Pan-African position on Gay Rights and Black Gays
This article is an critical examination of the Pan-African cultural-political position towards the rise of homosexual as a political-cultural phenomenon. The authors are diverse members of the African global community operating under the principles of the African Code. Comments are allowed only after reading the article and reflecting on the questions posed. This is done to maintain a quality debate focused on the core issues raised in this article.
Note | It is morally irresponsible to suggest homophobia and spread of HIV is related. It transfers blame outside of the sexuality irresponsible communities and spins the issues back onto those who are not-pro gay. It does not address the immorality in the gay lifestyle because of its own pro-gay agenda.
Homosexuality (LGBT or MSM ) has become a highly electric third rail in the West with a great deal of disposable wealth and power which has a long reach into policy and cultural direction – not only in the Western hemisphere but across the world. The issue of homosexuality  and lesbianism in the African community is one which is a challenge to the cultural integrity and moral fabric of African societies which are traditionally pro-life and pro-life systems. (lifecentric)
The challenges of homosexuality is not a new thing to any society, African or otherwise. Homosexuality activity in various degrees has been a long companion of civilization; with varying degrees of tolerance and accommodation. But nowhere in the general history of Africa, now or then, has a homosexuality lifestyle been advocated or encouraged (Asante). The paramount issue on the table is therefore to put forward an African-centred argument so we can better dialogue about how do we reconcile the social and political issues surrounding homosexuality. The current third rail issue is an assault on democracy, freedom of peaceful disagreement and is a form of intellectual terrorism and increasingly “reverse violence”. Obfuscating, bad science, historical revisionism, straw man fallacies, moral nihilism, and deconstructionism used by gay rights also needs to be intellectual challenged with African centred paradigms.
Every human deserves the dignity and not to extend this would violate our humanity: Life is sacred and must be respected. Homosexuality is not the totality of some ones identity, it doesn’t make someone a bad person, and it is only one aspect of their humanness. Advanced societies are can be measured by how they protect the weak and vulnerable, so as a moral community we can therefore have issue with the act while showing compassion to people with this orientation.
But we must utterly condemn gay advocates using the campaign against violence as a ruse to promote homosexual lifestyles in African communities.
The adventures of Europe into Africa were masqueraded under the notion of European’s civilizing mission in Africa. Out of that Africans became colonial victims, slaves, subjects of apartheid, cultural orphans loyal to European products and ideals, and lost control over their resources. Centuries later, the subject has changed, but the agenda has not. The assault on African agency is justified with the West constantly feeling the need to play parent and Tarzan. Deep down the underlying ideology is the belief that Africa’s destiny is to become more “European .” This is why regardless of how much culture, ideology, and philosophy African throws back it is all considered “backward.” Africa’s position, which contrast those of Europe, are therefore at odds with logic and humanity—according to Western humanist. Polygamy is backward, FGC (not FGM) is brutal, Islam is oppressive, dowry is degrading to women, Christianity is a colonial remnant, and on and on.
If you aren’t careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing — Malcolm X
Africa is only valid through the constructions of Europeans. And this is where we also locate this issue of homosexuality. Because the issue of gays in ancient or modern Africa has no bearing on principle disagreement with a homosexual lifestyle. There are probably cannibals in Africa, just like in Europe, but this fact does not speak to the broader African sensibility towards consuming human flesh. And as much as Africa is not a cultural monolith, Africans have been monolithic in not promoting a homosexual life-style or by applying the same rights to homosexuals, i.e. the right to marry, the right to raise children. The burden of homosexuality on African societies creates undue weight, unnecessary health (African men have a higher chance of anal cancer, and a lower survival rate compared to White males, 60% of new Syphilis case are from men who have sex with other men) and sociological risk, it is the gateway to Western political control over sovereign nations (Uganda etc) and most importantly a threat to our peoplehood and the way we chose as free agents to determine our African reality. It is sheer ignorance and naïvety to assume this debate is as simplistic as “they love each other why hate them and not marry them”– this is a child’s voice and flippant on serious sociopolitical issues.
Have you heard of Muslim Rights? What about Black rights? Nope. Jewish Rights? Nope. You do not have these things because they are covered under human rights. So where do Gay rights come from?
All human values are rooted somewhere, we cannot prove “right” and “wrong” by mere logic, because even those values at some stage must be anchored in some fundamental truths unique to the user. Most of Africa roots itself in God and cultural traditions of those who have gone before us. Honor in Japan (Seppuku (切腹) is not necessarily honor in America. Respect in Islam is not respect in Vodon. The cultural or moral root is not always universal. “Human rights” is therefore relative and dependent on the culture of a society. For example, according to psychologist Gregory Bateson, in traditional Balinese families, mothers routinely stroke the penises of their young sons, and such behavior is considered no more incestuous than breast-feeding.
If there is no moral “judgement” then there are clearly no morals, as no one has the right to judge them. It is circular and makes morality nihilistic. There has to be somewhere a notion of moral and immoral, it therefore has to be judged. God does not come down from Earth to manage the affairs of humanity, that is the domain of the people who seek leadership and continue traditions vital to our humanity.
Those majority who believe in Qur’an and Bible, Talmud and Gita may seek their moral root in the teachings of those faiths. We have no business to interrogate peoples moral anchor, because it has always been rooted in some tradition.
Some people quote Bible, Some Quote Qur’an some may quote ancestors. But there are African civilizations that survived longer than anything we have ever seen in our untested modernity. “The Book of coming forth” and a reference and instruction called the 42 declarations of innocents. Which spoke with wisdom and instructed that long surviving civilization about morality, and in it homosexuality was taboo. There was also a concept of Ma’at that survived in all the Abrahamic faiths, which spoke about balance, that balance is understood as also a gender balance critical for justice and stability in humanity.
Tomorrow human rights could say the death penalty is “inhumane” this is not an absolute truth just because Amnesty says so. Torture was once an unthinkable violation of our basic humanity, US has new laws which say it isn’t. Each society must go through its own intelligent processes to figure out what is best for their interest. Europe has always been free to find its own path, and so to must Africa. And success can never be measured by us all meeting up at the same conclusions because that would be an assault on diversity and plurality.
DEATH OF DISCOURSE
You would think with all the education floating around that our societies as a whole would have a high regard for basic common sense– such as Read and then offer an informed opinion. Avoid replying to an issue with vitriol and rhetoric. But some topics are so polarized that you have no serious debate going on. Gay rights being one of them. It is possible for people to disagree yet not conform in any shape or size to being evil bigots. Not even identical twins agree to that degree. It is possible to take issue with Israel and not be antisemitic, it is possible to disagree without the descent into hate. A healthy society has a discourse which is free to evaluate the merit of all positions. And to arrest that discourse with name calling and vitriol only makes the accuser the fool.
It is impossible to be a modern society where the views viewed as valid are those of a specific lobby. And all others, so terrified of retribution, must hold their views, or change their views to appease the mob. That is not democracy. That is not civilization. That is not development. And the worse part is inside of the gay lifestyle issues of grave concern to our humanity are being ignored in favor of politically correct.
HIV RISK OF BLACK GAYS IGNORED
It is morally irresponsible to suggest homophobia and spread of HIV is related. It transfers blame outside of the sexuality irresponsible communities and spins the issues back onto those who are not-pro gay. It does not address the immorality in the gay lifestyle because of its own pro-gay agenda. The risk come from the lifestyle of gay men, not homophobia. With or without homophobia gays have a higher engagement in high risk promiscuous sex. 
There are almost no national LGBT organizations today that give a rat’s ass about the lives of black gay men as they are impacted by HIV-AIDS, and that’s disgraceful– Phill Wilson 
Report finds black gay males in US worst hit by HIV-AIDS | HIV-AIDS is affecting black gay men in the United States on a scale unseen among any other group in the developed world, said a report issued ahead of the International AIDS Conference.
So grave is the crisis that in some US cities, one in two Black men who have sex with other men are HIV positive, according to the report from the Black AIDS Institute, the only national HIV-AIDS think tank focusing on African Americans.
“AIDS in America is a black disease, no matter how you look at it,” its president and chief executive Phill Wilson, who is himself HIV positive, said ahead of Sunday’s opening of the six-day global conference.
“The best lens through which to figure out what AIDS looks like in America is to look at AIDS in black America,” he said in an interview, adding that it was time to “jump-start a new conversation… and build a robust response” to the crisis.
