Earlier this evening, the American Psychiatric Association’s legislative body formally condemned the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda. Their action will now go to the APA Board of Trustees where it is expected to become official APA policy.
Although the bill appears to be finished for this Parliament, it may be back during the next one. The APA reps wanted to make clear to mental health professionals in Uganda that the proposed bill was counter to professional guidance. Here is the action paper:
Action Paper
Title: Ugandan Anti-homosexuality Bill
Whereas: The Hon. David Bahati, a member of the Ugandan Parliament, has introduced an Anti-Homosexuality Bill in the Ugandan Parliament calling for:
- Seven years of imprisonment for anyone who attempts to engage in homosexual contact
- Life imprisonment for anyone who engages in sexual penetration of a member of the same gender;
- Death for “aggravated homosexuality” which includes repeated offenses of homosexuality or engaging in a homosexual act while HIV-positive.
- Imprisonment of up to three years for failing to report violations of the statute within 24 hours of awareness of the offense
Whereas: The bill is based on a misguided attempt to “protect” the traditional heterosexual family from corruption and to prevent the corruption of traditional Ugandan concepts of morality by Western influences;
Whereas: the bill is predicated on the assertion that “same-sex attraction is not an innate and immutable characteristic” and that Ugandans can be seduced into homosexuality if Western thought takes hold;
Whereas: the Ugandan National Association of Social Workers has issued a position paper supporting the concept that homosexuality is pathological drawing from religious concepts and from “scientific” studies of 50 years ago that have long since been discredited by the scientific community;
Whereas: the death penalty is mandated for HIV positive gay people who engage in same sex contact but a similar penalty is not mandated for HIV positive heterosexual people who engage in sexual relations despite the fact that, in Africa, the primary mode of HIV transmission is through heterosexual sexual contact;
Whereas: the Ugandan tabloid, the Rolling Stone, called for gays to be lynched and published a list of people alleged to be gay;
Whereas: at least one gay activist in Uganda has been murdered after being listed in the Rolling Stone — which Ugandan police have attributed to a robbery;
Be It Resolved: That the American Psychiatric Association reaffirms its position that there is no credible scientific evidence that same sex attraction is pathological, chosen, needs “cure,” or entails threat to heterosexual families or to children;
That the American Psychiatric Association condemns societal scapegoating and stigmatization of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people anywhere in the world;
That the American Psychiatric Association condemns criminalization of homosexual behavior and calls upon the Ugandan legislature to reject the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.
Refer to: Council on Minority Mental Health and Health Disparities
Author or Authors:
David L. Scasta, M.D., DFAPA, AAOL for the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists
I helped work on this paper and believe that, once official policy, the APA will use this statement to reach out to Uganda’s mental health and medical communities in the coming months.
Richard Willmer,
As I have said often here – I really, really, really dislike labels that catagorize anyone’s totality by an assumed definition of that label. Just seeing how people here take issue to various definitions to these labels is a good example of why we need to be very careful. Thank you for your post and what it said – I agree.
Hi Ann,
I suspect my being homosexual takes on importance for me, Ann, only in so far as I may feel “less than”, not “good enough”, being “out not in”, “on guard” in relation to others. I own this as my own problem, not others, which I’m working on. However, often my perception of being “out not in” is correct; and, is not a skewed perception. There are those of my co-religionists, and not few in number, who definitely feel … they’re good, I’m bad … they’re right, I’m wrong … they’re in, I’m out.
So, it becomes important to me, Ann, when I feel I’m attacked in some way because I’m gay. I’m not left with the warm fuzzies when my co-religionists have a judgmental attitude toward homosexuality, which happens to include me.
The notion that a person somehow ‘inferior’ simply because he/she is gay is, in my not-so-humble opinion, … well, silly. Fortunately, there are many parts of the Church that do not fall prey to this nonsense.
Teresa,
Why is sexual orientation (still not sure what that means to any given person) quite important to you? I certainly understand being a minority within a minority within a minority, however, I do not understand placing such an importance on it. What is it about your co-religionists that doesn’t leave you with the warm fuzzies? Their attitude toward homosexuality or you? The first I can understand (in a way), the second, I cannot.
@ Ann
I think you’ve hit on a very important point here about ‘terminology’. What people understand by the term ‘homosexuality’ varies enormously (both inside and outside the Church). There is a lot of ‘sloppy thinking’ (often driven by prejudice) around on this subject. People like Warren take great care with how they use terms, differentiating between ‘homosexual’ (adjective), ‘same-sex attraction’, ‘same-sex activity’ and ‘same-sex relationships’ – all of which terms carry, at the very least, different connotations.
I object profoundly to the use of the term ‘homosexual’ (noun) to describe a person. ‘Homosexual person’ has been generally substituted for ‘homosexual’ in Catholic dialectic, although ‘LGBT person’ is starting to be used now as well. I do use ‘gays’ as a short-hand to describe LGB people, but sometimes think I shouldn’t.
Transgendered-ness (itself a very broad term) is a completely different phenomenon; many transgendered persons are actually heterosexual with respect to the sex on their birth certificate, and many – in common with many gay men and lesbians – are in stable. committed and loving relationships.
Use of terminology is very important, as it shows the ‘thinking’ behind what is being said.
Adding to that, I believe that identity is formed through our primary sources. As Teresa aptly described it, a person’s world of comparison consisted of their family, neighbors, and church. As we industrialized, it included work to a greater degree than previously. She left out my personal ‘biggie’ though…the media. By virtue of television, examples of what it meant to be a man, a woman, a girl, a boy, a family…those were all dispensed to us in captivating daily doses to the point that for many of us, they exceeded the daily doses that we received from all the other sources combined.
Little Johnny or Suzie processes a lot more information that may impact their sense of self…their identity…from watching an hour of television than they do from an hour of some childhood activity. Magnify that to the real hours most spend and factor in all the other media outlets that teach us what’s hot, what’s not, what’s expected, what isn’t. I strongly feel that, for most, the media is the primary contributor to any sense of identity and yet most of us simply take it for granted and view it as ‘passive entertainment’.
Jayhuck, not meaning to step on any answer Ann should give; I believe she meant, most people think that a Christian Homosexual woman is an oxymoron, in fact that person doesn’t exist for them. I’m sure Ann believes that homosexual women can be Christian and take their Faith very seriously. I’m sure that’s what she thinks about me.
At least, that’s how understood her question.
