The Heterocentric Origins of Wicca by Donna B.

"The most holy sacrament in traditional Wicca is the Great Rite, a representation of the Hieros Gamos or Sacred Marriage of male and female. Done symbolically, a dagger representing the phallic male God and a chalice representing the Goddess are joined, the dagger dipped into the chalice in overt sexual symbolism. Wicca in its origins is based upon a thoroughly heterosexual theology."

Wicca has its ORIGINS in a "heterocentric" theology. It's ideal for heterosexuals who are longing to find a spirituality deeply linked to their sexuality, because traditional Wicca honors the Goddess as the Divine Feminine, and honors the Horned God as the Divine Masculine, and sees in their loving erotic union the sacred key to all the cosmic mysteries of Nature and spiritual evolution. 

If that's not your own personal cup of tea - great! You have hundreds of other neopagan religions to choose from, including quite a few forms of neopagan witchcraft.

Just stop with the blatant double standard whereby it's okay for gay people to have gay covens with a homosexual theology, but it's not okay for straight people to have straight covens with a heterosexual theology. That is where the real bias dwells these days: legions of politically correct left-wing eclectics bashing people who are deeply heterosexual and accusing them of "homophobia" just because they want and need a religion that reflects their own sacred sexuality.

I have always welcomed gay men and women into pagan open circles; and likewise I have always respected their right to form their own groups focused specifically on gay spirituality, if that's what they want to do. But some of them seem highly unwilling to reciprocate my tolerance. That hardly seems equitable and just.

We need to get over this idea that each and every pagan religion should strive to be equally appealing to every single person in the world. The reason why religious diversity is such a good thing is because people are very different, and are looking for very different things in a religion.

Traditional Wicca, based on the core idea of the erotic attraction and romantic love between the Divine Masculine and the Divine Feminine, is a religion perfectly suited for heterosexual men and women looking for a way to relate their sexuality to their spirituality. It may not be of much interest to gay men and lesbians; just as gay witchcraft ideas are not of much interest to straight folks.

But that's okay; no one religion can be everything to everyone; and if it tries to be, then it will be in danger of losing its original and distinctive flavor that made it so appealing to some folks in the first place. (Just like a Celtic trad could not start incorporating Egyptian and Asian and Native American deities without losing its distinctive character and the adherence of the people who were looking for a specifically Celtic path.)

For me personally, a religion that honors masculinity and femininity as sacred gender opposites was and still is an absolutely perfect fit. Before I found Wicca, I was drawn to Taoism for the same reason: the emphasis that religion put on the polar opposites of yin and yang, feminine and masculine. 

I encountered and appreciated the same idea in tantric yoga and in alchemy; but not until I came home to Wicca did the ideal of spiritual gender polarity reach its full flowering, with the Hieros Gamos or sacred marriage of the Goddess and the Horned God. That is the 'Conjunctio Oppositorum' as Jung and Eliade referred to it: the Union of Opposites or the 'Alchemical Wedding' that brings transcendent mystical oneness.

If Wicca in the future were to go all pansexual and gender-bending - and thus lose the essential heterosexual theology and practice that made it so appealing to me and many other straight people in the first place - then what? Then we might find it necessary to create another new pagan religion just like Wicca all over again, with a clearly defined heterosexual theology and ritual practice. But why should we have to do that?? Gerald Gardner already created such a religion, and that religion is Wicca.

So just leave traditional Wicca alone, if it's not a good fit for you; and go join or start another pagan religion that is a better fit for your own inclinations. I fail to see why that is not the most sane and reasonable solution to the supposed "problem" of the innate "heterocentrism" within traditional Wiccan theology and ritual practice. So, moving right along: which pagan group is the next to be picked on, for their perceived lack of Political Correctness?

 

 But the point remains that Wicca originated as a pagan religion that honors and celebrates the sacrality of heterosexual erotic spirituality; and that's why traditional Wiccan theology is firmly heterosexual -- or "heterocentric" -- and our God and Goddess are conceived of as straight divine lovers, and the dagger in the chalice, and all the rest of it. Wicca is originally and traditionally a decidedly heterosexual religion.

Wicca certainly did not "emerge in the 60's/70's, and it certainly did NOT "go hand in hand with homosexuality." Wicca "emerged" in the 40's/50's, with Gerald Gardner and Doreen Valiente. Wicca is a religion based on a core theology of gender polarity: the worship of a Great Goddess and a Great Horned God who are HETEROSEXUAL divine Lovers.

