We read:
"Kato 's death is being called the direct result of the hateful words of American evangelicals who have publicly fought against homosexuality and homosexual rights.
Over the last few years, homophobia has soared hroughout Africa but especially in Uganda, where a controversial 2009 Anti-Homosexuality Bill proposed the death penalty for some homosexuals.
The evidence suggests that American evangelicals were involved in the drafting of the bill. In March 2009, an American evangelist named Scott Lively led an anti-gay conference in Kampala. A few days later, David Bahati, a lawmaker and a close friend of Lively, introduced the bill in Parliament.
Source
The fact that contempt for homosexuals is normal in all African populations seems to be overlooked. It doesn't need missionaries to bring that out. And the normal Christian doctrine that one should hate the sin and love the sinner should in fact be some protection for homosexuals.
36 comments:
While I support assistance for overseas countries religous assistance should be prohibited from prostetlysing. Giving aid to needy countries should be totally divorced from gaining converts.
How is the sin separated from the sinner - it's pure religious double-speak of the Orwellian kind. And you see the consequences in Africa.
Anon 1:36 - religous organizations provide assistance and should be able to to so in any way they see fit. Nanny isn't the only one providing/financing aid.
Anon 3:01 - Typical liberal garbage but answers why libs are unable to discuss why they dislike Sarah Palin's (for example) policies without having to also insult her as well as her family; they can't distinguish between the policy and person so you have to hate both.
Anon3:01 - typical liberal crap
Anon 3:47 - typical right wing crap
A lot of crap here. A lot less crap in the middle.
Is it "loving" to promote or accept a lifestyle which leads to death an average of 20 years earlier than normal (not to mention numerous other problems with the homosexual lifestyle) as "no worse than any other choice"? I say no. A person who actually cares about the well being of someone else warns that person when they're putting themselves in danger.
Yes, it can be hard to separate the person from their self-destructive behavior, but it's something which needs to be done.
I for one believe all foreign aid, (see: international welfare) should be stopped, especially since most of it goes to people who hate us, and to nations that will never be anything other than a pile of rubble (see: Afghanistan) no matter how much you give them. They insist on living in the 10th century and should be left to do so. We had better remember the old adage that says, "charity begins at home".
And while i don't believe in going around the world forcing (coercing?) my religious beliefs on anyone, those who see fit to do so (especially in Africa) should understand they may end-up on the sharp end of a machete. Apparently, they never paid attention to the signs in a zoo. DON'T ANNOY THE ANIMALS!
3:47 - So you like some or most homosexuals as people, but just don't like what they may or may not do in private (for all you know or speculate upon); or what a few of them as far as you know may say or do in public (regardless of what countless heterosexuals may say or do in public or private) - please do elaborate on your theories for our edification!
Luke - it's bigots like you who drive those poor folks to an early grave by denying them the up-front lifestyle heteosexuals enjoy - you even deny them monogamous legal marriage even though that would answer the negative stereotypes about gay promiscuity and foolishness (not unknown among heterosexuals either). Not mentioning upfront intimadation and actual physical threats and attacks on homosexuals just because they are homosexuals.
By the way did Jesus actually mention man-on-man sex? No it was the the later Christians and references to the Jewish Old Testament, which Christians today conveniently say is superceded when it says anything that's difficult to justify.
Giving aid to needy countries should be totally divorced from gaining converts.
As Citizens United has reinforced, giving is a form of free speech. You aren't trying to regulate or restrict free speech are you?
How is the sin separated from the sinner
The same way that you hate some of the things people in your life do, but still love them. When your child does something that is totally against your wishes and teachings, do you still love him, even though you hate what he did?
By the way did Jesus actually mention man-on-man sex? No it was the the later Christians and references to the Jewish Old Testament, which Christians today conveniently say is superceded when it says anything that's difficult to justify.
He didn't have to. By his own statements, Christ came to fulfill the law, which includes the admonition against homosexual behavior.
Anon 9:37, despite your double negative you are essentially correct. Real Christians aren’t going to lobby for a death penalty for sinners. The teachings go against it. While not all sin and evil need be confronted using the same tactics, sin must be confronted with idea of saving the soul of the sinner. Condemning the sinner to death without repenting condemns not only the flesh but the soul as well.
