tensor777:

Now look here Obi don't derail the thread with retaliations and petty insults. You are not getting the point your opponent Sagamite is making. Its that you Kenobi are already making value judgements when you pronounce on what public acts are offensive and what are not?
If you are advocating that faggottry should be tolerated and even preached does even delineating the differences as between faggotry and normal sex in schools for example not expose children to disgusting 'acts of lewdness' in the eyes of the majority?
Wetin be private at the end of the day?

I'm making my own value pronouncements just as others are. For the record, rather than "pro-gay", I'm more of "pro-tolerance". Slightly different things. I'm not suddenly advocating preaching to elementary school kids about the merits of homosexuality. I'm not even sure that is done in the liberal West. But if someone is among a minority who has grown to discover he/she doesn't have the same intimate orientation and desires of his/her peers and certainly can't fight the feeling, there's no reason they can't be tolerated. It's cruel to ostracize and punish them because they were "cursed" to be different and they deserve to be able to share the emotions other normal people do.

Champions of pedophile. Keep your homo to yourself or run to countries that support that rubish.
#teamItsNotGonaHappenInNigeria!

Sagamite:

You are a person!

So what does "sexual exposure to minors to unsolicited sexual exposure and stimulation" do to you?

Removes your eyes? Or gives you cancer?

How is that your business?

I thought you said if something does not harm you, it is not your business?

As I said, most of you moorons have no understanding of the concept of the fads you espouse. You just regurgitate the stuff you have heard and think that shows you have a brain.

So, who should fight for the rights of children if whatever happens to them doesn't affect adults. So if they're subjected to physical or sexual abuse, adults should turn a blind eye? Again, this is no argument about the constitutional and legal acceptance of public lewdness, paedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, incest etc. They're red herrings that are ALWAYS brought up in these convoluted, long-winded arguments and are irrelevant to the individual merits of the case I'm making for gay tolerance. I have my opinions on each of those and I don't have to write essays on all of them everytime I take on an argument on gay tolerance on it's own merits.

Obi1kenobi:
. But if someone is among a minority who has grown to discover he/she doesn't have the same intimate orientation and desires of his/her peers and certainly can't fight the feeling, there's no reason they can't be tolerated. It's cruel to ostracize and punish them because they were "cursed" to be different and they deserve to be able to share the emotions other normal people do.

Cursed to be different is an interesting phrase. Are not then rapists and paedos and necrophilists not cursed to be different/
Where do you draw your proverbial red line. I put it to you, sir, that these are all lifestyle choices. Nobody is born a sex delinquent.

Obi1kenobi:
I'm making my own value pronouncements just as others are. For the record, rather than "pro-gay", I'm more of "pro-tolerance". Slightly different things. .

Why are you tolerant of faggottry by the way? What is that about??

Obi1kenobi:
So, who should fight for the rights of children if whatever happens to them doesn't affect adults. So if they're subjected to physical or sexual abuse, adults should turn a blind eye? Again, this is no argument about the constitutional and legal acceptance of public lewdness, paedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, incest etc. They're red herrings that are ALWAYS brought up in these convoluted, long-winded arguments and are irrelevant to the individual merits of the case I'm making for gay tolerance. I have my opinions on each of those and I don't have to write essays on all of them everytime I take on an argument on gay tolerance on it's own merits.

Mooron, explain to me how public lewdness affects your rights? I want your opinion in brief, no need to write an essay.

tensor777:
Cursed to be different is an interesting phrase. Are not then rapists and paedos and necrophilists not cursed to be different/
Where do you draw your proverbial red line. I put it to you, sir, that these are all lifestyle choices. Nobody is born a sex delinquent.

If you can't distinguish between gay people and rapists and paedophiles, I can't be bothered really.

Sagamite:

Mooron, explain to me how public lewdness affects your rights? I want your opinion in brief, no need to write an essay.

It doesn't. It affects others, including minors. You really are one nasty piece of work, aren't you? Any particular reason you visit public forums just to become an agitated mess?

Obi1kenobi:
It doesn't. It affects others, including minors. You really are one nasty piece of work, aren't you? Any particular reason you visit public forums just to become an agitated mess?

