Chrisbenogor:

It just does not make sense to me, simple

what doesnt make sense?

As if Obama has to rule by the biblical injunctions. Whoever thinks that whatever decisions Obama makes as the president of the USA has to be biblical, is a heavily deluded foolish fool.

CHARLOE:

@ Thehomer & mazaje, from your vocal support and defense of this despicable, unnatural act, i deduce u are gays! Feel free to come out of d closet afterall this is d 'faceless' internet.

Shut up already. . . .How is it a despicable and unnatural act since it occurs amongst animals and even amongst church elders?. . .Am sure you must have heard about gay pastors, no?. . .I am not gay but will NEVER hide it if I were one. . . .

No matter what anybody says, no matter how u try to bend nature in an attempt to get support (from animals) 4 your abominable act , what u do remains a misnomer, unnatural, sick & abominable!

As I have said before there is no standard defination of right and wrong. . . .Some of the most ugly atrocities the world has ever seen were the result of standardized, concrete definitions of right and wrong. Example Christian orthodoxy = "right," witchcraft and gay = "wrong," so it's "right" to follow the bible's standardized "moral" admonition that "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live or stone gays to death," for example.

If u're reading this and u'r gay, listen, don't let anyone decieve u, deep down in your heart u know it just ain't right! u know it's not natural. Now here's d bad news- God hates it with a passion, why, cos it goes against His original plan (procreation). For this reason, He destroyed d cities of sodom (where they got d word sodomy) & gomorah with fire! (If u don't believe in God pls look at nature critically and decide within your heart if He exist or not.)

I am talking about reality and you are busy bandying one myth after the other. . . .What has the myth of Yahweh destroying mythical cities got to do with reality?. . .

As for Obama, what do u expect from a liberal? They accomodate just anything in an attempt to please everyone, but that doesn't make them right all d time.
I percieve very soon some crazy pple will start fighting for their right to marry animals _{they sleep with them already} Disgusting? that's where all this is leading to, that's why we must not allow d voice of a few drown d voice of d majority. _{dis na 1 of d few reasons i still luv ma naija}

How is it your problem if people decide to have consentual sex with each other in their houses?

CHARLOE:

Posted by: OLAADEGBU
Insert Quote
Quote from: mazaje on Yesterday at 02:02:20 PM
You are running out of gas my friend. . . .Where in the US constitution does the blasphemy law appear?. . . .Stealing is wrong because it affects every society negatively, there are societies where people have never heard about the version of your God yet they still know that stealing is wrong, no?. . . .

God who created us has hardwired His moral laws in our consciences and in that way those who are without the law can still do the things that are in the law, it is because folks have tried to silence their consciences with the opinions of sinful godless men thinking that they will feel good by stiffling the alarm bell ringing in them.  The conscience is the police man alerting you between what is right and wrong.
  @ olaadegbu, God bless u man, keep telling them d truth.

Which truth, olaadegbu know NO truth at all, all he knows are mythical truths and thats it. . . .Societal rules against theft and murder were NOT invented by the bible, they were not propagated by the bible, and were not enforced by the bible, and will be around long, long after the bible eventually takes its rightful place in the bookstores under the "mythology" section. . . . . The code of Hammurabi and the Egyptian book of the dead also advise not to steal or kill.  They were written much earlier than the Jewish book of mythology.  It is not a foreign concept amongst flourishing societies. . . . .Morals are a part of group selection, its an evolutionary mechanism which enables individuals to survive better as part of a group instead of every man for himself.  They are dependent on time, place and culture and can and do change.  Slavery and sexism (fully endorsed by the bible) are classic examples.

God knows everyone better than we do,
but gay, lesbians, e.t.c.
all are evil.
Abomination, man sleeping with man?
for thousand dollars i cant do that nonsense.

mathew jam:

God knows everyone better than we do,
but gay, lesbians, e.t.c.
all are evil.
Abomination, man sleeping with man?
for thousand dollars i cant do that nonsense.

Are you writing a poem?
How are homosexuals evil? Have they do something to harm you in any way?
No one is paying anyone to do what they want to naturally do.

@thehomer -

With reference to the argument that animals engage in homosexual behaviour (through which you attempt to suppose that homosexuality is natural). you referred me to this -

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/arts/love-that-dare-not-squeak-its-name.html

I verily believe that I already addressed this when I made a distinction between the statements "animals are homosexual" and "some animals are homosexual"

I was clear on the point: that the deviant tendency of a minority can never suffice to conclude that a particular tendency is "natural." Because if this were the case, then this would be sufficient evidence that necrophillia, crocophila et al, are all perfectly natural: given that they is observed among a minority. That is disastrous logic.

