Homosexuality is not un-African


It is legalized homophobia, not same-sex relations, that is alien to Africa

April 26, 2014

by Sylvia Tamale

During a prime time interview with BBC’s “Hard Talk” show in March 2012, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni noted, “Homosexuals in small numbers have always existed in our part of black Africa …They were never prosecuted. They were never discriminated against.”

Earlier this year, confronted by internal and external pressure, Museveni reversed himself and signed the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in the full glare of the media — declaring that homosexuality was Western-imposed. Before signing the law, Museveni asked a team of top-notch Ugandan scientists to help him make an educated decision. The panel’s report did not mince words: “In every society, there is a small number of people with homosexual tendencies.”

Museveni’s bizarre actions can only be interpreted as a political ploy ahead of presidential elections scheduled for early 2016. Having been at the helm since 1986, Museveni faces serious competition both within and outside his party, not to mention a restless population afflicted by a high cost of living, unemployment and a general disgust with rampant corruption. By the stroke of a pen, Museveni succumbed to populist pressures and condemned an otherwise law-abiding sexual minority to maximum sentences of life imprisonment.

Uganda is not alone in its anti-gay crusade. Nigeria recently passed a law criminalizing homosexuality. Several other African countries — including Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Cameroon and Sierra Leone — have all expressed the desire to emulate Uganda and Nigeria. At least 38 African countries already proscribe consensual same-sex behavior.

The sad, tired but widely accepted myth that homosexuality is un-African has been valorized and erected on the altar of falsehood time after time. It is a myth that has been played out in numerous contexts, most recently over the debate on Uganda’s anti-homosexuality bill. However, historical facts demand that this fable be debunked once and for all.


African sexualities

The 'homosexuality is un-African' myth is anchored on an old practice of selectively invoking African culture by those in power. African women are familiar with the mantra. “It is un-African” whenever they assert their rights, particularly those rights that involve reproductive autonomy and sexual sovereignty.

The mistaken claim that anything is un-African is based on the essentialist assumption that Africa is a homogeneous entity. In reality, however, Africa is made up of thousands of ethnic groups with rich and diverse cultures and sexualities. As appealing as the notion of African culture may be to some people, no such thing exists. Moreover, even if we wanted to imagine an authentic African culture, like all others, it would not be static.

African history is replete with examples of both erotic and nonerotic same-sex relationships. For example, the ancient cave paintings of the San people near Guruve in Zimbabwe depict two men engaged in some form of ritual sex. During precolonial times, the “mudoko dako,” or effeminate males among the Langi of northern Uganda were treated as women and could marry men. In Buganda, one of the largest traditional kingdoms in Uganda, it was an open secret that Kabaka (king) Mwanga II, who ruled in the latter half of the 19th century, was gay.

The vocabulary used to describe same-sex relations in traditional languages, predating colonialism, is further proof of the existence of such relations in precolonial Africa. To name but a few, the Shangaan of southern Africa referred to same-sex relations as “inkotshane” (male-wife); Basotho women in present-day Lesotho engage in socially sanctioned erotic relationships called “motsoalle” (special friend) and in the Wolof language, spoken in Senegal, homosexual men are known as “gor-digen” (men-women). But to be sure, the context and experiences of such relationships did not necessarily mirror homosexual relations as understood in the West, nor were they necessarily consistent with what we now describe as a gay or queer identity.

Same-sex relationships in Africa were far more complex than what the champions of the “un-African” myth would have us believe. Apart from erotic same-sex desire, in precolonial Africa, several other activities were involved in same-sex (or what the colonialists branded “unnatural”) sexuality. For example, the Ndebele and Shona in Zimbabwe, the Azande in Sudan and Congo, the Nupe in Nigeria and the Tutsi in Rwanda and Burundi all engaged in same-sex acts for spiritual rearmament — i.e., as a source of fresh power for their territories. It was also used for ritual purposes. Among various communities in South Africa, sex education among adolescent peers allowed them to experiment through acts such as “thigh sex” (“hlobonga” among the Zulu, “ukumetsha” among the Xhosa and “gangisa” among the Shangaan).

It is ironic that an African dictator wearing a three-piece suit, caressing an iPhone, speaking in English and liberally quoting the Bible can dare indict anything for being un-African.