Ann,
The only thing I have a problem with is this paragraph. It sounds like you’re saying that a homosexual woman cannot hold her religion and faith dear to her? Is that what you meant? Just trying to clarify. Thanks
Eddy,
This is somewhat problematic, I agree. Especially, as many gay and lesbian affirmative therapists refer to the Hooker (1957) study which asserts non-pathology associated with being gay. Hooker’s conclusion is reasonable, but basing it on the Rorschach is dubious…yet it is cited as authoritative to this day.
It is even cited as such in the recent APA guidelines for SIT.
More powerful would be to debunk the clearly wrong and inflammatory and hateful comments associated with this legislation.
I love the part, though, about heterosexual risks of HIV.
Thank you, David, for your candid honesty. It is a bit of a pickle, isn’t it?
Interesting article from today’s Daily Monitor (the main ‘non-censored’ UG daily): http://www.monitor.co.ug/LifeStyle/Relationships/-/691230/1165790/-/dqgdfm/-/index.html
The APA might also wish to comment on what is being shown in the photograph accompanying this article. How would we feel if American or British kids were used to ‘campaign’ on such matters? (I’d be ‘hopping mad’!)
http://sxnews.gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/uganda-anti-gay-bill-still-on-cards-008877.html
‘Maazi’
Indeed, my dear: you do tend to say the same thing over and over and over again.
I have no interest in turning anywhere into a ‘pan-sexual paradise’; I’m more concerned about ‘the Pearl’ not becoming ‘the Bloodbath’. I have many Ugandan friends, you see.
And yet the APA statement says:
Knowing what we know about the fact that our friends in Uganda DO read and are internet savvy…wouldn’t it be wise for a statement such as the one of this topic to speak clearly and to not make leaps of logic. IF I did read the only official statement that UNASW released, ‘drawing from’ is quite an overstatement Their references to studies of 50 years ago were a debunking NOT a ‘drawing from’. This could make it seem to Ugandans that the APA is merely swallowing what they’ve been fed and aren’t actually doing the homework before releasing their conclusions. This fits in with their characterization of us meddling folks of the Western culture and, to me, seems counter-productive.
Teresa,
Sorry about the “Theresa,” oddly enough, that error is rooted in lost love :).
Jayhuck,
No, not at all. I was referring to assumptions/pre-conceived ideas that people have or make when the word homosexual is used to describe someone.
@All,
Something that I’ve been thinking about, spurred by a comment by David B.
As a general dateline, prior to the mid-20th century (?), no one worried about terminology, no one discussed homosexuality, no one discussed heterosexuality, no one discussed private affairs in public (except movie stars and soap operas), no one therapized themselves ad nauseum. Most persons adapted to life, which was often a tough life.
Often, worrying about the crops, finding the next meal, working in a factory, tending to more than 2.1 children, living through chronic illness, death, etc., … daily subsistence filled the days. Homosexuals (if they knew something was amiss … even without a name), as well as everyone else, did what they had to do to get on with life.
Prior to the 20th century, probably most homosexual women got married or went into a convent. No difference in comparison for str8 single women who really didn’t want to marry. They probably never romanticized that marriage was a heaven on earth. A convent, no better. Homosexual men or str8 men: marriage, military, sailors, religious life. Some managed to stay single, because it was somewhat more acceptable to do so.
People expected life to be tough, simply because it was tough. Society had rules that were generally accepted whether the individual liked it or not. People married people they didn’t ‘love’, because that’s how things worked. It was no bed of roses for men or women. But they managed to create a life, often against unimaginable odds … regardless of what was going on inside their heads.
I know technology, economics, and education have played an immense part in this change. But, I ask myself the question, are we really any better off in the spiritual order than our forebears?
Just some thoughts about how, in my own lifetime, when I or my friends hadn’t a clue what the word homosexual meant, gay, sodomy, queer, lesbian, same-sex attracted … the same. How meaningless all those things were for society as a whole.
Are we any better off now than then?
I (and a lot of other Conservative Christians) strongly believe that there ARE sinful heterosexual lifestyles. Many disapprove of ANY bar atmosphere but some don’t take issue with your ‘neighborhood bar’ or ‘sports bar’ but maintain strong moral objections to those commonly labeled as ‘single’s bars’…where ‘hooking up’ is what a number of patrons are there to do.
I take exception also to the conclusion that
I realize that ‘going to the gay bar’ isn’t expressed in the conclusion but it was an example in a paragraph leading to the conclusion. I’ve been to a number of gay bars over the years and none were a hotbed of ideas, thoughts, perceptions or spiritual arguments. As to other venues where gay people might connect, I’ve had friends involved in community AIDS centers, in hospice, in theatre, etc. where the likelihood of their connecting with other gays was great…and they were not cautioned away from such involvement. And, in these scenarios, the option for exposure to ideas, thoughts, perceptions and spiritual arguments would be likely. I maintain that it IS the fear that you might slip in some weak moment and not a secret desire to ensure that you only consume what the church spoonfeeds you.
Hyperbolic overstatements are seldom true: This one counts among them.
Does “all” mean “ALL”; does “even the slightest desire to discover the truth” mean just that? Both when I was in active ministry and in the years after I left, I encountered many Conservative Christians who did have a desire to know and understand the gay experience. So, I reject the statement with its absolutes as untrue. I give it though that it followed a sentence about personal rage which I presume explains the overstatement.
Fortunately, this is – I believe – beginning to change.
As a large number of gay persons began asserting their faith – first in separatist churches like MCC, and then in mainstream churches like UCC, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. – the notion that to be gay was, in and of itself – a rejection of faith has diminished.
And this visibility gave more conservative gay Christians permission to be gay people without giving up their faith – or the sexual confines of their faith.
So while it is certainly true that some people – both in the gay community and in the conservative Christian community – still see an oxymoron, for many that no longer is a confusing idea (praise be to God). And with time, I think this trend will continue.
Theresa,
When I discuss this with others, they have that same odd look, and they assume that the “healthiest identity” is to live out one’s attractions. They assume pathology in those that don’t, or that they are odd.
There is a pressure to simplify, to eliminate the ambiguity, to close the open circle.
Sometimes this is done by demeaning and devaluing those that acknowledge and hold constant the ambiguity.
Consider the following scientific phrase now being used to eliminate so many assumptions: Men Having Sex with Men (as opposed to homosexuals). It is meant to deal with the data of behavior.
I am not arguing that you should change your word usage. I am glad you have found something that fits, and I know other Catholics who have concluded the same, “I am gay, or a lesbian and I am a full member of the Catholic Church, which only requires that I stay celibate, not change my attractions.”
