The Washington Outsider

LGBT culture clash primed by western activists

By , Communities Digital News

Gay pride flag
Gay pride flag

WASHINGTON, August 24, 2014 — Although LGBT behavior and lifestyles are gaining acceptance in the West, the same cannot be said about many corners of the world. Where the more “liberal” West is defined by its focus on individual rights, the Middle East, Africa, and East are defined more by their focus on cultural rights, thus the individual right to express sexual identity is less significant in these regions than the cultural right to maintain traditional values.

Because sexual identify plays a significant role in cultural identity, even tolerating LGBT behavior is asking for a considerable shift in cultural values and practices. Instead of inspiring change, efforts on behalf of LGBT activities to force a cultural shift are more likely to set in motion a social conflict.

Such a conflict made its way into the headlines around 2011 due to the criminalization of homosexuality and increasing anti-gay violence in several African countries, prompting Hillary Clinton to declare “gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights,” which likely did more to undermine US influence over the Peoples of this region than to protect gays as anti-gay movements have remained steadfast.

When it comes to African cultures, which view homosexuality as unacceptable and fiercely reject outside influences redefining their cultures thanks to their history with colonialism, the best case scenario is to prevent the state-sponsored persecution of suspected homosexuals, especially given the reality that there are plenty of places in Africa where weak governments cannot even protect women and young girls from being raped when they fetch water for their families.

Unfortunately, American LGBT activists, who have political leverage over the Democrats and the Obama Administration, are provoking a culture war overseas. This will only endanger the lives of LGBT individuals, who just want to live in peace, and those who are accused of being LGBT while undermining America’s influence around the world in favor of, for example, Russian influence. In other words, Russia appears to respect the cultures of others more than the US does. As such, President Obama must be careful in how he protests anti-gay policies in order to demonstrate the US actually respects the rights of other cultures and those who dissent from his stance on LGBT issues.

In discussing controversial issues, credibility and trust are necessary, thus LGBT activities need to avoid taking hypocritical stances. Unfortunately, the United States fosters a very dishonest culture when it comes to expressing views on sexuality. Americans are so averse to even the use of the word “sex” that we too often say, “sleeping together” or “in bed” while we call any sort of lustful sexual act “love making.”  Furthermore, every time a prominent Christian leader, celebrity, or political commentator rejects gay marriage and/or disapproves of homosexual activities, the media reports it as controversial.  It is not, because their views are part of their belief system.

Christianity defines homosexual behavior as immoral; therefore, Christians can never accept LBGT lifestyles as appropriate, unless they are untrue to their Faith. In which case, some conflict of Faith, a.k.a. an identity crises, will eventual arise and there will either be backlash against the LGBT community or a rejection of one’s Christianity. Christianity does not technically accept sexual behavior outside of marriage or any kind of lustful behavior, yet it is tolerated by modern Christians in order to avoid conflict, foster cohesion, and open the religion to an attitude of forgiveness, among other things. The acceptance of homosexual behavior, however, is a different story as the Christian remedy would be to no longer engage in homosexual behavior, not acceptance.

It is, therefore, important to recognize American LGBT supporters can easily be seen as hypocritical when bashing those who simply disagree with their views. Hate speech, violence, and other attacks on LGBT individuals will always be unacceptable behaviors under American values. Yet those who find LGBT behavior and lifestyles to be inappropriate for religious and nonreligious reasons also have a right to their beliefs. As such, Christians, at best, can accept a “hate the sin; love the sinner” approach when it comes LGBT behavior and lifestyles.

Furthermore, the unfortunate reality is that the Christian community and the LGBT community can never be fully integrated without a catastrophic social conflict, though their interests can be balanced. Looking at gay marriage as an example of gay issues, there is an argument to be made that government should only recognize civil unions for gays and straights alike. Because marriage has a religious and legal component, the only balanced approach that respects Equal Protection under the Fourteen Amendment and the religious protections afforded under the First Amendment is for government to stop legally recognizing/regulating the religious practice of marriage and start recognizing the legal status of civil unions for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Instead of balancing these interests, however, a growing conflict between supporters of the LGBT community and proponents of traditional lifestyles has been allowed to fester. In other words, the US is headed away from victimizing LGBT individuals to suppressing those who view LGBT lifestyles as inappropriate in such a way that we are certain to cause a massive, avoidable social conflict. This is particularly problematic when it comes to America’s global influence as a large portion of the world’s population favors more socially conservative views when it comes to sexual behavior.

