The role of US evangelists in Uganda's 'kill the gays' bill by ADRIAN PHOON The Age, 12 Jan 2010. Link US evangelists visited Uganda promoting 'cures' for being gay as the country debated a bill allowing the death penalty for homosexual activities. A law proposing execution for homosexuals exposes a murderous fantasy. A recent proposal in Uganda to legislate the execution of homosexuals has sparked international outrage. Although the Government has since revised its prescribed sentence from death to life imprisonment, the bill remains striking for its overt hostility towards gays. The move is more than just a Ugandan oddity - it is the embodiment of a murderous fantasy, cherished by fanatics in the West, to extinguish homosexual life altogether. It is easy for the West to dismiss the bill as a local phenomenon, emblematic of African opposition to ''civilised progress''. Deeply religious and protective of traditional family structures, Uganda has long been hostile to homosexuality. But a disturbing link has been revealed between Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill and US evangelism. According to The New York Times, three US evangelists travelled to Uganda last March and spoke at a conference that conference organiser Stephen Langa said was about ''the gay agenda - that whole hidden and dark agenda''. The Americans were invited to speak about ways of ''curing'' gay people. It appears that their denunciations of homosexuality as a threat to family values added fuel to the fire. They were heard by thousands, including the future architects of the kill-the-gays bill. The Americans have since sought to distance themselves from the bill. They insist their message is one of love, not murder. But the desire to eradicate homosexuality from human existence lies at the heart of the anti-gay movement, whether it is practised in Uganda or the West. Central to the modern anti-gay movement is the proliferation of so-called ''ex-gay therapies''. These encourage individuals to ''convert'' from their homosexual behaviour, implying that being and acting gay somehow involves a choice. ... The prevailing view among ex-gay therapists is that theirs is a modern technology that offers unhappy homosexuals a happy alternative to their life of misery. The assumption is that homosexuality makes you miserable. Yet surely it is not being homosexual but the prevailing atmosphere of homophobia that makes some people miserable. Abundant proof exists that, in the 21st century, openly gay people can live full and happy lives. The ''choice'' advocated by ex-gay therapists is ultimately a restatement of traditional anti-gay prejudice. Evangelicals and ex-gay therapists may use the language of pluralism, of ''choice'', to advance their arguments, but they do so only to oppose pluralism in practice. ''Curing'' gay people and incarcerating or executing them both treat homosexuality as a crime requiring surveillance. Each regards homosexuality as a moral problem in need of a medical or social cure. Yet the anti-gay advocates are the ones who appear to be in torment - they suffer from denial. ... It used to be easy to identify homophobia. But now even homophobes fail to recognise their prejudice. Bigotry is reassuringly cosseted by an evangelising rhetoric of love, and reinforced by a medicalising language that veils the savagery of its aims. Ugandans rightly recognise Western homophobes as allies. Events in Uganda expose the fraud of ex-gay therapy. Anti-gay advocates may not all espouse murder, but the ramifications of their words are lethal. Our outrage at Uganda should extend to the entire anti-gay movement.
What is it that gays want to do Uganda? Or anywhere, for that matter. I mean, do they want to jump up and down in the streets, waving their arms, and shouting joyously that they're gay? Why make any kind of proclamation about it? How is anyone to know? Or do they want to have sex in the middle of the streets? As a staunce advocate of heterosexual pussy eating, it wouldn't bother me one single bit if Texas passed a law against pussy eating. I mean, what the fuck difference would it make to me? I don't think that I've ever eaten pussy in the middle of the street or in any open public space in full view of the public. I doubt seriously if I ever would eat pussy in public view. So ...what would I care if they outlawed pussy eating? See? What is it that gays want to be able to do in Uganda that would have them "found out"? And even the statement above saying "...penalty for homosexual activities..." seems purely for specific homosexual ...ACTIVITIES. So, ...what activities do the gays want to do in public that's forbidden by the law? They can BE homosexual, just as I can be a great pussy eater in Texas, but they just can't do it in public. Is that so bad? I'm not outraged by it at all. I'm a staunce believer in national sovereignty, as I am with states' rights in the USA. I am, however, somewhat outraged that so many of y'all seem to feel that you have some right to tell other nations what to and what laws to pass in their own nation. That just don't seem very nice to me. How would y'all like it if some other nation told your nation what to do and how to do it and what laws to pass? Baron Max
Nope, the amount of superstition and religious falsehoods harbored by the un-educated is astronomical. I can't say I would be against colonization.