Teresa–
Just for the record…I’ve had many experiences with the private Catholic confessional. I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic school from kindergarden through 9th grade…then CCD classes for the remainder of my high school years. However, I can’t recall ever going to confession anywhere other than my home parish and ours seemed to be a pretty speedy process for most. You knelt down, said the ‘Bless me Father’, listed your sins, got the penance, said the Confiteor, and then went to a pew to ‘say your penance’. I’m thinking that the difference in our experience may be that confession has evolved since I last went way back in the 1960’s. (Yeah, I’m that old!) If memory serves, that face to face confession experience was a rather new option back then.
Yikes, in thinking back that far, I don’t think I ever even confessed to a homosexual thought. Although I had ‘feelings’ and ‘attractions’ for other boys, I thought of it as a phase. I chalked up any actual experiences to ‘experimentation’ until I came out in my freshman year of college. LOL. There were four of us who hung out throughout high school. One guy and I had been friends since the second grade; another moved to our school in the 6th grade; the other we met in 9th grade. Although I switched over to public school, the four of us remained close friends. Anyway, we each went off to separate colleges and came home for Christmas with the message “I’ve got something to tell you”.
Teresa,
You are 100% right 😀
Teresa,
Yes, I would agree with you here too. Homosexual does have a sort of “clinicalness” about it as well. I think trying to get beyond the terminology would be a good exercise for us all 😉
Ann,
YIPPEE!! :=
I too think Eddy puts it rather well. Being ‘ashamed’ of who one is never healthy, and is not the same things as a realistic appraisal of ones’ self as a ‘sinner’ (something which each and every one of us is).
‘Same-sex attraction’ is simply a ‘phenomenon’ – a ‘fact of life’: some people experience it; many do not. (One can also feel ‘attraction’ for someone without ‘lusting after’ him/her, of course.) The ‘moral status’ of consensual sexual activity (of any kind) is surely dependent upon the effect it has on human relationships. Let’s just turn things ‘on their head’ for a moment: the situation where a person has entered into, say, a marriage, but has secret ‘side dishes’ of the same sex is perhaps behaving in a rather less ‘moral’ manner than someone in a same-sex relationship who deals honestly and openly with their partner. In places like UG (much in our consciousness at the moment), the ‘secret side dish’ phenomenon (a very predictable consequence of homophobia) is a – possibly the – major HIV risk factor,along with the patchy availability of medication.
Thank you, Ann, for your thoughtful reply; and, the willingness to tease out the terminology surrounding this issue. Your questions and probing challenge the issue and myself to look deeper; and, not stick with my own little notions. Do I think you’re right … upon reflection, yes, absolutely. I think that, also, of the term ‘gay’. But, here’s the rub, Ann. I’m willing to be misunderstood for awhile, for the sake of continuing to probe or discuss something that may be more topical.
If I use the lexicon of ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual’, most people immediately know where I’m coming from … they get that I have sexual attractions to some women. If we’re discussing same-sex marriage, they know I have a personal interest in the topic. If I use the term same-sex attracted, most often I get blank stares or questioning looks. The discussion then gets veered off into another path, which often is not worth the effort.
But I’m beginning to appreciate the nuance embedded in the term same-sex attractions; although, I’ve been pretty adamantly opposed to it previously. Much to think about, for sure.
Thanks, Ann, for your willingness and thoughtfulness in pursuing some of these topics. It’s been most helpful.
Oops. Let’s try this. 🙂 🙂
This statement was another puzzler for me. I only have two images of Catholic confession: one is the confessional booth ‘Bless me Father for I have sinned…and these are my sins’; the other is more of a one on one sit down session. In the first scenario, I can’t imagine confessing “I’m same-sex attracted” since attractions aren’t sin. I’d be more inclined towards “I lusted after another woman 3x”. In the second scenario, I thought most people set up a time with a priest they already knew and felt comfortable with.
The primary reason that I belabor the point is your words ‘with a significant amount of shame and embarrassment’. That concerns me as a brother in Christ. There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. Christ knew you were same-sex attracted when He drew you to Him. He loved you, drew you and accepted you anyway. I don’t understand where the shame and embarrassment comes in. My own theology views shame and embarrassment as guilt feelings that don’t come from God. I view them as ‘condemnation’ in that they tend to push a person away from God rather than draw them closer to Him. It differs from real guilt in that real guilt is connected to a real transgression and the real transgression has a real remedy in the sacrifice of Calvary. If you believe that homosexual behavior and lustful fantasy are sin, then it’s only when you’ve indulged that you’ve sinned and ought to feel any sense of shame. And that shame can be eradicated immediately through confessing and repenting. If there’s some other sense of ongoing shame, I’d question it’s source and then go back to square one: Christ knew when He drew you to Him that you had same-sex attractions and there is therefore NO condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.
Teresa,
Your analysis of our current dissatisfactions and earlier challenges seems likely to me.
But…different parts of the world had to struggle less to survive than others due to climate advantages.
I do think the luxury of identity and purpose as something outside work and family is something the “middle class” has only recently been able to explore in the last 300 years.
Also, seeing sexual behavior as being apart from procreation (or the risks of procreation) has either been taboo, secretive or sinful.
Nevertheless, we are extraordinarily blessed and how we decide these “luxurious issues” has to have a sense of authenticity to ourselves, our values and our understanding of how the universe is organized (God). All that in keeping with creating a civil and safe society.
Huh?!?
Ask Maria Shriver.
Standards still exist, although they have been greatly diluted the last 50 years.
No problem, David. The ‘big’ Saint Teresa (of Avila) and the ‘little’ Saint Theresa (Therese, the Little Flower of Lisieux) are quite content with the mix-up. I’m sure they find our tussles on terminology quite amusing. 🙂
Saint Theresa’s Prayer
May today there be peace within.
May you trust God that you are exactly where you are meant to be.
May you not forget the infinite possibilities born of faith.
May you use those gifts that you have received,
and pass on the love that has been given to you.
May you be content knowing you are a child of God.
Let this presence settle into your bones,
and allow your soul the freedom to sing, dance, praise and love.
It is there for each and every one of us.
I like the part about the bones.
Eddy,
Thank you for that. Since same-sex attracted is by all accounts synonymous with homosexual, why not just say the latter? Its less wordy if nothing else.
Teresa
Teresa, I do get the point and I agree that it is a false dichotomy.
