Now its Ghana's turn
Well at least its not just Nigeria that has stone-age attitudes towards sexuality. Homophobes - don't even bother to leave comments, I'll delete 'em. Just like you don't tolerate difference, I don't tolerate you so fuck off.
Episodic Tremors
5 hours ago
Posts
42 comments:
this post has been removed by the blog administrator lol
what happened to freedom of speech?
freedom of speech is over-rated. the list owner is unwilling to tolerate homophobes so why don't you leave it at that. If 'homephobes aren't intolerant of "difference"' just homosexuals, than what is homosexuality or heterosexuality if it is not about difference?
I am utterly surprised at Ghana, I was of the opinion that they were as emancipated as South Africa on the homosexuality issue.
I have seen comments in the press by people getting annoyed about 419-type emails, though these are mainly Ghanaian gays offering love and companionship in same-sex relationships with tourists or foreigners.
Once again, religious animosity and bigotry masquerading as a moral compass of society denies the fact that people are just who they are, albeit a minority.
What is sad is how the situation is further scandalised by the lumping same-sex relationships with bestiality and at times pederasty, creating more revulsion when it is definitely not related by any stretch of the imagination.
Heterosexuals can be sex-abusers, pedophiles or practice bestiality, but why scandalise a majority when you can emasculate a minority?
"Why scandalise a majority when you can emasculate a minority?"
Very well put Akin.
Our societies (and I'm not just talking about Africa) do have a fondness for persecution. In the West there's a lot of slander and hostility, for example, against men who have more than one wife. I can see certain social arguments against polygamy, but why should it be illegal?
The enlightened West is not as enlightened as it fancies itself.
But that's not to excuse the silliness of the Ghanaian and Nigerian governments. Empty barrels!
While I don't support homosexuality, I resent the fact that our governments are trying to hinder people from freely expressing their views. Why make a law that prevents people from even discussing the issue?
Boohoo, Jeremy deleted my posting twice. Thanks to Anonymous for repeating my point though.
One can argue that Jeremy, the white man whose forebears were directly involved in the slave trade, brutally colonized the Nigeria and Ghana he's now criticizing, and then practiced the neo-colonialism that set Nigeria and most of Africa off on just the right footing, has no moral right to abuse our hospitality by comparing us to Stone Age Early Men.
Delete that one, Oyibo.
I should add that I'm sorry, District Officer Master Weate, that my comment did not meet with your approval. I'm willing to take the proper punishment, sir! What will it be? Whipping and chains, or another deletion?
You racist swine.
Shango - the problem with both your posts was the tacit exoneration (itself a form of homophobia). If I cannot accept difference in one way, it tends to suggest I may not tolerate it elsewhere. The problem with many homophobes is not simply that they are homophobic; their ethics are mangled in other ways too.
As for the colonial/racist jibe - it might work on some cissy liberal keen never to be seen to criticise a black person, but it won't wash with me. You're just showing yourself up mate..
Hehehe,
It appears the last sound of thunder that would come from Shango's lightning is the one sounding his demise as his handiwork with lightning arcs back at his head.
All Jeremy has asked for is clear expression without prejudice, I am glad he is not taken by commentary that belies deep-seated personal mental slavery hung up on history rather than educated emancipation based on contemporary issues.
"Well at least its not just Nigeria that has stone-age attitudes towards"
Please do not abuse our hospitality Mr Weate.
I don't see how Jeremy is abusing our hospitality when he denounces homophobia. In fact, homophobia is against the spirit of hospitality many Africans are famous for. Jeremy is merely alerting us to some of the contradictions in our sense of self. I think homophobia is totally un-African, it is against 'our' accommodative spirit.
I think some of us have not read J's statement. Perhaps you should read it again.
As I read Shango's vitrol and Bisi's comment about accommodative spirit, I am reminded of the Beniniose Philosopher Paulin Hountondji who said 'African culture must return to itself, to its internal pluralism and to its essential openness. We must therefore, as individuals, liberate ourselves psychologically and develop a free relationship both with African cultural tradition and with the cultural traditions of other continents. This will not be a process either of Westernaisation or of acculturation:it will simply be creative freedom, enriching the African tradition itself as an open system of options'.
I think the African open system Hontondji refers to has no place for homophobes and bigots.
Delicious! I knew, after my inane blustering that you wouldn't be able to delete my comments, sissy liberal. I knew I could cajole you into keeping far worse posts undeleted.
