....using magnets.

Yes, you read that right

huffington post:

Nigerian Student Uses Magnets To 'Prove' Gay Marriage Is Wrong


A student in Nigeria claims he has scientific proof that same-sex marriage is wrong.

The so-called discovery was made by Chibuihem Amalaha, a postgraduate student at the University of Lagos who told Nigeria's This Day Live that same-sex marriage is "eating deep into the fabric of our human nature all over the world." Amalaha said he conducted "experiments" in physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics to test his theory. Ultimately, he deduced that the repellence of two similar entities (magnets, for instance) proves that same-sex marriage is wrong.

In a series of befuddling explanations, Amalaha cited magnets, electrolysis, animal mating and simple addition as rationale for why gay relationships just aren't right. His entire thesis boils down to the fact that "like" does not attract "like."

Via This Day Live:

this day:

A bar magnet is a horizontal magnet that has the North Pole and the South Pole and when you bring two bar magnets and you bring the North Pole together you find that the two North Poles will not attract. They will repel, that is, they will push away themselves showing that a man should not attract a man. If you bring two South Poles together you find that the two South Poles will not attract indicating that same sex marriage should not hold. A female should not attract a female as South Pole of a magnet does not attract the South Pole of a magnet. But, when you bring a North Pole of a magnet and a South Pole of a magnet they will attract because they are not the same, indicating that a man will attract a woman because of the way nature has made a female.

Amalaha hopes to win a Nobel Prize someday for his work.

Homosexuality is criminalized in Nigeria. Human Rights Watch notes the country's federal criminal code carries a 14-year punishment on consensual gay relationships. In states within the nation where Sharia law is enacted, gay relations are punishable by death.

Luiz DeBarros, of gay-centric blog Mamba Online, critiqued the coverage of Amalaha's "high-school standard experiments" by This Day Live as "uncritical and uninformed," saying it will likely add to homophobia in the region.

Last year, Nigeria passed an anti-gay marriage bill, despite international outcry against it. This legislation not only targets same-sex marriages, but also anyone who aids or abets gay couples as well as any couple displaying a "public show" of affection.

This is already in the science section, courtesy of @evil brain.

We, of course, have our very own resident PHD biologist, that claims there's no evidence for evolution.

This is true, folks.

He's been asked to present his ground breaking paper which shows that all these do not exist, and the mainstream scientific community (and common sense) have no idea as to what they're on about, but alas, so far, he's been unable to do so. I assume that this sort of willful blindness can be caused only by that cancer, religion, but is that just me? Here, conspicuous examples of people being incredibly foo.lish because of their religious convictions. Note (the obvious, but considering, many will miss this), these aren't layfolk, they're supposedly highly trained professionals. Granted these clowns are perverse extremes, but you should get the point. These are the sort of scholars nigeria is producing, and religion plays a crucial role in this farce.

So, does religion ultimately poison everything? Can anyone show an activity or objective, deemed positive, can anyone show a positive objective which cannot be obtained without religion? Can anyone show an activity that only religion can enhance?



Also, moving on, certain people have advocated that religion and science need not necessarily conflict, and can co-exist happily side by side. For example, a biologist

wiki:

Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view advocated by Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion each have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority," and these two domains do not overlap.[1] He suggests, with examples, that "NOMA enjoys strong and fully explicit support, even from the primary cultural stereotypes of hard-line traditionalism" and that it is "a sound position of general consensus, established by long struggle among people of goodwill in both magisteria."[2] Despite this there continues to be disagreement over where the boundaries between the two magisteria should be.[3]

Considering galileo and evolution, do you think this view holds?

Note when I speak of religion, I mean those built around blind faith and the supernatural.

etc etc yadda yaddayadayada

And he is a physicist. Seems anyone can become a physicist these days. Lol at the correlation between bar magnets and sexuality.

I'm a free thinker and all that, no religious sentiments whatsoever. But I still find it hard to stomach that a man can hump a fellow man and enjoy it??

Is Homosexualism morally right? I don't think so.