Explain to me, how it affects minors.

Obi1kenobi:
If you can't distinguish between gay people and rapists and paedophiles, I can't be bothered really.

Two are deviant and something is wrong upstairs that needs to be addressed.

A rapist is wicked and a criminal.

Obi1kenobi:
If you can't distinguish between gay people and rapists and paedophiles, I can't be bothered really.

Simply put they are all delinquents. However the primary purpose of sex and, inter alia, marriage is procreation. It is not in the overall interest of society to promote faggottry by its very nature.
Again it is well known that many of those who practise acts of faggottry also are rapists and bloody paedophiles as well. It is, as it were, a gateway activity. So there is a linkage.

Sagamite:

Two are deviant and something is wrong upstairs that needs to be addressed.

A rapist is wicked and a criminal.

Rapists and paedos are harmful criminals who violate "victims". Being gay may be deviant but I'm not sure victimless deviancy should be demonized as criminals. I see them the same way as I see non-violent drug addicts. Deviants, who may or may not be beyond help, not criminals.

Obi1kenobi:
Rapists and paedos are harmful criminals who violate "victims". Being gay may be deviant but I'm not sure victimless deviancy should be demonized as criminals. I see them the same way as I see non-violent drug addicts. Deviants, who may or may not be beyond help, not criminals.

I never said they should be demonised as criminal. Their acts should be what is criminalised.

Just like drug addicts' acts are criminalised.

I am still waiting for you to explain to me how lewd sex acts affects minors.

Obi1kenobi:
Rapists and paedos are harmful criminals who violate "victims". Being gay may be deviant but I'm not sure victimless deviancy should be demonized as criminals. I see them the same way as I see non-violent drug addicts. Deviants, who may or may not be beyond help, not criminals.

Victimhood and consent are all too familiar phrases trotted out by Western post-modernist liberals.
A man that practises faggottry is a deviant that makes himself a victim of his repulsive delinquency.
Are you saying that those that make themselves victims should be encouraged? No they need to be weeded out and "cured" as it were.

^
But how is that our problem? We need to respect other people's private space, as long as they are hurting no one. Why do you want them cured? Shouldn't they live their lives as they please? As an atheist, I believe that a lot of religious folks are insane, but you don't see me advocating for a "cure."

gothrones: ^
But how is that our problem? We need to respect other people's private space, as long as they are hurting no one. Why do you want them cured? Shouldn't they live their lives as they please? As an atheist, I believe that a lot of religious folks are insane, but you don't see me advocating for a "cure."

Yes it is. Wetin be private after all?

^
Probably because I am an American; the concept of private space need not be explained. I will never understand why others are so incensed with a phenomenon that doesn't affect them whatsoever. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be abolished. At the very worst, the gays are hurting themselves, not me. How is that my problem?

Sagamite:

Homosexual conducts are not civil rights!

Civil rights are subjective.

I wasn't arguing about homosexual conducts. There is nothing we can do to stop that. Unless of course, we are in the part of the world where it is criminalized. I meant same-sex marriage. If straight people have the right to marry, then since one cannot discriminate based on sèxual orientation, then the gays must also be able to wed. Even your resident country has passed gay rights. Give Nigeria another 500 years, and it will be legal. You know say we like follow follow.

Of course, all I have said absolutely do not apply in non-Western countries. I am not a fool. I will not go to Nigeria and argue about gay marriage, nor will I engage in a debate with members of my deeply religious family about legalizing gay marriage. I only share my real views with people who don't know me and I know will not kill me for having these views.

gothrones:


Of course, all I have said absolutely do not apply in non-Western countries. I am not a fool. I will not go to Nigeria and argue about gay marriage, nor will I engage in a debate with members of my deeply religious family about legalizing gay marriage. I only share my real views with people who don't know me and I know will not kill me for having these views.

You don't get it do you. This debate is not about stopping acts of faggottry occurring.These are already criminalised and stigmatised in Nigeria as they should be. Its more about resisting the pro-fagoott agenda of Western liberals.
Who on this forum cares if you are a faggott or an atheist really? This is something that you should summon courage to discuss with your own family.

