Home

Ain't that the truth!

Obama needs to keep his nose out of another country's business. Let Ugandans run Uganda. Let Zero ruin America, if he wants.

You didn't resist anything. All you did was ignore wisdom and get trapped in PC secular humanist doctrine.

Why doesn't he talk about all the other fundamental freedoms that are being abused everyday around the world? No matter what one's view of homosexual activity is, it certainly is not in the top-10 human-rights problems in the world today.

I figure Obama gets his fair share dik sukling done when he invites Mr. Valerie Jarrett over.

Maybe someone mentioned already in this thread, but Uganda's new law is not just about morality. Indeed, it might not be about morality at all. It is a desperate measure to gain some control over the AIDS epidemic ravaging the country and the much of the rest of Africa.

My understanding is that AIDS transmission in Africa is primarily spread through heterosexual sex due to rampant other types of STDs. Genital sores allow for easier blood to blood transmission of the disease among heterosexuals. In all fairness shouldn't Uganda have passed a law to throw all adulterers, prostitutes, or anyone engaging in promiscusous sexual relations outside of marriage in prison for life?

Desperate times call for desperate measures in combating the AIDS epidemic, right?

10 years ago, Uganda had the highest AIDS rate in Africa. They cracked down on homosexuals and that helped a bunch. However, their culture does a lot of wife swapping. When people get together, they swap wives, have their fling, then get on with the socializing. That spreads diseases like crazy. They've been doing a campaign to cut down on that, too.

I don't care one or the other what Uganda does, I was merely pointing out the reasoning behind it. Further, in most cultures, homosexuality is not a cut and dried thing like it is here. Homosexuals don't identify themselves as such, indeed, the very definition as it is defined here is not understood. Instead, it is people having sex. Men will sometimes sleep with men, then sleep with women, then boys, then women again. Sex is something they DO, not their entire identity.

As such, they are merely outlawing a particular type of sex act, not discriminating against an entire class of people. And really how can we claim any moral superiority. Do we not prohibit certain types of sex act ourselves?

Sounds like a promiscuity problem.

"Down-low" behavior also exists in Black American subculture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down-low_(sexual_slang)

Can't wait 'til this nniggger has to answer to god!

He's an IGNORANT POS AZZHOLE!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama could care less about baring Arms , he is more concerned about you baring your ass to another guy

There is no 'wisdom' in any of it. PC'ness wasn't invented in 1962. When you are getting god and jesus beaten into you ,you either comply or resist, glad I resisted.

Isn't that all wrong? After all it must at least be a RIGHT!

You seem to be the one with all of the definitions and explanations, so go for it. Frankly, I don't care how you define the specifics of deviant sex or how much you practice those different forms. Your sexual deviancies - whatever form(s) - are not the government's business, nor mine. Feel free to do your thing.

Once again, you miss the entire point. Why does Obama choose to expound upon this so-called "freedom" for homosexual behavior and yet not include the behaviors of all of the other poor, freedom-deprived perverts? Is there some special hierarchy of deviant sexual behavior - some awarded freedom, but not others - and how does a proclaiming president decide amomg those freedoms? Isn't he just so fancy, bless his heart?

Try this one. The fact that a behavior is not outlawed - that you are free to do it - that I or others don't care if you do it - does not mean that the behavior is not deviant or perverted. Perverts get to be people, and have fun, too!

Well, our homosexuals here seem bound and determined to identify and proclaim themselves as such, so the amorphous approach probably won't fly. Yours is an interesting and seemingly knowledgeable explanation, but possibly limited - you left out the goats, camels, sheep, kinfolk, dead bodies, etc, etc.. Discrimination against some due to type just seems unfair.

This does seem, at least, a wee bit limiting. Open to reconsideration?

Yes why not, it is my consideration that people can shag who or what they like as long as it is in private, does not involve children, and does not involve me or mine.

If any bring it to my home I reserve the right to smack a shovel down the back of their skull.

He meant one of "his" fundamental freedoms. Especially when Michelle is vacationing somewhere else.