|
Post by mank on Jan 23, 2014 21:39:32 GMT 3
Shady? Nah ... not me. I think Kathure just likes me - I can't imagine that she would hate me, for there would be no basis, neither can I imagine any other reason she seems to miss me so often in her postings. I see cows are headed to the slopes ... don't be deterred; you will have a good brother in me. On this topic, I think I have spoken my mind in the past. I wouldn't be averse to (neither would I seek) legal recognition of gay unions for all constitutional rights of married couples. However I disagree with you that churches and like-institutions should be forced to redefine marriage and administer marital rights to these new unions. Religion should not be legislated by the state. Amigo, I reason like this: the state legislates unions, in this case marriages under the marriages act. A vast amount of marriages are conducted in church [in our case], and the ceremony is valid in law, ie recognised authentically at the registrar's office. Gays too, are members of normal churches. Now, if a gay couple wants to marry under the auspices of the church, and the church refuses on the grounds of sexual orientation aka same sex union, then I think that church is evidently in error of the law, ie guilty of discrimination based on sex … It is not that the state has legislated religion, the state has legislated marriages and anti-discrimination on whatever grounds. One can then only argue religious exceptionalism, that is, God does not like homosexuals, and no man-made law is gonna impose its consequences on God's roof! Amigo, the problem is that churches are guided by divine writings ... well, the Bible has been watered down with human interpretation over years, but I understand the Quran is the word of God Himself, as narrated to Nabii Muhammad. I regret I am not conversant with the content of the Quran on this subject, but I suspect it would not be far from that of the Bible. The Bible has lots of writings against gay sex, and as you know, church views marriage as the correct citizenship to the land of sex. So how are you going to suggest that the state forces churches to issue this citizenship to (divinely defined) "illegal aliens"? That would be chaotic. But that's not to say gay people cannot get "married" in church, of course! All that is preventing them from doing so is the fact that gay marriage is illegal. Once such marriage is law ... they just have to find churches that are not opposed to marrying them, and of course they can start churches for that very reason. NB: I give you the benefit of doubt of course, but you notice Kathure's spelling was double d: shaddy, not shady! am yet to ask her if that is significant. Things could turn out to be very very sha B-|y!
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jan 24, 2014 5:33:45 GMT 3
I just exchange with a friend, a devout Christian, who had just read my last comment; so I thought I should clarify and expand a little on what we something I wrote earlier:
I frequently do some reading on the history of religions, and, having been brought up in the Christian religion, I have generally had a special interest in that. I have read numerous accounts of early Christianity in which "regular members of the flock" claimed to have been inspired by "prominent" members of society suddenly deciding to publicly admit that they were Christians. Hard to imagine that now ... but it is also the story of quite a few other religions. And that is also the story with ...
I ought to have stated explicitly that I was referring to the persecution of Christians, that early Christians too had to "hide", and that a public "coming out", especially by a "big person" was a big deal. In those days, the only empire was the Roman Empire, and, if I recall correctly, Christians were persecuted harshly from around Nero's time and for at for least a couple of centuries, with Christianity actually illegal, until Constantine "came out" or whatever.
My friend's view is that homosexuality is not in accord with the Christian religion. To support that view, he pointed me to some parts of both the Old and New Testaments. My response was this:
(a) Christ was actually a Jew who decided on a different approach from the old ways. And Christianity, the religion named after him, is largely based on the New Testament; so let's stick to that.
(b) The New Testament has a couple of verses that could be interpreted as being against homosexuality. But we need not argue about that; what is especially significant is that none of those verses is attributed to Christ. What's more, at the core of Christ's mission was the importance of accepting people and doing so without irrelevant "judgments": he tossed hypocrites out of temples and welcomed society's "rejects". But today, in his name, ....
(c) A great deal of the history of "Christianity"---and much of it is not Christianly---is the history of religion being used in the worst possible & most "un-godly" ways. Just within the Catholic Church, history gives us many popes who make the nastiest Colombian drug-lords, the worst American or Italian Mafiosi, serial killers, habitual rapists..., look like small boys just starting primary school. Popes with a long list of "hired hits" on their records, "celibate" popes with 20+ bastard children, ... And today this is the wealthiest Christian church. The Pope? What is that word for when a mortal man is regarded as God?