We may also conclude that such things as are observed amongst animals such as lions that murder their young: are therefore also "natural" things for humans to do. How absurd. It is clear that this is not the normal tendency even amongst lions and it therefore makes no sense to categorize such as "natural."

At all events you already stated that animal behaviour cannot be a plank or standard for human conduct so i suppose you have ceded the point.

In any event, penguins are notoriously romantic and monogamous creatures - heterosexually. I cannot be convinced by a single anomaly that the reverse is the case.

Now i throw this challenge to you: IS BESTIALITY NATURAL? IF NOT, WHAT MAKES IT UNNATURAL?

Because i hope you realize that every argument you deploy to state homosexuality to be natural may EQUALLY be deployed to state bestiality, necrophila, crocophila, etc to ALL be natural - given that they all occur amongst a minority.

Deep Sight:

@thehomer -

With reference to the argument that animals engage in homosexual behaviour (through which you attempt to suppose that homosexuality is natural). you referred me to this -

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/arts/love-that-dare-not-squeak-its-name.html

I verily believe that I already addressed this when I made a distinction between the statements "animals are homosexual" and "some animals are homosexual"

I was clear on the point: that the deviant tendency of a minority can never suffice to conclude that a particular tendency is "natural." Because if this were the case, then this would be sufficient evidence that necrophillia, crocophila et al, are all perfectly natural: given that they is observed among a minority. That is disastrous logic.

The fact that a majority of people carry out an action or behaviour does not make it right either. Also, how many people carrying out an activity would you consider a minority that can be willfully suppressed, trampled or ignored?

Deep Sight:

We may also conclude that such things as are observed amongst animals such as lions that murder their young: are therefore also "natural" things for humans to do. How absurd. It is clear that this is not the normal tendency even amongst lions and it therefore makes no sense to categorize such as "natural."

At all events you already stated that animal behaviour cannot be a plank or standard for human conduct so i suppose you have ceded the point.

You may see it that way.

Deep Sight:

In any event, penguins are notoriously romantic and monogamous creatures - heterosexually. I cannot be convinced by a single anomaly that the reverse is the case.

Now i throw this challenge to you: IS BESTIALITY NATURAL? IF NOT, WHAT MAKES IT UNNATURAL?

Because i hope you realize that every argument you deploy to state homosexuality to be natural may EQUALLY be deployed to state bestiality, necrophila, crocophila, etc to ALL be natural - given that they all occur amongst a minority.

The major difference as I see it is that of consent.
A dead body and an animal cannot give consent. Homosexuality is between two consenting adult humans.
What is crocophila? Intercourse with crocodiles? I think it's covered above.

^^^ I beg to differ on consent. A dead body is not a human being and as such no consent is required. Secondly if at all consent were required, then legally the person entitled to give such would be the dead person's next of kin. Do you consider that necrophila would be okay once consent is obtained from the next of kin? What if the next of kin, as the legal owner of the corpse, is the perpetrator of the act of necro - would that make it okay?

Ditto with animals. My dog can certainly give consent: for in many cases he will be the one to initiate the overtures when he is on heat: that surely puts paid to any doubts on consent!

Answer me this; in these circumstances are these actions "natural?"

Deep Sight:

^^^ I beg to differ on consent. A dead body is not a human being and is as such no consent is require. Secondly if at all consent were required, then legally the person entitled to give such would be the dead person's next of kin. Do you consider that necrophila would be okay once consent is obtained from the next of kin? What if the next of kin, as the legal owner of the corpse, is the perpetrator of the act of necro - would that make it okay?

A dead body does require consent for procedures to be carried out on it. In some cases, courts may step in for some procedures to be permitted overriding the consent of the next of kin. A dead person still has some rights.
In the case of your example, I would expect that with the next of kin, a court would need to intervene the corpse cannot speak for itself so the state would have to represent the corpse. The court may eventually overrule this next of kin's desire for gratification.

Deep Sight:

Ditto with animals. My dog can certainly give consent: for in many cases he will be the one to initiate the overtures when he is on heat: that surely puts paid to any doubts on consent!

An animal cannot give consent no matter how much you think it wants it. To be able to give consent requires some degree of the ability to reason abstractly.

Deep Sight:

Answer me this; in these circumstances are these actions "natural?"

I think you would need to clarify what you mean by "natural".

See what atheists like Obama has turned a country under God into.

