Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[Insidious Rex]

Yes its strange to say but enough people in america can now envision a black man as president but not enough can envision a homosexual to get one elected to that office. I can only imagine the "agenda" hysteria that would erupt forth from the right... Especially with the gay marriage debate as it is.

Plus the office of president has a very important ceremonial role for most americans unlike say a senator or a governor or something. And I don’t think Americans would be able to get their minds around the concept of a president living in the white house with his male partner or, perhaps just as bad, a SINGLE president! Im pretty sure it will be a while until we see an openly gay president, a single president or for that matter an openly atheist president. Too many Americans would just find it too disturbing. Of course 12 months ago I would have put “a black president” on that list as well for the very same reasons…

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Of course, one might point out that when the next gay president is elected, it'll only be the 'next" one.

[GrayMouser]

Wow, something that Muslim, Christian, and Communist nations can finally agree on -it's okay to murder homosexuals.

Funny, the nations opposing this are mostly those secular Western ones that are constantly being decried by religious leaders for their lack of morality and failure to embrace the culture of life.

In favor of the amendment to remove sexual orientation from the UN resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (79 nations):

Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Dar-Sala, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Comoros, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Opposed to the UN amendment to remove sexual orientation from the resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (70 nations):

Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bhutan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Micronesia (FS), Monaco, Montenegro, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Response the first (media coverage): I know, that was shocking! Also shocking, though, was the way reporters dealt with the issue; I've read a lot of people dismissing pretty much the entire continent of Africa as "superstitious and socially backwards." Dude, even if you do feel that, just plopping it out there in black and white ain't gonna do ****, besides make oneself feel smug and self-satisfied as a secular liberal. Which seems to be what secular liberals are best at, anyway . . .

Response the second (religious response): From a Catholic perspective, I think it's pretty safe to assume that this perspective is still in play, not to mention the catechism doctrine that homosexual persons should always be treated with respect and dignity. I would imagine that a similar perspective would be put forward by the vast majority of other Christian and Jewish groups. At least those based in the basic Eurocentric and Mediterranean socio-cultural contexts where Christianity and Judaism have historically flourished the most.

But, I think the most important lesson to be taken away from the whole debacle is: it's appalling that enough countries in the UN think that homophobic violence is not really a serious issue to allow such an amendment to be passed.

[The Gaffer]

Disgusting.

In some cases it's not that they don't think it's a serious issue, it's that they're the ones perpetrating it.

GM, do you happen to know if this is something that can be vetoed?

[inked]

The Huffington Post weighs in:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thor-h..._b_787024.html

Do note that Israel is the only Middle East country to oppose this.

[brownjenkins]

While I don't like the implicit implication in the vote, I've never been a fan of specific hate crime laws. If you choose to ban extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, you don't need to spell out all the possible instances. In fact, but doing so at all, you take power away from the statement.

[The Gaffer]

I think I get your drift, in theory. However, I think in practice, the opposite is true.

It is always possible for some criminal government to twist the broad definitions; adding the detail brings into focus those areas where, in practice, most of the prejudice is directed.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

Do note that Israel is the only Middle East country to oppose this.

Well, Israel is still an outpost of Western liberalism transplanted into the area. Most Israelis are still secular- the Tel Aviv vs. Jerusalem distinction-though the religious fundamentalists are growing in strength and numbers, and in the places where they have power- like Jerusalem- Jews, Muslims, and Christians can sink their differences and come together to express their hostility to homosexuals.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Response the second (religious response): From a Catholic perspective, I think it's pretty safe to assume that this perspective is still in play, not to mention the catechism doctrine that homosexual persons should always be treated with respect and dignity. I would imagine that a similar perspective would be put forward by the vast majority of other Christian and Jewish groups. At least those based in the basic Eurocentric and Mediterranean socio-cultural contexts where Christianity and Judaism have historically flourished the most.

Yes, now. Because of course now the basic Eurocentric and [northern, western] Mediterranean socio-cultural context is one of post-Enlightenment liberal secularism- that's what the Pope is always complaining about.

When Judaism and Christianity were historically flourishing the most in Europe and the Mediterranean, their idea of treating homosexual persons with dignity and respect was to demand that they be stoned, racked, eviscerated, hung, decapitated, and burnt alive. That went on for (in the case of Christianity) about 1500 or 1600 years, followed by a couple of centuries when the churches said, grudgingly, well, I guess it's okay to just lock them up.

And now, for the last 0.1% of its existence most (not all) of Christianity acknowledges that homosexuals should not be punished by the law for their proclivities

That's progress- but the African and Caribbean Christians can convincingly argue that they're following the tradition of Christianity for the vast majority of its existence, before it got corrupted by humanism and started caving into the secular liberals.

[GrayMouser]

Oh boy:

Kenya's Prime Minister Raila Odinga has ordered the arrest of gay couples in the country.

Addressing a rally in the capital Nairobi on Sunday, the prime minister termed their behaviour "unnatural".