In traditional Wicca -- which means Gardnerian Wicca and a few other branches -- the idea of male/female gender polarity permeates EVERYTHING. Covens are led by both a priestess and a priest, who fill different roles. Covens want equal numbers of men and women, with "working partners" always being a male-female pair. Initiations are always from male-to-female or female-to-male; one is never initiated by someone of the same sex. 

The most holy sacrament in traditional Wicca is the Great Rite, a representation of the Hieros Gamos or Sacred Marriage of male and female. Done symbolically, a dagger representing the phallic male God and a chalice representing the Goddess are joined, the dagger dipped into the chalice in overt sexual symbolism. Wicca in its origins is based upon a thoroughly heterosexual theology.

The reason for all the heterosexual symbolism, as Doreen Valiente once explained it was "Wicca is a Nature religion, and there's a lot of sex in Nature." It was also common in alchemy and ceremonial magic - both traditions that Wicca borrowed from - to emphasize male/female union as an important tantric magical practice; gender polarity being a kind of electrical "battery" to generate magical energies. 

For that reason and others, Gerald Gardner and many other early traditional Wiccans did not believe that it was a religion for homosexuals. Because the core beliefs and practices all revolved around the sacrality of heterosexual eros, it was hard at that time to imagine where where gay men and lesbians could fit in.

However, as eclectic Wicca started pulling away from traditional Wicca - and that was in the 60's/70's - the core religious theology of Wicca was changed or 'adapted' by various individuals and groups who were drawn to witchcraft for the beauty and mystery and magic, but who did not relate to the core heterosexual theology. That included both gay men and radical lesbian feminists, who started to promulgate a very different and non-traditional form of eclectic witchcraft. 

  

 

The feminists tended to exclude the Horned God almost entirely - which is kind of like claiming that you're a Christian but you only honor Jehovah and not Jesus. Gay men went in various other directions with the theology, including the idea that the Goddess and the Horned God were not lovers, but rather just Mother and Son. (Even in traditional Wicca, the Goddess is seen as the mother of the God; especially at Yule. But their main relationship is that of Lovers.)

With these historical changes, even some of the more traditional covens found themselves feeling pressured to admit gay men and lesbians to their ranks. And many or most of traditional covens did welcome homosexual members within a very short period of time. But it was not always an easy fit, given the very heterosexual nature of traditional Wiccan theology and practice. 

The standard rule in most traditional covens is that they would accept gay members, but they had to adjust their "polarity" while in circle, to fit with the male/female workings, and not have same-sex partners in circle. Above all, traditional Wicca forbade any changes to the heterosexual theology: that is, "Don't try to 'gay' our Gods."

Some gay men and lesbians still felt they found a home in traditional Wicca. Sometimes they related to the Goddess and God as divine "parents" who were heterosexual. Other gay men and women, however, wanted a religion that reflected their own erotic inclinations. That's perfectly understandable, since for many pagans the connection between sexuality and spirituality runs deep and intense. 

So there was Herman Slater and Ed B., and the start of 'Minoan Witchcraft' - where they saw the Goddess as a lesbian mother and the Horned God as her gay son, and they started mostly gay covens with men in one coven and women in another. That's definitely NOT Wicca, clearly; but it's a valid form of neopagan religious witchcraft in its own right.

Meanwhile, many heterosexuals continued to find their own spiritual and sexual fulfillment in the traditional religion of Wicca as it first started out. And that is also perfectly fine, of course. We are each after a spiritual path that fits us, and often that means one that reflects our own sexual orientation. So it's fine that there are gay covens, and it's fine that there are straight covens, and it's fine that there are covens that don't care what your sexual orientation is. 

There is room for everyone in the neopagan community, of course. But one thing that IS disrespectful is to "steal" an existing religion and twist it around to where it is unrecognizable. And that's something that pagans seem slow to admit, when it comes to the eclectic hijacking of traditional Wicca.

When it's a Hopi elder complaining that these blonde New Age yuppies are stealing their religion and claiming to be practicing "Hopi religion" when it's really some eclectic mix of crystal-gazing and other new age practices - then everyone sympathizes and stands up for the Hopi's right to define their religion in the traditional ways. 

