|
superman (m)
|
You should not disqualify gay marriage as being a bad change without being able to support your dismissal of it using a wholistic perspective. now forget uncle sam for once lets break this down in our own way! now let put these facts down, think it might help? 1 nature have it that adam and eve mates thats the reason , you,you,your father,mum, you and me as well are here ? 2 There is this domination called CHRISTAINS who pratices bible knowledge but then they beleive in straight marriage 3 there is another domination that practices great book and also believe in straight marriage. Now lets drop the bomb shell! shall we 4 there is a particular domination that beleive man and man can engage in a marriage in the main stream. now one can wonder imagine if moslem people want God's great law to be virually put in place which should be used against american moslems in USA, how would that go down to others? imagaine a suitation abortion is abolished just like the catholics would love to see actualised, how would some people feel? Therefore this gay thing could be said to be an organisation just like christians, or moslems and should be given the same deliberations as other. And again the united nation might argue that poverty posses threat to human population but in modern times as u like us to beleive where more and more man turning to each other , this might live up to its consequences if overestimated? The question still remains is what precedence are we setting and do we always have to use its practicality and actuality in the main stream for others to follow! |
|
|
|
|
|
omoovie (f)
|
*SHOCKED GASP* Dreloaded! I'm so hurt! How can you say Crash was a useless movie?!  I saw it 5 times!!! I'm going to buy a copy!!! I thought we were one cybersister! I thought we were of the same mind? Oh WOE! But seriously no offense, I thought bb wasn't all that at all and Transamerica was a transtiring fiasco! The best part of the movie is when the American Indian guy says "now that'll put a hair on your chest!" and he/she says, "God, hope not." Brokeback had no saving grace for me besides good acting from Anne Hathaway.---EDIT--- I don't understand how you fail to see that the storyline about two gay men's relationship is what makes it new and perhaps fantastic. The movie brought homosexuality into people's homes, into the limelight, mainstream. It was the talk on radio shows, TV, in the newspapers for quite sometime; it addressed reality.
All I know is, gays have arrived and are here to stay. Unfortunately, we have to learn to deal with it.
MyTempID, are you gay or know someone who's gay? If you think Homosexuality is now the norm and something mainstream even in America land of the Free there are quite a few people in quite a few states that will adamantly argue against that point. I don't think the story of this unattainable love based on society's refusal to accept it is anything new or fantastic. There are many movies that have explored that ubiquitous storyline. It only got so much of a buzz because it was about gay people thereby catering to a growing customer base: LGBT people and people who accept them. It's not crisscrossing across cultural lines (like "The Namesake" or "A Mighty Heart" or "Children of Men"), it's not explaining or giving insight to a bread and butter issue, it's not an exposition on race relations (like "Babel" and "Crash") it's not even technically innovative in the arena of filmmaking. It's not anything I consider important. Remember, the context of the movie is not even related to this day and age. It's not even heavy enough for me to look at it with a jaundiced eye of "this is history" so it maybe important like for example, "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" or "Malcolm X" or something. It's a story about two adulterers getting jiggy with it in the Rockies or wherever the heck they were. I would react the same way if it was a man and a woman or a woman and a woman or an alien and an invertebrate animal. It didn't deserve the buzz or awards it received! See what you've done now! I'm miffed! Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! |
|
|
|
|
|
superman (m)
|
hey oru!!!! hahaha na wo
oh wel
|
|
|
|
|
|
MyTempID
|
Superman:
I suspected you would thread the religous path.
|
|
|
|
|
|
superman (m)
|
Common bro mytempID
yes but you would agree that it provides another line of debate? So for some to quickly legalise (emm ha can't even say it) well something not too sure about that or did uncle sam just decided to give it ?