An aside to Jakaswanga: I believe that quite a few folk from your neck of the woods belong to the Seventh Day Adventist Church---a good Christian Church, I am told. SDA theology is not shy on these points. If I recall correctly, it explicitly identifies the Pope as the Devil himself. In Daniel (or one of those books), he is the "beast with 10 horns", and in Revelations his demise is neatly recorded. Very colourful stuff. And if anyone has anyone doubts? Well, then, they should catch a pope and shave his head: lo and behold, The Mark of The Beast. 666. I think all that's a bit harsh but perhaps understandable. Papal history is something else. And teenage kids these days think that being a crazed, rich rapper is it! End of Aside.
(d) The only places where the Christian church is really growing is in places like Africa, where the religion was pretty much shoved down people's throats. But it is only in these "backwaters" that are to be found people who will buy just about anything, as long as it is sold with a couple of verses whose interpretation is open to question. There's one born every minute. Or something ...
When it comes to raping and killing and pillaging and political governance, I've heard and read "serious" people argue that African countries must not be compared with the rest of the world that is 200+ years ahead. Some day we will get there. Even in fwacking and minding one's business and focusing on those things that really matter when it comes to improving lives. But in the meantime ...
We will probably have more exchanges on the subject, but for now ... Could we learn from history, especially of others that have had a significant effect on the so-called African way of life? But history is dead. Perhaps so is the African Way, whatever it was. One of these days, we shall be enlightened on what this African way is ...
But let's skip religion and get down to it and get on with it. So to speak ...
patriotism101 made a comment about "likes of Mwalimumkuu consider same sex relationships only in their sexual - mmm penetrating the anus".
This is a very significant point: The harshest objections to homosexuality come from men, and it is always about sex between men. Almost all of these men who object to same-gender sexual activity actually have little or no problem with same-sex activity between women. That is because in such matters they tend to think with the little head instead of the big head. As far as they are concerned, the idea of two people simply giving each other affection doesn't enter into it. It's all in+out. In the anus. If it's same-sex activity between women, then these same "upright" folks have few problems with it: many will of them fantasize about it, and some will even pay big bucks to watch such activity!
So, then, let's directly tackle this sex-in-the-anus business that seems to upset so many "upright, religious pillars of the community" .. good men, all of them, who "don't hate the actor/sinner" but will happily crucify him for the "act/sin", which is what they "actually hate". Hmm.
As far as I know, this "dirty" business has been around for quite some time, all over the world and even among the most "upright pillars of church and society". The reasons seem to vary: a form of birth control, an alternative during pregnancy, a "tighter" receptacle, ... sometimes, it seems, just "something different, for kicks". "Good, straight & decent heterosexuals" have been at it for a very long time and are going at it even as I write this. Men on women. The following is not an entirely scientific experiment, but it is scientific to the extent that you may be able to reproduce the results, depending on where you are:
(a) I just went onto Google and typed "videos anal sex". A quick look at the links on the first page will show you who's really doing what to whom. You do the same and see who's really doing what to whom.
(b) I called the local "dirty private club" and made some enquiries. Yes, they said, they have a stiff entry fee, but the customers are always happy and return often. Yes, they said, everybody is doing it every which way. And so on and so forth ...
(c) I called the local "adult video" place and stated that I was looking for videos on anal sex, and did they have more of this or that. The answer: they stock according to customer preferences, and so it's mostly men and women.
Where was I? .... Never mind. I just took a look at The Star article that is "linked" at the start if this thread. I read some of the comments there. I also took a look at articles that have appeared in the same paper in the last two days and also read the comments there. Startling stuff:
(a) Contrary to what might appear to be the case, given the numerous problems that Kenya appears to have---including some very basic ones, like food and healthcare---who's fwacking whom and in what ways is the No. 1 problem.
(b) The level of hatred and vitriol is astonishing. You think Kenyans can get carried away on a tribal basis? Think again, but make sure it's a man giving it to a man, right in the ... can't remember what I wanted to write there. Did Wainaina eat somebody's goat or rape some of those guys?