Don't come whinging once someone tells on you for eating pussy, and you'll get the chance to feel the backlash of a society that outlawed 'pussy eating', Baron Max.
I've never heard of government laws in "the west" meant to eradicate homosexuality, perhaps condemn, but not eradicate. Yes, there's prejudice in some people in the west AND elsewhere against homosexuals, but no movement to exterminate them as in Uganda. Funny how this article jumps on the west, but makes no mention of actual death penalties for homosexuality in other muslim nations.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Perhaps their "concern" has more to do with politics than morality.
I agree, the real issue is the redefining of marrige. Most folks I know are at least ok with civil unions having the same rights as marrige. But they feel that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. To me the difference is there. One is natural, the other is not, however science has not concluded whether homosexuality it is abnormal or not.
Be left alone and not discriminated against. In particular, not to be killed or imprisoned for a status offence. When your neighbour reported you for sounds coming from your house, or when your "friend" dobbed you in, reporting a conversation you had with him at a bar, and the police come to arrest you and throw you in prison. That would make a difference to you. Hold hands. Go arm in arm, maybe. Kiss perhaps. Refer to somebody as "my partner". You know, stuff you would take for granted if you were capable of sustaining a relationship yourself. They can't do it in private, either. The law doesn't distinguish. And killing gay people does seem nice to you, I suppose. Bigot.
hahahahahaa.a........ I prefer to have my pussy served up Brazilian style Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That aside, homosexuals are biologically normal and in a sense they just want to be themselves. Not have sex on the street, but, to be open that they have a relationship with the same sex. Lets face it, two hot girls together .... what's wrong with that!??!?!? :shrug:
Though I respect the sovereignty of a nation to do as it pleases, this is rather disturbing; in the Roman days, homosexuals were seen as normal citizens. Even if you dislike them, there could be means and ways through science and medicine to 'get rid of' homosexuality, instead of death. Still, it's a non-issue. Homosexuality, I mean. I don't see what the big fuss about it is, as long as the homosexuals are good and fierce people. @ James R: while I do agree with you, you seem as fiercely opposed to this as they do in support of it; does that not make you likewise a bigot? And is someone a bigot automatically for opposing homosexual practices? It is slightly unfair, in my opinion, to say "since you don't agree with me, you are a bigot", though understand that I do view the Ugandans as bigots, too. I am simply saying that, perhaps, not all that oppose 'homosexuality' are bigots, but rather are more interested in the preservation of tradition and culture, and that is as fair a stance as any other.
Finally, Uganda will do away with the homosexuals who've been plaguing them for centuries. Obviously this nation has figured out that gay people are to blame for their near-stone-age level living standards, morality, public education and general infrastructure. Tip of the hat to the Christian, Muslim and "tribal" religious leaders who have demonstrated the true stripes of their religious beliefs. One hopes that this is the start of a new trend in Africa. Soon other neighboring countries might follow Uganda's brave lead and start executing their undesirable citizens en masse!!! Spider's right. Maybe the British left too soon. ~String
Executing undesirables isn't in itself an illogical thing to do (notice I said that it isn't illogical, not isn't immoral), but homosexuals are neither desirable nor undesirable. There are good ones and bad ones.
Spare me the drivel, Norse. I'm gay, so don't insult me with platitudes about people you know little about. Human beings who engage in the slaughter of specific human beings have a long history of moving on to larger segments of the population. I look forward to yet another nation of troglodytes collapsing in on itself due to its inability to get a grip with reality. ~String
If that which is logical is that which has a utilitarian value, then morals and logic will differ greatly. I am on your side here. Quite right, yet that is not to say that, for instance, ridding of the disabled and dangerous is the same as ridding of people because of their color or orientation.
They probably already have. I've got news for you, but eating pussy is considered sodomy in the Bible. It includes any kind of non-procreative sex. A woman used to be able to get a divorce easily in this country if the man demanded oral from her.
I loved it when Craig Ferguson brought that up on his show once. "Why are so many men interested in women who aren't, by definition, interested in men?" I always think of the episode of Friends where Ross' wife is so excited at his idea of a threesome with another woman. I like women who like guys.
