|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on May 22, 2011 21:08:06 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by politicalmaniac on May 23, 2011 1:54:58 GMT 3
The intentional use of pseudonyms for the lady who was persecuted for being gay, but who has allegedly come out of the closet, deflates the punch of the story. It makes the saga sound hollow and contrived.
The pervasive 'tactic' of pseudonyms use within the Kenyan press (lets call her this or that) does little to humanize and personalize the story and its main actors
Its seems to me the stigma associated with being Gay, or having HIV, or divorce, or spousal abuse is still very real.
We cannot address these issues fully until we deconstruct the stigma associated with these controversial social or medical ills.
It requires first of all that we be compassionate, supportive of the folks having these myriad of issues to deal with, and less virulent in condemning them.
So folks like the obstreperous sanctimonious ruto, he who knows all, and wants all, must be forcefully repulsed and their views rejected. They must be told off.
All sorts of social wedges, 'kehee-ism', Islamophobia, and what have you must forcefully challenged at all times.
Maybe I am erroneously comparing the more open way in which folks in the West "out" themselves, with our own nascent journey. We are not socially there yet.
Don Lemon - black anchor of CNN recently declared he is gay. Boxer Sugar Ray recently confessed he was sexually abused, a very painful and stigmatized social issue, swept under the rug in all cultures.
All the same, I would venture to think that someone who has openly outed themselves would not have issues having their names published.
|
|
|
|
Post by nyarsiaya on May 23, 2011 4:30:46 GMT 3
My opinion is a conservative one on this issue. I risk coming out as a homophobic but do take comfort in the knowledge that this here is what dialogue is about: your take, my take.
LGBTQ membership, at least a majority, strike me as a group that is composed of people unable to deal with "life", specifically relationshipwise with the opposite sex. I know stats will be given of loving same sex homes/partnerships, but that in comparison to heterosexuality can be looked at later..
There maybe genuine ones, but so far the young men and women I have met on Western campuses left alot of questions than answers.
A good number of females became lesbians because the men in their lives mistreated them in one way or another: here I see the inability to deal with the male human species and its complications.
There is agroup (male & female) with very limited social skills: thanks to nonstop nintendo wii and a failed basic unit of community- the family. By this I do not mean the mother father child thingie, NO. Anyone can be a child's family as long as love, safety and stability are provided. Failing social skills could also be as a result of our civilized lifestyles that have made sure kids are so bogged down with books that one day they get up and see hair growing in places that have been smooth, but the parents are too busy to take charge of explaining, leaving it all to virtual learning. How many of us admit that what the natives did before us was smarter: allowing girl kids in this age to run around with boys while admisnistering spermicides and anti-s.t.ds, thus giving them a chance to know how to deal with each other?
A minority have me convinced as gay, I must admit. Althoguh I still find the "sex assignment" troubling: men with "feminine" mannerisms.
I also know I will be accused for insinuating that same-sex r-ships are as a result of societal depravity. Maybe I sound so and it is only because a number in these r-ships have come off as having reasons to be gay, the ones I have met at least.
Now, in our civilized world where we have personal liberties, it is okay. It only gets confusing when certain groups demand audience, then when we give our opinions, we get bashed for being narrow minded.
Lastly, I wish to know (I had this experince with a canadian lesbian), why is the same sex r-ship status a badge? we are discussing job perfomance and somehow am informed about sexual orientation. Todate am not sure where that little piece of info fit. As far as I knew the lady, she was good at what she did. I did ask of course, what does it have to do with u meeting deadlines?
Excuse my piece, but am not so sure about LGBTQ. I find it a relative phenomenon.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicalmaniac on May 23, 2011 8:23:54 GMT 3
My opinion is a conservative one on this issue. I risk coming out as a homophobic but do take comfort in the knowledge that this here is what dialogue is about: your take, my take.. I wouldn't say you are homophobic, but what I see is pervasive ignorance of the aetiology underlying one's sexual orientation. You have advanced clumsy notions as theories that could explain this behavior such as playing video games like nintendo, spousal abuse etc. Perhaps folks who later on declare to be Gay were actually Gay to begin with, but due to societal pressure, they succumbed to the hetero lifestyle. This is what has been seen with the "down low" brothers - men who marry to to fulfill societal obligations but deep down are really gay. I think you are stuck in 'cultural' (esp African) stereotypes that have been advanced to explain homosexuality. A lot of research has gone into this subject and I think its now accepted that its not a "choice" of lifestyle per se, but an innate trait one is born with. One cant "cure" or "pray away" this state. The only reason we are talking about it more and more is that LBGT folks are now more and more likely to openly state what they really are. Yes folks can experiment with sexuality in some specific circumstances like when barricaded in prisons and boarding houses/schools. I would also place the "Bi;s" in this experimental category. But in a 'normal' setting one is what they are and they would probably veer totally and totally toward either the hetero or the homo side. |
|
|
|
Post by madgf on May 23, 2011 11:40:47 GMT 3
PM, I'm going to disagree with 'cure' or 'prayer' because sexuality preference is still a choice, and there are numerous cases of people being 'healed' of homosexuality. Ps Sy Rogers www.syrogers.com/Sy_Rogers_Videos.html is one of them, and has a riveting guide to getting 'healed'. On the other hand, Nyarsiaya, certain individuals from mistreated marginalized groups courageously wear a 'badge' so that the world can hear their struggle, as well as heroically representing countless others. I say bravo to them.Homosexuality has been around for centuries so I doubt it'll be accepted in today's culture just like that, even though one could argue there's more dialogue about it today than has been prior. But what democracies can do today is to offer better protection for marginalized groups in relation to sexuality. For example, a 'sex bill' or 'corporeal bill' which protects an individual's right to their body.. like undue stress from loved ones or pharmaceutical firms, or an addition to the UN charter allowing freedom of species-specific sexuality preference.. something along those lines. I do think this will be inevitable. I'm under the impression the new katiba protects homosexual rights? It may not be explicit enough about it though. |
|
|
|
Post by merlin on May 23, 2011 15:00:30 GMT 3
Freedom,
Freedom to be or do what you feel that makes you the person you really are is limited by law. The reason why we have laws is that you do not live on our own but with many together and your freedom could probably limits others freedom and hurt them.
