₦airaland Forum

logicboy: While the intent of this video was okay, the problem is with the text. The text is quite racist!!!!! "pink-white demons



Yes, we were enslaved and colonized but you dont call white people "pink-white demons".


However, it is sad that Africans are not ready to talk about slavery and colonization that destroyed the West African continent

First "Israel is in Europe".

Now there is a continent called West Africa.

Bros I tire for you o.

thehomer: An omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God should prioritize maximizing pleasure because he can.

What if maximizing pleasure is actually not benevolent?

Do you think a Military Trainer who has full powers to maximize pleasure for his wards in a Military Training Camp might necessarily think that it is benevolent to do so?

thehomer: Has it ever occurred to you that words and phrases can mean different things? e.g do you know what the words "backseat" and "driver" mean? What does "backseat driver" mean?

^^^ If you will sincerely tell me that you do not know what the phrase "free adult consensus" means, or that it is a confusing phrase, or that its meaning is unclear: then there is no point having a discussion on this matter as its glaring that you are deliberately being evasive, and anyone can see that.

It is even more pathetic considering that you yourself alluded to same principle when you spoke about people being coerced or being minors. It was glaring that you apprehend and use the self-same principle in arriving at your conclusions. And then when I ask you to clarify whether or not you use this priciple you suddenly claim not to even know what the words "free adult consensus" mean.

Do you really expect people to take you seriously when you do that, or to have the time to indulge such silly games?

^^^ I believe that the foregoing ends the discussion, but in addittion, how is it possible to say that a Church is subject to IRS regulations - and say at the same time that "congress may make no laws with respect to religion?"

How does a church even attain legal personality, if not under extant laws?

http://uschurchlaw.com/501

Aside from this, there are of course many laws that touch on religious practices and religious freedom, or even specific protection of places of worship - such as -

The Church Arson Prevention Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/104/hr3525

The International Religious Freedom Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Religious_Freedom_Act_of_1998

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Land_Use_and_Institutionalized_Persons_Act

. . . and many others. As such it would make no sense to read the first amendment the way pastor AIO does. Enigma's reading is more correct.

The First Amendment

In the United States, the religious civil liberties are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The "Establishment Clause," stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," is generally read to prohibit the Federal government from establishing a national church ( " religion " ) or excessively involving itself in religion, particularly to the benefit of one religion over another. Following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and through the doctrine of incorporation, this restriction is held to be applicable to state governments as well.

The "Free Exercise Clause" states that Congress cannot "prohibit the free exercise" of religious practices. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held, however, that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute. For example, in the 19th century, some of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints traditionally practiced polygamy, yet in Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of one of these members under a federal law banning polygamy. The Court reasoned that to do otherwise would set precedent for a full range of religious beliefs including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court stated that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." For example, if one were part of a religion that believed in vampirism, the First Amendment would protect one's belief in vampirism, but not the practice. This principle has similarly been applied to those attempting to claim religious exemptions for smoking cannabis[6][not in citation given] or, as in the case of Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the use of the hallucinogen peyote. Currently, peyote and ayahuasca are allowed by legal precedent if used in a religious ceremony; though cannabis is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States

This says it all.

In short, Enigma is right.

However from a jurisprudential point of view, my personal thought would be to throw this to you both:

Is there a difference between -

"Congress may make no laws regarding AN establishment of religion." AND -

"Congress may make no laws regarding THE establishment of religion."

Just a thought.

Finally. Pastor. If you really think about it you would recognise that reading the first amendment the way you do would lead to absurdity. It would mean that religious establishments are ungovernable by law. That they can do absolutely anything, and that their activities cannot be regulated by law. Think about it.

By the by, please read very carefully the text in red above.

Cheers.

thehomer: What is this principle of free adult consensus?

Can you see how you are?

Who can say that the words "free", "adult" and "consensus" are mysterious words?

