BBC asks: 'the gays, do we need them?'

Uganda, a country sadly not famed for its human rights record or tolerant attitudes, is making headlines at the moment for proposed new rules on homosexuality. According to the BBC, the bill proposes: 

Life imprisonment for those convicted of a homosexual act. The death sentence where the offender has HiV, is a "serial offender" or the other person is under 18. Imprisonment for seven years for "attempted homosexuality".

It's hard not to be shocked upon hearing such proposals in 2009, but always open-minded the BBC is canvassing some opinion on the subject. In a forum entitled 'Should homosexuals face execution?' the BBC asks:

Has Uganda gone too far? ...Send us your views.

Nice one BBC. That can only backfire.

(It's not too late to nominate the BBC for The Media Blog's 2009 Hero or Villain Award.)

 

Comments

[Ugandan Native]

Have you ever heard Europeans or Americans condemn Saudi Arabia or Asian countries for their laws against homosexuality? ( they are even more harsh). Why do Western countries specifically point out African countries? Why is the West so obsessed with homosexuality in Africa yet we have more pressing problems like lack of education, clean water, poor health, poverty etc... This is pure RACISM with a colonial mentality. Why care about homosexuality so much but ignore the welfare of the people?

[World Citizen]

Ugandan Native, you are clearly well meaning but you are sadly mislead by the education you've been provided and the prejudices you've bought into.

I think people in the West have made their case clear against Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in recent years. But even if they hadn't, simply saying 'others are as bad as us, so leave us alone' is no defence.

As for "Why care about homosexuality so much but ignore the welfare of the people?" that is the most ignorant thing I've read in a long time. Homosexuals ARE people. Entitled to welfare.

But also, the rest of the world is trying to help Uganda here. Rather than executing homosexuals with HIV you'd be much better off spending the money, and effort, educating heterosexuals with HIV. Uganda has clearly lost perspective and is blaming its ills on something that has nothing to do with the poverty and depravation suffered in the country. Look to your corrupt government, not the conspiracy theories against the West.

95%+ of AIDS victims in sub-Saharan Africa are either heterosexual or the children of heterosexuals. Yet you seem intent on blaming the gay community.

You are sadly, in fact tragically, mislead and I'm sorry you discount relevant information as "racism" - a worrying, but inevitable fallback for somebody with nowhere logical left to turn.

Even more sad, we'll not mourn you or yours when you're gone because sadly too many millions of people die each year because of the distrust and ignorance they cannot shake off.

Hopefully the protectionism of outdated views and ignorance you buy into will at least have the decency to die off with its victims.

[The Bazz]

The Gays. Do we need them?

This is an excellent question, that truly captures the core of the gay issues.

Most of the controversy worldwide regarding homosexuals seem to stem from their profound difference from heterosexuality. There have been many events in the course of human history where homosexuals have been reprimanded in one form or another for their sexual preference.

The Uganda event is one of the latest.

The "West", seem to believe that the need for "tolerance" should be upper-most in the mind of any "civilised" individual when it comes to dealing with people with different attitudes to the 'societal norm'.

That term 'tolerance', essentially means 'you don't have to like, but you have to put up with'. Now I for one would prefer to be respected rather than tolerated. So the West's view of being civilised, really calls into question, the amount of credibility one can lend to their view of things. Their view of seeing themselves as being more enlightened, seems to me as being self serving rather than acurate. I simply don't accept that to be able to tolerate someone automatically makes you civilised. To me, it makes you a coward.

Their view doesn't look at the basic requirement of humankind. Which is to simply to replenish human stock. Reprocreation, making more babies, call it what you will.

There are two ways to look at our existence on this planet, the complicated way and the simple most basic way.

The complicated way, is to involve our varied, individual human emotional needs and wants and try to find a single reason for our existence through those various possible combination of needs and emotions.

The simple way, is to strip away all the emotion and individualism and focus on the logic of our existence. And simply put, we exist to maintain our species. This is the reason why we have two genders.

The survival of our species is at the very core of our being. It's programmed in our DNA, this is something that heterosexual understand profoundly and are very good at executing.

Heterosexuals all work toward the same goal to keep the species alive and are violently protective of it. If we didn't do it, we'd die out. It's as simple as that. Logic. Black and White, with no grey areas.

Homosexuals threaten that simple logically based 'reason to exist' philosophy by not contributing to it's purpose. And as such will always face a reaction against them.

So with this in mind, Gays. Do we need them?

The answer seems obvious.