This is the main reason why we have laws; to protect the brothers and sisters around you. Any law that surpasses this basic rule means undue suppression and should be removed from books of law.
Is homosexuality or living in a lesbian relation hurting or limiting the freedom of your sisters and brothers? The answer is no. No one get hurt if the relation is built on mutual consent.
Does the society as a whole being hurt?
Maybe it was in the past as the risk of extinction of the society/group came into focus. Life span was short with high child mortality. So everyone had to procreate as fast and often as possible. Homosexuals and lesbians did not procreate although did use resources available to the group. They became a liability to the society/group.
The ancient societies made their own form of a constitution and laws which we now see as culture and the dominant ones are now the main religions such as Christianity, Islam, etc.
The world has progressed and Culture and the main Religions could not suit the challenges of modern society which lead to the split between Church and State. Modern laws rules and regulations were introduced and constitutions written, hence the formation of the secular state.
Maximum procreation is not anymore the prime requirement for survival of society. Child mortality has drastically been reduced and a new challenge emerged like sustainability of the world society against the limited resources the earth is offering.
Birth control and family planning is now a challenge to contain the number of inhabitants on earth.
Many other challenges are confronting us and many different skills and knowledge is required to secure the survival of society. Homosexuals changed from a liability to society to contributors for survival of society.
However remnants of the ancient rule of culture and religions are still with us although the intensity varies from country to country.
Homosexuals are still stigmatised and persecuted by a part of society which are a bit slow in progression. The church although accepting the facts of the secular state still feel the lost glory and power of the past.
Te way forward:
Belief has to be replaced by Reason, Religion by Science and we all have a task to fulfil in this; not only for the freedom of sexuality but to reach sustainability for our sisters and brothers, for society as a whole.
|
|
|
|
Post by Luol Deng on May 23, 2011 17:08:34 GMT 3
Ok, having looked at the link, there is nothing much that is new other than the appeal to the rest of the society to have compassion to the homosexual members of the community. There are a few issues to address though. I will start with the comment from politicalmaniac
Actually this is all wrong. The closest we have come to establishing whether homosexuality has a genetic cause was through a study done circa 1992 which claimed that homosexuality is in the genes. That hypothesis was so conclusively demolished that it is no longer considered authoritative. At the moment it is one of the most studied fields but no one can definitively state that it has nothing to do with choice.
I am not an evolutionist by a long shot, but evolution is largely based on survival for the fittest which is heavily underpinned by reproduction. So, even for a committed evolutionist, homosexuality would fly on the face of their beliefs.
Then we have the points put forth by Merlin
This is correct, however there is an element of subjectivity when you start using terms like "undue suppression". Who in this case defines what is undue suppression? Based on what belief or value system?
All in all we are all part of a society. In every society there is what is treated as acceptable and what is not acceptable. What is acceptable differs from society to society.
Opinions are subjective, but asking whether homosexuality encroaches on our rights is an issue that needs to be addressed. I have said on countless occasions that whatever they do in private is none of my business but whatever they do in public is my business. It is not only public manifestations of homosexual behaviour that are unacceptable to me as a person, some behaviour by heterosexuals is also unacceptable to me, and that kind of behaviour that I am talking about is not only regulated in Kenya but also in the most liberal of countries in the west.
Considering homosexuality to be a birth control method is as absurd as it gets. With the advances in reproductive health knowledge, this is definitely the weakest solution that can be advanced. The populations in Japan, Scandinavia and much of Western Europe are on the decline, and it is not due to homosexuality as a solution.
The claim that belief has to be replaced by reason is a non starter. It is a false dichotomy to begin with. The Science vs Religion dichotomy is even worse. Most of the early scientific pioneers The Newtons, Pascals, Pasteurs, Kelvins, etc, were practicing Christians. They clearly didn't see their Christianity as a stumbling-block to science.
At the philosophical level it is a moot argument, this is because Science is primarily concerned with the "how", religion on the other hand is concerned with the "why". Therefore it is very much possible to be an accomplished scientist and a religious person all at the same time.
|
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on May 23, 2011 17:53:43 GMT 3
FACT: Homosexuality is dirty, unnatural, immoral, illegal and unacceptable.
FACT: Nobody is born that way. There is no gay gene.
FACT: Fake stories or historical and cultural distortions and propaganda presented by people like KK or ‘Esther Adhiambo’ cannot and will not change facts: human beings are created in a very functional way – socially, biologically psychologically… we should help those who veer from the right path.