Ya. Not really happy. Always been a core Bmunich fan. Tata. Happens.

thehomer: It looks as if you didn't understand what you actually wrote. If you did, can you please highlight where you described the notions of natural and moral that you were using? Or were you hallucinating when you wrote this response?
They are normal if you're using those concepts the way I am. You on the other hand didn't show the concepts behind those words that you were using.
It looks like you really like your fallacious emotional appeal. I really expected better from you. If you feel up to it, you're welcome to address the six points you failed to address previously point by point. Here they are again in case you missed them the last time.



Don't run away from your own responsibilities.

Please before we go further can you tell me whether or not the principle of free adult consensus is not your reason for asserting homose.xuality to be natural.

Thanks.

Foolishness.

Dear Mr. Idehn,

Many apologies for the tone of my earlier comment to you. I was very frustrated and tired from some personal issues when I went online and as such I was shooting at random. Thus the tone of my response to Mr. Homer as well. Kindly pardon me.

However I shall share with you my reasons for regarding your statement as just totally off the mark. Your definition of the word “natural” actually renders the very word irrelevant and non-existent. If indeed it is true that the word “natural” refers to anything whatsoever that can exist in reality, then such a word would not even exist. This is because in that case no notion of “unnaturalness” would exist at all: since only “natural” things exist, as you say.

This notion also presupposes that there is no such thing as a perversion anywhere on earth: given that as you say, all things that exist are natural. This notion would mean that there is no concept of that which is considered normal or natural to a given creature. This is a false notion – because as a matter of fact, as can be observed from nature, there are normal and natural tendencies for and of creatures. As a faint example,. Let me say that it is normal for a lion to be a carnivore. This is the natural inclination and dietary disposition of lions. As such it will be disingenuous to come across a lion that rejects meat and only eats grass: and then claim that such is natural.

I could give thousands of examples of this but I am hoping that you get the point already. Evidentially, nature itself points out clearly certain very basic predispostions of creatures. The very biological processes and hormones that exist in creatures give clear pointers to that which is natural or normal for given creatures. To say that anything that exists in reality is natural is most un-nuanced. It absolutely ignores the fact that there are inclinations that are evidentially natural or normal for given creatures. We cannot come across a carnivorous zebra and insist that that is natural simply because it has been seen to occur. Nor can we conclude that suicide is natural simply because it occurs: it is rather evident that the instinct of survival and self-preservation is rather that which is natural and normal for creatures. I am hoping that you can see the specific point that describing that which is natural as anything that occurs simply kills the very notions of natural and unnatural. In that event, nothing would be either natural or unnatural we would only have things that exist and as such when we come across a lion that eats grass or a zebra that hunts and eats lions, we will conclude that these are natural: which is obviously false

In the same way it is simply nonsensical for anyone to observe male sexuality and sex.ual organs and then observe female sex.uality and se.xual organs and observe the fact that these interrelate to result in reproduction – and then insist that this male-female se.xual inter-rel;ationship is not that which is evidentially biologically natural. As such it is glaring that the reverse – men being inclined to stick their d.icks into other men’s anus, my friend, is not that which is biologically natural.

I hope you recognise that your definition of “natural” would mean that it is natural when men sleep with goats and squirrels. I hope you know that this occurs in reality. This alone should be sufficient to make you see that which is un-nuanced in your supposition.

Thanks.

Ok guys, i accept that I have been a bit emotional and I take correction and sincerely apologize in that regard. However I strongly believe that the points I made have willfully escaped some. I will be back later to address the issues. Tata.

^^^ I honestly dont know what u are writing. My analogy was simple. It pointed to the fact that the very same factors that justify homose.xuality also justify all the scenarios i raised. Quite simple really.

^^^ Are you expecting a sensible response? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Ptolomeus: Deep Sight have you more pictures?

Thousands.

A personal fantasy.

thehomer: How does this principle of yours help you determine that an act is moral or immoral, natural or unnatural and what not?



