How Are American Evangelists Influencing Anti-Homosexuality Laws in Uganda?

[zomgwtf]

Desperate, aren't you? It's not a popular topic, and you will have to do some work to find knowledge that anyone can acquire motivated to find it. Let's add the disparity of casual sex favoring homosexuals vs. heterosexuals, and we have both a pandemic and a sexual orientation war. Have your buds been lying to you. How does that make you feel?

I don't get it... are you trying to say I'm gay? Or that I have protected anal sex cause my 'buds' tell me it's ok or something? I don't understand what the point of this post is at all and I'm kinda surprised that a long standing member of PF would post this non-sensical crap.

 

[Phrak]

I don't get it... are you trying to say I'm gay? Or that I have protected anal sex cause my 'buds' tell me it's ok or something? I don't understand what the point of this post is at all and I'm kinda surprised that a long standing member of PF would post this non-sensical crap.

Well, excuse me. There's nothing wrong about being gay, right? As long as you are not misidentified. So what did your research tell you?

 

[magpies]

Ok I got a question? In countrys like the one in this example do the laws passed by government even really make a difference? I mean I just figure it's total chaos there anyhow right?

 

[Geigerclick]

good grief. Is anyone going to bring up the topic of anal sex as primary cause, or is this off limits on PF? Why is AIDS associated with homosexuals? Is the homosexual lobby so powerful we are made so drooling stupid? Why is AIDS not associated with heterosexuals, lesbians or even hookers? AIDS is far more likely to be passed by anal sex. Africans have a real problem as they kill each other via infindelity, birth control by anal sex, homosexuality, and casual sex. This lastest act by Ugandan law makers demonstrates desperation.

I brought it up several posts ago. To be precise, see post #31. To be clear I am relaying fact, I have no issue with being gay, straight, bisexual, or anything in that spectrum.

Magpies: There is chaos in some regions, but generally no.

Zomgwtf: Even protected anal sex carries higher risks of condom failure, and a higher risk of small quantities of blood being exchanged from small (microscopic usually) tears of the anus.

 

[Geigerclick]

Here is some research for people so that we can stop seeing the uglier side of humanity on this thread:

Why is anal sex a high risk activity for HIV infection?

The walls of the anus and rectum are thin and richly supplied with blood vessels which can be injured during anal sex. HIV infected semen can be easily absorbed through these thin walls and into the bloodstream. Injured tissue in the anus and rectum can expose the penis to blood containing HIV, as well. Unprotected anal sex with a partner who is infected or whose HIV status is unknown is the most risky sexual activity for both men and women. While latex condoms provide protection, their failure rate during anal sex is greater than that for vaginal or oral sex.

http://www.albany.edu/sph/AIDS/aids101_2.html

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Here is some research for people so that we can stop seeing the uglier side of humanity on this thread:


http://www.albany.edu/sph/AIDS/aids101_2.html

You got there before me. Good job.

 

[Proton Soup]

good grief. Is anyone going to bring up the topic of anal sex as primary cause, or is this off limits on PF? Why is AIDS associated with homosexuals? Is the homosexual lobby so powerful we are made so drooling stupid? Why is AIDS not associated with heterosexuals, lesbians or even hookers? AIDS is far more likely to be passed by anal sex. Africans have a real problem as they kill each other via infindelity, birth control by anal sex, homosexuality, and casual sex. This lastest act by Ugandan law makers demonstrates desperation.

i don't think this can be the whole story, though. currently, the incidence of HIV among young black women in the United States is about 25%. and i seriously doubt it's because they're all having anal sex. something else is going on. perhaps whites have a higher resistance to HIV from surviving past plagues. or it could be related to a high incarceration rate of young black males. maybe it is related to lack of more basic health care services and that HIV transmission is secondary to other infections.

 

[zomgwtf]

Well, excuse me. There's nothing wrong about being gay, right? As long as you are not misidentified. So what did your research tell you?

I never said there was anything wrong with being gay. I don't even think I've ever implied it... You however took the opportunity to apparently poke fun at myself by alluding to me being gay. So who in this thread really thinks being gay is 'wrong' or 'funny' something to joke about? Not myself. As well I think your comments were quite inappropriate and completely unnecessary.

