Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
Binyavanga Wainaina
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
Rollout wrote:Muriel wrote:Rollout wrote:Njung'e wrote:Rollout wrote:[quote=Njung'e][quote=Rollout]
is to support other gays and encourage them to be comfortable with themselve, nothing wrong with that.
! Aldulterers should also come out to support each other since those involved are at all times consenting aldults.Before you get mad,let me ask you to show some love to the man who screws your wife since,in your words,the fellow isn't landing on you. Sir, Gay is a sexual orientation so you cannot really group them with aldulterers why are you so bothered by who is sleeping with who? Are you sure you don't have feelings for other men and you're just bashing them to hide your feelings? I am straight so it really doesn't bother me since I know I will always meet women and I don't have to compete with gay people! can anyone tell me what swahili pilipi saying stated? Pilipili usiyoila yakuwashiani? Rollout, Mr., you are wrong. Gays want a redefinition of 'marriage'. In this light what do you think is the distinction between them? Your opinion about 'marriage' orients your view, oreo cookie. Do you believe the redefinition of marriage BS? How can a gay couple redefine your marriage? By the way the biggest threat to marriage is not homosexuality, if anything, it would be dirvoce! I know a straw man fallacy when I see one. This one is. Come on, up you game and dance with me properly!
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
sparkly wrote:Sparkly's theory of human sexuality:- Human sexuality is a continuum between Homosexuality and heterosexuality, where heterosexuality is the extreme. Lets face it women-women bonds are power strong men-men bonds are power strong. Men-Women bonds are only for procreation. Lets go with the flow,,,,,,,, Without addressing if it is desirable or not, at least you have given a tangible result to men-women bonds and called it 'procreation'. You have not told any tangible results of men-men / women-women bonds. I am sure you can (preferably) outnumber the singular result of men-women bonds? Feel free to start anytime.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
@Muriel, today am feeling 'bookey', and I remember a book that warns us not to be too judgemental on others, for they may not have enjoyed the same privileges that we've had.
And unless you sit down and have a conversation with another, there's no traction. It's like speaking the language angels but having no love.
Knowledge is the rock on which faith and obedience stand. And there's no knowledge without loving conversation. Look, Man is now having a conversation even with the universe. The stars, the dolphins, baboons, quails, ants, but he can't have a loving conversation with a homosexual? Now what will you do when you discover that the homosexual is your reflection, just as I am yours? You cut him, you cut yourself. You heal him, you heal yourself. You love him as you love yourself.
Hush! We now stand before the judge. Are you the prosecutor? The accuser? 'Mbleina'? Are you the defence? Are you the accused who knows deep in his heart, is guilty as charged?
Could you be laughing at your fellow prisoners? Could you be the prison bully? In prison, am told, some will engage in homosexual behavior for food. Have you ever heard of prisoners protesting that there are many homosexuals in their blocks? Why not? Because the prisoners know that they belong together.
We aren't here because of heterosexuality, we are here because there have been people of judgement who've built cities.
And cities are political entities. But what, or who comes before the city? The individual as presented by God and nature. How each individual approaches the other and convinces him to build a city is the matter.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Muriel wrote:sparkly wrote:Sparkly's theory of human sexuality:- Human sexuality is a continuum between Homosexuality and heterosexuality, where heterosexuality is the extreme. Lets face it women-women bonds are power strong men-men bonds are power strong. Men-Women bonds are only for procreation. Lets go with the flow,,,,,,,, Without addressing if it is desirable or not, at least you have given a tangible result to men-women bonds and called it 'procreation'. You have not told any tangible results of men-men / women-women bonds. I am sure you can (preferably) outnumber the singular result of men-women bonds? Feel free to start anytime. In a sense, @sparkly is right. The thing she hasn't mentioned is that these 'power' relationships are difficult to spot. Chiefly because they are too many, and perhaps too sweetly enjoyed. Like in soccer. Now and then you'll see hugs and kisses after a goal has been scored. Women chamas are now said to facilitate 'amorous' meetings with boys. You can imagine how the women chamas are a pillar of our economy and homes.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
tycho wrote:@Muriel, today am feeling 'bookey', and I remember a book that warns us not to be too judgemental on others, for they may not have enjoyed the same privileges that we've had.
