I think you win the thread
I don’t know that that’s a reasonable assumption. He could just as easily think that the penalties are disproportionately light for homosexuals. I’d certainly hope that the Anglican Church in Uganda is opposed to harsher penalties for their homosexual citizens, but the fact that they’re in favor of any penalties makes me very hesitant to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Does anyone have any evidence of what Orombi (or the church in general) actually thinks is the appropriate government sanction for homosexuality?
Saddleback sounds like a gay sex act.
It would be a very simple thing to make clear they believe that the death sentence is an inappropriate punishment for homosexual acts – period. But they don’t, which leads me to infer that (at best) they think the death penalty is applicable is under too many circumstances.
Perhaps they think it should be reserved for extremely flamboyant gays. Is there a Ugandan Sigfried and Roy?
Bet the guy’s so far in the closet he can see Narnia.
Well that video pretty well destroys the accusations brought forth in the OP. Not his fault, but thank God for videos and youtube .
You sayin’ he’s got clothes hangers on his ears? Mothballs in his pockets?
Doesn’t matter. No one here’s bothered to comment on it till you. They’re too busy enjoying the Two-Minute Hate (which has already stretched to two days & may go for two weeks).
ahem
WHOOPS! Didn’t know that you linked to the same thing on another site!
No one EXCEPT RNATB has commented… oh never mind, can I borrow your name for a lil’ bit?
Thank you for your acknowledgement of Warren’s announcement & correction of me!
Here’s a couple of RTFirefly’s debate rules for you:
- If you post a link that supposedly supports your position, nobody’s obligated to pretend it does any such thing unless you either:
a) quote the relevant part, or
b) summarize the relevant content, and (if the link’s more than a few paragraphs long) make clear just where in the link that content can be found. - If you’re going to cite video, then you’re obligated to quote enough of it to give other posters a good reason to click on the rest. (Yes, you can take a few minutes to do your own transcription of a couple of key sentences.) And directions such as “the key part starts at 1:55 in and runs to about 2:40” are pretty much mandatory.
The underlying principle is: just because you post a link, someone trying to rebut your argument is under no obligation to: (1) go to the link, (2) try to suss out which parts of it seem to support your argument, (3) essentially make your argument for you, and (4) rebut it. The first three steps are yours; only the last one is their responsibility.
The burden is on you to make it clear what’s there and how you’re using it. If you’re not willing to do that, then kindly fuck off. And accusing your adversaries in debate of engaging in a Two-Minute Hate, on account of their failure to do what you should have done for them, is really pretty assholish, btw.
Having said that:
Your quote doesn’t support your position. All it suggests is that they have technical differences with the bill in question. If you can’t quote the part where they’re against the death penalty for gays, why should I believe it exists? Why should I waste time going to the link and trying to ferret it out, when you (who are presumably more motivated to do so) can’t seem to manage that trick?
Sheesh.