Use the drop-down boxes above to navigate through the Website  
Return to Reasoning List
 

Here is a link to this page:
http://www.jah-rastafari.com/forum/message-view.asp?message_group=6049&start_row=51


Homosexuality

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 3031 - 4041 - 5051 - 6061 - 7071 - 8081 - 9091 - 100
101 - 110111 - 120121 - 122
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: JAH Child Sent: 5/25/2022 11:01:33 PM
Reply

Now if we want to get into the engineering of a larger gay population... through gender bending chemicals in foods and otherwise exposure.. water bottles and such... all of these gender bending chemicals do change the hormonal functions in humans and other animals and it can definitely be argued that this is by design...
And the whole population control theory takes on a new light if we think about the people whose goal it is to lower the population.. and their influence over the FDA and other industries that are affecting the human population's hormones and reproductive functions...

I guess the gates foundation, or whoever similar ones, just released GMO mosquitos into Southern California supposedly to mitigate risk of west nile virus which, having been here for 25 years and never knowing anyone who has had west nile virus, doesn't seem to be a true risk. And these GMO mosquitos by the way are all males and they are all sterile. So hmmmm just extrapolating there and then piecing one and one together...


Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 5/26/2022 5:18:57 PM
Reply

Wow... Sizzla made welcoming comments to gays?

I mean, that does sound very off-brand. Perhaps, he could defend that by saying "gays can exist just not in JA". Maybe? Idk. That one caught me off guard. Very interesting.

Now here's were my opinion gets weird.

If someone were to tell me "I want to be a gay Hebrew Israelite", this is where I would say "No. That is a contradiction. The definition of a Hebrew Israelite is in direct conflict with a gay lifestyle." For those choosing to live by the bible, they should live by the bible with honesty and sincerity. To the OT writers, it was an abomination. Period.

Now... if one wants to go deep... You could ponder the relationship between the writer's POV in shaping society vs. the writer's POV being shaped BY society. This is where critical thinking plays a big role.

A lot of people approach the bible as if all knowledge actually descended from its pages. This is not true. The bible was not written in a vacuum. And before it was written there were oral traditions. Some of these oral traditions were influenced by and shared between travelers, traders, craftsmen, etc. They didn't have television or books so it would only make logical sense that they would tell stories. It would also make sense that storytelling itself would be something that could make one famous. Modern writers and screenwriters are deriving fame and fortune from storytelling. But did they originate 100% of the ideas that made it into the book, play, or movie? Nope. There is a macrocosm of ideas that are expressed through different cultures, different communities, and different people. We all contribute to these ideas and we all share them. Some are just better at different forms of expression.

For example... it's clear to me that there was a patriarchal society that writers were already a part of before they started telling stories. Their ideas were influenced by their society, especially since societal "norms" are often not in conflict with any other ideas because societies are typically separated by distance and hostility. There was no internet that made alternative ideas easily accessible and so they lived in bubbles and echo chambers.

I talked about how Buju was my favorite and then Sizzla and then Damian. Well, it's because they were speaking my language. It's because I agreed with them. The same thing happens with the bible. When it is speaking your language and you agree then it becomes a powerful echo for your own thoughts and ideas.


Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 5/26/2022 5:21:11 PM
Reply

Being heterosexual is NATURAL. Being heterosexual I find 2 men having sex disgusting. My aversion to it is natural because that's not anything I would do. I wasn't "naturally selected" by nature to not produce sexually. So in my own brain, I cannot relate to that desire or attraction. This creates a personal aversion. But it's personal. I COULD apply the same idealism to 2 women, but that would be an aversion based on ideal or principle, not based on my own perception. And so I have to be honest. 2 women having sex is a turn-on to me. Because I'm not a woman.

It's interesting that the bible doesn't specifically name women in its intolerance towards homosexuality. It's almost like the writer wasn't thinking about them because he was a man and having the same gut reaction to the thought of 2 men that I naturally have. So I would argue that the things we might call wrong (like prostitution) the bible doesn't directly condemn because they benefitted men.