And unless you sit down and have a conversation with another, there's no traction. It's like speaking the language angels but having no love.
Knowledge is the rock on which faith and obedience stand. And there's no knowledge without loving conversation. Look, Man is now having a conversation even with the universe. The stars, the dolphins, baboons, quails, ants, but he can't have a loving conversation with a homosexual? Now what will you do when you discover that the homosexual is your reflection, just as I am yours? You cut him, you cut yourself. You heal him, you heal yourself. You love him as you love yourself.
Hush! We now stand before the judge. Are you the prosecutor? The accuser? 'Mbleina'? Are you the defence? Are you the accused who knows deep in his heart, is guilty as charged?
Could you be laughing at your fellow prisoners? Could you be the prison bully? In prison, am told, some will engage in homosexual behavior for food. Have you ever heard of prisoners protesting that there are many homosexuals in their blocks? Why not? Because the prisoners know that they belong together.
We aren't here because of heterosexuality, we are here because there have been people of judgement who've built cities.
And cities are political entities. But what, or who comes before the city? The individual as presented by God and nature. How each individual approaches the other and convinces him to build a city is the matter.
Aaahhh. 'Bookey'? lol. You are the only person I have talked some 'book' with. And only just in passing. I have not talked book to the others. I have instead met them on neutral ground. 'Unbooked' ground. Where we all have equal opportunities. Therefore I think I only stand accused of not extending 'book privileges' to the others. But I think I might not be guilty ,,,,,
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:sparkly wrote:Sparkly's theory of human sexuality:- Human sexuality is a continuum between Homosexuality and heterosexuality, where heterosexuality is the extreme. Lets face it women-women bonds are power strong men-men bonds are power strong. Men-Women bonds are only for procreation. Lets go with the flow,,,,,,,, Without addressing if it is desirable or not, at least you have given a tangible result to men-women bonds and called it 'procreation'. You have not told any tangible results of men-men / women-women bonds. I am sure you can (preferably) outnumber the singular result of men-women bonds? Feel free to start anytime. In a sense, @sparkly is right. The thing she hasn't mentioned is that these 'power' relationships are difficult to spot. Chiefly because they are too many, and perhaps too sweetly enjoyed. Like in soccer. Now and then you'll see hugs and kisses after a goal has been scored. Women chamas are now said to facilitate 'amorous' meetings with boys. You can imagine how the women chamas are a pillar of our economy and homes. Sikatai. The only thing she has not done is to blitz the men-women bond with the (numerous) benefits or results or outcomes of the power bonds. Only.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
Meanwhile, far away from the book grounds, to balance, I ask questions:
What evolutionary benefit does or will gayism bestow on the human species?
What in the human body has natural selection marked for:
a) removal that will render heterosexuality old, neanderthal, extinct.
b) addition that will render homosexuality the new natural order.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 9/15/2006 Posts: 3,907
|
@tycho you are broad-minded. And wisdom is a beautiful maiden.
A rose and a ++cactus both have thorns, but as they bloom will never be the same.
We are here because of heterosexuality, and are all born of it.
We are one even with those who are ailing, and wish them health.
A loving parent would not raise their child a robber, a madman, a homosexual;
but would love them all the same.
So let us not judge Gandhi or *Manuben or Binyavanga or Mary Magdalene. God knows their hearts as he does ours.
But the rose remains a rose, the cactus a cactus, and all sinners reform when they 'Go and sin no more'.
++ A danger in @sparkly's sexual continum is comparable to --Relativism. Though everything is connected, it cannot and never be, one and the same. Else Adam and Eve are both male.
* If you asked a child whether an old man of 77, with history of premature ejaculation, chose to sleep naked between two married young girls aged 15 and 18 yrs, who are at the same time forbidden to sleep with their husbands, what would the child say?
-- Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:@Muriel, today am feeling 'bookey', and I remember a book that warns us not to be too judgemental on others, for they may not have enjoyed the same privileges that we've had.
And unless you sit down and have a conversation with another, there's no traction. It's like speaking the language angels but having no love.
Knowledge is the rock on which faith and obedience stand. And there's no knowledge without loving conversation. Look, Man is now having a conversation even with the universe. The stars, the dolphins, baboons, quails, ants, but he can't have a loving conversation with a homosexual? Now what will you do when you discover that the homosexual is your reflection, just as I am yours? You cut him, you cut yourself. You heal him, you heal yourself. You love him as you love yourself.
