| Author |
Message |
    
Pmbulo
Starlite Member
Username: Pmbulo
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - 02:14 am: | 
|
Forcing Africans To Embrace Gay Rights By tying Aid (Loans) To Acceptance of Gay Rights.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon was here in Zambia and at no time did we see him with a male partner, He came with his wife. Many Zambians wonder why Ban Ki Moon is advocating for gay rights and yet where he comes from in his country there is no such nuisance.
I conquer with what comrade Mugabe said about the west and there gay rights and i quote “Nature is nature. It has created male and female,” Mugabe told thousands of supporters at his 88th birthday celebration at a stadium in the eastern border town of Mutare.
“You David Cameron, are you suggesting that you don’t know that or is it some kind of insanity or part of the culture of Europeans.
“In their newspapers, that’s one of my sins. That I called (gays) worse than pigs and dogs because pigs know there are males and females. It’s even in the Bible that you create through the system of marrying.
“That’s how we were born, so we reject that outright and say to hell with you. I won’t even call him a dog because my own dog will complain and say, but what have I done.”
“Please, young men and women, you don’t have the freedom for men to marry men and women to marry women. You have the freedom for men to marry women. That’s God’s freedom. That’s what created you and me.”
It seems Mugabe speaks sense on this one and one wonders why our very own outspoken Sata has decided to remain mute.
http://tumfweko.com/2012/02/27/sata-catholic-bishops-state-your-positions-on-hom osexuals-unlike-remaining-mute/
Shalom! Shalom! Ever-loving,
Potpher C. C. Mbulo. B.Eng (UNZA), MBA (ESAMI & MsM), R.Eng (IEEE)
+260-979-743434 and +260-955-996712
pmbulo@yahoo.com; pmbulo@zesco.co.zm
|
Pmbulo
Starlite Member
Username: Pmbulo
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - 02:22 am: |
|
Sexual orientation used to be called sexual preference. Obviously, the two terms denote significant differences in the manner by which sexuality develops. A preference is something that is chosen, whereas orientation is merely something that defines us (through genes). The differences are potentially important regarding how the law applies to those who are gay. If homosexuality is not chosen, but actually is a biologically-determined characteristic over which we have no choice, then laws should not treat gays and straights differently, since homosexuality would be equivalent to one's race, over which we have no control.
But some studies have found that the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to develop a homosexual orientation. This study also found that homosexual men had a greater than expected proportion of brothers among their older siblings (229 brothers: 163 sisters) compared with the general population (106 males: 100 females). This is definitely an environment case.
All of the studies reporting possible hormonal influence on homosexuality suffer from the lack of any real evidence that hormones actually play any role in sexual orientation. The fact that contradictory studies report increased vs. decreased androgens as a basis for homosexuality doesn't provoke confidence that the proxies are really true. Obviously, a study that documented real hormone levels, as opposed to proxies, would probably provide more definitive data.
A study of 13,000 New Zealand adults (age 16+) examined sexual orientation as a function of childhood history. The study found a 3-fold higher prevalence of childhood abuse for those who subsequently engaged in same sex sexual activity.
If homosexual orientation were completely genetic, one would expect that it would not change over the course of one's life. For females, sexual preference does seem to change over time. A 5-year study of lesbians found that over a quarter of these women relinquished their lesbian/bisexual identities during this period: half reclaimed heterosexual identities and half gave up all identity labels.
The question of nature vs. nurture can also be seen by examining children of homosexual vs. heterosexual parents. If homosexuality were purely biological, one would expect that parenting would not influence it. Paul Cameron published a study in 2006 that claimed that the children of homosexual parents expressed a homosexual orientation much more frequently than the general population. But here is something to note and logically come to a definite conclusion: I strictly oppose Neo Darwinian evolution. Nevertheless, there is some clear evidence that natural selection (and sexual selection) does act upon populations and has acted on our own species to produce racial differences. Natural selection postulates that those genetic mutations that favor survival and reproduction will be selected, whereas those that compromise survival and reproduction will be eliminated. Obviously, a gene or series of genes that produce non-reproducing individuals (i.e., those who express pure homosexual behavior) will be rapidly eliminated from any population. So, it would be expected that any "gay gene" would be efficiently removed from a population. In this case the gay gene is self defeating.
Moreover, actually, attempts to find a "gay gene" have never identified any gene or gene product that is actually associated with homosexual orientation, with studies failing to confirm early suggestions of linkage of homosexuality to region Xq28 on the X chromosome.