There are many within the gay community and many within the church who have bought into this perception – that one can either be holy or homosexual, but not both. This both saddens and enrages me.
The church has, on the whole, determined that there is a homosexual lifestyle and that living such a lifestyle is, in and of itself, sinful. All without benefit of Scripture, thought, or even the slightest desire to discover the truth.
I assert that one can live as a gay person (not just homosexually attracted, but as an openly self-defined gay person who, for that matter, lives in West Hollywood and hangs out only with other gay people wearing t-shirts labeled “Dyke Power”, driving a Harley, and any other stereotype we can think of) and still live a life of holiness.
This is contradictory to what the church will tell us… but it is nonetheless true. If you believe that chastity is the key to your compliance with sexual purity, then be chaste. But as my friend Dan can attest, chastity can be achieved in a gay bar with a drink in your hand. Or in seminary, where he spends most of his time.
Because – and this is important to recall – no one expects single heterosexuals to avoid all other heterosexuals and call themselves “people with opposite sex attractions”. No one thinks that there is a sinful “heterosexual lifestyle”.
What I think you are rebelling against, and rightly so, is a blatant double standard. AND a refusal to see it as a double standard.
If the only scriptural restriction is to avoid sexuality outside a heterosexual marriage, then why is it that you and Suzy Single have entirely different expectations placed on you? Why don’t they insist on monitoring her labels and word choices?
It makes one begin to suspect that their claims about us all being children of God and equal in his sight are not quite as sincere as they would like to believe.
I think that the real issue is not about your celibacy but about your belief. I think the real reason that same-sex attracted Christians are monitored so heavily in what you do, where you go, who you see, what you call yourself isn’t out of fear that you will slip into sin in some weak moment, but rather that you will be exposed to ideas and thoughts and perceptions and spiritual arguments that will lead you to reject those which have been served to you.
David,
This is absolutely true, but we have been through so much together, I am hoping that our friendship will weather this change. Christianity was not the bedrock of our friendship.
Prior comment correction:
The underlying emotion for both positions is really based in fear, in my opinion.
Jayhuck,
Good Luck…or better yet, God speed.
Since we live in a society somewhat different than those of yesteryear, it’s best to appreciate what we have now, and do the best with what we have.
I think Eddy’s statement quoted above bears looking into. The conservative Christian who has unwanted same-sex attraction is faced with being chaste for a lifetime; although, sometimes wanting to be partnered or be with a same-gendered person ‘in that way’. For lack of a better term, the ex-gay groups who are working to assist these persons, try their best to distance a homosexual from their attractions, and at the same time may attempt to do things to conjure up opposite sex attractions.
So, part of that whole amelioration process starts with terminology for them. Distancing themselves from their attractions through terms that seem ambiguous to some of us, they feel helps their clients move away from being same-sex attracted. “I’m not my attractions” is a commonly used sentence. “I’m more than my attractions” … “this is not who I really am” … “my real identity is in Christ”, “I’m not gay/lesbian, or homosexual … I’m a person with same-sex attractions”, etc.
All this sits on the basic premise that homosexuality (the “condition” not the behavior) is disordered. Homosexuals are “really heterosexuals with a homosexual problem”. The goal of ex-gay groups is to repair that homosexual problem so that the heterosexual that you really are, can shine through.
So, back to Eddy’s statement, of course persons with unwanted same-sex attractions have a certain fear, what would be considered by them, a healthy fear of having those attractions surface again, if they’ve been asleep for awhile, or under good control. Yes, their fear is that they’ll slip.
I understand this now, far better than before. I don’t necessarily agree with this distancing ourselves from what for most of us will be with us for a lifetime. I think amelioration of attractions is necessary; but, I think use of some terms is really unnecessary, and additionally can be very divisive. Instead of being allies, this tends to foster “I’m not one of those people” … us vs. them … we’re the good ones, they’re the bad ones, etc.
Please remember these are my thoughts and opinions. I’m not judging anyone’s choices, nor intending to be dismissive of anyone’s experience.
Teresa,
Spot on as usual Teresa! I appreciate what both you and Eddy wrote above. Eddy regarding the media and its effects on kids and what you had to say about orientation and the Church. I do think that some of the ex-gay movement rhetoric fosters an us vs them attitude, which is unfortunate. I grew up in a conservative Christian environment, in college I became slightly agnostic, then an Anglo-Catholic, then Eastern Orthodox (conservative), and now find myself moving back to a position of Agnosticism. I still have great respect for my friends who are religious, but I would like to see that respect extended back to me who, a person who finds himself more spiritual and less religious and definitely more excepting of gay folk. Unfortunately I don’t see that happening – yet
Teresa
This does seem to be evidenced in the language used by the ex-gay movement when it speaks publicly.
@ Jayhuck,
Fascinating spiritual quest…how many good friends in each community you shared have been able to keep pace with you?
My own experience is that this is difficult for even the best of friends. Changing world views and religious affiliations seems to trim away what previously had been rudimentary and deeply valued associations.
I also need to make a slight correction – excepting = accepting above
Yes, Mary, you’re absolutely right. The underlying for both positions is really based in fear, in my opinion. Definitely worth thinking about.
Theresa,
It would seem like a formidable challenge. I think I would talk with trusted friends or family; I would look on the internet. I would be an anonymous blogger and ask questions. I would read books that were recommended to me.
I might experiment. It would take time to sort it all out and decide what I thought my best course of action would be.
In all of that would be the challenge of understanding the SSA in the context of my religious faith; and the knowledge that I am not unique in time or place, and that Christians who came before me had similar sensations and challenges that they had to integrate into their Christianity.
I might lose my faith, or deny acting out on my impulses. Or I might reinterpret my faith and live out my attractions.
That was @ David, not ‘Davod’. Apologies.
I shouldn’t try doing two things at once!
The APA thinks it can influence positions on mental health in other countries. And as the US is where a significant portion of mental heath study is conducted, that is a reasonable assumption.
Ugandan mental health professionals will, we hope, provide information to their elected representatives, and the APA’s role is to ensure that it is accurate.
Julie, the credible doctor pastor chairperson of the national task force against homosexuality has been trying to teach Ugandans that all homosexuals consume excrement and that homosexuality is therefore a sickness (worth criminalizing as prescribed in the anti-homosexuality bill). knowledge is power, no matter where that knowledge comes from…
@Julie, Please provide me a link to said “credible evidence”. And, please for God’s sake, don’t refer me to some wingnut org like ACpeds.
