Mugabe: Homosexuality Is Filthy Disease Destroying Nation

200px-mugabecloseup2008With an economy in shambles, the world community condemning you for a rigged election, widespread corruption and sickness in his country, it is hard to predict what subject Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe would pick for an emphasis in his inaugural address. Mugabe however went with none of the above and instead lashed out at homosexuality, which he described as filthy, filthy disease.”


The 89-year-old president urged people to “damn” homosexuality and warned them that homosexuality “destroys nations, apart from it being a filthy, filthy disease.” Mugabe has made gays the focus of his public remarks, declaring them “worse than pigs, goats, and birds.” Of course the destruction of his own country by his own hand is almost complete. The country has only a couple hundred dollars in the bank while his wife and family spends lavishly on themselves.

By getting people to hate gays, Mugabe clearly hopes that they will not be thinking of the billions that he and his family has squandered. For most Zimbabweans, it is the Mugabe family that is the filthy disease destroying their name.

95 thoughts on “Mugabe: Homosexuality Is Filthy Disease Destroying Nation”

  1. davidm2575
    One of the things in life that bother me are dictionaries that, when looking up a word, use the word to define itself. i.e. HUMBLE: 1) A humbling moment. 2) To be humbled

    Then why is it referred to as a dictionary? It defined NOTHING it pretended to define!!!

    I never referred to sexual orientation as an ideology. That is a ridiculous concept. However, there is clearly a homosexual ideology…

    What is a ridiculous concept?
    Your actual inability to recognize your contradiction just words away, IN PRINT no less?

    Please, you do NOT have my lifestyle “all figured out” and NO…
    … THERE IS NO AGENDA!!!

    YOU HAVE THE AGENDA!!!

    1. Max-1 wrote: “THERE IS NO AGENDA!”

      What are you trying to say? That there is no homosexual agenda because you do not have an agenda? Because LZ Granderson supposedly has no agenda, then nobody else does?

      Are you going to argue that there are no gay activists trying to change laws and societal perceptions? No lawyers are out there trying to change any laws concerning homosexuality? Nobody with an agenda to make gay marriage legal, or to get the law to give more rights to civil partnerships or civil unions? None that are creating a specially protective class of people based upon sexual orientation? You don’t have any gay pride parades in your town every year? You really expect people to believe that there are no organizations formed creating action plans of how to change society to approve of homosexuality? All the drastic changes happening within our society is just natural progression without anyone creating an agenda of how to change society? Nobody out there raising money or making speeches, no public school teachers ever existed like Eric Rofes teaching homosexuality in the public schools and pushing ways to get it taught in more public schools so that the next generation will embrace homosexuality? I guess there are no film makers either with an agenda to create films showing homosexuality in a positive light?

      Anybody who claims there is no gay agenda is either ignorant or dishonest. Many gays deny any agenda in public but then in private go on to plan their strategy on how to change society.

      Agenda = a plan of things to be done or problems to be addressed. It also can refer to the underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group.

      —–
      From Wikipedia: LGBT social movements
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_social_movements

      Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) social movements are movements that advocate for the full acceptance of LGBT people in society. In these movements, LGBT people and their allies have a long history of campaigning for what is now generally called LGBT rights, sometimes also called gay rights or gay and lesbian rights. Although there is no one organization that represents all LGBT people and their interests, numerous LGBT rights organizations are active worldwide.

      A commonly stated goal among these movements is social equality for LGBT people. Some have also focused on building LGBT communities or worked towards liberation for the broader society from heterosexism and homophobia.[1] LGBT movements organized today are made up of a wide range of political activism and cultural activity, including lobbying, street marches, social groups, media, art, and research.”
      —–

      You may want to check out a book privately published in the 1980’s that spearheaded the propaganda to which more than half of society has now accepted. It is called, “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the90’s” by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.

      In this book, part of the agenda is that arguments with facts is a waste of time. The Harvard educated gay activists say to appeal to feelings and emotions. The book argues that 90% of the people are of low intelligence and are not persuaded by reason.

      The book is expensive, but here is a link to an outline of this book:

      http://www.endcensorship.com/uploads/After_the_Ball_-_outline_by_Richard_Cohen.pdf

  2. “You perceive gay denigration only because of your ideology of making gays a protected class of people who needs to be coddled and protected from any criticism.”

    My ideology is based on a correct understanding of the nature of rights and the value equal rights for all.

    The homosexuals I know, that is what their ideology is based on as well.

    “I never referred to sexual orientation as an ideology. ”

    Which you follow up with by saying . . .

    “People will not long put up with the oppression and tyranny brought by this homosexual ideology of sexual liberation.”

    What your ideology is based on is quite readily apparent, David.

    Seriously, you should really just give up in this forum. All you succeed in doing making people think that you are exactly what you protest most being seen as. A purveyor of ignorance, bigotry and oppression.

    Good job.

    And by “good” I mean really sad and pathetic.