hmm? dangerous haa
|
|
|
|
|
|
MyTempID
|
MyTempID, are you gay or know someone who's gay? If you think Homosexuality is now the norm and something mainstream even in America land of the Free there are quite a few people in quite a few states that will adamantly argue against that point. I don't think the story of this unattainable love based on society's refusal to accept it is anything new or fantastic. There are many movies that have explored that ubiquitous storyline. It only got so much of a buzz because it was about gay people thereby catering to a growing customer base: LGBT people and people who accept them. It's not crisscrossing across cultural lines (like "The Namesake" or "A Mighty Heart" or "Children of Men"), it's not explaining or giving insight to a bread and butter issue, it's not an exposition on race relations (like "Babel" and "Crash") it's not even technically innovative in the arena of filmmaking. It's not anything I consider important. Remember, the context of the movie is not even related to this day and age. It's not even heavy enough for me to look at it with a jaundiced eye of "this is history" so it maybe important like for example, "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" or "Malcolm X" or something. It's a story about two adulterers getting jiggy with it in the Rockies or wherever the heck they were. I would react the same way if it was a man and a woman or a woman and a woman or an alien and an invertebrate animal. It didn't deserve the buzz or awards it received! See what you've done now! I'm miffed! Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! You can get miffed all you want. I'm not ready to get into a long post debacle with you, just as I hold no interest in launching a probe into gay America. Mind you, to think homosexuality isn't dispersed throughout America is to be mistaken, I don't know if you've been living under the rocks, but homosexuals are everywhere in America. All you need to see is the fallacious reasoning you exercised in your post. You claimed you saw nothing new in Brokeback Mountain, as if gay films are the norm on TV. And, as I pointed out to you, what's new about it is what you saw in the movie. it's not explaining or giving insight to a bread and butter issue, Not in your opinion, but I'm sure if you google it you will be in shock by just how much uproar and outcry it created. Again, just because you disagree with, or have a penchant for opposing, practices that don't suit your ideal, doesn't mean they don't occur. Homosexuality is mainstream and plentiful in America. Your next door neighbor might be getting groped in his butthole. Remember, the context of the movie is not even related to this day and age. Uhh, if it's not related to this day and age why are we even discussing it? Come on. Critical thinking! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MyTempID
|
Common bro mytempID
yes but you would agree that it provides another line of debate? So for some to quickly legalise (emm ha can't even say it) well something not too sure about that or did uncle sam just decided to give it ?
hmm? dangerous haa
Scripture is not the ally all homophobes should run to. It's quite difficult for non-christians to understand the power attributed to the Bible. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sagamite (m)
|
It is quite silly to postulate that change is a form of civilisation.
It is a lousy defence that does not wash with me. Something tells me that positive change is more aligned to civilisation than just any change.
Crash was a fantastic movie. I don't know how Ludacris was not nominated for an Oscar. It was only the first scene I saw him in the film that I saw him as a rapper. After that, all I just saw him as was an obnoxious ignorant buffoon that he assumed in the role. He was excellent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MyTempID
|
It is quite silly to postulate that change is a form of civilisation. Just as it would be quite silly of you attribute such a statement to me. There is no denying the fact that civilization, depending on how you look at it, embodies change. It is a lousy defence that does not wash with me. Something tells me that positive change is more aligned to civilisation than just any change. A civilized nation provides an opportunity for change; moreso than an uncivilized one. It allows, for the most part, an opportunity for growth. What constitutes positive change . . .? Is there a clear definition of it? How did you come to the conclusion that the legalization of gay marriages is a negative form of change. The American civilization you see today is an accumulation of all the changes that have occured in America over time. |
|
|
|
|
|
superman (m)
|
The American civilization you see today is an accumulation of all the changes that have occured in America over time. yes just like Superman said changes might lives up to its consequence right? smoking in the public, drink beer in the street of London city, just that ring bell? |
|
|
|
|
|
Sagamite (m)
|
Just as it would be quite silly of you attribute such a statement to me. There is no denying the fact that civilization, depending on how you look at it, embodies change.