^
You don't get it either. I am an American, so I don't care about what happens in your country. I am only arguing that those who oppose homosexuality have no right to do so, since it is none of their business.

gothrones: ^
But how is that our problem? We need to respect other people's private space, as long as they are hurting no one. Why do you want them cured? Shouldn't they live their lives as they please? As an atheist, I believe that a lot of religious folks are insane, but you don't see me advocating for a "cure."

You are free to do whatever you like in private. But once you bring what you do in private to the public expect public opinion and potentially public enforcement.

gothrones: ^
Probably because I am an American; the concept of private space need not be explained. I will never understand why others are so incensed with a phenomenon that doesn't affect them whatsoever. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be abolished. At the very worst, the gays are hurting themselves, not me. How is that my problem?

What do you mean that it does not affect you?

Honestly that is a useless argument that has been used and many have fallen for because they lack the ability to query a proposition's logic.

gothrones:

I wasn't arguing about homosexual conducts. There is nothing we can do to stop that. Unless of course, we are in the part of the world where it is criminalized. I meant same-sex marriage. If straight people have the right to marry, then since one cannot discriminate based on sèxual orientation, then the gays must also be able to wed. Even your resident country has passed gay rights. Give Nigeria another 500 years, and it will be legal. You know say we like follow follow.

Of course, all I have said absolutely do not apply in non-Western countries. I am not a fool. I will not go to Nigeria and argue about gay marriage, nor will I engage in a debate with members of my deeply religious family about legalizing gay marriage. I only share my real views with people who don't know me and I know will not kill me for having these views.

Fck any country that has legalised it.

The foolish and gullible people have been deceived gradually just like our own gullibles are being deceived that "how does it affect you what people do in private". Most people in the UK and US did not bargain for this, they were deceived into inaction:

https://www.nairaland.com/134573/californias-top-court-legalizes-gay#2269021

So, of course, there is nothing they can do to stop things like homosexual marriage in this country. Let them legalise it all because the people were gullible fucktards.

If it is legal, expect all you can see in your society related to normal and natural relationships to be seen with homosexual relationships and there is nothing the people's daft arsse can do about it.

Legalise homosexual marriage, IVF for homosexuals, homosexuality in school curriculum, homosexual sex on TV, force churches and mosque to carry out homosexual marriage ceremonies or face being sued.

If you are moronic enough to say nothing is wrong with it, then you should be willing to accept all the shyt that comes with its "freedom" and "equality" you agreed with.

500 years in Nigeria? I don't give too much fck what happens then.

the way some pple defend homosexuality baffles me. how can somebody in his right senses feel good wit homosexuality? pro homo guys,acknowledge dat u guys hav a problem dat cannot be cured by drugs,dat is d first step. with delieverance n counselling from dis demonic spiritual disease, u will overcome it.
sayn gaysim is okay makes mockery of God's purpose of creation. the devil is at work to destroy God's creation,dnt let him succeed thro u. as for doz sayn anti gay r hypocrites cos of rapists n co,shld we den support oda bad tins cos bad tins already exist? we will keep condemning wot is wrong n we will neva giv into western pressure of legalizing homos in dis country, never,even if dats d only good tin our govt will do.

Beync: Hehehe, tell me one shameful practice that some people will never accept practising it but will defend the act with their last strength, homosexualism. That's how disgusting and disgraceful homosexualism is especially in this context, you people will never see the day light in this part of the world. Go to America or uk and practice not here.

Nigeria may be a hard nut to crack for now but such sexual inhibitions are very rare even in africa as some african countries have started to practice it I.e south africa... Earlier, I noted that various school of thoughts do have to look into the advantages of homosexuality and stop making flimsy noise of how bad homo is and the diseases innate about it.... We forget that diseases (std) enamate from bestiality

ccollins:
Nigeria may be a hard nut to crack for now but such sexual inhibitions are very rare even in africa as some african countries have started to practice it I.e south africa... Earlier, I noted that various school of thoughts do have to look into the advantages of homosexuality and stop making flimsy noise of how bad homo is and the diseases innate about it.... We forget that diseases (std) enamate from bestiality

Some African countries?

