Eddy…. I pointedly separate pedophiles from homosexuals in my last few posts, where do you get your notion that I don’t seem to understand that they are trying to tie the two together?

I say that homosexuality itself ought not to be criminalized while pedophilia should, where do you get the notion that I support the removal of gay rights?

You attempt to inform me that they already have a law that protects male children from pedophilia; I’ve cited that fact myself several times.

Where did I say you did support the removal of gay rights? I was speaking only of the effects of the bill. And since we’re supposedly on the same page, I’ll quit talking about it here. We don’t seem to understand each other very well and I’d rather not get into an argument when it seems that semantics is the problem.

I’ve said my piece…now waiting to see if others have anything to add or amend.

I pointedly separate pedophiles from homosexuals in my last few posts, where do you get your notion that I don’t seem to understand that they are trying to tie the two together?

I say that homosexuality itself ought not to be criminalized while pedophilia should, where do you get the notion that I support the removal of gay rights?

You attempt to inform me that they already have a law that protects male children from pedophilia; I’ve cited that fact myself several times.

The above points support why I said that you’ve missed me by a mile.

I did not say that you were offended by ME. I said you were offended by my perspective. I still believe that to be true. Let’s not wrangle over nuances of meaning. The following sure suggests to me that you found my pov offensive:

What compromise can take place with a bill so steeped in homophobia as to be inhuman itself? Let’s forget that they lumped pedophilia &/or sex with minors into a bill to demonize gay people

I suggested discussing a penalty less than the death penalty for certain offenses; you interpreted this as follows:

So what’s the point of dithering down the punishment from death to life in prison – life imprisonment already is the punishment for that crime!

Where did I suggest what that lesser penalty ought to be?

Sorry, but it sure does sound like you find the idea of talking ‘compromise’ (my perspective) offensive.

.

.

You seem to not understand that the point of the bill is to tie gays and lesbians to pedophiles and then remove their human rights. They do this by saying that no law exists to stop male pedophiles from preying on male children; and yet such a law does exist in Uganda.

BTW… when I wrote my next earliest post yours at 2:27 was the last post I knew about. If one later one has meaning for you, that doesn’t have meaning for me, I had no knowledge of it. Why mine didn’t show up until after 8pm, I do not know.

You and I are obviously not on the same page. I trust that this blogsite is big enough to contain us both. I’m sorry my perspective offends you; yours disturbs me. I really don’t see how either one of us is going to come to an understanding of the other. I feel you’ve missed me by a mile…and I’m sure you likely feel that you know me better than I know myself. I am at peace, though, knowing that I don’t fit that pigeonhole you’ve got me in.

Tell you what, though. I’ll make a concession…a compromise of my own. Recognizing how much rancor my approach seems to stir up, I will not taint the voices you’ve been able to muster by speaking up myself. I won’t be silent here on Warren’s blogsite (I believe strongly in freedom of speech–including my own) but in all other arenas I will keep silent.

Eddy wrote:: I appreciate Warren citing those areas cited for the death penalty. While I do not support the death penalty, I also recognize that our culture also deems most of these behaviors as criminal while not criminalizing homosexuality itself. This goes to that compromise discussion I wanted to have a month or so ago. I’m not certain but I believe I’ve heard you speak that pedophilia and sexual exploitation of vulnerable persons are 1) atypical of homosexuality and 2) rightly deemed ‘criminal’. Not in those words, of course, but it came up in a discussion re what a therapist is obligated to report.

.

This leads to what I’d hoped we could discuss as a compromise re the reporting the bill wants to mandate. I think we all might be able to agree that consensual homosexual behavior and admitting to being homosexual should not be subject to mandatory reporting BUT that at least some of the behaviors (pedophilia, sexual exploitation of vulnerable persons, continued unprotected sex by someone who is HIV+) should be subject to mandatory reporting requirements.

What compromise can take place with a bill so steeped in homophobia as to be inhuman itself? Let’s forget that they lumped pedophilia &/or sex with minors into a bill to demonize gay people, because unlike the lies Ssempa, Langa and their cohorts are saying about male children not being protected under Ugandan law – minor male children apparently are protected.

.

In Warren’s Part One of the 7 Mountains, I posted:

I understand why they want to keep victims anonymous. And I much agree when a youth is involved. But at the same time they have written the bill such that someone who may be of age and had consentual sex with another person may be considered a victim to be kept anonymous. This bill is thus quite wrong in considering pedophilia and consentual adult sex under the same act.

