anti-gay hate

Christina Engela's picture

Rainbow Flag = Cohesion

It is a simple fact that if members of a community stop socializing together, we soon stop co-operating and standing together as well. Pretty soon we stop thinking of ourselves as being part of the same community - and not long after that, we start acting like rivals - or worse yet, enemies.

The word appropriate to this discussion is "cohesion" which is defined by Wikipedia as: "Community cohesion refers to the aspect of togetherness and bonding exhibited by members of a community, the "glue" that holds a community together. This might include features such as a sense of common belonging or cultural similarity." I also like the following definition, but that may be because I spent some time in the military - "Cohesion (military): the bonding together of members of an organization/unit in such a way as to sustain their will and commitment to each other, their unit, and the mission (Cohesion the Human Element in Combat, William Henderson, 1985)."
Christina Engela's picture

Broadening The Support Base

It seems that advocacy groups always leave somebody out somewhere. All these groups names just say "gay" and "lesbian" but few seem to include "intersex", "bisexual" or "transgender" in the name. I know the GLBTIQ acronym is a royal pain in the butt, and even that omits several other emerging groups such as asexuals. We need a global name to describe the community as a whole. And we need to make sure no group gets left out - or feels left out.

For some time I have been using the term "the Pink Community" to describe us - because to me, that is all-inclusive, no matter what sub-part you belong to, if you are not strictly heterosexual or are in any way gender-variant, you can be sure that you are included in there, somewhere.

The thing that bothers me is how divided the pink community is. Gay males and gay females prefer to have separate social events, and the ground between them is littered with the dirty mess left by in-fighting over differences in musical taste, dress-sense and other nitty-gritty nonsense. The UK group called Stonewall is a prime example of going about things the wrong way. They only concern themselves with the gay aspect - screw the trans and intersex, they can just get their own groups and fight their own battles for their rights. Never mind the probability that many trans people live as gay people in terms of their relationship as well. Never mind the detail that the bigots and ignorant public view us ALL as "gay" anyway, because they don't know any better. Never mind the fact that many trans and intersex rights overlap with gay rights. Never mind the fact that increased numbers mean a louder voice in the battle for equality.

It is a simple fact that if we stop socializing together, we soon stop co-operating and standing together as well. Pretty soon we stop thinking of ourselves as being part of the same community - and not long after that, we start acting like competitors - or worse yet, rivals.

Christina Engela's picture

Is There Something We Can Do?

There are groups in South Africa which are claiming to be able to "cure" gay people, as though human sexual orientation and gender identity is some form of disease or "lifestyle choice". Their attack on human rights and freedom of expression comes ENTIRELY from the perspective of religious conservatism and fundamentalism and has no basis in fact, reality, science or medicine whatsoever.

They claim we are "broken", burdened with "unwanted SSA" (that's "Same Sex Attraction") that we are somehow in need of their intervention, and so they believe that the same God that made us gay, bisexual or trans, has duly appointed them the moral guardians to rush to our aid and to save us from our sinful natures.

I find the fact that so many people actually fall for their nonsensical prattle rather disturbing. In fact, I think it is because of a lack of education on what we are as opposed to what they say about us.

Despite their proven failure to deliver what they claim, there already are existing groups in South Africa which have been active under the radar for some time, such as Exodus International, NARTH and other smaller groups affiliated to them ("Living Waters ministries" and JONAH), particularly in the Cape Town area, and some like Focus on the Family' "Love Won Out" and oddly-named "Truth Project" in KZN, which is also being presented in Johannesburg. Regardless of their names and what colors they operate under, these are all "ex-gay" ministries who have an agenda of destroying a GLBTI persons dignity, individuality and sense of self-worth to the point where they become neat, conformist little clones, who underneath a shiny veneer of "ex-gayness" are still just as gay, but eventually tortured by brain-washed self-denial to the point of self-destruction and suicide. In fact, the entire Ex-gay industry has been strongly condemned by every reputable medical and psychological institution or body around the world. The fact that more such little groups are popping up here is of grave concern.
Christina Engela's picture

20 Things I Take For Granted As A Heterosexual Couple Getting Married

Lists have been on my mind lately, so I thought I would run with it. Today's list is about things I can expect or take for granted as a heterosexual couple getting married:

1) I can expect to get the marriage contract (in or out of community of property) I decide upon.