Apologies. I should have said “pursuant to the stipulations regarding the age of consent and anti hate-crime laws …”
Julie# ~ May 15, 2011 at 2:59 pm
“This is a bit unbelievable that APA thnks it can influence politics in another country!!??”
Probably not alone, but as part of a body of international voices condemning such legislation, hopefully they will.
“Are we a porfessional organization, or a political activist group?”
the APA is a professional organization. However, it does issue policy statements regarding psychological/psychiatric issues.
“And sorry Bernie, but there is “credible evidence” out there for those who are open enough to see it!”
credible evidence of what? that homosexuality is pathological? chosen? something else?
I find the resolution by the APA to be most poignant. Has this been disseminated to all the hate groups/deluded groups as well, eg;
Brian Fisher, and the AFA,
Tony Perkins, Peter Sprigg, FRC
Focus on the Family,
Peter LaBarbera, AFT,
Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown, NOM.
And of course, everyone’s favorite, Scott Lively?
It would be most interesting to hear how they prevaricate this one. I would especially be anxious to hear Tony Perkins spout once more,”Well, the ‘Social Sciences’ have said otherwise…”. And, of course, Mr Perkins will never have a shred of proof to show the world that he is correct. He sounds more and more like Michele Bachman….just getting his sound bite out there, accruing another minute of fame, with no credible evidence. Ah, such good Christians, that they should be exempt from the 9th commandment.
@Ken,
Julie has no such evidence.
The key words were,”for those who are open enough to see!”
Thanks Eddy, good questions on the details.
I do think there is a place for these kinds of policy statements…but I think their power is weakened by not emphasizing social science research on demonizing and marginalizing vulnerable groups generally.
By focusing only on ‘homosexuality’ it feeds the polarity.
Add in all the ways a culture seeks to marginalize the weak and vulnerable by race, religion, gender and the Polarity is annihilated and consensus begins.
What is happening in Uganda exposes a terrible flaw in human culture generally (which the statement notes: Scapegoating).
Same Sex Attraction is not innate, or immutable…but it is a very strong human characteristic that is difficult to change; behavioral control is more likely to change, in attractions is rarer, especially for men. Some have reported harm when trying to change (one study, very flawed). Some have reported great benefit (better study, still flawed).
Warren,
I think a similar letter could come from the American Psychological Association and the most powerful would come from folks associated with Sociology. Good work.
@ David
I agree with most of what you say here. In the UK, sexual orientation is defined as a ‘protected characteristic’ under the Equality Act 2010, the implication being that, in this country (I am British), the general consensus is that sexual orientation is the result of some kind of ‘innate predisposition’. The same line re. ‘protected characteristics’ is set out in the laws of all our EU partners, hence the stipulations regarding the age of consent and anti hate-crime laws in the European Union Treaty. I doubt that British, and European, lawmakers would have taken the line they have unless the advice they had received was ‘compelling’. I admit that, as a non-expert in the field human psychology, I cannot cite scientific studies to back my contention.
Your point about broadening the scope of the APA statement is well made. However, anti-gay ideologues would probably say something along the lines of “well, we agree with you when it comes to ‘marginalized groups’ except with regard to LGBT persons.”
I could only find one position paper by the UNASW and the only religious concept I noted was the concept of “body, mind and spirit”. Any allusions to 50 year old studies was a reference to the debunking of the Kinsey studies. Can someone clarify?
@ Richard,
Our audience is not Bryan Fischer…hence the larger set of professional associations commenting.
If we all realize that everyone has been the victim of some trauma by the majority (A Trail of Tears), the polarization with stop and basic agreements will be codified.
Bryan Fischer needs this to be about homosexuality for it to continue to suit his purposes as a polarizer.
…it isn’t about homosexuality, it is about brutality.
Did they issue a position paper “supporting the concept that homosexuality is pathological drawing from religious concepts and from “scientific” studies of 50 years ago”? Inquiring minds want to know.
Timothy, thanks for the clarification. And, yes, I think for many (not all) conservative Christians there is a common assumption that just being a homosexual means “the lifestyle”, whatever conjured notions are associated with that. And, further, I agree that the conservative churches do not engender the same type or amount of opprobrium toward fornication, adultery, porn, artificial birth control, divorce/remarriage and even abortion that is engendered toward homosexuals. Certainly, I know the churches speak to these issues and voice concern and opposition; but, not with the same vigor or with the same level of intense disapproval … at least in my opinion. The old saying, “he’s just sowing his wild oats” certainly displays the accommodation in some ways to what is considered “natural transgression”. A gay man “sowing his wild oats” is partaking in “unnatural transgression”.
My opinion, gleaned from study of this including the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is that homosexuality (not only the behavior but the ‘being’) is seen “objectively disordered”, meaning “unnatural”, deviant, etc. The conservative churches do not approve of fornication, adultery, etc. (which is certainly clear); but, there’s a naturalness in the ‘sin’ that lessens the response of disapproval. A man having sex with his neighbor’s wife is by no means condoned by the churches, and is definitely seen as transgression; but, the act is understandable in its nature … or it’s a natural sin … one that’s understandable in a ‘natural’ way. A man having sex with the married man next door is in a sense not only transgression; but, a transgression of nature … a violation of the natural order. The transgression or violation is a two-fold one.
It makes a certain amount of sense that seeing what are considered unnatural acts by certain people; that we move from not only denouncing and decrying the acts, to condemning all persons who have a proclivity for such behavior. Chastity for many of these people doesn’t seem to “cut the mustard” for approval of persons with same-sex attraction.
It is no wonder and totally understandable that many homosexuals, fearing condemnation, will try to distance themselves from being homosexual: will use terminology that separates themselves from that “thing” that is so condemned. Amelioration is often necessary in the pursuit of chastity; although, balance and lack of fear are also necessary components for a healthy chastity.
Timothy, as you stated, about Suzie Single (cute expression, btw) vs. Lille Lez and what life they’re leading, and the expectations or acceptations of said life; I think speaks to the whole issue of “disordered” vs “ordered or natural”. Although, truth to tell, not long ago, Suzie Single “sowing her wild oats” was unthinkable; simply because of what was expected of a woman and proper feminine behavior. But, notice the word I used: “proper”. Lillie Lez hanging out with Donna Dyke is not only not proper; but “unnatural”. You get the picture.
Timothy, many of your comments are very thought provoking containing much truth. You and I disagree in areas; but, I must say you’ve given me some good insights and some fruitful ideas to reflect upon.