My (original) point wasn't to condone or condemn homophobia, it was a grammatical clarification, nothing else and, had you been a bit more focused, you'd have seen that. To say it's a tacit exonoration belies your illogic; Intolerance of "difference" doesn't mean shit-- too scattered a term to mean anything concrete.
Besides all this, I really hate the term homophobia. Grammatically, that is. It doesn't convey anything, doesn't mean anything. Fear of Homo? What is a "Homo"? Is it the original Greek/Latin meaning Man? Or the original Greek meaning same? If so, is homophobia fear of man or fear of same?
That said, since it's the parlance of our times--an indicator of how truly shitty "our times" are--let me say this about homosexuals: I believe homosexuals are and should be free to practice their sexual proclivities in any way they want. Really, government and others should have no say whatever in how two consenting adults conduct their personal lives. As long as there are no laws being broken, government and others should simply fuck off.
What I cannot stand is when sexuality--of any stripe--is forced into the open so that The State, for example, is now forced to accept and recognize homosexual "marriage" or enact laws to prevent sexual discrimination in the workplace. Talking about whom or what you stick your penis into in your leisure time should never be a topic of conversation with your boss or during an interview. Marriage is simply that condition that exists between the male and female of the species.
Apart from that, I say up with buggery although I personally dilike it; homosexuals very likely despise "straight" sex. Live and let live.
@Shango - Every minority cause has always been forced into the open to gain some sort of acceptance was it female suffrage at the beginning of the 20th Century, civil rights with particular respect to race in the 50s and 60s or the decriminalisation of homosexuality on the 70s and 80s.
The issue of gay marriage is not so much about the union but the rights that accrue to a union that is rendered moot by the state.
How can same-sex partners have lived their lives together for years or decades and inheritance rights at the death of one does not recognise that partnership?
That is the most extreme case, the problem is the law does not recognise the relationship which in some cases can be more solid than so-called heterosexual marriages.
The quest for gay marriage is to realise the rights that a wife or husband has in a relationship as well as real or adopted children, if all those issues can be codified into some partnership law, the advocacy for gay marriage would definitely die down.
For example, in the Terri Schiavo case, the husband had a greater say in her medical requirements than her combined family, but a same-sex partnership does not have partnership rights that override those of the family, even the instrument of Power of Attorney can be voided by family, it should not be so.
It obviously shows that you have no inkling of the real issues that have lead to this level of homosexual activism.
not only does Shango not have any inkling about homosexual activism, he/she doesn't have any inkling about how social and judicial transformations come about. How do you think slavery or colonialsim came to an end? Do you think that black and African people just kept quite and wait till the day that Euros will get tired and give up their power? No power wants to give up their power without a fight. Those of us with heterosexual privileges are so completely ignorant about the fact that it is a privilege. A privilege that silences others. Just like many white people are unaware of white privilege and power so too are heterosexuals. Shango,whatever problem you have with the incorrect definition of homophobia, you nonetheless display extreme and conceited heterosexism. Whether you like it or not your comments smack of homophobia.
Akin: I always get a rash when reading something written by a lawyer and I'm currently breaking out, bad. Fucking lawyers...
Marriage is defined as a union recognized by The State as between the male and female of the species. Period.
If homosexuals want to get in a relationship suitably protected by law, I'm sure they can--including power of attorney and other instruments such as a will. Your example is moot: if Terry Schiavo had had a will, it would have trumped whatever her husband had wanted. Whatever relationship homosexuals want, it just won't and shouldn't be called marriage.
In summary, let me be clear: my objection is not to homosexuality per se, as abhorrent as I find it personally, it's to the redefinition of marriage. There's no such thing as heterosexual marriage, there is only marriage.
kunle: I thought to rebut your tortured, convoluted reasoning by weaving a suitably genius riposte, but why bother when there's this mot juste: dumbass.
Akin: I thought to clarify. I'm speaking with respect to the laws of the only country where anything still matters: the United States of America. Everywhere else can simply go up in flames, socialist assholes.
I can almost here the fake-American accent when you wrote your latest nugget of wisdom Senor Shango.
'Tis a pity you're not up to either Akin or Kunle's level of eloquence or intellectual rigour and are now forced to resort to puerilities.
Judging from your previous comments, I thought you were in your 20's, but I now suspect you're 15 or 16. I apologise sincerely for the miscalculation.
