[moate]

Yes and?

Not to be dismissive, but so what? Shitty white Christians exported homophobia along with Jesus. Okay, great. Glad we cleared that up?

Seems like the Ghanaians are now running with it. People love a scapegoat, and Christians love it to be the Gays. The inclusive society of yore is gone. How do we fix it? I don't think that telling the people of Ghana "you're only homophobic because of imperialism!" is going to help fight this bill.

[courtf]

I was responding to a comment that implied these laws were an example of self-determination, and removing them would be an effort to control population growth.

My comment makes the point that these laws are actually more foreign in origin than they appear, and before they were imposed by the brutal process of colonization, the population was doing just fine.

My comment was never intended to describe how to fight the laws, just to flesh out some background missing from the one I replied to. It is your comment that came in with these additional themes out of left field. My guess is that you felt triggered by the word "colonization" and perhaps by being reminded of the atrocities committed in former colonies. Why these would be an irritant to you is beyond my ability to guess, sometimes truth hurts I suppose?

Let me know if you need any addy help navigating other conversations.

[moate]

My point is twofold.

1- These are religious traditions that date back to the 1500s. If we can consider chilis a part of Indian national cooking, I think we need to accept that Christianity is a huge part of the national makeup of Ghana, and with it the homophobia present in most denominations.

2- Let's not project on each other. I'm just fine calling colonization a terrible blight and fucked up massive chunks of the world (Antarctica seems fine...), and I can accept that historical/additional context can benefit a discussion but this statement smacked of "blame the West for everything." Of course blame the West, but also blame the people passing this legislation. They don't get a free pass because white people suck. Should the West be trying to fix this, or stay out of it because they should be allowed to run their own government?

Let's rewind a little bit: Who is responsible for this legislation passing in your mind (if multiple parties, please assign what you view as their % of blame). For me it's about 85% to the Parliamentary members sponsoring such legislation, and 15% outside actors with something to gain.

My issue is this: Gay people, my people, are being harmed. Academic discussions about the root causes annoy me when actual blood is being spilled. That's what I'm triggered by, and your comment seemed like one worth responding to instead of the parent (which was gibberish and now flagged)

[courtf]

Appreciate this follow-up response, and I apologize for running with what I perceived as a hostility in your earlier response, it's a struggle for sure.

1) Completely agree, the history is important to understand the threads that continue into the present, but there is no going back.

2) At this point, I think the West should stay out of it in any official capacity, which isn't totally confident statement on my part, but there it is. I also don't think white people suck, and I think focusing on that would be a distraction, the same way it sounds like you do. I intend my criticisms to target abuse of power, which of course happens to fall into the hands of white people fairly often, but it's not the crux in my mind at all. In my original comment I did not mention race for that reason. These kinds of power abuses are ubiquitous wherever people live, and it is absolutely absurd to blame the West or whites as a group for succumbing to the same failures and abusive patterns as people do everywhere.

All of that said... I still think it's important to bring up the lingering influences of colonization, and that an understanding of the forces at play, even going back hundreds of years, is likely crucial to trying to make progress in the present.

> Who is responsible for this legislation passing in your mind

I'm not totally sure, of course from a fundamental view it is the politicians who are enacting the legislation. They are directly responsible for the bill, but I think this is potentially simplistic. Money from outside sources can make a lot of things happen that never would have otherwise, including putting politicians into power and steering their agenda. So if the situation in Ghana can be directly tied to that kind of corruption, I would shift most of the blame to the people who the ultimate driving force behind these bills.

As a fellow gay, I understand your desire to steer the conversation toward more immediate concerns, but I would contest the characterization of the region's history as purely academic. Teasing apart the fractal of influences that create any behavior, including violence toward minorities, can be difficult if not impossible. Spreading more contextual awareness can be a tool to help shift attitudes, at least as far as the limits of a HN comment are concerned.

[trasz]

Good first step would be to stop being extra lenient towards religions. Christians are no longer persecuted or discriminated against anywhere in the Western world; they don’t need extra protections or freedoms.

If you want to be homophobe, it’s fine, but either keep your ideology away from people under 18, or face prison. Same with sponsoring homophobic organizations. Until then nobody should give a crap about your precious religion and how it’s allegedly not a hate-driven crime ring.

[yawboakye]

> If you want to be homophobe, it’s fine, but either keep your ideology away from people under 18, or face prison.

In Ghana, child rearing is first of all the responsibility of the parent, which imo is a great vanguard against the on-marching groupthink. There's a variety of ideas and beliefs in the country, government has little to no effect on daily life choice, etc.

That said, the country is heavily traditional and it will take several generations until popular opinion is favorable towards public display of homosexual relationship. At the moment it isn't and can't be forced in any non-imperialist way.

[trasz]

Making it illegal in eg Europe to financially support homophobic organizations would reduce their worldwide money supply, and in the long term help their victims in all countries, including Ghana.

[yawboakye]

There are no homophobic organizations in the country. You don't need people going around stoking hate flames. There are no hate flames to stoke, just people not wanting to see the abnormal. You don't address that with economic sanctions (which seems to be the go-to whip of so-called developed countries). It just won't work.

[trasz]

They are plenty of homophobic organizations, eg the Vatican.

[Zababa]

As long as we apply the same rules to all religions, I'm all for it.

[da_big_ghey]

What are you defining as "homophobia"? Only actions or also rhetoric? Such definition is not always agreed with ease, I hope we might need such definition clear before prison.

[trasz]

Both. There’s no difference between spreading homophobia and eg spreading drug addiction.

[da_big_ghey]

These are no answer to definition, however. Is Christian saying "gay is wrong" punish with jail? Is Christian saying "do bad things to gay people" punish with jail? Is Christian saying "no marrying for gay people" punish with jail? Some combination of some?

[trasz]

None, as long as they don’t try to agitate children. Again, same as with drugs or alcohol. (Well, “do bad things” is a crime, but looks the same of you replace homophobia with any other reasoning.)

[Synaesthesia]

I think it's always important to understand the context and history.