Folks are now blaming their unatural behaviours on animals.  Lets give the "scape goat" a break.

thehomer:

A dead body does require consent for procedures to be carried out on it. In some cases, courts may step in for some procedures to be permitted overriding the consent of the next of kin. A dead person still has some rights.

Exactly why should a court step in to stop the necrophilia? In this you have unwittingly ceded the discourse by recognising that there is an unnatural act being performed which is reprehensible - otherwise you would not talk about a court overriding the rights of a next-of-kin. The fact remains that the next-of-kin is legally empowered to take decisions on behalf of the dead person. That is not only law, but also holds as tradition across the world. There is thus no reason to override the decision of the next of kin save that which is obvious: to wit - a recognition that that which he does is perverse.

Thanks for the gracious concession.

I think you would need to clarify what you mean by "natural".

This is embarrassingly and rabidly dishonest. YOU freely bandied the word "natural" about: earlier in this thread you have repeatedly asserted homosexuality to be "natural" - now suddenly when i put a direct and uncomfortable question to you, you ask for a definition of the word "natural"? ? ? ? Give me a break!

Now, in case you missed it here is the succinct argument again -

  1. There are humans who delight in defecation as part of their se.xual behaviour

  2. There are animals that do the same.

Would you therefore say that defecation is a natural part of human se.xual behaviour?

OR IF YOU LIKE -

  1. There are humans who have se.xual intercourse with minors

  2. There are also animals that have se.xual intercourse with their young.

Would you therefore say that pedophilia is natural to humans? In this you cannot use the law as an escape because in certain societies it is not against the law and a child is free to give consent, or have such consent given by its legal guardians - the family.

OR IF YOU LIKE -

  1. Among humans, many consenting adults engage in sado-masochism.

  2. Intimidation and aggression are also a huge part of animal se.xual behaviour.

Would you therefore say that sado-masochism is natural se.xual behaviour for humans?

The fact of the matter remains very simple: you are seeking to violate and bastardize the very word “natural” by proposing an argument which in effect amounts to declaring every single thing that humans do to be natural!

It is patently obvious both from the reproductive instinct and normal human se.xual attraction that that which is natural to both humans and animals is heterosexual behaviour. From this it also naturally follows that homo-se.xual behaviour is not that which is deemed by nature or in the interests of nature. It thus is a deviation from normative se.xual behaviour and it is ridiculous to therefore argue that it is “natural” – it is not – for there may be no other definition of that which is unnatural save that it refers to such things as are contrary to the norms of nature: and it CANNOT be denied that heterosexual practice is a definite and UNDENIABLE norm of nature.

It beats me that any sane person could watch a man have se.x with another man by thrusting into that one’s anus and make an argument that this is “natural.” You do not need to be politically correct, you know. Political correctness is nothing but a lack of conviction: for if you have a conviction regarding right and wrong, you do not suffer it on account of political correctness.

Can you define for me if there is any se.xual behaviour that may be classed as perverse? List them for me and adduce reasons. Otherwise boldly declare that there is no such thing as a perversion.

skyone:

[center]Being an ATHEIST is the worst thing that can happen to mankind.[/center]

its a matter of choice&not force. No1 is forced into atheism. The God fathers never forced atheism on anyone. Neither did dawkins/darwin do same.

OLAADEGBU:

See what atheists like Obama has turned a country under God into.

[img width=500 height=400]http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/creationwise/CWUnderGod.gif[/img]

Is obama an atheist? I taught he attends church services

Deep Sight:

Exactly why should a court step in to stop the necrophilia? In this you have unwittingly ceded the discourse by recognising that there is an unnatural act being performed which is reprehensible - otherwise you would not talk about a court overriding the rights of a next-of-kin. The fact remains that the next-of-kin is legally empowered to take decisions on behalf of the dead person. That is not only law, but also holds as tradition across the world. There is thus no reason to override the decision of the next of kin save that which is obvious: to wit - a recognition that that which he does is perverse.

Thanks for the gracious concession.

I really don't see how you misconstrued my statement as concession. I already said that a dead body has rights that are respected. I've not seen you dispute this. A next of kin can be overridden. e.g, in a case where a child requires a type of medical treatment, the wishes of the next of kin to deny such a treatment is overridden. So I don't see how you could misconstrue my statements as a concession.
I also see that you also have not disputed the fact that consent is required and that this consent requires some sort of abstract reasoning. May I take this as a gracious concession on your part?

Deep Sight:

This is embarrassingly and rabidly dishonest. YOU freely bandied the word "natural" about: earlier in this thread you have repeatedly asserted homosexuality to be "natural" - now suddenly when i put a direct and uncomfortable question to you, you ask for a definition of the word "natural"? ? ? ? Give me a break!

