Today is “International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia”. To mark this day several religious leaders, including Laurie Gaum, Bishop David Russel and Dean Rowen Smith, have called on South Africans to honour the Constitution and have signed a memorandum on the role of “religious fundamentalism and patriarchy” that have caused an increase in homophobia in South Africa in the past few months. The religious leaders referred to increased homophobia on the content and attempts to pass legislation permitting the death sentence for gay people.
The statement comes in the wake of the rape and murder of many lesbians in South Africans over the past few years. This includes the gang rape and brutal killing of Eudy Simelane, former star of South Africa’s Banyana Banyana national female football squad. Simelane was found in a creek in a park in Kwa Thema, on the outskirts of Johannesburg and had been brutally beaten before being stabbed 25 times in the face, chest and legs. As well as being one of South Africa’s best-known female footballers, Simelane was a voracious equality rights campaigner and one of the first women to live openly as a lesbian in Kwa Thema.
Our Constitution prohibits discrimination against gay men and lesbians and over the past 16 years the judges of the Constitutional Court (bless their souls) have steadily extended the same rights accorded to heterosexuals and their relationships to gay men and lesbians and our relationships. In fact, same-sex couples have slightly more rights than heterosexual couples because some of the rights enjoyed by same-sex married couples were extended to non-married same-sex couples before the passing of the Civil Union Act. These rights did not automatically fall away when marriage rights were extended to same-sex couples.
Despite this wonderful legal protection, many gay men, lesbians and trangendered South Africans live in fear. We can be ridiculed, attacked, or even killed merely because we are different from the “ideal citizen” postulated by our colonial masters. This homophobia stems from fear, ignorance and a misplaced endorsement of patriarchy and the perverted morality of right-wing religious groups.
As Susan Sontag remarked, the traditional Judeo-Christian view of morality (thankfully not shared by all Christians), centres almost exclusively on sex and sexual acts. To be viewed as moral within this tradition is either to abstain from sex (as Priests are supposed to do but clearly often do not) or to contain sexual thoughts and acts within the “safe” confines of a patriarchal heterosexual marriage – to be whispered and sniggered about but never to be admitted in polite company.
A world in which poverty, homelessness, hunger and racial discrimination thrives while we live in mansions in Sandton and wear R250 00 watches is viewed as regrettable, but it is not seen as a morally perverse world in serious need of change. We drive, without another thought, past a hungry child begging on a street corner but shout out in horror when we hear that child is selling his or her body to make ends meet. It is said, after all, that the poor will always be with us. But, alas far too many people think that gay men and lesbians can be “corrected” through therapy or – in extreme cases – rape.
According to this extremely perverted notion of morality, if two consenting adult men or women love each other and have sex with one another, this becomes a perversion that threatens the very existence of Christian morality (the so called “moral fabric” of our society) and is seen as far more problematic than the social and economic deprivation that robs people of their dignity and sometimes their lives. (On a lighter note, I have always wondered what this “moral fabric” might be and have speculated that maybe it is the fabric used to make wedding dresses from.)
Ironically this deeply entrenched Western view of sex and morality was brought to Africa by missionaries and imperialists and has been embraced all over Africa by new rulers and citizens. Often wrongly claiming that a more permissive view on sexuality is “un-African”, many Africans embrace the very homophobia that was imported to Africa by our colonial masters. Those who hold this view do not realise that their minds have been colonised by the imperialists and that they are merely endorsing the kind of hateful views put in their heads by our erstwhile oppressors.
When the Minister of Arts and Culture, Lulu Xingwana, storms out of an exhibition of photographs of Zanele Muholi (see photographs above and below) in disgust because the pictures are viewed as “pornographic” she is displaying for all to see, how her mind has been colonised by her erstwhile oppressors. Xingwana, it will be recalled, said that: “Our mandate is to promote social cohesion and nation-building. I left the exhibition because it expressed the very opposite of this. It was immoral, offensive and going against nation-building.”
This nation she talks about is a nation who must be built in the image of the ertswhile white colonial oppressor: one that is filled with “pure”, heterosexual, individuals who endorse the patriarchal values of a bygone era, one in which men are men and women know their place and where the individuality and diversity of society is repressed and stamped out in order to exert a deeply oppressive social control over the desires and dreams of ordinary citizens.
What is “un-African”, of course, is not homosexuality, but homophobia. Although different communities in Africa have dealt with same-sex sexuality differently (some accommodating it through according the men and women who were “different” a special role in their societies and other repressing or ignoring such desires and impulses), the notion of “the homosexual” that could be vilified, discriminated against, harassed, raped and murdered did not exist in pre-colonial Africa. It was a concept brought to Africa and along with this concept came the inevitable homophobia now masquerading as African values and cultural traditions.
We have a long way to go to ensure that the legal rights enjoyed by gay men, lesbians and transgendered South Africans are translated into a better life of dignity and respect for all South Africans who do not conform to an outmoded and perverted notion of what is normal and acceptable. The hatred and violence experienced by many gay men and lesbians (especially those who are not rich and cannot afford to live in leafy suburbs where they go to dinner parties and gay clubs) will not disappear before we begin to free our minds of the colonialist ideas about morality.
Sadly, our politicians either remain quiet about this or through their silence or their remarks they endorse the hateful homophobia that contributes to the harassment and violence of gay men and lesbians. How many political parties will issue a statement today condemning homophobia and celebrating the rights of a significant, yet often hated and vilified, minority in South Africa?
Until our leaders speak out about homophobia, the rape and the killing will continue. And like PW Botha, they will sleep soundly at night because they obviously do not take their conscience with them to bed. Unlike Lady MacBeth there will be no blood-filled dreams of dread.
Lesbian kicked to ‘convert’ her
2010-05-17 09:18
Philip de Bruin, Beeld
Pretoria – A lesbian woman has instituted a R1.52m damages claim against a couple who allegedly beat her and a friend.
Cecilia (Liana) Munnik from Pretoria alleges that Margaret de Beer repeatedly kicked her between the legs and told her that she’s going “straight to hell” for being gay. She was also told that she is “an insult to Christianity”
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Lesbian-kicked-to-convert-her-20100517
I find it rather sad when people talk about “Western ideals” as being patriarchal and homophobic. Go live in the UK or in Europe for a while. Yes, there are racists and sexists and homophobes there. You just don’t see the kind of violence towards homosexuality there that you do here.
The (sexual) ideals adopted by Africa seem to have come from 19th century Christian missionaries. Hardly representative of whatever “Western” might mean.
Homophobes in western Europe get short thrift, but it took a few decades. However, “The West”, of course, would frown about the polygamy-with-a-lot-of-extramarital-sex that seems the norm here.
I suspect that the “ideals adopted in Africa”, as Frank puts it, didn’t so much originate from the missionaries, but reflect ancient tribal practices, anchored in ownership, control and male dominance. Bit like the local politics, really?
I agree with the spirit of your article. However, i find your selection of pictures rather curious. Akin to the way Debra Patta conducts interviews on similar issues. The issue is presented as a problem affecting black people only. In Patta’s case, she interviews black people only, and completely ignores other racial groups. This is stereotyping at its best, and bothers on racism.
I am not saying you are racist, but i’am saying the choice of pictures might have negative results, which may be that only black people are affected by the issues raised in your article. In addition, this might be seen as a pathology affecting only black people, thereby perpetuate racial stereotypes about blacks and about the people you try to protect in your article.
Maybe your choice of pictures might have something to do with what you mentioned in ealier articles some time last year if i’m correct. Where you told us that you were brought up in a family that celebrated racism.
I just think your article sends a wrong message, as mentioned above. It might not have been your intention, but thats how some of us view these things.
unless i did not understand the article correctly,but prof seem to advocate that africa was gay-friendly before colonisation, or you imply that it was practiced freely without punishment(africa was a gay nation).i am not sure if that was suppose to be a complement or not.i know personally a lot of lesbians iwould not like them to be hurt, i do not condone hatered and violence against such people. but i do not believe that africa was pro-gay before colonization.i should agree though that my assumption is not based on any reliable reseach, but on the fact that non of our cultural practices were stopped due to colonization.
