LGBTQ+ Rights Worldwide

So not discriminatory but just cowardly and/or pandering? Business as usual than.

Russia bans gay adoption, and also throws in a single parent adoption ban for good measure. You know, "just in case" they're actually gay.

Ugandan President to Sign 'Jail the Gays' Bill.

and This is one part of American culture I would not want to see exported.

Gambian President Yahya Jammeh: Gays are ‘vermin’ and should be treated worse than mosquitoes.

Mob Attacks More Than a Dozen Gay Men in Nigeria’s Capital.

Ugandan Minister for Ethics and Integrity Simon Lokodo: We are ‘tolerant’ of gays because we don’t ‘slaughter them’.

"... but we're open to negotiation on that last bit."

Simon Lokodo is an incredible asshole who thinks men raping girls is natural.

Study shows homophobic lives are 2.5 years shorter. WELP.

edited 21st Feb '14 4:44:18 PM by RadicalTaoist

2.5 years shorter, not 25 years shorter.

German court rejects case to allow gay adoption on technicality.

I could have told you that for free.

I must have more gay sex, then, since not only is it great fun, it also helps rid the world of nasty homophobes.

In all seriousness, though, I'm not surprised. You spend that much time and energy worrying about people of the same sex having sexual relationships with each other, it's going to raise your blood pressure.

Ugandan president signs anti-gay law.

Well done, Uganda, you've taken a giant step backward for mankind. This really is utterly horrific.

It's hard for me to blame Uganda alone, given the misinformation dread by Scott Lively and his ilk there. Ever seen God Loves Uganda?

Their rationale reminds me of that quote: "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

All this talk of protecting "African morality" against the eeeevil Western imperialists with their decadent human rights and their nasty gays is surely one of the biggest cons every devised, seeing as the laws are almost totally inspired by Western bigots who have been rejected in their own countries hoping they'll find a more fertile ground for their bigotry in Africa. It's especially ironic, since most of these people suffer from crank-magnetism and thus promote the very ideologies that have done so much damage to Africa; racism, unbridled capitalism, and climate-change denialism.

It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

Can we just ship Lively there permanently? Since it seems he wants so desperately to live in a backwards third world theocratic dictatorship, I'm sure he won't mind.

Lively only enjoys the visits so he can have the satisfaction of enacting this stuff. It's downright sociopathic

I have really no idea how to fix this issue. It's so deeply engrained in the societies now, and many people who might challenge it would rightfully be afraid to.

Last Tuesday, President Yahya Jammeh of the Gambia had this to say:

The comparison to the Nazis has been overused so much that it has become stale, but this kind of de-humanizing rhetoric is exactly what Hitler did do. The rhetorical technique of equating your victims to pest species is a particularly common and unpleasant part. Look◊ at◊ these cartoons from the Nazi propaganda rag Der Stuermer. This is exactly the intellectual and moral legacy President Jammeh is now claiming.

Scott Lively and his ilk have a great deal to answer for.

In the Hague ideally...

...So much Tradition going up in smoke. -_- And, yet... these idiots quote what they're doing as being of the Tradition.

The Red Shields (a fearsome tribal police who could and did execute High Chiefs when they were caught breaking High Laws — found in a number of Nguni and related tribes across Southern Africa... and many Tribes affiliated to them) of only 200 years ago would be utterly appalled (as a lot of them were Red Shields because they were gay). <_<

Ironic, much?

Oh. I can't give you citations for that, by the way. <_< Oral tradition is exactly that. And, getting horribly twisted. -_- Think about it: the main reason why gay guys were encouraged into the Red Shields was because... they were unlikely to have children voluntarily (some would never pass to be Red Shields and might be forced into marriages just to produce heirs for lineages, though). Which meant no inheritance (and bride-price chains) getting in the way of Red Shield judgements, which in turn freed them up from Clan and Family ties to focus on Tribal Law... and some of the necessary, and nasty, sides of it. For example, the torching of plague-carrying kraals during pandemics. Even if there were living people inside them, still. -_- Red is... not a happy colour, traditionally. War, danger, dedicated, blood, pain — in the service of life and death... it means all of that and a bit more.

And, a bit of skirt would be unlikely to set them astray from their jobs.

edited 24th Feb '14 8:26:33 PM by Euodiachloris

...I know this is sort of missing the point, but he is aware that bacteria are largely beneficial to humans, right? We have a symbiotic relationship with most of them. There's a reason antiobiotics make you feel so bad. I'm pretty sure we couldn't live without most of them.

Anyway, I guess this says something about human nature.

Probably he's not. That would require an actual education in science, and those are hard to come by.

Perhaps that was deliberate, as bisexuals can still reproduce naturally and so wouldn't cause this "inglorious extinction" he's prattling on about even if the condition was communicable.

Not that everone turning gay would actually doom the species at this point. We'd just need to promote sperm donation a bit more.

There's also the fact that, while homosexuals might not necessarily pass their genes on (I mean, they can, both naturally (Through marrying someone they don't love. Which is honestly the norm, if we're going by history, but that's beating a dead horse) and artificially, but it's less common, maybe? I don't really know the statistics), they're not actually bringing humanity towards a glorious extinction—at least, not any more than other humans. At worst, they're genetic dead-ends, who'll produce no more children if they die today as if they die fifty years from now, and why go to all that trouble? Sure, if you could prevent QUILTBAG (Best acronym ever) folk from being born, you could conceivably increase the population by a bit (Not that that's possible or even ideal), but once they're born they're just kind of there.

Killing them won't spawn two straight humans on the spot, is what I'm getting at. I guess if there's some unexpected side-effect where humans who don't raise children live longer than those who do, it might mess up the demographics and lead to a disproportionate number of elderly retired folk (Giving birth is dangerous for the woman, right? I mean, it's not something you just walk away from, healthy as before. Maybe something to do with that? I don't know), thus harming the economy and number of children a family can afford to have, but honestly that's a really long-term thing to worry about with a lot of unknown factors, and Gambia's population is on the rise anyway.

edited 25th Feb '14 8:14:53 AM by Rem

The World Bank are stalling on a $90m to Uganda because of the anti-gay law.

That's a pretty significant move for an organisation like that. It follows moves by countries like Denmark and Norway to redirect aid specifically away from the government and directly to aid agencies in the wake of the law.

Scots bid to offer asylum to Ugandans facing prosecution under the new homophobic laws.

Land o' me high endeavour.