John Qwelane is a well known homophobe and he has published several hateful articles about gay men and lesbians. I suppose it should come as no surprise that he was at it again this weekend in his column in that august publication, The Sunday Sun.
In the piece Qwelane writes about the Anglican Church’s internal rift over the ordination of gay priests, stating that the “real problem” is the “rapid degradation of values and traditions…” I suppose he is paid to provoke so because his imagination is not as fertile as it could be, he can only laud Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe for his “unflinching and unapologetic stance over homosexuals.”
Qwelane goes on to claim that “you regularly see men kissing other men in public, walking holding hands and shamefully flaunting what are misleadingly termed their ‘lifestyle’ and ’sexual preferences.’” The constitution also comes under fire when he writes that he prays that politicians will some day have “the balls” to rewrite the constitution “to excise those sections which give license to men ‘marrying’ other men, and ditto women.”
“Otherwise at this rate, how soon before some idiot demands to ‘marry’ an animal, and that this constitution ‘allows’ it?” he asks. “And by the way, please tell the Human Rights Commission that I totally refuse to withdraw or apologise for my views,” because, he adds, “wrong is wrong.”
This is hateful stuff. Ignorant stuff. The kind of thing written by a man who is not very secure about his own sexuality. To equate homosexuality with bestiality is the kind of primary school argument used by bullies to denigrate gay men and lesbians and is not worthy of anyone with an IQ of more than 60. We all know most people who like to have sex with animals are heterosexual. (I will rather not talk about the strange morality in South Africa which abhors bestiality while seeing nothing wrong with killing and eating animals!)
David Bullard was fired from the Sunday Times for writing a far less offensive column – albeit on race and not sexual orientation. Qwelane is right, of course: wrong is wrong and being a hateful bigot is always wrong.
It was also wrong of the newspaper to publish this drivel. Maybe illigal too, but that is not the point. Even a tabloid like the Sunday Sun should show a modicum of responsibility and should not propagate hatred of gay men and lesbians. Just last month a Banyana Banyana player was murdered because she was a lesbian. This kind of column gives implicit legitimacy to such crimes and Qwelane and those in charge of the newspaper should be ashamed of themselves. They have blood on their hands – or soon will – because others will be killed in the name of this kind of hatred.
The editor of the Sunday Sun is Linda Rulashe (lrulashe@sundaysun.co.za) and the senior general manager for RCP Media is Sarel du Plessis (sduplessis@naspers.com). I’ll make sure to write them a letter to ask them how they sleep at night. And the next time a lesbian is murdered I will phone them to ask whether they do not feel at least a little bit ashamed for aiding and abetting this kind of crime. Feel free to do the same.
Very interesting as usaul prof. Cause if have more often then not read articles in various newspapers that has a legal tail to it (in fact most aricles in news papers have). And you realise that the author of the article does not know what he is talking about (even with my kasi knowledge). Fellowbloggers i stand to be corrected, for as far as the issue in question is concerned, it is not so much so about allowing same sex marriages but about the inherent infringement of sec 9 of discrimination based on sexual orientation. That i suppose should have been his starting piont, build his argument from there, in order to convince someone like me.
What I find astonishing is that the murder of Eudy Simelane has not caused more of a outcry. She was a member of the National football team for crying out loud.
I see she was murdered not a week before the latest bout of xenophobic violence commenced. That too went scandalously underreported (compared to events like the Reitz video and Skielik shootings) until it was impossible not to do so (when the violence spread to the heart of Johannesburg).
It might not seem that way, but this is not unconnected to the previous post where we discussed ‘transformation’.
Ivor Chipkin recently wrote an article on the xenophobic violence.
He said that one the ideological tenets of the Mbeki administration has been – “whites could not escape their racism” and from that followed “they could not be trusted in public life.” This is the essence of what the government transformation policy is says Chipkin.
This thinking is closely associated with “African nationalism” he ads.
“It is distinguished from the politics of non-racialism by its insistence that the post-apartheid government is a black government.”
And he diagnoses the negative fall out of this kind “African nationalism” (I disagree, I think its racially exclusive Africanism, but I digress).
The result of this is the dismissal of all criticism which is invariably equated as racism. And it works quite simply like this:
1. the government is a black government;
2. criticism of the government is, therefore, criticism of blacks; and
3. criticism is racist.