So I take the position now that, whatever my personal aversions are shouldn't define what is an "abomination" for every person. If it was an abomination for every person then no one would ever do it. But clearly, not everyone is the same. And I guess that's the point. So the bible writers saying it (and yes, I know a lot of people haven't gotten out of the belief that their words and opinions are "holy and sacred" and therefore weigh far more heavily) is mainly reinforcement for those who are heterosexual and already have this aversion. But then we use this aversion to attack others. And this is where it's problematic for me, and a case of missing the forest for the trees, because... when whites have an aversion to black... is that okay? When the whole of white society agreed that black people were an abomination and this thinking still survives to this day because of the power of tradition... is that right? Is that okay? Should one group be able to oppress another group because they hate them or hate something about them? A gay person is a person first. Who they love and who they are intimate with is only one single shard or facet of who they are. And instead of seeing them as a whole person, we, as a society judged them wholly, and treated them wholly as trash, based on our own aversion to what they do in private.

We can talk about men kissing each other and have a very similar conversation because in some societies this is normal and in others, its not and therefore someone from one society may go to kiss a man from another society in friendly greeting and that man could have a bad reaction to it. So the question of "what is natural" shouldn't be based on the majority in one place or another. What is natural comes from what develops VIA nature.


Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 5/26/2022 5:25:09 PM
Reply

I was definitely hoping we could talk more about what happens in nature. I remember when I first heard of gay behavior in animals and thought, "no that cannot possibly be true." My mind didn't want to accept it because of my own personal bias. But nature doesn't have these rules that we think it does. There are organisms... probably the first... that reproduce asexually. This also gets into why men have nipples. The idea that sexual procreation is some kind of universal law is erroneous because it is an invention of nature. But nature doesn't have one means of procreation. Have you ever seen fish having sex? No. Have you seen plants having sex?

(there are also animals that can switch genders)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_change#:~:text=Clownfish%2C%20wrasses%2C%20moray%20eels%2C,sex%20and%20takes%20her%20place.

We can (and will forever) romanticize it, but sex is naturally for reproduction. Nature creates the incentive by making it feel good. So by that logic, if it's wrong it should feel bad. When you hurt yourself your body creates a pain response. Bad. When does the body likes something? Oxytocin. Good. What tells heterosexual people to procreate when they don't believe in the bible? It's their hormones. They're naturally programmed to do it. They don't have to be told. Are hormones natural or unnatural? If natural, if they are literally a part of nature, then their activity in homosexuals is also natural. It's just that their results are different from ours. My wife loves seafood. One of our sons has a shellfish allergy. Which one is right and which one is wrong? Can we even assign these 2 labels?

The bible would say "shellfish are unclean". But is that equivalent to wrong? No, not if you are a student of the law. Because sex was also considered "unclean" and obviously sex is natural. So eating shellfish is still in the same category as something that is natural. However, that very natural sex can spread sexually transmitted diseases just like how a person can be allergic to shellfish, or perhaps, something IN shellfish that is transmitted by consuming it. Why would you have to tell 2 people not to have sex with each other if their natural bodies have instincts toward the preservation of the species?



Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 5/26/2022 5:27:18 PM
Reply

I'll talk about population control in a new thread.


Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 5/26/2022 10:22:30 PM
Reply

Away from the question of right or wrong, natural or unnatural, and the privacy of ones bedroom...

Rastafari MUST stand as VANGUARDS of the faith and of the culture. Conservative ina Rastafari livity. And be aware of any subtle attacks of the subconscious. Babylon promoting highly suggestive cartoons and childrens TV shows in an attempt to normalise camp culture and in turn homosexualism, it stands to reason InI as Rastafari would oppose it when it is being beamed / projected / streamed / regurgitated, within InI RASTAFARI homes. Sizzla sees Jamaica as his home, reggae as his home.

It is the perceived PROJECTION of homosexual culture weh Iah fight in a bid to preserve certain livity at least within InI own homes. Babylon intrusively promotes the culture of homosexualism on the front foot of its agenda.