"The only country where anything still matters, the USA." Surely even you must have caveats when it comes to certain parts of California and other patches of blue (heaven knows what they get up to in New England)? Or is it that progressive sexuality legislation, gay priests and other Yankee juridical proclivities are aok cos they take place in God's Own Country?
Hehehehe! Where have I been all day?
Just an aside to shango, what have lawyers done to you? Use some Calamine lotion for the rash you develop after reading this. And then swallow an overdose of Piriton.
Jeremy - this whole conference is beginnnig to look like a hoax as LGBT activists were not even aware of the conference until the ban was announced - something very odd is going on!
Th jez and shango: I am disappointed in both of you. shango why the name calling? jez is not a racist swine end of.
jez i really do enjoy reading your posts and sometimes my young niece reads them too. I know you have a better than average command of the english language so you dont need 4 letter words to get your points across. dont tell me you are one of those chavvy swearing 'essex boys'
jez you knew how much 'feeling' your post would generate. there are bound to be views on both sides so why cant pple express them. I know this is your blogspace etc but this space has become bigger than you!
You dont expect African to embrace homosexuality like in say europe do you? even you live in nig. for a hundred years, you wont see that happen. so when you start a debate like this expect a backlash ok?
by the way, like someone mentioned what do you think about polygamy then? would you take a second wife. maybe homosexuality is a western thing! even in the uk pple pretend to be ok with it so as not to be seen as...
My comment? There is much more to think about than where some people decide to get their next orgasm from!
shango - your good natured 'banter' with jez in the past was interesting. stick to the polite debate and an apology will be nice.all you rants this time around was unnecessary and bordering on immature. steer clear of debates when you've had a bad day.
peace
jez, under the freedom of information act: I wish to see all deleted posts!! Haaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha
Can someone please enlighten me, why do people compare sexuality to race issues, i.e. categorising both of them as minorities? I don't get it!
All this talk about African hospitality is balderdash. Fact is most African Societies are very conservative, and will reject forcefully, behaviors that may constitute a threat to their beliefs.
anonymous - point taken. I will watch my language from now on - there are indeed lots of other more poetic ways of cursing people..
On polygamy - its a complex issue But if your point is that just as homosexuality is Africas taboo, so polygamy is the West - im not sure in practice either is the case - there are probably almost as many gay people in Africa as there are de facto polygamists in the West! But youre right, we are getting to a level of acceptance of sexual difference in the west which is similar to the levels of acceptance of polygamy in Africa - there are pockets of acceptance and pockets of resistance. As for me, one African wife is wahala - how could anyone possibly desire two?(!)
But let me take you task on your point about Africa never changing in terms of homophobia:
1. Homosexuality is as widely practised in African cultures as it is anywhere else. What differs from society to society is simply how overt or covert gay culture is. So the question is not one of changes in practice, it is one of changes in attitude. Those who deny homosexuality does not occur in African societies or is somehow unAfrican or a Western import ultimately have little understanding of both the complexities at work in their own culture and the complexities of human desire.
2. When societies go through socio-economic transformation and people gradually acquire more economic freedom, attitudes towards sexuality tend to open up. If you look back on prevailing attitudes towards homosexuality and many other issues in 1950s Britain, you would find a similar closed and repressive perspective as we find in Nigeria. As Nigeria goes through spurts of economic growth in the next few years, combined with increasing interconnectivity with global flows of capital and culture, the rate of change of social attitudes will be rapid. African cultures are no more static than anywhere else, so why tempt a self-fulfilling prophesy by anticipating stasis?
Above all, societies change because agents within the society make a noise and demand change. Just think how much Peter Tatchell has done as one individual to change attitudes towards other sexualities in the UK.
The tacit assumption in your comment is therefore that there is something especially static about African society. In a way, that is simply a restatement of the German philosopher Hegels claim in the 19th century that Africans have no history. Is this the kind of philosophical bedfellow you would really choose?
It is only by remaining passive that one becomes complicit in the normative status quo. Its time to make a noise!
re Jeremy abusing "our hospitality"..
pray tell me, what exactly this hospitality entails?..reverse the roles and consider a Nigerian living in England being attacked whenever he criticizes the British Government and told he/she is abusing British hospitality. I don't believe I've come across much of this (if at all). You make out as if you, a Nigerian, are doing Jeremy a big favour "allowing" him to stay on in Nigeria and voice his opinions...This really reflects our level of tolerance! Bah!
