Posted on 11/05/2001 5:52:31 AM PST by Buffalo Bob
SINGAPORE, CWNews.com) - Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has warned Britain that he will not tolerate an openly gay politician visiting Malaysia on government business.
In an interview with BBC radio on Friday Mahathir said, "The British people accept homosexual ministers. But if they ever come here bringing their boyfriend along, we will throw them out. We will not accept them."
The remark was believed to refer to Ben Bradshaw, the Labor Party Member of Parliament responsible for relations with Malaysia who is due to visit the country on political business next year.
But Britain has had several openly gay high-profile politicians since Labor came to power including Culture Minister Chris Smith and former Agriculture Minister Nick Brown. And other MPs are often photographed with their same-sex partners.
But Mahathir was adamant that what was acceptable in Britain wasn't necessarily acceptable in Malaysia. "In other countries they can have ministers who are homosexual. That's okay -- but not here. It is a difference of values," he said.
The comment shouldn't affect Bradshaw's planned visit to Malaysia as ministers do not travel on business with their partners. But a Malaysian diplomat told The Independent newspaper that if Bradshaw visited the country, even without his partner, there was "no way" the Prime Minister would meet him.
No, actually. They get arrested. Only gay acts are allowed in public. They scream "discrimination", and the cops walk the other way.
Openly homsexual individuals do not belong in the military or in foreign service to countires which find such aberrant behavior unacceptable.
I don't believe we should stone homosexuals. They are ill people and deserve our compassion and understanding as long as they are not forcing their attentions on individuals who are not receptive to such advances, or proselytizing their abberrant lifelstyles to the young or unwilling.
My how the mighty have fallen.
Just 60 years ago Singapore was a symbol of the Brittish Empires' virility and masculinity - now they tell the Britts to keep thier boyfriends at home. How sad.
None of us are perfect, but because we are not, that does not preclude us from attempting to stop the encroachment of this mess.
Just curious. When is the last time you have torched an oxen in your back yard because the odor is pleasing unto God? When is the last time you and your neighbors took one of the local teenagers outside the city walls and stoned the little bastard for being unruly?
And last but not least, why is it that there is absolutely no record of Christ speaking out against homosexuals? And what was Christ doing with a naked young man when they arrested Him?
Don't bother trying to answer. Just food for thought.
the outrage for gays not only is Biblical, but social.
The kids can wear a gay pride T-shirt to school, but no a straight pride T-shirt. Why?
Schools have gay pride posters lining their hallways, and special private rooms for gays. No straight pride posters. Why?
If they scream "discrimination" , why can't the straights? Because they'd be considered "hate filled, homophobes..."
The gays want to infultrate the churches. Shouldn't the churches be able to say no? It's anti-Biblical.
What about straight rights? What has happened to them? Haven't we the "right" to say "no", please stay away because we don't approve?
You support the rights of gays, and take away the rights of straights. Why?
I happen to think you're barking up the wrong tree here.
The only reason homosexuals have ANY tools with which to push their agenda, is that we allow the state to foist socialistic programs upon us.
If there were no public schools, homosexuals would be unable to control their agenda. Parents would be free to send their children to whatever schools comport with their educational desires. If parents want kids to pray in school, then they should pray in school. If parents don't want their kids taught evolution, then they shouldn't be taught evolution. If parents don't think "Heather has two mommies" is worth a damn, then they shouldn't be subjected to it. But unfortunately the state seizes the property of unwilling citizens to prop up a socialist public education monopoly, which subjects parents to an education product they don't want. ALL SCHOOLS SHOULD BE PRIVATE, allowing parents to purchase the education they want, on the free market.
And when it comes to risky sexual behavior, homosexuals certainly place a great burden on the public health system. But in fact, THERE SHOULD BE NO PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEM. People should be free to choose their own path (provided they don't violate rights) and they should also be free to suffer the consequences of their poor moral choices alone... without robbing their neighbors to pay for their stupidity.
Socialism is the root problem with all of these things. It is the tool used by all enemies of free people. Get rid of the socialism, and the problem goes away.
And I answered your question when I said I didn't care one way or the other.
As for My how the mighty have fallen. Well this Brit is telling you I don’t need any advise from anyone who thinks Harry Potter and the Telletubbies are part of some satanic NWO plot to take over America. Its actually part of a satanic British Empire plot
Cheers Tony
Way to go there, why don’t you just tell our American cousins that they are all fembots and have done with it.
oops.
Cheers Tony
Neither do private sexual acts between consenting adults and recently deceased corpses. Next you'll be advocating a don't-ask-don't-tell policy for necrophiliacs.
Ok, to address your question, if there is a crime, what is the nature of the crime, is someone harmed? Well, if someone is harmed that would probably be accidental assuming both are conceting adults. If both are not consenting then there would be a rape issue and there are already laws for that. So back to the harm thing - if its physical harm there would otherwise be battery in which there are already laws regarding that.
So if there is no objective "harm", then the basis of an illegality is solely on the basis that there is a "moral" law on the books that is being violated and this always gets into circular logic where it is BAD because there is a law against it.
Is this where you are going?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.