There is nothing – even remotely – in our genetic and social make-up that says we were meant to be gay, or some of us were meant to be that way. There is no gay gene! Tafadahali tuwache ujinga ya wazungu.
Just like we discourage theft, murder, incest, drug abuse, blah, blah, so we must discourage gay behavior. We are doing that legally - by banning it. Socially - by encouraging boy-girl relationships and counselling gay people back to reality. Medically - by having psychologists/psychiatrits help decipher the complex psycho-social issues that cause aberration and deviant behaviour.
Finally, and I have learnt this over time, I will always restrict my responses to just one post whenever the plethora of thinly veiled gay related public promotions surface on Jukwaa.
Hayo tu!
|
|
|
|
Post by politicalmaniac on May 23, 2011 18:31:23 GMT 3
PM, I'm going to disagree with 'cure' or 'prayer' because sexuality preference is still a choice, and there are numerous cases of people being 'healed' of homosexuality. Ps Sy Rogers www.syrogers.com/Sy_Rogers_Videos.html is one of them, and has a riveting guide to getting 'healed'. . I havent looked at the link you provided. But just as you gave your link, I too can provide links supporting the opposite school of thought - that one cant 'treat' or 'pray away the Gay'. Perhaps those who have 'converted' weren't true Homosexuals, and were just bi curious. Who will ever know for sure? Surely you cant be like GBush who looked into Putins eyes and saw 'his soul' - and knew for sure he was a good fellow!! I will start with the comment from politicalmaniac Actually this is all wrong. The closest we have come to establishing whether homosexuality has a genetic cause was through a study done circa 1992 which claimed that homosexuality is in the genes. That hypothesis was so conclusively demolished that it is no longer considered authoritative. At the moment it is one of the most studied fields but no one can definitively state that it has nothing to do with choice. . I did not say that Homosexuality is a result of a specific genetic trait. To my knowledge no 'Gay gene' has been identified. There were other controversial brain studies that showed differences between str8 and Gay folks but I cant remember if they were conclusive or were adopted as accepted hypotheses by the scientific community. What I said is that folks are borne that way. Like many human traits, I would venture to guess that the Homosexuality is a complex product of some yet to be identified gene or genes or a combination thereof (nature), and the environment (nurture) It is said that 10% or of the population is Gay - that is significant and not an aberration. Also one thing I dont understand is why you have arrogated yourself the right to condemn what "Gays do in public" (which is what exactly? hold hands? kiss? embrace? have public sex?) is your business without flipping the coin over and commenting on what Heteros do in public. I recently had to report and have them pulled, two hormone raged white high school teens who were making out in the YMCA pool. Little girls and boys were uncomfortable and stopped swimming, while mothers took their kids and ran away. Freedom,Freedom to be or do what you feel that makes you the person you really are is limited by law. This is so wrong at many levels. Which freedoms are you talking about? They say the law is an ass for a reason. They also deride the tyranny of the majority. Next you are gonna tell me I cant worship like this or like that, or I cant engage in polygamy or whatever. This is insane! So long as what I am doing does not infringe on your rights let me be!! |
|
|
|
Post by merlin on May 23, 2011 18:39:07 GMT 3
Then we have the points put forth by Merlin however there is an element of subjectivity when you start using terms like "undue suppression". Who in this case defines what is undue suppression? Based on what belief or value system? All in all we are all part of a society. In every society there is what is treated as acceptable and what is not acceptable. What is acceptable differs from society to society. Opinions are subjective, but asking whether homosexuality encroaches on our rights is an issue that needs to be addressed. I have said on countless occasions that whatever they do in private is none of my business but whatever they do in public is my business. It is not only public manifestations of homosexual behaviour that are unacceptable to me as a person, some behaviour by heterosexuals is also unacceptable to me, and that kind of behaviour that I am talking about is not only regulated in Kenya but also in the most liberal of countries in the west. Considering homosexuality to be a birth control method is as absurd as it gets. With the advances in reproductive health knowledge, this is definitely the weakest solution that can be advanced. The populations in Japan, Scandinavia and much of Western Europe are on the decline, and it is not due to homosexuality as a solution. The claim that belief has to be replaced by reason is a non starter. It is a false dichotomy to begin with. The Science vs Religion dichotomy is even worse. Most of the early scientific pioneers The Newtons, Pascals, Pasteurs, Kelvins, etc, were practicing Christians. They clearly didn't see their Christianity as a stumbling-block to science. At the philosophical level it is a moot argument, this is because Science is primarily concerned with the "how", religion on the other hand is concerned with the "why". Therefore it is very much possible to be an accomplished scientist and a religious person all at the same time. Homosexuality encroaches on your rights? Which rights do you have in mind? Unacceptable behaviour has little to do with sexual orientation though with intrusive behaviour in public such as indecent exposure, sexual harassment though this is for all sexual orientations the same. Considering homosexuality to be a birth control method is as absurd as it gets. With the advances in reproductive health knowledge, this is definitely the weakest solution that can be advanced. The populations in Japan, Scandinavia and much of