Sagamite:



Are you saying because legislation was not set up before 1990, homosexuality was accepted or tolerated by Nigerian law? You mean if some gay was caught in Nigeria before 1990, there will not be some legal code that can be used to jail his bastardised arse!

Lol @ this Sagamonkey b.itch getting heated. I'm saying your statement that "we had established that it is wrong and disgusting" is pure fabrication because there was only either TOLERANCE or obliviousness or some laws in some places in Africa. And for the record there was no way somebody could be jailed, whether in Uganda, Nigeria, or wherever for homosexual intercourse/relations in their own home or on their own property, so this talk about "some gay caught in Nigeria" is extremely daft.  Was there some official police gay patrol out and about searching the streets for gays in all African countries? And before you say some moronic sh1t about gays being easy to spot, let me remind you that in some African countries (not just in North Africa), grown men occasionally hold hands when they walk just out of friendship and not due to any gayness (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-65296.0.html). Anyway, the simple fact that Nigeria was ruled by dictators (such as Buhari, who probably wouldn't tolerate homosexuality, or a goon like IBB) means anybody could be jailed for anything if the proper appeals were made by influential people, so I would never claim there was no way that homosexuals could be jailed!

Cretin, you show me a quote that specifies existence of homosexuality tens of years back and direct it is "not a western thing" at me and you are claiming you did not think I said it was only in the West. Are you really that daft!

Are YOU really this daft? I showed you a quote that showed not only the existence of homosexuality but also the blatant tolerance of it. HOW IS THIS TOO SUBTLE FOR YOU? I thought you had a "virtuosic" intellect?  Then, when you claimed I thought you believed homosexuality was only a Western thing, I explicitly said that I interpreted your quote from that thread from way back about "forcing it down our throats in Africa" to mean forcing tolerance of homosexuality down our throats in Africa (which is an extremely reasonable interpretation, in the context of the discussion that did take place), not the element/practice of homosexuality itself. Tolerance of homosexuality is NOT foreign to Africa. Saying "we had established that it was wrong and disgusting" is speculation. Deal with it.

Who said I was referring to Africa? Moooron, I was referring to the Gay Terrorists and media that suppress anti-gay views in the UK and dragoon creation of pro-gay laws.

This is hilarious. "Gay terrorists"? You explicitly said:

Sagamonkey: . That is why I am in full support of the criminalisation bill being proposed in Nigeria (that appears the West as clandestinely stopped and swept under the carpet).” – Sagamite, the crackmonkey

Which, by the way, is false.  

I am suppose to be impressed with your SAT scores? After seeing your comprehension level on issues on NL which can not be taught or coached? Ode!

Actually, you're the one that brought up my SAT scores and what university I got into in  the context of this discussion, not me. I could not possibly care less about my score (and certainly not think it gives me an edge in any argument) because it's not even going to matter for the rest of my life and I know people with scores higher than mine anyway that I don't feel have as much creativity or potential as me. And for the record, if a renowned professor of physics with an endowed chair at a first tier world class university can be impressed by that score and casually mention that his score was actually lower during a discussion on school and work, then your irrelevant, sewer rat self should pipe the fu-ck down. When you first said "passed the SAT" in your argument with SEFAGO with regard to his first 1440 score, I knew you were a complete dunce who was foaming at the mouth about things he knew nothing about, but to see you imply that top 0.7% (and for the second time, I could even have gotten higher  ) of all test takers could ever be due mainly to coaching (I didn't have any coaching, jackass, nor did all 4 of my friends in my high school physics class that scored higher than me), or that anything in this thread is beyond the realm of being taught, I really have to conclude that you're the messiah of all imbeciles. Pipe the fu-ck down Sagorilla.

Sagamite:

My point is, there are grounds to ban things if it disgusts us even if it does not physically harm anybody.

Yes, I agree with you. But it doesn't immediately follow that banning homosexuality is one of those things, does it?

That is what one has to argue and provide reasons for.

And do it in a way that also doesn't ban mix-raced couples, something which an enormous fraction of people find abhorrent.

tensor777:

“But Physics Master that is utter nonsense and a load of hogwash. Faggottry has always been illegal in Nigeria and it still is. Section 214 of the Nigerian Criminal Code already prescibes 14 years in captivity for a pair of consenting faggotts.
214. Any person who-
- has carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature; or
-has carnal knowledge of an animal; or
-permits a male person to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature;
-is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years.
215. Any person who attempts to commit any of the offences defined in the last preceding section is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for seven years.
The offender cannot be arrested without warrant.
216 Any person who unlawfully and indecently deals with a boy under the age of fourteen years is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for seven years.
The term "deal with" includes doing any act which, if done without consent, would constitute an assault as hereinafter defined.
217. Any male person who, whether in public or private, commits any act of gross indecency with another male person, or procures another male person to commit any act of gross indecency with him, or attempts to procure the commission of any such act by any male person with himself or with another male person, whether in public or private, is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for three years.

