This is your argument?  Undecided

That is what I call Ignorance and Poor.

We await your proof.

However, many modern scientists have shown that homosexuality is not a choice. The causes of homosexuality are not all understood, but genetics and the effects of prenatal hormones (when a baby is growing in its mother) and environment are sometimes thought to be causes. Scientists also show that homosexuality happens not only in humans. Most animals (like penguins, chimpanzees, and dolphins) often show homosexuality, some even for life-long periods as is the case with humans [1].

Many scientists and doctors also agree that no one can change their sexual orientation. Doctors used to treat gay people as if they had mental illnesses. However, homosexuality is no longer called a disease by doctors in many countries. There are some religious groups who still try to 'cure' homosexuality. This is called 'reparative therapy.' In therapies like this one, homosexual individuals have tried to change themselves to heterosexual and have even claimed they were changed, but most people do not believe it is possible.

Can u pls refer me to the book that says Jesus was gay in his lifetime?

don't get that?  Huh  It's not the same thing at all.A child molester has sex with a child, a non-adult who doesn't have the power of consent. That's why child molesters go to prison for their crime and gays do not

Gay animals also counters the 'peccatum contra naturam' ('sin against nature') - after Thomas Aquinas - established since the Medieval Christianities.[8] Whether this has logical or ethical implications is also a source of debate, with some arguing that it is illogical to use animal behavior to justify what is or is not moral (see appeal to nature).

SEFAGO:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia
Apparently the word I used has a whole wikipedia page. Homosexuality, has been around for a long time, during the Roman empire, Egypt, Great Britain especially Oscar Wilde, who was the defining character for the use of the word "gay," in the west. Infact, the trial of Oscar Wilde, is argued to have brought about the use of the word gay to mean homosexual. Homosexuality was accepted in various cultures, though claimed to be none existent in others.

I do agree it seems foreign to our culture- I haven't met any gay person in nigeria- but it could also be a "dont ask, don't tell policy." I brought up Oscar Wilde for this reason. Because of his flamboyant nature, people were very aware of his homosexuality. But this was not the case for other political figures in Britain at that time.

SEFAGO:

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_animals

Since you are into this 

Gay animals:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE0e0hCb7ME

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTXabN1pnZY&feature=fvw

SEFAGO:

I do agree it was poor, not ignorant though. Let me present several arguments showing homosexuality is Ok . My argument could be biological for example. Then using the molecular biologist argument that some animals are born gay as a result of hormones, or genetics- perfectly makes sense, try and present an argument against this. The onus of proof depends on you. Several hormones determine male sexuality. An overproduction of female hormones. Is This natural? Well whatbegs the question what is the meaning of natural ?, the norm you would say. Assume a hypothetical world where homosexuals were the norm and viewed heterosexuals as abnormal because their hormones were in balance. then heterosexuality in itself becomes unnatural.

This is a combination of a philosophical and biological arguments. The problem of what it means to be natural and unnatural.

Looking at it from a sociobiolgist perspective, homosexual behavior can also be encouraged by advocating societal acceptance. May be, I would assume that is what homophobes fear? But there has always been homosexuality, and since it is caused by hormones, it is not going to overthrow heterosexuality because there is no evolutionary need for it. We need to have different genders mating to reproduce and continue our species, so homosexuals would continue to be a minority (in the biological sense).

SEFAGO:

Masturbation can be seen unnatural, and in the same class as homosexuality. Let me draw analogies from other sexual habits which are considered the norm. For example, who doesn't like blowjobs  , well it is abnormal sexual behavior when considering the fact that it isn't the perfect ides of "natural sex" . Interestingly, No animal does blow jobs, only humans do so. FSo then what is the actual meaning of abnormal sexual behavior? What do you call masochist and sadist? Aren't they heterosexuals like you? But is there sexual activity natural or unnatural.

My argument is based on the meaning of natural and unnatural sexual activity. When someone can clearly defines that then I would assume gays are unnatural. Because its basic science, from wiki :

SEFAGO:

Thanks though i don't know if you are being sarcastic. But incase you are, I am laying down my argument in using logic theory from philosophy:

Basically my argument is predicated on these premises:
1) Humans are animals   (Pass)
2) Animals engage in homosexuality   (Fail)
Conclusion: Therefore in the natural order of things homosexuality is not a deviance from expected biological behavior. (Unsubstantiated Arguments)

If you can prove to me that (1) or (2) are wrong , then my argument is negated. Oops, I actually figured out a loophole, but that is for you to find out.