In many African societies, same-sex sexuality was also believed to be a source of magical powers to guarantee bountiful crop yields and abundant hunting, good health and to ward off evil spirits. In Angola and Namibia, for instance, a caste of male diviners — known as “zvibanda,” “chibados,” “quimbanda,” gangas” and “kibambaa” — were believed to carry powerful female spirits that they would pass on to fellow men through anal sex.

Even today, marriages between women for reproductive, economic and diplomatic reasons still exist among the Nandi and Kisii of Kenya, the Igbo of Nigeria, the Nuer of Sudan and the Kuria of Tanzania. Like elsewhere around the world, anal intercourse between married opposite-sex partners to avoid pregnancy was historically practiced by many Africans before the invention of modern contraceptive methods.

Clearly, it is not homosexuality that is un-African but the laws that criminalized such relations. In other words, what is alien to the continent is legalized homophobia, exported to Africa by the imperialists where there had been indifference to and even tolerance of same-sex relations. In Uganda such laws were introduced by the British and have been part of our penal law since the late 19th century. The current wave of anti-homosexuality laws sweeping across the continent is therefore part of a thinly veiled and wider political attempt to entrench repressive and undemocratic regimes.


Alien to Africa

Equally alien to the continent are the Abrahamic religions (particularly Christianity and Islam) that often accompany and augment the “un-African” arguments against homosexuality. African traditional religions were (and still are) integrated into the people’s holistic and everyday existence. It was intricately tied to their culture, including sexuality.

With the new religions, many sexual practices that were acceptable in precolonial, pre-Islamic and pre-Christian Africa were encoded with tags of “deviant,” “illegitimate” and “criminal” through the process of proselytization and acculturation.

The struggle to win full citizenship for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex groups is global. Even in countries where homosexuality has been decriminalized, the consciousness of the majority has yet to catch up with reformed laws. In order to completely dispel homophobia from Africa, we may have to employ radically new methods of advocacy that resonate with African philosophies such as Ubuntu. This concept encompasses many values — humaneness, solidarity, interdependence, compassion, respect and dignity. It rejects selfish, paternalistic and restrictive regulations issued by rulers riding high moral horses in complete disregard of the interests of their neighbors, their community and their fellow human beings.

The late Nelson Mandela described this philosophy as “the profound sense that we are human only through the humanity of others, that if we are to accomplish anything in this world, it will in equal measure be due to the work and achievements of others.”

The homosexuality-is-un-African mantra negates everything that African history and tradition has transmitted to posterity. A tenet of African philosophy holds that “I am because you are.” In short, it matters little about the differences that each one of us displays but much about the essence of humanity that binds us together. What really matters is the respect for human dignity and diversity.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/4/homosexuality-africamuseveniugandanigeriaethiopia.html

Live and let live. What is my concern with Homosexuals...what is my concern with what two consenting adults do in the confines of their bedroom?

It must come as a real shock to many people to learn that their anti-gay sentiments actually derive from their colonisation, and not their 'African culture' - a culture which most of them really have no clue about.

Its actually not un-african but its demonic and won't be allowed to spread allover.

You can pratice n your confine, who cares, but for a it to be celebrated in the public, NO.

Therefore, its un-african!

smarthG:
Its actually not un-african but its demonic and won't be allowed to spread allover.

You can pratice n your confine, who cares, but for a it to be celebrated in the public, NO.

Therefore, its un-african!

And just who are you to label it ''demonic''?

Also, you first say it is not un-African, then later say it is un-African. Which is it? Make up your mind.

life's too short to read all that

ROSSIKE, you had to quote american aljazeera article as your source?

So when did this new romance with the Americans start? Gayism is unafrican, the earlier you get that into your thick skull, the better

ROSSIKE:


And just who are you to label it ''demonic''?

Also, you first say it is not un-African, then later say it is un-African. Which is it? Make up your mind.

Africa is seeking God's face to grow in accordnce to Allah's will. Anything that will bring Africa back is not acceptable.


So u aint gonna get my vote for Gay, its demonic. You guys aren't normal.

Simple!

Nonsense, Homosexual is ALIEN to AFRICA PERIOD!

andresia:
ROSSIKE, you had to quote american aljazeera article as your source?

So when did this new romance with the Americans start? Gayism is unafrican, the earlier you get that into your thick skull, the better

If you did even basic research on the subject online, you'd quickly find that what I posted is the absolute truth, verified by MANY sources. So the 'Al Jazeera' excuse holds no water.

mensdept:
Nonsense, Homosexual is ALIEN to AFRICA PERIOD!