But when it's a traditional Wiccan standing up for the traditional theology of Wicca as it was originally founded by Gerald Gardner in the 1940's -- which was heterosexual to an extreme degree -- then everyone is so quick to toss around the charge of "homophobia" and start complaining that they're "victimizing" people. Even if they have a long history of supporting gay rights, have gay and lesbian friends, circle happily with gay and lesbian pagans, and etc.

No, it's not about "homophobia." It's about wanting to practice a religion that reflects our own deepest spiritual feelings and sexual identity. And that should be okay for heterosexuals as well as for homosexuals and bisexuals. What's crazy is thinking that gay covens are perfectly okay, but straight covens are some kind of "persecution." If it's okay to have gay covens, then it's also okay to have straight covens. To each their own.

By analogy, some pagan groups are drawn to Celtic pantheons, and others may be drawn to Norse or Egyptian or Greco-Roman pantheons. If you're drawn to an Egyptian pantheon, then it would be absurd to want to join a Norse group, and then complain that you're being 'excluded' or 'persecuted' because of your Egyptian leanings. Likewise, if a coven practices traditional Wicca in a way that is focused on worshiping a heterosexual God and Goddess couple, and honoring heterosexual eros and male/female gender polarity, then it's absurd to want to join that group and expect it to accommodate your desire for a gay religion. 

There is room for everyone in the pagan movement. Just respect where other people are coming from, and let them do their own thing.

The Irrationality of Gay Marriage by Atheist Frank W.

 

 

People must understand that there is no traditional marriage as opposed to gay marriage. There is only marriage between man and a woman, or True Marriage.  "Gay marriage" makes about as much sense as "Creationist Science" or "Animal Rights".    This isn't to deny the rights of those who reject evolution to have their say, nor is it to suggest that animals should be horribly treated.  There should be intellectual freedom, and we should treat animals humanely.  

So, first of all, those who oppose 'gay marriage' should not say they are for 'traditional marriage'. They are for marriage or true marriage, pure and simple. Marriage is between a man and woman, or in some cultures between a man and several women. I think history has shown that monogamy is far more sensible and desirable than polygamy. So, marriage is that between a man and a woman in the civilized sense. "Gay Marriage" may have the look and sound of marriage, but it is a travesty of the principles of marriage, just as 'creationist science' is a travesty of science. 

I've been a lifelong atheist, but surely normo-sexual (Heterosexual) people are infinitely more valuable than homo-sexual people in regard to the perpetuation of the species. Life, whether one deems it sacred or not, is created thru the male/female union.  If life is sacred, the most sacred human bond is that between a man and a woman. That produces life--normal or gay. So, to confuse or water down normosexuality as just a lifestyle among many others is unreasonable. Gays should have the right to be gay and live their gay lives, but it's not alright for the gay agenda to undermine the meaning of marriage. 

This is radical egalitarianism that is also radical elitism. It's radically egalitarian in the sense that it has no sense of higher value; it ignores the primary function of sexuality in nature and the purpose of marriage in society.  It's also radically elitist because only wealthy and abundant societies can indulge in such social fairytales--just as only wealthy communities without starving people can have cafeteria food fights. It's also elitist in the sense that the gay agenda and its related theories were hatched by resentful and delirious intellectuals in the academia and cultural institutions which feel nothing but contempt for the ordinary people. 

Of course, the gay agenda has been mass-marketed by the powers-that-be, and we know how such things work.  If millions of kids STUPIDLY want $200 gym shoes because famous athletes promote them, it's understandable that more and more kids warm up to the idea of 'gay marriage' because all the cool, beautiful, and hip people--the celebs-- seem to be for it. 

And, if you disagree? Why, you're said to suffer from an 'irrational, unnatural, unhealthy, and psychotic mental disease called homophobia' and potrayed as ugly subhuman monsters on TV and in movies.  In the past, the medical community diagnosed homosexuality as a mental disease. Now, those who oppose 'gay marriage' are supposed to suffer from a mental disease.  Psychology is now, as back then, more a tool of socio-political ideology than a true science. 

The bottom line is that no matter how flawed families are--which is natural since all humans are flawed--, family is the essence of moral life. Any man and woman can produce life. But, that alone doesn't lead to moral life. Life becomes moralized only when the people who create life take responsibility for that life.  The last thing we should be doing is to weaken the ideal of the family even more. Marriage and family--in their truest sense--is what is most fundamental to a moral society. 