The laws in Nigeria are very clear and very stringent in their approach to those misguided elements of society that contravene public morality and common decency.

Another issue that you keep going on about is this your curious idea that we said faggottry was imposed on Africa from the West. What is that about?
Seriously Physics Master who here has said that homosexuality is a Western thing?? Something that existed in biblical times. Anyway faggottry has always been taboo in pre colonial African societies [/b]as well as in other jurisdictions so stop this strawman argument
What [b]is new is that some misguided elements in the West are actually trying to promote this disgusting perversion as something acceptable and which should be celebrated what with their evil repellent gay pride marches .

Sir Tensor, I am well aware that homosexuality is illegal in Nigeria and has been for a while now.

With regard to the part in bold, this is exactly why I asked you to come to terms with reality.

http://www.islandmix.com/backchat/f6/pre-colonial-homosexuality-africa-155071/#post2373370

"Among the last African cultures to be subjugated by Europeans, the Hausa peoples of northern Nigeria and the surrounding countries offer interesting examples of homosexuality among Islmaicized peoples of Africa. Conquered by the British only in 1904, they were studied extensively by British ethnographers within a decade and a half of the arrival of the British - having experienced very limited contact with Europeans in the meantime. These ethnographers included sexual practices, including homosexuality, in their survey. Thus, they give us a unique glimpse into a nearly pristine African Islamic culture.

The Hausa people have terms in their language that are used to describe homosexuals. Two terms are common, 'yan dauda, which is usually translated as "homosexual" or "transvestite" and 'dan dauda, which translates as a homosexual "wife." The 'yan dauda in Hausaland engage in stereotypical professions, much as marginalized gay men in the west often do. In Hausaland, they are often engaged in the sex trade - both as male prostitutes and as 'procurers' for female prostitutes. In the latter role, they do not behave as 'pimps' do in the west, maintaining 'stables' of female prostitutes under their subjugation, but rather simply as go-betweens, arranging, for a fee, liaisons for men seeking the commercial charms of female prostitutes. In this role, they often engage as male prostitutes themselves when the opportunity arises."




"But let's stay focused on the traditional attitude in Africa. In the Hausa tribes of present day Nigeria and Niger, the word "'yan daudu" was used to describe men who acted like women. They would for instance perform traditional female chores, such as cooking and selling food, use female names for themselves and each other, speak in high pitch female voices, and indeed engage in sexual and romantic relationships with "real" men. They build extensive networks among themselves within the Hausa people, extending as far as into Sudan. They consider each other as "girlfriends", and would never engage in sexual activity with each other. These men do however not make a conscious effort to look like women; many of them wear a moustache and short hair. Marriage and procreation are considered normal goals in life, regardless of sexual orientation, and so these 'yan daudu typically marry and conceive offspring. However, they may still choose to live away from their "families", and only visit occasionally, bringing gifts, money, or food. In their daily lives, they earn their keep through selling food on the streets, prostitution, or procuring. The latter two may sound harsh, but often translate into a close, committed relationship with the "customers", and often a 'yan daudu will have a steady client, to whom he will refer as a "boyfriend", and also live in a relationship-like situation with. inclusive of sex, friendship, and exchange of money and gifts. The 'yan daudu are very popular as entertainers at parties, since they are very good at singing, dancing, and performing (Geschiere 1994)."




Also, please peruse these:

http://semgai.free.fr/doc_et_pdf/africa_A4.pdf

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0312238290&id=ZjbESL6YWU0C&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&ots=WcnMQaNGuj&dq=Boy-Wives+and+Female-Husbands:+Studies+of+African+Homosexualities+By+Stephen+O.+Murray&sig=ZyvCsAJINJP9CBDqrSyTw365iVE#v=onepage&q&f=false

or ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0312238290/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-0394736-4432001#reader-link)


And tell me honestly if you are not at odds with reality. (And please don't blow up and get all angry for no reason, like Sagamite, at the very suggestion that your perception of things is at variance with reality. When my perception of things is flawed, I can usually take correction or modify them, even on issues I feel strongly about.)

Lol, these yan and dan daudas sound hilarious.