Just because you scream like a mad man doesn't mean you are right. You can't replace facts with screaming.

Nigerians will leave corrupt politicians just to attack harmless set of people

I tend to agree with you most times Mr Rossike but on this one eeee eeee mbanu.
Yes it may have been practiced in some pocket areas of Africa due to spiritual and metaphysical needs yet it goes against natures design

Abandoning Nature:  Some Reasons Why Homosexuality is Wrong


Author: Steve Cowan

Today homosexuality is considered by many people to be a normal and perfectly acceptable practice.  It is, they say, a legitimate “alternative lifestyle.”  The Bible, of course, says otherwise (see the article in this volume by Terry Wilder explaining the biblical view of homosexuality).  According to the Apostle Paul, homosexuality is the behavior of those who have “abandoned natural relations”; who have “exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones” (Rom 1:26, 27).

That Scripture speaks to this matter ought to be enough, especially for those who accept the authority of the Bible.  Unfortunately, not everyone bows to biblical authority.  Does this mean, then, that we must remain at a perpetual impasse with those who disagree on the morality of homosexual behavior?  I don’t think so.  I will argue in this article that we can establish the immorality of homosexuality from a purely philosophical perspective.  I will offer, that is, an argument from natural law which echoes Paul’s language in Romans 1 to the effect that homosexuality is an abandonment of the natural, created order, and for that reason is immoral.  But first, I will briefly examine the evidence that homosexuality advocates have advanced in their attempt to show that homosexuality is not contrary to nature, but is in fact natural.

The Alleged Case for the Naturalness of Homosexuality

The basic claim made by those who defend the morality of homosexuality is that homosexuals “are born that way.”  Homosexuality is alleged to have some genetic basis, and some scientific research has been conducted to try to establish the genetic link.^[1]^  Thus Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard assert, “Our own research has shown that male sexual orientation is substantially genetic.”^[2]^

Space does not permit a detailed response to these studies.  Suffice it to say for now that the research alleging to show a genetic basis for homosexuality is far from conclusive.^[3]^  The conclusions and even methods of these studies have been hotly contested, leading Columbia University psychiatrists Byne and Parsons to conclude:

There is no evidence at present to substantiate a biological theory, just as there is no compelling evidence to support any singular psychosocial explanation. . . .[T]he appeal of current biological explanations may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data.  Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biological theory to be lacking.^[4]^

So we have no good reason, at least for now, to believe that there is any genetic or biological link to homosexual behavior.  Yet it must be added that even if such a link were established, it would not morally justify homosexuality for two reasons.  First, pinpointing a correlation between homosexuality and some biological factor does not by itself tell us which way the causal relationship runs.  Is the biological condition correlated with homosexuality the cause of the homosexual orientation, or is the biological condition caused by the homosexual orientation?

Second, even if one’s genetic makeup does cause or predispose one toward homosexuality, this again does not make such behavior good or morally permissible.  Some people reason like this:

​>(1)  Homosexuals’ genetic makeup predisposes (or causes) them to engage in homosexual behavior.
>
​>(2) Therefore, homosexual behavior is morally permissible.

However, we do not make this genetic-so-it-must-be-okay leap in other areas of life.  For example, researchers believe that there is a definite genetic basis for alcoholism.  Yet, we do not think that alcoholism is good, or that it is morally permissible for alcoholics to persist in drunkenness.  We believe that alcoholism is bad and that alcoholics should be “cured.”  So, supposing for the sake of argument that homosexuality is genetically based, why shouldn’t we seek to “cure” homosexuals rather than endorse their behavior?  Why shouldn’t we look for ways to eradicate the harmful homosexual gene?  Gay activists beg the question concerning the morality of homosexual behavior when they assume that a genetic basis for the behavior automatically establishes its moral permissibility.

It is interesting to note, in this connection, that recent research has in fact shown that homosexuality is curable.  Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, psychiatry professor at Columbia University, has concluded research which shows that “a percentage of highly motivated gay people can change their sexual orientation.”^[5]^  The study followed the lives of 200 gay persons who underwent therapy to change their sexual orientation.  Spitzer’s study found that 66 percent of men and 44 percent of women were able to achieve “good heterosexual functioning” as a result of the therapy.  And it is helpful to note that Dr. Spitzer does not have an anti-gay ax to grind.  He is not a Christian and has no sympathy for the efforts of Christians to defend the biblical view of homosexuality.  In fact, he was the leader of the 1973 campaign to remove homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of mental disorders.  This study provides powerful evidence for the biblical view that homosexuality is a learned behavior.^[6]^

I conclude, therefore, that there is no good evidence that homosexuality is biologically based.  That is, there is no good evidence that homosexuality is “natural” in the sense that those who practice this behavior are genetically predisposed to it.