Ray McBlue: I'm a free thinker and all that, no religious sentiments whatsoever. But I still find it hard to stomach that a man can hump a fellow man and enjoy it??

Is Homosexualism morally right? I don't think so.

Morality is subjective, you can define it as you see fit. However, by any logical framework I would consider sane or remotely objective, saying it's immoral is extremely irrational. For example, you've just said it is immoral simply because you don't like it, obviously silly by my standards. By standards like yours, atheism should be immoral, as many people do not like it, see?

wiegraf:

Morality is subjective, you can define it as you see fit. However, by any logical framework I would consider sane or remotely objective, saying it's immoral is extremely irrational. For example, you've just said it is immoral simply because you don't like it, obviously silly by my standards. By standards like yours, atheism should be immoral, as many people do not like it, see?

Keeps shooting himself in the foot.

@Op: Embarassing story... Not surprising though. I'm sure the dolt has some lesbian p0rn on his laptop -- also applicable to @ray. Considering our society, the news will spread again just like the 'message on mars' new... And our nation's collective iq will edge towards bankruptcy again. I'm scared to view the comments on the link. I have enough sadness in my life as it is.

wiegraf:

Morality is subjective, you can define it as you see fit. However, by any logical framework I would consider sane or remotely objective, saying it's immoral is extremely irrational. For example, you've just said it is immoral simply because you don't like it, obviously silly by my standards. By standards like yours, atheism should be immoral, as many people do not like it, see?

Why do people normally frown on the subject? Ask yourself that. Being an atheist doesn't mean you don't have to make moral choices. You are a man first, before anything else, and as a man how do your brain process the idea of an sexual intercourse between two people of the same gender? What will be your initial sentiment?

Ray McBlue:

Why do people normally frown on the subject? Ask yourself that. Being an atheist doesn't mean you don't have to make moral choices. You are a man first, before anything else, and as a man how do your brain process the idea of an sexual intercourse between two people of the same gender? What will be your initial sentiment?

So you use initial sentiments to make final conclusions? As @weigraf has already noted, your view is subjective. If you were gay, you would frown at heterosexual intercourse.

aManFromMars:

Keeps shooting himself in the foot.

@Op: Embarassing story... Not surprising though. I'm sure the dolt has some lesbian p0rn on his laptop -- also applicable to @ray. Considering our society, the news will spread again just like the 'message on mars' new... And our nation's collective iq will edge towards bankruptcy again. I'm scared to view the comments on the link. I have enough sadness in my life as it is.

aManFromMars, I don't watch lesbian pôrn cuz that would make me an hypocrite.

I think it's wrong to openly discriminate against people of deferring séxual orientation but it(homosexualism) shouldn't be thrown in our faces either.

aManFromMars:

So you use initial sentiments to make final conclusions? As @weigraf has already noted, your view is subjective. If you were gay, you would frown at heterosexual intercourse.

Initial sentiments shouldn't be ignored. That is the core you. The one you try to hide.

Maybe, it's subjective, maybe not, but I stand by my opinion.

As stated above, you haven't posted anything new

Ray McBlue:

Why do people normally frown on the subject? Ask yourself that.

Erm, and you do not note that the VERY LARGE majority of the population have the same reaction to atheism? This is willful blindness on par with the op...

Ray McBlue:
Being an atheist doesn't mean you don't have to make moral choices.

And being gay means you don't?? Oh wow
And again, note, your moral standards are yours; subjective

Ray McBlue:
You are a man first, before anything else, and as a man how do your brain process the idea of an sexual intercourse between two people of the same gender? What will be your initial sentiment?

And my initial reaction determines morality? Cool. My instincts towards hetero se.x are rather pleasant, I suppose this means that every female I've ever been attracted should give in to them as well, as that would then be moral, no? Excuse me while I go on a ra.ping spree. I'll also see about murdering a few bigots. And the pedos, of course, let them have their way with those kids. Actually, by your reasoning, the gheys should follow their own initial reactions as well, no?