If homosexuality truly has a genetic component, DNA microarray studies (probably beginning with the X-chromosome) would not only definitively prove the point, but would identify specific gene(s) or loci that might be associated with those who express a homosexual orientation.
The fact that sexual orientation is not constant for many individuals, but can change over time suggests that at least part of sexual orientation is actually sexual preference.
In conclusion I say no one is born a homosexual. Homosexuality is a trait that is acquired through interaction with the environment and not a dictate of the genes.
Shalom! Shalom! Ever-loving,
Potpher C. C. Mbulo. B.Eng (UNZA), MBA (ESAMI & MsM), R.Eng (IEEE)
+260-979-743434 and +260-955-996712
pmbulo@yahoo.com; pmbulo@zesco.co.zm
|
Bubby
Starlite Member
Username: Bubby
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 07, 2012 - 05:42 pm: |
|
"In conclusion I say no one is born a homosexual. Homosexuality is a trait that is acquired through interaction with the environment and not a dictate of the genes".
I concur Potpher.You are absolutely right on this subject.It is an obamanation in Gods sight.
There is no proof whatsoever that there is a homosexual gene.
Stand your ground and never give up...shalom, Bubz |
Pmbulo
Starlite Member
Username: Pmbulo
| | Posted on Thursday, March 08, 2012 - 09:45 pm: |
|
Looks like the Western political leaders have become anti biblical. There is definitely a conspiracy to root out the biblical principles. Bubby, you have been consistently saying it that the Obama administration has no room for the God of the bible in their agenda and you have demonstrated numerous times that Obama is against the bible. One is inclined to believe that he is Muslim but I doubt because some of his ideals are anti-Islam. I think the man is just a proponent of the New World Order (NOW) whose principles are about overthrowing the current faith principals and enshrining new ones that are human centered rather than God centered.
Shalom! Shalom! Ever-loving,
Potpher C. C. Mbulo. B.Eng (UNZA), MBA (ESAMI & MsM), R.Eng (IEEE)
+260-979-743434 and +260-955-996712
pmbulo@yahoo.com; pmbulo@zesco.co.zm
|
Bubby
Starlite Member
Username: Bubby
| | Posted on Friday, March 09, 2012 - 09:14 am: |
|
You may be right on this NWO fiasco.End times are coming my friend and we best be ready...in the mean time here is something to consider. A look at how far our perverted thinking has taken this country..Seek and you shall find.
March 9, 2012
A War on the Truth
Frank Salvato
Have you heard this one? What do you call a law school co-ed who needs $1000 worth of birth control...annually? Evidently, in today’s politically correct society – a society devoid of the concept of shame – a women’s health advocate.
Two of the casualties of the Progressive Movement – the movement that gave us the unyielding mandate of “tolerance,” the one-size-fits-all prescription for forced diversity, an American citizenry who, in order to be American must divide itself up based on a multicultural edict, and the shadow set of laws known as political correctness – are truth and the capacity to state truth. The Fluke-Limbaugh faux controversy is a perfect example.
A hypothetical (which really isn’t but I need to use the disclaimer for our purposes here)...
A modern day woman, youthful to middle-aged, frequents a popular local eating and drinking establishment. She is considered a “regular” to many, and is known to the staff and to the other “regulars” who find themselves in that establishment on a more frequent basis. For the purposes of example, let’s call her Candra.
Now, Candra had a good upbringing. Her parents – upper-middle class and considered successful – were able to save enough money to put Candra through college. She graduated and landed a decent job. She works hard, her co-workers like her and her employers are glad to have her as part of the team. Candra’s philosophy about life is “I work hard, so I play hard,” and who can blame her. She’s in the prime of her life. She’s single. She’s free. So, Candra enjoys a hearty social life.
Now, Candra reaps the benefit of a society changed by the radical feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s. She understands that she is the master of her body and that no man – and no woman – has the right to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body, but for the boundaries of legality. So, when Candra is drawn to someone – or attracted to someone, whether it is because of his looks, his banter, his station in life or (and she’s knows this is shallow, but hey, people do worse things) his money – for whatever reason, when Candra is drawn to someone she sees no reason to set personal boundaries; boundaries that have oppressed the sexuality of women through past generations. If she chooses to leave with the man, if she chooses to have sex with the man – whether under the guise of a budding relationship or just for the night – she sees no reason why anyone should deny her that opportunity...or even have an opinion about it. It is her choice. It is her right.
