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

Here is a link to this page:


1 - 1011 - 2021 - 3031 - 4041 - 5051 - 6061 - 7071 - 8081 - 9091 - 100
101 - 110111 - 120121 - 122
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: RasTafarIWork Sent: 5/27/2022 2:36:04 PM

Homosex.... As much as people will promote such it will NEVER be Natural. The penis and the vagina, the Yin and the Yan.

I wonder WHY people ignore yin/yan then promote Homosex as natural. Servants of corruption. Even in their sub conscious Ness they do feel the fallacy of their stand. Popularising something brings acceptance and tolerance, but doesn't make it the fullness of time fighting against nature is futile.

Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 5/28/2022 8:45:57 PM

If Jamaica is the home
You can control what comes in?

If reggae is the home
You can control what comes in? (Ini BURN the likes of Lila Ike)

If media / entertainment / education that children are exposed to in everyday life contains insidious psychological messages that a parent of high intelligence may still be oblivious to...that can be controlled?

Bretheen you should always control what comes into your home? Exactly. This is his choice of controlling his home lol by chanting it down in his home environment in which he is a spokesperson and leader of in official capacities

We dont accept that culture in fiwi thing. Media propaganda, industry planted artists cant come change that. This argument feels just like those newly come dreads who feel like Rastafari itself needs an update away from its Garveyite black powa roots. None at all. Vangards of culture is the theme to all of I posts in this thread. Reggae, as a culture has always been a heterosexual thing...made world famous by a Rastafari theme. To change this or to try and go against this or to pollute this with foreign culture (foreign to Reggae and its inseparable Rastafari connection) must be chanted down in all fairness, no?

By further extent, Jamaica itself as Sizzla says with its man and woman with a fruit basket National emblem, has always been a Bible reading God fearing place who outlaw Homosexuality. That doesnt mean there have not always been gays in Jamaica or that all Jamaicans are bible pushers its an over generalisation but a correct one just as it is an accepted fact that America and britain are also 'christian' countries. The key difference is, America and Britain have chose to welcome the spirit of change, tolerance, all choices etc. Good for them. We especially speaking as Rastafari have no intention of upgrading, renewing, or updating InI principles and precepts when it comes to righteousness and livity. So there is no need to suddenly accept and move with the times JUST cah babylon say so with their newfound support for homosexuality and all things sexually deviant. Nor with attempts to compare and connect gay rights with the black liberation struggle. I have no problem with the public vocalisation of any objections to this and would expect so. In other words, as popular Jamaican culture becomes more aligned with homosexual-cultural themed fashion / media / behaviours (aka Americanized) then the Vangards of the original culture nuh must chant it down?

Again, im strictly speaking about the cultural war which is taking place. Not about the privacy of ones private life. Has anyone heard of the 'Effeminisation of the black male?' if not Google has lots on this. Typically theories about how popular artists / entertainers are 'used' to influence culture. Den are wi not supposed to chant this down too? If it has seeped into our homes..

Ises I
Culturally, Righteousness (defined by Mandingo as 'the removal of the effects of slavery and white supremacy from the psyche [and physiology] of African peoples') ah take a hit globally

Protect the root

Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 6/1/2022 9:18:27 AM


You're right. 100%. But what are you right about, exactly?

What is the "NATURAL" result of sexual intercourse?



In nature, there is both sexual reproduction and ASEXUAL reproduction.


And we can surmise that the latter actually came first.

Is it natural that men have nipples?
Is it natural that women have a clitoris?

Is it natural that nerve endings are where they are?

If you said yes to these questions then it means that yin and yang also exist within each individual body.

It is the IMBALANCE of these hormones (estrogen/testosterone) that defines the GENDER of the PHYSICAL BODY.

It is ASSUMED (sorry for caps but I want to emphasize some key points. I'm not intending to yell lol) that the physical gender of the body defines who the person will be ATTRACTED TO and therefore who they will have SEX with. And then it is assumed that LOVE will grow within this context.