A global conflict over differing attitudes on sex is certain, especially given how those with incompatible views are so unwilling to balance their competing interests. Both sides tend to be “ignorant” and “intolerant” even when it comes to understanding the other side’s perspective. As such, everyone should be able to recognize that homosexual attraction and innate transgender traits are rooted in biology and/or early childhood development, thus these individuals cannot be damned for their impulses to engage in these behaviors.It also important to recognize tolerance is a two-way street for supporters of the LGBT community.

Where Westerners are more inclined to accept homosexuality and reject polygamy, even though these cultures embrace serial polygamy, which Americans dishonestly call serial monogamy, many parts of the world are more inclined to accept polygamy and reject homosexuality. A large part of this has to do with modern Christianity and Western feminism. Western intolerance of polygamy demonstrates how supporters of the LGBT community can be very hypocritical in the eyes of those who view homosexuality as improper while creating unnecessary social conflicts that will eventually result in backlashes to the LGBT community and LGBT individuals around the world. Moreover, LGBT supporters and supporters of more traditional lifestyles must approach how they express their beliefs in a more balanced approach in order to avoid a catastrophic culture clash.



This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Tags

My name is Matthew Justin Geiger; I currently hold a BS in physics and psychology based politics from Allegheny College of Meadville, Pennsylvania. I am a freelance writer, political analyst, commentator, and scientist. I am also the creator and owner of the Washington Outsider.

Related posts

  • Malcolm Swall

    Equal rights and justice for all.
    Fundamental right to marry who you choose.

    • acmaurer

      Cool. I wanna marry my cat.

      • Sam_Handwich

        your cat cannot CONSENT to enter into such a legal agreement as marriage

        get your GED, kid

        • acmaurer

          You don’t know anything about cats, do you? She does exactly what she wants. But yeah, it’s about as natural as two men getting “married.” LOL

          • JingoPratchett

            Where did you, acmaurer, get the idea from that marriage between a man and a woman is natural? Nothing suggests it is from a human evolutionary biology perspective.

          • acmaurer

            Skipped biology class, did we?

          • to_tell_the_truth

            Marriage was not even discussed in biology class. Nor should it be. They’re two separate things, one having nothing to do with the other.

      • Malcolm Swall

        So hire a lawyer and see how that works for you.

      • to_tell_the_truth

        WE are discussing HUMAN relationships. Let us know if you are ever prepared to discuss the actual topic!
        Cats (like dogs, computers, books, tables, bicycles, plants, etc.) cannot render consent to enter into a legal contract.
        If the bestiality scare-mongering is the best you have, you should be well-prepared to lose this debate.
        In the interim, shame on you.

  • Malcolm Swall

    Actually instead of recognizing civil unions for all, the govt just has to recognize civil marriage for all. As it already does in 19 states, as it is done in England, France, Spain and Canada.

    • to_tell_the_truth

      And South Africa. And the Netherlands. And Mexico. And Argentina. And Belgium.
      The list is long … and growing.

  • Malcolm Swall

    There are already many churches who recognize same sex marriages. What about their first ammendment rights?

  • Malcolm Swall

    Allowing same sex marriage changes marriage just like allowing women to vote changed voting.

    • acmaurer

      You’re saying it didn’t change voting?

      • Malcolm Swall

        Yep. The process of voting was not changed by having more citizens involved.

      • to_tell_the_truth

        Of course it didn’t “change voting”. YOUR right to vote was not infringed upon when women and blacks got the exact same right.

        • acmaurer

          Ah, but it did: Those previously who held the franchise had their votes diluted, devalued. Not to mention voting behavior. Nor is that to put a value judgment on it. Those who had the vote thought it fine to extend it. But it was changed.
          So to follow your analogy, yes: changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex “marriages” will drastically change the meaning of marriage.

          • to_tell_the_truth

            You cannot in one sentence say allowing ALL citizens (including women and blacks) the right to vote “devalued” the votes of others and then in the next sentence claim, ” Nor is that to put a value judgment on it.” and expect to be believed.