Sibusiso, I think your slip is showing. I do not think homosexuality is a “problem” (as you seem to do). Instead, I believe it is something to celebrate and be proud of. There is a widely held stereotype that only white people are gay or lesbian or that black men and women who are gay or lesbian have been “turned” by whites. I chose the pictures on purpose to challenge that stereotype and to celebrate the diversity of the gay and lesbian community. Black gay men and lesbians often complain that they are made invisible by the mainstream gay media that focus excessively on white men. The article is a small attempt to address that as well. In any case, your argument can only hold water if you endorse the veiw that is somehow shameful or disgraceful to be gay or lesbian and hence that it is a “problem”. As I do not share that view, I do not believe it is a problem at all. What is a problem is homophobia. If I had put up pictures of hiomophobes and those in the pictures were all black, you would have had a good argument. As it stands, your argument seems to display some of the prejudice that you attack.
Kenneth, if you read the article again, you would see that my argument is a bit more nuanced (based on a wealth of research). In some parts of Africa, same-sex sexual activity (which was not called homosexuality, because that is a term invented in the West in the second half of the nineteenth century) was frowned upon. In other parts it was celebrated – often within certain traditional spheres. For example as E. E. Evans-Pritchard recorded, male Zande warriors in Southern Sudan and Northen Congo between 20 and 30 years of age routinely took on young male lovers between the ages of twelve and twenty, who participated in intercrural sex and sex with their older partners. The practice largely died out by the mid-20th century, after imperialist Europeans had gained colonial control of African countries, but was still surviving to sufficient degree that the practice was recounted in some detail to Evans-Pritchard by the elders with whom he spoke. There are many other examples of same-sex practices that were accepted. There are also evidence that some societies punished same-sex acts.
Two logical problems with this post:
Firstly, as we all know, the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination – it prohibits unfair discrimination This means that the debate should be about what forms of discrimination against homosexual people are fair (and the related one of what limitations of rights are justifiable in an open and democratic society).
Secondly, the characterisation of the Judeo-Christian moral framework is something of a straw man argument. It is regrettable in the extreme that many professing Christians act in an unkind or ugly manner towards homosexual people. It is a shame and a blight on us when we do not act in a loving manner (but we do need to be careful about how we define “loving” here). The old principle still applies: “love the sinner, but hate the sin” (by the way, I include myself within the definition of “sinner”).
Many Christians do wrongly focus on sexual sin to the exlcusion of bigotry, greed or gluttony. But it is not correct to characterize all Christians, or indeed Christianty as a whole, in this manner. However, the area of sexuality is indeed important as it speaks strongly to God’s purpose for man, and his intended relationship with us. Marriage is what is known as a “Creation ordinance”, a “law” tha originated in the very act of Creation, and so is central to God’s dealings with mankind through history. It is not therefore some fundamentalist or patriarchal construct.
And many people, in the name of Christianity do unspeakable things. It is a bit like European Christians who used to attack Jews, calling them “Christ killers”. In doing so, they acted in a most un-Christlike manner (effectively denying the very Saviour that they professed), but they also ignored the truth that it was the sins of all mankind that sent Christ to the Cross – we are all “Christ-killers”).
But there is a strong argument to be made that homosexual practice should not be tolerated within the church, and indeed that it should not be openly condoned or “blessed” in society, or in our legal framework.
Please also go carefully with the labelling of Christians as “right-wing” or “fundamentalist”. It is not fair, and it does really accord with the truth.
Mike Atkins says:
May 17, 2010 at 12:19 pm
“Many Christians do wrongly focus on sexual sin to the exlcusion of bigotry, greed or gluttony”
What is sexual sin?
Why should it “not be openly condoned or “blessed” in society, or in our legal framework”?
Why should homosexuality “not be openly condoned or “blessed” in society, or in our legal framework”?
Mike Atkins, the Con Court has used the “unfair discrimination” and limitation tests and – surprise! – came to the conclusion that gay men and lesbians have the same human dignity as everyone else so they may not be treated differently. This includes no discrimination based on the right to marry or adopt children.
Your post is contradictory as it tries to show “the human face” of homophobia. Either you accept people as having equal moral worth – regardless of sexual orientation – which means you must endorse equal rights for all; or you must condone the religiously inspired hatred and prejudice against gay men and lesbians, which you seem to do – but with the “human face”. “Love the sinner but hate the sin” is an absurd and illogical position and rather dehumanising and hateful towards gay men and lesbians. It assumes one can make a distinction between feelings, emotions and desires and the acting upon those feelings, emotions and desires on the one hand and the person who was born to have those feelings, emotions and desires and to act on them on the other. It is like saying eating food is a sin and must be condemned but one does not condemn humans who have to eat to survive. It is a laughable distinction without a difference that cannot be sustained without falling back into medieval superstitions and beliefs about “sin” and without trying to oppress people to stop being who they were born to be. In any case, I am not a great fan of sin as I think it is a concept used to keep people fearful, oppressed and unfree – so much the better never to question much of the absurd dogma associated with religion. If we stop fearing that we will burn in hell, we will start thinking for ourselves and if we do, most of the stories told by religion will become so absurd and illogical that we would become ashamed to be associated with it. In any case, there is not really a middle way in all of this – either you embrace people who differ from you or you reject them.
I for one, see no reason why people make such a fuss about sex. Sex is nice; it whiles away the time and if one is lucky also leads to some intimacy with another human being which seems to be rather one of the points of living a meaningful life. As long as it is consensual and safe, it hurts no-one and can even make people happy. Those who obsess so about sex in my view are a bit perverted as they take something perfectly natural, beautiful and fun and make it into something dirty and shameful unless it is severely restrivcted and policed for no logical reason – the Judeo-Christian tradition I write about. And they do so without any recourse to any kind of logic except tired old cliche’s about procreation (which is unsustainable because if procreation is what distinguished “bad” from “good” sex, the church would have to ban all married heterosexual couples who cannot or do not want to procreate from having any sex as such sex would not be procreative and would be sinful). Every women who has reached menopause would be a sinner when she engaged in sex and every man using a condom would be a sinner too (Oh, I forgot that is almost the Catholic Church’s position but I am not sure I would take their advice on sexual matters – given the prediliction of some Catholic Priests to molest little botys and girls and the failure of the Church to deal with this.)
@ PdV
You said.
Sibusiso, I think your slip is showing. I do not think homosexuality is a “problem” (as you seem to do). Instead, I believe it is something to celebrate and be proud of.
I say:
Why should we celebrate homosexuality and be proud of it?
I hope a day never comes that I have to celebrate that in my family.
I accept other peoples choices and I do accomodate them but celebration is too much to ask.
For me as heterosexual male it is difficult to understand why people would want to discriminate against homosexual persons. My circle of friends includes gay men and women. The gay men know very well that I’m heterosexual and accept that I am “out of bounds” and not one of them has ever tried to make sexual advances towards me. I accept that my gay female friends are “out of bounds” and they know that I will never make sexual advances towards them.
For me gay people are just people. My respect for a man like Judge Cameron is immense. There are gay people I will choose not to be associated with, but that has nothing to do with their sexual preferences.
I don’t really know, on scientific grounds, where homophobia has its origins, but I think it’s largely based on ignorance such as the inability to distinguish between homosexuality and paedophilia.
Gwebecimele says:
May 17, 2010 at 13:22 pm
“I hope a day never comes that I have to celebrate that in my family.”
I agree with you on this one. I see the hatred and violence experienced by many gay people, and I do not want my family to be subjected thereto.
@Prof, I’m not saying homesexuality is a problem. Personally i find nothing wrong with it as long the rights of others are violated by their conduct.