Hrm, Sefago, maybe your book should include some dan dauda protagonists as well.

drrionelli:

Actually (and I offer this with all due respect), such is not the case.  Any man who copulates with another man is performing what is considered to be a homosexual act, but this does not mean that either man is a homosexual.

But that is nonsense. I have already said that NOBODY is born a faggott. Anybody that engages in male to male copulation is simply undertaking an act of faggotry.

Yes there are men that exclusively engage in acts of faggottry. That does not mean they were born that way.
They are simply addicted to that perversion and are what are known as faggotts.

But you can't admit that faggottism is a lifestyle choice and not something one is born with. That is why you are trying to draw a mythical line between "straights" and "gays" that engage in fagottry.

eku_bear:

Yes, I agree with you. But it doesn't immediately follow that banning homosexuality is one of those things, does it?

That is what one has to argue and provide reasons for.

And do it in a way that also doesn't ban mix-raced couples, something which an enormous fraction of people find abhorrent.

That is not even the point. It is natural for you as a black man  to get a little furious or protective when you see a black girl with a white or Asian guy. But that is not a cogent reason to ban that form of interaction.
Another more important point is that adult male female coupling is perfectly natural.
What is the connection between that and two faggotts necking in public or a man having intercourse with a horse?
You know there is no moral relativism. The latter 2 acts are inherently and irredeemably evil and should be harshly dealt with.

faggotts, faggotts, faggotts

faggotism, faggotitizs

the hair is raised on my arms - i am sick of that word - stop it!!!

shy-one disembowels tensor777

I want to ask a question. This mainly goes to londoner, eku_bear, mannylife and Jenifa.

If a man on a nice sunny weekend decides he wants to have a good and enjoyable weekend and wears his clothes, looks in his wallet, finds some change of about £6.20. He heads to a corner shop near his abode, buys bottled water of £1.20, buys a pack of cigarette for £3.00 and a bar of soap for £0.80.

He lights up a stick of cigarette whilst strolling down to his nearest underground station. At the entrance to the station, he extinguishes his half smoked cigaretter because it is against the law to smoke in the underground network. He checks his map to see how to get to his target destination, Trafalgar Square.

He catches the next train, makes the necessarily connections and arrives at Trafalgar Square. He exits the station, heads for the Square itself, smiles at the tourists in a polite manner. He then sits by the fountain in the nice sunny day, brings out his soap and water, takes off his trousers, spreads out his leg, adds water to the soap and then begins a delightful self-pleasuring right there in front of everybody.

Should he be left alone and be allowed to go home or should he be arrested? If you think he should be arrested, on what grounds and why?

sagamite,

first of all, why aren't regular posters like me allowed to use the message function? why is it restricted to mods only  

to answer your question, I think it is against the law FOR ANYONE to go around unclothed in public lol. People aren't even allowed to go barefeet in some public places. Now if only certain segment of the population were allowed to do it while one group is banned from doing it, that will be problematic because it's clearly becomes discrimination. ex. straights are allowed to make out in public while gays are not. stuff like that.
ex. only sagamite or only the presidents family is allowed do what you described while it is against the law for anyone else to do it. lol


sometimes, there are exception to this. where rights are granted to some and not others based on religion, sexual orientation,disability, ethnic minority etc. these are called minority rights.
ex. affirmative action, disability laws (where handicapped have special parking spots), muslims,jews etc being excused from things that go against their religion etc.
I know France doesn't have a system of collective rights in place and their laws are based only on individual rights and that's why they are having a problem right now with muslims, blacks and other minority groups that feel that the country is not respecting their rights as a "group"that's different from the majority in the country.

did I answer your question or you need clarification?

I think Tensor777 has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that he is nothing but a noise maker. He can't make one sensible argument but thinks by shouting "faggott" up and down he has made a point. Dummy.

Shy-One:

faggotts, faggotts, faggotts

faggotism, faggotitizs

the hair is raised on my arms - i am sick of that word - stop it!!!

shy-one disembowels tensor777

I agree. how can words like poo and stupid be censored but homophobic hate word is not?

You know there is no moral relativism. The latter 2 acts are inherently and irredeemably evil and should be harshly dealt with.

we are dealing with secular governments here not sharia or biblical governments. so what is your point?
the minority atheist population in Africa should be hanged next?

besides, the former (interracial relationships) was considered evil in the past. Just like the idea of women wearing pants or not covering their head in church is something that would be a sin or taboo in the past.

eldee:

Now that I successfully killed the 'Against Nature' argument . . . I'm coming back to kill the 'disgust' one.
I'v not got time now.