            Re: “Those who had the vote thought it fine to extend it.”
            Clearly many who had the vote did NOT think it “fine to extend it”. Many fought it tooth and nail.
            You didn’t “follow” my analogy. You ignored it. Your right to marry the consenting adult of your mutual choosing does not change – nay, HAS not changed – since same-gender couples have been allowed to do the exact same thing.
            Marriage has many different “meanings”. I’m pretty sure mine does not have the same ‘meaning’ as any of Newt Gingrich’s three marriages in which he cheated on his first two wives with his mistresses, and then asked the 3rd wife for an “open marriage”. That’s NOT what marriage means to me. Ditto for any of Larry King’s NINE marriages. Or Britney Spears’s 55-hour long marriage. Et cetera. But, they were ALL legal marriages, just as mine is.
            Let me know when you come up with an argument instead of just your opinion.

          • Malcolm Swall

            Same sex marriage has been legal in Massachusets for more than a decade. What do you imagine has “drastically” changed there?

            Dont be so evil.

  • Sam_Handwich

    Like the piece of rubbish you posted yesterday, the facts escape you.

    “Christianity defines homosexual behavior as immoral; therefore, Christians can never accept LBGT lifestyles as appropriate, unless they are untrue to their Faith.”

    This is not true at all – in fact, same-sex marriages are performed in Episcopalian churches, the United Church of Christ, Presbyterian congregations, any plenty more.

    Why do you insist on publishing articles on a topic you obviously know nothing about?

  • Sam_Handwich

    Religiously unaffiliated Americans (73%), white mainline Protestants (62%), white Catholics (58%), and Hispanic Catholics (56%) all favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry. A majority (83%) of Jewish Americans also favor legalizing same-sex marriage.

    publicreligion DOT org/research/2014/02/2014-lgbt-survey/

  • Frank

    I would comment, but it would not be printed because this website is discriminatory against higher knowledge including the commenter sam handwich and malcom swall.

    Most of my previous comments were blocked. So much for freedom of expression of alternative ideas.

    • Malcolm Swall

      What are you trying to say? You put my name there, but I cant make out why.

      • Frank

        I responded to you in several comments yesterday, but they only print your comments and not my responses, so the site is only presenting one side of the argument, as is customary on all prohomo sites

        • Malcolm Swall

          I cannot control what the site administers do. What would you have me do differently? Why use my name?

          Perhaps they feel you have transgressed in some way, were not following morality in some way, or your politics were abnormal in some way.

        • Malcolm Swall

          You never seem to acknowlege that gay marriage already exists in states and countries. Or that many churches perform same sex ceremonies. Do you imagine that it will change anytime soon? The sky hasnt fallen, right?

        • to_tell_the_truth

          Post a logical, rational, reasoned, legal argument as to why same-gender couples ought not be allowed to marry and then see what kind of reaction you get.
          You can leave out all the “prohomo” slurs while you’re at it. That might help your chances of your posts having a ‘shelf life’ of longer than 3 minutes.

    • to_tell_the_truth

      Your comments get blocked because they’re error-filled and hatred-driven.

      • Frank

        “error filled”

        Again, thats just your opinion. The majorty of people on this earth do not think my claim, that gay people are not ‘born gay’ is error filled. I know several persons who engaged same sex activity and reverted back to heterosexuality. Identical twins that share identical DNA can develop different sexual orientations, proving that sexual attraction is not contained in the DNA record but is instead learned. Much more evidence exists, and you call it ‘error filled’ without explaining why, because you just want to believe what you want to believe, and you want others to believe it without any scientific proof

        • to_tell_the_truth

          No, it’s far more than just my opinion. I looked at my replies to your posts, and they had proofs and facts and citations instead of opinion.
          In any case, you’ve still not posted a logical, rational, reasoned, legal argument as to why same-gender couples should not be allowed to marry.
          And, until you can, be prepared not to be believed.

          • Frank

            Let me make it clear.
            I, and many other people, don’t care what the hell gay people want to do. If they want to marry each other, or dogs, or horses or whatever, go for it. If they want to swim and eat and drink feces and urine as part of their ‘love-making,’ go for it. The only thing they do not have a right to do, is go around telling everyone that they were born that way and expecting all the laws to bend to their will by creating special categories for themselves when others do not have a right to those special categories, and teaching children in schools that they were born that way as a means of diverting children into their cults based upon false information, and committing crimes against anyone that does not agree with them that they were born that way, and specifically seeking out religious people to entrap into litigation as a vehicle to get attention for their lifestyles, etc.
            I could not care less if two gays wanted to marry because in a normal world, i would not even know about it nor would information of such activities reach me, nor would they be thrust in my face if i didn’t want to see it. To each his own. I am not the judge. If what gays do is not a sin, then they will be rewarded for it when they meet g-d. I am not g-d, so please do not expect any rewards from me.