Puvguy:

SFAGO though some of your posts are naive I always enjoy reading U. U got sometime others work hard to achieve ,
fluency. U posts are always easy to follow.

Puvguy:

sarcastic? I avoid such ma friend. I was honest with u and still is, u r an interesting read. I refered to style not substance.

bawomolo:

lol@ jesus being gay.

he probably was if he didn't try to shag mary magdeline once or twice

duduspace:

That would make him bi now wouldn't it? even though one of my friends who beleives people are born gay is fully convinced that those who claim to have a bi orientation are just trying to have the best of both worlds.

bawomolo:

sexuality is a continuous spectrum and not discrete.  One can be attracted to both sexes, it happens in man and in the animal kingdom. 

even though those freaky bonobos could be bisexual for the fun of it 

So because it is in use in Wikipedia and (as a weapon) by the pro-homos that want to defame the opponents of homosexuality that makes it valid?

Poor arguments, son.

Really, really poor.

You had a BIG, BIG chance here to demonstrate the strength of your ability to back up your arguments and show you are worthy of debating issues with and you FAILED miserably. Absolute failure in that respect.

trekkie:

@ebun
let's focus on desire then. my thought is that if you are hardwired(created ) to desire only same sex relationships, should you not also be hardwired not to expect to have children since gay relationships cannot produce them?
to talk about the barren woman is off point. remember the barren woman may be in a relationship that to all intents and purposes should be able to produce children. so for her to desire/expect children is perfectly natural but the homosexual is in a relationship that cannot produce them.

sorry i don't get the reference to mothers who commit infantide. is it that even though they kill their children, they can still desire to have more? my question to you are these mothers you are referring to hetero or homo sexual. remember to keep the focus on sexual orentation and desire to have kids.
at weekend  don't work too hard!

So your proof that homosexuality exists in the animal world is to provide some pix of 2 animals (sexes, in some cases, unidentified)? And in the others where it is a motion picture it did not prick you as a SOCIOBIOLOGIST, a TOP one for that matter, that most appear to be in a captive environment without any signs of the opposite sex present? Moreover, photography was not captured by reliable professionals and you put it forward?

It is as poor as a sociobiologist going to a US jail and then coming back with his "evidence" that "most men prefer sex with each other than with opposite sex".

My point is that most livings things desire offsprings, whether they are gay or straight. Sexual desire has nothing to do with one's desire for offsprings. Talking about the barren woman, who says homosexual don't have relationships with the hope of having kids someday even though it cannot be achieved having sexual intercourse with that person; since also the barren woman or impotent man cannot produce them naturally. My point about infaniticide is that most living organisms desire and produce offsprings and I believe it has nothing to do with sexual orientation or ability to care for those offsprings, its the continuation of life.

Not worth commenting on. You are sinking.  Grin

Advice: You should not have even gone there (masturbation is worse than homosexuality) in the first place. Try and control the hormonal youthful exuberance that might have instigated you to try and come up with some failed Avant Garde thinking.

Basically my argument is predicated on these premises:
1) Humans are animals (Pass)
2) Animals engage in homosexuality (Overdocumented fact )
Conclusion: Therefore in the natural order of things homosexuality is not a deviance from expected biological behavior. (follows from the two previous premises)

Try and prove based on the criteria in my link:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=279591.msg3990475#msg3990475

Even if it is proven (which I am sure it is not the case) them we have to determine whether it is a malfunction that we should find some medicine, therapy and psychology to cure as is being attempted for paedophiles who can easily claim to be born that way as well.

If it can not be proven to exist in the animal world, then it is most likely a malfunction that has entered the human system, as there is nothing we do or that happens to humans, that is natural, which can not be found in some other animals. Be it albinoism, deformed offsprings, pygmies etc.

