|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Mar 14, 2014 21:22:57 GMT 3
By Onyango Oloo, social justice activist in Nairobi
Violence against Kenyan Lesbians and Gays is intensifying on a horrifying scale.On Friday, March 14, 2014, Onyango Oloo spoke to two Kenyan lesbians who gave a harrowing account of their recent ordeal. Joyce Muthoni is a lesbian who cohabits with her lover. She is also an activist who has been quite active in food security issues as part of the Unga Revolution campaign and has participated in demonstrations in support of sex workers’ rights. She took part in the protest at the Ugandan High Commission on Nairobi’s Riverside Drive following the signing by President Museveni of the draconian legislation which has already led to members of Uganda’s LGBTI community being burnt to death by homophobic lynch mobs. Through a contact in Kenya’s activist community, I managed to reach Joyce from the hideout she is currently seeking refuge in. She told me that following the anti-Museveni peaceful protest action and a few days before the counter demonstration by the male chauvinist pressure group Maendeleo ya Wanaume, she was targeted by matatu touts and boda
boda motorcyclists who usually mill around the Uthiru commuter stage. Some of them had seen her in media coverage of the protest outside the Ugandan embassy in Nairobi. She was not covering her face. Since Joyce Muthoni is an out Kenyan lesbian who lives openly with her lover and since her former apartment in the Uthiru low income neighbourhood is a hub where Joyce is visited regularly not only by other lesbians but also young Kenyan gays (especially the ones she identifies as “bottoms”) she is quite well known by the locals as being part of the LGBTI community in the neighbourhood. The touts and boda boda riders accosted her, showering her with verbal abuse and threatening her with dire consequences if she did not immediately vacate her rental unit. According to NTV: Below is the YouTube link: This is what is already happening in Uganda: Last Sunday (March 9, 2014) Joyce Muthoni’s landlord confronted her and told her that since HE had heard that "henceforth lesbians and gays in Kenya could be locked up in prison for up to 14 years" because of their sexual orientation, he wanted her to immediately quit from his place. He said he feared being attacked and the place being burnt down by Mungiki members and other hooligans. Sensing insecurity and looming danger, Joyce and her partner (she refers to her as “my wife”) thought it best to leave Uthiru and look for some temporary accommodation elsewhere. They therefore put up at a boarding and lodging outlet. On the third day, since they had run out of clean clothes, Joyce instructed her partner to sneak back into their old apartment after dark for a change of clothes. On arrival at around 8 pm, Joyce’s “wife” was recognized by some of the youths who had earlier threatened her and subjected to a thorough beating. She managed to make contact with Joyce. Through her own activist links, Joyce was able to secure some solidarity from other members of the LGBTI community who were able to take her to a secure sanctuary. Joyce Muthoni is not the only victim of these violent criminal attacks by homophobic mobs in Nairobi. I also spoke to Kate Kendi. She too is a lesbian. She too, lived in Uthiru until a few days ago. On Thursday, March 13, 2014, her landlady stormed into her room and told Kate that she was locking up her place and throwing her out because she could no longer rent to lesbians and gays. She further demanded that Kate Kendi should pay up for the rest of the month even though she would not be having access to her place. As I was speaking to Kate, I found out that the reason she was visiting Joyce Muthoni is because she was looking for a place to squat because she had been rendered homeless. As she was being thrown out about six young men descended on her with fists, slaps, kicks and other violent blows. Both Joyce and Kate say they have photographic evidence of the beatings and can identify some of their attackers. They have provided this writer with their telephone and email contacts. Other people who have been attacked include two Kenyan gay men- Simon Mwangi and Anthony Ngugi (who was violently evicted from Uthiru by Kamjesh gang members) and a Kenyan lesbian, Lucy Muthoni. The rights of Kenya's gays, lesbians, bisexual, transgendered and inter sexed people are guaranteed and protected under the following constitutional provisions: Nevertheless there was this report in the Star newspaper recently: Even more disturbing is the following news item appearing in the Standard newspaper:
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Mar 14, 2014 22:43:53 GMT 3
Why are you taking us to the constitution? It has no guarantee for gays or lesbians! If you are hanging on the word sex in the bill of rights, may I kindly refer you most forms where the tick boxes for sex only have either Male or Female so reference to sex has nothing to do with how you prefer doing it.