The 74-page report, “Back of the Line: The State of AIDS Among Black Gay Men in America,” says black gay and bisexual men make up one in 500 Americans overall, but account for one in four new HIV infections in the United States.
HIV prevalence among such men is twice as high than among their white counterparts. They are also far less likely to be alive three years after being diagnosed with AIDS than white or Latino gays and bisexuals.
What’s more, black gay and bisexual men are seven times more likely than non-black counterparts to have undiagnosed HIV.
“Black gay and bisexual men are still being devastated by HIV and AIDS,” said Wilson, whose Los Angeles-based organization counts the prestigious Ford Foundation and the Elton John AIDS Foundation among its funding sources.
“The AIDS epidemic is not over in that population. Quite frankly, it is the worst epidemic in all of the developed world, and an epidemic that rivals much of the developing world.”
The concerns echo those of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which earlier this month called upon African American clergy to do more to address the HIV-AIDS crisis.
“Black people are more likely to be diagnosed with HIV, more likely to die from the disease, and less likely to receive treatment than any other race” in the United States, said the civil rights organization in a report.
Citing data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it said African Americans represent 13 percent of the total population, yet account for more than half of all new HIV diagnoses.
Wilson, 56, attributed part of the problem to the black community’s slow response in the early days of the AIDS epidemic in the early 1980s, when it was already wrestling with poverty, unemployment and the spread of crack cocaine.
Today, he said, black gay men in mid-sized southern cities such as Memphis, Tennessee and Richmond, Virginia face not only the greatest risk of infection, but also the least access to help.
Wilson also faulted mainstream gay rights groups for putting the HIV-AIDS crisis on the back burner, now that it is no longer a pressing issue for affluent gays in big cities whose bigger concern today is marriage equality.
“There are almost no national LGBT organizations today that give a rat’s ass about the lives of Black gay men as they are impacted by HIV-AIDS, and that’s disgraceful,” he said.
“The other issue deals with health care and access to health care… We have higher levels of unemployment in this population, higher levels of folks who don’t have health care.”
A HIGH PRICE FOR THE MAJORITY
This is all part of an agenda to present as natural a type of family that cannot be created by natural means — Norman Wells
Selfishness says the majority who hold marriage sacred and define it, and have always define it as male-female, must alter that definition out of fear of being called Red necks, bigots, haters, etc by people like Michael Eric Dyson. Ignorance fails to offer us anything other than accusations of “homophobic” and “double standards” these arguments are tired and unoriginal and redundant. It speaks to the death of freedom of authentic opinions where issues are so polarized you can almost predict the clichés.
And it is a sad day for any position on anything where it wins by shouting the loudest, throwing the most abuse around, and and stitching up the lips of dissent. For voicing a religious belief, Emmanuel Dapidran Pacquiao lost his Nike endorsement. , others are given death threats. Others such as Esther Stanford are removed from their jobs for their quiet dissent to the gay lifestyle.  The term “Dad” is taken out of the NHS handbook on pregnancy to avoid offending homosexuals. All of these things are ‘act of cultural vandalism.
See Gay Actor Rupert Everett who is against Gay parenting and the death threats for his stance 
Now Rites of Passage, dowry, culture, family values, which stood for 1000’s of years are now for the first time in history empty and meaningless. Those who use their religions to define their core moral values of their society must throw the Bible and Qur’an out the window, and flush the prohibition to gay sex down the toilet because of a liberal society which has no track record of civilization, people hood, or moral authority. To accommodate a less than 1% in a fringe theory of “human rights” the values which passed from Ancient Egypt, through Christianity, Judaism, Vodon, Islam, Serer, Odinani, Candomble and Santeria are not all invalid as ways in which people define their moral foundation.
God is sacred in the African world, and though “God” is articulated through various systems it is a basic human right to have a spiritual system, and to live and practice that spiritual system. And therefore be morally informed by that system. therefore what people of various faiths hold to be sacred is notable, and must be not sidelined.
The very thing the gay parade is fighting against, is the very same thing they are trying to have denied to the majority. When democracy fails to get them their vote, the say “democracy has failed, tyranny of the majority“, When religion blocks them, “it becomes backward and bigoted.” Arguments against them for curbing plurality and freedom of dissent are never allowed into the national dialogue. They can accuse and abuse people with the most vitriolic language, but the reverse is considered “hatred.”
Power corrupts, and too much power corrupts even more– worst when that power sinks humanities moral boat. The power amassed by the minority gay rights crusade is starting to consume logic and the roots of human civilization. To continue what is a perversion they have attempted to re-write the moral code of the majority to accommodate the most illogical arguments. No longer is their something called Normal and abnormal, no longer do morals exist, religion is meaningless and plurality has been labelled bigotry and ignorance. And the entire debate system that has always guided humanity to formulate the best traditions is under serious abuse by a wall of fallacies and dishonest tactics.
The history of provoking and wickedly engaging sensitive issues does nothing to curb the rise of homophobia. Because when they start wanting to march on Holy cities, even those tolerant of them because distanced. Because this is not how people who have sincere objectives behave by totally putting this lifestyle in the face of people who are not in agreement with it. [Jews and Muslims Unite on Homosexuality]
THE FUTURE OF GAYS?
Where will this gay quest end? It has exceed the dreams of most oppressed people. 50 years African people cannot get much changed despite being 1 billion plus. There is very little cultural accommodation of Muslim people. (they cannot even wear their Hijabs in some countries). Since the civil rights you would struggle to find anything resembling African authentic history in America or even Africa. At current trends it will be easier to learn about Gay rights, Gay history, gay everything long before any accommodation for Africans gets pushed. LGBT is a new ethnicity almost, you can browse the history of Jews, Muslims, Indians, Asians and gays. It is actually in some European countries higher than religion and ethnic identity.
Did the old black get a break from prison, eco-apartheid, racism, denial of cultural rites? Funny This “New Black” has a whole heap of money (did African Americans ever have that?) This “New Black” can make Ugandan ambassadors cancel foreign visits; can the Old Black do that?) This so-called New Black can pass all kinds of laws against the democratic majority of South Africa, jumping the “human rights line.” So much power they are now over extending into all kinds of issues and using that power to push policy on anything they see fit. Funny type of new black. If one lesbian is raped in South Africa is it treated the same as the 1000 of women raped? If someone is a victims of racism can it become a BREAKING STORY on CNN and BBC? But any and every story where gays shout “discrimination” is top news. Can Black power give conditions for Uganda receiving Aid? So we must not be so blind not to see “Black” and “Gay” are not in the same boat of oppression.
A law’s principles are valid only if the logic can be explained across similar situations. Can consenting adults do polygamy marriages in the West? So what logic gives “consenting” gays the right but it stops short of being extended to consenting incestuous couples or polygamous couples. Because with the argument that supported “Rights” for Africans in America, can be applied to other marginalized races. There are no double standards in rights for say Native Americans, or Koreans or Arabs.
PRIORITY – HIJACKING- BUYING BLACKS
If the Negro is not careful he will drink in all the poison of modern civilization and die from the effects of it– Marcus Garvey
Gay rights campaign has gained so much power that it dominates discussions, conferences set-up to hear other world issues. They have co-opted the likes of Wole Soyinka (with empty child like emotional arguments) into their scheme, and Desmond Tutu, NAACP, Jay-Z, Corey Booker, Tyra Banks, Russell Simmons, Jesse Jackson, Coretta Scott King, Rev. Delman Coates, Kerry Washington, Alicia Keys, Will Smith, John Legend, Vanessa Williams, the list is pretty long, and careers are at risk. Black Hollywood is not known for being bold on any political issue, so it is strange they are so “outspoken” on this one. They have a stern punishment for African Americans who dare go against them. So the message is clear, support or your career will be buried (they tried to block Prince because he said no to gay marriage on religious grounds). They are good at co-opting weak and compromised White appointed “heroes” to do their bidding. And the wise of the world should be “hip” to this obvious agenda, it is beyond suspicious this Black-focus, when African Americans are no significant part of the voting population, so why the focus on Black celebrities and organizations?
Weak people (and groups), take strong positions on weak issues.