Random; When researching a totally good and noble cause, I happened to come across ghey pron. My initial reaction lasted roughly 2 days. Indeed, even fellow workers noticed the exact time it began (not that I was researching in the office, no, never) despite their not knowing what I triggered it. I became, let's say, a little more irascible than usual. One could ask me for water for instance, and I'd want to splash hot coffee on his face, and my demeanor clearly gave my thoughts away.

This is called homophobia; don't like it, therefore fear it, therefore attempt to squash. Well, now I'm clearly indifferent, but even then I could easily reason that it would be extremely irrational, and by the highest order, for me to demand ghey people stop being ghey simply because I do not like it, and for obvious reasons. For instance, again, by your standards atheism is immoral in most of the world.

I suggest you get over it as well. If you don't like teh ghey, don't be ghey, simple. You don't like ghey marriage? Don't get ghey married, simple. Not very hard, no? How in the world does their orientation affect you?

aManFromMars:

I have enough sadness in my life as it is.

They bring me down to this at times...

Whats this?


'Homosexuality week'?

@wei: any hope? I'm beginning to consider your genetics theory. Is being dumb engrained in the genes of the black man? Are black intellectuals an anomaly?
Maybe there was a balance at first, and the dumb people always had power and money. Worth thinking about when you consider the kind of politics and politicians native to our society...

Ray McBlue:

Why do people normally frown on the subject? Ask yourself that. Being an atheist doesn't mean you don't have to make moral choices. You are a man first, before anything else, and as a man how do your brain process the idea of an sexual intercourse between two people of the same gender? What will be your initial sentiment?

My honest answer to this question would be censored. Just put it this way, a certain part of my anatomy increases exponentially in size when my brain starts processing such ideas.

Alfa Seltzer:

My honest answer to this question would be censored. Just put it this way, a certain part of my anatomy increases exponentially in size when my brain starts processing such ideas.

Wow, try wearing gloves.

aManFromMars: @wei: any hope? I'm beginning to consider your genetics theory. Is being dumb engrained in the genes of the black man? Are black intellectuals an anomaly?
Maybe there was a balance at first, and the dumb people always had power and money. Worth thinking about when you consider the kind of politics and politicians native to our society...

Lol, I'm usually joking around when I say that, but it's undeniable that certain even complex traits have a genesis in genetics, not nurture. However, our problems I would deem as being cultural, not natural. And bad luck, especially when you regard that this continent gave us quite a lot for free.

I'll have to get back with a more proper answer, if there is an answer ie.... That's how bad the situation may be...

wiegraf:

Lol, I'm usually joking around when I say that, but it's undeniable that certain even complex traits have a genesis in genetics, not nurture. However, our problems I would deem as being cultural, not natural. And bad luck, especially when you regard that this continent gave us quite a lot for free.

I'll have to get back with a more proper answer, if there is an answer ie.... That's how bad the situation may be...

I understand, but sometimes jokes are mere misrepresentations of reality.. Waiting for the proper answer...

Hope say body gbam.

wiegraf:

So, does religion ultimately poison everything? Can anyone show an activity or objective, deemed positive, can anyone show a positive objective which cannot be obtained without religion? Can anyone show an activity that only religion can enhance?

Depends on what you mean by positive and who perceives it as such.

Religion enhances a king/dictator's ability to keep himself in power by convincing people that he is there by the grace of god.
Religion enhances a soldier's ability to charge off into battle knowing that death means a trip to 'heaven'
Religion enhances a terrorist's ability to set off a bomb strapped to himself and thereby be with many virgins.
Religion enhances a person's ability to convince people to give them free money by promising them a path to heaven that they cannot even prove exists.

So as you see religion enhances many activities deemed positive.

Rubbish experiment! But wiegraf, do you think that homosexuality can be justified logically?

the fact that all homosexuals owe their very existence to heterosexual sex alone should tell you something...

Reyginus: Rubbish experiment! But wiegraf, do you think that homosexuality can be justified logically?