Pete says
how funny they lament one death in Africa but ignore the huge death toll on Christians and others in that region.
What Jon (the webmaster) said was absolutely correct. In traditional sub-Saharan Africa, homosexuality was unheard of. Note, I said "unheard of", not absent. The idea that people could be attracted to the same sex was as far out of the African's worldview as exploding head syndrome or Capgras' syndrome is to most Westerners. Presumably, those who did suffer from it believed they were unique, and totally alone. It is only with exposure to Western media that this view has changed, and much of the objection to homosexuality in modern Africa is fired, not only by natural disgust, but the feeling that they are importing the white man's perversion.
8:51 AM - If "Christ came to fulfill the law which includes admonition against homosexual behavior" I hope all Christians avoid shellfish and never work on the Sabbath + dutifully following all the other numerous Hebrew laws (including stoning to death sinners). Oh yeah, that's right, they just cherry-pick whatever their prejudices dictate and ignore the rest!
I see no one has mentioned that in africa there is a large population of muslims which are rabidly anti-homosexual. I wonder if that has anything to do with the widespread dislike of homosexuality, or is it that the lifestyle is just plain disgusting.
"plain disgusting" - to whom? Being subjective at all??
Oh yeah, that's right, they just cherry-pick whatever their prejudices dictate and ignore the rest!
At some point in time it is better to keep your mouth shut than expose your ignorance. In this case you have no idea of the difference in the laws that you are trying to lump together.
It is easy to say that anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot. That fact that you have offered no proof and no serious intellectual backing for that or any other statement speaks volumes.
And what "proof" have you to know which Hebrew laws were/are still applicable to Christians.
4:45 AM Where is your "serious intellectual backing" for your pompous remarks - that "speaks volumes" even more!
4:52 - how did you get anything about what I actually believe from my 3:47 post? If people disliked a person anytime they disagreed with that person no one would like anybody.
Personally I disagree with just about every Obama policy and hate many of them, but I have absolutely no animosity towards Obama. The two are completely separate. I do not know Obama and therefore cannot give a personal opinion about his likability, though I know people that have met him and felt positively towards him – personally, not his policies.
In the same way someone may disagree with homosexuality but have nothing against the person.
it's bigots like you who drive those poor folks to an early grave by denying them the up-front lifestyle heteosexuals enjoy
If that were true, the early death rate would be better in areas where homosexuality is widely accepted, such as in San Francisco. It's not.
Furthermore, deaths caused by STDs such as AIDS have absolutely nothing to do with "acceptance", only behavior.
Luke - that might be true if all gays in San Francisco had always lived there, had only ever met pro-gay people and had pro-gay families, and were wise enough to only ever have practised safe-sex and other healthy practices. I guess straight people don't usually get STDs or over-eat or get stressed or drive dangerously, and die before their time. Why not just try to be honest, your views are "slightly" prejudiced for religious reasons.
I was incorrect in thinking San Francisco. the actual data I've seen comes from Denmark and Norway, where same sex marriage has been legal since 1989 and 1993 respectively, a period of roughly 20 years.
http://bit.ly/fvLMJ2
In general, wherever a comparison could be drawn between homosexual and nonhomosexual groups, life expectancy at birth was significantly less for homosexuals (p < .0001; p < .01 for Norwegian females), typically on the order of 20+ years. This was true for men and women in the U.S., Denmark, and Norway, whether partnered or unpartnered at time of death, and also whether or not AIDS was judged the cause of death. In the U.S., MSM who died of AIDS had estimated life expectancies at least 30 years less than either official U.S. figures for males-in-general or estimates from Washington Post obituaries for all males or ever-married males.
More statistics:
http://bit.ly/fI3urZ
73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization
Note: This was a study done in 1977. Homosexuality is now significantly more accepted.
78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs.
Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population.
Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne.
Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries.
One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per yea. The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.
Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film "The Castro", one minute stands). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to "cruisy areas" and have anonymous sex.
41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs.
No matter how you slice it, the homosexual lifestyle is dangerous for those who participate.
You avoid the point where ppl like you want to deny them the very lifesyle that would obviate as much promiscuity as with single heteros - namely the opportunity for recognized marriages and other forms of social equality. Gays in Scandinavia may have more of this, but they still suffer from a feeling of 2nd-class status openly or overtly displayed by many in the general population (usually religious), including their own families in many cases.