So if a conference is held on “African education” or “Civil rights” gay rights campaigners boycot it because one of the attendance is from Uganda, or opposes gay marriage. This distract critical energy from worthy causes because of the selfishness of gay rights priority in everything. So because African American’s such as Walter Fauntroy has is anti- gay marriage, that causes something non-related to be disturbed. Hijacking agendas and spaces set for other issues to push the gay rights agenda at the expense of more pressing concerns. Is this right? So an MLK event is disturbed not by the issues critical to MLK or the African people, but because of gay rights agendas and who should be allowed to attend. Using the gay rights issue to shut down or distract from people’s entire work and relevance.
“Codify discrimination or hatred into the law.” — NAACP. Discrimination is a natural part of a law, or else it would not be a law at all. The law that says children cannot vote, the law that says they cannot smoke, there is a law that says only women get maternity leave, the old have certain privileged access, there is a entire aspect of law which can be read as discriminatory– if one was so inclined. It is a null argument, it is almost like discussing “freedom” when there is no government that has a “do as you please constitution.” What shapes any society is do’s and don’t’s. These simplification of complex issues is beyond flippant it is deceit. The African American community has been strategically targeted, being an oppressed community. So, Black men and women can get married, then why cant gays? Anyone studying basic argument techniques would identify this false analogy. African Americans are a race of people of African origin, gay is a sexual orientation. Where is the similarity? Being an African and being a gay have no relationship other than the fact that the later is exploiting a former people to service their objective: piggybacking on a moral ethical liberation to extend all manner of immorality.
Furthermore, the issue is most certainly not whether people with a homosexual orientation are full human beings. A two-year-old is a full human being even though, at that age, he is not eligible for marriage. The “right” to marry whomever one chooses is not what makes a person a human being. Nature precedes politics –Donald DeMarco 
QUESTIONS FOR THE PRO-GAY LOBBY
Before commenting on this article review and answer these questions to avoid off-topics, straw man (arguing points not made by the authors) and fine point debates.
- Hijacking agendas and spaces set for other issues to push the gay rights agenda at the expense of more pressing concerns. Is this right?
- Contrary to popular myth studies have noted adverse affects of Homosexual parents.(oxymoron). 
- People who oppose anything these gay these days get Death threats, See Homosexual Rupert Everett. But yet media shows gays as the victims.
- With the focus on getting what non-gays have, why has HIV and other health concerns directly associated with a homosexual lifestyle been neglected? Esp. when the affect Black men.
- The most important question is are we (Africans) free as intelligent human beings to completely disagree with the Gay-right position? Can we as intelligent people formulate opinions and attitudes of our own? Just like the gay rights have done. Or must we be forced to agree to their arguments? Is this then not supremacy? Because you are saying you are right and we are wrong and backward. But we disagree, respect that disagreement.
- “Are you saying that Western notions of human rights should impose on African notions of human rights, Is the West our teacher (still)? Especially with the threat of withdrawal of “aid” See Barbados offended by British Imposition.
- How do we insure that Right To Protect (RtoP) is not abused to become the new instrument of neocolonialism? A way of gaming the system to continue the old Western imperialism of making the ways of the West the ways of the world. Where Western interest are mask behind policy. (Like in Libya)
- Despite the democratic majority in South Africa being practitioners of Polygyny, it has far less status and rights than gay marriage, something which is a taboo (even among the leadership). What kind of democratic representation is that?
- Natural morality informs some homosexuals that it is a “sin.” is it right to tell them “no it is the conditioning of the society, you should accept and enjoy your homosexuality?” How can this be the solution when some people of their own conscious take issue with their homosexual desires? Not every homosexual wants to be gay, and the gay rights campaign is adding to the conflict of these people by creating further polarization. If they want to be “cured” do they not have that right? Why pressure them to be gay if it is not desired? Where are the studies that help those who actually do not want to be gay?
- Many groups (pedophiles, Objektophil, Fat discrimination advocates, etc) are using the exact same argument of civil rights to allow incestuous marriages and pedophile. What is the difference between their arguments and the gay rights argument for recognitions, isn’t discrimination discrimination? Or do we belittle their so-called rights?
- Intervening in Rwanda (which Europe did not do) is not the same as intervening in gay rights. Homosexuality is a moral issue which is against the self-determination of the majority of African people. Under the blanket of “right to invention” it can be used to justify any imposition. Civil rights is not gay rights, right to marry a man is not a human rights issue for Africans.
- Are you therefore saying that individual sexual rights by default should always ascend group rights? If principle objection on moral, religious and cultural grounds exist by the majority why should they not object to it?
- “Why does the gay lobby always oversimplify the problem, as “we just want what you want”? when every year they gain ground into new territories? Passionate language to hide the reality of homosuperiority.
- “Are you denying Africa’s right to carve out its own moral path in this world?”
- “Are Africans only civilized once they have assimilated all of the habits and customs of the West?”
- “Does plurality not give us the right to disagree and enforce the majority moral sensibility which is against promoting or nursing of so-called gay rights?”
- “Is the religious orientation of the democratic majority to be disregarded to allow unions, which are against those majority values?”
- “Do Western gay pressure groups have the right to impose policy on sovereign African countries which have democratic process?”
- “Does the West not have an impossibly long history of destructive interference in the people potential of Africans?”
- Are organizations not singing the “gay rights” anthem not denied funding? Regardless of the good work they do in critical areas?
- 1000s of women are raped in Africa, is it fair to then focus on the absolute minority that are victims of “corrective rape”, as if this is so widespread in Africa? Is it only “noteworthy” when gay women are raped?
- “Does the Gay lobby not have a “win” at any price policy, by blocking and persecuting it detractors. Is this how the values of democracy are enshrined? Absence of criticism is tyranny. Yet the webspace, media space, film space is dominated by one position. Disagree and lose your job, or your fan base. Deliberately excluding all quality critique? Nothing is spared not God, and not culture. Even the word “natural” and “normal” should be redefined to accommodate a sexual abnormality”
AUTHENTIC AFRICAN POSITION
The overall African philosophy is that life and the reproduction of life sit at the core of human society. Men and women have children who ritualized their parents and ancestors. In the process of building community, African culture has no place, no category and no concept that can accommodate homosexuality as a way of life because it does not fit with the view that humans should reproduce in order to be remembered for eternity — Molefi Asante
If you wanted an alternative voice on Palestine, you could find many views, the war in Iraq, Libya and on and on. When it comes to the gay rights issue everything seems to be pro-gay in mainstream media with no honest representation or balance. The claim to authenticity is proven by the very lack of position papers such as this one. Because where is this disapproval with homosexuality in African societies represented? Where is the plethora of scholars sharing this position? Now they must exist since we see widespread condemnation in Ghana, Uganda, Nigeria, Ethiopia and Kenya, to name just a few. And why is African disagreement with homosexuality selectively expressed by the pro-gays by citing the hard stance of Robert Mugabe or the lyrics of Buju Banton? Why only the positions which are easily attacked as “violent”, “passionate” and “homophobic”? The gay lobby position is that; Africa is the worst place on Earth to be gay. Angela Davis, who is bisexual, is so appalled by this “homophobic” crown, she states that:
The assumption that somehow people from the Global South, people of colour are more homophobic, is a racist assumption… If you consider the extent to which the ideological structures of homophobia, of transphobia, or heteropatriarchy are embedded in our institutions, the assumption that one group of people is going to be more homophobic than another group of people misses the mark.– Angela Davis
Yet despite this it is very hard to find a principled paper categorically dealing with the homosexual issue. Between the supposedly authentic “African” news agencies Fahmu, AllAfrica etc you only get the pro-Gay “leave us alone” position. And it is not that positions such as this do not exist, but the gay lobby have selectively being focusing and nominating which opinions to challenge. Many are shouting “no” but they do not have the same platform.”Bye bye in a Batty boy head” and “Gays need to repent and seek salvation in Jesus Christ our savior” is a far easier target to tackle than: “Homosexuality is at odds with the pro-life systems inherent in African culture(s). Western neo-liberalism is an imperialist imposition on African agency and attempts to stifle plurality” So since Africa today is generally against homosexuality, then clearly the authors of this document represent the majority. In other words, most people in Africa would find more agreement with the content of this document than against it.
- A threat to African cultural and moral integrity
- Homosexuality is a taboo, for one, because the body of the homosexual’s lover belongs to the same category as his own (against the design of nature and God consciousness)
- A deliberate attempt to effeminize African males, prisons, Hollywood always target African men and in some way efeminize them or reduce their malesness.
- Hijacking other issues to push gay rights. 
