|
Post by merlin on Jun 13, 2011 0:07:25 GMT 3
Merlin, mine isn't an opinion or what I think. What I personally think is different. Madgf,Your comment: Merlin, mine isn't an opinion or what I think. What I personally think is different. Morality is a complex notion, separate from ethics, so it isn't to be understood as a concept or an analysis. This is a negating way in defining morality. This often occurs when we have a notion of what we like to define though struggle to express this in a definite way. Morality is something which lingers in our mind, (like darkness; it cannot be seen, touched, smelled or tasted) so wouldn’t that be a concept? History associates morality with God embodied in His institutions/movement etc. This isn't from religion but from philosophy + academia. For example, Kant in role of reason, treatise on human nature - morality as an extension of God, morality as perception like the senses, felt, rather than judged. I get your normative/prescriptive thing but in the scheme of morality that's considered speculative science, not practice. Kant says a lot about moral law and duty which is like the dominant foundation of how society has entrenched morality in institutions + law. History associates all phenomenon and concepts to God (the creator) but as I explained to luoldeng the influence of God materialise through individuals and institutions which is as far I like to go in identifying their source. It is the influence of your thought expressions and that of Kant I can handle. I agree with your reference to Kant that Morality is a dominant foundation entrenched in our law. I have no problem with the law as the modern lawmaking process is an open democratic process which could safeguard against discrimination. Again, although the bill of rights is there to protect the citizens of Kenya several other laws are there to enforce and discriminate by the majority over minority groups in society. The slogan; in a democracy the minority have their say and the majority their way is not reflecting the intended meaning of democracy. The basis of democracy is to give freedom to everyone to do what they like as long as they do not limit the freedom of others. In this respect are all laws who limit the freedom of minorities based on the likes or dislikes of the majority (morals) undemocratic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2011 0:34:09 GMT 3
We don’t wear earrings, we steal public money
By L. Muthoni Wanyeki (email the author)
Posted Sunday, June 12 2011 at 12:44
The sittings of the parliamentary committee clearing the nominations for the positions of Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and Director of Public Prosecutions last week were sadly telling about how little the committee, members of the public who submitted to it and the general public understand our new Constitution. And, specifically, the equality, ethics and leadership provisions therein.
The Constitution of Kenya, 2010 — like our previous Constitution — provides explicitly for equality and anti-discrimination both as a human right in and of itself, as well as a cross-cutting right that underscores the enjoyment of all other rights. What this means is that we all, regardless of the many ways in which we are different and diverse — grounds enumerated in an expansive and open-ended way — have the right to equal benefit of and protection by the law. We also have the right to equal enjoyment of all other human rights — from civil and political rights (such as the right to safety and security of the person) to economic, social and cultural rights (such as the rights to education, health and housing).
Whether we like it or not, the right to equality and anti-discrimination fully applies, in both ways, to Kenyans who happen to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual and intersex. To put it simply, even a gay Kenyan is entitled to equal benefit of and protection by the law. Even a gay Kenyan is entitled to the right to safety and security of the person or the rights to education, health and housing.
To put it even more simply, the law cannot discriminate against even a gay Kenyan. And neither the public (the state) nor the private (us) sphere can decide we want to throw somebody out of school, deny her or him health services or throw them out of our homes simply because that person happens to be gay. Just as the law cannot discriminate against a Kenyan with disabilities, a Kenyan of an ethnicity or a gender or a race or a religion those administering the law do not like. Ditto for any part of the public (the state) or the private (us) administering any public service—from security, to education, to health, to housing and so on.
In this sense, it is not the nominees for Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice who should have been on the defensive during the parliamentary sittings. It is those who continued to (wrongly) allege that their “morality” was suspect because of their support for what they termed “gay rights.” Actually, morality is a personal matter and has (or should have had) no place at all in the sittings — at least not in that sense, to which I shall return. And what they termed gay rights is actually about the right to equality — for all Kenyans, including those who happen to be gay. The two nominees’ standing up for the right to equality should, in fact, have been applauded — for it demonstrates clearly their understanding of the Constitution — and their intention to adhere to it.
But no. Kenya being Kenya, their “morality” was termed suspect. But morality in the only sense envisioned by the new Constitution — that is, ethics in public office — was deemed to be of little to no account. As the presentations as to the nomination for the position of Director of Public Prosecutions showed —as well as the parliamentary committee’s reactions to them.
Bear in mind that one of the potentially most important gains of the new Constitution is that it clearly separates out the offices of Attorney General (as legal advisor to the government) and the DPP (as the key on which our whole criminal justice system turns). The DPP is to be fully independent from the previous influence of the executive allowed by the confusion of those two roles. The DPP is to be the person to lay all criminal charges — whether for “normal” crimes or for crimes relating to grand corruption and gross and systemic human-rights violations. The DPP is, in fact, to be the solution to impunity — ushering in a new era of accountability.
But no. Kenya being Kenya, all the presentations made about the potential of the person nominated to live up to and deliver on this aspiration, given his past record, seemed to be of little importance. His having written extremist views in relation to the church’s involvement in the struggle for democracy under the regime of former president Daniel arap Moi. His having breached the oath of confidentiality while at the erstwhile Constitution of Kenya Review Commission. His recent prosecutorial failures — most notably, with respect to cases arising from the post-election violence and the grand corruption case against the Member of Parliament William Ruto. And, most shockingly, the allegations aired about his probity last week.
These are all indicators of a lack of “morality” in the only sense the new Constitution envisages. These are not signs that the nominee for DPP understands and will uphold ethics in public office. This is certainly not what we expect or deserve with respect to the promise of that office. Could such a nominee act independently to end impunity and assure us of accountability?
But no. Kenya being Kenya, less attention was paid to this — by the parliamentary committee, by the media —then the obviously more titillating but ultimately irrelevant focus on the “morality” of the nominees for Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice.
It is a terrible indictment of the parliamentary committee. It is a terrible indictment of some of those who presented to it. It is a terrible indictment of the media. And it is a terrible indictment of us all.
Do we understand the promise of the new Constitution? Do we intend to realise that promise? Going by the sittings, clearly not.
L. Muthoni Wanyeki is the executive director of the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2011 21:59:14 GMT 3
Go Kenyans. go go! Gay Kenyans launch online forum
Updated 2 hr(s) 50 min(s) ago
Homosexual acts are illegal in deeply conservative Kenya.
