Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Americans� Role Seen in Uganda Anti-Gay Push
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Adventurer



Joined: 28 Jan 2006

PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:00 am    Post subject: Americans� Role Seen in Uganda Anti-Gay Push Reply with quote

NYTimes.com

Americans� Role Seen in Uganda Anti-Gay Push
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN

Published: January 3, 2010
KAMPALA, Uganda � Last March, three American evangelical Christians, whose teachings about �curing� homosexuals have been widely discredited in the United States, arrived here in Uganda�s capital to give a series of talks..



Marc Hofer for The New York Times
Demonstrators carried banners denouncing homosexuality in December in Kampala, Uganda.

Enlarge This Image

Marc Hofer for The New York Times

The theme of the event, according to Stephen Langa, its Ugandan organizer, was �the gay agenda � that whole hidden and dark agenda� � and the threat homosexuals posed to Bible-based values and the traditional African family.

For three days, according to participants and audio recordings, thousands of Ugandans, including police officers, teachers and national politicians, listened raptly to the Americans, who were presented as experts on homosexuality. The visitors discussed how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how �the gay movement is an evil institution� whose goal is �to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.�

Now the three Americans are finding themselves on the defensive, saying they had no intention of helping stoke the kind of anger that could lead to what came next: a bill to impose a death sentence for homosexual behavior.

One month after the conference, a previously unknown Ugandan politician, who boasts of having evangelical friends in the American government, introduced the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, which threatens to hang homosexuals, and, as a result, has put Uganda on a collision course with Western nations.

Donor countries, including the United States, are demanding that Uganda�s government drop the proposed law, saying it violates human rights, though Uganda�s minister of ethics and integrity (who previously tried to ban miniskirts) recently said, �Homosexuals can forget about human rights.�

UGANDA
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NovaKart



Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Location: Iraq

PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The article mentions some Ugandan gay rights activists. I knew nothing about this before reading this article and a previous one on this site.

I would guess however, that while Ugandan culture was probably very anti-gay to begin with, like a lot of traditional cultures homosexuality was not dicussed much and not much of an issue for most people. These evangelists have changed that and put a spotlight on gay people. Why they would choose to do this is really a mystery. There's certainly a lot of more important things they could be doing to help Ugandans.

The gays and transexuals in Uganda must be a really weak and marginalized group and it's really sad that these "Christians" will go and oppress the weak. What a way for Christians to behave.

It's also possible that some of this is a response to gay rights activists in Uganda, although it seems like from the article the evangelists at the very least added a lot of fuel to the fire.

I think Americans should definitely condemn this bill and harsh treatment of gays in Uganda. But I don't think gay rights groups should otherwise get involved the way these evangelists have done. I think it's probably better for gays in Uganda to just keep a low profile because I don't think Africa outside of maybe South Africa is ready for openly gay people. From what I've read in this article, it doesn't mention foreign gay-rights activists getting involved in Uganda except in response to this bill.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NovaKart wrote:
I would guess however, that while Ugandan culture was probably very anti-gay to begin with, like a lot of traditional cultures homosexuality was not dicussed much and not much of an issue for most people. These evangelists have changed that and put a spotlight on gay people. Why they would choose to do this is really a mystery.

The most likely explanation is that they are latent or repressed homosexuals themselves.

Shakespeare wrote:
Methinks he doth protest too much.


We have seen this many times by now. Often, those who are most stridently vocal against matters sexual are found to be engaging in the very behavior against which they are railing. Recent high-profile examples which come to mind are Rep. Mark Foley who, soon after sponsoring the Adam Walsh Act which increased penalties for those who sexually solicited minors online, was found to be exchanging explicit messages with underage pages, and Sen. Larry Craig, sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, who was later convicted of soliciting gay sex in a public restroom.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Adventurer



Joined: 28 Jan 2006

PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bacasper, many people who attack gay people are not closet homosexuals. They simply consider them to be an enemy of their culture or fear them because they feel they are an assault on their religious beliefs. Granted, some are closet homosexuals or bi-sexuals like the cases you mentioned. However, some Evangelicals feel that gay people are destroying America and blame them for a more sexually permissive society, and they know Africa has some conservative churches, so they wanted to preach about homosexuality, but then they got surprised when Uganda was dealng with a law calling for the death of gay people.

I don't think it's really a shocker. It's one thing if someone disagrees with homosexuality and another thing to blame them for all the permissive sexual activity in the U.S. It's ridiculous. I have heard that there are fanatics in Uganda. Their leader is kind of troublesome.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 7:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Adventurer, a "closet homosexual" is one who practices in secret. A "repressed homosexual" may not even be consciously aware of his unresolved homosexual issues which may express themselves in ways such as lashing out against homosexuality without even being aware of why he is doing so.