- Hollywood is active in promoting a “new gay image” of African Americans.
- Polygyny is criminalize in the West, but gay marriage is not
- Minorities cannot redefine the tradition of marriage
- Using anti-violence campaigns to promote homosexuality
- Political correctness is deceiving an sanitizing reality with harmful consequences.
- A neo-liberal imposition
- Using “Gay rights” as the standard for modernity and advanced societies.
- Downlow culture among African-American men brings home HIV
- Marketing gay culture to desensitize people who are naturally repulsed by gay sex.
- Used as another form of racist denial of African agency (saving Africa)
- A burden on African self-determination
- Gateway to immorality | Public decency infringement
- Over extending so-called “human rights”
- Demonizing cultures and faiths which do not support gay anything
- Misusing Gay rights under the banner of human rights (marriage etc.)
- Creating agendas which are low priority at the expense of more urgent issues
- Political interference in sovereign countries
- Redefinition of marriage a form of corruption of our cherished institutions
- Right to adopt with unknown psychological consequences
- Adding to the immorality and over sexualized society
- Health risk, African men are more at risk from anal cancer , They also have a higher mortality
- Detrimental to our peoplehood
- Politically stifling plurality and critique
- An attack on Democracy by persecuting any who oppose homosexual lifestyle
It is a human right for a people to shape those things which they believe are critical to the way they decide to define their humanity and the cultural process of that humanity. We are defined not by our black skin but by our values. Africans are not only people with dark color, we are people with specific cultures. To keep alive the traditions which best represent that which makes us unique and defines our African orientation and sensibility: These things are self-determined. African culture is generally at odds with homosexuality. Principled moral disagreement with a life style which is taboo. African values cannot be measured against European standards; which relies on humanistic and relativistic morals upon which it builds its ethical structure.
Nor should Africans, with these views, been perceived as backward, or hateful. Africans should not be persecuted for voicing opposition to the work of the Gay lobby, as what is happening in our communities under threat of losing your job, your fan base and your support.
This is a form of terrorism and political blackmail; it is therefore a core violation of the ‘rights’ pro-gay use in their argument. The casual association with all forms of disagreement as a form of hate, violence and homophobia is a gross violations of human rights appeal which are set-up to protect instances where those crimes do actually occur. And as oppose to labelling actually violence, they are using it as a political tool to drag down all plurality.
We are living in a hyper-sexualized society, and this sexual lens is being used to process, with undue weight, many policies, positions and attitudes in all areas of study. Homosexuality is just one such aspect of this trend where sex is the new buzz word- everything linked to sex is high priority (FGM for example). So in this sexualized world, it is in Africa’s health interest to avoid any and everything which exacerbated Africa’s moral and cultural demise. For it is these moral-cultural structures that has preserved African humanity and human rights for so long.
And it is not for Tarzan to dictate to Africa how we construct notions of human rights and morality. Africans, such as the authors of this paper, are fully capable of realizing, determining and articulating the values and positions which we hold sacred. The assault on African agency and intelligence is an overspill of the neo-colonialist attitude towards a childlike people in need of moral schooling: And this contempt for African intellect is racist.
You notice when the West talks about Gay rights “advances” in Africa they always mention South Africa as the “model”, well here are some other “models” we pray the rest of Africa never copies from South Africa: Rape capital of the World, highest crime in Africa, deeply immoral society, highest abortion rates per capita in Africa, white wealth 80%, terrible economic and social apartheid, non-representative democracy and the highest alcohol consumption in the world. It is funny that the most immoral country in Africa is also the one with the “gay marriage”, while there is no direct correlation is it is clearly part of its immoral package.
A few notable times in history we listen to Europe’s version of what was good for Africa:
1. we ended up enslaved,
2. We ended up as colonial subjects,
3. we ended up in apartheid,
4. We ended up in serious debt,
5. We became victims of globalization and under development.
The one last thing we have still standing is our CULTURE.
“Gay rights” linguistically looks like “Civil rights” and has been intentionally stealing sympathysolely on this bases. But regardless of the linguistic similarities, civil rights and gay rights are radically different in their moral and humanist foundations. Gay Rights, is a word in heavy circulation, but what does it mean “Gay rights”, are there some special rights which should only be afforded to gays? Entire campaigns and arguments are solely reliant on this awkward construction. Do gay rights mean the right to be gay? And who should grant that right? In most countries no one is stopping what happens in private? Or does it mean the right to have children, a right denied by nature? Human rights already protect all human beings from persecution and abuse. So what are the values of gay rights that some people blindly jump on the bandwagon and support? What should communities do when the majority rights are threatened by minority gay rights? And where does it end? Can gay rights be so overextended that it imposes itself in the classroom, in areas held sacred by the majority? There is no “rights” when it comes to the recognition of marriage by cultures and the state. For the vast majority of Africans there is no “right” to be gay, it is offensive that two men should have “rights” to protect what is morally “wrong.” The right for two men to mount and sodomize each other is hidden in the most beautiful human rights arguments, all masking the reality that we are speaking about an act which is anti-human. The right to safety, security, the right to worship all hug the central values of our humanity. What are the specific additional rights nested in this vague oxymoron?
It is almost amazing to see European nations, who allow all kinds of same-sex marriage under the banner of “human rights,” then take issue with a Muslim woman’s head-dress (Hijab) as a source of “cultural tension” (in Italy) or incompatible with our values (Jack Straw, UK). The same Europe that criminalise what dress it’s minorities can wear in France is screaming gay rights at Africa.
In Africa we do not impose what head dress Muslim women can wear. And why if two men can get married is polygyny still criminalise? What arguments justify bigamy laws across many Western nations that now allow homosexual marriage? Polygyny is criminalized in the West, and carries a prison term and yet they fly the banner of “choice” and human rights in the face of the rest of the world. These are the questions which fly in the face of what most Africans see as a farce.
Just because a few people stand up in the street and shout “RIGHTS” doesn’t mean the entire canon of human culture shifts to accommodate. “Human Rights” can be used by any group to achieve anything, however ridiculous. So screaming rights neither adds or takes away merit. Merit in human rights is in the domain of the majority cultures which wade through all kinds of considerations before granting merit. And since we, humanity, are the vicegerents on Earth we can only look to ourselves to resolve these issue.
As African people, the historical relationship between the African man and woman has been the bedrock of African civilization building and greatness. In the millennia preceding Christianity and Islam, African worldviews, rituals, art, language and works of wisdom celebrated the complementary relationship between the male and the female. After Christianity and Islam nothing has changed in respect to the centrality of life and pro-life systems. The harvest, the coming of the rains, the pouring of libation to the ancestors all speaks to the continuity of the life processes. According to Dr Molefi Kete Asante; professor at Temple University, USA: “the overall African philosophy is that life and the reproduction of life sit at the core of human society. Men and women have children who ritualize their parents and ancestors. In the process of building community, African culture has no place, no category and no concept that can accommodate homosexuality as a way of life because it does not fit with the view that humans should reproduce in order to be remembered for eternity”. He goes on to state “Nothing is more important than the cycle of life from the unborn to the ancestors; anything that breaks that cycle, such as homosexuality as a way of life, threatens the very core of African society and philosophy.” (Quoted from The Encyclopedia of African Religion)
Most African people have no concept of the political goals and aspirations of the homosexual movement because homosexuality is a taboo topic that we usually try to ignore. Many of us believe that as long as it is not in our faces, there is no problem. However, when we investigate and explore the political ramifications of this Euro-American expression of sexual aggression, we discover that it is having a profound impact on the lives and future of African peoples. But before we proceed we have to addresses some fundamentals such as the language and concepts we use to engage in this conversation.
He who defines the terms controls the debate and by extension, public opinion. On this issue the terms have already been defined (in many cases invented) by the talented sophists of the “gay” movement. Sophistry, is the ancient Greek art of persuasion by subtly false reasoning. This is not about equal rights. This is not even about us forcing our views on someone else. This is about the legitimacy of African peoples and people of African heritage to even hold a differing point of view about the normality and acceptability of homosexuality; thereby denying the majority of Africans the freedom to practice and advance our cultures as well as to oppose cultural norms, beliefs and practices which we do not agree with or find socially acceptable.