Can you name them?

How has SA started to "practice" homosexuality?

Sagamite:

Some African countries?

Can you name them?

How has SA started to "practice" homosexuality?

LOL@started to practice it. Like it's a religion where you can choose to follow Christianity when you get tired of Islam.

Sagamite:

What a moronic argument.

So in your democracy, you force the view of the minority on the majority that does not want it?

Most of you are too stewpid to understand the concept of the fads you espouse.

This incessant misuderstandings and lack of objectivity may cause some quagmire.... May I mind you that a simple principle of coherency should have made you know that the needs and insurgence of the minority depending on the threshold does not in anyway demand its negative effect on the majority esp when it comes to homosexuality issues. Abi dem force you to be an homo ni? Its a matter of choice

ccollins:

This incessant misuderstandings and lack of objectivity may cause some quagmire.... May I mind you that a simple principle of coherency should have made you know that the needs and insurgence of the minority depending on the threshold does not in anyway demand its negative effect on the majority esp when it comes to homosexuality issues. Abi dem force you to be an homo ni? Its a matter of choice

What moronic statements are these?

Simple question: "So in your democracy, do you force the view of the minority on the majority that does not want it?"

Answer it!

Sagamite:

What moronic statements are these?

Simple question: "So in your democracy, do you force the view of the minority on the majority that does not want it?"

Answer it!

At times……,it is good for one to listen articulately as some wise people say..... @ sagamite,my answer is that have you seen anyone(minority) force you to indulge in homosexuality with or without your consent. It is annoying that some anti-gay proponents cannot be objective.. Are we also going to use a ludricious fallacy of comparing homo to other negative crimes I.e paedophille that is not accepted to the society...

ccollins:
At times……,it is good for one to listen articulately as some wise people say..... @ sagamite,my answer is that have you seen anyone(minority) force you to indulge in homosexuality with or without your consent. It is annoying that some anti-gay proponents cannot be objective.. Are we also going to use a ludricious fallacy of comparing homo to other negative crimes I.e paedophille that is not accepted to the society...

Another moronic statement.

We are talking about laws here, where did you see me talk about anyone forcing homosexuality on others?

I will repeat the question and provide some clarity, maybe it would help your comprehension.

"So in your democracy, do you force the view of the minority about what the law should on the majority that does wants a law that is the opposite?"

Answer it! Then we will come to comparing homosexuality to other deviant crimes.

https://www.nairaland.com/1505592/one-claims-homosexual-here-nairaland#19322310
Lets all say no to homosexuality on Nairaland, Seun Osewa is called upon to do something about this.

MR.SANITY:
https://www.nairaland.com/1505592/one-claims-homosexual-here-nairaland#19322310
Lets all say no to homosexuality on Nairaland, Seun Osewa is called upon to do something about this.

He can't! He won't! He'll rather have you deregistered.

Sagamite:

Some African countries?

Can you name them?

How has SA started to "practice" homosexuality?