Nothing you said is irrational. Nothing you said was wrong on the face of it. But let's take it a step further.

Is it natural or unnatural for a woman to be barren?
Is it natural or unnatural for a man to have a low sperm count?

Is it natural or unnatural for a person not to want any children?

One part is nature, you see.
Another part is choice.

Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 6/1/2022 2:01:37 PM

Is it natural for mutations to exist in nature?

It may be natural to think (based on the concentration of all that seems perfect) that nature is perfect and is always crystal clear in its intentions with no abnormalities or mistakes. After all, people often assign this perfection to their belief in a Creator deity. And I completely understand!

But what if nature isn't perfect? What if Giraffes, for example, are proof of that?

What if nature has mutations literally all the time that you don't see because it isn't reported on the news?

So here is a little information on mutations.

You will find that mutations are "natural" if we use the same criteria for judgment. Mutations cause cancer. Mutations are more than likely the direct cause of aging. We focus on life as natural. Life. But death is also "natural" and the attempt to thwart death can be called "unnatural". Animals eating each other. Also natural. Our biology drives different behaviors, including sex.

But what is sex for? Isn't sex "naturally" for reproduction? Isn't that the intent of nature? And doesn't nature reward this by making it feel good and releasing oxytocin?

So how much of an abomination is birth control and condoms? How much of an abomination is masturbation? Or is that natural too?

My point is that we throw around this term, "natural", as if nature doesn't also have the opposite thing going on too. THAT is yin and yang.

Cells divide.

There is mitosis and there is meiosis in the cellular community.

Meiosis does not occur in all cells.

Meiosis only occurs in reproductive cells, as the goal is to create haploid gametes that will be used in fertilization.

Meiosis is a type of cell division in sexually reproducing organisms that reduces the number of chromosomes in gametes (the sex cells, or egg and sperm).
- end quote -

Every cell doesn't have the same reproductive behavior. Why? Because every cell isn't chosen to be part of the reproductive system/cycle.

So what if the same is true for people? What if not every person is "chosen" to reproduce? We are already having sex for the purpose of pleasure and love ASIDE from sexual reproduction. If you take the sexual reproduction part out of the equation then the mind doesn't have any reason to force a selection of the opposite gender.

At the same time, if the mind (nature) in some way perceives the total population of the species as being nonbeneficial to the competing life of their future offspring then a person, who is a member of the species and not a species unto themselves that must procreate or go extinct, this person can make the choice not to reproduce. And perhaps, nature, in somewhat the same way that nature also has viruses, bacteria, carnivores, climate change, hail, tornadoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanoes, the earth itself controls the population of life on earth.

So is it really so far-fetched to believe that nature could give the power to mothers to send a signal to their developing fetus that removes the hormonal imbalance that makes them clearly one gender over the other? Because if they have this balance then there's less need to reproduce and therefore the choice to love someone isn't based on the demands of sexual reproduction. For bisexuals, the choice to love someone can be purely based on who that person is. For gays, they may be influenced by nature NOT to be attracted to the opposite sex in order to reduce the population in general. Much like growing too many plants in the same spot isn't good because they tap out the soil and compete with each other for water and sunlight. I think this is nature taking its foot off the gas (bi) and coming to a stop (gay) so that it can continue to grow in the future. Otherwise, reality will be more like Agent Smith accused us (humans) of.

Without reproduction sexual intercourse is natural only as a means of sharing pleasure. It is the excitement of nerve endings that send signals to your brain. For any man who has ever masturbated, you know that your brain doesn't give a {bleep} what gender is exciting those nerve endings. If it did, masturbation would fail every time. But we all know it doesn't. Does that make every masturbator gay because they are the same sex as themselves? No.