David Wambua, a writer for the site, said it would contain "heart-wrenching stories" of the lives of gay Kenyans.
Kate Kamunde (r) said she would write a story about coming out for the site. Photo:BBC
"I guess it will be personal stories of growing up - of conflicts with one's sexuality - of living in a family which is not accepting of who you are," he told the BBC's Network Africa programme.
He said the rights of gay people should be respected in Kenya.
"If the human rights of gays are affected, we speak out," Mr Wambua said.
Kate Kamunde said she intended to use the site to encourage other gay people to disclose their sexual orientation.
"We have very many people who are still struggling to come out, so I'll first do a 'coming out' story," she said.
Kenya's Prime Minister Raila Odinga stirred controversy last year when he said homosexuality would not be tolerated in the country.
Gay and lesbian people risk a jail-term of up to 10 years if they are convicted of homosexual acts.
Homosexuality is a criminal offence in many African states.
In Uganda, the government considered passing a law that would have imposed the death sentence on gay people, sparking an international outcry.
In Malawi, a gay couple were jailed last year.
President Bingu wa Mutharika pardoned them after strong protests from donor countries, including the US and UK.
He had previously denounced homosexuality as alien to African culture.
Most religious groups in Africa are also strongly opposed to homosexuality, equating it to Satanism.
- BBC
www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePage.php?id=2000037067&cid=4&ttl=Gay%20Kenyans%20launch%20online%20forum
|
|
|
Post by merlin on Jun 14, 2011 12:06:48 GMT 3
Clerics seek harsher laws for gaysAmazing story.A section of Muslim clerics on Monday called on the government to allow them apply Shariah laws to deal with rising cases of homosexuality. If allowed, Shariah laws would enable the clerics to punish offenders as stipulated by the Quran, said Council of Imams and Preachers of Kenya organising secretary Sheikh Mohammed Khalifa. It sounds hopeful to hear this is the view of a section of Muslim clerics though why should the other clerics differ in opinion? It is not unusual that action groups or church institutions like to acquire power to enforce their way of living over others however history shows that democracy is a preferred system to reduce suffering in the world. To reduce suffering it is advisable to aim for coexistence, consensus and harmony between all the different interest groups under the umbrella of Nation building. “We are asking Kenyans to shun businesses owned by such people and further show them open discrimination as a way of stopping the beastly act. Calling for discrimination will not achieve the elimination of homosexuality and only introduce more injustice and suffering in the world. There are individuals who thrive and have satisfactory feelings by inducing suffering onto others though this could not be allowed for groups and organisations. It is therefore illegal for clerics to incite their members to discriminate. “They grossly abuse rights of others and should not be accepted among the society,” he said. This is an erroneous statement. Homosexuals do not abuse the rights of others. People in homosexual relations live in full consent with each other as there is no way to enforce love relationship on people. “Death is the only punishment prescribed by Islam for such people as done in China and Iran. He said if the government was not ready to allow them use Shariah to deal with culprits, then it should consider introducing death and life sentences for the offenders. It is inconceivable to kill people who in no way what so ever do harm to us or society. It is one thing if a group or church claims ownership of the truth though the world has to be shared between all of us. Several speakers urged madrassa teachers to uphold integrity and exercise high moral values as expected of them by the society. Moral values are personal and their applicability should be limited to personal or group use. Society has converted moral values into law which is applicable to every Kenyan. Law has priority over moral values. We have to stick to the law even when this is in conflict with our personal moral values. Any other way increases suffering. Kisauni Islamic College principal Sheikh Majid Obeid blamed the drought in the country on illicit activities by some Kenyans. “The rising cost of living and drought are due to the behaviour of these Kenyans who are not ready to change,” said Sheikh Obeid. This is an illogical argument to relate homosexuality with drought in the country. Such a statement goes beyond religion and transforms religion back into witchcraft. It is incitement for witch-hunting. It damages the credibility of the Muslim society. Other clerics could be aware of this and take corrective action. Full story; www.nation.co.ke/News/regional/Clerics+seek+harsher+laws+for+gays+/-/1070/1180544/-/r4rm13/-/index.html
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Jun 15, 2011 18:46:21 GMT 3
Millie Odhiambo brings parliamentary proceedings to a halt after quoting Betty Murungi that 15% of Kenyans are gay/lesbian & a number of MP's are known to be so as well. Rather than withdraw her statement, she elected to walk out of parliament as the speaker was about to censure her for her "obnoxious" comments. She is not allowed in the august house for 2 days, today's walkout included.
|
|
|
Post by Luol Deng on Jun 15, 2011 20:20:32 GMT 3
That 15% figure is a whole load of crock that has been bandied around since Nancy Baraza made the claim....
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Jun 15, 2011 20:49:38 GMT 3
6 million Kenyans is just doesn't seem plausible. There's no evidence of that on the ground.
|
|
|
Post by merlin on Jun 16, 2011 12:02:50 GMT 3
Millie Odhiambo brings parliamentary proceedings to a halt after quoting Betty Murungi that 15% of Kenyans are gay/lesbian & a number of MP's are known to be so as well. Rather than withdraw her statement, she elected to walk out of parliament as the speaker was about to censure her for her "obnoxious" comments. She is not allowed in the august house for 2 days, today's walkout included. b6k,I do not know where Millie Odhiambo harvested the 15%. I made a quick check on the internet and it seems there are no scientific figures available. I searched the Netherlands as they are one of the most liberal countries though they also have a high standard on privacy law which does not allow collecting specific personal information. Estimates are that 3 – 5 % of the population is gay. However the numbers is irrelevant for the problem of discrimination and abolish human rights for homosexuals.
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Jun 16, 2011 15:18:26 GMT 3
Merlin even a country like the US where both coasts are liberal about homosexuality whilst the heartland takes a more conservative approach only 1.2 million are living in same sex arrangements be they marriage or come we stay. That's out of a population of over 300 million. If 6 million Kenyans are gay then that would really make us a rainbow nation. Do we really have that many closets in KE?