You have failed to show that this idea of "free adult consensus" shouldn't apply to homosexuality. Also, the decision on homosexuality is also arrived based on principles of equality, privacy, human sexuality and an absence of harm to those of you who are not affected by it.



For some reason, you chose to ignore what I said about the concepts of natural and moral that I was using and proceeded to use some hidden premises to arrive at your conclusions despite my asking you to tell us what you actually meant by the words you were using.

I actually gave you some grounds. Why don't you address them directly rather than produce a tangential rant?



Did you actually read what I posted? Why don't you actually counter the points I made rather than simply making blanket emotional appeals?



How is what I said "patently absurd and outrightly perverse"? How do you determine that something is "perverse"? You see, you have tried to run away from trying to make clear points and instead have chosen to try obfuscation.
Then you go on to make ad-hominem attacks. How does what I said above indicate that I have no conscience? Can you also explain how I haven't considered the psychological ramifications given the bland scenarios you presented? Recall that you made the choice on how you presented your scenarios. If you wish to alter them, be my guest.



Too bad you're disgusted. You still wish to make emotional appeals here. Also, I note that when people say they do not care about political correctness, it is often used to cover up a deep seated bias.



Ah the decent mind tells us what is moral or immoral. Now would the decent Deep Sight please tell us who it is that possesses this totally decent mind? And tell us what is so evident in nature itself about homosexuality being unnatural?

I notice that in your long and emotional rant, you've failed to fulfill your own parts of the discussion which are:
1. the notion of morality you're using,
2. what you mean by "natural",
3. your own answers to the questions,
4. the actual problem with homosexuality other than you own personal disgust,
5. the relationship between necrophilia, incest and homosexuality,
6. actually distinguish between natural and moral.

All you managed to do is shout about how disgusted you are but as a lawyer, I'm sure you understand that it wouldn't stand in a serious court.
If you're interested in a serious discussion, then at the very least, try to make cogent points rather than your appeals to your disgust.

Unles you are incapable of reading, i addressed all of these issues in my post. It seems that the analogy i made has willfully escaped you. Too bad.

I am happy that it is on record that you regard necrophilia, in.cest and such other things to be natural and normal.

You are simply perverse, and an indelible harm has been done to your reputation on this forum.

You are probably one of those people who turn out to be serial killers or other socio-paths.

Yuck.

jayriginal: DeepSight,

I respond to your post beginning with " Dear Mr Homer". It is the only post Ive read in the entire thread so far and I wish to comment on this paragraph in particular.


This is a practical world we live in. Not everything is as cut and dried as you have tried to paint it.
Your response is more emotional and society-based rather than objective.

You mentioned i.ncest and necrophilia as ok based on adult consent (not your personal view I know). Let me first of all knock of necrophilia as a corpse cannot give consent.

Now to i.ncest.
You know what the worst thing about i.ncest is ? The consequences of inbreeding.

Thats it!

We are wired in such a way that we do not feel sexually attracted to members of our family who we grow up with. Some people offer the view that evolution made it so to protect us from inbreeding. Whether that is true or not, clearly most people do not feel attracted to members of their family in a sexual way. I doubt that many people were warned to stay away from their mothers or fathers or sisters or brothers etc.


On the other hand, Genetic Sexual Attraction is a real thing and can lead to i.ncest. I have read several stories of GSA and the typical Nigerian reaction is to condemn rather than understand.


Now, putting it together, we see that where there is i.ncest, it is most likely to be a case of Genetic Sexual Attraction. Cousins have been known to start a sexual relationship and only know months or years later that they were related, sometimes, at the point of marriage.
Leave your personal tastes out of this issue and see it for what it is.

Lets look at the unlikely scenario where family members who grew up together commit i.ncest (consensually). It may be distasteful to most, but is it wrong because of that? It certainly would not be the norm but then thats where the consent comes in.
The risk of i.ncest is solely with the offspring such a union will produce. Two consenting adults who possess the SS genotype would put their kids at risk if they engage in s.exual congress, but surely they would get off at the worst with a reprimand and no more. Some may even take it as a leap of faith.