A civilized nation provides an opportunity for change; moreso than an uncivilized one. It allows, for the most part, an opportunity for growth. What constitutes positive change . . .? Is there a clear definition of it? How did you come to the conclusion that the legalization of gay marriages is a negative form of change.
The American civilization you see today is an accumulation of all the changes that have occured in America over time.
Flawed logic. Not every change is civilisation. Introducing God's great law in a secular country is change, does it also necessarily mean civilisation. Contrary to the western brainwashing, accepting gay people is not a judgement standard for civilisation neither is it a judgement tool for progressiveness or liberality. In the UK, I can have a Mus--lim best friend, a Jewish wife, be on the board of an inter-cultural promotion committee but if I do not approve of homosexuality, I would still be dubbed as close-minded, conservative and probably racist. People like you can fall for that sh*t, I don't. Positive change is a change that makes you progress in the context of the field the change is occurring in. The context were faggotism falls is the reproductive process, I really can't see the progress approving faggotism can bring in this context. It does pander to political correct crap that those that lack the ability to comprehend the context. Let me also give you the definition of perversion: "A practice or act, especially one that is sexual in nature, considered abnormal or deviant."Faggotism is perversion, I don't see how you can position perversion as positive progress. I don't expect you to comprehend everything that I have put above considering the continuous analogy you put forward between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement despite and after my best efforts earlier to make it clear how there is no basis of comparison between the two. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tayo-D (m)
|
@MyTempID, What matters is that is had an effect on society. Whether economic, or existential, gays in America could care less about that. As I opined earlier, whites might have believed at the time, that it would have an existential impact on society.
American society for the most part is highly civilized. In fact, they're not so concerned that slavery only had an economic impact on society. It will take a sophisticated level of delusion to assume that lack of slavery will have an existensial impact on a society. You are assuming too much by assuming what the Whites believed then. However, all indications and proofs suggest slavery was adopted in America for one purpose - economic prosperity. Slavery, or lack of it has no existensial impact on the society. As a result it should be banned? Ask yourself then why oh why do so many people engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of self-gratification? I have no problem with people having sex whenever and with whomever they feel like. However, when they want to involve the society by entering into a binding contract through the State, then I have a problem. Of what use is that association to the society? What has the society got to gain for the union? Adopting a child becomes even a greater tragedy for the society as far as I am concerned. Again, that's your common sense and your belief leading you to that conclusion. Not all pepole believe in the notion that sex is only beneficial, or should only be had when it allows for propagation. When, or where, were you taught that the sole purpose of sex is to preserve the human race? In that case, some might argue that why does it feel so good? Would people care that it feels good? Or why would they enjoy the pleasures of sex without being in a marriage? I never claimed that sex is only meant for procreation. What I said is that Gay marriage by itself will lead to the death of the society since there will not be any children born into that society. I never said others should not have sex. Sexual intercourse can also be seen as an expression of your love for your spouse. Why do you think most women prefer to 'make love' and not 'mess or have sex'.
The idea that sex should be had for procreation is a bible-thumper, and I must say it is something I agree with. But hey, I can't change, or control what people do. While the society can't control people's sexual preference, it can at least control those it issues a marriage license. Change will always/usually occur at the expense of society, and society as a whole must adapt to change and learn do deal with it. Society has been doing that and there's no reason to think it can't do it now. Changes hsouldn't be taking place at the expense of the society. When bad changes are allowed to happen, it costs the society while good changes is a blesing to the society. Gay sex, I don't care, but gay marriage is a curse to a society becuase it will cause that society to implode. Armed robbery is not a consequence of change and one can especially argue that it's been in existence since the beginning of time. You should not disqualify gay marriage as being a bad change without being able to support your dismissal of it using a wholistic perspective. I have provided you with a wholistic perspective. A society will cease to exist in a hundred years if nothing but gay sex and marriages are permitted. A society with heterosexual marriages on the other hand will forever remain in existence. |
|
|
|
|
|
MyTempID
|
Flawed logic.
