Now, in terms of Britain's colonial history we are nearer to home in Uganda, although Britain has dabbled in Iran in the past.
Yesterday the BBC ran a provocative "Have Your Say" forum that provoked quite a few comments. They asked the simple question "Should homosexuals be executed?", changed after protests to "Should Uganda debate gay execution?" (You are too late to add your own comment, the BBC closed the forum just as I was writing this).
What surprised me was the number of comments posted that actually supported the the bill, some even from the UK! Perhaps the question was a bit crass but the comments certainly highlighted that even in a changing world there are still those who see some of the more extreme manifestations of Islam as an acceptable benchmark.
Many of the comments included the line that Europeans should not make judgments about African "culture and tradition". My response to that is to ask whether the antisemitism of much of Europe during the first part of the 20th century was acceptable? I recall hearing similar comments from white South Africans during the Apartheid era: "You do do understand our culture". No thanks I didn't buy that and I don't buy the idea that I am barred from commenting on executing homosexuals because I'm not African nor Muslim.
Whatever our views on homosexuality we have to be careful of taking them into other people's lives and bedrooms. Obviously the criminal law has a role in protecting vulnerable people from exploitation and this goes beyond homosexuality, but it is a blunt instrument with which to "protect" traditional family values as some Ugandans claim.
The Guardian has more.
Posts
10 comments:
I have come to believe - because I have been told it a number of times[1] - that quite a number people believe that all or most homosexuals are also pedophiles. That's the only way that I can account for people wanting gay people dead.
[1] I believe that people have felt free to tell me this because they were utterly convinced of the truthfulness of their beliefs and therefore had no hesitancy whatsoever in expressing them to me. Because, of course, as a minister I would be against the sexual abuse of children. Which, of course, I am. I just don't believe that most gay people are padeophiles.
I think it goes a little further than people just thinking that they are paedophiles - I am sure that many people feel they are in danger of an inappropriate approach from a homosexual person, almost as if they are sex maniacs. I remember when I was a police cadet just after leaving school and working at West Bromwich Police Station, a couple of the coppers were going to the home of what they referred to as an old queen and one of them said that it would be a backs to the wall job. When they had gone I asked the sergeant what they meant and he explained it was a homosexual they were going to see and they felt he was always after sex with any male that came into the house - I don't think this was the case any more that the view that Pam talks about but it seemed to be a general thought.
On the other side of the coin though when I worked at the Patent Shaft Steelworks there was a guy there who was gay and used to go round feeling peoples bottoms - he usually received verbal abuse until one day a man with a cast iron grip grabbed him somewhere delicate and threatened to rip it all off and stick it somewhere - he never touched any body after that.
I have a known a number of gay people over the years and I do not believe they are any more predatory than many heterosexuals.
I tend to agree with Pam that the unsubstantiated beliefs may well be a reason for some peoples extreme anti gay feelings!
Ian. I have heard other men say similar things about their feelings about gay men. As a woman, I can't comment, but I've certainly encountered men in the workplace who behaved that way toward me (when I was younger!) and, in the bad old days, women were told to laugh it off and not take ourselves so seriously.
Thanks for another perspective. I think you are also correct.
I think one of the problems is that many boys first meet men who would be described - among other things - as "homosexual" in very negative circumstances.
We were warned not to go near a certain public lavatory because it was frequented by "queers" (this was in the late 50s/early 60s) who would proposition us, often with offers of money. During my childhood I do remember cases of children missing, assualted and murdered, so it was a powerful incentive to steer clear.
As I get older I have learnt that this behaviour is confined to a tiny group of people and not typical of homosexuals. But that lesson has taken a long time to be learnt. In fact over the years several of my friends have "come out" for various reasons and my jaw has dropped with surprise - I certainly haven't been aware of any predatory behaviour in relation to myself or anything else.
Several of my friends have had their daughters enter "civil partnerships" and all speak very positively about the experience for them and their child.
I only know one man in a civil partnership, he isn't a personal friends, so don't know whether the same can be said for men.
What I have read is that the recognition of permanent same sex relationships has led to less men having serial affairs and "cruising". I have no first hand basis to believe that.
However: whether our experiences have been negative, the criminalisation along the lines proposed in Uganda, and even in a milder form practised here until recently, is clearly wrong.
However: whether our experiences have been negative, the criminalisation along the lines proposed in Uganda, and even in a milder form practised here until recently, is clearly wrong.
Absolutely. I understand and respect the reasons that many Christians believe that homosexual acts are wrong. And I applaud those who have thought clearly enough to state that it is also wrong to imprison people for being gay.
Hi,
As Christian's we are supposed to be counter-cultural. I can't see anywhere in the New Testament where the early Church says "I think that's against God but I don't want to judge your culture!".
