List of Ugandan homosexual offenses and their punishments. Edit- Updated with example of aggravated homosexuality. Pure Haram :dame:

[The Half-Blood FKA Prince]

Ayo that’s some of the cleverest shyt I ever read on here

Hall Of Dame would be

That aint no chump change. I just looked it up and it’s the equivalent of 265K USD

Ayo man y’all dudes really got issues


Trust me u don’t wanna owe a billion shillings

Im picturing a pink banner, thats pretty much a given, the only issue is what color to make the font?Rainbow would kinda be an eyesore but i cant think of any one color (outside of pink, but we cant have a pink banner AND font) that would do it justice.


Edit: btw appreciate the compliment. That is a serious honor considering how many brilliantly creative and innovative brehs we got here Oh shyt, there go my allergies.

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

Yeah. They won't yield so best thing is to offer the gays a way out..but no one in Africa will take them in

I agree, they may not take them but giving Ugandan's a choice over destroying their livelihood and ability to feed their families is 100% the superior option

 

[The Half-Blood FKA Prince]

Yeah. They won't yield so best thing is to offer the gays a way out..but no one in Africa will take them in so US it is

I wont even ask

 

[3rdWorld]

I agree, they may not take them but giving Ugandan's a choice over destroying their livelihood and ability to feed their families is 100% the superior option

The US with similar minded republican senators could prove difficult as well..

 

[Doomsday]

Being bisexual require someone to be attracted to both sexes, being in a relationship with the opposite sex for image purposes, does not mean they are attracted to them

Church's don't subscribe to anti-gay rhetoric.

So a male who's gay since birth, can come of age, approach a woman, peak her interest enough to share intimacy, engage in foreplay, get an erection from said foreplay, maintain an erection enough to press against her labia and penetrate, be aroused enough by a woman to maintain erection during the session, than climax from the arousal of the woman, while having semen strong enough to pass the egg and impregnant the woman.

How arrogant of the LGBTQ community to believe you can just get with a woman for image purposes.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Reading is fundamental. If you're going to quote me, quote the entire thing. I stated that their struggle is internal. No one likes gay people the same way no one likes a crazy person shouting that the sky is falling.

Breh, you claimed that being gay is a choice and their lives don't actually suck in the exact same conversation where you keep claiming that no one likes gay people. No matter how many hoops you try to jump through, you can't maintain those two claims simultaneously. Even if you keep giving reasons why nobody likes them, how would that change the fact that nobody likes then and that obviously sucks?

They don't suffer from persecution.

You say this in a thread where punishments for homosexuality range from prison to death and numerous posters are cosigning it.

Once again, we've reached the LGBTQ paradox. If you're homosexual since birth, what would compel you to sleep with the opposite sex? You're the second poster to admit that homosexuality doesn't exist within the argument that is does exist. Amazing.

So a male who's gay since birth, can come of age, approach a woman, peak her interest enough to share intimacy, engage in foreplay, get an erection from said foreplay, maintain an erection enough to press against her labia and penetrate, be aroused enough by a woman to maintain erection during the session, than climax from the arousal of the woman, while having semen strong enough to pass the egg and impregnant the woman.

That can be tossed just like all of your earlier ridiculously false claims about genetics. It's fine if you don't know anything whatsoever about sexuality, science, society, or any other subject here. But trying to preach to everyone else like you have the most informed opinions while simultaneously looking ignorant is a bad direction to go.

 

[Doomsday]

Breh, you claimed that being gay is a choice and their lives don't actually suck in the exact same conversation where you keep claiming that no one likes gay people. No matter how many hoops you try to jump through, you can't maintain those two claims simultaneously. Even if you keep giving reasons why nobody likes them, how would that change the fact that nobody likes then and that obviously sucks?

If nobody likes you for something you chose to do, than you don't deserve empathy. If a morbidly obese person gets made fun of for example, that's on them.

That can be tossed just like all of your earlier ridiculously false claims about genetics. It's fine if you don't know anything whatsoever about sexuality, science, society, or any other subject here. But trying to preach to everyone else like you have the most informed opinions while simultaneously looking ignorant is a bad direction to go.