Not every change is civilisation. Introducing God's great law in a secular country is change, does it also necessarily mean civilisation. Nor did I say every change is civilization. You might want to go through my narrative again to get a better understanding. Contrary to the western brainwashing, accepting gay people is not a judgement standard for civilisation neither is it a judgement tool for progressiveness or liberality. If you know this, why do you vehemently oppose it? You opposite it because you are fearful of what is foreign. Your religious views are preventing you from accepting people whose practices differ from yours. Not all Americans are christians, and they couldn't care much what the bible teaches on homosexuality. In the UK, I can have a Mus--lim best friend, a Jewish wife, be on the board of an inter-cultural promotion committee but if I do not approve of homosexuality, I would still be dubbed as close-minded, conservative and probably racist. People like you can fall for that sh*t, I don't. Therein lies the following question: why would you disapprove of homosexuality? Are you homophobic? Are they not humans as are the jews and great ones you chose to court? And, it's not as if having a a great one bestfriend and a jewish wife is a big accomplishment. That's just flawed logic from you. Positive change is a change that makes you progress in the context of the field the change is occurring in. Well then try to understand the context of the field where homosexuality is occuring. Homosexuality is prevalent in America. Lots of men and women have been killed as a consequence of it, just as Blacks were killed during the slavery era by whites who thought Black is evil. The context were faggotism falls is the reproductive process, I really can't see the progress approving faggotism can bring in this context. It does pander to political correct crap that those that lack the ability to comprehend the context. I might fall in the same category as you wherein I do not support homosexuality. But, that does not prevent me from understanding that America has allowed these people the freedom to put into practice, this manaical act. Let me also give you the definition of perversion: "A practice or act, especially one that is sexual in nature, considered abnormal or deviant."
Faggotism is perversion, I don't see how you can position perversion as positive progress. The Bible, and many other forms of religion, preaches that adultery, fornication and premarital sex, are all abnormal and incorrect. Should we start killing people off for engaging in such acts? Then ask yourself if we do this: how many lives would be lost if this were to occur? I don't expect you to comprehend everything that I have put above considering the continuous analogy you put forward between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement despite and after my best efforts earlier to make it clear how there is no basis of comparison between the two. Just as I don't expect you to fathom many points I have tried to make before this. You are either a one-dimensional thinker, or a person that's unwelcoming of change. |
|
|
|
|
|
MyTempID
|
@MyTempID,
It will take a sophisticated level of delusion to assume that lack of slavery will have an existensial impact on a society. You are assuming too much by assuming what the Whites believed then. However, all indications and proofs suggest slavery was adopted in America for one purpose - economic prosperity. Slavery, or lack of it has no existensial impact on the society. It might seem that way to you, but I remember back in an history class, having a discussion about the existential impact Blacks would have on America. The behavior of white America back then was the very definition of cowardly. They used the Bible to support their views, citing that Blacks are inferior to society . . . do you still think it's my assumption? Or would you like me to provide links to what may wow you. I have no problem with people having sex whenever and with whomever they feel like. However, when they want to involve the society by entering into a binding contract through the State, then I have a problem. Of what use is that association to the society? What has the society got to gain for the union? Adopting a child becomes even a greater tragedy for the society as far as I am concerned. By your logic, the union of barren couples should also be put to a halt. Of what use is their union to society? This argument fails to hold merit with me; it can be viewed as shallow and illiterate. Marriage is a union not entirely meant for reproduction. The ability to reproduce in a union is a blessing. Moreover, adopting a child might not be so much of a tragedy for the society. I can most certainly see the benefit in putting homeless children in homes, having them supported by capable parents, and seeing them live the normal life( or abnormal life whichever way you see it). I never claimed that sex is only meant for procreation. What I said is that Gay marriage by itself will lead to the death of the society since there will not be any children born into that society. I never said others should not have sex. Not true. Gay marriage will not murder the society. There will still and always be children born into the society. The existence of homosexuality does not mean the death of heterosexuality. While the society can't control people's sexual preference, it can at least control those it issues a marriage license. Yes it can, and this scenario it has chosen to legalize gay marriage. Changes hsouldn't be taking place at the expense of the society. When bad changes are allowed to happen, it costs the society while good changes is a blesing to the society. Gay sex, I don't care, but gay marriage is a curse to a society becuase it will cause that society to implode. What does gay marriage cost the society now that slavery didn't cost the society then? If America can withstand the economic failure caused by the freedom of Black slaves, it can effortlessly surpass the turbulence gay marriages will bring forth. Just an addendum, how come you don't care about Gay sex, but you care that gays will be married? Does their transition from sex to marriage destroy the economy? If so, explain. I have provided you with a wholistic perspective. A society will cease to exist in a hundred years if nothing but gay sex and marriages are permitted. A society with heterosexual marriages on the other hand will forever remain in existence.