If you read my initial comment carefully, you will see that i said i agree with your article.
The explanation on the use of the pictures is not in your article, which was the reason i asked about your choice.
I think people have a right to object to homosexuality, and voice their disapproval about it. As not everyone shares the their views and practices. In fact our Constitution allows such. Freedom of expression to be exact, by this i should not be heard to be saying they must be ill-treated in the process. I’m merely saying people who dont agree with it have the rights to register their disapproval.
Sibusiso, thanks for your reply. You are of course correct. Our Constitution guarantees for everyone the freedom of religion, conscience belief and opinion, so people have the right to hold and express negative views on homosexuality – just as it allows anyone to hold and express racist views. I just happen to think that, like racist views, such views are wrong and harmful. There is a difference between what is legally allowed and what is right.
@Prof, what i’m referring to here is views which are within constitutional bounds. Which means that racist views, homophobic views nand much else would not be acceptable as a way of registering one’s disapproval. One can express disapproval about gays and lesbians without violating their Constitutional rights.
Wiki says Shaka Zulu is speculated to have encouraged intercrural intercourse (non-penetrative pomping between lubricated thighs) among his troops to “create intimacy and loyalty” – Gevisser, Mark (1999). Homosexuality in Africa: An Interpretation. New York: Basic Ovitas Books
Why not introducing this intercrural intercourse into the ABC’s? It will also do wonders for the image of the big thighed …… Malema a sex symbol?
@Hugh, Wiki and Gevisser are wrong. Go to the University of Zululand archirves and you will learn the true history of the Zulu people and King Shaka, the history archives would also help you.
I cant wait for real history of the various tribes in RSA to be produced in one book. There is so much mis-information out there, by people like Gevisser. The sad part is that these falsities are still taught at High school level and Primary school level. Including some universities. Its really a shame…
It was allowed for any man who had not paid lobola to slip it between the thighs of a woman, who consented to it. Not man to man.
There are other traditional medicines that were used to suppress sexual desire in young men. Eating certain foodstuffs was also forbidden, eg peanuts, eggs etc as these lead to arousal.
@Hugh, i forgot to mention that the cultural practice referred to in my comment is called ukusoma in isiZulu.
To Hugh:
I forgot to mention that the cultural practice referred to in my comment is called ukusoma in isiZulu. Check on that…
I forgot to mention that the cultural practice referred to in my comment is called ukusoma in isiZulu. Check on that…
Okay Sibusiso, you made your point, enough already
Really what difference does it make whether or not it was or wasn’t part of traditional African life before the colonialists arrived? Its real its here and discrimination is rife.
Bigotry justified by some religious or cultural norm is unacceptable, period.
And what does one do when confronted with one’s own child’s homosexuality? How to respond? I would suggest, regardless of religious or cultural dogma, that one would do well to respond with sensitivity, and not bigoted arrogance, anger, disappointment, discouragement, fear or imagined guilt.
My experience which includes many years in San Francisco, both in theatre and the arts, is that those uncomfortable with homosexuality are uncomfortable with their own sexuality, never having reached the space where there is no guilt whatsoever about any consenting sexual activity; also being certain about their own sexual inclinations without any self doubt.
The cultural sinfulness of religious belief and dogma towards sex in general is likely the cause of all our ignorance and misguided behaviour towards sexual activity. Check out Pan for example where such hateful bigotry not only didn’t exist, but the opposite worshiped. We tend to overlook the effects of religious colonialism even in countries never colonized. We are so certain how past cultures and peoples behaved, but really have no idea.
When and where can we live and let live?
Prof and others,
I know that clear communication on a subject like this will be difficult, but I am attempting to engage nonetheless. We are coming at this from differing worldviews, but I feel that there is a space where rational discourse is possible
The bottom line is this: if God does not exist, then everything that I am saying is nonsense, and all the stuff about morality is pretty meaningless.
I know that people derive systems of morality from places other than the Bible, but if there is no God, then there is no external reference point, and morality must necessarily be a construct that has no moorings.
I would have thought that, in South Africa of all places, we would have had a handle on the idea of “right” and “wrong”, rather than some wishy-washy morality by consensus. Isn’t this what our Constitution is all about? Aren’t the arguments presented here in favour of a firm morality in some areas, but then ridiculing them in others?
You see, if there is a God, just “if”, then the standard biblical position is not actually so unreasonable, both in the logical sense, and on a personal level (providing that we do not abandon the love exemplified in the person of Christ). Maybe another time we can have the debate about whether the biblical worldview stands up to the tests of rationality and truth (internal and external consistency).
@ Mike Atkins
“I know that people derive systems of morality from places other than the
Bible, but if there is no God, then there is no external reference point, and morality must necessarily be a construct that has no moorings.”
Mike, I do not understand how human morality can be based upon the will of God. If you do not do X because you fear God’s punishment (or because you desire God’s love), that is instrumental, not moral behavior. (I believe that is why Kant said that morality derives only from unconditional duty.)
Mike Atkins: whether God exists or not, morality is not nonsense. Morality is what allows us to live with each other in peace and harmony, but morality, contrary to most peoples’ belief is not about sexuality, it is about whether one consciously is willing to harm or exploit another, and nothing else.
Mike Atkins says:
May 17, 2010 at 18:53 pm
Mike, be careful of trying to claim the ‘standard’ biblical position as being in favour of an axiomatic and automatic anti homosexual position. As prof says the term – “which was not called homosexuality, because that is a term invented in the West in the second half of the nineteenth century”.
Modern Biblical scholarship has shown that we ‘read back’ into scripture our own understandings of these Texts rather than seeing them in historical/contextual nuances. The ancient Church of Rome would not understand, let alone even contemplate our modern understanding of the term.
But I am with you in saying that the Christian message is not redundant and, yes, Prof I think you are ‘guilty’ (a Biblical term unfortunately) of painting us all with the same brush. I do agree that Christianity has much to be ‘guilty’ about! However can we honestly claim that the world would be better if there was no ‘Christ event’, no grace, no forgiveness, no contesting for the poor etc that the Church also practices? Is it all negative?
Mike Atkins says:
May 17, 2010 at 18:53 pm
“if there is no God, then there is no external reference point”.
How would the reference point be established if there is a God?
Re “biblical worldview” – who’s would that be?
Michael Osborne says:
May 17, 2010 at 19:59 pm
“If you do not do X because you fear God’s punishment (or because you desire God’s love), that is instrumental, not moral behavior.”
There’s the quote of the week!
Pierre is right.
Homophobia is imperialistic!
Thanks a lot.
Romans 1:26-27: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”
1 Corinthians 6:9: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.”
You see Mike, you don’t need a God to be moral. Just follow the golden rule. Would you like to be discriminated against because of your sexual orientation? If not, don’t discriminate against others on that basis. Simple really.
Mike
Your use, particularly of the old King James, largely rendered obsolete by research and modern textus receptus, is inadequate. It does not seek to understand Paul’s context at all. Read it again after considering the Greek/Roman use of pederasty and the idle indulgences of those looking for cheap sexual thrills and not above the abuse of children as things for their own orgies. Paul writes against a backdrop of a heightened debate (stemming from Caesar Augustus, Philo, and all the other debates between the Epicureans, Stoics, Cynics etc) about what constituted self control (considered essential to be worthy of authority and ‘rule). Romans 1:18-3:20 show that Paul is demonstrating that the ancient world could not control itself with the religions and philosophies at their disposal.
He did NOT have in mind loving, committed, monogamous relationships of people so utterly disposed to the way they were ‘created’ to be. No one easily ‘chooses’ to be gay in this hostile environment. One finds oneself so! Scriptures cannot be so ‘hijacked’ by casual thinking to be used as a weapon to condemn others – WWJD!
Can one debate homsexuality without being labelled homophobic ?
Can one disagree with homosexuality whithout being labelled homophobic ?