“The inability to come to terms with the agency of black people is, ironically, the hallmark of African nationalism. It is driven to reduce the actions of blacks to the machinations of others (white racists, in particular). Claims of a “third force” are merely instances of this political logic — a refusal to come to terms with the racist nationalism of those committing ethnic cleansing throughout the country.”
Like I said, I don’t think this is African nationalism, but there certainly is an ideology at work here, from which many, including the media, and I’m afraid you as well, Pierre, suffers.
Had the xenophobic killings been committed by whites it would have been exposed 5 years ago. Had Eudy Simelane been abused by the Reitz arseholes we would all have known about her and so would readers of the New York Times.
Because of our ideological goggles Eudy Simelane, and many other lesbians before her, and many foreigners have been killed and we as a society have looked the other way.
That is original sin, John Qwelane’s bile is just a symptom of a society infected by deadly ideas on race.
http://mhambi.blogspot.com/2008/06/mbekis-anc-is-africanist-not.html
Well said Pierre. Qwelane, like Bullard, deserves the boot. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.
…and to think that I used to respect Jon Qwelane.
Due to the inherent racism rampant in South Africa, Jon will once again escape from this with a secure job and an increasing platform to spout his inane drivel
I have had the inconsistent pleasure of buying the tabloid Sunday Sun. JQ’s column is one I do not read anymore becuase he is one such columnist who is wrong about most topical issues: check his stance on Mugabe, Zuma, Jackie of Soweto etc. I was convinced that he is one of those columnists who have not progressed far enough in their career despite years at it and therefore seek to court fame by being controversial. The man does not write well either.
I sometimes feel that certain of our minorities are too sensitive. While I do not share his views on gays, I think when the sword is brought down on him, it must be after a careful analysis of the views expressed. I have always felt that Jews are over-protected sometimes. Reference to the holocaust brings out a strong and sometimes over the top clamour in defence, while reference to the slave trade does not get as much sensitivity despite the millions of deaths. This is why Cristiano Ronaldo can call himself a 120 000 GBP weekly “Slave”!
There is also a shocking belief among many that Mugabe hates gays. He may have expressed his revulsion a few times but look at the facts.
The first President in Zimbabwe, Canaan Banana, (Mugabe was Prime Minister) was prosecuted in the late 1990s for sodomy committed on, among the complainants, several of his bodyguards in the early 1980s. The criminal conduct of the then President was known to Mugabe and his entire cabinet, prompting the then Commander of the Army to withdraw all military personnel guarding the president to protect them from the sodomy. The former president was only prosecuted after a victim disclosed these acts during a criminal trial, and a judge ordered the investigation. If Bob hates gays this much, should he protect those among them who sodomise others? Or it was just politically convenient to do so!
Bob criticised the bottom-wiggling kwasa-kwasa dance in the early 1990s, but when his party was broke and needed to raise money, the hired one of the best bottom-wiggling bands from then Zaire to raise money!
David Bullard was fired by the (Black) editor/ownership of the Sunday Times for writing a tounge-in-cheek column that caused a racism witch hunt. It will be VERY interesting to see if JQ gets so much as a slap on the wrist for his homophobic hate speech. But face facts, JQ is a Black Mugabe/Zuma supporter while Bullard is a White man in a Black African-dictatorship-in-the-making. The message is : Jews, Gays, Whites, foreigners or Non-Comrades-of-the-Glorious-Azanian-Revolution can be vilified attacked and slaughtered openly in SA’s ludicrous version of democracy. Look out for JQ’s appointment as Minister of Arselicking in Zuma’s cabinet …
I think you are acting in a hysterical manner Pierre.Freedom of speech is ingrained in our constitution and that is not speech limited to liberal idiology only.
Jon has his views and is free to make his opinions,just like any other citizen.
Being accepting of gays is no longer good enough,one has to CELEBRATE gayness to avoid the ire of the liberal establishment these days!
Yes prof that was well wriiten. But I do not agree with you. We have no problem with homosexuals but for them to dilute our space and socail institutions like marriage is just not on. I believe the night is too long for them to do their staff without disturbing us. We also have rights you know.
You write “Feel free to do the same”. No thank you not for me. I hope that JZ still stands by his position “ukushaya ingqili”.
No offence!!!
How gravely disappointing that Linda Rulashe (current editor of Sunday Sun) has failed so dimally in executing her responsibility as Editor of the this newspaper. To waste my breath with a person of the calibre of Jon Qwelane would simply be giving him credit which he does not deserve, so I will not even go there.
Approving an article of this nature to the published was highly irresponsible, insensitive and damaging to the South African society.