LOL! Who has been advocating denying the pursuit of those desires? I’m curious.
I personally think it would be a good exercise for ALL people to learn to differentiate between desires that are sexual and those that are not. Its part of growing up.
Yes, let’s 😉
First of all, these ex-presidents are hypocrites, jokers and flip-floppers who aren’t taken that seriously by any African government. Festus Mogae while president of Botswana asked the Batswana people to tolerate gayism. That statement got the local sex deviants all excited and they decided to push their luck by going to the courts to have sodomy decriminalized. They were baffled when Mogae’s government fought them ruthlessly and defeated them twice in court (2003 and 2006). Ex-Zambian ruler Kenneth Kaunda is a joker. Last year, he was one of those calling for the new Zambian constitution to explicitly ban the misnomer called “same-sex marriage” in the same manner as the Ugandan constitution. In January of this year, he was on record supporting the ban on gay marriage. Then he goes to Malawi and says that same-sex marriage should be legalized. I wonder how much it cost Western donors— who support his anti-HIV/AIDS Organization—- to compel the old man to open his mouth and proclaim the greatness of gay marriage.
Personally, I do not take seriously NGOs that are heavily funded by Europeans and Americans because such organizations tend to be highly compromised. I know enough about Westerners to know that their donations are always Greek Gifts. Western governments never give you a hand in anything without asking for one thing or another in return. It is either they are blackmailing you to support them in the United Nations to punish another nation that is blocking their geo-political interests or they asking you to open up your economy for massive dumping of goods which are clogging up their domestic markets or they are asking you to legalize gayism to keep their loyal domestic sex deviant voters back in Europe/America happy and grateful for the opening of a new exotic Thailand-style pan sexual paradise in Africa where they can go as tourists to practise their dark arts.
I have to admit, I was surprised by Kaunda’s advocacy of ‘same-sex marriage’, something that is a matter of civil, not criminal, law. The abuse and murder (state-sanctioned, a la Bahati, or ‘extra-judicial’) of LGB persons is something that many (myself included) regard as a human rights issue, not a civil rights one. While recognizing stable same-sex partnerships is, IMHO, a desirable thing for ‘society’, the first priority with regard to combatting HIV/AIDS must surely be to deal with the marginalization, dishonesty and hypocrisy that comes in the wake of the per se criminalization LGB persons and of homophobia generally. Let us not forget that, in places like UG, the principal HIV risk factor is almost certainly marital infidelity – something which homophobia probably helps to promote (by encouraging gay people to contract ‘sham’ marriages while having secret ‘side dishes’ of the same sex), at least to some extent.
Of course, Bahati’s ‘Hang-the-gays’ Bill (and it still is just that – make no mistake about it) is a jurisprudential disaster area of the highest order, confusing as it does activities such as child abuse and rape (which fit the usual ‘perpetrator-victim’ paradigm of genuine crime) with truly consensual relationships (where that paradigm simply doesn’t apply) and ‘same-sex marriage’ (which is a really a matter of civil law).
And your evidence for these ‘donor-funded retirement plans’, ‘Maazi’?
(Oh, I forgot, you don’t ‘do evidence’, do you hun? It’s just ‘assertion’ with you … no evidence, no analysis.)
Well, Ken, he has been convicted of hate-speech and fined, so my ‘assessment’ is in line with that of an African court!
But I see your point, although the cartoon is clearly designed to ‘promote a very negative attitude’, based on falsehood (viz. that consensual same-sex relationships are someohow equivalent to bestiality), to gay people.
Another interesting point: one does notice how homophobic people so often use sexually-related language to make their point (or spice up their propaganda). For instance, Qwelane says, “some day a bunch of politicians will muster the balls …”
Instructive, I think. (As my mother used to say, “some people have sex on the brain, and it’s the wrong place to have it!”)
It might help to simply ‘lighten up’ a bit when we hear or use a term. Although I was normally an A (and some B) student, I’d mess up on tests by taking the words too literally. I learned a great lesson from a friend who advised me simply to ‘consider the source’. If the teacher was known to be a nit-picking hardass, then consider that the nuance of meaning that you’re stumbling over was intended. If they aren’t, then take it to mean what it says on the surface.
“Same sex attracted” is a case in point. While it is true that people of the same gender are attracted to each other for non-sexual reasons, that’s a given. Hetero boys have lots of male friends and they sought those friends out based on qualities or attributes that they admired (were attracted to); the same is true for females. But THEY would never use the phrase ‘same sex attracted’ to describe that bonding and NO ONE ELSE would either. They’d say ‘admires’, ‘looks up to’, ‘connects with’ but they wouldn’t say ‘same sex attracted. The words ‘same sex attracted’ when used in tandem mean ‘same SEX attracted’. It’s not the nit-picking hardass teacher definition or usage…it’s the colloquial, common usage one.
BTW: I do get asked occasionally. People find me personable and likable and naturally wonder why, at my age, I’ve never been married and don’t seem to be pursuing it either. The last time it came up, I answered simply “well, basically I’m same sex attracted but I have religious beliefs that steer me away from pursuing those desires”. Yeah, it’s a bit more wordy than a pithy label but then they get two revelations for the price of one…they learn a bit about my sexuality and a bit about my religious point of view.
Ken :
Coming back to your point, this article is interesting (and rather supports your view, in some ways): http://www.africanactivist.org/2011/06/hate-speech-reinforces-climate-of-hate.html
(I would add that, under UK law, ‘hate speech’ must be shown to be ‘threatening and not just abusive or insulting’ and/or ‘liable to stir up hatred’. Judgments on things like this are very difficult to make.)
I have to admit, I was surprised by Kaunda’s advocacy of ‘same-sex marriage’, something that is a matter of civil, not criminal, law. The abuse and murder (state-sanctioned, a la Bahati, or ‘extra-judicial’) of LGB persons is something that many (myself included) regard as a human rights issue, not a civil rights one. While recognizing stable same-sex partnerships is, IMHO, a desirable thing for ‘society’, the first priority with regard to combatting HIV/AIDS must surely be to deal with the marginalization, dishonesty and hypocrisy that comes in the wake of the per se criminalization LGB persons and of homophobia generally. Let us not forget that, in places like UG, the principal HIV risk factor is almost certainly marital infidelity – something which homophobia probably helps to promote (by encouraging gay people to contract ‘sham’ marriages while having secret ‘side dishes’ of the same sex), at least to some extent.