Executing homosexuals is unjust and anti-Christian. It horrifies me.
There is definately a misunderstanding of LGBT / homosexual issues in the church. However I think this comes from two sides.
I am bisexual (that is I am attracted to both men and women) however as a Christian I know I am called to sexual purity. As I am unmarried this would be celibacy in my case, avoiding pornography, etc. The two sides I've seen in the church are as follows.
a) People who view homosexual sex as not just a sin but somehow a worse sin than any other. Usualy because of Pride. "I may be an adulterer/fornicator/hateful/whatever but at least I'm not gay!". This is obviously lazy and unscriptual thinking! Especially when put into law. Should there also be an anti-lust law arresting people for committing adultery in your heart? Jesus seemed to think it was just as important as any other sexual sin!
b) People who try to be too accomodating. They don't want to be seen as homophobic but actually end up being so. For example, not inviting the LGB youth they know to a meeting on sexual purity because they assume we would find it offensive or can't live by the same standards as everyone else. The unsaid assumption being that straight people can fight sexual temptation but LGB people can't so it has to be accepted theat LGB people are going to be sexually active. "backs to the wall" may not be said out loud but unconsciously it's a similar viewpoint.
As a Methodist I am very happy that our church gets the balance right. We welcome LGBT people into the church as full members whilst sticking to a Biblical view of when/where sex should take place - i.e. in a marriage between a man and a woman.
I support gay marriage and I don't do it in order to be accommodating. I do it from what I think is a holistic, integrated theology of the centrality of covenant (and therefore of monogamy - the "current" view suggests that monogamy is committed as a sin by people of the same sex) in the Christian story.
The British Methodist Church does actually "allow" me to be in the denomination with this opinion. (And yes, everyone knows about my views, so no need to try to report me to the authorities.) My motives are not to be soft and fluffy and accommodating in order to avoid conflict. My motives are to be faithful to what I believe is the Christian story.
I understand why people believe that homosexual acts are a sin. And I understand why I differ. I also believe that good, gracious Christian people can and do hold the opposite view from me.
There is still no excuse for not speaking out against the laws in Nigeria or Uganda. As I understand it, you could very well be charged and imprisoned as a bisexual person; these laws are not so much about what acts you do as what you are suspected to be
PamBG,
I found your reply a little defensive. So please excuse me if I sound agressive in my comments. I don't mean to be.
"The British Methodist Church does actually "allow" me to be in the denomination with this opinion. (And yes, everyone knows about my views, so no need to try to report me to the authorities.)"
The British Methodist Church allows members to have a wide range of theological beliefs. I certainly did not say that everyone in the Methodist church had to agree with our posistion, just that I thought it was the right one.
I have no intention of reporting anyone to any authorities and must admit I am rather surprised that you raise the point, even if it is meant in jest.
You go on to say:
"There is still no excuse for not speaking out against the laws in Nigeria or Uganda. As I understand it, you could very well be charged and imprisoned as a bisexual person"
I totaly agree! As I said before, the thought of execution of LGBT people horrifies me. I am very glad to see that the Methodist Church has spoken out on this issue.
Just one thing where I strongly disagree with you:
"the "current" view suggests that monogamy is committed as a sin by people of the same sex"
No... the current view holds to the Biblical view that marriage is between a man and a woman. Those who are seeking to over turn this would need to give a clear scriptual reason why this was not so. Claiming monogamy as the defining factor is incorrect. Couples who are monogamous but unmarried are committing sin if sexually active. It treats all people equally in that sex outside of marriage is sinful.
Tom, I'm not going to argue with you about my view on gay marriage. My experience is that conversations on this subject almost invariably generate more heat than light.
Yes, my comment was somewhat in jest but somewhat not. I have certainly heard people take the line that "this is the Methodist view and if people don't believe it - especially ministers - they should not be Methodists." My point is simply that the denomination knows that there are people in it who support gay marriage and it does not require us to stand outside the denomination (although I do often feel that many people would prefer those of us who support gay marriage to keep quiet about it).
Tom, it is commonly not understood that the Bible never addresses the issue of committed same-sex relationships. It addresses the problems of same-sex activity in certain cultural or cultic contexts, but never the matter of 'gay marriage' (unless people wish to argue from Jesus' talking about "a man and a woman", which is an argument from silence). For a good and accessible discussion of the issues, try http://www.reluctantjourney.co.uk/ - click on "Book" and explore the chapter headings.
I was shot down on another forum for referring to this source because it was so obviously not neutral (!!) - I have since sourced the same discussions in a number of serious and weighty tomes, and not found anything to indicate that Mr Hopper is being biased or selective in his work. I have read many who have disagreed, but none who have been able to dismiss his case about the actual meaning of the biblical texts.
Post a Comment