Stop wallowing in a sea of ignorance,use your intellectual effervescent mind to undestand what I potray... Here is historical facts on how SA accepts homosexuality- 1 December 2006 South Africa has become
the fifth country in the world, and the first
in Africa, to allow legal marriages between
same-sex couples, after a historic vote in
Parliament on 14 November, followed by
the signature of Acting President Phumzile
Mlamblo-Ngcuka on 30 December, passed
the Civil Union Bill into law. Parliament and
the Presidency have therefore met the 1
December 2006 deadline set by the
Constitutional Court in 2005 for the
country's Marriage Act to be amended, or
for new legislation to be passed to allow
gays and lesbians to enter into legal
marriages. Following an application by
Marié Fourie and Cecelia Bonthuys to be
allowed to marry, the court ruled that the
existing legal definition of marriage was in
conflict with the country's Constitution
because it denied gays and lesbians the
rights granted to heterosexuals. Section 9
(3) of South Africa's Constitution expressly
prohibits unfair discrimination on the
grounds of sexual orientation. It reads:
"The state may not unfairly discriminate
directly or indirectly against anyone on one
or more grounds, including race, gender,
sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or
social origin, colour, sexual orientation,
age, disability, religion, conscience, belief,
culture, language and birth." The court
gave Parliament a year to remedy the
situation. On 14 November Parliament
passed the Civil Union Bill into law by a
vote of 230 to 41. The ruling African
National Congress ordered a three-line
whip, the strictest disciplinary command
the party can give its MPs, to compel them
to be both present in the chamber and to
vote in favour of the party line supporting
the Bill. Parties opposed to the new law
included the African Christian Democratic
Party and the Freedom Front Plus, while the
Democratic Alliance allowed its MPs to vote
according to conscience. The Independent
Democrats opposed the Bill on the basis
that a "separate but equal" marriage law
for gays and lesbians remained
discriminatory. While it is still impossible
for same-sex couples to marry under the
existing Marriage Act, any South African
citizen will be allowed to marry under the
new law - including gays and lesbians.
Whether heterosexual or homosexual, they
will have the option of calling their
partnership either a civil union or a
marriage. Among other benefits, the new
law will allow married same-sex couples to
make decisions on each other's behalf and
inherit if a partner dies without a will.
'Backward, timeworn prejudices' Before the
vote, Defence Minister Mosiuoa Lekota
urged Parliament to support the rights of
gays and lesbians, and to allow them to
enjoy the fruits of democracy. "We are
bound to fulfil the promises of democracy
which we made to the people of our
country," he said. "Are we going to
suppress this so-called minority, or are we
going to let these people enjoy the
privilege of choosing who will be their life
partners? "I take this opportunity to remind
the House that in the long and arduous
struggle for democracy very many men and
women of homosexual or lesbian
orientation joined the ranks of the
liberation and democratic forces. "How
then can we live with the reality that we
should enjoy rights that together we fought
for side by side, and deny them that?
"Today, as we reap the fruits of democracy,
it is only right that they must be afforded
similar space in the sunshine of our
democracy … This country cannot afford to
continue to be a prisoner of the backward,
timeworn prejudices that have no basis."
Progressive democracies With the new law,
South Africa joins the elite group of
progressive democracies that have
legalised same-sex marriage in the last five
years: the Netherlands, which passed the
law in 2001, Belgium (2003), Canada
(2005) and Spain (2005). A number of
other European Union countries - Britain
being the latest - have passed laws
allowing for various forms of civil
partnership between same-sex couples.
But while these allow same-sex couples to
register their partnerships and receive
some of the benefits accorded married
couples, they fall short of full marriage
equality. In the Constitutional Court's
December 2005 ruling, Judge Albie Sachs
highlighted the deep injustice of denying
gays and lesbians the right to formalise
their unions. "Finding themselves strongly
attracted to each other, two people went
out regularly and eventually decided to set
up home together," he said in the
introduction to his judgment. "After being
acknowledged by their friends as a couple
for more than a decade, they decided that
the time had come to get public
recognition and registration of their
relationship. "Like many persons in their
situation, they wanted to get married.
There was one impediment. They are both
women." Sachs said there was an
imperative constitutional need to
acknowledge the long history of the
marginalisation and persecution of gays
and lesbians in South Africa. "Although a
number of breakthroughs have been made,
there is no comprehensive legal regulation
of the family law rights of gays and
lesbians." The exclusion of same-sex
couples from the benefits and
responsibilities of marriage is not a "small
inconvenience", he said. "It represents a
harsh, if oblique, statement by the law that
same-sex couples are outsiders and that
their need for affirmation and protection of
their intimate relations as human beings is
somehow less than that of heterosexual
couples." He said marriage was the only
source of such socioeconomic benefits as
the right to inheritance, medical insurance
coverage, adoption, access to wrongful
death claims, bereavement leave, tax
advantages and post-divorce rights. Sachs
said the intangible damage to same-sex
couples was as severe as the material
deprivation. "To begin with, they are not
entitled to celebrate their commitment to
each other in a joyous public event
recognised by the law. "They are obliged to
live in a state of legal blankness in which
their unions remain unmarked by the
showering of presents and the
commemoration of anniversaries so
celebrated in our culture."


http://www.southafrica.info/services/rights/same-sex-marriage.htm