As well I'm not the one who has to conduct any sort of research. You came in with an opinion you need to support it, which I asked you to do. I stated that I had not read anything suggesting that anal sex has a greater chance of contracting AIDS but I felt it was probably true, so I asked for you to CITE A SOURCE. Your response was hardly worthy of the forums.
I had an opinion that the main reason that AIDS is most prevalent amongst the male homosexuals is lack of education and awareness which leads to reckless sexual behaviour. I provided a reference with my opinion. Where's yours?

As an aside:
There are proper ways to have anal sex WITH condoms such that they are almost guranteed not to break. The problem isn't that gay men use condoms for anal sex and they break, the problem is that they don't use condoms period.

 

[Geigerclick]

I never said there was anything wrong with being gay. I don't even think I've ever implied it... You however took the opportunity to apparently poke fun at myself by alluding to me being gay. So who in this thread really thinks being gay is 'wrong' or 'funny' something to joke about? Not myself. As well I think your comments were quite inappropriate and completely unnecessary.

As well I'm not the one who has to conduct any sort of research. You came in with an opinion you need to support it, which I asked you to do. I stated that I had not read anything suggesting that anal sex has a greater chance of contracting AIDS but I felt it was probably true, so I asked for you to CITE A SOURCE. Your response was hardly worthy of the forums.
I had an opinion that the main reason that AIDS is most prevalent amongst the male homosexuals is lack of education and awareness which leads to reckless sexual behaviour. I provided a reference with my opinion. Where's yours?

As an aside:
There are proper ways to have anal sex WITH condoms such that they are almost guranteed not to break. The problem isn't that gay men use condoms for anal sex and they break, the problem is that they don't use condoms period.

That would certainly be the case with black women, who are at a higher risk being female (those are the breaks), and having higher incidence of unprotected sex. Nothing I have read about homosexual males indicates that use of condoms is uncommon, and failure rates for anal sex are universally higher.

If gay men were not using condoms, they would be the fastest infected group per capita. They are not, black women are.

 

[zomgwtf]

That would certainly be the case with black women, who are at a higher risk being female (those are the breaks), and having higher incidence of unprotected sex. Nothing I have read about homosexual males indicates that use of condoms is uncommon, and failure rates for anal sex are universally higher.

I posted a source earlier which specifically dives into problems within the gay community and not using condoms. As well, I've known quite a few gay men and none of them use condoms and they all are pretty promiscuous. So these comments from a group whos main focus is AIDS coupled with personal experience leads me to believe that it is definitely a problem.

Black women are at most risk? By what statistics? If we're talking about American then I don't believe that's correct, gay men are the most infected. If we are talking about world-wide then no-duh Africa has around 66% of the worlds total AIDS and HIV population. Since the majority of Africa is black and most rapes occur against females I would conclude that black females in the world are most likely to get AIDS.

If gay men were not using condoms, they would be the fastest infected group per capita. They are not, black women are.

Source? On the black woman being the fastest group infected. As well I would love to hear your reasoning as to why if gay-men weren't using condoms they would be the fastest group infected. Just because you have unprotected sex doesn't mean you get AIDS or HIV... I'd say they have a higher probability of contracting the disease though coupled with promiscuous behaviour.

 

[Proton Soup]

there are plenty of stats here: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm

as for what is going on? who knows, but the second graphic http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf" seems to indicate there there is either something behavior- or biology-related that slows the infection rate among white MSM. black men seem to get infected early, whereas white men seem to have about the same infection rate regardless of age.

 

[Geigerclick]

I posted a source earlier which specifically dives into problems within the gay community and not using condoms. As well, I've known quite a few gay men and none of them use condoms and they all are pretty promiscuous. So these comments from a group whos main focus is AIDS coupled with personal experience leads me to believe that it is definitely a problem.

Black women are at most risk? By what statistics? If we're talking about American then I don't believe that's correct, gay men are the most infected. If we are talking about world-wide then no-duh Africa has around 66% of the worlds total AIDS and HIV population. Since the majority of Africa is black and most rapes occur against females I would conclude that black females in the world are most likely to get AIDS.