As for those beating up gays, they are wrong and are breaking the law. As for the gays and the lesbians, understand society has not come to terms with your orientation and like that Wainaina fellow, stay in the closet until people have no problem with you. Also stop drawing attention to yourself for you are calling for the uncouth behaviour against you.
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Mar 14, 2014 22:46:23 GMT 3
Kamale:
I know how to READ and INTERPRET.
That is what I have done with the Kenyan Constitution.
You are entitled to your HOMOPHOBIC views, however odious they may be.
Onyango Oloo
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Mar 14, 2014 23:02:14 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Mar 14, 2014 23:07:53 GMT 3
All upright people should strongly condemn such actions. And the rest should keep in mind that such things always start small-small, with the targeting of those seen to be weak and on the margins of society. Where they lead to .... the history books are not short of information on that one, if people would learn from history.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Mar 14, 2014 23:12:39 GMT 3
Why are you taking us to the constitution? It has no guarantee for gays or lesbians! If you are hanging on the word sex in the bill of rights, may I kindly refer you most forms where the tick boxes for sex only have either Male or Female so reference to sex has nothing to do with how you prefer doing it. As for those beating up gays, they are wrong and are breaking the law. As for the gays and the lesbians, understand society has not come to terms with your orientation and like that Wainaina fellow, stay in the closet until people have no problem with you. Also stop drawing attention to yourself for you are calling for the uncouth behaviour against you. Kamale: Your "reliability" never fails and is always "on time". ( b6k and mwalimu too will soon be here.) Wrong and breaking the law, eh? That definitely deserves a good beating. But, surely, a place like Kenya cannot be short of people who, on that basis, are more deserving of even worse beatings. Priorities, please! Anyway ... Vision 3020.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Mar 15, 2014 0:11:48 GMT 3
I found it very interesting to read persuasive literature right here on Jukwaa, to the effect that we have had gays in our midst for eons. The literature was fraught with errors, but all the same whatever reality it seemed to yield was a surprise because I did not think there was any credibility to allegations of the gay style till I was all grown ... that's when I saw real gays and slowly realized it was no myth.
Now the question is, have we now advanced because we are having a conversation about gay culture? look at the conversation we are having! for what did that person have to die, and die in that manner? What if we did not have this conversation? would that man still be alive and still gay? who is better off mow that he is a symbol of this conversation? What vanity ... this conversation?
In my view it is someone else's conversation. When I listened to those 6 clips posted by Kathure on this topic a while back, I found them to end on a terrible disappointment. I was listening to the guy all along thinking he was in same struggle I know is just among gays ... key to those are spousal benefits. Then the guy said they were not fighting for such values. What then is the conversation about???
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Mar 15, 2014 2:25:23 GMT 3
In my view it is someone else's conversation. I was listening to the guy all along thinking he was in same struggle I know is just among gays ... key to those are spousal benefits. Then the guy said they were not fighting for such values. What then is the conversation about???Perhaps you are listening to two different but overlapping and concurrent conversations. That can sometimes happen with a badly-tuned radio ... There are places where gays are indeed fighting for spousal benefits and the like. Those are places where lessons have been learned, and society has largely moved from " let's beat them up or kill them because they are wrong and are breaking the law". And there are places where the Visigoth mentality remains strong. In such places, what gays seek, to start with, is " don't beat us up or kill us just because we are gay" or " don't send us to prison for life just because we are consenting adults doing it in a way you don't like". In some places---Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, etc.--- that is what the "conversation" is still about. To start with. An aside: Kamale's statement, to the effect, that gays should get beaten up because they are "wrong and breaking the law" brought to mind the history of how society has sought to justify its persecution of people who were doing no more that minding their own business. One of the things that I admire about the USA is the sheer diversity and how, for the most part, it works. Yet there was time when: * It was obviously "wrong" for a black man to roger a white woman. Even the Bible "proved" that it was "wrong" and "against nature" and "very unholy". (For some reason, it was neither wrong nor against nature nor very unholy for a white man to roger a black woman.) * What's more, the law (in some places) stated it was not to be done and even had peculiarities about "transporting a white woman across state lines for the purposes of ...". Something like that. Black men were beaten up, imprisoned, lynched, ... all for doing what some white women wanted done to them. Fast forward to 2014 and to the White House. The very stone that the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. Exactly as "predicted" in The Good Book. " Wrong and immoral and ungodly!. And to prove it, here's this or that Great Religious Book! Therefore, we declare it illegal! Punishment, Severe Punishment, And More!. But there's no stopping the fwacking ... better, instead, to focus on things that really matter. Are there more important issues that people should be worrying about in some of these African countries? The "6 clips posted by Kathure" would have been a disappointment to anyone looking for a demented rant in favour of homosexuality. Digested with an open mind, they are full of insightful remarks. One example are the comments along the lines of " Africans don't make things". There is a profound statement there--nothing to do with being gay---and it is the sort of thing that people should be discussing. I have had numerous discussions with others who watched the videos, and that is one aspect that we will keep discussing Please feel free to point out such errors. Jukwaa is a platform on which we can all learn.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Mar 15, 2014 2:50:30 GMT 3
Er, Fr., the "Christian principles" were shoved down African throats by those same Europeans who have since concluded that organized religion has little to do with God and more to do with controlling others. There, it no longer works for both sides, so that's that.