South Africa is a progressive society that cherishes and respects human rights, the strides we have made so far will not be undermined and nullified by such inefficiency and evident bigotry in the media.
I hope you are both taught a lesson – a lesson in Humanity, that which you clearly know and respect so little of.
While I agree with you Lance,
Freedom of speech, like all rights, comes with responsibility. And the biggest responsibility in Human Rights is to be able to enjoy own rights without impinging on other people’s!
T wrote (in part) “…but for them to dilute our space and socail (sic) institutions like marriage is just not on. … I hope that JZ still stands by his position “ukushaya ingqili” (sic). …”
I ask, Who is ‘them’ and who is ‘our’? And your support of the homophobic and hateful Zuma statement says a lot about the content of your character. I am not gay but please don’t include me and my children in your ‘our’!
Ditto Dumisani. You really said it all.
T, your “argument” is fallacious (no pun intended). As far as I know, nobody prevents you from marrying a person of the opposite sex. Neither does the law force you to marry a member of the same sex. Your rights (or anyone else’s rights) to marry have therefore not been infringed in any way. The only reason for opposing same-sex marriage is the belief that allowing same-sex couples to marry would somehow “taint” heterosexual marriage. Such a belief is not only irrational, but also based on prejudice as it assumes gay men and lesbians are somehow dirty or perverted and that allowing them to marry would defile marriage. If we followed that logic it would allow the state to enforce the prejudices of some on all of society and would also require a ban on marriage by anyone that some in society do not like or approve of – people of another race, say, or Jacob Zuma or Tony Leon or foreigners or politicians or woman or men…..
Your statement that your rights are infringed when same-sex couples hold hands and kiss in public, is also absurd. Nobody stops you from kissing or holding hands in public. If you mean you have a right not to see any public displays of affection by gay men or lesbians, you are claiming a right to have your own prejudices enforced by the state. There is no such right in the Constitution. If there were, we would have to ban all public displays of affection.
…Just to add on to Pierre’s riposte. Your (T and Lance) view is premised on a view that gay and lesbian sexuality is based on heteronormative deviency. You let what people do, in the comfort and privacy of their own space (and public space belongs to those who claim it) offend you. It may be difficult to stomach, but your views of sexuality and related levels of discomfort are precisely the reason why we need protection for all different sexualities to ensure that there is an equal standard at play for all, and to prevent the enslavement of the “moral” minority by the “moral” majority.
Another thing. Your comment of “them disturbing us” is self-defeating. I’m sure many of my friends would feel equally as disturbed by your (assumed) heteronormative practices!
God Pierre, where do you get the ENERGY for all this?
Qwelane is one son of a belligerent ignoramus. I tend to think that people who have problems with any form of, erm, non-hetero-normative sexuality are sexually insecure and repressed; that they have a problem with sexuality, period. For them sex is just a functional old in-and-out with a disembodied penis – you know, men who don’t even know their own penises, but imagine they do..
Googling Qwelane, I found this:
http://www.news24.com/News24/Columnists/Jon_Qwelane/0,,2-1630-1633_2007825,00.html
which is dated as 4/10/2006. I am puzzled. Is Qwelane rehashing old stuff or is News24’s site up to shit?
As I have said once before when the Sun was lambasted for its hate speech against ‘moffies’, this debate is much too intricate for those of us sitting on the stadium to get involved with. So, this one I’ll leave to you (I don’t like these terms at all!) ‘homosexuals’ and ‘homophobes’ (just remember a ‘phobia’ relates to fear, not anger or repulsion) to thrash it out. Hopefully, the Constitution will remain unscathed, ‘and the World will live as one?!’
I wonder what John Quelane will make of this study?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=8772014
I quote it with pleasure. Celebrate it even.
“Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013, USA.
The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980).
The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992).
Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression.
Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.”
I don’t think John is very clever and, yes Wessel, I think he is a little curious as well… but that’s not the problem. The problem is that the Naspers Group of companies (which owns News24 and the Sunday Sun) give him so much exposure… Isn’t this the same Group that fired Doen Maas from Rapport for saying something about the devil? I think more pressure should be put on the editor, newspaper and owner of the newspaper to publicly apologize.
This is a rather tricky legal matter because it is not hatespeech… the definition of hate speech in the Constitution, the Films and Publications Act and the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 is limited to nasty things about race, gender or religion… but not sexual orientation.