So how much can we define sex in same-sex couples as "mutual masturbation"? But for that matter, how many heterosexual couples are engaging in opposite sex masturbation? Children can come of that, if the man ejaculates into the woman, but is this what always happens? No. And the bible, contrary to popular belief, doesn't demoninize masturbation. The "sin of Onan" was more of a breach of contract/agreement which resulted in what they engaged in as prostitution which was treated more as a shame rather than a crime. The bible is very interesting sometimes.

Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 6/1/2022 3:33:52 PM

GA: If Jamaica is the home
You can control what comes in?

Jamaica is home to many; many who are and should be FREE. Another Jamaican should not dictate how you live your life. Chances are, if some had their way then it would be Moses who determined how you lived and what you could or could not do in Jamaica. One man's heaven would be another man (or woman's) hell. Sizzla, much respect, is not and should not be the king of Jamaica. You control your home because you own it. If you don't want to share that home with a particular woman you don't have to. But once you choose her and you have children then those are your responsibility to protect. Gay or straight. Sizzla doesn't have a right to make decisions for the whole island based on his beliefs. Jamaica is not his personal home in that way.

And the same type of thinking happens in many places and people. Massachusetts had the Salem Witch trials. You also had the Inquisitions and the Crusades. Going down the path of controlling the population based on religious ideology is what led to the Dark Ages.

That ideology, my friend, needs to BURN.

It's one thing when you agree with the rules. But what happens when you have given another man the power to dictate because you want him to enforce the rules you agree with and then the power you give him corrupts him and he starts adding and adding and dictating more and more until you have to tie your shoes the way members of his family have predetermined?

When Yeshua/Jesus came around this was certainly the case. People were legalistic. But legalism didn't stop sin. People simply found new ways to sin that weren't documented and they found legal loopholes in all the spaces in between. And they got better at hiding it. So even if you wanted to consider it a problem it's not an actual solution.

Yeshua's solution was to teach love. If everyone loves each other most sin wouldn't happen. Not to mention, a lot of sin is a reaction to a previous action. You mentioned Lila Ike, but how about we START, and I say this with a high degree of respect towards your feelings about her, but how about we start with men.

And I say this as a man. Before I tell women who they should love I think it would be wise to direct that focus and attention on the culture of "men" that makes it FAR TOO COMMON (and I'm yelling but not at you; rather at this situation) for women to be raped and sexually molested.

Brotha... on this I cannot speak from experience, but only from sheer empathy. The majority of women I know have been raped at least one time. To me? This is an epidemic. But it is an epidemic that tends to be performed by men; including males molesting other males whether young or in prison. Lika Ike probably would not be into women if men didn't use the strength that makes them masculine against the very creations that strength was designed BY NATURE to protect.

“Men have done nothing but break me, my mother and my grandmother.” Lila's tweet stated.

This statement, right here, says it all. In a perfect world, maybe we'd all be vegans. Who knows? But the world isn't perfect. We do the best with what we got. We play the hand that life deals us. I could say "yeah, Lila but all men? All men aren't like that." And yet somehow this falls short. Way short. So to me, her being a lesbian might simply be a SYMPTOM of a problem that MEN have. So instead of trying to control them... again... with a high level of respect I'm saying this to my entire gender... we as men need to control OURSELVES and PROTECT our women. Because whatever happens afterward... as a result... is a product of our own behavior.

Should we not look at root causes of societal issues?

What media content are men consuming that is making them rape women to the point during the time it took for me to write this 10 to 20 women have just been raped? Not only do I consider this unnatural because it is a choice that can be mitigated by discipline and morality, but there is no consenting party. So I'd much rather people be gay and have consentual sex with someone else who is completely down for that, rather than (mostly) hetero men committing these crimes that push people to re-evaluate their choices of gender and sexuality. People worried about what's being shown on TV when what should really concern them is who might want to rape their daughters! Sorry, but until I got married I had all girls. And I can accept who they are. But what I cannot accept is someone doing them harm BECAUSE of who they are.

Who is Lila Ike? That's what matters.

Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 6/1/2022 3:40:34 PM

GA: To change this or to try and go against this or to pollute this with foreign culture (foreign to Reggae and its inseparable Rastafari connection) must be chanted down in all fairness, no?

You are comparing the identity of a culture with the identity of people who compose culture. You're saying LGBTQ culture is "foreign" but this is, I'm sorry, wishful thinking. LGBTQ is not a new thing. It has existed from ancient times and in all cultures. But I think less so when the population has been smaller so I think it is more so a natural function of latent population control. There have always been people in Jamaica who have been LGBTQ. Always. But they were either too afraid to act on it or too afraid to come out of the closet. I have a gay cousin. His Jamaican blood is thicker than mine. Being gay is not an American thing or a foreign thing. This is only a measure of where and how much it is tolerated; a measure of how people should be tolerated.

It was just the other day that Whites said "America is our home" just like you're saying about Jamaica. And they may feel they should determine who can come in. But where does it end? Where does this slippery slope stop discriminating? Is it that as long as we are personally in the majority that the majority is right and should defend "their" culture against all mutations and exceptions? What if we're inside the majority on one issue and not another? Does it make the majory right by virtue of their numbers? Does might make right? America didn't do what was right and many people lost their lives in the civil war. The black man is still trying to find equality. Women, in America... still trying to find equality. White people may be the majority. But should they get to keep black people out of their schools? Their hospitals? Their labor unions? Their churches? Should they block us from contributing to society? Is that fair or just? Should they be allowed to police us and use hate speech against us just because of our natural color is different from theirs?

I humbly and respectfully submit that Lila Ike is no different from any other reggae singer. Her experience is different. And if you don't like who she is then don't listen to her music. But I'll listen with gladness and appreciation for her talent; just like if I was listening to Bob after reggae started but BEFORE he started to explore the Rasta movement. But if not for a half-white half-black singer who at one time a majority of white people would have condemned the existence of, we wouldn't even be talking about any of this. So the majority can be wrong. The majority needs to learn how to live with and at least tolerate the minority. Not doing so should be the bigger crime because it is a hate crime against humanity. It's different though and different things are scary. A lot of people are naturally conservative. That's okay. But conservatism has to be balanced against progress.

GA: By further extent, Jamaica itself as Sizzla says with its man and woman with a fruit basket National emblem,

The national emblem depicts a male and female Arawak. So by that logic everyone of any other ethnic origin should leave. No?

Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 6/1/2022 10:42:28 PM

XP: "so how much of an abomination is birth control and condoms? How much of an abomination is masturbation? Or is that natural too?"

I think you put this to assume one would disagree?

This is why i say there is a conflict of culture. All Rastafari elders grew I up with the above BEING abominations and discouraged yes. Completely. No condoms no birth control burn masterbation. Procreate. Which may also account for I 10 brothers and sisters 😂;;;;;
It is important to know if ones are reasoning from a generalist standpoint or from an I who professes RASTAFARI

At some point ideology ends and culture and tradition passed down through the generations begins.

I think this post from the 1st page nicely summarises the general feeling among those who proclaim RASTAFARI

Garveys Africa; "Gays are mentally ill / wicked"

Eleazar; "do not continue to post arguments advocating homosexuality on this forum as it is very offensive to I and I RasTafarI people. The whole world may go astray but I and I will never bow down to wickedness. "

Shasatabe Makonnen; "Fyah pon dem fuckry & babylon pagan works!" and "Blaze up di fyah pon dem BATTYman to bloodclaat cho"

RAS NATE; "If ones can't see the abomination of homosexual actions and the beauty of heterosexual actions,and the great difference between the two,it's a shame and petty."

Hemphill: 'Confusion'

ChantDownBabylon: Homosexual behaviors are not uncommon for animals. And this is one of the reasons why the "natural law" fails to be the ground of human morality.... I can't help but noticed that the "gay tolerance" is slowly turning into "gay supremacy".

BoboBhingiJahcub: Homosexuality is murder,suicide,disrespect and ungratefulness, without apology

Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 6/1/2022 10:46:10 PM

Lila Ike is the devil incarnate.