You are allowed to delude yourself.

It does not change the amount of Ebiripo I can eat.  

eku_bear:

Yes, I agree with you. But it doesn't immediately follow that banning homosexuality is one of those things, does it?

That is what one has to argue and provide reasons for.

And do it in a way that also doesn't ban mix-raced couples, something which an enormous fraction of people find abhorrent.

That is just to eliminate that lame argument you see pro-gays consistently put forth.

Mate, don't bullshyt me, okay. I hope your enormous fraction does not mean "majority"?

That said, you will conveniently see "mixed-breed" breeding in SEVERAL different breeds of animals without effort, so to me it is natural.

PhysicsMHD:

Lol @ this Sagamonkey b.itch getting heated. I'm saying your statement that "we had established that it is wrong and disgusting" is pure fabrication because there was only either TOLERANCE or obliviousness or some laws in some places in Africa. And for the record there was no way somebody could be jailed, whether in Uganda, Nigeria, or wherever for homosexual intercourse/relations in their own home or on their own property, so this talk about "some gay caught in Nigeria" is extremely daft.  Was there some official police gay patrol out and about searching the streets for gays in all African countries? And before you say some moronic sh1t about gays being easy to spot, let me remind you that in some African countries (not just in North Africa), grown men occasionally hold hands when they walk just out of friendship and not due to any gayness (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-65296.0.html). Anyway, the simple fact that Nigeria was ruled by dictators (such as Buhari, who probably wouldn't tolerate homosexuality, or a goon like IBB) means anybody could be jailed for anything if the proper appeals were made by influential people, so I would never claim there was no way that homosexuals could be jailed!

You are a person!!!

You are what

You are a person!!!

Say: "Yes sir!!!"

Cretin!!!

You mean some gays will be known and living as a couple pre-1990 and it was TOLERATED in NIGERIA?

You are a person!!!

You are what

You are a person!!!

Say: "Yes sir!!!"

Cretin!!!

Because there was no "gay police" that means it was ignored or no one would be jailed if found to be openly gay? Stewpid argument!!! So was a "gay police" force then set up after 1990?

eldee:

Are YOU really this daft? I showed you a quote that showed not only the existence of homosexuality but also the blatant tolerance of it. HOW IS THIS TOO SUBTLE FOR YOU? I thought you had a "virtuosic" intellect?  Then, when you claimed I thought you believed homosexuality was only a Western thing, I explicitly said that I interpreted your quote from that thread from way back about "forcing it down our throats in Africa" to mean forcing tolerance of homosexuality down our throats in Africa (which is an extremely reasonable interpretation, in the context of the discussion that did take place), not the element/practice of homosexuality itself. Tolerance of homosexuality is NOT foreign to Africa. Saying "we had established that it was wrong and disgusting" is speculation. Deal with it.

You are a person!!!

You are what

You are a person!!!

Say: "Yes sir!!!"

Cretin!!!

What has the rubbish you put up got to do with Nigeria? So because something is done, maybe as a culture, amongst a tribe somewhere in Africa, that means all Africans or even all people of that host country of that tribe tolerate it?

Why were you so daft to address such shyt to me?

eldee:

This is hilarious. "Gay terrorists"? You explicitly said:

Which, by the way, is false.  

You are a person!!!

You are what

You are a person!!!

Say: "Yes sir!!!"

Cretin!!!

You mean the likes of Obama and other Western countries would not secretly have put pressure on an African government to not put those laws up? They will not have threatened with aid, loss of international support for international benefits like seat on UN security council or political appointments, or exposing or seizing of loot of public officials that do not stop it?

You think the West did not get involved when the gays in Malawi were jailed and Ban Ki Moon was there the next day and obtained a pardon from the President in 24 hours?

You are a Moooron!

eldee:

Actually, you're the one that brought up my SAT scores and what university I got into in  the context of this discussion, not me. I could not possibly care less about my score (and certainly not think it gives me an edge in any argument) because it's not even going to matter for the rest of my life and I know people with scores higher than mine anyway that I don't feel have as much creativity or potential as me. And for the record, if a renowned professor of physics with an endowed chair at a first tier world class university can be impressed by that score and casually mention that his score was actually lower during a discussion on school and work, then your irrelevant, sewer rat self should pipe the fu-ck down. When you first said "passed the SAT" in your argument with SEFAGO with regard to his first 1440 score, I knew you were a complete dunce who was foaming at the mouth about things he knew nothing about, but to see you imply that top 0.7% (and for the second time, I could even have gotten higher  ) of all test takers could ever be due mainly to coaching (I didn't have any coaching, jackass, nor did all 4 of my friends in my high school physics class that scored higher than me), or that anything in this thread is beyond the realm of being taught, I really have to conclude that you're the messiah of all imbeciles. Pipe the fu-ck down Sagorilla.

