of maat:

"*******how is it now acceptable for rastas to hate gays********
I dont recall Baba Marcus ever advocating the hatred of anyone or any group."

No, no not directly, mm mm, never

But let’s check the initial post and see if we can detect the bias reading glaze that Baba was indicating was the case with those readers who are “very educated people”. Let’s see if these ideas concerning the issue have impacts, extensions, sidedness, even anger attached to them

I am educated and although what baba said was of no offence to me I contend that the assumption that somehow educated people lack the power of observation is incorrect and that such an assumption could cause one to lose miserably in a team survivalist reality tv show (LOL)

At the top, Baba said this:
1) “How is The world in which we are living is becoming a very sad, worthless, and very confusing place to live, as we live from day to day. Same sex marriage has become very popular and is well advertised on the Tell-lie-vision and other form of the news media.”

It kind of sounds here that Baba is indicating that homosexuals are part of the “worthlessness” in the world and that “tell-lie-vision” lies or corrupts when it covers stories about same sex marriage
So by extension, homosexuals are part of the worthlessness?

Well. What do some rebels souls sometimes do to those they consider worthless? Respect for the elder in this case leans against those considered to be corrupt. In other words, taking this idea as teaching will add to heterosexual loathing of non-heteros ie. “hating” them (dissing or whatever triggered revulsion occurs, it’s THE SAME EFFECT)

2) “the bad influences which it will have on our children…”

What do people who have children do when stoked by anxious fervor of a perceived threat to protect the welfare of their children, (whether or not their children are actually BEING threatened is left to a matter of parental fear-based perception) ?
Again, dissing or whatever triggered revulsion occurs, it’s THE SAME EFFECT

3) “The penis was created to fit into the sexual organs of the woman and not into the rump of another man, therefore, two women cannot produce children by pretending that they are mating."

The inspection of this statement still leaves open the question posited by Rasta Queen being what is the purpose of sexual ecstacy? Not all heterosexual sex contact is for the express purpose of procreation so then the feelings of pleasure in this stimulation must be assigned to either STRICT procreation or relegated to mere folly, nuh true?

And if we are talking about “fit”, then the human penis does fit into a human anal passage. I sight that Baba is not talking literally about fit as in size and shape but what is fitting (proper and by the book)

4) “I am just not able to humble-stand what is the good purpose of of this abomination as it is called in the Bible.”

There is two views being conjoined here. The “I” is Baba, the other is the bible. So the book puts it one way specifically - Baba Marcus: does this mean that without that bible we would not think to use a description of homosexuality like “abominable” ?

5) “is there any other creatures upon the face of this earth, or in the depths of the sea, who as male creatures, will leave the natural creative uses of a female, and embrace a male, and pretend that they are mating, and the same question goes for the female creatures as well?”

Interestingly, as answered earlier and as already confirmed by the OBSERVATIONS made by “educated people” we see same-sex acts in some animals. We must however acknowlege that we have never seen other creatures besides humans which “leave” altogether the mating procedures in creation, only that some express bisexuality. A lot of material could be reasoned about this difference between instinct and free will and the like but still, according to the book and it’s adherents, this is still Sodomy and an abomination.

If one believes that homosexuality is wicked and that it is right to hate wickedness, then where is the strong buffer that insists on hating the action and not the doer of the action???
It aint there.

If it is at all then from my observation it is weak. I have always heard this preached and yet see no communicative possibility between hetero and homo PARTICULARLY when the hetero is going by the Book

C’mon, we are not idiots in this forum. Extrapolation is often our specialty LOL !

If God destroyed a city because of homosexuality (and other crimes) It is safe to assume that He did not love the inhabitants of that city. He could have blinded them, blown away their graineries, sent some locusts or even infected them with boils, you know, teach them a lesson because god chastises with the bold rod of correction those whom he loves – no, TOTAL DESTRUCTION was the order for them.

My question here is this :
When you see an obviously effeminate (call them “flaming” LOL, no pun intended) male who is with another male of the same description does a feeling of love and communal affinity come into one’s being or does loathing and utter repulsion?

I admit here and now that the latter has been the case with me in the past, not so much now although I still ain’t interested and just try to move on to the next scene.