comic boy wrote:Patches
I assume you also condemn the Evangelical US groups that have been actively pursuing an anti gay agenda in parts of Africa ?
As you seem overly concerned about what the British would do I will tell you , for a start it doesn't involve warfare , sanctions or threatening any Chinese citizens
Simply put British aid (in theory) is linked to human rights issues , abuse results in cash being witheld or withdrawn. It's a pragmatic approach and if the USA is adopting a similar policy I would have thought it should be applauded rather than condemned.
Given that a huge amount of foreign aid during the Bush years was channelled through Conservative Evangeligal NGOs ( who very much had an agenda )it does rather smack of hypocrisy for the Republicans to now complain about Obama interfering.
There are only 15 nations in Africa that don't criminalize homosexuality in some way, shape or form. It should make people get a nice warm feeling that South Africa, for instance, doesn't treat homosexuality as a crime. Of course, South Africa is the rape capital of the world, including the distinction of the highest incidence of baby rape. So there is that....
During British colonial times, in Uganda which was protectorate from 1894-1962, homosexuality was a crime, under British law. Shall I condemn Britain? I think not.
In most African nations homosexuality and homosexual acts are crimes. It's not my place to tell those nations what their laws should or should not be. I can certainly lobby them if I wished, I just don't wish to. The US can certainly lobby for whatever laws wished to be adopted. And guess what, the Evangelicals can lobby whatever the hell they wanna lobby as well. So can those who oppose the Evangelicals, they can lobby as well for whatever the hell they want.
It's up to those nations to determine for themselves.
It's easy to sit where we sit and judge using our standards. I'm not an African. I have no idea how Africans in general feel about homosexuality, and I don't really care. People can think what they wish.
And, it's a muddled up thing anyway.
Take Uganda for instance, since it was specifically mentioned in the article of the OP to be actively executing homosexuals. I looked into it. Ugandan law does indeed provide a death penalty for homosexual acts, provided any of these issues pertain-
*The offender is HIV positive
*The offender is the parent or authority figure
*The offender who administers intoxicating substances to perform the act on an unwilling participant
*The offender commits the act upon a minor, or person with disabilities
*The offender is a repeat offender
Now, I don't know about you, but if someone is committing homosexual acts and is knowingly HIV positive, that is a serious crime even in the US. If the Ugandans wanna execute someone for it, that's their decision.
A parent committing sexual acts on their children, homosexual or not, is also a crime in the US. Some in the US even believe such people should be executed. And an authority figure, What's his name, Penn State coach Sandusky, if he'd have done what he did in Uganda he'd have been executed. There are probably some in the US who think he should be.
Drugging someone, date rape in the US, is also a crime. A serious crime, homosexual or not.
And performing sexual acts on children or people who are disabled is pretty messed up.
Not sure what Uganda means by "repeat offenders" but I don't like the sound of that.
This is called "Aggravated Homosexuality" and is a serious crime in Uganda, just as those crime listed are also serious crimes in the US and Britain (I'd think, I'd hope). Homosexual or not. I'm not at all willing to condemn Uganda for any of that. I'm not embracing it either.
I don't agree with the Ugandan lesser charge of "Offense of Homosexuality", but the same type of laws were in effect in most nations around the earth until 2001. Probably not quite as severe penalties as Uganda, granted.
It's like a person who just quit smoking and then goes around yelling at anyone else who smokes. Or the newly practicing vegetarian who goes around turning over other people's steak dinners. By all means, quit smoking or be a vegetarian and through discourse attempt to get others to agree, just don't go freaking out about it. And if the person doesn't want to give up smoking or eating red meat, leave them alone then.
So, it's easy to sit back and armchair quarterback and try and tell everyone else what to think, what to do, what to believe. Each and everyone of us is doing it each and every day on this forum. Just as the OP tries to make people think a certain thing about certain people but still doesn't really give out all the facts.
It's all a big story designed to push emotional buttons and is a common tactic politically and socially. All designed to convince people of this thing or that thing. The reality is often quite different.
I prefer to allow people to think as they wish and condemn as little as possible. I certainly don't want to act emotionally because someone told me a half truth and end up causing more harm than good, which is what often happens.
So, believe what you want to believe, condemn or endorse whatever you want and know that it doesn't really matter much. You've still got to actually convince people to take your view. Are you willing to do it civilized like or violent like?
I prefer civilized. But violence is always an option. And for some people, violence is the only way you are going to persuade them to anything. Uganda and other African nations, for example. Sanctions are a level of violence any way you look at it. People suffer from it, most often the people you didn't intend to harm.
There are consequences and it's better to understand those consequences before going off half cocked based on a story that's not quite the whole story.....