You are a person!!!

You are what

You are a person!!!

Say: "Yes sir!!!"

Cretin!!!

Thank God, you know your SAT scores does not validate you intellect. You would have got serious bashing. Fooooooooooool!

PhysicsMHD:


Sir Tensor, I am well aware that homosexuality is illegal in Nigeria and has been for a while now.
"Among the last African cultures to be subjugated by Europeans, the Hausa peoples of northern Nigeria and the surrounding countries offer interesting examples of homosexuality among Islmaicized peoples of Africa. Conquered by the British only in 1904, they were studied extensively by British ethnographers within a decade and a half of the arrival of the British - having experienced very limited contact with Europeans in the meantime. These ethnographers included sexual practices, including homosexuality, in their survey. Thus, they give us a unique glimpse into a nearly pristine African Islamic culture.

The Hausa people have terms in their language that are used to describe homosexuals. Two terms are common, 'yan dauda, which is usually translated as "homosexual" or "transvestite" and 'dan dauda, which translates as a homosexual "wife." The 'yan dauda in Hausaland engage in stereotypical professions, much as marginalized gay men in the west often do. In Hausaland, they are often engaged in the sex trade - both as male love-peddlers and as 'procurers' for female love-peddlers. In the latter role, they do not behave as 'pimps' do in the west, maintaining 'stables' of female love-peddlers under their subjugation, but rather simply as go-betweens, arranging, for a fee, liaisons "But let's stay focused on the traditional attitude in Africa. In the Hausa tribes of present day Nigeria and Niger, the word "'yan daudu" was used to describe men who acted like women. They would for instance perform traditional female chores, such as cooking and selling food, use female names for themselves and each other, speak in high pitch female voices, and indeed engage in sexual and romantic relationships with "real" men. They build extensive networks among themselves within the Hausa people, extending as far as into Sudan. They consider each other as "girlfriends", and would never engage in sexual activity with each other. These men do however not make a conscious effort to look like women; many of them wear a moustache and short hair. Marriage and procreation are considered normal goals in life, regardless of sexual orientation, and so these 'yan daudu typically marry and conceive offspring. However, they may still choose to live away from their "families", and only visit occasionally, bringing gifts, money, or food. In their daily lives, they earn their keep through selling food on the streets, prostitution, or procuring. The latter two may sound harsh, but often translate into a close, committed relationship with the "customers", and often a 'yan daudu will have a steady client, to whom he will refer as a "boyfriend", and also live in a relationship-like situation with. inclusive of sex, friendship, and exchange of money and gifts. The 'yan daudu are very popular as entertainers at parties, since they are very good at singing, dancing, and performing (Geschiere 1994)."

Point being that there is nothing new and certainly nothing trendy about being a BATTY MAN. Certainly there are BATTY MEN who practice acts of pederastry in boarding schools, army camps, or gender segregated communities.
Anyway what does one do with a BATTY MAN. Under sharia law these guys if they are caught would simply be battered to death with hurled stones. I suspect under traditional jurisdictions such perverts were simply banished to an "evil" forest to be devoured by lions and leopards.
What do you propose that society does with these BATTY MEN Physics Master?

tensor, why are you in a western society. why not move to a sharia state and see how you love it there? 

Jenifa_:

I agree. how can words like poo and silly be censored but homophobic hate word is not?

TIA!

[b]T[/b]his [b]I[/b]s [b]A[/b]frica!

It is not hate to call a form of depravity a "hate" word. You are not going to censor someone for saying a beastial is a "sicko" or "psycho".

It is not a hate word, it is a word of pure, undiluted disgust.

Jenifa_:

sagamite,

first of all, why aren't regular posters like me allowed to use the message function? why is it restricted to mods only  

"Cause I'm young and I'm black and really gaddam handsome

Do I look like a mind reader, mam, I don't know

Am I the owner or should I guess some mo'?"  