.

And speaking of which:

Mr Herman Kalule Kirumira, the area youth councillor appeared in Entebbe court early this week on charges of molesting the pupil but hearing of the case was pushed to May 4, reportedly to allow the presiding magistrate Steven Waidubba attend a workshop. The suspect has been charged with having unlawful carnal knowledge of a minor against the order of nature, an offence for which under the Ugandan law, one could face life imprisonment if convicted by court.

Who said that boy’s weren’t protected under the law? Oh yeah… Langa, Ssempa, and many others. The bill is superfluous, except to call things homosexuality which aren’t, tie it together with homosexuality, and then outlaw any advocacy. The stuff about making counselors, priests, etc. out as criminals is simply to radicialize the population further against homosexuality and help create the pogrom they haven’t yet been able to produce.

So what’s the point of dithering down the punishment from death to life in prison – life imprisonment already is the punishment for that crime!

.

The bill is one large lie. And while the Christians here are all so worried about the idea of criminalizing their knowledge of a gay person having sex, that pales in comparison to the fact that this bill legislates the idea in Uganda that gay people have no rights. Not just the right to share their love intimately with another but no right whatsoever to speak out positively for their lives. Ugandans feel that if you are gay or lesbian you have no right to free speech concerning your life, and that translates into a loss of rights in many other ways. Such as a right to privacy (which is written into the Ugandan constitution), which thankfully, the Ugandan courts ruled in the favor of a lesbian couple when their home was invaded by police a few years ago. That is what is sought to destroy in this bill. The dignity of gays and lesbians by the systematic dismantling of the human rights any person should enjoy.

…

Compromise: a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc. by reciprocal modification of demands.

Possibilities: (this is by no means complete…nor has it been thoroughly thought through…that’s what discussion’s all about.)

1) Cite to Uganda that the portions of their new bill addressing the offenses punishable by death are, in fact, redundant. They are already covered in existing laws. Request that those items be stricken from the bill.

2) Address the death penalty as too severe a punishment for crimes such as pedophilia and sexual exploitation of vulnerable persons. Suggest that existing laws also be modified. This would be conceding that some things are indeed criminal while seeking a reduction in the existing penalty. (As Michael rightly suggested…this is actually asking for more.)

3) Further, establish definitions for such offenses as pedophilia and exploitation of the vulnerable. Example: redefine pedophilia so that it isn’t simply ‘sex with a minor’ perhaps by adding an age difference qualifier.(A person who is 18 who has consensual relations with a person who is 15 is NOT the same as a person who is more than 5 years older than the 15 year old.)

4) Seek compromise on the reporting qualifications. Agree to the mandatory reporting of exploitation of minors or the vulnerable, to persons who are HIV+ having unprotected sex but reject the reporting of homosexuals in general.

5) Establish a distinction between free speech and advocacy. (This one would be a major concession likely offensive to many.) This would mean a moratorium on advocacy talks or programs in schools but would not restrict the internet, the media or community groups.

6) Address the hypocrisy of withholding AIDS prevention tools and education from people based on their orientation. (This one would be a major concession on their part that would likely be offensive to many. Another instance of asking for more.) (Discussion: when they provide these tools to heteros, do they screen out those who are having hetero sex outside of marriage? If not, what is their ‘righteous’ justification for withholding them from gays?)

The key words in the definition of ‘compromise’ are mutual, agreement, adjustment, reciprocal and modification. Discussion without demanding. Speaking frankly but listening sincerely. Accepting limitations…saving some battles for another day…facing present realities. If Uganda only hears demands, they are likely to grow stony towards the demanders….and, whether we like it or not…they are holding the cards. They HAVE the upperhand and aren’t in any immediate danger of having that threatened. We can’t afford to have them go stony on us.

Hopefully any discussions we have with Uganda will be tempered with Christian or religious attributes such as grace, mercy and humility rather than venom, vengeance and vindictiveness.

Why not do ALL these things? Oppose this law. Oppose the death penalty. Urge Uganda to review the severity of its existing laws. Is that what you mean by “compromise”? That sounds like we are actually asking Uganda to more.

In any event, I am off for a few hours to run some errands, so the conversation can flow on unimpeded by me. I will check back later. Very interested to see what sort of compromise ideas will be generated while I am gone.