I mean, really, why don’t gays just get on withy their bloody lives and stop shoving it down our throats all the time ? (no innuendo intended)
Who cares what your sexual orientation is ? Keep it to yourselves.
My only issue with gays is that they are almost all like reborn Christians or ex-smokers …. continually in your face with their angst and whining.
My advice to gays is this :
Shut the fuck up and stay in the bloody closet like everybody else.
@ John Roberts
Don’t come here with your imperialist tendency.
You must be an imperialist agent! (Or a liberal bastard.)
Thanks.
The only viable solution to homophobia (and racism) is that one group must learn what it means to be a part of the other- by this I’m not saying that people should deflect from their sexual orientation but rather that people need to understand what it means to be gay.
There is this massive focus on the sexual aspect of homosexuality and it honestly is more than just sex- sex is a part of the experience but relationships, chemistry and intimacy are comprised of so much more. There needs to be an awareness that homosexuality and trans-sexuality are IDENTITIES which colour the way people interact with and how they view the world. Take for example the fafafini in the Samoan culture- they are accepted and have a role to play.
I hate to rant but people’s obsession with homosexual sexual acts makes me tired. Heterosexual couples engage in oral and anal sex and yet do not see themselves as perverted. There is no such thing as acceptable behaviour in a consensual sexual relationship- that is for partners to decide. The minister may like to dress up in PVC and watch pornography while having sex yet nobody judges her character by her sexual activities or preferences. Consensual sex , between adults, is private and intimate and shouldn’t be used as a means of measuring a person’s character. It is nobody’s business what people do in their bedroom and people shouldn’t have to justify it.
Being homosexual or transgender needs to be taken out of the “gaudy”, “fabulous”,”over-the-top”, “butch/femme” or “other” category and be seen as a lifestyle choice- a choice to pursue happiness, honesty and integrity in your relationships and to be true to yourself.
I have no evidence of this, but I believe that our sexual orientation and gender identity is as much a product of our genetic make-up as it is our upbringing. Having a preference for same-sex relations is like having an affinity towards art as opposed to mathematics. There is no right or wrong here.
Gay needs to be accepted as an identity in this country and families with homo/ trans-sexual members need to show people within their communities that ,although their choices are different, there is nothing strange, new, unconventional or disgusting about being gay. Schools need to teach children that there are different types of families and that love is non-racist, sexist or culturalist.
@Prof I find Pedarasty absolutely disgusting and citing that example doesn’t help the cause.
One last thing: citing the Bible, Torah, Qur’an or any other religious text as a justification for bigotry is tired. Many people running around preaching haven’t stopped to think that these books were written thousands of years ago when people still believed the earth was flat and the laws of physics weren’t discovered. All of these texts can be used to justify sexism, racism, superstition and hatred- we’ve seen the result of abused and misused religion. Our faith needs to evolve with us as people and help make the world a better and less divided place.
Dear John (sorry, no pun intended)
You could say the same thing to ‘slaves’ looking to be emancipated, or Women militating for the right to vote, or Blacks wanting liberation and equality, or……
Just where do you draw the line in ‘speaking out’- “and then they came for me but there was no-one left to stand up”
Tata Indica says:
May 17, 2010 at 21:37 pm
I am agreeing with you, the citing of texts was simply to show that they are often quoted out of context and thus become a pretext for justifying things that I don’t believe ‘God’ is saying.
I am not citing pederasty as a ‘cause’ I am saying that was an abhorrent ancient practice that is rightly condemned – calling that ‘homosexuality’ is as far removed as JuJu being described as a modern human rights specialty!
@ Leigh
My point exactly.
There are people worse off than gays who are discriminated against all the time every day.
We discriminate aginst the poor. The handicapped. The homeless. Refugees. The list goes on and on.
But they can’t whinge because they have no platform. Whilst I disagree with all forms of discrimination I can’t quite pity the gay discriminees when so many people are worse off and discriminated against even more.
Gays should just get in the queue.
Preferably at the back. (Perhaps not !)
John Roberts,
Why the hell should I keep my sexual orientation to myself?! who the hell do you think you are?!!
you’re not asking straight people to keep their sexuality to themselves?
I do not care if it offends you, that clearly is your problem!!
Michael Osborne,
You make an important point about instrumental behaviour. In the Christian worldview, free will exists very much because of this. But looking at obedience out of fear, the Old Testament dispensation was much like this (not that the OT was wrong, and the NT right). But this was an imperfect situation, a phase waiting for the time of Christ. Biblically, the plan of God was always that relationship betwen God and man would be restored (that which was lost in Eden). The deeper meaning of morality is not about an adherence to rules, but has to do with our relationship with God, and with his essential nature (He is holy).
Sirjay Jonson,
Societal acceptance or approval of “wrong” conduct (keeping in mind that we are working for the moment from the assumption that there is a God) can be harmful to people who may be swayed by society’s mores. Particularly children. If people are not warned about danger (the stove is hot), then they can fall into harm.
AN Leigh,
I can’t compete (academically) in the area of modern biblical scholarship, but when something is named a particular thing is irrelevant to the matter at hand. I don’t see a lot of wiggle-room in biblical interpretation on these issues – not unless one is willing to say that Paul erred (which is another whole can of worms).
Maggs,
The Bible says that God is outside of space and time, and that He created the universe, and created us, by design, and not accidentally (a deeply important philosophical point this). He is infinite, and He is personal, whereas humans are personal, but finite.
Spoiler,
The “golden rule” was that which was so clearly enunciated by Jesus himself. I wonder whether anyone can find an equivalent formulation of this pre-dating Jesus, or entirely outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
AN Leigh,
I accept that most homosexual people do not choose to be that way, but I would argue that this is not how they were created – something has gone wrong (physically, emotionally or spiritually). I have mild albinism and defective eyesight, but I do not rail against God for creating me badly. I do not concede that homosexuality is purely genetic – such a discovery would make headline news. The Bible is clear that, in the broad sweep, the rise of homosxual practice is related to a rejection of God.
Prof,
Instaed of railing against the church, why not engage us (even the foaming-at-the-mouth funamentalists like me) in the area of the cruelty and hatred against gays and lesbians? Our views may be diametrically opposed, but we share the same abhorrence of injustice and cruelty. OK, maybe we should be doing this already, and maybe our message would have more credibility if we did.
john roberts does not support the discrimination of gays but rather say they must throw it in our throat, i mean people are not expected to wave flags when there is gay parade or form of demonstration, as long as they do not get killed,but we cannot give special attention to them.
Mike Atkins says:
May 18, 2010 at 7:46 am
“The Bible is clear that, in the broad sweep, the rise of homosxual practice is related to a rejection of God.”
No Mike, this is not clear at all, You have been listening to very narrow, fundamental exegesis, you have failed to hear the thrust and golden thread of grace that runs through it. read again my post. There is a wealth of context that is being totaly ignored. Are you saying that God aproves ‘child sacrifice’? (Judges 12:29-40) – I am sure you do not. Why do people insist on applying 20 centuary norms to ancient documents (as Tata Indica says).
To the other readers of this post, I appologise for laboring on scriptural texts that for most of you, are irrelevant. However since the Prof has oppened that line of ‘cross examination’ (a la Jackie) we need to pursue it since the name of ‘Christianity’ has been tarnished (Rom 2:24)
Your comment at the end needs affirmation:
“OK, maybe we should be doing this already, and maybe our message would have more credibility if we did.”
More and more evidence is coming to the fore that genetics do have a major role to play. Even in nature – things are not an absolute uniformity!
Mike Atkins says:
May 18, 2010 at 7:46 am
You wrote of three things that remain unclear “sexual sin”, “if there is no God, then there is no external reference point”, “biblical worldview”.
Sexual sin remains undefined – if by sexual sin you mean rape, paedophilia, bestiality, public indecency and the like then it’s a good definition but not relevant to this piece. If by sexual sin you mean homosexuality then some clarity as to why you consider it so will be helpful.