But might homosexuality be natural in some other sense?  After all, we can observe homosexual behavior in other animals.  For example, chimpanzees and other apes are known to engage in homosexual behavior.  So, it might be said, homosexuality occurs in nature.  It is natural in the sense that we find examples of it in the natural world.  So, shouldn’t we expect and permit such behavior among humans?  The argument goes something like this:

Homosexual behavior occurs naturally among some non-human animals.
Whatever behavior occurs naturally among some non-human animals is morally permissible for human beings.
Therefore, homosexuality is morally permissible for human beings.
The problem with this argument is that premise (2) is so obviously false.  There are lots of behaviors that animals engage in that we do not think are permissible for human beings.  For example, many animals eat their young as soon as they are born.  Though this may be “natural” for the creatures in question, it is clearly not morally permissible for humans to eat their young.  Again, Black Widow spiders kill and devour their mates after mating, but I seriously doubt that any female human could use the “It’s natural” defense in court were she to kill and eat her husband.

Premise (2), if it were true, would imply that there is no moral difference between animals and human beings.  Now some committed atheists and evolutionists might believe that this is so, but most of us would not be willing to follow their lead.  What is permissible for animals is not always permissible for people.  So, just because some animals engage in homosexual behavior, this lends no support to the thesis that human homosexuality is either natural (in any relevant sense) or morally good.

We must also qualify premise (1) of this argument.  It is true that homosexual behavior occurs in nature—among apes, for example.  But, even in the animal kingdom there is a clear abnormality with regard to homosexuality.  Thomas Schmidt explains that

animals do not engage in long-term homosexual bonding as humans do.  Some monkeys and apes mount or handle each other to the point of sexual arousal, but even this behavior involves numerous qualifications:  most important, the behavior does not continue when the individual matures and has a heterosexual option.^[7]^

So just because homosexual behavior occurs in nature, this does not mean that this is the norm in nature.  Nor does it mean that these occasional occurrences of homosexual behavior among animals make it natural for humans in the sense of morally permissible or morally normative.

The Case Against Homosexuality

I turn now to argue that homosexual behavior is immoral.  The reason it is immoral is that it is clearly unnatural.  Here I am using the terms “natural” and “unnatural” in a specific way.  By saying that homosexuality is unnatural, I mean that it is contrary to the purpose and design of God, our creator.  And I mean to argue that we can know this even apart from what the Bible says about it.^[8]^  My argument can be stated as follows:

Whatever behavior is contrary to God’s created design for human beings is morally wrong.
Homosexuality is contrary to God’s created design for human beings.
Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.
Now what can be said in defense of the premises of this argument?  Let’s take a look at premise (1) first.  This premise, of course, assumes that God exists.  Some people on the pro-homosexual side of this debate will cry, “Foul!—You can’t bring religion into this debate!  You can’t bring your Bible verses into the public arena to decide this issue!”  First of all, take careful note that my argument does not quote any Bible verses, nor will I do so in defense of premise (1).

And it is not my intent to bring religion per se into the debate at this point.  I am merely appealing to the fact that most people in our society believe, or at least say they believe, in the existence of God.  To be sure, there are those who claim that they do not believe in God.  I think they are profoundly mistaken.  I think the evidence for God’s existence is overwhelming and that those who attempt to dismiss his existence are “without excuse” as Romans 1:20 states.^[9]^  But we can save that debate for another time.  Most of us—even those who are not particularly Christian, even those who do not believe in the divine authority of the Bible—nevertheless believe that the universe was created by a personal, all-powerful, all-knowing, and supremely good God.  More specifically, we believe that we were created by God.  And we believe that God gave us all of our faculties and abilities, physical and mental, for a benevolent purpose.

It follows from this that if I use the abilities and faculties that God gave me in a way that is contrary to his good intentions, then I have done something wrong.  For example, if I use the hands that God gave me for serving him and other people to strangle and kill my brother instead, then I have done wrong.  So premise (1) of my argument is true:  any behavior that is contrary to God’s created design for human beings is morally unacceptable.