And I am telling you that we don't have that problem here. It won't be "nothing but gay sex and marriages, " there still exists a very large percentage of heterosexuals. We are still the majority. I can go off on a limb and say at least 97 percent of the world's population is comprised of heterosexual beings. |
|
|
|
|
|
Blatant
|
I pray that those who always believe that anything allowed in Europe and America (no matter how perverse and detrimental it might be) should be imported to Nigeria never get the chance to legitimise sodomy in Nigeria
|
|
|
|
|
|
Big B1 (m)
|
California's Top Court Legalizes Gay Marriage:
WOW! MAMAJAMA will be very happy to hear this news.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sagamite (m)
|
Nor did I say every change is civilization. You might want to go through my narrative again to get a better understanding. Well you did not specify what change is civilisation despite having the opportunity to do so twice. I specified. If you know this, why do you vehemently oppose it? You opposite it because you are fearful of what is foreign. Your religious views are preventing you from accepting people whose practices differ from yours. Not all Americans are christians, and they couldn't care much what the bible teaches on homosexuality. Please stop regurgitating the rubbish that is breastfed to you by western media. "People that don't approve of homosexuals are just scared of the unknown" "People that don't approve of homosexuals are religious bigots" Where did you see me say I fear homosexuals? Where did you see an irk of religion in my argument? My disapproval of homosexuality is based on logic and social order. Go back and read through my entire contribution on this topic. It is all based on logic, I HAVE NO FEAR OF THEM. And for you information, I follow NO religion except objectivism. So please don't bring crap arguments my way. If you have no originality in your arguments please drop it becuase I don't argue at this level. Therein lies the following question: why would you disapprove of homosexuality? Are you homophobic? Are they not humans as are the jews and great ones you chose to court? And, it's not as if having a a great one bestfriend and a jewish wife is a big accomplishment. That's just flawed logic from you.
I disapprove becuase of the flawed logic, disgust and evolutionary disapproval. What is homophobic? I have no unhealthy aversion to homosexuals. My aversion is healthy hence I have no phobia therefore I can not be homophobic. I am pro-nature. Well then try to understand the context of the field where homosexuality is occuring. Homosexuality is prevalent in America. Lots of men and women have been killed as a consequence of it, just as Blacks were killed during the slavery era by whites who thought Black is evil.I might fall in the same category as you wherein I do not support homosexuality. But, that does not prevent me from understanding that America has allowed these people the freedom to put into practice, this manaical act.
The Bible, and many other forms of religion, preaches that adultery, fornication and premarital sex, are all abnormal and incorrect. Should we start killing people off for engaging in such acts? Then ask yourself if we do this: how many lives would be lost if this were to occur?
Just as I don't expect you to fathom many points I have tried to make before this. You are either a one-dimensional thinker, or a person that's unwelcoming of change.