Western Europe are on the decline, and it is not due to homosexuality as a solution.Homosexuality as birth control method? Where did I write this??? The claim that belief has to be replaced by reason is a non starter. It is a false dichotomy to begin with. The Science vs Religion dichotomy is even worse. Most of the early scientific pioneers The Newtons, Pascals, Pasteurs, Kelvins, etc, were practicing Christians. They clearly didn't see their Christianity as a stumbling-block to science.Belief is the source of harassment of homosexuals. If we could replace belief by reason this harassment would stop as homosexuality is no threat to any person or society as a whole. At the philosophical level it is a moot argument, this is because Science is primarily concerned with the "how", religion on the other hand is concerned with the "why". Therefore it is very much possible to be an accomplished scientist and a religious person all at the same time. Why?? Which why? |
|
|
|
Post by jane on May 23, 2011 19:05:22 GMT 3
FACT: Homosexuality is dirty, unnatural, immoral, illegal and unacceptable. FACT: Nobody is born that way. There is no gay gene. FACT: Fake stories or historical and cultural distortions and propaganda presented by people like KK or ‘Esther Adhiambo’ cannot and will not change facts: human beings are created in a very functional way – socially, biologically psychologically… we should help those who veer from the right path. There is nothing – even remotely – in our genetic and social make-up that says we were meant to be gay, or some of us were meant to be that way. There is no gay gene! Tafadahali tuwache ujinga ya wazungu. Just like we discourage theft, murder, incest, drug abuse, blah, blah, so we must discourage gay behavior. We are doing that legally - by banning it. Socially - by encouraging boy-girl relationships and counselling gay people back to reality. Medically - by having psychologists/psychiatrits help decipher the complex psycho-social issues that cause aberration and deviant behaviour. Finally, and I have learnt this over time, I will always restrict my responses to just one post whenever the plethora of thinly veiled gay related public promotions surface on Jukwaa. Hayo tu! This is typical christian fundamentalist view of homosexuality. Shame that you would bring such one-sided biased view on a general public forum. Would it not be better for you to publish your sources rather than tell us that they are 'facts'. Repeated them as facts does not make them so. I am not gay, but respect their rights to be whosoever they want to be without calling them "dirty, unnatural, immoral, illegal and unacceptable". I think you are the one promoting 'hate' and 'hatred'. I do not think Esther was gay promoting in Jukwaa. Tuache chuki, madharau and unafiki - Kenya in yetu wote. |
|
|
|
Post by politicalmaniac on May 23, 2011 19:27:15 GMT 3
Lets get one argument I find inane and baseless out of the way.
1) What Gays do in public is my business. Such as what? What is it that Gays do in public that is unacceptable? And suppose heteros do the same in public, are these acts acceptable to you!
what a foolish talking point!
|
|
|
|
Post by Luol Deng on May 23, 2011 20:14:06 GMT 3
Politicalmaniac,
It has nothing to do with arrogating myself the position of "condemning gays in public". The society is a complex thing governed by rules that are written and unwritten and you for one will know that there are a lot of things that are acceptable in the west that are not acceptable in our indigenous setting. There are things that are acceptable in sections of Africa that are completely taboo in other parts of Africa. Whenever one is in public, you encroach on other peoples space and your relationship to the rest of the society is a product of these rules written or unwritten and these are what we call norms, values and culture. Different societies will draw their line at different points. If I may make an analogy, there are different kind of sports, and spectators will behave differently. You can't expect fans at a tennis match to cheer the same way with fans at a soccer match. That is an inadequate example but I hope you get my drift.
Merlin,
I think you are playing dumb just to further the argument. Let us clear the issues here, how one relates to homosexuals will depend on whether you consider it to be a legitimate lifestyle or not. I am against homosexuality and strongly so, but I am not against homosexuals as people. roughly 3 years ago on my way home, a thief stole a mobile phone and was chased down and was badly beaten, it took 3 of us to stand up to the crowd and prevail on them to stop it. Was I endorsing theft? not by a long shot, but I knew that there are rights that have to be protected. I still hold that opinion despite being mugged and badly injured in Nairobi at the end of the year.
Likewise with homosexuality. I am not against homosexuals as human beings, if there is a public lynching I am willing to stand in harms way to offer protection. Like the rest of the public they are also entitled to their rights. The law on the other hand criminalises their behaviour, so they have to face justice under the penal code. It is as simple as that. I have explained myself as for the people and against the lifestyle time and time again, but guess what? I was told that unless I accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle, I am a "homophobe"! If that is all it takes for one to be called a homophobe, then I will gladly take the title.
So, back to your point. I don't consider homosexuality a legitimate lifestyle and therefore any overt public display thereof is unacceptable. Homosexuals can continue doing their thing in private, that is none of my business.
You didn't explicitly state that. But when you say that the sustainable use of limited resources and birth control is necessary to contain the growing population, then on the very next sentence you say that homosexuals have gone from being a liability to 'contributors' to the survival of our society, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to interpret what you are trying to say.