Source? On the black woman being the fastest group infected. As well I would love to hear your reasoning as to why if gay-men weren't using condoms they would be the fastest group infected. Just because you have unprotected sex doesn't mean you get AIDS or HIV... I'd say they have a higher probability of contracting the disease though coupled with promiscuous behaviour.

I don't care about your anecdotes, especially when you haven't put the effort to read basic stats that are readily available. Here are some, from a little-known group called the CDC. Literally, the first result when you google "incidence HIV black women". I can see you're really investing effort in this discussion.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/resources/factsheets/aa.htm

In 2007, the rates of AIDS diagnoses decreased among blacks but were still higher than the rates of any other race/ethnicity. The rate of AIDS diagnoses for black adults/adolescents were 10 times the rate for whites and nearly 3 times the rate for Hispanics. The rate of AIDS diagnoses for black women was 22 times the rate for white women. The rate of AIDS diagnoses for black men was almost 8 times the rate for white men [3].

Do. The. Math. You're entitled to your opinions, but not to argue based on them here. You ask for citations, well, start sourcing something other than "I have friends who...".

More CDC http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/resources/factsheets/women.htm

And some raw stats:

http://www.avert.org/usa-race-age.htm

 

[zomgwtf]

What does your stats of comparisson between whites and blacks have to do with a comparisson between black women and gay men? Just face it those same stats, which were already posted before from a different source, do not support that claim you made. That's what I was asking a source for.

How about you put more effort into the discussion?

It's funny how you cite the same group I cited before but you say you don't care for my anecdotes.

 

[Geigerclick]

What does your stats of comparisson between whites and blacks have to do with a comparisson between black women and gay men? Just face it those same stats, which were already posted before from a different source, do not support that claim you made. That's what I was asking a source for.

How about you put more effort into the discussion?

It's funny how you cite the same group I cited before but you say you don't care for my anecdotes.

I don't care for anecdotes, period. For comparisons, you have the numbers, run the comparison if you wish. Did you miss the second CDC link which deals specifically with women? This is enough to figure out the numbers with pen and paper man. I can't imagine that you could contribute less here, without actually being absent. You demand citations, then run off a quick bit of fluff that shows you didn't bother to read much. Read the stats, or bring your own showing relative promiscuity. Do something other than chatter and start arguments that are somewhat tangential.

 

[zomgwtf]

I don't care for anecdotes, period. For comparisons, you have the numbers, run the comparison if you wish. Did you miss the second CDC link which deals specifically with women? This is enough to figure out the numbers with pen and paper man. I can't imagine that you could contribute less here, without actually being absent. You demand citations, then run off a quick bit of fluff that shows you didn't bother to read much. Read the stats, or bring your own showing relative promiscuity. Do something other than chatter and start arguments that are somewhat tangential.

Sigh, you're the one making the claims, I'm asking for sources. Mostly I'm asking for sources because they seem to contradict what research I have done and it counter my position. I did look at all your sources, in fact well before you had even posted them. Can you say the same about what I've been saying the entire time? Clearly, you have not looked at the sources already cited earlier but it's ok.

MSM (Men who have sex with other men) accounts for 53% of all new cases of AIDS/HIV They account for 71% of all new cases of men with AIDS/HIV.

Only 4-7% of men in America reported as MSM yet they make up nearly 70% of all men with AIDS/HIV and they account for 48% of ALL cases of people living with HIV/AIDS.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm

I think that these numbers do not suppot your theory that black women are at the highest risk of contracting AIDS/HIV.

The CDC also supports my statement that the leading reason for men getting AIDS/HIV is:

1. having unprotected sex with another man who has HIV

Not due to condom breakages during anal sex (that's not how I read this or the avert source earlier provided at least).

Since you want to look at race. In America the majority of new AIDS/HIV cases comes specifically from white msm males. Close to double the amount of black heterosexual females.