It’s not clear what you meant by external reference point – what would that reference point be, who decides it, how would it be authenticated?
Re biblical world view – as you know there are various interpretations of Biblical worldview. Is there someway of narrowing it to consistent interpretations? On its own a Biblical worldview (or a multitude) is not of concern – but it is of concern when such worldviews are inconsistent with our democratic values especially when attempts are made to impose those views on society or parts of it.
John Roberts and Kenneth you might have a point about shoving our sexual orientation down your throat. So maybe we should ban all public displays of people’s sexual orientation. Straight couples should be banned from holding hands and kissing in public. They should not have pictures of their families on their desks and should not ever mention their biological children or invite us to theior children’s parties and even expect us to buy gifts (how incensitive can you get!) . They should not be allowed to display this behaviour in Soapies with storylines about heterosexual relationships. They should not ever tell us about their relationships over coffee and there should be no adds on TV of happy heterosexual couples cleaning toilets and cooking dinner with Maggi mix products. It really is irritating to have heterosexuality shoved down your throat all the time and obviously is deeply upsetting to some of us who think homosexuality is fine and well as it goes, but really cannot stomach it being advertised so shamelessly all the time. But then again, maybe not. I think you get my point.
Mike Atkins says:
May 18, 2010 at 7:46 am
“something has gone wrong (physically, emotionally or spiritually)”.
So you reckon that homosexuals are defective human beings?
Rejects from God factory perhaps?
Any chance that God will issue a money back guarantee?
Any chance that God will recall the defective ones (like Lexus did with the cars with faulty brakes)?
It is noted that God clearly has a disclaimer “the rise of homosxual practice is related to a rejection of God” – but that is a shrewd attempt to disown a factory problem which won’t work, since some suggested that people are created in God’s image.
Julius Malema once said that Mangosutu Buthelezi was a “factory fault”: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?art_id=vn20091013103256163C575964
Pierre De Vos says:
May 18, 2010 at 9:17 am
“Julius Malema once said that Mangosutu Buthelezi was a ‘factory fault’”.
Maybe it’s time to get SABS standards and markings!
All the defective people can be recycled into pet food.
And that will translate in massive reductions in the carbon footprint.
Eskom can can their costly expansion programme too.
After all this intellectual musterbation, I am still waiting for the one who will celebrate when he finds out that his son or brother is gay.
Get Real!!!!!!!!
Gwebecimele says:
May 18, 2010 at 10:48 am
Hey Gwebe – I agree that the nature of something is what it is and not a cause for celebration.
But I would have no problem if a very close family member is homosexual, transexual, bi-sexual or heterosexual.
Actually we are all “factory faulted ‘ by default ,in that we are , according to the bible, all born with a sinful nature which we have inherited as descendants of Adam and Eve. (unless of course, you believe we evolved from the primordial soup and have a monkey, mollusc or single cell organism for a grandpappy) This sinful nature may manifest in different ways, homosexuality being just one. However your spiritual eyes are closed to this truth until by being “born again”, and receiving the Holy Spirit, such truths become revealed to you. Jesus dealt with a’sexual sinner’ ,(the woman at the well ) {John 1:1-42 }who he supernaturally knew was an adulterer, in a way which was far removed from the death by stoning called for at that time. Once she recognised who He was , He was able to use her testimony to call the whole town of samaritans to hear his message.
I believe the Christian church in general owes a huge apology to the homosexual community for regarding their particular sin as different to other sin.We are all sinners, and homosexuals need the love and support of the church.
@ Maggs
Well, Maggs we should embrace our friends and relatives who are gay/lesbian etc, I accept that but what I will never accept is the celebration part.
It is not different from asking me to celebrate that my friend or relative is born with disability.
I see PdV is avoiding answering my question.
Gwebecimele says:
May 18, 2010 at 11:12 am
I must admit that “celebrating” sexuality or sexual orientation is a first for me.
I cannot see how that becomes a special achievement or a particular accomplishment of sorts.
@ Mike A, I believe the golden rule did predate the time of Jesus (whenever that actually was) The point is not so much who first enunciated it, but rather how, it and other more simplistic biblical injunctions such as “love thy neighbour” can be squared with God’s alleged homophobic tendencies evidenced elsewhere in the bible. Then again, the bible especially the old testament is rife with contradictions, would you not agree?
Can we just leave the bible out of this?
Here is common sense and logic.
What if all of us wake up tomorrow as Gays AND Lesbians? ANSWER: We will wipe ourselves out of this planet in less than 100 yrs.
Now lets do the opposite.
What IF we wake up without any Gays AND Lesbians? ANSWER: Absolutely nothing will happen.
Well, there is the answer.
Homosexuality must not be celebrated nor promoted, preferable it must be contained.
I’ll say this for gays: they tend not to overpopulate the planet. And Prof is right: there’s nothing worse than having to endure the sight of happy couples parading their beastly offspring. Especially not in Maggi-mix commercials.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC7qZ6iywMY&feature=player_embedded
Pierre De Vos says:
May 17, 2010 at 12:57 pm
http://www.firstthings.com
First Things
April 2010
The Public Square – While We’re At It
A Spanish organization called Professionals for
Ethics is protesting the fact that third-grade students in
the Spanish city of Cordoba are using course material
that reads: “Nature has given us sex so we can use it
with another girl, with a boy, or with an animal.” Par¬
ents’ groups say the material “indoctrinates children
and camouflages an agenda that is prohomosexual and
critical of moral norms and values.” As of this writing,
“in the region of Castille and Leon, some 500 students
have been excused from participating in the course for
reasons of conscience, while hundreds in Madrid and
Valencia are awaiting a ruling from the courts on
whether or not they are required to attend.” So it’s up to
the courts to determine whether narents should be
required to let their children be taught that bestiality is
normal.
@ Jeffman
“I believe the Christian church in general owes a huge apology to the homosexual community for regarding their particular sin as different to other sin.”
And I believe the Christian church in general owes a huge apology to all of us for presuming to judge our private practices as “sin.”
Michael Osborne,
The Christian church is not “presuming” to judge things as sins. The Bible gives us our lead. If the Bible is false, then we are all deluded, and you can ignore everything that we claim from it.
You see, the Bible claims to be the inerrant word of God. In other words, God is the one who says that certain things are sin (actually any conduct in contradiction with His character, or eith His express commands). We are taking God’s lead (assuming that there is a God). So we are not presumptuous in this way.
It is true that we often run ahead of ourselves and say things that are not really in the Bible, but that is another story…
“A gay couple in Malawi was today found guilty of unnatural acts and gross indecency.”
http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1142890
Maggs, we may not agree with the Malawian court. But surely we have to respect the willingness of the African judges to stand up against liberal/colonial impositions of hubristic Western infraction against the laws of nature?
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
May 18, 2010 at 21:16 pm
Ja, ne.
Like the apartheid era judges did to enforce the crimes against humanity.
Especially the hanging ones!
@Pierre
If you read my first post carefully you will see that I said everyone should stay in the closet.
I find the heterosexual displays of shoving sexuality upon us just as offensive.
In other words, all people should just keep their sexuality to themselves whatever their persuasion.
Blame the ad agencies.
John Roberts is right.
I, too, am revolted by public erotica of any kind. That is why I am demanding that the abominable “Teazers” ads on Rivonia Drive — celebrating so-called “beaver” manifestations etc — be torn down by the end of June.
Will you help me fund this campaign, John Roberts?
@Mikhail
I find the Teasers ads rather amusing seeing as most of the girls are lesbian. It’s the mainstream mass media that I don’t care for.
Funnily enough the though of two lesbians doesn’t offend me as much (OK not at all) as the thought of two men together.
My wife, on the other hand, is not offended by gay men but can’t stand the thought of two girls together.
I wonder why that is ?