Is it as simplistic as this? In many cases the treatment of people in a society depends on the social setting and has little to do with belief. In matters relating to sexuality, different societies will draw their lines at different places. There are places in Africa where you will find prostitutes soliciting during the day in the open, and the society isn't bothered. There are societies in the west where prostitution is legal, but confined to red light districts, there are other places in the west where prostitution is illegal. Clearly you can't have a one size fits all set of norms for all these societies. And by the way the African country that I described is religious and a good portion of it is Catholic, none of the religions in that country endorses prostitution. To make the long story short, whether religion is there or not, matters relating to a society's handling of sexuality will never be clear cut.
|
|
|
|
Post by Luol Deng on May 23, 2011 20:25:27 GMT 3
Lets get one argument I find inane and baseless out of the way. 1) What Gays do in public is my business. Such as what? What is it that Gays do in public that is unacceptable? And suppose heteros do the same in public, are these acts acceptable to you! what a foolish talking point! Well, it seems like this thread is almost boiling over. I have stated my position on homosexuality and homosexuals on my previous post. I think you lifted that talking point from my earlier post. You conveniently forgot to reference the part where I said that some behaviour by heterosexuals is equally reprehensible. If I compare the Kenyan society to the rest of Africa, we are towards the conservative end of the spectrum. Therefore, there are things that people will do in public in the west or even in other parts of Africa that may be found deeply offensive in Kenya. In that respect I know what to do and what not to do in when I am in Kenya. I worked in Libya 2 years back and I know what is acceptable in their society and what is not. I've been to many other countries both within and outside the continent and one thing that is common is that you have to be sensitive to people's values. It is as simple as that. |
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on May 23, 2011 21:05:56 GMT 3
FACT: Homosexuality is dirty, unnatural, immoral, illegal and unacceptable. FACT: Nobody is born that way. There is no gay gene. FACT: Fake stories or historical and cultural distortions and propaganda presented by people like KK or ‘Esther Adhiambo’ cannot and will not change facts: human beings are created in a very functional way – socially, biologically psychologically… we should help those who veer from the right path. There is nothing – even remotely – in our genetic and social make-up that says we were meant to be gay, or some of us were meant to be that way. There is no gay gene! Tafadahali tuwache ujinga ya wazungu. Just like we discourage theft, murder, incest, drug abuse, blah, blah, so we must discourage gay behavior. We are doing that legally - by banning it. Socially - by encouraging boy-girl relationships and counselling gay people back to reality. Medically - by having psychologists/psychiatrits help decipher the complex psycho-social issues that cause aberration and deviant behaviour. Finally, and I have learnt this over time, I will always restrict my responses to just one post whenever the plethora of thinly veiled gay related public promotions surface on Jukwaa. Hayo tu! This is typical christian fundamentalist view of homosexuality. Shame that you would bring such one-sided biased view on a general public forum. Would it not be better for you to publish your sources rather than tell us that they are 'facts'. Repeated them as facts does not make them so. I am not gay, but respect their rights to be whosoever they want to be without calling them "dirty, unnatural, immoral, illegal and unacceptable". I think you are the one promoting 'hate' and 'hatred'. I do not think Esther was gay promoting in Jukwaa. Tuache chuki, madharau and unafiki - Kenya in yetu wote. 'Jane' Stop being silly. And here I am breaking my own rule to set you straight. Where do you see Christian written on what I said? And even if it were a ‘Fundamentalist Christian view’, does that necessarily make it false? I can tell that simple fallacy from afar. You accuse me of being ‘one-sided’: of course you are right. There is no way I will ever side with the obviously morally repugnant. Humans are and will always be subjective when it comes to morality. As for facts – any scientist will tell you this – facts are self evident. They don’t need sources. The sun rises in the east and settles in the west. FACT. No quibbling. If you are intellectually lazy, I can’t help you: if you want to know homosexuality is illegal check the law of the land. If you want to know it is immoral, check the moral code of the society. If you want to know it is unnatural, read some basic biology. If you want to know how and why it is unacceptable study philosophy. |
|
|
|
Post by merlin on May 23, 2011 21:23:44 GMT 3
FACT: Homosexuality is dirty, unnatural, immoral, illegal and unacceptable. FACT: Nobody is born that way. There is no gay gene. FACT: Fake stories or historical and cultural distortions and propaganda presented by people like KK or ‘Esther Adhiambo’ cannot and will not change facts: human beings are created in a very functional way – socially, biologically psychologically… we should help those who veer from the right path. There is nothing – even remotely – in our genetic and social make-up that says we were meant to be gay, or some of us were meant to be that way. There is no gay gene! Tafadahali tuwache ujinga ya wazungu. Just like we discourage theft, murder, incest, drug abuse, blah, blah, so we must discourage gay behavior. We are doing that legally - by banning it. Socially - by encouraging boy-girl relationships and counselling gay people back to reality. Medically - by having psychologists/psychiatrits help decipher the complex psycho-social issues that cause aberration and deviant behaviour. Finally, and I have learnt this over time, I will always restrict my responses to just one post whenever the plethora of thinly veiled gay related public promotions surface on Jukwaa. Hayo tu! Roughrider, there seems to be some confusion between opinion and facts. Even when you shout loud or write fact in capital letters it is still your opinion you shout about. FACT: Homosexuality is dirty, unnatural, immoral, illegal and unacceptable. What you experience as dirty can be delicious to others, eating snails is dirty though you tell this to people in France. Circumcision is natural though for some it is unnatural a mutilation of the body, heaving more than two children is immoral though 16 children is a blessing in some parts of Kenya, Homosexuality is illegal in Uganda though very acceptable in the Netherlands (even the army participate in the Gay parade), and abortion is unacceptable in Kenya though very acceptable in Switzerland and many lives of women are saved. So do not confuse opinion with facts. FACT: Nobody is born that way. There is no gay gene.I do not know if this is a fact but this is an irrelevant issue. Why should I be genetically certified to have a homosexual relation? Maybe I just prefer this above a heterosexual relation? Some of us drink tea and others prefer coffee. Do we need a gene for this or can I just drink what I like? FACT: Fake stories or historical and cultural distortions and propaganda presented by people like KK or ‘Esther Adhiambo’ cannot and will not change facts: human beings are created in a very functional way – socially, biologically psychologically… we should help those who veer from the right path.Even this is an opinion. More and more people realise that the story of creation of the earth, Adam and Eve is just a perception. Even before Darwin started his travelling around the Globe collecting all sorts of species some people started to doubt the reality of the creation story. Maybe we are not created but inevitable developed from lower species. And yes without procreation no more human genes on earth though without deviations in the procreation process no adaption (accumulation) to the changing environment. Adam and Eve had identical genes (using Adam’s rib) and so would all of us have the same DNA pattern. Yes society rightly discourage theft, murder, incest, drug abuse, as it harms others however it does not do any harm to me (or anyone else) if you have carnal knowledge with a woman or with a man as long they freely consent to it. By discouraging gay behaviour you overstep the basic rule of law - its main objective is to protect society and its members –. You infringe on the freedom of others without valid reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by Luol Deng on May 23, 2011 21:43:44 GMT 3
OK Merlin, you are raising an important point on the society discouraging behaviour it deems anti-social. I would just want a rationale that can be used to justify homosexuality that will discourage incest at the same time.