“If found the homosexuals should be arrested and taken to relevant authorities,” Mr Odinga said.

The premier thrilled the crowd in a largely conservative country when he asserted that the country's recent census showed there were more women than men and there was no need for same sex relationships.

He termed it "madness" for a man to fall in love with another man while there were "plenty of women" and added that there was no need for women to engage in lesbianism "yet they can bear children".

http://www.africareview.com/News/-/9...0/-/i857rvz/-/

Baptised as an Anglican in his youth[25] Odinga later became a Born-Again Christian[26] through an Evangelical church in Nairobi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raila_Odinga

Most of the (admittedly secular) sites I have been following this on don't put the blame on Africans, they put it on Christian conservatives.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

This post could be very long, but I have a presentation to work on, so it amounts to this:

1) There was no real conception of a homosexual person until the mid-nineteenth century. People thought of these issue in terms of acts, not in terms of a fundamental orientation.

2) The prosecution of same-sex acts primarily arose from imperial law, and was aimed at the passive partner (insert long spiel about pre-medieval gender constructions).

3) So far as I know, while there was never really an openness to the issues, there was no significant ecclesiastical campaign against sodomy (to use the language of the time) until the eleventh century. Even then, I don't believe capital punishment began to be used by the medieval legal authorities until the thirteenth century, and I don't know if it was ever recommended by churchmen. Certainly, to portray the Christian approach as one long auto-da-fe is a massive over-simplification.

Out of curiosity, where did you get that list of punishments?

[inked]

Well, it's not just homosexuals, ya'll. Note this is for heterosexuals, too, - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ss-hanged.html

[Gwaimir Windgem]

How horrific. To make her son pull the chair out from under her feet . . .

[Tessar]

I was actually a little confused by that... I wasn't sure if they meant the "victim" as in the wife who was stabbed, or the "victim" as in the woman who was hung. They probably mean the woman who was hung, but my mind is a little boggled by the idea that a child would (or would be forced to) basically hang his own mother... that's what makes me wonder if it wasn't the son of the stabbed woman because otherwise I just can't conceive it. :-/

Very sad all around.

[The Gaffer]

Yeah, I understand part of the idea of this sort of penal system is to give recompense, sometimes in the form of revenge, to the victim or their family.

Not a million miles from letting them watch whilst she gets electrocuted, IMO.

[Valandil]

Yes - I'm sure it was the son of the woman who was murdered. The woman executed wouldn't be referred to as 'victim' - certainly not by the authorities. I wonder how old the son was.

It's all quite sad.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

This post could be very long, but I have a presentation to work on, so it amounts to this:

1) There was no real conception of a homosexual person until the mid-nineteenth century. People thought of these issue in terms of acts, not in terms of a fundamental orientation.

2) The prosecution of same-sex acts primarily arose from imperial law, and was aimed at the passive partner (insert long spiel about pre-medieval gender constructions).

3) So far as I know, while there was never really an openness to the issues, there was no significant ecclesiastical campaign against sodomy (to use the language of the time) until the eleventh century. Even then, I don't believe capital punishment began to be used by the medieval legal authorities until the thirteenth century, and I don't know if it was ever recommended by churchmen. Certainly, to portray the Christian approach as one long auto-da-fe is a massive over-simplification.

Out of curiosity, where did you get that list of punishments?

Torture, the Spanish Inquisition, of course; burning alive- the laws instituted by Theodosius against the feminine partner; later extended by Justinian to both.

In France, first-offending sodomites lost their testicles, second offenders lost their member, and third offenders were burned. Women caught in same-sex acts could be mutilated and executed as well.[6]

and capital punishment is gradually extended through most of Europe- hanging or beheading according to local laws (disemboweling comes under the "hanged, drawn and quartered" penalty).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history

To say that these and other punishments were inflicted by the state and not the church -including Protestants, of course- is dodging the issue- like saying the Communist Party of the Soviet Union didn't actually execute or even condemn anyone to death, and thus has clean hands.

[GrayMouser]

The Catholic Church, being at its heart still a Western, European institution, tends to follow the trend toward liberal humanism prevalent there, albeit with a time-lag.

This actually makes it a force for progress on gay issues in places like India, where the Catholic Bishops Conference supports decriminalisation, and Uganda, where the Church opposed the new law seeking the death penalty for gays pushed by Evangelicals.

[GrayMouser]

The reports also said that judiciary officials spent almost an hour in talks with Saharkhizan's family before the hanging, trying to convince them to spare Jahed's life but were unsuccessful

It looks like it was the first wife's son; her family would have the right to demand vengeance.

And the crime was murder, not sex- somebody stabbed the first wife, though I wouldn't put all that much faith in the Iranian judiciary, especially whe the accused is a woman- she could have been a convenient scapegoat.

In the Maoist days in China, execution was by a bullet in the back of the head; then they'd send the bill for the bullet to the family- and they'd better pay it.