However, John’s article falls squarly within the prohibition detailed in section 12 of Act 4 of 2000 – “no person may publish.. or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds… that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intenyion to be hurtful, harmful or incite harm. “Sexual orientation” is defined as one of the prohibited grounds.
It follows that not only John but also the editor and publisher of the newspaper violated the provisions of Act 4 of 2000 and may be subject to a complaint at the Equality Court.
This stuff comes very close to hate speech, or perhaps it even is. Should the Human Rights Commission not probe these homophobic statements and is this not a case for the equality courts? Freedom of speech is important, yet in a society with rampant violence against gays and lesbians, gay bashing becomes very easily incitement to violence. It is ironic that the likes of Qwelane will rant about the marginal position of black people in the heights of our economy but thinks it is ok to marginalize gays and lesbians because of their sexuality.
disgusting piece. i remember seeing columns by this man years ago and am astounded that he is still accorded editorial space to hash out his ‘views’
“I will rather not talk about the strange morality in South Africa which abhors bestiality while seeing nothing wrong with killing and eating animals!”
hear hear!
John is right!
I’m gay and I can be bit of an animal in bed.
[...] was rather startled when I learned on the Constitutionally speaking blog of Eudy Simelane’s death, which was mentioned in response to the Qwelane article. Why did I not pickup on this? I Googled [...]
Pierre, I decided to tackle this issue on my blog.
http://mhambi.com/2008/07/john-qwelane-homophobia-southafrica/
Maybe its time we looked beyond the obvious about this Mad Cow… He was deprived nourishment as a child thus his big empty head, the spotlight as adult thus his choice of articles… He does not know where he comes from but who he is thus the big Q around his face to claim decent. Its possible that his hate and anger towards people identified as homosexuals is out of jealousy… He cant admit it… Jon Qwelani Wants A Man.
he is the editor of the sunday sun, he can have as much space in his paper as he wants.
He is not the editor – he is a columnist.
Wrong is wrong.JQ,the truth hurts.they can say what ever but they know it wrong to be gay.God does not approve that, let them talk what ever they want,let them not buy sunday sun.We will still buy it .Our constitution have allowed that bt I does mean is right,Idont agree with that.Robert mugabe is not my favourate person bt when came to this gay issue he is right.Well Mr Jon Qwelani.keep it up my brother.Wrong is wrong
Please don’t drag God in your hatred. For your information God never wrote the Bible – man did. For all we know, the Bible could be a fabrication so don’t base your argument on one book.
You must read books based on scholarly research to understand that being gay is not a choice. Otherwise you may as well join those who think it is wrong to be left-handed.
Sorry!
My comment (above) is meant for Solly.
People should get to grips with scientific reasoning, as their rationality skills are severely lacking. Sexual orientation is NO choice. Homosexuality does no harm to the individual or to society, but only to homophobes who are religiously (irrationally) repressed in the first place. Leave religion out of your prejudices.
If anything, gays are an asset to our society in present times. There are simply too many people on this earth for it to sustain the human race. Soon something is going to give and everybody is going to pay a price. Gay couples are not that likely to have children, compared to heterosexual couples. Maybe they are more evolved than the rest of us (?). They should not be treated as a lesser “race”.
I find Wessel van Rensburg a funny chappie
and Abbie Heunis a bit behind the times.
Homo sexuality is very old,that is not the point(point????????)
Sorry,let me rephrase,that is not the twig.
At no time in the history of man have homosexuals got it so good.
The law has made it very clear that there is a man and a woman.
There is no law ,which has placed a homosexual in the context of being a human.That is also not the point.
The point is that if homosexuality becomes legal, humanity
is in for a prick-ly shock.
WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO SAY ANYTHING THAT MIGHT APPEAR BIASED AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY.
That means the religions of the book are biased and illegal.
WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO CONDUCT MINISTRIES TO HELP HOMOSEXUALS LEAVE THAT LIFESTYLE.
That means the poor lesser endowed wanting to use a
woman must stick his appendix in a tin of beans.
WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO USE THE TERMS FATHER/MOTHER, HUSBAND/WIFE
That means that the law must change it to Party “A and party “B”,which means that the illiterate can not make a X,but have to dent the “scroll” with a mixture of his P and her C .
WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO REFUSE TO SERVE HOMOSEXUALS IN YOUR BUSINESS.
That means the end of my scrubby,and the beginning of a “fleur de crammer”
WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO TURN DOWN A HOMOSEXUAL FOR A JOB.