Don't worry. I have no doubt that this is just a little hump in the road, after which readers of The Star will get to the SGR, NSSF/Tassi, Laptop, and ... there will be something new by the end of this week. Eventually, most of them will see the light when it comes to really getting fwacked in the ...
I can't remember what point I wanted to make when I started, but never mind ... I conclude with a question:
Two consenting adults decide they want to fwack, and they intend to do it as they please, out of public sight. Whose business is it and why? Religion? Bah! And it's in the ... ? Wow. Yes, as soon as we get through this, we'll all get a life. And get on with it. The life or It.
No doubt, the upright pillars of the community--when they are not too upright and bit more focused!---will enlighten us on these matters.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Jan 24, 2014 9:12:14 GMT 3
Whao, Njakip has thrown his spanners all over this one ... how do I get the images he inspires out of my head?
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Jan 24, 2014 18:18:15 GMT 3
Whao, Njakip has thrown his spanners all over this one ... how do I get the images he inspires out of my head? Thanks to the incorrigible rascal Otishotish, today we have delved into deep sh!t. Feigning academic impartiality, we have nevertheless indulged our perverse curiosity’s at the observed realities. I did indeed consult google at the behest of this Njakip man, and WoW! I did not know the human anus could take donkey meat all in, and not report intestinal raptures! ---God made man in his own image they say! Good Heavens! But Njakip has established a point, refining Patriotism observation. The problem is not really homosexuality, the problem is the particular case of male penetrating male anal wise. Orally does not seem to raise the same revolted hate. When men enter American prisons I am told the guards say: trust me, when you leave, if you leave, you will at least be a practicing homosexual, or at most, a bisexual. Your straight days are over. This experience is what makes Afro-Americans and latinos, the majority of inmates in USA jales, be so homophobic. They were initiated into it by rape, and not curdly, sexy and loving induction!
|
|
|
Post by mank on Jan 25, 2014 4:26:56 GMT 3
Whao, Njakip has thrown his spanners all over this one ... how do I get the images he inspires out of my head? Thanks to the incorrigible rascal Otishotish, today we have delved into deep sh!t. Feigning academic impartiality, we have nevertheless indulged our perverse curiosity’s at the observed realities. I did indeed consult google at the behest of this Njakip man, and WoW! I did not know the human anus could take donkey meat all in, and not report intestinal raptures! ---God made man in his own image they say! Good Heavens! But Njakip has established a point, refining Patriotism observation. The problem is not really homosexuality, the problem is the particular case of male penetrating male anal wise. Orally does not seem to raise the same revolted hate. Amigo, you just topped amigo OtishOtish with that one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2014 7:32:03 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Jan 25, 2014 13:32:21 GMT 3
As a kid, the subject of sex would rarely be discussed in our presence and when it did pop up it was an admonishment on the vileness of the act and why it should held back until marriage.
So the small matter of sexual pleasures was being pushed back in our lives until we got married, but as you would have it, very few ever did this! Which brings us to the point of a union of two adults being properly defined in our constitution to limit any other form of union from having a legal meaning. So if it is man and man, that is a no no. If it is man and chicken or sheep, it is a no no; if it is woman and dog, even a worse no no! That is how our law sees these relationships.
Explicitly what you do behind the closed doors of your bedroom is frankly your business however devious you want to be! The problem comes when you want to imagine that those actions can lead to a relationship that can be deemed legal.
So there are two points of discussion here. The rights of gay people (whatever these are) and the actions of gay people (these we know). Based on my argument above, they have a right to do their 'actions' as do heterosexual people. They however cannot do it in public whether gay or heterosexual as it is illegal to entertain people with sexual acts.
Which means the problem then is with rights not involving the action of sex. So if two people want to get together and live together, no one stops them. If they want to own property, no one stops them. In any case there are laws of partnership in place to get round the problem of a marriage certificate so why not do that? I am sure lawyers and accountants can get their partnership certificates prayed for and blessed by some clergy man, so come on you gay guys use your heads and rush there! A marriage certificate does not confer any more rights to you than a prenuptial!
I am homophobic, and I stand by that!