In both of the races white and black msm males have more new cases than black females, even if you group all the black females together (bisexual/hetero)...
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

I just don't understand how you are trying to counter my position by citing such stats. They pale in comparisson to the gay male community. The CDC as I have also posted above supports my position that it comes down to unprotected sexual relations. The avert citation I used also supports this and shows that homosexual men tend to be more promiscuous. I believe it has to do with lack of educational resources for gay men as well as a lack of places to go to be tested or at least an 'unwillingness' to go and get tested.(which goes back to lack of educational resources)


EDIT: Anyways this is pretty tangetal to the OP you're right, maybe if a mentor could separate the posts for us. It didn't need to get so out of hand but Phrak kind of pissed me off by poking fun at the idea I could be a homosexual and people continually attempt to counter my conclusion on homosexuals and AIDS. Most of the countering is seemingly done through harsh remarks and little evidence but alas, it's the internet.

 

[Count Iblis]

Smallpox vaccinations may be a factor here too:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8686750.stm

The worldwide eradication of smallpox may, inadvertently, have helped spread HIV infection, scientists believe.

Experts say the vaccine used to wipe out smallpox offered some protection against the Aids virus and, now it is no longer used, HIV has flourished.

The US investigators said trials indicated the smallpox jab interferes with how well HIV multiplies.

But they say in the journal BMC Immunology it is too early to recommend smallpox vaccine for fighting HIV.

 

[zomgwtf]

Smallpox vaccinations may be a factor here too:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8686750.stm

I've heard of such claims before. The way I heard it was slightly different though. They claimed that the WHO inoculated quite a large number of Africans which had 'woken' up a dormant strand of the AIDS/HIV virus.

The source you provided probably is more up-to-date considering the amount of research put into the situation.

 

[Geigerclick]

Risky sexual behavior and substance abuse: Compared with white men, black men are considerably less likely to acquire HIV through unprotected sex with other men (73% for white men compared with 49% for black men). Unprotected heterosexual sex and needle-injecting drug use are the leading causes. Among African American women, however, some 80% are infected through heterosexual contact. Stigmas surrounding gay behavior among men has led many to lead dual lifestyles, whereby their women are unaware of the unsafe sexual practices of their male partners.

http://www.epigee.org/health/hiv_aa.html

Zomgwtf, keep in mind that many posts ago I said the highest risk was anal sex, period. Obviously Male-Male intercourse is almost exclusively anal, and your supposition about why that is aside, that means the risks for protected and unprotected encounters is higher than vaginal or oral intercourse. So, sure, white men are the biggest number, but the issue is demographic risk:

Indeed, while African Americans account for some 12% of the population, they represent nearly 50% of those affected by HIV and AIDS. And African American women are nearly 20 times more likely to acquire the deadly virus than white women.

Put that together with the statistics about homosexual contact being less of a leading factor in the African American community compared to the white community, and you are reaching some inescapable conclusions.

As it has been pointed out, black women suffer from the "down-low" phenomenon disproportionately, and while that is related to homosexual activity, it is not the method of transmission.

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/insite?page=ask-01-01-05 To refute the notion that homosexual men simply are uneducated about safe-sex. Some sex is inherently less safe, and being the receptive partner during anal intercourse is risky, even with a condom.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm

Yes, it is disproportionate for gay men, but the reasons are not clear, and the ASSUMPTION that promiscuity or lack of education is the leading cause compared to inherent risks of anal intercourse requires more than you have provided here.
As for harsh remarks, that is one hell of a stone to be throwing from you glass house.

 

[Janus]

When I read the original post, a name jumped out at me: "Scot Lively". I checked, and confirmed that it was the same Scot Lively who was a leader in the OCA, a organization, that in the nineties, tried(unsuccessfully) to get a slew of Anti-homosexuality laws passed here in Oregon.

While I (and most Oregonians) are glad to be rid of him, I'm sorry to see that he is still spreading his poison elsewhere.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes, it's the same Scott Lively alright. Here's a report he posted from his trip to Uganda last year:

I'm writing from Kampala, Uganda where I am teaching about the "gay" agenda in churches, schools colleges, community groups and in Parliament. My visit here is being treated as an international crisis by the "gay" activists and their media toadies, who are spinning lies in their usual manner, but the Ugandan response has been resoundingly positive.