What the gay agenda is trying to do is not to offer an alternative view of social reality--what many gays have excelled at--but to replace the normal with the alternative. Alternative views are valuable precisely insofar as they offer something missing in or elusive to the normal. But, it is dangerous when the alternative tries to subvert and usurp the normal.  An artist or spiritual guru may provide poetic truth to a scientific community, but we must not confuse poetic truth with physical truth.  Poetic truth can make us better understand our emotional link with the universe, but it cannot build airplanes, modern medicine, rocketships, or computers.

Similarly, the gay perspective may offer new and fresh insights and offer new aesthetic visions for society, but we must not confuse homosexuality with normal sexuality any more than we should confuse poetic truth with actual physical truth.  No amount of poetry can produce a car, and no amount of gay sensibility can produce life.  Life is produced by the male/female union, and that is the sacred process that creates sacred life and deserves special recognition and rights. Gay sensibility deserves special recognition and respect in the realm of art and culture. We must not confuse it with normal society and the moral necessity of marriage.

What the Pro LGBT West Doesn't Understand About African Countries

"We have been disappointed for a long time by the conduct of the West, the way you conduct yourselves there, but we just keep quiet. We just see how you do things and your families and how they are organized. All these things, we see them and we keep quiet. We never comment because it's not our country. Maybe you like it. So this is now an attempt of social imperialism to impose social values of one group on our society. Then our disappointment is now exacerbated because we are sorry to see you live the way that you live. But we keep quiet about it. Now you say "you must also live like us." That's where we say no." --Yoweri Museveni

It is important to understand (even if one does not agree) the common African perspective of  Western countries' overt pressure on Africa regarding gay rights. It is even more important to work with Africa starting from their understanding of homosexuality and how they view Western the pressure on them. However, the West has done none of the above effectively. For example President Barack Obama instead of just focusing on getting sodomy laws weakened in Africa, he jumps all the way to gay marriage:

"So my basic view is that regardless of race, regardless of religion, regardless of gender, regardless of sexual orientation, when it comes to how the law treats you, how the state treats you -- the benefits, the rights and the responsibilities under the law -- people should be treated equally. And that’s a principle that I think applies universally, and the good news is it’s an easy principle to remember."

Obama doesn't seem to understand that the world doesn't work like that. In response Senegal leader President Sall, had this to say:

"We don't tell anybody that he will not be recruited because he is gay or he will not access a job because his sexual orientation is different. But we are still not ready to decriminalize homosexuality. I've already said it in the past, in our Cabinet meeting it is Senegal's option, at least for the time being, while we have respect for the rights of homosexuals -- but for the time being, we are still not ready to change the law...But the society has to absolve these issues. It has to take time to digest them, bringing pressure to bear upon them, on such issues. "

Again, the West has to work with Africa on their level, and take baby steps in relation to gay rights; not jump the gun and pressure Africa on gay marriage from the outside. As President Sall said, it takes time to digest the issues.  

I. The Failure of the West to Follow Instructions

The African leaders have given Western countries an instruction manual on how to deal with them regarding gay rights, but the West, due to their lack of respect, ignores those suggestions. Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni had the following to say about how Western countries are perceived by African countries: 

"I advise friends from the West not to make this an issue, because the more they make it an issue, the more they will lose because we shall move away and do our own thing. Since Western societies do not appreciate politeness...See this is the problem with the Westerners, they cannot understand politeness. They cannot understand that someone is keeping quiet but is not happy with (them). Because for these people (Westerners) to come and talk and so on and so forth; u (the West) see that these people (Africans) are keeping quiet, they are not answering, they are keeping quiet. You don't check on their history or their culture, you just come with what ever you think is right."

The simple and specific instructions given by President Museveni were to 1) not make  this an issue; then he described what would happen if the West kept pressing Uganda 1a) "we will do our own thing"; which in this context meant making  anti-homosexual laws more strict.  Museveni gave additional instructions 2) be polite. 3) Research the history and culture of countries you wish to speak to.

Kenyan deputy president William Ruto also gave instructions to the West: 

"This country, the nation of Kenya, is a God-fearing nation," Ruto said. Homosexuality is illegal in Kenya, where 90 percent of people believe homosexuality is wrong, according to the Pew Research Center. "Those who believe in other things, that is their business," Ruto said, referring to Obama's comments in support of gay marriage. "We believe in God.""America has made tremendous contribution to Kenya’s well-being and we are very grateful and as a government, we are ready to receive any help from America that will improve the lives of our people,” Ruto stated. “But for these other things we hear, it is none of our business as it goes against our customs and traditions.”