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Jan 25, 2014 17:48:43 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jan 25, 2014 22:45:13 GMT 3
Sigh. Perhaps well-meant, but ...
A few quick comments:
Quote: "Gay activism, in its current form, is not an African construct ".
So, which forms of activism, in current form, are "African constructs"? How much of African life, in current form, consists of "African constructs"? (And there we can include the language the writer has used, the medium he has used, etc.) Come to think of it, what exactly is "African" and why must it be retained at all costs?
Quote: "It is perhaps the one thing that we can blame, if indeed that is the right word to use, on the West."
No, "blame" is definitely not the right word. The writer does not even attempt to explain why it should be. (Perhaps we are meant to assume that the activism must be bad because it is not an "African construct", which fact I have just confirmed by looking at my handy Complete & Entire Guide To Authentic African Constructs, and, therefore, blame ... ). And even it it could be argued that "blame" is the right word, one can easily think of more many other things that could be blamed on the West.
Oddly enough, the writer then adds that: "As Africans, all we can be is who we are. Our problem is that most of us don’t know what that is."
If so, then it might be a good idea for us to first find out what that is and only then go on and on about African this and African that.
Quote: "I do find myself wondering why, therefore, he found it necessary to tell us what it is that he does in his bedroom ... Straight folks get up to all kinds of queerness behind closed doors, but few are willing to come out about it. You don’t often encounter a heterosexual who will freely admit to paying for sex, or masturbating – a lot".
Do we often encounter an artist of Wainana's calibre? No. Do we often encounter people who are prepared to be totally honest even when they know that such honesty will attract extreme loathing and perhaps even violence and jail? No. Are there well-known writers etc. who have written truthfully about their activities? Yes, and to a far, far greater extent than Wainaina. I ask (and answer) these questions because (a) it is precisely his stature and fame as a writer that brought this matter to the attention of so many and cause so much "excitement"; and (b) following from that, "often" is not the right word for the Standard writer to use.
Do heterosexuals men pay for sex? Yes, all the time and all over the place, on them depends what has been called "the world's oldest profession". Do men masturbate---a lot? Yes. Probably all of them, and probably far more than they should (given that there are other options). The real surprise, especially when it comes to paid sex, is not that Wainaina, or anyone else, should admit to having had some; it is that all those people doing those things, all the time and all over the place, should feel that they are activities that must be kept as filthy, horrible, terrible secrets. That's because "upright pillars of the society and religion", while indulging in the very same things and to astonishing degrees, have nevertheless insisted that they are "dirty, shameful, and immoral". Not to be done, or you will go to hell or go blind. But in the meantime, we too will have a bit of it. Of course, in secret, because we actually never do such depraved things. Unless we must. And we must when we really get upright. Paid sex and masturbation are hardly "all kinds of queerness"; and what is needed is freedom from hypocrisy, not questioning of honesty.
To the extent that he found it necessary to "come out", I imagine that the reasons include: (a) not wanting to continue living a lie and (b) wanting to encourage express solidarity with other homosexuals who are persecuted (see my example of early Christians). The rest are just a few more pieces of truth thrown in.
Quote: "Those who say that it is un-African are deceiving themselves ... the latest gay rights gospel is being preached. And true to type, many Africans are being converted."
So, it is not un-African. Excellent. We now know that they are not being converted to homosexuality. Presumably, then, what the writer is unhappy with is that the "gay rights gospel" in its "current form" is not an "African construct". The answer to that is simple: let's come up with an "African gospel" to go along with the "not un-African" homosexuality. No need for any conversions. Then we can be who we are, even if most of us don't know what that is.