I don't think anyone has ever come out to justify homosexuality.
The point that needs to be emphasized is that people are born homosexual. We are not sure if it is due to passive genetic traits, or genetic mutations during the very early stages of conception, or due to environmental factors immediately after birth.
The scientific fact is that a hormone mix up causes men to be attracted to other men instead of the opposite sex.
It is like a vision impairment that makes you see your soccer teammates wearing the jersies of the opposing team, and then you end scoring on your own goal posts.

The reason that religious people are focused on demonizing homosexuality as an evil choice rather than a natural occurrence is simply because it is an indictment of the omni omni perfect creator.
It is an embarrassing conundrum for god. If god created everyone each with their talents(homosexuals are usually very creative and talented), then god created homosexuality.
But if god hates homosexuality, then the biblical god probably did not create them, and by logical extension, did not create anything.

Double post

Reyginus: Rubbish experiment! But wiegraf, do you think that homosexuality can be justified logically?

Morality is subjective. But disregarding that, I am saying persecuting it can NOT be logically justified.

F00028: the fact that all homosexuals owe their very existence to heterosexual sex alone should tell you something...

This is some mind shattering paradigm changing stuff. I never knew that hetero sex was a requirement for making babies. Well, at least different bits from various sources. 80% of hom.osexual parents aren't adopting but having their own offspring. I've always wondered how they accomplished that feat. Perhaps you want a nobel prize for this startling discovery as well, or will cookies do?

So, let's see, air, food, preferably shelter, etc, are also requirements. The sky is blue, the oceans wet, and up is up. Now, tell me how that matters.

On a related note, though I'm sure you'll miss it, please tell me why perfect allah gave you foreskin only to ask you to cut it off?

aManFromMars:

I understand, but sometimes jokes are mere misrepresentations of reality.. Waiting for the proper answer...

Hope say body gbam.

I've been ill oga...higher powers punishing me....hence even more time on my hands....I should be better soon though

What of you? How the india dey?

plaetton:

I don't think anyone has ever come out to justify homosexuality.

I wasn't actually asking if anyone has done that. My concern is if it can be justified logically.

plaetton:
The point that needs to be emphasized is that people are born homosexual. We are not sure if it is due to passive genetic traits, or genetic mutations during the very early stages of conception, or due to environmental factors immediately after birth.

This is more like saying that, it is idiopathic. If we were to examine the above traits you are considering we will observe a lot of inconsistences when compared with what happens to homosexuals. Any change in the phenotypic nor genetic make-up of a human being, as we know it, will be accompanied with a conspicously morphological change.
We cannot say for sure that their is genetic disorder if the genetic make-up of these individuals are not any different from that of heterosexuals.
As we know it, mutation changes structure and function and not function alone. Every biological character cannot be in place if we are to point to the environmental factors as suspect. Mutation is both an anatomical and physiological process.

plaetton:
The scientific fact is that a hormone mix up causes men to be attracted to other men instead of the opposite sex.
It is like a vision impairment that makes you see your soccer teammates wearing the jersies of the opposing team, and then you end scoring on your own goal posts.

Do me the favour of mentioning these hormones. Even your analogy regards it as immoral. If that is exactly an analogy we are to take serious, then homosexuality is flawed. It is a form of imperfection in sexually related matters. Any imperfection is a vice.

plaetton:
The reason that religious people are focused on demonizing homosexuality as an evil choice rather than a natural occurrence is simply because it is an indictment of the omni omni perfect creator.

But it does not occur naturally in man. Even in your analysis, you created room for a change in the human form, even though I think it is incorrect. So, you cannot be saying that, homosexuality is a product of a change in form and also that homosexuality comes naturally. You may define this NATURAL so we don't misunderstand each other.

plaetton:
It is an embarrassing conundrum for god. If god created everyone each with their talents(homosexuals are usually very creative and talented), then god created homosexuality.

How can God create homosexuality when it deviates from the form He enshrined in man. That He created homosexuals is for sure. I don't think you are even following properly. Recall you attributed homosexuality to an event after conception. That is, they must be nature before this interference occurs. Except you are trying to say that God recreated the child after birth. If they don't come as homosexuals but later develop homosexual tendencies, we cannot say that God created homosexuality. This is because He doesn't literally recreate after creating.

plaetton:
But if god hates homosexuality, then the biblical god probably did not create them, and by logical extension, did not create anything.