          • Malcolm Swall

            You have the right to your opinion, and if you want to express it, fine. You err in many of your opinions and you reach illogical conclusions. Others will point these out to you.
            You may actually present more persuasively if you used less hyperbole, less vulgarity. You also may have less chance of having your posts deleted.

          • to_tell_the_truth

            Frank, you “care” so much that you come here and post ad nauseam on the topic.

            No, we do NOT “want to marry dogs or horses or whatever”. We want to marry the consenting adult human of our mutual choosing – just like you can – and nothing more.

            Your obsession with feces and urine is unhealthy. You should get that looked into. You post that kind of offensive drivel and then whine that your posts get deleted.

            You are correct on ONE point though – you are NOT the judge. So maybe you should stop judging. You don’t really seem qualified, and the One Who is told you not to.

          • Frank

            Homolunatics have been stalking me for 30 years. I only just recently started to fight back against them since 2007, but since 1987 they have been stalking me because i turned down the sexual advances of one of their ‘leaders’ and it offended them, even though i was only 12 years old and the guy was a 50 year old pedophile.
            So i address the topic publically and in these forums, so that no other person or family should experience what i was forced to endure for 28 years thus far, just because i stopped a pedophile from attempting to molest me and reported him to my family and the police, not knowing that he was politically connected hollywood scum.
            Like i said. Even if you wanted to marry the dog that humped your leg last night, or a horse or whatever, go for it. Just leave me out of it and don’t announce it to me unless you want to hear my opinion. It is a public article to which i am replying. If you gays don’t want to solicit opinions, then don’t post your lies publically and keep it between yourselfs and your secret cults.

  • to_tell_the_truth

    Matthew,
    Being gay is NOT a “lifestyle”.
    If you’re going to base the ‘premise’ of your ‘argument’ on a fabrication, prepare not to be believed.

  • to_tell_the_truth

    Re: “increasing anti-gay violence in several African countries”
    Odd that you chose not to identify this “increasing anti-gay violence in several African countries” as being supported/promulgated/encouraged by American “Christians” like Scott Lively, the “Family” “Research” Council, the American “Family” Association, ‘Let’s Focus on SOME (other) People’s Families’, Tony Perkins, Bryan Fisher, Brian Brown, Maggie Gallagher, Richard Land, et al.
    Yet another shoddily-written, poorly researched ‘article’, Matthew. Being divisive does drive ‘hits’ to the website, though, so your paycheck is safe. Too bad logic isn’t.

  • to_tell_the_truth

    Oh, wait … you DID (sort of, partially) address this, when you typed, “When it comes to African cultures, which view homosexuality as unacceptable and fiercely reject outside influences redefining their cultures“.
    Somehow, they put that aside and EMBRACED the “outside influences’ of ‘christian’ liars like Scott Lively, et al.

  • to_tell_the_truth

    Re: “In discussing controversial issues, credibility and trust are necessary”

    Both are sorely lacking in your article, Matthew.

    For instance, you said, “Christianity defines homosexual behavior as immoral”. Perhaps YOUR branch of Christianity does, but I assure you that MINE does not. Nor do any of the following denominations that WILL marry same gender couples in 20 US States and the District of Columbia:

    Affirming Pentecostal Church International
    Alliance of Christian Churches
    Anointed Affirming Independent Ministries
    The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
    Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
    Community of Christ
    Ecumenical Catholic Church
    Ecumenical Catholic Communion
    The Episcopal Church
    Evangelical Anglican Church In America
    Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
    Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals
    Inclusive Orthodox Church
    Metropolitan Community Church
    Old Catholic Church
    Progressive Christian Alliance
    Reconciling Pentecostals International
    Reformed Anglican Catholic Church
    Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
    Unitarian Universalist Church
    United Church of Christ
    Presbyterian Church (USA)

    As does Conservative Judaism, Reconstructionist Judaism and Reform Judaism.
    GET BETTER INFORMED, Matthew! And leave your religion-based prejudices OUT of it.

  • to_tell_the_truth

    Re: “the unfortunate reality is that the Christian community and the LGBT community can never be fully integrated without a catastrophic social conflict”
    So much disprovable B.S. in one little sentence! See my partial list below for proof that you just made that nonsense UP.

