it seems like we are trying for a mojority rules political oppinion so that no one has to apply critical thought to the existance of a thing until it becomes an accepted custom.

for me it boils down to this, if you believe in a european eugenic agenda advancing a eurocentric global hegemony on the planet, which can only be sustained by keeping indiginous populations in check, by hook or by crook, then homosexuality can be lumped in with aids and 'family planning' as a factor preciptiating the downfall of the viability of the breeding population of these peoples.

it is another level of conflict, where one culture will breed the other out. in a 'democratic' system, you need the majority to establish political power, after which you can control the minority group.

for instance, in new zealand, the invading force purposefully imported women who were fertile and hearty to establish the colony, and even though, for the most part, they were fought to a standstill by the maori in the past, now, because they have numerical superiority, they can subtly pass legislation that can slowly erode any and every maori land right and right to self determination. because they are outnumbered.

it has been laid out in clear english in the eugenic doctorines of the late 1800's and early 1900's in the work of many prominent european's that eugenics is an agenda, and only after the embarrasing behavior of their poster boy hitler, was it forced to adopt a more underground stance. this stance did not lessen their commitment to the agenda. and may have made it more effective.

in this context, homesexuality of african peoples can be seen as a negative thing. as it limits the breeding ability of the child bearing age population. although the question was the spiritual, many if not most spiritual taboos are based around holding together a community, which entails rituals such as marriage and monogamy in an area of limited resources.

for all the talk about birth control, now some european countries and japan are actually offering cash incentives to get their young women to bear more children. the most immediate concern is the ageing population. if a certain amount of people, the 'baby boomers' reach retirement age, it leaves a deficit to be filled by an equally large group of youth, needed to support them.

so you get a sort of confused logic. especially in regards to indiginous and immigrant or simply 'people of color' who are encouraged not to immigrate or have children, while they encourage their children to? it's only confused if you are an idiot. there is a clear ethnocentric agenda.

however, to add balance to the picture, i would introduce a concept that i am trying to understand in the pacific, which may add credence to the aformentioned information, or rather to a hypothesis that homosexuality negatively impacts the breeding population in reference to available resources (or in a situation where there are two groups in conflict over a similar resource).

enter the fa'afafine...

http://www.abc.net.au/ra/pacific/people/hazy.htm

to paraphrase, in a samoan family of all boys, sometimes the youngest boy will be raised as a girl to help the mother. they dress as a girl because what they are doing is womens work. this does not mean that they are homosexual, as in many cases when they grow up they still marry a woman and go on to have children.

why this sort of backs my hyothesis is that it usually occurs in families with all boys, but i haven't worked out where this fits into the idea that homosexuality comes from europe (greece). it doesn't neccesarilly mean that africans had or did not have homosexuality, or socialized homosexuality, but here is evidence of a socialized homosexuality in a group with mixed micro and melanesian heritage.

i guess i don't think that homosexuality is good for black people in our current condition. i also am not for hyper sexual music videos or overzealous infidelity. i think it is possible to be sexual and loving, but i have found that abstinence before marriage and the idea of families integrating into eachother through marriage is fairly valid.

i'm not overzealous in my beliefs. but i'm not going to jump on any bandwagon hollering 'go gay go!'. metro sexual is perplexing to me. and in general, i'm trying to be living proof that you don't have to alienate or demonize anyone, and still can go on to have beautifull black babies that i will raise and love and will eventually end up strengthening black people by virtue of mind (training) body (healthy living) and soul (love of the most high, the universe).

i think that anything in the media is questionable. it serves a very hidden and dubious agenda. it is the coloseum complete with gladiators and orgies. it pushes the lowest common denominator while the tyrants erode the rights and livelihood of the people.

i hope this doesn't seem like a levelled attack at homosexuality. i'm open to discussion. i don't think 'god hates fags' or what have you. i mentioned the fa'afine because my understanding or idea of homosexuality was altered when i learned of them. and they do exist.

i will bring up that their life in a european context like new zealand is not an enviable one. often they end up turning tricks on the street and beating the shit out of skin heads and drunkards who try to mess with them. the most frightening gangsters to me are the 7 foot tall 289lbs samoan men in 6inch heels on the street around the corner from where i used to live, and i'm like "what's up dude, how you doing? naw, i'm cool, stay strong brother..."

ok?