Publicly tortured to death for being gay (in Africa)

http://goodlawd.com/man-in-africa-burned-alive-for-being-gay-video/
Warning: this video may be disturbing

This type of violence is actually not that unusual in many parts of Africa. The same was done to many Whites, and certain Black business men, in Rhodesia and South Africa, in brutal attacks known as "necklacing".



A man was brutally beaten bloody, then set aflame, surrounded by an angry mob of his fellow villagers.
Uganda is one of the most hostile countries in Africa towards homosexuals.


One of the largest evangelical organisations in the USA has been accused of encouraging attitudes against, and the criminalisation of homosexuality.
http://www.alternet.org/story/144403/uganda's_"kill_the_gays"_bill_tied_to_rick_warren_mentor/


From wikipedia:
"Martin Ssempa is a Ugandan pastor and activist, founder of the Makerere Community Church. He rejects separation of church and state, opposes the usage of condoms to prevent HIV contraction and supports abstinence plus fidelity education in the fight against sexual diseases. Ssempa claims to be leading a crusade to "kick sodomy out of Uganda, endorsing proposed legislation in Uganda that makes certain homosexual acts punishable by life in prison or even, in some cases, death. He is a strong advocate of the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Ssempa champions the bill by showing gay pornography in his church and at conferences."
The Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill proscribes the death penalty for homosexuals under the following conditions:
1. If they repeatedly engage in homosexual sexual acts, being considered serial offenders
2. If one of them tests positive for HIV
3. If one of them is under 18 years of age
4. If a teacher engages in sex with a university student
5. Rape (this one is not as bad as it seems, because there is already a law that sentences men who rape women to death)

Existing laws in Uganda already criminalise homosexual behavior with prison sentences up to 14 years.
38 of the 53 African nations either criminalise homosexuality, or have enhanced punishments for homosexual misconduct.

In April 2009, a local Ugandan newspaper printed the names of suspected homosexuals, and in October 2010 another newspaper published a story featuring a list of the nation's "100 top gays and lesbians" with their photos and addresses. Next to the list was a yellow strip with the words "hang them".

 

Outrageous discrimination on the Homosexual community ,a greater cause then "Gay and lesbian 'Marriage rights i reckon .

See what forms of Homosexual oppression , the LGBTIQAPC crowd have diverted the attion of the Homosexual community and OTHERS from?????????


the role of confusion in politics is deadly what can I say ,other then its time to get rid of those that Confuse ,namely the LGBTIQAPC.?!

 

This is totally disgusting and horrible.

 

The prisons in most of those African countries are really awful also.

Some of these prisons are so overcrowded that there is physically not enough space for all the prisoners to lie down and sleep! So they sometimes have to sleep in "shifts" throughout the night.

This prison conditions indicated in this picture are not uncommon:


In some of these prisons, the prisoners must stand in their own excrement and vomit.

Even a "light" prison sentence can end up being a death sentence. The malnutrition and poor cleanliness (standing in excrement and urine) renders the prisoners susceptible to disease.

 

You might want to check out this thread

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=336599&page=22&p=1063470080

because there are Western people involved here. People who mixing African Religion with anti gay rhetoric and causing Uganda's to believe that gays are demons who should be eliminated. Causing them to believe gays are demons who are responsible for their poverty and all their woes.

http://www.politicalresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/10/Colonizing-African-Values.pdf
http://www.publiceye.org/publications/globalizing-the-culture-wars/pdf/africa-full-report.pdf

The truth is sometimes worse than your imagination and I would say this is one of these times.

 

I'm surprised you think so. Many of your cohorts on the right probably would not agree.

 

I'm sorry mister, but you guys on the left totally ignore the persecution of gays by Islamics because...really and frankly I don't know why. Because the left relates with the totataltarianism aspect of that ideology perhaps.. Plenty of women getting raped and people being killed for no real reason in the Middle East. And your cohorts silently give their total support or try to diffuse the crimes being committed by bringing up what Christians did in the year 1000AD. You guys look silly pointing fingers.

 

You do realise Uganda is 85% Christian?

These attacks were likely carried out by those calling themselves Christian. Most of the Ugandan government - and those responsible for this bill - call themselves Christian.

Christian hetero-facism is alive and well.

 

I realize that I was responding to someone elses snide totally uncalled for remark.

 

WTF? Are you kidding me? I HATE Islam and have said so several times in this forum. Look at my posting history.