The homosexual discussion in Africa is driven by Western interests, not African interests. Given all the other pressing socio-economic considerations that Africans are facing, homosexuality is not a top priority for the peoples of Africa. The exportation of Western mass media products all over the world is producing the one-way flow of messages or media products as a form of cultural dominance over African people. Media promotes the messages of Euro-American imperialism and ideological propaganda. One of the concerns is that it causes real damage through disruption of basic social and cultural institutions such as African sex and family norms which is having a deleterious effect on African communities. Ultimately, the value conflicts between the pro-homosexual lobby and those that oppose the rampant homo-sexualisation of society under the misguided notion of ‘tolerance’ is a battle to shape the minds of society, and ultimately the moral climate of our future.
This is about the legitimacy of African peoples to hold a differing point of view, and to have the freedom to choose what moral standards we desire to live and raise our families by. There is a growing trend in this country to indoctrinate people to the homosexual lifestyle. This goes beyond allowing them their freedom of choice.
As part of their ideological psycho-spiritual arsenal, there has been an attempt to impose the sexual mores and meanings of Euro-American societies unto Africans. We cannot therefore underestimate the power and influence of the Western which, continues to impose western norms of sexuality onto African and African Diaspora societies. This is another form of cultural imperialism.
In different cultures (and at different historical moments or conjunctures within the same culture) very different meanings are given to same-sex activity both by society at large and by the individual participants. The physical acts might be similar, but the social construction of meanings around them is profoundly different. It follows that Western homosexuality as an identity is a recent (as a nineteenth-century) Western historical construction. Evidence of the existence of homosexuality amongst Africans as a sexual practice express quite different beliefs, causes and meanings and social priorities to the Euro-American homosexual identity and agenda.
HOMOSEXUALITY IN ANCIENT AFRICA
Philosophical methods are well suited for unpacking the political, ontological, and epistemological conditions that foster racism and hold white supremacy in place. However, on the whole, philosophy as a discipline has remained relatively untouched by interdisciplinary work on race and whiteness. In its quest for certainty, Western philosophy continues to generate what it imagines to be colorless and genderless accounts of knowledge, reality, morality, and human nature. –Alison Baile
The plethora of pro-gay websites and pro-gay celebrities supporting a position which supports the gay rights gives the illusion of conclusiveness to this study: That Africa is overtly “homophobic”, because of the colonialist, and that homosexual being introduced by Europeans to corrupt African culture is now a myth – according to their new orientalist research. The new pro-gay assertion is that homophobia was introduced by the colonialist, and that Ancient Africa was as gay as they come. Now just because homosexuality exists in tiny micro-pockets of ancient Africa does not invalidate the fact that colonialism and the habits of the colonialist didn’t bring another type of homosexuality; homosexuality as a distinct lifestyle for example.
Across Africa now and then sexual relationships have been imposed upon by certain cultural taboos. For example in Ethiopia, and most of modern Africa overt display of affection is culturally frowned on. While in Europe it is not uncommon to see two people tongue kissing in public. All kinds of sexuality related habits are governed by the majority culture of a specific location. It would be fair to say that modesty is the over riding theme in African sexuality in the public space.
Edward Said’s work on Orientalism is related to the idea of the subaltern in that it explains the way in which Orientalism produced the foundation and the justification for the domination of the Other through colonialism. Europeans, Said argues, created an imagined geography before European exploration through predefined images of savage and monstrous places that lay outside of the known world. During initial exploration of the Orient these mythologies were reinforced as travelers brought back reports of monsters and strange lands. In the case of Africa the image that was formulated worked for the agendas best suited to creating justifications for exploitation via the misapplication of Eurocentric Christianity.
* Africa had no issue with homosexuality, Europeans made Africans homophobic, since Africans have no agency. Now ‘good Europeans’ want to reverse what their ancestors did by teaching Africans about how to be better humans —like Europeans.
The idea of difference and strangeness of the Orient continued to be perpetuated through media and discourse creating an “us” and “them” binary through which Europeans defined them by defining the differences. This laid the foundation for colonialism by presenting the African as backward and irrational and therefore in need of help to become modern in the European sense. Today, with a change in so-called moral direction, Africa is again on the receiving end of notions of primitive desperately in need of reform by the superior Tarzan of Europe. This new relative morality paints the Africa as misaligned to modern advanced values of same-sex orientation. Again, African agency is attacked by suggesting all the opinions in Africa are the result of European imposition, the irony is those using this argument fail to see that they are the neo-European imposition, trying to impose European notions of human rights on a people they see as backward. The overview of this problem can be said to be:
homosexuality in traditional Africa that Murray cites.
I have not been an adulterer, homosexual or child molester–Book of the Coming Forth by Day
EUROCENTRIC ANTHROPOLOGICAL AGENDAS
Alan Merrian says “homosexual behavior was absent from the Bala men”, and then discussed Kitesha, a gender defined role, as homosexual. This contradiction is ironically cited in both Murrays work verbatim as in Murray’s book (almost a copy and paste job). But according to other anthropologists, who actually claim to witness these habits, did not find it noteworthy especially when these behaviors do not constitute an institutionalized aspect of the group. Here we see James Neill impose his Eurocentrism and double standards by stating that the general anti-homosexual culture in Africa should be treated with skepticism. But which one is it? Is Africa “homophobic” or is it “running wild with closet gays”? They seem to be in limbo and surf on the side of the logic which bolsters their argument; when the suits their desires.
African culture, as stated throughout the course of this document, is generally at odds with homosexual behavior. This cultural principled moral objection is also in the historical records and exist outside of Western, Eastern, Islamic, Christian, Westernization processes.
The anthropologic revisionist are actually making the case for us. Yes, homosexuality existed in African communities, a very few. And on extremely rare exception it was an institutionalized part of the culture. Outside of that when it occurred it was not in any way shape our form identical to the homosexualized cultures of gays in the West—a lifestyle and culture. They had no desire to take men over women, or marry men and live happily ever after. It was usually an adolescent phase which was opportunistic and quickly and urgently commuted as females became available. And in these rare instances there was no culture which encouraged it, and we must be clear on this to divorce practice from a people’s culture (Muslims drinking alcohol, for example, verses Islam’s prohibition: practice does not invalidate a cultural position.) So the entire study does nothing to Africa’s cultural position. How many boys and girls experiment with their cousins? Does this translate into the acceptance of incest in any society? Does the odd habit of baby rape in South Africa reflect a Zulu accommodation of this horrid tradition? How did the elders in Africa deal with wayward youth so sexually frustrated them sodomize each other due to an overwhelming heterosexual desire for a woman?
“The traditional Shona have no of the problems associated with homosexuality so obviously they must have a value method of bring up children, especially with regards to normal sex relations, thus avoiding anormaly so frequent in Western Society” (1979,201) – Michael Gelfand
Now Stephen Murray, an open homosexual, does something strange he discussed prevailing attitudes of ethnocentric as being all too evident in these writers. But how is that same attitude divorced from his revisionism and super imposition of a pro-gay oriented anthropological revisionism? Murray is afflicted by the same flaw all studies have—the bias of the writer. In the clouds we all see faces which look like us. But Stephen Murray is an open homosexual? And would it surprise anyone to know he has been spending his career inserting homosexuality into every culture where it is traditionally taboo? His scholarship has only one objective, and that is the pro-gay agenda, and pretty academic text decorated with spot-research seems always, without exception, to makes the entire world glow pink. He has done it with Islam, and now with Africa. Anything and anyone who can be put in his little pink box he applies his gay-logic to. So Chaka Zulu didn’t have a wife = can only mean he was gay. Is that serious logic that the Greeks would be proud of? And in this world the consequences of suggestion is all it takes for people to go from “Shaka maybe was gay” to “Chaka was gay”- all based upon lies.
The sex-tourism of North Africa and East Africa, which flourishs by the habits of Europeans, cannot be assigned to “gay choice.” So it is possible for homosexuality in Africa to have multiply sources: and evidence of one (local) does not negate the merits of another (colonially imposition). And this is where we see that beyond male-male anal sex homosexuality in the west is a continuous lifestyle choice (two men marrying, living together, raising adopted children, living as men and women live). So in the mud of linguistics we need to clarify the specificity of the homosexuality so as not to cross-contaminate our study as many anthropologists have done. Mapping behaviors across cultures they do not understand is arrogance. The Wodaabe wear make-up and perform dances, which to the Western eye might make a connection to the transgender activities of their own culture. The significance of make-up and the antics of the Wodaabe are billions of cultural miles away from those of transgender, not only in intention but also in spirit.
