5minsmadness:


Throwing back the question to you sir, would you say, giving that nature has graced two sexes with a pen.is and a vag1na, would you say homosexuality is natural? If you compare putting a plug into a socket, and rubbing a plug against another plug to complete a circuit, which would you consider as normal?

I already said it is natural. I guess what you are asking is whether one's genitals are suitable for sexual activity with another's genitals of the same gender. Lol. For sexual satisfaction, yes. For procreation, no.

finofaya:
I don't even know who Dan Savage is.

High profile gay-homosexual

finofaya:
I think the logic is persuasive.

At all.

finofaya:
You couldn't say where your abhorrence for romantic intimacy with your gender comes from, if asked. You certainly did not choose to be repulsed by men, sexualy. You just know you have it and you do what it says. You can't even begin to consider acting contrary to it.

Bait and switch.

In a sense, I have no more "abhorrence" for intercourse with men - as a man - than I do with say a lampost It's not first and foremost about choice, it's foremost about design and purpose.

Men - whether you subscribe to creation, evolution, both or nothing at all - are sexually complimentary with women. Not other men - or lamposts .

And as to "acting contrary", anyone with a mouth can put a dick in it. It speaks nothing of "orientation", desire, willingness, or anything else.

finofaya:
In the same vein you can't trace the source of your attraction to women. It's there and you like it, end of story. You don't remember choosing it.

Source is "teleleologically" obvious - per my above statement. It's by design. It's de facto abnormal for one not to have opposite sex attraction.

finofaya:
Someone who wanted to be gay would not only have to choose to be attracted to others of the same sex, but also to be repulsed by the opposite sex. What could motivate such a choice?

Another fallacious premise.

It's not necessarily a choice - as in flipping a switch. It can be a "path taken" due to a number of events, trauma, impressions etc.

There are clear instances of people having chosen to be gay. Likewise there are numerous examples of those who have renounced "homosexuality" for normality.

finofaya:
Why doesn't the person go for bisexual or asexual, which requires a smaller mental overhaul? Why doesn't anybody seem to remember choosing their sexual orientation? There are no satisfactory answers to these questions which are raised when you call sexual orientation a choice.

Like I said it's not necessarily a choice in the sense of "flipping a switch" (although there have been instances of that also).

There are a number of reasons why normal development does not occur. It's worth noting that fully 75% of teens who identify as "homosex", identify as "heterosex" by the age of 24. Even with the aforementiond "trauma, events etc." the normal pathweay is not easily deviaterd from. Note "homosexuals" are 2% of the poulation at best.

finofaya:
Being wired that way is a better explanation.

Not wired in the sense that it's "hard-wired" or unchangeable. Is Alcoholism or addiction to cigarrets hard-wired? Or are they unable to be foresaken?

And reagrdless of whether you claim it to be inborn or acquired, it remains "abnormal". Statistically and functionally!


TV

finofaya:


I don't want them to be celibate, I want them to seek out more mature partners. Did you read what I wrote at all?

I did.
Pedophiles aren't interested in more mature partners. They are not attracted to them. They are more interested in little kids and if they have been wired that way I think it's unfair that we deny them their nature-given lustfull desires.

Logicalmind:
Having gay or heterosexual sex is a choice but the feelings of attraction is inborn.

"Feelings of attraction" is inborn? Pray tell, how do you come to that conclusion?

Babies are born without notions of "sex, sexuality, orientation or desire". There is a normal developmental pathway which should lead to opposite sex desire. Anyting other than that is abnormal.

As 5minutesmadness has noted, if feelings of attraction are inborn, why criminalise any kind of attraction - paedophile, beastial, or any paraphilia that is out there? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia

Do you have anything to back up your assertion?

TV

5minsmadness:

I did.
Pedophiles aren't interested in more mature partners. They are not attracted to them. They are more interested in little kids and if they have been wired that way I think it's unfair that we deny them their nature-given lustfull desires.

What about the interests of the child?

finofaya:


What about the interests of the child?

That's why I said consent would be reduced to 10yrs. So the child can make an 'informed decision'

If that sounds absurd then remember that 30yrs ago this argument about whether homosexuality is normal or not would have sounded absurd as well.

FrancisTony:

@Emboldened, do the needful.

Though, I don't believe it's a choice.

Scientifically, mutation can alter genes.