But Africa and "the lesser world" is where it's at, as one might say. Those are the only places where the "Christian Church" is growing. Hungry "natives" ... with all sorts of needs but ever-ready to give their "10% God's due", which ends up at HQ, which, of course, are in Europe.
And the best organized and richest of the "Christian Churches"? Yes, that's one where the "celibate" priests are molesting just about every living thing, including defenseless kids. But always preaching about morality and the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Mar 15, 2014 4:20:09 GMT 3
In my view it is someone else's conversation. I was listening to the guy all along thinking he was in same struggle I know is just among gays ... key to those are spousal benefits. Then the guy said they were not fighting for such values. What then is the conversation about???Perhaps you are listening to two different but overlapping and concurrent conversations. That can sometimes happen with a badly-tuned radio ... There are places where gays are indeed fighting for spousal benefits and the like. Those are places where lessons have been learned, and society has largely moved from " let's beat them up or kill them because they are wrong and are breaking the law". And there are places where the Visigoth mentality remains strong. In such places, what gays seek, to start with, is " don't beat us up or kill us just because we are gay" or " don't send us to prison for life just because we are consenting adults doing it in a way you don't like". In some places---Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, etc.--- that is what the "conversation" is still about. To start with. An aside: Kamale's statement, to the effect, that gays should get beaten up because they are "wrong and breaking the law" brought to mind the history of how society has sought to justify its persecution of people who were doing no more that minding their own business. One of the things that I admire about the USA is the sheer diversity and how, for the most part, it works. Yet there was time when: * It was obviously "wrong" for a black man to roger a white woman. Even the Bible "proved" that it was "wrong" and "against nature" and "very unholy". (For some reason, it was neither wrong nor against nature nor very unholy for a white man to roger a black woman.) * What's more, the law (in some places) stated it was not to be done and even had peculiarities about "transporting a white woman across state lines for the purposes of ...". Something like that. Black men were beaten up, imprisoned, lynched, ... all for doing what some white women wanted done to them. Fast forward to 2014 and to the White House. The very stone that the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. Exactly as "predicted" in The Good Book. " Wrong and immoral and ungodly!. And to prove it, here's this or that Great Religious Book! Therefore, we declare it illegal! Punishment, Severe Punishment, And More!. But there's no stopping the fwacking ... better, instead, to focus on things that really matter. Are there more important issues that people should be worrying about in some of these African countries? The "6 clips posted by Kathure" would have been a disappointment to anyone looking for a demented rant in favour of homosexuality. Digested with an open mind, they are full of insightful remarks. One example are the comments along the lines of " Africans don't make things". There is a profound statement there--nothing to do with being gay---and it is the sort of thing that people should be discussing. I have had numerous discussions with others who watched the videos, and that is one aspect that we will keep discussing Please feel free to point out such errors. Jukwaa is a platform on which we can all learn.
Amigo, you are reading this with such a bias that I think I should wait for you to take another read. I mean it. For a beginning, did you notice the word "persuasive?". Are you sure errors were the key point on that statement that you challenge me to get deeper into errors about?