As for the human rights issue, I'm with Luoldeng's old post. Let them ji-enjoy in private without necessarily having to get "in your face" to the hetero majority.
|
|
|
Post by merlin on Jun 16, 2011 18:02:25 GMT 3
Merlin even a country like the US where both coasts are liberal about homosexuality whilst the heartland takes a more conservative approach only 1.2 million are living in same sex arrangements be they marriage or come we stay. That's out of a population of over 300 million. If 6 million Kenyans are gay then that would really make us a rainbow nation. Do we really have that many closets in KE? As for the human rights issue, I'm with Luoldeng's old post. Let them ji-enjoy in private without necessarily having to get "in your face" to the hetero majority. B6k,I do not think homosexuality is limited to the sexual act which of course is not done in public. Homosexual relations are just like heterosexual a love relation between two people. The discrimination is in finding a house, education, job, health insurance, medical services, pension fund, taxation, rights of inheritance and harassment by family, neighbours, clerics, church representatives, etc. If we discuss homosexuality here in JUKWAA then the minds seems to be blinded solely by the sexual act though none of us will ever be confronted by this other than in our imagination. I like to show an example how a more liberal society approaches homosexual issues. Loneliness Among Older Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults: The Role of Minority Stress The Relation Between Social Embeddedness and Loneliness among Older Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults in the Netherlands Tineke Fokkema and Lisette Kuyper
Abstract Past research has consistently found that aging lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (LGBs) are more apt to suffer from loneliness than their heterosexual counterparts. Data from the 2002 Gay Autumn survey (N = 122) were used to find out whether minority stress relates to higher levels of loneliness among older LGB adults in the Netherlands. We examined five minority stress factors: external objective stressful events, expectations of those events, internalized homonegativity, hiding and concealment of one’s LGB identity, and ameliorating processes. The results showed that greater insight into loneliness among older LGB adults was obtained when minority stress factors were considered. Older LGB adults who had experienced negative reactions, as well as aging LGBs who expected those reactions, had the highest levels of loneliness. Having an LGB social network buffered against the impact of minority stress. These minority stress processes added to the variance already explained by general factors that influenced levels of loneliness (partner relationships, general social network, physical health, and self-esteem). Interventions aimed at decreasing feelings of loneliness among older LGBs should be focused on decreasing societal homonegativity (to decrease the amount of negative and prejudiced reactions) and on the enhancement of social activities for LGB elderly. Source and full article: www.springerlink.com/content/m2100715034v6382/Can we broaden our minds to look beyond the sexual act and give homosexual citizens the same rights and a place to live as we are longing for? No one can claim to own Kenya. The earth is home to everyone and we have no other option than to share.
|
|
|
Post by Luol Deng on Jun 17, 2011 0:52:19 GMT 3
Merlin,
The gay community are trying to have it both ways here. They have for long claimed that they want their privacy protected, etc. I said they can have their privacy. But as for public expression, I will oppose it to the end.
First, there is a reason why in the bill of rights the discrimination based on "sexual orientation" was deliberately left out. It was because that would have made the document unmarketable and even the commissioners said as much. When Ruto tried to say that the clause on discrimination based on "sex" was to promoting homosexuality, it was clarified that sex was synonymous with gender rather than sexuality.
Second, the constitution went on to describe marriage explicitly that it has to be between members of the opposite sex. There is no clause in the constitution that can be construed to support homosexuality.
So, does someone act against constitution by discriminating against homosexuals? The answer is an emphatic no.
When it comes to rights, it depends on someone's interpretation of the same. Rights are not absolute. We have freedom of speech, but the freedom cannot be used to incite hatred, spread false alarms, etc. We have freedom of association, but the same cannot be used to plan for attacks & illegal activities. With the same token, we can say that we have freedom of association, but the same cannot be used to undermine the family in its definition according to the constitution.
There are a lot of grey areas that will have to be clarified by the supreme court. But as the article you were rebutting yesterday was implying, if an activist judiciary attempts to foist an unfriendly interpretation, a more restrictive amendment will be in the offing.
On the definitions, the gay community has always been slippery on its definitions, there is no consistency. When it comes to showing homosexuality in other species, they reduce it to the sexual act. When asking for some rights e.g. privacy, they use the sexual act based definition by saying what "consenting adults do in their bedroom should not be anybody's business".
Finally, equality with gays is impossible constitutionally. The constitution already excludes them from the institution of marriage, so, there you go
|
|
|
Post by merlin on Jun 17, 2011 16:38:32 GMT 3
Merlin, The gay community are trying to have it both ways here. They have for long claimed that they want their privacy protected, etc. I said they can have their privacy. But as for public expression, I will oppose it to the end. First, there is a reason why in the bill of rights the discrimination based on "sexual orientation" was deliberately left out. It was because that would have made the document unmarketable and even the commissioners said as much. When Ruto tried to say that the clause on discrimination based on "sex" was to promoting homosexuality, it was clarified that sex was synonymous with gender rather than sexuality. Second, the constitution went on to describe marriage explicitly that it has to be between members of the opposite sex. There is no clause in the constitution that can be construed to support homosexuality. So, does someone act against constitution by discriminating against homosexuals? The answer is an emphatic no. When it comes to rights, it depends on someone's interpretation of the same. Rights are not absolute. We have freedom of speech, but the freedom cannot be used to incite hatred, spread false alarms, etc. We have freedom of association, but the same cannot be used to plan for attacks & illegal activities. With the same token, we can say that we have freedom of association, but the same cannot be used to undermine the family in its definition according to the constitution. There are a lot of grey areas that will have to be clarified by the supreme court. But as the article you were rebutting yesterday was implying, if an activist judiciary attempts to foist an unfriendly interpretation, a more restrictive amendment will be in the offing. On the definitions, the gay community has always been slippery on its definitions, there is no consistency. When it comes to showing homosexuality in other species, they reduce it to the sexual act. When asking for some rights e.g. privacy, they use the sexual act based definition by saying what "consenting adults do in their bedroom should not be anybody's business". Finally, equality with gays is impossible constitutionally. The constitution already excludes them from the institution of marriage, so, there you go Luoldeng,You wrote a quality comment. The gay community are trying to have it both ways here. They have for long claimed that they want their privacy protected, etc. I said they can have their privacy. But as for public expression, I will oppose it to the end. I respect your opinion though in relation to the rest of your comment there is a need for Homosexuals to come out in the open to achieve; recognition for their homosexuality, acknowledgement