Paedophilia is also prevalent in America. So should it also be given some level of consideration? What a flawed logic. It is prevalent so it should be accepted. If your constitution is developed based on a religion, then follow what the religion states, if not DO NOT. It the US constitution is based on the bible, then they can kill off whoever breaks its rules as long as the religious constitution approves of the punishment until the population feel the need to change the basis of their constitution. Stop bringing beer parlour arguments my way. I guess I can't say I was not warned by grafikdon that no matter how much I explain from heaven to earth, some would still struggle because of limitations to see the lack of connectivity between homosexual rights and civil rights. You are too sad for not comprehending this, hence your limitation has put a stop to any further debate with you. It is a waste of my time, I am too advance to be discussing with you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
omoovie (f)
|
You can get miffed all you want. I'm not ready to get into a long post debacle with you, just as I hold no interest in launching a probe into gay America. Mind you, to think homosexuality isn't dispersed throughout America is to be mistaken, I don't know if you've been living under the rocks, but homosexuals are everywhere in America. All you need to see is the fallacious reasoning you exercised in your post. You claimed you saw nothing new in Brokeback Mountain, as if gay films are the norm on TV. And, as I pointed out to you, what's new about it is what you saw in the movie.
Not in your opinion, but I'm sure if you google it you will be in shock by just how much uproar and outcry it created. Again, just because you disagree with, or have a penchant for opposing, practices that don't suit your ideal, doesn't mean they don't occur. Homosexuality is mainstream and plentiful in America. Your next door neighbor might be getting groped in his butthole.
Uhh, if it's not related to this day and age why are we even discussing it? Come on. Critical thinking!
First of all, "I'm quite miffed! Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!" was sarcastic in nature meaning I meant it to be funny. It is not a slap in the face call to have a verbal duel. Secondly, I never said homosexuality is concentrated in only a few states in America. I said there are some people in quite a few states in America who will beg to differ that homosexuality is or should be considered mainstream. I stand on my previous opinion that Brokeback Mountain had nothing new to show me because like I mentioned the story line of a forbidden love is ubiquitous. This particular story only generated a buzz because it was about gay people (doesn't that show I think that gayness is mainstream enough to cause a buzz?) I'm yet to see gay films played nonstop on TV but I mentioned somewhere in this thread that a lot of TV shows have added gay characters to their roster and are exploring the lifestyle (almost every show on TV now has one or two gay characters). The context not being related to this day and age let me reword that "the movie is not set in this day and age". The concept is related to this day and age (hello, all the TV shows with gay xters again, let's not even get into the reality TV shows and day time talk shows) but the movie was set in 1963. There are gay people both male and female walking hand in hand and doing PDA in places like frigging boondocks, Alabama. They are living their lives without overt supression and fear. My point, what's the big deal that I shouldn't hear word about some 2 gay guys in the Rockies and why d f did this win all these awards when there were far better films that year? (of all things in best achievement in directing (Academy) and best actor (BAFTA)?! Plus God forgive me even though he's dead, I've never really liked Heath Ledger's acting. He was good in 10 Things and Cassanova. Other than that, comme ci comme ca. Something like Apocalypto should have been nominated & won d award for best achievement in writing and directing and best actor!) It has no merits to me except to gay people who aren't the majority viewing base. I don't have any good analogies to present my point but I hope you understand what I mean by this. As I've expressed from the get-go, we (as in Nigerians in particular and maybe Africans in general) have bigger fish to fry than the fact that a bunch of gay people all the way in California, USA can now marry. |
|
|
|
|
|
Blatant
|
My point, what's the big deal that I shouldn't hear word about some 2 gay guys in the Rockies and why d f did this win an award when there were far better films that year? It has no merits to me except to gay people who aren't the majority viewing base. I don't have any good analogies to present my point but I hope you understand what I mean by this. As I've expressed from the get-go, we (as in Nigerians in particular and maybe Africans in general) have bigger fish to fry than the fact that a bunch of gay people all the way in California, USA can now marry.