And well, although this is a completely different topic, but you have raised it all the same. If the story of creation is just a perception then the story of Evolution is more so. Nobody ever teaches evolution as was presented by Darwin, in fact, he didn't originate the theory of natural selection in the first place. The evolution that I learnt in high school was riddled with inaccuracies (natural selection) and outright falsehoods (peppered moths and embryonic recapitulation). The fact is whatever you choose to believe will require some measure of faith. Nothing demolishes the step by step evolution as much as Michael Behe's "Darwin's black box".
|
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on May 23, 2011 21:54:03 GMT 3
Merlin;
Your statements are rather strange. When there is a thick layer of mud on a table, can’t we all agree that the table is dirty?
It’s really simple: human biology shows that if you eat you will subsequently pass waste: that waste is smelly, dirty and comes out through the anus. It does not matter how big or small you are, handsome or beautiful, clever or smart: you still go to the toilet. Now if Merlin wants to have sex through the anus arguing that it is ‘clean’ and he was born that way and that it is also ok in Netherlands, then RR cannot cure such mindless delusion.
PS: You need to review some basic genomics. All human beings have exactly the same genetic make-up!
|
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on May 23, 2011 22:01:51 GMT 3
OK Merlin, you are raising an important point on the society discouraging behaviour it deems anti-social. I would just want a rationale that can be used to justify homosexuality that will discourage incest at the same time. Luoldeng This issue is a public policy question. Ultimately the existence of gay society will depend on the availability of a sufficient number of straight people or put another way, procreation based on ‘straightness’. A society must be sustainable in and of itself. This is a deeply philosophical point. And gay society is unsustainable. But you will get no answer to the question you raise from the pro-gay crowd: why is incest wrong? One can use exactly the same pro gay arguments to justify incest. Why haven't they started doing it? Why shouldn’t you marry your sister or daughter and get away with it? Conversely we can use exactly the same objections to incest to reject homosexuality. |
|
|
|
Post by nyarsiaya on May 23, 2011 23:07:29 GMT 3
I wouldn't say you are homophobic, but what I see is pervasive ignorance of the aetiology underlying one's sexual orientation. You have advanced clumsy notions as theories that could explain this behavior such as playing video games like nintendo, spousal abuse etc. @political-maniac: So far you have only achieved what sociologists/Anthropologists have in your explanation. It is because it is. (Aetiology). I am yet to see any solid evidence that credits your argument of homosexuality being innate. What is happening here is that the human race is getting swayed by noise, so much noise that it is failing to take note of what needs to be done to fix whatever is happening: whether it is a result of mutations, genetic drifts environmental/social pollution- homosexuality is an affront to human existence. Public bath houses (homosexual activity joints) have existed in Europe from as early as the 12th century. Their popularity waned as human beings noticed once again, their existence threatened the human race. So I have concluded it is a social phenomenon that time controls. |
|
|
|
Post by politicalmaniac on May 23, 2011 23:54:38 GMT 3
@political-maniac:
So far you have only achieved what sociologists/Anthropologists have in your explanation. It is because it is. (Aetiology).
I am yet to see any solid evidence that credits your argument of homosexuality being innate.
homosexuality is an affront to human existence.