that their wishes are heard, and acceptance of their rightful place in society. First, there is a reason why in the bill of rights the discrimination based on "sexual orientation" was deliberately left out. It was because that would have made the document unmarketable and even the commissioners said as much. When Ruto tried to say that the clause on discrimination based on "sex" was to promoting homosexuality, it was clarified that sex was synonymous with gender rather than sexuality. I understand the constitution is a compromise between different interest groups and probably the maximum what could be achieved in the current environment. The referendum would never have made it if a clause on discrimination based on sexuality had been written into it. The opposing forces would have eagerly used it to defeat the new constitution. Second, the constitution went on to describe marriage explicitly that it has to be between members of the opposite sex. There is no clause in the constitution that can be construed to support homosexuality. Yes, so the constitution state. It excludes a minority group from several legal rights which come with being registered as a married couple. So, does someone act against constitution by discriminating against homosexuals? The answer is an emphatic no. This implies that the constitution does not protect all its citizens and allows discrimination of minority groups. When it comes to rights, it depends on someone's interpretation of the same. Rights are not absolute. We have freedom of speech, but the freedom cannot be used to incite hatred, spread false alarms, etc. We have freedom of association, but the same cannot be used to plan for attacks & illegal activities. With the same token, we can say that we have freedom of association, but the same cannot be used to undermine the family in its definition according to the constitution. I agree with you that rights can be used adversely to damage rights of others such as hate speech. Though I have to ask you again; “do homosexuals infringe and damage the rights of others?” This is a very essential question because if you categorise homosexuals in the same category as paedophiles, rapists, thieves, muggers, terrorists, murderers, then we have to divert our discussion from morality, constitution and law to discover where and how homosexuals infringe on the rights of others. We could start with family rights; what does this mean and should everyone be forced to get married and prolong the family construction of husband, wife and children? Are we going to abolish priests who live in abstention? Lock-up all (unmarried) prostitutes? Are we going to impose the number of children a family should have? Are we going to make legislation to force homosexuals and lesbians to marry someone from the opposite sex? There are a lot of grey areas that will have to be clarified by the supreme court. But as the article you were rebutting yesterday was implying, if an activist judiciary attempts to foist an unfriendly interpretation, a more restrictive amendment will be in the offing. I agree with you though law is not static and will always move forward from a suppressive tool of a minority to a protective tool from abuse by the majority. Law will always be a follower of changes in society and changes come from open discussions. On the definitions, the gay community has always been slippery on its definitions, there is no consistency. When it comes to showing homosexuality in other species, they reduce it to the sexual act. When asking for some rights e.g. privacy, they use the sexual act based definition by saying what "consenting adults do in their bedroom should not be anybody's business". I do not think you can blame the homosexual community from slippery definitions. In a repressive society there is no open discussion possible. Homosexuals get hurt and stoned if they come out in the open. The fight for rights for repressed and discriminated minorities is always led by extremists. I remember the woman’s lib movement which was led by “Mad Women”. The discussion by the public was that these Mad Woman extremists where damaging the woman’s lib case. However looking back they actually forced a breakthrough to be heard and taken seriously by society. Finally, equality with gays is impossible constitutionally. The constitution already excludes them from the institution of marriage, so, there you go The constitution is the law within the time frame of today. It reflects and formalise moral values of the majority into law. However moral values change with growth and maturity of the society. Homosexuals should not sit down and be defeated by a hostile constitution. The constitution has to change and it will. The constitution is therefore not the issue to be discussed. The discussion is to create awareness of the unfair treatment of a minority group by society. Society has to change in recognising that there are citizens amongst us with different sexuality as what we (the majority) have. Society has to acknowledge this abnormality and not try to live in denial; treat homosexuality as a disease which should be cured into heterosexuality or sweep it under the carpet. It should evaluate if homosexuality does serious damage to the society and if not accept the minority as a normality of society. This discussion will go on till homosexuals are accepted as full members of society and after homosexuality there will be other minority groups fighting for acceptance in a repressive society. Surely we will get there; a society where everyone is accepted as a full member how else can we define equality? The constitution will follow and change accordingly. So back to the discussion “What harm does homosexuality do to society?”
|
|
|
Post by politicalmaniac on Jun 17, 2011 19:30:11 GMT 3
The march to equality for GLBT is proceeding inexorably, hata kama wengine ni phobics. SAfrica moved, and the UN approved, Gay rights resolution, this is the first time it has been done. link HERE
|
|
|
Post by Luol Deng on Jun 17, 2011 19:51:54 GMT 3
Oh yeah, UN....We'll see what this resolution comes to. Have the other resolutions ever achieved anything?
|
|
|
Post by Luol Deng on Jun 17, 2011 21:01:02 GMT 3
Merlin,
Let us get things straight (no pun intended), the homosexual community may be considered a minority in the numerical sense. In the constitution however, there is a definition of what a minority constitutes. Criminals are equally a minority in the society, no one will stand up to claim minority rights for them. They however qualify for some rights under the constitution.
We then come to the issue of the infamous 15%. It was a limited study done by KEMRI but then the likes of Betty Murungi falsified the contents and went on to claim that 15% of Kenyans are homosexual.
Let us get the background of this figure. KEMRI did a research on the rate of AIDS infection. The report found out that there was a 15.2% increase in infection rates among homosexuals at a time that the rates of infection were reducing. KEMRI then made a plea that the homosexual community should be factored into the anti-AIDS campaign. The primary reason for this plea is that it was found that they were engaging in sexual activities with married men as well. This meant that the married men were posing risks to their marriage partners and could cause the overall rate of infection to start surging.
With that report what happened next? We have the Betty Murungis of this world interpreting the rise of infection rate among homosexuals to mean that the said percentage represents the percentage of homosexuals in the republic. Millie Odhiambo repeated as much in parliament. Now, there are two conclusions that are mutually exclusive that we can make. Is it that Esther Murungi, Millie Odhiambo & the rest of their gang don't know how to read such research papers? I don't think so. Esther Murungi, Baraza & Millie Odhiambo are ladies who are extremely smart...so, the conclusion is that they are using deliberate disinformation to try to make their case for the homosexual community more persuasive. This is not the first time the NGO community has falsified figures. How about 700 women dying daily in Kenya due to unsafe abortions? How about Kibera being a slum of 2 million inhabitants? (Even Chris Rock, Serena Williams, etc fell for this propaganda). It seems like they assume that all people are morons.