Ruto's specific and simple instructions were to stay out of Kenya's business as Kenya stays out of the business of the U.S. Ruto emphasized that the vast majority of Kenyans (90%)  believe homosexuality is wrong, and Kenyan law reflects that. It doesn't matter if you agree with what he said or if you think he is overreacting. If the West wants Africa to soften its stance on homosexuality, then they need to follow the instructions given by the Africans. The ramifications of being snoody and ignoring this have already played out in Africa. It doesn't matter if long ago in the past Uganda and Africa accepted homosexuality, the fact is that now, in the present, Uganda and Africa no longer accept it, and the West needs to start at that point not jump to talking about gay marriage.

In his article "Outside The Box: How To Deal With Homosexuals: A Look At Africa’s (Emerging) Anti-Gay Laws," Denis Nzioka thoroughly documents the 38 countries in Africa that have laws against homosexuality and the 10 African countries that have strengthened existing sexual offense laws. Nzioka's observations demonstrate what happens when Western countries do not follow the instructions of the African leaders.

"Unfortunately, as the world – and by large, the global LGBTI, and to some extent, the sex work community – focused on the ruling, there is a worrying trend in the African continent as countries formulate new laws or amplify existing ones to further criminalize same sex persons.

In five countries around the world, same sex sexual conduct carries the death penalty while across the Commonwealth – with most African countries being members – penalties for homosexuality include jail sentences, flogging or death. According to the Human Dignity Trust (HDT), half a dozen Commonwealth countries specify life imprisonment.

38 African countries criminalize homosexuality . This criminalization stems from imported British laws in place in the late nineteenth century that, at that time, outlawed homosexual acts. Despite a 1967 Sexual Offences Act in England and Wales that repealed its own legislation and until the 1980s before Scotland and Northern Ireland did the same, these laws originally imposed during colonial times remain largely in place in these African, even in a post-independence era.

Of these 38, 10 have taken the extraordinary step of targeting LGBTI persons by strengthening existing sexual offences laws, or formulating ‘moral’ Bills that outlaw all forms non-heterosexual conduct or create anti-homosexuality specific laws."

Again, the issue is not whether u agree or disagree with the African perspective or if Africa accepted homosexuality many centuries ago; the issue is understanding and dealing with African countries on their level of understanding and taking baby steps on the issue of gay rights. Putting too much pressure on Africa to the point that they strengthen their sodomy laws is an ineffective tactic. It doesn't matter if the West doesn't think they are putting too much pressure on Africa regarding the issue; all that matters is the reality of the situation which is that 1) African countries think the West is being overbearing on the issue 2) In response, African countries have tightened their sodomy laws. That is the reality of the situation.   

II. Dirty Western Hands in Africa

I am alluding to four issues when I use the phrase: "Dirty Western Hands in Africa." I am bringing up these issues because Westerners don't seem to be aware of how Africa has been mistreated by the West in regards to their views on homosexuality. I am arguing that the West is using its aid (which sadly Africa shouldn't be dependent upon) as  leverage and a double-edged sword to strong-arm Africa to do what it wants.  Dependence on Western aid creates a a situation of co-dependence, where African countries get pulled around like a dog on a leash.

The first example is given by Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of the African Sun Times, Dr. Chika Onyeani  who summarizes how the UN is making efforts to bully the country of Malawi over its laws criminalizing homosexuality by taking Malawi to the UN court and suing it:

"Four days ago, in a rare move, the United Nations AIDS task-force announced that it would pursue legal action against Malawi for its laws criminalizing homosexuality.  This is regarded as judicial overreach by the world body, and it is assumed to be a bullying tactic by the UN over a country that is unable to fight back, unlike Nigeria and Cameroon that basically are not dependent on aids...The United Nation’s “Free and Equal” campaign is another example of using international muscle to force African countries to comply with what is becoming one of the practices of the most powerful lobbies in the world.  Taking the country of Malawi to court is quite an extraordinary measure.