So I have concluded it is a social phenomenon that time controls.Well I too need evidence that hetero-ism is innate. Where is it? Is there a gene that codes for procreation? Is the drive for procreation the same as the desire for sexual release? There could be a hormonal/chemical basis for the biological need to satisfy sexual urges (just like other urges e.g desire to consume and get addicted to alcohol/drugs) but I will be very surprised if the basis for hetero sex is found (definitively) but that for homosex is ruled out (definitively). Listen, Somethings we cant explain, somethings are just what they are - created as such by what ever power you may or may not believe in. Also, this balderdash that homosexuality is a threat to evolutionary pressure to procreate and advance species survival, is just that, pure unadulterated balderdash. There is no evidence for that at all, if anything the contrary is true, its not a threat at all! the numbers just dont bare out it this nonsense! Species survival is enabled by self selection between mates and the human race will never peter out simply because Homosex becomes legal ( luoldeng this is for you). That will never simply never happen. Surveys have showed (and I will need to find a link to support this claim), that Homosexuals constitute ~ 10% of the population. How then can they hold the fate of Mankind in their non productive loins?. A %age of these homosexuals are of the "down low" variety - married to women by day, but by night they indulge to fulfill their innate needs. Animals, including those who we may think are on the endangered list, are also highly selective of their mates. Male Lions or Gorillas for instance have to fight for rights to inseminate the females with the 'weaker/beaten' ones, not contributing to the genetic pools, yet the species thrive if left alone (i.e protected from poachers)! As for your conclusions you are entitled to them. Just dont infringe on the rights of other human beings just because you think a certain way. I think this will be my final comment on this thread. I am more concerned about the bashing and segregation of folks who decide to live their lives in a certain way and get condemned for it. This reeks of "kehee-ism" - disparaging of some folks for "not undergoing the cut". We all know how the "cutters" gleefully and with intense pride and chest thumping, deride and disparage and even despise "kehees". Let people live their lives, pilipili usiyo ila inakwashia nini? |
|
|
|
Post by merlin on May 24, 2011 0:02:19 GMT 3
Merlin, I think you are playing dumb just to further the argument. Let us clear the issues here, how one relates to homosexuals will depend on whether you consider it to be a legitimate lifestyle or not. I am against homosexuality and strongly so, but I am not against homosexuals as people. roughly 3 years ago on my way home, a thief stole a mobile phone and was chased down and was badly beaten, it took 3 of us to stand up to the crowd and prevail on them to stop it. Was I endorsing theft? not by a long shot, but I knew that there are rights that have to be protected. I still hold that opinion despite being mugged and badly injured in Nairobi at the end of the year. Likewise with homosexuality. I am not against homosexuals as human beings, if there is a public lynching I am willing to stand in harms way to offer protection. Like the rest of the public they are also entitled to their rights. The law on the other hand criminalises their behaviour, so they have to face justice under the penal code. It is as simple as that. I have explained myself as for the people and against the lifestyle time and time again, but guess what? I was told that unless I accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle, I am a "homophobe"! If that is all it takes for one to be called a homophobe, then I will gladly take the title. So, back to your point. I don't consider homosexuality a legitimate lifestyle and therefore any overt public display thereof is unacceptable. Homosexuals can continue doing their thing in private, that is none of my business. You didn't explicitly state that. But when you say that the sustainable use of limited resources and birth control is necessary to contain the growing population, then on the very next sentence you say that homosexuals have gone from being a liability to 'contributors' to the survival of our society, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to interpret what you are trying to say. Is it as simplistic as this? In many cases the treatment of people in a society depends on the social setting and has little to do with belief. In matters relating to sexuality, different societies will draw their lines at different places. There are places in Africa where you will find prostitutes soliciting during the day in the open, and the society isn't bothered. There are societies in the west where prostitution is legal, but confined to red light districts, there are other places in the west where prostitution is illegal. Clearly you can't have a one size fits all set of norms for all these societies. And by the way the African country that I described is religious and a good portion of it is Catholic, none of the religions in that country endorses prostitution. To make the long story short, whether religion is there or not, matters relating to a society's handling of sexuality will never be clear cut. This is a peculiar stand. You are not against homosexual people though like to infringe on their freedom to have homosexual relations. Please this needs some explanation. You do not know my sexuality but will it make any difference to you in your replies to me? Would you infringe on my right to air my views here on JUKWAA in the way I do if I am a homosexual? Your experience with the thief of the mobile phone is different. He harms others by snatching their possessions from them. Yes his freedom to do so should be restricted though not by taking his right to life as the mob was craving for. Do I have anything to do with the lifestyle of others? Yes I have when they harm others or limit the freedom of others. However their lifestyle can also be inspiring, entertaining or stimulating. It is maybe beyond the subject of this thread though some people are taking from society but luckily there are many who contribute to society. This is unrelated to their sexual preferences. So, back to your point. I don't consider homosexuality a legitimate lifestyle and therefore any overt public display thereof is unacceptable. Homosexuals can continue doing their thing in private that is none of my business.There are many reasons why homosexuals need to manifest themselves especially in a society who persecute and infringes on their human rights. I like to compare this with other groups in our society such as women. Women have to manifest themselves to fight for their human rights as they are also persecuted and deprived from equality – which is a human right. They organise themselves, have awareness seminars, organise banking facilities and many other activities. The aim is to reach equality. So what about homosexuals? Birth control I made a reference to ancient and primitive societies who had limited resources and struggled for survival of the group. Think about the herd’s people in the semi desert area of Kenya and how they survive. Only a few days ago I read an article about the role of women in this culture. They have to give birth to offspring as fast and as many as possible as the environment is so harsh that only a few survive. Having many babies has become a part of their culture and for good reasons (16 babies in a woman’s life time is the norm). In such an environment is homosexuality a danger for the group as they do not procreate. They do not produce offspring though they eat and drink like the others laying claim on the sparse resources of the group. Woman who are not able to produce offspring are kicked out of these societies. (I cannot find the article back - The nation or Standard I presume and appreciate if anyone can help me with a link) It is the process how culture is formed and why some cultures did survive and others became extinct. I perceive that Christian religion is just a left-over from such ancient culture and the reason why there is a strong avers against homosexuality or anything that reduces procreation (birth control, family planning and the use of condoms) However the world has changed and Christianity has lost its value to be the answer for existence of society. Is it as simplistic as this?I perceive it is. Christianity is fading away. It still will be here for a long time though their norm (or values) does not fit with the challenges of today and acceptance of prostitution, family planning, will progress against the values of Christianity. The new constitution has come against the values of Christianity and the wish of John Cardinal Njue. |
|
|
|
Post by Luol Deng on May 24, 2011 1:02:56 GMT 3
Political Maniac,
You responded to a scientific issue philosophically/legally. Nowhere did I claim that the human race will peter out on the legalisation of homosexuality. All I said is that homosexuality flies on the face of science as we know it. This is simply because genetic traits are passed on to offspring through procreation. It is as simple as that. As I said earlier as well, the basis of Natural selection is procreation. The fitter species are able to beat the less fit numerically.
