US poll a lesson to gay activists
Nov 17, 2004
There were many surprises in the recent American elections. One of them was that the result between the two major candidates ended up not being as close as had been anticipated.
By Chibita wa Duallo
There were many surprises in the recent American elections. One of them was that the result between the two major candidates ended up not being as close as had been anticipated.
The other is that 11 out of 11 States voted to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This effectively put to rest agitations for same sex marriages.
Abortion and homosexuality were big issues during the elections. Eleven States decided to put the issue to vote alongside the presidential vote. The majority voted in favour of defining marriage the traditional legal way.
It is suspected all the 50 States would have voted the same way had the question been put to all of them.
The homosexual advocates are said to have mistaken the populace’s liberalism on social issues for an equal dose of liberalism on moral issues. This vote is significant for the whole world for many reasons. There are other reasons, however, why the overwhelming vote against same sex marriages, is important for the rest of the world.
There was a meeting of Anglican Bishops in Lambeth, United Kingdom about five years ago. This is a global meeting of Anglican Bishops that takes place once every 10 years.
The meeting serves as a policy-making and agenda-setting platform.
One of the issues at the forefront was whether the church, against clear scriptural teachings, should accept homosexuality as a lifestyle.
Most of the African and Asian Bishops refused to endorse this proposal. The Bishops from the Western world, America inclusive, remarked that the African Bishops were still primitive. A rift started emerging between the homosexual-leaning faction of the Anglican Church and the more conservative group.
This rift came to a head early last year when the American Episcopal Church ordained an openly practising homosexual as Bishop. Many African churches immediately cut ties with this particular diocese.
It is against this backdrop that the American voters have decided to display a rare ‘primitive’ streak as well. They have refused to give the legal and moral recognition to homosexuality that the Western Bishops so eagerly craved at Lambeth.
In effect, the masses of America have distanced themselves from their Bishops.
They voted for Bush, contrary to what much of the world reportedly wanted, but voted against same sex marriages in line with the wishes of the rest of the world.
Those American Bishops who are advocating homosexual marriages are, therefore, leading people who are not following them.
The people have proved to be more conservative, more morally uncompromising than their Bishops.
It is against this backdrop that a small vocal minority is bent on pushing these rejected deviant values down the throats of Ugandans.
There are several documented incidents of meetings of people in influential positions heading international organisations here in Uganda.
They are abusing their stay by engaging in criminal activities, activities that are definitely incompatible with their status. It should not take long before these people are exposed and made to answer for their activities that undermine the values and laws of their host countries.
These meetings are aimed at corrupting the morals of unsuspecting young people.
This is tantamount to corrupting public morals, a criminal offence.
Just like homosexuality remains an offence punishable by imprisonment in Uganda and many other ‘primitive’ countries, there is ample evidence that taxpayers’ money that is contributed to international organisations is being used to corrupt public morals.
The recent elections in America have shown us one thing: Homosexuality has been overwhelmingly rejected where it originated and hence has no business being accommodated here, where it is an offence.
There were many surprises in the recent American elections. One of them was that the result between the two major candidates ended up not being as close as had been anticipated.
The other is that 11 out of 11 States voted to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This effectively put to rest agitations for same sex marriages.
Abortion and homosexuality were big issues during the elections. Eleven States decided to put the issue to vote alongside the presidential vote. The majority voted in favour of defining marriage the traditional legal way.
It is suspected all the 50 States would have voted the same way had the question been put to all of them.
The homosexual advocates are said to have mistaken the populace’s liberalism on social issues for an equal dose of liberalism on moral issues. This vote is significant for the whole world for many reasons. There are other reasons, however, why the overwhelming vote against same sex marriages, is important for the rest of the world.
There was a meeting of Anglican Bishops in Lambeth, United Kingdom about five years ago. This is a global meeting of Anglican Bishops that takes place once every 10 years.
The meeting serves as a policy-making and agenda-setting platform.
One of the issues at the forefront was whether the church, against clear scriptural teachings, should accept homosexuality as a lifestyle.
Most of the African and Asian Bishops refused to endorse this proposal. The Bishops from the Western world, America inclusive, remarked that the African Bishops were still primitive. A rift started emerging between the homosexual-leaning faction of the Anglican Church and the more conservative group.
This rift came to a head early last year when the American Episcopal Church ordained an openly practising homosexual as Bishop. Many African churches immediately cut ties with this particular diocese.
It is against this backdrop that the American voters have decided to display a rare ‘primitive’ streak as well. They have refused to give the legal and moral recognition to homosexuality that the Western Bishops so eagerly craved at Lambeth.
In effect, the masses of America have distanced themselves from their Bishops.
They voted for Bush, contrary to what much of the world reportedly wanted, but voted against same sex marriages in line with the wishes of the rest of the world.
Those American Bishops who are advocating homosexual marriages are, therefore, leading people who are not following them.
The people have proved to be more conservative, more morally uncompromising than their Bishops.
It is against this backdrop that a small vocal minority is bent on pushing these rejected deviant values down the throats of Ugandans.
There are several documented incidents of meetings of people in influential positions heading international organisations here in Uganda.
They are abusing their stay by engaging in criminal activities, activities that are definitely incompatible with their status. It should not take long before these people are exposed and made to answer for their activities that undermine the values and laws of their host countries.
These meetings are aimed at corrupting the morals of unsuspecting young people.
This is tantamount to corrupting public morals, a criminal offence.
Just like homosexuality remains an offence punishable by imprisonment in Uganda and many other ‘primitive’ countries, there is ample evidence that taxpayers’ money that is contributed to international organisations is being used to corrupt public morals.
The recent elections in America have shown us one thing: Homosexuality has been overwhelmingly rejected where it originated and hence has no business being accommodated here, where it is an offence.