pippimp:
How does someone else's sexual orientation hinder your rights and freedom?

You didn't, as requested, define sexual orientation in law or science. You've merely resorted to a simplistic reductionism. But I'll play to make the point.

Why should someones "sexual orientation" (not that you've shown it's a thing) compromise my right to religious belief or, compel me to violate my conscience, by accepting it as normal and being forcibly made to participate in it's celebration.

There is the rub. Have whatever "sexual orientation" you desire, but I should be free for conscience sake to decline involvement, or agree that it is moral, or worthy of normalising - by right. So your whole "forcing of beliefs onto others" assertion is something demanding rights on the basis of "sexual orientation" demands of others.

And we haven't even touched on the social cost.

All you have is cant.


TV

TV01:

You didn't, as requested, define sexual orientation in law or science. You've merely resorted to a simplistic reductionism. But I'll play to make the point.

Why should someones "sexual orientation" (not that you've shown it's a thing) compromise my right to religious belief or, compel me to violate my conscience, by accepting it as normal and being forcibly made to participate in it's celebration.

There is the rub. Have whatever "sexual orientation" you desire, but I should be free for conscience sake to decline involvement, or agree that it is moral, or worthy of normalising - by right. So your whole "forcing of beliefs onto others" assertion is something demanding rights on the basis of "sexual orientation" demands of others.

And we haven't even touched on the social cost.

All you have is cant.


TV

Your religious belief. Really? An atheist could as well use that same argument to deny you freedom on various levels. That he does not believe in any God and would not want to compromise his/her right to his/her beliefs or, compel them to violate their conscience, by accepting you as normal and being forcibly made to participate in your celebrations. It's a slippery slope dude. Why is this concept of individual freedom so difficult for you to understand?

pippimp:
Your religious belief. Really? An atheist could as well use that same argument to deny you freedom on various levels.

Simplistic and untrue. You are free to view believers as abnormal and religious belief as immoral. You are in no way forced to participate in religious celebrations.

And again, not only people with religious belief abhor homosexuality/notions of "orientation". Many non/unbelievers do so too. Hence my reference to religious belief and conscience.

And more importantly my religious belief makes no demands on an unbeliever. No non/unbeliever has to teach his children that religion is good or moral. They don't have to accept there is a God, or worship Him. They can blaspheme with no consequence. It comes with no rights that demand participation or assertive action by non/unbelievers.

pippimp:
That he does not believe in any God and would not want to compromise his/her right to his/her beliefs or, compel them to violate their conscience, by accepting you as normal and being forcibly made to participate in your celebrations. It's a slippery slope dude. Why is this concept of individual freedom so difficult for you to understand?

Poor attempt at an echo that does not actually follow. You are free to view religious belief as abnormal and/or immoral. You are in no way forced to participate in religious celebrations. Of course if you could show how people are forced it would help, but you cannot. If you've anything other than trite reductionism in the manner of "love is love" , ideological cant, or false equivalence, please share. Otherwise I'm done.

The wrongful notion of "sexual orientation" comes with demands on others as it is coupled with a slew of supposed rights. It impairs the individual freedoms of those who do not subscribe or wish to participate, for belief or conscience sake.

It produces clashes and conflicts with other supposed rights such as religious freedom. These are often contrived by activists to cause harm to those simply exercising their freedoms. Hence questions like this are both reductionist and deceitful

pippimp:
How does someone else's sexual orientation hinder your rights and freedom?

But you must know that. Try leavening your enlightenment with some truth.


TV

^{...and to be clear, I speak as a Christian, don't expect a defense for other, or all faiths/religions.}

[quote author=TV01 post=48546012][/quote]

I honestly believe you are confused. And you are right. People who are different from you and have done you no harm need to be hindered and restricted from living their lives. Hitler would be proud. You win.

TV01:

Simplistic and untrue. You are free to view believers as abnormal and religious belief as immoral. You are in no way forced to participate in religious celebrations.

And again, not only people with religious belief abhor homosexuality/notions of "orientation". Many non/unbelievers do so too. Hence my reference to religious belief and conscience.

And more importantly my religious belief makes no demands on an unbeliever. No non/unbeliever has to teach his children that religion is good or moral. They don't have to accept there is a God, or worship Him. They can blaspheme with no consequence. It comes with no rights that demand participation or assertive action by non/unbelievers.


Poor attempt at an echo that does not actually follow. You are free to view religious belief as abnormal and/or immoral. You are in no way forced to participate in religious celebrations. Of course if you could show how people are forced it would help, but you cannot. If you've anything other than trite reductionism in the manner of "love is love" , ideological cant, or false equivalence, please share. Otherwise I'm done.

The wrongful notion of "sexual orientation" comes with demands on others as it is coupled with a slew of supposed rights. It impairs the individual freedoms of those who do not subscribe or wish to participate, for belief or conscience sake.

It produces clashes and conflicts with other supposed rights such as religious freedom. These are often contrived by activists to cause harm to those simply exercising their freedoms. Hence questions like this are both reductionist and deceitful


But you must know that. Try leavening your enlightenment with some truth.


TV

^{...and to be clear, I speak as a Christian, don't expect a defense for other, or all faiths/religions.}

If this post has not enlighten some people then maybe you should stop discussing it further.. It will be a precious waste of time to write something as clear as this and the targeted audience are still wallowing in arrogant ignorance. But oga Tv dem NL syd chicks like you oh! keeping your pics Ha! When next you dream about masquerade chasing you, then know NL chicks aint faraway.

Mutaino7:
If this post has not enlighten some people then maybe you should stop discussing it further.. It will be a precious waste of time to write something as clear as this and the targeted audience are still wallowing in arrogant ignorance. But oga Tv dem NL syd chicks like you oh! keeping your pics Ha! When next you dream about masquerade chasing you, then know NL chicks aint faraway.

Word bro', it is onerous and tiresome. Truth however, has to be defended. I don't do it so much for the soi disant "enlightened", but moreso for those that may be swayed by the pleasing sounding but deceitful clichés that pass as reasoned debate, and those that may not give it much thought.

You honour them "syd chicks" is way too lofty for them. Some of them have whole galleries of my pix posted over the years, and wait longingly for more . Many spend evenings reading and re-reading my old posts. Masquerade ke? I always sleep peacefully and have sweet dreams. Although some of them could pass for such in the flesh .


TV

crackhaus:

And what education do you assume I have?

You are just another loony with no sense whatsoever...you're meeting me here for the first time and already assuming where I got educated, you must be an airhead.
Do I seem like a member of your extended family domiciled in one village somewhere?

I asked a question, you and Mindfulness still haven't answered and you keep dodging by talking about death sentence and stigma.

How many gay Nigerians born before the 80s do you know personally?
Who said you should ask them anything?

@bolded. Rotimi Fani-Kayode. Born in 1955.
İ expect you to apologize.

crackhaus:

Do you know the difference between a statement and a question?

It is a question, you can either choose to answer it truthfully by forming a statistic from your personal experiences or you leave it be.

İf it's from your personal experience, it wouldn't be a statistic. İt would be an anecdote, ****
You just like throwing around a lot of words you don't even know the meaning of.

Ujoan:


Wow . . . Empty vessels really does make the loudest noise . . And to think some nitwits are actually 'liking' this comment . . .

As in ehn,the thing tire person. Sounding intelligent is the same thing as intelligence to some people, smh.

5minsmadness:

Very exposed and enlightened since he left these shores. Not like us who have never gone ashore before

I'm tempted to think he is franci... But lemme still observe.

I really tormented this one that everybody seems to be me...

I can't deal!!! Don't be a coward and mention me in full next time...