What is certain is that Africa will continue to remain a very hostile continent to the gay community.  There is not only the fact that Africa considers homosexual acts unnatural and a bane to African culture, the continent sees it as an example of the West again trying to impose their will on a continent whose member-countries are dependent on handouts from the West, [and even] Malawi has resisted the pressure brought on her.  As Africa sees it, there is barbarism in America with capital punishment, execution of convicts, which many African countries have outlawed and which Africa has not tried to foster on America.  There should be a quid pro quo here.  Africa says leave us alone just as we have left you alone on capital punishment."

 

The second example is Western countries such as Sweden, Norway and Denmark, and The World Bank cutting aid to Uganda. The problem with this approach is that it will hurt Uganda's Health infrastructure regarding maternal health, newborn care, and family planning. 

"Now the World Bank is delaying a $90 million loan to Uganda's Health Ministry — money intended for a project to strengthen the country's health systems — because it wants to ensure that the development objectives of the project would not be adversely affected by the anti-gay law.

The $144 million project focuses on maternal health, newborn care and family planning — public health areas whose grim figures have long attracted the attention of foreign donors.

At least 16 Ugandan women die in childbirth daily, a shocking statistic that made the project critical in this East African country that depends on donors for about 20 percent of its budget. Announcing the project in 2010, the World Bank noted that without "significant investments" Uganda was "unlikely to achieve the Millennium Development Goal targets related to reducing child mortality and improving maternal mortality."

In addition, as Irish secretary General David Cooney noted; the cuts will negatively impact the poorest of Ugandans, not the leaders in parliament. Ireland said that it would NOT cut aid to Uganda over its anti-sodomy bill:

"Department of Foreign Affairs secretary general David Cooney said that while Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore had been very clear in condemning recently-passed anti-gay laws, the government believes that cutting aid will only add to the detriment of the Ugandan people...

Cooney said that that Irish overseas aid is in place for Uganda to help “some of the poorest people on the planet” and said it was assisting a society of “transient cattle owners who are making a transition to a more settled society”. He said that Irish Aid is not going to assist the president or the parliament there. “Whatever about the action of the government,” he said. “We do not feel that it would be appropriate to cut off our assistance that is going to directly to these people.”

In his article "Why the U.S. Can't Just Cut Aid to Uganda," Mark Leon Goldberg gives a list of harms (fewer AIDS drugs, health services, less clean water, etc) that would occur as a result of the West and specifically the U.S. cutting aid to Uganda:

"This is a human rights tragedy and a public health disaster in the making. So what can the international community do about it? As many people have pointed out, Uganda is heavily dependent on foreign aid. The USA is its largest contributor, giving over $400 million per year in assistance. But cutting off that aid to protest this law is not really an option. Most of this funding is for economic development, education and health projects. Shutting off the spigot would hurt those who need it the most. 

 There would be fewer AIDS drugs, fewer mosquito nets, fewer health services and less clean water for vulnerable populations. Further, the Ugandan military — which receives US support — plays a generally constructive role in supporting regional peace and stability. Its contributions to a UN-backed African Union force in Somalia is helping to restore order as Somalia undergoes a truly impressive transition. The Ugandan army also deserves credit for helping to end the incipient civil war in neighboring South Sudan."

The third example of Dirty Western Hands in Africa is the Vulture Funds that U.S. lenders use to put African and third world countries even more in debt and then use that same money to fund LGBT campaigns in the West through the HRC. Scott Long in his paper: HRC and the Vulture Fund: Making Third World Poverty Pay for LGBT Rights; makes the following observations

"Paul Singer runs a vulture fund. He makes his profits from the debt incurred by Third World countries — I won’t use the PC term “developing” countries, because the point of the debt is to prevent them from developing — and from the misery it causes their citizens. Of all the parasites in the global economy, of all the profiteers of poverty, vulture funds may be the worst.

Vulture funds operate by buying up a country’s distressed debt just as the original lenders are about to write it off – usually, as the Guardian describes it, when the country “is in a state of chaos. When the country has stabilised, vulture funds return to demand millions of dollars in interest repayments and fees on the original debt.” In other words, you purchase the right to be a hardassed debt collector, and to harass and impoverish whole populations till you get your cash. Singer, says the BBC, “virtually invented vulture funds.” A University of Pennsylvania expert on emerging-market debt told Bloomberg that Singer’s “actions are amoral,” adding that he puts the squeeze on “without worrying about the potential consequences for the country involved.”