Now, in case you missed it here is the succinct argument again -

  1. There are humans who delight in defecation as part of their se.xual behaviour

  2. There are animals that do the same.

Would you therefore say that defecation is a natural part of human se.xual behaviour?

OR IF YOU LIKE -

  1. There are humans who have se.xual intercourse with minors

  2. There are also animals that have se.xual intercourse with their young.

Would you therefore say that pedophilia is natural to humans? In this you cannot use the law as an escape because in certain societies it is not against the law and a child is free to give consent, or have such consent given by its legal guardians - the family.

OR IF YOU LIKE -

  1. Among humans, many consenting adults engage in sado-masochism.

  2. Intimidation and aggression are also a huge part of animal se.xual behaviour.

Would you therefore say that sado-masochism is natural se.xual behaviour for humans?

The fact of the matter remains very simple: you are seeking to violate and bastardize the very word “natural” by proposing an argument which in effect amounts to declaring every single thing that humans do to be natural!

It is patently obvious both from the reproductive instinct and normal human se.xual attraction that that which is natural to both humans and animals is heterosexual behaviour. From this it also naturally follows that homo-se.xual behaviour is not that which is deemed by nature or in the interests of nature. It thus is a deviation from normative se.xual behaviour and it is ridiculous to therefore argue that it is “natural” – it is not – for there may be no other definition of that which is unnatural save that it refers to such things as are contrary to the norms of nature: and it CANNOT be denied that heterosexual practice is a definite and UNDENIABLE norm of nature.

How is homosexuality a deviation from normative sexual behaviour? Because it seems that going by your views, it is either heterosexuality or nothing. While it has been demonstrated that there are healthy people who simply do not have a heterosexual drive. Should they be considered sub-human or non-human?
You also failed to answer what I posed to you earlier. Here it is again.

thehomer:

The fact that a majority of people carry out an action or behaviour does not make it right either. Also, how many people carrying out an activity would you consider a minority that can be willfully suppressed, trampled or ignored?

In other words, how many people carrying out an activity would it take for you to consider the activity "natural"?

Deep Sight:

It beats me that any sane person could watch a man have se.x with another man by thrusting into that one’s anus and make an argument that this is “natural.” You do not need to be politically correct, you know. Political correctness is nothing but a lack of conviction: for if you have a conviction regarding right and wrong, you do not suffer it on account of political correctness.

Can you define for me if there is any se.xual behaviour that may be classed as perverse? List them for me and adduce reasons. Otherwise boldly declare that there is no such thing as a perversion.

I don't understand why you are attempting to use animal behaviour as a standard for humans. Or do you feel that they should be used as standards for humans?
It also baffles me why any sane person would feel it is right to trample and suppress other humans because these humans do not fit their own preconceived notions of what is natural and unnatural.
I see that in your long statement, you still failed to define what you mean by natural. It seems that we have different views on the meaning of this word in this context.
So is anal intercourse between a man an woman "natural"? How about oral?

This is what will be the result of unnatural acts that will soon be legislated as animal/human rights the way things are going.

Man forced to marry cow faints at wedding

A teenager in Bali was ordered to tie the knot with a cow after being caught in a field standing unclothed behind the animal.

Ngurah Alit, 18, claimed he thought the cow was a beautiful woman who had seduced him.

Local elders forced Alit to wed the beast in order to cleanse the coastal village of Yeh Embang of the bestiality. Alid passed out during the ceremony, while the cow was subsequently drowned in order to complete the ritual.

He is not the first, and most certainly will not be the last, to pledge their troth to something other than a human being. Goats, snakes, dogs, fairground rides and tourist landmarks are just some of the unlikely objects to whom people have got married.

http://news.uk.msn.com/odd-news/photos/photos.aspx?cp-documentid=152511607

toba:

Is obama an atheist? I taught he attends church services

This clip will give you an idea of who President Obama really is, and a Christian is not one of them.

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnmS_vULPxw&hl=en_GB&fs=1&[/flash]

This is an apostle of the atheists arguing his point on Fox News.

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_GB&feature=player_embedded&fs=1[/flash]

thehomer:

I really don't see how you misconstrued my statement as concession. I already said that a dead body has rights that are respected. I've not seen you dispute this. A next of kin can be overridden. e.g, in a case where a child requires a type of medical treatment, the wishes of the next of kin to deny such a treatment is overridden.

I am surprised you still do not see your whole-sale concession: look again at the example you have given: why is the next of kin overridden in that instance. Because the State recognises that he is doing something wrong

Aha!