Kathure: Many thanks for posting those videos. Good stuff, all of it.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Jan 25, 2014 23:32:38 GMT 3
The guy doesn't sound queer. He sounds like a regular guy in gay character with a social-political opinion. He's got to be recognized for a job well done though - there's no way I was going to watch 6 times 6 minute clips of the regular gay rights rant Do heterosexuals really preoccupy themselves with what people do in their bedrooms? I see guy gay people shouting out to the world about their bedroom favorite company all the time and wonder why we need to know. Yet every time they are at it, they are blaming the world for minding their bedrooms. They should shut up and do their thing in silence like the rest! We should have a law that prohibits this "coming out" nonsense drama but defends everyone's right to privacy and right to the coitus of choice - screw whoever you wish to, but as long as neither of you is raped by the other, be ready to pay if you think we should know about your mutual thing.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Jan 26, 2014 10:40:48 GMT 3
The guy doesn't sound queer. He sounds like a regular guy in gay character with a social-political opinion. He's got to be recognized for a job well done though - there's no way I was going to watch 6 times 6 minute clips of the regular gay rights rant Do heterosexuals really preoccupy themselves with what people do in their bedrooms? I see guy people shouting out to the world about their bedroom favorite company all the time and wonder why we need to know. Yet every time they are at it, they are blaming the world for minding their bedrooms. They should shut up and do their thing in silence like the rest! We should have a law that prohibits this "coming out" nonsense drama but defends everyone's right to privacy and right to the coitus of choice - screw whoever you wish to, but as long as neither of you is raped by the other, be ready to pay if you think we should know about your mutual thing. In a country that is quite liberal about gays,it took years for journalist Anderson Cooper to "come out" and the resultant debates was not any different to the one we now have on this guy! Does "coming out" become an acknowledgement of a previous devious behavior that we now have courage to talk about especially one people that know you would not have believed if told by someone else? So next time someone wants to come out of devious behavior such as sleeping with old women, small girls or adventures into the animal kingdom, they should stop or be stopped! It is never necessary to let us know for there is nothing you gain from apart from getting people talk about you!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2014 19:09:04 GMT 3
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2014 2:47:03 GMT 3
Accused of being gay, two men in green prison uniforms face trial in Nigeria Homophobia: Africa's new Apartheid Both African and western governments are using gay rights as a political tool. Last updated: 01 Feb 2014 20:05 Azad Essa is a journalist at Al Jazeera, covering Sub-Saharan Africa. In August 2013, in his seventh inauguration speech, President Robert Mugabe was particularly derisive of the gay community. He urged young Zimbabweans to shun homosexuality as an abomination of humankind "that destroys nations, apart from it being a filthy, filthy disease". That speech marked the conclusion of a presidential election campaign that hinged almost entirely on economic empowerment, but relied on an unhealthy dose of homophobia. Mugabe effectively used existing public disdain for homosexuality as a means to delegitimise the political opposition - with its liberal economics and politics - as part of the evidence that it was merely a puppet of the West. I had travelled to Zimbabwe to cover what was meant to be a landmark election. The homophobic sentiment that seemed to underpin Mugabe's campaign was unsettling. It was also, at that time, inexplicable to me. On further reflection however, a country where two thirds of the population live in rural areas, with a world view that revolves around land, livelihood and church, Mugabe's move to highlight homosexuality was a stroke of political genius. But Mugabe is certainly not alone in abusing the gay community for political gain. In January 2014, Nigeria signed a law that will punish anyone who promotes gay rights with a 10-year prison sentence. Elections are due there in the next 18 months... coincidence? In Cameroon, gay people are often sentenced to prison for merely indulging in sex. In Liberia, a religious gathering has been collecting signatures pushing the government to sign a law banning same-sex marriage. In South Africa, the past five years have seen the rise of hate-crimes against gay people, including a phenomenon known as "corrective rape" - rape committed with a view to alter the victim's sexual orientation. For many, the apparent surge in anti-gay sentiment is only a response to the pressure being put on African governments by western governments, to, ironically, "act a certain way". A distraction? Even as economies continue to grow and middle classes emerge, rampant inequality burns holes in the aspirations of the continent. Where then does this leave the gay community? They've merely become a red herring, a distraction, to divert attention from the failing democratic culture among so many weak democracies across the continent. In truth, there is little demonstrable regard or patience for African homosexuals among wide swathes of the continent's society. But plainly speaking, the issue of gay rights is not at the top of most African governments' agendas. Why should it be? In so many countries on the continent, human rights