Long continues:

"It’s a sick irony that the money HRC takes to fund its new work in the Third World is made off the backs of Third World suffering. It’s politically disastrous for an LGBT group to operate this way. They’re sending a message to governments in the developing world that the US really does see LGBT people as a privileged class, and is willing to promote their rights while condoning the immiseration of whole populations. But it’s self-defeating also. LGBT people don’t want this kind of “help.” LGBT people are citizens, workers, children, parents too. HRC should know that they are as affected as anybody when a parasite like Singer enforces endless debt service on states, devastates the necessary services that governments provide, litigates countries into permanent submission. What does HRC think it can give the victims, after Singer has stripped their assets and sold off their national resources? Is same-sex marriage supposed to be a consolation? I’m afraid HRC is acting like old honey badger, too. It just don’t care."

The fourth and final example is Western Cultural Imperialism being imposed on Africa through LGBT rights. I've already pointed to this by showing how President Obama has kept calling for gay-marriage (something that is nowhere near African values except for white run South Africa) in Africa. It's one thing to propose that African countries withdraw their laws criminalizing homosexuality, but it is something else to leap-frog all the way over to gay marriage; and for that reason Africa, India, and Russia have all reacted in the extreme to the West.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron expressed is his longings to impose Western Cultural Imperialism through gay marriage by stating:

“I’ve told the Bill team I’m now going to reassign them because, of course, all over the world people would have been watching this piece of legislation and we’ve set something, I think, of an example of how to pass good legislation in good time.

“Many other countries are going to want to copy this. And, as you know, I talk about the global race, about how we’ve got to export more and sell more so I’m going to export the bill team. I think they can be part of this global race and take it around the world.”

The EU has said that it isn't trying to impose gay-marriage on Africa (Nigeria), yet the European Courts of Human Rights is set to impose gay marriage on Italy. How can Africa believe that the West is not trying to impose gay marriage upon it when at the same time Western Courts are trying coerce it upon Italy? 

III. Conclusion: Reframing the Issue and Providing Effective Solutions

In his paper “Gay Death Penalty: Uganda’sResponse to Western Cultural Imposition,” Bob Onghetich frames the issue explaining Western Individualist cultures vs. African Collectivist cultures. Onghetich emphasizes that unlike Western cultures, African cultures’ sense of morality for individuals is determined by the family, village, tribe, and the larger culture: 

“In an individualist community the individual gets to decide questions of morality for themselves, and even where it contradicts that of the other people, it is their individual choice. As Dodd, Carley put it, “individualism pervades concepts of personal freedom, in which each person has the  right to individually pursue his or her choices.”

In Uganda, an individual’s choices and freedoms are subject to the approval of the family, village, tribe and the larger cultural community. This is in sharp contrast to the countries in the West where individuals are encouraged to pursue personal choices; this is sometimes, regardless of what the family or other group wishes. Individualism is esteemed so much so that an individual’s sexuality is their personal choice. It could be for this reason, that despite national debates, and demonstration against legalizing same sex marriages in United States and France, the community does so with tolerance of its individual member’s sexual orientation. 

Unlike the West, the traditional extended family, hands down morals and values on sexuality, to its individuals members and expects loyalty in return for protection from the hardships of life. It can be fairly concluded that the collectivist cultural and the individualist cultural dimensions frame, for Uganda and the West respectively, can provide insights into the debate on the Anti-Homosexuality legislation in Uganda, whose very aim seeks to protect the traditional family from threats of homosexuality."

Onghetich concludes his paper providing a solution that the West should stop pressuring Uganda from the outside and let it work these issues out internally:

"National culture is not innate and as such the value system of the society is dynamic, as reflected in changes in attitude over time. The community in Uganda, with globalization, which seeks for cultural fluency among citizens of the globe, will find itself changing attitudes to match up with the rest of the world. This change in societal values however, does not come about by coercion and threats from outside, but a change from within the societal units."

In conclusion, the West needs to stop 1) pressing Africa on the issue of homosexuality and gay marriage 2) stop cutting aid to Uganda and threatening other African countries with aid cuts 3) stop the vulture funds 4) stop pursuing legal action on Malawi before the UN. 5) stop trying to impose gay marriage on Italy which in turn reveals a threat to African countries. What the West should do is let the African countries work out these issues from within and let the issues digest in the culture for awhile as Bob Onghetich and Senegal's leader President Sall have proposed.