Irony in a Chicken Sandwich

[rvg]

Well, how about a simple rule: When travelling to a place where the price of machetes spikes during election season, don't use eliminationist rhetoric. That would keep everybody on the correct side of the line.

I find it very hard to believe that you would be so understanding and forgiving if a different group were targeted.

Let's say, for example, that a prominent leftist from the USA traveled to Cambodia and gave a speech about how landowners were the enemy and should be eliminated. Then, surprise, landowners are killed. In this scenario, do you think the person giving the speech should feel, oh, I don't know, shame and horror?

I bolded the most important word, the one that Perkins did not use. He used the word stopped, not quite the same. Furthermore, the Ugandan law is one of a kind in its severity with no precedent even by African standards. Perkins had no reason to believe they'd take the law that far, making his disavowing of the law genuine.

[Lemur]

Furthermore, the Ugandan law is one of a kind in its severity with no precedent even by African standards. Perkins had no reason to believe they'd take the law that far, making his disavowing of the law genuine.

And interestingly, as recently as mid-2010, Perkins was defending the bill on-air. FRC has since deleted the transcript, but the internets have a long memory. Transcript:

Hello, I am Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council. At the recent National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama took the podium calling for greater civility in Washington, which in my opinion is a laudable goal. However, his comments quickly turned to his preoccupation with defending homosexuality. The President criticized Ugandan leaders for considering enhance penalties for crimes related to homosexuality. The press has widely mischaracterized the law which calls for the death penalty, not for homosexual behavior which is already a crime, but for acts such as intentionally spreading HIV/AIDS, or preying upon vulnerable individuals such as children, which has been a problem in Uganda for years because the large number of orphans. The President said that "We may disagree about gay marriage, "but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are." Mr. President as long as you characterize efforts to uphold moral conduct that protects others and in particular the most vulnerable, as attacking people, civility will continue to evade us.

So to summarize: the bill isn't that bad, think of the childrens, and if them queers would stop spreading AIDS we wouldn't have these here problems.

Note also that when the US congress was preparing a condemnation of the Ugandan bill, the FRC labelled the condemnation as pro-homosexual promotion.

Also note that despite the fact that primary sources for their lobbying have been published, FRC later claimed they had not, in fact, lobbied against the Congressional resolution. In other words, who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

Sounds to me like they've been all over the map on the Ugandan law, and are documented as lying about it at least once. And now they have a statement up about how they don't like it and would never support it. Panzer's skepticism is entirely justified.

[rvg]

Transcript: ...The press has widely mischaracterized the law which calls for the death penalty, not for homosexual behavior which is already a crime, but for acts such as intentionally spreading HIV/AIDS, or preying upon vulnerable individuals such as children, which has been a problem in Uganda for years because the large number of orphans...[/ind]

Now, here in the States you can get 25 years in the clink for knowingly transmitting HIV and/or not telling the person you're screwing that you're HIV positive. The law also doesn't look kindly on diddling kids (just ask Jerry Sandusky). While the punishment is a bit too harsh, Perkins makes a good point about it being misrepresented: they aren't trying to criminalize homosexual behavior, it's already illegal there. They are trying to limit the spread of HIV and prevent sexual abuse of minors.

[Lemur]

Perkins makes a good point about [Uganda's law] being misrepresented [...] They are trying to limit the spread of HIV and prevent sexual abuse of minors.

Uh-huh. The Ugandan law has been "misrepresented." Really.

Note that under the new Ugandan law, homosexuality is divided into two categories: "aggravated homosexuality", in which an offender receives the death penalty, or "the offense of homosexuality" in which an offender receives life in a Ugandan prison.

"Aggravated homosexuality" is what you're referring to, where the queer in question is HIV-positive, uses "intoxicating substances" (such as beer), is a "repeat offender," or has sex with a minor. That's the death penalty right there.

Just generally being fabulous nets you life in prison.

Explain to me how the bill is being misrepresented.

[rvg]

Just generally being fabulous nets you life in prison.

Homosexuality has been criminalized in Uganda long before this law.

[Lemur]

Homosexuality has been criminalized in Uganda long before this law.

As you've already said; repetition is not a reasoned argument.

Under the new Ugandan bill, homosexuals get to choose between life imprisonment and death. That's what's got people riled up. The bill is not, as you and the FRC claim, primarily about preventing the spread of HIV. Rather, if I buy you a beer and consensually bugger you behind the chemical sheds, it's death for me and life in the clink for you.

This has people understandably upset.

Moreover, the FRC is on record lobbying against any condemnation of the Ugandan death-to-gays bill, and then lying about their lobbying once word got out. (This was not a casual effort, their filings show they paid $25,000 to lobbyists in their attempt to modify or kill the bill.)

Further muddying the issue, the Ugandan kill-the-gays bill's sponsor, MP David Bahati, says on video that "many American Evangelicals who publicly condemn the bill have told him they privately support it."

I don't see how you can defend FRC on this one.

-edit-

Since we're wandering a bit from the OP: I support Dan Cathy's right to free speech on every level. I also think mayors claiming they can block private businesses (that are breaking no laws) from establishing in their city limits to be insane. The First Amendment overrides their bullying. That said, the Family Research Council is a horrible hate group co-founded by a self-hating closeted man. The FRC also has a well-documented history of misrepresenting their actions, their staff, and their history. So not only are they a hate group, they are a lying hate group.

Also note that whenever a representative of FRC is forced to openly debate, they tend to get crushed. Hence the lying, I suppose.

[rvg]

Under the new Ugandan bill, homosexuals get to choose between life imprisonment and death. That's what's got people riled up. The bill is not, as you and the FRC claim, primarily about preventing the spread of HIV. Rather, if I buy you a beer and consensually bugger you behind the chemical sheds, it's death for me and life in the clink for you.

Not true. We'd both get 7 years in jail. See for yourself (at the very bottom): http://www.religiondispatches.org/di...anti-gay_bill/