The people who know Candra see her leaving at the end of the evening, time after time, with different men. Some of the men return to see Candra again but many don’t. And, in the end, everyone knows that Candra has a penchant for being uninhibited where her sex life is concerned and many have identified the fact that she has many sex partners...many sex partners.
Now, politically correct or not, in those places deep within us where we foment our unedited opinions; those places that we refuse to acknowledge publicly for fear some intolerant Progressive mind thug will brandish his or her bullhorn to scream “bigot” or “sexist” or even “Conservative,” we all know that if a woman is known to have slept with a different guy every few nights, that woman is considered, by an overwhelming number of both men and women, to be “easy”...or “promiscuous”...or, more pointedly, a “slut.” I know, I know. But, all the shrieks and gasps, all the condemnation and protest over the use of the word doesn’t change the fact that “slut,” by definition means:
“...a pejorative term for a person who is deemed sexually promiscuous, dating to circa 1450.”
And, of course, we all understand “promiscuous” to mean:
“...characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, especially having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis.”
So, Candra, who – being a modern woman who is liberated of the oppression of discernment where the number of her sexual partners is concerned – is, by all matters of definition, “promiscuous,” or, if one employs the thesaurus, a “slut.”
Hypothetical over...
President Obama was correct in at least one thing that he said in the run up to his presidency: words matter. I would go so far as to say not only do words matter, but truth matters, no matter how cutting it may be.
In an article titled, In Defense of Slut-Shaming, Cassy Fiano writes:
“... is ‘slut-shaming,’ Limbaugh’s infraction, really such a horrible crime?
“Sandra Fluke is just one in a long line of pseudo-feminists celebrating their sluthood.
“Jessica Valenti, founder of Feministing, the largest feminist blog, wrote a book on it. She claimed that purity oppressed young women, not the Girls Gone Wild porn chic culture. Monica Shores, who writes for Ms. Magazine, the Huffington Post, and Alternet, made a handy little checklist of reasons why girls should have casual sex. It’s empowering! You can learn about your sexuality! Salon writer Tracy Clark-Flory wrote that casual sex is a great way to earn respect. Feminist writer and activist Jaclyn Friedman wrote a piece called “My Sluthood, Myself,” in which she opined that being a slut is “liberating” and “healing.” A blogger at Slate, specifically addressing the Limbaugh controversy, stated that Fluke’s sex positivity recharges feminism.
“But the trend goes much deeper than just a handful of feminists. Last year, SlutWalks became a worldwide craze, with feminists urging women to participate in order to revel in their sexuality and proudly reclaim the word slut. SlutWalks took place in cities across the United States, Canada, and Britain.
“And then of course, there’s the feminist preoccupation with abortion and birth control, both issues employed solely to enable a woman’s right to have sex without consequences, as much as she wants. This objective is virtually the only thing feminists care about now...Real feminist issues like, say, stoning and sharia law are rarely, if ever, touched upon....”
Wow...“casual sex is a great way to earn respect.” Unbelievable.
This is what passes for socially relevant intellectualism in today’s Progressive compliant society. By that measure, our hypothetical “Candra” should be right up there with Mother Teresa, Abigail Adams and Rosa Parks. After all, Candra’s accomplishment isn’t just that of attaining “slut” status; of bedding anyone she wants, whenever she wants, without fear of responsibility of consequence, it’s that she has achieved it without one scintilla of shame.
Now there’s a word that went out with the feminist revolution of the 1960s and 1970s...“shame.” We should all look that one up....
|
Dawa
Starlite Member
Username: Dawa
| | Posted on Friday, March 09, 2012 - 09:48 am: |
|
but a man who sleeps with a different partner every night is a stud! and his insurance company has no problem giving him viagra
moon spirit
|
Bubby
Starlite Member
Username: Bubby
| | Posted on Friday, March 09, 2012 - 01:18 pm: |
|
A man that sleeps with a different partner every night is in most Arabic countries.Not here.Well, one can now assume that Obama will furnish Viagra to all the Studs,and especially Muslim studs.See what happens when you come up with assumptions. A new law will be passed. You should be a politician,Dawa. |
Dawa
Starlite Member
Username: Dawa
| | Posted on Friday, March 09, 2012 - 02:21 pm: |
|
politics? moi? couldn't handle the stench i'm afraid...but arabic men are not like american men in this. it is not consider manly to behave in such a fashion.
moon spirit
|
Bubby
Starlite Member
Username: Bubby
| | Posted on Friday, March 09, 2012 - 08:24 pm: |
|
and you got that information from whom? |
|