2) I can walk into any jewelery shop and expect to not get shocked, disapproving or funny looks when I and my partner ask to see their selection of wedding rings.

3) I can walk into any jewelery shop and expect to not be ripped off and charged inflated prices when they find out the rings are for a heterosexual couple.

4) I can approach almost any church/religious institution to host my wedding and expect to be accepted.

5) I can approach almost any minister about performing my wedding ceremony without experiencing rejection or discomfort because of who I am marrying, or their gender.
Christina Engela's picture

40 Myths, Busted

I thought today I might make a short list of things that expose the shaky foundations of most stereotypical anti-gay myths being peddled by anti-equality groups. In doing so, I found a list, upon which I based my list. You can view the original here.

1) Being gay is not natural. Good, moral people and God-fearing Christians always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Being gay is un-African. Real Africans obviously reject unnatural un-African things like clothing, shoes, cars, cel-phones, soccer and of course, Christianity.

3) Marriage equality for gay people will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall - or hanging around politicians will make people like Juliaaas smart.

4) Marriage equality for gay people will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even want to marry their pets or underage children because everyone knows dogs and children have legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

5) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, men can still marry as many women as they like, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

6) Gay marriage is a new invention, no matter what the ancient histories of Egypt, Greece, Rome, Japan, China, Africa, Medieval Europe - and Wikipedia say about it.
Christina Engela's picture

Duck Blind

It was Constantine, the false Christian and Emperor of Rome, who founded the Catholic Church. He supposedly saw a message in the heavens, a blazing cross in the sky, which was said to be a promise from god to give him victory in his battle for political power in the Roman Senate. "In this sign conquer" it said, and so he went off to quickly convert his thousands of soldiers with a flick of his wrist and a quick sprinkle of water - and conquered his own country by violence in what was essentially a coup. It's funny how sometimes we miss the blatantly obvious, but it finally occurred to me today that "conquest" is not a Christ-ian value.

Christ worked for peace, not war. He preached love and forgiveness, not picking up a sword and marching off to sow death and destruction. Yes, as "Commissionists" like to point out, he is quoted as saying "I bring not peace, but a sword" - but never once is Christ reported to have killed, incited hatred, persecuted, indulged in hate-speech, oppressed, promoted war - or brought death and destruction - or done any of the things these people claim "God" or "Christ" told them to do or say. And yes, earlier Hebrew scriptures tell of the God that led Israel into war and battle after battle - even destroying whole cities and nations and even infants with fire and steel. Hey, isn't God supposed to have flooded the earth and wiped out every living thing. Things that make you go "Hmm"... But the arrival of Christ marked a complete change - and I see this as another reason why Christ is called the "New Covenant".

The Romans were not bumbling oafs, they were smart. Not many civilizations left waterways, roads and buildings built before the time of Christ that survive and are in use even to this day. Their language is the language of history, modern law, biology, science and medicine, and the root and foundation of many European languages today. Their system of laws and government can be seen in modern governments and court rooms, and their culture is the foundation of Western society.
Christina Engela's picture

Tick Tock

As some of you may have heard by now, Media24 - the former employer of South Africa's new Ambassador (excuse, me - "High Commissioner") to Uganda - is challenging the constitutionality of section 10 of Act 4 of 2000.

Why am I still talking about this? Yes, still - because some of you who have been paying attention will already know this - but the sad thing is, many of you now reading this will not even know what it is all about. And it is for your benefit that this is the topic of discussion for today as well. I am hoping this will get through to you - and that the message with get out there, that we as a community are facing a serious threat to our civil rights.

Why? Because Act no 4 of 2000 is a vital piece of legislation. It fills the gap in sec 16.2 c of the SA Constitution. Yes, that nice gap that would allow people to incite hatred or express hate speech against others on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender (which is not mentioned in that specific section) - were it not for this Act, of course, which provides protection for everyone.