SEFAGO:

Homophobia might have been coined by the gay movement, but that doesn't make it less a word. Let us not get hanged up over semantics here. Also your statement above suggest you are not interested in considering this from an intellectual point but using emotion

Man I have told you I agreed on how smart you are, and how ignorant I am  . No need for the personal attacks. Anyways, (1) Who asked me to show him a youtube link? : Well here is another link from a national geographic -2nd one- (A more credible source than Discovery/BBC) :


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d68_vlLD60Y


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUwza5Grxos&feature=related (A must watch because it shows you how scientist think. We don't do personal attacks

SEFAGO:

I think you are actually having difficulty distinguishing the difference between proof and argument. You found a flaw in one of my proofs, good analogy, but that wasn't really my main evidence, that I wanted you to see. You asked for youtube video and I showed you what you asked for.

I dont deal with documentaries mate. I am too old for that. I deal with scientific papers, published in highly recognized, scientific journals. I expected you to look, at the wikipedia link on homosexuality in animals, that was my evidence. You can't argue with wikipedia, because most of the statements in wikipedia, I cited. I am sure you know how wikipedia works? Like when someone writes something on wikipedia, they must provide a source, which is listed below as a link. If not you see a question mark or something that suggest that statement is questionable. t

The link on homosexuality in animals carefully details, the research done on animal behavior in the wild, and provides a link of all the research and material that are published on this topic. B4, someone provides an argument against evidence for homosexuality in animals, they should have read most of these articles. It is an extremely well documented phenomena by notable and unbiased scientists (Not gay) No one here can argue about it except they do actually years of research.

You can now see why I didn't fail. There is actually a lot of substance, you just have to read in between the lines.

SEFAGO:

Another use of personal attacks. Anyways, 'Masturbation is worse than homosexuality", hahaha (sorry this is hilarious) , then 80-90% of men are worse than homosexuals. Not using Avant garde thinking, I am actually restating well researched facts to support my argument. I wouldnt use the US as an example, since it is extremely liberal and use data from a more conservative country Uk :

Tell your government that: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/story?id=8072314&page=1   


Or this statement on wiki "Similar results have been found in a 2007 British national probability survey. It was found that, between individuals aged 16 to 44, 95% of men and 71% of women masturbated at some point in their lives. 73% of men and 37% of women reported masturbating in the four weeks before their interview, while 53% of men and 18% of women reported masturbating in the previous seven days.[25]"


It has a link to the research paper, which I could access, because i am in school right now but you would be unable to. This survey was anonymous. Meaning people had no incentive to lie.

Well so 95% of men are worse than homosexuals. Thanks sagamite you just committed. a classical example of contradiction

SEFAGO:

@Sagamite

After looking at your posts, I have confirmed what i previously thought about you. I didn't see any arguments or brilliant use of rhetoric to drive your point. So could you please (a polite please):

Outline your arguments against homosexuality carefully. What accounts for its widespread nature? Why is it perverse? Don't use arguments like I dont agree with it. We are not in primary school and I don't have time for emotional garbage. I want a well flowing argument to convince me why, I should condemn homosexuals. I dont want to be called a slowpoke because i don't agree with your view. I know I am a slowpoke, and idiot, and not smart and my writing lacks substance. That is your opinion . You are entitled to it. So dont include that in any of your posts, when arguing with me- include something brilliant, straight forward.

Most importantly-since this is the topic- provide evidence, that to the contrary homosexuals are not born the way they are. If you can find evidence of this then you have shifted the debate to my side of the table . The burden of proof is on you because I have asserted that scientifically, it is logically sound to assume that homosexuals are born that way. I have presented the hormone theory, and hormones are made and regulated by proteins which are themselves produced by our DNA.

I also dont want to be simply told that my arguments are poor, anyone could say that: tell me why they are poor. Also, I dont think statements like[b] "Not worthy of commenting on"[/b] constitute a logical argument.

I would welcome any literature (science, humanities or social sciences) as long as it from unbiased individual doing research for the good of man and not to drive his personal agenda.

I await you intellectual input

UK government is conservative?  Undecided

Well, in my young views, I like to see evidence. I didn't just chop anything someone put in front of me as "scientific papers" because they have a "Prof" or "Dr" pre-fixing their name or a "Phd" post-fixing their name and almost always someone with some deviancy.

In this days and era, I would expect any credible scientist that is intending on convincing me on such a sensitive issue to buy a camera and carry it along to film what he is researching.

If a can't afford the camera, I can guarantee you there are a large number of Pink organisations or Billionaires that will be more than willing to be benefactors.