Exactly, we have enough on our plate to deal with. Let the perverse homosexuality stay where it is in America where they have enough resources to deal with whatever problems it may present to them in the near or far future. |
|
|
|
|
|
vikiviko (m)
|
America land of opportunities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MyTempID
|
Well you did not specify what change is civilisation despite having the opportunity to do so twice. I specified. What did you specify? You are yet to qualify what passes as positive change. Your positive change has no blatant definition. I need not specify what change is civilization, just as I'm not willing to school you on an obvious statement. My statement still stands, civilization is an embodiment of change. Now, what part of this don't you understand? Please stop regurgitating the rubbish that is breastfed to you by western media.
"People that don't approve of homosexuals are just scared of the unknown"
"People that don't approve of homosexuals are religious bigots" I can do that when you stop swimming in the whirlpool of disgust passed down to you by your fears. When religion loses its credibility in scenarios like these, you jump on the common sense bandwagon in attempts to justify your views; however, you just don't see that 'common sense' is all too perspective. My perspective differs from yours. Where did you see me say I fear homosexuals? Where did you see an irk of religion in my argument?
My disapproval of homosexuality is based on logic and social order. Go back and read through my entire contribution on this topic. It is all based on logic, I HAVE NO FEAR OF THEM. A disapproval you're yet to support with a steadfast argument. A disapproval that stems from irrational wayward loic. What sort of unexplained, invisible logic have you applied in disapproving homosexuals; logic that you can't seem to dispense in light of my accusations that you're simply an intolerant victim of the flawed logic that's prevalent among Nigerian society? And for you information, I follow NO religion except objectivism. So please don't bring crap arguments my way. If you have no originality in your arguments please drop it becuase I don't argue at this level.
I disapprove becuase of the flawed logic, disgust and evolutionary disapproval. What is homophobic? I have no unhealthy aversion to homosexuals. My aversion is healthy hence I have no phobia therefore I can not be homophobic. I am pro-nature.
You're yet to propose an argument that can be hashed out in totality. You continually cite common sense, common sense, but such irrational argument does little to convince me to agree that common sense should suffice. Common sense could also indicate to you that homosexuals are humans who need not be castigated based on their copulative preferences. It is disgusting to you, and I'm sure there are so many other things in life that are disgusting to you. Should we, as a result of your disgust, refuse to entertain the practices of others? The world does not revolve around you. One man's rubbish is another man's cake. Global warming also merits evolutionary disapproval, have you stopped pumping gas in your car while you ponder the effects it might have on the world many years from now? Try to think comprehensively. Paedophilia is also prevalent in America. So should it also be given some level of consideration? What a flawed logic. It is prevalent so it should be accepted. It is prevalent so it should be accepted? No where did I say this. You're most certainly a figment of your under-developed imagination. If your constitution is developed based on a religion, then follow what the religion states, if not DO NOT. It the US constitution is based on the bible, then they can kill off whoever breaks its rules as long as the religious constitution approves of the punishment until the population feel the need to change the basis of their constitution. Stop bringing beer parlour arguments my way. In this case, the US. constitution has been applied in a way that the supreme court sees fit. The supreme court, while interpreting the US. constitution has decided gay marriage is allowed. Disapprove all you want, but that's the reality you're faced with at this moment, and you're stuck with it. I guess I can't say I was not warned by grafikdon that no matter how much I explain from heaven to earth, some would still struggle because of limitations to see the lack of connectivity between homosexual rights and civil rights. You are too sad for not comprehending this, hence your limitation has put a stop to any further debate with you. It is a waste of my time, I am too advance to be discussing with you.