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Mar 15, 2014 4:48:50 GMT 3
Amigo, you are reading this with such a bias that I think I should wait for you to take another read. I mean it. For a beginning, did you notice the word "persuasive?". Are you sure errors were the key point on that statement that you challenge me to get deeper into errors about? Friend Mank: I am not "challenging" you to anything. So you need not "get deeper" into anything. Did you mean to focus on "persuasive", but I chose to focus on "errors"? Did you mean to focus on "errors", but I chose to focus on "persuasive"? Maybe what you really meant to focus on was the "very interesting"? Or maybe, like Clinton, you had something about what "is" really is ... I don't see that it matters much or that it should be something to be debated right here and now, on this thread. If we accept that Jukwaa is a place where we have discussions, exchanges, and (hopefully) learn from each other, then my preference is for .. " I did not find this persuasive, for this here or that there good reason". or " The errors in this bring to mind a piece of Swiss cheese, and here and there are the holes". We clarify, discuss, and then return to the real issues. Wanking, of any sort, is best left to boarding-school kids. (There I mean to focus on "best".)
|
|
|
Post by ebarasi on Mar 15, 2014 5:32:50 GMT 3
All upright people should strongly condemn such actions. And the rest should keep in mind that such things always start small-small, with the targeting of those seen to be weak and on the margins of society. Where they lead to .... the history books are not short of information on that one, if people would learn from history. Otishotish, I second that. People refuse to learn from history because at this point and station in life it does not further their agendas. What this actually boils down to is ones view of human beings and whether one considers life to be sacrosanct or not. Even Jesus asked those without blemish to cast the first stone. History is replete with all manner of mad folly. In some parts of the USA, until recently, it was accepted to lynch a black man just because he was accused of having looked at a white woman. Was it right? Attempts to understand, condone or even legitimize criminal acts like beating up and/or killing as methods of building opinion, upholding moral values or even dealing with people who may live their lives in ways deemed at odds with ones own moral, ideological, race or whatever position is a journey along a very slippery slope. It is a journey devoid of any deeper sense of purpose or proportionality. Is killing a practicing homosexual (consensual) really justifiable? It is brutish behavior borne out of some very convoluted primal fear.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Mar 15, 2014 6:03:49 GMT 3
Amigo, you are reading this with such a bias that I think I should wait for you to take another read. I mean it. For a beginning, did you notice the word "persuasive?". Are you sure errors were the key point on that statement that you challenge me to get deeper into errors about? Friend Mank: I am not "challenging" you to anything. So you need not "get deeper" into anything. Did you mean to focus on "persuasive", but I chose to focus on "errors"? Did you mean to focus on "errors", but I chose to focus on "persuasive"? Maybe what you really meant to focus on was the "very interesting"? Or maybe, like Clinton, you had something about what "is" really is ... I don't see that it matters much or that it should be something to be debated right here and now, on this thread. If we accept that Jukwaa is a place where we have discussions, exchanges, and (hopefully) learn from each other, then my preference is for .. " I did not find this persuasive, for this here or that there good reason". or " The errors in this bring to mind a piece of Swiss cheese, and here and there are the holes". We clarify, discuss, and then return to the real issues. Wanking, of any sort, is best left to boarding-school kids. (There I mean to focus on "best".) I was saying that I thought I was getting enlightened about this conversation, and even getting won over to offer support to the disgruntled side of the divide, only to be shown off in the last moment by being told that the disgruntled did not give a hoot about the goals I felt they would get my support for. In the end it seemed to me like the fight is just about 'I screw my kind, and I want you to know and profess favor for my appetites!". Why amigo? My take is that no one was fighting the other until some of us decided to start the battle. The reason I grew to my late twenties thinking homosexuality was a myth is because there was no face to it. Now, if homosexuals are not fighting for benefits, why did we need to put faces to it?? do you read me? Nobody cares who you sleep with, till you start telling. So there has to be a payoff for telling. I understand this payoff for western homos, and it is the same I thought was worth fighting for anywhere. Then our very eloquent and socially-challenging rights defender on the 6 clips tells me in the final moments that that is not it. For what then did we raise the rubble? for what did that youngster die? if gays have been among us for eons, why is it only now that someone is killed for being gay?