Religiously, God can create abnormality e.g hermaphrodites, conjoined twins, blind, dumb and deaf at birth etc. Or who created them

those you mentioned can be understood perfectly. Infact, science has helped us to understand why and how those things came about, heamaphrodite, cojoined twines etc. But homosexuality is the only thing in the world scientists cannot give the cause and origin but want us to accept like the dumb religious dogma that it is.

I get convinced that this homosexuality thing is something sinister because it is the only thing that cannot be scientifically proven as natural yet, the science world is endorsing it.

A thing is accepted in the science world if it can be proven. I wonder why the "homosexuality is natural" is being accepted by the same scientists who abhor dogma even though that cannot be proved to be corrected.

FrancisTony:
5minsmadness, you didn't make sense a tad bit.

Before we can continue, answer this question.

Is Paedophiles and rapist sex between two consenting adults like homosexuals?

Lol, this bird is weak, old and too frail to fly...

"Consenting adults" only decriminalizes the act in the eyes of the law, it doesn't prove whether the act was a choice or not... It could be argued that Pa"edop"hiles and rapists do not have a choice since it is afterall, their orientation... Matter of fact, you cannot disprove this, can you
Let's shift it a bit....

What about inc'e's't and b'es' tiality, are these also sexual orientations or acts of deviance or insanity as the case may be? Given that the former could be between 2 consenting adult siblings while the second partner in the latter does not have the power of choice...
Why criminalize this and decriminalize the other??

There is only one sexual orientation as far as I known and it is heterosexuality....

Gays, lesbians, b'esti'als, incests etc fall into a category of sick, mischievious or defective individuals, as the case may be...

FrancisTony:
5minsmadness, you didn't make sense a tad bit.

Before we can continue, answer this question.

Is Paedophiles and rapist sex between two consenting adults like homosexuals?

i have read it newspaper where a 20year old boy was brought to court to be tried for peadophilia when he had sex with an 11year old girl. The girl was in court begging that he be left alone; that she liked it. Can you say that is ok? Or that there was consent? Afterall, the girl said she liked it.

If you say: at 11, she is not old enough to give consent, then i ask, how old is old enough? Remember, what we call underaged differs from one society to the other. In Nigeria, it is 18. In the UK it is 16 and in the netherlands, it is 15. In some states in the US, it is 21. So the question is: what is the yardstick for deciding who is a minor or not a minor? Show that your opinion is fair enough.

Surely, we cannot say the girl is old enough to give consent along the lines of sex if her body is matured enough. And this is because a matured body doesn't necessarily translate into one's ability to make rational jusgement on sex.

The point is, there are cases of peadophilia where the girl could have said yes to it, like the case i've just cited. What do we do then.

njokusboy:


Lol, this bird is weak, old and too frail to fly...

"Consenting adults" only decriminalizes the act in the eyes of the law, it doesn't prove whether the act was a choice or not... It could be argued that Pa"edop"hiles and rapists do not have a choice since it is afterall, their orientation... Matter of fact, you cannot disprove this, can you
Let's shift it a bit....

What about inc'e's't and b'es' tiality, are these also sexual orientations or acts of deviance or insanity as the case may be? Given that the former could be between 2 consenting adult siblings while the second partner in the latter does not have the power of choice...
Why criminalize this and decriminalize the other??

There is only one sexual orientation as far as I known and it is heterosexuality....

Gays, lesbians, b'esti'als, incests etc fall into a category of sick, mischievious or defective individuals, as the case may be...

what we call incest is a social construct. It varies from one locality to the other.

finofaya:


I already said it is natural. I guess what you are asking is whether one's genitals are suitable for sexual activity with another's genitals of the same gender. Lol. For sexual satisfaction, yes. For procreation, no.

even for satisfaction, it still isn't the best. To engage in anal sex, couples have to take some measures they would not normally take when going into vagginal sex. The walls of the rectum are just not designed for sex. Because the vaggina is designed for sex is the reason it would become wet when adequately stimulated. I am sure you know the role of lubricants in mechanics? The anus does not have this ability to wet itself for penetration and that means it is not the organ for sex.

craziebone:


what we call incest is a social construct. It varies from one locality to the other.

Well, it's a crime in most of those countries that have seen homosexuality to be as common as handshakes...

Homosexuality also varies from one locality to another, don't you think

If homosexuality is normal, i wonder if the same laws that govern heterosexual relationship also governs homosexual relationship? Forexample, we know that naturally, women are attracted to men of higher status, physical size etc. How is it in the gay community?