If they want to assign responsibility for the world going to hell in a handbasket, why choose homosexuality on which to pin it with so many other possible candidates out there?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sergio Stefanuto



Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 7:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It doesn't follow that, given homosexuality is an affront to Christianity, proponents themselves are not themselves homosexuals.

Observe the nonsequitur:

Premise 1: A hates homosexuality
Premise 2: A is a Christian
Premise 3: Homosexuality isn't permitted in A's version of Christianity
Conclusions: A is not a latent homosexual and his opposition to homosexuality is not motivated by latent homosexuality.

Clearly, the conclusion in no way follows.

Myself, I'm of the view that homophobia is always fear/hatred of being gay.

Whatever the case, opposition to homosexuality is as irrational as it is indecent. Also, versions of Christianity that oppose homosexuality are cultures of latent homosexuality.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geldedgoat



Joined: 05 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 7:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
For three days, according to participants and audio recordings, thousands of Ugandans, including police officers, teachers and national politicians, listened raptly to the Americans, who were presented as experts on homosexuality.


Since when did Americans become experts on homosexuality?

=====

Frankly, I'll never understand the fascination these "Christians" have with fighting homosexuality. I mean, [Mod Edit], why pick a couple verses out of an entire set of laws to misinterpret and then create an entire damned agenda around them? It's [Mod Edit] like this that give the whole group a bad name.

And then this [refuse=Mod Edit]:

Quote:
[...] �the gay movement is an evil institution� whose goal is �to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.�


That just makes zero [Mod Edit] sense. How in the hell do you equate seeking marriage equality with an attempt to "defeat marriage-based society"?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Koveras



Joined: 09 Oct 2008

PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It doesn't follow that, given homosexuality is an affront to Christianity, proponents themselves are not themselves homosexuals.

Observe the nonsequitur:

Premise 1: A hates homosexuality
Premise 2: A is a Christian
Premise 3: Homosexuality isn't permitted in A's version of Christianity
Conclusions: A is not a latent homosexual and his opposition to homosexuality is not motivated by latent homosexuality.

Clearly, the conclusion in no way follows.


You're absolutely right, that is a nonsequitur. But it's much sillier to proceed from those premises to the opposite conclusion, viz. that they definitely are latent homosexuals.

Quote:
Myself, I'm of the view that homophobia is always fear/hatred of being gay.

Whatever the case, opposition to homosexuality is as irrational as it is indecent. Also, versions of Christianity that oppose homosexuality are cultures of latent homosexuality.


What astounding anthropological revelations. Please, tell me more about these cultures of latent homosexuality.

geldedgoat wrote:
Quote:
[...] �the gay movement is an evil institution� whose goal is �to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.�


That just makes zero f***** sense. How in the hell do you equate seeking marriage equality with an attempt to "defeat marriage-based society"?


Once you realize that homosexuality and the gay movement are not the same thing, it makes quite good sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NovaKart



Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Location: Iraq

PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well I don't think the gay movement is out to destroy marriage. It's rediculous really, how a gay couple's marriage would affect anyone else's.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Koveras



Joined: 09 Oct 2008

PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marriage isn't a secular institution. Gay marriage is a parody of an ancient religious tradition. (If anything, the gay movement should have respected that and pushed for legally equal civil unions. Instead they chose to rub salt in the wound.) But the culture-destroying nature of the gay movement doesn't stop (or start) there, because the movement is - as the quotation correctly notes - all about promiscuity, and not only in the sexual sense. It's about overthrowing all taboos in the name of promiscuity.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kabrams



Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Location: your Dad's house

PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Koveras wrote:
Marriage isn't a secular institution. Gay marriage is a parody of an ancient religious tradition. (If anything, the gay movement should have respected that and pushed for legally equal civil unions. Instead they chose to rub salt in the wound.) But the culture-destroying nature of the gay movement doesn't stop (or start) there, because the movement is - as the quotation correctly notes - all about promiscuity, and not only in the sexual sense. It's about overthrowing all taboos in the name of promiscuity.



LOL, what?

Marriage is both secular and non-secular, but its origins (specifically in the Western world, since this is what we are talking about) are completely secular.

Marriage in its earliest recorded/known forms almost entirely dealt with property, business and the uniting of two families (not two people in a religious union under one or various Gods). In these marriages, women had few to little rights, and there was no such thing as "love".

Religion came AFTER marriage, not the other way around.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Koveras wrote:
Marriage isn't a secular institution. Gay marriage is a parody of an ancient religious tradition. (If anything, the gay movement should have respected that and pushed for legally equal civil unions. Instead they chose to rub salt in the wound.) But the culture-destroying nature of the gay movement doesn't stop (or start) there, because the movement is - as the quotation correctly notes - all about promiscuity, and not only in the sexual sense. It's about overthrowing all taboos in the name of promiscuity.