@ mike atkins & all the other “the bible says it’s wrong” proponents
same-sex sexual activity is imprinted allover the natural world
biology knows of at least 400 vertebrate species that practice some or other form of intra-sexual activity, varying from genital massaging to copulation
(incidentally, contrary to popular belief, these activities are very often pleasure-motivated and not intended as some “deviated” form of attempted procreation)
now, if god created all these different species, according to his will;
a) then, they are either also sinning, or
b) he did not create them, or
take your pic…
p.s. if they are indeed sinful, does that mean we’ll see them in hell too ?
Gwebecimele wrote “What IF we wake up without any Gays AND Lesbians? ANSWER: Absolutely nothing will happen … Well, there is the answer … Homosexuality must not be celebrated nor promoted, preferable it must be contained.”
This is a really, really bad argument. Let’s say you instead said: “What IF we wake up without any leopards? ANSWER: Absolutely nothing will happen … Well, there is the answer … Leopards must not be celebrated nor promoted, preferable they must be contained.”
Would anyone agree? Probably the farmers who sometimes kills them for eating livestock. But most people would probably say that the world would be a poorer place without leopards.
And lets try this “What IF we wake up without any bushmen? ANSWER: Absolutely nothing will happen … Well, there is the answer … Bushmen must not be celebrated nor promoted, preferable they must be contained.”
Of course, this statement so absurd as to make no sense – and yet some people who e.g. want to use the forests and other areas used by certain indigenous groups would probably agree with it.
I agree that celebrating someone’s sexuality is strange because it is something that (in my view) is inherent and therefore not an achievement. But that does not make Gwebecimele’s statement any less ridiculous.
Mike wrote “You see, the Bible claims to be the inerrant word of God.” Does really? I thought it was the words of Mark, Lukas, PauI etc. Tell me, Mike, where in the Bible is it claimed that it is the word of God. Now, some parts of it claim to be the words of God, like the Ten Commandments but that is something else…
Earlier, I have been commenting on stuff written by Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder but I can now see that I have been a fool – it is clear to me from the contradictory statements on this subject that Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder is a humorist. Which also makes much sense of some statements on other subjects.
@ John Roberts
OK, I take you point that the overt neo-Sapphism of the “Teaze Without the Sleaze” is OK.
But what about the disgustingly in your face “breeders” tendency one finds in the popular cinema, and splashed all over YOU magazine?
Will you fund my campaign to rein in this horror?
@ Ricky
Firstly, I am no expert on Ecology but I suspect we need leopards to balance our environment.
Secondly, you are a victim of what is called a “Bikini Effect” in statistics( Reveal vs Hide). I compared two scenarios and what their effects would be on us, these yield two totally different outcomes. There is nothing factually incorrect in my statements unless you want to strecth it and argue about 100yrs which I can extend to 200 yrs and that should settle the matter.
Gwebecimele, I actually do think that your statement is factually incorrect and, if not, so simplified as to be meaningless.
As you undoubtedly know, several persons that have shaped our common history and culture have been homosexual. Arguably, their homosexuality has been an integral part of the personality, being part in shaping who they were and what they created. I for one would argue that e.g. a number of Tjajkovski’s compositions would not have been written in the way they were, had he not been homosexual. For a music lover, that would have been a loss – as it would for the development of classical music. Of course, if you only talk about the survival of the human species, you are right – but there is an important distinction between living and merely surviving.
Anyway, to take your argument further: If tomorrow we all woke up and found ourselves to be rocket scientists, the population would surely die out as well (which it probably would not do if we all woke up homosexual – as I am sure the gays and lesbians would manage to procreate) with no one who could farm etc. But to use that argument to contain rocket scientists would strike most people as bizar.
The fact is that using such hypotheses that can NEVER come through are totally worthless as an argument. Our planet and humanity has developed exactly due to the diversity of human beings (in all ways of which sexuality is both a minor one) – and saying “what if all were the same” is therefore a stupid argument.
With respect to leopards, I would think that other predators would make sure that the ecological balance was maintained. You did not comment on my bushman analogy, I noticed.
@ Ricky
Put simply, Heterosexual vs Homosexual, which one we can live without? That was my argument but if in your world you cannot live without homosexuality then that’s your choice?
I did not respond to the Bushmen analogy because it does not change my argument.
Gwebecimele says:
May 19, 2010 at 11:39 am
Your argument in essence seem to be centered around reproduction – in effect that human beings are of value if they are able to contribute to the continuation of the species.
If that is correct then it could be extended to all people who are not capable of reproduction – sterile men and women, people past their “sell by date”, single people, work-a-holics and a host of others.
It probably applies to people who don’t want to have children too.
Maybe the debate can be extended to – “Do we need/want homosexuals and old or childless people in society?”
Etienne Marais,
The notion of Judgement does not sit easily with us. What the Bible says is hard-hitting, and people should note that Jesus did not overturn the standards of morality required in the Old Testament – He actually heigtened them (remeber where he says that if a man looks lustfully at another woman, he has committed adultery in his heart – oops, that sends me to the “guilty” queue, with all of the other sinners).
But as hard as judgement is to swallow, there are two responses. Firstly, there is an antidote in the person of Jesus Christ (read Romans 3). Secondly, judgement is actually necessary for the world to make sense. Think of aparheid perpetrators who have not repented. Think of Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe. Would we like them to be morally equivalent to Mother Theresa, or to face the same future in the next life (if there is one)?
Actualy, wha most people have a problem with is that the monsters of this world can receive forgiveness. I don’t know ehether it is true, but I heard that Geoffery Daehmer became a Christian in jail. Most of us baulk at the idea of someone like him not beign judged (until, of course, we really face up to the state of our own inner beings).
And the other issue tha you raise is the seeming contradiction of God having made the world imperfect, and then condemning what he has made. This objection is entirely correct and logical, unless one takes a good look at the Fall in Genesis.
@ Gwebecimele
Of course, if we had to choose between a world where all were heterosexual and all homosexual, it would be preferable with a world where all were heterosexual. But that is not the case.
And it is incorrect when you say that your argument was “Heterosexual vs Homosexual, which one we can live without?”; your argument was that because of this, “preferable [homosexuality] must be contained”. This argument could be used to say that everyone or every condition considered less important for the survival of humanity should be contained. This is, in my view, a very wrong and reprehensible view.
Also, I am a bit surprised with the whole containment idea – what does that meen? And why, it is not as if you become homosexual just because someone homosexual sneezes on you. Normally, you would contain something that is contageous – but is that in your view the case for homosexuality?
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=iol1274264543469S365
@ Maggs
This debate started with me challenging PdV on ,”Celebrating and be Proud of Homosexuality” and that excludes other people who unable to reproduce for whatever reason except homosexuality.
In my opinion homosexuality is a threat to the survival of human species and it must be contained. I have not argued for elimination,killing or jailing of homosexuals but for them to be accomodated.
@ Ricky
You said:
if we had to choose between a world where all were heterosexual and all homosexual, it would be preferable with a world where all were heterosexual.
I say:
Agreed. Precisely my point.
The possible opposite of “Celebrate and Promote/Proud” is to contain in order to avoid what is not desired.
so gwebe,
bisexuality you are fine with…it is just homosexuality that you want to contain/limit/minimise, since it is currently threatening the continued existence of our species
right, now i understand you
Gwebecimele says:
May 19, 2010 at 13:21 pm
Hey Gwebe,
There’s something which I am missing.
Mr and Mrs Dwork are Mr and Mr Dwork (or Mrs and Mrs).
How does that threaten survival of the species?
@ etienne
Throw in bastiality and you will have nice mix there.
@ Maggs
Here is my earlier posting.
Can we just leave the bible out of this?
Here is common sense and logic.
What if all of us wake up tomorrow as Gays AND Lesbians? ANSWER: We will wipe ourselves out of this planet in less than 100 yrs.
Now lets do the opposite.