You're too sad for not understanding that common sense is subjective. You want to forcefully impose your views on others without enough astounding points to support them. Learn to adapt to this 3-dimensional life. Looking at it from your one-dimensional thin lens will not help this society progress; it will only continue to yield a generation of hateful individuals without faculty of reason. Your inability to string together a series of arguments that can be supported has limited you from further participation in our discussion. You need to advance more, because clearly you're not as advanced as you think you are. |
|
|
|
|
|
MyTempID
|
First of all, "I'm quite miffed! Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!" was sarcastic in nature meaning I meant it to be funny. It is not a slap in the face call to have a verbal duel. No offense was taken and I did not respond in a manner that is standoff-ish. If it seems that way, you can pardon me. Secondly, I never said homosexuality is concentrated in only a few states in America. I said there are some people in quite a few states in America who will beg to differ that homosexuality is or should be considered mainstream. Just as there are many people in quite a lot of states who will agree that homosexuality is mainstream. Ehh, who are we to believe? Also, your questions which asked, "Are you gay? Do you know some gay people (or something of that sort)," held the implication that gays are nowhere around (that's how it appeared to me). For me, they are en-masse in several parts of the US. and I see them many times. I stand on my previous opinion that Brokeback Mountain had nothing new to show me because like I mentioned the story line of a forbidden love is ubiquitous. This particular story only generated a buzz because it was about gay people (doesn't that show I think that gayness is mainstream enough to cause a buzz?) I'm yet to see gay films played nonstop on TV but I mentioned somewhere in this thread that a lot of TV shows have added gay characters to their roster and are exploring the lifestyle (almost every show on TV now has one or two gay characters). I adressed these in my previous post. The context not being related to this day and age let me reword that "the movie is not set in this day and age". The concept is related to this day and age (hello, all the TV shows with gay xters again, let's not even get into the reality TV shows and day time talk shows) but the movie was set in 1963. Thank you for rewording that, because the movie and its concepts are related to this day and age. The TV shows with gay characters are not making faggots their theme, Brokeback Mountain did this to a successful degree. There are gay people both male and female walking hand in hand and doing PDA in places like frigging boondocks, Alabama. They are living their lives without overt supression and fear. That's all relative. Gays are not yet at a point where they're able to fully enjoy civil rest in America without worry; but it's still improving. My point, what's the big deal that I shouldn't hear word about some 2 gay guys in the Rockies and why d f did this win all these awards when there were far better films that year? (of all things in best achievement in directing (Academy) and best actor (BAFTA)?! You're asking the wrong person. I'm not a big movie-watcher, but I guess for some reason people do find the movie informative, controversial, new and original, it came at a time where homosexuality was put to the forefront big time. Those who awarded Broke Back Mountain its accolades probably saw something that you didn't. Plus God forgive me even though he's dead, I've never really liked Heath Ledger's acting. He was good in 10 Things and Cassanova. Other than that, comme ci comme ca.
Something like Apocalypto should have been nominated & won d award for best achievement in writing and directing and best actor!) It has no merits to me except to gay people who aren't the majority viewing base. I don't have any good analogies to present my point but I hope you understand what I mean by this.
Oh for the love of the heavens that is your opinion. I'm not a Heath Ledger fanatic, but I assure you, if I am I would defend his acting profusely. As I've expressed from the get-go, we (as in Nigerians in particular and maybe Africans in general) have bigger fish to fry than the fact that a bunch of gay people all the way in California, USA can now marry.
We have bigger corruption to fry? We have more marginalization to fry? We have more dictatorship to fry? We have more patriarchy to fry? If this is your bigger fish, then by all means do continue to fry it. It is certainly no bigger than frying the homosexual fish -- the gay fish might even taste better. |
|
|
|
|
|
dee02 (m)
|
why has God not wiped out all this butt fucking pirates?!
gay people are disgusting and they should all be shot dead!
|
|
|
|
|
|
engineerd (m)
|
when i read this i was just like, mennnn this sucks u know, This people are messing with God, Watch the EARTH QUAKES START! HOPEFULLY IT DOESNT COME TO SOUTHERN CALLY, I MEAN ALL THE GAYS ARE IN THE NORTH.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Method-Man (m)
|
why has God not wiped out all this butt fucking pirates?!
gay people are disgusting and they should all be shot dead!
not only shot dead, but burnt to ashes in a massive incinerator and the ashes flushed down the loo! |
|
|
|
|
|
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Author