of the barest minimum - water, sanitation, electricity - barely exist. Prioritising the rights of gay people is almost unthinkable. In fact, the pressure to do so from the outside has even forced some to invent notions of homosexuality as an imported, western concept, ie: "un-African". Of course, gay Africans will dispute this, pointing out that history illustrates that this tribe here, and that people there, had established practices of homosexuality. So to suggest that Africa has no place for homosexuals is to imagine the continent's history as beginning when prude missionaries brought Bibles, long skirts and umbrellas as a marker of civilisation. Struggling with the colonial past The construction of sin and categorical notions of sexuality over the past four centuries on the continent are inextricably linked to colonialism, the Church and the ambitions of the state. And "independence" from the colonial powers, as it came, was a shame, for it often did little to inspire independent thought. If anything, the struggle for gay rights in so many African countries today tells us about a continent still battling the demons of colonialism, a continent that is still in the process of negotiating an identity - as articulated, again, through the lens of the colonial master. Among the greatest challenges many African democracies face today are the continued existence of one-party states and the lack of strong civil institutions. And, in this vacuum, the Church is the most established institution outside the hallowed halls of party and state. Politicians know too well that decriminalising homosexual relationships at this point would only alienate them from the most dependable institution: religion. This is, of course, precisely the polar opposite of recent developments in the United States and the European Union. In those lands, once paved with gold and a love for all things good and equal, it is no longer "proper" to isolate or discriminate against any minority, despite what you might feel deep inside. In the West, the erosion of the Church as the centre of the moral universe and its replacement with a cauldron of secular, civil institutions at the heart of public debate and influence means that there is always a shifting politic. And so, whereas African politicians might openly use hate-speech to garner votes, western politicians, or at least those who don't obviously veer to the extreme right, must pretend with equal measure to love all. Both approaches are a means to an end - wielding power. The recent emphasis on rising homophobia in Africa is disingenuous. It is a bargaining chip in order to hold countries to ransom. Homosexuality remains illegal in almost two-thirds of the 55 countries on the African continent. But targeting the trend of hostility towards gay rights in Africa is hypocritical. Even the US does not embrace gay rights universally; laws dealing with the full protection of homosexuals still vary from state to state. Counting the Cost - A tale of three African economies Like most issues on the continent, even where anti-gay laws exist, enforcement varies from one country to the next. Actions are determined by the mood swings of agencies, legislators and leaders. The fact is, protective laws themselves will not change the lived experience of gays in most of these countries, not in their current state, at least. The case of South Africa Take South Africa, for example, where progressive laws are the envy of the civilised world - but the lived experience of the poor and the marginalised, including those gay people not living in a boutique studio in downtown Cape Town, suggest that, without adequate social transformation, there is little assurance that these laws will be respected. Homosexuality has been legally protected in the country since 1996 while same-sex marriage has been legal since 2006. Yet, the disturbing notions of African masculinity, mixed with the myth of what it means to be "African" overrides the constitutional rights of gay people. In the face of disenfranchisement, there is a selective abstraction in how the gay community fits into the larger paradigm that is post-Apartheid South Africa. Between the pomp, glory and loss of Nelson Mandela's memorial service in December 2013, many South Africans spoke of Mandela's "mistake of allowing abortion and gay rights" to consolidate under the umbrella of human rights during his term in office, as if any community could remain second-class citizens after the struggle against Apartheid. Mandela's enthusiasm for reconciliation, his insistence that no minority suffer in a new South Africa, meant that he had to transcend his own biases to offer protection to a community that appeared otherwise destined to remain repressed. He understood, then, even before the western world did, that when it came down to dignity, there could be no such thing as first world laws. Mandela appears to have been rather alone in that understanding, and therein lies the quandary of visionless African leadership. Whereas most African countries have outlawed same-sex relationships as part of old colonial "public order" acts that have never been changed, the move to specifically target homosexuals, the way Nigeria and Uganda have done, effectively legitimises homophobia. And in so doing, it washes away our actual history, and creates a new one for us, just as colonialism bid us to do. Azad Essa is a journalist at Al Jazeera, covering Sub-Saharan Africa. Follow him on Twitter: @azadessa This article is an abridged version of a column that appeared in the February edition of Kindle Magazine. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy. www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/02/homophobia-africa-new-apartheid-20142194711993773.html
|
|