Now we come to the crucial question.  Is homosexual behavior consistent with God’s created design for human beings?  Or does it run contrary to his design?  In premise (2) I have stated what I take to be the right answer to this question.  Homosexual behavior is clearly contrary to God’s design.

We believe that God created us male and female.  We believe, that is, that hetero-sexuality is God’s intent.  Otherwise, he wouldn’t have created two sexes!  And let us simply examine the biology of it all.  Who can reasonably deny that joysticks are designed to fit into vaginas?  And who can deny that vaginas are meant to receive joysticks?  And I am not using these biological statements to refer to reproduction.  Homosexuality advocates often remind us that sexual activity is not only meant for the purpose of reproduction.  It is also intended for pleasure and for emotional bonding.  I agree whole-heartedly!  But this does not justify homosexuality.

If you grant that there is a natural “fit” between joysticks and vaginas that is created by God (and this cannot be denied), then it is easy to see that God intends for sexual activity to bring men and women together, for the purpose of reproduction to be sure, but also for the purpose of creating a special union through the pleasure and emotional bonding that takes place in sexual intercourse.

And there are other things about men and women that tell us that this is God’s design.  It may not be politically correct to say this nowadays, but men and women need each other.  Because they bear and nurse children, and because they are the “weaker vessel,” women need the strength and bread-winning abilities that men are naturally disposed to provide.  And men need the nurturing and care that women are naturally disposed to provide.^[10]^  But, homosexuality undermines the God-designed interdependence of men and women.

Imagine, for the sake of argument that all human beings opted for homosexuality.  If homosexual behavior is morally permissible, then it would be morally permissible for everyone to be homosexual.  But, then, God’s clear intent for men and women to enter into intimate unions through sexual intercourse would be thwarted.  God’s intent that men and women cleave together in mutually dependent relationships would be thwarted as well.  And, by the way, so would God’s intent that humans reproduce.

So, I conclude that homosexual behavior is clearly inconsistent with God’s created purpose for human beings.  Therefore, it follows that homosexual behavior is wrong.

Steven B. Cowan is Associate Director of the Apologetics Resource Center.

Rubbish

Mr Rossike, is Homosexuality morally good or morally bad or a non- moral subject?

Regardless whether gayism existed in Africa before European contact, it is wrong. The Holy Bible is very clear about this. It should be banned in our land if we don't wish God's wrath upon us.

ghananotnaija:
Regardless whether gayism existed in Africa before European contact, it is wrong. The Holy Bible is very clear about this. It should be banned in our land if we don't wish God's wrath upon us.

Why exactly should we regard your ''Holy Bible'' as anything other than an irrelevant, imported collection of mythical verses? You've no right to impose your ''Holy Bible'' on Africans.

Reyginus:
Mr Rossike, is Homosexuality morally good or morally bad or a non- moral subject?

I think it's a non-moral subject to use your term. Ancient Africans understood this very well. They were a remarkably enlightened and tolerant set of people, our ancestors. Much against what we've been led to believe.

Homosexuality is insanity. Even animals know better than these fagg0ts

thekingsmen:
I tend to agree with you most times Mr Rossike but on this one eeee eeee mbanu.
Yes it may have been practiced in some pocket areas of Africa due to spiritual and metaphysical needs yet it goes against natures design

It wasn't practised just for spiritual and metaphysical needs. The research clearly shows that many practised it for no other reason than that they were gay. Our forefathers did not castigate or hound them, or claim it was ''against nature's design''. So where do you get your ideas from? You got it from foreigners. Christian and muslim foreigners. It was those foreigners that made us hate homosexuals, and led us to discriminate against them. I've studied the old African kingdoms and empires. I haven't seen any where the practise was criminalised or 'banned'. The gays were left to their own devices and were even allowed to marry.

ROSSIKE:


I think it's a non-moral subject to use your term. Ancient Africans understood this very well. They were a remarkably enlightened and tolerant set of people, our ancestors. Much against what we've been led to believe.

Okay.

Let me also ask this question. Do you think there is any way it promotes humanity? As in, in the survival of the human race is Homosexuality's role the better option? That is when compared to heterosexuality. I just want to understand how you understand it.