Because, along with their former employee - a "journalist" who has been anything but objective, has expressed hate speech and incited harm and promoted hatred against women, gay people, and white people - they face charges in the Equality Court. Obviously, the easiest way to fight such charges - which they know it is highly likely they will be found guilty on - is to fight dirty by trying to change the laws describing the charges to begin with. If the law is changed so it doesn't describe their crime, how can there be charges? Simple.

Christina Engela's picture

"It's Okay To Say "Gay = Stupid" - BCCSA


This is yet another case in point of human rights and equality laws not being adhered to and misinterpreted according to personal bias - and made to fail those whom they were intended to protect:

"The BCCSA refused to uphold the complaint, saying that "the word gay was not used to refer to homosexuality, but according to widespread current usage of the word amongst young people, to a carefree attitude and unjustifiable statements."

It added that it was of the opinion that "although the word 'gay' was used (and even if it carried a negative connotation), there was nothing that could be described as the advocacy of hatred or incitement to cause harm to homosexuals in the programme."

The BCCSA further stated that "the broadcast was not intended to injure, that it was not malicious or mala fide" and that "the right to freedom of expression includes the right to offend within reasonable limits.""

A term which is used to describe homosexuality - "gay", which has been used as such since the 1960's - almost forty years - and which is described and defined clearly in the Oxford dictionary - is suddenly "not used to refer to homosexuality".

Below is a pretty clear definition of the word "gay"
Christina Engela's picture

Portent Pending


I am not qualified to say what God wants - or what God says - and I don't believe anybody else is either. In fact, all I know is what I feel and what I want and what I need - that is what it is to be human and mortal - and fallible. Some people would do well to realize this and put down their sharpened books, get off their pedestals and stop waving their fingers down at us, as though they are somehow special and have a hot line to God.

There is a disturbing trend developing in parts of the modern world, to connect good morals (called "morality") and Christianity, as if people who are not fundamentalist Christians are somehow automatically exempted from being people of good moral character. Feminists, even when Christian, are described as "backsliding" or "misled" simply because they believe, somewhat controversially - that women are equal to their male counterparts - and thus disagree with the Patriarchy, which has appointed itself, somewhat arrogantly and presumptuously, as a middle-man between humanity and the divine.

I still cannot quite understand what makes some people think that their faith or even their fanatical belief in a religion or deity makes some people "better" or more "worthy" than others, qualifies them to sit in judgment of others, and somehow elevates their own personal view of the world - or "morality" above that of the rest of us mere mortals. The fact that this unenlightened sectarian point of view seems to be steadily creeping into South Africa's young democratic government however, while undeniable - is frightening.
Christina Engela's picture

Angus-iety Attack

Did you see the front page of Rapport yesterday? And pg 4,5 and 16, with pictures too - with his "real men" and patriarchy story? Is that news? Honestly! Is the "Rapport" a newspaper or a church newsletter? It might as well be.

According to this article, between 200,000 and 300,000 males attended Angus Buchan's "mighty men" conference. Granted, this is less than the expected 400,000... but I wonder, can there really be so many weak, spineless, directionless lemmings in South Africa? Apparently so. Look at the accompanying photographs, of grown men - the vaunted "real men" of Buchan's liturgy, crying because they have been such terrible men by "allowing" their women to pursue careers and lives of their own, fallen on their knees and bowing to their god in the leather hat, the prophetic potato-planter and holy hash-brown harvester.

According to him, men who are not "real men" ("real men" being bullies who "wear leather belts" and abuse women, preaching their return to domestic bliss and incarceration in the kitchen - and the restoration of the Patriarchy) are "wimps" and "sissies" - and that includes by implication gay men, bi men and mtf transsexuals. It is insulting and offensive - no matter which way you look at it. In fact, it is beneath enlightened and modern civilization to contemplate. But what is more offensive, is that a national newspaper pays such close positive attention to this demagogue and provides a full front-page spread every time this fruitloop changes his hair style.

According to the article, female journalists were also refused entry into the venue. Very inclusive indeed. If that isn't an indication of the state of fundamentalist institutions and churches these days (if not their mentality), it certainly is a sign of the times.
Syndicate content
Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system