What it thus boils down to is that we are punishing people because we find their actions distasteful, not because they affect us negatively.

Regarding the issue of homosexuality, it took a while before I could come round to seeing that its a natural thing for the most part. Homosexuality is not new in the animal kingdom. This is important because whereas man can overide many of his instincts by reason, the animals rely mainly on their instincts.

Hormones received at birth are said to determine the s.exual orientation of the child.
Has anyone wondered about transsexuals, hermaphrodites, albinos, people born blind, born lame, born deaf, etc. In general, people born different are accepted though some are regarded as curiousities.
However when an otherwise normal man seeks s.exual gratification from another man, he has to be demonic. Why must that be so ?

Now make no mistake, I personally am not favourable to homosexuality but that is only because I am a product of society. I however do not condemn them. As long as nobody is being forced and no third party is being hurt, they can plug away for all I care.


Some people drink their urine as a means of therapy and that is surely distasteful to some. Just because something is distasteful does not automatically render it wrong.

Question: is something distasteful because it is wrong, or its wrong because its distasteful ?
Tracing the source of that distaste would be a logical follow up.

I'm sorry if I havent presented my material in a more orderly fashion; I am being distracted by a very interesting documentary

You did not grasp the analogy made in the least.

That which justifies homose.xuality justifies all of those other actions which I mentioned, as they are all cases of free adult consensus.

Sometimes you surprise me the way you read things.

Idehn: On another note I would really like to flesh out what does it mean for something to be natural? My opinion is that if it can occurs in reality it is natural.

This is an extremely foolish statement.

We really need to start a campaign to stop Olaadegbu from posting silly cartoons. Please, I am begging you Ola, its childish: so many people have told you and you wont listen, it makes you come across like a 5 year old. This is why I dont think I have ever read any post yuou have ever made on this forum. Its difficult to take you seriously. Stop the cartoons for heaven's sake.

^^^ Last time we tried a discussion you gave a cop-out, refused to address any issue and fled. Do you expect me to expect a different result this time? Nah.

As per the thread, its purposeless.

^^^ Last time we tried a discussion you gave a cop-out, refused to address any issue and fled. Do you expect me to expect a different result this time? Nah.

As the the thread, its purposeless.

^^^ Honestly, its such an incredibly da.ft dumbass doctrine, it beggars belief that some parrot it with id.iotic confidence - and even have the nerve to look down on others who reject such arrant nonsense.

Is it just me or every thread opened by the OP is just incredibly stoopid?

OP: Your allusion to the woman sitting on the man's head while having a meal is reminiscent of se.xual female domination which has a huge following in the western world as a kink. Have you been exposed to such? Does your wife do this to you?

Dear Mr. Homer,

Now I wish to connect the dots and I shall show you precisely why I asked you those questions. I am mildly surprised that you and some others have failed to draw the connections yourselves, but I shall presently do so. In reality the connection is pretty simple. The reason I asked each of those questions is very simple indeed: each of those questions addresses the fundamental principle which renders any se.xual act either right or wrong or moral or immoral or natural or unnatural – whichever you may choose.

That principle is the principle of FREE ADULT CONSENSUS.

That is the very principle on which you ground your own notions of se.xual right or wrong: the self-same principle on which we all agree that something like ra.pe is wrong: for the simple reason that it is not consensual, and as such we have one party being coerced. This is the same principle on which we hold it to be wrong when an adult has se.xual intercourse with a minor: because we perceive that the minor is not in a position to take a free and informed personal decision, aside from being physiologically unprepared for such activity.

In the case of homose.xual activity, you hold this to be fair game on account of the same principle: free adult consensus.

This is why I have set out those questions to you: I assert to you that so long as we hold this principle to stand true and correct: so long as we justify homose.xuality on account of this principle, we must remain consistent and apply same principle to the assessment of the morality or “naturalness” of other se.xual activity.