That means I will have to buy chastity belts and candles for my staff.
I have to change my shops name to “La Vie en Rose”
WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO HAVE WOMEN ONLY PUBLIC RESTROOMS.
Fine with me the difference is “minute”.
Hilarious too ….counting “boots” the lesser of boobs
WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO REFUSE TO PLACE CHILDREN WITH HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES.
Now that is a sicky point
WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO STOP HOMOSEXUALS FROM HAVING PUBLIC SEX.
Dash it,I will have to bend for a friend.
Time to invest in Pitt bulls,and “roosters”
Privacy Statement:”Any gay or lesbian entering my website please wipe your feet not when entering,but when leaving
Oi dok that’s a mouthful(oopsy no pun intended)
@ Dok. Wow, talk about behind the times!!
My comment that gays are an asset to our society at present times does not imply that gays are a present phenomenon. Frankly, I’m not interested in gay relationships in the past. I’m saying it is particularly useful to have gay relationships at present. I have already given my reason. My comment that gays are more evolved than us may have been a bit over the top.
WHEN WRONG BECAME RIGHT -
CHRISTIANITY SACRIFICED ON THE ALTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Christians believe their Bible to contains the infallible word of their God(YHWH). In the Bible it is written that none must add to nor take away from the word of God(YHWH), and amongst many other prohibitions, (like divorce,) that a man who lies with another man, is an abomination to the Lord,(YHWH). So who is the higher authority – the Christian God, or the Constitutional Court?
The Christian Bible sets out the clear and unequivocal laws and commandments that mankind is to adhere to, if they desire the covering,(or blessing) of God(YHWH). The covenant is clear and unambiguous. It is a reciprocal contact, ‘you worship me as I command, and I will protect and bless you.’
With the advent of human rights, mankind has become lost in the liberalisation of society and forgotten the commandments of their God,(YHWH). It has sacrificed the covenant and commandments of its God(YHWH) on the alter of human rights. Like Aaron and the golden calf, human rights have become mankind’s golden calf. Bad has become good, wrong has become right and perversion has become all powerful.
Israël broke the covenant which they had made with God,(YHWH), while Moses was still on Mount Sinai receiving the tables of stone, upon which were inscribed the Ten Commandments. Before Moses returned, Israël had succumbed to their old pagan ways they had practised and returned to the worship they had known in Egypt, (Mizraim.)
Aaron, caught up in the liberalisation and equality and non discrimination of society condoned the construction of the golden calf to represent the deity, which the fleeing Israelites wrongly believed, had brought them out of Egypt. It was contrary to the commandments and the word of God(YHWH). The end result is well known.
As but one example of mankind breaking their covenant with God,(YHWH), is the acceptance of perversity created by the human rights – namely:equality, and non discrimination. Today the state of California is torn in the dispute over gay marriage, churches welcome gays into their pulpits and their congregations; and which they reconcile with the commandment of ‘love thy neighbour,’ amongst the many other misquotes which are made out of context. Each man translates the commandments to suit his own church’s needs that benefits his pocket.
If homosexuality is a perversion and condemned by God,YHWH), who is mankind to approve perversion and attempt to justify it? If the perverted are marginalised it is their choice, they chose wrong over right, why does mankind evade this point?
Clearly, God(YHWH) exhorted mankind to righteousness, otherwise he would have welcomed Satan, Satan’s angels and the hordes of Hell into his kingdom – based on equality and non discrimination. God, (YHWH) would have commanded us to love Satan, and Satan’s angels and to let them into our churches, our homes and our lives. God did not do this, he threw Satan out of Heaven; and God(YHWH) exhorted Christians to turn from wrong and return to right, (as do all recognised religions.)
Mankind has ignored these precepts, he has sacrificed God,(YHWH) and his commandments in the temple of the Constitution on the alter of Human Rights – mankind’s golden calf.
“my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of YHWH I will also forget thy children.”
“There is a way that seemeth right to man, but the ends thereof are the ways of death,”
I support Jon Qwelane
To DAVID JESSE PhD
Your argument is only relevant to those who choose to adhere to a belief that the BIBLE is TRUTH and ABSOLUTELY OBJECTIVE.
Catch a wake-up! It’s the year 2009 brother!
You can throw ALL the quotations you like at GLBT people from this ‘BOOK,’ but, for your information, it means NOTHING!
Do you understand the DIFFERENCE between religion and belief?