Why in the hell would I support Islam? Are you serious? I don't know where you got that idea. IMO, all religion sucks. Don't even try to say that I support Islam, I don't. I never have and NEVER will.

BTW- I'm still surprised you care what happens to gay people. You don't think we deserve equal protection under the law. So why do you have a problem with Uganda?

 

Ok, sure. I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I will have to keep my eyes peeled for your posts when a thread detailing Islamic persecution pops up. Usually the topic gets turned quickly to something else by people who don't believe in anything.

And Gay behavior doesn't deserve equal protection. Behaviors aren't equal---and you may label yourself gay as if its a separate gender---but its not. You are either a man or a woman. And as such you are treated like any other man or woman. Sexual attractions aren't equal..

The ability to be Immoral is the ability to be free.---meaning you shouldn't be prosecuted for for living together instead of committing to marriage, or for homosexuality. But don't expect that arrangement, that sexual attraction or behavior to have equal status in society. That would make any sexual attraction, behavior and arrangement equal no matter what---and we all know that is not the case..

 

Sorry but in the eyes of the law equality rules.

You can choose to not like gays or gay marriage. It does not change the fact that gay couples should and will be afforded equality under law.

As for your comments about sexual attractions being equal. I'm sorry but being attracted to a person of the same sex is exactly equal. Sexual relations between consenting adults of the same gender is in no way comparable to an adult raping a child or having sex with an animal.

People can make this fear mongering argument that homosexuality is likened to pedophilia or bestiality all they want. It doesn't lend any credence to the argument. But please keep trying, it only draws more attention to the vile nature of the haters and more energy toward the movement.

 

I'm sorry but sexual attraction is sexual attraction. You try to make yours special. I'm a woman and when I am sexual attracted to my husband---its a sexual attraction. When a man is sexually attracted to a 4 year old boy or girl its a sexual attraction. When a guy goes to a horse farm and kills himself copulating with a horse---he did it because of sexual attraction.

That is what they are and sexual attraction is the only thing that sets a gay person a part from a straight person. And sexual attractions are not equal. You try to make it that way---because perhaps being "normal" is important to you. But marriage isn't about being normal---its an institution for a man and a woman. Revolving it around anything else is just creating a destructive situation.

 

I think "gay behavior" deserves as much legal equity as "straight behaviour" that doesn't produce children. You see, people frequently marry for love and commitment (the elderly, infertile/post-menopausal, those on death row ect) and are given the EXACT same benefits as heterosexual couples responsible for churning out babies. Why? Because their social dignity and privacy are honoured. Why shouldn't gay couples have the same treatment, especially those raising children? It is unquestionable that marriage generally produces favourable socio-economic circumstances. Why deny them to the thousands upon thousands of children being raised by same-sex couples? Moral disapproval of "behavior" simply isn't enough to justify the inequality when we're talking about real people- real families, real children and real discrimination.

We've heard these slippery slope-style arguments ad nausea CKW, and everyone and their dog (no pun intended) KNOWS they simply carry no weight. They were used in virtually all historical expansions of minority/women's rights.

The "sin is sin" mentality leads to a false dichotomy/narrative. It's sad that we have to explain something so ludicrously obvious, but not everything that is considered "immoral" is in the same league...

Example: Fornication is "sinful" as per Biblical mentality, are you going to sit there and tell me that secular marriage being equated to legally-recognised religious marriage (the aforementioned wouldn't be married at all by Christian standards) means any unequal arrangement is fair game for legal recognition?

The fact is, as I pointed out above, already there are people in the same boat as same-sex couples who are allowed to marry, whose relationships are identically situated. This is a matter of equal protection.

 

And there we have it. You believe same-sex marriage creates a destructive situation. That's the crux of the issue for SSM opponents - they make apocalyptic pronunciations about what will happen if same-sex couples are allowed to have legal recognition. But when pushed on what these apparently "destructive" consequences are, they don't have a logical, coherent answer. They simple babble about America "losing it's way".

Do you think that's why you keep losing in court? The idea that heterosexual marriage or opposite-sex families are somehow threatened doesn't have a rational basis.

 

No, you're wrong. I am not just sexually attracted to the same sex. That's also who I fall in love with. What is it with people like you? All you can think about is sex. Are you only with your husband for sex? And if that's true, have you told him? And if not, please share his reaction when you do.