Of course, Bahati’s ‘Hang-the-gays’ Bill (and it still is just that – make no mistake about it) is a jurisprudential disaster area of the highest order, confusing as it does activities such as child abuse and rape (which fit the usual ‘perpetrator-victim’ paradigm of genuine crime) with truly consensual relationships (where that paradigm simply doesn’t apply) and ‘same-sex marriage’ (which is a really a matter of civil law).
Ken :
Coming back to your point, this article is interesting (and rather supports your view, in some ways): http://www.africanactivist.org/2011/06/hate-speech-reinforces-climate-of-hate.html
(I would add that, under UK law, ‘hate speech’ must be shown to be ‘threatening and not just abusive or insulting’ and/or ‘liable to stir up hatred’. Judgments on things like this are very difficult to make.)
And your evidence for these ‘donor-funded retirement plans’, ‘Maazi’?
(Oh, I forgot, you don’t ‘do evidence’, do you hun? It’s just ‘assertion’ with you … no evidence, no analysis.)
….After receiving huge sums of money from western donors, some of which will help them in their permanent retirement from the corridors of real political power 😀
Well, ‘Maazi’, I personally wouldn’t describe fanning the flames of ignorance, prejudice and hatred as ‘humorous’. I can’t see what possible good it can do in UG, or anywhere else. It’s really all about misguided nationalism on your part, isn’t it? You have not actually presented any substantive advantages for the Bahati Bill. amended or otherwise. It’s all just theoretical waffle about ‘defending’ so-called ‘culture’; the effects on real people clearly doesn’t seem to figure in your calculations. Mogae and Kaunda, on the other hand, are thinking logically and practically about what might serve the best interests of the greatest number of people.
….After receiving huge sums of money from western donors, some of which will help them in their permanent retirement from the corridors of real political power 😀
Why should I be hysterical? I am never hysterical. Not on this subject matter,anyway. But I do love that these events are unfolding before our eyes in Africa. Common think about it—-what was the chances that Qwelane would posted to Uganda (not Kenya, not Congo-Kinshasa, not Congo-Brazzaville, not Botswana) right after he had written his article blasting gay lifestyle? Zuma does have a good sense of humour !
Well, ‘Maazi’, I personally wouldn’t describe fanning the flames of ignorance, prejudice and hatred as ‘humorous’. I can’t see what possible good it can do in UG, or anywhere else. It’s really all about misguided nationalism on your part, isn’t it? You have not actually presented any substantive advantages for the Bahati Bill. amended or otherwise. It’s all just theoretical waffle about ‘defending’ so-called ‘culture’; the effects on real people clearly doesn’t seem to figure in your calculations. Mogae and Kaunda, on the other hand, are thinking logically and practically about what might serve the best interests of the greatest number of people.
Darling, you’re hysterical! @ ‘Maazi NCO’
.
Awww, I can already see myself being led away in chains by the Police in South Africa or most EU nations for making a “hate speech” against something called “LGBT community” !! 😀
First of all, these ex-presidents are hypocrites, jokers and flip-floppers who aren’t taken that seriously by any African government. Festus Mogae while president of Botswana asked the Batswana people to tolerate gayism. That statement got the local sex deviants all excited and they decided to push their luck by going to the courts to have sodomy decriminalized. They were baffled when Mogae’s government fought them ruthlessly and defeated them twice in court (2003 and 2006). Ex-Zambian ruler Kenneth Kaunda is a joker. Last year, he was one of those calling for the new Zambian constitution to explicitly ban the misnomer called “same-sex marriage” in the same manner as the Ugandan constitution. In January of this year, he was on record supporting the ban on gay marriage. Then he goes to Malawi and says that same-sex marriage should be legalized. I wonder how much it cost Western donors— who support his anti-HIV/AIDS Organization—- to compel the old man to open his mouth and proclaim the greatness of gay marriage.
Personally, I do not take seriously NGOs that are heavily funded by Europeans and Americans because such organizations tend to be highly compromised. I know enough about Westerners to know that their donations are always Greek Gifts. Western governments never give you a hand in anything without asking for one thing or another in return. It is either they are blackmailing you to support them in the United Nations to punish another nation that is blocking their geo-political interests or they asking you to open up your economy for massive dumping of goods which are clogging up their domestic markets or they are asking you to legalize gayism to keep their loyal domestic sex deviant voters back in Europe/America happy and grateful for the opening of a new exotic Thailand-style pan sexual paradise in Africa where they can go as tourists to practise their dark arts.
I am sure you are so impressed with the South African Court. Over here in Uganda, it is people who write that gayism is great and draw cartoons exhalting such a lifestyle that will be in the dock. We are working very hard to see the legal framework updated. Now run along and report this comment to Her Majesty’s Government. 🙂
On a brighter note, here’s some good sense from two former African presidents who are concerned about the spread of HIV: http://www.africanactivist.org/2011/05/former-presidents-of-botswana-and.html
Why should I be hysterical? I am never hysterical. Not on this subject matter,anyway. But I do love that these events are unfolding before our eyes in Africa. Common think about it—-what was the chances that Qwelane would posted to Uganda (not Kenya, not Congo-Kinshasa, not Congo-Brazzaville, not Botswana) right after he had written his article blasting gay lifestyle? Zuma does have a good sense of humour !
Well, Ken, he has been convicted of hate-speech and fined, so my ‘assessment’ is in line with that of an African court!
But I see your point, although the cartoon is clearly designed to ‘promote a very negative attitude’, based on falsehood (viz. that consensual same-sex relationships are someohow equivalent to bestiality), to gay people.
Richard Willmer# ~ Jun 1, 2011 at 7:25 am
I wouldn’t classify Qwelane’s article as “hate-speech”. Certainly he is ignorant about a great many issues regarding sexual orientation, and that sort of ignorance does lead to hate. However, ignorance and hate are not the same thing.
And his lack of education isn’t limited to sexual orientation. In the 2nd paragraph Qwelane says:
Catherine of Aragon was Arthur’s widow and Rome did approve that marriage. Rome didn’t recognize Henry’s divorce from Catherine or his marriage to Anne.
Another interesting point: one does notice how homophobic people so often use sexually-related language to make their point (or spice up their propaganda). For instance, Qwelane says, “some day a bunch of politicians will muster the balls …”
Instructive, I think. (As my mother used to say, “some people have sex on the brain, and it’s the wrong place to have it!”)
Darling, you’re hysterical! @ ‘Maazi NCO’
.