[Adapted from "99 Problems" by Jay Z]

Jenifa_:

to answer your question, I think it is against the law FOR ANYONE to go around unclothed in public lol. People aren't even allowed to go barefeet in some public places. Now if only certain segment of the population were allowed to do it while one group is banned from doing it, that will be problematic because it's clearly becomes discrimination. ex. straights are allowed to make out in public while gays are not. stuff like that.
ex. only sagamite or only the presidents family is allowed do what you described while it is against the law for anyone else to do it. lol

sometimes, there are exception to this. where rights are granted to some and not others based on religion, sexual orientation,disability, ethnic minority etc. these are called minority rights.
ex. affirmative action, disability laws (where handicapped have special parking spots), muslims,jews etc being excused from things that go against their religion etc.
I know France doesn't have a system of collective rights in place and their laws are based only on individual rights and that's why they are having a problem right now with muslims, blacks and other minority groups that feel that the country is not respecting their rights as a "group"that's different from the majority in the country.

did I answer your question or you need clarification?

That is not my point in anyway.

Yes, it is against the law.

Why is it against the law? Because we are disgusted by it.

Hence, I just wanted to make it clear to any reader that it is perfectly normal, sane and universally practiced that laws are put in place based on morality, so I see less mooorons go around and raise such steeeeeeeeeeewpid arguments that you can not ban homosexuality because you feel it is disgusting.

The fact it is unnatural and disgusting makes it a very valid act to be banned.

Sagamite:



That is not my point in anyway.

Yes, it is against the law.

Why is it against the law? Because we are disgusted by it.

Hence, I just wanted to make it clear to any reader that it is perfectly normal, sane and universally practiced that laws are put in place based on morality, so I see less mooorons go around and raise such steeeeeeeeeeewpid arguments that you can not ban homosexuality because you feel it is disgusting.

The fact it is unnatural and disgusting makes it a very valid act to be banned.

"unnatural" and "disgusting" to me just describe things that we are not used to or accustomed to. At least that's my interpretation of what you mean.
ex. loiterring or pissing/shitting openly in gutters will be "disgusting" to americans.Same with the idea of polygamy. but it is a normal and natural way of life for many nigerians etc.
so no. laws are generally not based on what we are disgusted by. the reason laws are created are more complex than "morality" except if you live in a theocracy like sharia where rules are based on morals. ie adulterers are amputated etc
ie. laws against stealing is not because stealing is evil but because stealing "harms" others by violating personal property

the word we should use in this instance is tolerance. it will be unnatural for a white person who has never seen a black person in his life to move to a city and have to deal with seeing them everyday. it takes a tolerant mind to get accustomed to that.
same with being a christian and still being tolerant toward muslims etc

It will be a very depressing world if we were all too close-minded.

if our laws were based on morals don't you think adulterers will be punished like they are under sharia? Half of the men on here will be amputated by now lol or even drunkards or alcoholism etc or heavy party goers. since all these things are "immoral"
sagamite will be in jail by now for posting pics of unclothed women and porn on nairaland 

a secular government is different. laws are based on rights and the general good of society. not on "morality" per se.

Jenifa_:

"unnatural" and "disgusting" to me just describe things that we are not used to or accustomed to. At least that's my interpretation of what you mean.
ex. loiterring or pissing/shitting openly in gutters will be "disgusting" to americans.Same with the idea of polygamy. but it is a normal and natural way of life for many nigerians etc.
so no. laws are generally not based on what we are disgusted by. the reason laws are created are more complex than "morality" except if you live in a theocracy like sharia where rules are based on morals. ie adulterers are amputated etc
ie. laws against stealing is not because stealing is evil but because stealing "harms" others by violating personal property

the word we should use in this instance is tolerance. it will be unnatural for a white person who has never seen a black person in his life to move to a city and have to deal with seeing them everyday. it takes a tolerant mind to get accustomed to that.
same with being a christian and still being tolerant toward muslims etc

It is very depressing world if we were all too close-minded.

You amaze me!

You voluntarily supplied an example where a law is in existence in US based on disgust (ban of polygamy) and followed it by "so no. laws are generally not based on what we are disgusted by".

So why do you think the wankstar should be arrested? Why do you think the laws that allow you to arrest him when all he is trying to do is havsome fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun without hurting anybody?

How does that link to stealing? Why did you bring stealing up in your argument? Is stealing banned based on disgust? You do not know it is banned based on harm?

Jenifa_:

if our laws were based on morals don't you think adulterers will be punished like they are under sharia? Half of the men on here will be amputated by now lol or even drunkards or alcoholism etc or heavy party goers. since all these things are "immoral"
sagamite will be in jail by now for posting pics of unclothed women and indecency on nairaland 

a secular government is different. laws are based on rights and the general good of society. not on "morality" per se.

If the society is STRONGLY disgusted enough, I am SURE adultery would be banned based on morals.