Also, how do two adults of the same sex marrying cause any destructive situation? No, do not compare us to pedophiles or anything else. That has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

 

All love is not equal either. And stop this "don't compare us with them" nonsense. When you note your love and how special it is to be recognized as equal to all others---its that attitude shared by this judge that creates this chaos: http://www.christianpost.com/news/i...cause-he-and-11-y-o-girl-were-in-love-112000/

We had a Zoophilia guy/gal on this board who swore that she/he loved the dog and the dog loved her the same as I loved my husband---caring and consensual. THERE! I compared Zoophila with heterosexuallity. I hope you appreciate that and stop quaking when the topic comes up.

Gay relationships are not equal to hetersexual relationships. They don't result in the same thing. They don't share in general the same values. They don't serve the same purpose for society. Three people who love each other and are sexually attracted to each other as some sort of "unit" don't serve society either. Brothers and sisters coming together in marriage don't either.

I'm sorry---but that is the reality.

 

I'll say it once more: gay relationships are identically situated to those of infertile/post-menopausal heterosexual relationships in terms of what they "produce". Can you present an argument for denying same-sex couples that doesn't rely on a double standard? In other words, should the aforementioned heterosexual couples be excluded too? If procreation is ALL marriage is about?

 

You have not demonstrated in any way how two people of the same sex getting married is harmful. You just SAY it is. Now, one more time- how is two people of the same sex marrying bad?

BTW- that article you quoted is regarding Italy, where same sex marriage is illegal. Try again. Massive fail on your part.

 

No. We don't have to micro manage a policy. It isn't necessary. . We look at the population. Where do most of our children come from? 99.9% come from hetersexual relationships--one man and one woman. Thus we make a policy based on one man and one woman. Its too important to screw around with to fit the whims of the individuals out their.

 

Sorry, with all due respect that's a pathetic argument. The state COULD impose an upper age limit on marriage for opposite-sex couples. It could ban post-menopausal women. But it hasn't. It never has. So you simply cannot make the argument that marriage is limited based on procreation. It isn't and never has been. The "lack of procreational ability" argument is only relevant in the case of same-sex couples because of animus towards gays. I haven't heard a single opponent of SSM, not even in PRINCIPLE state that they oppose the elderly and infertile entering new marriage contracts. You and I both know that it's an issue of morality.

 

Well, you've lost in 18 states now, plus DC. What ever will you do when it's legal in all 50? Plus, it's been legal in Massachusetts for how long now? 10 years. The sky has not fallen.

 

And honestly, screwing around? You don't think there was "screwing around" when there was a massive concerted effort to specifically preclude same-sex couples or roll back their rights, via statute/amendment?

This isn't about whims, it's about the validity of the argument presented. I obviously do not wish infertile/elderly opposite sex couples to be excluded any more than same-sex couples, but my point stands... in terms of what they produce, there is no difference. The government COULD have targeted both groups, but only targeted gays.

Because it's NOT just procreation. It's morality, and religious morality has no place in the law.

 

I'm still waiting for CKW to tell her husband she's only with him for sex.

 

Massive Fail? I was pointing out that your attitude is exactly shared by that judge. Once its all about YOU---your love, your attraction, your wants---then that is what we get.

Marriage is how the states want to handle it. If a state wants to include gays and whatever in marriage then that is their perogative. But Gays wanting to jump on board shows what is wrong with marriage today. Years ago two men wouldn't even dream of getting married because it was too much of a commitment---a life changing decision. Now its been diluted into a "right" a "privilage" a "tax break". And what's hilarious---is that couples that have children don't get married...because of the tax breaks. All messed up eh?

Straight people against gay marriage are the ones who want to fix marriage and strengthen our families. The families that matter most---in general--are the ones children are born into. The nuclear family is sneered at by those on the left---but that is the family that guarantees our future. Marriage promotes and encourages....that family. It is way and above a family of two men, two women, or a single parent or three guys and a girl.

Gay activists want to jump on board now that marriage is some sort of convoluted tax break. Changing its definition from a crucial institutution for our future to revolving about any love and sexual attraction.

I have no patience for people who don't care about the broken families we are dealing with right now---especially when those same people see this as an opportune moment to jump on board while commitment is low and tax breaks are perceived profitable. Gay activists don't give a damn about how the dilution of marriage has devastated our country, asl long as fits their needs just fine.

So..in short...get a civil union. Marriage is meant to encourage nuclear families. Your civil union will work and we can focus on putting marriage where it needs to be.