How is homosexuality a deviation from normative sexual behaviour? Because it seems that going by your views, it is either heterosexuality or nothing. While it has been demonstrated that there are healthy people who simply do not have a heterosexual drive. Should they be considered sub-human or non-human?

This is the problem with human beings when they are in psychological tight-spot that leads them to adopt an overly defensive mode. You begin to imagine things that are simply not there. Its called paranoia. Where o where, Mr. Homer, did you see me state that homose.xuals should be considered sub-human or non human ? ? ? ? ?

Please take time to read what I am saying and not what I am not saying.

I stated that homkose.xuality is not natural. In defence of this assertion I stated that that which is unnatural is simply that which contradicts what is natural. I stated further that the reproductive instinct alone gives a clear pointer to the fact that what is given by nature is heterose.xual practice. Do you deny that heterose.xual practice is natural? If you deny that it is: state so. If you do not deny that it is natural: then inevitably you concede that that which is contrary to it is not the dictate of nature.

I do not know what sort of state of mind will urge you to deem a man thrusting into another man’s anus as natural: and proceed to the ridiculous extent of citing isolated and rare cases of similar animal behaviour to state that such is “natural.” In this you deliberately ignore the glaring fact that 99.999999999999999999999% of animals display heterose.xual practice. I call that fraud.

In other words, how many people carrying out an activity would it take for you to consider the activity "natural"?

O, I think when 99.999999999999999% of humans eat food, it should be normal to presume eating food to be natural to humans. Ditto heterose.xual practice. Especially in light of the reproductive element. Nature abhors a vacuum and everything has its purpose and its fit. It is clear that the se.xual instinct exists primarily for reproduction and this is a pointer to the fact that heterose.xual practice is that which is given by nature. Again, go ahead: be so intrepid as to deny this simple fact.

I don't understand why you are attempting to use animal behaviour as a standard for humans. Or do you feel that they should be used as standards for humans?

This simply has to be a joke: As I recall it YOU were the one who cited animal homose.xuality as evidence that human homose.xuality is “natural.” I gave you further examples of other animal behaviour and challenged you to indicate if you would similarly brand such behaviour as natural for humans. You abandoned the poser. And now you revert with this incongruous denial ? ? ?

It also baffles me why any sane person would feel it is right to trample and suppress other humans because these humans do not fit their own preconceived notions of what is natural and unnatural.

Paranoia again. Show me where I indicated in any way that homose.xuals should be “trampled and suppressed.”

I see that in your long statement, you still failed to define what you mean by natural. It seems that we have different views on the meaning of this word in this context.

No thanks: YOU felt quite free to use the word “natural” in relation to homose.xuals. So define it your self. I have already given sufficient indications of what I perceive it to mean.

You, on the contrary, started with the word “natural,” sought out animal behaviour examples to defend that, and then wound up denouncing comparing animals to humans. Confused?

So is anal intercourse between a man an woman "natural"? How about oral?

“Heterose.xual practice” is not Greek.

Mr Obama's Election Promises ( Manifesto)


[size=10pt]Promises about Gays and Lesbians on the Obameter[/size]

No. 290: Push for enactment of Matthew Shepard Act, [/b]which expands hate crime law to include sexual orientation and other factors
"Will place the weight of (his) administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes.">>More


[b]No. 291: Expand the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity

Will "place the weight of (his) administration behind, a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.">>More

No. 292: Urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws
As president, "will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws.">>More


No. 293: Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy

Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the military.>>More

No. 294: Support repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

Will support "repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.">>More
Page 1 of 1

[size=14pt]Mr Obama has kept his Pre Electyion Promises on Gays and Lesbians, if you don't like vote Republican next time, or better still let God Strike Him down[/size]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/gays-and-lesbians/

Huuum, may God take control.

Only God knows how many a$$holes mazaje and thehomer have screwed all their life time?

@ amyuka
ewww!!!u took dat out of my mouth.a man screwing a man*coughs*

It Was Difficult For Me To Believe When Someone Said "OBAMA Is An ANTICHRIST", But Now I'm Convinced.

i guess d gayers would back this 2 d fullest

Wow, Obama, wow!! Sad, sad day!

is america not a secular country again

anyone who has any issues should jump ship to malawi or was it mozambique?- they know how to deal with those apostles of the devil over there

you can even come down to naija where when they aren't legislating against faggets, they are fighting karate in the senate

he is under pressure and if ur him u could have done same.

Its a pity that obama is helping fulfil prophecis that willl lead to the fall of America