  3. David continues to whine, ” That ideology invented the term “sexual orientation” less than 40 years ago in order to further its goals. ”

    Yes because gay people have only been around since 1973. No one before that was gay, or if they were, they certainly did not have sex. Nor did they live together and imagine themselves as partners. That only started in 1973. Any same-sex couples who actually did this did not actually do it, according to David.

    Your arguments grow more absurd by the hour.

    David, why are you so consumed with this? Is it really because you were attacked? Or are you trying very hard to tell us how not-gay you are by inventing “ideaologies” for people to have? People you do not know personally?

    Every one of your arguments has been knocked down. What do you gain, personally, by continuing to throw this rather rotten, childish temper tantrum over what? The sex some people may be having without your consent?

    The more you denigrate, the more you lose this argument. It is not an “ideology” to want to have sex with the consenting adults you want to have sex with. It’s human nature, and your intolerance of it is stunning.

  4. Jill, you make reference to ‘karma.’ That is magical thinking. I don’t believe in magic because there is no such thing. Illusion, yes. Magic, no.

    However, karma, like other spiritual beliefs, does make us feel better. It’s a coping mechanism. The concept of karma embraces a philosophy of retribution, which allows one to avoid taking personal responsibility while concurrently fantasizing about punishment being meted out.

  5. Jill,

    I think you are overstating your case, but it is your choice. We are each the shepherd of our own karma. Thanks for you concern.

    ___________

    nick,

    Again, it comes down to what defines our humanity. Simple biology? Or content of character as demonstrated by action?

    “Inhuman” is an analogy. “Inhumane” is not.

  6. OS and Gene,

    I think you are opening yourselves up to some very bad things but it is your choice.

  7. How can we say that Mugabe is being “inhuman” when we have millions of examples of humans acting as he.

  8. It is those arguing w/ Jill that are involved w/ semantic minutiae. Jill’s stance is quite basic.

  9. “Gene, He is not acting in an inhuman manner.”

    Really. Do tell.

    “One way to avoid participating in evil is to stop dehumanizing others.”

    And if, as noted above, that dehumanization is a self-inflicted wound? Are you avoiding evil or failing to come to grips with the inhumane nature of others as exemplified by their actions? Evil may be nebulous at times and even somewhat context sensitive, but it is real and past certain thresholds certainly quantifiable as such.

    No. The man acts like a barbarian bereft of compassion, benevolence or mercy. He has all the humanity of a monitor lizard. I submit the protests about comparing Mugabe to a disease are misplaced PC nonsense and not evil but accurate in describing his effect on society by analogy.

  10. Jill,
    The appeal to emotion is a logical trap,resulting in attention being drawn away from the monstrosity this man represents, to getting bogged down in minutiae of language.

  11. Gene, He is not acting in an inhuman manner. You will need to dismiss a lot of history and current events as works of non-humans by your definition. We are capable of both great evil, great good and everything in between. One way to avoid participating in evil is to stop dehumanizing others. Once we dehumanize others we have opened our own self to the commission of atrocities. That is how it works. Check out this description of the untermensch:

    “Just as the night rises against the day, the light and dark are in eternal conflict. So too, is the subhuman the greatest enemy of the dominant species on earth, mankind. The subhuman is a biological creature, crafted by nature, which has hands, legs, eyes and mouth, even the semblance of a brain. Nevertheless, this terrible creature is only a partial human being.

    Although it has features similar to a human, the subhuman is lower on the spiritual and psychological scale than any animal. Inside of this creature lies wild and unrestrained passions: an incessant need to destroy, filled with the most primitive desires, chaos and coldhearted villainy.

    A subhuman and nothing more! Not all of those, who appear human are in fact so. Woe to him who forgets it!” (about untermensch on wikipedia)

    The idea of “subhuman” is appealing because the actions of some people so appall us that we don’t want to think of those people as people. Yet there they are, still fully human.

  12. You are missing the point, Jill.

    My post above was about “Is it inhumane or inappropriate to discuss someone who is acting inhuman in non-human terms?” and the basic questions of “What is it that makes us human beyond biology?”

    No one is equating compassion to “just letting evil things happen”.

  13. Gene, I don’t have a problem with people taking action to stop a dictator. I have been speaking about the need to do this since Bush on this blog. I don’t understand a disconnection between compassion and taking action to protect oneself and others.

    You are much more likely to fall under the influence of a psychopath once you descend into this way of thinking. Mugabe believes homosexuals are a disease on his society. It is not the person who says we must have ethical positions that we don’t abridge that will fall victim to his sway. It is the person who will agree with Mugabe in calling another person a disease.

    Mugabe is fully human. Our own leadership is just as brutal as he is. Some of them are his willing supporters. It is a quality of being human that one can commit atrocity as well as be compassionate.

    Listen to James example. He is not in denial about who Mugabe is nor what he is doing. He believes he should be put on trial for his actions (as do I). He also said he should be given due process. That is a profoundly ethical stance.

    It’s like when people think Bush and Obama should be put into Gitmo and tortured. Those are people who still believe in torture. They are believing exactly the same as Bush and Obama. They think there is a place for torture in this world. There is not. Why complain about Bush and Obama torturing people when they are willing to torture. What is the problem? Their problem with torture is that they didn’t get to choose the victim, not torture itself.