You dont pose asa RASTAFARI you dont move round sacred elders of RASTAFARI as a RASTAFARI associate and tour the world making money from a sound created and curated by Rastafari

And then come out as a faggot.

This is what im saying. Its a complete cultural perversion. This is the insidious invasion of the HOME that i mentioned prior.

I honestly dont know how you can have issues with Melchezidek and not Lila Ike. Agent is an agent. I wont go into detail into how her lyrics of sexual deviancy burn her OWN actions out, its hilarious. Bredda when Bob was a baldhead he was still singing tunes within the accepted culture of reggae or roots and culture. He wasnt singing about man to man just as when he turned Ras he wasnt secretly bowing to John. I dont overs your comparisons?

Lila Ike has profited directly from a large target audience of fans and DJs who subscribe to Rastafari ideology, by using lyrics and visuals which suggest RASTAFARI culture and moving amongst some of InI SACRED and unbeknownst Elders. She has done this while participating in livity which directly opposes what the RASTAFARI would allow or want to associate with. She is disingenuous at the very least. And profitted from being disingenuous. You claim Melchez is an agent and doesnt mean what he says but he hasnt profitted anything much less to the effect that Lila has taken from the community under false pretense.

Fire on her in every aspect
Media plant that 1 deh same as Frankie Paul (I dont believe the Barrington Levy rumours)

Infact her and by association Protoje and by association Chronixx and the WHOLE reggae revival scene received major backlash ever since the revelations occurred. Cant play them artists around I...

If gay artists can mask themselves and make roots and culture aka Rastafari music then your going to next tell me there can be a gay Ras 😳;;;;😂;;;;. None at all.

Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 6/1/2022 10:59:50 PM

"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."

And finally I found this interesting as We agree here that if one can demonstrate freedom of speech and espouse anti homosexual lyrics then it is only fair to also accept the criticism of such lyrics or artists from gay people or gay rights groups. Yes.

By that measure, if gays are allowed to attack people financially and commercially based on their hetero views then ones should freely be able to verbally chant for their obliteration and destruction in i humble opinion.

Im offended everytime blackness and gayness are compared as per your last sentence quoted. Being black is not a choice whereas you choose who to have sex with and to adopt homosexual culture and mannerisms. I couldnt disagree more that condoning anti gay rhetoric allows for anti black rhetoric (or that lyrics and interviews can be classed as oppression). Choice vs phenotype. And then theres the context of the historical record, in that homosexuals were persecuted but not put into chattel slavery or underdeveloped for 100s of years or anything comparable. Gay rights and black rights or gayness and blackness or gay activism and black activism CAN NEVER MIX. It is a absolute disservice to black people to do so... And you know this as a black revolutionary mind

Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 6/2/2022 5:15:25 PM

GA: Which may also account for I 10 brothers and sisters

Yes, it's probably more typical of Jamaican lineage. My father had to take a year or two out of school just to help feed his 5 brothers and 4 sisters. His father died when he was young.

GA: It is important to know if ones are reasoning from a generalist standpoint or from an I who professes RASTAFARI

Why? I'm arguing from a standpoint of nature. Rasta arguments aren't necessarily that. That is an assumption that Rastas make because the bible creates a foundation, telling them what is "natural". But what is natural is what is observed in nature. Where feelings about slavery evolved over time, including in the bible, what is natural is always reflected in nature and natural law.

If I didn't pose arguments/reasoning that sometimes contradict Rasta beliefs it would be a disservice because this would simply create an echo chamber of conservative views. Rather, if those views hold against time and progress then they should still stand after the challenge of science and more information. In other words, many people find value in that which is set in stone because it gives them confidence. But things that are set in stone are inflexible and cannot grow. Nature, on the other hand, grows and changes. It adapts.

quote: Clownfish, wrasses, moray eels, gobies and other fish species are known to change sex, including reproductive functions. A school of clownfish is always built into a hierarchy with a female fish at the top. When she dies, the most dominant male changes sex and takes her place.