How do you know someone who is gay before you appraoch the person? Do you also have the 'hard to get thing' among the LGBT people too?

njokusboy:


Well, it's a crime in most of those countries that have seen homosexuality to be as common as handshakes...

Homosexuality also varies from one locality to another, don't you think

the whole homosexuality thing today is hypocricy. The world allows homosexuality but denies beastiality, etc even though the two can be argued for on the same level.

craziebone:


the whole homosexuality thing today is hypocricy. The world allows homosexuality but denies beastiality, etc even though the two can be argued for on the same level.

Exactly, I think what incests and b'esti'als need is the numbers, they would have time in 5-20 years from now....

Nd that is when the world would finally come to an end...

5minsmadness, I'm all eyes when you are ready and deism discussion too.

craziebone:


those you mentioned can be understood perfectly. Infact, science has helped us to understand why and how those things came about, heamaphrodite, cojoined twines etc. But homosexuality is the only thing in the world scientists cannot give the cause and origin but want us to accept like the dumb religious dogma that it is.

Hermaphrodite, Conjoined twins etc can be seen and that's why it's so.
Homosexualism can't been seen but it's controlled by hormones.

I get convinced that this homosexuality thing is something sinister because it is the only thing that cannot be scientifically proven as natural yet, the science world is endorsing it.

A thing is accepted in the science world if it can be proven. I wonder why the "homosexuality is natural" is being accepted by the same scientists who abhor dogma even though that cannot be proved to be corrected.

The fact is that scientists who are open-minded has accepted that homosexualism is controlled by a gene.
Oestrogen and Testosterone controls a man and woman sexual orientation without him or her making a choice but acting on it, is a choice; like a dude on this thread opined.

Just like adrenaline can't help it but function when you are in danger is the same way feelings towards opposite or same sex can't help it.

Sex hormorne is uncontrollable.

TV01:



And reagrdless of whether you claim it to be inborn or acquired, it remains "abnormal". Statistically and functionally!


TV

I think where we differ is that you don't think homosexuality can arise naturally since it apparently has no purpose. Sometimes natural things are purposeless.

5minsmadness:

That's why I said consent would be reduced to 10yrs. So the child can make an 'informed decision'

If that sounds absurd then remember that 30yrs ago this argument about whether homosexuality is normal or not would have sounded absurd as well.

The age of consent is already below 10 years in some parts. For the purpose of this exchange I think what matters is not the age of consent but the idea that non consensual sex is condemnable. Once you can accept the idea, it's easy to see why homosexuality should be preferred to paedophilia.

njokusboy:


Lol, this bird is weak, old and too frail to fly...

"Consenting adults" only decriminalizes the act in the eyes of the law, it doesn't prove whether the act was a choice or not... It could be argued that Pa"edop"hiles and rapists do not have a choice since it is afterall, their orientation... Matter of fact, you cannot disprove this, can you
Let's shift it a bit....

I didn't say that paedophilia isn't inborn or did you ask me? So, stop concluding without getting your facts right.

What about inc'e's't and b'es' tiality, are these also sexual orientations or acts of deviance or insanity as the case may be? Given that the former could be between 2 consenting adult siblings while the second partner in the latter does not have the power of choice...
Why criminalize this and decriminalize the other??

Bestiality - Americans actually didn't criminalize it. Animals breed different sorts of disease--which is not harmful to them, but could be harmful to man when contacted.
Well, I don't have a problem with men practising bestiality provided they don't engage in sex with normal human after it.

Incest - it's liable to producing weaker offsprings. There are 95% chance of it occuring. Why subjecting kids to suffering. It's just like an AS Man getting married to an AS woman knowing fully the consequence on innocent kids.

There is only one sexual orientation as far as I known and it is heterosexuality....

Your opinion with homophobes. Gays and pro-gays don't share it.

Gays, lesbians, b'esti'als, incests etc fall into a category of sick, mischievious or defective individuals, as the case may be...

Okay...

craziebone:


i have read it newspaper where a 20year old boy was brought to court to be tried for peadophilia when he had sex with an 11year old girl. The girl was in court begging that he be left alone; that she liked it. Can you say that is ok? Or that there was consent? Afterall, the girl said she liked it.

If you say: at 11, she is not old enough to give consent, then i ask, how old is old enough? Remember, what we call underaged differs from one society to the other. In Nigeria, it is 18. In the UK it is 16 and in the netherlands, it is 15. In some states in the US, it is 21. So the question is: what is the yardstick for deciding who is a minor or not a minor? Show that your opinion is fair enough.