    So to equate compassion with just letting evil things happen doesn’t make sense to me. Compassion should be the move to end injustice, not accept it.

  14. Jill,

    No. I consider my prompting you to consider what makes a human a human dispassionately. Also consider the value of compassion toward one at the expense of the many. Consider the words of the Dalai Lama, a man who knows something about compassion, upon being given a question that presented a self-defense scenario – a “man with a gun” problem. The Lama replied, “Acts of violence should be remembered, and then forgiveness should be extended to the perpetrators.
    But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg.” Compassion does not mean that one should remain inactive against aggression. That is a huge misconception about pacifism. Pacifism is a preference for peaceful solutions, not an unwillingness to use violence when (but only when) it is required and only as much as required. In studying martial arts, I was always taught that killing someone was for one situation only: when your opponent was intractable and intent on killing you or another so that you had literally no other option left. This comports with what the Lama said above. Just so, see James K’s response above. It is suitable in its compassion while recognizing the truth of what Mugabe is: a psychopath and inherently dangerous to others and yourself should you fall under his sphere of influence. Is it lacking compassion to compare a person who lacks all the qualities that make us fully human except his biology to other creatures that lack those same qualities? Or is it simply an accurate analogy used for illustrative purposes?

  15. Gene, Do you consider your response to Mugabe as an act of compassion? “Compassion is the understanding or empathy for the suffering of others.

    Compassion is often regarded as having an emotional aspect to it, though when based on cerebral notions such as fairness, justice and interdependence, it may be considered rational in nature and its application understood as a activity based on sound judgment. There is also an aspect of compassion which regards a quantitative dimension, such that individual’s compassion is often given a property of “depth,” “vigour,” or “passion.” The etymology of “compassion” is Latin, meaning “co-suffering.” More involved than simple empathy, compassion commonly gives rise to an active desire to alleviate another’s suffering. It is often, though not inevitably, the key component in what manifests in the social context as altruism. In ethical terms, the various expressions down the ages of the so-called Golden Rule often embodies by implication the principle of compassion: Do to others what you would have them do to you.[1] (wikipedia)

    James I thought your example of due process is really important.

  16. “I submit it is a self-inflicted condition.”

    Agreed. And I would still treat him and any other human as I wish to be treated, not as they treat others. By the time we get to psychopaths, this view is no longer for the sake of the psychopath. It’s for my sake so I do not become that which I have declared reptilian. A few family members come to mind.

    Look, Mugabe is just awful, no two ways about it. And I would still offer him due process. It’s been the avoidance of due process that is contributing to the growing police state here in the U.S. and there has been nothing humanizing about that direction.

  17. Was not that Pirate Territory called The Congo at one time and was it not right next to some place called Burma which also did a name change?
    Did not Bongo Drums originate from the Congo and was not the lead Bongo Drummer named Gabe, who was Mugabe’s grandpa? Or is some dog named HumpinDog sittin here itShaying me?

  18. After further considering the etymology of the word “disease”, I submit the following.

    humane /hjʊˈmeɪn/

    adjective

    1: having or showing compassion or benevolence

    2: formal (of a branch of learning) intended to have a civilizing effect on people:

    Origin:

    late Middle English: the earlier form of human, restricted to the senses
    above in the 18th century

    inhuman /ɪnˈhjuːmən/

    adjective

    1: lacking human qualities of compassion and mercy; cruel and barbaric:the inhuman treatment meted out to political prisoners

    2: not human in nature or character:

    human /ˈhjuːmən/

    adjective

    relating to or characteristic of humankind:the human body the complex nature of the human mind
    – of or characteristic of people as opposed to God or animals or machines, especially in being susceptible to weaknesses:they are only human and therefore mistakes do occur the risk of human error
    – showing the better qualities of humankind, such as kindness:the human side of politics is getting stronger
    – Zoology of or belonging to the genus Homo.

    noun

    a human being.

    inhumane /ɪnhjʊˈmeɪn/

    adjective

    without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel:

    Query: When a homo sapiens sapiens – a human biologically – ceases to display humane traits but instead display inhumane traits, is it their biology that determines their humanity or the content of their character and the quality of their actions?

    Is what makes a human human something more than their body?

    When does man become monster?

    Is it unfair to describe the inhumane in inhuman terms?

    The Ethic of Reciprocity – the Golden Rule – is as the name implies, a reciprocal relationship.

    Are you still human when you no longer display a humane nature?

    Many of you have never met a hardcore violent psychopath. I know for a fact OS has. I have. I will tell you it is possible for a reptile to walk like a man. Your humanness is the content of your character and the quality of your actions.

    When you no longer display compassion, benevolence or mercy, are you still human?

    Ponder this before becoming too upset about Mugabe being “dehumanized”.

    I submit it is a self-inflicted condition.

  19. After some thought over Jill’s position about dehumanizing via dismissive language, I have to come down with her methods. She better enunciates the golden rule, which I have come to love. Terribly handy, that.

Comments are closed.