The monolithic comprehension of African cultures is a direct left-over of colonial ignorance. And just because these books are well binded, printed on expensive paper, and reviewed in the New York Times does not add credentials to what is at best a Western fantasy and supremacist lens on African cultures. But the irony is the feedback, how these studies are read by “educated” Westernized African academics that in turn, being products of European institutions and methodologies, reproduce the identical Westernizations on their own culture.
Rites of passage are a critical aspect of African culture across the board, from Lesotho to the Swahili coast: The villages of Kenya (Kenyatta, Facing Mount Kenya) to the jungles of Congo. Puberty is the signal of adult hood, and ceremonies are made to denote that from now you are purely male or purely female. This stage is identical in many ancient communities and mirrored even in the Bible: When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Rites of passage are the critical stage in African development where adulthood is confirmed by the community. At this stage gender, sex roles, are clarified.
In the case of men training on manhood begins and in women training in femalehood begins. Lamb in 1982 commented that “it is curious by Western standards that homosexuality in Africa is virtually unknown…Africa’s traditions is rigidly heterosexual” (p37). While subsequent work by Appiah and Gates (Encyclopedia Africana) has shown communities which have elements of homosexuality. However these communities, when contrasted against the majority of Africa, in no way shape or form constitute anything close to even the assertions by Ben Anderson, and Murray, Roscoe, Pincheon. So Lamb in his observation only made one mistake “virtually”, the correct word would have been relatively unknown. Our findings show a taboo across the continent, as with most of the world. While Bafia people. At menstruation, young women were strictly segregated to avoid unplanned pregnancies; at this stage, they were known as “ngon”, or sexually inactive virgins. Some young men usually engaged in homosexuality during this stage and were known as “kiembe”, youths. In this instance we see homosexuality, as in prison, is due to a circumstance due to lack of access to women. None of these Bafia boys can be compared to the homosexual lifestyle of the typical Western gay.
Bafia people are one community heavily studied for homosexual habits. At menstruation, young women were strictly segregated to avoid unplanned pregnancies; at this stage, they were known as “ngon”, or sexually inactive virgins. Young men usually engaged in homosexuality during this stage and were known as “kiembe”, youths who don’t yet sexually associate with females. Many young men would develop a boyfriend type of relationship with a special lexan or “bosom buddy”. A man who attempted sex with a woman of the “ngon” stage could face torture or even being sold into slavery. He was free to pursue a fully adult woman. Tessmann stated that, “the youth at this stage is rarely successful, since there is much competition. Now what is the motives for homosexuality here? can this society be mapped to the gay community of California? Are the sexual motives not out of duress? Would any of these Bafia boys pick a man if a woman was available? This is homosexuality out of circumstance. It cannot be used to support tolerance. No more than men having sex in prison can be used to suggest that these men are gays. Anal sex between men is one thing, being a homosexual with an hard wired sexual orientation for men is completely different. And it is dishonest to confuse them as being part of a homosexual monolith. (see Monolith)
The majority cultural definition of marriage is exclusively male-female. Those values are then communicated in the institutionalize law to form the codes which govern our African societies and best reflect our sensitivities and orientation. As marriage is a sacred act defined by a society it is not a human right but a human privilege. Two dogs cannot get married; a man and a cat cannot get married. Brother and sister cannot get married because our societies deem these types of unions incompatible with the institution of marriage. These are just the many good limitations that have protected marriage, and have restrict us and our children from those harmful arrangements that may look like marriage but just aren’t. Our human civilizations are built on foundations which secure certain standards critical to our humanity – marriage is just one of those age old human values. A sophisticated system created via the intelligence of those who went before us. There is nothing to be gained by corrupting the definition of marriage to accommodate a minority who are culturally, morally and spiritually at odds with the majority of African people.
The Diagnostics and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has been the resource to diagnose mental health disorders since 1952. From 1952 until 1973 The DSM Manual classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1973, with the sixth printing of the second edition of the DSM, homosexuality was reclassified as normal behavior. However, in 2001 psychiatrist Dr. Robert Spitzer, who in 1973 originally led the team to normalize homosexuality in the diagnostic manual, conceded that “reorientation therapy” (a patient/client’s efforts to diminish unwanted homosexual attractions and behaviors and/or develop one’s heterosexual potential through professional and/or religiously-mediated change efforts) can be effective.
Usually both the opponents of homosexual and homosexuals base their arguments in the notion of a Gay monolith, that homosexual is a singular experience. We also need to identify the segments and personalities of homosexuality—they are not all the same. The processes which create the different stratification of homosexual then bears out that the understanding of homosexuality must not be monolithic. In Deconstructing the dynamics of behaviors which are labeled homosexual gay and lesbian it is critical to understand that the conditions creating Homosexuality are not the same, so therefore also the arguments and social consequences and engagement cannot be the same (monolithic). If for example a person is a homosexual because of trauma, say a woman was raped and then caught in a series of violent abusive relationships with men.
Her reaction, or coping mechanisms, cause her to seek same-sex lesbian relationships as a mechanism to dealing with that trauma. This not her natural orientation but a consequence of a series of abuse. it is destructive to continue to impose it on them as a choice. Because the reason there are homosexual is because of an reaction to a deep seated trauma. Continuing to feel victimized by that trauma does not heal them, it buries the self-hatred with a mask of “its okay to be gay”. In this situation treatment is critical and counseling to repair the damage of rape, abuse etc. to restore them to their lifestyle had the abuse or trauma not taken place.
- Trauma Gays – Created by abuse or homosexual rape, reacting to their abuse
- Circumstance/opportunistic gays: Prisons, boarding schools and other unnatural environments
- Natural Gays (People born with a sexual confusion who are hard wired to same sex attraction). Genetic sexual disorder
- Freak gays – cosmetic gay (I kissed a girl and I liked it, lip stick lesbians created by porn industry and lustful experimentation)
- Capitalistic Gays, a type of circumstance gay created by sex tourism and desperation due to poverty
Reports of closet homosexuality in the Black community suggest that highest cause of HIV in women is from closet (DL) homosexual husbands. Gay rights advocates blame the communities’ intolerance for the need for these men to keep their closet gayness a secret; which under duress is expressed in secret liaisons. So the suggested solution to the issue is for a more tolerant African-American community. It is a poor argument to allow something in order to accommodate ones weaknesses; it is identical to the drug dilemma. People want to do something bad so we should take away the shame so they can use drugs in public and not risk themselves? No. Morals stand for a higher reason.
Do these “down low” brothers want to give up their married life and their families? No they don’t. So they do not fit into the closet gay template. These are men who want the best of both worlds. Church on Sunday with the wife and kids, hot gay unprotected sex in the small hours of Sunday night. So what should we do? Let them be openly gay and also openly family men? Why is the burden on the African-American community to embrace this vile habit that is not only a gay issue (1) but a fidelity issue (2) and a responsibility issue (3)? The community has every right to treat this behavior as a clear and present threat to its integrity and take appropriate steps to identify and excommunicate these people.
And one thing we must clarify as it often gets lost in the gay debate. Homosexuality is exclusively sex between people of the same sex. Homosexuality is not orgies, it is not promiscuity, it is not adultery, and it is not group sex. These are all separate issues. And part of the self-inflicting stigma of gays is the association with homosexuality and all kinds of other sexual practices. In other words some gays are monogamous and faithful to their partners and might not even have anal sex. We must look at these things in isolation and in union depending on the circumstance. Down low behavior is not just a gay issue in this context.
Can you have both worlds? The perfect husband and the perfect gay weekend lover? Most of these men are not just closet gays who married women and raise children because of pressure to conform from a homophobic community. They are simply freaks who like the rush from the closet sex and who bask in the taboo and novelty of the same-sex experience.
Shame is not the only reason why they sneak around on their wives with other men. And on that note, shame is a very important emotion in human civilization. Can you imagine a world without shame? Maybe that’s why in the Diaspora we can have 3 unmarried women with 5 children and not feed our own children because we have lost our shame. We have enough family issues and now we must add homosexuality as if our families are not destroyed enough.
SIN 1 – Homosexuality is at odds with things necessary to rebuild the African family.
SIN 2 – Adultery is a violation of marriage vows and every community has a right to root out this practice. We must note that Polygamy is not a form of adultery.