What IF we wake up without any Gays AND Lesbians? ANSWER: Absolutely nothing will happen.
Well, there is the answer.
Homosexuality must not be celebrated nor promoted, preferable it must be contained.
Gwebecimele,
You write that “homosexuality is a threat to the survival of human species and it must be contained”. In what way is homosexuality a threat to the survival of human species? Please explain.
Of course, you answer is that if everyone were homosexual, we would wipe ourselves off the planet. But then, I assume, you also believe that celibate people are a threat to the survival of the planet and should be contained? (As an aside, most people would say that overpopulation is a bigger threat to the survival of the globe than underpopulation – in that light persons choosing not to procreate, either because they choose to remain celibate or to engage in non-procreational sex, could be seen as someone to celebrate.)
Gwebecimele, your view is nonsensical, simply because there will NEVER be a situaion where 100% of population is homosexual. A small percentage is homosexual, it has been like that probably always (at least for several thousand years if records are anything to go by) and there is no reason to believe that it will change. So, why should the fear of something that WILL NEVER HAPPEN be used to shape our views?
It’s like saying that if all clever people decided to focus their intellect on writing novels, there would be no more development, no more business, more poverty etc. Consequently, authors should not be “celebrated nor promoted, preferable [authors] must be contained”. I am sure that even can realise how stupid that would be in the view that it is never going to happen that all clever persons suddenly decide to become authors.
Again, Gwebecimele, could you please explain the whole containment idea – what does that meen? Normally, you would contain something that is contageous – but is that in your view the case for homosexuality?
@ Ricky
Would you celebrate and be proud that your son,father, uncle etc is gay?
Gwebecimele, I believe that I already wrote that, in my view, “celebrating someone’s sexuality is strange because it is something that (in my view) is inherent and therefore not an achievement”. So, I would celebrate (or not) a relative based on his/her accomplishments etc and irrespective of his/her sexual orientation.
But you do not answer any of my questions, namely:
1) So, why should the fear of something that can and will never happen (the gay-ness of 100 % of the population) shape our views, policies etc? and
2) What do you mean by containment? And why, it is not like homosexuality is contageous. Or maybe you believe it is?
Thanks.
@ Ricky
1) I do no fear homosexuality, I merely suggested it must not be promoted nor celebrated for all the obvious reasons.
2) The fact that it is on the increase should be reason enough to contain it. Remeber this is something that we are not proud of and we do not celebrate.
Gwebecimele,
Please tell me what are the “obvious reasons” – the only reason you have mentioned so far is the calamities that would befall is 100 % of the population was homosexual – but as this will not and cannot happen, this is not a good reason. So what are all the other “obvious reasons”?
And on what do you base that homosexuality is on the increase?
And how do you “contain” homosexuality – what steps would you advocate?
Finally, the way you say that homosexuality is not something to be proud of or to celebrate makes it sound like it is something to be ashamed of. That was not my point when I wrote that I would celebrate it. I also would not celebrate or be proud of heterosexuality – but that does not mean that I would want to contain it. For me, heterosexuality and homosexuality – and the fact that maybe 90 % plus are heterosxual and the rest are something else – is a fact of life, neither to be celebrated nor to be ashamed of.
Gwebecimele says:
May 19, 2010 at 14:22 pm
Hey Gwebe,
I saw that earlier on and chose not to reflect on it.
It presupposes that sexuality is “catchable”, human nature can be strictly compartmentalised and that survival is not a dominant instinct – all of which have no sound basis.
We could also speculate for example on what would happen if only men or only women children were to be born from this day forward – I reckon that the survival instinct is strong enough to find a way to overcome whatever obstacles.
My starting point is that people are all different and that’s the way it is – nobody should have the right to impose their views on how human nature should be.
I saw a while back a news report on Afgan girls being burnt with acid because they chose to go to school and another of a woman being stoned to death because she allowed herself to be raped by a married man – we’re in danger of allowing ourselves to degenerate to the same levels of fundamentalism if we don’t recognise the supremacy of our constitution.
If there’s anything that South Africans have to “celebrate” it’s our Bill of Rights!
@ Ricky
You say:
Finally, the way you say that homosexuality is not something to be proud of or to celebrate makes it sound like it is something to be ashamed of.
I say:
That depends on the individual, I know of Quueens who show off at every opportunity and those who prefer to be in a closet.
Amongst my family, culture and friends, it is a shame.
Until I got to university I knew of only one gay and no lesbian. Unless you want to suggest it is decreasing let us not debate this point.
@ Maggs
Rights and freedom must be accompanied by responsibility. Individual choices(free for all) that are against collective interests can be destructive in the long term. There are many selfish choices that must not be allowed even under the most liberal environment.
Magic word here is choice.
For those interested, see details of a debate on topic. All invited: http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/debate-invitation-the-constitution-does-not-reflect-the-moral-views-of-the-majority/
Gwebecimele,
You have still not told the “obvious reasons” why homosexuality should not be promoted or celebrated.
And the fact that you had only met one openly gay person before university is not a proof of anything. But you are probably right that there are more openly homosexual persons now than say 50 years ago – but that says nothing about the number of closeted homosexuals.
I am also still waiting for your advice on how to best “contain” homosexuality.
Your response to Maggs could be read as an indication that homosexuality is against the collective interest. Is that really your view? And, if so, why?
Gwebecimele says:
May 19, 2010 at 16:17 pm
“There are many selfish choices that must not be allowed even under the most liberal environment.”
Would you say that women/girls in Afganistan should not go to school?
And if they do then then should be burned with acid?
@Mikhail
Yes, certainly I will help you rein in this hooror and fund your campaign.
Please post your banking details along with your username and password so I can do an online transfer.
Maggs, these stories about girls being doused with acid in Afghanistan for going to school was concocted by liberal imperialists to justify their invasion of a sovereign state.
Suprised you did not know that.
@ Mike Atkins
“People should note that Jesus did not overturn the standards of morality required in the Old Testament”
Mike, do you eat bacon or any form of shellfish?
Do you wear garments that contain both natural and synthetics fibres?
Do you carefully avoid sitting in chair where an “unclean” woman may recently have reposed?
Do you insist that the community stone to death your child, if he is disobedient?
One celebrates something when the whole world tells you that who and what you are is wrong or bad. That is why one has a Black History Month, why Steve Biko wrote what he did, why one has Gay Pride. It is to counter thge prejudice hatred and ignorance that, sadly, is also on display from some on this Blog. Of course if I were ever to have children my greatest fear would be that my child would come home to say (a) that he or she is heterosexual and (b) a new born Christian.
@ Pierre
“Of course if I were ever to have children my greatest fear would be that my child would come home to say (a) that he or she is heterosexual and (b) a new born Christian.”
Bigot!
@ Maggs
How is going to school destructive and against collective interests?
Gwebecimele says:
May 20, 2010 at 9:43 am
Hey Gwebe,
There are those who believe that women/girls should not be educated – it is against their “collective interests”.
They impose that through fear, torture, pain and suffering.
In their view these girls make “selfish choices that must not be allowed” and must be stopped – examples must be made of those who dare to go against their moral values.
And they can do it because they are dominant and have the power to do so.
So perhaps my question should be rephrased.
Who determines what are selfish choices and against what reference points?
Michael Osborne,
I don’t want to be critical, or mak anything personal, but I was wondering whether you had had any bad experiences at the hands of the church, or of Christians (I am not falling into the trap of “psychologising” your arguments to get past what you have said – I am happy to respond on merit).
@ Maggs
Let us not broaden this discussion but I will answer you in this way. We can all agree that going to school is a positive contribution to human development and the fact that a few nutcases see it otherwise should not confuse us. The test that I applied was simple and straight forward” What if we all do it” and I believe it works 98% of the time. Add to that “Celebrate” and “Proud of” then you have 3 tests. Anything that fails these 3 tests and probably more tests shold be contained. The neutral position between shame and “proud of” exist only in theory. I am less interested in debating that infinite space.