Ofcourse He hates homosexuality but not the homosexuals themselves. With homosexuality, man deviated from that wonderful heterosexualiry He established as norm. Your latter line is more like saying that a potter did not mould a pot because it is capable of breaking.

wiegraf:

Morality is subjective. But disregarding that, I am saying persecuting it can NOT be logically justified.

You didn't answer the question. What you said is, homosexuality is not wrong because it is wrong persecuting it. That answers nothing.

wiegraf:

I've been ill oga...higher powers punishing me....hence even more time on my hands....I should be better soon though

What of you? How the india dey?

Been ill too. Consistent flu. The thing just tire me.. 8 more months here and I don vamoose... can't wait...

Reyginus: You didn't answer the question. What you said is, homosexuality is not wrong because it is wrong persecuting it. That answers nothing.

That isn't in any way what I said. For one, I said ALL morality is subjective, by that token, like the rest of morality it is at best on its own, AGNOSTIC. It's now up to you to use whatever tainted glasses you have, bigoted or otherwise, and put them in the 'good' or 'bad' compartment.

By my standards there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with it, as they clearly aren't harming anyone else. If it makes them happy and harms no one else, just as hetero marriages do, then it obviously is a GOOD thing. It is absolutely the same gaddem thing, just using different se.xes (obviously). Indeed, it would be extremely wrong to persecute them, hinder their humans rights, just because you think the idea of a shlong up your backside is funny. It's neither your shlong or your backside so how dare you?! You come into my room to tell me what I do with my shlong you best prepare for trouble. WTF concern you with my schlong sef?!.... Hope it's just busybody nonsense, as actually being ghey is tough in this environment...

Anyways, this thread isn't really about that, I'm tired of repeating myself on this nonsense non-issue, it's about religion poisoning everything. Can you think of any tasks deemed 'good' (explain why as well if you can) that only religion can enhance/achieve?

aManFromMars:

Been ill too. Consistent flu. The thing just tire me.. 8 more months here and I don vamoose... can't wait...

Consistent flu......isn't a good thing. It could be a variety of underlying (maybe even chronic) conditions f^&^*ng up $hit up. I may be paranoid, however I suggest tests tests tests.. Well, depending on your lifestyle. If you exercise regularly, don't do drugs, have good family history, etc etc, then it's very likely nothing serious.

Then again my paranoia may be justifiable, considering 9ja, I'm not interested being cured via the holy spirit, so I end up researching and researching researching.. and sure enough I catch some misses.. Everyone here seems to think everything is malaria...

onetrack:


Depends on what you mean by positive and who perceives it as such.

Religion enhances a king/dictator's ability to keep himself in power by convincing people that he is there by the grace of god.
Religion enhances a soldier's ability to charge off into battle knowing that death means a trip to 'heaven'
Religion enhances a terrorist's ability to set off a bomb strapped to himself and thereby be with many virgins.
Religion enhances a person's ability to convince people to give them free money by promising them a path to heaven that they cannot even prove exists.

So as you see religion enhances many activities deemed positive.

I couldn't think of any english to use other than 'deemed positive'. Sad part is quite a lot of folk read that and actually find some of those goals positive....

I don't understand how some folks could equate Atheism with homosexualism, for they are nothing alike. The only common ground they share is that they both stand as outsiders, nothing more.

Atheism is skepticism of god(s) existence which in all logical aspect, quite justified as god is imaginary in the real world. Also, Note that Religion is man-made, as man started out believing in nothing.

So tell me, what is it that qualified atheism to be lumped with homosexualism...Cuz I don't see it. I just don't.

I don't see myself as a minority. I don't feel like I must justify my stand to a man-made concept (religion) as to ally myself with something I detest (homosexualism).

Maybe, I'm being subjective, but then again, morality as subjectively as it gets, is not blind.