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Mar 15, 2014 7:51:33 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Mar 15, 2014 10:10:38 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Mar 15, 2014 11:30:45 GMT 3
In my view it is someone else's conversation. I was listening to the guy all along thinking he was in same struggle I know is just among gays ... key to those are spousal benefits. Then the guy said they were not fighting for such values. What then is the conversation about???Perhaps you are listening to two different but overlapping and concurrent conversations. That can sometimes happen with a badly-tuned radio ... There are places where gays are indeed fighting for spousal benefits and the like. Those are places where lessons have been learned, and society has largely moved from " let's beat them up or kill them because they are wrong and are breaking the law". And there are places where the Visigoth mentality remains strong. In such places, what gays seek, to start with, is " don't beat us up or kill us just because we are gay" or " don't send us to prison for life just because we are consenting adults doing it in a way you don't like". In some places---Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, etc.--- that is what the "conversation" is still about. To start with. An aside: Kamale's statement, to the effect, that gays should get beaten up because they are "wrong and breaking the law" brought to mind the history of how society has sought to justify its persecution of people who were doing no more that minding their own business. One of the things that I admire about the USA is the sheer diversity and how, for the most part, it works. Yet there was time when: * It was obviously "wrong" for a black man to roger a white woman. Even the Bible "proved" that it was "wrong" and "against nature" and "very unholy". (For some reason, it was neither wrong nor against nature nor very unholy for a white man to roger a black woman.) * What's more, the law (in some places) stated it was not to be done and even had peculiarities about "transporting a white woman across state lines for the purposes of ...". Something like that. Black men were beaten up, imprisoned, lynched, ... all for doing what some white women wanted done to them. Fast forward to 2014 and to the White House. The very stone that the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. Exactly as "predicted" in The Good Book. " Wrong and immoral and ungodly!. And to prove it, here's this or that Great Religious Book! Therefore, we declare it illegal! Punishment, Severe Punishment, And More!. But there's no stopping the fwacking ... better, instead, to focus on things that really matter. Are there more important issues that people should be worrying about in some of these African countries? The "6 clips posted by Kathure" would have been a disappointment to anyone looking for a demented rant in favour of homosexuality. Digested with an open mind, they are full of insightful remarks. One example are the comments along the lines of " Africans don't make things". There is a profound statement there--nothing to do with being gay---and it is the sort of thing that people should be discussing. I have had numerous discussions with others who watched the videos, and that is one aspect that we will keep discussing Please feel free to point out such errors. Jukwaa is a platform on which we can all learn.
Otishotish How about taking sometime to read what is written? My statement was very clear that " as for those beating up gays, THEY ARE WRONG AND BREAKING THE LAW". Twisting it to serve your own purposes is all wrong
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Mar 15, 2014 11:38:38 GMT 3
Kamale:I know how to READ and INTERPRET. That is what I have done with the Kenyan Constitution. You are entitled to your HOMOPHOBIC views, however odious they may be. Onyango Oloo Oloo Just how quickly did you come to the conclusion that I Have homophobic views from the post above? Can you pick up the words that make me such ? Words like homo-phobic or homo- huggers are nothing more than judgemental. There are those who disagree and let go but that does not make them homophobic.
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Mar 16, 2014 3:01:54 GMT 3
Kamale, I was merely paraphrasing what YOU yourself has stated OPENLY on more than one occasion RIGHT HERE on Jukwaa. Do you remember this posting of yours from the year 2007: Oloo, It is important that people respect the wishes of the forum owner, and it has been clear that this forum has little tolerance for homophobia. My understanding of Homophobia is hatred, hostility, disapproval of, or prejudice towards homosexual people. If this be so, then I fully agree that people who make such choices need your protection. However, is it possible to discuss the subject of homosexuality without denigrating those who practice it and would you allow such a discussion? I am coming from the point where we can say for instance discuss the pros and cons of socialism and even when we strongly disagree with socialism, we continue to respect the socialists who believe in it. I appreciate it is a very thin line where you can discuss homosexuality and still not discuss the people that practice it. But I also think you should allow people to discuss the issue and not the subjects. Perhaps you can help by drawing a fine line for such a discussion. Kamale Or this one: Phil, It is not a crime to be a gay or a lesbian. Being any of these is a constitutional right. What the law specifically prohibits is the actual act of having "carnal knowledge" which to my understanding means that unless you are doing the act, professing to be a homosexual is not a crime. As regards this incident, I think it is a simple assault case and the fact that the young lady may be a lesbian does not arise. If someone calls you a dog and there is an altercation that leads to injury, the offence is only that of assault rather than the fact that you may have been on all four as a dog. I think "these people" are raising an issue that is of no consequence! Once incident is not sufficient to call it "increasing violence...."! I think on this one Oloo, you got it wrong. How about this comment: As the song by Gathaithi Choir many years ago, there was a meeting of adheherents of the devil. After the meeting they resolved that people must be allowed the following: - They can go to church - They can be baptised - They can be confirmed - They can do all other 'churchly' things BUT THEY MUST NOT BE ALLOWED REPENTANCE. I would say something similar to homosexuals: - You can be friend - you can hold hands in public - You can even do what you wish behind closed doors BUT YOU MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO MARRY/MAKE A UNION! Another sample: From the above posted facts and myths, homosexuals cannot found a family. That does not outlaw sex between two homosexuals. .....or have sex with animals or sell it for waterborne creatures! That is the beauty of of our bill of rights!