That is why the shariarist do it.

Sagamite is too smart for Shariarist or any other authority to catch him in the act if it is against the law.

He would smack that, all on the floor, smack that, they give me more, smack that, till they get sore, smack that o o ooooo without being caught.

I see some people stubbornly trying to equate political or social subjective feelings of superority with the sheer evil of pederastry. Again there is no linkage.

There is morality and society promulgates laws against moral outrages in order to protect public morality. Nothing to do with individual rights just the well-being of society as a whole.
There are many laws in the West that serve to protect public morality such as the laws against nudity, the laws against pornographic smut and the laws against prostitution.

The point is we cannot have a situation whereby society tolerates every kind of moral outrage that does not harm individual members.
Because again that is merely applying a value judgement that says the happiness of a depraved or decadent individual is more important than the well being of society.

Even lets face it, a faggott actually directly harms and hurts the parents of the son, or the wife of the husband he is mindlessly abusing.

@Tensor

There is morality and society promulgates laws against moral outrages in order to protect public morality. Nothing to do with individual rights just the well-being of society as a whole.
There are many laws in the West that serve to protect public morality such as the laws against nudity, the laws against pornographic smut and the laws against prostitution.

What you utterly miss here is that you have been unable to tell us what moral laws apply to homosexuality. Nature is undefinable and day after day we humans (Here I sound like the arrogant molecular biologist) have come to terms that we can manipulate and rise above this "nature." Can you articulate with clear and convincing points why public morality is affected by homos, backed by substantial data from literature and not just your own feelings. If you are unable to do this though, that is fine. Could you then argue on what grounds that homos are bad to public morality based on well accepted rational grounds, on a point for point basis? I do not need evidence, just the ability to draw acceptable parallels.

Trust me if you go logic, I would get it

I doubt it. You are thoroughly and overwhelmingly outclassed here. Do the right thing and just give it up. So lets just be bystanders and watch oooh, because when the elephants are at war, the grass will suffer.

What kind of Nigerian music do you like? Styl Plus? Da Grin? Mo Hits? Flavour? Brackett? Timaya? Abeg you should do what I am doing now, and just listen to music

Are you Yoruba? You must definitely like Da Grin, If you are from the south-south abeg let us dey listen to timaya

shy-one disembowels tensor777

Pretty girl like you? Abeg give tensor777 a sword so that he can perform harakiri himself. The guy is just funny

Sagamite:

That is just to eliminate that lame argument you see pro-gays consistently put forth.

I'm not asking what their argument is, I'm asking what yours is. Are you saying that homosexuality should be banned because public m@sturbation is also banned?

What was the point of the example you gave?

Yes, we all agree that certain things the public finds abhorrent should be banned. But it doesn't follow that homosexuality is one of those things that should be banned, simply because the public finds them abhorrent.

Anyway, are you sure we want to decide the rules by simple majority? This has lead to disaster and great evils in the past. . .

Mate, don't bullshyt me, okay. I hope your enormous fraction does not mean "majority"?

In many places in the world, some of which I've visited or lived in for periods of time, it is indeed a majority.

That said, you will conveniently see "mixed-breed" breeding in SEVERAL different breeds of animals without effort, so to me it is natural.

If we want to use animals as a justification, well there are lots of animals who engage in homosexual behavior.

SEFAGO:

Are you Yoruba? You must definitely like Da Grin, If you are from the south-south abeg let us dey listen to timaya

Funny enough, i am actually listening to Ghetto Dream as I type

Do you actually listen to Da Grin?

You this Ajebo, trying to belong.    .   .    he he he

Mehn, you suppose dey listen to your people for Obodo-Oyinbo

Leave Da Grin and Timaya and them Mo Hits crew to ajepako, atapata dide like me.

SEFAGO:

@Tensor
What you utterly miss here is that you have been unable to tell us what moral laws apply to homosexuality. Nature is undefinable and day after day we humans (Here I sound like the arrogant molecular biologist) have come to terms that we can manipulate and rise above this "nature." Can you articulate with clear and convincing points why public morality is affected by homos, backed by substantial data from literature and not just your own feelings. If you are unable to do this though, that is fine. Could you then argue on what grounds that homos are bad to public morality based on well accepted rational grounds, on a point for point basis? I do not need evidence, just the ability to draw acceptable parallels.

Well Sefago I don't quite know how you view things but you must be able to accept that man is higher than animals like tigers and lions. Implicitly one would expect a man to exhibit as high a standard of propriety as these big cats with respect to copulation. I say this notwithstanding that man has free will
Well if you don't see BATTY LIONS why in the world should society tolerate the BATTY MAN
Are you saying that man should just do what he likes regardless of propriety.?