The very notion of sexual reproduction comes from nature, not the bible. The bible was only written with opinions that were based on man's observations of natural law/order (at the time). They knew about sexual reproduction but they didn't have microscopes and didn't know relatively anything about single-celled organisms and microbiology.

If they had access to this information then they may have understood that asexual reproduction was a part of nature too and that gender wasn't something sacred. But then again, there is a political justification for them to ignore any such information. It was a patriarchal society. Women were often demonized and blamed for men making the wrong decisions (Adam, Noah, Samson, Jacob, David, etc.)

At the same time, culturally, the men were more affectionate towards other men. How many times have biblical apologists had to defend David against allegations of homo or bisexuality because of his close relationship with Jonathan? Culture is relative and it changes and evolves. What's an abomination today can be accepted tomorrow and vice versa. And what I'm arguing (perhaps unsuccessfully but that's okay too) is that nature plays a role in the evolution of culture because culture is created and evolved by people. And so there is a power dynamic that exists between the majority and the minority. You may not like the comparisons (just as I don't) but there are comparisons to make between blackness and gayness in how both are treated by society.

The power dynamic between sides is what creates political parties. Both sides figure out how much they need and don't need to compromise because of the population. Homosexuals are a minority of the population. But they are a large population. The white majority equated black men, especially with being savages, wicked, don't leave us around your white daughters, and often those daughters would lie and say they were raped and it would cause lynchings and murders or worse. It led to a riot in Tulsa. And it's all because black people weren't treated as people, more like animals, more like abominations.

But that idea... the aversions to the things that the minority does... comes from being part of the majority. It's like each person's idea has weight and validity equal to their own individual value and worth and influence on society. Rarely does one person's 'weight' equal that of several people. And it is nearly impossible for one person's weight to dictate their own will to the masses in a way that gets the majority to accept a minority perspective. This is why the leaders of tribes and nations often utilized the names and the 'word' of different gods. And the Hebrews were no exception. By saying "thus saith Jah" Moses was able to substitute the weight of everyone's belief in the God of their ancestors for his own weight. And any dissent was punished.

If you, as an Israelite, didn't believe Moses (didn't believe Moses spoke for Jah and therefore had the authority to command them and dictate to them how they should live, if you didn't accept Moses then Moses would have you killed/murdered. As long as enough people, forming the masses, believed, Moses's authority was secure and thus so also was his source of $$$. Because dissent represented a threat to his regime he didn't tolerate it; didn't tolerate new ideas. He ruled out of fear. He needed the majority to be on his side. He also needed more people, more numbers, and babies, because his policies got many of them killed and they constantly needed to replace their numbers even if it meant taking foreign women as the spoils of war. Did they rape them? Of course, the bible leaves this to your imagination. But in order to even create this society of bible believers, Moses had to commit genocide and remove everyone who would speak out against him because he couldn't afford bravery in his sheep. I wouldn't have survived Moses because I mon a rebel by nature. And I'm fighting for freedom and prosperity for all my people.

I consider rape and genocide very much unnatural. So it's interesting that we're on different sides in this debate and I choose to defend the freedom of choice and self-determination whereas the bible was literally created out of genocide and corruption. Rastafari does not need such as a foundation. That is how it was and is but not how it forever needs to be.

Moses profited greatly from genocide by enshrining in law that his brother Aaron would be a priest forever along with his Levitical bloodline; his bloodline. And they would never have to work again. Everyone else would simply bring them food as offerings. And they would take offerings (bribes) to pardon people's sins. And that got corrupt because people didn't stop sinning. They just spent more money on paying off the priests. They failed. They failed as a whole society. And whether a Rasta chooses to believe in Jah or not, Yisrael was allowed to be ruled by Rome and could not free herself.

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

Return to Reasoning List

Haile Selassie I