My week began with a meeting with about fifty members of the Ugandan Christian Lawyers Association on the evening of my arrival, then an address to members of the Parliament on the following morning. There were from fifty to one hundred persons in attendance, including numerous legislators and the Minister of Ethics and Integrity, with whom I enjoyed a personal chat for more than half and hour leading to the event.
...
Now my attention is turned to equipping the activists in Uganda with helpful materials. I have given them permission to make unlimited use of Defeating "Gay" Arguments With Simple Logic, and Seven Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child (a much-esteemed book among the Africans). I still want to send them my remaining stock of about 100 or so copies of Seven Steps, but I didn't raise any money toward this in my last appeal. If you would like to help, please make a donation at www.[edited[/URL] out].php.

Please also pray for my ministry (which has come under withering attack in recent weeks) and the Ugandan people.

Your Fellow Servant,

Dr. Scott Lively[/quote]

Lively has expressed disappointment that the Ugandan bill includes the death penalty and has said he would endorse the bill if they dropped the death penalty.

[url]http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=10045436[/url]Returning to more recent happenings ...
[quote][b]Ugandan Gay Activist Found Beheaded[/b]

Uganda has been in the headlines ever since a lawmaker there last year proposed legislation that would punish some gays with the death penalty. But it would seem that some in Uganda are not waiting for the bill to pass into law: a priest has vanished after delivering a sermon urging compassion for gays, and a young GLBT equality activist, who had also disappeared, has been discovered dead--his head severed from his body and thrown down a latrine.

...[/quote]

[url]http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=107653[/url]Meanwhile, back here in the US, the Canyon Ridge Community Church, which funds Martin Ssempa [religious spearhead of the Ugandan Bill] has come under the spotlight:
[quote] Martin Ssempa, who pastors the evangelical Makerere Community Church in Kampala, has become the face of Uganda's anti-homosexuality movement. He has organized anti-gay rallies. He preaches that many homosexuals are pedophiles who deserve severe punishment, and he wants to ensure that "sodomy and homosexuality never sees the light of legality in this land of the people of Africa."

"This is sick, and it is therefore deviant," he told a large church crowd. "We do not want it."

He even shows hard-core gay pornography in churches and conferences — images that, critics say, whip up sentiment against gay men and lesbians.
...
So why does Canyon Ridge Christian Church in Las Vegas — a megachurch with some 6,000 congregants each week — financially support Ssempa?

Kevin Odor, the senior pastor there, says Ssempa has been "misrepresented."

"His heart is not to kill people," Odor says. "He is a pastor of the Gospel that believes in redemption and his heart is to redeem people."

Odor says Canyon Ridge began supporting Ssempa's huge campus ministry, which preaches abstinence to college students, in 2007. Odor says he does not "personally" endorse the death penalty or life sentences for gay men and lesbians. Asked why he would support someone who does, he sighs.

"We want to help the AIDS problem in Africa, and we found somebody who is making a difference," he says. "So we support him."[/quote]

[url]http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128491183[/url]

 

[Proton Soup]

Meanwhile, back here in the US, the Canyon Ridge Community Church, which funds Martin Ssempa [religious spearhead of the Ugandan Bill] has come under the spotlight:


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128491183

Ssempa is a nut. he has been running around showing people not simple "hard core" gay pornography, but scat porn. just the most vile stuff you can dig up. and presenting this as the norm of homosexual behavior.

this youtube video is censored and uses a lot of baby talk. you won't get "goatsed", but you can see the reactions of those who were.

 

[russ_watters]

I hadn't seen this thread before, and didn't read the whole thing, so I may have missed someone commenting on this, but it seems to me that focusing on a handful of nutty activists is missing the real problem The idea that this handful of activists could have a serious influence on a national government is pretty silly unless that government already has a strong predilection toward those ideas. The west has been trying to change the truly barbaric practices and philosophies existing in Africa for decades and gets pretty strongly rebuffed. Heck, we even have food aid rejected due to paranoia!

So the fact that some activists got an audience isn't the driver of the issue. Those activists are there because the audience was available and receptive - otherwise they'd have gotten their message through here! That's primarly an indictment of the government of Uganda - religious crackpots are already religious crackpots and no one should be listening to them: we don't. Primary blame needs to go where it belongs: the government that is passing the law.