This quote is what I will label as "projection". You haven't formulated a logical counter-argument to anything I've said. Your entire stance consists of "your wrong because I say so! And that's that!". Bullshyt. I know exactly what I'm talking about, which is why you've resorted to ad hominem attacks. You can't counter anything I'm saying because the logic is too solid to dissect.

I haven't come across ignorant at all, which is why I've been quoted by half a dozen posters so far, and none of you could resolve a single equation I brought to the table. The only "answers" I've received are circular arguments and paradoxes. I'm far and away winning this debate. It's not close.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

If nobody likes you for something you chose to do, than you don't deserve empathy. If a morbidly obese person gets made fun of for example, that's on them.

That has nothing to do with the topic. The question wasn't whether homosexual people deserve empathy. The question was, "Do homosexual people have a hard life?" And you straight up claimed their lives weren't hard, then started juelzing with all sorts of justifications for their lives being hard.

That's called moving the goalposts.

This quote is what I will label as "projection". You haven't formulated a logical counter-argument to anything I've said.

You claimed that mutations shouldn't be normalized, and I pointed out to you that the existence of literally every species on Earth is due to mutations.

You claimed that homosexuality would have died out if it was genetic, and I pointed out to you that there are completely fatal genetic diseases that prevented reproduction for most of human history that didn't die out. Then I explained to you several reasons that happened.

You claimed that homosexual people can't have children, which is obviously false on its face.

You claimed that homosexual people didn't have hard lives, I pointed out where you directly admitted they had hard lives, so then you moved the goalposts to try to justify them having hard lives.

You claimed that homosexual people weren't persecuted in a thread where there is a direct, clear example of them being persecuted, and I pointed that out.


So let's designate your claim "you haven't formulated a logical counter-argument to anything I've said" as yet another lie, and this string of examples as yet another logical counter-argument.

Bullshyt. I know exactly what I'm talking about, which is why you've resorted to ad hominem attacks. You can't counter anything I'm saying because the logic is too solid to dissect.

I haven't come across ignorant at all, which is why I've been quoted by half a dozen posters so far, and none of you could resolve a single equation I brought to the table. The only "answers" I've received are circular arguments and paradoxes. I'm far and away winning this debate. It's not close.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge.

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Doomsday]

That has nothing to do with the topic. The question wasn't whether homosexual people deserve empathy. The question was, "Do homosexual people have a hard life?" And you straight up claimed their lives weren't hard, then started juelzing with all sorts of justifications for their lives being hard.

That's called moving the goalposts.

Their lives aren't hard, and I already explained why. All of their struggles are self inflicted.

You can try to pick apart one sentence of my posts and talk in a circle all you want. Nothing you've stated discredits anything you've quoted from me.

You claimed that mutations shouldn't be normalized, and I pointed out to you that the existence of literally every species on Earth is due to mutations.

Scientifically, no. Also, you're purposefully trying to conflate evolution with mutation based on a technicality and it's not working. A mutation is separate from natural selection and evolution. Your stance that "technically you can say evolution is a form of mutation" is elementary school logic. No high IQ person thinks a birth defect or an error in DNA is the same as evolution.

Also, for the record, I've never stated that homosexuality was a mutation, only that the examples that were provided were likened to a mutation. Homosexuality is simply a lifestyle choice and nothing more. All the LGBTQ apologist have done in this thread is solidify that fact.

You claimed that homosexuality would have died out if it was genetic, and I pointed out to you that there are completely fatal genetic diseases that prevented reproduction for most of human history that didn't die out. Then I explained to you several reasons that happened.

That's a mutation, not part of genetic evolution.

You claimed that homosexual people can't have children, which is obviously false on its face.

I never once stated homosexuals can't have children. I'm stating that to do so would contradict born gay theory, and it does. Greatly, actually. The idea that a person who believes themselves to be born to belong to a man yet easily jump in bed with a woman at their leisure is irrefutable proof that it's all a choice at the end of the day.

You claimed that homosexual people didn't have hard lives, I pointed out where you directly admitted they had hard lives, so then you moved the goalposts to try to justify them having hard lives.