You dont see seh a cultural war. A cultural GENOCIDE ah take place right now.

I personally would want I youth them to know and see and hear I man burn out dutty living, homosexualism and its culture as a prime example. I would want i yout to witness this from i 1st hand, as opposed to a anything goes type of upbringing. I naaaaah go tell the youthman being gay is cool, alrite, natural, up to you, anything ah anything, love who you love, 2 daddys is fine, teletubbys and homosexualised children shows are fine to watch. Mi personal nah dweet

RASTAFARI stand tall against cultural attacks from americanised babylonian kardashian culture (this would be the caitlyn side of it). I done called them the modern day Nebuchadnezzar Royal harlots of Babylon of whom 90percebt of western societal norms are based. I heard Muta give some similar discourse last week which made I laugh as this what I have chanted for a long while now, to many ah confused face. Who can see it, see it


Blessed Love Jah Child for joining



Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 5/26/2022 11:03:34 PM
Reply

Re Sizzla

Banned from the UK for anti gay lyrics 2004.
Makes the No Apology song in response
This ban remains to date

Banned from the US 2007 for anti gay lyrics, reinstated in 2016 (this is what Jah Child talks about)

Banned from Sting 2014 in his home country Jamaica for anti gay lyrics.

J-FLAG(Jamaica forum for lesbians allsexuals and gays) in support of entertainers, who they think have toned down their anti gay lyrics and did try approach Sizzla in 2014.......

I, personally, as Sizzla and president of the Nyabinghi theocracy, I dont want no sponsor from no homosexual, he declared.

We are a people of the Almighty God. We are a biblical people. Jamaica is a Bible island. We live by the principle of the Almighty and in our Bible that we read, in the Hebrew Bible, we totally abandon homosexuals. We are against it. So we dont need no support from them. Fire bun!


2016...the same year he return to America .... makes the video posted previously and below








So are we sure Sizzla has been heard to be in support or tolerant of homosexualism? Or was it more i wont mention them or i will leff dem today type of thing? Is there any evidence? I find this hard to believe and a serious charge. Innocently

Haile I I



Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 5/26/2022 11:27:27 PM
Reply

Gays have no place in reggae music


Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 5/26/2022 11:31:53 PM
Reply

Sizzla doesnt make music for gays
Gays dont support sizzla and he wouldnt want them to

So how on Earth is it logical for gays to he able to Ban sizzla from performing across the globe and even in his home country?

But America is for freedom of speech?

Why do gay sponsors etc have any voice in a thing named REGGAE on the river? Is it a gay river? Because gays have no say within reggae. Unuh caah mind unuh business?!

If one can legally show PRO gay media to the public then why can one not show the other half of the coin? Pure POSITIVE propaganda about a subject, is STILL PROPAGANDA.

I remember watching I father prepared to string down the sound system, night done, everything over, when time any group of gays invade the reggae dance or a promoter want to censor anything.

STAND FIRM IN YOUR TROD





2002👀;, while Buju was publically distancing himself from homophobic talk after a decade of gay activist backlash. Behind the scenes ina soundsystem world dubplate still ah run....lol




Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 5/27/2022 1:59:54 PM
Reply

GA: It is the perceived PROJECTION of homosexual culture weh Iah fight in a bid to preserve certain livity at least within InI own homes. Babylon intrusively promotes the culture of homosexualism on the front foot of its agenda.

There's nothing wrong with this ideology. You should always control what comes into your home and if there is something you don't want to be exposed to you shouldn't have to be. You said gays should have no say within reggae.

I would say that's true up until the point there are LGBTQ reggae artists. Each artist has their own freedom of speech (which I believe you mentioned in reference to Sizzla). If Sizzla's freedom of speech should be defended then so should the same freedom of speech when it belongs to LGBTQ entertainers.

They (homosexuals) should have the freedom to "mind dem business" as you eloquently stated. I agree with you on that. I don't like cancel culture. Or rather... I feel like cancel culture has gotten out of control because it was "appropriated" from its original design. Such is life and evolution and mutation.