Hush! We now stand before the judge. Are you the prosecutor? The accuser? 'Mbleina'? Are you the defence? Are you the accused who knows deep in his heart, is guilty as charged?
Could you be laughing at your fellow prisoners? Could you be the prison bully? In prison, am told, some will engage in homosexual behavior for food. Have you ever heard of prisoners protesting that there are many homosexuals in their blocks? Why not? Because the prisoners know that they belong together.
We aren't here because of heterosexuality, we are here because there have been people of judgement who've built cities.
And cities are political entities. But what, or who comes before the city? The individual as presented by God and nature. How each individual approaches the other and convinces him to build a city is the matter.
Aaahhh. 'Bookey'? lol. You are the only person I have talked some 'book' with. And only just in passing. I have not talked book to the others. I have instead met them on neutral ground. 'Unbooked' ground. Where we all have equal opportunities. Therefore I think I only stand accused of not extending 'book privileges' to the others. But I think I might not be guilty ,,,,, It's not about representing a segment of humanity. The writers and the readers. Or read and unread. It's about all humans. Why, are you so proud to represent those who have no thirst for knowledge? How do you hope to engage them? By using reason, or threat? If it's by reason then we must consult, and books are there for this. Don't lose breath about Blavatsky, and her secret doctrine. I have done some quick reading on it. We have also discussed the Books of Daniel. No?
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:@Muriel, today am feeling 'bookey', and I remember a book that warns us not to be too judgemental on others, for they may not have enjoyed the same privileges that we've had.
And unless you sit down and have a conversation with another, there's no traction. It's like speaking the language angels but having no love.
Knowledge is the rock on which faith and obedience stand. And there's no knowledge without loving conversation. Look, Man is now having a conversation even with the universe. The stars, the dolphins, baboons, quails, ants, but he can't have a loving conversation with a homosexual? Now what will you do when you discover that the homosexual is your reflection, just as I am yours? You cut him, you cut yourself. You heal him, you heal yourself. You love him as you love yourself.
Hush! We now stand before the judge. Are you the prosecutor? The accuser? 'Mbleina'? Are you the defence? Are you the accused who knows deep in his heart, is guilty as charged?
Could you be laughing at your fellow prisoners? Could you be the prison bully? In prison, am told, some will engage in homosexual behavior for food. Have you ever heard of prisoners protesting that there are many homosexuals in their blocks? Why not? Because the prisoners know that they belong together.
We aren't here because of heterosexuality, we are here because there have been people of judgement who've built cities.
And cities are political entities. But what, or who comes before the city? The individual as presented by God and nature. How each individual approaches the other and convinces him to build a city is the matter.
Aaahhh. 'Bookey'? lol. You are the only person I have talked some 'book' with. And only just in passing. I have not talked book to the others. I have instead met them on neutral ground. 'Unbooked' ground. Where we all have equal opportunities. Therefore I think I only stand accused of not extending 'book privileges' to the others. But I think I might not be guilty ,,,,, It's not about representing a segment of humanity. The writers and the readers. Or read and unread. It's about all humans. Why, are you so proud to represent those who have no thirst for knowledge? How do you hope to engage them? By using reason, or threat? If it's by reason then we must consult, and books are there for this. Don't lose breath about Blavatsky, and her secret doctrine. I have done some quick reading on it. We have also discussed the Books of Daniel. No? I am not proud. I have merely asked some questions and clarifications and pointed out one or two things. I want to use reason and logic. Funny you should ask, I am just finishing a study on Revelation. It has taken me me about one month. I tell you history is fascinating. I went as far as studying the origins of Islam, Protestantism, the French Revolution, many things. A most complex tapestry of events. Revelation it is. I read about Charles Martel, the Hammerer, and the victory he won at the battle of Tours in 732 and how it has affected me and you and atheists today. I am excited to read all these things. I think I will start again in chapter 1 when am done. Am now in chapter 21. Maybe I will share with you too. We have not discussed Daniel. I hope we will some time later. Blavatsky will be last. I will throw in Annie Besant there if you want.
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
Binyavanga Wainaina
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|