Surely, we cannot say the girl is old enough to give consent along the lines of sex if her body is matured enough. And this is because a matured body doesn't necessarily translate into one's ability to make rational jusgement on sex.

The point is, there are cases of peadophilia where the girl could have said yes to it, like the case i've just cited. What do we do then.

Well, since she accepted loving the guy, that means it was done with consent and in that case, they should leave them alone.

The only problem is molesting a minor without his or her consent.

craziebone:


even for satisfaction, it still isn't the best. To engage in anal sex, couples have to take some measures they would not normally take when going into vagginal sex. The walls of the rectum are just not designed for sex. Because the vaggina is designed for sex is the reason it would become wet when adequately stimulated. I am sure you know the role of lubricants in mechanics? The anus does not have this ability to wet itself for penetration and that means it is not the organ for sex.

Gay sex does require some creativity and resourcefulness. As for whether it's not the best, I say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Generally though, because of our intelligence we tend to use our bodies in ways nature could not have foreseen. That we are using a body part for a different task from its designed one is not exactly an argument against that different task.

FrancisTony:

I didn't say that paedophilia isn't inborn or did you ask me? So, stop concluding without getting your facts right.


Bestiality - Americans actually didn't criminalize it. Animals breed different sorts of disease--which is not harmful to them, but could be harmful to man when contacted.
Well, I don't have a problem with men practising bestiality provided they don't engage in sex with normal human after it.

Incest - it's liable to producing weaker offsprings. There are 95% chance of it occuring. Why subjecting kids to suffering. It's just like an AS Man getting married to an AS woman knowing fully the consequence on innocent kids.


Your opinion with homophobes. Gays and pro-gays don't share it.


Okay...

(1) I really love ur submission, for a start, since you don't think pae'do'philia is not inborn.... do you think they should be punished for what they can't control?

(2) lolzzz, I thought consent was the index, anyways, when someone deliberately decides to marry a HIV positive person, does the law interfere? actually homosexuals are prone to a lot of injuries, matter of fact, there's a higher chance of one contracting HIV through anal than through vaginal sex, matter of fact also, Hiv was first discovered among gay couples...
What am I saying?? Simple, if health is the reason why beastiality was criminalized, homosexuality should be criminalized too, it is just as unhealthy or more as has been proved.
(3) But is it a crime for an AS man to marry an AS woman? Anyway, I don't know, the point is, what if incests agree not to have biological kids but adopt like most homosexuals, would it still be considered a vice...
(4) Gays and people who are considering being gay would obviously not share my opinion, don't you think?

njokusboy:


(1) I really love ur submission, for a start, since you don't think pae'do'philia is not inborn.... do you think they should be punished for what they can't control?

It becomes a crime when minor is lured into it without his or her consent.

(2) lolzzz, I thought consent was the index, anyways, when someone deliberately decides to marry a HIV positive person, does the law interfere? actually homosexuals are prone to a lot of injuries, matter of fact, there's a higher chance of one contracting HIV through anal than through vaginal sex, matter of fact also, Hiv was first discovered among gay couples...
What am I saying?? Simple, if health is the reason why beastiality was criminalized, homosexuality should be criminalized too, it is just as unhealthy or more as has been proved.

1) Injuries? Why not google about opinion of gay men and stop peddling spurious claim you got from homophobes.
I'd a chance to interact with a gay guy about the pampers claim. He said it's an UTTER CRAP that he hasn't met a gay guy putting on pampers.
Meanwhile, don't forget that many females get bruised after engaging in heterosexual sex.
It seems you are concentrating on gay men, while not explore on lesbians and tell me any consequence.
2) @Emboldened, what a big fat lie. Give me a link how HIV was discovered from gay men. What I know is that many of them contact HIV owing to the fact that men are promiscuous in a nature and have high libido. They tend to engage in sex with anybody and often times.

(3) But is it a crime for an AS man to marry an AS woman? Anyway, I don't know, the point is, what if incests agree not to have biological kids but adopt like most homosexuals, would it still be considered a vice...
(4) Gays and people who are considering being gay would obviously not share my opinion, don't you think?

*Sigh*

finofaya:


The age of consent is already below 10 years in some parts. For the purpose of this exchange I think what matters is not the age of consent but the idea that non consensual sex is condemnable. Once you can accept the idea, it's easy to see why homosexuality should be preferred to paedophilia.