While I agree that a more intelligent approach would have been to reduce "legal" marriage to civil unions which any two consenting adults can enter, and leave the actually term marriage to religious ceremony, I don't think your stance that the gay movement is "culture destroying" or "all about promiscuity" holds much ground.

1) It certainly might be culture changing, but not culture destroying; the only people who equate change in a culture to destruction of said culture are conservatives too grounded in the status quo. It's no more culture destroying than, say, an initative to get people to stop smoking. The culture might change, but it's not destroyed.

2) Homosexuals interested in marrying one another are no more promiscuous than heterosexual couples interested in marrying one another. There's nothing inherently more promiscuous about homosexuality as opposed to heterosexuality. Indeed, their desire to be allowed to marry one another is almost the exact opposite of promiscuity. Promiscuity according to the dictionary is:

www.dictionary.com wrote:
characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, esp. having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis.


Wanting to marry another individual is not promiscuous, and in no way furthers the "cause" of promiscuity. If anything, it's a step away from promiscuity.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kabrams



Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Location: your Dad's house

PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
While I agree that a more intelligent approach would have been to reduce "legal" marriage to civil unions which any two consenting adults can enter, and leave the actually term marriage to religious ceremony


Might I ask why? (Seriously not trying to argue here, I just want to hear your reasoning.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geldedgoat



Joined: 05 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Koveras wrote:
geldedgoat wrote:
Quote:
[...] �the gay movement is an evil institution� whose goal is �to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.�


That just makes zero f***** sense. How in the hell do you equate seeking marriage equality with an attempt to "defeat marriage-based society"?


Once you realize that homosexuality and the gay movement are not the same thing, it makes quite good sense.


I guess you're just going to have to educate me. That quote from the article was attributed specifically to the visiting American speakers, and the only major gay movement I've heard about recently has been targeted at expanding marriage laws.

Quote:
Marriage isn't a secular institution.


You're absolutely right.

Quote:
Gay marriage is a parody of an ancient religious tradition. (If anything, the gay movement should have respected that and pushed for legally equal civil unions. Instead they chose to rub salt in the wound.)


Well, that's not entirely accurate.

You're assuming that all homosexuals seeking a state-recognized marriage (as I'm not aware of any US state that bans the actual ceremony itself) are not doing so from a religious view point. Not all religions prevent homosexual marriage, and not all Christian interpretations of the Bible do so either. So denying one group the privilege (state-recognized marriages are by no means a right) of state-recognition of their religious views while at the same time granting that same privilege to another group is nothing short of religious discrimination.

However, granting that privilege to both groups could also be interpreted as religious discrimination, as there does exist a very vocal (slight) majority that claims that their religious views specifically forbid homosexual unions.

The only solution to this, as Fox already mentioned, is to remove the religiously tainted term 'marriage' from all state-recognized unions and replace it with something entirely secular. The government has no business regulating the definitions of anything religious anyway (excepting those rare occasions when a religious group may do something demonstrably harmful to others, such as in the case of suicide cults).

Quote:
But the culture-destroying nature of the gay movement doesn't stop (or start) there, because the movement is - as the quotation correctly notes - all about promiscuity, and not only in the sexual sense. It's about overthrowing all taboos in the name of promiscuity.


You must have a very twisted definition for promiscuity if you equate it with a desire to enter into a marriage with another individual.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kabrams wrote:
Quote:
While I agree that a more intelligent approach would have been to reduce "legal" marriage to civil unions which any two consenting adults can enter, and leave the actually term marriage to religious ceremony


Might I ask why? (Seriously not trying to argue here, I just want to hear your reasoning.)


Because marriage in modern America -- regardless of past history -- has a religious connotation for a large portion of our citizen base. I don't agree with them, but I understand why they feel that way, and I don't think there's any reason to needlessly antagonize them. So, let them have their marriages, and take the law out of the equation with regards to them. If you get married in a Catholic Church, for example, you're married in the eyes of the Catholic Church, nothing more.

Civil unions, rather, will be focused on legal benefits and recognitions; things all citizens deserve access to, regardless of religious belief, sexual orientation, and so forth. Inheritance, visiting rights, shared health benefits, tax benefits, etc will all be a part of a civil union. You can enter into a civil union with any other consenting adult, or even multiple other adults. No one can complain about this on grounds of "corrupting our society" or "destroying the institution of marriage" because it's now totally separate from marriage.

If a Catholic man and woman get married, they'll probably want to file for a civil union as well. If a mormon man marries several women, he'll probably file for civil unions with all of them. If two homosexuals want to devote themselves to one another, they now can have a civil union even if no church will marry them (though I'm sure some would if they really wanted it). Religion and the law are now totally separate, and religious complaints can no longer be used to justify discriminatory laws.

I think this would make everyone happy, while putting up a further positive barrier between Church and State. It solves problems not just for gays, but for polygamists as well, who deserve equal protection under the law. This, honestly, is what should have been the case from the very beginning.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International