Sex as in gender. If a law prohibits homosexual sex, then it is by definition discriminating against a gay man or woman based on the gender of their sex partner. Ergo unconstitutional, as it was here in the US to allow male/female couples to legally marry but not male/male or female/female couples.
This is incorrect on a few levels. But i cant get deep into right now, We have a different constitution. In Ugandan law, Each individual is sovereign, meaning they are their own. The persons rights are their own. The point being, the government would have to discriminate on that individuals sex directly and Not in relation to the sex of another. I will make a comparative of your argument later. I am a little busy at the moment.
Im Back, so essentially the argument you are using could also be used to advocate for pedophilia since the government is discriminating against the age of their partner.
In the end this is not the way the law works, constitutional laws are based on actions not traits. The government of Uganda is not acting against the traits of the parter but the act of pedophilia as well as the act of homosexual intercoarse.
There are clearly other factors in the case of an underage partner that don't invalidate age-related discrimination laws. That's an absurd and simplistic view. US also has laws against age discrimination, but they don't apply until a child has reached the age of majority which is usually 18. There's no such restriction on discriminating by gender.
It should be clear that the comparison is very similar.both cases deal with intercoarse, both cases deal with constitutional rights. Both cases are using the persons partner as justification. Both cases deal with morality. There is not a closer comparison, if there is I would love to hear it.
Either you are conflating "sex" with "intercoarse" or you are assuming gay is only guy on guy and not girl on girl. In either case you would be wrong.
Sex as in gender. If a law prohibits homosexual sex, then it is by definition discriminating against a gay man or woman based on the gender of their sex partner. Ergo unconstitutional, as it was here in the US to allow male/female couples to legally marry but not male/male or female/female couples.
This is incorrect on a few levels. But i cant get deep into right now, We have a different constitution. In Ugandan law, Each individual is sovereign, meaning they are their own. The persons rights are their own. The point being, the government would have to discriminate on that individuals sex directly and Not in relation to the sex of another. I will make a comparative of your argument later. I am a little busy at the moment.
Im Back, so essentially the argument you are using could also be used to advocate for pedophilia since the government is discriminating against the age of their partner.
In the end this is not the way the law works, constitutional laws are based on actions not traits. The government of Uganda is not acting against the traits of the parter but the act of pedophilia as well as the act of homosexual intercoarse.
There are clearly other factors in the case of an underage partner that don't invalidate age-related discrimination laws. That's an absurd and simplistic view. US also has laws against age discrimination, but they don't apply until a child has reached the age of majority which is usually 18. There's no such restriction on discriminating by gender.
It should be clear that the comparison is very similar.both cases deal with intercoarse, both cases deal with constitutional rights. Both cases are using the persons partner as justification. Both cases deal with morality. There is not a closer comparison, if there is I would love to hear it.