My point is this: why accept any one at all? why are we having to prefer one over the other when both are blatantly abnormal human behaviour both spiritually and scientifically. A critical study of evolution shows that sex is mainly for procreation; the pleasure that comes with sex is peculiar mostly to higher mammals and primates and even then it is believed pleasure was tied to sex to encourage procreation and continuity of the species. "homosexual relationships" go against everything natural in that they provide all of the pleasure and no aftereffects(reproduction). it is abnormal, plain and simple and people with such tendencies should be helped, not encouraged to continue in their baselessness in a bid to appear modern and 'politically correct'.

Do you know that before the sexual revolution of the 70s there were only four common types of sexual diseases, the most terrifying being gonorrhea and syphilis? Now, after the sexual revolution we have more than 20 different types. Science will always have an excuse, coincidence, increased travel led to increased spread of disease, blah blah. Like there was no travel in the old days.

Do you know that the first case of HIV in the US was found among a group of homosexuals? In fact for a long time AIDS was thought to be a disease of homosexuals only before it now spread to the heterosexual population? DO you know a homosexual man is 18 times more likely to acquire HIV than a heterosexual man?

why are we trying so hard to accept this abnormality of the species, we no longer call them gays, we are always looking for more polite names to call them, gays, then homosexuals, and now they want to be known as MSM(men who have sex with men), who's agenda are we really following here when we allow a practice that is so against nature, against our normal desires, a practice that will definitely lead to more HIV spread in the human population, why are we allowing it instead of curtailing it?


Who's agenda are we really following?

thank God Ben Carson is one of the most brilliant minds in the US, if it was a nobody that said this he would have been laughed off the stage. Even now Ben Carson's associates are putting pressure on him to recant his statement since he is viewed with very high regard in the society.

And as for those of you who do not believe in conspiracy theories, I assure you right now, If Ben does not recant his statement, he will never go forward in that his politicking or whatever position he was hoping to attain. I wont be surprised if in the next ten years we hear that he is involved in some sort of child molestation case or rape or a high profile adulterous fiasco. "They" always know how to bring these smart black men down.

FrancisTony:

It becomes a crime when minor is lured into it without his or her consent.

You well so? So you would even agree to your future 5year old daughter sleeping with a 49yr old man cos you want to 'respect her wishes'?

1) [s]Injuries? Why not google about opinion of gay men and stop peddling spurious claim you got from homophobes.
I'd a chance to interact with a gay guy about the pampers claim. He said it's an UTTER CRAP that he hasn't met a gay guy putting on pampers.
Meanwhile, don't forget that many females get bruised after engaging in heterosexual sex.
It seems you are concentrating on gay men, while not explore on lesbians and tell me any consequence.
2) @Emboldened, what a big fat lie. Give me a link how HIV was discovered from gay men. What I know is that many of them contact HIV owing to the fact that men are promiscuous in a nature and have high libido. They tend to engage in sex with anybody and often times.[/s]


*Sigh*

When I say that most times you are highly lacking in information it will be as if am looking for your trouble
anyway, lemme give you one link. you can search for the others or njokusboy can provide you with the rest. Educate yourself bro.
https://www.google.com.ng/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDkQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhivinsite.ucsf.edu%2Finsite%3Fpage%3Dkb-01-03&ei=J2H_VM7UCsK0acCbgJAI&usg=AFQjCNHhTCyu6ScCgRxMVADwOkJ8xqQMcA&bvm=bv.87611401,d.d2s

I've had a really long day, pls can we take a raincheck on the deism thing? Thanks.

Deism? Lol, okay

5minsmadness, gerawt with your fake homophobic link.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_HIV/AIDS

Francistony, aids was first discovered among gay men in america

FrancisTony:
5minsmadness, gerawt with your fake homophobic link.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_HIV/AIDS

Mumu You don't know that AIDS is the first and only disease to have a retrograde history! All the more reason why it's origin is very controversial! The first HIV/AIDS patients showed up among a group of gay youths in new Jersey, USA! It's common knowledge.

5minsmadness:

Mumu You don't know that AIDS is the first and only disease to have a retrograde history! All the more reason why it's origin is very controversial! The first HIV/AIDS patients showed up among a group of gay youths in new Jersey, USA! It's common knowledge.

Take it easy with lies, please. Your link said that they were found in 1981, meanwhile homosexualism was legalised in 2003. Why weren't they lynched or arrested, then?.
Anyways, i'm done here. What about the discussion?