By the way Denmark only has civil partnerships and not equal marriage status (yet).
You avoid the point where ppl like you want to deny them the very lifesyle that would obviate as much promiscuity as with single heteros - namely the opportunity for recognized marriages and other forms of social equality.
Read those statistics again. I didn't include every single statistic from the source I pointed to, but I did specifically include several which addressed this point. An AVERAGE of between 20 and 106 partners per year vs. 8 per lifetime! There is no reason to think "acceptance" would change such behaviors in the slightest, especially given the massive degree and deliberate risk taking of that promiscuity.
Your excuses simply do not square with the facts.
8:06 so you admit it, now the next step is being cured.
So, why the **** do you care, Luke?
See my first comment above. I hate to see anyone put themselves through such a mess. It's that whole "love your neighbor as yourself" thing.
"It's that whole "love your neighbor as yourself" thing."
As if you really do it
Luke - You do NOT in fact address the point that, in giving gays the option of legally recognized "marriages" (ie. stable relationships) and other social acceptances, it would reduce to at least some extent the kind of promiscuity and life-shortening practices you condemn with your christian crocodile tears!
Anyone can find a study that proves whatever argument they want to make.
As a gun owner I have read "studies" that I'm more likely to kill myself or hurt other, that having a gun puts me in danger, that guns are bad, that places with more guns have more crime, etc, etc, etc. Yet do I believe those studies? No. I have studies that state just the opposite.
As far as I'm concerned, sexuality is like food. You do what you like between consenting adults.
Aside that, I'm not gonna blame a white man for the crimes of black men. Uganda is clearly a horrible place filled with poverty, high inflation, superstition, and foreign aid. As far as I'm concerned, it's time to stop financing those people.
Frankly, I'm glad I don't give aid to Africa.
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/
"As far as I'm concerned, it's time to stop financing those people."
It is time to stop financing all foreign countries. What do our "friends" actually do for us?
It is time to divert all of this aid to pay down our debt. And also collect what is owed us.
What happened to the concept of "the spoils of war". We conquered Iraq; and what do we get? Not a damn thing.
Its time to get ourselves out of the wretched UN and to evict thge UN from our nation we should tear down the UN facility and turn it into a bird refuge and tell that idiot KOFFI ANNAN to GO TAKE A HIKE
Yet do I believe those studies? No.
Why?
I've seen those studies and I don't believe them either. The reason is quite simple: I looked at the studies' techniques, definitions and data sources—in short, the "why" of the studies' conclusions—and it's quite obvious that they're junk. They were created to prove a bias, not find the truth. (For example, "children" defined as "up to 25 years old".)
I've encountered several of the studies which produced the statistics I quoted before. They do seem to be valid. For example, the studies which demonstrated the degree of promiscuity among homosexuals were done by self-identified homosexuals. Their expected bias would be to make homosexuality look good, yet they were honest enough to allow the data to speak for itself.
In short, while you may not like the results of a study, that is insufficient reason to ignore the study. The only valid reason to ignore a study is if the study is actually invalid in some way.
"For example, the studies which demonstrated the degree of promiscuity among homosexuals were done by self-identified homosexuals."
---Every group has promiscuous people, it has nothing to do with sexuality, it has to do with looks. Good looking athletes, jocks, celebrities, sleep around like crazy. Look at Tiger Woods!
Ugly or less attractive people on the other hand will have less sex, unless they can pay for it or are willing to sleep with somebody ugly like them.
Besides, I'm far more interested in the individual, I like meeting people and hearing their stories, that's more insightful than any study on any subject.
Luke, you make me laugh! You admit you don't trust studies and surveys that don't conclude what you want to believe, but you agree with others that do; without really knowing how biased they were, or if the interviewees were selected for their "guilt" at being homosexual or in relgious denial, etc. In short you are the biased one, looking at the world through your christian-tinted glasses!
It's not a good idea to subject yourself to any particular idealogy, whether it's religious, political or whatever. It will make you blind to, or try to make excuses for, all its shortcomings, and to be gratuitously negative towards any "opposing" world-views whatever their merits.
It also suggests a personal insecurity by looking for a refuge in a desired "certainty". Better just to be honest with yourself and accept we can't know everything and live life as best you can.
Post a Comment