They don't. Their struggles are internal, therefore they aren't worthy of empathy the same way a morbidly obsese person isn't.

So let's designate your claim "you haven't formulated a logical counter-argument to anything I've said"

You haven't.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge.

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I have no idea why you posted this...

So, is this your admission to being apart of the LGBTQ community?

Because I've clearly explained my position in a thorough and concise manner. The only thing I lack is experience, so I assume that's the advantage over me you speak of.

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

It’s wild that in 2023 there are people who think they know more than actual experts on biology and how attraction works.

You do not choose who ur attracted to folks.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Their lives aren't hard, and I already explained why. All of their struggles are self inflicted.

You do realize those are two completely different claims, right?

The guy you were arguing with said, "Why would they chose to be gay when it's such a hard life", and you responded by saying, "Their lives aren't hard at all, that's a myth, and besides, nobody likes them", now you're running with, "Well, maybe their lives are hard but all their struggles are self-inflicted!"

Which is a completely circular argument that just puts you right back where you started.

Scientifically, no. Also, you're purposefully trying to conflate evolution with mutation based on a technicality and it's not working. A mutation is separate from natural selection and evolution. Your stance that "technically you can say evolution is a form of mutation" is elementary school logic. No high IQ person thinks a birth defect or an error in DNA is the same as evolution.

I'm sure you thought you said something there but no one knows wtf you're talking about or thinks any of that mumbling means anything.

Breh, don't argue science with a scientist if you have zero training and don't even understand the language yet. Your responses don't even make sense.

That's a mutation, not part of genetic evolution.

That statement doesn't mean anything. Mutations are an important aspect of genetic evolution, they're not opposing categories.

I never once stated homosexuals can't have children. I'm stating that to do so would contradict born gay theory, and it does.

That's a ridiculous claim, there is nothing contradictory about that at all. You can't just make up your own versions of theories and then claim to have defeated them, that's called a "strawman". I dare you to post a single "born gay theory" that states that gay people can't have children or shows any rationale why that would be impossible.

And even if they COULDN'T have children, that still wouldn't mean that "gay genetics" would immediately die out. You seem to be completely unaware of recessive genes, of copying errors, or of epigenetic effects, all of which can cause a gene to be expressed in the child even if it wasn't expressed in the parent.

You not being aware of these basic facts makes your claims look really dumb in a scientific discussion.

I have no idea why you posted this...

That doesn't surprise me in the least. Your reponse helps prove why it needed to be posted.

So, is this your admission to being apart of the LGBTQ community?

How the fukk would accusing you of Dunning-Kruger effect mean I'm part of the LGBT community?

Personally, I've never struggled with same-sex attraction. On top of that, I'm a devout Christian who believes that Christians who experience same-sex attraction should refrain from acting on it. I'm also a scientist who realizes that there may be genetic/environmental basis to same-sex attraction that isn't entirely within the individual's control (though acting on it is still within control). And I'm a compassionate person who doesn't believe I need to have fascist-like control over other people's personal decisions unless those actions are directly exploiting/harming others.

 

[Doomsday]

Which is a completely circular argument that just puts you right back where you started.

No it doesn't. I never wavered in anything I stated. Their lives aren't hard, the struggles they go through are self-inflicted, therefore not worthy of empathy. It's only going in a circle due to your poor attempt to dissect the logic.

Breh, don't argue science with a scientist if you have zero training and don't even understand the language yet. Your responses don't even make sense.

You're just saying anything because you have zero counter-argument other than being emotionally tied to the conversation.

I dare you to post a single "born gay theory" that states that gay people can't have children or shows any rationale why that would be impossible.

Which itself is a contradiction.

LGBTQ are the kings of circular reasoning: Everything makes you gay, nothing makes you straight. Really it's genius level manipulation. I can see why low IQ people subscribe and agree with it.

copying errors,

Exactly

That doesn't surprise me in the least.

I figured as much.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

If I respond any more at this point....

 

[Ripp]

On the African version of the coli it's brehs talking about sus shyt not being from "Ugarlem"

 

[Jazzy B.]

Only people mad are dikk sucking and bussy opening fakkitS