What makes you think for one second that the BIBLE is the word of GOD? (let me guess…because it says so)!
Religion IS and ALWAYS has been a SUBJECTIVE choice.
“They must find it difficult, those who have chosen authority as the truth rather than truth as the authority *”
*Religious institutions in this world are as corrupt as the filth running many countries today!
I’m not here to tell you who GOD is, but I kindly ask you to keep the teachings of YOUR religion and YOUR subjective interpretations of a BOOK you CLAIM ‘TRUTH’ to yourself and the brainwashed masses that follow you.
Don’t BIBLE bash! That book is one of the most PLAGIARIZED pieces of literature known to man!
Open your mind, open your eyes, there is GOD beyond the bible.
Even though I believe that one never puts the petrol where the oil should go, I still think Qwelane is a dim witted bigot who should be ignored.
Good Comment, Pierre. But – regarding the niveau The Sunday Sun serves – the article does not really suprise…
In response to Mr PHD
Most people have not carefully and prayerfully researched the biblical texts often used to condemn God’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children.
As you may know, biblical ignorance is an epidemic in the United States. A recent study quoted by Dr. Peter Gomes in “The Good Book” found that 38 percent of Americans polled were certain the Old Testament was written a few years after Jesus’ death. Ten percent believed Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife. Many even thought the epistles were the wives of the apostles.
This same kind of biblical ignorance is all too present around the topic of homosexuality especially in Africa. Often people who love and trust God’s Word have never given careful and prayerful attention to what the Bible does or doesn’t say about homosexuality.
For example, many Christians don’t know that:
Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior.
The Jewish prophets are silent about homosexuality.
Only six or seven of the Bible’s one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way — and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation AS IT IS UNDERSTOOD TODAY.
Most people who are certain they know what the Bible says about homosexuality don’t know where the verses that reference same-sex behavior can be found. They haven’t read them, let alone studied them carefully. They don’t know the original meaning of the words in Hebrew or Greek. And they haven’t tried to understand the historical context in which those words were written. Yet the assumption that the Bible condemns homosexuality is passed down from generation to generation with very little personal study or research. The consequences of this misinformation are disastrous, not only for God’s gay and lesbian children, but for the entire church.
Over the centuries people who misunderstood or misinterpreted the Bible have done terrible things. The Bible has been misused to defend bloody crusades and tragic inquisitions; to support slavery, apartheid, and segregation; to persecute Jews and other non-Christian people of faith; to support Hitler’s Third Reich and the Holocaust; to oppose medical science; to condemn interracial marriage; to execute women as witches; and to support the Ku Klux Klan. Shakespeare said it this way: “Even the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.”
We’d like to believe that no person of good will would misuse the Bible to support his or her prejudice. But time and time again it has happened with tragic results.
read more at http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
] we must re-dedicate ourselves to our traditional values that
} make us human beings
I’ve got a problem understanding this common theme of the bantu:
“confirming one’s humanity”.
Should I doubt the differnce between a human a banana and a stone?
Or is there some deeper bantu meaning that’s lost in the translation
to English?
=============
7. Lance Allam says:
}Being accepting of gays is no longer good enough, one has to
]CELEBRATE gayness to avoid the ire of the liberal establishment
] these days!
Yes, I resist the PeeCee-ness of homosexuality too.
Strangely AFAIK the PeeCee disease is only present in anglo societies.
PdV wrote:-
] The only reason for opposing same-sex marriage is the belief that
] allowing same-sex couples to marry would somehow “taint” heterosexual
] marriage.
I oppose the TERM “same-sex marriage” for the same reason that the champangne
producers oppose the hi-jacking of their label. MARRIAGE has been known by
a certain definition for ages as has homosexuality. If you’ve got a new
scheme/sparkling-wine call it by a new name. Don’t taint my existing
terminology — nor pretend that the race is about colour or geography.
–> PS. did anybaody else’s gmail get screwed by the Chinese or rain ?
[...] controversial appointment to its diplomatic corps (our guess: he’s writing about a certain homophobe due for a sojourn in Uganda), but he does question what exactly the prerequisites are for [...]
why are all these people supporting shit? well done jon Q you the man in a dirty south africa. the writer here is probably gay himself.
[...] locusts, a goat on its way to the slaughterhouse and a giant hive full of really pissed off bees. Jon Qwelane even described the Vuvuzela as “an instrument from [...]
Qwelane has support.
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/06/23/New_Australia_PM_Gillard_Opposes_Gay_Marriage/