SIN 3 – Irresponsibility. While pro-gay reports suggest that HIV is coming from down-low brothers it then makes a jump and suggest the communities intolerance is ultimately to blame. Now what does this “community intolerance” have to do with wearing a condom during anal sex?
They are gay/bi-sexual (one thing) they are still enjoying marriage (another thing), They are also very rarely having homosexual sex with one partner. (again an issue that has nothing to do with gay-rights or so-called community homophobia). So HIV is getting into the marriage bed because of a sick and vulgar irresponsibility that is 100% disconnected from so-called community homophobia or so-called gay rights.
Also many of these reports are another attempt to terrorize the Black community and constantly bombard and create issues which poke at African inherent moral culture which is anti-homosexual life style. It is an attempt to tear the family apart and create suspicion, and to fan issues and suggest that in every Black home is a closet down low brother.
Normalizing is the usage of language to suit one’s rhetoric to the widest possible audience, without losing relevant information in the process . In government and business jargon is used to encrypts morally suspect information in order to mitigate reactions to it: for example, the almost benign phrase “collateral damage” to refer to the manslaughter of innocents. Homophobia is a political term used to lump all disagreement into a box painted as a form of racism.
“Language is a fundamental tool for shaping identity and community, including the expression (or repression) of sexual desire. Speaking in Queer Tongues investigates the tensions and adaptations that occur when processes of globalization bring one system of gay or lesbian language into contact with another.Western constructions of gay culture are now circulating widely beyond the boundaries of Western nations due to influences as diverse as Internet communication, global dissemination of entertainment and other media, increased travel and tourism, migration, displacement, and transnational citizenship. 
Linguistics today is used as a tool for politically maneuvering. We see words like homophobia, a word that is a neologism created in the American sub-culture in 1969 and has no parallel in any African language or ideology; and hence alien to the African paradigm. Correspondingly, being homophobic tends to manifest itself through an outward demonstration or behavior based on such a feeling. This, in turn, sometimes leads to acts of violence or expressions of hostility. The truth is that homophobia is not just confined to any one segment of society. But the real fact of the matter is that the term homophobic is merely a “politically correct” scheme used by homosexual activists and supporters in their attempts to deflect a genuine criticism .
These are political terms used to stall any form of plural disagreement, creating a third rail. Collapsing racism, oppression, civil rights, bias and homophobia is a tactic to give gravity to a neologism. It sets up the perfect straw man argument where any opposition to homosexuality is used to imply an attitude of gross violence and deep hatred. The introduction of two equal terms, homosexual and Heterosexual, for sexual preference is to normalize homosexuality as an equal reality. Just like the direction terms ‘left and right’, where ‘left’ or ‘right’ has no real social superiority.
All of this has to be stated to appreciate the power of language and thought and the power to alter human perception and expression. Now oppressing homosexuals is very separate from disagreeing with homosexuality, clearly, there is a fine line but oppression and disagreement should never be collapsed. Having laws which penalize homosexuality are borderline because one argument is that a society must construct laws to protect the culture of the majority. Which in itself is a primary human right any group should protect.
Behavioral scientists William O’Donohue and Christine Caselles concluded that the usage of the term homophobia “as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions.” The term, like antisemtic, is used as an ad hominem argument against those who advocate values or positions of which the user does not approve. As far as homophobia goes the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, states, “Technically, however, the term actually denotes a person who has a phobia — or irrational fear — of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled homophobia.
HOMOPHOBIA AND THE POLITICAL-LINGUISTIC LANDSCAPE
As mentioned previously a definition of homophobia is hard to find. This has been noted previously by Baraff(1984) who concludes the same. After some searching he settles for the definition of homophobia as: “Homophobia: literally, a phobia about men who are threatened by overt male homosexuality” (P89).
An internet search of ‘phobias’ produced many sites yet a definition or description of homophobia remained elusive. One short definition did come from Culbertson (1995) – “Homophobia – fear of sameness, monotony or of homosexuality or of becoming homosexual”.
More insight into the term ‘homophobia’ is provided by Keeton & Gould(1986) . In the biological sciences terms like ‘hydrophobic’ and ‘hydrophilic’ are used. In the term ‘hydrophobic’ we have the Greek roots of hydro – “water” and phobos – “fear’. On the other hand we have hydrophilic molecules meaning “water-loving”. This however is problematic because we have represented in these two terms the concepts of ‘loving vs fearing’. These are meant to represent opposites. However according to Schwarz(1991) and Foreman(1971), the antonym of ‘love’ is hate or loathing. It is not fear. The antonym of ‘fear’ is courage or unconcern. It is not love. It should be noted that in the English language there are very few true antonyms, most are approximations. However, love and fear are not even approximate opposites or antonyms.
One dictionary definition of ‘phobia’ is, “an irrational fear or hatred of something”. “A very strong dislike of something”[P1075], Sinclair(1987). The synonyms for ‘phobia’ are words such as – dislike, dread, fear, hatred.
This demonstrates that there are two concepts for the term ‘phobia’. The first being dislike and hate which are more of the angry family of feelings. Second there is fear or anxiety which are the scared family of feelings. This is further supported by the Chapman(1977) who actually separates the synonyms for ‘phobia’ into two distinct groups – one being ‘fear’, and a second being ‘hated thing’.
These ‘literary’ definitions are generally at odds with the technical definitions which equate phobia only with anxiety and fear. The idea of hatred is not included as such in the DSM-III and DSM-IV. An arachnophobic fears spiders he does not hate spiders. A phobia is not an angry or oppositional condition it is an anxiety condition.
An individual may fear an object but not hate or dislike it. Alternatively and individual may hate an object and clearly not fear it. Indeed some individuals who hate something may actively seek it which the phobic rarely does. For example some people hate or dislike homosexuals and will actively seek them in order to assault them. Hardly phobic avoidance!
Finally a search of the TAJ for the last 10 years shows that ‘homophobia’ is only mentioned in one sentence in a discussion of AIDS patients. “Underlying homophobia and self-hatred may surface, and they may experience themselves as pariahs even to other gay men”[P180], Simerly & Karakashian(1989). They do not discuss the definition or what the concept entails.
For such a small population the gay issue is the third rail in Western politics. They have completely used every tool possible to defend and expand their homosexual ideology. Far more than being a bedroom choice gay is the new political power. This power expresses itself in all areas of people activity in the Western World. The wealth of the homosexuals influences Google ranking So a search “Homosexuality is a sin” return more results from gays than from religious communities. As a tactic bombardment is an art of warfare. Saturate every possible argument with distractions, straw man arguments and everything in your arsenal to hide anyone but the determined gaining access to information.
There is no need to mention the domination of gay issues in Hollywood. Every opportunity is used regardless of genre (V for Vendetta, Trembling before G-D, Tongues Tied, Law and Order, American Beauty, Constant Gardener, Alexander (Oliver Stone) ADD LIST) to project the agendas of the gay rights movement. And like in the character of Agent Smith in the fictional film the Matrix the issue is starting to consume everything and every priority in its path and is unstoppable and self-replicating at the expense of every other concern. Fighting hard and blind for any and everything, the new extremist fundamentalist have gone so far as to say God is homophobic and religious is a violation of their humanity
So pervasive and dominate is this power that it is next to impossible to find the truth and do authentic impartial research on the gay issue. The first 10 pages of google are dominated by every domain the gay lobby has purchased. Every conceivable combination (Gays of Jesus), Homosexual and Christian.com, Gay Heroes, Black gays, gay and art, etc is snatched up for the full time promotion of a gay lifestyle. The gay domain ownership is 1000 more times more than African-American ownership of domain names related to their lifestyles.
If any phrase which is typed into google looking for arguments against homosexuality is it swamped with pages of pro-homosexuality content. This is the nature of the deliberate war of information starvation and then supplanting that void with one vantage point, one set of arguments.
Media is used to collapse the rights of African people and gays into one similar civil rights issue. A sexual choice now has more political power than the rights of a race of people. Gay is the new civil rights but unlike the African-American civil rights struggle homosexuals are winning every single argument in the political world. They are winning cases of unfair dismissal and wasting gay as a gay-card. Terrifying anyone who says boo to them as being homophobic. Tying up precious court time and public funds with an argument rooted in a life style choice. They have used the media to coopt the African-American celebrities into supporting their cause. Even priest such as Desmond Tutu and Al Sharpton. Who misrepresent the African community and play the obfuscating games and linguistic gymnastics around the issues and why it is an issue for African people.