SEFAGO:

Pretty girl like you? Abeg give tensor777 a sword so that he can perform harakiri himself. The guy is just funny  

ok there is a major blizzard hitting right now a prediction of 20 inches of snow - so i need to run to stock up and i will answer this when i return.

the truth is i like Tensor777 and i am learning about him right now.  i think that we all have views that we should share and learn from each other - its just the name calling and the slurs thrown that hurt on a personal level to me and that alone is why i just really wanted it to stop

i don't like to hurt when i discuss because then it affects my rationale in the discussion this is why i asked him to stop in the first place.  but it seems that his strong feelings of dislike blind him to those he hurts along the way.

Tensor please stop.  i really didn't mean the disembowel comment - forgive me.

eku_bear:



I'm not asking what their argument is, I'm asking what yours is. Are you saying that homosexuality should be banned because public m@sturbation is also banned?

What was the point of the example you gave?

Yes, we all agree that certain things the public finds abhorrent should be banned. But it doesn't follow that homosexuality is one of those things that should be banned, simply because the public finds them abhorrent.

Anyway, are you sure we want to decide the rules by simple majority? This has lead to disaster and great evils in the past. . .

The point of the example as I explained earlier is "make it clear to any reader that it is perfectly normal, sane and universally practiced that laws are put in place based on morality, so I see less mooorons go around and raise such steeeeeeeeeeewpid arguments that you can not ban homosexuality because you feel it is disgusting".

I am saying faggotism is unnatural and disgusting, hence it should be banned and is an ideal candidate for banning. At worst, it should only be in private.

Since faggotism is unnatural, I would rather we see more research into what went wrong and find a cure than the rampant brainwashing and dragooning to accept that some have fallen for and thinks that makes them "progressive" or "enlightened".

It is ridiculous that they same modernity that brainwashed the "progressives" ban things that are less bad as faggotism, e.g. polygamy, nudity and in.cest, mainly based on disgust.

eku_bear:

In many places in the world, some of which I've visited or lived in for periods of time, it is indeed a majority.

I don't believe it for a second.

eku_bear:

If we want to use animals as a justification, well there are lots of animals who engage in homosexual behavior.

That are homosexuals? Nope.

Feel free to show me the videos.

Don't show me documentaries claiming there are birds that give each other Cotonou-Badagry kisses o and tell me the animals are gay.

And the moral of the story is. . . If you want your children to have sense, don't ever ever ever send them to Bristol.

ChukaEze:

And the moral of the story is. . . If you want your children to have sense, don't ever ever ever send them to Bristol.

I agree!

Georgetown is Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better

OR Cornell!

ChukaEze:

And the moral of the story is. . . If you want your children to have sense, don't ever ever ever send them to Bristol.

Send them to a top university where they come out confident enough to tell gays like you to slit their wrist if they are offended.

fstranger1:


I agree!

Georgetown is Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better

OR Cornell!

But not your community college sha, where they teach you to be a moooron that can be used as an agent for murderous leaders?

Zombie o, Zombie!

fstranger1:


I agree!

Georgetown is Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better

OR Cornell!

Lol. Anywhere is better. Seriously.

Sagamite:

Send them to a top university where they come out confident enough to tell gays like you to slit their wrist if they are offended.

  Hohohaha  That was incredibly witty. Did you write that yourself?

Look at the quality of the arguments this "intellectual" is making. It's shocking that he paid money somewhere to learn how to think and this is how he turned out.

ChukaEze:

Lol. Anywhere is better. Seriously.
  Hohohaha  That was incredibly witty. Did you write that yourself?

Look at the quality of the arguments this "intellectual" is making. It's shocking that he paid money somewhere to learn how to think and this is how he turned out.

Yeah, I wrote it.

I have not seen anything you have contributed or disproved. Did you attend Bristol?

@Sagamite

Why do you always look for "gay" topics, I mean why do you enjoy gay topics more than the average Nairalander? I remember you being the "last man" standing in another gay topic.
Am beginning to think you're  gay or you've suppressed your gay feelings.

In one of your post on this thread you argued that gays do affect our lives as opposed to another poster who said we should allow gays since they don't directly impact on our lives.
How do they have impact on your life?
I got news for you gay murtha fukker, stop putting your a.s.s. on the line then.
(pun intended)

                                            


                                               From the TOP I say:
                                             PEACE OUT!!!