. There are many who are embarrassed by people like this author but also outraged and offended.

Having different opinions doesn't have to lead to hate. There are many Christians who recognize lgbt rights, and thete ate many more throughout the world feeding the hungry, building homes for homeless and generally loving their neighbors.

Go Brasil!!!

Guest • 9 years ago
Matthew T. Mason • 9 years ago

The "Christians" you refer to are not really Christians, as they choose to ignore even the most basic of God's teachings.

Guest • 9 years ago
Matthew T. Mason • 9 years ago

If you are trying to say love, empathy and justice are intertwined with sinful, morally repugnant and self-destructive behavior, you get a giant FAIL. At least in this context, those things are mutually exclusive.

Guest • 9 years ago
Matthew T. Mason • 9 years ago

I do in fact know what's in the bible

Liar. You only know what people have told you is in it. Which is why you have dragged out the same old codswallop uttered by ignoramuses time and time again.

Guest • 9 years ago
Matthew T. Mason • 9 years ago

Oh, really? Then what is your take on Psalms? Proverbs? Song of Solomon? Daniel? Revelation?

Or how about just a single chapter: 1 Corinthians 2?

Guest • 9 years ago
Matthew T. Mason • 9 years ago

Dude, all you are doing is playing games.

If you have actually read the Bible, you would know the content of those books. I know exactly what those books are about because I have, you know, actually read them, unlike a liar such as yourself.

Rob T • 9 years ago

Surely you're not saying that two people in a committed same-sex relationship cannot love each other. Surely you're not saying this about two people you've never even met. Because that would just be rank bigotry.

Guest • 9 years ago
Matthew T. Mason • 9 years ago

Some Mason guy says you should actually read the Bible so you don't look like a fool before everyone else.

Guest • 9 years ago
Matthew T. Mason • 9 years ago

And maybe if you spent more time actually reading the Bible instead of showing your ignorance you may actually know what you are talking about.

Guest • 9 years ago
Matthew T. Mason • 9 years ago

And I call BS.

All you have done is spew the same old horse manure I have heard many a time: "Focus on feeding the poor, and leave homosexuals alone."

But people who have actually read the Bible know better than that. Not only does it not say anywhere we are to tolerate sin, what it does say is that we are to warn and rebuke those who do sin.

Go and take your lies somewhere else. It's not going to work here.

shepetgene • 9 years ago

Can't wait to see you at our Pride this year, Linda! I always love seeing your group of protestors being wildly outnumbered by ourselves and our allies.

Persephone Sixty-Six • 9 years ago

If it weren't for people like like Linda Harvey, we wouldn't need gay pride parades.

Jeffrey Robinson • 9 years ago

What the hell is an "open youth" molester?

Oh, wait, he liked younger guys that were of legal age. Gotcha.

I love how she thinks the apocalypse is coming via gay marriage, but can't cite one actual social ill resulting from it.

Her only attempt at an example is that bigots will be compelled by law not to deny services on a discriminatory basis. I guess that means she supports a KKK member not selling services to an African American. Same horrific logic.

You see, Linda, in order to show something as 'wrong' you have to show harm. It's not just wrong because your Magic Book says so, and you believe it without a critical brain cell firing. Your idea of god does not - and will never - run this country, as much as you so desperately want it to. And your despicable bigotry is being defeated all day, every day.

We shall watch as you writhe in the death throes of your hatred, vomiting out incoherent "arguments" as cries of agony as we once again crucify your power hungry mythology, this time, for good.

Jeffrey Robinson • 9 years ago

What is the obsession of conservatives with homosexuality?

If I run into a homosexual (should I even be aware of it) I could care less. I haven't a fleeting thought about it.

You guys froth at the mouth. Perhaps other bodily symptoms occur? It does seem that the most virulent anti-gay personas are caught - go figure - getting a rim job from their favorite same sex prostitute.

I'm sorry we are discrediting your own self hatred, Linda. As a Christian, your entire meaning of life is based on viewing yourself, and the rest of the world, as unworthy soiled trash, and it's difficult for you to stomach beauty and actual love and compassion. I imagine it's painful when your opiate has been self disdain all your life.

But, fear not. Given what you write and think, you are still unworthy and unclean, not just in the eyes of your god, but in our eyes too. So all is well! Your soiled soul still deserves the fires of your own hell, as your beliefs tell you, but not because of some silly apple from a tree, but your expressed poisonous rage, and as Jesus told you, anger is equivalent to murder (your belief, not ours).

And murderous you are in heart and mind. It is like Ted Bundy arguing the moral ills of illegal parking, in comparison. The darkness of your heart and void therein is troubling, and we will make every effort for it not taint our society, our culture, our country.

And we're winning.

John Abbott • 9 years ago

I cannot believe the arrogance of some people. Who do they think they are that we have nothing better to do that to "hate" them? If the people had half a brain they would soon work out that the average Christian does not hate anyone but hates the bad; hates the wrong; hates anything that is evil (the opposite of live).
Further if these disillusioned people think that they can silence us by false accusations - think again because we follow the path of the Christ who did not turn his back on a challenge but met it face to face without fear or favour.
As to the so called "gay marriage", it is not only disillusioned, it is a betrayal to all children who deserve to know a mother and a father or as close as possible and the reason should be obvious even to those who are disillusioned in that a young boy cannot be served in many interests no matter how many so called mums he may have.
Further, marriage, by implication is to the benefit of children and not teh adults as after all, two adults can contract as they wish and any such contract can be devided by consent. Why is marriage different in that this contract (if it is a contract) must first have the consent of the people (via the courts) before it can be divided? The answer - because society has a vested interest in all childre.
As such, to the so called homosexual community. Take notice and stop the dissolution for the children's sake.