While we are on the subject of sexuality and societal change and progression. I wonder what Jeremy or indeed anyone else feels about people who genuinely believe they are turned on by children and who actually go on to explore this area of their sexuality. Should the 'society' embrace these as well, you know since the general direction of travel is acceptance of people regardless of their sexuality.
There was news, sometime ago about a dutch (or so) guy, starting a political party/movement for peadophiles.
Any thoughts about this? Or are these people just sick and need to get help?
'tis a matter of time before paedophiles, masochists and "those who prefer animals" are accepted as a 'minority group' as well. Esp when some researcher finds out that its their 'orientation' and that infact, some animals and maybe even some children don't mind been abused that way.
homophobes (conscious or latent) often like to start talking about paedophilia during a discussion about attitudes towards homosexuality, quite why I'm not sure. Is there any evidence (either anecdotal or statistical) that there are more gay paedophiles than straight ones? If there is, state it. If you have none, then accept that you are homophobic.
Dapo - some people genuinely believe they are naturally attracted to children...now, regardless of the gender of the child, is this a valid orientation and should we embrace such or is this an aberration.
This is the question i posed. Try and discuss this as calmly as you can without any tantrums. cheers.
Of course its not acceptable - if it does not involve consenting adults, it aint right. Is there anything more to discuss?
The homophobia of your remark remains in the fact that you feel a discussion about paedophiles belongs in with a discussion about attitudes towards same-sex relationships.
Put it this way: would a discussion of straight sexuality also prompt you to considering societal attitudes towards those attracted to children?
To those of you who choose to lump same-sex relationship with paedophiles you don't understand one basic and fundamental difference: homosexual relationship like heterosexual sex is (or should be) about encounters between two consenting adults. Paedophilia like child-marriage is not an act that takes place between two consenting adults. And this is what makes them a violation against minors and so disturbing to many us. How anyone in their right mind put homosexuality and paedophilia in the same category is beyond.
I know of a very big man (actually quite a few) here in Nigeria who are confirmed paedophiles and young girls are there thing. But no one is stopping or jailing them. there we go...
I have never seen the word 'homophobe'in so much use. it seems to me that it is slapped on anyone who thinks sex between a man and a woman is the norm.
36 comments on sex and no comment at all on J's post about index of OUR ECONOMIC FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!.
No wonder........
A right conflagration! Wow.
As for being 15, Jeremy, "out of the mouth of babes", aye, what?
For the record (not that it matters), I believe Weate is not a racist swine, he's merely a socialist, knee-jerk liberal swine, a different sort of pig altogether, but in certain situations, just as dangerous.
While we don't want racist swine, alas we need liberal swines (damnit!).
what is your problem Shango? Did Jeremy stole your boyfriend oops I meant to say girlfriend?
lol na wah o. i think ppl bring in the homo/pedo angle because right now we have separated life into these different categories, some categories being able to offer consent and some not. this is largely a social construct. man defined the concept of mutual consenting adults and what not. and definition of a consenting adult or even that of an adult can change. after all non-acceptance of polygamy in the west is based on the idea or ideal that marriage is a monogamous affair whether oppos or same sex. and man defined this ideal or idea. im not sure what the backing for this is anyway.
as for homosexuality in africa, it's always been there, all y'all that went to boarding school should stop fronting jare lol. but its accepted, covertly tho and ppl will still think you're weird or that you'll rot in hell. it is when ppl start forcing the issue into the open and demanding overt acceptance that wahala starts. just like a lot of ppl go to church and have two wives. everyone knows and accepts, but there will be backlash if you start saying u must accept both my wives in the eyes of the lord eg. wanting two white weddings. it boils down to which one is more harmful ' a dont ask, dont tell policy' or open brouhahas
i think we should focus more on not discriminating against homosexuals than forcing an acceptance of homosexuality.
a proposal perhaps...when you know mormons and moslems and whoever can have as many wives as they like in the west and get full benefits for all their kids and wives and such and such. perhaps africa will start considering same sex unions or marriages hehe. after all if tom can have two mommies why not two mommies and one daddy. the more the merrier. lets not forget polyandry and polyamorous relationships!
it should be tit for tat lol
A good read. In light of the evidence of intolerance that we experience in the larger world, i find shango's comments shocking!I think the various commentators should read disillusioned Niger Girls blog more often to jolt them out of their "stone age" reasoning. Bravo heterosexually speaking!
Post a Comment