My original position is, Homosexuality is something that we must not be proud of or promote, it must be contained.
Unless you say you will celebrate and promote Homosexuality (including in your family) then there is no debate.
Picking up extremes such as bastiality, barbarism, killing and make it a norm or standard does not help the debate. By the way they also fail my 3 tests.
I hope this explains it.
Gwebecimele says:
May 20, 2010 at 14:23 pm
Hey Gwebe,
We agree that
This story gets more sympathy from me but the sentencing of gays in Malawi receive more coverage. This woman had no choice.
http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Rebels-mutilation-campaign-20100514
Gwebecimele says:
May 20, 2010 at 14:23 pm
Sorry – damn send button!
Anyway – we agree that sexual orientation is not a cause for general celebration.
While I think everyone has a right to decide whether or not to approve, not approve or could-not-care-less about sexual orientation or gender, my view is that imposing individual or even collective views on society is wrong.
I have no issue with homosexuality in my family, immediate or otherwise – I have not ever enquired about anyone’s orientation, it’s neither of interest nor any of my business.
I am not clear on how homosexuality can be “promoted” – some clarification will be useful.
Your idea of “containment” is also puzzling – how exactly would it be contained?
Like Malawi is doing?
@ Maggs
I am not talking about jailing, insulting, beating or any of that sort. What I am against is the show off. They must keep it amongst amongst themselves.
Gwebecimele says:
May 20, 2010 at 16:10 pm
Ah – now I get your drift.
I accept that it is not what I thought you were suggesting.
Gwebecimele, your position has a long history in western thought. I believe that it is misguided. It is also obviously not in line with the fundamental principles underlying our Bill of Rights. If we agree that all human beings have an inherent dignity, then your argument makes no sense. Think about it this way: what would you say if we replaced “homosexuality” with “black”. As in: I don’t hate black people but believe they must be contained. This is what many supporters of apartheid said. They said this because they believed black people do not have the same right to dignity than white people. They offered many reasons for this as you do regarding homosexuality, but at its heart the argument is based on assumptions that are profoundly insulting to a section of the population. In the end, this is more an ethical issue than an issue about reason. Do we respect the human dignity of all or not? I do. You do not. I think my ethical view is superior to yours. Debating it, in a way, would be insulting to me. An abhorrence of racism, sexism and homophobia is an ethical choice. I am very glad I made the choice I did. You need to live with the consequences of your choice and what it says about your own ethical commitments.
@ Gwebe and Pierre – this ought to help a little.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIJX93nCfhM
@ PdV
Replace Homosexual with Black then apply my 3 tests above and you will come to the right conclusion. What if all of us were Black: Answer Nothing will happen. Do blacks celebrate and proud of being Black? YES. Is a black proud of giving birth to another black: Answer: YES.
Unless you want to suggest that Whites will be unhappy to give birth to Blacks, well you require no education to know that is the impossible.
Put differently, homosexuality adds no value to humanity/society, without it life will go on and probably be better.
@ Pierre
“One celebrates something when the whole world tells you that who and what you are is wrong or bad”
Pierre, this makes no sense to me. Suppose there developed a strange bigoty that hated tall people. The whole world concluded that anyone over 1.9 was inherently immoral. Would tall people then “celebrate” the fact that they were tall? Yes, they would condemn the prejudice as arbitrary or stupid. But why — expect perhaps as an understandable psychological response — would one “celebrate” being the target of bigotry?
@ Gwebe
“Unless you want to suggest that Whites will be unhappy to give birth to Blacks, well you require no education to know that is the impossible.”
Gwebe, you are a genius.
Gwebe,
You talk about the ”What if we all do it” as being simple and straightforward. Yes, but also extremely stupid. Just one example to show the stupidity of it: if we all spent our times writing novels, then humanity would stop to exist (we would all starve) – but does this mean it is bad to write novels?
And saying that nothing would happen if we were all black is nonsense. Of course, humanity would not fail to exist but the world would be a much poorer place – just as if we were all white, hispanic, Asian etc.
Gwebe, you fail to understand the value of diversity in humanity and human development.
And I am still waiting for the “obvious reason” why homosexuality must be contained (apart from the inane “what if we all”-test). And the proof for your statement that homosexuality is on the rise (tell me, do you ever think it could raise to such level as to threaten the survial of the human species?).
And some of your statements, like “They must keep it amongst amongst themselves” lead me to believe that you are simply a person uncomfortable with homosexuality who try to give it a scientific sheen. And I find your statement “without it life will go on and probably be better” quite puzzling – can you explain how life would be better?
@ Ricky
You continously quote me in a selective manner and I am tired of saying the same things over and over again.
You can take the debate elsewhere or read my previous postings.
You must be the stupid one by suggesting the impossible ( How can one spend all one’s time writing novels?)
If your intention is to try and build a profile for yourself, go try it elsewhere.
Take your stupid arguments elsewhere.
Any takers?
“For example, if someone convened a public debate about the morality of homosexuality and invited Jon Qwelane, the country’s most famous homophobe, I would give my gay bottom to be allowed the opportunity to debate him.” EUSEBIUS MCKAISER – http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=109642
Gwebe
At this point, I am sure most people have moved on to other subjects but let me still make a few comments:
You say that you are “tired of saying the same things over and over again.” Well, I am also tired of reading the same things; so instead of doing that, why don’t you simply answer the questions that I and others have put to you?
I never said that YOU were stupid, but only that the “what if everyone”-test was stupid. Which you have confirmed now, by the way. It is, of course, impossible that everyone should one day wake up and decide to spend all their time writing novels (although your argument that “How can one spend all one’s time writing novels?” puzzles me since that is surely what authors do (when they do not sleep, eat etc) – the impossibility is that everyone should want to do that). But it is even more impossible that everyone should one day wake up and be homosexual. So, if the test cannot be used for the “writing-novels” example due to impossibility, surely it cannot be used for the homosexuality example.
Well, I will not repeat all my questions (about how to contain homosxuality, why homosexuals make the world a worse place, how you know the number is increasing) but simply assume that you do not have any answers and therefore instead retorts to calling me stupid – which says more about you than me.
If your intention is to try and build a profile for yourself, go try it elsewhere.
Take your stupid arguments elsewhere.
“Zuma slams Malawi imprisonment of gays
May 27, 2010 3:39 PM | By Brendan Boyle
“President Jacob Zuma today condemned Malawi’s imprisonment of two gay men who publicly announced their intention to marry. ”
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article474052.ece/Zuma-slams-Malawi-imprisonment-of-gays
maggs,
this is hardly a condemnation:
“We have condemned the action taken to arrest people in terms of our constitution because our constitution says so. We have stated the views of this country contained in the constitution” zuma said
this is merely a reference to an ostensible condemnation, which condemnation is nowhere to be found (unless he is referring to pierre’s condemnation, but i don’t think pierre has been formally appointed as his spokesperson yet)
how much more noncommital can one get than this fragment: “in terms of our constitution because our constitution says so” ? what does that even mean ?!
no, if zuma was going to condemn the actions, he had the opportunity to do so in the first person; anything short of that is just the usual zuma-esque obfuscation
@ etienne ,
I read that. Then read it again. And again.
I don’t have a clue as to what President Zuma meant by that, if he said it.
Maybe it’s my inability to grasp nuances!
etienne marais says:
May 27, 2010 at 23:19 pm
Ok Etienne,
I take back my comment. Now I know what our President meant.
“Malawi’s President Pardons Gay Couple
Published: May 29, 2010
LILONGWE, Malawi, (Reuters) — Malawi’s president, Bingu wa Mutharika, on Saturday pardoned a gay couple who had been sentenced to 14 years in prison after their conviction on charges of unnatural acts and gross indecency. ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/world/africa/30malawi.html
Well done to President Zuma!