What is my opinion concerning the above? I agree with KEMRI's findings that the gay community are at risk and that they have to be factored into the anti-AIDS campaign. It is unfortunate that KEMRI's facility @ Mtwapa was targeted after they made that suggestion.
The gay rights activists are also witholding a lot of information regarding homosexual practices, they know that if they do this, their case will lose traction. By the way, that 15% propaganda is going to harm their movement severely in the long run, watch this space.
As for your question on "What harm have the homosexuals done to the society". It is a plain known fact that homosexual practices are some of the riskiest and they have a higher susceptibility to several diseases compared to heterosexuals. This is a fact that even their supporters will never deny. The KEMRI report that I alluded to also confirms it with figures to boot.
|
|
|
Post by Luol Deng on Jun 17, 2011 22:15:31 GMT 3
I have to make a correction to my explanation of the 15% above. The 15.2% was the percentage of homosexuals in the total number of new infections. So, unless the Betty Murungis of this world were trying to claim that sexual practices are completely neutral in the spread of AIDS, I don't know how they could have derived the percentage of Kenyans who in Muthoni Wanyeki's words "happen to be homosexual".
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Jun 17, 2011 22:16:01 GMT 3
Luoldeng, NGO's have to fiddle with the numbers in order to keep themselves relevant...& working. Any hope of getting a link to that KEMRI study that started the ball rolling down the slippery slope?
|
|
|
Post by Luol Deng on Jun 17, 2011 22:26:51 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by merlin on Jun 17, 2011 23:16:48 GMT 3
The march to equality for GLBT is proceeding inexorably, hata kama wengine ni phobics. SAfrica moved, and the UN approved, Gay rights resolution, this is the first time it has been done. link HERE PM,Thanks for bringing this resolution to our attention. I feel its worthwhile to list it here on the board to animate reading. (CNN) -- In what the U.S. State Department is calling a "historic step," the U.N. Human Rights Council passed a resolution Friday supporting equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation. The resolution, introduced by South Africa, is the first-ever U.N. resolution on the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered persons. It passed with 23 votes in favor, 19 opposed and three abstentions amid strong criticism of South Africa by some African nations.
Suzanne Nossel, deputy assistant secretary of state for international organizations, told CNN, "It really is a key part in setting a new norm that gay rights are human rights and that that has to be accepted globally." "It talks about the violence and discrimination that people of LGBT persuasion experience around the world," she said, "and that those issues ... need to be taken seriously. It calls for reporting on what's going on, where people are being discriminated against, the violence that is taking place, and it really puts the issue squarely on the U.N.'s agenda going forward."
Divided opinion continues among some countries about whether the time has come to take up gay rights in the U.N. forum, Nossel said, "so this resolution is really significant as far as gaining widespread support for doing just that." The State Department lobbied intensively for the resolution, and Nossel said the United States was pleased to see African leadership, from South Africa in particular, as well as strong support from South America, Colombia and Brazil.
The resolution also will commission the first-ever U.N. report on the challenges that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people face around the globe. Nossel said the Obama administration hopes it will "open a broader international discussion on how to best promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons." In March the U.N. Human Rights Council adopted a statement, supported by 85 countries, on gay rights called "Ending Violence Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity." Friday's vote "marks a victory for defenders of human rights," said Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "It sends a clear message that abuses based on sexual orientation and gender identity must end." U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made gay rights a key focus of the State Department's human rights agenda, expressing her view that "gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights."
At a gay pride event this month at the State Department, Clinton said, "Men and women are harassed, beaten, subjected to sexual violence, even killed, because of who they are and whom they love. Some are driven from their homes or countries, and many who become refugees confront new threats in their countries of asylum. In some places, violence against the LGBT community is permitted by law and inflamed by public calls to violence; in others, it persists insidiously behind closed doors."
Nossel told CNN, "it's not like discrimination or violence are going to end overnight" because of the U.N. resolution, "but now ... when there are proposals in parliaments or legislatures around the world to illegalize gay activity or repress people because of their sexual orientation, opponents can point to this and say, 'Hey, the U.N. has spoken out, there is a resolution that rejects this squarely.' "That is the way these international norms are built," she said. "It's not from scratch. On women's rights, on minority rights, it builds up over time. So this is really a critical beginning of a universal recognition of a new set of rights that forms part of the international system." Source: edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/06/17/un.lgbt.rights/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
|
|
|
Post by Luol Deng on Jun 17, 2011 23:47:21 GMT 3
That resolution means nothing in the Kenyan context unless it is domesticated. It was just the same of the old stuff and the same lines of division were clear. It is clearly chipping at the edges, nowhere near getting to the heart of the matter. This one would have made more sense but it got nowhere. (Reuters) - The U.N. General Assembly split over the issue of gay rights on Thursday after a European-drafted statement calling for decriminalization of homosexuality prompted an Arab-backed one opposing it.
Diplomats said a joint statement initiated by France and the Netherlands gathered 66 signatures in the 192-nation assembly after it was read out by Argentina at a plenary session. A rival statement, read out by Syria, gathered some 60.
The two statements remained open for further signatures, the diplomats said. No resolution was drafted on the issue and there was no voting, they added.
The division in the General Assembly reflected conflicting laws in the world at large. According to sponsors of the Franco-Dutch text, homosexuality is illegal in 77 countries, seven of which punish it by death.
The European Union-backed document, noting that the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was marked this month, said those rights applied equally to all people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
It urged states "to take all the necessary measures, in particular legislative or administrative, to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention."
But the opposing document said the statement "delves into matters which fall essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states" and could lead to "the social normalization, and possibly the legitimization, of many deplorable acts including pedophilia."
"We note with concern the attempts to create 'new rights' or 'new standards,' by misinterpreting the Universal Declaration and international treaties to include such notions that were never articulated nor agreed by the general membership," it added.
This, it said, could "seriously jeopardize the entire international human rights framework."
Muslim countries have for years opposed international attempts to legalize homosexuality.
U.S. officials said the United States had not signed either document. They said the broad framing of the language in the statement supporting decriminalization created conflicts with U.S. law, but gave no further details.
But Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen told reporters it was a "very special day at the U.N."
"For the first time in history a large group of member states speaks out in the General Assembly against discrimination based on sexual orientation," he said. "With today's statement, this is no longer a taboo within the U.N."
Syrian Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari told reporters sponsors of the statement had "cornered" other members by springing the declaration on them.
(Editing by David Storey) www.reuters.com/article/2008/12/18/us-un-homosexuality-idUSTRE4BH7EW20081218The moral of the story is that the UN cannot legislate a 'one size fits all' culture to the rest of the world. If some countries are comfortable with the legitimization of the homosexual lifestyle, they are within their rights. We on the other hand are not comfortable with the legitimization of the same.
|
|
|
Post by merlin on Jun 18, 2011 14:53:50 GMT 3
Luoldeng,Your Comment; That resolution means nothing in the Kenyan context unless it is domesticated. It was just the same of the old stuff and the same lines of division were clear. It is clearly chipping at the edges, nowhere near getting to the heart of the matter. This one would have made more sense but it got nowhere. You may be right it means nothing in the Kenyan context although Kenya is not an island without connections to the rest of the world. Like as we in Kenya moving into a new dispensation, so is the world at large moving towards a better world with lesser suffering, more freedom and opportunities for individual growth. The U.N. resolution is a milestone in this movement for a better world. Not every country will take notice or domesticate the resolution into their national law. Countries vary in development though you could imagine it as a sliding window whereby all the countries within the window will move forward to this better world. The resolution therefore is not an UN 'one size fits all' legislation to the rest of the world though a challenge for progression. Every country will follow at own pace. However development cannot be stopped as the craving for a better world is everywhere (as we currently see in the North African and Middle East region). Some people are progressive by nature always on the look-out to try new things which promise a better situation though others are conservative afraid for negative impact of new situations. We should move forward without creating a rupture between the progressive and conservative citizens. We therefore have to discuss what to expect of the new situation the perceived advantages and dangers of moving forward. We should not lose anyone on this journey to the better world. Sometimes people are extremely scared for new situations that they do not even like to think about it let’s alone discuss such a thing. However we as JUKWAA members are brave enough to open such a discussion. So back to the discussion “What harm does homosexuality do to society?”
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Jun 18, 2011 18:16:33 GMT 3
Merlin, two words: Creeping Homosexuality. Creeping homosexuality Written by admin on October 29, 2010 – 5:04 pm It happened after Kenya’s new constitution was ratified in the August 4th referendum. It was a seminar somewhere in Africa. A member of the Committee of Experts was fielding questions. The question was: “Why does Kenya’s new constitution not allow homosexual rights?” The answer would have surprised most Kenyans: “It does, but it is not explicit!” The expert went on to express contentment that church leaders had not focused on this aspect of the new constitution in their campaign against the document. Well, some did but were dismissed out of hand as desperate liars. At the time, a simple Internet search could disclose why there was so much interest in gays in Kenya. GTZ, the German development arm, openly discloses its program funding gay rights in Kenya. Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, has also openly directed USAID and American embassies in Africa to push for gay rights. Where there is money available for any social cause, there will always be found people to receive it. That is the basic principle of the donor industry. It is the opposite of entrepreneurship, which either satisfies real needs or the business collapses. The donor industry never lacks aid recipients. Yet even if gay rights are introduced into our country against the wishes of the majority, through duplicitous means and foreign funding, there is still an important question to be resolved. Why should anyone, save those accused of being religious zealots, have any problem with what is done in private by two consenting adults? Isn’t homophobia merely a reflection of subjective personal prejudices? John Stuart Mill, the British utilitarian thinker, argued in his major work On Liberty (1859) that there is a disjunction between law and morality. And that law should not protect morality, but only protect citizens from harm caused by others. Mill believed that there are actions that only affect the actor and therefore society has no right to intervene even if it thinks the individual is causing serious harm to himself. This eventually led to the famous Devlin- Hart debate when Britain was considering legalising homosexuality fifty years ago. Devlin argued persuasively that there is a shared moral fabric which society should seek to preserve. In other words, all legal systems are based on moral values and should be based on a proper understanding of natural law. Hart disagreed, arguing that most people’s views are coloured by superstition and prejudice. Natural philosophy reveals a truism: a thought germinates a word, sprouts into a deed, matures into a habit and strengthens into character. It is a seamless web and since man is a social being, one’s actions always directly or indirectly affect others. This is the ultimate answer to JS Mill libertarians. The Hindus call it karma, the military name it blowback, and classical philosophers identify internal and external components of all human acts. Article 45 of our new constitution borrows from the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights by terming the family the natural and fundamental unit of society and the necessary basis for social order. Yet the family is a vulnerable institution, as vulnerable as the human body is, as susceptible to corruption, perversion and death as any other social institution. Hence the need to set up high and rigid walls to protect it from actions that may degrade it. Homosexuality is an enemy of family integrity and moral culture, like pornography, adultery, divorce, abortion, even contraception. But homosexuality is a bigger danger than the other enemies, because the others at an elemental level respect the basic structure of human sexuality even as they manipulate its natural processes. In contrast, homosexuality seeks to bring down the very structure of human sexuality, and with it the family which is the shrine of human sexuality and love. To be human is to be part of a family. Once homosexuality destroys our families, we will find that our common humanity has been dragged down with it. Charles Kanjama. (The author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya). www.lifematters.co.ke/tag/homosexuality/
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Jun 18, 2011 18:19:04 GMT 3