But on the flip side, no one should run off LGBTQ if they want to participate because it is not an "invasion".

Everyone should have the same rights.

Devil's advocate: If there should be no propaganda (Whatever you consider that to be) for LGBTQ why should it be allowed for heterosexuality? If heterosexuality being displayed on TV isn't propaganda then neither is homosexuality being displayed.

If Sizzla is allowed to be anti-gay, vocally, then homosexual artists are allowed by the self-same logic, to be vocally anti-hetero which is definitely going to sound like propaganda because anti-gay rhetoric is ALSO propaganda.

What feels to us as NORMAL (and therefore not propaganda) feels differently to them. And so they seek REPRESENTATION in the media the same as African Americans for much of the same logical reason. When black people do not have representation it promotes negative stereotypes that are used to discriminate and perpetuate oppression. Instead of being called the N-word, they are called other names like "faggot". These names are just as hurtful and psychologically scarring. And for the same reason that African Americans don't like Confederate monuments we, as a society, enshrine not simply the norm of heterosexuality but, in reggae music, it could be argued that we've made a monument for oppression against gays. And their REACTION to oppression is the same as the black reaction to oppression.

1. Get power
2. Get representation
3. Change the narrative
4. Seek acceptance
5. Seek equality

(and they're allowed to seek these things but no one is personally/individually forced to give it)

If an entertainer is pressured by the LGBTQ community then they're not being forced to change. They are choosing because they are choosing money and that's market forces at work. They learned this from boycotting in the Civil Rights movement. It would be hypocritical to say that it cannot be used against black people.

They get treated like they are not people in the same way that heterosexuals are people. Why wouldn't they react to this? Why wouldn't they, at some point, try to change the way they're viewed? A lot of people still don't like black and brown people because we're "different". They choose to see what's different more than what is the same.

But again... do we say white people must love black people? No. Sizzla ain't gotta love gay people. But if a white person is spreading hate toward black people do they not deserve an equal and opposite reaction? Or is that cool as long as it doesn't directly affect anyone?

Now there's a difference between force and choice. People can choose not to support Sizzla or go to his concerts. No one has to speak out against him or write songs and articles against him, attacking him, etc. But by the same exact logic, heterosexuals, including Sizzla, don't need to speak out against gays or write songs about them. Just don't support it. Just don't do it. There's a difference between someone not liking something and starting or joining the KKK to be against that thing they don't like. And if I justify one form of oppression... if I justify an anti-gay agenda then, logically, I'm also justifying an anti-black or anti-jewish agenda.

Because at the end of the day no one is forced to participate and I was wrong, there are no "gay rays" radiating through the TV from the Ellen show. If your body chemistry is for the opposite sex then nothing they can say is going to convert you. And if your body chemistry is attracting you to the same sex then you can suppress it out of fear and pretend to be straight but you shouldn't have to do that and you're going to be psychologically hurting yourself in that process. But heterosexual content isn't going to convert you to being hetero. If that was the case there wouldn't be any gays.

So if someone is forcing you to watch Teletubbies... that's a problem. But I would argue that the problem isn't with the Teletubbies but whoever it is controlling your TV and eyeballs to where you have to watch it. There are like a zillion other channels and with youtube, the channels are essentially infinite.

Now if the Teletubbies are saying "we hate straight! we hate straight!" then that's a problem too. But I don't think that's the case. But blink twice if anyone is forcing you to watch gay content. And blink 3 times if that gay content is actually threatening your heterosexuality. Showing content isn't a problem at all unless you have to watch everything being shown. Because unless its being shown to you specifically then it's still a choice to participate or not. My ex and I specifically decided what content to allow our children to watch. But I wouldn't tell HBO to not make Game of Thrones. I would just not watch it in front of the kids. That's my responsibility, not HBO's. So I think every parent and every person has to be responsible with the content they consume.


1 - 1011 - 2021 - 3031 - 4041 - 5051 - 6061 - 7071 - 8081 - 9091 - 100
101 - 110111 - 120121 - 122

Return to Reasoning List




RastafarI
 
Haile Selassie I