Switzerland is considering repeal its incest laws to make sexual relations between family members legal. It claims the law is ‘obsolete’ and that the courts have dealt with just three cases since 1984. The upper house of the Swiss parliament has drafted a law de-criminalizing sex between adult consenting family members which must now be considered by the government.
If the argument of free will is used then this same argument can be applied to cultures who free will to have sex with minors and other socially harmful activities such as incest. The moral taboo of sex with minors and incest is no different to the arguments used by the gay lobby. The source of the opposition is moral repulsion. Some will cite age of consent, but age of consent is not a universal value, it is a legal term which has different values in time and location. Age of consent in old Arabia and ancient India might be 12 years old. So there is actually no moral objection to pedophilia only a legal argument which is only to do with age of consent . Now outside of age of consent what is the taboo associated with pedophilia? Legally the only thing which criminalizes or makes pedophilia a criminal act is the age of consent. So as long as the age of consent is shifted or removed so too goes the illegality of pedophilia. Clearly it is in the domain of how humans formulate moral values governing sexual relationships. And our societies generally find it taboo, and because of this taboo a legal age of consent is stipulated only to protect a moral argument. So the principle objection to homosexuality in African societies is a moral choice to eliminate and discourage behaviors which Africans seen as unacceptable an immoral.
What was pedophilia today will be “consenting adults” tomorrow. There are campaigns all over the West for the age of consent to be lowered and this is a euphemism for legalized pedophilia. It flies the same flag of Human rights and inclusion. But it just a sanitized way of being able to have porn with 16 year old boys and girls and say “consenting adults” the only barrier is at what age does someone become an adult conscious of their choices and consequences of their choices? Human rights and all the gay rights arguments also apply here. We must examine these social issues beyond the abstract names attached to their struggles for so-called liberation.
Why can’t we walk down the street naked, if we chose? Because a human chose must be weighed against the public sensitivity and orientation. The morals which contain communities and act as the fabric of their identities must be preserved. Santorum argued, “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery.”
A 2005 study of young people in New Zealand, published by 365Gay.com (not exactly part of the vast, right-wing conspiracy), showed that homosexuality is “associated with increasing rates of depression, anxiety, illicit drug dependence, suicidal thoughts and attempts. Gay males…have mental health problems five times higher than young heterosexual males.”
One of the nation’s leading AIDS researchers, Ron Stall, reported in the June 2003 edition of the American Journal of Public Health that homosexual conduct is associated with “higher rates of multiple drug use, depression [and ]domestic violence” than in the heterosexual population.
BMCPsychiatry in August of 2008 published the findings of a review of 13,000 (!) papers on the subject of homosexuality and mental health, with a focus on the 28 most rigorous studies, and concluded that lesbian, gay and bisexual people “are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse and deliberate self harm than heterosexual people.”
Homosexual activists want you to believe that all these mental disturbances are the result of homophobia and discrimination. But alas for this theory, a study in the Netherlands, probably the most homosexual-friendly place on planet earth, showed “a higher prevalence…of mood and anxiety disorders in homosexual men.” Once again, this study was not published by a pro-family organization but appeared in the January 2001 edition of theArchives of General Psychiatry.
Worse for the homosexual lobby, even their own medical specialists admit these problems. The Gay & Lesbian Medical Association states flatly that gay men “use substances at a higher rate than the general population,” are affected by “depression and anxiety…at a higher rate than in the general population, ” and “have higher rates of alcohol dependence and abuse.”
Unlike natural sex, gay sex requires great preparation to meet some basic standard of hygienic. But you will struggle to get these truths online, because gay advocates dominate information on the internet. It is suggested anyone in doubt about gay sex look it up and watch for yourself. These sanitizing saltations fail to tell you of the smell in a room where two men have been at it. It doesn’t tell you why gays do not buy white sheets. It doesn’t tell you that if you use enough bleach, drinking for a toilet bowel is also safe.
Sexual relationships between members of the same sex expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme risks of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened life span. There are five major distinctions between gay and heterosexual relationships, with specific medical consequences.
Gay or bisexual sex among men is on the rise, which may account for the increase in anal cancer. “The sharpest increase was among African American men, whose incidence of anal cancer has more than doubled in the past three decades. Black men also had a lower survival rate from the disease.” The study reported that the five-year survival rate for African/Black men with early stage disease was 62 percent as compared to 79 percent for white men with localized cancer.
- Levels of PromiscuityPrior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study found that 75 percent of white, gay males claimed to have had more than 100 lifetime male sex partners: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500- 999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. Levels of promiscuity subsequently declined, but some observers are concerned that promiscuity is again approaching the levels of the 1970s. The medical consequence of this promiscuity is that gays have a greatly increased likelihood of contracting HIV/AIDS, syphilis and other STDs.Similar extremes of promiscuity have not been documented among lesbians. However, an Australian study found that 93 percent of lesbians reported having had sex with men, and lesbians were 4.5 times more likely than heterosexual women to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners. Any degree of sexual promiscuity carries the risk of contracting STDs.
- Physical Health
Common sexual practices among gay men lead to numerous STDs and physical injuries, some of which are virtually unknown in the heterosexual population. Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs. In addition to diseases that may be transmitted during lesbian sex, a study at an Australian STD clinic found that lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV.
- Mental Health
It is well established that there are high rates of psychiatric illnesses, including depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts, among gays and lesbians. This is true even in the Netherlands, where gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) relationships are far more socially acceptable than in the U.S. Depression and drug abuse are strongly associated with risky sexual practices that lead to serious medical problems.
- Life Span
The only epidemiological study to date on the life span of gay men concluded that gay and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy.
Monogamy, meaning long-term sexual fidelity, is rare in GLB relationships, particularly among gay men. One study reported that 66 percent of gay couples reported sex outside the relationship within the first year, and nearly 90 percent if the relationship lasted five years.
Encouraging people to engage in risky sexual behavior undermines good health and can result in a shortened life span. Yet that is exactly what employers and governmental entities are doing when they grant GLB couples benefits or status that make GLB relationships appear more socially acceptable.
The media has made the case for the gay Black male. He is funny, he is trendy, he is the best friend of the “Black” woman, you can go shopping with them, gossip with them, and they have an enchanting personalities. For the white world the gay man is impotent (will not breed with their women), non-threatening , generally the last to be located in African values, and has no power to continue what Public Enemy called “Fear of a Black planet.” These are the “men” not selected by the African community, but selected for us by agents that do not wish us well.
Many continue, ignorant of the issues raised in this article, continue to look at this “gay” issue with the eyes of a 5 year old— all innocent: “Oh love is love”, “What the problem if they care for each other”, “Live and let live” as if those are the core issues surrounding this social dilemma.
The reason there is an “Africa” for us to learn from is because someone, somewhere, in the African world made sure that the values which we hold dear were transmitted across the generations. We, those living, must weigh, evaluate the wisdom of old against new knowledge, and in our sovereign way determine if these values have enough merit to be passed on. On the issue of a homosexual lifestyle, Africa— once again, for the thousandth generation running, most Africans (by a landslide majority) has determined it is not desirable and not to be promoted, harbored or encouraged.
* A more contentious argument lay in the assertion that Indians have already made better and more realistic films about poverty and corruption in India. Subhash K. Jha (author of The Essential Guide to Bollywood) remarked that this territory has already been covered by Indian filmmakers (Mira Nair in Salaam Bombay and Satyajit Ray in the Apu Trilogy). http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/features/2009/01/22/4762/
South Africa Report | http://www.africanholocaust.net/articles/SOUTH%20AFRICA%2010%20DAYS.htm
Dr. Regnerus found that children whose parents had a same-sex romantic relationship while the child was growing up suffer deficits compared to children raised by their own married biological mother and father.[LINK]
Maybe you are not gay but you might be a ‘Man who sleeps with Men’. The Western linguistics is amazing. Accordingly they found that a high percentage of men in New York are MSM. Messing with your mind trying to tell us the entire world is pink. So if you are a closet gay you can meet them half way and say “I am not gay, I am a ‘man who sleeps with men.” And again for every category they create out of thin air there is a need for special rights. So one can continue to sleep with women but occasionally enjoy some MSM. Keeping your honor in place. What do you expect from the blind? –Guidance or confusion?