...Which is followed on the same link by the more disturbing expose on Hillary Clinton's hidden agenda for Africa. Why is Hillary pushing gay rights upon Africa? Written by admin on July 12, 2010 – 6:33 am Obama, had declared June the Lesbian-Gay- Bisexual-Transgender Pride Month, they would simply not believe it. Nor would they believe that in his proclamation for Fathers’ Day, he’d said that nurturing families comes in many forms, including being raised by two “fathers” — even if neither of them is the true father. To top it all, Hillary Clinton recently told “LGBT members of the State Department family” that gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay and that her first concern for Africa is how LGBT persons are treated on the continent. “Our regional bureaus are working closely with our embassies on this issue. The Bureau of African Affairs has taken the lead by asking every embassy in Africa to report on the conditions of local LGBT communities. And I’m asking every regional bureau to make this issue a priority. ” This was greeted with thunderous applause in Foggy Bottom. But I wonder if she would dare to make this announcement in Nairobi. Indeed, it is fortunate that the US does not have an embassy in Mogadishu, because if the word got round that THIS was the African priority for the present US administration, there would be a repetition of Black Hawk Down. And not only in Somalia. Of course, most Africans are completely unaware of Ms Clinton’s agenda. They sense no danger to their way of life from Uncle Sam’s quirky obsessions. But they should. Issues like these are achieved covertly, patiently and using the legal systems. And before the electorate knows what’s happened, these new “rights” have been enshrined in a Bill of Rights. US Vice-President Joe Biden’s recent trip to Nairobi seemed part of an effort to impose Uncle Sam’s values on Kenyans. It was a typical operation: arrogant and extreme security measures, chaotic traffic jams, and the token visit to a Kibera slum. He went, at huge expense to the US taxpayer, to boost the proposed Kenyan Constitution, and promise that “once it’s approved” his boss will make his first official visit to Kenya. The proposed Constitution leaves the way clear to sign the right to abortion – and later on, gay and lesbian rights — into the new document without passing through Parliament. From an African point of view this seems to be one of the top priorities of the Obama/Biden/Clinton triumvirate. Kenya, often perceived by outsiders as the most “Western” African country after South Africa, is being used as a guinea pig. The perception is mistaken. Only some sectors of youth in the capital, Nairobi, are Westernised, by Afro-Americana, especially rap, rock and reggae, which fill in a cultural gap and are a sign of protest against the older generation. Even the cosmopolitan coastal resort of Mombasa staged a strong public protest when two “gays” tried to “marry” recently in a suburb, Mtwapa, known for its strange characters and commercial sex tourism. But the pattern seems clear: first apply pressure to Kenya, then move on to other East African countries. Uganda has already had its knuckles rapped by Clinton over its Anti-Homosexuality Bill. If the truth about all this were to get out, the embers of anti-Americanism, which have been smouldering since the invasion of Iraq, might burst into flame. Africans are ambivalent about the US. “Let us in to share your wealth, expertise, high standards and your experiment with democracy,” Africans say. “Your hand-outs are welcome too, provided they reach the people they’re intended for, and provided that there are no strings attached. But leave us to run our own affairs, and do not interfere with our culture, our values and traditions. We may not have got our act together politically and economically, but we know what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. So leave us alone!” LGBT rights, a priority in Kenya? When we’re starved for food, education, basic health care, shelter, food, work opportunities and humane working conditions, and accountability? Pull the other one! Martyn Drakard writes from Kampala, in Uganda. Source: www.mercatornet.com/ articles/view/ why_is_hillary_pushing_gay_rights_upon_africa/
|
|
|
Post by Luol Deng on Jun 18, 2011 21:46:06 GMT 3
Merlin,
First, into the progressive vs conservative argument. You say that conservatives are "afraid" of the negative impact of change while the progressives seek 'better'. I am a social conservative, to say that I am afraid of change is way off the mark. I am just being realistic, that's all. We have been treated to liberal 'advancements' on family life. Stuff like kiboko doesn't work (using highly flawed examples). With all those advancements, are the families in the west any less dysfunctional than they were 50 years ago? I can go into further examples but let me leave it at one example, this is a thread on a completely different topic.
When we consider the issue of homosexuality, is there anything beneficial that will make me promote it? Absolutely none! It is an affront to the traditional family for obvious reasons.
The most compelling reason is one that is health related. It is a well known fact that homosexuals have vastly greater chances of contracting several diseases. Want proof? You can do the appropriate search on the CDC website, they've been doing research on the same for years.
In the Kenyan context, KEMRI, CDC, etc did studies that corroborate the claim. If the gay population is well under 5% of the national population yet they contribute 15.26% of the new AIDS infections, there is a problem, a big problem. If we take the fact that they engage in sexual intercourse with married people, then the risk applies to the general population as well.
Considering that a section of liberals (of the social variety) are in favour of discouraging unhealthy eating habits to avoid certain illnesses, why don't they take a dose of their own medicine and discourage homosexuality with all the health risks it carries?
|
|
|
Post by merlin on Jun 19, 2011 12:05:10 GMT 3
Merlin, two words: Creeping Homosexuality. Creeping homosexuality Written by admin on October 29, 2010 – 5:04 pm It happened after Kenya’s new constitution was ratified in the August 4th referendum. --------- --------- To be human is to be part of a family. Once homosexuality destroys our families, we will find that our common humanity has been dragged down with it. Charles Kanjama. (The author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya). www.lifematters.co.ke/tag/homosexuality/ B6KCreeping Homosexuality.You submit a document from someone else which makes it a bit unusual for me to react as I prefer to react on what your opinion is. Furthermore Charles Kanjama (the person who wrote the article) will never read my reaction which leaves me with a weird feeling of replying to a ghost however I will give it a go: Creeping homosexuality Written by admin on October 29, 2010 – 5:04 pm
It happened after Kenya’s new constitution was ratified in the August 4th referendum. It was a seminar somewhere in Africa. A member of the Committee of Experts was fielding questions. The question was: “Why does Kenya’s new constitution not allow homosexual rights?” The answer would have surprised most Kenyans: “It does, but it is not explicit!” This answer is correct and wrong (or incomplete) as it talks about homosexual rights. It is the theme we discuss here as well. We are not discussing the homosexual sex act though the “rights of a citizen who lives in a homosexual relation” which is not the same as “homosexual rights”. Homosexual rights do not exist. There are no special provisions in the constitution for homosexuals. What we discuss is the perception that the constitution allows society to discriminate homosexuals and deny them the same rights as citizens who live in a heterosexual relation. The expert went on to express contentment that church leaders had not focused on this aspect of the new constitution in their campaign against the document. Well, some did but were dismissed out of hand as desperate liars. This is disputable as the constitution does not contain homosexual rights. At the time, a simple Internet search could disclose why there was so much interest in gays in Kenya. GTZ, the German development arm, openly discloses its program funding gay rights in Kenya. Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, has also openly directed USAID and American embassies in Africa to push for gay rights. Where there is money available for any social cause, there will always be found people to receive it. That is the basic principle of the donor industry. It is the opposite of entrepreneurship, which either satisfies real needs or the business collapses. The donor industry never lacks aid recipients. This is a personal opinion of the writer as we do not know the intention of GTZ and USAID to promote homosexuality. The new constitution has everything to do with law and rights. The whole process is based on moving away rights from an autocratic system with an imperial president and reform it into a democratic system of inclusivity of the citizens of Kenya. This process of inclusivity should also address the rights of people living in a homosexual relation as they are citizens of Kenya. The writer phrases this paragraph in a negative envelope which probably indicates a personal bias. Yet even if gay rights are introduced into our country against the wishes of the majority, through duplicitous means and foreign funding, there is still an important question to be resolved. Why should anyone, save those accused of being religious zealots, have any problem with what is done in private by two consenting adults? Isn’t homophobia merely a reflection of subjective personal prejudices?
