this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2023
79 points (100.0% liked)

LGBTQ+

6167 readers
9 users here now

All forms of queer news and culture. Nonsectarian and non-exclusionary.

See also this community's sister subs Feminism, Neurodivergence, Disability, and POC


Beehaw currently maintains an LGBTQ+ resource wiki, which is up to date as of July 10, 2023.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

cases deemed “aggravated,” which include repeat offenses, gay sex that transmits terminal illness, or same-sex intercourse with a minor, an elderly person or a person with disabilities.

If they took out the "gay sex" and the "by death" parts, it would almost sound like a reasonable general rule.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You think someone should be locked up for "repeat offenses" of having sex? Is that reasonable?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's why I said "almost". Like, "repeat offenses" on itself is nonsense, but "repeat offenses" + "spreading an illness", should probably get the "aggravated" treatment.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The law's authors are motivated by homophobia, not public health.

I doubt suggesting tweaks is a good use of time and efforts. It should simply be opposed , and its authors shamed.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I was thinking more in the line that they seem to have taken some reasonable law, and modified it to fit their motives.

The authors are definitely homophobic, and the missionaries who gave them the idea, who keep praising these changes, should be equally shamed.