|
|
|
Post by mank on Mar 16, 2014 20:05:55 GMT 3
Kamale, I was merely paraphrasing what YOU yourself has stated OPENLY on more than one occasion RIGHT HERE on Jukwaa. Do you remember this posting of yours from the year 2007: Oloo, It is important that people respect the wishes of the forum owner, and it has been clear that this forum has little tolerance for homophobia. My understanding of Homophobia is hatred, hostility, disapproval of, or prejudice towards homosexual people. If this be so, then I fully agree that people who make such choices need your protection. However, is it possible to discuss the subject of homosexuality without denigrating those who practice it and would you allow such a discussion? I am coming from the point where we can say for instance discuss the pros and cons of socialism and even when we strongly disagree with socialism, we continue to respect the socialists who believe in it. I appreciate it is a very thin line where you can discuss homosexuality and still not discuss the people that practice it. But I also think you should allow people to discuss the issue and not the subjects. Perhaps you can help by drawing a fine line for such a discussion. Kamale Or this one: Phil, It is not a crime to be a gay or a lesbian. Being any of these is a constitutional right. What the law specifically prohibits is the actual act of having "carnal knowledge" which to my understanding means that unless you are doing the act, professing to be a homosexual is not a crime. As regards this incident, I think it is a simple assault case and the fact that the young lady may be a lesbian does not arise. If someone calls you a dog and there is an altercation that leads to injury, the offence is only that of assault rather than the fact that you may have been on all four as a dog. I think "these people" are raising an issue that is of no consequence! Once incident is not sufficient to call it "increasing violence...."! I think on this one Oloo, you got it wrong. How about this comment: As the song by Gathaithi Choir many years ago, there was a meeting of adheherents of the devil. After the meeting they resolved that people must be allowed the following: - They can go to church - They can be baptised - They can be confirmed - They can do all other 'churchly' things BUT THEY MUST NOT BE ALLOWED REPENTANCE. I would say something similar to homosexuals: - You can be friend - you can hold hands in public - You can even do what you wish behind closed doors BUT YOU MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO MARRY/MAKE A UNION! Another sample: .....or have sex with animals or sell it for waterborne creatures! That is the beauty of of our bill of rights! OO, I am confused by that. That's what homophobia looks like?
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Mar 17, 2014 8:40:34 GMT 3
Mank
I had the same question flashing in my mind after I was reminded of my past posts on the topic! But then when you have misplaced activism like this one of Oloo, one can only remember the Nyayo Barometer of who was more nyayo than the other!!!
I am actually homophobic for saying gays can have sex any which way they want it and criticising those that mete out violence on the homosexuals!
I am as confused as you are!
Kamale
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Mar 17, 2014 12:18:10 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Mar 17, 2014 12:27:37 GMT 3
This is how Onyango Oloo ranked in the homophobia test(on the PBS site):
Kamale:
How did YOU score?
Let us compare notes.
HONESTLY.
Onyango Oloo
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Mar 17, 2014 12:33:32 GMT 3
This is what the Quebec quiz tells Onyango Oloo:
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Mar 17, 2014 12:38:51 GMT 3
From the THIRD test:
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Mar 17, 2014 13:43:30 GMT 3
Oloo
Here are my results:
Homophobia Quiz
You have some serious homophobia issues.
You have correctly answered 4 of 15 questions.
On average, 7973 of users who took the quiz gave 9.46 right answers.
The stupidity of this test is that your answer is only correct if you answer it in the manner it is designed!
I have seen a similar test on christianity where if the answer is No as to your church going behaviour, you fail the test....!
So yes if that is the measure, I am homophobic!!!
|
|