As to the studies that claim that 10% are gay. Well, didn't we have 'studies' that claimed that 700 Kenyan women die daily due to unsafe abortions? Well, abortion is another issue altogether, but what is strange is that the same cooked statistics were used without modification in a certain state in India. When the official figures came out, it turned out that maternal mortality due to unsafe abortion was alarming, but nowhere near 700 women dying a day.
Didn't we have studies that claimed that Kibera had a population of 2 million people? Weren't those the same statistics that were being used by reputable international NGOs in their programmes??
|
|
|
|
Post by Luol Deng on May 24, 2011 1:46:25 GMT 3
Merlin,
As I said before, I am able to differentiate between the act and the actor. The rights to have homosexual relations are a different issue altogether and are not treated equally even in some more liberal countries. We have countries that allow gay unions but do not allow gay marriage. Many of the same countries will not allow homosexuals to adopt children for good reasons. As I said, in a hypothetical 'Uganda' situation I am willing to put myself in harms way, but I will never endorse homosexuality.
You then ask whether I would treat you differently if you were gay. In this case it is not even a hypothesis, I have had debates with homosexuals where they are in the minority before. Did I stop debating when they outed themselves? Did I start hurling ephitets when they outed themselves? The answer is NO. So, in the hypothetical situation that you were gay, the same debate would still continue. I will not change tact to try to appease you or get under your skin.
Now to your next point on why the gay need to manifest themselves in society. You attacked the example I gave and I am likewise going to attack yours. First of all, as I said, there is no genetic factor in homosexuality therefore it cannot be an issue of "Nature", it is one of "nurture".
You cannot compare women to homosexuals. For women it is what they are, for homosexuals it is what they do. Ask any high school biology student for the genetic factor of being male/female and they will tell you without the need of referring to any additional material. Ask any university professor (pro gay or otherwise) of the genetic factor for homosexuality, you'll have no definitive answer. There was a gene isolated a few years back that was claimed to be the 'gay gene'. It was debunked after the same gene was found in many heterosexuals.
I asked earlier on for an argument that is both pro homosexual lifestyle and anti incestuous lifestyle all at the same time. If there is a philosophical argument, they will surely share the same basis. If it is an argument based on the associated health risks, then both of them are risky. It all boils down to the social values.
Regarding Christianity, you make the unsubstantiated claim that Christianity is a 'left over'. Someone's faith is personal, so if it is a leftover to you so be it. To others it is an important part of their lives. Then the next claim that Christianity is fading away, any stats to back up your claim? Incidentally Voltaire made the same claim more than 200 years ago.......
|
|
|
|
Post by madgf on May 24, 2011 7:22:07 GMT 3
RR, I hear you brother.
The thing is this, homosexuality is no different in the measure of sin to those condemning it. Jesus said, Ye without sin cast the first stone. Times have changed and we shouldn't keep persecuting individuals for this sin.
Jesus didn't persecute Mary Magdalene even though she was initially a prostitute. I can see you find the act of same-sex mating repulsive, but let me just say, repulsion in the act of sex itself is one of the reasons why there was a split in the Catholic church. The papacy retained celibacy at the cost of losing a chunk of its church - Protestantism, Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, Pentecostalism etc. pretty much every other Christian movement except for Catholicism.
We see this happening again today. Churches splitting over yet another sexuality issue - homosexuality. The church can not keep splitting over sexuality differences. The Body of Christ needs to be in ecumenical unity, so that the glory of Christ, the power of the Holy Spirit can manifest to all ends of the Earth.
Moments like these is when public policy has to be humane, and recognize and be inclusive instead of judging those 'less than perfect', so they too can live their life peacefully and enjoy the full spectrum of rights like everyone else. It doesn't mean we're accepting this culture, it means we're recognizing their right to be treated human.
In this day and age of science and technology like with IVF, I really don't think we should be worrying about the philosophies or religions concerning homosexuality infringing upon the furtherment of humanity. It seems Yahweh has provided the means to accept this minority group. What we should be focusing on, is learn how to embrace differences from a personal level and through that, have faith the healing power of Christ will manifest.
Y'all should listen to wise Luoldeng.
|
|