For this reason you have absolutely no grounds to classify any of the actions I listed in my questions as immoral or unnatural. None whatsoever: because they are ALL consensual acts: you may or may not have observed how very carefully I phrased each scenario:

- I was careful to state that adults were involved and as such we are dealing with persons presumed to be capable of taking free decisions
- I was careful to indicate that these are consensual actions
- I was careful to indicate “protected” se.x with regard to the cases of in.cest – this was to avoid a scenario whereby you render such wrong or immoral on account of the possible deformities that may arise from a subsequent pregnancy in such a case
- In the case of necrophilia I was careful to indicate the necrophilic act as occurring from the person who has the legal right of ownership over the corpse – and this obviates the need for consent: as a corpse is not a human being anyway.
-
As such based on the principle of free adult consensus, you have absolutely no basis to hold any of these actions as wrong, immoral or unnatural. In the same way, and based on the same principle under which you hold homose.xuality to be natural, you must remain consistent and apply the self same principle to hold that it is natural and moral for a man to have homose.xual intercourse with his father, for a man to have intercourse with his mother and sister, perhaps even in a three.some, for a man to sleep with a corpse, and for a man to have intercourse with his adult daughter. The very same principle of free adult consensus applies.

Now I am grieved at the extent to which you are ready to bandy patently absurd and outrightly perverse notions simply in a bid to defend the position that homose.xuality is not unnatural. You are prepared to turn a blind eye to the obviously unnatural and patently sickening depravities I mentioned above simply for the purpose of winning an argument. For me, this means that you have no conscience. I am surprised that a man of your sophistication did not even avert his mind to the psychological ramifications and implications of these activities which I mentioned. You rather went ahead to issue a passmark or a neutral score to some of these actions simply because, as was obvious from the moment I asked the questions, you are afraid of the implications of honest answers.

Frankly, I am disgusted – and I do not care to be politically correct in saying so: your answers evince either a mind so desperate to win an argument that it is blatantly dishonest – or worse – a mind that has no recognition of depravity or perversion.

The only correct path rests in recognizing that the principle of free adult consensus alone does nothing to render a se.xual act moral or immoral or natural or unnatural. What renders such acts as such, and this is what the decent mind must recognize: is simply that which is evident from nature itself. Nature itself is built evidentially for heterose.xual intercourse. Whatever one may say about homose.xual intercourse: one cannot argue that it is natural.

Now I have no doubt that you will revert with some preposterous and probably sickening defense. Enjoy your delusions.

thehomer: 1. Morally wrong and whether or not it is natural depends on the degree of decomposition.

2. Morally wrong and natural. The morality depends on the degree of independence she has.

3. Neither and natural.

4. Neither and natural.

4'.Morally wrong and natural. The morality depends on the degree of independence you have.

5. Neither and unnatural.

6. That question has a hidden assumption which is that the unmodified human body has a certain purpose that cannot be co-opted.

By moral, I'm going by my personal opinion and by natural, I'm referring to the general physical appearance and capability of the average person.

Now, please answer these questions and present the idea of wrongness you're referring to along with the idea of natural you're using. Also, please tie the ideas here to the topic which is homosexuality.

Yes, thank you very much Eminence Homer, Sir, Lord of the seven seas and Imperial Regent for India.

Now to business.

I find most of your answers most amazing. However the answers are suitable to that which I wish to demonstrate. Nevertheless you still have to indulge me further before we proceed -

1. For those actions which you described as morally wrong, can you tell me WHY they should be considered morally wrong?

2. When you say that the "naturalness" of sleeping with a corpse depends on the degree of decomposition - does this mean that it is natural when a corpse is fresh and becomes increasingly unnatural as it decomposes? Please think about this carefully: is sleeping with corpses natural AT ALL: regardless the degree of decomposition.

Many thanks.

Thanks. We will proceed from there.