  • to_tell_the_truth

    Re: “Because marriage has a religious and legal component”
    No, Matthew, it has ONLY the legal component. You’ve confused/conflated the religious rite of holy matrimony with the legal institution of civil marriage. The performance of the religious rite of holy matrimony – by itself – does NOT make any couple legally married anywhere in America. The State does not CARE if there’s any ‘god-talk’ at a marriage. Heck, the State lets ATHEISTS marry.
    Please stop bearing false witness, Matthew. It is so easily and readily refuted. And, it’s a “sin”.

  • to_tell_the_truth

    Re: “the only balanced approach that respects Equal Protection under the Fourteen Amendment and the religious protections afforded under the First Amendment is for government to stop legally recognizing/regulating the religious practice of marriage and start recognizing the legal status of civil unions for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.”

    Poppycock!

    First off, the government DOESN’T “recognize” OR “regulate the religious practice of marriage” because the “religious practice” is the performance of the religious ritual of holy matrimony, and the government does NOT dictate to any faith which couples it may or may not join in holy matrimony.

    The government DOES both “recognize” AND “regulate” civil marriage because it is a LEGAL CONTRACT, one that provides 1,138 “effects that flow from marriage” – each of which has myriad laws governing those legal “effects”.

    You keep touting “civil unions” but ignore the fact that they only exist in 3 States and come with NONE of those “effects that flow from marriage”. They are not ‘portable’ to ANY OTHER State (hence they infringe on people’s right to freedom of association) – NO OTHER State recognizes them at any level, nor does the Federal Government.

    Your illogic and lack of any legal arguments to support your ‘idea’ is most off-putting.

  • to_tell_the_truth

    Re: “Both sides tend to be “ignorant” and “intolerant” even when it comes to understanding the other side’s perspective.”

    Provable nonsense. We are INTIMATELY familiar with your “perspective”. It’s been flung in our faces 24/7/365 for at least the last four decades. It is RELIGION-based. And America promises EVERYONE freedom of religious belief. And, the State is forbidden to “establish” what YOU happen to believe above what anyone ELSE may believe.

    You have not offered ONE logical, rational, reasoned, legal argument as to why same-gender couples ought not be allowed to marry. NOT. ONE.
    You’ve offered your opinion and your unsubstantiated ‘preference’ for civil unions, Y you are losing this debate nation-wide.

  • Malcolm Swall

    The govt, in order to follow the constitution and not have the word marriage involved, could indeed rewrite all the laws and regulations and publications to use that phrase. Or it could decide the existing word “marriage” can encompass all couples “unions”, and not waste millions of dollars for the sake of definitional pedantry. Which is what was done in 19 states, as well as England, France, Canada and Spain.

    • to_tell_the_truth

      Agreed. Civil marriage encompasses ALL marriages. No need for this 2nd, parallel institution that does NOTHING more than grant exactly what civil marriage already does NOW.

  • to_tell_the_truth

    Re: “supporters of more traditional lifestyles must approach how they express their beliefs in a more balanced approach in order to avoid a catastrophic culture clash”

    Way too late, Matthew.

    First off, I need to say upfront (again!) that being gay is NOT a “lifestyle”!!!

    But you “supporters of … tradition” are very selective (there are MANY “traditions”).

    If your call for “how they express their beliefs in a more balanced approach” were sincere, you’d be calling them out for how they “expressed their beliefs” when they compare loving, committed, consenting, adult, human relationships culminating in marriage as the equivalent of (and I’m quoting from ‘Christian’ websites/churches): “bestiality”, “incest”, “rape”, “necrophilia”, “child-molestation”, “murder”, “worse than terrorists”, “marryin’ a rock/bicycle/plant”. You’d decry their statements that “gay people should be rounded up in electrified pens until they die off”.
    But you don’t, Matthew. But you DON’T!
    Sorry, but this “clash” is solely their fault. Get them to stop and THEN we can talk. (I, for one, will not be holding my breath waiting for this to happen.)

  • Malcolm Swall

    To those who like to post “marriage has always been only a man & a woman”

    Canada and Massachusetts have had legal same sex marriage for a DECADE now.

    As logically the last ten years are part of “always”, you are just being silly.

  • Malcolm Swall

    Frank, I share your frustration. I have lost three replies to you this morning. By the time I finished typing, your posts were already gone, and my pithy responses were not posted.