John Stuart Mill, the British utilitarian thinker, argued in his major work On Liberty (1859) that there is a disjunction between law and morality. And that law should not protect morality, but only protect citizens from harm caused by others. Mill believed that there are actions that only affect the actor and therefore society has no right to intervene even if it thinks the individual is causing serious harm to himself. I perceive this to be the principal of law. The reason why we have laws is to protect citizens. People do not live on their own but with many together and one’s personal freedom could probably limits other’s freedom and hurt them. This is the main reason why we have laws; to protect the brothers and sisters around us. Any law that surpasses this basic rule means undue suppression and should be removed from books of law. Law should not be a tool for the mighty to impose their will on citizen and neither should it be a tool for the majority to impose their will. Again, although the bill of rights is there to protect the citizens of Kenya several other laws are there to enforce and discriminate by the majority over minority groups in society. The slogan; in a democracy the minority have their say and the majority their way is not reflecting the intended meaning of democracy. The basis of democracy is to give freedom to everyone to do what they like as long as they do not limit the freedom of, or harm others. In this respect are all laws undemocratic which limit the freedom of minorities based on the likes or dislikes of the majority (morals). The bill of rights state the following: Equality and freedom from discrimination27. (1) Every person is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law. (2) Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and fundamental freedoms This eventually led to the famous Devlin- Hart debate when Britain was considering legalising homosexuality fifty years ago. Devlin argued persuasively that there is a shared moral fabric which society should seek to preserve. In other words, all legal systems are based on moral values and should be based on a proper understanding of natural law. Hart disagreed, arguing that most people’s views are coloured by superstition and prejudice. Morals are personal value system like believing in God, witchcraft, superstition. Lucky numbers, etc. They have no value to protect society and its citizens. We all can enter the city traffic with the best of morals though it is the traffic laws who protect us from killing each other. The problem with traffic chaos in Nairobi is the weak enforcement of traffic laws – and not our morals. Natural philosophy reveals a truism: a thought germinates a word, sprouts into a deed, matures into a habit and strengthens into character. It is a seamless web and since man is a social being, one’s actions always directly or indirectly affect others. This is the ultimate answer to JS Mill libertarians. The Hindus call it karma, the military name it blowback, and classical philosophers identify internal and external components of all human acts. This statement is incomplete. Thought germinates a word, sprouts into a deed, matures into a habit and strengthens into character however since man is also a rational being his thought will lead to interaction with reality and as such be validated by the touchstone of reality for intended effect and actual effect. Thoughts which do not achieve intended effects will be discarded. However not every citizen is gifted with strong rational resulting in repeated identical ineffective behaviour with the expectation of different results, pyramid schemes, healer practices, witchcraft and belief in supernatural powers. It is the playground for conmen and women. Even a member of parliament believed in doubling his money within a few days and lost a few million shillings. Article 45 of our new constitution borrows from the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights by terming the family the natural and fundamental unit of society and the necessary basis for social order. Yet the family is a vulnerable institution, as vulnerable as the human body is, as susceptible to corruption, perversion and death as any other social institution. Hence the need to set up high and rigid walls to protect it from actions that may degrade it. Family is the natural and fundamental unit of society and the necessary basis for social order. This is easily quoted though what does it mean? It is a vague statement in the order of God and the Devil exists. You believe it or don’t. It is very difficult to give this statement logical hands and feet. It states its necessity for social order though social order can be found in democracy or many years back by the grace of the King or other Autocratic rulers. Social order develops out of individual needs for safety and protection. I do not see how family is a necessary part of this. Family is mainly an autocratic order though cannot be replicated into social order without severe negative effects. Soon as we leave our house behaviour changes. Out in the public arena we cannot behave like we do at home without creating havoc. I fight for my brother even kill for him without questioning his motives because he is my brother. The extended family, the Clan, the Tribe even the Nation has severe negative consequences for social order. I perceive Nationhood is better than tribe and tribe better than extended family and extended family better than family. What are these outsiders telling us? Why listening to foreigners, though reality validates our thoughts. We as Kenyans could realise without the international community we would still be killing each other. I do not think family is the cornerstone of our social order. I perceive it is the individual seeking safety and protection from repression of state, tribe, clan, family. The fundamental unit of society is the individual interacting with another individual which can be in any sort of relation – inclusive family. This safety and protection should not be found in family, clan, tribe even not in Nation though in the universal rights of humanity (all human beings) as we are all equal to our brothers and sisters. Equality could not be limited to my influential family, my clan or my tribe. Equality stretches beyond the borders of Kenya. Homosexuality is an enemy of family integrity and moral culture, like pornography, adultery, divorce, abortion, even contraception. But homosexuality is a bigger danger than the other enemies, because the others at an elemental level respect the basic structure of human sexuality even as they manipulate its natural processes. In contrast, homosexuality seeks to bring down the very structure of human sexuality, and with it the family which is the shrine of human sexuality and love. Again this projects a belief without a reality check. It can only be validated it the writer defines why family is a necessity for social order and which aspect of this necessity (family) is adversely influenced by the homosexual relation of others and issues like pornography, adultery, divorce, abortion, even contraception. It is social order and law which we are discussing. To be human is to be part of a family. Once homosexuality destroys our families, we will find that our common humanity has been dragged down with it.
Charles Kanjama. (The author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya). Excuses for the long epistle.
|
|