 

[Gokul43201]

I hadn't seen this thread before, and didn't read the whole thing, so I may have missed someone commenting on this, but it seems to me that focusing on a handful of nutty activists is missing the real problem

The focus of the thread is not on the nutty evangelicals in the US - that is merely one aspect of the story - but it definitely is a factor that is significant enough that omitting it entirely would be careless.

The idea that this handful of activists could have a serious influence on a national government is pretty silly unless that government already has a strong predilection toward those ideas.

It has been very clearly stated and shown that the government and the electorate did already have a strong opposition to homosexuality. In fact, the predilection appears to have been stronger among the people than within the government (which has to worry about offending western sensibilities, since that is where most of Uganda's aid money comes from). What the drivers of this Bill seem to have been able to do recently, is fire up the population to such high levels of frenzy and animus that it forces the government to react.

The west has been trying to change the truly barbaric practices and philosophies existing in Africa for decades and gets pretty strongly rebuffed.

It is an oversimplification - and a unhelpful one in the context of this discussion - to lump all of the myriad influences from Western governments and cultures under a single label. Within the confines of this discussion, some of these influences include: (i) acceptance of homosexuality promoted by some tourists and the UN (at least, according to Ugandan sources), (ii) and more generally, a corruption of the Ugandan culture by western media (as expressed by Ssempa and others), (iii) the role of western NGOs and UN-related humanitarian/medical groups working in the area, (iv) the influence of the evangelical movement over the last few decades, but in the context of current events, also the specific role of those involved in the last few years, (v) the use of foreign aid, which makes up close to half the Ugandan economy, and (vi) the role of western governments and NGOs pressuring the Ugandan parliament to risk losing this foreign aid if they go ahead with the Bill.

So the fact that some activists got an audience isn't the driver of the issue. Those activists are there because the audience was available and receptive - otherwise they'd have gotten their message through here! That's primarly an indictment of the government of Uganda - religious crackpots are already religious crackpots and no one should be listening to them: we don't. Primary blame needs to go where it belongs: the government that is passing the law.

The point of this thread is not to merely identify the primary culprit, point the finger, and end the discussion. There are several socio-political aspects to this issue that are all open to discussion ... in addition to watching and commenting upon new developments as they occur (this being a current issue).

As for the role of American evangelicals, their influence is not limited to the three activists that won an audience from the Ugandan Government. We now know (okay, I now know - see previous posts) that there are churches in the US that have been funding and supporting incendiary hate-mongers like Martin Ssempa for years now. And while mainstream pastors like Rick Warren are now expressing very strong disapproval of the Bill, that may hardly be enough to undo the damage done through years of partnership with the drivers of the atrocities that we are now witnessing.

 

[aquitaine]

It is an oversimplification - and a unhelpful one in the context of this discussion - to lump all of the myriad influences from Western governments and cultures under a single label. Within the confines of this discussion, some of these influences include: (i) acceptance of homosexuality promoted by some tourists and the UN (at least, according to Ugandan sources), (ii) and more generally, a corruption of the Ugandan culture by western media (as expressed by Ssempa and others), (iii) the role of western NGOs and UN-related humanitarian/medical groups working in the area, (iv) the influence of the evangelical movement over the last few decades, but in the context of current events, also the specific role of those involved in the last few years, (v) the use of foreign aid, which makes up close to half the Ugandan economy, and (vi) the role of western governments and NGOs pressuring the Ugandan parliament to risk losing this foreign aid if they go ahead with the Bill.

It's also accurate to some degree, perhaps the perfect example of this is slavery. Another would be widespread belief in magic and other crazy stuff.

 

[croghan27]

That's primarly an indictment of the government of Uganda - religious crackpots are already religious crackpots and no one should be listening to them: we don't. Primary blame needs to go where it belongs: the government that is passing the law.

The 'never the twain shall meet' works well in theory - but all too often in Africa (and in N. America as well - see the Rachel Maddow piece) they are one and the same.
__________________

 

[Gokul43201]

Finally, a little relief: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12107596