ROSSIKE are you gay? Nature made sex strictly for procreation but humans turned it to recreation and then folliwed by all types of experiment to add fun to the recreation. These include bossom sex, anal, use of toys, same sex and even animal sex.

Ordinarily nobody cared about these things until the recent past that it became a kind of culture the West wanted to impose on the rest of the world. The result is homophobia which never existed prior to as recently as 2010 in Nigeria.

Reyginus:
Okay.

Let me also ask this question. Do you think there is any way it promotes humanity? As in, in the survival of the human race is Homosexuality's role the better option? That is when compared to heterosexuality. I just want to understand how you understand it.

There is no law that says that human sexual intercourse must lead to reproduction or procreation. I don't see how the survival of the human race is at risk since there will always be far more heterosexual people than non-heterosexual, by reason of genetical disposition. One may in fact surmise that a certain allowance for a homosexual population can help to check global overpopulation by curtailing the number of births issuing from sexual intercourse. A sort of natural birth control mechanism if you like.

Weather there have been Homosexuals in Africa since the dawn of time, is totally and completely irrelevant. The simple fact is this. In most African countries today, the vast majority of people do not support the Homosexual lifestyle and consider it un-natural. The majority need to be respected.

The honest truth is that even in the West there is a lot of Hypocrisy. They claim to be in support of Gay rights, yet I can tell you behind closed doors the vast majority of people in the west are also against the Gay lifestyle. They just can't say it in public because of the power of the liberal media.

abagoro:
ROSSIKE are you gay? Nature made sex strictly for procreation but humans turned it to recreation and then folliwed by all types of experiment to add fun to the recreation. These include bossom sex, anal, use of toys, same sex and even animal sex.

Ordinarily nobody cared about these things until the recent past that it became a kind of culture the West wanted to impose on the rest of the world. The result is homophobia which never existed prior to as recently as 2010 in Nigeria.

Well, firstly, I'm not gay, and secondly, you need to explain what you mean by ''nature made sex strictly for procreation''. How the hell do you know what ''nature'' made sex for? Who are you to make such a pronouncement, and based on what?

bjdon:
Weather there have been Homosexuals in Africa since the dawn of time, is totally and completely irrelevant. The simple fact is this. In most African countries today, the vast majority of people do not support the Homosexual lifestyle and consider it un-natural. The majority need to be respected.

It is NOT ''irrelevant'' that pre-colonial Africans were not homophobic. We have a history and you cannot instruct us to ignore it. Also, the argument that the majority of Africans today are homophobic is no more relevant than the fact that majority of Americans were opposed to black voting rights in the 1950s. That the majority of people are ignorant/prejudiced/intolerant in a given situation does not make them right.

Nigerian society is not advanced enough to accommodate gay marriage, such legislation will cause serious damage to an already corrupt, depraved Nigerian people.

ROSSIKE:


Why exactly should we regard your ''Holy Bible'' as anything other than an irrelevant, imported collection of mythical verses? You've no right to impose your ''Holy Bible'' on Africans.

I did not impose anything, but many (if not most) Africans have recognised that the Holy Bible is the inerrant word of God, and as the best guide to live their lives.

The most annoying part of the whole thing is people judging and condeming full adults for who they love and for how they willingly express their love... saying that homosexual is unafrican is like saying that igbo which is my tribe is unafrican, cause till today it is a common thing in the core rural igbo villages for women to marry other women for reproductive reasons, these women are mostly orphaned only female child of their father and they marry other women and the women gets pregnant from other men while the women that married them is the father and husband of them... why do people that are full of evil so quick to judge others and label them bad? if am gay or not how is it anyones problem? why should gays be banned?

Truth be told, there were effeminate men who spoke like women and had boy friends, in our town. They were actually accepted by society and many of them sold "kose/akara" which they fried publicly. These gay men were called Dan Daudu or Yan Daudu.

The men who were their boyfriends were not labeled. These people should be left alone, in my humble opinion.

Unfortunately, as a personal matter, I can't endorse same sex marriage of any form. This type of marriage is indeed very unAfrican.

Lmao at Rossike still peddling all these LGBT revisionist myths that have been exposed as fraud time ago.

Live and let's live, but when you start twisting history to suit ya fantasies, then it becomes problematic.

Homosexuality started in Europe as a noble thing and it remained an European lifestyle, until recently.

The original black man!

[img]https://allhiphop.files./2015/07/tumblr_nq817zgeaq1tr6q14o1_500.gif[/img]