Ptolomeus: I'm not gay. But I respect the decisions of others.
I do not think that everything that we do not like is the fault of the devil.
There are several reasons why an individual (male or female) chooses to be homosexual. Each of these reasons deserves a particular study.
To generalize, saying that "homosexuality" is a matter of Satan, is absolutely incorrect.

^ Sure. The "satan" idea is just a non-starter.

^ Ok, good, i await your response then.

My opening premise is that in your view, there is nothing unnatural about homose.xuality.

In the spirit of clarity, confirm please.

Pastor AIO: I do not agree with abortion.

- - - at any stage of pregnancy?

plaetton: Now, people may engage in homosexual acts for monetary or ritualistic purposes, but only a person with a hormonal imbalance can be physically attracted to the same sex.

This is false.

thehomer: It seems you don't see the problem here. Let me illustrate with an example.
Is it unnatural for a man to plot and murder another person? And is such an act wrong?
I would say no to the first question and yes to the second question.
No because humans can and have plotted and killed others and yes to the second because it is wrong in my opinion and I think a society shouldn't condone such acts and I would advice someone against such an act.

I think my questions were straight forward enough. I don't like dodging and juggling. If you cannor or will not answer the questions, simply say so.

I said I mean unnatural, and you still have a problem with it.

Okay, please answer the questions either way -

1. You can answer the questions as to whether the actions i mentioned are morally wrong

2. You can answer the questions as to whether you consider the actions I mentioned as unnatural

3. You can answer in both lights for each question, giving your view as to whether each act is natural or unnatural or moral or immoral, or neither

So answer as you please.

But I will be really sad if you continue definition games: I have given you the liberty to answer with any definitions you may care for.

Otherwise my initial suspicion is growing: namely that you are hesitant to answer the questions because you can see exactly how they will burst a hole in your position on homose.xuality. . .

Ptolomeus: His fanaticism compels him to intervene, but lacks the knowledge and arguments. You just insulted, screamed and kicked like a sulkily child and uneducated.
I'm not going to continue arguing with you because you do not argue, nor think. It is impossible to speak with an slowpoke like you. I do not enter the forum to insult, so I prefer not to intervene more in this thread.

Seems the wholse world has come to an accurate understanding of our good fella. The bolded words say it all very succintly.

plaetton: Its all about hormones- hormonal imbalance. Humans are, to some extent, androgenous by nature. It is the predominance of either the male or female hormones that leads to sexual differentiation and or orientation.As far as we know, homosexuality is a situation where a male's body secretes more of the female hormones and less of the male hormones,thereby leading to inclination towards feminine tendencies-notably, attraction of the opposite hormones(in this case, other males).

We are naturally averse to the practice of homosexuality because it is the opposite of our default natural order.That is understandable . However,like the many oher contradictions of religious faith,it is very very silly to say that god(supposedly, the all knowing creator of all, who was pleased with his good works),is very angry at homosexuality(an error in his creation). Either god is very very silly or his babel of interpreters are the very silly ones.

If fornication is a sin, does god have a preference or tolerance for heterosexual fornication than he has for homosexual fornication? Are there hierachies of sin? A liar, a cheat, a thief and a murderer should be as guilty of sin as a homosexual fornicator. Not so?[quote author=plaetton]Its all about hormones- hormonal imbalance. Humans are, to some extent, androgenous by nature. It is the predominance of either the male or female hormones that leads to sexual differentiation and or orientation.As far as we know, homosexuality is a situation where a male's body secretes more of the female hormones and less of the male hormones,thereby leading to inclination towards feminine tendencies-notably, attraction of the opposite hormones(in this case, other males).
Homosexuality is not a psychological dysfunction, it is physiological one. People are born homosexual just like any other physiological shortcoming.

If the world were to agree that it is an unnatural condition, then hormonal rebalancing from a medical perspective is possible.

Secondly, there are homose.xuals whose orientation does not originate in a hormonal imbalance.