    I tried to post on WND not long ago, and all of my posts, no matter how nuetral or politly expressed were deleted out of hand.

    I have a suggestion, though. Try shorter, one liner posts, with all of your logic, but with less “loaded” language. Break it down, try to tone i down, and see if it makes a difference.

    • http://www.commdiginews.com/ Jacquie Kubin

      Malcolm, Frank – Not sure why you are having problems. We do not have a refresh on the page. We do have filters that are automatic – so watch your word choices. We also do not allow links because if you do your comment sections are filled up with sexual aid, purse, and other sites looking for link backs. If you post something that you think got caught up and would like it hand approved, email me at jacquie.kubin@commdiginews.com

  • Pac Bob

    I disagree. What about the time “Russian officials bugged a private strategy meeting convened by Russian LGBT activists and four major international human rights organizations in October, an intensification of the campaign to clamp down on LGBT rights ahead of the Olympic games in Sochi.” or gay Russian youths like Krill (aka) ru_lgbt_teen on twitter (who are too afraid to use their full names) who say things like “Generally speaking, you have a gay teen being seen as a “disenfranchised deviant” in the eyes of society and the state. People are different, but the male members of society are trying to avoid having anything to do with gays, [because they don’t want anybody] to think that they are gay. In Russia, gays are not people.”?

    What about the Russian cosmonauts who were arrested for saying things that sounded too much like “gay propoganda” or all the members of Occupy Peophelia who go unpunished for torturing gay Russians, or the attacks on gay Russian night clubs that are given as much attention a branch on a forest’s floor?

    What about about the reports of Russian prosecutors raiding gay Russian’s homes and sending out notices that say things like “Increase your vigilance when you talk to your neighbors, when you are checking your mail and in elevators”?

    What about the fact that the Russian “gay propoganda” law was passed with literally no votes against it and only one vote abstaining it?

    This isn’t a story only about foreigners trying to start a culture war. This is also the story of gay Russians and the country they live in.

  • DaCoachK

    So what you are saying is that there is much good that can be said about the Third World.

  • Malcolm Swall

    Every one has the fundamental right to marry who they choose. Some have that right unconstitutionally abridged in states with laws with bans on same sex marriage. These bans have lost in every federal case since Windsor.

  • Barry

    So basically these people are acting like colonisers from the 1800’s and going to these nations and telling them how they should live.

    Who would have thought that LGBT are so oppressive and go around acting like nazis.

    • Malcolm Swall

      Hyperbole much? Equal rights for gays oppresses no one. Nazis? Really? I call Godwins rule.

  • Malcolm Swall

    Still waiting to hear one valid, rational, reason related to a legitimate govt concern why the fundamental right of marriage should be denied to same sex couples.
    One that hasnt already failed in court.

  • Ian_Llanganagain

    Matthew, with respect to this statement – “When it comes to African cultures, which
    view homosexuality as unacceptable and fiercely reject outside
    influences redefining their cultures thanks to their history with
    colonialism…” it seems it must be pointed out to you that African cultures, thanks to their history with colonialism and its accompanying (and quite overwhelming) religious prosleytizing by European christians, were compelled to view homosexuaity as unacceptable, and that they have since, *after* that period, for a variety of economic and political reasons, come to fiercely reject outside influences *further* redefining their cultures, primarily because they grew weary of exploitation by western, christian Europeans. There is actually no evidence to suggest that African cultures in the pre-colonial ages had any specific taboos on homosexuality, nor that in fact it was not an accepted part of their indigenous cultures, just as we know it was in indigenous cultures in the Americas. Unfortunately, as is also the case in the Caribbean (itself a huge centre for the African diaspora displaced by the western, christian slave trade), many of the worst elements of small-minded, dogmatic christian religious bigotry and persecution of others have remained endemic, woven into the culture, and now exacerbated by the likes of meddlesome white, American christian religious “missionaries” machinating in places like Uganda. The religion of christianity really has a great deal to answer for. It is one of the most evil, morally bankrupt influences the world has ever seen. If it were not for the taming and bringing to heel of christianity by Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s 18th century Enlightenment movement, it would still be on the same tear it was on for the previous 1,700 years – indistinguishable in every way from the tantrum the 600 year younger Islam continues to throw. Be careful when you talk about cultures and what they traditionally accept or do not accept. Most cultures sullied by christian missionaries would have much preferred to have been left unmolested by christianity.

Top