Awww, I can already see myself being led away in chains by the Police in South Africa or most EU nations for making a “hate speech” against something called “LGBT community” !! 😀
And on the subject of ‘extremist’ ranting, here’s the very article to which ‘Maazi NCO’ alluded, complete with its hate-inspired cartoon: http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/uganda-south-african-ambassador-found-guilty-of-anti-gay-hate-speech/discrimination/2011/05/31/21117
I am sure you are so impressed with the South African Court. Over here in Uganda, it is people who write that gayism is great and draw cartoons exhalting such a lifestyle that will be in the dock. We are working very hard to see the legal framework updated. Now run along and report this comment to Her Majesty’s Government. 🙂
On a brighter note, here’s some good sense from two former African presidents who are concerned about the spread of HIV: http://www.africanactivist.org/2011/05/former-presidents-of-botswana-and.html
@ Eddy
I think you’ve hit on an important issue here, and it reminds of us just how complicated this whole area of human identity and psychology is. ‘Extremists’ on both sides of the various arguments around this subject tend to ‘simplify’ things ad absurdum, failing to see the distinctions between people, characteristics, tendencies and behaviours, and all the differences within each of the aforementioned.
Some people just take a whole load of different things and lump them together under a label such as ‘gayism’; others might do a similar thing, but apply a label such as ‘love’.
Richard Willmer# ~ Jun 1, 2011 at 7:25 am
I wouldn’t classify Qwelane’s article as “hate-speech”. Certainly he is ignorant about a great many issues regarding sexual orientation, and that sort of ignorance does lead to hate. However, ignorance and hate are not the same thing.
And his lack of education isn’t limited to sexual orientation. In the 2nd paragraph Qwelane says:
Catherine of Aragon was Arthur’s widow and Rome did approve that marriage. Rome didn’t recognize Henry’s divorce from Catherine or his marriage to Anne.
And on the subject of ‘extremist’ ranting, here’s the very article to which ‘Maazi NCO’ alluded, complete with its hate-inspired cartoon: http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/uganda-south-african-ambassador-found-guilty-of-anti-gay-hate-speech/discrimination/2011/05/31/21117
@ Eddy
I think you’ve hit on an important issue here, and it reminds of us just how complicated this whole area of human identity and psychology is. ‘Extremists’ on both sides of the various arguments around this subject tend to ‘simplify’ things ad absurdum, failing to see the distinctions between people, characteristics, tendencies and behaviours, and all the differences within each of the aforementioned.
Some people just take a whole load of different things and lump them together under a label such as ‘gayism’; others might do a similar thing, but apply a label such as ‘love’.
For the record….
I asked a rhetorical question and then answered it with the legitimacy for same-sex attracted persons to pursue desires relating to their same gender that were non-sexual. Neither the question or its answer had in mind some person or group that thought such pursuits were not legitimate. The statement was made for the benefit of those who might not see the distinction between legitimate same-sex desires or needs for fellowship or camaraderie and those desires that are sexual. In short, there is no burning question (Jayhuck’s) that needs to be answered.
For the record….
I asked a rhetorical question and then answered it with the legitimacy for same-sex attracted persons to pursue desires relating to their same gender that were non-sexual. Neither the question or its answer had in mind some person or group that thought such pursuits were not legitimate. The statement was made for the benefit of those who might not see the distinction between legitimate same-sex desires or needs for fellowship or camaraderie and those desires that are sexual. In short, there is no burning question (Jayhuck’s) that needs to be answered.
Most people’s viewpoints are subjective, ‘Maazi’ – including yours.
I didn’t actually say that Qwelane himself is a ‘hate-filled loony’, merely that he used a device that ‘hate-filled loonies’ like to use.
Bahati has made it very clear that he wants to ‘propagate’ his vision beyond UG’s borders, thus making the massive international response to bahatiism entirely justified on political, as well as moral, grounds.
(By the way, you really mustn’t take everything I say quite so much at ‘face value’; like you, I use rhetorical devices to make my point.)
Describing Qwelane as “hate-filled loony” is just your own subjective opinion. The fact is that a man was slammed for simply stating his views in a peaceful manner. He did not call for anyone to be murdered, yet he was declared guilty of a “hate speech” which he never made. This is the only reality that matters not your subjective opinions as to whether he is “loony” or not. It is good that this story is unfolding now because it presents Ugandans with a taste of what will inevitably arrive at their doorstep should we ever allow sex deviants to seize control or have disproportionate influence in the decision making process of our nation.
The talk of “good” and “bad” is merely a subjective viewpoint. The average American thinks it is a good thing for the government to execute killers condemned to death by a court of law. Most Europeans (including most Britons) think it is barbaric for a court of law to condemn a killer to death and for a government to enforce the verdict. You believe that gayism is okay and fight for it to be propagated throughout the world. Myself and most Ugandans state that gayism is an abominable act which contradicts the laws, customs, culture and traditions of our nation.
Hello ‘Maazi’!
I think Qwelane did rather more than simply ‘criticize gay lifestyles’. He played the old ‘bestiality card’ – one of those favourite dirty propaganda lines of hate-filled loonies.
I’m not afraid of hard work in a good cause, by the way – just as you are not afraid of hard work in a bad one! Nor am I afraid of the government of my country experiencing a little ’embarrassment’ now and again. Unlike some people, I don’t subscribe to maxim ‘my country(‘s government), right or wrong’. But then I have the good fortune to live in a (sort of) democracy!
Are Betty’s claims truthful? Well, we’ll probably find out in time. There is a view that the UK immigration authorities don’t always take some claims as seriously as they should; the courts often do a better job, so let’s hope that, as will soon be the case with another person we were discussing earlier this year, this situation is scrutinized by a court.
Given the lies desperate asylum seekers tell, it would be virtually impossible to confirm her tale. Even injuries can be self-inflicted in desperation to move to the West. Anyways, Richard Willmer, you have your work cut out for you. Go and lobby your government to let her stay in your country with the same vehemence that you used against the 2009 version of the Bahati Bill. I just read in BBC that the South African High Commissioner here in Kampala has been found guilty of “hate speech” NOT for making any blood-curdling speeches asking for gay sex practitioners to be hacked to death, but for daring to write a newspaper column criticizing gay lifestyle. He has now been ordered by a South African Court to pay money to a charity that promotes gayism in the Southern African nation. It is good to know what lies ahead for Ugandans, if we were to stupidly make the mistake of legalizing gayism like the South Africans did in 1994.
Disturbing report published today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/31/ugandan-branded-iron-deportation-sexuality